[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 21, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29816-30191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08500]
[[Page 29815]]
Vol. 78
Tuesday,
No. 98
May 21, 2013
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 79, 80, 85 et al.
Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle
Emission and Fuel Standards; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 29816]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 79, 80, 85, 86, 600, 1036, 1037, 1065, and 1066
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135; FRL-9785-8]
RIN 2060-AQ86
Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor
Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action would establish more stringent vehicle emissions
standards and reduce the sulfur content of gasoline beginning in 2017,
as part of a systems approach to addressing the impacts of motor
vehicles and fuels on air quality and public health. The proposed
gasoline sulfur standard would make emission control systems more
effective for both existing and new vehicles, and would enable more
stringent vehicle emissions standards. The proposed vehicle standards
would reduce both tailpipe and evaporative emissions from passenger
cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles, and some
heavy-duty vehicles. This would result in significant reductions in
pollutants such as ozone, particulate matter, and air toxics across the
country and help state and local agencies in their efforts to attain
and maintain health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Motor
vehicles are an important source of exposure to air pollution both
regionally and near roads. These proposed vehicle standards are
intended to harmonize with California's Low Emission Vehicle program,
thus creating a federal vehicle emissions program that would allow
automakers to sell the same vehicles in all 50 states. The proposed
vehicle standards would be implemented over the same timeframe as the
greenhouse gas/fuel efficiency standards for light-duty vehicles, as
part of a comprehensive approach toward regulating emissions from motor
vehicles.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before June 13, 2013.
Public Hearing: The public hearings were held on April 24, 2013 in
Philadelphia, PA and April 29, 2013 in Chicago, IL.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0135, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Email: [email protected].
Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. In addition, please mail a copy of your
comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC
20503.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries
are 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-
2011-0135. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including 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. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I.B of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
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., 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 Air and Radiation Docket
and Information 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: JoNell Iffland, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division
(ASD), Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann
Arbor, MI 48105; Telephone number: (734) 214-4454; Fax number: (734)
214-4816; Email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule include
gasoline refiners and importers, ethanol producers, gasoline additive
manufacturers, transmix processors, terminals and fuel distributors,
light-duty vehicle manufacturers, independent commercial importers,
alternative fuel converters, and manufacturers and converters of
vehicles between 8,500 and 14,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR).
Potentially regulated categories include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially affected
Category NAICS \a\ Code SIC \b\ Code entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................................. 324110 2911 Petroleum refineries (including
importers).
Industry................................. 325110 2869 Butane manufacturers.
[[Page 29817]]
Industry................................. 325193 2869 Ethyl alcohol manufacturing.
Industry................................. 211112 1321 Natural gas liquids extraction
and fractionation.
Industry................................. 325199 2869 Other basic organic chemical
manufacturing.
Industry................................. 486910 4613 Natural gas liquids pipelines,
refined petroleum products
pipelines.
Industry................................. 424690 5169 Chemical and allied products
merchant wholesalers.
Industry................................. 325199 2869 Manufacturers of gasoline
additives.
Industry................................. 424710 5171 Petroleum bulk stations and
terminals. E51-83 manufacturers.
Industry................................. 493190 4226 Other warehousing and storage-
bulk petroleum storage.
Industry................................. 336111, 3711 Light-duty vehicle and light-duty
336112 truck manufacturers.
Industry................................. 811111, 7538, Independent commercial importers.
811112, 7533,
811198 7534
Industry................................. 335312, 3621, Alternative fuel converters.
336312, 3714,
336322, 3519,
336399, 3599,
811198 7534
Industry................................. 333618, 3699, On-highway heavy-duty engine &
336120, 3711, vehicle (>8,500 lbs GVWR)
336211, 3713, manufacturers.
336312 3714
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\b\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC).
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
proposed action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this proposed action. Other
types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To
determine whether your activities would be regulated by this proposed
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40
CFR parts 79, 80, 85, 86, 1065, and 1066 and the referenced
regulations. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this proposed action to a particular entity, consult the person listed
in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI
Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov
or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail
to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
2. 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.
C. Did EPA conduct a peer review before issuing this notice?
This regulatory action was supported by influential scientific
information. Therefore, EPA conducted peer reviews in accordance with
OMB's Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. Specifically,
EPA conducted six peer reviews in connection with data supporting the
proposed Tier 3 program, including new research on the effects of fuel
properties changes (including sulfur effects) on exhaust and
evaporative emissions of Tier 2 vehicles. The refinery-by-refinery cost
model was also peer reviewed. The peer review reports are located in
the docket for today's action, as well as the agency's response to the
peer review comments.
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary and Overview of Proposed Program
A. Introduction
B. What are the basic components of the proposed program?
1. Proposed Standards for Light-Duty Vehicle, Light-Duty Truck,
and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions
2. Proposed Heavy-Duty Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions Standards
3. Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards
4. Onboard Diagnostic Systems (OBD)
5. Emissions Test Fuel
6. Fuel Standards
7. Regulatory Streamlining and Technical Amendments
C. What would the impacts of the proposed standards be?
II. Why is EPA making this proposal?
A. Basis for Action Under the Clean Air Act
1. Clean Air Act Section 202
2. Clean Air Act Section 211
B. Overview of Public Health Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Fuels
1. Ozone
2. Particulate Matter
3. Nitrogen Oxides and Sulfur Oxides
4. Carbon Monoxide
[[Page 29818]]
5. Mobile Source Air Toxics
6. Near-Roadway Pollution
7. Environmental Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Fuels
III. How would this proposal reduce emissions and air pollution?
A. Effects of the Proposed Vehicle and Fuel Changes on Mobile
Source Emissions
1. How do vehicles produce the emissions addressed in this
proposal?
2. How would the proposed changes to gasoline sulfur content
affect vehicle emissions?
B. How would emissions be reduced?
1. NOX
2. VOC
3. CO
4. Direct PM2.5
5. Air Toxics
6. SO2
7. Greenhouse Gases
C. How would air pollution be reduced?
1. Ozone
2. Particulate Matter
3. Nitrogen Dioxide
4. Air Toxics
5. Visibility
6. Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition
7. Environmental Justice
IV. Proposed Vehicle Emissions Program
A. Tailpipe Emission Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-
Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
1. Overview
2. Summary of Proposed FTP and SFTP Tailpipe Standards
3. Proposed FTP Standards
4. Proposed SFTP Standards
5. Feasibility of the Proposed NMOG+NOX and PM
Standards
6. Impact of Gasoline Sulfur Control on the Feasibility of the
Proposed Vehicle Emission Standards
7. Other Provisions
B. Tailpipe Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles
1. Overview
2. HDV Exhaust Emissions Standards
3. Supplemental FTP Standards for HDVs
4. HDV Emissions Averaging, Banking, and Trading
5. Feasibility of HDV Standards
6. Other HDV Provisions
C. Evaporative Emissions Standards and Onboard Diagnostic System
Requirements
1. Tier 3 Evaporative Emission Standards
2. Evaporative Emissions Program Structure and Implementation
Flexibilities
3. Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicle (HDGV) Requirements
4. Test Procedures and Certification Test Fuel
5. Improvements to In-Use Performance of Fuel Vapor Control
Systems
6. Other Initiatives
D. Emissions Test Fuel
1. Proposed Changes to Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel
2. Proposed Flexible Fuel Vehicle Test Fuel
3. Proposed Implementation Schedule
4. Potential Implications on CAFE Standards, GHG Standards, and
Fuel Economy Labels
5. Consideration of Nonroad, Motorcycle, and Heavy-Duty Engine
Emissions Test Fuel
6. Consideration of CNG and LPG Emissions Test Fuel
E. Small-Business Provisions
1. Lead Time for Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards
2. Assigned Deterioration Factors
3. Reduced Testing Burden
4. Hardship
5. Applicability of Flexibilities
F. Compliance Provisions
1. Exhaust Emission Test Procedures
2. Reduced Test Burden
3. Miscellaneous Provisions
4. Manufacturer In-Use Verification Testing (IUVP) Requirements
V. Proposed Fuel Program
A. Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Standards
1. Overview
2. Proposed Annual Average Sulfur Standard
3. Per-Gallon Sulfur Caps
B. Refinery Air Permitting Interactions
1. Background on New Source Review Programs
2. Background on NSR Experience Under the Tier 2 Fuel Program
3. Changes in the NSR Permitting Program since Tier 2 Final Rule
4. Assessment of Tier 3 Refinery Changes and Permitting
Implications
5. New Source Performance Standards and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Refineries
6. Steps for Streamlining the Permitting Process
C. Standards for Denatured Fuel Ethanol and Other Oxygenates
D. Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible Fueled Vehicles
1. Standards for E51-83
2. Standards for Mid-Level Ethanol Blends (E16-50)
E. Proposed Program Flexibilities
1. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program
2. Regulatory Flexibility Provisions
3. Provisions for Refiners Facing Hardship Situations
F. Compliance Provisions
1. Registration, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
2. Sampling and Testing Requirements
3. Small Refiner Compliance
4. Small Volume Refinery Compliance
5. Attest Engagements, Violations, and Penalties
6. Special Fuel Provisions and Exemptions
G. Statutory Authority for Proposed Tier 3 Fuel Controls
1. Section 211(c)(1)(A)
2. Section 211(c)(1)(B)
VI. Technical Amendments and Regulatory Streamlining
A. Amendments to 40 CFR Parts 79 and 80
1. Regulatory Streamlining
2. Subpart I Technical Amendments
3. Performance-Based Measurement Systems (PBMS)
4. Downstream Pentane Blending
B. Engine, Vehicle and Equipment Programs
1. Fuel Economy Labeling
2. Removing Obsolete Regulatory Text
3. Motorcycle Driving Schedules
4. Updating Reference Procedures
VII. What are the cost impacts of the proposed rule?
A. Estimated Costs of the Vehicle Standards
B. Estimated Costs of the Fuel Program
1. Overview
2. Methodology
3. Summary of Costs Without ABT Program
4. Summary of Costs With ABT Program
5. Other Cost Estimates
C. Summary of Proposed Program Costs
D. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reduced
VIII. What are the estimated benefits of the proposed rule?
A. Overview
B. Quantified Human Health Impacts
C. Monetized Benefits
D. What are the limitations of the benefits analysis?
E. Illustrative Analysis of Monetized Impacts Associated With
the Proposal in 2017
IX. Alternatives Analysis
A. Vehicle Emission Standards
1. Shorter NMOG+NOX Standard Phase-in
2. Longer NMOG+NOX Standards Phase-in Due to Early
Credits
3. Shorter PM Standards Phase-in
4. NMOG+NOX Standards
5. PM Standards
B. Fuel Sulfur Standards
X. Economic Impact Analysis
A. Introduction
B. Vehicle Sales Impacts
C. Impacts on Petroleum Refinery Sector Production
D. Employment Impacts
1. Employment Impacts in the Auto Sector
2. Refinery Employment Impacts
XI. Public Participation
A. How do I submit comments?
B. How should I submit CBI to the Agency?
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
D. Will there be a public hearing?
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Overview
2. Background
3. Reason for Today's Proposed Rule
4. Legal Basis for Agency Action
5. Summary of Potentially Affected Small Entities
6. Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance
7. Related Federal Rules
8. Summary of SBREFA Panel Process and Panel Outreach
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
[[Page 29819]]
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
XIII. Statutory Provisions And Legal Authority
I. Executive Summary and Overview of Proposed Program
A. Introduction
In this action, EPA is proposing a major program designed to reduce
air pollution from passenger cars and trucks. This program includes new
standards for both vehicle emissions and the sulfur content of
gasoline, considering the vehicle and its fuel as an integrated system.
We refer to this proposed program as the ``Tier 3'' vehicle and fuel
standards.
This proposed rule is part of a comprehensive approach to address
the impacts of motor vehicles on air quality and public health. Over
158 million Americans are currently experiencing unhealthy levels of
air pollution, which are linked with respiratory and cardiovascular
problems and other adverse health impacts that lead to increased
medication use, hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and
premature mortality.\1\ Motor vehicles are a particularly important
source of exposure to air pollution, especially in urban areas. By 2014
we project that in many nonattainment areas, cars and light trucks will
contribute 30-45 percent of total nitrogen oxides (NOX)
emissions, 20-25 percent of total volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions, and 5-10 percent of total direct particulate matter
(PM2.5) emissions.\2\ These compounds form ozone, PM, and
other air pollutants, whose health and environmental effects are
described in more detail in Section II. Cars and light trucks also
continue to be a significant contributor to air pollution directly near
roads, with gasoline vehicles accounting for more than 50 percent of
near-road concentrations of some criteria and toxic pollutants.\3\ More
than 50 million people live, work, or go to school in close proximity
to high-traffic roadways, and the average American spends more than one
hour traveling along roads each day.4 5 Almost 90 percent of
daily trips use personal vehicles.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population
Exposure Report, current as of December 14, 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135.
\2\ Mobile source contributions derived from inventories
developed for the Final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (76 FR 48208,
August 8, 2011). For more information on these inventories see the
``Technical Support Document (TSD) for the final Transport Rule,
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491, Emissions Inventory Final Rule
TSD,'' available on the web at ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005v4_2/transportrulefinal_eitsd_28jun2011.pdf.
\3\ For example, see Fujita, E.M; Campbell, D.E.; Zielinska, B.;
Arnott, W.P.; Chow, J.C. (2011) Concentrations of Air Toxics in
Motor Vehicle-Dominated Environments. Health Effects Institute
Research Report 156. Available at http://www.healtheffects.org
\4\ U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Current Housing Reports, Series
H150/09, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs09/ahs09.html. (Note that
this survey includes estimates of homes within 300 feet of highways
with four or more lanes, railroads, and airports.)
\5\ Drago, R. (2011). Secondary activities in the 2006 American
Time Use Survey. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Working Paper 446.
Available at http://www.bls.gov.
\6\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (2003). National Household Travel Survey 2001 Highlights
Report. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at
http://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standards set forth in this proposed rule would significantly
reduce levels of multiple air pollutants (such as ambient levels of
ozone, PM, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and mobile source air
toxics (MSATs)) across the country, with immediate impacts expected due
to the proposed sulfur control standards starting in 2017. These
reductions would help state and local agencies in their effort to
attain and maintain health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). Few other national strategies exist that would deliver the
same magnitude of multi-pollutant reductions projected to result from
the proposed Tier 3 standards. In the absence of additional controls,
many areas will continue to have ambient ozone concentrations exceeding
the NAAQS in the future. See Section III.C for more details.
The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish emissions standards
for motor vehicles to address air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (section 202). EPA
also has authority to establish fuel controls to address such air
pollution (section 211). These statutory authorities are described in
Section II.A.
The vehicle and gasoline sulfur standards we are proposing
represent a ``systems approach'' to reducing vehicle-related exhaust
and evaporative emissions by addressing the vehicle and fuel as a
system. The systems approach enables emission reductions that are both
technologically feasible and cost-effective beyond what would be
possible looking at vehicle and fuel standards in isolation. We first
applied such an approach with our Tier 2 vehicle/gasoline sulfur
standards (finalized in 2000).\7\ We believe that a similar approach
for the proposed Tier 3 standards would be a cost-effective way to
achieve substantial additional emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Tier 3 standards include new light- and heavy-duty
vehicle emission standards for exhaust emissions of VOC (specifically,
non-methane organic gases, or NMOG), NOX, and PM, as well as
evaporative emissions standards. The proposed standards for light-duty
vehicle, light-duty truck, and medium-duty passenger vehicle tailpipe
emissions are an 80 percent reduction in fleet average
NMOG+NOX compared to current standards, and a 70 percent
reduction in per-vehicle PM standards. The proposed Tier 3 heavy-duty
vehicle tailpipe emissions standards provide reductions in both
NMOG+NOX and PM that are on the order of 60 percent,
compared to current standards. The proposed evaporative emissions
standards represent a 50 percent reduction from current standards.
The vehicle emission standards, combined with the proposed
reduction of gasoline sulfur content from the current 30 parts per
million (ppm) average down to a 10-ppm average, would result in
dramatic emissions reductions for NOX, VOC, direct
PM2.5, carbon monoxide (CO) and air toxics. For example, in
2030, when Tier 3 vehicles would make up the majority of the fleet as
well as vehicle miles travelled, NOX and VOC emissions from
on-highway vehicles would be reduced by about one quarter, and CO
emissions would be reduced by about 30 percent. Emissions of many air
toxics would also be reduced by 10 to nearly 40 percent of national
emissions from on-highway vehicles. Reductions would continue beyond
2030 as more of the fleet is composed of Tier 3 vehicles. For example,
the Tier 3 program would reduce on-highway emissions of NOX
and VOC nearly 40 percent by 2050, when Tier 3 vehicles would comprise
almost the entire fleet.
Gasoline vehicles depend to a great degree on catalytic converters
to reduce levels of pollutants in their exhaust, including NMOG and
NOX, as well as PM (specifically, the volatile hydrocarbon
fraction), CO, and most air toxics. The catalytic converters become
significantly less efficient when sulfur
[[Page 29820]]
from the gasoline is deposited (adsorbed) onto the precious metals that
catalyze the reactions to reduce the emissions. The Tier 2 rulemaking
required refiners to take steps to reduce sulfur levels in gasoline by
approximately 90 percent, to an average of 30 ppm. As discussed in
Section IV.A.6, subsequent research provides a compelling case that
even this level of sulfur not only degrades the emission performance of
vehicles on the road today, but also inhibits necessary further
reductions in vehicle emissions performance to reach the proposed Tier
3 standards. Thus, the proposed Tier 3 10-ppm average sulfur standard
is significant in two ways: it enables vehicles designed to the
proposed Tier 3 tailpipe exhaust standards to meet these standards in-
use for the duration of their useful life, and it facilitates immediate
emission reductions from all the vehicles on the road at the time the
sulfur controls are implemented. Lower sulfur gasoline also facilitates
the development of lower-cost technologies to improve fuel economy.
Sulfur in the fuel quickly causes the fuel economy benefits of lean-
burn technologies to disappear due to its effect on NOx adsorber
operation requiring more fuel to be burned. We are not the first
regulatory agency to recognize the need for lower-sulfur gasoline.
Agencies in Europe and Japan have already imposed gasoline sulfur caps
of 10 ppm, and the State of California is already averaging 10 ppm
sulfur with a per gallon cap of 20 ppm. Other states are preempted by
the Clean Air Act from adopting new fuel programs to meet air quality
objectives. Consequently, they could not receive the air quality
benefits of lower sulfur gasoline without federal action.
This proposal is one aspect of a comprehensive national program
regulating emissions from motor vehicles. EPA's recent final rule for
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from light-duty (LD) vehicles
starting with model year (MY) 2017 (referred to here as the ``2017 LD
GHG'' standards) is another aspect of this comprehensive program.\8\
The Tier 3 proposal addresses interactions with the 2017 LD GHG rule in
a manner that aligns implementation of the two actions, to achieve
significant criteria pollutant and GHG emissions reductions while
providing regulatory certainty and compliance efficiency. As vehicle
manufacturers introduce new vehicle platforms for compliance with the
GHG standards, they will be able to design them for compliance with the
Tier 3 standards at the same time. The proposed Tier 3 standards are
also closely coordinated with California's Low Emission Vehicle (LEV
III) program to create a vehicle emissions program that would allow
automakers to sell the same vehicles in all 50 states. (In December
2012 EPA approved a waiver of Clean Air Act preemption for the
California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) LEV III program with
compliance beginning in 2015. Ten states have adopted the LEV III
program under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act.\9\) We have worked
closely with individual vehicle manufacturers and their trade
associations, who have emphasized the importance of a harmonized
national program. Together, the Tier 3, 2017 LD GHG, and LEV III
standards would maximize reductions in GHGs, criteria pollutants and
air toxics from motor vehicles while streamlining programs and enabling
manufacturers to design a single vehicle for nationwide sales, thus
reducing their costs of compliance. In this way, the Tier 3 proposal
responds to the May 21, 2010 Presidential Memorandum that requested
that EPA develop a comprehensive approach toward regulating motor
vehicles, including consideration of non-GHG emissions standards.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012).
\9\ These states include Connecticut, Maryland, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Washington, and Vermont.
\10\ The Presidential Memorandum is found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuel-efficiency-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the systems approach to this program, we are considering
the future fuels on which vehicles will be operating. In particular,
the renewable fuels mandate that was revised by the Energy Independence
and Security Act (EISA) and is being implemented through the Renewable
Fuel Standards program (RFS2)\11\ will result in significant amounts of
ethanol-blended gasoline in the implementation timeframe of the
proposed Tier 3 program. We are proposing to update the specifications
of the certification test fuel with which vehicles demonstrate
compliance with emissions standards, in order to better reflect the
ethanol content and other properties of gasoline that will be in use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 75 FR 14670 (March 26, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section provides an overview of the vehicle- and fuel-related
standards we are proposing as well as the impacts of the proposed
standards. The public health issues and statutory requirements that
have prompted this proposal are described in Section II, and our
discussion of how the proposal would reduce emissions and air pollution
is presented in Section III. Details of proposed standards and how they
would be implemented can be found in Sections IV through VI. Sections
VII through X contain our discussion of the proposed standards'
technological feasibility and cost, benefits, alternatives and economic
impacts.
B. What are the basic components of the proposed program?
In the more than 10 years since EPA finalized the Tier 2 Vehicle
Program, manufacturers of light-duty vehicles have continued to develop
a wide range of improved technologies capable of reducing key exhaust
emissions, especially VOC, NOX, and PM. The California LEV
II program has been instrumental in the continuous technology
improvements by requiring year after year reductions in the fleet
average hydrocarbon levels, in addition to requiring the introduction
of advanced exhaust and evaporative emission controls in partial zero
emission vehicles (PZEVs). This progress in vehicle technology has made
it possible for manufacturers to achieve emission reductions well
beyond the requirements of the Tier 2 program if gasoline sulfur levels
are lowered further.
As a result, we are proposing new standards for exhaust emissions
of NMOG, NOX, and PM, as well as evaporative emissions
standards. These standards would phase in beginning with MY 2017. The
proposed Tier 3 standards are very similar in structure to those in the
existing Tier 2 program. As with the Tier 2 program, the proposed
standards would apply to all light-duty vehicles (LDVs, or passenger
cars), light-duty trucks (LDT1s, LDT2s, LDT3s, and LDT4s) and Medium-
Duty Passenger Vehicles (or MDPVs). We are also proposing separate but
closely related standards for heavy-duty vehicles up to 14,000 lbs
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). These vehicles were not included in
Tier 2 but were made subject to new standards in a final rule that
covered the broad heavy-duty sector (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001). We
have concluded that the proposed vehicle emissions standards, in
conjunction with the reductions in fuel sulfur also proposed in this
action, are feasible across the fleet in the proposed time frame.
In the discussions of the various elements of our proposed program
for light- and heavy-duty vehicles throughout this preamble, we
describe how the provisions would be consistent with the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) LEV III program. Auto
[[Page 29821]]
manufacturers have stressed to us the importance of their being able to
design and produce a single fleet of vehicles in all 50 states that
would comply with requirements under the Tier 3 program and the LEV III
program, as well as greenhouse gas/Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) requirements in the same timeframe. Consistency among the
federal and California programs means that special versions of vehicles
with different emission control hardware and calibrations would not be
necessary for different geographic areas. This would allow
manufacturers to avoid the additional costs of parallel design,
development, calibration, and manufacturing. Consistency among programs
would also eliminate the need to supply aftermarket parts for repair of
multiple versions of a vehicle. To that end, we worked closely with
CARB and with the vehicle manufacturers, both with individual companies
and with their trade associations, to align the two programs in most
respects.
We have also designed the proposed Tier 3 program to be implemented
in the same timeframe as the federal and California GHG emissions and
fuel economy standards for model years 2017-2025. We expect that in
response to these programs, manufacturers will be developing entirely
new powertrains for most of their vehicles. Because the Tier 3
standards would phase in over the same timeframe, manufacturers would
be in a position to simultaneously respond to all of these
requirements.
1. Proposed Standards for Light-Duty Vehicle, Light-Duty Truck, and
Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions
We are proposing a comprehensive program that would include new
fleet-average standards for the sum of NMOG and NOX tailpipe
emissions (presented as NMOG+NOX) and for PM.\12\ These
proposed standards, when applied in conjunction with reduced gasoline
sulfur content, would result in very significant improvements in
vehicle emissions from the levels of the Tier 2 program. For these
pollutants, we are proposing standards as measured on test procedures
that represent a range of vehicle operation, including the Federal Test
Procedure (or FTP, simulating typical driving) and the Supplemental
Federal Test Procedure (or SFTP, a composite test simulating higher
temperatures, higher speeds, and quicker accelerations). In addition to
the standards, we are also proposing to extend the regulatory useful
life period during which the standards apply and to make test fuel more
representative of expected real-world fuel (see Section I.B.5 below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ A discussion of the reasons for combining the two
pollutants for this purpose is in Section IV.A.3.a below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section IV.A.6., the impact of gasoline sulfur
poisoning on exhaust catalyst performance provides a compelling
argument, particularly for larger vehicles and trucks, that these
vehicle standards would be achievable only with a reduction of gasoline
sulfur content from the current 30-ppm average down to a 10-ppm
average. Sulfur is a well-known catalyst poison. The nature of sulfur's
interactions with active catalytic materials is complex and varies with
catalyst composition, exhaust gas composition and exhaust temperature.
Thus, even if a manufacturer were able to certify a new vehicle to the
proposed new stringent standards, the manufacturer's ability to
maintain the emission performance of that vehicle in-use is greatly
jeopardized if the vehicle is being operated on gasoline sulfur levels
greater than 10 ppm. Vehicle manufacturers, both individually and
through their trade associations, have emphasized that reduced gasoline
sulfur would be required to meet the proposed
standards.13 14 Due to the variation in actual vehicle
operation, any amount of gasoline sulfur will deteriorate catalyst
efficiency. However, we believe that a 10-ppm average sulfur level is
sufficiently low to enable compliance with these proposed Tier 3
vehicle standards, and as described below and in Section V, reducing
sulfur levels further would cause sulfur control costs to quickly
escalate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Letter to EPA Administrator Jackson, with white paper, from
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, October 6, 2011.
\14\ Global Automakers letter to EPA Administrator Jackson,
October 21, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed FTP and SFTP NMOG+NOX standards would be
fleet-average standards, meaning that a manufacturer would calculate
the average emissions of the vehicles it sells in each model year and
compare that average to the applicable standard for that model year.
The manufacturer would certify each of its vehicles to a per-vehicle
``bin'' standard (see Section IV.A.2) and sales-weight these values to
calculate its fleet-average NMOG+NOX emissions for each
model year. The proposed fleet average standards for
NMOG+NOX evaluated over the FTP are summarized in Table I-1.
The standards for light-duty vehicles would begin in MY 2017 at a level
representing a 46 percent reduction from the current Tier 2
requirements. (For vehicles over 6000 lbs GVWR, the standards would
apply beginning in MY 2018). As shown, these proposed fleet-average
standards would decline during the first several years of the program,
becoming increasingly stringent until ultimately reaching an 81 percent
reduction when the transition is complete. The proposed FTP
NMOG+NOX program includes two separate sets of declining
fleet-average standards, with LDVs and small light trucks (LDT1s) in
one grouping and heavier light trucks (LDT2s, LDT3s, LDT4s) and MDPVs
in a second grouping, that would converge at 30 milligram per mile (mg/
mi) in MY 2025 and later.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Alternatively, a manufacturer could choose to certify its
entire fleet of passenger cars and light trucks to the 30 mg/mi
level beginning in MY 2017 and continuing for all subsequent model
years. A percent phase-in would apply. This would not be a fleet-
average standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers could also earn credits for fleet average
NMOG+NOX levels below the applicable standard in any model
year. Credits that were previously banked or obtained from other
manufacturers could be used, or credits could be transferred to other
manufacturers (see Section IV.A.7.a). Unused credits would expire after
5 model years. Manufacturers would also be allowed to carry deficits in
their credit balance for up to 3 model years.
[[Page 29822]]
Table I-1--Proposed LDV, LDT, and MDPV Fleet Average NMOG+NOX FTP Standards
[mg/mi]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 and
2017 \a\ 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 later
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV/LDT1 \b\......................................... 86 79 72 65 58 51 44 37 30
LDT2,3,4 and MDPV.................................... 101 92 83 74 65 56 47 38 30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, the fleet average standards would apply beginning in MY 2018.
\b\ These proposed standards would apply for a 150,000 mile useful life. Manufacturers could choose to certify all of their LDVs and LDT1s to a useful
life of 120,000 miles. If any of these families are certified to the shorter useful life, a proportionally lower numerical fleet-average standard
would apply, calculated by multiplying the respective 150,000 mile standard by 0.85 and rounding to the nearest mg. See Section IV.A.7.b.
Similarly, the proposed NMOG+NOX standards measured over
the SFTP would be fleet-average standards, declining from MY 2017 until
MY 2025, as shown in Table I-2. In this case, the same standards would
apply to both lighter and heavier vehicles. In MY 2025, the SFTP
NMOG+NOX standard would reach its final fleet average level
of 50 mg/mi.
Table I-2--Proposed LDV, LDT, and MDPV Fleet Average NMOG+NOX SFTP Standards
[mg/mi]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 and
2017 \a\ 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 later
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG + NOX........................................... 103 97 90 83 77 70 63 57 50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, the fleet average standards would apply beginning in MY 2018.
We are also proposing PM standards as part of this Tier 3 program,
both on the FTP and US06 cycles (US06 is a component of the SFTP test).
Research has demonstrated that the level of PM from gasoline light-duty
vehicles is more significant than previously thought.\16\ Although many
vehicles today are performing at or near the levels of the proposed
standards, the data indicate that improvements, especially in high-load
fuel control and in the durability of engine components, are possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Nam, E.; Fulper, C.; Warila, J.; Somers, J.; Michaels, H.;
Baldauf, R.; Rykowski, R.; and Scarbro, C. (2008). Analysis of
Particulate Matter Emissions from Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles in
Kansas City, EPA420-R-08-010. Assessment and Standards Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Ann Arbor, MI, April 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under typical driving, as simulated by the FTP, the PM emissions of
most current-technology gasoline vehicles are fairly low at
certification and in use, well below the Tier 2 p.m. standards. At the
same time we see considerable variation in PM emissions among vehicles
of various makes, models, and designs. As a result, we are proposing a
new FTP PM standard that is set to ensure that all new vehicles perform
at the level already being achieved by well-designed Tier 2 emission
control technologies. The proposed PM standards would apply to each
vehicle separately (i.e., not as a fleet average). Also, in contrast to
the declining NMOG+NOX standards, the proposed PM standard
on the FTP for certification testing is 3 mg/mi for all vehicles and
for all model years. As for the NMOG+NOX standards, for
vehicles over 6000 lbs GVWR, the FTP PM standard would apply beginning
in MY 2018. Manufacturers could phase in their vehicle models as a
percent of U.S. sales through MY 2022. Most vehicles are already
performing at this stringent PM level, and the primary intent of the
proposed standard is to bring all light-duty vehicles to the typical
level of PM performance being demonstrated by the current light-duty
fleet.
The proposed program also includes a separate in-use FTP PM
standard of 6 mg/mi for the testing of in-use vehicles that would apply
during the percent phase-in period only. This in-use standard would
address the uncertainties that accompany the introduction of new
technologies, and then expire. Table I-3 presents the FTP certification
and in-use PM standards and the phase-in percentages. The proposed
standards represent a significant numerical reduction from the Tier 2
p.m. emission standards of 10 mg/mi for light-duty vehicles.
Table I-3--Phase-In for Proposed FTP PM Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022 and
2017 \a\ 2018 2019 2020 2021 later
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase-In (percent of U.S. sales).............. 20 20 40 70 100 100
Certification Standard (mg/mi)................ 3 3 3 3 3 3
[[Page 29823]]
In-Use Standard (mg/mi)....................... 6 6 6 6 6 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, the proposed FTP PM standards would apply beginning in MY 2018.
Finally, the proposed Tier 3 program includes certification PM
standards evaluated over the SFTP (specifically the US06 component of
the SFTP procedure) at a level of 10 mg/mi for lighter vehicles and 20
mg/mi for heavier vehicles. PM levels over the SFTP are typically
higher than the PM emitted over the FTP due to the increased load on
the vehicle. Test data show that most current light-duty vehicles are
already performing in the range of the proposed standard. As in the
case of the FTP PM standards, the intent of the proposed standard is to
bring the emission performance of all vehicles to that already being
demonstrated by many vehicles in the current light-duty fleet.
As with the FTP PM standard, we propose separate in-use US06 p.m.
standards during the percent phase-in only, of 15 and 25 mg/mi for
vehicles up to and above 6,000 lbs (lbs) GVWR, respectively. The US06
p.m. standards would also phase in on the same schedule as the FTP PM
standards, reaching 100 percent of each company's U.S. sales by MY
2022.
2. Proposed Heavy-Duty Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions Standards
As discussed in detail in Section IV.B, we are proposing Tier 3
exhaust emissions standards for complete heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs)
between 8,501 and 14,000 lb GVWR. Vehicles in this GVWR range are often
referred to as Class 2b (8,501-10,000 lb) and Class 3 (10,001-14,000
lb) vehicles, and are typically full-size pickup trucks and work vans.
Most are built by companies with even larger light-duty truck markets,
and as such they frequently share major design characteristics and
potential emissions control technologies with their LDT counterparts.
However, in contrast to the largely gasoline-fueled LDT fleet, roughly
half of the HD pickup and van fleet in the U.S. is diesel-fueled, which
is a consideration in setting emissions standards, as diesel engine
emissions and control strategies differ from those of gasoline engines.
The key elements of the proposed Tier 3 program for HDVs would
parallel those proposed for passenger cars and LDTs, with adjustments
in standards levels, emissions test requirements, and implementation
schedules, appropriate to this sector. These key elements include a
combined NMOG+NOX declining fleet average standard, new
stringent PM standards phasing in on a separate schedule, adoption of a
15 percent ethanol by volume (E15) certification test fuel for
gasoline-fueled vehicles, extension of the regulatory useful life to
150,000 miles or 15 years (whichever occurs first), and a new
requirement to meet standards over an SFTP that would address real-
world driving modes not well-represented by the FTP cycle alone.
We are proposing the separate Class 2b and Class 3 fleet average
NMOG+NOX standards shown in Table I-4. The proposed
standards would become more stringent in successive model years from
2018 to 2022, with voluntary standards made available in 2016 and 2017,
all of which would be set at levels that match those of California's
LEV III program for these classes of vehicles. Each covered HDV sold by
a manufacturer in each model year would contribute to this fleet
average based on the mg/mi NMOG+NOX level of the emission
level (``bin'') declared for it by the manufacturer. Manufacturers
could also earn credits for fleet average NMOG+NOX levels
below the standard in any model year. Tier 3 credits that were
previously banked, obtained from other manufacturers, or transferred
across the Class 2b/Class 3 categories could be used to help
demonstrate compliance. Unused credits would expire after 5 model
years. Manufacturers would also be allowed to carry deficits in their
credit balance for up to 3 model years.
Table I-4--Proposed HDV Fleet Average NMOG+NOX Standards
[mg/mi]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voluntary
Required program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Year................................... 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 and later.
Class 2b..................................... 333 310 278 253 228 203 178.
Class 3...................................... 548 508 451 400 349 298 247.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing PM standards of 8 mg/mi and 10 mg/mi for Class 2b
and Class 3 HDVs, respectively, phasing in as an increasing percentage
of a manufacturer's sales per year. We are proposing the same phase-in
schedule as proposed for the light-duty sector during model years 2018-
2019-2020-2021: 20-40-70-100 percent, respectively, and a more flexible
but equivalent alternative PM phase-in is also being proposed. Tier 3
HDVs would also be subject to more stringent CO and formaldehyde
exhaust emissions standards.
Finally, we are proposing first-ever SFTP standards for HDVs to
ensure a robust overall control program that precludes high off-FTP
cycle emissions by having vehicle designers consider them in their
choice of compliance strategies. As for light-duty vehicles, we are
proposing that SFTP compliance be based on a weighted composite of
measured emissions from testing over the FTP cycle, the SC03 cycle, and
an aggressive driving cycle, with the latter tailored to various HDV
sub-categories: the US06 cycle for most HDVs, the highway portion of
the US06 cycle for low power-to-weight Class 2b HDVs, and the LA-92 (or
``Unified'') cycle for Class 3 HDVs. The proposed SFTP standards are
the same as those adopted for California LEV III vehicles, and would
apply to NMOG+NOX, PM, and CO emissions.
Overall, we expect the Tier 3 program we are proposing for HDVs to
result in
[[Page 29824]]
substantial reductions in harmful emissions from this large fleet of
work trucks and vans. The final Tier 3 standards levels for
NMOG+NOX and PM are on the order of 60 percent lower than
the current stringent standards that took full effect in the 2009 model
year.
3. Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards
Gasoline vapor emissions from vehicle fuel systems occur when a
vehicle is in operation, when it is parked, and when it is being
refueled. These evaporative emissions, which occur on a daily basis
from gasoline-powered vehicles, are primarily functions of temperature,
fuel vapor pressure, and activity. EPA first instituted evaporative
emission standards in the early 1970s to address emissions when
vehicles are parked after being driven. These are commonly referred to
as hot soak plus diurnal emissions. Over the subsequent years the test
procedures have been modified and improved and the standards have
become more numerically stringent. We have addressed emissions which
arose from new fuel system designs by putting in place new requirements
such as running loss emission standards and test procedure provisions
to address permeation emissions. Subsequently standards were put in
place to control refueling emissions from all classes of gasoline-
powered motor vehicles up to 10,000 lbs GVWR. Even though evaporative
and refueling emission control systems have been in place for most of
these vehicles for many years, they still contribute about 30-40
percent of the summer on-highway mobile source hydrocarbon inventory.
These fuel vapor emissions are ozone and PM precursors, and also
contain air toxics such as benzene.
To control evaporative emissions, EPA is proposing more stringent
standards that would require covered vehicles to have essentially zero
fuel vapor emissions in use. These include more stringent evaporative
emissions standards, new test procedures, and a new fuel/evaporative
system leak emission standard. The program also includes refueling
emission standards for a portion of heavy-duty gasoline vehicles
(HDGVs) over 10,000 lbs GVWR. EPA is proposing phase-in flexibilities
as well as credit and allowance programs. The proposed standards,
harmonized with California's ``zero evap'' standards, are designed to
essentially allow for a use of common technology in vehicle models sold
throughout the U.S. The level of the standard remains above zero to
account for nonfuel background emissions from the vehicle hardware
itself.
Requirements to meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations
would phase-in over a six model year period. We are proposing two
options for the 2017 model year, but after that the sales percentage
requirements are 60 percent for MYs 2018 and 2019, 80 percent for model
years 2020 and 2021, and 100 percent for model years 2022 and later. In
Table I-5 we present the proposed evaporative diurnal plus hot soak
emission standards by vehicle class. The standards are approximately a
50 percent reduction from the existing standards. To enhance
flexibility and reduce costs, EPA is proposing a program that would
allow manufacturers to generate allowances through early certifications
(basically before the 2017 model year) and to demonstrate compliance
using averaging concepts. Manufacturers may comply on average within
each of the four vehicle categories, but not across these categories.
EPA is not proposing any changes to the existing light-duty running
loss or refueling emission standards, with the exception of the
certification test fuel requirement discussed in Section I.B.5 below.
Table I-5--Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards
[g/test]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest diurnal + hot
soak level (over both
Vehicle class 2-day and 3-day diurnal
tests)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV, LDT1...................................... 0.300
LDT2........................................... 0.400
LDT3, LDT4, MDPV............................... 0.500
HDGVs.......................................... 0.600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing a new testing requirement referred to as the bleed
emission test procedure to help ensure fuel vapor emissions are
eliminated. Under this proposal, manufacturers would be required to
measure diurnal emissions over the 2-day diurnal test procedure from
just the fuel tank and the evaporative emission canister and comply
with a 0.020 gram per test (g/test) standard for all LDVs, LDTs, and
MDPVs, without averaging. The corresponding canister bleed test
standard for HDGVs would be 0.030 g/test. The proposed Tier 3
evaporative emission standards would be phased in over a period of six
model years between MY 2017 and MY 2022, with the leak test phasing in
beginning in 2018.
Data from in-use evaporative emissions testing indicates that vapor
leaks from vehicle fuel/evaporative systems are found in the fleet and
that even very small leaks have the potential to make relatively
significant contributions to the mobile source VOC inventory. To help
address this issue, we are also proposing to add a new emission
standard and test procedure to control vapor leaks from vehicle fuel
and vapor control systems. The standard would prohibit leaks with a
cumulative equivalent diameter of 0.02 inches or greater. We are
proposing to add this simple and inexpensive test and emission standard
to help ensure vehicles maintain zero fuel vapor emissions over their
full useful life. New LDV, LDT, MDPV, and HDGV equal to or less than
14.000 lbs GVWR meeting the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission
regulations would also be required to meet the leak emission standard
beginning in the 2018 model year. The requirement to meet the leak
emission standard would phase-in on the same percentage of sales
schedule as the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standard.
Manufacturers would comply with the leak emission standard during
certification and in use. EPA is not proposing that the leak emission
standard apply to HDGVs above 14,000 lbs GVWR.
EPA is also proposing new refueling emission control requirements
for all HDGVs equal to or less than 14,000 lbs GVWR (i.e., Class 2b/3
HDGVs), starting in the 2018 model year. EPA is proposing to include
these vehicles as part of the same basic implementation scheme used for
LDVs and LDTs. The current refueling emission control requirements
apply to complete Class 2b HDGVs, and EPA is proposing to extend those
requirements to Class 3 HDGVs as well, since the fuel and evaporative
control systems on these vehicles are very similar to those on their
slightly lighter-weight Class 2b counterparts.
4. Onboard Diagnostic Systems (OBD)
EPA and CARB both have OBD regulations applicable to the vehicle
classes covered by the proposed Tier 3 emission standards. In the past
the requirements have been very similar, so most manufacturers have met
CARB OBD requirements and, as permitted in our regulations, EPA has
generally accepted compliance with CARB's OBD requirements as
satisfying EPA's OBD requirements. Over the past several years CARB has
upgraded its requirements to help improve the effectiveness of OBD in
ensuring good in-use exhaust and evaporative system emissions
performance. We have reviewed these provisions and agree with CARB that
these revisions will
[[Page 29825]]
help to improve in-use emissions performance, while at the same time
harmonizing with the CARB program. Toward that end, we are proposing to
adopt and incorporate by reference the current CARB OBD regulations
effective for the 2017 MY. We are also proposing two specific additions
to enhance the implementation of the leak emission standard. EPA would
retain the provision that certifying with CARB's program would permit
manufacturers to seek a separate EPA certificate on that basis.
5. Emissions Test Fuel
In-use gasoline has changed considerably since EPA's test fuel
specifications were first set and last revised. Gasoline sulfur and
benzene have been reduced and, perhaps most importantly, gasoline
containing 10 percent ethanol by volume (E10) has replaced clear
gasoline (E0) across the country. This has had second-order effects on
other gasoline properties. In-use fuel is projected to continue to
change with the implementation of the RFS2 program (e.g., the potential
expansion of the number of retailers that offer gasoline containing 15
percent ethanol by volume (E15)) as well as today's proposed Tier 3
gasoline sulfur program.
As a result, we are proposing to update our federal emissions test
fuel to better match today's in-use gasoline and also to be forward-
looking with respect to future ethanol and sulfur content. The new test
fuel specifications would apply to new vehicle certification, assembly
line, and in-use testing. EPA is also proposing changes consistent with
CARB's LEV III emissions test fuel specifications. Key changes include:
Moving away from ``Indolene'' (E0) to an E15 test fuel;
Lowering octane to match regular-grade gasoline (except
for premium-required vehicles);
Adjusting distillation temperatures, aromatics, and
olefins to better match today's in-use fuel and to be consistent with
anticipated E15 composition; and
Lowering the existing sulfur specification and setting a
benzene specification to be consistent with proposed Tier 3 gasoline
sulfur requirements and recent MSAT2 gasoline benzene requirements.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 72 FR 8434 (February 26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed E15 emissions test fuel specifications are detailed in
Section IV.D.1 as well as Sec. 1065.710 of the proposed regulations.
For more information on how we arrived at the proposed fuel parameters
and ASTM test methods, refer to Chapter 3 of the draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA).
In addition to proposing a new E15 emissions test fuel, we are also
proposing for the first time detailed specifications for the E85
emissions test fuel used for flexible fuel vehicle (FFV) certification,
as discussed in Section IV.D.2.\18\ This is intended to avoid
uncertainty and confusion in the certification of FFVs designed to
operate on ethanol levels up to 83 percent. Furthermore, we are
proposing to allow vehicle manufacturers to request approval for an
alternative certification fuel such as a high-octane 30 percent ethanol
by volume (E30) blend for vehicles they might design or optimize for
use on such a fuel. This could help manufacturers that wish to raise
compression ratios to improve vehicle efficiency, as a step toward
complying with the 2017 and later light-duty greenhouse gas and CAFE
standards (2017 LD GHG). This in turn could help provide a market
incentive to increase ethanol use beyond E10 by overcoming the
disincentive of lower fuel economy associated with increasing ethanol
concentrations in fuel, and enhance the environmental performance of
ethanol as a transportation fuel by using it to enable more fuel
efficient engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Flexible fuel vehicles are currently required to meet
emissions certification requirements using both E0 and E85 test
fuels. However, there are currently no detailed regulatory
specifications regarding the composition of E85 test fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to seeking comment on all aspects of the proposed new
emission test fuel requirements, we also seek comment on whether there
are other aspects of today's proposed standards that, if modified,
might provide an incentive for, or remove obstacles to, the development
of highly efficient vehicles optimized for use on higher level ethanol
blends.
6. Fuel Standards
Under the Tier 3 fuel program, we are proposing that gasoline and
any ethanol-gasoline blend contain no more than 10 ppm sulfur on an
annual average basis by January 1, 2017. Similar to the Tier 2 gasoline
program, the proposed Tier 3 program would apply to gasoline in the
U.S. and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands,
excluding California. The proposed program would result in gasoline
that contains, on average, two-thirds less sulfur than it does today.
In addition, following discussions with numerous refiners and other
segments of the fuel market (e.g., pipelines, terminals, marketers,
ethanol industry representatives, transmix processors, additive
manufacturers), we are proposing a Tier 3 fuel program that contains
considerable flexibility to ease both initial and long-term
implementation of the program. We are proposing an averaging, banking,
and trading (ABT) program that would allow refiners and importers to
spread out their investments through an early credit program and rely
on ongoing nationwide averaging to meet the 10-ppm sulfur standard. We
are also proposing a three-year delay for small refiners and ``small
volume refineries'' processing less than or equal to 75,000 barrels of
crude oil per day. As a result of the early credit program, even
considering the proposed ABT program and flexibilities offered to small
refiners and small volume refineries, we anticipate considerable
reductions in gasoline sulfur levels prior to 2017, with final refinery
control to the 10-ppm average occurring by January 1, 2020. For more on
the proposed gasoline sulfur program flexibilities, refer to Section
V.D.
Under today's Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, we are proposing to
either maintain the current 80-ppm refinery gate and 95-ppm downstream
per-gallon caps or lower them to 50 and 65 ppm, respectively. We also
evaluated and are seeking comment on the potential of lowering the per-
gallon caps to as low as 20 and 25 ppm. There are advantages and
disadvantages with each of the various sulfur cap options (explained in
more detail in Section V.A.3), but under all scenarios, the stringency
of the 10-ppm annual average standard would result in reduced gasoline
sulfur levels nationwide. A summary of the proposed Tier 3 sulfur
standards is provided in Table I-6.
[[Page 29826]]
Table I-6--Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cap Option 1 Cap Option 2
Proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
standards Limit Effective Limit Effective
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refinery annual average 10 ppm....................... January 1, 2017 \a\......... 10 ppm...................... January 1, 2017.\a\
standard.
Refinery gate per-gallon cap... 80 ppm....................... Already..................... 50 ppm...................... January 1, 2020.
Downstream per-gallon cap...... 95 ppm....................... Already..................... 65 ppm...................... March 1, 2020.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Effective January 1, 2020 for eligible small refiners and small volume refineries.
We are proposing that manufacturers of gasoline additives that are
used downstream of the refinery at less than 1 volume percent must
limit the sulfur contribution to the finished gasoline from the use of
their additive to less than 3 ppm when the additive is used at the
maximum recommended treatment rate.
The proposed vehicle emissions standards are fuel neutral (i.e.
they are applicable regardless of the type of fuel that the vehicle is
designed to use). The sulfur content of highway diesel fuel is already
required to meet a 15ppm sulfur cap. Thus, no further action is needed
to enable diesel fuel vehicles to meet the proposed emissions
standards. There currently are no sulfur standards for the fuel used in
compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquid propane gas (LPG) vehicles. We
request comment on whether it is necessary for EPA to establish sulfur
standards for CNG and LPG, and whether a 15 ppm sulfur cap similar to
that established for highway diesel fuel would be appropriate. Comment
is also requested on whether and how to address the sulfur contribution
from odorants and other additives used in CNG and LPG.
As the number of flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) in the in-use fleet
increases, it is now becoming increasingly important that all fuels
used in FFVs, not just gasoline, meet fuel quality standards. A lack of
clarity regarding the standards that apply to fuels used in FFVs could
act to impede the further expansion of ethanol blended fuels with
concentrations greater than 15 volume percent, which is important to
satisfying the requirements of the RFS2 program. For these reasons, we
believe it is important that our gasoline quality standards for not
only sulfur, but also benzene, RVP, detergency, and chemical
composition (i.e., contains only carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,
and sulfur) apply to any fuel used in an FFV. At the same time, it is
not necessarily clear how we should implement such standards within the
context of our existing regulations as these fuels tend to be produced
downstream of the petroleum refinery. For this reason we are seeking
comment on both the need to extend our gasoline standards to all
gasoline-ethanol blends, as well as the appropriate regulatory
mechanisms for doing so.
7. Regulatory Streamlining and Technical Amendments
We are proposing and requesting comment in this action on a number
of items to help streamline the in-use fuels regulations at 40 CFR part
80. The majority of items involve clarifying vague or inconsistent
language, removal or updating of outdated provisions, and decrease in
frequency and/or volume of reporting burden where data are no longer
needed or are redundant with other EPA fuels programs. In general, we
believe that these changes would reduce burden on industry and allow us
to achieve the standards and resulting environmental benefits as early
as possible with no expected loss in environmental control. In some
cases, these regulatory streamlining items are non-substantive
amendments that correct minor errors or inconsistencies in the
regulations.
The regulatory streamlining items that we are proposing for the in-
use fuels regulations are changes that we believe are straightforward
and should be made quickly. In addition, there are a number of items
that we believe need further consideration and discussion on which we
are seeking comment.
The proposal also includes a variety of technical amendments to
certification-related requirements for engine and vehicle emission
standards. We are proposing to revise the fuel economy labeling
requirements to correspond to the new Tier 3 standards. We are also
proposing to remove obsolete regulatory text and make several minor
corrections and clarifications.
Please refer to Section VI for a complete discussion of technical
amendments and regulatory streamlining provisions and issues.
C. What would the impacts of the proposed standards be?
The proposed Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards together would
reduce dramatically emissions of NOX, VOC, PM2.5,
and air toxics. The gasoline sulfur standards, which would take effect
in 2017, would provide large immediate reductions in emissions from
existing gasoline vehicles and engines. NOX emissions would
be reduced by about 284,000 tons, or about 8 percent of emissions from
on-highway vehicles, in 2017 alone. The emission reductions would
increase over time as newer vehicles become a larger percentage of the
fleet. In 2030, when 80 percent of the light-duty fleet (and 90 percent
of the vehicle miles travelled) consists of Tier 3 vehicles, we expect
the NOX and VOC emissions to be reduced by about 525,000
tons and 226,000 tons, respectively, or one quarter of emissions from
on-highway vehicles compared to their 2030 levels without the Tier 3
program. Emissions of CO would decrease by almost 6 million tons, or 30
percent of emissions from on-highway vehicles. Emissions of many air
toxics would also be reduced, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, acrolein and ethanol, with reductions
ranging from 10 to nearly 40 percent of national emissions from on-
highway vehicles. We expect these reductions to continue beyond 2030 as
more of the fleet continues to turn over to Tier 3 vehicles; for
example, by 2050, when nearly all of the fleet would have turned over
to Tier 3 standards, we estimate the Tier 3 program would reduce on-
highway emissions of NOX and VOC nearly 40 percent from the
level of emissions projected without Tier 3 controls.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ To estimate the benefits of the proposed Tier 3 rule, we
perfomed air quality modeling for the year 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These reductions in emissions of NOX, VOC,
PM2.5 and air toxics from the proposed Tier 3 standards are
projected to lead to significant decreases in ambient concentrations of
ozone, PM2.5 and air toxics (including notable nationwide
reductions in benzene concentrations) by 2030, and would immediately
reduce ozone in 2017 when the proposed sulfur controls take effect.
Additional information on the emission and air quality impacts of the
proposed Tier 3 program is presented in Sections III.B and C.
[[Page 29827]]
Exposure to ambient concentrations of ozone, PM2.5, and
air toxics is linked to adverse human health impacts such as premature
deaths as well as other important public health and environmental
effects (see Section II.B). The proposed Tier 3 standards would reduce
these adverse impacts and yield significant benefits, including those
we can monetize and those we are unable to quantify. We estimate that
by 2030, the annual emission reductions of the Tier 3 standards would
annually prevent between 670 and 1,700 PM-related premature deaths,
between 160 and 710 ozone-related premature deaths, 81,000 work days
lost, and approximately 1.4 million minor restricted-activity days. The
estimated annual monetized health benefits of the proposed Tier 3
standards in 2030 (2010$) would be between $8.0 and $23 billion,
assuming a 3-percent discount rate (or between $7.4 billion and $21
billion assuming a 7-percent discount rate). \20\ The proposed fuel
standards are projected to cost on average less than one cent per
gallon of gasoline, and the proposed light-duty vehicle standards would
have an average cost that increases in proportion to the increase in
stringency from $50 per vehicle in 2017 to $134 per vehicle when the
standards are fully phased in 2025. The annual cost of the overall
program in 2030 would be approximately $3.4 billion.\21\ The 2030
benefits are 2 to 7 times the costs of the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ These benefits estimates have been adjusted to remove
benefits of the Tier 3 program in California. The Tier 3 proposal's
analysis assumed emissions reductions and resulting benefits would
occur nationwide. California was recently granted a Clean Air Act
waiver of preemption for the LEV III vehicle program, and some other
states have adopted it. The Tier 3 final rule analysis will account
for those emission reductions that will occur even in the absence of
Tier 3 vehicle standards, for all states that have adopted LEV III.
See Section VIII of the preamble for more information on the
benefits associated with the Tier 3 program.
\21\ Costs include estimates for the proposed Tier 3 standards
in all states except California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The benefits in Table I-7 include all of the human health impacts
we are able to quantify and monetize at this time. However, the full
complement of human health and welfare effects associated with PM,
ozone and air toxics remain unquantified because of current limitations
in methods and/or available data. As a result, the health benefits
quantified in this section are likely underestimates of the total
benefits attributable to the proposed standards. See Sections VII and
VIII for detailed descriptions of the costs and benefits of this
proposal.
Table I-7--Summary of Annual Benefits and Costs Associated With the
Proposed Tier 3 Program
[Billions, 2010$] \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description 2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Program Costs................................... $2.1
Fuels Program Costs..................................... 1.3
Total Estimated Costs \b\............................... 3.4
Total Estimated Health Benefits c d e f g............... ..............
3 percent discount rate............................. $8.0-$23
7 percent discount rate............................. 7.4-21
Annual Net Benefits (Total Benefits--Total Costs):...... ..............
3 percent discount rate............................. 4.6-20
7 percent discount rate............................. 4.0-18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All estimates represent annual benefits and costs anticipated for
the year 2030. Totals are rounded to two significant digits and may
not sum due to rounding.
\b\ The calculation of annual costs does not require amortization of
costs over time. Therefore, the estimates of annual cost do not
include a discount rate or rate of return assumption (see Section VII
of the preamble for more information on vehicle and fuel costs). The
program costs include the costs associated with the Tier 3 vehicle and
fuel standards in all states except California.
\c\ The benefits presented in this table have been adjusted to remove
benefits of the Tier 3 program in California.
\d\ Total includes ozone and PM2.5 benefits. Range was developed by
adding the estimate from the Bell et al., 2004 ozone premature
mortality function to PM2.5-related premature mortality derived from
the American Cancer Society cohort study (Pope et al., 2002) for the
low estimate and ozone premature mortality derived from the Levy et
al., 2005 study to PM2.5-related premature mortality derived from the
Six-Cities (Laden et al., 2006) study for the high estimate.
\e\ Annual benefits analysis results reflect the use of a 3 percent and
7 percent discount rate in the valuation of premature mortality and
nonfatal myocardial infarctions, consistent with EPA and OMB
guidelines for preparing economic analyses.
\f\ Valuation of premature mortality based on long-term PM exposure
assumes discounting over the SAB recommended 20-year segmented lag
structure described in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 2006 PM
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (September, 2006).
\g\ Not all possible benefits are quantified and monetized in this
analysis; the total monetized benefits presented here may therefore be
underestimated. Potential benefit categories that have not been
quantified and monetized, due to current limitations in methods and/or
data availability, are listed in Table VIII-2. For example, we have
not quantified a number of known or suspected health and welfare
effects linked with reductions in ozone and PM (e.g., reductions in
heart rate variability, reduced material damage to structures and
cultural monuments, and reduced eutrophication in coastal areas). We
are also unable to quantify health and welfare benefits associated
with reductions in air toxics.
II. Why is EPA making this proposal?
The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish emissions standards
for motor vehicles to address air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA also has
authority to establish fuel controls to address such air pollution.
These statutory requirements are described in Section II.A.
Emissions from motor vehicles and their fuels contribute to ambient
levels of ozone, PM, NO2, sulfur dioxide (SO2)
and CO, which are all pollutants for which EPA has established health-
based NAAQS. These pollutants are linked with respiratory and/or
cardiovascular problems and other adverse health impacts leading to
increased medication use, hospital admissions, emergency department
visits, and premature mortality. Over 158 million people currently live
in areas designated nonattainment for one or more of the current
NAAQS.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population
Exposure Report, current as of December 14, 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor vehicles also emit air toxics, and the majority of Americans
continue to be exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at
levels which have the potential to cause adverse health effects,
including cancer, immune system damage, and neurological, reproductive,
developmental, respiratory, and other
[[Page 29828]]
health problems.\23\ A more detailed discussion of the health and
environmental effects of these pollutants is included in Section II.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National-
Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cars and light trucks also continue to be a significant contributor
to air pollution directly near roads, with gasoline vehicles accounting
for more than 50 percent of near-road concentrations of some criteria
and toxic pollutants.\24\ More than 50 million people live, work, or go
to school in close proximity to high-traffic roadways, and the average
American spends more than one hour traveling each day, with nearly 90
percent of daily trips occurring by personal
vehicle.25 26 27 Exposure to traffic-related pollutants has
been linked with adverse health impacts such as respiratory problems
(particularly in asthmatic children) and cardiovascular problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ For example, see Fujita, E.M; Campbell, D.E.; Zielinska,
B.; Arnott, W.P.; Chow, J.C. (2011) Concentrations of Air Toxics in
Motor Vehicle-Dominated Environments. Health Effects Institute
Research Report 156. Available at http://www.healtheffects.org.
\25\ U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Current Housing Reports, Series
H150/09, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs09/ahs09.html.
\26\ Drago, R.(2011). Secondary activities in the 2006 American
Time Use Survey. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Working Paper 446.
Available at http://www.bls.gov.
\27\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics. (2003) National Household Travel Survey 2001 Highlights
Report. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at
http://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of additional controls such as Tier 3 standards,
many areas will continue to have ambient ozone and PM2.5
concentrations exceeding the NAAQS in the future. States and local
areas are required to adopt control measures to attain the NAAQS and,
once attained, to demonstrate that control measures are in place
sufficient to maintain the NAAQS for ten years (and eight years later,
a similar demonstration is required for another ten-year period). The
proposed Tier 3 standards would be a critical part of areas' strategies
to attain and maintain the standards. Maintaining the standards has
been challenging in the past, particularly for areas where high
population growth rates lead to significant annual increases in vehicle
trips and vehicle miles traveled. Our air quality modeling for this
proposal, which is described in more detail in Section III.C, projects
that in 2017 a significant number of counties outside CA will be within
10 percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, in the absence of additional
controls. These counties in particular would benefit from the proposed
Tier 3 standards as they work to ensure long-term maintenance of the
NAAQS.
Section III provides more detail on how this proposal would reduce
motor vehicle emissions and ambient levels of pollution. The proposed
rule would meaningfully reduce ozone concentrations as early as 2017
(the first year of the program), and even more significantly in 2030.
The reductions are of significant enough magnitude to bring ozone
levels in some counties from above the standard to below the standard,
even without any additional controls. We also project that the Tier 3
standards would reduce ambient PM2.5 concentrations.
Without this proposal to reduce nationwide motor vehicle emissions,
areas would have to adopt other measures to reduce emissions from other
sources under their state or local authority. Few other measures exist
for providing multi-pollutant reductions of the same magnitude and
cost-effectiveness as those expected from the proposed Tier 3
standards. Furthermore, states outside California do not have the
authority to lower the sulfur in gasoline, which is needed to
immediately reduce emissions from the existing fleet and also enable
new vehicles to meet the proposed Tier 3 emissions standards throughout
their useful life.
The reductions in ambient ozone and PM2.5 that would
result from the proposed Tier 3 standards would provide significant
health benefits. By 2030, the standards would annually prevent between
670 and 1,700 PM-related premature deaths, between 160 and 710 ozone-
related premature deaths, 81,000 work days lost, and approximately 1.4
million minor restricted-activity days (see Section VIII for more
details). This proposal would also reduce air toxics; for example, we
project that in 2030, the proposal would decrease ambient benzene
concentrations by 10-25 percent in some urban areas. Furthermore, the
proposed Tier 3 standards would reduce traffic-associated pollution
near major roads. EPA is proposing Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards as
part of a comprehensive nationwide program for regulating all types of
air pollution from motor vehicles. EPA recently finalized standards to
reduce GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles, starting with model year
2017.\28\ The Tier 3 standards in this proposal, which address non-
GHGs, would be implemented on the same timeframe, thus allowing
manufacturers to optimize their vehicle redesigns over both sets of
standards. Furthermore, the Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards are also
closely aligned with California's LEV III program, in such a way that
manufacturers could design a single vehicle for nationwide sales. This
reduces the cost of compliance for auto manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Tier 3 proposal responds to the President's request in his May
2010 memorandum for EPA to review the adequacy of its existing non-GHG
standards for new motor vehicles and fuels, and to promulgate new
standards, if necessary, as part of a comprehensive approach to
regulating motor vehicles.\29\ Based on our review, we have concluded
that improved vehicle technology, combined with lower sulfur gasoline,
make it feasible and cost-effective to reduce emissions well below the
current Tier 2 levels. These emission reductions are necessary to
reduce air pollution that is (and projected to continue to be) at
levels that endanger public health and welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The Presidential Memorandum is found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuel-efficiency-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Basis for Action Under the Clean Air Act
1. Clean Air Act Section 202
We are proposing to set motor vehicle emission standards under the
authority of section 202 of the Clean Air Act. Section 202(a) provides
EPA with general authority to prescribe vehicle standards, subject to
any specific limitations elsewhere in the Act. EPA is also setting
standards for larger light-duty trucks and MDPVs under the general
authority of section 202(a)(1) and under section 202(a)(3), which
requires that standards applicable to emissions of hydrocarbons,
NOX, CO and PM from heavy-duty vehicles \30\ reflect the
greatest degree of emission reduction available for the model year to
which such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost,
energy, and safety. In addition, section 202(k) provides EPA with
authority to issue and revise regulations applicable to evaporative
emissions of hydrocarbons from all gasoline-fueled motor vehicles
during: (1) Operation, and (2) over 2 or more days of nonuse;
[[Page 29829]]
under ozone-prone summertime conditions. Regulations under section
202(k) shall take effect as expeditiously as possible and shall require
the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable by means
reasonably expected to be available for production during any model
year to which the regulations apply, giving appropriate consideration
to fuel volatility, and to cost, energy, and safety factors associated
with the application of the appropriate technology. Further, section
206 and in particular section 206(d) of the Clean Air Act authorizes
EPA to establish methods and procedures for testing whether a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine conforms with section 202 requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ LDTs that have gross vehicle weight ratings above 6000 lbs
are considered ``heavy-duty vehicles'' under the CAA. See section
202(b)(3)(C). For regulatory purposes, we refer to those LDTs at or
below 8500 lbs GVWR as ``heavy light-duty trucks'' made up of LDT3s
and LDT4s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Clean Air Act Section 211
We are proposing to adopt gasoline sulfur controls pursuant to our
authority under section 211(c)(1) of the CAA. This section allows EPA
to establish a fuel control if at least one of the following two
criteria is met: (1) The emission products of the fuel cause or
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare; or (2) the emission products of the
fuel will impair to a significant degree the performance of any
emissions control device or system which is either in general use or
which the Administrator finds has been developed to a point where in a
reasonable time it will be in general use were the fuel control to be
adopted. We are proposing gasoline sulfur controls based on both of
these criteria. Under the first criterion, we believe that gasoline
with current levels of sulfur contributes to ambient levels of air
pollution that endanger public health and welfare, as described in
Section II.B. Under the second criterion, we believe that gasoline
sulfur impairs the emissions control systems of vehicles, as discussed
in Section III.A.2.
B. Overview of Public Health Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Fuels
Motor vehicles emit pollutants that contribute to ambient levels of
ozone, PM, NO2, SO2, CO, and air toxics. Motor
vehicles are significant contributors to emissions of VOC and
NOX, which contribute to the formation of both ozone and
PM2.5. Approximately 159 million people currently live in
counties designated nonattainment for one or more of the NAAQS, and
this figure does not include the people living in areas with a risk of
exceeding the NAAQS in the future.\31\ The majority of Americans
continue to be exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at
levels which have the potential to cause adverse health effects.\32\ In
addition, populations who live, work, or attend school near major roads
experience elevated exposure concentrations to a wide range of air
pollutants.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population
Exposure Report, current as of July 20, 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0135.
\32\ U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National-
Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
\33\ Health Effects Institute Panel on the Health Effects of
Traffic-Related Air Pollution. (2010) Traffic-related air pollution:
a critical review of the literature on emissions, exposure, and
health effects. HEI Special Report 17. Available at http://www.healtheffects.org].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are
expected to reduce ambient pollution levels. As a result of these
programs, the number of areas that continue to violate the ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS or have high levels of air toxics is expected to
continue to decrease. However, the baseline air quality modeling
completed for this proposed rule predicts that without additional
controls there will continue to be a need for reductions in ozone,
PM2.5 and air toxics concentrations in the future. Section
III.C of this preamble presents the air quality modeling results for
this proposed rule.
1. Ozone
a. Background
Ground-level ozone pollution is typically formed through reactions
involving VOC and NOX in the lower atmosphere in the
presence of sunlight. These pollutants, often referred to as ozone
precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources, such as
highway and nonroad motor vehicles and engines, power plants, chemical
plants, refineries, makers of consumer and commercial products,
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources.
The science of ozone formation, transport, and accumulation is
complex. Ground-level ozone is produced and destroyed in a cyclical set
of chemical reactions, many of which are sensitive to temperature and
sunlight. When ambient temperatures and sunlight levels remain high for
several days and the air is relatively stagnant, ozone and its
precursors can build up and result in more ozone than typically occurs
on a single high-temperature day. Ozone and its precursors can be
transported hundreds of miles downwind from precursor emissions,
resulting in elevated ozone levels even in areas with low local VOC or
NOX emissions.
b. Health Effects of Ozone
The health and welfare effects of ozone are well documented and are
assessed in EPA's 2006 Air Quality Criteria Document and 2007 Staff
Paper.34 35 People who are more susceptible to effects
associated with exposure to ozone can include children, the elderly,
and individuals with respiratory disease such as asthma. Those with
greater exposures to ozone, for instance due to time spent outdoors
(e.g., children and outdoor workers), are of particular concern. Ozone
can irritate the respiratory system, causing coughing, throat
irritation, and breathing discomfort. Ozone can reduce lung function
and cause pulmonary inflammation in healthy individuals. Ozone can also
aggravate asthma, leading to more asthma attacks that require medical
attention and/or the use of additional medication. Thus, ambient ozone
may cause both healthy and asthmatic individuals to limit their outdoor
activities. In addition, there is suggestive evidence of a contribution
of ozone to cardiovascular-related morbidity and highly suggestive
evidence that short-term ozone exposure directly or indirectly
contributes to non-accidental and cardiopulmonary-related mortality,
but additional research is needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms
causing these effects. In a report on the estimation of ozone-related
premature mortality published by the National Research Council (NRC), a
panel of experts and reviewers concluded that short-term exposure to
ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths and that
ozone-related mortality should be included in estimates of the health
benefits of reducing ozone exposure.\36\ Animal toxicological evidence
indicates that with repeated exposure, ozone can inflame and damage the
lining of the lungs, which may lead to permanent changes in lung tissue
and irreversible reductions in lung function. The respiratory effects
observed in controlled human exposure studies and animal studies are
coherent with the evidence from epidemiologic studies supporting a
causal relationship between acute ambient ozone exposures
[[Page 29830]]
and increased respiratory-related emergency room visits and
hospitalizations in the warm season. In addition, there is suggestive
evidence of a contribution of ozone to cardiovascular-related morbidity
and non-accidental and cardiopulmonary mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ U.S. EPA. (2006). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and
Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/600/R-05/004aF-cF.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
\35\ U.S. EPA. (2007). Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy Assessment of Scientific and
Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-07-003.
Washington, DC, U.S. EPA.
\36\ National Research Council. (2008). Estimating Mortality
Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air
Pollution. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Current and Projected Ozone Levels
Concentrations that exceed the level of the ozone NAAQS occur in
many parts of the country, including many major population centers. In
addition, our modeling without the proposed Tier 3 controls projects
that in the future we will continue to have many areas that will have
ambient ozone concentrations above the level of the NAAQS (see Section
III.C.1). States will need to meet the standard in the 2015-2032
timeframe. The emission reductions and significant ambient ozone
improvements from this proposed rule, which would take effect starting
in 2017, would be helpful to states as they work to attain and maintain
the ozone NAAQS.
The primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone are 8-hour standards with
a level of 0.075 ppm. The most recent revision to the ozone standards
was in 2008; the previous 8-hour ozone standards, set in 1997, had a
level of 0.08 ppm. In 2004, the U.S. EPA designated nonattainment areas
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.37 38 As of December 14,
2012, there were 41 ozone nonattainment areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
composed of 221 full or partial counties with a total population of
over 118 million. Nonattainment designations for the 2008 ozone
standard were finalized on April 30, 2012 and May 31, 2012.\39\ These
designations include 46 areas, composed of 227 full or partial
counties, with a population of over 123 million. As of December 14,
2012, over 138 million people are living in ozone nonattainment
areas.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004).
\38\ A nonattainment area is defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA)
as an area that is violating an ambient standard or is contributing
to a nearby area that is violating the standard.
\39\ 77FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
\40\ The 138 million total is calculated by summing, without
double counting, the 1997 and 2008 ozone nonattainment populations
contained in the Summary Nonattainment Area Population Exposure
report (http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html). If there
is a population associated with both the 1997 and 2008 nonattainment
areas, and they are not the same, then the larger of the two
populations is included in the sum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States with ozone nonattainment areas are required to take action
to bring those areas into attainment. The attainment date assigned to
an ozone nonattainment area is based on the area's classification. Most
ozone nonattainment areas are required to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the 2007 to 2013 time frame and then to maintain it
thereafter.\41\ The attainment dates for areas designated nonattainment
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are in the 2015 to 2032 timeframe,
depending on the severity of the problem in each area. In addition, EPA
is working to complete the current review of the ozone NAAQS by mid-
2014. If EPA revises the ozone standards in 2014 pursuant to that
review, the attainment dates associated with areas designated
nonattainment for that NAAQS would likely be in the 2019 to 2036
timeframe, depending on the severity of the problem in each area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area are designated as extreme and will have to attain
before June 15, 2024. The Sacramento, Coachella Valley, Western
Mojave and Houston 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are designated
as severe and will have to attain by June 15, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are
expected to reduce ambient ozone levels. As a result of these and other
federal, state and local programs, 8-hour ozone levels are expected to
improve in the future. However, even with the implementation of all
current state and federal regulations, there are projected to be
counties violating the ozone NAAQS well into the future. Thus
additional federal control programs, such as Tier 3, can assist areas
with attainment dates in 2017 and beyond in attaining the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable and may relieve areas with already
stringent local regulations from some of the burden associated with
adopting additional local controls.
2. Particulate Matter
a. Background
Particulate matter is a highly complex mixture of solid particles
and liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which
interact with solid and liquid phases. Particles range in size from
those smaller than 1 nanometer (10-9 meter) to over 100
micrometer ([mu]m, or 10-6 meter) in diameter (for
reference, a typical strand of human hair is 70 [mu]m in diameter and a
grain of salt is about 100 [mu]m). Atmospheric particles can be grouped
into several classes according to their aerodynamic and physical sizes,
including ultrafine particles (<0.1 [mu]m), accumulation mode or `fine'
particles (< 1 to 3 [mu]m), and coarse particles (>1 to 3 [mu]m). For
regulatory purposes, fine particles are measured as PM2.5
and inhalable or thoracic coarse particles are measured as
PM10-2.5, corresponding to their size (diameter) range in
micrometers and referring to total particle mass under 2.5 and between
2.5 and 10 micrometers, respectively. The EPA currently has standards
that measure PM2.5 and PM10.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Regulatory definitions of PM size fractions, and
information on reference and equivalent methods for measuring PM in
ambient air, are provided in 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particles span many sizes and shapes and consist of hundreds of
different chemicals. Particles are emitted directly from sources and
are also formed through atmospheric chemical reactions; the former are
often referred to as ``primary'' particles, and the latter as
``secondary'' particles. Particle pollution also varies by time of year
and location and is affected by several weather-related factors, such
as temperature, clouds, humidity, and wind. A further layer of
complexity comes from particles' ability to shift between solid/liquid
and gaseous phases, which is influenced by concentration and
meteorology, especially temperature.
Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and
by transformations of gaseous emissions (e.g., sulfur oxides
(SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and volatile
organic compounds (VOC)) in the atmosphere. The chemical and physical
properties of PM2.5 may vary greatly with time, region,
meteorology, and source category. Thus, PM2.5 may include a
complex mixture of different components including sulfates, nitrates,
organic compounds, elemental carbon and metal compounds. These
particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel
hundreds to thousands of kilometers.
b. Health Effects of PM
Scientific studies show ambient PM is associated with a series of
adverse health effects. These health effects are discussed in detail in
EPA's Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter.\43\
Further discussion of health effects associated with PM can also be
found in the draft RIA. The ISA summarizes health effects evidence
associated with both short-term and long-term exposures to
PM2.5, PM10-2.5, and ultrafine particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ISA concludes that health effects associated with short-term
exposures (hours to days) to ambient PM2.5 include
mortality, cardiovascular effects, such as
[[Page 29831]]
altered vasomotor function and myocardial ischemia, and hospital
admissions and emergency department visits for ischemic heart disease
and congestive heart failure, and respiratory effects, such as
exacerbation of asthma symptoms in children and hospital admissions and
emergency department visits for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
and respiratory infections.\44\ The ISA notes that long-term exposure
(months to years) to PM2.5 is associated with the
development/progression of cardiovascular disease, premature mortality,
and respiratory effects, including reduced lung function growth in
children, increased respiratory symptoms, and asthma development.\45\
The ISA concludes that the currently available scientific evidence from
epidemiologic, controlled human exposure, and toxicological studies
supports a causal association between short- and long-term exposures to
PM2.5 and cardiovascular effects and premature mortality.
Furthermore, the ISA concludes that the collective evidence supports
likely causal associations between short- and long-term
PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects. The ISA also
concludes that the scientific evidence is suggestive of a causal
association for reproductive and developmental effects including
respiratory-related infant mortality, and cancer, mutagenicity, and
genotoxicity and long-term exposure to PM2.5.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F. Section 2.3.1.1.
\45\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F. page 2-12, Sections
7.3.1.1 and 7.3.2.1.
\46\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F. Section 2.3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For PM10-2.5, the ISA concludes that the current
evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term
exposures and premature mortality, cardiovascular effects, and
respiratory effects. Data are inadequate to draw conclusions regarding
the health effects associated with long-term exposure to
PM10-2.5.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F. Section 2.3.4 and Table
2-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For ultrafine particles, the ISA concludes that there is suggestive
evidence of a causal relationship between short-term exposures and
cardiovascular effects, such as changes in heart rhythm and blood
vessel function. It also concludes that there is suggestive evidence of
association between short-term exposure to ultrafine particles and
respiratory effects. Data are inadequate to draw conclusions regarding
the health effects associated with long-term exposure to ultrafine
particles.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F. Section 2.3.5 and Table
2-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Current and Projected PM2.5 Levels
There are many areas of the country that are currently in
nonattainment for the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Our
modeling without the proposed Tier 3 controls projects that in the
future we will continue to have many areas that will have ambient
PM2.5 concentrations above the level of the NAAQS (see
Section III.C.2). States will need to meet the 24-hour standard in the
2015-2019 timeframe and the annual standard in the 2021-2025 timeframe.
The emission reductions and improvements in ambient PM2.5
from this proposed rule, which would take effect starting in 2017,
would be helpful to states as they work to attain and maintain the
PM2.5 NAAQS.
There are two NAAQS for PM2.5: an annual standard (12
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)) and a 24-hour standard (35
[mu]g/m\3\). The most recent revisions to these standards were in 1997,
2006 and in December 2012. The December 2012 rule revised the level of
the annual PM2.5 standard from 15 [mu]g/m\3\ to 12 [mu]g/
m\3\.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ U.S. EPA (2012). National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter. http://www.epa.gov/PM/2012/finalrule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005 EPA designated nonattainment areas for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.\50\ As of December 14, 2012, over 91 million
people lived in the 35 areas that are designated as nonattainment for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. These PM2.5 nonattainment
areas are comprised of 191 full or partial counties. On October 8,
2009, the EPA issued final nonattainment area designations for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\51\ These designations include 32 areas
composed of 121 full or partial counties with a population of over 70
million. In total, there are 50 PM2.5 nonattainment areas
with a population of over 105 million people.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 70 FR 19844 (April 14, 2005).
\51\ 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).
\52\ Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population
Exposure Report, current as of December 14, 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States with PM2.5 nonattainment areas will be required
to take action to bring those areas into attainment in the future. Most
1997 PM2.5 nonattainment areas are required to attain the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2010 to 2015 time frame and then
required to maintain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS thereafter.\53\
The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment areas will be required
to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2014 to 2019
time frame and then be required to maintain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS thereafter.\54\ The 2012 PM2.5
nonattainment areas will likely be required to attain the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2020 to 2025 time frame, depending on the
severity of an area's fine particle pollution problems and the
availability of pollution controls. The standards proposed here begin
taking effect in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ U.S. EPA. (2007). PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard Implementation Rule (Final). Washington, DC: U.S.
EPA. 72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007.
\54\ U.S. EPA. (2011). PM Standards Revision--2006: Timeline.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/PM/naaqsrev2006.html#timeline.
Accessed December 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has already adopted many mobile source emission control
programs that are expected to reduce ambient PM levels. As a result of
these and other federal, state and local programs, the number of areas
that fail to meet the PM2.5 NAAQS in the future is expected
to decrease. However, even with the implementation of all current state
and federal regulations, there are projected to be counties violating
the PM2.5 NAAQS well into the future. Thus additional
federal control programs, such as Tier 3, can assist areas with
attainment dates in 2017 and beyond in attaining the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable and may relieve areas with already
stringent local regulations from some of the burden associated with
adopting additional local controls.
3. Nitrogen Oxides and Sulfur Oxides
a. Background
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a member of the NOX
family of gases. Most NO2 is formed in the air through the
oxidation of nitric oxide (NO) emitted when fuel is burned at a high
temperature. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), a member of the sulfur
oxide (SOX) family of gases, is formed from burning fuels
containing sulfur (e.g., coal or oil derived), extracting gasoline from
oil, or extracting metals from ore.
SO2 and NO2 and their gas phase oxidation
products can dissolve in water droplets and further oxidize to form
sulfuric and nitric acid which react with ammonia to form sulfates and
[[Page 29832]]
nitrates, both of which are important components of ambient PM. The
health effects of ambient PM are discussed in Section II.B.2.b of this
preamble. NOX and VOC are the two major precursors of ozone.
The health effects of ozone are covered in Section II.B.2.1.b.
b. Health Effects of NO2
Information on the health effects of NO2 can be found in
the EPA Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Nitrogen Oxides.\55\
The EPA has concluded that the findings of epidemiologic, controlled
human exposure, and animal toxicological studies provide evidence that
is sufficient to infer a likely causal relationship between respiratory
effects and short-term NO2 exposure. The ISA concludes that
the strongest evidence for such a relationship comes from epidemiologic
studies of respiratory effects including symptoms, emergency department
visits, and hospital admissions. Based on both short- and long-term
studies, the ISA concludes that associations of NO2 with
respiratory health effects are stronger among a number of groups; these
include individuals with preexisting pulmonary conditions (e.g., asthma
or COPD), children and older adults. The ISA also draws two broad
conclusions regarding airway responsiveness following NO2
exposure. First, the ISA concludes that NO2 exposure may
enhance the sensitivity to allergen-induced decrements in lung function
and increase the allergen-induced airway inflammatory response
following 30-minute exposures of asthmatics to NO2
concentrations as low as 0.26 ppm. Second, exposure to NO2
has been found to enhance the inherent responsiveness of the airway to
subsequent nonspecific challenges in controlled human exposure studies
of asthmatic subjects. Small but significant increases in non-specific
airway hyperresponsiveness were reported following 1-hour exposures of
asthmatics to 0.1 ppm NO2. Enhanced airway responsiveness
could have important clinical implications for asthmatics since
transient increases in airway responsiveness following NO2
exposure have the potential to increase symptoms and worsen asthma
control. Together, the epidemiologic and experimental data sets form a
plausible, consistent, and coherent description of a relationship
between NO2 exposures and an array of adverse health effects
that range from the onset of respiratory symptoms to hospital
admission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ U.S. EPA (2008). Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides
of Nitrogen--Health Criteria (Final Report). EPA/600/R-08/071.
Washington, DC: U.S.EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the weight of evidence supporting a causal relationship is
somewhat less certain than that associated with respiratory morbidity,
NO2 has also been linked to other health endpoints. These
include all-cause (nonaccidental) mortality, hospital admissions or
emergency department visits for cardiovascular disease, and decrements
in lung function growth associated with chronic exposure.
c. Health Effects of SO2
Information on the health effects of SO2 can be found in
the EPA Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides.\56\
SO2 has long been known to cause adverse respiratory health
effects, particularly among individuals with asthma. Other potentially
sensitive groups include children and the elderly. During periods of
elevated ventilation, asthmatics may experience symptomatic
bronchoconstriction within minutes of exposure. Following an extensive
evaluation of health evidence from epidemiologic and laboratory
studies, the EPA has concluded that there is a causal relationship
between respiratory health effects and short-term exposure to
SO2. Separately, based on an evaluation of the epidemiologic
evidence of associations between short-term exposure to SO2
and mortality, the EPA has concluded that the overall evidence is
suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term exposure to
SO2 and mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ U.S. EPA. (2008). Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Sulfur Oxides--Health Criteria (Final Report). EPA/600/R-08/047F.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Current Levels of NO2
Between 2003 and 2005, national mean concentrations of
NO2 were about 15 parts per billion (ppb) for averaging
periods ranging from a day to a year.\57\ There are two NAAQS for
NO2: an annual standard (53 ppb) and a 1-hour standard (100
ppb). The primary NAAQS for NO2 was revised in January 2010.
EPA completed area designations in January 2012 and there are currently
no nonattainment areas. The designations were based on the existing
community-wide monitoring network. Once the expanded network of
NO2 monitors is fully deployed and three years of air
quality data have been collected, EPA intends to redesignate areas, as
appropriate, based on the air quality data from the new monitoring
network.58 59
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ U.S. EPA. (2010). Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
for the NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/FinalNO2RIAfulldocument.pdf.
\58\ U.S. EPA. (2012). Fact Sheet--Air Quality Designations for
the 2010 Primary Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) National Ambient
Air Quality Standards. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/designations/pdfs/20120120FS.pdf.
\59\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Revision to
Ambient Nitrogen Dioxide Monitoring Requirements. March 7, 2013.
http://www.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/pdfs/20130307fr.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas emitted from
combustion processes. Nationally and, particularly in urban areas, the
majority of CO emissions to ambient air come from mobile sources.
a. Health Effects of Carbon Monoxide
Information on the health effects of CO can be found in the EPA
Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Carbon Monoxide.\60\ The ISA
concludes that ambient concentrations of CO are associated with a
number of adverse health effects.\61\ This section provides a summary
of the health effects associated with exposure to ambient
concentrations of CO.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ U.S. EPA, (2010). Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon
Monoxide (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/019F, 2010. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686.
\61\ The ISA evaluates the health evidence associated with
different health effects, assigning one of five ``weight of
evidence'' determinations: causal relationship, likely to be a
causal relationship, suggestive of a causal relationship, inadequate
to infer a causal relationship, and not likely to be a causal
relationship. For definitions of these levels of evidence, please
refer to Section 1.6 of the ISA.
\62\ Personal exposure includes contributions from many sources,
and in many different environments. Total personal exposure to CO
includes both ambient and nonambient components; and both components
may contribute to adverse health effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human clinical studies of subjects with coronary artery disease
show a decrease in the time to onset of exercise-induced angina (chest
pain) and electrocardiogram changes following CO exposure. In addition,
epidemiologic studies show associations between short-term CO exposure
and cardiovascular morbidity, particularly increased emergency room
visits and hospital admissions for coronary heart disease (including
ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and angina). Some
epidemiologic evidence is also available for increased hospital
admissions and emergency room visits for congestive heart failure and
cardiovascular disease as a whole. The ISA concludes that a causal
relationship is likely to exist between short-term exposures to CO and
cardiovascular
[[Page 29833]]
morbidity. It also concludes that available data are inadequate to
conclude that a causal relationship exists between long-term exposures
to CO and cardiovascular morbidity.
Animal studies show various neurological effects with in-utero CO
exposure. Controlled human exposure studies report inconsistent neural
and behavioral effects following low-level CO exposures. The ISA
concludes the evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship with both
short- and long-term exposure to CO and central nervous system effects.
A number of epidemiologic and animal toxicological studies cited in
the ISA have evaluated associations between CO exposure and birth
outcomes such as preterm birth or cardiac birth defects. The
epidemiologic studies provide limited evidence of a CO-induced effect
on preterm births and birth defects, with weak evidence for a decrease
in birth weight. Animal toxicological studies have found associations
between perinatal CO exposure and decrements in birth weight, as well
as other developmental outcomes. The ISA concludes these studies are
suggestive of a causal relationship between long-term exposures to CO
and developmental effects and birth outcomes.
Epidemiologic studies provide evidence of effects on respiratory
morbidity such as changes in pulmonary function, respiratory symptoms,
and hospital admissions associated with ambient CO concentrations. A
limited number of epidemiologic studies considered copollutants such as
ozone, SO2, and PM in two-pollutant models and found that CO
risk estimates were generally robust, although this limited evidence
makes it difficult to disentangle effects attributed to CO itself from
those of the larger complex air pollution mixture. Controlled human
exposure studies have not extensively evaluated the effect of CO on
respiratory morbidity. Animal studies at levels of 50-100 ppm CO show
preliminary evidence of altered pulmonary vascular remodeling and
oxidative injury. The ISA concludes that the evidence is suggestive of
a causal relationship between short-term CO exposure and respiratory
morbidity, and inadequate to conclude that a causal relationship exists
between long-term exposure and respiratory morbidity.
Finally, the ISA concludes that the epidemiologic evidence is
suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term exposures to CO
and mortality. Epidemiologic studies provide evidence of an association
between short-term exposure to CO and mortality, but limited evidence
is available to evaluate cause-specific mortality outcomes associated
with CO exposure. In addition, the attenuation of CO risk estimates
which was often observed in copollutant models contributes to the
uncertainty as to whether CO is acting alone or as an indicator for
other combustion-related pollutants. The ISA also concludes that there
is not likely to be a causal relationship between relevant long-term
exposures to CO and mortality.
5. Mobile Source Air Toxics
Light-duty vehicle emissions contribute to ambient levels of air
toxics known or suspected as human or animal carcinogens, or that have
noncancer health effects. The population experiences an elevated risk
of cancer and other noncancer health effects from exposure to the class
of pollutants known collectively as ``air toxics.'' \63\ These
compounds include, but are not limited to, benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter, and
naphthalene. These compounds were identified as national or regional
risk drivers or contributors in the 2005 National-scale Air Toxics
Assessment and have significant inventory contributions from mobile
sources.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National-
Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
\64\ U.S. EPA (2011) 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Health Effects of Air Toxics
i. Benzene
The EPA's IRIS database lists benzene as a known human carcinogen
(causing leukemia) by all routes of exposure, and concludes that
exposure is associated with additional health effects, including
genetic changes in both humans and animals and increased proliferation
of bone marrow cells in mice.65 66 67 EPA states in its IRIS
database that data indicate a causal relationship between benzene
exposure and acute lymphocytic leukemia and suggest a relationship
between benzene exposure and chronic non-lymphocytic leukemia and
chronic lymphocytic leukemia. EPA's IRIS documentation for benzene also
lists a range of 2.2 x 10-6 to 7.8 x 10-6 as the
unit risk estimate (URE) for benzene.68 69 The International
Agency for Research on Carcinogens (IARC) has determined that benzene
is a human carcinogen and the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) has characterized benzene as a known human
carcinogen.70 71
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ U.S. EPA. (2000). Integrated Risk Information System File
for Benzene. This material is available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm.
\66\ International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC
monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to
humans, Volume 29, Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs,
International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health
Organization, Lyon, France 1982.
\67\ Irons, R.D.; Stillman, W.S.; Colagiovanni, D.B.; Henry,
V.A. (1992). Synergistic action of the benzene metabolite
hydroquinone on myelopoietic stimulating activity of granulocyte/
macrophage colony-stimulating factor in vitro, Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. 89:3691-3695.
\68\ A unit risk estimate is defined as the increase in the
lifetime risk of an individual who is exposed for a lifetime to 1
[micro]g/m3 benzene in air.
\69\ U.S. EPA. (2000). Integrated Risk Information System File
for Benzene. This material is available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm.
\70\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (1987).
Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to
humans, Volume 29, Supplement 7, Some industrial chemicals and
dyestuffs, World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
\71\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National
Toxicology Program. (2011). 12th Report on Carcinogens. Available
at: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=03C9AF75-E1BF-FF40-DBA9EC0928DF8B15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of adverse noncancer health effects including blood
disorders, such as preleukemia and aplastic anemia, have also been
associated with long-term exposure to benzene.72 73 The most
sensitive noncancer effect observed in humans, based on current data,
is the depression of the absolute lymphocyte count in
blood.74 75 EPA's inhalation reference concentration (RfC)
for benzene is 30 [micro]g/m\3\. The RfC is based on suppressed
absolute lymphocyte counts seen in humans under occupational exposure
conditions. In addition, recent work, including studies sponsored by
the Health Effects Institute (HEI), provides evidence that biochemical
responses are occurring at lower levels of benzene exposure than
previously known.76 77 78 79 EPA's IRIS program has
[[Page 29834]]
not yet evaluated these new data. EPA does not currently have an acute
reference concentration for benzene. The Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimal Risk Level (MRL) for acute
exposure to benzene is 29 [micro]g/m\3\ for 1-14 days
exposure.80 81
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and carcinogenicity of
benzene. Environ. Health Perspect. 82: 193-197.
\73\ Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity. Occupational
medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3: 541-554.
\74\ Rothman, N., G.L. Li, M. Dosemeci, W.E. Bechtold, G.E.
Marti, Y.Z. Wang, M. Linet, L.Q. Xi, W. Lu, M.T. Smith, N. Titenko-
Holland, L.P. Zhang, W. Blot, S.N. Yin, and R.B. Hayes. (1996).
Hematotoxicity among Chinese workers heavily exposed to benzene. Am.
J. Ind. Med. 29: 236-246.
\75\ U.S. EPA. (2002). Toxicological Review of Benzene
(Noncancer Effects). Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington DC. This material is
available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm.
\76\ Qu, O.; Shore, R.; Li, G.; Jin, X.; Chen, C.L.; Cohen, B.;
Melikian, A.; Eastmond, D.; Rappaport, S.; Li, H.; Rupa, D.;
Suramaya, R.; Songnian, W.; Huifant, Y.; Meng, M.; Winnik, M.; Kwok,
E.; Li, Y.; Mu, R.; Xu, B.; Zhang, X.; Li, K. (2003). HEI Report
115, Validation & Evaluation of Biomarkers in Workers Exposed to
Benzene in China.
\77\ Qu, Q., R. Shore, G. Li, X. Jin, L.C. Chen, B. Cohen, et
al. (2002). Hematological changes among Chinese workers with a broad
range of benzene exposures. Am. J. Industr. Med. 42: 275-285.
\78\ Lan, Qing, Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et al. (2004).
Hematotoxically in Workers Exposed to Low Levels of Benzene. Science
306: 1774-1776.
\79\ Turtletaub, K.W. and Mani, C. (2003). Benzene metabolism in
rodents at doses relevant to human exposure from Urban Air. Research
Reports Health Effect Inst. Report No.113.
\80\ U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR). (2007). Toxicological profile for benzene. Atlanta, GA:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp3.pdf.
\81\ A minimal risk level (MRL) is defined as an estimate of the
daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be
without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects over a
specified duration of exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Formaldehyde
In 1991, EPA concluded that formaldehyde is a carcinogen based on
nasal tumors in animal bioassays.\82\ An Inhalation Unit Risk for
cancer and a Reference Dose for oral noncancer effects were developed
by the Agency and posted on the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) database. Since that time, the National Toxicology Program (NTP)
and International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have concluded
that formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen.83 84 85
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ EPA. Integrated Risk Information System. Formaldehyde
(CASRN 50-00-0) http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0419/htm.
\83\ National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), 12th Report on Carcinogens, June 10, 2011.
\84\ IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to
Humans Volume 88 (2006): Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert-
Butoxypropan-2-ol.
\85\ IARC Mongraphs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to
Humans Volume 100F (2012): Formaldehyde.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conclusions by IARC and NTP reflect the results of
epidemiologic research published since 1991 in combination with
previous animal, human and mechanistic evidence. Research conducted by
the National Cancer Institute reported an increased risk of
nasopharyngeal cancer and specific lymphohematopoietic malignancies
among workers exposed to formaldehyde.86 87 88 A National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health study of garment workers
also reported increased risk of death due to leukemia among workers
exposed to formaldehyde.\89\ Extended follow-up of a cohort of British
chemical workers did not report evidence of an increase in
nasopharyngeal or lymphohematopoietic cancers, but a continuing
statistically significant excess in lung cancers was reported.\90\
Finally, a study of embalmers reported formaldehyde exposures to be
associated with an increased risk of myeloid leukemia but not brain
cancer.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J.H.; Stewart, P.A.; Hayes, R.B.;
Blair, A. 2003. Mortality from lymphohematopoetic malignancies among
workers in formaldehyde industries. Journal of the National Cancer
Institute 95: 1615-1623.
\87\ Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J.H.; Stewart, P.A.; Hayes, R.B.;
Blair, A. 2004. Mortality from solid cancers among workers in
formaldehyde industries. American Journal of Epidemiology 159: 1117-
1130.
\88\ Beane Freeman, L.E.; Blair, A.; Lubin, J.H.; Stewart, P.A.;
Hayes, R.B.; Hoover, R.N.; Hauptmann, M. 2009. Mortality from
lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers in formaldehyde
industries: The National Cancer Institute cohort. J. National Cancer
Inst. 101: 751-761.
\89\ Pinkerton, L.E. 2004. Mortality among a cohort of garment
workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update. Occup. Environ. Med. 61:
193-200.
\90\ Coggon, D, EC Harris, J Poole, KT Palmer. 2003. Extended
follow-up of a cohort of British chemical workers exposed to
formaldehyde. J National Cancer Inst. 95:1608-1615.
\91\ Hauptmann, M.; Stewart P.A.; Lubin J.H.; Beane Freeman,
L.E.; Hornung, R.W.; Herrick, R.F.; Hoover, R.N.; Fraumeni, J.F.;
Hayes, R.B. 2009. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies
and brain cancer among embalmers exposed to formaldehyde. Journal of
the National Cancer Institute 101:1696-1708.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health effects of formaldehyde in addition to cancer were reviewed
by the Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry in 1999 \92\
and supplemented in 2010,\93\ and by the World Health Organization.\94\
These organizations reviewed the literature concerning effects on the
eyes and respiratory system, the primary point of contact for inhaled
formaldehyde, including sensory irritation of eyes and respiratory
tract, pulmonary function, nasal histopathology, and immune system
effects. In addition, research on reproductive and developmental
effects and neurological effects were discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ ATSDR. 1999. Toxicological Profile for Formaldehyde, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), July 1999.
\93\ ATSDR. 2010. Addendum to the Toxicological Profile for
Formaldehyde. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
October 2010.
\94\ IPCS. 2002. Concise International Chemical Assessment
Document 40. Formaldehyde. World Health Organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA released a draft Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde--
Inhalation Assessment through the IRIS program for peer review by the
National Research Council (NRC) and public comment in June 2010.\95\
The draft assessment reviewed more recent research from animal and
human studies on cancer and other health effects. The NRC released
their review report in April 2011.\96\ The EPA is currently revising
the draft assessment in response to this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010.
Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde (CAS No. 50-00-0)--Inhalation
Assessment: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). External Review Draft. EPA/635/R-10/002A.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC [online].
Available: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/irs_drats/recordisplay.cfm?deid=223614.
\96\ NRC (National Research Council). 2011. Review of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Draft IRIS Assessment of
Formaldehyde. Washington DC: National Academies Press. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde is classified in EPA's IRIS database as a probable
human carcinogen, based on nasal tumors in rats, and is considered
toxic by the inhalation, oral, and intravenous routes.\97\ The URE in
IRIS for acetaldehyde is 2.2 x 10-6 per [micro]g/m\3\.\98\
Acetaldehyde is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen by the
U.S. DHHS in the 12th Report on Carcinogens and is classified as
possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) by the
IARC.99 100 EPA is currently conducting a reassessment of
cancer risk from inhalation exposure to acetaldehyde.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File of
Acetaldehyde. Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available
electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm.
\98\ U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File of
Acetaldehyde. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm.
\99\ NTP. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition.
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 499
pp.
\100\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
(1999). Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals, hydrazine, and
hydrogen peroxide. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic
Risk of Chemical to Humans, Vol 71. Lyon, France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary noncancer effects of exposure to acetaldehyde vapors
include irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract.\101\ In
short-term (4 week) rat studies, degeneration of olfactory epithelium
was observed at various concentration levels of acetaldehyde
exposure.102 103 Data from
[[Page 29835]]
these studies were used by EPA to develop an inhalation reference
concentration of 9 [micro]g/m\3\. Some asthmatics have been shown to be
a sensitive subpopulation to decrements in functional expiratory volume
(FEV1 test) and bronchoconstriction upon acetaldehyde inhalation.\104\
The agency is currently conducting a reassessment of the health hazards
from inhalation exposure to acetaldehyde.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File
of Acetaldehyde. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm.
\102\ U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File
of Acrolein. Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available
electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm.
\103\ Appleman, L.M., R.A. Woutersen, and V.J. Feron. (1982).
Inhalation toxicity of acetaldehyde in rats. I. Acute and subacute
studies. Toxicology. 23: 293-297.
\104\ Myou, S.; Fujimura, M.; Nishi K.; Ohka, T.; and Matsuda,
T. (1993) Aerosolized acetaldehyde induces histamine-mediated
bronchoconstriction in asthmatics. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 148(4 Pt
1): 940-943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Acrolein
EPA most recently evaluated the toxicological and health effects
literature related to acrolein in 2003 and concluded that the human
carcinogenic potential of acrolein could not be determined because the
available data were inadequate. No information was available on the
carcinogenic effects of acrolein in humans and the animal data provided
inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity.\105\ The IARC determined in
1995 that acrolein was not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in
humans.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File
of Acrolein. Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available
at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm.
\106\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
(1995). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of
chemicals to humans, Volume 63. Dry cleaning, some chlorinated
solvents and other industrial chemicals, World Health Organization,
Lyon, France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lesions to the lungs and upper respiratory tract of rats, rabbits,
and hamsters have been observed after subchronic exposure to
acrolein.\107\ The Agency has developed an RfC for acrolein of 0.02
[micro]g/m\3\ and an RfD of 0.5 [micro]g/kg-day.\108\ EPA is
considering updating the acrolein assessment with data that have become
available since the 2003 assessment was completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File
of Acrolein. Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available
at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm.
\108\ U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File
of Acrolein. Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available
at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrolein is extremely acrid and irritating to humans when inhaled,
with acute exposure resulting in upper respiratory tract irritation,
mucus hypersecretion and congestion. The intense irritancy of this
carbonyl has been demonstrated during controlled tests in human
subjects, who suffer intolerable eye and nasal mucosal sensory
reactions within minutes of exposure.\109\ These data and additional
studies regarding acute effects of human exposure to acrolein are
summarized in EPA's 2003 IRIS Human Health Assessment for
acrolein.\110\ Studies in humans indicate that levels as low as 0.09
ppm (0.21 mg/m\3\) for five minutes may elicit subjective complaints of
eye irritation with increasing concentrations leading to more extensive
eye, nose and respiratory symptoms. Acute exposures in animal studies
report bronchial hyper-responsiveness. Based on animal data (more
pronounced respiratory irritancy in mice with allergic airway disease
in comparison to non-diseased mice \111\) and demonstration of similar
effects in humans (e.g., reduction in respiratory rate), individuals
with compromised respiratory function (e.g., emphysema, asthma) are
expected to be at increased risk of developing adverse responses to
strong respiratory irritants such as acrolein. EPA does not currently
have an acute reference concentration for acrolein. The available
health effect reference values for acrolein have been summarized by EPA
and include an ATSDR MRL for acute exposure to acrolein of 7 [micro]g/
m\3\ for 1-14 days exposure; and Reference Exposure Level (REL) values
from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) for one-hour and 8-hour exposures of 2.5 [micro]g/m\3\ and 0.7
[micro]g/m\3\, respectively.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ U.S. EPA. (2003) Toxicological review of acrolein in
support of summary information on Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
EPA/635/R-03/003. p. 10. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf.
\110\ U.S. EPA. (2003) Toxicological review of acrolein in
support of summary information on Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
EPA/635/R-03/003. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf.
\111\ Morris JB, Symanowicz PT, Olsen JE, et al. (2003).
Immediate sensory nerve-mediated respiratory responses to irritants
in healthy and allergic airway-diseased mice. J Appl Physiol
94(4):1563-1571.
\112\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific
Health Effect Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final
Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/
600/R-09/061, 2009. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. 1,3-Butadiene
EPA has characterized 1,3-butadiene as carcinogenic to humans by
inhalation.113 114 The IARC has determined that 1,3-
butadiene is a human carcinogen and the U.S. DHHS has characterized
1,3-butadiene as a known human carcinogen.115 116 117 There
are numerous studies consistently demonstrating that 1,3-butadiene is
metabolized into genotoxic metabolites by experimental animals and
humans. The specific mechanisms of 1,3-butadiene-induced carcinogenesis
are unknown; however, the scientific evidence strongly suggests that
the carcinogenic effects are mediated by genotoxic metabolites. Animal
data suggest that females may be more sensitive than males for cancer
effects associated with 1,3-butadiene exposure; there are insufficient
data in humans from which to draw conclusions about sensitive
subpopulations. The URE for 1,3-butadiene is 3 x 10-5 per
[micro]g/m\3\.\118\ 1,3-butadiene also causes a variety of reproductive
and developmental effects in mice; no human data on these effects are
available. The most sensitive effect was ovarian atrophy observed in a
lifetime bioassay of female mice.\119\ Based on this critical effect
and the benchmark concentration methodology,
[[Page 29836]]
an RfC for chronic health effects was calculated at 0.9 ppb
(approximately 2 [micro]g/m\3\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ U.S. EPA. (2002). Health Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene.
Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington Office, Washington, DC. Report
No. EPA600-P-98-001F. This document is available electronically at
http://www.epa.gov/iris/supdocs/buta-sup.pdf.
\114\ U.S. EPA. (2002). ``Full IRIS Summary for 1,3-butadiene
(CASRN 106-99-0)'' Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm.
\115\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
(1999). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of
chemicals to humans, Volume 71, Re-evaluation of some organic
chemicals, hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide and Volume 97 (in
preparation), World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
\116\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
(2008). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of
chemicals to humans, 1,3-Butadiene, Ethylene Oxide and Vinyl Halides
(Vinyl Fluoride, Vinyl Chloride and Vinyl Bromide) Volume 97, World
Health Organization, Lyon, France.
\117\ NTP. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition.
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 499
pp.
\118\ U.S. EPA. (2002). ``Full IRIS Summary for 1,3-butadiene
(CASRN 106-99-0)'' Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm.
\119\ Bevan, C.; Stadler, J.C.; Elliot, G.S.; et al. (1996).
Subchronic toxicity of 4-vinylcyclohexene in rats and mice by
inhalation. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 32:1-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vi. Ethanol
EPA is planning to develop an assessment of the health effects of
exposure to ethanol, a compound which is not currently listed on EPA's
IRIS database. Extensive health effects data are available for
ingestion of ethanol, while data on inhalation exposure effects are
sparse. In developing the assessment, EPA is evaluating pharmacokinetic
models as a means of extrapolating across species (animal to human) and
across exposure routes (oral to inhalation) to better characterize the
health hazards and dose-response relationships for low levels of
ethanol exposure in the environment.
vii. Polycyclic Organic Matter
The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of
compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds
(PAHs). One of these compounds, naphthalene, is discussed separately
below. POM compounds are formed primarily from combustion and are
present in the atmosphere in gas and particulate form. Cancer is the
major concern from exposure to POM. Epidemiologic studies have reported
an increase in lung cancer in humans exposed to diesel exhaust, coke
oven emissions, roofing tar emissions, and cigarette smoke; all of
these mixtures contain POM compounds.120 121 Animal studies
have reported respiratory tract tumors from inhalation exposure to
benzo[a]pyrene and alimentary tract and liver tumors from oral exposure
to benzo[a]pyrene.\122\ In 1997 EPA classified seven PAHs
(benzo[a]pyrene, benz[a]anthracene, chrysene, benzo[b]fluoranthene,
benzo[k]fluoranthene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and indeno[1,2,3-
cd]pyrene) as Group B2, probable human carcinogens.\123\ Since that
time, studies have found that maternal exposures to PAHs in a
population of pregnant women were associated with several adverse birth
outcomes, including low birth weight and reduced length at birth, as
well as impaired cognitive development in preschool children (3 years
of age).124 125 These and similar studies are being
evaluated as a part of the ongoing IRIS assessment of health effects
associated with exposure to benzo[a]pyrene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
(1995). Toxicological profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PAHs). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service. Available electronically at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/TP.asp?id=122&tid=25.
\121\ U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document for Diesel
Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of Research and
Development, Washington DC. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060.
\122\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
(2012). Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of
Chemicals for Humans, Chemical Agents and Related Occupations. Vol.
100F. Lyon, France.
\123\ U.S. EPA (1997). Integrated Risk Information System File
of indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is
available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0457.htm.
\124\ Perera, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Tsai, W-Y.; et al. (2002). Effect
of transplacental exposure to environmental pollutants on birth
outcomes in a multiethnic population. Environ Health Perspect. 111:
201-205.
\125\ Perera, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Whyatt, R.M.; Tsai, W.Y.; Tang,
D.; Diaz, D.; Hoepner, L.; Barr, D.; Tu, Y.H.; Camann, D.; Kinney,
P. (2006). Effect of prenatal exposure to airborne polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons on neurodevelopment in the first 3 years of
life among inner-city children. Environ Health Perspect 114: 1287-
1292.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
viii. PAN
PAN (peroxy acetyl nitrate) has not been evaluated by EPA's IRIS
program. Information regarding the potential carcinogenicity of PAN is
limited. As noted in the EPA air quality criteria document for ozone
and related photochemical oxidants, cytogenetic studies indicate that
PAN is not a potent mutagen, clastogen (a compound that can cause
breaks in chromosomes), or DNA-damaging agent in mammalian cells either
in vivo or in vitro. Some studies suggest that PAN may be a weak
bacterial mutagen at concentrations much higher than exist in present
urban atmospheres.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ U.S. EPA. (2006). Air quality criteria for ozone and
related photochemical oxidants (Ozone CD). Research Triangle Park,
NC: National Center for Environmental Assessment; report no. EPA/
600/R-05/004aF-cF.3v. page 5-78. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects of ground-level smog causing intense eye irritation have
been attributed to photochemical oxidants, including PAN.\127\ Animal
toxicological information on the inhalation effects of the non-ozone
oxidants has been limited to a few studies on PAN. Acute exposure to
levels of PAN can cause changes in lung morphology, behavioral
modifications, weight loss, and susceptibility to pulmonary infections.
Human exposure studies indicate minor pulmonary function effects at
high PAN concentrations, but large inter-individual variability
precludes definitive conclusions.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ U.S. EPA (2005). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and
Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA 600/R-05/004aF-cF, 2006. page
5-63. This document is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161.
This document may be accessed electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html.
\128\ U.S. EPA (2005). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and
Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA 600/R-05/004aF-cF, 2006. page
5-78. This document is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161.
This document may be accessed electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ix. Naphthalene
Naphthalene is found in small quantities in gasoline and diesel
fuels. Naphthalene emissions have been measured in larger quantities in
both gasoline and diesel exhaust compared with evaporative emissions
from mobile sources, indicating it is primarily a product of
combustion. Acute (short-term) exposure of humans to naphthalene by
inhalation, ingestion, or dermal contact is associated with hemolytic
anemia and damage to the liver and the nervous system.\129\ Chronic
(long term) exposure of workers and rodents to naphthalene has been
reported to cause cataracts and retinal damage.\130\ EPA released an
external review draft of a reassessment of the inhalation
carcinogenicity of naphthalene based on a number of recent animal
carcinogenicity studies.\131\ The draft reassessment completed external
peer review.\132\ Based on external peer review comments received, a
revised draft assessment that considers all routes of exposure, as well
as cancer and noncancer effects, is under development. The external
review draft does not represent official agency opinion and was
released solely for the purposes of external peer review and public
comment. The National Toxicology Program listed naphthalene
[[Page 29837]]
as ``reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen'' in 2004 on the
basis of bioassays reporting clear evidence of carcinogenicity in rats
and some evidence of carcinogenicity in mice.\133\ California EPA has
released a new risk assessment for naphthalene, and the IARC has
reevaluated naphthalene and re-classified it as Group 2B: possibly
carcinogenic to humans.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ U.S. EPA. 1998. Toxicological Review of Naphthalene
(Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm.
\130\ U.S. EPA. 1998. Toxicological Review of Naphthalene
(Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm.
\131\ U.S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene
(Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm.
\132\ Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. (2004).
External Peer Review for the IRIS Reassessment of the Inhalation
Carcinogenicity of Naphthalene. August 2004. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=84403.
\133\ NTP. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition.
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 499
pp.
\134\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
(2002). Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of
Chemicals for Humans. Vol. 82. Lyon, France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naphthalene also causes a number of chronic non-cancer effects in
animals, including abnormal cell changes and growth in respiratory and
nasal tissues.\135\ The current EPA IRIS assessment includes noncancer
data on hyperplasia and metaplasia in nasal tissue that form the basis
of the inhalation RfC of 3 [micro]g/m\3\.\136\ The ATSDR MRL for acute
exposure to naphthalene is 0.6 mg/kg/day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ U.S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene,
Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System,
Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available
electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm.
\136\ U.S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene.
Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS), Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
x. Other Air Toxics
In addition to the compounds described above, other compounds in
gaseous hydrocarbon and PM emissions from light-duty vehicles would be
affected by this proposal. Mobile source air toxic compounds that would
potentially be impacted include ethylbenzene, propionaldehyde, toluene,
and xylene. Information regarding the health effects of these compounds
can be found in EPA's IRIS database.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
database is available at: www.epa.gov/iris.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Current Levels of Air Toxics
The majority of Americans continue to be exposed to ambient
concentrations of air toxics at levels which have the potential to
cause adverse health effects.\138\ The levels of air toxics to which
people are exposed vary depending on where people live and work and the
kinds of activities in which they engage, as discussed in detail in
U.S. EPA's most recent Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule.\139\ According to
the National Air Toxic Assessment (NATA) for 2005,\140\ mobile sources
were responsible for 43 percent of outdoor toxic emissions and over 50
percent of the cancer risk and noncancer hazard associated with primary
emissions. Mobile sources are also large contributors to precursor
emissions which react to form secondary concentrations of air toxics.
Formaldehyde is the largest contributor to cancer risk of all 80
pollutants quantitatively assessed in the 2005 NATA. Mobile sources
were responsible for over 40 percent of primary emissions of this
pollutant in 2005, and are major contributors to formaldehyde precursor
emissions. Benzene is also a large contributor to cancer risk, and
mobile sources account for over 70 percent of ambient exposure. Over
the years, EPA has implemented a number of mobile source and fuel
controls which have resulted in VOC reductions, which also reduced
formaldehyde, benzene and other air toxic emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Control of
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR
8434, February 26, 2007.
\139\ U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Control of
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR
8434, February 26, 2007.
\140\ U.S. EPA. (2011). 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Near-Roadway Pollution
Locations in close proximity to major roadways generally have
elevated concentrations of many air pollutants emitted from motor
vehicles. Hundreds of such studies have been published in peer-reviewed
journals, concluding that concentrations of CO, NO, NO2,
benzene, aldehydes, particulate matter, black carbon, and many other
compounds are elevated in ambient air within approximately 300-600
meters (about 1,000-2,000 feet) of major roadways. Highest
concentrations of most pollutants emitted directly by motor vehicles
are found at locations within 50 meters (about 165 feet) of the edge of
a roadway's traffic lanes.
A recent large-scale review of air quality measurements in vicinity
of major roadways between 1978 and 2008 concluded that the pollutants
with the steepest concentration gradients in vicinities of roadways
were CO, ultrafine particles, metals, elemental carbon (EC), NO,
NOX, and several VOCs.\141\ These pollutants showed a large
reduction in concentrations within 100 meters downwind of the roadway.
Pollutants that showed more gradual reductions with distance from
roadways included benzene, NO2, PM2.5, and
PM10. In the review article, results varied based on the
method of statistical analysis used to determine the trend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ Karner, A.A.; Eisinger, D.S.; Niemeier, D.A. (2010). Near-
roadway air quality: synthesizing the findings from real-world data.
Environ Sci Technol 44: 5334-5344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For pollutants with relatively high background concentrations
relative to near-road concentrations, detecting concentration gradients
can be difficult. For example, many aldehydes have high background
concentrations as a result of photochemical breakdown of precursors
from many different organic compounds. This can make detection of
gradients around roadways and other primary emission sources difficult.
However, several studies have measured aldehydes in multiple weather
conditions, and found higher concentrations of many carbonyls downwind
of roadways.142 143 These findings suggest a substantial
roadway source of these carbonyls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ Liu, W.; Zhang, J.; Kwon, J.l; et al. (2006).
Concentrations and source characteristics of airborne carbonyl
compounds measured outside urban residences. J Air Waste Manage
Assoc 56: 1196-1204.
\143\ Cahill, T.M.; Charles, M.J.; Seaman, V.Y. (2010).
Development and application of a sensitive method to determine
concentrations of acrolein and other carbonyls in ambient air.
Health Effects Institute Research Report 149.Available at http://dx.doi.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the past 15 years, many studies have been published with results
showing that populations who live, work, or go to school near high-
traffic roadways experience higher rates of numerous adverse health
effects, compared to populations far away from major roads.\144\ In
addition, numerous studies have found adverse health effects associated
with spending time in traffic, such as commuting or walking along high-
traffic roadways. The health outcomes with the strongest evidence
linking them with traffic-associated air pollutants are respiratory
effects, particularly in asthmatic children, and cardiovascular
effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ In the widely-used PubMed database of health publications,
between January 1, 1990 and August 18, 2011, 605 publications
contained the keywords ``traffic, pollution, epidemiology,'' with
approximately half the studies published after 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous reviews of this body of health literature have been
published as well. In 2010, an expert panel of the Health Effects
Institute (HEI) published a review of hundreds of exposure,
epidemiology, and toxicology studies.\145\ The panel rated how the
evidence for each type of health outcome supported a conclusion of a
causal association with traffic-
[[Page 29838]]
associated air pollution as either ``sufficient,'' ``suggestive but not
sufficient,'' or ``inadequate and insufficient.'' The panel categorized
evidence of a causal association for exacerbation of childhood asthma
as ``sufficient.'' The panel categorized evidence of a causal
association for new onset asthma as between ``sufficient'' and as
``suggestive but not sufficient.'' ``Suggestive of a causal
association'' was how the panel categorized evidence linking traffic-
associated air pollutants with exacerbation of adult respiratory
symptoms and lung function decrement. It categorized as ``inadequate
and insufficient'' evidence of a causal relationship between traffic-
related air pollution and health care utilization for respiratory
problems, new onset adult asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
(COPD), nonasthmatic respiratory allergy, and cancer in adults and
children. Other literature reviews have been published with conclusions
similar to the HEI panel's.146 147 148 Health outcomes with
few publications suggest the possibility of other effects still lacking
sufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions. Among these
outcomes with a small number of positive studies are neurological
impacts (e.g., autism and reduced cognitive function) and reproductive
outcomes (e.g., preterm birth, low birth
weight).149 150 151 152
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ Health Effects Institute Panel on the Health Effects of
Traffic-Related Air Pollution. (2010). Traffic-related air
pollution: a critical review of the literature on emissions,
exposure, and health effects. HEI Special Report 17. Available at
http://www.healtheffects.org.
\146\ Boothe, V.L.; Shendell, D.G. (2008). Potential health
effects associated with residential proximity to freeways and primay
roads: review of scientific literature, 1999-2006. J Environ Health
70: 33-41.
\147\ Salam, M.T.; Islam, T.; Gilliland, F.D. (2008). Recent
evidence for adverse effects of residential proximity to traffic
sources on asthma. Curr Opin Pulm Med 14: 3-8.
\148\ Raaschou-Nielsen, O.; Reynolds, P. (2006). Air pollution
and childhood cancer: a review of the epidemiological literature.
Int J Cancer 118: 2920-9.
\149\ Volk, H.E.; Hertz-Picciotto, I.; Delwiche, L.; et al.
(2011). Residential proximity to freeways and autism in the CHARGE
study. Environ Health Perspect 119: 873-877.
\150\ Franco-Suglia, S.; Gryparis, A.; Wright, R.O.; et al.
(2007). Association of black carbon with cognition among children in
a prospective birth cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. doi: 10.1093/aje/
kwm308. [Online at http://dx.doi.org].
\151\ Power, M.C.; Weisskopf, M.G.; Alexeef, SE.; et al. (2011).
Traffic-related air pollution and cognitive function in a cohort of
older men. Environ Health Perspect 2011: 682-687.
\152\ Wu, J.; Wilhelm, M.; Chung, J.; et al. (2011). Comparing
exposure assessment methods for traffic-related air pollution in and
adverse pregnancy outcome study. Environ Res 111: 685-6692.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to health outcomes, particularly cardiopulmonary
effects, conclusions of numerous studies suggest mechanisms by which
traffic-related air pollution affects health. Numerous studies indicate
that near-roadway exposures increase systemic inflammation, affecting
organ systems, including blood vessels and
lungs.153 154 155 156 Long-term exposures in near-road
environments have been associated with inflammation-associated
conditions, such as atherosclerosis and asthma.157 158 159
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ Riediker, M. (2007). Cardiovascular effects of fine
particulate matter components in highway patrol officers. Inhal
Toxicol 19: 99-105. doi: 10.1080/08958370701495238 Available at
http://dx.doi.org.
\154\ Alexeef, S.E.; Coull, B.A.; Gryparis, A.; et al. (2011).
Medium-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution and markers of
inflammation and endothelial function. Environ Health Perspect 119:
481-486. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002560 Available at http://dx.doi.org.
\155\ Eckel. S.P.; Berhane, K.; Salam, M.T.; et al. (2011).
Traffic-related pollution exposure and exhaled nitric oxide in the
Children's Health Study. Environ Health Perspect (IN PRESS).
doi:10.1289/ehp.1103516. Available at http://dx.doi.org.
\156\ Zhang, J.; McCreanor, J.E.; Cullinan, P.; et al. (2009).
Health effects of real-world exposure diesel exhaust in persons with
asthma. Res Rep Health Effects Inst 138. [Online at http://www.healtheffects.org].
\157\ Adar, S.D.; Klein, R.; Klein, E.K.; et al. (2010). Air
pollution and the microvasculatory: a cross-sectional assessment of
in vivo retinal images in the population-based Multi-Ethnic Study of
Atherosclerosis. PLoS Med 7(11): E1000372. doi:10.1371/
journal.pmed.1000372. Available at http://dx.doi.org.
\158\ Kan, H.; Heiss, G.; Rose, K.M.; et al. (2008). Proxpective
analysis of traffic exposure as a risk factor for incident coronary
heart disease: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.
Environ Health Perspect 116: 1463-1468. doi:10.1289/ehp.11290.
Available at http://dx.doi.org.
\159\ McConnell, R.; Islam, T.; Shankardass, K.; et al. (2010).
Childhood incident asthma and traffic-related air pollution at home
and school. Environ Health Perspect 1021-1026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several studies suggest that some factors may increase
susceptibility to the effects of traffic-associated air pollution.
Several studies have found stronger respiratory associations in
children experiencing chronic social stress, such as in violent
neighborhoods or in homes with high family
stress.160 161 162
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ Islam, T.; Urban, R.; Gauderman, W.J.; et al. (2011).
Parental stress increases the detrimental effect of traffic exposure
on children's lung function. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (In press)
\161\ Clougherty, J.E.; Levy, J.I.; Kubzansky, L.D.; et al.
(2007). Synergistic effects of traffic-related air pollution and
exposure to violence on urban asthma etiology. Environ Health
Perspect 115: 1140-1146.
\162\ Chen, E.; Schrier, H.M.; Strunk, R.C.; et al. (2008).
Chronic traffic-related air pollution and stress interact to predict
biologic and clinical outcomes in asthma. Environ Health Perspect
116: 970-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The risks associated with residence, workplace, or schools near
major roads are of potentially high public health significance due to
the large population in such locations. According to the 2009 American
Housing Survey, over 22 million homes (17.0 percent of all U.S. housing
units) were located within 300 feet of an airport, railroad, or highway
with four or more lanes. This corresponds to a population of more than
50 million U.S. residents in close proximity to high-traffic roadways
or other transportation sources. As discussed in Section III,
populations near major roads have higher fractions of minority
residents and lower socioeconomic status. Furthermore, on average,
Americans spend more than an hour traveling each day, bringing nearly
all residents into a high-exposure microenvironment for part of the
day.
EPA continues to research near-road air quality, including the
types of pollutants found in high concentrations near major roads and
health problems associated with the mixture of pollutants near roads.
7. Environmental Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Fuels
a. Plant and Ecosystem Effects of Ozone
Elevated ozone levels contribute to environmental effects, with
impacts to plants and ecosystems being of most concern. Ozone can
produce both acute and chronic injury in sensitive species depending on
the concentration level and the duration of the exposure. Ozone effects
also tend to accumulate over the growing season of the plant, so that
even low concentrations experienced for a longer duration have the
potential to create chronic stress on vegetation. Ozone damage to
plants includes visible injury to leaves and impaired photosynthesis,
both of which can lead to reduced plant growth and reproduction,
resulting in reduced crop yields, forestry production, and use of
sensitive ornamentals in landscaping. In addition, the impairment of
photosynthesis, the process by which the plant makes carbohydrates (its
source of energy and food), can lead to a subsequent reduction in root
growth and carbohydrate storage below ground, resulting in other, more
subtle plant and ecosystems impacts.
These latter impacts include increased susceptibility of plants to
insect attack, disease, harsh weather, interspecies competition and
overall decreased plant vigor. The adverse effects of ozone on forest
and other natural vegetation can potentially lead to species shifts and
loss from the affected ecosystems, resulting in a loss or reduction in
associated ecosystem goods and services. Lastly, visible ozone injury
to leaves can result in a loss of aesthetic value in areas of special
scenic significance like national parks and wilderness areas. The final
2006 Ozone Air Quality Criteria Document presents more detailed
information on ozone effects on vegetation and ecosystems.
[[Page 29839]]
b. Visibility
Visibility can be defined as the degree to which the atmosphere is
transparent to visible light.\163\ Visibility impairment is caused by
light scattering and absorption by suspended particles and gases.
Visibility is important because it has direct significance to people's
enjoyment of daily activities in all parts of the country. Individuals
value good visibility for the well-being it provides them directly,
where they live and work, and in places where they enjoy recreational
opportunities. Visibility is also highly valued in significant natural
areas, such as national parks and wilderness areas, and special
emphasis is given to protecting visibility in these areas. For more
information on visibility see the final 2009 PM ISA.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ National Research Council, (1993). Protecting Visibility
in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National Academy of Sciences
Committee on Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC. This book can be viewed on the
National Academy Press Web site at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309048443/html/.
\164\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is pursuing a two-part strategy to address visibility
impairment. First, EPA developed the regional haze program which was
put in place in July 1999 to protect the visibility in Mandatory Class
I Federal areas.\165\ There are 156 national parks, forests and
wilderness areas categorized as Mandatory Class I Federal areas.\166\
These areas are defined in CAA section 162 as those national parks
exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and memorial parks exceeding
5,000 acres, and all international parks which were in existence on
August 7, 1977. Second, EPA has concluded that PM2.5 causes
adverse effects on visibility in other areas that are not protected by
the Regional Haze Rule, depending on PM2.5 concentrations
and other factors that control their visibility impact effectiveness
such as dry chemical composition and relative humidity (i.e., an
indicator of the water composition of the particles). EPA revised the
PM2.5 standards in December 2012 and established a target
level of protection that is expected to be met through attainment of
the existing secondary standards for PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999).
\166\ 62 FR 38680-38681 (July 18, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Current Visibility Levels
As mentioned in Section II.B.2.c, millions of people live in
nonattainment areas for the PM2.5 NAAQS. These populations,
as well as large numbers of individuals who travel to these areas, are
likely to experience visibility impairment. In addition, while
visibility trends have improved in mandatory class I federal areas, the
most recent data show that these areas continue to suffer from
visibility impairment. In summary, visibility impairment is experienced
throughout the U.S., in multi-state regions, urban areas, and remote
mandatory class I federal areas.
c. Atmospheric Deposition
Wet and dry deposition of ambient particulate matter delivers a
complex mixture of metals (e.g., mercury, zinc, lead, nickel, aluminum,
cadmium), organic compounds (e.g., polycyclic organic matter, dioxins,
furans) and inorganic compounds (e.g., nitrate, sulfate) to terrestrial
and aquatic ecosystems. The chemical form of the compounds deposited
depends on a variety of factors including ambient conditions (e.g.,
temperature, humidity, oxidant levels) and the sources of the material.
Chemical and physical transformations of the compounds occur in the
atmosphere as well as the media onto which they deposit. These
transformations in turn influence the fate, bioavailability and
potential toxicity of these compounds. Atmospheric deposition has been
identified as a key component of the environmental and human health
hazard posed by several pollutants including mercury, dioxin and
PCBs.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ U.S. EPA. (2000). Deposition of Air Pollutants to the
Great Waters: Third Report to Congress. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. EPA-453/R-00-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adverse impacts on water quality can occur when atmospheric
contaminants deposit to the water surface or when material deposited on
the land enters a waterbody through runoff. Potential impacts of
atmospheric deposition to waterbodies include those related to both
nutrient and toxic inputs. Adverse effects to human health and welfare
can occur from the addition of excess nitrogen via atmospheric
deposition. The nitrogen-nutrient enrichment contributes to toxic algae
blooms and zones of depleted oxygen, which can lead to fish kills,
frequently in coastal waters. Deposition of heavy metals or other
toxics may lead to the human ingestion of contaminated fish, impairment
of drinking water, damage to freshwater and marine ecosystem
components, and limits to recreational uses. Several studies have been
conducted in U.S. coastal waters and in the Great Lakes Region in which
the role of ambient PM deposition and runoff is
investigated.168 169 170 171 172
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ U.S. EPA. (2004). National Coastal Condition Report II.
Office of Research and Development/Office of Water. EPA-620/R-03/
002.
\169\ Gao, Y., E.D. Nelson, M.P. Field, et al. (2002).
Characterization of atmospheric trace elements on PM2.5
particulate matter over the New York-New Jersey harbor estuary.
Atmos. Environ. 36: 1077-1086.
\170\ Kim, G., N. Hussain, J.R. Scudlark, and T.M. Church.
(2000). Factors influencing the atmospheric depositional fluxes of
stable Pb, 210Pb, and 7Be into Chesapeake Bay. J. Atmos. Chem. 36:
65-79.
\171\ Lu, R., R.P. Turco, K. Stolzenbach, et al. (2003). Dry
deposition of airborne trace metals on the Los Angeles Basin and
adjacent coastal waters. J. Geophys. Res. 108(D2, 4074): AAC 11-1 to
11-24.
\172\ Marvin, C.H., M.N. Charlton, E.J. Reiner, et al. (2002).
Surficial sediment contamination in Lakes Erie and Ontario: A
comparative analysis. J. Great Lakes Res. 28(3): 437-450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and sulfur contributes to
acidification, altering biogeochemistry and affecting animal and plant
life in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems across the United States.
The sensitivity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to acidification
from nitrogen and sulfur deposition is predominantly governed by
geology. Prolonged exposure to excess nitrogen and sulfur deposition in
sensitive areas acidifies lakes, rivers and soils. Increased acidity in
surface waters creates inhospitable conditions for biota and affects
the abundance and nutritional value of preferred prey species,
threatening biodiversity and ecosystem function. Over time, acidifying
deposition also removes essential nutrients from forest soils,
depleting the capacity of soils to neutralize future acid loadings and
negatively affecting forest sustainability. Major effects include a
decline in sensitive forest tree species, such as red spruce (Picea
rubens) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum), and a loss of biodiversity of
fishes, zooplankton, and macro invertebrates.
In addition to the role nitrogen deposition plays in acidification,
nitrogen deposition also leads to nutrient enrichment and altered
biogeochemical cycling. In aquatic systems increased nitrogen can alter
species assemblages and cause eutrophication. In terrestrial systems
nitrogen loading can lead to loss of nitrogen sensitive lichen species,
decreased biodiversity of grasslands, meadows and other sensitive
habitats, and increased potential for invasive species. For a broader
explanation of the topics treated here, refer to the description in
Section 6.3.2 of the RIA.
Adverse impacts on soil chemistry and plant life have been observed
for areas heavily influenced by atmospheric
[[Page 29840]]
deposition of nutrients, metals and acid species, resulting in species
shifts, loss of biodiversity, forest decline, damage to forest
productivity and reductions in ecosystem services. Potential impacts
also include adverse effects to human health through ingestion of
contaminated vegetation or livestock (as in the case for dioxin
deposition), reduction in crop yield, and limited use of land due to
contamination.
Atmospheric deposition of pollutants can reduce the aesthetic
appeal of buildings and culturally important articles through soiling,
and can contribute directly (or in conjunction with other pollutants)
to structural damage by means of corrosion or erosion. Atmospheric
deposition may affect materials principally by promoting and
accelerating the corrosion of metals, by degrading paints, and by
deteriorating building materials such as concrete and limestone.
Particles contribute to these effects because of their electrolytic,
hygroscopic, and acidic properties, and their ability to adsorb
corrosive gases (principally sulfur dioxide).
i. Current Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition
Over the past two decades, the EPA has undertaken numerous efforts
to reduce nitrogen and sulfur deposition across the U.S. Analyses of
long-term monitoring data for the U.S. show that deposition of both
nitrogen and sulfur compounds has decreased over the last 17 years. The
data show that reductions were more substantial for sulfur compounds
than for nitrogen compounds. In the eastern U.S., where data are most
abundant, total sulfur deposition decreased by about 44 percent between
1990 and 2007, while total nitrogen deposition decreased by 25 percent
over the same time frame.\173\ These numbers are generated by the U.S.
national monitoring network and they likely underestimate nitrogen
deposition because neither ammonia nor organic nitrogen is measured.
Although total nitrogen and sulfur deposition has decreased over time,
many areas continue to be negatively impacted by deposition. Deposition
of inorganic nitrogen and sulfur species routinely measured in the U.S.
between 2005 and 2007 were as high as 9.6 kilograms of nitrogen per
hectare (kg N/ha) averaged over three years and 20.8 kilograms of
sulfur per hectare (kg S/ha) averaged over three years.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ U.S. EPA. (2012). U.S. EPA's Report on the Environment.
Data accessed online February 15, 2012 at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewPDF&ch=46&lShowInd=0&subtop=341&lv=list.listByChapter&r=216610.
\174\ U.S. EPA. (2012). U.S. EPA's Report on the Environment.
Data accessed online February 15, 2012 at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewPDF&ch=46&lShowInd=0&subtop=341&lv=list.listByChapter&r=216610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Environmental Effects of Air Toxics
Emissions from producing, transporting and combusting fuel
contribute to ambient levels of pollutants that contribute to adverse
effects on vegetation. Volatile organic compounds, some of which are
considered air toxics, have long been suspected to play a role in
vegetation damage.\175\ In laboratory experiments, a wide range of
tolerance to VOCs has been observed.\176\ Decreases in harvested seed
pod weight have been reported for the more sensitive plants, and some
studies have reported effects on seed germination, flowering and fruit
ripening. Effects of individual VOCs or their role in conjunction with
other stressors (e.g., acidification, drought, temperature extremes)
have not been well studied. In a recent study of a mixture of VOCs
including ethanol and toluene on herbaceous plants, significant effects
on seed production, leaf water content and photosynthetic efficiency
were reported for some plant species.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ U.S. EPA. (1991). Effects of organic chemicals in the
atmosphere on terrestrial plants. EPA/600/3-91/001.
\176\ Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M Donkin, M
Skewes, DN Price AR Brown, AD Sharpe. (2003). Effects of VOCs on
herbaceous plants in an open-top chamber experiment. Environ.
Pollut. 124:341-343.
\177\ Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M Donkin, M
Skewes, DN Price AR Brown, AD Sharpe. (2003). Effects of VOCs on
herbaceous plants in an open-top chamber experiment. Environ.
Pollut. 124:341-343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research suggests an adverse impact of vehicle exhaust on plants,
which has in some cases been attributed to aromatic compounds and in
other cases to nitrogen oxides.178 179 180
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ Viskari E-L. (2000). Epicuticular wax of Norway spruce
needles as indicator of traffic pollutant deposition. Water, Air,
and Soil Pollut. 121:327-337.
\179\ Ugrekhelidze D, F Korte, G Kvesitadze. (1997). Uptake and
transformation of benzene and toluene by plant leaves. Ecotox.
Environ. Safety 37:24-29.
\180\ Kammerbauer H, H Selinger, R Rommelt, A Ziegler-Jons, D
Knoppik, B Hock. (1987). Toxic components of motor vehicle emissions
for the spruce Picea abies. Environ. Pollut. 48:235-243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. How would this proposal reduce emissions and air pollution?
A. Effects of the Proposed Vehicle and Fuel Changes on Mobile Source
Emissions
The vehicle and fuel standards that EPA is proposing would
significantly reduce the tailpipe and evaporative emissions of light-
and heavy-duty vehicles in several ways, as described in this section.
In addition, the proposed gasoline sulfur standard would reduce
emissions of SO2 from existing gasoline-powered vehicles and
equipment. As described in Section II, all of these emission reductions
would in turn improve air quality nationwide and reduce the health
effects associated with air pollution from mobile sources.
As with the Tier 2 program, EPA is proposing to implement closely-
coordinated requirements for both automakers and refiners in the same
rulemaking action. The proposed vehicle emission standards and gasoline
sulfur standards represent a ``systems approach'' to reducing vehicle-
related exhaust and evaporative emissions. By recognizing the
relationships among the various sources of emissions addressed by this
proposed rule, we have been able to integrate the provisions into a
single, coordinated program.
1. How do vehicles produce the emissions addressed in this proposal?
The degree to which vehicles produce exhaust and evaporative
emissions depends on the design and functionality of the engine and the
associated exhaust and evaporative emission controls, in concert with
the properties of the fuel on which the vehicle is operating. In the
following paragraphs, we discuss how light- and heavy-duty vehicles
produce each of these types of emissions, both from the tailpipe and
from the fuel system.
a. Tailpipe (Exhaust) Emissions
Which pollutants are emitted at the vehicle's tailpipe and their
quantities depend on how the fuel is combusted in the engine and how
the resulting gases are treated in the exhaust system. Historically,
much of tailpipe emission control has focused on hydrocarbon compounds
(HC) and NOX. The portion of hydrocarbons that is methane is
minimally reactive in forming ozone. Thus, for emission control
purposes, the focus is generally on non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC),
which are also expressed as non-methane organic gases (NMOG) in order
to account for oxygenates (usually ethanol) now usually present in the
fuel.
Tailpipe hydrocarbon emissions also include several toxic
pollutants, including benzene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde. To
varying degrees, the mass emissions of these pollutants are reduced
along with other hydrocarbons by the catalytic converter and improved
engine controls.
[[Page 29841]]
Light- and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles also emit PM and CO. PM
forms directly as a combustion product (primarily as elemental carbon,
usually called soot) and also indirectly as semi-volatile hydrocarbon
compounds that form particles in the exhaust system or soon after
exiting the tailpipe. CO is a product of incomplete fuel combustion.
When operating properly, modern exhaust emission controls
(centering on the catalytic convertor) can reduce much of the HC
(including toxics), NOX and CO exiting the engine. However,
tailpipe emissions are increased during periods of vehicle startup, as
catalytic convertors must warm up to be effective; during subsequent
operation due to the interference of sulfur in the gasoline; during
high load operating events, as the catalyst is overwhelmed or its
operation is modified to protect against permanent damage; and as a
vehicle ages, as the catalyst degrades in performance due to the
effects of high temperature operation and contaminants in the fuel and
lubricating oil.
b. Evaporative Emissions
Gasoline vehicles also produce vapors in the fuel tank and fuel
system that can be released as evaporative emissions. These vapors are
primarily the lighter, more volatile hydrocarbon compounds in the
gasoline, which, like exhaust hydrocarbons, contribute to
concentrations of VOCs in the atmosphere.
As discussed in Section IV below, vehicle evaporative (``evap'')
control systems are designed to block or capture vapors as they are
generated. Vapors are generated in the vehicle fuel tank and fuel
system (and released to the atmosphere if not adequately controlled) as
fuel heats up due to ambient temperature increase and/or vehicle
operation. Fuel vapors are also released when they permeate through
hose material, when they leak at connections or due to damaged
components, and during refueling events.
In general, the evap emission controls on current vehicles (and
that would be improved under this proposed rule) consist of a canister
filled with activated charcoal and connected by hoses to the fuel
system. The hoses direct generated vapors to the canister, which
collects the vapors on the carbon and stores them until the system
experiences a ``purge'' event. During purge, the engine draws fresh air
through the canister, carrying vapors released by the carbon to the
engine to be combusted and restoring the capacity of the canister.
Evaporative emissions occur when vapors are emitted to the atmosphere
because the evap system is compromised, the carbon canister is
overwhelmed, or vapors permeate or leak. As such, evaporative emission
controls also involve proper material selection for fuel system
components, careful design of these components, and onboard diagnostics
to check the system for failure.
2. How would the proposed changes to gasoline sulfur content affect
vehicle emissions?
Gasoline vehicles depend to a great degree on catalytic converters
to reduce levels of pollutants in their exhaust, including NMOG and
NOX, as well as PM (specifically, the volatile hydrocarbon
fraction), CO, and most air toxics. The presence of sulfur in gasoline
has a strong impact on these emissions, particularly NOX,
due to its impact on proper catalyst operation.
Sulfur naturally occurs in crude oil and thus in gasoline. In
vehicle catalytic converters, the precious metals that catalyze the
reactions that convert the pollutants become significantly less
efficient when sulfur is deposited (adsorbed) onto them. The Tier 2
rulemaking required refiners to take steps to reduce sulfur levels in
gasoline by approximately 90 percent, to an average of 30 ppm. At the
time there were indications that sulfur reductions below 30 ppm may
continue to provide additional emission benefits. However, the data was
insufficient to quantify the benefits to the existing fleet, and the
Tier 2 vehicle standards could be achieved without lowering sulfur
further. As a result, to minimize the cost of the Tier 2 program, the
sulfur standard was not further reduced below 30 ppm.
As discussed in Section IV.A.6, subsequent research provides a
compelling case that even this level of sulfur degrades the emission
performance of vehicles on the road today, and inhibits necessary
further reductions in vehicle emissions performance, which depend on
optimum catalyst performance to reach emission targets. A study
conducted by EPA and the auto industry in support of the Mobile Source
Air Toxics (MSAT) rule found significant reductions in NOX,
CO and total HC when nine Tier 2 vehicles were tested on low sulfur
fuel, relative to 32-ppm fuel.\181\ In particular, the study found a
nearly 50 percent increase in NOX when sulfur was increased
from 6 ppm to 32 ppm. Another recent study by Umicore showed reductions
of 41 percent for NOX and 17 percent for HC on a PZEV
operating on fuel with 33-ppm and 3-ppm fuel.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Control of Hazardous
Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources Final Rule, EPA 420-R-07-002,
Chapter 6.
\182\ Ball D., Clark D., Moser D. (2011). Effects of Fuel Sulfur
on FTP NOx Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder Application. SAE 2011
World Congress Paper 2011-01-0300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A larger study recently completed by EPA confirmed these results,
showing significant reductions in FTP-composite NOX (23
percent), CO (12 percent) and total HC (13 percent) on the 5-ppm fuel,
relative to 28-ppm fuel. For NOX, the majority of overall
reductions were driven by large reductions on warmed-up periods of the
test cycle (Bag 2), which showed a 59 percent reduction between 28 and
5-ppm fuel, consistent with the role of sulfur in catalyst degradation
discussed above. Applying individual bag reductions to in-use activity
patterns from EPA emission models suggests an overall NOX
reduction of nearly 40 percent on the road.
Based on these studies, the benefits of the proposed Tier 3 sulfur
standard are significant in two ways: they enable vehicles designed to
the proposed Tier 3 tailpipe exhaust standards to meet these standards
for the duration of their useful life, and they facilitate immediate
emission reductions from all the vehicles on the road at the time the
sulfur controls are implemented.
B. How would emissions be reduced?
The proposed standards would reduce emissions of VOC,
NOX (including NO2), direct PM2.5, CO,
SO2, and air toxics. The proposed sulfur standards would
reduce emissions from the on-road fleet immediately upon
implementation, so to reflect these early reductions, we present
emission reductions in calendar year 2017. The proposed vehicle
standards would begin to reduce emissions as the cleaner cars and
trucks begin to enter the fleet in model year 2017. The magnitude of
reduction would grow as more Tier 3 vehicles enter the fleet.
Therefore, we also present emission reductions in calendar year 2030,
when model year 2017 and later cars and trucks contribute nearly 90
percent of fleet-wide vehicle miles travelled. Although 2030 is the
farthest year that is feasible for air quality modeling, the full
reduction of the vehicle program would be realized after 2030, when the
fleet has fully turned over to Tier 3 vehicles. In Chapter 7 of the
RIA, we present emission reductions projected in 2050, as well as
additional calendar years between 2017 and 2030.
Emission reductions are estimated on an annual basis, for all 50
U.S. states
[[Page 29842]]
plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The reductions were estimated using a version of EPA's MOVES model
updated for this analysis, as described in detail in Chapter 7 of the
RIA. This version of MOVES includes our most recent data on how vehicle
emissions are affected by changes in sulfur, ethanol, and other fuel
properties. We estimated emission reductions compared to a reference
case that assumed partial RFS2 implementation by 2017, with full
implementation in 2022 and beyond. The ethanol scenarios used for the
reference and control cases were the ``post-EPAct/EISA'' scenario
defined in Chapter 7 of the RIA, reflecting a mix of E10 and E15 in
2017, and E15 only in 2030. The reference case also assumed
continuation of the Tier 2 vehicle program indefinitely, and an average
sulfur level of 30 ppm (10 ppm in California).
As discussed throughout this preamble, implementation of the
proposed Tier 3 standards is aligned with the 2017 LD GHG standards to
achieve significant criteria pollutant and GHG emissions reductions
while providing regulatory certainty and compliance efficiency to the
auto and oil industries. The 2017 LD GHG standards were still in a
preliminary state of development (pre-proposal) at the time we
finalized our assumptions for the Tier 3 emissions, air quality, and
cost analyses, so we were not able to reflect them in these analyses.
However, we continue to expect vehicle criteria pollutant performance
to be neutral under the GHG program, because exhaust and evaporative
emissions are not proportional to the amount of fuel burned; rather,
our standards are expressed on a per-mile basis, not on a per-gallon
basis. Vehicle criteria emissions are almost exclusively controlled by
a vehicle's emissions aftertreatment system and not by the efficiency
of the engine.
The majority of the NMOG that is emitted from a gasoline engine is
generated during cold start, before the catalyst is lit off, and
NOX is often created during higher load operation.
Optimizing catalyst efficiency, minimizing thermal parasitics,
minimizing fuel system leaks, and lower gasoline sulfur will be key
enablers for all vehicles to meet the Tier 3 standards, regardless of
the vehicle's fuel efficiency. Because we do not expect the increase in
fuel efficiency to result in lower criteria pollutant emissions, we did
not claim in the 2017 LD GHG rule any reductions attributable to the
ability of vehicles to meet lower criteria emission levels (see 77 FR
62899-62901, October 15, 2012). In other words, in the 2017 LD GHG
rule, we assumed that, absent the proposed Tier 3 standards, the light-
duty fleet would continue to meet the Tier 2 standards. Thus, we
believe that the inclusion of the light-duty GHG standards in our cost
and benefit analyses for the proposed Tier 3 standards would have had
little or no impact on the results or our conclusions, as discussed in
Sections 7.1.2 and 7.1.3.2.1 of the draft RIA. Nevertheless, for the
final rulemaking we will include the LD GHG requirements in the
analysis.
The analysis described here does account for the following national
onroad rules:
Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur
Control Requirements (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000)
Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel
Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001)
Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (72 FR 8428, February 26, 2007)
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable
Fuel Standard Program (75 FR 14670, March 26, 2010)
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for 2012-2016 (75 FR 25324,
May 7, 2010)
The analysis also accounts for many other national rules and standards.
In addition, the modeling accounts for state and local rules including
local fuel standards, Inspection/Maintenance programs, Stage II
refueling controls, the National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV),
and the section 177 states LEV and LEVII programs. See the Tier 3
emissions modeling TSD for more detail.
A summary of emission reductions projected to result from Tier 3,
relative to the reference case, is shown in calendar years 2017 and
2030 for NOX, VOC, direct PM2.5, CO,
SO2, and total air toxics in Table III-1. For many
pollutants, the immediate reductions in 2017 are significant; for
example, combined NOX and VOC emissions would be reduced by
over 300,000 tons. By 2030, combined NOX and VOC emissions
would be reduced by roughly 750,000 tons, one quarter of the onroad
inventory. Many of the modeled air toxics would be significantly
reduced as well, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde,
acrolein and ethanol (ranging from 20 to nearly 40 percent of the
national onroad inventory by 2030). The relative reduction in overall
emissions would continue to increase beyond 2030 as more of the fleet
continues to turn over to Tier 3 vehicles; for example, by 2050, when
nearly all of the fleet would have turned over to Tier 3 standards, we
estimate the Tier 3 program would reduce onroad emissions of
NOX and VOC nearly 40 percent from the level of emissions
projected without Tier 3 controls.
Table III-1--Estimated Emission Reductions from the Proposed Tier 3 Standards
[Annual U.S. short tons] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2030
----------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Percent of
Tons onroad Tons onroad
inventory inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX............................................ 284,381 8 524,790 28
VOC............................................ 44,782 3 226,028 23
CO............................................. 746,683 4 5,765,362 30
Direct PM2.5................................... 121 0.1 7,458 10
Benzene........................................ 1,625 4 8,582 36
SO2............................................ 16,261 51 17,267 51
1,3-Butadiene.................................. 322 5 1,087 37
Formaldehyde................................... 727 3 2,707 12
Acetaldehyde................................... 762 3 4,414 26
Acrolein....................................... 23 1 184 15
[[Page 29843]]
Ethanol........................................ 2,684 2 27,821 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states. For
the final rule we will account for LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently adopted it.
Reductions for each pollutant are discussed in the following
sections, focusing on the contribution of program elements to the total
reductions summarized above.
1. NOX
The proposed sulfur standards would significantly reduce
NOX emissions immediately upon implementation of the
program. As discussed above, recent research on the impact of sulfur on
Tier 2 technology vehicles shows the potential for significant
reductions in NOX emissions from the existing fleet of Tier
2 vehicles by lowering sulfur levels to 10 ppm. Prior research shows
that NOX emissions would also be expected to decrease from
the fleet of older (pre-Tier 2) light-duty vehicles as well as heavy-
duty gasoline vehicles,\183\ although at to a lesser extent than for
Tier 2 vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ Rao, V. (2001) Fuel Sulfur Effects on Exhaust Emissions:
Recommendations for MOBILE6, EPA420-R-01-039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III-2 shows the reduction in NOX emissions, in
annual short tons, projected in calendar years 2017 and 2030. The
reductions are split into those attributable to the introduction of low
sulfur fuel in the pre-Tier 3 fleet (defined for this analysis as model
years prior to 2017); and reductions attributable to vehicle standards
enabled by low sulfur fuel (model year 2017 and later). As shown, upon
implementation of the proposed sulfur standards, total onroad
NOX emissions are projected to drop 8 percent. This is
primarily due to large reductions from Tier 2 gasoline vehicles, which
contribute about one-quarter of the NOX emissions from the
on-road fleet in 2017. The relative reduction grows as cleaner vehicles
turn over into the fleet. By 2030, we project that the reduction in
overall onroad NOX inventory would be close to 30 percent.
Table III-2--Projected NOX Reductions From Tier 3 Program
[Annual U.S. Tons] \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reduction......................... 284,381 524,790
Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet due to 264,653 66,286
sulfur standard........................
Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to 19,728 458,504
vehicle and sulfur standards...........
Percent reduction in onroad NOX 8% 28%
emissions..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle
standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will
account for LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently
adopted it.
2. VOC
Table III-3 shows the reduction in VOC emissions, in annual short
tons, projected in calendar years 2017 and 2030 resulting from the
proposed standards. In 2017, as with NOX, we project
reductions from the pre-Tier 3 fleet with the proposed fuel standards.
By 2030 the reduction in overall onroad VOC emissions would be over 20
percent, the majority of this from the Tier 3 fleet. The proposed
evaporative standards are projected to account for roughly one quarter
of the overall vehicle program reduction in 2030.
Table III-3--Projected VOC Reductions From Tier 3 Program
[Annual U.S. tons] \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reduction......................... 44,782 226,028
Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet due to 39,561 13,739
sulfur standard........................
Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to 5,222 212,289
vehicle and sulfur standards...........
Exhaust................................. 41,433 168,264
Evaporative............................. 3,349 57,764
Percent reduction in onroad VOC 3% 23%
emissions..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle
standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will
account for LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently
adopted it.
[[Page 29844]]
3. CO
Table III-4 shows the reductions for CO, broken down by pre- and
post-Tier 3 in the manner described for NOX and VOC above.
Based on research showing sizeable CO reductions from lower sulfur
fuel, the immediate reductions in the onroad fleet from sulfur control
are also significant. The CO exhaust standards are projected to reduce
onroad CO emissions 30 percent by 2030.
Table III-4--Projected CO Reductions From Tier 3 Program
[Annual U.S. tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reduction......................... 746,683 5,765,362
Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet due to 608,502 139,074
sulfur standard........................
Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to 138,181 5,626,288
vehicle and sulfur standards...........
Percent reduction in onroad CO emissions 4% 30%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle
standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will
account for LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently
adopted it.
4. Direct PM2.5
Reductions in direct emissions of PM2.5 are projected to
result solely from the proposed vehicle tailpipe standards, so
meaningful reductions are realized mainly as the fleet turns over. By
2030, we project a reduction of about 7,500 tons annually, which
represents approximately 10 percent of the onroad direct
PM2.5 inventory. However, since the PM standards are mainly
focused on improving engine durability through the end of a vehicle's
useful life, the relative reduction in onroad emissions is projected to
grow to 17 percent with full fleet turnover in 2050. Reductions in
NOX and VOC emissions would also reduce secondary PM
formation, which is quantified as part of the air quality analysis
described in Section III.C.
5. Air Toxics
Emissions of air toxics also would be reduced by the proposed
sulfur, exhaust and evaporative standards. Air toxics are generally a
subset of compounds making up VOC, so the reduction trends tend to
track the VOC reductions presented above. Table III-5 presents
reductions for certain key air toxics, and Table III-6 presents
reductions for the sum of 71 different toxic compounds.
Table III-5--Reductions for Certain Individual Compounds
[Annual U.S. tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Percent
Tons reduced reduction in Tons reduced reduction in
in 2017 onroad in 2030 onroad
emissions emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde.................................... 762 3 4,414 26
Formaldehyde.................................... 727 3 2,707 12
Acrolein........................................ 23 1 184 15
1,3-Butadiene................................... 322 5 1,087 37
Benzene......................................... 1,625 4 8,581 36
Naphthalene..................................... 96 2 420 17
Ethanol......................................... 2,684 2 27,821 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states. For
the final rule we will account for LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently adopted it.
The totals shown in Table III-6 represent the sum of 71 species
including the toxics in Table III-5, 15 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
(PAH) compounds in gas and particle phase, and additional gaseous
compounds such as toluene, xylenes, styrene, hexane, 2,2,4-
trimethylpentane, n-hexane, and propionaldehyde (Appendix 7A in the
draft RIA). As shown, in 2030 the overall onroad inventory of total
toxics would be reduced by over 20 percent, with nearly one third of
the vehicle program reductions coming from the proposed evaporative
standards.
Table III-6--Reductions in Total Mobile Source Air Toxics
[Annual U.S. Tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reduction......................... 15,156 89,685
Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet due to 12,452 5,022
sulfur standard........................
Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to 2,683 84,663
vehicle and sulfur standards...........
Exhaust................................. 13,748 64,144
Evaporative............................. 1,408 25,541
Percent reduction in onroad toxics 3% 23%
emissions..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle
standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will
account for LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently
adopted it.
[[Page 29845]]
6. SO2
SO2 emissions from mobile sources are a direct function
of sulfur in the fuel, and reducing sulfur in gasoline would result in
immediate reductions in SO2 from the on and off-road fleet.
The reductions, shown in Table III-7, are a function of the sulfur
level and fuel consumption. This is reflected in the relative
contribution of on-road vehicles and off-road equipment, where off-road
gasoline consumption accounts for approximately 5 percent of overall
gasoline use.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ U.S. Energy Information Administration (2011), Annual
Energy Outlook 2011, DOE/EIA-0383 (2011).
Table III-7--Projected SO2 Reductions From Tier 3 Program
[Annual U.S. Tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reduction......................... 16,261 17,267
Reduction from onroad vehicles due to 15,494 16,370
sulfur standard........................
Reduction from off-road equipment due to 767 897
sulfur standard........................
Percent reduction in onroad SO2 51% 51%
emissions..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Greenhouse Gases
Reductions in nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions and methane
(CH4) emissions, both potent greenhouse gas emissions, are
projected for gasoline cars and trucks due to the proposed sulfur and
tailpipe standards. A study conducted by the University of California
at Riverside found a 29 percent reduction in N2O emissions
over the FTP when sulfur was reduced from 30 to 5 ppm,\185\ while EPA
research described in Section IV.A on sulfur effects found a 25 percent
reduction in CH4 emissions when sulfur was reduced from 28
to 5 ppm. Several studies have established correlations between
reductions in tailpipe NOX emissions and reductions in
N2O from gasoline cars and trucks,186 187 188 as
well as correlations between reductions in tailpipe HC emissions and
reductions in CH4.189 190 One such study
(Behrentz et al.) reported an N2O: NOX ratio of
0.095 0.035, and supported the application of
N2O: NOX ratios to NOX emissions as a
reasonable method for estimating N2O emission inventories.
As detailed in RIA Chapter 7.3, a range of N2O reductions is
bounded by applying this ratio to NOX reductions projected
for this proposal (from Table III-1), and applying the UC Riverside
sulfur results to MOVES N2O inventories for pre-Tier 3
vehicles. Using a 100-year global warming potential of 298 for
N2O according to the 2007 IPCC AR4,\191\ the range of
reductions calculated for N2O is from 2.9 to 7.3 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2017,
growing to 12.3 to 13.5 MMTCO2e in 2030. MOVES can be used
to directly estimate CH4 reductions from the sulfur and
vehicle standards, estimating an additional 0.1 MMTCO2e
reduction in 2017, growing to 0.5 MMTCO2e in 2030. The range of total
GHG reductions from the Tier 3 rule is 3.0 to 7.4 MMTCO2e in
2017, growing to 12.8 to 14.0 MMTCO2e in 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ Huai, et al. (2004) Estimates of the emission rates of
nitrous oxide from light-duty vehicles using different chassis
dynamometer test cycles Atmospheric Environment 6621-6629.
\186\ Michaels, H. (1998) Emissions of Nitrous Oxide from
Highway Mobile Sources, U.S. EPA EPA420-R-98-009.
\187\ Behrentz, et al. (2004), Measurements of nitrous oxide
emissions from light-duty motor vehicles: a pilot study Atmospheric
Environment 4291-4303.
\188\ Meffert, et. al (2000) Analysis of Nitrous Oxide Emissions
from Light Duty Passenger Cars, SAE 2000-01-1952.
\189\ Meszler, D. (2004), Light Duty Vehicle Methane and Nitrous
Oxide Emissions: Greenhouse Gas Impacts Study for Northeast States
Center for a Clean Air Future.
\190\ Graham, L. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 1997-2005 Model
Year Light Duty Vehicles Environment Canada ERMD Report 04-
44.
\191\ The global warming potentials (GWP) used in this rule are
consistent with the 100-year time frame values in the 2007
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment
Report (AR4). At this time, the 1996 IPCC Second Assessment Report
(SAR) 100-year GWP values are used in the official U.S. greenhouse
gas inventory submission to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (per the reporting requirements under that
international convention, which were last updated in 2006).
N2O has a 100-year GWP of 298 and CH4 has a
100-year GWP of 25 according to the 2007 IPCC AR4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These reductions would be offset to some degree by CO2
emissions associated with higher energy use required in the process of
removing sulfur within the refinery. To assess the potential refinery
permitting implications of the Tier 3 proposal, we calculated the
CO2 emission impacts on a refinery-by-refinery basis. We
used the projected refinery-specific changes from our refinery-by-
refinery modeling (see Chapter 5 of the draft RIA) to estimate changes
in process energy and then applied emission factors that correspond to
those changes. The results showed an increase of up to 4.6
MMTCO2e in 2017 for all U.S. refineries complying with the
lower sulfur standards assuming that the proposed sulfur standards are
fully phased-in.\192\ The actual increase is expected to be
considerably lower, since this is a permitting analysis and refineries
will not be operating at their permit capacity. The actual increase
will also be a function of several factors, including technology
options selected by the refineries and the projected use of averaging,
banking and trading in avoiding the need for investments at some
refineries. As a result, 4.6 MMTCO2e represents an upper-
bound estimate of the possible increase in refinery CO2
emissions due to the need for additional process heat and hydrogen
production to enable the additional hydrotreating required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ Keller, P. (February, 2013). New Source Review Permitting
Impact Analysis for Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Program. Memorandum to
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2017, the range of potential decrease in CH4 and
N2O emissions overlaps with the range of projected increase
in CO2 from refinery processes, suggesting that a net
increase or decrease in GHG emissions cannot be quantified with
certainty. However, we estimate the program would result in net GHG
reductions as the program continues into the future, as shown by our
2030 estimates.
We do not expect the Tier 3 vehicle standards to result in any
discernible changes in vehicle CO2 emissions or fuel
economy. Emissions of the pollutants that we have designed the program
to address--NMOG, NOX, and PM--are not a function of the
amount of fuel consumed, since manufacturers need to design their
catalytic emission control systems to reduce these emissions regardless
of their engine-out levels. However, there may be some slight reduction
of vehicle mass if manufacturers explore lighter exhaust manifold
materials in order to reduce thermal mass and promote earlier catalyst
light-off. EPA invites comments on any potential impacts of the
proposed Tier 3 program on vehicle CO2 emissions and fuel
economy.
[[Page 29846]]
C. How would air pollution be reduced?
Reductions in emissions of NOX, VOC, PM2.5
and air toxics expected as a result of the proposed Tier 3 standards
are projected to lead to significant decreases in ambient
concentrations of ozone, PM2.5, and air toxics. The results
of our air quality modeling of the impacts of the Tier 3 proposal are
summarized in the following section. The air quality modeling predicts
significant improvements in ozone concentrations due to the proposed
Tier 3 standards. Ambient PM2.5 and NO2
concentrations are also expected to improve as a result of the proposed
Tier 3 program. Decreases in ambient concentrations of air toxics are
projected with the proposed standards, including notable nationwide
reductions in benzene concentrations. Our air quality modeling also
predicts improvements in visibility and sulfur deposition, as well as
substantial decreases in nitrogen deposition as a result of the
proposed standards.
1. Ozone
The air quality modeling done for this proposal projects that in
2017, with all current controls in effect but excluding the emissions
changes expected to occur as a result of this proposed action or any
other additional controls, at least 40 counties, with a projected
population of almost 50 million people, would have projected design
values above the level of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb.
Even in 2030 the modeling projects that in the absence of additional
controls there would be 12 counties with a population of almost 32
million people with projected design values above the level of the 2008
8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb. Since the emission changes from this
proposal go into effect during the period when some areas are still
working to attain the ozone NAAQS, the projected emission changes would
help state and local agencies in their effort to attain and maintain
the ozone standard.
Air quality modeling indicates ozone design value concentrations
would decrease dramatically in many areas of the country as a result of
this action and in some places those decreases would be enough to
change the projected design values from being above the NAAQS to being
below the NAAQS. The decreases in ozone design values are likely due to
projected tailpipe reductions in NOX and VOCs from
reductions in fuel sulfur and engine controls.
In 2017, the majority of the design value decreases are between 0.5
and 1.0 ppb. The projected population-weighted average design value
concentration without the proposed rule is 71.3 ppb in 2017. The
proposed rule would also reduce the projected ozone design values in
three counties from above the level of the standard to below. These
three counties are Bucks County in Pennsylvania, Arlington County in
Virginia and St Louis County in Missouri. The projected population in
these three counties in 2017 is almost 2 million people. In 2030, the
proposed rule would result in larger decreases in ozone design values,
with the majority of counties projecting decreases of between 1.0 and
1.5 ppb, and over 200 more counties with decreases greater than 1.5
ppb. The projected population-weighted average design value
concentration without the proposed rule is 66.7 ppb in 2030. There are
also two more counties whose projected design values would be reduced
from above the level of the ozone standard to below by the proposed
rule in 2030. These counties are Hudson County in New Jersey and
Brazoria County in Texas. The projected population in these two
counties in 2030 is over 1 million people.
Table III-8 and Table III-9 show the average change in 2017 and
2030 8-hour ozone design values for: (1) All counties with 2005
baseline design values, (2) counties with 2005 baseline design values
that exceeded the 2008 ozone standard, (3) counties with 2005 baseline
design values that did not exceed the 2008 standard, but were within 10
percent of it, (4) counties with 2017/2030 design values that exceeded
the 2008 ozone standard, and (5) counties with 2017/2030 design values
that did not exceed the standard, but were within 10 percent of it.
Counties within 10 percent of the standard are intended to reflect
counties that although not violating the standards, will also be
impacted by changes in ozone as they work to ensure long-term
maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. All of these metrics show a decrease in
2017 and 2030, indicating in five different ways the overall
improvement in air quality.
On a population-weighted basis, the average modeled future-year 8-
hour ozone design values are projected to decrease by 0.47 ppb in 2017
and 1.55 ppb in 2030. On a population-weighted basis design values in
those counties that are projected to be above the 2008 ozone standard
in 2017 and 2030 are projected to decrease by 0.30 and 1.62 ppb
respectively due to the proposed standards.
Table III-8--Average Change in Projected 8-Hour Ozone Design Value in 2017 \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in 2017
Average \a\ Number of U.S. 2020 design value
counties population \b\ (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All............................................................. 676 238,026,106 -0.50
All, population-weighted........................................ .............. .............. -0.47
Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8-hour ozone 393 176,910,535 -0.56
standard.......................................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8-hour ozone .............. .............. -0.51
standard, population-weighted..................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8- 201 40,516,171 -0.47
hour ozone standard............................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8- .............. .............. -0.42
hour ozone standard, population-weighted.......................
Counties whose 2017 control case is violating the 2008 8-hour 37 47,659,433 -0.35
ozone standard.................................................
Counties whose 2017 control case is violating the 2008 8-hour .............. .............. -0.30
ozone standard, population-weighted............................
Counties whose 2017 control case is within 10 percent of the 124 68,625,934 -0.51
2008 8-hour ozone standard.....................................
Counties whose 2017 control case is within 10 percent of the .............. .............. -0.49
2008 8-hour ozone standard, population-weighted................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Averages are over counties with 2005 modeled design values.
\b\ Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single
Year of Age CD.
\c\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did
not account for emission reductions associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states
that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will account for LEV III vehicle standards.
[[Page 29847]]
Table III-9--Average Change in Projected 8-Hour Ozone Design Value in 2030 \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in 2030
Average\a\ Number of U.S. 2030 design value
counties population \b\ (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All............................................................. 676 261,497,900 -1.35
All, population-weighted........................................ .............. .............. -1.55
Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8-hour ozone 393 194,118,748 -1.54
standard.......................................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8-hour ozone .............. .............. -1.69
standard, population-weighted..................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8- 201 44,436,103 -1.18
hour ozone standard............................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8- .............. .............. -1.25
hour ozone standard, population-weighted.......................
Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2008 8-hour 10 30,619,714 -1.49
ozone standard.................................................
Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2008 8-hour .............. .............. -1.62
ozone standard, population-weighted............................
Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the 40 21,541,863 -1.37
2008 8-hour ozone standard.....................................
Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the .............. .............. -1.50
2008 8-hour ozone standard, population-weighted................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Averages are over counties with 2005 modeled design values.
\b\ Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single
Year of Age CD.
\c\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did
not account for emission reductions associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states
that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will account for LEV III vehicle standards.
2. Particulate Matter
The air quality modeling conducted for this proposal projects that
in 2030, with all current controls in effect but excluding the
emissions changes expected to occur as a result of this proposal or any
other additional controls, at least 14 counties, with a projected
population of over 28 million people, would have projected design
values above the level of the annual standard of 12 [micro]g/
m3 and at least 21 counties, with a projected population of
over 31 million people, would have projected design values above the
level of the 24-hour standard of 35 [mu]g/m3. \193\ Since
the emission changes from this proposed action would go into effect
during the period when some areas are still working to attain the
PM2.5 NAAQS, the projected emission changes would be useful
to state and local agencies in their effort to attain and maintain the
PM2.5 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ The projections from the modeling analysis for the Tier 3
proposal differ from what was presented in the recent PM NAAQS RIA
(http://www.epa.gov/pm/actions.html). The differences in modeling
between the analyses stem primarily from the difference in modeling
platform and the different years being evaluated (2020 vs. 2030).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule would reduce 24-hour and annual PM2.5
design values in 2030. Annual PM2.5 design values in the
majority of modeled counties would decrease by between 0.01 and 0.05
[micro]g/m3 and in over 100 additional counties design
values are projected to decrease by greater than 0.05 [mu]g/
m3. The projected population-weighted average design value
concentration without the proposed rule is 9.5 [micro]g/m3
in 2030. The average modeled future-year annual PM2.5 design
values in 2030 decrease by 0.06 [micro]g/m3 on a population-
weighted basis. Design values in those counties that are projected to
be above the annual PM2.5 standard in 2030 decrease even
more, by 0.11 [micro]g/m\3\ on a population-weighted basis, due to the
proposed standards. In addition, the average modeled future-year 24-
hour PM2.5 design values in 2030 decrease by 0.20 [micro]g/
m3 on a population-weighted basis. The projected population-
weighted average design value concentration without the proposed rule
is 24.3 [micro]g/m3 in 2030. The decreases in
PM2.5 design values are likely due to the projected tailpipe
reductions in primary PM2.5, NOX and VOCs. The
proposed rule has little impact on PM2.5 design values for
the majority of counties in 2017, although our air quality modeling
underestimated the PM decreases that would result from this proposal
(see Section 7.4.2.3 of the draft RIA for more detail).
Table III-10 and Table III-11 present the average change in 2030
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 design values for: (1) All counties
with 2005 baseline design values, (2) counties with 2005 baseline
design values that exceeded the PM2.5 standard, (3) counties
with 2005 baseline design values that did not exceed the standard, but
were within 10 percent of it, (4) counties with 2030 design values that
exceeded the PM2.5 standard, and (5) counties with 2030
design values that did not exceed the standard, but were within 10
percent of it. Counties within 10 percent of the standard are intended
to reflect counties that although not violating the standards, will
also be impacted by changes in PM2.5 as they work to ensure
long-term maintenance of the annual and/or 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. All of these metrics show a decrease in 2030. On a population-
weighted basis, there is a 0.06 [micro]g/m3 decrease in the
average modeled future-year annual PM2.5 design values in
2030 and a decrease of 0.11 [micro]g/m\3\ in those counties that are
projected to be above the annual PM2.5 standard in 2030. In
addition, the average population-weighted modeled future-year 24-hour
PM2.5 design values are projected to decrease by 0.20
[micro]g/m3 due to the proposed standards and design values
in those counties that are projected to be above the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard in 2030 would decrease by 0.32 [micro]g/
m3.
Table III-10--Average Change in Projected Annual PM2.5 Design Values in 2030 \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in 2030
Average \a\ Number of U.S. 2030 design value
counties Population ([mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All............................................................. 576 247,415,381 -0.05
[[Page 29848]]
All, population-weighted........................................ .............. .............. -0.06
Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the annual PM2.5 314 152,109,569 -0.05
standard.......................................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the annual PM2.5 .............. .............. -0.07
standard, population-weighted..................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the annual 83 31,863,376 -0.05
PM2.5 standard.................................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the annual .............. .............. -0.05
PM2.5 standard, population-weighted............................
Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the annual PM2.5 14 28,624,758 -0.11
standard \d\...................................................
Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the annual PM2.5 .............. .............. -0.10
standard, population-weighted \d\..............................
Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the 28 23,840,272 -0.07
annual PM2.5 standard..........................................
Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the .............. .............. -0.09
annual PM2.5 standard, population-weighted.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Averages are over counties with 2005 modeled design values.
\b\ Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single
Year of Age CD.
\c\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did
not account for emission reductions associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states
that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will account for LEV III vehicle standards.
\d\ Eight of these counties are in California, see Table 7-35 in the DRIA.
Table III-11--Average Change in Projected 24-hour PM2.5 Design Values in 2030 \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in 2030
Average \a\ Number of U.S. 2030 design value
counties Population \b\ ([mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All............................................................. 569 245,111,480 -0.16
All, population-weighted........................................ .............. .............. -0.20
Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2006 24-hour 108 91,474,036 -0.29
PM2.5 standard.................................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2006 24-hour .............. .............. -0.27
PM2.5 standard, population-weighted............................
Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2006 140 53,990,060 -0.18
24-hour PM2.5 standard.........................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2006 .............. .............. -0.21
24-hour PM2.5 standard, population-weighted....................
Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2006 24-hour 21 31,002,272 -0.50
PM2.5 standard \d\.............................................
Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2006 24-hour .............. .............. -0.32
PM2.5 standard, population-weighted \d\........................
Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the 7 4,212,913 -0.37
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard....................................
Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the .............. .............. -0.50
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, population-weighted...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Averages are over counties with 2005 modeled design values.
\b\ Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single
Year of Age CD.
\c\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did
not account for emission reductions associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states
that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will account for LEV III vehicle standards.
\d\ Eleven of these counties are in California, see Table 7-37 in the DRIA.
3. Nitrogen Dioxide
Although our modeling indicates that by 2030 the majority of the
country will experience decreases of less than 0.1 ppb in their annual
NO2 concentrations due to this proposal, annual
NO2 concentrations are projected to decrease by more than
0.3 ppb in most urban areas. These emissions reductions would also
likely decrease 1-hour NO2 concentrations and help any
potential nonattainment areas to attain and maintain the standard.
Additional information on the emissions reductions that are projected
with this proposal is available in Section 7.2.1 of the draft RIA.
4. Air Toxics
Our modeling indicates that the impacts of proposed Tier 3
standards include generally small decreases in ambient concentrations
of air toxics, especially in urban areas, with notable nationwide
reductions in benzene. Although reductions are greater in 2030 (when
Tier 3 cars and trucks would contribute nearly 90 percent of fleet-wide
vehicle miles travelled) than in 2017 (the first year of the proposed
program), our modeling projects there would be small immediate
reductions in ambient concentrations of air toxics due to the proposed
sulfur controls in 2017. Furthermore, the full reduction of the vehicle
program would be realized after 2030, when the fleet has fully turned
over to Tier 3 vehicles. Air toxics pollutants dominated by primary
emissions (or a decay product of a directly emitted pollutant) have the
largest impacts, rather than air toxics that primarily result from
photochemical transformation. Specifically, in 2030, our modeling
projects that the proposal would decrease ambient benzene
concentrations across much of the country on the order of 1 to 5
percent, with reductions ranging from 10 to 25 percent in some urban
areas. Our modeling also shows reductions of 1,3-butadiene and acrolein
concentrations in 2030 ranging between 1 and 25 percent, with 1,3-
butadiene decreases of at least 0.005 [mu]g/m\3\ in urban areas. These
toxics are national risk drivers and the reductions in ambient
[[Page 29849]]
concentrations from this proposed rule would result in reductions in
risks from cancer and noncancer health effects. In some parts of the
country (mainly urban areas), ethanol and formaldehyde concentrations
are projected to decrease on the order of 1 to 5 percent in 2030 as a
result of the proposal. Decreases in ethanol concentrations are
expected due to reductions in VOC as a result of the proposed
standards. Changes in ambient acetaldehyde concentrations are generally
less than 1 percent across the U.S., although the proposal may decrease
acetaldehyde concentrations in some urban areas by 1 to 2.5 percent in
2030.
Although the reductions in ambient air toxics concentrations
expected from the proposed Tier 3 standards are generally small, they
are projected to benefit the majority of the U.S. population. As shown
in Table III-12, over 80 percent of the total U.S. population is
projected to experience a decrease in ambient benzene and acrolein
concentrations of at least 2.5 percent, with more than 90 percent of
the populations projected to experience 1,3-butadiene concentrations of
similar magnitude. Over 80 percent of the U.S population is projected
to experience at least a 1 percent decrease in ambient ethanol
concentrations, and over 60 percent would experience a similar decrease
in ambient formaldehyde concentrations with the proposed standards.
Table III-12--Percent of Total Population Experiencing Changes in Annual Ambient Concentrations of Toxic Pollutants in 2030 as a Result of the Proposed
Standards \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene Acrolein 1,3-Butadiene Formaldehyde Ethanol Acetaldehyde
Percent change (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<= -50.................................................. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
> -50 to <= -25......................................... .............. .............. 0.1 .............. .............. ..............
> -25 to <= -10......................................... 2.8 0.7 56.8 .............. .............. ..............
> -10 to <= -5.......................................... 23.7 36.8 30.8 .............. .............. ..............
> -5 to <= -2.5......................................... 54.5 43.7 7.1 1.2 33.0 0.3
> -2.5 to <= -1......................................... 17.7 15.3 3.4 63.2 55.3 25.1
> -1 to < 1............................................. 1.4 3.5 1.7 35.6 11.6 74.6
>= 1 to < 2.5........................................... .............. .............. 0.0 .............. .............. ..............
>= 2.5 to < 5........................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
>= 5 to < 10............................................ .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
>= 10 to < 25........................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
>= 25 to < 50........................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
>= 50................................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did not account for emission reductions
associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will
account for LEV III vehicle standards.
5. Visibility
Air quality modeling conducted for this proposed action was used to
project visibility conditions in 139 mandatory class I federal areas
across the U.S. The results show that in 2030 all the modeled areas
would continue to have annual average deciview levels above background
and the proposed rule would improve visibility in all these areas.\194\
The average visibility at all modeled mandatory class I federal areas
on the 20 percent worst days is projected to improve by 0.04 deciviews,
or 0.28 percent, in 2030. Section 7.2.5.5 of the draft RIA contains
more detail on the visibility portion of the air quality modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ The level of visibility impairment in an area is based on
the light-extinction coefficient and a unitless visibility index,
called a ``deciview'', which is used in the valuation of visibility.
The deciview metric provides a scale for perceived visual changes
over the entire range of conditions, from clear to hazy. Under many
scenic conditions, the average person can generally perceive a
change of one deciview. The higher the deciview value, the worse the
visibility. Thus, an improvement in visibility is a decrease in
deciview value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition
Our air quality modeling projects substantial decreases in nitrogen
deposition as a result of the proposed standards. The standards would
result in annual percent decreases of greater than 5 percent in most
major urban areas and greater than 7 percent in a few areas. In
addition, smaller decreases, in the 1 to 1.5 percent range, would occur
over most of the rest of the country. The impacts of the proposed
standards on sulfur deposition are smaller, ranging from no change to
decreases of over 2 percent in some areas. For maps of 2030 deposition
impacts and additional information on these impacts see Section 7.2.5.6
of the draft RIA.
7. Environmental Justice
Environmental justice (EJ) is a principle asserting that all people
deserve fair treatment and meaningful involvement with respect to
environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA seeks to provide the
same degree of protection from environmental health hazards for all
people. As referenced below, numerous studies have found that some
environmental hazards are more prevalent in areas with high population
fractions of racial/ethnic minorities and people with low socioeconomic
status (SES), as would be expected on the basis of those areas' share
of the general population.
As discussed in Section II of this document, concentrations of many
air pollutants are elevated near high-traffic roadways. If minority
populations and low-income populations disproportionately live near
such roads, then an issue of EJ may be present. Such disparities may be
due to multiple factors.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ Depro, B.; Timmins, C. (2008) Mobility and environmental
equity: do housing choices determine exposure to air pollution?
North Caroline State University Center for Environmental and
Resource Economic Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
People with low SES often live in neighborhoods with multiple
stressors and health risk factors, including reduced health insurance
coverage rates, higher smoking and drug use rates, limited access to
fresh food, visible neighborhood violence, and elevated rates of
obesity and some diseases such as asthma, diabetes, and ischemic heart
disease. Although questions remain, several studies find stronger
associations between air pollution and health in locations with such
chronic neighborhood stress, suggesting that populations in these areas
may be more susceptible to the effects of air
[[Page 29850]]
pollution.196 197 198 199 Household-level stressors such as
parental smoking and relationship stress also may increase
susceptibility to the adverse effects of air
pollution.200 201
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ Clougherty, J.E.; Kubzansky, L.D. (2009) A framework for
examining social stress and susceptibility to air pollution in
respiratory health. Environ Health Perspect 117: 1351-1358.
Doi:10.1289/ehp.0900612 [Online at http://dx.doi.org].
\197\ Clougherty, J.E.; Levy, J.I.; Kubzansky, L.D.; Ryan, P.B.;
Franco Suglia, S.; Jacobson Canner, M.; Wright, R.J. (2007)
Synergistic effects of traffic-related air pollution and exposure to
violence on urban asthma etiology. Environ Health Perspect 115:
1140-1146. doi:10.1289/ehp.9863 [Online at http://dx.doi.org].
\198\ Finkelstein, M.M.; Jerrett, M.; DeLuca, P.; Finkelstein,
N.; Verma, D.K.; Chapman, K.; Sears, M.R. (2003) Relation between
income, air pollution and mortality: a cohort study. Canadian Med
Assn J 169: 397-402.
\199\ Shankardass, K.; McConnell, R.; Jerrett, M.; Milam, J.;
Richardson, J.; Berhane, K. (2009) Parental stress increases the
effect of traffic-related air pollution on childhood asthma
incidence. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106: 12406-12411. doi:10.1073/
pnas.0812910106 [Online at http://dx.doi.org].
\200\ Lewis, A.S.; Sax, S.N.; Wason, S.C.; Campleman, S.L (2011)
Non-chemical stressors and cumulative risk assessment: an overview
of current initiatives and potential air pollutant interactions. Int
J Environ Res Public Health 8: 2020-2073. Doi:10.3390/ijerph8062020
[Online at http://dx.doi.org].
\201\ Rosa, M.J.; Jung, K.H.; Perzanowski, M.S.; Kelvin, E.A.;
Darling, K.W.; Camann, D.E.; Chillrud, S.N.; Whyatt, R.M.; Kinney,
P.L.; Perera, F.P.; Miller, R.L (2010) Prenatal exposure to
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, environmental tobacco smoke and
asthma. Respir Med (In press). doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2010.11.022
[Online at http://dx.doi.org].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address the existing conditions in areas near major roadways, in
comparison with other locations, we reviewed existing scholarly
literature examining the topic, and conducted our own evaluation of two
national datasets: the U.S. Census Bureau's American Housing Survey for
calendar year 2009 and the U.S. Department of Education's database of
school locations.
Existing publications that address EJ issues generally report that
populations living near major roadways (and other types of
transportation infrastructure) tend to be composed of larger fractions
of nonwhite residents. People living in neighborhoods near such sources
of air pollution also tend to be lower in income than people living
elsewhere. Numerous studies evaluating the demographics and
socioeconomic status of populations or schools near roadways have found
that they include a greater percentage of minority residents, as well
as lower SES (indicated by variables such as median household income).
Locations in these studies include Los Angeles, CA, Seattle, WA, Wayne
County, MI, Orange County, FL, and the State of California
202 203 204 205 206 207
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ Marshall, J.D. (2008) Environmental inequality: air
pollution exposures in California's South Coast Air Basin.
\203\ Su, J.G.; Larson, T.; Gould, T.; Cohen, M.; Buzzelli, M.
(2010) Transboundary air pollution and environmental justice:
Vancouver and Seattle compared. GeoJournal 57: 595-608. doi:10.1007/
s10708-009-9269-6 [Online at http://dx.doi.org].
\204\ Chakraborty, J.; Zandbergen, P.A. (2007) Children at risk:
measuring racial/ethnic disparities in potential exposure to air
pollution at school and home. J Epidemiol Community Health 61: 1074-
1079. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.054130 [Online at http://dx.doi.org].
\205\ Green, R.S.; Smorodinsky, S.; Kim, J.J.; McLaughlin, R.;
Ostro, B. (2003) Proximity of California public schools to busy
roads. Environ Health Perspect 112: 61-66. doi:10.1289/ehp.6566
[http://dx.doi.org].
\206\ Wu, Y; Batterman, S.A. (2006) Proximity of schools in
Detroit, Michigan to automobile and truck traffic. J Exposure Sci &
Environ Epidemiol. doi:10.1038/sj.jes.7500484 [Online at http://dx.doi.org].
\207\ Su, J.G.; Jerrett, M.; de Nazelle, A.; Wolch, J. (2011)
Does exposure to air pollution in urban parks have socioeconomic,
racial, or ethnic gradients? Environ Res 111: 319-328.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We analyzed two national databases that allowed us to evaluate
whether homes and schools were located near a major road. One database,
the American Housing Survey (AHS), includes descriptive statistics of
over 70,000 housing units across the nation. The study is conducted
every two years by the U.S. Census Bureau. We analyzed data from the
2009 AHS. The second database we analyzed was the U.S. Department of
Education's Common Core of Data, which includes enrollment and location
information for schools across the U.S.
In analyzing the 2009 AHS, we focused on whether or not a housing
unit was located within 300 feet of ``4-or-more lane highway, railroad,
or airport.'' \208\ We analyzed whether there were differences between
houses and householders in such locations and those not in them.\209\
We found that houses with a nonwhite householder were 22-34 percent
more likely to be located within 300 feet of these large transportation
facilities, while houses with a Hispanic householder were 17-33 percent
more likely. Households near large transportation facilities were, on
average, lower in income and educational attainment, more likely to be
a rental property and located in an urban area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ This variable primarily represents roadway proximity.
According to the Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook, in
2010, the United States had 6,506,204 km or roadways, 224,792 km of
railways, and 15,079 airports. As such, highways represent the
overwhelming majority of transportation facilities described by this
factor in the AHS.
\209\ Bailey, C. (2011) Demographic and Social Patterns in
Housing Units Near Large Highways and other Transportation Sources.
Memorandum to docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In examining schools near major roadways, we examined the Common
Core of Data (CCD) from the U.S. Department of Education, which
includes information on all public elementary and secondary schools and
school districts nationwide.\210\ To determine school proximities to
major roadways, we used a geographic information system (GIS) to map
each school and roadways based on the U.S. Census's TIGER roadway
file.\211\ We found that minority students were overrepresented at
schools within 200 meters of the largest roadways, and that schools
within 200 meters of the largest roadways also had higher than expected
numbers of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. For
example, Black students represent 21.57 percent of students at schools
located within 200 meters of a primary road, whereas Black students
represent 16.62 percent of students in all U.S. schools. Hispanic
students represent 30.13 percent of students at schools located within
200 meters of a primary road, whereas Hispanic students represent 21.93
percent of students in all U.S. schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\210\ http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.
\211\ Pedde, M.; Bailey, C. (2011) Identification of Schools
within 200 Meters of U.S. Primary and Secondary Roads. Memorandum to
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, there is substantial evidence that people who live or
attend school near major roadways are more likely to be of a minority
race, Hispanic ethnicity, and/or low SES. The reduction of near-roadway
concentrations of many pollutants, discussed above, is likely to help
in mitigating this disparity in racial, ethnic, and economically-based
exposures.
IV. Proposed Vehicle Emissions Program
In the more than 10 years since EPA finalized the Tier 2 Vehicle
Program, manufacturers of light-duty vehicles have continued to develop
a wide range of improved technologies capable of reducing key exhaust
emissions, especially hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOX),
and particulate matter (PM). The California LEV II program has been
instrumental in the continuous technology improvements by requiring
year after year reductions in fleet average hydrocarbon levels in
addition to requiring the introduction of advanced exhaust and
evaporative emission controls in partial zero emission vehicles
(PZEVs). This progress in vehicle technology has made it possible for
manufacturers to achieve
[[Page 29851]]
emission reductions well beyond the requirements of the Tier 2 program
if gasoline sulfur levels are lowered further.
Extensive data from existing Tier 2 (and California LEV II)
vehicles show the opportunity for further reductions, especially in
addressing emissions produced at start-up, emissions under high-speed,
high-load conditions, the effects of sulfur in gasoline, the effects of
increased oil consumption, and the effects of vehicle and control
systems age. For these reasons, we are proposing more stringent
standards designed to reduce emissions, primarily non-methane organic
gases (NMOG), NOX, and PM from new vehicles. As discussed in
detail below and in the draft RIA, we have concluded that, in
conjunction with the reductions in fuel sulfur proposed in this action,
the proposed vehicle emissions standards are feasible and cost-
effective across the fleet in the proposed timeframe. We believe that
simultaneous reductions in fuel sulfur would be a key factor in
enabling the entire fleet of light-duty vehicles to meet the proposed
emission standards in-use, throughout the life of the vehicle.
This section describes in detail the proposed program for reducing
tailpipe and evaporative emissions from light-duty vehicles (LDVs, or
passenger cars), light-duty trucks (LDT1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s), Medium-Duty
Passenger Vehicles (MDPVs), and heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs). Sections
IV.A and B discuss the proposed tailpipe emission standards and time
lines, and other provisions for new light-duty vehicles and MDPVs and
for new heavy-duty vehicles up to 14,000 lbs Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating (GVWR). Section IV.C presents the proposed evaporative emissions
standards and program as well as proposed improvements to the existing
Onboard Diagnostics (OBD) provisions. In Section IV.D, we describe our
proposal to update our federal certification fuel to better match
today's in-use fuel and to be forward-looking with respect to potential
future gasoline ethanol and sulfur content. We also discuss in this
section proposed compliance flexibilities for small companies and
small-volume manufacturers (IV.E) and test procedure and other
compliance provisions (IV.F).
A. Tailpipe Emission Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty
Trucks, and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
1. Overview
The proposed Tier 3 standards are very similar in structure to
those in the Tier 2 program. As with the Tier 2 program, the proposed
standards would apply to all LDVs and LDTs below 8,500 lbs GVWR, and
MDPVs (8,500 to 10,000 lbs GVWR). (We discuss the proposed standards
for heavy-duty vehicles up to 14,000 lbs GVWR other than MDPVs, in
Section IV.B below.) Also as with Tier 2, manufacturers would select
from several ``bins'' of emission standards such that the average of
their vehicles' emissions complies with the proposed fleet-average
standards.
In the discussions of the various elements of our proposed program
for light- and heavy-duty vehicles throughout this preamble, we
describe how the provisions would be consistent with the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) LEV III program.\212\ Auto manufacturers have
stressed to us the importance of their being able to design and produce
a single fleet of vehicles in all 50 states that would comply with
requirements under the Tier 3 program and the LEV III program, as well
as greenhouse gas/CAFE requirements in the same timeframe. Consistency
among the federal and California programs means that special versions
of vehicles with different emission control hardware and calibrations
would not be necessary for different geographic areas. This would allow
manufacturers to avoid the additional costs of parallel design,
development, calibration, and manufacturing. Consistency among programs
would also eliminate the need to supply aftermarket parts for repair of
multiple versions of a vehicle. We believe that the most cost-effective
national program will result from close coordination of CARB LEV III
and federal Tier 3 program elements and their implementation. To that
end, we worked closely with CARB and the vehicle manufacturers, both
individually and through their trade associations, to align the two
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ LEV III program as approved by the California Air
Resources Board, January 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tier 3 program we are proposing is identical to LEV III in most
major respects for both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicle exhaust and
evaporative emissions requirements, as discussed in detail below in
this section. The levels and the timing of the light-duty and heavy-
duty declining fleet-average NMOG+NOx standards that we are proposing
would be identical to those in LEV III. Also, the Tier 3 emissions bins
to which manufacturers would certify individual vehicle models in order
to comply with the average standards, for both light- and heavy-duty
vehicles, would also be identical to those in LEV III. Similarly, the
proposed Tier 3 per-vehicle PM standards match LEV III standards
through MY 2024. In addition, our proposed primary evaporative
emissions standards and onboard diagnostics requirements are also
identical to the LEV III requirements.
We note there are a few proposed Tier 3 provisions that CARB and
EPA understand would be different, for reasons discussed below.
Specifically, these include the LEV III program and our proposed Tier 3
program would have different light-duty PM requirements late in the
program (i.e., after MY 2024 (IV.A.3.b.)), would require different test
fuels (E10 and E15, respectively (IV.A.3.c)), and only EPA would have
an evaporative leak test (IV.C.5.b). EPA and CARB will continue to work
toward additional consistency between our programs whenever practicable
as both programs are implemented. Beyond these three provisions, the
differences between the programs would not be major and would exist
only in the early transitional years of the Tier 3 program. These
differences would result from the fact that the LEV III requirements
begin slightly earlier and that a limited phase-in of some provisions
would be necessary for a smooth transition to overall aligned programs.
These temporary differences would include the process for how early
compliance credits would be generated and used (e.g., Section
IV.A.7.a); how quickly manufacturers would need move toward certifying
all of their vehicle models to longer useful-life values (e.g., Section
IV.A.7.b) and on the new test fuel (e.g., Section IV.A.7.c); and
transitional emissions bins to facilitate the transition from Tier 2 to
Tier 3 (IV.A.7.m). Similarly, the primary Tier 3 evaporative standards
would have a brief phase in period, temporarily resulting in
requirements that would be slightly different from those in LEV III.
The proposed Tier 3 program is designed primarily to reduce exhaust
and evaporative emissions during summer ambient temperature conditions
when NMOG, NOX and PM emissions contribute to air quality
concerns. We are not proposing new emission requirements for any
vehicle or fuel over the cold temperatures test cycles (i.e., the
20[emsp14][deg]F cold CO and NMHC tests). However, we seek comment on
the need for doing so, including vehicles operating on E85 fuel, and on
the appropriate form and level for any such cold-temperature
requirements.
[[Page 29852]]
2. Summary of Proposed FTP and SFTP Tailpipe Standards
We are proposing a comprehensive program that would address the key
pollutants of concern. We are proposing new standards for the sum of
NMOG and NOX emissions, presented as NMOG+NOX,
and PM. As discussed in Section III above, these proposed standards
would result in very significant improvements in vehicle emissions from
the levels of the Tier 2 program. For these pollutants, we are
proposing standards as measured on test procedures that represent a
range of vehicle operation, including the Federal Test Procedure (FTP)
and the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP). Unless otherwise
specified, the proposed FTP and SFTP standards would apply to vehicles
operating on gasoline, diesel, and alternative fuels, including both
flexible fuel and dedicated alternative fuel vehicles.
The proposed FTP and SFTP NMOG+NOX standards would be
fleet-average standards, meaning that the manufacturer would calculate
the average emissions of the vehicles it sells in each model year and
compare that average to the applicable standard for that model year.
The proposed fleet average standards for NMOG+NOX evaluated
over the FTP are summarized in Table I-1. (For comparison, the average
NMOG and NOX standard for the Tier 2 program, when added
together, equal 160 mg/mi). The standards would begin in MY 2017 at a
level representing a 46 percent reduction from the current Tier 2
requirements for lighter vehicles and would become increasingly
stringent, culminating in an 81 percent reduction in MY 2025. The
proposed FTP NMOG+NOX program includes separate fleet
average standards for lighter and heavier vehicles that would converge
at 30 milligrams per mile (mg/mi) in MY 2025 and
later.213 214
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ The proposed declining NMOG+NOX fleet-average
standards would consist of one set of declining standards that would
apply to light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and small light trucks (LDT1s)
and a second set of declining standards that would apply to heavier
light trucks (LDT2s, LDT3s. LDT4s), and MDPVs.
\214\ This preamble presents the proposed standards in terms of
milligrams per mile for convenience. The associated regulatory
language will continue to present the standard in terms of grams per
mile for consistency with earlier programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers would determine their fleet average FTP
NMOG+NOX emission values based on the per-vehicle ``bin
standards'' to which they certified each vehicle model. As with the
Tier 2 program, manufacturers would be free to choose to certify
vehicles to any of the bins, so long as the sales-weighted average of
the NMOG+NOX values from the selected bins met the fleet
average standard for that model year. Table IV-1 presents the per-
vehicle bin standards. Similarly, the proposed fleet average
NMOG+NOX standards measured over the SFTP are summarized in
Table I-2. The proposed SFTP NMOG+NOX fleet average
standards decline from MY 2017 until MY 2025. In this case, the same
standards would apply to both lighter and heavier vehicles. In MY 2025,
the SFTP NMOG+NOX standard would reach its fully phased-in
fleet average level of 50 mg/mi. We are also proposing PM standards as
part of this Tier 3 program. The proposed PM standards would apply to
each vehicle separately (i.e., not as a fleet average). Also, in
contrast to the declining NMOG+NOX standards, the proposed
certification PM standard on the FTP is 3 mg/mi for all vehicles and
for all model years, but phasing in beginning in MY 2017 for vehicles
at or below 6,000 lbs GVWR and in MY 2018 for vehicles above 6,000 lbs
GVWR. Based on EPA and CARB test programs, most current light duty
vehicles are already performing at or below this level. However, some
vehicles are emitting above this level, due to such factors as
combustion chamber designs, and fuel and oil consumption controls that
are not optimized for low PM emissions. The intent of the proposed 3
mg/mi standard is to bring all light-duty vehicles to the PM level
typical of that being demonstrated by most light-duty vehicles today.
To address the uncertainties that will accompany the introduction
of new technologies, the proposed program also includes a separate in-
use FTP PM standard of 6 mg/mi for the testing of in-use vehicles
during the phase-in period, as described in more detail below. As
presented in Table I-3, for vehicles at or below 6000 lbs GVWR, these
FTP certification and in-use standards would be phased in beginning
with a requirement that at least 20 percent of a company's U.S. sales
meet the standards in MY 2017 and reaching a 100 percent compliance
requirement in MY 2021. The proposed standards represent a significant
numerical reduction from the Tier 2 PM emission standards of 10 mg/mi
for light-duty vehicles. Finally, the proposed Tier 3 program includes
PM standards evaluated over the US06 cycle (a component of the SFTP
test, discussed further below) at a level of 10 mg/mi for vehicles at
or below 6,000 lbs GVWR and 20 mg/mi for heavier vehicles. We are
proposing separate standards for different sizes of vehicles because PM
generation typically increases when vehicles are carrying heavier loads
and/or when they are pulling trailers. The US06 PM standards would
phase in on the same schedule as the FTP PM standards, reaching 100
percent of each company's U.S. sales by MY 2022. These US06 standards
would apply to the same vehicle models that a manufacture chose to
certify to the FTP PM standard during the percent phase in period. PM
levels over the US06 are typically higher than the PM emitted over the
FTP due to the increased load on the vehicle. As in the case of the FTP
PM standards, the intent of the proposed standard is to bring the
emission performance of all vehicles to that already being demonstrated
by many vehicles in the current light-duty fleet.
As with the FTP PM standard, we propose a separate in-use US06 PM
standard during the percent phase-in period of 15 and 25 mg/mi for
vehicles of 6000 lbs GVWR and less, and for vehicles above 6,000 lbs
GVWR, respectively.
The next subsections describe in more detail the proposed
standards, how they would be implemented over time, and the
technological approaches that we believe will be available to
manufacturers in order to comply.
3. Proposed FTP Standards
As summarized above, we propose new standards for the primary
pollutants of concern for this rule (NMOG, NOX, and PM) as
measured on the FTP. The following paragraphs describe in more detail
these FTP standards for NMOG+NOX and PM, as well as for
carbon monoxide (CO) and formaldehyde (HCHO).
a. FTP NMOG+NOX Standards
We propose that the Tier 3 NMOG and NOX standards, both
of which are important to reduce ambient ozone concentrations, be
expressed in terms of the sum of the two pollutants, or as
NMOG+NOX in mg/mi.\215\ This approach contrasts with the
Tier 2 standards, which were expressed as separate NMOG and
NOX standards. We believe that the combined standard is
appropriate for this proposed program for several reasons. At the
stringent proposed emission levels, combining NMOG and NOX
would provide a small amount of compliance flexibility, while at the
same time significantly reducing both NMOG and NOX emission
levels.
[[Page 29853]]
For example, the combined standard would allow a gasoline vehicle
manufacturer to have slightly higher NMOG if it were offset by lower
NOX, or allow a diesel vehicle manufacturer to have slightly
higher NOX if offset by lower NMOG. This approach still
ensures major reductions in both pollutants compared to today's levels.
This is because the very stringent level of the fully phased-in
proposed combined standard (30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX) means that
even with a degree of allowed trading off of one pollutant for the
other, the maximum emissions of either pollutant would need to be well
below current levels. The standards of the California LEV III program
would also be expressed as NMOG+NOX; aligning Tier 3 with
LEV III in this respect would facilitate an important element of a
national program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ In the past, EPA has taken a similar combined-standard
approach for heavy-duty highway engines and many categories of
nonroad engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that a fully phased-in level for the proposed fleet-
average standard of 30 mg/mi is the most stringent level that we could
reasonably propose in the context of our proposed 10-ppm average
standard for gasoline sulfur. As discussed in the feasibility Section
IV.A.5 below, when necessary margins of compliance are considered, this
proposed standard is very close to zero. We request comment on this
level for the proposed standard, as well as the declining standards
during the transition years (see Table IV-3 below). EPA is proposing
compliance mechanisms for the new Tier 3 FTP standards that are the
same in most respects as those of the Tier 2 program. Using the Tier 2
approaches as much as possible would streamline the implementation of
the program by maintaining most of the compliance processes that
manufacturers are familiar with today.
A key compliance mechanism adapted from the Tier 2 program is a
``bin'' structure for the proposed emission standards. For these
purposes, a bin is a set of several standards that are intended to be
complied with as a group. Thus each Tier 3 bin would have an
NMOG+NOX standard and a PM standard, as well as CO and HCHO
standards. A manufacturer choosing to certify a vehicle to a certain
bin would need to meet each of that bin's standards for the full useful
life of the vehicle. In this approach, manufacturers could certify
vehicles to any of the bins, but they would have to ensure that average
NMOG+NOX of the bins to which all of its vehicles were
certified met the fleet average standard specific to the vehicle
category (i.e., LDV/LDT1 and LDT2/3/4/MDPVs) for that model year. That
is, a manufacturer would comply by ensuring that the sales-weighted
average of the NMOG+NOX values of the bins to which each of
its vehicle models was certified was lower than the fleet average
standard that applied for that model year.
For each proposed bin, we are including CO and HCHO standards at
levels intended to prevent new engine and emission control designs that
would result in increases in today's CO and HCHO emissions. The
standards are based on the comparable current LEV II and Tier 2 bin
standards for these pollutants. The current standards do not appear to
be technology-forcing, and we believe that this would continue to be
the case as Tier 3 technologies are developed.
The bin structure that we are proposing for light duty vehicles,
light-duty trucks, and MDPVs standards is presented in Table IV-1.
Table IV-1--Proposed FTP Standards for LDVs, LDTs and MDPVs (mg/mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX (mg/
Bin mi) PM \a\ (mg/mi) CO (g/mi) HCHO (mg/mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 160......................................... 160 3 4.2 4
Bin 125......................................... 125 3 2.1 4
Bin 70.......................................... 70 3 1.7 4
Bin 50.......................................... 50 3 1.7 4
Bin 30.......................................... 30 3 1.0 4
Bin 20.......................................... 20 3 1.0 4
Bin 0........................................... 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ In MYs 2017-20, the PM standard applies only to that segment of a manufacturer's vehicles covered by the
percent of sales phase-in for that model year.
Consistent with the Tier 2 principle of vehicle and fuel
neutrality, we are proposing that the same standards apply to LDVs,
LDTs, or MDPVs, regardless of the fuel they use. That is, vehicles
certified to operate on any fuel (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, E85,
CNG, LNG, hydrogen, and methanol) would all be subject to the same
standards.
We propose to maintain the fleet-average approach of the Tier 2
standards. Unlike Tier 2, the proposed Tier 3 fleet-average standards
would decline annually to a fully phased-in level of 30 mg/mi
NMOG+NOX. (The Tier 2 program, after a period of transition,
established a single fleet average standard for all model years.)
Specifically, we are proposing NMOG+NOX standards as
measured on the FTP that would reduce the combined fleet-average
emissions gradually from MY 2017 through 2025, as shown in Table IV-2
below. Beginning in MY 2017, we propose separate fleet average
standards for lighter and heavier vehicles that would both decline
annually, converging in MY 2025. These proposed declining average
standards are identical to CARB's LEV III standards.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ See California Low-Emission Vehicles (LEV) & GHG 2012
regulations adopted by State of California Air Resources Board,
March 22, 2012, Resolution 12-21 incorporating by reference
Resolution 12-11, which was adopted January 26, 2012. Available at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/leviiighg2012.htm
(last accessed November 19, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The declining fleet-average NMOG+NOX standard
requirement would begin in 2017 for light-duty vehicles and light-duty
trucks with a GVWR up to and including 6,000 lbs and in 2018 for all
other light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks (i.e., those with a
GVWR greater than 6,000 lbs). The standards would apply to the heavier
vehicles a year later to facilitate the transition to a 50-state
program for all manufacturers. During this transition period, there
would be two fleet-average NMOG+NOX standards for each model
year, one for LDVs and LDT1s and a second fleet-average standard for
all other LDTs (LDT2s, LDT3s, and LDT4s) and for MDPVs. We are
proposing that the fleet-average standards decline in a linear way from
MY 2017 through MY 2025, at which point the two fleet-average standards
would converge and stabilize for later model years at the same level,
30 mg/mi, as shown in Table IV-2. Note that these fleet average
standards are for LDT2 and larger vehicles, and for LDVs and LDT1s that
[[Page 29854]]
manufacturers certify to the 150,000 mile useful life value. Section
IV.A.7.b discusses how the Clean Air Act defines the useful life values
for certification purposes and how EPA proposes to also provide for
certification to slightly lower emissions standards to a useful life
value of 120,000 miles, representing a level of stringency that is
equivalent to that of the emission standards corresponding to the
150,000 mile useful life, for LDVs and LDT1s.
Table IV-2--Proposed LDV, LDT, and MDPV Fleet Average FTP NMOG+NOX Standards
[mg/mi]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 and
2017 \a\ 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 later
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV/LDT1\b\.......................................... 86 79 72 65 58 51 44 37 30
LDT2,3,4 and MDPV.................................... 101 92 83 74 65 56 47 38 30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, the fleet average standards would apply beginning in MY 2018.
\b\ These proposed standards apply for a 150,000 mile useful life. Manufacturers could choose to certify all of their LDVs and LDV1s to a useful life of
120,000 miles. If any of these families are certified to the shorter useful life, a proportionally lower numerical fleet average standard would apply,
calculated by multiplying the respective 150,000 mile standard by 0.85 and rounding to the nearest mg.
EPA is also proposing an alternative phase-in of the 30 mg/mi FTP
NMOG+NOX standard that would be available if a manufacturer
prefers a stable standard and four full years of lead time, as
specified in the Clean Air Act for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR. For
MYs 2017 and 2018, a manufacturer would certify vehicles up to 6,000
lbs GVWR to the primary declining FTP fleet average standards, as in
the primary program. Then, beginning in MY 2019, a stable fleet average
standard of 30 mg/mi would apply to an increasing percentage of a
manufacturer's light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and MDPVs, both
up to and above 6,000 lbs GVWR. The percent phase-in would match the
proposed PM percent phase-in schedule, as discussed below--specifically
40 percent of sales in MY 2019, 70 percent in MY 2020, and 100 percent
in MY 2021 and later model years. A manufacturer choosing to certify
any vehicle to this alternative phase-in would need to use this
approach for all its models in MYs 2019 and later; certifying part of
its fleet to the declining fleet average after MY 2018 would not be
permitted, since the structures of the two approaches, including the
early credits provisions of the NMOG+NOx fleet average program, would
not be consistent. A manufacturer certifying to this alternative phase-
in would also need to comply with the alternative SFTP NMOG+NOx phase-
in and the alternative FTP PM and US06 PM phase-ins as described below.
Vehicles covered by the alternative phase-in programs would be
considered ``final Tier 3'' vehicles and thus would also comply with
the Tier 3 certification fuel and full useful life provisions. EPA
requests comment on this alternative phase-in approach as well as on
the primary option above.
b. FTP PM Standards
We also propose new FTP standards for PM emissions, as summarized
in Table IV-3 below. For many years, EPA's focus for mobile source PM
was on diesel engine emissions. In recent years, the very effective
controls on PM exhaust emissions that manufacturers have developed for
heavy-duty diesel engines have been successfully applied to light-duty
diesel engines as well. At the same time, attention to gasoline engine
PM emissions has increased as research has demonstrated that the level
of PM from gasoline light duty vehicles is more significant than had
been previously thought.\217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\ Nam, E.; Fulper, C.; Warila, J.; Somers, J.; Michaels, H.;
Bauldauf, R.; Rykowski, R.; and Scarboro, C. Analysis of Particulate
Matter Emissions from Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles in Kansas City,
EPA420-R-08-010. Assessment and Standards Division Office of
Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ann Arbor, MI, April 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under typical driving, as simulated by the FTP, the PM emissions of
most current-technology gasoline vehicles are fairly low, well below
the Tier 2 PM standards. At the same time we see considerable variation
in PM emissions among vehicle models not consistently associated with
any specific engine or emission control technology (Section 1.5.1 of
the draft RIA). As a result, we are proposing a new FTP PM standard
that is set to ensure that all new vehicles would perform at a level
representing what is already being achieved by well-designed Tier 2
emission control technologies.
PM emissions over the FTP are generally attributed to the cold
start, when PM formation from combustion of the fuel is facilitated by
the operating conditions, including a cold combustion chamber and fuel
enrichment. During cold start, PM control via oxidation of semi-
volatile organic compounds from the lubricating oil by catalytic
converters is less effective. We believe that the proposed FTP PM
standard can be achieved with improvements to the fuel controls during
the cold start without the need for any new technology or hardware.
Improvements in cold-start exhaust catalyst performance for NMOG+NOx
control will also reduce emissions of semi-volatile organic PM. As
such, cold start PM levels are relatively independent of vehicle
application and therefore we are proposing a single FTP PM standard for
all light-duty and MDPV vehicles. The PM standard level we are
proposing would ensure that future PM performance is consistent with
current well-performing Tier 2 vehicles. Unlike the NMOG+NOX
FTP standard, the PM standard would not decline over time, since most
manufacturers are already producing vehicles that would meet the
proposed new standards.
Although we believe it is important that the proposed FTP PM
standard apply from the beginning of the Tier 3 program, we are
proposing several provisions to provide a degree of flexibility for
manufacturers in how many vehicle models would need to meet that
standard in the early years of the program. Manufacturers have raised
several issues that we believe these provisions would address.
In meetings with EPA, several manufacturers have expressed concerns
about how a PM standard in the range of the proposed 3 mg/mi standard
would be implemented. One concern related to the initial uncertainties
about PM emissions performance that will accompany the development of
new engine technologies, including those that may be introduced to
address the GHG emissions/fuel economy standards that EPA and NHTSA
recently finalized for these vehicles. Also, manufacturers expressed
concerns related to the testing
[[Page 29855]]
of PM on the FTP, particularly about potential updates to the test
procedures required to accurately measure PM at very low levels.
Finally, related to the concerns about the new test procedures are the
current limitations that exist for some manufacturers regarding the
capacity of their test facilities to perform a significant volume of
gasoline vehicle PM testing.
For these reasons, we are proposing a percent-of-sales phase-in
during the first 5 years of the program to address these concerns.
Beginning in MY 2017 (and in MY 2018 for vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR),
manufacturers would comply with the PM standard with a minimum of 20
percent of their U.S. sales. As shown in Table IV-3, the percentage of
the manufacturer's sales that would need to comply would increase each
year, reaching 100 percent in MY 2021. In addition to this percent
phase-in, we are proposing a separate PM standard of 6 mg/mi that would
apply only for in-use testing of vehicles certified to the new
standards, and only during the percent phase-in period.
Due to the MY 2018 start date for vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR,
manufacturers that have few or no vehicle models over 6,000 lbs GVWR
would be required to certify a larger percentage of their total light-
duty sales in MY 2017 than full line manufacturers. While we believe
that most manufacturers would likely choose a single large-volume
durability group to meet the 2017 requirements, we seek comment on an
option to comply with the MY 2017 PM requirements by allowing
manufactures to certify 10 percent of all their light-duty vehicle
sales in MY 2017 to the new PM standards, including light-duty vehicles
over 6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs. This approach would be consistent with
the CARB LEVIII program, which requires that 10 percent of all light-
duty vehicle sales meet the new PM standards in MY 2017.
Because of the expected time and expense of performing emission
tests on the improved PM test procedures, we are proposing to limit the
number of tests using the new procedures that a manufacturer would need
to perform at certification and during in-use testing. Specifically,
manufacturers would be required to test vehicles representing a minimum
of 25 percent of a model's durability test groups during certification
each model year (and a minimum of 2 durability groups).\218\
Manufacturers could select which durability groups to test, but would
need to rotate the groups tested each year to eventually cover their
whole fleet. Similarly, manufacturers performing in-use testing under
the In-Use Verification Program could limit their testing to 50 percent
of their low- and high-mileage test vehicles. Again, manufacturers
would need to rotate their vehicle models so that each model would be
tested every other year. Overall, we believe that the flexibility that
these proposed provisions would provide would facilitate the
expeditious implementation of the proposed program, with no significant
impact on the potential benefits of the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ Durability groups are a subset of engine families. Several
engine families may have the same durability group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PM standards that we are proposing are the most stringent
technically feasible standards within the implementation timeframe of
this proposal. Although the CARB LEV III program includes a 1 mg/mi
standard which will begin phasing in starting in MY 2025, they
acknowledge that there is a need for continuing PM measurement method
development prior to implementing this standard.\219\ In order for EPA
to propose a standard at this level, there must be established methods
to reliably and consistently measure PM below that standard, for
compliance purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\219\ California Air Resources Board (CARB) Initial Statement of
Reasons, Public Hearing to Consider LEV III, December 7, 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request comment on all of the proposed FTP standards, their
structure, and their implementation schedules.
Table IV-3--Summary of Proposed FTP Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Element Units Model Year Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX Standard (fleet average) mg/mi Per declining fleet average for cars and trucks (see Table IV[dash]2) \b\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase-in %............ 20 20 40 70 100 100 100 .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP.............................. Certification....... mg/mi........ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Note c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-use.............. mg/mi........ 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 Note d
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, the proposed FTP PM would apply beginning in MY 2018.
\b\ The percent phase-in would not apply to the declining fleet average standards.
\c\ Manufacturers would be required to test 25 percent of each model year's durability groups, minimum of 2.
\d\ Manufacturers would be required to test 50 percent of their low and high mileage in-use vehicles.
As with the proposed FTP NMOG+NOX standards, EPA is also
proposing an alternative phase-in of the 3 mg/mi FTP PM standard that
would be available if a manufacturer prefers 4 full years of lead time
for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR. A manufacturer that chooses the
alternative phase-in for the FTP NMOG+NOX program above
could also postpone the beginning of the phase-in for PM compliance for
vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR until MY 2019. For MYs 2017 and 2018, a
manufacturer would certify vehicles up to 6,000 lbs GVWR to the 3 mg/mi
FTP PM standard (and have a 6 mg/mi in-use PM standard) for 20 percent
of its sales in each of those years, as with the primary PM percent
phase-in schedule. Then, for MYs 2019 and later, it would comply with
the 3 mg/mi (and 6 mg/mi in-use) PM standards for their LDVs, LDTs, and
MDPVs, both up to and above 6,000 lbs GVWR. For MYs 2019 and 2020
(i.e., before the phase-in is fully implemented in MY 2021),
manufacturers choosing this alternative would be required to meet the
PM standard on the same segment of their fleet vehicles being used to
meet the NMOG+ NOX fleet average standard, and at the
applicable phase-in percentage of sales for the given model year.
Manufacturers
[[Page 29856]]
certifying to the alternative PM phase-in standard would also need to
comply with the alternative US06 PM phase-in as described below, as
well as the NMOG+ NOX FTP and SFTP phase-ins. EPA requests
comment on this alternative phase-in approach as well as on the primary
PM phase-in option above.
4. Proposed SFTP Standards
In addition to the proposed FTP standards, we are proposing
NMOG+NOX and PM standards as measured on the SFTP. The SFTP
(and specifically the US06 component of the test) is designed to
simulate higher speeds and higher acceleration rates (and thus higher
loads) when substantially more heat can be generated during the
combustion process. It is during these kinds of operation that engines
can go into a fuel ``enrichment'' mode, where the engine's controls may
temporarily create a rich air/fuel mixture to protect exhaust
components from thermal damage. Enrichment can increase emissions of
NMOG+NOX and PM, primarily due to the incomplete combustion
that occurs under rich conditions and the diminished effectiveness of
the catalyst in these circumstances. However, enrichment can be
minimized or eliminated in current and future engines, where components
can be thermally protected even under high-load conditions by careful
electronic management of the air/fuel mixture and the combustion
process. To reduce emissions caused by excessive enrichment, we are
proposing new SFTP standards. Further, as described in Section IV.A.4.c
below, we are proposing limitations on the magnitude of enrichment that
could be commanded by the vehicle operator. We describe the proposed
SFTP standards in the following paragraphs.
We are also proposing an SFTP composite CO standard of 4.2 g/mi for
all model years 2017 (or 2018) and later. This standard represents no
effective change from the current Tier 2 SFTP CO standard, which we
believe is already at a level that is sufficiently stringent.
a. SFTP NMOG+NOX Standards
We have reviewed certification and in-use NMOG and NOX
data on a wide range of recent vehicles as tested on the US06 cycle.
See Chapter 1 of the draft RIA for an analysis of this data. It is
clear that most current vehicles are generally avoiding significant
enrichment events during high-load operation and thus achieve
relatively low NMOG+NOX emissions on the US06 test. The data
shows that with minor (if any) improvements to engine calibrations and
with no significant loss of performance, manufacturers are able to
essentially eliminate enrichment events and their emissions
consequences. Thus, as presented in Table IV-5 below, we are proposing
new composite SFTP standards for NMOG+NOX at levels that
would be more stringent than those required by the existing Tier 2
program. We believe that the new standards would require emission
performance at levels currently achieved today by most vehicles under
high-load operation, and we do not believe that significant additional
reductions would result from SFTP standards more stringent than the
proposed 50 mg/mi fully phased-in level. The SFTP emissions value for
certification of gaseous pollutants would continue to be calculated as
a weighted composite value of emissions on three cycles (0.35 x FTP +
0.28 x US06 + 0.37 x SC03), as is done for the Tier 2 SFTP standards.
We believe that the proposed standards could be more challenging in
the early years of the program. Thus, we propose a declining fleet
average standard that would become increasingly stringent from MY 2017
to MY 2025. Manufacturers would comply with a declining
NMOG+NOX fleet-average SFTP standard for each year beginning
in MY 2017 (MY 2018 for vehicles over 6000 lbs GVWR) and culminating
for MY 2025 and later with a fleet-average standard of 50 mg/mi.
To provide flexibility in meeting the fleet-average standards,
manufacturers would determine for themselves what the specific SFTP
composite standard would be for an individual vehicle family and report
that self-selected standard and the measured emission performance.
(These self-selected standards are analogous to ``family emission
limits,'' or ``FELs,'' used in other programs (e.g., heavy-duty highway
engine standards).) For each family, a manufacturer would choose any
composite NMOG+NOX standard, up to 180 mg/mi, in even 10 mg/
mi increments. The manufacturer would then calculate the sales-weighted
average of all the selected standards of the families across its fleet
and compare that emissions value to the applicable fleet-average
standards for that model year. Table IV-4 presents the proposed
declining fleet-average SFTP NMOG+NOX standards.
As with the proposed FTP NMOG+NOX and PM standards, EPA
is also proposing an alternative phase-in of the 50 mg/mi SFTP
NMOG+NOX standard that would be available if a manufacturer
prefers a stable standard and four full years of lead time for vehicles
above 6,000 lbs GVWR. For MYs 2017 and 2018, a manufacturer would
certify vehicles up to 6,000 lbs GVWR to the primary SFTP declining
fleet average standards, as in the primary program. Then, beginning in
MY 2019, a stable fleet average standard of 50 mg/mi would apply to an
increasing percentage of a manufacturer's light-duty vehicles, light-
duty trucks, and MDPVs, both up to and above 6,000 lbs GVWR. The
percent phase-in would match the proposed PM percent phase-in schedule,
as discussed below. A manufacturer certifying to this alternative
phase-in would also need to comply with the alternative FTP
NMOG+NOX phase-in and the alternative FTP PM and US06 PM
phase-ins, as described elsewhere in this section. EPA requests comment
on this alternative phase-in approach as well as on the primary option
above.
b. US06 PM Standards
Our proposed approach to addressing PM emissions on the US06 test
(a component of the composite SFTP standard) is somewhat different from
the SFTP standards that we are proposing for NMOG and NOX
emissions. In the case of PM, US06 data on recent vehicles shows that
current gasoline vehicles can have very low PM emissions, but US06 PM
emission levels vary depending on many factors. In some cases,
manufacturer emission control strategies that are sensitive to
variations in operating conditions (e.g., variation due to driver
behavior or automatic transmission shift points) appear to result in
very low PM levels during some tests and yet higher PM on other tests
on the same vehicle when driven slightly differently. We also believe
that some of the observed high PM emissions may be partly due to
increasing oil consumption in vehicles as they age, especially under
higher-load conditions or hard closed-throttle deceleration conditions.
Thus, we now believe that more focus on vehicles as they age is
important.
We have designed the proposed US06 PM standards in light of all of
these factors, which relate to PM emission formation under relatively
extreme driving conditions. For these standards, we are proposing to
focus on the US06 cycle component of the composite SFTP, since most of
our concern about PM formation and sensitivity of engine controls
arises from high-speed, high-load driving conditions. Similarly, the
quantity of PM emissions from warmed-up engines is closely related to
engine load, since the higher rate of fuel consumption results in more
[[Page 29857]]
opportunities for PM to form. For this reason, we propose that heavier
vehicles, which face high-load conditions more frequently than lighter
vehicles, comply with a higher US06 standard and lighter vehicles
comply with a lower standard. The proposed US06 PM standard would be 10
mg/mi for vehicles at or below 6,000 lbs GVWR and 20 mg/mi for heavier
vehicles.
EPA is seeking comment on the use of vehicle weight to establish
separate US06 PM standards for cars and trucks. The data presented in
Chapter 1 of the draft RIA demonstrate that today's heavier vehicles
are already achieving PM emission levels well below our proposed 20 mg/
mi standard and are approximately equivalent to the performance of
lighter vehicles. According to our data, manufacturers appear to be
controlling PM emissions in heavier vehicles over severe duty cycles.
Thus, EPA seeks comment on the proposed US06 PM standards in general,
including whether EPA should adopt a common US06 standard of 10 mg/mi
for all light-duty vehicles.
As is the case for the proposed FTP PM standards, we are proposing
a single per-vehicle maximum standard to apply in each model year, with
an allowable percentage phase-in schedule identical to the FTP PM
phase-in.
Finally, as with the FTP PM standard (and for the same reasons), we
propose a slightly less stringent in-use US06 PM standard that would
apply during the percent phase-in period only. The proposed in-use SFTP
PM standards would be 15 mg/mi for vehicles at or below 6,000 lbs GVWR
and 25 mg/mi for heavier vehicles.
As with the proposed FTP and SFTP NMOG+NOX standards and
FTP PM standards, EPA is also proposing an alternative phase-in of the
20 mg/mi PM standard as measured on the US06 cycle, that would be
available if a manufacturer prefers 4 full years of lead time for
vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR. A manufacturer that chooses the
alternative phase-in for the FTP NMOG+NOX program above
could also postpone the beginning of the phase-in for US06 PM
compliance for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR until MY 2019. For MYs
2017 and 2018, a manufacturer would certify vehicles up to 6,000 lbs
GVWR to the 10 mg/mi FTP PM standard (and have a 15 mg/mi in-use
standard) for 20 percent of its sales in each of those years, as with
the primary PM percent phase-in schedule. Then, for MYs 2019 and later,
it would comply with the respective standards for vehicles up to and
above 6,000 lbs GVWR for their LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs (i.e., 10 mg/mi
and 15 mg/mi (in-use) for vehicles up to 6,000 lbs GVWR, and 20 mg/mi
and 25 mg/mi (in-use) for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR.) For MYs 2019
and 2020, manufacturers choosing this alternative would be required to
meet both the FTP PM and the US06 PM standards on the same segment of
their fleet vehicles being used to meet the 30 mg/mi fleet average
NMOG+NOX standards, at the applicable percent phase-in
requirement for the given model year. Manufacturers certifying to the
alternative US06 PM phase-in standard would also need to comply with
the alternative FTP PM phase-in as described above, as well as the
NMOG+NOX FTP and SFTP phase-ins. EPA requests comment on
this alternative phase-in approach as well as on the primary US06
phase-in option above.
All of the proposed SFTP/US06 standards are shown in Table IV-4 and
Table IV-5.
Table IV-4--Proposed LD and MDPV SFTP Composite Fleet Average Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 and
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 later
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX (mg/mi)..................................... \a\ 103 97 90 83 77 70 63 57 50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO (g/mi)............................................ \a\ 4.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, the NMOG+NOX and CO standards would apply beginning in MY 2018.
Table IV-5--Summary of Proposed SFTP Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year
Program element Units ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes
\a\ 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX Standard (fleet average)..... mg/mi............... Per declining fleet average for cars and trucks (see Table IV[dash]4) \b\
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM Standards:
Phase-in.......................... %................... 20 20 40 70 100 100 100
US06:
LDV, LDT1&2 Certification......... mg/mi............... 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Note c.
LDV, LDT1&2 In-use................ mg/mi............... 15 15 15 15 15 10 10 Note d.
US06:
LDT3&4, MDPV Certification........ mg/mi............... 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Note c.
LDT3&4, MDPV In-use............... mg/mi............... 25 25 25 25 25 20 20 Note d.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, the standards would apply beginning in MY 2018.
\b\ The percent phase-in would not apply to the declining fleet average standards.
\c\ Manufacturers would be required to test 25 percent of each model year's durability groups, minimum of 2.
\d\ Manufacturers would be required to test 50 percent of their low and high mileage in-use vehicles.
We request comment on our proposed SFTP NMOG+NOX and PM
standards, their structure, and their implementation schedules.
c. Enrichment Limitation for Spark-Ignition Engines
To prevent emissions from excessive enrichment during operating
conditions represented by the SFTP cycles, we are proposing limitations
on the magnitude of enrichment that could be commanded, including
enrichment episodes encountered during in-use
[[Page 29858]]
operation. During conditions where enrichment was demonstrated to be
present on the SFTP, the nominal air to fuel ratio could not be richer
at any time than the leanest air to fuel ratio required to obtain
maximum torque (lean best torque or LBT). An air to fuel ratio of LBT
plus a tolerance of 4 percent additional enrichment would be allowed in
actual vehicle testing to protect for any in-use variance in the air to
fuel ratio from the nominal LBT air to fuel determination, for such
reasons as air or fuel distribution differences from production
variances or aging.
LBT is defined as the leanest air to fuel ratio required at a speed
and load point with a fixed spark advance to make peak torque.
Specifically, an increase in fuel would not result in an increase in
torque while maintaining a fixed spark advance. LBT is determined by
setting the spark advance to a setting that is less than or equal to
the spark advance required for best torque (MBT) and maintaining that
spark advance when sweeping the air to fuel ratio. This fixed spark
advance requirement is intended to prevent torque changes related to
spark changes masking true LBT. Manufacturers may request approval of
an alternative LBT definition for a unique technology or control
strategy. The Agency could determine that an enrichment amount was
excessive or not necessary and therefore deem that the approach did not
meet the air to fuel ratio requirements.
Enrichment required for thermal protection would continue to be
allowed upon demonstration of necessity to the Agency, based upon
temperature limitations of the engine or exhaust components.
Manufacturers would be required to provide descriptions of all
components requiring thermal protection, temperature limitations of the
components, how the enrichment strategy will detect over-temperature
conditions and correct them, and a justification regarding why the
enrichment is the minimum necessary to protect the specific components.
The Agency may determine that the enrichment is not justified or is not
the minimum necessary based on the use of engineering judgment using
industry-reported thermal protection requirements.
5. Feasibility of the Proposed NMOG+NOX and PM Standards
In this section, with additional support in Chapter 1 of the draft
RIA, we describe how we reached our conclusion that the proposed Tier 3
standards would be technologically feasible in the time frame of the
program. For each of the proposed emission standards, the lead time
provided by the proposed program is more than sufficient for all
manufacturers to comply. First, manufacturers in many cases are already
adopting complying technologies for reasons other than this proposed
rulemaking. For example, many of the technologies that manufacturers
will begin to develop as early as MY 2014 in response to the CARB LEV
III FTP and SFTP NMOG+NOX standards for the California
market will likely represent steps toward compliance with this proposed
national program. Similarly, manufacturers are already building some
vehicles that comply with our proposed evaporative emissions standards
in response to the CARB LEV III evaporative standards. In addition, as
described above, our proposed program incorporates a number of phase-in
provisions that would ease the transition to compliance, including time
some manufacturers would need to install PM testing capability and to
ramp up production on a national scale. We invite comment on our
conclusions relating to the feasibility of the proposed program for
each of the standards, as discussed below, including our overall
conclusion that technological lead time is not a driving factor in
complying with any of the proposed standards.
This feasibility assessment is based on a variety of complementary
technical data, studies, and analyses. As described below, these
include our analysis of the stringency of the proposed standards as
compared to current Tier 2 emission levels. We also discuss below our
observation that manufacturers are currently certifying several vehicle
models under the California LEV II program that could likely achieve
the proposed Tier 3 NMOG+NOX and PM standards or similar
levels. EPA has assessed the emissions control challenges manufacturers
would generally face (e.g., cold start NMOG reductions and running
(warmed-up) NOX emissions under typical and more aggressive
driving conditions) and the corresponding technologies that we expect
to be available to manufacturers to meet these challenges. Our
feasibility assessment accounts for the fact that the proposed Tier 3
program would apply to all types of new vehicles, ranging from small
cars to large pick-up trucks and MDPVs and representing a wide
diversity in applications and in specific engine designs.
It is important to note that our primary assessment of the
feasibility of engine and emission control technologies is based on the
assumption that vehicles would be certified on gasoline with a fuel
sulfur content of 10 ppm and operated on in-use gasoline with 10 ppm
sulfur or less.\220\ Therefore, our primary assessment does not
incorporate the degradation of emission control system caused by higher
levels of sulfur content, as is discussed in Section IV.6 below and in
the draft RIA. This assessment reinforces the critical role of gasoline
sulfur control, as proposed in Section V below, in making it possible
for EPA to propose emission standards at these very stringent levels.
See Section IV.6 below for a full discussion of our current knowledge
of the effects of gasoline sulfur on current vehicle emissions as well
as our projections of how we expect that sulfur would affect compliance
with standards in the range of the proposed Tier 3 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\220\ Our technology, feasibility, and cost assessments are also
consistent with an assumption that certification fuel would contain
15 percent ethanol and would have other properties as specified in
Section IV.D below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since there are multiple aspects to the Tier 3 program, it is
necessary to consider technical feasibility in light of the different
program requirements and their interactions with each other. In many
cases, manufacturers would be able to address more than one requirement
with the same general technological approach (e.g., faster catalyst
light-off can improve both FTP NMOG+NOX and PM emissions).
At the same time, the feasibility assessment must consider that
different technologies may be needed on different types of vehicle
applications (i.e., cars versus trucks) and must consider the relative
effectiveness of these technologies in reducing emissions for the full
useful life of the vehicle while operating on expected in-use fuel. For
example, certain smaller vehicles with correspondingly small engines
may be less challenged to meet FTP standards than larger vehicles with
larger engines. Conversely, these smaller vehicles may have more
difficulty meeting the more aggressive SFTP requirements than vehicles
with larger and more powerful engines. Additionally, the ability to
meet the proposed SFTP emission requirements can also be impacted by
the path taken to meet the FTP requirements (e.g., larger volume
catalysts for US06 emissions control vs. smaller catalysts for improved
FTP cold-start emissions control). Throughout the following discussion,
we address how these factors, individually and in interaction with each
other, affect the feasibility of the proposed program. We
[[Page 29859]]
invite comment on our assessments of these or any other such potential
interactions. Also, although we are not aware of any technological
reasons that vehicle emission controls responding to new Tier 3
requirements should affect vehicle CO2 emissions or fuel
economy in any significant way, it is possible that such interactions
could occur. For example, there may be some slight change in vehicle
mass if manufacturers explore lighter exhaust manifold materials in
order to reduce thermal mass and promote earlier catalyst light-off or
add emissions control equipment such as hydrocarbon adsorbers. We
invite comment on any such potential effects as well.
a. FTP NMOG+NOX Standards
The proposed new emission requirements include stringent
NMOG+NOX standards on the FTP that would require new vehicle
hardware in order to achieve the 30 mg/mi fleet average level in 2025.
The type of new hardware that would be required would vary depending on
the specific application and emission challenges. Smaller vehicles with
corresponding smaller engines would generally need less new hardware
while larger vehicles may need additional hardware and improvements
beyond what would be needed for the smaller vehicles. While some
vehicles, especially larger light trucks, may face higher costs in
meeting the proposed standards, it is important to remember that not
every vehicle needs to meet the standard. The proposed program has been
structured to provide higher emission standard ``bins'' (see Table IV-1
above) to which manufacturers may certify more challenged vehicles, so
long as these vehicles are offset with vehicles certified in lower
emission bins such that the fleet-wide average meets the standard. We
believe that the availability of the proposed less-stringent bins would
allow for feasible and cost-effective compliance for all vehicles. In
the Tier 2 program, manufacturers took advantage of this flexibility,
especially in the early years of the program. Then, as technologies
improved and/or became less expensive and the need for averaging
diminished, manufacturers began certifying all or most of their fleets
to the average bin (Tier 2 Bin 5). We anticipate that manufacturers
will follow a similar trend with the proposed Tier 3 standards, relying
on fleet averaging more significantly in the transitional years but
certifying increasing numbers of their vehicles to the final fleet
average standard of 30 mg/mi in the later years of the program.
In order to assess the technical feasibility of a 30 mg/mi
NMOG+NOX national fleet average FTP standard, EPA conducted
two supporting analyses. The initial analyses performed were of the
current Tier 2 and LEV II fleets. This provided a baseline for the
current federal fleet emissions performance, as well as the emissions
performance of the California LEV II fleet. The second consideration
was a modal analysis of typical vehicle emissions under certain
operating conditions. In this way EPA determined the specific emissions
performance challenges that vehicle manufacturers would face in meeting
the lower fleet average emission standards. Each of these
considerations is described in greater detail below.
The current federal fleet is certified to an average of Tier 2 Bin
5, equivalent to 160 mg/mi NMOG+NOX.\221\ For MY 2009, 92
percent of LDVs and LDT1s were certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 and 91 percent
of LDT2s through LDT4s were certified to Tier 2 Bin 5. This was not an
unexpected result as there is currently no motivation for vehicle
manufacturers to produce a federal fleet that over-complies with
respect to the current Tier 2 standards. By comparison, in the
California fleet, where compliance with the ``PZEV'' program encourages
manufacturers to certify vehicles to cleaner levels, only 30 percent of
the LDVs and LDT1s are certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 and 60 percent are
certified to Tier 2 Bin 3. The situation regarding the truck fleet in
California is similarly stratified, with 37 percent of the LDT2s
through LDT4s being certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 and 55 percent being
certified to Tier 2 Bin 3. In many cases identical vehicles are being
certified to a lower standard in California and a higher standard
federally. We note that vehicles certified to a lower standard in
California are operated on gasoline with an average sulfur content of
10 ppm and thereby are able to maintain their emissions performance in-
use. Based on these patterns of federal and California certification,
EPA believes that much of the existing Tier 2 fleet could be certified
to a lower federal fleet average immediately, with no significant
feasibility concerns, if lower sulfur gasoline were made available
nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ The current Tier 2 program does not combine NMOG and
NOX emissions into one fleet-average standard. The fleet-
average standard in that program is for NOX emissions
alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of the Tier 2 bin standards at which manufacturers
choose to certify their vehicles, actual measured emissions performance
of these vehicles is typically well below the numerical standards. This
difference is referred to as ``compliance margin'' and is a result of
manufacturers' efforts to address all the sources of variability,
including:
Test-to-test variability (within one test site and lab-to-lab)
Build variation expectations
Manufacturing tolerances and stack-up
Vehicle operation (for example: driving habits, ambient
temperature, etc.)
Fuel composition
The effects of fuel sulfur on exhaust catalysts and oxygen
sensors
The effects of other fuel components, including ethanol and
gasoline additives
Oil consumption
The impact of oil additives and oil ash on exhaust catalysts
and oxygen sensors
For MY 2009, the compliance margin for a Tier 2 Bin 5 vehicle
averaged approximately 60 percent. In other words, actual vehicle
emissions performance was on average about 40 percent of a 160 mg/mi
NMOG+NOX standard, or about 64 mg/mi. By comparison, for
California-certified vehicles, the average Super Ultra Low Emission
Vehicle (SULEV) compliance margin was somewhat less for the more
stringent standards, approximately 50 percent. We believe that the
recent California experience is a likely indicator of compliance
margins that manufacturers would design for in order to comply with the
proposed Tier 3 FTP standards. Thus, a typical Tier 2 Bin 5 vehicle,
performing at 40 percent of the current standard (i.e., at about 64 mg/
mi) would need improvements sufficient to reach about 15 mg/mi (50
percent of a 30 mg/mi standards).
To understand how the several currently-used technologies described
below could be used by manufacturers to reach the stringent proposed
Tier 3 NMOG+NOX standards, it is helpful to consider
emissions formation in common modes of operation for gasoline engines,
or modal analysis.\222\ The primary challenge faced by manufacturers
for producing Tier 3 compliant light-duty gasoline vehicle powertrains
would be to reduce the emissions during cold-start operation which,
based on modal analysis of a gasoline powered vehicle being operated on
the FTP cycle, occurs during about the first 50 seconds after engine
start. Thus, effective control of
[[Page 29860]]
these cold-start emissions would be the primary technological goal of
manufacturers complying with the proposed Tier 3 FTP standards. As
discussed below, light-duty manufacturers are already applying several
technologies capable of significant reductions in these cold start
emissions to vehicles currently on the road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\222\ A modal analysis provides a second-by-second view of the
total amount of emissions over the entire cycle being considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. SFTP NMOG+NOX Standards
The increase in the stringency of the SFTP NMOG+NOX
standards, specifically across the US06 cycle, would generally only
require additional focus on fuel control of the engines and diligent
implementation of new technologies that manufacturers are already
introducing or are likely to introduce in response to the current and
2017 LD GHG emission standards. These include downsized gasoline direct
injection (GDI) and turbocharged engines, which may also include
improvements to the engine and emission control hardware to tolerate
higher combustion and exhaust temperatures expected in these future
GHG-oriented engine designs. The upgraded materials or components would
enable manufacturers to rely less on fuel enrichment during high-speed/
high-load operation to protect components from overheating. This fuel
enrichment is currently the source of elevated VOC, NOX, and
PM emissions seen in a subset of the current Tier 2 fleet.
With respect to enrichment, changes to the fuel/air mixture by
increasing the fuel fraction has historically been the primary method
available to manufacturers to protect the catalyst and other exhaust
components from over-temperature conditions. Changing the fuel/air
mixture is no longer the only tool available to manufacturers for this
purpose. With the application of electronic throttle controls, variable
valve timing, exhaust gas recirculation and other exhaust temperature
influencing technologies on nearly every light-duty vehicle, the
manufacturer has the ability to systematically control the operation
and combustion processes of the engine to minimize or altogether avoid
areas and modes of operation where thermal issues can occur. While some
of these solutions could in some cases result in a small and temporary
reduction in vehicle performance (absolute power levels), we believe
that it could be an effective way to reduce NMOG+NOX
emissions over the SFTP test.
Additionally, some components, especially catalysts, can experience
accelerated thermal deterioration that occurs when operating at higher
temperatures for more time than expected under normal operation (e.g.,
trailer towing, mountain grades). Some upgrades of existing vehicle
emission control technology, like catalyst substrates and washcoats may
be required to limit thermal deterioration and ensure vehicle emissions
compliance throughout the useful life of the vehicle.
In order to assess the technical feasibility of a 50 mg/mi
NMOG+NOX national fleet average SFTP standard, EPA conducted
an analysis of SFTP levels of Tier 2 and LEV II vehicles. The analysis
was performed on the US06 results from current Tier 2 and LEV II
vehicles tested in the in-use verification program (IUVP) by
manufacturers and submitted to EPA. This analysis provided a baseline
for the current Tier 2 and LEV II fleet emissions performance, as well
as the SFTP emissions performance capability of the cleanest vehicles
meeting the proposed Tier 3 FTP standards. The analysis concluded that
most vehicles in the IUVP testing program are already capable of
meeting the composite SFTP standard of 50 mg/mi when the Tier 3 FTP
standard levels are factored into the composite calculation. With the
technological improvements already underway as discussed above, we
believe all 2017 and later vehicles would be able to comply with the
proposed SFTP standards, directly, or through the flexibility of the
averaging, banking and trading program. For further information on the
analysis see Chapter 1 of the draft RIA.
c. FTP and SFTP PM Standards
As described above for NMOG+NOX over the SFTP, the
increase in the stringency of the FTP and SFTP PM standards would
generally also only require additional focus on fuel control of the
engines and diligent implementation of new technologies like gasoline
direct injection (GDI) and turbocharged engines. Some upgrades of
existing vehicle emission control technology may be required to ensure
vehicle emissions performance is maintained throughout the useful life
of the vehicle. These upgrades may include improvements to the engine
to control wear that could result in increased PM from oil consumption
and selection of GDI systems that would be capable of continuing to
perform optimally even as the systems age.
We based our conclusions about the ability of manufacturers to meet
the proposed PM standards largely on the PM performance of the existing
fleet, both on the FTP and SFTP. In the case of FTP testing of current
vehicles, data on both low and high mileage light-duty vehicles
demonstrate that the majority of vehicles are currently achieving
levels at or below the proposed Tier 3 FTP standards.
The testing results can be found in Chapter 1 of the draft RIA. A
small number of vehicles are at or just over the proposed FTP PM
standard at low mileage and could require calibration changes and/or
catalyst changes to meet the new standards. It is our expectation that
the same calibration and catalyst changes required to address NMOG
would also provide the necessary PM control. Vehicles that currently
have higher PM emissions over the FTP or SFTP at higher mileages would
likely be required to control oil consumption and combustion chamber
deposits.
We also analyzed PM test data on US06 emissions for current Tier 2
vehicles. The data show that many vehicles are already at or below the
proposed standards on the US06. Vehicles that have high PM emission
rates on the US06 would likely need to control enrichment, and oil
consumption particularly later in life. As described above for SFTP
NMOG+NOX control, enrichment can be more accurately managed
through available electronic engine controls. The strategies for
reducing oil consumption are similar to those described above for
controlling oil consumption on the FTP. However, given the higher
engine speeds experienced on the US06 and the increase in oil
consumption that can accompany this kind of operation, manufacturers
would most likely focus on oil sources stemming from the piston to
cylinder interface and positive crankcase ventilation (PCV).
Manufacturers have informed us that they have already reduced or
are planning to reduce the oil consumption of their engines by improved
sealing of the paths of oil into the combustion chamber and improved
piston-to-cylinder interfaces. They are already taking or considering
these actions to address issues of customer satisfaction and cost of
ownership. In addition, many vehicle manufacturers acknowledge the
relationship between combustion chamber deposits and PM formation and
are actively pursuing design changes to mitigate fuel impingement
within the combustion chamber and its commensurate PM effects. Both
types of controls are being widely applied by manufacturers today.
d. Technologies Manufacturers Are Likely To Apply
Most of the technologies expected to be applied to light-duty
vehicles to meet
[[Page 29861]]
the stringent proposed standards would address the emissions control
system's ability to control emission during cold start. The
effectiveness of current vehicle emissions control systems depends in
large part on the time it takes for the catalyst to light off, which is
typically defined as the catalyst reaching a temperature of 250 [deg]C.
In order to improve catalyst light-off, we expect that manufacturers
would add technologies that provide heat from combustion more readily
to the catalyst or improve the catalyst efficiency at lower
temperatures. These technologies include calibration changes, thermal
management, close-coupled catalysts, catalyst platinum group metals
(PGM) loading and strategy, and secondary air injection, all which
generally improve emission performance of all pollutants. In some cases
where the catalyst light-off and efficiency are not enough to address
the cold start NMOG emissions, hydrocarbon adsorbers may be applied to
trap hydrocarbons until such time that the catalyst is lit off. Note
that with the exception of hydrocarbon adsorbers each of these
technologies addresses NMOG, NOX, and PM performance. The
technologies are described in greater detail below. Additional
information on these technologies can also be found in Chapter 1 of the
RIA.
Engine Control Calibration Changes--These include changes
to retard spark and/or adjust air/fuel mixtures such that more
combustion heat is created during the cold start. Control changes may
include injection strategies in GDI applications, unique cold-start
variable valve timing and lift, and other available engine parameters.
Engine calibration changes can affect NMOG, NOX and PM
emissions.
Catalyst PGM Loading--Additional PGM loading, increased
loading of other active materials, and improved dispersion of PGM and
other active materials in the catalyst provide a greater number of
sites available to catalyze emissions and addresses NMOG,
NOX and PM emissions. Catalyst PGM loading, when implemented
in conjunction with low sulfur gasoline, will effectively eliminate
NOX emissions under warmed-up conditions.
Thermal Management--This category of technologies includes
all design attributes meant to conduct the combustion heat into the
catalyst with minimal cooling. This includes insulating the exhaust
piping between the engine and the catalyst, reducing the wetted area of
the exhaust path, reducing the thermal mass of the exhaust system, and/
or using close-coupled catalysts (i.e., the catalysts are packaged as
close as possible to the engine's cylinder head to mitigate the cooling
effects of longer exhaust piping). Thermal management technologies
primarily address NMOG emissions, but also affect NOX and PM
emissions.
Secondary Air Injection--By injecting air directly into
the exhaust stream, close to the exhaust valve, combustion can be
maintained within the exhaust, creating additional heat by which to
increase the catalyst temperature. The air/fuel mixture must be
adjusted to provide a richer exhaust gas for the secondary air to be
effective.
Hydrocarbon Adsorber--Traps hydrocarbons during a cold
start until the catalyst lights off, and then releases the hydrocarbons
to be converted by the catalyst.
Gasoline Sulfur--The relative effectiveness for NMOG and
NOX control of the exhaust-catalyst related technologies are
constrained by gasoline fuel sulfur levels. Thus, reduced sulfur in
gasoline is an enabling technology to achieve the standards and
maintain this performance during in-use operation. We discuss the
relationship between gasoline sulfur and emissions in greater detail in
Section IV.6 below and in the draft RIA.
Discussions between EPA, CARB, vehicle manufacturers, and major
component suppliers indicated that large light-duty trucks (e.g.,
pickups and full-size sport utility vehicles (SUVs) in the LDT3 and
LDT4 categories) would be the most challenging light-duty vehicles to
bring into compliance with the proposed Tier 3 NMOG+NOX
standards at the 30 mg/mi corporate average emissions level. A similar
challenge was addressed when large light-duty trucks were brought into
compliance with the Tier 2 standards over the past decade. Figure IV-1
provides a graphical representation of the effectiveness of Tier 3
technologies for large light-duty truck applications. A compliance
margin is shown in both cases. Note that the graphical representation
of the effectiveness of catalyst technologies on NOX and
NMOG when going from Tier 2 to Tier 3 levels also includes a reduction
in gasoline sulfur levels from 30 ppm to 10 ppm.
[[Page 29862]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.000
6. Impact of Gasoline Sulfur Control on the Feasibility of the Proposed
Vehicle Emission Standards
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\ The technologies and levels of control in this figure are
based on a combination of confidential business information
submitted by auto manufacturers and suppliers, public data, and EPA
staff engineering judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Fuel Sulfur Impacts on Exhaust Catalysts
Modern three-way catalytic exhaust systems utilize platinum group
metals (PGM), metal oxides and other active materials to selectively
oxidize organic compounds and carbon monoxide in the exhaust gases.
These systems simultaneously reduce nitrogen oxides when air-to-fuel
ratio control operates in a condition of relatively low amplitude/high
frequency oscillation about the stoichiometric point. Sulfur is a well-
known catalyst poison. There is a large body of work demonstrating
sulfur inhibition of the emissions control performance of PGM three-way
exhaust catalyst
systems.224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 The nature
of sulfur interactions with washcoat materials, active catalytic
[[Page 29863]]
materials and catalyst substrates is complex and varies with catalyst
composition and exhaust gas composition and exhaust temperature. The
variation of these interactions with exhaust gas composition and
temperature means that the operational history of a vehicle is an
important factor; continuous light-load operation, throttle tip-in
events and enrichment under high-load conditions can all impact sulfur
interactions with the catalyst.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\224\ Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W., DiMaggio, C.L. (1994). Impact
of sulfur on model palladium-only catalysts under simulated three-
way operation. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 3, 205-227.
\225\ Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W. (1995). ``Impact of sulfur on
the performance of vehicle aged palladium monoliths.'' Applied
Catalysis B: Environmental 6, 185-200.
\226\ Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W., DiMaggio, C.I. (1997). Axial
characterization of oxygen storage capacity in close coupled
lightoff and underfloor catalytic converters and impact of sulfur.
Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 11, 273-290.
\227\ Waqif, M., Bazin, P., Saur, O. Lavalley, J.C., Blanchard,
G., Touret, O. (1997), Study of ceria sulfation. Applied Catalysis
B: Environmental 11, 193-205.
\228\ Bazin, P., Saur, O. Lavalley, J.C., Blanchard, G.,
Visciglio, V., Touret, O. (1997). ``Influence of platinum on ceria
sulfation.'' Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 13, 265-274.
\229\ Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T. Fujimoto, Y.
(2000). Fuel Property Requirement for Advanced Technology Engines.
SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-2019.
\230\ Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T. Fujimoto, Y.
(2001). ``Fuel properties for advanced engines.'' Automotive
Engineering International 109 12, 117-120.
\231\ Kubsh, J.E., Anthony, J.W. (2007). The Potential for
Achieving Low Hydrocarbon and NOX Exhaust Emissions from
Large Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles. SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-
1261.
\232\ Shen, Y., Shuai, S., Wang, J. Xiao, J. (2008). Effects of
Gasoline Fuel Properties on Engine Performance. SAE Technical Paper
2008-01-0628.
\233\ Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel
Sulfur on FTP NOX Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder
Application. SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-0300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur from gasoline is oxidized during spark-ignition engine
combustion primarily to SO2 and, to a much lesser extent,
SO3-2. Sulfur oxides selectively chemically bind
(chemisorb) with, and in some cases react with, active sites and
coating materials within the catalyst, thus inhibiting the intended
catalytic reactions. Sulfur oxides inhibit pollutant catalysis chiefly
by selective poisoning of active PGM, ceria sites, and alumina
washcoatings (see Figure IV-2).\234\ The amount of sulfur retained by
the catalyst is primarily a function of its operating temperature, the
active materials and coatings used within the catalyst, the
concentration of sulfur oxides in the incoming exhaust gases, and air-
to-fuel ratio feedback and control by the engine management system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\234\ Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 5: Catalyst
Deactivation in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2nd Edition. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.001
[[Page 29864]]
Selective sulfur poisoning of platinum (Pt) and rhodium (Rh) is
primarily from surface-layer chemisorption. Sulfur poisoning of
palladium (Pd) and ceria appears to be via chemisorption combined with
formation of more stable metallic sulfur compounds, e.g. PdS and
Ce2O2S, present in both surface and bulk form
(i.e., below the surface layer.235 236 237 238 Ceria,
zirconia and other oxygen storage components (OSC) play an important
role that is crucial to NOX reduction over Rh as the engine
air-to-fuel ratio oscillates about the stoichiometric closed-loop
control point.\239\ Water-gas-shift reactions are important for
NOX reduction over catalysts combining Pd and ceria. This
reaction can be blocked by sulfur poisoning and may be responsible for
observations of reduced NOX activity over Pd/ceria catalysts
even with exposure to fairly low levels of sulfur (equivalent to 15 ppm
in gasoline).240 241 Pd is also of increased importance for
meeting Tier 3 standards due to its unique application in the closed-
coupled-catalysts location required for vehicles certifying to very
stringent emission standards. Pd is required in closed-coupled
catalysts due to its resistance to high temperature thermal sintering.
Sulfur removal from Pd requires rich operation at higher temperatures
than required for sulfur removal from other PGM catalysts.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\235\ Luo, T. Gorte, R.J. (2003). A Mechanistic Study of Sulfur
Poisoning of the Water-Gas-Shift Reaction Over Pd/Ceria.'' Catalysis
Letters, 85, Issues 3-4, pg. 139-146.
\236\ Li-Dun, A., Quan, D.Y. (1990). ``Mechanism of sulfur
poisoning of supported Pd(Pt)/Al2O3 catalysts
for H2-O2 reaction.'' Applied Catalysis 61,
Issue 1, pg. 219-234.
\237\ Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: Automotive
Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.
\238\ Maricq, M. M. Chace, R.E., Xu, N., Podsiadlik, D.H.
(2002). The Effects of the Catalytic Converter and Fuel Sulfur Level
on Motor Vehicle Particulate Matter Emissions: Gasoline Vehicles.
Environmental Science and Technology, 36, No. 2 pg. 276-282.
\239\ Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: Automotive
Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.
\240\ Luo, T. Gorte, R.J. (2003) A Mechanistic Study of Sulfur
Poisoning of the Water-Gas-Shift Reaction Over Pd/Ceria. Catalysis
Letters, 85, Issues 3-4, pg. 139-146.
\241\ Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel
Sulfur on FTP NOX Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder
Application. SAE Technical Paper No. 2011-01-0300.
\242\ Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W. (1995) Impact of sulfur on the
performance of vehicle aged palladium monoliths. Applied Catalysis
B: Environmental 6, 185-200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to its interaction with catalyst materials, sulfur can
also react with the washcoating itself to form alumina sulfate, which
in turn can block coating pores and reduce gaseous diffusion to active
materials below the coating surface.\243\ This may be a significant
mechanism for the observed storage of sulfur compounds at light and
moderate load operation with subsequent, rapid release as sulfate
particulate matter when high-load, high-temperature conditions are
encountered.\244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\243\ Maricq, M. M. Chace, R.E., Xu, N., Podsiadlik, D.H.
(2002). The Effects of the Catalytic Converter and Fuel Sulfur Level
on Motor Vehicle Particulate Matter Emissions: Gasoline Vehicles.
Environmental Science and Technology, 36, No. 2 pg. 276-282.
\244\ Maricq, M. M. Chace, R.E., Xu, N., Podsiadlik, D.H.
(2002). The Effects of the Catalytic Converter and Fuel Sulfur Level
on Motor Vehicle Particulate Matter Emissions: Gasoline Vehicles.
Environmental Science and Technology, 36, No. 2 pg. 276-282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating the catalyst at a sufficiently high temperature under net
reducing conditions (e.g., air-to-fuel equivalence that is net fuel-
rich of stoichiometry) can effectively release the sulfur oxides from
the catalyst components. Thus, regular operation at sufficiently high
temperatures at rich air-to-fuel ratios can minimize the effects of
fuel sulfur levels on catalyst active materials and catalyst
efficiency. However, it cannot completely eliminate the effects of
sulfur poisoning. A study of Tier 2 vehicles in the in-use fleet
recently completed by EPA shows that emission levels immediately
following high speed/load operation is still a function of fuel sulfur
level, suggesting that lower fuel sulfur levels will bring emission
benefits unachievable by catalyst regeneration procedures alone.\245\
Furthermore, regular operation at these temperatures and at rich air-
to-fuel ratios is not desirable, for several reasons. The temperatures
necessary to release sulfur oxides are high enough to lead to thermal
degradation of the catalyst over time via thermal sintering of active
materials. Sintering reduces the surface area available to participate
in reactions. Additionally, it is not always possible to maintain these
catalyst temperatures (because of cold weather, idle conditions, light
load operation) and the rich air-to-fuel ratios necessary can result in
increased PM, NMOG and CO emissions. Thus, reducing fuel sulfur levels
has been the primary regulatory mechanism to minimize sulfur
contamination of the catalyst and ensure optimum emissions performance
over the useful life of a vehicle. The impact of gasoline sulfur has
become even more important as vehicle emission standards have become
more stringent. Some studies have suggested an increase in catalyst
sensitivity to sulfur (in terms of percent conversion efficiency) when
standards increase in stringency and emissions levels decrease.
Emission standards under the programs that preceded the Tier 2 program
(Tier 0, Tier 1 and National LEV, or NLEV) were high enough that the
impact of sulfur was considered negligible. The Tier 2 program
recognized the importance of sulfur and reduced the sulfur levels in
the fuel from around 300 ppm to 30 ppm in conjunction with the new
emission standards.\246\ At that time, very little work had been done
to evaluate the effect of further reductions in fuel sulfur, especially
on in-use vehicles that may have some degree of catalyst deterioration
due to real-world operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\245\ See Chapter 1 of the RIA (Section 1.2.3.2) for more
details on this study and its results.
\246\ Tier 2 Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA 420-R-99-023,
December 22, 1999), available at http://epa.gov/tier2/finalrule.htm#regs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, EPA and several automakers jointly conducted a program
that examined the effects of sulfur and other gasoline properties,
benzene, and volatility on emissions from a fleet of nine Tier 2
compliant vehicles. Section 1.2.3 of the draft RIA provides details of
the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Study.\247\ The study found
significant reductions in NOX, CO and total hydrocarbons
(HC) when the vehicles were tested on low sulfur fuel, relative to 32
ppm fuel.\248\ In particular, the study found a nearly 50 percent
increase in NOX over the FTP when sulfur was increased from
6 ppm to 32 ppm. Given the prep procedures related to catalyst clean-
out and loading used by these studies, these results may represent a
``best case'' scenario relative to what would be expected under more
typical driving conditions. Nonetheless, these data suggested the
effect of sulfur loading was reversible for Tier 2 vehicles, and that
there were likely to be significant emission reductions possible with
further reductions in gasoline sulfur level. For more discussion of the
impact of gasoline fuel sulfur on the current light-duty vehicle fleet,
see Section III.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\247\ This test program is described in Chapter 6 of the RIA of
the MSAT2 final rulemaking, EPA 420-R-07-002, February 2007,
available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics/420r07002chp6.pdf.
\248\ See Chapter 6 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources Final Rule,
EPA 420-R-07-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. EPA Gasoline Sulfur Effects Testing
Both the MSAT and Umicore studies showed the emission reduction
potential of lower sulfur fuel on Tier 2 and later technology vehicles
over the FTP cycle. However, assessing the potential for reduction on
the in-use
[[Page 29865]]
fleet requires understanding how sulfur exposure over time impacts
emissions, and what the state of loading is for the typical vehicle in
the field. In response to these data needs, EPA conducted a new study
to assess the emission reductions expected from the in-use Tier 2 fleet
with a reduction in fuel sulfur level from current levels. It was
designed to take into consideration what was known from prior studies
on sulfur build-up in catalysts over time and the effect of periodic
regeneration events that may result from higher speed and load
operation over the course of day-to-day driving.
The study sample described in this analysis consisted of 81 cars
and light trucks recruited from owners in southeast Michigan, covering
model years 2007-9 with approximately 20,000-40,000 odometer miles. The
makes and models targeted for recruitment were chosen to be
representative of high sales vehicles covering a range of types and
sizes. Test fuels were two non-ethanol gasolines with properties
typical of certification test fuel, one at a sulfur level of 5 ppm and
the other at 28 ppm. A nominal concentration of approximately 25 ppm
was targeted for the high level to be representative of retail fuel
available to the public in the vehicle recruiting area. All emissions
data was collected using the FTP cycle at a nominal temperature of 75
[deg]F.
Using the 28 ppm test fuel, emissions data were collected from
vehicles in their as-received state as well as following a high-speed/
load ``clean-out'' procedure consisting of two back-to-back US06 cycles
intended to reduce sulfur loading in the catalyst. A statistical
analysis of this data showed highly significant reductions in several
pollutants including NOX and hydrocarbons, suggesting that
reversible sulfur loading exists in the in-use fleet and has a
measurable effect on aftertreatment performance (Table IV-6). For
example, Bag 2 NOX emissions dropped 32 percent between the
pre- and post-cleanout tests on 28 ppm fuel.
Table IV-6--Average Clean-Out Effect on In-Use Emissions Using 28 ppm Test Fuel\a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (p-value) THC (p-value) CO (p-value) NMHC (p-value) CH4 (p-value) PM (p-value)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bag 1................................................... .............. .............. 4.7% .............. .............. 15.4%
(0.0737) (<0.0001)
Bag 2................................................... 31.9% 16.5% .............. 17.8% 15.3% ..............
(0.0009) (0.0024) (0.0181) (0.0015)
Bag 3................................................... 38.3% 21.4% 19.5% 27.8% 12.0% 24.5%
(<0.0001) (<0.0001) (0.0011) (<0.0001) (<0.0001) (<0.0001)
FTP Composite........................................... 11.4% 4.1% 7.6% 3.0% 6.9% 13.7%
(<0.0001) (0.0187) (0.0008) (0.0751) (0.0003) (<0.0001)
Bag 1-Bag 3............................................. .............. .............. 4.2% .............. .............. ..............
(0.0714)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The clean-out effect is not significant at [alpha] = 0.10 when no reduction estimate is provided.
To assess the impact of lower sulfur fuel on in-use emissions,
further testing was conducted on a representative subset of vehicles on
28 ppm and 5 ppm fuel with accumulated mileage. A first step in this
portion of the study was to assess differences in the effectiveness of
the clean-out procedure when done using different fuel sulfur levels.
Table IV-7 presents a comparison of emissions immediately following
(<50 miles) the clean-out procedures at the low vs. high sulfur level.
These results show significant emission reductions for the 5 ppm fuel
relative to the 28 ppm fuel immediately after this clean-out; for
example, Bag 2 NOX emissions were 47 percent lower on the 5
ppm fuel vs. the 28 ppm fuel. This indicates that the catalyst is not
fully desulfurized, even after a clean out procedure, as long as there
is sulfur in the fuel.
Table IV-7--Percent Reduction in Exhaust Emissions When Going From 28 ppm to 5 ppm Sulfur Gasoline for the First Three Repeat FTP Tests Immediately
Following Clean-Out
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (p-value) THC (p-value) CO (p-value) NMHC (p-value) CH4 (p-value) PM\a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bag 1................................................... 5.9% 5.4% 7.3% 4.6% 11.1% ..............
(0.0896) (0.0118) (0.0023) (0.0465) (<0.0001)
Bag 2................................................... 47.3% 40.2% -\a\ 34.4% 53.6% ..............
(0.0010) (<0.0001) (0.0041) (<0.0001)
Bag 3................................................... 51.2% 35.0% 10.1% 45.0% 25.4% ..............
(<0.0001) (<0.0001) (0.0988) (<0.0001) (<0.0001)
FTP Composite........................................... 17.7% 11.2% 8.3% 8.8% 21.4% ..............
(0.0001) (<0.0001) (0.0003) (0.0003) (<0.0001)
Bag 1-Bag 3............................................. -\a\ -\a\ 5.8% -\a\ -\a\ ..............
(0.0412)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Sulfur level not significant at [alpha] = 0.10.
To assess the overall in-use reduction between high and low sulfur
fuel, a mixed model analysis of all data as a function of fuel sulfur
level and miles driven after cleanout was performed. This analysis
found highly significant reductions for several pollutants, as shown in
Table IV-8. Reductions for Bag 2 NOX were particularly high,
estimated at 59 percent between 28 ppm and 5 ppm overall. For some
pollutants, such as Bag 2 NOX, the model fitting did not
find a significant miles-by-sulfur interaction, suggesting the relative
differences were not dependent on
[[Page 29866]]
miles driven after clean-out. Other results, such as Bag 1
hydrocarbons, did show a significant miles-by-sulfur interaction. In
this case, determination of a sulfur level effect for the in-use fleet
required estimation of a miles-equivalent level of sulfur loading,
which was determined by the cleanout results obtained from the baseline
testing on the vehicles as-received.
Table IV-8--Summary of Mixed Model Results for Emission Reductions When Going From 28 ppm to 5 ppm Sulfur Gasoline, Adjusted for In-Use Sulfur Loading
(Mileage Accumulation) Where Appropriate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX+NMOG (p-
NOX (p-value) THC (p-value) CO (p-value) NMHC (p-value) CH4 (p-value) value) PM\a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bag 1................................... 10.7% \b\8.5% \b\7.5% 7.5% \b\13.9% N/A ..............
(0.0033) (0.0382) (0.0552) (< 0.0001) (<0.0001)
Bag 2................................... 59.2% 48.8% -\a\ \b\44.8% 49.9% N/A ..............
(<0.0001) (<0.0001) (0.0260) (<0.0001)
Bag 3................................... 62.1% 40.2% 20.1% 49.9% 29.2% N/A ..............
(<0.0001) (<0.0001) (<0.0001) (<0.0001) (<0.0001)
FTP Composite........................... \b\23.0% \b\13.0% \b\11.9% \b\10.6% \b\25.8% 17.3% ..............
(0.0180) (0.0027) (0.0378) (0.0032) (<0.0001) (0.0140)
Bag 1-Bag 3............................. -\a\ 5.2% 4.3% 5.1% 4.6% N/A ..............
(0.0063) (0.0689) (0.0107) (0.0514)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Sulfur level not significant at [alpha] = 0.10. For THC Bag 1 and CH4 Bag 1, because the effect of clean-out was not statistically significant, the
reduction estimates are based on the estimates of least squares means.
\b\ Model with significant sulfur and mileage interaction term.
Major findings from this study include:
Reversible sulfur loading is occurring in the in-use fleet
of Tier 2 vehicles and has a measureable effect on emissions of
NOX, hydrocarbons, and other pollutants of interest.
The effectiveness of high speed/load procedures in
restoring catalyst efficiency is limited when operating on higher
sulfur fuel.
Reducing fuel sulfur levels from current levels to levels
in the range of the proposed gasoline sulfur standards would be
expected to achieve significant reductions in emissions of
NOX, hydrocarbons, and other pollutants of interest in the
in-use fleet.
The overall reductions found in this study are in agreement with
other low sulfur studies conducted on Tier 2 vehicles. The magnitude of
NOX and HC reductions found in this study when switching
from 28 ppm to 5 ppm fuel are consistent with those found in MSAT and
Umicore studies mentioned above. For further details regarding the Tier
2 In-Use Gasoline Sulfur Effects Study, see the draft report on this
work.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\249\ U.S. EPA. 2013. ``The Effects of Fuel Sulfur Level on
Emissions from Tier 2 Vehicles In-Use.'' EPA-420-D-13-003. Available
in the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Fuel Sulfur Impacts on Vehicles at the Proposed Tier 3 Levels
As discussed in previous sections, the Tier 3 Program would reduce
fleet average NMOG+NOX emissions by over 80 percent. The
feasibility of the proposed 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX fleet average
standard depends on a degree of emissions control from exhaust catalyst
systems that will require gasoline at 10 ppm sulfur or lower. The most
likely control strategies would involve using exhaust catalyst
technologies and powertrain calibration primarily focused on reducing
cold-start emissions of NMOG and on both cold-start and warmed-up
(running) emissions of NOX. An important part of this
strategy, particularly for larger vehicles having greater difficulty
achieving cold-start NMOG emissions control, would be to reduce
NOX emissions to near-zero levels. This would allow
sufficient NMOG compliance margin to allow vehicles to meet the
combined NMOG+NOX emissions standards for their full useful
life.
Achieving the proposed Tier 3 emission standards would require very
careful control of the exhaust chemistry and exhaust temperatures to
ensure high catalyst efficiency. The impact of sulfur on OSC components
in the catalyst makes this a challenge even at relatively low (10 ppm)
gasoline sulfur levels. NOX conversion by exhaust catalysts
is strongly influenced by the OSC components like ceria. Ceria
sulfation may play an important role in the degradation of
NOX emission control with increased fuel sulfur levels
observed in the MSAT, Umicore and EPA Tier 2 In-Use Gasoline Sulfur
Effects studies.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: Automotive
Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light-duty vehicles certified to CARB SULEV and federal Tier 2 Bin
2 exhaust emission standards accounted for approximately 3.1 percent
and 0.4 percent, respectively of vehicle sales for MY2009. Light-duty
vehicles certified to SULEV under LEV II are more typically certified
federally to Tier 2 Bin 3, Bin 4 or Bin 5, and vehicles certified to
SULEV and Tier 2 Bins 3-5 comprised approximately 2.5 percent of sales
for MY2009. In particular, nonhybrid vehicles certified in California
as SULEV are not certified to federal Tier 2 Bin 2 emissions standards
even though the numeric limits for NOX and NMOG are shared
between the California LEV II and federal Tier 2 programs for SULEV and
Bin 2. Confidential business information shared by the auto companies
indicate that the primary reason is an inability to demonstrate
compliance with SULEV/Bin 2 emission standards after vehicles have
operated in-use on gasoline with greater than 10 ppm sulfur and with
exposure to gasoline up to the Tier 2 80 ppm gasoline sulfur cap. While
vehicles certified to the SULEV and Tier 2 Bin 2 standards both
demonstrate compliance using certification gasoline with 15-40 ppm
sulfur content, in-use compliance of SULEV vehicles in California
occurs after operation on gasoline with an average of 10 ppm sulfur and
a maximum cap of 30 ppm sulfur while federally certified vehicles
operate on gasoline with an average of 30 ppm sulfur and a maximum cap
of 80 ppm sulfur. Although the SULEV and Tier 2 Bin 2 standards are
numerically equivalent, the increased sulfur exposure of in-use
vehicles certified under the federal Tier 2 program results in a need
for a higher emissions compliance margin to take into account the
impact of in-use gasoline sulfur on full useful life vehicle emissions.
As a result, vehicles certified
[[Page 29867]]
to California SULEV typically certify to emissions standards under the
federal Tier 2 program that are 1-2 certification bins higher (e.g.,
SULEV certified federally as Tier 2 Bin 3 or Bin 4) in order to ensure
in-use compliance with emissions standards out to the full useful life
of the vehicle when operating on higher-sulfur gasoline.
Emissions of vehicles certified to the SULEV standard of the
California LEV II program, or the equivalent Tier 2 Bin 2 standards,
can provide some insight into the impact of fuel sulfur on vehicles at
the very low proposed Tier 3 emissions levels. Vehicle testing by
Toyota of LEV I, LEV II ULEV and prototype SULEV vehicles showed larger
percentage increases in NOX and HC emissions for SULEV
vehicles as gasoline sulfur increased from 8 ppm to 30 ppm, as compared
to other LEV vehicles they tested. Testing of a SULEV-certified PZEV
vehicle by Umicore showed a pronounced, progressive trend of increasing
NOX emissions (referred to as ``NOX creep'') when
switching from a 3 ppm sulfur gasoline to repeated, back-to-back FTP
tests using 33 ppm sulfur gasoline.\251\ The PZEV Chevrolet Malibu,
after being aged to an equivalent of 150,000 miles, demonstrated
emissions at a level equivalent to the compliance margin for the Tier 3
Bin 30 NMOG+NOX standard when operated on 3 ppm sulfur fuel
and for at least one FTP test after switching to 33 ppm certification
fuel. Following operation over 2 FTP cycles on 33 ppm sulfur fuel,
NOX emissions alone were more than double the proposed Tier
3 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX standard.\252\ This represents a
NOX percentage increase that is approximately 2-3 times of
what has been reported for similar changes in fuel sulfur level for
Tier 2 and older vehicles over a similar difference in fuel
sulfur.253 254 There are no LDTs larger than LDT2 and no
larger non-hybrid LDVs. We expect that additional catalyst
technologies, for example increasing catalyst surface area (volume or
substrate cell density) and/or increased PGM loading, would need to be
applied to larger vehicles in order to achieve the catalyst
efficiencies necessary to comply with the proposed Tier 3 standards.
Any sulfur impact on catalyst efficiency would have a larger impact on
vehicles and trucks that rely more on very high catalyst efficiencies
in order to achieve very low emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\251\ Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: Automotive
Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.
\252\ Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel
Sulfur on FTP NOX Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder
Application. SAE Technial Paper No. 2011-01-0300.
\253\ Butler, A. and Choi, D. (2012). The Effects of Fuel Sulfur
Level on Emissions In-Use Tier 2 Vehicles. Found in the docket, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2011-0135.
\254\ Shapiro, E. (2009). National Clean Gasoline--An
Investigation of Costs and Benefits. Published by the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The negative impact of gasoline sulfur on catalytic activity and
the resultant loss of exhaust catalyst effectiveness to chemically
reduce NOX and oxidize NMOG and air toxic emissions occurs
across all vehicle categories. However, the impact of gasoline sulfur
on NOX emissions control of catalysts in the fully-warmed-up
condition is particularly of concern for larger vehicles (the largest
LDVs and LDT3s, LDT4s, and MDPVs). Manufacturers face the most
significant challenges in reducing cold-start NMOG emissions for these
vehicles. Because of the need to reach near-zero NOX levels,
any significant degradation in NOX emissions control over
the useful life of the vehicle would likely prevent some if not most
larger vehicles from reaching a combined NMOG+NOX low enough
to comply with the 30 mg/mi fleet-average standard. These vehicles
represent a sufficiently large segment of light-duty vehicle sales now
and in the foreseeable future that their emissions could not be offset
(and thus the fleet-average standard achieved) by certifying vehicles
to bins below the fleet average. Any degradation in catalyst
performance due to gasoline sulfur would reduce or eliminate the margin
necessary to ensure in-use compliance with the proposed Tier 3
emissions standards. Certifying to a useful life of 150,000 miles
versus the current 120,000 miles would further add to manufacturers'
compliance challenge for Tier 3 large light trucks (See Section IV.7.b
below for more on the useful life requirements.)
d. Gasoline Sulfur Control Required To Meet Tier 3 Emissions Standards
The impact of gasoline sulfur poisoning on exhaust catalyst
performance and the relative stringency of the Tier 3 standards,
particularly for larger vehicles and trucks, when considered together
make a compelling argument for the virtual elimination of sulfur from
gasoline. As discussed in Section V.A.2, the proposed 10-ppm standard
for sulfur in gasoline represents the lowest practical limit from a
standpoint of fuel production, handling and transport. While lowering
gasoline sulfur to levels below 10 ppm would further help ensure in-use
vehicle compliance with the Tier 3 standards, the Agency believes that
a gasoline sulfur standard of 10 ppm would allow compliance by
gasoline-fueled engines with a national fleet average of 30 mg/mi
NMOG+NOX. The level of the proposed Tier 3 standards was
considered in light of a 10-ppm average sulfur level for gasoline. Not
only should a 10-ppm sulfur standard enable vehicle manufacturers to
certify their entire product line of vehicles to the Tier 3 fleet
average standards, but based on the results of testing both Tier 2
vehicles and SULEV vehicles as discussed above, reducing gasoline
sulfur to 10 ppm should enable these vehicles to maintain their
emission performance in-use over their full useful life. It is
important to note that while the preceding discussion focused on
gasoline sulfur control, spark ignition engines operating on other
fuels (i.e., CNG, LPG, E85) and utilizing a three way catalyst systems
for control of emission are similarly affected by the sulfur levels in
the fuel. We invite comment on all aspects of our analysis of gasoline
sulfur effects and our conclusions, especially comments that include
any additional relevant testing data.
7. Other Provisions
a. Early Credits
The California LEV III program is scheduled to begin at least two
model years earlier than the proposed federal Tier 3 program.\255\ As
stated earlier, EPA proposes to implement the Tier 3 standards in MY
2017, for vehicles 6,000 lbs GVWR and less, and in MY 2018 for vehicles
over 6,000 lbs GVWR. As a result, LEV III vehicles sold in California
beginning in MY 2015 will be required to meet a lower fleet average
NMOG+NOX level than the federal fleet is meeting at that
time. In addition, the California NMOG+NOX standards will
continue to decline resulting in the gap growing between the current
federal program and LEV III. The early credit program we are proposing
is designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Encourage manufacturers to
produce a cleaner federal fleet earlier than otherwise required; (2)
provide needed flexibility to the manufacturers to facilitate the
``step down'' from the current Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average required in
MY 2016 to the LEV III-based declining fleet average in MY 2017; and
(3) create a Tier 3 program that is equivalent in stringency to the LEV
III program such that manufacturers will be able to produce a 50-state
fleet at the earliest opportunity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\255\ The LEV III program as approved by the California Air
Resources Board, January 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first provision that we are proposing to address these goals is
to allow manufacturers to generate early federal credits against the
current Tier 2
[[Page 29868]]
Bin 5 requirement \256\ in MYs 2015 and 2016 for vehicles under 6,000
lbs GVWR and MYs 2016 and 2017 for vehicles greater than 6,000 lbs
GVWR. (Early credits would only be available for manufacturers
complying under the primary program (declining fleet average), not the
alternative phase-in approach (Section IV.A.3.a above). In order to
generate these credits, manufacturers would sum the NMOG and
NOX certification standards for each federally certified
Tier 2 vehicle and calculate an NMOG+NOX fleet average.
Credits would be based on the difference between the new, cleaner,
fleet average and the Tier 2 Bin 5 requirement (160 mg/mi total of NMOG
and NOX). We expect that manufacturers could accomplish this
by certifying existing Tier 2 vehicles to a lower fleet average, mainly
for the higher bins as the current sulfur content in gasoline would
preclude them from certifying the cleanest bins federally (Our
analysis, presented in Section IV.A.5 above and Chapter 1 of the draft
RIA, shows that many vehicles currently certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 could
likely be certified to a lower bin with some reduction in compliance
margin; e.g., from Bin 5 to Bin 4 or Bin 3.) We expect to realize early
environmental benefits, as the result of a cleaner federal fleet, that
justify the credits generated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ Tier 2 standards are not set in the form of
NMOG+NOX. The equivalent Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average in
NMOG+NOX terms would be equal to 160 mg/mi (90 mg/mi NMOG
+ 70 mg/mi NOX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that this provision would help us realize both our first
and our second goals. For example, a manufacturer certifying their
federal fleet to Tier 2 Bin 4 would earn 50 mg/mi of
NMOG+NOX credits per vehicle (i.e., 160 mg/mi minus 110 mg/
mi) which should encourage manufacturers to certify a cleaner federal
fleet and provide ample opportunity for credit generation to facilitate
the ``step down'' in stringency. However, if we allowed excessive early
credits to be generated it could allow manufacturers to delay their
federal compliance with the same fleet average as California for
several years. This would be in direct conflict with our third goal of
creating a program of equal stringency to the California program as
early as possible. In order to address this concern we are proposing
that the application of the early federal credits be constrained under
the following conditions:
Early federal credits generated under the provision
described above could be used without limitation in MY 2017.
Credits used for compliance in MY 2018 and beyond would be
capped at an amount equal to the lesser of the manufacturer's federal
credits as calculated above or the manufacturer's LEV III credits
multiplied by the ratio of 50-state sales to California only sales.
Calculation of these credits would account for the fact that some LEV
III credits may have begun to expire and would no longer be eligible as
a basis for Tier 3 early credits.
By capping the available federal credits we believe that the two
programs, LEV III and Tier 3 would be at parity starting in 2018 MY. In
addition, because the number of federal early credits that could be
used would be based on the number of LEV III credits that the
manufacturer had generated, there may be additional motivation for
manufacturers to over-perform in California during the initial model
years.
We are proposing that early credit life be limited to 5 years with
no discounting, consistent with the California LEV II and LEV III
programs and similar to the basic credit carry-forward provisions of
the recent light-duty and heavy-duty greenhouse gas rules. We are not
proposing any carry-over of Tier 2 credits for use in the Tier 3
program. We seek comment on the 5-year credit life in the context of
the programs goals of harmonization with California LEV III and whether
the added flexibility would be advantageous relative to any added
burden associated with corresponding record retention requirements.
b. Useful Life
The ``useful life'' of a vehicle is the period of time, in terms of
years and miles, during which a manufacturer is responsible for the
vehicle's emissions performance.\257\ For LDVs and LDTs (including
MDPVs) under the Tier 2 program, there have historically been both
``full useful life'' values, approximating the average life of the
vehicle on the road, and ``intermediate useful life'' values,
representing about half of the vehicle's life. For the Tier 3 program,
we are proposing several changes to the current useful life provisions
that are appropriate to the proposed standards described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\257\ The useful life of the vehicle should not be confused with
the vehicle's emissions warranty. The useful life value is relevant
for certification and in-use compliance purposes; the emissions
warranty relates to the period during which the manufacturer is
obligated to repair or replace failing emission control equipment on
a properly maintained vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every vehicle manufacturer with which the EPA has met has expressed
the desire for a single national vehicle fleet and has indicated an
ability and willingness to certify their vehicles to a 150,000 mile, 15
year full useful life in support of that goal, since the LEV III
program would apply a single 150,000 mile, 15 year useful life value
for all of the new standards. However, the CAA, written at a time when
vehicles did not last as long as today, precludes EPA from requiring a
useful life value longer than the 120,000 mile (and 10 or 11 year, as
applicable) value set in Tier 2, for all LDVs and for LDTs up to 3,750
lbs LVW and up to 6,000 lbs GVWR (LDT1s). For vehicles heavier than
these limits (i.e., LDT2s, 3s, 4s, as well as MDPVs, representing a
large fraction of the light-duty fleet) we are proposing a 150,000
mile, 15 year useful life value. For the lighter vehicles, we are
proposing to continue to apply the 120,000 mile (and 10 or 11 year, as
applicable) full useful life requirement from the Tier 2 program.
Numerically, we are proposing 120,000 mile useful life
NMOG+NOX standards that are 85 percent of the respective
NMOG+ NOX 150,000 mile standards. (See Chapter 1 of the
draft RIA for a description of our analysis of this relationship.) For
the lighter vehicles, we propose that manufacturers be allowed to
choose to certify to either useful life value in complying with the
proposed fleet average and per-vehicle standards.\258\ A manufacturer
choosing to comply with the 120,000 mile useful life standards for any
of their lighter vehicles would demonstrate compliance with the
numerically lower fleet-average NMOG+ NOX standards for all
LDV and LDT1 families. Standards for all other pollutants \259\ would
remain the same regardless of whether compliance was at the 120,000
mile or the 150,000 mile useful life periods. If a vehicle manufacturer
chose to comply with the 120,000 mile useful life standards for their
lighter vehicles, it would be required to separately demonstrate that
its larger vehicles complied with the 150,000 mile fleet average
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\258\ CARB has stated that they do not expect to accept vehicles
certified under the federal Tier 3 program to a 120,000 mile useful
life value for California certification, and thus for meeting
California's fleet average NMOG+NOX standards.
\259\ PM, CO, and HCHO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except for vehicles not required to meet a 150,000 miles useful
life and for which a manufacturer chose to apply the 120,000 mile
useful life value, we propose that manufacturers be required to certify
vehicles to the 150,000 mile useful life beginning with the first model
year that a vehicle model is certified to the FTP NMOG+NOX
Bin 70 or lower. This useful-life requirement
[[Page 29869]]
would apply beginning in MY 2017. Beginning in MY 2020, all vehicles
would need to certify to the 150,000 mile useful life, regardless of
NMOG+NOX certification bin, unless they are allowed and the
manufacturer has chosen to remain at 120,000 mile useful life. (Note
that the timing of the requirement to certify on the new test fuel
would follow the same approach as for the useful life requirement
(i.e., based on the first year a model is certified to Bin 70 or below)
as described in Section IV.A.7.c below.)
We request comment on the proposed useful life provisions,
including the 85 percent factor we propose to use to establish the
standards for the 120,000 mile useful life.
c. Test Fuels
We recognize that test fuels are an important element of a national
program. Vehicle manufacturers have emphasized the desire to reduce
test burden by producing one vehicle that is tested to a single test
procedure and a single fuel and meets both California and federal
requirements. Although we have been able to reasonably align the
proposed Tier 3 program with the LEV III program in most key respects,
we recognize that there would still exist some differences in emissions
performance between vehicles operated on the LEV III and Tier 3
certification fuels. The largest differences between the two fuels are
the amount of ethanol they contain and the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP).
The proposed Tier 3 NMOG+NOX standards assume operation on
federal certification fuel.
We propose that manufacturers begin to certify vehicles on the new
Tier 3 fuels \260\ beginning with the first model year that a vehicle
model is certified to the FTP NMOG+NOX Bin 70 or lower,
independent of its useful life. The new-fuel requirement would apply
beginning in MY 2017. Beginning in MY 2020, all gasoline-fueled models
would need to certify on the new fuel, regardless of their
certification bin.\261\ As discussed in Section IV.A.7.b above,
manufacturers would also need to apply the 150,000 mile useful life
value to these same vehicles as they begin to be certified to Bin 70
and lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\260\ This includes fuels used for low temperature and high
altitude testing and durability requirements. See Section IV.D
below.
\261\ Diesel fueled and alternative fueled vehicles would
continue to test on the fuels used under the Tier 2 program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the transition period from Tier 2 fuel to the new Tier 3 and
LEV III fuels, manufacturers have indicated a substantial workload
challenge of developing and certifying a vehicle to the two new fuels
simultaneously. To address this potential workload and certification
challenge, we propose that vehicles certified in MY 2015 through 2019
to California LEV III standards using California LEV III certification
fuels and test procedures could be used for certifying to EPA
standards. (For example, for MY 2015 and 2016, EPA would consider such
vehicles to be Tier 2 vehicles, although they could be tested on
California LEV III fuel.\262\ Similarly, for MY 2017 through 2019, EPA
would consider such vehicles to be Interim Tier 3 vehicles, although
they could be tested on California LEV III fuel.) For these vehicles
only, we would not perform or require in-use exhaust testing on Tier 3
fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\262\ Because the Tier 2 program has NOX fleet
average standards (instead of the NMOG+NOX fleet average
standard of LEV III and Tier 3), manufacturers certifying to LEV III
standards in MY 2015 and 2016 would not include such vehicles in
their Tier 2 NOX fleet average calculation. Tier 2
provisions that are not a part of the California program would still
apply. For example, high altitude testing, which is only required in
the federal program, would still need be performed on federal Tier 2
fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California does not have fuel specifications for high altitude
testing or cold CO and hydrocarbon testing. For this reason, we are
proposing that for vehicles that manufacturers choose to certify using
LEV III fuel and test procedures, they can use test fuels meeting
either Tier 2 or Tier 3 fuel specifications to comply with these
federal-only requirements. We would perform in-use testing for these
vehicles on the same fuel as selected by the manufacturer at
certification.
Certifications after MY 2019, however, would be required to use the
Tier 3 fuel and carry-over certifications using LEV II, LEV III or Tier
2 certification fuels would not be allowed after MY 2019. CARB has
indicated that they would accept Tier 3 test data (on federal
certification fuel) to obtain a California certificate as early as MY
2015. In this manner manufacturers should be able to avoid compliance
testing on more than one fuel as vehicles certified to LEV III using
federal certification fuel could obtain Final Tier 3 status.\263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\263\ That is, a manufacturer that certifies a vehicle to LEV
III in MY 2015 and MY 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. High Altitude Requirements
FTP emission standards are historically designed to be applicable
at all altitudes. Under Tier 2, the same FTP emission bin standards
applied to vehicles tested at both low and high-altitude. However,
fundamental physical challenges exist at high altitude resulting in
typically higher emissions during cold starts compared with starts at
lower altitudes (i.e., sea level). This expected increase in emissions
is primarily due to the lower air density at higher altitudes. Due to
the lower air density, the needed volume of the hot combustion exhaust
required to quickly heat the catalyst in the first minute after a cold
start is reduced. As a result, catalyst light-off is delayed and cold
start emissions increase. Vehicles under the Tier 2 program typically
had sufficient compliance margins to absorb this increase in emissions
during testing under high-altitude conditions. However, given the near-
zero standards we are proposing in Tier 3, vehicles will have less
compliance margin with which to address the issue.
Under the Tier 3 program, we expect that the emission control
technologies selected for low altitude performance would also provide
very significant emission control at high altitude.\264\ However, as
explained above, unique emission challenges exist with operation at
higher altitude. The stringency of the Tier 2 standards is such that
manufacturers comply with the same standards at all altitudes without
the need to design their emission control strategies specifically for
the more challenging high altitude operation. The Tier 3 stringency may
not allow manufacturers emission control strategies at lower altitude
to maintain sufficient compliance margin when tested at higher
altitude, therefore requiring manufacturers to design their emission
controls specifically for higher altitude.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\264\ High-altitude conditions means a test altitude of 1,620
meters (5,315 feet). Low altitude conditions means a test altitude
less than 549 meters (1,800 feet).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To avoid requiring special high-altitude emission control
technologies, we propose to allow manufacturers the limited relief of
complying with the next less-stringent bin for testing at high altitude
for vehicles certified at sea level to Bin 20, 30, and 50 (e.g.,
certifying to Bin 50 for testing at high altitude versus Bin 30 at sea
level). For vehicles certified at sea level to Bins 70 and 125, 35 mg/
mi of relief will be provided. No relief is proposed for Bin 160.
We do not believe that the impact of the fairly small fraction of
overall U.S. driving that occurs in high altitude locations warrants a
requirement for additional technologies to be applied specifically for
high-altitude conditions. In addition, this provision is intended to be
applicable to all Final Tier 3 vehicles for the duration of the Tier 3
program.
[[Page 29870]]
While vehicles would need to meet the Tier 3 standards at all
intermediate altitudes, the question remains as to what the value of
the standard should be at a given intermediate altitude. We request
comment on both the level of the proposed high altitude standards and
the appropriate level of the standard at intermediate altitudes. In
particular, we seek comment on whether this could be addressed by
requiring that all emission control strategies remain in effect at
altitudes that are in between the specific altitudes used for high and
low altitude testing and that any altitude-related auxiliary emission
control device (AECD) must be identified by the manufacturer and
justified as not being defeat devices.
Table IV-9--Proposed High Altitude Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea level FTP Altitude FTP
Bin standard (mg/ standard (mg/
mi NMOG+NOX) mi NMOG+NOX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 160................................. 160 160
Bin 125................................. 125 160
Bin 70.................................. 70 105
Bin 50.................................. 50 70
Bin 30.................................. 30 50
Bin 20.................................. 20 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Highway Test Standards
Sustained high-speed operation can result in NOX
emissions that may not be represented on either the FTP or SFTP cycles.
Although we are not aware of any serious issues with this mode of
operation with current Tier 2 vehicles, we are interested in preventing
increases in these NOX emissions as manufacturers develop
new or improved engine and emission control technologies.
For this reason, we are proposing that the same FTP
NMOG+NOX standards proposed above also apply on the Highway
Fuel Economy Test (HFET), which is performed as a part of GHG and Fuel
Economy compliance testing. Thus, the FTP NMOG+NOX standard
for the bin at which a manufacturer has chosen to certify a vehicle
would also apply on the HFET test. For example, if a manufacturer
certifies a vehicle to Bin 70, the vehicle's NMOG+NOX
performance over the HFET could not exceed 70 mg/mi. Manufacturers
would simply need to ensure that the same emission control strategies
implemented for the FTP and SFTP cycles were also effectively utilized
during the highway test cycle. We believe that this proposed
requirement would not require manufacturers to take any unique
technological action, would not add technology costs, and would not add
significantly to the certification burden. We request comment on this
proposed provision.
f. Interim 4,000 mile SFTP Standards
During the period of the declining NMOG+NOX standards,
we are proposing that interim Tier 3 vehicles meet 4,000 mile SFTP
standards, consistent with the existing Tier 2 and LEV II program
requirements. The 4,000 mile standards are designed to prevent
excessive emission levels from a single vehicle or a single SFTP cycle,
which can occur if only a composite approach is taken. Under the Tier 3
program, the proposed composite standards would be fleet average
standards that would decline from 2017 until 2025, as described in
Section IV.A.4. While this approach is expected to result in fleet-wide
reductions in SFTP emissions during all years of the declining
standard, the level of the fleet average requirement during the initial
years provides an opportunity for backsliding of SFTP emissions on
individual vehicles or on individual SFTP cycles. We believe it is
appropriate to require any individual Interim Tier 3 vehicle to at a
minimum meet the same requirements under the Tier 2 and LEV II
programs. Table IV-10 below presents the proposed 4,000 mile SFTP
standards for interim Tier 3 vehicles.
Table IV-10--Proposed 4,000 Mile SFTP Exhaust Standards for Interim Tier 3 Vehicles (Grams/mile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle category US06 NMOG+NOX US06 CO SC03 NMOG+NOX SC03 CO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV/LDT1.......................... 0.14 8.0 0.20 2.7
LDT2.............................. 0.25 10.5 0.27 3.5
LDT3.............................. 0.4 10.5 0.31 3.5
LDT4.............................. 0.6 11.8 0.44 4.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that vehicles considered to be Final Tier 3 (i.e., they
meet the Tier 3 PM requirements, specifically the stringent SFTP PM
standards) will have sufficiently robust designs that the 4,000 mile
SFTP standards will no longer be necessary. Additionally, once the
program reaches the fully phased-in fleet average composite standard of
50 mg/mi in 2025, high SFTP emissions even on a limited portion of a
manufacturer's fleet should be effectively mitigated. We seek comment
on this proposed 4,000 mile SFTP provision.
g. Phase-In Schedule
As described in Section IV.A.3, under the proposed Tier 3 program,
manufacturers would be required to certify each vehicle model to an FTP
bin, which would then be used to calculate the NMOG+NOX
fleet average of all of its vehicles. Manufacturers would also need to
determine the SFTP levels of each model and calculate the
NMOG+NOX fleet average for the SFTP requirements as
described in Section IV.A.4. These separate FTP and SFTP fleet average
calculations would satisfy one aspect of certification under the Tier 3
program, specifically the standards associated with each model year.
As described in Sections IV.A.7.b and IV.A.7.c above, the longer
(150,000 mile) useful life value, as applicable, and the new Tier 3
certification fuel for exhaust testing would be implemented as
manufacturers certified vehicles to more stringent NMOG+NOX
standards, with the threshold to implement both of these provisions
being Bin 70. Beginning in MY 2017, any vehicle certified to Bin 70 or
lower would be required to be certified on Tier 3 test fuel. In
addition, any vehicle certified to Bin 70 or lower that would be
required to meet the longer 150,000 mile useful life would be required
to do so. Beginning in MY 2020 all vehicles would be required to be
certified to on the Tier 3 test fuel, regardless of the bin they are
certified to or the useful life they are required to meet.
Manufacturers would also be required to comply with more stringent
PM standards on a percent phase-in schedule. Compliance with the PM
standards, which is consistent with the CARB LEV III program, would be
independent of the fleet average requirements described above. The PM
emission standards for FTP and SFTP described in Section IV.A.3 and 4
respectively would be implemented as a
[[Page 29871]]
percent phase-in requirement as described below under a basic phase-in
schedule or under an optional phase-in schedule.
Vehicles certified to a Tier 3 bin, meeting the requirements of the
PM phase-in schedule, and complying with the other Tier 3 requirements
(i.e., 150,000 mile useful life (as applicable) and Tier 3
certification fuel, as applicable) would be considered ``Final Tier 3''
compliant vehicles. All other vehicles certified to Tier 3 bins but not
yet meeting the PM and other Tier 3 requirements would be considered
``Interim Tier 3'' compliant vehicles. At the completion of the percent
phase-in period for PM (2021 for the basic PM phase-in schedule and
2022 for the alternative PM phase-in schedule, as described below), 100
percent of vehicles would need to meet the all Tier 3 requirements and
would be considered ``Final Tier 3'' vehicles.
For the PM requirements, each year manufacturers would be required
to meet either the basic PM percent phase-in or alternative PM phase-in
as described in the following subsections. The basic percent PM phase-
in schedule is composed of fixed yearly minimum phase-in percentages
that we expect that most manufacturers would meet to comply with the
Tier 3 requirements. The alternative PM phase-in schedule provides
additional flexibility for manufacturers with product offerings that
may not provide sufficient vehicle model granularity to allow for a
gradual transition into the Final Tier 3 requirements as described
below. In either case, Interim Tier 3 vehicles not yet meeting the Tier
3 PM standards must at a minimum meet the Tier 2 PM full useful life
FTP standard of 10 mg/mi and the SFTP weighted composite standard of 70
mg/mi.
i. Basic PM Percent Phase-In Schedule
It is important to note that the percent phase-in of the new Tier 3
standards that we are proposing and the declining fleet average
standards to which a manufacturer's fleet is held are separate and
independent elements of the Tier 3 program. ``Phase-in'' in this
context means the fraction of a manufacturer's fleet that would be
required to meet the new Tier 3 PM standards in a given model year. We
expect manufacturer fleets to consist of a mix of vehicles certified to
Tier 2, LEV II, LEV III and Tier 3 standards throughout the percent
phase-in period.
As discussed above, vehicles originally certified to Tier 2, LEV
II, and LEV III would be carried over into the Tier 3 program as
Interim Tier 3 vehicles. A vehicle would be considered a ``Final Tier 3
vehicle'' when it is certified to one of the Tier 3 bins; meets the
Tier 3 PM standards; certifies to the 150,000 useful life value (for
LDT2s, LDT3s, LDT4s, and MDPVs); and certifies on the new certification
test fuel. Table IV-11 below presents the proposed PM phase-in schedule
for Final Tier 3 vehicles.
Table IV-11--PM Phase-In Schedule for Final Tier 3 Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 and later
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer's Fleet (%)............ 20\a\............................. 20 40 70 100 100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Types....................... <= 6,000 lbs GVWR................. All vehicles <= 8,500 lbs GVWR and MDPVs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ In 2017 model year, a manufacturer may optionally include vehicles up to 8,500 lbs GVWR and/or MDPVs in its phase-in calculation.
ii. Optional PM Phase-In
The proposed PM percent-of-sales phase-in schedule described above
would allow manufacturers with multiple vehicle models to plan the
phase-in of those models based on anticipated volumes of each vehicle
model. However, manufacturers certifying only a few vehicle models
might not benefit from this schedule. This is because, in order to
satisfy the phase-in schedule percentages, they might have to over-
comply with the required percentages earlier than would a manufacturer
with many vehicle models available for the phase-in.
For instance, a manufacturer with only two models that each equally
accounted for 50 percent of their sales would be required to introduce
(at least) one of the models in MY 2017 meet the PM phase-in
requirement of 20 percent in the first year. Because it represented 50
percent of the manufacturer's sales, this model would then also meet
the requirements for MY 2018 (20 percent) and MY 2019 (40 percent). To
meet the MY 2020 requirement of 70 percent of sales, however, the
manufacturer would need to introduce the second Tier 3 vehicle that
year. Thus the manufacturer would have introduced 100 percent of its
Tier 3 models one year earlier than would have been required of a
manufacturer that was able to delay the final 30 percent of its fleet
until MY 2021 (by distributing its their models over the entire phase-
in period).
To provide for more equal application of this benefit among all
manufacturers in the early years of the program, we are proposing an
optional ``indexed'' PM phase-in schedule that could be used by a
manufacturer to meet its PM percent phase-in requirements. A
manufacturer that exceeded the phase-in requirements in any given year
would be allowed to, in effect, offset some of the phase-in
requirements in a later model year. The optional phase-in schedule
would be acceptable if it passes a mathematical test. The mathematical
test is designed to provide manufacturers a benefit from certifying to
the standards at higher volumes than obligated to under the normal
phase-in schedule, while ensuring that significant numbers of vehicles
are meeting the new Tier 3 requirements during each year of the
optional phase-in schedule. In this approach, manufacturers would
weight the earlier years by multiplying their percent phase-in by the
number of years prior to MY 2022 (i.e., the second year of the 100
percent phase-in requirement).
The proposed mathematical equation for applying the optional PM
phase-in is as follows:
(5 x APP2017) + (4 x APP2018) + (3 x APP2019) + (2 x APP2020) + (1 x
APP2021) >=540,
where APP is the anticipated phase-in percentage for the referenced
model year.
The sum of the calculation would need to be greater than or equal
to 540, which is the result when the optional phase-in equation is
applied to the primary percent phase-in schedule (i.e., 5 x 20% + 4 x
20% + 3 x 40% + 2 x 70% + 1 x 100% = 540).
Applying the proposed optional PM phase-in equation to the
hypothetical manufacturer in the example above, the manufacturer could
postpone its model introductions by one year each, to MY 2018 and MY
2021. Its calculation would be (5 x 0% + 4 x 50% + 3 x 50% + 2 x 50% +
1 x 100% = 550, and thus the phase-in would be acceptable.
EPA requests comment on the proposed PM phase-in schedules.
[[Page 29872]]
h. In-Use Standards
i. NMOG+NOX
The proposed Tier 3 emission standards would require a substantial
migration of emission control technology historically used only on a
small percent of the fleet and typically limited to smaller vehicles
and engines. While we believe that these technologies can generally be
used on any vehicle and are applicable to the entire fleet,
manufacturers have less experience with the in-use performance of these
technologies across the fleet. For example, technologies that
accelerate catalyst warm-up such as catalyst location close to the
engine exhaust ports and other advanced thermal management approaches
would be new to certain vehicle types, particularly larger vehicles
(i.e., LDT3/4s), which have historically not relied on these
technologies to meet emission standards.
To help manufacturers address the lack of in-use experience and
associated challenges with the expanded introduction of these
technologies particularly in the larger vehicles, we are proposing
temporarily-relaxed in-use NMOG+NOX standards that would
apply to all vehicles certified to Bins 70 and cleaner as Interim or
Final Tier 3 vehicles. The in-use standards would apply during the
entire percent phase-in period (i.e., through MY 2021). The proposed
in-use standards would be 40 percent less stringent than the
certification standards, providing a significant but reasonable
temporary cushion for the uncertainties associated with new
technologies (or new applications of existing technologies) over the
life of the vehicle.
The proposed in-use NMOG+NOX standards are shown in
Table IV-12.
Table IV-12--Proposed FTP In-Use Standards for Light Duty Vehicles and
MDPVs
[mg/mi]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX (mg/
Bin mi)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 160................................................. 160
Bin 125................................................. 125
Bin 70.................................................. 98
Bin 50.................................................. 70
Bin 30.................................................. 42
Bin 20.................................................. 28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. PM
As with the proposed NMOG+NOX standards, the
introduction of new emission control technologies or new applications
of existing technologies (e.g., GDI, turbocharging, downsized engines)
would create significant uncertainties for manufacturers about in-use
performance over the vehicle's useful life. We are proposing a
temporary in-use FTP standard for PM of 6 mg/mi for all light duty
vehicles and MDPVs certified to the Tier 3 full useful life 3 mg/mi
standard. Since the Tier 3 PM standard has a percent phase-in schedule
spread over several years, starting in 2017 with full phase-in
completed in 2022, we are proposing that the in-use standard apply to
all vehicles certified to the new PM standards during the entire
percent phase-in period (i.e., through MY 2021).
We are also proposing temporarily-relaxed in-use US06 PM standards.
We propose in-use standards 5 mg/mi less stringent than the
certification standards, or 15 mg/mi for all light duty vehicles up to
and including 6,000 lbs GVWR and 25 mg/mi for all light duty vehicles
and light-duty trucks over 6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs. Consistent with
the FTP in-use standards, these in-use standards would apply to all
vehicles certified to the new PM standards during the entire percent
phase-in period (i.e., through MY 2021).
EPA requests comment on the proposed in-use standards.
i. FFVs
Because of the physical and chemical differences in how emissions
are generated and controlled between vehicles operating on gasoline and
ethanol, manufacturers of vehicles designed for high-percentage blends
of ethanol (usually called Flexible Fuel Vehicles, or FFVs) may face
unique compliance challenges under the proposed Tier 3 program.
Historically, under the Tier 2 program, FFVs have only been required to
meet all Tier 2 emission standards while operating on gasoline; when
operating on the alternative fuel (generally this means a blend that is
nominally 85 percent ethanol, or E85), they have only been required to
meet the FTP emission standards.
However, E85 use may rise considerably in the future as ethanol use
increases in response to the Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS). Thus, it
is increasingly important that FFVs maintain their emission performance
when operating on E85 across different operating conditions.
We believe that at standard test conditions, requiring
manufacturers to meet the Tier 3 standards on any blend of gasoline and
ethanol would not add technological feasibility concerns beyond
compliance on gasoline alone (or low-level blends like E10 or E15). We
are thus proposing that in addition to complying with the Tier 3
requirements when operating on gasoline, FFVs also comply with both the
FTP and the SFTP emission standards when operating on E85. This would
include the requirement to meet emission standards for both gasoline
and E85 for the FTP, highway test, and SFTP emission standards at
standard test temperatures (i.e., 68 [deg]F to 86 [deg]F). Since FFVs
can operate on any blend of gasoline and ethanol (up to a nominal 85
percent ethanol), the emission requirements apply to operation at all
levels of the alternative fuel that can be achieved with commercially
available fuels. However, for emission compliance demonstration
purposes, we will continue to test on gasoline and the highest
available level ethanol.
EPA welcomes comment on this proposed approach to FFV compliance.
j. Credit for Direct Ozone Reduction (DOR) Technology
Since the late 1990s, technologies have been commercialized with
which vehicles can remove ozone from the air that flows over the
vehicle's coolant radiator. In such direct ozone reduction (DOR)
technology, a catalytic coating on the radiator is designed to convert
ambient ozone into gaseous oxygen, addressing the air quality concerns
about ozone. Detailed technical analyses for the California LEV II and
the federal Tier 2 programs showed that when properly designed these
systems can remove sufficient ozone from the air to be equivalent to a
quantifiable reduction in tailpipe NMOG emissions. In the earlier
programs, both California and EPA provided methodologies through which
a manufacturer could demonstrate the capability and effectiveness of
the ozone-reducing technology and be granted an NMOG credit. A small
number of vehicle models with DOR applications received credit under
the LEV II program; no manufacturer formally applied for credits under
the federal Tier 2 program.
Some manufacturers have expressed an interest in the continued
availability of a DOR credit as a part of their potential LEV III and
Tier 3 compliance strategies. EPA believes that when a DOR system is
shown to be effective in reducing ozone, a credit toward Tier 3
compliance is warranted. We propose that manufacturers following the
California methodology for demonstrating effectiveness and calculating
a appropriate credit for a DOR system be granted a specific credit
toward the NMOG portion of the
[[Page 29873]]
NMOG+NOX standard.\265\ As with the California program, such
a credit could not exceed 5 mg/mi NMOG. We invite comment on the
appropriateness of this proposed DOR credit approach, including the
application of the California methodology to the federal Tier 3
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\265\ EPA is incorporating the CARB DOR methodology by
reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
k. Credit for Adopting a 150,000-Mile Emissions Warranty
Under the Tier 3 standards proposed above manufacturers would be
expected to design their emission control systems to continue to
operate effectively for a useful life of 150,000 miles (120,000 miles
for some smaller vehicles). However, as with the current Tier 2
program, manufacturers are only required to replace failed emission
control components or systems on customers' vehicles for a limited time
period, specified in the Clean Air Act (80,000 miles/8 years for key
emission control components). EPA believes that voluntary extension of
this warranty obligation by manufacturers would provide additional
emission reductions by helping ensure that controls continue to operate
effectively in actual operation through the full life of the vehicle.
We propose that a manufacturer providing its customers with a
robust emission control system warranty of 15 years or 150,000 miles be
eligible for a modest credit of 5 mg/mi NMOG+NOX.\266\
Because of the significant liability that manufacturers would be
accepting, we do not expect that the use of this credit opportunity
would be widespread. However, based on our modeling of the expected
deterioration of the emissions of future Tier 3 vehicles absent repair/
replacement of failed emission controls, we anticipate that the value
to the environment of long emissions warranties in terms of reduced
real-world emissions would significantly exceed the 5 mg/mi
NMOG+NOX credit.\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\266\ Manufacturers choosing to comply with the standards for a
120,000 mile useful life for their LDVs and LDT1s would not be
eligible for this extended warranty credit for those vehicles.
\267\ Beardsley, M, et al. (2013, February). Updates to MOVES
for the Tier 3 NPRM. Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to use the same criteria for approving such a credit as
does the parallel California program.\268\ Thus, in addition to
committing to customers that failing emission controls would be
repaired or replaced for 15 years/150,000 miles, manufacturers would
also need to accept the liability that in the event that a specific
emissions control device failed on greater than 4 percent of a vehicle
model's production, they would recall the entire production of that
model for repair. EPA requests comment on this optional credit
opportunity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\268\ EPA is incorporating the CARB extended emission warranty
provisions by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
l. Averaging, Banking, and Trading of Credits
An averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program was established in
the Tier 2 program to provide for credits to be generated by certifying
vehicles that perform better than the standards, for those credits to
be used to offset vehicles that perform worse than the standards, and
for credits to be banked for later use or traded to other
manufacturers. The ABT program is largely unchanged by this Tier 3
proposal. In some cases, especially during the transitional years,
there would be specific restrictions on the generation of credits, as
described above. Also, we are proposing that Tier 3 credits expire
after 5 years, consistent with the LEV II and LEV III programs and
similar to the basic credit carry-forward provisions in the recent
light-duty and heavy-duty greenhouse gas rules. We invite comment on
the ABT program in general, and specific comment on a longer Tier 3
credit life, including any flexibilities that this may provide and any
implications for record retention requirements by manufacturers.
m. Tier 3 Transitional Emissions Bins
In discussions with manufacturers, EPA has become aware that some
vehicles may continue to be produced as late as MY 2019 that could be
certified to Tier 2 Bin 3 or Bin 4 standards. In order to provide
manufacturers flexibility in meeting the fleet average standards and
thus to further facilitate the transition from Tier 2 to Tier 3, we
will allow manufacturers to certify to the combined NMOG+NOX
levels of these bins through MY 2019. Two proposed transitional Tier 3
bins, Bin 110 and Bin 85, would have NMOG+NOX standards on
the FTP of 110 mg/mi and 85 mg/mi, respectively (i.e., the sum of the
NMOG and NOX values from the Tier 2 bins); the associated
FTP standards for CO, PM, and HCHO corresponding to these bins would be
identical to those for vehicles certified to the proposed Tier 3 Bin
125. Tier 3 SFTP standards would apply to these vehicles, and these
vehicles would be included in the Tier 3 p.m. percent phase-in
calculations.
n. Compliance Demonstration
In general, we are proposing that manufacturers demonstrate
compliance with the proposed Tier 3 light-duty vehicle emission
standards in a very similar manner to current Tier 2 vehicle compliance
(see Sec. 86.1860 of the proposed regulatory language). However, we
propose for Tier 3 that manufacturers calculate their compliance with
the fleet average standards and percent phase-in standards based on
annual nationwide sales, including sales in California and Clean Air
Act Section 177 states. We believe that this approach represents
another step toward achieving the goal of an effectively nationwide
program as early as possible, which has been a basic principle in EPA's
development of this proposed program and broadly supported by vehicle
manufacturers. We also believe that basing compliance on nationwide
sales may reduce the need for manufacturers to project future sales and
track past years' sales in a disaggregated way. Because the proposed
Tier 3 provisions will become increasingly consistent with LEV III
provisions as the Tier 3 program phases in, we believe that any
disproportionate impacts of different mixes of vehicles in different
states are unlikely to occur. We seek comment on this approach to
compliance demonstration.
This proposed nationwide compliance calculation approach would
apply to vehicles as they become subject to the Tier 3 provisions,
either the declining fleet-average NMOG+NOX curves or the
percent phase-in PM standards. Were any manufacturer to choose to use
the alternative FTP and SFTP phase-ins, which are not a part of the LEV
III program, the manufacturer would not include sales in California or
in the Section 177 states in its compliance calculations.\269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\269\ If EPA ultimately decided to continue the disaggregated
approach to fleet compliance calculations, we could potentially base
compliance with the proposed Tier 3 emission requirements on U.S.
sales (i.e., sales in non-California and non-Section 177 states).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Tailpipe Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles
1. Overview
We are proposing Tier 3 exhaust emissions standards for heavy-duty
vehicles (HDVs) between 8,501 and 14,000 lbs GVWR that are certified to
gram per mile standards on a chassis dynamometer. Vehicles in this GVWR
range are often referred to as Class 2b (8,501-10,000 lbs) and Class 3
(10,001-14,000 lbs) vehicles, and are typically
[[Page 29874]]
full-size pickup trucks and work vans certified as complete
vehicles.\270\ Most are built by companies with even larger light-duty
truck markets, and as such they frequently share major design
characteristics and potential emissions control technologies with their
LDT counterparts. However, in contrast to the largely gasoline-fueled
LDT fleet, roughly half of the HD pickup and van fleet in the U.S. is
diesel-fueled, which is a consideration in setting emissions standards,
as diesel engine emissions and control strategies differ from those of
gasoline engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\270\ 40 CFR 86.1803-01 defines HDVs to also include motor
vehicles at or below 8,500 lbs GVWR that have a vehicle curb weight
of more than 6,000 lbs or a basic vehicle frontal area in excess of
45 square feet, and we are proposing that these vehicles also would
be subject to the standards and other provisions applicable to Class
2b vehicles discussed in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers of diesel-fueled complete HDVs have the option under
existing EPA regulations to satisfy EPA criteria emissions requirements
for these vehicles by using engines certified through engine
dynamometer testing, but for the most part have chosen to certify whole
vehicles on the chassis test. We are proposing to codify this common
practice and require that diesel-fueled Class 2b and 3 complete Tier 3
vehicles, like their gasoline-fueled counterparts, be certified to the
Tier 3 standards on the chassis test. The current prohibition in 40 CFR
86.1863-07(d) on averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) credit
generation and use by chassis-certified diesel HDVs would be replaced
by the proposed fleetwide averaging program. We are not proposing
changes to the heavy-duty engine certification requirements at this
time.
Manufacturers of incomplete HDVs that are sold to secondary
manufacturers for subsequent completion (less than 10 percent of the
Class 2b and 3 U.S. market) are also allowed under existing EPA
regulations to certify via either the chassis or engine test, and those
who choose to chassis-certify in the future would be subject to Tier 3
requirements. We are not proposing to mandate chassis certification of
incomplete Class 2b and 3 vehicles, but we note that California's LEV
III program does include such a requirement for Class 2b and we request
comment on doing the same in the federal program. We further note that
MDPVs are classified as HDVs under the Clean Air Act but, as in our
current Tier 2 program, would be covered as part of our Tier 3 light-
duty program discussed in Section IV.A, and not in the proposed program
described here.
The key elements of the proposed Tier 3 program for HDVs parallel
those proposed for passenger cars and LDTs, with adjustments in
standards levels, emissions test requirements, and implementation
schedules, appropriate to this sector. These key elements include a
combined NMOG+NOX declining fleet average standard beginning
in 2018 and reaching the final, fully phased-in level in 2022, creation
of a bin structure for standards, new stringent PM standards phasing in
on a separate schedule, changes to the test fuel for gasoline- and
ethanol-fueled vehicles, extension of the regulatory useful life to
150,000 miles, and a new requirement to meet standards over the SFTP
that would address real-world driving modes not well-represented by the
FTP cycle alone. We believe that other requirements already in place
for HDV testing and compliance remain appropriate. In particular, we
believe the current HDV certification requirement to test at the
adjusted loaded vehicle weight (ALVW), equal to vehicle curb weight
plus one-half the payload weight, is more appropriate for these heavy-
duty work trucks and vans than the LDT requirement to test at curb
weight plus 300 lbs. These differences from light-duty requirements
also factor into the evaluation of potential control technologies and
subsequent choice of standards levels, as discussed below.
As with the proposed light-duty Tier 3 program, we are putting
strong emphasis on coordinating this HDV Tier 3 proposal with
California's LEV III program for Class 2b and 3 vehicles, referred to
in LEV III as medium-duty vehicles (MDVs). The goal is to create a
coordinated ``national program'' in which California would accept
compliance with Tier 3 standards as sufficient to also satisfy LEV III
requirements, thus allowing manufacturers to comply nationwide by
marketing a single vehicle fleet. With this goal in mind, we discuss
the relationship of the proposed HDV Tier 3 program provisions to LEV
III throughout this section. As part of this effort, we are proposing
that manufacturers of Tier 3 HDVs calculate compliance with the fleet
average standards and percent phase-in standards discussed in this
section based on annual nationwide sales, including sales in California
and Clean Air Act Section 177 states. This would help to create an
effectively nationwide program, which has been a basic principle in
EPA's development of this proposed program and broadly supported by
vehicle manufacturers. If this proposed approach to HDV fleet
compliance calculations is not adopted, EPA could base compliance with
the proposed Tier 3 requirements on U.S. sales outside of California
and the Section 177 states.
Furthermore, in 2011 EPA and NHTSA set first-ever standards for
GHGs and fuel consumption from HD pickups and vans (as well as other
heavy-duty vehicles and engines). These standards phase in over 2014-
2018, so in developing the Tier 3 HDV proposal we have carefully taken
this new program into account to maximize the coordination between the
two complementary heavy-duty regulatory programs and avoid
inconsistencies.
2. HDV Exhaust Emissions Standards
a. Bin Standards
We are proposing that manufacturers certify HDVs to Tier 3
requirements by having them meet the standards for one of the bins
listed in Table IV-13. Manufacturers would choose bins for their
vehicles based on their product plans and corporate strategy for
compliance with the fleet average standards discussed in Section
IV.A.2.b, and once a vehicle's bin is designated, those bin standards
apply throughout its useful life. Because the fleet average standards
become more stringent over time, the bin mix would gradually shift from
higher to lower bins. As in the past, we are proposing numerically
higher standards levels for Class 3 vehicles than for Class 2b
vehicles, reflective of the added challenge in reducing per-mile
emissions from large work trucks designed to carry and tow heavier
loads. Also, the proposed standards levels for both Class 2b and Class
3 HDVs are significantly higher than those being proposed for light-
duty trucks due to marked differences in vehicle size and capability,
and to our requirement to test HDVs in a loaded condition (at ALVW). By
conducting emissions testing with loaded vehicles, the heavy-duty
program ensures that emissions controls are effective when these
vehicles are performing their core function: hauling heavy loads. This
is a key difference between the heavy-duty and light-duty truck
programs. The proposed bin structure and standards levels are
consistent with those in the LEV III program. We request comment on the
usefulness of creating additional bins between Bin 0 and the next
lowest bin in each vehicle class, as a means of encouraging clean
technologies and adding flexibility.
[[Page 29875]]
Table IV-13--Proposed FTP Standards for HDVs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX (mg/ Formaldehyde
mi) NMOG (mg/mi) NOX (mg/mi) PM (mg/mi) CO (g/mi) (mg/mi)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 2b (8,501-10,000 lbs GVWR)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 395 (interim)...................................... .............. 195 200 8 6.4 6
Bin 340 (interim)...................................... .............. 140 200 8 6.4 6
Bin 250................................................ 250 .............. .............. 8 6.4 6
Bin 200................................................ 200 .............. .............. 8 4.2 6
Bin 170................................................ 170 .............. .............. 8 4.2 6
Bin 150................................................ 150 .............. .............. 8 3.2 6
Bin 0.................................................. 0 .............. .............. 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 3 (10,001-14,000 lbs GVWR)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 630 (interim)...................................... .............. 230 400 10 7.3 6
Bin 570 (interim)...................................... .............. 170 400 10 7.3 6
Bin 400................................................ 400 .............. .............. 10 7.3 6
Bin 270................................................ 270 .............. .............. 10 4.2 6
Bin 230................................................ 230 .............. .............. 10 4.2 6
Bin 200................................................ 200 .............. .............. 10 3.7 6
Bin 0.................................................. 0 .............. .............. 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed NMOG and NOX standards for the highest bins
in each class (Class 2b Bin 395 and Class 3 Bin 630) are equal to the
current non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) and NOX standards
that took full effect in 2009, as well as to equivalent LEV standards
in California's LEV II program. These bins are intended as carryover
bins. That is, we would expect them to be populated with vehicles that
are designed to meet the current standards, and that are being phased
out as new lower-emitting vehicle designs phase in to satisfy the
proposed Tier 3 fleet average NMOG+NOX standard. We also
consider the next highest bins (Class 2b Bin 340 and Class 3 Bin 570)
to be carryover bins, because they likewise can be readily achieved by
vehicles designed for today's EPA and California LEV II emissions
programs. As the 2018-2022 phase-in progresses, it would become
increasingly difficult to produce vehicles in these bins and still meet
the fleet average standard. Therefore vehicles in these bins (as well
as some others not yet designed to meet Tier 3 PM standards described
in Section IV.B.2.d) would be considered ``interim Tier 3'' vehicles,
and the bins themselves would be considered ``interim bins.''
To facilitate their use in this carryover function, we are
proposing that the interim bins not include SFTP requirements, longer
useful life requirements, or requirements to conduct exhaust emissions
testing with the proposed new gasoline test fuel discussed in Section
IV.D, although testing on this fuel would be allowed. For gasoline-
fueled HDVs in all other bins, we are proposing that exhaust emissions
testing be conducted with the new test fuel. (See Section IV.D.5 for
discussion of our request for comment on extending this requirement to
testing of gasoline-fueled heavy-duty engines as well.) In the context
of these proposed accommodations for the interim bins, we propose two
additional measures to help ensure these bins are focused on their
function of helping manufacturers transition to Final Tier 3 vehicles.
First, we propose that the interim bins be available only in the phase-
in years of the program, that is, through MY 2021, as is appropriate to
their interim status.
Second, we are proposing that vehicles in the interim bins meet
separate NMOG and NOX standards, as indicated in Table IV-
13, rather than combined NMOG+NOX standards. This proposed
provision is intended to keep a manufacturer from redesigning or
recalibrating a vehicle design under combined NMOG+NOX Tier
3 standards for such purposes as reducing fuel consumption, through
means that result in higher NOX or NMOG emissions than
exhibited by today's vehicles, contrary to the intended carryover
function of the interim bins. We note that other, more stringent,
proposed bins also carry this potential but to a lesser degree, and we
feel their relatively low NMOG+NOX standards levels
sufficiently mitigate this concern, whereas the interim bins have the
potential to allow a doubling of emissions or more. We request comment
on this issue and the proposed approach to addressing it.
b. Fleet Average NMOG+NOX Standards
As in the light-duty program, a key element of the Tier 3 program
is a fleet average NMOG+NOX standard that becomes more
stringent in successive model years: In the case of HDVs, from 2018 to
2022. Each HDV sold by a manufacturer in each model year contributes to
this fleet average based on the mg/mi NMOG+NOX level of the
bin declared for it by the manufacturer. For the interim bins, with
separate NMOG and NOX standards, the NMOG+NOX
level is the simple sum of the NMOG and NOX standards.
Manufacturers may also earn or use credits for fleet average
NMOG+NOX levels below or above the standard in any model
year, as described in Section IV.B.4. We are proposing the separate
Class 2b and Class 3 fleet average standards shown in Table IV-14,
though a manufacturer could effectively average the two fleet classes
using credits (see Section IV.B.4). We believe this split-curve
approach is superior to a single HDV phase-in because it recognizes the
different Class 2b/Class 3 fleet mixes among manufacturers and the
different challenges in meeting mg/mi standards between Class 2b and
Class 3 vehicles, while still allowing for a corporate compliance
strategy based on a combined HDV fleet through the use of credits.
The proposed fleet average standards are consistent with those set
for the MDV LEV III program in model years 2018 and later. Note that
the LEV III program also sets standards for model years before 2018,
something EPA is not requiring due to lead time considerations.
However, we are proposing that manufacturers may voluntarily meet bin
and fleet average standards in model years 2016 and 2017 that are
consistent with the MDV LEV III standards, for the purpose of
generating credits that can be used later
[[Page 29876]]
or traded to others. These proposed voluntary standards are shown in
Table IV-14. This proposed voluntary opt-in program serves the
important purpose of furthering consistency between the federal and
California programs, such that manufacturers who wish to can produce a
single vehicle fleet for sale nationwide, with the opportunity for
reciprocal certification in affected model years. It further
incentivizes pulling ahead of Tier 3 technologies, with resulting
environmental benefits, by providing for early compliance credits in
this nationwide fleet.
Manufacturers choosing to opt into this early compliance program
could start in either model year 2016 or 2017. They would have to meet
the full complement of applicable bin standards and requirements,
including SFTP standards, but not the Tier 3 PM FTP and SFTP standards
discussed in Sections IV.B.2.d and IV.B.3.a, or the evaporative
emissions standards discussed in Section IV.C, because these
requirements phase in on a later schedule. We are also requesting
comment on extending the voluntary compliance opportunity to the 2015
model year.
Table IV-14--Proposed HDV Fleet Average NMOG+NOX Standards
[mg/mi]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voluntary
Required program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Year..................... 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 and later.
Class 2b....................... 333 310 278 253 228 203 178.
Class 3........................ 548 508 451 400 349 298 247.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that offering this voluntary opt-in would benefit the
environment, the regulated industry, and vehicle purchasers, because it
has potential to accomplish early emissions reductions while
maintaining the goal of a cost-effective, nationwide vehicle program in
every model year going forward. We request comment on all facets of
this proposed approach.
Although manufacturers would be allowed to meet the fleet average
NMOG+NOX standard through whatever combination of bin-
specific vehicles they choose, it is instructive to note that the fully
phased in fleet average standard for model years 2022 and later would
be the equivalent of a Class 2b fleet mix of 90 percent Bin 170 and 10
percent Bin 250 vehicles, and a Class 3 fleet mix of 90 percent Bin 230
and 10 percent Bin 400 vehicles. Therefore, it is appropriate to
consider Bin 170 Class 2b vehicles and Bin 230 Class 3 vehicles to be
representative of Tier 3-compliant HDVs in the long term.
The Tier 3 program we are proposing for HDVs would result in
substantial reductions in harmful emissions from this large fleet of
work trucks and vans, vehicles that are typically driven over high
annual miles on every part of the nation's highway and urban roadway
system. The Final Tier 3 standards levels for NMOG+NOX and
PM are on the order of 60 percent lower than the current stringent
standards that took full effect three years ago.
c. Alternative NMOG+NOX Phase-In
We believe that the program described in Sections IV.B.2.a and b
above would provide manufacturers with a flexible and effective
compliance path. However, as in the case of the light-duty standards
discussed above, we are proposing to provide an alternative compliance
path that would be available to any manufacturer who prefers a stable
standard and four full years of lead time, as specified in the Clean
Air Act.\271\ This alternative approach would be equivalent to the
primary approach that is based on NMOG+NOX declining fleet
average standards and would apply during the program phase-in over the
2016-2022 model years, with the first three of those model year
standards made voluntary and set at levels to align with the California
LEVIII program. We are proposing an alternative phase-in structured to
require an annually increasing percent-of-sales of HDVs certified to
the fully phased in 178 mg/mi (Class 2b) and 247 mg/mi (Class 3)
standards, as shown in Table IV-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\271\ For vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, CAA section
202(a)(3)(C) requires EPA to provide manufacturers with a minimum of
4 years of lead time before mandatory changes to any standard
applicable to HC, NOX, CO or PM can be implemented, and 3
years of stability between changes to any such standard.
Table IV-15--Proposed Percent-of-Sales Alternative NMOG+NOX Phase-in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voluntary
Required program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Year..................... 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 and later.
Class 2b....................... 29% 39% 54% 65% 77% 88% 100%.
Class 3........................ 21% 32% 47% 60% 73% 87% 100%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under our alternative phase-in proposal, the availability of
emissions averaging makes the two alternatives functionally equivalent,
not just in the annual emissions reductions they achieve, but also in
how manufacturers may design their mix of products to meet the phase-in
standards. Although we are proposing to make the alternative approach
available, we believe that the primary approach--the declining fleet
average standard discussed above--is more consistent with the approach
taken in California's LEV III program and in recent GHG reduction
rules.
To help ensure that the percent-of-sales alternative is fully
equivalent to the primary program in terms of fleet-wide emissions
control and technology mix choices, we are proposing that it include
some additional provisions. First, we are proposing that the Tier 3
vehicles being phased in under the percent-of-sales alternative, in
addition to meeting the fully phased-in NMOG+NOX FTP
standards, must also meet all other FTP and (as described below) SFTP
standards required by the primary compliance program. These include the
CO and formaldehyde FTP standards in Table IV-13, the 150,000 mile (15
year) useful life requirement, exhaust emissions testing with the new
[[Page 29877]]
test fuel for gasoline- and ethanol-fueled vehicles discussed in
Section IV.D, and the NMOG+NOX and CO SFTP standards in
Table IV-16. The specific proposed standards are those for the bins in
these tables closest to the fully phased-in NMOG+NOX
standards: Bin 170 for Class 2b and Bin 230 for Class 3. (The PM and
evaporative emissions standards phase in on separate schedules under
both alternatives, as discussed in Sections IV.B.2.d and IV.C.)
Second, we are proposing to make an ABT program available for the
percent-of-sales alternative, structured like the one proposed for the
primary option. This would involve certifying the vehicles in a
manufacturer's HDV fleet to the bin standards in Table IV-13, and
demonstrating compliance with the fleet average standards for the
primary program in each model year, including through the use of ABT
credits as in the primary program. We are proposing to use the fleet
average calculation method for purposes of ABT because, as explained
above, we have determined that making this demonstration is equivalent
to demonstrating compliance with the percent-of-sales requirement, and
we see no value in complicating the program with another set of
calculations.
However, we are proposing one difference between the primary and
alternative options with respect to ABT provisions. Unlike in the
primary option, manufacturers would not have to certify all vehicles
into bins in order to take advantage of the ABT provisions under the
percent-of-sales alternative. Rather they could choose to certify any
``phase-out'' vehicles (that is, those not counting toward the percent-
of-sales phase-in) to the pre-Tier 3 NMHC and NOX standards,
provided these vehicles do not have family emission limits (FELs) above
those standards. These non-Tier 3 vehicles would not be subject to the
Tier 3 standards or other vehicle-specific elements of the Tier 3
compliance program. For the purposes of the fleet average ABT
calculation, the NMOG+NOX levels for these non-Tier 3
vehicles would be set equal to the sum of the NMOG and NOX
standards for the highest bins: 395 mg/mi for Class 2b and 630 mg/mi
for Class 3, because these standards are numerically equal to the pre-
Tier 3 NMHC and NOX standards.
d. Phase-In of PM Standards
Consistent with the light-duty Tier 3 proposal discussed in Section
IV.A, we are proposing to phase in the PM standards for HDVs as an
increasing percentage of a manufacturer's production of chassis-
certified HDVs (combined Class 2b and 3) per year. The reasons
discussed in Section IV.A for this phase-in schedule in the light-duty
sector also apply to the heavy-duty sector. In addition to concerns
regarding the availability and required upgrades of test facilities
used for both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicle testing, manufacturers
have expressed uncertainty about PM emissions with new engine and
emissions control technologies entering the market as a result of new
GHG standards. Therefore we are proposing the same phase-in schedule as
proposed for the light-duty sector in model years 2018-2019-2020-2021:
20-40-70-100 percent, respectively. This would apply to HDVs certified
under either NMOG+NOX phase-in alternative. The California
Air Resources Board is phasing in the LEV III PM standards for HDVs on
the same schedule, except that LEVIII would also involve a 10 percent
PM phase-in in the 2017 model year, and we ask for comment on our doing
so as well, in the context of the voluntary opt-in discussed in Section
IV.B.2.b. The voluntary NMOG+ NOX and PM standards may be
pursued separately, with no requirement that they be met on the same
vehicles.
For manufacturers choosing the declining fleet average
NMOG+NOX compliance path, the PM phase-in requirement for
HDVs would be completely independent of the NMOG+NOX phase-
in. As a result, vehicles certified to any of the bin standards for
NMOG and NOX need not necessarily meet Tier 3 PM standards
before the 2021 model year. Instead, the current 0.02 g/mi PM standard
would apply for those vehicles not yet phased into the Tier 3 PM
standards. We are proposing that manufacturers choosing the percent-of-
sales phase-in alternative for NMOG+NOX would be required to
meet the PM phase-in requirements with only those vehicles certified to
the Tier 3 NMOG+NOX standard, except in the 2018 and earlier
model years when the standards, including the PM standards, would be
voluntary, and in the 2021 model year when the 100 percent PM phase-in
requirement exceeds the 87-88 percent NMOG+NOX phase-in
requirement.
Consistent with the approach we are proposing for the light-duty
sector, we would consider any vehicle under either compliance path that
is not certified to Tier 3 standards for PM, NMOG, and NOX
(as well as the other, concomitant Tier 3 standards and requirements
such as extended useful life), an ``Interim Tier 3'' vehicle, a term
that also applies to vehicles certified in one of the interim bins, as
discussed above.
Note that compliance with Tier 3 evaporative emissions requirements
would follow a separate phase-in schedule as described in Section IV.C,
such that a vehicle in an exhaust emissions family that the
manufacturer has phased into the new useful life and test fuel
requirements, may be in an evaporative emissions family that has not
yet phased these in for evaporative emissions testing.
i. Optional PM Phase-In
The proposed percent-of-sales phase-in schedule for the PM
standard, described above, would allow manufacturers with multiple
vehicle models to determine and plan the phase-in of those models based
on anticipated volumes of each vehicle model. However, manufacturers
certifying only a few vehicle models may not be able to take advantage
of this schedule. This is because, in order to satisfy the phase-in
schedule percentages, they may have to over-comply with the required
percentages earlier than would a manufacturer with many vehicle models
available for the phase-in.
For instance, a manufacturer with only two models that each equally
accounted for 50 percent of its sales would be required to introduce
(at least) one of the models in MY 2018 to meet the phase-in
requirement of 20 percent in the first year. At the 50 percent level,
this model would then also meet the requirements for MY 2019 (40
percent). To meet the MY 2020 requirement of 70 percent of sales,
however, the manufacturer would need to introduce the second Tier 3
vehicle that year. Thus the manufacturer would have introduced 100
percent of its Tier 3 models one year earlier compared to a
manufacturer that was able to delay the final 30 percent of its fleet
until MY 2021 by distributing its redesigned models over the entire
phase-in period.
To provide for more equal application of this benefit among all
manufacturers in the early years of the program, we are proposing an
optional ``indexed'' phase-in schedule that could be used by a
manufacturer to meet its phase-in requirements. A manufacturer that
exceeded the phase-in requirements in any given year would be allowed
to, in effect, offset some of the phase-in requirements in a later
model year. The optional phase-in schedule would be acceptable if it
passes a mathematical test. The mathematical test is designed to
provide manufacturers a benefit from certifying to the standards at
higher volumes than obligated to under the normal phase-in schedule,
while ensuring that significant numbers of
[[Page 29878]]
vehicles are meeting the new Tier 3 requirements during each year of
the optional phase-in schedule. In this approach, manufacturers would
weight the earlier years by multiplying their percent phase-in by the
number of years prior to MY 2022 (i.e., the second year of the 100
percent phase-in requirement).
The proposed mathematical equation for applying an optional phase-
in is as follows:
(4 x APP2018) + (3 x APP2019) + (2 x APP2020) + (1 x APP2021) >= 440,
where APP is the anticipated phase-in percentage for the referenced
model year. The sum of the calculation would need to be greater than or
equal to 440, which is the result when the optional phase-in equation
is applied to the primary percent phase-in schedule (4 x 20% + 3 x 40%
+ 2 x 70% + 1 x 100% = 440). EPA requests comment on this proposed
optional phase-in mechanism.
e. NMOG+NOX and NMOG vs. NMHC
The reasons for setting combined NMOG+NOX standards
outlined in Section IV.A.1.a for the light-duty sector apply to HDVs
certified in the non-interim Tier 3 bins as well. In fact, the combined
standard is especially appropriate in the heavy-duty sector with
comparable sales of diesel and gasoline-fueled vehicles, because it
avoids the need to set ``lowest common denominator'' standards for NMOG
(likely based on feasible gasoline vehicle technologies) and
NOX (likely based on feasible diesel vehicle technologies).
These considerations also apply to the form of the SFTP standards,
discussed below.
The current HDV standards that control emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), adopted in a 2001 final rule,\272\ are in the
form of NMHC. This is consistent with HD engine standards adopted in
the same final rule, but contrasts with Tier 2 LDV/LDT standards to
control VOCs that are in the form of NMOG. We believe it is appropriate
to transition HDVs to NMOG-based standards, and further to combined
NMOG+NOX standards, consistent with the light-duty Tier 3
proposal and light- and medium-duty LEV III program. Further, the
introduction of oxygenated test fuels requires an NMOG calculation to
properly control VOC emissions not properly accounted for in an NMHC
calculation. This would improve consistency with the LEV III program
and help to facilitate a single nationwide vehicle fleet. We do not
believe that this change would add significant cost to the program as
manufacturers are already capable of and experienced in making NMOG
determinations at their test facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\272\ 66 FR 5002 (January 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Supplemental FTP Standards for HDVs
Unlike passenger cars and light trucks, HDVs are not currently
subject to SFTP standards. SFTP standards are intended to ensure
vehicles have robust emissions control over a wide range of real-world
driving patterns not well-covered by the FTP drive cycle. Even though
HDVs are not typically driven in the same way as passenger cars and
LDTs, especially as they frequently carry or tow heavy loads, we
believe some substantial portion of real world heavy-duty pickup and
van driving is not well-represented on the FTP cycle.
The goal in setting the SFTP standards levels is not to force
manufacturers to add expensive new control hardware for off-FTP cycle
conditions, but rather to ensure a robust overall control program that
precludes high off-FTP cycle emissions by having vehicle designers
consider them in their choice of compliance strategies. High off-FTP
cycle emissions, even if encountered relatively infrequently in real-
world driving, could create a substantial inadequacy in the Tier 3
program, which aims to achieve very low overall emissions in use. The
SFTP provisions would also help make the HDV program more consistent
with the HD engine program, which for several years has included ``not-
to-exceed'' provisions to control off-cycle emissions. Therefore, in
addition to the SFTP provisions, we are further limiting enrichment on
spark ignition engines in all areas of operation unless absolutely
necessary.
a. SFTP NMOG+NOX, PM and CO Standards
The proposed SFTP standards levels are provided in Table IV-16.
These are consistent with those in the LEV III program.
Table IV-16--Proposed SFTP Standards for HDVs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicles in FTP bins NMOG+NOX (mg/mi) PM (mg/mi) CO (g/mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 2b with horsepower (hp)/GVWR <= 0.024 hp/lb \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP Bins 200, 250, 340.................................... 550 7 22.0
FTP Bins 150, 170......................................... 350 7 12.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 2b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP Bins 200, 250, 340.................................... 800 10 22.0
FTP Bins 150, 170......................................... 450 10 12.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP Bins 270, 400, 570.................................... 550 7 6.0
FTP Bins 200, 230......................................... 350 7 4.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These standards apply for vehicles optionally tested using emissions from only the highway portion of the
US06 cycle.
We are proposing that Tier 3 SFTP implementation for HDVs be linked
directly to the Tier 3 FTP phase-in and bins for these vehicles. That
is, an HDV certified to any of the Tier 3 FTP bin standards must meet
the SFTP standards for that bin as well. However, because the FTP PM
standard would phase in on a separate schedule, we propose to require
that SFTP PM compliance be linked to the same schedule. That is, an HDV
certified to
[[Page 29879]]
the Tier 3 FTP PM standard must meet the applicable SFTP PM standard as
well. This approach recognizes the complementary nature of FTP and SFTP
provisions and helps to ensure that Tier 3 emissions controls are
robust in real world driving. There are no proposed SFTP requirements
for the interim Tier 3 bins in each class (Class 2b Bins 340 and 395
and Class 3 Bins 570 and 630), because these are essentially carry-over
bins from the previous standards to aid the transition to Tier 3, and
therefore are not intended to prompt vehicle redesigns to new
standards. These implementation provisions are consistent with the
approach taken in the LEV III program, except that California would
allow FTP and SFTP phase-in requirements to be met on different
vehicles, and would apply more of the Tier 3 requirements for SFTP and
extended useful life to vehicles in the interim bins. We request
comment on the proposed standards, and on whether or not EPA should
adopt any LEV III provisions that differ from what we are proposing,
such as the application of PM SFTP standards to vehicles that are in
the interim bins and that also are certified to the Tier 3 p.m. FTP
standards.
To help ensure a robust SFTP program that achieves good control
over a wide range of real world conditions, the current Tier 2 light-
duty program adopted a weighted-composite cycle, and we are proposing
to retain this approach for light-duty Tier 3 testing, as discussed in
Section IV.A.1.c. Under this composite cycle, NMOG+NOX
emissions are calculated from results of testing over three cycles: the
US06, the FTP, and the SC03, weighting these results by 0.28, 0.35, and
0.37, respectively. We considered applying the same composite cycle for
all HDV SFTP testing. However, based on data provided by industry
stakeholders, we decided that the full US06 cycle, combined with the
ALVW loaded test condition, would not be sufficiently representative of
real-world driving for two groups of HDVs: those with low power-to-
weight ratios and Class 3 vehicles.
As part of their investigation of potential LEV III SFTP standards
for MDVs, California Air Resources Board staff determined that it is
not uncommon for vehicles above 8,500 lbs GVWR with low power-to-weight
ratio, which are largely in Class 2b, to have to work extremely hard to
keep up with the accelerations required in the initial and final
portions of the full US06 cycle, even proving physically unable to do
so in some cases, and raising the concern that these vehicles would not
be able to run a valid emissions test.\273\ Although our SFTP
provisions allow a test to continue when a vehicle is incapable of
attaining the vehicle speed demanded by the drive trace, we believe
routine occurrence of such an event for a group of vehicles would not
be consistent with a well-designed test regime. We would expect results
from such tests to exhibit significant test-to-test variability, making
it difficult to draw reliable conclusions from them. Furthermore, in
real-world driving, we would expect that most drivers who regularly
demand and do not receive adequate response would modify either their
driving behavior or their vehicle purchase decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\273\ Letter from Robert H. Cross, California Air Resources
Board, to Dawn Friest, EMA, dated March 2, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on manufacturer-supplied data, the California Air Resources
Board staff established a power-to-weight (GVWR) ratio of 0.024
horsepower (hp)/lb as an approximate threshold in their efforts to
characterize this issue. The vast majority of Class 2b vehicles are
above this threshold today. Those below it tend to be used in
applications where towing is not done extensively and the need for
cargo space is more important than payload weight. Furthermore, it is
possible that this group of vehicles will grow as purchasers adjust to
sustained high fuel prices and when EPA's GHG standards and NHTSA's new
fuel consumption standards take effect.
In consideration of this matter, we are proposing that, in SFTP
testing of Class 2b vehicles at or below 0.024 hp/lb, manufacturers may
at their option replace the full US06 component of the composite SFTP
emissions with the test results from only the second of the three
emissions sampling bags in the US06 test, generally referred to as the
``highway'' portion of the US06, subject to correspondingly lower SFTP
standards levels discussed above. (These vehicles would still be driven
during the test in the same way as the higher power-to-weight Class 2b
vehicles (over the full US06 cycle) just using best effort (maximum
power) if the vehicle cannot maintain the driving schedule.) The large
majority of Class 2b vehicles, with power-to-weight above 0.024 hp/lb,
would be required to measure and use emissions over the full US06 cycle
in the composite SFTP. We believe that this approach would provide a
robust but repeatable and reliable test for the full range of Class 2b
vehicles, as the highway portion of the US06 retains broad coverage of
vehicle speed/acceleration combinations measured in real-world driving.
For Class 3 vehicles, which can weigh as much as 14,000 lbs GVWR,
we are also concerned that the full US06 cycle would not provide a
representative drive cycle for SFTP testing. These vehicles are much
larger than the light-duty vehicles that formed the basis for
development of the US06 cycle, and loading them to ALVW for the SFTP
test yields a very heavy test vehicle, not likely to be safely driven
in the real world in the way typified by this aggressive cycle. We
believe that the LA-92 (or ``Unified'') driving cycle developed by CARB
is more representative of Class 3 truck driving patterns and would
produce more robust results for use in SFTP evaluations. Therefore we
are proposing that the LA-92 cycle be used in place of the US06
component of the composite SFTP for Class 3 HDVs. The set of composite
SFTP cycles we are proposing is fully consistent with the MDV LEV III
program.
Although we consider the highway portion of the US06 cycle
appropriate for low power-to-weight vehicles, we also believe that the
corresponding NMOG+NOX standards should be set at lower
levels than for vehicles with emissions measured over the full US06
test. Our goal is to provide roughly equivalent stringency and avoid
creating an ease-of-compliance incentive to produce vehicles in one
group or the other. We have reviewed the MDV SFTP standards set by the
California Air Resources Board staff and consider them appropriate in
achieving this goal. These proposed standards are included in Table IV-
16.
HDVs do not have SC03 emissions requirements under the current HDV
standards. Manufacturers of HDVs have indicated that they expect the
SC03 emissions to be consistently lower than either the US06 or the FTP
emissions levels, and therefore the added SC03 testing burden may be
unnecessary. We are therefore proposing that HDV manufacturers have the
option to substitute the FTP emissions levels for the SC03 emissions
results for purposes of compliance. However, we would retain the
ability to determine the composite emissions using SC03 test results in
confirmatory or in-use testing.
b. Enrichment Limitation for Spark-Ignition Engines
To prevent emissions from excessive enrichment in areas not fully
encountered in the SFTP cycles, we are proposing limitations in the
frequency and magnitude of enrichment episodes for spark-ignition HDVs.
These limitations would be identical to those
[[Page 29880]]
for light-duty vehicles discussed in detail in Section IV.A.4.c.
4. HDV Emissions Averaging, Banking, and Trading
This section describes our proposed approach for emissions credits
related to exhaust emissions. See Section V.C for similar provisions
that apply for evaporative emissions. We are proposing to continue the
current practice of allowing manufacturers to satisfy standards through
the averaging of emissions, as well as through the banking of emissions
credits for later use and the trading of credits with others. There are
a number of facets of this proposed Tier 3 ABT program for HDVs that
would be different from the current program. First, instead of separate
NMHC and NOX credits, manufacturers would earn combined
NMOG+NOX credits, consistent with the form of the standards.
Second, we are proposing to allow manufacturers to accrue a deficit in
their credit balance. Deficits incurred in a model year may be carried
forward for up to 3 model years, but must be made up with surplus
credits after that to avoid noncompliance and possible penalties.
Manufacturers would have to use any new credits to offset any shortfall
before those credits can be traded or banked for additional model
years. We are proposing that credits must be used within 5 years after
they are earned, or otherwise be forfeited. The proposed 5/3-year
credit/deficit life provisions are consistent with our proposed light-
duty Tier 3 approach, the California LEV III program for MDVs, and EPA
programs for controlling GHG emissions from light- and heavy-duty
vehicles.
Third, as part of our proposal to require chassis certification of
complete diesel HDVs, we are proposing to allow diesel HDVs to
participate in this ABT program without restriction. Currently, they
are not allowed to earn or use ABT credits. We are not proposing to
restrict or adjust credit exchange between diesel and gasoline-fueled
HDVs, consistent with our shift to combined NMOG+NOX
standards that helps to ensure comparable stringency for these two
engine types, and consistent also with the LEV III MDV program.
We are proposing that credits earned by a Tier 3 HDV may be used to
demonstrate compliance with NMOG+NOX standards for any other
Tier 3 HDV, regardless of size and without adjustment. This effectively
allows manufacturers to plan a comprehensive HDV compliance strategy
for their entire Class 2b and Class 3 product offering, by balancing
credits so as to demonstrate compliance with the standards for both
classes. HDV manufacturers are currently certifying their vehicles to
existing standards without the use of NOX or NMHC credits,
and the levels we are proposing for Tier 3 standards are not based on
any assumption of credit transfers into Tier 3. As a result, we are not
proposing provisions for converting pre-Tier 3 credits, should any
exist at the time, into Tier 3 credits, including for use in the
interim bins.
In the past we have set caps, called family emission limit (FEL)
caps, on how high emissions can be for vehicles that use credits,
regardless of how many credits might be available. Under our proposed
bin structure, we believe that exhaust emission FEL caps are no longer
relevant for Tier 3 HDVs, as every vehicle must meet whatever standards
apply in the bin chosen for the vehicle by the manufacturer. (The bin
standard becomes the effective FEL.) Indeed, because credits and
deficits are calculated based on the difference between a
manufacturer's fleet average emissions and the fleet average standards
for a given model year, credits are not calculated for individual
vehicle families at all. Under this proposed approach, the standards
for NMOG and NOX in the highest available bin serve the
purpose of the FEL caps in previous programs.
We are proposing no averaging program for the HDV SFTP program,
because we believe that the bin structure and FTP-centered
NMOG+NOX ABT program provide adequate flexibility for smooth
program implementation, especially in light of our aim to have the FTP
standards be the primary technology forcers. A separate ABT program for
SFTP compliance would add substantial complexity with little benefit,
and, by making it possible to demonstrate robust SFTP control on a
vehicle that lacks commensurate FTP control, could prove at odds with
the primary goal of the supplemental test for HDVs. However, we note
that California's LEV III program does provide some flexibility in this
matter, on a vehicle-for-vehicle basis rather than through use of
emissions credits, and for this reason we request comment on the need
for and considerations surrounding our granting similar flexibility for
HDVs in Tier 3.
5. Feasibility of HDV Standards
The feasibility assessment, discussed in more detail in Chapter 1
of the draft RIA, recognizes that the proposed Tier 3 program is
composed of several new requirements for Class 2b and 3 heavy-duty
vehicles, which include primarily large gasoline and diesel pick-up
trucks and vans with diverse application-specific designs. These
proposed new exhaust emissions requirements include stringent
NMOG+NOX and PM standards for the FTP and the newly proposed
SFTP, that would as a whole require new emissions control strategies
and hardware in order to achieve the proposed standards. The type of
new hardware that would be required will vary depending on the specific
application and emissions challenges. Additionally, gasoline and diesel
vehicles would require different emissions control strategies and
hardware. The level of stringency for the proposed SFTP
NMOG+NOX standards would generally only require additional
precise control of the engine parameters not necessitated in the past
because of the lack of SFTP requirements. Similarly, the new PM
standards on both the FTP and SFTP cycles would require more precise
control of engine operation on gasoline vehicles while diesels already
equipped with diesel particulate filters would require minimal changes.
The new PM standards may also require that manufacturers consider the
durability of their engines to the 150,000 miles useful life
requirement with respect to engine wear resulting in increased oil
consumption and potentially higher PM emissions.
In order to assess the technical feasibility of NMOG+NOX
national fleet average FTP standards of 178 mg/mi for Class 2b vehicles
and 247 mg/mi for Class 3 vehicles, we conducted an analysis of
certification data for the HDVs certified in the 2010 and 2011 MYs.
This analysis provided a baseline for the current HDV fleet emissions
performance, as well as the emissions performance specific to the Class
2b and 3 vehicles. The emissions performance of each heavy-duty vehicle
class specific to gasoline and diesel is shown in Table IV-17 below. It
is important to note that the emissions results are only the 4,000 mile
test point results and do not incorporate any deterioration which
manufacturers must account for when certifying to a full useful life
standard. Designs limiting the deterioration of emission control
hardware are critical to meeting the emission standards at the proposed
useful life of the Tier 3 program. Deterioration factors to adjust the
values to the proposed Tier 3 useful life standard of 150,000 miles
were not available however deterioration factors to adjust to 120,000
miles useful life are discussed in the RIA Chapter 1.
The analysis also reflects the importance of the
NMOG+NOX standard approach where diesels and gasoline MDVs
can balance their combined
[[Page 29881]]
NMOG and NOX levels. Diesel vehicles in the analysis produce
very low NMHC emissions (NMOG is not reported for diesels) but higher
NOX emissions, while gasoline vehicles have opposite
performance. The combined standard allows manufacturers to determine
the proper balance of the unique emissions challenges of a diesel or
gasoline vehicle.
Table IV-17--2010/11 Certification Test Results at 4,000 Miles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMHC NMOG NOX CO NMOG+NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline.......................... Class 2b............ .............. 0.050 0.052 0.041 1.648 0.092
Class 3............. .............. 0.080 0.083 0.073 2.373 0.156
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMHC+NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel............................ Class 2b............ .............. 0.037 .............. 0.138 0.195 0.174
Class 3............. .............. 0.019 .............. 0.249 0.158 0.268
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Class 2b....................................................... 0.043 0.026 0.089 0.922 0.133
Combined Class 3........................................................ 0.050 0.041 0.161 1.265 0.212
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers typically certify their vehicles at emissions levels
well below the numerical standards. This difference is referred to as
``compliance margin'' and is a result of manufacturers' efforts to
address all the sources of variability that could occur during the
certification or in-use testing processes and during in-use operation.
These sources of variability include: Test-to-test variability, test
location, build variation and manufacturing tolerances, vehicle
operation (for example: Driving habits, ambient temperature, etc.), and
the deleterious effects of sulfur and other oil and fuel contaminants.
To meet the proposed NMOG+NOX standard of 178 mg/mi for
Class 2b and 247 mg/mi for Class 3 vehicles and establish a compliance
margin for these sources of variability, manufacturers will need to
reduce their emission levels considerably from the levels indicated in
this data set, particularly diesel vehicles.
However, as discussed above, these emission results do not include
the expected emissions deterioration which would be determined by
manufacturers during development and certification testing. Therefore,
manufacturers would need to further reduce emissions levels in
anticipation of the unavoidable emissions deterioration that will occur
during the useful life of the vehicle. Further, deterioration is a
function of several factors, but it is predominantly due to emissions
control hardware thermal exposure (high temperatures), which is
typically a significant issue on vehicles used for performing work like
Class 2b and 3 vehicles.
We also expect that the 2011 heavy-duty GHG rule will present new
challenges to manufacturers' emissions performance goals as vehicles
begin to use new engines designed to meet the new GHG
requirements.\274\ Some of these new technologies may result in
emissions challenges that are specific to certain operating conditions.
For example, downsized gasoline engines will likely have improved FTP
exhaust emissions but have increased challenge with the high-load SFTP
requirements. Diesel-fueled vehicles may need to carefully balance
engine controls which reduce GHG emissions but can increase criteria
emissions (NOX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\274\ 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the ability of the heavy-duty fleet to meet the
proposed PM standards for the FTP and the SFTP, we based our
conclusions on some testing of current HDGVs and the PM performance of
the existing light-duty fleet with similar engines. Testing of two
HDGVs with the highest sales volume (Ford F250 and Chevrolet Silverado
2500), albeit not aged to full useful life, confirmed that they have
similar PM emissions levels as the light-duty counterparts and
therefore also meet the proposed standards for both the Class 2b and
Class 3 configurations. Data from light-duty gasoline vehicles with
similar or common engines with their heavy-duty ``sister'' vehicle
models demonstrates that these vehicles are currently meeting the
proposed Tier 3 FTP PM standards at the Tier 2 useful life mileage of
120,000 miles. Heavy-duty diesel vehicles all are equipped with DPFs
and have no challenges meeting the FTP or SFTP PM standards being
proposed for Tier 3.
The SFTP test data from the same two heavy-duty vehicles described
above indicates that gasoline vehicles can achieve the proposed
standards for SFTP NMOG+NOX and PM. Since heavy-duty
vehicles are not currently required to comply with any of the SFTP
requirements, manufacturers have not focused on improving the emissions
performance specifically over the SFTP cycles (US06 and SC03).
Therefore, although the limited testing results had a high degree of
variability, several tests met the proposed PM standards for the high
power-to-weight Class 2b vehicles. Consistent with light-duty, vehicles
that are demonstrating high PM on the US06 would need to control
enrichment and oil consumption from engine wear. Manufacturers have
confirmed that they have been implementing product changes to reduce
oil consumption to address both customer satisfaction issues and to
reduce cost of vehicle ownership.
Given the technologies likely to be applied to meet the proposed
HDV exhaust emissions standards, discussed below, we consider the lead
time available before the standards take effect under all of the
proposed alternatives to be sufficient. HDV manufacturers are already
adopting some of the complying technologies, especially for their
light-duty vehicles, and these can readily be adapted for heavy-duty
applications. In addition, manufacturers have already begun developing
these technologies for HDVs, including diesels, in response to
California's recently adopted LEV III MDV standards which begin to take
effect in the 2015 model year. Finally, as described above in Sections
IV.B.2, IV.B.3, and IV.B.4, our proposed program incorporates a number
of phase-in and alternative compliance provisions that would ease the
transition to final standards without disrupting HD pickup and van
product redesign cycles. Among these is an alternative phase-in that
starts mandatory standards in model year 2019. We invite comment on our
conclusions relating to the feasibility of the proposed program in the
lead time we are proposing.
We are not proposing relaxed standards for in-use testing of Tier 3
[[Page 29882]]
HDVs because we do not believe additional flexibility provisions are
needed to successfully implement the new emission control technologies
in the proposed timeframe. However, we note that the LEV III program
provides such standards for PM, and also for NMOG+NOX in the
lower-emissions MDV bins (those at or below Bin 250 and Bin 400, for
Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles, respectively), and we are taking comment
on the need to do so in Tier 3 as well.
We also note that the need for NMOG+NOX in-use testing
standards is further mitigated by our proposed structuring of the
NMOG+NOX standards as a declining fleet average with deficit
and credit banking provisions. These provisions provide substantial
flexibility to manufacturers in introducing any new NMOG or
NOX control technologies for which long-term durability is
not yet proven. Manufacturers can place any vehicles for which they
have in-use performance concerns in a higher bin, and this is
facilitated by the fact that, unlike LEV III, our Tier 3 proposal does
not target sales volumes for any individual bins. Comments supporting
relaxed in-use NMOG+NOX standards should therefore address
why, in the absence of these standards, the proposed declining fleet
average standard is not feasible in one or more model years.
Commenters on this issue are asked to also address the applicable
model years for any such in-use testing standards. The LEV III MDV
program has four different applicability periods based on a combination
of specific model years listed in the regulations (up to 2020) and a
set number of model years (two or five) after a test group is first
certified. Comments are requested on whether it might be preferable to
adopt a simpler approach in Tier 3, such as making in-use testing
standards available in the model years in which standards are phasing
in, that is, through model year 2021.
i. Technologies Likely To Be Applied
The technologies expected to be applied to vehicles to meet the
lower proposed standards levels would address the emissions control
system's ability to control emissions during cold start. Current
vehicle emissions control systems depend on the time it takes for the
catalyst to light-off, which is typically defined as the catalyst
reaching a temperature of 250 [deg]C. While the specific emissions
challenge is somewhat different for gasoline engines than for diesel
engines, achieving the necessary temperatures in the catalysts is a
common challenge. In order to improve catalyst light-off, the
manufacturers would likely add technologies that provide heat from
combustion more readily to the catalyst or improve the catalyst
efficiency at lower temperatures. These technologies could include
calibration changes, thermal management, close-coupled catalysts,
catalyst PGM loading, and possibly secondary air injection. In some
cases, where the catalyst light-off response and efficiency are not
enough to address the cold start emissions, hydrocarbon adsorbers may
be applied to trap hydrocarbons until such time that the catalyst is
lit-off. Note that with the exception of hydrocarbon adsorbers each of
these technologies addresses both NMOG and NOX performance.
Key potential technologies are described in greater detail below.
Engine Control Calibration Changes--These include changes
to retard spark and/or adjust air/fuel mixtures such that more
combustion heat is created during the cold start on gasoline engines.
Diesel engines may use unique injection timing strategies or other
available engine control parameters. Engine calibration changes can
affect NMOG, NOX and PM emissions.
Thermal Management--This technology includes all design
attributes meant to conduct the combustion heat into the catalyst with
minimal cooling on both gasoline and diesel engines. This includes
insulating the exhaust piping between the engine and the catalyst,
reducing the wetted area of the exhaust path and/or reducing the
thermal mass of the exhaust system. Close-coupling of catalysts
(packaging the catalysts as close to the head of the engine as possible
to mitigate the cooling effects of longer exhaust piping) can also be
effective, but is more difficult to employ than in light-duty
applications because of durability concerns with highly loaded
operation and the potential increase in fuel consumption to protect the
catalyst from high temperatures.
Catalyst PGM Loading--Additional Platinum Group Metal
(PGM) loading in the catalyst provides a greater number of sites to
catalyze emissions and addresses NMOG, NOX and PM emissions.
Selective Catalytic Reduction Optimization--Diesel
applications would need to continue to refine this NOX
emissions control strategy through improved hardware design and
implementation in vehicle applications. Additional engineering
enhancements in the control of the SCR system and related processes
would also help reduce emissions levels.
6. Other HDV Provisions
a. HDV Useful Life
Currently the HDV regulatory useful life, the period of use or time
during which emissions standards apply, is 120,000 miles or 11 years,
whichever occurs first (40 CFR 86.1805-4). For Tier 3 vehicle criteria
emissions we are proposing to extend the useful life to 150,000 miles
or 15 years, whichever occurs first. This change would better reflect
the improvements in vehicle durability and longevity that have occurred
in the several years since the 120,000 mile useful life was
established, and would maintain consistency with the LEV III MDV
program and with our Tier 3 program for large LDTs, for which the same
useful life period has been proposed. California's LEV III staff paper
included a discussion of the feasibility of this longer useful life
based on experience with it in the PZEV element of the ZEV
mandate.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\275\ ``Preliminary Discussion Paper--Amendments to California's
Low-Emission Vehicle Regulations for Criteria Pollutants--LEV III'',
California Air Resources Board, February 8, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing that the new useful life requirement apply to Tier
3 HDVs in all bins except those designated as interim bins, consistent
with the purpose of the interim bins to provide for limited carry-over
of pre-Tier 3 vehicle designs during the phase-in period. Although the
percentage application in each year will therefore depend on each
manufacturer's fleet binning strategy, the declining NMOG+
NOX fleet average standard would ensure a robust phase-in of
the new useful life requirement over the 2018-2022 model years, such
that it is expected to be about 50 percent in 2018, and necessarily
reaches 100 percent by 2022 when the interim bins are no longer
available. For those manufacturers choosing to certify to the voluntary
standards, the new useful life will apply even earlier, in 2016 or
2017. For manufacturers choosing the alternative percent-of-sales NMOG+
NOX alternative, we are proposing that the new useful life
requirement apply to all HDVs counted toward the phase-in requirement,
resulting in a generally equivalent useful life phase-in rate to that
of the primary approach. See Section IV.D.4.b for further discussion of
useful life with regard to GHG standards. We are also proposing that
manufacturers may optionally retain the 120,000 mile/11 year useful
life for PM on interim Tier 3 vehicles that are not phased in to the
Tier 3 p.m. standards.
[[Page 29883]]
b. Heavy-Duty Alternative Fuel Vehicles
As in the proposed light-duty program, we are proposing that
manufacturers demonstrate heavy-duty flex fuel vehicle (FFV) and dual-
fuel vehicle compliance with both the FTP and the SFTP emissions
standards when operating on both the conventional petroleum-derived
fuel and the alternative fuel. Dedicated alternative fuel vehicles
would demonstrate compliance with both the FTP and SFTP emission
standards while operating on the alternative fuel. For all of these
vehicles, this includes the requirement to meet FTP emissions standards
when conducting fuel consumption and GHG emissions testing, and also to
meet the FTP and highway test requirements at high altitudes (see
Sections IV.B.6.e and f). Because FFVs can operate on various
combinations of their conventional and alternative fuel, the emissions
requirements apply to operation at any mix of the fuels achievable in
the fuel tank with commercially available fuels, including for
compliance at high altitudes, even though the required demonstration of
compliance is limited to the conventional and alternative fuels
designated for certification testing.
c. Optional Certification for Vehicles Above 14,000 lbs GVWR
The HD greenhouse gas (GHG) standards include a provision for
optional certification of complete gasoline-fueled HDVs above 14,000
lbs GVWR to g/mi GHG standards on the chassis test.\276\ Because that
rule does not change the requirements for certification to criteria
pollutant standards, manufacturers choosing this option would have to
certify the vehicle for GHGs, but use installed engines certified to g/
hp-hr standards for all other emissions. We believe it may provide
benefits for both the environment and the manufacturers to allow
consistent certification of these vehicles on a chassis test for all
emissions, treating any vehicles so certified in the same way as Class
3 vehicles, including applicable standards, inclusion into fleet
average calculations, test fuel, useful life, and the application of
Tier 3 evaporative emissions requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\276\ 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request comment on the value of, and any issues concerning, our
providing such an option to manufacturers of both gasoline and diesel-
fueled HDVs above 14,000 lbs GVWR, including the applicability of the
existing chassis test cycles for these larger trucks. Comment is also
requested on whether manufacturers of such vehicles that are certified
to a Final Tier 3 bin should be allowed to exclude them from the fleet
average NMOG+NOX calculation, as a means of encouraging the
production of such low-emissions vehicles by not penalizing them for
having emissions somewhat above the Class 3 fleet average. Finally, we
also request comment on whether any such option for diesel-fueled HDVs
should extend to GHG emissions as well.
d. Existing Provision To Waive HDV PM Testing
EPA's existing program includes a provision for manufacturers to
waive measurement of PM emissions in non-diesel heavy-duty vehicle
emissions testing. We are proposing to eliminate this provision. We
believe that the PM standards we are proposing for these vehicles are
of sufficient stringency that routine waiver of testing would not be
appropriate. The California Air Resources Board LEV III program
reflects this view. We do not expect this change to be onerous for
manufacturers, as the number of heavy-duty vehicle families is not
large. Even so, we request comment on alternative approaches, such as
that being proposed for light-duty vehicles, involving measuring PM on
a subset of families each year. We request comment on any other
potential situations in which waiver of PM measurement may be
appropriate. Note that we are proposing to waive the PM emissions
measurement requirement for small manufacturers, for reasons explained
in Section IV.E.
e. Meeting HDV Standards in Fuel Consumption and GHG Emissions Testing
As with the proposed light-duty Tier 3 program, we are proposing
that HDVs must meet the FTP bin standards when tested over both the
city and highway test cycles. We do not believe this adds a very
significant test burden as vehicle emissions are already required to be
measured when these tests are run for GHG and fuel consumption
determinations. Nor do we believe that this proposed requirement is
design forcing. Rather, we are proposing this requirement to ensure
that test vehicle calibrations are not set by manufacturers to minimize
fuel consumption and GHG emissions, at the expense of high criteria
pollutant emissions. Considering the additional work involved in
measuring PM emissions and the reduced likelihood of high PM emissions
on the highway test, we are not proposing that PM emissions testing be
included in this requirement, but we ask for comment on whether we
should instead include them, but waive the requirement to measure them
in manufacturers' certification testing, to ensure that any unforeseen
PM control technology challenges in highway driving conditions are
addressed in the future.
f. HDV Altitude Requirements
As in the past, we intend that HDV Tier 3 standards result in
emissions controls that are effective over a full range of operating
altitudes. We do not anticipate that the proposed FTP bin standards
would require the use of special hardware to achieve compliance at
altitude. We also do not believe that adjustment to the FTP standards
is appropriate for HDV testing at altitude, as we expect that
manufacturers would be able to meet these standards with adequate
compliance margin to cover this test condition. As in the proposed
light-duty program, and for the same reasons, we are not proposing to
require that HDVs comply with SFTP standards at altitude.
C. Evaporative Emissions Standards and Onboard Diagnostic System
Requirements
Gasoline vapor emissions from vehicle fuel systems, which are a
mixture of hydrocarbon compounds, occur when a vehicle is in operation,
when it is parked, and when it is being refueled. These evaporative
emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles which occur on a daily basis
are primarily functions of temperature, fuel vapor pressure, and
activity. EPA first instituted evaporative emissions standards in the
early 1970s to address hydrocarbon emissions when vehicles are parked
after being driven. These are commonly referred to as hot soak and
diurnal emissions. Over the subsequent years the test procedures have
been modified and improved, the standards have been revised to be more
stringent, and we have addressed emissions which arose from new fuel
system designs by establishing new requirements such as running loss
emission standards and test procedure provisions to address resting
losses (e.g., permeation). Onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR)
requirements for control of refueling emissions first began to phase-in
for light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and light-duty trucks (LDTs) in the 1998
MY. These were later expanded to cover medium-duty passenger vehicles
(MDPVs) and some heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (HDGVs). Even though
evaporative and refueling emission control systems have been in place
for
[[Page 29884]]
most of these vehicles for many years, evaporative emissions still
contribute 30-40 percent of the on-road mobile source hydrocarbon
inventory. These fuel vapor emissions are ozone and PM precursors, and
also contain air toxics such as benzene. Even though there are mature
evaporative emission control programs in place, further hydrocarbon
emission reductions are needed and can be achieved from highway motor
vehicles. Vehicles demonstrating near zero fuel vapor emissions have
been certified by CARB and a limited number are in-use in California
and other states. Furthermore, test programs conducted by the
Coordinating Research Council and EPA show that attention is needed to
insure better in-use performance of current evaporative control
systems. Cost effective hydrocarbon emission reductions can be achieved
through new vehicle standards and improved focus on in-use performance.
This section discusses the proposed vehicle-related evaporative
emission standards and related provisions for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and
HDGVs. As discussed below, we are proposing more stringent standards
that would apply for the 2- and 3-day evaporative emissions tests, a
new canister bleed test and emission standard, a new certification test
fuel specification,\277\ and a new fuel/evaporative system leak test
procedure and emission standard. We are also proposing refueling
emission controls for a portion of HDGVs over 10,000 lbs gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR). This section also describes proposed phase-in
flexibilities, credit and allowance programs, and seeks comment on
several other issues related to evaporative emissions control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ For flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) certification fuel for
evaporative and refueling emissions testing would remain a 9 RVP
gasoline splash blended with ethanol to yield a blend containing 15
percent ethanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed evaporative emissions program has six basic elements:
(1) The Tier 3 evaporative emission phase-in program (MY 2018-2022+),
(2) the early allowance/credit program (MY 2015-2016), (3) the
transitional program (MY 2017), (4) requirements for HDGVs including
ORVR, (5) a leak emission standard and test procedures, and (6) other
miscellaneous proposed changes and areas for comment.
In this proposed rule, the vehicle classifications, LDVs, LDTs,
MDPVs, and HDGVs, would remain unchanged from Tier 2. For purposes of
this discussion of the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emissions program,
the vehicle standards can be further placed in four categories: (1)
``Zero evaporative emission'' PZEV vehicles certified by CARB as part
of the ZEV program, (2) vehicles certified by CARB to meet LEV III
evaporative emission program requirements on CARB certification fuel (7
RVP E10), (3) vehicles meeting the proposed Tier 3 evaporative
emissions program requirements using the proposed certification test
fuel (9 RVP E15), and (4) transitional vehicles meeting current EPA
evaporative requirements on Tier 2 certification fuel (9 RVP
E0).278 279 For ease of reference these four categories may
be referred to as PZEV evap, LEV III evap, Tier 3 evap, and Tier 2 evap
in this section.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\278\ We adopted the most recent vehicle evaporative emission
standards for LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs in 2007 (72 FR 8428, February
26, 2007). The most recent standards for HDGVs were adopted in 2000
(66 FR 5165, January 18, 2001).
\279\ See Section IV.D.1 for a discussion of the proposed
certification fuel changes, including discussion of options for and
implications of the certification test fuel having 10 percent
ethanol.
\280\ ``PZEV evap'' as discussed here refers only to the
evaporative emission and useful life requirements of the PZEV
program, not the exhaust emission requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tier 3 Evaporative Emission Standards
a. Proposed Standards
This proposal for evaporative emissions builds on previous EPA
requirements as well as CARB's recent LEV III rule which starts phasing
in with the 2018 MY. This proposal facilitates a national program for
vehicle evaporative emissions control. We believe the proposed program
is appropriate since it would require new evaporative emissions control
technology in new vehicles while also achieving improved in-use system
performance.
This section describes proposed requirements for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs,
and HDGVs. The proposal includes more stringent emission standards for
hot soak plus diurnal emissions (2- and 3-day tests), plus a new
canister bleed standard and testing requirement for measuring emissions
from the fuel tank and the evaporative canister. The proposal also
introduces a limited corporate averaging program for demonstrating
compliance with the hot soak plus diurnal standards. We are proposing a
phase-in of the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards that would begin
with the 2017 MY, with incentives for manufacturers to introduce Tier 3
compliant vehicles earlier or in greater numbers than required. The
proposal includes revised provisions for demonstrating compliance with
the evaporative emission standards at high altitude. See Section IV.C.3
for additional provisions for the HDGV category.
i. Hot Soak Plus Diurnal Standards
Previous hot soak and diurnal emission controls have dramatically
reduced vehicle evaporative emissions over the past thirty plus years.
However, some emissions remain and control technology is available to
capture these emissions in a cost effective manner. Toward that end,
EPA is proposing more stringent hot soak plus diurnal evaporative
emission standards for the Tier 3 program. The standards apply to both
the 2-day and 3-day evaporative emission test requirements.
The standards are designed to bring into the broader motor vehicle
fleet the ``zero evap'' technology used by the manufacturers in their
partial zero emission vehicles (PZEVs). Manufacturers developed this
``zero evap'' technology as part of their response to meeting the
requirements of the CARB Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program. This
program, which is in effect in 11 other states, allows manufacturers to
meet their ZEV mandate percentages (totally or in-part) by the use of
vehicles which among other characteristics have very low fuel vapor
emissions.
The standard levels presented in Table IV-18 are designed primarily
to accommodate what is often referred to as new vehicle background
hydrocarbon emissions. These emissions arise from the off-gassing of
volatile hydrocarbons from plastics, rubbers, and other polymers found
in new vehicles (e.g., new tires, interiors, seats, fuel system
components, paints, and adhesives). In the field these emissions
decrease over time as the vehicle ages, but this cannot necessarily be
replicated in the time that manufacturers normally allocate for vehicle
certification. In the past manufacturers have employed techniques such
as vehicle baking (discussed below) to accelerate the rate of this off-
gassing, and until recently it has not been a major consideration for
certification.
In the past EPA has set relatively uniform (but not identical)
evaporative emission standards for LDVs and LDTs and somewhat higher
values for HDGVs. The proposed hot soak plus diurnal emission standards
presented in Table IV-18 are somewhat higher as vehicles get larger in
weight and physical size. This is because in general the vehicles have
higher levels of non-fuel background emissions as they get larger. As
mentioned above, the standards, which are approximately a 50 percent
reduction from the existing hot soak plus diurnal standards, are
intended
[[Page 29885]]
primarily to accommodate non-fuel background emissions. Thus, the
technology focus for the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards
is for vehicles to have essentially zero fuel vapor emissions.
As described in more detail in Section IV.C.2 below, EPA is
proposing a program that would allow manufacturers to demonstrate
compliance with the proposed hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emission
standards using averaging concepts. Under the proposal, manufacturers
may comply by averaging within each of the four vehicle categories but
for the reasons discussed below, may not rely on averaging across
categories. The technical approaches to meeting the proposed standards
are discussed in Section IV.C.2. EPA is not proposing any changes to
the existing light-duty running loss or refueling emission standards
with the Tier 3 proposal, with the exception of the certification test
fuel requirement.
Table IV-18--Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards (g/test) \a\ \b\
\c\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest hot soak +
diurnal level (over
Vehicle category both 2-day and 3-day
diurnal tests)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV, LDT1...................................... 0.300
LDT2........................................... 0.400
LDT3, LDT4, MDPV............................... 0.500
HDGVs.......................................... 0.600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The standards are in grams of hydrocarbons as measured by flame
ionization detector during the diurnal and hot soak emission tests in
the enclosure known as the sealed housing for evaporative
determination (SHED).
\b\ Note that the proposed standards are the same for both tests;
current standards are slightly different for the 2- and 3-day tests.
\c\ Vehicle categories are the same as in EPA's Tier 2 final rule; see
65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000.
ii. Canister Bleed Emission Standard
In addition to more stringent hot soak plus diurnal standards, EPA
is proposing a new canister bleed emission test and standard as part of
the Tier 3 program. The proposed bleed test procedure is described in
Section IV.C.4.a., below. The purpose of the new test and standard is
to ensure that near-zero fuel vapor emissions are being emitted by
vehicles from the fuel tank through the evaporative emission canister.
Under this proposal, manufacturers would be required to measure diurnal
emissions over the 2-day diurnal test procedure from just the fuel tank
and the evaporative emission canister and comply with a 0.020 g/test
standard for all LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs and 0.030 g/test for HDGVs. The
feasibility of this standard is discussed in Section IV.C.2.g.ii below.
EPA is proposing not to apply the averaging program to this new bleed
test standard as compliance is relatively straightforward and low in
cost. Therefore, each evaporative/refueling emission family certified
by manufacturers would need to demonstrate compliance with their
respective standard. As discussed below, the canister bleed standard
would not apply at high altitude. The canister bleed test and standard
drives canister design elements such as total gasoline working
capacity, internal architecture, and the type of carbon used. Since the
performance of the canister is also evaluated in the hot soak plus
diurnal evaporative emissions sealed housing for evaporative
determination (SHED) test we are proposing that the canister bleed
emission standard not be included in the In-Use Verification Program
but it must be met in use. We would not expect to have canister bleed
specific family criteria for certification but the test would have to
be completed and the standard met for each evaporative/refueling family
including potentially twice if there were two canisters used. A
deterioration factor would not be required, but as mentioned above, the
standard would have to be met in-use and could be evaluated in EPA
confirmatory testing.
iii. Early and Transitional Hot Soak Plus Diurnal Standard
As part of its LEV III program, CARB has included an alternative
set of evaporative emission standards, referred to as Option 1
standards. These are shown in Table IV-19.
Table IV-19--CARB Option 1 Evaporative Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest hot soak + diurnal level
(over both 2- and 3-day diurnal
Vehicle category tests) (g/test) Running Loss (g/
------------------------------------ mile)
Vehicle SHED Rig SHED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Car............................................. 0.350 0.0 0.05
LDT <= 6,000 lbs GVWR..................................... 0.500 0.0 0.05
All other vehicles > 6,000 lbs GVWR....................... 0.750 0.0 0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Option 1 standards include evaporative emission standards (hot
soak plus diurnal) that are slightly higher numerically than our
proposed standards. Vehicles certified under this option may not use
averaging in the CARB LEV III program because they basically represent
the same evaporative emission standards as exist for PZEVs under CARBs
ZEV program wherein averaging is not permitted. Option 1 also includes
an additional test of the vehicle fuel system (rig test) that from an
engineering perspective is practically more difficult to conduct than
the bleed test discussed above and is intended to force manufacturers
to demonstrate at certification that their stand alone (not in chassis)
fuel/vapor control system designs have no (<=54 mg) fuel vapor
emissions. EPA is not proposing that Option 1 be part of the long term
Tier 3 evaporative emission program. While we see the merit of the rig
test as an engineering design and development tool for the
manufacturers, by its very nature, the rig SHED standard is not
implementable as an enforceable standard. We believe that the hot soak
plus diurnal SHED test and the canister bleed test will accomplish the
same objective of keeping fuel vapor emissions to a minimum.
EPA believes most manufacturers will prefer to certify to the
averaging based standards proposed by EPA (similar in
[[Page 29886]]
stringency and program construct to CARB Option 2). However, because
some manufacturers may have vehicle models meeting the CARB Option 1
standards and emission requirements now or in the near future, EPA is
proposing that compliance with the CARB Option 1 standards would be an
acceptable interim alternative to compliance with the proposed Tier 3
evaporative emission standards if the model is certified by CARB before
the 2017 MY. EPA proposes that these vehicles could then be certified
using carryover provisions through the 2019 MY.\281\ As noted in the
following sections, vehicles certified under this provision would count
toward the phase-in percentage requirements and could earn allowances
as discussed below, but the vehicles would not be eligible to earn or
use credits for the evaporative emissions averaging program. Carryover
vehicles would have to meet EPA leak emission standard to be counted
toward the sales percentage requirements for 2018 and later model
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the CARB
Option 1 test procedures and emission standards for this interim
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Useful Life
Trends indicate that vehicle lifetimes are increasing. It is
important that emission control systems be designed to meet
requirements while vehicles are in use. As discussed in Section IV.A
and IV.B of this proposal, along with the new emission standards, we
are proposing a longer useful life of 150,000 miles/15 years, whichever
comes first, for LDTs up to 6,000 lbs GVWR but over 3,750 lbs loaded
vehicle weight (LVW) (LDT2s), all LDTs over 6,000 lbs GVWR (LDT3/4),
MDPVs, and HDGVs between 8,501 and 14,000 lbs GVWR. The proposed longer
useful life would also apply to certifications to the Tier 3
evaporative emission requirements. For an evaporative/refueling family
certified to 150,000 miles/15 year useful life for evaporative
emissions this useful life would also apply to the refueling, leak, and
high altitude standards, where applicable when a family certifies to
the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements. All of these standards
impact the fuel and vapor control systems and it is technologically
consistent to require the same useful life for these standards because
they all rely on the mechanical integrity, durability, and operational
performance of the same components in the evaporative emissions control
system.
Due to limitations in the CAA, for LDVs and for LDTs up to 6,000
lbs GVWR and at or below 3,750 lbs LVW (LDT1s), we are keeping the
current useful life of 120,000 miles/10 years unless, as described in
Section IV.A, a manufacturer elects alternative exhaust emission
requirements that are associated with 150,000 mile/15 year useful life
for these vehicles. For manufacturers that select those optional
standards, the useful life of 150,000 miles/15 years would apply for
all Tier3 evaporative emission standards including the hot soak plus
diurnal emission standards, the refueling emission standard, and the
leak standard because of the design and operating relationships between
the engine, the fuel system, the evaporative control system and their
various components.
During the early and transitional program periods and until the
final year of the allowed phase-in period for the Tier 3 evaporative
emission program (MY 2015-2022) the differences between the proposed
exhaust and evaporative emission phase-in programs presents the
possibility that in some cases a manufacturer could certify a model to
the Tier 3 exhaust requirements but not necessarily to the Tier 3
evaporative emission requirements.\282\ In those situations, we are
proposing that a family could have a 150,000 miles/15 years useful life
for exhaust emissions but maintain the current useful life for all of
the evaporative and refueling emission standards. We also propose that
during the phase-in period, if a family is certified to the Tier 3
evaporative emission requirements but not yet certified for Tier 3
exhaust emission requirements, then the useful life could be 150,000
miles/15 years for evaporative and refueling emissions standards but
the current useful life for exhaust emissions, However, by the 2022 MY
EPA proposes that the useful life for all of these requirements would
be 150,000 miles/15 years for LDT2/3/4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs since by that
model year all vehicles must be certified using Tier 3 certification
fuel and test procedures and meet Tier 3 evaporative emission
standards.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\282\ By the 2020 MY, all Tier 3 evaporative system emissions
certifications must use Tier 3 certification test fuel and test
procedures. This affects evaporative (hot soak plus diurnal),
canister bleed, refueling, and leak emission standards
certification.
\283\ The only exception here would be for vehicles not meeting
Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements in the 2022 MY as a result
of the use of previously earned allowances and small businesses
which have until the 2022 MY to meet the proposed Tier 3 evaporative
emission requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBD regulations call for the systems to operate effectively over
the useful life of the vehicle. We are not proposing to change that
requirement, but rather to clarify that during the early and transition
years of the phase-in (MY 2015-2022), all of the OBD monitoring
requirements have the same useful life as that for the exhaust emission
standard except for the evaporative system leak monitoring requirement
which has the same as that required for the evaporative and refueling
emission standards control systems.
2. Evaporative Emissions Program Structure and Implementation
Flexibilities
a. Percentage Phase-In Requirements
The proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards would be phased
in over a period of six model years (MYs), including a transitional
year in 2017. For MY 2017, except as discussed below, the requirement
would apply to 40 percent of a manufacturer's combined sales of LDVs,
LDT1s, and LDT2s. To be consistent with the start date for new exhaust
standards affecting these vehicles, the phase-in requirements would not
include vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR until the 2018 MY. For the 2018-
2019 MYs, the requirement would apply to 60 percent of a manufacturer's
sales of all LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs. This would increase to 80
percent for MYs 2020 and 2021 and by MY 2022 it would apply to 100
percent of sales in these four categories. Beginning in MY 2018 any
vehicle included in the percentage projection, except vehicles that had
earned allowances would have to meet the leak emission standard.
Our proposal for MY 2017 has two options and we are seeking comment
on a third option. The first, which we are calling the ``percentage''
option, would require that 40 percent of a manufacturer' s LDVs, LDT1s,
and LDT2s sold outside of California and the states that have adopted
the CARB ZEV or LEV III programs must meet the Tier 3 evaporative
emission requirements on average. The second which we are calling the
``PZEV zero evap only'' option, would require a manufacturer to sell
all of the LDVs, LDT1s, and LDT2s certified with CARB as meeting the
PZEV evaporative emission requirements (zero evap) in MY 2017
throughout all of the U.S. and not to offer for sale any non-PZEV zero
evap version of those vehicles in any state whose vehicles are covered
by the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. Thus, this would apply to
sales in any state except for California and states that
[[Page 29887]]
have adopted the CARB ZEV or LEV III programs under section 177 of the
Clean Air Act. Under this second option, no tracking of sales or end of
year compliance calculation would be required. Some manufacturers may
find this option attractive, as they have more limited product
offerings and find tracking of production and sales more difficult.
The basic goal of the 2017 MY program is to provide evaporative
emission reductions benefits in the other states which are similar to
those expected in California and the states which adopted LEV III under
section 177 of the Clean Air Act. Due to model phase-out and phase-in
issues related to current and future products, some manufacturers have
indicated that increasing production of Tier 3 evaporative emission
compliant vehicles for the 2017 MY to meet the 40 percent value
discussed above could be difficult and costly. To address this issue,
we are asking for comment on a third option: decreasing this value from
40 percent to 20 percent but requiring that these same vehicles also
meet the leak emission standard in the 2017 MY. This approach has the
potential to address the transition issue and EPA believes that the
leak standard will provide evaporative emission reduction benefits
equal to or greater than the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards.
Thus, under this approach, the manufacturers' product transition
concerns could be addressed and the overall evaporative emission
reductions would still be achieved for 2017 MY vehicles. As discussed
below, beginning in the 2018 MY, a Tier 3 compliant vehicle must also
meet the leak emission standard. This option would be effective only in
the 2017 MY. EPA asks for comment on whether this option should require
the leak emission standard to apply to the same 20 percent of vehicles
that are complying with the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements,
or whether this option should allow manufacturers the flexibility to
meet some or all of the 20 percent leak emission standard requirement
with vehicles not yet compliant with the Tier 3 evaporative
requirements.
At the time of certification, manufacturers would identify which
families would be included in their Tier 3 evaporative emission
percentage calculations (this could be families above or below the
individual Tier 3 evaporative emission standards for the given class of
vehicles as well as vehicles meeting CARB's Option 1 standards) and
could also include earned allowances as discussed below. They would use
projected sales information for these families plus allowances as
desired and available, to show how they expect to meet the phase-in
percentages for the model year of interest. At the end of the model
year they would be expected to show that the percentages were met and
if not they would either use additional allowances or bring more
vehicle families into the calculation.
Requiring a showing at the time of certification based on projected
sales requires due diligence by the manufacturers and EPA, but the Tier
3 evaporative emissions program allows for fleet averaging, so a
validation or ``truing up'' of these sales projections is necessary for
determining compliance with the requirements of the standard. This is
discussed in Sections IV.C.2.c.and d. As discussed further below,
validated sales information would also be used for earning early
allowances and to show compliance with the alternative phase-in
schedule approach.
For these purposes, vehicles included in the phase-in percentage
could be: (1) Families which certified to CARB LEV III requirements in
MYs 2015 and 2016 (CARB Option 1), (2) families certified to meet Tier
3 evaporative emission requirements, and (3) vehicles from the early
allowance program. However, beginning in the 2017 MY, any new
evaporative/refueling emission family certifications would have to meet
the proposed EPA Tier 3 certification requirements for both test
procedure and certification test fuel for the evaporative and refueling
emission standards. The leak emission standard would apply in the 2018
MY. Furthermore, assuming other regulatory provisions related to
carryover of emissions data are met, 2015-2016 MY CARB evaporative
emissions certifications could be carried over until the end of the
2019 MY and included as compliant vehicles within the program if they
met the leak emission standard.
The phase-in percentages for MYs 2017 through 2022 reflect a
percentage phase-in concept applied successfully by EPA in previous
rules involving evaporative and refueling emissions control. The
proposed phase-in provides an appropriate balance between the needed
emission reductions and time for the manufacturers to make an orderly
transition to the new technology on such a broad scale. The higher
initial percentage here is appropriate because the expected evaporative
emission control technology is already being used to varying degrees by
16 manufacturers on over 50 vehicle models today and is projected to
gain even deeper penetration by 2017 due to the partial zero emission
vehicles (PZEV) option within the CARB ZEV program.
As a flexibility, we are proposing to allow manufacturers to
demonstrate compliance with the phase-in percentage requirements of the
evaporative emissions program by using a manufacturer-determined
alternative phase-in percentage scheme. Under this approach, before the
2018 MY, manufacturers would have to present a plan to EPA which
demonstrates that the sum of the product of a weighting factor and the
percentages of their U.S. vehicle sales for each model year from 2018
through 2022 is greater than or equal to 1040. The 1040 value is equal
to the sum of the product of the weighting factors and the percentage
requirements for MYs 2018 through 2022, calculated in the following
manner: [(5)(2018MY %)+4(2019MY %)+3(2020MY %)+2(2021MY %)+(1)(2022MY
%)]. This would allow manufacturers to use a phase-in more consistent
with product plans which may call for a lower percentage in the early
years or to benefit from producing and selling more than the minimum
percentage of compliant vehicles early. This flexibility could also be
helpful in the event that a manufacturer elects to put some vehicles on
a different phase-in schedule for meeting Tier 3 exhaust and
evaporative emission standards. As explained further below, any
allowances earned could be counted toward compliance with the 1040
value. Within this proposed flexibility EPA asks for comment in three
areas. First, we seek comment on the need for and value of this
alternative phase-in percentage flexibility option. Second, we did not
include the 2017 MY in this flexibility because we believe that the
PZEV zero evap nationwide option, the use of any earned allowances, and
the ability to have a deficit in a given year are sufficient. However,
we ask for comment on including the 2017 MY ``percentage'' option in
this flexibility (both the 40 and 20 percent approaches discussed
above). If after comment the 40 percent option from the 2017 MY is
included in the final rule, the sum of the percentages would include an
additional 240= (6)(40) for a total; of 1280; the equation above would
add a term of (6)(2017MY %). Similarly, we ask for comment on whether
the 20 percent option from the 2017 MY should be included in the
alternative phase-in approach. If it is included in the final rule, the
sum of the percentages would include an additional 120= (6)(20) for a
total; of 1160; the equation above would add a term of (6)(2017MY %).
[[Page 29888]]
b. Early Allowance Program
We are proposing incentives for early introduction of vehicles
compliant with the Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations.
Manufacturers could take advantage of these incentives prior to MY 2018
by selling vehicles that meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission
regulations earlier than required or in greater numbers than required.
As described below, manufacturers could earn ``allowances'' for
selling any vehicle certified to the proposed Tier 3 evaporative
emission regulations earlier than required. The vehicles could be LDVs,
LDTs, MDPVs, or HDGVs. Specifically these include the following: (1)
For MYs 2015 and 2016, any LDVs and LDTs meeting the Tier 3 evaporative
emission regulations and sold outside of California and the states that
have adopted CARB's ZEV or LEV III programs, (2) for MYs 2015-2017, any
MDPV or HDGV meeting the Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations early
and sold in any state, (3) for MY 2017, any LDT3/4 meeting the Tier 3
evaporative emission regulations and sold outside of California and the
states that have adopted CARB's LEV III or ZEV programs, and (4) for
MYs 2015-2017, any HDGV between 10,001 and 14,000 lbs GVWR meeting the
refueling emissions regulations and sold outside of California and the
states that have adopted CARB's LEV III or ZEV programs.
In order to demonstrate compliance with the proposed Tier 3
evaporative emission regulations, the vehicles could be certified to
either the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards or CARB's
PZEV zero evaporative emission and useful life requirements. Vehicles
generating allowances would have to meet the proposed evaporative
emission standards (CARB Option 1 or EPA Tier 3), the high altitude
evaporative emission standard, the canister bleed standard as well as
the refueling emission standards. Manufacturers would earn one
allowance for each qualifying vehicle sold. Manufacturers can use these
allowances in MY 2017 through 2022 to help demonstrate compliance with
the phase-in percentage requirements and fleet average evaporative
emission standards for those years.
Allowances would be used in the compliance determination in the
following manner. Vehicles qualifying for allowances could be used in
the fleet average evaporative emission standard calculation for any
year during the phase-in. This would apply to the primary phase-in and
alternative phase-in programs. Allowance vehicles would be entered into
the compliance calculation with an emission value equivalent to the
evaporative emission standard for their vehicle category from Table IV-
18 even if it was certified to CARB Option 1 standards (Table IV-19).
For the percent phase-in requirement in either the primary or
alternative phase-in schemes, allowance vehicles would count for one
vehicle for each allowance used within their vehicle category. For the
primary scheme this would be counted as one vehicle, but for the
alternative phase-in option the value would be multiplied by the
weighting factor (5 for 2018, 4 for 2019, 3 for 2020, etc). Within the
alternative phase-in scheme the manufacturer would be limited to using
these early allowances for no more than 10 percentage points of the
phase-in requirements in any given model year (e.g., MYs 2018-2022).
EPA believes this limitation is appropriate. Early introduction of
``zero evap'' technology should be encouraged, but not necessarily at
the expense of its widespread use across the various vehicle categories
as the phase-in progresses. The proposed allowances are designed
primarily to facilitate manufacturer transition during the program
phase-in. As such, we propose that they could not be traded between
manufacturers and unused allowances would expire after the 2022 MY.
An example here may be helpful in demonstrating how the proposed
concept would work. Take a hypothetical manufacturer who earned 10,000
allowances in 2015 and 2016 and sells 100,000 units per year. In 2018,
the manufacturer would have a phase-in requirement of 60 percent or
60,000 vehicles. For the primary phase-in option the manufacturer could
use part or all of its allowances in 2018. For the alternative phase-in
scheme the proposed regulations would limit the use of allowances to 10
percentage points at the 60 percent. Without a multiplier this would
require the use of all 10,000 allowances in 2018, but with the proposed
multiplier only 2,000 allowances would be needed to reach the 10
percentage point maximum. Using a similar calculus, the manufacturer
could use another 10 percentage points in 2019, but it would require
2,500 allowances since the multiplier is 4. The number of allowances to
reach 10 percentage points would increase each year as the multiplier
decreased.
For the MY 2017, manufacturers choosing EPA's proposed
``percentage'' option (see Section IV.C.2.a) could earn allowances for
sales of LDT3s, LDT4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs that meet the proposed Tier 3
evaporative emission standards and other related requirements assuming
their LDV, LDT1/2 sales meet the 40 percent requirement. Similarly,
manufacturers choosing EPA's proposed ``PZEV zero evap only'' option
could earn allowances in MY 2017 for LDT3/4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs that
meet the CARB Option 1 evaporative emission standards and related
requirements. For both the ``percentage'' and ``PZEV zero evap only''
options for the 2017 model year, to avoid double counting, the
allowances would be earned only for those vehicles sold outside of
California and the states that have adopted CARB's LEV III/ZEV program
requirements. Vehicles earning allowances could either be vehicles
certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards or vehicles
certified using carryover data from the CARB PZEV zero evaporative
emission requirements from the 2015 or 2016 MYs. Since credits and
allowances serve primarily the same purpose and allowing for splits of
allowances/credits greatly complicates program implementation, we are
proposing that manufacturers could only earn allowances in MYs 2015-
2017 for any qualifying LDT3s, LDT4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs since these
vehicles are not covered by the proposed Tier 3 standards until the
2018 MY. EPA asks for comment on whether this opportunity to earn
allowances coupled with the aforementioned restriction on their use is
the appropriate balance.
c. Evaporative Emissions ABT
Throughout EPA's programs for mobile source emission controls, we
have often included emission averaging programs for exhaust emissions.
An emission averaging program is an important factor we take into
consideration in setting emission standards under the Clean Air Act. An
emission averaging program can reduce the cost and improve the
technological feasibility of achieving standards, helping to ensure the
standards achieve the greatest achievable reductions, considering cost
and other relevant factors, in a time frame that is earlier than might
otherwise be possible. Manufacturers gain flexibility in product
planning and the opportunity for a more cost-effective introduction of
product lines meeting a new standard. Emission averaging programs also
create an incentive for the early introduction of new technology, which
allows certain emission families to act as leaders for new technology.
This can help provide valuable information to manufacturers on the
technology before they apply the technology throughout their product
line.
[[Page 29889]]
These programs generally involve averaging and banking, and
sometimes trading (ABT). Averaging allows a manufacturer to certify one
or more families at emission levels above the applicable emission
standards as long as the increased emissions are offset by one or more
families certified below the applicable standards. These are referred
to as family emission limits (FELs). The over-complying families
generate credits that are used by the under-complying families.
Compliance is determined on a total mass emissions basis to account for
differences in production volume, and on other factors as necessary.
The average of all emissions for a particular manufacturer's production
within category must be at or below the level of the applicable
emission standards. Banking allows a manufacturer to generate emission
credits and bank them for future use in its own averaging program in
later years. Trading allows a manufacturer to sell credits or obtain
credits from another manufacturer.
EPA is proposing an emissions ABT program for the Tier 3 hot soak
plus diurnal evaporative emissions standards. This would be the EPA's
first averaging program for evaporative emissions from light-duty or
heavy-duty vehicles. It would not apply to the high altitude standard,
the canister bleed standard or the leak emission standard because it is
the low altitude ``zero evap'' hot soak plus diurnal standard which
will drive the fundamental technology used to comply with all of these
requirements. EPA is proposing to include trading of emission credits
between manufacturers, but in past similar programs there have been
very few trades. Incorporating trading within the program adds a
significant degree of complexity, so we are seeking comment on the need
for and value of including trading.
The evaporative emissions ABT program would start with the 2017 MY
for the percentage option. The programs would continue for the 2018 MY
and beyond and would not sunset, as does the allowance program.
Vehicles generating averaging/banking credits in the 2017 MY or later
would not be permitted to also generate allowances as this would be
double counting.
A key element of an averaging program is the identification of the
averaging sets. This sets the criteria for which emission families can
be averaged for purposes of compliance as well as credit and deficit
determinations. We are proposing four averaging sets and the applicable
emission standard for each of the averaging sets as shown in Table IV-
18. Except as noted in section d below, credit exchanges between
averaging sets would not be permitted. Participation in averaging is
voluntary since a manufacturer could elect to certify each family
within the averaging set to its individual limit as if there was no
averaging program.
An evaporative emission ABT includes two very distinct steps. The
first is the determination of the credit/deficit status of each family
relative to its applicable standard from Table IV-18. The second is the
role of ABT in the overall compliance demonstration which will be
discussed in Section IV.C.2.d which follows.
A manufacturer choosing to participate in the evaporative emissions
ABT program would certify each emission family to an FEL. The FEL
selected by the manufacturer becomes the emission standard for that
emission family. As noted below, emission credits (or deficits) are
based on the difference between the emission standard that applies (by
vehicle category) and the FEL. The vehicles would have to meet the FEL
for all emission testing.
We are proposing that the FELs selected by the manufacturer would
have to be selected at 0.025 g/test increments above or below the
applicable Tier 3 evaporative emission standards for each vehicle
category. FELs could not be set any higher than 0.500 g/test for LDVs,
0.650 g/test for LDT1s and LDT2s, 0.900 g/test for LDT3s and LDT4s,
1.000 g/test for MDPVs, 1.4 g/test for HDGVs at or below 14,000 lbs
GVWR, and 1.9 g/test for those above 14,000 lbs GVWR, respectively.
These FEL caps are the 3-day hot soak plus diurnal emission standards
currently applicable under EPA's regulations. The vehicle groupings for
defining these FEL caps differ somewhat from the groupings that apply
for the standards; we request comment on the need to reconcile these
different groupings.
Evaporative emission credits under the proposed Tier 3 hot soak
plus diurnal standards would be calculated differently in the 2017
model year and the 2018 and later model years. For 2017 calculations
would be based on sales in the U.S. excluding California and the
section 177 states which have adopted the LEV III/ZEV programs. For
2018 and later model years it would be based on all 50 states.
Calculations would use the following equation: Credits = (fleet average
standard - fleet average FEL) x ``U.S. sales''. The ``fleet average
standard'' term here is the applicable Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal
standard for the vehicle category from Table IV-18. The sales number
used in the 2018 and later MY calculation would be the number of
vehicles of the evaporative emission families in that category sold in
the U.S. which are subject to the Tier 3 evaporative emission
standards.\284\ Emission credits banked under the proposed evaporative
emission ABT program would have a five year credit life and would not
be discounted. This means the credits would maintain their full value
through the fifth model year after the model year in which they are
generated. At the beginning of the sixth model year after they are
generated, the credits would expire and could not be used by the
manufacturer. We are proposing to limit credit life so there is a
reasonable overlap between credit generating and credit using vehicles.
As mentioned above, for purposes of the compliance calculation,
allowance vehicles would have an FEL equivalent to the EPA emission
standard (Table IV-18) for their respective vehicle category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\284\ If EPA ultimately decided to continue the disaggregated
approach to fleet compliance calculations, we could potentially base
compliance with the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission
requirements on U.S. sales (i.e., non-California and non-section 177
states).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request comment on all aspects of the ABT program. In
particular, we request comment on the structure of the proposed
evaporative emission ABT program and how the various provisions may
affect manufacturers' ability to utilize ABT to achieve the desired
evaporative emission-reductions in the most efficient and economical
way. We also ask for comment on basing ABT calculations on nationwide
sales in 2018 and later model years, even if there is a separate
calculation for California and the section 177 states.
d. Compliance Demonstration
Demonstration of compliance with the evaporative emissions
standards would be done after the end of each model year. There are two
steps. In the first step, manufacturers would have to show compliance
with the phase-in percentages whether they used the primary phase-in
scheme or an alternative phase-in scheme. It is sales from these
families together with their respective FELs which would be used to
make the demonstration of compliance with the emission standard on
average within each vehicle averaging set. Compliant vehicles types for
these purposes would be the same as described in Section IV.C.2.a above
for projected sales. If the required sales percentages are not met by
direct sales or allowances, non-Tier 3 vehicles would have to be
identified to make up the shortfall. In the second step, using
[[Page 29890]]
the family emission limits, manufacturers would calculate the sales-
weighted average emission levels within each of the four vehicle
categories using U.S. sales.\285\ Manufacturers would be allowed to use
credits only within a defined averaging set. The averaging sets are:
(1) LDVs and LDT1s, (2) LDT2s, (3) LDT3s, LDT4s, and MDPVs, and (4)
HDGVs. These sales-weighted calculated values would have to be at or
below the emission standard for that vehicle category as proposed in
Table IV-18, unless credits from ABT are used. If the difference
between the standard and the sales-weighted average FEL is a positive
value this could be a banked credit available for future use. If the
difference between the standard and the sales-weighted average FEL is a
negative value this would be a credit deficit. Credit deficits would be
allowed to be carried forward. However, manufacturers would be required
to make up the deficit within the next three model years with credits
from vehicles in the same averaging set except as described below. As
discussed above, manufacturers would be required to identify and
include in the calculations vehicle families from each and any covered
category (see Table IV-18) whose total annual nationwide sales in the
given model year equals or exceeds the prescribed percentages. If the
inclusion of non-Tier 3 vehicles results in an exceedance of the hot
soak plus diurnal emission standard for that category of vehicles, the
credit deficit would have to be made up in a subsequent model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ The only exception here would be for vehicles not meeting
Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements in the 2022 MY as a result
of the use of previously earned allowances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowances could also be used to demonstrate compliance with the
percentage phase-in requirements and the vehicle category average
emission standard. For purposes of the percentage phase-in requirements
vehicles which have earned allowances are counted as compliant in the
percentage calculation. For purposes of the calculations for compliance
with the emission standard, allowance vehicles enters into the
evaporative emissions ABT calculation as having an emission rate
equivalent to the standard for that category of vehicle. Thus,
allowance vehicles would help in demonstrating compliance with the
percentage phase-in requirement (up to ten percentage points per model
year) and would help in reducing deficits since their calculation value
would be equivalent to the level of the standard. EPA asks for comment
on whether allowances should be permitted to be used across vehicle
categories during the transition years.
As was discussed above, during the 2017-2019 model years EPA is
allowing manufacturers to meet the percentage phase-in requirements
using carryover certification data from vehicles certified to CARBs
Option 1 standards in the 2015 or 2016 model years. These vehicles may
have CARB Option 1 certification values slightly higher than those
proposed for EPA's Tier 3 program for the given vehicle and vehicle
category. Since the emission standard values in Tables IV-18 and IV-19
are very similar for any given vehicle category, for purposes of
simplification during the phase in, EPA proposes that any CARB Option 1
vehicles used in the 2017-2019 MY emission standard compliance
determination be entered into the calculation with the emission level
equivalent to the Tier 3 vehicle category in which the vehicle model
would otherwise fit. Furthermore, we are proposing not allowing
manufacturers to generate emission credits for families certified with
EPA based on carryover CARB PZEV evaporative emissions data using CARB
Option 1 as in Table IV-19. We are proposing not to include these
vehicles in the ABT program since the programs are not directly
comparable, and the structure of the current CARB ZEV program, which is
the genesis of most PZEV offerings, allows for a different number of
PZEV sales as a function of manufacturer size.
As mentioned above, we are proposing to limit use of credits only
within a defined averaging set. Cost effective technology is available
to meet the proposed hot soak plus diurnal emission standards on
average within each of the vehicle categories in the averaging sets,
especially since the proposed standards are designed to accommodate
nonfuel hydrocarbon background emissions. Thus, further flexibility is
not needed. Moreover, we are proposing to constrain averaging to within
these sets because of equity issues for the manufacturers. We are
concerned that the four or five manufacturers with a wide variety of
product offerings in most or all of these categories would have a
competitive advantage over the majority of manufacturers which have
more limited product lines. This effect could be even more pronounced
if the number of evaporative families was considered, since larger more
diverse manufacturers have more models and thus more evaporative
families. EPA asks for comment on issues related to averaging sets.
Manufacturer use of credits from different averaging sets to
demonstrate compliance would be permitted in limited cases. As noted
above, if a manufacturer has a credit deficit at the end of a model
year in a given averaging set, they would have to use credits from the
same averaging set during the next three years to make up the deficit.
However, if a deficit still exists at the end of the third year, we
propose that the manufacturer could use credits from a different
averaging set to cover the remaining deficit with the following
limitations. Manufacturers would be able to use credits from the LDV
and LDT1 averaging set to address remaining deficits in the LDT2
averaging set, and vice versa. We also are proposing that manufacturers
be permitted to use credits from the LDT3, LDT4, and MDPV averaging set
to address remaining deficits in the HDGV averaging set, and vice
versa. No other use of credit exchanges across different averaging sets
would be allowed. These restrictions are being proposed because of
equity concerns caused by the different nature and size of various
manufacturer product lines.
During the program phase in there will be a declining percentage of
vehicles not yet covered by the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission
requirements and thus covered by the current EPA requirements in 40 CFR
86.1811-09 and 86.008-10. These vehicles would need to be certified to
current EPA requirements or seek EPA certificates based on LEV II or
LEVIII emission data, subject to the certification fuel requirements
discussed below.
For both the percentage phase-in and sales-weighted average
calculation steps above, we are proposing to base the calculation on
nationwide sales (excluding California and the section 177 states in
the 2017 MY) and annual nationwide sales beginning in the 2018 MY. We
believe this approach is consistent with the manufacturers' plans for
50-state vehicles. A program design which would enable a nationwide
program has been an important premise of this proposal. Furthermore,
this is simpler for the manufacturers and for EPA since it relieves the
need to project future model year sales or track past model year sales
at a disaggregated level. We recognize that decisions by manufacturers
on a national fleet versus a bifurcated approach such as exists today
(California and section 177-states separate from the rest of U.S.
sales) have
[[Page 29891]]
not yet been made.\286\ The CARB LEV III and EPA phase-in requirements
are identical beginning in 2018, so EPA sees little need for concern
that a nationwide-based accounting approach could lead to
disproportionate state by state impacts or the encouragement of
practices which would lead to any particular state or area not
receiving the anticipated emission reductions with this nationwide
approach to the calculation. However, for evaporative emissions for the
2017 MY we are proposing that percentage phase-in and sales be done on
a disaggregated level (i.e., California and section 177 states and the
remainder of the country) since at the present time the anti-
backsliding provisions of the LEV III evaporative emissions program
stays in place through the 2017 MY. This is being done differently for
the calculations for the early allowance program because these ``zero
evap'' vehicles are already counted in the pre-existing ARB program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\286\ If the decision is ultimately made to continue the
disaggregated approach to fleet compliance calculations, the
compliance with the proposed Tier 3 requirements would be based on
U.S. sales (non-California, non-section 177 states).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As was discussed above, manufacturers not meeting the percentage
phase-in requirements would need to include non-Tier 3 vehicles in the
count and include their emissions in the overall calculation of
compliance with the hot soak plus diurnal standard and resolve
shortfalls in compliance with the emission standard with future
reductions, earned allowances, or credits. Resolving this sales
percentage shortfall problem becomes a bit more complicated for the
2017 MY 20 percent option upon which EPA is seeking comment, because it
would require that 20 percent of vehicles meet the proposed Tier 3
evaporative emission requirements and that 20 percent meet the proposed
leak emission standard. These may or may not be the same vehicles,
(e.g., non-Tier 3 vehicles could end up in the end of year calculation
and we are seeking comment on whether to allow the two 20 percent
requirements to be allowed to be met on different vehicles). As a means
to resolve this potential problem, EPA asks comment on a provision
which would require that any shortfall of either of the 20 percent
values (Tier 3 evaporative or leak emission standard) for the 2017 MY
be covered by future sales of vehicles meeting the Tier 3 evaporative
emission requirements in excess of the evaporative emission percentage
sales requirement for that MY or some combination of MYs. For example,
if a manufacturer were 5 percentage points short in the 2017 MY, then
it would have to accelerate sales of vehicles meeting Tier 3
evaporative emission requirements in the 2018-2021 MYs to cover the 5
percentage points (e.g., 65 percent in 2018 instead of 60 percent or 63
percent in 2018 MY and 62 percent in the 2019 MY, etc.).
e. Small Volume Manufacturers
As another flexibility, we are proposing that small volume
manufacturers, those with average annual nationwide sales of 5,000
units or less, be permitted to delay meeting the proposed Tier 3
evaporative emission standards, including the requirement to use EPA
certification test fuel, until the 2022 MY (see Section IV.E.5 below
for a discussion of our proposed 5,000 vehicle threshold). This would
include the hot soak plus diurnal standards, the canister bleed
emission standard, and the leak emission standard. In the interim,
these vehicles would have to meet the current evaporative and refueling
emission standards. The initial determination of whether a manufacturer
is under the 5,000 unit threshold would be based on the three year
average of actual nationwide sales for MYs 2012-2014. This allowance
would not be affected if a qualifying manufacturer's nationwide sales
later exceeded that value before 2022. Similarly, new market entrants
(not in the market in the 2012 MY) with projected sales of less than
5,000 units could be covered by the small volume manufacturer
provisions. However, in this case if actual running average nationwide
sales exceeded 5,000 units per year in any three consecutive model
years they would have to meet the Tier 3 evaporative requirements in
the third model year thereafter. For example, if a new market entrant
in 2015 projected nationwide production of 4,000 units per year and the
average of actual values in 2015-2017 exceeded 5,000 units per year
they would have to meet Tier 3 evaporative requirements by the 2020 MY.
f. High-Altitude Requirements
We adopted the most recent vehicle evaporative emission standards
in 2007.\287\ These newest standards apply only to testing under low-
altitude conditions.\288\ In that rule, we decided to continue to apply
the previous ``Tier 2'' standards for testing under high-altitude
conditions. This was necessary to achieve an equivalent level of
overall stringency for high-altitude testing. This was intended to
account for the various effects of altitude and lower atmospheric
pressure on vapor generation rates, canister loading and purging
dynamics, and other aspects of controlling evaporative emissions due
primarily to lower air and vapor concentrations in air. While it is
important for vehicles to have effective emission controls at high
altitudes, we do not want the high-altitude standards and test
procedures to dictate the fundamental design of the Tier 3 evaporative
emission control systems since the high altitude vehicle population is
only about five percent of the national total. Therefore, we believe it
is appropriate to address this goal by applying the current EPA 2-day
low altitude evaporative emission standards and requirements for high-
altitude testing. The vehicle categories for the high altitude
standards in this proposed rule are the same as for the low altitude
standards. The proposed standards are presented below in Table IV-20.
This would both reduce emissions at high altitude and again create a
requirement to confirm that emission controls function effectively at
high altitude without forcing manufacturers to apply altitude-specific
technologies. Furthermore, the leak emission standard proposed in
Section IV.C.5.b below would apply equally at low and high altitude
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\287\ 72 FR 8428 (February 26, 2007).
\288\ High-altitude conditions means a test altitude of 1,620
meters (5,315 feet). Low altitude conditions means a test altitude
less than 549 meters (1,800 feet).
Table IV-20 Proposed High-Altitude Evaporative Emission Standards
[g/test]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest hot soak +
diurnal level (over
Vehicle category both 2-day and 3-day
tests) (g/test)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV, LDT1...................................... 0.65
LDT2........................................... 0.85
LDT3, LDT4..................................... 1.15
MDPV........................................... 1.25
HDGVs <= 14,000 lbs GVWR....................... 1.75
HDGVs > 14,000 lbs GVWR........................ 2.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few additional points should be noted about our proposed Tier 3
high altitude evaporative emissions control program. First, by
proposing to apply the current low altitude evaporative emission
standards and requirements by category for high-altitude, we are
proposing not to include the canister bleed test and emission standard.
These vehicles would have to meet the canister bleed emission standard
at low altitude and any adjustment to meet the
[[Page 29892]]
standard at high altitude to account for canister adsorption and
desorption effects of higher altitudes would result in fundamentally
the same technology and increase the testing burden, but not
necessarily lead to more emissions control. Therefore, we believe the
low-altitude canister bleed test is sufficient for achieving the
proposed level of emission control for operation in both low-altitude
and high-altitude conditions. Second, for vehicles certified with FELs
above or below the applicable standard for testing at low altitude, we
propose that the same differential apply to the FELs for high-altitude.
For example, if an LDV was certified with an FEL of 0.400 g instead of
the 0.300 g standard, the high-altitude FEL would be 0.75 g (0.65g +
0.10g). This high-altitude FEL would not be used for any emission-
credit calculations, but it would be used as the emission standard for
compliance purposes. Third, gasoline RVP for certification test fuel
would be set at 7.8 RVP with 15 percent ethanol, as specified in
Section IV.D. Finally, we are proposing a minor adjustment to the high
altitude test procedures. Today, the 2- and 3-day test procedures apply
equally at low and high altitude. We are proposing to keep that
requirement but to allow for an adjustment of 5[emsp14][deg]F in the
temperatures related to the running loss test within the 3-day test
cycle. Thus, the applicable fuel and ambient temperatures at Sec.
86.134-96 (f) and (g) would 90 5[emsp14][deg]F instead of
95 5[emsp14][deg]F for high altitude testing. EPA believes
this is appropriate given the differences in atmospheric conditions at
low versus high altitude and will still result in equivalent control of
running loss emissions at higher altitudes. We request comment on the
alternative approach of keeping test temperatures the same, but
omitting the 3-day test cycle for testing at high altitude. This would
effectively establish the 2-day test cycle as a sufficient means of
demonstrating that emission control systems continue to operate
properly at high altitude.
As mentioned above, emission data from vehicles meeting the current
CARB zero evap and useful life requirements could be used to qualify
that vehicle to meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations for
the 2017-2019 MYs. To qualify for a federal certificate, the vehicle
would also have to meet the Tier 3 high altitude evaporative emission
requirements. While CARB requires vehicles to meet EPA high altitude
requirements, we ask for comment on the need for and value of an
interim option which would permit manufacturers to gain such
certification by an engineering demonstration that the vehicle would
comply at any altitude rather than by performing additional testing.
g. Technological Feasibility
The basic technology for controlling evaporative emissions was
first introduced in the 1970s. Manufacturers routed fuel tank and
carburetor vapors to a canister filled with activated carbon, where
vapors were stored until engine operation allowed for purge air to be
drawn through the canister to extract the vapors for delivery to the
engine intake. Over the past 30 years, evaporative emission standards
have changed several times, most notably in the mid-1990s when enhanced
evaporative controls were required to address 2- and 3-day diurnal
emissions and running losses. Refueling emission controls were added
with phase-in beginning in the 1998 MY. Almost universally
manufacturers elected to integrate evaporative and refueling emission
control systems. In the mid-2000s more stringent evaporative emission
standards with E10 durability gasoline led to the development and
adoption of technology to identify and eliminate permeation of fuel
through fuel tanks, fuel lines, and other fuel-system components.
i. Hot Soak Plus Diurnal
The current baseline technology for LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs is a
properly designed and assembled fuel/evaporative system for controlling
emissions over the 2- and 3-day test sequences to meet the current
standard of 0.650 grams/test. This involves activated carbon canisters
which capture gasoline vapors, with engine calibrations designed to
maximize canister purge over the test sequence. Fuel systems generally
include widespread use of various grades of permeation-resistant
materials.
The anticipated control technologies to comply with the proposed
hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emission standards include an
improved carbon canister designs to even better capture vapor emissions
from the canister, air intake designs to prevent the escape of unburned
fuel from the engine's crankcase, various upgrades to further limit
potential micro-sized leaks, and further steps to reduce permeation
rates. Applying these new or improved technologies will allow
manufacturers to meet the proposed 300 mg standard for LDVs/LDT1s. The
proposed evaporative emission standards are slightly higher for larger
vehicles to account for potentially higher background emissions and in
some cases larger surface area components, but the baseline and
anticipated control technologies follow a very similar path. These
baseline and control technologies are described further in the rest of
this section.
Current evaporative canisters use high working-capacity activated
carbon, usually with multiple compartments, to optimize vapor loading
and purging behavior. These canisters sometimes employ carbons of
different working capacities within each chamber. Testing indicates
that the total canister adsorption capacity in grams of gasoline vapor
is generally dictated by the requirements of the refueling emission
test and standard rather than the evaporative emission test (either the
2- or 3-day sequence).
Manufacturers have identified the engine's intake system as another
source of evaporative emissions. These result from crankcase vapors and
from unburned fuel from injectors, or sometimes from an injection event
that occurred shortly before engine shutdown. We estimate a typical
emission rate of about 40 mg associated with each engine shutdown
event; however, since the actual emission rates depend on timing of
individual injection events and cylinder position at shutdown, baseline
emission rates can vary significantly. These vapors must follow a
contorted path before reaching the ambient air, which would generally
cause these emissions to show up during the first day of the diurnal
test rather than the hot soak test. One way to prevent these emissions
is to add activated carbon to the air intake downstream of the air
filter, typically in the form of reticulated foam coated with activated
carbon. This device would have only a few grams of working capacity and
would be designed to purge easily to ensure that the vapor storage is
available at engine shutdown. This carbon insert would almost
completely eliminate any vapor emissions from the air intake system.
Manufacturers wanting to avoid adding any specialized emission
control component to control evaporative emissions from the air intake
could pursue alternative approaches. First, it is possible to allow the
engine to continue rotating for 2-3 revolutions after engine shutdown
to sweep any hydrocarbon vapors from the intake system into or through
the cylinder. These vapors could be burned in the cylinder, oxidized at
the catalyst, or stored until the engine starts again. This may still
allow for a small amount of residual vapor release, but this should be
a very small quantity. Vehicle owners
[[Page 29893]]
would be unlikely to notice this amount of engine operation after
shutdown. Second, to the extent that manufacturers use direct
injection, there should be no fuel vapor coming from the intake system.
Any unburned fuel coming from the injectors would be preserved in the
cylinder or released to the exhaust system and the catalyst. A small
amount of crankcase vapor might remain, but this would likely not be
enough to justify adding carbon to the intake system.
Fuel tanks are designed to limit permeation emissions. Fuel tanks
are typically made of high-density polyethylene with an embedded
barrier layer of ethyl vinyl alcohol (EvOH) representing about 1.8
percent of the average wall thickness. The EvOH layer is effective for
reducing permeation emissions. Recent developments in production
processes have led to improved barrier coverage around the ends of the
tank where the molded plastic is pinch-welded to form a closed vessel.
We are expecting manufacturers to increase the EvOH barrier thickness
to about 3 percent of the average wall thickness to provide a more
uniform barrier layer, to provide better protection with ethanol-based
fuels, and to improve permeation resistance generally. These changes
are expected to decrease emission rates over the diurnal test from
about 40 mg per day to 15 mg per day from the fuel tank assembly or
less.
Fuel lines are also already designed for low permeation rates. The
biggest portion of fuel and vapor lines are made of metal, but that may
still leave several feet of nonmetal fuel line. There may be
development of new materials to further reduce permeation rates, but it
is more likely that manufacturers will adjust the mix of existing types
of plastic fuel lines to achieve the desired performance at the lowest
possible price.
The bigger area of expected development with respect to fuel lines
is to re-engineer fuel systems to further reduce the number of
connections between fuel-system components and other fuel-line
segments. Today these systems may involve more than the optimum number
of connections and segments due to assembly and production
considerations or other factors. Designing the fuel system more
carefully to minimize connection points will limit possible paths for
fuel vapors to escape. This would reduce emission rates and it should
also improve system durability by eliminating potential failure points.
A broader approach to addressing this source of emissions is to
integrate designs and to move fuel-system components inside the fuel
tank, which eliminates the concern for vapor emissions and permeation
from those components and connections.
A remaining area of potential evaporative emissions is the
connection between the fill neck and the fuel tank. Manufacturers can
reduce emissions by perhaps 10 mg per day by making this connection
permeation-resistant. The challenge is to design a low-cost solution
that is easily assembled and works for the demanding performance needs
related to stiffness/flexibility. The best approach is likely either to
use mating parts made from low-permeation materials, or to use
conventional materials but cover this joint with material that acts as
a barrier layer.
Purge rates are currently designed to flow relatively large volumes
of outside air through the canister when the purge solenoid is
activated. This involves using available manifold vacuum to create
purge flow, with limits in place to avoid drawing too much unmetered
fuel vapor from the canister. Tightening the evaporative emission
standard would lead manufacturers to address remaining emission sources
from micro-size leak points, permeation, and diffusion, as noted above.
Since the amount of additional vapor being captured by the carbon
canister is small and the test procedure is not changing, we do not
expect the change in standards to drive changes in purge strategy,
rates, or canister capacity. Nonetheless, vehicle system and engine
changes to improve fuel economy could impact future purge strategies.
Thus, as part of this approach, manufacturers may incorporate designs
to reduce vapor volume/mass directed to the canister and thus
potentially reduce the purge air volume requirements. In addition,
canister designs can be optimized to increase the effectiveness of a
given volume of purge air. This could involve selecting different
combinations of carbon characteristics and canister architecture types
and by adding features to add heat (or preserve heat) in the canister
during a purge event. It is also possible that fuel economy strategies
which impact purge volume may lead some manufacturers to add vacuum
pumps to supplement engine-based purge on some vehicle models in the
future.
It is worth noting that there may be some models where
manufacturers incorporate hardware or another control technique that
may not be widely used across by all manufacturers or across all
models. This is especially true for this set of proposed emission
control requirements since we are considering such a wide array of
basic vehicle and engine designs. Also, future vehicle/engine systems
such as hybrids may have more unique challenges in areas such as the
diurnal fuel tank vapor load sent to the activated carbon canister and
subsequent purging of those vapors. In response to this challenge,
manufacturers may employ techniques to reduce fuel tank vapor
generation and/or to enhance purge efficiency. Hardware such as a vapor
blocking valve or other techniques to enhance purge efficiency from the
canister through heating may be employed to a limited degree.
The technologies discussed above are in use to varying degrees on
many of the CARB PZEV zero evap vehicles mentioned above. Taken
together, we believe these technologies provide manufacturers with
effective tools for reducing emissions sufficiently to meet the
proposed evaporative emission standards.
ii. Canister Bleed Emission Standard
More stringent evaporative emission standards have led to more
careful measurements, which led manufacturers to discover that 80 mg or
more of fuel vapor would diffuse from the canister vent as a result of
the normal redistribution of vapors within the activated carbon while
the vehicle is at rest. The emission rate depends on the tank volume,
its fill quantity, and the size and architecture of the canister and
the characteristics of the carbon itself. While the biggest effect of
this vapor distribution is a uniform concentration within the canister,
it can also cause vapors to escape through the canister vent even
without continued canister loading that would result from fuel tank
heating. These are referred to as canister bleed emissions. These
emissions occur to some degree during the 2- and 3-day evaporative
emissions test, but a separate standard is needed if the goal of near
zero fuel vapor emissions is to be achieved.
The design to address this concern is a supplemental ``scrubber''
canister (or canister compartment) with a very low working capacity
carbon. Adding 100 or 200 ml of this type of carbon near the canister
vent provides a margin of ``reserve capacity'' to capture diffusion
losses from the canister. Since this extra carbon has low working
capacity and it purges readily, it is typically cleared of hydrocarbon
vapors and ready to perform its function after any amount of engine
operation or even with natural back purge which occurs when the fuel in
the tank cools. This scrubber element is expected to eliminate all but
5-10 mg of emissions from the evaporative canister over the measurement
procedure.
[[Page 29894]]
iii. Leak Emission Standard
Vapor leaks in the vehicle fuel/evaporative system can arise from
micro-cracks or other flaws in various fuel/evaporative system
component structures or welds, problems with component installations,
and more generally from connections between components and fuel lines
and vapor lines. Because these emissions from these areas would occur
in the 2-3 day evaporative emissions test if the problems were present,
manufacturers have taken steps to address these potential problem areas
as part of their overall evaporative emissions control strategy. Since
the 2- and 3-day hot soak plus diurnal standards are proposed to become
more stringent and leak emissions occur during the evaporative
emissions test, we expect manufacturers to take the measures described
above in Section IV.C.2.g.i. These include reducing connections,
improving the quality of fuel and vapor line connections, use of
improved component materials and revised installation practices.
Manufacturers could also review their OBD leak warranty data and
related information from OBD queries to help inform their strategies.
One of the key reasons for proposing a leak emission standard is to
promote the continuing development of designs, part production
techniques, and assembly practices which will yield less in-use
emissions deterioration and improved in-use emissions performance. EPA
believes this focus on in-use durability is important because a vehicle
with even a small leak, e.g., the size of the 0.020-0.040 inch orifice
diameter monitored by OBD systems would likely emit above the proposed
hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emission standard in use.
3. Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicle (HDGV) Requirements
a. Overview of the Proposal for HDGVs
As presented above, EPA is proposing to include HDGVs within the
Tier 3 evaporative emissions program. The proposed hot soak plus
diurnal and canister bleed test emission standards that would apply to
these HDGVs are as presented in Table IV-18 and the high altitude
standard is presented in Table IV-20. These vehicles would be included
in the averaging calculation beginning in the 2018 MY and would be
eligible for creating and using allowances and credits as discussed
above. Furthermore, for the reasons discussed below, EPA is proposing
that HDGVs equal to or less than 14,000 lbs GVWR be required to meet
the refueling emission standard by the 2018 MY.
b. Background on the HDGV Sector
HDGVs are generally gasoline-powered vehicles with either a GVWR of
greater than 8,500 lbs, or a vehicle curb weight of more than 6,000
lbs, or a basic vehicle frontal area in excess of 45 square feet.\289\
HDGVs are predominantly but not exclusively commercial vehicles, mostly
trucks and other work type vehicles built on truck chassis. EPA often
discusses HDGVs in three basic categories for regulatory purposes
according to their GVWR class. These include Class 2b (8,501-10,000 lbs
GVWR), Class 3 (10,001-14,000 lbs GVWR), and Class 4 and above (over
14,000 lbs GVWR). These are further sub-categorized into complete and
incomplete vehicles.\290\ Class 2b HDGVs are mostly produced by the
manufacturers as complete vehicles and are very similar to lower GVWR
LDTs of the same basic model sold by the manufacturers. Class 3 HDGVs
are also built from LDT chassis with fuel system designs that are
similar to their Class 2b and LDT counterparts, but these are on some
occasions sent to secondary manufacturers as incomplete vehicles to
attach a load carrying device or container. EPA estimates that more
than 95 percent of Class 2b/3 vehicles are complete when they leave the
original equipment manufacturer (OEM). Class 4 and above HDGVs are
built on a more traditional heavy-truck chassis and in most cases leave
the OEM as an incomplete vehicle. For Class 2b/3 vehicles, it is common
to certify the vehicle for emissions purposes (exhaust, evaporative,
etc) as a full chassis, while for Class 4 and above the vehicle is
certified as a chassis for evaporative emissions while the engine is
dynamometer certified for exhaust emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\289\ MDPVs also meet the definition of HDVs, but they are
classified separately for evaporative and refueling emission
purposes. See 40 CFR 86.1803-01.
\290\ Vehicles may be complete or incomplete vehicles. A
complete HDGV is one that has the primary load carrying device or
container (or equivalent equipment) attached, normally by the
vehicle OEM. An incomplete vehicle is one that does not have the
primary load carrying device or container (or equivalent equipment)
attached when it is first sold. This may include vehicles sold to
secondary vehicle manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For LDVs and LDTs, the current EPA evaporative and refueling
emission test procedures are the same for all vehicle categories and
the emission standards are of a similar but not always identical
stringency, within the subclasses. However, this is not true for HDGVs.
For HDGVs, the level of the evaporative emission standards and the test
procedures vary by category and the refueling emission control
requirements are also different. There are several reasons for these
differences, including variations in the size, design, and other
properties of the basic fuel system, the dimensions of the vehicles,
and the potential for actions of secondary manufacturers to impact the
fuel system. There are many fuel system similarities between Class 2b/3
HDGVs and heavy LDTs, but fewer similarities between heavy LDTs and
HDGVs in Class 4 and above.
Over the past 15 to 20 years, there have been several notable
changes in HDGV products and market that have influenced the
application of evaporative and refueling emission control requirements
and may impact potential new or revised requirements going forward.
Most noteworthy among these are the increased use of diesel engines
across all weight classes and the emergence of better defined market
segments for primary OEMs and secondary manufacturers.
The increased use of diesel engines has reduced overall HDGV sales
and brought about a consolidation of manufacturer HDGV product
offerings. For Class 2b/3 HDGVs, these are now all derived from LDT
chassis and have the same basic fuel system and engine characteristics.
This has led EPA to extend the light-duty evaporative and refueling
test procedures and emission standards to the Class 2b/3 HDGVs, when
applicable. In a rule promulgated in 2000, EPA required manufacturers
to certify these HDGVs using light-duty test procedures. Also, in this
same rule, EPA extended the vehicle refueling emission standards to
complete Class 2b vehicles. These actions were technically appropriate
because of the similarities between the LDT and Class 2b HDGVs and fuel
systems and the large fraction of complete Class 2b HDGVs produced by
the vehicle manufacturers. Today, fuel systems for Class 3 HDGVs are
comparable those for Class 2b HDGVs, so it is reasonable and
technically feasible to extend the Class 2b refueling emission
requirements to Class 3 HDGVs.
Class 4 and heavier HDGVs still play a small but important role in
the traditional truck and heavy-duty vehicle markets. These vehicles
are sometimes distinctly different from Class 2b/3 vehicles in terms of
testing, chassis designs, and fuel system characteristics; secondary
manufacturers also play a larger role in the overall completion of the
vehicle. For these vehicles, the engines are certified for emissions on
an engine dynamometer while the evaporative emissions are certified
separately on the vehicle chassis. Furthermore, these vehicles are
larger
[[Page 29895]]
dimensionally (which often means longer fuel and vapor lines) and have
larger volume fuel tanks (sometimes two), which may be mounted on the
underbody or side-rail. It is common for a secondary manufacturer to
complete the vehicle by adding the cargo container or other working
equipment box or package (e.g., small cargo truck or tow truck) and in
some cases to reconfigure components. While the extrapolation of
refueling emission control technology is conceptually straightforward,
in some cases there may be unique technical issues related to
implementing refueling emission controls for these heavier HDGVs
relative to Class 2b/3 HDGVs and LDTs.
Based on these considerations, EPA is proposing that the refueling
emission standards in Sec. 86.1816-05 to apply to Class 3 HDGVs as
well. This is appropriate because the fuel and evaporative control
systems on these vehicles are very similar to those on their slightly
lighter-weight Class 2b counterparts, and in some cases Class 3 HDGVs
are already designed to meet this proposed requirement. EPA is
proposing that this requirement be met beginning in the 2018 MY. EPA is
also proposing that manufacturers be permitted to comply as early as
the 2015 MY to earn on a one-to-one basis allowances which could be
used to phase-in the Class 3 refueling emission control requirement or
as an allowance under the Tier 3 evaporative emission program. EPA
believes this is appropriate since the expected daily average reduction
in vehicle refueling emissions for this class of vehicles is large
relative to the reduction in evaporative emissions expected under Tier
3. Any certifications, including those done early, must use EPA Tier 3
test procedures and certification test fuels.
c. Other Potential Program Elements for HDGVs
EPA is seeking comments on several other programmatic elements
related to the Tier 3 evaporative and refueling emission control
proposal.
First, even if we do not revise the current evaporative emission
standards for these vehicles and they are not required to control
refueling emissions, we are seeking comment on requiring manufacturers
to certify their evaporative emissions using Tier 3 certification test
fuel. Tier 3 certification test fuel would provide equivalent or better
emissions control as compared to current certification test fuel in
terms of the fuel quality impact on emission control system designs to
meet the existing evaporative emission standards and would provide
equivalent or better in-use performance. Requiring this new
certification test fuel has the potential to add efficiency to the
certification process since manufacturers could certify one system for
EPA and CARB for each evaporative family. Since incomplete vehicles and
those over 14,000 lbs GVWR often do not use the same test vehicle/
engine for evaporative and exhaust emission testing, we seek comment on
whether a requirement for vehicle evaporative and/or refueling emission
certification on Tier 3 test fuel would technically necessitate engine
exhaust emission certification on Tier 3 test fuel.
Second, as mentioned in Section IV. B., EPA is also seeking comment
on requiring the use of Tier 3 certification test fuel for HDGVs which
are engine-dynamometer certified, not chassis-certified, for exhaust
emissions. This would potentially include all engine families certified
for use in HDGVs above 8,500 lbs. GVWR. We are seeking comment on this
change because we believe it may be the best and most representative
technical approach for the future in the context of the engine/emission
control system/fuel system design and performance and fuel quality.
Overall, we believe this change to the certification test fuel for
HDGVs would provide equivalent or better emissions control for the
regulated pollutants as compared to current certification test fuel, in
terms of the impact of fuel quality on emission control system designs
and in-use performance, and may also simplify manufacturers' testing
operations by providing for a single test fuel. We are also seeking
comment on putting this requirement in place in the 2020-2022 MY time
frame. Consistent with the approach proposed in Section IV.D.4 for
light- and heavy-duty vehicles, we are committed to the principle of
ensuring that any change in test fuel for heavy-duty engines would not
affect the stringency of either the fuel consumption or GHG emissions
standards. As part of the separate rulemaking discussed in Section
IV.D.4, we would expect to establish the appropriate test procedure
adjustment for HD engine fuel consumption standards and to determine
the need for any test procedure adjustment for GHG emissions standards
based on the change in certification test fuels.
Third, to simplify the evaporative emission regulations for HDGVs
and to bring them more in line with the current structure of the
product offerings in this sector, we are proposing to permit
evaporative emissions certification by engineering analysis for
vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR (instead of above 26,000 lbs GVWR as is
permitted in the current regulations). These HDGVs would remain subject
to the emission standards when tested using the specified procedures.
This is the same cut point allowed by CARB and would allow for one
certification method. Furthermore, for HDGVs over 14,000 lbs GVWR, we
request comment on taking an additional step to rely even further on
design parameters and engineering analysis. Under this approach,
manufacturers would need to demonstrate that the design of their purge
strategy, canister capacity, and overall control system would control
emissions to the same degree as similar (or comparable) Class 2b or
Class 3 vehicles that meet emission standards when tested over the
established measurement procedures. The standard would be a performance
standard in that the manufacturer could use any design that met the
criteria of controlling emissions to the same degree that occurs in
vehicles that meet the emissions standard. However, unlike the proposed
approach, compliance with the standard would be based solely on an
engineering review of the design. Compliance would not be determined by
measuring performance on the emissions test. This would take into
account the limitations in managing any significant degree of testing
with these over-size vehicles. In particular, we request comment on the
enforceability of taking the approach of a design standard.
Fourth, we are proposing a revised description of evaporative
emission families that does not reference sealing methods for
carburetors or air cleaners as this technology is now obsolete for
heavy-duty gasoline engines.
Fifth, we also seek comment on the implications on these
evaporative emission standards were we to require the certification
test fuel to be 10 psi RVP E10 as discussed below in Section IV.D.1.
Sixth, we are proposing to clarify how evaporative emission
standards affect engine manufacturers and proposing more descriptive
provisions related to certifying vehicles above 26,000 lbs GVWR using
engineering analysis. These improved descriptive provisions would apply
to vehicles above 14,000 GVWR lbs if the proposed change in GVWR cut
point for engineering analysis certification is finalized.
Finally, EPA is asking for comment on several other provisions
related to the heavier HDGVs (over 14,000 lbs GVWR). First, if we do
not include these heavier HDGVs in the Tier 3 final rule requirements,
we are asking comment on whether manufacturers should be
[[Page 29896]]
able to voluntarily certify any HDGVs not covered by the rule to the
same requirements as being proposed for Class 2b/3 HDGVs, and through
this action earn allowances and credits for use within the Tier 3
program as discussed above for other vehicles. This would include both
evaporative and refueling emissions standards. Second, EPA also asks
comment on whether there should be a provision to permit HDGVs over
14,000 lbs GVWR to be grouped with those between 10,001 and 14,000 lbs
GVWR for purposes of complying with evaporative and refueling emission
control standards and related provisions. In these cases, we would
expect these HDGVs to meet all the requirements applicable to the group
in which they are being included (e.g., useful life, OBD, etc.).
4. Test Procedures and Certification Test Fuel
a. Review and Update of Testing Requirements
EPA adopted the current test requirements for controlling
evaporative emissions in 1993.\291\ Those changes included: (1) Diurnal
testing based on heating and cooling the ambient air in the SHED \292\
instead of forcing fuel temperatures through a specified temperature
excursion; (2) repeated 24-hour diurnal measurements to capture both
permeation and diurnal emissions; (3) high-temperature hot soak
testing; (4) high-temperature running-loss measurements with a separate
standard, including controlled fuel temperatures according to a fuel-
temperature profile developed for the vehicle; and (5) canister
preconditioning to ensure that vehicles could effectively create
canister capacity to prepare for several days of non-driving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\291\ 58 FR 16002 (March 24, 1993).
\292\ SHED is the Federal Register acronym for sealed housing
for evaporative determination. The SHED is the enclosure in which
the evaporative emissions are captured before measurement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These test procedures are generally referred to as ``enhanced
evap'' testing. EPA adopted these ``enhanced evap'' test procedures in
coordination with CARB. The test requirements include two separate test
sequences to demonstrate the effectiveness of evaporative emission
controls. The ``two-diurnal sequence'' involves canister loading to
two-gram breakthrough, followed by driving for the exhaust test (about
31 minutes), a hot soak test, and two days of cycled ambient
temperatures. The ``three-day sequence'' involves canister loading with
50 percent more vapor than needed to reach breakthrough, followed by
driving for the exhaust test, driving for the running loss test (about
97 minutes total), a high-temperature hot-soak test, and three days of
cycled ambient temperature.
The 2-day sequence was intended primarily to insure a purge
strategy which would create enough canister capacity to capture two
days of diurnal emissions after limited driving. The two-day
measurement period was effective for requiring control of permeation
and other fugitive emissions. The 3-day sequence was intended to
establish a design benchmark for achieving adequate canister storage
capacity to allow for several days of parking on hot summer days, in
addition to requiring vehicle designs that prevent emissions during
high-temperature driving and shutdown conditions.
After adopting these evaporative test procedures, we set new
standards for refueling emissions control which called for onboard
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR).\293\ Manufacturers have typically
designed their ORVR systems to be integrated with their evaporative
controls, using a single canister and purge strategy to manage all fuel
vapors vented from the fuel tank. Due to the magnitude of the refueling
emission load and the manner in which the load rates affect activated
carbon capture efficiency, it has become clear that ORVR testing with
these integrated systems serves as the benchmark for achieving adequate
canister storage capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\293\ 59 FR 16262 (April 6, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the nearly 20 years since adopting these test procedures,
manufacturers have made great strides in developing designs and
technologies to manage canister loading and purging and to reduce
permeation emissions. Except as discussed below, we are not proposing
to change the test procedures for demonstrating compliance with the
proposed Tier 3 emission standards.
As described above, we are proposing to adopt a new standard based
on measured values over a ``canister bleed test,'' which is intended to
measure only fuel vapors which diffuse from the evaporative canister.
CARB developed this procedure as a means of setting a standard that
would not be affected by nonfuel background emissions. This procedure
is a variation of the established two-day test sequence. The canister
is preconditioned by purging and loading to breakthrough, then attached
to an appropriate test vehicle for driving over the duty cycle for the
exhaust test. The canister is then attached to a fuel tank for
measurement. After a stabilization period, the tank and canister
undergo two days of temperature cycling. Canister emissions are
measured using a flame ionization detector (FID), either using a
conventional SHED approach or by collecting emissions in a bag and
measuring the mass. Rather than repeating CARB's regulations, we are
proposing to incorporate those regulations by reference into the CFR.
This will avoid the possibility of complications related to minor
differences that may occur with separate test procedures.
CARB also adopted a fuel system ``rig test'' as an optional
approach to demonstrate control of evaporative emissions without the
effects of the nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions that are seen in testing
the whole vehicle in the SHED. We generally expect manufacturers to
comply with the proposed EPA requirements which include the canister
bleed test and emission standard instead of CARB Option 1 which
includes the rig test and emission standard. However, since we are
proposing to accept CARB Option 1 certifications for the 2017 through
2019 model years, we are also proposing to incorporate by reference
CARB's rig test into the CFR to accommodate those manufacturers that do
in fact rely on this approach.
Also, as discussed further below, we are proposing to adopt a new
leak test procedure which would be used to measure leak rates for the
proposed leak emission standard. The leak test standard test procedure
is contained in the proposed regulatory text. Further detail can be
found in the draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (Appendix to Chapter 1).
Manufacturers have raised a pair of related concerns regarding the
current test procedures. First, hybrid vehicles and new engine designs
for meeting fuel economy standards and CO2 emission
standards increase the challenge of maintaining an adequate purge
volume to prepare vehicles for the diurnal test. For hybrid vehicles
this is related to the amount of time the engine is running. For other
technologies this is related to the trend toward decreasing available
vacuum in the intake manifold, which is the principal means of drawing
purge air through the canister. Second, preconditioning the canister by
loading to breakthrough serves as a disincentive for some control
strategies that might otherwise be effective at reducing emissions,
such as designs involving greater canister capacity or better
containment of fuel vapors inside the fuel tank. In addition, we have
learned from studying in-use emissions and in-
[[Page 29897]]
use driving behaviors and usage patterns that it is not uncommon for
vehicles to go for an extended period with little or no opportunity to
purge the canister.
We request comment on an optional adjustment to the test procedure
intended to address these three concerns. In this alternative, for
designs involving pressurized tanks, manufacturers would determine an
alternative vapor load to precondition the canister before the exhaust
test. If, for example, a fuel system is designed to stay sealed up to 1
psi and to vent vapors to the canister if rising temperatures trigger a
pressure-relief valve, the manufacturer could quantify the actual vapor
load to the canister during three consecutive days of cycling through
diurnal test temperatures. This three-day vapor load would be the
amount of fuel vapor used to precondition the canister (loaded at the
established rate of 15 grams per hour). This canister loading may also
involve butane instead of fuel vapor, but we would likely require a
greater mass of butane to account for the fact that it is easier to
remove the butane from the activated carbon in the canister. This
approach would be flexible to accommodate any design target for
pressurizing fuel tanks. Canister preconditioning for the ORVR test
(for integrated and nonintegrated systems) would remain unchanged.
b. Test Fuel
EPA is proposing to change the certification test fuel
specifications as described in Section IV.D. Here we discuss some
implications for evaporative and refueling emissions testing. We are
proposing to revise the certification test fuel specification
(including durability fuel) in conjunction with the proposed Tier 3
standards, principally to include ethanol and reduce sulfur such that
the test fuel better aligns with the current and projected in-use fuel.
Any Tier 3 evaporative emission certification would have to use Tier 3
certification test fuel and test procedures. This could be done as
early as the 2015 MY and would be required for all vehicle models by
the 2020 MY. We are further proposing to apply the new test fuel at the
same time to ORVR testing. Therefore, beginning in the 2017 MY if
manufacturers do any new testing to demonstrate compliance with the
proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards, they would need to
submit test data to demonstrate compliance with the refueling emission
standards using the new certification test fuel as well as the leak
(when applicable), refueling, canister bleed, and high altitude testing
requirements and emission standards. We are also proposing that any
family that is not yet captured within the Tier 3 phase-in percentage
may remain on current certification fuel or, as discussed below,
California certification test fuel and test procedures through the 2019
MY. By the 2020 MY all evaporative and refueling emission
certifications would have to be on EPA test procedures and
certification fuels. It is useful to clarify that any confirmatory or
in-use testing for these families would be done on the fuel on which
they were originally certified. However, by the 2020 MY all vehicles
must be certified with Tier 3 certification test fuel and that test
fuel would have to be used in confirmatory and in-use testing.
Finally, we are proposing that any vehicle certified to the
refueling spit back standard separately (mostly incomplete HDGVs) may
continue to do so using current certification fuel until the 2022 MY
even if it's evaporative and/or refueling emissions are certified on
Tier 3 certification fuel. This is reasonable since the fill quality of
the vehicle and eliminating spit back are not necessarily related to
the ethanol or sulfur content of the gasoline.
There are two main fuel properties that influence evaporative
emissions: Ethanol content and vapor pressure. Current requirements
specify an emission test fuel with no ethanol for emissions testing;
however, the current regulation specifies that manufacturers must
perform service accumulation (durability) using fuel with, at a
minimum, the highest concentration of ethanol permissible under federal
law for in-use gasoline and that is commercially available in at least
one state. In this case, this provision has the effect of insuring that
manufacturers would design their fuel systems to account for the effect
of ethanol on permeation emissions. Even without ethanol in the test
fuel, the extended operation with gasoline-ethanol blends for service
accumulation would effectively force the manufacturers to design
systems which effectively control emissions from the blended fuel. By
regulation manufacturers must use a 10 percent ethanol fuel in current
evaporative emissions durability work. As a result, adding ethanol to
the test fuel for Tier 3 evaporative and refueling emission testing
should pose no new or greater challenge for manufacturers. A second
issue related to adding ethanol to the certification test fuel relates
to the emission measurement in the SHED. Emissions are detected by
flame ionization detectors (FID), which are less responsive to ethanol
than gasoline. This effect causes under-reporting from the ethanol
portion of the fuel vapor. Fuel-related emissions from the vehicle may
be slightly more weighted toward ethanol than gasoline, depending on
how the different fuel constituents permeate through various fuel-
system materials, how they evaporate from the bulk fuel in the tank at
varying temperatures, and how they adsorb onto and desorb from the
activated carbon in the canister. We are proposing to address this
issue by the use of a prescribed scaling factor. Under this approach
manufacturers would simply multiply their SHED measurement results by a
fixed value to adjust upward for the difference in the FID response to
ethanol. Data available to EPA suggest that a scaling value of
approximately 1.1 would be appropriate for E15.\294\ This means that
the value measured in the SHED would be multiplied by 1.10 to account
for a difference in the FID response. This was determined using data
which indicates that from a near worst case perspective the term within
the bracket { {time} below equals 1.1.
\294\ Moulis, C. (2012, January). SHED FID Responses for
Ethanol. Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MHC adj = [(PBVn/T)-
(.000297)(ppmCfid)*{1 + ((1-ra)
(reth))/ 1 + ((reth)(ra)){time} ]
This adjustment would apply to hot soak plus diurnal, refueling,
canister bleed, and spitback emission standards testing. For higher
ethanol blends (such as E85), the regulation already specifies
measurement and calculation procedures to adjust for this effect. We
are not proposing any changes to these procedures.
c. Vehicle Preconditioning for Nonfuel Hydrocarbon Emissions for the
Tier 3 Evaporative Emission Standards
The proposed Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal, leak, and canister bleed
emission standards taken together are expected to bring about the
widespread use of technology which effectively eliminates fuel vapor
emissions. The canister bleed and leak emission standards are not
influenced by non fuel hydrocarbon emissions from the vehicle. Nonfuel
hydrocarbon emissions from the vehicle are measured as part of SHED
emission testing, and are indistinguishable for fuel hydrocarbons when
a FID is used to measure the concentration. The level of these nonfuel
hydrocarbon emissions vary by vehicle and component design and
material. These emissions arise from paint, adhesives, plastics, fuel/
vapor lines, tires, and other rubber or polymer components and are
generally greater
[[Page 29898]]
with larger size vehicles. These nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions are
usually highest with newly manufactured vehicles and decrease
relatively quickly over time.
Currently, manufacturers often conduct some preconditioning to
reduce or eliminate the effects of these nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions
on evaporative emissions measurements in the SHED. In the past, this
practice has not been addressed through regulatory provisions. However,
given the stringent level of the proposed Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal
evaporative emission standards, and that nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions
are expected to be a significant portion of the hydrocarbon emissions
measured in the SHED, EPA believes that some sort of preconditioning
before certification testing is appropriate and that a regulatory
provision addressing this practice may be warranted. Providing some
recognition of and allowance for this practice would help to create the
proper balance between necessary and proper preconditioning to address
high nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions and excessive preconditioning which
could undermine the intent of the proposed hot soak plus diurnal
emission standard (~ 50 mg or less of fuel evaporative emissions). EPA
believes the goal of evaporative emissions preconditioning should be to
get nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions to what we call vehicle background
levels. A working definition of vehicle background level might be the
level which would occur naturally twelve months after production. A
provision in the regulations which addresses preconditioning reduces
ambiguity for the manufacturers and could reduce or eliminate any
uncertainty in the true meaning of certification test results.
Manufacturer activity with regard to preconditioning often involves
two practices. First, manufacturers in some cases ``bake'' their test
vehicles at temperatures of 50 [deg]C or higher for periods of up to
ten or more days to accelerate the off-gassing of these nonfuel
hydrocarbon emissions before testing is conducted. While this practice
is common, there is no standardized method or protocol for this
preconditioning prior to new vehicle certification testing. For
example, some manufacturers bake for a set period of time in a climate
chamber while others bake in the climate chamber and periodically
measure nonfuel background in a SHED until an acceptable or stable
level of nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions is achieved. Second,
manufacturers often remove, modify, or clean certain components which
are the largest source of nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions.
Preconditioning could also include measures to eliminate minor fuel
drips, spills, or other fuel remnants which occur as a result of
vehicle preparation for testing.
We are not proposing to specify standardized preconditioning
practices or protocols with regard to addressing nonfuel hydrocarbon
emissions before evaporative emission certification testing. However,
we are proposing general provisions in four areas. First, we would
specify in the regulations that preconditioning for the purpose of
addressing nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions is permitted. Second, we would
specify that any preconditioning is voluntary. Third, we would specify
that if preconditioning is conducted, the details must be specified to
EPA before certification testing, (i.e., at the time of the pre-
certification planning meeting). The goal of this preconditioning
should be to get nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions to what we would term
vehicle background levels as discussed above. The specifics to be
discussed with EPA could include details on vehicle baking practices
such the temperature and time duration in the climate chamber and
practices conducted as an alternative or complement to vehicle baking
such as installing used tires (drive and spare) on certification
vehicles, and allowing the windshield washer tank to be filled only
with water. In seeking to understand this issue, we ask for comment on
which components are the largest sources of these nonfuel hydrocarbons
and of these which are practical to modify or remove for the
evaporative emissions test.
Fourth, as part of these considerations we would specifically
propose that no preconditioning be permitted for testing of any vehicle
aged more than twelve months from its date of manufacture. The only
exception we would consider is the use of an aged spare tire in lieu of
the spare tire on the test vehicle. For these vehicles, nonfuel
hydrocarbon emissions would presumably be reduced to a stable level due
to natural off gassing which begins after the vehicle is manufactured.
Emissions from any replacement parts or other vehicle maintenance would
presumably be encompassed within the margin below the standard created
by this natural off-gassing. EPA asks comment on how to address testing
of vehicles with relatively new drive tires and whether used drive
tires should be allowed in these circumstances. Data available to EPA
indicates that the background emission rate stabilizes to about two-
thirds of the level of the standard after about twelve months. These
levels are adequately below the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission
standards so that nonfuel background would not unduly influence test
pass/fail outcomes and are within the range of values EPA expects to be
accommodated within the proposed evaporative emission standard. This
proposed restriction for vehicles older than 12 months would include
certification, confirmatory and in-use testing for any vehicle
certified to the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. We
request manufacturer data related to the change in nonfuel hydrocarbon
emission rates over time and on the best method to consider these
emissions as part of preconditioning before evaporative emission
testing.
d. Reciprocity With CARB
Over the past 15 years EPA's ``enhanced evap'' test procedures have
been based on testing with 9 pound per square inch (psi) RVP gasoline
with test temperatures representing a summer day with peak temperatures
of about 96[emsp14][deg]F. CARB adopted the same basic procedures, but
specified that testing should occur with 7 psi RVP gasoline at
temperatures of up to 105[emsp14][deg]F. EPA and CARB agreed that
certification could be based on testing with either EPA or CARB
conditions and that these provided equivalent stringency for purposes
of evaporative control system design. However, the provision allowing
for this equivalence of test data preserved EPA's ability to also test
with either EPA or CARB temperature conditions. CARB always specified
EPA test conditions for refueling as they were deemed worst case. CARB
recently moved to change their certification test fuel to a 7 RVP
gasoline with 10 percent ethanol and as discussed in Section IV.D, we
are now proposing to change the Federal certification test fuel
specification to a 9 RVP gasoline with 15 percent ethanol.
During the development of this proposal we carefully considered the
practice of CARB/EPA reciprocity with regard to certification test
fuels, hot soak plus diurnal test procedures, and emission test results
when it comes to evaporative emissions certification. With this notice
we are proposing a revised approach to the CARB/EPA reciprocity with
regard to evaporative and refueling emissions. A uniform national
certification test fuel is important to the design of fuel/evaporative
systems which will operate effectively across the U.S. Consistent with
our desire to have a national program with vehicles designed for E15 as
discussed in Section IV.D, and
[[Page 29899]]
consistent with our treatment of exhaust emission standards, we are
proposing a 9 RVP test fuel with 15 percent ethanol for all evaporative
(hot soak plus diurnal, canister bleed, and leak emission standards)
and refueling emissions testing. Thus, after the evaporative emissions
fuel phase-in discussed above (ending after the 2019 MY), EPA will no
longer accept test data on CARB test fuel and diurnal test
temperatures. However, CARB has agreed to accept emission test data on
EPA test fuel and temperature conditions for certification such that a
uniform national program could still exist. This approach applies to
all evaporative and refueling emission standards.
Generally, any vehicle family counted in the Tier 3 evaporative
emission standards phase-in must be certified on Tier 3 certification
test fuel using EPA test procedures. However, EPA recognizes that the
California and federal evaporative emission standard programs would be
starting from different bases and that the transition provisions are
different in some ways. For example, the proposed EPA program starts in
the 2017 MY but after that has the same basic program construct as CARB
in 2018. However, prior to the 2017 MY, CARB has a ZEV program
provision which will continue to bring zero evap technology into the
fleet before 2017. To capitalize on this technology and to facilitate
transition, we are proposing that any CARB evaporative emission test
data from MYs 2015 and 2016 certifications could be used in federal
certification for those evaporative/refueling families through the 2019
MY. Assuming these vehicle families meet Tier 3 evaporative emission
standards and they are sold nationwide they could be included in the
percentage phase-in calculations as Tier 3 vehicles. A good example of
these would be vehicles meeting CARB Option 1 standards discussed
above. If the vehicles do not meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission
requirements manufacturers could potentially sell them nationwide, but
they would not be included as compliant vehicles in the percentage
phase-in calculation. EPA proposes a similar provision for a
manufacturer which elects to use the CARB test procedures and test
fuels to meet the refueling emission standard. That is, if a
manufacturer uses evaporative emission test data from 2015 or 2016
model year CARB certifications to meet the Federal requirements in
2017-2019 model years, it may also use CARB refueling emission test
data from model year 2015 and 2016 certifications for federal
certification for the refueling requirements for those evaporative/
refueling families through the 2019 MY. Any in-use testing on vehicle
families certified on this data would be conducted using the CARB
temperature conditions and test fuel and the CARB ethanol SHED
adjustment value of 1.08 for 10 percent ethanol. However, by the 2020
MY all vehicles would have to be certified using EPA certification test
fuel and test procedures. In the interim, the equivalency and
acceptance by EPA of certification on California test fuels is
dependent on our proposed 9 psi RVP level for the certification test
fuel. Were we to require the more stringent level of 10 psi RVP more
typical of E10 as discussed in section IV.D.1, testing using California
test fuels and conditions would no longer be equivalent.
e. Evaporative and Refueling Emission Standards for Various Fuels
The evaporative and refueling emission standards today apply in
different ways to different fuels. In the case of gasoline, all the
standards apply and testing is required for certifying all vehicles.
Evaporative emission standards do not apply for diesel-fueled vehicles;
the refueling standards apply to diesel-fueled vehicles, but
manufacturers can get EPA approval to omit testing for certification.
For other fuels, there is a mix of standards applying or not applying,
and if standards apply, testing is either required or not required. The
statutory provisions in this regard are straightforward: Clean Air Act
section 202(k) specifies that gasoline-fueled vehicles must be
certified to evaporative emission standards, and section 202(a)(6)
specifies that all motor vehicles be certified to refueling emission
standards. This raises two questions. First, we request comment on
using this rulemaking as the proper context for applying the refueling
standards to vehicles powered by every kind of fuel. Where standards do
not apply today (natural gas, fuel cells, electric, etc.), we would
expect to waive test requirements for certification, so this would not
be any substantial burden. Dedicated ethanol-fueled vehicles would face
a new requirement, but we are not aware that there are any such
vehicles today.
Second, we have the discretion to apply evaporative emission
standards to vehicles powered by fuels other than gasoline. The
standards expressly do not apply for diesel fuel. By omission, the
standards do not apply for dedicated ethanol-fueled vehicles, fuel-cell
vehicles, and electric vehicles. The standards apply for natural gas
and liquefied petroleum gas even though these are sealed systems with
no emission control systems for controlling evaporative emissions. We
request comment on adjusting the regulations such that evaporative
emission standards apply only to volatile liquid fuels, which is the
approach we have taken for nonroad applications (see, for example, 40
CFR 1060.801). Under this approach, diesel fuel would continue to be
excluded from standards because it is nonvolatile. This approach would
also exclude natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas because they are
not liquid fuels at atmospheric pressure.
5. Improvements to In-Use Performance of Fuel Vapor Control Systems
a. Background on Data Related to In-Use Performance
As part of the Compliance Assistance Program (CAP 2000) in-use
verification program (IUVP) \295\ the manufacturers began testing the
evaporative emissions performance of small samples of in-use vehicles
owned and used by the public. These regulations can be found at 40 CFR
86 1845-01, and 1845-04. In 2000, EPA extended this requirement to
cover chassis-certified HDVs, which for these purposes are basically
all HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR.\296\ The in-use testing for
evaporative emissions started in 2004 for 2001 MY LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs
and in 2008 for 2007 MY chassis certified HDGVs. Current IUVP data for
evaporative emissions covers about 1800 vehicle tests. This data shows
that when evaluated in the laboratory using certification test
procedures, the vast majority (over 95 percent) of the vehicles pass
the evaporative emission standards to which they were certified. While
this information is indicative of good in-use performance, it has
limitations. First, the test results are for small sample sizes. For
the approximately 150 million LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and chassis-certified
HDGVs produced between 2001 (the start of the IUVP program) and 2010
(latest available data), only about 0.001 percent of vehicles were
tested. Second, the IUVP regulations place limits on the age/mileage
for vehicle testing. Each model year is tested in two ``batches,''
nominally at the one and four year age points. One year old vehicles
must have at least 10,000 miles and four year old vehicles must have at
least 50,000 miles with at least one within the higher mileage group
having
[[Page 29900]]
an odometer reading of at least 75 percent of useful life (90,000 miles
for most Tier 2 vehicles). The useful life period for LDVs and LDT1s/
LDT2s is 10 years/120,000 miles, for LDT3s/LDT4s/MDPVs and complete
HDGVs it is 11 years/120,000 miles. Thus, few firm conclusions can be
drawn about full useful life emissions performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\295\ 64 FR 23906 (May 4, 1999).
\296\ 65 FR 59922-59924 (October 6, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent evaporative emission testing conducted by EPA and others
evaluated in-use LDVs and LDTs certified to meet the enhanced
evaporative emission standards implemented for 1996 and later model
years \297\ as well as Tier 2 standards implemented for 2004 and later
model year vehicles. Three Coordinating Research Council (CRC) programs
(E-77-2/2b/2c), tested evaporative emission levels of vehicles with
varying amounts of ethanol and levels of RVP in the gasoline test
fuel.\298\ These programs were unique in that a subset of the vehicle
SHED tests were of vehicles with implanted leaks at the nominal minimal
level of detection for OBD systems (0.020 inch) in three different
locations in the fuel/evaporative control system. These tests showed
hydrocarbon emission rates 2-10 times greater than for the same
vehicles tested in the SHED without the leaks and showed an order of
magnitude of difference depending on where the leak was introduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\297\ 58 FR 16002 (March 24, 1993).
\298\ CRC E-77 reports: Haskew, H., Liberty, T. (2008). Vehicle
Evaporative Emission Mechanisms: A Pilot Study, CRC Project E-77;
Haskew, H., Liberty, T. (2010). Enhanced Evaporative Emission
Vehicles (CRC E-77-2); Haskew, H., Liberty, T. (2010). Evaporative
Emissions from In-Use Vehicles: Test Fleet Expansion (CRC E-77-2b);
Haskew, H., Liberty, T. (2010). Study to Determine Evaporative
Emission Breakdown, Including Permeation Effects and Diurnal
Emissions Using E20 Fuels on Aging Enhanced Evaporative Emissions
Certified Vehicles, CRC E-77-2c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the CRC E-77-2 evaporative emissions test programs
which looked at permeation in aged vehicles meeting EPA's enhanced
evaporative emission control standards, introduced a new Static Test
Procedure which pressurized the vapor space and activated the fuel pump
during different portions of the SHED test, while the vent from the
vehicle canister was routed to a trap canister outside of the SHED. By
pressurizing the vapor space it was possible to determine if there was
a vapor leak in the system by looking for a slope change in the vapor
concentration in the SHED over time relative to permeation alone.
Similarly, by activating the fuel pump it was possible to determine if
there was a liquid leak in the system by looking for a slope change in
the vapor concentration in the SHED over time relative to permeation
alone. Out of the 15 randomly recruited vehicles in the program, seven
of them displayed vapor and/or liquid leaks on one or more fuel
ethanol/RVP combination (4 of these 7 were Tier 2 vehicles). A closer
look at the data indicates that over the course of the study, which
covered a two to four year period depending on the vehicle, the
magnitude of the leaks increased with time.
These studies taken together were of concern to EPA with regard to
the in-use performance of evaporative emission control systems because
they indicated that leaks could be a large portion of the evaporative
emissions inventory if they occurred in even a relatively small
fraction of the in-use fleet. The key missing piece of information was
how often the leaks of 0.020 inches or larger occur in the fleet.
To help us better understand this concern, EPA partnered with the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and with
CRC as an advisor for a pilot field study in Denver in the summer of
2008 to assess the frequency of high evaporative emissions vehicles in
the fleet. The project identified high evaporative emission emitters
through an innovative screening tool known as a remote sensing device
(RSD). The vehicles were identified at the entrance to the Inspection
and Maintenance (I/M) station as high evaporative emission emitters.
The operators of these vehicles were asked to participate in further
evaluation using a Portable Sealed Housing for Evaporative
Determination (PSHED) in addition to a modified California method test
procedure to locate the source of the high emissions indicated by the
PSHED level.\299\ The CDPHE continued to collect the same type of data
in different locations in the Denver area for the next two summers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\299\ DeFries, T., Lindner, J., Kishan, S., Palacios, C. (2011).
Investigation of Techniques for High Evaporative Emissions Vehicle
Detection: Denver Summer 2008 Pilot Study at Lipan Street Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 5,830 vehicles which came through the Ken Caryl I/M station
in 2009, 601 were identified as potentially high evaporative emitters
using the RSD tool.\300\ Of these, 84 vehicle owners agreed to be
included in the PSHED evaluation that summer. Furthermore, 110
additional vehicles were recruited which were potentially low to
marginally high evaporative emitters.\301\ The study was structured to
recruit higher evaporative emitting vehicles more heavily than lower
emitting vehicles. Afterwards the percentages were adjusted to
represent the actual mix in the fleet of light duty vehicles. Thus, it
was determined that 10 percent of the fleet had evaporative emissions
which exceeded a cut point reflecting an in-use evaporative emission
rate of about 1 gram of total HC over 15 minutes (see Table 5-9 in the
2012 DeFries report referenced above). This value is approximately the
emission rate that would be expected from a leak of 0.020 inches which
is the detection standard for OBD II systems.\302\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\300\ DeFries, T; Palacios, C., Kishan, S. (2012), Estimated
Summer Hot Soak Distributions for the Denver's Ken Caryl I/M Station
Fleet.
\301\ A selection bin structure was used based on indicated
evaporative emissions levels recruitment heavier at the higher
emission end. Thus, there was a gradation even in the lower level
bins where many of the vehicles would be considered marginal and not
passing the evaporative emission standard even if they were not
considered higher than the 1 g/15 minutes which our study found to
be the lower range detectable by the RSD from the 2010 Ken Caryl
report cited above.
\302\ Compare the first 15 minutes of hot soak data from the
field studies with implanted leaks in E-77-2 studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An examination of the test data reveals two additional significant
points. First, the data indicates a trend for greater frequency of
leaks in older vehicles. This is not unexpected given the manner in
which factors such as vibration, fuel quality, weather elements,
corrosion, maintenance, and other operating conditions affect the
durability of system components, fittings, and connections over time.
Second, there were relatively few newer model year vehicles in the
population surveyed. This is expected and almost unavoidable since the
Colorado I/M program generally exempts vehicles which are four years
old or newer. While it is reasonable to expect there to be a lower
prevalence of leaks in newer vehicles, the lack of data for newer
vehicles does not necessarily indicate that no problems exist in newer
model year vehicles or that problems will not occur in the future with
Tier 3 vehicles.
Since many of the vehicles in the sample group met OBD requirements
for evaporative system leak monitoring, it was deemed useful to examine
whether the OBD system identified the leak. As mentioned above,
approximately 10 percent of the vehicles in the ``adjusted fleet'' had
vapor leaks which were of the magnitude expected from a 0.020 inch or
larger leak. Over the three years of study, there were a total of 180
SHED tests (either PSHED or laboratory SHED) on vehicles with OBD data
collected in the I/M program. Of these 180 vehicles, 171 had the
evaporative OBD monitors ready. Of these, 171 vehicles, 20 were found
to have emission rates of 1 g/15 min in the PSHED (the emission rate
linked to a 0.020'' leak). Of these 20 vehicles only 3 came into the I/
M test
[[Page 29901]]
with an OBD diagnostic trouble code (DTC) set indicating an evaporative
system problem.303 304 A closer look, including field
inspection comments, of the 20 vehicles shows that half were not
expected to diagnose the problem because it was outside of the OBD
system design capabilities. Of the vehicles which potentially should
have set an evaporative DTC, at least 50 percent and perhaps as much as
70 percent of codes were not set on high evap emissions vehicles. The
lack of codes being set for these vehicles may reflect OBD performance
issues or allowances (known as enable criteria) in the OBD regulations
regarding when the OBD evaporative emission leak monitoring system is
not required to operate or situations when the monitor is otherwise not
ready for what may be allowable reasons such as an allowable
deficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\303\ In the E-77-2 programs the 0.02 inch leaks implanted near
the top of the tank and at the canister connection had hot soak
measurements which averaged approximately 1 g/15 minutes PSHED
measurement. This also happens to be the lower end of the detectable
range of evaporative emissions by the RSD. Since the OBD monitor is
expected to detect a .020'' leak wherever it is located, the DTC
should be set.
\304\ Palacios, C., Weatherby, M., DeFries, T., Lindner, J.,
Kishan, S. (2012). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of On-Board
Diagnostic (OBD) Systems in Identifying Fuel Vapor Losses from
Light-Duty Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To better understand this issue EPA has examined evaporative
emission system DTC and monitor ready information from I/M programs
from Texas and California.\305\ Since the data was gathered by the
states under different protocols and time periods, the content of the
data sets are not identical. To provide some degree of uniformity in
our analysis, we examined the data for five MY (2000-2004) but within
each state we only looked at calendar years of data beginning after the
initial state I/M exemption period (2-4 calendar years depending on the
state) had passed. Thus the analysis focused on I/M OBD information for
calendar years 2004-2010. Examined together, the data generally
indicates the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\305\ Fulper, C. (2013, February). Preliminary Analysis of OBD
Evaporative System Information from I/M Stations--California and
Texas, Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depending on age, 0.3-2.5 percent of vehicles with
evaporative monitors ready came into the I/M stations with evaporative
related MIL or DTCs set.
The percent of vehicles with evaporative emission related
MILs set increased by a factor of 2-4 over about 5 years.
Evaporative emission monitors were not ready for 3-16
percent of vehicles when arriving at the I/M station.
The percent of vehicles with monitors ready at the I/M
station generally decreased by 3 to 7 percentage points over about 5-6
years; decrease was less for model year vehicles less than five years
old.
While it varies by age, 60-80 percent of evaporative
system DTCs are leak related.
There is no question of the value of OBD leak monitoring for
evaporative systems, especially when owners complete needed repairs.
Undoubtedly these percentages and thus in-use leak values would be
higher without OBD evaporative system leak monitoring. However, this
data suggests that EPA OBD regulations in place for 2000-2004 MY
vehicles would not alone be sufficient to address concerns regarding
the emission effects of vapor leaks from the fuel and evaporative
control systems.\306\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\306\ For further information see CARB reports ``Technical
Status and Proposed Revisions to Malfunction and Diagnostic System
Requirements for 1994 and Subsequent Model-Year Passenger Cars,
Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD II)''
October, 1994 and ``Technical Status and Revisions to Malfunction
and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model
Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and
Engines (OBD II) March 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, information gathered from evaporative emissions testing
conducted in the IUVP program indicates that relatively low mileage/
newer vehicles perform well when evaluated under laboratory conditions.
However, data gathered from in-use testing conducted by EPA, Colorado,
and others indicates that as vehicles age some vehicles have a
propensity to develop leaks in the fuel/evaporative system and that
these leaks increase in size as the vehicles age. Beyond this, a review
of OBD evaporative system leak monitor data from the I/M programs of
two states revealed four important trends: (1) even when the OBD system
identifies leaks owners do not always respond by getting the needed
repair completed, (2) the fraction of vehicles with leaks identified by
OBD increases as vehicles age, (3) vehicles sometimes are operating in
conditions in which the OBD leak monitor is not ready to identify a
potential problem, and (4) evaporative system leaks are the dominant
DTC for vehicles with monitors ready and evaporative system DTC set.
The propensity for leaks in the vehicle fleet has the potential to
reduce the benefits of the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards
substantially. If on any given day, as few as five percent of Tier 3
vehicles had a leak(s) of 0.020 inches or greater this would cause in-
use emissions equivalent to all of the projected emission reductions
from the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards on that
day.\307\ Thus, EPA is proposing three measures to address this issue:
(1) An emission standard focused on reducing fuel/evaporative system
vapor leaks over the vehicle useful life, (2) an upgrade to OBD
emissions monitoring requirements to improve their role in identifying
problems and improving in-use emissions performance, and (3) additions
to the IUVP program focused on testing a broader sample of fuel/
evaporative system leaks in IUVP than is done for evaporative emission
standards alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\307\ This is based on five percent of vehicles and 4-5 trips
(hot soaks) per day at 1 g/hot soak. Five percent is a reasonable
value for this illustration since as mentioned above 0.3-2.5 percent
of vehicles come in to I/M stations with evaporative system MILs or
DTCs and 60-80 percent of these were leak-related DTCs. Thus, it is
reasonable to project that the fleet average is higher since vehicle
repair just before I/M is common, evaporative emission monitors were
not ready on 3-16 percent of vehicles, and 18 states do not have any
form of I/M at all and repair rates in response to a MIL may be
lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Proposed Leak Emission Standard
The evaporative emission standards in this proposal will help to
promote widespread use of improved technology and materials which will
reduce evaporative emissions in-use. The proposed new requirement for a
leak emission standard and procedure will help to ensure the durability
of Tier 3 evaporative emission control systems nationwide.
Based on the information described above concerning evaporative
emissions in-use, we believe a leak emission standard is necessary to
meet our goal that vehicles meeting Tier 3 evaporative emission
requirements not have fuel/evaporative system vapor leaks. Toward that
end, we are proposing a leak emission standard that would have to be
met both at new vehicle certification and in use. The leak emission
standard would apply beginning in the 2018 MY to any vehicle certified
to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards or a CARB carryover
vehicle counted toward the sales percentage phase-in requirements,
including LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and complete HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR.
The emission standard would be applicable for the same useful life
period as for the evaporative emission standards that apply to the
vehicle. The standard would apply to vehicles using volatile fuel
(e.g., gasoline, FFV, and methanol
[[Page 29902]]
fuel vehicles, but not diesel or CNG vehicles).
To be compatible with CARB OBD requirements being met by most
manufacturers and the OBD requirements included in this notice, we are
proposing that the leak emission standard be expressed in the form of a
cumulative equivalent orifice diameter. We are proposing a value of
0.02 inches.\308\ The standard basically requires that the cumulative
equivalent diameter of any orifices or ``leaks'' in the system not
exceed 0.02 inches. This is consistent with California OBD requirements
(and those being proposed in this rule as well) that the OBD system be
capable of identifying leaks in the fuel/evaporative system of a
cumulative equivalent diameter of 0.020 inches EPA believes an emission
standard at this level is feasible since earlier testing programs
identified vehicles with essentially no leaks and it is essentially
equivalent to that required for CARB OBD evaporative system leak
monitoring. As discussed in the technological feasibility section
above, the actions manufacturers will have to take to meet the proposed
Tier 3 evaporative emission standards are expected to do more to
address potential leak points and thus in a broader sense to improve
in-use durability for evaporative control systems compared to vehicles
meeting earlier or current evaporative emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\308\ Current OBD regulations specify that if the fuel tank
volume exceeds 25 gallons then the manufacturer may seek a larger
leak detection orifice value. If a manufacturer seeks and is granted
a larger value for OBD leak detection purposes, then that same
numerical value becomes the leak emission standard value. We would
not expect this value to exceed 0.040 inches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed leak emission standard would provide added assurance
that as the manufacturers design for ``zero evap'' standards they also
design the systems to avoid leaks over the full useful life. We are
proposing a leak emission standard of 0.02 inches which with rounding
is a bit less stringent than the 0.020 inch OBD fuel/evaporative system
leak monitoring requirement. EPA believes this level of precision is
sufficient to accomplish the air quality objective and yet provides
some compliance margin between the emission standard and the monitor
requirement which is reflected through multipliers for the exhaust
emission standards monitored through OBD. EPA asks for comment and
rationale on setting the standard at 0.02 inches equivalent diameter or
the more stringent 0.020 inch equivalent diameter specified for OBD
evaporative system leak monitoring. If finalized as proposed, the
emission standard would be specified to one significant digit (e.g.,
0.02 inches) but would have to be measured and reported to at least two
significant digits.
The proposed leak emission standard would apply at the time of
certification as well as during confirmatory and in-use verification
program testing. We do not expect that new vehicles being certified
would have a leak problem, and since a vehicle with a leak would likely
fail the evaporative emissions SHED test, there is little value in
mandating a leak test at certification. Thus, EPA proposes to allow
manufacturers to attest to compliance with the leak emission standard
at certification.
To implement the proposed leak emission standard within the current
regulatory structure a few minor changes are needed. First, current EPA
regulations such as those at Sec. 86.098-24, specify criteria for
evaporative/refueling emission families. EPA believes this basic
structure is appropriate for the leak emission standard, with the
additional criteria that vehicles in the same evaporative/refueling
family must use the same basic approach to OBD leak detection.
Significantly different volume fuel tanks would likely also be a family
determinant, but we believe this is already covered by the evaporative/
refueling family criteria. Second, since the leak emission standard is
a pass/fail requirement and not an emission rate, there is no
requirement for the application of a deterioration factor. Third, EPA
proposes to require that the manufacturers recommend one or more leak
entry test points for each family. This point should be outside of the
gas cap/fillpipe area, since our experience indicates that testing
could always be done through that point of entry to the fuel/
evaporative system.
EPA asks for comment on the timing, form and level of the proposed
emission standard. EPA believes that linking the timing of the proposed
leak emission standard to the implementation of proposed Tier 3
evaporative emission standards in 2018 provides adequate lead time and
is consistent with the technical rationale supporting the feasibility
of the Tier 3 evaporative emission standard.
c. Proposed Leak Emission Standard Test Procedure
In order to implement a new leak emission standard, a leak test
procedure is required. The fundamental concepts underlying fuel/
evaporative system leak test are not new to the manufacturers. There is
already a simple leak check in 40 CFR 86.608-98(a)(xii)(A) and in the
past at least three states included a fuel/evaporative system pressure
leak test in I/M programs. More importantly, all LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs and
HDGVs manufactured today have the onboard capability to run a pressure
or vacuum leak based check on the vehicle's evaporative emission system
as part of OBD evaporative system leak monitoring. These systems employ
either positive or negative pressure leak detection pumps or operate
based on natural vacuum for negative pressure leak detection. EPA is
proposing a test based on a similar concept of placing the system under
a slight positive pressure (but from an external source), measuring the
flow needed to maintain that pressure in the fuel/evaporative control
system, and converting that flow rate to an equivalent orifice
diameter. With regards to the test procedure we will first discuss
where the leak test could occur in the FTP test sequence. We will then
discuss how the test is proposed to be conducted.
First with regard to when the test would be conducted within the
current FTP sequence we are proposing that it be inserted immediately
following the first two preconditioning steps within the FTP sequence
(see Figure B96-10 in 40 CFR 86.130-96). Thus, the vehicle
preconditioning steps for the leak test would be: (1) fill the vehicle
fuel tank to 40 percent of capacity using the appropriate certification
test fuel and then (2) let the vehicle soak for a minimum of a six hour
period at a temperature in the range of 68-86[emsp14][deg]F. EPA
proposes that the test be conducted with 9 RVP E15 test fuel for both
certification and IUVP. This is the same preconditioning that is called
for today in 40 CFR part 86 subpart B for exhaust, evaporative, and
refueling emissions testing. After preconditioning is complete, the
leak test would be conducted and the test sequence could then proceed
as prescribed in subpart B or testing terminated if the purpose was
only to conduct leak testing. EPA believes this modest level of
preconditioning is sufficient to create standard conditions which
enable repeatable and reliable measurement results. Preconditioning
could not include any prescreening for leaks nor would any tightening
of fittings or connections be permitted.
After preconditioning is complete, manufacturers would then run the
leak test. Each complete test would involve running the test procedure
at one entry point in the system. Presumably this would be either near
the back of the fuel system (perhaps near the gas cap) or near the
front of the fuel system on the
[[Page 29903]]
pressure side of the locations near where the system is sealed (perhaps
at the canister vent). If the fuel/evaporative system has an imbedded
evaporative system test port then that point could be used.
Alternatively, manufacturers could also develop a test rig such as a
``fill pipe extension'' which would screw into the fill pipe opening
using cap threads at one end and on the other end have threads to screw
the fill pipe vehicle cap in place. Within this extension there would
be an access port for the leak test equipment to be attached. Thus, the
full system could be tested without any direct intrusion or the need
for a separate gas cap assessment. The manufacturer would have to
specify the test point at the time of the pre-certification meeting. If
the manufacturer selected an entry point which required the fuel cap to
be removed, then the cap would have to undergo a separate test as is
now done in many I/M stations.\309\ In this case, tests from both
points combined must pass the proposed emission standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\309\ For related information see ``IM240 & Evap Technical
Guidance'', EPA 420-R-00-007, April, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The procedure would be conducted as follows:
Calibrate the testing apparatus and otherwise verify
testing apparatus is ready and able to complete the procedure
Seal fuel system so as to pressure test entire system
(purge valve, cap, etc.)
Attach test apparatus to vehicle's fuel system at selected
test point
Pressurize fuel system with nitrogen or another inert gas
to at least 2.4 kilopascals (kPa)
Allow flow and pressure to stabilize in accordance with
specification provided in the proposed regulatory text
Calculate effective leak orifice diameter from measured
output flow rate and temperature and pressure data or use apparatus
with built in computer providing an equivalent digital readout.
Calculate to the nearest 0.01 inch.
Calculated effective orifice diameter must be less than or
equal to the standard
If leak test is conducted at the fuel cap then
manufacturer must also show evidence that the vehicle's fuel cap is
performing properly.\310\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\310\ Such tests are done routinely in I/M stations using a
commercially available apparatus. The gas cap leak rate may be
determined by pressure loss measurement, direct flow measurement, or
flow comparison methods and shall be compared to a pass/fail flow
rate standard of 60 cubic centimeters per minute of air at 30 inches
of water column. The flow rate methods are referenced to standard
conditions of 70[emsp14][deg]F and 1 atm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is seeking comment on requiring two separate test
points one near the evaporative canister and the other near the fuel
cap. Furthermore, we are specifically proposing that in some cases two
separate test points in the locations mentioned above would be
required. This would especially be important if the fuel cap/fill neck
area is isolated from the rest of the fuel/evaporative system as a
result of the 40 percent fill or if dual tanks are not otherwise
connected through vapor lines. Of course, dual tank, dual canister
systems would have to be evaluated as separate systems. Tests could be
void if the test apparatus fails, becomes disconnected, fails to
maintain a stable flow rate or pressure, or the test was stopped before
completion due to safety considerations or some other relevant vehicle
issue.
The test procedure presented above is based on current fuel system
designs. In the future, it is reasonable to expect changes in designs
of the fuel systems such that the procedure above may need adjustment.
EPA would, of course, monitor these fuel system changes and modify the
test procedure provisions as needed. Furthermore, current EPA
regulations (see Sec. 1065.10(c)) contain provisions which provide the
opportunity for manufacturers to seek approval for special or alternate
test procedures if from a practical perspective their systems cannot be
evaluated under EPA requirements or they have an approach deemed
equivalent or better. EPA would make such provisions for the leak
emission standard testing requirement. Any such special or alternative
procedures would have to be reported under Sec. 86.004-21(b)(9).\311\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\311\ For example, MAHLE Powertrain has piece of equipment known
as a Mahle Leak Tester which is now used in assembly plants and may
be adaptable to this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Proposed Onboard Diagnostic (OBD) System Regulation Changes
EPA has its own OBD regulations which are similar but not identical
to CARB's. EPA first adopted OBD requirements for 1994 and later model
year LDVs and LDTs. While EPA has extended its requirements from LDVs
and LDTs to larger and heavier vehicles,\312\ EPA's last broad upgrade
to its basic OBD regulation was in the 2005 timeframe. Since that time,
CARB has adopted and the manufacturers have implemented a number of
provisions to enhance the effectiveness of their OBD programs. These
provisions include new requirements for OBD evaporative system leak
detection as well as provisions to help insure that systems are built
and operate as designed over their full useful life, give reliable
results (find and signal only true deficiencies), and operate
frequently during in use operation. It is permitted in current EPA
regulations and common practice for the industry to certify their OBD
systems with CARB and for EPA to accept CARB OBD certifications as
satisfying EPA requirements. EPA is proposing to continue that practice
but to upgrade our regulations to be consistent with the latest CARB
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\312\ EPA's OBD regulations for LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs, are found
at 40 CFR 86.1806-05. EPA has also adopted OBD requirements for
incompletes and heavier vehicles (greater than 14,000 lbs GVWR) (see
74 FR 8324, February 24, 2009 and 40 CFR 86.010-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has reviewed the current CARB regulatory requirements related
to OBD (see California Code of Regulations (CCR) Sec. 1968.2 dated May
18, 2010) and, as discussed below we are proposing to adopt most of
these provisions with the Tier 3 program. We are proposing this for two
basic reasons. First, this is consistent with the goal of a national
program and one vehicle technology for all 50 states. Second,
implementation of these requirements is now demonstrated technology and
compliance with these requirements is common within the industry today.
Thus, the added burden is minimal. Furthermore, OBD has the advantage
of running frequently on in-use vehicles to identify potential exhaust
and evaporative system performance problems, so adopting these
provisions would create the opportunity for OBD to serve a more
prominent role in ensuring the proposed Tier 3 emission standards are
met in-use.
There is an important link between OBD provisions related to
evaporative emission control system leak monitoring and the proposed
leak test emission standard. They each provide an important incentive
to design fuel/evaporative systems with fewer propensities to develop
leaks in use but each addresses the issue from a different perspective.
The distinction is that the proposed leak emission standards prohibits
leaks of greater than 0.02 inches cumulative equivalent diameter, while
the proposed OBD evaporative system leak monitoring provision would
require that the OBD system find leaks larger than 0.020 inches
cumulative equivalent orifice diameter and notify the owner, but with
no inherent obligation to repair the problem. Thus adopting a 0.020
inch cumulative equivalent orifice diameter would align these two
programs and, as will be discussed below, creates the potential for an
optional leak detection test procedure for in-use testing.
To be more specific, we are proposing to update our OBD regulations
to be
[[Page 29904]]
consistent with current California OBD requirements add two new
requirements and retain three minor exceptions. These changes would be
fully effective in the 2017MY, but EPA asks comment on whether the
requirement should be linked to be effective with certification to any
of the Tier 3 emission standards (either exhaust or evaporative) or
phased in for the 2017 model year for LDVs and LLDTs and the 2018 MY
for the HLDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR.\313\ EPA would
continue to accept certifications with CARB OBD requirements as
satisfying EPA OBD requirements. We are proposing to incorporate by
reference section 1968.2 of the California Code of Regulations as
discussed below. This would include paragraphs (c) through (j) in their
entirety. These paragraphs are entitled: (c) Definitions, (d) General
requirements, (e) Monitoring requirements for gasoline/spark ignited
engines, (f) Monitoring requirements for diesel/compression ignition
engines, (g) Standardization requirements, (h) Monitoring system
demonstration requirements for certification, (i) Certification
documentation, (j) Production vehicle evaluation testing. The substance
of many of these provisions is already contained in current EPA OBD
requirements for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and complete HDGVs less than 14,000
lbs GVWR.\314\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\313\ We are not proposing to change the requirement for
incompletes and vehicles with a GVWR above 14,000 lbs.
\314\ MDVs in the CARB regulations basically incorporate MDPVs
and complete HDGV less than 14,000 lbs GVWR as defined by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most noteworthy changes we are proposing are summarized below.
The CCR below is the California Code of Regulations cite for each
pertinent provision.
EPA proposes to add a 0.020 inches leak detection
monitoring threshold upstream of the purge valve for all 4 vehicle
categories LDV, LDT, MDPV, and complete HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR
except for those with fuel tanks larger than 25 gallons capacity (see
CCR 1968.2(e)). OBD leak monitoring systems would have to identify,
store, and if required signal any leak(s) equal to or greater than
0.020 inches cumulative equivalent diameter. This would thus include
diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P0440, P0442, P0446, P0455, P0456, and
P0457.
EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the full array of
rate based monitoring requirements (see CCR1968.2 (d)). Meeting the
rate based monitoring requirements will help to insure that, even with
enable criteria, the exhaust and evaporative system monitors run
frequently enough that on average a problem would be identified and
signaled to the owner in operation within two weeks. This will help to
improve the fraction of time monitors are ready to find a potential
problem.
EPA proposes to incorporate by reference provisions
regarding monitoring system demonstration requirements for
certification. We are proposing to incorporate by reference CARB
provisions in this area and to accept submissions to CARB for purposes
of compliance demonstration (see CCR 1968.2(h)). Adopting current CARB
monitoring system demonstration requirements assures that monitoring
systems operate as designed when installed on certification vehicles.
We also propose that this certification include a requirement for
manufacturers to demonstrate the ability of the OBD leak monitoring
system to detect a 0.020 inch leak. Current CARB protocols do not
require that manufacturers demonstrate that the certification vehicle
can find a vapor leak in the fuel/evaporative system. We are proposing
to add a requirement that manufacturers must demonstrate for
certification that the OBD system can find and report the implanted
leak would help to ensure the OBD system's capability to function as
designed and for the OBD-based leak based evaporative system leak to be
used as an optional test procedure for in-use testing for the proposed
leak emission standard. We are proposing that this be added for the
same vehicles now required for monitoring system demonstration
requirements for certification under CARB OBD regulations. Since the
CARB regulation requires only a relative few vehicle models each year
per manufacturer, we propose that manufacturers be given the option to
either test the remainder for an implanted leak in the fuel/evaporative
system or certify by attestation that each of their remaining families
meets the requirement based on development and other information.
EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the CARB
production vehicle evaluation data program. This program requires
manufacturers to demonstrate that the OBD system functions as designed
and certified when installed on production vehicles. (see CCR
1968.2(j))
For the OBD evaporative system leak monitoring
requirement, EPA proposes a scan readable function (a new PID in
Service $01 of SAE J1979) which could be used to indicate or ascertain
the distance traveled since the OBD leak monitoring diagnostic was last
completed successfully and if the system passed or failed (identified
any leak above 0.020 inches) during that monitoring event (unless it is
otherwise already required in other OBD system modes). Updating this
PID this would be based on SAE J1979 mode 6 ($06) test results:
``Request On-board Monitoring Test Results for Specific Monitored
Systems.'' With this proposed requirement, the PID distance would be
initialized to maximum range of NV RAM initialization (such as battery
disconnect or controller reprogramming) and code clear. As a result, in
the event that a vehicle had a memory clear event in the past, but has
not had sufficient operation for the evaporative system to be
evaluated, the scan readable mileage function would indicate that the
system had not completed a full leak detection of the evaporative
control system within the last 750 miles (1200km). OBD systems already
maintain information for active, pending, historic and permanent codes.
This would be a modest upgrade to this requirement which would enable
the use of the OBD-based evaporative system leak monitor with the IUVP
program as discussed below. See CCR 1968.2 (g) for information related
to code storage. EPA seeks comment on alternative equivalent approaches
(e.g., a scan readable mileage stamp or flag traceable to mileage
indicating when the full OBD leak monitoring protocol was last
completed successfully and the result (p/f)) which accomplish the same
objective and whether this capability should be optional for the 2017
MY since this requirement is designed to enable the use of OBD in leak
emission standard testing and that standard is proposed to begin in the
2018 MY.
The minor exceptions which are contained in EPA's current
OBD regulations are proposed to be continued. Compliance with 13 CCR
1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to tampering protection is not required.
Also, the deficiency provisions of 13 CCR 1968.2(k) would not be
adopted. In addition, demonstration of compliance with 13 CCR
1968.2(e)(15.2.1)(C), to the extent it applies to the verification of
proper alignment between the camshaft and crankshaft, would apply only
to vehicles equipped with variable valve timing. For all model years,
the deficiency provisions of paragraph (i) of the current regulations
apply only to alternative fuel vehicle/engine manufacturers selecting
this paragraph for demonstrating compliance.
If adopted, these proposed changes, taken together would improve
the performance, reliability, general utility, and effectiveness of OBD
systems for Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission controls.
Furthermore, if adopted, these
[[Page 29905]]
changes create the opportunity for OBD evaporative system leak
monitoring systems to serve a more prominent role in ensuring
compliance with the leak emission standard. EPA believes that they
could be implemented for minimal cost since most manufacturers are
meeting them today and will have to for LEV III vehicles. However, EPA
requests comment on applying the proposed new OBD requirements to small
business vehicle manufacturers and independent commercial importers.
As discussed below, the proposed OBD requirements would apply to
small entities and independent commercial importers (ICI) in the 2022
MY. Small alternative fuel converters would still be able to meet the
OBD requirements using the provisions of 40 CFR part 85 subpart F.
Finally, it should be noted that as CARB updates its OBD regulations in
the future EPA would consider these changes and propose to adopt them
or incorporate them by reference, if appropriate. In fact, CARB is
currently proposing some changes to its OBD program in response to the
LEV III program exhaust emission standards.\315\ We request comment on
incorporating these changes into this rule or other rules in the
future. We also would generally expect to continue the current practice
allowed by EPA regulations which is for EPA to accept CARB OBD
certifications as satisfying EPA requirements provided that they
include at least all of the requirements covered by the EPA
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\315\ CARB has recently proposed some minor OBD program
modifications in their recent LEVIII ISOR, and EPA asks for comment
on including those provisions within the proposed EPA OBD program.
See pages 61-72 of the CARB Staff Report at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/levisor.pdf and pages A11-A125 of the
regulatory text at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/levappa.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. In-Use Verification Program (IUVP) Requirements for the Leak
Emission Standard
i. Introduction
We believe it is important to identify leaks since vehicles with
leaks would be expected to have daily emission rates above the proposed
Tier 3 evaporative emissions standards and the Colorado data suggests a
propensity for the diameter of vehicle leak orifice to get larger over
time and thus to have even higher emissions. This is also important
because evaporative leak emissions occur virtually every day whether
the vehicle is driven or not. Thus identifying potential leak problems
will be important to capturing the emission benefits of the proposed
evaporative emission requirements.
Toward that end, EPA is proposing to include assessment of
compliance with the leak emission standard within the IUVP program. We
considered expanding the evaporative emission testing portion of the
IUVP program as a means to assess leaks, but we decided to focus on the
leak emission standard because it is less burdensome and is cost
effective for accomplishing the objective. EPA believes adding a leak
test requirement does not create an unreasonable burden. The draft test
procedure described above is simple to run, inexpensive to conduct in
terms of equipment and labor, and can be completed relatively quickly
compared to an evaporative emissions test. However, we are retaining
the evaporative emissions testing requirements currently in IUVP to
monitor broader evaporative control system effectiveness (e.g., purge,
canister control efficiency, permeation).
ii. IUVP Test Requirements
We are proposing that the leak emission test be conducted for each
and every vehicle assessed in IUVP for exhaust emissions under 40 CFR
86.1845.04. This would begin for 2018 MY certifications for vehicle
families meeting the proposed new leak emission standard. This would
include the low and high mileage tests for any exhaust vehicle
evaluated for exhaust emissions plus a requirement that there be at
least one representative of each evaporative/refueling/leak family
evaluated at each year point. We are proposing this approach to
implementing IUVP for the leak emission standard in lieu of creating a
new set of requirements which would require yet another set of vehicles
to be procured for testing. We are not proposing to include the leak
test with any evaporative emissions test in IUVP, since a leak would be
evident in the results of the evaporative emissions test.
The current IUVP regulations at Sec. 86.1845-04, Table S04-07,
call for test sample sizes on a sliding scale based on annual vehicle
sales by test group. This can vary from zero for very small sales test
groups to six vehicles for test groups with sales exceeding 250,000.
There are more exhaust emission test groups than there are evaporative/
refueling/leak test families and exhaust emission test groups may cover
one or more of the same evaporative/refueling/leak families, so we
would expect to receive multiple leak emission test results for most
evaporative/refueling/leak families. This will expand the amount of
IUVP data we receive in this important area and improve our ability to
assess the overall leak performance for a given evaporative/refueling/
leak family and the fleet as a whole.
As discussed above, EPA believes that the fuel and evaporative
control system leaks are heavily influenced by age as well as design
and other factors. EPA would consider extending the age point for leak
emission testing for IUVP beyond the four year point to better assess
this effect. However, in the past, manufacturers have expressed concern
about the implications of testing older vehicles and about finding
vehicles still within their warranty and recall liability periods. EPA
asks comment on the viability of extending leak emission IUVP testing
beyond the nominal four year point (e.g., six to eight years). We
recognize that there are cost and vehicle procurement issues, but the
Colorado data strongly suggests a relationship between vehicle age and
the propensity for the development of leaks.
iii. Assessment of IUVP Leak Emission Standard Test Results
The current regulations contain provisions addressing follow-on
testing requirements for exhaust emissions for vehicles which fail to
meet various performance thresholds within IUVP (see 40 CFR 86.1846-
01). As mentioned above, we expect that it will be common to get more
than one leak emission test result over the course of each model year's
mileage testing point for each evaporative/refueling/leak family as a
result of the requirement to assess leaks with each exhaust IUVP test.
However, the proposed leak emission standard is basically pass/fail at
0.02 inches and it is difficult to establish a threshold criteria for a
pass/fail standard such as has been done for exhaust emissions where
there is a multiplier applied to the level of the individual exhaust
emission standard.
Given the importance of the leak emission standard in assuring in-
use evaporative emissions control, we are proposing a set of criteria
for assessing leak emission standard results from IUVP. These criteria
can be summarized as follows for each low and high mileage test point
for each model year tested:
lf 50 percent or more of all vehicles evaluated in an
evaporative/refueling/leak emission family for any given model year
pass the leak emission standard, testing is complete. This applies to
cumulative testing for that family throughout the model year for that
mileage group. This is consistent with the exhaust emission
requirements for IUVP and EPA believes it is reasonable since vehicles
are tested in the ``as received'' condition from consumers.
[[Page 29906]]
If only one representative of the evaporative/refueling/
leak family is tested in a mileage group for that model year's vehicles
and it passes the leak emission standard testing is complete. If that
vehicle does not pass the leak emission standard a manufacturer may
test an additional vehicle to achieve the 50 percent rate.
If an evaporative/refueling/leak emission family fails to
achieve the 50 percent rate, it is presumed that the family will enter
into In-Use Confirmatory Testing Program (IUCP).
Before IUCP begins, the manufacturer may ask for engineering
analysis discussions with EPA to evaluate and understand the technical
reasons for the testing outcomes and the implications for the broader
fleet. Technical information for these discussions could include but
would not be limited to detailed system design, calibration, and
operating information, technical explanations as to why the individual
vehicles tested failed the leak emission standard, and comparisons to
other similar families from the same manufacturer. Relevant information
from the manufacturer such as data or other information on owner
complaints, technical service bulletins, service campaigns, special
policy warranty programs, warranty repair data, state I/M data, and
data available from other manufacturer specific programs or initiatives
could help inform understanding of implications for the broader fleet.
As part of this process a manufacturer could elect to provide
evaporative emissions SHED test data on the individual vehicle(s) that
did not pass the leak emission standard during IUVP. With an adequate
technical basis, the outcome of this engineering analysis discussion
could result in an EPA decision not to require IUCP testing.
We would propose to operate within the basic structure of the IUCP
program in the current regulations. Prior to commencing IUCP testing
the manufacturer, after consultation with EPA submits a written plan
describing the details of the vehicle procurement, maintenance, and
testing procedures. This plan could include inclusion of a hot soak
plus diurnal SHED test to supplement leak emission test results. We
propose that EPA must approve this plan before testing begins. As
prescribed now in the IUCP regulations for exhaust, if five vehicles
were tested and all passed the leak emission standard then testing
would be complete. If all five vehicles did not pass, then five more
would be tested. More vehicles could be tested at the manufacturer's
discretion but all testing would have to be completed within the time
period specified in the regulations today. EPA and the manufacturer
would then enter into discussions regarding interpretation, technical
understanding, and compliance/enforcement implications of the test
results, if any.
iv. Proposed Optional Test Procedure Approach for IUVP/IUCP
Assuming implementation of the OBD regulation changes proposed in
Section IV.C.5.d, above, EPA is proposing an optional approach to a
portion of the leak emission test procedure discussed in Section
IV.C.5.c. This optional testing approach would be included in the
proposed IUVP/IUCP testing program for the leak emission standard, but
would not be used for certification testing for the leak emission
standard. It would be considered an approach which could be used by the
manufacturers to assess compliance with the leak emission standard. EPA
could also use this procedure for conducting assessments and asks for
comment on using this procedure for compliance purposes with a 0.02
inch cumulative equivalent diameter orifice standard.
Under this optional approach manufacturers would be able to rely
upon the operation of their OBD evaporative system leak detection
hardware and operating protocols in lieu of running the stand alone in-
use leak test to check for the presence of a 0.02 inch leak in the
fuel/evaporative system. This approach relies on the leak emission
standard equivalent orifice diameter being established at the same
level as proposed for OBD (0.020 inches). Thus, the IUVP/IUCP protocol
would be modified and simplified to expedite completion of testing and
reduce costs.
Quite simply, if a vehicle is brought in for IUVP or IUCP testing
and a scan tool query of the onboard computer indicates that the
vehicle had successfully completed a full OBD-based evaporative system
leak monitoring check within the last 750 miles and no evaporative
system leak problems for any diameter above 0.020 inches was indicated
(diagnostic trouble codes P0440, P0442, P0446, P0455, P0456, and
P0457), the vehicle would be been deemed to have met and passed the
leak emission standard test requirement. However, if the system had not
successfully completed a full OBD-based evaporative system leak check
within 750 miles with no problem indicated then the manufacturer would
have the option to run its OBD-based evaporative system leak check in
the laboratory after prescribed preconditioning. This OBD-based
approach is sometimes used in auto manufacturer dealerships and repair
facilities to diagnose and fix evaporative system leaks found by the
OBD system. If the vehicle completes the full OBD-based leak test in
the laboratory then the vehicle's pass/fail results for the 0.02 inch
cumulative equivalent diameter orifice would be based on the OBD test
result. This optional protocol could apply to every leak emission
standard test after certification unless not approved by EPA for IUCP
under 40 CFR 1846.01(i). Replicate tests would not be required or
allowed but void tests could be repeated.
Furthermore, EPA proposes to allow the manufacturer to run the
stand alone EPA leak test in several situations. First, manufacturers
could conduct the stand alone test to confirm that a problem identified
by the OBD-based evaporative system monitoring leak check was a leak
and not a problem with the OBD leak monitor itself. Second, a
manufacturer could run the stand alone EPA leak test to confirm that
the leak value identified by the OBD system was truly above the level
of the proposed leak emission standard. Third, it could be used for
vehicles which had not successfully completed a full OBD-based
evaporative system leak monitoring check within the last 750 miles.
Fourth, it could be used to confirm that a DTC set within the last 750
miles actually indicated the presence of a leak(s) greater than the
proposed standard. However, if a manufacturer elected to use only OBD-
based evaporative system leak based monitoring in its IUVP testing;
these results would be the basis for decisions regarding IUCP. As is
required in the current IUVP regulations, all test data whether OBD
based or based on EPA's stand alone test procedure would have to be
reported to EPA.
There could be some advantages to this option since it employs a
pressure/vacuum approach manufacturers understand and creates positive/
negative pressures manufacturers have accommodated within their fuel/
evaporative system. One potential downside is that under current
designs vehicle engines would have to be operating to create the
pressure or vacuum and because the engine is operating this would
require the OBD-based leak test to be stand alone after the
preconditioning sequence is complete. This would be more challenging
for natural vacuum leak detection systems unless extended driving was
involved to create the fuel system heat needed for a natural vacuum
event or this was done through a climate chamber or SHED based diurnal
heat build.
[[Page 29907]]
Allowing for this approach raises at least two implementation
questions. The first is related to the value of conducting the OBD-
based test for a vehicle with an active or pending leak DTC already set
in the computer and/or an MIL indicated. In this case, EPA would permit
the manufacturer to run the OBD-based leak test and/or the stand alone
EPA leak test or concede that the vehicle would not pass the leak
emission standard and count the result. Second is the question of gas
caps. This is among the most common codes found in OBD records and is
often related to operator error such as not tightening the gas cap
properly. Codes of this nature have no value in this leak emission
assessment, so a manufacturer would be permitted to correct the problem
before testing and clear this OBD code before testing or run the stand
alone EPA leak test.
6. Other Initiatives
This proposal includes consideration of several amendments or
clarifications to existing requirements related to evaporative
emissions. As part of this process, the following provisions warrant
adjustment, clarification, or correction:
Even though the evaporative emission standards in 40 CFR
part 86 apply to the same engines and vehicles that must meet exhaust
emission standards, we require a separate certificate for complying
with evaporative and refueling emission standards. An important related
point to note is that the evaporative and refueling emission standards
always apply to the vehicle, while the exhaust emission standards may
apply to either the engine or the vehicle. Since we plan to apply
evaporative/refueling/leak emission standards and the recently adopted
greenhouse gas standards to vehicle manufacturers, we believe it would
be advantageous to have the regulations related to their certification
requirements written together as much as possible to reduce burden and
increase efficiency. We are therefore proposing to move the emission
standards and certification requirements from 40 CFR part 86 to the new
40 CFR part 1037, which was originally used for greenhouse gas
standards for heavy-duty highway vehicles. This is not intended to
change the requirements that apply to these vehicles, except as noted
in this section. We propose to make the provisions in part 1037
effective with model year 2014.
As described in Section VI.C.3, we are proposing to allow
for certifying vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR based on an engineering
analysis instead of new testing (as is currently allowed for vehicles
at or above 26,000 lbs GVWR). We are also proposing to clarify the
provisions describing how the certification process plays out for these
vehicles.
Section 86.1810-01 contains specifications addressing
whether diesel fuel vehicles can be waived from demonstrating
compliance with the refueling emission standard through testing. In the
current regulation the potential for a waiver from testing depends on
the diesel fuel having an RVP equal to or less than 1 psi and the fuel
tank having a temperature which does not exceed 130[emsp14][deg]F. We
have examined this provision and are proposing to withdraw the fuel
temperature limit specification. Short of fuel spillage in the SHED,
EPA sees no likelihood that a diesel fueled vehicle with RVP less than
1 psi could fail the refueling emission standard even at fuel tank
temperatures above 130[emsp14][deg]F. This is due to the inherently low
vapor pressure of diesel at these temperatures and the likelihood that
vapor shrinkage conditions will occur in the fuel tank during refueling
since the dispensed fuel will be cooler than the tank fuel.
When adopting the most recent evaporative emission change
we did not carry through the changes to the regulatory text applying
evaporative emission standards for methanol-fueled compression-ignition
engines. The proposed regulations correct this oversight.
We are proposing provisions to address which standards
apply when an auxiliary (nonroad) engine is installed in a motor
vehicle, which is currently not directly addressed in the highway
regulation. The proposed approach would require testing complete
vehicles with any auxiliary engines (and the corresponding fuel-system
components). Incomplete vehicles would be tested without the auxiliary
engines, but any such engines and the corresponding fuel-system
components would need to meet the standards that apply under our
nonroad program as specified in 40 CFR part 1060.
We are proposing to remove the option for secondary
vehicle manufacturers to use a larger fuel tank capacity than is
specified by the certifying manufacturer without re-certifying the
vehicle. Secondary vehicle manufacturers needing a greater fuel tank
capacity would need to either work with the certifying manufacturer to
include the larger tank, or go through the effort to re-certify the
vehicle itself. Our understanding is that this provision has not been
used and would be better handled as part of certification rather than
managing a separate process. We are proposing corresponding changes to
the emission control information label.
Since we adopted evaporative emission standards for
gaseous-fuel vehicles, we have developed new approaches for design-
based certification (see, for example, 40 CFR 1060.240). We request
comment on changing the requirements related to certifying gaseous-fuel
vehicles to design-based certification. This would allow for a simpler
assessment for certifying these vehicles without changing the standards
that apply.
With regard to OBD, we note also that under Sec. 86.1806-
01(b)(4) OBD systems must have the ability to detect absence of purge
air flow from a complete evaporative emission control system. This is
clearly important because the proper operation of an integrated
evaporative/refueling emission control system depends on purge.
Similarly, evaporative/refueling system operation depends on the
presence, proper adsorption/desorption performance, and sustained
working capacity of the activated carbon canister. It is thus curious
to observe that the current OBD provisions do not directly address the
activated carbon canister in any way. The absence of the canister would
likely be noted as a gross leak and/or a problem with purge.
Nonetheless, we are seeking comment on a provision which would require
the OBD system to sense for evidence of ongoing adsorption and
desorption of hydrocarbon vapors. These could both be sensed by changes
in canister carbon bed temperature or perhaps for the presence of vapor
in the fuel going to the intake manifold after a cold start or
refueling event. In some cases, EPA believes these parameters could be
monitored by hardware and sensors now on most vehicles and thus this
might be primarily an OBD software change. Similarly, we are seeking
comment on whether the operation of a vacuum pump or similar device
used to assist or supplement vehicle engine vacuum purge or any device
otherwise used to enhance or control purge flows, rates, or schedules
should be required to be monitored as part of OBD.
With future technology, we anticipate a trend toward the
implementation of fuel tanks with higher operating pressures and in
some cases fuel tanks which are sealed to the atmosphere during normal
operation. Data available to EPA indicates that a leak in such a system
will result in substantial emissions relative to very low pressure
systems which employ running loss control strategies and an activated
carbon canister as part of the
[[Page 29908]]
methodology to control vapor emissions.\316\ Based on this concern, we
are seeking comment on the feasibility and cost of requiring the OBD
leak detection monitoring system to detect and signal the presence of a
smaller diameter orifice than proposed for non-pressurized systems (~
0.010 inch) upstream of the purge valve for all 4 vehicle categories
LDV, LDT, MDPV, and complete HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR. This would
apply to any vehicle with a designed in-use operating pressure in
excess of 0.36 psi (10 inches water). As a means to prevent a sealed
fuel tank from venting leaks directly to atmosphere, we ask for comment
on an added requirement that the fuel vapor vent valve be set to the
open position at key off (and vent to the canister) if the OBD system
detected a leak and triggered an MIL related to any leak greater than a
pre-established threshold. The vent open at key off concept for
pressurized fuel systems would not be intended to disenable the OBD
system from conducting its normal evaporative system check during
operation. Furthermore, as discussed above, we are proposing a 0.020''
leak detection threshold for all systems. However, we are asking for
comment on setting the threshold in the 0.010''-0.015'' range for
pressurized systems. In the context of this request for comment, we ask
for input regarding the feasibility of the smaller threshold, the
effects of the vent valve open requirement on ORVR, and the
repairability of leaks of less than 0.020''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\316\ Passavant, G. (February 2013). Presentation on Evaporative
Emission System Leaks for a Fuel Tank Under Pressure. Memorandum to
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Emissions Test Fuel
1. Proposed Changes to Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel
In-use gasoline has changed considerably since EPA's fuel
specifications for emissions testing of light- and heavy-duty gasoline
vehicles were first set and last revised. Gasoline sulfur and benzene
have been reduced and, perhaps most importantly, gasoline containing 10
percent ethanol by volume (E10) has replaced clear gasoline (E0) across
the country. This has had second-order effects on other gasoline
properties. In-use fuel is projected to continue to change with the
implementation of the RFS2 program (e.g., the expansion of the number
of retailers that offer E15) as well as today's proposed Tier 3
gasoline sulfur program. As a result, we are proposing to update our
federal emission test fuel specifications not only to better match
today's in-use fuel but also to be forward looking with respect to
future ethanol and sulfur content.\317\ The revised test fuel
specifications would apply for exhaust emissions testing, fuel economy/
greenhouse gas testing, and emissions testing for non-exhaust emissions
(evaporative, refueling, and leak detection testing). The proposed
gasoline specifications, found at Sec. 1065.710, would apply to
emissions testing of light-duty cars and trucks as well as heavy-duty
gasoline vehicles certified on the chassis test, those subject to the
proposed Tier 3 standards.\318\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\317\ EPA's motor vehicle emissions standards typically require
a level of performance over a specified test procedure, with
emissions measured while the engine or the vehicle is operated using
the specified test fuel and operated in a specified manner. The test
fuel specifications typically apply for all emissions testing used
to determine compliance with the standard, including emissions
testing to obtain a certificate of conformity, as well as compliance
testing for newly produced or in-use engines or vehicles. While this
test fuel is commonly referred to as ``certification fuel,'' the
test fuel specifications proposed today are not limited to
certification related emissions testing, but also apply to
compliance related emissions testing after the certificate of
conformity has been issued. The certification process also typically
involves a process to ensure that the emissions controls system is
durable over the regulatory useful life of the vehicle or engine.
This can involve long-term or accelerated aging of a vehicle or
engine prior to emissions testing. The fuel used for such aging is
commonly referred to as service accumulation or durability fuel, and
in many cases is specified as commercial gasoline that will be
generally available through retail outlets (Sec. 86.113-04(a)(3)),
or in some cases may be specified as gasoline which contains ethanol
in, at least, the highest concentration permissible in gasoline
under federal law and that is commercially available in any state in
the United States, such as for durability aging of evaporative
emissions system (Sec. 86.1824-08(f)). EPA is not proposing changes
to the specifications for fuel used during durability related aging
that is part of the certification process. The proposed changes only
apply to the test fuel used during emissions testing, both for
purposes of certification and for later compliance related testing.
\318\ As discussed in Section IV.C, we are also seeking comment
on requiring the proposed Tier 3 test fuel in conducting exhaust,
evaporative, and refueling emissions testing of heavy-duty gasoline
engines certified on an engine dynamometer. These could include
engines installed in incomplete Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles and
engines used in vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not proposing changes to the exhaust or evaporative
durability fuel requirements outlined in the provisions of Sec.
86.113-04(a)(3), except to remove the minimum sulfur content (15 ppm)
currently specified at Sec. 86.113-04(a)(3)(i). Those provisions
require that ``Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, unleaded
gasoline representative of commercial gasoline that will be generally
available through retail outlets must be used in service
accumulation.'' We would expect that manufacturers would use service
accumulation fuels which are generally representative of the national
average in-use fuels (or worst case for durability) during the model
year which is being certified, including, for example, the ethanol
content (for exhaust emissions), sulfur level, and fuel additive
package. For exhaust emission bench aging durability programs as
allowed under the provisions of Sec. 86.1823-08(d) and (e), the bench
aging program should be designed using good engineering judgment to
account for the effects of in-use fuels on exhaust emissions, including
the effects of future in-use fuels on catalytic converters, oxygen
sensors, fuel injectors, and other emission-related components.
For evaporative emissions, durability fuel requirements are the
same as for exhaust emissions (as outlined above), plus an additional
requirement in the provisions of Sec. 86.1824-08(f), that the service
accumulation fuel ``contains ethanol in, at least, the highest
concentration permissible in gasoline under federal law and that is
commercially available in any state in the United States. Unless
otherwise approved by the Administrator, the manufacturer must
determine the appropriate ethanol concentration by selecting the
highest legal concentration commercially available during the calendar
year before the one in which the manufacturer begins its mileage
accumulation.'' Thus, as E15 in-use fuel becomes progressively more
available, we would expect that E15 service accumulation fuel would be
used for whole vehicle evaporative durability programs. Similarly,
evaporative bench aging durability programs allowed under the
provisions of Sec. 86.1824-08(d) and (e), should be designed using
good engineering judgment to account for the durability effects of in-
use fuels on evaporative emissions, bleed emissions, and leakage
emissions.
Where possible, we are proposing changes consistent with the CARB's
planned LEV III gasoline test fuel specifications.\319\ Below is an
overview of some of the key changes. A summary of the proposed test
fuel specifications is provided in Table IV-21. For more information on
how we arrived at the proposed test fuel property ranges and ASTM test
methods, refer to Chapter 3 of the draft RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\319\ The LEV III program as approved by the California Air
Resources Board, January 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethanol--adding a 15 volume percent ethanol specification
to be forward-looking with respect to the maximum gasoline ethanol
concentration Tier 3 vehicles could expect to encounter. EPA recently
issued a waiver under section 211(f)(4) of the CAA permitting E15 to be
[[Page 29909]]
introduced into commerce for use in MY2001 and newer light-duty motor
vehicles.\320\ While E15 is only commercially available at a limited
number of fuel retailers, EPA believes it could become a major gasoline
blend over the next 10-15 years given instability in crude oil pricing
and growing RFS2 renewable fuel requirements. The use of E15 as the
emission test fuel will help ensure that all future vehicles are
capable of meeting Tier 3 emission standards while operating on E15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\320\ On Nov. 4, 2010, EPA issued a partial waiver for MY2007
and newer light-duty motor vehicles (75 FR 68094). On January 26,
2011, EPA extended the waiver to MY 2001-2006 light-duty motor
vehicles (76 FR 4662).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Octane--lowering gasoline octane to around 87 (R+M)/2 to
be representative of in-use fuel, i.e., regular-grade gasoline.
Manufacturers could continue to use high-octane gasoline for testing of
premium-required \321\ vehicles and engines as well as for testing
unrelated to exhaust emissions. Historically, the high octane rating of
test fuel has not had any real emissions implications. However, as
manufacturers begin introducing new advanced vehicle technologies
(e.g., turbocharged downsized), this may no longer be the case. For
those vehicles where operation on high-octane gasoline is required by
the manufacturer, we would allow the manufacturer to test on a fuel
with a minimum octane rating of 91 (R+M)/2 (in lieu of the proposed 87
(R+M)/2 general test fuel). According to the proposed regulations found
at Sec. 1065.710(d), vehicles or engines are considered to require
premium fuel if they are designed specifically for operation on high-
octane fuel and the manufacturer requires the use of premium gasoline
as part of their warranty as indicated in the owner's manual. Cases
where premium gasoline is not required but is recommended to improve
performance would not qualify as a vehicle or engine that requires the
use of premium fuel. For qualifying vehicles and engines, all emission
tests must use the specified high-octane fuel. For vehicles and engines
certified on high-octane gasoline, all EPA confirmatory and in-use
testing would also be conducted on high-octane gasoline. All other test
fuel specifications would be the same as those proposed in Table IV-21.
We seek comment on the need for limiting the maximum octane of gasoline
used in the certification of premium-required engines and vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\321\ Premium-required defined at Sec. 1065.710(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distillation Temperatures--adjusting gasoline distillation
temperatures to better reflect today's in-use gasoline/E10. This
includes minor T10, T90 and FBP adjustments based on AAM in-use fuel
surveys and refinery batch test data, with additional adjustments to
reflect future E15 performance (significantly lower T50 range). We seek
comment on the appropriateness of the proposed distillation
temperatures including the proposed 170-190[emsp14][deg]F T50 range for
an E15 fuel. For more information on how we arrived at the proposed
distillation temperatures in Table IV-21, refer to Chapter 3 of the
draft RIA.
Sulfur--lowering the sulfur content of test fuel to 8-11
ppm to be consistent with our proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur
standards. The proposed 10-ppm annual average sulfur standard is
expected to result in two-thirds less sulfur nationwide so it is
appropriate to lower the gasoline test fuel specification in concert.
Benzene--setting a benzene test fuel specification of 0.6-
0.8 volume percent to represent in-use fuel under our new MSAT2
regulations.\322\ The MSAT2 standards, which took effect January 1,
2011, limit the gasoline pool to 0.62 volume percent benzene on
average. Beginning July 1, 2012, no refinery may produce gasoline above
1.3 volume percent benzene on average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\322\ 72 FR 8434 (February 26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Aromatics--lowering the aromatics content of test
fuel to better match today's in-use gasoline/E10 and accommodate E15.
According to AAM fuel surveys, the average aromatics content in
gasoline has dropped 16 percent over the past decade due to ethanol
blending.\323\ Additional ethanol blending to produce E15 is expected
to result in even greater aromatics reductions. Accordingly, we believe
the proposed 19.5-24.5 volume percent test fuel specification is
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\323\ For more information on current aromatics levels, refer to
Chapter 3 of the draft RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Aromatics--in addition to total aromatics
and benzene, we are proposing regulations that would require a
distribution of aromatics (i.e., a certain amount of C7, C8, C9, and
C10+ hydrocarbons) to ensure that test fuel is more representative of
in-use gasoline. Heavier aromatics in gasoline are believed to
contribute to vehicle PM emissions, so it is important that vehicles
are designed to meet the proposed Tier 3 emission standards on fuel
with a distribution of aromatic compounds representative of in-use
gasoline. We also seek comment on the need for a multi-substituted
alkyl aromatics (MSAA) specification, as has been proposed by CARB. For
more information on our proposed aromatics specifications, refer to
Chapter 3 of the draft RIA.
Olefins--adjusting the olefins specification to better
match today's in-use gasoline/E10 according to AAM fuel surveys. Not
only is the proposed 4.5-11.5 mass percent range (approximately 4-6
volume percent) more representative of in-use fuel, the narrower test
fuel range would result in more consistent vehicle test results.
Other Specifications--adding distillation residue, total
content of oxygenates other than ethanol, copper corrosion, solvent-
washed gum, and oxidation stability specifications to better control
other performance properties of test fuel. These proposed
specifications are consistent with ASTM's D4814 gasoline specifications
and CARB's LEV III test fuel requirements.
Updates to Gasoline Test Methods--updating some of the
gasoline test methods currently specified in Sec. 86.113 with more
appropriate, easier to use, or more precise test methods for ethanol-
blended gasoline. Key changes include replacement of ASTM D323 with
ASTM D5191 for measuring vapor pressure; replacement of ASTM D1319 with
ASTM D5769 for measuring aromatics and benzene; and replacement of ASTM
D1266 with three alternative ASTM test methods (D2622, D5453 or D7039)
for measuring sulfur. We request comment on the use of three different
test methods for the measurement of sulfur content.
Consolidation of Test Fuels--consolidation of all gasoline
exhaust and evaporative emission test fuels into a single general test
fuel. This would be used for all on-highway vehicle testing with the
exception of cold CO vehicle testing (which would use higher volatility
test fuel) and high-altitude testing (which would be permitted to use
lower volatility fuel). As discussed above, commercial gasoline would
continue to be used for service accumulation (durability fuel). This is
consistent with CARB's LEV III approach and should help limit the total
number of test fuels that automakers need to manage.
[[Page 29910]]
Table IV-21--Proposed Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Property Unit Low-temperature ASTM reference procedure
General testing testing High altitude testing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antiknock Index (R+M)/2......... ................... 87.0--88.4 87.0 Minimum........... D2699-11 and D2700-11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
,nSensitivity (R-M)............. ................... 7.5 Minimum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry Vapor Pressure Equivalent kPa (psi).......... 60.0-63.4 77.2-81.4 52.4-55.2.............. D5191-10b.
(DVPE). (8.7-9.2) (11.2-11.8) (7.6-8.0)..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distillation
10% evaporated.............. [deg]C ([deg]F).... 49-60 43-54 49-60.................. D86-10a.
(120-140) (110-130) (120-140)..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
,n50% evaporated............ [deg]C ([deg]F).... 77-88 (170-190)
90% evaporated.............. [deg]C ([deg]F).... 154-166 (310-330)
Evaporated final boiling [deg]C ([deg]F).... 193-216 (380-420)
point.
Residue......................... Milliliter......... 2.0 Maximum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons..... vol. %............. 19.5-24.5 D5769-10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
,nC6 Aromatics (benzene).... vol. %............. 0.6-0.8
C7 Aromatics (toluene)...... vol. %............. 4.4-5.5
C8 Aromatics................ vol. %............. 5.5-6.9
C9 Aromatics................ vol. %............. 5.0-6.2
C10+ Aromatics.............. vol. %............. 4.0-5.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olefins......................... mass %............. 4.5-11.5 D6550-10.
Ethanol......................... vol. %............. 14.6-15.0 D5599-00 (Reapproved 2010).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
,nTotal Content of Oxygenates vol. %............. 0.1 Maximum
Other than Ethanol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur.......................... mg/kg.............. 8.0-11.0 D2622-10, D5453-09 or D7039-07.
Lead............................ g/liter............ 0.0026 Maximum D3237-06.
Phosphorus...................... g/liter............ 0.0013 Maximum D3231-11.
Copper Corrosion................ ................... No. 1 Maximum D130-10.
Solvent-Washed Gum Content...... mg/100 ml.......... 3.0 Maximum D381-09.
Oxidation Stability............. Minute............. 1,000 Minimum D525-05.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA seeks comment on the appropriateness of the proposed forward-
looking E15 test fuel for light- and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles.
While we believe we have discretion under the statute to transition
from E0 to E15 test fuel, we acknowledge that vehicle manufacturers
will need to calibrate their vehicles to meet the proposed Tier 3
standards on fuel containing 15 percent ethanol by volume. Our analysis
of the proposed Tier 3 standards (emission control technology,
feasibility, cost, etc.) assumes the use of the proposed E15 test fuel.
We anticipate that vehicle electronic control systems will be fully
capable of adjusting to maintain emission performance when operating on
E10 (or any remaining E0), but if E15 were not to enter the gasoline
pool in significant quantities, it may be more appropriate to require
that vehicles be calibrated for and tested on E10.
We are seeking comment on various alternative approaches, e.g.,
starting with E10 as the test fuel and transitioning to E15 as the
market further transitions to E15 in use. This could include a market
review in 2014 or 2015 followed by regulatory action to implement the
change from E10 to E15 test fuel, if warranted. Or, it could include
the establishment of a ``trigger point'' (e.g., 30 percent of gasoline
is E15) in the Tier 3 final rule to prompt an automatic move to E15
after a certain period of time, e.g., two or three years. Or, we could
simply set a future date (e.g., 2020) with sufficient time for
transitioning to E15 test fuel. These transition approaches would give
vehicle manufacturers additional lead time to prepare for higher
ethanol concentrations in test fuel. We seek comment on the various
transition approaches, their timing, and the appropriate specifications
for an E10 test fuel to be used in the interim.
While the volatility (i.e., RVP) of CARB's E10 test fuel is 7.0 psi
to be representative of in-use gasoline in California during summer
months, conventional E10 in the rest of the country is currently around
10 psi. Thus, should we finalize E10 instead of E15, in the absence of
any standard to reduce the in-use RVP of E10 to 9.0 psi or lower, we
would also have to consider raising the RVP of certification test fuel
to 10 psi to reflect the RVP level of the current in-use fuel. Were we
to raise the volatility to 10 psi RVP, EPA believes that the proposed
evaporative emission standards would be feasible, but this would
increase the stringency of the proposed evaporative emission standards
(see Section IV.C). Changing certification test fuel to 10 psi RVP
would increase vapor generation rates during the refueling test by
about 10 percent and during the hot soak, diurnal, canister bleed, and
running loss tests by as much as 25 percent in total. To the extent
that the refueling test dictates the size of the canister, the
increased vapor generation would necessitate increases in the volume of
[[Page 29911]]
activated carbon used in the vehicle's onboard canister by about 10
percent. Perhaps more importantly, manufacturer's vehicle purge
strategies and technologies would likely have to be modified to
removing the larger vapor loads from the canister during vehicle
operation. Some vehicles have adequate engine vacuum available to
provide the increased purge, while others may require new or innovative
approaches to increase purge volume or canister purge efficiency as
discussed in the evaporative emissions technology discussion. While we
have not performed a detailed analysis, EPA estimates that on average
the evaporative standard compliance costs could be about $10-15 per
vehicle higher at 10 psi RVP compared to 9 psi RVP for canister and
purge upgrades. With respect to lead time, EPA's current proposal calls
for either 40 percent of light-duty vehicles to meet the Tier 3
evaporative emission standards in 2017 MY (percentage option) or for a
manufacturer to sell only zero evap PZEVs nationwide (PZEV only
option). This basic approach for 2017 could still be feasible depending
on the resolution of the test procedure issues and proposed
flexibilities in phase-in schemes.
Raising the certification test fuel to 10 psi RVP would also impact
the equivalency of CARB and EPA refueling and hot soak plus diurnal
evaporative emission test procedures. These potential impacts would
have to be addressed to maintain CARB/EPA evaporative emissions test
reciprocity. Furthermore, there may be test procedure options for
minimizing the burden of changing certification test fuel RVP while
maintaining the needed in-use control.
EPA does not believe that a 10 psi certification test fuel would
impact the feasibility or cost of the proposed leak emission standard
or the proposed change in the OBD evaporative system leak detection
requirements, since these are based on orifice diameter. Nor, do we
believe that it would have any negative impact on permeation emissions
or exhaust emissions.
As mentioned above, EPA issued a waiver allowing E15 to be
introduced into commerce for use in MY 2001 and newer light-duty motor
vehicles. On July 25, 2011, EPA finalized regulations to mitigate the
potential for misfueling of vehicles, engines, and equipment not
covered by the E15 waiver, i.e., MY 2000 and older light-duty motor
vehicles, all heavy-duty gasoline vehicles and engines, motorcycles,
and all gasoline-powered nonroad products (which includes boats).\324\
Two of the required mitigation measures are a label for fuel pumps that
dispense E15 to alert consumers to the appropriate and lawful use of
the fuel and a prohibition on the use of E15 by consumers in vehicles
not covered by the waiver, excluding flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs). If,
as discussed in this proposed rule, any class of new heavy-duty
gasoline vehicles or engines begin testing on E15 for certification,
EPA would not need to issue a waiver under section 211(f)(4) to allow
introduction of E15 into commerce for use in these vehicles certified
on E15 test fuel. However, EPA acknowledges that changes to the
gasoline pump label and prohibitions finalized in the E15 Misfueling
Mitigation Measures Rule would have to be made before E15 could
lawfully be sold for use in these heavy-duty vehicles. This would be
addressed in a future action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\324\ 76 FR 44406 (July 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above in Sections IV.A.7.c (tailpipe emission testing)
and IV.C.4.b (evaporative emission testing), we are proposing to
require certification of all Tier 3 light-duty and chassis-certified
heavy-duty gasoline vehicles on E15 test fuel. As described in those
sections, we are proposing that EPA still accept testing for
certification on CARB's E10 test fuel during the phase-in periods for
the respective proposed Tier 3 vehicle tailpipe and evaporative
emissions standards and, if certified on CARB's E10 test fuel, that EPA
would not perform or require in-use exhaust or evaporative testing on
E15 test fuel.
As mentioned earlier, we plan to continue to allow manufacturers to
test vehicles on premium-grade gasoline should the vehicles require it.
Since we cannot predict all future changes in gasoline vehicle
technologies and in-use fuels, we are proposing to allow vehicle
manufacturers to specify an alternative test fuel under certain
situations. Under this proposal, if manufacturers were to design
vehicles that required operation on a higher octane, higher ethanol
content gasoline (e.g., dedicated E30 vehicles or FFVs optimized to run
on E30 or higher ethanol blends), under 40 CFR 1065.701(c), they could
petition the Administrator for approval of a higher octane, higher
ethanol content test fuel if they could demonstrate that such a fuel
would be used by the operator and would be readily available
nationwide, vehicles would not operate appropriately on other available
fuels, and such a fuel would result in equivalent emissions
performance. For vehicles certified on high-octane, high-ethanol
gasoline, all EPA confirmatory and in-use testing would also be
conducted on high-octane, high-ethanol gasoline. This could help
manufacturers who wish to raise compression ratios to improve vehicle
efficiency as a step toward complying with the 2017 and later light-
duty greenhouse gas and CAFE standards. This in turn could help provide
a market incentive to increase ethanol use beyond E10 and enhance the
environmental performance of ethanol as a transportation fuel by using
it to enable more fuel efficient engines. We seek comment on the
appropriateness of the alternative test fuel provisions at Sec.
1065.701(c) and the need to specify more precisely the makeup of such a
fuel (ethanol content, as well as other fuel parameters) in the
regulations at this time. We are also seeking comment on whether there
are other aspects of today's proposed standards that might need to be
modified to provide an incentive for, or remove obstacles to, the
development of highly efficient vehicles optimized for use on higher
level ethanol blends.
2. Proposed Flexible Fuel Vehicle Test Fuel
While the Agency has for some time had testing requirements for
flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) on E85 fuel blends, EPA currently has no
regulatory specifications for the test fuel itself. Historically, our
laboratory practice has been to blend indolene (E0) with neat ethanol
and normal butane to produce an FFV test fuel with 83 volume percent
ethanol and an RVP from 6.0 to 6.5 psi. However, the lack of E85 test
fuel specifications has caused confusion and inconsistency among FFV
manufacturers in carrying out their certification requirements.
Similar to the previous discussion regarding gasoline test fuels,
we believe it is important that the fuel used to test FFVs reflect the
composition of actual in-use E85. This may become increasingly
important if E85 usage in FFVs increases to help satisfy the growing
RFS2 renewable fuel requirements.
The term ``E85'' has historically been used to describe an ethanol
blend with a maximum ethanol content of 83 volume percent and specified
minimum ethanol content for use in FFVs. In the recently updated ASTM
International specification, the minimum ethanol concentration was
reduced from 68 to 51 volume percent.\325\ As part of the updated
specification, ASTM retired the name E85 because it has caused
[[Page 29912]]
confusion regarding the necessary variability in the ethanol content of
the blend depending upon seasonal climactic conditions. The official
name in the new ASTM specification is ``ethanol fuel blends for
flexible-fuel automotive spark-ignition engines.'' For the sake of
brevity, we shall refer to this fuel as E51-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\325\ ASTM International D5798-11, ``Standard Specification for
Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition
Engines''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with our current policy regarding the formulation of FFV
test fuel, we believe that the ethanol content should be at or near the
maximum ethanol level on which the vehicles were designed to operate to
ensure that the testing reflects the full range of in-use formulations
and emissions performance. To provide adequate flexibility for test
fuel manufacturers, we are proposing that the ethanol content must be
from 80 to 83 volume percent. Rather than specify ranges for the other
fuel parameters as we have done for gasoline test fuel in Table IV-21,
we are proposing that the FFV test fuel would be defined based on the
results from blending the proposed E15 standard gasoline test fuel with
ethanol. We propose that denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) that meets the
proposed specifications would be used to increase the ethanol content
to 80 to 83 volume percent.\326\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\326\ The proposed requirements for DFE are contained in Section
V.C of today's preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to ensure that the volatility of FFV test fuel
meets minimum volatility specifications to provide adequate
startability and for safety reasons. The ASTM minimum RVP specification
that conforms to the specified temperature at which FFV emission
testing takes place (68 to 86[emsp14][deg]F) is 5.5 psi. EPA conducted
discussions with vehicle and test fuel manufacturers to arrive at the
current guidance that the RVP of the finished test fuel should be
between 6.0 and 6.5 psi. We propose to formalize the current guidance
in the regulatory requirements for FFV test fuel. We propose that
commercial grade normal butane could be added to trim the RVP of the
finished test fuel to meet the proposed specifications.\327\ A 6.0 to
6.5 range in RVP has historically provided test fuel manufacturers
adequate flexibility in formulating test fuels. Limiting the amount of
butane that is added to formulate FFV test fuels is important because
if excessive volumes of butane were used it could inappropriately
reduce the stringency of emissions testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\327\ The specifications for commercial grade butane are
contained in 40 CFR 80.82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an alternative to the use of DFE to manufacture FFV test fuel,
we propose that neat (undenatured) fuel grade ethanol could be used. We
also propose that as an alternative to using a finished E15 standard
gasoline test fuel in the manufacture of FFV test fuel that the
gasoline blendstock used to produce a compliant E15 test fuel could be
used to manufacture the FFV test fuel. This would allow ethanol to be
blended only once to produce FFV test fuel. The test fuel manufacturer
would be required to test a sample of the subject gasoline blendstock
after the addition of ethanol to produce a finished standard E15
gasoline test fuel and demonstrate that the blend meets all of the
proposed requirements for standard gasoline test fuel described in
Section IV.D.1.
We propose that the above FFV emissions test fuel specifications
would become applicable on the same schedule as the proposed E15
standard gasoline test fuel specifications become applicable for light-
and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (described below in Section IV.D.3).
We believe that the proposed requirements would ensure that FFV test
fuel reflects the composition of in-use ethanol fuel blends for
flexible-fuel automotive spark-ignition engines while minimizing the
burden on the industry with respect to test fuel formulation and the
number of test fuel blend components that must be stored.
Under the Tier 2 program, FFVs utilize a test fuel containing 10
percent ethanol with an RVP of approximately 10 psi for evaporative
emission testing. The proposed E15 certification fuel for non-FFVs is a
9 psi E15 fuel. We seek comment on whether the new E15 evaporative
emissions test fuel for FFVs should continue to have an RVP of 10 psi
to maintain the level of performance established under the Tier 2
program.
3. Proposed Implementation Schedule
As described earlier in Section IV.C, we are proposing Tier 3
exhaust and evaporative emission standards with today's notice. The
proposed changes in the specifications for test fuel would apply to
vehicles certified to these new standards. We are proposing to
transition to the new test fuel during the first few years that the
Tier 3 standards are phasing in. As described in Sections IV.A and
IV.B, testing with the new fuel would start with light-duty vehicles
certified to Tier 3 bin standards at or below Bin 70, and heavy-duty
vehicles certified to Tier 3 bin standards at or below Bin 250 (for
Class 2b) and Bin 300 (for Class 3). Starting with model years 2020 for
light-duty and 2022 for heavy-duty, we would require that all
manufacturers use the new test fuel for all exhaust emission testing
(with the exception of Small Volume Manufacturers and small businesses,
which could delay using the new test fuel until model year 2022).
Manufacturers would also need to comply with cold temperature CO and
NMHC standards using the new test fuel for any models that use E15 test
fuel for meeting the light-duty Tier 3 exhaust emission standards.
These same tests would also provide the basis for meeting GHG
requirements under 40 CFR part 86 and fuel economy requirements under
40 CFR part 600, as described in the following section.
We are proposing to require evaporative emission testing with the
new test fuel for any models that are certified to the Tier 3
evaporative emission standards. To the extent that these models are
different than those used for exhaust emission testing with the new
test fuel, manufacturers would need to do additional testing to
demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards. They may
alternatively use the new test fuel earlier than the regulations
specify to avoid additional testing. We further propose to require that
manufacturers submit certification data based on the new test fuel to
demonstrate compliance with refueling emission standards for any
vehicles that are certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emission
standards.
4. Potential Implications on CAFE Standards, GHG Standards, and Fuel
Economy Labels
EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
recently finalized a joint greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and corporate
average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for MY 2017-2025 light-duty
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles.\328\
These GHG and CAFE standards build upon the National Program that was
first announced by the President in May 2009 and which allows
manufacturers to build a single fleet of light vehicles that can
satisfy all federal and state requirements for GHG emissions and fuel
economy. The first round of standards by EPA and NHTSA under the
National Program cover MY 2012-2016.\329\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\328\ 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012).
\329\ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recently finalized MY 2017-2025 GHG and CAFE standards affect
essentially the same vehicle classes over the same timeframe as this
proposal for non-GHG emissions standards and gasoline fuel quality.
Accordingly, EPA believes it is important for the two rulemakings to be
coordinated so that manufacturers can develop future
[[Page 29913]]
product development plans with a full understanding of the major
regulatory requirements they would be facing over the MY 2017-2025 time
frame.
The Agency would like to highlight two important issues of overlap
between these two rulemakings: Test fuel and useful life. As explained
above, today's action proposes to update EPA's test fuel to better
match in-use fuels, with the change in test fuel phased-in from MY
2017-2020 for light-duty exhaust emission compliance. The proposal
involves several changes to the emissions test fuel specifications,
including, notably, a 15 percent by volume ethanol content. The current
emissions test fuel contains zero ethanol. Regarding useful life, we
are proposing a longer useful life for some vehicles, as described in
Section IV.A.7.b, from the current 120,000 miles to 150,000 miles.
a. Test Fuel
The proposed change in test fuel, if finalized, could have
implications for both the CAFE and GHG emissions compliance programs,
as well as the fuel economy labeling program. EPA is committed to the
principle of ensuring that the proposed change in test fuel would not
affect the stringency of either the CAFE or GHG emissions standards,
and that the labeling calculations would be updated to reflect the
change in test fuel.
While NHTSA establishes the fuel economy standards for the CAFE
program, EPA is responsible for vehicle testing and calculation of fuel
economy values used by manufacturer for compliance with the CAFE
standards. Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA),
limitations are placed on the test procedures used to measure fuel
economy for passenger cars. For passenger automobiles, EPA has to use
the same procedures used for model year 1975 automobiles, or procedures
that give comparable results.\330\ When EPA has made changes to the FTP
or HFET, we have evaluated whether it is appropriate to provide for an
adjustment to the measured fuel economy results, to comply with the
EPCA requirement for passenger cars that the test procedures produce
results comparable to the 1975 test procedures. These adjustments are
typically referred to as a CAFE or fuel economy test procedure
adjustment or adjustment factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\330\ 49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline, i.e.,
fewer British thermal units (Btus) or joules per gallon,\331\ and fuel
economy is defined in terms of miles per gallon of fuel, it is almost
certain that the same vehicle tested on a test fuel with 15 percent
ethanol content will yield a lower fuel economy value relative to the
value if it were tested on the current test fuel with zero ethanol
content. For CAFE purposes, the existing fuel economy equation for
gasoline that has been in use for many years already contains an
adjustment for the energy content of the test fuel to calculate fuel
economy equivalent to what would have been determined using the 1975
baseline test fuel.\332\ Therefore, it is not clear that any further
action is necessary to account for the proposed change in certification
test fuel. Within this equation, however, is a so-called ``R-factor''
to account for the fact that the change in fuel economy is not directly
proportional to the change in energy content of the test fuel. Although
an R-factor of 0.6 has been used since 1988, manufacturers have
suggested that a higher value may be more appropriate. We discuss this
issue in a memo to the docket.\333\ This is a technical issue with the
fuel economy equation that has been raised in the context of the
proposed certification test fuel change, but technically it is distinct
from the proposed change in test fuel. EPA will continue to investigate
this issue and if necessary address it as part of a future action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\331\ EPA estimates that, on average, E85 fuel contains 25-30
percent less energy per gallon than gasoline with zero ethanol.
\332\ 40 CFR 600.113-12(h)(1).
\333\ Butler, A. (February 2013) Analysis of the Effects of
Changing Fuel Properties on the EPA Fuel Economy Equation and R-
Factor. Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is also committed to retaining equivalent stringency for GHG
emissions compliance associated with the proposed test fuel change. The
proposed changes in test fuel properties in this rule do not have any
appreciable impact on carbon dioxide grams per mile levels. This is
supported by data from the EPAct study, which show that the change in
the test fuel have both positive and negative impacts that offset each
other and that there is no net impact on carbon dioxide grams per mile
levels. This is discussed in a memo to the docket.\334\ We seek comment
on the impact of this proposal on CO2 emissions. Should
action to adjust the compliance calculation for the light-duty GHG
standards become warranted, we would include such changes as a part of
a future action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\334\ Butler, A. (February 2013) Analysis of the Effects of
Changing Fuel Properties on the EPA Fuel Economy Equation and R-
Factor. Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA expects that there may be a potential impact on manufacturer's
fuel economy and greenhouse gas testing burden during the Tier 3 phase-
in years. Currently, for example, manufacturers carry over a
considerable amount of previous model year data in support of their
Fuel Economy Labeling and CAFE/Greenhouse Gas programs. We are
proposing that Tier 3 compliant vehicles would be required to test on
E15 test fuel, and thus, manufacturers would normally not be allowed to
carry over previous model year data from vehicles tested on E0 test
fuel. EPA anticipates that such carryover requests could be handled
during the Tier 3 phase-in years with modifications to EPA's current
policy for the use of analytically derived data (see EPA's fuel
economy, CO2, and carbon-related exhaust emissions testing
regulations at 40 CFR 600.006-08(e) and EPA guidance letter CD-12-03
(February 27, 2012) and CCD-04-06, (March 11, 2004 \335\)). EPA
requests comments on whether there is a need for further reductions in
fuel economy/greenhouse gas testing burden beyond that allowed by the
above EPA guidance letters. Any comments supporting the need to reduce
fuel economy/greenhouse gas testing burden (beyond that allowed by
EPA's policy for the use of analytically derived data) should describe
one or more specific methods of reducing such testing burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\335\ EPA Guidance Letters CD-12-03 (Analytically Derived
CO2 and Carbon-Related Exhaust Emissions (CREE) for
Light-Duty Vehicles) and CCD-04-06 (Updated Analytically Derived
Fuel Economy (ADFE) Policy for 2005 MY and Later), March 11, 2004,
is available through the EPA Transportation and Air Quality Document
Index System at: http://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, EPA will need to update the fuel economy labeling
calculations in 40 CFR Part 600 to reflect the proposed E15 test fuel.
The current methodology, which took effect with the 2008 model year,
contains equations that, when applied to test results using current
fuel (zero alcohol), adjust for an average national impact of ethanol
in fuel on fuel economy. These equations would need to be revised such
that the adjustment remains consistent with the actual national use of
ethanol in fuel.
b. Useful Life for GHG Standards
As stated above, EPA is committed to retaining equivalent
stringency for GHG emissions compliance beginning in MY 2017. In
contrast to the proposed Tier 3 test fuel, for which we are uncertain
as to the effects on GHG emissions, we believe that certifying a
vehicle to a longer useful life for any emission constituent would have
only a
[[Page 29914]]
beneficial effect on emissions. To address potential concerns about
changes in the stringency of the GHG standards resulting from a longer
useful life, we are not proposing to require a longer useful life for
GHG emission standards. As this approach may result in additional
testing burden, we are proposing that manufacturers could optionally
certify GHG emissions to a 150,000 mile, 15 year useful life.
5. Consideration of Nonroad, Motorcycle, and Heavy-Duty Engine
Emissions Test Fuel
As described earlier in Section IV.D.1., we are proposing new
specifications for the gasoline emissions test fuel used for testing
highway vehicles subject to the proposed Tier 3 standards. In
developing today's proposal, EPA also considered proposing the change
in test fuel specifications for other categories of engines, vehicles,
equipment, and fuel system components that use gasoline. This would
include a wide range of applications, including small nonroad engines
used in lawn and garden applications, recreational vehicles such as
ATVs and snowmobiles, recreational marine applications, on-highway
motorcycles, and larger heavy-duty gasoline engines. While engines in
some of these categories employ advanced technologies similar to light-
duty vehicles and trucks, the vast majority of these engines employ
much simpler designs, with many of the engines being carbureted with no
electronic controls. Because of lower level of technology, emissions
from these engines are potentially much more sensitive to changes in
fuel quality.
EPA is not proposing to apply the new emissions test fuel
specifications to these other categories of engines, vehicles,
equipment, and fuel system components. In discussing the potential
change in test fuel specifications with the large number of businesses
potentially impacted by such a change, many companies supported such a
change. However, a number of manufacturers raised concerns about the
level of ethanol in the new fuel, the cost of recertifying emission
families on the new fuel, the impact on nationwide product offerings,
and the cost impact of complying with the existing standards on the new
test fuel. EPA believes it is important that the emissions test fuel
for these other categories reflect real-world fuel qualities but has
elected to defer moving forward now pending additional analysis of the
impacts of changing the test fuel specifications for the wide range of
engines, vehicles, equipment and fuel system components that could be
impacted. These impacts include the impact on the emissions standards,
as well as the other issues raised by the manufacturers. EPA plans to
explore such a change in a separate future action. EPA requests comment
on the implications of changing the test fuel for these other
categories and whether a different test fuel would be more appropriate
for these other categories.
6. Consideration of CNG and LPG Emissions Test Fuel
There are currently no sulfur specifications for the test fuel used
for certifying natural gas vehicles. There is also no sulfur
specification in Sec. 86.113 for the test fuel used for certifying
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) vehicles. The corresponding LPG test fuel
for heavy-duty highway engines and for nonroad engines in Sec.
1065.720 includes an 80 ppm maximum sulfur specification.
We request comment on the appropriateness of changing Sec. 86.113
to reference 40 CFR part 1065 for both natural gas and LPG test fuels.
We further request comment on amending these specifications to better
reflect in-use fuel characteristics, and in particular on the
appropriateness of aligning the sulfur specifications with those that
apply for gasoline test fuel. Changing the sulfur specifications would
depend on establishing that the new specification is consistent with
the range of properties expected from in-use fuels.
E. Small-Business Provisions
As in previous vehicle rulemakings, our justification for including
provisions specific to small businesses is that these entities
generally have a greater degree of difficulty in complying with the
standards compared to other entities.
In developing the proposed Tier 3 vehicle program, we evaluated the
environmental need as well as the technical and financial ability of
manufacturers and others to meet the standards as expeditiously as
possible. We believe it is feasible and necessary for the vast majority
of the program to be implemented in the established time frame to
achieve the air quality benefits as soon as possible. Based on
information available from small manufacturers and others, we believe
that entities classified as small generally face unique circumstances
with regard to compliance with environmental programs, compared to
larger entities. Thus, as discussed below, we are proposing several
flexibility provisions for small businesses in the vehicle industry to
reduce the burden that this program could have on them. These proposed
provisions are based on the recommendations of the Small Business
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel described in Section XIII.C of today's
proposal and include a few additional provisions.
Small entities generally lack the resources that are available to
larger companies to carry out necessary research and development and to
raise capital for investing in a new regulatory program. Small entities
are also likely to have more difficulty in competing for any needed
engineering and construction resources and lower production volume over
which to spread their compliance costs. Small entities also tend to
have limited product lines, which limits their ability to take
advantage of the phase-in and ABT flexibility provisions in the
proposal. As such, we are proposing regulatory flexibility provisions
that would provide additional lead time and reduced testing burden for
small entities in meeting the proposed Tier 3 standards. This proposed
approach would allow the overall program to begin as early as possible;
achieving the air quality benefits of the program as soon as possible,
while helping to ensure that small entities have adequate time to make
any necessary modifications to their product lines. We believe that
small business regulatory flexibilities could provide these entities
with additional help and/or time to take advantage of technological
developments by other parties and to accumulate capital internally or
to secure capital financing from lenders, and could spread out the
availability of any needed engineering resources. We believe these
provisions will also reduce their overall compliance burden and allow
them to more easily transition to the new standards in a way that
matches their business practices.
The provisions described below would be available to all small
businesses subject to the Tier 3 emission standards. The types of
companies subject to the Tier 3 emission standards include vehicle
manufacturers, and two additional categories of businesses that are
generally referred to as independent commercial importers (ICIs) and
alternative fuel vehicle converters. As discussed below, the proposed
set of flexibilities would also be available to manufacturers in these
three business categories that sell less than 5,000 vehicles per year
that are subject to the Tier 3 emission standards.
[[Page 29915]]
1. Lead Time for Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards
As noted above, small businesses have limited resources available
for developing new designs to comply with new emission standards. In
addition, it is often necessary for these businesses to rely on vendor
companies for technology. Moreover, percentage phase-in requirements
and declining fleet average standards pose a dilemma for a small
manufacturer that has a limited product line (e.g., the manufacturer
certifies vehicles in only one or two test groups). Thus, similar to
the flexibility provisions implemented in previous vehicle rules, the
Panel recommended that EPA allow small businesses the following
flexibility option for meeting the proposed Tier 3 emissions standards.
EPA is proposing that small businesses (and small volume
manufacturers, as discussed below) be given additional lead time to
comply with the proposed Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission
standards. Specifically, we propose to allow small manufacturers to
postpone compliance with the standards and other Tier 3 requirements,
including use of the proposed new certification test fuel, until model
year 2022. For model year 2022 and later, small manufacturers would be
subject to the same Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative requirements as
other manufacturers, including moving to the declining FTP fleet
average NMOG+NOX curve and complying with the fully phased-
in standard of 30 mg/mi, as well as certifying on E15 test fuel. (This
approach is similar to that in the Tier 2 rule where EPA allowed small
manufacturers to wait until the end of the phase-in to comply with the
Tier 2 standards.) As described earlier in this section, the proposed
Tier 3 rule has several different phase-in schedules; with the final
dates varying from model year 2021 for the new light-duty exhaust PM
standards to model year 2025 for the new light-duty exhaust gaseous
pollutant standards. Requiring all small businesses to comply with the
full slate of Tier 3 requirements in model year 2022 should provide
sufficient lead time for manufacturers to plan for and implement the
technology changes needed to comply with the Tier 3 standards.
During the SBAR Panel process, one small entity representative
(SER) recommended that EPA adopt relaxed exhaust standards for small
manufacturers. The SER noted that the exhaust emission averaging
program being proposed by EPA would allow large manufacturers that have
many engine families to certify their small, niche products at emission
levels numerically higher than the standards. Small manufacturers that
typically do not have more than one or two emission families generally
cannot use averaging to the same extent because of their limited
product offerings. The SER was concerned that the high-performance
vehicles produced by large manufacturers which they compete against
would be able to certify at numerically higher levels at less cost than
the SER would incur. The SER-recommended relaxed NMOG+NOX
standards over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) are 125 mg/mi in model
year 2020 and 70 mg/mi in model year 2025. This is the same general
approach that the CARB Board approved for small volume manufacturers in
LEV III (a relaxed standard NMOG+NOX of 125 mg/mi followed
by a fully phased-in standard of 70 mg/mi in model year 2025), except
that the CARB program introduces the relaxed standard and the change in
test fuel in model year 2022.
As described above, although we are proposing a delay in the Tier 3
requirements, EPA is not proposing to relax the fully phased-in
standards for the small entities. We believe that these standards are
technologically feasible and can be readily achieved with the
additional lead time we are proposing as the technology would have
already been demonstrated by other manufacturers, in some cases on the
very same engines used by the small manufacturers. In addition, the
compliance costs for many of these vehicles, even if higher on an
absolute basis, may still be lower on a relative basis given the higher
average cost of the vehicles. Furthermore, EPA is proposing to allow
manufacturers to apply for hardship relief (discussed below) on a case-
by-case basis. EPA requests comment on our proposed approach and
whether there is an additional need for the final rule to allow small
manufacturers to meet relaxed NMOG+NOX exhaust emission
standards on the FTP over the long term, as suggested by the SER and as
reflected in action by CARB.
In light of the CARB Board-approved implementation schedule for
small manufacturers described above, we also request comment on an
option that would not provide a permanent relaxed standard for small
manufacturers, but would provide a temporary relaxed standard matching
the California standard from model year 2022 through 2024. This option
would apply to the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards starting in 2022,
except that a relaxed NMOG+NOX standard of 125 mg/mi would
apply in model years 2020-2024 for FTP testing. For model years 2025
and later, the standard would be the same as for all other
manufacturers, or 30 mg/mi. Under this option, small manufacturers
would have to take some action to reduce emissions in 2022 and could
postpone meeting fully phased-in Tier 3 standards until 2025.
2. Assigned Deterioration Factors
Under EPA's regulations, manufacturers must demonstrate that their
vehicles comply with the emission standards throughout the ``useful
life'' period. This is generally done by testing vehicles at low-
mileage and then applying a deterioration factor to these emission
levels. The deterioration factors are determined by aging new emission
control systems and then testing the aged systems again to determine
how much deterioration in emissions has occurred. In order to reduce
the testing burden in previous rulemaking, EPA has allowed small
manufacturers to use deterioration factor values assigned by EPA
instead of performing the extended testing. A manufacturer would apply
the assigned deterioration factors to its low-mileage emission level to
demonstrate whether it complied with the Tier 3 emission standards.
With today's proposal, EPA proposes that small businesses be
allowed the option to use EPA-developed assigned deterioration factors
in demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative
emission standards. In the past, EPA has relied on deterioration factor
data from large manufacturers to develop the assigned deterioration
factors for small manufacturers. EPA would expect to follow a similar
procedure to determine the assigned deterioration factors for the Tier
3 standards once large manufacturers start certifying their Tier 3
designs. Given that larger manufacturers would begin phasing in to the
Tier 3 standards in model year 2017, EPA should have a significant set
of emissions deterioration data upon which to base the assigned
deterioration factors for small businesses within the first few years
of the Tier 3 program. EPA recognizes that assigned deterioration
factors need to be determined well in advance of model year 2022 in
order to provide sufficient time for small businesses to decide whether
or not to use the assigned deterioration factors for certification
purposes.
3. Reduced Testing Burden
Under EPA's regulations, manufacturers must perform in-use
[[Page 29916]]
testing on their vehicles and demonstrate their in-use vehicles comply
with the emission standards. The current in-use testing regulations
provide for reduced levels of testing for small manufacturers,
including no testing in some cases. EPA is proposing to continue the
reduced levels of testing for small businesses under the Tier 3
program. Under the reduced testing provisions, manufacturers that sell
less than 5,000 units per year would not be required to do any testing
under the in-use program. Manufacturers that sell between 5,001 and
15,000 units per year would be required to test two vehicles per test
group, but only under the high-mileage conditions specified in the in-
use program.
Under current regulations, manufacturers may waive testing for PM
emissions for light-duty vehicles and trucks, except for diesel-fueled
vehicles. Manufacturers are still subject to the standards and must
make a statement of compliance with the PM standards. As described in
Section IV.A, EPA is proposing new PM standards and will require
manufacturers to test for PM emissions for all fuels. Because PM
testing requires additional test equipment and facilities, the costs
incurred for PM testing can be substantial, especially for a company
selling small numbers of vehicles. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
continue the waiver for PM testing in the Tier 3 timeframe for small
businesses. Small businesses will not be required to measure PM
emissions when they certify to the Tier 3 emission standards. In lieu
of testing, small businesses will be required to make a statement of
compliance with the Tier 3 p.m. standards. We would retain the ability
to determine the PM emissions results in confirmatory or in-use
testing.
As described in Section IV.C, EPA is proposing new OBD requirements
for vehicles certifying to the Tier 3 standards. The proposed OBD
requirements are the same as CARB's existing OBD requirements. The
proposed OBD provisions require additional amounts of testing and
information that can add significant cost for manufacturers if they are
not already meeting the CARB OBD requirements. Small business vehicle
manufacturers tend to comply with the CARB OBD requirements because
they want to sell in the California market. On the other hand,
alternative-fuel converters do not generally certify with CARB because
of the significant cost burden of complying with the CARB OBD
requirements. We are therefore proposing that small business
alternative-fuel converters may continue to comply with EPA's existing
OBD requirements (see 40 CFR 86.1806-05) when the Tier 3 standards
become effective. However, the proposed upgraded OBD requirements would
have to be met by small entities and ICI's by the 2022 MY.
Alternative-fueled vehicles, MDPVs, FFVs, and HDVs do not have SFTP
emissions requirements under the current regulations. As described in
Section IV.A, EPA is proposing to apply the Tier 3 SFTP standards to
all vehicles, including alternative-fueled vehicles, MDPVs, FFVs, and
HDVs. Because SFTP testing includes emission measurement over the SC03
test cycle, which requires additional test facilities beyond those
needed to run the FTP, the costs incurred for SC03 testing can be
substantial, especially for companies like alternative fuel converters
that sell very low numbers of converted vehicles. We are proposing that
for the categories of vehicles newly subject to the SFTP standards,
including alternative-fueled vehicles, manufacturers have the option to
substitute the FTP emissions levels for the SC03 emissions results for
purposes of compliance when calculating the SFTP emissions. However, we
would retain the ability to determine the composite emissions using
SC03 test results in confirmatory or in-use testing. Because the
vehicles being converted to an alternative fuel will likely have been
tested for SFTP compliance, we expect the SFTP emissions should be
similarly low, and therefore the added SC03 testing burden is
unnecessary.
During the SBAR process, one SER requested that EPA eliminate some
of the evaporative emission testing requirements for small businesses
based on its belief that some of the tests may be duplicative. While
EPA understands the reasons behind the SER's suggestion, we believe it
may be premature to consider such an option in the Tier 3 rule given
the potential impact of the CO2 emission standards on engine
and fuel system development. Currently, it is generally understood that
the 2-day diurnal test drives the purge characteristics of evaporative
control systems, while the refueling test, and to a lesser degree the
3-day test, drive the capacity requirement of evaporative canisters.
Prospectively, due to expected changes in engine and fuel system
designs in response to upcoming CO2 emission standard
requirements, this may not be the case. Therefore, EPA believes it is
appropriate to retain all of the evaporative test procedures. It can be
noted that under current regulations, EPA does allow manufacturers to
waive 2-day diurnal testing for certification purposes (see 40 CFR
86.1829-01(b)(2)(iii)) and perform only the 2-day diurnal test as part
of the in-use testing program (see 40 CFR 86.1845-04(c)(5)(ii)). These
provisions would continue in the Tier 3 program. In general, EPA is
open to changes that reduce test burden while maintaining the
environmental effectiveness of its programs and could consider changes
like those suggested by the SER in the future as the impacts of the
future regulations on engine and vehicle design become clearer.
Therefore, EPA requests comment on streamlining the current test
procedures for small businesses in ways that would still maintain the
overall effectiveness of the tests.
4. Hardship
EPA is proposing hardship provisions for small businesses subject
to the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards. Under the
hardship provisions, small businesses would be allowed to apply for
additional time to meet the 100 percent phase-in requirements for
exhaust and evaporative emissions. All hardship requests would be
subject to EPA review and approval. Appeals for such hardship relief
would need to be made in writing and must be submitted well before the
earliest date of potential noncompliance. The request would need to
identify how much time is being requested. It must also include
evidence that the noncompliance would occur despite the manufacturer's
best efforts to comply, and must contain evidence that severe economic
hardship would be faced by the company if the relief is not granted.
The hardship provision should effectively provide the opportunity for
small businesses to obtain more time to comply with the new Tier 3
standards. The existing hardship provisions limit the extra time that
can be requested to 1 year, but we are proposing that such a limit is
not needed as part of the Tier 3 hardship provisions.
5. Applicability of Flexibilities
Under EPA's Tier 2 regulations, EPA provides a number of
flexibilities for small volume manufacturers (SVMs). The criteria for
determining if a company is a ``small volume manufacturer'' is based on
the annual production level of vehicles and is based on whether the
company produces less than 15,000 vehicles per year. Unlike EPA's
current small volume manufacturer criteria, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) defines which manufacturers are small businesses
based on the number of employees for vehicle manufacturers and annual
revenues for ICIs and
[[Page 29917]]
alternative fuel converters. For example, SBA defines a small business
vehicle manufacturer as those who have less than 1,000 employees.
With today's notice, EPA proposes that all small businesses that
are subject to the Tier 3 standards and that meet the SBA criteria be
eligible for the flexibilities described above. Unless otherwise noted,
the proposed flexibilities would be available to all small business
vehicle manufacturers, ICIs, and alternative fuel converters subject to
the Tier 3 standards. In addition, EPA is proposing that manufacturers
subject to the Tier 3 standards which meet a specified sales-based
criterion be eligible for the flexibilities described above. It is
relatively easy for a manufacturer to project and ultimately determine
sales. Determining the annual revenues or number of employees is less
straightforward. In the recent rule setting the first light-duty
vehicle and truck CO2 emission standards, EPA adopted
provisions for small manufacturers based on a sales cutoff of 5,000
vehicles per year as opposed to the 15,000 level noted earlier that is
used in the Tier 2 program. EPA proposes that the small volume
manufacturer definition be based on the 5,000 vehicle per year level
for the Tier 3 program. For purposes of the Tier 3 rule, the 5,000
limit would be based on a running three-year average of the number of
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles,
and complete heavy-duty trucks below 14,000 lbs GVWR. EPA believes the
5,000 unit cut-off for small volume manufacturers would include all of
the vehicle manufacturers, ICIs, and alternative fuel converters that
currently meet the applicable SBA definition as well as a few
additional companies that have similar concerns to small businesses.
EPA requests comment on the issue of extending eligibility for the
Tier 3 small volume manufacturer provisions to very small manufacturers
that are owned by large manufacturers but are able to establish that
they are operationally independent. EPA has established such a
provision in the light-duty greenhouse gas (GHG) program.\336\ EPA
requests comment specifically on whether a manufacturer who meets the
criteria for establishing operational independence under 86.1838-01(d)
for eligibility for SVM provisions under the GHG program should be
considered to be operationally independent and similarly eligible for
SVM provisions under the Tier 3 program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\336\ See 77 FR 62793-62794 and 40 CFR 86.1838-01(d)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Compliance Provisions
1. Exhaust Emission Test Procedures
We are proposing technical amendments to 40 CFR part 1066 as part
of the effort to migrate test requirements from 40 CFR part 86 for
light-duty vehicles and measurement of criteria pollutants. The
proposed procedures in part 1066 reference large portions of part 1065
to align test specifications that apply equally to engine-based and
vehicle-based testing, such as CVS and analyzer specifications,
calibrations, test fuels, calculations, and definitions of many terms.
The proposed part 1066, as amended, also incorporates most of the
detailed part 86 procedures.
Current testing requirements related to chassis dynamometers rely
on a combination of regulatory provisions, EPA guidance documents, and
extensive learning from industry experience that has led to a good
understanding of best practices for operating a vehicle in the
laboratory to measure emissions. This proposal attempts to capture this
range of material, integrating and organizing these specifications and
procedures to include a complete set of provisions to ensure that
emission measurements are accurate and repeatable. We request comment
on the range of proposed requirements related to these chassis test
procedures.
Proposed revisions to part 1066, and adjustments from part 86,
include the following:
Clarification of regulatory requirements.
Correction of typographical errors.
Migration of mass-based emission calculations from part 86
to part 1066.
Introduction of a new NMOG calculation.
Revision of 40 CFR part 1066, subpart B, to increase the
specificity with which part 1065 references are made as they pertain to
testing equipment, test fluids, test gases, and calibration standards.
Addition of coastdown procedures for light-duty vehicles.
Reordering of the test sequence with respect to vehicle
preparation and running a test.
Specifying part 1065 procedures for PM measurement,
including certain deviations from part 1065 for chassis testing.
Insertion of detailed test specifications for vehicles
certified under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
We are proposing the use of part 1065 for PM measurement with
slight adjustments to the dilution air temperature, minimum dilution
ratio, and background measurement requirements. By controlling the
parameters that affect PM formation (dilution air temperature, dilution
factor, sample residence time, filter face temperature, and filter face
velocity), the proposed procedures include improvements that will
reduce lab-to-lab and test-to-test variability.
We are proposing to eliminate separate sampling of Bag 2 of the FTP
test cycle to allow for an increase in sampled PM mass. The proposed
alternative approach is to sample Bags 1 and 2 of the FTP on a single
filter, and sample Bags 2 and 3 of the FTP onto a second filter. This
will generally involve simultaneous sampling of Phase 2 onto two
separate filters. As an additional alternative, manufacturers may run
cold and hot UDDSs without simultaneous sampling of the cold UDDS Phase
2, or to sample Bag 1, Bag 2, and Bag 3 on a single filter.
Manufacturers choosing any of these options must still run a separate
three-bag test for evaporative emission testing. We request comment on
continuing to allow sampling under the traditional FTP methodology of a
bag or filter per test phase (3 phases in total) instead of these
proposed new methods. We also request comment on the appropriate
transition to using the new sampling and calculation methods.
We are proposing to revise the chassis dynamometer specifications
in part 1066 by removing the maximum roll diameter and by requiring
speed and force measurements at a minimum frequency of 10 hertz (Hz).
Some manufacturers may be interested in testing with nonstandard
dynamometer configurations, such as new flat-track dynamometers or old
twin-roll dynamometers. We may approve the use of these and other
nonstandard dynamometer configurations as alternative procedures under
40 CFR 1065.10(c)(7).
Part 1066 relies extensively on calculations involving physical
parameters to calculate emission rates and perform various calibrations
and verifications. As reflected in the current version of part 1066,
manufacturers have used a variety of units to perform these
calculations. We would expect that dynamometers and other laboratory
equipment are all capable of operating in SI units even if current
practice in some laboratories is to use other units. Moving toward
standardized units for calculations would allow us to more carefully
and appropriately specify precision values for various measured and
calculated parameters. This would also simplify calculations,
facilitate review of results from different
[[Page 29918]]
laboratories, and help with communications regarding any round-robin
testing that might occur. Note that we are not contemplating converting
emission standards to SI units. We request comment on completing the
migration toward SI units in part 1066. In particular, we request
comment on adding vehicle speed specifications in meters per second in
addition to the current specification in miles per hour (or kilometers
per hour for motorcycles). Specifying vehicle speeds to the nearest
0.01 m/s would allow for equivalent vehicle operation relative to
current drive schedules. The cycle validation criteria would be based
on a speed tolerance of 1.0 m/s rather than 2
mph (or rather than the proposed change to a 2.0 mph
tolerance). This is not a direct unit conversion, but is calculated
based on the stated precision and rounding allowance to provide a
comparable degree of variability in vehicle speeds.
We are proposing to phase in the requirements to use part 1066 test
procedures for certifying all sizes of chassis-tested vehicles. For
this phase-in approach, all aspects of part 1066 related to PM testing
must be met at the start of MY 2017 for vehicles certifying to the PM
standards. All other aspects of part 1066 must be met starting with the
certification of all MY 2022 vehicles.
As described in Section IV.D, we are proposing new test fuel
specifications for E15 gasoline test fuel in 40 CFR part 1065. The test
fuels specified for natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas, while not
used for very many engine families, are currently following different
specifications under 40 CFR part 86 and part 1065. We request comment
on further revising 40 CFR part 86 to refer to the test fuel
specifications in part 1065 for natural gas and liquefied petroleum
gas.
The proposal also includes various technical amendments to 40 CFR
part 1065. The proposed technical amendments have no effect on the
stringency of the regulations. These revisions include several minor
changes to clarify regulatory requirements, align with chassis-testing
procedures where appropriate, and correct typographical errors.
2. Reduced Test Burden
We are proposing to update the regulatory provisions that allow
manufacturers to omit testing for certification, in-use testing, and
selective enforcement audits in certain circumstances. Sections IV.A.3,
IV.B.6, and IV.E.3 describe how this applies for demonstrating that
vehicles meet the Tier 3 p.m. standards. We are also proposing to allow
manufacturers to omit PM measurements for fuel economy and GHG
emissions testing that goes beyond the testing needed for certifying
vehicles to the Tier 3 standards. Requiring such measurement would add
a significant burden with very limited additional assurance that
vehicles adequately control PM. We are also proposing to allow
manufacturers to ask us to omit PM and formaldehyde measurement for
selective enforcement audits. If there is a concern that any type of
vehicle would not meet the Tier 3 p.m. or formaldehyde standards, we
would not approve a manufacturer's request to omit measurement of these
emissions during a selective enforcement audit.
The regulations currently allow for waived formaldehyde testing for
gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles. The Tier 3 NMOG+NOX
emission standards are stringent enough that it is unlikely that
vehicles would comply with the NMOG+NOX standards while
exceeding the formaldehyde standards. We are therefore proposing to
continue this waiver practice, such that manufacturers of Tier 3
vehicles do not need to submit formaldehyde data for certification.
We are also requesting comment on rearranging the default testing
specification for certifying vehicles to evaporative emission
standards, as described in Section IV.C. This would involve requiring
manufacturers to perform testing with the two-day test sequence, while
making the three-day test sequence optional.
3. Miscellaneous Provisions
The following additional certification and compliance provisions
are included in the proposed rule:
The certification practice for assigned deterioration
factors which are available for both small volume manufacturers and
small volume test groups has matured significantly since it was first
adopted. We are proposing to revise Sec. 86.1826 to more carefully
reflect the current practice. For example, the regulations specify that
manufacturers with sales volumes between 300 and 15,000 units per year
should propose their own deterioration factors based on engineering
analysis of emission data from other families. We believe it is best
for EPA to develop a set of assigned deterioration factors that can
apply to all small volume manufacturers and small volume test groups.
The regulations in 40 CFR part 86 rely on rounding
procedures specified in ASTM E29. This standard is revised
periodically. The newer versions are not likely to change in a way that
affects the regulation, but the updates make it difficult to maintain a
coordinated reference to the current protocol. We are proposing to
address this by specifying that the rounding protocol described in 40
CFR 1065.20(e) applies, unless specified otherwise. We are not
proposing to change all the references in part 86; rather, we are
proposing to define ``round'' in subparts A and S to have the meaning
given in 40 CFR part 1065 so that all new regulatory text would rely on
this new description. The rounding specifications in 40 CFR part 1065
are intended to be identical to those in the latest versions of ASTM
E29 and NIST SP811. For example, this now includes procedures for
nonstandard rounding, such as rounding to the nearest 25 units, or the
nearest 0.05, where that is appropriate.
Independent Commercial Importers (ICIs) are companies that
import specialized vehicles into the U.S. and are subject to EPA
requirements specified in Part 85, Subpart P. The standards which apply
to the vehicles imported depend, in part, on the model year of the
vehicle being imported. Therefore, vehicles imported by ICIs in the
future could be subject to the proposed Tier 3 standards and the
proposed regulations reflect the application of the Tier 3 standards to
ICIs. Because all existing ICIs are small-volume manufacturers, the
Tier 3 standards would not apply until 2022 at the earliest. In
addition, the certification practices for ICIs have matured
significantly since they were first adopted. EPA is proposing two
changes to update the regulations affecting ICIs. First, the proposed
provisions would require ICIs to use electric dynamometers when running
exhaust emission tests. Electric dynamometers have been required for
many years for vehicle manufacturers and EPA believes it is time to
require such test equipment for ICIs in the future. In cases where an
ICI can demonstrate that they will incur a substantial increase in
compliance costs, the proposed regulations include a provision that
allows EPA to approve requests, on a case-by-case basis, to allow
testing on other types of dynamometers until the ICI is able to comply
with the proposed electric dynamometer requirements. Second, we are
proposing to incorporate into regulation that ICIs be allowed to use a
specific set of reduced testing requirements for up to 300 units each
year that have been modified to a U.S.-certified configuration. This
has been allowed for ICIs since 1999 and was approved under EPA's
authority to establish equivalent alternate test
[[Page 29919]]
procedures.\337\ Instead of running a full set of emission tests, the
reduced testing requirements would allow ICIs to run an FTP for exhaust
emissions, a highway fuel economy test, and a shortened one-hour
evaporative emission tests for hot-soak and diurnal emissions that
applied prior to the current enhanced evaporative emission test
procedures. We do not believe the proposed changes should have any
significant cost impacts on ICIs. Most of the ICIs have electric
dynamometers or can upgrade them for a relatively small cost. The
reduced testing burden provisions keep the cost of testing low,
compared to the cost of running a full set of emission tests that
otherwise could be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\337\ See 40 CFR 86.106-96(a) and Enclosure 2 to EPA Guidance
letter CCD-02-04, February 6, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to adopt CARB's onboard diagnostic
requirements for all light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-
duty vehicles, as described in Section IV.C.5.d. We currently allow for
this as an option, but almost all manufacturers do this already to
avoid certifying multiple systems. Now that we are adopting evaporative
provisions that depend on California's regulatory specifications and we
are making efforts to adopt a single, national regulatory program, we
believe this is an appropriate step. This proposal includes heavy-duty
vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR, though these vehicles would not need to
meet the new requirements related to leak testing. These changes would
apply starting in model year 2017 for vehicles subject to Tier 3
standards. The changes apply directly for heavy-duty vehicles above
14,000 lbs GVWR, since all those vehicles are already certified based
on CARB's regulations. In the case of alternative fuel conversions, we
are proposing to continue to apply the requirements of 40 CFR 86.1806-
05.
4. Manufacturer In-Use Verification Testing (IUVP) Requirements
The fuel on which a vehicle will be operated in-use and tested is
considered an integral part of the vehicle emission control system
design. The Tier 2 program recognized that to achieve the desired
emission reductions, vehicles must operate on the same fuel that the
emission control system was originally designed to encounter in-use and
during testing. In the Tier 2 program, we acknowledged that during the
transition of the in-use fuel from sulfur levels of 300 ppm to the
required 30 ppm average level, vehicles designed for 30 ppm could
encounter in-use sulfur levels well above the level for which their
emission control systems were designed. To address this issue, we
allowed manufacturers, with agency approval, to perform specific
preconditioning test procedures during the IUVP testing to ensure that
potential exposure to high sulfur fuel in-use would not impact the
emission test results. These procedures included specific drive cycles
or maneuvers not regularly encountered during normal in-use operation
that would result in removal of sulfur contamination from the emission
control system.
Consistent with the Tier 2 program, EPA continues to recognize the
importance of the fuel to the emission control system design,
particularly on Tier 3 vehicles designed to meet the most stringent
emission levels of the program (i.e., Bin 70 and cleaner). Under EPA's
proposal, in-use fuel would transition from an average sulfur level of
30 ppm required by Tier 2 to a new average level of 10 ppm under Tier
3. The proposed sulfur requirements would be average standards. Thus,
even after the transition to the 10 p.m. average sulfur level, vehicles
might still encounter sulfur levels during in-use operation above 10
ppm and as high as the 95 ppm cap, which could adversely impact the
emission control system. Tier 3 vehicles tested by manufacturers in
IUVP that have been exposed to such sulfur levels could experience
sulfur-related impacts, which in turn could cause the vehicle to
temporarily exceed emission standards.
To address the potential emission impact on Tier 3 vehicles from
exposure to higher sulfur levels, we are proposing some modifications
to the IUVP testing process based in part on what was allowed under the
Tier 2 program. Tier 3 vehicles tested in the IUVP would be tested
initially without allowing any sulfur cleanout procedure, such as a
US06 test run prior to the FTP or Highway Fuel Economy (HFET) tests. If
a vehicle failed the NMOG+NOX standard for the FTP or HFET
cycle during the initial round of testing, manufacturers would be
allowed to perform a sulfur cleanout procedure before repeating the FTP
or HFET. For the sulfur cleanout, manufacturers would be allowed to
perform up to two US06 cycles. The measured US06 cycle and a
preconditioning US06 cycle, if performed as part of the initial
measured tests would serve as the cleanout procedure and therefore no
additional US06 cycles would be allowed. Alternative sulfur cleanout
procedures would require approval by EPA. Following the sulfur cleanout
procedure, the manufacturer would prep and soak the vehicles and then
repeat the FTP and HFET tests. If a manufacturer chose to perform the
sulfur cleanout procedure, it would be required to submit evidence that
the vehicle encountered high sulfur levels in the fuel just prior to
emission testing. This would include an analysis of a fuel sample from
the vehicle fuel system as received from in-use operation just prior to
testing. If the fuel sample indicated that the vehicle was operating on
fuel containing 15 ppm or higher sulfur levels in the recent past, only
the emission results of the tests following the cleanout procedure
would be used for purposes of determining emission compliance and
whether to enter the in-use compliance program (IUCP).
The proposed rule includes the changes to the IUVP testing
described above for light-duty vehicles and MDPVs. The changes to IUVP
testing are not applicable to heavy-duty vehicles tested in the IUVP
program. Also, as described in Section IV.D, we are proposing to
incorporate leak testing into the IUVP test protocol. We are not
proposing additional changes to the overall IUVP test program.
V. Proposed Fuel Program
Under today's Tier 3 program, we are proposing reductions in
gasoline sulfur levels nationwide. These standards would help prevent
the significant impairment of the emission control systems expected to
be used in Tier 3 technology, significantly improve the efficiency of
emissions control systems currently in use, and continue prevention of
the substantial adverse effects of sulfur levels on the performance of
vehicle emissions control systems. Section V.A provides an overview of
the fuel program and how we arrived at the proposed gasoline sulfur
standards. Section V.B presents our assessment of the impacts the
proposed fuel program would have on stationary source permitting and
our conclusion that the proposed refinery lead time is adequate.
Section V.C contains our proposed standards for denatured fuel ethanol.
In Section V.D, we introduce and seek comment on possible options for
regulating gasoline-ethanol blends intended for flexible fuel vehicles.
Section V.E presents the proposed program flexibilities including the
averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program as well as small refiner
and small volume refinery provisions. Section V.F lays out the
compliance provisions for the proposed Tier 3 gasoline program.
Finally, Section V.G presents our statutory authorities for lowering
gasoline sulfur. As a result of these proposals, we have to amend
certain existing provisions in the current Tier 2 requirements at 40
CFR
[[Page 29920]]
part 80. We are not reopening Tier 2 and our proposed amendments should
not be construed as a reopener.
A. Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Standards
1. Overview
a. History of Sulfur Control
Sulfur is naturally occurring in crude oil. Crude oil containing
higher concentrations of sulfur (i.e., greater than 0.5 percent) is
called ``sour'' and crude containing lower sulfur concentrations (e.g.,
West Texas Intermediate) is referred to as ``sweet.'' Regardless of the
concentration, because sulfur is naturally occurring in crude oil, it
is also naturally occurring in gasoline. As discussed in Section
IV.A.6, sulfur impairs the performance of today's vehicle emission
control technologies (i.e., precious metal catalytic converters),
reducing the emission benefits of current and advanced vehicles. As
explained below, in 2000 EPA took action to reduce gasoline sulfur
levels under what is known as the Tier 2 Program \338\ and is proposing
to take further action under the proposed Tier 3 Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\338\ 67 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 2 was a major, comprehensive program designed to reduce
emissions from passenger cars, light trucks, and large passenger
vehicles (including sport utility vehicles, minivans, vans, and pick-up
trucks) and the sulfur content of gasoline. Under this program,
automakers were required to manufacture low-emission vehicles when
operated on low-sulfur gasoline, and refiners were required to produce
low-sulfur gasoline nationwide.
Required reductions in gasoline sulfur began in 2004 with refinery
and importer caps of 300 ppm and a corporate average cap of 120 ppm.
For most refiners and importers, compliance with the final sulfur
standards (30-ppm annual average and 80-ppm per gallon cap) was
required beginning in 2006. Due to extensions provided for some
refineries under the ultra-low sulfur diesel program, final compliance
for all U.S. refineries was January 1, 2011. The Tier 2 gasoline sulfur
program also had an ABT program that allowed companies to generate
credits for implementing the required changes earlier than required and
allowed ongoing flexibility to meet the 30-ppm average sulfur standard.
At full implementation, the Tier 2 program (treating vehicles and
fuels as a system) required passenger vehicles to be over 77 percent
cleaner and gasoline sulfur to be reduced by up to 90 percent from pre-
program levels.
b. Need for Additional Gasoline Sulfur Control
We are proposing to lower today's gasoline sulfur standards under
Clean Air Act section 211(c)(1). This is because emission products of
gasoline with current levels of sulfur cause or contribute to air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare and impair to a significant degree the emissions control
device or systems on the vehicles subject to the proposed Tier 3
standards. For more on our legal authority to set gasoline sulfur
standards, refer to Section V.G.
As explained in Section IV.A.6, robust data from many sources shows
that gasoline sulfur at current levels (i.e., around 30 ppm on average)
continues to degrade vehicle catalytic converter performance during
normal operation. The most significant problem is for NOX.
Today's proposed NMOG+NOX vehicle emission standards, an 80
percent reduction from current Tier 2 standards, would not be possible
without the gasoline sulfur controls we are proposing today. Tier 3
vehicles must achieve essentially zero warmed-up NOX
emissions to comply and maintain this performance for up to 150,000
miles. An increase in emissions of only a few milligrams per mile due
to sulfur could make compliance impossible for some vehicles. The
standards are projected to be especially challenging for larger SUVs
and pick-up trucks.
Reducing gasoline sulfur would also help reduce emissions of
pollutants that endanger public health and welfare from vehicles
already on the road today. For the Tier 2 rule, we had data that showed
benefits of reducing gasoline sulfur, but little to no data existed for
sulfur levels below 30 ppm that we could use to project continued
emission reductions. Since then, we have tested a wide range of Tier 2
vehicles to better understand the impact that even lower gasoline
sulfur could have on emissions. Our test data showed significant
NOX and VOC reductions when vehicles were tested on ultra-
low sulfur gasoline. As explained in more detail in Section III.B,
lowering average gasoline sulfur from 30 to 10 ppm would result in
approximately 280,000 less tons of NOX and 40,000 less tons
of VOC. The projected in-use emission benefits would occur almost
immediately in 2017 when the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards take
effect.
c. Summary of Proposed Tier 3 Fuel Program
Under today's Tier 3 fuel program, we are proposing that gasoline
and any ethanol-gasoline blend contain no more than 10 ppm sulfur on an
annual average basis beginning January 1, 2017. Similar to the Tier 2
gasoline program, the proposed Tier 3 program would apply to gasoline
in the United States and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands, excluding California. The program, when finalized,
would result in gasoline that contains an average of two-thirds less
sulfur than it does today. We are proposing a three-year delay for
small refiners and small volume refineries. Eligible small refining
entities, described in more detail in Section V.E.2, would have until
January 1, 2020 to comply with the new sulfur standards.
We are proposing an ABT program that would allow refiners to
optimize their investment strategies to enable reduction in capital and
compliance costs. Refiners and importers overcomplying with the 10-ppm
standard beginning January 1, 2017 could generate standard credits that
could be used internally, banked, or traded to other companies. We are
also proposing an early credit program that would allow refiners and
importers to spread out their investments over time to allow for an
orderly transition. Starting January 1, 2014, refiners and importers
taking steps to reduce gasoline sulfur below the current 30-ppm
standard could generate early credits that could be used to postpone
final investments for up to three years. For a more detailed discussion
of the proposed ABT program, refer to Section V.E.1. As a result of the
early credit program and notwithstanding the proposed delay offered to
small refiners and small volume refineries, we anticipate considerable
reductions in gasoline sulfur levels prior to 2017, with final refinery
steps to get to 10 ppm occurring on or before January 1, 2020.
We are proposing to either maintain the current 80-ppm refinery
gate per-gallon cap and 95-ppm downstream per-gallon cap or lower them
to 50 and 65 ppm, respectively. We also evaluated and are seeking
comment on the potential of lowering these caps to 20 ppm and 25 ppm,
respectively. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with
the various sulfur cap options (explained in more detail in Section
V.A.3), but under all the proposed options, we believe that the
stringency of the 10-ppm annual average
[[Page 29921]]
standard would result in reduced gasoline sulfur levels nationwide.
A summary of the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards is
presented below in Table V-1. Domestic refiners and gasoline importers
would be subject to both the 10-ppm annual average sulfur standard and
the refinery gate per-gallon cap, when finalized. Gasoline in the
distribution system (i.e., at terminals, retail stations, etc.) would
be subject to the downstream per-gallon cap. For more information on
how we arrived at the proposed sulfur standards, refer to Sections
V.A.2 and V.A.3.
Table V-1--Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cap Option 1 Cap Option 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit Effective Limit Effective
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refinery annual average standard.... 10 ppm...................... January 1, 2017 \a\.... 10 ppm..................... January 1, 2017.\a\
Refinery gate per-gallon cap........ 80 ppm...................... Already................ 50 ppm..................... January 1, 2020.
Downstream per-gallon cap........... 95 ppm...................... Already................ 65 ppm..................... March 1, 2020.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Effective January 1, 2020 for eligible small refiners and small volume refineries.
d. Refinery Feasibility
While evaluating the merits of a national gasoline sulfur program
to reduce emissions and enable future vehicle technologies, we also
considered the refining industry's ability to reduce sulfur to 10 ppm
on average by January 1, 2017 and the associated costs (for more on
fuel costs, refer to Section VII.A). Based on information gathered from
numerous stakeholder meetings, discussions with vendor companies that
provide the gasoline desulfurization technologies, as well as the
results from our refinery-by-refinery modeling, we believe it is
technologically feasible at a reasonable cost for refiners to meet the
proposed sulfur standards in the lead time provided. A summary of our
feasibility analysis is presented below. For more on our fuels
feasibility assessment and refinery modeling, refer to Chapters 4 and 5
of the draft RIA.
Gasoline desulfurization technologies are well known and readily
available. Many technologies were demonstrated under Tier 2 and have
been further demonstrated by current fuel programs in California,
Japan, and Europe. Under California's Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline
program (CaRFG3), gasoline sulfur is limited to 15 ppm on average with
a 20-ppm per-gallon cap.\339\ California reduced their per-gallon cap
in phases from 60 ppm effective December 31, 2003, to 30 ppm effective
December 31, 2005, to 20 ppm effective December 31, 2011. Actual in-use
gasoline sulfur levels, however, have been largely constrained by the
Predictive Model that California refiners are using to demonstrate
compliance. As a result, gasoline sulfur levels are lower than the
CaRFG3 limits. Based on the Predictive Model, California gasoline
contained approximately 10 ppm sulfur on average in 2010 (9 ppm in the
summer and 11 ppm in the winter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\339\ California Air Resources Board. (2008, August 29). The
California Reformulated Gasoline Regulations, Title 13, California
Code of Regulations, Sections 2250-2273.5. Retrieved from http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/082908CaRFG_regs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan currently has a 10-ppm gasoline sulfur cap that took effect
in January 2008. Europe also has a 10-ppm sulfur cap that has been
adopted by the 30 Member States that comprise the European Union (EU)
and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) as well as Albania and
Bosnia-Herzegovina.\340\ Beijing, China also recently introduced a 10-
ppm sulfur limit for gasoline.\341\ We note, however, that many oil
refineries outside of the United States operate differently from their
U.S. counterparts. U.S. refiners have invested more heavily in
fluidized catalytic cracker (FCC) units than the rest of the world in
order to maximize gasoline production. Because the FCC unit is
responsible for nearly all the sulfur that ends up in gasoline, many
U.S. refineries face a bigger challenge in achieving 10-ppm gasoline
sulfur levels. Nevertheless, these international fuel programs (along
with California) provide evidence that advanced gasoline
desulfurization technologies have been deployed and are readily
available to comply with the proposed Tier 3 fuel program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\340\ Hart Energy Consulting. (2011). International Fuel Quality
Center: 2011 Worldwide Fuel Specifications
\341\ Article from China.org.cn entitled ``Beijing to implement
stricter fuel standards'', May 19, 2012, retrieved from http://www.china.org.cn/environment/2012-05/19/content_25422404.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When considering the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards, refineries
can be grouped into three general categories based on their current
post-Tier 2 refinery configurations: those without an FCC unit, those
hydrotreating the gasoline stream coming from their FCC unit (i.e.,
postreating) \342\, and those hydrotreating their FCC feed (i.e.,
pretreating). Most refineries without FCC units would not need to do
anything to meet the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards. Refineries
equipped with FCC units that invested in an FCC postreater under Tier 2
would likely just need to revamp (i.e., renovate) their existing unit
for a modest cost. Refineries that only have an FCC pretreater would
meet the Tier 3 sulfur standards by either revamping their existing
pretreaters (perhaps also cutting the heavy portion of FCC naphtha into
the diesel pool) or invest in a grassroots FCC postreater. Our
refinery-by-refinery modeling suggests that 29 refineries would not
need to make any capital changes, 66 would need to revamp their
existing FCC postreaters, and 16 would need to add grassroots
postreaters (we did not model any undercutting of heavy FCC naphtha
into the distillate pool).\343\ Refiners that need to install a new
postreater would have to make the largest desulfurization investments
under Tier 3, typical of many of the refinery investments made under
Tier 2. For more on our estimated sulfur control costs, refer to
Section VII.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\342\ Some of them may also have an FCC pretreater.
\343\ Our in-house refinery modeling considers 111 operational
refineries producing non-California gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that the choice of technology for each refinery is
fairly insensitive to capital cost assumptions. Revamping an existing
FCC postreater will almost always be the preferred compliance path if
it is available. The majority of refineries only have an existing FCC
postreater, so revamping it will be the preferred choice, given the
much higher capital costs associated with adding grassroots FCC pre or
postreaters. The 16 refineries we project would add grassroots
postreaters do not have existing postreaters that could be revamped. As
a result, their choices are limited to revamping their existing
pretreater or installing a grassroots postreater. We believe based on
conversations with industry technology vendors and engineering firms
that
[[Page 29922]]
installing a grassroots postreater would be more likely for these
refineries, because revamping their pretreater would still incur a
significant capital cost and would reduce compliance flexibility. Thus,
in the refinery-by-refinery analysis performed by EPA for this
proposal, higher capital costs (either directly or thru a higher ROI)
would be unlikely to alter the selection of pretreater versus
postreater control technology. Higher capital costs would likely impact
both technology options proportionally with no overall effect.
We have built in a number of flexibilities that will reduce the
compliance burden for refiners. In particular, coupling the proposed
10-ppm annual average sulfur standard with refinery gate and downstream
per-gallon caps should continue to allow for batch-to-batch
variability, refinery upsets, and turnarounds while still maintaining
the overall air quality benefits of the program. For more information
on the applicable per-gallon sulfur caps, refer to Section V.A.3.
We are also proposing an ABT program that would allow refiners to
spread out their investments over time and achieve compliance in the
most cost-effective manner. If some refineries either comply with the
10-ppm standard earlier than required, or reduce sulfur partway toward
10 ppm early, this would allow other refineries to delay compliance for
a finite period through the use of early credits. The ABT program would
also allow for ongoing company averaging. This would allow some
refineries to stay slightly above the standard at the expense of other
refineries over complying, resulting in the most cost-effective
mechanism for meeting the 10-ppm annual average standard. For more
information on the proposed ABT program, refer to Section V.E.1.
Finally, our Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, when final, would allow
three years of additional lead time for small refiners and small volume
refineries (i.e., refineries processing less than or equal to 75,000
net barrels per day of crude oil). As a group, we believe that these
refineries are disproportionally impacted when it comes to their cost
of compliance and ability to rationalize investment costs in today's
gasoline market. Giving these refineries additional lead time would
allow them more time to invest in desulfurization technology, take
advantage of advancements in technology, develop confidence in a Tier 3
credit market as a means of compliance, and avoid competition for
capital, engineering, and construction resources with the larger
refineries. For more on the proposed provisions for small refiners and
small volume refineries, refer to Section V.E.2.
The proposed Tier 3 rulemaking should not adversely affect the
supply of gasoline in the U.S. This judgment is based on a review of
both gasoline and diesel fuel supply when the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur
and ultra-low sulfur highway and nonroad diesel rules were phasing in
between 2003 and 2011. At the end of this time period, the U.S.
gasoline and diesel fuel markets were increasingly being supplied by
U.S. refiners, instead of by imports, compared to the beginning of this
time period. Most striking is that the more stringent ultra-low sulfur
diesel fuel standards showed the largest shift as U.S. refiners not
only began to supply more of the U.S. diesel fuel market, but became
net exporters of diesel fuel. For more on our fuel supply assessment,
refer to Section 5.3 of the draft RIA.
2. Proposed Annual Average Sulfur Standard
In the subsections that follow, we lay out our rationale for
proposing a 10-ppm average standard, our assessment of how the proposed
ABT program would help with compliance, and our conclusion that the
proposed lead time is adequate. In the following section, we explain
our rationale behind the proposed sulfur caps and seek comment on
potential alternatives.
a. Appropriateness of Proposed 10-ppm Sulfur Standard
As explained in Section IV.A.6, sulfur in fuel oxidizes in the
exhaust and coats the sites where chemical reactions can take place on
the precious metal catalysts used in vehicles to reduce emissions of
VOC, NOX, PM, CO, and toxics. Accordingly, any sulfur in
gasoline causes vehicle emissions to increase. Sulfur can be burned off
the catalyst during high-temperature, rich operation of the vehicle
(i.e., aggressive driving conditions), but as long as there is any
sulfur in the fuel, exhaust emissions will increase. Because any amount
of sulfur in the fuel can have this effect, the lower the sulfur the
better.
Refiners experience the same phenomenon with precious metal
catalysts used in the reformer and isomerization units at their
refineries.\344\ To protect the precious metal catalysts in these
units, refiners reduce the sulfur in the feed to these units to 1 ppm
or below. Thus, it is technically possible for refiners to reduce their
gasoline sulfur levels to virtually zero. While refiners did not have
reason to reduce the sulfur in FCC gasoline until Tier 2 required such
reductions, some refiners have achieved reductions in this stream at
some of their refineries for other reasons such as (1) Protecting the
FCC catalyst from the contaminants in the gas oil feed, (2) reducing
stack emissions from the regenerator of the FCC unit, and most
importantly (3) increasing gasoline yields from the FCC unit. For most
refineries, FCC gasoline accounts for about one-third of gasoline and
before Tier 2 was the source of over 95 percent of the sulfur in
gasoline. Under Tier 2, most refiners significantly desulfurized FCC
gasoline to around 70 to 80 ppm, yet FCC gasoline continues to
contribute the majority of sulfur in gasoline today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\344\ Together, the streams from the reformer and isomerization
units account for approximately one-third of gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While further reducing sulfur in gasoline will continue to reduce
vehicle emissions, our emissions analysis shows that a 10-ppm annual
average is sufficient to enable vehicles to reach the proposed Tier 3
standards. Moreover, for the following reasons, reducing sulfur further
below 10 ppm becomes increasingly difficult and costly. First, FCC
naphtha is very rich in high-octane olefins. As the severity of
desulfurization increases, more olefins are saturated, further
sacrificing the octane value of this stream and further increasing
hydrogen consumption. Making up for this lost octane represents a
significant portion of the sulfur control costs. Second, as
desulfurization severity increases, there is an increase in the amount
of sulfur removed (in the form of hydrogen sulfide) which recombines
with the olefins in the FCC naphtha, thus offsetting the principal
desulfurization reactions. There are means to deal with the
recombination reactions, but they result in even greater capital
investments. Third, while FCC gasoline contributes the majority of
sulfur to the finished gasoline, as the sulfur level drops below 10
ppm, the sulfur level of the various other gasoline streams within the
refinery also become important. Any necessary treatment of these
additional streams increases both capital and operating costs.
U.S. refineries are currently in different positions, both
technically and financially. In general, they are configured to handle
the different crude oils they process and turn it into a widely varying
product slate to match available markets. Those processing heavier,
sour crudes would have a more challenging time reducing gasoline sulfur
under the proposed Tier 3 program. As explained earlier, refineries
have different sulfur levels in their non-
[[Page 29923]]
FCC streams based on their feedstocks and configurations. Those with
higher sulfur levels in other refinery streams would have a more
difficult time desulfurizing gasoline. Perhaps most important, U.S.
refineries vary greatly in size (atmospheric crude capacities range
from less than 5,000 to more than 500,000 barrels per day) and thus
have different economies of scale for adding capital to their
refineries. As such, it can be less costly per gallon for some larger
refineries to get down to 10 ppm than for smaller refineries, as
discussed in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA. As a result, under a 10-ppm
average standard, the flexibility afforded by the ABT program helps
those refineries with very high costs. They have the option of staying
above 10 ppm if they can acquire credits from other refineries that
were able to lower their sulfur level below 10 ppm. However, if the
gasoline sulfur standard were to be 5 ppm, this would essentially end
the ability of refiners to average sulfur reductions across their
refineries. There simply would not be enough opportunity to generate
credits below 5 ppm. As discussed in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA, to
estimate the costs for a 10-ppm annual average standard where some
refineries stay above 10 ppm, we also estimated the costs for
refineries to get down to 5 ppm. To do so, we estimated that sulfur
control costs would increase by at least 50 percent compared to the
proposed 10-ppm standard, which is over two times more costly per ppm-
gallon of gasoline sulfur reduced. This 5-ppm cost assessment is
reasonable for those refineries that would likely generate credits
under a 10-ppm average standard as these refineries are most likely in
the best position for achieving such low sulfur levels. However, were
we to actually assess the costs of a 5-ppm standard, at least some of
these refineries would likely have additional costs for controlling the
sulfur in other gasoline blendstocks, and we would likely apply a
higher overdesign factor to account for industry-wide compliance at 5
ppm. More detailed refinery information may be needed for such an
analysis but, for the more challenged refineries, a 5-ppm standard
could potentially be cost prohibitive. A 5-ppm standard would also
introduce further costs to address the contribution to gasoline sulfur
from gasoline additives, transmix, ethanol denaturants, and
contamination in the distribution system. Therefore, a 10-ppm annual
average standard appears to be the point which properly balances
feasibility with costs. Also, for these reasons, EPA believes that a
viable ABT program is important to the success of the proposed Tier 3
fuels program (explained in more detail in Section V.A.2.b).
Finally, as discussed in Section IV.A.6, reducing sulfur below 10
ppm would further reduce vehicle emissions and allow the proposed Tier
3 vehicle standards to be achieved more easily. However, we believe
that a 10-ppm average standard will be sufficient to allow vehicles to
meet the proposed Tier 3 standards. The level of the Tier 3 standards
was considered in light of a 10-ppm average sulfur level for gasoline.
If we were to consider lowering sulfur further, we would then also have
to consider reducing the vehicle standards further. Given the
challenges associated with sulfur reductions below 10 ppm as discussed
above, we do not believe this would be appropriate.
b. How Would the Proposed ABT Program Assist With Compliance?
As described more fully in Section V.E.1, we are proposing an ABT
program that would reduce the average compliance burden for gasoline
producers and importers. This program would permit the generation of
credits by refineries that reduce their annual average sulfur level
below 10 ppm, and transfer of these credits to other refineries to
reduce or eliminate their need to make capital investments to meet the
10-ppm standard. The ABT program would thus provide refiners with
multiple approaches to compliance, and each could choose the approach
that minimizes their costs.
We modeled an ABT program to estimate how it would affect
compliance. As described in more detail in Section VII.B.4, our
modeling determined the lowest cost approach on a refinery-by-refinery
basis under two scenarios: an idealized scenario in which every
refinery has the opportunity to make credit transfers with every other
refinery in the nation, and a more limited scenario in which credit
transfers would only occur within companies that own more than one
refinery. Today a significant fraction of Tier 2 sulfur credits are
transferred within companies, but there is still a considerable amount
of inter-company trading occurring.\345\ Thus, assuming no trading
between companies is a conservative assumption and the real impact is
likely to be somewhere in between the two scenarios. Table V-2
describes how compliance would be affected under these two scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\345\ Based on Tier 2 sulfur compliance data, of the 26
companies that obtained sulfur credits in 2010, eight obtained
credits only from their own company, and another five obtained
credits both from their own company and from other companies. The
remainder obtained credits only from other companies.
Table V-2--Impacts of Nationwide ABT Program on Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABT with nationwide ABT with intra-company
credit transfers credit transfers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of refineries that generate credits.................... 46 18
Number of refineries that consume credits..................... 25 8
Number of refineries that neither generate nor consume credits 40 85
-------------------------------------------------
Total modeled refineries.................................. 111 111
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our ABT modeling, we believe that a significant number of
refineries would take advantage of the opportunity to generate or use
credits, thus lowering their compliance burden under the proposed 10-
ppm annual average standard. For a more complete discussion of our
analysis of the proposed ABT program, refer to Chapter 5 of the draft
RIA.
c. Adequacy of Proposed Refinery Lead Time
Given the complexity of gasoline refining, numerous planning and
action steps would be required for refiners to complete the refinery
changes needed to comply with the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards. The
steps required to implement these changes include: the completion of
scoping studies, financing, process design for new or revamped refinery
units or subunits, permitting, detailed engineering based
[[Page 29924]]
upon the process design, field construction of the gasoline sulfur
reduction facilities, and start-up and shakedown of the newly installed
desulfurization equipment.
We conducted a thorough lead time analysis in which we sequenced
the estimated time to complete scoping studies, process design,
permitting, detailed engineering, field construction, and start-up and
shakedown in advance of production based upon the methodology used in
our recent gasoline and diesel rules.
For the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, we estimated
refinery lead times step-by-step for the construction of new grassroots
FCC postreaters and the revamp of existing pre and postreaters. For
each refinery project type, we estimated lead times for scoping
studies, process design, permitting, detailed engineering, field
construction, and start-up and shakedown. Estimated required lead times
for scoping studies are six months. Process design ranged from six
months for desulfurization equipment revamping to nine months for a
grassroots postreater. It is during the process of performing their
scoping studies and process design analysis that refiners would
complete their permit applications.
Based on discussions with refiners, a review of the permitting
experience for Tier 2 and our current analysis, we estimated that
permitting for desulfurization equipment revamping and the construction
of a grassroots postreater would take 9 months. However, we estimated
the overall lead-times for Tier-3-related revamps to be considerably
shorter, as described below. The estimates for permitting time are
consistent with those of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) and our regional offices, both of which have engaged
in extensive dialog with potentially affected parties. A discussion of
the permitting implications of Tier 3 is contained in Section V.B of
the preamble. Detailed engineering efforts were estimated to require
six months for desulfurization equipment revamping and nine months for
grassroots postreaters. Field construction was estimated to require six
months for revamped pre-and postreaters and 12 months for grassroots
postreaters. Start-up and shakedown processes were estimated to require
six months for revamped FCC treaters and 9 months for grassroots
postreaters. There is some degree of overlap among each of these steps
as shown in Table V-3.
To allow refiners to complete all these different steps and comply
with the 10 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard, assuming the Tier 3
proposal were to be finalized by the end of 2013, we would be providing
three years of lead time. In addition to the three years of lead time,
the proposed rulemaking also provides additional flexibility provided
by the ABT program, small refinery delays, and hardship provisions. To
support this timeline, we conducted several analyses of the expected
refinery lead time requirements associated with the proposed Tier 3
standards and found that refinery operators would have more than
adequate time to implement the required refinery charges. A
justification for proposed timeline appears below.
Complying with Tier 3 is expected to involve some grassroots FCC
postreaters, but mostly we believe that refiners will revamp existing
FCC postreaters. Revamping of existing FCC postreaters can be
accomplished in approximately 2 years, or less (See Table V-3).
Grassroots FCC postreaters are expected to require on average about
three-years to install and start-up (See Table V-3). In comparision to
FCC pretreaters, hydrocrackers and distillate hydrotreaters, FCC
postreaters are much less costly, low pressure units that take less
time to scope out, require shorter lead times for ordering the
equipment, and less time to install. Furthermore, the grassroots FCC
postreaters to be installed for Tier 3 are expected to be in a moderate
to light desulfurization service because the refineries they will be
installed in will already be complying with Tier 2 using an FCC
pretreater. FCC naphtha from a refinery with an FCC pretreater is
expected to only contain about 100 ppm sulfur. To comply with Tier 3,
refiners installing these grassroots FCC postreaters would only need to
desulfurize the FCC naphtha down to 25 ppm (about a 75% reduction). In
comparison, a single-stage FCC postreaters would have to desulfurize
FCC naphtha from as high as 2400 ppm sulfur down to 25 ppm, a 99%
sulfur reduction. The more moderate desulfurization service of the
grassroots FCC postreaters needed to comply with Tier 3 would be
expected to streamline the scoping and design work.
[[Page 29925]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.002
It is useful to compare the proposed lead time for Tier 3 to what
was provided for Tier 2. In the case of the Tier 2 standard, we
provided a three-year lead time along with an ABT program and other
flexibilities to ease compliance. Refiners, though, commented that the
three year timeline that we provided was not enough time. For the Tier
2 analysis, we assumed that refiners would solely install low-pressure
FCC postreaters, which we believe could be scoped out, designed,
installed and started up within a 3 year time period. However, many
refiners complied with Tier 2 by installing high-pressure FCC
pretreaters which require long lead times for the procurement of the
required equipment. Furthermore, those refiners that did not install
high-pressure FCC pretreaters instead installed grassroots FCC
postreaters, many of which were designed for severe desulfurization
service. An additional difference between Tier 3 and Tier 2 is that for
Tier 3 we expect the installation of only 16 grassroots units, along
with many revamps, but for Tier 2 virtually all refiners installed both
grassroots FCC pretreaters and postreaters. The demands on the
desulfurization vendors for scoping studies, and on the E & C industry
for design and construction, and on the refiners to train their
operations staff and start up the new units, was a lot greater for Tier
2 than what we would expect for Tier 3. The total estimated investment
cost for Tier 2 versus Tier 3 also highlights the difference in
investment demands.
The total investment for Tier-2 desulfurization processing units
was estimated to be about $6.1 billion, while the total investment for
Tier-3 desulfurization processing units is estimated to be about $2.1
billion. This simple comparison helps to illustrate that the proposed
Tier 3 would be easier for refineries to obtain necessary permits,
secure engineering and construction (E&C) resources, install new
desulfurization equipment and make all necessary retrofits to meet the
proposed sulfur standards.
We assessed the permitting situation in more detail working in
conjunction with the Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards
(OAQPS). Since the permitting process has little impact on the overall
cost of compliance with Tier 3, it is an issue primarily in terms of
its potential impact on the time needed to complete the necessary
refinery modifications. On a refinery-by-refinery basis, we provided
OAQPS estimates of the additional heating demands for the new and
revamped units per the desulfurization vendor submissions. OAQPS was
able to project which refineries would likely trigger NOX,
particulate matter and greenhouse gas emission permitting limits, which
would likely lengthen the permitting process as refiners would need to
offset the projected emission increases. As it turns out, only 2 of the
16 refineries which are projected to install grassroots units were
projected to exceed particular permitting limits, and these solely did
so based on the most conservative assumption that each would produce
all the additional hydrogen on site using hydrogen plants (as opposed
to using existing reforming capacity) and produce the electricity on
site, to satisfy the needs of the new desulfurization equipment. When
we provided a second heat demand estimate to OAQPS which assumes that
refiners purchase their hydrogen and electricity from third parties,
none of the refineries which we projected would install grassroots
units was projected to have emission increases which would require
offsets. Thus, many of the grassroots units that we project would be
installed may end up with a streamlined permitting process. We seek
comment on our estimates of the number of refineries that may trigger
the need for new permits and the length of time necessary to obtain the
various
[[Page 29926]]
types of permits that may be required once the refiner applies for
them.
The various flexibilities that the proposed Tier 3 rule provides to
refiners provide refiners additional time for complying. These
flexibilities include the ABT program, the small refiner delay
provisions and the hardship provisions. The ABT program allows a
refiner, either within its own company or by purchasing credits on the
open market, to delay higher investment cost investments, such as the
investments in grassroots FCC postreaters, which would provide
additional lead time for installing these units. This would occur if
refiners would reduce the sulfur levels of their gasoline through
operational changes or revamps of their existing FCC pretreaters and
postreaters when the ABT Program begins in 2014. Potentially every
refinery with either an FCC pretreater or an FCC postreater may be
capable of generating early credits. Furthermore, we project that 66
refineries would revamp their existing FCC postreaters to comply with
Tier 3. Since revamps can be completed within two years or less, these
refiners could potentially begin generating early credits during 2016,
or before if refiners begin each of these revamps in early 2014. During
the period between 2014 and 2017, these refineries which reduce their
gasoline sulfur levels below that required by Tier 2 would generate
credits. Refineries with higher cost capital investments, such as the
grassroots FCC postreaters, could then delay making those investments
through the purchase of credits. We estimate that sufficient credits
could be genereated early to allow many of these refineries to delay
compliance until as late as 2020. The quantitative early credit
analysis that we conducted showed that if refiners with an existing
pretreater or postreater would generate early credits by lowering their
gasoline sulfur down to 20 ppm starting in 2014 and if revamps were
started up in 2016, one year before the program start date, that almost
6 times more credits would be available to offset the early credit
demand by the refiners installing grassroots postreater units, assuming
that they start up those units in 2018. Even if all grassroots
postreaters were assumed to not start up until 2020, there would be
almost 4 times more early credits available to those refiners
installing grassroots postreaters assuming that the same early credit
generation scenario would occur.
Additional flexibility is also provided by the small refineries
provisions which delays compliance by the refineries that refiner less
than a net of 75,000 barrels of crude oil per day until 2020. Three of
the 16 FCC postreater grassroots units that we project will be
installed would be by small refineries. However, small refineries could
also decide to comply early and generate credits starting as early as
2014.
As in previous fuel programs, we are proposing hardship provisions
to accommodate a refiner's inability to comply with the proposed
standard at the start of the Tier 3 program, and to deal with
unforeseen circumstances that may occur at any point during the
program. These provisions would be available to all refiners, small and
non-small, though relief would be granted on a case-by-case basis
following a showing of certain requirements; primarily that compliance
through the use of credits was not feasible. We are proposing that any
hardship waiver would not be a total waiver of compliance; rather, a
hardship waiver would be short-term relief that would allow a refiner
facing a hardship situation to, for example, receive additional time to
comply. This hardship provision would allow a refiner to seek a delay
in the case that there was insufficient time to comply.
Finally, we believe that in reality, less leadtime than shown in
Table V-3 would actually be necessary. We held discussions with many
refiners during 2011, and so they have been well aware of Tier 3 and
are familiar with the likely requirements. During our subsequent
discussions with technology vendors and engineering firms, they
explained to us that many refiners have already initiated, and by now,
likely completed their scoping studies. Thus, actual time needed for
designing, installing and starting of new desulfurization equipment for
Tier 3 times would be even less than what we projected because many
refineries may have already completed required scoping studies in
anticipation of the Tier-3 standards. Moreover, lead times for those
refineries that have yet to start the scoping process can also be
expected to decrease, since fewer refineries will be competing for the
services of the desulfurization vendors. We request comment on the
amount of lead time that we are providing refiners to scope, design,
permit, construct and start-up a grassroots desulfurization unit,
considering all the proposed flexibilities which allow refiners to
stagger their capital investments and ease compliance.
As in prior rules, we also evaluated the capability of E&C
industries to design and build gasoline hydrotreaters as well as
performing routine maintenance. Two areas where it is important to
consider the impact of the fuel proposed sulfur standards are: (1)
Refiners' ability to procure design and construction services and (2)
refiners' ability to obtain the capital necessary for the construction
of new equipment required to meet the new gasoline quality
specification. We evaluated the requirement for engineering design and
construction personnel in a manner consistent with the Tier 2 analysis,
particularly for three types of workers needed to implement the
refinery changes: front-end designers, detailed designers, and
construction workers. We developed estimates of the maximum number of
each of these types of workers needed throughout the design and
construction process and compared those figures to the number of
personnel currently employed in these areas.
The number of job hours necessary to design and build individual
pieces of refinery equipment and the job hours per piece of equipment
were taken from Moncrief and Ragsdale.\346\ Their paper summarizes
analyses performed in support of a National Petroleum Council study of
gasoline desulfurization, as well as other potential fuel quality
changes. The design and construction factors for desulfurization
equipment are summarized in Table V-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\346\ Moncrief, Philip & Ragsdale, Ralph. (2000). Can the U.S.
E&C Industry Meet the EPA's Low Sulfur Timetable? Paper presented at
NPRA Annual Meeting, March 26-28, 2000. Paper No. AM-00-57.
Table V-4--Design and Construction Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline Refiners:
Number of New Pieces of Equipment per Refinery............... 60
Number of Revamped Pieces of Equipment per Refinery.......... 15
Job Hours Per Piece of New Equipment: \a\
Front End Design............................................. 300
Detailed Design.............................................. 1,200
Direct and Indirect Construction............................. 9,150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Revamped equipment estimated to require half as many hours per piece
of equipment.
Refinery projects will differ in complexity and scope. Even if all
refiners desired to complete their project by the same date, their
projects would inevitably begin over a range of months. Thus, two
projects scheduled to start up at exactly the same time are not likely
to proceed through each step of the design and construction process at
the same time. Second, the design and construction industries will
likely provide refiners with economic incentives to avoid temporary
peaks in the demand for personnel.
Applying the above factors, we projected the maximum number of
personnel needed in any given month
[[Page 29927]]
for each type of job. The results are shown in Table V-5. In addition
to total personnel required, the percentage of the U.S. workforce in
these areas is also shown, assuming that half of all projects occur in
the Gulf Coast
Table V-5--Maximum Monthly Demand for Personnel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed
Front-end design engineering Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Program:
Number of Workers......................................... 202 809 6,012
Percentage of Current Workforce \a\....................... 11% 9% 4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Based on current employment in the U.S. Gulf Coast assuming half of all projects occur in the Gulf Coast.
To meet the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards, refiners are expected
to invest $2.2 billion between 2014 and 2019 and utilize approximately
1,000 front-end design and engineering jobs and 6,000 construction
jobs. The number of estimated jobs required is small relative to
overall number available in the U.S. job market. As such, we believe
that three years, plus the additional flexibilities provided, is
adequate lead time for refineries to obtain necessary permits, secure
E&C resources, install new desulfurization equipment, and make all
necessary retrofits to meet the proposed sulfur standards. For an in
depth assessment of stationary source implications, refer to Section
V.B. For more on our E&C assessment, refer to Section 4.5 of the draft
RIA.
3. Per-Gallon Sulfur Caps
In much of Europe and Japan, the gasoline sulfur level is capped at
10 ppm. We, however, are not considering a 10-ppm cap for the U.S. The
U.S. gasoline distribution system poses contamination challenges that
make it difficult to set and enforce such a tight downstream per-gallon
sulfur standard. In Europe, Japan, and California, finished petroleum
products are generally shipped short distances directly from the
refinery to the terminal with limited susceptibility to contamination.
The U.S. has the longest and most complex gasoline distribution system
in the world, making it harder to control sulfur contamination than in
other countries. Petroleum products are shipped long distances through
multi-product pipelines. Further, gasoline goes through the same
pipelines and terminals back-to-back with jet fuel (containing up to
3,000 ppm sulfur). Products are often in the custody of a number of
separate companies before reaching the terminal. This system is very
effective at delivering petroleum products to the bulk of the country,
but pipeline transport inevitably introduces the potential for sulfur
contamination of the gasoline being shipped through pipelines.
Additionally, gasoline additives needed to provide critical fuel
performance characteristics (e.g., corrosion control, demulsifiers)
also contain varying levels of sulfur which contribute to the overall
sulfur content of gasoline. Therefore, we are proposing a 10-ppm
refinery average sulfur standard (discussed in Section V.A.2) with
higher per gallon caps at both the refinery gate and at all points
downstream, which is similar to what currently exists under the Tier 2
program. We believe this is the most prudent approach for lowering in-
use sulfur while maintaining flexibility considering cost and other
factors. These per-gallon caps are important in the context of an
average sulfur standard to provide an upper limit on the sulfur
concentration that vehicles must be designed to tolerate. Since there
are many opportunities for sulfur to be introduced into gasoline
downstream of the refinery, these caps also limit downstream sulfur
contamination and enable the enforcement of the gasoline sulfur
standard in-use.
We are proposing two options for the per-gallon sulfur caps. Under
the first option, we are proposing to maintain both the current 80-ppm
refinery gate sulfur cap and 95-ppm downstream sulfur cap.\347\ Because
this represents no change from current requirements, we believe there
would be no additional costs to refiners and downstream parties
associated with satisfying these caps on gasoline sulfur content beyond
those that were already incurred under the Tier 2 program. Compliance
for downstream parties could be even easier given that the average
refinery gate level would be lower. However, the high level of the caps
means that vehicles still have to be designed to operate on high sulfur
fuel, and there will be less attention paid to limiting contamination
downstream of the refinery gate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\347\ This approach is reflected in the draft regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the second approach, we are proposing that the refinery gate
cap would be reduced to 50 ppm and the downstream cap would be reduced
to 65 ppm, in other words, a 30-ppm reduction in the caps to go along
with a 20-ppm drop in the average standard. We are proposing that the
50-ppm refinery gate cap would take effect on January 1, 2020 when the
small refiner, small volume refinery, and early credit use provisions
would expire. The reason for the delay in the more stringent cap until
2020 is to avoid forcing additional refinery investments during the
early credit usage period. A more stringent per-gallon cap would also
be very difficult to enforce prior to the small refiner and small
volume refinery provisions taking effect. Until that time, the current
80-ppm refinery gate sulfur cap would apply. Additional time beyond
when the 50-ppm refinery gate sulfur cap is implemented would be
allowed for gasoline produced to an 80-ppm sulfur cap to clear the
distribution system before the 65-ppm downstream sulfur cap would
replace the current 95-ppm downstream sulfur cap. Beginning February 1,
2020, a 65-ppm downstream sulfur cap would apply at all locations
downstream of the refinery and importer gate with the exception of
retail and wholesale-purchaser-consumer facilities. Beginning March 1,
2020, a 65-ppm downstream sulfur cap would apply at all locations in
the gasoline distribution system downstream of the refinery and
importer gate. We note that the additional time for parties to comply
with a more stringent downstream sulfur cap mirrors the schedule for
compliance under the Tier 2 program.
As discussed previously in Sections III and IV of today's preamble,
the vehicle emissions benefits associated with today's proposal are
driven by the proposed reduction in the average sulfur content of
gasoline from 30 to 10 ppm. However, vehicle manufacturers have
expressed concerns about the potential impacts on emissions performance
if individual vehicles are exposed to gasoline above the proposed 10-
ppm
[[Page 29928]]
refinery average.\348\ As discussed in Section V.A.2.b, our analysis of
the potential response to the proposed ABT provisions assessed three
options for refineries: remaining at their current sulfur levels and
using credits, reducing sulfur levels to 10 ppm and neither generating
or using credits, or reducing sulfur levels to 5 ppm and generating
credits. We did not have available information that would enable us to
assess refineries that might stay above 10 ppm and reduce their sulfur
levels part way (e.g., reduce sulfur from 50 ppm today to 20 ppm under
Tier 3). Nevertheless, we anticipate that in most cases refineries
would respond by making operational changes and/or minor investments in
order to reduce their credit burden and reduce their compliance costs.
This anticipation, along with the fact that a 10-ppm average standard
by definition limits the amount of gasoline that can remain at higher
sulfur levels, means that we anticipate most credit-using refineries
would still average less than 20 ppm in their physical gasoline
production, and either all or virtually all gasoline would be expected
to average at or below 30 ppm. Therefore, we believe that a 50-ppm per-
gallon cap at the refinery gate would not impose any additional cost or
burden beyond the current 80-ppm per-gallon cap. Our discussions with
refiners indicate that a 50-ppm sulfur cap would provide refiners with
sufficient flexibility to produce gasoline during temporary upsets and
turnarounds through the use of credits without necessitating the
installation of additional desulfurization equipment.\349\ However, it
would provide some additional assurance of in-use gasoline quality and
help to address vehicle manufacturer concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\348\ Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (2011, October 6).
Letter to EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson.
\349\ Refer to Section 4.2.4.1 of the draft RIA for a more
detailed discussion of the impacts of lowering the refinery gate
sulfur cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also believe that implementing a 65-ppm downstream sulfur cap
would provide essentially the same flexibilities to downstream parties
as the existing sulfur caps. We believe that maintaining a 15-ppm
differential between the proposed refinery gate sulfur cap of 50 ppm
and the proposed 65-ppm downstream sulfur cap would provide pipeline
operators, transmix processors, and gasoline additive users the same
flexibility as provided under the current 80/95 ppm sulfur caps.
Pipeline operators are currently allowed to blend limited volumes
of transmix into gasoline in their systems provided that the resulting
gasoline meets all fuel quality specifications and the endpoint of the
blended gasoline does not exceed 437 [deg]F.\350\ This enables pipeline
operators to avoid the installation of additional transmix storage and
loading equipment at a number of remote locations to facilitate
shipping small volumes of transmix to processing facilities by truck.
We believe that a 65-ppm sulfur cap would provide sufficient
flexibility to allow pipeline operators to continue this practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\350\ The requirements for transmix blenders are contained in 40
CFR 80.84(d). 437 [deg]F is the maximum endpoint allowed for
gasoline in ASTM D4814.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently transmix processors must produce gasoline sufficiently
below the 95-ppm downstream sulfur cap to accommodate any downstream
sulfur increases from the use of gasoline additives and contamination
from further distribution. The sulfur content of the gasoline produced
by transmix processors is determined by the sulfur content of the
transmix they receive, which in turn is primarily a function of the
sulfur content of gasoline and jet fuel components in the
transmix.\351\ Transmix processors do not handle sufficient volumes to
support the installation of currently available desulfurization
units.\352\ Data provided by the largest operator of transmix
processing facilities indicates that relatively few batches of the
gasoline they currently produce approach 80 ppm sulfur. Most batches
are approximately 10 ppm above the current 30-ppm refinery sulfur
average. Therefore, we believe that under a 10-ppm refinery average
standard and 50-ppm refinery sulfur cap, transmix processors would be
able to produce gasoline sufficiently under the proposed 65-ppm
downstream sulfur cap to accommodate the additional sulfur contribution
from the use of additives and contamination during further
distribution. Since the 65-ppm downstream cap would not take effect
until 2020, while the 10-ppm average standard would take effect in
2017, we would have three years of experience with which to verify this
and take corrective action if necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\351\ Transmix is a by-product of the multi-product pipeline
distribution system. 40 CFR 80.84(a) defines transmix pipeline
interface that does not meet the specifications for a fuel that can
be used or sold, and that is composed solely of any combination of:
previously certified gasoline (including previously certified
gasoline blendstocks that become gasoline solely upon the addition
of an oxygenate); distillate fuel; or gasoline blendstocks that are
suitable for use as a blendstock without further processing.
\352\ Transmix processors produce ~0.1 percent of the gasoline
consumed in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to proposing refinery gate and downstream per gallon
sulfur caps of either 80 ppm and 95 ppm or 50 ppm and 65 ppm, we are
also requesting comment on the potential implementation of a refinery
gate sulfur cap as low as 20 ppm and a downstream sulfur cap as low as
25 ppm. This would further constrain downstream contamination and limit
the temporary exposure of vehicles in-use to sulfur levels that would
significantly degrade their emission performance. This would serve to
provide added assurance that all parts of the country would receive the
full emission benefits of gasoline sulfur control. However, we are only
seeking comment on it and not proposing it due to the potential cost
increases resulting from further constraints on refinery and
distribution system operations. While a 50-ppm refinery gate cap may
not impact refinery costs, in order to meet a 20-ppm refinery gate cap
and downstream standard of 25 ppm we expect that essentially all
refineries would need to invest to meet the 10-ppm annual average
standard. Our modeling of a non-ABT scenario, discussed in Section
VII.B, shows that the sulfur control costs would increase by almost 10
percent, with no net change in average in-use sulfur levels. Similarly,
while a 65-ppm downstream cap may have little or no impact on
downstream operations, a 25-ppm downstream sulfur cap would likely
require changes in pipeline operations, treatment of gasoline transmix,
and formulation and use of sulfur containing gasoline additives (e.g.,
corrosion inhibitors, and demulsifiers) that could further increase the
costs of the standard. The extent of such impacts and associated costs,
however, are difficult to quantify. Consequently we seek comment on the
appropriateness, impacts, and costs of lowering the per-gallon caps to
20 ppm at the refinery gate, and 25 ppm downstream.
Further, in order to facilitate the enforcement of the downstream
cap and prevent the potential dumping of high sulfur materials into
gasoline under the guise of adding gasoline additives, we are proposing
additional requirements to clarify the treatment of gasoline additives.
Parties that introduce additives to gasoline at over 1.0 volume percent
are required to satisfy all of the obligations of a fuel manufacturer
including demonstration that the finished blend meets the applicable
sulfur specification. A party other than a fuel refiner or importer who
adds a quantity of additive(s) amounting to less than 1.0 percent by
volume of the
[[Page 29929]]
resultant additive(s)/fuel mixture is not considered a fuel
manufacturer.\353\ Thus, the addition of sulfur to finished gasoline
from additives used at less than 1.0 volume percent is simply limited
by the current 95-ppm downstream sulfur cap. We are proposing to limit
the sulfur contribution from the use of a gasoline additive added
downstream of the refinery at less than 1.0 volume percent to 3 ppm
when added at the maximum recommended treatment rate. We believe that
this limitation would not constrain the use of gasoline additives or
result in significant additional costs to gasoline additive
manufacturers. This is because information received from additive
producers indicates that all current gasoline additives contribute less
than 3 ppm to the sulfur content of the finished fuel when used at the
maximum recommended treatment rate. The maximum treatment rate is
already stated on product transfer document or packaging for the
additive. We are proposing a requirement that additive manufacturers
maintain records of their additive production quality control
activities, which demonstrate that the sulfur content of additive
production batches complies with the proposed sulfur requirement, for
five years and to make these available to EPA upon request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\353\ 40 CFR 79.2(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Refinery Air Permitting Interactions
It is important to the success of the proposed Tier 3 fuel program
that refineries are able to obtain air permits, if needed, in time to
complete the modifications necessary to comply with the proposed
gasoline sulfur program. Accordingly, we have considered the
implications of permitting requirements with respect to the
implementation of the proposed gasoline sulfur program. This section
provides information on this topic. In summary, we believe that only a
small percentage of refineries would likely need to make modifications
that will trigger a requirement to apply for air permits, and we
anticipate that these permit applications would be processed quickly
enough that air permitting will not be a significant obstacle to timely
compliance with the gasoline sulfur program. In contrast to the Tier 2
program, where EPA expected the need for NAAQS-related New Source
Review (NSR) permits might be widespread among refineries, we believe
that under the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standard at most only
about 19 refineries would need NSR or Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permits. This number--which equates to
approximately 17 percent of the 111 refineries projected to be affected
by the proposed Tier 3 standards--could be even lower if refineries
apply emission controls to reduce emissions increases below the
significance level or if they ``net out'' of NSR.
If our final assessment of permitting prospects following analysis
of comments indicates it would be appropriate, we would form a special
team to monitor for permitting delays and assist in resolving
associated problems. We also anticipate that other new requirements
applicable to refineries that are being proposed for implementation in
approximately the same period as the gasoline sulfur program would not
interfere with the modifications needed to meet the new sulfur limits
and would not create a competition for air permitting agency resources.
We invite public comment on air permitting issues, and on possible
actions we might be able to take to help make sure refineries can
obtain needed permits expeditiously. As described in further detail in
Sections V.B.4 and V.B.6, a number of mechanisms and resources are
already available to help mitigate and streamline NSR permitting
requirements associated with the proposed Tier 3 fuel program. For
example, EPA has issued guidance on Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) analysis for GHG emissions, including a white paper that
identifies specific technologies available for refinery process units.
As explained in greater detail below, we expect that the types of
equipment and process technologies that refiners would select to meet
the proposed Tier 3 standards would generally be consistent with BACT
for GHG emissions in terms of achievable, cost-effective, and energy-
efficient design even absent the requirement to obtain a permit,
meaning that such a requirement would not necessitate a shift in
project design or increase costs.
1. Background on New Source Review Programs
The New Source Review (NSR) program, as it applies to existing
major sources of air pollution, requires that a permit be issued before
a source begins construction of any project to modify the source that
would result in a significant emissions increase and a significant net
emissions increase of a pollutant regulated under this program.\354\
The physical modifications and operational changes that we expect
refineries would make to comply with the proposed gasoline sulfur
standards (described in Section V.A.1.d) could result in emissions
increases in one or more pollutants that may trigger NSR requirements
for preconstruction air permits. NSR permits specify what emission
limits must be met by the new and modified equipment that is part of
the proposed project. They may contain conditions to make sure that the
modifications being made match parameters in the application that the
permit-issuing agency relied on in its analysis. Permits contain
emission limitations for new and modified units and also typically
specify some aspects of how, consistent with the permit application,
the project elements must be constructed and operated. For example, the
permit may identify important design and operational parameters that
are consistent with the established control technology determination(s)
and help assure compliance with associated emission limitations. To
assure that sources follow the permit requirements, permits also
contain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. NSR
permits are issued by a state or local air pollution control agency if
it has its own permit program that has been approved by EPA in the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) or if it has been delegated the
authority to issue federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permits on behalf of EPA. An EPA Regional Office issues the
permit in other cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\354\ Generally, a source is a major source if its ``potential
to emit'' a regulated NSR pollutant is greater than either 100 or
250 tons/year depending on the industrial type of the source and
whether the area is designated nonattainment for the particular
pollutant. All refineries in the U.S. are major sources for purposes
of NSR. A major modification is a physical change or a change in the
method of operation that causes a significant emissions increase and
a significant net emissions increase of any pollutant regulated
under the NSR program. (A net emissions increase differs from an
emissions increase in that a net increase takes into account
contemporaneous emissions changes from other projects at the
source.) Significant emission rates vary depending on the pollutant
and range from 0.6 to 100 tons/year for criteria (NAAQS) pollutants
and their precursors. See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23). For GHGs,
modifications of existing sources trigger NSR permitting
requirements when there is an increase of GHG emissions of at least
75,000 tons/year of CO2 equivalent, as well as any
increase of GHG emissions on a mass basis. At the time refineries
are required to comply with the proposed fuel sulfur program, the
GHG threshold may be different, but will not be lower than 50,000
tons/year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two separate sets of major source permit requirements
that may apply to modifications at a refinery depending on the
attainment status of the area in which a refinery is located. Each set
of requirements is applied on a pollutant-specific basis, so that in
some cases both permit programs may
[[Page 29930]]
apply to the same modification project. The PSD permit program applies
to any major modification at a source located in a designated
attainment or unclassifiable area for any NAAQS pollutant.\355\ PSD
requires compliance with emission limitations achievable through
installation of BACT, an air quality analysis to show that the
modification will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS
or applicable PSD increment,\356\ an assessment of impact on visibility
and other conditions in national parks and similar federal lands, an
additional impacts analysis, and an opportunity for public involvement.
The second set of requirements is known as the Nonattainment NSR
program because it applies to major modifications at sources located in
areas designated as nonattainment for a specific NAAQS pollutant.\357\
The Nonattainment NSR requirements include, among other things, that a
proposed major modification meet the lowest achievable emission rate
(LAER) for each triggering nonattainment pollutant for which the source
is major and for which there will be a significant emissions increase,
obtain emission offsets for those nonattainment pollutants, and provide
an opportunity for public involvement. LAER is generally a more
stringent emission limitation than BACT. LAER is derived from either
the most stringent emission limitation contained in the implementation
plan of any state for the same type of source or the most stringent
emission limitation achieved in practice. Emission offsets are
emissions reductions, generally obtained from other existing stationary
sources located in the vicinity of a proposed source. Such offsets must
be equal to or larger than the emissions increase resulting from the
modification to ensure that the growth being allowed to occur does not
interfere with the ability of an area to continue making reasonable
further progress towards attainment of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\355\ The PSD program stems from part C of Title I of the Clean
Air Act. The implementing regulations are contained in 40 CFR 51.166
and 52.21.
\356\ A system of ``increments'' is the mechanism used in the
PSD program to define significant deterioration of ambient air
quality for a pollutant. An increment is the maximum allowable
increase in ambient concentrations of a pollutant in an area
relative to a specified baseline. Increases above that level are
considered to significantly deteriorate air quality and cannot be
allowed.
\357\ The Nonattainment NSR program stems from part D of Title I
of the Clean Air Act. The implementing regulations are contained in
40 CFR 51.165 and 50 CFR part 51 appendix S. Under Nonattainment
NSR, a major source is generally any source with a potential to emit
of 100 tons/year or more of the nonattainment pollutant, regardless
of industrial type (lower thresholds apply for some pollutants/
classifications). The thresholds for a significant emissions
increase under Nonattainment NSR are generally the same as under PSD
but lower for certain pollutants/classifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described previously in Section V.A.1.d, there are several types
of process changes refineries could make to meet the proposed gasoline
sulfur levels. To different degrees, all these technologies involve
process heat from fuel combustion and, thus, have the potential to
increase emissions of pollutants associated with combustion that are
regulated under NSR,\358\ such as NOX, VOCs,
PM2.5, PM10, CO, SO2, and GHGs. The
addition of certain technologies could also result in equipment leaks
of petroleum compounds, which could increase emissions of VOCs and
other pollutants. It is also possible that the removal of more sulfur
from the gasoline stream could require increased capacity or increased
utilization of other refinery processes, such as hydrogen plants and
sulfur recovery units (SRUs), which are sources of air emissions. The
emissions increases associated with a desulfurization project would
vary from refinery to refinery, depending on a number of refinery-
specific factors, such as the refinery output volume, refinery
configuration, feedstocks, choice of desulfurization technology, and
type of fuel used to operate affected process heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\358\ Toxic air pollutants are excluded from the PSD program. 42
U.S.C. 7412(b)(6); 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in more detail in Section V.B.4, we anticipate that
the types of changes that would occur at most refineries would not
result in sufficient emissions increases to require major NSR permits
as a prerequisite for completing the needed changes. The major NSR
permitting requirements would not be triggered for several reasons:
because the emissions increase or the net emissions increase is
naturally less than the significant level, because the refinery
installs control technologies on project-affected units to further
limit the emissions increase, and/or because the refinery ``nets out''
all or part of the emissions increase.
However, we anticipate that some refineries have the potential to
experience significant emissions increases and significant net
emissions increases as a result of process changes necessary to meet
the proposed gasoline sulfur standard and, therefore, may trigger major
NSR (Nonattainment NSR and/or PSD). These facilities would have to
obtain a major NSR preconstruction permit prior to making these
necessary process changes. For any required major NSR permits, the
associated control technology requirements (BACT and/or LAER) would
apply only to new or modified units associated with the project and not
to units at the refinery that are not affected by the project. We do
not anticipate that the time frames required for the small number of
affected refineries to obtain any needed NSR and/or PSD permits will
present an obstacle to timely compliance with the proposed Tier 3
gasoline sulfur requirements. We are proposing approximately 3 years of
lead time. However, as discussed in section V.E., this is extended to
up to 6 years of lead time for all small refineries, as well as for all
other refineries if they take advantage of the flexibility of the early
credit provisions. In comparison, as discussed in section V.A.2.c, 95
of the 111 refineries are anticipated to be able to comply within 2
years, and the remaining 16 within 3 years. For the 16 that may require
up to 3 years to comply due to the construction of grassroots
hydrotreaters, only 2 of these are projected to potentially trigger the
need for new permits, and even then only for PSD for greenhouse gases,
and only if they choose to produce their own hydrogen. As a result,
only two refineries may actually require the full 3 years to comply.
For facilities subject to major NSR, the timing of permit issuance
could vary depending on a number of factors, including the clarity and
completeness of the application, the complexity of process changes, the
type of permit required, air quality impact, control technology
reviews, and the permitting agency's overall permit workload. The time
spent preparing a permit application is under the control of the
applicant. Once a permit application is complete, permitting
authorities operating under approved SIPs should be able to issue a
permit within 9 to 12 months if the permit applies to NAAQS pollutants.
Because EPA-issued permits and permits issued by states operating under
a delegation from EPA are subject to additional analysis and
interagency consultation steps specified in federal law, it can take a
few more months if, for example, there are endangered species or
historical preservation issues.\359\ For permits that apply only to
GHGs, we anticipate that less time will be necessary both to prepare
the
[[Page 29931]]
application and for the permitting authority to approve the permit. The
CAA requires that EPA take final action on a PSD permit within one year
of the filing with the agency of a complete application. 42 U.S.C.
7475(c). Refineries that are able to avoid major NSR may be required to
obtain a state-issued minor NSR permit. Generally, minor NSR permits
involve less extensive and/or stringent requirements and have shorter
processing times than major NSR permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\359\ These processing time periods assume that the refinery can
successfully show that the emission increases associated with the
modifications will not cause or contribute to a violation of any
NAAQS or increment (under PSD) or can obtain needed emissions
offsets for the emission increases (under Nonattainment NSR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Background on NSR Experience Under the Tier 2 Fuel Program
Many of the modifications that refineries are projected to make in
order to comply with the proposed Tier 3 fuel program are similar in
type, although not necessarily in number or magnitude, to the changes
that were needed to comply with the Tier 2 fuel program finalized in
2000. Therefore, information on the Tier 2 experience may assist the
public in understanding the permitting issues for the Tier 3 fuel
program and in providing comment on possible actions we might undertake
to help refineries expeditiously obtain needed permits.
The Tier 2 program was designed to reduce the average sulfur
content of gasoline from about 300 ppm to 30 ppm, a reduction of about
90 percent. Anticipating that many refineries would have to make
modifications that might trigger the need for NSR permits, we addressed
the permitting issue in the proposal for the Tier 2 program, in the
final rule, and during implementation. At proposal, we provided
background information on the NSR program and its relationship to the
types of changes likely to be required at refineries. We had not
estimated the number of refineries that might trigger NSR, but we
stated that the number could be substantial. We invited comment on a
number of actions that EPA, states, and/or refineries could pursue in
order to help refineries avoid the need for NSR permits or to obtain
permits more expeditiously than might otherwise be the case. These
actions included the following:
Use of plantwide applicability limits, possibly
facilitated by new EPA guidance or rules addressing issues specific to
refineries.
Issuance of new federal guidance on streamlining certain
major NSR permitting requirements such as control technology and
compliance parameters.
Use of emissions reductions resulting from vehicles
operating on lower sulfur gasoline as offsets for refineries seeking
Nonattainment NSR permits.
Use of model permits and permit applications.
EPA refinery permitting teams.
The Tier 2 proposal also addressed issues related to the Title V
permitting program,\360\ and requested comments on possible approaches
by which refineries might satisfy some NSR and Title V requirements at
the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\360\ Title V of the 1990 CAA Amendments requires all major
sources and some minor sources of air pollution to obtain an
operating permit. A Title V permit contains all air pollution
requirements that apply to the source, including emissions limits
and monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements. It also
requires that the source report its compliance status to the
permitting authority annually. All existing refineries potentially
affected by the proposed Tier 3 fuel standards have Title V permits
and, because Title V permits by themselves generally do not
establish new applicable requirements, the only implication of the
proposed Tier 3 fuel standards would be the ``roll-in'' of any new
NSR permit requirements into existing refinery Title V permits.
Permitting agencies have efficient processes to accomplish this that
do not delay construction of proposed projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received comments on refinery permitting issues from the
refining industry, the automobile manufacturing industry, state and
local agencies that administer air permitting programs, and
environmental and community groups. Based on these comments and
statutory constraints, we decided that it was not necessary or
appropriate to exempt Tier 2 projects from the normally applicable
preconstruction review process. We also decided not to pursue the
development of guidance on plantwide applicability limits for
refineries based on comments suggesting this would be an unproductive
effort because of the complexity of refineries. Nonetheless, we
concluded that it was useful to add certainty to the anticipated
permitting actions and schedules, and to minimize the possibility of
delay. Accordingly, EPA took two types of actions to promote these
objectives. First, as we are now proposing for Tier 3 (see proposed
program flexibilities discussion in V.E.1.-3.), we structured the Tier
2 gasoline sulfur program to allow additional lead time for many
refineries (i.e., certain refineries would be able to make
desulfurization changes later than the otherwise applicable compliance
date to meet Tier 2 requirements). This approach was expected to help
address the concerns over the availability of necessary new equipment
and permitting backlogs caused by many refineries acting to obtain
permits and order equipment within the same time period.Second, we
stated our intention to take several actions during implementation of
the Tier 2 rule to expedite and impart greater certainty in obtaining
necessary major NSR permits (described in more detail below). We also
stated our intention to assist states and refiners on a case-by-case
basis in their efforts to address any unique permitting problems that
might arise and, thus, remedy potential problems that could cause
unanticipated delays. We committed to work with refiners and the state/
local permitting agencies on a case-by-case basis, where a refinery had
unique circumstances that necessitated unique treatment. We clarified
that, in our efforts to provide greater certainty and to facilitate
more expeditious permitting, we were in no way shortcutting existing
opportunities for public participation in making permitting decisions.
We encouraged refineries to begin discussions with permitting
authorities and to submit permit applications as early as possible.
The final Tier 2 rule identified three key actions that we intended
to take (and subsequently took) to provide assistance that would be
useful toward helping states issue timely permits to refineries. The
first such action was to organize a special EPA team, comprised of
Headquarters and Regional Office experts, to track the overall progress
in permit issuance and to be available to assist state and local
permitting authorities, refineries, and the public upon request to
resolve site-specific permitting issues. The team made special efforts
to be aware of state and local permitting actions that were underway
during the time between the finalization of the Tier 2 program and the
compliance time frame. Experience during this period suggested that
state and local permitting agencies, as predicted in their comments on
the proposed Tier 2 program, were able to process permit applications
in a timely manner, without much need for special troubleshooting help
from the EPA team. In many cases, the modifications to allow compliance
with Tier 2 requirements were subject to only minor NSR permitting
requirements rather than major NSR, or those modifications were rolled
into another permitting action that was needed for other modifications
or expansions due to other technical or market developments. We believe
it is reasonable to expect that similar outcomes (refineries not
needing major NSR permits) would result in connection with air
permitting for the modifications refineries would need to make under
the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program.
The second action we took was to develop new guidance on emission
control technology requirements to meet BACT and LAER. We issued this
guidance in 2001. It addressed the levels of control that could be
reasonably
[[Page 29932]]
anticipated to represent BACT or LAER under the major NSR requirements.
Our general experience following the release of this BACT/LAER guidance
was that it did not play a substantial role in the permitting of
refinery projects for Tier 2. That is, due to their own expertise and
the need to consider refinery-specific factors, state and local
permitting authorities generally did not find it necessary to rely on
our guidance in their own permitting processes for refineries making
changes to meet the Tier 2 requirements. In addition, many of the
refinery projects were able to avoid major NSR, so BACT and LAER were
not requirements that had to be met. Again, we believe it is reasonable
to expect that similar outcomes (refineries not needing major NSR
permits) would result in connection with air permitting for the
modifications refineries would need to make to meet the proposed
gasoline sulfur standard.
The third action we took was a fast-track effort to develop new
guidance on the use of emissions reductions resulting from vehicles
operating on lower sulfur gasoline as emission offsets for refineries
seeking Nonattainment NSR permits. We invited comment on a draft
version of this guidance five months after the final Tier 2 rule. The
draft guidance discussed in depth how the use of such offsets could be
made consistent with seven criteria given in the CAA for such offsets.
We received many comments from state and local air agencies and
community groups opposing the proposed offset guidance on legal,
fairness, and environmental justice grounds. One refiner recommended
that EPA set aside a portion of the Tier 2 reductions in each state as
offsets, rather than leaving this decision to each state. We did not
finalize the draft guidance, and no state further pursued a system
under which vehicle emissions reductions were made available to
refineries as offsets for Nonattainment NSR permits.
3. Changes in the NSR Permitting Program Since Tier 2 Final Rule
The Tier 2 fuel program was promulgated in early 2000, and most
refiners were required to comply with those requirements by 2006.
During and since that period, there have been a number of changes to
the major NSR programs. These changes are summarized here to facilitate
public comment as to how these changes may affect whether refinery
modifications undertaken as a result of the proposed Tier 3 fuel
program would trigger NSR and/or the requirements that refiners and
permitting authorities would have to meet.
In 2002, we issued a final rule known as the NSR Reform Rule.\361\
This rule revised the EPA-administered NSR programs and changed the
minimum approvals required for SIP-approved NSR programs for NSR
applicability. Some of the provisions of the 2002 final rule have been
vacated by the Court, subsequently amended by EPA, or are currently
under reconsideration. Two key components of the NSR Reform Rule that
remain in place are a new applicability test for projects involving
existing emissions units (the ``actual-to-projected-actual''
applicability test) and provisions that allow for the establishment of
plantwide applicability limits (PALs). The change in the applicability
test since the Tier 2 experience means that fewer modifications may be
found to have emissions increases that are above the significant
emission levels, in which case fewer major NSR permits may need to be
issued. The PAL provisions offer a voluntary alternative for
determining major NSR applicability that can provide sources with
significant flexibility to manage facility-wide air emissions without
triggering major NSR permitting. Refineries that have established PALs
or will establish one or more PALs prior to or as part of permitting
associated with the Tier 3 fuel program will be far less likely to
trigger major NSR permitting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\361\ 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have also taken a series of actions that have had the effect of
making emissions of GHGs a factor in determining whether a PSD permit
is required for a refinery modification. Under the applicable PSD
provisions in the CAA, GHGs became regulated under the PSD program on
January 2, 2011 after EPA adopted tailpipe emissions standards for
these pollutants under Title II of the CAA. Because the incorporation
of GHGs into the PSD program had the potential to significantly expand
the number of sources required to obtain PSD permits, EPA adopted the
2010 Tailoring Rule to phase in the PSD permitting requirements
according to a series of steps based on different GHG emission
thresholds.\362\ At this time the Tailoring Rule requires that any
modification at an existing refinery that increases GHG emissions by
75,000 tons per year or more of CO2 equivalent and also
produces any mass increase in GHG emissions would trigger the need for
a PSD permit that addresses GHG emissions.\363\ Because there are no
NAAQS for GHGs and, therefore no nonattainment areas, only PSD could
potentially apply to a refinery modification with respect to increases
in GHG emissions. The analysis (described in Section V.B.4) indicates
that only a small number of large refineries would be affected. For the
sources that would need a PSD permit for GHGs, the main substantive
requirement for obtaining the permit is to apply BACT for GHG emissions
from the new or modified unit(s) because an air quality analysis is not
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\362\ 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010).
\363\ 77 FR 41051 (July 12, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another development since 2000 has been the establishment of
several new and revised NAAQS and the designation of nonattainment
areas under some of these NAAQS. At the time of the final Tier 2 rule,
the NAAQS of most relevance to Nonattainment NSR permitting for
refineries were the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the PM10 NAAQS, and
the SO2 NAAQS, because these NAAQS accounted for the vast
majority of the existing nonattainment areas. The designation of new
nonattainment areas under the 1997 NAAQS for 8-hour ozone became
effective in 2004. Designations under the 1997 NAAQS for
PM2.5 became effective in 2005. In 2008, we again revised
the ozone NAAQS and designations under that standard became effective
in July 2012.\364\ In 2006, we revised the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS and in 2009 (2011 for a few areas) we designated areas under the
2006 PM2.5 standard.\365\ In December 2012 we revised the
primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS and designations associated with
that revised standard are expected to become effective in 2015.\366\
One effect of this evolution of the NAAQS and associated attainment
status for areas is that it has become more common over time for
sources to be located in ozone or PM2.5 nonattainment areas
and thus subject to Nonattainment NSR rather than to PSD for their VOC,
NOX, and PM2.5 emissions increases. However, over
the same time period, some areas currently designated as nonattainment
for ozone and/or PM2.5 are expected to be redesignated to
attainment. Therefore, we do not expect a dramatic shift on a national
basis in one direction or the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\364\ 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
\365\ Listings of areas currently designated nonattainment for
all the NAAQS are available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html.
\366\ 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, we issued a final rule specifying in detail how NSR
applies to PM2.5.\367\ In addition, in 2010 we
[[Page 29933]]
supplemented this rule with additional provisions for the PSD program
specifically.\368\ The latest rule, among other things, established
PM2.5 increments, and as of October 20, 2011, sources that
trigger PSD for PM2.5 are required to show compliance with
the applicable increment, in addition to showing that they do not cause
or contribute to a violation of any of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\367\ 73 FR 28321 (May 18, 2008). On January 4, 2013, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08-1250, 2013 WL 45653 (filed July 15,
2008, consolidated with 09-1102, 11-1430), issued a judgment that
remanded EPA's 2008 PM 2.5 NSR rule and ordered the EPA
to repromulgate the rule ``pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with
this opinion.'' Id. at *8. Subpart 4 of Part D, Title 1 of the CAA
establishes additional provisions for particulate matter
nonattainment areas. EPA is evaluating the impact of the court
decision on the provisions of the 2008 rule.
\368\ 75 FR 64864 (October 20, 2010). On January 22, 2013, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Sierra Club
v. EPA, No. 10-1413 (filed Dec. 17. 2010), issued a judgment that
vacated and remanded the provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and
52.21(k)(2) (concerning implementation of the PM2.5 SILs)
and vacated the provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) (adding the PM2.5 SMC) that were
promulgated as part of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2010, EPA finalized new NAAQS for 1-hour NO2 and 1-
hour SO2.\369\ EPA has completed the initial round of
mandatory designations for the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS and all
areas have been designated unclassifiable/attainment.\370\ The first
round of designations for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS will be made
in June 2013, thus we do expect there to be nonattainment areas for the
1-hour SO2 NAAQS by the time that refineries might need to
seek NSR permits to make the required facility modifications for the
Tier 3 program. However, we expect that no refinery would have
increases in SO2 emissions that are large enough to trigger
major NSR, so any change in attainment status for the SO2
NAAQS should have no effect on permitting issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\369\ 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010) and 75 FR 35520 (June 22,
2010).
\370\ 77 FR 9532 (February 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the 1-hour
NO2 or 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, the air quality impacts
assessment required to obtain a PSD permit can present new challenges
for permit applicants. This is because demonstrating that a
modification will not cause or contribute to a violation of these 1-
hour standards may require more refined and data-intensive air quality
modeling approaches than has previously been required to make this
demonstration with respect to the pre-existing NAAQS for NO2
and SO2. To assist permit applicants in performing the
required analysis of 1-hour NO2 and SO2 air
quality impacts, we have issued several guidance memos that describe
available alternative approaches and flexibilities.\371\ In addition,
EPA provides technical assistance with modeling issues upon request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\371\ These memos are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance_clarificationmemos.htm, http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/nsr/nsrmemos/appwso2.pdf, and http://www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/20100629no2guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Assessment of Tier 3 Refinery Changes and Permitting Implications
EPA has performed a refinery-by-refinery assessment of the physical
and operational changes that are likely to be needed to allow each
active refinery in the U.S. to produce gasoline that complies with the
proposed Tier 3 fuel specifications. We have also assessed the likely
effects of those changes on refinery emissions. This assessment is
described in more detail in Section 5.4 of the draft RIA. Using this
assessment, we were able to gain a reasonable understanding of the
potential scope of NSR permitting requirements refiners might face
under the proposed Tier 3 program. In general, our assessment indicates
that only a small number of refineries will likely need to make
modifications of a type and size that would trigger the need for a PSD
or Nonattainment NSR permit. The assessment and this conclusion take
into account the changes in the NSR program and its context since 2000
described in Section V.B.3. A technical memorandum describing in detail
our analysis and results is in the public docket for this
proposal.\372\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\372\ Keller, P. (February 2013). New Source Review Permitting
Impact Analysis for Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Program. Memorandum to
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our analysis, we started with the estimates we have made
regarding the physical and operational changes that would be required
at each refinery (described in Section 5.4 of the draft RIA). The
modifications at a given refinery could include revamps to existing FCC
pre- or post-treatment unit(s) or the installation of a new grassroots
post-treatment unit for sulfur reduction. Based on the projected
refinery-specific changes, we estimated the increased demand for energy
(i.e., fuel to generate process heat, steam and electricity), hydrogen,
and sulfur recovery associated with meeting the proposed Tier 3
standards. We selected representative industry emission factors for
NAAQS pollutants, their precursors, and GHGs for each emitting process
and combined them with estimates of incremental activity to estimate
the emissions changes at each equipment unit (or group of similar
units) at each refinery.
To determine upper and lower bounds for emissions increases
resulting from changes necessary to meet the proposed Tier 3 gasoline
sulfur specification, we evaluated two scenarios, a no ABT scenario
(assuming no trading of sulfur credits) and the primary ABT scenario
described in Section 5.4 of the draft RIA. We did not have sufficient
detailed information to predict which refineries would find it most
profitable to generate additional electrical power, hydrogen and high
octane blendstocks internally on site rather than purchasing these
inputs from external suppliers. If a refinery generates these
additional inputs internally on site, the additional emissions would
count towards the significant emissions rates and could affect the need
for a major NSR permit. To account for these variables, we evaluated a
high and a low case for each identified scenario. Under the high case,
we assumed 100 percent internal generation of the additional electrical
power, hydrogen, and high octane blendstocks and under the low case,
100 percent external generation of the same. We expect refineries to
actually be somewhere between these two extreme cases in the future.
For the identified scenarios and cases, we compared the emissions
increase for each pollutant at each refinery to the significant
emissions increase threshold for that pollutant, taking into
consideration the current attainment status for each pollutant where
the refinery is located. We found that the no ABT scenario, low case
had the lowest number of refineries estimated to trigger major NSR and
the primary ABT scenario, high case had the highest, although the
overall numbers did not vary greatly.
An important aspect of our analysis is that we assumed that
refineries would not install new emission controls on affected units
for the purpose of staying below the significant emissions increase
threshold and thereby not triggering major NSR. In particular, we did
not assume that selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to control
NOX emissions would be applied to new or modified fuel
combustion units. This is an important assumption that tends to result
in overestimates of the number of major NSR permits needed for NAAQS-
related pollutants. In reality, applying new emission controls would be
an option that refineries may employ to legally avoid major NSR
permitting. We also did not assume that refineries would ``net out'' of
NSR by taking credit for any emissions reductions occurring within a
contemporaneous timeframe, including any new emissions reduction
[[Page 29934]]
projects initiated specifically for the purpose of ``netting out.''
This analysis resulted in a prediction of whether a PSD and/or a
Nonattainment NSR permit would be needed for each refinery and the
pollutants that would have to be addressed in those permits, under each
of the two scenarios. Only the results for the primary ABT scenario,
high case are presented here. The results for the no ABT scenario,
which are not greatly different, are described in the previously
referenced technical memo found in the docket for this rulemaking.
We found that under the primary ABT scenario, high case, 19
refineries appeared likely to have significant emissions increases for
one or more pollutants and thus would trigger major NSR.\373\ This
equates to approximately 17 percent of the 111 refineries projected to
be affected by the proposed Tier 3 standards. Of these 19 refineries,
we predicted that 13 refineries would need permits for NAAQS-related
pollutants and their precursors (PSD and/or Nonattainment NSR) and for
GHGs (results for GHG are discussed below). Thus, compared to the Tier
2 program where EPA expected the need for NAAQS-related NSR permits
might be widespread among refineries, we believe that under the
proposed Tier 3 program only about 13 refineries would need major NSR
air permits to address NAAQS pollutants. This number could be lower if
those refineries apply pollution controls, such as SCR for
NOX, to sufficiently reduce the emissions increases to
levels that are below the applicable pollutant significance level, or
if the refineries can achieve emissions reductions elsewhere at the
facility to ``net out'' of major NSR. For refineries that are required
to obtain a major NSR permit for NAAQS pollutants, the permitting
process is expected to normally take about 9 to 12 months once the
permitting authority has received a complete application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\373\ Because state requirements regarding minor NSR permitting
vary and we do not expect minor NSR permitting programs to be a
significant challenge for refinery modification projects, we did not
attempt to estimate how many of the remaining refineries might need
to obtain minor NSR permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All 13 refineries just described as potentially needing NSR permits
for NAAQS pollutants are also projected to need PSD permits for GHGs.
In addition to these 13 refineries, we estimated that 6 other
refineries may require a PSD permit addressing only GHG emissions from
new or modified equipment that is part of the project. For these
refineries, BACT must be applied for GHG emissions, which we expect in
most cases would mean that new or modified fuel-burning equipment would
have to be designed for good energy efficiency. We expect that the
types of equipment and process technologies that refiners would modify
or add to meet the proposed Tier 3 standards would generally be
consistent with BACT for GHG emissions in terms of achievable, cost-
effective, and energy-efficient design even absent the requirement to
obtain a permit, meaning that such a requirement would not necessitate
any shift in project design or increase costs. This expectation is
based on the fact that there are strong economic incentives for
refiners to design and purchase the most energy-efficient process
equipment to minimize the cost of production. For example, most of the
new or modified units expected to be involved in refinery projects
designed to meet the proposed Tier 3 standards are fuel combustion
units (e.g., process heaters). Because fuel cost (direct cost in the
case of purchased natural gas and opportunity cost in the case of
refinery-generated fuel gas) represents a significant component of
total operating cost for such units, refineries will strive to maximize
energy efficiency based on available technologies as part of their
project design. EPA requests comment on the likelihood that refineries'
costs for equipment and process technology for compliance with Tier 3
would include any associated costs of compliance with NSR.
In 2010, EPA issued a white paper on available and emerging
technologies for reducing GHGs from the petroleum refining
industry.\374\ This white paper addresses the types of equipment
expected to be involved in projects designed to meet the proposed Tier
3 fuel standards, including process heaters/boilers, hydrogen plants,
and sulfur recovery units. The identified GHG control technologies for
these types of units predominately involve opportunities for energy
efficiency. Consistent with the findings reported in the white paper,
our experience to date with GHG permitting at refineries and other
similar sources supports the application of energy efficient design and
operation of affected units as BACT, and we do not expect that in the
time frame associated with Tier 3-related projects, add-on controls
would be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\374\ See ``Available and Emerging Technologies for Reducing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Petroleum Refining Industry,''
October 2010, available at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgpermitting.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For EPA-issued permits and permits issued by state or local
agencies under delegation, consultation with other federal agencies
under the Endangered Species Act and consideration of environmental
justice would also be required. Significantly, no air quality modeling
of GHGs would be required, and thus there would be no need to obtain
extensive input information on meteorology and emissions from other
nearby sources. Given these differences, we expect that the timeline
for obtaining a permit only for GHG emissions should be shorter by
several months than the timeline for a permit that addresses NAAQS
pollutants.
We invite public comment on our analysis including ways in which we
might improve the assessment between now and the final rule.
5. New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Refineries
In addition to the proposed Tier 3 rulemaking, we are also
conducting other rulemakings to set new and revised limits for direct
emissions from refineries of NAAQS-related pollutants and hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs). This section provides summary information on these
rulemaking efforts, so that comments on the proposed Tier 3 program can
be more fully informed.
We first regulated petroleum refineries in 1974 when the agency
issued the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to control NAAQS-
related air pollutants. The NSPS applies to refinery process units that
commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after June 11,
1973, but before May 14, 2007. On June 24, 2008, we amended the NSPS
and issued new standards for most process units constructed,
reconstructed, or modified after May 14, 2007 and for flares which
commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after June 24,
2008. We were petitioned to reconsider these final rules and on
September 12, 2012, EPA finalized amendments and technical corrections
to address issues related to flares and process heaters. There are two
existing Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards to
control HAPs that apply specifically to petroleum refineries.\375\
These standards are referred to as MACT 1 and 2 and were issued in 1995
and 2002, respectively. EPA is required to perform risk and technology
reviews (RTR) to assess residual risk for MACT standards for HAPs
within eight years of the
[[Page 29935]]
promulgation of the original MACT standards. In addition, EPA is
required to perform a technology review of advancement in processes,
practices and control requirements every eight years after promulgation
of the MACT. EPA is planning to issue a single rulemaking that will
address the RTR analyses for both MACT 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\375\ These are codified in 40 CFR part 63, Subpart CC (National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum
refineries) and 40 CFR part 63, Subpart UUU (National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum Refineries:
Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur
Recovery Units).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, on March 21, 2011 EPA published MACT standards for
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters
and on January 31, 2013 EPA finalized revisions to those standards
based on reconsideration.\376\ These standards apply to boilers and
process heaters at refineries. Because any changes that are made to
meet new requirements of these rulemakings would likely reduce rather
than increase refinery emissions, we do not expect these modifications
to trigger NSR unless a refinery chooses to increase the capacity of
one or more of its units at the same time.\377\ This means that we
expect the final rules would not themselves increase the major NSR
workload for refinery environmental permitting staffs or for permitting
agencies in the same period that these organizations need to prepare
and process permit applications related to the proposed Tier 3 fuel
program. (Minor NSR permitting workload may be affected.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\376\ 76 FR 15451 (March 21, 2011) and 78 FR 7138 (January 31,
2013).
\377\ Some approaches for controlling NAAQS-related pollutants
do require additional electrical power or otherwise may increase GHG
emissions. Conversely, some approaches to increasing energy
efficiency (and thereby reducing GHG emissions) can increase
emissions of NAAQS-related pollutants if compensating changes are
not made in downstream emission control devices, for example
increases in NOX emissions from higher combustion
temperatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Steps for Streamlining the Permitting Process
As we did for Tier 2, we could organize a Headquarters-Regional
response team to monitor and address any delays in permitting by
facilitating coordination among organizations where needed to resolve
permitting issues. The mission of this team would also include tracking
the overall progress in permit issuance and assisting state and local
permitting authorities, refineries, and the public upon request to
resolve site-specific permitting issues. The team would be comprised of
EPA staff knowledgeable about permitting programs and refinery
operations, so the team could provide expert assistance and
troubleshoot permitting issues in a timely fashion. We invite comment
from refineries, permitting authorities, and others regarding the
usefulness of such a team.
We will continue to maintain and refine the tools and resources
that have proven useful to permit applicants and permitting
authorities, such as the RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse, the Support
Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling, and our web-based resources
on GHG permitting. These GHG permitting resources include various
materials on the topic of BACT for GHG, including white papers and
copies of our comments on recent draft permits proposed by state and
local permitting agencies.\378\ One of the white papers, described
previously in Section V.B.4, addresses petroleum refining, and provides
information on control techniques and measures that are available to
mitigate GHG emissions in order to assist states and local air
pollution control agencies, tribal authorities, and regulated entities
in implementing technologies or measures to reduce GHGs under the CAA,
particularly in permitting under the PSD program and the assessment of
BACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\378\ See ``PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse
Gases,'' March 2011 and ``Available and Emerging Technologies for
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Petroleum Refining
Industry,'' October 2010, both available at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgpermitting.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe the guidance we provided on BACT and LAER for
NOX and VOC shortly after the final Tier 2 rule was not
widely utilized by either refineries or permitting authorities.
Nevertheless, we invite comment on whether additional guidance on BACT
and LAER for these and other NAAQS-related pollutants would be useful
to support permitting for Tier 3-related modifications as well as the
appropriate scope and substance of such guidance. We anticipate that if
we do develop any new BACT/LAER guidance, we would provide an
opportunity for public comment on the draft guidance before finalizing
it.
For Tier 3-related NSR permit applications submitted to EPA
Regional Offices, we will assist members of the local communities in
understanding the applications and our proposed permits, in offering
comment, and participating in our decisions. We also encourage similar
assistance efforts by the state and local permitting authorities, and
we invite comment on the specific forms that our and their support
should take.
EPA received comments during the Tier 2 rulemaking that vehicle
emissions reductions should be allowed to be used as part of ``netting
out'' of NSR. This concept is now relevant to GHG emissions, in
addition to the NAAQS-related pollutants to which it was relevant at
the time of the Tier 2 rulemaking. At that time we responded to the
comments by saying that the use of vehicle emissions reductions for
netting purposes was not permitted by the NSR regulations, since the
creditable emissions reductions used for netting purposes must result
from reductions occurring at the modified source. We noted, for
example, that the definition of net emissions increase in 40 CFR
52.21(b)(3)(i) includes only increases and decreases occurring ``at the
source''. We believe this provision in the NSR rules is well founded in
the CAA. Setting aside the issue of whether we have authority to change
this provision, the potential consequences of changing it to allow the
use of non-source emissions reductions in ``netting out'' of NSR would
be far reaching. We are not proposing such a change as part of this
rulemaking, and we believe that any proposal for such a change should
be based on a much better assessment of its possible implications than
can be accomplished as part of this rulemaking. We also note that
``netting out'' of NSR could be a complex and often time-consuming
process because all contemporaneous emissions increases and decreases
within the refinery must be properly accounted for, so the ability to
use vehicle emissions reductions in the netting analysis would not
automatically make ``netting out'' a time-saving shortcut around the
permitting process that would otherwise apply. Nevertheless, we invite
comment regarding how critical such a change may be to successful
permitting of the modifications needed to comply with the proposed Tier
3 program, possible legal rationales for such a change, and the
possible implications beyond the Tier 3 rule including ways to limit
such implications by making the change specific to vehicle emissions
reductions that are closely linked to changes in fuel properties that
result from the refinery modifications.
Finally, we invite comment on issues related to state and local
minor source NSR programs and how they may relate to implementation of
the proposed Tier 3 fuel program. EPA rules give states wide latitude
in the design and operation of their minor source programs, and we do
not routinely require states to report their minor source permitting
activity to us. Therefore, focused comments on this issue would be
helpful.
C. Standards for Denatured Fuel Ethanol and Other Oxygenates
Current gasoline requirements include the prohibition on blending
gasoline with denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) that has sulfur content
higher than 30
[[Page 29936]]
ppm.\379\ This requirement reflects the current 30-ppm refinery average
sulfur requirement. Consistent with this requirement and our proposed
introduction of a 10-ppm refinery average sulfur standard, we propose
that manufacturers of DFE for use by oxygenate blenders would be
required to meet a 10-ppm sulfur cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\379\ 40 CFR 80.385(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California's requirements for DFE, which became effective in
December 2003, are as follows: maximum 10 ppm sulfur, maximum 0.06
volume percent benzene, maximum 0.5 volume percent olefins, and maximum
1.7 volume percent aromatics.\380\ Denaturants used to manufacture DFE
must also meet maximum benzene, olefins, and aromatics specifications
that are based on the anticipated dilution ratio when blended with
ethanol.\381\ Additionally, in July 2002, the Renewable Fuel
Association (RFA) recommended that all ethanol produced for use in the
U.S. should be manufactured in accordance with the California
specifications primarily because of logistical difficulties in
segregating ethanol destined for California from other
destinations.\382\ RFA recently indicated that all ethanol producers
are adhering to this recommendation. Some DFE marketers have also
adopted California's DFE requirements as part of their
specifications.\383\ Consequently, we believe that the implementation
of a 10-ppm sulfur cap for DFE would not result in increased burden to
ethanol producers. We are proposing it to reduce emissions from motor
vehicles, the same reason we are proposing a more stringent sulfur
standard for gasoline into which it is blended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\380\ California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2262.9,
``Requirements Regarding Denatured Ethanol Intended For Use as a
Blend Component in California Gasoline''.
\381\ The current California requirements which are based on a
maximum 5 percent denaturant level in DFE are as follows: maximum
1.1 volume percent benzene, maximum 10 volume percent olefins, and
maximum 35 volume percent aromatics. ASTM International Standard
D4806-11(a), ``Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for
Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine
Fuel'' requires that the maximum denaturant concentration in DFE is
5 volume percent.
\382\ RFA publication entitled ``Fuel Ethanol, Industry
Guidelines, Specifications and Procedures,'' 2011.
\383\ For example, Aventine Renewable Energy Fuel-Grade Ethanol
specifications at http://www.aventinerei.com/pdfs/fuel_grade_spec.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the ASTM International specification for DFE allows only
natural gasoline, gasoline blendstocks, and gasoline as
denaturants.\384\ Similar to the ASTM specifications, we are proposing
to require that only natural gasoline, gasoline, and gasoline
blendstocks for oxygenate blending (BOB) be used as ethanol
denaturants. We believe that this limitation is needed to prevent the
use of other denaturants that might adversely impact vehicle emissions
performance. We believe that the ASTM specifications are already in use
by industry and, therefore, EPA's adoption of the same specifications
would not result in an increased burden to DFE producers. We further
believe that limiting the type of gasoline blendstocks that can be used
as denaturant to BOBs would not impose a new burden on DFE producers
since other gasoline blendstocks would not typically be available to
DFE producers. We request comment on whether there should be an
allowance for other gasoline blendstocks to be used as ethanol
denaturants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\384\ ASTM International D4806-11(a), ``Standard Specification
for Denatured Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as
Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to benzene, olefins, and aromatics, we believe that
these proposed requirements along with Internal Revenue Service ethanol
denaturant requirements would limit benzene, olefins, and aromatics
content of DFE to very low levels. Therefore, we are not proposing any
limits on these parameters in DFE. Nevertheless, we are requesting
comments on whether we should adopt the State of California's benzene,
olefin, and aromatics specifications for DFE. We are also proposing to
limit the maximum concentration of denaturant that can be used in DFE
to 2 volume percent. Under the RFS2 regulations, if the denaturant
level is 2 volume percent or less (effectively less than 2.5 volume
percent considering rounding) the entire volume of denatured fuel
ethanol can be used for determining compliance with the RFS2 renewable
fuel volume requirements.\385\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\385\ See the definition of Renewable Fuel in 40 CFR 80.1401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also request comment on whether to require manufacturers of
denaturants for use in DFE to register with EPA, and demonstrate
compliance with the maximum sulfur, benzene, olefins, and aromatics
specifications enforced in the State of California based on the
anticipated dilution with ethanol. We believe that such additional
requirements on the denaturants used to manufacture DFE would not be
necessary given that DFE producers would be required to meet the
proposed specifications and the proposed requirement that denaturant
concentration in DFE be limited to a maximum of 2 volume percent.
We propose that producers of DFE would be required to meet the
proposed fuel quality requirements for their product and provide batch
reports to EPA. This is similar to the requirements for gasoline
refiners. This approach would provide an appropriate level of assurance
on the quality of DFE which has become such a large component in the
gasoline fuel pool. We believe that this approach would not result in
additional burden to ethanol producers beyond the annual batch reports
that they would need to submit to EPA and the information they provide
on product transfer documents (PTDs). Currently, under the fuel and
fuel additives registration requirements at 40 CFR part 79,
manufacturers of DFE are required to register their products with EPA
prior to introducing DFE into commerce. Also, DFE producers currently
test each batch of their product in order to provide assurance to
blenders that it meets the current fuel quality requirements. This
information is critical to ethanol blenders to avoid testing each batch
of an ethanol blend that they manufacture. The proposed requirements
would facilitate unfettered downstream ethanol blending.
We are also proposing that the proposed fuel quality specifications
and requirements for DFE (except those related to the use of
denaturants) would apply to other oxygenates used in gasoline. We are
proposing that the oxygenate quality requirements would become
effective for oxygenate producers/importers on January 1, 2017. We are
proposing that oxygenate producers and importers would be required to
register by December 1, 2016, or 30 days prior to the date when they
produce/import oxygenate (which ever date is later). Registration under
the RFS program would be sufficient to fulfill this proposed
requirement. We are proposing that oxygenate blenders be required to
begin using oxygenates that comply with the proposed requirements
beginning March 1, 2017. We also seek comment on the ability of these
blenders to comply with the proposed requirements earlier, and
appropriateness of such an earlier compliance date.
D. Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible Fueled Vehicles
FFVs are vehicles that are capable of operating on both gasoline
and gasoline blends containing up to 85 volume percent denatured
ethanol. Whether FFVs are operating on clear gasoline (E0), E85, or any
level of ethanol in between, to maintain emission
[[Page 29937]]
performance the vehicles still need the fuel to meet certain quality
specifications, such as the 10-ppm average gasoline sulfur standard
proposed today. We anticipate that the volume of higher level ethanol
blends used in FFVs may increase substantially as the volume
requirements of the RFS program increase. Significant public and
private initiatives are also currently underway to expand the use of
ethanol blender pumps that dispense a variety of ethanol blends for use
in FFVs.\386\ Therefore it is becoming increasingly important that all
fuels used in FFVs, not just gasoline, meet fuel quality standards. A
lack of clarity regarding the standards that apply to fuels used in
FFVs could act to impede the further expansion of ethanol blended
fuels, which is important to satisfying the requirements of the RFS
program. For these reasons, we believe it is important that our
gasoline quality standards for not just sulfur, but also benzene, Reid
Vapor Pressure (RVP), detergency, and compliance with the interpretive
rule defining the phrase ``substantially similar'' in CAA section
211(f)(1) \387\ (i.e., contain only carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,
and sulfur) apply to any fuel used in an FFV. At the same time, it is
not necessarily clear how we should implement such standards within the
context of our existing regulations. For this reason we are seeking
comment on appropriate regulatory mechanisms for doing so. The
following sections discuss potential approaches for gasoline-ethanol
blends both above and below 50 percent ethanol. We have also developed
a possible approach, along with draft regulations, that are included in
the docket on which we specifically seek comment.\388\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\386\ The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a program to
assist in the funding for the installation of as many as 10,000
ethanol blender pumps over the next 15 years in rural areas. Growth
Energy has a ``Blend Your Own Ethanol'' program to encourage the
installation of ethanol blender pumps.
\387\ 73 FR 22277, 22281 (April 25, 2008).
\388\ Herzog, J. (January 2012). Possible Approach to Fuel
Quality Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-
Ignition Vehicles (FFVs), Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Standards for E51-83
Historically, ``E85'' has been used to describe fuel blends
containing gasoline and ethanol with a minimum and maximum ethanol
content of 68 volume percent and 83 volume percent, respectively. The
recent update to the ASTM International specification for ``E85''
included a reduction in the minimum ethanol concentration to 51 volume
percent.\389\ As part of the updated specification, ASTM retired the
name ``E85'' in favor of ``ethanol fuel blends for flexible-fuel
automotive spark-ignition engines.'' ASTM took this action because the
term ``E85'' has caused confusion regarding the variability in the
ethanol content depending upon seasonal climactic conditions and
regional gasoline volatility specifications. For the purposes of this
discussion, ``E51-83'' refers to the fuel which meets the new ASTM
D5798-11 specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\389\ ASTM International D5798-11, ``Standard Specification for
Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, only reformulated gasoline blendstocks for oxygenate
blending (RBOBs) and gasoline that has previously been demonstrated to
comply with applicable EPA specifications (reformulated gasoline (RFG)
and conventional gasoline (CG)) are used to manufacture E51-83.\390\
The Agency believes that the use of these blendstocks prevents
inappropriate blending components (e.g., chemical wastes) from being
used in the production of E51-83. Use of these blendstocks would also
help ensure that E51-83 meets the necessary sulfur levels we are
proposing today. We note, however, that use of only these blendstocks
is interfering with expansion of E51-83 into the marketplace by
preventing blends at the upper range of the allowed ethanol content. At
higher ethanol concentrations, blenders often cannot meet the minimum
volatility specifications set by ASTM for cold start performance when
using only BOBs and gasoline. Prior to the recent update of the ASTM
specifications, it was frequently not possible to manufacture ``E85''
that met both the ASTM minimum volatility specification and the EPA
requirements regarding the blendstocks that can be used. As a result,
some marketers discontinued distributing ``E85.'' Although the ASTM
update provided a compliance method for manufacturing E51-83, the
result is that less ethanol can be used in FFVs, because the ethanol
concentration is forced down from 83 percent toward the 51 percent
minimum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\390\ Letter to Robert Sydney, Division of Energy Resources,
Boston, MA, from James Caldwell, U.S. EPA, February 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this situation, we believe that we need to prescribe
requirements for E51-83 that would enable the continued expansion into
the marketplace. We believe that such requirements could focus more on
the product and less on how it is made. We also believe that E51-83
should meet the same sulfur, RVP, and benzene standards otherwise
applicable to gasoline as well as the ``substantially similar''
requirements. We are therefore seeking comments on whether we could
extend these requirements to E51-83. We note that establishing such
requirements could allow the use of butane and natural gasoline liquids
(NGL) to manufacture E51-83 with sufficient volatility to meet the ASTM
specifications. Butane is commonly blended into gasoline and NGL is the
denaturant specified by ASTM for the manufacture of DFE.\391\
Additionally, because NGL and butane are less expensive than gasoline
or BOBs, we anticipate that such a change could help to reduce the
price of E51-83 relative to finished gasoline.\392\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\391\ ASTM International D4806-11(a), ``Standard Specification
for Denatured Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as
Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel''.
\392\ In August of 2011 the retail price of E85 was
approximately 60 cents per gallon more than gasoline on an energy
content adjusted basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, we note that requiring E51-83 to meet the same standards
as gasoline would subject E51-83 manufacturers to all the sampling,
testing, and reporting obligations of refiners. While this would
provide maximum blending flexibility, it could also limit the parties
that might choose to blend E51-83. Currently oxygenate blenders are
exempt from much of this regulatory burden. For this reason, we are
also seeking comments on whether we could establish requirements that
would allow producers of E51-83 to avoid the compliance burdens of a
refiner. We are seeking comments on one such approach that would
require the use of only blendstocks that meet certain specifications to
produce E51-83. We believe that use of only blendstocks (including
butane and NGL) that meet these specifications would ensure the final
blend would always meet the standards. These approaches are discussed
in greater detail in the docket for this rulemaking.\393\ We seek
comment on these approaches, and any other approaches that could be
used to remove hurdles for blending of E51-83 while still ensuring the
product meets the fuel quality requirements needed to maintain vehicle
emission performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\393\ Herzog, J. (January 2012). Possible Approach to Fuel
Quality Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-
Ignition Vehicles (FFVs), Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Standards for Mid-Level Ethanol Blends (E16-50)
As discussed earlier, whether FFVs are operating on clear gasoline
(E0), E85, or any level of ethanol in between, to maintain emission
performance these
[[Page 29938]]
vehicles still need the fuel to meet certain quality specifications.
For this reason, we believe it is important that higher ethanol blends
also meet the same standards that apply to gasoline. Our various
standards for gasoline already apply to any fuel sold for use in motor
vehicles, which is commonly or commercially known or sold as gasoline.
In the fuel and fuel additive registration program, the gasoline family
includes fuels composed of at least 50 percent clear gasoline by
volume.\394\ As a result, our gasoline standards already apply to E16-
50 ethanol blends. And yet, such fuels currently can only be used in
FFVs. Therefore, in addition to seeking comment on the need to have
E16-50 blends comply with the gasoline sulfur, benzene, and RVP
standards, we also seek comment on the means of doing so. For example,
can and should the Agency simply treat E16-50 as gasoline under our
regulations and clarify that gasoline means any fuel that contains 50
percent or more gasoline? Alternatively, should the Agency treat E16-50
as an alternative fuel used in FFVs? In which case we seek comment on
whether we should take the same approach for E16-50 as discussed above
for E51-83 with respect to sulfur, benzene, RVP standards, and
substantially similar requirements under section 211(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\394\ 40 CFR 79.56(e)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of considering whether and how to apply gasoline
standards and requirements to E16-50 we also seek comment on whether it
might be an appropriate reading of our regulatory and statutory
authority to allow E16 to E50 blends to have higher RVP levels than
otherwise required by our regulations for gasoline. As the ethanol
level increases, the volatility increase caused by blending ethanol
with gasoline begins to decline, such that at E30 there is only about a
0.5-psi RVP increase. While still an increase compared to the standards
that apply to gasoline other than E9-10, it is considerably less than
the full 1-psi RVP increase that results at E10. The evaporative
emission increase caused by E30 would then be less than for E10. Thus,
we seek comment on whether it would be an appropriate reading of our
regulatory and statutory authority to allow higher RVP levels for such
blends, at least in some limited situations and time frames (e.g.,
using existing regulatory research exemptions for demonstration
programs) where new efforts are being made to introduce such blends
into the market. We further seek comment on data that might help
quantify both the evaporative and exhaust emission impacts necessary to
support any such action.
E. Proposed Program Flexibilities
1. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program
As mentioned in Section V.A.2.b, we are proposing an ABT program
which reduces the cost and promotes the feasibility of the program by
allowing refiners and importers to choose the most economical
compliance strategy (investment in technology, credits, or both) to
meet the proposed Tier 3 average gasoline sulfur standard. The program
allows refiners and importers to generate standard credits for
overcompliance with the 10-ppm sulfur standard beginning in 2017. These
credits could be generated indefinitely and banked or transferred to
others for compliance with the average sulfur standard. The proposed
program also permits refiners and importers to generate early credits
for overcompliance with today's 30-ppm average sulfur standard from
2014 to 2016. Early credits may be used towards compliance with the 10-
ppm standard beginning in 2017, banked for use through 2019, and/or
transferred to other refiners or importers subject to the sulfur
standard.
a. Eligibility
Under the ABT program, we are proposing that U.S. refiners who
produce gasoline by processing crude oil and/or intermediate feedstocks
through refinery processing units are eligible to generate both early
credits (2014-2016) and standard credits (2017 and later). As proposed,
importers are also eligible to generate both early and standard sulfur
credits on gasoline imported into the United States.
We are proposing that sulfur credits may only be generated for
gasoline that is subject to the proposed sulfur requirements as
described at Sec. 80.1603. This excludes gasoline designated for
export. It also excludes California gasoline (gasoline produced or
imported for use in California) but includes gasoline produced by
California refineries for use outside the state. Although California
gasoline is not covered by our proposed sulfur program, we seek comment
on whether to include California gasoline in the ongoing ABT program
under Tier 3 (not the early credit program). The result would be a
national 10-ppm average gasoline sulfur standard. This approach could
provide some additional compliance flexibility to refiners, but it
would also require reporting of batch data to EPA for California
gasoline.
We have received inquiries whether fuel ethanol producers or
blenders should be eligible to generate credits under the proposed
gasoline sulfur program. Denatured fuel ethanol currently contains
around 9 ppm sulfur on average, ranging anywhere from 2 to almost 30
ppm.\395\ While certain batches of ethanol could theoretically be low
enough in sulfur to generate credits, it is our desire to limit credit
generation to companies required to comply with the proposed Tier 3
sulfur standards, i.e., refiners and importers. Experience in the
unleaded gasoline program suggests widespread abuse and fraud when
credits have been allowed to be generated or sold by non-obligated
parties. Thus, in order to allow ethanol producers (or blenders) to
generate sulfur credits under Tier 3, they would need to be treated as
refiners and subject to our batch testing, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements for the finished gasoline they produce.\396\ Currently,
downstream blenders are exempt from these regulations because the
certification and compliance burden is being borne by the upstream
refiners.\397\ Furthermore, since many refiners currently comply with
our standards taking into consideration the fuel property changes
expected as a result of downstream ethanol blending, providing ethanol
blenders with sulfur credit would result in double counting the effects
of ethanol. To avoid this, we would need to restructure our gasoline
regulations to shift the point of compliance to the many terminals and
bulk plants where ethanol is blended and finished gasoline is produced
instead of the refinery gate. While possible, this would significantly
expand the amount of sampling, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting
required to demonstrate compliance with our gasoline standards. It
would also considerably expand the amount of sampling, testing,
recordkeeping, and reporting required of ethanol blenders. As discussed
in Section V.C, we are proposing a cap of 10 ppm on the sulfur content
of denatured fuel ethanol (DFE). Over compliance with the per-gallon
cap would not be a valid basis for credit generation, as you would
expect that in all cases the DFE would be below the
[[Page 29939]]
cap. To allow credit generation, we would need to propose an additional
annual average sulfur standard for DFE at some level below 10 ppm, and
allow credits to be generated for over compliance with that standard.
Accordingly, we do not believe it is appropriate to allow ethanol
producers or blenders to generate sulfur credits under the proposed
gasoline sulfur program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\395\ Report on Ethanol Producers Survey, Presented at the
California Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline Regulation Workshop, June
15, 2000, Carl Reeder, Archer Daniels Midland.
\396\ 40 CFR 80.330, 80.335, 80.365, and 80.370.
\397\ Under the proposed Tier 3 program, as explained in Section
V.C, we are requiring fuel ethanol producers to comply with the 10-
ppm standard. However, for the reasons discussed above, we still do
not believe it is appropriate to allow them to generate sulfur
credits under the proposed ABT program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Standard Credit Generation
Under the Tier 3 ABT program, we are proposing standard credit
generation provisions similar to those offered under Tier 2 as well as
the MSAT2 gasoline benzene program. We are proposing an ongoing sulfur
credit program that would allow refiners and importers to average
within and across companies to meet the new 10-ppm average sulfur
standard in the most cost-effective manner possible. Refiners and
importers could generate standard credits for overcomplying with the
10-ppm standard on a volume-weighted annual average basis beginning
January 1, 2017. Standard credit generation periods would be 12 months
long and synchronized with compliance demonstration periods.
We are proposing that small refiners and small volume refineries
could generate standard credits beginning with the start of their
program on January 1, 2020. Eligible small refining entities could also
generate standard credits for over compliance with the 10-ppm standard
from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 by voluntarily opting in
to the Tier 3 sulfur program during a time period when it would
otherwise not apply. Regardless of whether they were generated early or
not, all standard credits generated by small refiners and small volume
refineries would be subject to the credit life provisions described in
Section V.E.1.d. For a summary of the small refiner and small volume
refinery ABT provisions, refer to Section V.E.1.f.
c. Early Credit Generation
To encourage early gasoline desulfurization and give the refining
industry flexibility to stagger their investments over time, we are
proposing that refiners and importers could also generate early credits
for overcomplying with today's 30-ppm gasoline sulfur standard on a
volume-weighted annual average basis from January 1, 2014 through
December 31, 2016. Under the ABT program, we are proposing that
refiners and importers would not need to establish a gasoline sulfur
baseline or meet a trigger point in order to generate early credits.
They would simply need to demonstrate that their average U.S. gasoline
sulfur levels are below today's 30-ppm Tier 2 standard during the early
credit generation period. We believe this simple early credit approach
is possible because U.S. gasoline is currently averaging around 30 ppm
today based on compliance data. Since during the proposed early credit
generation period refiners and importers would need to continue to
comply with the existing Tier 2 sulfur standards, absent Tier 3, they
would need to maintain this level of performance on an industry average
basis. Accordingly, any additional gasoline sulfur reductions beyond 30
ppm could thus be attributed to the proposed Tier 3 program.
Refiners and importers supplying gasoline containing less than 30
ppm sulfur from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016 could choose
from generating either standard credits under the existing Tier 2
program or early credits under the proposed Tier 3 program, but not
both (at least not for the same volume of gasoline). Sulfur credits
would be generated on an annual average basis. Refiners and importers
could make the decision at the end of the year whether credits
generated in 2014, 2015 or 2016 would be more valuable used/traded to
comply with the Tier 2 program or banked for the Tier 3 program. Some
year-end credits could be designated as Tier 2 and some designated as
Tier 3 provided the same volume of gasoline was only used to generate
one type of credit. We believe that the proposed early credit program
structure is the simplest approach to giving refiners and importers
incentive for doing more sulfur control earlier than required and
providing additional lead time to meet the Tier 3 annual average
standard. We seek comments on alternative ways to structure the early
credit program to help ease the transition from Tier 2 to Tier 3.
Under past fuel programs (e.g., MSAT2), we precluded importers from
generating early credits under the premise that they did not need
additional lead time to comply with our fuel standards because, most
likely, they would not be investing in new refining technologies. We
also thought it would be difficult for them to establish representative
baselines from which early credits could be generated. Since we are not
proposing early credit baselines under Tier 3, as discussed above, we
are proposing to allow importers to generate early credits for sending
over-compliant gasoline to the United States prior to the start of the
program, but seek comment on the appropriateness of doing so.
d. Credit Life Provisions
Under the Tier 3 ABT program, we are proposing that early credits
must be used towards compliance within three years from the start of
the program; otherwise they would expire and become invalid. In other
words, early credits must be applied towards the 2017, 2018 or 2019
compliance years. After February 29, 2020, all early credits would
expire and become invalid. The proposed three-year early credit life
provision would offer considerable flexibility to refiners phasing in
Tier 3 gasoline sulfur controls while still placing a 2020 end date at
which point the intended sulfur program is fully implemented and
enforceable. It would provide a date certain by when auto manufacturers
could have confidence for the design of their vehicles that all
vehicles in-use are running on 10 ppm average fuel. Otherwise, it is
possible that the greater ease of generating early credits relative to
30 ppm sulfur (as opposed to 10 ppm in 2017 and beyond) could allow
higher sulfur levels to continue well beyond 2019. Refiners that are
able to generate early credits may choose to hold onto them for later
use, rather than trade them to other refiners who may need them sooner.
The proposed three-year early credit life provision would also be
consistent with the duration of the small volume refinery provisions
described below. We seek comment on the lifetime of early credits and
the implications on in-use sulfur levels beyond 2019 should we allow
them to have a longer credit life.
We are proposing that standard credits must be used within five
years from the year they were generated (regardless of when/if they are
traded); otherwise they would expire and become invalid. For example,
standard credits generated in 2017 could be applied towards 2018-2022
compliance, as well as 2017 compliance. After February 28, 2023,
standard credits generated in 2017 would expire and become invalid.
Similarly, standard credits generated in 2018 could be applied towards
2019-2023 compliance, as well as 2018 compliance. After February 29,
2024, standard credits generated in 2018 would expire, and so on and so
forth.
We believe the five-year standard credit life provision, when
final, would give refiners and importers sufficient time to use credits
generated in previous years while still placing limitations on credit
life that would help with enforcement. Five years is consistent with
the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements (described in
more detail in Section V.F.1) as well as
[[Page 29940]]
the current Tier 2 and MSAT2 standard credit life provisions.
e. Credit Trading Provisions
It is possible that sulfur credits could be generated by one party,
subsequently transferred or used in good faith by another, and later
found to have been calculated or created improperly or otherwise
determined to be invalid. If this occurs, as in past fuel programs, we
are proposing that both the seller and purchaser would have to adjust
their sulfur calculations to reflect the proper credits and either
party (or both) could be determined to be in violation of the standards
and other requirements if the adjusted calculations demonstrate
noncompliance with the 10-ppm standard.
Under the proposed Tier 3 ABT program, sulfur credits must be
transferred directly from the refiner or importer generating them to
the party using them for compliance purposes. This ensures that the
parties purchasing them are better able to assess the likelihood that
the credits are valid. An exception exists where a credit generator
transfers credits to a refiner or importer who inadvertently cannot use
all the credits. In this case, the credits could be transferred a
second time to another refiner or importer. After the second trade, the
credits must be used or they would be terminated. Allowing a maximum of
two trades is consistent with other recent fuel programs and we believe
it is sufficiently flexible while still preserving adequate means for
enforcement. Nonetheless, we seek comment on the need for allowing more
than two trades for sulfur credits under the proposed Tier 3 program.
There are currently no prohibitions against brokers facilitating
the transfer of credits from one party to another. Any person can act
as a credit broker, regardless of whether such person is a refiner or
importer, as long as the title to the credits is transferred directly
from the generating refiner or importer to the using refiner or
importer. This prohibition on outside parties taking ownership of
credits was promulgated in response to problems encountered during the
unleaded gasoline program and has since appeared in subsequent fuels
rulemakings. Maintaining this prohibition would allow for maximum
program enforceability and consistency with all of our other ABT
programs for mobile sources and their fuels. Nonetheless, we seek
comment on the need for this restriction under the proposed Tier 3
program.
f. Summary of ABT Provisions for Small Refiners and Small Volume
Refineries
We are proposing that small refiners and small volume refineries
would have an additional three years to comply with the 10-ppm annual
average standard, or until January 1, 2020. This is the primary form of
relief offered to small refining entities under the proposed Tier 3
gasoline sulfur program. The proposed credit provisions are similar to
those offered to non-small refiners. Eligible small refiners and small
volume refineries would be able to generate early credits for
overcomplying with the 30-ppm Tier 2 standard from January 1, 2014
through December 31, 2016. Like non-small refiners, they would need to
make the decision whether these credits would be more valuable under
the Tier 2 program or the proposed Tier 3 program. While early credits
could help postpone investments by up to three years, they could not be
used by small refiners or small refineries to postpone sulfur
investments beyond their January 1, 2020 start date. However, early
credits generated by small entities from 2014-2016 could be traded/sold
to non-small refiners subject to the January 1, 2017 standard and the
credit revenues could be used to help offset their Tier 3 investments.
As explained above, small refiners and small volume refineries
could generate standard credits relative to the 10-ppm standard
beginning with the start of their program on January 1, 2020. Eligible
small refining entities could also generate standard credits for over
compliance with the 10-ppm standard from January 1, 2017 through
December 31, 2019 by voluntarily opting in to the Tier 3 sulfur program
earlier than required. Regulatory flexibility provisions offered to
small refiners and small volume refineries are described in more detail
below.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Provisions
a. Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Provisions
As in previous fuel rulemakings, our justification for including
provisions specific to small businesses is that these entities
generally have a greater degree of difficulty in complying with the
standards compared to other entities.
In developing the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, we
evaluated the environmental need as well as the technical and financial
ability of refiners and others in the fuel industry to meet the sulfur
standards as expeditiously as possible. We believe it is feasible and
necessary for the vast majority of the program to be implemented in the
established time frame to achieve the air quality benefits as soon as
possible. Based on information available from small refiners and
others, we believe that entities classified as small generally face
unique circumstances with regard to compliance with environmental
programs, compared to larger entities. Thus, as discussed below, we are
proposing several regulatory flexibility provisions for small entities
in the fuels industry to reduce the burden that our proposed program
could have on them.
Small entities generally lack the resources that are available to
larger companies, including those large companies that own small-
capacity refineries, to raise capital for investing in a new regulatory
program, such as shifting of internal funds, securing of financing, or
selling of assets. Small entities are also likely to have more
difficulty in competing for any needed engineering and construction
resources. As such, we are proposing provisions that would provide
assistance for small entities in meeting the proposed Tier 3 standards.
This proposed approach would allow the overall program to begin as
early as possible; achieving the air quality benefits of the program as
soon as possible, while helping to ensure that small entities have
adequate time to raise capital for new fuel desulfurization equipment
or to make any other needed changes. We believe that small business
regulatory flexibilities could provide these entities with additional
help and/or time to accumulate capital internally or to secure capital
financing from lenders, and could spread out the availability of any
needed engineering and construction resources.
i. Delayed Standards for Small Refiners
As explained in Sections V.A.1.c and V.E.1.f, we are proposing an
option that would allow small refiners to postpone compliance with the
Tier 3 program for up to three years. This delayed compliance schedule
for small refiners is not intended as an opportunity for those refiners
to greatly expand their production of >10 ppm sulfur gasoline, but
rather would help small refiners with compliance with the program.
Since the compliance costs for their competitors would rise during
these three years and since their gasoline would be sold into the same
fungible market, this delay would not only provide them more lead time,
but also financial support towards later compliance. Small refiners
choosing this option would have from January 1, 2017 through December
31, 2019 to continue production of gasoline with an average sulfur
level of 30 ppm (per the
[[Page 29941]]
Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program). Compliance with the 10-ppm sulfur
standard would begin on January 1, 2020. Any small refiner choosing
this option would be allowed to continue using Tier 2 gasoline sulfur
credits through December 31, 2019 to meet their refinery average 30-ppm
sulfur standard (however, these credits may not be used for compliance
with the proposed Tier 3 10-ppm average sulfur standard).
ii. Refinery Gate and Downstream Caps
During the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) Panel process, small refiners raised the concern that a
refinery gate cap of 20 ppm could cause problems during a refinery
turnaround or an upset because a cap of this level could result in a
refiner not being able to produce saleable gasoline. The Panel likewise
had concerns that a downstream cap of 25 ppm may cause problems for
small downstream entities such as transmix processors because, as they
noted in their comments during the Panel process, transmix processors
may not be able to reprocess finished gasoline down to this level.
Thus, the Panel recommended that EPA assess and request comment on
retaining the current Tier 2 refinery gate and downstream caps of 80
and 95 ppm, respectively, to help provide maximum flexibility and avoid
system upsets for the entire refining and distribution system. Further,
the Small Business Administration (SBA) and Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Panel members recommended that EPA propose retaining the
80-ppm and 95-ppm caps. The Panel also recommended that, if EPA were to
propose caps lower than 80 and 95 ppm, the Agency request comment on
additional refinery gate and downstream caps that are above 20/25 ppm
but below 80/95 ppm.
As discussed in Section XI.C, we are proposing to either maintain
the current 80/95 ppm caps or to lower them to 50/65 ppm. Should we
lower the caps to 50/65 ppm, given the stringency of the 10-ppm average
standard, we anticipate that they would provide the same level of
flexibility for refiners, pipelines, terminals, transmix processors,
and gasoline additive manufacturers as the current 80/95 ppm caps.
Should we lower the caps to 50/65, we are proposing to allow the
current Tier 2 80-ppm refinery gate cap to remain in place through
December 31, 2019. Compliance with the 50-ppm refinery gate cap would
begin on January 1, 2020, when the 10-ppm average sulfur standard is
required for all refiners. Similarly, we are proposing to allow the
Tier 2 95-ppm downstream cap to remain in effect through February 29,
2020. Compliance with the 65-ppm downstream cap would begin on March 1,
2020. For more information on the proposed cap provisions, refer to
Section V.A.3.
iii. Credit-Related Flexibilities
As described above in Section V.E.1, we are proposing an ABT
program. Refiners and importers would be able to generate early sulfur
credits from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016 relative to the
current 30-ppm Tier 2 average sulfur standard (i.e., credits may be
generated for any reductions below 30 ppm prior to the start of the
general Tier 3 program). Beginning January 1, 2017 standard credits may
be generated for overcompliance with the proposed 10-ppm Tier 3 sulfur
standard. In addition, small refiners and small volume refineries would
be able to generate standard credits from January 1, 2017 through
December 31, 2019 for reductions below 10 ppm prior to their proposed
program start date of January 1, 2020.
During the SBREFA Panel process, one Small Entity Representative
(SER) commented that importers should be allowed to participate in the
credit program. In previous EPA fuel programs, importers have generally
been treated as refiners, except for the purposes of early credit
generation. Refiners have historically been required to establish a
baseline in order to generate early credits. Importers generally do not
have a specific baseline or amount of fuel that they import in a given
year, so participation in the early credit market would not have been
feasible under those programs. However, under the proposed Tier 3
sulfur program, refiners and importers are not required to establish
baselines; the existing 30-ppm Tier 2 standard serves as the
``baseline.'' Therefore, as discussed above in Section V.E.1.c, we are
proposing to allow importers to participate in the early credit program
as well as the ongoing standard credit program.
iv. Gasoline Additive Manufacturers
During the SBREFA Panel process, some gasoline additive
manufacturing SERs raised the concern that they would have difficulty
meeting a 25-ppm per-gallon sulfur cap, and the Panel recommended that
EPA request comment on whether or not gasoline additives should be
allowed to remain at levels above 25 ppm sulfur, and on potential
methods for ensuring that bulk additives do not increase the sulfur
level of the resultant fuel blend. However, as discussed above and in
Section V.A.3, we are proposing to either retain the current 80/95 ppm
caps or only go to 50/65 ppm. Both of these options would have the same
15-ppm differential between the refinery gate and downstream caps, thus
we are not proposing any additional provisions for gasoline additives
beyond what already exists under the current Tier 2 program.
b. Small Volume Refinery Provisions
During the development of this proposal and throughout the SBREFA
process, it became evident that some refineries may experience higher
compliance costs on a per-gallon basis than other refineries, and in
some cases considerably higher. It also became apparent that in many of
these cases it was not necessarily a refinery owned by a refiner/
company that would meet the SBA definition of a small business
(however, these refineries tend to be small volume refineries). In an
oversupplied gasoline market, these refineries may have difficulty
justifying capital investments to comply with the proposed sulfur
standard. In recognition of this concern under the RFS program,
Congress granted all small refineries with a crude oil throughput of
less than or equal to 75,000 barrels per calendar day (bpcd) additional
time to comply. As such, we are also proposing delayed Tier 3 sulfur
standards for approved small volume refineries. Overall, we believe
that these small refineries are disproportionally impacted when it
comes to their cost of compliance and ability to rationalize the
investment costs in today's gasoline market. Giving these refineries
additional lead time would allow them more time to invest in
desulfurization technology, take advantage of advancements in
technology, develop confidence in a Tier 3 credit market as a means of
compliance, and avoid competition for capital, engineering, and
construction resources with the larger refineries. We are proposing
that approved small volume refineries would receive a three-year delay
(January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019) in meeting the 10-ppm
average gasoline sulfur standard, similar to the small refiner delay.
Credit generation opportunities for approved small volume refineries
would be identical to those proposed for small refiners as described in
Section V.E.1.f.
A refiner would need to apply and be approved for small volume
refinery status. We are proposing a small volume refinery net crude
throughput of less than or equal to 75,000 bpcd, and we request comment
on whether or not a different crude throughput would be more
appropriate. To determine compliance with this threshold, we
[[Page 29942]]
propose to base the crude throughput on the highest crude throughput
for either the 2010 or 2011 calendar years.
3. Provisions for Refiners Facing Hardship Situations
As in previous fuel programs, we are proposing hardship provisions
to accommodate a refiner's inability to comply with the proposed
standard at the start of the Tier 3 program, and to deal with
unforeseen circumstances that may occur at any point during the
program. These provisions would be available to all refiners, small and
non-small, though relief would be granted on a case-by-case basis
following a showing of certain requirements; primarily that compliance
through the use of credits was not feasible. We are proposing that any
hardship waiver would not be a total waiver of compliance; rather, a
hardship waiver would be short-term relief that would allow a refiner
facing a hardship situation to, for example, receive additional time to
comply. EPA would determine appropriate hardship relief based on the
nature and degree of the hardship, as presented by the refiner in their
hardship application, and on our assessment of the credit market.
In addition to the unforeseen circumstances and extreme hardship
circumstances waivers being proposed today and discussed in more detail
below, the Panel also recommended that EPA request comment on the
concept of long-term cap relief should we lower the sulfur caps below
the current 80/95-ppm level if the circumstances both warrant it and
can be structured in a way to allow for it. Such a provision may
require segregation of their fuel through to the retail station in
order for it not to preclude enforcement on the gasoline supplied by
other refiners serving the area. Therefore, in providing comment on
such a hardship provision, please also comment on potential compliance
and enforcement mechanisms to account for such longer-term relief,
e.g., fuel segregation, tracking, reporting and recordkeeping, etc.
a. Temporary Waivers Based on Unforeseen Circumstances
We are proposing a provision which, at our discretion, would permit
any refiner to seek a temporary waiver from the Tier 3 sulfur standards
under certain rare circumstances. This waiver provision is similar to
provisions in existing fuel regulations. It is intended to provide
refiners relief in unanticipated circumstances--such as a refinery fire
or a natural disaster (i.e., force majeure)--that cannot be reasonably
foreseen now or in the near future. Under this provision, a refiner
could seek a hardship waiver for relief if it could demonstrate that
the magnitude of the impact was so severe as to require such an
extension. We are proposing that the refiner would be required to show
that: (1) The waiver would be in the public interest; (2) the
nonconformity was unavoidable; (3) it would meet the proposed Tier 3
standards as expeditiously as possible; (4) it would make up the air
quality detriment associated with the nonconforming gasoline, where
practicable; and (5) it would pay to the U.S. Treasury an amount equal
to the economic benefit of the nonconformity less the amount expended
to make up the air quality detriment. These conditions are similar to
those in previous fuels regulations, and are necessary and appropriate
to ensure that any waivers granted would be limited in scope.
As discussed, such a request would be based on the refiner's
inability to produce compliant gasoline at the affected facility due to
extreme and unusual circumstances outside the refiner's control that
could not have been avoided through the exercise of due diligence. The
hardship request would also need to show that other avenues for
mitigating the problem, such as the purchase of credits toward
compliance under the proposed credit provisions, had been pursued and
yet were insufficient or unavailable. In light of the proposed
flexibilities including the ABT program, we expect that the need for
such requests would be rare.
b. Temporary Waivers Based on Extreme Hardship Circumstances
In addition to the provision for short-term relief in extreme
unforeseen circumstances, we are also proposing a hardship provision
where a refiner could receive a hardship waiver based on severe
economic or physical lead time limitations of the refinery to comply
with the Tier 3 standards at the start of the program. A refiner
seeking such hardship relief under this proposed rule would have to
demonstrate that these criteria were met. In addition to showing that
unusual circumstances exist that impose extreme hardship in meeting the
proposed standards, the refiner would have to show that: (1) It has
made best efforts to comply, including through the purchase of credits;
(2) the relief granted under this provision would be in the public
interest; (3) the environmental impact would be acceptable; and (4) it
has active plans to meet the requirements as expeditiously as possible.
We expect that hardship relief requests under this provision would
mostly be applicable at the beginning of the Tier 3 program, when
refiners are making their investments to comply. If hardship relief
under these circumstances was approved, we would expect to impose
appropriate conditions to ensure that the refiner was making best
efforts to achieve compliance offsetting any loss of emission control
from the program. We believe that providing short-term relief to those
refiners that need additional time due to hardship circumstances would
help to facilitate the adoption of the overall Tier 3 program for the
majority of the industry. However, we do not intend for hardship waiver
provisions to encourage refiners to delay planning and investments they
would otherwise make. Again, because of the flexibilities of the
proposed overall program, we expect that the need for additional relief
would be rare.
F. Compliance Provisions
For the most part, the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards simply
reflect a lowering of the current Tier 2 sulfur standards. Thus, we are
proposing to retain most of the same compliance provisions as the
current Tier 2 program, with exceptions as noted. However, we are also
proposing and seeking comment on several fuel program regulatory
streamlining measures, including a broader program redesign to
streamline the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping regulations.\398\
Some of these streamlining measures, if adopted, may also impact the
Tier 3 sulfur compliance provisions proposed below. FF
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\398\ For more information on Part 80 regulatory streamlining
options, refer to Section VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Registration, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
Registration, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to track
compliance with the Tier 3 standards and the ABT program. This section
describes the proposed compliance provisions of today's program.
a. Registration Requirements
We are proposing that refiners, importers, and anyone acting as a
refiner (e.g., a terminal with blending or other refining operations)
who expects to produce or import gasoline would be required to register
each of its facilities with EPA by June 1, 2016, or six months prior to
producing gasoline meeting the Tier 3 standards and/or participating in
the credit program. After the program begins on January 1, 2017, any
non-
[[Page 29943]]
registered parties must register at least three months prior to
producing gasoline or participating in the credit market under the Tier
3 program. Most refiners, importers, and ethanol producers are
currently registered with EPA under other 40 CFR part 80 fuels
programs. We are proposing that those who are already registered would
not have to register again.
For registration, we are proposing to use the same basic forms that
previous fuels programs have used. These forms are well known in the
regulated community and are simple to fill out. Upon receipt of a
completed registration form, EPA would issue a unique 4-digit company
identification number and a unique 5-digit facility identification
number. As with existing fuels programs, these numbers would be
required for all reports sent to EPA and for PTDs.
Registrations would not expire and would not have to be renewed;
however, we are proposing that registered parties would be responsible
for notifying us of any change to their company or facility
information.
An entity's registration must include a corporate name and address
(including the name, telephone number, and email address of a corporate
contact); and, for each facility operated by the entity:
Type of facility (e.g., refinery, import facility,
pipeline, terminal, transmix facility, etc.)
Facility name.
Physical location.
Contact name, telephone number, and email address.
b. Reporting Requirements
We are proposing to require refiners and importers to submit annual
reports demonstrating their compliance with the Tier 3 standards and on
the generation, use, and transfer of sulfur credits at each of its
refineries or import facilities. Similar to our other sulfur programs,
we are also proposing to require refiners and importers to submit data
on individual batches of gasoline (including batch volume and sulfur
content). Based on our experience with existing gasoline and sulfur-
based programs, we believe that requiring annual reports and individual
sulfur batch data would provide an effective means of monitoring
compliance with the standards and the credit program.
We are proposing that manufacturers of DFE and other oxygenates
would be required to submit an annual report that includes the total
volume of DFE/oxygenate produced and an attestation that all batches
met the proposed fuel quality requirements: sulfur content, composition
(i.e., composed only of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and
sulfur), and denaturant concentration as applicable.
We are proposing that reports would be due annually on March 31.
c. Recordkeeping Requirements
Similar to current EPA fuels programs, we are proposing that
refiners and importers would be required to retain all records that
demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 program, including ABT program
information.
We are proposing that manufacturers of DFE and other oxygenates
would be required to keep records on individual batches of DFE/
oxygenate (including batch volume, sulfur content, and denaturant
concentration as applicable).
All parties in the gasoline production and distribution system
subject to today's proposed rule would also be required to keep records
of all PTDs and records of any quality assurance programs. Records
would need to be retained for five years. For credit transactions,
records would need to be retained for five years from the usage date.
Records would need to be made available to EPA on request. We are also
proposing that if electronic records are kept, hard copies should be
made available upon request.
We are proposing to allow parties to claim information submitted to
EPA as confidential business information (CBI). Parties making such a
claim would be required to follow all reporting guidance and clearly
mark the information being claimed as proprietary. EPA would treat
information covered by such a claim in accordance with the regulations
at 40 CFR part 2 and other Agency procedures for handling proprietary
information.
2. Sampling and Testing Requirements
Under the Tier 2 program, a sulfur concentration must be determined
for every batch of gasoline. We are proposing to retain that
requirement under Tier 3. As with the Tier 2 program, this every batch
testing requirement would be required to occur prior to the batch
leaving the refinery. We are proposing to retain the current sampling,
testing, and sample retention requirements. However, as discussed below
in Section VI.A.3, we are proposing performance based measurement
standards that would allow refiners to use alternate test methods for
measuring sulfur.
We are proposing that manufacturers of DFE would be required to
test each individual batch of DFE for its sulfur content.
We request comment on these elements related to sampling and
testing, as well as the sampling and testing requirements in the
proposed regulations.
3. Small Refiner Compliance
To qualify for small refiner status under the Tier 3 program, we
are proposing that a refiner must apply by March 31, 2014. As with our
other EPA fuels programs, we are proposing to continue using the Small
Business Administration definition of a small refiner: 1,500 employees
(company-wide). To qualify for small refiner status under Tier 3, we
are also proposing that a small refiner must meet the following
additional criteria:
The refiner must have produced gasoline from crude oil
during the 2011 calendar year.
The refiner must have owned and operated the refinery
during the period from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. New
owners that purchased a refinery after that date would do so with full
knowledge of the proposed regulations, and should have planned to
comply along with their purchase decisions. As with existing fuel
programs, we are proposing that a refiner that restarts a refinery in
the future may be eligible for small refiner status. Thus, a refiner
restarting a refinery that was shut down or non-operational during
calendar year 2011 could apply for small refiner status. In such cases,
we would judge eligibility under the employment and crude oil capacity
criteria based on the most recent 12 consecutive months prior to the
application, unless we conclude from data provided by the refiner that
another period of time is more appropriate. However, we propose to
limit this to a company that owned the refinery at the time that it was
shut down. New purchasers would not be eligible for small refiner
status for the same reasons described above.
The refiner must have had 1,500 employees or less based on
the average number of employees for all pay periods from January 1,
2011 through December 31, 2011 for all subsidiaries, parent companies
(i.e., any company or companies with controlling interest), and joint
ventures.
The refiner must have had a crude oil capacity less than
or equal to 155,000 bpcd during the 2011 calendar year.
A refiner applying for status as a small refiner would be required
to apply and provide EPA with several types of information, as
specified in the regulations, by March 31, 2014. All refiners seeking
small refiner status under this program would need to apply for small
refiner status, regardless of
[[Page 29944]]
whether or not the refiner had been approved for small refiner status
under another fuel program. As with applications for relief under other
rules, applications for small refiner status under this proposed rule
that are later found to contain false or inaccurate information would
be void ab initio.
Requirements for small refiner status applications:
The total crude oil capacity as reported to the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
for the most recent 12 months of operation. This would include the
capacity of all refineries controlled by a refiner and by all
subsidiaries and parent companies and joint ventures. We would presume
that the information submitted to EIA is correct. (In cases where a
company disagreed with this information, the company could petition EPA
with appropriate data to correct the record when the company submitted
its application for small refiner status. EPA could accept such
alternate data at its discretion.)
The name and address of each location where employees
worked during the 2011 calendar year; and the number of employees at
each location during this time period. This would include the employees
of the refiner and all subsidiaries and parent companies and joint
ventures.
In the case of a refiner who reactivates a refinery that
was either shutdown or non-operational from January 1, 2011 through
December 31, 2011, the name and address of each location where
employees worked since the refiner reactivated the refinery and the
average number of employees at each location for each calendar year
since the refiner reactivated the refinery.
The type of business activities carried out at each
location.
Contact information for a corporate contact person,
including: name, mailing address, phone and fax numbers, email address.
A letter signed by the president, chief operating officer,
or chief executive officer of the company (or a designee) stating that
the information contained in the application was true to the best of
his/her knowledge and that the company owned the refinery as of January
1, 2011.
We are proposing that an approved small refiner that exceeds the
employee count or crude capacity criteria due to merger with,
acquisition by, or the acquisition of another entity will lose its
small refiner status. In situations where a small refiner loses its
small refiner status due to merger with a non-small refiner,
acquisition of another refiner, or acquisition by another refiner, we
are proposing provisions which are similar to those in our existing
fuels programs to allow an additional 30 months of lead time to comply
with the Tier 3 program after the disqualifying event.\399\ The
proposed 30 months of additional lead time would only apply to
refineries that had previously been subject to small refiner relief, as
we believe there would be no adverse environmental impact because of
the pre-existing relief provisions that applied to the small refiner.
We are also proposing that a refiner would lose its small refiner
status if it ceases to process crude oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\399\ See, for example, 69 FR 39051 (June 29, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our intent has been, and continues to be, limiting the small
refiner relief provisions to a small subset of refiners that are
challenged, as discussed above. However, it is also our intent to avoid
stifling normal business growth. Therefore, we are proposing that an
approved small refiner who exceeds the employee count or crude oil
capacity criteria through normal business practices, may retain its
small refiner status. Further, in the sole case of a merger between two
approved small refiners we are proposing to allow such refiners to
retain their small refiner status. Additional financial resources would
not typically be provided in the case of a merger between two small
refiners. Small refiner status for the two entities of the merger would
not be affected; hence the original compliance plans of the two
refiners should not be impacted. Moreover, no environmental detriment
would result from the two small refiners maintaining their small
refiner status within the merged entity as they would have likely
maintained their small refiner status had the merger not occurred.
We request comment on whether or not these provisions remain
appropriate.
4. Small Volume Refinery Compliance
In the case of small volume refineries, the application process for
qualification is similar to that of a small refiner. A refiner that is
both a small refiner and owns a small volume refinery need not apply
for small volume refinery status; the small refiner application is all
that is needed. We are proposing a net crude throughput threshold of no
more than 75,000 bpcd based on the highest throughput in calendar years
2010 or 2011 as the basis for receiving small volume refinery status.
We request comment on whether or not another threshold would be more
appropriate.
We are proposing that refiners would need to include the following
in their applications:
Proof that the refiner produced gasoline from crude oil
during the 2011 calendar year.
Proof that the refiner owned and operated the refinery
during the period from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.
The refinery's total crude throughput as reported to EIA
for each of calendar years 2010 and 2011. Again, we would presume that
the information submitted to EIA is correct. In cases where a refiner
disagrees with this information, the refiner could petition EPA with
appropriate data to correct the record when the refiner submits its
application for small volume refinery status. EPA could accept such
alternate data at its discretion.
Contact information for a corporate contact person,
including: name, mailing address, phone and fax numbers, email address.
A letter signed by the president, chief operating officer,
or chief executive officer of the company (or a designee) stating that
the information contained in the application was true to the best of
his/her knowledge and that the company owned the refinery as of January
1, 2011.
5. Attest Engagements, Violations, and Penalties
We are proposing to retain the Tier 2 requirements for attest
engagements for generation of both early and standard credits, use of
credits, and compliance with the proposed program, using the procedures
used in other EPA fuels programs for attest engagements. The violation
and penalty provisions applicable to today's proposed program would be
very similar to the provisions currently in effect in other gasoline
programs as well. We request comment on the need for additional attest
engagement, violation, penalty, or any other compliance and enforcement
related provisions specific to the proposed Tier 3 program.
6. Special Fuel Provisions and Exemptions
The following paragraphs discuss several provisions and exemptions
for gasoline that we are proposing would apply in special
circumstances.
a. Gasoline Used in Military Applications
In our diesel fuel program, we provided an exemption for diesel
fuel used in tactical military vehicles and nonroad engines and
equipment with a national security exemption (NSE) from the vehicle and
engine emissions standards. Due to national security considerations,
some of EPA's existing
[[Page 29945]]
regulations allow the military to request and receive NSEs for
vehicles, engines, and equipment from emissions regulations if the
operational requirements for such vehicles, engines, or equipment
warrant such an exemption. Fuel used in these applications would also
be exempt if it is used in tactical military vehicles, engines, or
equipment that are not covered by an NSE but, for national security
reasons (such as the need to be ready for immediate deployment
overseas), these applications need to be fueled on the same fuel as
those with an NSE. We are proposing this exemption under the proposed
Tier 3 gasoline program.
b. Gasoline Used in Research, Development, and Testing
Similar to other EPA fuels programs, we are proposing to allow
requests for an exemption from the Tier 3 standards for gasoline used
for research, development, and testing purposes (``R & D exemption'').
We recognize that there may be legitimate research programs that
require the use of gasoline with sulfur levels greater than those
allowed under the proposed Tier 3 program. Thus, we are proposing
provisions for obtaining an exemption from the prohibition against
persons producing, distributing, transporting, storing, selling, or
dispensing gasoline that does not meet the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur
standards, where such fuel is necessary to conduct a research,
development, or testing program.
Parties seeking an R & D exemption would be required to submit an
application for exemption to EPA that describes the purpose and scope
of the program, and the reasons why the noncompliant gasoline is
necessary. Upon presentation of the required information, an exemption
could be granted at the discretion of EPA, with the condition that EPA
could withdraw the exemption in the event the Agency determines the
exemption is not justified. In addition, an exemption based on false or
inaccurate information would be considered void ab initio. Gasoline
subject to an exemption would be exempt from certain provisions of this
rule, including the sulfur standards, provided certain requirements are
met. These requirements include the segregation of the exempt gasoline
from non-exempt gasoline, identification of the exempt gasoline on
PTDs, and pump labeling.
c. Gasoline for Export
Gasoline produced for export, and that is actually exported for use
in a foreign country, would be considered exempt from the fuel content
standards and other requirements of this proposed rule. Such gasoline
would be considered as intended for use in the U.S. and subject to the
proposed standards unless it is designated by the refiner and the PTD
states that the gasoline is for ``export only''. Gasoline intended for
export would be required to be segregated from all gasoline intended
for use in the U.S. Distributing or dispensing such fuel for domestic
use would be illegal.
d. Other Special Provisions and Potential Exemptions
We are proposing provisions for Alaska that would allow the
refinery gate and downstream caps to remain at the current Tier 2 80-
ppm and 95-ppm levels, respectively, should the caps be lowered to 50
and 65 ppm (per Section V.A.3).
Additionally, in previous fuels programs we have included
exemptions for racing fuel and for fuel used in the U.S. territories of
Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. We request
comment on whether or not such exemptions would be needed for this
program.
G. Statutory Authority for Proposed Tier 3 Fuel Controls
We are proposing gasoline sulfur controls under our authority in
section 211(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act. This section gives us the
authority to ``control or prohibit the manufacture, introduction into
commerce, offering for sale, or sale'' of any fuel or fuel additive for
use in a motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or nonroad engine or
nonroad vehicle (1) whose emission products, in the judgment of the
Administrator, cause or contribute to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare
[section 211(c)(1)(A)] or (2) whose emission products will impair to a
significant degree the performance of any emission control device or
system which is in general use, or which the Administrator finds has
been developed to a point where in a reasonable time it would be in
general use were the fuel control or prohibition adopted [section
211(c)(1)(B)]. We are proposing controls on gasoline sulfur levels
based on both of the Clean Air Act criteria, as described in more
detail below.
1. Section 211(c)(1)(A)
Under the first criterion, we believe that emission products of
gasoline with current levels of sulfur contribute to ambient levels of
ozone, particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and carbon monoxide (CO), which are all
pollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). These pollutants are linked with respiratory and/or
cardiovascular problems and other adverse health impacts leading to
increased medication use, hospital admissions, emergency department
visits, and premature mortality. Approximately 159 million people
currently live in counties exceeding a NAAQS.\400\ Motor vehicles also
emit air toxics, and the majority of Americans continue to be exposed
to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels which have the
potential to cause adverse health effects, including cancer, immune
system damage, and neurological, reproductive, developmental,
respiratory, and other health problems.\401\ A more detailed discussion
of the health and environmental effects of these pollutants is included
in Section II.B. As discussed in this section, emissions of these
pollutants cause or contribute to ambient levels of air pollution that
are reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.
Control of gasoline sulfur to 10 ppm will lead to significant, cost-
effective reductions in emissions of these pollutants, with the
benefits to public health and welfare significantly outweighing the
costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\400\ Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population
Exposure Report, current as of July 20, 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0135.
\401\ U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National-
Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has evaluated the technical feasibility of achieving these
sulfur levels, including the cost of the reductions and the impact on
fuel supply. As discussed in Section V.A, we have concluded that these
reductions are feasible in the lead time provided and should not have
an adverse impact on the adequacy of gasoline fuel supply to meet
demand. For more on the feasibility of the proposed fuel program, refer
to Chapter 4 of the draft RIA.
As discussed in Section III, EPA also evaluated the emissions
reductions from pre-Tier 3 vehicles that would be achieved by
controlling gasoline sulfur levels. These reductions are significant
and contribute to the total monetized health benefits. EPA also
evaluated the cost per ton of emissions reduced for the proposed
program, of which the 10-ppm sulfur standard is a part. As can be seen
in Section VII.D, the program is very cost-effective in 2030. Even in
2017, when the emission reductions are almost entirely due to the
sulfur standards (and the costs are attributed to
[[Page 29946]]
both the fuel and vehicle standards), the cost-effectiveness of the
program is reasonable. In sum, EPA concludes that the entire body of
evidence strongly supports the view that controlling gasoline sulfur to
10 ppm is quite reasonable in light of the emissions reductions and
benefits achieved, taking costs into consideration. For more detail on
the costs and benefits of the proposed standards, refer to Chapter 8 of
the draft RIA.
The control of gasoline sulfur down to 10 ppm provides significant
reductions in harmful emissions. The fuel program is cost-effective and
produces benefits to public health and welfare whose value
significantly outweighs the costs. These reductions can be achieved in
a manner that is technologically feasible, and will not disrupt fuel
supply.
Section 211(c)(2)(A) requires that, prior to adopting a fuel
control based on a finding that the fuel's emission products contribute
to air pollution that can reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare, EPA must consider ``all relevant medical and
scientific evidence available, including consideration of other
technologically or economically feasible means of achieving emission
standards under [section 202 of the Act].'' EPA's analysis of the
medical and scientific evidence relating to the emissions impact from
motor vehicle engines, which are impacted by gasoline sulfur, is
described in more detail in Chapter 6 of the draft RIA. EPA has also
satisfied the statutory requirement to consider ``other technologically
or economically feasible means of achieving emission standards under
section [202 of the Act].'' This provision has been interpreted as
requiring consideration of establishing emission standards under
section 202 prior to establishing controls or prohibitions on fuels or
fuel additives under section 211(c)(1)(A). See Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541
F.2d. 1, 31-32 (DC Cir. 1976). In Ethyl, the court stated that section
211(c)(2)(A) calls for good faith consideration of the evidence and
options, not for mandatory deference to regulation under section 202
compared to fuel controls. Id. at 32, n.66. EPA is also proposing Tier
3 emissions standards for motor vehicles under section 202. In order to
meet these more stringent standards, the program requires a reduction
in the sulfur content of gasoline to the 10-ppm annual average.
2. Section 211(c)(1)(B)
Under the second criterion, we believe that sulfur in gasoline will
significantly impair the emission-control systems expected to be in
general use in motor vehicle engines designed to meet the Tier 3
emission standards proposed in this rule. EPA is proposing to restrict
gasoline sulfur content to an annual average of 10 ppm beginning in
2017, to enable compliance with new emission standards based on the use
of advanced emission control technology that will be available to Tier
3 engines and California's Low Emission Vehicle (LEV III) program.
Section IV describes the substantial adverse effect of high
gasoline sulfur levels on the emission-control devices or systems for
Tier 3 vehicles and engines meeting the proposed emission standards. As
discussed in Section IV.A.6, modern three-way catalytic exhaust systems
utilize platinum group metals (PGM), metal oxides, and other active
materials to selectively oxidize organic compounds and carbon monoxide
in the exhaust gases. These systems simultaneously reduce nitrogen
oxides when air-to-fuel ratio control operates in a condition of
relatively low amplitude/high frequency oscillation about the
stoichiometric point. Sulfur is a well-known catalyst poison. There is
a large body of work demonstrating sulfur inhibition of the emissions
control performance of PGM three-way exhaust catalyst systems. The
nature of sulfur interactions with washcoat materials, active catalytic
materials and catalyst substrates is complex and varies with catalyst
composition and exhaust gas composition and exhaust temperature. The
variation of these interactions with exhaust gas composition and
temperature means that the operational history of a vehicle is an
important factor; continuous light-load operation, throttle tip-in
events and enrichment under high-load conditions can all impact sulfur
interactions with the catalyst.
Operating the catalyst at a sufficiently high temperature under net
reducing conditions (e.g., air-to-fuel equivalence that is net fuel-
rich of stoichiometry) can effectively release the sulfur oxides from
the catalyst components. Thus, regular operation at sufficiently high
temperatures at rich air-to-fuel ratios can minimize the effects of
fuel sulfur levels on catalyst active materials and catalyst
efficiency. However, it cannot completely eliminate the effects of
sulfur poisoning. A study of Tier 2 vehicles in the in-use fleet
recently completed by EPA shows that emission levels immediately
following high speed/load operation is still a function of fuel sulfur
level, suggesting that lower fuel sulfur levels will bring emission
benefits unachievable by catalyst regeneration procedures alone.
Furthermore, regular operation at these temperatures and at rich air-
to-fuel ratios is not desirable, for several reasons. The temperatures
necessary to release sulfur oxides are high enough to lead to thermal
degradation of the catalyst over time via thermal sintering of active
materials. Sintering reduces the surface area available to participate
in reactions. Additionally, it is not always possible to maintain these
catalyst temperatures (because of cold weather, idle conditions, light
load operation) and the rich air-to-fuel ratios necessary can result in
increased PM, NMOG and CO emissions. Thus, reducing fuel sulfur levels
has been the primary regulatory mechanism to minimize sulfur
contamination of the catalyst and ensure optimum emissions performance
over the useful life of a vehicle.
The impact of gasoline sulfur has become even more important as
vehicle emission standards have become more stringent. Some studies
have suggested an increase in catalyst sensitivity to sulfur (in terms
of percent conversion efficiency) when standards increase in stringency
and emissions levels decrease. Emission standards under the programs
that preceded the Tier 2 program (Tier 0, Tier 1 and National LEV, or
NLEV) were high enough that the impact of sulfur was considered
negligible. The Tier 2 program recognized the importance of sulfur and
reduced the sulfur levels in the fuel from around 300 ppm to 30 ppm in
conjunction with the new emission standards. At that time, very little
work had been done to evaluate the effect of further reductions in fuel
sulfur--especially on in-use vehicles that may have some degree of
catalyst deterioration due to real-world operation.
In 2005, EPA and several automakers jointly conducted a program
that examined the effects of sulfur and other gasoline properties,
benzene, and volatility on emissions from a fleet of nine Tier 2
compliant vehicles. Subsequently, EPA conducted a much more extensive
study of the effects of sulfur on emissions from Tier 2 vehicles. These
studies demonstrate that emissions from Tier 2 vehicles continue to be
very sensitive to gasoline sulfur levels below the current 30-ppm
average standard. For more on the estimated emission impacts, refer to
Section III.B.
Furthermore, vehicles already capable of meeting the proposed Tier
3 standards have been found to be extremely sensitive to the effects of
sulfur. A Chevy Malibu was tested and found to be able to meet the
proposed Tier 3 standards on low-sulfur gasoline, but following
operation on higher-sulfur
[[Page 29947]]
gasoline, its emission levels exceeded the standard. As explained in
Section IV.A, following operation over 2 FTP cycles on 33 ppm sulfur
fuel, NOX emissions alone were more than double the proposed
Tier 3 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX standard.
Overall, the Tier 3 Program would reduce fleet average
NMOG+NOX emissions by over 80 percent. The feasibility of
the proposed 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX fleet average standard
depends on a degree of emissions control from exhaust catalyst systems
that will require gasoline at 10 ppm sulfur or lower. The most likely
control strategies would involve using exhaust catalyst technologies
and powertrain calibration primarily focused on reducing cold-start
emissions of NMOG and on both cold-start and warmed-up (running)
emissions of NOX. An important part of this strategy,
particularly for larger vehicles having greater difficulty achieving
cold-start NMOG emissions control, will be to reduce NOX
emissions to near-zero levels. This would allow sufficient NMOG
compliance margin to allow vehicles to meet the combined
NMOG+NOX emissions standards for the full useful life.
Achieving the proposed Tier 3 emission standards would require very
careful control of the exhaust chemistry and exhaust temperatures to
ensure high catalyst efficiency. The impact of sulfur on oxygen storage
components in the catalyst makes this a challenge even at relatively
low (10 ppm) gasoline sulfur levels.
The negative impact of gasoline sulfur on NOX, NMOG and
air toxic emissions occurs across all vehicle categories. However, the
impact of gasoline sulfur on NOX emissions control of
catalysts in the fully-warmed-up condition is particularly of concern
for larger vehicles. Manufacturers face the most significant challenges
in reducing cold-start NMOG emissions for these vehicles. Because of
the need to reach near-zero NOX levels, any significant
degradation in NOX emissions control over the useful life of
the vehicle would likely prevent some if not most larger vehicles from
reaching a combined NMOG+NOX low enough to comply with the
30 mg/mi fleet-average standard. These vehicles represent a
sufficiently large segment of light-duty vehicle sales now and in the
foreseeable future that their emissions could not be offset (and thus
the fleet-average standard achieved) by certifying vehicles to bins
below the fleet average. Any degradation in catalyst performance due to
gasoline sulfur would reduce or eliminate the margin necessary to
ensure in-use compliance with the proposed Tier 3 emissions standards.
Certifying to a useful life of 150,000 miles vs. the current 120,000
miles would further add to manufacturers' compliance challenge for Tier
3 large light trucks (refer to Section IV.7.b for more on the useful
life requirements).
The impact of gasoline sulfur poisoning on exhaust catalyst
performance and the relative stringency of the Tier 3 standards,
particularly for larger vehicles and trucks, when considered together
make a compelling argument for the virtual elimination of sulfur from
gasoline. As discussed in Section V.A.2, the proposed 10-ppm standard
for sulfur in gasoline represents the lowest practical limit from a
standpoint of fuel production, handling and transport. While lowering
gasoline sulfur to levels below 10 ppm would help ensure in-use vehicle
compliance with the Tier 3 standards, the Agency believes that a
gasoline sulfur standard of 10 ppm would allow compliance with a
national fleet average of 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX. The level of
the Tier 3 standards was considered in light of a 10-ppm average sulfur
level for gasoline. Not only should a 10-ppm sulfur standard enable
vehicle manufacturers to certify their entire product line of vehicles
to the Tier 3 fleet average standards, but based on the results of
testing both Tier 2 vehicles and SULEV vehicles as discussed above,
reducing gasoline sulfur to 10 ppm should enable these vehicles to
maintain their emission performance in-use over their full useful life.
Section 211(c)(2)(B) requires that, prior to adopting a fuel
control based on a significant impairment to vehicle emission-control
systems, EPA consider available scientific and economic data, including
a cost benefit analysis comparing emission-control devices or systems
which are or will be in general use that require the proposed fuel
control with such devices or systems which are or will be in general
use that do not require the proposed fuel control. As described below,
we conclude that the emissions control technology expected to be used
to meet Tier 3 standards would be significantly impaired by operation
on gasoline with annual average sulfur levels greater than 10 ppm. Our
analysis of the available scientific and economic data can be found
elsewhere in this document. The draft RIA includes a detailed analysis
of the environmental benefits of the emission standards (Chapters 6 and
8), an analysis of the technological feasibility and cost of
controlling sulfur to the levels established in the final rule
(Chapters 4 and 5), and a cost-effectiveness analysis of the sulfur
control and motor vehicle and engine emission standards (Chapter 9).
Under section 211(c)(2)(B), as just noted, EPA is also required to
compare the costs and benefits of achieving emission standards through
emission-control systems that would not be sulfur-sensitive, if any
such systems are or will be in general use. We have determined that
there are not (and will not be in the foreseeable future) emission
control devices available for general use in motor vehicles that can
meet the emission standards and would not be significantly impaired by
gasoline with current gasoline sulfur levels. Emissions cannot be
reduced anywhere near the magnitude contemplated by the proposed
emission standards without the application of the kind of emissions
control technology discussed in this proposal.
Section 211(c)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act requires that prior to
prohibiting a fuel or fuel additive, EPA establish that such
prohibition will not cause the use of another fuel or fuel additive
``which will produce emissions which endanger the public health or
welfare to the same or greater degree'' than the prohibited fuel or
additive. This finding is required by the Act only prior to prohibiting
a fuel or additive, not prior to controlling a fuel or additive. Since
EPA is not prohibiting use of gasoline sulfur, but rather is
controlling the level of sulfur in these fuels, this finding is not
required for this rulemaking. However, EPA does not believe that the
proposed gasoline sulfur controls will result in the use of any other
fuel or additive that will produce emissions that will endanger public
health or welfare to the same or greater degree as the emissions
produced by gasoline with current sulfur levels. Unlike the case of
unleaded gasoline in the past, where lead performed a primary function
by providing the necessary octane for the vehicles to function
properly, sulfur does not serve any useful function in gasoline. It is
not added to gasoline, but occurs naturally in the crude oil into which
gasoline is processed. Were it not for the expense of sulfur removal,
it would likely have been removed from gasoline years ago in order to
improve the maintenance and durability characteristics of motor vehicle
engines.
We are also adopting the various controls for DFE, other
oxygenates, butane blended into gasoline, and gasoline additives, under
our authority in section 211(c)(1). As explained above, these controls
are necessary to prevent emissions products that may endanger the
public health or welfare or impair to
[[Page 29948]]
a significant degree the performance of any emission control device or
system. The proposal basically extends various controls on gasoline to
DFE, other oxygenates, butane, and gasoline additives. The reasons for
adopting the controls for gasoline apply as well to adopt the controls
for DFE, other oxygenates, butane, and gasoline additives.
VI. Technical Amendments and Regulatory Streamlining
In addition to proposing new Tier 3 vehicle standards and new
gasoline sulfur standards, we are also proposing and seeking comment on
a number of technical amendments and regulatory streamlining actions as
part of the Regulatory Review initiative. Some of these may have some
bearing on implementation of the proposed Tier 3 vehicle and fuel
standards, while others deal with other aspects of EPA's existing
vehicle and fuel regulations.
EPA is also proposing to synchronize a number of different
reporting deadlines under various regulations affecting transportation
and motor vehicle fuels and fuel additives. This action would reduce
regulatory burdens by aligning reporting deadlines across several
programs and would lay the foundation for the overall goal of combining
various fuels reports together into a single, simplified electronic
format.
A. Amendments to 40 CFR Parts 79 and 80
The following sections discuss our proposed changes to regulations
in 40 CFR part 79 and part 80. Some of these changes are technical
amendments to correct minor errors or inconsistencies in the
regulations; others are to address areas in the regulations that could
benefit from clarification and/or streamlining.
With regard to regulatory streamlining, the majority of these items
involve clarifying vague or inconsistent language, removal or updating
of outdated provisions, and decreasing the frequency and/or volume of
reporting burden where data is either no longer needed or is redundant
in light of other EPA fuels programs. In general, we believe that these
changes would reduce burden on industry with no expected environmental
impact. We believe that the regulatory streamlining items that we are
proposing are changes that are straightforward and that should be made
quickly. There are also additional items that would need further
consideration and discussion, such as a new fuels program compliance
structure, as discussed below in Section VI.A.1.b. We are also
requesting comment on expanding the downstream butane blending
provisions to allow for pentane blending, as discussed in Section
VI.A.4.
1. Regulatory Streamlining
a. Summary of Proposed Amendments
Below is a table listing the provisions that we are proposing to
amend in today's action. We have provided additional explanation for
those amendments that warrant additional explanation below.
Table VI-1--Summary of Proposed Regulatory Streamlining and Technical Amendments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Varied..................................... Various sections amended to update references to test methods (see
Section Section VI.A.1.a.iii).
79.5....................................... Revises periodic reporting requirements.
80.2....................................... Revises and adds definitions.
80.8....................................... Amended to update sampling test methods, and to state to which
fuels Sec. 80.8 applies.
80.10...................................... Added to allow for de minimis changes in compliance reports that
would not require a resubmission of compliance reports when a
minor discrepancy of a few barrels is uncovered.
80.46...................................... Revises measurement of RFG fuel parameters.
80.47...................................... Revises Performance-Based Test Method Approach.
80.65...................................... Amended to reduce complex model test parameters and reporting.
80.65(f)(5)................................ Added to allow for designation of an alternative lab.
80.75...................................... Revises RFG reporting requirements.
80.82...................................... Amended to apply butane blending provisions to entire part 80 and
to revise RVP test method.
80.101..................................... Revises measurement of conventional gasoline fuel parameters.
80.105..................................... Amended to require identification of test methods used and revises
reporting requirements.
80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2)..................... Amended to allow an alternative gasoline detergent certification
option.
80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)(3)..................... Added to allow an alternative detergent certification option.
80.161(b)(2)............................... Amended to address the submission of gasoline detergent samples
under the alternative gasoline detergent certification option.
80.161(b)(3)(ii)(C)........................ Amended to reflect that documentation of the fuel injector deposit
demonstration test would be required under the alternative
detergent certification option.
80.161(b)(3)(v)............................ Amended to state that the results of the intake valve and fuel
injector deposit demonstration test must be submitted to EPA as
part of the certification letter under the alternative detergent
certification option.
80.161(b)(3)(viii)......................... Amended to change ``PFID test'' to ``fuel injector test''.
80.161(d)(1)............................... Amended to reflect the availability of the alternative gasoline
detergent certification option.
80.163(a)(1)(iii).......................... Amended to allow use of the alternative gasoline detergent
certification option.
80.164(a).................................. Amended to reference the test fuel requirements under the
alternative gasoline detergent certification option.
80.165..................................... Amended the introductory paragraph to accommodate the alternative
deposit control test procedures and standards under the
alternative gasoline detergent certification option.
80.167(a).................................. Amended the introductory paragraph to specify how confirmatory
testing would be conducted for additives certified under the
alternative gasoline detergent certification option.
80.176..................................... Added to specify the certification test procedures and standards
under the alternative gasoline detergent certification option.
80.177..................................... Added to specify the certification test fuels under the alternative
gasoline detergent certification option.
80.178..................................... Incorporates standards and test methods by reference.
80.330..................................... Revises sampling and testing requirements.
80.370..................................... Amended to require identification of test method used and revises
reporting requirements.
80.511..................................... Revises per-gallon and marker requirements.
80.572..................................... Revises labeling requirements.
80.573..................................... Revises labeling requirements.
80.574..................................... Revises labeling requirements.
[[Page 29949]]
80.580..................................... Incorporates test methods by reference.
80.585..................................... Revises test method approval process.
80.604..................................... Revises reporting requirements.
80.1235(a)(6),............................. Amended to allow refiners and importers who are blending blendstock
into previously certified gasoline (PCG) an alternative to
directly test the blendstock for benzene.
80.1235(a)(5).............................. Amended to clarify that refiners and importers may use either
approach for blendstocks that are blended into either conventional
gasoline or reformulated gasoline.
80.1235(b)(2).............................. Amended to clarify EPA's intent (per Sec. 80.1238(b)) to allow
refiners and importers to include oxygenate blended downstream of
a refinery or import facility in their annual average benzene
calculation, and to make the section consistent with Sec.
80.1238(b).
80.1238.................................... Revises benzene determination.
80.1347(a)(5).............................. Amended to require that a negative annual average must be reported
as zero, and that a refiner must comply with Sec. 80.65(i) when
producing RBOB or RFG and Sec. 80.101(g)(9) when producing
conventional gasoline.
80.1347(a)(6).............................. Added to allow refiners and importers who are blending blendstock
into previously certified gasoline (PCG) an alternative to
directly test the blendstock for benzene.
80.1348.................................... Revises sample retention requirements.
80.1349.................................... Added to allow importers who import gasoline into the U.S. by truck
to use the sampling and testing requirements in 40 CFR part 80
subpart E as an alternative to the sampling and testing
requirements in subpart L.
80.1354.................................... Revises reporting requirements for gasoline benzene program.
80.1451.................................... Revises RFS reporting requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Amendments Related to Reduction of Testing for Complex Model Fuel
Parameters
In Sec. Sec. 80.65 and 80.75, we are proposing to streamline and
reduce the RFG and CG testing and reporting burden of gasoline refiners
and importers by reducing the testing and reporting requirements of
certain fuel parameters associated with the complex model. Currently,
for RFG, every parameter listed in Sec. 80.65 must be tested for every
batch and each parameter must be reported for every batch. No monthly
compositing of batch samples is allowed for any parameter. For
conventional gasoline, monthly compositing and batch reporting based on
those monthly composites is allowed for all parameters except sulfur
and benzene. However, with the phasing out of complex model standards,
reduced testing and reporting is appropriate, particularly for RFG. In
cases where a refiner is subject to only benzene, RVP, and sulfur
standards, certain parameters no longer need to be tested and reported
on an every-batch basis. However, the full slate of complex model
parameters will still be needed in some cases. Specifically, refiners
producing RFG during the summer VOC control season will still need to
use the complex model to determine VOC performance, and thus must still
measure and report the relevant complex model fuel parameters. In
addition, small refiners that are subject to the delayed compliance
option for the 0.62 volume percent benzene standard will have to use
the complex model until 2015 for CG MSAT1 compliance.\402\ Currently,
there are 17 complex model parameters on the RFG/anti-dumping batch
report. We are proposing to eliminate reporting for American Petroleum
Institute (API) gravity. In addition, oxygenates need not be reported
unless the refiner's gasoline includes oxygenates or the refiner is
including downstream added oxygenate in its compliance calculations.
Apart from being necessary for use in the complex model, these
parameters have little use for program compliance. In addition, we are
proposing to reduce testing and reporting as follows: For both RFG and
conventional gasoline we propose to eliminate the requirement to test
and report API gravity for batch certification purposes. For winter
RFG, we propose to eliminate the requirement to test and report the
following parameters on an every batch basis and instead allow testing
and reporting of monthly composites: aromatics, distillations and
olefins. Winter sulfur and benzene would continue to be tested and
reported on an every batch basis. All summer complex model parameters
would still be required to be tested and reported on an every batch
basis. For conventional gasoline, since the regulations already allow
for testing and reporting most parameters on a monthly composite basis,
the only significant change would be to eliminate the batch
certification testing and reporting for API gravity. Only benzene,
sulfur, and any oxygenates that are actually included in the gasoline
batch must be tested and reported on an every-batch basis (except for
refiners that are still subject to a complex model toxics standard;
they must test all parameters but may use monthly composite testing and
reporting except for sulfur and benzene, and oxygenate, where
applicable). The values for aromatics, olefins, and distillation terms
may continue to be determined from monthly composites. These changes
would substantially reduce the testing and reporting associated with
each batch. We request comment on this reduced testing scheme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\402\ 61 FR 17230 (March 29, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Amendments Related to Reporting
EPA is proposing to amend various provisions in 40 CFR parts 79 and
80 to reduce the number of different reporting deadlines that regulated
parties must meet and to enable the future use of a unified and
simplified reporting form. EPA's goal is to simplify reporting and
reduce the number of hours parties spend preparing and submitting
reports. This overall effort responds to Executive Orders 13563 and
13610, which direct government agencies to simplify rules and to
achieve reductions in paperwork and reporting burdens, and is part of
EPA's agency-wide effort to streamline regulatory reporting
requirements.
Currently under 40 CFR parts 79 and 80, there are ten separate
cyclical reporting dates each year (eleven in a leap year). This
proposal would amend these deadlines so that all affected programs use
the same four dates. Programs that would be affected by this proposal
include the fuels and fuel additives registration program (40 CFR part
79, subpart A), the Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping program (40
CFR part 80, subparts D and E), the Gasoline Sulfur program (40 CFR
part 80 subpart H), the Motor Vehicle, Nonroad, Locomotive, and Marine
Diesel program (40 CFR part 80 subpart
[[Page 29950]]
I), the Gasoline Benzene program (40 CFR part 80 subpart L), and the
Renewable Fuel Standard program (40 CFR part 80 subparts K and M). We
are proposing that reporting deadlines would be standardized as
follows: June 1, for all reports covering quarter 1 of the compliance
year; September 1, for quarter 2; December 1, for quarter 3; and March
31 for quarter 4. End of year compliance reports would also be due on
March 31.
These proposed changes would either delay or maintain current
deadlines for nearly all required reports. Deadlines for all other
annual reports would either be maintained if they matched the new
quarterly deadline, or extended to match the new quarterly deadline.
These proposed changes would not include ``Attest Engagements'' or
reporting related to specific events under the Fuels Program, such as
trading Renewable Identification Numbers (RINS) in EPA's Moderated
Transaction System (EMTS). All reporting deadlines for Attest
Engagements and reporting specific events would remain the same.
Respondents would still have the option to report earlier than any
given deadline. Additionally, these deadline changes would allow EPA to
develop a single electronic format that would collect all required data
and maximize the capability of electronic reporting with data reuse, no
duplicate fields, and a user-friendly interface.
We would also be correcting a typographical error in 40 CFR
80.1451(f)(2) and clarifying that reports are to be signed by the
``responsible corporate officer.'' Additionally, we would remove an
incorrect reference under 79.5(a)(2).
iii. Amendments To Update Test Methods
Refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders producing gasoline and
diesel motor vehicle fuel are required to test RFG, CG and diesel fuel
for various fuel parameters including aromatics, benzene, distillation,
olefins, oxygenate content, RVP, and sulfur. A number of relevant
regulatory provisions currently have references to test methods that
have since been revised and updated. We are proposing to update those
test methods to reflect current test methods in order to ensure that
all test methods are readily available to the regulated community. ASTM
International (ASTM) test method D2622 is currently the designated test
method for measuring sulfur (Sec. Sec. 80.46(a)(1), 80.580(b)(2)), in
gasoline and diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard. ASTM test
methods D5453, D6920, D3120 and D7039 are currently alternative test
methods for measuring sulfur (Sec. Sec. 80.46(a)(3)(i),
80.46(a)(3)(ii), 80.46(a)(3)(iii), 80.46(a)(3)(iv)) in gasoline. ASTM
test method D5453 is also alternative test method for measuring sulfur
(Sec. 80.580(c)(2)) in diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard, as
well as ASTM test method D4294. ASTM test method D6667 is currently the
designated test method for measuring sulfur (Sec. 80.46 (a)(2)) in
butane. ASTM test methods D4468 and D3246 are currently alternative
test methods for measuring the sulfur (Sec. 80.46(a)(4)(i),
80.46(a)(4)(ii)) content in butane. ASTM D1319 is currently the
designated test method for measuring olefins (Sec. 80.46(b)) in
gasoline and aromatics (Sec. 80.2(z)) in diesel fuel and is also
allowed as an alternative test method for measuring aromatics (Sec.
80.46(f)(3)) in gasoline. ASTM D6550 is currently an alternative test
method for measuring olefins (Sec. 80.46(b)(2)(i)) in gasoline. ASTM
test method D5599 is currently the designated test method for measuring
oxygenates (Sec. 80.46(g)(1)) in gasoline. ASTM test method D4815 is
currently an alternative test method for measuring oxygenates (Sec.
80.46(g)(2)) in gasoline. ASTM test method D5769 is currently the
designated test method for measuring aromatics (Sec. 80.46(f)(1)) in
gasoline. ASTM test method D3606 is currently the designated test
method for measuring benzene (Sec. 80.46(e)) in gasoline. ASTM test
method D86 is currently the designated test method for measuring the
distillation (Sec. 80.46(d)) of gasoline. ASTM test method D5191 is
currently the designated test method for measuring the RVP (Sec.
80.46(c)) of gasoline. ASTM test method D976 is currently the
designated test method for measuring the Cetane Index (Sec. 80.2(w))
of diesel fuel. ASTM standard practice D4057 is currently the manual
sampling standard practice for petroleum and petroleum products (Sec.
80.8(a)). ASTM standard practice D4177 is currently the automatic
sampling standard practice for petroleum and petroleum products (Sec.
80.8(b)). ASTM standard practice D5842 is currently the RVP sampling
standard practice for fuels (Sec. 80.8(c)). ASTM standard practice
D5854 is currently the composite sampling standard practice for
petroleum and petroleum products (Sec. 80.8(a)).
Table VI-2 lists the designated analytical test methods and
alternative analytical test methods for RFG, CG and diesel fuel that we
are proposing to update in today's action. The Agency has reviewed
these updated ASTM test methods and believes that the revisions
contained in them will result in improvements in the utilization of
these test methods for the regulated industry. We also believe that our
proposal to revise these test methods would not result in significant
changes that would cause a user of an older version of the same method
to incur increased compliance costs. Moreover, all of the revisions
were deemed necessary by ASTM International so that improvements in the
test method's procedures would ensure better operation for the user of
the test method. Thus, EPA is proposing today to update the regulations
for the following ASTM test methods: (1) ASTM D2622-10, the designated
test method for measuring sulfur in RFG, CG, and alternative test
method for diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard; (2) ASTM D3120-
08, alternative test method for sulfur in gasoline, ASTM D4294-10,
alternative test method for sulfur in diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur
standard; (3) ASTM D5453-09, alternative test method for sulfur in
gasoline and diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard; (4) ASTM
D6667-10, designated test method for sulfur in butane; (5) ASTM D4468-
85(2006), alternative test method for sulfur in butane; (6) ASTM D3246-
11, alternative test method for sulfur in butane; (7) ASTM D1319-10,
designated test method for measuring olefins in gasoline and aromatics
in diesel fuel, as well as the alternative test method for measuring
aromatics in gasoline; (8) ASTM D6550-10, alternative test method for
measuring olefin content in gasoline; (9) ASTM D4815-09, alternative
test method for measuring oxygenate content in gasoline; (10) ASTM
D5599-00(2010), the designated test method for measuring oxygen content
in gasoline; (11) ASTM D5769-10, the designated test method for
measuring aromatics in gasoline; (12) ASTM D3606-10, the designated
test method for measuring benzene in gasoline; (13) ASTM D86-11a, the
designated test method for measuring distillation properties of
gasoline; (14) ASTM D5191-10b, the designated test method for measuring
the RVP of gasoline; (15) ASTM D976-06(2011), the designated test
method for measuring the Cetane Index of diesel fuel; (16) ASTM D4057-
06(2011), the manual sampling standard practice for petroleum and
petroleum products; (17) ASTM D4177-95(2010), the automatic sampling
standard practice for petroleum and petroleum products; (18) ASTM
D5842-04(2009), the sampling standard practice for RVP of fuels; and
(19) ASTM D5854-96(2010), the
[[Page 29951]]
composite sampling standard practice for petroleum and petroleum
products.
Table VI-2--Proposed Designated & Alternative ASTM International Analytical Test Methods Under RFG, CG & Diesel
Motor Vehicle Fuel Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel parameter ASTM analytical test method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur (gasoline)........................... ASTM D2622-10, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in
Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence
Spectrometry.''
Sulfur (500 ppm diesel)..................... ASTM D2622-10, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in
Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence
Spectrometry''
Sulfur (gasoline)........................... ASTM D5453-09, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Determination
of Total Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine
Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet
Fluorescence.''
Sulfur (500 ppm sulfur diesel).............. ASTM D5453-09, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Determination
of Total Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine
Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet
Fluorescence.''
Sulfur (gasoline)........................... ASTM D3120-08, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Trace
Quantities of Sulfur in Light Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Oxidative
Microcoulometry.''
Sulfur (500 ppm sulfur diesel).............. ASTM D4294-10, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in
Petroleum Products by Energy Dispersive Xray Fluorescence
Spectrometry.''
Sulfur (butane)............................. ASTM D6667-10, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Determination
of Total Volatile Sulfur in Gaseous Hydrocarbons and Liquefied
Petroleum Gases by Ultraviolet Fluorescence.''
Sulfur (butane)............................. ASTM D4468-85(2006), entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Total
Sulfur in Gaseous Fuels by Hydrogenolysis and Rateometric
Colorimetry.''
Sulfur (butane)............................. ASTM D3246-11, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in
Petroleum Gas by Oxidative Microcoulometry.''
Oxygen content (gasoline)................... ASTM D5599-00(2010), entitled, ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and
Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection.''
Oxygen content (gasoline)................... ASTM D4815-09, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Determination
of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C1 to C4
Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography.''
Olefins (gasoline).......................... ASTM D1319-10, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon
Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator
Adsorption.''
Olefins (gasoline).......................... ASTM D6550-10, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for the
Determination of Olefin Content of Gasolines by Supercritical-
Fluid Chromatography.''
Aromatics (gasoline and diesel)............. ASTM D1319-10, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon
Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator
Absorption,'' for diesel fuel, this method is the designated test
method; for gasoline, this method is an alternative test method
and if used as an alternative method, its results must be
correlated to ASTM D5769.
Aromatics (gasoline)........................ ASTM D5769-10, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Determination
of Benzene, Toluene, and Total Aromatics in Finished Gasolines by
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry.''
Benzene (gasoline).......................... ASTM D3606-10, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Determination
of Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by
Gas Chromatography.''
Distillation (gasoline)..................... ASTM D86-11a, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Distillation of
Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure.''
Reid Vapor Pressure (gasoline).............. ASTM D5191-10b, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Vapor
Pressure of Petroleum Products (Mini-Method).''
Cetane Index (diesel)....................... ASTM D976-06(2011), entitled, ``Standard Test Method for
Calculated Cetane Index of Distillate Fuels.''
Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum ASTM D4057-06(Reapproved 2011), entitled, ``Standard Practice for
Products. Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products.''
Automatic Sampling of Petroleum and ASTM D4177-95(Reapproved 2010), entitled, ``Standard Practice for
Petroleum Products. Automatic Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products.''
RVP Sampling for Fuels...................... ASTM D5842-04(Reapproved 2009), entitled, ``Standard Practice for
Sampling and Handling of Fuels for Volatility Measurement.''
Composite Sampling of Petroleum and ASTM D5854-96(Reapproved 2010), entitled, ``Standard Practice for
Petroleum Products. Mixing and Handling of Liquid Samples of Petroleum and Petroleum
Products.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Amendments Related to Downstream Blending
Today's proposed rule also clarifies the list of products that are
not to be included in a refinery's or importer's compliance
determination under Sec. 80.1240. Refiners and importers are currently
required under Sec. 80.1235(b)(2) to exclude oxygenate added to
finished gasoline, RBOB or CBOB downstream of either the refinery that
produced the gasoline or the import facility where the gasoline was
imported. This conflicts with EPA's intended approach in Sec.
80.1238(b), which allows refiners and importers to include oxygenate
blended downstream of a refinery or import facility in their annual
average benzene calculation, provided the refiner or importer meets
certain requirements. We are proposing changes that would allow
refiners and importers to include oxygenate blended downstream of their
facility and that would make these related sections consistent.
v. Amendments for Previously Certified Gasoline
For benzene, we would also provide flexibility for refiners and
importers by providing an alternative allowing them to directly sample
and test each batch of blendstock, and treat the blendstock as the
produced batch for blendstock that is blended into previously certified
gasoline (PCG). We are proposing to add Sec. 80.1347(a)(6) to reflect
this alternative. This practice is already allowed under the Tier 2
sulfur program (at
[[Page 29952]]
Sec. 80.340(a)(2)). Refiners and importers are currently required to
test the PCG for benzene before addition of blendstock, test the
combined blend of PCG and blendstock for benzene, and calculate the
properties of the blendstock by treating the PCG as a negative volume
batch and treating the blended product as a positive batch. Due to
variability in the benzene test method, the PCG approach can sometimes
result in calculated blendstock benzene concentrations that are
negative, which is physically impossible. We are proposing to amend the
regulations at Sec. 80.1235(a)(6) (and add Sec. 80.1347(a)(6), as
mentioned) to allow refiners and importers that blend blendstock into
PCG an alternative to directly test the blendstock for benzene. We
expect that this would ensure a positive benzene test result. Also,
today's proposal would clarify that regardless of the approach used, a
negative sulfur or benzene result cannot be reported; rather, any
negative result must be rounded to zero. Similarly, no negative annual
average result can be reported. We are also proposing to amend the
regulations at Sec. 80.1235(a)(5) to clarify that refiners and
importers may use either approach for blendstocks that are blended into
either conventional gasoline or reformulated gasoline.
Lastly, we are proposing to allow importers who import gasoline
into the United States by truck to use the sampling and testing
requirements in subpart E for truck importers as an alternative to the
sampling and testing requirements in subpart L. EPA provided these
alternative requirements in subpart E to eliminate the need to test
every truckload of imported conventional gasoline for all complex model
parameters, including benzene.\403\ Since Subpart L also requires
importers to test every truckload of imported gasoline for benzene, EPA
believes it is appropriate to allow truck importers of gasoline to use
the sampling and testing requirements in subpart E as an alternative.
Today's rule proposes to amend the regulations to provide this
alternative by adding a new Sec. 80.1349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\403\ 70 FR 74561 (December 15, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vi. Amendments Related to Designation of an Alternative Lab
Refiners have indicated to EPA that significant problems are
created when a facility's designated lab is nonoperational and testing
cannot be performed at the lab during that time period. We are thus
proposing (at Sec. 80.65(f)(5)) that a facility have the ability to
designate a back-up or alternative lab for testing during such times.
In no case could this alternative lab be used to select the best test
result, rather it could only be used on those occasions where
operational necessity causes a need for it (e.g., the normal lab is
closed, the apparatus for certain test methods are down, or independent
lab personnel are not available).
vii. Amendments Related to De Minimis Reporting Changes
We are proposing for the correction of batch volume reports to
allow for de minimis changes in reporting compliance that would not
require a complete resubmission of compliance reports when a minor
discrepancy of a few barrels is uncovered. This allowance for the
correction of batch volume reports would apply to reporting for: RFG,
anti-dumping, gasoline and diesel sulfur, MSAT2 and the RFS renewable
volume obligation (RVO) (for RFS, this would only apply to the volume
of fuels produced or exported that result in a RVO for obligated
parties). We are proposing a new section 80.10 to define de minimis,
for the purpose of this allowance, as no more than 500 gallons or by no
more than 1 percent of the true batch volume in gallons, whichever
value is less. We request comment on whether or not a different amount
would be more appropriate.
viii. Amendments Related to RFS2 Annual Report Date
Currently, the RFS2 final reporting date (last day of February)
coincides with the RFG and Anti-dumping compliance deadline, which
creates a staffing problem for regulated entities because the
regulatory requirements are often handled by the same personnel. It was
reported to EPA that this also creates an issue when small
discrepancies in gasoline production or import volumes are realized,
and can potentially trigger an increased RFS RVO and an ensuing
scramble to obtain the necessary Renewable Identification Numbers
(RINs) in real time. Delaying the RFS reporting date until after
volumetric auditing would address this situation and would have no
impact on emissions, air quality or compliance with the standard. As
such, we are proposing to change the RFS2 reporting date in Sec.
80.1451 to March 31. EPA is also seeking comment on whether the ability
to transfer RINs in EMTS for satisfying RVOs under the previous
compliance year should be extended from the last day of February to
March 31 as well.
ix. Acceptance of Alternate Test Data Under the Gasoline Deposit
Control Program
The ``Top Tier'' deposit control gasoline standards developed by
four major automakers are based on the premise that a more robust level
of the control of vehicle engine and fuel systems beyond that provided
by the EPA deposit control requirements is desirable.\404\ Several
major gasoline marketers have adopted Top Tier for their gasoline. It
is widely accepted that conformance with the Top Tier intake valve
deposit (IVD) and fuel injector deposit (FID) control testing
requirements is more challenging than complying with the EPA IVD and
FID testing requirements. Yet additive packages must still be certified
to EPA's less stringent standards on older test procedures. We believe
that EPA could accept IVD/FID test data that complies with the Top Tier
requirements in place of IVD/FID data that complies with the current
EPA testing requirements without jeopardizing the emissions benefits
from EPA's deposit control program. We are proposing that test data
that complies with the Top Tier IVD performance standards at section
1.3.1 could be used to satisfy EPA's IVD control requirements. We are
also proposing that test data that complies with the Top Tier FID
performance testing standards at section 1.3.3 could be used to satisfy
EPA's FID control requirements. We believe that this allowance would
provide significant saving to industry from reduced deposit control
testing while maintaining the emissions benefits of EPA's gasoline
deposit control program. These changes are being proposed in the
regulations at Sec. Sec. 80.161(b), 80.163(a)(1)(iii), 80.164(a),
80.165, 80.167(a), 80.176, and 80.177.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\404\ The industry established ``Top Tier'' deposit control
standards can be found at http://www.toptiergas.com/deposit_control.html. EPA's deposit control requirements are contained in
Sec. Sec. 80.140 through 80.174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Broader Regulatory Streamlining Through Program Restructuring
The current set of fuel regulations is the result of programs that
have been established over the years to reduce emissions from mobile
sources. These programs include gasoline volatility (RVP), reformulated
gasoline and anti-dumping, sulfur control (which the Tier 3 program
proposed today would revise), mobile source air toxics (MSAT1), benzene
control (MSAT2), and the renewable fuel standards (RFS). Most of these
regulations have been amended numerous times.
[[Page 29953]]
The RFG and anti-dumping regulations in particular contain some of
the more burdensome requirements on sampling, testing, and reporting.
They also have some of the more stringent restrictions on gasoline use
(e.g., restricting where fuel produced can be sold, what it may be
commingled with, etc.). EPA used the RFG and anti-dumping rules as the
foundation for many aspects of subsequently developed fuel regulatory
programs. However, the subsequent rules, considered as a whole, have
supplanted most of the RFG and anti-dumping standards. For this reason,
we are proposing to streamline the regulations in several places as
described above. Initial discussions with fuel industry representatives
have indicated that a comprehensive review of the complete set of fuel
regulations contained in Parts 79 and 80 (``Registration of Fuels and
Fuel Additives'' and ``Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives,''
respectively) of the Code of Federal Regulations could lead to further
streamlining of the regulations beyond the streamlining provisions
proposed today.
EPA expects that streamlining would result in more efficient and
less costly compliance determinations for affected parties while
maintaining the environmental benefits of the programs. Since such
changes could require not just the removal or streamlining of existing
provisions but also the replacement of several provisions with new,
less onerous ones, we are not proposing such changes today. However,
EPA requests comments on potential areas in the fuel regulations that
may benefit from such a more comprehensive streamlining effort. For
example, it may be possible for the RFG VOC standard to be met if a
sufficiently stringent RVP level is attained. Under this scenario,
sampling and testing requirements at the refinery would be reduced.
Another potential scenario could involve consolidation of some RFG and
anti-dumping rules; for example, a single set of rules governing the
treatment of downstream ethanol blending and in-use surveys could
provide greater efficiency and flexibility regarding fuel distribution.
2. Subpart I Technical Amendments
Table VI-3--40 CFR Part 80 Subpart I (Diesel Fuel) Technical Amendments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80.572(a).................................. Amended to remove the requirement for 15 ppm highway diesel fuel
pump labels beginning November 30, 2014, and to amend the title to
reflect that the section includes labeling requirements for
dispensers of motor vehicle diesel fuel.
80.584(b)(3)(i)............................ Amended to correct typographical error (``notc'' to ``not'').
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to remove the requirement for diesel fuel pump
labels for 15 ppm highway diesel fuel. Beginning December 1, 2010, all
highway diesel fuel was required to be 15 ppm or less; thus, highway
diesel fuel labels are no longer needed to distinguish it from 500 ppm
highway diesel fuel. However, we do recognize that it may confuse
consumers who are accustomed to seeing the highway diesel fuel pump
labels if those labels were to disappear, so we are also requesting
comment on the removal of this labeling requirement. Note that if
highway diesel fuel pump labels are no longer required by the
regulations, retail and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities would
be free to continue labeling to eliminate confusion if they so choose.
3. Performance-Based Measurement Systems (PBMS)
Table VI-4--PBMS-Related Technical Amendments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80.46....................................... Amended to allow for performance-based approaches for measuring
gasoline parameters.
80.47....................................... Added to extend the performance-based approach to other parameters
besides diesel sulfur.
80.101(i)(1)(i)(A),(i)(3)(i)(C), Amended to allow for performance-based approaches for measuring
(i)(3)(ii)(C). gasoline parameters.
80.330(c)(1), (d)(1), (d)(2)................ Amended to allow for performance-based approaches for sampling and
testing.
80.370(a)(7)(iv)............................ Amended to require identification of the test method used to
measure the sulfur content of a batch.
80.585(a) and (d)(4)........................ Amended to state the process for approval of test methods prior to
and after adoption of PBMS for all fuel programs.
80.1348..................................... Amended to state the sample retention requirements prior to and
after adoption of PBMS for all fuel programs.
80.1354(b)(2)............................... Amended to require identification of the test method used to
measure the benzene concentration of a batch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with EPA's performance-based measurement system (PBMS)
initiative (as discussed below), today we are proposing a PBMS for
those chemical and physical properties of motor vehicle fuels regulated
by EPA's motor vehicle fuel programs. Specifically, these are gasoline
properties at Sec. 80.46, gasoline sulfur at Sec. Sec. 80.195 and
80.1603, and diesel fuel properties at Sec. 80.2(z). This PBMS sets
forth procedures and criteria by which laboratories making measurements
to demonstrate compliance with fuels regulations may qualify
alternative analytical test methods to those required in the
regulations. It also sets minimum statistical quality control (SQC)
requirements, following standard industry practices, by which
laboratories must maintain and document the precision and accuracy of
analytical methods used in the context of these programs. EPA envisions
that the proposed PBMS would provide additional flexibility to the
regulated industry in choosing test methods and foster innovation and
improvement in the precision and accuracy of the measurement of motor
fuel properties while not making any reductions in the emission
benefits that result from motor fuel programs. It should also provide
cost savings to the regulated industry by providing rapid access to
newly-developed test methods with speed and ease of analysis. Some of
these newer methods use smaller quantities of consumables and less-
expensive instrumentation that are easier to automate, thus reducing
both operating costs and environmental impact.
[[Page 29954]]
a. Background
Refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders producing RFG,
conventional gasoline and diesel fuel are required to test these fuels
to determine the levels of various specified parameters. A designated
test method is associated with each parameter to be tested (except for
sulfur concentration in ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, which must meet
performance-based requirements \405\) in 40 CFR part 80. Table VI-5
lists the parameters/fuels and their corresponding designated test
methods that we are proposing to update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\405\ See Sec. Sec. 80.580, 80.584 and 80.585.
Table VI-5--Designated Analytical Test Methods for Gasoline and Diesel Fuel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel parameter Designated analytical method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur in gasoline.......................... ASTM D 2622-10
Sulfur in butane............................ ASTM D 6667-10
500 ppm Sulfur Diesel Fuel.................. ASTM D 2622-10
Olefins in gasoline......................... ASTM 1319-10
Reid vapor pressure (RVP) in gasoline....... ASTM D 5191-10b, with the following correlation equation:
RVP psi = (0.956 * X) - 0.347
RVP kPa = (0.956 * X) - 2.39
where:
X = total measured vapor pressure in psi or kPa.
Distillation in gasoline.................... ASTM D86-11a
Benzene in gasoline......................... ASTM D 3606-10, except that instrument parameters shall be
adjusted to ensure complete resolution of benzene, ethanol, and
methanol peaks.
Aromatics in gasoline....................... ASTM D 5769-10, except that sample chilling requirements in
section 8 of this standard are optional.
Oxygen and oxygenate content in gasoline.... ASTM D 5599-00(2010)
Aromatics in diesel fuel.................... ASTM D1319-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the designated analytic methods for the parameters
mentioned above, EPA has specified alternative test methods for some
parameters. These alternative test methods may be used in lieu of the
corresponding designated test methods, provided that all test results
are correlated to the appropriate designated test methods. Alternative
test methods have not been established for all regulated motor vehicle
fuel parameters, however. Specifically, alternative test methods have
been established for measuring the gasoline properties of aromatic
content,\406\ oxygenate content,\407\ olefin content,\408\ and sulfur
content \409\ as well as sulfur in butane.\410\ Currently, if a
regulated party wishes to use an alternative test method that is not
already approved, it must petition the Agency, and EPA must approve the
use of this alternative method through a rulemaking process that on
average, may take more than a year to complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\406\ ASTM D 1319-03[epsiv]\1\ (see Sec. 80.46(f)(3)).
\407\ ASTM D 4815-04 (see Sec. 80.46(g)(2)).
\408\ ASTM D 6550-05 (see Sec. 80.46(b)(2)(i)).
\409\ ASTM methods D 5453-08a, D 6920-07, D 3120-06[epsiv]\1\,
and D 7039-07 (see Sec. Sec. 80.46(a)(3)(i) through
80.46(a)(3)(iv)).
\410\ ASTM D 4468-85 (reapproved 2000) and ASTM D 3246-96 (see
Sec. Sec. 80.46(a)(4)(i) and 80.46(a)(4)(ii)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approving new methods through rulemaking has been identified as a
barrier to the use of innovative analytical test methods. In order to
address these concerns and similar ones in other media areas, the
Agency's Environmental Monitoring Management Council established a
workgroup of scientists representing EPA's Headquarters and Regional
offices to consider establishing a performance-based approach to
specifying analytical testing requirements. On the recommendations of
the workgroup, the Agency decided to incorporate the PBMS approach into
its programs, to the extent feasible.
EPA's practice, in recent rulemaking activities, of aligning its
prescribed methods with those published by Voluntary Consensus-based
Standards Bodies (VCSBs) \411\ is almost consistent with the PBMS
policy and with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA).\412\ For example, in the nonroad diesel rulemaking, which
controlled the sulfur content of diesel fuel,\413\ EPA required only
that laboratories demonstrate their test methods' ability to meet a set
performance criteria rather than prescribing that a single specific
method be used. Today's proposal extends the diesel sulfur
qualification approach to the chemical/physical properties measured in
other motor vehicle fuel programs, with modifications appropriate to
accommodate the differences among the fuel parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\411\ ASTM International (ASTM) is one such organization.
\412\ Public Law 104-113, 104th Congress, March 7, 1996, H.R.
2196.
\413\ 69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004. This rulemaking used standard
materials with known chemical composition to evaluate the accuracy
of candidate test methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Overview of Proposed Program Requirements
In a June 29, 2004 rulemaking, EPA specified a performance-based
approach to measuring diesel sulfur at 15 ppm and 500 ppm and removed
the previous requirement of particular designated and alternative
methods for 15 ppm diesel sulfur.\414\ We decided, in that rulemaking,
to offer users two approaches to selecting test methods for diesel
sulfur at the 500 ppm level. The first of these was to use either the
designated test method or specific alternative test methods.\415\ The
second option was to meet performance based requirements similar to
those adopted for 15 ppm diesel sulfur.\416\ We are proposing today to
extend the performance-based approach to method selection and
qualification to other parameters besides diesel sulfur, with
modifications appropriate to accommodate the differences among the fuel
parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\414\ See Sec. Sec. 80.584 and 80.545.
\415\ See Sec. 80.580(c)(2).
\416\ See Sec. Sec. 80.584(a)(2), 80.584(b)(2)(i) through
80.584(b)(2)(iii), and 80.585.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, we are proposing requirements that laboratories would
be required to demonstrate the
[[Page 29955]]
precision \417\ and accuracy \418\ of chosen fuel parameter measurement
methods. Once implemented, this proposal would: (1) Require individual
laboratories to demonstrate adequate measurement quality, (2) allow
laboratories to choose methods that meet their own needs, provided they
can meet prescribed criteria rather than specific methods,\419\ and (3)
require all laboratories making regulatory measurements to establish
and maintain a statistical quality control program. EPA intends that
the measurement system resulting from this proposal would make no
compromises on precision or accuracy relative to the system that exists
under current regulations. We intend to incorporate the standards and
practices of Voluntary Consensus Standards Body (VCSB) organizations
wherever feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\417\ Precision--the amount of consistency in a set of
measurements performed on the same material. ASTM repeatability and
reproducibility are examples of measures of precision. ASTM
Repeatability (``r'')--the difference between successive test
results obtained by the same operator with the same apparatus under
constant operating conditions on identical test material. ASTM
Reproducibility (``R'')--the difference between two single and
independent test results obtained by different operators working in
different laboratories on identical test material using the same
method.
\418\ Accuracy--the closeness of a single measurement to its
true value of what is being measured.
\419\ For some parameters the criteria will be based on the
laboratory's chosen method's ability to closely predict the
measurements made by EPA's chosen or ``designated'' method. This
approach is made necessary by the ``method-dependent'' definition of
some of the parameters to be measured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's PBMS approach applies to the qualification of analytical
test instrumentation and methods used to measure various
characteristics of individual fuel samples. It does not apply to
sampling methods or in-line blending methods. While in-line blending
certainly includes the use of analytical measurements, it is broader in
scope than this proposal. Including in-line blending methodologies in
this proposed rulemaking would raise issues that could not be
adequately addressed in the context of this proposed rulemaking.
Furthermore, in-line blending already has a certification process, as
specified in regulations at Sec. 80.65(f), that sets forth
qualification criteria that take into account the unique combinations
of sampling, control, and analysis that are involved with in-line
blending. However, we seek comment on potentially expanding our PBMS to
include sampling or in-line blending methods.
c. How can we establish the accuracy of the measurement system (all
qualified methods/installations) for each parameter?
We are proposing to group the gasoline and diesel fuel parameters
that must be measured (e.g., aromatics, sulfur, etc.), into two
categories. These categories depend on whether it is feasible to
construct and use gravimetric standards \420\ for defining the
parameter and thus determining the accuracy of a measurement method.
For some parameters it is difficult or perhaps impossible to make
gravimetric standards. This is particularly true where the parameter is
actually a class of chemical compounds (themselves containing multiple
chemical compounds) that may have a very large number of members (e.g.,
aromatics in gasoline). Use of gravimetric standards for establishing
accuracy may also be hindered if many of the potential measurement
methods are sensitive to the chemical composition of the material that
the analyte is added (often called the ``matrix'') and are thus prone
to being ``confused'' into giving inaccurate answers. Where these two
problems are not present, the use of gravimetric standards is the ideal
way to establish the accuracy of the analytical test method. We will
describe these as ``absolute'' parameters. The accuracy qualification
test for a method measuring such parameters should center upon its
being able to get the ``right'' answer for one or more gravimetric
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\420\ Gravimetric standards are test materials made by adding a
carefully weighed (hence ``gravimetric'') quantity of the analyte of
interest to a measured quantity of another substance known not to
contain any of the analyte. The result is a solution with a very
accurately known concentration of the analyte. The accuracy of
gravimetric standard reference materials can be closely controlled
and is not dependent on an analytical test method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To establish the accuracy of methods measuring each parameter where
gravimetric standards hindered, we are proposing to retain an EPA-
prescribed reference method or ``designated method'' that would, in
effect, define the parameter as ``parameter X is, for federal
regulatory purposes, whatever method Z measures.'' Parameters that
require such treatment will be described as ``method-defined''
parameters. Establishing the accuracy of a method intended to measure
such a parameter would be accomplished by relating its measurements on
a particular set of test fuels to measurements made on the same fuels
by a laboratory operating the designated method. This approach is often
referred to as correlating the new method with the designated method.
In other words, measurements from the new method (the ``candidate'' for
qualification) would be used to predict the measurements that the
designated method would get on the same fuels (with, perhaps, some
offset or adjustment equation applied) and then these predictions would
be compared with the actual measurements made from those fuels by the
designated method. If the predictions are consistently close to the
designated method measurements and evenly distributed above and below
these reference values, then the laboratory and the method it proposes
to use would have a good case for qualification with regard to
accuracy. Such a correlative approach to qualification is dependent for
its workability upon the test fuels used to establish the correlation.
Such fuels must be sufficiently varied along all important dimensions
so that day-to-day production laboratory operations are very unlikely
to turn up some unusual fuels (or a new class of fuels produced, say,
by some new refining process) for which the correlation equation
derived earlier is not accurate and where the predictions of the
designated method's results are quite erratic and inaccurate.
In addition to the dependence of the method-defined approach upon
the choice of fuels for establishing the correlation to the designated
method, this approach also greatly elevates the importance of the
designated method that is used. An increasingly obsolete designated
method might need to be changed for practical reasons, but adoption of
a new designated method could bring about a de facto change in the
standard for the parameter in the absence of a prescribed correction
equation designed to align the new designated method with the old.
While the gravimetric approach to measurement has its own problems, it
is free of the difficulties associated with any particular method.
Our classification of parameters into the absolute or method-
defined categories is not entirely straightforward. Of the parameters
subject to this proposal, only those with sulfur as the analyte fall
into the absolute category. Sulfur is a single element rather than a
compound (or, worse, a class of compounds with numerous members) and
thus lends itself to the construction of gravimetric standards. The
methods that are currently used to measure sulfur in gasoline and
diesel fuel have been subject to intensive recent development work and
are largely free of matrix effects. Sulfur in butane is even more
[[Page 29956]]
amenable to the absolute approach, since butane is a single compound
rather than a constantly varying mixture of many compounds. We also
note, as mentioned before, that the diesel sulfur rule used the
absolute approach. For these reasons we are proposing to treat gasoline
sulfur and sulfur in butane as absolute parameters.
Beyond these two sulfur parameters, classification becomes more
difficult. Where the analyte is a class of compounds, like aromatics,
the construction of a gravimetric standard would have to be done by use
of an agreed-upon conventional recipe that includes some group of the
compounds in the class in proportions that approximate to what is found
in the actual fuels that a method will measure. If the class has
relatively few compounds and they are all available in reasonably pure
form, then they could all be included in the standard, leaving only the
issues of their respective concentrations (likely to vary among real
fuels) and the question of ``matrix effects'' as discussed above. Where
the class of compounds has many members and not all could be included
in an artificially constructed standard, we are left with the question
of which ones can be omitted on grounds that they are likely to occur
only in very small concentrations and/or are not particularly important
in emission formation. The result of these exclusions, for certain
parameters, would likely be a directional bias toward underestimating
the prevalence of the target class of compounds. The likely size of the
bias will vary among parameters and among fuels on which measurements
are made. Use of a complex recipe for such standards, where possible,
may minimize the bias, but may add to the costs and difficulty of
formulating a standard representative of all fuels.
The distillation parameters (T50 and T90) seem to be largely
resistant to a gravimetric approach that relies on pure compounds
instead of the smooth curve that results from simple distillation of
complex mixtures like gasoline and diesel fuel. Such gravimetric
standards, incorporating only a very limited number of compounds out of
practical necessity, would be likely to yield a kind of stair-step
curve.
Given these logical and practical difficulties with using a
gravimetric approach to qualifying methods for parameters other than
sulfur, EPA is today proposing that the method-defined or correlative
approach be used for all parameters other than sulfur. We are
especially interested in receiving comment on our categorization of
fuel parameters as either absolute or method defined.
d. How would analytic methods be evaluated for qualification?
i. General provisions: To which methods and which parties do the
proposed requirements apply?
As discussed above, EPA believes that the interests of measurement
quality are best served by evaluating most method installations for
qualification at the level of individual laboratories instead of
individual instruments. This approach was used in regulating diesel
sulfur. We are proposing to require laboratories to qualify all methods
that will be used to make measurements for regulatory purposes. EPA
does not believe that a relatively simple qualification test will
ensure continued measurement quality, but rather that this will greatly
reduce the likelihood of a laboratory undertaking important
measurements without some assurance that the instrument is in working
order, that at least one operator \421\ in the laboratory understands
the method for its use, and that it can be made to perform to meet
acceptable criteria. We seek comment on requiring laboratories to
qualify all methods used to take measurements for regulatory purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\421\ The intent behind the qualification process is to
demonstrate the facility's capability with the method. Accordingly
we are not proposing that each instrument used to implement a
particular method be required to qualify (some labs may have several
instruments implementing a single method) or that each operator be
so required. We recommend, but are not proposing to require, that a
laboratory rotate operators during the testing required for
qualification, thereby both improving and testing the skills of all
operators for a given method and strengthening its quality program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. How would laboratories demonstrate the precision and accuracy of
methods for measuring ``absolute'' parameters and thus qualify the
methods for use?
We are proposing to require a separate qualification for test
methods used to measure gasoline sulfur. As mentioned previously, the
Agency has successfully implemented performance based requirements for
sulfur in diesel fuel. The test methods typically used for gasoline
sulfur (one of the two parameters we are proposing to consider
absolute, as discussed above) are also frequently used for diesel
sulfur and the ASTM test method designations for both are the same.
However, examination of test method descriptions points toward
substantial differences in how the test methods are used in the
different matrices. One example is a requirement for recalibration when
matrices shift. While we considered the possibility of allowing the
diesel sulfur qualifications to be used also for gasoline sulfur, we
believe the differences between a diesel fuel matrix and gasoline fuel
matrix may be too great to permit such a sweeping exemption from
qualification requirements. The process of reworking the test methods
to measure gasoline sulfur will, in many cases, generate most of the
data needed for qualification, and thus will not represent a major
additional effort. So, despite the fact that ASTM test methods are the
same for gasoline and diesel, we are proposing to require separate
qualification for test methods used in measuring gasoline sulfur.
Operational Description. We are proposing to require applications
for qualification to include a complete operational description of the
test method in question. A VCSB publication would satisfy this
requirement for methods published by such organizations as ASTM. The
description must include the scope of the test method, a summary,
discussion of any interferences that are expected, apparatus needed,
reagents, sampling and specimen preparation, calibration, test method
procedure, calculations, and any test method-specific quality control.
Precision Qualification. We are proposing requirements for
precision qualification that are similar to requirements set forth in
the nonroad diesel sulfur rule. That rule imposed a maximum value for
the standard deviation \422\ of a series of at least 20 measurements
over at least 20 days on a single fuel under site precision conditions.
Specifically, the diesel rule used 1.5 times the repeatability standard
deviation (ASTM ``r''/2.77) of what was the least precise of the then-
allowed methods. The factor of 1.5, expands the allowable variability
from that of back-to-back tests (as in ASTM's definition of
repeatability) to account for the sources of greater variability that
find their way into a longer series of tests on the same material. In
the qualification process for ultra-low sulfur diesel testing, the
factor of 1.5 proved to be neither so tight that most laboratories were
unable to meet it, nor so loose as to not be challenging at all. Thus
we consider it to be reasonable on its face, as well as having proven
to be workable in practice, and we have therefore retained it in this
proposal. We request comments on the selection of a test method's
repeatability to use as the basis of the qualification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\422\ Where the standard deviation is estimated from a sample of
the population (formula uses ``N-1'' in the denominator).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline Sulfur Criterion. We are proposing to use the ASTM
repeatability
[[Page 29957]]
standard deviation factor as discussed above from ASTM D7039-07 to set
the precision criteria for gasoline sulfur. We note that there is a
designated test method and four alternative test methods for gasoline
sulfur. The larger repeatability among the test methods currently
allowed for sulfur in gasoline is for ASTM D6920-07. This was obtained
only when the substantially more variable of the two instrument models
included in a small inter-laboratory study was included. Since the most
variable instrument model had a repeatability of nearly twice that of
the other test methods and over four times that of the other instrument
model for the same method, we believe that ASTM D6920-07 should be
represented, for this purpose, by the instrument model yielding the
better performance of the two. Given that decision, ASTM D7039-07 is
left with the largest repeatability of these test methods. And we are
proposing to use its repeatability (1.76 ppm at 10 ppm) to set the
precision criterion for this parameter. Thus the maximum allowable
standard deviation of the twenty test results on a 10 ppm gasoline
would be 0.95 ppm.\423\ Since we do not propose to prescribe the
parameter level for the fuel used for these precision tests, this
maximum limit will vary depending upon the repeatability number that
the ASTM D7039-07 test method's repeatability formula yields, given the
parameter value of the test fuel chosen. If a laboratory selected a 5
ppm fuel to test instead of a 10 ppm fuel, the maximum limit for the
standard deviation would be 0.67 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\423\ This number was determined by using the repeatability
equation for ``r'' from ASTM D7039-07 for a 10 ppm sulfur gasoline
to get 1.76 ppm, dividing the ``r'' in ppm by 2.77 to obtain the
underlying standard deviation of 1.39 ppm, and multiplying the
result by 1.5 (criterion used in diesel sulfur rule) to get 0.95
ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur in Butane Precision Criteria. There are three test methods
currently allowed for measuring the sulfur content of butane for
blending into gasoline. A new designated test method was adopted for
this parameter (ASTM D6667-10) \424\ because the previous primary test
method, D3246-11, had become somewhat obsolete. Given that D3246-11 is
no longer widely available,\425\ though still an allowed alternative
test method, and that the range of D4468-85 (reapproved 2006) extends
only to 20 ppm, we are proposing a precision criterion based on the
repeatability of D6667-10. This test method's repeatability at the 10
ppm level is 1.15 ppm, so the calculations used above with gasoline
sulfur yield an upper limit for the standard deviation of the 20 tests
for sulfur in butane of 0.62 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\424\ 71 FR 16492 (April 3, 2006).
\425\ See EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0048-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temporal Distribution of Precision Tests. With regard to spacing of
the 20 precision tests, we are proposing 7 or fewer tests per week and
2 or fewer tests per day. We believe this would prevent weekend testing
while also precluding practices such as conducting one test on the
first day and 19 tests on the 20th day. We believe that adequate
spacing of testing is necessary if we are to have a meaningful standard
for the longer-term stability of a particular test method in a
particular laboratory installation. We are also taking comments on the
following two options: (1) a requirement that 23 or more hours must
elapse between tests (this option requires either testing on weekends
or an extension of the 20 days); and (2) tests arranged into no fewer
than five batches of five or fewer tests each, with only one such batch
allowed per day.
Accuracy Qualification. We are proposing accuracy criteria for
absolute fuel parameters that are similar to the criteria for sulfur in
diesel fuel. Applicants for qualification would be required to select
two commercially available gravimetric standard reference materials and
then to show that their laboratory and method are capable of getting an
average of ten consecutive results that are very close to the Accepted
Reference Value or ARV for each. How close to the ARV these averages
must be is the stringency part, and we propose to use 0.75 times the
precision criterion described above, which is the same value as the
diesel rules. In the case of gasoline sulfur, for a gravimetric
standard with ARV = 10 ppm, this would be 0.75 times 0.95 ppm or 0.71
ppm. The corresponding numbers for sulfur in butane at the 10 ppm level
would be 0.75 times 1.15 or 0.47 ppm. We are proposing that for other
parameter that might come to fall into the absolute category, the
precision and accuracy criteria would be determined as a function of
the ASTM repeatability of one of the methods (selected by EPA)
available for measuring that parameter.\426\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\426\ It is important to understand that the numerical examples
presented in the text are entirely hypothetical, since use of
precision testing material or gravimetric standards at levels other
than those used in the examples would change all of the numbers. Use
of a gasoline sulfur gravimetric standard at 5 ppm (instead of the
10 ppm used in the example) would require computing the
repeatability of the method at 5 ppm using the equation given in the
method description, dividing it by 2.77, multiplying the result by
1.5, and then multiplying that result by 0.75. As a short-cut, the
accuracy criterion could be determined by multiplying the ASTM
repeatability of the method at the level in question by 0.4061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. How would laboratories demonstrate the precision and accuracy of
methods for measuring ``Method-Defined'' parameters and qualify the
methods for use?
Operational Description. For method-defined parameters we are
proposing the same operational description as that for absolute
parameters. The operational description of a proposed test method must
be very complete. We consider publication of a test method by a VCSB
organization such as ASTM to meet this criterion. For non-VCSB test
methods this description must meet very high standards for completeness
and clarity. Since non-VCSB test methods have not been fully vetted by
a VCSB, a non-VCSB test method would require additional information. In
particular, the underlying scientific measurement principles must be
thoroughly explained and the apparatus described well enough that a
trained outsider could successfully implement the non-VCSB test method
and replicate the applicant's results.
Precision Qualification Specifics. We are proposing the same
precision qualification criteria as absolute parameters. For those
method-defined parameters with alternative test methods that have been
identified by regulations, preference will be given to the least
precise of the allowed test methods. For reference installations we
propose the additional requirements that the instrument must be shown
to be in statistical control, as provided for in ASTM D6299-10\e1\ (and
the SQC procedures to be discussed below); and that the applicant must
submit control charts showing a record of in-control operation for at
least five months. While these requirements would likely result in a
delay between instrument setup and the ability to qualify it as a
reference installation, we believe that the delay is necessary to
demonstrate the stability of these critically important installations.
Considering the number of long-established installations of these
designated test methods, EPA expects no lack of laboratories capable of
meeting these standards and able to provide this service commercially
to any party interested in qualifying a new installation of an
alternative test method for a method-defined parameter. Table VI-6 sets
out our proposed precision criteria for the various method-defined fuel
parameters with no alternative test method.
Olefins in Gasoline Criterion. The designated method for this
parameter, ASTM D 1319-10, is also the less
[[Page 29958]]
precise of the two methods currently allowed. As such, its
repeatability statistics are proposed as the basis for precision
qualification. Thus for a test fuel with olefins at, say, 9 volume
percent, the repeatability is 0.972, and the underlying standard
deviation is 0.972/2.77 = 0.351, and the precision criterion is 1.5
times that, or 0.53 volume percent. A laboratory's standard deviation
for the 20 tests could not exceed that value and still qualify for
precision.
Aromatics in Gasoline Criterion. We are proposing to use the
repeatability standard deviation for D1319-10 to set the precision
criteria for aromatics in gasoline. (e.g., 1.3 volume percent for a
fuel with 32 volume percent aromatics). The cut off point for the 20-
test standard deviation using the test fuel would then be 0.70 volume
percent. We note that D5769-10 is the current designated test method
but that D1319-10 is still widely used. We also note that while not as
precise as D5769-10, D1319-10 is the designated method for olefins, and
has precision sufficiently close to that of the more modern designated
method to make it still viable.
Oxygen and Oxygenates in Gasoline Criterion. The two test methods
allowed for oxygen are very close together in precision, at least for
total oxygen content. The designated method, D5599-00(2010) is slightly
less precise, leading us to propose that its repeatability be used to
determine the criterion. So for a test gasoline with 3 mass percent
total oxygen, the repeatability would be 0.083 mass percent and the
criterion for precision in this example comes out to 0.045 mass
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\427\ Where maximum allowable standard deviation (SD) of 20
tests is less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability (r) of
the designated test method divided by 2.77 (SD of 20 tests <= 1.5 X
(r/2.77)).
Table VI-6--Method-Defined Precision Criterion for Fuel Parameters With
No Alternatives to the Designated Test Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example of fuel
parameter level Proposed precision
Fuel Parameter for demonstrating criterion \427\
precision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RVP in gasoline................. RVP sample of 0.11 psi.
gasoline equals
6.8 psi.
Distillation in gasoline........ Gasoline sample IBP = 1.54 [deg]C.
with initial E10 = 0.72 [deg]C.
boiling point E50 = 0.40 [deg]C.
(IBP) of 20 E90 = 0.97 [deg]C.
[deg]C and 90 FBP = 1.80 [deg]C.
percent
evaporated (E90)
temperature of
110 [deg]C.
Benzene in gasoline............. Gasoline sample 0.02 volume
containing 1 percent benzene.
volume percent
benzene.
Aromatics in diesel fuel........ Diesel sample 0.70 volume
containing 35 percent.
volume percent
aromatics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accuracy Qualification. Test methods used to measure method-defined
parameters can be grouped into three types: reference installations of
designated methods intended for use in qualifying alternative methods;
designated method installations intended for ordinary production
measurements; and non-designated methods. Since these reference
installations will be used to evaluate the accuracy of other test
methods and to evaluate whether the need for the establishment of a
correlation equation. We are proposing that such reference instruments
must be shown to be near the middle of the distribution of the industry
monthly inter-laboratory crosscheck program for at least five months
prior to application.\428\ We are proposing that laboratories would
specifically compute the difference between either the instrument's
average measurement of the fuel closest to the applicable standards or
to the average value for the fuel type in the complex model and the
robust mean for that fuel obtained by all of the non-outlier labs in
the program. We are proposing that the differences would then be
standardized by expressing it in robust standard deviation units. This
standardized inter-laboratory cross check (ILCC) differences would be
put into a moving average with a span of, for example, five months. We
are also proposing to set the standard such that the instrument's
moving average would be within the central 50 percent of the
distribution of participating designated method labs. Because a robust
standard deviation is used by the ILCC program, this percentage will
have to be approximate. Such lab-specific qualification would be
outside of the normal qualification of a lab for making regulatory
measurements for certifying fuel and would pertain only to use of the
instrument in certifying other methods. EPA requests comment on the
nature and stringency of this proposed requirement. Specifically, we
request comment as to whether this is a reasonable requirement that is
likely to be met by instruments in the best qualified laboratories.
Could the ``middle 50 percent'' requirement be further tightened
without severely restricting the supply of potential reference
installations? Are there computationally simpler ways to accomplish the
general purpose of this requirement?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\428\ An alternative to this measure can be to use the D6299-
10\e1\ calculations. This would require statistical quality control
(SQC) so that the instrument would have an acceptable quality of
performance. This could reduce the burden of calculations and align
this requirement better with the NTTAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Role of Voluntary Consensus Bodies in Qualifying Alternative
Analytical Test Methods
In February 1996, Section 12(d) of Public Law 104-113, Congress
passed the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995''
(NTTAA), in order to establish the policies of the existing OMB
Circular A-119 in law.\429\ The purposes of Section 12(d) of Public Law
104-113 are: (1) To direct ``federal agencies to focus upon increasing
their use of [voluntary consensus] standards \430\ whenever possible,''
thus reducing federal procurement and operating costs; and (2) to
authorize the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as
the ``federal coordinator for government entities responsible for the
development of technical standards and conformity assessment
activities,'' thus eliminating ``unnecessary duplication of conformity
[[Page 29959]]
assessment activities.'' \431\ Section 21(d) of Public Law 104-113 also
gives agencies the discretion to use other standards in lieu of
voluntary consensus standards where use of the latter would be
``inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.'' However,
in such cases, the head of an agency or department must send to OMB,
through NIST, ``an explanation of the reasons for using such
standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\429\ See 142 Cong. Rec. H1264-1267 (daily ed. February 27,
1996) (statement Rep. Morella); 142 Cong. Rec. S1078-1082 (daily ed.
February 7, 1996) (statement Cong. Rockefeller); 141 Cong. Rec.
H14333-34 (daily ed. December 12, 1995) (statements of Reps. Brown
and Morella).
\430\ This use of the word ``standards'' refers to test methods,
calibration materials, etc.
\431\ See Cong. Rec. H1262 (daily ed. February 27, 1996)
(statements of Rep. Morella).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final revision of Circular A-119 defines Voluntary Consensus
Standards as ``standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
bodies, both domestic and international'', and defines VCSB as
``domestic or international organizations which plan, develop,
establish, or coordinate voluntary consensus standards using agreed-
upon procedures and which possess the attributes of openness, balance
of interest, due process, an appeals process, and consensus.'' Finally,
Circular A-119 indicates that consensus means ``general agreement, but
not necessarily unanimity, and includes a process for attempting to
resolve objections by interested parties, as long as all comments have
been fairly considered, each objector is advised of the disposition of
his or her objection(s) and the reasons why, and the consensus body
members are given an opportunity to change their votes after reviewing
the comments.'' \432\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\432\ 63 FR 8546 (February 19, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency believes that VCSBs can play a valuable role in
developing statistical tools for analytical test methodology
description and evaluation, developing and describing new analytical
test methodologies and organizing test programs to evaluate
methodologies and assist laboratories to maintain quality measurement
systems.
EPA has frequently selected VCSB-developed methods as its
designated methods for fuels programs. However, it has only adopted a
particular version of each such method by incorporating it by reference
in the Federal Register. In each case the Agency was endorsing and
adopting test methods that were completely known and available for
examination, rather than the unknown result of some future VCSB action.
To simply say that any method approved by a VCSB is acceptable for all
purposes, including compliance demonstrations would seem to invite such
difficulties as: (1) multiple methods for a parameter, developed by
different VCSB's and not correlated adequately with each other, or (2)
methods that change over time (by publication of new versions, for
example) in such a way that the definition of what is being measured
changes and no longer corresponds to what was used in setting
compliance to the environmental standard(s).
(2) Use of Reference Materials in Qualifying and Maintaining
Alternative Analytical Techniques
Depending on the qualification process chosen by the Agency,
discussed in more detail below, the protocol proposed here for the
qualification and maintenance of alternative test methods stops short
of automatic acceptance of VCSB decisions and methods, but goes as far
in that direction as we believe is consistent with the Agency's mission
of ensuring compliance with motor vehicle fuel programs. It gives some
preference to VCSB-approved methods because of our greater confidence
that such methods have been positively evaluated by a broad user
community rather than by a narrower array of users. We are proposing
today to also make substantial use of VCSB-developed statistical
protocols for comparing methods and for use by particular laboratories
in keeping analytic methods under adequate statistical quality control.
We consider Reference materials to be samples of the type of
material to be tested (gasoline or diesel fuel in this case) that are
known or thought to have a particular concentration of the substance to
be measured. Laboratories may use these materials to calibrate and
evaluate the performance of measurement systems. EPA is proposing the
following three types of reference materials that would be used in
establishing and maintaining the accuracy of both designated and
alternative analytical test methods: (1) Gravimetric standards, (2)
consensus-named fuels (gasoline or diesel fuel), and (3) locally-named
standards.
Additionally, some combinations of parameters and test methods
limit the availability of some kinds of reference materials. This
complicates the task of developing a methodology for qualifying
alternative test methods. EPA recognizes the technical complexity and
the likelihood that new analytical testing methods may emerge.
Therefore, the Agency is also proposing to offer substantial
flexibility in the choice of standard reference materials and the
manner of their use, so long as they ensure accuracy and preserve the
integrity of applicable fuel standards.
Gravimetric Reference Standards. Gravimetric standards are test
materials made by adding a carefully measured quantity of the analyte
of interest to a measured quantity of another substance known not to
contain any of the analyte. The result is a solution with a very
accurately known concentration of the analyte. The accuracy of
gravimetric standard reference materials can be closely controlled and
is not dependent on an analytical test method. They do present certain
practical problems in use. First, gravimetric reference materials
cannot be made for all of the parameters under the RFG, CG and diesel
fuel programs (e.g., distillation points and olefins). Second, there
are ``matrix effects.'' As earlier explained, matrix effects are where
components in real-world gasoline or diesel fuel other than the analyte
of interest confuse the instrument and cause it to measure the analyte
differently than it would when measuring the same concentration of the
analyte in a gravimetric standard built in a matrix where the
instrument is not sensitive. Matrix effects are problematic for certain
analytical methods, whose underlying scientific operating principles
make the analytical method unable to utilize gravimetric standards for
calibration when other types of materials (gasoline or diesel fuel)
will have to be measured accurately. The approach taken in this
proposal, where the gravimetric standard reference materials would be
used in establishing the accuracy of a reference implementation of the
designated method, is an approach that should minimize matrix effect
problems. This is because the designated methods were selected, among
other criteria, for their relative freedom from matrix effects. Thus,
EPA believes that such materials, offer the best tools for establishing
the accuracy of analytical test methods. When feasible, EPA believes
that gravimetric reference standard materials should form the basis for
establishing accuracy through correlation with designated analytical
test methods calibrated with gravimetric standards.
Consensus-named Fuels. These are homogeneous quantities of fuel
that have been analyzed by a number of different laboratories (by
sending around small samples). The average concentration of some
parameter of interest across all of the different laboratories is then
used as the ``consensus name'' for that material.
There are certain parameters that the Agency does not believe that
gravimetric standard reference materials can be prepared. Aromatics are
a class of numerous compounds that are produced by refinery processes
in a mixture that is most likely impossible to duplicate in the
laboratory with any consistency for all fuel because not all
[[Page 29960]]
refiners have the same configuration. For such parameters, it is
therefore necessary to use consensus-named gasolines to control
accuracy because they are the only reliable type of standard reference
material that is available. The use of consensus-named gasolines may
minimize matrix-related effects where they are used to establish the
accuracy of different designated method implementations, though they
may be less useful in evaluating alternative methods that have been
adapted to measure a certain fuel matrix, but not sensitive enough to
measure all fuel matrices the test method may encounter in use,
otherwise known as ``adaptive learning'' technologies. The nominal
concentrations in consensus-named gasolines can only be as accurate as
the designated analytical test method used in the VCSB round robin
study that named them. Consensus-named gasolines will also be costly
and time-consuming to produce and will need to be periodically replaced
(i.e., when the supply is exhausted or the shelf life expires) through
either a new round robin study or some approach using overlapped
testing of the old standard reference material with a new batch (which
will not, of course, have exactly the same concentration of analytes).
Locally Named Reference Materials. These materials are also
sometimes referred to as quality control samples (e.g., octane testing
reference fuel). These are gasoline or diesel fuels that usually come
from the regular production of the facility. These reference materials
are used in laboratory quality control efforts and have been analyzed
using the designated method (either by the facility's lab or by a
referee lab) to obtain an estimate of their concentration. The fuels
are then stored carefully by the lab to slow their deterioration. The
advantage to these is that since a refinery may already have such fuels
on site for octane or cetane testing purposes, these materials may be
relatively inexpensive. Another advantage is that, since a refiner
would produce these fuels at the same site where the alternative method
will be qualified, their use should minimize any difficulties
associated with matrix effects. These locally named reference fuels are
not as accurate as the VCSB round robin process and are not assured by
gravimetric standard reference material construction. Thus, a refiner
could only use them for relating an alternative method to a carefully
calibrated installation of the designated method whose accuracy has
been established and controlled by other means.
We request comment on the appropriateness of using the three types
of standard reference materials for accuracy that have been discussed
and on their applicability in the qualification process and statistical
quality control process of analytical test methods.
(3) Qualification Criteria of Alternative Analytical Test Methods
We are also proposing two options for refiners that wish to qualify
an alternative test method as discussed in further detail in Sections
VI.A.3.g.i and VI.A.3.g.ii of this proposal. For both of the proposed
options the candidate test method must have precision at least equal to
that of the designated analytical test method (though not defined in
precisely the same way). And the alternative test method must be
capable of correlation with the designated test method for the
parameter such that the refiner may use the alternative test method
results to produce predicted designated test method results that it can
subsequently use in demonstrating compliance with the applicable fuel
composition or performance standards.
(4) Statistical Quality Control Program
An important element of today's proposed approach for the
qualification of alternative analytical test methods is the description
of a statistical quality control (SQC) program that may be applied to
any analytical test method used in the regulatory programs covered by
this proposal. We are proposing to require a SQC program as described
below. EPA's objective with statistical quality control is not to
impose a complete new system of quality control measures, but rather to
adopt a subset of SQC procedures that are already widely in use. We
anticipate that the measures we have selected would not require the
generation of much additional data by the laboratories that elect to
employ them and that the SQC program would improve the quality of
measurement among those labs that adopt such measures.
e. Qualification Criteria for Designated Method Installations Used To
Qualify Method-Defined Parameter Instruments
Designated test method installations that will be used to qualify
method-defined parameter instruments are reference installations. Since
reference installations will be used to evaluate the accuracy of other
alternative test methods and to establish correlation equations, EPA
believes that these reference installations should be held to higher
standards.
First, we are proposing that reference instruments meet precision
qualification requirements that are similar to the criteria set forth
in the nonroad diesel sulfur rule. As explained earlier, that rule
imposed a maximum value for the standard deviation \433\ of a series of
at least 20 measurements over at least 20 days on a single fuel under
site precision conditions. Specifically, the diesel rule used 1.5 times
the repeatability standard deviation (ASTM ``r''/2.77) of what was the
least precise of the then-allowed methods. For those ``method-defined''
parameters from Table VI-1 above that do not currently have
alternatives test methods the precision criteria is based on the fuel
parameter's designated test method. In each case the precision
criterion is determined by (``r''/2.77) X 1.5 where ``r'' is the ASTM
repeatability determined for the particular fuel that is being used for
the purpose of demonstrating the test method's precision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\433\ Where the standard deviation is estimated from a sample of
the population (formula uses ``N-1'' in the denominator).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, we are proposing that such reference instruments must be
shown to be near the middle of the distribution of the industry monthly
inter-laboratory crosscheck (ILCC) program for at least the five months
prior to application.\434\ We are also proposing that laboratories
would specifically compute the difference between the instrument's
average measurement of the fuel closest to the applicable standards (or
to the average value for the fuel type in the complex model) and the
robust mean for that fuel obtained by all of the non-outlier labs in
the program. And then standardize this difference by expressing it in
robust standard deviation units. These standardized inter-laboratory
cross check differences would be put into a moving average with a span
of, for example, five months. We are proposing to set the standard such
that the instrument's moving average would be within the central 50
percent of the distribution of participating designated method labs.
Because a robust standard deviation is used by the ILCC program, this
percentage will have to be approximate. Such lab-specific qualification
would be outside of the normal qualification of a lab for making
regulatory measurements
[[Page 29961]]
for certifying fuel and would pertain only to use of the instrument in
certifying other methods. In essence, these designated method
installations will serve as surrogates for the gravimetric standards
that cannot be used in qualifying alternative methods for method-
defined parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\434\ An alternative to this measure can be to use the ASTM
D6299-10\e1\ calculations. This would require SQC so that the
instrument would have an acceptable quality of performance. This
could reduce the burden of calculations and align this requirement
better with the NTTAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, for reference installations we propose that the reference
instrument must be shown to be in statistical control, as provided for
in ASTM D6299-10\e1\ (and the SQC procedures to be discussed below);
and that the applicant must maintain control charts showing a record of
in-control operation for at least five months. While these requirements
would likely impose a delay between instrument setup and the ability to
qualify it as a reference installation, we believe that the delay is
necessary to demonstrate the stability of these critically important
installations. Considering the number of long-established installations
of these designated methods, EPA expects no lack of facilities capable
of meeting these standards and able to provide this service
commercially to any party interested in qualifying a new installation
for a method-defined parameter.
f. Qualification Criteria for Designated Test Method Installations That
Are ``Method-Defined'' Parameters Instruments and Not Used To Qualify
Other ``Method-Defined'' Methods
Refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders producing gasoline and
diesel fuel are required to test these fuels to determine the levels of
various specified parameters. A designated test method is associated
with each parameter to be tested (except for sulfur concentration in
ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, which must meet performance-based
requirements\435\) in 40 CFR Part 80. Table VI-5 of this preamble lists
the fuel parameters and their corresponding designated test methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\435\ See Sec. Sec. 80.580, 80.584 and 80.585.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing today that installations of designated methods
must maintain records they meet statistical quality control
requirements as detailed below in this preamble. Requiring all
installations of all methods, including existing designated method
installations, to implement statistical quality control, as we are
proposing today, would likely suffice to homogenize and improve
measurement quality in these already-stable and standardized methods.
g. Qualification Criteria for Method Defined Parameter Instruments
Other Than Designated Test Methods
As discussed above, the Agency is also proposing to have two
options for refiners to qualify an alternative test method that is a
method-defined fuel parameter. The first option would allow for
qualifying methods that have been sponsored and published by a VCSB,
such as ASTM (the VCSB approach). The second way involves qualification
for a laboratory that has developed its own analytical test method but
has decided not to offer it for evaluation and establishment through a
VCSB-based organizational process (the non-VCSB approach). Both options
require the candidate method to have precision at least equal to that
of the designated analytical test method (though not defined in
precisely the same way). The alternative method must also be capable of
close correlation with the designated method for the parameter such
that the refiner may use the alternative method results to produce
predicted designated method results that it can subsequently use in
demonstrating compliance with the applicable fuel composition or
performance standards. The proposed criteria for both the VCSB and non-
VCSB approaches to qualify method-defined instruments are discussed in
further detail below.
i. Qualification Criteria for VCSB Method-Defined Parameter Test
Methods
The first of these approaches to qualifying alternative methods
applies only to methods that have been sponsored and published by a
VCSB, such as ASTM. We are proposing that the VCSB must have fully
described the analytical test method, so that it is replicable in
different laboratories and understood by any technician. We would
consider publication of a method by a VCSB organization such as ASTM to
meet this criterion. The VCSB must have tested the candidate method in
a round robin program against the designated method, must have
published a determination that the method meets the criteria specified
in the discussion below, and must have published the information
necessary to correlate the alternative method to the designated
method.\436\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\436\ This first approach assumes that a single such equation
can be used for all labs using the method, an assumption that may
not always hold. The more detailed discussion of the two approaches
that follows this introduction explores this problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also proposing that an alternative analytical test method
need not be qualified separately in each laboratory that adopts it.
This is because by the time such a test method has been through the
extensive development process typically required by a VCSB, the
method's procedures would have been exhaustively described. At this
point there will be little uncertainty about how the analytical test
method is to be applied, and it will have been implemented in a variety
of different laboratories and used on a variety of different types of
fuels. Therefore the VCSB-based process gives EPA some confidence that
the analytical test method is likely to be stable in use and can be
implemented with very little ambiguity regarding instrumentation,
materials, and procedures. Moreover, VCSB method evaluation protocols
have been established; including a protocol for comparing methods
provide means for establishing a proposed VCSB alternative method's
precision parity with the designated method for the parameter and for
determining whether the alternative method can be adequately correlated
with the designated method.\437\ EPA is also proposing that VCSB
method-defined test methods utilize ASTM D6708 to determine if a
correlation equation is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\437\ ASTM D 6708-08, entitled, Standard Practice for
Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between
Two Test Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a
Material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Qualification Criteria for Non-VCSB Method-Defined Parameter Test
Methods
The second way a candidate alternative method may qualify does not
involve the process by which a VCSB evaluates and officially establish
methods through publication. EPA is proposing that a candidate method
that follows the non-VCSB-based route for qualification must be
qualified independently by each analytical laboratory that wishes to
adopt the method. This is because such a method has not been shown to
be capable of accurately measuring the parameter in different
laboratories and across a variety of fuel matrices.
The following is a discussion of the qualification criteria for
non-VCSB method-defined parameter test methods. First, the Agency
proposes to require a complete operational description of the non-VCSB
test method, as described above in Section VI.A.3.d.ii and VI.A.3.d.iii
of this preamble. The operational description must be thorough enough
that a person lacking expertise in the operation of the test instrument
would be able to replicate its results.
[[Page 29962]]
Second, the Agency proposes that the candidate non-VCSB test method
be tested on a range of fuels \438\ and by a qualified reference
installation of the applicable designated test method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\438\ Fuels, either consensus named fuels or locally named
reference materials, used must be typical of those to be analyzed by
the facility in practice and must meet the data requirements
(variability, etc.) of ASTM D6708-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the Agency proposes that the specific laboratory using the
candidate non-VCSB test method must statistically establish through
application of ASTM D6708-08 that the candidate method measures the
same aspect of samples as the applicable designated test method.
Fourth, the Agency is proposing to disqualify non-VCSB test methods
with important sample-specific biases (matrix effects) that cannot be
considered as random as determined by ASTM D6708-08. It is possible a
situation may arise where a non-VCSB test method suspected by the
applicant of being highly matrix-sensitive may be qualified on a
narrowly circumscribed range of fuels (which must meet the D6708-08
statistical variability criteria). In this situation, the types of
fuels on which qualification was achieved and for which the method is
to be approved must be specified in the method description. Fuels
outside of this scope would have to be analyzed for regulatory purposes
by some other method that was not this limited. The Agency believes
that any restriction on the scope of fuels for which the method is to
be qualified must be accompanied by a discussion of how the applicant
plans to screen samples for conformity to the scope.
Fifth, the Agency proposes that precision qualification be
conducted in the form of cross-method reproducibility \439\ of the
candidate and applicable designated test method, where the cross-method
reproducibility must be equal to or less than 70 percent of the
published reproducibility of the applicable designated test method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\439\ Cross-method reproducibility is a quantitative expression
of the random error associated with the difference between two
results obtained by different operators using different apparatus
and applying the two methods X and Y, respectively, each obtaining a
single result on a identical test sample, when the methods have been
assessed and an appropriate bias-correction has been applied. It is
defined as the 95 percent confidence limit for the difference
between two such single and independent results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency believes, that when ASTM D6708-08 is used in this manner
(without joint round robin data) the cross-method reproducibility (Rcm)
output by the program is not really a reproducibility in the usual
sense, but rather indicates the expected value with uncertainty of the
differences between the designated method and qualification candidate
method. We believe that when used this way, Rcm from ASTM D6708-08 is
more analogous to a site precision than to an inter-laboratory
reproducibility.
As described, this measure can reasonably be expected to fall
between the published reproducibility (R) and repeatability (r) of the
designated test method. Because qualified alternative test methods
should be able to generally do as well as the designated test method
Rcm be less than or equal to ``R''. Since ``R'' is typically
established when the test method is first developed, and laboratory
experience with it is limited, the real reproducibility for a method
long in service is likely to be smaller than ``R.'' Moreover, as
mentioned above, Rcm is more like a site precision number, for a well-
run installation, that must be smaller than ``R'' since the systematic
component of the differences between the instruments has been adjusted
out and the ``within-method-interlaboratory'' component of variance is
not present. On the other end of the space between ``r'' and ``R,'' the
published repeatability has far fewer sources of variability than any
other measure of its kind, suggesting that the cut-point should be
closer to ``R'' than to ``r''. The proposed 70 percent fraction of
published reproducibility was selected because there is some evidence
to suggest that site precisions for various methods/parameters tend to
average around that fraction of the same method's published
reproducibility. We are also requesting comment on the appropriate
percentage of ``R'' that the ``cross-method reproducibility'' should be
equal to or less than.
Sixth, the Agency proposes that the applicant demonstrate, through
the use of ASTM D6708-08, whether a correlation to the designated test
method is necessary. ASTM D6708-08 can also be used to determine
whether the candidate method's results are null compared to the
designated test method and thus needs no adjustment or correlation, or
whether some correction or correlation equation is required so the
candidate method may predict designated method results. We are
proposing the use of ASTM 6708-08 for corrections, if it is determined
through the use of ASTM D6708-08 that the candidate method requires
such a correction to predict designated test method results. The Agency
proposes that the correction would be applied to the candidate
instruments output to obtain measurements results for regulatory
purposes.
Finally, we are proposing to require that applicants for non-VCSB
test methods secure an independent third party oversight and audit
review of the data generated and used to qualify non-VCSB test methods.
We are proposing that the independent third party would provide an
overall assessment of the analytical technique and methodology and
discuss any limitations in the scope of the method, as well as attest
that all the requirements for non-VCSB test method qualification have
been satisfied. The Agency believes this requirement would provide
additional assurance that a non-VCSB test method is found to be
adequate in use for compliance.
We seek comments on all aspects of today's proposal. Additionally,
the Agency is particularly interested in comments on the
appropriateness of the qualification criteria for candidate method-
defined parameter non-VCSB test methods.
h. Statistical quality control: How can we ensure that test methods
continue to deliver quality measurement in practice?
As discussed previously, an important element of today's proposal
is a statistical quality control program that may be applied to any
analytical test method used in the regulatory programs covered by this
proposal. Today, the Agency is proposing that every laboratory using
test instruments to measure fuel parameters must implement and maintain
a basic SQC program in order to satisfy EPA's reporting or
recordkeeping requirements. We are proposing that every laboratory have
a separate SQC program for each instrument used to make measurements
for reporting or recordkeeping purposes.\440\ This is unlike the
qualification criteria requirements, where only one of a set of
essentially identical instruments implementing the same method in a
laboratory must qualify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\440\ Such SQC programs are already an established part of VCSB
protocols for analytical laboratory operation (as indicated by such
practices as ASTM's D6299-10\e1\) and are likely to be part of most
laboratories ''standard operating procedures.'' Thus, such a
requirement very likely adds little or nothing in the way of burden
for most laboratories. Laboratories that lack such programs and
would have to expend significant effort to create them are those
most at risk for poor measurements and for which the effort is most
easily justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing that implementation of a SQC program by a
laboratory would be a defense in any subsequent enforcement actions
where the measurements are in use. We are proposing to adopt a subset
of SQC procedures that are already widely in use from ASTM D6299-
10\e1\. We anticipate that the measures we are
[[Page 29963]]
proposing would not require the generation of much additional data by
the laboratory that employs them and that the SQC program would improve
the quality of measurement among those labs that adopt such measures.
These SQC procedures used by laboratories would ensure that the test
methods they have qualified and the instruments on which the methods
are run are yielding results with appropriate accuracy and precision,
e.g., that the results from a particular instrument does not ``drift''
over time to yield unacceptable values. The proposed minimum specific
SQC requirements for laboratories that measures absolute parameters,
and both VCSB and non-VCSB methods used to measure method-defined
parameters, are discussed in further detail below.
i. Statistical Quality Control for Absolute Parameters
We are proposing precision and accuracy SQC requirements for each
instrument used to measure absolute parameters in the laboratory. We
are proposing that every instrument would test a quality control
(``QC'') material \441\ either of: once per 20 production tests or once
per week and maintain both an ``I'' chart \442\ and an ``MR''
chart.\443\ We are proposing that any violations of the control
limit(s) would be investigated by laboratory personnel, corrective
action taken as required, and records kept of the incident for a period
of 5 years. We are also proposing to follow the procedures of ASTM
D6299-10\e1\ for making transition from one batch of QC material to
another. We are a also proposing the use of Annex A1.9, entitled ``Q-
Procedure,'' of ASTM D6299-10\e1\ for validating new QC material. We
are proposing that when QC material is soon-to-be-depleted, that a new
batch of QC material is prepared and its value compared to the old QC
material on a chart. The new batch of QC material would be tested
concurrently with the soon-to-be-depleted old QC material. The results
would be plotted from the ``old'' and ``new'' QC materials on its
respective chart, and if no special-cause signals are noted, then the
result for the new material would be considered valid.\444\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\441\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, paragraph 3.2.3 for a definition
and Section 6 for guidance, selection, construction, handling,
storage and use of reference material samples.
\442\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, section 7 and Section A1.5.1 for
chart construction and usage, including criteria for deciding upon
corrective action.
\443\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section A1.5.2 for chart
construction and usage. Any exceedance of the control limit should
be investigated.
\444\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Annex A1.9 Q-Procedure. Procedures
differ depending whether an I-chart, MR chart, EWMA chart, Q-chart
or a combination of these charts are utilized by the laboratory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to require that every instrument tests a
commercially available gravimetric standard reference material (SRM)
(``check standard'' as defined in ASTM D6299-10\e1\) on a quarterly
basis. The absolute difference between the mean of multiple back-to-
back tests of the SRM and ARV of the SRM greater than 0.75 times the
published reproducibility of the test method must be investigated by
laboratory personnel, appropriate action taken, and records kept of the
incident and investigation. We are proposing that records of the SRM
measurements and investigations into any exceedances of these proposed
criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years. Additionally, we are
proposing to require laboratories to pre-treat and assess results from
the check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions,\445\
construct ``MR'' and ``I'' charts \446\ with control lines, and
maintain control charts, logging, investigating, and correcting the
underlying causes of any control limit violations as discussed in ASTM
D6299-10\e1\. We are proposing that records of such incidents and the
underlying control charts must be kept by the facility for a period of
5 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\445\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section 8.2 (pretreatment) and
Section 8.4 (assessment). Procedures differ depending upon whether a
single check standard is used for multiple testing occasions or
multiple check standards must be used.
\446\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section 8.4 and appropriate Annex
sections for chart construction and guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Statistical Quality Control for VCSB-Approved Methods Used To
Measure Method-Defined Parameters
We are proposing precision and accuracy SQC requirements for every
instrument used in VCSB-approved methods to measure method-defined
parameters in the laboratory. With regard to precision, we are
proposing the same SQC for instruments used for absolute parameters. We
are proposing that every instrument test a quality control QC material
\447\ once every 20 production tests or once per week whichever is more
frequent. We are also proposing the maintenance of an ``I'' chart \448\
and a ``MR'' chart.\449\ We are proposing that violations of the
control limit(s) in these charts would be investigated, corrective
action taken as required, and records kept of the incident for a period
of 5 years. We are also proposing that laboratories follow the
procedures of ASTM D6299-10\e1\ for making the transition from one
batch of QC material to the next.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\447\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, paragraph 3.2.3 for a definition
and Section 6 for guidance, selection, construction, handling,
storage and use of reference material samples.
\448\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, section 7 and Section A1.5.1 for
chart construction and usage, including criteria for deciding upon
corrective action.
\449\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section A1.5.2 for chart
construction and usage. Any exceedance of the control limit should
be investigated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to accuracy we are proposing that each laboratory
perform a check standard \450\ for each instrument as defined in ASTM
D6299-10\e1\ for each instrument on a quarterly basis. We propose that
check standards for ``method-defined'' parameters must be ordinary
fuels with levels of the parameter of interest close to either
regulatory standards or to the average level of use. We also propose
that ARVs of such standards must be determined through consensus
methods \451\ on designated method instruments. The absolute difference
between the mean of multiple back-to-back tests of the SRM and ARV of
the SRM greater than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the
test method must be investigated, appropriate action taken by
laboratory personnel, and records kept of the incident and
investigation. We are proposing that records of the SRM measurements
and investigations into any exceedance of the criteria must be kept for
a period of 5 years. Additionally, we are proposing that laboratories
must pre-treat and assess results from the check standard testing after
at least 15 testing occasions,\452\ construct ``MR'' and ``I'' charts
\453\ with control lines, and maintain control charts, logging,
investigating, and correcting the underlying causes of any control
limit violations as discussed in ASTM D6299-10\e1\. We are proposing
that records of such incidents and the underlying control charts must
be kept by the laboratory for a period of 5 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\450\ As defined in ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section 3,2,3, and
further discussed in Section 6.2. Optimum use of materials that are
consensus-named by a number of laboratories may be possible only if
these materials are distributed in sufficient quantity that they may
be used as check standards after their consensus-determined ARV is
known by all laboratories. As mentioned in the text, only
measurements made on the designated method for the parameter in
question may be used in determining the ARV for this purpose.
\451\ Following the guidelines of ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section
6.2.2.
\452\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section 8.2 (pretreatment) and
Section 8.4 (assessment). Procedures differ depending upon whether a
single check standard is used for multiple testing occasions or
multiple check standards must be used.
\453\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section 8.4 and appropriate Annex
sections for chart construction and guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29964]]
iii. Statistical Quality Control for Non-VCSB Methods Used To Measure
Method-Defined Parameters
We are also proposing precision and accuracy SQC requirements for
instruments used in non-VCSB methods to measure method-defined
parameters in the laboratory. We are proposing precision requirements
for instruments used in these types of test methods that are the same
as those proposed for absolute parameters. We are proposing that every
instrument be tested on a quality control ``QC'' material \454\ once
per 20 production tests or once per week, whichever is more frequent.
We are also proposing the maintenance of an ``I'' chart \455\ and a
``MR'' chart.\456\ We are proposing that violations of the control
limit(s) in these charts should be investigated, corrective action
taken as required, and that records of the incident must be kept for a
period of 5 years. We are proposing that laboratories follow the
procedures of ASTM D6299-10\e1\ for transitioning from one batch of QC
material to the next.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\454\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, paragraph 3.2.3 for a definition
and Section 6.1 for guidance, selection, construction, handling,
storage and use of quality control samples.
\455\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, section 7 and Section A1.5.1 for
chart construction and usage, including criteria for deciding upon
corrective action.
\456\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section A1.5.2 for chart
construction and usage. Any exceedance of the control limit should
be investigated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed accuracy requirement depends on whether the method-
defined parameter test method has minimal matrix interferences or
whether the method-defined parameter test method is highly sensitive to
matrix composition. The Agency believes that non-VCSB test methods are
expected to vary considerably to the extent that their results are
sensitive to fuel characteristics other than the level of the analyte
of interest. For methods judged by their operators to be relatively
insensitive to such matrix effects, EPA believes that the same SQC
accuracy approach used with VCSB-approved methods measuring ``method-
defined'' parameters is appropriate. Where this is the case, a
statement to this effect must be included in the application for
qualification. Any decision to abandon this approach to SQC accuracy
must be reported to EPA along with the data and reasoning that led to
the conclusion.
For non-VCSB methods used to measure method-defined parameters that
are highly sensitive to matrix composition, we are proposing the same
accuracy requirements that must be maintained as for other methods for
method-defined parameters, except that the check standards will consist
of production fuels, representative of those production fuels routinely
analyzed by the laboratory, that have been submitted to a reference
installation of the designated test method. We are proposing that the
designated test method measurements should be replicated and the
average of these results used as the ARV for the check standard.
Additionally, we are proposing that the laboratory operating the
alternative method is responsible for the qualification status and
current stability of the reference method installation (for example,
documentation on the identity of the reference installation and its
control status must be maintained on the premises of the laboratory
that is using the alternative test method).
Also for non-VCSB methods, the Agency is proposing external checks
on the accuracy of matrix-sensitive methods. Laboratories that have
qualified such a method would be required to send a sample of each 20th
production batch of gasoline or diesel fuel to EPA's Ann Arbor
laboratory, along with the lab's measurement results using the
alternative method (the result used to certify the batch). The EPA lab
may return such a sample on a blind basis for a required reanalysis by
the originating laboratory at any time up to two months from EPA's
receipt of the sample. This external control is an additional check on
both the site precision of the alternative method and its accuracy. We
request comments on all aspects of our proposal.
i. Agency Approval Options
We are proposing to require qualification of only non-VCSB test
methods for fuel parameters. We are also seeking comment on whether we
should require qualification of all test methods for fuel parameters.
We are also proposing a requirement for regulated parties to identify
the test method used for each compliance measurement as part of the
applicable record keeping and reporting. The following section contains
a discussion of our proposal.
We believe that the proposed approach to performance-based
qualification of test methods goes considerably beyond the minimum
requirements of the NTTAA in providing flexibility of method choice,
and accomplish performance-based qualification without compromising
measurement quality. We also believe that the primary tools for
achieving the latter objective are lab-specific qualification of method
installations and a requirement for across-the-board SQC. While EPA
would benefit from finalizing today's proposal by no longer having to
evaluate new alternative measurement methodologies, this benefit is not
likely to offset the substantial and unpredictable resource costs
involved in administering a qualification process and providing
infrastructural support for laboratories' SQC programs.
i. Agency Approval of Only Non-VCSB Methods
We are proposing that only non-VCSB test methods for fuel
parameters would need to be qualified. We are proposing to exclude
designated test methods that have been in operation 6 months prior to
finalizing this rule, as discussed below, as well as test methods that
are developed by VCSBs, like ASTM International or the International
Organization for Standards (ISO). A laboratory that has developed a
test method but has decided not to offer it for evaluation and
establishment through a VCSB-based organizational process would be
required to qualify the test methods using the process discussed
earlier.\457\ We are proposing that such test methods must be qualified
independently by each analytical laboratory that wishes to adopt the
test method. This is because such a test method has not been shown to
be capable of accurately measuring the parameter in different
laboratories and across a variety of fuel matrices. The precision for
the candidate analytical test method must be established by a medium-
term series of measurements on production fuels, the workability of the
test method must be verified by at least one other laboratory, and its
accuracy must be demonstrated by direct correlation to the designated
analytical test method for the particular fuel parameter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\457\ Reasons for not submitting a local method for VCSB
evaluation may include the proprietary nature of software or
apparatus or the fact that the method is highly matrix-sensitive and
not likely to perform consistently when used to analyze fuels with
widely varying properties. EPA recognizes that matrix sensitivities
may be subtle and methods with such characteristics may have been
sponsored and published by VCSB's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing the following requirements for test methods that
have been sponsored and published by a VCSB such as ASTM or ISO. The
test method must be fully described so that it is replicable in many
different laboratories and so that its operation may be understood by a
technician. The VCSB must have tested the candidate test method in a
round robin program against the designated test method, must have
published a determination that the
[[Page 29965]]
test method meets the performance criteria as discussed, and must have
published the information necessary to correlate the alternative test
method to the designated test method.\458\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\458\ This first approach assumes that a single such equation
can be used for all labs using the method, an assumption that may
not always hold. The more detailed discussion of the two approaches
that follows this introduction explores this problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing a system of self-qualification for VCSB-based
alternative test methods. Thus, we are also proposing that a VCSB-based
candidate alternative test method need not be qualified separately in
each laboratory that adopts it. This is because by the time a VCSB-
based candidate alternative test method has been through the extensive
development process typically required by a VCSB, the test method's
procedures will have been exhaustively described. At this point there
will be little uncertainty about how the analytical test method is to
be applied, and it will have been implemented in a variety of different
laboratories and used on a variety of different types of fuels.
Therefore, the VCSB-based process gives EPA some confidence that the
analytical test method is likely to be stable in use and can be
implemented with very little ambiguity regarding instrumentation,
materials, and procedures.
VCSB method evaluation protocols have been established, including a
recently developed protocol for comparing methods, which provide means
for establishing a proposed VCSB alternative method's precision parity
with the designated method for the parameter \459\ and for determining
whether the alternative test method can be adequately correlated with
the designated test method.\460\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\459\ ASTM D 6708-08, entitled, Standard Practice for
Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between
Two Test Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a
Material.
\460\ ASTM D 6708-08, entitled, Standard Practice for
Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between
Two Test Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a
Material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also recognize that imposing this qualification requirement on
existing test methods developed by a VCSB without adequate lead time
may be problematic. We are thus proposing to give methods published and
in operation when this proposal is published a grace period of one year
from the effective date of a final rule before they meet these proposed
requirements.
We are also proposing to exempt existing (i.e., in use for six
months prior to publication of this proposal) installations of
designated test methods that are method-defined parameters from the
qualification requirement. We presume these to be stable and capable
methods in relatively experienced hands. Because they are already being
used to certify fuels, requiring their qualification could be
disruptive and burdensome to both their operators and to whoever
manages the qualification process. Such installations would not benefit
tangibly from this rule (as by obtaining access to a desired new
method), but would nevertheless bear a newly-imposed burden.
We are also proposing to require record keeping and retention
requirements for both VCSB alternative and non-VCSB test methods.
Parties would need to maintain qualification records for demonstrating
compliance for a period of 5 years after they cease use of the
particular test method. Parties must also maintain a complete
description of the test method and data with statistical analysis that
supports its qualification.
We are also seeking comment on whether the Agency should require
qualification of all analytical test methods for the fuel parameters at
40 CFR 80. This would include each designated test method, all
alternative test methods currently allowed by our regulations, as well
as any other analytical test method regardless of whether the test
method was developed by a voluntary consensus standards based
organization, like ASTM, or if it is a proprietary analytical test
method, that is, non-VCSB test method.
We recognize that imposing the qualification requirement on
existing and operational installations of all methods without adequate
lead time may be problematic. We are thus proposing to give such
laboratories (i.e., those in operation when this proposal is published)
a grace period of one year from the effective date of the final rule
before they must have qualified if they wish to continue in operation.
We believe that a year should be enough time to determine whether an
existing test method is likely to qualify or to adopt and qualify a
replacement test method if it should fall short. New installations of
previously accepted methods, including alternatives, would be required
to qualify their laboratory before being put into service just like all
other installations of new test methods in a laboratory.
4. Downstream Pentane Blending
The current regulations at 40 CFR 80.82 reduce the burden of
compliance with EPA gasoline quality requirements for parties that
blend butane into conventional gasoline, reformulated gasoline (RFG),
or reformulated blendstock for oxygenate blending (RBOB) downstream of
a crude oil refinery. Parties that conduct such butane blending are
considered a refiner, however, they are not subject to sampling testing
requirements that would otherwise apply to a refiner provided they use
butane of known quality and meet certain other requirements. Butane
blending is not allowed into RFG or RBOB from April 1 through September
30 or into any RFG or RBOB that is designated as VOC-controlled. Butane
blenders must test to ensure that the volatility requirements of the
final gasoline blend are met. Testing to demonstrate compliance with
other gasoline compositional requirements is not required provided that
the blender has documents from the supplier demonstrating the butane is
``commercial grade.'' Commercial grade butane is currently defined as
butane for which test results demonstrate that it is 95 percent pure
and has the following properties: sulfur <= 30 ppm, benzene <= 0.03
volume percent, olefins <= 1.0 volume percent, and aromatics <= 2.0
volume percent. Documents from the supplier demonstrating the butane is
``non-commercial grade'' may also be used to demonstrate compliance
with gasoline quality requirements other than volatility provided the
blender conducts a quality assurance program on the butane they blend.
Non-commercial grade butane is currently defined as follows: sulfur <=
30 ppm, benzene <= 0.03 volume percent, olefins <= 10.0 volume percent,
and aromatics <= 2.0 volume percent. Today's action is proposing to
amend these butane specifications to replace the current 30 ppm sulfur
cap with a 10 ppm cap consistent with today's proposed 10 ppm refinery
average sulfur standard.
Butane blenders stated that broadening the downstream butane
blending provisions to include pentane would help to increase the
domestic supply of gasoline by providing a market for the pentane
fraction of natural gasoline liquids. A substantial increase in the
production of natural gasoline liquids is occurring as a by-product of
increased domestic natural gas and crude oil production in the U.S.
Given the lower volatility of pentane compared to butane, a greater
volume of such domestically-available feedstocks could be blended into
gasoline downstream of the refinery while still maintaining the
gasoline quality specifications including RVP. We request comment on
whether the provisions for butane blending might also be applied to
pentane blending,
[[Page 29966]]
including the specifications for the fuel qualities noted above.
Specific comment is requested on the potential vehicle emissions and
operability effects from such pentane blending. To the extent that
pentane blending might displace butane blending, there may be some
decrease in evaporative emissions due to pentane's lower boiling point
compared to butane. Therefore, we anticipate that allowing downstream
blending of pentane would have a neutral or marginally beneficial
effect on vehicle emissions. If we were to extend the downstream butane
blending provisions to pentane, we also seek comment on whether any
additional pentane quality specifications or blending requirements
would be necessary to protect vehicle emissions and operability
performance.
B. Engine, Vehicle and Equipment Programs
We are proposing several technical amendments to existing
regulatory requirements for motor vehicles and other types of vehicles
and engines. These changes are intended to align with the Tier 3
standards proposed in this rule and to make various adjustments and
corrections to the regulations. We are also proposing to remove large
portions of obsolete regulatory text and update cross references
accordingly. We request comment on all these amendments. However, we
are not requesting comment on the underlying regulatory requirements
except as specifically described in this section.
1. Fuel Economy Labeling
EPA adopted updated fuel economy labeling requirements in 40 CFR
part 600 on July 6, 2011.\461\ The label displays a smog rating based
on relative emission rates for certified vehicles. With new Tier 3
standards, this rating scale becomes less useful, since the Tier 3
standards would disallow certification to half of the existing smog
ratings. We are therefore proposing a new smog rating scale starting in
model year 2018. Manufacturers choosing to transition to the Tier 3
NMOG+NOX standards based on a percentage phase-in could
continue to meet Tier 2 standards for the ``phase-out'' fraction of the
fleet through model year 2020, but would use a new smog rating scale
that lines up, to the extent possible, the Tier 2 standards with the
new Tier 3 scale. We believe it is appropriate to shift to the new
scale in model year 2018 to reflect the start of Tier 3 program for the
majority of vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\461\ 76 FR 39478 (July 6, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The smog rating scale ranges from 1 to 10. The federal Tier 3
program comprises seven different NMOG+NOX emission
certification levels. In addition, the California ZEV program for 2018
and later model years includes a unique TZEV category, which falls
between a ZEV (Bin 0) and a SULEV20 (Bin 20), resulting in a total of
eight emission standards.\462\ We propose to omit rankings 2 and 4,
ranking the eight emission levels in order over the remaining ratings.
Omitting ratings 2 and 4 helps convey the larger absolute differences
in the g/mile standards between Bins 70 and 125 and Bins 125 and 160.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\462\ http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/zev2012/fro2rev.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also propose to adjust the scale again in model year 2025 so
that, consistent with the fuel economy and greenhouse gas rating, the
middle of the scale (a smog rating of 5 or 6) is equivalent to the
fleet average standard of 0.030 g/mile for NMOG+NOX. Using
this approach, we would apply a smog rating of 8 for TZEVs and omit 9
from the smog ratings. We request comment on applying smog ratings to
TZEV vehicles; in particular, we request comment on any appropriate
differentiation of TZEV vehicles, such as assigning different smog
ratings based on the particular SULEV exhaust emission standards or the
allowance value for different all-electric range values.
We request comment on these and other alternative approaches to
revising the specifications for the smog rating on the fuel economy
label. We also request comment on whether one or more transition rating
scales would be appropriate to gradually adjust the smog rating scale
as the fleet average standards become more stringent.
2. Removing Obsolete Regulatory Text
EPA regulations for highway and nonroad engines, vehicles, and
equipment in many cases apply for a range of model years before being
replaced by a new set of standards, requirements, and other provisions
for implementing a program that changes to reflect technological
innovation, changing environmental needs, new business dynamics, and
other factors.
We are proposing to take steps in this rulemaking to remove
substantial portions of regulatory text that no longer have any
regulatory significance, generally because they have been superseded by
newer provisions. In many cases, this simply involves removing
paragraphs or sections related to certifying products that no longer
apply to 2004 or newer model years. In other cases, we can remove whole
subparts that apply only to engines and vehicles that have reached the
end of their useful lives for the purpose of regulation. For example,
the in-use regulations from 40 CFR part 86, subpart H, applied only for
1993 through 2003 model year light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks,
and medium-duty passenger vehicles. Also, the National LEV standards in
40 CFR part 86, subpart R (and in Appendix XIII through XVIII of part
86), applied only for 1999 through 2003 model years. These subparts,
and references to that content, can be removed from the CFR.
Similarly, the provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, applied to
light-duty vehicles only through model year 2000 for light-duty
vehicles and model year 2004 for light-duty trucks and chassis-
certified heavy-duty vehicles. Much of that subpart continues to apply
for heavy-duty engines, so the obsolete portions must be removed more
selectively. The proposal includes removal of substantial portions of
40 CFR part 86, subpart A, to omit text that applies only for light-
duty vehicles or light-duty trucks, and additional portions that do not
apply for any 2004 or newer model years.
There are also instances where we are proposing to streamline the
organization of regulatory sections in 40 CFR part 86. For those places
where there is a new section for a given model year where all the old
provisions continue to apply, and the new section introduces a narrow
additional provision, we are proposing to copy the new paragraph into
the section for the older model-year provisions, with descriptive
language in place to say when the new provision applies. This
consolidation would allow us to take out numerous sections that can
lead to confusion for the reader.
The following sections describe additional changes to remove
material.
a. Certification Short Test and I/M Provisions
Inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs have been implemented by
state and local governments for many years. These programs have been
effective at identifying vehicles that need some kind of repair to
restore vehicles' emission control systems. In that context, they have
also provided useful information to facilitate warranty coverage where
defective components or systems were still covered by the
manufacturer's warranty, as required by section 207 of the Clean Air
Act. In 1993, EPA adopted a requirement for
[[Page 29967]]
the certification short test (``CST'' or ``cert short test'').\463\ The
purpose of the cert short test was to correlate the vehicle
manufacturer's certification and I/M testing. Under this approach, the
vehicle manufacturer certifies that a properly maintained and operated
vehicle will pass I/M testing. When such a vehicle fails I/M during the
warranty period, the manufacturer is responsible for the cost of
repairs necessary to correct the problem so the vehicle can pass the I/
M test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\463\ 58 FR 58382 (November 1, 1993)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA adopted requirements in 1993 for manufacturers to design and
build their vehicles with OBD, which provides performance feedback for
evaluating whether emission control systems are functioning properly.
This rule, combined with fleet turnover, has resulted in vehicles
subject to I/M being equipped with OBD. The standard protocol for I/M
programs now depends on the OBD system instead of tailpipe tests to
determine which vehicles need maintenance. Since vehicle manufacturers
have to certify the performance of OBD systems as part of the
certification process, the use of OBD for I/M testing also provides a
basis for determining that emission repairs are covered by the
manufacturer's warranty, when necessary. For many years, manufacturers
have submitted a compliance statement for certification instead of
submitting data to demonstrate that they meet the standards associated
with the cert short test. Since emission measurements are no longer
part of any standardized I/M testing, it has become clear that OBD
systems have completely replaced the cert short test as the means of
making warranty determinations for I/M testing. We are therefore
proposing in this rule to entirely remove the cert short test standards
and test procedures from 40 CFR part 86, subparts O and S, and to
similarly remove the emission measurement procedures from 40 CFR part
85, subpart W.
The remaining regulatory text in 40 CFR part 85, subpart W, relates
only to the role of OBD testing in the determination of manufacturers'
warranty obligations resulting from I/M testing. In addition to
removing material that no longer applies based on model years, we are
proposing to update this remaining text in two ways. First, we are
expanding the scope to include medium-duty passenger vehicles since
these vehicles are now subject to both OBD certification requirements
and I/M testing. Second, we are replacing all citations to SAE
reference procedures with a cross-reference to 40 CFR 86.1806, where we
already specify all the relevant OBD reference procedures. This avoids
the possibility of changing the certification procedures in a way that
departs from the I/M and warranty provisions. Since these programs are
paired, there would never be a need to specify different reference
procedures for the two programs.
b. Testing for Heavy-Duty Highway Engines
We recently completed the migration of test procedures for heavy-
duty highway engines from 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, to 40 CFR part
1065. Now that these manufacturers are all relying the new test
procedures, we are proposing to eliminate the regulatory provisions
that no longer apply. This involves large portions of text in 40 CFR
part 86, subpart N, that have been superseded by analogous material in
40 CFR part 1065, such as analyzer specifications, calibration
procedures, calculation methods, and fuel specifications. The obsolete
text also included several references to 40 CFR part 86, subpart D,
which we are also proposing to no longer print in the CFR.
We are keeping regulatory provisions in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N,
that serve as the ``standard-setting part'' for matters related to
testing, such as the duty cycles and not-to-exceed test procedures.
These provisions are unique to heavy-duty highway engines and are
therefore not suitable for the general test specifications in 40 CFR
part 1065.
In the case of testing in-use engines that were originally
certified using the procedures in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, we are
including a regulatory provision that would allow EPA and manufacturers
to continue to use the original certification procedures as a pre-
approved alternate procedure.
c. Testing for Heavy-Duty Highway Vehicles
The regulations at 40 CFR part 85, subpart M, describe how to test
heavy-duty vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR to demonstrate compliance
with evaporative emission standards. Most of these provisions are
identical to those that apply under 40 CFR part 86, subpart B. This can
better be accomplished with appropriate references to the procedures in
subpart B instead of repeating text. Relying on references to subpart B
would eliminate many pages of unnecessary printing, but it would also
make it easier for us to maintain a consistent set of requirements.
Changing a provision in subpart B would automatically apply for
evaporative testing of heavy-duty vehicles without making that
duplicate change in subpart M. In addition, as noted in Section IV.C,
we are proposing to allow manufacturers of these vehicles to rely on an
engineering analysis instead of performing new tests. This would
further reduce the need to have separate requirements spelled out for
these vehicles. The revised regulations preserve provisions that are
specific to heavy-duty vehicle testing. In particular, the heavy-duty
procedure involves testing with a different driving schedule and wider
speed tolerances, testing does not involve ethanol-blended test fuel,
and exhaust emissions are not measured during the drive preceding the
two-day diurnal emission test.
In some cases, the current regulations in subparts B and M include
differences in test provisions that we are not preserving. Some of
these differences arose from changes to subpart B that were
inadvertently not carried over to subpart M. In other cases, there may
have been an intentional distinction that no longer applies (such as
provisions related to slippage on twin-roll dynamometers. Perhaps the
most important of these include procedures for determining road load
settings and for operating manual or automatic transmissions.
Additional differences we are not preserving include gas divider
specifications, SHED and dynamometer calibration procedures, and some
provisions for alternative canister loading and vehicle
preconditioning. We are also restoring paragraphs Sec. 86.1235(b)
through (i) related to dynamometer operating procedures, which were
inadvertently removed in an earlier rulemaking. This leaner approach
for vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR is also consistent with our proposed
change to waive evaporative testing requirements for certifying these
vehicles.
d. Service Information Requirements for Light-Duty Vehicles
The service information regulations were originally adopted for
light-duty motor vehicles 40 CFR 86.038-96. These requirements applied
for 1996 and later model year vehicles. Starting with the 2001 model
year, these same requirements were copied into Sec. 86.1808-01. These
two sets of requirements are identical except for the model year
applicability and a variety of very minor stylistic differences. We are
proposing to revise the service information regulations in Sec.
86.1808-01 to apply also to 1996 through 2000 model year vehicles, and
to correct several typographical and formatting errors. These changes
should have no practical significance, since the
[[Page 29968]]
requirements are the same in both regulatory sections.
3. Motorcycle Driving Schedules
The CFR includes two separate driving schedules for motorcycles.
The first, for motorcycles at or above 170 cubic centimeters (cc), is
identical to that used for light-duty vehicles except that the speeds
are converted to kilometers per hour. The second driving schedule, for
smaller motorcycles, is also identical except for a period of about
three minutes of reduced-speed operation. To simplify this arrangement,
and to make room for the new LA-92 driving schedule described in
Section IV.B for heavy-duty vehicles, and also to allow for reference
to m/s values as described above for light-duty vehicles, we are
proposing to eliminate the identical portions of these drive schedules.
This revised approach involves referencing the driving schedule for
light-duty vehicles with instructions to convert to kilometers per hour
and round the resulting speeds to the nearest 0.1 kilometers per hour,
instead of repeating the driving schedule just to publish the same
speed trace in different units. The unique portion of the driving
schedule is laid out, with reference to the light-duty driving schedule
for the portions that are unchanged. This is not intended to cause any
change in the current requirements or practices for certifying
motorcycles.
4. Updating Reference Procedures
The regulations in 40 CFR part 1065 depend on a large number of
reference procedures and technical standards from ASTM, SAE
International, and ISO, among others. These reference procedures and
technical standards are updated periodically to keep them current with
ongoing developments in the field. Many times these changes include
only minor corrections or clarifications. In other cases the updates
incorporate new test methods, accommodate changing engine technologies,
or other more substantive changes. Whether the updated reference
documents involve major changes or not, it is important for the
regulations to rely on documents that are readily available. Toward
that end, we plan to update Sec. 1065.1010 with the latest versions of
all the reference procedures and technical standards that we identify.
In areas of the regulations other than part 1065, we intend to rely
on the latest reference documents where we are changing or adding a
provision that depends on one of these reference documents, but we do
not plan in this rulemaking to make broad or universal changes to these
references.
One particular area of interest relates to rounding. As described
in Section IV.F.3, we are proposing to define ``round'' for 40 CFR part
86 to have the meaning we give in 40 CFR 1065.20, which spells out a
detailed rounding protocol that is consistent with ASTM E29 and NIST
SP811. The proposed definition of ``round'' will defer to existing
references in part 86 so that the part 1065 protocol will apply only
where we do not specifically refer to ASTM E29. This is not intended to
change the policy for calculating or reporting numerical quantities,
but rather to clarify the protocol and avoid the administrative
complication of referencing multiple versions of the ASTM document.
VII. What are the cost impacts of the proposed rule?
We have estimated the costs for both the proposed vehicle standards
described in Section IV and the proposed fuel standards described in
Section V. This section summarizes these costs, while further
information on the methodology we used to develop these costs can be
found in Chapters 2 and 5 of the draft RIA.
Section VII.C provides a summary of total costs for the proposed
vehicle and fuel programs together. We have also compared the proposed
program costs to the projected emission reductions in Section VII.D and
compared these cost-effectiveness estimates to those for other
programs. For a comparison of the program costs to the monetized health
and welfare benefits, see Section VIII.
A. Estimated Costs of the Vehicle Standards
To determine the cost for vehicles, we first determined which
technologies were most likely to be applied by vehicle manufacturers to
meet the proposed standards assuming gasoline sulfur levels were
reduced to a 10 ppm average. These technologies were then combined into
technology packages which reflected vehicle design attributes that
directly contribute to a vehicle's emissions performance. The
attributes considered included vehicle type (car or truck), number of
cylinders, engine displacement, and the type of fuel used (gasoline or
diesel). We also created separate packages for light-duty and heavy-
duty trucks and vans. In estimating both cost and technology
application, we have relied on publicly available information (such as
that developed by California), confidential information supplied by
individual manufacturers and suppliers, and the results of our own in-
house testing. The technology packages that we developed represent what
we consider to be the most likely average emissions control solution
for each vehicle type.
In general, we expect that the majority of vehicles would be able
to comply with the Tier 3 standards which we are proposing through
refinements of current emissions control components and systems. Some
vehicles may require additional emission controls, such as large trucks
with large displacement engines (in particular, LDT3s and LDT4s).
Overall, smaller, lighter-weight vehicles will require less extensive
improvements than larger vehicles and trucks. Specifically, we
anticipate a combination of technology upgrades including:
Catalyst Platinum Group Metal (PGM) Loading. Increased
catalyst application of precious metals.
Optimized Close-coupled catalyst: Improvements to the
catalyst system design, structure, and packaging to reduce light-off
time.
Optimized Thermal Management: Overall thermal management
of the emissions control system to improve to shorten the time it takes
for the catalyst to light-off.
Secondary Air Injection: Increased application of
secondary air injection for some 6-cylinder and larger engines.
Engine Calibration: Engine control and calibration
modifications to improve air and fuel mixtures, particularly at cold
start and/or to control secondary air and hydrocarbon adsorbers.
Hydrocarbon Adsorber: Limited application of hydrocarbon
adsorbers to trap hydrocarbons during cold start and release the
hydrocarbons after the catalyst lights off.
Evaporative Emissions Controls: Improved evaporative
emissions systems, including canister scrubbers, more permeation-
resistant materials, and improved system integration.
As stated above, we have developed our costs with respect to a
given vehicle type and the type of engine with which it is equipped.
Although the cost of achieving the proposed Tier 3 standards will
increase with the size of the vehicle and the displacement of the
engine, we have concluded that the cost for each engine type is
independent of the type of vehicle in which it is equipped. For
example, we estimate that the cost of catalyst loading for an in-line
4-cylinder (I4) engine will be the same whether the engine is in a car
or a truck. The final cost per vehicle is the result of not only the
cost per technology, but also the application rate of that technology
for each vehicle type. For example, while
[[Page 29969]]
the $199 (2010$) cost of secondary air injection is the same for both a
6-cylinder (V6) and 8-cylinder (V8) application, we anticipate that
only 25 percent of the V6 applications will require this technology,
while 75 percent of the V8 applications will require it. Table VII-1
below shows our estimate of the cost of each of the emission control
technologies for the gasoline vehicles affected by this proposed rule.
Table VII-2 provides the anticipated application rate of the technology
by vehicle type. Note that all of the costs shown in this section are
in 2010 dollars, are applicable for the 2017 MY and are marked-up by an
Indirect Cost Multiplier (ICM) so they include both direct and indirect
costs. (For details of regarding ICMs and their application refer to
Chapter 2 of the draft RIA.)
Table VII-1--2017MY Technology Costs by Gasoline Engine Type (2010$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline Engine Type \a\
Technology ---------------------------------------------------------------
I4 V6 V8 HD \c\ V8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Loading................................ $72 $95 $119 $60
Optimized Close-coupled Catalyst................ 24 48 72 72
Optimized Thermal Management.................... 36 36 36 36
Secondary Air Injection......................... N/R \b\ 119 119 N/R
Engine Calibration.............................. 2 2 2 2
Hydrocarbon Adsorber............................ N/R N/R 201 N/R
Evaporative Emissions Controls.................. 20 20 20 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ I4--In-line 4-cylinder, V6: 6-cylinder, V8: 8-cylinder.
\b\ N/R--Not Required.
\c\ Heavy-duty.
Table VII-2--Technology Application Rates for Gasoline Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology application rate by vehicle type
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology I4 LDV V6 LDV V8 LDV I4 LDT V6 LDT V8 LDT HD V8
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Loading............................................. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Optimized Close-coupled Catalyst............................. 50 60 75 50 60 75 0
Optimized Thermal Management................................. 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Secondary Air Injection...................................... N/R 25 75 0 25 75 N/R
Engine Calibration........................................... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Hydrocarbon Adsorber......................................... N/R N/R 15 0 0 15 N/R
Evaporative Emissions Controls............................... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium Duty Passenger Vehicles (MDPVs) were included in the light-
duty fleet as part of Tier 2. Given their current certification
requirements for criteria pollutants, we have included the costs for
MDPVs to meet the Tier 3 standards with the LDT4 cost estimates. We do
not expect that the technologies required to meet the Tier 3 standards
for MDPVs will be different from those applied to LDT4s, as in many
cases identical powertrains and chassis exist between the LDT4 and MDPV
platforms.
We also expect that manufacturers will continue to build and sell
light-duty diesel vehicles and certify those vehicles to Tier 3. All
light-duty diesel vehicles currently being sold in the federal fleet
are equipped with some means of controlling NOX emissions,
either a Lean NOX Trap (LNT) or SCR system. As these systems
are already very effective in controlling NOX emissions, we
expect that they will remain the primary emissions control systems to
meet Tier 3. Similar to gasoline engines, diesel powertrains may be
required to improve the effectiveness of their emission control systems
during cold start. Therefore, we have developed our costs for diesels
with the expectation that the incremental costs will be realized to
improve LNT and SCR systems during cold start. The improvements have
been categorized as general SCR optimization, which include packaging
changes to the SCR system to allow faster light off; Optimized Thermal
Management, to reduce the thermal mass of the system and allow more of
the combustion heat to reach the SCR system sooner; and the calibration
work associated with both of these changes. Table VII-3 below describes
both the cost of the technologies as well as their anticipated
application rates.
Table VII-3--2017MYTechnology Costs and Application Rates for Diesel
Engines
[2010$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light-duty and
Diesel engine heavy-duty
Technology costs (all types) application rate
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Optimized Thermal Management.... $36 25
Engine Calibration.............. 2 100
SCR Optimization................ 60 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29970]]
Costs have also been estimated for HDVs between 8,501 and 14,000
lbs GVWR. Vehicles in this range are often referred to as Class 2b
(8,5001-10,000 lbs) and Class 3 (10,001-14,000 lbs) vehicles and are
typically full-size pickup truck and work vans. We applied the same
process to the heavy-duty vehicles as we did to the light-duty
vehicles. Heavy-duty costs and application rates may be found in Table
VII-1, Table VII-2, and Table VII-3 above.
We have also considered the impacts of manufacturer learning on the
technology cost estimates. We reflect the phenomenon of volume-based
learning curve cost reductions in our modeling using two algorithms,
depending on where in the learning cycle (i.e., on what portion of the
learning curve) we consider a technology to be: the ``steep'' portion
of the curve for newer technologies and ``flat'' portion of the curve
for more mature technologies. The observed phenomenon in the economic
literature which supports manufacturer learning cost reductions are
based on reductions in costs as production volumes increase with the
highest absolute cost reduction occurring with the first doubling of
production. For additional information on technology learning refer to
Chapter 2 of the draft RIA. Learning impacts have been considered on
all of the technologies expected to be used with the assumption that
all technologies are on the flat portion of the learning curve. We did
not consider any of the technologies to be on the steep portion of the
learning curve because none are being used for the first time in the
2017-2025 timeframe.
Finally, we have prepared our cost estimates for meeting the Tier 3
standards using a baseline of Tier 2 Bin 5 technologies for all LDVs,
LDTs, and MDPVs. The baseline fleet used for these cost estimates is
the MY 2016 light-duty fleet predicted by the 2012-2016 GHG Rule. The
2012 GHG Rule provides us with the clearest picture of what the light-
duty fleet may look like in MY 2017. Additional details on how the 2017
MY fleet (i.e., the reference case fleet for this proposal) was
developed can be found in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA. In short, the
2012-2016 GHG final rule is expected to result in considerable downsize
of engines along with turbocharging to maintain performance. Since
engines are expected to be downsized, the estimated Tier 3 costs are
impacted since smaller engines are expected to incur lower costs as
shown in Table VII-1.
Since GHG standards for the 2017-2025 fleet have just recently been
finalized, we were not able to reflect their potential impacts on the
baseline fleet in this proposal. We do not expect the MYs 2017-2025 GHG
standards will change the technologies that we project will be used to
comply with the proposed Tier 3 standards. However, some of the changes
to the vehicle fleet expected to result from the MYs 2017-2025 GHG
standards, such as a greater penetration of downsized engines, could
lower the cost of complying with Tier 3 standards. The final Tier 3
rule will include the changes to the fleet associated with the GHG
standards and the resulting impacts on cost.
The evaporative emissions standards that we are proposing for LDVs,
LDTs, MDPVs, and HDVs are feasible with relatively small cost impacts.
We estimate the cost of system improvements, including indirect cost
markups, to be about $20 (2010$) per vehicle, for all car classes. This
incremental cost reflects the cost of moving to low permeability
materials, reduced number of fuel-system connections, longer contiguous
lengths of plumbing, and low-permeation connectors. We believe that
learning is also appropriate for evaporative emissions control systems
as described above and in more detail in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA. We
request comment on this detailed analysis. In particular, we request
comment on the completeness of the list of emission control components
needed for meeting the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards,
especially regarding purge and purge-assist technologies.
We have used the individual technology costs discussed briefly here
and in more detail in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA to estimate package
costs for each of the different gasoline and diesel engine types in the
fleet (i.e., I4 passenger car, V6 passenger car, etc.). We have then
multiplied these package costs by the project sales estimates for the
years 2017 and later. The projected sales estimates used, as noted
earlier, represent the reference case fleet mix rather than today's
fleet mix. That fleet mix is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of
the draft RIA. With these total annual costs, we then determined the
sales weighted average cost increase for all passenger cars, light
trucks and heavy-duty vehicles. Table VII-4 below provides our
estimates of the incremental cost per vehicle (both light-duty and
class 2b and 3 vehicles) by model year for both tailpipe and
evaporative emissions standards. These values reflect the total direct
and indirect manufacturing costs as well as the appropriate learning
rates. As stated above, a large portion of the cost is incurred in the
initial model years due to the adoption of the LEV III declining fleet
average. Costs then continue to rise as the percentage of vehicles
complying with the proposed standards increases through the 2025 MY.
We have estimated costs consistent with the fact that manufacturers
would be required to start the phase-in of Tier 3 standards in MY 2017
for vehicles under 6,000 lbs GVWR and MY 2018 for vehicles greater than
6,000 lbs GVWR. Based on the declining fleet averages for cars and
trucks, we have apportioned our estimates for full compliance across
the phase-in years as a percentage of the final standard. Manufacturers
would be required to move from a Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average in the 2017
MY (for vehicles <6,000 lbs GVW). This results in a significant step in
stringency. As a result, a large portion of the costs are expected to
be incurred in the initial model years. It is also important to note
that while we are aligned with CARB on the individual cost of each
technology and their application rates, our costs are different from
California's LEV III costs due to the fact that the California fleet is
currently meeting slightly more stringent standards than the federal
fleet. Thus, the incremental cost for California is less. Finally,
manufacturers would have the opportunity in 2015 and 2016 MY to earn
Tier 3 credits by producing a fleet that is cleaner than the current
Tier 2 requirements. While we expect that most manufacturers would earn
credits, either by selling California vehicles as 50 state vehicles or
by certifying existing vehicles to lower Tier 2 bins, we have not
reflected these credits in our cost analysis. In that way, we believe
that our cost estimates are conservative.
Table VII-4--Per Vehicle Costs by Model Year \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$/car................................................ $78 $87 $92 $99 $103 $112 $111 $115 $118
$/truck.............................................. 0 105 114 127 136 150 151 159 165
Light-duty Combined.................................. 50 94 100 109 115 125 124 130 134
[[Page 29971]]
$/2b (Truck or Van).................................. 0 43 50 58 64 73 69 68 66
$/3 (Truck or Van)................................... 0 38 46 55 63 73 69 68 66
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Costs shown include costs for the proposed Tier 3 standards on vehicles sold in all states except California.
Total annual costs are shown below in Table VII-5. This table
includes all costs associated with the proposed Tier 3 vehicle
standards, i.e., both exhaust and evaporative emission standards, for
both light-duty vehicles and 2b and 3 heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans. Also included are facility related costs associated with the
proposed requirements to conduct more PM testing on gasoline vehicles.
(Additional detail regarding the PM facility costs are described
below.) We show the facility costs in the year 2016 even though the
program does not begin until 2017. These costs represent the
construction cost that would have to be done in advance of the first
year of the standards in preparation for the testing efforts that would
be required. The annual costs shown for each cost element are
undiscounted annual costs for the years 2016 through 2025, then 2030,
2040 and 2050. The present values shown are for the years 2012-2050 at
both the 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates. We have shown present
values in 2012 for comparison to EPA's 2012-2016 GHG final rule and the
recent MYs 2017-2025 GHG rule and to more closely estimate the costs of
the program today.
Table VII-5--Undiscounted Annual Costs & Costs of the Vehicle Program Discounted Back to 2012 at 3% and 7% Discount Rates
[Millions of 2010 Dollars] \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaust Evap Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Light- Light- Total
duty 2b/3 All duty 2b/3 All All
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016........................................................... $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22.5 $22.5
2017........................................................... 634 0 634 71.4 0 71.4 3.75 709
2018........................................................... 1,150 23.1 1,170 167 3.86 171 3.75 1,340
2019........................................................... 1,240 28.6 1,270 159 3.76 162 3.75 1,440
2020........................................................... 1,350 34.2 1,380 216 5.22 221 3.75 1,600
2021........................................................... 1,470 40.0 1,510 208 5.09 213 3.75 1,730
2022........................................................... 1,580 46.5 1,630 264 6.52 271 3.75 1,900
2023........................................................... 1,610 44.8 1,660 253 6.27 259 3.75 1,920
2024........................................................... 1,720 44.8 1,770 257 6.38 263 3.75 2,040
2025........................................................... 1,830 44.9 1,870 246 6.12 253 3.75 2,130
2030........................................................... 1,750 46.5 1,790 246 6.74 253 3.75 2,050
2040........................................................... 1,750 51.9 1,800 246 7.52 254 3.75 2,060
2050........................................................... 1,750 58.6 1,810 246 8.49 255 3.75 2,070
NPV, 3%........................................................ 29,900 814 30,700 4,250 116 4,360 89.1 35,100
NPV, 7%........................................................ 14,700 384 15,100 2,090 55.0 2,150 52.2 17,300
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Costs shown include costs for the proposed Tier 3 standards on vehicles sold in all states except California.
In addition to considering the costs associated with improving the
emission control systems on vehicles, we also expect that manufacturers
may need to improve their capability to measure PM at the levels we are
proposing. For additional information on the test procedure changes we
are proposing, reference Section IV.F.
We have used two sources of information to determine the
appropriate costs for upgrading test facilities for PM measurement. The
first was EPA's own cost to upgrade its PM measurement equipment; the
second was information provided by vehicle manufacturers. The cost
estimates ranged from $250,000 to $500,000 per PM test site.
We recognize that the number of sites that a manufacturer would
require is dependent on the number of vehicle models it expects to
develop and certify in a given model year. As stated in Section IV.A,
we have limited the number of certifications required per model year to
25 percent of the represented durability groups, thereby potentially
reducing the number of test sites that require upgrade. We believe that
manufacturers with annual sales of one million units or less would
require two facility upgrades at an average cost of $375,000. For
manufacturers with greater than one million units per year annual sales
we believe that four facility upgrades may be required to meet the Tier
3 requirements. In addition to facility upgrades some manufacturers may
require an additional employee for PM weigh room operation and/or PM
data management. Therefore we have added the cost of 1 additional full
time employee for all manufacturers. Our estimated costs for each
manufacturer are shown below in Table VII-6.
[[Page 29972]]
Table VII-6--PM Facility Costs
[2010 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of PM Total facility Additional FTE
Annual Volume Sites to be Cost per site cost (one-time, (annual, ongoing
upgraded upfront cost) cost)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=1 million........................ 2 $375,000 $750,000 1 @ $150,000 per
> 1 million........................ 4 1,500,000 year.
Total.......................... ................ ................ 22,500,000 $3,750,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ FTE--Full Time Employee.
B. Estimated Costs of the Fuel Program
1. Overview
The sulfur control program we are proposing today is expected to
result in many refiners further investing in sulfur control hardware
and changing the operations in their refineries to reduce their
gasoline sulfur levels. The proposed sulfur control program requires
refiners and importers to reduce their gasoline sulfur levels on
average down to 10 ppm. The ABT provisions being proposed along with
the 10-ppm average sulfur control standard would allow refiners that
reduce their gasoline sulfur levels below 10 ppm to earn credits and
transfer those credits to other refiners who would find it more
expensive to reduce their sulfur levels down to the average standard.
The ABT program would allow refiners to optimize their investments,
which we believe would result in achieving the average sulfur control
standard nationwide at lower costs. We are also proposing to either
maintain the current 80-ppm sulfur cap at the refinery gate, or to
lower it only as far as 50 ppm. We have modeled the impacts of the 80-
ppm cap, but believe that the results for a 50-ppm cap would be
comparable due to the limits on credits resulting from the 10-ppm
average. We estimate that the national average refinery costs incurred
to comply with the fully phased-in Tier 3 sulfur control program with
ABT program would be 0.89 cents per gallon, averaged over all gasoline.
This estimate includes the capital costs, which are amortized over the
volume of gasoline produced.
In this section we summarize the methodology used to estimate the
costs of Tier 3 sulfur control and our estimated costs for the program.
A detailed discussion of all of these analyses is found in Chapter 5 of
the draft RIA. We request comment on all aspects of the methodology
described in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA used for estimating the cost of
the program using the refinery-by-refinery cost model. In particular,
we request comment on: the methodology for estimating the sulfur
content of the FCC naphtha; how FCC naphtha sulfur levels are impacted
by both an FCC pretreater and an FCC unit; to what extent
desulfurization costs for complying with Tier 3 vary due to the sulfur
level entering the existing FCC postreaters installed for Tier 2; the
estimated level of hydrotreating of light straight run (LSR) naphtha
and natural gas liquids (NGL) occurring today; the level of
hydrotreating of LSR and NGLs expected to occur under this program and
the magnitude of permitting-related costs in comparison to the overall
project costs.
2. Methodology
a. Overview of the Sulfur Program Cost Methodology
The basic methodology we used to estimate the cost of sulfur
control for the proposed rule is similar to that for other rulemakings.
Using a refinery-by-refinery cost model that we developed for this
rulemaking, we projected the sulfur control technology expected to be
used by each refinery, and the cost of each refinery's sulfur control
step, to estimate compliance with the proposed sulfur control program.
We aggregated the individual refinery costs to develop a national
average cost estimate for the proposed sulfur control program. Based on
the flexibilities offered by the ABT program, refiners are expected to
come very close to achieving the 10-ppm sulfur standard on average.
Linear Programming Cost Model
We considered performing our cost assessments using a linear
programming (LP) cost model. LP cost models are based on a set of
complex mathematical representations of refineries which, for national
analyses, are usually conducted on a regional basis. This type of
refining cost model has been used by the government and the refining
industry for many years for estimating the cost and other implications
of changes to fuel quality.
The design of LP models lends itself to modeling situations where
every refinery in a region is expected to use the same control strategy
and/or has the same process capabilities. As we began to develop a
gasoline sulfur control program with an ABT program, it became clear
that LP modeling was not well suited for evaluating such a program.
Because refineries have different equipment, process different crude
oils and produce different products, refiners will choose different
technologies and run those technologies differently for controlling
gasoline sulfur. In addition, because of the flexibility afforded by
the nationwide ABT program, we initiated development of a more
appropriate refinery-by-refinery cost model, as described below.
However, the LP model remained important for providing many of the
inputs into the refinery-by-refinery cost model developed for this
rulemaking.
b. Refinery-by-Refinery Cost Model
In contrast to LP models, refinery-by-refinery cost models are
useful when individual refineries are expected to respond to program
requirements in different ways and/or have significantly different
process capabilities. Furthermore, as is the case with sulfur control,
such approaches are possible when the refinery changes required are
primarily ``add on'' not impacting the fundamental operation at the
refinery. Thus, in the case of modeling potential gasoline sulfur
control programs, we needed a model that could accurately simulate the
variety of decisions refiners will make at different refineries,
especially in the context of a nationwide ABT program. For this and
other related reasons, we developed a refinery-by-refinery cost model,
built off the model developed for the MSAT2 rulemaking by Mathpro,
specifically to evaluate the costs and other impacts of the proposed
sulfur control program.
Our refinery-by-refinery sulfur cost model incorporates the
capacities of all the major units in each refinery in the country, as
reported by the Energy Information Administration and in the Oil and
Gas Journal. Regarding operational information, we know less about how
specific refineries use the various units to produce gasoline and about
such factors as octane and hydrogen costs for individual refineries.
[[Page 29973]]
We used previous LP modeling work as the basis for estimating these
factors on a regional basis, and we applied the average regional result
to each refinery in that region (Petroleum Administration for Defense
District; PADD). We compared the gasoline volumes estimated by the
model for each individual refinery to the 2009 gasoline volumes from
the RFG data base, which was the most recent year for which data was
available, and we were satisfied with the model's volumetric
estimates.\464\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\464\ Our refinery-by-refinery analysis is better able to model
the impacts of gasoline sulfur control than the refinery LP, yet, it
is still limited by the lack of specific information on each
refinery. Despite our commitment to accurately model the baseline
operations of each refinery, we recognize that without detailed
refinery-specific operations information at our disposal, actual
individual refinery changes will vary from our predictions.
Particular refineries may choose a different sulfur control path
than that estimated by our analysis for a number of reasons,
including differences in the baseline and our lack of knowledge for
investment and ABT program use preferences for each refiner. We
believe, though, that overall our refinery cost model captures the
strategies and costs for complying with the sulfur control program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refinery-by-refinery cost models have been used in the past by both
EPA and the oil industry for such programs as the MSAT2 gasoline
benzene control, highway and nonroad diesel fuel sulfur standards, and
they are a proven means for estimating the cost of compliance for fuel
control programs. While they will never precisely model and predict
individual refinery operations and impacts, they provide both a better
assessment of the overall market impacts than the LP model and of the
variation of impacts across the refineries. For this refinery-by-
refinery sulfur cost model, we conducted a peer review process, and
have received some comments on the design of our model. These comments
are contained in the peer review reports placed in the docket. We
intend on addressing the peer review comments, as well as any public
comments that we receive on our cost analysis for the proposal, when we
conduct the cost analysis for the final rule.\465\ The oil industry has
also conducted a similar analysis using a refinery-by-refinery cost
model, and we discuss the results of their analysis at the end of this
chapter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\465\ Our review of most of the suggested changes recommended by
the peer reviewers suggested that there would be little to no change
in our desulfurization cost estimate (some of the changes would
increase the estimated costs, while others would reduce the
estimated costs). Also, we anticipate making other improvements to
the cost analysis conducted for the final rule, which would
necessitate a second round of peer review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The refinery unit responsible for the greatest contribution of
sulfur to gasoline is the fluidized catalytic cracker unit (FCC). The
FCC processes a very heavy feedstock which contains high levels of
sulfur.\466\ When the FCC cracks this heavy, sour feedstock, a portion
of the sulfur in the feed to the FCC ends up in the FCC naphtha, an
important gasoline blendstock stream.\467\ Before the Tier 2 sulfur
control program was implemented, FCC naphtha contributed over 95
percent of the sulfur to a refinery's gasoline, and now that Tier 2 has
been fully implemented it still contributes roughly 80 to 90 percent
for those refineries with FCC units. To comply with the Tier 2 sulfur
control program, most refiners installed FCC naphtha hydrotreaters (FCC
postreaters) and some refiners installed FCC feed hydrotreaters (FCC
pretreater) to reduce that unit's sulfur contribution to their gasoline
pool. The technologies installed include Axxens Prime G+, Exxon-Mobil
Scanfining, CDTech's CDHydro and CDHDS, Phillips S-Zorb and UOP's ISAL
(UOP now offers a postreating technology named Selectfining). Despite
the much lower sulfur contribution to the gasoline pool by the FCC
after complying with Tier 2, the vendors which supplied sulfur control
technology for complying with Tier 2 sulfur control program have
informed us that to comply with a more stringent sulfur standard
refiners are expected to further reduce the sulfur in the FCC naphtha.
We contacted each of those technology vendors and some of them provided
information that we used to estimate the cost of lowering the sulfur in
the FCC naphtha to allow each refinery to reduce the sulfur in its
gasoline to 10 ppm. We also reviewed literature that is available on
the Web to further educate ourselves of what would be involved to
achieve a 10-ppm sulfur standard using postreating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\466\ A hydrocarbon stream which contains large amounts of
sulfur is also referred to as being sour. In general, the heavier
the hydrocarbon portion of crude oil, the higher the natural sulfur
content.
\467\ On average, the fluidized catalytic cracker supplies about
35 percent of a refiner's gasoline output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline desulfurization vendors were pessimistic that the
operations of FCC pretreaters could be adjusted to enable those
refineries which relied on those units to comply with the Tier 2 sulfur
standard to meet a 10-ppm sulfur standard. For the refineries solely
relying on FCC pretreaters to comply with Tier 2, desulfurization
vendors project that most refineries in this situation will put in
grassroots FCC postreaters to allow those refineries to comply with a
10-ppm gasoline sulfur standard. However, since adding grassroots FCC
postreaters is expensive for the amount of sulfur reduction obtained,
the ABT analysis we conducted avoided many of these types of
investments. Instead refineries with both pre- and postreaters today
are quite able to achieve further gasoline sulfur reductions less than
10 ppm at a relatively low incremental cost and selling the credits to
those refineries who would otherwise be faced with grassroots FCC
postreater investments.
In addition to addressing the sulfur in the FCC naphtha, we believe
that some refineries may need to reduce the sulfur in at least a couple
of other gasoline blendstocks to ensure that it would be able to comply
with a 10-ppm sulfur standard. One such gasoline blendstock is light
straight run (LSR) naphtha. Most refiners hydrotreat the LSR before
sending that stream to an isomerization unit and therefore that stream
is very low in sulfur. However, some refineries don't have
isomerization units and probably do not hydrotreat the LSR. If LSR is
not hydrotreated, we estimate that LSR could contain anywhere between
25 to 500 ppm sulfur. We believe that refiners that do not currently
desulfurize their LSR could do so by either feeding it to their FCC
postreater or their naphtha hydrotreater (the hydrotreater which
desulfurizes the feed to the isomerization and reformer units). Because
this stream does not contain any olefins, it is an easy stream to
hydrotreat and actually improves the hydrotreating conditions within
the FCC naphtha hydrotreater. The second stream that may have to be
hydrotreated is butane. Butane is removed from the incoming crude oil
and FCC naphtha and some of it is blended back into gasoline in the
summertime to bring the gasoline pool up to the RVP limit. However,
much of the butane is transported to storage for subsequent blending
into the wintertime gasoline pool. We estimate that butane can range
from 1 ppm to 140 ppm sulfur, but the typical sulfur level for butane
is likely around 10 ppm. Because butane can be high in sulfur, we
project that some refiners may add relatively inexpensive caustic
extraction processes which can remove the types of sulfur present in
the butane pool. However, addressing butane sulfur may only be
necessary for those refineries that are reducing their gasoline sulfur
levels down to 5 ppm to generate credits for sale to refiners seeking
to purchase credits.
The nationwide ABT program is intended to optimize sulfur reduction
by allowing each refinery to individually choose the most cost-
effective means of complying with the program. To model this
phenomenon, we first establish an estimated cost for each refinery for
reducing its gasoline
[[Page 29974]]
sulfur down to 10 ppm and to 5 ppm. Next we ranked the sulfur control
strategies for all the refineries in order from lowest to highest
sulfur control cost per gallon of gasoline and estimated the impact of
their projected sulfur control strategies on refinery sulfur levels.
The model then follows this ranking, starting with the lowest-cost
refineries, and adds refineries and their associated control
technologies one-by-one until the projected national average gasoline
sulfur level reaches 10 ppm. This modeling strategy projects the sulfur
control technology that will be used by each refinery, as well as
identifies those refineries that are expected to generate credits and
those that are expected to use credits in lieu of investing in sulfur
control. The sum of the costs of the refineries expected to invest in
further sulfur control provides the projected overall cost of the
program.
3. Summary of Costs Without ABT Program
a. Nationwide Costs of the Proposed Sulfur Control Program
We used a refinery-by-refinery cost model to estimate the costs of
the sulfur control program being proposed today. In general, the cost
model indicates that further desulfurizing the FCC naphtha will be the
most cost-effective means for achieving sulfur control. We accounted
for additional costs to refiners for desulfurizing their light straight
run naphtha, in the case where we estimate that the light straight run
naphtha is not being desulfurized today.
Based on the results of our cost analysis, we estimate that for
each refinery to get to a 10-ppm average level, (without the benefit of
trading) the proposed sulfur control program would cost 0.97 cents per
gallon when it is fully phased-in, assuming that capital investments
are amortized at a seven percent return on investment before taxes and
expressed in 2010 dollars. Refiners would be expected to make $2,527
million in capital investments to achieve this sulfur reduction.
We also estimated annual aggregate costs, including the amortized
capital costs, associated with the new fuel standard. When the 10-ppm
gasoline sulfur standard would take effect in 2017, we estimate that
the sulfur standard would cost $580 million per year.
b. Distribution of Refinery Costs
The sulfur reductions estimated by the cost model and associated
costs vary significantly refinery-by-refinery. Figure VII-1 summarizes
the estimated per-gallon costs for complying with the sulfur control
standard if no ABT program were implemented.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.003
Figure VII-1 shows that the sulfur control costs would vary from no
cost to almost 6.5 cents per gallon. Some refineries have no FCC unit
and thus, their gasoline is naturally low in sulfur and these
refineries will not reduce their gasoline sulfur levels and not incur a
sulfur control cost.
4. Summary of Costs With ABT Program
The estimated costs described in Section VII.B.3 above assume that
every individual refinery must achieve the proposed 10-ppm sulfur
standard on an annual average basis. However, as described in Section
V.A.4, we are also proposing an ABT program that is designed to ease
the overall burden on the industry while still achieving the 10-ppm
annual average sulfur standard for the nation as a whole. Under the
proposed ABT program, refineries that can reduce sulfur below 10 ppm at
a relatively low cost can generate credits which can then be obtained
by refiners for whom the cost of attaining the 10-ppm sulfur standard
would be relatively
[[Page 29975]]
high. The net effect of this credit trading would be to reduce the
overall cost of the program.
To estimate the impact that the ABT program could have on
nationwide average fuel costs, we began with the refinery-by-refinery
costs described in Section VII.B.2.b for sulfur reductions down to
either 10 ppm or 5 ppm. We then determined the lowest cost option among
three alternatives for each refinery:
1. The refinery reduces its sulfur to 10 ppm.
2. The refinery reduces its sulfur to 5 ppm and generates credits
for the increment between 10 ppm and 5 ppm.
3. The refinery does not lower sulfur, but instead relies on the
purchase of credits to comply with the 10-ppm standard.
A fourth category applied to refineries whose average gasoline
sulfur levels are already below 10 ppm (there refineries don't have FCC
units). All such refineries were assumed to generate credits for the
increment between 10 ppm and their current sulfur level.
To simplify the modeling of how an ABT program might operate, we
focused on the circumstances that refineries would face in the longer
term, specifically after 2020. This approach meant that the ABT program
modeling did not consider the impact on gasoline sulfur levels of
delayed compliance for small refiners and small volume refineries, nor
did it consider the generation and use of any early sulfur credits.
Moreover, our ABT modeling considered only gasoline sold for use
outside of California, and only gasoline produced by domestic
refineries (not importers).
To optimize the nationwide average costs under an ABT program, we
determined the credit price at which the total number of credits
generated was equal to the total number of credits consumed. For an
idealized scenario in which every refinery has the opportunity to make
credit trades with every other refinery in the nation, we determined
that more than 60 percent of refineries would be involved in either
generating or consuming credits. The nationwide average cost of
compliance with the 10-ppm sulfur standard would be reduced from 0.97
cents per gallon to 0.79 cents per gallon.
Such perfect nationwide trading, however, is not realistic. Under
Tier 2 today, a significant fraction of Tier 2 sulfur credits are
bought and sold within companies, but there is still a considerable
amount of inter-company trading occurring. Under Tier 3, it would be
more difficult to generate credits, and also more difficult to make up
for deficits, consequently, we also investigated how more limited
credit trading might affect the average cost of compliance with the 10-
ppm sulfur standard. For instance, to address unplanned equipment
downtime or other circumstances that could make future compliance more
difficult, individual companies might decide to bank credits for their
own use, declining to make credits that they generate at one of their
facilities available to other companies. To evaluate such a scenario,
we modeled a situation wherein credit trading would only occur within
companies that own more than one refinery. Of the 21 refining companies
in this position, we estimated that credit generation and use would
reduce compliance costs at six of them, with 18 refineries generating
credits and 8 consuming credits. Under this scenario, total capital
costs would be $2,203 million and the nationwide average cost of
compliance with the 10-ppm sulfur standard would be 0.89 cents per
gallon. We have chosen to utilize the costs from this intra-company
trading analysis for the proposal. However, in reality, we expect that
some inter-company credit transfers would still occur due to the
financial incentive the highest cost refineries would provide. To the
extent that some inter-company credit transfers do occur, our cost
estimates can be viewed as somewhat conservative.
A summary of the ABT results assuming nationwide credit transfers
and intra-company credit transfers (costs used in the proposal) is
shown in Table VII-7.
Table VII-7--Impacts of Nationwide ABT Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABT with intra-
company credit ABT with
No ABT transfers nationwide credit
(proposed rule transfers
costs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average fuel cost ([cent]/gal)......................... 0.97 0.89 0.79
Total capital cost ($million).......................... 2,527 2,203 1,760
Number of refineries that generate credits............. 0 18 46
Number of refineries that consume credits.............. 0 8 25
Number of refineries that neither generate nor consume 111 85 40
credits...............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost information available for this NPRM was limited to the
costs of reducing sulfur to either 10 ppm or 5 ppm, and thus we were
not able to estimate refinery-specific costs of reducing sulfur to
other levels. As a result, our ABT modeling could not account for
scenarios in which a refinery makes some capital investments to lower
sulfur to some interim level, such as 20 ppm, and then purchases
credits in order to demonstrate compliance with the 10-ppm standard.
Our ABT analysis also could not account for credit generation at sulfur
levels other than 5 ppm. Our ABT analysis, then, most likely
underestimates the cost savings that could occur due to ABT since the
greatest efficiencies are achieved when every refinery has the option
of using any combination of capital investments and credits generation
or use. For the final rule, we may investigate methods for expanding
our ABT analysis to examine these types of scenarios.
a. Distribution of Refinery Costs
The sulfur reductions estimated by the cost model and associated
costs vary significantly refinery-by-refinery. Figure VII-2 summarizes
the estimated per-gallon costs for complying with the sulfur control
standard under an ABT program with intra-company credit transfers.
[[Page 29976]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.004
While the distribution of costs shifts slightly under an ABT program
with intra-company trading in comparison to no ABT program, Figure VII-
2 shows that the sulfur control costs would continue to vary from no
cost to nearly 6.5 cents per gallon.
b. Distribution of Refinery Sulfur Levels
We estimate that 85 out of 111 refineries would meet the 10-ppm
sulfur standard without the use of credits under the intra-company
trading scenario. As a result, only about 5 percent of gasoline would
continue to have an annual average sulfur level above 10 ppm. These
refineries tend to be smaller than average. The distribution of sulfur
levels under this scenario is shown in Figure VII-3.
[[Page 29977]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.005
5. Other Cost Estimates
Three other cost studies were recently conducted to estimate the
cost of additional reduction in gasoline sulfur. All of these studies
show average costs of less than 2 cents per gallon.
One of these studies was conducted in October 2011 by the
International Council for Clean Transportation (ICCT).\468\ ICCT
retained Mathpro for this analysis. ICCT had Mathpro analyze a 10-ppm
average gasoline sulfur standard in PADDs 1-4 (generally speaking,
PADDs 1-4 represents the part of the U.S. east of, and including, the
Rocky Mountain states). The cost presented by ICCT is that complying
with a 10-ppm average sulfur standard would cost refiners on average
0.8 cents per gallon. This cost was calculated based on a before-tax 7
percent return on investment, the same capital amortization basis that
we use for our cost analysis. The cost of a 10-ppm average gasoline
sulfur control standard estimated by ICCT is very close to our cost
estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\468\ Mathpro (October 2011). Refining Economics of a National
Low Sulfur, Low RVP Gasoline Standard, Performed for The
International Council for Clean Transportation, Available at: http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT04_Tier3_Report_Final_v4_All.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
API retained Baker and O'Brien to study the cost of additional
sulfur control using a refinery-by-refinery cost approach with Baker
and O'Brien's Prism model. \469\ API studied a 10 ppm average gasoline
sulfur standard, however, API included a very stringent 20 ppm cap
standard which did not allow for an ABT program to optimize refinery
investments and minimize overall costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\469\ Baker and O'Brien, Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost
Impacts of Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline; prepared for The
American Petroleum Institute. March 2012. Available at: http://www.api.org/Newsroom/upload/110715_LowerSulfur_LowerRVP_Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
API made a series of conclusions based on the study. Perhaps the
most important conclusion is that no refinery would shut down as a
result of the proposed 10 ppm gasoline sulfur control standard, even
though API did not study the flexibilities of an ABT program and used
excessively high capital costs for a grassroots FCC postreater (see
below). API did not report average costs, but reported the marginal
costs for the cost study. Marginal costs reflect the cost of the
program to the refinery or refineries which would incur the highest
costs, assuming that the highest cost refineries would set the price
(or in this case, the price increase) of gasoline. The report concluded
that marginal costs after the imposition of a 10 ppm gasoline sulfur
program would increase the price of gasoline by 6 to 9 cents per gallon
in most markets. API did not define how its statement ``in most
markets'' would apply to the U.S. gasoline supply. API also did not
provide any justification why it assumed that the refineries that would
experience the highest desulfurization cost under Tier 3 would also be
the same refineries which sets the gasoline price in the gasoline
market today.
Although API did not provide an average gasoline desulfurization
cost in its report, we could calculate an average cost based on the
gasoline volume and total annual costs provided. The total cost
reported in the report for the 10 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard
is $2390MM/yr and the non-California gasoline volume is 7343 thousand
barrels per day. This results in an average per-gallon desulfurization
cost of $0.89/bbl or 2.12 c/gal. The difference between the average
cost and marginal cost (price increase) that API is projecting is
profit. Thus, API's analysis would suggest that the oil industry would
profit from 10 ppm low sulfur standard by roughly 4 to 7 cents per
gallon, or roughly $4 to $8 billion dollars per year as a result of
gasoline sulfur control.
The average cost of the 10 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard
[[Page 29978]]
described above was calculated using API's methodology for amortizing
capital investments. To assess the costs consistent with OMB's guidance
for our rulemakings and to allow a direct comparison between the API
cost study and our cost study, we adjusted the API costs to be on a
similar basis as our costs. We adjusted the API costs to reflect a
before-tax 7 percent return on investment (ROI) for capital invested
for the hydrotreaters and hydrogen plants instead of the after-tax 10
percent ROI used by API. This lowered the API estimated costs from 2.12
c/gal to 1.58 c/gal. API's 1.58 cents per gallon cost is still higher
than our 0.89 c/gal cost with an ABT program that assumes intercompany
trading of credits, and higher than our 0.97 c/gal for the case which
assumes no ABT program. The remaining difference between our estimated
costs and those by API are driven by API's assumptions for the capital
costs that would be incurred for adding grassroots FCC postreaters, or
revamping existing ones.
While little detail is provided by API about what hardware
comprises their desulfurization units, the inside battery limits (ISBL)
and total capital costs for the FCC postreaters and FCC pretreaters are
provided in API's report. API's FCC pretreaters capital costs are
consistent with the capital costs that we have used for this unit.
However, the FCC postreater costs used by API are much higher than what
we used and have been used in the past by others. API's capital cost
for a grassroots FCC postreater is $228 million for a 35,000 bbl/day
unit, or $6540 per/bbl per day. API's capital cost includes the outside
battery limit (OSBL) costs. In contrast, the ISBL capital cost that we
used for a grassroots FCC postreater is $1500/bbl-day for a 30,000 bbl/
day grassroots unit, which increases to $1875/bbl/day when the offsite
costs are added on. Thus, the API capital costs are about 3\1/2\ times
higher than the capital costs that we are using for a grassroots FCC
postreater. To check our capital costs, we found other capital cost
estimates to which we could compare our costs, including the capital
costs used by the National Petroleum Council when it studied the cost
of gasoline desulfurization prior to Tier 2. Compared to the average of
the rest of the capital cost estimates, the API capital cost for FCC
postreater is about four times higher. Compared to the next highest
cost estimate, which is the FCC postreater capital cost from the Jacobs
data base in the Haverly refinery cost model that we use,\470\ the API
capital costs are almost two times higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\470\ The installed capital cost for an FCC postreater from the
Jacobs data base was adjusted to current year dollars. This
estimated installed capital cost is several years old and may not
represent Jacobs current cost estimate for a FCC postreater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An important distinction must be made with respect to the severity
of desulfurization for the capital cost comparison made for complying
with Tier 2 versus Tier 3. For complying with the Tier 2 gasoline
sulfur standard (Jacobs and NPC costs), a typical refinery would have
installed an FCC postreater to desulfurize the FCC naphtha from about
800 ppm down to about 75 ppm, a 725 ppm, or a 91 percent sulfur
reduction. In the case of a grassroots postreater that would be
installed for Tier 3, the postreater would treat FCC naphtha already
low in sulfur due to the pretreater installed before the FCC unit
(these refineries are currently complying with Tier 2 using an FCC
pretreater). Thus, the new grassroots FCC postreater would only have to
reduce the FCC naphtha from 100 ppm to 25 ppm, a much smaller 75 ppm or
75 percent sulfur reduction. A grassroots FCC postreater installed for
Tier 2 would typically remove 10 times more sulfur than one installed
for Tier 3. This is important because a significant portion of the FCC
postreater capital cost is devoted to avoiding the recombination
reactions which occur when hydrogen sulfide concentrations are high and
react with the olefins contained in the FCC naphtha. Thus, a grassroots
FCC postreater installed for Tier 3 would be expected to be
significantly lower in capital cost compared to a Tier 2 FCC
postreater. When API presented the costs, they stated that their
grassroots capital costs were based on an actual installation for the
Tier 2 program. This could be one reason why the capital costs used by
API for its cost study of the Tier 3 program are so high. Another way
to assess the API capital cost for the FCC postreaters is to compare it
to the FCC pretreater cost that API is using. FCC pretreaters are much
higher pressure units and use more expensive metallurgy than FCC
postreaters and, for these two reasons, are much more expensive than
FCC postreaters on a per-barrel basis. However, API's FCC postreater
capital costs are about 50 percent more expensive than its own FCC
pretreater capital costs, which is inconsistent with the design
requirements of the units.
API's estimated range of capital cost for revamping an FCC
postreater is also higher than our range of capital cost for revamping
an FCC postreater, when assessing the revamped costs as a percentage of
the capital cost for a grassroots unit. API estimates that revamping an
FCC postreater would cost 30 to 70 percent of the capital cost for a
grassroots FCC unit. Our capital cost estimate for revamping an FCC
naphtha postreaters from 17 to 50 percent of the capital cost for a
grassroots FCC postreater, however, most of the revamps are estimated
to cost at the lower end of that range. Were we to adjust the API study
capital costs, the projected costs would fall right in line with the
other studies.
Our assessment of the API study is supported by work performed by
The Emissions Control Technology Association (ECTA) which retained
personnel within Navigant Economics. That study assessed the costs of a
10 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard and also evaluated the ICCT and
API cost studies.\471\ The authors made a number of conclusions. After
reviewing both the ICCT and API studies, the authors found that a
primary difference in estimated costs between the two studies was the
capital costs. The authors contacted vendor companies that license FCC
postreater technologies and surveyed the companies to find out what the
capital costs are for a FCC postreater. As a result of the survey, the
report authors concluded that API's capital costs were too high, and
those used in the ICCT study were about right. The authors found that
Baker and O'Brien has a history of exaggerating the economic impacts of
EPA rules, citing the costs and other impacts of its analysis of the
2007 on-highway heavy-duty proposed rulemaking. The authors concluded
that the impact of a 10 ppm gasoline sulfur standard on the average
refining cost would likely be closer to the 1 cent per gallon estimate
by the ICCT study. Furthermore, the report's authors also pointed out
that the marginal cost analysis conducted by API did not consider the
proposed averaging banking and trading (ABT) program that we were
expected to propose, which would reduce the marginal costs of the Tier
3 proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\471\ Schink, George R., Singer, Hal J., Economic Analysis of
the Implications of Implementing EPA's Tier 3 Rules, prepared for
the Emissions Control Technology Association, June 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Summary of Proposed Program Costs
While the estimated costs for the separate proposed vehicle and
proposed fuel programs are presented in Sections VII.A and VII.B,
respectively, it is useful to present the combined cost estimates
representing our full proposal. Such combined costs are also necessary
in
[[Page 29979]]
calculating the cost-effectiveness of the standards in today's proposal
as described more fully in Section VII.D below.
We have chosen to use an annual, nationwide cost format to
represent the combined vehicle and program costs because this approach
provides the most straightforward means for comparing vehicle costs to
fuel costs, and for demonstrating the total cost impact of our proposed
program. This approach to combined costs also provides a basis for
comparing the program costs to the projected benefits as described more
fully in Section VIII.
Table VII-8 below shows our estimated program costs by year.
Complete details of this analysis can be found in the draft RIA.
Table VII-8--Total Annual Vehicle and Control Costs, 2010$ \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle
Vehicle exhaust evaporative Facility costs Fuel sulfur Total proposed
Year emission control emission control ($Million) control costs program costs
costs ($Million) costs ($Million) ($Million) ($Million)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016........................................................ $0 $0 $22.5 $322 $345
2017........................................................ 634 71.4 3.75 1,289 1,998
2018........................................................ 1,170 171 3.75 1,288 2,628
2019........................................................ 1,270 162 3.75 1,285 2,725
2020........................................................ 1,380 221 3.75 1,284 2,884
2021........................................................ 1,510 213 3.75 1,287 3,017
2022........................................................ 1,630 271 3.75 1,289 3,189
2023........................................................ 1,660 259 3.75 1,288 3,208
2024........................................................ 1,770 263 3.75 1,289 3,329
2025........................................................ 1,870 253 3.75 1,291 3,421
2030........................................................ 1,790 253 3.75 1,320 3,370
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Costs shown include costs for the proposed Tier 3 standards on vehicles sold in all states except California.
D. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reduced
This section summarizes the cost per ton analysis conducted by EPA
and its results. The emission reductions used to calculate the costs
per ton reported here are consistent with those reductions presented as
part of our inventory impacts analysis as described in Section III.B.
The costs used to calculate the costs per ton are consistent with the
vehicle and fuel control costs presented in Sections VII.A and VII.B,
respectively. We have calculated the aggregate costs per ton which uses
the costs and emission reductions for calendar years 2017 and 2030,
consistent with the years that we evaluated for air quality analysis.
For more information on how the cost per ton was calculated please
refer to Section 8.2 of the draft RIA.
Note that, even though we are setting new standards for PM, we
believe that those standards would be met in complying with the
NMOG+NOX standards with additional care being given to
proper engineering/calibration, so there is no cost associated with the
new PM standard and therefore no separate cost per ton analysis for PM.
Likewise, as described more fully in Sections IV.A and IV.B, while we
are also proposing new standards for CO and formaldehyde, we are not
attributing any of the control costs to these pollutants since the
technologies employed to meet the NOX+NMOG standards would
also allow the CO and formaldehyde standards to be met.
The total program costs, the NOX+VOC reductions, and
results of our cost per ton analysis are provided in Table VII-9. The
costs of the proposed program would be higher immediately after it is
implemented than they would be after several years, since both vehicle
manufacturers and refiners can take advantage of decreasing capital and
operating costs over time. In addition, the reductions in
NOX and VOC emissions would become greater as a larger
percentage of the fleet contains the technologies required to meet the
proposed standards.
Table VII-9--Costs per Ton of Emissions Reduced in 2017 and 2030 \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total proposed
program cost Total NOX + VOC Cost effectiveness
($Million, 2010$) reductions (tons) ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017................................................ $1,999 329,162 $6,072
2030................................................ 3,367 750,818 4,484
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Costs shown include costs associated with the proposed Tier 3 vehicle and fuel in all states except
California.
VIII. What are the estimated benefits of the proposed rule?
This section presents EPA's analysis of the criteria pollutant-
related health and environmental impacts that would occur as a result
of the proposed Tier 3 standards. The vehicles and fuels subject to the
proposed standards are significant sources of mobile source air
pollution such as direct PM, NOX, SOX, VOCs and
air toxics. The standards would affect exhaust and evaporative
emissions of these pollutants from vehicles. Emissions of
NOX (a precursor to ozone formation and secondarily-formed
PM2.5), SOX (a precursor to secondarily-formed
PM2.5), VOCs (a precursor to ozone formation and, to a
lesser degree, secondarily-formed PM2.5) and directly-
emitted PM2.5 contribute to ambient concentrations of
PM2.5 and ozone. Exposure to ozone, PM2.5, and
air toxics is linked to adverse human health impacts such as premature
deaths as well as other important public health and environmental
effects.
For the proposal, we have estimated the health and environmental
impacts in 2030, representing impacts associated with a year when the
program is fully implemented and when most of the fleet is turned over.
Overall, we estimate that
[[Page 29980]]
the proposed standards would lead to a net decrease in
PM2.5- and ozone-related health impacts. The decrease in
population-weighted national average PM2.5 exposure results
in a net decrease in adverse PM-related human health impacts (the
decrease in national population-weighted annual average
PM2.5 is 0.05 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2030). The decrease in
population-weighted national average ozone exposure results in a net
decrease in ozone-related health impacts (population-weighted maximum
8-hour average ozone decreases by 0.52 ppb in 2030).\472\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\472\ Note that the national, population-weighted
PM2.5 and ozone air quality metrics presented in this
Section represent an average for the entire, gridded U.S. CMAQ
domain. These are different than the population-weighted
PM2.5 and ozone design value metrics presented in Chapter
7, which represent the average for areas with a current air quality
monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the lower end of EPA's range of preferred premature mortality
estimates (Pope et al., 2002 for PM2.5 and Bell et al., 2004
for ozone),473 474 we estimate that by 2030, implementation
of the proposed standards would reduce approximately 970 premature
mortalities annually and yield approximately $9.5 billion in total
annual benefits. The upper end of the range of avoided premature
mortality estimates associated with the proposed standards (based on
Laden et al., 2006 for PM2.5 and Levy et al., 2005 for
ozone) 475 476 results in approximately 2,800 premature
mortalities avoided in 2030 and yields approximately $27 billion in
total benefits. Thus, even using the lower end of the range of
premature mortality estimates, the health impacts of the proposed
standards presented in this rule would clearly be substantial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\473\ Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D.
Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. (2002). Lung Cancer,
Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine
Particulate Air Pollution. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 287, 1132-1141.
\474\ Bell, M.L., et al. (2004). Ozone and short-term mortality
in 95 U.S. urban communities, 1987-2000. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 292(19), 2372-2378.
\475\ Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. Dockery.
(2006). Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 173,
667-672.
\476\ Levy, J.I., S.M. Chemerynski, and J.A. Sarnat. (2005).
Ozone exposure and mortality: an empiric bayes metaregression
analysis. Epidemiology. 16(4), 458-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that of necessity decisions on the emissions and other
elements used in the air quality modeling were made early in the
analytical process for this proposal. For this reason, the Tier 3
emission control scenario used in the air quality and benefits modeling
includes emission reductions from Tier 3 across the nation, assuming no
reductions associated with California's LEV III program (as opposed to
including California's LEV III program and its associated emission
reductions in the baseline scenario). This was because EPA had not
granted California a waiver of preemption under CAA section 209 for the
LEV III program at the time EPA conducted the air quality modeling. EPA
did include California's fuel program, which independent of LEV III was
already resulting in average gasoline sulfur levels of 10 ppm, in the
baseline scenario. Since then, EPA granted a waiver for California's
LEV III program (78 FR 2112, January 9, 2013) and ten states have
adopted the LEV III program under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act.
Based on this change in circumstances, we will conduct new air quality
modeling for the final rule that will include emission reductions from
California's LEV III program, both in California and in states that by
that time have adopted the LEV III program, in the baseline scenario.
Had we modeled the California LEV III emission impacts in the Tier
3 air quality baseline, we estimate that benefits would decrease by
approximately 12-16 percent, depending on the particular health impact
functions used to characterize both PM- and ozone-related premature
mortality.\477\ As a result, we estimate that in 2030, using the lower
end of EPA's range of preferred premature mortality estimates (Pope et
al., 2002 for PM2.5 and Bell et al., 2004 for ozone), the
proposed standards would reduce approximately 820 premature mortalities
annually and yield approximately $8.0 billion in total annual benefits.
The upper end of the range of avoided premature mortality estimates
associated with the proposed standards (based on Laden et al., 2006 for
PM2.5 and Levy et al., 2005 for ozone) results in
approximately 2,400 premature mortalities avoided in 2030 and yields
approximately $23 billion in total benefits. These are rough estimates
since, without new photochemical air quality modeling to reflect the
revised baseline and control scenarios, we are unable to account for
cross-state transport of pollution into or out of California or Section
177 states. However, we believe this is a reasonable characterization
of the small reduction in benefits had we modeled the emission
reductions of the LEV III program in California and other state that
adopt the LEV III program in the baseline. We believe our overall cost-
benefit conclusions do not materially change with or without the
inclusion of emission reductions from California and in other states
that adopt the LEV III program in our analysis. We will conduct new air
quality modeling for the final rule that will include emission
reductions from the LEV III program in California, and in states that
have adopted the program, in the baseline scenario. The rest of this
section presents benefits that include emission reductions from the LEV
III program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\477\ To conduct this sensitivity analysis, we simply assumed no
air quality change in the California portion of the CMAQ domain. We
then exported the reference and control air quality surfaces to be
used as inputs to BenMAP. Note that this simple approach is unable
to account for legitimate emissions impacts related to cross-state
transport of pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Overview
We base our analysis of the program's impact on human health on
peer-reviewed studies of air quality and human health effects.\478\
\479\ These methods are described in more detail in the draft RIA that
accompanies this action. Our benefits methods are also consistent with
rulemaking analyses such as the final 2012-2016 MY Light-Duty Vehicle
Rule,\480\ the final Portland Cement National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) RIA,\481\ the final 2014-2018 MY
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Rule,\482\ and the final 2017-2025 MY Light-Duty
Vehicle
[[Page 29981]]
Rule.\483\ To model the ozone and PM air quality impacts of the
proposed standards, we used the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ)
model (see Chapter 7.2.2 of the draft RIA that accompanies this
preamble). The modeled ambient air quality data serves as an input to
the Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program version 4.0
(BenMAP).\484\ BenMAP is a computer program developed by the U.S. EPA
that integrates a number of the modeling elements used in previous
analyses (e.g., interpolation functions, population projections, health
impact functions, valuation functions, analysis and pooling methods) to
translate modeled air concentration estimates into health effects
incidence estimates and monetized benefits estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\478\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of
Air and Radiation. Retrieved March, 26, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
\479\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Final Ozone
NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis. Prepared by: Office of Air and
Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Retrieved
March, 26, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
\480\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Final
Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards: Regulatory
Impact Analysis, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-R-10-009, April 2010.
Available on the internet: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420r10009.pdf.
\481\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2010).
Regulatory Impact Analysis: National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing
Industry. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC. Augues. Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementfinalria.pdf >. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0472-0241
\482\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Final
Rulemaking to Establish Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles: Regulatory Impact Analysis, Assessment and Standards
Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-R-11-
901, August, 2011. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/documents/420r11901.pdf.
\483\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Regulatory
Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-R-12-016, August 2012.
Available on the internet: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420r12016.pdf.
\484\ Information on BenMAP, including downloads of the
software, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/benmodels.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The range of total monetized ozone- and PM-related health impacts
in 2030 is presented in Table VIII-1. We present total benefits based
on the PM- and ozone-related premature mortality function used. The
benefits ranges therefore reflect the addition of each estimate of
ozone-related premature mortality (each with its own row in Table VIII-
1) to estimates of PM-related premature mortality. The analysis of the
proposed standards reflects EPA's work to characterize benefits prior
to the most recent PM NAAQS.\485\ EPA will update its benefits
analysis, and related uncertainty analysis, to be consistent with the
final PM NAAQS for the final Tier 3 regulatory impact analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\485\ U.S. EPA (2012). National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter. http://www.epa.gov/PM/2012/finalrule.pdf.
Table VIII-1--Estimated 2030 Monetized PM- and Ozone-Related Health Benefits \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total benefits
(billions, 2010$, 3% Total benefits (billions,
Premature ozone mortality function Reference discount rate) \c\ 2010$, 7% discount rate) \c\
\d\ \d\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2030 Total Ozone and PM Benefits--PM Mortality Derived from American Cancer Society Analysis and Six-Cities
Analysis \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-city analyses............... Bell et al., 2004.... Total: $9.5-$21..... Total: $8.7-$19.
PM: $7.7-$19 PM: $7.0-$17.
Ozone: $1.8 Ozone: $1.8.
Huang et al., 2005... Total: $10-$21...... Total: $9.5-$20.
PM: $7.7-$19 PM: $7.0-$17.
Ozone: $2.6 Ozone: $2.6.
Schwartz, 2005....... Total: $10-$22...... Total: $9.6-$20.
PM: $7.7-$19 PM: $7.0-$17.
Ozone: $2.7 Ozone: $2.7.
Meta-analyses..................... Bell et al., 2005.... Total: $13-$24...... Total: $12-$23.
PM: $7.7-$19 PM: $7.0-$17.
Ozone: $5.5 Ozone: $5.5.
Ito et al., 2005..... Total: $15-$26...... Total: $15-$25.
PM: $7.7-$19 PM: $7.0-$17.
Ozone: $7.5 Ozone: $7.5.
Levy et al., 2005.... Total: $15-$27...... Total: $15-$25.
PM: $7.7-$19 PM: $7.0-$17.
Ozone: $7.7 Ozone: $7.7.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Benefits presented in this table include California emission reductions from the LEV III program. Had we
modeled the California LEV III emission impacts in the Tier 3 air quality baseline, we estimate that benefits
would decrease by approximately 12-16 percent, depending on the particular health impact functions used to
characterize both PM- and ozone-related premature mortality. We will account for emissions in states that have
adopted California's LEV III program in the baseline air quality modeling for the final rule.
\b\ Total includes premature mortality-related and morbidity-related ozone and PM[ihel2].[ihel5] benefits. Range
was developed by adding the estimate from the ozone premature mortality function to the estimate of
PM[ihel2].[ihel5]-related premature mortality derived from either the ACS study (Pope et al., 2002) or the Six-
Cities study (Laden et al., 2006).
\c\ Note that total benefits presented here do not include a number of unquantified benefits categories. A
detailed listing of unquantified health and welfare effects is provided in Table VIII-2.
\d\ Results reflect the use of both a 3 and 7 percent discount rate, as recommended by EPA's Guidelines for
Preparing Economic Analyses and OMB Circular A-4. Results are rounded to two significant digits for ease of
presentation and computation. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
The benefits in Table VIII-1 include all of the human health
impacts we are able to quantify and monetize at this time. However, the
full complement of human health and welfare effects associated with PM
and ozone remain unquantified because of current limitations in methods
and/or available data. We have not quantified a number of known or
suspected health effects linked with ozone and PM for which appropriate
health impact functions are not available or which do not provide
easily interpretable outcomes (e.g., changes in heart rate
variability). Additionally, we are unable to quantify a number of known
welfare effects, including reduced acid and particulate deposition
damage to cultural monuments and other materials, and environmental
benefits due to reductions of impacts of eutrophication in coastal
areas. These are listed in Table VIII-2. As a result, the health
benefits quantified in this section are likely underestimates of the
total benefits attributable to the proposed standards.
[[Page 29982]]
Table VIII-2--Unquantified and Non-Monetized Potential Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects not included in
Pollutant/effects analysis--changes in:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone Health a......................... Chronic respiratory damage b.
Premature aging of the lungs b.
Non-asthma respiratory
emergency room visits.
Exposure to UVb (+/-) e.
Ozone Welfare.......................... Yields for:
--commercial forests.
--some fruits and
vegetables.
--non-commercial crops.
Damage to urban ornamental
plants.
Impacts on recreational demand
from damaged forest
aesthetics.
Ecosystem functions.
Exposure to UVb (+/-) e.
PM Health c............................ Premature mortality--short term
exposures d.
Low birth weight.
Pulmonary function.
Chronic respiratory diseases
other than chronic bronchitis.
Non-asthma respiratory
emergency room visits.
Exposure to UVb (+/-) e.
PM Welfare............................. Residential and recreational
visibility in non-Class I
areas.
Soiling and materials damage.
Damage to ecosystem functions.
Exposure to UVb (+/-) e.
Nitrogen and Sulfate Deposition Welfare Commercial forests due to
acidic sulfate and nitrate
deposition.
Commercial freshwater fishing
due to acidic deposition.
Recreation in terrestrial
ecosystems due to acidic
deposition.
Existence values for currently
healthy ecosystems.
Commercial fishing,
agriculture, and forests due
to nitrogen deposition.
Recreation in estuarine
ecosystems due to nitrogen
deposition.
Ecosystem functions.
Passive fertilization.
CO Health.............................. Behavioral effects.
HC/Toxics Health f..................... Cancer (benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde).
Anemia (benzene).
Disruption of production of
blood components (benzene).
Reduction in the number of
blood platelets (benzene).
Excessive bone marrow formation
(benzene).
Depression of lymphocyte counts
(benzene).
Reproductive and developmental
effects (1,3-butadiene).
Irritation of eyes and mucus
membranes (formaldehyde).
Respiratory irritation
(formaldehyde).
Asthma attacks in asthmatics
(formaldehyde).
Asthma-like symptoms in non-
asthmatics (formaldehyde).
Irritation of the eyes, skin,
and respiratory tract
(acetaldehyde).
Upper respiratory tract
irritation and congestion
(acrolein).
HC/Toxics Welfare...................... Direct toxic effects to
animals.
Bioaccumulation in the food
chain.
Damage to ecosystem function.
Odor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The public health impact of biological responses such as increased
airway responsiveness to stimuli, inflammation in the lung, acute
inflammation and respiratory cell damage, and increased susceptibility
to respiratory infection are likely partially represented by our
quantified endpoints.
b The public health impact of effects such as chronic respiratory damage
and premature aging of the lungs may be partially represented by
quantified endpoints such as hospital admissions or premature
mortality, but a number of other related health impacts, such as
doctor visits and decreased athletic performance, remain unquantified.
c In addition to primary economic endpoints, there are a number of
biological responses that have been associated with PM health effects
including morphological changes and altered host defense mechanisms.
The public health impact of these biological responses may be partly
represented by our quantified endpoints.
d While some of the effects of short-term exposures are likely to be
captured in the estimates, there may be premature mortality due to
short-term exposure to PM not captured in the cohort studies used in
this analysis. However, the PM mortality results derived from the
expert elicitation do take into account premature mortality effects of
short term exposures.
e May result in benefits or disbenefits.
f Many of the key hydrocarbons related to this action are also hazardous
air pollutants listed in the CAA.
While there would be impacts associated with air toxic pollutant
emission changes that result from the proposed standards, we do not
attempt to monetize those impacts (Section III presents the estimated
emission reductions associated with the proposal). This is primarily
because currently available tools and methods to assess air toxics risk
from mobile sources at the national scale are not adequate for
extrapolation to incidence estimations or benefits assessment. The best
suite of tools and methods currently available for assessment at the
national scale are those used in the National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA). The EPA Science Advisory Board specifically
commented in their review of the 1996 NATA that these tools were not
yet ready for use in a
[[Page 29983]]
national-scale benefits analysis, because they did not consider the
full distribution of exposure and risk, or address sub-chronic health
effects.\486\ While EPA has since improved these tools, there remain
critical limitations for estimating incidence and assessing benefits of
reducing mobile source air toxics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\486\ Science Advisory Board. (2001). NATA--Evaluating the
National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996--an SAB Advisory.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/sab/sabrev.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the second prospective analysis of the benefits and
costs of the Clean Air Act,\487\ EPA conducted a case study analysis of
the health effects associated with reducing exposure to benzene in
Houston from implementation of the Clean Air Act. While reviewing the
draft report, EPA's Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis
concluded that ``the challenges for assessing progress in health
improvement as a result of reductions in emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) are daunting . . . due to a lack of exposure-response
functions, uncertainties in emissions inventories and background
levels, the difficulty of extrapolating risk estimates to low doses and
the challenges of tracking health progress for diseases, such as
cancer, that have long latency periods.'' \488\ EPA continues to work
to address these limitations; however, we did not have the methods and
tools available for national-scale application in time for the analysis
of the proposed standards.\489\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\487\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2011).
The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020.
Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. March. Available on the
Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf>.
\488\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--Science Advisory
Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). (2008). Benefits of Reducing Benzene Emissions
in Houston, 1990-2020. EPA-COUNCIL-08-001. July. Available at
.
\489\ In April, 2009, EPA hosted a workshop on estimating the
benefits or reducing hazardous air pollutants. This workshop built
upon the work accomplished in the June 2000 Science Advisory Board/
EPA Workshop on the Benefits of Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous
Air Pollutants, which generated thoughtful discussion on approaches
to estimating human health benefits from reductions in air toxics
exposure, but no consensus was reached on methods that could be
implemented in the near term for a broad selection of air toxics.
Please visit http://epa.gov/air/toxicair/2009workshop.html for more
information about the workshop and its associated materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Quantified Human Health Impacts
Table VIII-3 and Table VIII-4 present the core estimates of annual
PM2.5 and ozone health impacts, respectively, in the 48
contiguous U.S. states associated with the proposed standards for 2030.
For each endpoint presented in Table VIII-3 and Table VIII-4, we
provide both the mean estimate and the 90 percent confidence interval.
Using EPA's preferred estimates, based on the American Cancer
Society (ACS) and Six-Cities studies and no threshold assumption in the
model of mortality, we estimate that the proposed standards would
result in between 800 and 2,100 cases of avoided PM2.5-
related premature mortalities annually in 2030. A sensitivity analysis
was also conducted to understand the impact of alternative
concentration response functions suggested by experts in the field.
When the range of expert opinion is used, we estimate between 270 and
2,700 fewer premature mortalities in 2030 (see Table 8.8 in the RIA
that accompanies this action). For ozone-related premature mortality in
2030, we estimate a range of between 170 to 770 fewer premature
mortalities.
Table VIII-3--Estimated PM[ihel2].[ihel5]-Related Health Impacts \a\ \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2030 Annual reduction in incidence
Health effect (5th%-95th%ile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premature Mortality--Derived from
epidemiology literature: \c\
Adult, age 30+, ACS Cohort Study 800 (310-1,300)
(Pope et al., 2002)............
Adult, age 25+, Six-Cities Study 2,100 (1,100-3,000)
(Laden et al., 2006)...........
Infant, age <1 year (Woodruff et 3 (0-8)
al., 1997).....................
Chronic bronchitis (adult, age 26 560 (100-1,000)
and over)..........................
Non-fatal myocardial infarction 980 (360-1,600)
(adult, age 18 and over)...........
Hospital admissions--respiratory 160 (77-230)
(all ages) \d\.....................
Hospital admissions--cardiovascular 380 (270-440)
(adults, age >18) \e\..............
Emergency room visits for asthma 600 (350-850)
(age 18 years and younger).........
Acute bronchitis, (children, age 8- 1,300 (0-2,500)
12)................................
Lower respiratory symptoms 16,000 (7,700-24,000)
(children, age 7-14)...............
Upper respiratory symptoms 12,000 (3,800-20,000)
(asthmatic children, age 9-18).....
Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic 27,000 (3,000-74,000)
children, age 6-18)................
Work loss days...................... 100,000 (88,000-110,000)
Minor restricted activity days 600,000 (500,000-690,000)
(adults age 18-65).................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Benefits presented in this table include California emission
reductions from the LEV III program. We will account for emissions in
states that have adopted California's LEV III program in the baseline
air quality modeling for the final rule.
\b\ Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent
incidence within the 48 contiguous United States.
\c\ PM-related adult mortality based upon the American Cancer Society
(ACS) Cohort Study (Pope et al., 2002) and the Six-Cities Study (Laden
et al., 2006). Note that these are two alternative estimates of adult
mortality and should not be summed. PM-related infant mortality based
upon a study by Woodruff, Grillo, and Schoendorf, (1997).\490\
\d\ Respiratory hospital admissions for PM include admissions for
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia and asthma.
\e\ Cardiovascular hospital admissions for PM include total
cardiovascular and subcategories for ischemic heart disease,
dysrhythmias, and heart failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\490\ Woodruff, T.J., J. Grillo, and K.C. Schoendorf. (1997).
The Relationship Between Selected Causes of Postneonatal Infant
Mortality and Particulate Air Pollution in the United States.
Environmental Health Perspectives 105(6):608-612.
[[Page 29984]]
Table VIII-4--Estimated Ozone-Related Health Impacts \a\ \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2030 Annual reduction in incidence
Health effect (5th%-95th%ile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premature Mortality, All ages \c\
Multi-City Analyses:
Bell et al. (2004)--Non- 170 (73-260)
accidental.....................
Huang et al. (2005)-- 250 (120-380)
Cardiopulmonary................
Schwartz (2005)--Non-accidental. 260 (110-410)
Meta-analyses:
Bell et al. (2005)--All cause... 540 (300-780)
Ito et al. (2005)--Non- 750 (500-1,000)
accidental.....................
Levy et al. (2005)--All cause... 770 (560-970)
Hospital admissions--respiratory 1,200 (160-2,200)
causes (adult, 65 and older) \d\...
Hospital admissions--respiratory 550 (290-810)
causes (children, under 2).........
Emergency room visit for asthma (all 580 (0-1,500)
ages)..............................
Minor restricted activity days 970,000 (490,000-1,500,000)
(adults, age 18-65)................
School absence days................. 350,000 (150,000-490,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Benefits presented in this table include California emission
reductions from the LEV III program. We will account for emissions in
states that have adopted California's LEV III program in the baseline
air quality modeling for the final rule.
\b\ Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent
incidence within the 48 contiguous U.S.
\c\ Estimates of ozone-related premature mortality are based upon
incidence estimates derived from several alternative studies: Bell et
al. (2004); Huang et al. (2005); Schwartz (2005); Bell et al. (2005);
Ito et al. (2005); Levy et al. (2005). The estimates of ozone-related
premature mortality should therefore not be summed.
\d\ Respiratory hospital admissions for ozone include admissions for all
respiratory causes and subcategories for COPD and pneumonia.
C. Monetized Benefits
Table VIII-5 presents the estimated monetary value of changes in
the incidence of ozone and PM2.5-related health effects. All
monetized estimates are stated in 2010$. These estimates account for
growth in real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita between the
present and 2030. Our estimate of total monetized benefits in 2030 for
the program, using the ACS and Six-Cities PM mortality studies and the
range of ozone mortality assumptions, is $9.5 and $27 billion, assuming
a 3 percent discount rate, or between $8.7 and $25 billion, assuming a
7 percent discount rate. This represents the health benefits of the
Tier 3 program anticipated to occur annually when the program is fully
implemented and most of the fleet turned over.
Table VIII-5--Estimated Monetary Value of Changes in Incidence of Health
and Welfare Effects in 2030
[Millions of 2010$] \a\ \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health endpoints 2030 (5th and 95th percentile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5-Related Health Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premature Mortality--Derived from
Epidemiology Studies: c d
Adult, age 30+--ACS study (Pope
et al., 2002):
3% discount rate............ $7,200 ($920-$18,000)
7% discount rate............ $6,500 ($830--$17,000)
Adult, age 25+--Six-Cities study
(Laden et al., 2006):
3% discount rate............ $18,000 ($2,600-$45,000)
7% discount rate............ $17,000 ($2,300-$41,000)
Infant Mortality, <1 year-- $27 ($0-$100)
(Woodruff et al. 1997).........
Chronic bronchitis (adults, 26 and $310 ($25-$1,000)
over)..............................
Non-fatal acute myocardial
infarctions:
3% discount rate............... $110 ($24-$260)
7% discount rate............... $90 ($19-$210)
Hospital admissions for respiratory $2.5 ($1.2-$3.6)
causes.............................
Hospital admissions for $5.5 ($1.2-$10)
cardiovascular causes..............
Emergency room visits for asthma.... $0.24 ($0.13-$0.36)
Acute bronchitis (children, age 8- $0.61 ($0.00-$1.5)
12)................................
Lower respiratory symptoms $0.34 ($0.13-$0.63)
(children, 7-14)...................
Upper respiratory symptoms (asthma, $0.40 ($0.12-$0.89)
9-11)..............................
Asthma exacerbations................ $1.6 ($0.17-$4.4)
Work loss days...................... $16 ($14-$19)
Minor restricted-activity days $41 ($24-$59)
(MRADs)............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone-Related Health Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premature Mortality, All ages--
Derived from Multi-city analyses:
Bell et al., 2004............... $1,700 ($220-$4,200)
Huang et al., 2005.............. $2,500 ($340-$6,200)
Schwartz, 2005.................. $2,600 ($330-$6,500)
Premature Mortality, All ages--
Derived from Meta-analyses:
Bell et al., 2005............... $5,400 ($760-$13,000)
Ito et al., 2005................ $7,400 ($1,100-$18,000)
[[Page 29985]]
Levy et al., 2005............... $7,600 ($1,100-$18,000)
Hospital admissions--respiratory $32 ($4.2-$56)
causes (adult, 65 and older).......
Hospital admissions--respiratory $6.0 ($3.1-$8.9)
causes (children, under 2).........
Emergency room visit for asthma (all $0.23 ($0.0-$0.57)
ages)..............................
Minor restricted activity days $67 ($31-$110)
(adults, age 18-65)................
School absence days................. $34 ($15-$48)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Benefits presented in this table include California emission
reductions from the LEV III program. We will account for emissions in
states that have adopted California's LEV III program in the baseline
air quality modeling for the final rule.
\b\ Monetary benefits are rounded to two significant digits for ease of
presentation and computation. PM and ozone benefits are nationwide.
\c\ Monetary benefits adjusted to account for growth in real GDP per
capita between 1990 and the analysis year (2030).
\d\ Valuation assumes discounting over the SAB recommended 20 year
segmented lag structure. Results reflect the use of 3 percent and 7
percent discount rates consistent with EPA and OMB guidelines for
preparing economic analyses.
D. What are the limitations of the benefits analysis?
Every benefit-cost analysis examining the potential effects of a
change in environmental protection requirements is limited to some
extent by data gaps, limitations in model capabilities (such as
geographic coverage), and uncertainties in the underlying scientific
and economic studies used to configure the benefit and cost models.
Limitations of the scientific literature often result in the inability
to estimate quantitative changes in health and environmental effects,
such as potential decreases in premature mortality associated with
decreased exposure to carbon monoxide. Deficiencies in the economics
literature often result in the inability to assign economic values even
to those health and environmental outcomes which can be quantified.
These general uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economics
literature, which can lead to valuations that are higher or lower, are
discussed in detail in the draft RIA and its supporting references. Key
uncertainties that have a bearing on the results of the benefit-cost
analysis of the proposed standards include the following:
The exclusion of potentially significant and unquantified
benefit categories (such as health, odor, and ecological benefits of
reduction in air toxics, ozone, and PM);
Errors in measurement and projection for variables such as
population growth;
Uncertainties in the estimation of future year emissions
inventories and air quality (including future year climate
uncertainty);
Uncertainty in the estimated relationships of health and
welfare effects to changes in pollutant concentrations including the
shape of the concentration-response function, the size of the effect
estimates, and the relative toxicity of the many components of the PM
mixture;
Uncertainties in exposure estimation; and
Uncertainties associated with the effect of potential
future actions to limit emissions.
As Table VIII-5 indicates, total benefits are driven primarily by
the reduction in premature mortalities each year. Some key assumptions
underlying the premature mortality estimates include the following,
which may also contribute to uncertainty:
Inhalation of fine particles is causally associated with
premature death at concentrations near those experienced by most
Americans on a daily basis. Although biological mechanisms for this
effect have not yet been completely established, the weight of the
available epidemiological, toxicological, and experimental evidence
supports an assumption of causality. The impacts of including a
probabilistic representation of causality were explored in the expert
elicitation-based results of the PM NAAQS RIA.\491\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\491\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of
Air and Radiation. Retrieved March, 26, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All fine particles, regardless of their chemical
composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality. This is
an important assumption, because PM produced via transported precursors
emitted from vehicle engines may differ significantly from PM
precursors released from electric generating units and other industrial
sources. However, no clear scientific grounds exist for supporting
differential effects estimates by particle type.
The C-R function for fine particles is approximately
linear within the range of ambient concentrations under consideration.
Thus, the estimates include health benefits from reducing fine
particles in areas with varied concentrations of PM, including both
regions that may be in attainment with PM2.5 standards and
those that are at risk of not meeting the standards.
There is uncertainty in the magnitude of the association
between ozone and premature mortality. The range of ozone benefits
associated with the coordinated strategy is estimated based on the risk
of several sources of ozone-related mortality effect estimates. In a
report on the estimation of ozone-related premature mortality published
by the National Research Council, a panel of experts and reviewers
concluded that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to
contribute to premature deaths and that ozone-related mortality should
be included in estimates of the health benefits of reducing ozone
exposure.\492\ EPA has requested advice from the National Academy of
Sciences on how best to quantify uncertainty in the relationship
between ozone exposure and premature mortality in the context of
quantifying benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\492\ National Research Council (NRC), (2008). Estimating
Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling
Ozone Air Pollution. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the uncertainties described above, we believe this analysis
provides a conservative estimate of the estimated criteria pollutant-
related health and environmental benefits of the standards in future
years because of the exclusion of potentially significant benefit
categories that are not quantifiable at this time. Acknowledging
benefits omissions and uncertainties, we present a best estimate of the
total benefits based on our interpretation of the best available
scientific literature and methods supported by EPA's technical peer
review panel, the Science Advisory
[[Page 29986]]
Board's Health Effects Subcommittee (SAB-HES). The National Academies
of Science (NRC, 2002) has also reviewed EPA's methodology for
analyzing the health benefits of measures taken to reduce air
pollution. EPA addressed many of these comments in the analysis of the
final PM NAAQS.493 494 This analysis incorporates this work
to the extent possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\493\ National Research Council (NRC). (2002). Estimating the
Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations. The
National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
\494\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of
Air and Radiation. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Illustrative Analysis of Monetized Impacts Associated With the
Proposal in 2017
For illustrative purposes, this section presents the total
estimated monetized benefits associated with the proposed standards in
2017. As presented in Section III.B, the emissions impacts of the
proposed standards in 2017 are primarily due to the effects of sulfur
on the existing (pre-Tier 3) fleet. For reasons explained in Chapter
7.1.3.2.2 of the draft RIA, our analysis of the air quality impacts in
2017 reflects an increase in direct PM emissions from vehicles (along
with reductions in NOX, VOCs and other pollutants). This
emissions increase results from a series of conservative assumptions
and uncertainties related to fuel parameters in 2017, and is not
expected to occur in reality. Because our air quality modeling assumes
this increase, as well as increased direct PM emissions due to an
emissions processing error (see Chapter 7.2.1.1.2 of the draft RIA),
our illustrative benefits analysis in 2017 overestimates ambient
concentrations of PM2.5 and underestimates the benefits of
the proposed Tier 3 standards.
Table VIII-6 presents total aggregate monetized benefits of the
program in 2017, which includes the modeled direct PM increase
described above. Monetized estimates are presented in 2010$. Our
estimate of total monetized benefits associated with the proposed
standards in 2017, using the ACS and Six-Cities PM mortality studies
and the range of ozone mortality assumptions, is between $1.0 and $3.4
billion, assuming a 3 percent discount rate, or between $1.0 and $3.3
billion, assuming a 7 percent discount rate. Had our ambient air
quality modeling of PM2.5 not included the increase in
direct PM emissions, we estimate that benefits would increase by a
range of $400 to $970 million (assuming a 3 percent discount rate) or
increase by a range of $360 to $880 million (assuming a 7 percent
discount rate), using current EPA benefit-per-ton estimates for direct
PM.\495\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\495\ The PM2.5-related benefit-per-ton estimates
provide the total monetized human health benefits (the sum of
premature mortality and premature morbidity) of reducing one ton of
directly emitted PM2.5. The benefit per-ton technique has
been used in previous analyses, including the 2012-2016 Light-Duty
Greenhouse Gas Rule (U.S. EPA, 2010. Regulatory Impact Analysis,
Final Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards.
Office of Transportation and Air Quality. April. Available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420r10009.pdf. EPA-420-R-10-
009). The benefits-per-ton values are available at http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/benmap/bpt.html. Note that the values on the
Web site are presented in year 2006$; the values underlying the
estimates here have been adjusted to 2010$ using the CPI-U ``all''
index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a more detailed presentation of the quantified and monetized
impacts of the proposal in 2017, please refer to Chapter 8 of the RIA
that accompanies this preamble.
Table VIII-6--Total Monetized Ozone and PM-Related Benefits Associated With the Proposed Program in 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Ozone and PM Benefits (billions, 2010$)--PM mortality derived from the ACS and six-cities studies
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean total Ozone mortality Mean total
Ozone mortality function Reference benefits function Reference benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-city................... Bell et al., $1.0-$1.8 Multi-city..... Bell et al., $0.96-$1.7
2004. 2004.
Huang et al., 1.2-1.9 ............... Huang et al., 1.2-1.9
2005. 2005.
Schwartz, 2005. 1.3-2.0 ............... Schwartz, 2005. 1.2-1.9
Meta-analysis................ Bell et al., 2.1-2.8 Meta-analysis.. Bell et al., 2.0-2.7
2005. 2005.
Ito et al., 2.6-3.4 ............... Ito et al., 2.6-3.3
2005. 2005.
Levy et al., 2.7-3.4 ............... Levy et al., 2.6-3.3
2005. 2005.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Ozone and PM Benefits (billions, 2010$)--PM mortality derived from expert elicitation (lowest and highest
estimate)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean total Ozone mortality Mean total
Ozone mortality function Reference benefits function Reference benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-city................... Bell et al., $0.68-$3.8 Multi-city..... Bell et al., $0.67-$2.0
2004. 2004.
Huang et al., 0.89-2.4 ............... Huang et al., 0.87-2.2
2005. 2005.
Schwartz, 2005. 0.93-2.4 ............... Schwartz, 2005. 0.91-2.3
Meta-analysis................ Bell et al., 1.7-3.2 Meta-analysis.. Bell et al., 1.7-3.1
2005. 2005.
Ito et al., 2.3-3.8 ............... Ito et al., 2.3-3.6
2005. 2005.
Levy et al., 2.3-3.8 ............... Levy et al., 2.3-3.7
2005. 2005.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IX. Alternatives Analysis
As described throughout this preamble, we have considered a number
of regulatory alternatives in the development of this proposal,
including alternatives related to timing and stringency of the proposed
standards, as well as program design (e.g., averaging, banking, and
trading). This section summarizes the alternatives considered for both
vehicle emission and fuel standards.
A. Vehicle Emission Standards
The federal vehicle emission standards we are proposing are the
most stringent feasible considering anticipated developments in motor
vehicle emissions control technology.
[[Page 29987]]
As we considered options for these vehicle standards, one of the
important factors we considered was harmonization with the CARB LEV III
program. As a result, consideration of alternatives focused less on the
level of the per-vehicle standards themselves and more on the phase-in
schedule for the standards, which can have an important influence on
the cost of the standards. Phase-in schedules directly impact costs
depending on how they are aligned with other light-duty rules and
product design cycles. In addition, phase-in schedules can impact the
cost of available resources, specifically design, development and
testing resources within vehicle manufacturers and emission control
suppliers.
1. Shorter NMOG+NOX Standard Phase-in
We originally considered requiring full implementation of the final
NMOG+NOX final fleet average standard by MY 2022. However,
we determined that this would have disrupted the manufacturer's normal
product design cycles,\496\ and it would not have allowed manufacturers
to use a consistent product design cycle for both the Tier 3 standards
and the 2017 LD GHG standards, which reach full implementation in MY
2025. We are proposing to extend the phase-in schedule to MY 2025 in
order to allow vehicle manufacturers to better integrate the compliance
with Tier 3 into their product design cycles, as well as take advantage
of additional learning to reduce costs. We believe this implementation
schedule for the Tier 3 NMOG+NOX standards would allow us to
achieve the environmental objectives without imposing unnecessary cost
and burden on the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\496\ A light-duty vehicle product design cycle is the number of
years between major redesigns of a vehicle. Typically, major
redesigns are completed every 5 to 6 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Longer NMOG+NOX Standards Phase-In Due to Early Credits
In an effort to facilitate the step-down in fleet average
stringency in the initial model years of the Tier 3 program, we
considered allowing manufacturers to earn credits against the current
Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average and use earned early credits without any
limits for the first five years of the Tier 3 program. CARB, along with
some vehicle manufacturers, noted that if a manufacturer were to
substantially over comply with the Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average, these
early credits might not only delay achievement of the Tier 3 emission
levels, but also delay harmonization between the Tier 3 and LEV III
programs for many years. To address this potential misalignment, we are
proposing that the application of the early credits be capped starting
in MY 2018 at a manufacturer's LEV III credits adjusted by the ratio of
California and Section 177 state sales to federal sales. (See Section
IV.A.7.a for more details.) This proposed approach would balance the
need for some transition flexibility to avoid unnecessary costs, while
still ensuring expeditious harmonization with LEV III and achievement
of the environmental benefits of the Tier 3 standards.
3. Shorter PM Standards Phase-In
As we considered potential PM phase-in schedules, we gave strong
consideration to manufacturers' PM testing capabilities and product
design cycles. We considered requiring manufacturers to certify 25
percent of their fleet to the Tier 3 p.m. standards in MY 2017, ramping
up to 100 percent by MY 2020. We initially believed that this schedule
would allow manufacturers to focus engineering resources on ensuring
their new products meet the proposed Tier 3 standards while other
product lines, which we expect would be phased out due to the 2017 LD
GHG standards, expire. However, based on further discussions with the
vehicle manufacturers, we recognized that they need time to improve and
expand their facilities to measure PM, not only for compliance
determination but also for product development work prior to
production. As a result, we are proposing a phase-in schedule for
meeting the proposed Tier 3 p.m. standards that starts with 20 percent
of the vehicles at or below 6000 lbs GVWR in MY 2017 and ramps up to
100 percent of the light-duty fleet in MY 2021. As with the
NMOG+NOX phase-in discussed above, we believe this proposed
phase-in schedule for the Tier 3 p.m. standards would allow us to
achieve the environmental objectives without imposing unnecessary cost
and burden on the industry.
4. NMOG+NOX Standards
We believe that the fleet-average NMOG+NOX standards
that we are proposing reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable considering cost and technology, assuming that gasoline
sulfur levels are reduced to the proposed 10-ppm average. We also
believe the proposed implementation schedule for the NMOG+
NOX standards is as short as practicable, as explained
above. As a result, we believe more stringent standards would not be
justified based on the information currently available to EPA.
Therefore, given our goal to harmonize our program with CARB's at the
30 mg/mi level, we did not conduct any detailed analysis of a less
stringent fleet average standard. Based on the work done to quantify
the impacts of the 30 mg/mi standard, however, we can say that a fleet-
average standard of 50 mg/mi of NMOG+NOX would result in
NMOG+NOX emissions in 2030 that are about 100,000 tons
higher than the standards we are proposing. While costs would be lower
because the emissions controls discussed in Section VII.A would be
applied at a lower rate, such a standard would also not be harmonized
with CARB LEV III standards.
5. PM Standards
The FTP PM standards that we are proposing are the most stringent
technically feasible standards within the implementation timeframe of
this proposal. Although CARB has finalized a 1 mg/mi standard which
will begin phasing in with MY 2025, they acknowledge that there is a
need for continuing PM measurement method development prior to
implementing this standard.\497\ The EPA believes that in order to
propose a federal PM standard at this level, there should be
established methods to reliably and consistently measure PM at levels
at and below that standard that would be needed for ensuring
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\497\ California Air Resources Board (CARB) Initial Statement of
Reasons, Public Hearing to Consider LEV III, December 7, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Fuel Sulfur Standards
As explained in Section V.A.2., we believe that a 10-ppm annual
average standard is sufficient to enable the vehicle fleet to meet the
proposed Tier 3 standards and appropriately balances feasibility with
costs. Other countries and California have also reduced the sulfur
content of their gasoline; California's gasoline is already meeting our
proposed 10-ppm average sulfur level, and Europe and Japan have a cap
on the sulfur content of gasoline at 10 ppm. Because vehicle emission
performance improves as sulfur is reduced, we considered imposing a 10-
ppm cap (i.e., no averaging, banking and trading), as well as lowering
gasoline sulfur content below the 10-ppm average (see Section V.A.6).
We considered expressing the standard as a cap similar to the
standard in Europe and Japan. However, by allowing averaging to meet
10-ppm, we believe that the most challenged refiners would be able to
avoid what could be
[[Page 29988]]
cost-prohibitive investments, while still meeting 10 ppm across the
fuel pool. As discussed in Section VII.B., we estimate that allowing
averaging would reduce nationwide control costs by nearly 10 percent,
and would still be sufficient to enable vehicles to meet the proposed
Tier 3 standards.
We also considered an even lower sulfur standard of 5 ppm. Based
upon the results of our test programs and associated modeling, a sulfur
standard of 5 ppm could reduce VOC+NOX emissions from the
existing fleet by an additional 80,000 tons in 2017.
However, we believe a 5 ppm standard would significantly increase
both capital and operating costs. Such a standard would require: (1)
More severe treatment of FCC gasoline; (2) more overcapacity and
storage for reprocessing of off-specification product; (3) treatment of
additional (non-FCC) gasoline blendstocks; (4) essentially all
refineries to reduce sulfur to 5 ppm, thereby eliminating much of the
benefit of the ABT provisions, and (5) controlling the contribution to
gasoline sulfur from gasoline additives, transmix, ethanol denaturants,
and contamination in the distribution system.
In our analysis of the 10-ppm average standard and refineries that
might reduce sulfur to 5 ppm in order to generate credits, we estimated
that the sulfur control costs to achieve 5 ppm would be more than 50
percent greater than for our proposed 10-ppm standard. This is more
than twice as high on a cost per ppm-gallon basis. Additionally, as
explained earlier, a 5 ppm standard would likely result in the
elimination of the ability for refineries to trade credits. Without a
viable trading program it could become prohibitively expensive for the
more challenged refineries to comply, creating a financial hardship
situation. Because the costs and other economic impacts rise
dramatically as sulfur is reduced below 10 ppm, we believe that a 10-
ppm sulfur standard is the most stringent feasible standard considering
technology and cost.
In addition to lower average sulfur standards, we are also
considering lower per-gallon cap standards, which are currently set
under the Tier 2 program at 80 ppm sulfur at the refinery gate and 95
ppm sulfur downstream. As discussed in Section V.A.3., in addition to
proposing that these cap standards be maintained, we are co-proposing
lowering them to 50 ppm and 65 ppm respectively. Given the stringency
of the 10-ppm average standard, we do not anticipate that this would
have a meaningful impact on either program costs or emission
reductions. However, it would provide added assurance that individual
vehicles would not be exposed to higher sulfur levels and the resulting
impacts on emissions. Vehicle manufacturers have expressed concern that
such exposure could impact not only individual vehicle emissions, but
also vehicle operation, due to interference with sensors and feedback
controls. To further address concerns of vehicle manufacturers, we are
also requesting comment on the potential implementation of a refinery
gate sulfur cap as low as 20 ppm and a downstream sulfur cap as low as
25 ppm. This would further constrain downstream contamination and limit
the temporary exposure of vehicles in-use to sulfur levels that would
significantly degrade their emission performance.
X. Economic Impact Analysis
A. Introduction
The proposed rule would affect two sectors directly: Vehicle
manufacturing and petroleum refining. For these two regulated sectors,
the economic impact analysis discusses the market impacts from the
proposed rule, the changes in price and quantity sold. In addition,
although analysis of employment impacts is not part of a benefit-cost
analysis (except to the extent that labor costs contribute to costs),
employment impacts of federal rules are of particular concern in the
current economic climate of sizeable unemployment. The recently issued
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review''
(January 18, 2011), states, ``Our regulatory system must protect public
health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic
growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation'' (emphasis
added). For this reason, we are examining the effects of this proposal
on employment in the regulated sectors.
B. Vehicle Sales Impacts
This rule takes effect from MY 2017-2025. In the intervening years,
it is possible that the assumptions underlying a quantitative analysis,
as well as market conditions, might change. For this reason, we present
a qualitative discussion of the effects on vehicle sales of the
proposed standards at the aggregate market level. Vehicle manufacturers
are expected to comply with the proposed standards primarily through
technological changes to vehicles. These changes to vehicle design and
manufacturing are expected to increase manufacturers' costs of vehicle
production.
Section VII.A estimates the increase in vehicle costs due to the
proposed standards. These costs differ across years and range from $71
to $102 for cars, $93 to $150 for trucks and $36 to $59 for Class 2b/3
vehicles (see Section VII.A). These costs are small relative to the
cost of a vehicle. In a fully competitive industry, these costs would
be entirely passed through to consumers. However in an oligopolistic
industry such as the automotive sector, these increases in cost may not
fully pass through to the purchase price, and the consumers may face an
increase in price that is less than the increased manufacturers' costs
of vehicle production.\498\ We do not quantify the expected level of
cost pass-through or the ultimate vehicle price increase consumers are
expected to face, apart from noting that prices are expected to
increase by an amount up to the increased manufacturers' costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\498\ See, for instance, Gron, A., and Swenson, D. (2000). Cost
Pass-Through in the U.S. Automobile Market. Review of Economics and
Statistics 82, 316-324 () who found significantly less than full-
cost pass-through using data from 1984-1994. Using full-cost pass-
through overstates costs and thus contributes to lower vehicle sales
than using a lower estimate. To the extent that the auto industry
has become more competitive over time, full-cost pass-through may be
more appropriate than a result based on this older study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This increase in price is expected to lower the quantity of
vehicles sold. Given that we expect that vehicle prices will not change
by more than the cost increase, we expect that the decrease in vehicle
sales will be negligible.
The effect of this rule on the use and scrappage of older vehicles
would be related to its effects on new vehicle prices and the total
sales of new vehicles. The increase in price is likely to cause the
``turnover'' of the vehicle fleet (i.e., the retirement of used
vehicles and their replacement by new models) to slow slightly, thus
reducing the anticipated effect of the rule on fleet-wide emissions.
Because we do not estimate the effect of the rule on new vehicle price
changes nor do we have a good estimate of the effect of new vehicle
price changes on vehicle turnover, we have not attempted to estimate
explicitly the effects of the rule on scrappage of older vehicles and
the turnover of the vehicle fleet.
C. Impacts on Petroleum Refinery Sector Production
The key change for refiners from the proposed standards would be
more stringent sulfur requirements. This change to fuels is expected to
increase manufacturers' costs of gasoline production by about 0.9 cents
per gallon (see Section VII.B).
In a perfectly competitive industry, this cost would be passed
along
[[Page 29989]]
completely to consumers. In an imperfectly competitive industry, as
noted above, full cost pass-through is not necessary: Firms may choose
to reduce impacts on sales by not passing along full costs. In 2004,
the Federal Trade Commission reported that ``concentration for most
levels of the petroleum industry has remained low to moderate.'' \499\
Thus the assumption of competitive markets has some foundation in this
industry. We do not estimate the price increase that consumers are
likely to face, though we note that it should be positive and up to the
increase in manufacturers' costs of gasoline production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\499\ Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Economics. (2004). The
Petroleum Industry: Mergers, Structural Change, and Antitrust
Enforcement. Retrieved August 16, 2011 from Federal Trade Commission
Web site: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/08/040813mergersinpetrolberpt.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The effect of higher gasoline prices on gasoline sales is expected
to be different over the short and long term. In the long run, in
response to the increase in fuel costs, consumers can more easily
change their driving habits, including where they live or what vehicles
they use. Because of this, we expect that gasoline sales will decrease
more in the long run compared to the short run as a result of the price
increase due to the proposed rule. However, because manufacturers'
costs are expected to increase less than one cent per gallon, we expect
that the decrease in gasoline sales will be negligible over all time
horizons.
D. Employment Impacts
This section discusses changes in employment due to the proposed
rule. We focus on the auto manufacturing sector and the refinery sector
because they are directly regulated, and because they are likely to
bear a substantial share of changes in employment due to this proposed
rule. We partially quantify impacts in the auto sector, providing a mix
of qualitative and quantitative discussion, following the methods used
in the Final Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards.\500\ For the refinery sector we provide a qualitative
analysis. We also include discussion of effects on the motor vehicle
parts manufacturing sector because the auto manufacturing sector can
either produce parts internally or buy them from an external supplier,
and we do not have estimates of the likely breakdown of effort between
the two sectors. For the same reasons, we discuss effects on producers
of equipment that refiners would use to comply with the proposed
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\500\ 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the economy is at full employment, an environmental regulation
is unlikely to have much impact on net overall U.S. employment;
instead, labor would primarily be shifted from one sector to another.
These shifts in employment impose an opportunity cost on society,
approximated by the wages of the employees, as regulation diverts
workers from other activities in the economy. In this situation, any
effects on net employment are likely to be transitory as workers change
jobs (e.g., some workers may need to be retrained or require time to
search for new jobs, while shortages in some sectors or regions could
bid up wages to attract workers).
On the other hand, if a regulation comes into effect during a
period of high unemployment, a change in labor demand due to regulation
may affect net overall U.S. employment because the labor market is not
in equilibrium. Schmalansee and Stavins point out that net positive
employment effects are possible in the near term when the economy is at
less than full employment due to the potential hiring of idle labor
resources by the regulated sector to meet new requirements (e.g., to
install new equipment) and new economic activity in sectors related to
the regulated sector.\501\ In the longer run, the net effect on
employment is more difficult to predict and will depend on the way in
which the related industries respond to the regulatory requirements. As
Schmalansee and Stavins note, it is possible that the magnitude of the
effect on employment could vary over time, region, and sector, and
positive effects on employment in some regions or sectors could be
offset by negative effects in other regions or sectors. For this
reason, they urge caution in reporting partial employment effects since
it can ``paint an inaccurate picture of net employment impacts if not
placed in the broader economic context.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\501\ Schmalensee, R., & Stavins, R. (2011). A Guide to Economic
and Policy Analysis of EPA's Transport Rule'' White paper
commissioned by Excelon Corporation ().
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We follow the theoretical structure proposed in a study by
Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) \502\ of the impacts of regulation
in employment in the regulated sectors. In particular, Morgenstern et
al. (2002) identify three separate ways that employment levels may
change in the regulated industry in response to a new or more stringent
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\502\ Morgenstern, R., Pizer, W., & Shih, J. (2002). Jobs Versus
the Environment: An Industry-Level Perspective. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 43, 412-436.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ssquf] Demand effect: Higher production costs due to the
regulation will lead to higher market prices; higher prices in turn
reduce demand for the good, reducing the demand for labor to make that
good. In the authors' words, the ``extent of this effect depends on the
cost increase passed on to consumers as well as the demand elasticity
of industry output.''
[ssquf] Cost effect: As costs go up, plants add more capital and
labor (holding other factors constant), with potentially positive
effects on employment; in the authors' words, as ``production costs
rise, more inputs, including labor, are used to produce the same amount
of output.''
[ssquf] Factor-shift effect: Post-regulation production
technologies may be more or less labor-intensive (i.e., more/less labor
is required per dollar of output). In the authors' words,
``environmental activities may be more labor intensive than
conventional production,'' meaning that ``the amount of labor per
dollar of output will rise,'' though it is also possible that ``cleaner
operations could involve automation and less employment, for example.''
The authors note that the demand effect is expected to have a
negative effect on employment, the cost effect to have a positive
effect on employment, and the factor-shift effect to have an ambiguous
effect on employment.
Morgenstern et al. (2002) estimated the effects on employment of
spending on pollution abatement for four highly polluting/regulated
industries (pulp and paper, plastics, steel, and petroleum refining)
using data for six years between 1979 and 1991. They concluded that
increased abatement expenditures generally have not caused a
significant change in employment in those sectors. More specifically,
their results showed that, on average across the industries studied,
each additional $1 million (1987$) spent on pollution abatement
resulted in a (statistically insignificant) net increase of 1.5 jobs.
In the petroleum refining industry in particular, they found
statistically significant and positive cost and factor shift effects
and an insignificant demand effect, for a net (statistically
significant) increase of 2.17 jobs per $1 million (1987$).
1. Employment Impacts in the Auto Sector
Following the Morgenstern et al. (2002) framework, we consider
three effects for the auto sector: The demand
[[Page 29990]]
effect, the cost effect, and the factor shift effect.
a. The Demand Effect
The demand effect depends on the effects of this proposal on
vehicle sales. If vehicle sales decrease, employment associated with
these activities would decrease. As discussed in Section X.B, we do not
make a quantitative estimate on the effect of the proposed rule on
vehicle sales but we note that the decrease in vehicle sales is
expected to be negligible. Thus we expect any decrease in employment in
the auto sector through the demand effect to be small as well.
b. The Cost Effect
The demand effect, above, measures the effect due to new vehicle
sales only. The cost effect measures the impacts due to the changes in
technologies for vehicles that would have been sold in the absence of
the rule. We estimate the cost effect by multiplying the ratio of
workers to each $1 million of expenditures in the auto sector by the
cost estimates for complying with the rule.
Some of the costs of this proposal would be spent directly in the
auto manufacturing sector, but it is also likely that some of the costs
would be spent in the auto parts manufacturing sector. We separately
present the ratios for both the auto manufacturing sector and the auto
parts manufacturing sector.
There are several public sources for estimates of employment per $1
million expenditures. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
provides its Employment Requirements Matrix (ERM),\503\ which provides
direct estimates of the employment per $1 million in sales of goods in
202 sectors. The values considered here are for Motor Vehicle
Manufacturing (NAICS 3361) and Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing (NAICS
3363).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\503\ Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Requirements
Matrix. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_data_emp_requirements.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Census Bureau provides both the Annual Survey of Manufactures
\504\ (ASM) and the Economic Census. The ASM is a subset of the
Economic Census, based on a sample of establishments; though the Census
itself is more complete, it is conducted only every 5 years, while the
ASM is annual. Both include more sectoral detail than the BLS ERM: For
instance, while the ERM includes the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
sector, the ASM and Economic Census have detail at the 6-digit NAICS
code level (e.g., light truck and utility vehicle manufacturing). While
the ERM provides direct estimates of employees/$1 million in
expenditures, the ASM and Economic Census separately provide number of
employees and value of shipments; the direct employment estimates here
are the ratio of those values. The values reported are for Motor
Vehicle Manufacturing (NAICS 3361), Automobile and Light Duty Motor
Vehicle Manufacturing (NAICS 33611), and Motor Vehicle Parts
Manufacturing (NAICS 3363).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\504\ U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Survey of Manufactures. http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/asm/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the cost effect, we use estimates from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics and the Census Bureau of the number of workers per $1
million of expenditures in the sectors. The use of these ratios has
both advantages and limitations. It is often possible to estimate these
ratios for quite specific sectors of the economy: For instance, it is
possible to estimate the average number of workers in the light-duty
vehicle manufacturing sector per $1 million spent in the sector, rather
than use the ratio from another, more aggregated sector, such as motor
vehicle manufacturing. As a result, it is not necessary to extrapolate
employment ratios from possibly unrelated sectors. On the other hand,
these estimates are averages for the sectors, covering all the
activities in those sectors; they may not be representative of the
labor required when expenditures are required on specific activities,
as the factor-shift effect indicates. For instance, the ratio for the
motor vehicle manufacturing sector represents the ratio for all vehicle
manufacturing, not just for emissions reductions. In addition, these
estimates do not include changes in sectors that supply these sectors,
such as steel or electronics producers. They thus may best be viewed as
the effects on employment in the specific sectors due to the changes in
expenditures in those sectors, rather than as an assessment of all
employment changes due to these changes in expenditures.
The values used here are adjusted to remove the employment effects
of imports through use of a ratio of domestic production to domestic
sales of 0.667.\505\ As discussed in the draft RIA, trends in the BLS
ERM are used to estimate productivity improvements over time that are
used to adjust these ratios over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\505\ To estimate the proportion of domestic production affected
by the change in sales, we use data from Ward's Automotive Group for
total car and truck production in the U.S. compared to total car and
truck sales in the U.S. For the period 2001-2010, the proportion is
66.7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table X-1 provides estimates of the cost effect of this rule on
employment. Chapter 2.1 of the draft RIA discusses the vehicle cost
estimates developed for this rule, discussed in Section VII.A,
presented in the second column. The maximum value for employment
impacts per $1 million (before adjustments for changes in productivity,
after accounting for the share of domestic production) is 1.809 if all
the additional costs are in the parts sector; the minimum value is
0.402, if all the additional costs are in the light-duty vehicle
manufacturing sector. Increased costs of vehicles and parts would, by
itself, be expected to increase employment between 2017 and 2025 by
somewhere between a few hundred to a few thousand jobs.
While we estimate employment impacts, measured in job-years,
beginning with program implementation, some of these employment gains
may occur earlier as auto manufacturers and parts suppliers hire staff
in anticipation of compliance with the standard. A job-year is a way to
calculate the amount of work needed to complete a specific task. For
example, a job-year is one year of work for one person.
Table X-1--Employment Effects Due to Increased Costs of Vehicles and Parts, in Job-Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum employment
Maximum employment effect (if all
Costs (millions of effect (if all expenditures are
Year 2010$) expenditures are in the light duty
in the parts vehicle mfg
sector) sector)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016................................................ $ 23 0 0
2017................................................ 709 + 900 +200
2018................................................ 1,340 +1,700 +400
[[Page 29991]]
2019................................................ 1,440 +1,800 +400
2020................................................ 1,600 +1,900 +400
2021................................................ 1,730 +2,000 +400
2022................................................ 1,900 +2,100 +400
2023................................................ 1,920 +2,000 +400
2024................................................ 2,040 +2,100 +400
2025................................................ 2,130 +2,100 +400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. The Factor Shift Effect
The factor shift effect looks at the changes in labor intensity
associated with a regulation. As noted above, the estimates of the cost
effect assume constant labor per $1 million in expenditures, though the
new technologies may be either more or less labor-intensive than the
existing ones. We have no evidence on the factor shift effect for the
compliance technologies and therefore do not quantify it. An estimate
of the factor shift effect would either increase or decrease the
estimate used for the cost effect.
d. Summary of Employment Effects in the Auto Sector
The overall effect of the proposed rule on auto sector employment
depends on the relative magnitude of the cost effect, the demand effect
and the factor shift effect. Because we do not have quantitative
estimates of the demand and factor shift effects we cannot reach a
quantitative estimate of the overall employment effects of the proposed
rule on auto sector employment or even whether the total effect would
be positive or negative. However, given that the expected increase in
production costs to the auto manufacturers is relatively small, we
expect that the magnitudes of all these effects will be small as well.
Additionally, the cost and demand effects are expected to work in
opposite directions. Thus while we do not have an estimate of the
direction of the overall effect of the proposed rule on auto sector
employment, we expect it will be imperceptible.
Additionally, the proposed rule is not expected to provide
incentives for manufacturers to shift employment between domestic and
foreign production. This is because the increased standards of the
proposed rule would apply to vehicles sold in the U.S. regardless of
where they are produced. If foreign manufacturers already have
increased expertise in satisfying the requirements of the proposal,
there may be some initial incentive for foreign production, but the
opportunity for the U.S. to sell in other markets might increase. To
the extent that the requirements of this proposal might lead to
installation and use of technologies that other countries may seek now
or in the future, developing this capacity for domestic production now
may provide some additional ability to serve those markets. This
potential benefit would not apply if other countries are not likely to
have similar standards.
2. Refinery Employment Impacts
The Morgenstern et al. (2002) framework of demand effects, cost
effects and factor shift effects can also be applied to the impact of
the proposed rule on employment in the refinery sector. Here we use a
fully qualitative approach. A qualitative discussion allows for a wider
incorporation of additional considerations, such as timing of impacts
and the effects of the rule on imports and exports. Because the
discussion is qualitative, we do not sum the net effects on employment.
The demand effect on refining sector employment is expected to be
negative. The discussion in Section X.C above suggested that the
proposed rule would cause a small decrease in the quantity of gasoline
demanded due to higher production costs being passed through to
consumers. This slightly reduced level of sales would likely have a
negative impact on employment in the refining sector. While we do not
quantify the level of job losses that could be expected here, recall
that the quantity of gasoline sold as a result of the standards
proposed here is expected to decrease by only a very small amount over
any time horizon.
The cost effect of the proposed rule on employment in the refining
sector is expected to be positive as usual in the Morgenstern et al.
(2002) framework. In order to satisfy the requirements of the proposed
rule, firms in the refining industry are expected to need to perform
additional work that will require hiring more employees, especially
perhaps in the short run. Section V.A.2.c discusses the expected
employment needed to reduce the sulfur content of fuels; as noted
there, to meet the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards, refiners are
expected to invest $2.2 billion between 2014 and 2019 and utilize
approximately 1,000 front-end design and engineering jobs and 6,000
construction jobs. As the petroleum sector employed approximately
65,000 workers in 2009, this temporary increase in employment would be
comparable to an increase of over 10 percent when compared to 2009
levels.
As with our analysis of the vehicle manufacturing sector, we do not
have information on the direction the factor shift effect might take.
It is unclear whether the refining industry would become more or less
capital intensive as a result of the proposed rule. Thus the direction
of the factor shift effect is ambiguous.
This rule is not expected to provide incentives to shift employment
between domestic and foreign production. First, the proposed standards
would apply to gasoline sold in the U.S. regardless of where it has
been produced. U.S. gasoline demand is projected to continue to decline
for the foreseeable future in response to higher gasoline prices, more
stringent vehicle and engine greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards
as well as increased use of renewable fuels. As a result, this analysis
of incentives to shift employment between domestic and foreign
production focuses on investments for existing capacity instead of
expanding capacity.\506\ In this case, what is relevant is whether the
necessary modifications to comply with Tier 3 would be significantly
cheaper overseas than in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\506\ While refinery capacity has been increasing around the
world in recent years, it has been designed primarily to supply
foreign markets other than the U.S. (e.g., increasing demand in
China and India).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main impacts on capital and operating costs to comply with Tier
3
[[Page 29992]]
associated with adding hydrotreating capacity are likely to be similar
overseas as in the U.S. This is particularly true when analyzing likely
sources of U.S. imports. The majority of gasoline imported to the U.S.
today comes into the East Coast and is sourced out of either Europe or
refineries in Canada or the Caribbean that exist almost solely to
supply the U.S. market. These Canadian and Caribbean refineries, by
virtue of their focus on the U.S. market, are very similar to U.S.
based refineries and would be expected to have to incur similar capital
and operating costs as their U.S. based competitors meeting the 10 ppm
standard. Furthermore, the European refineries are already producing
gasoline to a 10 ppm sulfur cap for Europe. To the extent they have
refinery streams that are more difficult to hydrotreat, the U.S. market
currently serves as an outlet for their higher sulfur gasoline streams.
As a result, they may incur capital and operating costs on a per gallon
basis at least as high as for their U.S. based competitors for these
remaining higher sulfur gasoline streams. Alternatively, they may
instead choose to find markets outside the U.S., opening the way for
increased U.S. based refinery demand.
Finally, despite refining industry projections that previously
imposed diesel rules would lead to greater U.S. reliance on imports
through major negative impacts on domestic refining, the reverse has
actually occurred. Over the last 8 years, imports of gasoline and
diesel fuel have continued to be the marginal supply, and have even
dropped precipitously so that the U.S. is now a net exporter of diesel
fuel and is importing half the gasoline that it did at its peak in
2006. With the projected decline in future gasoline demand in the U.S.
as vehicle fuel efficiency improves, gasoline imports are expected to
continue to decline.
Thus it is expected that for the refining sector, the demand effect
would lower employment, the cost effect would raise employment, and the
factor shift effect would have an ambiguous effect on employment. As a
whole then, it is not evident whether the proposed rule would increase
or decrease employment in the refining sector. However, given the small
anticipated reduction in quantity sold, it appears that the rule would
not have major employment consequences for this sector.
The petroleum industry is one of the four industries studied by
Morgenstern et al. (2002) when they look at the effect of environmental
expenditures on employment. They found a small but statistically
significant increase in employment in this sector (2.17 jobs per
million dollars of expenditures, using 1987$). Using this factor
(adjusted to 2010$), the estimated sulfur fuel control costs in 2017 of
$1,289 million would imply an increase of approximately 1,600 jobs in
the refinery sector. We note that the regulations that this estimate is
derived from are not directly comparable to the current proposed rule;
it is based on the costs of reductions in refinery emissions instead of
changing fuel properties, and therefore may not be applicable for the
standards proposed here.
Section 5.3 of the draft RIA contains some historical discussion
regarding the impact on refineries and refining capacity of earlier
rules which resulted in higher costs for refiners. Over the period
2003-2011, when a number of rules were being implemented, EIA data show
a net of two net refinery closures on its Web site. Meanwhile, over
this same period the average size of U.S. refineries increased from
113,000 barrels per day to 123,000 barrels per day, and total U.S.
refining capacity increased by six percent. Thus, historically during a
time when rules with much larger expected impacts were being
implemented (the 2003 ultra-low sulfur nonroad diesel proposal alone
was expected to have a cost impact on refineries more than five times
greater than the current proposed rule), U.S. refining capacity
increased even as the number of U.S. refineries slightly fell. While
closing refineries has a negative effect on industry employment, it is
likely that the increased refining capacity at many of the remaining
plants had a positive effect on industry employment.
The proposed rule is also likely to have a positive impact on
employment among producers of equipment that refiners will use to
comply with the standards. Section V.A.2.c notes that some refiners are
expected to need to revamp their current treatment units, and others
will need to add additional treatment units. Producers of this
equipment would be expected to hire additional labor to meet this
increased demand. We also note that the employment effects may be
different in the immediate implementation phase than in the ongoing
compliance phase. It is expected that the employment increases through
the cost effect from revamping old equipment and installing additional
equipment should occur in the near term, when current unemployment
levels are high, and the opportunity cost of workers is relatively low.
Meanwhile, the employment decreases in the refining sector from the
demand effect would not start until 2017, when compliance would be
required, and when unemployment is expected to be reduced; in a time of
full employment, any changes in employment levels in the regulated
sector are mostly expected to be offset by changes in employment in
other sectors.
XI. Public Participation
We request comment on all aspects of this proposal. This section
describes how you can participate in this process.
A. How do I submit comments?
Public comments on this proposal must be received on or before June
13, 2013. If you have an interest in the proposed program described in
this document, we encourage you to comment on any aspect of this
rulemaking. We also request comment on specific topics identified
throughout this proposal.
Your comments will be most useful if you include appropriate and
detailed supporting rationale, data, and analysis. Commenters are
especially encouraged to provide specific suggestions for any changes
to any aspect of the regulations that they believe need to be modified
or improved. You should send all comments, except those containing
proprietary information, to our Air Docket (see ADDRESSES in the first
part of this proposal) before the end of the comment period.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the
first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after
the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not
required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or information that is
otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in
Section XI.B.
B. How should I submit CBI to the agency?
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through the electronic public docket,
www.regulations.gov, or by email. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment and Standards
Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, Attention Docket
ID EPA-HQ- OAR-2011-0135. You may claim information that you submit to
[[Page 29993]]
EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if
you submit CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-
ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM
the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not
be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comments that include
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comments that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI
on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that
it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included
in the public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions
about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
Explain your views as clearly as possible.
Describe any assumptions that you used.
Provide any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
Offer alternatives.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate
docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of
your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date,
and Federal Register citation related to your comments.
D. Will there be a public hearing?
Public hearings for this proposal were held on April 24, 2013 and
April 29, 2013; EPA has announced more information regarding the public
hearing locations in a supplemental Federal Register Notice.
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), this action is an ``economically significant
regulatory action'' because it is likely to have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more. 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.
In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in
Sections VII and VIII of this preamble and in Chapter 8 of the draft
RIA. A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) documents prepared by EPA have
been assigned EPA ICR number 0783.63 for the vehicles provisions and
EPA ICR 2482.01 and ICR 2459.01 for the fuels provisions.
This proposed rule also contains reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for refiners and importers of motor vehicle gasoline,
producers of gasoline additives, and producers of denatured fuel
ethanol and other oxygenates. The proposed recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for refiners and importers of motor vehicle gasoline are
the same requirements that exist under the Tier 2 sulfur program.\507\
The recordkeeping and Product Transfer Document (PTD) requirements for
gasoline additive producers and PTD retention requirements for
downstream parties under the proposed Tier 3 program are new but should
be minimal since we expect that they are already followed as part of
normal business practices. Finally, there are new recordkeeping and PTD
requirements for producers of denatured fuel ethanol under the proposed
Tier 3 program. EPA estimates the total number of respondents to be
2,675, the total burden hours to be 84,000 and the total cost to
respondents to be $6,300,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\507\ 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000; OMB Control Number: 2060-
0437; EPA ICR 1907.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule also contains reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for refiners and importers of motor vehicle gasoline. The
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for these entities under the
proposed Tier 3 program are the same requirements that exist under the
Tier 2 sulfur program.\508\ The recordkeeping and Product Transfer
Document (PTD) requirements for gasoline additive producers and PTD
requirements for downstream parties under the proposed Tier 3 program
are new but should be minimal since we expect that they are already
followed as part of normal business practices. Finally, there are new
recordkeeping and PTD requirements for producers of denatured fuel
ethanol under the proposed Tier 3 program. EPA estimates the total
number of respondents to be 1,500, the total burden hours to be 76,743
and the total cost to respondents to be $5,908,504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\508\ 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000; OMB Control Number: 2060-
0437; EPA ICR 1907.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, this proposed rule also contains provisions for
qualifications of laboratories on test methods. We have proposed
recordkeeping and reporting requirements that would apply to fuel
testing laboratories. The collected data will permit EPA to: (1)
Qualify laboratories to use test methods based upon accuracy and
precision criteria supported by industry; and (2) Ensure that various
fuels meet the standards required under the regulations at 40 CFR part
80 and that the associated benefits to human health and the environment
are realized. We estimate that 750 laboratories may be subject to the
proposed information collection. This estimate is based upon our
experience with qualification of laboratories under the existing diesel
sulfur program. We estimate an annual reporting burden of 95 hours per
respondent and an annual recordkeeping burden of 104 hours, yielding a
total of 199 hours. For those laboratories that elect to be reference
installations, the annual reporting burden would be 95 hours and the
annual recordkeeping burden would be 128 hours.
Supporting statements for all 3 ICRs can be found in Docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it
[[Page 29994]]
displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers
for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes these ICR numbers, under Docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135. See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of
this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB
at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after May 21, 2013,
a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it by June 20, 2013. The final rule will respond to any OMB or
public comments on the information collection requirements contained in
this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Overview
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 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 today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201 (see table below); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that
is a government of a city, 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.
The following table provides an overview of the primary SBA small
business categories potentially affected by this regulation:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defined as small
NAICS \a\ Code entity by SBA if
Industry (2007) less than or equal
to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline fuel refiners and 324110............ 1,500 employees.
importers.
Ethanol producers............... 325193............ 1,000 employees.
Gasoline additive manufacturers. 325199............ 1,000 employees.
325998............ 500 employees.
424690............ 100 employees.
Transmix processors............. Varied............ 1,500 employees.
Petroleum bulk stations and 424710............ 100 employees.
terminals.
Other warehousing and storage-- 493190............ $25.5 million
bulk petroleum storage. (annual
receipts).
Light-duty vehicle and light- 336111, 336112.... 1,000 employees.
duty truck manufacturers.
Independent commercial importers 811111, 811112, $7 million (annual
811198. receipts).
Alternative fuel converters..... 335312............ 1,000 employees.
336312............ 750 employees.
336322............ ''
336399............ ''
811198............ $7 million (annual
receipts).
On-highway heavy-duty engine & 333618............ 1,000 employees.
vehicle (>8,500 lbs GVWR) 336120............ ''
manufacturers.
336211............ ''
336312............ 750 employees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\a\ North American Industrial Classification System.
2. Background
EPA's Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program, which was
finalized in February 2000, took a systems-based approach to motor
vehicle pollution by setting standards for both passenger vehicles and
their fuel (gasoline). The program set stricter tailpipe and
evaporative emissions standards for criteria pollutants from vehicles
beginning with model year (MY) 2004 and phasing in through 2009. The
program also lowered the sulfur content of gasoline, to a 30-ppm
refinery average, 80-ppm per-gallon cap, and 95-ppm downstream cap;
beginning in 2004 and phasing in through 2008. The potential to extend
the phase-in for small refiners and approved Gasoline Phase-In Area
(GPA) refiners through the end of 2010 was provided in the Highway
Diesel Rule \509\ in exchange for early compliance with the diesel
program. Similar to the Tier 2 rule, the Tier 3 rule being proposed
today is a comprehensive, systems-based approach to address the impact
of light-duty vehicles and certain heavy-duty vehicles on air quality
and health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\509\ 66 FR 5136 (January 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that
could reduce that impact. The IRFA is available for review in the
rulemaking docket (in Chapter 10 of the draft RIA) and is summarized
below.
As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA
also conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of
representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject
to the rule's requirements.
Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated
the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to
elements of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel Report is included in the
docket for this proposed rule, and a summary of the Panel process, and
subsequent Panel recommendations, is summarized below.
3. Reason for Today's Proposed Rule
This rule proposes to establish more stringent vehicle emissions
standards and reduce the sulfur content of
[[Page 29995]]
gasoline beginning in 2017, as part of a systems approach in addressing
the impacts of motor vehicles and fuels on air quality and public
health. The proposed gasoline sulfur standard would make emission
control systems more effective and enable more stringent vehicle
emissions standards, and the proposed vehicle standards would reduce
vehicle tailpipe and evaporative emissions. This would result in
significant reductions in pollutants such as ozone, particulate matter,
and air toxics. For a more detailed discussion of the reasoning for
today's proposed rule, please see Sections II and III of this preamble.
The proposed vehicle and fuel programs are further discussed in
Sections IV and V, respectively.
4. Legal Basis for Agency Action
The Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes EPA to establish emissions
standards for motor vehicles to address air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA
also has authority to establish fuel controls to address such air
pollution. The authority for the proposed vehicle emission standards
comes from CAA section 202(a), Section 202(k) provides EPA with
authority to issue and revise regulations applicable to evaporative
emissions of hydrocarbons from gasoline-fueled motor vehicles, and
section 206(d) authorizes EPA to establish methods and procedures for
testing whether a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine conforms with
section 202 requirements. The authority for the proposed fuel standards
comes from section 211(c).
For more detailed information on our legal authority for today's
proposal, please see Sections II.A and V.G of this preamble.
5. Summary of Potentially Affected Small Entities
The table above lists industries/sectors potentially affected by
the proposed rule. For businesses potentially impacted by the Tier 3
vehicle standards, this includes vehicle manufacturers, alternative
fuel converters, and independent commercial importers. For businesses
potentially impacted by the Tier 3 fuel standards, this includes
gasoline refiners and importers, distributors, fuel additive
manufacturers, transmix producers, and ethanol producers.
EPA used a variety of sources to identify which entities are
appropriately considered ``small.'' EPA used the criteria for small
entities developed by the Small Business Administration under the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as a guide. Information
about these entities comes from sources including the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) within the U.S. Department of Energy,
oil industry literature, EPA's certification data, and previous
rulemakings that have affected these industries. EPA then found
employment information for these companies using the business
information database Hoover's Online (a subsidiary of Dun and
Bradstreet). These entities fall under the categories listed in the
table.
To gauge the impact of the proposed standards on small businesses,
EPA employed a cost-to-sales ratio test to estimate the number of small
businesses that would be impacted by less than one percent, between one
and three percent, and above three percent. Overall, EPA projects that
13 small businesses will be impacted by less than one percent, 13 small
businesses will be impacted by one to three percent, and 5 small
businesses will be impacted by more than three percent. A more detailed
description of the inputs used for each affected industry sector and
the methodology used to develop the estimated impact on small
businesses in each industry sector is included in the IRFA as presented
in Chapter 10 of the draft RIA for this rulemaking.
6. Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance
For any emission control program, EPA must have assurances that the
regulated products will meet the standards. The program that EPA is
considering for manufacturers subject to this proposal will include
testing, reporting, and record keeping requirements for manufacturers
of vehicles covered by the proposed Tier 3 regulations. Testing
requirements for these manufacturers could include certification
emission (including deterioration factor) testing, in-use testing, and
production line testing. Reporting requirements would likely include
emission test data and technical data on the vehicles. Manufacturers
would have to keep records of this information.
For any fuel control program, EPA must have assurance that fuel
produced, distributed, sold and used meets the applicable standard. EPA
expects that the recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance provisions of
the proposed rule would be fairly consistent with those in place today
for other fuel programs. Further, we expect to use existing
registration and reporting systems that parties in the fuel production
and distribution industry are already familiar with.
7. Related Federal Rules
The primary federal rules that are related to the proposed Tier 3
rule under consideration are: The Tier 2 Vehicle/Gasoline Sulfur
rulemaking (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000), the 2017 Light-duty
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) rule (77 FR 62623), and the Petroleum Refinery
Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards
rule (RTR/NSPS; 77 FR 41051).
The 2017 LD GHG rule is a coordinated effort by EPA and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) taking steps to
enable the production of a new generation of clean vehicles, through
reduced GHG emissions and improved fuel efficiency from on-road
vehicles and engines.
The rules to address Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology
Review (RTR) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) focus on
developing updated emissions standards for petroleum refineries for
multiple pollutants, including GHGs. The rules are based on results of
the RTR analyses for both Maximum Achievable Control Technology
standards (MACT 1 and 2). The technology review would be conducted to
identify any new practices, processes, or control technologies for the
industry and cost-effective emission control options. EPA is developing
uniform standards for some emission sources in the petroleum refining
sector that may serve as the basis for these technology reviews. The
rules also review the standards and rule provisions to determine
whether other changes may be needed during periods of start-up,
shutdown, and malfunction to ensure the standards are consistent with
recent court opinions and other CAA programs. With regard to NSPS, the
rules address remaining NSPS issues under reconsideration from the
promulgation of existing NSPS and other NSPS rules affecting the
refining sector, and include the regulation of GHGs and the development
of emission guidelines for existing sources.
8. Summary of SBREFA Panel Process and Panel Outreach
a. Significant Panel Findings
The Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel, or the Panel)
considered regulatory options and flexibilities to help mitigate
potential adverse effects on small businesses as a result of this rule.
During the SBREFA Panel process, the Panel sought out and received
comments on the regulatory options and flexibilities that were
[[Page 29996]]
presented to SERs and Panel members. The recommendations of the Panel
are described below and are also located in Section 9 of the SBREFA
Final Panel Report, which is available in the public docket.
b. Panel Process
As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, we
also conducted outreach to small entities and convened an SBAR Panel to
obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small
entities that potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements.
On August 4, 2011, EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson convened a
Panel under Section 609(b) of the RFA. In addition to the Chair, the
Panel consisted of the Division Director of the Assessment and
Standards Division of EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration,
and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget. As part of the SBAR
Panel process, we conducted outreach with representatives of small
businesses that would potentially be affected by the proposed
rulemaking. We met with these Small Entity Representatives (SERs) to
discuss the potential rulemaking approaches and potential options to
decrease the impact of the rulemaking on their industries. We
distributed outreach materials to the SERs; these materials included
background on the rulemaking, possible regulatory approaches, and
possible rulemaking alternatives. The Panel met with SERs from the
industries that would be directly affected by the Tier 3 rule on August
18, 2011 to discuss the outreach materials and receive feedback on the
approaches and alternatives detailed in the outreach packet (the Panel
also met with SERs on June 28, 2011 for an initial outreach meeting).
The Panel received written comments from the SERs following the meeting
in response to discussions had at the meeting and the questions posed
to the SERs by the Agency. The SERs were specifically asked to provide
comment on regulatory alternatives that could help to minimize the
rule's impact on small businesses.
The Panel's findings and discussions were based on the information
that was available during the term of the Panel and issues that were
raised by the SERs during the outreach meetings and in their comments.
It was agreed that EPA should consider the issues raised by the SERs
and discussions had by the Panel itself, and that EPA should consider
comments on flexibility alternatives that would help to mitigate
negative impacts on small businesses to the extent legally allowable by
the Clean Air Act. Alternatives discussed throughout the Panel process
included those offered in previous or current EPA rulemakings, as well
as alternatives suggested by SERs and Panel members. A summary of these
recommendations is detailed below, and a full discussion of the
regulatory alternatives and hardship provisions discussed and
recommended by the Panel can be found in the SBREFA Final Panel Report.
A complete discussion of the provisions for which we are requesting
comment and/or proposing in this action can be found in Sections IV.E
and V.D of this preamble. Also, the Panel Report includes all comments
received from SERs (Appendix B of the Report) and summaries of the two
outreach meetings that were held with the SERs. In accordance with the
RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the aforementioned
materials and SER comments on issues related to the IRFA. The Panel's
recommendations from the Final Panel Report are discussed below.
It should be noted that during the Panel process, two additional
issues were discussed with SERs that were under consideration by the
Agency for the Tier 3 proposal. As noted in Section IV.D.5, EPA was
considering extending the new certification fuel specifications to all
regulatory categories of engines, vehicles, equipment, and fuel system
components that use gasoline. This would have included a wide range of
additional applications, including small nonroad engines used in lawn
and garden applications, recreational vehicles such as ATVs and
snowmobiles, recreational marine applications, on-highway motorcycles,
and heavy-duty gasoline engines. In addition, EPA considered new
volatility (Reid Vapor Pressure, or RVP) standards for in-use gasoline.
Neither of these issues is being proposed in today's notice. Therefore,
the following discussion of the Panel recommendations does not address
these issues. The reader is directed to the Panel Report, located in
the rulemaking docket, for more information on both of these issues.
c. Panel Recommendations
i. Tier 3 Fuels
The Panel discussed several regulatory flexibility alternatives
with SERs for small businesses in the gasoline production and
distribution, fuel additive manufacturing, and ethanol production
industries subject to the proposed fuel requirements. Panel
recommendations on these approaches are discussed below.
(1) Lead Time--Sulfur
The Panel recommended that EPA propose a delay option, similar to
previous fuels rulemakings, in the Tier 3 proposed rule. The Panel
recommended that EPA allow small refiners to postpone their compliance
with the Tier 3 program for up to three years. Small refiners choosing
this flexibility option would have from January 1, 2017 through
December 31, 2019 to continue production of gasoline with an average
sulfur level of 30 ppm (per the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program).
Compliance with the 10-ppm sulfur standard would begin on January 1,
2020. Any small refiner choosing this proposed option would be allowed
to continue use of their Tier 2 gasoline sulfur credits through
December 31, 2019 to meet the refiner average 30-ppm sulfur standard.
The Panel also recommended that EPA request comment on case-by-case
hardship provisions that would provide additional relief for any
refiner experiencing extreme difficulty in compliance with the Tier 3
requirements, as discussed below in Section XII.C.6.c.i.(6).
(2) Provisions for Additive Manufacturers
The Panel recommended that EPA provide flexibilities for gasoline
additive manufacturers. Following discussion with EPA, the Panel
suggested that EPA propose the following flexibilities:
For additives used downstream of the refiner:
Differentiating bulk additives based on whether they meet a 20- or 25-
ppm sulfur standard.
For aftermarket consumer additives: Allow for aftermarket
additives to meet either a 20-ppm or 25-ppm sulfur cap.
For additives not meeting a 10-, 20-, or 25-ppm sulfur
limit: Allow for the use of volume accounting reconciliation (VAR)
records for additives that would not be able to meet a 25-ppm sulfur
cap to show that use of the additive would not cause the sulfur level
of the finished fuel to exceed 10 ppm (similar to the Nonroad Diesel
Rulemaking, 69 FR 39088, June 29, 2004), and require product labeling
for aftermarket additives.
(3) Refinery Gate and Downstream Caps
With regard to the 20-ppm refinery gate cap discussed in Section 3
of the Panel Report, the Panel had concerns that such a standard could
cause operational problems for small refiners
[[Page 29997]]
during a refinery turnaround or an upset, because a cap of this level
could result in a refiner not being able to produce gasoline (as noted
in their comments in Section 8 of the Panel Report). The Panel likewise
had concerns that a downstream cap of 25 ppm could cause problems for
small downstream entities, such as transmix processors, because they
may not be able to reprocess finished gasoline down to this level (also
noted in their comments in Section 8 of the Panel Report).
Thus, the Panel recommended that EPA assess and request comment on
retaining the current Tier 2 refinery gate and downstream caps of 80
and 95 ppm, respectively, to help provide maximum flexibility and avoid
system upsets for the entire refining and distribution system. Thus,
the SBA and OMB Panel members recommend that EPA propose retaining the
80-ppm and 95-ppm caps.
The Panel also recommended that EPA request comment on additional
refinery gate and downstream caps above 20/25 ppm but below 80/95 ppm.
Additionally, the Panel recommended that EPA allow the current Tier 2
80-ppm sulfur refinery gate cap and 95-ppm sulfur downstream cap in
Alaska to remain at these levels indefinitely.
(4) Hardship Provisions
During the Panel process, EPA stated its intent to propose hardship
provisions (for all gasoline refiners and importers) similar to those
in prior EPA fuels programs: (a) The extreme unforeseen circumstances
hardship provision, and (b) the extreme hardship provision. A hardship
based on extreme unforeseen circumstances is intended to provide short
term relief due to unanticipated circumstances beyond the control of
the refiner, such as a natural disaster or a refinery fire. An extreme
hardship is intended to provide short-term relief based on extreme
circumstances (e.g., extreme financial problems, extreme operational or
technical problems, etc.) that impose extreme hardship and thus
significantly affect a refiner's ability to comply with the program
requirements by the applicable dates. In the context of the proposal,
the Panel agrees that such relief could consider long-term relief on
the sulfur cap (similar to that for Alaska) if the circumstances both
warrant it and can be structured in a way to allow for it. The Panel
agrees with the proposal of such provisions and recommended that EPA
include them in the Tier 3 proposed rulemaking.
ii. Tier 3 Vehicles
As discussed in Section 5 of the Panel Report, in addition to
vehicle manufacturers, two distinct categories of businesses relating
to highway light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty trucks would be covered
by the new vehicle standards: independent commercial importers (ICIs),
and alternative fuel vehicle converters. As discussed below, EPA's
expectation at the time of the Panel process was to propose a set of
flexibilities that would be available to all small entities in these
three business categories as well as any businesses in these categories
that sell less than 5,000 vehicles per year. The Panel identified a
number of entities covered by the vehicle standards that qualify as
small businesses under the SBA definition. Six of these companies
participated as SERs.
The Panel discussed several regulatory flexibility alternatives
with SERs for small businesses that certify vehicles subject to the
proposed Tier 3 emission standards. As described in Appendix A (and
similar to provisions in the Tier 2 rule), EPA sought comment from the
SERs on allowing small entities to simply comply with the proposed
emission standards with 100 percent of their vehicles during the last
year of the phase-in period. In addition, EPA sought comment on the
following flexibilities: (1) A hardship provision that would allow
these businesses to apply for additional time to meet any of the 100
percent phase-in requirements, (2) use of assigned deterioration
factors for certification purposes, and (3) reduction in the number of
tests required in the manufacturer in-use verification testing program
(see 40 CFR 86.1845-04). SERs were generally supportive of these
flexibility provisions. However, one SER requested that EPA consider
providing relaxed standards for exhaust emissions in addition to the
delay and another SER requested that we consider eliminating some of
the evaporative emission testing requirements.
Panel recommendations on these approaches are discussed below.
(1) Exhaust Emission Standards and Lead Time
In the types of businesses subject to the potential Tier 3
standards, small businesses have limited resources available for
developing new designs to comply with new emission standards. In
addition, it is often necessary for these businesses to rely on vendor
companies for technology. Moreover, percentage phase-in requirements
pose a dilemma for a small manufacturer that has a limited product line
(e.g., the manufacturer certifies vehicles in only one or two test
groups). Thus, similar to the flexibility provisions implemented in
previous vehicle rules, the Panel recommended that EPA allow small
businesses the following flexibility options for meeting the potential
Tier 3 exhaust emissions standards.
The Panel recommended that small businesses be given additional
lead time to comply with the potential Tier 3 exhaust standards and
allow small businesses to comply with the standards with 100 percent of
their vehicles starting in model year 2022. (This is similar to the
Tier 2 rule where EPA allowed small manufacturers to wait until the end
of the phase-in to comply with the Tier 2 standards.) During the Panel
process, the proposed Tier 3 rule was expected to have several
different phase-in schedules; with the final dates varying from model
year 2021 for the new exhaust PM standards and use of the new E15
certification fuel, to model year 2022 for the new evaporative emission
standards, to model year 2025 for the new exhaust gaseous pollutant
standards. The Panel noted that requiring all small businesses to
comply with the full slate of Tier 3 requirements in model year 2022
should provide sufficient lead time for manufacturers to plan for and
implement the technology changes needed to comply with the Tier 3
standards.
One of the SERs recommended that EPA adopt relaxed exhaust
standards for small manufacturers. The SER noted that the exhaust
emission averaging program being proposed by EPA would allow large
manufacturers that have many engine families to certify their small,
niche products at levels numerically higher than the standards. Small
manufacturers that typically do not have more than one or two emission
families generally cannot use averaging to the same extent because of
their limited product offerings. The SER's concern was that the high-
performance vehicles produced by large manufacturers which they compete
against would be able to certify at numerically higher levels at less
cost than the SER would incur. While EPA was planning to propose the
same standards for all manufacturers, the Panel recommended that EPA
request comment on allowing small manufacturers to meet relaxed exhaust
emission standards. This could also be included as part of the hardship
provision discussed below. The Panel recommended that EPA request
comment on the relaxed standards recommended by the SER. The SER-
recommended relaxed NMOG+NOX
[[Page 29998]]
standards over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) are 0.125 grams/mile in
model year 2020 and 0.070 grams/mile in model year 2025. In addition,
the Supplemental FTP standards would be the standards for the
corresponding bins which the manufacturer selected for complying with
the FTP standards. For example, if the manufacturer certified to the
proposed Tier 3 Bin 125 standards over the FTP, the manufacturer would
have to comply with the corresponding Tier 3 Bin 125 standards for the
Supplemental FTP.
(2) Evaporative Emission Standards and Lead Time
The Panel recommended that small businesses comply with the Tier 3
evaporative emission standards, including the leak standard, with 100
percent of their vehicles starting in model year 2022. For evaporative
emissions, where the Tier 3 standards could begin as early as 2017 and
phase-in through 2022, this provision would allow small businesses and
SVMs to wait until the last year of the Tier 3 phase-in period for
evaporative emission standards for all of their vehicles. This start
date is consistent with the start date described above for the Tier 3
exhaust emission requirements being recommended by the Panel for small
businesses.
(3) Assigned Deterioration Factors
Under EPA's regulations, manufacturers must demonstrate that their
vehicles comply with the emission standards throughout the ``useful
life'' period. This is generally done by testing vehicles at low-
mileage and then applying a deterioration factor to these emission
levels. The deterioration factors are determined by aging new emission
control systems and then testing the aged systems again to determine
how much deterioration in emissions has occurred. In order to reduce
the testing burden on small manufacturers, EPA suggested that small
manufacturers could use deterioration factor values assigned by EPA
instead of performing the extended testing. A manufacturer would apply
the assigned deterioration factors to its low-mileage emission level to
demonstrate whether it complied with the Tier 3 emission standards. EPA
currently allows this flexibility for small manufacturers. The Panel
recommended that EPA propose that small businesses be allowed the
option to use EPA-developed assigned deterioration factors in
demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative
emission standards. In the past, EPA has relied on deterioration factor
data from large manufacturers to develop the assigned DFs for small
manufacturers. EPA would expect to follow a similar procedure to
determine the assigned DFs for the Tier 3 standards once large
manufacturers start certifying their Tier 3 designs. Given that larger
manufacturers would begin phasing in to the Tier 3 standards in model
year 2017, EPA should have a significant set of emissions deterioration
data upon which to base the assigned DFs for small businesses within
the first few years of the Tier 3 program. EPA recognizes that assigned
DFs need to be determined well in advance of model year 2022 in order
to provide sufficient time for small businesses to decide whether or
not to use the assigned DFs for certification purposes.
(4) Reduced Testing Burden
Under EPA's regulations, manufacturers must perform in-use testing
on their vehicles and demonstrate their in-use vehicles comply with the
emission standards. The current in-use testing regulations provide for
reduced levels of testing for small manufacturers, including no testing
in some cases. EPA suggested that these provisions should continue for
small manufacturers with the Tier 3 program. The Panel recommended that
EPA propose that small businesses be allowed to have reduced burden
under the in-use testing program for Tier 3 vehicles.
One SER requested that EPA eliminate some of the evaporative
emission testing requirements for small businesses based on its belief
that some of the tests may be duplicative. While EPA noted (during the
Panel process) that it understood the reasons behind the manufacturer's
suggestion, EPA believed it may be premature to consider such an option
in the Tier 3 rule given the impact of the CO2 emission
standards on engine and fuel system development. Currently, it is
generally understood that the 2-day diurnal test drives the purge
characteristics of evaporative control systems, while the refueling
test, and to a lesser degree the 3-day test, drive the capacity
requirement of evaporative canisters. Prospectively, due to expected
changes in engine and fuel system designs in response to upcoming
CO2 emission standard requirements, this may not be the
case. Therefore, at the time of the Panel process, EPA noted its belief
that it is appropriate to retain all of the evaporative test
procedures. It can be noted that under current regulations, EPA does
allow manufacturers to waive 2-day diurnal testing for certification
purposes (see 40 CFR 86.1829-01(b)(2)(iii)) and perform only the 2-day
diurnal test as part of the in-use testing program (see 40 CFR 86.1845-
04(c)(5)(ii)). These provisions would continue in the Tier 3 program.
In general, EPA noted that it is open to changes that reduce test
burden while maintaining the environmental effectiveness of its
programs and could consider changes like those suggested by the SER in
the future as the impacts of the future regulations on engine and
vehicle design become clearer. EPA also stated that it intends to
request comment in the Tier 3 proposal on streamlining the current test
procedures for small businesses in ways that would still maintain the
overall stringency of the tests.
(5) Hardship Provisions
The Panel recommended that hardship provisions be provided to small
businesses for the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards.
Under the hardship provisions, small businesses would be allowed to
apply for additional time to meet the 100 percent phase-in requirements
for exhaust and evaporative emissions. All hardship requests would be
subject to EPA review and approval. Appeals for such hardship relief
would be required to be made in writing and submitted well before the
earliest date of noncompliance. The request should identify how much
time is being requested. It must also include evidence that the
noncompliance would occur despite the manufacturer's best efforts to
comply, and must contain evidence that severe economic hardship would
be faced by the company if the relief is not granted. The above
provision should effectively provide the opportunity for small
businesses to obtain more time to comply with the new Tier 3 standards.
(The existing hardship provisions limit the extra time that can be
requested to 1 year, but such a limit may or may not be included in the
proposed Tier 3 hardship provisions.)
(6) Applicability
Under EPA's current Tier 2 regulations, EPA provides a number of
flexibilities for small volume manufacturers. The criteria for
determining if a company is a small volume manufacturer is based on the
annual production level of vehicles and is based on whether the company
produces less than 15,000 vehicles per year. Unlike EPA's small volume
manufacturer criteria noted above, SBA defines which manufacturers are
small businesses (and therefore should be considered under the SBAR
Panel process) based on the number of
[[Page 29999]]
employees for vehicle manufacturers and annual revenues for ICIs and
alternative fuel converters. For example, SBA defines small business
vehicle manufacturers as those who have less than 1,000 employees.
Similarly, SBA defines small business ICIs as those who have annual
revenues of less than $8 million per year.
The Panel recommended that EPA propose to allow all small
businesses that meet the SBA criteria be eligible for the flexibilities
described above. In addition, in the Panel Report, EPA stated that it
is expecting to propose that manufacturers that meet a specified sales-
based criterion to be eligible for the flexibilities described above.
It is relatively easy for a manufacturer to project and ultimately
determine sales. Determining the annual revenues or number of employees
is less straightforward. In the recent rule setting the first light-
duty vehicle and truck CO2 emission standards, EPA adopted
provisions for small manufacturers based on a sales cutoff of 5,000
vehicles per year as opposed to the 15,000 level noted earlier that is
used in the Tier 2 program. In the Panel Report, EPA noted that it
expects to propose a small volume manufacturer definition based on the
5,000 vehicle per year level for the Tier 3 program. EPA believes the
5,000 unit cut-off for small volume manufacturers would include all of
the small business vehicle manufacturers, ICIs, and alternative fuel
converters that meet the applicable SBA definition as well as some
additional companies that have similar concerns to small businesses.
Lastly, EPA noted in the Panel Report that it expects to propose the
flexibilities described above to be available to any manufacturer that
meets either the SBA small business criteria or the sales-based
criteria.
EPA invites comment on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts
on small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule
contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Under section 202 of
the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a
cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared a
statement of the cost-benefit analysis as required by section 202 of
the UMRA; this statement can be found in Sections VII and VIII of this
preamble, and in Chapter 8 of the draft RIA. Before promulgating an EPA
rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA
generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the
final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Consistent with section 205, EPA has identified and considered a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. These alternatives are
described above in Sections IV, V, and IX of this preamble.
This rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. The rule imposes no enforceable
duty on any State, local or tribal governments. EPA has determined that
this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has determined that this
proposal contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of
$100 million or more for the private sector in any one year, however
EPA believes that the proposal represents the least costly, and most
cost-effective approach to achieve the statutory requirements of the
rule. The costs and benefits associated with the proposal are discussed
above in Sections VII and VIII of this preamble, and in Chapter 8 of
the draft RIA, as required by section 202 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It
would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this action. Although Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this proposed rule, EPA did consult with
representatives of various State and local governments in developing
this rule. EPA has also consulted with representatives from the
National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA, representing state
and local air pollution officials), Northeast States for Coordinated
Air Use Management (NESCAUM, the Clean Air Association of the Northeast
States), and the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC, a multi-state
organization created under the CAA responsible for advising EPA on
transport issues and for developing and implementing regional solutions
to the ground-level ozone problem in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
regions).
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed
rule would be implemented at the Federal level and would impose
compliance costs only on those in the gasoline production,
distribution, and additive industry and in the highway and nonroad
engine, vehicle, and equipment industries. Tribal governments would be
affected only to the extent they purchase and use regulated fuels,
vehicles, and equipment. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.
Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, EPA
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from
tribal officials.
[[Page 30000]]
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it is an economically significant regulatory action as defined
by EO 12866, and EPA believes that the environmental health or safety
risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on
children. Accordingly, we have evaluated the environmental health or
safety effects of air pollutants affected by the proposed standards on
children. The results of this evaluation are contained in Section II.B
and associated references.
Children are more susceptible than adults to many air pollutants
because of differences in physiology, higher per body weight breathing
rates and consumption, rapid development of the brain and bodily
systems, and behaviors that increase chances for exposure. Even before
birth, the developing fetus may be exposed to air pollutants through
the mother that affect development and permanently harm the individual.
Infants and children breathe at much higher rates per body weight
than adults, with infants under one year of age having a breathing rate
up to five times that of adults.\510\ In addition, children breathe
through their mouths more than adults and their nasal passages are less
effective at removing pollutants, which leads to a higher deposition
fraction in their lungs.\511\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\510\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009).
Metabolically-derived ventilation rates: A revised approach based
upon oxygen consumption rates. Washington, DC: Office of Research
and Development. EPA/600/R-06/129F. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=202543.
\511\ Foos, B.; Marty, M.; Schwartz, J.; Bennet, W.; Moya, J.;
Jarabek, A.M.; Salmon, A.G. (2008) Focusing on children's inhalation
dosimetry and health effects for risk assessment: An introduction. J
Toxicol Environ Health 71A: 149-165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain motor vehicle emissions present greater risks to children
as well. For example, mutagenic carcinogens such as benzene and 1,3-
butadiene have a larger impact during young life stages, given the
rapid development of the corporal systems.\512\ Exposure at a young age
to these carcinogens could lead to a higher risk of developing cancer
later in life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\512\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Supplemental
guidance for assessing susceptibility from early-life exposure to
carcinogens. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-03/
003F. http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The adverse effects of individual air pollutants may be more severe
for children, particularly the youngest age groups, than adults. The
Integrated Science Assessments and Criteria Documents for a number of
pollutants affected by this rule, including those for NO2,
PM, ozone and CO, describe children as a group with greater
susceptibility. Section II.B.5 discusses a number of childhood health
outcomes associated with proximity to roadways, including evidence for
exacerbation of asthma symptoms and suggestive evidence for new onset
asthma. In general, these studies do not identify the specific
contaminants associated with adverse effects, instead addressing the
near-roadway environment as one containing numerous exposures
potentially associated with adverse health effects.
In addition to their underlying biological susceptibility, as
discussed in Section II.B.1, children may be more vulnerable to the
effects of air pollution because of their high levels of outdoor
activity. As discussed in that section, greater impacts of ozone have
been reported among children who are more active outdoors.
Section III.C describes the ambient air quality changes resulting
from the proposed standards, which represent levels to which the
general population is exposed. Children are not expected to experience
greater ambient concentrations of air pollutants than the general
population. However, because of their greater susceptibility to air
pollution and their increased time spent outdoors, it is likely that
the proposed standards would have particular benefits for children's
health.
The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to the air
pollutants affected by the proposed standards.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), requires EPA to prepare and submit a Statement of
Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for certain
actions identified as ``significant energy actions.'' Section 4(b) of
Executive Order 13211 defines ``significant energy actions'' as ``any
action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that
promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule
or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of
proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any
successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.'' Given the
flexibilities being proposed for entities in the gasoline production
and distribution system, we believe that these mitigate any potential
adverse effects on gasoline supply and distribution. Although EPA does
not expect this rule to have significant adverse effects on the supply
or distribution of gasoline, we have prepared a Statement of Energy
Effects for this action as follows.
This proposal's potential effects on energy supply, distribution,
or use have been analyzed and are further discussed above in:
Section V--fuel provisions of the proposed rule and
flexibilities, including hardship provisions.
Section V.2.c--discussion on proposed refinery lead time.
Section X--proposed economic impacts (specifically,
Section X.C for fuel economic impacts, and Section X.D on employment
impacts).
Section VII.B--estimated costs of the proposed fuel
program.
Given the estimated costs and impacts of the proposed rule, as
discussed in these areas of this preamble, we do not expect this rule
to have any adverse effect on the supply or distribution of gasoline.
Further, we do not believe that there are any reasonable alternatives
to the control of sulfur in gasoline which would provide the level of
reduction of emissions, considering cost-benefit analyses, given by the
reduction in sulfur being proposed in this rule.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (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 EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
[[Page 30001]]
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA is
proposing to update a number of regulations which already contain
voluntary consensus standards to more recent versions of these
standards. EPA is proposing to use the ASTM International (ASTM)
standards listed in Table XII-1 below. The standards may be obtained
through the ASTM Web site (www.astm.org) or by calling ASTM at (610)
832-9585.
This proposed rulemaking also involves environmental monitoring or
measurement. Consistent with the Agency's Performance Based Measurement
System (``PBMS''), EPA proposes not to require the use of specific,
prescribed analytic methods. Rather, the Agency plans to allow the use
of any method that meets the prescribed performance criteria. The PBMS
approach is intended to be more flexible and cost-effective for the
regulated community; it is also intended to encourage innovation in
analytical technology and improved data quality. EPA is not precluding
the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus
standard or not, as long as it meets the performance criteria
specified.
Table XII-1--Designated Analytical Test Methods for Gasoline and Diesel
Fuel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel parameter Designated analytical method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur in gasoline..................... ASTM D 2622-05.
Sulfur in butane....................... ASTM D 6667-01.
500 ppm Sulfur Diesel Fuel............. ASTM D 2622-05.
Olefins in gasoline.................... ASTM 1319-03 [egr]1.
Reid vapor pressure (RVP) in gasoline.. ASTM D 5191-07, with the
following correlation
equation:
RVP psi = (0.956 * X) -
0.347
RVP kPa = (0.956 * X) - 2.39
where: X = total measured
vapor pressure in psi or
kPa.
Distillation in gasoline............... ASTM D86-07b.
Benzene in gasoline.................... ASTM D 3606-07, except that
instrument parameters shall be
adjusted to ensure complete
resolution of benzene,
ethanol, and methanol peaks.
Aromatics in gasoline.................. ASTM D 5769-04, except that
sample chilling requirements
in section 8 of this standard
are optional.
Oxygen and oxygenate content in ASTM D 5599-00(2005).
gasoline.
Aromatics in diesel fuel............... ASTM D1319-03 [egr]1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 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 populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.
This proposed rule would reduce emissions from all vehicles across
the nation, both new vehicles (beginning in model year 2017, when the
vehicle standards start to apply) and existing vehicles (as soon as the
lower-sulfur gasoline becomes available in 2017 or earlier). As such,
this proposal would increase the level of environmental protection for
all populations. As discussed in Section III.B.7, there is evidence
that minority populations and low-income populations live
disproportionately near high-traffic roadways, where concentrations of
many air pollutants are elevated. We expect this proposed rule to
increase the level of environmental protection for these populations.
Thus, this proposed rule would not have a disproportionately high
adverse human health or environmental effect on minority or low-income
populations.
XIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
Statutory authority for this action comes from sections 202, 203-
209, 211, 213, 216, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. sections
7414, 7521, 7522-7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7545, 7547, 7550, and 7601.
Additional support for the procedural and compliance related aspects of
this proposal, including the proposed recordkeeping requirements, comes
from sections 114, 208, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
sections 7414, 7542, and 7601(a).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 79
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Diesel fuel,
Energy, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties,
Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Diesel fuel,
Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports, Incorporation by reference,
Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Petroleum, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 85
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Warranties.
[[Page 30002]]
40 CFR Part 86
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.
40 CFR Part 600
Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Fuel
economy, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Parts 1036 and 1037
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Confidential business information, Environmental protection,
Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.
40 CFR Parts 1065 and 1066
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Research.
Dated: March 29, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 79--REGISTRATION OF FUEL AND FUEL ADDITIVES
0
1. The authority citation for part 79 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 USC 7414, 7524, 7545, and 7601.
0
2. Section 79.5 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a).
0
b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text.
Sec. 79.5 Periodic reporting requirements.
(a) Fuel manufacturers. (1) For each calendar quarter (January
through March, April through June, July through September, October
through December) commencing after the date prescribed for a particular
fuel in subpart D of this part, fuel manufacturers shall submit to the
Administrator a report for each registered fuel showing the range of
concentration of each additive reported under Sec. 79.11(a) and the
volume of such fuel produced in the quarter. Reports shall be submitted
by the required deadline as shown in Table 1 to Sec. 79.5 on forms
supplied by the Administrator upon request.
Table 1 to Sec. 79.5--Quarterly Reporting Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time period Quarterly report
Calendar quarter covered deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quarter One.................... January 1-March 31 June 1.
Quarter Two.................... April 1-June 30... September 1.
Quarter Three.................. July 1-September December 1.
30.
Quarter Four................... October 1-December March 31.
31.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Fuel manufacturers shall submit to the Administrator a report
annually for each registered fuel providing additional data and
information as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section in
the designation of the fuel in subpart D of this part. Reports shall be
submitted by March 31 for the preceding year, or part thereof, on forms
supplied by the Administrator upon request. If the date prescribed for
a particular fuel in 40 CFR part 80 subpart D, or the later
registration of a fuel is between October 1 and December 31, no report
will be required for the period to the end of that year.
(b) Additive manufacturers. Additive manufacturers shall submit to
the Administrator a report annually for each registered additive
providing additional data and information as specified in paragraphs
(c) and (d) of this section in the designation of the additive in 40
CFR part 80 subpart D. Additive manufacturers shall also report
annually the volume of each additive produced. Reports shall be
submitted by March 31 for the preceding year, or part thereof, on forms
supplied by the Administrator upon request. If the date prescribed for
a particular additive in 40 CFR part 80 subpart D, or the later
registration of an additive is between October 1 and December 31, no
report will be required for the period to the end of that year. These
periodic reports shall not, however, be required for any additive that
is:
* * * * *
PART 80--REGULATION OF FUEL AND FUEL ADDITIVES
0
3. The authority citation for part 80 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C., 7414, 7521(l), 7545, and 7601(a).
0
4. Section 80.2 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d).
0
b. Revising paragraph (w).
0
c. Revising paragraph (z).
0
d. Adding paragraphs (vvv), (www), (xxx), (yyy), (zzz), and (aaaa).
Sec. 80.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(d) Previously certified gasoline, or PCG, means gasoline, RBOB or
CBOB that previously has been included in a batch of gasoline for
purposes of complying with the standards of 40 CFR part 80 that apply
to refiners and importers.
* * * * *
(w) Cetane index or ``Calculated cetane index'' is a number
representing the ignition properties of diesel fuel oils from API
gravity and mid-boiling point, as determined by ASTM International
standard method D976-06(2011), entitled, ``Standard Test Method for
Calculated Cetane Index of Distillate Fuels'', approved October 1,
2011. ASTM International test method D976-06(2011) is incorporated by
reference. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director
of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies may be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr
Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies may be inspected
at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC, or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
* * * * *
(z) Aromatic content is the aromatic hydrocarbon content in volume
percent as determined by ASTM International standard test method D1319-
10, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for
[[Page 30003]]
Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator
Adsorption'', approved May 1, 2010. ASTM International test method
D1319-10 is incorporated by reference. This incorporation by reference
was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from ASTM
International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
Copies may be inspected at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
* * * * *
(vvv) Denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) means an alcohol of the chemical
formula C2H6O which contains a denaturant to make
it unfit for human consumption, that is used as an additive in
gasoline, and that meets the requirements of Sec. 80.1610.
(www) Oxygenate manufacturer means any person who owns, leases,
operates, controls, or supervises an oxygenate production facility.
(xxx) Oxygenate production facility means any facility where
oxygenate is produced.
(yyy) CBOB means gasoline blendstock that becomes conventional
gasoline solely upon the addition of oxygenate.
(zzz) Natural gas liquids (NGL) means the components of natural gas
(primarily propane, butane, pentane, hexane, and heptane) that are
separated from the gas state in the form of liquids in a natural gas
production facility, in a gas processing plant, or in a natural gas
pipeline. NGL is sometimes also referred to as ``natural gasoline''.
(aaaa) Natural gas means a mixture of hydrocarbon gases that occurs
with petroleum deposits, principally methane together with varying
quantities of ethane, propane, butane, and other gases.
5. Section 80.8 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 80.8 Sampling methods for gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel additives,
and renewable fuels.
The sampling methods specified in this section shall be used to
collect samples of gasoline, diesel, fuel additives and renewable fuels
for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this
part.
(a) Manual sampling. Manual sampling of tanks and pipelines shall
be performed according to the applicable procedures specified in ASTM
International (ASTM) standard practice D4057 (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (e) of this section).
(b) Automatic sampling. Automatic sampling of petroleum products in
pipelines shall be performed according to the applicable procedures
specified in ASTM International (ASTM) standard practice D4177
(incorporated by reference, see paragraph (e) of this section).
(c) Sampling and sample handling for volatility measurement.
Samples to be analyzed for Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) shall be collected
and handled according to the applicable procedures in ASTM standard
practice D5842 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (e) of this
section).
(d) Sample compositing. Composite samples shall be prepared using
the applicable procedures in ASTM standard practice D5854 (incorporated
by reference, see paragraph (e) of this section).
(e) Materials incorporated by reference. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the
documents listed in this section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. Anyone may inspect copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC 20460, under EPA docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135, or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). The telephone number for the Air Docket Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1742. For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov//federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. For further information on these test methods,
please contact the Environmental Protection Agency at 734-214-4582.
(1) ASTM International material. Anyone may purchase copies of
these materials from the ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or by contacting ASTM International
customer service at 10-832-9585, or by contacting the email address of
[email protected] from the ASTM International Web site of http://www.astm.org.
(i) ASTM International standard practice D4057-06 (Reapproved 2011)
(``ASTM International D4057''), Standard practice for Manual Sampling
of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, approved June 1, 2011.
(ii) ASTM International standard practice D4177-95 (Reapproved
2010) (``ASTM International D4177''), Standard Practice for Automatic
Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, approved May 1, 2010.
(iii) ASTM International standard practice D5842-04 (Reapproved
2009) (``ASTM International D5842''), Standard Practice for Sampling
and Handling of Fuels for Volatility Measurement, approved June 1,
2009.
(iv) ASTM International standard practice D5854-96 (Reapproved
2010) (``ASTM International D5854''), Standard Practice for Mixing and
Handling of Liquid Samples of Petroleum and Petroleum Products,
approved May 1, 2010.
(2) [Reserved]
0
6. A new Sec. 80.10 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 80.10 Correction of batch volume reports.
For purposes of compliance with the reporting requirements of this
part, parties required to submit batch reports are not required to
correct unintentional errors in reporting batch volume on previously
submitted batch reports where all of the following circumstances apply:
(a) The reporting violation pertains solely to the volume of the
batch.
(b) The volume of the batch is incorrect by no more than 500
gallons or by no more than 1 percent of the true batch volume, in
gallons, whichever value (in gallons) is less.
(c) Reporting the true volumes of all the batches for the reporting
period would not result in a higher annual average sulfur or benzene
value than reported using the incorrect values after rounding to the
applicable digit for reporting.
(d) Reporting the true value for any batch would not result in a
reduced number of gallons for a violation of any per-gallon standard or
a violation of any other requirement of the Clean Air Act.
(e) The reporting party certifies that the conditions in paragraphs
(a) through (d) of this section have been met.
(f) For subpart M of this part, this section applies only to the
volume of fuels produced or exported that result in a renewable volume
obligation under subpart M of this part for obligated parties.
0
7a. Section 80.46 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading.
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4).
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) introductory text.
[[Page 30004]]
0
d. Revising paragraph (c).
0
e. Revising paragraph (d).
0
f. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2), and adding a new paragraph
(e)(3).
0
g. Revising paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(3)(i).
0
h. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2)(i).
0
i. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text and paragraph (h)(1).
Sec. 80.46 Measurement of reformulated gasoline and conventional
gasoline fuel parameters.
(a) * * *
(1) Through November 29, 2014, the sulfur content of gasoline must
be determined by ASTM International standard method D2622 (incorporated
by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) or by one of the
alternative test methods specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
Beginning November 30, 2014, the sulfur content of gasoline must be
determined by a test method approved under Sec. 80.47.
(2) Through November 29, 2014, the sulfur content of butane must be
determined by ASTM International standard method D6667 (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) or by one of the
alternative test methods specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(3) Through November 29, 2014, any refiner or importer may use any
of the following methods for determining the sulfur content of gasoline
provided the refiner or importer test result is correlated with the
method specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section:
(i) ASTM International standard test method D5453 (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).
(ii) ASTM International standard test method D6920 (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).
(iii) ASTM International standard test method D3120 (incorporated
by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).
(iv) ASTM International standard test method D7039 (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).
(4) Beginning November 30, 2014, the sulfur content of butane must
be determined by a test method approved under Sec. 80.47. Through
November 29, 2014, any refiner or importer may determine the sulfur
content of butane using any one of the following methods; provided the
refiner or importer test result is correlated with the method specified
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section:
(i) ASTM International standard method D4468 (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).
(ii) ASTM International standard method D3246 (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).
(b) * * *
(1) Through November 29, 2014, olefin content must be determined
using ASTM International standard method D1319 (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). Beginning November 30,
2014, the olefin content of gasoline may be determined by a test method
approved under Sec. 80.47.
(2)(i) Through November 29, 2014, any refiner or importer may
determine olefin content using ASTM International standard method ASTM
D6550 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section)
for purposes of meeting any testing requirements involving olefin
content, provided that:
* * * * *
(c) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). (1) Through November 29, 2014, Reid
Vapor Pressure must be determined using ASTM International standard
method D5191 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this
section), except the following correction equation must be used:
RVP psi = (0.956 * X) - 0.347
RVP kPa = 0.956 * X) - 2.39
Where:
X = Total measured vapor pressure, in psi or kPa.
(2) Beginning November 30, 2014, RVP may be determined by a test
method approved under Sec. 80.47.
(d) Distillation. Through November 29, 2014, distillation
parameters must be determined using ASTM International standard method
D86 ((incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).
Beginning November 30, 2014, the distillation parameters may be
determined by a test method approved under Sec. 80.47.
(e) * * *
(1) Through November 29, 2014, benzene content must be determined
using ASTM International standard method D3606 (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (h) of this section), except that:
(2) Instrument parameters shall be adjusted to ensure complete
resolution of the benzene, ethanol and methanol peaks because ethanol
and methanol may cause interference with ASTM International D3606
(incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) when
present.
(3) Beginning November 30, 2014, the benzene content may be
determined by a test method approved under Sec. 80.47.
(f)(1) Through November 29, 2014, aromatic content must be
determined using ASTM International standard method D5769 (incorporated
by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section), except the sample
chilling requirements in section 8 of this standard method are
optional. Beginning November 30, 2014, the aromatic content may be
determined by a test method approved under Sec. 80.47.
(2) * * *
(3)(i) Through November 29, 2014 any refiner or importer may
determine aromatics content using ASTM International standard method
D1319 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section)
for the purposes of meeting any test requirement involving aromatic
content; provided that:
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) Through November 29, 2014, oxygen and oxygenate content must be
determined using ASTM International standard method D5599 (incorporated
by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). Beginning November
30, 2014, oxygen and oxygenate content may be determined by a test
method approved under Sec. 80.47.
(2)(i) Through November 29, 2014, when oxygenates present are
limited to MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-amyl alcohol and C1 to C4
alcohols, any refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender may determine
oxygen and oxygen content using ASTM International standard method
D4815 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section)
for purposes of meeting any testing requirement; provided that:
* * * * *
(h) Materials incorporated by reference. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the
documents listed in this section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR 51. Anyone may inspect copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Room B102,
EPA West Building, Washington, DC, 20460, under EPA docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135, or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). The telephone number for the Air Docket Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1742. For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov//federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. For further information on these test methods,
[[Page 30005]]
please contact the Environmental Protection Agency at 734-214-4582.
(1) ASTM International material. Anyone may purchase copies of
these materials from the ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or by contacting ASTM International
customer service at 10-832-9585, or by contacting the email address of
[email protected] from the ASTM International Web site of http://www.astm.org.
(i) ASTM International standard method D3606-10 (``ASTM
International D3606''), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of
Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by Gas
Chromatography, approved October 1, 2010.
(ii) ASTM International standard method D1319-10 (``ASTM
International D1319''), ``Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in
Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Absorption'',
approved May 1, 2010.
(iii) ASTM International standard method D6550-10 (``ASTM
International D6550''), ``Standard Test Method for the Determination of
Olefin Content of Gasolines by Supercritical-Fluid Chromatography'',
approved October 1, 2010.
(iv) ASTM International standard method D4815-09 (``ASTM
International D4815''), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of
MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C1 to
C4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography'', approved
October 1, 2009.
(v) ASTM International standard method D2622-10 (``ASTM
International D2622''), ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum
Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry'',
approved February 15, 2010.
(vi) ASTM International standard method D2622-10 (``ASTM
International D2622''), ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum
Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry'',
approved February 15, 2010.
(vii) ASTM International standard method D3246-11 (``ASTM
International D3246''), ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum
Gas by Oxidative Microcoulometry'', approved June 1, 2011.
(viii) ASTM International standard method D5599-00(2010) (``ASTM
International D5599''), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of
Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and Oxygen Selective Flame
Ionization Detection'', approved October 1, 2010.
(ix) ASTM International standard method D5769-10 (``ASTM
International D5769''), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of
Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and Oxygen Selective Flame
Ionization Detection'', approved October 1, 2010.
(x) ASTM International standard method D86-11a (``ASTM
International D86''), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of
Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure'', approved July 1, 2011.
(xi) ASTM International standard method D5453-09 (``ASTM
International D5453''), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of
Total Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel
Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet Fluorescence'', approved
June 15, 2009.
(xii) ASTM International standard method D6920-07 (``ASTM D6920''),
Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in Naphthas, Distillates,
Reformulated Gasolines, Diesels, Biodiesels, and Motor Fuels by
Oxidative Combustion and Electrochemical Detection, approved December
1, 2007.
(xiii) ASTM International standard method D3120-08 (``ASTM
International D3120''), ``Standard Test Method for Trace Quantities of
Sulfur in Light Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Oxidative Microcoulometry'',
approved December 15, 2008.
(xiv) ASTM International standard method D7039-07 (``ASTM D7039''),
Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Gasoline and Diesel Fuel by
Monochromatic Wavelength Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry,
approved May 1, 2007.
(xv) ASTM International standard method D6667-10 (``ASTM
International D6667''), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of
Total Volatile Sulfur in Gaseous Hydrocarbons and Liquefied Petroleum
Gases by Ultraviolet Fluorescence'', approved October 1, 2010.
(xvi) ASTM International standard method D4468-85(2006) (``ASTM
International D4468''), ``Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in
Gaseous Fuels by Hydrogenolysis and Rateometric Colorimetry'', approved
June 1, 2006.
* * * * *
0
7b. Section 80.47 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 80.47 Performance-based Analytical Test Method Approach.
All sample handling, testing procedures and tests must be conducted
using good laboratory practices.
(a) Definitions. As used in this subpart:
(1) Performance-based Analytical Test Method Approach means a
measurement system based upon established performance criteria for
accuracy and precision with use of analytical test methods. As used in
this subpart, a measurement system used by laboratories to demonstrate
that a particular analytical test method is acceptable for
demonstrating compliance.
(2) Accuracy means the closeness of agreement between an observed
value from a single test measurement and an accepted reference value.
(3) Precision means the degree of agreement in a set of
measurements performed on the same property of identical test material.
(4) Absolute fuel parameter means a fuel parameter for which a
gravimetric standard is practical to construct and use. Sulfur content
of gasoline, butane, or diesel fuel are examples of an absolute fuel
parameter.
(5) Gravimetric standard means a test material made by adding a
carefully weighed quantity of the analyte to a measured quantity of
another substance known not to contain any of the analyte, resulting in
a solution with an accurately known concentrate of the analyte.
(6) Consensus named fuels are homogeneous quantities of fuel that
have been analyzed by a number of different laboratories (by sending
around small samples). The average concentration of some parameter of
interest across all of the different laboratories is then used as the
``consensus name'' for that material.
(7) Locally-named reference materials are gasoline or diesel fuels
that are usually from the regular production of the facility where they
are used in laboratory quality control efforts and have been analyzed
using the designated method (either by the facility's lab or by a
referee lab) to obtain an estimate of their concentration.
(8) Method-defined fuel parameter means a fuel parameter for which
an EPA-prescribed primary test method or designated method defines the
regulatory standard. Examples of method-defined fuel parameters include
olefin content in gasoline, Reid vapor pressure (RVP) of gasoline,
distillation parameters of gasoline, benzene content of gasoline,
aromatic content of gasoline
[[Page 30006]]
and diesel fuel, and oxygen/oxygenates content of gasoline.
(9) Reference Installations are designated test method
installations that are used to qualify the accuracy of other method-
defined parameter instruments. Reference installations of the
designated test method will be used to evaluate the accuracy of other
method-defined alternative test methods and to establish correlation
equations if necessary.
(10) Correlation equation is a correction equation as determined by
the use of ASTM International standard practice D6708 (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (r) of this section). This standard practice
determines whether the comparison between the alternative test method
and the designated test method is a null result. If the comparison is
not null, then the standard practice provides for a correlation
equation that predicts designated test method results from the
applicable method-defined alternative test method.
(11) Statistical quality control (SQC) means a planned system of
activities whose purpose is to provide a level of quality that meets
the needs of compliance with the standards of this part. This subpart
prescribes specific SQC requirements for both absolute and method
driven fuel parameters for both VCSB and non-VCSB regulated parties.
(12) Voluntary consensus-based standards body (VCSB) means a
domestic or international organization that plans, develops,
establishes, or coordinates voluntary consensus standards using agreed-
upon procedures and which possesses the attributes of openness, balance
of interest, due process, and consensus, as explained in OMB Circular
A-119 and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,
P.L. 104-113, sec. 12(d).
(13) Non-Voluntary consensus-based standards body (non-VCSB) means
a domestic or international regulated party who has developed a
proprietary analytical test method that has not been adopted by a VCSB
organization.
(b) Precision and accuracy criteria for approval for the absolute
fuel parameter of gasoline sulfur. (1) Precision. Beginning November
30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives
subject to the gasoline sulfur standard at Sec. 80.195 and Sec.
80.1603, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the
results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests
per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory
practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available
gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability
``r'' divided by 2.77, where ``r'' equals the ASTM repeatability of
ASTM D7039-07 (Example: A 10ppm sulfur gasoline sample: maximum
allowable standard deviation of 20 tests <= 1.5*(1.75ppm/2.77)=0.95
ppm). The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record
of analysis and no emissions. A laboratory facility may exclude a given
sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under
good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample
and test results and the reason for excluding them.
(2) Accuracy. Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor vehicle
gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline sulfur
standard at Sec. Sec. 80.195 and 80.1603:
(i) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10
tests performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially
available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 1-10 ppm shall
not differ from the accepted reference value (ARV) of the standard by
more than 0.71 ppm sulfur;
(ii) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10
tests performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially
available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 10-20 ppm shall
not differ from the ARV of the standard by more than 1.00 ppm sulfur;
and
(iii) In applying the tests of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of
this section, individual test results shall be compensated for any
known chemical interferences using good laboratory practices.
(3) The test method specified at Sec. 80.46(a)(1) and in use prior
to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(c) Precision and accuracy criteria for approval of the absolute
fuel parameter of sulfur in butane. (1) Precision. Beginning November
30, 2014, for butane subject to the butane sulfur standard at
Sec. Sec. 80.82, 80.195, 80.340(b), and 80.1603, the maximum allowable
standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests
made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per
day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single
homogeneous commercially available butane must be less than or equal to
1.5 times the repeatability ``r'' divided by 2.77, where ``r'' equals
the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D6667-10 (Example: A 10 ppm sulfur
butane sample: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests <=
1.5*(1.15ppm/2.77) = 0.62 ppm). The 20 results must be a series of
tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions. A
laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if
the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and
it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the
reason for excluding them.
(2) Accuracy. Beginning November 30, 2014, for butane subject to
the butane sulfur standard at Sec. Sec. 80.82 and 80.1603:
(i) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10
tests performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially
available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 1-10 ppm shall
not differ from the ARV of the standard by more than 0.47 ppm sulfur;
(ii) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10
tests performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially
available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 10-20 ppm shall
not differ from the ARV of the standard by more than 0.94 ppm sulfur;
and
(iii) In applying the tests of paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of
this section, individual test results shall be compensated for any
known chemical interferences using good laboratory practices.
(3) The test method specified at Sec. 80.46(a)(2) and in use prior
to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(d) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel
parameter of olefins in gasoline. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30,
2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to
the gasoline standards of this part, the maximum allowable standard
deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over
20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on
samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous
commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times
the repeatability ``r'' divided by 2.77, where ``r'' equals the ASTM
repeatability of ASTM D1319-10 (Example: A gasoline containing 9Vol%
olefins: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests <=
1.5*(0.972Vol%/2.77) = 0.53Vol%). The 20 results must be a series of
tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions. A
laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if
the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and
it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the
reason for excluding them.
[[Page 30007]]
(2) The test method specified at Sec. 80.46(b)(1) and in use prior
to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of
this section.
(e) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel
parameter of aromatics in gasoline. (1) Precision. Beginning November
30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives
subject to the gasoline standards of this part, the maximum allowable
standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests
made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per
day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single
homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal
to 1.5 times the repeatability ``r'' divided by 2.77, where ``r''
equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D1319-10 (Example: A gasoline
containing 32Vol% aromatics: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20
tests <= 1.5*(1.3Vol%/2.77) = 0.70Vol%). The 20 results must be a
series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions.
A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if
the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and
it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the
reason for excluding them.
(2) The test method specified at Sec. 80.46(f)(1) and in use prior
to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of
this section.
(f) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel
parameter of oxygen and oxygenate content in gasoline. (1) Precision.
Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline
fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of this part, the
maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a
minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2
or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices
taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be
less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability ``r'' divided by
2.77, where ``r'' equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM 5599-00(2010)
(Example: A gasoline containing 3Mass% total oxygen: maximum allowable
standard deviation of 20 tests <= 1.5*(0.083Mass%/2.77) = 0.045Mass%).
The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of
analysis and no emissions. A laboratory facility may exclude a given
sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under
good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample
and test results and the reason for excluding them.
(2) The test method specified at Sec. 80.46(g)(1) and in use prior
to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of
this section.
(g) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel
parameter of Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) in gasoline. (1) Precision.
Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline
fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of this part and the
volatility standards at Sec. 80.27, the maximum allowable standard
deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over
20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on
samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous
commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times
the repeatability ``r'' divided by 2.77, where ``r'' equals the ASTM
repeatability of ASTM 5191-10b (Example: A gasoline having a RVP of
6.8psi: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests <=
1.5*(0.21psi/2.77) = 0.11psi). The 20 results must be a series of tests
with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions. A laboratory
facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the
exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it
maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason
for excluding them.
(2) The test method specified at Sec. 80.46(c)(1) and in use prior
to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of
this section.
(h) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel
parameter of gasoline distillation. (1) Precision. Beginning November
30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives
subject to the gasoline standards of this part, the maximum allowable
standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests
made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per
day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single
homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal
to 1.5 times the repeatability ``r'' divided by 2.77, where ``r''
equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D86-11a for the initial boiling
point, E10, E50, E90 and final boiling point. (Example: A gasoline
having an initial boiling point of 20 [deg]C and a final boiling point
of 110 [deg]C: Maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for
initial boiling point <= 1.5*(2.84 [deg]C/2.77) = 1.54 [deg]C, maximum
allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for E10 <= 1.5*(1.33 [deg]C/
2.77) = 0.72 [deg]C, maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests
for E50 <= 1.5*(0.74 [deg]C/2.77) = 0.40 [deg]C, maximum allowable
standard deviation of 20 tests for E90t <= 1.5*(1.79 [deg]C/2.77) =
0.97 [deg]C, and maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for
final boiling point <= 1.5*(3.33 [deg]C/2.77) = 1.80 [deg]C). The 20
results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis
and no emissions. A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or
test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good
laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and
test results and the reason for excluding them.
(2) The test method specified at Sec. 80.46(d)(1) and in use prior
to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of
this section.
(i) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel
parameter of benzene in gasoline. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30,
2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to
the gasoline standards of this part and the MSAT2 standards at
Sec. Sec. 80.41, 80.101, and 80.1230, the maximum allowable standard
deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over
20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on
samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous
commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times
the repeatability ``r'' divided by 2.77, where ``r'' equals the ASTM
repeatability of ASTM D3606-10 (Example: A gasoline having a 1Vol%
benzene: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests <=
1.5*(0.04Vol%/2.77) = 0.02Vol%). The 20 results must be a series of
tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions. A
laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if
the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and
it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the
reason for excluding them.
(2) The test method specified at Sec. 80.46(e)(1) and in use prior
to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (i)(1) of
this section.
(j) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel
parameter of aromatics in diesel. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30,
2014, for motor vehicle diesel and diesel fuel additives subject to the
motor vehicle diesel standards at Sec. 80.520, the maximum allowable
standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests
made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per
day) on samples using good laboratory
[[Page 30008]]
practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available
gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability
``r'' divided by 2.77, where ``r'' equals the ASTM repeatability of
ASTM D1319-10 (Example: A diesel fuel containing 35Vol% aromatics:
maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests <= 1.5*(1.3Vol%/2.77)
= 0.70Vol%). The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential
record of analysis and no emissions. A laboratory facility may exclude
a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid
reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records
regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding
them.
(2) The test method specified at Sec. 80.46(j)(1) and in use prior
to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (j)(1) of
this section.
(k) Criteria for designated test method reference installations
used to qualify the accuracy of other method-defined parameter
instruments. (1) Beginning November 30, 2014, the reference
installation of the method-defined fuel parameter for the applicable
designated test method must have precision equal to 1.5 times the
repeatability ``r'' of the method-defined fuel parameter's designated
test method, where ``r'' is the repeatability of the designated test
method.
(i) Olefins in gasoline see paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(ii) Aromatics in gasoline see paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(iii) Oxygen and Oxygenate content of gasoline see paragraph (f)(1)
of this section.
(iv) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of gasoline see paragraph (g)(1) of
this section.
(v) Gasoline Distillation see paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
(vi) Benzene in Gasoline see paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
(vii) Aromatics in Diesel see paragraph (j)(1) of this section.
(2) The reference installation of the method-defined fuel parameter
for the applicable designated test method must be shown to be near the
middle distribution of an industry monthly inter-laboratory crosscheck
program for at least a period of five months using good laboratory
practices. Specifically, compute the difference between the
instrument's average measurement of the fuel closest to the applicable
fuel standard (or to the average value for the fuel parameter in the
complex model) and the robust mean for that fuel obtained by all of the
non-outlier labs in the monthly inter-laboratory crosscheck program.
Standardize this difference by expressing it in robust standard
deviation units. These standardized inter-laboratory crosscheck
differences should be placed in a moving average with a minimum span of
five months. The instrument's moving average in robust standard
deviation units cannot be outside the central 50% of the distribution
of all laboratories that participated in the inter-laboratory
crosscheck program.
(3) The reference installation of the method-defined fuel parameter
for the applicable designated test method must be shown to be in
statistical quality control as specified in ASTM International D6299
(incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) for a
minimum period of five months using good laboratory practices.
(l) Qualification criteria for Voluntary Consensus Standard Based
(VCSB) Method-Defined Parameter Test Methods. (1) Beginning November
30, 2014, include full test method documentation by the Voluntary
Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) organization, including a description
of the technology and/or instrumentation that makes the method
functional.
(2) Include information reported in the test method that
demonstrates the test method meets the applicable precision information
for the method-defined fuel parameter as described in this section.
(3) Include information reported in the test method that
demonstrates the test method has been evaluated using ASTM
International D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of
this section) and whether the comparison is a ``null'' result or
whether a correlation equation needs to be applied that predicts
designated test method results from the applicable method-defined
alternative test method.
(4) The test methods specified at Sec. Sec. 80.2(w) and
80.46(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), (e)(1), (f)(1), and (g)(1)
and in use prior to May 30, 2013 are exempt from the requirements of
paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section.
(m) Qualification criteria for Non-Voluntary Consensus Standard
Based (non-VCSB) Method-Defined Parameter Test Methods. For a non-VCSB
method to be approved, the following information must be submitted to
the Administrator by each test facility for each method that it wishes
to have approved.
(1) Beginning November 30, 2014, full and thorough test method
documentation, including a description of the technology and/or
instrumentation that makes the method functional so a person lacking
experience with the test instrument would be able to replicate its
results.
(2) Information reported in the test method that demonstrates the
test method meets the applicable precision information using good
laboratory practices for the method-defined fuel parameter as described
in this section.
(3) Both the candidate method-defined Non-VCSB test method and its
respective designated test method must be tested on a range of
consensus named fuels or locally-named reference materials that are
typical of those analyzed by the facility in practice using good
laboratory practices and must meet the data requirements for
variability as required in ASTM International D6708 (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (r) of this section).
(4) The facility using the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test
method must statistically establish through application of ASTM D6708
(incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) that the
candidate method measures the same aspect of samples as applicable to
its respective designated test method using good laboratory practices.
(5) If the use of ASTM D6708 (incorporated by reference, see
paragraph (r) of this section) reveals that the candidate method-
defined non-VCSB test method has sample-specific biases due to matrix
effects that cannot be determined as random the method is disqualified.
If however, it is determined that the candidate method-defined non-VCSB
test method can be qualified on a narrow circumscribed range of fuels
while still meeting the data requirements for variability as required
in ASTM International D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph
(r) of this section) (see paragraph (m)(3) of this section), then the
types of fuels on which the qualification was achieved and for which
the method is to be approved must be specified in the candidate method-
defined non-VCSB test method description. If there is any restriction
on the scope of fuels for which the candidate method-defined non-VCSB
test method is to be qualified, the applicant must include a discussion
of how the facility plans to screen sample for conformity to the scope.
If the candidate method-defined test method is found to have minimal
matrix effects, a statement to this effect must be included by the
applicant in its application.
(6) The candidate method-defined non-VCSB test method precision
qualification must be conducted in the form of ``cross-method
reproducibility'' (Rcm) of the candidate method and
[[Page 30009]]
applicable designated test method as required in ASTM International
D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section),
where the Rcm must be equal to or less than 70 percent of the published
reproducibility of the applicable designated test method using good
laboratory practices.
(7) The applicant of the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test
method must demonstrate through the use of ASTM D6708 (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) whether a correlation to
applicable designated test method is necessary. If it is determined
through the use of this practice that the candidate method-defined non-
VCSB test method requires a correlation equation in order to predict
designated test method results, then this correlation equation must be
applied to the candidate instruments output to obtain measurement
results for regulatory purposes using good laboratory practices.
(8) Any additional information requested by the Administrator and
necessary to render a decision as to approval of the test method.
(9) Samples used for precision and accuracy determination must be
retained for 90 days.
(10) EPA approval. Within 90 days of the receipt of materials
required to be submitted under paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this
section, the Administrator shall determine whether the test method is
approved under this section.
(11) If the Administrator denies approval of the test method,
within 90 days of receipt of all materials required to be submitted in
paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section, the Administrator will
notify the applicant of the reasons for not approving the method. If
the Administrator does not notify the applicant within 90 days of
receipt of the application, then the test method shall be deemed
approved.
(12) The Administrator may revoke approval of a test method under
this section for cause, including, but not limited to, a determination
by the Administrator that the approved test method has proved to be
inadequate in practice.
(13) An independent third-party scientific review and written
report and verification of the information provided pursuant to
paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section. The report and
verification shall be based upon a site visit and review of relevant
documents and shall separately identify each item required by
paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section, describe how the
independent third-party evaluated the accuracy of the information
provided, state whether the independent third-party agrees with the
information provided, and identify any exceptions between the
independent third-party's findings and the information provided.
(i) The information required under this section to be provided by
an independent third party must be conducted by both a professional
chemist and professional statistician as specified in paragraph
(m)(13)(i)(A) of this section. The verifying chemist and statistician
must be:
(A) For a refiner, importer, oxygenate producer, and oxygenate
blender, a chemist and statistician who has received at least a
bachelor's degree in science from an accredited college in the United
States, with professional work experience in the petroleum or oxygenate
field.
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) To be considered an independent third-party under this
paragraph (m)(13):
(A) The third-party shall not be employed by the refiner, importer,
oxygenate producer, or oxygenate blender, or any subsidiary or employee
of the refiner, import facility, oxygenate producing facility, or
oxygenate blender.
(B) The third party shall be free from any interest in the
refiner's, importer's, oxygenate producer's, or oxygenate blender's
business.
(C) The refiner, importer, oxygenate producer, or oxygenate blender
shall be free from any interest in the third-party's business.
(D) Use of a third-party that is debarred, suspended, or proposed
for debarment pursuant to the Government-wide Debarment and Suspension
regulations, 40 CFR part 32, or the Debarment, Suspension and
Ineligibility provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, 48 CFR
part 9 subpart 9.4, shall be deemed in noncompliance with the
requirements of this section.
(iii) The independent third-party shall retain all records
pertaining to the verification required under this section for a period
of five years from the date of creation and shall deliver such records
to the Administrator upon request.
(iv) The third-party must provide to EPA documentation of his or
her qualifications as part of the scientific review, including proof of
appropriate college degree.
(14) If the Administrator finds that an individual test facility
has provided false or inaccurate information under this section, upon
notice from the Administrator the approval shall be void ab initio.
(n) Accuracy and Precision Statistical Quality Control (SQC)
Requirements for the Absolute Fuel Parameters. Beginning November 30,
2014, a test shall not be considered a test using an approved test
method unless the following quality control procedures are performed
separately for each instrument used to make measurements:
(1) Accuracy SQC. Every facility shall conduct tests on every
instrument with a commercially available gravimetric reference
material, or check standard as defined in the ASTM International
standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r)
of this section) on at least a quarterly basis using good laboratory
practices. The facility must pre-treat and assess results from the
check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions as described
in section 8.2 of this standard practice. The facility must construct
``MR'' and ``I'' charts with control lines as described in section 8.4
and appropriate Annex sections of this standard practice. In
circumstances where the absolute difference between the mean of
multiple back-to-back tests of the standard reference material and the
accepted reference value of the standard reference material is greater
than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must
be investigated by the facility. Records of the standard reference
materials measurements as well as any investigations into any
exceedance of these criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years.
(2)(i) Precision SQC. Every facility shall conduct tests on every
instrument with a quality control material as defined in paragraph
3.2.3 in ASTM International D6299 (incorporated by reference, see
paragraph (r) of this section) either once per week or once per every
20 productions tests, whichever is more frequent. The facility must
construct and maintain an ``I'' chart as described in section 7 and
section A1.5.1 and a ``MR'' chart as described in section A1.5.2. Any
violations of control limit(s) should be investigated by personnel of
the facility and records kept for a period of 5 years.
(ii) Validation of New QC Material. When a test facility is making
a transition from one batch of QC material to the next batch of QC
material, the facility will follow the ``Q-Procedure'' in Annex 1.9 of
ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference,
see paragraph (r) of this section). In following the Q-Procedure if the
plot of results from the old and new QC materials on its respective
chart shows no special-cause signals, then the result of the new QC
material will be considered valid. These records must be
[[Page 30010]]
kept by the facility for a period of 5 years.
(o) Accuracy and Precision Statistical Quality Control (SQC)
Requirements for the Voluntary Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) Method-
Defined Fuel Parameters. Beginning November 30, 2014, a test shall not
be considered a test using an approved test method unless the following
quality control procedures are performed separately for each instrument
used to make measurements:
(1) Accuracy SQC. Every facility shall conduct tests of every
instrument with a commercially available check standard as defined in
the ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) on at least a quarterly
basis using good laboratory practices. The check standard must be an
ordinary fuel with levels of the fuel parameter of interest close to
either the applicable regulatory standard or the average level of use
for the facility. The Accepted Reference Value of the check standard
must be determined by the respective designated test method for the
fuel parameter following the guidelines of ASTM International standard
practice D6299. The facility must pre-treat and assess results from the
check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions as described
in section 8.2 of this standard practice. The facility must construct
``MR'' and ``I'' charts with control lines as described in section 8.4
and appropriate Annex sections of this standard practice. In
circumstances where the absolute difference between the mean of
multiple back-to-back tests of the standard reference material and the
accepted reference value of the standard reference material is greater
than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must
be investigated by the facility. Records of the standard reference
materials measurements as well as any investigations into any
exceedance of these criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years.
(2)(i) Precision SQC. Every facility shall conduct tests of every
instrument with a quality control material as defined in paragraph
3.2.3 in ASTM International D6299 (incorporated by reference, see
paragraph (r) of this section) either once per week or once per every
20 productions tests, whichever is more frequent. The facility must
construct and maintain an ``I'' chart as described in section 7 and
section A1.5.1 and a ``MR'' chart as described in section A1.5.2. Any
violations of control limit(s) should be investigated by personnel of
the facility and records kept for a period of 5 years.
(ii) Validation of New QC Material. When a test facility is making
a transition from one batch of QC material to the next batch of QC
material, the facility will follow the ``Q-Procedure'' in Annex 1.9 of
ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference,
see paragraph (r) of this section). In following the Q-Procedure if the
plot of results from the old and new QC materials on its respective
chart shows no special-cause signals, then the result of the new QC
material will be considered valid. These records must be kept by the
facility for a period of 5 years.
(p) Accuracy and Precision Statistical Quality Control (SQC)
Requirements for the Non-Voluntary Consensus Standard Based (Non-VCSB)
Method-Defined Fuel Parameters. Beginning November 30, 2014, a test
shall not be considered a test using an approved test method unless the
following quality control procedures are performed separately for each
instrument used to make measurements:
(1) Accuracy SQC for Non-VCSB Method-Defined test methods with
minimal matrix effects. Every facility shall conduct tests on every
instrument with a commercially available check standard as defined in
the ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) on at least a quarterly
basis using good laboratory practices. The check standard must be an
ordinary fuel with levels of the fuel parameter of interest close to
either the applicable regulatory standard or the average level of use
for the facility. The Accepted Reference Value of the check standard
must be determined by the respective designated test method for the
fuel parameter following the guidelines of ASTM International standard
practice D6299. The facility must pre-treat and assess results from the
check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions as described
in section 8.2 of this standard practice. The facility must construct
``MR'' and ``I'' charts with control lines as described in section 8.4
and appropriate Annex sections of this standard practice. In
circumstances where the absolute difference between the mean of
multiple back-to-back tests of the standard reference material and the
accepted reference value of the standard reference material is greater
than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must
be investigated by the facility. Records of the standard reference
materials measurements as well as any investigations into any
exceedance of these criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years.
(2)(i) Accuracy SQC for Non-VCSB Method-Defined test methods with
high sensitivity to matrix effects. Every facility shall conduct tests
on every instrument with a production fuel on at least a quarterly
basis using good laboratory practices. The production fuel must be
representative of the production fuels that are routinely analyzed by
the facility. The Accepted Reference Value of the production fuel must
be determined by the respective reference installation of the
designated test method for the fuel parameter following the guidelines
of ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by
reference, see paragraph (r) of this section). The facility must pre-
treat and assess results from the check standard testing after at least
15 testing occasions as described in section 8.2 of this standard
practice. The facility must construct ``MR'' and ``I'' charts with
control lines as described in section 8.4 and appropriate Annex
sections of this standard practice. In circumstances where the absolute
difference between the mean of multiple back-to-back tests of the
standard reference material and the accepted reference value of the
standard reference material is greater than 0.75 times the published
reproducibility of the test method must be investigated by the
facility. Documentation on the identity of the reference installation
and its control status must be maintained on the premises of the
method-defined alternative test method. Records of the standard
reference materials measurements as well as any investigations into any
exceedances of this criterion must be kept for a period of 5 years.
(ii) Each facility is required to send every 20th production batch
of gasoline or diesel fuel to EPA's laboratory, along with the
facility's measurement result used to certify the batch using the
respective method-defined non-VCSB test method. The EPA retains the
right to return such sample on a blind basis for a required reanalysis
on the respective method-defined non-VCSB test method within 180 days
upon receipt of such sample.
(3)(i) Precision SQC. Every facility shall conduct tests on every
instrument with a quality control material as defined in paragraph
3.2.3 in ASTM International D6299 (incorporated by reference, see
paragraph (r) of this section) either once per week or once per every
20 productions tests, whichever is more frequent. The facility must
construct and maintain an ``I'' chart as described in section 7 and
section A1.5.1 and a ``MR'' chart as described in section A1.5.2. Any
[[Page 30011]]
violations of control limit(s) should be investigated by personnel of
the facility and records kept for a period of 5 years.
(ii) Validation of New QC Material. When a test facility is making
a transition from one batch of QC material to the next batch of QC
material, the facility will follow the ``Q-Procedure'' in Annex 1.9 of
ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference,
see paragraph (r) of this section) using good laboratory practices. In
following the Q-Procedure if the plot of results from the old and new
QC materials on its respective chart shows no special-cause signals,
then the result of the new QC material will be considered valid. These
records must be kept by the facility for a period of 5 years.
(q) Record retention requirements for the test methods approved
under this subpart. (1) Each individual test facility must retain
records related to the establishment of accuracy and precision values,
all test method documentation, and any statistical quality control
testing and analysis under this section using good laboratory practices
for a period for five years.
(2) [Reserved]
(r) Materials incorporated by reference. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the
documents listed in this section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR 51. Anyone may inspect copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Room B102,
EPA West Building, Washington, DC, 20460, under EPA docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135, or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). The telephone number for the Air Docket Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1742. For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov//federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. For further information on these test methods,
please contact the Environmental Protection Agency at 734-214-4582.
(1) ASTM International material. Anyone may purchase copies of
these materials from the ASTM International (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor
Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or by contacting ASTM
International customer service at 10-832-9585, or by contacting the
email address of [email protected] from the ASTM International Web site
of http://www.astm.org.
(i) ASTM International standard practice D6708-08 (``ASTM
International D6708''), ``Standard Practice for Statistical Assessment
and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between Two Test Methods that
Purport to Measure the Same Property of a Material'', approved December
15, 2008.
(ii) ASTM International standard practice D6299-10[epsiv]\1\
(``ASTM International D6708''), ``Standard Practice for Applying
Statistical Quality Assurance and Control Charting Techniques to
Evaluate Analytical Measurement System Performance'', approved March 1,
2010.
(2) [Reserved]
0
7c. Section 80.65 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d)(1).
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(2)(iv).
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(2)(v)(E).
0
d. Revising paragraph (d)(3).
0
e. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) introductory text, (e)(1)(i), and (e)(2)
introductory text.
0
f. Adding paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4).
0
g. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(3)(iii)(A).
0
h. Adding a new paragraph (f)(5).
0
i. Revising paragraph (i) introductory text.
0
j. Revising paragraphs (i)(1)(ii) and (i)(1)(iii).
0
k. Revising paragraphs (i)(4)(ii) introductory text and (i)(4)(ii)(A).
0
l. Revising paragraph (i)(6)(i).
Sec. 80.65 General requirements for refiners and importers.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) All gasoline produced or imported shall be properly designated
as reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB.
(2) * * *
(iv) [Reserved]
(v) * * *
(E) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(3) Every batch of reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline,
RBOB, or CBOB produced or imported at each refinery or import facility
shall be assigned a number (the ``batch number''), consisting of the
EPA-assigned refiner or importer registration number, the EPA facility
registration number, the last two digits of the year in which the batch
was produced, and a unique number for the batch, beginning with the
number one for the first batch produced or imported each calendar year
and each subsequent batch during the calendar year being assigned the
next sequential number (e.g., 4321-54321-95-000001, 4321-543321-95-
000002, etc.).
(e) * * *
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (e)(3) and (4) of this
section, each refiner or importer shall, for each batch of reformulated
gasoline or RBOB produced or imported, determine the volume and the
value of each of the properties specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of
this section, except that the value for RVP must be determined only in
the case of reformulated gasoline or RBOB that is VOC-controlled. These
determinations shall:
(i) Be based on a representative sample of the reformulated
gasoline or RBOB that is analyzed using the methodologies specified in
Sec. 80.46 through November 29, 2014, or, beginning November 30, 2014,
in Sec. 80.47;
* * * * *
(2) In the event that the value of any of these properties is
determined by the refiner or importer and by an independent laboratory
in conformance with the requirements of paragraph (f) of this section:
* * * * *
(3) Beginning January 1, 2013, API Gravity is not required to be
measured or reported for the purpose of batch certification.
(4) For the purposes of meeting the requirements of this paragraph
(e) for any winter fuel parameter except benzene, oxygenate, RVP and
sulfur, any refiner or importer may, prior to analysis, combine samples
of gasoline collected from more than one batch of gasoline or
blendstock (``composite sample''), and treat such composite sample as
one batch of gasoline or blendstock provided that the refiner or
importer meets all of the following requirements:
(i) Samples must be from a single reporting year, must be limited
to non-VOC gasoline, and must be of a single grade of gasoline or of a
single type of batch-produced blendstock.
(ii) Combines samples of gasoline that are produced or imported
over a period no longer than one month. Blendstock samples of a single
blendstock type obtained from continuous processes over a calendar
month may be mixed together to form one blendstock sample and the
sample subsequently analyzed for the required fuel parameters.
(iii)(A) Samples shall have been collected and stored using good
laboratory practices in order to prevent change in product composition
with regard to baseline properties and to minimize loss of volatile
fractions of the sample.
(B) Properties of the retained samples shall be adjusted for loss
of butane by comparing the RVP measured
[[Page 30012]]
immediately after blending with the RVP determined at the time that the
supplemental properties are measured.
(C) The volume of each batch or shipment sampled, to the nearest
gallon, shall have been noted and the sum of the volumes, in gallons,
calculated.
(iv) For each batch or shipment sampled, the ratio of its volume to
the total volume determined in paragraph (e)(4)(iii)(C) of this section
shall be determined to three decimal places. This shall be the
volumetric fraction of the shipment in the mixture.
(v) The total minimum volume required to perform duplicate analyses
to obtain values of all of the required fuel parameters shall be
determined.
(vi) The volumetric fraction determined in paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of
this section for each batch or shipment shall be multiplied by the
value determined in paragraph (e)(4)(v) of this section.
(vii) The resulting value determined in paragraph (e)(4)(vi) of
this section for each batch or shipment shall be the volume of each
batch or shipment's sample to be added to the mixture. This volume
shall be determined to the nearest milliliter.
(viii) The appropriate volumes of each shipment's sample shall be
thoroughly mixed and the solution analyzed per the methods required
under Sec. 80.46 or Sec. 80.47, as applicable.
(ix) Uses the total of the volumes of the batches of gasoline that
comprise the composite sample, and the results of the analyses of the
composite sample, for purposes of compliance calculations under this
paragraph (e).
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Option 1. The refiner or importer shall, for each batch of
reformulated gasoline or RBOB that is produced or imported, have the
value for each property specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this
section determined by an independent laboratory that collects and
analyzes a representative sample from the batch using the methodologies
specified in Sec. 80.46 through November 29, 2014, and the
methodologies specified in Sec. 80.47 beginning November 30, 2014.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) A report for the period January through March shall be
submitted by June 1; a report for the period April through June shall
be submitted bySeptember 1; a report for the period July through
September shall be submitted by December 1; and a report for the period
October through December shall be submitted by March 31. Beginning,
January 1, 2014, a single annual report for calendar year January
through December may be submitted by the following March 31.
* * * * *
(5) A refiner or importer may designate one alternate independent
laboratory, to be used only when the designated independent laboratory
per paragraph (f)(2) of this section is unavailable and cannot perform
testing required for compliance.
(i) The alternate independent laboratory must meet all provisions
of this section for designated independent laboratories.
(ii) An alternate independent laboratory may not be used to select
a preferred test result. The alternate laboratory may only be used on
those occasions where operational necessity causes a need for it (e.g.,
the primary designated laboratory is closed, the apparatus for certain
test methods are down, or independent laboratory personnel are not
available).
* * * * *
(i) Exclusion of previously certified gasoline. Any refiner who
uses previously certified reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline,
RBOB, or CBOB to produce reformulated gasoline or RBOB must exclude the
previously certified gasoline for purposes of demonstrating compliance
with the standards under Sec. 80.41. This exclusion must be
accomplished by the refiner as follows:
(1) * * *
(ii) In the case of previously certified reformulated gasoline or
RBOB determine the emissions performances for toxics and
NOX, except as provided in Sec. 80.41(e) and (f), and VOC
for VOC-controlled gasoline, and the designations for VOC control.
(iii) In the case of previously certified conventional gasoline or
CBOB, determine the exhaust toxics and NOX emissions
performances, except as provided in Sec. 80.101(c)(3) and (4).
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Where a refiner uses previously certified conventional
gasoline or CBOB to produce reformulated gasoline or RBOB:
(A) The refiner must include the volume and properties of any batch
of previously certified conventional gasoline or CBOB as a negative
batch in the refiner's anti-dumping compliance calculations under Sec.
80.101(g) for the refinery, or where applicable, the refiner's
aggregation under Sec. 80.101(h); and
* * * * *
(6)(i) Any refiner may use the procedures specified in this
paragraph (i) to combine previously certified conventional gasoline or
CBOB with reformulated gasoline or RBOB, to reclassify conventional
gasoline or CBOB into reformulated gasoline or RBOB, or to change the
designations of reformulated gasoline or RBOB with regard to VOC
control.
* * * * *
Subpart D--[Amended]
0
8. Section 80.75 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv).
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(v)(B).
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(viii)(D).
0
d. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ix)(F).
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (b).
0
f. Revising paragraph (c)(1).
0
g. Adding paragraph (d) introductory text.
0
h. Revising paragraph (d)(1).
0
i. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iii).
0
j. Adding paragraph (e) introductory text.
0
k. Revising paragraph (e)(1).
0
l. Adding paragraph (g) introductory text.
0
m. Adding paragraph (h) introductory text.
0
n. Revising paragraph (i).
0
o. Removing and reserving paragraph (k).
0
p. Revising paragraph (l).
0
q. Revising paragraph (o) introductory text.
Sec. 80.75 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The first quarterly report shall include information for
reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced or imported from January 1
through March 31, and shall be submitted by June 1 of each year;
(ii) The second quarterly report shall include information for
reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced or imported from April 1 through
June 30, and shall be submitted by September 1 of each year;
(iii) The third quarterly report shall include information for
reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced or imported from July 1 through
September 30, and shall be submitted by December 1 of each year; and
(iv) The fourth quarterly report shall include information for
reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced or imported from October 1
through December 31, and shall be submitted by March 31 of each year.
[[Page 30013]]
(2) * * *
(v) * * *
(B) The properties, along with identification of the test method
used to measure those properties, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 80.65 and
80.66;
* * * * *
(viii) * * *
(D) The volume, properties (along with identification of the test
method used to measure those properties), and designation of the batch.
(ix) * * *
(F) The properties of the butane batch, along with the
identification of the test method used to measure those properties,
specified by the butane supplier, or the properties specified in Sec.
80.82(c) or (d), as appropriate;
* * * * *
(b) [Reserved]
(c) * * *
(1) Any refiner or importer that produced or imported any
reformulated gasoline or RBOB under the complex model that was to meet
the VOC emissions performance standards on average (``averaged
reformulated gasoline'') shall submit to the Administrator, with the
third quarterly report, a report for each refinery or importer for such
averaged reformulated gasoline produced or imported during the previous
VOC averaging period. Beginning January 1, 2014, the information
required by this paragraph (c) shall be submitted with the annual
report. This information shall be reported separately for the following
categories:
* * * * *
(d) Benzene content averaging reports. Pursuant to Sec.
80.41(f)(3), for any refiner, refinery or importer not subject to the
applicable standards at Sec. 80.41(f)(1), the report required by this
paragraph (d) is not required beginning January 1, 2014, or beginning
January 1, 2016 for all other refiners.
(1) Any refiner or importer that produced or imported any
reformulated gasoline or RBOB that was to meet the benzene content
standards on average (``averaged reformulated gasoline'') shall submit
to the Administrator, with the fourth quarterly report, a report for
each refinery or importer for such averaged reformulated gasoline that
was produced or imported during the previous toxics averaging period.
Beginning January 1, 2014, the information required by this paragraph
(d) shall be submitted with the annual report.
(2) * * *
(iii) The actual total content of benzene, along with
identification of the test methods used to measure the content of
benzene;
* * * * *
(e) Toxics emissions performance averaging reports. Pursuant to
Sec. 80.41(f)(3), for any refiner, refinery or importer not subject to
the applicable standards at Sec. 80.41(f)(1), the report required by
this paragraph (e) is not required beginning January 1, 2014, or
beginning January 1, 2016 for all other refiners.
(1) Any refiner or importer that produced or imported any
reformulated gasoline or RBOB that was to meet the toxics emissions
performance standards on average (``averaged reformulated gasoline'')
shall submit to the Administrator, with the fourth quarterly report, a
report for each refinery or importer for such averaged reformulated
gasoline that was produced or imported during the previous toxics
averaging period. Beginning January 1, 2014, the information required
by this paragraph (e) shall be submitted with the annual report.
* * * * *
(g) NOX emissions performance averaging reports.
Pursuant to Sec. 80.41(f)(2), for any refiner, refinery or importer
not subject to the applicable standards at Sec. 80.41(f)(1), the
report required by this paragraph (g) is not required beginning January
1, 2012.
* * * * *
(h) Credit transfer reports. As an additional part of the fourth
quarterly report required by this section, any refiner or importer
shall, for each refinery or importer, supply the information specified
in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section for any benzene
credits that are transferred from or to another refinery or importer.
Beginning January 1, 2014, the information required by this paragraph
(h) shall be submitted with the annual report.
* * * * *
(i) Covered areas of gasoline use report. Any refiner that produced
any reformulated gasoline that was to meet any reformulated gasoline
standard on average (``averaged reformulated gasoline'') shall, for
each refinery at which such averaged reformulated gasoline was
produced, submit to the Administrator, with the fourth quarterly
report, a report that contains the identity of each covered area that
was supplied with any averaged reformulated gasoline produced at each
refinery during the previous year. Beginning January 1, 2014, the
information required by this paragraph (i) shall be submitted with the
annual report.
* * * * *
(k) [Reserved]
(l) Reports for per-gallon compliance gasoline. In the case of
reformulated gasoline or RBOB for which compliance with each of the
standards set forth in Sec. 80.41 is achieved on a per-gallon basis,
the refiner or importer shall submit to the Administrator, by March 1
of each year, a report of the volume of each designated reformulated
gasoline or RBOB produced or imported during the previous calendar year
for which compliance is achieved on a per-gallon basis, and a statement
that each gallon of this reformulated gasoline or RBOB met the
applicable standards.
* * * * *
(o) Additional reporting requirements for refiners that blend
butane with reformulated gasoline or RBOB. For refiners that blend any
butane with reformulated gasoline or RBOB under Sec. 80.82, the
refiner shall submit to the Administrator, by March 1 of each year, a
report for the refinery which includes the following information for
the previous calendar year:
* * * * *
0
9. Section 80.82 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text.
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a) through (d).
0
c. Revising paragraph (e)(1).
0
d. Adding paragraphs (i) and (j).
Sec. 80.82 Butane blending.
A refiner for any refinery that produces gasoline by blending
butane with previously certified gasoline may meet the sampling and
testing requirements for this part as follows:
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (i) of this section,
any refinery that blends butane for which the refinery has documents
from the butane supplier which demonstrate that the butane is
commercial grade, as defined in paragraph (c) of this section, may
demonstrate compliance with the standards in this part based on the
properties specified in paragraph (c) of this section, or the
properties specified by the butane supplier.
(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (i) of this
section, any refiner that blends butane for which the refiner has
documents from the butane supplier which demonstrate that the butane is
non-commercial grade, as defined in paragraph (d) of this section, may
demonstrate compliance with the standards in this part based on the
properties specified in paragraph (d) of this section, or the
properties specified by the butane supplier, provided that the
refinery:
[[Page 30014]]
(i) Conducts a quality assurance program of sampling and testing
the butane obtained from each separate butane supplier which
demonstrates that the butane has the properties specified in paragraph
(d) of this section; and
(ii) The frequency of sampling and testing for the butane received
from each butane supplier must be one sample for every 500,000 gallons
of butane received, or one sample every three months, whichever is more
frequent.
(2) Where test results indicate the butane does not meet the
requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the refiner may:
(i) Blend the butane with conventional gasoline, or reformulated
gasoline that has been downgraded to conventional gasoline, provided
that any applicable equivalent emissions performance standards of the
butane batch, as determined using the provisions in Sec. 80.101(g)(3),
meets the refinery's standards under Sec. 80.101 and the refiner meets
all of the standards and requirements applicable to refiners of
conventional gasoline under this part;
(ii) Blend the butane with reformulated gasoline or RBOB, provided
that the final batch of butane blended with reformulated gasoline or
RBOB meets the per-gallon standards in Sec. 80.41, as determined using
the test methods in Sec. 80.46.
(c) Commercial grade butane is defined as butane for which test
results demonstrate that the butane is 95% pure and has all of the
following properties:
(1) Olefins <=1.0 vol%.
(2) Aromatics <=2.0 vol%.
(3) Benzene <=0.03 vol%.
(4) Sulfur <=30 ppm from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2016;
<=10 ppm beginning January 1, 2017 and thereafter.
(d) Non-commercial grade butane is defined as butane for which test
results demonstrate the butane has all of the following properties:
(1) Olefins <=10.0 vol%.
(2) Aromatics <=2.0 vol%.
(3) Benzene <=0.03 vol%.
(4) Sulfur <=30 ppm beginning January 1, 2005 through December 31,
2016; <=10 ppm beginning January 1, 2017 and thereafter.
(e)(1) When butane is blended with conventional gasoline under this
section during the period May 1 through September 15, the refiner shall
demonstrate through sampling and testing, using the test method for
Reid vapor pressure in Sec. 80.47, that each batch of conventional
gasoline blended with butane meets the volatility standards specified
in Sec. 80.27.
* * * * *
(i) A refiner who only blends commercial grade or non-commercial
grade butane into PCG may meet the sampling and testing requirements of
subpart O of this part by meeting the requirements of paragraphs (a)
through (f) and (h)(3) of this section and all of the following
additional requirements:
(1) The per-gallon sulfur content of every batch of butane must not
exceed 10 ppm.
(2) The refiner obtains test results from the butane supplier that
demonstrate that the sulfur content of each load does not exceed the
applicable per-gallon sulfur standard under paragraph (i)(1) of this
section through test results of samples of butane contained in the
storage tank from which the butane blender is supplied.
(i) Sampling and testing for the sulfur content of the butane by
the supplier must be subsequent to each receipt of butane into the
supplier's storage tank or the sampling and testing must be immediately
before transfer of butane to the butane blender.
(ii) The testing must be performed in accord with the provisions of
Sec. 80.47.
(iii) The butane blender must obtain a copy of the butane
supplier's test results at the time of each transfer of butane to the
butane blender.
(3) The sulfur content and volume of each batch of gasoline
produced is that of the butane that the refiner blends into PCG for the
purposes of calculating compliance with the 10 ppm per-gallon sulfur
standard.
(4) The requirements of paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this
section apply regardless of whether the butane is commercial grade or
noncommercial grade.
(5) The quality assurance testing requirement of paragraph (b)(1)
of this section applies regardless of whether the butane is commercial
grade or noncommercial grade.
(6) If any of the requirements of this paragraph (i) are not met,
in whole or in part for any butane blended into gasoline, that butane
is deemed in violation of the gasoline standards in Sec. 80.1603(a).
(j) The PCG procedures of Sec. 80.1640 may be used to meet the
sampling and testing requirements of subpart O of this part.
0
10. Section 80.101 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (i)(1)(i)(A).
0
b. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(i)(C).
0
c. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(C).
Sec. 80.101 Standards applicable to refiners and importers.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)(A) Through November 29, 2014, determine the value of each of
the properties required for determining compliance with the standards
that are applicable to the refiner or importer, by collecting and
analyzing a representative sample of gasoline or blendstock from the
batch, using methodologies specified in Sec. 80.46; beginning November
30, 2014, determine the value of each of the properties required for
determining compliance with the standards that are applicable to the
refiner or importer, by collecting and analyzing a representative
sample of gasoline or blendstock from the batch, using methodologies
specified in Sec. 80.47; except that
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) The testing must be for each applicable parameter specified
under Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i), using either of the following:
(1) The test methods specified under Sec. 80.46, through November
29, 2014.
(2) The test methods specified under Sec. 80.47, beginning
November 30, 2014.
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The testing must be for each applicable parameter specified
under Sec. 80.65(e)(2)(i), using the test methods specified under
Sec. 80.46 through November 29, 2014, or under Sec. 80.47 beginning
November 30, 2014.
* * * * *
Subpart E--[Amended]
0
11. Section 80.105 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(v).
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(vi)(D).
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(5)(vii)(F) and (a)(5)(vii)(G).
0
d. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(iii).
0
e. Revising paragraph (d)(2).
Sec. 80.105 Reporting requirements.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(v) The properties, along with identification of the test method
used to measure those properties, pursuant to Sec. 80.101(i);
(vi) * * *
(D) The volume, properties, along with identification of the test
method used to measure those properties, and designation of the batch;
(vii) * * *
(F) The properties of the butane batch specified by the butane
supplier, along with identification of the test method used to measure
those properties of the
[[Page 30015]]
butane, or the properties specified in Sec. 80.82(c) or (d), as
appropriate.
(G) Where butane is blended with conventional gasoline during the
period May 1 through September 15, the Reid vapor pressure, along with
identification of the test method used to measure Reid vapor pressure
using the appropriate test method at Sec. 80.46 through November
29,2014, and at Sec. 80.47 beginning November 30, 2014; and
* * * * *
(7) * * *
(iii) A statement that the gasoline produced using butane meets all
applicable downstream standards that apply to conventional gasoline
under subpart E of this part, along with the test methods used to
determine compliance with the downstream standards that apply to
conventional gasoline under subpart E of this part; and
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Submitted to EPA by March 31 each year for the prior calendar
year averaging period; and
* * * * *
0
12. Section 80.161 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)(2) and adding paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(A)(3).
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(2) introductory text.
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(C), (b)(3)(v), and (b)(3)(viii).
0
d. Revising paragraph (d)(1).
Sec. 80.161 Detergent additive certification program.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(2) In the case of the alternative national generic certification
option pursuant to Sec. 80.163(a)(1)(iii), the minimum recommended
concentration must equal or exceed the amount mixed into the associated
test fuel specified in Sec. 80.177, which was shown to satisfy the
fuel injector deposit control and intake valve deposit control
performance tests and standards specified in Sec. 80.176.
(3) In the case of any other detergent certification option, the
minimum recommended concentration must equal or exceed the amount mixed
into the associated test fuel specified in Sec. 80.164, which was
shown to satisfy the fuel injector deposit control and intake valve
deposit control performance tests and standards specified in Sec.
80.165.
* * * * *
(2) The detergent additive manufacturer (or other certifying party)
must submit to EPA a sample of the actual detergent additive package
which was used in the certification test fuels specified in Sec.
80.164 or Sec. 80.177 or, if such sample is not available, then a
sample which has the same composition as the package used in
certification testing.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) Complete documentation of the test fuel formulation, IVD
demonstration procedures, fuel injector deposit demonstration procedure
if applicable, detergent performance test procedures, and test results
are available for EPA's inspection upon request.
* * * * *
(v) In the case of a national or PADD certification (pursuant to
Sec. 80.163(a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), or (b)) for which the test
fuel was specially formulated from refinery blend stocks, the results
of the IVD demonstration test, pursuant to Sec. 80.164(b)(3). In the
case of an alternative national generic certification (pursuant to
Sec. 80.163(a)(1)(iii)), the results of the IVD demonstration test and
fuel injector deposit demonstration test (pursuant to Sec. 80.177).
* * * * *
(viii) The test concentration(s) of the subject detergent additive
in each test fuel, and the corresponding test results (percent flow
restriction demonstrated in the fuel injector test and milligrams of
deposit per valve demonstrated in the IVD test).
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) If a detergent blender possesses deposit control performance
test results as specified in Sec. 80.165, Sec. 80.166, or Sec.
80.176 which show that the minimum treat rate recommended by the
manufacturer of a detergent additive product exceeds the amount of that
detergent actually required for effective deposit control, then, upon
informing EPA in writing of these circumstances, the detergent blender
may use the detergent at the lower concentration substantiated by these
test results.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 80.163 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 80.163 Detergent certification options.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Alternative national generic certification option. To be
certified under this option, a candidate detergent must meet the
deposit control performance test requirements and standards specified
in Sec. 80.176 using test fuels that conform to the requirements in
Sec. 80.177. A detergent certified under this option is eligible to be
used at a conforming LAC in any grade of gasoline, with or without an
oxygenate component.
* * * * *
0
14. Section 80.164 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 80.164 Certification test fuels.
(a) General requirements. This section provides specifications for
the test fuels required in conjunction with the certification options
described in Sec. 80.163(a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), and (b) through
(d). For each such certification option, the associated test fuel must
meet or exceed the levels of four basic fuel parameters (aromatics,
fuel sulfur, olefins, and T-90) prescribed here and may also contain
specified oxygenate compounds. In addition, pursuant to paragraph
(b)(3) of this section, some fuels must undergo an IVD demonstration
test before they are eligible to be used as test fuels under this
certification program. Test fuel characteristics must be reported to
EPA in the detergent certification letter required pursuant to Sec.
80.161(b)(3). The specifications for the test fuels required in
conjunction with the alternative national generic certification option
in Sec. 80.163(a)(1)(iii) are contained in Sec. 80.177.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 80.165 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 80.165 Certification test procedures and standards.
This section specifies the deposit control test requirements and
performance standards which must be met in order to certify detergent
additives for use in unleaded gasoline, pursuant to Sec.
80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)(3). These standards must be met in the context of
the specific test procedures identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section. The
testing must be conducted and the performance standards met when the
subject detergent additive is mixed in a test fuel meeting all relevant
requirements of Sec. 80.164, including the deposit-forming tendency
demonstration specified in Sec. 80.164(b)(3), if applicable. Complete
test documentation must be submitted by the certifying party within 30
days of receipt of a written request from EPA for such records. The
certification test procedures and standards associated with the
alternative national generic
[[Page 30016]]
certification option in Sec. 80.163(a)(1)(iii) are contained in Sec.
80.176.
(a) Fuel injector deposit control testing. The required test fuel
must produce no more than 5% flow restriction in any one injector when
tested in accordance with ASTM D 5598-94, ``Standard Test Method for
Evaluating Unleaded Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for
Electronic Port Fuel Injector Fouling,'' 1994, which is incorporated by
reference pursuant to Sec. 80.178. At the option of the certifier,
fuel injector flow may be measured at intervals during the 10,000 mile
test cycle described in ASTM D 5598-94, in addition to the flow
measurements required at the completion of the test cycle, but not more
than every 1,000 miles.
(b) Intake valve deposit control testing. The required test fuel
must produce the accumulation of less than 100 mg of intake valve
deposits on average when tested in accordance with ASTM D 5500-94,
``Standard Test Method for Vehicle Evaluation of Unleaded Automotive
Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit Formation,'' 1994,
which is incorporated by reference pursuant to Sec. 80.178.
(c) If conducted using test fuels meeting all relevant requirements
of Sec. 80.164, and completed prior to September 3, 1996, then the
PFID and IVD control test procedures required for detergent
certification in California (specified in section 2257 of Title 13,
California Code of Regulations) will also be considered acceptable.
California Air Resources Board, ``Test Method for Evaluating Port Fuel
Injector (PFI) Deposits in Vehicle Engines'', March 1, 1991, and
California Air Resources Board, ``BMW--10,000 Miles Intake Valve Test
Procedure'', March 1, 1991, are incorporated by reference pursuant to
Sec. 80.178.
0
16. Section 80.167 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.167 Confirmatory testing.
* * * * *
(a) Confirmatory testing conducted to evaluate the validity of
detergent certifications under the national, PADD, or fuel-specific
options under Sec. 80.163(a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), and (b)
through (d) will generally entail a single vehicle test using the
procedures detailed in Sec. 80.165. The test fuel(s) used in
conducting such confirmatory certification testing will contain the
specified fuel parameters at or below the minimum levels specified in
Sec. 80.164, and will otherwise conform to the applicable
certification test fuel specifications therein. Confirmatory testing
conducted to evaluate the validity of detergent certifications under
the alternative national generic certification option in Sec.
80.163(a)(1)(iii) will generally entail a single test using the
procedures detailed in Sec. 80.177. The test fuel(s) used in
conducting such confirmatory certification testing will contain the
specified fuel parameters at or below the minimum levels specified in
Sec. 80.177, and will otherwise conform to the applicable
certification test fuel specifications therein.
* * * * *
0
17. A new Sec. 80.175 is added to subpart G and reserved as follows:
Sec. 80.175 [Reserved]
0
18. A new Sec. 80.176 is added to subpart G to read as follows:
Sec. 80.176 Alternative certification test procedures and standards.
This section specifies the deposit control test requirements and
performance standards which must be met in order to certify detergent
additives for use in unleaded gasoline pursuant to Sec.
80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2). These standards must be met in the context of
the specific test procedures identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section. Testing must be conducted and the performance standards
met when the subject detergent additive is mixed in a test fuels
meeting all relevant requirements of Sec. 80.177. Complete test
documentation must be submitted by the certifying party within 30 days
of receipt of a written request from EPA for such records.
(a) Fuel injector deposit control testing. The required test fuel
must produce no more than one inoperative injector when tested in
accordance with the fuel injector deposit test procedure specified in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Intake valve deposit control testing. The required test fuel
must produce the accumulation of less than 50 mg of intake valve
deposits on average when tested in accordance with ASTM D6201--
04(2009), ``Standard Test Method for Dynamometer Evaluation of Unleaded
Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit Formation'', which
is incorporated by reference pursuant to Sec. 80.178.
(1) Tests conducted for the intake valve deposit demonstration test
pursuant to Sec. 80.177(b)(1)(iv) and to demonstrate compliance with
the intake valve deposit control standards in this section must be
conducted using the same engine block and cylinder head.
(2) All results must be derived from operationally valid tests in
accordance with the test validation criteria of ASTM D 6201--04(2009).
(3) Test results shall be reported for individual intake valves and
as an average of all intake valves.
(c) Fuel injector deposit test procedure--(1) Summary of Test
Procedure. After flushing the vehicle fuel system with the fuel to be
tested and installing new injectors, an automatic starter control
system starts the vehicle and lets it idle for five minutes. The engine
is then shut off and allowed to soak for 25 minutes. This cycle is
repeated for a total of 192 cycles (96 hours). During this time, the
engine is kept at operating temperature with block heaters. After the
96 hours of start/soak cycles, the engine is allowed to hot-soak for 48
hours, during which time the engine is not started but is maintained at
operating temperature. At the end of the 48-hour hot soak, the block
heaters are turned off and the engine is allowed to cool naturally to
room temperature. At the end of this 48-hour ambient temperature soak,
an injector balance test is conducted to determine whether any poppet
nozzles are stuck closed.
(2) Facilities and Equipment--(i) Location. A temperature-
controlled garage or large room is needed. A dynamometer is not needed,
since this test is an idle test. The room temperature shall be
maintained in the range of 68-75[emsp14][deg]F. The room shall be
equipped with an exhaust system that connects to the vehicle tail pipe
to remove the exhaust gases from the building. It is recommended that
an interlock be provided so that if the building exhaust system fails,
the vehicle test will shut down.
(ii) Electrical Power. Two 110-volt, 15-amp circuits are needed
(20-amp circuits are recommended) to operate the four block heaters and
a battery charger.
(iii) Fuel Drain Facility. A facility is required to drain the fuel
from the vehicle between tests. The fuel is drained from the service
port on the fuel rail, near the back of the engine. A commercial cart
equipped with a tank and a suction pump is recommended for this
operation.
(iv) Vehicle. A Chevrolet Astro or GMC Safari van, model year 1998-
2001, shall be used for the test. Either two-wheel drive or all-wheel
drive is satisfactory, although the former allows easier installation
of the block heaters.
(v) Injectors. New injectors, General Motors part number 17091432,
shall be used for each test.
(vi) Block Heaters. Four block heaters, General Motors part number
12371293, are needed for each vehicle. Two
[[Page 30017]]
heaters shall be installed on each side of the engine, in the freeze
plug locations.
(vii) Battery Charger. Because of the large number of starts and
the very short engine running time, a battery charger is needed. It is
recommended that the charger be installed permanently on the vehicle
and remain plugged in while the test is in progress.
(viii) Starter Controller. A system is needed to start the engine
automatically and then shut it off after exactly five minutes of
running. A commercial after-market remote starting system connected to
a timer or computer can be used, or a one-of-a-kind system can be
designed and built.
(ix) Tech 2 Analyzer. A General Motors Tech 2 analyzer, part number
GM3000094, available from Kent-Moore, shall be used to conduct the
injector balance test.
(x) Fuel Pressure Gauge. A fuel pressure gauge capable of measuring
fuel system pressure to the nearest 1 psi over the range of 45 to 65
psi, shall be used with the Tech 2 analyzer when conducting the
injector balance test. A pressure transducer shall not be used.
(xi) Gaskets. The upper intake manifold gasket and injector body
gasket will need to be replaced from time to time as they crack, tear,
or wear out from frequent handling during injector replacement.
(3) Initial Vehicle Preparation--(i) Diagnostics. To help determine
whether a vehicle is satisfactory for use in this injector test
procedure, a thorough inspection and engine diagnostic test shall be
conducted as described in the service manual. Check the cooling system
to be sure the coolant looks clean and there are no signs of rust.
(ii) Block Heaters. Install four electric block heaters, General
Motors part number 12371293, in the coolant passages of the engine
block, two on each side of the block. The heaters will be plugged into
a heater control unit. Two of the heaters will remain on at all times
during the first 144 hours of the injector fouling test, while the
other two heaters will be turned on and off by the controller as needed
to maintain an engine temperature of about 100-102[deg]C during the
soak periods of the test. (The temperature will drop while the engine
is running, as the coolant from the radiator circulates through the
engine. The temperature should recover to 100-102[deg]C within about 20
minutes after the engine shuts off.)
(iii) Thermocouples. Install a \1/16\-inch Type K thermocouple in a
threaded bolt hole on the rear of the right cylinder head. This
thermocouple provides the feedback signal to the controller to turn two
block heaters on and off. Install another thermocouple in the other
hole near the first thermocouple. This second thermocouple provides a
signal to an over-temperature safety shut-off on the heater controller.
If the engine temperature reaches the set point (110[deg]C
recommended), the heater controller will signal the starter controller
to shut down the test.
(iv) Fuel System Flush. Drain the fuel from the fuel system through
the service port on the fuel rail at the back of the engine. Refuel
with a non-detergent gasoline containing between 5 and 10 percent
ethanol. Drive the vehicle for approximately 100 miles to thoroughly
expose all parts of the fuel system to the fuel. The fuel pump and fuel
filters should not be replaced unless there is a problem with them or
if the vehicle history suggests that replacement would be prudent. If
replacement is necessary, the new parts should first be conditioned by
recirculating a 10% ethanol-gasoline blend (without deposit control
additive) through them for one week.
(v) Oil Change. Change the engine oil and oil filter, using oil
that meets the manufacturer's recommended service classification and
viscosity grade.
(vi) Battery Charger. Install a battery charger in the vehicle so
that it can be plugged in during the test and keep the battery at full
charge.
(vii) Radiator. Install cardboard or other suitable material on the
front of the radiator to block the flow of air through the radiator
while the engine is running. This will help minimize the drop in
coolant temperature.
(viii) Starter Controller. Make the necessary changes to the
vehicle electrical system so that the engine can be started and stopped
automatically on a programmed schedule. Install a starter controller or
computer and program it to do the following:
(A) Start the engine and let it run for 5 minutes, and then shut it
off and let it hot-soak for 25 minutes.
(B) Repeat the 5/25 cycle for a total of 192 cycles.
(C) Allow a 48-hr hot soak during which the engine is not run but
the engine temperature is maintained at 100-102[deg]C.
(D) Turn off the heaters for 48 hours.
(E) Continuously count and display the number of cycles that have
been completed throughout the test.
(4) Test Procedure. The steps described in paragraphs (c)(3)(i)
though (vi) of this section must be performed by the action described
in paragraph (c)(3)(vii) of this section so that the new injectors are
exposed only to the new test fuel.
(i) Drain the fuel from the vehicle.
(ii) Add approximately 2 gallons of the fuel to be tested.
(iii) Drive the vehicle for approximately 20 miles at speeds up to
approximately 50-60 mph. Approximately every 5 miles, stop the vehicle
and moderately accelerate. If the radiator covering is still in place,
watch the temperature gauge during the driving and avoid overheating
the engine. This step not only flushes the fuel system but also helps
remove carbon (if any) from the spark plugs and water from the exhaust
system.
(iv) Drain the fuel from the vehicle and add approximately 1 to 2
gallons of the fuel to be tested.
(v) Drive the vehicle for approximately 5 miles. Watch the
temperature gauge and avoid overheating the engine.
(vi) Drain the fuel from the vehicle and add approximately 10
gallons of the fuel to be tested. (The test consumes about 7.5 gallons
of fuel.)
(vii) Remove the fuel injectors and install new injectors. Run the
engine for a few minutes to be sure it runs properly.
(viii) Park the vehicle in the location where the test will be run.
(ix) Connect the vehicle tail pipe to the building exhaust system.
(x) Depending on the design of the starter control system, remove
fuses and relays as necessary and connect the wires from the controller
to the vehicle fuse box. Close the hood.
(xi) Turn on the vehicle ignition switch and the security bypass
switch if so equipped.
(xii) Turn on the heater controller and be sure that it is working.
(xiii) Turn on the starter controller and the vehicle should start.
(xiv) Monitor the engine temperature for the first few cycles to be
sure it is increasing.
(xv) At the end of the 192-hour (8-day) test, turn off the ignition
switch, starter controller, and heater controller. Return the fuses,
relays, and wires to their standard configuration for normal operation
of the vehicle.
(xvi) Connect the Tech 2 analyzer to the ALDL connector under the
instrument panel, and connect the fuel pressure gauge to the service
port on the fuel rail at the back of the engine.
(xvii) Conduct the injector balance test by following the
instructions on the Tech 2. The injector balance test checks each
injector individually to determine whether the poppet nozzle is stuck
closed. First, the Tech 2 turns on the fuel pump momentarily to
pressurize the fuel system. Then it pulses the injector for a preset
interval. If the
[[Page 30018]]
injector and poppet nozzle are working properly, the fuel system
pressure will decrease gradually and smoothly by about 8 to 10 psi
during the pulsing. If the pressure does not decrease, or decreases
very suddenly but then stops decreasing before the pulsing is done, the
poppet is stuck closed. This procedure, beginning with pressurizing the
fuel system, is carried out for each injector.
0
19. A new Sec. 80.177 is added to subpart G to read as follows:
Sec. 80.177 Certification test fuels for use with the alternative
test procedures and standards.
(a) General requirements. This section provides specifications for
the test fuels required in conjunction with the alternative national
generic certification option described in Sec. 80.163(a)(1)(iii).
(1) The test fuel characteristics detailed in this section must be
reported to EPA in the detergent certification letter required pursuant
to Sec. 80.161(b)(3).
(2) The levels of the basic fuel parameters specified in this
section (ethanol, olefins, aromatics, sulfur, and 90% evaporation
distillation temperature) must be measured in accordance with
applicable procedures in Sec. 80.46.
(3) No detergent-active substance other than the detergent additive
package undergoing testing may be added to a certification test fuel.
Typical nondetergent additives, such as antioxidants, corrosion
inhibitors, and metal deactivators, may be present in the test fuel at
the discretion of the additive certifier. In addition, any nondetergent
additives (other than oxygenate compounds) which are commonly blended
into gasoline and which are known or suspected to affect IVD or PFID
formation, or to reduce the ability of the detergent in question to
control such deposits, should be added to the test fuel for
certification testing.
(4) Certification test requirements may be satisfied for a
detergent additive using more than one batch of test fuel, provided
that each batch satisfies all applicable test fuel requirements under
this section.
(5) Unless otherwise required by this section, finished test fuels
must conform to the requirements for commercial gasoline described in
ASTM D 4814-11, ``Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition
Engine Fuel'', which is incorporated by reference pursuant to Sec.
80.178.
(b) Test fuel for intake valve deposit testing: This paragraph
provides specifications for the test fuels required for use in the test
procedure specified in Sec. 80.176(b).
(1) The test fuel must contain levels of the specified parameters
consistent with the requirements of this section.
(i) The test fuel must contain no less than 8.0 volume percent and
no more than 10.0 volume percent ethanol. Commercial fuel grade
denatured fuel ethanol must be used that conforms to the requirement of
Sec. 80.1610 and ASTM D4806--11a ``Standard Specification for
Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as
Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel'', which is incorporated by
reference pursuant to Sec. 80.178.
(ii) The test fuel must contain no less than 8.0 volume percent
olefins. At least 75 percent of the olefins must be derived from fluid
catalytic cracker unit (FCC) gasoline. Such FCC gasoline can be full-
range FCC gasoline or a mixture of light and heavy FCC gasolines. Such
FCC gasoline must be produced by a commercial gasoline refiner and meet
the following criteria:
(A) The FCC gasoline must be designated by the commercial refiner
as full range FCC gasoline or whole FCC gasoline, and must have a T90
distillation temperature greater than 300[emsp14][deg]F.
(B) If a mixture of light and heavy FCC gasoline is used, heavy FCC
gasoline must contribute at least 50 percent of the sulfur in the
mixture. Heavy FCC gasoline must meet the following criteria:
(1) The heavy FCC gasoline must be designated by the commercial
refiner as heavy FCC gasoline.
(2) The heavy FCC gasoline must have an API gravity less than 45
and a T90 distillation temperature greater than 325[emsp14][deg]F.
(iii) The test fuel must contain no less than 28 volume percent
aromatics.
(iv) The test fuel must contain no less than 240 ppm sulfur. At
least 60 percent of the sulfur must be derived from FCC gasoline that
meets the specifications in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
(v) The test fuel must have a T90 distillation temperature of no
less than 290[emsp14][deg]F.
(vi) The test fuel containing no deposit control additives must
produce no less than 500 mg averaged over all intake valves when
subjected to the intake valve deposit test specified in Sec.
80.176(b).
(vii) All gasoline blendstocks used to formulate the test fuel must
be representative of normal refinery operations and shall be derived
from conversion units downstream of distillation. Butanes and pentanes
may be used for vapor pressure adjustment. The use of chemical grade
streams is prohibited.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) Test fuel for fuel injector deposit testing: This paragraph
provides specifications for the test fuels required for use in the test
procedure specified in Sec. 80.176(c). The test fuel must conform to
the specifications in either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this
section. The same base test fuel must be used for deposit demonstration
testing and for demonstrating compliance with the fuel injector deposit
control standards in Sec. 80.176(a).
(1) Option 1 regarding the specifications for the test fuel used
for fuel injector deposit testing. (i) The test fuel must be a
commercial full boiling range hydrocarbon gasoline or gasoline blending
component, without oxygenates.
(ii) The test fuel containing no deposit control additives must
produce at least 5 inoperable injectors valves when subjected to the
fuel injector deposit test specified in Sec. 80.176(c).
(2) Option 2 regarding the specifications for the formulation of
the test fuel used for fuel injector deposit testing. (i) The test fuel
must meet the requirements for federal emissions test gasoline
specified in Sec. Sec. 80.113 and 80.112 into which 4-
methylbenzenethiol has been blended as a concentration of 56 mg/L.
(ii) The test fuel containing no deposit control additives must
produce at least 4 inoperable injectors valves when subjected to the
fuel injector deposit test specified in Sec. 80.176(c).
0
20. A new Sec. 80.178 is added to subpart G to read as follows:
Sec. 80.178 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and the material
must be available to the public. All approved material is available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030 or go to: http://www/archives.gov/federal--register/code--of--
federal--regulations/ibr--locations.html. This material is also
available for inspection at the EPA Docket Center, Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0161, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington DC. The telephone
[[Page 30019]]
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. Also, this material is
available from the source listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section.
(b) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C-700, West
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428 (1-800-262-1373, www.astm.org).
(1) ASTM D 5598-94, ``Standard Test Method for Evaluating Unleaded
Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for Electronic Port Fuel Injector
Fouling,'' 1994; IBR approved for Sec. 80.165.
(2) ASTM D 5500-94, ``Standard Test Method for Vehicle Evaluation
of Unleaded Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve
Deposit Formation,'' 1994; IBR approved for Sec. 80.165.
(3) ASTM D-6201-04(2009) (``ASTM D 6201''), Standard Test Method
for Dynamometer Evaluation of Unleaded Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for
Intake Valve Deposit Formation; IBR approved for Sec. 80.176.
(4) ASTM D 4814-11, ``Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-
Ignition Engine Fuel'', IBR approved for Sec. 80.177.
(5) ASTM D-4806-11a ``Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel
Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-
Ignition Engine Fuel'', IBR approved for Sec. 80.177.
(c) California Air Resources Board, 1001 ``I'' Street, P.O. Box
2815, Sacramento, CA 95812 (800) 242-4450, http://www.arb.ca.gov).
(1) California Air Resources Board, ``Test Method for Evaluating
Port Fuel Injector (PFI) Deposits in Vehicle Engines'', March 1, 1991;
IBR approved for Sec. 80.165.
(2) California Air Resources Board, ``BMW--10,000 Miles Intake
Valve Test Procedure'', March 1, 1991; IBR approved for Sec. 80.165.
Subpart H--[Amended]
0
21. Section 80.330 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1), (d)(1),
and (d)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.330 What are the sampling and testing requirements for
refiners and importers?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, refiners and
importers shall use the method provided in Sec. 80.46(a)(1) or one of
the alternative test methods listed in Sec. 80.46(a)(3) to measure the
sulfur content of gasoline they produce or import through November 29,
2014. Beginning November 30, 2014, for purposes of paragraph (a) of
this section, refiners and importers shall use a method approved in
Sec. 80.47.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Refiners and importers shall use the method provided in Sec.
80.46(a)(2) to measure the sulfur content of butane when the butane
constitutes a batch of gasoline through November 29, 2014. Beginning
November 30, 2014, refiners and importers shall use a method approved
in Sec. 80.47 to measure the sulfur content of butane when the butane
constitutes a batch of gasoline.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, any
ASTM sulfur test method for gaseous fuels may be used for quality
assurance testing under Sec. Sec. 80.340(b)(4) and 80.400, if the
protocols of the ASTM method are followed and the alternative test
method is correlated to the method provided in Sec. 80.46(a)(2)
through November 29, 2014. Beginning November 30, 2014, except as
provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, refiners and importers
shall use a method approved in Sec. 80.47 to measure the sulfur
content of butane.
* * * * *
0
22. Section 80.370 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(iv).
0
b. Revising paragraph (d)(2).
Sec. 80.370 What are the sulfur reporting requirements?
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(7) * * *
(iv) The sulfur content of the batch, along with identification of
the test method used to measure the sulfur content of the batch, as
determined under Sec. 80.330; and
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Submitted to EPA by March 31 for the prior calendar year
averaging period.
* * * * *
Subpart I--[Amended]
0
23. Section 80.511 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(10)
to read as follows:
Sec. 80.511 What are the per-gallon and marker requirements that
apply to NRLM diesel fuel, ECA marine fuel, and heating oil downstream
of the refiner or importer?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(5) through (8) of this
section, the per-gallon sulfur standard of Sec. 80.510(c) shall apply
to all NRLM diesel fuel beginning August 1, 2014 for all downstream
locations other than retail outlets or wholesale purchaser-consumer
facilities, shall apply to all NRLM diesel fuel beginning October 1,
2014 for retail outlets and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities,
and shall apply to all NRLM diesel fuel beginning December 1, 2014 for
all locations. This paragraph (b)(4) does not apply to LM diesel fuel
produced from transmix or interface fuel that is sold or intended for
sale in areas other than those listed in Sec. 80.510(g)(1) or (g)(2),
as provided by Sec. 80.513(f).
* * * * *
(10) For the purposes of this subpart, on any occasion where a
distributor directly dispenses fuel into vehicles or equipment from a
mobile facility such as a tanker truck, the distributor shall be
treated as a retailer, and the mobile facility shall be treated as a
retail outlet.
0
24. Section 80.572 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.572 What labeling requirements apply to retailers and
wholesale purchaser-consumers of Motor Vehicle, NR, LM and NRLM diesel
fuel and heating oil beginning June 1, 2010?
* * * * *
(a) From June 1, 2010 through November 30, 2014, any retailer or
wholesale purchaser-consumer who sells, dispenses, or offers for sale
or dispensing, motor vehicle diesel fuel subject to the 15 ppm sulfur
standard of Sec. 80.520(a)(1), must affix the following conspicuous
and legible label, in block letters of no less than 24-point bold type,
and printed in a color contrasting with the background, to each pump
stand:
ULTRA-LOW SULFUR HIGHWAY DIESEL FUEL (15 ppm Sulfur Maximum)
Required for use in all highway diesel vehicles and engines.
Recommended for use in all diesel vehicles and engines.
[[Page 30020]]
* * * * *
0
25. Section 80.573 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.573 What labeling requirements apply to retailers and
wholesale purchaser-consumers of NRLM diesel fuel and heating oil
beginning June 1, 2012?
* * * * *
(a) From June 1, 2012 through September 30, 2014, for pumps
dispensing NRLM diesel fuel subject to the 15 ppm sulfur standard of
Sec. 80.510(c):
ULTRA-LOW SULFUR NON-HIGHWAY DIESEL FUEL (15 ppm Sulfur Maximum)
Required for use in all model year 2011 and later nonroad diesel
engines.
Recommended for use in all other non-highway diesel engines.
WARNING
Federal law prohibits use in highway vehicles or engines.
* * * * *
0
26. Section 80.574 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 80.574 What labeling requirements apply to retailers and
wholesale purchaser-consumers of ECA marine fuel beginning June 1,
2014?
(a) Any retailer or wholesale purchaser-consumer who sells,
dispenses, or offers for sale or dispensing ECA marine fuel must
prominently and conspicuously display in the immediate area of each
pump stand from which ECA marine fuel is offered for sale or
dispensing, one of the following legible labels, as applicable, in
block letters of no less than 24-point bold type, printed in a color
contrasting with the background:
(1) From June 1, 2014 and beyond, for pumps dispensing ECA marine
fuel subject to the 1,000 ppm sulfur standard of Sec. 80.510(k):
1,000 ppm SULFUR ECA MARINE FUEL (1,000 ppm Sulfur Maximum).
For use in Category 3 (C3) marine vessels only.
WARNING
Federal law prohibits use in any engine that is not installed on a C3
marine vessel; use of fuel oil with a sulfur content greater than 1,000
ppm in an ECA is prohibited except as allowed by 40 CFR part 1043.
(2) The labels required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be
placed on the vertical surface of each pump housing and on each side
that has gallon and price meters. The labels shall be on the upper two-
thirds of the pump, in a location where they are clearly visible.
(b) Alternative labels to those specified in paragraph (a) of this
section may be used as approved by EPA.
(1) For US Mail: U.S. EPA, Attn: Diesel Sulfur Alternative Label
Request, 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
(2) For overnight or courier services: U.S. EPA, Attn: Diesel
Sulfur Alternative Label Request, 6406J, 1310 L Street NW., 6th floor,
Washington, DC 20005. (202) 343-9038.
0
27. Section 80.580 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text.
0
b. Revising paragraph (e)(1) introductory text.
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iv).
Sec. 80.580 What are the sampling and testing methods for sulfur?
* * * * *
(e) Materials incorporated by reference. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the
documents listed in this section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR 51. Anyone may inspect copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Room B102,
EPA West Building, Washington, DC, 20460, under EPA docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135, or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). The telephone number for the Air Docket Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1742. For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov//federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. For further information on these test methods,
please contact the Environmental Protection Agency at 734-214-4582.
(1) ASTM International material. Anyone may purchase copies of
these materials from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or by contacting ASTM International
customer service at 610-832-9585, or by contacting the email address of
[email protected] from the ASTM International Web site of http://www.astm.org.
(i) ASTM International standard method D2622-10 (``ASTM
International D2622''), ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum
Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry'',
approved February 15, 2010.
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) ASTM International standard method D4294-10 (``ASTM
International D4294''), ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum
Products by Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry'',
approved February 15, 2010.
(iv) ASTM International standard method D5453-09 (``ASTM
International D5453''), ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum
Products by Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry'',
approved June 15, 2009.
* * * * *
0
28. Section 80.585 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.585 What is the process for approval of a test method for
determining the sulfur content of diesel or ECA marine fuel?
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) The approval of any test method under paragraph (b) of this
section shall be valid for five years from the date of approval by the
Administrator. After the five year period has ceased, in order for the
test method approval to remain valid, the test method must be
resubmitted for approval with applicable precision and accuracy
information contained in Sec. 80.584(a) and (b). If, however, the test
method is later approved by a voluntary consensus-based standards body,
the approval shall remain valid as long as the conditions of paragraph
(a) of this section are met.
* * * * *
0
29. Section 80.604 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(3) and (4) to
read as follows:
[[Page 30021]]
Sec. 80.604 What are the annual reporting requirements for refiners
and importers of NRLM diesel fuel?
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) Except for small refiners subject to Sec. 80.554(d), submitted
to EPA by September 1 each year for the prior annual compliance period.
Small refiners subject to the provisions of Sec. 80.554(d), reports
must be submitted by September 1 for the previous reporting period.
(4) With the exception of reports required under paragraph (b)(3)
of this section, no reports will be required under this section after
September 1, 2014.
Subpart L--[Amended]
0
30. Section 80.1235 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(6) and (b)(2)
to read as follows:
Sec. 80.1235 What gasoline is subject to the benzene requirements of
this subpart?
(a) * * *
(6) Blendstock that is combined with PCG to produce gasoline must
be sampled and tested in accordance with the provisions at Sec.
80.1347(a)(5) or (6).
(b) * * *
(2) Oxygenate added to PCG downstream of the refinery that produced
the PCG, or downstream of the import facility where the PCG was
imported, shall not be included in a refiner's or importer's compliance
calculations unless the refiner or importer that produced or imported
the PCG complies with the requirements of Sec. 80.1238(b). On any
occasion where any person downstream of the refinery or importer that
produced or imported PCG adds oxygenate to such product, it shall not
include the volume and benzene content of the oxygenate in any
compliance calculations or for credit generation under this subpart.
* * * * *
0
31. Section 80.1238 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.1238 How is a refinery's or importer's average benzene
concentration determined?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) For oxygenate added to conventional gasoline or CBOB, the
refiner or importer must comply with the requirements of Sec.
80.101(d)(4)(ii) and the benzene content must be measured by sampling
the ethanol actually added to the conventional gasoline or CBOB and
testing it for benzene content.
* * * * *
0
32. Section 80.1347 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(5).
0
b. By adding a new paragraph (a)(6).
Sec. 80.1347 What are the sampling and testing requirements for
refiners and importers?
(a) * * *
(3)(i) Each sample shall be tested in accordance with the
methodology specified at Sec. 80.46(e) through November 29, 2014, to
determine its benzene concentration for compliance with the
requirements of this subpart. Beginning November 30, 2014, each sample
shall be tested in accordance with the methodology specified at Sec.
80.46(e) or Sec. 80.47 to determine its benzene concentration for
compliance with the requirements of this subpart. Any negative test
result must be reported as zero.
* * * * *
(5) Exclusion of previously certified gasoline (PCG). (i) Any
refiner who uses PCG to produce gasoline at a refinery, must exclude
the PCG for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the benzene
standards at Sec. 80.1230.
(ii) To accomplish the exclusion required in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of
this section, the refiner must determine the volume and benzene content
of the PCG used at the refinery and the volume and benzene content of
gasoline produced at the refinery, and use the compliance calculation
procedures in paragraphs (a)(5)(iii) and (iv) of this section.
(iii) For each batch of PCG that is used to produce gasoline the
refiner must include the volume and benzene content of the PCG as a
negative volume and a positive benzene content in the refiner's
compliance calculations in accordance with the requirements at Sec.
80.1238.
(iv) For each batch of gasoline produced at the refinery using PCG
and blendstock, the refiner must determine the volume and benzene
content of the combined product and include each batch for purposes of
benzene compliance in the refinery's compliance calculations at Sec.
80.1240 without regard to the presence of previously certified gasoline
in the batch.
(v) The refiner must use any PCG that it includes as a negative
batch in its compliance calculations pursuant to Sec. 80.1240 as a
component in gasoline production during the annual averaging period in
which the PCG was included as a negative batch in the refiner's
compliance calculations.
(vi) Any negative annual average value must be reported as zero.
(vii) The refiner must also comply with Sec. 80.65(i) when
producing RBOB or RFG and Sec. 80.101(g)(9) when producing
conventional gasoline.
(6) As an alternative to the sampling and testing requirements in
paragraph (a)(5) of this section, a refiner who produces gasoline by
blending blendstock into PCG may sample and test each batch of
blendstock when received at the refinery to determine the volume and
benzene content, and treat each blendstock receipt as a separate batch
for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the benzene standards in
Sec. 80.1230, and for benzene reporting.
* * * * *
0
33. Section 80.1348 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 80.1348 What gasoline sample retention requirements apply to
refiners and importers?
(a) Through November 29, 2014, the gasoline sample retention
requirements specified in subpart H for the gasoline sulfur provisions
apply for the purpose of complying with the requirements of this
subpart L, except that in addition to including the sulfur test result
as provided by Sec. 80.335(a)(4)(ii), the refiner, importer, or
independent laboratory shall also include with the retained sample the
test result for benzene as conducted pursuant to Sec. 80.46(e).
(b) Beginning November 30, 2014, pursuant to Sec. 80.47, the
gasoline sample retention requirements specified in subpart O of this
part for the gasoline sulfur provisions apply for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of this subpart L, except that in
addition to including the sulfur test result as provided by Sec.
80.335(a)(4)(ii), the refiner, importer, or independent laboratory
shall also include with the retained sample the test result for benzene
as conducted pursuant to Sec. 80.46(e).
0
34. A new Sec. 80.1349 is added to subpart L to read as follows:
Sec. 80.1349 Alternative sampling and testing requirements for
importers who import gasoline into the United States by truck.
Importers who import conventional gasoline into the United States
by truck may comply with the sampling and testing requirements in Sec.
80.101(i)(3) instead of the requirements to sample and test every batch
of gasoline under Sec. 80.1347. An importer that uses this approach
must meet the 0.62 volume percent benzene standard on a per-gallon
basis.
0
35. Section 80.1354 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(2).
0
b. Revising paragraph (d)(2).
[[Page 30022]]
Sec. 80.1354 What are the reporting requirements for the gasoline
benzene program?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2)(i) The annual average benzene concentration, along with
identification of the test method(s) used to measure the annual average
benzene concentration, per Sec. 80.1238.
(ii) The maximum average benzene concentration, along with
identification of the test method(s) used to measure the maximum
average benzene concentration, per Sec. 80.1240(b).
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Submitted to EPA by March 31 each year for the prior calendar
year averaging period.
* * * * *
0
36. Section 80.1451 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text.
0
b. Revising paragraph (f)(2).
Sec. 80.1451 What are the reporting requirements under the RFS
program?
(a) * * *
(1) Annual compliance reports for the previous compliance period
shall be submitted by March 31 of each year and shall include all of
the following information:
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) Quarterly reports shall be submitted by the required deadline
as shown in Table 1 to Sec. 80.1451. Any reports generated by EMTS
must be reviewed, supplemented, and/or corrected if not complete and
accurate, and verified by the owner or responsible corporate officer
prior to submittal.
Table 1 to Sec. 80.1451--Quarterly Reporting Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar quarter Time period covered Quarterly report deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quarter One.......................... January 1-March 31........... June 1.
Quarter Two.......................... April 1-June 30.............. September 1.
Quarter Three........................ July 1-September 30.......... December 1.
Quarter Four......................... October 1-December 31........ March 31.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
37. A new subpart O is added to part 80 to read as follows:
Subpart O--Gasoline Sulfur
Sec.
80.1600 Additional definitions for subpart O.
80.1601 Fuels subject to the provisions of this subpart.
80.1602 Implementation dates for refiners and importers.
80.1603 Gasoline sulfur standards for refiners and importers.
80.1604 Gasoline sulfur standards and requirements for parties
downstream of refiners and importers.
80.1605 Deficit carry-forward for refiners and importers.
80.1606 [Reserved]
80.1607 Gasoline sulfur standards and requirements for transmix
processors and transmix blenders.
80.1608 [Reserved]
80.1609 Oxygenate blender requirements.
80.1610 Standards and requirements for producers of denatured fuel
ethanol and other oxygenates for use by gasoline oxygenate blenders.
80.1611-80.1612 [Reserved]
80.1613 Standards and other requirements for gasoline additive
manufacturers and blenders.
80.1614 [Reserved]
80.1615 Credit generation.
80.1616 Credit use and transfer.
80.1620 Small refiner definition.
80.1621 Small volume refinery definition.
80.1622 Approval for small refiner and small volume refinery status.
80.1623-80.1624 [Reserved]
80.1625 Hardship provisions.
80.1630 Sampling and testing requirements for refiners and
importers.
80.1631 Sample retention requirements.
80.1640 Standards and requirements that apply to refiners producing
gasoline by blending blendstocks into previously certified gasoline
(PCG).
80.1641 Alternative sulfur standards and requirements that apply to
importers who transport gasoline by truck.
80.1642-80.1649 [Reserved]
80.1650 Registration.
80.1651 Product transfer document requirements.
80.1652 Reporting requirements.
80.1653 Recordkeeping.
80.1654 California gasoline requirements.
80.1655 National security exemption.
80.1656 Exemptions for gasoline used for research, development, or
testing purposes.
80.1657 [Reserved]
80.1658 Requirements for gasoline for use in American Samoa, Guam,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
80.1659 [Reserved]
80.1660 Prohibited acts.
80.1661 What evidence may be used to determine compliance with the
prohibitions and requirements of this subpart and liability for
violations of this subpart?
80.1662 Liability for violations under subpart O.
80.1663 Defenses for a violation of a prohibited act under subpart
O.
80.1664 [Reserved]
80.1665 Penalties.
80.1666 Additional requirements for foreign small refiners and
foreign small volume refineries.
80.1667 Attest engagement requirements.
80.1668-80.1674 [Reserved]
80.1675 Incorporation by reference.
Subpart O--Gasoline Sulfur
Sec. 80.1600 Additional definitions for subpart O.
The definitions of Sec. 80.2 and the following additional
definitions apply to this subpart O:
California gasoline means any gasoline designated by a refiner or
importer for use in California.
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS has the meaning given in Sec.
80.1666(a)(5).
Foreign refiner is a person who meets the definition of refiner
under Sec. 80.2(i) for a foreign refinery.
Foreign refinery means a refinery that is located outside the
United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (collectively referred to in this subpart as ``the United
States'').
Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS has the meaning given in Sec.
80.1666(a)(6).
Non-Sulfur-FRGAS has the meaning given in Sec. 80.1666(a)(4).
Sulfur-FRGAS has the meaning given in Sec. 80.1666(a)(3).
Transmix has the meaning given at Sec. 80.84(a)(2).
Transmix blender has the meaning given at Sec. 80.84(a)(7).
Transmix gasoline product (TGP) has the meaning given at Sec.
80.84(a)(3).
Transmix processing facility has the meaning given at Sec.
80.84(a)(4).
Transmix processor has the meaning given at Sec. 80.84(a)(5).
Sec. 80.1601 Fuels subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(a) For the purposes of this subpart, the following fuels are
subject to the
[[Page 30023]]
standards and requirements of this subpart:
(1) Reformulated and conventional gasoline and RBOB, and CBOB
(collectively called ``gasoline'' unless otherwise specified).
(2) Any blendstock (not including oxygenates) blended with PCG, as
defined in Sec. 80.2(d), subject to the provisions of Sec. 80.1640.
(3) Oxygenates blended with gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB.
(b) For the purposes of this subpart, the following fuels are not
subject to the standards and requirements of this subpart:
(1) Gasoline that is used to fuel aircraft, racing vehicles or
racing boats that are used only in sanctioned racing events, provided
that:
(i) Product transfer documents associated with such gasoline, and
any pump stand from which such gasoline is dispensed, identify the
gasoline either as gasoline that is restricted for use in aircraft, or
as gasoline that is restricted for use in racing motor vehicles or
racing boats that are used only in sanctioned racing events;
(ii) The gasoline is completely segregated from all other gasoline
throughout production, distribution and sale to the ultimate consumer;
and
(iii) The gasoline is not made available for use as motor vehicle
gasoline, or dispensed for use in motor vehicles, except for motor
vehicles used only in sanctioned racing events.
(2) California gasoline as defined in Sec. 80.1600 subject to the
provisions of Sec. 80.1654.
(3) Gasoline that is exported for sale and use outside the U.S.
(4) Exempt fuels under Sec. Sec. 80.1655 (national security
exemptions), 80.1656 (gasoline used for research, development, or
testing purposes), and 80.1658 (gasoline used in American Samoa, Guam,
and the Northern Mariana Islands).
Sec. 80.1602 Implementation dates for refiners and importers.
(a) The standards and requirements for gasoline sulfur under this
subpart O (at Sec. 80.1603) shall apply to gasoline produced or
imported by any refiner or importer beginning January 1, 2017, except
as provided by the credit provisions of Sec. Sec. 80.1615 and 80.1616,
and the provisions applicable to small refiners and small volume
refineries.
(b) The standards and requirements for gasoline sulfur under
subpart H of this part shall continue to apply until the gasoline
produced or imported by any refiner or importer is required to comply
with the standards and requirements under this subpart O.
Sec. 80.1603 Gasoline sulfur standards for refiners and importers.
(a) Sulfur standards. (1) Annual average standard. (i) The refinery
or importer annual average gasoline sulfur standard is 10.00 parts per
million (ppm) or milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), except as provided in
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section.
(ii) The averaging period is a calendar year (January 1 through
December 31).
(iii) The refinery or importer annual average gasoline sulfur
standard is the maximum average sulfur level allowed for gasoline
produced at a refinery or imported by an importer during each calendar
year beginning January 1, 2017, except as provided by the following:
(A) The credit use provisions of Sec. 80.1616.
(B) Beginning January 1, 2020, for small refiners and small volume
refineries approved pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 80.1622. Small
refiners and small volume refineries will continue to be subject to the
provisions of subpart H through December 31, 2019 (or until compliance
with this subpart O begins).
(C) Fuels not subject to the standards and requirements of this
subpart O as specified in Sec. 80.1601(b).
(iv) The annual average sulfur level is calculated in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Per-gallon cap standard. (i) The refinery or importer per-
gallon cap standard is 80 ppm, on a per-gallon basis except as
otherwise provided by this section.
(ii) The per-gallon cap of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section is
the maximum sulfur level allowed for any batch of gasoline produced at
a refinery or imported by an importer beginning January 1, 2017, except
for fuels not subject to the standards and requirements of this subpart
O as specified in Sec. 80.1601(b).
(3) The refinery or importer annual average gasoline sulfur
standard may be met using credits as provided under Sec. 80.1616.
Credits cannot be used to meet the applicable per-gallon standard.
(b) [Reserved]
(c) Calculation of the annual average sulfur level. (1) The annual
refinery or importer average gasoline sulfur level is calculated as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.006
Where:
Sa = The refinery or importer annual average sulfur
level, in ppm (mg/kg).
Vi = The volume of gasoline produced or imported in batch
i, in gallons.
Si = The sulfur content of batch i determined under Sec.
80.1630, in ppm (mg/kg).
n = The number of batches of gasoline produced or imported during
the averaging period.
i = Individual batch of gasoline produced or imported during the
averaging period.
(2) The annual average sulfur level calculation in paragraph (c)(1)
of this section shall be conducted to two decimal places using the
rounding procedure specified in Sec. 80.9.
(d) Oxygenate added downstream from the refinery or import
facility. A refiner or importer may include oxygenate added downstream
from the refinery or import facility when calculating the sulfur
content, provided the following requirements are met:
(1) For oxygenate added to conventional gasoline or CBOB, the
refiner or importer must comply with the requirements of Sec.
80.101(d)(4)(ii), except that the sulfur content and volume of the
oxygenate shall be determined in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of
this section.
(2) For oxygenate added to RBOB, the refiner or importer must
comply with the requirements of Sec. 80.69(a), except that the sulfur
content and volume of the oxygenate shall be determined in accordance
with paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(3) Where oxygenate added downstream from the refinery or import
facility is included in calculating the sulfur content under this
paragraph (d):
(i) The refiner or importer must separately test any RBOB or CBOB
for sulfur content and use that test result in calculating the sulfur
content of the RFG or conventional gasoline and calculate the effect of
downstream added ethanol by using the assumptions in paragraphs
(d)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section. The reported volume of the batch
is the combined volume of the RBOB or CBOB and the downstream added
oxygenate.
(ii) For RBOB, the sulfur test result obtained from testing a hand
blend under the terms of Sec. 80.69(a) shall not be used for sulfur
reporting purposes.
(iii) The refiner or importer must use an assumed sulfur content of
10.00 ppm for the oxygenate added downstream.
(iv) For ethanol added downstream, the refiner or importer
calculations shall assume that 10.00 volume percent ethanol is added to
the RBOB unless some lesser amount of ethanol is actually blended.
(v) RBOB, CBOB, and conventional gasoline must meet the per-gallon
sulfur standard of paragraph (a)(2) of this section prior to
calculating any dilution from the oxygenate added downstream.
(4) On any occasion where any person downstream of the refinery or
importer that produced or imported previously certified gasoline, CBOB
or RBOB adds
[[Page 30024]]
oxygenate to such product, it shall not include the volume and sulfur
content of the oxygenate in any compliance calculations or for credit
generation under this subpart O.
(e) Exclusions. Refiners and importers must exclude from compliance
calculations all of the following:
(1) Gasoline that was not produced at the refinery or imported by
the importer.
(2) In the case of an importer, gasoline that was imported as
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
(3) Blendstocks transferred to others, except RBOB and CBOB as
provided in this subpart O.
(4) PCG.
(5) Gasoline exempted from standards under Sec. 80.1601(b).
(f) Compliance calculation for the annual average sulfur standard.
(1) Compliance by a refinery or importer with the gasoline sulfur
annual average standard at paragraph (a)(1) of this section is achieved
if, for calendar year y, CSVy<= (Vyx 10), as
determined by the following equation:
CSVy = (Vy x Sa) + D(y-1)-
OC
Where:
CSVy = Compliance sulfur value for year y, in ppm-
gallons.
Vy = Total gasoline volume produced or imported in year
y, in gallons.
Sa = Annual average sulfur level calculated in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section, in ppm (mg/kg).
D(y-1) = Sulfur deficit from the previous reporting
period, per Sec. 80.1605, in ppm-gallons.
OC = Sulfur credits obtained by the refinery or importer, in ppm-
gallons.
(2) Sulfur credits used in the calculation specified in paragraph
(f)(1) of this section must be used in accordance with the requirements
at Sec. 80.1616.
(3) Compliance with the gasoline sulfur annual average standard at
paragraph (a)(1) of this section is not achieved, and a deficit is
created per Sec. 80.1605, if for calendar year y, CSVy>
(Vy x 10). The deficit value to be included in the following
year's compliance calculation per paragraph (f) of this section is
calculated as follows:
Dy = CSVy-(Vy x 10y)
Where:
Dy = Sulfur deficit created in compliance period y, in
ppm-gallons.
Sec. 80.1604 Gasoline sulfur standards and requirements for parties
downstream of refiners and importers.
(a) The sulfur standard for gasoline at any downstream location
shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this section.
A downstream location is any point in the gasoline distribution system
downstream from refineries and import facilities, including, but not
limited to, facilities of any of the following parties:
(1) Distributors.
(2) Carriers.
(3) Oxygenate blenders.
(4) Retailers.
(5) Wholesale purchaser-consumers.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this subpart O, the sulfur
content of gasoline at any downstream location shall not exceed 95 ppm,
on a per-gallon basis, beginning January 1, 2017.
Sec. 80.1605 Deficit carry-forward for refiners and importers.
(a) Deficit carry-forward. (1) A refiner or importer may exceed the
annual average sulfur standard for a given calendar year, creating a
compliance deficit, provided that the requirements of paragraph (a)(2)
of this section are met.
(2) When a compliance deficit is created per paragraph (a)(1) of
this section, in the calendar year following the year the standard is
not met, the refinery or importer must:
(i) Achieve compliance with the annual average sulfur standard in
Sec. 80.1603(a)(1); and
(ii) Use additional sulfur credits sufficient to offset the
compliance deficit of the previous year.
(b) The compliance deficit value shall be calculated in accordance
with Sec. 80.1603(f)(3).
Sec. 80.1606 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.1607 Gasoline sulfur standards and requirements for transmix
processors and transmix blenders.
Transmix processors and transmix blenders may comply with the
following requirements instead of the requirements and standards
otherwise applicable to a refiner under this subpart O.
(a) Any transmix processor who recovers transmix gasoline product
(TGP) from transmix through transmix processing under Sec. 80.84(c)
must show through sampling and testing (using the methods in Sec.
80.1630) that the TGP meets the applicable sulfur standards under Sec.
80.1604(b), prior to the TGP leaving the transmix processing facility.
(b) The sampling and testing required under paragraph (a) of this
section shall be conducted following each occasion TGP is produced.
(c) Any transmix processor who produces gasoline by adding
blendstock to TGP must, for such blendstock, comply with all
requirements and standards that apply to a refiner under this subpart
O, and must meet the applicable downstream sulfur standards under Sec.
80.1604 for the gasoline produced by blending blendstock and TGP, prior
to the gasoline leaving the transmix processing facility.
(d) Any transmix processor who produces gasoline by blending
blendstock into TGP must meet the sampling and testing requirements of
this subpart O through either of the methods provided in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section or through the alternative method provided in
paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(1)(i) Sample and test the blendstock when received at the transmix
processing facility, using the methods specified in Sec. 80.1630, to
determine the volume and sulfur content, and treat each volume of
blendstock that is blended into a volume of TGP as a separate batch for
purposes of calculating and reporting compliance with the applicable
annual average and per-gallon cap sulfur standards in Sec. 80.1603.
(ii) Use sulfur test results of the blendstock supplier provided
that all the following requirements are met:
(A) Sampling and testing by the blendstock supplier is performed
using the methods specified in Sec. 80.1630.
(B) Testing for the sulfur content of the blendstock in the
supplier's storage tank must be conducted following the last receipt of
blendstock into the supplier's storage tank that supplies the transmix
processor.
(C) The transmix processor must obtain a copy of the blendstock
supplier's test results, reflecting the sulfur content of each load of
blendstock supplied to the transmix processor, at the time of each
transfer of blendstock to the transmix processor.
(D) The transmix processor must conduct a quality assurance program
of sampling and testing for each blendstock supplier. The frequency of
blendstock sampling and testing must be one sample for every 500,000
gallons of blendstock received or one sample every 3 months, whichever
results in more frequent sampling.
(iii) If any of the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this
section are not met, in whole or in part, for any blendstock blended
into TGP, that blendstock is deemed in violation of the gasoline sulfur
standards of this subpart O.
(2) As an alternative to the sampling and testing procedures
described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the following procedures
may be used:
(i) Sample and test each batch of TGP and determine the volume of
the TGP.
(ii) Sample and test the gasoline produced by blending blendstock
into TGP, and determine its volume.
[[Page 30025]]
(iii) Calculate the sulfur content and the volume of the batch by
subtracting the volume and sulfur content of the TGP from the volume
and sulfur content of the gasoline after blendstock blending. For
purposes of compliance and reporting, the sulfur content shall be the
calculated volume and sulfur content of the blendstock, and the
applicable standards shall be the average and cap standards in Sec.
80.1603. The applicable cap standard of the gasoline blend shall be the
cap standard under Sec. 80.1604.
(iv) Tests shall be performed using the methods specified in Sec.
80.1630, to determine the sulfur content of the batch.
(v) The sulfur content of each batch of gasoline produced by
blending blendstock into TGP must be no greater than the downstream
sulfur standard under Sec. 80.1604 applicable to the designation of
the TGP.
(e) Any transmix blender who produces gasoline by blending
transmix, or mixtures of gasoline and distillate fuel described in
Sec. 80.84(e), into previously certified gasoline under Sec. 80.84(d)
must meet the applicable downstream sulfur standards under Sec.
80.1604 for the gasoline produced by blending transmix and previously
certified gasoline and the endpoint standard specified in Sec. 80.84.
(f) Any transmix processor or transmix blender who adds any
feedstock to its transmix other than gasoline, distillate fuel, or
gasoline blendstocks from pipeline interface must meet all requirements
and standards that apply to a refiner under this subpart O for all
gasoline it produces during a compliance period.
Sec. 80.1608 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.1609 Oxygenate blender requirements.
(a) Oxygenate blenders who blend only oxygenate that complies with
the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section into gasoline
downstream of the refinery that produced the gasoline or the import
facility where the gasoline was imported are not subject to the refiner
or importer requirements of this subpart for such gasoline. Such
oxygenate blenders are subject to the requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section, the requirements and prohibitions applicable to
downstream parties, the requirements of Sec. 80.1603(d)(4), and the
prohibition specified in Sec. 80.1660(e).
(b) Beginning March 1, 2017, the DFE or other oxygenate used must
comply with the requirements of Sec. 80.1610. Prior to March 1, 2017,
DFE is subject to the sulfur requirements of Sec. 80.385(e).
Sec. 80.1610 Standards and requirements for producers of denatured
fuel ethanol and other oxygenates for use by gasoline oxygenate
blenders.
Beginning January 1, 2017, producers of denatured fuel ethanol
(DFE) or other oxygenates for use by oxygenate blenders under Sec.
80.1609 must comply with the following requirements:
(a) Standards. (1) The sulfur content must not be greater than 10
ppm as determined in accordance with the test requirements of Sec.
80.1630.
(2) The DFE or other oxygenate must be composed solely of carbon,
hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur.
(3) In the case of DFE, only gasoline, RBOB, CBOB, or natural gas
liquids may be used as denaturants.
(4) The concentration of all denaturants used in DFE is limited to
a maximum of 2. volume percent.
(b) Registration. Unless registered under Sec. 80.1450, the
producer of DFE or other oxygenate must register with EPA pursuant to
the requirements of Sec. 80.1650.
(c) PTDs. The producer of DFE or other oxygenate must initiate a
PTD for each batch of DFE or other oxygenate that it ships from its
facility which contains the statement in either paragraph (c)(1) or
(c)(2) of this section, as applicable.
(1) For DFE, ``Meets EPA standards for denatured fuel ethanol for
use in gasoline''; or
(2) For oxygenates other than DFE, ``Meets EPA standards for motor
fuel oxygenates for use in gasoline''
(3) PTDs that are complaint with the requirements in paragraph (c)
of this section must be transferred from each party transferring
oxygenate to each party that receives oxygenate through to the
oxygenate blender.
(d) Batch numbers. Every batch of oxygenate produced or imported at
oxygenate production or import facility shall be assigned a number (the
``batch number''), consisting of the EPA-assigned oxygenate producer or
importer registration number, the EPA facility registration number, the
last two digits of the year in which the batch was produced, and a
unique number for the batch, beginning with the number one for the
first batch produced or imported each calendar year and each subsequent
batch during the calendar year being assigned the next sequential
number (e.g., 4321-54321-95-000001, 4321-543321-95-000002, etc.)
Sec. Sec. 80.1611-80.1612 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.1613 Standards and other requirements for gasoline additive
manufacturers and blenders.
Gasoline additive manufacturers and blenders must meet the
following requirements:
(a) Gasoline additive manufacturers, as defined in 40 CFR 79.2(f),
must meet the following requirements:
(1)(i) Except as otherwise provided, this section applies to any
additive, as defined in 40 CFR 79.2(e), manufactured for use in
gasoline that is not an oxygenate compound, and that is sold for use at
a concentration of less than 1.0% by volume.
(ii) Oxygenate compound additives subject to the 10 ppm per-gallon
sulfur standard and the requirements of Sec. 80.1610 are not subject
to the provisions of this section except for the provisions of
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(2) The additive must contribute no more than 3 ppm on a per gallon
basis to the sulfur content of gasoline when used at the maximum
recommended treatment rate.
(3) The additive manufacturer must maintain records of its additive
production quality control activities which demonstrates that the
sulfur content of additive production batches complies with the sulfur
requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and make these records
available upon request.
(4) The maximum treatment rate on the product transfer document for
the additive must state all the following:
(i) The maximum registered concentration.
(ii) The maximum allowed treatment rate which corresponds to the
maximum registered concentration. The maximum allowed concentration
must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(b) The following provisions apply to parties who are downstream of
the gasoline refiner or importer and who blend additives to gasoline,
RBOB or CBOB and who are not refiners.
(1) On any occasion where the additive blender is solely acting as
an oxygenate blender, as defined in Sec. 80.2(mm), it is subject to
the prohibition in Sec. 80.1660(e) and the downstream gasoline sulfur
standard of Sec. 80.1604(b).
(2) On any occasion where an additive blender blends an additive
(subject to the requirements of Sec. 80.1613(a)) at a concentration of
less than 1.0% by volume, it is subject to the prohibition in Sec.
80.1660(f) and the downstream gasoline sulfur standard of Sec.
80.1604(b).
[[Page 30026]]
(3) On any occasion where an additive blender blends an additive at
a concentration of 1.0% by volume or greater, it is a fuel manufacturer
as defined in 40 CFR 79.2(d), and is subject to all the provisions that
apply to refiners under this subpart O.
Sec. 80.1614 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.1615 Credit generation.
(a) Who may generate credits? Credits may be generated under this
subpart O, as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section,
by the following entities:
(1) U.S. refiners, including small refiners under Sec. 80.1620,
and refiners owning small volume refineries under Sec. 80.1621.
Foreign refiners may not generate credits.
(2) Importers.
(b) Early credit generation--January 1, 2014 through December 31,
2016. (1) Early credits may be generated for gasoline produced or
imported from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016, by a refiner,
including small refiners and owners of small volume refineries approved
pursuant to Sec. 80.1622, and importers.
(2) A refiner or importer may generate early credits for gasoline
it produces at a refinery or imports during an annual averaging period
when its annual average sulfur level, calculated in accordance with the
provisions of Sec. 80.1603(c), is less than 30 ppm.
(3)(i) The number of early credits generated shall be calculated
annually for each applicable averaging period according to the
following equation:
ECa = [Va x (30-S a)]-CRa
Where:
ECa = Early credits generated during the annual averaging
period, in ppm-gallons, for use pursuant to Sec. 80.1616.
Sa = Annual average sulfur level, calculated in
accordance with the provisions of Sec. 80.1603(c), in ppm.
Va = Total volume of gasoline produced or imported during
the averaging period, in gallons.
CRa = Credits generated during the annual averaging
period per Sec. 80.310, in ppm-gallons, for use pursuant to subpart
H of this part.
(ii) No credits shall be generated unless the value of
ECa is positive.
(iii) The value of ECa shall be rounded to the nearest
ppm-gallon in accordance with the rounding procedure specified in Sec.
80.9.
(4) A refiner or importer may include any downstream added
oxygenates included in its RFG or conventional gasoline volume under
the provisions of Sec. Sec. 80.69 and 80.101(d)(4), respectively, for
the purpose of generating credits.
(5) All, some, or no credits generated during the time period
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must be designated as
subject to the requirements of subpart H of this part. Any remaining
credits must be designated as subject to the requirements of this
subpart O.
(c) Standard credit generation--beginning January 1, 2017. (1)
Refiners, including small refiners and owners of small volume
refineries approved pursuant to Sec. 80.1622, and importers may
generate standard credits for the gasoline produced at a refinery or
imported during an annual averaging period when the annual average
sulfur level of the refiner, refinery or importer, as applicable, and
as calculated in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 80.1603(c), is
less than 10 ppm.
(2)(i) The number of standard credits generated shall be calculated
annually for each applicable averaging period according to the
following equation:
SCa = [Va x (10-Sa)]-CRa
Where:
SCa = Standard credits generated during the annual
averaging period, in ppm-gallons, for use pursuant to Sec. 80.1616.
Sa = Annual average sulfur level, calculated in
accordance with the provisions of Sec. 80.1603(c), in ppm.
Va = Total volume of gasoline produced or imported during
the averaging period, in gallons.
CRa = Credits generated during the annual averaging period per Sec.
80.310, in ppm-gallons, for use pursuant to subpart H. This term is
applicable only to small refiners and small volume refineries per
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and only prior to January 1, 2020.
Beginning January 1, 2020, the value of this term is zero.
(ii) No credits shall be generated unless the value of
SCa is positive.
(iii) The value of SCa shall be rounded to the nearest
ppm-gallon in accordance with the rounding procedure specified in Sec.
80.9.
(3) A refiner or importer may include any downstream added
oxygenates included in its RFG or conventional gasoline volume under
the provisions of Sec. Sec. 80.69 and 80.101(d)(4), respectively, for
the purpose of generating credits.
(4) Prior to January 1, 2020, credits generated under this
paragraph (c) by small refiners and owners of small volume refineries
per paragraph (c)(1) of this section must be designated as subject to
the requirements of subpart H of this part. Any remaining credits must
be designated as subject to the requirements of this subpart O.
Sec. 80.1616 Credit use and transfer.
(a) Credit use. (1) Credits may be used to meet the applicable
annual average sulfur standards of Sec. 80.1603(a)(1).
(2) Credits must have been generated pursuant to the requirements
of Sec. 80.1615.
(3) Only obligated parties under this subpart O may generate, use,
transfer or own credits generated under this subpart O.
(4) Credit life--Early Credits. (i) Early credits generated under
Sec. 80.1615(b) are valid for use for the 2017 through 2019 compliance
years. All early credits will expire and become invalid after February
29, 2020, when the 2019 annual compliance report is due.
(ii) Early credits may be used for compliance with the annual
average sulfur standard of Sec. 80.1603(a)(1) by refiners and
importers.
(5) Credit life--Standard Credits. (i) Standard credits generated
under Sec. 80.1615(c) are valid for use for five years from the year
in which they are generated. For example, standard credits generated in
2017 may be used for compliance through the 2022 compliance period
(they would expire and become invalid after February 28, 2023, the 2022
annual compliance report due date).
(ii) Standard credits may be used for compliance with the annual
average sulfur standard of Sec. 80.1603(a)(1) by refiners and
importers.
(6) A refiner or importer possessing credits must use all credits
prior to falling into a compliance deficit.
(7) In no case may a credit be transferred more than twice before
being used or terminated.
(b) Credit transfers. (1) Credits obtained from other obligated
parties may be used to meet the annual average standards of this
subpart O, if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The credits are generated and reported according to the
requirements of this subpart O.
(ii) The credits are used in compliance with the limitations
regarding the appropriate periods for credit use pursuant to paragraph
(a) of this section.
(iii) Any credit transfer takes place no later than February 28
following the calendar year averaging period when the credits are used.
(iv) The credit has not been transferred more than twice. The first
transfer by the refiner or importer who generated the credit may only
be made to a refiner or importer who intends to use the credit; if the
transferee cannot use the credit, it may make the second, and final,
transfer only to a refiner or importer who intends to use the credit.
[[Page 30027]]
(v) The credit transferor must apply any credits necessary to meet
the transferor's applicable average standard before transferring
credits to any other refiner or importer.
(vi) The credit transferor does not create a negative credit
balance as a result of the credit transfer.
(vii) Each transferor must supply to the transferee records
indicating all of the following:
(A) The years the credits were generated.
(B) The identity of the refiner or importer who generated the
credits.
(C) The identity of the transferring party (if it is not the same
party that generated the credits).
(2) In the case of credits that have been calculated or created
improperly, or are otherwise determined to be invalid, all of the
following provisions apply:
(i) Invalid credits cannot be used to achieve compliance with the
transferee's averaging standard, regardless of the transferee's good
faith belief that the credits were valid.
(ii) The refiner or importer who used the credits, and any
transferor of the credits, must adjust their credit records and reports
and sulfur calculations as necessary to reflect the proper credits.
(iii) Any properly created credits existing in the transferor's
credit balance after correcting the credit balance, and after the
transferor applies credits as needed to meet the average standard at
the end of the compliance year, must first be applied to correct the
invalid transfers before the transferor trades or banks the credits.
Sec. 80.1620 Small refiner definition.
(a) For the purposes of this subpart O, a gasoline small refiner is
defined as any refiner who meets all of the following criteria and has
been approved by EPA as a small refiner per Sec. 80.1622:
(1) Produces gasoline at its refineries by processing crude oil
through refinery processing units.
(2) Employed an average of no more than 1,500 people, based on the
average number of employees for all pay periods for calendar year 2011
for all subsidiary companies, all parent companies, all subsidiaries of
the parent companies, and all joint venture partners.
(3) Had a corporate-average crude oil capacity less than or equal
to 155,000 barrels per calendar day (bpcd) for 2011.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term ``refiner'' shall
include foreign refiners.
(c) The number of employees and crude oil capacity under paragraph
(a) of this section shall be determined as follows:
(1) The refiner shall include the employees and crude oil capacity
of any subsidiary companies, any parent company and subsidiaries of the
parent company in which the parent has 50 percent or greater ownership,
and any joint venture partners.
(2) For any refiner owned by a governmental entity, the number of
employees and total crude oil capacity as specified in paragraph (a) of
this section shall include all employees and crude oil production of
the government to which the governmental entity is a part.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (e)(1) of
this section, a refiner that acquires or reactivates a refinery that
was shut down or non-operational during calendar year 2011, may apply
for small refiner status under this subpart O.
(e) The following are ineligible for small refiner provisions under
this subpart:
(1) Refiners with refineries built or started up on or after
January 1, 2011.
(2) Persons who exceed the employee or crude oil capacity criteria
under this section on January 1, 2011, but who meet these criteria
after that date, regardless of whether the reduction in employees or
crude oil capacity is due to operational changes at the refinery or a
company sale or reorganization.
(3) Importers.
(4) Refiners who produce gasoline other than by processing crude
oil through refinery processing units.
(f)(1) A refiner approved as a small refiner under Sec. 80.1622
who subsequently ceases production of gasoline from processing crude
oil through refinery processing units, employs more than 1,500 people,
or exceeds the 155,000 bpcd crude oil capacity limit after January 1,
2011 as a result of merger with or acquisition of or by another entity,
is disqualified as a small refiner, except as provided for under
paragraph (f)(4) of this section. If such disqualification occurs, the
refiner shall notify EPA in writing no later than 20 days following the
disqualifying event.
(2) Except as provided under paragraph (f)(3) of this section, any
refiner whose status changes under this paragraph (f) shall meet the
applicable standards of Sec. 80.1603 within a period of up to 30
months from the disqualifying event for any of its refineries that were
previously subject to the small refiner standards of Sec. 80.1623.
(3) A refiner may apply to EPA for up to an additional six months
to comply with the standards of Sec. 80.1603 if more than 30 months
would be required for the necessary engineering, permitting,
construction, and start-up work to be completed. Such applications must
include detailed technical information supporting the need for
additional time. EPA will base a decision to approve additional time on
information provided by the refiner and on other relevant information.
(4) Disqualification under this paragraph (f) of this section shall
not apply in the case of a merger between two previously approved small
refiners.
(5) If a refiner receives a delay per paragraphs (f)(2) and/or
(f)(3) of this section, the refiner may not generate gasoline sulfur
credits under this subpart O during that 30 or 36 month period.
(6) All written notifications to EPA should be submitted to the
addresses listed in Sec. 80.1622.
Sec. 80.1621 Small volume refinery definition.
(a) For the purposes of this subpart O, a gasoline small volume
refinery is defined as any refinery that meets all of the following
criteria, and has been approved by EPA as a small volume refinery per
Sec. 80.1622:
(1) Produces gasoline by processing crude oil through refinery
processing units.
(2) The average aggregate daily crude oil throughput, including
feedstocks derived from crude oil, for the calendar year 2011 (as
determined by dividing the aggregate throughput for the calendar year
by the number of days in the calendar year) does not exceed 75,000
barrels. Throughput means the total crude oil feedstock input into the
refinery less volumes injected into the crude oil supply after refinery
processing.
(b) The following are ineligible for the small volume refinery
provisions under this subpart:
(1) Refineries built or started up on or after January 1, 2012.
(2) Persons who exceed the crude oil throughput under this section
for calendar year 2011 but who meet these criteria after that date,
regardless of whether the reduction in crude oil capacity is due to
operational changes at the refinery or a company sale or
reorganization.
(3) Importers.
(4) Refineries that produce gasoline other than by processing crude
oil through refinery processing units.
Sec. 80.1622 Approval for small refiner and small volume refinery
status.
(a) Applications for small refiner or small volume refinery status
under this subpart must be submitted to EPA by March 31, 2014.
[[Page 30028]]
(b) To qualify for small refiner status under this subpart a
refiner must submit an application to EPA containing all of the
following information for the refiner and for all subsidiary companies,
all parent companies, all subsidiaries of the parent companies, and all
joint venture partners:
(1)(i) A listing of the name and address of all company locations
for the period January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.
(ii) The average number of employees at each location, based on the
number of employees for each pay period for the period January 1, 2011
through December 31, 2011.
(iii) The type of business activities carried out at each location.
(iv) For joint ventures, the total number of employees includes the
combined employee count of all corporate entities in the venture.
(v) For government-owned refiners, the total employee count
includes all government employees.
(2)(i) The total corporate crude oil capacity of each refinery as
reported to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE), for the period January 1, 2011 through
December 31, 2011. The information submitted to EIA is presumed to be
correct. In cases where a company disagrees with this information, the
company may petition EPA with appropriate data to correct the record
when the company submits its application.
(ii) Foreign small refiners applying for approval under this
section must send the total corporate crude oil capacity of each
refinery for the period January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011, to
one of the addresses listed in paragraph (g) of this section.
(3) The application must be signed by the president, chief
operating or chief executive officer of the company, or his/her
designee, stating that the information is true to the best of his/her
knowledge, and that the company owned the refinery as of December 31,
2011.
(4) Name, address, phone number, facsimile number, and email
address of a corporate contact person.
(c) To qualify for small volume refinery status under this subpart,
a refiner must submit an application to EPA containing all of the
following information for the refinery, or refineries, for which the
refiner is applying for small volume refinery status:
(1) A listing of the name and address of each small volume refinery
owned by the company.
(2)(i) The total crude throughput of each small volume refinery,
defined as the total crude oil feedstock input into the refinery less
the volumes injected into the crude oil supply after refinery
processing, as reported to EIA, for the period January 1, 2011 through
December 31, 2011. The information submitted to EIA is presumed to be
correct. In cases where a company disagrees with this information, the
company may petition EPA with appropriate data to correct the record
when the company submits its application.
(ii) Foreign refiners applying for small volume refinery approval
under this section must send the total crude throughput of each small
volume refinery, defined as the total crude oil feedstock input into
the refinery less the volumes injected into the crude oil supply after
refinery processing of each refinery for the period January 1, 2011
through December 31, 2011, to one of the addresses listed in paragraph
(g) of this section.
(3) The application must be signed by the president, chief
operating or chief executive officer of the company, or his/her
designee, stating that the information is true to the best of his/her
knowledge, and that the company owned the refinery as of December 31,
2011.
(4) Name, address, phone number, facsimile number, and email
address of a corporate contact person.
(d) For foreign refiners, the small refiner or small volume
refinery status application must contain all of the elements required
in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, as applicable, must
demonstrate compliance with Sec. 80.1620, and must be submitted by
March 31, 2014 to one of the addresses listed in paragraph (g) of this
section.
(e) A refiner who qualifies as a small refiner or small volume
refinery under this subpart and subsequently fails to meet all of the
qualifying criteria as set out in Sec. Sec. 80.1620 and 80.1621 will
be disqualified pursuant to Sec. 80.1620(f) or Sec. 80.1621(d).
(1) In the event such disqualification occurs, the refiner shall
notify EPA in writing no later than 20 days following the disqualifying
event.
(2) Disqualification under this paragraph (e) shall not apply in
the case of a merger between two approved small refiners.
(3) Any refiner that acquires a refinery from another refiner with
approved small refiner or small volume refinery status under this
subpart shall notify EPA in writing no later than 20 days following the
acquisition.
(f) If EPA finds that a refiner provided false or inaccurate
information in its small refiner status or small volume refinery status
application under this subpart, the refiner's small refiner or small
volume refinery status will be void as of the effective date of this
subpart.
(g) Small refiner and small volume refinery status applications,
and any other correspondence required by this section, Sec. 80.1620,
and/or Sec. 80.1621 shall be sent to one of the following addresses:
(1) For U.S. Mail: U.S. EPA--Attn: Tier 3 Program (Small Refiner/
Small Volume Refinery), 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
(2) For overnight or courier services: U.S. EPA, Attn: Tier 3
Program (Small Refiner/Small Volume Refinery), 6406J, 1310 L Street
NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 20005.
Sec. Sec. -80.1623 80.1624 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.1625 Hardship provisions.
EPA may, at its discretion, grant a refiner of gasoline that
processes crude oil through refinery processing units, for one or more
of its refineries, temporary relief from some or all of the provisions
of this subpart.
(a) Extreme hardship circumstances. (1) EPA may, at its discretion,
grant a refiner of gasoline that processes crude oil through refinery
processing units, for one or more of its refineries, temporary relief
from some or all of the provisions of this subpart. EPA may grant such
relief provided that the refiner demonstrates all of the following:
(i) Unusual circumstances exist that impose extreme hardship and
significantly affect the refiner's ability to comply by the applicable
date.
(ii) It has made best efforts to comply with the requirements of
this subpart.
(2) The application must specify the factors that demonstrate a
significant economic hardship and must provide a detailed discussion
regarding the inability of the refinery to produce gasoline meeting the
requirements of Sec. 80.1603. Such an application must include, at a
minimum, all of the following information:
(i) Documentation of efforts made to obtain necessary financing,
including all the following:
(A) Copies of loan applications for the necessary financing of the
construction of appropriate sulfur reduction technology and other
equipment procurements or improvements.
(B) If financing has been disapproved or is otherwise unsuccessful,
documents supporting the basis for that disapproval
[[Page 30029]]
and evidence of efforts to pursue other means of financing.
(ii) A detailed analysis of the reasons the refinery is unable to
produce gasoline meeting the standards of this subpart O in 2017,
including costs, specification of equipment still needed, potential
equipment suppliers, and efforts already completed to obtain the
necessary equipment.
(iii) If unavailability of equipment is part of the reason for the
inability to comply, a discussion of other options considered, and the
reasons these other options are not feasible.
(iv) If relevant, a demonstration that a needed or lower cost
technology is immediately unavailable, but will be available in the
near future, and full information regarding when and from what sources
it will be available.
(v) Schematic drawings of the refinery configuration as of January
1, 2011, and as of the date of the hardship extension application, and
any planned future additions or changes.
(vi) If relevant, a demonstration that a temporary unavailability
exists of engineering or construction resources necessary for design or
installation of the needed equipment.
(vii) A detailed analysis of the reasons the refinery is unable to
use credits to meet the gasoline standards of this subpart O, including
all avenues pursued to generate and/or procure credits, their cost, and
ability to finance them.
(viii) A discussion of any sulfur reductions that can be achieved
from current levels.
(ix) The date the refiner anticipates compliance with the standards
in Sec. 80.1603 can be achieved at its refinery.
(x) An analysis of the economic impact of compliance on the
refiner's business (including financial statements from the last 5
years, or for any time period up to 10 years, at EPA's request).
(xi) Any other information regarding other strategies considered,
including strategies or components of strategies that do not involve
installation of equipment, and why meeting the standards in Sec.
80.1603 beginning in 2017 (or 2020 for approved small refiners and
small volume refineries) is infeasible.
(3) Hardship applications under this paragraph (a) must be
submitted to EPA by March 31, 2014 to one of the addresses listed in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(b) Extreme unforeseen circumstances hardship. (1) In appropriate
extreme, unusual, and unforeseen circumstances (for example, natural
disaster or refinery fire) which are clearly outside the control of the
refiner or importer and which could not have been avoided by the
exercise of prudence, diligence, and due care, EPA may permit a refiner
or importer, for a brief period, to distribute gasoline which does not
meet the requirements of this subpart for all of the following reasons:
(i) It is in the public interest to do so (e.g., distribution of
the nonconforming gasoline is necessary to meet projected shortfalls
which cannot otherwise be compensated for).
(ii) The refiner or importer exercised prudent planning and was not
able to avoid the violation and has taken all reasonable steps to
minimize the extent of the nonconformity.
(iii) The refiner or importer can show how the requirements for
making compliant gasoline, and/or purchasing credits to partially or
completely offset the nonconformity, will be expeditiously achieved.
(iv) The refiner or importer agrees to make up any air quality
detriment associated with the nonconforming gasoline, where
practicable.
(v) The refiner or importer pays to the U.S. Treasury an amount
equal to the economic benefit of the nonconformity minus the amount
expended pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section, in making up
the air quality detriment.
(2) The hardship application must meet all other applicable
requirements of this section, except paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) The hardship extension application must contain a letter signed
by the president or the chief operating officer or chief executive
officer of the company, or his/her designee, stating that the
information contained in the application is true to the best of his/her
knowledge.
(d) Hardship applications under this section must be submitted in
writing to one of the following addresses:
(1) For U.S. Mail: U.S. EPA--Attn: Tier 3 Program (Hardship
Application), 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460.
(2) For overnight or courier services: U.S. EPA, Attn: Tier 3
Program (Hardship Application), 6406J, 1310 L Street NW., 6th floor,
Washington, DC 20005.
Sec. 80.1630 Sampling and testing requirements for refiners and
importers.
(a) Sample and test each batch of gasoline. (1) Refiners and
importers shall collect a representative sample from each batch of
gasoline produced or imported and test each sample to determine its
sulfur content for compliance with requirements under this subpart
prior to the gasoline leaving the refinery or import facility, using
the sampling and testing methods provided in this section or Sec. Sec.
80.8 (sampling) and 80.47 (testing).
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the
requirements of this section apply beginning January 1, 2017.
(3)(i) Beginning January 1, 2017, any refiner who produces gasoline
using computer-controlled in-line blending equipment is exempt from the
requirement of paragraph (a)(1) of this section to obtain the test
results required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section prior to the
gasoline leaving the refinery, provided that the refiner obtains an
exemption from this requirement from EPA. To obtain such exemption, the
refiner must:
(A) Have been granted an in-line blending exemption under Sec.
80.65(f)(4); or
(B) If the refiner has not been granted an exemption under Sec.
80.65(f)(4), submit to EPA all of the information required under Sec.
80.65(f)(4)(i)(A). A letter signed by the president, chief operating
officer or chief executive officer of the company, or his/her designee,
stating that the information contained in the submission is true to the
best of his/her belief must accompany any submission under this
paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B).
(ii) Refiners who seek an exemption under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of
this section must comply with any EPA request for additional
information or any other requirements that EPA includes as part of the
exemption.
(iii) Within 60 days of EPA's receipt of a submission under
paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B) of this section, EPA will notify the refiner if
the exemption is not approved or of any deficiencies in the refiner's
submission, or if any additional information is required or other
requirements are included in the exemption pursuant to paragraph
(a)(3)(ii) of this section. In the absence of such notification from
EPA, the effective date of an exemption under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of
this section for refiners who do not hold an exemption under Sec.
80.65(f)(4) is 60 days from EPA's receipt of the refiner's submission
under paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B) of this section.
(iv) EPA reserves the right to modify the requirements of an
exemption under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, in whole or in
part, at any time, if EPA determines that the refiner's operation does
not effectively or adequately control, monitor or document the sulfur
content of the refinery's gasoline production, or if EPA determines
that any other circumstances exist which merit modification of the
requirements
[[Page 30030]]
of an exemption, such as advancements in the state of the art for in-
line blending measurement which allow for additional control or more
accurate monitoring or documentation of sulfur content. If EPA finds
that a refiner provided false or inaccurate information in any
submission required for an exemption under this section, upon
notification from EPA, the refiner's exemption will be void ab initio.
(b) Sampling methods. For purposes of paragraph (a) of this
section, refiners and importers shall sample each batch of gasoline by
using one of the methods specified in Sec. 80.8.
(c) Test method for measuring sulfur content of gasoline. (1) For
purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, refiners and importers shall
use the method provided in Sec. 80.47, as applicable, to measure the
sulfur content of gasoline they produce or import.
(2) Sulfur content shall be reported to the nearest ppm.
Sec. 80.1631 Sample retention requirements.
(a) Sample retention requirements. Beginning January 1, 2017, or
January 1 of the first year credits are generated under Sec. 80.1615,
whichever is earlier, any refiner or importer shall do all of the
following:
(1) Collect a representative portion of each sample analyzed under
Sec. 80.1630, of at least 330 milliliters in volume.
(2) Retain sample portions for the most recent 20 samples
collected, or for each sample collected during the most recent 21 day
period, whichever is greater, not to exceed 90 days for any given
sample.
(3) Comply with the gasoline sample handling and storage procedures
under Sec. 80.1630 for each sample portion retained.
(4) Comply with any request by EPA to:
(i) Provide a retained sample portion to the Administrator's
authorized representative; and
(ii) Ship a retained sample portion to EPA, within 2 working days
of the date of the request, by an overnight shipping service or
comparable means, to the address and following procedures specified by
EPA, and accompanied with the sulfur test result for the sample
determined under Sec. 80.1630.
(b) Sample retention requirement for samples subject to independent
analysis requirements. (1) Any refiner or importer who meets the
independent analysis requirements under Sec. 80.65(f) for any batch of
reformulated gasoline or RBOB will have met the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section, provided the independent laboratory
meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section for the
gasoline batch; except that the retained RBOB sample for purposes of
this subpart O must be a sample of the RBOB prior to hand blending with
oxygenate.
(2) For samples retained by an independent laboratory under this
paragraph (b), the test results required to be submitted under
paragraph (a) of this section shall be the test results determined
under Sec. 80.65(e).
(c) Sampling compliance certification. Any refiner or importer
shall include with each annual report filed under Sec. 80.1652, the
following statement, which must accurately reflect the facts and must
be signed and dated by the same person who signs the annual report:
I certify that I have made inquiries that are sufficient to give me
knowledge of the procedures to collect and store gasoline samples, and
I further certify that the procedures meet the requirements of the ASTM
procedures required under 40 CFR 80.1630.
(d) Prior to January 1, 2017, for purposes of complying with the
requirements of this section, refiners who analyze composited samples
under Sec. 80.1630 must retain portions of the composited samples.
Portions of samples of each batch comprising the composited samples are
not required to be retained.
(e) For purposes of complying with the requirements of this section
for RBOB, a sample of each RBOB batch produced must be retained.
Sec. 80.1640 Standards and requirements that apply to refiners
producing gasoline by blending blendstocks into previously certified
gasoline (PCG).
(a) Any refiner who produces gasoline by blending blendstock into
PCG, as defined at Sec. 80.2(d), must meet the requirements of Sec.
80.1630 to sample and test every batch of gasoline as follows:
(1) Exclude the PCG for purposes of demonstrating compliance with
the sulfur standards of this subpart O.
(2) To accomplish the exclusion required in paragraph (a)(5) of
this section, the refiner must determine the volume and sulfur content
of the PCG used at the refinery and the volume of and sulfur content of
the gasoline produced at the refinery, and use the compliance
calculation procedures in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this
section.
(3) For each batch of PCG that is used to produce gasoline the
refiner must include the volume and sulfur content of the PCG as a
negative volume and a positive sulfur content in the refiner's
compliance calculations in accord with the requirements at Sec.
80.1603.
(4) For each batch of gasoline produced at the refinery using PCG
and blendstock, the refiner must determine the volume and sulfur
content of the combined product and include each batch of combined
product for purposes of sulfur compliance in the refinery's compliance
calculations at Sec. 80.1603 without regard to the presence of
previously certified gasoline in the batch.
(5) The refiner must use any PCG that it includes as a negative
batch in its compliance calculations pursuant to Sec. 80.1603 as a
component in gasoline production during the annual averaging period in
which the PCG was included as a negative batch in the refiner's
compliance calculations.
(6) The refiner must also comply with Sec. 80.65(i) when producing
RBOB or RFG and Sec. 80.101(g)(9) when producing conventional gasoline
or CBOB.
(7) Any negative annual average sulfur value shall be reported as
zero and not as a negative result.
(b) In the alternative, a refiner may sample and test each batch of
blendstock when received at the refinery to determine the volume and
sulfur content, and treat each blendstock receipt as a separate batch
for purposes of compliance calculations for the annual average sulfur
standard and for reporting. This alternative applies only if every
batch of blendstock used at a refinery during an averaging period has a
sulfur content that is equal to, or less than, the applicable per-
gallon cap standard under Sec. 80.1603.
(c) Refiners who blend only butane into PCG may meet the sampling
and testing requirements of this subpart O for sulfur by using sulfur
test results of the butane supplier, provided that the requirements of
Sec. 80.82 are met.
Sec. 80.1641 Alternative sulfur standards and requirements that apply
to importers who transport gasoline by truck.
Importers who import gasoline into the United States by truck may
comply with the following requirements instead of the requirements to
sample and test every batch of gasoline under Sec. 80.1630, and the
annual sulfur average and per-gallon cap standards otherwise applicable
to importers under Sec. 80.1603:
(a) Alternative standards. The imported gasoline must comply with
the standard in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section as follows:
(1) The annual average standard of 10 ppm and the per-gallon
standard of 80 ppm as provided by Sec. 80.1603; or
(2) A per-gallon standard of 10 ppm.
(b) Terminal testing. The importer may use test results for sulfur
content testing conducted by the terminal
[[Page 30031]]
operator, for gasoline contained in the storage tank from which trucks
used to transport gasoline into the United States are loaded, for
purposes of demonstrating compliance with the standards in paragraph
(a) of this section, provided all the following conditions are met:
(1) The sampling and testing shall be performed after each receipt
of gasoline into the storage tank, or immediately before each transfer
of gasoline to the importer's truck.
(2) The sampling and testing shall be performed using the methods
specified in Sec. Sec. 80.8 and 80.47, respectively.
(3) At the time of each transfer of gasoline to the importer's
truck for import to the U.S., the importer must obtain a copy of the
terminal test result that indicates the sulfur content of the truck
load (or each compartment if fuel was loaded from different storage
tanks).
(c) Quality assurance program. The importer must conduct a quality
assurance program, as specified in this paragraph, for each truck
loading terminal.
(1) Quality assurance samples must be obtained from the truck-
loading terminal and tested by the importer, or by an independent
laboratory, and the terminal operator must not know in advance when
samples are to be collected.
(2) The sampling and testing must be performed using the methods
specified in Sec. Sec. 80.8 and 80.47, respectively.
(3) The quality assurance test results for sulfur must differ from
the terminal test result by no more than the ASTM reproducibility of
the terminal's test results, as determined by the following equation:
R = 105 x ((S +2)/10\4\)\0.4\
Where:
R = ASTM reproducibility.
S = Sulfur content based on the terminal's test result.
(4) The frequency of the quality assurance sampling and testing
must be at least one sample for each fifty of an importer's trucks that
are loaded at a terminal, or one sample per month, whichever is more
frequent.
(d) Party required to conduct quality assurance testing. The
quality assurance program under paragraph (c) of this section shall be
conducted by the importer. In the alternative, this testing may be
conducted by an independent laboratory that meets the criteria under
Sec. 80.65(f)(2)(iii), provided the importer receives, no later than
21 days after the sample was taken, copies of all results of tests
conducted.
(e) Assignment of batch numbers. The importer must treat each truck
load of imported gasoline as a separate batch for purposes of assigning
batch numbers and maintaining records under Sec. 80.1653, and
reporting under Sec. 80.1652.
(f) EPA inspections of terminals. EPA inspectors or auditors, and
auditors conducting attest engagements under Sec. 80.1667, must be
given full and immediate access to the truck-loading terminal and any
laboratory at which samples of gasoline collected at the terminal are
analyzed, and must be allowed to conduct inspections, review records,
collect gasoline samples, and perform audits. These inspections or
audits may be either announced or unannounced.
(g) Certified Sulfur-FRGAS. This section does not apply to
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
(h) Reporting requirements. Any importer who elects to comply with
the alternative standards in paragraph (a) of this section shall comply
with the following requirements:
(1) All importer recordkeeping and reporting requirements under
Sec. Sec. 80.1652 and 80.1653, except as provided in paragraph (h)(2)
of this section.
(2) An importer who elects to comply with the alternative standards
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section must certify in the annual report
whether it is in compliance with the applicable per-gallon batch
standard set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, in lieu of
providing the information required by Sec. 80.1652 regarding annual
average sulfur content and compliance with the average standard under
Sec. 80.1603.
(i) Effect of noncompliance. If any of the requirements of this
section are not met, all gasoline imported by the truck importer during
the time any requirements are not met is deemed in violation of the
gasoline sulfur average and per-gallon cap standards in Sec. 80.1603.
Additionally, if any requirement is not met, EPA may notify the
importer of the violation and, if the requirement is not fulfilled
within 10 days of notification, the truck importer may not in the
future use the sampling and testing provisions in this section in lieu
of the provisions in Sec. 80.1630.
Sec. Sec. 80.1642-80.1649 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.1650 Registration.
The following registration requirements apply under this subpart:
(a) Registration with the EPA Administrator is required for any:
(1) Gasoline refiner or importer having any refinery or import
facility subject to the gasoline sulfur standards under this subpart O.
(2) Oxygenate producer or importer having any oxygenate production
facility or import facility subject to the oxygenate sulfur standards
under Sec. 80.1610 unless already registered under Sec. 80.1450.
(3) Oxygenate blender who has any oxygenate blending facility that
blends oxygenate into RBOB where the resulting gasoline is subject to
the gasoline sulfur standards under this subpart O.
(b) Registration dates. (1) Any gasoline refiner or importer
required to register shall do so by March 31, 2014, or at least thirty
days in advance of the first date that such person will produce or
import reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB,
whichever is later.
(2) Any oxygenate producer or importer required to register shall
do so by December 1, 2017, or at least thirty days in advance of the
first date that such person will produce or import oxygenate, whichever
is later.
(3) Any oxygenate blender required to register shall do so by March
31, 2014, or at least thirty days in advance of the first date that
such person will blend oxygenate into RBOB, whichever is later.
(c) Refiner registration. (1) Registration shall be on forms
prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all the following
information:
(i) The name, business address, contact name, email address, and
telephone number of the refiner.
(ii) For each separate refinery, the facility name, physical
location, contact name, email address, telephone number, and type of
facility.
(iii) For each separate refinery:
(A) Whether records are kept on-site or off-site of the refinery.
(B) If records are kept off-site, the primary off-site storage
facility name, physical location, contact name, email address, and
telephone number.
(iv) For each separate refinery that produces reformulated gasoline
and/or RBOB, the name, address, contact name, email address, and
telephone number of the independent laboratory used to meet the
independent analysis requirements of Sec. 80.65(f).
(2) EPA will supply a company registration number to each refiner,
and a facility registration number for each refinery that is
identified. These registration numbers shall be used in all reports to
the Administrator.
(3) Updates to registration. (i) Any refiner shall submit updated
registration information to the Administrator within thirty days of any
occasion when the registration information previously
[[Page 30032]]
supplied becomes incomplete or inaccurate; except that
(ii) EPA must be notified in writing of any change in designated
independent laboratory under paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section at
least thirty days in advance of such change.
(d) Gasoline importer registration. (1) Registration shall be on
forms prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all the
following information:
(i) The name, business address, contact name, email address, and
telephone number of the importer.
(ii) For each importer's operations in a single PADD:
(A) Whether records are kept on-site at the registered address or
off-site.
(B) If records are kept off-site, the primary off-site storage
facility name, physical location, contact name, email address, and
telephone number.
(C) For importers that import reformulated gasoline and/or RBOB,
the name, address, contact name and telephone number of the independent
laboratory used to meet the independent analysis requirements of Sec.
80.65(f).
(2) EPA will supply a company registration number to each importer.
This registration number shall be used in all reports to the
Administrator.
(3) Updates to registration. (i) Any importer shall submit updated
registration information to the Administrator within thirty days of any
occasion when the registration information previously supplied becomes
incomplete or inaccurate; except that
(ii) EPA must be notified in writing of any change in designated
independent laboratory under paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(C) of this section at
least thirty days in advance of such change.
(e) Oxygenate producer registration. (1) Registration shall be on
forms prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all the
following information:
(i) The name, business address, contact name, email address, and
telephone number of the oxygenate producer.
(ii) For each separate oxygenate production facility, the facility
name, physical location, contact name, telephone number, and type of
facility.
(iii) For each separate oxygenate production facility:
(A) Whether records are kept on-site or off-site of the refinery.
(B) If records are kept off-site, the primary off-site storage
facility name, physical location, contact name, and telephone number.
(2) EPA will supply a company registration number to each oxygenate
producer, and a facility registration number for each oxygenate
production facility that is identified. These registration numbers or
those provided under Sec. 80.1450 shall be used in all reports to the
Administrator.
(3) Updates to registration. Any oxygenate producer shall submit
updated registration information to the Administrator within thirty
days of any occasion when the registration information previously
supplied becomes incomplete or inaccurate.
(f) Oxygenate importer registration. (1) Registration shall be on
forms prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all the
following information:
(i) The name, business address, contact name, and email address,
telephone number of the importer.
(ii) For each importer's operations in a single PADD:
(A) Whether records are kept on-site at the registered address or
off-site.
(B) If records are kept off-site, the primary off-site storage
facility name, physical location, contact name, email address, and
telephone number.
(2) EPA will supply a company registration number to each importer.
This registration number shall be used in all reports to the
Administrator.
(g) Oxygenate blender registration. (1) Registration shall be on
forms prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all the
following information:
(i) The name, business address, contact name, and email address,
telephone number of the oxygenate blender.
(ii) For each separate oxygenate blending facility, the facility
name, physical location, contact name, telephone number, and type of
facility.
(iii) For each separate oxygenate blending facility:
(A) Whether records are kept on-site or off-site of the refinery.
(B) If records are kept off-site, the primary off-site storage
facility name, physical location, contact name, email address, and
telephone number.
(2) EPA will supply a company registration number to each oxygenate
blender, and a facility registration number for each oxygenate blending
facility that is identified. These registration numbers or those
provided under Sec. 80.1450 shall be used in all reports to the
Administrator.
(3) Updates to registration. Any oxygenate producer shall submit
updated registration information to the Administrator within thirty
days of any occasion when the registration information previously
supplied becomes incomplete or inaccurate.
Sec. 80.1651 Product transfer document requirements.
(a) On each occasion that any person transfers custody or title to
any gasoline, RBOB, CBOB, or oxygenate other than when gasoline is sold
or dispensed for use in motor vehicles at a retail outlet or wholesale
purchaser-consumer facility, the transferor shall provide to the
transferee documents which include all the following information:
(1) The name and address of the transferor.
(2) The name and address of the transferee.
(3) The volume of gasoline, RBOB, CBOB, or oxygenate which is being
transferred.
(4) The location of the gasoline, RBOB, CBOB, or oxygenate at the
time of the transfer.
(5) The date of the transfer.
(b) On each occasion when any person transfers custody or title to
any gasoline for export or with an exemption under Sec. Sec. 80.1654,
80.1655, 80.1656, and/or 80.1658, any of the following statements must
be included on the product transfer document:
(1) For gasoline with a national security exemption under Sec.
80.1655, ``This gasoline is for use in vehicles, engines, or equipment
under an EPA-approved national security exemption only.''.
(2) For gasoline with a research, development, or testing exemption
under Sec. 80.1656, ``This gasoline is for research, development, or
testing purposes only.''.
(3) For gasoline for use in American Samoa, Guam, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands under Sec. 80.1658,
``This is gasoline for use only in Guam, American Samoa, or the
Northern Mariana Islands.''.
(4) For gasoline for export purposes, ``This gasoline is for export
only.''.
(5) For gasoline for racing purposes, ``This gasoline is for racing
purposes only.''.
(6) For California gasoline, pursuant to Sec. 80.1654,
``California gasoline''.
(c) On each occasion when any person transfers custody or title to
any gasoline additive intended to be used at less than 1 volume
percent, other than when gasoline is sold or dispensed for use in motor
vehicles at a retail outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer facility,
the transferor shall provide to the transferee documents which include
information on the maximum recommended treatment level.
Sec. 80.1652 Reporting requirements.
Beginning with the 2017 averaging period or the first year credits
are generated under Sec. 80.1615 (whichever is
[[Page 30033]]
earlier), and continuing for each averaging period thereafter, any
refiner or importer, and any oxygenate producer or importer, shall
submit to EPA annual reports that contain the information required in
this section, and any other information as EPA may require.
(a) Refiner and importer annual reports. Any refiner, for each of
its refineries, and any importer for the gasoline it imports, shall
submit a report for each calendar year averaging period that includes
all the following information:
(1) The EPA importer, or refiner and refinery facility registration
numbers.
(2) The average standard under Sec. 80.1603, reported to two
decimal places.
(3) The total volume of gasoline produced or imported, reported to
the nearest whole number.
(4) The annual average sulfur level of the gasoline produced or
imported, reported to two decimal places.
(5) The annual average sulfur level after inclusion of any credits,
reported to two decimal places.
(6) Separately provided information for credits, and separately by
year of creation, as follows:
(i) The number of credits at the beginning of the averaging period,
reported to the nearest whole number.
(ii) The number of credits generated, reported to the nearest whole
number.
(iii) The number of credits used, reported to the nearest whole
number.
(iv) If any credits were obtained from or transferred to other
parties; and for each other party, its name and EPA refiner or importer
registration number, and the number of credits obtained from or
transferred to the other party.
(v) The number of credits that expired at the end of the averaging
period, reported to the nearest whole number.
(vi) The number of credits that will carry over into the subsequent
averaging period, reported to the nearest whole number.
(7) For each batch of gasoline produced or imported during the
averaging period, all of the following:
(i) The batch number assigned under Sec. 80.65(d)(3); except that
if composite samples of conventional gasoline representing multiple
batches produced subsequent to December 31, 2003, are tested under
Sec. 80.101(i)(2) for anti-dumping compliance purposes, for purposes
of this subpart a separate batch number must be assigned to each batch
using the batch numbering procedures under Sec. 80.65(d)(3).
(ii) The date the batch was produced.
(iii) The volume of the batch, reported to the nearest whole
number.
(iv) The sulfur content of the batch, reported to two decimal
places, along with identification of the test method used to determine
the sulfur content of the batch, as determined under Sec. 80.1630.
(8) All values measured or calculated pursuant to the requirements
of this paragraph (a) shall be in accordance with the rounding
procedure specified in Sec. 80.9.
(9) When submitting reports under this paragraph (a) from January
1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, any importer shall exclude Certified
Sulfur-FRGAS.
(b) Additional reporting requirements for importers. From January
1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, importers shall report all of the
following information for Sulfur-FRGAS imported during an annual
averaging period:
(1) The EPA refiner and refinery registration numbers of each
foreign refiner and refinery where the Certified Sulfur-FRGAS was
produced.
(2) The total gallons of Certified Sulfur-FRGAS and Non-Certified
Sulfur-FRGAS imported from each foreign refiner and refinery, reported
to one decimal place.
(c) Oxygenate producer reports. On an annual basis, the producer of
DFE or other oxygenate must submit a summary report to EPA which
includes all of the following:
(1) The facility identification information provided pursuant to
Sec. 80.1650.
(2) The total volume of all batches of DFE and other oxygenate
produced.
(3) An attestation that all of the batches of DFE and other
oxygenate produced during the compliance period were in compliance with
the requirements of this subpart.
(d) Report submission. Any annual report required under this
section shall be:
(1) Signed and certified as meeting all of the applicable
requirements of this subpart by the owner or a responsible corporate
officer of the refiner or importer; and
(2) Submitted to EPA no later than the March 31 each year for the
prior calendar year averaging period.
(e) Attest reports. Attest reports for refiner and importer attest
engagements required under Sec. 80.1667 shall be submitted to the
Administrator by May 31 of each year for the prior calendar year
averaging period.
Sec. 80.1653 Recordkeeping.
(a) Records that must be kept. Beginning January 1, 2017 or January
1 of the first year that credits are generated (whichever is earlier),
any person who produces, imports, sells, offers for sale, dispenses,
distributes, supplies, offers for supply, stores, or transports
gasoline, shall keep records that contain all of the following
information:
(1) The product transfer document information required under Sec.
80.1651.
(2) All of the following information for any sampling and testing
for sulfur content required under this subpart O:
(i) The location, date, time, and storage tank or truck
identification for each sample collected.
(ii) The name and title of the person who collected the sample and
the person who performed the test.
(iii) The results of the test as originally printed by the testing
apparatus, or where no printed result is produced, the results as
originally recorded by the person who performed the test.
(iv) Any record that contains a test result for the sample that is
not identical to the result recorded under paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of
this section.
(v) The test methodology used.
(b) Additional records that refiners and importers must keep.
Beginning January 1, 2014, or January 1 of the first year credits are
generated under Sec. 80.1615, whichever is earlier, any refiner for
each of its refineries and any importer for the gasoline it imports,
shall keep records that include all of the following information:
(1) For each batch of gasoline produced or imported:
(i) The batch volume.
(ii) The batch number assigned under Sec. 80.65(d)(3) and the
appropriate designation under paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section;
except that for composite samples of conventional gasoline representing
multiple batches, that are tested under Sec. 80.101(i)(2) for purposes
of this subpart, a separate batch number must be assigned to each batch
using the batch numbering procedures under Sec. 80.65(d)(3).
(iii) The date of production or importation.
(iv) If appropriate, the designation of the batch as California
gasoline under Sec. 80.1654, exempt gasoline for national security
purposes under Sec. 80.1655, exempt gasoline for research and
development under Sec. 80.1656, or for export outside the United
States.
(v) The test methodology used.
(2) Information regarding credits, separately kept according to the
year of creation; and for credit generation or use starting in 2014.
Information shall be kept separately for different types of credits
generated under Sec. 80.1615:
(i) The number of credits in the refiner's or importer's possession
at the beginning of the averaging period.
[[Page 30034]]
(ii) The number of credits generated.
(iii) The number of credits used.
(iv) If any credits were obtained from or transferred to other
parties, all the following for each other party:
(A) The party's name.
(B) The party's EPA refiner or importer registration number.
(C) The number of credits obtained from, or transferred to, the
party.
(v) The number of credits that expired at the end of the averaging
period.
(vi) The number of credits in the refiner's or importer's
possession that will carry over into the subsequent averaging period.
(vii) Contracts or other commercial documents that establish each
transfer of credits from the transferor to the transferee.
(3) The calculations used to determine compliance with the
applicable sulfur average standards of Sec. 80.1603 or Sec. 80.1604.
(4) The calculations used to determine the number of credits
generated under Sec. 80.1615.
(5) A copy of all reports submitted to EPA under Sec. 80.1652.
(6) In the case of parties who process transmix, records of any
sampling and testing required under Sec. 80.1607.
(c) Additional records importers must keep. Any importer shall keep
records that identify and verify the source of each batch of certified
Sulfur-FRGAS and non-certified Sulfur-FRGAS imported and demonstrate
compliance with the requirements for importers under Sec. 80.1666.
(d) Records that producers of denatured fuel ethanol and other
oxygenates must keep.
(1) The date each batch was produced.
(2) The batch volume and an identification of the test methodology
used.
(3) The test results on the sulfur content of each batch and the
test methodology used.
(4) The volume percent denaturant used in each batch if the
oxygenate is denatured fuel ethanol.
(5) The type and source of the denaturant used in each batch if the
oxygenate is denatured fuel ethanol.
(e) Records that parties that take custody of oxygenates must keep.
All parties that take custody of oxygenate from the oxygenate producer
through to the oxygenate blender must keep a copy of the product
transfer document for each batch of oxygenate.
(f) Length of time records must be kept. The records required under
this subpart O shall be kept for five years from the date they were
created; except in the following cases:
(1) Transfers of credits. Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of
this section, records relating to credit transfers shall be kept by the
transferor for five years from the date the credits are transferred;
and shall be kept by the transferee for five years from the date the
credits were transferred, used, or terminated, whichever is later.
(2) Early credits. (i) Where the party generating the credits does
not transfer the credits, records must be kept for five years from the
date of creation, use, or termination, whichever is later.
(ii) Where early credits are transferred, records relating to such
credits shall be kept by the transferor for five years from the date
the credits are transferred; and shall be kept by the transferee for
five years from the date the credits were transferred, used, or
terminated, whichever is later.
(g) Make records available to EPA. On request by EPA, the records
required in this section shall be provided to the Administrator's
authorized representative. For records that are electronically
generated or maintained, the equipment and software necessary to read
the records shall be made available; or, if requested by EPA,
electronic records shall be converted to paper documents which shall be
provided to the Administrator's authorized representative.
Sec. 80.1654 California gasoline requirements.
(a) California gasoline exemption. California gasoline that
complies with all the requirements of this section is exempt from all
other provisions of this subpart O.
(b) Requirements for California gasoline. (1) Each batch of
California gasoline must be designated as such by its refiner or
importer.
(2) Designated California gasoline must be kept segregated from
gasoline that is not California gasoline, at all points in the
distribution system.
(3) Designated California gasoline must ultimately be used in the
State of California and not used elsewhere.
(4) For California gasoline produced outside the State of
California, the transferors and transferees must meet the product
transfer document requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
(5)(i) Any refiner that operates a refinery located outside the
State of California at which California gasoline (as defined in Sec.
80.1600) is produced must provide to any person to whom custody or
title of such gasoline has transferred, and each transferee must
provide to any subsequent transferee, documents which include all the
following information:
(A) The name and address of the transferor.
(B) The name and address of the transferee.
(C) The volume of gasoline which is being transferred.
(D) The location of the gasoline at the time of the transfer.
(E) The date and time of the transfer.
(F) The identification of the gasoline as California gasoline.
(ii) Each refiner and transferee of California gasoline must
maintain copies of the product transfer documents required to be
provided by paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section for a period of five
years from the date of creation and shall deliver such documents to the
Administrator or to the Administrator's authorized representative upon
request.
(6) Gasoline that is ultimately used in any part of the United
States outside of the State of California must comply with the
standards and requirements of this subpart, regardless of any
designation as California gasoline.
(c) Use of California test methods and offsite sampling procedures.
In the case of any gasoline that is not California gasoline and that is
either produced at a refinery located in the State of California or is
imported from outside the United States into the State of California,
the refiner or importer may, with regard to such gasoline:
(1) Use the sampling and testing methods approved in Title 13 of
the California Code of Regulations instead of the sampling and testing
methods required under Sec. 80.1630; and
(2) Determine the sulfur content of gasoline at offsite tankage
(which would otherwise be prohibited under Sec. 80.65(e)(1)).
(i) Note that the requirements of Sec. 80.65(e)(1), regarding when
the properties of a batch of reformulated gasoline must be determined,
specify that the properties of a batch of gasoline be determined prior
to the gasoline leaving the refinery or import facility; however, under
this section, a refiner of California gasoline may determine the
properties of gasoline as specified under Sec. 80.65(e)(1) at offsite
tankage provided that:
(A) The samples are properly collected under the terms of a current
and valid protocol agreement between the refiner and the California Air
Resources Board with regard to sampling at the offsite tankage and
consistent with the requirements prescribed in Title 13, California
Code of Regulations, section 2250 et seq. (May 1, 2003); and
[[Page 30035]]
(B) The refiner provides a copy of the protocol agreement to EPA
upon request.
(ii) [Reserved]
Sec. 80.1655 National security exemption.
(a) The standards of Sec. 80.1603 do not apply to gasoline that is
produced, imported, sold, offered for sale, supplied, offered for
supply, stored, dispensed, or transported for use in any of the
following:
(1) Tactical military vehicles, engines, or equipment having an EPA
national security exemption from the gasoline emission standards under
40 CFR part 86.
(2) Tactical military vehicles, engines, or equipment that are not
subject to a national security exemption from vehicle or engine
emissions standards as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section
but, for national security purposes (for purposes of readiness for
deployment oversees), need to be fueled on the same gasoline as the
vehicles, engines, or equipment for which EPA has granted such a
national security exemption.
(b) The exempt fuel must meet all the following conditions:
(1) It must be accompanied by product transfer documents as
required under Sec. 80.1651.
(2) It must be segregated from non-exempt gasoline at all points in
the distribution system.
(3) It must be dispensed from a fuel pump stand, fueling truck, or
tank that is labeled with the appropriate designation of the fuel.
(4) It may not be used in any vehicles, engines, or equipment other
than those referred to in paragraph (a) of this section.
Sec. 80.1656 Exemptions for gasoline used for research, development,
or testing purposes.
(a) Written request for a research and development exemption. Any
person may receive an exemption from the provisions of this subpart for
gasoline used for research, development, or testing (``R&D'') purposes
by submitting the information listed in paragraph (c) of this section
to EPA. Applications for R&D exemptions must be submitted to one of the
addresses in paragraph (h) of this section.
(b) Criteria for a research and development exemption. For a
research and development exemption to be granted, the person requesting
an exemption must do all of the following:
(1) Demonstrate a purpose that constitutes an appropriate basis for
exemption.
(2) Demonstrate that an exemption is necessary.
(3) Design a research and development program that is reasonable in
scope.
(4) Have a degree of control consistent with the purpose of the
program and EPA's monitoring requirements.
(c) Information required to be submitted. To demonstrate each of
the elements in paragraph (b) of this section, the person requesting an
exemption must include all of the following information:
(1) A concise statement of the purpose of the program demonstrating
that the program has an appropriate research and development purpose.
(2) An explanation of why the stated purpose of the program cannot
be achieved in a practicable manner without performing one or more of
the prohibited acts under this subpart O.
(3) All of the following, to demonstrate the reasonableness of the
scope of the program:
(i) An estimate of the program's beginning and ending dates.
(ii) An estimate of the maximum number of vehicles or engines
involved in the program and the number of miles and engine hours that
will be accumulated on each.
(iii) The sulfur content of the gasoline expected to be used in the
program.
(iv) The quantity of gasoline which does not comply with the
requirements of Sec. 80.1603.
(v) The manner in which the information on vehicles and engines
used in the program will be recorded and made available to the
Administrator upon request.
(4) With regard to control, a demonstration that the program
affords EPA a monitoring capability, including all the following:
(i) A description of the technical and operational aspects of the
program.
(ii) The site(s) of the program (including facility name, street
address, city, county, state, and zip code).
(iii) The manner in which information on the fuel used in the
program (including quantity, fuel properties, name, address, telephone
number and contact person of the supplier, and the date received from
the supplier), will be recorded and made available to the Administrator
upon request.
(iv) The manner in which the party will ensure that the research
and development fuel will be segregated from gasoline meeting the
standards of this subpart and how fuel pumps will be labeled to ensure
proper use of the research and development fuel.
(v) The name, address, telephone number, and title of the person(s)
in the organization requesting an exemption from whom further
information on the application may be obtained.
(vi) The name, address, telephone number, and title of the
person(s) in the organization requesting an exemption who is
responsible for recording and making available the information
specified in this paragraph (c), and the location where such
information will be maintained.
(d) Additional requirements. (1) The product transfer documents
associated with research and development gasoline must comply with
requirements of Sec. 80.1651(c).
(2) The research and development gasoline must be designated by the
refiner or supplier, as applicable, as exempt research and development
gasoline.
(3) The research and development gasoline must be kept segregated
from non-exempt gasoline at all points in the distribution system.
(4) The research and development gasoline must not be sold,
distributed, offered for sale or distribution, dispensed, supplied,
offered for supply, transported to or from, or stored by a fuel retail
outlet, or by a wholesale purchaser-consumer facility, unless the
wholesale purchaser-consumer facility is associated with the research
and development program that uses the gasoline.
(5) At the completion of the program, any emission control systems
or elements of design which are damaged or rendered inoperative shall
be replaced on vehicles remaining in service, or the responsible person
will be liable for a violation of the Clean Air Act section 203(a)(3)
(42 U.S.C. 7522 (a)(3)) unless sufficient evidence is supplied that the
emission controls or elements of design were not damaged.
(e) Memorandum of exemption. The Administrator will grant an R&D
exemption upon a demonstration that the requirements of this section
have been met. The R&D exemption will be granted in the form of a
memorandum of exemption signed by the applicant and the Administrator
(or delegate), which may include such terms and conditions as the
Administrator determines necessary to monitor the exemption and to
carry out the purposes of this section, including restoration of
emission control systems.
(1) The volume of fuel subject to the approval shall not exceed the
estimated amount under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, unless EPA
grants a greater amount in writing.
(2) Any exemption granted under this section will expire at the
completion of the test program or three years from the date of
approval, whichever occurs first, and may only be extended upon re-
[[Page 30036]]
application consistent will all requirements of this section.
(3) EPA may elect at any time to review the information contained
in the request, and where appropriate may notify the responsible person
of disapproval of the exemption.
(4) In granting an exemption the Administrator may include terms
and conditions, including replacement of emission control devices or
elements of design, that the Administrator determines are necessary for
monitoring the exemption and for assuring that the purposes of this
subpart are met.
(5) Any violation of a term or condition of the exemption, or of
any requirement of this section, will cause the exemption to be void ab
initio.
(6) If any information required under paragraph (c) of this section
should change after approval of the exemption, the responsible person
must notify EPA in writing immediately. Failure to do so may result in
disapproval of the exemption or may make it void ab initio, and may
make the party liable for a violation of this subpart O.
(f) Effects of exemption. Gasoline that is subject to a research
and development exemption under this section is exempt from other
provisions of this subpart O provided that the fuel is used in a manner
that complies with the purpose of the program under paragraph (c) of
this section and all other requirements of this section.
(g) Notification of completion. The party shall notify EPA in
writing within 30 days after completion of the research and development
program.
(h) Submission. Requests for research and development exemptions
shall be sent to one of the following addresses:
(1) For U.S. Mail: U.S. EPA--Attn: Tier 3 Program (R&D Exemption
Request), 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
(2) For overnight or courier services: U.S. EPA, Attn: Tier 3
Program (R&D Exemption Request), 6406J, 1310 L Street NW., 6th floor,
Washington, DC 20005.
Sec. 80.1657 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.1658 Requirements for gasoline for use in American Samoa,
Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
The gasoline sulfur standards of this subpart O do not apply to
gasoline that is produced, imported, sold, offered for sale, supplied,
offered for supply, stored, dispensed, or transported for use in the
Territories of Guam, American Samoa or the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, provided that such gasoline meets all of the following
requirements:
(a) The gasoline is designated by the refiner or importer as high
sulfur gasoline only for use in Guam, American Samoa, or the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
(b) The gasoline is used only in Guam, American Samoa, or the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
(c) The gasoline is accompanied by documentation that complies with
the product transfer document requirements of Sec. 80.1651(c)(3).
(d) The gasoline is segregated from non-exempt high sulfur gasoline
at all points in the distribution system from the point the fuel is
designated as gasoline only for use in Guam, American Samoa, or the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, while the fuel is in the
United States but outside these Territories.
Sec. 80.1659 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.1660 Prohibited acts.
No person shall:
(a) Averaging violation. Produce or import gasoline that does not
comply with the applicable sulfur average standard under Sec. 80.1603.
(b) Cap standard violation. Produce, import, sell, offer for sale,
dispense, supply, offer for supply, store or transport gasoline or
oxygenate (including any denaturant) that does not comply with the
applicable sulfur cap standards under Sec. 80.1603, Sec. 80.1604, or
Sec. 80.1610.
(c) Causing an averaging or cap standard violation. Cause another
person to commit an act in violation of paragraph (a), (b), (d), (e),
(f), (g), or (h) of this section.
(d) Causing violating gasoline to be in the distribution system.
Cause gasoline to be in the distribution system which does not comply
with an applicable sulfur cap standard under Sec. 80.1603, Sec.
80.1604, or Sec. 80.1610.
(e) Oxygenate violation. Starting March 1, 2017, blend into
gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB any oxygenate, including but not limited to
denatured ethanol, that has a sulfur content higher than 10 ppm.
(f) Additive blender violation. Unless acting in the capacity of a
gasoline refiner or importer under Sec. 80.1613, introduce an additive
other than an oxygenate compound into gasoline, CBOB, or RBOB which
contributes more than 3 ppm to the sulfur content of the finished
gasoline, CBOB, or RBOB.
(g) Additive manufacturer violation. Cause or contribute to the
introduction into commerce of a gasoline additive intended to be used
at less than 1 volume percent which does not comply with the
requirements of Sec. 80.1613.
(h) Credit violation. Generate, transfer, or use invalid credits or
improperly transfer or use credits.
(i) Failure to meet a requirement. Fail to meet a requirement that
applies to that person under this subpart.
Sec. 80.1661 What evidence may be used to determine compliance with
the prohibitions and requirements of this subpart and liability for
violations of this subpart?
(a) Compliance with the sulfur standards of this subpart O shall be
determined based on the sulfur level, measured using the methodologies
specified in Sec. Sec. 80.47 and 80.1630. Any evidence or information,
including the exclusive use of such evidence or information, may be
used to establish the sulfur level of gasoline if the evidence or
information is relevant to whether the sulfur level would have been in
compliance with the standards if the appropriate sampling and testing
methodology had been correctly performed. Such evidence may be obtained
from any source or location and may include, but is not limited to,
test results using methods other than those specified in Sec. Sec.
80.47 and 80.1630, business records, and commercial documents.
(b) Determinations of compliance with the requirements of this
subpart other than the sulfur standards, and determinations of
liability for any violation of this subpart, may be based on
information obtained from any source or location. Such information may
include, but is not limited to, business records and commercial
documents.
Sec. 80.1662 Liability for violations under subpart O.
The following persons are liable for violations under this subpart:
(a) Persons liable for violations of prohibited acts--(1) Averaging
violation. Any refiner or importer who violates Sec. 80.1660(a) is
liable for the violation.
(2) Causing an averaging violation. Any refiner, importer,
distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer,
or oxygenate blender who causes another party to violate Sec.
80.1660(a), is liable for a violation of Sec. 80.1660(c).
(3) Cap standard violation. Any refiner, importer, distributor,
reseller, carrier, retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, oxygenate
producer, oxygenate blender, additive manufacturer, or additive blender
who owned, leased, operated, controlled or supervised a facility where
a violation of Sec. 80.1660(b) occurred, is deemed in violation of
Sec. 80.1660(b).
[[Page 30037]]
(4) Causing a cap standard violation. Any refiner, importer,
distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer,
oxygenate producer, oxygenate blender, additive manufacturer, or
additive blender who produced, imported, sold, offered for sale,
dispensed, supplied, offered for supply, stored, transported, or caused
the transportation or storage of gasoline that violates Sec.
80.1660(b), is deemed in violation of Sec. 80.1660(c).
(5) Branded refiner/importer liability. Any refiner or importer
whose corporate, trade, or brand name, or whose marketing subsidiary's
corporate, trade, or brand name appeared at a facility where a
violation of Sec. 80.1660(b) occurred, is deemed in violation of Sec.
80.1660(b).
(6) Causing violating gasoline to be in the distribution system.
Any refiner, importer, distributor, reseller, carrier, oxygenate
producer, oxygenate blender, additive manufacturer, or additive blender
who owned, leased, operated, controlled or supervised a facility from
which gasoline was released into the distribution system which does not
comply with an applicable sulfur cap standard or a sulfur averaging
standard is deemed in violation of Sec. 80.1660(d).
(7) Carrier causation. In order for a carrier to be liable under
paragraph (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), or (a)(6) of this section, EPA must
demonstrate, by reasonably specific showing by direct or circumstantial
evidence, that the carrier caused the violation.
(8) Oxygenate blender violation. Any oxygenate blender who violates
Sec. 80.1660(e) is liable for the violation.
(9) Additive manufacturer violation. Any additive manufacturer who
violates Sec. 80.1660(g) is deemed liable for the violation.
(10) Additive blender violation. Any additive blender who violates
Sec. 80.1660(f) is deemed liable for the violation.
(11) Credit violation. Any refiner or importer who violates Sec.
80.1660(h) is liable for the violation.
(12) Parent corporation liability. Any parent corporation is liable
for any violations of this subpart that are committed by any of its
wholly-owned subsidiaries.
(13) Joint venture and joint owner liability. Each partner to a
joint venture, or each owner of a facility owned by two or more owners,
is jointly and severally liable for any violation of this subpart that
occurs at the joint venture facility or facility owned by the joint
owners, or is committed by the joint venture operation or any of the
joint owners of the facility.
(b) Persons liable for failure to meet other provisions of this
subpart. Any person who:
(1) Fails to comply with a provision of this subpart not addressed
in paragraph (a) of this section is liable for a violation of that
provision.
(2) Causes another person to fail to meet a requirement of this
subpart not addressed in paragraph (a) of this section, is liable for
causing a violation of that provision.
Sec. 80.1663 Defenses for a violation of a prohibited act under
subpart O.
(a) Any person deemed liable for a violation of a prohibition under
Sec. 80.1662(a)(3) through (a)(10), will not be deemed in violation if
the person demonstrates all the following:
(1) The violation was not caused by the person or the person's
employee or agent.
(2) In cases where product transfer document requirements under
this subpart apply, the product transfer documents account for the fuel
found to be in violation and indicate that the violating product was in
compliance with the applicable requirements while in that person's
control; and
(3) The person conducted a quality assurance sampling and testing
program, as described in paragraph (d) of this section. A carrier may
rely on the quality assurance program carried out by another party,
including the party who owns the gasoline in question, provided that
the quality assurance program is carried out properly. Retailers and
wholesale purchaser-consumers are not required to conduct sampling and
testing of gasoline as part of their quality assurance programs.
(b) In the case of a violation found at a facility operating under
the corporate, trade or brand name of a refiner or importer, or a
refiner's or importer's marketing subsidiary, the refiner or importer
must show, in addition to the defense elements required under
paragraphs (a)(1)through (a)(3) of this section, that the violation was
caused by any of the following:
(1) An act in violation of law (other than the Clean Air Act or
this part 80), or an act of sabotage or vandalism.
(2) The action of any refiner, importer, retailer, distributor,
reseller, oxygenate blender, carrier, retailer or wholesale purchaser-
consumer in violation of a contractual agreement between the branded
refiner or importer and the person designed to prevent such action, and
despite periodic sampling and testing by the branded refiner or
importer to ensure compliance with such contractual obligation.
(3) The action of any carrier or other distributor not subject to a
contract with the refiner or importer, but engaged for transportation
of gasoline, despite specifications or inspections of procedures and
equipment which are reasonably calculated to prevent such action.
(c) Under paragraph (a) of this section, for any person to show
that a violation was not caused by that person, or under paragraph (b)
of this section to show that a violation was caused by any of the
specified actions, the person must demonstrate by reasonably specific
showings, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that the violation was
caused or must have been caused by another person and that the person
asserting the defense did not contribute to that other person's
causation.
(d) To demonstrate an acceptable quality assurance and testing
program under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a person must present
evidence of all of the following:
(1) A periodic sampling and testing program to ensure the gasoline
the person sold, dispensed, supplied, stored, or transported, meets the
applicable sulfur standard.
(2) On each occasion when gasoline is found not in compliance with
the applicable sulfur standard:
(i) The person immediately ceases selling, offering for sale,
dispensing, supplying, offering for supply, storing or transporting the
non-complying product; and
(ii) The person promptly remedies the violation and the factors
that caused the violation (for example, by removing the non-complying
product from the distribution system until the applicable standard is
achieved and taking steps to prevent future violations of a similar
nature from occurring).
(3) For any carrier who transports gasoline in a tank truck, the
quality assurance program required under this paragraph (d) need not
include periodic sampling and testing of gasoline in the tank truck,
but in lieu of such tank truck sampling and testing, the carrier shall
demonstrate evidence of an oversight program for monitoring compliance
with the requirements of this subpart relating to the transport or
storage of gasoline by tank truck, such as appropriate guidance to
drivers regarding compliance with the applicable sulfur standard and
product transfer document requirements, and the periodic review of
records received in the ordinary course of business concerning gasoline
quality and delivery.
[[Page 30038]]
Sec. 80.1664 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.1665 Penalties.
(a) Any person liable for a violation under Sec. 80.1662 is
subject to civil penalties as specified in section 205 of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7524) for every day of each such violation and the
amount of economic benefit or savings resulting from each violation.
(b) Any person liable under Sec. 80.1662(a)(1) or (a)(2) for a
violation of the applicable sulfur averaging standard or causing
another party to violate that standard during any averaging period, is
subject to a separate day of violation for each and every day in the
averaging period. Any person liable under Sec. 80.1662(a)(11) or (b)
for a failure to fulfill any requirement for credit generation,
transfer, use, banking, or deficit correction, is subject to a separate
day of violation for each and every day in the averaging period in
which invalid credits are generated or used.
(c)(1) Any person liable under Sec. 80.1662(a)(3) through (a)(10)
for a violation of an applicable sulfur per gallon cap standard under
this subpart O or of causing another party to violate a cap standard,
is subject to a separate day of violation for each and every day the
non-complying gasoline remains any place in the gasoline distribution
system.
(2) Any person liable under Sec. 80.1662(a)(6) for causing
gasoline to be in the distribution system which does not comply with an
applicable sulfur cap standard, or a sulfur averaging standard, is
subject to a separate day of violation for each and every day that the
non-complying gasoline remains any place in the gasoline distribution
system.
(3) For purposes of this paragraph (c), the length of time the
gasoline in question remained in the gasoline distribution system is
deemed to be twenty-five days, unless a person subject to liability or
EPA demonstrates by reasonably specific showings, by direct or
circumstantial evidence, that the non-complying gasoline remained in
the gasoline distribution system for fewer than or more than twenty-
five days.
(d) Any person liable under Sec. 80.1662(b) for failure to meet,
or causing a failure to meet, a provision of this subpart is liable for
a separate day of violation for each and every day such provision
remains unfulfilled.
Sec. 80.1666 Additional requirements for foreign small refiners and
foreign small volume refineries.
The provisions of this section apply to certain foreign refiners
and importers during the period January 1, 2017 through December 31,
2019. After December 31, 2019, foreign refiners are not subject to
compliance requirements under subpart H of this part, or this subpart
O; instead, the importer of any foreign-produced gasoline shall be
responsible for compliance with the standards and requirements of this
subpart O that relate to importers.
(a) Definitions--(1) Foreign small refiner is a foreign refiner
that meets the definition of a small refiner under Sec. 80.1620.
(2) Foreign small volume refinery is a foreign refinery that meets
the definition of a small volume refinery under Sec. 80.1621.
(3) Sulfur-FRGAS, for this subpart, means gasoline produced from
January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, at a foreign refinery of a
refiner that has been approved as a small refiner or a small volume
refinery under Sec. 80.1622, and that is imported into the United
States.
(4) Non-Sulfur-FRGAS means gasoline that is produced at a foreign
refinery that has not been approved as a small refiner refinery or
small volume refinery under Sec. 80.1622, gasoline produced at a
foreign refinery of an approved small refiner or at an approved small
volume refinery under Sec. 80.1622 that is not imported into the
United States, and gasoline produced at a foreign refinery that is
approved during a year when the foreign refiner has opted to not
participate in the Sulfur-FRGAS program under paragraph (c)(3) of this
section.
(5) Certified Sulfur-FRGAS means Sulfur-FRGAS the foreign refiner
intends to include in the foreign refinery's sulfur compliance
calculations under Sec. Sec. 80.195 and 80.205 and does include in
these compliance calculations when reported to EPA.
(6) Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS means Sulfur-FRGAS that is not
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
(b) Petition for approval of small refiner or small volume refinery
status. To be approved for small refiner status or small volume
refinery status a foreign refiner must submit a petition for approval
as provided under Sec. 80.1622 and this section. If small refiner
status or small volume refinery status is approved, the foreign refiner
may produce gasoline for export to the United States, during the period
starting January 1, 2017 and ending December 31, 2019, that is subject
to the sulfur content standards of subpart H of this part at Sec.
80.195 that were applicable to refiners from 2006 through 2016. A
foreign refiner is not eligible to generate sulfur credits under
subpart H of this part or this subpart O, as this occurs through the
importer.
(c) General requirements for foreign refiners approved as small
refiners or small volume refinery status. A foreign refiner of a
refinery that has been approved as a small refiner refinery or a small
volume refinery must designate all gasoline produced at the foreign
refinery that is exported to the United States as either Certified
Sulfur-FRGAS or as Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, except as provided in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(1) In the case of Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, the foreign refiner must
meet the sulfur standards of subpart H of this part as described in
paragraph (b) of this section and the requirements of this section.
(2) In the case of Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, the foreign refiner
shall meet all the following provisions, except the foreign refiner
shall substitute the name Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS for the names
``reformulated gasoline'' or ``RBOB'' wherever they appear in the
following provisions:
(i) The designation requirements in this section.
(ii) The recordkeeping requirements under Sec. 80.1653.
(iii) The reporting requirements in Sec. 80.1652 and this section.
(iv) The product transfer document requirements in Sec. 80.1651
and this section.
(v) The prohibitions in Sec. 80.1660 and this section.
(vi) The independent audit requirements under Sec. 80.415 and
paragraph (h) of this section; and the attest engagement provisions of
Sec. Sec. 80.125 through 80.127, Sec. 80.128(a), (b), (c), and (g)
through (i), and Sec. 80.130.
(3)(i) Any foreign refiner that has been approved as a small
refiner or whose refinery has been approved as a small volume refinery
under this subpart O may elect to classify no gasoline imported into
the United States as Sulfur-FRGAS, provided the foreign refiner
notifies EPA of the election no later than November 1 of the prior
calendar year.
(ii) An election under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section shall
meet all of the following requirements:
(A) Apply to an entire calendar year averaging period, and apply to
all gasoline produced during the calendar year at the foreign refinery
that is used in the United States.
(B) Remain in effect for each succeeding calendar year averaging
period, unless and until the foreign refiner notifies EPA of a
termination of the election. The change in election
[[Page 30039]]
shall take effect at the beginning of the next calendar year.
(d) Designation, product transfer documents, and foreign refiner
certification. (1) Any approved foreign small refiner or any foreign
refiner having an approved small volume refinery under this subpart O
must designate each batch of Sulfur-FRGAS as such at the time the
gasoline is produced, unless the refinery has elected to classify no
gasoline exported to the United States as Sulfur-FRGAS under paragraph
(c)(3)(i) of this section.
(2) On each occasion when any person transfers custody or title to
any Sulfur-FRGAS prior to its being imported into the United States, it
must include all the following information as part of the product
transfer document information in this section:
(i) Identification of the gasoline as Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or as
Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
(ii) The name and EPA refinery registration number of the refinery
where the Sulfur-FRGAS was produced.
(3) On each occasion when Sulfur-FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel or
other transportation mode for transport to the United States, the
foreign refiner shall prepare a certification for each batch of the
Sulfur-FRGAS that meets all of the following requirements:
(i) The certification shall include the report of the independent
third party under paragraph (f) of this section, and all of the
following additional information:
(A) The name and EPA registration number of the refinery that
produced the Sulfur-FRGAS.
(B) The identification of the gasoline as Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or
Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
(C) The volume of Sulfur-FRGAS being transported, in gallons.
(D) In the case of Certified Sulfur-FRGAS:
(1) The sulfur content as determined under paragraph (f) of this
section; and
(2) A declaration that the Sulfur-FRGAS is being included in the
compliance calculations under Sec. 80.205 for the refinery that
produced the Sulfur-FRGAS.
(ii) The certification shall be made part of the product transfer
documents for the Sulfur-FRGAS.
(e) Transfers of Sulfur-FRGAS to non-United States markets. The
foreign refiner is responsible to ensure that all gasoline classified
as Sulfur-FRGAS is imported into the United States. A foreign refiner
may remove the Sulfur-FRGAS classification, and the gasoline need not
be imported into the United States, but only if:
(1)(i) The foreign refiner excludes the volume and sulfur content
of the gasoline from the compliance calculations under Sec. 80.205.
(ii) The exclusions under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section shall
be on the basis of the sulfur content and volumes determined under
paragraph (f) of this section; and
(2) The foreign refiner obtains sufficient evidence in the form of
documentation that the gasoline was not imported into the United
States.
(f) Load port independent sampling, testing and refinery
identification. (1) On each occasion Sulfur-FRGAS is loaded onto a
vessel for transport to the United States a foreign refiner shall have
an independent third party do all of the following:
(i) Inspect the vessel prior to loading and determine the volume of
any tank bottoms.
(ii) Determine the volume of Sulfur-FRGAS loaded onto the vessel
(exclusive of any tank bottoms present before vessel loading).
(iii) Obtain the EPA-assigned registration number of the foreign
refinery.
(iv) Determine the name and country of registration of the vessel
used to transport the Sulfur-FRGAS to the United States.
(v) Determine the date and time the vessel departs the port serving
the foreign refinery.
(2) On each occasion Certified Sulfur-FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel
for transport to the United States a foreign refiner shall have an
independent third party:
(i) Collect a representative sample of the Certified Sulfur-FRGAS
from each vessel compartment subsequent to loading on the vessel and
prior to departure of the vessel from the port serving the foreign
refinery.
(ii) Prepare a volume-weighted vessel composite sample from the
compartment samples, and determine the value for sulfur in accordance
with the methodology and requirements specified in Sec. 80.1630, by
either of the following:
(A) The third party analyzing the sample.
(B) The third party observing the foreign refiner analyzing the
sample.
(iii) Review original documents that reflect movement and storage
of the certified Sulfur-FRGAS from the refinery to the load port, and
from this review determine all of the following:
(A) The refinery at which the Sulfur-FRGAS was produced.
(B) That the Sulfur-FRGAS remained segregated from all of the
following:
(1) Non-Sulfur-FRGAS and Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
(2) Other Certified Sulfur-FRGAS produced at a different refinery.
(3) The independent third party shall submit a report:
(i) To the foreign refiner containing the information required
under paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, to accompany the
product transfer documents for the vessel; and
(ii) To the Administrator containing the information required under
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, within thirty days following
the date of the independent third party's inspection. This report shall
include a description of the method used to determine the identity of
the refinery at which the gasoline was produced, assurance that the
gasoline remained segregated as specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this
section, and a description of the gasoline's movement and storage
between production at the source refinery and vessel loading.
(4) The independent third party must do all of the following:
(i) Be approved in advance by EPA, based on a demonstration of
ability to perform the procedures required in this paragraph (f).
(ii) Be independent under the criteria specified in Sec.
80.65(f)(2)(iii).
(iii) Sign a commitment that contains the provisions specified in
paragraph (i) of this section with regard to activities, facilities and
documents relevant to compliance with the requirements of this
paragraph (f).
(g) Comparison of load port and port of entry testing. (1)(i)
Except as described in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section, any
foreign refiner and any United States importer of Certified Sulfur-
FRGAS shall compare the results from the load port testing under
paragraph (f) of this section, with the port of entry testing as
reported under paragraph (o) of this section, for the volume of
gasoline and the sulfur value.
(ii) Where a vessel transporting Certified Sulfur-FRGAS off loads
this gasoline at more than one United States port of entry, and the
conditions of paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section are met at the first
United States port of entry, the requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of
this section do not apply at subsequent ports of entry if the United
States importer obtains a certification from the vessel owner, meeting
the requirements of paragraph (r) of this section that the vessel has
not loaded any gasoline or blendstock between the first United States
port of entry and the subsequent port of entry.
(2)(i) The requirements of this paragraph (g)(2) apply if:
(A) The temperature-corrected volumes determined at the port of
entry
[[Page 30040]]
and at the load port differ by more than one percent; or
(B) The sulfur value determined at the port of entry is higher than
the sulfur value determined at the load port, and the amount of this
difference is greater than the reproducibility amount specified for the
port of entry test result by ASTM ASTM.
(ii) The United States importer and the foreign refiner shall treat
the gasoline as Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, and the foreign refiner
shall exclude the gasoline volume and properties from its gasoline
sulfur compliance calculations under Sec. 80.205.
(h) Attest requirements. All of the following additional procedures
shall be carried out by any foreign refiner of Sulfur-FRGAS as part of
the applicable attest engagement for each foreign refinery under Sec.
80.415:
(1) The inventory reconciliation analysis under the attest
engagement provisions of Sec. 80.128(b) and the tender analysis under
Sec. 80.128(c) shall include Non-Sulfur-FRGAS in addition to the
gasoline types listed in Sec. 80.128(b) and (c).
(2) Obtain separate listings of all tenders of Certified Sulfur-
FRGAS, and of Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS. Agree the total volume of
tenders from the listings to the gasoline inventory reconciliation
analysis in the attest engagement provisions of Sec. 80.128(b), and to
the volumes determined by the third party under paragraph (f)(1) of
this section.
(3) For each tender under paragraph (h)(2) of this section where
the gasoline is loaded onto a marine vessel, report as a finding the
name and country of registration of each vessel, and the volumes of
Sulfur-FRGAS loaded onto each vessel.
(4) Select a sample from the list of vessels identified in
paragraph (h)(3) of this section used to transport Certified Sulfur-
FRGAS, in accordance with the attest engagement guidelines in Sec.
80.127, and for each vessel selected perform all of the following:
(i) Obtain the report of the independent third party, under
paragraph (f) of this section, and of the United States importer under
paragraph (n) of this section.
(A) Agree the information in these reports with regard to vessel
identification, gasoline volumes and test results.
(B) Identify, and report as a finding, each occasion the load port
and port of entry parameter and volume results differ by more than the
amounts allowed in paragraph (g) of this section, and determine whether
the foreign refiner adjusted its refinery calculations as required in
paragraph (g) of this section.
(ii) Obtain the documents used by the independent third party to
determine transportation and storage of the Certified Sulfur-FRGAS from
the refinery to the load port, under paragraph (f) of this section.
Obtain tank activity records for any storage tank where the Certified
Sulfur-FRGAS is stored, and pipeline activity records for any pipeline
used to transport the Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, prior to being loaded
onto the vessel. Use these records to determine whether the Certified
Sulfur-FRGAS was produced at the refinery that is the subject of the
attest engagement, and whether the Certified Sulfur-FRGAS was mixed
with any Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, Non-Sulfur-FRGAS, or any Certified
Sulfur-FRGAS produced at a different refinery.
(5) Select a sample from the list of vessels identified in
paragraph (h)(3) of this section used to transport certified and Non-
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, in accordance with the attest engagement
guidelines of Sec. 80.127, and for each vessel selected perform the
following:
(i) Obtain a commercial document of general circulation that lists
vessel arrivals and departures, and that includes the port and date of
departure of the vessel, and the port of entry and date of arrival of
the vessel.
(ii) Agree the vessel's departure and arrival locations and dates
from the independent third party and United States importer reports to
the information contained in the commercial document.
(6) Obtain separate listings of all tenders of Non-Sulfur-FRGAS,
and perform all of the following:
(i) Agree the total volume of tenders from the listings to the
gasoline inventory reconciliation analysis in Sec. 80.128(b).
(ii) Obtain a separate listing of the tenders under paragraph
(h)(6) of this section where the gasoline is loaded onto a marine
vessel. Select a sample from this listing in accordance with the
guidelines in Sec. 80.127, and obtain a commercial document of general
circulation that lists vessel arrivals and departures, and that
includes the port and date of departure and the ports and dates where
the gasoline was off loaded for the selected vessels. Determine and
report as a finding the country where the gasoline was off loaded for
each vessel selected.
(7) In order to complete the requirements of this paragraph (h) an
auditor must:
(i) Be independent of the foreign refiner.
(ii) Be licensed as a Certified Public Accountant in the United
States and a citizen of the United States, or be approved in advance by
EPA based on a demonstration of ability to perform the procedures
required in the attest engagement provisions of Sec. Sec. 80.125
through 80.130, 80.415 and this paragraph (h).
(iii) Sign a commitment that contains the provisions specified in
paragraph (h) of this section with regard to activities and documents
relevant to compliance with the requirements of the attest engagement
provisions of Sec. Sec. 80.125 through 80.130, 80.415 and this
paragraph (h).
(i) Foreign refiner commitments. Any foreign refiner shall commit
to and comply with the provisions contained in this paragraph (i) as a
condition to being approved for small refiner status or small volume
refinery status.
(1) Any United States Environmental Protection Agency inspector or
auditor will be given full, complete and immediate access to conduct
inspections and audits of the foreign refinery.
(i) Inspections and audits may be either announced in advance by
EPA, or unannounced.
(ii) Access will be provided to any location where:
(A) Gasoline is produced;
(B) Documents related to refinery operations are kept;
(C) Gasoline or blendstock samples are tested or stored; and
(D) Sulfur-FRGAS is stored or transported between the foreign
refinery and the United States, including storage tanks, vessels and
pipelines.
(iii) Inspections and audits may be by EPA employees or contractors
to EPA.
(iv) Any documents requested that are related to matters covered by
inspections and audits will be provided to an EPA inspector or auditor
on request.
(v) Inspections and audits by EPA may include review and copying of
any documents related to all of the following:
(A) Approval of the refiner as a small refiner or approval of the
refinery as a small volume refinery.
(B) The volume and sulfur content of Sulfur-FRGAS.
(C) The proper classification of gasoline as being Sulfur-FRGAS or
as not being Sulfur-FRGAS, or as Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or as Non-
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
(D) Transfers of title or custody to Sulfur-FRGAS.
(E) Sampling and testing of Sulfur-FRGAS.
(F) Work performed and reports prepared by independent third
parties
[[Page 30041]]
and by independent auditors under the requirements of this section and
Sec. 80.415, including work papers.
(G) Reports prepared for submission to EPA, and any work papers
related to such reports.
(vi) Inspections and audits by EPA may include taking samples of
gasoline or blendstock, and interviewing employees.
(vii) Any employee of the foreign refiner must be made available
for interview by the EPA inspector or auditor, on request, within a
reasonable time period.
(viii) English language translations of any documents must be
provided to an EPA inspector or auditor, on request, within 10 working
days.
(ix) English language interpreters must be provided to accompany
EPA inspectors and auditors, on request.
(2) An agent for service of process located in the District of
Columbia will be named, and service on this agent constitutes service
on the foreign refiner or any employee of the foreign refiner for any
action by EPA or otherwise by the United States related to the
requirements of this subpart O.
(3) The forum for any civil or criminal enforcement action related
to the provisions of this section for violations of the Clean Air Act
or regulations promulgated thereunder shall be governed by the Clean
Air Act, including the EPA administrative forum where allowed under the
Clean Air Act.
(4) United States substantive and procedural laws shall apply to
any civil or criminal enforcement action against the foreign refiner or
any employee of the foreign refiner related to the provisions of this
section.
(5) Submitting a petition for approval as a small refiner or for
small volume refinery status, producing and exporting gasoline under
such approval, and all other actions to comply with the requirements of
this subpart O constitute actions or activities that satisfy the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(2), but solely with respect to actions
instituted against the foreign refiner, its agents and employees in any
court or other tribunal in the United States for conduct that violates
the requirements applicable to the foreign refiner under this subpart
O, including conduct that violates 18 U.S.C. 1001 or Clean Air Act
section 113(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 7413(c)(2)).
(6) The foreign refiner, or its agents or employees, must not seek
to detain or to impose civil or criminal remedies against EPA
inspectors or auditors, whether EPA employees or EPA contractors, for
actions performed within the scope of EPA employment related to the
provisions of this section.
(7) The commitment required by this paragraph (i) must be signed by
the owner or president of the foreign refiner business.
(8) In any case where FRGAS produced at a foreign refinery is
stored or transported by another company between the refinery and the
vessel that transports the Sulfur-FRGAS to the United States, the
foreign refiner shall obtain from each such other company a commitment
that meets the requirements specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (7)
of this section.
(j) Sovereign immunity. By submitting a petition for approval as a
small refiner or approval of a small volume refinery under this subpart
O and this section, or by producing and exporting gasoline to the
United States under such an approval under this section, the foreign
refiner, its agents and employees, without exception, become subject to
the full operation of the administrative and judicial enforcement
powers and provisions of the United States without limitation based on
sovereign immunity, with respect to actions instituted against the
foreign refiner, its agents and employees in any court or other
tribunal in the United States for conduct that violates the
requirements applicable to the foreign refiner under this subpart O,
including conduct that violates Title 18 U.S.C. section 1001 or Clean
Air Act section 113(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 7413(c)(2)).
(k) Bond posting. Any foreign refiner must meet the requirements of
this paragraph (k) as a condition to being approved for small refiner
or small volume refinery status.
(l) The foreign refiner shall post a bond of the amount calculated
using the following equation:
Bond = G x $0.01
Where:
Bond = Amount of the bond in U. S. dollars.
G = The largest volume of gasoline produced at the foreign refinery
and exported to the United States, in gallons, during a single
calendar year among the most recent of the following calendar years,
up to a maximum of three calendar years: The calendar year
immediately preceding the date the approval petition is submitted,
the calendar year the approval petition is submitted, and each
succeeding calendar year.
(2) Bonds shall be posted by performing any of the following:
(i) Paying the amount of the bond to the Treasurer of the United
States.
(ii) Obtaining a bond in the proper amount from a third party
surety agent that is payable to satisfy United States administrative or
judicial judgments against the foreign refiner, provided EPA agrees in
advance as to the third party and the nature of the surety agreement.
(iii) An alternative commitment that results in assets of an
appropriate liquidity and value being readily available to the United
States, provided EPA agrees in advance as to the alternative
commitment.
(3) If the bond amount for a foreign refinery increases, the
foreign refiner shall increase the bond to cover the shortfall within
90 days of the date the bond amount changes. If the bond amount
decreases, the foreign refiner may reduce the amount of the bond
beginning 90 days after the date the bond amount changes.
(4) Bonds posted under this paragraph (k) shall:
(i) Be used to satisfy any judicial judgment that results from an
administrative or judicial enforcement action for conduct in violation
of this subpart O, including where such conduct violates Title 18
U.S.C. section 1001 and Clean Air Act section 113(c)(2) (42 U.S.C.
7413(c)(2));
(ii) Be provided by a corporate surety that is listed in the United
States Department of the Treasury Circular 570 ``Companies Holding
Certificates of Authority as the Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds
and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies'' (Available from the U.S.
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Surety Bond
Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6A04, Hyattsville, MD, 20782. Also
available on the internet at http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/c570.html);
and
(iii) Include a commitment that the bond will remain in effect for
at least five years following the end of latest averaging period that
the foreign refiner produces gasoline pursuant to the requirements of
this subpart O.
(5) On any occasion a foreign refiner bond is used to satisfy any
judgment, the foreign refiner shall increase the bond to cover the
amount used within 90 days of the date the bond is used.
(l) English language reports. Any report or other document
submitted to EPA by any foreign refiner must be in English, or must
include an English language translation.
(m) Prohibitions. (1) No person may combine Certified Sulfur-FRGAS
with any Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or Non-Sulfur-FRGAS, and no person
may combine Certified Sulfur-FRGAS with any Certified Sulfur-FRGAS
produced at a different refinery, until the importer has met all the
requirements of paragraph (n) of this section, except as provided in
paragraph (e) of this section.
[[Page 30042]]
(2) No foreign refiner or other person may cause another person to
commit an action prohibited in paragraph (m)(1) of this section, or
that otherwise violates the requirements of this section.
(n) United States importer requirements. Any United States importer
shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Each batch of imported gasoline shall be classified by the
importer as being Sulfur-FRGAS or as Non-Sulfur-FRGAS, and each batch
classified as Sulfur-FRGAS shall be further classified as Certified
Sulfur-FRGAS or as Non-certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
(2) Gasoline shall be classified as Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or as
Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS according to the designation by the foreign
refiner if this designation is supported by product transfer documents
prepared by the foreign refiner as required in paragraph (d) of this
section, unless the gasoline is classified as Non-Certified Sulfur-
FRGAS under paragraph (g) of this section.
(3) For each gasoline batch classified as Sulfur-FRGAS, any United
States importer shall perform the following procedures:
(i) In the case of both Certified and Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS,
have an independent third party:
(A) Determine the volume of gasoline in the vessel.
(B) Use the foreign refiner's Sulfur-FRGAS certification to
determine the name and EPA-assigned registration number of the foreign
refinery that produced the Sulfur-FRGAS.
(C) Determine the name and country of registration of the vessel
used to transport the Sulfur-FRGAS to the United States.
(D) Determine the date and time the vessel arrives at the United
States port of entry.
(ii) In the case of Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, have an independent
third party:
(A) Collect a representative sample from each vessel compartment
subsequent to the vessel's arrival at the United States port of entry
and prior to off loading any gasoline from the vessel.
(B) Prepare a volume-weighted vessel composite sample from the
compartment samples.
(C) Determine the sulfur value using the methodologies specified in
Sec. 80.1630, by:
(1) The third party analyzing the sample; or
(2) The third party observing the importer analyzing the sample.
(4) Any importer shall submit reports within thirty days following
the date any vessel transporting Sulfur-FRGAS arrives at the United
States port of entry:
(i) To the Administrator containing the information determined
under paragraph (n)(3) of this section; and
(ii) To the foreign refiner containing the information determined
under paragraph (n)(3) of this section.
(5) Any United States importer shall meet the applicable
requirements of this subpart O, including sulfur content standards
specified in Sec. 80.1603, for any imported gasoline that is not
classified as Certified Sulfur-FRGAS under paragraph (n)(2) of this
section.
(o) Truck imports of Certified Sulfur-FRGAS produced by a foreign
small refiner or foreign small volume refinery. (1) Any refiner whose
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS is transported into the United States by truck
may petition EPA to use alternative procedures to meet all of the
following requirements:
(i) Certification under paragraph (d)(5) of this section.
(ii) Load port and port of entry sampling and testing under
paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section.
(iii) Attest under paragraph (h) of this section.
(iv) Importer testing under paragraph (n)(3) of this section.
(2) These alternative procedures must ensure Certified Sulfur-FRGAS
remains segregated from Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS and from Non-Sulfur-
FRGAS until it is imported into the United States. The petition will be
evaluated based on whether it adequately addresses all of the
following:
(i) Provisions for monitoring pipeline shipments, if applicable,
from the refinery, that ensure segregation of Certified Sulfur-FRGAS
from that refinery from all other gasoline.
(ii) Contracts with any terminals and/or pipelines that receive
and/or transport Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, that prohibit the commingling
of such Certified Sulfur-FRGAS with any of the following:
(A) Other Certified Sulfur-FRGAS from other refineries.
(B) All Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
(C) All Non-Sulfur-FRGAS
(iii) Procedures for obtaining and reviewing truck loading records
and United States import documents for Certified Sulfur-FRGAS to ensure
that such gasoline is only loaded into trucks making deliveries to the
United States.
(iv) Attest procedures to be conducted annually by an independent
third party that review loading records and import documents based on
volume reconciliation, or other criteria, to confirm that all Certified
Sulfur-FRGAS remains segregated throughout the distribution system and
is only loaded into trucks for import into the United States.
(3) The petition required by this section must be submitted to EPA
along with the application for small refiner status or small volume
refinery status under Sec. 80.1622 and this section.
(p) Withdrawal or suspension of a foreign refinery's small refiner
or small volume refinery status approval. EPA may withdraw or suspend
approval where any of the following occur:
(1) A foreign refiner fails to meet any requirement of this
section.
(2) A foreign government fails to allow EPA inspections as provided
in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
(3) A foreign refiner asserts a claim of, or a right to claim,
sovereign immunity in an action to enforce the requirements in this
subpart O.
(4) A foreign refiner fails to pay a civil or criminal penalty that
is not satisfied using the foreign refiner bond specified in paragraph
(k) of this section.
(q) [Reserved]
(r) Additional requirements for petitions, reports and
certificates. Any petition for approval, any alternative procedures
under paragraph (o) of this section, and any certification under
paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall be:
(1) Submitted in accordance with procedures specified by the
Administrator, including use of any forms that may be specified by the
Administrator; and
(2) Be signed by the president or owner of the foreign refiner
company, or by that person's immediate designee, and shall contain the
following declaration:
I hereby certify: (1) That I have actual authority to sign on
behalf of and to bind [insert name of foreign refiner] with regard to
all statements contained herein; (2) that I am aware that the
information contained herein is being certified, or submitted to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, under the applicable
requirements of 40 CFR Part 80, subparts H and O, and that the
information is material for determining compliance under these
regulations; and (3) that I have read and understand the information
being certified or submitted, and this information is true, complete
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief after I have taken
reasonable and appropriate steps to verify the accuracy thereof.
I affirm that I have read and understand the provisions of 40 CFR
Part 80, subpart O, including 40 CFR 80.1666 [insert name of foreign
refiner]. Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 113(c) and Title 18, United
States Code, section 1001, the penalty for furnishing false, incomplete
or misleading information in this certification or
[[Page 30043]]
submission is a fine of up to $10,000, and/or imprisonment for up to
five years.
Sec. 80.1667 Attest engagement requirements.
In addition to the requirements for attest engagements that apply
to refiners and importers under Sec. Sec. 80.125 through 80.130, and
80.1666, the attest engagements for importers and refiners must include
the following procedures and requirements each year.
(a) Refiners subject to national standards and Small refiner and
Small Volume Refinery Status. (1) If the refiner asserts small refinery
status or small volume refinery status for the refinery, obtain the EPA
approval letter for the refinery to determine the refinery's applicable
annual average standard and credit generation status.
(2) Determine whether the refinery applied the correct annual
average sulfur standard and whether it was eligible to generate credits
and report the finding.
(3) If the annual average sulfur standard is incorrect or credit
generation was inappropriate, recalculate compliance using the
appropriate sulfur standard and using appropriate credits and report as
a finding.
(b) EPA reports. (1) Obtain and read a copy of the refinery's or
importer's annual sulfur reports filed with EPA for the year.
(2) Agree the yearly volume of gasoline reported to EPA in the
sulfur reports with the inventory reconciliation analysis under the
attest engagement provisions of Sec. 80.128.
(3) Calculate the annual average sulfur level for all gasoline and
agree that value with the value reported to EPA.
(4) Obtain and read a copy of the refinery's or importer's sulfur
credit report.
(5) Agree the information in the refinery's or importer's batch
reports filed with EPA under Sec. Sec. 80.75 and 80.105, and any
laboratory test results, with the information contained in the annual
sulfur report required under Sec. 80.1652.
(c) Credit generation before 2017. In the case of a refinery that
generates credits during 2014 through 2016:
(1) Obtain a written representation from the company representative
stating the refinery produces gasoline from crude oil.
(2) Obtain the annual average sulfur level from paragraph (b)(3) of
this section.
(3) Compute and report as a finding the total number of sulfur
credits generated, and agree this value with the value reported to EPA.
(d) Credit generation in 2017 and thereafter. The following
procedures shall be completed for a refinery or importer that generates
credits in 2017 and thereafter:
(1) Obtain the annual average sulfur level for gasoline from
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(2) If the sulfur value under paragraph (d)(1) of this section is
less than 10 ppm, compute and report as a finding the difference
between the sulfur level under paragraph (d)(1) of this section and 10
ppm.
(3) Compute and report as a finding the total number of sulfur
credits generated, and agree this number with the number reported to
EPA.
(e) Credit purchases and sales. The following attest procedures
shall be completed for a refinery or importer that is a transferor or
transferee of credits during an averaging period:
(1) Obtain contracts or other documents for all credits transferred
to another refinery or importer during the year being reviewed; compute
and report as a finding the number and year of creation of credits
represented in these documents as being transferred away; and agree
with the report to EPA.
(2) Obtain contracts or other documents for all credits received
during the year being reviewed; compute and report as a finding the
number and year of creation of credits represented in these documents
as being received; and agree with the report to EPA.
(f) Credit expiration. A refinery or importer that possesses
credits during an averaging period must obtain a list of all credits in
the refiner's or importer's possession at any time during the year
being reviewed, identified by the year of creation of the credits.
(g) Credit reconciliation. The following attest procedures shall be
completed each year credits were in the refiner's or importer's
possession at any time during the year:
(1) Obtain the credits remaining or the credit deficit from the
previous year from the refiner's or importer's report to EPA for the
previous year.
(2) Compute and report as a finding the net credits remaining at
the conclusion of the year being reviewed by totaling:
(i) Credits remaining from the previous year; plus
(ii) Credits generated under in an averaging period; plus
(iii) Credits purchased; minus
(iv) Credits sold; minus
(v) Credits used; minus
(vi) Credits expiring; minus
(vii) Credit deficit from the previous year.
(3) Agree the credits remaining or the credit deficit at the
conclusion of the year being reviewed with the report to EPA.
(4) If the refinery or importer had a credit deficit for both the
previous year and the year being reviewed, report this fact as a
finding.
Sec. Sec. 80.1668-80.1674 [Reserved]
Sec. 80.1675 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and the material
must be available to the public. All approved material is available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030 or go to: http://www/archives.gov/federal--register/code--of--
federal--regulations/ibr--locations.html. This material is also
available for inspection at the EPA Docket Center, Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0161, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742. Also, this material is available from the source listed in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C-700, West
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428 (1-800-262-1373, www.astm.org).
(1) ASTM D 4814-11 (``ASTM D 4814''), Standard Specification for
Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, Approved 2011; IBR approved for
Sec. 80.177.
(2) ASTM D 4057-95 (``ASTM D 4507''), Approved 1995; IBR approved
for Sec. 80.1630.
(3) ASTM D 4177-95 (``ASTM D 4177''), Approved 1995; IBR approved
for Sec. 80.1630.
(4) ASTM D 5842-95 (``ASTM D 5842''), Approved 1995; IBR approved
for Sec. 80.1630.
PART 85--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES
0
38. The authority citation for part 85 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart F--[Amended]
0
39. Section 85.510 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(9) to read as
follows:
[[Page 30044]]
Sec. 85.510 Exemption provisions for new and relatively new vehicles/
engines.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(9) OBD requirements. (i) The OBD system must properly detect and
identify malfunctions in all monitored emission-related powertrain
systems or components including any new monitoring capability necessary
to identify potential emission problems associated with the new fuel.
(ii) Conduct all OBD testing necessary to demonstrate compliance
with 40 CFR 86.010-18 or 86.1806-05.
(iii) Submit the applicable OBD reporting requirements set forth in
40 CFR part 86, subparts A and S, and submit the following statement of
compliance if the OEM vehicles/engines were required to be OBD-
equipped:
The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel has
fully functional OBD systems and therefore meets the OBD requirements
specified in 40 CFR part 86 when operating on the alternative fuel.
* * * * *
0
40. Section 85.515 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(9)(iii) to read
as follows:
Sec. 85.515 Exemption provisions for intermediate age vehicles/
engines.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(9) * * *
(iii) In addition to conducting OBD testing described in this
paragraph (b)(9), you must submit to EPA the following statement of
compliance if the OEM vehicles/engines were required to be OBD-
equipped:
The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel has
fully functional OBD systems and therefore meets the OBD requirements
specified in 40 CFR part 86 when operating on the alternative fuel.
* * * * *
0
41. Section 85.520 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4)(iii) to read
as follows:
Sec. 85.520 Exemption provisions for outside useful life vehicles/
engines.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) In addition to conducting OBD testing described in this
paragraph (b)(4), you must submit to EPA the following statement of
compliance if the OEM vehicles/engines were required to be OBD-
equipped:
The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel has
fully functional OBD systems and therefore meets the OBD requirements
specified in 40 CFR part 86 when operating on the alternative fuel.
* * * * *
Subpart P--[Amended]
0
42. Section 85.1515 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 85.1515 Emission standards and test procedures applicable to
imported nonconforming motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines.
(a) Notwithstanding any other requirements of this subpart, any
motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine conditionally imported pursuant
to Sec. 85.1505 or Sec. 85.1509 and required to be emission tested
shall be tested using the FCT at 40 CFR part 86 applicable to current
model year motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines at the time of
testing or reduced testing requirements as follows:
(1) ICIs are eligible for reduced testing under this paragraph (a)
subject to the following conditions:
(i) The OEM must have a valid certificate of conformity covering
the vehicle.
(ii) The vehicle must be in its original configuration as certified
by the OEM. This applies for all emission-related components, including
the electronic control module, engine calibrations, and all
evaporative/refueling control hardware. It also applies for OBD
software and hardware, including all sensors and actuators.
(iii) The vehicle modified as described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of
this section must fully comply with all applicable emission standards
and requirements.
(iv) Vehicles must have the proper OBD systems installed and
operating. When faults are present, the ICI must test and verify the
system's ability to find the faults (such as disconnected components),
set codes, and illuminate the light, and set readiness codes as
appropriate for each vehicle. When no fault is present, the ICI must
verify that after sufficient prep driving (typically one FTP test
cycle), all OBD readiness codes are set and the OBD system does not
indicate a malfunction (i.e., no codes set and no light illuminated).
(v) The ICI may not modify more than 300 vehicles in any given
model year using reduced testing provisions in this paragraph (a).
(vi) The ICI must state in the application for certification that
it will meet all the conditions in this paragraph (a)(1).
(2) The following provisions allow for ICIs to certify vehicles
with reduced testing:
(i) In addition to the test waivers specified in 40 CFR 86.1829,
you may provide a statement in the application for certification,
supported by engineering analysis, that vehicles comply with any of the
following standards that apply instead of submitting test data:
(A) Cold temperature CO and NMHC emission standards specified in 40
CFR 86.1811.
(B) SFTP emission standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811 and 86.1816
for all pollutants.
(C) For anything other than diesel-fueled vehicles, PM emission
standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811 and 86.1816.
(D) Any running loss, refueling, spitback, bleed emissions, and
leak standards specified in 40 CFR part 86, subparts A and S.
(ii) You must perform testing and submit test data as follows to
demonstrate compliance with emission standards:
(A) Exhaust and fuel economy tests. You must measure emissions over
the FTP driving cycle and the highway fuel economy driving cycle as
specified in 40 CFR 600.109 to meet the fuel economy requirements in 40
CFR part 600 and demonstrate compliance with the exhaust emission
standards in 40 CFR part 86 (other than PM). Measure exhaust emissions
and fuel economy with the same test procedures used by the original
manufacturer to test the vehicle for certification. However, you must
use an electric dynamometer meeting the requirements of Sec. 86.108 or
40 CFR part 1066, subpart B, unless we approve a different dynamometer
based on excessive compliance costs. If you certify based on testing
with a different dynamometer, you must state in the application for
certification that all vehicles in the emission family will comply with
emission standards if tested on an electric dynamometer.
(B) Evaporative emission test. You may measure evaporative
emissions as specified in this paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) to demonstrate
compliance with the evaporative emission standards in 40 CFR part 86
instead of the otherwise specified procedures. Use measurement
equipment for evaporative measurements specified in 40 CFR part 86,
subpart B, except that the evaporative emission enclosure does not need
to accommodate varying ambient temperatures. The evaporative
measurement procedure is integral to the procedure for measuring
exhaust emissions over the FTP driving cycle as described in paragraph
(a)(ii)(2)(A) of this section. Perform canister preconditioning using
the same
[[Page 30045]]
procedure used by the original manufacturer to certify the vehicle;
perform this canister loading before the initial preconditioning drive.
Perform a diurnal emission test at the end of the stabilization period
before the exhaust emission test by heating the fuel from 60 to 84
[deg]F, either by exposing the vehicle to increasing ambient
temperatures or by applying heat directly to the fuel tank. Measure hot
soak emissions as described in 40 CFR 86.138-96(k). We may approve
alternative measurement procedures that are equivalent to or more
stringent than the specified procedures if the specified procedures are
impractical for particular vehicle models or measurement facilities.
The sum of the measured diurnal and hot soak values must meet the
appropriate emission standard as specified in this section.
(b) The emission standards applicable to nonconforming light-duty
vehicles and light-duty trucks imported pursuant to this subpart are
outlined in tables 1 and 2 of this section, respectively. The useful
life as specified in tables 1 and 2 of this section is applicable to
imported light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, respectively.
(c)(1) Nonconforming motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines of
1994 OP year and later conditionally imported pursuant to Sec. 85.1505
or Sec. 85.1509 shall meet all of the emission standards specified in
40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the vehicle or motor vehicle engine.
The useful life specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the
motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine is applicable where useful life
is not designated in this subpart.
(2)(i) Nonconforming light-duty vehicles and light light-duty
trucks (LDV/LLDTs) originally manufactured in OP years 2004, 2005 or
2006 must meet the FTP exhaust emission standards of bin 9 in Tables
S04-1 and S04-2 in 40 CFR 86.1811-04 and the evaporative emission
standards for light-duty vehicles and light light-duty trucks specified
in 40 CFR 86.1811-01(e)(5).
(ii) Nonconforming LDT3s and LDT4s (HLDTs) and medium-duty
passenger vehicles (MDPVs) originally manufactured in OP years 2004
through 2006 must meet the FTP exhaust emission standards of bin 10 in
Tables S04-1 and S04-2 in 40 CFR 86.1811-04 and the applicable
evaporative emission standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811-04(e)(5).
For 2004 OP year HLDTs and MDPVs where modifications commence on the
first vehicle of a test group before December 21, 2003, this
requirement does not apply to the 2004 OP year. ICIs opting to bring
all of their 2004 OP year HLDTs and MDPVs into compliance with the
exhaust emission standards of bin 10 in Tables S04-1 and S04-2 in 40
CFR 86.1811-04, may use the optional higher NMOG values for their 2004-
2006 OP year LDT2s and 2004-2008 LDT4s.
(iii) Nonconforming LDT3s and LDT4s (HLDTs) and medium-duty
passenger vehicles (MDPVs) originally manufactured in OP years 2007 and
2008 must meet the FTP exhaust emission standards of bin 8 in Tables
S04-1 and S04-2 in 40 CFR 86.1811-04 and the applicable evaporative
standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811-04(e)(5).
(iv) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs originally manufactured in OP years
2007 through 2021 and nonconforming HLDTs and MDPVs originally
manufactured in OP year 2009 through 2021 must meet the FTP exhaust
emission standards of bin 5 in Tables S04-1 and S04-2 in 40 CFR
86.1811-04, and the evaporative standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811-
04(e)(1) through (4).
(v) ICIs are exempt from the Tier 2 and the interim non-Tier2
phase-in intermediate percentage requirements for exhaust, evaporative,
and refueling emissions described in 40 CFR 86.1811-04.
(vi) In cases where multiple standards exist in a given model year
in 40 CFR part 86 due to phase-in requirements of new standards, the
applicable standards for motor vehicle engines required to be certified
to engine-based standards are the least stringent standards applicable
to the engine type for the OP year.
(vii) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs originally manufactured in OP years
2009 through 2021 must meet the evaporative emission standards in Table
S09-1 in 40 CFR 86.1811-09(e). However, LDV/LLDTs originally
manufactured in OP years 2009 and 2010 and imported by ICIs who qualify
as small volume manufacturers as defined in 40 CFR 86.1838-01 are
exempt from the LDV/LLDT evaporative emission standards in Table S09-1
in 40 CFR 86.1811-09(e), but must comply with the Tier 2 evaporative
emission standards in Table S04-3 in 40 CFR 86.1811-04(e).
(viii) Nonconforming HLDTs and MDPVs originally manufactured in OP
years 2010 through 2021 must meet the evaporative emission standards in
Table S09-1 in 40 CFR 86.1811-09(e). However, HLDTs and MDPVs
originally manufactured in OP years 2010 and 2011 and imported by ICIs,
who qualify as small volume manufacturers as defined in 40 CFR 86.1838-
01, are exempt from the HLDTs and MDPVs evaporative emission standards
in Table S09-1 in 40 CFR 86.1811-09(e), but must comply with the Tier 2
evaporative emission standards in Table S04-3 in 40 CFR 86.1811-04(e).
(ix) Nonconforming LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and complete heavy-duty
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR originally manufactured in OP
years 2022 and later must meet the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative
emission standards in 40 CFR 86.1811 through 86.1816.
(3)(i) As an option to the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this
section, independent commercial importers may elect to meet lower bins
in Tables S04-1 and S04-2 of 40 CFR 86.1811-04 than specified in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section and bank or sell NOx credits as
permitted in 40 CFR 86.1860-04 and 40 CFR 86.1861-04. An ICI may not
meet higher bins in Tables S04-1 and S04-2 of 40 CFR 86.1811-04 than
specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section unless it demonstrates to
the Administrator at the time of certification that it has obtained
appropriate and sufficient NOx credits from another manufacturer, or
has generated them in a previous model year or in the current model
year and not transferred them to another manufacturer or used them to
address other vehicles as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1860-04 and 40 CFR
86.1861-04.
(ii) Where an ICI desires to obtain a certificate of conformity
using a bin higher than specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section,
but does not have sufficient credits to cover vehicles produced under
such certificate, the Administrator may issue such certificate if the
ICI has also obtained a certificate of conformity for vehicles
certified using a bin lower than that required under paragraph (c)(2)
of this section. The ICI may then produce vehicles to the higher bin
only to the extent that it has generated sufficient credits from
vehicles certified to the lower bin during the same model year.
(4) [Reserved]
(5) Except for the situation where an ICI desires to bank, sell or
use NOx credits as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the
requirements of 40 CFR 86.1811-04 related to fleet average NOx
standards and requirements to comply with such standards do not apply
to vehicles modified under this subpart.
(6) ICIs using bins higher than those specified in paragraph (c)(2)
of this section must monitor their production so that they do not
produce more vehicles certified to the standards of such bins than
their available credits can cover. ICIs must not have a credit deficit
at the end of a model year and are not permitted to use the deficit
[[Page 30046]]
carryforward provisions provided in 40 CFR 86.1860-04(e).
(7) The Administrator may condition the certificates of conformity
issued to ICIs as necessary to ensure that vehicles subject to
paragraph (c) of this section comply with the appropriate average NOx
standard for each model year.
(8)(i) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs originally manufactured in OP years
2010 and later must meet the cold temperature NHMC emission standards
in Table S10-1 in 40 CFR 86.1811-10(g).
(ii) Nonconforming HLDTs and MDPVs originally manufactured in OP
years 2012 and later must meet the cold temperature NHMC emission
standards in Table S10-1 in 40 CFR 86.1811-10(g).
(iii) ICIs, which qualify as small volume manufacturers, are exempt
from the cold temperature NMHC phase-in intermediate percentage
requirements described in 40 CFR 86.1811-10(g)(3). See 40 CFR 86.1811-
04(k)(5)(vi) and (vii).
(iv) As an alternative to the requirements of paragraphs (c)(8)(i)
and (ii) of this section, ICIs may elect to meet a cold temperature
NMHC family emission level below the cold temperature NMHC fleet
average standards specified in Table S10-1 of 40 CFR 86.1811-10 and
bank or sell credits as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1864-10. An ICI may not
meet a higher cold temperature NMHC family emission level than the
fleet average standards in Table S10-1 of 40 CFR 86.1811-10 as
specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section, unless it
demonstrates to the Administrator at the time of certification that it
has obtained appropriate and sufficient NMHC credits from another
manufacturer, or has generated them in a previous model year or in the
current model year and not traded them to another manufacturer or used
them to address other vehicles as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1864-10.
(v) Where an ICI desires to obtain a certificate of conformity
using a higher cold temperature NMHC family emission level than
specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section, but does
not have sufficient credits to cover vehicles imported under such
certificate, the Administrator may issue such certificate if the ICI
has also obtained a certificate of conformity for vehicles certified
using a cold temperature NMHC family emission level lower than that
required under paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section. The ICI
may then import vehicles to the higher cold temperature NMHC family
emission level only to the extent that it has generated sufficient
credits from vehicles certified to a family emission level lower than
the cold temperature NMHC fleet average standard during the same model
year.
(vi) ICIs using cold temperature NMHC family emission levels higher
than the cold temperature NMHC fleet average standards specified in
paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section must monitor their
imports so that they do not import more vehicles certified to such
family emission levels than their available credits can cover. ICIs
must not have a credit deficit at the end of a model year and are not
permitted to use the deficit carryforward provisions provided in 40 CFR
86.1864-10.
(vii) The Administrator may condition the certificates of
conformity issued to ICIs as necessary to ensure that vehicles subject
to this paragraph (c)(8) comply with the applicable cold temperature
NMHC fleet average standard for each model year.
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, ICI's must
not participate in emission-related programs for emissions averaging,
banking and trading, or nonconformance penalties.
Table 1 to Sec. 85.1515--Emission Standards Applicable to Imported Light-Duty Motor Vehicles 1 2 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel Evaporative Useful life
OP Year Hydrocarbon Carbon monoxide Oxides of nitrogen particulate hydrocarbon (years/miles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1968-76...................... 1.5 gpm............ 15 gpm............. 3.1 gpm............ .................. 6.0 g/test........ 5/50,000
1977-79...................... 1.5 gpm............ 15 gpm............. 2.0 gpm............ .................. 6.0 g/test........ 5/50,000
1980......................... 0.41 gpm........... 7.0 gpm............ 2.0 gpm............ .................. 6.0 g/test........ 5/50,000
1981......................... 0.41 gpm........... 3.4 gpm............ 1.0 gpm............ .................. 2.0 g/test........ 5/50,000
1982-86...................... 0.41 gpm........... 3.4 gpm............ 1.0 gpm............ 0.60 gpm.......... 2.0 g/test........ 5/50,000
1987-93...................... 0.41 gpm........... 3.4 gpm............ 1.0 gpm............ 0.20 gpm.......... 2.0 g/test........ 5/50,000
1994 and later............... (\4\).............. (\4\).............. (\4\).............. (\4\)............. (\4\)............. (\4\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Diesel particulate standards apply only to diesel fueled light-duty vehicles. Evaporative hydrocarbon standards apply only to non-diesel fueled
light-duty vehicles. For alternative fueled light-duty vehicles, the evaporative hydrocarbon standard is interpreted as organic material hydrocarbon
equivalent grams carbon per test, as applicable.
\2\ No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from any non-diesel fueled light-duty vehicle.
\3\ All light-duty vehicles shall meet the applicable emission standards at both low and high-altitudes according to the procedures specified in 40 CFR
part 86 for current model year motor vehicles at the time of testing.
\4\ Specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the vehicle, as described in paragraph (c) of this section.
Table 2 to Sec. 85.1515--Emission Standards Applicable to Imported Light-Duty Trucks 1 2 3 4 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaporative Useful life (years/
OP year Hydrocarbon Carbon monoxide Oxides of nitrogen Diesel particulate hydrocarbon miles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1968-78....................... 2.0 gpm 20 gpm 3.1 gpm .................. 6.0 g/test 5/50,000
1979-80....................... 1.7 gpm 18 gpm 2.3 gpm .................. 6.0 g/test 5/50,000
1981.......................... 1.7 gpm 18 gpm 2.3 gpm .................. 2.0 g/test 5/50,000
1982-83....................... 1.7 gpm (2.0) 18 gpm (26) 2.3 gpm (2.3) 0.60 gpm (0.60) 2.0 g/test (2.6) 5/50,000
1984.......................... 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm (14) 2.3 gpm (2.3) 0.60 gpm (0.60) 2.0 g/test (2.6) 5/50,000
1985-86....................... 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm (14) 2.3 gpm (2.3) 0.60 gpm (0.60) 2.0 g/test (2.6) 11/120,000
1987.......................... 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm (14) 2.3 gpm (2.3) 0.26 gpm (0.26) 2.0 g/test (2.6) 11/120,000
1988-89....................... 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm (14) 1.2 gpm\6\ (1.2) 0.26 gpm\7\ (2.0) 2.0 g/test (2.6) 11/120,000
0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm (14) 1.7 gpm\6\ (1.7) 0.45 gpm\7\ (0.26) 2.0 g/test (2.6) 11/120,000
0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm (14) 2.3 gpm\6\ (2.3) 0.45 gpm\7\ (0.26) 2.0 g/test (2.6) 11/120,000
1990-93....................... 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm (14) 1.2 gpm\8\ (1.2) 0.26 gpm\7\ (0.26) 2.0 g/test (2.6) 11/120,000
0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm (14) 1.7 gpm\8\ (1.7) 0.45 gpm\7\ (0.26) 2.0 g/test (2.6) 11/120,000
[[Page 30047]]
1994 and later................ (\9\) (\9\) (\9\) (\9\) (\9\) (\9\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Diesel particulate standards apply only to diesel fueled light-duty trucks. Evaporative hydrocarbon standards apply only to non-diesel fueled light-
duty trucks. For alternative fueled light-duty trucks, the evaporative hydrocarbon standard is interpreted as organic material hydrocarbon equivalent
grams carbon per test, as applicable.
\2\ No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from any non-diesel fueled light-duty truck.
\3\ A carbon monoxide standard of 0.50% of exhaust flow at curb idle is applicable to all 1984 and later model year light-duty trucks sold to, or owned
by, an importer for principal use at other than a designated high-altitude location. This requirement is effective for light-duty trucks sold to, or
owned by an importer for principal use at a designated high-altitude location beginning with the 1988 model year.
\4\ All 1982 OP year and later light-duty trucks sold to, or owned by, an importer for principal use at a designated high-altitude location shall meet
high-altitude emission standards according to the requirements specified in 40 CFR part 86 for current model year light-duty trucks at the time of
testing.
\5\ Standards in parentheses apply to motor vehicles sold to, or owned by, an importer for principal use at a designated high-altitude location. These
standards must be met at high-altitude according to the procedures specified in 40 CFR part 86 for current model year motor vehicles at the time of
testing.
\6\ The oxides of nitrogen standard of 1.2 gpm applies to light-duty trucks at or below 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight and at or below 6,000 pounds
GVWR. The 1.7 gpm standard applies to light-duty trucks above 3,750 pound loaded vehicle weight and at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR; the 2.3 gpm
standard applies to light-duty trucks above 6,000 pounds GVWR.
\7\ The diesel particulate standard of 0.26 gpm applies to light-duty trucks at or below 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight; the 0.45 gpm standard
applies to light-duty trucks above 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight.
\8\ The NOx standard of 1.2 gpm applies to light-duty trucks at or below 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight; the 1.7 gpm standard applies to light-duty
trucks above 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight.
\9\ Specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the vehicle, as described in paragraph (c) of this section.
0
43. Subpart W, is revised to consist of Sec. Sec. 85.2201, 85.2207,
85.2222, 85.2223, and 85.2231, to read as follows:
Subpart W--Emission Control System Performance Warranty Short Tests
Sec.
85.2201 Applicability.
85.2207 Onboard diagnostic test standards.
85.2222 Onboard diagnostic test procedures.
85.2223 Onboard diagnostic test report.
85.2231 Onboard diagnostic test equipment requirements.
Subpart W--Emission Control System Performance Warranty Short Tests
Sec. 85.2201 Applicability.
(a) This subpart describes the test provisions to be employed in
conjunction with the Emissions Performance Warranty in subpart V of
this part. These provisions generally rely on a vehicle's onboard
diagnostic system (OBD) to indicate whether a vehicle passes or fails
the test.
(b) The provisions of this subpart may be used to establish
warranty eligibility for light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and
medium-duty passenger vehicles when tested during the useful life as
prescribed in subpart V of this part.
Sec. 85.2207 Onboard diagnostic test standards.
(a) A vehicle shall fail the OBD test if it is a 1996 or newer
vehicle and the vehicle connector is missing, has been tampered with,
or is otherwise inoperable.
(b) A vehicle shall fail the OBD test if the malfunction indicator
light (MIL) is commanded to be illuminated and it is not visually
illuminated according to visual inspection.
(c) A vehicle shall fail the OBD test if the MIL is commanded to be
illuminated for one or more diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs), as
described in 40 CFR 86.1806.
Sec. 85.2222 Onboard diagnostic test procedures.
The test sequence for the OBD inspection shall consist of the
following steps:
(a) The OBD inspection shall be conducted with the key-on/engine
running, with the exception of inspecting for MIL illumination as
required in paragraph (d)(4) of this section, during which the
inspection shall be conducted with the key-on/engine off.
(b) The inspector shall locate the vehicle connector and plug the
test system into the connector.
(c) The test system shall send a Mode $01, PID $01 request in
accordance with 40 CFR 86.1806 to determine the OBD evaluation status.
The test system shall determine what monitors are supported by the OBD
system, and perform the readiness evaluation for applicable monitors in
accordance with the requirements and specifications in 40 CFR 86.1806.
(1) Coincident with the beginning of mandatory testing, repair, and
retesting based upon the OBD test, if the readiness evaluation
indicates that any onboard tests are not complete, the customer shall
be instructed to return after the vehicle has been run under conditions
that allow completion of all applicable onboard tests. If the readiness
evaluation again indicates that any onboard test is not complete, the
vehicle shall be failed.
(2) An exception to paragraph (c)(1) of this section is allowed for
MY 1996 to MY 2000 vehicles, inclusive, with two or fewer unset
readiness monitors, and for MY 2001 and newer vehicles with no more
than one unset readiness monitor. Vehicles from those model years which
would otherwise pass the OBD inspection, but for the unset readiness
code in question, may be issued a passing certificate without being
required to operate the vehicle in such a way as to activate those
particular monitors. Vehicles from those model years with an unset
readiness code that also have a DTC stored resulting in an illuminated
MIL must be failed, though setting the unset readiness flag in question
shall not be a prerequisite for passing the retest.
(d) The test system shall evaluate the MIL status bit and record
status information in the vehicle test record.
(1) If the MIL status bit indicates that the MIL has been commanded
to be illuminated, the test system shall send a Mode $03 request in
accordance with 40 CFR 86.1806 to determine the stored DTCs. The system
shall repeat this cycle until the number of codes reported equals the
number expected based on the Mode $01 response. All DTCs resulting in
MIL illumination shall be recorded in the vehicle test record and the
vehicle shall fail the OBD inspection.
(2) If the MIL bit is not commanded to be illuminated the vehicle
shall pass the OBD inspection, even if DTCs are present.
(3) If the MIL bit is commanded to be illuminated, the inspector
shall visually inspect the MIL to determine if it is illuminated. If
the MIL is commanded to
[[Page 30048]]
be illuminated but is not, the vehicle shall fail the OBD inspection.
(4) If the MIL does not illuminate at all when the vehicle is in
the key-on/engine-off condition, the vehicle shall fail the OBD
inspection, even if no DTCs are present and the MIL has not been
commanded on.
Sec. 85.2223 Onboard diagnostic test report.
(a) Motorists whose vehicles fail the OBD test described in Sec.
85.2222 shall be provided with the OBD test results, including the
codes retrieved, the name of the component or system associated with
each fault code, the status of the MIL illumination command, and the
customer alert statement as stated in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) In addition to any codes that were retrieved, the test report
shall include the following language:
Your vehicle's computerized self-diagnostic system (OBD) registered
the faults listed below. The faults are probably an indication of a
malfunction of an emission component. However, multiple and/or
seemingly unrelated faults may be an indication of an emission-related
problem that occurred previously, but upon further evaluation by the
OBD system was determined to be only temporary. Therefore, proper
diagnosis by a qualified technician is required to positively identify
the source of any emission-related problem.
Sec. 85.2231 Onboard diagnostic test equipment requirements.
(a) The test system interface to the vehicle shall include a plug
that conforms to the requirements and specifications of 40 CFR 86.1806.
(b) The test system shall be capable of communicating with the
standard data link connector of vehicles with certified OBD systems.
(c) The test system shall be capable of checking for OBD monitors
and the evaluation status of supported monitors (test complete/test not
complete) in Mode $01 PID $01, as well as be able to request the DTCs,
consistent with the requirements and specifications of 40 CFR 86.1806.
PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES
AND ENGINES
0
44. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
45. Section 86.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (g)(2) to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.1 Reference materials.
* * * * *
(d) California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA
95812, (916) 322-2884, http://www.arb.ca.gov.
(1) California Requirements Applicable to the LEV III Program,
Title 13, Sec. 1961.2 and Sec. 1976(b)1)(G) of the California Code of
Regulations, approved on March 22, 2012, IBR approved for Sec.
86.1803-01.
(2) California Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the National
Low Emission Vehicle Program, October 1996, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
86.113-04 and 86.612-97.
(3) California Regulatory Requirements known as On-board
Diagnostics II (OBD-II), Approved on April 21, 2003, Title 13,
California Code of Regulations, Section 1968.2, Malfunction and
Diagnostic System Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model-Year
Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines
(OBD-II), IBR approved for Sec. 86.1806-05.
(4) California Regulatory Requirements known as On-board
Diagnostics II (OBD-II), Approved on November 9, 2007, Title 13,
California Code of Regulations, Section 1968.2, Malfunction and
Diagnostic System Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model-Year
Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines
(OBD-II), IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 86.007-17, 86.1806-05.
(5) California Regulatory Requirements known as On-board
Diagnostics II (OBD-II), Approved on June 17, 2010, Title 13,
California Code of Regulations, Section 1968.2, Malfunction and
Diagnostic System Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model-Year
Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines
(OBD-II), IBR approved for Sec. 86.1806-17.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) SAE J1634, Revised October 2012, Battery Electric Vehicle
Energy Consumption and Range Test Procedure, IBR approved for Sec.
86.1811-04(n).
* * * * *
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
46. Section 86.000-7 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraph (h)(1).
0
c. By revising paragraph (h)(6).
0
d. By removing paragraph (h)(7).
Sec. 86.000-7 Maintenance of records; submittal of information; right
of entry.
Section 86.000-7 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.091-7 or Sec. 86.094-7. Where a paragraph in
Sec. 86.091-7 or Sec. 86.094-7 is identical and applicable to Sec.
86.000-7, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding
paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec.
86.091-7.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-7.''
* * * * *
0
(h) * * *
0
(6) EPA may void ab initio a certificate for a vehicle certified to
Tier 1 certification standards or to the respective evaporative and/or
refueling test procedure and accompanying evaporative and/or refueling
standards as set forth or otherwise referenced in Sec. 86.098-10 for
which the manufacturer fails to retain the records required in this
section or to provide such information to the Administrator upon
request.
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 86.000-8, 86.000-9, 86.000-16 [Removed]
0
47. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.000-8, 86.000-9, and 86.000-16.
Sec. 86.000-24 [Amended]
0
48. Section 86.000-24 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a), (b)(1) introductory text,
and (b)(1)(iii) through (f).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2).
0
d. By removing paragraph (h).
Sec. Sec. 86.000-26, 86.000-28, 86.001-9, 86.001-22 [Removed]
0
49. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.000-26, 86.000-28, 86.001-9, and 86.001-22.
0
50. Section 86.001-23 is amended by revising the introductory text and
adding a heading to paragraph (c), and removing and reserving
paragraphs (c)(1), (f), and (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.001-23 Required data.
Section 86.001-23 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.098-23. Where a paragraph in Sec. 86.098-23 is
identical and applicable to Sec. 86.001-23, this may be indicated by
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved].
For guidance see Sec. 86.098-23.''
* * * * *
(c) Emission data--
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 86.001-25, 86.001-26, 86.001-28, 86.001-30, 86.004-
9 [Removed]
0
51. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.001-25, 86.001-26, 86.001-28, 86.001-30, and
86.004-9.
0
52. Section 86.004-21 is amended as follows:
[[Page 30049]]
0
a. By revising the introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4)(i).
0
c. By removing paragraph (b)(5)(v).
0
d. By removing and reserving paragraphs (k) and (l).
Sec. 86.004-21 Application for certification.
Section 86.004-21 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.094-21. Where a paragraph in Sec. 86.094-21 is
identical and applicable to Sec. 86.004-21, this may be indicated by
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved].
For guidance see Sec. 86.094-21.''
* * * * *
Sec. 86.004-25 [Amended]
0
53. Section 86.004-25 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs
(b)(4)(ii) and (b)(4)(iv).
0
54. Section 86.004-26 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a) and (b).
0
c. By revising paragraph (d).
Sec. 86.004-26 Mileage and service accumulation; emission
measurements.
* * * * *
(d)(1) This paragraph (d) applies for heavy-duty engines.
(2)(i) The results of all emission testing shall be supplied to the
Administrator. The manufacturer shall furnish to the Administrator
explanation for voiding any test. The Administrator will determine if
voiding the test was appropriate based upon the explanation given by
the manufacturer for the voided test. Tests between test points may be
conducted as required by the Administrator. Data from all tests
(including voided tests) may be submitted weekly to the Administrator,
but shall be delivered to the Administrator within 7 days after
completion of the test. In addition, all test data shall be compiled
and provided to the Administrator in accordance with Sec. 86.007-23.
Where the Administrator conducts a test on a durability data vehicle at
a prescribed test point, the results of that test will be used in the
calculation of the deterioration factor.
(ii) The results of all emission tests shall be recorded and
reported to the Administrator. These test results shall be rounded as
specified in 40 CFR part 1065 to the number of decimal places contained
in the applicable emission standard expressed to one additional
significant figure.
(3) Whenever a manufacturer intends to operate and test a vehicle
(or engine) that may be used for emission data, the manufacturer shall
retain in its records all information concerning all emission tests and
maintenance, including vehicle (or engine) alterations to represent
other vehicle (or engine) selections. This information shall be
submitted, including the vehicle (or engine) description and
specification information required by the Administrator, to the
Administrator following the emission data test.
(4) Emission testing of any type with respect to any certification
vehicle or engine other than that specified in this subpart is not
allowed except as such testing may be specifically authorized by the
Administrator.
Sec. 86.004-28 [Amended]
0
55. Section 86.004-28 is amended by removing the introductory text and
by removing and reserving paragraphs (a), (b), (f), and (g).
0
56. Section 86.004-30 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(10)(i), and
(a)(11)(i) and (a)(12) through (a)(16).
0
c. By removing paragraphs (a)(19) through (a)(21).
0
d. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii).
0
e. By removing paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) and (b)(1)(ii)(D).
0
f. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4).
Sec. 86.004-30 Certification.
Section 86.004-30 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.094-30. Where a paragraph in Sec. 86.094-30 is
identical and applicable to Sec. 86.004-30, this may be indicated by
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved].
For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.''
* * * * *
0
57. Section 86.004-38 is amended by removing the introductory text,
removing and reserving paragraph (g), and adding paragraph (i) to read
as follows:
Sec. 86.004-38 Maintenance instructions.
* * * * *
(i) For each new diesel-fueled engine subject to the standards
prescribed in Sec. 86.007-11, as applicable, the manufacturer shall
furnish or cause to be furnished to the ultimate purchaser a statement
that ``This engine must be operated only with ultra low-sulfur diesel
fuel (meeting EPA specifications for highway diesel fuel, including a
15 ppm sulfur cap).''
0
58. Section 86.005-10 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.005-10 Emission standards for 2005 and later model year Otto-
cycle heavy-duty engines and vehicles.
Section 86.005-10 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.099-10. Where a paragraph in Sec. 86.099-10 is
identical and applicable to Sec. 86.005-10, this may be indicated by
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved].
For guidance see Sec. 86.099-10.''
* * * * *
(c) No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient
atmosphere from any new 1998 or later model year Otto-cycle heavy-duty
engine.
* * * * *
0
59. Section 86.007-17 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 86.007-17 On-board diagnostics for engines used in applications
less than or equal to 14,000 pounds GVWR.
Heavy-duty engines intended to be installed in heavy duty vehicles
at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that are subject to standards under this
subpart must meet on-board diagnostic requirements as specified in
Sec. 86.1806-17(a), (c), and (d).
Sec. 86.007-21 [Amended]
0
60. Section 86.007-21 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4)(i).
0
b. By removing paragraphs (b)(9) and (b)(10).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (k) and (l).
0
61. Section 86.007-23 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs
(b)(2), (f), (g), and (l) and revising the introductory text and
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.007-23 Required data.
Section 86.007-23 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.098-23 or Sec. 86.001-23. Where a paragraph in
Sec. 86.098-23 or Sec. 86.001-23 is identical and applicable to Sec.
86.007-23, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding
paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec.
86.098-23.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.001-23.''.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(c) Emission data from certification vehicles and engines. The
manufacturer shall submit emission data for each applicable emission
standard from vehicles and engines tested in accordance with applicable
test procedures and in such numbers as specified. These data shall
include zero-
[[Page 30050]]
mile or zero-hour data, if generated, and emission data generated for
certification as required under Sec. 86.004-26. However, manufacturers
may provide a statement in the application for certification that
vehicles and engines comply with the following standards instead of
submitting test data, provided that the statement is supported by
previous emission tests, development tests, or other appropriate
information, and good engineering judgment:
(1) Idle CO, smoke, or particulate matter emissions from methanol-
fueled or gaseous-fueled diesel-cycle certification engines.
(2) Particulate matter emissions from Otto-cycle certification
engines or gaseous-fueled certification engines.
(3) CO emissions from diesel-cycle certification engines.
(4) Formaldehyde emissions from petroleum-fueled engines.
(5) Particulate matter and formaldehyde emissions when conducting
Selective Enforcement Audit testing of Otto-cycle engines.
(6) Smoke from methanol-fueled or petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle
certification engines.
(7) Smoke when conducting Selective Enforcement Audit testing of
diesel-cycle engines.
(8) Evaporative emissions from vehicles fueled by natural gas,
liquefied petroleum gas, or hydrogen.
* * * * *
(f) through (g) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(l) [Reserved]
* * * * *
Sec. 86.007-30 [Amended]
0
62. Section 86.007--30 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(7),
(a)(10)(i), (a)(11)(i), and (a)(12) through (a)(16).
0
b. By removing paragraphs (a)(19) through (a)(21).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and
(b)(4).
0
d. By removing paragraph (f).
0
63. Section 86.007-35 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)
0
c. By revising paragraph (c).
0
d. By removing and reserving paragraphs (d), (f), and (i).
Sec. 86.007-35 Labeling.
* * * * *
(a) The manufacturer of any motor vehicle (or motor vehicle engine)
subject to the applicable emission standards (and family emission
limits, as appropriate) of this subpart, shall, at the time of
manufacture, affix a permanent legible label, of the type and in the
manner described below, containing the information hereinafter
provided, to all production models of such vehicles (or engines)
available for sale to the public and covered by a Certificate of
Conformity under Sec. 86.007-30(a).
* * * * *
(c) Vehicles powered by model year 2007 through 2013 diesel-fueled
engines must include permanent, readily visible labels on the dashboard
(or instrument panel) and near all fuel inlets that state ``Use Ultra
Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel Only''; or ``Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel
Only''.
* * * * *
Sec. 86.007-38 [Removed]
0
64. Remove Sec. 86.007-38.
0
65. Section 86.008-10 is amended by removing the introductory text and
revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.008-10 Emission standards for 2008 and later model year Otto-
cycle heavy-duty engines and vehicles.
* * * * *
(b) This paragraph (b) applies through model year 2013. See 40 CFR
1037.103 for provisions that apply in 2014 and later model years.
Evaporative emissions from heavy-duty vehicles shall not exceed the
following standards when measured using the test procedures specified
in 40 CFR 1037.501. The standards apply equally to certification and
in-use vehicles. The spitback standard also applies to newly assembled
vehicles. For certification vehicles only, manufacturers may conduct
testing to quantify a level of nonfuel background emissions for an
individual test vehicle. Such a demonstration must include a
description of the source(s) of emissions and an estimated decay rate.
The demonstrated level of nonfuel background emissions may be
subtracted from emission test results from certification vehicles if
approved in advance by the Administrator.
* * * * *
(e) The standards described in this section do not apply to Otto-
cycle medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs) that are subject to
regulation under subpart S of this part, except as specified in subpart
S of this part. The standards described in this section also do not
apply to Otto-cycle engines used in such MDPVs, except as specified in
subpart S of this part. The term ``medium-duty passenger vehicle'' is
defined in Sec. 86.1803.
* * * * *
0
66. Section 86.010-38 is amended by revising paragraphs (g) and (i) to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.010-38 Maintenance instructions.
* * * * *
(g) Emission control diagnostic service information. Manufacturers
are subject to the requirements of Sec. 86.1808-01(f) beginning in the
2005 model year for manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty
engines weighing 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) and less that
are subject to the OBD requirements of this part.
* * * * *
(i) Through model year 2013, the manufacturer shall furnish or
cause to be furnished to the ultimate purchaser the following statement
for each new diesel-fueled engine subject to the standards prescribed
in Sec. 86.007-11, as applicable: ``This engine must be operated only
with ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel (meeting EPA specifications for
highway diesel fuel, including a 15 ppm sulfur cap).''
* * * * *
0
67. Section 86.016-1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c) and adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.016-1 General applicability.
(a) Applicability. The provisions of this subpart apply for certain
types of new heavy-duty engines and vehicles as described in this
paragraph (a). Note that this subpart does not apply for light-duty
vehicles, light-duty trucks, or medium-duty passenger vehicles (see
subpart S of this part for requirements that apply for those vehicles).
In some cases, manufacturers of heavy-duty engines and vehicles can
choose whether to meet the requirements of this subpart or the
requirements of subpart S of this part; those provisions are therefore
considered optional, but only to the extent that manufacturers comply
with the other set of requirements. In cases where a provision applies
only for a certain vehicle group based on its model year, vehicle
class, motor fuel, engine type, or other distinguishing
characteristics, the limited applicability is cited in the appropriate
section. The provisions of this subpart apply for certain heavy-duty
engines and vehicles as follows:
(1) The provisions of this subpart related to exhaust emission
standards apply for diesel-cycle and Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines
installed in vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR.
[[Page 30051]]
(2) The provisions of this subpart related to exhaust emission
standards apply as follows for engines that will be installed in
incomplete vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR:
(i) These provisions apply for diesel-cycle engines.
(ii) These provisions are optional for Otto-cycle engines.
(3) Diesel-cycle and Otto-cycle complete heavy-duty vehicles at or
below 14,000 pounds GVWR and the corresponding engines are not subject
to the provisions of this subpart related to exhaust emission
standards, except that these provisions are optional for diesel-cycle
engines installed in such vehicles through model year 2018.
(4) The provisions of this subpart related to evaporative emission
standards apply for diesel-cycle and Otto-cycle heavy-duty vehicles as
follows:
(i) These provisions do not apply for complete vehicles at or below
14,000 pounds GVWR.
(ii) Vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR and all sizes of incomplete
heavy-duty vehicles must meet evaporative emission standards as
specified in Sec. 86.008-10 through model year 2017, and as specified
in 40 CFR part 1037 in later model years.
(iii) Note that diesel-fueled vehicles are not subject to
evaporative emissions under this part.
(5) The provisions of this subpart related to onboard diagnostics
apply for diesel-cycle and Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines and vehicles
as follows:
(i) Engines installed in vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR must
meet the onboard diagnostic requirements specified in Sec. 86.010-18.
(ii) Engines installed in vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR
may optionally comply with the onboard diagnostic requirements
specified in Sec. 86.007-17, in which case those vehicles are not
subject to separate onboard diagnostic requirements under this part.
(b) Relationship to subpart S of this part. Unless specified
otherwise, if engines are not subject to provisions of this subpart or
if manufacturers choose not to meet optional provisions of this subpart
as described in paragraph (a) of this section, those engines must be
installed in vehicles meeting the corresponding requirements under
subpart S of this part. If a vehicle and its installed engine comply
with a mix of provisions from this subpart and from subpart S of this
part, the vehicle must be certified under subpart S of this part, and
the engine does not need to be certified separately.
(c) Greenhouse gas emission standards. See 40 CFR parts 1036 and
1037 for greenhouse gas emission standards that apply for heavy-duty
engines and vehicles.
* * * * *
(g) Clean alternative fuel conversions. The provisions of this
subpart also apply for clean alternative fuel conversions as defined in
40 CFR 85.502 of all vehicles described in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(h) Turbine engines. Turbine engines are deemed to be compression-
ignition engines for purposes of this part.
Sec. 86.079-36 [Removed]
0
68. Remove Sec. 86.079-36.
0
69. Section 86.082-2 is amended by adding definitions for ``Round'' and
``United States'' in alphabetical order to read as follows.
Sec. 86.082-2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Round has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001, unless otherwise
specified.
* * * * *
United States has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
* * * * *
Sec. 86.085-20 [Removed]
0
70. Remove Sec. 86.085-20.
Sec. 86.085-37 [Amended]
0
71. Section 86.085-37 is amended by removing paragraph (b).
Sec. 86.087-2 [ Removed]
0
72. Remove Sec. 86.087-2.
Sec. 86.091-29 [Amended]
0
73. Section 86.091-29 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(a).
Section 86.094-7 is amended by adding paragraph (h)(6) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.094-7 Maintenance of records; submittal of information; right
of entry.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(6) EPA may void ab initio a certificate for a vehicle certified to
Tier 1 certification standards or to the respective evaporative and/or
refueling test procedure and accompanying evaporative and/or refueling
standards as set forth or otherwise referenced in Sec. 86.098-10 for
which the manufacturer fails to retain the records required in this
section or to provide such information to the Administrator upon
request.
* * * * *
Sec. 86.094-13 [Removed]
0
75. Remove Sec. 86.094-13.
Sec. 86.094-14 [Amended]
0
76. Section 86.094-14 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs
(c)(5) and (c)(7)(i)(A)(1).
Sec. 86.094-16 [Removed]
0
77. Remove Sec. 86.094-16.
Sec. 86.094-21 [Amended]
0
78. Section 86.094-21 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C) and
by removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(4)(i), (b)(5)(iii)(B), (b)(8),
(d), and (g).
Sec. 86.094-25 [Amended]
0
79. Section 86.094-25 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a), (b)(3)(i)(A), and
(b)(3)(ii).
0
b. By removing paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) through (b)(3)(vii).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(6), (d), and
(g).
Sec. Sec. 86.094-26 and 86.094-28 [Removed]
0
80. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.094-26 and 86.094-28.
Sec. 86.094-30 [Amended]
0
81. Section 86.094-30 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (a)(4), (a)(5), and
(a)(7).
0
b. By removing paragraphs (a)(9) through (a)(14).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and
(b)(4).
0
d. By removing and reserving paragraph (d).
Sec. Sec. 86.095-23, 86.095-26, and 86.095-30 [Removed]
0
82. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.095-23, 86.095-26, and 86.095-30.
0
83. Section 86.095-35 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2).
0
b. By revising paragraph (a)(4) introductory text.
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (d), (e), and (f).
0
d. By revising paragraph (g) introductory text.
Sec. 86.095-35 Labeling.
(a) * * *
(1)-(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(4) Heavy-duty vehicles employing a fuel or fuels covered by
evaporative emission standards. This paragraph (a)(4) applies through
model year 2013. See 40 CFR part 1037 for provisions that apply in 2014
and later model years.
* * * * *
(d)-(f) [Reserved]
(g) Incomplete vehicle fuel tank capacity. This paragraph (g)
applies
[[Page 30052]]
through model year 2013. See 40 CFR part 1037 for provisions that apply
in 2014 and later model years.
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 86.096-7, 86.096-8, and 86.096-21 [Removed]
0
84. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.096-7, 86.096-8, and 86.096-21.
Sec. 86.096-24 [Amended]
0
85. Section 86.096-24 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(8) through (a)(11)
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(14)(ii), (a)(14)(iii), and
(a)(14)(vii).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1), (c)(2), and
(d).
0
d. By removing paragraphs (g) and (h).
Sec. Sec. 86.096-26, 86.096-30, 86.096-35, 86.096-38, and 86.097-
9 [Removed]
0
86. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.096-26, 86.096-30, 86.096-35, 86.096-38, and
86.097-9.
Sec. 86.098-23 [Amended]
0
87. Section 86.098-23 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs
(b)(1)(i), (e)(2), and (e)(3).
Sec. Sec. 86.098-24, 86.098-25, 86.098-26, 86.098-28, 86.098-30,
86.098-35, 86.099-8, 86.099-9, and 86.099-17 [Removed]
0
88. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.098-24, 86.098-25, 86.098-26, 86.098-28,
86.098-30, 86.098-35, 86.099-8, 86.099-9, and 86.099-17.
Subpart B--[Amended]
0
89. Section 86.101 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 86.101 General applicability.
(a) General provisions. This subpart describes test procedures for
measuring exhaust, evaporative, and refueling emissions from motor
vehicles subject to emission standards under subpart S of this part.
This generally includes light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and
complete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. The
following provisions apply for all testing under this subpart:
(1) Provisions of this subpart apply to tests performed by both the
Administrator and manufacturers.
(2) References in this subpart to engine families and emission
control systems are deemed to apply to durability groups and test
groups as applicable.
(3) Except as noted, heavy-duty vehicles are subject to all the
same provisions of this subpart that apply to light-duty trucks.
(4) The procedures in this subpart apply for testing vehicles
powered by any fuel, except as specified in subpart S of this part.
(5) All emission control systems designed for production vehicles
must be functioning during testing. Maintenance to correct component
malfunction or failure must be authorized in accordance with Sec.
86.1834.
(6) Evaporative emission measurement procedures of this subpart
include specifications for testing methanol-fueled vehicles. For
vehicles fueled with other oxygenated fuels, use good engineering
judgment to apply these procedures. For example, if you are testing an
ethanol-fueled vehicle, calibrate your evaporative emission enclosure
with ethanol and propane.
(b) Migration to 40 CFR part 1066. This subpart transitions to rely
on the test procedure specifications in 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066 as
follows:
(1) Through model year 2021, manufacturers may use the test
procedures specified in paragraph (c) or (d) of this section. For any
EPA testing before model year 2022, EPA will use the manufacturer's
selected procedures for determining road load parameters and applying
cycle-verification criteria. For any other parameters, EPA may conduct
testing using either of the specified procedures. As allowed under this
part, manufacturers may use carryover data from previous model years to
demonstrate compliance with emission standards, without regard to the
provisions of this section.
(2) Manufacturers must use the following procedures before model
year 2022:
(i) For vehicles certified to any of the Tier 3 emission standards
specified in subpart S of this part, verify overall driver accuracy
based on driven cycle energy and report information as described in 40
CFR 1066.430(j).
(ii) The equipment specifications and measurement procedures
related to PM emissions from 40 CFR part 1066 apply for any vehicles
certified to the Tier 3 PM emission standards specified in subpart S of
this part.
(3) For model years 2022 and later, manufacturers must use the test
procedures specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(c) Interim procedures. Test vehicles as described in this subpart
for the appropriate model year, through model year 2021, as follows:
(1) Sections 86.106 through 86.115 set forth general testing
specifications and equipment requirements. Sections 86.116 through
86.126 discuss calibration methods and frequency. Sections 86.127
through 86.145 describe procedures for measuring exhaust and
evaporative emissions. Sections 86.146 through 86.157 lay out refueling
test procedures. Sections 86.158 through 86.166 cover procedures
related to the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure and testing related
to air conditioning systems. The test procedure for measuring fuel
system leaks is described in 40 CFR 1066.840.
(2) Alternate equipment, procedures, and calculation methods may be
used if shown to yield equivalent or superior results, and if approved
in advance by the Administrator.
(d) Long-term procedures. Test vehicles as described in this
subpart and in 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066 as follows:
(1) Use fuel for testing and service accumulation as specified in
Sec. 86.113.
(2) For exhaust emission testing, measure emissions for all
pollutants with an applicable emission standard. Calculate emission
results as described in 40 CFR part 1066, subpart G.
(3) The test sequence for the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) includes
steps to precondition vehicles for evaporative emission measurements;
these steps are required for exhaust testing whether or not testing
includes evaporative emission measurements.
(4) Perform evaporative emission tests as follows:
(i) Use evaporative testing equipment meeting the specifications in
Sec. 86.107. This equipment must meet calibration requirements as
specified in Sec. 86.117.
(ii) Generate fuel test temperature profiles as described in Sec.
86.129-94(d).
(iii) Follow the general provisions and driving schedules described
in 40 CFR part 1066, subpart I. Evaporative testing consists of vehicle
preconditioning as described in Sec. 86.132, diurnal measurement as
described in Sec. 86.133, running loss testing as described in Sec.
86.134, and hot soak testing as described in Sec. 86.138.
(iv) Calculate emission results as described in Sec. 86.143.
(v) Test fuel systems for leaks as described in 40 CFR 1066.840.
(5) Keep records as described in Sec. 86.142.
(6) Perform refueling emission tests, calculate emission results,
and keep associated records as described in Sec. 86.146 through
86.157.
0
90. Section 86.102 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 86.102 Definitions.
The definitions in Sec. 86.1803 apply to this subpart.
0
91. Section 86.106-96 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read
as follows:
[[Page 30053]]
Sec. 86.106-96 Equipment required; overview.
(a) * * *
(3) Fuel, analytical gas, and driving schedule specifications. Fuel
specifications for exhaust and evaporative emission testing and for
mileage accumulation for petroleum-fueled and methanol-fueled vehicles
are specified in Sec. 86.113. Analytical gases are specified in Sec.
86.114. The Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS), US06, and SC03
driving schedules, for use in exhaust emission tests, and the New York
City Cycle (NYCC), for use with the UDDS in running loss tests, are
specified in Sec. Sec. 86.115, 86.130, 86.159, 86.160, and appendix I
to this part.
* * * * *
Sec. 86.106-00 [Removed]
0
92. Section 86.106-00 is removed.
Sec. 86.107-96 [Amended]
0
93. Section 86.107-96 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(e).
Sec. Sec. 86.108-79, 86.110-90 [Removed]
0
94. Sections 86.108-79 and 86.110-90 are removed.
0
95. Section 86.110-94 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.110-94 Exhaust gas sampling system; diesel-cycle vehicles,
and Otto-cycle vehicles requiring particulate emissions measurements.
* * * * *
(d) Filters, particulate sampling. Use fluorocarbon-coated glass
fiber filters or fluorocarbon-based (membrane) filters to collect
particulate matter, as follows:
(1) Use primary and back-up test filters as follows for particulate
measurements:
(i) During each phase of the UDDS, sample dilute exhaust
simultaneously with paired primary and back-up test filters.
(ii) Position the back-up filter holder 3 to 4 inches downstream of
the primary filter holder.
(iii) Determine the net weight of particulate material collected on
each primary test filter and each back-up test filter using the
procedure described in Sec. 86.139.
(iv) Determine a ratio of net weights using the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.140
(v) If the ratio is greater than 0.95, base the particulate
emission calculations on the net weight of the primary filter only.
(vi) If the ratio is less than 0.95, base the particulate emission
calculations on the combined net weights of the back-up test filter and
the primary test filter.
(2) The particulate filter must have a 47 mm diameter (37 mm stain
area).
Sec. Sec. 86.111-90 and 86.115-00 [Removed]
0
96. Sections 86.111-90 and 86.115-00 are removed.
0
97. Section 86.113-04 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and
(a)(3)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.113-04 Fuel specifications.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) Manufacturers may use California test fuels, as follows:
(i) For model year 2014 and earlier vehicles certified for 50-state
sale, manufacturers may perform exhaust emission tests using California
Phase 2 gasoline as specified in Chapter 4 of the California Regulatory
Requirements Applicable to the National Low Emission Vehicle Program,
October 1996 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 86.1). However, the
Administrator may use or require the use of test fuel meeting the
specifications in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for certification
confirmatory testing, selective enforcement auditing and in-use
testing.
(ii) For model year 2015 and later, manufacturers may certify 50-
state vehicles based on testing used to meet California's LEV III
standards, including the use of California Phase 3 gasoline (E10),
subject to the following provisions:
(A) The Administrator will also use this E10 fuel for any testing
to confirm that vehicles meet the LEV III standards. Note that all
evaporative testing with the E10 fuel must be conducted with
temperatures meeting the specifications adopted by the California Air
Resources Board.
(B) The manufacturer must also use this E10 fuel for fuel economy
measurements, with any appropriate corrections related to ethanol
content in the fuel.
(C) The vehicles must also meet standards at high-altitude
conditions. The high-altitude standards for a given vehicle are the LEV
III standards that apply for low-altitude testing, except that testing
is based on the fuel specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
Note that heavy-duty vehicles certified under this paragraph
(a)(2)(ii)(C) are not subject to SFTP standards at high-altitude
conditions. Manufacturers may alternatively use the E15 test fuel
specified in Sec. 86.113-07 for high-altitude testing.
(D) The vehicle must meet the applicable cold-temperature standards
using the fuel specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(E) Such vehicles are considered to be Tier 2 vehicles for EPA
certification; however, manufacturers must exclude them from the fleet-
average NOX calculation in subpart S of this part.
(3) * * *
(i) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, unleaded
gasoline representative of commercial gasoline that will be generally
available through retail outlets must be used in service accumulation.
Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, where the vehicle is to
be used for evaporative emission durability demonstration, such fuel
must contain ethanol as required by Sec. 86.1824-08(f)(1) . Leaded
gasoline must not be used in service accumulation.
* * * * *
0
98. Section 86.113-07 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.113-07 Fuel specifications.
Section 86.113-07 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.113-94. Where a paragraph in Sec. 86.113-94 is
identical and applicable to Sec. 86.113-07, this may be indicated by
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved].
For guidance see Sec. 86.113-94.''
(a) Gasoline fuel. This paragraph (a) describes how to transition
to an ethanol-blend test fuel for vehicles certified under subpart S of
this part. You may use the test fuels specified in Sec. 86.113-04(a)
for vehicles that are not yet subject to testing with the new fuel. You
may use the specified ethanol-blend test fuel anytime earlier than we
specify. Manufacturers must certify using service accumulation fuel and
E15 test fuel as specified in 40 CFR 1065, subpart H, on the following
schedule:
(1) Use the E15 test fuel to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3
evaporative emission standards as specified in Sec. 86.1813. Use the
E15 test
[[Page 30054]]
fuel to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 exhaust emission
standards as specified in Sec. 86.1811 and 86.1816. Where testing with
E15 test fuel is required, this applies for all testing for
demonstrating compliance with exhaust emission standards and fuel
economy requirements. For vehicles certified for 50-state sale through
model year 2019, you may instead use California Phase 3 gasoline (E10)
as adopted in California's LEV III program for exhaust and evaporative
emission testing at low-altitude conditions; the Administrator will
also use this E10 fuel for any low-altitude testing with such vehicles.
In the case of evaporative emission tests with California Phase 3
gasoline, perform tests based on the temperatures specified by the
California Air Resources Board.
(2) Use the E15 test fuel to demonstrate compliance with the
evaporative emission standards specified in Sec. 86.1811-10 starting
in model year 2020. You may not certify these vehicles using carryover
data based on measurements with E0 test fuel.
(3) Use the E15 test fuel to demonstrate compliance with the
refueling emission standards for any vehicles that must be certified to
meet the diurnal plus hot soak standards with E15 test fuel under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(4) For any vehicles that require testing to demonstrate compliance
with the refueling spitback standard, use the E15 test fuel starting in
model year 2022.
(5) If a vehicle uses E15 test fuel for evaporative emission
testing and E0 or E10 is the applicable test fuel for exhaust emission
testing, or vice versa, exhaust measurement and reporting requirements
apply over the course of the evaporative emission test, but the vehicle
need not meet the exhaust emission standards during the evaporative
emission test run.
(6) Use service accumulation fuel as described in 40 CFR part 1065,
subpart H, with the additional provisions specified in Sec. 86.113-
04(a)(3).
* * * * *
Sec. 86.113-94 [Amended]
0
99. Section 86.113-94 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(a).
0
100. Section 86.115-78 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a) and (b) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 86.115-78 EPA dynamometer driving schedules.
(a) The driving schedules for the Urban Dynamometer Driving
Schedule, US06, SC03, and the New York City Cycles are specified in
appendix I of this part. The driving schedules are defined by a smooth
trace drawn through the specified speed vs. time relationships. They
each consist of a distinct non-repetitive series of idle, acceleration,
cruise, and deceleration modes of various time sequences and rates.
(b) The driver should attempt to follow the target schedule as
closely as possible (refer to Sec. 86.128 for additional cycle driving
instructions). The speed tolerance at any given time for these
schedules, or for a driver's aid chart approved by the Administrator,
are as follows:
* * * * *
0
101. Section 86.117-96 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (c)(1)(vii) and (c)(1)(ix) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.117-96 Evaporative emission enclosure calibrations.
The calibration of evaporative emission enclosures consists of
three parts: initial and periodic determination of enclosure background
emissions (hydrocarbons and methanol); initial determination of
enclosure internal volume; and periodic hydrocarbon and methanol
retention check and calibration. Ethanol retention checks may be
performed instead of methanol retention checks. Alcohol retentions may
be omitted if no alcohol-fueled vehicles will be tested in the
evaporative enclosure. Alternate calibration methods may be used if
shown to yield equivalent or superior results, and if approved in
advance by the Administrator; specifically, more extreme temperatures
may be used for determining calibration without affecting the validity
of test results.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) Inject into the enclosure 0.5 to 1.0 grams of pure methanol
at a recommended temperature of at least 150[emsp14][deg]F (65 [deg]C)
and/or 0.5 to 1.0 grams of pure propane at lab ambient temperature. The
injected quantity may be measured by volume flow or by mass
measurement. The method used to measure the quantity of methanol and
propane must have an accuracy of 0.5 percent of the
measured value (less accurate methods may be used with the advance
approval of the Administrator).
* * * * *
(ix) To verify the enclosure calibration, calculate the mass of
propane and the mass of methanol using the measurements taken in
paragraphs (c)(1)(vi) and (viii) of this section. See paragraph (d) of
this section. This quantity must be within 5 percent of
that measured in paragraph (c)(1)(vii) of this section. Evaluate long-
term trends using good engineering judgment to minimize measurement
bias. Keep records to document such evaluations and make them available
to EPA upon request.
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 86.118-78, 86.127-96, and 86.128-00 [Removed]
0
102. Sections 86.118-78, 86.127-96, and 86.128-00 are removed.
0
103. Section 86.128-79 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.128-79 Transmissions.
* * * * *
(d) The vehicle shall be driven with appropriate accelerator pedal
movement necessary to achieve the speed versus time relationship
prescribed by the driving schedule. Both smoothing of speed variations
and excessive accelerator pedal perturbations are to be avoided.
* * * * *
Sec. 86.129-80 [Amended]
0
104. Section 86.129-80 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(a).
Sec. 86.130-00 [Removed]
0
105. Section 86.130-00 is removed.
0
106. Section 86.130-96 is amended by adding introductory text, revising
paragraph (e), and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.130-96 Test sequence; general requirements.
Paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section are applicable to
vehicles tested for the FTP test. Paragraph (e) of this section is
applicable to vehicles tested for the SFTP supplemental tests of air
conditioning (SC03) and aggressive driving (US06). Paragraph (f) of
this section is applicable to all emission testing.
* * * * *
(e) The supplemental tests for exhaust emissions related to
aggressive driving (US06) and air conditioning (SC03) use are conducted
as stand-alone tests as described in Sec. Sec. 86.158 through 86.160.
These tests may be performed in any sequence that maintains the
appropriate preconditioning requirements as specified in Sec. 86.132.
(f) If tests are invalidated after collection of emission data from
previous test segments, the test may be repeated to collect only those
data points needed to complete emission
[[Page 30055]]
measurements. Compliance with emission standards may be determined by
combining emission measurements from different test runs. If any
emission measurements are repeated, the new measurements supersede
previous values.
Sec. 86.131-00 [Removed]
0
107. Section 86.131-00 is removed.
0
108. Section 86.131-96 is amended by adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.131-96 Vehicle preparation.
* * * * *
(f) For vehicles to be tested for aggressive driving emissions
(US06), provide a throttle position sensing signal that is compatible
with the test dynamometer. This signal provides the input information
that controls dynamometer dynamic inertia weight adjustments (see
Sec. Sec. 86.108-00(b)(2)(ii) and 86.129-00(f)(2)). If a manufacturer
chooses not to implement dynamic inertia adjustments for a portion or
all of their product line, this requirement is not applicable.
(g) You may disable any AECDs that have been approved solely for
emergency vehicle applications under paragraph (4) of the definition of
defeat device in Sec. 86.1803. The emission standards do not apply
when any of these AECDs are active.
Sec. 86.132-96 [Amended]
0
109. Section 86.132-96 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(k).
0
110. Section 86.133-96 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.133-96 Diurnal emission test.
(a) * * *
(4) Manufacturers may use a pressurized fuel system if they
demonstrate that fuel vapor would not be vented to the atmosphere if
there is a leak in the fuel system or if the fuel cap is removed.
Without this demonstration, tank pressure must not exceed 10 inches of
water during the diurnal emission test.
* * * * *
0
111. Section 86.134-96 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(1)(xvi) and
adding paragraph (g)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.134-96 Running loss test.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(xvi) Manufacturers may use a pressurized fuel system if they
demonstrate that fuel vapor would not be vented to the atmosphere if
there is a leak in the fuel system or if the fuel cap is removed.
Without this demonstration, tank pressure must not exceed 10 inches of
water during the running loss test, except that temporary exceedances
are allowed for vehicles whose tank pressure remained below 10 inches
of water during the entire outdoor driving period specified in Sec.
86.129. These temporary pressure exceedances may not occur for more
than 10 percent of the total driving time.
* * * * *
(4) High-altitude testing. For testing under high-altitude
conditions, decrease the target ambient and fuel temperatures by
5[emsp14][deg]F. For example, the fuel temperature profile should be
adjusted downward based on a nominal starting temperature of
90[emsp14][deg]F, and the nominal temperature in the enclosure should
be 90[emsp14][deg]F.
* * * * *
Sec. 86.135-00 [Removed]
0
112. Section 86.135-00 is removed.
0
113. Section 86.135-90 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.135-90 Dynamometer procedure.
(a) The dynamometer run consists of two tests--a ``cold'' start
test, after a minimum 12-hour and a maximum 36-hour soak according to
the provisions of Sec. Sec. 86.132 and 86.133, and a ``hot'' start
test following the ``cold'' start by 10 minutes. Engine startup (with
all accessories turned off), operation over the UDDS and engine
shutdown make a complete cold start test. Engine startup and operation
over the first 505 seconds of the driving schedule complete the hot
start test. The exhaust emissions are diluted with ambient air in the
dilution tunnel as shown in Figure B94-5 and Figure B94-6. A dilution
tunnel is not required for testing vehicles waived from the requirement
to measure particulate matter. Six particulate samples are collected on
filters for weighing; the first sample plus backup is collected during
the first 505 seconds of the cold start test; the second sample plus
backup is collected during the remainder of the cold start test
(including shutdown); the third sample plus backup is collected during
the hot start test. Continuous or batch proportional samples of gaseous
emissions are collected for analysis during each test phase. Use the
following measurement procedures for each type of engine:
(1) For gasoline-fueled, natural gas-fueled and liquefied petroleum
gas-fueled Otto-cycle vehicles, the composite samples collected in bags
are analyzed for THC, CO, CO2, CH4, and
NOX.
(2) For petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle vehicles (optional for
natural gas-fueled, liquefied petroleum gas-fueled and methanol-fueled
diesel-cycle vehicles), THC is sampled and analyzed continuously
according to the provisions of Sec. 86.110. Parallel samples of the
dilution air are similarly analyzed for THC, CO, CO2,
CH4, and NOX.
(3) For natural gas-fueled, liquefied petroleum gas-fueled and
methanol-fueled vehicles, bag samples are collected and analyzed for
THC (if not sampled continuously), CO, CO2, CH4,
and NOX.
(4) For methanol-fueled vehicles, methanol and formaldehyde samples
are taken for both exhaust emissions and dilution air (a single
dilution air formaldehyde sample, covering the total test period may be
collected). Parallel bag samples of dilution air are analyzed for THC,
CO, CO2, CH4, and NOX.
* * * * *
(d) Practice runs over the prescribed driving schedule may be
performed at test point, provided an emission sample is not taken, for
the purpose of finding the appropriate throttle action to maintain the
proper speed-time relationship, or to permit sampling system
adjustment. Both smoothing of speed variations and excessive
accelerator pedal perturbations are to be avoided. When using two-roll
dynamometers a truer speed-time trace may be obtained by minimizing the
rocking of the vehicle in the rolls; the rocking of the vehicle changes
the tire rolling radius on each roll. This rocking may be minimized by
restraining the vehicle horizontally (or nearly so) by using a cable
and winch.
* * * * *
Sec. 86.135-94 and 86.137-90 [Removed]
0
114. Sections 86.135-94 and 86.137-90 are removed.
0
115. Section 86.137-94 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(16)
through (b)(24) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.137-94 Dynamometer test run, gaseous and particulate
emissions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(16) Immediately after the end of the sample period, turn off the
cooling fan and close the engine compartment cover.
(17) Turn off the CVS or disconnect the exhaust tube from the
tailpipe(s) of the vehicle.
(18) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(12) of this
section for the hot start test, except only two evacuated sample bags,
two methanol
[[Page 30056]]
sample impingers, two formaldehyde sample impingers, and one pair of
particulate sample filters, as appropriate, are required. The step in
paragraph (b)(9) of this section shall begin between 9 and 11 minutes
after the end of the sample period for the cold start test.
(19) At the end of the deceleration scheduled to occur at 505
seconds, simultaneously turn off gas flow measuring device No. 1 (and
the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon integrator No. 1; mark the
petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon recorder chart and turn off the No.
1 particulate sample pump, if applicable) and position the sample
selector valve to the ``standby'' position. (Engine shutdown is not
part of the hot start test sample period.) Record the measured roll or
shaft revolutions (and the No. 1 gas meter reading or flow measurement
instrument). Carefully remove the third pair of particulate sample
filters from the holder and place in a clean petri dish and cover, if
applicable.
(20) As soon as possible, transfer the hot start ``transient''
exhaust and dilution air samples to the analytical system and process
the samples according to Sec. 86.140, obtaining a stabilized reading
of the exhaust bag sample on all analyzers within 20 minutes of the end
of the sample collection phase of the test. Obtain methanol and
formaldehyde sample analyses, if applicable, within 24 hours of the end
of the sample period. If it is not possible to perform analysis on the
methanol and formaldehyde samples within 24 hours, the samples should
be stored in a dark, cold (4-10 [deg]C) environment until analysis.
Analyze the samples within fourteen days.
(21) As soon as possible, and in no case longer than one hour after
the end of the hot start phase of the test, transfer the six
particulate filters to the weighing chamber for post-test conditioning,
if applicable.
(22) Disconnect the exhaust tube from the vehicle tailpipe(s) and
drive the vehicle from dynamometer.
(23) The CVS or CFV may be turned off, if desired.
(24) Vehicles to be tested for evaporative emissions proceed
according to Sec. 86.134; vehicles to be tested with the supplemental
two-diurnal test sequence for evaporative emissions proceed according
to Sec. 86.138-96(k). For all others, this completes the test
sequence.
Sec. 86.137-96 [Removed]
0
116. Section 86.137-96 is removed.
0
117. Section 86.142-90 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.142-90 Records required.
* * * * *
(d) Test results. Also include a comparison of drive cycle energy
and target cycle energy relative to both inertia and road load forces
as specified in 40 CFR 1066.430 for each drive cycle or test phase, as
appropriate.
* * * * *
0
118. Section 86.143-96 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.143-96 Calculations; evaporative emissions.
* * * * *
(c) If the test fuel contains at least 25% oxygenated compounds by
volume, use the following equation to calculate a hydrocarbon
equivalent mass for comparing to the standard:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.007
Where:
MTHCE = the C1-equivalent sum of the
concentration of carbon mass contributions of non-oxygenated
hydrocarbons, alcohols, and aldehydes.
mHC = the mass contribution from nonoxygenated
hydrocarbons.
ni = the number of carbon atoms in the molecular
representation of the oxygenated emission component i. For example,
for methanol (CH3OH), n = 1 and for ethanol
(C2H5OH), n = 2.
MWi = the molecular weight of the oxygenated emission
component i, as described in 40 CFR 1065.1005.
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 86.162-00 and 86.167-17 [Removed]
0
119. Sections 86.162-00 and 86.167-17 are removed.
0
120 . Subpart C is revised to consist of Sec. Sec. 86.201 and 86.213
to read as follows:
Subpart C--Emission Regulations for 1994 and Later Model Year Gasoline-
Fueled New Light-Duty Vehicles, New Light-Duty Trucks and New Medium-
Duty Passenger Vehicles; Cold Temperature Test Procedures
Sec.
86.201 General applicability.
86.213 Fuel specifications.
Subpart C--Emission Regulations for 1994 and Later Model Year
Gasoline-Fueled New Light-Duty Vehicles, New Light-Duty Trucks and
New Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles; Cold Temperature Test
Procedures
Sec. 86.201 General applicability.
(a) Vehicles are subject to cold-testing requirements as described
in subpart S of this part and 40 CFR part 600. Perform testing to
measure CO and NMHC emissions and determine fuel economy as described
in 40 CFR part 1066; see especially 40 CFR 1066.710.
(b) Manufacturers may certify vehicles using carryover data based
on previously published cold-testing procedures. In addition, we may
approve the use of previously published cold-testing procedures as an
alternative procedure under 40 CFR 1066.10(c).
(c) Section 86.213 describes special provisions related to test
fuel specifications.
Sec. 86.213 Fuel specifications.
(a) Gasoline. Use a gasoline test fuel with ethanol (low-level
blend only) or without ethanol as follows:
(1) You must certify using service accumulation fuel and E15 test
fuel as specified in Sec. 86.113 for any vehicles required to use an
ethanol-blend test fuel for measuring exhaust emissions. You may use
this test fuel any time earlier than we specify.
(2) You may use the test fuel specified in this paragraph (a)(2)
for vehicles that are not yet subject to exhaust testing with an
ethanol-blend test fuel under Sec. 86.113. Manufacturers may certify
based on this fuel using carryover data until testing with the ethanol-
blend test fuel is required. The following specifications apply for
gasoline test fuel without ethanol:
Table 1 of Sec. 86.213-Cold Temperature Test Fuel Specifications for Gasoline Without Ethanol
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Regular Premium \1\ Reference procedure \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(RON+MON)/2 \3\...................... 87.80.3.... 92.30.5.... ASTM D2699.
Sensitivity\3\....................... 7.5.................... 7.5....................
Distillation Range ([deg]F).......... ....................... ....................... ASTM D86
Evaporated initial boiling point. 76-96.................. 76-96..................
10% evaporated................... 98-118................. 105-125................
[[Page 30057]]
50% evaporated................... 179-214................ 195-225................
90% evaporated................... 316-346................ 316-346................
Evaporated final boiling point... 413 Maximum............ 413 Maximum............
Hydrocarbon composition (vol %)...... ....................... ....................... ASTM D1319.
Olefins.......................... 12.50.5.... 10.50.5....
Aromatics........................ 26.44.0.... 32.04.0....
Saturates........................ Remainder.............. Remainder..............
Lead, g/gallon....................... 0.01, Maximum.......... 0.01, Maximum.......... ASTM D3237.
Phosphorous, g/gallon................ 0.005 Maximum.......... 0.005 Maximum.......... ASTM D3231.
Total sulfur, wt. %.................. 0.0015-0.008........... 0.0015-0.008 \4\....... ASTM D3120.
RVP, psi............................. 11.50.3.... 11.50.3.... ASTM D4953.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The premium fuel specifications apply for vehicles designed to use high-octane premium fuel.
\2\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec. 86.1.
\3\ Octane specifications are optional for manufacturer testing.
\4\ Sulfur concentration will not exceed 0.0045 weight percent for EPA testing.
(3) Manufacturers may use the E0 gasoline test fuel specified in
Sec. 86.113 for certification instead of the fuel specified in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, as long as the change in test fuel
does not cause cold NMHC, CO, or CO2 emissions to decrease;
manufacturers must keep records documenting these emission effects and
make them available to EPA upon request.
(4) We may approve alternate fuel specifications that are
substantially equivalent to those in paragraph (a)(2) of this section
for a manufacturer's testing.
(b) Diesel fuel. Diesel fuel for testing under this subpart must
meet the specifications for low-temperature test fuel in 40 CFR
1065.703.
Subpart D--[Removed and reserved]
0
121. Subpart D, consisting of Sec. Sec. 86.301-79 through 86.348-79,
is removed and resereved.
Subpart F--[Amended]
Sec. 86.505-78--[Removed]
0
122. Remove Sec. 86.505-78.
Sec. 86.513-94--[Amended]
0
123. Section 86.513-94 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(a) and by removing and reserving paragraphs (e) and (f).
0
124. Section 86.515-78 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.515-78 EPA urban dynamometer driving schedule.
(a) The dynamometer driving schedules are listed in appendix I. The
driving schedules are defined by a smooth trace drawn through the
specified speed vs. time relationships. They consist of a nonrepetitive
series of idle, acceleration, cruise, and deceleration modes of various
time sequences and rates. Appropriate driving schedules are as follows:
(1) Class I--Appendix I(b).
(2) Class II--Appendix I(a)(2).
(3) Class III--Appendix I(a)(2).
* * * * *
(d) For motorcycles with an engine displacement less than 50 cc and
a top speed less than 58.7 km/hr (36.5 mph), the speed indicated for
each second of operation on the applicable Class I driving trace (speed
versus time sequence) specified in appendix I(b) shall be adjusted
downward by the ratio of actual top speed to specified maximum test
speed. Calculate the ratio with three significant figures by dividing
the top speed of the motorcycle in km/hr by 58.7. For example, for a
motorcycle with a top speed of 48.3 km/hr (30 mph), the ratio would be
48.3/58.7 = 0.823. The top speed to be used under this section shall be
indicated in the manufacturer's application for certification, and
shall be the highest sustainable speed of the motorcycle with an 80 kg
rider on a flat paved surface. If the motorcycle is equipped with a
permanent speed governor that is unlikely to be removed in actual use,
measure the top speed in the governed configuration; otherwise measure
the top speed in the ungoverned configuration.
Subpart G--[Amended]
0
125. Section 86.608-98 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.608-98 Test procedures.
(a) The prescribed test procedures are the Federal Test Procedure,
as described in subpart B of this part, and the cold temperature CO
test procedure as described in subpart C of this part. For purposes of
Selective Enforcement Audit testing, the manufacturer shall not be
required to perform any of the test procedures in subpart B of this
part relating to evaporative emission testing, other than refueling
emissions testing, except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
(1) The Administrator may omit any of the testing procedures
described in paragraph (a) of this section. Further, the Administrator
may, on the basis of a written application by a manufacturer, approve
optional test procedures other than those in subparts B and C of this
part for any motor vehicle which is not susceptible to satisfactory
testing using the procedures in subparts B and C of this part.
(2) The following exceptions to the test procedures in subpart B of
this part are applicable to Selective Enforcement Audit testing:
(i) For mileage accumulation, the manufacturer may use test fuel
meeting the specifications for mileage and service accumulation fuels
of Sec. 86.113. Otherwise, the manufacturer may use fuels other than
those specified in this section only with the advance approval of the
Administrator.
(ii) The manufacturer may measure the temperature of the test fuel
at other than the approximate mid-volume of the fuel tank, as specified
in Sec. 86.131-96(a) with only a single temperature sensor, and may
drain the test fuel from other than the lowest point of the tank, as
[[Page 30058]]
specified in Sec. Sec. 86.131-96(b) and 86.152-98(a), provided an
equivalent method is used. Equivalency documentation shall be
maintained by the manufacturers and shall be made available to the
Administrator upon request. Additionally, for any test vehicle that has
remained under laboratory ambient temperature conditions for at least 6
hours prior to testing, the vehicle soak described in Sec. 86.132-
96(c) may be eliminated upon approval of the Administrator. In such
cases, the vehicle shall be operated through the preconditioning drive
described in Sec. 86.132-96(c) immediately following the fuel drain
and fill procedure described in Sec. 86.132-96(b).
(iii) The manufacturer may perform additional preconditioning on
Selective Enforcement Audit test vehicles other than the
preconditioning specified in Sec. 86.132 only if the additional
preconditioning was performed on certification test vehicles of the
same configuration.
(iv) [Reserved]
(v) The manufacturer may substitute slave tires for the drive wheel
tires on the vehicle as specified in Sec. 86.135-90(e): Provided, that
the slave tires are the same size.
(vi) [Reserved]
(vii) In performing exhaust sample analysis under Sec. 86.140-94.
(A) When testing diesel vehicles, or methanol-fueled Otto-cycle
vehicles, the manufacturer shall allow a minimum of 20 minutes warm-up
for the HC analyzer, and for diesel vehicles, a minimum of two hours
warm-up for the CO, CO2. and NOx analyzers. (Power is normally left on
infrared and chemiluminescent analyzers. When not in use, the chopper
motors of the infrared analyzers are turned off and the phototube high
voltage supply to the chemiluminescent analyzers is placed in the
standby position.)
(B) The manufacturer shall exercise care to prevent moisture from
condensing in the sample collection bags.
(viii) The manufacturer need not comply with Sec. 86.142 or Sec.
86.155, since the records required therein are provided under other
provisions of this subpart G.
(ix) If a manufacturer elects to perform the background
determination procedure described in paragraph (a)(2)(xi) of this
section in addition to performing the refueling emissions test
procedure, the elapsed time between the initial and final FID readings
shall be recorded, rounded to the nearest second rather than minute as
described in Sec. 86.154-98(e)(8). In addition, the vehicle soak
described in Sec. 86.153-98(e) shall be conducted with the windows and
luggage compartment of the vehicle open.
(x) The Administrator may elect to perform a seal test, described
in Sec. 86.153-98(b), of both integrated and non-integrated systems
instead of the full refueling test. When testing non-integrated
systems, a manufacturer may conduct the canister purge described in
Sec. 86.153-98(b)(1) directly following the preconditioning drive
described in Sec. 86.132-96(e) or directly following the exhaust
emissions test described in Sec. 86.137-96.
(xi) In addition to the refueling test, a manufacturer may elect to
perform the following background emissions determination immediately
prior to the refueling measurement procedure described in Sec. 86.154,
provided EPA is notified of this decision prior to the start of testing
in an SEA.
(A) The SHED shall be purged for several minutes immediately prior
to the background determination. Warning: If at any time the
concentration of hydrocarbons, of methanol, or of methanol and
hydrocarbons exceeds 15,000 ppm C, the enclosure should be immediately
purged. This concentration provides a 4:1 safety factor against the
lean flammability limit.
(B) The FID (or HFID) hydrocarbon analyzer shall be zeroed and
spanned immediately prior to the background determination. If not
already on, the enclosure mixing fan and the spilled fuel mixing blower
shall be turned on at this time.
(C) Place the vehicle in the SHED. The ambient temperature level
encountered by the test vehicle during the entire background emissions
determination shall be 80[emsp14][deg]F 3[emsp14][deg]F.
The windows and luggage compartment of the vehicle must be open and the
gas cap must be secured.
(D) Seal the SHED. Immediately analyze the ambient concentration of
hydrocarbons in the SHED and record. This is the initial background
hydrocarbon concentration.
(E) Soak the vehicle for ten minutes 1 minute.
(F) The FID (or HFID) hydrocarbon analyzer shall be zeroed and
spanned immediately prior to the end of the background determination.
(G) Analyze the ambient concentration of hydrocarbons in the SHED
and record. This is the final background hydrocarbon concentration.
(H) The total hydrocarbon mass emitted during the background
determination is calculated according to Sec. 86.156. To obtain a per-
minute background emission rate, divide the total hydrocarbon mass
calculated in this paragraph by the duration of the soak, rounded to
the nearest second, described in paragraph (a)(2)(xi)(G) of this
section.
(I) The background emission rate is multiplied by the duration of
the refueling measurement obtained in paragraph (a)(2)(ix) of this
section. This number is then subtracted from the total grams of
emissions calculated for the refueling test according to Sec. 86.156-
98(a) to obtain the adjusted value for total refueling emissions. The
final results for comparison with the refueling emission standard shall
be computed by dividing the adjusted value for total refueling mass
emissions by the total gallons of fuel dispensed in the refueling test
as described in Sec. 86.156-98(b).
(xii) In addition to the requirements of subpart B of this part,
the manufacturer shall prepare gasoline-fueled and methanol-fueled
vehicles as follows prior to emission testing:
(A) The manufacturer shall inspect the fuel system to ensure the
absence of any leaks of liquid or vapor to the atmosphere by applying a
pressure of 14.50.5 inches of water (3.60.1
kPa) to the fuel system, allowing the pressure to stabilize, and
isolating the fuel system from the pressure source. Following isolation
of the fuel system, pressure must not drop more than 2.0 inches of
water (0.5 kPa) in five minutes. If required, the manufacturer shall
perform corrective action in accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section and report this action in accordance with Sec. 86.609-98(d).
(B) When performing this pressure check, the manufacturer shall
exercise care to neither purge nor load the evaporative or refueling
emission control systems.
(C) The manufacturer may not modify the test vehicle's evaporative
or refueling emission control systems by component addition, deletion,
or substitution, except to comply with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this
section if approved in advance by the Administrator.
(3) The following exceptions to the test procedures in subpart C of
this part are applicable to Selective Enforcement Audit testing:
(i) The manufacturer may measure the temperature of the test fuel
at other than the approximate mid-volume of the fuel tank, as specified
in Sec. 86.107-96(e), and may drain the test fuel from other than the
lowest point of the fuel tank, provided an equivalent method is used.
Equivalency documentation shall be maintained by the manufacturer and
shall be made available to the Administrator upon request.
[[Page 30059]]
(ii) In performing exhaust sample analysis under Sec. 86.140, the
manufacturer shall exercise care to prevent moisture from condensing in
the sample collection bags.
(iii) The manufacturer need not comply with Sec. 86.142 since the
records required therein are provided under other provisions of this
subpart G.
(iv) In addition to the requirements of subpart C of this part, the
manufacturer shall prepare gasoline-fueled vehicles as follows prior to
exhaust emission testing:
(A) The manufacturer shall inspect the fuel system to ensure the
absence of any leaks of liquid or vapor to the atmosphere by applying a
pressure of 14.50.5 inches of water (3.60.1
kPa) to the fuel system allowing the pressure to stabilize and
isolating the fuel system from the pressure source. Following isolation
of the fuel system, pressure must not drop more than 2.0 inches of
water (0.5 kPa) in five minutes. If required, the manufacturer shall
perform corrective action in accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section and report this action in accordance with Sec. 86.609-98(d).
(B) When performing this pressure check, the manufacturer shall
exercise care to neither purge nor load the evaporative or refueling
emission control system.
(C) The manufacturer shall not modify the test vehicle's
evaporative or refueling emission control system by component addition,
deletion, or substitution, except if approved in advance by the
Administrator, to comply with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
0
126. Section 86.609-98 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.609-98 Calculation and reporting of test results.
(a) Initial test results are calculated following the test
procedures specified in Sec. 86.608-98(a). Round the initial test
results to the number of decimal places contained in the applicable
emission standard expressed to one additional significant figure.
(b) Final test results for each test vehicle are calculated by
summing the initial test results derived in paragraph (a) of this
section for each test vehicle, dividing by the number of times that
specific test has been conducted on the vehicle, and rounding to the
same number of decimal places contained in the applicable standard
expressed to one additional significant figure.
(c) Final deteriorated test results--(1) For each test vehicle. The
final deteriorated test results for each light-duty vehicle tested for
exhaust emissions and/or refueling emissions according to subpart B,
subpart C, or subpart R of this part are calculated by first
multiplying or adding, as appropriate, the final test results by or to
the appropriate deterioration factor derived from the certification
process for the engine or evaporative/refueling family and model year
to which the selected configuration belongs, and then by multiplying by
the appropriate reactivity adjustment factor, if applicable, and
rounding to the same number of decimal places contained in the
applicable emission standard. For the purpose of this paragraph (c), if
a multiplicative deterioration factor as computed during the
certification process is less than one, that deterioration factor is
one. If an additive deterioration factor as computed during the
certification process is less than zero, that deterioration factor will
be zero.
(2) Exceptions. There are no deterioration factors for light-duty
vehicle emissions obtained during spitback testing in accordance with
Sec. 86.146-96. Accordingly, for the fuel dispensing spitback test,
the term ``final deteriorated test results'' means the final test
results derived in paragraph (b) of this section for each test vehicle,
rounded to the same number of decimal places contained in the
applicable emission standard.
* * * * *
Sec. 86.610-98 [Amended]
0
127. Section 86.610-98 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(c)(2).
0
128. Section 86.612-97 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 86.612-97 Suspension and revocation of certificates of
conformity.
(a) The certificate of conformity is immediately suspended with
respect to any vehicle failing pursuant to Sec. 86.610-98 (b)
effective from the time that testing of that vehicle is completed.
(b) The Administrator may suspend the certificate of conformity for
a configuration that does not pass a selective enforcement audit
pursuant to Sec. 86.610-98(c) based on the first test, or all tests,
conducted on each vehicle. This suspension will not occur before ten
days after failure to pass the audit.
(c) If the results of vehicle testing pursuant to the requirements
of this subpart indicates the vehicles of a particular configuration
produced at more than one plant do not conform to the regulations with
respect to which the certificate of conformity was issued, the
Administrator may suspend the certificate of conformity with respect to
that configuration for vehicles manufactured by the manufacturer in
other plants of the manufacturer.
(d) The Administrator will notify the manufacturer in writing of
any suspension or revocation of a certificate of conformity in whole or
in part: Except, that the certificate of conformity is immediately
suspended with respect to any vehicle failing pursuant to Sec. 86.610-
98(b) and as provided for in paragraph (a) of this section.
(e) The Administrator may revoke a certificate of conformity for a
configuration when the certificate has been suspended pursuant to
paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the proposed remedy for the
nonconformity, as reported by the manufacturer to the Administrator, is
one requiring a design change(s) to the engine and/or emission control
system as described in the Application for Certification of the
affected configuration.
(f) Once a certificate has been suspended for a failed vehicle as
provided for in paragraph (a) of this section, the manufacturer must
take the following actions:
(1) Before the certificate is reinstated for that failed vehicle--
(i) Remedy the nonconformity; and
(ii) Demonstrate that the vehicle's final deteriorated test results
conform to the applicable emission standards or family particulate
emission limits, as defined in this part 86 by retesting the vehicle in
accordance with the requirements of this subpart.
(2) Submit a written report to the Administrator within thirty days
after successful completion of testing on the failed vehicle, which
contains a description of the remedy and test results for the vehicle
in addition to other information that may be required by this subpart.
(g) Once a certificate has been suspended pursuant to paragraph (b)
or (c) of this section, the manufacturer must take the following
actions before the Administrator will consider reinstating such
certificate:
(1) Submit a written report to the Administrator which identifies
the reason for the noncompliance of the vehicles, describes the
proposed remedy, including a description of any proposed quality
control and/or quality assurance measures to be taken by the
manufacturer to prevent the future occurrence of the problem, and
states the date on which the remedies will be implemented.
(2) Demonstrate that the engine family or configuration for which
the certificate of conformity has been suspended does in fact comply
with the requirements of
[[Page 30060]]
this subpart by testing vehicles selected from normal production runs
of that engine family or configuration at the plant(s) or the
facilities specified by the Administrator, in accordance with: the
conditions specified in the initial test order pursuant to Sec. 86.603
for a configuration suspended pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section.
(3) If the Administrator has not revoked the certificate pursuant
to paragraph (e) of this section and if the manufacturer elects to
continue testing individual vehicles after suspension of a certificate,
the certificate is reinstated for any vehicle actually determined to
have its final deteriorated test results in conformance with the
applicable standards through testing in accordance with the applicable
test procedures.
(h) Once a certificate for a failed engine family or configuration
has been revoked under paragraph (e) of this section and the
manufacturer desires to introduce into commerce a modified version of
that engine family or configuration, the following actions will be
taken before the Administrator may issue a certificate for the new
engine family or configuration:
(1) If the Administrator determines that the proposed change(s) in
vehicle design may have an effect on emission performance deterioration
and/or fuel economy, he/she shall notify the manufacturer within five
working days after receipt of the report in paragraph (g)(1) of this
section whether subsequent testing under this subpart will be
sufficient to evaluate the proposed change(s) or whether additional
testing will be required.
(2) After implementing the change(s) intended to remedy the
nonconformity, the manufacturer shall demonstrate, if the certificate
was revoked pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, that the
modified vehicle configuration does in fact conform with the
requirements of this subpart by testing vehicles selected from normal
production runs of that modified vehicle configuration in accordance
with the conditions specified in the initial test order pursuant to
Sec. 86.603. The Administrator shall consider this testing to satisfy
the testing requirements of Sec. 86.079-32 or Sec. 86.079-33 if the
Administrator had so notified the manufacturer. If the subsequent
testing results in a pass decision pursuant to the criteria in Sec.
86.610-98(c), the Administrator shall reissue or amend the certificate,
if necessary, to include that configuration: Provided, that the
manufacturer has satisfied the testing requirements specified in
paragraph (h)(1) of this section. If the subsequent audit results in a
fail decision pursuant to the criteria in Sec. 86.610-98(c), the
revocation remains in effect. Any design change approvals under this
subpart are limited to the modification of the configuration specified
by the test order.
(i) A manufacturer may at any time subsequent to an initial
suspension of a certificate of conformity with respect to a test
vehicle pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, but not later than
fifteen (15) days or such other period as may be allowed by the
Administrator after notification of the Administrator's decision to
suspend or revoke a certificate of conformity in whole or in part
pursuant to paragraph (b), (c) or (e) of this section, request that the
Administrator grant such manufacturer a hearing as to whether the tests
have been properly conducted or any sampling methods have been properly
applied.
(j) After the Administrator suspends or revokes a certificate of
conformity pursuant to this section or notifies a manufacturer of his
intent to suspend, revoke or void a certificate of conformity under
Sec. 86.007-30(e) or Sec. 86.1850, and prior to the commencement of a
hearing under Sec. 86.614, if the manufacturer demonstrates to the
Administrator's satisfaction that the decision to suspend, revoke or
void the certificate was based on erroneous information, the
Administrator shall reinstate the certificate.
(k) To permit a manufacturer to avoid storing non-test vehicles
when conducting testing of an engine family or configuration subsequent
to suspension or revocation of the certificate of conformity for that
engine family or configuration pursuant to paragraph (b), (c), or (e)
of this section, the manufacturer may request that the Administrator
conditionally reinstate the certificate for that engine family or
configuration. The Administrator may reinstate the certificate subject
to the condition that the manufacturer consents to recall all vehicles
of that engine family or configuration produced from the time the
certificate is conditionally reinstated if the engine family or
configuration fails the subsequent testing and to remedy any
nonconformity at no expense to the owner.
Subpart H--[Removed and reserved]
0
129. Subpart H, consisting of Sec. Sec. 86.701-94 through 86.709-99,
is removed and reserved.
Subpart M--[Removed and reserved]
0
130. Subpart M, consisting of Sec. Sec. 86.1201-90 through 86.1246-96,
is removed and reserved.
Subpart N--Exhaust Test Procedures for Heavy-Duty Engines
0
131. The heading of subpart N is revised to read as set forth above.
0
132. Section 86.1305-2010 is redesignated as Sec. 86.1305, and newly
redesignated Sec. 86.1305 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1305 Introduction; structure of subpart.
(a) This subpart specifies the equipment and procedures for
performing exhaust-emission tests on Otto-cycle and diesel-cycle heavy-
duty engines. Subpart A of this part sets forth the emission standards
and general testing requirements to comply with EPA certification
procedures.
(b) Use the applicable equipment and procedures for spark-ignition
or compression-ignition engines in 40 CFR part 1065 to determine
whether engines meet the duty-cycle emission standards in subpart A of
this part. Measure the emissions of all regulated pollutants as
specified in 40 CFR part 1065. Use the duty cycles and procedures
specified in Sec. Sec. 86.1333, 86.1360, and 86.1362. Adjust emission
results from engines using aftertreatment technology with infrequent
regeneration events as described in Sec. 86.004-28.
(c) The provisions in Sec. Sec. 86.1370 and 86.1372 apply for
determining whether an engine meets the applicable not-to-exceed
emission standards.
(d) Measure smoke using the procedures in subpart I of this part
for evaluating whether engines meet the smoke standards in subpart A of
this part.
(e) Use the fuels specified in 40 CFR part 1065 to perform valid
tests, as follows:
(1) For service accumulation, use the test fuel or any commercially
available fuel that is representative of the fuel that in-use engines
will use.
(2) For diesel-fueled engines, use the ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel
specified in 40 CFR part 1065 for emission testing.
(3) For gasoline-fueled engines, use the appropriate E0 fuel
specified in 40 CFR part 1065, except that the sulfur concentration
must be between 0.0015 and 0.008 weight percent and research octane
must be at least 93.
(f) You may use special or alternate procedures to the extent we
allow them under 40 CFR 1065.10. In addition, for 2010 and earlier
model year engines, you may use modified test procedures
[[Page 30061]]
as needed to conform to the procedures that were specified at the time
of emission testing for the model year in question.
(g) This subpart applies to you as a manufacturer, and to anyone
who does testing for you.
(h) For testing conducted with engines installed in vehicles,
including field testing conducted to measure emissions under Not-To-
Exceed test procedures, use the test procedures and equipment specified
in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart J.
Sec. Sec. 86.1305-90, 86.1305-2004, 86.1306-07, 86.1306-96, 86.1308-
84, 86.1309-90, 86.1310-90, 86.1310-2007, 86.1311-94, 86.1312-88,
86.1312-2007, 86.1313-94, 86.1313-98, 86.1313-2004, 86.1313-2007,
86.1314-94, 86.1316-94, 86.1318-84, 86.1319-90, 86.1320-90, 86.1321-94,
86.1322-84, 86.1323-84, 86.1323-2007, 86.1324-84, 86.1325-94, 86.1326-
90, 86.1327-96, 86.1327-98, 86.1330-90, and 86.1332-90 [Removed]
0
133. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.1305-90, 86.1305-2004, 86.1306-07, 86.1306-
96, 86.1308-84, 86.1309-90, 86.1310-90, 86.1310-2007, 86.1311-94,
86.1312-88, 86.1312-2007, 86.1313-94, 86.1313-98, 86.1313-2004,
86.1313-2007, 86.1314-94, 86.1316-94, 86.1318-84, 86.1319-90, 86.1320-
90, 86.1321-94, 86.1322-84, 86.1323-84, 86.1323-2007, 86.1324-84,
86.1325-94, 86.1326-90, 86.1327-96, 86.1327-98, 86.1330-90, and
86.1332-90.
0
134. Section 86.1333-2010 is redesignated as Sec. 86.1333, and newly
redesignated Sec. 86.1333 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and
(d) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1333 Transient test cycle generation.
(a) * * *
(1) To unnormalize rpm, use the following equations:
(i) For diesel engines:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.141
Where:
Max Test Speed = the maximum test speed as calculated in 40 CFR part
1065.
(ii) For Otto-cycle engines:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.142
Where:
Max Test Speed = the maximum test speed as calculated in 40 CFR part
1065.
* * * * *
(d) Determine idle speeds as specified in 40 CFR 1065.510.
Sec. Sec. 86.1333-90, 86.1334-84, 86.1335-90, 86.1336-84, 86.1337-96,
86.1337-2007, 86.1338-84, 86.1338-2007, 86.1339-90, 86.1340-90,
86.1340-94, 86.1341-90, 86.1341-98, 86.1342-90, 86.1342-94, 86.1343-88,
and 86.1344-94 [Removed]
0
135. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.1333-90, 86.1334-84, 86.1335-90, 86.1336-84,
86.1337-96, 86.1337-2007, 86.1338-84, 86.1338-2007, 86.1339-90,
86.1340-90, 86.1340-94, 86.1341-90, 86.1341-98, 86.1342-90, 86.1342-94,
86.1343-88, and 86.1344-94.
0
136. Section 86.1360-2007 is redesignated as Sec. 86.1360, and newly
redesignated Sec. 86.1360 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1),
(c), and (f)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1360 Supplemental emission test; test cycle and procedures.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Perform testing as described in Sec. 86.1362 for determining
whether an engine meets the applicable standards when measured over the
supplemental emission test.
* * * * *
(c) The engine speeds A, B and C, referenced in the table in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, must be determined as follows:
Speed A = nlo+ 0.25 x (nhi-nlo)
Speed B = nlo+ 0.50 x (nhi-nlo)
Speed C = nlo+ 0.75 x (nhi-nlo)
Where:
nhi = High speed as determined by calculating 70% of the
maximum power. The highest engine speed where this power value
occurs on the power curve is defined as nhi.
nlo = Low speed as determined by calculating 50% of the
maximum power. The lowest engine speed where this power value occurs
on the power curve is defined as nlo. Maximum power = the
maximum observed power calculated according to the engine mapping
procedures defined in 40 CFR 1065.510.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) If the Maximum Allowable Emission Limit for any point, as
calculated under paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, is greater
than the applicable Not-to-Exceed limit (if within the Not-to-Exceed
control area defined in Sec. 86.1370(b)), then the Maximum Allowable
Emission Limit for that point shall be defined as the applicable Not-
to-Exceed limit.
* * * * *
0
137. Section 86.1362-2010 is redesignated as Sec. 86.1362, and newly
redesignated Sec. 86.1362 is amended by revising the introductory text
and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1362 Steady-state testing with a ramped-modal cycle.
This section describes how to test engines under steady-state
conditions.
* * * * *
(f) For 2007 through 2010 model years, manufacturers may follow the
mode order described in this paragraph (f) instead of the mode order
specified in paragraph (a) of this section. Any EPA testing with these
engines will rely on the same procedure used by the manufacturer for
certification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time in mode
RMC mode (seconds) Engine speed 1 2 Torque (percent) 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a Steady-state.................... 170 Warm Idle............. 0.
1b Transition...................... 20 Linear Transition..... Linear Transition.
2a Steady-state.................... 170 A..................... 100.
[[Page 30062]]
2b Transition...................... 20 A..................... Linear Transition.
3a Steady-state.................... 102 A..................... 25.
3b Transition...................... 20 A..................... Linear Transition.
4a Steady-state.................... 100 A..................... 75.
4b Transition...................... 20 A..................... Linear Transition.
5a Steady-state.................... 103 A..................... 50.
5b Transition...................... 20 Linear Transition..... Linear Transition.
6a Steady-state.................... 194 B..................... 100.
6b Transition...................... 20 B..................... Linear Transition.
7a Steady-state.................... 219 B..................... 25.
7b Transition...................... 20 B..................... Linear Transition.
8a Steady-state.................... 220 B..................... 75.
8b Transition...................... 20 B..................... Linear Transition.
9a Steady-state.................... 219 B..................... 50.
9b Transition...................... 20 Linear Transition..... Linear Transition.
10a Steady-state................... 171 C..................... 100.
10b Transition..................... 20 C..................... Linear Transition.
11a Steady-state................... 102 C..................... 25.
11b Transition..................... 20 C..................... Linear Transition.
12a Steady-state................... 100 C..................... 75.
12b Transition..................... 20 C..................... Linear Transition.
13a Steady-state................... 102 C..................... 50.
13b Transition..................... 20 Linear Transition..... Linear Transition.
14 Steady-state.................... 168 Warm Idle............. 0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Speed terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065.
\2\ Advance from one mode to the next within a 20-second transition phase. During the transition phase, command
a linear progression from the speed or torque setting of the current mode to the speed or torque setting of
the next mode.
\3\ The percent torque is relative to maximum torque at the commanded engine speed.
Sec. Sec. 86.1362-2007 and 86.1363-2007 [Removed]
0
138. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.1362-2007 and 86.1363-2007.
0
139. Section 86.1370-2007 is redesignated as Sec. 86.1370, and newly
redesignated Sec. 86.1370 is amended by revising paragraphs (a),
(b)(3), (b)(6), and (f) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1370 Not-To-Exceed test procedures.
(a) General. The purpose of this test procedure is to measure in-
use emissions of heavy-duty diesel engines while operating within a
broad range of speed and load points (the Not-To-Exceed Control Area)
and under conditions which can reasonably be expected to be encountered
in normal vehicle operation and use. Emission results from this test
procedure are to be compared to the Not-To-Exceed Limits specified in
Sec. 86.007-11(a)(4), or to later Not-To-Exceed Limits. The Not-To-
Exceed Limits do not apply for engine-starting conditions. Tests
conducted using the procedures specified in this subpart are considered
valid Not-To-Exceed tests (Note: duty cycles and limits on ambient
conditions do not apply for Not-To-Exceed tests).
(b) * * *
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of
this section, all operating speed and load points with brake specific
fuel consumption (BSFC) values within 5% of the minimum BSFC value of
the engine. For the purposes of this requirement, BFSC must be
calculated under the general test cell conditions specified in 40 CFR
part 1065. The manufacturer may petition the Administrator at
certification to exclude such points if the manufacturer can
demonstrate that the engine is not expected to operate at such points
in normal vehicle operation and use. Engines equipped with drivelines
with multi-speed manual transmissions or automatic transmissions with a
finite number of gears are not subject to the requirements of this
paragraph (b)(3).
* * * * *
(6)(i) For petroleum-fueled diesel cycle engines, the manufacturer
may identify particular engine-vehicle combinations and may petition
the Administrator at certification to exclude operating points from the
Not-to-Exceed Control Area defined in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of
this section if the manufacturer can demonstrate that the engine is not
capable of operating at such points when used in the specified engine-
vehicle combination(s).
(ii) For diesel cycle engines that are not petroleum-fueled, the
manufacturer may petition the Administrator at certification to exclude
operating points from the Not-to-Exceed Control Area defined in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section if the manufacturer can
demonstrate that the engine is not expected to operate at such points
in normal vehicle operation and use.
* * * * *
(f) NTE cold temperature operating exclusion. Engines equipped with
exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) whose operation within the NTE control
area specified in paragraph (b) of this section when operating during
cold temperature conditions as specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section are not subject to the NTE emission limits during the specified
cold temperature operation conditions.
* * * * *
Sec. 86.1372-2007 [Redesignated as Sec. 86.1372]
0
140. Section 86.1372-2007 is redesignated as Sec. 86.1372.
Sec. Sec. 86.1375-2007 and 86.1380-2004 [Removed]
0
141. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.1375-2007 and 86.1380-2004.
Subpart O--[Removed and reserved]
0
142. Subpart O, consisting of Sec. Sec. 86.1401 through 86.1442, is
removed and reserved.
Subpart R--[Removed and reserved]
0
143. Subpart R, consisting of Sec. Sec. 86.1701-99 through 86.1780-99,
is removed and reserved.
Subpart S--[Amended]
0
144. Section 86.1801-12 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through
(d) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
[[Page 30063]]
Sec. 86.1801-12 Applicability.
(a) Applicability. The provisions of this subpart apply to certain
types of new vehicles as described in this paragraph (a). Where the
provisions apply for a type of vehicle, they apply for vehicles powered
by any fuel. In some cases, manufacturers of heavy-duty engines and
vehicles can choose whether to meet the requirements of this subpart or
the requirements of subpart A of this part; those provisions are
therefore considered optional, but only to the extent that
manufacturers comply with the other set of requirements. In cases where
a provision applies only to a certain vehicle group based on its model
year, vehicle class, motor fuel, engine type, or other distinguishing
characteristics, the limited applicability is cited in the appropriate
section. The provisions of this subpart apply to certain vehicles as
follows:
(1) The provisions of this subpart apply for light-duty vehicles,
and light-duty trucks,
(2) The provisions of this subpart apply for medium-duty passenger
vehicles. The provisions of this subpart also apply for other complete
heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, except as follows:
(i) The provisions of this subpart are optional for diesel-cycle
vehicles through model year 2018.
(ii) The onboard diagnostic requirements in this subpart do not
apply if engines meet the onboard diagnostic requirements specified in
Sec. 86.007-17.
(iii) Greenhouse gas emission standards apply as specified in 40
CFR parts 1036 and 1037 instead of the standards specified in this
subpart.
(3) The provisions of this subpart generally do not apply to
incomplete heavy-duty vehicles or to complete vehicles above 14,000
pounds GVWR (see subpart A of this part and 40 CFR part 1037). However,
this subpart applies to such vehicles in the following cases:
(i) Incomplete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR
may be optionally certified to the exhaust emission standards in this
subpart that apply for complete heavy-duty vehicles.
(ii) The evaporative and refueling emission standards apply for
incomplete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR starting
with model year 2018. Evaporative emission standards also apply for
vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR as specified in 40 CFR part 1037.
(iii) The onboard diagnostic requirements in this subpart do not
apply for vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR; these requirements apply
for incomplete vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR only if the
installed engine does not meet the onboard diagnostic requirements
specified in Sec. 86.007-17.
(b) Relationship to subpart A of this part. Unless specified
otherwise, if heavy-duty vehicles are not subject to provisions of this
subpart or if manufacturers choose not to meet optional provisions of
this subpart as described in paragraph (a) of this section, the engines
installed in those vehicles must meet the corresponding requirements
under subpart A of this part. If a vehicle and its installed engine
comply with a mix of provisions from this subpart and from subpart A of
this part, the vehicle must be certified under this subpart, and the
engine does not need to be certified separately.
(c) Clean alternative fuel conversions. The provisions of this
subpart also apply to clean alternative fuel conversions as defined in
40 CFR 85.502 of all vehicles described in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(d) Small volume manufacturers. Special certification procedures
are available for small-volume manufacturers as described in Sec.
86.1838.
(e) You. The term ``you'' in this subpart refers to manufacturers
subject to the emission standards and other requirements of this
subpart.
* * * * *
0
145. Section 86.1803-01 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the definition for ``Certification Short Test (CST)''.
0
b. By adding definitions for ``Class 2b'' and ``Class 3'' in
alphabetical order.
0
c. By revising the definitions for ``Family emission limit (FEL)'',
``Heavy-duty vehicle'', and ``Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV)''.
0
d. By adding definitions for ``LEV III'' and ``Low-altitude
conditions'' in alphabetical order.
0
e. By removing the definition for ``Low altitude conditions''.
0
f. By adding a definition for ``Rated power'' in alphabetical order.
0
g. By revising the definition for ``Round, rounded or rounding''.
0
h. By adding definitions for ``Section 177 states'', ``Tier 3'', and
``United States'' in alphabetical order.
0
i. By revising the definition for ``U.S. sales''.
0
j. By adding definitions for ``Volatile liquid fuel'' and ``We (us,
our)'' in alphabetical order.
Sec. 86.1803-01 Definitions.
* * * * *
Class 2b means relating to heavy-duty vehicles at or below 10,000
pounds GVWR.
Class 3 means relating to heavy-duty vehicles above 10,000 pounds
GVWR and at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR.
* * * * *
Family emission limit (FEL) means a bin standard or emission level
selected by the manufacturer that serves as the applicable emission
standard for the vehicles in the family or test group in the context of
fleet-average standards or emission credits.
* * * * *
Heavy-duty vehicle means any motor vehicle rated at more than 8,500
pounds GVWR or that has a vehicle curb weight of more than 6,000 pounds
or that has a basic vehicle frontal area in excess of 45 square feet.
Note that MDPVs are heavy-duty vehicles that are in many cases subject
to requirements that apply for light-duty trucks.
* * * * *
Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) means a motor vehicle which draws
propulsion energy from onboard sources of stored energy that are both
an internal combustion engine or heat engine using consumable fuel, and
a rechargeable energy storage system such as a battery, capacitor,
hydraulic accumulator, or flywheel.
* * * * *
LEV III means relating to the LEV III emission standards in Title
13, Sec. Sec. 1961.2 and 1976(b)1)(G) of the California Code of
Regulations, as adopted by the California Air Resources Board
(incorporated by reference in Sec. 86.1).
* * * * *
Low-altitude conditions means a test altitude less than 549 meters
(1,800 feet).
* * * * *
Rated power means an engine's maximum power output in an installed
configuration, as determined by using SAE J1349 (incorporated by
reference in Sec. 86.1).
* * * * *
Round, rounded or rounding has the meaning given in 40 CFR
1065.1001, unless otherwise specified.
* * * * *
Section 177 states means the states that have adopted California's
motor vehicle standards for a particular model year under section 177
of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7507).
* * * * *
Tier 3 means relating to the Tier 3 emission standards described in
Sec. Sec. 86.1811-17, 86.1813-17, and 86.1816-18.
* * * * *
[[Page 30064]]
United States has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
* * * * *
U.S. sales means, unless otherwise specified, sales in any state of
the United States except for California or the section 177 states. Sale
location is based on the point of first sale to a dealer, distributor,
fleet operator, broker, or other entity.
* * * * *
Volatile liquid fuel means any fuel other than diesel or biodiesel
that is a liquid at atmospheric pressure and has a Reid Vapor Pressure
higher than 2.0 pounds per square inch.
* * * * *
We (us, our) means the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and any authorized representatives.
* * * * *
Sec. 86.1805-01 [Removed]
0
146. Remove Sec. 86.1805-01.
0
147. A new Sec. 86.1805-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1805-17 Useful life.
(a) General provisions. The useful life values specified in this
section apply for all exhaust, evaporative, refueling, and OBD emission
requirements described in this subpart, except for standards that are
specified to apply only at certification. These useful life
requirements also apply to all air conditioning leakage credits, air
conditioning efficiency credits, and other credit programs used by the
manufacturer to comply with the fleet-average CO2 emission
standards in Sec. 86.1818. Useful life values are specified as a given
number of calendar years and miles of driving, whichever comes first.
(b) Greenhouse gas pollutants. The emission standards in Sec.
86.1818 apply for a useful life of 10 years or 120,000 miles for LDVs
and LLDTs and 11 years or 120,000 miles for HLDTs, MDPVs, and heavy-
duty vehicles. Manufacturers may alternatively certify based on a
longer useful life as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Criteria pollutants. The useful life provisions of this
paragraph (c) apply for all emission standards not covered by paragraph
(b) of this section. Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this
section and in Sec. Sec. 86.1811, 86.1813, and 86.1816, the useful
life for LDT2s, HLDTs, MDPVs, and HDVs is 15 years or 150,000 miles.
The useful life for LDV and LDT1 is 10 years or 120,000 miles.
Manufacturers may optionally certify LDVs and LDT1s to a useful life of
15 years or 150,000 miles, in which case the longer useful life would
apply for all the standards and requirements. LDVs and LDT1s certified
to the longer useful life are subject to higher numerical FTP emission
standard for NMOG+NOx as specified in Sec. 86.1811-17(b).
(d) Intermediate useful life. Where exhaust emission standards are
specified for an intermediate useful life, these standards apply for
five years or 50,000 miles.
(e) Interim provisions. The useful life provisions of Sec.
86.1805-12 apply for vehicles not yet subject to Tier 3 requirements.
For example, vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR are not subject to the
useful life provisions in this section until model year 2019 unless
manufacturers voluntarily certify to the Tier 3 requirements earlier
than the regulations require. Also, where the transition to Tier 3
standards involves a phase-in percentage for a given standard, vehicles
not included as part of the phase-in portion of the fleet continue to
be subject to the useful life provisions of Sec. 86.1805-12 with
respect to that standard.
Sec. Sec. 86.1806-01 and 86.1806-04 [Removed]
0
148. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.1806-01 and 86.1806-04.
0
149. Section 86.1806-05 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)
introductory text and (j) and adding paragraph (k)(7) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.1806-05 On-board diagnostics for vehicles less than or equal
to 14,000 pounds GVWR.
* * * * *
(b) Malfunction descriptions. The OBD system must detect and
identify malfunctions in all monitored emission-related powertrain
systems or components according to the following malfunction
definitions as measured and calculated in accordance with test
procedures set forth in subpart B of this part (chassis-based test
procedures), excluding those test procedures defined as
``Supplemental'' test procedures in Sec. 86.004-2 and codified in
Sec. Sec. 86.158, 86.159, and 86.160. For clean alternative fuel
conversion manufacturers, your OBD system is expected to detect and
identify malfunctions in all monitored emission-related powertrain
systems or components according to the malfunction definitions
described in this paragraph (b) as measured and calculated in
accordance with the chassis-based test procedures set forth in subpart
B of this part to the extent feasible, excluding the elements of the
Supplemental FTP (see Sec. 86.1803). However, at a minimum, systems
must detect and identify malfunctions as described in paragraph (k)(7)
of this section.
* * * * *
(j) California OBDII compliance option. Manufacturers may comply
with California's OBD requirements instead of meeting the requirements
of this section as follows:
(1) Through the 2006 model year, demonstration of compliance with
California OBDII requirements (Title 13 California Code of Regulations
Sec. 1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2)), as modified, approved and filed on April
21, 2003 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 86.1), shall satisfy the
requirements of this section, except that compliance with 13 CCR
1968.2(e)(4.2.2)(C), pertaining to 0.02 inch evaporative leak
detection, and 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to tampering
protection, are not required to satisfy the requirements of this
section. Also, the deficiency provisions of 13 CCR 1968.2(i) do not
apply. In addition, demonstration of compliance with 13 CCR
1968.2(e)(16.2.1)(C), to the extent it applies to the verification of
proper alignment between the camshaft and crankshaft, applies only to
vehicles equipped with variable valve timing.
(2) For 2007 through 2012 model year vehicles, demonstration of
compliance with California OBD II requirements (Title 13 California
Code of Regulations Sec. 1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2)), approved on November
9, 2007 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 86.1), shall satisfy the
requirements of this section, except that compliance with 13 CCR
1968.2(e)(4.2.2)(C), pertaining to 0.02 inch evaporative leak
detection, and 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to tampering
protection, are not required to satisfy the requirements of this
section. Also, the deficiency provisions of 13 CCR 1968.2(k) do not
apply. In addition, demonstration of compliance with 13 CCR
1968.2(e)(15.2.1)(C), to the extent it applies to the verification of
proper alignment between the camshaft and crankshaft, applies only to
vehicles equipped with variable valve timing.
(3) Beginning with the 2013 model year, manufacturers may
demonstrate compliance with California's 2010 OBD requirements as
described in Sec. 86.1806-17(a).
(4) For all model years, the deficiency provisions of paragraph (i)
of this section and the evaporative leak detection requirement of
paragraph (b)(4) of this section, if applicable, apply to manufacturers
selecting this paragraph for demonstrating compliance.
(k) * * *
(7) For clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers (e.g.,
natural
[[Page 30065]]
gas, liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, ethanol), in lieu of the
requirements specified for other manufacturers in this paragraph (k),
you may demonstrate that the malfunction indicator light will
illuminate, at a minimum, under any of the following circumstances when
the vehicle is operated on the applicable alternative fuel:
(i) Otto-cycle. A catalyst is replaced with a defective catalyst
system where the catalyst brick for the monitored volume has been
removed (i.e., empty catalyst system) resulting in an increase of 1.5
times the NMOG (or NMOG+NOX) standard or FEL above the NMOG
(or NMOG+NOX) emission level measured using a representative
4000 mile catalyst system.
(ii)(A) Diesel. If monitored for emissions performance--a catalyst
is replaced with a defective catalyst system where the catalyst brick
for the monitored volume has been removed (i.e., empty catalyst can)
resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable
standard or FEL for NOX (or NMOG+NOX) or PM.
(B) If monitored for performance--a particulate trap is replaced
with a trap that has catastrophically failed.
(iii)(A) Otto-cycle. An engine misfire condition is induced that
completely disables one or more cylinders, either through mechanical or
electrical means, resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times
the applicable standards or FEL for CO, NMOG, or NOX (or
NMOG+NOx).
(B) Diesel. An engine misfire condition resulting in complete lack
of cylinder firing is induced and is not detected.
(iv) If so equipped, any oxygen sensor is replaced with a
completely defective oxygen sensor, or an electronic simulation of
such, resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable
standard or FEL for CO, NMOG, or NOX (or
NMOG+NOX).
(v) If so equipped and applicable, a vapor leak is introduced in
the evaporative and/or refueling system (excluding the tubing and
connections between the purge valve and the intake manifold) greater
than or equal in magnitude to a leak caused by a 0.040 inch diameter
orifice, or the evaporative purge air flow is blocked or otherwise
eliminated from the complete evaporative emission control system. At a
minimum, gas cap removal or complete venting of the evaporative and/or
refueling system may be introduced resulting in a gross leak of the
complete evaporative emission control system.
(vi) A malfunction condition is induced resulting in complete
disablement in any emission-related powertrain system or component,
including but not necessarily limited to, the exhaust gas recirculation
(EGR) system, if equipped, the secondary air system, if equipped, and
the fuel control system, singularly resulting in exhaust emissions
exceeding 1.5 times the applicable emission standard or FEL for PM, CO,
NMOG, or NOX (or NMOG+NOx).
(vii) A malfunction condition is induced that completely disables
an electronic emission-related powertrain system or component not
otherwise described in this paragraph (k) that either provides input to
or receives commands from the on-board computer resulting in a
measurable impact on emissions. At a minimum, manufacturers may be
required to perform this disablement on critical inputs and outputs
where lack of the input and output disables an entire monitor as
described in this paragraph (k)(7)(vii), disables multiple monitors
(e.g., two or more) used by the on-board computer, or renders the
entire on-board computer and its functions inoperative.
(viii) Clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers must use
good engineering judgment to induce malfunctions and may perform more
stringent malfunction demonstrations than described in this paragraph
(k)(7). In addition, the Administrator reserves the right to request a
clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturer to perform stricter
demonstration requirements, to the extent feasible, on clean
alternative fuel conversions.
* * * * *
0
150. A new Sec. 86.1806-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1806-17 On-board diagnostics.
Model year 2017 and later vehicles must have onboard diagnostic
(OBD) systems as described in this section. OBD systems must generally
detect malfunctions in the emission control system, store fault codes
corresponding to detected malfunctions, and alert operators
appropriately.
(a) Vehicles must comply with the 2010 OBD requirements adopted for
California as described in this paragraph (a). California's 2010 OBD
requirements are part of Title 13, Sec. 1968.2 of the California Code
of Regulations, approved on June 17, 2010 (incorporated by reference in
Sec. 86.1). The following clarifications and exceptions apply for
vehicles certified under this subpart:
(1) For vehicles not certified in California, references to
vehicles meeting certain California Air Resources Board emission
standards are understood to refer to the corresponding EPA emission
standards for a given family, where applicable. Use good engineering
judgment to correlate the specified standards with the bin standards
that apply under this subpart.
(2) Vehicles must comply with OBD requirements throughout the
useful life as specified in Sec. 86.1805. If the specified useful life
is different for evaporative and exhaust emissions, the useful life
specified for evaporative emissions applies for monitoring related to
fuel-system leaks and the useful life specified for exhaust emissions
applies for all other parameters.
(3) The purpose and applicability statements in 13 CCR 1968.2(a)
and (b) do not apply.
(4) The anti-tampering provisions in 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4) do not
apply.
(5) The requirement to verify proper alignment between the camshaft
and crankshaft described in 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(15.2.1)(C) applies only
for vehicles equipped with variable valve timing.
(6) The deficiency provisions described in paragraph (c) of this
section apply instead of 13 CCR 1968.2(k).
(b) The following additional provisions apply:
(1) OBD systems must record in computer memory the result of the
most recent successfully completed diagnostic check for a 0.020 inch
leak. The required data records include the miles driven since the last
check occurred and the pass/fail result. The system may be designed to
keep data only from the previous 750 miles of driving. The leak check
results must be scan readable, and must be retained in system memory
even if codes are cleared or the vehicle loses battery power.
(2) For every family selected for making the full OBD demonstration
for certification, that demonstration must also include a test showing
that the OBD system is capable of detecting an implanted 0.020 inch
leak in the fuel system. Manufacturers may separately perform this test
with any number of additional families. For any untested families, the
statement specified in Sec. 86.1844-01(d)(8) applies with regard to
this leak monitoring requirement.
(3) For vehicles with fuel tanks exceeding 25 gallons nominal fuel
tank capacity, you may request our approval for a leak threshold
greater than 0.020 inches, up to a maximum value of 0.040 inches. We
will generally approve a leak threshold equal to the standard that
applies under Sec. 86.1813.
(c) You may ask us to accept as compliant a vehicle that does not
fully
[[Page 30066]]
meet specific requirements under this section. Such deficiencies are
intended to allow for minor deviations from OBD standards under limited
conditions. We expect vehicles to have functioning OBD systems that
meet the objectives stated in this section. The following provisions
apply regarding OBD system deficiencies:
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, we will
not approve a deficiency that involves the complete lack of a major
diagnostic monitor, such as monitors related to exhaust aftertreatment
devices, oxygen sensors, air-fuel ratio sensors, NOx sensors, engine
misfire, evaporative leaks, and diesel EGR (if applicable).
(2) We will approve a deficiency only if you show us that full
compliance is infeasible or unreasonable considering any relevant
factors, such as the technical feasibility of a given monitor, or the
lead time and production cycles of vehicle designs and programmed
computing upgrades.
(3) Our approval for a given deficiency applies only for a single
model year, though you may continue to ask us to extend a deficiency
approval in renewable one-year increments. We may approve an extension
if you demonstrate an acceptable level of effort toward compliance and
show that the necessary hardware or software modifications would pose
an unreasonable burden.
(d) For alternative-fuel vehicles, manufacturers may request a
waiver from specific requirements for which monitoring may not be
reliable for operation with the alternative fuel. However, we will not
waive requirements that we judge to be feasible for a particular
manufacturer or vehicle model.
(e) For alternative-fuel conversions, manufacturers may meet the
requirements of Sec. 86.1806-05 instead of the requirements of this
section.
Sec. 86.1807-01 [Amended]
0
151. Section 86.1807-01 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(3)(ix).
0
152. Section 86.1808-01 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(3) introductory text,
(f)(6)(ii)(D), (f)(7)(i) introductory text, (f)(7)(ii)(B), (f)(10)(ii),
(f)(13) introductory text, (f)(13)(iv), and (f)(16)(i).
0
b. By adding paragraph (g).
Sec. 86.1808-01 Maintenance instructions.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) Applicability. Manufacturers are subject to the provisions of
this paragraph (f) beginning in the 1996 model year for manufacturers
of light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, and beginning in the 2005
model year for manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty
engines weighing 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) and less that
are subject to the OBD requirements of this part.
* * * * *
(3) Information dissemination. By December 24, 2003, each
manufacturer shall provide or cause to be provided to the persons
specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section and to any other
interested parties a manufacturer-specific World Wide Web site
containing the information specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this
section for 1996 and later model year vehicles which have been offered
for sale; this requirement does not apply to indirect information,
including the information specified in paragraphs (f)(12) through
(f)(16) of this section. Upon request and approval of the
Administrator, manufacturers who can demonstrate significant hardship
in complying with this provision within four months after the effective
date may request an additional six months lead time to meet this
requirement. Each manufacturer Web site shall:
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) Any alternative means proposed by a manufacturer must be
available to aftermarket technicians at a fair and reasonable price.
* * * * *
(7) * * *
(i) All information required to be made available by this section
shall be made available at a fair and reasonable price. In determining
whether a price is fair and reasonable, consideration may be given to
relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following:
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) The Administrator will act on the request within 180 days
following receipt of a complete request or following receipt of any
additional information requested by the Administrator.
* * * * *
(10) * * *
(ii) Provide on the manufacturer's Web site an index of all
emissions-related training information available for purchase by
aftermarket service providers for 1994 and newer vehicles. For model
years subsequent to 2003, the required information must be made
available for purchase within 3 months of model introduction and then
must be made available at the same time it is made available to
manufacturer-franchised dealerships, whichever is earlier. The index
shall describe the title of the course or instructional session, the
cost of the video tape or duplicate, and information on how to order
the item(s) from the manufacturer Web site. All of the items available
must be shipped within 24 hours of the order being placed and are to be
made available at a fair and reasonable price as described in paragraph
(f)(7) of this section. Manufacturers unable to meet the 24 hour
shipping requirement under circumstances where orders exceed supply and
additional time is needed by the distributor to reproduce the item
being ordered may exceed the 24 hour shipping requirement, but in no
instance can take longer than 14 days to ship the item.
* * * * *
(13) Generic and enhanced information for scan tools. By September
25, 2003, manufacturers shall make available to equipment and tool
companies all generic and enhanced service information including bi-
directional control and data stream information as defined in paragraph
(f)(2)(ii) of this section. This requirement applies for 1996 and later
model year vehicles.
* * * * *
(iv) Manufacturers can satisfy the requirement of paragraph
(f)(13)(iii) of this section by making available diagnostic trouble
trees on their Web sites in full-text.
* * * * *
(16) * * *
(i) Manufacturers who have developed special tools to extinguish
the malfunction indicator light (MIL) for Model Years 1994 through 2003
shall make available the necessary information to equipment and tool
companies to design a comparable generic tool. This information shall
be made available to equipment and tool companies no later than
September 23, 2003.
* * * * *
(g) Through model year 2013, the manufacturer shall furnish or
cause to be furnished to the purchaser the following statement for each
new diesel-fueled Tier 2 vehicle (certified using a test fuel with 15
ppm sulfur or less): ``This vehicle must be operated only with ultra
low sulfur diesel fuel (that is, diesel fuel meeting EPA specifications
for highway diesel fuel, including a 15 ppm sulfur cap).''
Sec. 86.1808-07 [Removed]
0
153. Remove Sec. 86.1808-07.
[[Page 30067]]
0
154. Section 86.1810-01 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(m), and revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1810-01 General standards; increase in emissions; unsafe
condition; waivers.
* * * * *
(f) Altitude requirements. Unless otherwise specified, emission
standards apply at low-altitude conditions and at high-altitude
conditions. The following exceptions apply:
(1) The supplemental exhaust emission standards as described in
Sec. 86.1811-04(f) apply only at low-altitude conditions;
(2) The cold temperature NMHC emission standards as described in
Sec. 86.1811-10(g) apply only at low-altitude conditions;
(3) The evaporative emission standards specified in Sec. 86.1811-
09(e) apply at low-altitude conditions. The evaporative emission
standards specified in Sec. 86.1811-04(e) continue to apply at high-
altitude conditions for 2009 and later model year vehicles.
* * * * *
0
155. A new Sec. 86.1810-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1810-17 General standards; increase in emissions; unsafe
condition; waivers.
The following provisions apply to all vehicles certified under this
subpart:
(a) Any device, system or element of design installed on or
incorporated in a new motor vehicle to enable such vehicle to conform
to the standards imposed by this subpart:
(1) Shall not in its operation or function cause the emission into
the ambient air of any noxious or toxic substance that would not be
emitted in the operation of such vehicle without such system, except as
specifically permitted by regulation; and
(2) Shall not in its operation, function or malfunction result in
any unsafe condition endangering the vehicle, its occupants, or persons
or property in close proximity to the vehicle.
(b) In establishing the physically adjustable range of each
adjustable parameter on a new motor vehicle, the manufacturer shall
ensure that, taking into consideration the production tolerances, safe
vehicle drivability characteristics are available within that range.
(c) Unless otherwise specified, the emission standards of this
subpart apply equally for certification and for in-use vehicles
throughout the specified useful-life period. Also, manufacturers must
use good engineering judgment to determine that all of a vehicle's
emission-related components are designed to operate properly throughout
the specified useful-life period.
(d) Crankcase emissions prohibited. Vehicles may not discharge
crankcase emissions into the ambient atmosphere.
(e) On-board diagnostics. All vehicles must have an on-board
diagnostic system as described in Sec. 86.1806.
(f) Altitude requirements. Emission standards apply at low-altitude
conditions and at high-altitude conditions, except as noted in this
subpart.
(g) The cold CO and cold NMHC standards in this subpart refer to
test procedures set forth in subpart C of this part and 40 CFR part
1066, subpart H. All other emission standards in this subpart rely on
test procedures set forth in subpart B of this part. These procedures
rely on the test specifications in 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066 as
described in subparts B and C of this part.
(h) Multi-fueled vehicles (including dual-fueled and flexible-
fueled vehicles) shall comply with all requirements established for
each consumed fuel (or blend of fuels in the case of flexible fueled
vehicles). In the case of flexible-fueled vehicles operating on ethanol
and gasoline, this involves additional exhaust emission measurements
using the fuel specified in 40 CFR 1065.725. No additional evaporative
emission testing is required.
Sec. 86.1811-01 [Removed]
0
156. Remove Sec. 86.1811-01.
0
157. Section 86.1811-04 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(h) and revising paragraphs (j) and (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1811-04 Emission standards for light-duty vehicles, light-
duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles.
* * * * *
(j) Highway NOX exhaust emission standard. The
NOX emissions measured on the federal Highway Fuel Economy
Test in 40 CFR part 600, subpart B, must not be greater than 1.33 times
the applicable FTP NOX standard to which the manufacturer
certifies the test group. Both the measured emissions and the product
of the NOX standard and 1.33 must be rounded to the nearest
0.01 g/mi before being compared.
* * * * *
(n) Requirements for vehicles with rechargeable energy storage
systems. Manufacturers must test electric vehicles according to the
procedures specified in SAE J1634 (incorporated by reference in Sec.
86.1). Manufacturers must measure emissions from hybrid electric
vehicles (including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles) according to the
procedures specified in SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec.
86.1), except that these procedures do not apply for plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles during charge-depleting operation,
* * * * *
0
158. A new Sec. 86.1811-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1811-17 Exhaust emission standards for light-duty vehicles,
light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles.
(a) Applicability and general provisions. This section describes
exhaust emission standards that apply for model year 2017 and later
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger
vehicles. MDPVs are subject to all the same provisions of this section
that apply to LDT4s. Some of the provisions of this section also apply
to heavy-duty vehicles as specified in Sec. 86.1816. See Sec. 86.1818
for greenhouse gas emission standards. See Sec. 86.1813 for
evaporative and refueling emission standards. This section may apply to
vehicles from model years earlier than 2017 as specified in paragraph
(b)(9) of this section.
(b) Tier 3 exhaust emission standards. Exhaust emissions may not
exceed the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards, as follows:
(1) Measure emissions using the chassis dynamometer procedures of
subpart B of this part, as follows:
(i) Establish appropriate load settings based on loaded vehicle
weight (see Sec. 86.1803).
(ii) Use appropriate driving schedules. Measurements involve
testing over multiple driving schedules. The Federal Test Procedure
(FTP) is based on testing with the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
(UDDS). The Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) involves testing
with the UDDS, the US06 driving schedule, and the SC03 driving
schedule. See 40 CFR 1066.801 for further information on these test
cycles. SFTP emissions in particular are calculated as a composite of
test results over these driving schedules based on the following
calculation:
SFTP (g/mi) = 0.35[sdot]FTP + 0.28[sdot]US06 + 0.37[sdot]SC03
(iii) For vehicles that qualify for the derived 5-cycle method for
determining fuel economy label values and are therefore not required to
operate over the SC03 driving schedule under 40 CFR 600.115, you may
alternatively use FTP emission results to substitute for the SC03 value
in the calculation under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section for a
given vehicle for any testing under this section.
[[Page 30068]]
(iv) Use E15 test fuel as required in Sec. 86.113, except as
specified in this section.
(v) Hydrocarbon emission standards are expressed as NMOG; however,
for certain vehicles you may measure exhaust emissions based on
nonmethane hydrocarbon instead of NMOG as described in 40 CFR 1066.665.
(vi) Measure emissions from hybrid electric vehicles to demonstrate
compliance with the Tier 3 standards according to the procedures
specified in SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 86.1).
(2) Table 1 of this section describes fully phased-in Tier 3
standards that apply as specified in this paragraph (b) for the
identified driving schedules. The FTP standards for NMOG+NOX
apply on a fleet-average basis using discrete bin standards as
described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. The bin standards
include additional emission standards for high-altitude testing and for
CO emissions when testing over the FTP driving schedule. The SFTP
standards for NMOG+NOx apply on a fleet-average basis as described in
paragraph (b)(5) of this section. Table 1 follows:
Table 1 of Sec. 86.1811-17--Fully Phased-In Tier 3 Exhaust Emission Standards
[g/mile]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX PM CO Formaldehyde
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP \1\ SFTP FTP US06 \2\ SFTP FTP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.030.............................................................. 0.050 0.003 0.010 4.2 0.004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The fleet-average FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx is 0.026 g/mile for LDV and LDT1 if a manufacturer certifies one or more test groups based on a
useful life of 120,000 miles and 10 years in a given model year.
\2\ The US06 emission standard for PM is 0.020 g/mile for vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR.
(3) The FTP standards specified in this section apply for testing
at low-altitude conditions and high-altitude conditions as specified in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section. The SFTP standards specified in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section apply only for testing at low-altitude
conditions.
(4) The FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX is based on a
fleet average for a given model year. You must specify a family
emission limit (FEL) for each test group. The FEL serves as the
emission standard for the test group with respect to all required FTP
testing. Calculate your fleet-average emission level as described in
Sec. 86.1860 based on the FEL that applies for low-altitude testing to
show that you meet the specified standard. For multi-fueled vehicles,
calculate fleet-average emission levels based only on emission levels
for testing with gasoline or diesel fuel. You may generate or use
emission credits for averaging, banking, and trading as described in
Sec. 86.1861 for demonstrating compliance with the FTP emission
standard for NMOG+NOX. You comply with the emission standard
for a given model year if you have enough credits to show that your
fleet-average emission level is at or below the applicable standard.
You may exchange FTP credits between or among any test groups subject
to standards under this section. You may not exchange FTP and SFTP
credits.
(i) You may specify any of the FELs from Table 2 of this section
for demonstrating that your fleet-average emission level complies with
the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX under low-altitude
conditions. These FEL values define emission bins that also determine
corresponding emission standards for NMOG+NOX emissions
under high-altitude conditions, and for CO emissions, as follows:
Table 2 of Sec. 86.1811-17--Tier 3 FTP Bin Standards (g/mile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX FELs
FEL name for low NMOG+NOX for CO for low and
altitude high altitude high altitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 160......................................................... 0.160 0.160 4.2
Bin 125......................................................... 0.125 0.160 2.1
Bin 70.......................................................... 0.070 0.105 1.7
Bin 50.......................................................... 0.050 0.070 1.7
Bin 30.......................................................... 0.030 0.050 1.0
Bin 20.......................................................... 0.020 0.030 1.0
Bin 0........................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Manufacturers earn a compliance credit of 0.005 g/mile
NMOG+NOX for vehicles that are certified for a useful life
of 150,000 miles or 15 years and that are covered by an extended
warranty over the same period for all components whose failure triggers
MIL illumination. Manufacturers may apply the compliance credit as
follows:
(A) You may subtract your official FTP emission result for
certification by the amount of the compliance credit if that allows you
to certify to a more stringent bin. In that case, you may use the more
stringent bin standard for calculating the fleet-average
NMOG+NOX emission level. For any compliance testing with
these vehicles, the applicable FTP bin standard for NMOG+NOX
is higher than the specified bin standard by the amount of the
compliance credit. For example, if the official FTP emission result for
NMOG+NOX is 0.052 g/mile, this qualifies for an FEL of 0.050
g/mile for calculating the fleet average and the vehicle is subject to
an FTP bin standard of 0.055 g/mile.
(B) If the amount of the compliance credit does not allow you to
certify to a more stringent bin, calculate the fleet-average
NMOG+NOX emission level using an FEL for these vehicles that
is smaller than the bin standard by the amount of the compliance
credit. For any compliance testing with these vehicles, the specified
bin standard applies. For example, if the official FTP emission result
for NMOG+NOX is 0.038
[[Page 30069]]
g/mile, calculate the fleet-average NMOG+NOX emission level
by specifying an FEL of 0.045 g/mile; these vehicles are subject to the
specified FTP bin standard of 0.050 g/mile.
(iii) If you qualify for a compliance credit for direct ozone
reduction under the LEV III program, you may apply the compliance
credit approved for California vehicles as described in paragraphs
(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.
(iv) You may combine the adjustments in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) and
(iii) of this section if you qualify for them separately.
(5) The SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX is also
based on a fleet average in a given model year. You must specify FELs
as described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section and calculate a fleet-
average emission level to show that you meet the SFTP emission standard
for NMOG+NOX, except that you may specify FELs in any even
increment of 0.010 g/mile up to a maximum value of 0.180 g/mile. You
may generate or use emission credits for averaging, banking, and
trading as described in Sec. 86.1860 for demonstrating compliance with
the SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX. You comply with the
emission standard for a given model year if you have enough credits to
show that your fleet-average emission level is at or below the
applicable standard. You may exchange SFTP credits between or among any
test groups subject to standards under this section. You may not
exchange FTP and SFTP credits. The SFTP standards described in this
section apply only for testing at low-altitude conditions.
(6) The full Tier 3 program includes new emission standards for
NMOG+NOX, PM, CO, and formaldehyde; it also includes
measurement with a new test fuel and a longer useful life (for some
vehicles). Vehicles meeting all these requirements are considered Final
Tier 3 vehicles. Vehicles that do not meet all the Tier 3 requirements
are considered Interim Tier 3 vehicles. The Tier 3 PM standards phase
in over several years. The following provisions describe the primary
approach for phasing in the Tier 3 PM standards:
(i) You must meet the FTP and the US06 PM standards with 20, 20,
40, 70, and 100 percent of your projected nationwide sales of all
vehicles subject to this section in model years 2017 through 2021,
respectively. Each vehicle meeting the Tier 3 FTP standard for PM must
also meet the Tier 3 US06 standard for PM. In model year 2017, the
phase-in requirement applies only for vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds
GVWR; however, if you certify these vehicles to the Tier 3 PM standards
in the model year 2017, you may count those projected U.S. sales toward
your calculation for meeting the phase-in percentage for that year
(numerator only).
(ii) You may disregard the phase-in percentages specified in
paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section if you instead comply with an
indexed PM phase-in schedule as described in this paragraph (b)(6)(ii).
To do this, you must notify us of your intent before January 1, 2017,
and include a detailed plan for complying with the indexed phase-in
schedule. You comply with the indexed phase-in schedule by calculating
a PM phase-in index at or above 540 using the following equation for
model years 2017 through 2021:
PM phase-in index = 5[middot]APP2017 +
4[middot]APP2018 + 3[middot]APP2019 +
2[middot]APP2020 + APP2021
Where:
APP = The actual phase-in percentage of vehicles meeting the Tier 3
p.m. standards for the indicated model year, based on actual sales,
as described in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section.
(iii) You may alternatively ask us to approve calculation of the
annual percentage for a given model year based on production volumes
instead of sales volumes.
(iv) Vehicles meeting the Tier 3 PM standards must meet those
standards over the useful life as specified in Sec. 86.1805-17. Note
that Interim Tier 3 vehicles may have different useful life values for
PM emission standards than for other emission standards.
(v) Any vehicles not included for demonstrating compliance with the
Tier 3 p.m. phase-in requirement must instead comply with an FTP
emission standard for PM of 0.010 g/mile, and a composite SFTP emission
standard for PM of 0.070 g/mile.
(vi) Measure PM emissions from all vehicles using the same test
fuel used for measuring NMOG+NOX emissions.
(vii) You may certify Interim Tier 3 vehicles based on carryover
data.
(viii) You may use the alternative phase-in provisions described in
paragraph (b)(8) of this section to transition to the Tier 3 exhaust
emission standards on a different schedule.
(7) The following provisions describe the primary approach for
phasing in the Tier 3 standards other than PM in 2025 and earlier model
years:
(i) FTP phase-in. The fleet-average FTP emission standard for
NMOG+NOX phases in over several years as described in this
paragraph (b)(7)(i). You must identify FELs as described in paragraph
(b)(4) of this section and calculate a fleet-average emission level to
show that you meet the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX
that applies for each model year. For model year 2017, do not include
vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR (in the numerator or denominator).
Through model year 2019, you may also certify to transitional Bin 85 or
Bin 110 standards, which consist of all-altitude FTP emission standards
for NMOG+NOX of 0.085 or 0.110 g/mile, respectively;
additional FTP standards for PM, CO, and formaldehyde apply as
specified in this section for vehicles certified to Bin 125 standards.
Fleet-average FTP emission standards decrease through the phase-in
period as shown in the following table:
Table 3 of Sec. 86.1811-17--Declining Fleet-Average Tier 3 FTP
Emission Standards for NMOG+NOX
[g/mile]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Year LDV, LDT1 \1\ LDT2, HLDT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 \2\................................ 0.086 0.101
2018.................................... 0.079 0.092
2019.................................... 0.072 0.083
2020.................................... 0.065 0.074
2021.................................... 0.058 0.065
2022.................................... 0.051 0.056
2023.................................... 0.044 0.047
2024.................................... 0.037 0.038
2025.................................... 0.030 0.030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If a manufacturer certifies one or more LDV or LDT1 test groups
based on a useful life of 120,000 miles and 10 years in a given model
year, calculate the adjusted fleet-average standard by multiplying the
specified value by 0.85 and rounding to the nearest 0.001 g/mile.
Through model year 2019, apply this adjustment only if one or more
test groups is certified to Bin 70 or lower standards based on a
useful life of 120,000 miles and 10 years.
\2\ Vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR must meet the Tier 3 standards
starting with the 2018 model year.
(ii) SFTP phase-in. The fleet-average SFTP emission standard for
NMOG+NOX phases in over several years as described in this
paragraph (b)(7)(ii). You must identify FELs as described in paragraph
(b)(5) of this section and calculate a fleet-average emission level to
show that you meet the SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX
that applies for each model year.
(A) Calculate the fleet-average emission level together for all
your light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, except for those
certified using the provisions of paragraph (b)(7)(ii)(C) of this
section. For model year 2017, do not include vehicles above 6,000
pounds GVWR (in the numerator or denominator).
[[Page 30070]]
(B) Fleet-average FTP emission standards decrease through the
phase-in period as shown in the following table:
Table 4 of Sec. 86.1811-17--Declining Fleet-Average Tier 3 SFTP
Emission Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX (g/
Model lYear mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 \1\................................................ 0.103
2018.................................................... 0.097
2019.................................................... 0.090
2020.................................................... 0.083
2021.................................................... 0.077
2022.................................................... 0.070
2023.................................................... 0.063
2024.................................................... 0.057
2025.................................................... 0.050
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR must meet the Tier 3 standards
starting with the 2018 model year.
(C) You may use the Option 1 provisions specified in the LEV III
program to demonstrate compliance with EPA's SFTP standards instead of
the phased-in fleet-average SFTP standards specified in this paragraph
(b)(7)(ii).
(iii) Interim provisions. (A) For LDT2 and HLDT certified to Bin
125 or Bin 160 standards under this section through model year 2019,
the Tier 2 useful life period applies as specified in Sec. 86.1805-12.
(B) You may alternatively use the E0 test fuel specified in Sec.
86.113 through model year 2019 for vehicles certified to bins higher
than Bin 70. You may not certify these vehicles in model year 2020
using carryover data.
(iv) You may use the alternative phase-in provisions described in
paragraph (b)(8) of this section to transition to the Tier 3 exhaust
emission standards on a different schedule.
(8) This paragraph (b)(8) describes an alternative approach to
phasing in the Tier 3 emission standards. If you choose this approach,
you must phase in the Tier 3 standards for all your vehicles subject to
this section according to this schedule. Under this alternative phase-
in, you must meet all the FTP and SFTP emission standards as specified
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section with 40, 70, and 100
percent of your projected nationwide sales of all vehicles subject to
this section in model years 2019 through 2021, respectively. Any
vehicles not subject to Tier 3 standards during the phase-in period
must continue to comply with the Tier 2 standards in Sec. 86.1811-
04(c) and (f), including the Tier 2 SFTP emission standards for
NMHC+NOX and CO for 4,000-mile testing as specified in Sec.
86.1811-04(f)(1). Vehicles subject to Tier 2 standards under this
paragraph (b)(8) are subject to the useful life provisions in Sec.
86.1805-12. Each vehicle counting toward the phase-in percentage under
this paragraph (b)(8) must meet all the standards that apply based on
the useful life provisions of Sec. 86.1805-17, and must use the Tier 3
test fuel specified in Sec. 86.113-07. Vehicles certified under this
paragraph (b)(8) may not generate or use emission credits.
(9) You may not use credits generated from Tier 2 vehicles for
demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 standards except as specified
in this paragraph (b)(9). You may generate early credits with U.S.
sales of Tier 2 vehicles in the two model years before the Tier 3
standards start to apply for a given vehicle model. Separate from any
Tier 2 demonstrations, calculate early Tier 3 emission credits as
described in Sec. 86.1861 by determining a fleet-average value for FTP
emissions of NMOG+NOX based on the applicable bin standards
and subtracting this value from 0.160 g/mile. Calculate your fleet-
average value for the model year based on vehicles at or below 6,000
pounds GVWR in 2015, on all sizes of vehicles in 2016, and on vehicles
above 6,000 pounds GVWR in 2017. Vehicles certified to the Tier 2
standards must meet all the Tier 2 requirements in Sec. 86.1811-10.
You must also continue to meet the fleet-average Tier 2 standards as
long as they apply. You may use these early credits as described in
Sec. 86.1861 for demonstrating compliance with the FTP emission
standard for NMOG+NOX; however, starting in model year 2018,
use of early credits is subject to a limitation based on credits
generated in California, as follows:
(i) For the applicable model years in which you generate emission
credits relative to California's LEV III fleet-average
NMOG+NOX standard, determine the actual California sales of
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks and the actual nationwide
sales of those same vehicles. In 2015, count sales only from vehicle
models at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR. For each model year, multiply the
credits generated under the California program by the ratio of
nationwide sales to California sales to calculate an effective
nationwide quantity. Sum these results for model years 2015 through
2017.
(ii) You may not use more early credits generated under this
paragraph (b)(9) to meet Tier 3 emission standards than the calculated
value of the effective nationwide credit quantity summed in paragraph
(b)(9)(i) of this section. If your generated credits are greater than
this threshold, determine the percentage of your generated early
credits that exceed the threshold. Calculate an adjusted quantity of
early credits generated under this paragraph (b)(9) by decreasing the
generated quantity from each model year by the calculated percentage
that exceed the applicable threshold. This adjusted quantity of credits
may be used for demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 standards,
subject to the five-year credit life described in Sec. 86.1861.
(10) The following alternate standards apply for in-use testing
with 2021 and earlier model year vehicles:
(i) The alternate in-use PM emission standard for FTP testing is
0.006 g/mile.
(ii) The alternate in-use PM emission standards for SFTP testing
are 0.015 g/mile for vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR and 0.025
g/mile for vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR.
(iii) Alternate in-use NMOG+NOX emission standards for
FTP testing apply for vehicles certified to Bin 70 and lower. Calculate
these alternate standards by multiplying the applicable FEL by 1.4.
These alternate standards apply only for testing at low-altitude
conditions.
(11) Keep records as needed to show that you meet the requirements
specified in this paragraph (b) for phasing in standards and for
complying with declining fleet-average average standards.
(c) Highway NMOG+NOX exhaust emission standard.
NMOG+NOX emissions measured on the federal Highway Fuel
Economy Test in 40 CFR part 600, subpart B, may not exceed the
applicable NMOG+NOX bin standard for FTP testing.
Demonstrate compliance with this standard for low-mileage vehicles by
applying the appropriate deterioration factor.
(d) Special provisions for Otto-cycle engines. The following
special provisions apply for vehicles with Otto-cycle engines:
(1) Enrichment limits. The nominal air-fuel ratio throughout the
US06 cycle may not be richer than the leanest air-fuel mixture required
for lean best torque, except as allowed under paragraph (d)(2) of this
section. Unless we approve otherwise in advance, lean best torque is
the leanest air-fuel ratio required at any speed and load point with a
fixed spark advance to make peak torque. The allowable tolerance around
the nominal value for any given speed and load point over the US06
cycle for a particular vehicle is 4 percent, which is calculated as the
nominal mass-based air-fuel ratio for lean best torque divided by 1.04.
(2) Engine protection. AECDs that use commanded enrichment to
protect the engine or emission control hardware
[[Page 30071]]
must not use enrichment more frequently or to a greater degree than is
needed for this purpose. For purposes of this section, commanded
enrichment includes intended engine operation at air-fuel ratios rich
of stoichiometry, except the following:
(i) Cycling back and forth in a narrow window between rich and lean
operation as a result of feedback controls targeted to maintain overall
engine operation at stoichiometry.
(ii) Small changes in the target air-fuel ratio to optimize vehicle
emissions or drivability. This may be called ``closed-loop biasing.''
(iii) Temporary enrichment in response to rapid throttle motion.
(iv) Enrichment during cold-start and warm-up conditions.
(v) Temporary enrichment for running OBD checks to comply with
Sec. 86.1806.
(3) A/C-on specific calibrations. (i) A/C-on specific calibrations
(e.g., air-fuel ratio, spark timing, and exhaust gas recirculation)
that differ from A/C-off calibrations may be used for a given set of
engine operating conditions (e.g., engine speed, manifold pressure,
coolant temperature, air charge temperature, and any other parameters).
Such calibrations must not unnecessarily reduce emission control
effectiveness during A/C-on operation when the vehicle is operated
under conditions that may reasonably be expected during normal
operation and use. If emission control effectiveness decreases as a
result of such calibrations, the manufacturer must describe in the
Application for Certification the circumstances under which this occurs
and the reason for using these calibrations.
(ii) For AECDs involving commanded enrichment, these AECDs must not
operate differently for A/C-on operation than for A/C-off operation,
except as provided under paragraph (d)(2) of this section. This
includes both the sensor inputs for triggering enrichment and the
degree of enrichment employed.
(4) ``Lean-on-cruise'' calibration strategies. Manufacturers may
use ``lean-on-cruise'' strategies subject to the following
specifications:
(i) A ``lean-on-cruise'' strategy is defined as the use of an air-
fuel ratio significantly leaner than stoichiometry during non-
deceleration conditions at speeds above 40 mph.
(ii) You must not employ ``lean-on-cruise'' strategies during
vehicle operation in normal driving conditions, including A/C usage,
unless at least one of the following conditions is met:
(A) Such strategies are substantially employed during the FTP,
US06, or SC03 duty cycle.
(B) Such strategies are demonstrated not to significantly reduce
vehicle emission control effectiveness over the operating conditions in
which they are employed.
(C) Such strategies are demonstrated to be necessary to protect the
vehicle occupants, engine, or emission control hardware.
(iii) If you propose to use a ``lean-on-cruise'' strategy, you
mustdescribe in the application for certification the circumstances
under which such a calibration would be used and the reasons for using
it.
(e) through (f) [Reserved]
(g) Cold temperature exhaust emission standards. The following
standards apply for vehicles tested over the test procedures specified
in subpart C of this part:
(1) Cold temperature CO standards. These cold temperature CO
standards are applicable only to gasoline-fueled vehicles. These
standards apply for testing at low-altitude conditions and high-
altitude conditions. Cold temperature CO exhaust emission standards
apply when measured using the test procedures specified in subpart C of
this part, as follows:
(i) For LDVs and LDT1s, the standard is 10.0 g/mile CO.
(ii) For LDT2s, LDT3s and LDT4s, the standard is 12.5 grams per
mile CO.
(2) Cold temperature NMHC standards. Fleet average cold temperature
NMHC standards are applicable only to gasoline-fueled vehicles, and
apply equally to certification and in-use except as otherwise specified
in Sec. 86.1811-10(u) for in-use standards for applicable phase-in
models. Testing with other fuels such as E85, or testing on diesel
vehicles, is not required. Multi-fuel, bi-fuel or dual-fuel vehicles
must comply with requirements using gasoline only.
(i) The standards are shown in the following table:
Table 5 of Sec. 86.1811-17--Fleet Average Cold Temperature NMHC
Exhaust Emission Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cold temperature
NMHC sales-
Vehicle weight category weighted fleet
average standard
(g/mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDVs & LLDTs (<=6,000 lbs GVWR)...................... 0.3
HLDTs >6,000 lbs GVWR................................ 0.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) The manufacturer must calculate its fleet average cold
temperature NMHC emission level(s) as described in Sec. 86.1864-10(m).
(iii) The standards specified in this paragraph (g)(2) apply only
for testing at low-altitude conditions. However, manufacturers must
submit an engineering evaluation indicating that common calibration
approaches are utilized at high altitudes. Any deviation from low
altitude emission control practices must be included in the auxiliary
emission control device (AECD) descriptions submitted at certification.
Any AECD specific to high altitude must require engineering emission
data for EPA evaluation to quantify any emission impact and validity of
the AECD.
(h) Small-volume manufacturers. Small-volume manufacturers meeting
the eligibility requirements in Sec. 86.1838 may delay complying with
the requirements in this section until model year 2022. This also
applies for continuing to use the E0 test fuel specified in Sec.
86.113 through model year 2022. If meeting the Tier 3 standards in
model year 2022 would cause severe economic hardship, such
manufacturers may ask us to approve an extended compliance deadline
under the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.250, except that the solvency
criterion does not apply and there is no maximum duration of the
hardship relief.
Sec. Sec. 86.1812-01 and 86.1813-01 [Removed]
0
159. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.1812-01 and 86.1813-01.
0
160. A new Sec. 86.1813-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1813-17 Evaporative and refueling emission standards.
Vehicles must meet evaporative and refueling emission standards as
specified in this section. The emission standards apply for total
hydrocarbon equivalent (THCE) measurements using the test procedures
specified in subpart B of this part, as appropriate. Note that Sec.
86.1829 allows you to certify without testing in certain circumstances.
Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, evaporative and
refueling emission standards do not apply for diesel-fueled vehicles.
Unless otherwise specified, MDPVs are subject to all the same
provisions of this section that apply to LDT4s.
(a) Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. Vehicles may not exceed
the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards, as follows:
(1) Measure emissions using the test procedures of subpart B of
this part, as follows:
[[Page 30072]]
(i) Follow the vehicle preconditioning and exhaust testing
procedures as described in subpart B of this part.
(ii) Measure diurnal, running loss, and hot soak emissions as shown
in Sec. 86.130.
(iii) Use E15 test fuel as required in Sec. 86.113, except as
specified in this section.
(iv) Emissions are measured as total hydrocarbon; however, in the
case of E15 test fuel, multiply measured values by 1.1 to convert
values to total hydrocarbon equivalent.
(2) Diurnal and hot soak emissions may not exceed the Tier 3
emission standards, as follows:
(i) The emission standard for the sum of diurnal and hot soak
measurements from the two-diurnal test sequence and the three-diurnal
test sequence is based on a fleet average in a given model year. You
must specify a family emission limit (FEL) for each test group. The FEL
serves as the emission standard for the test group with respect to all
required diurnal and hot soak testing. Calculate your fleet average
emission level as described in Sec. 86.1860 based on the FEL that
applies for low-altitude testing to show that you meet the specified
standard. For multi-fueled vehicles, calculate fleet-average emission
levels based only on emission levels for testing with gasoline. You may
generate or use emission credits for averaging, banking, or trading for
vehicles required to meet the Tier 3 standards, other than electric
vehicles and gaseous-fueled vehicles, as described in Sec. 86.1861 for
demonstrating compliance with the hot soak plus diurnal emission
standard starting in the 2017 model year. You comply with the emission
standard for a given model year if you have enough credits to show that
your fleet-average emission level is at or below the applicable
standard. You may exchange credits between or among test groups within
an averaging set as described in Sec. 86.1861. Separate diurnal plus
hot soak emission standards apply as shown for high-altitude
conditions. The sum of diurnal and hot soak measurements may not exceed
the following fleet-average Tier 3 standards:
Table 1 of Sec. 86.1813-17--Tier 3 Diurnal Plus Hot Soak Emission
Standards
[Grams per test]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low- High-
Vehicle category altitude altitude
conditions conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV, LDT1..................................... 0.300 0.65
LDT2.......................................... 0.400 0.85
HLDT.......................................... 0.500 \1\ 1.15
HDV........................................... 0.600 1.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1.25 g/test for MDPVs.
(ii) Specify FELs as follows:
(A) You may specify the low-altitude FEL in increments of 0.025 g
above or below the otherwise applicable Tier 3 diurnal plus hot soak
standard, up to the maximum values specified in the following table:
Table 2 of Sec. 86.1813-17--Tier 3 FEL Caps for Low-Altitude Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle category FEL caps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV..................................................... 0.500
LLDT.................................................... 0.650
HLDT.................................................... 0.900
MDPV.................................................... 1.000
HDV..................................................... 1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Calculate the FEL for testing at high-altitude conditions
based on the difference between the low-altitude FEL and the standard.
For example, if a light-duty vehicle was certified with an FEL of 0.400
g instead of the 0.300 g standard, the FEL for testing under high-
altitude conditions would be 0.75 g (0.65+0.10).
(iii) Hydrocarbon emissions must not exceed 0.020 g for LDVs and
LDTs and 0.030 g for HDVs when tested using the Bleed Emission Test
Procedure adopted by the California Air Resources Board (incorporated
by reference in Sec. 86.1). This procedure quantifies diurnal
emissions without measuring hot soak emissions. The standards in this
paragraph (a)(2)(iii) do not apply for testing at high-altitude
conditions. For vehicles with non-integrated refueling emission control
systems, the bleed emission test and standard do not apply to the
refueling canister.
(3) Running losses may not exceed 0.05 g per mile when measured
using the test procedures specified in Sec. 86.134.
(4) Fuel systems for vehicles operating on one or more volatile
liquid fuels may not exceed an effective leak diameter of 0.02 inches
when measured using the procedure specified in 40 CFR 1066.840. For
vehicles with fuel tanks exceeding 25 gallons nominal fuel tank
capacity, you may request our approval for a leak standard greater than
0.020 inches, up to a maximum value of 0.040 inches.
(5) The Tier 3 evaporative emission standards start to phase in
with model year 2017 for vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR and
with model year 2018 for vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR. Table 3 of
this section specifies the minimum percentage of each manufacturer's
sales in each model year that must be certified to the Tier 3
evaporative emission standards. Calculate annual percentages based on
actual nationwide sales of all vehicles subject to standards under this
paragraph (a) for the applicable model year; however, if all your FELs
for Tier 3 test groups are at the applicable standard (neither
generating nor using emission credits), the phase-in requirements are
based on projected sales. Also, if you certify vehicles above 6,000
pounds GVWR to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards in model year
2017, you may count projected U.S. sales of those vehicles toward your
calculation for meeting the 40 percent requirement in 2017 (numerator
only). Manufacturers may meet this requirement using the additional
alternative phase-in provisions in paragraph (g) of this section.
Vehicles from the identified model years not certified to the Tier 3
evaporative emission standards continue to be subject to the
evaporative emission standards specified in Sec. 86.1811-09(e) or
Sec. 86.1816-08(d), including the useful life provisions of Sec.
86.1805-12. Note that this subjects LDVs and LDT1s to a 150,000 mile
useful life for evaporative emissions if the vehicles are subject to a
150,000 mile useful life for exhaust emissions. Keep records as needed
to show that you meet the phase-in requirements specified in this
section.
Table 3 of Sec. 86.1813-17--Default Phase-In Schedule for Tier 3
Evaporative Emission Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
percentage of
Model year vehicles subject
to the Tier 3
standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017................................................ 1 2 40
2018................................................ 60
2019................................................ 60
2020................................................ 80
2021................................................ 80
2022................................................ 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The phase-in percentage for model year 2017 applies only for
vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR.
\2\ The leak standard specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section does
not apply for model year 2017.
(6) For model year 2017, exclude vehicle sales from California and
section
[[Page 30073]]
177 states from the calculation to demonstrate compliance with the
phase-in schedule in paragraph (a)(5) or (g) of this section, and from
the credit calculation in Sec. 86.1860.
(b) Refueling emissions. Vehicles must meet the refueling emission
standards in this paragraph (b) when measured over the procedure
specified in Sec. 86.150. These standards apply starting with model
year 2018 for vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR. The following
refueling standards apply:
(1) 0.20 g THCE per gallon of fuel dispensed for gasoline-fueled,
diesel-fueled and methanol-fueled vehicles.
(2) 0.15 g THC per gallon of fuel dispensed for liquefied petroleum
gas-fueled vehicles.
(c) Fuel spitback. For vehicles fueled by volatile liquid fuels,
fuel spitback emissions may not exceed 1.0 g THCE when measured using
the test procedures specified in Sec. 86.146. The fuel spitback
standard applies only to newly assembled vehicles.
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Auxiliary engines and separate fuel systems. The provisions of
40 CFR 1037.103(f) apply for vehicles with auxiliary engines. This
includes any engines installed in the final vehicle configuration that
contribute no motive power through the vehicle's transmission.
(f) Refueling provisions for gaseous fuel vehicles. The following
provisions apply specifically for gaseous fuel vehicles:
(1) Refueling receptacles on natural gas-fueled vehicles must
comply with the receptacle provisions of the ANSI/AGA NGV1-1994
standard (incorporated by reference in Sec. 86.1).
(2) With our advance approval, liquefied petroleum gas-fueled
vehicles with gauges or valves that can be opened to release fuel or
fuel vapor during refueling (such as fixed liquid level gauges) may be
tested for refueling emissions without opening such gauges or valves,
as outlined in Sec. 86.157-98(d)(2). We will approve your request if
you can show that such gauges or valves will not be open during in-use
refueling due to inaccessibility or other design features that would
prevent them from opening or make this very unlikely.
(g) Alternative phase-in options for Tier 3 evaporative emission
standards. You may use any of the following alternative methods to
transition to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards:
(1) Starting in model year 2015, you may earn an ``allowance'' for
each vehicle at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that you certify early to
the Tier 3 standards in paragraph (a) of this section, as long as the
vehicle is not sold in California or any of the section 177 states.
This applies in model years 2015 and 2016 for vehicles at or below
6,000 pounds GVWR and in model years 2015 through 2017 for vehicles
above 6,000 pounds GVWR. For each allowance you earn, you may count it
as one compliant vehicle in a later model year during the phase-in
period. As an example, selling 100,000 Tier 3 vehicles in 2016 and a
total of 400,000 vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR in 2017 would
allow a manufacturer to ``spend'' up to 40,000 allowances in both 2017
and 2018, leaving a total of 20,000 allowances for 2019 through 2022.
Calculate the total phase-in percentage in each model year by adding
the allowances to the number of compliant vehicles (in the numerator),
without increasing total sales (in the denominator). For each allowance
you earn, you may alternatively count it as one compliant vehicle for
model year 2018 under the phase-in schedule described in paragraph
(g)(5) of this section; however, you may not use those allowances to
increase the value of APP in any model year by more than 10 percentage
points. Vehicles earning allowances under this paragraph (g)(1) may not
have an FEL above the applicable Tier 3 standard, and may not generate
emission credits. Allowances may not be traded to another company. You
may earn additional allowances under this paragraph (g)(1) as follows:
(i) To the extent that you over-comply with the 40-percent phase-in
requirement in model year 2017, you may count your actual U.S. sales
exceeding the required number of Tier 3 vehicles as allowances toward
meeting the phase-in requirement in 2018 and later model years.
(ii) For vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR that you certify to the
refueling emission standards in paragraph (b) of this section in model
years 2015 through 2017, a single vehicle may produce two allowances if
it is certified to the Tier 3 diurnal plus hot soak standard and the
refueling standard. Allowances earned under this paragraph (g)(1)(ii)
may alternatively be used in model years 2018 through 2022 to phase in
the refueling standard.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) You may disregard the percentage phase-in specified in
paragraph (a)(5) of this section for 2017 if you choose 50-state
certification for all your vehicles meeting the LEV III PZEV
evaporative standards in 2017. Under this option, you may not produce a
higher-emitting version of those vehicle models for sale outside of
California or the section 177 states. Such vehicles may be certified
using carryover data under the California program; however, they may
generate or use emission credits only if they are certified to meet the
emission standards of paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Vehicles that
comply under this paragraph (g)(3) may not generate allowances under
paragraph (g)(1) of this section, regardless of the calculated
percentage of compliant vehicles in model year 2017.
(4) If you certify model year 2019 or earlier vehicles to the LEV
III emission standards in California, you may certify those as Tier 3
vehicles that count toward meeting the phase-in requirements of this
section. Such vehicles must still be certified to the leak standard
specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section and the high-altitude
standards in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. You may not certify
vehicles under this paragraph (g)(4) after model year 2019. Vehicles
meeting the LEV III standards may also generate allowances under
paragraph (g)(1) of this section; however, these vehicles may generate
or use emission credits under this subpart only if they are not used to
generate allowances and if they are certified using the Option 2
procedures under the LEV III program (including the bleed emission
test).
(5) You may disregard the phase-in percentages specified in
paragraph (a)(5) of this section for 2018 through 2022 if you instead
comply with the alternate phase-in schedule described in this paragraph
(g)(5). To do this, you must notify us of your intent before January 1,
2018, and include a detailed plan for complying with the alternate
phase-in schedule. You comply with the alternate phase-in schedule by
calculating an evaporative phase-in index at or above 1,040 using the
following equation for model years 2018 through 2022:
Evaporative phase-in index = 5[middot]APP2018 +
4[middot]APP2019 + 3[middot]APP2020 +
2[middot]APP2021 + APP2022
Where:
APP = The actual phase-in percentage of vehicles meeting the Tier 3
evaporative emission standards for the indicated model year, based
on actual sales; you may instead ask us to calculate the annual
percentage based on actual production volumes.
(6) You may alternatively use the E0 test fuel specified in Sec.
86.113 through model year 2019 for vehicles certified to emission
standards comparable to the standards in this section based on testing
specified by the California Air Resources Board. You may not certify
these vehicles in model year 2020 using carryover data.
[[Page 30074]]
(h) Small-volume manufacturers. Small-volume manufacturers meeting
the eligibility requirements in Sec. 86.1838 may delay complying with
the requirements in this section until model year 2022. If meeting the
Tier 3 standards in model year 2022 would cause severe economic
hardship, such manufacturers may ask us to approve an extended
compliance deadline under the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.250, except
that the solvency criterion does not apply and there is no maximum
duration of the hardship relief.
Sec. Sec. 86.1814-01, 86.1814-02, 86.1815-01, and 86.1815-
02 [Removed]
0
161. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.1814-01, 86.1814-02, 86.1815-01, and 86.1815-
02.
0
162. A new Sec. 86.1816-18 is added to subpart S to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1816-18 Emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles.
(a) Applicability and general provisions. This section describes
exhaust emission standards that apply for model year 2018 and later
complete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. These
standards are optional for incomplete heavy-duty vehicles and for heavy
duty vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR as described in Sec. 86.1801.
Greenhouse gas emission standards are specified in Sec. 86.1818 for
MDPVs and in 40 CFR 1037.104 for other HDVs. See Sec. 86.1813 for
evaporative and refueling emission standards. This section may apply to
vehicles before model year 2018 as specified in paragraph (b)(10) of
this section. Separate requirements apply for MDPVs as specified in
Sec. 86.1811. See subpart A of this part for requirements that apply
for incomplete heavy-duty vehicles and for heavy-duty engines certified
independent of the chassis. The following general provisions apply:
(1) Test all vehicles as described in this section using a chassis
dynamometer; establish appropriate load settings based on adjusted
loaded vehicle weight (see Sec. 86.1803).
(2) Some provisions apply differently depending on the vehicle's
power-to-weight ratio. Determine a vehicle's power-to-weight ratio by
dividing the engine's rated power by the vehicle's GVWR (in hp/pound).
For purposes of this section, if a test group includes multiple
configurations, use the vehicle with the highest power-to-weight ratio
to characterize the test group.
(3) Use E15 test fuel as required in Sec. 86.113, except as
specified in this section.
(4) Measure emissions from hybrid electric vehicles to demonstrate
compliance with the standards of this section according to the
procedures specified in SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec.
86.1).
(b) Tier 3 exhaust emission standards. Exhaust emissions may not
exceed the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards, as follows:
(1) Measure emissions using the procedures of subpart B of this
part, using specific driving schedules and additional procedures as
follows:
(i) The Federal Test Procedure (FTP) is based on testing with the
Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) specified in paragraph (a) of
Appendix I of this part.
(ii) The Heavy-Duty Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (HD-SFTP)
involves testing with the UDDS, the SC03 driving schedule specified in
paragraph (h) of Appendix I of this part, and one of the following
additional driving schedules:
(A) For Class 2b vehicles, the US06 driving schedule specified in
paragraph (g) of Appendix I of this part.
(B) For Class 2b vehicles with a power-to-weight ratio at or below
0.024 hp/pound that are certified to optional standards under
paragraphs (b)(2) and (4) of this section, the highway portion of the
US06 driving schedule characterized as the ``second bag'' in Sec.
86.159-08(a).
(C) For Class 3 vehicles, the LA-92 driving schedule as specified
in paragraph (c) of Appendix I of this part.
(iii) HD-SFTP emissions are calculated as a composite of test
results over these driving schedules based on the following
calculation:
HD-SFTP (g/mi) = 0.35[middot]FTP + 0.28[middot]HDSIM + 0.37[middot]SC03
Where:
HDSIM = the appropriate driving schedule specified in paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(iv) You may alternatively use FTP emission results to substitute
for the SC03 value in the calculation under paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of
this section for a given vehicle for any testing under this section.
(v) Hydrocarbon emission standards are expressed as NMOG; however,
you may measure exhaust emissions based on nonmethane hydrocarbon
instead of NMOG as described in 40 CFR 1066.665.
(2) Table 1 of this section describes fully phased-in Tier 3
standards that apply as specified in this paragraph (b) for the
identified driving schedules. The FTP standards for NMOG+NOX
apply on a fleet-average basis using discrete bin standards as
described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. The bin standards
include additional emission standards for CO emissions, and for
NMOG+NOX standards when testing over the HD-SFTP driving
schedule. Table 1 follows:
Table 1 of Sec. 86.1816-18--Fully Phased-in Tier 3 HDV Exhaust Emission Standards
[g/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet-average PM Formaldehyde
NMOG+NOX -----------------------------------------------
HDV Class ----------------
FTP FTP HD-SFTP FTP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2b.............................................. 0.178 0.008 \1\ 0.010 0.006
3............................................... 0.247 0.010 0.007 0.006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For vehicles with a power-to-weight ratio at or below 0.024 hp/pound that are certified using the driving
schedule described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, the HD-SFTP standard for PM is 0.007 g/mile
instead of the value specified in the table.
(3) The FTP standards specified in this section apply equally for
testing at low-altitude conditions and high-altitude conditions. The
HD-SFTP standards described in this section apply only for testing at
low-altitude conditions.
(4) The FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX is based on a
fleet average in a given model year. You must specify a family emission
limit (FEL) for each test group. The FEL serves as the emission
standard for the test group with respect to all required FTP testing.
Calculate your fleet-average emission level as described in Sec.
86.1860 to show that you meet the specified standard. For multi-fueled
vehicles, calculate fleet-average emission levels based only on
emission levels for testing with gasoline or diesel fuel. You may
[[Page 30075]]
generate or use emission credits for averaging, banking, or trading as
described in Sec. 86.1860 for demonstrating compliance with the FTP
emission standard for NMOG+NOX. You comply with the emission
standard for a given model year if you have enough credits to show that
your fleet-average emission level is at or below the applicable
standard. You may exchange credits between or among any test groups
subject to standards under this section. You may specify any of the
FELs from Table 2 or Table 3 of this section for demonstrating that
your fleet-average emission level complies with the FTP emission
standard for NMOG+NOX. These FEL values define emission bins
that also determine corresponding emission standards for
NMOG+NOX emissions over the HD-SFTP driving schedule and for
CO emissions, as follows:
Table 2 of Sec. 86.1816-18--Tier 3 Bin Standards--Class 2b
[g/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEL Name CO
----------------------------------------------------------------- NMOG+NOX -------------------------------
FTP (FEL) HD-SFTP \1\ FTP HD-SFTP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 250......................................... 0.250 0.800 6.4 22.0
Bin 200......................................... 0.200 0.800 4.2 22.0
Bin 170......................................... 0.170 0.450 4.2 12.0
Bin 150......................................... 0.150 0.450 3.2 12.0
Bin 0 \2\....................................... 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vehicles with a power-to-weight ratio at or below 0.024 hp/pound that are certified using the driving
schedule described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, the following HD-SFTP bin standards for
NMOG+NOX apply instead of those identified in the table: 0.350 g/mile for Bin 150 and Bin 170; and 0.550 g/
mile for Bin 200 and Bin 250.
\2\ Vehicles certified to Bin 0 must also meet PM and formaldehyde standards of 0.000 g/mile instead of the
standards specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
Table 3 of Sec. 86.1816-18--Tier 3 Bin Standards--Class 3
[g/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX CO
FEL Name ---------------------------------------------------------------
FTP (FEL) HD-SFTP FTP HD-SFTP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 400......................................... 0.400 0.550 7.3 6.0
Bin 270......................................... 0.270 0.550 4.2 6.0
Bin 230......................................... 0.230 0.350 4.2 4.0
Bin 200......................................... 0.200 0.350 3.7 4.0
Bin 0 \1\....................................... 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vehicles certified to Bin 0 must also meet PM and formaldehyde standards of 0.000 g/mile instead of the
standards specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(5) [Reserved]
(6) The full Tier 3 program includes new emission standards for
NMOG+NOX, PM, CO, and formaldehyde; it also includes
measurement with a new test fuel and a longer useful life. Vehicles
meeting all these requirements are considered Final Tier 3 vehicles.
Vehicles that do not meet all the Tier 3 requirements are considered
Interim Tier 3 vehicles. The Tier 3 PM standards phase in over several
years. Any vehicles not subject to Tier 3 PM standards during the
phase-in period must continue to comply with the PM standards in Sec.
86.1816-08. Paragraph (b)(7) of this section describes how to
transition to Tier 3 standards for emissions other than PM. The
following provisions describe the primary approach for phasing in the
Tier 3 PM standards:
(i) You must meet the FTP emission standard for PM with 20, 40, 70,
and 100 percent of your projected nationwide sales of all vehicles
subject to this section in model years 2018 through 2021, respectively.
Each vehicle meeting the Tier 3 FTP standard for PM must also meet the
Tier 3 HD-SFTP standard for PM.
(ii) You may disregard the phase-in percentages specified in
paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section if you instead comply with an
indexed PM phase-in schedule as described in this paragraph (b)(6)(ii).
To do this, you must notify us of your intent before January 1, 2018,
and include a detailed plan for complying with the indexed phase-in
schedule. You comply with the indexed phase-in schedule by calculating
a PM phase-in index at or above 440 using the following equation for
model years 2018 through 2021:
PM phase-in index = 4[middot]APP2018 +
3[middot]APP2019 + 2[middot]APP2020 +
APP2021
Where:
APP = The actual phase-in percentage of vehicles meeting the Tier 3
PM standards for the indicated model year, based on actual sales, as
described in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section.
(iii) You may alternatively ask us to approve calculation of the
annual percentage for a given model year based on production volumes
instead of sales volumes.
(iv) Vehicles meeting the Tier 3 PM standards must meet those
standards over the useful life as specified in Sec. 86.1805-17. Note
that Interim Tier 3 vehicles may have different useful life values for
PM emission standards than for other emission standards.
(v) Measure PM emissions from all vehicles using the same test fuel
used for measuring NMOG+NOX emissions.
(vi) You may certify Interim Tier 3 vehicles based on carryover
data.
(vii) You may use the alternative phase-in provisions described in
paragraph (b)(8) of this section to transition to the Tier 3 exhaust
emission standards on a different schedule.
(7) The following provisions describe the primary approach for
phasing in the Tier 3 standards other than PM in 2022 and earlier model
years:
(i) The fleet-average FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX
phases in over several years as described in this paragraph (b)(7)(i).
You must identify
[[Page 30076]]
FELs as described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section and calculate a
fleet-average emission level to show that you meet the FTP emission
standard for NMOG+NOX that applies for each model year. You
may certify using transitional bin standards specified in Table 5 of
this section through model year 2021; include these vehicles in the
fleet-average calculation by treating the sum of the NMOG and
NOX emission standards as the Family Emission Limit under
Sec. 86.1860. You may alternatively use the E0 test fuel specified in
Sec. 86.113 for vehicles certified to the transitional bins; the
useful life period for these vehicles is 120,000 miles or 11 years.
Fleet-average FTP emission standards decrease as shown in the following
table:
Table 4 of Sec. 86.1816-18--Declining Fleet-Average FTP Emission
Standards for NMOG+NOX
[g/mile]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year Class 2b Class 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 \1\................................ 0.333 0.548
2017 \1\................................ 0.310 0.508
2018.................................... 0.278 0.451
2019.................................... 0.253 0.400
2020.................................... 0.228 0.349
2021.................................... 0.203 0.298
2022.................................... 0.178 0.247
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fleet-average standards are shown for 2016 and 2017 for purposes of
voluntary early compliance as described in paragraph (b)(10) of this
section.
Table 5 of Sec. 86.1816-18--Transitional Tier 3 FTP Bin Standards
[g/mile] \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class FEL name NMOG NOX PM CO Formaldehyde
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2b................................ Bin 395 0.195 0.200 0.012 6.4 0.032
Bin 340 0.140 0.200 0.012 6.4 0.032
3................................. Bin 630 0.230 0.400 0.012 7.3 0.040
Bin 570 0.170 0.400 0.012 7.3 0.040
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vehicles certified to Transitional Tier 3 FTP bins are not subject to HD-SFTP standards.
(ii) You may use the alternative phase-in provisions described in
paragraph (b)(8) of this section to transition to the Tier 3 exhaust
emission standards on a different schedule.
(8) This paragraph (b)(8) describes an alternative approach to
phasing in all the Tier 3 emission standards. If you choose this
approach, you must phase in the Tier 3 standards for all your vehicles
subject to this section according to this schedule. You may meet the
standards specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section according to
the phase-in schedule specified in Table 6 of this section based on the
indicated percentage of your projected nationwide sales in each model
year. These vehicles must meet the applicable FTP emission standard for
CO and the HD-SFTP emissions standards for NMOG+NOX and CO
that apply for Class 2b Bin 170 and Class 3 Bin 230 as described in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section. You may use averaging, banking, and
trading relative to the Tier 3 FTP emission standard for
NMOG+NOX during the phase-in period, but only if all the
vehicles certified under Sec. 86.1816-08 have FELs that are at or
below the applicable NMHC and NOX standards. Any vehicles
not subject to Tier 3 standards during the phase-in period must
continue to comply with the gaseous exhaust emission standards in Sec.
86.1816-08. Each vehicle counting toward the PM phase-in percentage
under this paragraph (b)(8) in model years 2019 and 2020 must also be
included in the portion of the fleet meeting the Tier 3 standards for
pollutants other than PM. Each vehicle counting toward the phase-in
percentage for any pollutant must use the Tier 3 test fuel specified in
Sec. 86.113-07. To generate emission credits during the phase-in
period, all pre-Tier 3 vehicles must have FELs at or below the
NOX and NMHC standards in Sec. 86.1816-08. Determine
emission credits by calculating fleet-average emission levels for Tier
3 and pre-Tier 3 vehicles together; for pre-Tier 3 vehicles use an
NMOG+NOX equivalent FEL of 0.395 g/mile for Class 2b
vehicles and 0.630 g/mile for Class 3 vehicles. You may optionally meet
the Tier 3 standards before model year 2019.
Table 6 of Sec. 86.1816-18
[Alternative Phase-In Schedule]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 2b Class 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year Other than PM Other than PM
PM (percent) PM (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019................................ 40 65 40 60
2020................................ 70 77 70 73
2021................................ 100 88 100 87
2022................................ 100 100 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(9) You may not use credits generated from vehicles certified under
Sec. 86.1816-08 for demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3
standards.
(10) [Reserved]
(11) You may voluntarily certify your vehicles under this section
in model years 2016 and 2017. If you do this, the fleet-average FTP
emission standards for NMOG+NOX apply to all your complete
heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR as specified in
paragraph (b)(7)(i) of this section. Use any of the available bin
standards as described in this section. Vehicles certified under
[[Page 30077]]
this paragraph (b)(10) must comply with the PM standards specified in
Sec. 86.1816-08 instead of the Tier 3 p.m. standards specified in this
section.
(12) Keep records as needed to show that you meet the requirements
specified in this paragraph (b) for phasing in standards and for
complying with declining fleet-average average standards.
(c) Highway NMOG+NOX exhaust emission standard.
NMOG+NOX emissions measured on the highway test cycle in 40
CFR part 600, subpart B, may not exceed the applicable
NMOG+NOX bin standard for FTP testing. Demonstrate
compliance with this standard for low-mileage vehicles by applying the
appropriate deterioration factor.
(d) Provisions for Otto-cycle engines. The special provisions
described in Sec. 86.1811-17(d) apply to vehicles with Otto-cycle
engines that are certified under this section.
(e) Small-volume manufacturers. Small-volume manufacturers meeting
the eligibility requirements in Sec. 86.1838 may delay complying with
the requirements in this section until model year 2022. This also
applies for continuing to use the E0 test fuel specified in Sec.
86.113 through model year 2021. If meeting the Tier 3 standards in
model year 2022 would cause severe economic hardship, such
manufacturers may ask us to approve an extended compliance deadline
under the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.250, except that the solvency
criterion does not apply and there is no maximum duration of the
hardship relief.
0
163. Section Sec. 86.1817-08 is amended by revising the introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1817-08 Complete heavy-duty vehicle averaging, trading, and
banking program.
Section 86.1817-08 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.1817-05. Where a paragraph in Sec. 86.1817-05 is
identical and applicable to Sec. 86.1817-08, this may be indicated by
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved].
For guidance see Sec. 86.1817-05.'' This section does not apply for
NOX or NMOG+NOX emissions for vehicles certified
to the Tier 3 standards in Sec. 86.1816-18, including those vehicles
that certify to the Tier 3 standards before model year 2018.
* * * * *
0
164. Section 86.1818-12 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.1818-12 Greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles.
(a) Applicability. (1) This section contains standards and other
regulations applicable to the emission of the air pollutant defined as
the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous
oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride. This section applies to 2012 and later model year LDVs,
LDTs and MDPVs, including multi-fuel vehicles, vehicles fueled with
alternative fuels, hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles, electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles. Unless otherwise
specified, multi-fuel vehicles must comply with all requirements
established for each consumed fuel. The provisions of this section,
except paragraph (c), also apply to clean alternative fuel conversions
as defined in 40 CFR 85.502, of all model year light-duty vehicles,
light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. Manufacturers
that qualify as a small business according to the requirements of Sec.
86.1801-12(j) are exempt from the emission standards in this section.
Manufacturers that have submitted a declaration for a model year
according to the requirements of Sec. 86.1801-12(k) for which approval
has been granted by the Administrator are conditionally exempt from the
emission standards in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section for
the approved model year.
(2) The standards specified in this section apply only for testing
at low-altitude conditions. However, manufacturers must submit an
engineering evaluation indicating that common calibration approaches
are utilized at high altitude. Any deviation from low altitude emission
control practices must be included in the auxiliary emission control
device (AECD) descriptions submitted at certification. Any AECD
specific to high altitude requires engineering emission data for EPA
evaluation to quantify any emission impact and determine the validity
of the AECD.
* * * * *
0
165. Section Sec. 86.1821-01 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.1821-01 Evaporative/refueling family determination.
* * * * *
(f) For vehicles to be classed in the same leak family, they must
be similar with respect to the items listed in paragraph (b) of this
section and use the same OBD method for detecting leaks.
0
166. Section Sec. 86.1823-08 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.1823-08 Durability demonstration procedures for exhaust
emissions.
* * * * *
(g) Emission component durability. The manufacturer shall use good
engineering judgment to determine that all emission-related components
are designed to operate properly for the full useful life of the
vehicles in actual use.
* * * * *
0
167. Section Sec. 86.1824-08 is amended by revising paragraphs (a),
(f)(1), and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1824-08 Durability demonstration procedures for evaporative
emissions.
* * * * *
(a) Durability program objective. The durability program must
predict an expected in-use emission deterioration rate and emission
level that effectively represents a significant majority of the
distribution of emission levels and deterioration in actual use over
the full useful life of candidate in-use vehicles of each vehicle
design which uses the durability program. This requirement applies for
all SHED-based measurements. It does not apply for spitback or leak
standards.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) For gasoline fueled vehicles certified to meet the evaporative
emission standards set forth in this subpart, any mileage accumulation
method for evaporative emissions must employ gasoline fuel for the
entire mileage accumulation period which contains ethanol in, at least,
the highest concentration permissible in gasoline under federal law and
that is commercially available in any state in the United States.
Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, the manufacturer must
determine the appropriate ethanol concentration by selecting the
highest legal concentration commercially available during the calendar
year before the one in which the manufacturer begins its mileage
accumulation. The manufacturer must also provide information acceptable
to the Administrator to indicate that the mileage accumulation method
is of sufficient design, duration and severity to stabilize the
permeability of all non-metallic fuel and evaporative system components
to the mileage accumulation fuel constituents.
* * * * *
(h) Emission component durability. The manufacturer shall use good
engineering judgment to determine that all emission-related components
are
[[Page 30078]]
designed to operate properly for the full useful life of the vehicles
in actual use.
* * * * *
0
168. Section Sec. 86.1825-08 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.1825-08 Durability demonstration procedures for refueling
emissions.
* * * * *
(h) Emission component durability. The manufacturer shall use good
engineering judgment to determine that all emission-related components
are designed to operate properly for the full useful life of the
vehicles in actual use.
* * * * *
0
169. Section Sec. 86.1826-01 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1826-01 Assigned deterioration factors for small-volume
manufacturers and small-volume test groups.
(a) Applicability. This program is an option available for small-
volume manufacturers and small-volume test groups as described in Sec.
86.1838.
(b) Determination of deterioration factors. No service accumulation
method or vehicle/component selection method is required. Deterioration
factors for all types of regulated emissions are assigned using the
provisions in this paragraph (b). A separate assigned deterioration
factor is required for each durability group. Manufacturers shall use
good engineering judgment in applying deterioration factors.
Manufacturers may use assigned deterioration factors that the
Administrator determines and prescribes.
(1) The deterioration factors will be the Administrator's estimate,
periodically updated and published in a guidance document, of the 70th
percentile deterioration factors calculated using the industry-wide
database of previously completed durability data vehicles or engines
used for certification.
(2) The Administrator may use discretion to develop assigned
deterioration factors using alternative methods if there is
insufficient information to calculate an appropriate industry-wide
deterioration factor (for example: A new engine technology coupled with
a proven emission control system). These methods may include the use of
assigned deterioration factors based on similar durability vehicles.
(3) Alternatively, with advance approval from the Administrator, a
manufacturer may use deterioration factors developed by another
manufacturer. The manufacturer seeking to use these deterioration
factors must--
(i) Demonstrate that the engines from the two manufacturers share
technical parameters to the degree that would support the conclusion
that a common deterioration factor should apply for both vehicle
configurations as defined in Sec. 86.1803.
(ii) Provide supporting information, such as histograms of exhaust
temperature data, comparisons of vehicle weight and road load
horsepower, or comparisons of powertrains and emission control systems.
0
170. Section 86.1828-01 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(d) and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1828-01 Emission data vehicle selection.
* * * * *
(g) Cold temperature NMHC testing. For cold temperature NMHC
exhaust emission compliance for each durability group, the manufacturer
must select the vehicle expected to emit the highest NMHC emissions at
20[emsp14][deg]F on candidate in-use vehicles from the test vehicles
specified in paragraph (a) of this section. When the expected worst-
case cold temperature NMHC vehicle is also the expected worst-case cold
temperature CO vehicle as selected in paragraph (c) of this section,
then cold testing is required only for that vehicle; otherwise, testing
is required for both the worst-case cold temperature CO vehicle and the
worst-case cold temperature NMHC vehicle.
0
171. Section 86.1829-01 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(C).
0
b. By revising paragraph (b)(2)(i).
0
c. By adding paragraph (b)(2)(iv).
0
d. By revising paragraph (b)(4).
0
f. By removing and reserving paragraph (d).
Sec. 86.1829-01 Durability and emission testing requirements;
waivers.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Testing at low altitude. One EDV in each evaporative/refueling
family and evaporative/refueling emission control system combination
must be tested in accordance with the evaporative/refueling test
procedure requirement of subpart B of this part. The configuration of
the EDV will be determined under the provisions of Sec. 86.1828-01.
The EDV must also be tested for exhaust emission compliance using the
FTP and SFTP procedures of subpart B of this part. In lieu of testing
natural gas or hydrogen fueled vehicles to demonstrate compliance with
the evaporative and refueling emission standards specified in this
subpart, a manufacturer may provide a statement in its application for
certification that, based on the manufacturer's engineering evaluation
of appropriate testing and/or design parameters, all light-duty
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and complete heavy-duty vehicles comply
with applicable emission standards. This same testing exemption applies
for vehicles fueled by liquefied petroleum gas, except that refueling
tests are required for systems that allow venting during the refueling
operation.
* * * * *
(iv) For diesel-fueled vehicles, a manufacturer may provide a
statement in the application for certification that vehicles comply
with the refueling emission standard instead of submitting test data.
Such a statement must be based on previous emission tests, development
tests, or other appropriate information, and good engineering judgment.
* * * * *
(4) Electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles. For electric vehicles
and fuel cell vehicles, manufacturers may provide a statement in the
application for certification that vehicles comply with all the
requirements of this subpart instead of submitting test data. Such a
statement must be based on previous emission tests, development tests,
or other appropriate information, and good engineering judgment.
* * * * *
0
172. A new Sec. 86.1829-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1829-17 Durability and emission testing requirements;
waivers.
This section describes general testing requirements for certifying
vehicles under this subpart, and includes several provisions allowing
for statements of compliance instead of testing in certain
circumstances. Where a manufacturer provides a statement instead of
test data under this section, it must be based on previous emission
tests, development tests, or other appropriate information, and good
engineering judgment.
(a) One durability demonstration is required for each durability
group. The configuration of the DDV is determined according to Sec.
86.1822. The DDV shall be tested and accumulate service mileage
according to the provisions of Sec. Sec. 86.1823, 86.1824, 86.1825,
and 86.1831. Small volume manufacturers and small volume test groups
may optionally use the alternative durability provisions of Sec.
86.1838.
[[Page 30079]]
(b) The manufacturer must test EDVs as follows to demonstrate
compliance with emission standards:
(1) Test one EDV in each durability group using the test procedures
in 40 CFR part 1066 to demonstrate compliance with cold temperature CO
and NMHC exhaust emission standards.
(2) Test one EDV in each test group using the FTP and SFTP test
procedures in 40 CFR part 1066 and the HFET test procedures of 40 CFR
part 600, subpart B, to demonstrate compliance with other exhaust
emission standards.
(3) Test one EDV in each evaporative/refueling family and
evaporative/refueling emission control system combination using the
test procedures in subpart B of this part to demonstrate compliance
with evaporative and refueling emission standards.
(c) The manufacturer must demonstrate compliance with emission
standards at low-altitude conditions as described in paragraph (b) of
this section. For standards that apply at high-altitude conditions, the
manufacturer may either perform the same tests or provide a statement
in the application for certification that, based on an engineering
evaluation of appropriate testing to measure or simulate high-altitude
emissions, all vehicles comply with applicable emission standards at
high altitude.
(d) Manufacturers may omit exhaust testing for certification in
certain circumstances as follows:
(1) For vehicles subject to the Tier 3 p.m. standards in Sec. Sec.
86.1811, a manufacturer may provide a statement in the application for
certification that vehicles comply with applicable PM standards instead
of submitting PM test data for a certain number of vehicles as follows:
(i) Except as noted in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section,
manufacturers must submit PM test data for at least 25 percent of its
durability data groups that are subject to the Tier 3 p.m. standards in
Sec. 86.1811-17. For example, if a manufacturer has a mix of light-
duty vehicles and light-duty trucks divided over a total of nine
durability data groups in a given model year, three of them would need
PM data for certification in that model year. EPA will work with the
manufacturer to select durability data groups for testing, with the
general expectation that testing will rotate to cover all of a
manufacturer's product line over time. If a durability data group has
been certified in an earlier model year based on submitted PM data, and
that durability data group is eligible for certification using
carryover test data, that carryover data may count toward meeting the
requirements of this paragraph (d)(1)(i), subject to the selection of
durability data groups.
(ii) In every model year that manufacturers have only one or two
durability data groups subject to the Tier 3 p.m. standards, they must
submit PM test data for certifying all their durability data groups. If
manufacturers have three durability data groups subject to the Tier 3
p.m. standards in a given model year, they must submit PM test data for
at least two of those durability data groups.
(2) Small-volume manufacturers may provide a statement in the
application for certification that vehicles comply with the applicable
PM standard instead of submitting test data.
(3) Manufacturers may omit PM measurements for fuel economy and GHG
testing conducted in addition to the testing needed to demonstrate
compliance with the PM emission standards.
(4) Manufacturers may provide a statement in the application for
certification that vehicles comply with the applicable formaldehyde
standard instead of submitting test data.
(5) When conducting Selective Enforcement Audit testing, a
manufacturer may petition the Administrator to waive the requirement to
measure PM emissions and formaldehyde emissions.
(e) Manufacturers may omit evaporative or refueling testing for
certification in certain circumstances as follows:
(1) For diesel-fueled vehicles, a manufacturer may provide a
statement in the application for certification that vehicles comply
with the refueling emission standard instead of submitting test data.
(2) For vehicles fueled by natural gas, a manufacturer may provide
a statement in the application for certification that vehicles comply
with evaporative emission standards instead of submitting test data.
Vehicles fueled by liquefied petroleum gas are similarly exempted from
submitting test data for the evaporative and refueling emission
standards, except that refueling tests are required for systems that
allow venting during the refueling operation.
(3) Manufacturers may provide a statement in the application for
certification that vehicles comply with the leak standard in Sec.
86.1813 instead of submitting test data.
(4) For vehicles certified to the refueling emission standards in
Sec. Sec. 86.1811 or 86.1813, a manufacturer may provide a statement
in the application for certification that vehicles comply with the fuel
dispensing spitback standard instead of submitting test data.
(5) In lieu of testing vehicles for the supplemental two-diurnal
test sequence, a manufacturer may optionally provide a statement of
compliance in its application for certification that, based on the
manufacturer's good engineering judgment, all vehicles in the
evaporative/refueling emission family comply with the evaporative
emission standard for the supplemental two-diurnal test sequence.
(i) The option to provide a statement of compliance in lieu of 2-
diurnal evaporative certification test data is limited to vehicles with
conventional evaporative emission control systems (as determined by the
Administrator). EPA may perform confirmatory 2-diurnal evaporative
emission testing on test vehicles certified using this option. If data
shows noncompliance, it will be addressed through Sec. 86.1851. Also,
if data shows noncompliance, EPA will generally disallow subsequent
waivers for the applicable evaporative family.
(ii) Manufacturers shall supply information if requested by EPA in
support of the statement of compliance described in this paragraph
(d)(12). This information shall include evaporative calibration
information for the emission-data vehicle and for other vehicles in the
evaporative/refueling family, including, but not limited to, canister
type, canister volume, canister working capacity, fuel tank volume,
fuel tank geometry, the type of fuel delivery system (return,
returnless, variable flow fuel pump, etc.), a description of the input
parameters and software strategy used to control the evaporative
canister purge, the nominal purge flow volume (in bed volumes) when
vehicles are driven over the 2-diurnal (FTP) driving cycle, the nominal
purge flow volume (in bed volumes) when vehicles are driven over the 3-
diurnal (FTP + running loss) driving cycle, and other supporting
information as necessary to demonstrate that the purge flow rate
calibration on the 2-diurnal test sequence is adequate to comply with
the evaporative emission standard for the supplemental two-diurnal test
sequence.
(6) Where a California evaporative emission standard is at least as
stringent as a comparable federal evaporative emission standard for a
vehicle, we may accept test data demonstrating compliance with the
California standard as demonstrating compliance with the comparable
standard under this subpart. We may require you to provide test data
clearly demonstrating that a vehicle tested using the California-
specified test procedures will meet the comparable standard under this
subpart when tested
[[Page 30080]]
using the test procedures specified in this part.
(7) Through model year 2019, we may accept test data demonstrating
compliance with the California refueling emission standard as
demonstrating compliance with the analogous refueling emission standard
under this subpart if all the following conditions apply:
(i) You certified the vehicles in model year 2016 to California's
refueling emission standards.
(ii) You are certifying the vehicles to refueling standards for the
new model year based on carryover data instead of performing new
testing.
(iii) You are also certifying the vehicles for evaporative
emissions based on California test procedures under the provisions of
paragraph (e)(6) of this section,
(f) For electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles, manufacturers may
provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles
comply with all the requirements of this subpart instead of submitting
test data.
0
173. Section 86.1837-01 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.1837-01 Rounding of emission measurements.
(a) Unless otherwise specified, the results of all emission tests
shall be rounded to the number of places to the right of the decimal
point indicated by expressing the applicable emission standard of this
subpart to one additional significant figure, in accordance with 40 CFR
1065.20.
* * * * *
0
174. Section 86.1838-01 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1838-01 Small-volume manufacturer certification procedures.
(a) The small-volume manufacturer certification procedures
described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section are optional.
Small-volume manufacturers may use these optional procedures to
demonstrate compliance with the general standards and specific emission
requirements contained in this subpart.
(b) Eligibility requirements--(1) Small-volume manufacturers. (i)
Optional small-volume manufacturer certification procedures apply for
vehicles produced by manufacturers with the following number of
combined sales of vehicles subject to standards under this subpart in
all states and territories of the United States in the model year for
which certification is sought, including all vehicles and engines
imported under the provisions of 40 CFR 85.1505 and 85.1509:
(A) 5,000 units for the Tier 3 standards described in Sec. Sec.
86.1811-17, 86.1813-17, and 86.1816-18. This is based on average
nationwide sales volumes for model years 2012 through 2014 for
manufacturers that sell vehicles in model year 2012. The provision
allowing delayed compliance with the Tier 3 standards applies for
qualifying companies even if sales after model year 2014 increase
beyond 5,000 units. Manufacturers with no sales in model year 2012 may
instead rely on projected sales volumes; however, if nationwide sales
exceed an average value of 5,000 units in any three consecutive model
years, the manufacturer is no longer eligible for provisions that apply
to small-volume manufacturers after two additional model years. For
example, if actual sales in model years 2015 through 2017 exceed 5,000
units, the small-volume provisions would no longer apply starting in
model year 2020.
(B) 15,000 units for all other requirements.
(ii) If a manufacturer's aggregated sales in the United States, as
determined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are fewer than the
number of units specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the
manufacturer (or each manufacturer in the case of manufacturers in an
aggregated relationship) may certify under the provisions of paragraph
(c) of this section.
(iii) A manufacturers that qualifies as a small business under the
Small Business Administration regulations in 13 CFR part 121 is
eligible for all the provisions that apply for small-volume
manufacturers under this subpart. See Sec. 86.1801-12(j) to determine
whether companies qualify as small businesses.
(iv) The sales volumes specified in this section are based on
actual sales, unless otherwise specified.
(v) Except for delayed implementation of new emission standards, an
eligible manufacturer must transition out of the special provisions
that apply for small-volume manufacturers as described in Sec.
86.1801-12(k)(2)(i) through (iii) if sales volumes increase above the
applicable threshold.
(2) Small-volume test groups. (i) If the aggregated sales in all
states and territories of the United States, as determined in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section are equal to or greater than 15,000 units, then
the manufacturer (or each manufacturer in the case of manufacturers in
an aggregated relationship) will be allowed to certify a number of
units under the small-volume test group certification procedures in
accordance with the criteria identified in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)
through (iv) of this section.
(ii) If there are no additional manufacturers in an aggregated
relationship meeting the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, then the manufacturer may certify whole test groups whose
total aggregated sales (including heavy-duty engines) are less than
15,000 units using the small-volume provisions of paragraph (c) of this
section.
(iii) If there is an aggregated relationship with another
manufacturer which satisfies the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, then the following provisions shall apply:
(A) If none of the manufacturers own 50 percent or more of another
manufacturer in the aggregated relationship, then each manufacturer may
certify whole test groups whose total aggregated sales (including
heavy-duty engines) are less than 15,000 units using the small-volume
provisions of paragraph (c) of this section.
(B) If any of the manufacturers own 50 percent or more of another
manufacturer in the aggregated relationship, then the limit of 14,999
units must be shared among the manufacturers in such a relationship. In
total for all the manufacturers involved in such a relationship,
aggregated sales (including heavy-duty engines) of up to 14,999 units
may be certified using the small-volume provisions of paragraph (c) of
this section. Only whole test groups shall be eligible for small-volume
status under paragraph (c) of this section.
(iv) In the case of a joint venture arrangement (50/50 ownership)
between two manufacturers, each manufacturer retains its eligibility
for 14,999 units under the small-volume test group certification
procedures, but the joint venture must draw its maximum 14,999 units
from the units allocated to its parent manufacturers. Only whole test
groups shall be eligible for small-volume status under paragraph (c) of
this section.
(3) Sales aggregation for related manufacturers. The projected or
actual sales from different firms shall be aggregated in the following
situations:
(i) Vehicles and/or engines produced by two or more firms, one of
which is 10 percent or greater part owned by another;
(ii) Vehicles and/or engines produced by any two or more firms if a
third party has equity ownership of 10 percent or more in each of the
firms;
(iii) Vehicles and/or engines produced by two or more firms having
a common corporate officer(s) who is (are) responsible for the overall
direction of the companies;
[[Page 30081]]
(iv) Vehicles and/or engines imported or distributed by all firms
where the vehicles and/or engines are manufactured by the same entity
and the importer or distributor is an authorized agent of the entity.
(c) Small-volume manufacturers and small-volume test groups shall
demonstrate compliance with all applicable sections of this subpart,
except as provided in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. Small-
volume manufacturers and small-volume test groups may optionally meet
the following requirements:
(1) Durability demonstration. Use the provisions of Sec. 86.1826
rather than the requirements of Sec. Sec. 86.1823, 86.1824, and
86.1825.
(2) In-use verification testing. Requirements for testing in-use
vehicles apply as described in Sec. 86.1845, subject to the following
additional provisions for small-volume manufacturers and small-volume
test groups:
(i) Small-volume in-use verification test vehicles may be procured
from customers or may be owned by, or under the control of the
manufacturer, provided that the vehicle has accumulated mileage in
typical operation on public streets and has received typical
maintenance.
(ii) In lieu of procuring small-volume in-use verification test
vehicles that have a minimum odometer reading of 50,000 miles, a
manufacturer may demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Agency that,
based on owner survey data, the average mileage accumulated after 4
years for a given test group is less than 50,000 miles. The Agency may
approve a lower minimum odometer reading based on such data.
(iii) The provisions of Sec. 86.1845-04(c)(2) that require one
vehicle of each test group during high mileage in-use verification
testing to have a minimum odometer mileage do not apply.
(iv) Manufacturers intending to use the provisions of paragraphs
(c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section shall submit to the Agency, prior to
the certification of the subject vehicles, a plan detailing how these
provisions will be met.
0
175. Section 86.1843-01 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.1843-01 General information requirements.
* * * * *
(g) Recordkeeping. (1) This subpart includes various requirements
to record data or other information. Unless we specify otherwise, store
these records in any format and on any media and keep them readily
available for eight years after you send an associated application for
certification, or eight years after you generate the data if they do
not support an application for certification. You must promptly send us
organized, written records in English upon request. We may review them
at any time.
(2) Upon written request by the Administrator, a manufacturer shall
submit any information as described in Sec. 86.1844-01 within 15
business days. A manufacturer may request the Administrator to grant an
extension. The request must clearly indicate the circumstances
necessitating the extension.
* * * * *
0
176. Section 86.1844-01 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (d)(7),
(d)(8), (d)(9), (d)(11), and (d)(16)(i) introductory text, removing
paragraph (d)(16)(iv), and adding paragraph (e)(7) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1844-01 Information requirements: Application for
certification and submittal of information upon request.
(a) All the information listed in this section must be submitted to
the Agency according to the requirements specified in Sec. 86.1843;
however, we may ask you to include less information than we specify, as
long as you keep the specified records.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(7) A comprehensive list of all test results, including official
certification levels, and the applicable intermediate and full useful
life emission standards to which the test group is to be certified as
required in Sec. 86.1829-01. Also include a comparison of drive cycle
energy and target cycle energy relative to both inertia and road load
forces as specified in 40 CFR 1066.430 for each drive cycle or test
phase, as appropriate.
(8) A statement that all applicable vehicles will conform to the
emission standards for which emission data is not being provided, as
allowed under Sec. 86.1806 or Sec. 86.1829. The statement shall
clearly identify the standards for which emission testing was not
completed.
(9) Information describing each emission control diagnostic system
required by Sec. 86.1806, including all of the following:
(i) A description of the functional operation characteristics of
the diagnostic system, with additional information demonstrating that
the system meets the requirements specified in Sec. 86.1806. Include
all testing and demonstration data submitted to the California Air
Resources Board for certification.
(ii) The general method of detecting malfunctions for each
emission-related powertrain component.
(iii) Any deficiencies, including resolution plans and schedules.
(iv) A statement that the diagnostic system is adequate for the
performance warranty test described in 40 CFR part 85, subpart W.
(v) For vehicles certified to meet the leak standard in Sec.
86.1813, a description of the anticipated test procedure. The
description must include, at a minimum, a method for accessing the fuel
system for measurements, and a method for pressurizing the fuel system
to perform the procedure specified in 40 CFR 1066.840 without involving
the fuel cap or filler neck.
* * * * *
(11) A list of all auxiliary emission control devices (AECD)
installed on any applicable vehicles, including a justification for
each AECD, the parameters they sense and control, a detailed
justification of each AECD that results in a reduction in effectiveness
of the emission control system, and rationale for why it is not a
defeat device as defined under Sec. 86.1809. The following specific
provisions apply for AECDs:
(i) For any AECD uniquely used at high altitudes, EPA may request
engineering emission data to quantify any emission impact and validity
of the AECD.
(ii) For any AECD uniquely used on multi-fuel vehicles when
operated on fuels other than gasoline, EPA may request engineering
emission data to quantify any emission impact and validity of the AECD.
(iii) For Tier 3 vehicles with spark-ignition engines, describe how
AECDs are designed to comply with the requirements of Sec. 86.1811-
17(d). Identify which components need protection through enrichment
strategies; describe the temperature limitations for those components;
and describe how the enrichment strategy corresponds to those
temperature limitations. We may also require manufacturers to submit
this information for certification related to Tier 2 vehicles.
* * * * *
(16) * * *
(i) A statement indicating that the manufacturer has conducted an
engineering analysis of the complete exhaust system to ensure that the
exhaust system has been designed:
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 30082]]
(7) The results of any production vehicle evaluation testing
required for OBD systems under Sec. 86.1806.
* * * * *
Sec. 86.1845-01 [Removed]
0
177. Remove Sec. 86.1845-01.
0
178. Section 86.1845-04 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3),
(b)(3) introductory text, (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7), and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.1845-04 Manufacturer in-use verification testing
requirements.
(a) * * *
(3) The following provisions apply regarding the possibility of
residual effects from varying fuel sulfur levels:
(i) Vehicles certified to Tier 3 standards under Sec. 86.1811 must
always measure emissions over the FTP, then over the HFET (if
applicable), then over the US06 portion of the SFTP. If a Tier 3
vehicle meets all the applicable emission standards except the FTP or
HFET emission standard for NMOG+NOX, and a fuel sample from
the tested vehicle (representing the as-received condition) has a
measured fuel sulfur level exceeding 15 ppm when measured as described
in 40 CFR 1065.710, the manufacturer may repeat the FTP and HFET
measurements and use the new emission values as the official results
for that vehicle. For all other cases of testing Tier 3 vehicles,
measured emission levels from the first test will be considered the
official results for the test vehicle, regardless of any test results
from additional test runs. Where repeat testing is allowed, the vehicle
may operate for up to two US06 cycles (with or without measurement)
before repeating the FTP and HFET measurements. The repeat measurements
must include both FTP and HFET, even if the vehicle failed only one of
those tests, unless the HFET is not required for a particular vehicle.
Tier 3 vehicles may not undergo any other vehicle preconditioning to
eliminate fuel sulfur effects on the emission control system, unless we
approve it in advance.
(ii) Upon a manufacturer's written request, prior to in-use
testing, that presents information to EPA regarding pre-conditioning
procedures designed solely to remove the effects of high sulfur in
gasoline from vehicles produced through the 2007 model year, EPA will
consider allowing such procedures on a case-by-case basis. EPA's
decision will apply to manufacturer in-use testing conducted under this
section and to any in-use testing conducted by EPA. Such procedures are
not available for complete HDVs. For model year 2007 and later Tier 2
vehicles, this provision can be used only in American Samoa, Guam, and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and then only if low
sulfur gasoline is determined by the Administrator to be unavailable in
that specific location.
(b) * * *
(3) Number of test vehicles. For each test group, the minimum
number of vehicles that must be tested is specified in Table S04-06 and
Table S04-07 of this paragraph (b)(3). After testing the minimum number
of vehicles of a specific test group as specified in Table S04-06 or
S04-07 of this paragraph (b)(3), a manufacturer may test additional
vehicles upon request and approval by the Agency prior to the
initiation of the additional testing. Any additional testing must be
completed within the testing completion requirements shown in Sec.
86.1845-04(b)(4). The request and Agency approval (if any) shall apply
to test groups on a case by case basis and apply only to testing under
this paragraph. Separate approval will be required to test additional
vehicles under paragraph (c) of this section. In addition to any
testing that is required under Table S04-06 and Table S04-07, a
manufacturer shall test one vehicle from each evaporative/refueling
family for evaporative/refueling emissions. If a manufacturer believes
it is unable to procure the test vehicles necessary to test the
required number of vehicles in a test group, the manufacturer may
request, subject to Administrator approval, a decreased sample size for
that test group. The request shall include a description of the methods
the manufacturer has used to procure the required number of vehicles.
The approval of any such request, and the substitution of an
alternative sample size requirement for the test group, will be based
on a review of the procurement efforts made by the manufacturer to
determine if all reasonable steps have been taken to procure the
required test group size. Tables S04-06 and S04-07 follow:
* * * * *
(4) Completion of testing. Testing of the vehicles in a test group
and evaporative/refueling family must be completed within 12 months of
the end of production of that test group (or evaporative/refueling
family) for that model year.
(5) Testing. (i) Each test vehicle of a test group shall be tested
in accordance with the Federal Test Procedure and the US06 portion of
the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure as described in subpart B of
this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with
applicable exhaust emission standards under this subpart. Test vehicles
subject to applicable exhaust CO2 emission standards under
this subpart shall also be tested in accordance with the highway fuel
economy test as described in part 600, subpart B, of this chapter.
(ii) Manufacturers must measure PM emissions over the FTP and US06
driving schedules for at least 50 percent of the vehicles tested under
paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section.
(iii) Starting with model year 2018 vehicles, manufacturers must
demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 leak standard specified in Sec.
86.1813, if applicable, as described in this paragraph (b)(5)(iii).
Manufacturers must evaluate each vehicle tested under paragraph
(b)(5)(i) of this section. In addition, manufacturers must evaluate at
least one vehicle from each leak family for a given model year.
Manufacturers may rely on OBD monitoring instead of testing as follows:
(A) A vehicle is considered to pass the leak test if the OBD system
completed a leak check within the previous 750 miles of driving without
showing a leak fault code.
(B) Whether or not a vehicle's OBD system has completed a leak
check within the previous 750 miles of driving, the manufacturer may
operate the vehicle as needed to force the OBD system to perform a leak
check. If the OBD leak check does not show a leak fault, the vehicle is
considered to pass the leak test.
(C) If the most recent OBD leak check from paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(A)
or (B) of this section shows a fault code, the vehicle is presumed to
have failed the leak test. Manufacturers may perform the leak
measurement procedure described in 40 CFR 1066.840 for an official
result to replace the finding from the OBD leak check.
(D) Manufacturers may not perform repeat OBD checks or leak
measurements to over-ride a failure under paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(C) of
this section.
(iv) For non-gaseous fueled vehicles, one test vehicle of each
evaporative/refueling family shall be tested in accordance with the
supplemental 2-diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative emission and refueling
emission procedures described in subpart B of this part, when such test
vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable evaporative emission
and refueling standards under this subpart. For gaseous fueled
vehicles, one test vehicle of each evaporative/refueling family shall
be tested in accordance with the 3-diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative
emission and refueling emission
[[Page 30083]]
procedures described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle
is tested for compliance with applicable evaporative emission and
refueling standards under this subpart. The test vehicles tested to
fulfill the evaporative/refueling testing requirement of this paragraph
(b)(5)(ii) will be counted when determining compliance with the minimum
number of vehicles as specified in Table S04-06 and Table S04-07 in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section for testing under paragraph (b)(5)(i)
of this section only if the vehicle is also tested for exhaust
emissions under the requirements of paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this
section.
(6) Each test vehicle not rejected based on the criteria specified
in appendix II to this subpart shall be tested in as-received
condition.
(7) A manufacturer may conduct subsequent diagnostic maintenance
and/or testing of any vehicle. Any such maintenance and/or testing
shall be reported to the Agency as specified in Sec. 86.1847.
(c) High-mileage testing--(1) Test groups. Testing must be
conducted for each test group.
(2) Vehicle mileage. All test vehicles must have a minimum odometer
mileage of 50,000 miles. At least one vehicle of each test group must
have a minimum odometer mileage of 105,000 miles or 75 percent of the
full useful life mileage, whichever is less. See Sec. 86.1838-01(c)(2)
for small volume manufacturer mileage requirements.
(3) Number of test vehicles. For each test group, the minimum
number of vehicles that must be tested is specified in Table S04-06 and
Table S04-07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. After testing the
minimum number of vehicles of a specific test group as specified in
Table S04-06 and Table S04-07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, a
manufacturer may test additional vehicles upon request and approval by
the Agency prior to the initiation of the additional testing. Any
additional testing must be completed within the testing completion
requirements shown in Sec. 86.1845-04(c)(4). The request and Agency
approval (if any) shall apply to test groups on a case by case basis
and apply only to testing under this paragraph (c). In addition to any
testing that is required under Table S04-06 and Table S04-07, a
manufacturer shall test one vehicle from each evaporative/refueling
family for evaporative/refueling emissions. If a manufacturer believes
it is unable to procure the test vehicles necessary to test the
required number of vehicles in a test group as specified in Table S04-
06 or Table S04-07, the manufacturer may request, subject to
Administrator approval, a decreased sample size for that test group.
The request shall include a description of the methods the manufacturer
has used to procure the required number of vehicles. The approval of
any such request, and the substitution of an alternative sample size
requirement for the test group, will be based on a review of the
procurement efforts made by the manufacturer to determine if all
reasonable steps have been taken to procure the required test group
size.
(4) Initiation and completion of testing. Testing of a test group
(or evaporative refueling family) must commence within 4 years of the
end of production of the test group (or evaporative/refueling family)
and be completed within 5 years of the end of production of the test
group (or evaporative/refueling family).
(5) Testing. (i) Each test vehicle shall be tested in accordance
with the Federal Test Procedure and the US06 portion of the
Supplemental Federal Test Procedure as described in subpart B of this
part when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable
exhaust emission standards under this subpart. Test vehicles subject to
applicable exhaust CO2 emission standards under this subpart
shall also be tested in accordance with the highway fuel economy test
as described in part 600, subpart B of this chapter. One test vehicle
from each test group shall receive a Federal Test Procedure at high
altitude. The test vehicle tested at high altitude is not required to
be one of the same test vehicles tested at low altitude. The test
vehicle tested at high altitude is counted when determining the
compliance with the requirements shown in Table S04-06 and Table S04-07
in paragraph (b)(3) of this section or the expanded sample size as
provided for in this paragraph (c).
(ii) Manufacturers must measure PM emissions over the FTP and US06
driving schedules for at least 50 percent of the vehicles tested under
paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section.
(iii) Starting with model year 2018 vehicles, manufacturers must
evaluate each vehicle tested under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section
to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 leak standard specified in
Sec. 86.1813. In addition, manufacturers must evaluate at least one
vehicle from each leak family for a given model year. Manufacturers may
rely on OBD monitoring instead of testing as described in paragraph
(c)(5)(iii) of this section.
(iv) For non-gaseous fueled vehicles, one test vehicle of each
evaporative/refueling family shall be tested in accordance with the
supplemental 2-diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative emission procedures
described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle is tested
for compliance with applicable evaporative emission and refueling
standards under this subpart. For gaseous fueled vehicles, one test
vehicle of each evaporative/refueling family shall be tested in
accordance with the 3-diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative emission
procedures described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle
is tested for compliance with applicable evaporative emission and
refueling standards under this subpart. The test vehicles tested to
fulfill the evaporative/refueling testing requirement of this paragraph
(b)(5)(ii) will be counted when determining compliance with the minimum
number of vehicles as specified in Table S04-06 and table S04-07 in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section for testing under paragraph (b)(5)(i)
of this section only if the vehicle is also tested for exhaust
emissions under the requirements of paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this
section.
(6) Test condition. Each test vehicle not rejected based on the
criteria specified in appendix II to this subpart shall be tested in
as-received condition.
(7) Diagnostic maintenance. A manufacturer may conduct subsequent
diagnostic maintenance and/or testing on any vehicle. Any such
maintenance and/or testing shall be reported to the Agency as specified
in Sec. 86.1847-01.
* * * * *
0
179. Section 86.1846-01 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1846-01 Manufacturer in-use confirmatory testing
requirements.
(a) General requirements. (1) Manufacturers must test, or cause
testing to be conducted, under this section when the emission levels
shown by a test group sample from testing under Sec. 86.1845 exceeds
the criteria specified in paragraph (b) of this section. The testing
required under this section applies separately to each test group and
at each test point (low and high mileage) that meets the specified
criteria. The testing requirements apply separately for each model
year. These provisions apply to heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty
engines starting with model year 2007. These provisions do not apply to
emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) [Reserved]
(4) The provisions of Sec. 86.1845-04(a)(3) regarding fuel sulfur
effects apply equally to testing under this section.
[[Page 30084]]
(b) Criteria for additional testing. (1) A manufacturer shall test
a test group or a subset of a test group as described in paragraph (j)
of this section when the results from testing conducted under Sec.
86.1845 show mean exhaust emissions for that test group of any
pollutant(s) (except CO2,CH4, and N2O)
to be equal to or greater than 1.30 times the applicable in-use
standard and a failure rate, among the test group vehicles, for the
corresponding pollutant(s) of fifty percent or greater.
(i) This requirement does not apply to Supplemental FTP testing or
evaporative/refueling testing. Testing conducted at high altitude under
the requirements of Sec. 86.1845 will be included in determining if a
test group meets the criteria triggering testing required under this
section.
(ii) The vehicle tested under the requirements of Sec. 86.1845-
04(c)(2) with a minimum odometer miles of 75% of useful life will not
be included in determining if a test group meets the triggering
criteria.
(iii) The SFTP composite emission levels shall include the IUVP FTP
emissions, the IUVP US06 emissions, and the values from the SC03 Air
Conditioning EDV certification test (without DFs applied). The
calculations shall be made using the equations prescribed in Sec.
86.164. If more than one set of certification SC03 data exists (due to
running change testing or other reasons), the manufacturer shall choose
the SC03 result to use in the calculation from among those data sets
using good engineering judgment.
(2) If fewer than 50 percent of the vehicles from a leak family
pass the leak test under Sec. 86.1845, EPA may require further leak
testing under this paragraph (b)(2). Testing under this section must
include five vehicles from the family. If all five of these vehicles
fail the test, the manufacturer must test five additional vehicles.
EPA will determine whether to require further leak testing under
this section after providing the manufacturer an opportunity to discuss
the results, including consideration of any of the following
information, or other items that may be relevant:
(i) Detailed system design, calibration, and operating information,
technical explanations as to why the individual vehicles tested failed
the leak emission standard.
(ii) Comparison of the subject vehicles to other similar models
from the same manufacturer.
(iii) Data or other information on owner complaints, technical
service bulletins, service campaigns, special policy warranty programs,
warranty repair data, state I/M data, and data available from other
manufacturer-specific programs or initiatives.
(iv) Evaporative emission test data on any individual vehicles that
did not pass leak testing during IUVP.
(c) Useful life. Vehicles tested under the provisions of this
section must be within the useful life specified for the emission
standards which were exceeded in the testing under Sec. 86.1845.
Testing should be within the useful life specified, subject to sections
207(c)(5) and (c)(6) of the Clean Air Act where applicable.
(d) Number of test vehicles. A manufacturer must test a minimum of
ten vehicles of the test group or Agency-designated subset. A
manufacturer may, at the manufacturer's discretion, test more than ten
vehicles under this paragraph for a specific test group or Agency-
designated subset. If a manufacturer chooses to test more than the
required ten vehicles, all testing must be completed within the time
designated in the testing completion requirements of paragraph (g) of
this section. Any vehicles which are eliminated from the sample either
prior to or subsequent to testing, or any vehicles for which test
results are determined to be void, must be replaced in order that the
final sample of vehicles for which test results acceptable to the
Agency are available equals a minimum of ten vehicles. A manufacturer
may cease testing with a sample of five vehicles if the results of the
first five vehicles tested show mean emissions for each pollutant to be
less than 75.0 percent of the applicable standard, with no vehicles
exceeding the applicable standard for any pollutant.
(e) Emission testing. Each test vehicle of a test group or Agency-
designated subset shall be tested in accordance with the Federal Test
Procedure and/or the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (whichever of
these tests performed under Sec. 86.1845 produces emission levels
requiring testing under this section) as described in subpart B of this
part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable
exhaust emission standards under this subpart.
(f) Geographical limitations. (1) Test groups or Agency-designated
subsets certified to 50-state standards: For low altitude testing no
more than 50 percent of the test vehicles may be procured from
California. The test vehicles procured from the 49 state area must be
procured from a location with a heating degree day 30 year annual
average equal to or greater than 4000.
(2) Test groups or Agency-designated subsets certified to 49 state
standards: For low-altitude testing all vehicles shall be procured from
a location with a heating degree day 30 year annual average equal to or
greater than 4000.
(3) Vehicles procured for high altitude testing may be procured
from any area provided that the vehicle's primary area of operation was
above 4000 feet.
(g) Testing. Testing required under this section must commence
within three months of completion of the testing under Sec. 86.1845
which triggered the confirmatory testing and must be completed within
seven months of the completion of the testing which triggered the
confirmatory testing. Any industry review of the results obtained under
Sec. 86.1845 and any additional vehicle procurement and/or testing
which takes place under the provisions of Sec. 86.1845 which the
industry believes may affect the triggering of required confirmatory
testing must take place within the three month period. The data and the
manufacturers reasoning for reconsideration of the data must be
provided to the Agency within the three month period.
(h) Limit on manufacturer conducted testing. For each manufacturer,
the maximum number of test group(s) (or Agency-designated subset(s)) of
each model year for which testing under this section shall be required
is limited to 50 percent of the total number of test groups of each
model year required to be tested by each manufacturer as prescribed in
Sec. 86.1845 rounded to the next highest whole number where
appropriate. For each manufacturer with only one test group under Sec.
86.1845, such manufacturer shall have a maximum potential testing
requirement under this section of one test group (or Agency-designated
subset) per model year.
(i) Testing plan. Prior to beginning in-use confirmatory testing
the manufacturer must, after consultation with the Agency, submit a
written plan describing the details of the vehicle procurement,
maintenance, and testing procedures (not otherwise specified by
regulation) it intends to use. EPA must approve the test plan before
the manufacturer may start further testing.
(j) Testing a subset. EPA may designate a subset of the test group
based on transmission type for testing under this section in lieu of
testing the entire test group when the results for the entire test
group from testing conducted under Sec. 86.1845 show mean emissions
and a failure rate which meet these criteria for additional testing.
0
180. Section 86.1848-10 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(7) to read
as follows:
[[Page 30085]]
Sec. 86.1848-10 Compliance with emission standards for the purpose of
certification.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(7) All certificates of conformity issued are conditional upon
compliance with all the provisions of Sec. Sec. 86.1811 through
86.1816 and Sec. Sec. 86.1860 through 86.1862 both during and after
model year production. The manufacturer bears the burden of
establishing to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the terms
and conditions upon which each certificate was issued were satisfied.
For recall and warranty purposes, vehicles not covered by a certificate
of conformity will continue to be held to the standards stated or
referenced in the certificate that otherwise would have applied to the
vehicles.
(i) Failure to meet the applicable fleet average standard will be
considered to be a failure to satisfy the terms and conditions upon
which the certificate was issued and the vehicles sold in violation of
the fleet average standard will not be covered by the certificate.
(ii) Failure to comply fully with the prohibition against selling
credits that it has not generated or that are not available, as
specified in Sec. 86.1861, will be considered a failure to satisfy the
terms and conditions upon which the certificate was issued and the
vehicles sold in violation of this prohibition will not be covered by
the certificate.
(iii) Failure to comply fully with the phase-in requirements of
Sec. Sec. 86.1811 through 86.1816 will be considered a failure to
satisfy the terms and conditions upon which the certificate was issued
and the vehicles sold that do not comply with the applicable standards,
up to the number needed to comply, will not be covered by the
certificate.
* * * * *
0
181. A new Sec. 86.1860-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1860-17 How to comply with the Tier 3 fleet-average
standards.
(a) You must show that you meet the applicable fleet-average
NMOG+NOX standards from Sec. Sec. 86.1811 and 86.1816 and
the fleet-average evaporative emission standards from Sec. 86.1813 as
described in this section. Note that separate fleet-average
calculations are required for the FTP and SFTP exhaust emission
standards under Sec. 86.1811.
(b) Calculate your fleet-average value for each model year for all
vehicle models subject to a separate fleet-average standard using the
following equation, rounded to the nearest 0.001 g/mile for
NMOG+NOX emissions and the nearest 0.001 g/test for
evaporative emissions:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.143
Where:
i = A counter associated with each separate Tier 3 test group.
b = The number of separate Tier 3 test groups to which you certify
your vehicles.
Ni> = The actual sales for the model year for test group
i.
FELi = The FEL selected for test group i. Disregard any
separate standards that apply for in-use testing or for testing
under high-altitude conditions.
Ntotal = The actual nationwide sales for the model year
for all your Tier 3 vehicles, except as described in paragraph (c)
of this section. The pool of vehicle models included in
Ntotal may vary by model year, and it may be different
for evaporative standards, FTP exhaust standards, and SFTP exhaust
standards in a given model year.
(c) Do not include any of the following vehicles to calculate your
fleet-average value:
(1) Vehicles that you do not certify to the standards of this part
because they are permanently exempted under 40 CFR part 85 or part
1068.
(2) Exported vehicles.
(3) Vehicles excluded under Sec. 86.1801.
(d) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, your
calculated fleet-average value may not exceed the corresponding fleet-
average standard for the model year.
(e) You may generate or use emission credits related to your
calculated fleet-average value as follows:
(1) You may generate emission credits as described in Sec. 86.1861
if your fleet-average value is below the corresponding fleet-average
standard.
(2) You may use emission credits as described in Sec. 86.1861 if
your fleet-average value is above the corresponding fleet-average
standard. Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, you
must use enough credits for each model year to show that your adjusted
fleet average value does not exceed the fleet-average standard.
(3) If you do not have enough emission credits to demonstrate
compliance with a fleet-average standard in a given model year, you may
carry forward a credit deficit for up to three model years. You may not
bank emission credits with respect to a given emission standard during
a model year in which you have a credit deficit in the same averaging
set. If you fail to meet the fleet-average standard for four
consecutive model years, the vehicles causing you to exceed the fleet-
average standard will be considered not covered by the certificate of
conformity. You will be subject to penalties on an individual-vehicle
basis for sale of vehicles not covered by a certificate of conformity.
(f) If the applicable bin standards and FELs for all your vehicle
models are at or below a corresponding fleet-average standard for a
given model year, and you do not want to generate emission credits, you
may omit the calculations described in this section.
(g) The deadline for offsetting debits as specified in paragraph
(e)(3) of this section serves as the starting date for calculating the
statute of limitations with respect to violating the requirements of
paragraph (e)(3) of this section, failing to satisfy the conditions
upon which a certificate was issued, and selling, offering for sale,
introducing or delivering into U.S. commerce, or importing vehicles not
covered by a certificate.
0
182. A new Sec. 86.1861-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1861-17 How do the NMOG+NOX and evaporative
emission credit programs work?
You may use emission credits for purposes of certification to show
compliance with the applicable fleet-average NMOG+NOX
standards from Sec. Sec. 86.1811 and 86.1816 and the fleet-average
evaporative emission standards from Sec. 86.1813 as described in 40
CFR part 1037, subpart H, with certain exceptions and clarifications as
specified in this section. MDPVs are subject to the same provisions of
this section that apply to LDT4s. (a) Calculate emission credits as
described in this paragraph (a) instead of using the provisions of 40
CFR 1037.705. Calculate positive or negative emission
[[Page 30086]]
credits relative to the applicable fleet-average standard. Calculate
positive emission credits if your fleet-average level is below the
standard. Calculate negative emission credits if your fleet-average
value is above the standard. Calculate credits separately for each type
of standard and for each averaging set. Calculate emission credits
using the following equation, rounded to the nearest whole number:
Emission credit = Volume [middot] [Fleet average standard - Fleet
average value]
Where:
Emission credit = The positive or negative credit for each discrete
fleet-average standard, in units of vehicle-grams per mile for
NMOG+NOx and vehicle-grams per test for evaporative
emissions.
Volume = Sales volume in a given model year from the collection of
test groups covered by the fleet-average value, as described in
Sec. 86.1860.
(b) The following restrictions apply instead of those specified in
40 CFR 1037.740:
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section,
emission credits may be exchanged only within an averaging set, as
follows:
(i) HDVs represent a separate averaging set with respect to all
emission standards.
(ii) LDVs and LDTs together represent a single averaging set with
respect to NMOG+NOX emission standards. Note that FTP and
SFTP credits are not interchangeable.
(iii) The following separate averaging sets apply for evaporative
emission standards:
(A) LDV and LDT1 together represent a single averaging set.
(B) LDT2 represents a single averaging set.
(C) HLDT represents a single averaging set.
(D) HDV represents a single averaging set.
(2) You may exchange evaporative emission credits across averaging
sets as follows if you need additional credits to offset a deficit in
the final year of maintaining deficit credits as allowed under
paragraph (c) of this section:
(i) You may exchange LDV/LDT1 and LDT2 emission credits.
(ii) You may exchange HLDT and HDV emission credits.
(3) Credits expire after five years. For example, credits you
generate in model year 2018 may be used only through model year 2023.
(c) The credit-deficit provisions 40 CFR 1037.745 apply without
modification to the NMOG+NOX and evaporative emission
standards for Tier 3 vehicles.
(d) The reporting and recordkeeping provisions of Sec. 86.1862
apply instead of those specified in 40 CFR 1037.730 and 1037.735.
(e) The provisions of 40 CFR 1037.645 do not apply.
0
183. Section 86.1862-04 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1862-04 Maintenance of records and submittal of information
relevant to compliance with fleet-average standards.
(a) Overview. This section describes reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for vehicles subject to the following fleet-average or
fleet-average standards:
(1) Tier 2 NOX emission standard for light-duty vehicles
and light-duty trucks in Sec. 86.1811-04.
(2) Tier 3 FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX for light-
duty vehicles and light-duty trucks in Sec. 86.1811-17.
(3) Tier 3 SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX for
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks in Sec. 86.1811-17.
(4) Tier 3 evaporative emission standards in Sec. 86.1813-17.
(5) Tier 3 FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX for heavy-
duty vehicles in Sec. 86.1816-18.
(6) Cold-temperature NMHC standards in Sec. 86.1811-10.
(b) Maintenance of records. (1) The manufacturer producing any
vehicles subject to a fleet-average standard under this subpart must
establish and maintain all the following information in organized and
indexed records for each model year:
(i) Model year.
(ii) Applicable fleet-average standard.
(iii) Calculated fleet-average value.
(iv) All values used in calculating the fleet-average value
achieved.
(2) The manufacturer producing any vehicle subject to the
provisions in this section must keep all the following information for
each vehicle:
(i) Model year.
(ii) Applicable fleet-average standard.
(iii) EPA test group.
(iv) Assembly plant.
(v) Vehicle identification number.
(vi) The FEL and the fleet-average standard to which the vehicle is
certified.
(vii) Information on the point of first sale, including the
purchaser, city, and state.
(3) The manufacturer must retain all records required to be
maintained under this section for a period of eight years from the due
date for the annual report. Records may be stored in any format and on
any media, as long as manufacturers can promptly send EPA organized
written records in English if we ask for them. Manufacturers must keep
records readily available as EPA may review them at any time.
(4) The Administrator may require the manufacturer to retain
additional records or submit information not specifically required by
this section.
(5) EPA may void ab initio a certificate of conformity for a
vehicle certified to emission standards as set forth or otherwise
referenced in this subpart for which the manufacturer fails to retain
the records required in this section, to provide such information to
the Administrator upon request, or to submit the reports required in
this section in the specified time period.
(c) Reporting. (1) Each manufacturer must submit an annual report.
Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the annual
report must contain, for each applicable fleet average standard, the
fleet average value achieved, all values required to calculate the
fleet-average value, the number of credits generated or debits
incurred, all the values required to calculate the credits or debits,
and sufficient information to show compliance with all phase-in
requirements, if applicable. The annual report must also contain the
resulting balance of credits or debits.
(2) When a manufacturer calculates compliance with the fleet-
average standard using the provisions in Sec. 86.1860-04(c)(2) or
Sec. 86.1860-17(f), the annual report must state that the manufacturer
has elected to use such provision and must contain the fleet-average
standard as the fleet-average value for that model year.
(3) For each applicable fleet-average standard, the annual report
must also include documentation on all credit transactions the
manufacturer has engaged in since those included in the last report.
Information for each transaction must include all the following
information:
(i) Name of credit provider.
(ii) Name of credit recipient.
(iii) Date the transfer occurred.
(iv) Quantity of credits transferred.
(v) Model year in which the credits were earned.
(4) Unless a manufacturer reports the data required by this section
in the annual production report required under Sec. 86.1844-01(e) and
subsequent model year provisions, a manufacturer must submit an annual
report for each model year after production ends for all affected
vehicles produced by the manufacturer subject to the provisions of this
subpart and no later than May 1 of the calendar year following the
given model year. Annual reports must be submitted to: Director,
Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
[[Page 30087]]
Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105.
(5) Failure by a manufacturer to submit the annual report in the
specified time period for all vehicles subject to the provisions in
this section is a violation of Clean Air Act section 203(a)(1) (42
U.S.C 7522(a)(1)) for each subject vehicle produced by that
manufacturer.
(6) If EPA or the manufacturer determines that a reporting error
occurred on an annual report previously submitted to EPA, the
manufacturer's credit or debit calculations will be recalculated. EPA
may void erroneous credits, unless transferred, and must adjust
erroneous debits. In the case of transferred erroneous credits, EPA
must adjust the selling manufacturer's credit or debit balance to
reflect the sale of such credits and any resulting generation of
debits.
(d) Notice of opportunity for hearing. Any voiding of the
certificate under paragraph (a)(6) of this section will be made only
after EPA has offered the manufacturer concerned an opportunity for a
hearing conducted in accordance with Sec. 86.614 for light-duty
vehicles and light-duty trucks and with 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G,
for heavy-duty vehicles.
0
184. Section 86.1863-07 is amended by adding introductory text to read
as follows:
Sec. 86.1863-07 Optional chassis certification for diesel vehicles.
This section does not apply for vehicles certified to the Tier 3
standards in Sec. 86.1816-18, including those vehicles that certify to
the Tier 3 standards before model year 2018.
* * * * *
0
185. Section 86.1864-10 is amended by revising paragraph (p) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.1864-10 How to comply with the fleet average cold temperature
NMHC standards.
* * * * *
(p) Reporting and recordkeeping. Keep records and submit
information for demonstrating compliance with the fleet average cold
temperature NMHC standard as described in Sec. 86.1862-04.
0
186. Section 86.1868-12 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(1) and
(g)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1868-12 CO2 credits for improving the efficiency
of air conditioning systems.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) The manufacturer shall perform the AC17 test specified in 40
CFR 1066.840 on each unique air conditioning system design and vehicle
platform combination for which the manufacturer intends to accrue air
conditioning efficiency credits. The manufacturer must test at least
one unique air conditioning system within each vehicle platform in a
model year, unless all unique air conditioning systems within a vehicle
platform have been previously tested. A unique air conditioning system
design is a system with unique or substantially different component
designs or types and/or system control strategies (e.g., fixed
displacement vs. variable displacement compressors, orifice tube vs.
thermostatic expansion valve, single vs. dual evaporator, etc.). In the
first year of such testing, the tested vehicle configuration shall be
the highest production vehicle configuration within each platform. In
subsequent model years the manufacturer must test other unique air
conditioning systems within the vehicle platform, proceeding from the
highest production untested system until all unique air conditioning
systems within the platform have been tested, or until the vehicle
platform experiences a major redesign. Whenever a new unique air
conditioning system is tested, the highest production configuration
using that system shall be the vehicle selected for testing. Air
conditioning system designs which have similar cooling capacity,
component types, and control strategies, yet differ in terms of
compressor pulley ratios or condenser or evaporator surface areas will
not be considered to be unique system designs. The test results from
one unique system design may represent all variants of that design.
Manufacturers must use good engineering judgment to identify the unique
air conditioning system designs which will require AC17 testing in
subsequent model years. Results must be reported separately for all
four phases (two phases with air conditioning off and two phases with
air conditioning on) of the test to the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the results of the calculations required in 40 CFR 1066.840
must also be reported. In each subsequent model year additional air
conditioning system designs, if such systems exist, within a vehicle
platform that is generating air conditioning credits must be tested
using the AC17 procedure.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) For each air conditioning system selected by the manufacturer
to generate air conditioning efficiency credits, the manufacturer shall
perform the AC17 Air Conditioning Efficiency Test Procedure specified
in 40 CFR 1066.840, according to the requirements of this paragraph
(g).
* * * * *
0
187. Appendix I to Part 86 is amended by revising the appendix heading,
paragraph (a) before the table, paragraphs (b) and (c), and the
introductory text of paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Appendix I to Part 86--Dynamometer Schedules
(a) EPA light-duty urban dynamometer driving schedule (UDDS).
This driving schedule is also known as the LA-4 cycle.
(1) The driving schedule in this paragraph (a) applies for
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles
certified under subpart S of this part.
(2) The driving schedule in this paragraph (a) applies for
motorcycles with engine displacement at or above 170 cc. Calculate
the speed-versus-time sequence in kilometers per hour by multiplying
the listed speed by 1.6 and rounding to the nearest 0.1 kilometers
per hour.
(3) The driving schedule follows:
* * * * *
(b) EPA driving schedule for motorcycles with engine
displacement below 170 cc. Use the driving schedule specified in
paragraph (a)(2) of this appendix, except that the schedule
specified in this paragraph (b) applies for the portion of the
driving schedule from 164 to 332 seconds.
Speed Versus Time Sequence
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time (sec.) Speed (kph)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
164..................................................... 3.4
165..................................................... 6.8
166..................................................... 10.3
167..................................................... 13.7
168..................................................... 17.1
169..................................................... 20.5
170..................................................... 23.0
171..................................................... 25.2
172..................................................... 26.7
173..................................................... 27.4
174..................................................... 26.6
175..................................................... 26.0
176..................................................... 25.6
177..................................................... 25.9
178..................................................... 26.1
179..................................................... 26.3
180..................................................... 26.7
181..................................................... 28.2
182..................................................... 27.5
183..................................................... 24.9
184..................................................... 23.5
185..................................................... 20.1
186..................................................... 18.3
187..................................................... 17.8
188..................................................... 18.8
189..................................................... 19.3
190..................................................... 20.7
191..................................................... 23.0
192..................................................... 25.4
193..................................................... 28.3
194..................................................... 31.6
195..................................................... 34.7
196..................................................... 37.5
[[Page 30088]]
197..................................................... 38.6
198..................................................... 40.7
199..................................................... 42.0
200..................................................... 43.6
201..................................................... 45.1
202..................................................... 46.7
203..................................................... 47.7
204..................................................... 48.5
205..................................................... 49.2
206..................................................... 49.2
207..................................................... 49.0
208..................................................... 48.9
209..................................................... 48.7
210..................................................... 48.7
211..................................................... 48.7
212..................................................... 48.7
213..................................................... 48.7
214..................................................... 48.9
215..................................................... 49.1
216..................................................... 49.6
217..................................................... 50.2
218..................................................... 50.9
219..................................................... 51.3
220..................................................... 51.8
221..................................................... 52.4
222..................................................... 52.8
223..................................................... 53.4
224..................................................... 54.1
225..................................................... 55.1
226..................................................... 56.0
227..................................................... 56.6
228..................................................... 56.9
229..................................................... 57.0
230..................................................... 56.9
231..................................................... 56.6
232..................................................... 56.6
233..................................................... 56.8
234..................................................... 57.1
235..................................................... 57.5
236..................................................... 57.7
237..................................................... 58.1
238..................................................... 58.3
239..................................................... 58.6
240..................................................... 58.7
241..................................................... 58.7
242..................................................... 58.5
243..................................................... 58.5
244..................................................... 58.5
245..................................................... 58.5
246..................................................... 58.5
247..................................................... 58.5
248..................................................... 58.4
249..................................................... 58.1
250..................................................... 57.8
251..................................................... 57.1
252..................................................... 56.6
253..................................................... 56.2
254..................................................... 55.9
255..................................................... 55.6
256..................................................... 55.5
257..................................................... 55.8
258..................................................... 55.9
259..................................................... 56.0
260..................................................... 56.0
261..................................................... 55.7
262..................................................... 55.3
263..................................................... 54.9
264..................................................... 54.5
265..................................................... 54.0
266..................................................... 54.3
267..................................................... 53.9
268..................................................... 53.8
269..................................................... 53.6
270..................................................... 53.4
271..................................................... 53.5
272..................................................... 53.7
273..................................................... 54.0
274..................................................... 54.4
275..................................................... 54.9
276..................................................... 55.4
277..................................................... 55.9
278..................................................... 56.9
279..................................................... 57.4
280..................................................... 57.6
281..................................................... 58.0
282..................................................... 58.0
283..................................................... 57.8
284..................................................... 57.2
285..................................................... 56.5
286..................................................... 55.5
287..................................................... 54.4
288..................................................... 53.4
289..................................................... 53.4
290..................................................... 53.4
291..................................................... 52.9
292..................................................... 51.9
293..................................................... 51.8
294..................................................... 51.9
295..................................................... 51.8
296..................................................... 51.4
297..................................................... 51.3
298..................................................... 51.3
299..................................................... 51.3
300..................................................... 50.9
301..................................................... 50.3
302..................................................... 49.8
303..................................................... 48.9
304..................................................... 47.8
305..................................................... 46.6
306..................................................... 45.4
307..................................................... 44.1
308..................................................... 43.0
309..................................................... 41.8
310..................................................... 39.9
311..................................................... 38.3
312..................................................... 36.5
313..................................................... 35.0
314..................................................... 33.7
315..................................................... 32.6
316..................................................... 31.7
317..................................................... 31.6
318..................................................... 31.1
319..................................................... 30.0
320..................................................... 28.5
321..................................................... 25.7
322..................................................... 22.3
323..................................................... 20.8
324..................................................... 19.8
325..................................................... 19.2
326..................................................... 17.6
327..................................................... 16.1
328..................................................... 12.9
329..................................................... 11.2
330..................................................... 8.3
331..................................................... 4.9
332..................................................... 1.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) EPA driving schedule for class 3 heavy-duty vehicles. This
driving schedule is also known as the LA-92 cycle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time (sec.) Speed (mph)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... 0.0
2....................................................... 0.0
3....................................................... 0.0
4....................................................... 0.0
5....................................................... 0.0
6....................................................... 0.0
7....................................................... 0.0
8....................................................... 0.0
9....................................................... 0.0
10...................................................... 0.0
11...................................................... 0.0
12...................................................... 0.0
13...................................................... 0.0
14...................................................... 0.0
15...................................................... 0.0
16...................................................... 0.0
17...................................................... 0.0
18...................................................... 0.0
19...................................................... 0.0
20...................................................... 0.0
21...................................................... 1.2
22...................................................... 4.2
23...................................................... 7.3
24...................................................... 8.8
25...................................................... 10.8
26...................................................... 12.3
27...................................................... 13.1
28...................................................... 12.3
29...................................................... 12.3
30...................................................... 11.5
31...................................................... 11.5
32...................................................... 11.1
33...................................................... 11.1
34...................................................... 11.1
35...................................................... 13.1
36...................................................... 15.0
37...................................................... 16.9
38...................................................... 16.9
39...................................................... 16.1
40...................................................... 15.7
41...................................................... 15.4
42...................................................... 15.0
43...................................................... 13.8
44...................................................... 10.8
45...................................................... 8.4
46...................................................... 6.1
47...................................................... 4.2
48...................................................... 3.5
49...................................................... 3.5
50...................................................... 1.5
51...................................................... 0.0
52...................................................... 0.0
53...................................................... 0.0
54...................................................... 0.0
55...................................................... 0.0
56...................................................... 0.0
57...................................................... 0.0
58...................................................... 0.0
59...................................................... 0.0
60...................................................... 0.0
61...................................................... 0.0
62...................................................... 0.0
63...................................................... 1.2
64...................................................... 3.5
65...................................................... 7.7
66...................................................... 11.1
67...................................................... 13.8
68...................................................... 16.5
69...................................................... 18.4
70...................................................... 20.4
71...................................................... 20.7
72...................................................... 19.6
73...................................................... 17.3
[[Page 30089]]
74...................................................... 12.3
75...................................................... 8.1
76...................................................... 6.1
77...................................................... 9.6
78...................................................... 12.7
79...................................................... 15.7
80...................................................... 18.0
81...................................................... 20.4
82...................................................... 21.9
83...................................................... 23.4
84...................................................... 23.8
85...................................................... 24.6
86...................................................... 25.0
87...................................................... 26.1
88...................................................... 26.1
89...................................................... 26.9
90...................................................... 26.9
91...................................................... 26.9
92...................................................... 26.5
93...................................................... 25.7
94...................................................... 21.9
95...................................................... 16.5
96...................................................... 10.0
97...................................................... 4.6
98...................................................... 1.5
99...................................................... 0.4
100..................................................... 0.0
101..................................................... 0.0
102..................................................... 0.0
103..................................................... 0.0
104..................................................... 0.0
105..................................................... 0.0
106..................................................... 0.0
107..................................................... 0.0
108..................................................... 0.4
109..................................................... 1.2
110..................................................... 1.9
111..................................................... 3.8
112..................................................... 7.7
113..................................................... 11.5
114..................................................... 14.6
115..................................................... 18.0
116..................................................... 21.5
117..................................................... 25.0
118..................................................... 28.4
119..................................................... 30.7
120..................................................... 31.9
121..................................................... 32.3
122..................................................... 32.3
123..................................................... 31.9
124..................................................... 30.3
125..................................................... 28.0
126..................................................... 24.2
127..................................................... 20.0
128..................................................... 16.1
129..................................................... 11.5
130..................................................... 8.1
131..................................................... 5.0
132..................................................... 3.5
133..................................................... 1.9
134..................................................... 0.0
135..................................................... 0.0
136..................................................... 0.0
137..................................................... 0.0
138..................................................... 0.0
139..................................................... 0.0
140..................................................... 0.0
141..................................................... 0.0
142..................................................... 0.0
143..................................................... 1.5
144..................................................... 6.9
145..................................................... 12.7
146..................................................... 16.5
147..................................................... 20.0
148..................................................... 23.0
149..................................................... 25.7
150..................................................... 28.0
151..................................................... 30.7
152..................................................... 32.6
153..................................................... 34.2
154..................................................... 35.3
155..................................................... 36.9
156..................................................... 36.9
157..................................................... 37.2
158..................................................... 37.6
159..................................................... 37.6
160..................................................... 37.6
161..................................................... 37.2
162..................................................... 37.2
163..................................................... 36.9
164..................................................... 36.5
165..................................................... 36.5
166..................................................... 34.9
167..................................................... 33.4
168..................................................... 31.9
169..................................................... 29.2
170..................................................... 25.0
171..................................................... 25.0
172..................................................... 26.1
173..................................................... 27.6
174..................................................... 29.2
175..................................................... 31.1
176..................................................... 32.3
177..................................................... 34.2
178..................................................... 34.9
179..................................................... 35.7
180..................................................... 36.5
181..................................................... 36.9
182..................................................... 36.9
183..................................................... 37.2
184..................................................... 37.6
185..................................................... 37.2
186..................................................... 37.6
187..................................................... 38.0
188..................................................... 38.4
189..................................................... 39.2
190..................................................... 39.6
191..................................................... 39.9
192..................................................... 40.7
193..................................................... 40.3
194..................................................... 41.1
195..................................................... 41.1
196..................................................... 40.7
197..................................................... 31.9
198..................................................... 23.9
199..................................................... 15.9
200..................................................... 7.9
201..................................................... 2.7
202..................................................... 0.4
203..................................................... 0.4
204..................................................... 2.7
205..................................................... 3.8
206..................................................... 3.8
207..................................................... 1.5
208..................................................... 0.0
209..................................................... 0.0
210..................................................... 0.0
211..................................................... 0.0
212..................................................... 0.0
213..................................................... 0.0
214..................................................... 0.0
215..................................................... 0.0
216..................................................... 0.0
217..................................................... 0.0
218..................................................... 0.0
219..................................................... 0.0
220..................................................... 0.0
221..................................................... 0.0
222..................................................... 0.0
223..................................................... 0.0
224..................................................... 0.0
225..................................................... 0.0
226..................................................... 0.0
227..................................................... 0.0
228..................................................... 0.0
229..................................................... 0.0
230..................................................... 0.0
231..................................................... 0.0
232..................................................... 0.0
233..................................................... 0.0
234..................................................... 0.0
235..................................................... 0.0
236..................................................... 0.0
237..................................................... 0.0
238..................................................... 1.5
239..................................................... 5.0
240..................................................... 8.8
241..................................................... 11.5
242..................................................... 14.2
243..................................................... 15.4
244..................................................... 16.1
245..................................................... 16.1
246..................................................... 16.9
247..................................................... 16.5
248..................................................... 16.9
249..................................................... 18.0
250..................................................... 19.2
251..................................................... 20.4
252..................................................... 20.4
253..................................................... 21.1
254..................................................... 21.1
255..................................................... 22.3
256..................................................... 23.0
257..................................................... 23.8
258..................................................... 24.2
259..................................................... 24.6
260..................................................... 25.0
261..................................................... 25.7
262..................................................... 25.7
263..................................................... 26.5
264..................................................... 27.6
265..................................................... 28.4
266..................................................... 29.2
267..................................................... 30.3
268..................................................... 31.1
269..................................................... 31.1
270..................................................... 30.7
271..................................................... 31.1
272..................................................... 29.6
273..................................................... 29.2
274..................................................... 29.2
275..................................................... 28.8
276..................................................... 28.0
277..................................................... 23.0
278..................................................... 21.1
279..................................................... 21.5
280..................................................... 20.7
281..................................................... 20.7
282..................................................... 19.6
283..................................................... 16.5
284..................................................... 13.1
285..................................................... 9.6
286..................................................... 7.3
287..................................................... 3.8
288..................................................... 0.8
289..................................................... 0.0
290..................................................... 0.0
291..................................................... 0.0
292..................................................... 0.0
[[Page 30090]]
293..................................................... 0.0
294..................................................... 0.0
295..................................................... 0.0
296..................................................... 0.0
297..................................................... 0.0
298..................................................... 0.0
299..................................................... 0.0
300..................................................... 0.0
301..................................................... 0.0
302..................................................... 0.0
303..................................................... 0.0
304..................................................... 0.0
305..................................................... 0.0
306..................................................... 0.0
307..................................................... 0.0
308..................................................... 0.0
309..................................................... 0.0
310..................................................... 0.0
311..................................................... 0.0
312..................................................... 0.0
313..................................................... 0.4
314..................................................... 2.7
315..................................................... 7.3
316..................................................... 11.5
317..................................................... 15.4
318..................................................... 18.4
319..................................................... 20.7
320..................................................... 24.2
321..................................................... 26.9
322..................................................... 29.6
323..................................................... 31.1
324..................................................... 32.6
325..................................................... 33.8
326..................................................... 34.9
327..................................................... 36.9
328..................................................... 39.2
329..................................................... 41.1
330..................................................... 43.0
331..................................................... 43.8
332..................................................... 44.5
333..................................................... 45.3
334..................................................... 45.3
335..................................................... 44.9
336..................................................... 44.5
337..................................................... 43.8
338..................................................... 43.4
339..................................................... 42.6
340..................................................... 41.9
341..................................................... 41.5
342..................................................... 40.7
343..................................................... 40.3
344..................................................... 41.1
345..................................................... 41.5
346..................................................... 42.6
347..................................................... 43.4
348..................................................... 44.2
349..................................................... 44.9
350..................................................... 45.7
351..................................................... 46.5
352..................................................... 46.8
353..................................................... 47.2
354..................................................... 48.0
355..................................................... 47.6
356..................................................... 48.4
357..................................................... 48.0
358..................................................... 47.2
359..................................................... 46.1
360..................................................... 45.7
361..................................................... 44.9
362..................................................... 44.2
363..................................................... 43.8
364..................................................... 44.5
365..................................................... 44.9
366..................................................... 45.3
367..................................................... 46.5
368..................................................... 48.0
369..................................................... 48.8
370..................................................... 49.5
371..................................................... 49.9
372..................................................... 49.9
373..................................................... 49.9
374..................................................... 49.5
375..................................................... 49.5
376..................................................... 48.8
377..................................................... 48.8
378..................................................... 48.8
379..................................................... 48.4
380..................................................... 48.8
381..................................................... 49.5
382..................................................... 50.3
383..................................................... 50.7
384..................................................... 51.8
385..................................................... 52.6
386..................................................... 53.4
387..................................................... 54.1
388..................................................... 55.3
389..................................................... 55.3
390..................................................... 56.1
391..................................................... 56.4
392..................................................... 56.4
393..................................................... 56.4
394..................................................... 57.2
395..................................................... 56.8
396..................................................... 57.6
397..................................................... 57.6
398..................................................... 57.6
399..................................................... 58.0
400..................................................... 58.0
401..................................................... 58.4
402..................................................... 58.4
403..................................................... 58.8
404..................................................... 59.1
405..................................................... 58.8
406..................................................... 58.8
407..................................................... 58.0
408..................................................... 58.0
409..................................................... 57.6
410..................................................... 57.6
411..................................................... 57.6
412..................................................... 57.6
413..................................................... 57.6
414..................................................... 59.1
415..................................................... 59.5
416..................................................... 59.9
417..................................................... 60.3
418..................................................... 60.3
419..................................................... 61.1
420..................................................... 60.3
421..................................................... 59.9
422..................................................... 59.5
423..................................................... 59.1
424..................................................... 59.1
425..................................................... 59.5
426..................................................... 59.5
427..................................................... 59.5
428..................................................... 59.9
429..................................................... 60.3
430..................................................... 60.7
431..................................................... 60.7
432..................................................... 61.4
433..................................................... 61.8
434..................................................... 61.8
435..................................................... 61.8
436..................................................... 61.8
437..................................................... 61.1
438..................................................... 60.7
439..................................................... 60.3
440..................................................... 60.3
441..................................................... 60.3
442..................................................... 59.5
443..................................................... 58.8
444..................................................... 59.1
445..................................................... 58.8
446..................................................... 58.8
447..................................................... 58.8
448..................................................... 58.4
449..................................................... 58.0
450..................................................... 58.0
451..................................................... 58.0
452..................................................... 58.4
453..................................................... 59.1
454..................................................... 59.5
455..................................................... 59.9
456..................................................... 59.9
457..................................................... 60.3
458..................................................... 61.1
459..................................................... 61.1
460..................................................... 61.1
461..................................................... 61.4
462..................................................... 61.4
463..................................................... 61.1
464..................................................... 60.7
465..................................................... 59.9
466..................................................... 59.1
467..................................................... 59.1
468..................................................... 59.1
469..................................................... 59.9
470..................................................... 59.5
471..................................................... 59.9
472..................................................... 58.8
473..................................................... 58.0
474..................................................... 57.6
475..................................................... 56.8
476..................................................... 56.1
477..................................................... 55.3
478..................................................... 54.1
479..................................................... 52.6
480..................................................... 49.2
481..................................................... 46.1
482..................................................... 43.0
483..................................................... 37.2
484..................................................... 29.6
485..................................................... 21.5
486..................................................... 16.5
487..................................................... 15.7
488..................................................... 18.4
489..................................................... 21.5
490..................................................... 25.0
491..................................................... 27.3
492..................................................... 29.2
493..................................................... 30.7
494..................................................... 31.5
495..................................................... 31.1
496..................................................... 31.1
497..................................................... 30.3
498..................................................... 30.0
499..................................................... 30.0
500..................................................... 29.6
501..................................................... 30.0
502..................................................... 28.8
503..................................................... 28.8
504..................................................... 28.0
505..................................................... 28.4
506..................................................... 28.0
507..................................................... 28.4
508..................................................... 28.4
509..................................................... 28.8
510..................................................... 28.4
511..................................................... 28.4
[[Page 30091]]
512..................................................... 28.0
513..................................................... 26.5
514..................................................... 24.2
515..................................................... 22.7
516..................................................... 20.4
517..................................................... 17.7
518..................................................... 15.7
519..................................................... 13.1
520..................................................... 10.8
521..................................................... 8.4
522..................................................... 7.3
523..................................................... 5.0
524..................................................... 3.8
525..................................................... 3.5
526..................................................... 1.9
527..................................................... 0.8
528..................................................... 0.0
529..................................................... 0.0
530..................................................... 0.0
531..................................................... 0.8
532..................................................... 1.9
533..................................................... 3.8
534..................................................... 6.9
535..................................................... 9.6
536..................................................... 11.1
537..................................................... 11.1
538..................................................... 10.4
539..................................................... 8.8
540..................................................... 9.2
541..................................................... 10.0
542..................................................... 10.4
543..................................................... 10.4
544..................................................... 5.4
545..................................................... 1.9
546..................................................... 0.0
547..................................................... 0.0
548..................................................... 0.0
549..................................................... 0.0
550..................................................... 0.0
551..................................................... 0.0
552..................................................... 0.0
553..................................................... 0.0
554..................................................... 0.0
555..................................................... 0.0
556..................................................... 0.0
557..................................................... 0.0
558..................................................... 0.0
559..................................................... 0.0
560..................................................... 0.0
561..................................................... 0.0
562..................................................... 0.0
563..................................................... 0.0
564..................................................... 0.0
565..................................................... 0.0
566..................................................... 0.0
567..................................................... 0.0
568..................................................... 0.0
569..................................................... 0.0
570..................................................... 0.0
571..................................................... 0.0
572..................................................... 0.4
573..................................................... 1.5
574..................................................... 3.5
575..................................................... 6.1
576..................................................... 10.4
577..................................................... 14.2
578..................................................... 16.9
579..................................................... 19.2
580..................................................... 20.0
581..................................................... 21.5
582..................................................... 23.4
583..................................................... 24.6
584..................................................... 24.2
585..................................................... 20.0
586..................................................... 16.9
587..................................................... 13.4
588..................................................... 13.4
589..................................................... 15.7
590..................................................... 18.4
591..................................................... 21.1
592..................................................... 23.4
593..................................................... 25.3
594..................................................... 27.6
595..................................................... 28.8
596..................................................... 30.3
597..................................................... 30.7
598..................................................... 31.5
599..................................................... 31.1
600..................................................... 31.1
601..................................................... 30.3
602..................................................... 30.3
603..................................................... 30.3
604..................................................... 30.7
605..................................................... 31.1
606..................................................... 32.3
607..................................................... 32.6
608..................................................... 32.6
609..................................................... 32.6
610..................................................... 31.1
611..................................................... 26.9
612..................................................... 22.3
613..................................................... 18.0
614..................................................... 13.8
615..................................................... 9.6
616..................................................... 4.6
617..................................................... 6.1
618..................................................... 10.0
619..................................................... 14.2
620..................................................... 17.3
621..................................................... 20.0
622..................................................... 21.5
623..................................................... 22.3
624..................................................... 22.3
625..................................................... 22.3
626..................................................... 22.3
627..................................................... 23.0
628..................................................... 23.0
629..................................................... 22.7
630..................................................... 22.3
631..................................................... 21.9
632..................................................... 22.7
633..................................................... 23.8
634..................................................... 25.0
635..................................................... 25.3
636..................................................... 25.7
637..................................................... 26.5
638..................................................... 26.9
639..................................................... 27.3
640..................................................... 28.0
641..................................................... 29.2
642..................................................... 30.0
643..................................................... 30.0
644..................................................... 29.6
645..................................................... 29.6
646..................................................... 28.8
647..................................................... 28.4
648..................................................... 28.0
649..................................................... 27.3
650..................................................... 25.7
651..................................................... 24.6
652..................................................... 25.0
653..................................................... 26.5
654..................................................... 28.0
655..................................................... 29.6
656..................................................... 30.7
657..................................................... 32.3
658..................................................... 33.0
659..................................................... 34.2
660..................................................... 34.6
661..................................................... 35.3
662..................................................... 36.1
663..................................................... 36.1
664..................................................... 36.9
665..................................................... 36.9
666..................................................... 37.6
667..................................................... 37.6
668..................................................... 38.4
669..................................................... 38.0
670..................................................... 37.6
671..................................................... 37.6
672..................................................... 37.2
673..................................................... 36.9
674..................................................... 36.1
675..................................................... 35.7
676..................................................... 36.1
677..................................................... 35.7
678..................................................... 35.7
679..................................................... 35.7
680..................................................... 36.1
681..................................................... 36.1
682..................................................... 35.7
683..................................................... 35.7
684..................................................... 34.9
685..................................................... 34.6
686..................................................... 34.2
687..................................................... 33.8
688..................................................... 33.4
689..................................................... 33.0
690..................................................... 30.3
691..................................................... 29.2
692..................................................... 28.4
693..................................................... 25.0
694..................................................... 21.1
695..................................................... 16.9
696..................................................... 13.4
697..................................................... 13.1
698..................................................... 12.3
699..................................................... 12.7
700..................................................... 15.7
701..................................................... 19.2
702..................................................... 22.3
703..................................................... 24.6
704..................................................... 25.7
705..................................................... 26.5
706..................................................... 26.5
707..................................................... 26.9
708..................................................... 27.3
709..................................................... 27.3
710..................................................... 27.6
711..................................................... 28.4
712..................................................... 28.8
713..................................................... 28.8
714..................................................... 29.2
715..................................................... 28.8
716..................................................... 28.8
717..................................................... 28.0
718..................................................... 28.0
719..................................................... 27.6
720..................................................... 26.5
721..................................................... 24.6
722..................................................... 20.7
723..................................................... 16.5
724..................................................... 15.0
725..................................................... 14.2
726..................................................... 14.2
727..................................................... 13.8
728..................................................... 13.8
729..................................................... 11.9
730..................................................... 8.4
[[Page 30092]]
731..................................................... 4.2
732..................................................... 1.2
733..................................................... 0.0
734..................................................... 0.0
735..................................................... 0.0
736..................................................... 0.0
737..................................................... 0.0
738..................................................... 0.0
739..................................................... 0.0
740..................................................... 0.0
741..................................................... 0.0
742..................................................... 0.0
743..................................................... 0.0
744..................................................... 0.0
745..................................................... 0.0
746..................................................... 0.0
747..................................................... 0.0
748..................................................... 0.0
749..................................................... 0.0
750..................................................... 0.0
751..................................................... 0.0
752..................................................... 0.0
753..................................................... 0.0
754..................................................... 0.0
755..................................................... 0.0
756..................................................... 0.0
757..................................................... 0.0
758..................................................... 0.0
759..................................................... 0.0
760..................................................... 0.0
761..................................................... 0.0
762..................................................... 0.0
763..................................................... 1.5
764..................................................... 5.4
765..................................................... 9.2
766..................................................... 11.5
767..................................................... 14.6
768..................................................... 17.3
769..................................................... 19.2
770..................................................... 21.1
771..................................................... 20.7
772..................................................... 20.7
773..................................................... 19.6
774..................................................... 18.4
775..................................................... 16.9
776..................................................... 16.9
777..................................................... 16.5
778..................................................... 16.9
779..................................................... 16.9
780..................................................... 16.9
781..................................................... 17.3
782..................................................... 19.2
783..................................................... 20.4
784..................................................... 21.1
785..................................................... 22.3
786..................................................... 22.3
787..................................................... 22.7
788..................................................... 22.3
789..................................................... 22.7
790..................................................... 22.3
791..................................................... 23.8
792..................................................... 25.7
793..................................................... 27.6
794..................................................... 29.6
795..................................................... 30.0
796..................................................... 29.2
797..................................................... 27.6
798..................................................... 25.0
799..................................................... 23.8
800..................................................... 23.4
801..................................................... 24.2
802..................................................... 23.4
803..................................................... 23.0
804..................................................... 20.4
805..................................................... 18.8
806..................................................... 17.3
807..................................................... 15.0
808..................................................... 13.1
809..................................................... 9.2
810..................................................... 6.9
811..................................................... 4.6
812..................................................... 4.6
813..................................................... 4.6
814..................................................... 4.2
815..................................................... 5.4
816..................................................... 4.6
817..................................................... 3.5
818..................................................... 2.3
819..................................................... 2.3
820..................................................... 1.9
821..................................................... 3.1
822..................................................... 6.1
823..................................................... 4.6
824..................................................... 2.7
825..................................................... 2.3
826..................................................... 2.3
827..................................................... 3.1
828..................................................... 4.2
829..................................................... 3.5
830..................................................... 3.8
831..................................................... 4.2
832..................................................... 3.5
833..................................................... 3.5
834..................................................... 3.5
835..................................................... 4.6
836..................................................... 5.8
837..................................................... 3.5
838..................................................... 0.8
839..................................................... 3.5
840..................................................... 3.8
841..................................................... 2.3
842..................................................... 0.0
843..................................................... 1.2
844..................................................... 6.9
845..................................................... 13.8
846..................................................... 18.8
847..................................................... 23.8
848..................................................... 27.3
849..................................................... 30.7
850..................................................... 33.8
851..................................................... 37.6
852..................................................... 40.7
853..................................................... 43.8
854..................................................... 46.1
855..................................................... 48.0
856..................................................... 49.5
857..................................................... 51.5
858..................................................... 53.0
859..................................................... 54.5
860..................................................... 55.7
861..................................................... 56.8
862..................................................... 58.0
863..................................................... 59.1
864..................................................... 60.3
865..................................................... 61.1
866..................................................... 61.8
867..................................................... 61.8
868..................................................... 61.8
869..................................................... 61.8
870..................................................... 62.6
871..................................................... 63.4
872..................................................... 63.0
873..................................................... 63.0
874..................................................... 62.6
875..................................................... 61.8
876..................................................... 61.8
877..................................................... 62.2
878..................................................... 62.2
879..................................................... 62.6
880..................................................... 63.7
881..................................................... 64.5
882..................................................... 64.9
883..................................................... 66.0
884..................................................... 66.0
885..................................................... 66.8
886..................................................... 66.4
887..................................................... 66.8
888..................................................... 67.2
889..................................................... 66.4
890..................................................... 66.4
891..................................................... 66.0
892..................................................... 65.7
893..................................................... 65.7
894..................................................... 66.4
895..................................................... 66.0
896..................................................... 65.7
897..................................................... 65.3
898..................................................... 65.3
899..................................................... 64.5
900..................................................... 64.5
901..................................................... 64.1
902..................................................... 63.7
903..................................................... 63.7
904..................................................... 63.7
905..................................................... 64.5
906..................................................... 64.5
907..................................................... 64.9
908..................................................... 64.5
909..................................................... 64.1
910..................................................... 64.9
911..................................................... 65.3
912..................................................... 65.3
913..................................................... 65.3
914..................................................... 64.1
915..................................................... 63.4
916..................................................... 63.0
917..................................................... 63.4
918..................................................... 64.1
919..................................................... 64.9
920..................................................... 65.3
921..................................................... 64.5
922..................................................... 64.1
923..................................................... 63.4
924..................................................... 63.7
925..................................................... 63.4
926..................................................... 63.4
927..................................................... 63.4
928..................................................... 63.4
929..................................................... 63.7
930..................................................... 64.5
931..................................................... 65.3
932..................................................... 64.9
933..................................................... 63.7
934..................................................... 63.0
935..................................................... 59.9
936..................................................... 55.3
937..................................................... 50.7
938..................................................... 49.2
939..................................................... 48.0
940..................................................... 46.1
941..................................................... 44.2
942..................................................... 41.1
943..................................................... 39.9
944..................................................... 36.1
945..................................................... 32.6
946..................................................... 29.2
947..................................................... 24.6
948..................................................... 20.7
949..................................................... 19.2
[[Page 30093]]
950..................................................... 16.5
951..................................................... 15.0
952..................................................... 11.9
953..................................................... 9.6
954..................................................... 8.4
955..................................................... 5.8
956..................................................... 1.2
957..................................................... 0.0
958..................................................... 0.0
959..................................................... 0.0
960..................................................... 1.2
961..................................................... 3.1
962..................................................... 5.0
963..................................................... 8.4
964..................................................... 11.5
965..................................................... 14.6
966..................................................... 16.9
967..................................................... 18.8
968..................................................... 21.1
969..................................................... 23.8
970..................................................... 26.5
971..................................................... 28.0
972..................................................... 29.6
973..................................................... 30.7
974..................................................... 32.6
975..................................................... 34.2
976..................................................... 35.3
977..................................................... 36.1
978..................................................... 36.9
979..................................................... 38.0
980..................................................... 38.0
981..................................................... 38.0
982..................................................... 38.0
983..................................................... 38.0
984..................................................... 37.2
985..................................................... 36.9
986..................................................... 36.1
987..................................................... 35.7
988..................................................... 34.9
989..................................................... 34.9
990..................................................... 33.8
991..................................................... 31.5
992..................................................... 28.8
993..................................................... 25.7
994..................................................... 24.6
995..................................................... 23.4
996..................................................... 22.3
997..................................................... 21.5
998..................................................... 20.0
999..................................................... 20.0
1000.................................................... 19.2
1001.................................................... 19.2
1002.................................................... 18.0
1003.................................................... 11.9
1004.................................................... 6.9
1005.................................................... 2.7
1006.................................................... 0.8
1007.................................................... 0.4
1008.................................................... 0.0
1009.................................................... 0.0
1010.................................................... 0.0
1011.................................................... 0.0
1012.................................................... 0.0
1013.................................................... 0.0
1014.................................................... 0.0
1015.................................................... 0.0
1016.................................................... 0.0
1017.................................................... 0.0
1018.................................................... 0.0
1019.................................................... 0.0
1020.................................................... 0.0
1021.................................................... 0.0
1022.................................................... 0.0
1023.................................................... 0.4
1024.................................................... 2.7
1025.................................................... 6.1
1026.................................................... 9.2
1027.................................................... 11.5
1028.................................................... 14.2
1029.................................................... 16.1
1030.................................................... 18.0
1031.................................................... 20.0
1032.................................................... 21.5
1033.................................................... 23.0
1034.................................................... 24.2
1035.................................................... 25.0
1036.................................................... 25.7
1037.................................................... 26.9
1038.................................................... 27.6
1039.................................................... 27.6
1040.................................................... 28.4
1041.................................................... 29.2
1042.................................................... 29.2
1043.................................................... 30.0
1044.................................................... 29.6
1045.................................................... 29.6
1046.................................................... 28.8
1047.................................................... 28.0
1048.................................................... 23.8
1049.................................................... 18.8
1050.................................................... 11.9
1051.................................................... 6.1
1052.................................................... 1.5
1053.................................................... 1.5
1054.................................................... 4.2
1055.................................................... 8.1
1056.................................................... 10.4
1057.................................................... 13.1
1058.................................................... 15.4
1059.................................................... 18.0
1060.................................................... 20.4
1061.................................................... 23.0
1062.................................................... 25.3
1063.................................................... 27.3
1064.................................................... 28.8
1065.................................................... 30.3
1066.................................................... 31.1
1067.................................................... 32.3
1068.................................................... 31.9
1069.................................................... 32.3
1070.................................................... 31.9
1071.................................................... 31.1
1072.................................................... 28.8
1073.................................................... 25.0
1074.................................................... 22.7
1075.................................................... 18.8
1076.................................................... 15.4
1077.................................................... 13.4
1078.................................................... 11.9
1079.................................................... 8.8
1080.................................................... 5.0
1081.................................................... 1.9
1082.................................................... 2.3
1083.................................................... 2.7
1084.................................................... 3.5
1085.................................................... 6.5
1086.................................................... 10.8
1087.................................................... 13.8
1088.................................................... 16.1
1089.................................................... 18.4
1090.................................................... 20.4
1091.................................................... 21.9
1092.................................................... 21.9
1093.................................................... 20.7
1094.................................................... 17.3
1095.................................................... 13.1
1096.................................................... 9.6
1097.................................................... 8.8
1098.................................................... 10.8
1099.................................................... 12.7
1100.................................................... 14.2
1101.................................................... 14.6
1102.................................................... 13.1
1103.................................................... 11.1
1104.................................................... 11.1
1105.................................................... 11.1
1106.................................................... 13.1
1107.................................................... 15.7
1108.................................................... 18.4
1109.................................................... 20.7
1110.................................................... 23.8
1111.................................................... 25.7
1112.................................................... 28.0
1113.................................................... 30.0
1114.................................................... 31.1
1115.................................................... 32.3
1116.................................................... 34.2
1117.................................................... 35.7
1118.................................................... 36.9
1119.................................................... 38.8
1120.................................................... 40.3
1121.................................................... 41.5
1122.................................................... 42.2
1123.................................................... 43.0
1124.................................................... 43.8
1125.................................................... 43.8
1126.................................................... 43.4
1127.................................................... 43.0
1128.................................................... 42.2
1129.................................................... 41.9
1130.................................................... 41.5
1131.................................................... 41.9
1132.................................................... 41.9
1133.................................................... 41.9
1134.................................................... 42.2
1135.................................................... 42.6
1136.................................................... 42.6
1137.................................................... 42.6
1138.................................................... 42.6
1139.................................................... 42.6
1140.................................................... 42.6
1141.................................................... 42.6
1142.................................................... 42.2
1143.................................................... 43.0
1144.................................................... 43.4
1145.................................................... 43.0
1146.................................................... 42.6
1147.................................................... 41.9
1148.................................................... 40.7
1149.................................................... 36.9
1150.................................................... 32.6
1151.................................................... 28.0
1152.................................................... 23.4
1153.................................................... 18.4
1154.................................................... 14.6
1155.................................................... 12.3
1156.................................................... 9.2
1157.................................................... 5.8
1158.................................................... 1.9
1159.................................................... 0.4
1160.................................................... 0.0
1161.................................................... 0.0
1162.................................................... 0.0
1163.................................................... 0.0
1164.................................................... 0.0
1165.................................................... 0.4
1166.................................................... 4.2
1167.................................................... 9.2
1168.................................................... 11.9
[[Page 30094]]
1169.................................................... 14.2
1170.................................................... 15.7
1171.................................................... 15.0
1172.................................................... 14.2
1173.................................................... 13.4
1174.................................................... 13.8
1175.................................................... 14.6
1176.................................................... 14.6
1177.................................................... 14.2
1178.................................................... 16.1
1179.................................................... 15.7
1180.................................................... 15.7
1181.................................................... 14.6
1182.................................................... 13.1
1183.................................................... 10.0
1184.................................................... 7.3
1185.................................................... 3.5
1186.................................................... 0.8
1187.................................................... 0.0
1188.................................................... 0.0
1189.................................................... 0.0
1190.................................................... 0.0
1191.................................................... 0.4
1192.................................................... 2.7
1193.................................................... 7.3
1194.................................................... 11.5
1195.................................................... 15.4
1196.................................................... 19.2
1197.................................................... 21.9
1198.................................................... 23.8
1199.................................................... 25.0
1200.................................................... 26.1
1201.................................................... 27.3
1202.................................................... 28.8
1203.................................................... 30.0
1204.................................................... 29.6
1205.................................................... 29.6
1206.................................................... 28.8
1207.................................................... 26.1
1208.................................................... 22.3
1209.................................................... 19.2
1210.................................................... 16.5
1211.................................................... 12.7
1212.................................................... 9.6
1213.................................................... 6.9
1214.................................................... 4.2
1215.................................................... 2.3
1216.................................................... 0.8
1217.................................................... 0.0
1218.................................................... 0.0
1219.................................................... 0.0
1220.................................................... 0.0
1221.................................................... 0.0
1222.................................................... 0.0
1223.................................................... 0.0
1224.................................................... 0.0
1225.................................................... 0.0
1226.................................................... 0.0
1227.................................................... 0.0
1228.................................................... 0.0
1229.................................................... 0.0
1230.................................................... 0.0
1231.................................................... 0.0
1232.................................................... 0.0
1233.................................................... 0.0
1234.................................................... 0.0
1235.................................................... 0.0
1236.................................................... 0.0
1237.................................................... 0.0
1238.................................................... 0.0
1239.................................................... 0.0
1240.................................................... 3.5
1241.................................................... 10.4
1242.................................................... 15.4
1243.................................................... 17.3
1244.................................................... 17.3
1245.................................................... 18.4
1246.................................................... 21.5
1247.................................................... 24.6
1248.................................................... 27.3
1249.................................................... 30.0
1250.................................................... 31.5
1251.................................................... 31.9
1252.................................................... 32.6
1253.................................................... 33.4
1254.................................................... 34.9
1255.................................................... 36.5
1256.................................................... 37.6
1257.................................................... 39.2
1258.................................................... 40.3
1259.................................................... 40.7
1260.................................................... 41.1
1261.................................................... 40.7
1262.................................................... 40.7
1263.................................................... 40.7
1264.................................................... 41.5
1265.................................................... 42.6
1266.................................................... 43.0
1267.................................................... 44.5
1268.................................................... 45.3
1269.................................................... 45.3
1270.................................................... 44.9
1271.................................................... 43.4
1272.................................................... 40.3
1273.................................................... 38.0
1274.................................................... 36.1
1275.................................................... 36.5
1276.................................................... 38.0
1277.................................................... 39.2
1278.................................................... 40.7
1279.................................................... 42.2
1280.................................................... 43.4
1281.................................................... 44.9
1282.................................................... 45.7
1283.................................................... 46.1
1284.................................................... 46.8
1285.................................................... 46.5
1286.................................................... 46.5
1287.................................................... 46.5
1288.................................................... 46.1
1289.................................................... 46.1
1290.................................................... 46.1
1291.................................................... 46.8
1292.................................................... 47.6
1293.................................................... 48.0
1294.................................................... 48.4
1295.................................................... 48.0
1296.................................................... 48.0
1297.................................................... 47.2
1298.................................................... 46.5
1299.................................................... 46.8
1300.................................................... 47.2
1301.................................................... 48.4
1302.................................................... 48.4
1303.................................................... 48.8
1304.................................................... 48.4
1305.................................................... 47.6
1306.................................................... 46.5
1307.................................................... 44.2
1308.................................................... 42.2
1309.................................................... 41.5
1310.................................................... 41.1
1311.................................................... 40.7
1312.................................................... 40.3
1313.................................................... 39.6
1314.................................................... 39.2
1315.................................................... 38.8
1316.................................................... 38.0
1317.................................................... 37.6
1318.................................................... 37.2
1319.................................................... 36.5
1320.................................................... 34.6
1321.................................................... 31.5
1322.................................................... 29.6
1323.................................................... 29.2
1324.................................................... 28.8
1325.................................................... 28.8
1326.................................................... 28.0
1327.................................................... 28.0
1328.................................................... 28.4
1329.................................................... 29.6
1330.................................................... 30.0
1331.................................................... 30.3
1332.................................................... 29.2
1333.................................................... 26.5
1334.................................................... 25.3
1335.................................................... 25.0
1336.................................................... 24.6
1337.................................................... 24.6
1338.................................................... 25.3
1339.................................................... 26.1
1340.................................................... 27.3
1341.................................................... 28.4
1342.................................................... 29.2
1343.................................................... 29.2
1344.................................................... 29.6
1345.................................................... 30.0
1346.................................................... 31.1
1347.................................................... 32.6
1348.................................................... 33.8
1349.................................................... 34.6
1350.................................................... 34.9
1351.................................................... 34.6
1352.................................................... 34.9
1353.................................................... 34.6
1354.................................................... 34.9
1355.................................................... 34.9
1356.................................................... 34.9
1357.................................................... 34.2
1358.................................................... 33.8
1359.................................................... 32.6
1360.................................................... 31.5
1361.................................................... 30.0
1362.................................................... 28.8
1363.................................................... 27.3
1364.................................................... 23.8
1365.................................................... 23.0
1366.................................................... 23.0
1367.................................................... 22.3
1368.................................................... 20.4
1369.................................................... 18.8
1370.................................................... 17.7
1371.................................................... 16.1
1372.................................................... 14.6
1373.................................................... 12.7
1374.................................................... 11.1
1375.................................................... 9.2
1376.................................................... 8.8
1377.................................................... 7.3
1378.................................................... 6.1
1379.................................................... 5.0
1380.................................................... 4.2
1381.................................................... 3.5
1382.................................................... 2.7
1383.................................................... 2.3
1384.................................................... 1.5
1385.................................................... 1.2
1386.................................................... 0.0
1387.................................................... 1.2
[[Page 30095]]
1388.................................................... 4.2
1389.................................................... 7.3
1390.................................................... 8.8
1391.................................................... 10.8
1392.................................................... 12.3
1393.................................................... 13.1
1394.................................................... 12.3
1395.................................................... 12.3
1396.................................................... 11.5
1397.................................................... 11.5
1398.................................................... 11.1
1399.................................................... 11.1
1400.................................................... 11.1
1401.................................................... 13.1
1402.................................................... 15.0
1403.................................................... 16.9
1404.................................................... 16.9
1405.................................................... 16.1
1406.................................................... 15.7
1407.................................................... 15.4
1408.................................................... 15.0
1409.................................................... 13.8
1410.................................................... 10.8
1411.................................................... 8.4
1412.................................................... 6.1
1413.................................................... 4.2
1414.................................................... 3.5
1415.................................................... 3.5
1416.................................................... 1.5
1417.................................................... 0.0
1418.................................................... 0.0
1419.................................................... 0.0
1420.................................................... 0.0
1421.................................................... 0.0
1422.................................................... 0.0
1423.................................................... 0.0
1424.................................................... 0.0
1425.................................................... 0.0
1426.................................................... 0.0
1427.................................................... 0.0
1428.................................................... 0.0
1429.................................................... 0.0
1430.................................................... 0.0
1431.................................................... 0.0
1432.................................................... 0.0
1433.................................................... 0.0
1434.................................................... 0.0
1435.................................................... 0.0
1436.................................................... 0.0
1437.................................................... 0.0
1438.................................................... 0.0
1439.................................................... 0.0
1440.................................................... 0.0
1441.................................................... 0.0
1442.................................................... 0.0
1443.................................................... 0.0
1444.................................................... 0.0
1445.................................................... 0.0
1446.................................................... 0.0
1447.................................................... 0.0
1448.................................................... 0.0
1449.................................................... 0.0
1450.................................................... 0.0
1451.................................................... 0.0
1452.................................................... 0.0
1453.................................................... 0.0
1454.................................................... 0.0
1455.................................................... 0.0
1456.................................................... 1.2
1457.................................................... 4.2
1458.................................................... 7.3
1459.................................................... 8.8
1460.................................................... 10.8
1461.................................................... 12.3
1462.................................................... 13.1
1463.................................................... 12.3
1464.................................................... 12.3
1465.................................................... 11.5
1466.................................................... 11.5
1467.................................................... 11.1
1468.................................................... 11.1
1469.................................................... 11.1
1470.................................................... 13.1
1471.................................................... 15.0
1472.................................................... 16.9
1473.................................................... 16.9
1474.................................................... 16.1
1475.................................................... 15.7
1476.................................................... 15.4
1477.................................................... 15.0
1478.................................................... 13.8
1479.................................................... 10.8
1480.................................................... 8.4
1481.................................................... 6.1
1482.................................................... 4.2
1483.................................................... 3.5
1484.................................................... 3.5
1485.................................................... 1.5
1486.................................................... 0.0
1487.................................................... 0.0
1488.................................................... 0.0
1489.................................................... 0.0
1490.................................................... 0.0
1491.................................................... 0.0
1492.................................................... 0.0
1493.................................................... 0.0
1494.................................................... 0.0
1495.................................................... 0.0
1496.................................................... 0.0
1497.................................................... 0.0
1498.................................................... 1.2
1499.................................................... 3.5
1500.................................................... 7.7
1501.................................................... 11.1
1502.................................................... 13.8
1503.................................................... 16.5
1504.................................................... 18.4
1505.................................................... 20.4
1506.................................................... 20.7
1507.................................................... 19.6
1508.................................................... 17.3
1509.................................................... 12.3
1510.................................................... 8.1
1511.................................................... 6.1
1512.................................................... 9.6
1513.................................................... 12.7
1514.................................................... 15.7
1515.................................................... 18.0
1516.................................................... 20.4
1517.................................................... 21.9
1518.................................................... 23.4
1519.................................................... 23.8
1520.................................................... 24.6
1521.................................................... 25.0
1522.................................................... 26.1
1523.................................................... 26.1
1524.................................................... 26.9
1525.................................................... 26.9
1526.................................................... 26.9
1527.................................................... 26.5
1528.................................................... 25.7
1529.................................................... 21.9
1530.................................................... 16.5
1531.................................................... 10.0
1532.................................................... 4.6
1533.................................................... 1.5
1534.................................................... 0.4
1535.................................................... 0.0
1536.................................................... 0.0
1537.................................................... 0.0
1538.................................................... 0.0
1539.................................................... 0.0
1540.................................................... 0.0
1541.................................................... 0.0
1542.................................................... 0.0
1543.................................................... 0.4
1544.................................................... 1.2
1545.................................................... 1.9
1546.................................................... 3.8
1547.................................................... 7.7
1548.................................................... 11.5
1549.................................................... 14.6
1550.................................................... 18.0
1551.................................................... 21.5
1552.................................................... 25.0
1553.................................................... 28.4
1554.................................................... 30.7
1555.................................................... 31.9
1556.................................................... 32.3
1557.................................................... 32.3
1558.................................................... 31.9
1559.................................................... 30.3
1560.................................................... 28.0
1561.................................................... 24.2
1562.................................................... 20.0
1563.................................................... 16.1
1564.................................................... 11.5
1565.................................................... 8.1
1566.................................................... 5.0
1567.................................................... 3.5
1568.................................................... 1.9
1569.................................................... 0.0
1570.................................................... 0.0
1571.................................................... 0.0
1572.................................................... 0.0
1573.................................................... 0.0
1574.................................................... 0.0
1575.................................................... 0.0
1576.................................................... 0.0
1577.................................................... 0.0
1578.................................................... 1.5
1579.................................................... 6.9
1580.................................................... 12.7
1581.................................................... 16.5
1582.................................................... 20.0
1583.................................................... 23.0
1584.................................................... 25.7
1585.................................................... 28.0
1586.................................................... 30.7
1587.................................................... 32.6
1588.................................................... 34.2
1589.................................................... 35.3
1590.................................................... 36.9
1591.................................................... 36.9
1592.................................................... 37.2
1593.................................................... 37.6
1594.................................................... 37.6
1595.................................................... 37.6
1596.................................................... 37.2
1597.................................................... 37.2
1598.................................................... 36.9
1599.................................................... 36.5
1600.................................................... 36.5
1601.................................................... 34.9
1602.................................................... 33.4
1603.................................................... 31.9
1604.................................................... 29.2
1605.................................................... 25.0
1606.................................................... 25.0
[[Page 30096]]
1607.................................................... 26.1
1608.................................................... 27.6
1609.................................................... 29.2
1610.................................................... 31.1
1611.................................................... 32.3
1612.................................................... 34.2
1613.................................................... 34.9
1614.................................................... 35.7
1615.................................................... 36.5
1616.................................................... 36.9
1617.................................................... 36.9
1618.................................................... 37.2
1619.................................................... 37.6
1620.................................................... 37.2
1621.................................................... 37.6
1622.................................................... 38.0
1623.................................................... 38.4
1624.................................................... 39.2
1625.................................................... 39.6
1626.................................................... 39.9
1627.................................................... 40.7
1628.................................................... 40.3
1629.................................................... 41.1
1630.................................................... 41.1
1631.................................................... 40.7
1632.................................................... 31.9
1633.................................................... 23.9
1634.................................................... 15.9
1635.................................................... 7.9
1636.................................................... 2.7
1637.................................................... 0.4
1638.................................................... 0.4
1639.................................................... 2.7
1640.................................................... 3.8
1641.................................................... 3.8
1642.................................................... 1.5
1643.................................................... 0.0
1644.................................................... 0.0
1645.................................................... 0.0
1646.................................................... 0.0
1647.................................................... 0.0
1648.................................................... 0.0
1649.................................................... 0.0
1650.................................................... 0.0
1651.................................................... 0.0
1652.................................................... 0.0
1653.................................................... 0.0
1654.................................................... 0.0
1655.................................................... 0.0
1656.................................................... 0.0
1657.................................................... 0.0
1658.................................................... 0.0
1659.................................................... 0.0
1660.................................................... 0.0
1661.................................................... 0.0
1662.................................................... 0.0
1663.................................................... 0.0
1664.................................................... 0.0
1665.................................................... 0.0
1666.................................................... 0.0
1667.................................................... 0.0
1668.................................................... 0.0
1669.................................................... 0.0
1670.................................................... 0.0
1671.................................................... 0.0
1672.................................................... 0.0
1673.................................................... 1.5
1674.................................................... 5.0
1675.................................................... 8.8
1676.................................................... 11.5
1677.................................................... 14.2
1678.................................................... 15.4
1679.................................................... 16.1
1680.................................................... 16.1
1681.................................................... 16.9
1682.................................................... 16.5
1683.................................................... 16.9
1684.................................................... 18.0
1685.................................................... 19.2
1686.................................................... 20.4
1687.................................................... 20.4
1688.................................................... 21.1
1689.................................................... 21.1
1690.................................................... 22.3
1691.................................................... 23.0
1692.................................................... 23.8
1693.................................................... 24.2
1694.................................................... 24.6
1695.................................................... 25.0
1696.................................................... 25.7
1697.................................................... 25.7
1698.................................................... 26.5
1699.................................................... 27.6
1700.................................................... 28.4
1701.................................................... 29.2
1702.................................................... 30.3
1703.................................................... 31.1
1704.................................................... 31.1
1705.................................................... 30.7
1706.................................................... 31.1
1707.................................................... 29.6
1708.................................................... 29.2
1709.................................................... 29.2
1710.................................................... 28.8
1711.................................................... 28.0
1712.................................................... 23.0
1713.................................................... 21.1
1714.................................................... 21.5
1715.................................................... 20.7
1716.................................................... 20.7
1717.................................................... 19.6
1718.................................................... 16.5
1719.................................................... 13.1
1720.................................................... 9.6
1721.................................................... 7.3
1722.................................................... 3.8
1723.................................................... 0.8
1724.................................................... 0.0
1725.................................................... 0.0
1726.................................................... 0.0
1727.................................................... 0.0
1728.................................................... 0.0
1729.................................................... 0.0
1730.................................................... 0.0
1731.................................................... 0.0
1732.................................................... 0.0
1733.................................................... 0.0
1734.................................................... 0.0
1735.................................................... 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) EPA driving schedule for testing heavy-duty vehicles above
14,000 pounds GVWR. This driving schedule applies for testing
vehicles subject to evaporative emission standards under subpart A
of this part.
* * * * *
Appendix XIII Through Appendix XVIII to Part 86--[Removed]
0
188. Appendix XIII through Appendix XVIII to part 86 are removed.
PART 600--FUEL ECONOMY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EXHAUST EMISSIONS OF
MOTOR VEHICLES
0
189. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901-32919q, Pub. L. 109-58.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
190. Section 600.011 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c)(2), and
(c)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 600.011 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(b) American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (610) 832-9585,
http://www.astm.org/.
(1) ASTM D975-11 Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils,
approved March 1, 2011, IBR approved for Sec. 600.107-08(b).
(2) ASTM D 1298-99 (Reapproved 2005) Standard Practice for Density,
Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum
and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method, approved November
1, 2005, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 600.113-12(f) and (g) and 600.510-
12(g).
(3) ASTM D 1945-03 (Reapproved 2010) Standard Test Method for
Analysis of Natural Gas By Gas Chromatography, approved January 1,
2010, IBR approved for Sec. 600.113-12(f).
(4) ASTM D 3338/D 3338M-09 Standard Test Method for Estimation of
Net Heat of Combustion of Aviation Fuels, approved April 15, 2009, IBR
approved for Sec. 600.113-12(f).
(5) ASTM D 3343-05 (Reapproved 2010) Standard Test Method for
Estimation of Hydrogen Content of Aviation Fuels, approved October 1,
2010, IBR approved for Sec. 600.113-12(f).
(c) * * *
(2) SAE J1634, Revised October 2012, Battery Electric Vehicle
Energy Consumption and Range Test Procedure, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 600.116-12(a) and 600.311-12(j) and (k).
(3) SAE J1711, Recommended Practice for Measuring the Exhaust
Emissions and Fuel Economy of Hybrid-Electric Vehicles, Including Plug-
In Hybrid Vehicles, June 2010, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 600.114-
12(c) and (f), 600.116-12(b) and (c), and 600.311-12(d), (j), and (k).
* * * * *
[[Page 30097]]
Subpart B--[Amended]
Sec. Sec. 600.113-08 and 600.114-08 [Removed]
0
191. Remove Sec. Sec. 600.113-08 and 600.114-08.
0
192. Section 600.116-12 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the section heading.
0
b. By revising paragraph (a)(5).
0
c. By redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (c) and (d),
respectively.
0
d. By adding a new paragraph (b).
0
e. By revising the redesignated paragraphs (c) introductory text,
(c)(1) introductory text, and (c)(2) introductory text.
Sec. 600.116-12 Special procedures related to electric vehicles and
hybrid electric vehicles.
(a) * * *
(5) We may approve alternate measurement procedures with respect to
electric vehicles if they are necessary or appropriate for meeting the
objectives of this part. For example, we may approve the use of an
earlier version of SAE J1634 for carryover vehicles, or if you show
that it is equivalent for your vehicle.
* * * * *
(b) Determine performance values for hybrid electric vehicles that
have no plug-in capability as specified in Sec. Sec. 600.210 and
600.311 using the procedures for charge-sustaining operation from SAE
J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 600.011). We may approve
alternate measurement procedures with respect to these vehicles if that
is necessary or appropriate for meeting the objectives of this part.
(c) Determine performance values for hybrid electric vehicles that
have plug-in capability as specified in Sec. Sec. 600.210 and 600.311
using the procedures of SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec.
600.011), with the following clarifications and modifications:
(1) To determine fuel economy and CREE values to demonstrate
compliance with CAFE and GHG standards, calculate composite values
representing combined operation during charge-depleting and charge-
sustaining operation using the following utility factors except as
specified in this paragraph (b):
* * * * *
(2) To determine fuel economy and CO2 emission values
for labeling purposes, calculate composite values representing combined
operation during charge-depleting and charge-sustaining operation using
the following utility factors except as specified in this paragraph
(b):
* * * * *
Subpart C--[Amended]
Sec. Sec. 600.206-08, 600.207-08, 600.208-08, 600.209-08, and 600.210-
08 [Removed]
0
193. Remove Sec. Sec. 600.206-08, 600.207-08, 600.208-08, 600.209-08,
and 600.210-08.
Subpart D--[Amended]
Sec. Sec. 600.302-08 and 600.311-08 [Removed]
0
194. Remove 600.302-08 and 600.311-08.
0
195. Section 600.311-12 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 600.311-12 Determination of values for fuel economy labels.
* * * * *
(g) Smog rating. Establish a rating for exhaust emissions other
than CO2 based on the applicable emission standards for the
appropriate model year as shown in Tables 1 through 3 of this section.
For Independent Commercial Importers that import vehicles not subject
to Tier 2 or Tier 3 emission standards, the vehicle's smog rating is 1.
Similarly, if a manufacturer certifies vehicles to emission standards
that are less stringent than all the identified standards for any
reason, the vehicle's smog rating is 1. If EPA or California emission
standards change in the future, we may revise the emission levels
corresponding to each rating for future model years as appropriate to
reflect the changed standards. If this occurs, we would publish the
revised ratings as described in Sec. 600.302-12(k), allowing
sufficient lead time to make the changes; we would also expect to
initiate a rulemaking to update the smog rating in the regulation.
Table 1 of Sec. 600.311-12--Criteria for Establishing Smog Rating for
Model Year 2025 and Later
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Air Resources
Rating U.S. EPA Tier 3 Board LEV III emission
emission standard standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................ Bin 160................ LEV 160
2................ Bin 125................ ULEV125
4................ Bin 70................. ULEV70
5................ Bin 50................. ULEV50
6................ Bin 30................. SULEV30
7................ Bin 20................. SULEV20
8................ ....................... TZEV
10............... Bin 0.................. ZEV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 of Sec. 600.311-12--Criteria for Establishing Smog Rating for Model Years 2018-2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Air Resources
Rating U.S. EPA Tier 3 U.S EPA Tier 2 Board LEV III emission
emission standard emission standard standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................. Bin 160............... Bin 5 through Bin 8... LEV 160
3.................................. Bin 125............... Bin 4................. ULEV125
5.................................. Bin 70................ Bin 3................. ULEV70
6.................................. Bin 50................ ...................... ULEV50
7.................................. Bin 30................ Bin 2................. SULEV30
8.................................. Bin 20................ ...................... SULEV20
9.................................. ...................... ...................... TZEV
10................................. Bin 0................. Bin 1................. ZEV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 of Sec. 600.311-12--Criteria for Establishing Smog Rating Through Model Year 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. EPA Tier 2 California Air Resources Board LEV II emission
Rating emission standard standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................... ....................... ULEV & LEV II large trucks.
2.................................... Bin 8.................. SULEV II large trucks.
3.................................... Bin 7.................. ................................................
[[Page 30098]]
4.................................... Bin 6.................. LEV II, option 1.
5.................................... Bin 5.................. LEV II.
6.................................... Bin 4.................. ULEV II.
7.................................... Bin 3.................. ................................................
8.................................... Bin 2.................. SULEV II.
9.................................... ....................... PZEV.
10................................... Bin 1.................. ZEV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Subpart F--[Amended]
Sec. Sec. 600.507-08, 600.509-08, 600.510-08, and 600.512-
08 [Removed]
0
196. Remove Sec. Sec. 600.507-08, 600.509-08, 600.510-08, and 600.512-
08.
Appendix IV and Appendix V to Part 600--[Removed and Reserved]
0
197. Remove and reserve Appendix IV and Appendix V to Part 600.
PART 1036--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HEAVY-DUTY
HIGHWAY ENGINES
0
198. The authority citation for part 1036 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart B--[Amended]
0
199. Section 1036.115 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1036.115 Other requirements.
* * * * *
(b) You must design and produce your engines to comply with
evaporative emission standards as follows:
(1) For complete heavy-duty vehicles you produce, you must certify
the vehicles to emission standards as specified in 40 CFR 1037.103.
(2) For incomplete heavy-duty vehicles, and for engines used in
vehicles you do not produce, you do not need to certify your engines to
evaporative emission standards or otherwise meet those standards.
However, vehicle manufacturers certifying their vehicles with your
engines may depend on you to produce your engines according to their
specifications. Also, your engines must meet applicable exhaust
emission standards in the installed configuration.
PART 1037--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW HEAVY-DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES
0
200. The authority citation for part 1037 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart B--[Amended]
0
201. Section 1037.101 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) and
adding paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.101 Overview of emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Fuel evaporative emissions. These requirements are described in
40 CFR part 86 and Sec. 1037.103.
(c) * * *
(3) For evaporative and refueling emissions, vehicles are regulated
based on the type of fuel they use. Vehicles fueled with volatile
liquid fuels or gaseous fuels are subject to evaporative emission
standards. Vehicles up to a certain size that are fueled with gasoline,
diesel fuel, ethanol, methanol, or LPG are subject to refueling
emission standards.
0
202. A new Sec. 1037.103 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.103 Evaporative emission standards.
(a) Applicability. Evaporative emission standards apply to heavy-
duty vehicles as follows:
(1) Complete and incomplete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000
pounds GVWR must meet evaporative and refueling emission standards as
specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, instead of the requirements
specified in this section, except that incomplete heavy-duty vehicles
at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR must meet evaporative emission standards
as specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart A through model year 2017.
(2) Heavy-duty vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR that run on
volatile liquid fuel (such as gasoline or ethanol) or gaseous fuel
(such as natural gas or LPG) must meet evaporative emission standards
as specified in this section starting in model year 2018.
(b) Emission standards. The evaporative emission standards
specified in 40 CFR 86.1813 apply for vehicles subject to standards
under this section based on emission measurements using the procedures
specified in Sec. 1037.530. These standards phase in over model years
2018 through 2022. Count vehicles subject to standards under this
section the same as heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR
to comply with the phase-in requirements specified in 40 CFR 86.1813.
These vehicles may generate and use emission credits as described in 40
CFR part 86, subpart S, but only for vehicles that are tested for
certification (instead of relying on the provisions of paragraph (c) of
this section).
(c) Compliance demonstration. You may provide a statement in the
application for certification that vehicles comply with evaporative and
refueling emission standards instead of submitting test data if you
include an engineering analysis describing how vehicles include design
parameters, equipment, operating controls, or other elements of design
that adequately demonstrate that vehicles comply with the standards. We
would expect emission control components and systems to exhibit a
comparable degree of control relative to vehicles that comply based on
testing. For example, vehicles that comply under this paragraph (c)
should rely on comparable material specifications to limit fuel
permeation, and components should be sized and calibrated to correspond
with the appropriate fuel capacities, fuel flow rates, purge
strategies, and other vehicle operating characteristics. You may
alternatively show that design parameters are comparable to those for
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR certified under 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S.
(d) Incomplete vehicles. If you sell incomplete vehicles, you must
identify the maximum fuel tank capacity for which you designed the
vehicle's evaporative emission control system.
(e) Useful life. Your vehicles must meet the evaporative emission
standards of this section throughout their useful life, expressed in
service miles or calendar years, whichever comes first. The useful life
values for the standards
[[Page 30099]]
of this section are those that apply for criteria pollutants under 40
CFR part 86.
(f) Auxiliary engines and separate fuel systems. The provisions of
this paragraph (g) apply for vehicles with auxiliary engines. This
includes any engines installed in the final vehicle configuration that
contribute no motive power through the vehicle's transmission.
(1) Auxiliary engines and associated fuel-system components must be
installed when testing complete vehicles. If the auxiliary engine draws
fuel from a separate fuel tank, you must fill the extra fuel tank
before the start of diurnal testing as described for the vehicle's main
fuel tank. Use good engineering judgment to ensure that any nonmetal
portions of the fuel system related to the auxiliary engine have
reached stabilized levels of permeation emissions. The auxiliary engine
must not operate during the running loss test or any other portion of
testing under this section.
(2) For testing with incomplete vehicles, you may omit installation
of auxiliary engines and associated fuel-system components as long as
those components installed in the final configuration are certified to
meet the applicable emission standards for Small SI equipment described
in 40 CFR 1054.112 or for Large SI engines in 40 CFR 1048.105. For any
fuel-system components that you do not install, your installation
instructions must describe this certification requirement.
0
203. Section 1037.104 is amended by adding paragraph (h)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1037.104 Exhaust emission standards for CO2,
CH4, and N2O for heavy-duty vehicles at or below
14,000 pounds GVWR.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) The evaporative and refueling emission standards in Sec.
1037.103.
* * * * *
Subpart C--[Amended]
0
204. Section 1037.230 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1037.230 Vehicle families, sub-families, and configurations.
* * * * *
(e) Divide your vehicles that are subject to evaporative emission
standards into groups of vehicles with similar physical features
expected to affect evaporative emissions. Group vehicles in the same
evaporative emission family if they are the same in all the following
aspects, unless we approve a better way of grouping vehicles into
families that have similar emission control characteristics:
(1) Method of vapor storage, including the number of vapor storage
devices, the working material, and the total working capacity of vapor
storage (as determined under 40 CFR 86.132-96(h)(1)(iv)). You may
consider the working capacity to be the same if the values differ by 20
grams or less.
(2) Method of purging stored vapors.
(3) Material for liquid and vapor fuel lines.
* * * * *
0
205. A new Sec. 1037.243 is added to subpart C to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.243 Demonstrating compliance with evaporative emission
standards.
(a) For purposes of certification, your vehicle family is
considered in compliance with the evaporative emission standards in
subpart B of this part if you prepare an engineering analysis showing
that your vehicles in the family will comply with applicable standards
throughout the useful life, and there are no test results from an
emission-data vehicle representing the family that exceed an emission
standard.
(b) Your evaporative emission family is deemed not to comply if
your engineering analysis is not adequate to show that all the vehicles
in the family will comply with applicable emission standards throughout
the useful life, or if a test result from an emission-data vehicle
representing the family exceeds an emission standard.
(c) To compare emission levels with emission standards, apply
deterioration factors to the measured emission levels. Establish an
additive deterioration factor based on an engineering analysis that
takes into account the expected aging from in-use vehicles.
(d) Apply the deterioration factor to the official emission result,
as described in paragraph (c) of this section, then round the adjusted
figure to the same number of decimal places as the emission standard.
Compare the rounded emission levels to the emission standard for each
emission-data vehicle.
(e) Your analysis to demonstrate compliance with emission standards
must take into account your design strategy for vehicles that require
testing. Specifically, vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR are presumed
to need the same technologies that are required for heavy-duty vehicles
at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. Similarly, your analysis to establish a
deterioration factor must take into account your testing to establish
deterioration factors for smaller vehicles.
Subpart F--[Amended]
0
206. Section 1037.501 is amended by adding paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1037.501 General testing and modeling provisions.
* * * * *
(a) Use the equipment and procedures specified in Sec. 1037.530 to
determine whether vehicles meet the diurnal, running loss, and hot soak
emission standards specified in Sec. 1037.103.
* * * * *
0
207. A new Sec. 1037.530 is added to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.530 Evaporative emission test procedures.
Apply the provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, to demonstrate
compliance with the diurnal, running loss, and hot soak emission
standards as specified in Sec. 1037.103, with the following
exceptions:
(a) Use drive cycles for heavy-duty vehicles as follows:
(1) The Heavy-Duty Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (HD-UDDS) is
specified in 40 CFR part 86, Appendix I, paragraph (d). It represents
about 5.6 miles of driving for a heavy-duty vehicle in an urban area.
(2) For the preconditioning drive, operate the vehicle over one HD-
UDDS instead of the drive specified in 40 CFR 86.132.
(3) For the dynamometer run preceding the diurnal emission test,
operate the vehicle over one HD-UDDS instead of the FTP driving
schedule.
(4) For performing the running loss test and developing fuel tank
temperature profiles, operate the vehicle over three consecutive HD-
UDDS cycles, each separated by two minutes if idle operation, instead
of the driving specified in 40 CFR 86.134.
(b) The vehicle may be driven onto the dynamometer, as long as the
vehicle is driven at minimum throttle and the total time of engine
operation in the soak period before the diurnal emission test does not
exceed 3 minutes.
(c) Testing under this subpart does not require measurement of
exhaust emissions. Disregard references in 40 CFR part 86, subpart B,
to procedures, equipment specifications, and recordkeeping related to
measuring exhaust emissions. All references to the exhaust test under
40 CFR part 86, subpart B, are considered the ``dynamometer run'' as
part of the evaporative testing sequence under this subpart.
[[Page 30100]]
PART 1065--ENGINE-TESTING PROCEDURES
0
208. The authority citation for part 1065 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
209. Section 1065.1 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(h) This part describes procedures and specifications for measuring
an engine's exhaust emissions. While the measurements are geared toward
engine-based measurements (in units of g/kW[middot]hr), many of these
provisions apply equally to vehicle-based measurements (in units of g/
mile or g/kilometer). 40 CFR part 1066 describes the analogous
procedures for vehicle-based emission measurements, and in many cases
states that specific provisions of this part 1065 also apply for those
vehicle-based measurements. Where material from this part 1065 applies
for vehicle-based measurements under 40 CFR part 1066, it is sometimes
necessary to include parenthetical statements in this part 1065 to
properly cite secondary references that are different for vehicle-based
testing. See 40 CFR part 1066 and the standard-setting part for
additional information.
0
210. Section 1065.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1065.15 Overview of procedures for laboratory and field testing.
* * * * *
(a) In the standard-setting part, we set brake-specific emission
standards in g/(kW[middot]hr) (or g/(hp[middot]hr)), for the following
constituents:
(1) Total oxides of nitrogen, NOX.
(2) Hydrocarbons (HC), which may be expressed in the following
ways:
(i) Total hydrocarbons, THC.
(ii) Nonmethane hydrocarbons, NMHC, which results from subtracting
methane (CH4) from THC.
(iii) Total hydrocarbon-equivalent, THCE, which results from
adjusting THC mathematically to be equivalent on a carbon-mass basis.
(iv) Nonmethane hydrocarbon-equivalent, NMHCE, which results from
adjusting NMHC mathematically to be equivalent on a carbon-mass basis.
(3) Particulate mass, PM.
(4) Carbon monoxide, CO.
(5) Carbon dioxide, CO2.
(6) Methane, CH4.
(7) Nitrous oxide, N2O.
(b) Note that some engines are not subject to standards for all the
emission constituents identified in paragraph (a) of this section. Note
also that the standard-setting part may include standards for
pollutants not listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
* * * * *
0
211. Section 1065.20 is amended by italicizing the heading for
paragraph (g) and revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.20 Units of measure and overview of calculations.
(a) System of units. The procedures in this part generally follow
the International System of Units (SI), as detailed in NIST Special
Publication 811, which we incorporate by reference in Sec. 1065.1010.
The following exceptions apply:
(1) We designate angular speed, fn, of an engine's
crankshaft in revolutions per minute (r/min), rather than the SI unit
of radians per second (rad/s). This is based on the commonplace use of
r/min in many engine dynamometer laboratories.
(2) We designate brake-specific emissions in grams per kilowatt-
hour (g/(kW[sdot]hr)), rather than the SI unit of grams per megajoule
(g/MJ). In addition, we use the symbol hr to identify hour, rather than
the SI convention of using h. This is based on the fact that engines
are generally subject to emission standards expressed in g/kW[sdot]hr.
If we specify engine standards in grams per horsepower[sdot]hour (g/
(hp[middot]hr)) in the standard-setting part, convert units as
specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(3) We designate temperatures in units of degrees Celsius ([deg]C)
unless a calculation requires an absolute temperature. In that case, we
designate temperatures in units of Kelvin (K). For conversion purposes
throughout this part, 0 [deg]C equals 273.15 K. Always use absolute
temperature values for multiplying or dividing by temperature.
(b) Concentrations. This part does not rely on amounts expressed in
parts per million. Rather, we express such amounts in the following SI
units:
(1) For ideal gases, [mu]mol/mol, formerly ppm (volume).
(2) For all substances, cm\3\/m\3\, formerly ppm (volume).
(3) For all substances, mg/kg, formerly ppm (mass).
(c) Absolute pressure. Measure absolute pressure directly or
calculate it as the sum of atmospheric pressure plus a differential
pressure that is referenced to atmospheric pressure. Always use
absolute pressure values for multiplying or dividing by pressure.
* * * * *
0
212. Section 1065.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.25 Recordkeeping.
The procedures in this part include various requirements to record
data or other information. Refer to the standard-setting part and Sec.
1065.695 regarding recordkeeping requirements. You must promptly send
us organized, written records in English if we ask for them. We may
review them at any time.
Subpart B--[Amended]
0
213. Section 1065.130 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.130 Engine exhaust.
(a) General. Use the exhaust system installed with the engine or
one that represents a typical in-use configuration. This includes any
applicable aftertreatment devices. We refer to exhaust piping as an
exhaust stack; this is equivalent to a tailpipe for vehicle
configurations.
* * * * *
0
214. Section 1065.140 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.140 Dilution for gaseous and PM constituents.
(a) General. You may dilute exhaust with ambient air, purified air,
or nitrogen. References in this part to ``dilution air'' may include
any of these. For gaseous emission measurement, the dilution air must
be at least 15 [deg]C. Note that the composition of the dilution air
affects some gaseous emission measurement instruments' response to
emissions. We recommend diluting exhaust at a location as close as
possible to the location where ambient air dilution would occur in use.
Dilution may occur in a single stage or in multiple stages. For
dilution in multiple stages, the first stage is considered primary
dilution and later stages are considered secondary dilution.
(b) Dilution-air conditions and background concentrations. Before
dilution air is mixed with exhaust, you may precondition it by
increasing or decreasing its temperature or humidity. You may also
remove constituents to reduce their background concentrations. The
following provisions apply to removing constituents or accounting for
background concentrations:
(1) You may measure constituent concentrations in the dilution air
and compensate for background effects on test results. See Sec.
1065.650 for calculations that compensate for background concentrations
(40 CFR 1066.620 for vehicle testing).
(2) Measure these background concentrations the same way you
[[Page 30101]]
measure diluted exhaust constituents, or measure them in a way that
does not affect your ability to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable standards. For example, you may use the following
simplifications for background sampling:
(i) You may disregard any proportional sampling requirements.
(ii) You may use unheated gaseous sampling systems.
(iii) You may use unheated PM sampling systems.
(iv) You may use continuous sampling if you use batch sampling for
diluted emissions.
(v) You may use batch sampling if you use continuous sampling for
diluted emissions.
(3) For removing background PM, we recommend that you filter all
dilution air, including primary full-flow dilution air, with high-
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters that have an initial minimum
collection efficiency specification of 99.97% (see Sec. 1065.1001 for
procedures related to HEPA-filtration efficiencies). Ensure that HEPA
filters are installed properly so that background PM does not leak past
the HEPA filters. If you choose to correct for background PM without
using HEPA filtration, demonstrate that the background PM in the
dilution air contributes less than 50% to the net PM collected on the
sample filter. You may correct net PM without restriction if you use
HEPA filtration.
(c) Full-flow dilution; constant-volume sampling (CVS). You may
dilute the full flow of raw exhaust in a dilution tunnel that maintains
a nominally constant volume flow rate, molar flow rate or mass flow
rate of diluted exhaust, as follows:
(1) Construction. Use a tunnel with inside surfaces of 300 series
stainless steel. Electrically ground the entire dilution tunnel. We
recommend a thin-walled and insulated dilution tunnel to minimize
temperature differences between the wall and the exhaust gases. You may
not use any flexible tubing in the dilution tunnel upstream of the PM
sample probe. You may use nonconductive flexible tubing downstream of
the PM sample probe and upstream of the CVS flow meter; use good
engineering judgment to select a tubing material that is not prone to
leaks, and configure the tubing to ensure smooth flow at the CVS flow
meter.
(2) Pressure control. Maintain static pressure at the location
where raw exhaust is introduced into the tunnel within 1.2
kPa of atmospheric pressure. You may use a booster blower to control
this pressure. If you test using more careful pressure control and you
show by engineering analysis or by test data that you require this
level of control to demonstrate compliance at the applicable standards,
we will maintain the same level of static pressure control when we
test.
(3) Mixing. Introduce raw exhaust into the tunnel by directing it
downstream along the centerline of the tunnel. If you dilute directly
from the exhaust stack, the end of the exhaust stack is considered to
be the start of the dilution tunnel. You may introduce a fraction of
dilution air radially from the tunnel's inner surface to minimize
exhaust interaction with the tunnel walls. You may configure the system
with turbulence generators such as orifice plates or fins to achieve
good mixing. We recommend a minimum Reynolds number, Re, of
4000 for the diluted exhaust stream, where Re is based on the
inside diameter of the dilution tunnel. Re is defined in Sec.
1065.640.
(4) Flow measurement preconditioning. You may condition the diluted
exhaust before measuring its flow rate, as long as this conditioning
takes place downstream of any heated HC or PM sample probes, as
follows:
(i) You may use flow straighteners, pulsation dampeners, or both of
these.
(ii) You may use a filter.
(iii) You may use a heat exchanger to control the temperature
upstream of any flow meter, but you must take steps to prevent aqueous
condensation as described in paragraph (c)(6) of this section.
(5) Flow measurement. Section 1065.240 describes measurement
instruments for diluted exhaust flow.
(6) Aqueous condensation. This paragraph (c)(6) describes how you
must address aqueous condensation in the CVS. As described below, you
may meet these requirements by preventing or limiting aqueous
condensation in the CVS from the exhaust inlet to the last emission
sample probe. See that paragraph for provisions related to the CVS
between the last emission sample probe and the CVS flow meter. You may
heat and/or insulate the dilution tunnel walls, as well as the bulk
stream tubing downstream of the tunnel to prevent or limit aqueous
condensation. Where we allow aqueous condensation to occur, use good
engineering judgment to ensure that the condensation does not affect
your ability to demonstrate that your engines comply with the
applicable standards (see Sec. 1065.10(a)).
(i) Preventing aqueous condensation. To prevent condensation, you
must keep the temperature of internal surfaces, excluding any sample
probes, above the dew point of the dilute exhaust passing through the
CVS tunnel. Use good engineering judgment to monitor temperatures in
the CVS. For the purposes of this paragraph (c)(6), assume that aqueous
condensation is pure water condensate only, even though the definition
of ``aqueous condensation'' in Sec. 1065.1001 includes condensation of
any constituents that contain water. No specific verification check is
required under this paragraph (c)(6)(i), but we may ask you to show how
you comply with this requirement. You may use engineering analysis, CVS
tunnel design, alarm systems, measurements of wall temperatures, and
calculation of water dew point to demonstrate compliance with this
requirement. For optional CVS heat exchangers, you may use the lowest
water temperature at the inlet(s) and outlet(s) to determine the
minimum internal surface temperature.
(ii) Limiting aqueous condensation. This paragraph (c)(6)(ii)
specifies limits of allowable condensation and requires you to verify
that the amount of condensation that occurs during each test interval
does not exceed the specified limits.
(A) Use chemical balance equations in Sec. 1065.655 to calculate
the mole fraction of water in the dilute exhaust continuously during
testing. Alternatively, you may continuously measure the mole fraction
of water in the dilute exhaust prior to any condensation during
testing. Use good engineering judgment to select, calibrate and verify
water analyzers/detectors. The linearity verification requirements of
Sec. 1065.307 do not apply to water analyzers/detectors used to
correct for the water content in exhaust samples.
(B) Use good engineering judgment to select and monitor locations
on the CVS tunnel walls prior to the last emission sample probe. If you
are also verifying limited condensation from the last emission sample
probe to the CVS flow meter, use good engineering judgment to select
and monitor locations on the CVS tunnel walls, optional CVS heat
exchanger, and CVS flow meter. For optional CVS heat exchangers, you
may use the lowest water temperature at the inlet(s) and outlet(s) to
determine the minimum internal surface temperature. Identify the
minimum surface temperature on a continuous basis.
(C) Identify the maximum potential mole fraction of dilute exhaust
lost on a continuous basis during the entire test interval. This value
must be less than or equal to 0.02. Calculate on a continuous basis the
mole fraction of water that would be in equilibrium with liquid water
at the measured minimum surface temperature. Subtract this mole
fraction from the mole fraction of water that
[[Page 30102]]
would be in the exhaust without condensation (either measured or from
the chemical balance), and set any negative values to zero. This
difference is the potential mole fraction of the dilute exhaust that
would be lost due to water condensation on a continuous basis.
(D) Integrate the product of the molar flow rate of the dilute
exhaust and the potential mole fraction of dilute exhaust lost, and
divide by the totalized dilute exhaust molar flow over the test
interval. This is the potential mole fraction of the dilute exhaust
that would be lost due to water condensation over the entire test
interval. Note that this assumes no re-evaporation. This value must be
less than or equal to 0.005.
(7) Flow compensation. Maintain nominally constant molar,
volumetric or mass flow of diluted exhaust. You may maintain nominally
constant flow by either maintaining the temperature and pressure at the
flow meter or by directly controlling the flow of diluted exhaust. You
may also directly control the flow of proportional samplers to maintain
proportional sampling. For an individual test, verify proportional
sampling as described in Sec. 1065.545.
(d) Partial-flow dilution (PFD). You may dilute a partial flow of
raw or previously diluted exhaust before measuring emissions. Section
1065.240 describes PFD-related flow measurement instruments. PFD may
consist of constant or varying dilution ratios as described in
paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section. An example of a constant
dilution ratio PFD is a ``secondary dilution PM'' measurement system.
(1) Applicability. (i) You may use PFD to extract a proportional
raw exhaust sample for any batch or continuous PM emission sampling
over any transient duty cycle, any steady-state duty cycle, or any
ramped-modal cycle.
(ii) You may use PFD to extract a proportional raw exhaust sample
for any batch or continuous gaseous emission sampling over any
transient duty cycle, any steady-state duty cycle, or any ramped-modal
cycle.
(iii) You may use PFD to extract a proportional raw exhaust sample
for any batch or continuous field-testing.
(iv) You may use PFD to extract a proportional diluted exhaust
sample from a CVS for any batch or continuous emission sampling.
(v) You may use PFD to extract a constant raw or diluted exhaust
sample for any continuous emission sampling.
(vi) You may use PFD to extract a constant raw or diluted exhaust
sample for any steady-state emission sampling.
(2) Constant dilution-ratio PFD. Do one of the following for
constant dilution-ratio PFD:
(i) Dilute an already proportional flow. For example, you may do
this as a way of performing secondary dilution from a CVS tunnel to
achieve overall dilution ratio for PM sampling.
(ii) Continuously measure constituent concentrations. For example,
you might dilute to precondition a sample of raw exhaust to control its
temperature, humidity, or constituent concentrations upstream of
continuous analyzers. In this case, you must take into account the
dilution ratio before multiplying the continuous concentration by the
sampled exhaust flow rate.
(iii) Extract a proportional sample from a separate constant
dilution ratio PFD system. For example, you might use a variable-flow
pump to proportionally fill a gaseous storage medium such as a bag from
a PFD system. In this case, the proportional sampling must meet the
same specifications as varying dilution ratio PFD in paragraph (d)(3)
of this section.
(iv) For each mode of a discrete-mode test (such as a locomotive
notch setting or a specific setting for speed and torque), use a
constant dilution ratio for any PM sampling. You must change the
overall PM sampling system dilution ratio between modes so that the
dilution ratio on the mode with the highest exhaust flow rate meets
Sec. 1065.140(e)(2) and the dilution ratios on all other modes is
higher than this (minimum) dilution ratio by the ratio of the maximum
exhaust flow rate to the exhaust flow rate of the corresponding other
mode. This is the same dilution ratio requirement for RMC or field
transient testing. You must account for this change in dilution ratio
in your emission calculations.
(3) Varying dilution-ratio PFD. All the following provisions apply
for varying dilution-ratio PFD:
(i) Use a control system with sensors and actuators that can
maintain proportional sampling over intervals as short as 200 ms (i.e.,
5 Hz control).
(ii) For control input, you may use any sensor output from one or
more measurements; for example, intake-air flow, fuel flow, exhaust
flow, engine speed, and intake manifold temperature and pressure.
(iii) Account for any emission transit time in the PFD system, as
necessary.
(iv) You may use preprogrammed data if they have been determined
for the specific test site, duty cycle, and test engine from which you
dilute emissions.
(v) We recommend that you run practice cycles to meet the
verification criteria in Sec. 1065.545. Note that you must verify
every emission test by meeting the verification criteria with the data
from that specific test. Data from previously verified practice cycles
or other tests may not be used to verify a different emission test.
(vi) You may not use a PFD system that requires preparatory tuning
or calibration with a CVS or with the emission results from a CVS.
Rather, you must be able to independently calibrate the PFD.
(e) Dilution air temperature, dilution ratio, residence time, and
temperature control of PM samples. Dilute PM samples at least once
upstream of transfer lines. You may dilute PM samples upstream of a
transfer line using full-flow dilution, or partial-flow dilution
immediately downstream of a PM probe. In the case of partial-flow
dilution, you may have up to 26 cm of insulated length between the end
of the probe and the dilution stage, but we recommend that the length
be as short as practical. The intent of these specifications is to
minimize heat transfer to or from the emission sample before the final
stage of dilution, other than the heat you may need to add to prevent
aqueous condensation. This is accomplished by initially cooling the
sample through dilution. Configure dilution systems as follows:
(1) Set the dilution air temperature to (25 5) [deg]C.
Use good engineering judgment to select a location to measure this
temperature that is as close as practical upstream of the point where
dilution air mixes with raw exhaust.
(2) For any PM dilution system (i.e., CVS or PFD), add dilution air
to the raw exhaust such that the minimum overall ratio of diluted
exhaust to raw exhaust is within the range of (5:1 to 7:1) and is at
least 2:1 for any primary dilution stage. Base this minimum value on
the maximum engine exhaust flow rate for a given test interval. Either
measure the maximum exhaust flow during a practice run of the test
interval or estimate it based on good engineering judgment (for
example, you might rely on manufacturer-published literature).
(3) Configure any PM dilution system to have an overall residence
time of (1.0 to 5.5) s, as measured from the location of initial
dilution air introduction to the location where PM is collected on the
sample media. Also configure the system to have a residence time of at
least 0.50 s, as measured from the location of final dilution air
introduction to the location where PM is collected on the sample media.
When determining residence times within sampling system volumes, use an
[[Page 30103]]
assumed flow temperature of 25 [deg]C and pressure of 101.325 kPa.
(4) Control sample temperature to a (47 5) [deg]C
tolerance, as measured anywhere within 20 cm upstream or downstream of
the PM storage media (such as a filter). Measure this temperature with
a bare-wire junction thermocouple with wires that are (0.500 0.025) mm diameter, or with another suitable instrument that has
equivalent performance.
0
215. Section 1065.145 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d),
and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.145 Gaseous and PM probes, transfer lines, and sampling
system components.
(a) Continuous and batch sampling. Determine the total mass of each
constituent with continuous or batch sampling. Both types of sampling
systems have probes, transfer lines, and other sampling system
components that are described in this section.
* * * * *
(c) Gaseous and PM sample probes. A probe is the first fitting in a
sampling system. It protrudes into a raw or diluted exhaust stream to
extract a sample, such that its inside and outside surfaces are in
contact with the exhaust. A sample is transported out of a probe into a
transfer line, as described in paragraph (d) of this section. The
following provisions apply to sample probes:
(1) Probe design and construction. Use sample probes with inside
surfaces of 300 series stainless steel or, for raw exhaust sampling,
use any nonreactive material capable of withstanding raw exhaust
temperatures. Locate sample probes where constituents are mixed to
their mean sample concentration. Take into account the mixing of any
crankcase emissions that may be routed into the raw exhaust. Locate
each probe to minimize interference with the flow to other probes. We
recommend that all probes remain free from influences of boundary
layers, wakes, and eddies--especially near the outlet of a raw-exhaust
stack where unintended dilution might occur. Make sure that purging or
back-flushing of a probe does not influence another probe during
testing. You may use a single probe to extract a sample of more than
one constituent as long as the probe meets all the specifications for
each constituent.
(2) Gaseous sample probes. Use either single-port or multi-port
probes for sampling gaseous emissions. You may orient these probes in
any direction relative to the raw or diluted exhaust flow. For some
probes, you must control sample temperatures, as follows:
(i) For probes that extract NOX from diluted exhaust,
control the probe's wall temperature to prevent aqueous condensation.
(ii) For probes that extract hydrocarbons for THC or NMHC analysis
from the diluted exhaust of compression-ignition engines, two-stroke
spark-ignition engines, or four-stroke spark-ignition engines at or
below 19 kW, we recommend heating the probe to minimize hydrocarbon
contamination consistent with good engineering judgment. If you
routinely fail the contamination check in the 1065.520 pretest check,
we recommend heating the probe section to approximately 190 [deg]C to
minimize contamination.
(3) PM sample probes. Use PM probes with a single opening at the
end. Orient PM probes to face directly upstream. If you shield a PM
probe's opening with a PM pre-classifier such as a hat, you may not use
the preclassifier we specify in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. We
recommend sizing the inside diameter of PM probes to approximate
isokinetic sampling at the expected mean flow rate.
(d) Transfer lines. You may use transfer lines to transport an
extracted sample from a probe to an analyzer, storage medium, or
dilution system, noting certain restrictions for PM sampling in Sec.
1065.140(e). Minimize the length of all transfer lines by locating
analyzers, storage media, and dilution systems as close to probes as
practical. We recommend that you minimize the number of bends in
transfer lines and that you maximize the radius of any unavoidable
bend. Avoid using 90[deg] elbows, tees, and cross-fittings in transfer
lines. Where such connections and fittings are necessary, take steps,
using good engineering judgment, to ensure that you meet the
temperature tolerances in this paragraph (d). This may involve
measuring temperature at various locations within transfer lines and
fittings. You may use a single transfer line to transport a sample of
more than one constituent, as long as the transfer line meets all the
specifications for each constituent. The following construction and
temperature tolerances apply to transfer lines:
(1) Gaseous samples. Use transfer lines with inside surfaces of 300
series stainless steel, PTFE, Viton\TM\, or any other material that you
demonstrate has better properties for emission sampling. For raw
exhaust sampling, use a non-reactive material capable of withstanding
raw exhaust temperatures. You may use in-line filters if they do not
react with exhaust constituents and if the filter and its housing meet
the same temperature requirements as the transfer lines, as follows:
(i) For NOX transfer lines upstream of either an
NO2-to-NO converter that meets the specifications of Sec.
1065.378 or a chiller that meets the specifications of Sec. 1065.376,
maintain a sample temperature that prevents aqueous condensation.
(ii) For THC transfer lines for testing compression-ignition
engines, two-stroke spark-ignition engines, or four-stroke spark-
ignition engines at or below 19 kW, maintain a wall temperature
tolerance throughout the entire line of (191 11) [deg]C. If
you sample from raw exhaust, you may connect an unheated, insulated
transfer line directly to a probe. Design the length and insulation of
the transfer line to cool the highest expected raw exhaust temperature
to no lower than 191 [deg]C, as measured at the transfer line's outlet.
For dilute sampling, you may use a transition zone between the probe
and transfer line of up to 92 cm to allow your wall temperature to
transition to (191 11) [deg]C.
(2) PM samples. We recommend heated transfer lines or a heated
enclosure to minimize temperature differences between transfer lines
and exhaust constituents. Use transfer lines that are inert with
respect to PM and are electrically conductive on the inside surfaces.
We recommend using PM transfer lines made of 300 series stainless
steel. Electrically ground the inside surface of PM transfer lines.
(e) Optional sample-conditioning components for gaseous sampling.
You may use the following sample-conditioning components to prepare
gaseous samples for analysis, as long as you do not install or use them
in a way that adversely affects your ability to show that your engines
comply with all applicable gaseous emission standards.
(1) NO 2-to-NO converter. You may use an NO2-
to-NO converter that meets the converter conversion verification
specified in Sec. 1065.378 at any point upstream of a NOX
analyzer, sample bag, or other storage medium.
(2) Sample dryer. You may use either type of sample dryer described
in this paragraph (e)(2) to decrease the effects of water on gaseous
emission measurements. You may not use a chemical dryer, or use dryers
upstream of PM sample filters.
(i) Osmotic-membrane. You may use an osmotic-membrane dryer
upstream of any gaseous analyzer or storage medium, as long as it meets
the temperature specifications in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
Because osmotic-
[[Page 30104]]
membrane dryers may deteriorate after prolonged exposure to certain
exhaust constituents, consult with the membrane manufacturer regarding
your application before incorporating an osmotic-membrane dryer.
Monitor the dewpoint, Tdew, and absolute pressure,
ptotal, downstream of an osmotic-membrane dryer. You may use
continuously recorded values of Tdew and ptotal
in the amount of water calculations specified in Sec. 1065.645. For
our testing we may use average temperature and pressure values over the
test interval or a nominal pressure value that we estimate as the
dryer's average pressure expected during testing as constant values in
the amount of water calculations specified in Sec. 1065.645. For your
testing, you may use the maximum temperature or minimum pressure values
observed during a test interval or duty cycle or the high alarm
temperature setpoint or low alarm pressure setpoint as constant values
in the calculations specified in Sec. 1065.645. For your testing, you
may also use a nominal ptotal, which you may estimate as the
dryer's lowest absolute pressure expected during testing.
(ii) Thermal chiller. You may use a thermal chiller upstream of
some gas analyzers and storage media. You may not use a thermal chiller
upstream of a THC measurement system for compression-ignition engines,
two-stroke spark-ignition engines, or four-stroke spark-ignition
engines at or below 19 kW. If you use a thermal chiller upstream of an
NO2-to-NO converter or in a sampling system without an
NO2-to-NO converter, the chiller must meet the
NO2 loss-performance check specified in Sec. 1065.376.
Monitor the dewpoint, Tdew, and absolute pressure,
ptotal, downstream of a thermal chiller. You may use
continuously recorded values of Tdew and ptotal
in the amount of water calculations specified in Sec. 1065.645. If it
is valid to assume the degree of saturation in the thermal chiller, you
may calculate Tdew based on the known chiller performance
and continuous monitoring of chiller temperature, Tchiller.
If it is valid to assume a constant temperature offset between
Tchiller and Tdew, due to a known and fixed
amount of sample reheat between the chiller outlet and the temperature
measurement location, you may factor in this assumed temperature offset
value into emission calculations. If we ask for it, you must show by
engineering analysis or by data the validity of any assumptions allowed
by this paragraph (e)(2)(ii). For our testing we may use average
temperature and pressure values over the test interval or a nominal
pressure value that we estimate as the dryer's average pressure
expected during testing as constant values in the calculations
specified in Sec. 1065.645. For your testing you may use the maximum
temperature and minimum pressure values observed during a test interval
or duty cycle or the high alarm temperature setpoint and the low alarm
pressure setpoint as constant values in the amount of water
calculations specified in Sec. 1065.645. For your testing you may also
use a nominal ptotal, which you may estimate as the dryer's
lowest absolute pressure expected during testing.
(3) Sample pumps. You may use sample pumps upstream of an analyzer
or storage medium for any gas. Use sample pumps with inside surfaces of
300 series stainless steel, PTFE, or any other material that you
demonstrate has better properties for emission sampling. For some
sample pumps, you must control temperatures, as follows:
(i) If you use a NOX sample pump upstream of either an
NO2-to-NO converter that meets Sec. 1065.378 or a chiller
that meets Sec. 1065.376, it must be heated to prevent aqueous
condensation.
(ii) For testing compression-ignition engines, 2-stroke spark-
ignition engines, or four-stroke spark-ignition engines at or below 19
kW, if you use a THC sample pump upstream of a THC analyzer or storage
medium, its inner surfaces must be heated to a tolerance of (191 11) [deg]C.
(4) Ammonia Scrubber. You may use ammonia scrubbers for any or all
gaseous sampling systems to prevent interference with NH3,
poisoning of the NO2-to-NO converter, and deposits in the
sampling system or analyzers. Follow the ammonia scrubber
manufacturer's recommendations or use good engineering judgment in
applying ammonia scrubbers.
* * * * *
0
216. Section 1065.170 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b),
and (c)(1)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.170 Batch sampling for gaseous and PM constituents.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) Verify proportional sampling after an emission test as
described in Sec. 1065.545. Use good engineering judgment to select
storage media that will not significantly change measured emission
levels (either up or down). For example, do not use sample bags for
storing emissions if the bags are permeable with respect to emissions
or if they off gas emissions to the extent that it affects your ability
to demonstrate compliance with the applicable gaseous emission
standards. As another example, do not use PM filters that irreversibly
absorb or adsorb gases to the extent that it affects your ability to
demonstrate compliance with the applicable PM emission standard.
* * * * *
(b) Gaseous sample storage media. Store gas volumes in sufficiently
clean containers that minimally off-gas or allow permeation of gases.
Use good engineering judgment to determine acceptable thresholds of
storage media cleanliness and permeation. To clean a container, you may
repeatedly purge and evacuate a container and you may heat it. Use a
flexible container (such as a bag) within a temperature-controlled
environment, or use a temperature controlled rigid container that is
initially evacuated or has a volume that can be displaced, such as a
piston and cylinder arrangement. Use containers meeting the
specifications in the Table1 of this section, noting that you may
request to use other container materials under Sec. 1065.10. Sample
temperatures must stay within the following ranges for each container
material:
(1) Up to 40 [deg]C for TedlarTM and KynarTM.
(2) (191 11) [deg]C for TeflonTM and 300
series stainless steel used with measuring THC or NMHC from
compression-ignition engines, two-stroke spark-ignition engines, and
four-stroke spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kW. For all other
engines and pollutants, these materials are good for sample
temperatures up to 202 [deg]C.
[[Page 30105]]
Table 1 of Sec. 1065.170-Container Materials for Gaseous Batch
Sampling
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine type
-------------------------------------------
Compression-ignition
Emissions Two-stroke spark-
ignition Four-stroke All other engines
spark-ignition at or
below 19 kW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO, CO2, O2, CH4, C2H6, TedlarTM, KynarTM, TedlarTM, KynarTM,
C3H8, NO, NO2, N2O. TeflonTM, or 300 TeflonTM, or 300
series stainless series stainless
steel. steel.
THC, NMHC................... TeflonTM or 300 TedlarTM, KynarTM,
series stainless TeflonTM, or 300
steel. series stainless
steel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) If you expect that a filter's total surface concentration of PM
will exceed 400 [micro]g, assuming a 38 mm diameter filter stain area,
for a given test interval, you may use filter media with a minimum
initial collection efficiency of 98%; otherwise you must use a filter
media with a minimum initial collection efficiency of 99.7%. Collection
efficiency must be measured as described in ASTM D2986 (incorporated by
reference in Sec. 1065.1010), though you may rely on the sample-media
manufacturer's measurements reflected in their product ratings to show
that you meet this requirement.
* * * * *
Subpart C--[Amended]
0
217. Section 1065.201 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (d), (e),
and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.201 Overview and general provisions.
* * * * *
(b) Instrument types. You may use any of the specified instruments
as described in this subpart to perform emission tests. If you want to
use one of these instruments in a way that is not specified in this
subpart, or if you want to use a different instrument, you must first
get us to approve your alternate procedure under Sec. 1065.10. Where
we specify more than one instrument for a particular measurement, we
may identify which instrument serves as the reference for comparing
with an alternate procedure. You may generally use instruments with
compensation algorithms that are functions of other gaseous
measurements and the engine's known or assumed fuel properties. The
target value for any compensation algorithm is 0% (that is, no bias
high and no bias low), regardless of the uncompensated signal's bias.
* * * * *
(d) Redundant systems. For all measurement instruments described in
this subpart, you may use data from multiple instruments to calculate
test results for a single test. If you use redundant systems, use good
engineering judgment to use multiple measured values in calculations or
to disregard individual measurements. Note that you must keep your
results from all measurements. This requirement applies whether or not
you actually use the measurements in your calculations.
(e) Range. You may use an instrument's response above 100% of its
operating range if this does not affect your ability to show that your
engines comply with the applicable emission standards. Note that we
require additional testing and reporting if an analyzer responds above
100% of its range. Auto-ranging analyzers do not require additional
testing or reporting.
* * * * *
(h) Recommended practices. This subpart identifies a variety of
recommended but not required practices for proper measurements. We
believe in most cases it is necessary to follow these recommended
practices for accurate and repeatable measurements. However, we do not
specifically require you to follow these recommended practices to
perform a valid test, as long as you meet the required calibrations and
verifications of measurement systems specified in subpart D of this
part. Similarly, we are not required to follow all recommended
practices, as long as we meet the required calibrations and
verifications. Our decision to follow or not follow a given
recommendation when we perform a test does not depend on whether you
followed it during your testing.
0
218. Section 1065.202 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.202 Data updating, recording, and control.
Your test system must be able to update data, record data and
control systems related to operator demand, the dynamometer, sampling
equipment, and measurement instruments. Use data acquisition and
control systems that can record at the specified minimum frequencies,
as follows:
Table 1 of Sec. 1065.202--Data Recording and Control Minimum Frequencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum command
Applicable test protocol Measured values and control Minimum recording frequency
section frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1065.510................ Speed and torque 1 Hz.............. 1 mean value per step.
during an engine step-
map.
Sec. 1065.510................ Speed and torque 5 Hz.............. 1 Hz means.
during an engine
sweep-map.
Sec. 1065.514................ Transient duty cycle 5 Hz.............. 1 Hz means.
Sec. 1065.530................ reference and
feedback speeds and
torques.
Sec. 1065.514................ Steady-state and 1 Hz.............. 1 Hz.
Sec. 1065.530................ ramped-modal duty
cycle reference and
feedback speeds and
torques.
Sec. 1065.520................ Continuous N/A............... 1 Hz.
Sec. 1065.530................ concentrations of raw
Sec. 1065.550................ or dilute analyzers.
Sec. 1065.520................ Batch concentrations N/A............... 1 mean value per test interval.
Sec. 1065.530................ of raw or dilute
Sec. 1065.550................ analyzers.
[[Page 30106]]
Sec. 1065.530................ Diluted exhaust flow N/A............... 1 Hz.
Sec. 1065.545................ rate from a CVS with
a heat exchanger
upstream of the flow
measurement.
Sec. 1065.530................ Diluted exhaust flow N/A............... 1 Hz means.
Sec. 1065.545................ rate from a CVS
without a heat
exchanger upstream of
the flow measurement.
Sec. 1065.530................ Intake-air or raw- N/A............... 1 Hz means.
Sec. 1065.545................ exhaust flow rate.
Sec. 1065.530................ Dilution air if 5 Hz.............. 1 Hz means.
Sec. 1065.545................ actively controlled.
Sec. 1065.530................ Sample flow from a CVS 1 Hz.............. 1 Hz.
Sec. 1065.545................ that has a heat
exchanger.
Sec. 1065.530................ Sample flow from a CVS 5 Hz.............. 1 Hz means.
Sec. 1065.545................ does not have a heat
exchanger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
219. Section 1065.205 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 1065.205 Performance specifications for measurement instruments.
Your test system as a whole must meet all the calibrations,
verifications, and test-validation criteria specified outside of this
section for laboratory testing or field testing, as applicable. We
recommend that your instruments meet the specifications in Table 1 of
this section for all ranges you use for testing. We also recommend that
you keep any documentation you receive from instrument manufacturers
showing that your instruments meet the specifications in Table 1 of
this section.
* * * * *
0
220. Section 1065.225 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.225 Intake-air flow meter.
(a) Application. You may use an intake-air flow meter in
combination with a chemical balance of fuel, inlet air, and exhaust to
calculate raw exhaust flow as described in Sec. 1065.655(e) and (f),
as follows:
(1) Use the actual value of calculated raw exhaust in the following
cases:
(i) For multiplying raw exhaust flow rate with continuously sampled
concentrations.
(ii) For multiplying total raw exhaust flow with batch-sampled
concentrations.
(iii) For verifying minimum dilution ratio for PM batch sampling as
described in Sec. 1065.546.
(iv) For calculating the dilution air flow for background
correction as described in Sec. 1065.667.
(2) In the following cases, you may use an intake-air flow meter
signal that does not give the actual value of raw exhaust, as long as
it is linearly proportional to the exhaust flow rate's actual
calculated value:
(i) For feedback control of a proportional sampling system, such as
a partial-flow dilution system.
(ii) For multiplying with continuously sampled gas concentrations,
if the same signal is used in a chemical-balance calculation to
determine work from brake-specific fuel consumption and fuel consumed.
* * * * *
0
221. Section 1065.230 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.230 Raw exhaust flow meter.
* * * * *
(d) Exhaust cooling. You may cool raw exhaust upstream of a raw-
exhaust flow meter, as long as you observe all the following
provisions:
(1) Do not sample PM downstream of the cooling.
(2) If cooling causes exhaust temperatures above 202 [deg]C to
decrease to below 180 [deg]C, do not sample NMHC downstream of the
cooling for compression-ignition engines, two-stroke spark-ignition
engines, or four-stroke spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kW.
(3) The cooling must not cause aqueous condensation.
0
222. Section 1065.240 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.240 Dilution air and diluted exhaust flow meters.
* * * * *
(d) Exhaust cooling. You may cool diluted exhaust upstream of a
dilute-exhaust flow meter, as long as you observe all the following
provisions:
(1) Do not sample PM downstream of the cooling.
(2) If cooling causes exhaust temperatures above 202 [deg]C to
decrease to below 180 [deg]C, do not sample NMHC downstream of the
cooling for compression-ignition engines, two-stroke spark-ignition
engines, or four-stroke spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kW.
(3) The cooling must not cause aqueous condensationas described in
Sec. 1065.140(c)(6).
0
223. Section 1065.250 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.250 Nondispersive infrared analyzer.
* * * * *
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use an NDIR
analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec. 1065.205.
Note that your NDIR-based system must meet the calibration and
verifications in Sec. Sec. 1065.350 and 1065.355 and it must also meet
the linearity verification in Sec. 1065.307.
0
224. Section 1065.260 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (e)
and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.260 Flame-ionization detector.
* * * * *
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a FID
analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec. 1065.205.
Note that your FID-based system for measuring THC, THCE, or
CH4 must meet all the verifications for hydrocarbon
measurement in subpart D of this part, and it must also meet the
linearity verification in Sec. 1065.307.
(c) Heated FID analyzers. For measuring THC or THCE from
compression-ignition engines, two-stroke spark-ignition engines, and
four-stroke spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kW, you must use
heated FID analyzers that maintain all surfaces that are exposed to
emissions at a temperature of (191 11) [deg]C.
* * * * *
(e) NMHC and NMOG. For demonstrating compliance with NMHC
standards, you may either measure THC and CH4 and determine
NMHC as
[[Page 30107]]
described in Sec. 1065.660(b)(2) or (3), or you may measure THC and
determine NMHC mass as described in Sec. 1065.660(b)(1). See 40 CFR
1066.665 for methods to demonstrate compliance with NMOG standards for
vehicle testing.
(f) CH 4. For reporting CH4 or for
demonstrating compliance with CH4 standards, you may use a
FID analyzer with a nonmethane cutter as described in Sec. 1065.265 or
you may use a GC-FID as described in Sec. 1065.267. Determine
CH4 as described in Sec. 1065.660(c).
0
225. Section 1065.267 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.267 Gas chromatograph with a flame ionization detector.
* * * * *
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a GC-FID that
meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec. 1065.205 and that the
measurement be done according to SAE J1151 (incorporated by reference
in Sec. 1065.1010). The GC-FID must meet the linearity verification in
Sec. 1065.307.
0
226. A new Sec. 1065.269 is added to subpart C to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.269 Photoacoustic analyzer for methanol and ethanol.
(a) Application. You may use a photoacoustic analyzer to measure
ethanol and/or methanol concentrations in diluted exhaust for batch
sampling.
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a
photoacoustic analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of
Sec. 1065.205. Note that your photoacoustic system must meet the
calibration and verifications in Sec. 1065.369 and it must also meet
the linearity verification in Sec. 1065.307. Use an optical wheel
configuration that gives analytical priority to measurement of the
least stable components in the sample. Select a sample integration time
of at least 5 seconds. Take into account sample chamber and sample line
volumes when determining flush times for your instrument.
0
227. Section 1065.270 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.270 Chemiluminescent detector.
* * * * *
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a CLD that
meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec. 1065.205. Note that your
CLD-based system must meet the quench verification in Sec. 1065.370
and it must also meet the linearity verification in Sec. 1065.307. You
may use a heated or unheated CLD, and you may use a CLD that operates
at atmospheric pressure or under a vacuum.
* * * * *
0
228. Section 1065.272 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.272 Nondispersive ultraviolet analyzer.
* * * * *
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use an NDUV
analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec. 1065.205.
Note that your NDUV-based system must meet the verifications in Sec.
1065.372 and it must also meet the linearity verification in Sec.
1065.307.
* * * * *
0
229. Section 1065.275 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.275 N2O measurement devices.
* * * * *
(b) Instrument types. You may use any of the following analyzers to
measure N2O:
(1) Nondispersive infrared (NDIR) analyzer.
(2) Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analyzer. Use appropriate
analytical procedures for interpretation of infrared spectra. For
example, EPA Test Method 320 is considered a valid method for spectral
interpretation (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method320.html).
(3) Laser infrared analyzer. Examples of laser infrared analyzers
are pulsed-mode high-resolution narrow band mid-infrared analyzers, and
modulated continuous wave high-resolution narrow band mid-infrared
analyzers.
(4) Photoacoustic analyzer. Use an optical wheel configuration that
gives analytical priority to measurement of the least stable components
in the sample. Select a sample integration time of at least 5 seconds.
Take into account sample chamber and sample line volumes when
determining flush times for your instrument.
(5) Gas chromatograph analyzer. You may use a gas chromatograph
with an electron-capture detector (GC-ECD) to measure N2O
concentrations of diluted exhaust for batch sampling.
(i) You may use a packed or porous layer open tubular (PLOT) column
phase of suitable polarity and length to achieve adequate resolution of
the N2O peak for analysis. Examples of acceptable columns
are a PLOT column consisting of bonded polystyrene-divinylbenzene or a
Porapack Q packed column. Take the column temperature profile and
carrier gas selection into consideration when setting up your method to
achieve adequate N2O peak resolution.
(ii) Use good engineering judgment to zero your instrument and
correct for drift. You do not need to follow the specific procedures in
Sec. Sec. 1065.530 and 1065.550(b) that would otherwise apply. For
example, you may perform a span gas measurement before and after sample
analysis without zeroing and use the average area counts of the pre-
span and post-span measurements to generate a response factor (area
counts/span gas concentration), which you then multiply by the area
counts from your sample to generate the sample concentration.
* * * * *
0
230. Section 1065.280 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.280 Paramagnetic and magnetopneumatic O2
detection analyzers.
* * * * *
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a PMD or MPD
analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec. 1065.205.
Note that it must meet the linearity verification in Sec. 1065.307.
0
231. Section 1065.284 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.284 Zirconia (ZrO2) analyzer.
* * * * *
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a
ZrO2 analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of
Sec. 1065.205. Note that your ZrO2-based system must meet
the linearity verification in Sec. 1065.307.
0
232. Section 1065.295 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.295 PM inertial balance for field-testing analysis.
* * * * *
(b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a balance
that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec. 1065.205. Note that
your balance-based system must meet the linearity verification in Sec.
1065.307. If the balance uses an internal calibration process for
routine spanning and linearity verifications, the process must be NIST-
traceable.
* * * * *
Subpart D--[Amended]
0
233. Section 1065.303 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.303 Summary of required calibration and verifications.
The following table summarizes the required and recommended
calibrations and verifications described in this subpart and indicates
when these have to be performed:
[[Page 30108]]
Table 1 of Sec. 1065.303--Summary of Required Calibration and
Verifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of calibration or
verification Minimum frequency \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1065.305: Accuracy, Accuracy: Not required, but
repeatability and noise. recommended for initial
installation.
Repeatability: Not required, but
recommended for initial
installation.
Noise: Not required, but recommended
for initial installation.
Sec. 1065.307: Linearity Speed: Upon initial installation,
verification. within 370 days before testing and
after major maintenance.
Torque: Upon initial installation,
within 370 days before testing and
after major maintenance.
Electrical power, current, and
voltage: Upon initial installation,
within 370 days before testing and
after major maintenance.\2\
Fuel flow rate: Upon initial
installation, within 370 days
before testing, and after major
maintenance.
Intake-air, dilution air, diluted
exhaust, and batch sampler flow
rates: Upon initial installation,
within 370 days before testing and
after major maintenance, unless
flow is verified by propane check
or by carbon or oxygen balance.
Raw exhaust flow rate: Upon initial
installation, within 185 days
before testing and after major
maintenance, unless flow is
verified by propane check or by
carbon or oxygen balance.
Gas dividers: Upon initial
installation, within 370 days
before testing, and after major
maintenance.
Gas analyzers (unless otherwise
noted): Upon initial installation,
within 35 days before testing and
after major maintenance.
FTIR and photoacoustic analyzers:
Upon initial installation, within
370 days before testing and after
major maintenance.
GC-ECD: Upon initial installation
and after major maintenance.
PM balance: Upon initial
installation, within 370 days
before testing and after major
maintenance.
Pressure, temperature, and dewpoint:
Upon initial installation, within
370 days before testing and after
major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.308: Continuous gas Upon initial installation or after
analyzer system response and system modification that would
updating-recording verification-- affect response.
for gas analyzers not
continuously compensated for
other gas species.
Sec. 1065.309: Continuous gas Upon initial installation or after
analyzer system-response and system modification that would
updating-recording verification-- affect response.
for gas analyzers continuously
compensated for other gas species.
Sec. 1065.310: Torque........... Upon initial installation and after
major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.315: Pressure, Upon initial installation and after
temperature, dewpoint. major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.320: Fuel flow........ Upon initial installation and after
major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.325: Intake flow...... Upon initial installation and after
major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.330: Exhaust flow..... Upon initial installation and after
major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.340: Diluted exhaust Upon initial installation and after
flow (CVS). major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.341: CVS and batch Upon initial installation, within 35
sampler verification \3\. days before testing, and after
major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.342 Sample dryer For thermal chillers: upon
verification. installation and after major
maintenance.
For osmotic membranes; upon
installation, within 35 days of
testing, and after major
maintenance.
Sec. 1065.345: Vacuum leak...... For laboratory testing: upon initial
installation of the sampling
system, within 8 hours before the
start of the first test interval of
each duty-cycle sequence, and after
maintenance such as pre-filter
changes.
For field testing: after each
installation of the sampling system
on the vehicle, prior to the start
of the field test, and after
maintenance such as pre-filter
changes.
Sec. 1065.350: CO2 NDIR H2O Upon initial installation and after
interference. major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.355: CO NDIR CO2 and Upon initial installation and after
H2O interference. major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.360: FID calibration, Calibrate all FID analyzers: upon
THC FID optimization, and THC FID initial installation and after
verification. major maintenance.
Optimize and determine CH4 response
for THC FID analyzers: upon initial
installation and after major
maintenance.
Verify CH4 response for THC FID
analyzers: upon initial
installation, within 185 days
before testing, and after major
maintenance.
Sec. 1065.362: Raw exhaust FID For all FID analyzers: upon initial
O2 interference. installation, and after major
maintenance.
For THC FID analyzers: upon initial
installation, after major
maintenance, and after FID
optimization according to Sec.
1065.360.
Sec. 1065.365: Nonmethane cutter Upon initial installation, within
penetration. 185 days before testing, and after
major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.369: H2O, CO, and CO2 Upon initial installation and after
interference verification for major maintenance.
ethanol photoacoustic analyzers.
Sec. 1065.370: CLD CO2 and H2O Upon initial installation and after
quench. major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.372: NDUV HC and H2O Upon initial installation and after
interference. major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.375: N2O analyzer Upon initial installation and after
interference. major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.376: Chiller NO2 Upon initial installation and after
penetration. major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.378: NO2-to-NO Upon initial installation, within 35
converter conversion. days before testing, and after
major maintenance.
Sec. 1065.390: PM balance and Independent verification: upon
weighing. initial installation, within 370
days before testing, and after
major maintenance.
[[Page 30109]]
Zero, span, and reference sample
verifications: within 12 hours of
weighing, and after major
maintenance.
Sec. 1065.395: Inertial PM Independent verification: upon
balance and weighing. initial installation, within 370
days before testing, and after
major maintenance.
Other verifications: upon initial
installation and after major
maintenance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Perform calibrations and verifications more frequently than we
specify, according to measurement system manufacturer instructions and
good engineering judgment.
\2\ Perform linearity verification either for electrical power or for
current and voltage.
\3\ The CVS verification described in Sec. 1065.341 is not required
for systems that agree within 2% based on a chemical
balance of carbon or oxygen of the intake air, fuel, and diluted
exhaust.
0
234. Section 1065.305 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(10)(i) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1065.305 Verifications for accuracy, repeatability, and noise.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(10) * * *
(i) Your measurement systems meet all the other required
calibration, verification, and validation specifications that apply as
specified in the regulations.
* * * * *
0
235. Section 1065.307 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.307 Linearity verification.
(a) Scope and frequency. Perform linearity verification on each
measurement system listed in Table 1 of this section at least as
frequently as indicated in Table 1 of Sec. 1065.303, consistent with
measurement system manufacturer's recommendations and good engineering
judgment. The intent of linearity verification is to determine that a
measurement system responds accurately and proportionally over the
measurement range of interest. Linearity verification generally
consists of introducing a series of at least 10 reference values to a
measurement system. The measurement system quantifies each reference
value. The measured values are then collectively compared to the
reference values by using a least-squares linear regression and the
linearity criteria specified in Table 1 of this section.
(b) Performance requirements. If a measurement system does not meet
the applicable linearity criteria referenced in Table 1 of this
section, correct the deficiency by re-calibrating, servicing, or
replacing components as needed. Repeat the linearity verification after
correcting the deficiency to ensure that the measurement system meets
the linearity criteria. Before you may use a measurement system that
does not meet linearity criteria, you must demonstrate to us that the
deficiency does not adversely affect your ability to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable standards.
(c) Procedure. Use the following linearity verification protocol,
or use good engineering judgment to develop a different protocol that
satisfies the intent of this section, as described in paragraph (a) of
this section:
(1) In this paragraph (c), the letter ``y'' denotes a generic
measured quantity, the superscript over-bar denotes an arithmetic mean
(such as), and the subscript ``ref'' denotes the known or
reference quantity being measured.
(2) Use good engineering judgment to operate a measurement system
at normal operating conditions. This may include any specified
adjustment or periodic calibration of the measurement system.
(3) If applicable, zero the instrument as you would before an
emission test by introducing a zero signal. Depending on the
instrument, this may be a zero-concentration gas, a reference signal, a
set of reference thermodynamic conditions, or some combination of
these. For gas analyzers, use a zero gas that meets the specifications
of Sec. 1065.750 and introduce it directly at the analyzer port.
(4) If applicable, span the instrument as you would before an
emission test by introducing a span signal. Depending on the
instrument, this may be a span-concentration gas, a reference signal, a
set of reference thermodynamic conditions, or some combination of
these. For gas analyzers, use a span gas that meets the specifications
of Sec. 1065.750 and introduce it directly at the analyzer port.
(5) If applicable, after spanning the instrument, check zero with
the same signal you used in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. Based on
the zero reading, use good engineering judgment to determine whether or
not to rezero and or re-span the instrument before continuing.
(6) For all measured quantities, use the instrument manufacturer's
recommendations and good engineering judgment to select reference
values, yrefi, that cover a range of values that you expect
would prevent extrapolation beyond these values during emission
testing. We recommend selecting a zero reference signal as one of the
reference values for the linearity verification. For pressure,
temperature, dewpoint, power, current, voltage, photoacoustic
analyzers, and GC-ECD linearity verifications, we recommend at least
three reference values. For all other linearity verifications select at
least ten reference values.
(7) Use the instrument manufacturer's recommendations and good
engineering judgment to select the order in which you will introduce
the series of reference values. For example, you may select the
reference values randomly to avoid correlation with previous
measurements and to avoid hysteresis; you may select reference values
in ascending or descending order to avoid long settling times of
reference signals; or you may select values to ascend and then descend
to incorporate the effects of any instrument hysteresis into the
linearity verification.
(8) Generate reference quantities as described in paragraph (d) of
this section. For gas analyzers, use gas concentrations known to be
within the specifications of Sec. 1065.750 and introduce them directly
at the analyzer port.
(9) Introduce a reference signal to the measurement instrument.
(10) Allow time for the instrument to stabilize while it measures
the value at the reference condition. Stabilization time may include
time to purge an instrument and time to account for its response.
(11) At a recording frequency of at least f Hz, specified in Table
1 of Sec. 1065.205, measure the value at the reference condition for
30 seconds (you may select a longer sampling period if the recording
update frequency is less than 0.5 Hz) and record the arithmetic mean of
the recorded values, yi,. Refer to Sec. 1065.602 for an
example of calculating an arithmetic mean.
[[Page 30110]]
(12) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(9) though (11) of this
section until measurements are complete at each of the reference
conditions.
(13) Use the arithmetic means, yi,, and reference
values, yrefi, to calculate least-squares linear regression
parameters and statistical values to compare to the minimum performance
criteria specified in Table 1 of this section. Use the calculations
described in Sec. 1065.602. Using good engineering judgment, you may
weight the results of individual data pairs (i.e. (yrefi,
yi,)), in the linear regression calculations.
(d) Reference signals. This paragraph (d) describes recommended
methods for generating reference values for the linearity-verification
protocol in paragraph (c) of this section. Use reference values that
simulate actual values, or introduce an actual value and measure it
with a reference-measurement system. In the latter case, the reference
value is the value reported by the reference-measurement system.
Reference values and reference-measurement systems must be NIST-
traceable. We recommend using calibration reference quantities that are
NIST-traceable within 0.5% uncertainty, if not specified elsewhere in
this part 1065. Use the following recommended methods to generate
reference values or use good engineering judgment to select a different
reference:
(1) Speed. Run the engine or dynamometer at a series of steady-
state speeds and use a strobe, photo tachometer, or laser tachometer to
record reference speeds.
(2) Torque. Use a series of calibration weights and a calibration
lever arm to simulate engine torque. You may instead use the engine or
dynamometer itself to generate a nominal torque that is measured by a
reference load cell or proving ring in series with the torque-
measurement system. In this case, use the reference load cell
measurement as the reference value. Refer to Sec. 1065.310 for a
torque-calibration procedure similar to the linearity verification in
this section.
(3) Electrical power, current, and voltage. You must perform
linearity verification for either electrical power, or for current and
voltage. Perform linearity verifications using a reference meter and
controlled sources of current and voltage. We recommend using a
complete calibration system that is suitable for the electrical power
distribution industry.
(4) Fuel rate. Operate the engine at a series of constant fuel-flow
rates or re-circulate fuel back to a tank through the fuel flow meter
at different flow rates. Use a gravimetric reference measurement (such
as a scale, balance, or mass comparator) at the inlet to the fuel-
measurement system. Use a stopwatch or timer to measure the time
intervals over which reference masses of fuel are introduced to the
fuel measurement system. The reference fuel mass divided by the time
interval is the reference fuel flow rate.
(5) Flow rates--inlet air, dilution air, diluted exhaust, raw
exhaust, or sample flow. Use a reference flow meter with a blower or
pump to simulate flow rates. Use a restrictor, diverter valve, a
variable-speed blower or a variable-speed pump to control the range of
flow rates. Use the reference meter's response as the reference values.
(i) Reference flow meters. Because the flow range requirements for
these various flows are large, we allow a variety of reference meters.
For example, for diluted exhaust flow for a full-flow dilution system,
we recommend a reference subsonic venturi flow meter with a restrictor
valve and a blower to simulate flow rates. For inlet air, dilution air,
diluted exhaust for partial-flow dilution, raw exhaust, or sample flow,
we allow reference meters such as critical flow orifices, critical flow
venturis, laminar flow elements, master mass flow standards, or Roots
meters. Make sure the reference meter is calibrated by the flow-meter
manufacturer and its calibration is NIST-traceable. If you use the
difference of two flow measurements to determine a net flow rate, you
may use one of the measurements as a reference for the other.
(ii) Reference flow values. Because the reference flow is not
absolutely constant, sample and record values of nrefi, for
30 seconds and use the arithmetic mean of the values, nref,
as the reference value. Refer to Sec. 1065.602 for an example of
calculating arithmetic mean.
(6) Gas division. Use one of the two reference signals:
(i) At the outlet of the gas-division system, connect a gas
analyzer that meets the linearity verification described in this
section and has not been linearized with the gas divider being
verified. For example, verify the linearity of an analyzer using a
series of reference analytical gases directly from compressed gas
cylinders that meet the specifications of Sec. 1065.750. We recommend
using a FID analyzer or a PMD or MPD O2 analyzer because of
their inherent linearity. Operate this analyzer consistent with how you
would operate it during an emission test. Connect a span gas to the
gas-divider inlet. Use the gas-division system to divide the span gas
with purified air or nitrogen. Select gas divisions that you typically
use. Use a selected gas division as the measured value. Use the
analyzer response divided by the span gas concentration as the
reference gas-division value. Because the instrument response is not
absolutely constant, sample and record values of xrefi for
30 seconds and use the arithmetic mean of the values, xrefi,
as the reference value. Refer to Sec. 1065.602 for an example of
calculating arithmetic mean.
(ii) Using good engineering judgment and the gas divider
manufacturer's recommendations, use one or more reference flow meters
to measure the flow rates of the gas divider and verify the gas-
division value.
(7) Continuous constituent concentration. For reference values, use
a series of gas cylinders of known gas concentration or use a gas-
division system that is known to be linear with a span gas. Gas
cylinders, gas-division systems, and span gases that you use for
reference values must meet the specifications of Sec. 1065.750.
(8) Temperature. You may perform the linearity verification for
temperature measurement systems with thermocouples, RTDs, and
thermistors by removing the sensor from the system and using a
simulator in its place. Use a NIST-traceable simulator that is
independently calibrated and, as appropriate, cold-junction-
compensated. The simulator uncertainty scaled to absolute temperature
must be less than 0.5% of Tmax. If you use this option, you
must use sensors that the supplier states are accurate to better than
0.5% of Tmax compared with their standard calibration curve.
(9) Mass. For linearity verification for gravimetric PM balances,
use external calibration weights that that meet the requirements in
Sec. 1065.790.
(e) Measurement systems that require linearity verification. Table
1 of this section indicates measurement systems that require linearity
verification, subject to the following provisions:
(1) Perform linearity verification more frequently based on the
instrument manufacturer's recommendation or good engineering judgment.
(2) The expression ``xmin'' refers to the reference
value used during linearity verification that is closest to zero. This
is the value used to calculate the first tolerance in Table 1 of this
section using the intercept, a0. Note that this value may be
zero, positive, or negative depending on the reference values. For
example, if the reference values chosen to validate a pressure
transducer vary from -10 to -1 kPa, xmin is -1 kPa. If the
reference values used to validate a
[[Page 30111]]
temperature device vary from 290 to 390 K, xmin is 290 K.
(3) The expression ``max'' generally refers to the absolute value
of the reference value used during linearity verification that is
furthest from zero. This is the value used to scale the first and third
tolerances in Table 1 of this section using a0 and SEE. For
example, if the reference values chosen to validate a pressure
transducer vary from -10 to -1 kPa, then pmax is +10 kPa. If
the reference values used to validate a temperature device vary from
290 to 390 K, then Tmax is 390 K. For gas dividers where
``max'' is expressed as, xmax/xspan;;
xmax is the maximum gas concentration used during the
verification, xspan is the undivided, undiluted, span gas
concentration, and the resulting ratio is the maximum divider point
reference value used during the verification (typically 1). The
following are special cases where ``max'' refers to a different value:
(i) For linearity verification with a PM balance, mmax
refers to the typical mass of a PM filter.
(ii) For linearity verification of torque on the engine's primary
output shaft, Tmax refers to the manufacturer's specified
engine torque peak value of the lowest torque engine to be tested.
(4) The specified ranges are inclusive. For example, a specified
range of 0.98-1.02 for a1 means 0.98<=a1<=1.02.
(5) Linearity verification is optional for systems that pass the
flow-rate verification for diluted exhaust as described in Sec.
1065.341 (the propane check) or for systems that agree within 2% based on a chemical balance of carbon or oxygen of the intake
air, fuel, and exhaust.
(6) You must meet the a1 criteria for these quantities
only if the absolute value of the quantity is required, as opposed to a
signal that is only linearly proportional to the actual value.
(7) Linearity verification is required for the following
temperature measurements:
(i) The following temperature measurements always require linearity
verification:
(A) Air intake.
(B) Aftertreatment bed(s), for engines tested with aftertreatment
devices subject to cold-start testing.
(C) Dilution air for PM sampling, including CVS, double-dilution,
and partial-flow systems.
(D) PM sample.
(E) Chiller sample, for gaseous sampling systems that use thermal
chillers to dry samples and use chiller temperature to calculate the
dewpoint at the outlet of the chiller. For your testing, if you choose
to use a high alarm temperature setpoint for the chiller temperature as
a constant value in determining the amount of water removed from the
emission sample, you may use good engineering judgment to verify the
accuracy of the high alarm temperature setpoint instead of linearity
verification on the chiller temperature. To verify that the alarm trip
point value is no less than 2.0 [deg]C below the reference value at the
trip point, we recommend that you input a reference simulated
temperature signal below the alarm trip point and increase this signal
until the high alarm trips.
(ii) Linearity verification is required for the following
temperature measurements if these temperature measurements are
specified by the engine manufacturer:
(A) Fuel inlet.
(B) Air outlet to the test cell's charge air cooler air outlet, for
engines tested with a laboratory heat exchanger that simulates an
installed charge air cooler.
(C) Coolant inlet to the test cell's charge air cooler, for engines
tested with a laboratory heat exchanger that simulates an installed
charge air cooler.
(D) Oil in the sump/pan.
(E) Coolant before the thermostat, for liquid-cooled engines.
(8) Linearity verification is required for the following pressure
measurements:
(i) The following pressure measurements always require linearity
verification:
(A) Air intake restriction.
(B) Exhaust back pressure.
(C) Barometer.
(D) CVS inlet gage pressure.
(E) Sample dryer, for gaseous sampling systems that use either
osmotic-membrane or thermal chillers to dry samples. For your testing,
if you choose to use a low alarm pressure setpoint for the sample dryer
pressure as a constant value in determining the amount of water removed
from the emission sample, you may use good engineering judgment to
verify the accuracy of the low alarm pressure setpoint instead of
linearity verification on the sample dryer pressure. To verify that the
trip point value is no more than 4.0 kPa above the reference value at
the trip point, we recommend that you input a reference pressure signal
above the alarm trip point and decrease this signal until the low alarm
trips.
(ii) Linearity verification is required for the following pressure
measurements if these pressure measurements are specified by the engine
manufacturer:
(A) The test cell's charge air cooler and interconnecting pipe
pressure drop, for turbo-charged engines tested with a laboratory heat
exchanger that simulates an installed charge air cooler.
(B) Fuel outlet.
Table 1 of Sec. 1065.307--Measurement Systems That Require Linearity Verification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement system Quantity Linearity criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------
[khgr]min(a1- a1 SEE............ r \2\
1)+a0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed........................ [fnof]n <=0.05% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <=2% [middot] >=0.990
[fnof]nmax. [fnof]nmax.
Torque....................... T <=1% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <=2% [middot] >=0.990
Tmax. Tmax.
Electrical power............. P <=1% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <=2% [middot] >=0.990
Pmax. Pmax.
Current...................... I <=1% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <=2% [middot] >=0.990
Imax. Imax.
Voltage...................... U <=1% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <=2% [middot] >=0.990
Umax. Umax.
Fuel flow rate............... m <=1% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <=2% [middot] >=0.990
mmax. mmax.
Intake-air flow rate\1\...... n <=1% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <=2% [middot] >=0.990
nmax. nmax.
Dilution air flow rate\1\.... n <=1% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <=2% [middot] >=0.990
nmax. nmax.
Diluted exhaust flow rate\1\. n <=1% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <=2% [middot] >=0.990
nmax. nmax.
Raw exhaust flow rate\1\..... n <=1% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <=2% [middot] >=0.990
nmax. nmax.
Batch sampler flow rates\1\.. n <=1% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <=2% [middot] >=0.990
nmax. nmax.
Gas dividers................. [khgr]/ <=0.5% [middot] 0.98-1.02 <=2% [middot] >=0.990
[khgr]span [khgr]max/xspan. [khgr]max/
xspan.
Gas analyzers for laboratory [khgr] <=0.5% [middot] 0.99-1.01 <=1% [middot] >=0.998
testing. [khgr]max. [khgr]max.
Gas analyzers for field [khgr] <=1% [middot] 0.99-1.01 <=1% [middot] >=0.998
testing. [khgr]max. [khgr]max.
PM balance................... m <=1% [middot] 0.99-1.01 <=1% [middot] >=0.998
mmax. mmax.
[[Page 30112]]
Pressures.................... p <=1% [middot] 0.99-1.01 <=1% [middot] >=0.998
pmax. pmax.
Dewpoint for intake air, PM- Tdew <=0.5% [middot] 0.99-1.01 <=0.5% [middot] >=0.998
stabilization and balance Tdewmax. Tdewmax -.
environments.
Other dewpoint measurements.. Tdew <=1% [middot] 0.99-1.01 <=1% [middot] >=0.998
Tdewmax. Tdewmax -.
Analog-to-digital conversion T <=1% [middot] 0.99-1.01 <=1% [middot] >=0.998
of temperature signals. Tmax. Tmax.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For flow meters that determine volumetric flow rate, Vstd, you may substitute Vstd for n as the quantity and
substitute Vstdmax for nmax.
0
236. Section 1065.308 is amended by revising paragraph (d) and adding
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.308 Continuous gas analyzer system-response and updating-
recording verification--for gas analyzers not continuously compensated
for other gas species.
* * * * *
(d) Procedure. Use the following procedure to verify the response
of each continuous gas analyzer:
(1) Instrument setup. Follow the analyzer manufacturer's start-up
and operating instructions. Adjust the measurement system as needed to
optimize performance. Run this verification with the analyzer operating
in the same manner you will use for emission testing. If the analyzer
shares its sampling system with other analyzers, and if gas flow to the
other analyzers will affect the system response time, then start up and
operate the other analyzers while running this verification test. You
may run this verification test on multiple analyzers sharing the same
sampling system at the same time. If you use any analog or real-time
digital filters during emission testing, you must operate those filters
in the same manner during this verification.
(2) Equipment setup. We recommend using minimal lengths of gas
transfer lines between all connections and fast-acting three-way valves
(2 inlets, 1 outlet) to control the flow of zero and blended span gases
to the sample system's probe inlet or a tee near the outlet of the
probe. If you inject the gas at a tee near the outlet of the probe, you
may correct the transformation time, t50, for an estimate of
the transport time from the probe inlet to the tee. Normally the gas
flow rate is higher than the sample flow rate and the excess is
overflowed out the inlet of the probe. If the gas flow rate is lower
than the sample flow rate, the gas concentrations must be adjusted to
account for the dilution from ambient air drawn into the probe. We
recommend you use the final, stabilized analyzer reading as the final
gas concentration. Select span gases for the species being measured.
You may use binary or multi-gas span gases. You may use a gas blending
or mixing device to blend span gases. A gas blending or mixing device
is recommended when blending span gases diluted in N2 with
span gases diluted in air. You may use a multi-gas span gas, such as
NO-CO-CO2-C3H8-CH4, to
verify multiple analyzers at the same time. If you use standard binary
span gases, you must run separate response tests for each analyzer. In
designing your experimental setup, avoid pressure pulsations due to
stopping the flow through the gas-blending device. The change in gas
concentration must be at least 20% of the analyzer's range.
(3) Data collection. (i) Start the flow of zero gas.
(ii) Allow for stabilization, accounting for transport delays and
the slowest analyzer's full response.
(iii) Start recording data. For this verification you must record
data at a frequency greater than or equal to that of the updating-
recording frequency used during emission testing. You may not use
interpolation or filtering to alter the recorded values.
(iv) Switch the flow to allow the blended span gases to flow to the
analyzer. If you intend to use the data from this test to determine
t50 for time alignment, record this time as t0.
(v) Allow for transport delays and the slowest analyzer's full
response.
(vi) Switch the flow to allow zero gas to flow to the analyzer. If
you intend to use the data from this test to determine t50
for time alignment, record this time as t100.
(vii) Allow for transport delays and the slowest analyzer's full
response.
(viii) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (d)(3)(iv) through (vii) of
this section to record seven full cycles, ending with zero gas flowing
to the analyzers.
(ix) Stop recording.
* * * * *
(g) Optional procedure. Instead of using a three-way valve to
switch between zero and span gases, you may use a fast-acting two-way
valve to switch sampling between ambient air and span gas at the probe
inlet. For this alternate procedure, the following provisions apply:
(1) If your probe is sampling from a continuously flowing gas
stream (such as a CVS tunnel), you may adjust the span gas flow rate to
be different than the sample flow rate.
(2) If your probe is sampling from a gas stream that is not
continuously flowing (such as a raw exhaust stack), you must adjust the
span gas flow rate to be less than the sample flow rate so ambient air
is always drawn into the probe inlet. This avoids errors associated
with overflowing span gas out of the probe inlet and drawing the span
gas back in when sampling ambient air.
(3) When sampling ambient air with or without span gas, all the
analyzer readings must be stable within 0.5% of the target
gas concentration step size. If any analyzer reading is outside the
specified range, you must resolve the problem and verify that all the
analyzer readings meet this specification.
(4) For oxygen analyzers, you may use purified N2 as the
zero gas and ambient air (plus purified N2 if needed) as the
reference gas. Perform the verification with seven repeat measurements
that each consist of stabilizing with purified N2, switching
to ambient air and observing the analyzer's response rise and
stabilized reading, followed by switching back to purified
N2 and observing the analyzer's response fall and stabilized
reading.
0
237. Section 1065.309 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (d)(2)
and adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.309 Continuous gas analyzer system-response and updating-
recording verification--for gas analyzers continuously compensated for
other gas species.
(a) Scope and frequency. This section describes a verification
procedure for system response and updating-recording frequency for
continuous gas analyzers that output a single gas species mole fraction
(i.e., concentration) based on a continuous combination of multiple gas
species measured with multiple
[[Page 30113]]
detectors (i.e., gas analyzers continuously compensated for other gas
species). See Sec. 1065.308 for verification procedures that apply to
continuous gas analyzers that are not continuously compensated for
other gas species or that use only one detector for gaseous species.
Perform this verification to determine the system response of the
continuous gas analyzer and its sampling system. This verification is
required for continuous gas analyzers used for transient or ramped-
modal testing. You need not perform this verification for batch gas
analyzers or for continuous gas analyzers that are used only for
discrete-mode testing. For this check we consider water vapor a gaseous
constituent. This verification does not apply to any processing of
individual analyzer signals that are time-aligned to their
t50 times and were verified according to Sec. 1065.308. For
example, this verification does not apply to correction for water
removed from the sample done in post-processing according to Sec.
1065.659 (40 CFR 1066.640 for vehicle testing) and it does not apply to
NMHC determination from THC and CH4 according to Sec.
1065.660. Perform this verification after initial installation (i.e.,
test cell commissioning) and after any modifications to the system that
would change the system response.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Equipment setup. We recommend using minimal lengths of gas
transfer lines between all connections and fast-acting three-way valves
(2 inlets, 1 outlet) to control the flow of zero and blended span gases
to the sample system's probe inlet or a tee near the outlet of the
probe. If you inject the gas at a tee near the outlet of the probe, you
may correct the transformation time, t50, for an estimate of
the transport time from the probe inlet to the tee. Normally the gas
flow rate is higher than the sample flow rate and the excess is
overflowed out the inlet of the probe. If the gas flow rate is lower
than the sample flow rate, the gas concentrations must be adjusted to
account for the dilution from ambient air drawn into the probe. We
recommend you use the final, stabilized analyzer reading as the final
gas concentration. Select span gases for the species being continuously
combined, other than H2O. Select concentrations of
compensating species that will yield concentrations of these species at
the analyzer inlet that covers the range of concentrations expected
during testing. You may use binary or multi-gas span gases. You may use
a gas blending or mixing device to blend span gases. A gas blending or
mixing device is recommended when blending span gases diluted in
N2 with span gases diluted in air. You may use a multi-gas
span gas, such as NO-CO-CO2-C3H8-
CH4, to verify multiple analyzers at the same time. In
designing your experimental setup, avoid pressure pulsations due to
stopping the flow through the gas blending device. The change in gas
concentration must be at least 20% of the analyzer's range. If
H2O correction is applicable, then span gases must be
humidified before entering the analyzer; however, you may not humidify
NO2 span gas by passing it through a sealed humidification
vessel that contains water. You must humidify NO2 span gas
with another moist gas stream. We recommend humidifying your NO-CO-
CO2-C3H8-CH4, balance
N2 blended gas by flowing the gas mixture through a sealed
vessel that humidifies the gas by bubbling it through distilled water
and then mixing the gas with dry NO2 gas, balance purified
air. If your system does not use a sample dryer to remove water from
the sample gas, you must humidify your span gas to the highest sample
H2O content that you estimate during emission sampling. If
your system uses a sample dryer during testing, it must pass the sample
dryer verification check in Sec. 1065.342, and you must humidify your
span gas to an H2O content greater than or equal to the
level determined in Sec. 1065.145(e)(2). If you are humidifying span
gases without NO2, use good engineering judgment to ensure
that the wall temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves
from the humidifying system to the probe are above the dewpoint
required for the target H2O content. If you are humidifying
span gases with NO2, use good engineering judgment to ensure
that there is no condensation in the transfer lines, fittings, or
valves from the point where humidified gas is mixed with NO2
span gas to the probe. We recommend that you design your setup so that
the wall temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves from
the humidifying system to the probe are at least 5 [deg]C above the
local sample gas dewpoint. Operate the measurement and sample handling
system as you do for emission testing. Make no modifications to the
sample handling system to reduce the risk of condensation. Flow
humidified gas through the sampling system before this check to allow
stabilization of the measurement system's sampling handling system to
occur, as it would for an emission test.
* * * * *
(g) Optional procedure. Follow the optional procedures in Sec.
1065.308(g), noting that you may use compensating gases mixed with
ambient air for oxygen analyzers.
(h) Analyzers with H2O compensation sampling downstream
of a sample dryer. You may omit humidifying the span gas as described
in this paragraph (h). If an analyzer compensates only for
H2O, you may apply the requirements of Sec. 1065.308
instead of the requirements of this section. You may omit humidifying
the span gas if you meet the following conditions:
(1) The analyzer is located downstream of a sample dryer.
(2) The maximum value for H2O mole fraction downstream
of the dryer must be less than or equal to 0.010. Verify this during
each sample dryer verification according to Sec. 1065.342.
0
238. Section 1065.310 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.310 Torque calibration.
* * * * *
(d) Strain gage, load transducer, or proving ring calibration. This
technique applies force either by hanging weights on a lever arm (these
weights and their lever arm length are not used as part of the
reference torque determination) or by operating the dynamometer at
different torques. Apply at least six force combinations for each
applicable torque-measuring range, spacing the force quantities about
equally over the range. Oscillate or rotate the dynamometer during
calibration to reduce frictional static hysteresis. In this case, the
reference torque is determined by multiplying the force output from the
reference meter (such as a strain gage, load transducer, or proving
ring) by its effective lever-arm length, which you measure from the
point where the force measurement is made to the dynamometer's
rotational axis. Make sure you measure this length perpendicular to the
reference meter's measurement axis and perpendicular to the
dynamometer's rotational axis.
0
239. Section 1065.315 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1065.315 Pressure, temperature, and dewpoint calibration.
(a) * * *
(2) Temperature. We recommend digital dry-block or stirred-liquid
temperature calibrators, with data logging capabilities to minimize
transcription errors. We recommend using calibration reference
quantities that are NIST-traceable within 0.5% uncertainty. You may
perform linearity
[[Page 30114]]
verification for temperature measurement systems with thermocouples,
RTDs, and thermistors by removing the sensor from the system and using
a simulator in its place. Use a NIST-traceable simulator that is
independently calibrated and, as appropriate, cold-junction
compensated. The simulator uncertainty scaled to absolute temperature
must be less than 0.5% of Tmax. If you use this option, you
must use sensors that the supplier states are accurate to better than
0.5% of Tmax compared with their standard calibration curve.
* * * * *
0
240. Section 1065.341 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a) introductory text, (d) introductory text, and (f)(3) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1065.341 CVS, PFD, and batch sampler verification (propane
check).
(a) A propane check serves as a CVS verification to determine if
there is a discrepancy in measured values of diluted exhaust flow. You
may use the same procedure to verify PFDs and batch samplers. For
purposes of PFD and batch sampler verification, read the term CVS to
mean PFD or batch sampler as appropriate. A propane check also serves
as a batch-sampler verification to determine if there is a discrepancy
in a batch sampling system that extracts a sample from a CVS, as
described in paragraph (g) of this section. Using good engineering
judgment and safe practices, this check may be performed using a gas
other than propane, such as CO2 or CO. A failed propane
check might indicate one or more problems that may require corrective
action, as follows:
* * * * *
(d) If you performed the vacuum-side leak verification of the HC
sampling system as described in paragraph (c)(8) of this section, you
may use the HC contamination procedure in Sec. 1065.520(f) to verify
HC contamination. Otherwise, zero, span, and verify contamination of
the HC sampling system, as follows:
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) Calculate total C3H8 mass based on your
CVS and HC data as described in Sec. 1065.650 (40 CFR 1066.610 for
vehicle testing) and Sec. 1065.660, using the molar mass of
C3H8, MC3H8, instead the effective
molar mass of HC, MHC.
* * * * *
0
241. Section 1065.350 is amended by revising paragraph (d) and adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.350 H2O interference verification for
CO2 NDIR analyzers.
* * * * *
(d) Procedure. Perform the interference verification as follows:
(1) Start, operate, zero, and span the CO2 NDIR analyzer
as you would before an emission test. If the sample is passed through a
dryer during emission testing, you may run this verification test with
the dryer if it meets the requirements of Sec. 1065.342. Operate the
dryer at the same conditions as you will for an emission test. You may
also run this verification test without the sample dryer.
(2) Create a humidified test gas by bubbling zero gas that meets
the specifications in Sec. 1065.750 through distilled H2O
in a sealed vessel. If the sample is not passed through a dryer during
emission testing, control the vessel temperature to generate an
H2O level at least as high as the maximum expected during
emission testing. If the sample is passed through a dryer during
emission testing, control the vessel temperature to generate an
H2O level at least as high as the level determined in Sec.
1065.145(e)(2) for that dryer.
(3) Introduce the humidified test gas into the sample system. You
may introduce it downstream of any sample dryer, if one is used during
testing.
(4) If the sample is not passed through a dryer during this
verification test, measure the H2O mole fraction,
xH2O, of the humidified test gas, as close as possible to
the inlet of the analyzer. For example, measure dewpoint,
Tdew, and absolute pressure, ptotal, to calculate
xH2O. Verify that the H2O content meets the
requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. If the sample is
passed through a dryer during this verification test, you must verify
that the H2O content of the humidified test gas downstream
of the vessel meets the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section
based on either direct measurement of the H2O content (e.g.,
dewpoint and pressure) or an estimate based on the vessel pressure and
temperature. Use good engineering judgment to estimate the
H2O content. For example, you may use previous direct
measurements of H2O content to verify the vessel's level of
saturation.
(5) If a sample dryer is not used in this verification test, use
good engineering judgment to prevent condensation in the transfer
lines, fittings, or valves from the point where xH2O is
measured to the analyzer. We recommend that you design your system so
the wall temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves from
the point where xH2O is measured to the analyzer are at
least 5 [deg]C above the local sample gas dewpoint.
(6) Allow time for the analyzer response to stabilize.
Stabilization time may include time to purge the transfer line and to
account for analyzer response.
(7) While the analyzer measures the sample's concentration, record
30 seconds of sampled data. Calculate the arithmetic mean of this data.
The analyzer meets the interference verification if this value is
within (0.0 0.4) mmol/mol.
(e) Exceptions. The following exceptions apply:
(1) You may omit this verification if you can show by engineering
analysis that for your CO2 sampling system and your
emission-calculation procedures, the H2O interference for
your CO2 NDIR analyzer always affects your brake-specific
emission results within 0.5% of each of the applicable
standards. This specification also applies for vehicle testing, except
that it relates to emission results in g/mile or g/kilometer.
(2) You may use a CO2 NDIR analyzer that you determine
does not meet this verification, as long as you try to correct the
problem and the measurement deficiency does not adversely affect your
ability to show that engines comply with all applicable emission
standards.
0
242. Section 1065.355 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.355 H2O and CO2 interference
verification for CO NDIR analyzers.
* * * * *
(d) Procedure. Perform the interference verification as follows:
(1) Start, operate, zero, and span the CO NDIR analyzer as you
would before an emission test. If the sample is passed through a dryer
during emission testing, you may run this verification test with the
dryer if it meets the requirements of Sec. 1065.342. Operate the dryer
at the same conditions as you will for an emission test. You may also
run this verification test without the sample dryer.
(2) Create a humidified CO2 test gas by bubbling a
CO2 span gas that meets the specifications in Sec. 1065.750
through distilled H2O in a sealed vessel. If the sample is
not passed through a dryer during emission testing, control the vessel
temperature to generate an H2O level at least as high as the
maximum expected during emission testing. If the sample is passed
through a dryer during emission testing, control the vessel temperature
to generate an H2O level at least as high as the level
determined in Sec. 1065.145(e)(2) for that dryer. Use a
[[Page 30115]]
CO2 span gas concentration at least as high as the maximum
expected during testing.
(3) Introduce the humidified CO2 test gas into the
sample system. You may introduce it downstream of any sample dryer, if
one is used during testing.
(4) If the sample is not passed through a dryer during this
verification test, measure the H2O mole fraction,
[chi]H2O, of the humidified CO2 test gas as close
as possible to the inlet of the analyzer. For example, measure
dewpoint, Tdew, and absolute pressure, ptotal, to
calculate xH2O. Verify that the H2O content meets
the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. If the sample is
passed through a dryer during this verification test, you must verify
that the H2O content of the humidified test gas downstream
of the vessel meets the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section
based on either direct measurement of the H2O content (e.g.,
dewpoint and pressure) or an estimate based on the vessel pressure and
temperature. Use good engineering judgment to estimate the
H2O content. For example, you may use previous direct
measurements of H2O content to verify the vessel's level of
saturation.
(5) If a sample dryer is not used in this verification test, use
good engineering judgment to prevent condensation in the transfer
lines, fittings, or valves from the point where xH2O is
measured to the analyzer. We recommend that you design your system so
that the wall temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves
from the point where xH2O is measured to the analyzer are at
least 5 [ordm]C above the local sample gas dewpoint.
(6) Allow time for the analyzer response to stabilize.
Stabilization time may include time to purge the transfer line and to
account for analyzer response.
(7) While the analyzer measures the sample's concentration, record
its output for 30 seconds. Calculate the arithmetic mean of this data.
(8) The analyzer meets the interference verification if the result
of paragraph (d)(7) of this section meets the tolerance in paragraph
(c) of this section.
(9) You may also run interference procedures for CO2 and
H2O separately. If the CO2 and H2O
levels used are higher than the maximum levels expected during testing,
you may scale down each observed interference value by multiplying the
observed interference by the ratio of the maximum expected
concentration value to the actual value used during this procedure. You
may run separate interference concentrations of H2O (down to
0.025 mol/mol H2O content) that are lower than the maximum
levels expected during testing, but you must scale up the observed
H2O interference by multiplying the observed interference by
the ratio of the maximum expected H2O concentration value to
the actual value used during this procedure. The sum of the two scaled
interference values must meet the tolerance in paragraph (c) of this
section.
* * * * *
0
243. Section 1065.360 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (b),
(d), and (e) introductory text, and adding paragraph (e)(4), to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.360 FID optimization and verification.
(a) * * *
(3) Verify the CH4 response within 185 days before
testing as described in paragraph (e) of this section.
(b) Calibration. Use good engineering judgment to develop a
calibration procedure, such as one based on the FID-analyzer
manufacturer's instructions and recommended frequency for calibrating
the FID. Alternately, you may remove system components for off-site
calibration. For a FID that measures THC, calibrate using
C3H8 calibration gases that meet the
specifications of Sec. 1065.750. For a FID that measures
CH4, calibrate using CH4 calibration gases that
meet the specifications of Sec. 1065.750. We recommend FID analyzer
zero and span gases that contain approximately the flow-weighted mean
concentration of O2 expected during testing. If you use a
FID to measure CH4 downstream of a nonmethane cutter, you
may calibrate that FID using CH4 calibration gases with the
cutter. Regardless of the calibration gas composition, calibrate on a
carbon number basis of one (C1). For example, if you use a
C3H8 span gas of concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol,
span the FID to respond with a value of 600 [mu]mol/mol. As another
example, if you use a CH4 span gas with a concentration of
200 [mu]mol/mol, span the FID to respond with a value of 200 [mu]mol/
mol.
* * * * *
(d) THC FID CH4 response factor determination. This
procedure is only for FID analyzers that measure THC. Since FID
analyzers generally have a different response to CH4 versus
C3H8, determine each THC-FID analyzer's
CH4 response factor, RFCH4[THC-FID], after FID
optimization. Use the most recent RFCH4[THC-FID] measured
according to this section in the calculations for HC determination
described in Sec. 1065.660 to compensate for CH4 response.
Determine RFCH4[THC-FID] as follows, noting that you do not
determine RFCH4[THC-FID] for FIDs that are calibrated and
spanned using CH4 with a nonmethane cutter:
(1) Select a C3H8 span gas concentration that
you use to span your analyzers before emission testing. Use only span
gases that meet the specifications of Sec. 1065.750. Record the
C3H8 concentration of the gas.
(2) Select a CH4 span gas concentration that you use to
span your analyzers before emission testing. Use only span gases that
meet the specifications of Sec. 1065.750. Record the CH4
concentration of the gas.
(3) Start and operate the FID analyzer according to the
manufacturer's instructions.
(4) Confirm that the FID analyzer has been calibrated using
C3H8. Calibrate on a carbon number basis of one
(C1). For example, if you use a C3H8
span gas of concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol, span the FID to respond with
a value of 600 [mu]mol/mol.
(5) Zero the FID with a zero gas that you use for emission testing.
(6) Span the FID with the C3H8 span gas that
you selected under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(7) Introduce at the sample port of the FID analyzer, the
CH4 span gas that you selected under paragraph (d)(2) of
this section.
(8) Allow time for the analyzer response to stabilize.
Stabilization time may include time to purge the analyzer and to
account for its response.
(9) While the analyzer measures the CH4 concentration,
record 30 seconds of sampled data. Calculate the arithmetic mean of
these values.
(10) For analyzers with multiple ranges, you need to perform the
procedure in this paragraph (d) only on a single range.
(11) Divide the mean measured concentration by the recorded span
concentration of the CH4 calibration gas. The result is the
FID analyzer's response factor for CH4,
RFCH4[THC-FID].
(e) THC FID CH4 response verification. This procedure is
only for FID analyzers that measure THC. If the value of
RFCH4[THC-FID] from paragraph (d) of this section is within
5% of its most recent previously determined value, the THC
FID passes the CH4 response verification. For example, if
the most recent previous value for RFCH4[THC-FID] was 1.05
and it changed by 0.05 to become 1.10 or it changed by -
0.05 to become 1.00, either case would be acceptable because 4.8% is less than 5%. Verify
RFCH4[THC-FID] as follows:
* * * * *
[[Page 30116]]
(4) For analyzers with multiple ranges, you need to perform the
procedure in this paragraph (e) only on a single range.
0
244. Section 1065.362 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(15) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.362 Non-stoichiometric raw exhaust FID O2
interference verification.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(15) For analyzers with multiple ranges, you need to perform the
procedure in this paragraph (d) only on a single range.
0
245. Section 1065.365 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b),
(d)(1), (e)(1), (f) introductory text, and (f)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.365 Nonmethane cutter penetration fractions.
(a) Scope and frequency. If you use a FID analyzer and a nonmethane
cutter (NMC) to measure methane (CH4), determine the
nonmethane cutter's penetration fractions of CH4,
PFCH4, and ethane, PFC2H6. As detailed in this
section, these penetration fractions may be determined as a combination
of NMC penetration fractions and FID analyzer response factors,
depending on your particular NMC and FID analyzer configuration.
Perform this verification after installing the nonmethane cutter.
Repeat this verification within 185 days of testing to verify that the
catalytic activity of the cutter has not deteriorated. Note that
because nonmethane cutters can deteriorate rapidly and without warning
if they are operated outside of certain ranges of gas concentrations
and outside of certain temperature ranges, good engineering judgment
may dictate that you determine a nonmethane cutter's penetration
fractions more frequently.
(b) Measurement principles. A nonmethane cutter is a heated
catalyst that removes nonmethane hydrocarbons from an exhaust sample
stream before the FID analyzer measures the remaining hydrocarbon
concentration. An ideal nonmethane cutter would have a CH4
penetration fraction, PFCH4, of 1.000, and the penetration
fraction for all other nonmethane hydrocarbons would be 0.000, as
represented by PFC2H6. The emission calculations in Sec.
1065.660 use the measured values from this verification to account for
less than ideal NMC performance.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical
gas mixtures and ensure that both mixtures meet the specifications of
Sec. 1065.750. Select a CH4 concentration that you would
use for spanning the FID during emission testing and select a
C2H6 concentration that is typical of the peak
NMHC concentration expected at the hydrocarbon standard or equal to the
THC analyzer's span value. For CH4 analyzers with multiple
ranges, perform this procedure on the highest range used for emission
testing.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical
gas mixtures and ensure that both mixtures meet the specifications of
Sec. 1065.750. Select a CH4 concentration that you would
use for spanning the FID during emission testing and select a
C2H6 concentration that is typical of the peak
NMHC concentration expected at the hydrocarbon standard and the
C2H6 concentration typical of the peak total
hydrocarbon (THC) concentration expected at the hydrocarbon standard or
equal to the THC analyzer's span value. For CH4 analyzers
with multiple ranges, perform this procedure on the highest range used
for emission testing.
* * * * *
(f) Procedure for a FID calibrated with CH4, bypassing
the NMC. If you use a FID with an NMC that is calibrated with
CH4, by bypassing the NMC, determine its combined ethane
(C2H6) response factor and penetration fraction,
RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID], as well as its CH4 penetration
fraction, PFCH4[NMC-FID], as follows:
(1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical
gas mixtures and ensure that both mixtures meet the specifications of
Sec. 1065.750. Select a CH4 concentration that you would
use for spanning the FID during emission testing and select a
C2H6 concentration that is typical of the peak
NMHC concentration expected at the hydrocarbon standard or equal to the
THC analyzer's span value. For CH4 analyzers with multiple
ranges, perform this procedure on the highest range used for emission
testing.
* * * * *
0
246. A new Sec. 1065.369 is added to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.369 H2O, CO, and CO2 interference
verification for photoacoustic alcohol analyzers.
(a) Scope and frequency. If you measure ethanol or methanol using a
photoacoustic analyzer, verify the amount of H2O, CO, and
CO2 interference after initial analyzer installation and
after major maintenance.
(b) Measurement principles. H2O, CO, and CO2
can positively interfere with a photoacoustic analyzer by causing a
response similar to ethanol or methanol. If the photoacoustic analyzer
uses compensation algorithms that utilize measurements of other gases
to meet this interference verification, simultaneously conduct these
other measurements to test the compensation algorithms during the
analyzer interference verification.
(c) System requirements. Photoacoustic analyzers must have combined
interference that is within (0.0 0.5) [micro]mol/mol. We
strongly recommend a lower interference that is within (0.0 0.25) [micro]mol/mol.
(d) Procedure. Perform the interference verification by following
the procedure in Sec. 1065.375(d), comparing the results to paragraph
(c) of this section.
0
247. Section 1065.370 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(9) and
(e)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.370 CLD CO2 and H2O quench
verification.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(9) While flowing NO and CO2 through the gas divider,
stabilize the output of the gas divider. Determine the CO2
concentration from the gas divider output, applying gas property
correction as necessary to ensure accurate gas division, or measure it
using an NDIR. Record this concentration, xCO2act, and use
it in the quench verification calculations in Sec. 1065.675.
Alternatively, you may use a simple gas blending device and use an NDIR
to determine this CO2 concentration. If you use an NDIR, it
must meet the requirements of this part for laboratory testing and you
must span it with the CO2 span gas from paragraph (d)(4) of
this section.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(5) Humidify the NO span gas by bubbling it through distilled
H2O in a sealed vessel. If the humidified NO span gas sample
does not pass through a sample dryer for this verification test,
control the vessel temperature to generate an H2O level
approximately equal to the maximum mole fraction of H2O
expected during emission testing. If the humidified NO span gas sample
does not pass through a sample dryer, the quench verification
calculations in Sec. 1065.675 scale the measured H2O quench
to the highest mole fraction of H2O expected during emission
testing. If the humidified NO span gas sample passes through a dryer
for this verification test, control the vessel temperature to generate
an H2O level at least as high as the level determined in
Sec. 1065.145(e)(2). For this case, the quench verification
calculations in
[[Page 30117]]
Sec. 1065.675 do not scale the measured H2O quench.
* * * * *
0
248. Section 1065.375 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.375 Interference verification for N2O analyzers.
* * * * *
(d) Procedure. Perform the interference verification as follows:
(1) Start, operate, zero, and span the N2O analyzer as
you would before an emission test. If the sample is passed through a
dryer during emission testing, you may run this verification test with
the dryer if it meets the requirements of Sec. 1065.342. Operate the
dryer at the same conditions as you will for an emission test. You may
also run this verification test without the sample dryer.
(2) Create a humidified test gas by bubbling a multi component span
gas that incorporates the target interference species and meets the
specifications in Sec. 1065.750 through distilled H2O in a
sealed vessel. If the sample is not passed through a dryer during
emission testing, control the vessel temperature to generate an
H2O level at least as high as the maximum expected during
emission testing. If the sample is passed through a dryer during
emission testing, control the vessel temperature to generate an
H2O level at least as high as the level determined in Sec.
1065.145(e)(2) for that dryer. Use interference span gas concentrations
that are at least as high as the maximum expected during testing.
(3) Introduce the humidified interference test gas into the sample
system. You may introduce it downstream of any sample dryer, if one is
used during testing.
(4) If the sample is not passed through a dryer during this
verification test, measure the H2O mole fraction,
xH2O, of the humidified interference test gas as close as
possible to the inlet of the analyzer. For example, measure dewpoint,
Tdew, and absolute pressure, ptotal, to calculate
xH2O. Verify that the H2O content meets the
requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. If the sample is
passed through a dryer during this verification test, you must verify
that the H2O content of the humidified test gas downstream
of the vessel meets the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section
based on either direct measurement of the H2O content (e.g.,
dewpoint and pressure) or an estimate based on the vessel pressure and
temperature. Use good engineering judgment to estimate the
H2O content. For example, you may use previous direct
measurements of H2O content to verify the vessel's level of
saturation.
(5) If a sample dryer is not used in this verification test, use
good engineering judgment to prevent condensation in the transfer
lines, fittings, or valves from the point where xH2O is
measured to the analyzer. We recommend that you design your system so
that the wall temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves
from the point where xH2O is measured to the analyzer are at
least 5 [deg]C above the local sample gas dewpoint.
(6) Allow time for the analyzer response to stabilize.
Stabilization time may include time to purge the transfer line and to
account for analyzer response.
(7) While the analyzer measures the sample's concentration, record
its output for 30 seconds. Calculate the arithmetic mean of this data.
When performed with all the gases simultaneously, this is the combined
interference.
(8) The analyzer meets the interference verification if the result
of paragraph (d)(7) of this section meets the tolerance in paragraph
(c) of this section.
(9) You may also run interference procedures separately for
individual interference gases. If the interference gas levels used are
higher than the maximum levels expected during testing, you may scale
down each observed interference value (the arithmetic mean of 30 second
data described in paragraph (d)(7) of this section) by multiplying the
observed interference by the ratio of the maximum expected
concentration value to the actual value used during this procedure. You
may run separate interference concentrations of H2O (down to
0.025 mol/mol H2O content) that are lower than the maximum
levels expected during testing, but you must scale up the observed
H2O interference by multiplying the observed interference by
the ratio of the maximum expected H2O concentration value to
the actual value used during this procedure. The sum of the scaled
interference values must meet the tolerance for combined interference
as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
0
249. Section 1065.376 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d)(2)
to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.376 Chiller NO2 penetration.
* * * * *
(b) Measurement principles. A chiller removes H2O, which
can otherwise interfere with a NOX measurement. However,
liquid H2O remaining in an improperly designed chiller can
remove NO2 from the sample. If a chiller is used without an
NO2-to-NO converter upstream, it could remove NO2
from the sample prior NOX measurement.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Equipment setup and data collection. (i) Zero and span the
total NOX gas analyzer(s) as you would before emission
testing.
(ii) Select an NO2 calibration gas, balance gas of dry
air, that has an NO2 concentration within 5% of
the maximum NO2 concentration expected during testing.
(iii) Overflow this calibration gas at the gas sampling system's
probe or overflow fitting. Allow for stabilization of the total
NOX response, accounting only for transport delays and
instrument response.
(iv) Calculate the mean of 30 seconds of recorded total
NOX data and record this value as xNOxref.
(v) Stop flowing the NO2 calibration gas.
(vi) Next saturate the sampling system by overflowing a dewpoint
generator's output, set at a dewpoint of 50 [deg]C, to the gas sampling
system's probe or overflow fitting. Sample the dewpoint generator's
output through the sampling system and chiller for at least 10 minutes
until the chiller is expected to be removing a constant rate of
H2O.
(vii) Immediately switch back to overflowing the NO2
calibration gas used to establish xNOxref. Allow for
stabilization of the total NOX response, accounting only for
transport delays and instrument response. Calculate the mean of 30
seconds of recorded total NOX data and record this value as
xNOxmeas.
(viii) Correct xNOxmeas to xNOxdry based upon
the residual H2O vapor that passed through the chiller at
the chiller's outlet temperature and pressure.
* * * * *
Subpart E--[Amended]
0
250. Section 1065.405 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.405 Test engine preparation and maintenance.
* * * * *
(a) If you are testing an emission-data engine for certification,
make sure it is built to represent production engines, consistent with
paragraph (f) of this section. This includes governors that you
normally install on production engines. Production engines should also
be tested with their installed governors. If you do not install
governors on
[[Page 30118]]
production engines, simulate a governor that is representative of a
governor that others will install on your production engines. In
certain circumstances, you may incorporate test cell components to
simulate an in-use configuration, consistent with good engineering
judgment. For example, Sec. Sec. 1065.122 and 1065.125 allow the use
of test cell components to represent engine cooling and intake air
systems.
* * * * *
(f) This paragraph (f) defines the components that are considered
to be part of the engine for laboratory testing. See Sec. 1065.110 for
provisions related to system boundaries with respect to work inputs and
outputs.
(1) This paragraph (f)(1) describes certain criteria for
considering a component to be part of the test engine. The criteria are
intended to apply broadly, such that a component would generally be
considered part of the engine in cases of uncertainty. An engine-
related component meeting all the following criteria is considered to
be part of the test engine for purposes of testing and for stabilizing
emission levels, preconditioning, and measuring emission levels:
(i) The component directly affects the functioning of the engine,
is related to the control of emissions, or transmits engine power. This
would include engine cooling systems, engine controls, and
transmissions.
(ii) The component is covered by the applicable certificate of
conformity. For example, this criterion would typically exclude
radiators not described in an application for certification.
(iii) The component is not part of the laboratory setup, or it is
used for other engines.
(2) Although components meeting the criteria specified in
paragraphs (f)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, but not the criterion
specified in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section, are not considered
to be part of the test engine, you must precondition these components
along with the test engine.
Subpart F--[Amended]
0
251. Section 1065.501 is amended as follows:
0
a. By redesignating paragraphs (b) through (d) as paragraphs (c)
through (e), respectively.
0
b. By adding a new paragraph (b).
0
c. By revising the redesignated paragraph (c)(2) introductory text.
Sec. 1065.501 Overview.
* * * * *
(b) Unless we specify otherwise, you may control the regeneration
timing of infrequently regenerated aftertreatment devices such as
diesel particulate filters using good engineering judgment. You may
control the regeneration timing using a sequence of engine operating
conditions or you may initiate regeneration with an external
regeneration switch or other command. This provision would also allow
you to ensure that a regeneration event does not occur during an
emission test.
(c) * * *
(2) Steady-state cycles. Steady-state duty cycles are typically
specified in the standard-setting part as a list of discrete operating
points (modes or notches), where each operating point has one value of
a normalized speed command and one value of a normalized torque (or
power) command. Ramped-modal cycles for steady-state testing also list
test times for each mode and transition times between modes where speed
and torque are linearly ramped between modes, even for cycles with %
power. Start a steady-state cycle as a hot running test, where you
start to measure emissions after an engine is started, warmed up and
running. Run a steady-state duty cycle as a discrete-mode cycle or a
ramped-modal cycle, as follows:
* * * * *
0
252. A new Sec. 1065.516 is added to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.516 Sample system decontamination and preconditioning.
This section describes how to manage the impact of sampling system
contamination on emission measurements. Use good engineering judgement
to determine if you should decontaminate and precondition your sampling
system. Contamination occurs when a regulated pollutant accumulates in
the sample system in a high enough concentration to cause release
during emission tests. Hydrocarbons and PM are generally the only
regulated pollutants that contaminate sample systems. A sampling system
is considered decontaminated if the contaminants are in equilibrium
with measured exhaust emissions. Note that although this section
focuses on avoiding excessive contamination of sample systems, you must
also use good engineering judgment to avoid loss of sample to a sample
system that is too clean. The goal of decontamination is not to
perfectly clean the sample system, but rather to achieve equilibrium
between the sample system and the exhaust so emission components are
neither lost to nor entrained from the sample system.
(a) You may perform contamination checks as follows to determine if
decontamination is needed:
(1) For dilute exhaust sampling systems, measure hydrocarbon and PM
emissions by sampling with the CVS dilution air turned on, without an
engine connected to it.
(2) For raw analyzers and systems that collect PM samples from raw
exhaust, measure hydrocarbon and PM emissions by sampling purified air
or nitrogen.
(3) When calculating zero emission levels, apply all applicable
corrections, including initial THC contamination and diluted (CVS)
exhaust background corrections.
(4) Sampling systems are considered contaminated if either of the
following conditions applies:
(i) The hydrocarbon emission level exceeds 2% of the flow-weighted
mean wet, net concentration expected at the HC standard.
(ii) The PM emission level exceeds 5% of the level expected at the
standard and exceeds 20 [mu]g on a 47 mm PTFE membrane filter.
(b) To precondition/decontaminate sampling systems, use the
following recommended procedure or use good engineering judgment to
select a different procedure:
(1) Start the engine and use good engineering judgment to operate
it at a condition that generates high exhaust temperatures at the
sample probe inlet.
(2) Operate any dilution systems at their expected flow rates.
Prevent aqueous condensation in the dilution systems.
(3) Operate any PM sampling systems at their expected flow rates.
(4) Sample PM for at least 10 min using any sample media. You may
change sample media at any time during this process and you may discard
them without weighing them.
(5) You may purge any gaseous sampling systems that do not require
decontamination during this procedure.
(6) You may conduct calibrations or verifications on any idle
equipment or analyzers during this procedure.
(c) If your sampling system is still contaminated following the
procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section, you may use more
aggressive procedures to decontaminate the sampling system, as long as
the decontamination does not cause the sampling system to be cleaner
than an equilibrium condition such that artificially low emission
measurements may result.
0
253. A new Sec. 1065.518 is added to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.518 Engine preconditioning.
(a) This section applies for engines where measured emissions are
affected by prior operation, such as with a diesel
[[Page 30119]]
engine that relies on urea-based selective catalytic reduction. Note
that Sec. 1065.520(e) allows you to run practice duty cycles before
the emission test; this section recommends how to do this for the
purpose of preconditioning the engine. We may test your engine after
completing only the minimum amount of preconditioning recommended in
this section. For subsequent testing, such as steady-state testing
following transient testing, we may consider the previous test cycle as
preconditioning. Follow the standard-setting part if it specifies a
different engine preconditioning procedure.
(b) The intent of engine preconditioning is to manage the
representativeness of emissions over the duty cycle, as described in
Sec. 1065.10(c)(1), by conditioning the engine to a state where its
emissions are representative of in-use operation.
(c) This paragraph (c) specifies the engine preconditioning
procedures for different types of duty cycles. You may measure
emissions during preconditioning cycles, as long as you perform a
predefined number of preconditioning cycles. You must identify before
each duty cycle whether it is a preconditioning cycle or an emission
test. You may not abort an emission test based on emissions measured
during preconditioning.
(1) Cold-start transient cycle. Precondition the engine by running
at least one cold-start or hot-start transient cycle. Immediately after
completing the last preconditioning cycle, shut down the engine and
begin the cold soak as described in Sec. 1065.530(a)(1).
(2) Hot-start transient cycle. Precondition the engine by running
at least one hot-start transient cycle. Shut down the engine after
completing the last preconditioning cycle and start the hot-start
transient test as soon as practical.
(3) Hot-running transient cycle. Precondition the engine by running
at least one hot-running transient cycle. Start the official hot-
running transient cycle as soon as practical after completing the last
preconditioning cycle.
(4) Discrete-mode cycle for steady-state testing. Precondition the
engine at the same operating condition as the next test mode, unless
the standard-setting part specifies sampling time limits.
(5) Ramped-modal cycle for steady-state testing. If you run the
ramped-modal cycle after a transient test, additional preconditioning
is allowed, but not required. If you perform additional
preconditioning, we recommend running the first non-idle mode of the
ramped-modal cycle or a mode approximating 50% power.
(d) You may conduct calibrations or verifications on any idle
equipment or analyzers during engine preconditioning.
0
254. Section 1065.520 is amended by removing paragraph (g) and revising
paragraphs (a), (e), and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.520 Pre-test verification procedures and pre-test data
collection.
(a) For tests in which you measure PM emissions, follow the
procedures for PM sample preconditioning and tare weighing according to
Sec. 1065.590.
* * * * *
(e) You may perform a final calibration of the speed, torque, and
proportional-flow control systems, which may include performing
practice duty cycles (or portions of duty cycles). This may be done in
conjunction with the preconditioning in Sec. 1065.518.
(f) Verify the amount of nonmethane hydrocarbon contamination in
the exhaust and background HC sampling systems within 8 hours before
the start of the first test interval of each duty-cycle sequence for
laboratory tests. You may verify the contamination of a background HC
sampling system by reading the last bag fill and purge using zero gas.
For any NMHC measurement system that involves separately measuring
CH4 and subtracting it from a THC measurement or for any
CH4 measurement system that uses an NMC, verify the amount
of THC contamination using only the THC analyzer response. There is no
need to operate any separate CH4 analyzer for this
verification; however, you may measure and correct for THC
contamination in the CH4 sample train for the cases where
NMHC is determined by subtracting CH4 from THC or, where
CH4 is determined, using an NMC as configured in Sec.
1065.365(d), (e), and (f); and using the calculations in Sec.
1065.660(b)(2). Perform this verification as follows:
(1) Select the HC analyzer range for measuring the flow-weighted
mean concentration expected at the HC standard.
(2) Zero the HC analyzer at the analyzer zero or sample port. Note
that FID zero and span balance gases may be any combination of purified
air or purified nitrogen that meets the specifications of Sec.
1065.750. We recommend FID analyzer zero and span gases that contain
approximately the flow-weighted mean concentration of O2
expected during testing.
(3) Span the HC analyzer using span gas introduced at the analyzer
span or sample port. Span on a carbon number basis of one
(C1). For example, if you use a C3H8
span gas of concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol, span the FID to respond with
a value of 600 [mu]mol/mol.
(4) Overflow zero gas at the HC probe inlet or into a tee near the
probe outlet.
(5) Measure the THC concentration in the sampling and background
systems as follows:
(i) For continuous sampling, record the mean THC concentration as
overflow zero gas flows.
(ii) For batch sampling, fill the sample medium (e.g., bag) and
record its mean THC concentration.
(iii) For the background system, record the mean THC concentration
of the last fill and purge.
(6) Record this value as the initial THC concentration,
xTHC[THC-FID]init, and use it to correct measured values as
described in Sec. 1065.660.
(7) You may correct the measured initial THC concentration for
drift as follows:
(i) For batch and continuous HC analyzers, after determining the
initial THC concentration, flow zero gas to the analyzer zero or sample
port. When the analyzer reading is stable, record the mean analyzer
value.
(ii) Flow span gas to the analyzer span or sample port. When the
analyzer reading is stable, record the mean analyzer value.
(iii) Use mean analyzer values from paragraphs (f)(2), (f)(3),
(f)(7)(i), and (f)(7)(ii) of this section to correct the initial THC
concentration recorded in paragraph (f)(6) of this section for drift,
as described in Sec. 1065.550.
(8) If any of the xTHC[THC-FID]init values exceed the
greatest of the following values, determine the source of the
contamination and take corrective action, such as purging the system
during an additional preconditioning cycle or replacing contaminated
portions:
(i) 2% of the flow-weighted mean wet, net concentration expected at
the HC (THC or NMHC) standard.
(ii) 2% of the flow-weighted mean wet, net concentration of HC (THC
or NMHC) measured during testing.
(iii) 2 [mu]mol/mol.
(9) If corrective action does not resolve the deficiency, you may
request to use the contaminated system as an alternate procedure under
Sec. 1065.10.
0
255. Section 1065.526 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(3) and
(d)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.526 Repeating of void modes or test intervals.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Precondition the engine by operating it at the mode at which
the
[[Page 30120]]
test was interrupted and continue with the duty cycle as specified in
the standard-setting part.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Use good engineering judgment to restart (as applicable) and
precondition the engine to the same condition as would apply for normal
testing. This may require you to complete the voided test interval. For
example, you may generally repeat a hot-start test of a heavy-duty
highway engine after completing the voided hot-start test and allowing
the engine to soak for 20 minutes.
* * * * *
0
256. Section 1065.530 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(13) and
revising paragraphs (a), (b)(12), and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.530 Emission test sequence.
(a) Time the start of testing as follows:
(1) Perform one of the following if you precondition the engine as
described in Sec. 1065.518:
(i) For cold-start duty cycles, shut down the engine. Unless the
standard-setting part specifies that you may only perform a natural
engine cooldown, you may perform a forced engine cooldown. Use good
engineering judgment to set up systems to send cooling air across the
engine, to send cool oil through the engine lubrication system, to
remove heat from coolant through the engine cooling system, and to
remove heat from any exhaust aftertreatment systems. In the case of a
forced aftertreatment cooldown, good engineering judgment would
indicate that you not start flowing cooling air until the
aftertreatment system has cooled below its catalytic activation
temperature. For platinum-group metal catalysts, this temperature is
about 200 [deg]C. Once the aftertreatment system has naturally cooled
below its catalytic activation temperature, good engineering judgment
would indicate that you use clean air with a temperature of at least 15
[deg]C, and direct the air through the aftertreatment system in the
normal direction of exhaust flow. Do not use any cooling procedure that
results in unrepresentative emissions (see Sec. 1065.10(c)(1)). You
may start a cold-start duty cycle when the temperatures of an engine's
lubricant, coolant, and aftertreatment systems are all between (20 and
30) [deg]C.
(ii) For hot-start emission measurements, immediately after
completing the last preconditioning cycle, shut down the engine and as
soon as practical start the official hot-start transient cycle. We will
start the official hot-start transient cycle within 1 minute of the
conclusion of the preconditioning cycle where applicable. Start the
hot-start duty cycle as specified in the standard-setting part if it is
different from this procedure.
(iii) For testing that involves hot-stabilized emission
measurements, such as any steady-state testing, as soon as practical
after completing the discrete-mode preconditioning time or the last
preconditioning cycle, without shutting down the engine, start the
official hot-stabilized cycle. We will start the official hot-
stabilized cycle within 1 minute of the conclusion of the
preconditioning cycle where applicable. If the last preconditioning
cycle ends with a different operating condition than the first mode of
the hot-stabilized cycle, add a linear transition period of 20 s
between cycles where you linearly ramp the (denormalized) reference
speed and torque values over the transition period.
(2) If you do not precondition the engine as described in Sec.
1065.518, perform one of the following:
(i) For cold-start duty cycles, prepare the engine according to
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
(ii) For hot-start emission measurements, first operate the engine
at any speed above peak-torque speed and at (65 to 85) % of maximum
mapped power until either the engine coolant, block, or head absolute
temperature is within 2% of its mean value for at least 2
min or until the engine thermostat controls engine temperature. Shut
down the engine. Start the duty cycle within 20 min of engine shutdown.
(iii) For testing that involves hot-stabilized emission
measurements, bring the engine either to warm idle or the first
operating point of the duty cycle. Start the test within 10 min of
achieving temperature stability. Determine temperature stability either
as the point at which the engine coolant, block, or head absolute
temperature is within 2% of its mean value for at least 2
min, or as the point at which the engine thermostat controls engine
temperature.
(b) * * *
(12) Drain any accumulated condensate from the intake air system
before starting a duty cycle, as described in Sec. 1065.125(e)(1). If
engine and aftertreatment preconditioning cycles are run before the
duty cycle, treat the preconditioning cycles and any associated soak
period as part of the duty cycle for the purpose of opening drains and
draining condensate. Note that you must close any intake air condensate
drains that are not representative of those normally open during in-use
operation.
(c) Start testing as follows:
(1) If engine starting is not part of the duty cycle, perform the
following for the various duty cycles:
(i) Transient and steady-state ramped-modal cycles. Simultaneously
start recording continuous data, any electronic integrating devices,
batch sampling, and execution of the duty cycle.
(ii) Steady-state discrete-mode cycles. Control the engine
operation to match the first mode in the test cycle. This will require
controlling engine speed and load, engine load, or other operator
demand settings, as specified in the standard-setting part. Follow the
instructions in the standard-setting part to determine how long to
stabilize engine operation at each mode, how long to sample emissions
at each mode, and how to transition between modes. For each mode,
simultaneously start recording continuous data, any electronic
integrating devices, and batch sampling.
(2) If engine starting is part of the duty cycle, simultaneously
start recording continuous data, any electronic integrating devices,
and batch sampling before attempting to start the engine. Initiate the
duty cycle when the engine starts.
(3) For batch sampling systems you may use good engineering
judgment to advance or delay the start and stop of sampling with
respect to the beginning and end of the test interval to improve the
accuracy of the batch sample.
* * * * *
0
257. Section 1065.545 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.545 Verification of proportional flow control for batch
sampling.
For any proportional batch sample such as a bag or PM filter,
demonstrate that proportional sampling was maintained using one of the
following, noting that you may omit up to 5% of the total number of
data points as outliers:
(a) For any pair of flow rates, use recorded sample and total flow
rates, where total flow rate means the raw exhaust flow rate for raw
exhaust sampling and the dilute exhaust flow rate for CVS sampling, or
their 1 Hz means with the statistical calculations in Sec. 1065.602.
Determine the standard error of the estimate, SEE, of the sample flow
rate versus the total flow rate. For each test interval, demonstrate
that SEE was less than or equal to 3.5% of the mean sample flow rate.
(b) For any pair of flow rates, use recorded sample and total flow
rates,
[[Page 30121]]
where total flow rate means the raw exhaust flow rate for raw exhaust
sampling and the dilute exhaust flow rate for CVS sampling, or their 1
Hz means to demonstrate that each flow rate was constant within 2.5% of its respective mean or target flow rate. You may use the
following options instead of recording the respective flow rate of each
type of meter:
(1) Critical-flow venturi option. For critical-flow venturis, you
may use recorded venturi-inlet conditions or their 1 Hz means.
Demonstrate that the flow density at the venturi inlet was constant
within 2.5% of the mean or target density over each test
interval. For a CVS critical-flow venturi, you may demonstrate this by
showing that the absolute temperature at the venturi inlet was constant
within 4% of the mean or target absolute temperature over
each test interval.
(2) Positive-displacement pump option. You may use recorded pump-
inlet conditions or their 1 Hz means. Demonstrate that the flow density
at the pump inlet was constant within 2.5% of the mean or
target density over each test interval. For a CVS pump, you may
demonstrate this by showing that the absolute temperature at the pump
inlet was constant within 2% of the mean or target absolute
temperature over each test interval.
(c) Using good engineering judgment, demonstrate with an
engineering analysis that the proportional-flow control system
inherently ensures proportional sampling under all circumstances
expected during testing. For example, you might use CFVs for both
sample flow and total dilute exhaust (CVS) flow and demonstrate that
they always have the same inlet pressures and temperatures and that
they always operate under critical-flow conditions.
0
258. Section 1065.546 is amended by revising the section heading and
the introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.546 Verification of minimum dilution ratio for PM batch
sampling.
Use continuous flows and/or tracer gas concentrations for transient
and ramped-modal cycles to verify the minimum dilution ratios for PM
batch sampling as specified in Sec. 1065.140(e)(2) over the test
interval. You may use mode-average values instead of continuous
measurements for discrete mode steady-state duty cycles. Determine the
minimum primary and minimum overall dilution ratios using one of the
following methods (you may use a different method for each stage of
dilution):
* * * * *
0
259. Section 1065.550 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.550 Gas analyzer range verification and drift verification.
(a) Range verification. If an analyzer operated above 100% of its
range at any time during the test, perform the following steps:
(1) For batch sampling, re-analyze the sample using the lowest
analyzer range that results in a maximum instrument response below
100%. Report the result from the lowest range from which the analyzer
operates below 100% of its range.
(2) For continuous sampling, repeat the entire test using the next
higher analyzer range. If the analyzer again operates above 100% of its
range, repeat the test using the next higher range. Continue to repeat
the test until the analyzer always operates at less than 100% of its
range.
(b) Drift verification. Gas analyzer drift verification is required
for all gaseous exhaust constituents for which an emission standard
applies. It is also required for CO2 even if there is no
CO2 emission standard. It is not required for other gaseous
exhaust constituents for which only a reporting requirement applies
(such as CH4 and N2O).
(1) Verify drift using one of the following methods:
(i) For regulated exhaust constituents determined from the mass of
a single component, perform drift verification based on the regulated
constituent. For example, when NOX mass is determined with a
dry sample measured with a CLD and the removed water is corrected based
on measured CO2, CO, THC, and NOX concentrations,
you must verify the calculated NOX value.
(ii) For regulated exhaust constituents determined from the masses
of multiple subcomponents, perform the drift verification based on
either the regulated constituent or all the mass subcomponents. For
example, when NOX is measured with separate NO and
NO2 analyzers, you must verify either the NOX
value or both the NO and NO2 values.
(iii) For regulated exhaust constituents determined from the
concentrations of multiple gaseous emission subcomponents prior to
performing mass calculations, perform drift verification on the
regulated constituent. You may not verify the concentration
subcomponents (e.g., THC and CH4 for NMHC) separately. For
example, for NMHC measurements, perform drift verification on NMHC; do
not verify THC and CH4 separately.
(2) Drift verification requires two sets of emission calculations.
For each set of calculations, include all the constituents in the drift
verification. Calculate one set using the data before drift correction
and calculate the other set after correcting all the data for drift
according to Sec. 1065.672. Note that for purposes of drift
verification, you must leave unaltered any negative emission results
over a given test interval (i.e., do not set them to zero). These
unaltered results are used when verifying either test interval results
or composite brake-specific emissions over the entire duty cycle for
drift. For each constituent to be verified, both sets of calculations
must include the following:
(i) Calculated mass (or mass rate) emission values over each test
interval.
(ii) If you are verifying each test interval based on brake-
specific values, calculate brake-specific emission values over each
test interval.
(iii) If you are verifying over the entire duty cycle, calculate
composite brake-specific emission values.
(3) The duty cycle is verified for drift if you satisfy the
following criteria:
(i) For each regulated gaseous exhaust constituent, you must
satisfy one of the following:
(A) For each test interval of the duty cycle, the difference
between the uncorrected and the corrected brake-specific emission
values of the regulated constituent must be within 4% of
the uncorrected value or the applicable emissions standard, whichever
is greater. Alternatively, the difference between the uncorrected and
the corrected emission mass (or mass rate) values of the regulated
constituent must be within 4% of the uncorrected value or
the composite work (or power) multiplied by the applicable emissions
standard, whichever is greater. For purposes of verifying each test
interval, you may use either the reference or actual composite work (or
power).
(B) For each test interval of the duty cycle and for each mass
subcomponent of the regulated constituent, the difference between the
uncorrected and the corrected brake-specific emission values must be
within 4% of the uncorrected value. Alternatively, the
difference between the uncorrected and the corrected emissions mass (or
mass rate) values must be within 4% of the uncorrected
value.
(C) For the entire duty cycle, the difference between the
uncorrected and the corrected composite brake-specific emission values
of the regulated constituent must be within 4% of the
uncorrected value or applicable emission standard, whichever is
greater.
(D) For the entire duty cycle and for each subcomponent of the
regulated constituent, the difference between the
[[Page 30122]]
uncorrected and the corrected composite brake-specific emission values
must be within 4% of the uncorrected value.
(ii) Where no emission standard applies for CO2, you
must satisfy one of the following:
(A) For each test interval of the duty cycle, the difference
between the uncorrected and the corrected brake-specific CO2
values must be within 4% of the uncorrected value; or the
difference between the uncorrected and the corrected CO2
mass (or mass rate) values must be within 4% of the
uncorrected value.
(B) For the entire duty cycle, the difference between the
uncorrected and the corrected composite brake-specific CO2
values must be within 4% of the uncorrected value.
(4) If the test is not verified for drift as described in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, you may consider the test results for the duty
cycle to be valid only if, using good engineering judgment, the
observed drift does not affect your ability to demonstrate compliance
with the applicable emission standards. For example, if the drift-
corrected value is less than the standard by at least two times the
absolute difference between the uncorrected and corrected values, you
may consider the data to be verified for demonstrating compliance with
the applicable standard.
Subpart G--[Amended]
0
260. Section 1065.601 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.601 Overview.
* * * * *
(b) You may use data from multiple systems to calculate test
results for a single emission test, consistent with good engineering
judgment. You may also make multiple measurements from a single batch
sample, such as multiple weighings of a PM filter or multiple readings
from a bag sample. Although you may use an average of multiple
measurements from a single test, you may not use test results from
multiple emission tests to report emissions. We allow weighted means
where appropriate. You may discard statistical outliers, but you must
report all results.
* * * * *
0
261. Section 1065.630 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.630 1980 international gravity formula.
The acceleration of Earth's gravity, ag, varies
depending on your location. Calculate ag at your latitude,
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.196
Where:
[thgr] = Degrees north or south latitude.
Example:
[thgr] = 45 [deg]
ag = 9.7803267715 [middot] (1 + 5.2790414 [middot]
10-\3\[middot]sin\2\ (45) + 2.32718 [middot]
10-\5\[middot]sin\4\ (45)
+ 1.262 [middot] 10-\7\[middot]sin\6\ (45) + 7 [middot]
10-\10\[middot]sin\8\ (45)
ag = 9.8061992026 m/s\2\
0
262. Section 1065.640 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and
(e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.640 Flow meter calibration calculations.
* * * * *
* * * * *
(a) Reference meter conversions. The calibration equations in this
section use molar flow rate, nref, as a reference quantity.
If your reference meter outputs a flow rate in a different quantity,
such as standard volume rate, Vstdref, actual volume rate,
Vactref, or mass rate, mref, convert your
reference meter output to a molar flow rate using the following
equations, noting that while values for volume rate, mass rate,
pressure, temperature, and molar mass may change during an emission
test, you should ensure that they are as constant as practical for each
individual set point during a flow meter calibration:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.008
Where:
nref = reference molar flow rate.
Vstdref = reference volume flow rate, corrected to a
standard pressure and a standard temperature.
Vactref = reference volume flow rate at the actual
pressure and temperature of the flow rate.
mref = reference mass flow.
pstd = standard pressure.
pact = actual pressure of the flow rate.
Tstd = standard temperature.
Tact = actual temperature of the flow rate.
R = molar gas constant.
Mmix = molar mass of the flow rate.
Example 1:
Vstdref = 1000.00 ft\3\/min = 0.471948 m\3\/s
pstd = 29.9213 in Hg @ 32 [deg]F = 101325 Pa
Tstd = 68.0 [deg]F = 293.15 K
R = 8.314472 J/(mol[sdot]K)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.009
nref = 19.619 mol/s
Example 2:
mref = 17.2683 kg/min = 287.805 g/s
Mmix = 28.7805 g/mol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.010
nref = 10.0000 mol/s
(b) PDP calibration calculations. For each restrictor position,
calculate the following values from the mean values determined in Sec.
1065.340, as follows:
[[Page 30123]]
(1) PDP volume pumped per revolution, Vrev (m\3\/r):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.011
Example:
nref = 25.096 mol/s
R = 8.314472 J/(mol[sdot]K)
Tin = 299.5 K
Pin = 98290 Pa
fnPDP = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.012
Vrev = 0.03166 m\3\/r
(2) PDP slip correction factor, Ks (s/r):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.013
Example:
fnPDP = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s
Pout = 100.103 kPa
Pin> = 98.290 kPa
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.014
Ks = 0.006700 s/r
(3) Perform a least-squares regression of PDP volume pumped per
revolution, Vrev, versus PDP slip correction factor,
Ks, by calculating slope, a1, and intercept,
a0, as described in Sec. 1065.602.
(4) Repeat the procedure in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section for every speed that you run your PDP.
(5) The following example illustrates these calculations:
Table 1 of Sec. 1065.640--Example of PDP Calibration Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fnPDP (r/min) a1 (m\3\/min) a0 (m\3\/r)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
755.0 50.43 0.056
987.6 49.86 -0.013
1254.5 48.54 0.028
1401.3 47.30 -0.061
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) For each speed at which you operate the PDP, use the
corresponding slope, a1, and intercept, a0, to
calculate flow rate during emission testing as described in Sec.
1065.642.
* * * * *
(e) CFV calibration. Some CFV flow meters consist of a single
venturi and some consist of multiple venturis, where different
combinations of venturis are used to meter different flow rates. For
CFV flow meters that consist of multiple venturis, either calibrate
each venturi independently to determine a separate discharge
coefficient, Cd, for each venturi, or calibrate each
combination of venturis as one venturi. In the case where you calibrate
a combination of venturis, use the sum of the active venturi throat
areas as At, the square root of the sum of the squares of
the active venturi throat diameters as dt, and the ratio of
the venturi throat to inlet diameters as the ratio of the square root
of the sum of the active venturi throat diameters (dt) to
the diameter of the common entrance to all of the venturis (D). To
determine the Cd for a single venturi or a single
combination of venturis, perform the following steps:
(1) Use the data collected at each calibration set point to
calculate an individual Cd for each point using Eq.
1065.640-4.
(2) Calculate the mean and standard deviation of all the
Cd values according to Eqs. 1065.602-1 and 1065.602-2.
(3) If the standard deviation of all the Cd values is
less than or equal to 0.3% of the mean Cd, use the mean
Cd in Eq. 1065.642-4, and use the CFV only up to the highest
r measured during calibration using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.015
Where:
[Delta]pCFV = Differential static pressure; venturi inlet
minus venturi outlet.
(4) If the standard deviation of all the Cd values
exceeds 0.3% of the mean Cd, omit the Cd value
corresponding to the data point collected at the highest r measured
during calibration.
(5) If the number of remaining data points is less than seven, take
corrective action by checking your calibration data or repeating the
calibration process. If you repeat the calibration process, we
recommend checking for leaks, applying tighter tolerances to
measurements and allowing more time for flows to stabilize.
(6) If the number of remaining Cd values is seven or
greater, recalculate the mean and standard deviation of the remaining
Cd values.
(7) If the standard deviation of the remaining Cd values
is less than or equal to 0.3% of the mean of the remaining
Cd, use that mean Cd in Eq. 1065.642-4, and use
the CFV values only up to the highest r associated with the remaining
Cd.
(8) If the standard deviation of the remaining Cd still
exceeds 0.3% of the mean of the remaining Cd values, repeat
the steps in paragraph (e)(4) through (8) of this section.
0
263. Section 1065.642 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1065.642 SSV, CFV, and PDP molar flow rate calculations.
* * * * *
(a) PDP molar flow rate. Based upon the speed at which you operate
the PDP for a test interval, select the corresponding slope,
a1, and intercept, a0, as calculated in Sec.
1065.640, to calculate molar flow rate, n as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.016
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.017
Example:
a1 = 50.43 (m\3\/min) = 0.8405 (m\3\/s)
fnPDP = 755.0 r/min = 12.58 r/s
pout = 99950 Pa
pin = 98575 Pa
a0 = 0.056 (m\3\/r)
R = 8.314472 J/(mol[middot]K)
T in> = 323.5 K
Cp = 1000 (J/m\3\)/kPa
Ct = 60 s/min
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.018
[[Page 30124]]
Vrev = 0.06383 m\3\/r
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.019
n = 29.428 mol/s
* * * * *
(c) CFV molar flow rate. Some CFV flow meters consist of a single
venturi and some consist of multiple venturis, where different
combinations of venturis are used to meter different flow rates. If you
use multiple venturis and you calibrated each venturi independently to
determine a separate discharge coefficient, Cd (or
calibration coefficient, Kv), for each venturi, calculate
the individual molar flow rates through each venturi and sum all their
flow rates to determine n. If you use multiple venturis and you
calibrated each combination of venturis, calculate n using the sum of
the active venturi throat areas as At, the square root of
the sum of the squares of the active venturi throat diameters as
dt, and the ratio of the venturi throat to inlet diameters
as the ratio of the square root of the sum of the active venturi throat
diameters (dt) to the diameter of the common entrance to all
of the venturis (D).
(1) To calculate the molar flow rate through one venturi or one
combination of venturis, use its respective mean Cd and
other constants you determined according to Sec. 1065.640 and
calculate its molar flow rate n during an emission test, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.020
Example:
Cd = 0.985
Cf = 0.7219
At = 0.00456 m\2\
pin = 98836 Pa
Z = 1
Mmix = 28.7805 g/mol = 0.0287805 kg/mol
R = 8.314472 J/(mol[sdot]K)
Tin = 378.15 K
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.021
n = 33.690 mol/s
(2) To calculate the molar flow rate through one venturi or a
combination of venturis, you may use its respective mean Kv
and other constants you determined according to Sec. 1065.640 and
calculate its molar flow rate n during an emission test. Note that if
you choose to follow the permissible ranges of dilution air dewpoint
versus calibration air dewpoint in Table 3 of Sec. 1065.640, you may
set Mmix-cal and Mmix equal to 1. Calculate n as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.022
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.023
Vstdref = volumetric flow of the standard at reference
conditions of 293.15 K and 101.325 kPa.
Tin-cal = Venturi inlet temperature during calibration.
Pin-cal = Venturi inlet pressure during calibration.
Mmix-cal = Molar mass of gas mixture used during
calibration.
Mmix = Molar mass of gas mixture during the emission test
calculated using Equation 1065.640-9.
Example:
Vstdref = 0.4895 m\3\
Tin-cal = 302.52 K
Pin-cal = 99654 Pa
pin = 98836 Pa
pstd = 101325 Pa
Mmix-cal = 28.9656 g/mol = 0.0289656 kg/mol
Mmix = 28.7805 g/mol = 0.0287805 kg/mol
Tin = 353.15 K
Tstd = 293.15 K
R = 8.314472 J/(mol[sdot]K)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.024
n = 16.457 mol/s
0
264. Section 1065.645 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.645 Amount of water in an ideal gas.
This section describes how to determine the amount of water in an
ideal gas, which you need for various performance verifications and
emission calculations. Use the equation for the vapor pressure of water
in paragraph (a) of this section or another appropriate equation and,
depending on whether you measure dewpoint or relative humidity, perform
one of the calculations in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.
Paragraph (d) of this section provides an equation for determining
dewpoint from relative humidity and dry bulb temperature measurements.
The equations for the vapor pressure of water as presented in this
section are derived from equations in ``Saturation Pressure of Water on
the New Kelvin Temperature Scale'' (Goff, J.A., Transactions American
Society of Heating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Vol. 63, No. 1607,
pages 347-354). Note that the equations were originally published to
derive vapor pressure in units of atmospheres and
[[Page 30125]]
have been modified to derive results in units of kPa by converting the
last term in each equation.
(a) Vapor pressure of water. Calculate the vapor pressure of water
for a given saturation temperature condition, Tsat, as
follows, or use good engineering judgment to use a different
relationship of the vapor pressure of water to a given saturation
temperature condition:
(1) For humidity measurements made at ambient temperatures from (0
to 100) [deg]C, or for humidity measurements made over super-cooled
water at ambient temperatures from (-50 to 0) [deg]C, use the following
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.025
Where:
pH20 = vapor pressure of water at saturation temperature
condition, kPa.
Tsat = saturation temperature of water at measured
conditions, K.
Example:
Tsat = 9.5 [deg]C = 282.65 K
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.026
log10(pH20) = 0.074297
pH20 = 10\0.074297\ = 1.186581 kPa
(2) For humidity measurements over ice at ambient temperatures from
(-100 to 0) [deg]C, use the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.027
Example:
Tice = -15.4 [deg]C = 257.75 K
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.028
log10(pH20) = -0.798207
pH20 = 10-0.79821 = 0.159145 kPa
* * * * *
(d) Dewpoint determination from relative humidity and dry bulb
temperature. This paragraph (d) describes how to calculate dewpoint
temperature from relative humidity, RH %. This is based on ``ITS-90
Formulations for Vapor Pressure, Frostpoint Temperature, Dewpoint
Temperature, and Enhancement Factors in the Range -100 to +100 [deg]C''
(Hardy, B., The Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on
Humidity & Moisture, Teddington, London, England, April 1998).
Calculate pH20sat as described in paragraph (a) of this
section based on setting Tsat equal to Tamb.
Calculate pH20scaled by multiplying pH20sat by RH
%. Calculate the
[[Page 30126]]
dewpoint, Tdew, from pH20 using the following
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.029
Where:
In(pH20) = the natural log of pH2Oscaled,
which is the water vapor pressure scaled to the relative humidity at
the location of the relative humidity measurement, Tsat =
Tamb.
Example:
RH % = 39.61%
Tsat = Tamb = 20.00 [deg]C = 293.15K
Using Eq. 1065.645-1,
pH20sat = 2.3371 kPa
pH2Oscaled = (39.61%[squ][squ][squ][squ][squ]1) =
0.925717 kPa = 925.717 Pa
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.030
Tdew = 279.00 K = 5.85 [deg]C
0
265. Section 1065.650 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1065.650 Emission calculations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Concentration corrections. Perform the following sequence of
preliminary calculations on recorded concentrations:
(i) Correct all gaseous emission analyzer concentration readings,
including continuous readings, sample bag readings, and dilution air
background readings, for drift as described in Sec. 1065.672. Note
that you must omit this step where brake-specific emissions are
calculated without the drift correction for performing the drift
validation according to Sec. 1065.550(b). When applying the initial
THC and CH4 contamination readings according to Sec.
1065.520(f), use the same values for both sets of calculations. You may
also use as-measured values in the initial set of calculations and
corrected values in the drift-corrected set of calculations as
described in Sec. 1065.520(g)(7).
(ii) Correct all THC and CH4 concentrations for initial
contamination as described in Sec. 1065.660(a), including continuous
readings, sample bags readings, and dilution air background readings.
(iii) Correct all concentrations measured on a ``dry'' basis to a
``wet'' basis, including dilution air background concentrations, as
described in Sec. 1065.659.
(iv) Calculate all NMHC and CH4 concentrations,
including dilution air background concentrations, as described in Sec.
1065.660.
(v) For emission testing with an oxygenated fuel, calculate any HC
concentrations, including dilution air background concentrations, as
described in Sec. 1065.665. See subpart I of this part for testing
with oxygenated fuels.
(vi) Correct all the NOX concentrations, including
dilution air background concentrations, for intake-air humidity as
described in Sec. 1065.670.
* * * * *
0
266. Section 1065.655 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)
introductory text, (c)(3), (d), (e), and (f)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.655 Chemical balances of fuel, intake air, and exhaust.
* * * * *
(c) Chemical balance procedure. The calculations for a chemical
balance involve a system of equations that require iteration. We
recommend using a computer to solve this system of equations. You must
guess the initial values of up to three quantities: The amount of water
in the measured flow, [khgr]H2Oexh, fraction of dilution air in diluted
exhaust, [khgr]dil/exh, and the amount of products on a C1 basis per
dry mole of dry measured flow, [khgr]Ccombdry. You may use time-
weighted mean values of combustion air humidity and dilution air
humidity in the chemical balance; as long as your combustion air and
dilution air humidities remain within tolerances of 0.0025
mol/mol of their respective mean values over the test interval. For
each emission concentration, [khgr], and amount of water, [khgr]H2Oexh,
you must determine their completely dry concentrations, [khgr]dry and
[khgr]H2Oexhdry. You must also use your fuel's atomic hydrogen-to-
carbon ratio, [alpha], oxygen-to-carbon ratio, [beta], sulfur-to-carbon
ratio, [gamma], and nitrogen-to-carbon ratio, [delta]. You may
calculate [alpha], [beta], [gamma], and [delta] based on measured fuel
composition as described in paragraphs (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this
section, or you may use default values for a given fuel as described in
Sec. 1065.655(d)(3). Use the following steps to complete a chemical
balance:
* * * * *
(3) Use the following symbols and subscripts in the equations for
this paragraph (c):
[khgr]dil/exh = amount of dilution gas or excess air per mole of
exhaust.
[khgr]H2Oexh = amount of H2O in exhaust per mole of exhaust.
[khgr]Ccombdry = amount of carbon from fuel in the exhaust per mole of
dry exhaust.
[khgr]H2dry = amount of H2 in exhaust per amount of dry
exhaust.
KH2Ogas = water-gas reaction equilibrium coefficient. You may use 3.5
or calculate your own value using good engineering judgment.
[khgr]H2Oexhdry = amount of H2O in exhaust per dry mole of
dry exhaust.
[khgr]prod/intdry = amount of dry stoichiometric products per dry mole
of intake air.
[khgr]dil/exhdry = amount of dilution gas and/or excess air per mole of
dry exhaust.
[khgr]int/exhdry = amount of intake air required to produce actual
combustion products per mole of dry (raw or diluted) exhaust.
[khgr]raw/exhdry = amount of undiluted exhaust, without excess air, per
mole of dry (raw or diluted) exhaust.
[khgr]O2int = amount of intake air O2 per mole of intake
air.
[khgr]CO2intdry = amount of intake air CO2 per mole of dry
intake air. You may use
[[Page 30127]]
xCO2intdry = 375 [micro]mol/mol, but we recommend measuring the actual
concentration in the intake air.
[khgr]H2Ointdry = amount of intake air H2O per mole of dry
intake air.
[khgr]CO2int = amount of intake air CO2 per mole of intake air.
[khgr]CO2dil = amount of dilution gas CO2 per mole of
dilution gas.
[khgr]CO2dildry = amount of dilution gas CO2 per mole of dry
dilution gas. If you use air as diluent, you may use xCO2dildry = 375
[micro]mol/mol, but we recommend measuring the actual concentration in
the intake air.
[khgr]H2Odildry = amount of dilution gas H2O per mole of dry
dilution gas.
[khgr]H2Odil = amount of dilution gas H2O per mole of
dilution gas.
[khgr][emission]meas = amount of measured emission in the sample at the
respective gas analyzer.
[khgr][emission]dry = amount of emission per dry mole of dry sample.
[khgr]H2O[emission]meas = amount of H2O in sample at
emission-detection location. Measure or estimate these values according
to Sec. 1065.145(e)(2).
[khgr]H2Oint = amount of H2O in the intake air, based on a
humidity measurement of intake air.
[alpha] = atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s)
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
[beta] = atomic oxygen-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) being
combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
[gamma] = atomic sulfur-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) being
combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
[delta] = atomic nitrogen-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s)
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
* * * * *
(d) Carbon mass fraction and fuel composition. Determine carbon
mass fraction of fuel, wc, and fuel composition represented by [alpha],
[beta], [gamma], and [delta] using one of the following methods:
(1) You may calculate wc as described in this paragraph (d)(1)
based on measured fuel properties. To do so, you must determine values
for [alpha] and [beta] in all cases, but you may set [gamma] and
[delta] to zero if the default value listed in Table 1 of this section
is zero. Calculate wc using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.031
Where:
wc = carbon mass fraction of fuel.
MC = molar mass of carbon.
[alpha] = atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s)
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
MH = molar mass of hydrogen.
[beta] = atomic oxygen-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s)
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
MO = molar mass of oxygen.
[gamma] = atomic sulfur-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s)
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
MS = molar mass of sulfur.
[delta] = atomic nitrogen-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s)
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
MN = molar mass of nitrogen.
Example:
[alpha] = 1.8
[beta] = 0.05
[gamma] = 0.0003
[delta] = 0.0001
MC = 12.0107
MH = 1.00794
MO = 15.9994
MS = 32.065
MN = 14.0067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.032
[[Page 30128]]
wc = 0.8206
(2) Determine a fuel's elemental mass fractions and values for
[alpha], [beta], [gamma], and [delta] as follows:
(i) For gaseous fuels, use the default values for [alpha], [beta],
[gamma], and [delta] in Table 1 of this section or use good engineering
judgment to determine those values based on measurement.
(ii) Determine mass fractions for liquid fuels as follows:
(A) You may determine the fuel carbon and hydrogen mass fractions
according to ASTM D5291 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1065.1010).
When using ASTM D5291 to determine carbon and hydrogen mass fractions
from gasoline (with or without blended ethanol), use good engineering
judgment to adapt the method as appropriate.
(B) Determine oxygen mass fraction for gasoline (with or without
blended ethanol) according to ASTM D5599 (incorporated by reference in
Sec. 1065.1010). For all other liquid fuels, determine the oxygen mass
fraction using good engineering judgment.
(C) Determine the nitrogen mass fraction according to ASTM D4629 or
ASTM D5762 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1065.1010) for all
liquid fuels. Select the correct method based on the expected nitrogen
content.
(D) Determine the sulfur mass fraction according to subpart H of
this part.
(iii) For liquid fuels, use the default values for [alpha], [beta],
[gamma], and [delta] in Table 1 of this section, or you may determine
the value for any of these parameters based on measurement. Calculate
measured values using the following equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.033
Where:
wC = carbon mass fraction of fuel.
wH = hydrogen mass fraction of fuel.
wO = oxygen mass fraction of fuel.
wS = sulfur mass fraction of fuel.
wN = nitrogen mass fraction of fuel.
Example:
wC = 0.8206
wH = 0.1239
wO = 0.0547
wS = 0.00066
Table 1 of Sec. 1065.655--Default Values of [alpha], [beta], [gamma],
[delta], and wc, for Various Fuels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Atomic hydrogen, Carbon mass
oxygen, sulfur, and fraction,
nitrogen-to-carbon
ratios
CH[alpha]O[beta]S[gamma wcg/g
]N[delta].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline....................... CH1.85O0S0N0........... 0.866
E10 Gasoline................... CH1.92O0.03S0N0........ 0.833
E15 Gasoline................... CH1.95O0.05S0N0........ 0.817
E85 Gasoline................... CH2.73O0.38S0N0........ 0.576
1 Diesel.............. CH1.93O0S0N0........... 0.861
2 Diesel.............. CH1.80O0S0N0........... 0.869
Liquefied petroleum gas........ CH2.64O0S0N0........... 0.819
Natural gas.................... CH3.78 O0.016S0N0...... 0.747
E100 Ethanol................... CH3O0.5S0N0............ 0.521
M100 Methanol.................. CH4O1S0N0.............. 0.375
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residual fuel blends........... Must be determined by measured fuel
properties as described in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Calculated raw exhaust molar flow rate from measured intake air
molar flow rate or fuel mass flow rate. You may calculate the raw
exhaust molar flow rate from which you sampled emissions,
nexh, based on the measured intake air molar flow rate,
nint, or the measured fuel mass flow rate, mfuel,
and the values calculated using the chemical balance in paragraph (c)
of this section. The chemical balance must be based on raw exhaust gas
concentrations. Solve for the chemical balance in paragraph (c) of this
section at the same frequency that you update and record
nint or mfuel.
[[Page 30129]]
For laboratory tests, calculating raw exhaust molar flow rate using
measured fuel mass flow rate is valid only for steady-state testing.
See Sec. 1065.915(d)(5)(iv) for application to field testing.
(1) Crankcase flow rate. If engines are not subject to crankcase
controls under the standard-setting part, you may calculate raw exhaust
flow based on nint or mfuel using one of the
following:
(i) You may measure flow rate through the crankcase vent and
subtract it from the calculated exhaust flow.
(ii) You may estimate flow rate through the crankcase vent by
engineering analysis as long as the uncertainty in your calculation
does not adversely affect your ability to show that your engines comply
with applicable emission standards.
(iii) You may assume your crankcase vent flow rate is zero.
(2) Intake air molar flow rate calculation. Calculate
nexh based on nint using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.034
Where:
nexh = raw exhaust molar flow rate from which you
measured emissions.
nint = intake air molar flow rate including humidity in
intake air.
Example:
[chi]nint = 3.780 mol/s
[chi]int/exhdry = 0.69021 mol/mol
[chi]raw/exhdry = 1.10764 mol/mol
xH20exhdry = 107.64 mmol/mol = 0.10764 mol/mol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.035
nexh = 6.066 mol/s
(3) Fuel mass flow rate calculation. This calculation may be used
only for steady-state laboratory testing. See Sec. 1065.915(d)(5)(iv)
for application to field testing. Calculate nexh based on
mfuel using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.036
Where:
nexh = raw exhaust molar flow rate from which you
measured emissions.
mfuel = fuel flow rate including humidity in intake air.
Example:
mfuel = 7.559 g/s
wc = 0.869 g/g
MC = 12.0107 g/mol
[khgr]Ccombdry = 99.87 mmol/mol = 0.09987 mol/mol
[khgr]H2Oexhdry = 107.64 mmol/mol = 0.10764 mol/mol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.037
nexh = 6.066 mol/s
(f) * * *
(2) Dilute exhaust and intake air molar flow rate calculation.
Calculate nexh as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.038
Example:
nint = 7.930 mol/s
[khgr]raw/exhdry = 0.1544 mol/mol
[khgr]int/exhdry = 0.1451 mol/mol
[khgr]H2Oexh32.46 mmol/mol = 0.03246 mol/mol
ndexh = 49.02 mol/s
nexh = (0.1544 - 0.1451)[middot](1 - 0.03246)[middot]49.02 +
7.930 = 8.371 mol/s
0
267. Section 1065.659 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.659 Removed water correction.
(a) If you remove water upstream of a concentration measurement,
[khgr], correct for the removed water. Perform this correction based on
the amount of water at the concentration measurement,
[khgr]H2O[emission]meas, and at the flow meter,
[khgr]H2Oexh, whose flow is used to determine the mass
emission rate or total mass over a test interval. For continuous
analyzers downstream of a sample dryer for transient and ramped-modal
cycles, you must apply this correction on a continuous basis over the
test interval, even if you use one of the options in Sec.
1065.145(e)(2) that results in a constant value for
xH2O[emission]meas because xH2Oexh varies over
the test interval. For batch analyzers, determine the flow-weighted
average based on the continuous xH2Oexh values determined as
described in paragraph (c) of this section. For batch analyzers, you
may determine the flow-weighted average xH2Oexh based on a
single value of xH2Oexh determined as described in
paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section, using flow-weighted average
or batch concentration inputs.
* * * * *
0
268. Section 1065.665 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.665 THCE and NMHCE determination.
(a) If you measured an oxygenated hydrocarbon's mass concentration,
first calculate its molar concentration in the exhaust sample stream
from which the sample was taken (raw or diluted exhaust), and convert
this into a C1-equivalent molar concentration. Add these
C1-equivalent molar concentrations to the molar
concentration of non-oxygenated total hydrocarbon (NOTHC). The result
is the molar concentration of total hydrocarbon equivalent (THCE).
Calculate THCE concentration using the following equations, noting that
Eq. 1065.665-3 is required only if you need to convert your oxygenated
hydrocarbon (OHC) concentration from mass to moles:
[[Page 30130]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.039
Where:
[khgr]THCE = The sum of the C1-equivalent
concentrations of non-oxygenated hydrocarbons, alcohols, and
aldehydes.
[khgr]NOTHC = The sum of the C1-equivalent
concentrations of NOTHC.
[khgr]OHCi = The C1-equivalent concentration
of oxygenated species i in diluted exhaust, not corrected for
initial contamination.
[khgr]OHCi-init = The C1-equivalent
concentration of the initial system contamination (optional) of
oxygenated species i, dry-to-wet corrected.
[khgr]THC[THC-FID]cor = The C1-equivalent
response to NOTHC and all OHC in diluted exhaust, HC contamination
and dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the THC-FID.
RFOHCi[THC-FID] = The response factor of the FID to
species i relative to propane on a C1-equivalent basis.
C\#\ = the mean number of carbon atoms in the particular compound.
Mdexh = The molar mass of diluted exhaust as determine in
Sec. 1065.340.
mdexhOHCi = The mass of oxygenated species i in dilute
exhaust.
MOHCi = The C1-equivalent molecular weight of
oxygenated species i.
mdexh = The mass of diluted exhaust
ndexhOHCi = The number of moles of oxygenated species i
in total diluted exhaust flow.
ndexh = The total diluted exhaust flow.
(b) If we require you to determine nonmethane hydrocarbon
equivalent (NMHCE), use the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.040
Where:
[khgr]NMHCE = The sum of the C1-equivalent
concentrations of nonoxygenated nonmethane hydrocarbon (NONMHC),
alcohols, and aldehydes.
RFCH4[THC-FID] = response factor of THC-FID to
CH4.
[khgr]CH4 = concentration of CH4, HC
contamination (optional) and dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by
the gas chromatograph FID.
(c) The following example shows how to determine NMHCE emissions
based on ethanol (C2H5OH), methanol
(CH3OH), acetaldehyde (C2H4O), and
formaldehyde (HCHO) as C1-equivalent molar concentrations:
[khgr]THC[THC-FID]cor = 145.6 [micro]mol/mol
[khgr]CH4 = 18.9 [micro]mol/mol
[khgr]C2H5OH = 100.8 [micro]mol/mol
[khgr]CH3OH = 1.1 [micro]mol/mol
[khgr]C2H4O = 19.1 [micro]mol/mol
[khgr]HCHO = 1.3 [micro]mol/mol
RFCH4[THC-FID] = 1.07
RFC2H5OH[THC-FID] = 0.76
RFCH3OH[THC-FID] = 0.74
RFH2H4O[THC-FID] = 0.50
RFHCHO[THC-FID] = 0.0
[khgr]NMHCE = [khgr]THC[THC-FID]cor--
([khgr]C2H5OH [middot] RFC2H5OH[THC-FID] +
[khgr]CH3OH [middot] RFCH3OH[THC-FID] +
[khgr]C2H4O [middot] RFC2H4O[THC-FID] +
[khgr]HCHO [middot] RFHCHO[THC-FID]) +
[khgr]C2H5OH + [khgr]CH3OH +
[khgr]C2H4O + [khgr]HCHO--
(RFCH4[THC-FID] [middot] [khgr]CH4)
[khgr]NMHCE = 145.6-(100.8 [middot] 0.76 + 1.1 [middot] 0.74
+ 19.1 [middot] 0.50 + 1.3 [middot] 0) + 100.8 + 1.1 + 19.1 + 1.3-(1.07
[middot] 18.9)
[khgr]NMHCE = 160.71 [micro]mol/mol
0
269. Section 1065.695 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(4)(i) and
adding paragraph (c)(6)(x) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.695 Data requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Linearity verification.
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(x) Number and type of preconditioning cycles.
* * * * *
Subpart H--[Amended]
0
270. Section 1065.701 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (d), and
(f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.701 General requirements for test fuels.
(a) General. For all emission measurements, use test fuels that
meet the specifications in this subpart, unless the standard-setting
part directs otherwise. Section 1065.10(c)(1) does not apply with
respect to test fuels. Note that the standard-setting parts generally
require that you design your emission controls to function properly
when
[[Page 30131]]
using commercially available fuels, even if they differ from the test
fuel. Where we specify multiple grades of a certain fuel type (such as
diesel fuel with different sulfur concentrations), see the standard-
setting part to determine which grade to use.
* * * * *
(d) Fuel specifications. Specifications in this section apply as
follows:
(1) Measure and calculate values as described in the appropriate
reference procedure. Record and report final values expressed to at
least the same number of decimal places as the applicable limit value.
The right-most digit for each limit value is significant unless
specified otherwise. For example, for a specified distillation
temperature of 60 [deg]C, determine the test fuel's value to the
nearest whole number.
(2) The fuel parameters specified in this subpart depend on
measurement procedures that are incorporated by reference. For any of
these procedures, you may instead rely upon the procedures identified
in 40 CFR part 80 for measuring the same parameter. For example, we may
identify different reference procedures for measuring gasoline
parameters in 40 CFR 80.46.
* * * * *
(f) Service accumulation and field testing fuels. If we do not
specify a service-accumulation or field-testing fuel in the standard-
setting part, use an appropriate commercially available fuel such as
those meeting minimum specifications from the following table:
Table 1 of Sec. 1065.701--Examples of Service-Accumulation and Field-Testing Fuels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel category Subcategory Reference procedure \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel............................... Light distillate and light blends ASTM D975
with residual.
Middle distillate................... ASTM D6985
Biodiesel (B100).................... ASTM D6751
Intermediate and residual fuel....... All................................. See Sec. 1065.705
Gasoline............................. Motor vehicle gasoline.............. ASTM D4814
Motor gasoline with ethanol ASTM D4814
concentrations up to 10 volume %.
Alcohol.............................. Ethanol (E51-83).................... ASTM D5798
Methanol (M70-M85).................. ASTM D5797
Aviation fuel........................ Aviation gasoline................... ASTM D910
Gas turbine......................... ASTM D1655
Jet B wide cut...................... ASTM D6615
Gas turbine fuel..................... General............................. ASTM D2880
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM specifications are incorporated by reference in Sec. 1065.1010.
0
271. Section 1065.703 is amended by revising Table 1 to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.703 Distillate diesel fuel.
Table 1 of Sec. 1065.703--Test Fuel Specifications for Distillate Diesel Fuel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property Unit Ultra low sulfur Low sulfur High sulfur Reference procedure \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cetane Number.................... .................... 40-50............... 40-50............... 40-50.............. ASTM D613.
Distillation range:.............. [deg]C..............
Initial boiling point............ .................... 171-204............. 171-204............. 171-204............ ASTM D86.
10 pct. point.................... .................... 204-238............. 204-238............. 204-238............
50 pct. point.................... .................... 243-282............. 243-282............. 243-282............
90 pct. point.................... .................... 293-332............. 293-332............. 293-332............
Endpoint......................... .................... 321-366............. 321-366............. 321-366............
Gravity.......................... [deg]API............ 32-37............... 32-37............... 32-37.............. ASTM D4052.
Total sulfur, ultra low sulfur... mg/kg............... 7-15................ .................... ................... See 40 CFR 80.580.
Total sulfur, low and high sulfur mg/kg............... .................... 300-500............. 800-2500........... ASTM D2622 or alternates as
allowed under 40 CFR 80.580.
Aromatics, min. (Remainder shall g/kg................ 100................. 100................. 100................ ASTM D5186.
be paraffins, naphthenes, and
olefins).
Flashpoint, min.................. [deg]C.............. 54.................. 54.................. 54................. ASTM D93.
Kinematic Viscosity.............. cSt................. 2.0-3.2............. 2.0-3.2............. 2.0-3.2............ ASTM D445.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec. 1065.1010. See Sec. 1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.
0
272. Section 1065.710 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.710 Gasoline.
(a) This section specifies test fuel properties for gasoline with
ethanol (low-level blend only) and for gasoline without ethanol. Note
that the ``fuel type'' for the fuels specified in paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section is considered to be gasoline. In contrast, fuels
with higher ethanol concentrations, such as fuel containing 82 percent
ethanol, are considered to be ethanol fuels rather than gasoline. We
specify some test fuel parameters that apply uniquely for low-
temperature testing and for testing at altitudes above 1,219 m. For all
other testing, use the test fuel parameters specified for general
testing. Unless the standard-setting part specifies otherwise, use the
fuel specified in paragraph (c) of this section for general testing.
(b) The following specifications apply for a blended gasoline test
fuel that has nominally 15% ethanol (commonly called E15 test fuel):
(1) Prepare the blended test fuel from typical refinery gasoline
blending
[[Page 30132]]
components. You may not use pure compounds, except as follows:
(i) You may use neat ethanol as a blendstock.
(ii) You may adjust the test fuel's vapor pressure by adding
butane.
(iii) You may adjust the test fuel's benzene content by adding
benzene.
(iv) You may adjust the test fuel's sulfur content by adding sulfur
compounds that are representative of those found with in-use fuels.
(2) Table 1 of this section identifies limit values consistent with
the units in the reference procedure for each fuel property. These
values are generally specified in international units. Values presented
in parentheses are for information only. Table 1 follows:
Table 1 of Sec. 1065.710--Test Fuel Specifications for a Low-Level Ethanol-Gasoline Blend
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Property Unit Low-temperature High altitude Reference procedure \1\
General testing testing testing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antiknock Index (R+M)/2.......... ..................... 87.0--88.4 \2\ 87.0 Minimum....... ASTM D2699 and D2700.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sensitivity (R-M)................ ..................... 7.5 Minimum ASTM D2699 and D2700.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dry Vapor Pressure Equivalent kPa (psi)............ 60.0-63.4........... 77.2-81.4.......... 52.4-55.2.......... ASTM D5191.
(DVPE) \3\. (8.7-9.2)........... (11.2-11.8)........ (7.6-8.0)..........
Distillation 10% evaporated...... [deg]C ([deg]F)...... 49-60............... 43-54.............. 49-60.............. ASTM D86.
(120-140)........... (110-130).......... (120-140)..........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50% evaporated................... [deg]C ([deg]F)...... 77-88 (170-190)
90% evaporated................... [deg]C ([deg]F)...... 154-166 (310-330)
Evaporated final boiling point... [deg]C ([deg]F)...... 193-216 (380-420)
Residue.......................... milliliter........... 2.0 Maximum ASTM D5769.
Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons...... volume %............. 19.5-24.5
C6 Aromatics (benzene)........... volume %............. 0.6-0.8
C7 Aromatics (toluene)........... volume %............. 4.4-5.5
C8 Aromatics..................... volume %............. 5.5-6.9
C9 Aromatics..................... volume %............. 5.0-6.2
C10+ Aromatics................... volume %............. 4.0-5.0
Olefins \4\...................... mass %............... 4.5-11.5 ASTM D6550.
Ethanol blended \5\.............. volume %............. 14.6-15.0 See paragraph (b)(3) of this
section.
Ethanol confirmatory 6 7......... volume %............. 14.3-15.3 ASTM D5599.
Total Content of Oxygenates Other volume %............. 0.1 Maximum ASTM D5599.
than Ethanol \7\.
Sulfur........................... mg/kg................ 8.0-11.0 ASTM D2622, D5453 or D7039.
Lead............................. g/liter.............. 0.0026 Maximum ASTM D3237.
Phosphorus....................... g/liter.............. 0.0013 Maximum ASTM D3231.
Copper Corrosion................. ..................... No. 1 Maximum ASTM D130.
Solvent-Washed Gum Content....... mg/100 milliliter.... 3.0 Maximum ASTM D381.
Oxidation Stability.............. minute............... 1000 Minimum ASTM D525.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec. 1065.1010. See Sec. 1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.
\2\ Octane specifications apply only for testing related to exhaust emissions. For engines or vehicles that require the use of premium fuel, as
described in paragraph (d) of this section, the adjusted specification for antiknock index is a minimum value of 91.0; no maximum value applies. All
other specifications apply for this high-octane fuel.
\3\ Calculate dry vapor pressure equivalent, DVPE, based on the measured total vapor pressure, pT, in kPa using the following equation: DVPE =
0.956[middot]pT-2.39. DVPE is intended to be equivalent to Reid Vapor Pressure using a different test method.
\4\ The specified olefin concentration range equates to approximately 4-10 volume % when measured according to ASTM D1319.
\5\ The ethanol blended specification is based on the volume % ethanol content of the fuel as determined during blending by the fuel supplier and as
stated by the supplier at the time of fuel delivery.
\6\ The ethanol confirmatory specification is based on the volume % ethanol as measured according to ASTM D5599.
\7\ The reference procedure prescribes measurement of ethanol concentration in mass %. Convert results to volume % as specified in ASTM D4815.
(3) Use good engineering judgment to determine the volume % of
ethanol based on the volume of each blendstock. We recommend using a
flow-based or gravimetric procedure that has an accuracy and
repeatability of 0.1%.
(c) The specifications of this paragraph (c) apply for testing with
neat gasoline. This is sometimes called indolene or E0 test fuel.
Gasoline for testing must have octane values that represent
commercially available fuels for the appropriate application. Test fuel
specifications apply as follows:
[[Page 30133]]
Table 2 of Sec. 1065.710--Test Fuel Specifications for Neat (E0) Gasoline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specification
-------------------------------------- Reference Procedure
Property Unit Low-temperature \1\
General testing testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distillation Range............. [deg]C........... ................. ................. ASTM D86
Evaporated initial boiling ................. 24-35 2.......... 24-36............
point.
10% evaporated................. ................. 49-57............ 37-48............
50% evaporated................. ................. 93-110........... 82-101...........
90% evaporated................. ................. 149-163.......... 158-174..........
Evaporated final boiling point. ................. Maximum, 213..... Maximum, 212.....
Hydrocarbon composition........ volume %......... ................. ................. ASTM D1319
Olefins........................ ................. Maximum, 0.10.... Maximum, 0.175...
Aromatics...................... ................. Maximum, 0.35.... Maximum, 0.304...
Saturates...................... ................. Remainder........ Remainder.
Lead........................... g/liter.......... Maximum, 0.013... Maximum, 0.013. ASTM D3237
Phosphorous.................... g/liter.......... Maximum, 0.0013.. Maximum, 0.005. ASTM D3231
Total sulfur................... mg/kg............ Maximum, 80...... Maximum, 80. ASTM D2622
Dry vapor pressure equivalent kPa.............. 60.0-63.4 \3,\ 77.2-81.4. ASTM D5191
\2\. \4\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec. 1065.1010. See Sec. 1065.701(d) for other allowed
procedures.
\2\ Calculate dry vapor pressure equivalent, DVPE, based on the measured total vapor pressure, pT, in kPa using
the following equation: DVPE = 0.956[middot]pT-2.39. DVPE is intended to be equivalent to Reid Vapor Pressure
using a different test method.
\3\ For testing at altitudes above 1 219 m, the specified volatility range is (52.0 to 55.2) kPa and the
specified initial boiling point range is (23.9 to 40.6) [deg]C.
\4\ For testing unrelated to evaporative emissions, the specified range is (55.2 to 63.4) kPa.
(d) Use the high-octane gasoline specified in paragraph (b) of this
section only for engines or vehicles for which the manufacturer
conditions the warranty on the use of premium gasoline.
0
273. Section 1065.715 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.715 Natural gas.
(a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, natural
gas for testing must meet the specifications in the following table:
Table 1 of Sec. 1065.715--Test Fuel Specifications for Natural Gas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property Value \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methane, CH4...................... Minimum, 0.87 mol/mol.
Ethane, C2H6...................... Maximum, 0.055 mol/mol.
Propane, C3H8..................... Maximum, 0.012 mol/mol.
Butane, C4H10..................... Maximum, 0.0035 mol/mol.
Pentane, C5H12.................... Maximum, 0.0013 mol/mol.
C6 and higher..................... Maximum, 0.001 mol/mol.
Oxygen............................ Maximum, 0.001 mol/mol.
Inert gases (sum of CO2 and N2)... Maximum, 0.051 mol/mol.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Demonstrate compliance with fuel specifications based on the
reference procedures in ASTM D1945 (incorporated by reference in Sec.
1065.1010), or on other measurement procedures using good engineering
judgment. See Sec. 1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.
* * * * *
0
274. Section 1065.720 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.720 Liquefied petroleum gas.
(a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, liquefied
petroleum gas for testing must meet the specifications in the following
table:
Table 1 of Sec. 1065.720--Test Fuel Specifications for Liquefied Petroleum Gas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property Value Reference procedure \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propane, C3H8................................ Minimum, 0.85 m \3\/m \3\ ASTM D2163
Vapor pressure at 38 [deg]C.................. Maximum, 1400 kPa........ ASTM D1267 or 2598 \2\
Volatility residue (evaporated temperature, Maximum, -38 [deg]C...... ASTM D1837
35 [deg]C).
Butanes...................................... Maximum, 0.05 m \3\/m \3\ ASTM D2163
Butenes...................................... Maximum, 0.02 m \3\/m \3\ ASTM D2163
Pentenes and heavier......................... Maximum, 0.005 m \3\/m ASTM D2163
\3\.
Propene...................................... Maximum, 0.1 m \3\/m \3\. ASTM D2163
Residual matter (residue on evap. of 100) ml Maximum, 0.05 ml pass \3\ ASTM D2158
oil stain observ.).
Corrosion, copper strip...................... Maximum, No. 1........... ASTM D1838
Sulfur....................................... Maximum, 80 mg/kg........ ASTM D2784
Moisture content............................. pass..................... ASTM D2713
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec. 1065.1010. See Sec. 1065.701(d) for other allowed
procedures.
\2\ If these two test methods yield different results, use the results from ASTM D1267.
\3\ The test fuel must not yield a persistent oil ring when you add 0.3 ml of solvent residue mixture to a
filter paper in 0.1 ml increments and examine it in daylight after two minutes.
[[Page 30134]]
* * * * *
0
275. A new Sec. 1065.725 is added to subpart H to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.725 High-level ethanol-gasoline blends.
For testing ethanol-fueled vehicles, create a high-level ethanol-
gasoline blend test fuel as follows:
(a) Add ethanol to an E15 fuel meeting the specifications described
in Sec. 1065.710 until the ethanol content of the blended fuel is
between 80 and 83 volume %.
(b) You may alternatively add ethanol to a gasoline base fuel with
no ethanol if you can demonstrate that such a base fuel blended with
the proper amount of ethanol would meet all the specifications for E15
test fuel described in Sec. 1065.710, other than the ethanol content.
(c) The ethanol used for blending must be either denatured ethanol
meeting the specifications in 40 CFR 80.1510, or fuel-grade ethanol
with no denaturant. Be sure to account for the volume of any denaturant
when calculating volumetric percentages.
(d) The blended test fuel must have a dry vapor pressure equivalent
between 6.0 and 6.5 when measured using the procedure specified in
Sec. 1065.710. You may add commercial grade butane as needed to meet
this specification.
0
276. Section 1065.750 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.750 Analytical gases.
Analytical gases must meet the accuracy and purity specifications
of this section, unless you can show that other specifications would
not affect your ability to show that you comply with all applicable
emission standards.
(a) * * *
(1) Use purified gases to zero measurement instruments and to blend
with calibration gases. Use gases with contamination no higher than the
highest of the following values in the gas cylinder or at the outlet of
a zero-gas generator:
(i) 2% contamination, measured relative to the flow-weighted mean
concentration expected at the standard. For example, if you would
expect a flow-weighted CO concentration of 100.0 [mu]mol/mol, then you
would be allowed to use a zero gas with CO contamination less than or
equal to 2.000 [mu]mol/mol.
(ii) Contamination as specified in the following table:
Table 1 of Sec. 1065.750--General Specifications for Purified Gases \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constituent Purified air Purified N2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THC (C1 equivalent)...................... <= 0.05 [mu]mol/mol.............. <= 0.05 [mu]mol/mol
CO....................................... <= 1 [mu]mol/mol................. <= 1 [mu]mol/mol
CO2...................................... <= 10 [mu]mol/mol................ <= 10 [mu]mol/mol
O2....................................... 0.205 to 0.215 mol/mol........... <= 2 [mu]mol/mol
NOX...................................... <= 0.02 [mu]mol/mol.............. <= 0.02 [mu]mol/mol
N2O\2\................................... <= 0.02 [mu]mol/mol.............. <= 0.02 [mu]mol/mol
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We do not require these levels of purity to be NIST-traceable.
\2\ The N2O limit applies only if the standard-setting part requires you to report N2O or certify to an N2O
standard.
(2) Use the following gases with a FID analyzer:
(i) FID fuel. Use FID fuel with a stated H2
concentration of (0.39 to 0.41) mol/mol, balance He or N2,
and a stated total hydrocarbon concentration of 0.05 [mu]mol/mol or
less. For GC-FIDs that measure methane (CH4) using a FID
fuel that is balance N2, perform the CH4
measurement as described in SAE J1151 (incorporated by reference in
Sec. 1065.1010).
(ii) FID burner air. Use FID burner air that meets the
specifications of purified air in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. For
field testing, you may use ambient air.
(iii) FID zero gas. Zero flame-ionization detectors with purified
gas that meets the specifications in paragraph (a)(1) of this section,
except that the purified gas O2 concentration may be any
value. Note that FID zero balance gases may be any combination of
purified air and purified nitrogen. We recommend FID analyzer zero
gases that contain approximately the expected flow-weighted mean
concentration of O2 in the exhaust sample during testing.
(iv) FID propane span gas. Span and calibrate THC FID with span
concentrations of propane, C3H8. Calibrate on a
carbon number basis of one (C1). For example, if you use a
C3H8 span gas of concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol,
span a FID to respond with a value of 600 [mu]mol/mol. Note that FID
span balance gases may be any combination of purified air and purified
nitrogen. We recommend FID analyzer span gases that contain
approximately the flow-weighted mean concentration of O2
expected during testing. If the expected O2 concentration in
the exhaust sample is zero, we recommend using a balance gas of
purified nitrogen.
(v) FID CH4 span gas. If you always span and calibrate a
CH4 FID with a nonmethane cutter, then span and calibrate
the FID with span concentrations of CH4. Calibrate on a
carbon number basis of one (C1). For example, if you use a
CH4 span gas of concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol, span a FID to
respond with a value of 200 [mu]mol/mol. Note that FID span balance
gases may be any combination of purified air and purified nitrogen. We
recommend FID analyzer span gases that contain approximately the
expected flow-weighted mean concentration of O2 in the
exhaust sample during testing. If the expected O2
concentration in the exhaust sample is zero, we recommend using a
balance gas of purified nitrogen.
(3) Use the following gas mixtures, with gases traceable within
1% of the NIST-accepted value or other gas standards we
approve:
(i) CH4, balance purified air and/or N2 (as
applicable).
(ii) C2H6, balance purified air and/or
N2 (as applicable).
(iii) C3H8, balance purified air and/or
N2 (as applicable).
(iv) CO, balance purified N2.
(v) CO2, balance purified N2.
(vi) NO, balance purified N2.
(vii)) NO2, balance purified air.
(viii) O2, balance purified N2.
(ix) C3H8, CO, CO2, NO, balance
purified N2.
(x) C3H8, CH4, CO, CO2,
NO, balance purified N2.
(xi) N2O, balance purified air and/or N2 (as
applicable).
* * * * *
(5) You may generate your own calibration gases using a precision
blending device, such as a gas divider, to dilute gases with purified
N2 or purified air. If your gas divider meets the
specifications in Sec. 1065.248, and the gases being blended meet the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (3) of this section, the
resulting blends
[[Page 30135]]
are considered to meet the requirements of this paragraph (a).
* * * * *
Subpart I--[Amended]
0
277. Section 1065.805 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (f) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1065.805 Sampling system.
* * * * *
(d) You may bubble a sample of the exhaust through water to collect
alcohols for later analysis. You may also use a photo-acoustic analyzer
to quantify ethanol and methanol in an exhaust sample as described in
Sec. 1065.269.
* * * * *
(f) You may sample alcohols or carbonyls using ``California Non-
Methane Organic Gas Test Procedures'' (incorporated by reference in
Sec. 1065.1010). If you use this method, follow its calculations to
determine the mass of the alcohol/carbonyl in the exhaust sample, but
follow subpart G of this part for all other calculations (40 CFR part
1066, subpart G, for vehicle testing).
* * * * *
0
278. Section 1065.845 is amended by revising the introductory text,
redesignating paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (b) and (c),
respectively, and adding a new paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.845 Response factor determination.
Since FID analyzers generally have an incomplete response to
alcohols and carbonyls, determine each FID analyzer's alcohol/carbonyl
response factor (such as RFMeOH) after FID optimization to
subtract those responses from the FID reading. Use the most recently
determined alcohol/carbonyl response factors to compensate for alcohol/
carbonyl response. You are not required to determine the response
factor for a compound unless you will subtract its response to
compensate for a response.
(a) You may generate response factors as described in paragraph (b)
of this section, or you may use the following default response factors,
consistent with good engineering judgment:
Table 1 of Sec. 1065.665--Default Values for THC FID Response Factor
Relative to Propane on a C1-Equivalent Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response
Compound factor (RF)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetaldehyde............................................ 0.50
ethanol................................................. 0.75
formaldehyde............................................ 0.00
methanol................................................ 0.63
propanol................................................ 0.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
279. Section 1065.850 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.850 Calculations.
Use the calculations specified in Sec. 1065.665 to determine THCE
or NMHCE and the calculations specified in 40 CFR 1066.665 to determine
NMOG.
Subpart K--[Amended]
0
280. Section 1065.1001 is amended by removing the definition for
``Engine'' and revising the definitions for ``C1 equivalent
(or basis)'', ``Oxygenated fuels'', and ``Precision'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 1065.1001 Definitions.
* * * * *
C1 equivalent (or basis) means a convention of expressing HC
concentrations based on the total number of carbon atoms present, such
that the C1 equivalent of a molar HC concentration equals
the molar concentration multiplied by the mean number of carbon atoms
in each HC molecule. For example, the C1 equivalent of 10
[mu]mol/mol of propane (C3H8) is 30 [mu]mol/mol.
C1 equivalent molar values may be denoted as ``ppmC'' in the
standard-setting part. Molar mass may also be expressed on a
C1 basis. Note that calculating HC masses from molar
concentrations and molar masses is only valid where they are each
expressed on the same carbon basis.
* * * * *
Oxygenated fuels means fuels composed of at least 25% oxygen-
containing compounds, such as ethanol or methanol. Testing engines that
use oxygenated fuels generally requires the use of the sampling methods
in subpart I of this part. However, you should read the standard-
setting part and subpart I of this part to determine appropriate
sampling methods.
* * * * *
Precision means two times the standard deviation of a set of
measured values of a single zero or reference quantity. See also the
related definitions of noise and repeatability in this section.
* * * * *
0
281. Section 1065.1005 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (f)(2)
to read as follows:
Sec. 1065.1005 Symbols, abbreviations, acronyms, and units of
measure.
* * * * *
(a) Symbols for quantities. This part uses the following symbols
and units of measure for various quantities:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symbol Quantity Unit Unit symbol Units in terms of SI base units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[alpha]............ atomic hydrogen to carbon ratio..... mole per mole............. mol/mol................. 1
A.................. area................................ square meter.............. m\2\.................... m\2\
A0................. intercept of least squares
regression.
A1................. slope of least squares regression...
[beta]............. ratio of diameters.................. meter per meter........... m/m..................... 1
[beta]............. atomic oxygen to carbon ratio....... mole per mole............. mol/mol................. 1
C#................. number of carbon atoms in a molecule
d.................. Diameter............................ meter..................... m....................... m
DR................. dilution ratio...................... mole per mol.............. mol/mol................. 1
[egr].............. error between a quantity and its
reference.
e.................. brake-specific emission or fuel gram per kilowatt hour.... g/(kW[middot]hr)........ g[middot]3.6-1[middot]10\6\[middot]m-
consumption. 2[middot]kg[middot]s\2\
F.................. F-test statistic....................
f.................. frequency........................... hertz..................... Hz...................... s-1
fn................. angular speed (shaft)............... revolutions per minute.... r/min................... 2[middot][pi][middot]60-
1[middot]m[middot]m-1[middot]s-1
[[Page 30136]]
[gamma]............ ratio of specific heats............. (joule per kilogram (J/(kg[middot]K))/(J/ 1
kelvin) per (joule per (kg[middot]K)).
kilogram kelvin).
K.................. correction factor................... 1.........................
Kv................. calibration coefficient............. .......................... m\4\[middot]s[middot]K\0 m\4\[middot]s[middot]K\0.5\[middot]kg-1
.5\/kg.
l.................. length.............................. meter..................... m....................... m
[mu]............... viscosity, dynamic.................. pascal second............. Pa[middot]s............. m-1[middot]kg[middot]s-1
M.................. molar mass\1\....................... gram per mole............. g/mol................... 10-3[middot]kg[middot]mol-1
m.................. mass................................ kilogram.................. kg...................... kg
m.................. mass rate........................... kilogram per second....... kg/s.................... kg[middot]s-1
[nu]............... viscosity, kinematic................ meter squared per second.. m\2\/s.................. m\2\[middot]s-1
N.................. total number in series..............
n.................. amount of substance................. mole...................... mol..................... mol
n.................. amount of substance rate............ mole per second........... mol/s................... mol[middot]s-1
P.................. power............................... kilowatt.................. kW...................... 10\3\[middot]m\2\[middot]kg[middot]s-3
PF................. penetration fraction................
p.................. pressure............................ pascal.................... Pa...................... m-1[middot]kg[middot]s-2
[rho].............. mass density........................ kilogram per cubic meter.. kg/m\3\................. kg[middot]m-3
r.................. ratio of pressures.................. pascal per pascal......... Pa/Pa................... 1
R\2\............... coefficient of determination........
Ra................. average surface roughness........... micrometer................ [mu]m................... 10-6 m
Re#................ Reynolds number.....................
RF................. response factor.....................
RH................. relative humidity...................
[sigma]............ non-biased standard deviation.......
S.................. Sutherland constant................. kelvin.................... K....................... K
SEE................ standard estimate of error..........
T.................. absolute temperature................ kelvin.................... K....................... K
T.................. Celsius temperature................. degree Celsius............ [deg]C.................. K-273.15
T.................. torque (moment of force)............ newton meter.............. N[middot]m.............. m\2\[middot]kg[middot]s-2
t.................. time................................ second.................... s....................... s
[Delta]t........... time interval, period, 1/frequency.. second.................... s....................... s
V.................. volume.............................. cubic meter............... m\3\.................... m\3\
V.................. volume rate......................... cubic meter per second.... m\3\/s.................. m\3\[middot]s-1
W.................. work................................ kilowatt hour............. kW[middot]hr............ 3.6[middot]10-
6[middot]m\2\[middot]kg[middot]s-2
wc................. carbon mass fraction................ gram per gram............. g/g..................... 1
x.................. amount of substance mole fraction mole per mole............. mol/mol................. 1
\2\.
x.................. flow-weighted mean concentration.... mole per mole............. mol/mol................. 1
y.................. generic variable....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See paragraph (f)(2) of this section for the values to use for molar masses. Note that in the cases of NOX and HC, the regulations specify effective
molar masses based on assumed speciation rather than actual speciation.
\2\ Note that mole fractions for THC, THCE, NMHC, NMHCE, and NOTHC are expressed on a C1 equivalent basis.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) This part uses the following molar masses or effective molar
masses of chemical species:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
g/mol (10-\3\[middot]kg[middot]mol-
Symbol Quantity \1\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mair.................. molar mass of dry air \1\.......................... 28.96559
MAr................... molar mass of argon................................ 39.948
MC.................... molar mass of carbon............................... 12.0107
MCH3OH................ molar mass of methanol............................. 32.04186
MC2H5OH............... molar mass of ethanol.............................. 46.06844
MC2H4O................ molar mass of acetaldehyde......................... 44.05256
MC3H8................. molar mass of propane.............................. 44.09562
MC3H7OH............... molar mass of propanol............................. 60.09502
MCO................... molar mass of carbon monoxide...................... 28.0101
MCH4.................. molar mass of methane.............................. 16.0425
MCO2.................. molar mass of carbon dioxide....................... 44.0095
MH.................... molar mass of atomic hydrogen...................... 1.00794
MH2................... molar mass of molecular hydrogen................... 2.01588
MH2O.................. molar mass of water................................ 18.01528
MHCHO................. molar mass of formaldehyde......................... 30.02598
MHe................... molar mass of helium............................... 4.002602
MN.................... molar mass of atomic nitrogen...................... 14.0067
MN2................... molar mass of molecular nitrogen................... 28.0134
MNH3.................. molar mass of ammonia.............................. 17.03052
[[Page 30137]]
MNMHC................. effective C1 molar mass of nonmethane hydrocarbon 13.875389
\2\.
MNMHCE................ effective C1 molar mass of nonmethane hydrocarbon 13.875389
equivalent \2\.
MNOx.................. effective molar mass of oxides of nitrogen \3\..... 46.0055
MN2O.................. molar mass of nitrous oxide........................ 44.0128
MO.................... molar mass of atomic oxygen........................ 15.9994
MO2................... molar mass of molecular oxygen..................... 31.9988
MS.................... molar mass of sulfur............................... 32.065
MTHC.................. effective C1 molar mass of total hydrocarbon \2\... 13.875389
MTHCE................. effective C1 molar mass of total hydrocarbon 13.875389
equivalent \2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for the composition of dry air.
\2\ The effective molar masses of THC, THCE, NMHC, and NMHCE are defined on a C1 basis and are based on an
atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, [alpha], of 1.85 (with [beta], [gamma], and [delta] equal to zero).
\3\ The effective molar mass of NOX is defined by the molar mass of nitrogen dioxide, NO2.
* * * * *
0
282. Section 1065.1010 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (f) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1065.1010 Reference materials.
* * * * *
(a) ASTM materials. Copies of these materials may be obtained from
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or by calling (877) 909-ASTM, or at http://www.astm.org.
(1) ASTM D86-11b, Standard Test Method for Distillation of
Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
1065.703, 1065.710.
(2) ASTM D93-12, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-
Martens Closed Cup Tester, IBR approved for Sec. 1065.703.
(3) ASTM D445-12, Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of
Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity),
IBR approved for Sec. 1065.703.
(4) ASTM D613-10a, Standard Test Method for Cetane Number of Diesel
Fuel Oil, IBR approved for Sec. 1065.703.
(5) ASTM D910-11, Standard Specification for Aviation Gasolines,
IBR approved for Sec. 1065.701.
(6) ASTM D975-12a, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, IBR
approved for Sec. 1065.701.
(7) ASTM D1267-02 (Reapproved 2007), Standard Test Method for Gage
Vapor Pressure of Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases (LP-Gas Method), IBR
approved for Sec. 1065.720.
(8) ASTM D1319-10, Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in
Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption, IBR
approved for Sec. 1065.710.
(9) ASTM D1655-12, Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine
Fuels, IBR approved for Sec. 1065.701.
(10) ASTM D1837-11, Standard Test Method for Volatility of
Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases, IBR approved for Sec. 1065.720.
(11) ASTM D1838-12, Standard Test Method for Copper Strip Corrosion
by Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases, IBR approved for Sec. 1065.720.
(12) ASTM D1945-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for
Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography, IBR approved for Sec.
1065.715.
(13) ASTM D2158-11, Standard Test Method for Residues in Liquefied
Petroleum (LP) Gases, IBR approved for Sec. 1065.720.
(14) ASTM D2163-07, Standard Test Method for Analysis of Liquefied
Petroleum (LP) Gases and Propene Concentrates by Gas Chromatography,
IBR approved for Sec. 1065.720.
(15) ASTM D2598-02 (Reapproved 2007), Standard Practice for
Calculation of Certain Physical Properties of Liquefied Petroleum (LP)
Gases from Compositional Analysis, IBR approved for Sec. 1065.720.
(16) ASTM D2622-10, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum
Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 1065.703, 1065.710.
(17) ASTM D2713-12, Standard Test Method for Dryness of Propane
(Valve Freeze Method), IBR approved for Sec. 1065.720.
(18) ASTM D2784-11, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Liquefied
Petroleum Gases (Oxy-Hydrogen Burner or Lamp), IBR approved for Sec.
1065.720.
(19) ASTM D2880-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Specification for
Gas Turbine Fuel Oils, IBR approved for Sec. 1065.701.
(20) ASTM D2986-95a (Reapproved 1999), Standard Practice for
Evaluation of Air Assay Media by the Monodisperse DOP (Dioctyl
Phthalate) Smoke Test, IBR approved for Sec. 1065.170.
(21) ASTM D3231-11, Standard Test Method for Phosphorus in
Gasoline, IBR approved for Sec. 1065.710.
(22) ASTM D3237-12, Standard Test Method for Lead in Gasoline By
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy, IBR approved for Sec. 1065.710.
(23) ASTM D4052-11, Standard Test Method for Density and Relative
Density of Liquids by Digital Density Meter, IBR approved for Sec.
1065.703.
(24) ASTM D4629-12, Standard Test Method for Trace Nitrogen in
Liquid Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Syringe/Inlet Oxidative Combustion and
Chemiluminescence Detection, IBR approved for Sec. 1065.655.
(25) ASTM D4814-11b, Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-
Ignition Engine Fuel, IBR approved for Sec. 1065.701.
(26) ASTM D4815-09, Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE,
ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C1 to
C4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography, IBR approved
for Sec. 1065.710.
(27) ASTM D5186-03 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for
Determination of the Aromatic Content and Polynuclear Aromatic Content
of Diesel Fuels and Aviation Turbine Fuels By Supercritical Fluid
Chromatography, IBR approved for Sec. 1065.703.
(28) ASTM D5191-12, Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of
Petroleum Products (Mini Method), IBR approved for Sec. 1065.710.
(29) ASTM D5291-10, Standard Test Method for Instrumental
Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in Petroleum Products
and Lubricants, IBR approved for Sec. 1065.655.
(30) ASTM D5599-00 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for
Determination of Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and
Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection, IBR approved for Sec.
1065.655.
(31) ASTM D5762-12, Standard Test Method for Nitrogen in Petroleum
and
[[Page 30138]]
Petroleum Products by Boat-Inlet Chemiluminescence, IBR approved for
Sec. 1065.655.
(32) ASTM D5797-07, Standard Specification for Fuel Methanol (M70-
M85) for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines, IBR approved for Sec.
1065.701.
(33) ASTM D5798-11, Standard Specification for Fuel Ethanol (Ed75-
Ed85) for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines, IBR approved for Sec.
1065.701.
(34) ASTM D6615-11a, Standard Specification for Jet B Wide-Cut
Aviation Turbine Fuel, IBR approved for Sec. 1065.701.
(35) ASTM D6751-12, Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend
Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels, IBR approved for Sec.
1065.701.
(36) ASTM D6985-04a, Standard Specification for Middle Distillate
Fuel Oil--Military Marine Applications, IBR approved for Sec.
1065.701.
(37) ASTM F1471-09, Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning
Performance of a High- Efficiency Particulate Air Filter System, IBR
approved for Sec. 1065.1001.
* * * * *
(f) SAE material. Copies of these materials may be obtained from
the Society of Automotive Engineers International, 400 Commonwealth
Dr., Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, or by calling (724) 776-4841, or at
http://www.sae.org.
(1) SAE 770141, 1977, Optimization of Flame Ionization Detector for
Determination of Hydrocarbon in Diluted Automotive Exhausts, Glenn D.
Reschke, IBR approved for Sec. 1065.360.
(2) SAE J1151, Methane Measurement Using Gas Chromatography,
Revised September 2011, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 1065.267 and
1065.750.
0
283. A new subpart L is added to read as follows:
Subpart L--Methods for Unregulated and Special Pollutants
Sec.
1065.1101 Applicability.
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
1065.1103 General provisions for SVOC measurement.
1065.1105 Sampling system design.
1065.1107 Sample media and sample system preparation; sampler
assembly.
1065.1109 Post-test sampler disassembly and sample extraction.
1065.1111 Sample analysis.
Subpart L--Methods for Unregulated and Special Pollutants
Sec. 1065.1101 Applicability.
This subpart specifies procedures that may be used to measure
emission constituents that are not measured (or not separately
measured) by the test procedures in the other subparts of this part.
These procedures are included to facilitate consistent measurement of
unregulated pollutants primarily for purposes other than compliance
with emission standards. Unless otherwise specified in the standard-
setting part, use of these procedures is optional and does not replace
any requirements in the rest of this part.
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
Sec. 1065.1103 General provisions for SVOC measurement.
The provisions of Sec. Sec. 1065.1103 through 1065.1111 specify
procedures for the measurement of semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOC) along with PM. The provisions of these sections specify how to
collect a sample of the SVOCs during exhaust testing procedures, as
well as how to use wet chemistry techniques to extract SVOCs from the
sample media for analysis. Note that the precise method you use will
depend on the category of SVOCs being measured. For example, the method
used to measure polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) will differ
slightly from the method used to measure dioxins.
(a) Laboratory cleanliness is especially important throughout the
course of SVOC testing. Thoroughly clean all sample train components
and glassware before testing to avoid sample contamination.
(b) Throughout the course of your testing we recommend that media
blanks be analyzed for each batch of media (sorbent, filters, etc.)
that is prepared for testing. Blank sorbent modules with inlet and
outlet covered (i.e., field blanks) should periodically accompany the
test sample train throughout the course of a test, including the sample
train and sorbent module disassembly, sample packaging, and storage.
Use good engineering judgment to determine the frequency of field
blanks. During testing, the field blank sample train should reside in
close proximity to the sampler.
(c) We recommend the use of isotope dilution techniques, including
the use of isotopically labeled surrogate, internal, alternate, and
injection standards.
(d) If your target analytes degrade when exposed to ultraviolet
radiation (such as nPAH), perform these procedures in the dark or with
ultraviolet filters installed over the lights.
(e) Follow standard analytic chemistry methods for aspects of the
analysis not specified.
(f) The following definitions and abbreviations apply for SVOC
measurements:
(1) Soxhlet extraction means the extraction method invented by
Franz von Soxhlet, in which the sample is placed in a thimble and
rinsed repeatedly with a recycle of the extraction solvent.
(2) XAD-2 means a hydrophobic cross linked polystyrene copolymer
resin adsorbent known commercially as Amberlite[supreg] XAD[supreg]-2,
or an equivalent adsorbent.
(3) Semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC) means an organic compound
that is sufficiently volatile to exist in vapor form in engine exhaust,
but that readily condenses to liquid or solid form under atmospheric
conditions. Most SVOCs have at least 14 carbon atoms per molecule and
have a boiling point between 240 [deg]C and 400 [deg]C. SVOCs include
dioxin, quinone, and nitro-PAH compounds. They may be a natural
byproduct of combustion or created post combustion. Note that SVOCs may
be detected as hydrocarbons and/or PM using the measurement procedures
specified in this part; in other words, some fraction of measured mass
of hydrocarbons and/or PM may be SVOCs.
(4) Kuderna-Danish concentrator means laboratory glassware known by
this name that consists of an air-cooled condenser on top of an
extraction bulb.
(5) Dean-Stark trap means laboratory glassware known by this name
that uses a reflux condenser to collect water from samples extracted
under reflux.
(6) PUF means polyurethane foam.
(7) Isotopically labeled means relating to a compound in which
either all of the hydrogen atoms are replaced with the atomic isotope
hydrogen-2 (deuterium) or one of the carbon atoms at a defined position
in the molecule is replaced with the atomic isotope carbon-13.
Sec. 1065.1105 Sampling system design.
(a) General. We recommend that you design your SVOC batch sampler
to extract sample from undiluted emissions to minimize the amount of
SVOCs lost to the system. To the extent practical, adjust sampling
times based on the rate of emission of target analytes from the engine
to obtain analyte concentrations above the limit of detection. In some
instances you may need to run repeat test cycles without replacing the
sample media or disassembly of the batch sampler.
(b) Sample probe, transfer lines, and sample media holder design
and construction. The sampling system should consist of a sample probe,
transfer line, PM filter holder, cooling coil, sorbent module, and
condensate trap. Construct sample probes, transfer lines, and sample
media holders that
[[Page 30139]]
have inside surfaces of Nickel, Titanium or another nonreactive
material capable of withstanding raw exhaust gas temperatures. All
joints in the hot zone of the system should be sealed with gaskets made
of nonreactive material similar to that of the sample train components.
Teflon gaskets may be used in the cold zone. We recommend keeping the
sampling system length as short as possible by locating all components
as close to probes as practical to minimize the surface exposed to the
exhaust.
(c) Sample system configuration. This paragraph (c) specifies the
components necessary to collect SVOC samples, along with our
recommended design parameters. Where you do not follow our
recommendations, use good engineering judgment to design your sampling
system so that it does not result in loss of SVOC during sampling. The
sampling system should contain the following components in series in
the order listed:
(1) Sample probe. Use a sample probe similar to the PM sample probe
specified in subpart B of this part. We recommend that you heat the
sample probe with a set point no higher the 200 [deg]C. Note that heat
from the engine exhaust may cause the probe temperature to exceed 200
[deg]C at some points during the test.
(2) Filter holder. Use a PM filter holder similar to type of holder
specified in subpart B of this part, although you will likely need to
use a larger size to accommodate the high sample flow rates. We
recommend the use of 110 mm filter for the testing of engines that
utilize exhaust after treatment for removal of PM and 293 mm filters
for engines that do not. You may heat the filter holder, but we
recommend that your set point does not exceed 200 [deg]C. Note that
this differs from normal PM sampling procedures which maintain the
filter at a much lower temperature to capture a significant fraction of
exhaust SVOCs on the filter. In this method SVOCs that pass through the
filter will be collected on the downstream sorbent module.
(3) Cooling coil. Use good engineering judgment to design a cooling
coil (to be used with the water bath described in paragraph (e) of this
section) that will drop the sample temperature to approximately 5
[deg]C. Note that downstream of the cooling coil, the sample will be a
mixture of a vapor phase hydrocarbons in CO2 and air and a
primarily aqueous liquid phase.
(4) Sorbent and sorbent module. Use a hydrophobic sorbent in a
sealed sorbent module. Note that this sorbent module is intended to be
the final stage for collecting the SVOC sample and should be sized
accordingly. We recommend sizing the module to hold 40 g of XAD-2 along
with polyurethane (PUF) plugs at either end of the module.
(5) Condensate trap/drain. Include a condensate trap to separate
the aqueous liquid phase from the gas stream. We recommend using a
peristaltic pump to remove water from the condensate trap over the
course of the test to prevent build up of the condensate. Note that for
some tests it may be appropriate to collect this water for analysis.
(d) Sampler flow control. For testing using the recommended filter
and sorbent module sizes, we recommended targeting an average sample
flow rate of 70 l/min to maximize SVOC collection. The sampler must be
designed to maintain proportional sampling throughout the test. Verify
proportional sampling after an emission test as described in Sec.
1065.545.
(e) Water bath. Design the sample system with a water bath in which
the cooling coil, sorbent module, and condensate trap will be
submerged. Use a heat exchanger or ice to maintain the bath temperature
at (3 to 7) [deg]C.
Sec. 1065.1107 Sample media and sample system preparation; sampler
assembly.
This section describes the types of sample media to be used as well
as the cleaning procedure required to prepare the media and wetted
sample surfaces for sampling.
(a) Sample media. The sampling system uses two types of sample
media in series: The first to simultaneously capture the PM and some of
the SVOCs, and a second to capture SVOCs that remain in the gas phase.
Use the following sample media for capture of PM and gas phase SVOCs:
(1) For capture of PM, use pure quartz filters that do not contain
any binder. Size the filter diameter to account for the expected PM
emission rate, sample flow rate, and number of repeat tests to minimize
filter change intervals. Note that when repeating test cycles to
increase sample mass, you may replace the filter without replacing the
sorbent or otherwise disassembling the batch sampler. In those cases
include all filters in the extraction.
(2) For capture of gaseous SVOCs, utilize XAD-2 resin contained
between two PUF plugs.
(b) Sample media and sampler preparation. Prepare pre-cleaned PM
filters and pre-cleaned PUF/XAD-2 as needed. If the media is not to be
used immediately after cleaning, store it in containers protected from
light and ambient air.
(1) Pre-clean the filters via Soxhlet extraction with methylene
chloride for 24 hours and dry over dry nitrogen in a low temperature
vacuum oven.
(2) Pre-clean PUF and XAD-2 via a series of Soxhlet extractions: 8
h with water, 22 h with methanol, 22 h with methylene chloride, and 22
hours with toluene followed by drying with nitrogen.
(3) Clean sampler components including the probe, filter holder,
condenser, sorbent module, and condensate collection vessel by rinsing
three times with methylene chloride followed by three rinses with
toluene. Prepare pre-cleaned aluminum foil for capping the probe inlet
of the sampler after the sample train has been assembled.
(c) Sorbent spiking. Use good engineering judgment to verify the
extent to which your extraction methods recover SVOCs absorbed to the
sample media. We recommend spiking the XAD-2 resin with a surrogate
standard prior to testing with a carbon-13 or hydrogen-2 isotopically
labeled standard for each of the class of analytes targeted for
analysis. Perform this spiking as follows:
(1) Insert the lower PUF plug into the bottom of the sorbent
module.
(2) Add half of one portion of XAD-2 resin to the module and spike
the XAD-2 in the module with the standard.
(3) Wait 1 hour for the solvent from the standard(s) to evaporate
and then add the remaining 20 g of the XAD-2 resin to the module
followed by the top PUF plug.
(4) Cover the inlet and outlet of the sorbent module with pre-
cleaned aluminum foil.
(d) Sample train assembly. Upon completion of the sample media and
sampler preparation, assemble the condensate trap, cooling coil, filter
holder with filter, and sample probe to the sorbent module and lower
assembly into the reservoir. Cover the probe inlet with pre-cleaned
aluminum foil.
Sec. 1065.1109 Post-test sampler disassembly and sample extraction.
This section describes the process for sample train disassembly,
sample train rinsing, sample extraction, and sample clean-up.
(a) Sample train disassembly. Disassemble the sample train in a
clean environment upon completion of testing. Prepare to extract the
SVOCs as follows:
(1) Remove the PM filter, PUF, and all of the XAD-2 from the sample
train and place them into a Soxhlet extraction
[[Page 30140]]
thimble. If the sample media are to be stored, store them at <= 37
[deg]C.
(2) Rinse sample train wetted surfaces upstream of the condensate
trap with acetone followed by toluene (or a comparable solvent system),
ensuring that all of the solvent that remains in liquid phase is
collected (note that a fraction of the acetone and toluene will likely
be lost via evaporation during mixing.) Rinse with solvent volumes that
are sufficient to cover the all of the surfaces exposed to sample
during testing. We recommend three fresh solvent rinses with acetone
and two with toluene. We recommend rinse volumes of 60 mL per rinse for
all sample train components except the condenser coil, of which you
should use 200 mL per rinse. Keep the acetone rinsate separate from the
toluene rinsate to the extent practicable. Rinsate fractions should be
stored separately in glass bottles that have been pre-rinsed with
acetone, hexane, and toluene (or bottles purchased pre-cleaned).
(3) Use good engineering judgment to determine if you should
analyze the aqueous condensate phase for SVOCs. If you determine that
analysis is necessary, use toluene to perform a liquid-liquid
extraction of the SVOCs from the collected aqueous condensate using a
sepratory funnel or equivalent. Add the toluene from this aqueous
extraction to the toluene rinsate fraction mentioned in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section.
(4) Reduce rinsate solvent volumes as needed using a Kuderna-Danish
concentrator or rotary evaporator and retain these rinse solvents for
reuse during sample media extraction for the same test. Care should be
taken when concentrating via rotary evaporation to avoid loss of low
molecular weight analytes.
(b) Sample extraction. Extract the SVOCs from the sorbent using
Soxhlet extraction as described in this paragraph (b). To accommodate
the Soxhlet extractions of all SVOCs from a single sample, two 16 hour
extractions are required. This will reduce the possibility of loss of
low molecular weight SVOCs and promote water removal. We recommend
performing the first extraction with acetone/hexane and the second
using toluene (or an equivalent solvent system).
(1) We recommend equipping the Soxhlet extractor with a Dean-Stark
trap to facilitate the removal of residual water from the sample train
rinse. The Soxhlet apparatus must be large enough to allow extraction
of the PUF, XAD-2, and filter in a single batch. Include in the
extractor setup a glass thimble with a coarse or extra coarse sintered
glass bottom. Pre-clean the extractor using proper glass cleaning
procedures. We recommend that the Soxhlet apparatus be cleaned with a 4
to 8 hr Soxhlet extraction with methylene chloride at a cycling rate of
3 cycles per hour. Discard the solvent used for pre-cleaning (no
analysis is necessary).
(2) Load the extractor thimble before placing it in the extractor
by first rolling the PM filter around the inner circumference of the
thimble with the sampled side facing in. Push one PUF plug down into
the bottom of the thimble then add approximately half of the XAD-2. The
then spike the XAD-2 in the thimble with the isotopically labeled
extraction standards of known mass. Target the center of the XAD-2 bed
for extraction standard delivery. We recommend using multiple
isotopically labeled extraction standards that cover the range of
target analytes. Generally this means that you should use isotopically
labeled standards at least for the lowest and highest molecular weight
analytes for each category of compounds (such as PAHs and dioxins).
These extraction standards monitor the efficiency of the extraction and
are also used to determine analyte concentrations after analysis. Upon
completion of spiking, add the remaining XAD-2 to the thimble followed
by the remaining PUF plug. Then place the thimble into the extractor.
(3) For the initial extraction, combine the concentrated acetone
rinses (from the sample train in paragraph (a) of this section) with
enough hexane to bring the solvent volume up to the target level of 700
mL. Assemble the extractor and turn on the heating controls and cooling
water. Allow the sample to reflux for 16 hours with the rheostat
adjusted so that the extraction cycles at a rate of 3.0 0.5
cycles per hour. Drain the water from the Dean-Stark trap as it accrues
by opening the stopcock on the trap. Discard this water unless it is to
be analyzed. In most cases, any water present will be removed within
approximately 2 hours of the start of the extraction.
(4) Upon completion of the initial extraction, remove the solvent
and concentrate it to 4.0 0.5 mL using a Kuderna-Danish
concentrator that includes a condenser such as a three-ball Snyder
column with venting dimples and graduated collection tube. The use of
this concentrator will minimize evaporative loss of lower molecular
weight analytes.
(i) Rinse the round bottom flask of the extractor with 60 to 100 mL
of hexane and add the rinsate to this concentrated extract.
(ii) Concentrate the mixture to 4 0.5 mL using a
Kuderna-Danish concentrator or similar concentration apparatus.
(iii) Repeat paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section 3 times
or as necessary, to remove all of the residual solvent from the
extractor round bottom flask, concentrating the final rinse to 4 0.5 mL.
(5) For the second extraction, combine the toluene rinses (from the
sample train in paragraph (a) of this section) with any additional
toluene needed to bring the solvent volume up to the target level of
700 mL. As noted in this paragraph (a) of this section, you may need to
concentrate the rinse prior to addition to the extraction apparatus if
the rinse solvent volume is too large. Allow the sample to reflux for
16 hours with the rheostat adjusted so that the extraction cycles at a
rate of 3.0 0.5 cycles per hour. Although little or no
water should be present during this stage, check the Dean-Stark trap
during the first 2 hours of the extraction.
(6) Upon completion of the second extraction, remove the solvent
and concentrate it to 4 0.5 mL as described in paragraph
(b)(4) of this section. Using hexane from paragraph (4) of this section
as the rinse solvent, effectively performs a solvent exchange of
toluene with hexane.
(7) Combine the concentrated extract from paragraph (b)(4) of this
section with the concentrated extract from paragraph (b)(6) of this
section. Divide the extract into a number of fractions based on the
number of analyses to be performed. Perform the separate sample clean
up described in paragraph (c) of this section as needed for each
fraction.
(c) Sample clean up. This paragraph (c) describes how to perform
sample cleaning to remove unwanted SVOCs (that is, those SVOCs which
you are not analyzing for) and solids from the sample extract before
analysis. This process, which is known as ``sample clean up, reduces
the potential for interference or co-elution of peaks during analytical
analysis. Before proceeding with the sample clean up, spike the extract
with an alternate standard that contains a known mass of isotopically
labeled compounds that are identical (with the exception of the
labeling) to the target analytes. The number of compounds that make up
the standard will be determined by the category of the target analyte
compounds (such as PAHs or dioxin). For example, PAHs require the use
of 4 compounds in the alternate standard to cover the 4 basic ring
structures of PAHs (2-ring, 3-ring, 4-ring, and 5-ring structures).
These alternate standards
[[Page 30141]]
are used to monitor the efficiency of the clean up procedure. Before
sample clean up, concentrate the fractionated sample to about 2 mL with
a Kuderna-Danish concentrator or rotary evaporator, and then transfer
the extract to an 8-mL test tube with hexane rinse. Concentrate to a
volume of about 1 mL using a Kuderna-Danish concentrator. Since there
are several column chromatographic cleanup options available, use good
engineering judgment to select one appropriate for your target
analytes. Note that these clean-up techniques generally remove
compounds based on their polarity. The clean up procedures given in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section are examples of clean-up
techniques for PAHs and nitropolynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (nPAHs).
(1) PAH clean up. The following method is appropriate for cleaning
up extracts intended for analysis of PAHs:
(i) Pack a glass gravity column (250 mm x 10 mm recommended) by
inserting a clean glass wool plug into the bottom of the column
followed by the addition of 10 grams of activated silica gel in
methylene chloride. Tap the column to settle the silica gel, and then
add a 1 cm layer of anhydrous sodium sulfate. Since variations among
batches of silica gel may affect the elution volume of the various PAH,
the volume of solvent required to completely elute all of the PAH must
be verified by the analyst. The weight of the silica gel can then be
adjusted accordingly.
(ii) Elute the column with 40 mL of hexane. The rate for all
elutions should be about 2 mL/min and you may use dry air or
N2 to maintain the headspace slightly above atmospheric
pressure to increase the elution rate. Discard the eluate just prior to
exposure of the sodium sulfate layer to the air or N2,
transfer the 1 mL sample extract onto the column using two additional 2
mL rinses of hexane to complete the transfer. Just prior to exposure of
the sodium sulfate layer to the air or N2, begin elution of
the column with 25 mL of hexane followed by 25 mL of 40 volume %
methylene chloride in hexane. Collect the entire eluate and concentrate
it to about 5 mL using the Kuderna-Danish concentrator or a rotary
evaporator. Make sure that you do not evaporate all of the solvent from
the extract during the concentration process. Transfer to a small
sample vial using a hexane rinse and concentrate to 100 [mu]L using a
stream of nitrogen, gentle enough to not violently disturb the solvent.
Store the extracts in a refrigerator at 4 [deg]C or lower away from
light until analysis.
(2) nPAH clean up. The following procedure, that was adapted from
``Determination and Comparison of Nitrated-Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons Measured in Air and Diesel Particulate Reference
Materials'' (Bamford, H.A., et al, Chemosphere, Vol. 50, Issue 5, pages
575-587), is an appropriate method to clean up extracts intended for
analysis of nPAHs:
(i) Condition an aminopropyl solid phase extraction (SPE) cartridge
by eluting it with 20 mL of 20 volume % methylene chloride in hexane
before use. Transfer the extract quantitatively to the SPE cartridge
with at least two methylene chloride rinsings. Elute the extract
through the SPE cartridge by using 40 ml of 20 volume % methylene
chloride in hexane to minimize potential interference of polar
constituents. Then reduce the extract to 0.5 ml in hexane and subject
the extract to normal-phase liquid chromatography using pre-prepared a
9.6 mm X 25 cm semi-preparative Chromegabond[supreg] amino/cyano
column, 5 [mu]m particle size to isolate the nPAH fraction. The mobile
phase is 20 volume % methylene chloride in hexane at a constant flow
rate of 5 ml/min. Prior to each injection, the column should be back
flashed with 60 ml of methylene chloride and then conditioned with 200
ml of 20 volume % methylene chloride in hexane. Collect the effluent
and concentrate to about 2 mL using the Kuderna-Danish concentrator or
a rotary evaporator. Transfer to a minivial using a hexane rinse and
concentrate to 100 [mu]L using a gentle stream of nitrogen. Store the
extracts at 4 [deg]C or lower away from light until analysis.
(ii) [Reserved]
Sec. 1065.1111 Sample analysis.
This subpart does not specify chromatographic or analytical methods
to analyze extracts, because the selection of such methods is highly
dependent on the nature of the target analytes. However, we recommend
that prior to whichever sample analysis you choose, you spike the
extract with an injection standard that contains a known mass of an
isotopically labeled compound that is identical (with the exception of
the labeling) to one of the target analytes. This injection standard is
used to monitor the efficiency of the analytical process by verifying
the volume of sample injected for analysis.
0
284. Part 1066 is revised to read as follows:
PART 1066--VEHICLE-TESTING PROCEDURES
Subpart A--Applicability and General Provisions
1066.1 Applicability.
1066.2 Submitting information to EPA under this part.
1066.5 Overview of this part 1066 and its relationship to the
standard-setting part.
1066.10 Other procedures.
1066.15 Overview of test procedures.
1066.20 Units of measure and overview of calculations.
1066.25 Recordkeeping.
Subpart B--Equipment, Measurement Instruments, Fuel, and Analytical Gas
Specifications
1066.101 Overview.
1066.105 Ambient controls and vehicle cooling fans.
1066.110 Equipment specifications for emission sampling systems.
1066.120 Measurement instruments.
1065.122 Data updating, recording, and control for measurement
instruments.
1066.130 Measurement instrument calibrations and verifications.
1066.137 Linearity verification.
1066.140 Diluted exhaust flow calibration.
1066.145 Engine fluids, test fuels, analytical gases, and other
calibration standards.
1066.150 Analyzer interference and quench verification limit.
Subpart C--Dynamometer Specifications
1066.201 Dynamometer overview.
1066.210 Dynamometers.
1066.215 Summary of verification and calibration procedures for
chassis dynamometers.
1066.220 Linearity verification for chassis dynamometer systems.
1066.225 Roll runout and diameter verification procedure.
1066.230 Time verification procedure.
1066.235 Speed verification procedure.
1066.240 Torque transducer calibration.
1066.245 Response time verification.
1066.250 Base inertia verification.
1066.255 Parasitic loss verification.
1066.260 Parasitic friction compensation evaluation.
1066.265 Acceleration and deceleration verification.
1066.270 Unloaded coastdown verification.
1066.280 Daily dynamometer readiness verification.
1066.290 Driver's aid.
Subpart D--Coastdown
1066.301 Overview of coastdown procedures.
1066.305 Coastdown procedures for motor vehicles at or below 14,000
pounds GVWR.
1066.310 Coastdown procedures for vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR.
1066.320 Dynamometer road-load setting.
Subpart E--Preparing Vehicles and Running an Exhaust Emission Test
1066.401 Overview.
1066.407 Vehicle preparation and preconditioning.
[[Page 30142]]
1066.410 Dynamometer test procedure.
1066.420 Vehicle operation.
1066.425 Test preparation.
1066.430 Performing emission tests.
Subpart F--Hybrids and Electric Vehicles
1066.501 Overview.
Subpart G--Calculations
1066.601 Overview.
1066.610 Mass-based and molar-based exhaust emission calculations.
1066.620 Dilution air background correction.
1066.630 NOX intake-air humidity correction.
1066.640 Removed water correction.
1066.650 Flow meter calibration calculations.
1066.652 PDP, SSV, and CFV flow rate calculations.
1066.665 NMOG determination.
1066.695 Data requirements.
Subpart H--Cold-Temperature Test Procedures
1066.701 Applicability and general provisions.
1066.710 Cold-testing procedures for measuring CO and NMHC emissions
and determining fuel economy.
Subpart I--Exhaust Emission Test Procedures for Motor Vehicles
1066.801 Applicability and general provisions.
1066.810 Road load power, test weight, and inertia weight class
determination.
1066.814 Vehicle preparation.
1066.820 Exhaust emission test procedures for FTP emissions.
1066.822 Composite calculations for FTP exhaust emissions.
1066.830 Supplemental Federal Test Procedures; overview.
1066.831 Exhaust emission test procedures for agressive driving.
1066.832 Exhaust emission test procedure for SC03 emissions.
1066.835 AC17 Air conditioning efficiency test procedure.
1066.839 Highway fuel economy test procedure.
1066.840 Fuel storage system leak test procedure.
Subpart J--[Reserved]
Subpart K--Definitions and Other Reference Material
1066.1001 Definitions.
1066.1005 Symbols, abbreviations, acronyms, and units of measure.
1066.1010 Reference materials.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart A--Applicability and General Provisions
Sec. 1066.1 Applicability.
(a) This part describes the procedures that apply to testing we
require for the following vehicles:
(1) Model year 2014 and later heavy-duty highway vehicles we
regulate under 40 CFR part 1037 that are not subject to chassis testing
for exhaust emissions under 40 CFR part 86.
(2) Model year 2022 and later highway vehicles (light-duty and
heavy-duty) that are subject to chassis testing for exhaust emissions
under 40 CFR part 86. See 40 CFR part 86 for provisions describing how
to implement this part 1066.
(b) The procedures of this part may apply to other types of
vehicles, as described in this part and in the standard-setting part.
(c) The term ``you'' means anyone performing testing under this
part other than EPA.
(1) This part is addressed primarily to manufacturers of vehicles,
but it applies equally to anyone who does testing under this part for
such manufacturers.
(2) This part applies to any manufacturer or supplier of test
equipment, instruments, supplies, or any other goods or services
related to the procedures, requirements, recommendations, or options in
this part.
(d) Paragraph (a) of this section identifies the parts of the CFR
that define emission standards and other requirements for particular
types of vehicles. In this part, we refer to each of these other parts
generically as the ``standard-setting part.'' For example, 40 CFR part
1037 is the standard-setting part for heavy-duty highway vehicles and
parts 86 and 600 are the standard-setting parts for light-duty
vehicles. For vehicles subject to 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, references
to the standard-setting part include subpart I of this part.
(e) Unless we specify otherwise, the terms ``procedures'' and
``test procedures'' in this part include all aspects of vehicle
testing, including the equipment specifications, calibrations,
calculations, and other protocols and procedural specifications needed
to measure emissions.
(f) For additional information regarding these test procedures,
visit our Web site at www.epa.gov, and in particular http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/testing/regulations.htm.
Sec. 1066.2 Submitting information to EPA under this part.
(a) You are responsible for statements and information in your
applications for certification, requests for approved procedures,
selective enforcement audits, laboratory audits, production-line test
reports, or any other statements you make to us related to this part
1066. If you provide statements or information to someone for
submission to EPA, you are responsible for these statements and
information as if you had submitted them to EPA yourself.
(b) In the standard-setting part and in 40 CFR 1068.101, we
describe your obligation to report truthful and complete information
and the consequences of failing to meet this obligation. See also 18
U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 7413(c)(2). This obligation applies whether
you submit this information directly to EPA or through someone else.
(c) We may void any certificates or approvals associated with a
submission of information if we find that you intentionally submitted
false, incomplete, or misleading information. For example, if we find
that you intentionally submitted incomplete information to mislead EPA
when requesting approval to use alternate test procedures, we may void
the certificates for all engine families certified based on emission
data collected using the alternate procedures. This would also apply if
you ignore data from incomplete tests or from repeat tests with higher
emission results.
(d) We may require an authorized representative of your company to
approve and sign the submission, and to certify that all the
information submitted is accurate and complete. This includes everyone
who submits information, including manufacturers and others.
(e) See 40 CFR 1068.10 for provisions related to confidential
information. Note however that under 40 CFR 2.301, emission data are
generally not eligible for confidential treatment.
(f) Nothing in this part should be interpreted to limit our ability
under Clean Air Act section 208 (42 U.S.C. 7542) to verify that
vehicles conform to the regulations.
Sec. 1066.5 Overview of this part 1066 and its relationship to the
standard-setting part.
(a) This part specifies procedures that can apply generally to
testing various categories of vehicles. See the standard-setting part
for directions in applying specific provisions in this part for a
particular type of vehicle. Before using this part's procedures, read
the standard-setting part to answer at least the following questions:
(1) What drive schedules must I use for testing?
(2) Should I warm up the test vehicle before measuring emissions,
or do I need to measure cold-start emissions during a warm-up segment
of the duty cycle?
(3) Which exhaust constituents do I need to measure? Measure all
exhaust constituents that are subject to emission standards, any other
exhaust
[[Page 30143]]
constituents needed for calculating emission rates, and any additional
exhaust constituents as specified in the standard-setting part. See 40
CFR 1065.5 regarding requests to omit measurement of N2O and
CH4 for vehicles, not subject to N2O or
CH4 emission standards.
(4) Do any unique specifications apply for test fuels?
(5) What maintenance steps may I take before or between tests on an
emission-data vehicle?
(6) Do any unique requirements apply to stabilizing emission levels
on a new vehicle?
(7) Do any unique requirements apply to test limits, such as
ambient temperatures or pressures?
(8) [Reserved]
(9) Are there any emission standards specified at particular
operating conditions or ambient conditions?
(10) Do any unique requirements apply for durability testing?
(b) The testing specifications in the standard-setting part may
differ from the specifications in this part. In cases where it is not
possible to comply with both the standard-setting part and this part,
you must comply with the specifications in the standard-setting part.
The standard-setting part may also allow you to deviate from the
procedures of this part for other reasons.
(c) The following table shows how this part divides testing
specifications into subparts:
Table 1 of Sec. 1066.5--Description of Part 1066 Subparts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Describes these specifications or
This subpart procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A........................ Applicability and general provisions.
Subpart B........................ Equipment for testing.
Subpart C........................ Dynamometer specifications.
Subpart D........................ Coastdowns for testing.
Subpart E........................ How to prepare your vehicle and run
an emission test.
Subpart F........................ How to test hybrid vehicles.
Subpart G........................ Test procedure calculations.
Subpart H........................ Cold temperature testing.
Subpart I........................ Exhaust emission test procedures for
motor vehicles.
Subpart J........................ Reserved.
Subpart K........................ Definitions and reference material.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1066.10 Other procedures.
(a) Your testing. The procedures in this part apply for all testing
you do to show compliance with emission standards, with certain
exceptions noted in this section. In some other sections in this part,
we allow you to use other procedures (such as less precise or less
accurate procedures) if they do not affect your ability to show that
your vehicles comply with the applicable emission standards. This
generally requires emission levels to be far enough below the
applicable emission standards so that any errors caused by greater
imprecision or inaccuracy do not affect your ability to state
unconditionally that the engines meet all applicable emission
standards.
(b) Our testing. These procedures generally apply for testing that
we do to determine if your vehicles comply with applicable emission
standards. We may perform other testing as allowed by the Act.
(c) Exceptions. We may allow or require you to use procedures other
than those specified in this part as described in 40 CFR 1065.10(c).
All the test procedures noted as exceptions to the specified procedures
are considered generically as ``other procedures.'' Note that the terms
``special procedures'' and ``alternate procedures'' have specific
meanings; ``special procedures'' are those allowed by 40 CFR
1065.10(c)(2) and ``alternate procedures'' are those allowed by 40 CFR
1065.10(c)(7). If we require you to request approval to use other
procedures under this paragraph (c), you may not use them until we
approve your request.
Sec. 1066.15 Overview of test procedures.
This section outlines the procedures to test vehicles that are
subject to emission standards.
(a) In the standard-setting part, we set emission standards in g/
mile (or g/km), for the following constituents:
(1) Total oxides of nitrogen, NOX.
(2) Hydrocarbons, HC, which may be expressed in the following ways:
(i) Total hydrocarbons, THC.
(ii) Nonmethane hydrocarbons, NMHC, which results from subtracting
methane (CH4) from THC.
(iii) Total hydrocarbon-equivalent, THCE, which results from
adjusting THC mathematically to be equivalent on a carbon-mass basis.
(iv) Nonmethane hydrocarbon-equivalent, NMHCE, which results from
adjusting NMHC mathematically to be equivalent on a carbon-mass basis.
(v) Nonmethane organic gases, NMOG, which are calculated either
from fully or partially speciated measurement of hydrocarbons including
oxygenates, or by adjusting measured NMHC values based on fuel
oxygenate properties.
(3) Particulate mass, PM.
(4) Carbon monoxide, CO.
(5) Carbon dioxide, CO2.
(6) Methane, CH4.
(7) Nitrous oxide, N2O.
(8) Formaldehyde, CH2O.
(b) Note that some vehicles may not be subject to standards for all
the emission constituents identified in paragraph (a) of this section.
Note also that the standard-setting part may include standards for
pollutants not listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) The provisions of this part apply for chassis dynamometer
testing where vehicle speed is controlled to follow a prescribed duty
cycle while simulating vehicle driving through the dynamometer's road-
load settings. We generally set emission standards over test intervals
and/or drive schedules, as follows:
(1) Vehicle operation. Testing involves measuring emissions and
miles travelled while operating the vehicle on a chassis dynamometer.
Refer to the definitions of ``duty cycle'' and ``test interval'' in
Sec. 1066.1001. Note that a single drive schedule may have multiple
test intervals and require weighting of results from multiple test
intervals to calculate a composite distance-based emission value to
compare to the standard.
(2) Constituent determination. Determine the total mass of each
constituent over a test interval by selecting from the following
methods:
(i) Continuous sampling. In continuous sampling, measure the
constituent's concentration continuously from raw or dilute exhaust.
Multiply this concentration by the continuous (raw or dilute) flow rate
at the emission sampling location to determine the constituent's flow
rate. Sum the constituent's flow rate continuously over the test
interval. This sum is the total mass of the emitted constituent.
(ii) Batch sampling. In batch sampling, continuously extract and
store a sample of raw or dilute exhaust for later measurement. Extract
a sample proportional to the raw or dilute exhaust flow rate, as
applicable. You may extract and store a proportional sample of exhaust
in an appropriate container, such as a bag, and then measure HC, CO,
and NOX concentrations in the container after the test
interval. You may deposit PM from proportionally extracted exhaust onto
an appropriate substrate, such as a filter. In this case, divide the PM
by the amount of filtered exhaust to calculate the PM concentration.
Multiply batch sampled concentrations by the total (raw or dilute) flow
from which it was extracted during the test interval. This product is
the total mass of the emitted constituent.
(iii) Combined sampling. You may use continuous and batch sampling
simultaneously during a test interval, as follows:
[[Page 30144]]
(A) You may use continuous sampling for some constituents and batch
sampling for others.
(B) You may use continuous and batch sampling for a single
constituent, with one being a redundant measurement, subject to the
provisions of 40 CFR 1065.201.
(d) Refer to the standard-setting part for calculations to
determine g/mile emission rates.
(e) You must use good engineering judgment for all aspects of
testing under this part. While this part highlights several specific
cases where good engineering judgment is especially relevant, the
requirement to use good engineering judgment is not limited to those
provisions where we specifically re-state this requirement.
Sec. 1066.20 Units of measure and overview of calculations.
(a) System of units. The procedures in this part follow both
conventional English Units and the International System of Units (SI),
as detailed in NIST Special Publication 811, which we incorporate by
reference in Sec. 1066.1010. Except where specified, equations work
with any system of units. Where the equations depend on the use of
specific units, these units are identified.
(b) Units conversion. Use good engineering judgment to convert
units between measurement systems as needed. For example, if you
measure vehicle speed as kilometers per hour and we specify a precision
requirement in terms of miles per hour, convert your measured kilometer
per hour value to miles per hour before comparing it to our
specification. The following conventions are used throughout this
document and should be used to convert units as applicable:
(1) 1 hp = 33,000 ft[middot]lbf/min = 550 ft[middot]lbf/s = 0.7457
kW.
(2) 1 lbf = 32.174 ft[middot]lbm/s\2\ = 4.4482 N.
(3) 1 inch = 25.4 mm.
(4) 1 mile = 1609.344 m.
(5) For ideal gases, 1 [micro]mol/mol = 1 ppm.
(6) For ideal gases, 10 mmol/mol = 1%.
(c) Temperauture. We generally designate temperatures in units of
degrees Celsius ([deg]C) unless a calculation requires an absolute
temperature. In that case, we designate temperatures in units of Kelvin
(K). For conversion purposes throughout this part, 0 [deg]C equals
273.15 K. Unless specified otherwise, always use absolute temperature
values for multiplying or dividing by temperature.
(d) Absolute pressure. Measure absolute pressure directly or
calculate it as the sum of atmospheric pressure plus a differential
pressure that is referenced to atmospheric pressure. Always use
absolute pressure values for multiplying or dividing by pressure.
(e) Rounding. The rounding provisions of 40 CFR 1065.20 apply for
calculations in this part. This generally specifies that you round
final values but not intermediate values. Use good engineering judgment
to record the appropriate number of significant digits for all
measurements.
(f) Interpretation of ranges. Interpret a range as a tolerance
unless we explicitly identify it as an accuracy, repeatability,
linearity, or noise specification. See 40 CFR 1065.1001 for the
definition of tolerance. In this part, we specify two types of ranges:
(1) Whenever we specify a range by a single value and corresponding
limit values above and below that value (such as X Y),
target the associated control point to that single value (X). Examples
of this type of range include ``10% of maximum pressure'',
or ``(30 10) kPa''. In these examples, you would target the
maximum pressure or 30 kPa, respectively.
(2) Whenever we specify a range by the interval between two values,
you may target any associated control point to any value within that
range. An example of this type of range is ``(40 to 50) kPa''.
(g) Scaling of specifications with respect to an applicable
standard. Because this part 1066 applies to a wide range of vehicles
and emission standards, some of the specifications in this part are
scaled with respect to a vehicle's applicable standard or weight. This
ensures that the specification will be adequate to determine
compliance, but not overly burdensome by requiring unnecessarily high-
precision equipment. Many of these specifications are given with
respect to a ``flow-weighted mean'' that is expected at the standard or
during testing. Flow-weighted mean is the mean of a quantity after it
is weighted proportional to a corresponding flow rate. For example, if
a gas concentration is measured continuously from the raw exhaust of an
engine, its flow-weighted mean concentration is the sum of the products
of each recorded concentration times its respective exhaust flow rate,
divided by the sum of the recorded flow rates. As another example, the
bag concentration from a CVS system is the same as the flow-weighted
mean concentration, because the CVS system itself flow-weights the bag
concentration.
Sec. 1066.25 Recordkeeping.
The procedures in this part include various requirements to record
data or other information. Refer to the standard-setting part and Sec.
1066.695 regarding recordkeeping requirements. You must promptly send
us organized, written records in English if we ask for them. We may
review them at any time.
Subpart B--Equipment, Measurement Instruments, Fuel, and Analytical
Gas Specifications
Sec. 1066.101 Overview.
(a) This subpart addresses equipment related to emission testing,
as well as test fuels and analytical gases. This section addresses
emission sampling and analytical equipment, test fuels, and analytical
gases.
(b) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065 specify engine-based
procedures for measuring emissions. Except as specified otherwise in
this part, the provisions of 40 CFR part 1065 apply for testing
required by this part as follows:
(1) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart B, describe
equipment specifications for exhaust dilution and sampling systems;
these specifications apply for testing under this part as described in
Sec. 1066.110.
(2) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C, describe
specifications for measurement instrument; these specifications apply
for testing under this part as described in Sec. 1066.120.
(3) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart D, describe
specifications for measurement instrument calibrations and
verifications; these specifications apply for testing under this part
as described in Sec. 1066.130.
(4) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H, describe
specifications for fuels, engine fluids, and analytical gases; these
specifications apply for testing under this part as described in Sec.
1066.145.
(5) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart I, describe
specifications for testing with oxygenated fuels; these specifications
apply for NMOG determinations as described in Sec. 1066.665.
(c) The provisions of this subpart are intended to specify systems
that can very accurately and precisely measure emissions from motor
vehicles such as light-duty vehicles. To the extent that this level of
accuracy and/or precision is not necessary for testing highway
motorcycles or nonroad vehicles, we may waive or modify the
specifications and requirements of this part for testing these other
vehicles, consistent with good engineering judgment. For example, it
may be appropriate to allow the use of a hydrokinetic dynamometer that
is not able to meet all the
[[Page 30145]]
performance specifications described in this subpart.
Sec. 1066.105 Ambient controls and vehicle cooling fans.
(a) Ambient conditions. Dynamometer testing under this part
generally requires that you maintain the test cell within a specified
range of ambient temperature and humidity. Use good engineering
judgment to maintain relatively uniform temperatures throughout the
test cell before testing. You are generally not required to maintain
uniform temperatures throughout the test cell while the vehicle is
running due to the heat generated by the vehicle. Measured humidity
values must accurately represent the humidity of intake air; other than
the intake air, humidity does not affect emissions so humidity need not
be uniform throughout the test cell.
(b) General requirements for cooling fans. Use good engineering
judgment to select and configure fans to cool the test vehicle in a way
that meets the specifications of paragraph (c) of this section and
simulates in-use operation. If you demonstrate that the specified fan
configuration is impractical for special vehicle designs, such as
vehicles with rear-mounted engines, or it does not provide adequate
cooling to properly represent in-use operation, you may ask us to
approve increasing the fan's capacity or using additional fans.
(c) Allowable cooling fans for vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds
GVWR. Cooling fan specifications for vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds
GVWR depend on the test cycle. Paragraph (c)(1) of this section
summarizes the cooling fan specifications for the different test
cycles; the detailed specifications are described in paragraphs (c)(2)
through (5) of this section. See Sec. 1066.410 for instruction
regarding how to use the fans during testing.
(1) Cooling fan specifications for different test cycles are
summarized as follows:
(i) For FTP and LA-92 test cycles, the allowable cooling fan
configurations are described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (4) of this
section.
(ii) For the US06 test cycle, the allowable cooling fan
configurations are described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (5) of this
section. The cooling fan configuration in paragraph (c)(4) of this
section is also allowable with advance approval.
(iii) For SC03 and AC17 test cycles, the allowable cooling fan
configuration is described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(iv) For the HFET test cycle, the allowable cooling fan
configurations are described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (4) of this
section.
(2) You may use a road-speed modulated fan system meeting the
specifications of this paragraph (c)(2) for anything other than SC03
and AC17 testing. Use a road-speed modulated fan that achieves a linear
speed of cooling air at the blower outlet that is within 3.0 mph (1.3 m/s) of the corresponding roll speed
when vehicle speeds are between 5 and 30 mph (2.2 to 13.4 m/s), and
within 6.5 mph (2.9 m/s) of the corresponding
roll speed at higher vehicle speeds; however you may limit the fan's
maximum linear speed to 70 mph. We recommend that the cooling fan have
a minimum opening of 0.2 m\2\ and a minimum width of 0.8 m.
(i) Verify the air flow velocity for fan speed corresponding to
vehicle speeds of 20 and 40 mph using an instrument that has an
accuracy of 2% of the measured air flow speed.
(ii) For fans with rectangular outlets, divide the fan outlet into
the as shown in Figure 1 of this section. As denoted by the ``+'' in
the figure, measure flow from the center of each section; however do
not measure the flow from the center section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.041
(iii) For fans with circular outlets, divide the fan outlet into 8
equal sections as shown in Figure 2 of this section. As denoted by the
``+'' in the figure, measure flow on the radial centerline of each
section (at 22.5[deg]) at a radius of two-thirds of the total radius.
[[Page 30146]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.042
(iv) Verify that the fan air flow velocity vector perpendicular to
the axial flow velocity vector is less than 15% of the mean velocity
measured at fan speeds corresponding to vehicle speeds of 20 and 40
mph.
(v) Verify that the uniformity of the fan axial flow tolerance is
within 4.0 mph at fan speeds corresponding to 20 mph and
within 8.0 mph at fan speeds corresponding to 40 mph. For
example, at 20 mph, flow at all axial locations denoted by the ``+''
across the discharge nozzle must be between 16 and 24 mph. Measure the
fan axial air flow velocity 60 cm from the nozzle outlet at each point
of the discharge area grid.
(3) For SC03 and AC17 testing, use a road-speed modulated fan with
a minimum air flow nozzle discharge area that is equal to or exceeds
the vehicle's frontal inlet area. We recommend using a fan with a
discharge area of 1.7 m\2\.
(i) Air flow volumes must be proportional to vehicle speed. When
meeting the minimum discharge area requirements, the flow volume would
vary from 0 m\3\/s at 0 mph to approximately 450 m\3\/s at 60 mph. If
this fan is also the only source of test cell air circulation or if fan
operational mechanics make the 0 mph air flow requirement impractical,
air flow of 2 mph or less at 0 mph vehicle speed is allowed.
(ii) Verify that the fan air flow velocity vector perpendicular to
the axial flow velocity vector is less than 10% of the mean velocity
measured at fan speeds corresponding to vehicle speeds between 20 and
40 mph.
(iii) Verify that the uniformity of fan axial flow tolerance is 20%
of the fan speed corresponding to vehicle speeds of 20 and 40 mph. For
example, at 20 mph, flow at all axial locations across the discharge
nozzle must be between 16 and 24 mph. Measure the fan axial air flow
velocity 60 cm from the nozzle outlet at each point of the discharge
area grid.
(iv) The instrument used to verify the air velocity must have an
accuracy of 2% of the measured air flow speed.
(v) In addition to the road-speed modulated fan, we may approve the
use of one or more fixed-speed fans to provide proper cooling to
represent in-use operation, but only up to a total of 2.50 m\3\/s for
all additional fans.
(4) You may use a fixed-speed fan with a maximum capacity up to
2.50 m\3\/s for FTP, LA-92, and HFET testing.
(5) You may use a fixed-speed fan with a maximum capacity up to
7.10 m\3\/s for US06 testing.
(d) Allowable cooling fans for vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR.
For all testing, use a road-speed modulated fan system that achieves a
linear speed of cooling air at the blower outlet that is within 3.0 mph (1.3 m/s) of the corresponding roll speed
when vehicle speeds are between 5 and 30 mph (2.2 to 13.4 m/s), and
within 10 mph (4.5 m/s) of the corresponding
roll speed at higher vehicle speeds. For vehicles above 19,500 pounds
GVWR, we recommend that the cooling fan have a minimum opening of 2.75
m\2\, a minimum flow rate of 60 m\3\/s at 50 mph, and a minimum speed
profile across the duct, in the free stream flow, that is 15% of the target flow rate.
Sec. 1066.110 Equipment specifications for emission sampling systems.
(a) This section specifies equipment related to emission testing,
other than measurement instruments. This equipment includes two broad
categories--dynamometers (described further in subpart C of this part)
and emission-sampling hardware. Other related sections in this subpart
identify measurement instruments (Sec. 1066.120), describe how to
evaluate the performance of these instruments (Sec. Sec. 1066.130 and
1066.137), describe how to calibrate a CVS (Sec. 1066.140), specify
engine fluids and analytical gases (Sec. 1066.145), and specify
requirements for analyzer interference and quench verification (Sec.
1066.150).
(b) The following equipment specifications apply for testing under
this part:
(1) Tailpipe connections. Connect a vehicle's exhaust system to any
dilution stage as follows:
(i) Minimize laboratory exhaust tubing lengths. You may use a total
length of laboratory tubing up to 4 m, without needing to heat or
insulate the tubing. However, you may use a total length of laboratory
tubing up to 10 m if you insulate and/or heat the tubing to minimize
the temperature difference between the exhaust gas and the tubing wall
over the course of the emission test. The laboratory exhaust tubing
starts at the end of the vehicle's tailpipe. The laboratory exhaust
tubing ends at the first sample point or the point of first dilution.
You may use flexible laboratory exhaust tubing at any location in the
laboratory exhaust system, although we recommend that you limit the
amount of flexible tubing to the extent practicable. For multiple-
tailpipe configurations where the tailpipes combine into a single flow
path for emission sampling, the start of the laboratory exhaust tubing
may be taken at the last joint where the exhaust flow first becomes a
single, combined flow.
(ii) You may insulate or heat any laboratory exhaust tubing.
(iii) Use laboratory exhaust tubing materials that are smooth-
walled and not chemically reactive with exhaust constituents. (For
purposes of this paragraph (b)(1), nominally smooth spiral-style and
accordion-style flexible tubing are considered to be smooth-walled.)
For measurements involving
[[Page 30147]]
PM, tubing materials must also be electrically conductive. Stainless
steel is an acceptable material for any measurements. You may use short
sections of nonconductive flexible tubing to connect a PM sampling
system to the vehicle's tailpipe; use good engineering judgment to
limit the amount of nonconductive surface area exposed to the vehicle's
exhaust.
(iv) We recommend that you use laboratory exhaust tubing that has
either a wall thickness of less than 2 mm or is air gap-insulated to
minimize temperature differences between the wall and the exhaust.
(v) You must seal your system to the extent necessary to ensure
that any remaining leaks do not affect your ability to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable standards. We recommend that you seal
all known leaks.
(vi) Electrically ground the entire exhaust system, with the
exception of nonconductive flexible tubing, as allowed under paragraph
(b)(1)(iii) of this section.
(vii) For vehicles with multiple tailpipes, route the exhaust into
a single flow. To ensure mixing of the multiple exhaust streams before
emission sampling, you may configure the exhaust system with turbulence
generators, such as orifice plates or fins, to achieve good mixing. We
recommend a minimum Reynolds number, Re, of 4000 for the
combined exhaust stream, where Re is based on the inside
diameter of the combined flow at the first sampling point. Re
is defined in 40 CFR 1065.640.
(2) Provisions from 40 CFR part 1065. Use equipment specifications
in 40 CFR 1065.140 through 40 CFR 1065.190, except as follows:
(i) For PM background measurement, the following provisions apply
instead of the analogous provisions in 40 CFR 1065.140(b):
(A) You need not measure PM background for every test. You may
apply PM background correction using a moving-average background value
as long as your background PM sample media (e.g., filters) were all
made by the same manufacturer from the same material. Use good
engineering judgment to determine how many background samples make up
the moving average and how frequently to update those values. For
example, you might take one background sample per week and average that
sample into previous background values, maintaining five observations
for each calculated average value. Background sampling time should be
representative of the test interval duration to which the background
correction is applied.
(B) You may sample background PM from the dilution tunnel at any
time before or after an emission test using the same sample train used
during the emission test. For this background sampling, the dilution
tunnel blower must be turned on, the vehicle must be disconnected from
the exhaust transfer tube, and the exhaust transfer tube must be
capped.
(C) The duration of your background sample does not need to be the
same as the test cycle in which you are applying the background
correction, provided it is not inconsistent with the use of good
engineering judgment.
(D) Your background correction may not exceed 5 [micro]g or 5% of
the net PM mass expected at the standard, whichever allowance is
greater.
(ii) The provisions of 40 CFR 1065.140(d)(2)(iv) do not apply.
(iii) For PM samples, configure dilution systems using the
following limits:
(A) Control the dilution air temperature as described in 40 CFR
1065.140(e)(1), except that the temperature may set to (15 to 52)
[deg]C. Use good engineering judgment to control PM sample temperature
as required under 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(4).
(B) Apply the provisions of this paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) instead
of 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(2). Add dilution air to the raw exhaust such that
the overall dilution factor of diluted exhaust to raw exhaust, as
determined in Eq. 1066.620-2 or 1066.620-3, is within the range of (7:1
to 20:1). Compliance with this dilution factor range may be determined
for an individual test interval or as a time-weighted average over the
entire duty cycle as determined in Eq. 1066.620-4. The maximum dilution
factor limit of 20:1 does not apply for plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles (PHEVs) and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), since the
dilution factor is infinite when the engine is off; however we strongly
recommend that you stay under the maximum dilution factor limit when
the engine is running. For partial-flow sampling systems, determine
dilution factor using Eq. 1066.620-3. When determining dilution factor
for PM samples utilizing secondary dilution air, multiply the dilution
factor by the dilution ratio of secondary dilution air to primary
diluted exhaust.
(iv) In addition to the allowances in 40 CFR 1065.140(c)(6) you may
also heat the dilution air as described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) of
this section to prevent or limit aqueous condensation.
(v) If you choose to dilute the exhaust by using a remote mix tee,
which dilutes the exhaust at the tailpipe, you may use the following
provisions consistent with good engineering judgment, provided they do
not affect your ability to demonstrate compliance with the standard:
(A) You may use accordion-style or smooth-walled flexible tubing in
the dilution tunnel upstream of flow or gaseous emission measurement
locations.
(B) You may use smooth-walled electrically conductive flexible
tubing in the dilution tunnel upstream of where PM emission
measurements are made.
(C) Materials for inside surfaces are limited to 300 series
stainless steel and polymer-based materials.
(D) Use good engineering judgment to ensure that the materials you
choose do not cause or contribute to significant loss of PM from your
sample.
(vi) Paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section applies instead of 40 CFR
1065.145(b).
(c) The following table summarizes the requirements of paragraph
(b)(2) of this section:
Table 1 of Sec. 1066.110--Summary of Equipment Specifications From 40
CFR Part 1065, Subpart B, That Apply for Chassis Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability for chassis testing
40 CFR part 1065 references under this part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 1065.140................... Use all except:
40 CFR 1065.140(b) applies as
described in this section.
Use 40 CFR 1065.140(c)(6), with
the additional allowance
described in this section.
Do not use 40 CFR
1065.140(d)(2)(iv).
Use 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(1) as
described in this section.
Do not use 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(2).
40 CFR 1065.145................... Use all except 40 CFR 1065.145(b).
40 CFR 1065.150 through 1065.190.. Use all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30148]]
Sec. 1066.120 Measurement instruments.
The measurement instrument requirements in 40 CFR part 1065,
subpart C, apply with the following exceptions:
(a) The provisions of Sec. 1066.122 apply instead of 40 CFR
1065.202.
(b) The provisions of 40 CFR 1065.210 and 1065.295 do not apply.
Sec. 1066.122 Data updating, recording, and control for measurement
instruments.
This section specifies criteria that your test system must meet for
updating and recording data. It also specifies criteria for controlling
the systems related to driver demand, the dynamometer, sampling
equipment, and measurement instruments.
(a)(1) This paragraph (a)(1) applies where we specify a minimum
command and control frequency that is greater than the minimum
recording frequency, such as for sample flow rates from a CVS that does
not have a heat exchanger. For these measurements, the rate at which
you read and interpret the signal must be at least as frequent as the
minimum command and control frequency. Values may be recorded at the
same frequency. They may also be recorded as means of the values,
provided the frequency of the mean values meets the minimum recording
frequency. All values read must be either recorded or used to calculate
the mean values. For example, if your system reads and controls the
sample flow rate at 10 Hz, you may record these values at 10 Hz, record
them at 5 Hz by averaging pairs of consecutive points together, or
record them at 1 Hz by averaging five consecutive points together.
(2) For all other measured values covered by this section, you may
record the values instantaneously or as mean values, consistent with
good engineering judgment.
(3) You may not use rolling averages of measured values where a
given measured value is included in more than one recorded mean value.
(b) Use data acquisition and control systems that can command,
control, and record at the following minimum frequencies:
Table 1 of Sec. 1066.122--Data Recording and Control Minimum Frequencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum command
Applicable section Measured values and control Minimum recording frequency \a\
frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1066.310............. Vehicle speed....... ................ 10 Hz.
Sec. 1066.320.............
Sec. 1066.430............. Continuous ................ 1 Hz.
concentrations of
raw or dilute
analyzers.
Sec. 1066.430............. Power analyzer \b\.. ................ 1 Hz.
Sec. 1066.501.............
Sec. 1066.430............. Bag concentrations ................ 1 mean value per test interval.
of raw or dilute
analyzers.
40 CFR 1065.545............. Diluted exhaust flow ................ 1 Hz.
Sec. 1066.430............. rate from a CVS
with a heat
exchanger upstream
of the flow
measurement.
40 CFR 1065.545............. Diluted exhaust flow N/A............. 1 Hz means.
Sec. 1066.430............. rate from a CVS
without a heat
exchanger upstream
of the flow
measurement.
40 CFR 1065.545............. Dilution air flow if 5 Hz............ 1 Hz means.
Sec. 1066.430............. actively controlled
(for example, a
partial-flow PM
sampling system).
40 CFR 1065.545............. Sample flow from a 1 Hz............ 1 Hz.
Sec. 1066.430............. CVS that has a heat
exchanger.
40 CFR 1065.545............. Sample flow from a 5 Hz............ 1 Hz means.
Sec. 1066.430............. CVS that does not
have a heat
exchanger.
Sec. 1066.425............. Ambient temperature. ................ 1 Hz.
Sec. 1066.425............. Ambient humidity.... ................ 1 Hz.
Sec. 1066.425............. Heated sample system ................ 1 Hz.
temperatures,
including PM filter
face.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 1 Hz means are data reported from the instrument at a higher frequency, but recorded as a series of mean
values at a rate of 1 Hz.
\b\ For power analyzers' sampling frequency, follow SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1066.1010).
Sec. 1066.130 Measurement instrument calibrations and verifications.
The measurement instrument calibration and verification
requirements in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart D, apply with the following
exceptions:
(a) The calibration and verification provisions of 40 CFR 1065.303
do not apply for engine speed, torque, fuel rate, or intake air flow.
Section 1066.133 specifies additional calibration and verification
provisions that apply specifically for chassis testing.
(b) The linearity verification provisions of 40 CFR 1065.307 do not
apply for engine speed, torque, fuel rate, or intake air flow. Section
1066.137 specifies additional linearity verification provisions that
apply specifically for chassis testing.
(c) The provisions of Sec. 1066.220 apply instead 40 CFR 1065.310.
(d) The provisions of 40 CFR 1065.320, 1065.325, and 1065.395 do
not apply.
(e) If you are measuring flow volumetrically (rather than by
molar), the provisions of Sec. 1066.140 apply instead of 40 CFR
1065.340.
(f) The provisions of Sec. 1066.150 apply instead 40 CFR
1065.350(c), 1065.355(c), 1065.370(c), and 1065.375(c).
(g) Table 1 of this section summarizes the required and recommended
calibrations and verifications that are unique to testing under this
part and indicates when these have to be performed. Perform other
required or recommended calibration and verifications as described in
40 CFR 1065.303, with the exceptions noted in this section. Table 1
follows:
[[Page 30149]]
Table 1 of Sec. 1066.130-Summary of Required Calibration and
Verifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of calibration or
verification Minimum frequency \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 1065.303: Flow rates....... This calibration does not apply for
testing under this part; see Sec.
1066.133 for alternative
provisions.
40 CFR 1065.307: Linearity The linearity calibrations from 40
verification. CFR part 1065 do not apply under
this part for engine speed, torque,
fuel rate, or intake air flow; the
linearity verification described in
Sec. 1066.137 applies for the
following measurements:
Dynamometer Speed: See Sec.
1066.220.
Dynamometer Torque: See Sec.
1066.220.
40 CFR 1065.310: Torque........... This calibration does not apply for
testing under this part; see Sec.
1066.220.
40 CFR 1065.320: Fuel flow........ This calibration does not apply for
testing under this part.
40 CFR 1065.325: Intake flow...... This calibration does not apply for
testing under this part.
40 CFR 1065.340: CVS calibration.. This calibration does not apply for
CVS flow meters calibrated
volumetrically as described in Sec.
1066.140.
40 CFR 1065.345: Vacuum leak...... Required upon initial installation
of the sampling system; recommended
within 35 days before the start of
an emissions test and after
maintenance such as pre-filter
changes.
40 CFR 1065.350(c), 1065.355(c), These provisions do not apply for
1065.370(c), and 1065.375(c). testing under this part; see Sec.
1066.150.
40 CFR 1065.395: Inertial PM These verifications do not apply for
balance and weighing. testing under this part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Perform calibrations and verifications more frequently if needed to
conform to the measurement system manufacturer's instructions and good
engineering judgment.
Sec. 1066.137 Linearity verification.
This section describes requirements for linearity verification that
are unique to testing under this part. (Note: see the definition of
``linearity'' in 40 CFR 1065.1001, where we explain that linearity
means the degree to which measured values agree with respective
reference values and that the term ``linearity'' is not used to refer
to the shape of a measurement instrument's unprocessed response curve.)
Perform other required or recommended calibration and verifications as
described in 40 CFR 1065.307, with the exceptions noted in this
section.
(a) For testing under this subpart, linearity verification under 40
CFR part 1065 is not required for speed, torque, fuel flow rate, or
intake air flow.
(b) For gas analyzer linearity, use one of the following options:
(1) Use instrument manufacturer recommendations and good
engineering judgment to select at least ten reference values,
yrefi, that cover the range of values that you expect during
testing (to prevent extrapolation beyond the verified range during
emission testing). We recommend selecting zero as one of your reference
values. For each range calibrated, if the deviation from a least-
squares best-fit straight line is 2% or less of the value at each data
point, concentration values may be calculated by use of a single
calibration factor for that range. If the deviation exceeds 2% at any
point, use the best-fit nonlinear equation that represents the data to
within 2% of each test point to determine concentration. If you use a
gas divider to blend calibration gases, verify that the calibration
curve produced names a calibration gas within 2% of its certified
concentration. Perform this verification between 15 and 50% of the full
scale analyzer range.
(2) Use the linearity requirements of 40 CFR 1065.307, except for
CO2 measurements used for determining fuel economy and GHG
emissions for motor vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. If you
choose this linearity option, you must drift check and drift correct
your emission data according to 40 CFR 1065.672.
(c) Perform linearity verifications for the following temperature
measurements instead of those specified at 40 CFR 1065.307(e)(7):
(1) Test cell ambient air.
(2) Dilution air for PM sampling, including CVS, double-dilution,
and partial-flow systems.
(3) PM sample.
(4) Chiller sample, for gaseous sampling systems that use thermal
chillers to dry samples and that use chiller temperature to calculate
dewpoint at the chiller outlet. For testing, if you choose to use the
high alarm temperature setpoint for the chiller temperature as a
constant value in determining the amount of water removed from the
emission sample, you may verify the accuracy of the high alarm
temperature setpoint using good engineering judgment without following
the linearity verification for chiller temperature. We recommend that
you input a simulated reference temperature signal below the alarm
setpoint, increase this signal until the high alarm trips, and verify
that the alarm setpoint value is no less than 2 [deg]C below the
reference value at the trip point.
(5) CVS inlet temperature.
(d) Perform linearity verifications for the following pressure
measurements instead of those specified at 40 CFR 1065.307(e)(8):
(1) Exhaust back pressure.
(2) Barometric pressure.
(3) CVS inlet gage pressure or absolute pressure transducer.
(4) Sample dryer, for gaseous sampling systems that use either
osmotic-membrane or thermal chillers to dry samples. For your testing,
if you choose to use a low alarm pressure setpoint for the sample dryer
pressure as a constant value in determining the amount of water removed
from the emission sample, you may verify the accuracy of the low alarm
pressure setpoint using good engineering judgment without following the
linearity verification for sample dryer pressure. We recommend that you
input a reference pressure signal above the alarm setpoint, decrease
this signal until the low alarm trips, and verify that the alarm
setpoint value is no more than 4 kPa above the reference value at the
trip point.
(e) When following procedures or practices that we incorporate by
reference in Sec. 1066.1010, you must meet the linearity requirements
given by the procedure or practice for any analytical instruments not
covered under 40 CFR 1065.307, such as GC-FID or HPLC.
Sec. 1066.140 Diluted exhaust flow calibration.
(a) Overview. This section describes how to calibrate flow meters
for diluted exhaust constant-volume sampling (CVS) systems. You may
follow the molar flow calibration procedures in 40 CFR 1065.340 instead
of the procedures in this section.
(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this calibration while the flow
meter is installed in its permanent position, except as allowed in
paragraph (c) of this section. Perform this calibration after you
change any part of the flow
[[Page 30150]]
configuration upstream or downstream of the flow meter that may affect
the flow-meter calibration. Perform this calibration upon initial CVS
installation and whenever corrective action does not resolve a failure
to meet the diluted exhaust flow verification (i.e., propane check) in
40 CFR 1065.341.
(c) Ex-situ CFV and SSV calibration. You may remove a CFV or SSV
from its permanent position for calibration as long as the flow meter
meets the requirements in 40 CFR 1065.340(c).
(d) Reference flow meter. Calibrate each CVS flow meter using a
reference flow meter such as a subsonic venturi flow meter, a long-
radius ASME/NIST flow nozzle, a smooth approach orifice, a laminar flow
element, a set of critical flow venturis, or an ultrasonic flow meter.
Use a reference flow meter that reports quantities that are NIST-
traceable within 1[percnt] uncertainty. Use this reference
flow meter's response to flow as the reference value for CVS flow-meter
calibration.
(e) Configuration. Calibrate the system with any upstream screens
or other restrictions that will be used during testing and that could
affect the flow ahead of the reference flow meter. You may not use any
upstream screen or other restriction that could affect the flow ahead
of the reference flow meter, unless the flow meter has been calibrated
with such a restriction.
(f) PDP calibration. Calibrate each positive-displacement pump
(PDP) to determine a flow-versus-PDP speed equation that accounts for
flow leakage across sealing surfaces in the PDP as a function of PDP
inlet pressure. Determine unique equation coefficients for each speed
at which you operate the PDP. Calibrate a PDP flow meter as follows:
(1) Connect the system as shown in Figure 1 of this section.
(2) Leaks between the calibration flow meter and the PDP must be
less than 0.3[percnt] of the total flow at the lowest calibrated flow
point; for example, at the highest restriction and lowest PDP-speed
point.
(3) While the PDP operates, maintain a constant temperature at the
PDP inlet within