[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17414-17888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04934]
[[Page 17413]]
Vol. 87
Monday,
No. 59
March 28, 2022
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 2, 59, 60, et al.
Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 17414]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 2, 59, 60, 80, 85, 86, 87, 600, 1027, 1030, 1033,
1036, 1037, 1039, 1042, 1043, 1045, 1048, 1051, 1054, 1060, 1065,
1066, 1068, and 1090
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055; FRL-7165-03-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU41
Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty
Engine and Vehicle Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a rule
that would reduce air pollution from highway heavy-duty vehicles and
engines, including ozone, particulate matter, and greenhouse gases.
This proposal would change the heavy-duty emission control program--
including the standards, test procedures, useful life, warranty, and
other requirements--to further reduce the air quality impacts of heavy-
duty engines across a range of operating conditions and over a longer
period of the operational life of heavy-duty engines. Heavy-duty
vehicles and engines are important contributors to concentrations of
ozone and particulate matter and their resulting threat to public
health, which includes premature death, respiratory illness (including
childhood asthma), cardiovascular problems, and other adverse health
impacts. This proposal would reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and
other pollutants. In addition, this proposal would make targeted
updates to the existing Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase 2
program, proposing that further GHG reductions in the MY 2027 timeframe
are appropriate considering lead time, costs, and other factors,
including market shifts to zero-emission technologies in certain
segments of the heavy-duty vehicle sector. We also propose limited
amendments to the regulations that implement our air pollutant emission
standards for other sectors (e.g., light-duty vehicles, marine diesel
engines, locomotives, various types of nonroad engines, vehicles, and
equipment).
DATES: Comments: Written comments must be received on or before May 13,
2022. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the
information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your
comments on or before April 27, 2022.
Public Hearing: EPA plans to hold a virtual public hearing on April
12, 2022. An additional session may be held on April 13, 2022. Please
refer to Participation in Virtual Public Hearing in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for additional information on the public hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055 in the subject line of the message.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, OAR, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only):
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of
operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal
Holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out
of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the
EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are open to the public by
appointment only to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our
Docket Center staff also continues to provide remote customer service
via email, phone, and webform. Hand deliveries and couriers may be
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA
Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Public Hearing. EPA plans to hold a virtual public hearing for this
rulemaking. Please refer to Participation in Virtual Public Hearing in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for additional information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Nelson, Assessment and Standards
Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental
Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105;
telephone number: (734) 214-4278; email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Public Participation
Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Due to public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket
Center and Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only. Our
Docket Center staff also continues to provide remote customer service
via email, phone, and webform. Hand deliveries or couriers will be
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information and
updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
Participation in Virtual Public Hearing
Please note that because of current CDC recommendations, as well as
state and local orders for social distancing to
[[Page 17415]]
limit the spread of COVID-19, EPA cannot hold in-person public meetings
at this time.
The EPA plans to hold a virtual public hearing on April 12, 2022.
An additional session may be held on April 13, 2022. This hearing will
be held using Zoom. In order to attend the virtual public hearing, all
attendees (including those who will not be presenting verbal testimony)
must register in advance. EPA will begin registering speakers for the
hearing upon publication of this document in the Federal Register. To
register, please use the registration link that will be available on
the EPA rule web page once registration begins: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule-and-related-materials-control-air-1. A separate registration form must be submitted
for each person attending the hearing.
The last day to register to speak at the hearing will be five
working days before the first public hearing date. The EPA will post a
general agenda for the hearing with the order of speakers at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule-and-related-materials-control-air-1. This agenda will be available no
later than two working days before the first public hearing date.
In order to allow everyone to be heard, EPA is limiting verbal
testimony to three minutes per person. Speakers will not be able to
share graphics via the virtual public hearing. Speakers will be able to
request an approximate speaking time as part of the registration
process, with preferences considered on a first-come, first-served
basis. EPA also recommends submitting the text of oral comments as
written comments to the rulemaking docket.
EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations,
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will
be posted online at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule-and-related-materials-control-air-1.
While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as described here,
please monitor our website or contact Tuana Phillips, (202)-565-0074,
[email protected] to determine if there are any updates. The EPA
does not intend to publish a document in the Federal Register
announcing updates.
If you require the services of a translator or special
accommodations such as audio description, please identify these needs
when you register for the hearing or by contacting Tuana Phillips at
(202)-565-0074, [email protected]. EPA may not be able to arrange
accommodations without advance notice.
B. General Information
Does this action apply to me?
This action relates to companies that manufacture, sell, or import
into the United States new heavy-duty highway engines. Additional
amendments apply for gasoline refueling facilities and for
manufacturers of all sizes and types of motor vehicles, stationary
engines, aircraft and aircraft engines, and various types of nonroad
engines, vehicles, and equipment. Regulated categories and entities
include the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS codes \a\ NAICS title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
326199............................ All Other Plastics Product
Manufacturing.
332431............................ Metal Can Manufacturing.
335312............................ Motor and Generator Manufacturing.
336111............................ Automobile Manufacturing.
336112............................ Light Truck and Utility Vehicle
Manufacturing.
336120............................ Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing.
336211............................ Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing.
336212............................ Truck Trailer Manufacturing.
336213............................ Motor Home Manufacturing.
336411............................ Manufacturers of new aircraft.
336412............................ Manufacturers of new aircraft
engines.
333618............................ Other Engine Equipment
Manufacturing.
336999............................ All Other Transportation Equipment
Manufacturing.
423110............................ Automotive and Other Motor Vehicle
Merchant Wholesalers.
447110............................ Gasoline Stations with Convenience
Stores.
447190............................ Other Gasoline Stations.
454310............................ Fuel dealers.
811111............................ General Automotive Repair.
811112............................ Automotive Exhaust System Repair.
811198............................ All Other Automotive Repair and
Maintenance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ NAICS Association. NAICS & SIC Identification Tools. Available
online: https://www.naics.com/search.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria found in Sections XII and XIII of this
preamble. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
What action is the agency taking?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a rule that
would reduce air pollution from highway heavy-duty vehicles and
engines. This proposal would change the heavy-duty emission control
program--including the standards, test procedures, regulatory useful
life, emission-related warranty, and other requirements--to further
reduce the air quality impacts of heavy-duty engines across a range of
operating conditions and over a longer period of the operational life
of heavy-duty engines. Heavy-duty vehicles and engines are important
contributors to concentrations of ozone and particulate matter and
their resulting threat to public health, which includes premature
death, respiratory illness (including childhood asthma), cardiovascular
problems, and other adverse health impacts. This proposal would reduce
emissions of nitrogen oxides and other pollutants. In addition, this
proposal would make targeted updates to the existing Heavy-Duty
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase 2 program, proposing that further GHG
reductions in the MY 2027 timeframe are appropriate considering lead
time, costs, and other factors, including market shifts to zero-
emission technologies in certain segments of the heavy-duty vehicle
sector.
What is the agency's authority for taking this action?
Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set
emission standards for air pollutants from new motor vehicles or new
motor vehicle engines, which the Administrator has found cause or
contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare.
See Sections I.A.4, I.F, and XIV of this preamble for more information
on the agency's authority for this action.
What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?
We compare total monetized health benefits to total costs
associated with the proposed Options 1 and 2 in Section IX. Our results
show that annual benefits of the proposed Option 1 would be larger than
the annual costs in 2045, a year when the program would be fully
implemented and when most of the regulated fleet would have turned
over,
[[Page 17416]]
with annual net benefits of $9 and $31 billion assuming a 3 percent
discount rate, and net benefits of $8 and $28 billion assuming a 7
percent discount rate.\1\ Annual benefits would also be larger than
annual costs in 2045 for the proposed Option 2, although net benefits
would be lower than from the proposed Option 1 (net benefits of
proposed Option 2 would be $6 and $23 billion at a 3 percent discount
rate, and net benefits of $5 and 21 billion at a 7 percent discount
rate). See Section VIII for more details on the net benefit estimates.
For both the proposed Options 1 and 2, benefits also outweigh the costs
when expressed in present value terms and as equalized annual values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The range of benefits and net benefits reflects a
combination of assumed PM2.5 and ozone mortality risk
estimates and selected discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did EPA conduct a peer review before issuing this action?
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,
we conducted peer reviews on five analyses: (1) Analysis of Heavy-Duty
Vehicle Sales Impacts Due to New Regulation (Sales Impacts), (2)
Exhaust Emission Rates for Heavy-Duty Onroad Vehicles in MOVES_CTI NPRM
(Emission Rates), (3) Population and Activity of Onroad Vehicles in
MOVES_CTI NPRM (Population and Activity), (4) Cost teardowns of Heavy-
Duty Valvetrain (Valvetrain costs), and (5) Cost teardown of Emission
Aftertreatment Systems (Aftertreatment Costs). These peer reviews were
all letter reviews conducted by a contractor. The peer review reports
for each analysis are located in the docket for this action and at
EPA's Science Inventory (https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/).
Table of Contents
ES. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
B. Overview of the Regulatory Action
C. Summary of the Major Provisions in the Regulatory Action
D. Projected Emission Reductions, Air Quality Improvements,
Costs, and Benefits
E. Summary of Specific Requests for Comments
I. Introduction
A. Brief Overview of the Heavy-Duty Truck Industry
B. History of Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles
C. Petitions to EPA for Additional NOX Emissions
Control
D. California Heavy-Duty Highway Low NOX Program
Development
E. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
F. EPA Statutory Authority for the Proposal
G. Basis of the Proposed Standards
II. Need for Additional Emissions Control
A. Background on Pollutants Impacted by This Proposal
B. Health Effects Associated With Exposure to Pollutants
Impacted by This Proposal
C. Environmental Effects Associated With Exposure to Pollutants
Impacted by This Proposal
III. Proposed Test Procedures and Standards
A. Overview
B. Summary of Compression-Ignition Exhaust Emission Standards
and Duty Cycle Test Procedures
C. Summary of Compression-Ignition Off-Cycle Standards and In-
Use Test Procedures
D. Summary of Spark-Ignition Heavy-Duty Engine Exhaust Emission
Standards and Test Procedures
E. Summary of Spark-Ignition Heavy-Duty Vehicle Refueling
Emission Standards and Test Procedures
IV. Compliance Provisions and Flexibilities
A. Regulatory Useful Life
B. Ensuring Long-Term In-Use Emissions Performance
C. Onboard Diagnostics
D. Inducements
E. Certification Updates
F. Durability Testing
G. Averaging, Banking, and Trading
H. Early Adoption Incentives
I. Compliance Options for Generating NOX Emission
Credits From Electric Vehicles
J. Fuel Quality
K. Other Flexibilities Under Consideration
V. Program Costs
A. Technology Package Costs
B. Operating Costs
C. Program Costs
VI. Estimated Emission Reductions From the Proposal and Alternatives
A. Emission Inventory Methodology
B. Estimated Emission Reductions From the Proposed Criteria
Pollutant Program
C. Estimated Emission Reductions From the Alternatives Analyzed
D. Evaluating Emission Impacts of Electric Vehicles in the
Proposed Emission Inventory Baseline
VII. Air Quality Impacts of the Proposed Rule
A. Ozone
B. Particulate Matter
C. Nitrogen Dioxide
D. Carbon Monoxide
E. Air Toxics
F. Visibility
G. Nitrogen Deposition
H. Demographic Analysis of Air Quality
VIII. Benefits of the Program
IX. Comparison of Benefits and Costs
A. Methods
B. Results
X. Economic Impact Analysis
A. Impact on Vehicle Sales, Mode Shift, and Fleet Turnover
B. Employment Impacts
XI. Targeted Updates to the HD GHG Phase 2 Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Program
A. Background on Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards
B. What has changed since we finalized the HD GHG Phase 2 rule?
C. Proposed Changes to HD GHG Phase 2 CO2 Standards
for Targeted Subcategories
D. HD GHG Phase 2 Advanced Technology Credits for CO2
Emissions
E. Emissions and Cost Impacts of Proposed Revised MY 2027
CO2 Emission Standards
F. Summary of Proposed Changes to HD GHG Phase 2
XII. Other Amendments
A. General Compliance Provisions (40 CFR Part 1068) and Other
Cross-Sector Issues
B. Heavy-Duty Highway Engine and Vehicle Emission Standards (40
CFR Parts 1036 and 1037)
C. Fuel Dispensing Rates for Heavy-Duty Vehicles (40 CFR Parts
80 and 1090)
D. Refueling Interface for Motor Vehicles (40 CFR Parts 80 and
1090)
E. Light-Duty Motor Vehicles (40 CFR Parts 85, 86, and 600)
F. Large Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines (40 CFR Part 1048)
G. Small Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines (40 CFR Part 1054)
H. Recreational Vehicles and Nonroad Evaporative Emissions (40
CFR Parts 1051 and 1060)
I. Marine Diesel Engines (40 CFR Parts 1042 and 1043)
J. Locomotives (40 CFR Part 1033)
K. Stationary Compression-Ignition Engines (40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart IIII)
L. Heavy-Duty Compression-Ignition Engines (40 CFR Part 86)
XIII. Executive Orders Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
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 and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations.
XIV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a
multipollutant rule to further reduce air pollution from heavy-duty
engines and vehicles across the United States, including ozone and
particulate matter (PM). In addition, as part of this rulemaking we are
proposing
[[Page 17417]]
targeted updates to the existing Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Phase 2 program (HD GHG Phase 2). This proposed rulemaking builds on
and improves the existing emission control program for on-highway
heavy-duty engines and vehicles. This proposal is pursuant to EPA's
authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate air pollutants emitted
from mobile sources. The proposal is also consistent with Executive
Order (E.O.) 14037, which directed EPA to consider setting new oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) emission standards and updating the
existing GHG emissions standards for heavy-duty engines and
vehicles.2 3 In this proposed action, EPA is co-proposing
two regulatory options for new NOX standards: Proposed
Option 1 and proposed Option 2. As discussed in Section B.1 of this
Executive Summary and throughout this preamble, we request comment on
the options presented, as well as the full range of options between
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ President Joseph Biden. Executive Order on Strengthening
American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks. 86 FR 43583, August
10, 2021.
\3\ Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) refers to nitric oxide
(NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy-duty (HD) engines operating across the U.S. emit
NOX and other pollutants that contribute to ambient levels
of ozone, PM, and NOX. These pollutants are linked to
premature death, respiratory illness (including childhood asthma),
cardiovascular problems, and other adverse health impacts. Data show
that heavy-duty engines are important contributors to concentrations of
ozone and PM2.5 and their resulting threat to public
health.\4\ \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Zawacki et al, 2018. Mobile source contributions to ambient
ozone and particulate matter in 2025. Atmospheric Environment, Vol
188, pg 129-141. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.04.057.
\5\ Davidson et al, 2020. The recent and future health burden of
the U.S. mobile sector apportioned by source. Environmental Research
Letters. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab83a8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rulemaking would change key provisions of the heavy-
duty emission control program--including the standards, test
procedures, regulatory useful life, emission-related warranty, and
other requirements; the two regulatory options (proposed Options 1 and
2) would result in different numeric levels of the standards and
lengths of useful life and warranty periods. The proposed Options 1 and
2 and the range between them provide the numeric values for these key
provisions that we focus on for this proposal. Together, the key
provisions in the proposal would further reduce the air quality impacts
of heavy-duty engines across a range of operating conditions and over a
longer period of the operational life of heavy-duty engines (see
Section I.B for an overview of the proposed program). The requirements
in the proposed Option 1 and the proposed Option 2 would lower
emissions of NOX and other air pollutants (PM, hydrocarbons
(HC), air toxics, and carbon monoxide (CO)) beginning as early as model
year (MY) 2027. The emission reductions from both the proposed Option 1
and the proposed Option 2 would increase over time as more new, cleaner
vehicles enter the fleet.
We estimate that if finalized as proposed, the proposed Option 1
would reduce NOX emissions from heavy-duty vehicles in 2040
by more than 50 percent; by 2045, a year by which most of the regulated
fleet would have turned over, heavy-duty NOX emissions would
be more than 60 percent lower than they would have been without this
action. Our estimates show proposed Option 2 would reduce heavy-duty
NOX emissions in 2045 by 47 percent (see Section I.D for
more information on our projected emission reductions from proposed
Option 1 or 2). These emission reductions would result in air quality
improvements in ozone and PM2.5; we estimate that in 2045,
the proposed Option 1 would result in total annual monetized ozone- and
PM2.5-related benefits of $12 and $33 billion at a 3 percent
discount rate, and $10 and $30 billion at a 7 percent discount rate. In
the same calendar year, proposed Option 2 would result in total annual
monetized ozone- and PM2.5-related benefits of $9 and $26
billion at a 3 percent discount rate, and $8 and $23 billion at a 7
percent discount (see Section VIII for discussion on quantified and
monetized health impacts). Given the analysis we present in this
proposal, we currently believe that Option 1 may be a more appropriate
level of stringency as it would result in a greater level of achievable
emission reduction for the model years proposed, which is consistent
with EPA's statutory authority under Clean Air Act section 202(a)(3).
These emission reductions would result in widespread decreases in
ambient concentrations of pollutants such as ozone and
PM2.5. These widespread projected air quality improvements
would play an important role in addressing concerns from states, local
communities, and Tribal governments about the contributions of heavy-
duty engines to air quality challenges they face such as meeting their
obligations to attain or continue to meet National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), and to reduce other human health and environmental
impacts of air pollution.
In addition to further reducing emissions of NOX and
other ozone and PM2.5 precursors, as part of this rulemaking
we are proposing targeted updates to the existing Heavy-Duty Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Phase 2 program (HD GHG Phase 2).\6\ The proposed updates
would apply to certain CO2 standards for MYs 2027 and later
trucks that are appropriate considering lead time, costs, and other
factors, including market shifts to zero-emission technologies in
certain segments of the heavy-duty vehicle sector. The proposed updates
are intended to balance further incentivizing zero and near-zero
emissions vehicle development with ensuring that the standards achieve
an appropriate fleet-wide level of CO2 emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 81 FR at 73478 (October 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Industry Overview
Heavy-duty highway vehicles (also referred to as ``trucks'' in this
preamble) range from vocational vehicles that support local and
regional construction, refuse collection, and delivery work to long-
haul tractor-trailers that move freight cross-country. This diverse
array of vehicles is categorized into weight classes based on gross
vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) that span Class 2b trucks and vans
greater than 8,500 lbs GVWR through Class 8 long-haul tractors and
other commercial vehicles that exceed 33,000 lbs GVWR.\7\ These
vehicles are primarily powered by diesel-fueled, compression-ignition
(CI) engines, although gasoline-fueled, spark-ignition (SI) engines are
common in the lighter weight classes, and
[[Page 17418]]
smaller numbers of alternative fuel engines (e.g., liquified petroleum
gas, compressed natural gas) are found in the heavy-duty fleet.
Vehicles powered by electricity, either in the form of battery electric
vehicles (BEVs) or fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) are also
increasingly entering the heavy-duty fleet. The operational
characteristics of some commercial applications (e.g., delivery
vehicles) can be similar across several vehicle weight classes,
allowing a single engine, or electric power source in the case of BEVs
and FCEVs, to be installed in a variety of vehicles. For instance,
engine specifications needed for a Class 4 parcel delivery vehicle may
be similar to the needs of a Class 5 mixed freight delivery vehicle or
a Class 6 beverage truck. Performance differences needed to operate
across this range of vehicles can be achieved through adjustments to
chassis-based systems (e.g., transmission, cooling system) external to
the engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This proposed rulemaking includes revised criteria pollutant
standards for engine-certified Class 2b through 8 heavy-duty engines
and vehicles; this proposal also includes revised GHG standards for
Class 4 through 8 vehicles. Class 2b and 3 vehicles with GVWR
between 8,500 and 14,000 pounds are primarily commercial pickup
trucks and vans and are sometimes referred to as ``medium-duty
vehicles''. The majority of Class 2b and 3 vehicles are chassis-
certified vehicles, and EPA intends to include them in a future
combined light-duty and medium-duty rulemaking action, consistent
with E.O, 14037, Section 2a. Heavy-duty engines and vehicles are
also used in nonroad applications, such as construction equipment;
nonroad heavy-duty engines and vehicles are not the focus of this
proposal. See Section I for more discussion on the spectrum of
heavy-duty vehicles and how they relate to the proposed rule. As
outlined in Section C of this Executive Summary and detailed in
Section XII, this proposal also includes limited amendments to
regulations that implement our air pollutant emission standards for
other industry sectors, including light-duty vehicles, light-duty
trucks, marine diesel engines, locomotives, and various types of
nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Need for Additional Emission Control of NOX and Other
Pollutants From Heavy-Duty Engines
Across the U.S., NOX emissions from heavy-duty engines
are important contributors to concentrations of ozone and
PM2.5 and their resulting health effects.8 9
Heavy-duty engines will continue to be one of the largest contributors
to mobile source NOX emissions nationwide in the future,
representing 32 percent of the mobile source NOX emissions
in calendar year 2045.\10\ Furthermore, it is estimated that heavy-duty
engines would represent 89 percent of the onroad NOX
inventory in calendar year 2045.\11\ Reducing NOX emissions
is a critical part of many areas' strategies to attain and maintain the
ozone and PM NAAQS; many state and local agencies anticipate challenges
in attaining the NAAQS, maintaining the NAAQS in the future, and/or
preventing nonattainment (see Section II). Some nonattainment areas
have already been ``bumped up'' to higher classifications because of
challenges in attaining the NAAQS.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Zawacki et al, 2018. Mobile source contributions to ambient
ozone and particulate matter in 2025. Atmospheric Environment, Vol
188, pg 129-141. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.04.057.
\9\ Davidson et al, 2020. The recent and future health burden of
the U.S. mobile sector apportioned by source. Environmental Research
Letters. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab83a8.
\10\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2021). 2016v1
Platform. https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2016v1-platform.
\11\ Han, Jaehoon. Memorandum to the Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055: ``MOVES Modeling-Related Data Files (MOVES Code, Input
Databases and Runspecs) for the Proposed Heavy-Duty 2027
Standards''. February 2022.
\12\ For example, in September 2019 several 2008 ozone
nonattainment areas were reclassified from moderate to serious,
including Dallas, Chicago, Connecticut, New York/New Jersey and
Houston, and in January 2020, Denver. The 2008 NAAQS for ozone is an
8-hour standard with a level of 0.075 ppm, which the 2015 ozone
NAAQS lowered to 0.070 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, emissions from heavy-duty engines can significantly
affect individuals living near truck freight routes. Based on a study
EPA conducted of people living near truck routes, an estimated 72
million people live within 200 meters of a truck freight route (see
discussion in Section II.B.7). Relative to the rest of the population,
people of color and those with lower incomes are more likely to live
near truck routes (see Sections II.B and VII.H for additional
discussion on our analysis of environmental justice impacts of this
proposal). This population includes children, and in addition,
childcare facilities and schools can be in close proximity to freight
routes.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Kingsley, S., Eliot, M., Carlson, L. et al. Proximity of US
schools to major roadways: a nationwide assessment. J Expo Sci
Environ Epidemiol 24, 253-259 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2014.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Air Act section 202(a)(3)(A) requires EPA to set emission
standards for NOX, PM, HC, and CO that reflect the greatest
degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of
technology that will be available for the model year to which such
standards apply. Although heavy-duty engines have become much cleaner
over the last decade, catalysts and other technologies have evolved
such that harmful air pollutants can be reduced even further.
Heavy-duty emissions that affect local and regional populations are
attributable to several engine operating modes and processes.
Specifically, the operating modes and processes projected to contribute
the most to the heavy-duty NOX emission inventory in 2045
are medium-to-high load (36 percent), low-load (28 percent), and aging
(24 percent) (i.e., deterioration and mal-maintenance of the engine's
emission control system) (see Section VI for more information on
projected inventory contributions from each operating mode or process).
These data suggest that medium- and high-load operating conditions
continue to merit concern, while also showing that opportunities for
significant additional emission reductions and related air quality
improvements can be achieved through provisions that encourage emission
control under low-load operation and throughout an engine's operational
life. Our approach for provisions that address these aspects of the
emission inventory is outlined below and described in more detail in
sections that follow.
As described in Section III, the standards in proposed Options 1
and 2 would reduce emissions during a broader range of operating
conditions that span nearly all in-use operation. The standards in
proposed Options 1 and 2 are based on technology improvements which
have become available over the 20 years since the last major rule was
promulgated to address emissions of NOX, PM, HC, and CO
(hereafter referred to as ``criteria pollutants'') and toxic pollutants
from heavy-duty engines. As further detailed in Section III, available
data indicate that emission levels demonstrated for certification are
not achieved under the broad range of real-world operating
conditions.14 15 16 17 In fact, less than ten percent of the
data collected during a typical test while the vehicle is operated on
the road is subject to EPA's in-use, on-the-road emission
standards.\18\ These testing data further show that NOX
emissions from heavy-duty diesel vehicles are high during many periods
of vehicle operation that are not subject to current on-the-road
emission standards. For example, ``low-load'' engine conditions occur
when a vehicle operates in stop-and-go traffic or is idling; these low-
load conditions can result in exhaust temperature decreases that then
lead to the diesel engine's selective catalytic reduction (SCR)-based
emission control system becoming less effective or ceasing to function.
Test data collected as part of EPA's manufacturer-run in-use testing
program indicate that this low-load operation could account for more
than half of the NOX emissions from a
[[Page 17419]]
vehicle during a typical workday.\19\ Similarly, heavy-duty SI engines
also operate in conditions where their catalyst technology becomes less
effective, resulting in higher levels of air pollutants; however,
unlike CI engines, it is sustained medium-to-high load operation where
emission levels are less certain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Hamady, Fakhri, Duncan, Alan. ``A Comprehensive Study of
Manufacturers In-Use Testing Data Collected from Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engines Using Portable Emissions Measurement System (PEMS).'' 29th
CRC Real World Emissions Workshop, March 10-13, 2019.
\15\ Sandhu, Gurdas, et al. ``Identifying Areas of High
NOX Operation in Heavy-Duty Vehicles''. 28th CRC Real-
World Emissions Workshop, March 18-21, 2018.
\16\ Sandhu, Gurdas, et al. ``In-Use Emission Rates for MY 2010+
Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles''. 27th CRC Real-World Emissions
Workshop, March 26-29, 2017.
\17\ As noted in Section C of this Executive Summary and
discussed in Section III, testing engines and vehicles while they
are operating over the road without a defined duty cycle is referred
to as ``off-cycle'' testing; as detailed in Section III, we are
proposing new off-cycle test procedures and standards as part of
this rulemaking.
\18\ Heavy-duty CI engines are currently subject to off-cycle
standards that are not limited to specific test cycles, but we use
the term ``on-the-road'' here for readability.
\19\ Sandhu, Gurdas, et al. ``Identifying Areas of High
NOX Operation in Heavy-Duty Vehicles''. 28th CRC Real-
World Emissions Workshop, March 18-21, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in this Section A.2 of the Executive Summary,
deterioration and mal-maintenance of the engine's emission control
system is also projected to result in NOX emissions that
would represent a substantial part of the HD inventory in 2045. To
address this problem, as part of our comprehensive approach, both
proposed Options 1 and 2 include longer regulatory useful life and
emission-related warranty requirements that would maintain emission
control through more of the operational life of heavy-duty vehicles
(see Section IV for more discussion on the proposed useful life and
warranty requirements).
Reducing NOX emissions from heavy-duty vehicles would
address health and environmental issues raised by state, local, and
Tribal agencies in their comments on the Advance Notice of Proposed
Rule (ANPR).\20\ In addition to concerns about meeting the ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS, they expressed concerns about environmental
justice, regional haze, and damage to terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems. They mentioned the impacts of NOX emissions on
numerous locations, such as the Chesapeake Bay, Narragansett Bay, Long
Island Sound, Joshua Tree National Park and the surrounding Mojave
Desert, the Adirondacks, and other areas. Tribes and agencies commented
that NOX deposition into lakes is harmful to fish and other
aquatic life forms on which they depend for subsistence livelihoods.
They also commented that regional haze and increased rates of
weathering caused by pollution are of particular concern and can damage
culturally significant archeological sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The Agency published an ANPR on January 21, 2020 to present
EPA's early thinking on this rulemaking and solicit feedback from
stakeholders to inform this proposal (85 FR 3306).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Historic Opportunity for Clean Air Provided by Zero-Emission
Vehicles
We are at the early stages of a significant transition in the
history of the heavy-duty on-highway sector--a shift to zero-emission
vehicle (ZEV) technologies. This change is underway and presents an
opportunity for significant reductions in heavy-duty vehicle emissions.
Major trucking fleets, manufacturers and U.S. states have announced
plans to transition the heavy-duty fleet to zero-emissions technology,
and over just the past few years we have seen the early introduction of
zero-emission technology into a number of heavy-duty vehicle market
segments.
Executive Order 14037 identifies three potential regulatory actions
for EPA to consider: (1) This proposed rule for heavy-duty vehicles for
new criteria pollutant standards and strengthening of the Model Year
2027 GHG standards; (2) a separate rulemaking to establish more
stringent criteria and GHG emission standards for medium-duty vehicles
for Model Year 2027 and later (in combination with light-duty
vehicles); and (3) a third rulemaking to establish new GHG standards
for heavy-duty vehicles for Model Year 2030 and later. This strategy
will establish the EPA regulatory path for the future of the heavy-duty
vehicle sector, and in each of these actions EPA will consider the
critical role of ZEVs in enabling stringent emission standards.
In addition to the proposed standards and requirements for
NOX and other air pollutant emissions, we are also proposing
targeted revisions to the already stringent HD GHG Phase 2 rulemaking,
which EPA finalized in 2016.\21\ The HD GHG Phase 2 program includes
GHG emission standards tailored to certain regulatory vehicle
categories in addition to heavy-duty engines including: Combination
tractors; vocational vehicles; and heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans.
The HD GHG Phase 2 program includes progressively more stringent
CO2 emission standards for HD engines and vehicles; these
standards phase in starting in MY 2021 through MY 2027. The program
built upon the GHG Phase 1 program promulgated in 2011, which set the
first-ever GHG emission standards for heavy-duty engines and
trucks.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 81 FR 73478 (October 25, 2016). Note that the HD GHG Phase
2 program also includes coordinated fuel efficiency standards
established by the U.S. Department of Transportation through the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and those standards
were established in a joint rulemaking process with EPA.
\22\ 76 FR 57106, September 15, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the HD GHG Phase 2 rule was promulgated in 2016, we
established the Phase 2 GHG standards and advanced technology
incentives on the premise that electrification of the heavy-duty market
was unlikely to occur in the timeframe of the program. However, several
factors have arisen since the adoption of Phase 2 that have changed our
outlook for heavy-duty electric vehicles. First, the heavy-duty market
has evolved such that in 2021, there are a number of manufacturers
producing fully electric heavy-duty vehicles in a number of
applications. Second, the State of California has adopted an Advanced
Clean Trucks program that includes a manufacturer sales requirement for
zero-emission truck sales, specifically that ``manufacturers who
certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines
would be required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing
percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035.'' \23\
Finally, other states have signed a Memorandum of Understanding
establishing goals to increase the heavy-duty electric vehicle
market.\24\ We are proposing that further GHG reductions in the MY 2027
timeframe are appropriate considering lead time, costs, and other
factors, including these developments to zero-emission technologies in
certain segments of the heavy-duty vehicle sector. We discuss the
impacts of these factors on the heavy-duty market in Section XI. As
outlined in Section I.B and detailed in Section XI, we are proposing to
increase the stringency of the existing MY 2027 standards for many of
the vocational vehicle and tractor subcategories, specifically those
where we project early introduction of ZEVs. We are also considering
whether it would be appropriate in the final rule to increase the
stringency of the standards even more than what we propose for MYs
2027-2029, including the potential for progressively more stringent
CO2 standards across these three model years. Progressively
strengthening the stringency of the standards for model years 2028 and
2029 could help smooth the transition to ambitious greenhouse gas
standards for the heavy-duty sector starting as soon as model year
2030. We believe there is information and data that could support
higher projected penetrations of HD ZEVs in the MY 2027 to 2029
timeframe and we request comment and additional supporting information
and data on higher penetration rates, which could serve as the basis
for the increase in the stringency of the CO2 standards for
specific Phase 2 vehicle subcategories. For example, what information
and data are available that
[[Page 17420]]
would support HD ZEV penetration rates of 5 percent or 10 percent (or
higher) in this timeframe, and in what HD vehicle applications and
categories. We are also requesting comment on an aspect of the HD GHG
Phase 2 advanced technology incentive program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ CARB. ``Notice of Decision: Advanced Clean Truck
Regulation.'' June 2020. Available online at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2019/act2019/nod.pdf.
\24\ Fifteen states and one district sign Multi-State MOU.
https://www.nescaum.org/documents/multistate-truck-zev-governors-mou-20200714.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has heard from a number of stakeholders urging EPA to put in
place policies to rapidly advance ZEVs in this current rulemaking, and
to establish standards requiring 100 percent of all new heavy-duty
vehicles be zero-emission no later than 2035. The stakeholders state
that accelerating ZEV technologies in the heavy-duty market is
necessary to prioritize environmental justice in communities that are
impacted by freight transportation and already overburdened by
pollution.\25\ One policy EPA has been asked to consider is the
establishment of a ZEV sales mandate (i.e., a nationwide requirement
for manufacturers to produce a portion of their new vehicle fleet as
ZEVs). EPA is not proposing in this action to establish a heavy-duty
ZEV mandate. EPA in this action is considering how the development and
deployment of ZEVs can further the goals of environmental protection
and best be reflected in the establishment of EPA's standards and
regulatory program for MY 2027 and later heavy-duty vehicles. As
discussed earlier in this section, EPA will also be considering the
important role of ZEV technologies in the upcoming light-duty and
medium-duty vehicle proposal for MY 2027 and later, and in the heavy-
duty vehicle proposal for MY 2030 and later. EPA requests comment under
this proposal on how the Agency can best consider the potential for ZEV
technologies to significantly reduce air pollution from the heavy-duty
vehicle sector (including but not limited to the topic of whether and
how to consider including specific sales requirements for HD ZEVs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan from the Moving
Forward Network. October 26, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Statutory Authority for This Action
As discussed in Section I, EPA is proposing revisions to emission
standards and other requirements applicable to emissions of
NOX, PM, HC, CO, and GHG from new heavy-duty engines and
vehicles under our broad statutory authority to regulate air pollutants
emitted from mobile sources, consistent with our history of using a
multi-pollutant approach to regulating criteria pollutants and GHG
emissions from heavy-duty engines and vehicles. Section 202(a)(1) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA to ``by regulation prescribe
(and from time to time revise) . . . standards applicable to the
emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines . . . , which in his judgment
cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare''. Standards under CAA
section 202(a) take effect ``after such period as the Administrator
finds necessary to permit the development and application of the
requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of
compliance within such period.'' Thus, in establishing or revising CAA
section 202(a) standards designed to reduce air pollution that
endangers public health and welfare, EPA also must consider issues of
technological feasibility, compliance cost, and lead time. EPA may
consider other factors such as safety. There are currently heavy-duty
engine and vehicle standards for emissions of NOX, PM, HC,
CO, and GHGs.
Under CAA section 202(a)(3)(A), standards for emissions of
NOX, PM, HC, and CO emissions from heavy-duty vehicles and
engines are to ``reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable through the application of technology which the
Administrator determines will be available for the model year to which
such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy,
and safety factors associated with the application of such
technology.'' \26\ Section 202(a)(3)(C) requires that these standards
apply for no less than 3 model years and apply no earlier than 4 years
after promulgation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Section 202(a)(3)(A) and (C) apply only to regulations
applicable to emissions of these four pollutants and do not apply to
regulations applicable to GHGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission standards set under CAA section 202(a) apply to vehicles
and engines ``for their useful life.'' CAA section 202(d) directs EPA
to prescribe regulations under which the useful life of vehicles and
engines shall be determined, and for heavy-duty vehicles and engines
establishes minimum values of 10 years or 100,000 miles, whichever
occurs first, unless EPA determines that greater values are
appropriate. CAA section 207(a) further requires manufacturers to
provide an emissions warranty, and EPA set the current warranty periods
for heavy-duty engines in 1983.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 48 FR 52170, November 16, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As outlined in this executive summary, the proposed program would
reduce heavy-duty emissions through several major provisions pursuant
to the CAA authority described in this section. Sections I.F and XIV of
this preamble further discuss our statutory authority for this
proposal; Section I.G further describes the basis of our proposed
NOX, PM, HC, CO, and GHG emission standards and other
requirements. Section XIII describes how this proposal is also
consistent with E.O. 14037, ``Strengthening American Leadership in
Clean Cars and Trucks'' (August 5, 2021), which directs EPA to consider
taking action to establish new NOX standards for heavy-duty
engines and vehicles beginning with model year 2027.
B. Overview of the Regulatory Action
Our approach to further reduce air pollution from highway heavy-
duty engines and vehicles through the proposed program features several
key provisions. We co-propose options to address criteria pollutant
emissions from heavy-duty engines. In addition, this proposal would
make targeted updates to the existing Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Phase 2 program, proposing that further GHG reductions in the
MY 2027 timeframe are appropriate considering lead time, costs, and
other factors, including market shifts to zero-emission technologies in
certain segments of the heavy-duty vehicle sector. We also propose
limited amendments to the regulations that implement our air pollutant
emission standards for other sectors (e.g., light-duty vehicles, marine
diesel engines, locomotives, various types of nonroad engines,
vehicles, and equipment). Our proposed provisions are briefly described
in this Section I.B and summarized in Section I.C. We describe the
proposed Options 1 and 2 in detail in the Sections III, IV, and XI. We
discuss our analyses of estimated emission reductions, air quality
improvements, costs, and monetized benefits of the proposed program in
Section I.D below, and these are detailed in Sections V through X.
1. Overview of Criteria Pollutant Program
The proposed provisions to reduce criteria pollutant emissions can
be thought of in three broad categories: (1) Controlling emissions
under a broader range of engine operating conditions, (2) maintaining
emission control over a greater portion of an engine's operational
life,\28\ and (3) providing manufacturers with flexibilities to meet
[[Page 17421]]
the proposed standards while clarifying our regulations. Specifically,
provisions in the first category would include updated test procedures
and revised emission standards, while those in the second category
would include lengthened regulatory useful life and emission warranty
periods, as well as several other updates to encourage proper
maintenance and repair. These provisions would apply to heavy-duty
engines used in Class 2b through 8 vehicles.\29\ Provisions in the
third category would provide opportunities to generate NOX
emission credits that provide manufacturers with flexibilities to meet
the proposed standards and encourage the introduction of new emission
control technologies earlier than required. This category also includes
our proposal to modernize our current regulatory text, including
clarifications and updates for hybrid electric, battery-electric, and
fuel cell electric heavy-duty vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ As further discussed in Section IV.A, we use ``operational
life'' to refer to when engines are in use on the road.
\29\ EPA plans to consider new standards for chassis-certified
Class 2b and 3 vehicles (GVWR between 8,500 and 14,000 pounds) as
part of a future combined light-duty and medium-duty rulemaking
action, consistent with E.O. 14037. We are not proposing changes to
the standards or test procedures for chassis-certified heavy-duty
vehicles. Instead, this proposal focuses on engine-certified
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our discussion below focuses on the revised emission standards and
useful life and warranty periods contained in two regulatory options
that we are proposing: The proposed Option 1 and the proposed Option 2.
Although we refer to the two regulatory options as the proposed Option
1 and the proposed Option 2, we are giving full consideration to both
options, as well as the full range of options between them. Both the
proposed Option 1 and the proposed Option 2 would begin in MY 2027, but
the proposed Option 1 would have a second step in MY 2031. Overall,
proposed Option 2 is less stringent than the MY 2031 standards in the
proposed Option l because the proposed Option 2 has higher numeric
NOX emission standards and shorter useful life periods. As
discussed in Section D of this Executive Summary and Section VI, we
project proposed Option 1 would result in greater emission reductions
than proposed Option 2; Section I.G summarizes the basis of our
proposed Options 1 and 2 with details on our feasibility analysis for
each option presented in Section III. In addition to the proposed
Options 1 and 2, we present an alternative (the Alternative) that we
also considered. The Alternative is more stringent than either the
proposed Option 1 MY 2031 standards or the proposed Option 2 because
the Alternative has shorter lead time, lower numeric NOX
emission standards and longer useful life periods. We note that we
currently are unable to conclude that the Alternative is feasible in
the MY 2027 timeframe over the useful life periods in the Alternative
in light of deterioration in the emission control technologies that we
have evaluated to date, and we expect that we would need additional
supporting data or other information in order to determine that the
Alternative is feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe to consider adopting
it in the final rule.
The proposed Option 1 and proposed Option 2 generally represent the
range of regulatory options, including the standards and test
procedures, regulatory useful life and emission-related warranty
periods and implementation schedules that we are currently considering
in this rulemaking, depending in part on any additional comments and
other information we receive on the feasibility, costs, and other
impacts of the proposed Options 1 and 2. We request comment on all
aspects of the proposed Options 1 and 2, or other alternatives roughly
within the range of options covered by the proposed Options 1 and 2,
including the revised emission standards and useful life and warranty
periods, one and two-step approaches, model years of implementation and
other provisions described in this proposal. Based on currently
available information, in order to consider adopting the Alternative in
the final rule, we believe we would need additional supporting data or
other information to be able to conclude that the Alternative is
feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe. We request comment, including
relevant data and other information, related to the feasibility of the
implementation model year, numeric levels of the emission standards,
and useful life and warranty periods included in the Alternative, or
other alternatives outside the range of options covered by the proposed
Options 1 and 2.
We will continue learning about the capability and durability of
engine and aftertreatment technologies through our ongoing technology
evaluations, as well as any information provided in public comments on
this proposal. Section III describes our plans for expanding on the
analyses developed for this proposal.
2. Overview of Targeted Revisions to the HD GHG Phase 2 Program
In addition to the proposed criteria pollutant program provisions,
we are proposing to increase the stringency of the existing GHG
standards for MY 2027 trucks and requesting comment on updates to the
advanced technology incentive program for electric vehicles. We propose
updates to select MY 2027 GHG standards after consideration of the
market shifts to zero-emission technologies in certain segments of the
heavy-duty vehicle sector. These proposed GHG provisions are based on
our evaluation of the heavy-duty EV market for the MY 2024 through 2027
timeframe. While the HD Phase 2 GHG standards were developed in 2016
based on the premise that electrification of the heavy-duty market
beyond low volume demonstration projects was unlikely to occur in the
timeframe of the program, our current evaluation shows that there are a
number of manufacturers producing fully electric heavy-duty vehicles in
several applications in 2021--and this number is expected to grow in
the near term. These developments along with considerations of lead
time, costs and other factors have demonstrated that further GHG
reductions in the MY 2027 timeframe are appropriate. We expect school
buses, transit buses, delivery trucks (such as box trucks or step
vans), and short haul tractors to have the highest EV sales of all
heavy-duty vehicle types between now and 2030.\30\ We have given
careful consideration to an approach that would result in targeted
updates to reflect the emerging HD EV market without fundamentally
changing the HD GHG Phase 2 program as a whole. Thus, we are proposing
targeted updates to the HD Phase 2 GHG standards to account for the
current electrification of the market by making changes to only those
standards that are impacted by these four types of electric vehicles.
We believe this proposal considered the feasibility of technologies,
cost, lead time, emissions impact, and other relevant factors, and
therefore these standards are appropriate under CAA section 202(a). We
also are seeking comment on changes to the advanced technology credit
program since the current level of HD GHG Phase 2 incentives for
electrification may no longer be appropriate for certain segments of
the HD EV market considering the projected rise in electrification. We
provide an overview of this approach in this Section I.C and detail our
proposal in Section XI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Section XI.B for more on the growing EV market for
these four vehicle types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17422]]
C. Summary of the Major Provisions in the Regulatory Action
1. Controlling Criteria Pollutant Emissions Under a Broader Range of
Engine Operating Conditions
In the first broad category of provisions to reduce criteria
pollutant emissions in this rulemaking, we are proposing to reduce
emissions from heavy-duty engines under a range of operating conditions
through revisions to our emissions standards and test procedures. These
revisions would apply to both laboratory-based standards and test
procedures for both heavy-duty CI and SI engines, as well as the
standards and test procedures for heavy-duty CI engines on the road in
the real world.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Duty cycle test procedures measure emissions while the
engine is operating over precisely defined duty cycles in an
emissions testing laboratory and provide very repeatable emission
measurements. ``Off-cycle'' test procedures measure emissions while
the engine is not operating on a specified duty-cycle; this testing
can be conducted while the engine is being driven on the road (e.g.,
on a package delivery route), or in an emission testing laboratory.
We may also refer to off-cycle test procedures in this preamble as
``on the road'' testing for simplicity. Both duty cycle and off-
cycle testing are conducted pre-production (e.g., for certification)
or post-production to verify that the engine meets applicable duty
cycle or off-cycle emission standards throughout useful life (See
Section III.A and IV.K for more discussion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Proposed Laboratory Standards and Test Procedures
For heavy-duty CI engines, we are proposing new standards for
laboratory-based tests using the current duty cycles, the transient
Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and the steady-state Supplemental Emission
Test (SET) procedure. These existing test procedures require CI engine
manufacturers to demonstrate the effectiveness of emission controls
when the engine is transitioning from low-to-high loads or operating
under sustained high load, but do not provide for demonstrating
emission control under sustained low-load operations. We are proposing
that laboratory demonstrations for heavy-duty CI engines would also
include a new low-load cycle (LLC) test procedure to demonstrate that
emission controls are meeting proposed LLC standards when the engine is
operating under low-load and idle conditions. The proposed addition of
the LLC would help ensure lower NOX emissions in urban areas
and other locations where heavy-duty vehicles operate in stop-and-go
traffic or other low-load conditions.
For heavy-duty SI engines, we are proposing new standards for their
laboratory demonstrations using the current FTP duty cycle, and updates
to the current engine mapping procedure to ensure the engines achieve
the highest torque level possible during testing. We are proposing to
add the SET procedure to the heavy-duty SI laboratory demonstrations;
it is currently only required for heavy-duty CI engines. Heavy-duty SI
engines are increasingly used in larger heavy-duty vehicles, which
makes it more likely for these engines to be used in higher-load
operations covered by the SET. We are further proposing a new refueling
emission standard for incomplete vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR starting
in MY 2027.\32\ The proposed refueling standard is based on the current
refueling standard that applies to complete heavy-duty gasoline-fueled
vehicles. Consistent with the current evaporative emission standards
that apply for these same vehicles, we are proposing that manufacturers
could use an engineering analysis to demonstrate that they meet our
proposed refueling standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Some vehicle manufactures sell their engines or
``incomplete vehicles'' (i.e., chassis that include their engines,
the frame, and a transmission) to body builders who design and
assemble the final vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our proposed Option 1 and proposed Option 2 NOX emission
standards for all defined duty cycles for heavy-duty CI and SI engines
are detailed in Table 1. As shown, the proposed Option 1 NOX
standards would be implemented in two steps beginning with MY 2027 and
becoming more stringent in MY 2031. The proposed Option 2
NOX emission standards would be implemented with a single
step in MY 2027. As noted in Section B.1 of this Executive Summary,
overall, we consider proposed Option 2 to be less stringent than the
standards in the proposed Option 1 because proposed Option 2 has higher
numeric NOX emission standards with similar useful life
periods as the proposed Option 1 in MY 2027, and shorter length of
useful life periods than the proposed Option 1 in MY 2031. In contrast,
the Alternative is more stringent than proposed Option 1's MY 2031
standards (see Section III), and we currently do not have information
to support the conclusion that the combination of shorter lead time,
lower numeric levels of the standards and longer useful life periods in
the Alternative is feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe based on the
emission control technologies we have evaluated to date. See Section
III for more discussion on feasibility. Consistent with our current
approach for criteria pollutants, the standards in proposed Options 1
and 2, presented in Table 1, are numerically identical for SI and CI
engines.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Section III for our proposed and alternative PM, HC,
and CO standards.
Table 1--Proposed Options 1 and 2 NOX Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty CI and SI Engines on Specific Duty
Cycles
[Milligrams/horsepower-hour (mg/hp-hr)] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1 Proposed
---------------------------------------------------------------- Option 2
Model years Model years 2031 and later ---------------
2027-2030 ------------------------------------------------ Model years
---------------- 2027 and later
Duty cycle Spark ignition Heavy HDE Heavy HDE from ---------------
HDE, light through IUL to full Spark ignition
All HD engines HDE, and intermediate useful life HDE, light
medium HDE useful life (FUL) HDE, medium
(IUL) HDE, heavy HDE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP (transient mid/high load 35 20 20 40 50
conditions)....................
SET (steady-state conditions)... 35 20 20 40 50
LLC (low-load conditions)....... 90 50 50 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The current FTP and SET standard for all HD engines is 0.20 g/hp-hr or 200 mg/hp-hr; we are proposing the
LLC test procedure and therefore there is not a current standard for the LLC.
[[Page 17423]]
ii. Proposed On-the-Road Standards and Test Procedures
In addition to demonstrating emission control over defined duty
cycles in a laboratory, heavy-duty CI engines must be able to
demonstrate emission control over an undefined duty cycle while engines
are in use on the road in the real world. Both proposed Options 1 and 2
include updates to the procedure for ``off-cycle'' testing, such that
data collected during a wider range of operating conditions would be
valid, and therefore subject to emission standards.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ As discussed in Section III, ``off-cycle'' testing measures
emissions while the engine is not operating on a specified duty-
cycle; this testing can be conducted while the engine is being
driven on the road (e.g., on a package delivery route), or in an
emission testing laboratory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to the current approach, emission measurements collected
during off-cycle testing would be collected on a second-by-second
basis. We are proposing the emissions data would be grouped into 300-
second windows of operation. Each 300-second window would then be
binned based on the type of operation that the engine performs during
that 300-second period. Specifically, the average power of the engine
during each 300-second window would determine whether the emissions
during that window are binned as idle (Bin 1), low-load (Bin 2), or
medium-to-high load (Bin 3).\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Due to the challenges of measuring engine power directly on
in-use vehicles, we are proposing to use the CO2 emission
rate (grams per second) as a surrogate for engine power; further, we
propose to normalize CO2 emission rates relative to the
nominal maximum CO2 rate of the engine (e.g., when an
engine with a maximum CO2 emission rate of 50 g/sec emits
at a rate of 10 g/sec, its normalized CO2 emission rate
is 20 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our proposed 3-bin approach would cover a wide range of operations
that occur in the real world--significantly more in-use operation than
today's requirements. Bin 1 would include extended idle and other very
low-load operations, where engine exhaust temperatures may drop below
the optimal temperature where SCR-based aftertreatment works best. Bin
2 would include a large fraction of urban driving conditions, during
which engine exhaust temperatures are generally moderate. Bin 3 would
include higher-power operations, such as on-highway driving that
typically results in higher exhaust temperatures and high catalyst
efficiencies.\36\ Given the different operational profiles of each of
these three bins, we are proposing a separate standard for each bin.
The proposed structure follows that of our current not-to-exceed (NTE)
off-cycle standards, while covering a much broader range of engine
operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Because the proposed approach considers time-averaged
power, any of the bins could include some idle operation and any of
the bins could include some high-power operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 presents our proposed Option 1 and Option 2 off-cycle
standards for NOX emissions from heavy-duty CI engines. The
proposed Option 2 off-cycle NOX standards are higher (less
stringent) and have a shorter useful life than the proposed Option 1
standards in MY 2031. For the Alternative, our assessment of currently
available data indicates that the off-cycle standard for the medium/
high load bin (Bin 3) would not be feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe,
and additional or different technology would be necessary to meet the
Alternative off-cycle standards. See Section III for details on the
off-cycle standards for other pollutants in the proposed Options 1 and
2 and the Alternative.
Table 2--Proposed Options 1 and 2 Off-Cycle NOX Standards for Heavy-Duty CI Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1 Proposed
---------------------------------------------------------------- Option 2
Model years Model years 2031 and later ---------------
Operation bin 2027-2030 ------------------------------------------------ Model years
---------------- 2027 and later
Light HDE, and Heavy HDE Heavy HDE from ---------------
All HD engines medium HDE through IUL IUL to FUL All HD engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
idle (g/hr)..................... 10 7.5 7.5 7.5 15
low load (mg/hp-hr)............. 180 75 7.5 150 150
medium/high load (mg/hp-hr)..... 70 30 30 60 75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the proposed standards for the defined duty cycle
and off-cycle test procedures, the proposed Options 1 and 2 include
several other provisions for controlling emissions from specific
operations in CI or SI engines. First, we are proposing to allow CI
engine manufacturers to voluntarily certify to the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) clean idle standards by adding to EPA
regulations an idle test procedure that is based on an existing CARB
procedure.\37\ We are also proposing to require a closed crankcase
ventilation system for all highway CI engines to prevent crankcase
emissions from being emitted directly to the atmosphere. See Section
III.B for more discussion on both the proposed idle and crankcase
provisions. For heavy-duty SI, we are proposing refueling emission
standards for incomplete vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR (see Section
III.E for more discussion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 13 CCR 1956.8 (a)(6)(C)--Optional NOX idling
emission standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Maintaining Criteria Pollutant Emission Control Over a Greater
Portion of an Engine's Operational Life
Reducing emissions under a broad range of engine operating
conditions is one category of our proposed program provisions.
Maintaining emission control over a greater portion of an engine's
operational life is the second broad category of proposed provisions.
The major elements in this category include proposals to (1) extend the
regulatory useful life of heavy-duty engines, (2) provide an
opportunity for manufacturers to use rapidly aged parts necessary to
demonstrate emission performance over the regulatory useful life, (3)
lengthen emission warranty periods, and 4) increase the likelihood that
emission controls will be maintained properly through more of the
service life of heavy-duty engines. Our proposals for each of these
elements is outlined below and detailed in Section IV; unless
explicitly stated otherwise, proposals for each of these elements would
apply under both proposed Options 1 and 2, as well as the full range of
options in between them.
i. Proposed Useful Life Periods
EPA is proposing to increase the regulatory useful life mileage
values for new heavy-duty engines to better reflect real-world usage,
extend the emissions durability requirement for heavy-duty engines, and
ensure certified emission performance is maintained throughout
[[Page 17424]]
more of an engine's operational life. For proposed Option 1, Increases
to useful life values for heavy-duty engines would apply in two steps,
as discussed in Section IV.A. For the first step for CI engines, MY
2027 through 2030, we are proposing useful life mileage values that are
approximately a midpoint between the current useful life mileages and
our proposed CI engines MY 2031 and later mileages. For the second
step, we are proposing useful life mileage values for MY 2031 and later
CI engines that cover a majority of the estimated operational life
mileages, but less than the first out-of-frame rebuild for these
engines. The proposed Option 1 first step for SI engines in MY 2027
through 2030 would better align with the current useful life mileages
for GHG emission standards applicable to these engines. The proposed
Option 1 second step useful life mileage for SI engines for MY 2031 and
later is based on the published engine service life for heavy-duty
gasoline engines in the market today.
The useful life mileages in the proposed Option 2 are shorter than
those in the proposed Option 1; we are giving full consideration to the
useful life periods of proposed Options 1 and 2, and the range between
the useful life periods in the proposed Options. Our proposed Option 1
and Option 2 useful life periods for heavy-duty CI and SI engines are
presented in Table 3. See Section IV for the useful periods of the
Alternative.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ As noted in this Section C of the Executive Summary, we are
proposing refueling standards for HD SI engines that are certified
as incomplete vehicles that are equivalent to the standards in
effect for complete heavy-duty vehicles. We propose to apply the
existing useful life periods for the complete vehicle refueling
standards (15 years or 150,000 miles; see 40 CFR 1037.103(f) and
86.1805-16(d) for ``MDPV'' and ``HDV'') to the HD SI engines
certified as incomplete vehicles. See preamble Section IV.A for more
details.
Table 3--Proposed Options 1 and 2 Useful Life Periods for Heavy-Duty CI and SI Engines Criteria Pollutant Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark-ignition HDE Compression-ignition
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year Light HDE Medium HDE Heavy HDE b c
Miles Years -----------------------------------------------------------------
Miles Years Miles Years Miles Years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current \a\..................................................... 110,000 10 110,000 10 185,000 10 435,000 10
Proposed Option 1: 2027-2030.................................... 155,000 12 190,000 12 270,000 11 600,000 11
Proposed Option 1 \d\: 2031 and later........................... 200,000 15 270,000 15 350,000 12 800,000 12
Proposed Option 2: 2027 and later............................... 150,000 10 250,000 10 325,000 10 650,000 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Current useful life period for Spark-ignition HDE and Light HDE for GHG emission standards is 15 years or 150,000 miles. See 40 CFR 1036.108(d).
\b\ We are also proposing to increase the hours-based useful life criterion from the current 22,000 hours for Heavy HDE to 32,000 hours for model years
2027-2030 and 40,000 hours for model years 2031 and later.
\c\ The Heavy HDE class includes certain SI engines (e.g., natural gas-fueled engines) intended for use in Class 8 vehicles.
\d\ For MY 2031 and later Heavy HDE, the proposed Option 1 would include intermediate useful life periods of 435,000 miles, 10 years, or 22,000 hours,
whichever comes first. See Section III for a discussion of the proposed Option 1 standards we propose to apply for the intermediate and full useful
life periods.
ii. Proposed Durability Demonstration Updates
The proposed longer useful life periods outlined in Table 3 would
require manufacturers to extend their durability demonstrations, which
show that the engines will meet applicable emission standards
throughout their regulatory useful life. EPA regulations require
manufacturers to include durability demonstration data as part of an
application for certification of an engine family. Manufacturers
typically complete this demonstration by following regulatory
procedures to calculate a deterioration factor (DF).
To address the need for accurate and efficient emission durability
demonstration methods, EPA worked with manufacturers and CARB to
address this concern through guidance for MY 2020 and later
engines.\39\ In Section IV.F, we propose three methods for determining
DFs, consistent with the recent guidance, including a new option to
bench-age the aftertreatment system to limit the burden of generating a
DF over the proposed lengthened useful life periods. We also propose to
codify in the EPA regulations three DF verification options available
to manufacturers in recent guidance. The proposed verification options
would confirm the accuracy of the DF values submitted by manufacturers
for certification. We also introduce a test program to evaluate a
rapid-aging protocol for diesel catalysts that we may consider as an
option for CI engine manufacturers to use in their durability
demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ U.S. EPA. ``Guidance on Deterioration Factor Validation
Methods for Heavy-Duty Diesel Highway Engines and Nonroad Diesel
Engines equipped with SCR.'' CD-2020-19 (HD Highway and Nonroad).
November 17, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Proposed Emissions Warranty Periods
EPA's current emission-related warranty periods range from 22
percent to 54 percent of regulatory useful life. As EPA is proposing to
lengthen the useful life periods in this rulemaking, we are also
proposing to lengthen the emission warranty periods and increase the
fraction of useful life miles covered under warranty. These proposed
revised warranty periods are expected to result in better engine
maintenance and less tampering, helping to maintain the benefits of the
emission controls. In addition, longer regulatory warranty periods may
lead engine manufacturers to simplify repair processes and make them
more aware of system defects that would be tracked and reported to EPA
over a longer period.
In Section IV.B, we provide detailed discussion and request comment
on these four ways that longer emission warranty periods may enhance
long-term performance of emission-related devices and systems. We also
discuss other impacts of lengthening regulatory emission warranty
periods and other approaches that vary coverage and may similarly
ensure long-term in-use emission performance.
EPA is proposing to lengthen the emissions warranty periods for all
primary intended service classes to cover a larger portion of the
operational lives of new heavy-duty engines. Our proposed Option 1
warranty mileages for MY 2031 are approximately 80 percent of the
proposed useful life mileages. The proposed Option 1 MY 2027 through
2030 mileages are
[[Page 17425]]
approximately midpoints between the current and proposed Option 1 MY
2031 and later mileages. The proposed Option 2 set of emission warranty
periods would match CARB's Step 1 warranty periods that will already be
in effect beginning in model year 2022 for engines sold in
California.\40\ We believe the proposed Option 2 mileages represent an
appropriate lower end of the range we are considering for the revised
regulatory emission warranty periods. Our proposed Option 1 and
proposed Option 2 emission warranty periods are presented in Table
4.\41\ See Section IV.B for updates in proposed Options 1 and 2 to our
years-based warranty periods and add hours-based warranty periods for
all engine classes to cover low average annual mileage applications. We
also considered an alternative set of warranty periods that are
presented in Section IV.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ For SI engines, the Alternative 1 warranty mileage matches
the current useful life, consistent with the approach for Light HDE
Alternative 1 warranty.
\41\ In addition to exhaust standards, we are proposing
refueling standards for HD SI engines that are certified as
incomplete vehicles. The onboard refueling vapor recovery systems
necessary to meet the proposed refueling standards will likely build
on existing evaporative emissions systems, and we propose to apply
the existing warranty periods for evaporative emission control
systems to the ORVR systems (5 years or 50,000 miles). See Preamble
IV.B.1.
Table 4--Proposed Options 1 and 2 Emission-Related Warranty Periods for Heavy-Duty CI and SI Engines Criteria Pollutant Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark-ignition HDE Compression-ignition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year Light HDE Medium HDE Heavy HDE Years
Miles Hours ------------------------------------------------------------------
Miles Hours Miles Hours Miles Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current................................................ 50,000 NA 50,000 NA 100,000 NA 100,000 NA 5
Proposed Option 1: 2027-2030........................... 110,000 6,000 150,000 7,000 220,000 11,000 450,000 22,000 7
Proposed Option 1: 2031 and later...................... 160,000 8,000 210,000 10,000 280,000 14,000 600,000 30,000 10
Proposed Option 2: 2027 and later...................... 110,000 NA 110,000 NA 150,000 NA 350,000 NA 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Proposed Provisions To Ensure Long-Term Emissions Performance
In the ANPR, we introduced several ideas for an enhanced,
comprehensive strategy to increase the likelihood that emission
controls will be maintained properly through more of the operational
life of heavy-duty engines, including beyond their useful life periods.
Our proposed updates to maintenance provisions include defining the
type of maintenance manufacturers may choose to recommend to owners in
maintenance instructions, updating minimum maintenance intervals for
certain critical emission-related components, and outlining specific
requirements for maintenance instructions provided in the owner's
manual.
We are proposing changes to the owner's manual and emissions label
requirements to ensure access to certain maintenance information and
improve serviceability. We expect this additional maintenance
information to improve factors that contribute to mal-maintenance,
which would result in better service experiences for independent repair
technicians, specialized repair technicians, owners who repair their
own equipment, and possibly vehicle inspection and maintenance
technicians. We also believe that improving owner experiences with
operating and maintaining heavy-duty engines can reduce the likelihood
of tampering.
v. Proposed Inducement Provisions
ANPR commenters indicated that engine derates or ``inducements''
are a significant source of operator frustration.\42\ EPA currently has
guidance on potential options manufacturers might utilize to meet
existing requirements through an inducement strategy for their SCR-
based aftertreatment system.\43\ We are proposing to codify inducement
provisions after considering manufacturer designs and operator
experiences with SCR-based aftertreatment systems. In Section IV.D, we
present the key principles we followed in developing the proposed
inducement provisions, which includes a focus on conditions that are
within an operator's control, a multi-step derate schedule, and a
backup check to override false inducements. We also include a detailed
set of requests for comment highlighting the wide range of adjustments
we are currently considering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Engine derating is an aftertreatment design strategy that
reduces engine performance to induce operators to maintain
appropriate levels of high-quality diesel emission fluid (DEF) in
their SCR-based aftertreatment systems. Throughout this preamble we
refer to engine derates that derive from DEF-related triggers as
``inducements.''
\43\ Kopin, Amy. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055.
``Inducement-Related Guidance Documents, and Workshop
Presentation.'' October 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vi. Proposed Onboard Diagnostics Provisions
Onboard diagnostics (OBD) refer to systems of electronic
controllers and sensors required by current regulation to detect
malfunctions of engines and emission controls. EPA's existing OBD
program, promulgated in 2009, allows manufacturers to demonstrate how
the OBD system they have designed to comply with California OBD
requirements also complies with the intent of the EPA OBD
requirements.\44\ Although EPA maintains separate OBD regulations, all
manufacturers currently seek OBD approval from CARB for OBD systems in
engine families applying for 50-state certification, and then use this
approval to demonstrate compliance with EPA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See 40 CFR 86.010-18(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Section IV.C, we are proposing to update our OBD regulations
both to better address newer diagnostic methods and available
technologies, and to streamline provisions where possible. We propose
to incorporate by reference the existing CARB OBD regulations updated
in 2019 as the starting point for our updated OBD regulations.\45\ We
are proposing to exclude or revise certain CARB provisions that we
believe are not appropriate for a federal program and are proposing to
include additional elements to improve the usefulness of
[[Page 17426]]
OBD systems for users (see Section IV.C for details).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ CARB Final Rulemaking to Consider Technical Status and
Prosed Revisions to On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements for
Heavy-Engines, Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, Medium Duty
Vehicles and Engines was approved and became effective on July 31,
2013. California Code of Regulations sections 1968.2 and 1971.1
available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/hdobd12/hdobd12.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is specifically proposing additional OBD elements to improve
the robustness and usefulness of OBD systems. These additional elements
include emission system health monitors, an expanded list of publicly
available OBD parameters, additional freeze frame data parameters, and
enabling certain self-testing capabilities for owners. These proposed
changes would benefit the environment by helping to reduce
malfunctioning emission systems in-use through access to additional
data that may be useful for service technicians, state and local
inspection and maintenance operations, and owners.
3. Other Proposed Compliance Provisions and Flexibilities
In addition to the key program provisions, we are also proposing
several provisions to provide manufacturers with flexibility to meet
the proposed standards and encourage the introduction of new emission
control technologies earlier than required; these provisions would
apply under both proposed Options 1 and 2, as well as the full range of
options in between them. These provisions include our proposal to
migrate and update the compliance provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart
A, to 40 CFR part 1036; continue averaging, banking, and trading (ABT)
of credits generated against our heavy-duty engine criteria pollutant
standards; provide incentives for early adoption of technologies to
meet the standards; allow manufacturers to generate NOX
emission credits for hybrid electric, battery electric, and fuel cell
electric vehicles (HEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs); and make limited amendments
to regulations that implement our air pollutant emission standards for
other industry sectors, including light-duty vehicles, light-duty
trucks, marine diesel engines, locomotives, and various types of
nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment.
i. Proposed Migration From 40 CFR Part 86, Subpart A
Heavy-duty criteria pollutant regulations were originally codified
into 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, in the 1980s. We believe this
rulemaking provides an opportunity to clarify (and otherwise improve)
the wording of our existing heavy-duty criteria pollutant regulations
in plain language and migrate them to 40 CFR part 1036.\46\ Part 1036,
which was created for the Phase 1 GHG program, provides a consistent,
updated format for our regulations, with improved organization. In
general, this migration is not intended to change the compliance
program previously specified in part 86, except as specifically
proposed in this rulemaking. See our summary of the proposed migration
in Section III.A, and additional details in our memorandum to the
docket.\47\ The proposed provisions of part 1036 would generally apply
for model years 2027 and later, unless noted, and manufacturers would
continue to use part 86 in the interim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ We are proposing to migrate some provisions to parts 1065
and 1068 to apply broadly to other sectors. Additionally, some
current vehicle provisions in part 1037 refer to part 86 and we are
proposing to update those references in part 1037 as needed.
\47\ Stout, Alan; Brakora, Jessica. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055. ``Technical Issues Related to Migrating Heavy-Duty
Highway Engine Certification Requirements from 40 CFR part 86,
subpart A, to 40 CFR part 1036''. October 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Proposed Opportunities for NOX Emission Credits
We are proposing targeted revisions to the current emissions ABT
provisions to account for specific aspects of the broader proposed
program. We are also proposing an early adoption incentive program that
would recognize the environmental benefits of lower-emitting vehicles
entering the fleet ahead of required compliance dates for the proposed
standards. Through this optional program, manufacturers who demonstrate
early compliance with the proposed MY 2027 or MY 2031 standards would
apply a multiplier to emission credits generated under the proposed ABT
program (see Section IV.H for details). We are also proposing to offer
NOX emission credits for HEVs, BEVs and FCEVs based on the
near-zero or zero-tailpipe emissions performance of these technologies,
for HEVs or BEVs and FCEVs, respectively, and after consideration of
ANPR comments. We are choosing not to propose emission credit
multipliers for HEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs. We believe that the potential
loss of emission reductions that could result from providing credit
multipliers is not justified in light of the current extent of
technology development and implementation. Manufacturers choosing to
generate NOX emission credits from BEVs or FCEVs would need
to conduct testing and meet durability requirements discussed in
Section IV.
iii. Other Amendments
EPA has promulgated emission standards for highway and nonroad
engines, vehicles, and equipment. Section XII of this proposed rule
describes several amendments to correct, clarify, and streamline a wide
range of regulatory provisions for many of those different types of
engines, vehicles, and equipment. Section XII.A includes technical
amendments to compliance provisions that apply broadly across EPA's
emission control programs to multiple industry sectors, including
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, marine diesel engines,
locomotives, and various other types of nonroad engines, vehicles, and
equipment. Some of those amendments are for broadly applicable testing
and compliance provisions in 40 CFR parts 1065, 1066, and 1068. Other
cross-sector issues involve making the same or similar changes in
multiple standard-setting parts for individual industry sectors. The
rest of Section XII describes proposed amendments that apply uniquely
for individual industry sectors.
We are proposing amendments in two areas of note for the general
compliance provisions in 40 CFR part 1068. First, we are proposing to
take a comprehensive approach for making confidentiality determinations
related to compliance information that companies submit to EPA. We are
proposing to apply these provisions for all highway, nonroad, and
stationary engine, vehicle, and equipment programs, as well as aircraft
and portable fuel containers.
Second, we are proposing provisions that include clarifying text to
establish what qualifies as an adjustable parameter and to identify the
practically adjustable range for those adjustable parameters. The
proposed adjustable-parameter amendments also include specific
provisions related to electronic controls that aim to deter tampering.
4. Targeted Revisions to the HD GHG Phase 2 Program
As noted at the start of this Section I.B, we have developed a
proposed approach to make targeted updates that take into consideration
the growing HD electric vehicle market without fundamentally changing
the HD GHG Phase 2 program as a whole. These developments along with
considerations of lead time, costs and other factors have demonstrated
that further GHG reductions in the MY 2027 timeframe are appropriate.
Specifically, we propose to adjust the HD GHG Phase 2 vehicle GHG
emission standards by sales-weighting the projected heavy-duty EV
production levels of school buses, transit buses, commercial delivery
trucks, and short-haul tractors and by lowering the applicable emission
standards in MY 2027 accordingly. We project these four vehicle types
will have the highest EV sales of all heavy-
[[Page 17427]]
duty vehicle types between now and 2030. Because these four EV vehicle
types do not correspond directly with the specific subcategories for
standards that we developed in HD GHG Phase 2 (subcategories
differentiated by vehicle weight, use, fuel type, etc.), we use EPA
certification data to determine which subcategories of standards would
be impacted by EV production in MY 2027. By sales-weighing the
projected production levels of the four EV vehicle types in 2027, our
proposed approach adjusts 17 of the 33 MY 2027 Phase 2 vocational
vehicle and tractor standards and does not change any MY 2021 or MY
2024 standards or any of the Class 2b/3 pickup truck and van standards.
We request comment on the proposed approach to determine the threshold.
In addition to these proposed standard adjustments, we are
requesting comment on options to update the advanced technology
incentive program for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles beginning in
MY 2024. These changes may be appropriate to reflect that such levels
of incentives for electrification may no longer be appropriate for
certain segments of the HD EV market. We are trying to balance
providing additional incentives for the continued development of zero
and near-zero emission vehicles without inadvertently undermining the
GHG emission reductions from the HD GHG Phase 2 program with
inappropriate incentives.
D. Projected Emission Reductions, Air Quality Improvements, Costs, and
Benefits
Our analysis of the estimated emission reductions, air quality
improvements, costs, and monetized benefits of the proposed criteria
pollutant program is outlined below and detailed in Sections V through
X. While the discussion below generally focuses on our analysis of the
proposed Option 1, we also discuss the proposed Option 2; additional
information on analyses of proposed Options 1 and 2 is included in the
sections that follow. As discussed in Section III, we currently lack
information to show that the Alternative is feasible in the MY 2027
timeframe based on the emission control technologies that we have
evaluated to date, and therefore we are not presenting an analysis of
the costs or benefits of the Alternative. We expect that we would need
additional data supporting the feasibility of the Alternative to
further consider it in the development of the final rule.
The proposed provisions in Options 1 and 2, which are described in
detail in Sections III and IV, are expected to reduce emissions from
highway heavy-duty engines in several ways. We project the proposed
emission standards for heavy-duty CI engines would reduce tailpipe
emissions of NOX; the combination of the proposed low-load
test cycle and off-cycle test procedure for CI engines would help to
ensure that the reductions in tailpipe emissions are achieved in-use,
not only under high-speed, on-highway conditions, but also under low-
load and idle conditions. We also project reduced tailpipe emissions of
NOX, CO, PM, VOCs, associated air toxics, and methane from
the proposed emission standards for heavy-duty SI engines, particularly
under cold-start and high-load operating conditions. The longer
emission warranty and regulatory useful life requirements for heavy-
duty CI and SI engines in the proposed Options 1 and 2 would help
maintain the expected emission reductions for all pollutants, including
primary exhaust PM2.5, throughout the useful life of the
engine. The onboard refueling vapor recovery requirements for heavy-
duty SI engines in the proposed Options 1 and 2 would reduce VOCs and
associated air toxics. Table 5 summarizes the projected reductions in
heavy-duty emission from the proposed Options 1 and 2 in 2045 and shows
the significant reductions in NOX emissions from the
proposal. In general, we estimate that Option 2 would result in lower
emission reductions because of the less stringent emission standards
combined with shorter useful life and warranty periods than the
proposed Option 1 in MY 2031. Section VI and draft Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) Chapter 5 provide more information on our projected
emission reductions for proposed Options 1 and 2, as well as the
Alternative.
Table 5--Projected Heavy--Duty Emission Reductions in 2045 From the
Proposed Options 1 and 2 Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent reduction in
highway heavy-duty
emissions
Pollutant -------------------------
Proposed Proposed
Option 1 Option 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX........................................... 61 47
Primary PM2.5................................. 26 24
VOC........................................... 21 20
CO............................................ 17 16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed criteria pollutant program in proposed Options 1 and 2
would also reduce emissions of other pollutants. For instance, the
proposed Option 1 would result in a 27 percent reduction in benzene and
a 0.7 percent reduction in methane from highway heavy-duty engines in
2045. Leading up to 2045, emission reductions are expected to increase
over time as the fleet turns over to new, compliant engines.
Reductions in emissions of NOX, VOC, PM2.5,
and CO from the proposed rule are projected to lead to decreases in
ambient concentrations of ozone, PM2.5, NO2, and
CO. The proposed Option 1 standards would significantly decrease ozone
concentrations across the country, with a population-weighted average
decrease of over 2 ppb in 2045.\48\ Ambient PM2.5,
NO2 and CO concentrations are also predicted to improve in
2045 as a result of the proposed Option 1 program. The emission
reductions provided by the proposed standards would be important in
helping areas attain the NAAQS and prevent future nonattainment. In
addition, the proposed Option 1 standards are expected to result in
improvements in nitrogen deposition and visibility, but they are
predicted to have relatively little impact on ambient concentrations of
air toxics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Due to resource constraints, we only conducted air quality
modeling for the proposed Option 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also used our air quality data from modeling Option 1 to conduct
a demographic analysis of human exposure to future air quality in
scenarios with and without the proposed criteria pollutant standards in
place. To compare demographic trends, we sorted 2045 baseline air
quality concentrations from highest to lowest concentration and created
two groups: Areas within the contiguous U.S. with the worst air quality
and the rest of the country. We found that in the 2045 baseline, the
number of people of color living within areas with the worst air
quality is nearly double that of non-Hispanic Whites. We also found
that the largest predicted improvements in both ozone and
PM2.5 are estimated to occur in areas with the worst
baseline air quality, where larger numbers of people of color are
projected to reside. More details on our air quality modeling and
demographic analyses are included in Section VII and draft RIA Chapter
6.
Our estimates of reductions in heavy-duty engine emissions, and
associated air quality impacts, are based on manufacturers adding
emissions-reduction technologies in response to the proposed Options 1
or 2 criteria pollutant standards, along with making emission control
components more durable in response to the longer regulatory useful
life periods in the proposed Options 1 or 2. We also estimate costs to
both truck owners and manufacturers attributable to the longer emission
warranty for both the proposed Options 1 and 2. We estimate costs of
[[Page 17428]]
the proposed Options 1 and 2 to both manufacturers and truck owners in
our program cost analysis in Section V and draft RIA Chapter 7.
Our evaluation of costs to manufacturers includes direct costs
(i.e., cost of materials, labor costs) and indirect manufacturing costs
(e.g., warranty, research and development). The direct manufacturing
costs include individual technology costs for emission-related engine
components and for exhaust aftertreatment systems. Importantly, our
analysis of direct manufacturing costs includes the costs of the
existing emission control technologies because we expect the emissions
warranty and regulatory useful life provisions in the proposed Options
1 and 2 to have some impact on not only the new technology added to
comply with the proposed standards, but also on any existing emission
control components. The cost estimates thus reflect the portion of
baseline case engine hardware and aftertreatment systems for which new
costs would be incurred due to the proposed warranty and useful life
provisions, even absent any changes in the level of emission standards.
The indirect manufacturing costs in our analysis include warranty
costs, research and development costs, profits and other indirect
costs. We combine direct and indirect manufacturing costs to calculate
total technology costs, which we then add to operating costs in our
calculation of program costs.
As part of our evaluation of operating costs, we estimate costs
truck owners incur to repair emission control system components. Our
repair cost estimates are based on industry data showing the amount
spent annually by truck owners on different types of repairs, and our
estimate of the percentage of those repairs that are related to
emission control components. Our analysis of this data shows that
extending the useful life and emission warranty periods would lower
emission repair costs during several years of operation for several
vehicle types. More discussion on our emission repair costs estimates
of the proposed Options 1 and 2 criteria pollutant standards is
included in Section V, with additional details presented in draft RIA
Chapter 7.
We combined our estimates of emission repair costs with other
operating costs (i.e., urea/DEF, fuel consumption) and technology costs
to calculate total program costs. Our analysis of proposed Option 1
shows that total costs for the criteria pollutant program relative to
the baseline (or no action scenario) range from $1.8 billion in 2027 to
$2.3 billion in 2045 (2017 dollars, undiscounted, see Table V-16). We
estimate that proposed Option 2 would result in higher costs than the
proposed Option 1 in 2045. We expect that the same emission control
technologies would be needed to meet both the proposed Option 1 and 2
standards, which would result in the same direct technology costs in
both cases. The higher projected costs of the proposed Option 2
relative to the proposed Option 1 result from our expectation that the
shorter useful life and emission warranty periods of the proposed
Option 2 compared to proposed Option 1 in MY 2031 and later would lead
to higher emission control system repair costs for proposed Option 2
than the proposed Option 1 (i.e., shorter emissions warranty periods
result in higher emission repair costs in proposed Option 2) (see
Section V for details). Overall, the analysis shows that the costs of
proposed Option 1 are less than the costs of proposed Option 2. The
present value of program costs for proposed Options 1 and 2, and
additional details are presented in Section V.
Section VIII presents our analysis of the human health benefits
associated with the proposed Options 1 and 2. We estimate that in 2045,
the proposed Option 1 would result in total annual monetized ozone- and
PM2.5-related benefits of $12 and $33 billion at a 3 percent
discount rate, and $10 and $30 billion at a 7 percent discount
rate.\49\ In the same calendar year, proposed Option 2 would result in
total annual monetized ozone- and PM2.5-related benefits of
$9 and $26 billion at a 3 percent discount rate, and $8 and $23 billion
at a 7 percent discount. These benefits only reflect those associated
with reductions in NOX emissions (a precursor to both ozone
and secondarily-formed PM2.5) and directly-emitted
PM2.5 from highway heavy-duty engines. There are additional
human health and environmental benefits associated with reductions in
exposure to ambient concentrations of PM2.5, ozone, and NO2
that EPA has not quantified due to data, resource, or methodological
limitations. There would also be benefits associated with reductions in
air toxic pollutant emissions that result from the proposed program,
but we did not attempt to monetize those impacts due to methodological
limitations. The estimated benefits of the proposed Options 1 and 2
would be larger if we were able to monetize all unquantified benefits
at this time. More detailed information about the benefits analysis
conducted for the proposal, including the present value of program
benefits for Options 1 and 2, is included in Section VIII and draft RIA
Chapter 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 2045 is a snapshot year chosen to approximate the annual
health benefits that occur in a year in which the proposed program
would be fully implemented and when most of the regulated fleet
would have turned over.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We compare total monetized health benefits to total costs
associated with the proposed Options 1 and 2 in Section IX. Table 6
shows that annual benefits of the proposed Option 1 would be larger
than the annual costs in 2045, with annual net benefits of $9 and $31
billion assuming a 3 percent discount rate, and net benefits of $8 and
$28 billion assuming a 7 percent discount rate.\50\ Annual benefits
would also be larger than annual costs in 2045 for the proposed Option
2, although net benefits would be slightly lower than from the proposed
Option 1 (net benefits of proposed Option 2 would be $6 and $23 billion
at a 3 percent discount rate, and net benefits of $5 and 21 billion at
a 7 percent discount rate). For both the proposed Options 1 and 2,
benefits also outweigh the costs when expressed in present value terms
and as equalized annual values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ The range of benefits and net benefits reflects a
combination of assumed PM2.5 and ozone mortality risk
estimates and selected discount rate.
Table 6--2045 Costs, Benefits and Net Benefits of the Proposed Option 1 and Option 2
[Billions, 2017$] a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1 Proposed Option 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount 7% discount 3% discount 7% discount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2045:
Benefits.................................... $12-$33 $10-$30 $9.1-$26 $8.2-$23
Costs....................................... 2.3 2.3 2.9 2.9
[[Page 17429]]
Net Benefits................................ 9.2-31 8.1-28 6.2-23 5.3-21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All benefits estimates are rounded to two significant figures; numbers may not sum due to independent
rounding. The range of benefits (and net benefits) in this table are two separate estimates and do not
represent lower- and upper-bound estimates, though they do reflect a grouping of estimates that yield more and
less conservative benefits totals. The costs and benefits in 2045 are presented in annual terms and are not
discounted. However, all benefits in the table reflect a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate used to account
for cessation lag in the valuation of avoided premature deaths associated with long-term exposure.
\b\ The benefits associated with the standards presented here do not include the full complement of health,
environmental, and climate-related benefits that, if quantified and monetized, would increase the total
monetized benefits.
Section X examines the potential impacts of the proposed standards
on heavy-duty vehicles (sales, mode shift, fleet turnover) and
employment in the heavy-duty industry. The proposed standards may
impact vehicle sales due to both changes in purchase price and longer
emission warranty mileage requirements; these effects may show up as
increased purchases of more new vehicles than usual before the proposed
standards come into effect, in anticipation of higher prices after the
proposed standards (``pre-buy''). The proposed standards may also
reduce sales after the proposed standards would be in place (``low-
buy''). In this proposal, we suggest an approach to quantify potential
impacts on vehicle sales due to new emission standards; we also provide
an example of how the results could be applied to the final regulatory
analysis for this rule in draft RIA Chapter 10.1. Our example results
for proposed Option 1 suggest pre- and low-buy for Class 8 trucks may
range from zero to approximately two percent increase in sales over a
period of up to 8 months before the 2031 standards begin (pre-buy), and
a decrease in sales from zero to approximately two percent over a
period of up to 12 months after the 2031 standards begin (low-buy). We
have provided the example results as information for commenters to
consider and provide input to EPA on this type of approach for
quantifying how emissions regulations may impact heavy-duty vehicle
sales fleet turnover. Based on input we receive, we may consider using
this type of analysis in the final rule to inform both the potential
impacts on vehicle sales, and the related impacts on employment in the
heavy-duty industry. We expect little mode shift due to the proposed
standards because of the large difference in cost of moving goods via
trucks versus other modes of transport (e.g., planes or barges).
Employment impacts of the proposed standards depend on the effects
of the standards on sales, the share of labor in the costs of the
standards, and changes in labor intensity due to the standards. We
quantify the effects of costs on employment, and we discuss the effects
due to sales and labor intensity qualitatively. This partial
quantification of employment impacts estimates that increased costs of
vehicles and parts would, by itself and holding labor intensity
constant, be expected to increase employment by 400 to 2,200 job-years
in 2027, and 300 to 1,800 job-years in 2032 under proposed Option
1.\51\ Employment would be expected to increase by 400 to 2,200 job
years, and 300 to 1,500 job years in 2027 and 2032 respectively under
proposed Option 2. See Section X for further detail on limitations and
assumptions of this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Where a job-year is, for example, one year of full-time
work for one person, or one year of half-time work for two people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the projected cost and GHG emission impacts of the
proposed changes to the HD GHG Phase 2 program are described in Section
XI.E.
E. Summary of Specific Requests for Comments
We are requesting comment on all aspects of this proposed
rulemaking. In addition, as detailed in the sections that follow, we
are specifically requesting comments from stakeholders on a variety of
key topics throughout this proposed to inform the final rulemaking
process. In this section we highlight topics on which we believe it
would be especially beneficial to receive comments from stakeholders,
or which may be of most interest to stakeholders.
Section III presents extensive information and analyses, including
two options for the proposed criteria pollutant standards, to provide
notice that EPA will be considering a range of numeric emission
standard values and implementation dates in the final rule. We are
requesting comment on the proposed Options 1 and 2, as well as the
Alternative, standards for each duty cycle, as well as the one- and
two-step approaches in proposed Options 1 and 2, respectively, and the
implementation dates of MYs 2027 and 2031. In addition, we are
requesting input on several aspects of the proposed new LLC duty cycle
for heavy-duty CI engines and applying the SET duty cycle to heavy-duty
SI engines (see Section III). We are also requesting comment on several
aspects of the proposed off-cycle standards for heavy-duty CI engines,
including the levels of the standards in proposed Options 1 and 2 and
the specific operating range covered by each bin, and whether off-cycle
standards and in-use testing should also apply for SI engines. For SI
engines, we request comment on our proposed refueling HC emission
standard for incomplete vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR, including
requests for comment and data to inform test procedure updates we
should consider to measure HC emissions from these larger fuel systems
and vehicles. We are also requesting comment on whether EPA should
finalize interim standards for testing used to verify that the engine
meets the standards through useful life (i.e., in-use testing that
occurs after the vehicle enters commerce). Typically, EPA sets the same
standards for in-use testing and certification testing but, in some
cases, we have provided higher in-use standards to give manufacturers
time to gain experience with the new technology needed to meet the
standards.\52\ As outlined in this Executive Summary and discussed in
Sections III and IV, we are proposing to significantly lower
NOX emission standards and to significantly increase the
regulatory useful life for heavy-duty on highway engines, which would
require manufactures to develop and produce additional engine and
aftertreatment technology. Due to the combination of lower (more
stringent) numeric standards and longer useful periods included in our
proposal, we are requesting comment on whether
[[Page 17430]]
EPA should finalize in-use standards that are 40 to 100 percent higher
than the proposed Option 1 standards for MY 2027 to MY 2033 engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See 81 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Section IV we detail our requests for comment on a number of
topics related to our proposed lengthened useful life and warranty
periods, as well as other compliance provisions and flexibilities. For
instance, we are requesting stakeholder input on our proposed useful
life and warranty periods, as well as the range of options covered by
the proposed Options 1 and 2, or other alternatives outside of that
range. In addition to the proposed warranty periods, we request comment
on other approaches to warranty, such as graduated warranty phases,
that may similarly ensure long-term in-use emission performance with a
smaller impact on the purchase price. We further request comment on our
proposed provisions to increase the likelihood that emission controls
will be maintained properly through more of the service life of heavy-
duty engines (e.g., revise inducement strategies, improve
serviceability). In addition, we are interested in stakeholder input on
our proposed approaches for the durability demonstration that
manufacturers are required to include their application for
certification (see Section IV.F for details). We are also interested in
stakeholder input on our proposed requirements for manufacturers
choosing to generate NOX emission credits from BEVs or
FCEVs, as well as whether EPA should consider for this final rule, or
other future rules, restrictions for NOX emission credits in
the longer term (e.g., beyond MY 2031) (See Section IV.I for details).
Throughout Sections III and IV, we discuss areas where our proposal
differs from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Heavy-Duty
Omnibus Rulemaking, and request comment on our proposal, including
whether it is appropriate to harmonize the federal and CARB regulatory
programs more in light of the authority and requirements of CAA section
202, and the benefits or challenges if EPA were to finalize particular
aspects of its program that are or are not fully aligned with the
Omnibus.
There are also several topics that we are requesting comment on
that relate to the analyses that support our proposal. For instance, we
are interested in stakeholder input on our approach for estimating
emission reductions from lengthening useful life and warranty periods
(see Section VI for details). We are also interested in comments on our
estimate of repair costs for emission control system components (see
Section V for details). We request comment on the method we outline to
estimate potential impacts of a proposed regulation on heavy-duty
vehicle sales; we also request comment on approaches to estimate
employment impacts attributable to the proposed rule (see Section X for
details).
We are also interested in input from environmental justice
stakeholders and underserved and overburdened communities, including
children's health stakeholders, regarding the need for revised
standards and how heavy-duty vehicles affect communities (see Section
II); the air quality improvements we project from this proposal and how
they are distributed (see Section VII); and ways the proposal could be
improved to advance environmental protection for all people, including
people of color, low-income communities, and those who live near
highways or in heavily trafficked areas with frequent truck congestion
and idling, such as ports.
In Section XI, we request comment in a number of areas related to
the proposed updates to the HD GHG Phase 2 program for certain heavy-
duty vehicles that are shifting to zero-emission vehicles. We are
considering whether it would be appropriate in the final rule to
increase the stringency of the standards even more than what we
propose. Therefore, we request information on heavy-duty electric
vehicle sales projections, including for what HD vehicle types, to help
inform our HD electric vehicle sales projections in the MY 2024 through
MY 2029 timeframe. We also are considering whether to establish more
stringent standards beyond MY 2027, specifically in MY 2028 and MY 2029
using the methodology described in Section XI.C.1. We request comment
on appropriate stringency and supporting data for each of those model
years.
We are also interested in stakeholder input that supports changes
to the advanced technology credit multiplier approach under
consideration. In addition, we request comment under this proposal on
how EPA can best consider the potential for ZEV technology to
significantly reduce air pollution from the heavy-duty vehicle sector,
including whether and how to consider including specific sales
requirements for HD ZEVs.
For these and all requests for comment detailed throughout the
proposal, stakeholders are encouraged to provide their rationale and
any available data that supports to their perspectives.
I. Introduction
A. Brief Overview of the Heavy-Duty Truck Industry
Heavy-duty highway vehicles (also referred to as ``trucks'' in this
preamble) range from commercial pickup trucks to vocational vehicles
that support local and regional transportation, construction, refuse
collection, and delivery work, to line-haul tractor-trailers that move
freight cross-country. This diverse array of vehicles is categorized
into weight classes based on gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR). These
weight classes span Class 2b pickup trucks and vans from 8,500 to
10,000 lbs GVWR through Class 8 line-haul tractors and other commercial
vehicles that exceed 33,000 lbs GVWR.53 54
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ This proposed rulemaking includes revised criteria
pollutants standards for engine-certified Class 2b through 8 heavy-
duty engines and vehicles; this proposal also includes revised GHG
standards for Class 4 through 8 vehicles. Class 2b and 3 vehicles
with GVWR between 8,500 and 14,000 pounds are primarily commercial
pickup trucks and vans and are sometimes referred to as ``medium-
duty vehicles''. The majority of Class 2b and 3 vehicles are
chassis-certified vehicles and will be included in a future combined
light-duty and medium-duty rulemaking action, consistent with E.O.
14037, Section 2a. Heavy-duty engines and vehicles are also used in
nonroad applications, such as construction equipment; nonroad heavy-
duty engines and vehicles are not the focus of this proposal. See
Section I for more discussion on the spectrum of heavy-duty vehicles
and how they relate to the proposed rule. See Sections I.B and III
for more discussion on the spectrum of heavy-duty vehicles and how
they relate to the proposed rule.
\54\ The focus of this proposal is on highway heavy-duty engines
and vehicles. However, we are also proposing limited amendments to
regulations that implement our air pollutant emission standards for
other sectors, including light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks,
marine diesel engines, locomotives, and various types of nonroad
engines, vehicles, and equipment (see Section XII).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy-duty highway vehicles are primarily powered by diesel-fueled,
compression-ignition (CI) engines. However, gasoline-fueled, spark-
ignition (SI) engines are common in the lighter weight classes, and
smaller numbers of alternative fuel engines (e.g., liquified petroleum
gas, compressed natural gas) are found in the heavy-duty fleet.
Vehicles powered by electricity, either in the form of battery electric
vehicles (BEVs) or fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) are also
increasingly entering the heavy-duty fleet. The operational
characteristics of some commercial applications (e.g., delivery
vehicles) can be similar across several vehicle weight classes,
allowing a single engine, or electric power source in the case of BEVs
and FCEVs, to be installed in a variety of vehicles. For instance,
engine specifications needed for a Class 4 parcel delivery vehicle may
be similar
[[Page 17431]]
to the needs of a Class 5 mixed freight delivery vehicle or a Class 6
beverage truck. Any performance differences needed to operate across
this range of vehicles can be achieved through adjustments to chassis-
based systems (i.e., transmission, cooling system) external to the
engine.
The industry that designs and manufactures these heavy-duty
vehicles is composed of three primary segments: Vehicle manufacturers,
engine manufacturers and other major component manufacturers, and
secondary manufacturers (i.e., body builders). Some vehicle
manufacturers are vertically integrated, designing, developing, and
testing their engines in-house for use in their vehicles, while others
purchase some or all of their engines from independent engine
suppliers. Today, only one major independent engine manufacturer
supports the heavy-duty truck industry, though some vehicle
manufactures sell their engines or ``incomplete vehicles'' (i.e.,
chassis that include their engines, the frame, and a transmission) to
body builders who design and assemble the final vehicle. Each of these
subindustries is often supported by common suppliers for subsystems
such as transmissions, axles, engine controls, and emission controls.
In addition to the manufacturers and suppliers responsible for
producing highway heavy-duty vehicles, an extended network of
dealerships, repair and service facilities, and rebuilding facilities
contribute to the sale, maintenance, and extended life of these
vehicles and engines. Heavy-duty vehicle dealerships offer customers a
place to order vehicles from a specific manufacturer and include
service facilities for those vehicles and engines. Dealership service
technicians are trained to perform regular maintenance and make
repairs, which generally include repairs under warranty and in response
to manufacturer recalls. Some trucking fleets, businesses, and large
municipalities benefit from hiring their own technicians to service
their vehicles in their own facilities. Many refueling centers along
major trucking routes have also expanded their facilities to include
roadside assistance and service stations to diagnose and repair common
problems.
Heavy-duty CI engines installed in the larger weight classes of
vehicles are designed to be rebuilt. Dealerships and other service
facilities are generally equipped to replace common components, such as
pistons and bearings that wear over time. However, large-scale (i.e.,
``out-of-frame'') engine overhauls that replace most of the engine
components require a more sophisticated process that only a limited
number of facilities provide. Some heavy-duty engine manufacturers have
established their own rebuilding facilities as a separate branch of
their operations and others work with independent rebuilding factories
that are affiliated with multiple engine manufacturers. Rebuilding
allows owners to extend the life of their engines at a lower cost than
purchasing a replacement vehicle, which has made the practice common
for some heavy-duty engines.
The end-users for highway heavy-duty vehicles are as diverse as the
applications for which these vehicles are purchased. Smaller weight
class heavy-duty vehicles are commonly purchased by delivery services,
contractors, and municipalities. The middle weight class vehicles tend
to be commercial vehicles for businesses and municipal work that
transport people and goods locally and regionally or provide services
such as utilities. Vehicles in the heaviest weight classes are
generally purchased by businesses with high load demands, such as
construction, towing or refuse collection, or freight delivery fleets
and owner-operators with both load and speed demands for regional and
long-haul goods movement. The competitive nature of the businesses and
owner-operators that purchase and operate highway heavy-duty vehicles
means that any time the vehicle is unable to operate due to maintenance
or repair (i.e., downtime) can lead to a loss in income. This need for
reliability drives much of the truck and engine manufacturers'
innovation and research to meet the needs of their customers.
B. History of Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles
Emission standards for heavy-duty highway engines in the U.S. were
first issued by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in the
1960s. These standards and the corresponding certification and testing
procedures were codified at 45 CFR part 1201. In 1972, shortly after
EPA was created as a federal agency and given responsibility for
regulating heavy-duty engines, EPA published new standards and updated
procedures while migrating the regulations to 40 CFR part 85 as part of
the effort to consolidate all EPA regulations in a single location.\55\
EPA created 40 CFR part 86 in 1976 to reorganize emission standards and
certification requirements for light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty
highway engines. In 1985, EPA promulgated new standards for heavy-duty
highway engines, codifying the standards in 40 CFR part 86, subpart A.
Since then, EPA has promulgated several rules for highway heavy-duty
engines and vehicles to set new and more stringent emission standards
for criteria pollutants and precursors,\56\ to set requirements for
controlling evaporative and refueling emissions,\57\ to establish
emission control programs for greenhouse gases (GHGs), and to add or
revise certification procedures.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See Section I.G for additional discussion on EPA's
Statutory Authority relevant to this proposal.
\56\ For example, oxides of nitrogen (NOX),
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter (PM) and carbon monoxide (CO).
\57\ See Section III.E for more discussion on controlling
evaporative and refueling emissions from light- and heavy-duty
vehicles.
\58\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``EPA Emission
Standards for Heavy-Duty Highway Engines and Vehicles,'' Available
online: https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/epa-emission-standards-heavy-duty-highway-engines-and-vehicles. (last
accessed June 25, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's criteria pollutant regulatory programs for the heavy-duty
highway industry apply to engines.\59\ Our regulations require that
engine manufacturers identify the ``primary intended service class''
for each engine by considering the vehicles for which they design and
market their engines. Heavy-duty CI engines are specified as light
heavy-duty engine (Light HDE), medium heavy-duty engine (Medium HDE),
or heavy heavy-duty engine (Heavy HDE) based largely on the weight
class of the vehicles in which the engines are expected to be installed
and the potential for rebuild. SI heavy-duty engines are generally
specified as a single spark-ignition HDE service class unless they are
designed or intended for use in the largest heavy-duty vehicles, and
therefore considered heavy HDEs.\60\ EPA sets emission standards and
other regulatory provisions, including regulatory useful life and
emissions warranty periods, that are targeted for the operational
characteristics of each primary intended service class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ EPA's regulations address heavy-duty engines and vehicles
separately from light-duty vehicles. Vehicles with GVWR above 8,500
pounds (Class 2b and above) are classified in the regulations as
heavy-duty. For criteria pollutants EPA's standards generally apply
to the engine rather than the vehicle for heavy-duty. However, most
of the Class 2b and 3 pickup trucks and vans (vehicles with a GVWR
between 8,500 and 14,000 pounds) are chassis-certified heavy-duty
vehicles and covered by standards in EPA's Tier 3 program (79 FR
23414, April 28, 2014; 80 FR 0978, February 19, 2015). As noted in
Section III, there are a small number of Class 2b and 3 engines
(e.g., trucks with dual rear wheels that are sold with a cab and
chassis only), which are the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
\60\ See 40 CFR 1036.140(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1990s, EPA issued increasingly stringent standards for
NOX, CO, HC,
[[Page 17432]]
and PM. These exhaust standards were derived from engine-based emission
control strategies and manufacturers generally certified their engines'
emission performance over defined duty cycles on an engine dynamometer
(i.e., ``engine certification''). In 1997, EPA finalized standards for
heavy-duty highway diesels (62 FR 54693, October 21, 1997), effective
beginning with the 2004 model year, including a combined non-methane
hydrocarbon (NMHC) and NOX standard that represented a
reduction of NOX emissions by 50 percent. These
NOX reductions also resulted in significant reductions in
secondary nitrate PM.
In early 2001, EPA finalized the 2007 Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Rule (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001) to continue addressing
NOX and PM emissions from both diesel and gasoline-fueled
highway heavy-duty engines. This rule established a comprehensive
national program that regulated a heavy-duty engine and its fuel as a
single system, with emission standards taking effect beginning with
model year (MY) 2007 and fully phasing in by MY 2010 (EPA 2010
standards). Prior to 2007, emission standards were based on controlling
the emissions formed during the combustion process (i.e., engine-out
emissions), and there was no further control of emissions between the
engine and the truck's tailpipe. But with promulgation of the 2007
final rule, emission standards were, for the first time, based on the
use of technologies to capture, convert, and reduce harmful engine-out
emissions, resulting in tailpipe emissions that were cleaner than
engine-out emissions. By and large, the industry met these new
standards through the use of exhaust aftertreatment technologies,
namely, diesel oxidation catalysts, particulate filters, and high-
efficiency catalytic exhaust emission control devices. Consistent with
previous criteria pollutant regulatory programs, the program also
offered flexibility to manufacturers through the use of various
emission credits averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) programs.
To ensure proper functioning of these aftertreatment technologies,
which could be damaged by sulfur, EPA also reduced the allowable level
of sulfur in highway diesel fuel by 97 percent by mid-2006. Together,
the use of exhaust aftertreatment technologies and lower-sulfur fuel
resulted in diesel-fueled trucks that emitted PM and NOX
tailpipe emissions at levels 90 percent and 95 percent below emission
levels from then-current highway heavy-duty engines, respectively. The
PM standard for new highway heavy-duty engines was set at 0.01 grams
(10 milligrams, or 10 mg) per horsepower-hour (mg/hp-hr) by MY 2007 and
the NOX and NMHC standards of 200 mg/hp-hr and 140 mg/hp-hr,
respectively, were set to phase in between model years 2007 and
2010.\61\ In finalizing that rule, EPA estimated that the emission
reductions would achieve significant health and environmental impacts,
and that the total monetized PM2.5 and ozone-related
benefits of the program would exceed $70 billion, versus program costs
of $4 billion (1999$).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Heavy-duty engine emission standards are defined in work
specific units (i.e., milligrams per horsepower-hour) because the
standards cover a large range of engine ratings, and thus time
specific standards would not provide equal stringency across all
engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, EPA finalized a manufacturer-run, in-use testing program
that uses portable emission measurement systems to measure HC, CO,
NOX, and PM emissions from the exhaust of in-use heavy-duty
diesel trucks (70 FR 34594, June 14, 2005). The fully enforceable
program began in 2007. This effort was a significant advancement in
helping to ensure that the benefits of more stringent emission
standards are realized under real-world driving conditions.
In 2009, as advanced emissions control systems were being
introduced to meet the MY 2007/2010 standards, EPA promulgated a final
rule to require that these advanced emissions control systems be
monitored for malfunctions via an onboard diagnostic (OBD) system (74
FR 8310, February 24, 2009). The rule, which has been fully phased in,
required engine manufacturers to install OBD systems that monitor the
functioning of emission control components on new engines and alert the
vehicle operator to any detected need for emission-related repair. It
also required that manufacturers make available to the service and
repair industry information necessary to perform repair and maintenance
service on OBD systems and other emission related engine components. In
addition, EPA published a series of documents that provided guidance to
manufacturers on potential methods and measures to ensure that trucks
equipped with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology would be
refilled with the specified quantity and quality of a urea-water
mixture (also known as diesel exhaust fluid, or DEF) necessary for the
proper functioning of this NOX-reducing technology. These
guidance documents describe potential approaches that included
progressive levels of alerts and warnings communicated to the driver of
the truck, which would allow adequate time to refill the DEF tank, but
ultimately, if DEF is not added, or if it is determined to be of
insufficient quality, a vehicle speed-limiting ``inducement'' would be
triggered, requiring the DEF tank to be refilled or the system to be
repaired.
Also in 2009, EPA and Department of Transportation's National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began working on a joint
regulatory program to reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption from
heavy-duty vehicles and engines.\62\ By utilizing regulatory approaches
recommended by the National Academy of Sciences, the first phase
(``Phase 1'') of the GHG and fuel efficiency program was finalized in
2011 (76 FR 57106, September 15, 2011).\63\ The Phase 1 program,
spanning implementation from MY 2014 to 2018, included separate
standards for highway heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines. The
program offered flexibility allowing manufacturers to attain these
standards through a mix of technologies and the option to participate
in an emissions credit ABT program. In the Phase 1 rulemaking EPA also
revised the heavy-duty vehicle and engine regulations to make them
consistent with the light-duty vehicle approach, such that all criteria
pollutant and GHG standards would apply regardless of fuel type,
including all-electric vehicles (EVs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty engines are
primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), but also include methane
(CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Because
CO2 is formed from the combustion of fuel, it is directly
related to fuel consumption.
\63\ National Research Council; Transportation Research Board.
The National Academies' Committee to Assess Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles; ``Technologies and
Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Vehicles.'' 2010. Available online: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12845/technologies-and-approaches-to-reducing-the-fuel-consumption-of-medium-and-heavy-duty-vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2016, EPA and NHTSA finalized the Heavy-Duty Phase 2 GHG and
fuel efficiency program (``HD GHG Phase 2'') (81 FR 73478, October 25,
2016). HD GHG Phase 2 includes technology-advancing performance-based
standards for highway heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines that
will phase in over the long term, with initial standards for most
vehicles and engines commencing in MY 2021, increasing in stringency in
MY 2024, and culminating in MY 2027 standards. HD GHG Phase 2 built
upon the Phase 1 program and set standards based not only on currently
available technologies, but also on technologies that were still under
development or not yet widely deployed. To ensure adequate time for
[[Page 17433]]
technology development, HD GHG Phase 2 provided up to 10 years lead
time to allow for the development and phase-in of these control
technologies. EPA recently finalized technical amendments to the HD GHG
Phase 2 rulemaking (``HD Technical Amendments'') that included changes
to the test procedures for heavy-duty engines and vehicles to improve
accuracy and reduce testing burden.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ 86 FR 34308, June 29, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Petitions to EPA for Additional NOX Emissions Control
In the summer of 2016 more than 20 organizations, including state
and local air agencies from across the country, petitioned EPA to
develop more stringent NOX emission standards for on-road
heavy-duty engines.\65\ Among the reasons stated by the petitioners for
such an EPA rulemaking was the need for NOX emission
reductions to reduce adverse health and welfare impacts and to help
areas attain the NAAQS. EPA subsequently met with a wide range of
stakeholders in listening sessions, during which certain themes were
consistent across those stakeholders.\66\ For example, it became clear
that there is broad support for federal action in collaboration with
the California Air Resources Board (CARB). So-called ``50-state''
standards would enable technology suppliers and manufacturers to
efficiently produce a single set of reliable and compliant products.
There was also broad acknowledgement of the value of aligning
implementation of new NOX standards with existing MY 2021,
2024, and 2027 milestones for HD Phase 2 GHG and fuel efficiency
standards. Stakeholders thought that such alignment would ensure that
the GHG and fuel consumption reductions achieved under HD GHG Phase 2
are maintained and allow the regulated industry to implement GHG- and
NOX-reducing technologies into their products at the same
time.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Brakora, Jessica. ``Petitions to EPA for Revised
NOX Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines'' Memorandum to
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055. December 4, 2019.
\66\ Stakeholders included: Emissions control technology
suppliers; engine and vehicle manufacturers; a labor union that
represents heavy-duty engine, parts, and vehicle manufacturing
workers; a heavy-duty trucking fleet trade association; an owner-
operator driver association; a truck dealers trade association;
environmental, non-governmental organizations; states and regional
air quality districts; Tribal interests; California Air Resources
Board (CARB); and the petitioners.
\67\ U.S. EPA. 2016. Memorandum in Response to Petition for
Rulemaking to Adopt Ultra-Low NOX Standards for On-
Highway Heavy-Duty Trucks and Engines. Available at https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/nox-memorandum-nox-petition-response-2016-12-20.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA responded to the petitions on December 20, 2016, noting that an
opportunity exists to develop a new, harmonized national NOX
reduction strategy for heavy-duty highway engines.\68\ EPA emphasized
the importance of scientific and technological information when
determining the appropriate level and form of a future low
NOX standard and highlighted the following potential
components of the action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ U.S. EPA. 2016. Memorandum in Response to Petition for
Rulemaking to Adopt Ultra-Low NOX Standards for On-
Highway Heavy-Duty Trucks and Engines. Available at https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/nox-memorandum-nox-petition-response-2016-12-20.pdf.
Lower NOX emission standards
Improvements to test procedures and test cycles to ensure
emission reductions occur in the real world, not only over the
currently applicable certification test cycles
Updated certification and in-use testing protocols
Longer periods of mandatory emission-related component
warranties
Consideration of longer regulatory useful life, reflecting
actual in-use activity
Consideration of rebuilding
Incentives to encourage the transition to current- and next-
generation cleaner technologies as soon as possible
As outlined in the Executive Summary and detailed in the sections
that follow, this proposed rulemaking considered these components.
D. California Heavy-Duty Highway Low NOX Program Development
In this section, we present a summary of recent efforts by the
state of California to establish new, lower emission standards for
highway heavy-duty engines and vehicles.\69\ For the past several
decades, EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have worked
together to reduce air pollutants from highway heavy-duty engines and
vehicles by establishing harmonized emission standards for new engines
and vehicles. For much of this time, EPA has taken the lead in
establishing emission standards through notice and comment rulemaking,
after which CARB would adopt the same standards and test procedures.
For example, EPA promulgated the current heavy-duty engine
NOX and PM standards in a 2001 final rule, and CARB
subsequently adopted the same emission standards. EPA and CARB often
cooperate during the implementation of highway heavy-duty standards.
Thus, for many years, the regulated industry has been able to design a
single product line of engines and vehicles that can be certified to
both EPA and CARB emission standards (which have been the same) and
sold in all 50 states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ California has long had the unique ability among states to
adopt its own separate new motor vehicle and engine standards per
Section 209 of the Clean Air Act. Although CAA section 209(a)
expressly preempts states from adopting and enforcing standards
relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new
motor vehicle engines (such as state controls for new heavy-duty
engines and vehicles), CAA section 209(b) directs EPA to waive this
preemption for California under certain conditions. Even with
California's ability under the CAA to establish its own emission
standards, EPA and the California Air Resources Board have worked
closely together over the past several decades to largely harmonize
new heavy-duty vehicle and engine criteria pollutant standard
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the significant ozone and PM air quality challenges in the
state of California, CARB has taken several steps since the EPA 2010
standards were implemented to encourage or establish standards and
requirements that go beyond EPA requirements, to further reduce
NOX emissions from heavy-duty vehicles and engines in its
state. CARB's optional (voluntary) low NOX program, which
started in 2013, was created to encourage heavy-duty engine
manufacturers to introduce technologies that emit NOX at
levels below the current EPA 2010 standards. Under this optional
program, manufacturers can certify engines to one of three levels of
stringency that are 50, 75, and 90 percent below the existing EPA 2010
standards with the lowest optional standard being 20 milligrams
NOX per horsepower-hour (mg/hp-h).\70\ To date, only natural
gas and liquefied petroleum gas engines have been certified to these
optional standards.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ California Code of Regulations, Title 13, section 1956.8.
\71\ California Air Resources Board. ``Optional Low
NOX Certified Heavy-Duty Engines''. February 2020.
Available online: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/optionnox/optional_low_nox_certified_hd_engines.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2016, CARB published its Mobile Source Strategy that
outlined its approach to reduce in-state emissions from mobile sources
and meet its air quality targets.\72\ In November 2016, CARB held its
first Public Workshop on its plans to update its heavy-duty engine and
vehicle programs.\73\ CARB's 2016 Workshop kicked off a technology
[[Page 17434]]
demonstration program (the CARB ``Low NOX Demonstration
Program''), and announced plans to update emission standards,
laboratory-based and in-use test procedures, emissions warranty,
durability demonstration requirements, and regulatory useful life
provisions. The initiatives introduced in its 2016 Workshop have since
become components of CARB's Heavy-Duty ``Omnibus'' Rulemaking.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ California Air Resources Board. ``Mobile Source Strategy''.
May 2016. Available online: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/2016mobsrc.pdf.
\73\ California Air Resources Board. ``Heavy-Duty Low
NOX: Meetings & Workshops''. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/heavy-duty-low-nox/heavy-duty-low-nox-meetings-workshops.
\74\ California Air Resources Board. Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and Associated Amendments. Available
online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's goal for its Low NOX Demonstration Program was to
investigate the feasibility of reducing NOX emissions to
levels significantly below today's EPA 2010 standards. Southwest
Research Institute (SwRI) was contracted to perform the work, which was
split into three ``Stages.'' \75\ In Stage 1 and 1b, SwRI demonstrated
an engine technology package capable of achieving a 90 percent
NOX emissions reduction on today's regulatory test cycles to
a useful life of 435,000 miles using an accelerated aging process.\76\
In Stage 2, SwRI developed and evaluated a new low load-focused engine
test cycle. In Stage 3, SwRI evaluated a new engine platform and
different technology package to ensure both criteria and GHG emission
performance. EPA has been closely observing CARB's Low NOX
Demonstration Program as a member of the Low NOX Advisory
Group for the technology development work, which includes
representatives from heavy-duty engine and aftertreatment industries,
as well as from federal, state, and local governmental agencies.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Southwest Research Institute. ``Update on Heavy-Duty Low
NOX Demonstration Programs at SwRI''. September 26, 2019.
Available online: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/hdlownox/files/workgroup_20190926/guest/swri_hd_low_nox_demo_programs.pdf.
\76\ Southwest Research Institute. ``Evaluating Technologies and
Methods to Lower Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles:
Final Report''. April 2017. Available online: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/13-312.pdf.
\77\ California Air Resources Board. ``Evaluating Technologies
and Methods to Lower Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Heavy-Duty
Vehicles''. May 10, 2017. Available online: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/veh-emissions/low-nox/low-nox.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB has published several updates related to its Omnibus
Rulemaking. In June 2018, CARB approved its ``Step 1'' update to
California's emission control system warranty regulations.\78\ Starting
in MY 2022, the existing 100,000-mile warranty for all diesel engines
will increase to 110,000 miles for engines certified as light heavy-
duty, 150,000 miles for medium heavy-duty engines, and 350,000 miles
for heavy heavy-duty engines. In November 2018, CARB approved revisions
to the OBD requirements that include implementation of real emissions
assessment logging (REAL) for heavy-duty engines and other
vehicles.\79\ In April 2019, CARB published a ``Staff White Paper'' to
present its staff's assessment of the technologies they believed were
feasible for medium and heavy heavy-duty diesel engines in the 2022-
2026 timeframe.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ California Air Resources Board. ``HD Warranty 2018'' June
28, 2018. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2018/hd-warranty-2018.
\79\ California Air Resources Board. ``Heavy-Duty OBD
Regulations and Rulemaking''. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/heavy-duty-obd-regulations-and-rulemaking.
\80\ California Air Resources Board. ``California Air Resources
Board Staff Current Assessment of the Technical Feasibility of Lower
NOX Standards and Associated Test Procedures for 2022 and
Subsequent Model Year Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines''.
April 18, 2019. Available online: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/hdlownox/white_paper_04182019a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2020, the CARB governing board approved the staff
proposal for the Omnibus rule and directed staff to initiate the
process of finalizing the provisions.81 82 The final Omnibus
rule was approved by the California Office of Administrative Law in
December 2021. The final rule includes updates to CARB engine
standards, duty-cycle test procedures, and heavy-duty off-cycle testing
program that would take effect in MY 2024, with additional updates to
warranty, durability, and useful life requirements and further
reductions in standards in MYs 2027 and 2031.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ California Air Resources Board. ``Staff Report: Initial
Statement of Reasons-Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Heavy-
Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and Associated
Amendments''. June 23, 2020. Available online at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/isor.pdf.
\82\ California Air Resources Board. Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and Associated Amendments. Available
online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox.
\83\ Throughout this proposal we use ``Omnibus'' to refer to the
engine standards, duty-cycle test procedures, heavy-duty off-cycle
testing program, useful life and warranty requirements included in
the final Omnibus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in Sections I.F and I.G, with details in Sections III
and IV, EPA is proposing new NOX, PM, HC, and CO emission
standards for heavy-duty engines that reflect the greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable through the application of technology
that we have determined would be available for the model years to which
the proposed standards would apply. In doing so we have given
appropriate consideration to additional factors, namely lead time,
cost, energy, and safety (see Sections I.F and I.G for more
discussion). Throughout the rulemaking process we will continue to
evaluate what standards are appropriate given the factors that we are
directed to consider under CAA section 202(a)(3). As noted at the start
of this Section I.D, EPA and CARB have historically worked together to
establish harmonized emission standards for new heavy-duty engines and
vehicles. We have received comments from different stakeholder groups
who have expressed perspectives on the alignment between the EPA and
CARB Omnibus standards they would like EPA to consider during the
rulemaking. For instance, in response to an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) for this rule, many stakeholders encouraged EPA to
develop a national program harmonized to the greatest extent possible
(see Section I.E).\84\ Following the ANPR, various stakeholders have
provided EPA with additional perspectives on the Omnibus rule and on
the extent to which EPA should align with the California program. For
example, organizations such as the National Association of Clean Air
Agencies,\85\ the National Tribal Air Association,\86\ as well as
multiple vehicle supplier trade associations \87\ have written letters
to EPA in support of strong federal standards that reflect both the
stringency and timeline of CARB's standards. In contrast, some engine
manufacturers have raised concerns about EPA harmonizing its national
program with California's rule because of their concerns with that
program's overall stringency, costs, and focus on near-term
NOX reductions over long-term CO2 emission
reductions. EPA has considered these harmonization comments in light of
the authority and requirements of CAA sections 202 and
[[Page 17435]]
207 in developing the proposed standards, regulatory useful life
periods, and emissions warranty periods and intends to continue to take
into consideration potential harmonization with the CARB Omnibus
program, as appropriate and consistent with CAA sections 202 and 207,
during the rulemaking. As described in Sections III and IV, a notable
difference between the proposed EPA program and the Omnibus rule is
that the first step of the Omnibus rule takes effect in MY 2024,
whereas the first step of the proposed EPA program is in MY 2027. EPA's
statutory authority requires a four-year lead time for any heavy-duty
engine or vehicle standard promulgated or revised under CAA section
202(a)(3) (see Section I.F). In Sections III and IV, we discuss areas
where our proposal aligns with or differs from the Omnibus rule and
request comment on issues related to harmonization between the federal
and CARB regulatory programs, including benefits or challenges if EPA
were to finalize particular aspects of its program that are not fully
aligned with the Omnibus rule.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ The Agency published an ANPR on January 21, 2020 to present
EPA's early thinking on this rulemaking and solicit feedback from
stakeholders to inform this proposal (85 FR 3306).
\85\ Letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan from the National
Association of Clean Air Agencies. Re: The urgent need for federal
regulatory action to adopt more stringent NOX standards
for heavy-duty engines and vehicles, beginning immediately with
highway heavy-duty trucks. August 26, 2021.
\86\ Letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler from the
National Tribal Air Association. Re: EPA's Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine Standards Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055. February 20, 2020.
\87\ Letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan from the Motor &
Equipment Manufacturers Association, Manufacturers of Emission
Controls Association, Advanced Engine Systems Institute, and
Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency. Re: Completion of EPA's Heavy-duty
Low-NOX Rulemaking. June 24, 2021.
\88\ Draft RIA Chapter 5, Appendix 6 includes tables that
present the main elements (i.e., numeric level of standards, useful
life, emission warranty) of CARB Omnibus requirements and EPA
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the draft RIA, we analyzed the emission inventory
and air quality impacts for the proposed criteria pollutant standards
before the Omnibus Rule was finalized. We may incorporate the Omnibus
rule into our emission inventory and other analyses as appropriate for
the final rulemaking (FRM).89 90 We also may incorporate the
CARB Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) Regulation into our final rule
analyses. As further discussed in Sections IV, VI, and XI, the CARB ACT
Regulation requires a minimum percentage of each manufacturer's heavy-
duty vehicle sales in the state of California to be zero tailpipe
emission technologies starting in MY 2024.91 92
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See Section VI and draft RIA Chapter 5 for more information
on our emission inventory modeling for the proposal and plans to
incorporate other updates in our modeling for the final rule.
\90\ EPA has received waiver requests under CAA section 209(b)
from California for the Omnibus or ACT rules; EPA is currently
reviewing the waiver requests for the CA Omnibus and ACT rules and
may consider including these rules in our analyses for the final
rule. See Section III.B for discussion on our proposed approach to a
voluntary standard based on one aspect of the Omnibus requirements.
\91\ CARB. ``Notice of Decision: Advanced Clean Truck
Regulation.'' June 2020. Available online at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2019/act2019/nod.pdf.
\92\ Buysse and Sharpe. (July 20, 2020) ``California's Advanced
Clean Trucks regulation: Sales requirements for zero-emission heavy-
duty trucks'', available online at: https://theicct.org/publications/california-hdv-ev-update-jul2020 (last accessed August
11, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The ANPR provided background for the provisions proposed in this
rulemaking to address criteria pollutant emissions from heavy-duty
engines, including technologies we are evaluating, test programs we
have initiated, and compliance programs under consideration, as well as
requests for comments and data. The ANPR did not include discussion on
the potential stringency of standards, potential costs of the
standards, or a quantitative assessment of societal impacts (e.g., air
quality, economic, environmental health); these topics are presented in
this proposal.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ The ANPR also did not include the proposed, targeted
revisions to the HD GHG Phase 2 program that are included in this
rulemaking (see Section I.G for a summary of these proposed
provisions and Section XI for details).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA received over 300 comments on the ANPR from a wide range of
stakeholders, including: Government organizations (state, local, and
Tribal), environmental groups, trade associations, heavy-duty engine
manufacturers, independent owner-operators, suppliers, individual
fleets, and individual private citizens. We provide a brief overview of
the perspectives included in these comments in this subsection, with
more specific discussion of comments included in subsequent sections of
the proposal as relevant to individual comments or groups of comments.
Comments from government organizations, including multiple state
and local air agencies, emphasized that reductions in NOX
emissions from heavy-duty engines are necessary for attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. States commented that they cannot control
heavy-duty engine emissions since they cross state borders and
controlling emissions from other sources would be economically
burdensome. Commenters stated that areas in nonattainment of the NAAQS
are having difficulty attaining, and some areas currently in attainment
are close to or exceeding the NAAQS. As further discussed in Section
II, commenters noted environmental justice and other public health
concerns, along with regional haze and ecosystem concerns. These
commenters requested stringent emission controls on heavy-duty engines
in as short a timeframe as possible (including early incentives) and
expressed widespread interest in ensuring control over the lifetime of
the engine, including addressing emissions from tampering and idling.
Several environmental groups submitted comments that were similar
to several of the state and local agency comments; environmental groups
supported stringent emission controls and maintaining that level of
emission control for longer durations by lengthening useful life and
emission warranty periods. These commenters further supported
improvements to the in-use testing program for heavy-duty diesel
engines, and anti-tampering measures for all heavy-duty engines.
Comments from the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA),
a trade association for heavy-duty engine and truck manufacturers
emphasized broad support for a 50-state program and encouraged EPA to
conduct a thorough analysis of the costs and benefits of proposed
NOX emission standards. To emphasize their cost concerns,
EMA provided an industry-sponsored assessment of the cost to comply
with potential requirements discussed in the April 2019 CARB Staff
Whitepaper.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ California Air Resources Board. ``California Air Resources
Board Staff Current Assessment of the Technical Feasibility of Lower
NOX Standards and Associated Test Procedures for 2022 and
Subsequent Model Year Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines''.
April 18, 2019. Available online: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/hdlownox/white_paper_04182019a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several truck owners, truck operators, fleets, and dealerships also
expressed general support for a national, harmonized low-NOX
program. Many commenters included their experiences with expensive
towing costs and downtime from emission system failures; they stated
that although the reliability of emission system controls has improved
since the 2010 timeframe, it remains an ongoing concern. ANPR
commenters also indicated that engine derates or ``inducements'' are a
significant source of operator frustration.\95\ In addition, commenters
urged EPA to conduct a thorough cost assessment, and noted that if the
initial purchase price, or operational costs for new trucks is too
high, then it may incentivize owners to keep older trucks on the road.
These commenters expressed varying views on lengthening emission
warranty requirements, with some urging a careful consideration of the
impacts of longer warranty requirements, while others expressed
[[Page 17436]]
support for longer warranty requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Engine derating is a control strategy that reduces engine
performance to protect the engine or induce an operator behavior,
such as maintaining appropriate levels of high-quality diesel
emission fluid (DEF) in their SCR-based aftertreatment systems.
Throughout this preamble we refer to engine derates that derive from
aftertreatment-related triggers as ``inducements''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppliers, supplier trade groups, and labor groups were all
generally supportive of more stringent NOX emission
standards. They also generally stated strong support for a 50-state,
harmonized EPA-CARB program. They also emphasized the importance of
providing industry with regulatory certainty. They noted that EPA must
balance emission reductions with technology costs, feasibility, lead-
time, and avoid market disruptions. Several suppliers and trade groups
provided detailed technical information on low NOX
technology. They also expressed support for longer useful life and
warranty requirements but cautioned EPA to carefully design longer
emissions warranty requirements and to consider a phase-in approach.
Several suppliers and trade groups also supported incentives for the
early introduction of low-NOX technology.
All of the ANPR comments are part of the docket for the proposal
and have informed our thinking in developing the proposed provisions to
address criteria pollutant emissions from heavy-duty engines.
F. EPA Statutory Authority for the Proposal
This section briefly summarizes the statutory authority for the
proposed rule. Title II of the Clean Air Act provides for comprehensive
regulation of mobile sources, authorizing EPA to regulate emissions of
air pollutants from all mobile source categories. Specific Title II
authorities for this proposal include: CAA sections 202, 203, 206, 207,
208, 213, 216, and 301 (42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7547,
7550, and 7601). We discuss some key aspects of these sections in
relation to this proposed action immediately below (see also Section
XIV of this preamble), as well as in each of the relevant sections
later in this proposal. Regarding the confidentiality determinations
EPA is proposing to make through this notice and comment rulemaking for
much of the information collected by EPA for certification and
compliance under Title II, see Section XII.A. for discussion of
relevant statutory authority.
Statutory authority for the proposed NOX, PM, HC, CO,
and GHG emission standards in this action comes from CAA section 202(a)
which states that ``the Administrator shall by regulation prescribe
(and from time to time revise) . . . standards applicable to the
emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new . . .
motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to,
air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare.'' Standards under CAA section 202(a) take effect
``after such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the
development and application of the requisite technology, giving
appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such
period.'' Thus, in establishing or revising CAA section 202(a)
standards designed to reduce air pollution that endangers public health
and welfare, EPA also must consider issues of technological
feasibility, compliance cost, and lead time. EPA may consider other
factors and in previous engine and vehicle standards rulemakings has
considered the impacts of potential standards on the heavy-duty
industry, fuel savings, oil conservation, energy security and other
energy impacts, as well as other relevant considerations such as
safety.
1. Statutory Authority for Proposed Criteria Pollutant Program
Section 202(a)(3) further addresses EPA authority to establish
standards for emissions of NOX, PM, HC, and CO from heavy-
duty engines and vehicles. Section 202(a)(3)(A) requires that such
standards ``reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable through the application of technology which the
Administrator determines will be available for the model year to which
such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy,
and safety factors associated with the application of such
technology.'' Section 202(a)(3)(B) allows EPA to take into account air
quality information in revising such standards. Section 202(a)(3)(C)
provides that standards shall apply for a period of no less than three
model years beginning no earlier than the model year commencing four
years after promulgation. CAA section 202(a)(3)(A) is a technology-
forcing provision and reflects Congress' intent that standards be based
on projections of future advances in pollution control capability,
considering costs and other statutory factors.96 97 CAA
section 202(a)(3) neither requires that EPA consider all the statutory
factors equally nor mandates a specific method of cost-analysis; rather
EPA has discretion in determining the appropriate consideration to give
such factors.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ See National Petrochemical & Refiners Association v. EPA,
287 F.3d 1130, 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (explaining that EPA is
authorized to adopt ``technology-forcing'' regulations under CAA
section 202(a)(3)); NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410, 428 n.30 (D.C.
Cir. 1986) (explaining that such statutory language that ``seek[s]
to promote technological advances while also accounting for cost
does not detract from their categorization as technology-forcing
standards''); see also Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195 (D.C. Cir.
2001) (explaining that CAA sections 202 and 213 have similar
language and are technology-forcing standards).
\97\ In this context, the term ``technology-forcing'' has a
specific legal meaning and is used to distinguish standards that may
require manufacturers to develop new technologies (or significantly
improve existing technologies) from standards that can be met using
off-the-shelf technology alone. Technology-forcing standards such as
those in this proposed rule do not require manufacturers to use
specific technologies.
\98\ See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F.3d 374, 378 (D.C. Cir.
2003) (explaining that similar technology-forcing language in CAA
section 202(1)(2) ``does not resolve how the Administrator should
weigh all [the statutory] factors in the process of finding the
`greatest emission reduction achievable' ''); Husqvarna AB v. EPA,
254 F.3d 195, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (explaining that under CAA
section 213's similar technology-forcing authority that ``EPA did
not deviate from its statutory mandate or frustrate congressional
will by placing primary significance on the `greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable' '' or by considering cost and other
statutory factors as important but secondary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section II, and Chapter 4 of the draft RIA, describe EPA's analysis
of information regarding heavy-duty engines' contribution to air
pollution and how that pollution adversely impacts public health and
welfare. Section I.G, with more detail in Section III and Chapter 4 of
the draft RIA, discusses our feasibility analysis of the standards and
useful life periods for both proposed Options. Our evaluation shows
that the standards and useful life periods in both steps of proposed
Option 1 are feasible and would result in the greatest emission
reductions achievable for the model years to which they are proposed to
apply, pursuant to CAA section 202(a)(3), giving appropriate
consideration to costs, lead time, and other factors. Our analysis
further shows that the standards and useful life periods in proposed
Option 2 are feasible in the 2027 model year, but would result in lower
levels of emission reductions compared to proposed Option 1. As
explained further in Section III and Chapter 3 of the draft RIA, we
expect that additional data from EPA's ongoing work to demonstrate the
performance of emission control technologies, as well as information
received in public comments, will allow us to refine our assessments
and consideration of the feasibility of the combination of the
standards and useful life periods, particularly for the largest CI
engines (HHDEs), in proposed Options 1 and 2, after consideration of
lead time, costs, and other factors. Therefore, we are co-proposing
Options 1 and 2 standards and useful life periods, and the range of
options in between them, as the options that may
[[Page 17437]]
potentially be appropriate to finalize pursuant to CAA section
202(a)(3) once EPA has considered that additional data and other
information. We considered costs and lead time in designing the
proposed program options, including in our analysis of how
manufacturers would adopt advanced emission control technologies to
meet the proposed standards for the applicable model years. For
example, the first step of proposed Option 1 allows manufacturers to
minimize costs by implementing a single redesign of heavy-duty engines
for MY 2027, which is when both the final step of the HD GHG Phase 2
standards and the first step of the proposed Option 1 standards would
start to apply. The second step of proposed Option 1 (MY 2031) would
provide manufacturers the time needed to ensure that emission control
components are durable enough for the proposed second step of revised
standards and longer useful life periods.99 100
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ The second step of the proposed Option 1 standards in MY
2031 provides four years of stability following the first step of
the program.
\100\ See Section III for details on our proposed test cycles
and standards, and Section IV for our proposed compliance
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in Section III, we are proposing new test cycles for
both pre-production and post-certification testing. Manufacturers
demonstrate compliance over specified duty cycle test procedures during
pre-production testing, which is conducted by EPA or the manufacturer.
These data and other information submitted by the manufacturer as part
of their certification application are the basis on which EPA issues
certificates of conformity pursuant to CAA section 206. Under CAA
section 203, sales of new vehicles are prohibited unless the vehicle is
covered by a certificate of conformity. Compliance with standards is
required not only at certification but throughout the useful life
period of the engine and vehicle, based on post-certification testing.
Post-certification testing can include both specific duty cycle test
procedures and off-cycle test procedures that are conducted with
undefined duty cycles either on the road or in the laboratory (see
Sections III.A and IV.K for more discussion on for testing at various
stages in the life of an engine).
As described in Section IV, we are proposing to lengthen regulatory
useful life and emission warranty periods to better reflect the
mileages and time periods over which heavy-duty engines are driven
today. CAA section 202(d) directs EPA to prescribe regulations under
which the useful life of vehicles and engines are determined and
establishes minimum values of 10 years or 100,000 miles, whichever
occurs first, unless EPA determines that a period of greater duration
or mileage is appropriate. EPA may apply adjustment factors to assure
compliance with requirements in use throughout useful life (CAA section
206(a)). CAA section 207(a) requires manufacturers to provide an
emissions warranty, which EPA last updated in its regulations for
heavy-duty engines in 1983 (see 40 CFR 86.085-2).\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ 48 FR 52170, November 16, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Statutory Authority for Targeted Revisions to the Heavy-Duty GHG
Phase 2 Program
In addition, as discussed in Section XI, EPA is proposing a limited
set of revisions to MY 2027 Phase 2 GHG emissions standards under its
CAA section 202(a) authority described in this section (Section I.F).
We have developed an approach to propose targeted updates to HD GHG
Phase 2 standards that take into consideration the growing HD electric
vehicle market without fundamentally changing the HD GHG Phase 2
program as a whole. In addition, we are requesting comment on potential
changes to the advanced technology incentive program for electric
vehicles beginning in MY 2024.
G. Basis of the Proposed Standards
Our approach to further reduce air pollution from highway heavy-
duty engines and vehicles through the proposed program features several
key provisions. The primary provisions address criteria pollutant
emissions from heavy-duty engines. In addition, this proposal would
make targeted updates to the existing Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Phase 2 program, proposing that further GHG reductions in the
MY 2027 timeframe are appropriate considering lead time, costs, and
other factors, including market shifts to zero-emission technologies in
certain segments of the heavy-duty vehicle sector.
1. Basis of the Proposed Criteria Pollutant Standards
Heavy-duty engines across the U.S. emit NOX, PM, VOCs,
and CO that contribute to ambient levels of ozone, PM, NOX,
and CO; these pollutants are linked to premature death, respiratory
illness (including childhood asthma), cardiovascular problems, and
other adverse health impacts. In addition, these pollutants reduce
visibility and negatively impact ecosystems. Data show that
NOX emissions from heavy-duty engines are important
contributors to concentrations of ozone and PM2.5 and their
resulting threat to public health.102 103 As discussed in
Section II, we estimate that heavy-duty engines will continue to be one
of the largest contributors to mobile source NOX emissions
nationwide in the future, representing 32 percent of the mobile source
and 89 percent of the onroad NOX emission inventories in
calendar year 2045.104 105 For the reasons summarized here
and explained further in those sections, EPA concludes that revised
standards are warranted to address the emissions of these pollutants
and their contribution to national air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Zawacki et al, 2018. Mobile source contributions to
ambient ozone and particulate matter in 2025. Atmospheric
Environment, Vol 188, pg 129-141. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.04.057.
\103\ Davidson et al, 2020. The recent and future health burden
of the U.S. mobile sector apportioned by source. Environmental
Research Letters. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab83a8.
\104\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2021). 2016v1
Platform. https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2016v1-platform.
\105\ Han, Jaehoon. Memorandum to the Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055: ``MOVES Modeling-Related Data Files (MOVES Code, Input
Databases and Runspecs) for the Proposed Heavy-Duty 2027
Standards''. February 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required by CAA section 202(a)(3), EPA is proposing new
NOX, PM, HC, and CO emission standards for heavy-duty
engines that reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable through the application of technology that we have
determined would be available for the model years to which the proposed
standards would apply. In doing so we have given appropriate
consideration to additional factors, namely lead time, cost, energy,
and safety. Our technical assessments are primarily based on results
from diesel engine demonstration testing conducted by CARB at Southwest
Research Institute,\106\ heavy-duty gasoline and diesel engines testing
conducted at EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory
(NVFEL), heavy-duty engine certification data submitted to EPA by
manufacturers, ANPR comments, and other data submitted by industry
stakeholders or studies conducted by EPA, as more specifically
identified in the sections that follow. We expect that additional data
from EPA's ongoing work to demonstrate the performance of emission
control technologies will allow us to refine our assessments and
consideration of the feasibility of the combination of
[[Page 17438]]
standards and useful life periods in proposed Options 1 and 2, after
consideration of lead time, costs, and other factors. Therefore, we are
co-proposing Options 1 and 2 to illustrate a broader range of potential
options. We also present an alternative (the Alternative) that we
considered in the development of this proposal but for which we
currently lack information to conclude would be feasible throughout the
useful periods included in this alternative and in the model year in
which the standards would begin. As outlined in this section and
detailed in Sections III and IV, we solicit comment on the proposed
Options 1 and 2, the Alternative presented, or other alternatives
within and outside the range of options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ See Section III.B and draft RIA Chapter 3.1 for more
details and discussion on data from diesel engine demonstration
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the Executive Summary and discussed in Section III, the
proposed Options 1 and 2 standards and the Alternative would each begin
to apply in MY 2027. We selected this model year for two reasons.
First, as explained in Section I.F, the CAA requires EPA to provide at
least four years of lead time from the promulgation of a final rule. We
expect to finalize this rulemaking in 2022, such that MY 2027 would be
the earliest model year the new requirements could apply. Second, the
timing of the final stage of the HD GHG Phase 2 program in MY 2027
leads us to believe that MY 2027 is the appropriate time for the
proposed standards to begin since this would allow manufacturers to
design a single engine platform that complies with both HD GHG Phase 2
and the criteria pollutant requirements. We expect that a single engine
design for both rulemakings would minimize costs and improve
reliability of the emission control components by integrating design
changes for both rules (see Section III.A for more discussion on MY
2027 as the first implementation year for the proposed program).
The MY 2031 standards in proposed Option 1 would begin four model
years after the MY 2027 standards in proposed Option 1, which is an
additional year beyond the CAA requirement for at least three years of
stability.\107\ Both steps of the proposed Option 1 standards reflect
the greatest degree of emission reductions achievable in each model
year when combined with the proposed longer useful life periods, new
test cycles, and other compliance provisions that start in each model
year. We expect that the changes to useful life in proposed Options 1
and 2 would improve component durability, but additional increases in
useful life, such as those associated with the proposed MY 2031
standards in proposed Option 1, may take manufacturers more time to
develop (see Section IV for more discussion). Therefore, proposed
Option 1 includes a two-step approach to allow additional lead time for
manufacturers to develop emission control components durable enough for
the proposed longer useful life periods. In Section III.A we request
comment on the two-step approach in proposed Option 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ The two alternative sets of standards that we present
would each be implemented in a single step beginning in MY 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Sections III and IV, we present the details of the two-step
proposed Option 1 (MYs 2027 and 2031) and the proposed Option 2 that
would occur in a single step (MY 2027). We also present details of the
Alternative, which would also occur in a single step (MY 2027).
Overall, proposed Option 2 is less stringent than the MY 2031 standards
in proposed Option 1 due to higher numeric levels of the NOX
emission standards and shorter useful life periods in proposed Option
2. For our proposed Options 1 and 2 standards, we project that the
emission control technologies used in MY 2027 would build on those used
in light- and heavy-duty engines today. For heavy-duty CI engines,
under both the proposed Option 1 MY 2031 standards and the proposed
Option 2 standards, we project the use of the valvetrain engine
technology combined with updates to the SCR system configuration that
builds on what is used in current light-duty trucks and heavy-duty
engines. For heavy-duty SI engines, the technologies we are evaluating
that would achieve the standards in the proposed Options 1 and 2
largely build on the three-way catalyst-based emission control
strategies used in heavy-duty SI chassis certified engine products.
The Alternative we considered includes lower (more stringent)
numeric NOX emission levels for Heavy HDEs, and lower HC
emission levels for all CI and SI engine classes, combined with longer
useful life periods and shorter lead time compared to the MY 2031
standards in proposed Option 1. The test data we currently have from
our engine demonstration program is not sufficient to conclude that the
Alternative standards would be feasible in the MY2027 timeframe; we
would need additional data before we could project that the Alternative
is feasible for the MY 2027 timeframe.
We continue to believe it is appropriate for SI and CI engines to
have numerically identical standards for the criteria pollutants. As
described in Section III, the proposed standards for each pollutant are
primarily based on the engine type (CI and SI) for which the particular
emission standard is most challenging to achieve. The NOX
standards in proposed Options 1 and 2 are based primarily on emission
test data from CI engine demonstration work, while the HC and CO
standards in the proposed Options 1 and 2 are based on the SI engine
demonstration program. Currently available engine demonstration test
data show that the heavy-duty CI engine technologies we are evaluating
can achieve a 75 to 90 percent reduction from current NOX
standards. These data indicate that the NOX standards for MY
2027 in proposed Options 1 and 2 are achievable for a useful life
period of 600,000 miles, which encompasses the proposed Option 2 useful
life periods for Light HDE and Medium HDEs. Our evaluation of the
current data suggests that the proposed Option 2 standards would also
be feasible out to the proposed Option 2 Heavy HDE useful life; we are
continuing to collect data to confirm our extrapolation of data out to
the longer HDE useful life mileage. As discussed in Section IV.A,
useful life mileages for proposed Option 2 are higher than the MY 2027
useful life values in proposed Option 1, but lower than the MY 2031
useful life values in proposed Option 1. The useful life mileages
included in the proposed Options 1 and 2 are based on the operational
life of engines in the field today. Data show that heavy-duty engines
are operating in the real world well beyond the useful life periods in
our existing regulations, and thus we are proposing longer useful life
periods to ensure that emission control systems are durable for an
appropriate portion of their use in the real world (see Section IV for
details). For the Alternative, data suggest that to meet the
combination of numeric levels of the Alternative NOX
emission standards and useful life periods for Light HDEs and Medium
HDEs, it may be appropriate for EPA to consider providing manufacturers
with additional lead time, beyond the MY 2027 implementation date of
the Alternative. For Heavy HDEs, our evaluation of current data
suggests that wholly different emission control technologies than we
have evaluated to date (i.e., not based on CDA and a dual SCR) would be
needed to meet the Alternative NOX standards for Heavy HDEs;
we request comment on this conclusion and on the availability, or
potential development and timeline, of such additional technologies.
Our demonstration test data do show that CI engines can achieve the
PM, HC, and CO standards in proposed Options
[[Page 17439]]
1 and 2, each of which would result in at least a 50 percent reduction
from current emission standards for PM, HC, and CO. The HC and CO
standards in the proposed Options 1 and 2, are based on SI engine
demonstration data with a catalyst aged beyond the useful life of those
scenarios. Available data indicate that the combination of
NOX, HC, and CO emission levels over the longer useful life
period reflected in the SI standards of the Alternative would be very
challenging to meet in the MY 2027 timeframe. In contrast, we believe
the additional lead time provided by the second step of the MY 2031
standards in proposed Option 1, combined with the higher numeric
standard for HC and the shorter useful life mileage, results in the MY
2031 standards in proposed Option 1 being both feasible and technology
forcing.
We are also proposing to require onboard refueling vapor recovery
(ORVR) for incomplete vehicles over 14,000 lb GVWR fueled by gasoline
and other volatile fuels. Currently, hydrocarbon vapors from those
vehicles are uncontrolled during refueling events, despite technology
to control these emissions being widely adopted in vehicles in lower
weight classes for almost 20 years. Recent data show this lack of
emission control technology can result in refueling emissions that are
more than 10 times current light-duty refueling standards (see Section
III.D.2 for more discussion). We included ORVR in the analysis of both
proposed Options 1 and 2, as well as the Alternative.
Our PM standards are based on certification test data that show the
proposed 50 percent reduction in the current PM standard is achievable
in CI and SI heavy-duty engines being certified today; the same
reduction in PM standard is included in both proposed Options 1 and 2,
as well as the Alternative. We believe lowering the PM standard to a
level currently achievable through the use of emission control
technology used in new engines being sold today is appropriate. EPA is
not aware of any technology that is feasible to adopt in the 2027
timeframe that would reduce PM emissions further, and variability in PM
measurement starts to increase at PM levels lower than the proposed
standard. Nevertheless, we request comment on if there are technologies
that EPA could consider that would enable a PM standard lower than 5
mg/hp-hr.
The proposed Options 1 and 2 generally represent the range of
options, including the NOX, HC, and CO standards, useful
life periods and lead time that we are currently considering in this
rule; we expect we may receive additional information through public
comments or data we continue to collect on the feasibility, costs, and
other impacts of the proposed Options 1 and 2.\108\ In order to
consider adopting the Alternative in the final rule, we would need
additional information to be able to conclude that the Alternative is
feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe. We request comment on all aspects of
the proposal, including the revised emission standards and useful life
and warranty periods, one and two-step approaches, model years of
implementation in proposed Options 1 and 2, or other alternatives
roughly within the range of options covered by the proposed Options 1
and 2, as well as other provisions described in this proposal. We also
request comment, including relevant data and other information, related
to the feasibility of the implementation model year, numeric levels of
the emission standards, and useful life and warranty periods included
in the Alternative, or other alternatives outside the range of options
covered by the proposed Options 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ The numeric level of the standards for PM are consistent
across the proposal and both alternatives since they are intended to
ensure that the level of PM emissions from current engines does not
increase as manufacturers make adjustments to further control
NOX, CO2 or other pollutants. See Section
III.B.2 for more discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in Section III, we are proposing new laboratory test
duty cycles and standards in response to data that show a current lack
of emission control under low-load conditions in CI heavy-duty engines,
and under high-load in SI heavy-duty engines. As noted in Section VI,
we project that without the proposed provisions, low- and high-load
engine operations would account for 28 and 36 percent, respectively, of
the heavy-duty NOX emission inventory in 2045.
Proposed Option 1 includes requirements for lowering the numeric
level of the standard and lengthening useful life in two steps.
Consistent with our approach for useful life, proposed Option 1 would
lengthen emission warranty mileages in two steps, such that the
proposed MY 2031 warranty would cover an appropriate portion of the
proposed MY 2031 regulatory useful life (see Section IV.B for more
discussion). The proposed Option 2 would lengthen emission warranty
mileages in a single step, consistent with the proposed single step
increase in useful life in proposed Option 2. While warranty periods do
not directly impact the stringency of the proposed standards, we expect
the proposed lengthened warranty periods would improve air quality and
we included them in our inventory and cost analyses of the proposed
Option 1 and Option 2 standards.
We are also proposing additional compliance provisions that would
begin in MY 2027, such as targeted provisions to help ensure that
owners can efficiently maintain emissions performance over the
operational life of the engine. We are proposing provisions to enhance
communication with operators, including updated diagnostic
requirements, a revised inducement policy for SCR-based aftertreatment
systems, and improved access to service information (see Section IV.B
for more discussion). We believe these proposed provisions could
decrease the likelihood that owners tamper with (i.e., remove or
otherwise disable) emission control systems.
The emission reductions from the proposed program would increase
over time as more new, cleaner vehicles enter the fleet. For example,
by 2040 the proposed Option 1 would reduce heavy-duty NOX
emissions by more than 55 percent, compared to projected 2040 emissions
without the proposed rule. The proposed Option 2 would reduce heavy-
duty NOX emissions by 44 percent in 2040 (see Section VI for
details on projected emission reductions from proposed Option 1 or 2).
These emission reductions would lower ambient concentrations of
pollutants such as ozone and PM2.5. Our analysis shows that
the proposed Option 1 would provide more emission reductions than
proposed Option 2, and less reductions than the Alternative. Our air
quality modeling analysis of Option 1's projected emission reductions
shows widespread reductions in ambient concentrations of air pollutants
in 2045, which is a year by which most of the regulated fleet would
have turned over.\109\ Our analysis shows that these emission
reductions would result in significant improvements in ozone
concentrations; ambient PM2.5, NO2 and CO
concentrations would also improve in 2045 (see Section VII for
details). Based on our air quality analysis of PM2.5 and
ozone, we estimate that in 2045, the proposed Option 1 would result in
total annual monetized health benefits of $12 and $33 billion at a 3
percent discount rate and $10 and $30 billion at a 7 percent discount
rate (2017 dollars). We estimate that in 2045, the proposed Option 2
would result in total annual
[[Page 17440]]
monetized health benefits of $9 and $26 billion at a 3 percent discount
rate and $8 and $23 billion at a 7 percent discount rate (2017 dollars)
(see Section VIII for details).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Due to resource constraints, we only conducted air quality
modeling for the proposed Option 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to projected health benefits, we considered several
other factors in developing the proposed standards, including cost,
energy, and safety. Our cost analysis, presented in Section V, accounts
for costs to manufacturers and to truck owners. Costs to manufacturers
include direct manufacturing costs (i.e., new hardware/technology) and
indirect costs (e.g., emission warranty, R&D), while costs to truck
owners include operating costs (e.g., fuel, diesel exhaust fluid,
emission control system repairs). Our analysis shows that direct
manufacturing costs are the same for proposed Options 1 and 2; however,
indirect costs result in total costs to manufacturers (i.e., total
technology costs) under the proposed Option 1 being slightly higher
than under the proposed Option 2. The operating costs associated with
the proposed Option 1 are estimated to be lower than those of proposed
Option 2. The lower operating costs in proposed Option 1 (largely from
lower repair costs) offset the higher technology costs (due to higher
warranty and R&D driven indirect costs) in proposed Option 1, which
results in a lower total cost of proposed Option 1 relative to proposed
Option 2 when costs are summed for 2027 through 2045. For the
Alternative, we have not determined the incremental direct
manufacturing costs of the technology needed to meet the standards, and
we would need additional data before we could project that the
Alternative is feasible for the MY 2027 timeframe.
Section IX compares the benefits and costs of the proposed Options
1 and 2. Our analysis shows that while proposed Option 2 provides
higher emission reductions in the early years of the program, it has
lower net benefits than proposed Option 1 when considering the time
period of 2027 through 2045; this is a result of both higher costs and
lower emission reductions relative to proposed Option 1 in the later
years of the program. As noted throughout this section and discussed in
Sections III and IV, we do not currently have information to project
that the Alternative standards as currently formulated are feasible in
the MY 2027 timeframe with the emission control technologies we
evaluated to date, and thus we are not presenting an analysis of the
costs or benefits of the Alternative.
Our current evaluation of available data shows that the standards
and useful life periods in both steps of proposed Option 1 are feasible
and that each step would result in the greatest degree of emission
reduction achievable for the model years to which they are proposed to
apply, pursuant to CAA section 202(a)(3), giving appropriate
consideration to cost, lead time, and other factors. Our analysis
further shows that the standards and useful life periods in proposed
Option 2 are feasible in the 2027 model year, but would result in lower
levels of emission reductions compared to proposed Option 1. Given the
analysis we present in this proposal, we currently believe that
proposed Option 1 may be a more appropriate level of stringency as it
would result in a greater level of achievable emission reduction for
the model years proposed, which is consistent with EPA's statutory
authority under Clean Air Act section 202(a)(3). However, as further
discussed in Section III and draft RIA Chapter 3, we expect that
additional data from EPA's ongoing work to demonstrate the performance
of emission control technologies, as well as information received in
public comments, will allow us to refine our assessments and
consideration of the feasibility of the combination of the standards
and useful life periods, particularly for the largest CI engines
(HHDEs), in proposed Options 1 and 2, after consideration of lead time,
costs, and other factors. Therefore, we are co-proposing Options 1 and
2 standards and useful life periods, and the range of options in
between them, as the options that may potentially be appropriate to
finalize pursuant to CAA section 202(a)(3) once EPA has considered that
additional data and other information.
Our analysis further shows that the proposed Option 1 and 2
standards would have no negative impacts on energy; as discussed in
Section III, our evaluation of test engine data shows no change in
energy consumption (i.e., fuel) relative to a baseline engine.
Similarly, we anticipate no negative impacts on safety due to the
proposed program.
2. Basis of the Targeted Revisions to the HD GHG Phase 2 Program
In addition to the proposed criteria pollutant program provisions,
we are proposing targeted updates to certain CO2 standards
for MY 2027 trucks, and we are requesting comment on updates to the
advanced technology incentive program for electric vehicles. The
transportation sector is the largest U.S. source of GHG emissions,
representing 29 percent of total GHG emissions.\110\ Within the
transportation sector, heavy-duty vehicles are the second largest
contributor, at 23 percent.\111\ GHG emissions have significant impacts
on public health and welfare as evidenced by the well-documented
scientific record and as set forth in EPA's Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings under CAA section 202(a).\112\ Therefore, continued
emission reductions in the heavy-duty vehicle sector are appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2019 (EPA-430-R-21-005, published April 2021).
\111\ Ibid.
\112\ 74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009; 81 FR 54422, August 15,
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are at the early stages of a significant transition in the
history of the heavy-duty on-highway sector--a shift to zero-emission
vehicle technologies. This change is underway and presents an
opportunity for significant reductions in heavy-duty GHG emissions.
Major trucking fleets, manufacturers and U.S. states have announced
plans to shift the heavy-duty fleet toward zero-emissions technology
beyond levels we accounted for in setting the existing HD GHG Phase 2
standards, as detailed in Section XI. Specifically, we set the existing
Phase 2 standards at levels that would require all conventional
vehicles to install varying combinations of emission-control
technologies (the degree and types of technology can differ, with some
vehicles that have less being offset by others with more, which would
lead to CO2 emissions reductions). As discussed in Section
XI, the rise in electrification beyond what we had anticipated when
finalizing the HD GHG Phase 2 program (e.g., the California Advanced
Clean Trucks rulemaking) would enable manufacturers to produce some
conventional vehicles without installing any of the GHG emission-
reducing technologies that we projected in the HD GHG Phase 2
rulemaking, absent the changes we are proposing in this
document.113 114
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ CARB. ``Notice of Decision: Advanced Clean Truck
Regulation.'' June 2020. Available online at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2019/act2019/nod.pdf.
For more information on this proposed rulemaking in California
see: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2019/advancedcleantrucks?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery.
\114\ EPA is currently reviewing a waiver request under CAA
section 209(b) from California for the ACT rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this issue, EPA is proposing under its authority in CAA
section 202(a) to revise GHG emissions standards for a subset of MY
2027 heavy-duty vehicles. Specifically, we
[[Page 17441]]
propose to adjust HD Phase 2 vehicle GHG emission standards by sales-
weighting the projected EV production levels of school buses, transit
buses, delivery trucks, and short-haul tractors and by lowering the
applicable GHG emission standards in MY 2027 accordingly. Our proposed
approach adjusts 17 of the 33 MY 2027 Phase 2 vocational vehicle and
tractor standards and does not change any MY 2021 or MY 2024 standards
or any of the Class 2b/3 pickup truck and van standards. In addition,
we are requesting comment on potential changes to the advanced
technology incentive program for electric vehicles beginning in MY
2024.
Under CAA section 202(a), emission standards take effect ``after
such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the
development and application of the requisite technology, giving
appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such
period.'' Thus, in establishing or revising CAA section 202(a)
standards, EPA must consider issues of technological feasibility,
compliance cost, and lead time. The proposed revised standards are
based on the same technology packages used to derive the current HD GHG
Phase 2 standards, which we applied to the subset of the vehicles that
would otherwise not require GHG-reducing technologies due to the higher
projection of HD electric vehicles in MY 2027 and beyond and the
incentive program. The HD GHG Phase 2 standards were based on adoption
rates for technologies in technology packages that EPA regards as
appropriate under CAA section 202(a) for the reasons given in the HD
GHG Phase 2 rulemaking in Section III.D.1 for tractors and Section
V.C.1 for vocational vehicles.\115\ We continue to believe these
technologies can be adopted at the estimated technology adoption rates
for these proposed revised standards within the lead time that would be
provided. The fleet-wide average cost per tractor projected to meet the
proposed revised MY 2027 standards is approximately $10,200 to $10,500.
The fleet-wide average cost per vocational vehicle to meet the proposed
revised MY 2027 standards ranges between $1,500 and $5,700. These
increased costs would be recovered in the form of fuel savings during
the first two years of ownership for tractors and first four years for
vocational vehicles, which we still consider to be reasonable.\116\ In
addition, manufacturers would retain leeway to develop alternative
compliance paths, increasing the likelihood of the proposed revised
standards' successful implementation. The targeted adjustments to the
select standards we are proposing would result in modest CO2
emissions reductions and climate-related benefits associated with these
emission reductions. As described in more detail in Section XI, we
believe this proposal considered feasibility, cost, lead time,
emissions impact, and other relevant factors, and therefore these
standards are appropriate under CAA section 202(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ 81 FR 73585 through 73613; 81 FR 73693 through 73719.
\116\ 81 FR 73904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these proposed standard adjustments, we are
requesting comment on options to update the advanced technology
incentive program for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles beginning in
MY 2024. These changes may be appropriate to reflect that such levels
of incentives for electrification may no longer be appropriate for
certain segments of the HD EV market. We are interested in trying to
balance providing incentivizes for the continued development of zero
and near-zero emission vehicles without inadvertently undermining the
GHG emission reductions expected from the existing HD GHG Phase 2
program with inappropriate incentives.
II. Need for Additional Emissions Control
This proposal would reduce emissions from heavy-duty engines that
contribute to ambient levels of ozone, PM, NOX and CO, which
are all pollutants for which EPA has established health-based NAAQS.
These pollutants are linked to premature death, respiratory illness
(including childhood asthma), cardiovascular problems, and other
adverse health impacts. Many groups are at greater risk than healthy
people from these pollutants, including people with heart or lung
disease, outdoor workers, older adults and children. These pollutants
also reduce visibility and negatively impact ecosystems. This proposal
would also reduce emissions of air toxics from heavy-duty engines. A
more detailed discussion of the health and environmental effects
associated with the pollutants affected by this proposed rule is
included in Sections II.B and II.C and Chapter 4 of the draft RIA.
As further described in Sections II.B.7 and II.B.8, 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. In addition, there is
substantial evidence that people who live or attend school near major
roadways are more likely to be people of color, Hispanic ethnicity,
and/or low socioeconomic status.
Across the U.S., NOX emissions from heavy-duty engines
are important contributors to concentrations of ozone and
PM2.5 and their resulting threat to public
health.117 118 The emissions modeling done for the proposed
rule \119\ (see Chapter 5 of the draft RIA) indicates that heavy-duty
engines will continue to be one of the largest contributors to mobile
source NOX emissions nationwide in the future, representing
32 percent of the mobile source NOX in calendar year
2045.\120\ Furthermore, it is estimated that heavy-duty engines will
represent 89 percent of the onroad NOX inventory in calendar
year 2045.\121\ The emission reductions that would occur from the
proposed rule are projected to reduce air pollution that is (and is
projected to continue to be) at levels that endanger public health and
welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Zawacki et al., 2018. Mobile source contributions to
ambient ozone and particulate matter in 2025. Atmospheric
Environment, Vol 188, pg 129-141. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.04.057.
\118\ Davidson et al., 2020. The recent and future health burden
of the U.S. mobile sector apportioned by source. Environmental
Research Letters. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab83a8.
\119\ Sectors other than onroad were projected from 2016v1
Emissions Modeling Platform, http://views.cira.colostate.edu/wiki/wiki/10202.
\120\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2021). 2016v1
Platform. https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2016v1-platform.
\121\ Han, Jaehoon. Memorandum to the Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055: ``MOVES Modeling-Related Data Files (MOVES Code, Input
Databases and Runspecs) for the Proposed Heavy-Duty 2027
Standards''. February 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many state and local agencies across the country have asked the EPA
to further reduce NOX emissions, specifically from heavy-
duty engines, because such reductions will be a critical part of many
areas' strategies to attain and maintain the ozone and PM NAAQS. These
state and local agencies anticipate challenges in attaining the NAAQS,
maintaining the NAAQS in the future, and/or preventing nonattainment.
Some nonattainment areas have already been ``bumped up'' to higher
classifications because of challenges in attaining the NAAQS; others
say they are struggling to avoid nonattainment.\122\ Many state and
local agencies commented on the ANPR that heavy-duty vehicles are one
of their largest sources of NOX emissions. They
[[Page 17442]]
commented that without action to reduce emissions from heavy-duty
vehicles, they would have to adopt other potentially more burdensome
and costly measures to reduce emissions from other sources under their
state or local authority, such as local businesses. More information on
the projected emission reductions and air quality impacts that would
result from this proposed rule is provided in Sections VI and VII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ For example, in September 2019 several 2008 ozone
nonattainment areas were reclassified from moderate to serious,
including Dallas, Chicago, Connecticut, New York/New Jersey and
Houston, and in January 2020, Denver. The 2008 NAAQS for ozone is an
8-hour standard with a level of 0.075 ppm, which the 2015 ozone
NAAQS lowered to 0.070 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In their comments on the ANPR, environmental groups as well as
state, local, and Tribal agencies supported additional NOX
reductions from heavy-duty vehicles to address concerns about
environmental justice and ensuring that all communities benefit from
improvements in air quality. Commenters also supported additional
NOX reductions from heavy-duty vehicles in order to address
concerns about regional haze, and damage to terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems. They mentioned the impacts of NOX emissions on
numerous locations, such as the Chesapeake Bay, Narragansett Bay, Long
Island Sound, Joshua Tree National Park and the surrounding Mojave
Desert, the Adirondacks, and other areas. Tribes and agencies commented
that NOX deposition into lakes is harmful to fish and other
aquatic life forms on which they depend for subsistence livelihoods.
They also commented that regional haze and increased rates of
weathering caused by pollution are of particular concern and can damage
culturally significant archeological sites.
A. Background on Pollutants Impacted by This Proposal
1. Ozone
Ground-level ozone pollution forms in areas with high
concentrations of ambient NOX and VOCs when solar radiation
is strong. Major U.S. sources of NOX are highway and nonroad
motor vehicles, engines, power plants and other industrial sources,
with natural sources, such as soil, vegetation, and lightning, serving
as smaller sources. Vegetation is the dominant source of VOCs in the
U.S. Volatile consumer and commercial products, such as propellants and
solvents, highway and nonroad vehicles, engines, fires, and industrial
sources also contribute to the atmospheric burden of VOCs at ground-
level.
The processes underlying ozone formation, transport, and
accumulation are complex. Ground-level ozone is produced and destroyed
by an interwoven network of free radical reactions involving the
hydroxyl radical (OH), NO, NO2, and complex reaction
intermediates derived from VOCs. Many of these reactions are sensitive
to temperature and available sunlight. High ozone events most often
occur when ambient temperatures and sunlight intensities remain high
for several days under stagnant conditions. Ozone and its precursors
can also be transported hundreds of miles downwind which can lead to
elevated ozone levels in areas with otherwise low VOC or NOX
emissions. As an air mass moves and is exposed to changing ambient
concentrations of NOX and VOCs, the ozone photochemical
regime (relative sensitivity of ozone formation to NOX and
VOC emissions) can change.
When ambient VOC concentrations are high, comparatively small
amounts of NOX catalyze rapid ozone formation. Without
available NOX, ground-level ozone production is severely
limited, and VOC reductions would have little impact on ozone
concentrations. Photochemistry under these conditions is said to be
``NOX-limited.'' When NOX levels are sufficiently
high, faster NO2 oxidation consumes more radicals, dampening
ozone production. Under these ``VOC-limited'' conditions (also referred
to as '' NOX-saturated'' conditions), VOC reductions are
effective in reducing ozone, and NOX can react directly with
ozone resulting in suppressed ozone concentrations near NOX
emission sources. Under these NOX-saturated conditions,
NOX reductions can actually increase local ozone under
certain circumstances, but overall ozone production (considering
downwind formation) decreases and even in VOC-limited areas,
NOX reductions are not expected to increase ozone levels if
the NOX reductions are sufficiently large--large enough to
become NOX-limited.
The primary NAAQS for ozone, established in 2015 and retained in
2020, is an 8-hour standard with a level of 0.07 ppm.\123\ EPA recently
announced that it will reconsider the previous administration's
decision to retain the ozone NAAQS.\124\ The EPA is also implementing
the previous 8-hour ozone primary standard, set in 2008, at a level of
0.075 ppm. As of May 31, 2021, there were 34 ozone nonattainment areas
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, composed of 151 full or partial counties,
with a population of more than 99 million, and 50 ozone nonattainment
areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, composed of 205 full or partial
counties, with a population of more than 122 million. In total, there
are currently, as of May 31, 2021, 57 ozone nonattainment areas with a
population of more than 122 million people.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs.
\124\ https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/epa-reconsider-previous-administrations-decision-retain-2015-ozone.
\125\ The population total is calculated by summing, without
double counting, the 2008 and 2015 ozone nonattainment populations
contained in the Criteria Pollutant Nonattainment Summary report
(https://www.epa.gov/green-book/green-book-data-download).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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. Attainment dates for areas
designated nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS will be in the 2021
to 2038 timeframe, again depending on the severity of the problem in
each area.\126\ The proposed rule would begin to take effect in MY 2027
and would assist areas with attaining the NAAQS and may relieve areas
with already stringent local regulations from some of the burden
associated with adopting additional local controls.\127\ The proposed
rule could also provide assistance to counties with ambient
concentrations near the level of the NAAQS who are working to ensure
long-term attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/ozone-naaqs-timelines.
\127\ While not quantified in the air quality modeling analysis
for this proposed rule, the Early Adoption Incentives under the
proposed program could encourage manufacturers to introduce new
emission control technologies prior to the 2027 model year, which
may help to accelerate some benefits of the proposed program (See
Preamble Section IV.H for more details on the proposed Early
Adoption Incentives).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Particulate Matter
Particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of solid particles and
liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which
interact with solid and liquid phases. Particles in the atmosphere
range in size from less than 0.01 to more than 10 micrometers ([mu]m)
in diameter.\128\ Atmospheric particles can be grouped into several
classes according to their aerodynamic diameter and physical sizes.
Generally, the three broad classes of particles include ultrafine
particles (UFPs, generally
[[Page 17443]]
considered as particles with a diameter less than or equal to 0.1 [mu]m
[typically based on physical size, thermal diffusivity or electrical
mobility]), ``fine'' particles (PM2.5; particles with a
nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 [mu]m), and
``thoracic'' particles (PM10; particles with a nominal mean
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 [mu]m). Particles that
fall within the size range between PM2.5 and
PM10, are referred to as ``thoracic coarse particles''
(PM10-2.5, particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic
diameter greater than 2.5 [mu]m and less than or equal to 10 [mu]m).
EPA currently has NAAQS for PM2.5 and PM10.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ U.S. EPA. Policy Assessment (PA) for the Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (Final
Report, 2020). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/452/R-20/002, 2020.
\129\ 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. With
regard to NAAQS which provide protection against health and welfare
effects, the 24-hour PM10 standard provides protection
against effects associated with short-term exposure to thoracic
coarse particles (i.e., PM10-2.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most particles are found in the lower troposphere, where they can
have residence times ranging from a few hours to weeks. Particles are
removed from the atmosphere by wet deposition, such as when they are
carried by rain or snow, or by dry deposition, when particles settle
out of suspension due to gravity. Atmospheric lifetimes are generally
longest for PM2.5, which often remains in the atmosphere for
days to weeks before being removed by wet or dry deposition.\130\ In
contrast, atmospheric lifetimes for UFP and PM10-2.5 are
shorter. Within hours, UFP can undergo coagulation and condensation
that lead to formation of larger particles in the accumulation mode, or
can be removed from the atmosphere by evaporation, deposition, or
reactions with other atmospheric components. PM10-2.5 are
also generally removed from the atmosphere within hours, through wet or
dry deposition.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019. Table 2-
1.
\131\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019. Table 2-
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter consists of both primary and secondary
particles. Primary particles are emitted directly from sources, such as
combustion-related activities (e.g., industrial activities, motor
vehicle operation, biomass burning), while secondary particles are
formed through atmospheric chemical reactions of gaseous precursors
(e.g., sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)). From 2000 to 2017, national
annual average ambient PM2.5 concentrations have declined by
over 40 percent,\132\ largely reflecting reductions in emissions of
precursor gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/particulate-matter-pm25-trends and https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/particulate-matter-pm25-trends#pmnat for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two primary NAAQS for PM2.5: An annual
standard (12.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m3)) and a 24-hour
standard (35 [mu]g/m3), and there are two secondary NAAQS for
PM2.5: An annual standard (15.0 [mu]g/m3) and a 24-hour
standard (35 [mu]g/m3). The initial PM2.5 standards were set
in 1997 and revisions to the standards were finalized in 2006 and in
December 2012 and then retained in 2020. On June 10, 2021, EPA
announced that it will reconsider the previous administration's
decision to retain the PM NAAQS.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-pm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many areas of the country that are currently in
nonattainment for the annual and 24-hour primary PM2.5
NAAQS. As of May 31, 2021, more than 19 million people lived in the 4
areas that are designated as nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. Also, as of May 31, 2021, more than 31 million
people lived in the 14 areas that are designated as nonattainment for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and more than 20 million people lived
in the 6 areas designated as nonattainment for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. In total, there are currently 17
PM2.5 nonattainment areas with a population of more than 32
million people.\134\ The proposed rule would take effect in MY 2027 and
would assist areas with attaining the NAAQS and may relieve areas with
already stringent local regulations from some of the burden associated
with adopting additional local controls.\135\ The proposed rule would
also assist counties with ambient concentrations near the level of the
NAAQS who are working to ensure long-term attainment or maintenance of
the PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ The population total is calculated by summing, without
double counting, the 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5
nonattainment populations contained in the Criteria Pollutant
Nonattainment Summary report (https://www.epa.gov/green-book/green-book-data-download).
\135\ While not quantified in the air quality modeling analysis
for this proposed rule, the Early Adoption Incentives under the
proposed program could encourage manufacturers to introduce new
emission control technologies prior to the 2027 model year, which
may help to accelerate some benefits of the proposed program (See
Preamble Section IV.H for more details on the proposed Early
Adoption Incentives).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Nitrogen Oxides
Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) refers to nitric oxide (NO) and
nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Most NO2 is formed in the
air through the oxidation of nitric oxide (NO) emitted when fuel is
burned at a high temperature. NOX is a criteria pollutant,
regulated for its adverse effects on public health and the environment,
and highway vehicles are an important contributor to NOX
emissions. NOX, along with VOCs, are the two major
precursors of ozone and NOX is also a major contributor to
secondary PM2.5 formation. There are two primary NAAQS for
NO2: An annual standard (53 ppb) and a 1-hour standard (100
ppb).\136\ In 2010, EPA established requirements for monitoring
NO2 near roadways expected to have the highest
concentrations within large cities. Monitoring within this near-roadway
network began in 2014, with additional sites deployed in the following
years. At present, there are no nonattainment areas for NO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ The statistical form of the 1-hour NAAQS for
NO2 is the 3-year average of the yearly distribution of
1-hour daily maximum concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas emitted from
combustion processes. Nationally, particularly in urban areas, the
majority of CO emissions to ambient air come from mobile sources.\137\
There are two primary NAAQS for CO: An 8-hour standard (9 ppm) and a 1-
hour standard (35 ppm). There are currently no CO nonattainment areas;
as of September 27, 2010, all CO nonattainment areas have been
redesignated to attainment. The past designations were based on the
existing community-wide monitoring network. EPA made an addition to the
ambient air monitoring requirements for CO during the 2011 NAAQS
review. Those new requirements called for CO monitors to be operated
near roads in Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) of 1 million or more
persons, in addition to the existing community-based network (76 FR
54294, August 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ 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. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686. See Section 2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Diesel Exhaust
Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture composed of particulate matter,
carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen compounds, sulfur compounds and numerous low-molecular-weight
hydrocarbons. A number of these gaseous hydrocarbon components are
individually known to be toxic, including aldehydes, benzene
[[Page 17444]]
and 1,3-butadiene. The diesel particulate matter present in diesel
exhaust consists mostly of fine particles (<2.5 [mu]m), of which a
significant fraction is ultrafine particles (<0.1 [mu]m). These
particles have a large surface area which makes them an excellent
medium for adsorbing organics and their small size makes them highly
respirable. Many of the organic compounds present in the gases and on
the particles, such as polycyclic organic matter, are individually
known to have mutagenic and carcinogenic properties.
Diesel exhaust varies significantly in chemical composition and
particle sizes between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty),
engine operating conditions (idle, acceleration, deceleration), and
fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel). Also, there are emissions
differences between on-road and nonroad engines because the nonroad
engines are generally of older technology. After being emitted in the
engine exhaust, diesel exhaust undergoes dilution as well as chemical
and physical changes in the atmosphere. The lifetime of the components
present in diesel exhaust ranges from seconds to days.
Because diesel particulate matter (DPM) is part of overall ambient
PM, varies considerably in composition, and lacks distinct chemical
markers that enable it to be easily distinguished from overall primary
PM, we do not have direct measurements of DPM in the ambient air.\138\
DPM concentrations are estimated using ambient air quality modeling
based on DPM emission inventories. DPM emission inventories are
computed as the exhaust PM emissions from mobile sources combusting
diesel or residual oil fuel. DPM concentrations were estimated as part
of the 2014 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA).\139\ Areas with high
concentrations are clustered in the Northeast, Great Lake States,
California, and the Gulf Coast States, with the highest impacts
occurring in major urban cores, and are also distributed throughout the
rest of the U.S. Approximately half of average ambient DPM in the U.S.
can be attributed to heavy-duty diesel engines, with the remainder
attributable to nonroad engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ DPM in exhaust from a high-load, high-speed engine (e.g.,
heavy-duty truck engines) without aftertreatment such as a diesel
particle filter (DPM) is mostly made of ``soot,'' consisting of
elemental/black carbon (EC/BC), some organic material, and trace
elements. At low loads, DPM in high-speed engine exhaust is mostly
made of organic carbon (OC), with considerably less EC/BC. Low-speed
diesel engines' (e.g., large marine engines) exhaust PM is comprised
of more sulfate and less EC/BC, with OC contributing as well.
\139\ U.S. EPA (2018) Technical Support Document EPA's 2014
National Air Toxics Assessment. https://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment/2014-nata-assessment-results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Air Toxics
The most recent available data indicate that 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.\140\ 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 EPA's 2007 Mobile Source
Air Toxics Rule.\141\ According to the National Air Toxic Assessment
(NATA) for 2014, mobile sources were responsible for over 40 percent of
outdoor anthropogenic toxic emissions and were the largest contributor
to national average cancer and noncancer risk from directly emitted
pollutants.142 143 Mobile sources are also significant
contributors to precursor emissions which react to form air
toxics.\144\ Formaldehyde is the largest contributor to cancer risk of
all 71 pollutants quantitatively assessed in the 2014 NATA. Mobile
sources were responsible for more than 25 percent of primary
anthropogenic emissions of this pollutant in 2014 and are significant
contributors to formaldehyde precursor emissions. Benzene is also a
large contributor to cancer risk, and mobile sources account for almost
70 percent of ambient exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ U.S. EPA (2018) Technical Support Document EPA's 2014
National Air Toxics Assessment. https://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment/2014-nata-assessment-results.
\141\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Control of
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR
8434, February 26, 2007.
\142\ U.S. EPA. (2018) 2014 NATA: Assessment Results. https://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment/2014-nata-assessment-results.
\143\ NATA also includes estimates of risk attributable to
background concentrations, which includes contributions from long-
range transport, persistent air toxics, and natural sources; as well
as secondary concentrations, where toxics are formed via secondary
formation. Mobile sources substantially contribute to long-range
transport and secondarily formed air toxics.
\144\ Rich Cook, Sharon Phillips, Madeleine Strum, Alison Eyth &
James Thurman (2020): Contribution of mobile sources to secondary
formation of carbonyl compounds, Journal of the Air & Waste
Management Association, DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2020.1813839.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Health Effects Associated With Exposure to Pollutants Impacted by
This Proposal
Heavy duty engines emit pollutants that contribute to ambient
concentrations of ozone, PM, NO2, CO, and air toxics. A
discussion of the health effects associated with exposure to these
pollutants, and a discussion on environmental justice, is included in
this section of the preamble. Additionally, children are recognized to
have increased vulnerability and susceptibility related to air
pollution and other environmental exposures; this is discussed further
in Section XIII of the Preamble. Information on emission reductions and
air quality impacts from this proposed rule are included in Section VI
and VII of this preamble.
1. Ozone
This section provides a summary of the health effects associated
with exposure to ambient concentrations of ozone.\145\ The information
in this section is based on the information and conclusions in the
April 2020 Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone (Ozone ISA).\146\
The Ozone ISA concludes that human exposures to ambient concentrations
of ozone are associated with a number of adverse health effects and
characterizes the weight of evidence for these health effects.\147\ The
discussion below highlights the Ozone ISA's conclusions pertaining to
health effects associated with both short-term and long-term periods of
exposure to ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ Human exposure to ozone varies over time due to changes in
ambient ozone concentration and because people move between
locations which have notably different ozone concentrations. Also,
the amount of ozone delivered to the lung is influenced not only by
the ambient concentrations but also by the breathing route and rate.
\146\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Ozone
and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/012,
2020.
\147\ The ISA evaluates evidence and draws conclusions on the
causal relationship between relevant pollutant exposures and 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 more information on these levels of evidence,
please refer to Table II in the Preamble of the ISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For short-term exposure to ozone, the Ozone ISA concludes that
respiratory effects, including lung function decrements, pulmonary
inflammation, exacerbation of asthma, respiratory-related hospital
admissions, and mortality, are causally associated with ozone exposure.
It also concludes that metabolic effects, including metabolic syndrome
(i.e., changes in insulin or glucose levels, cholesterol levels,
obesity and blood pressure) and complications due to diabetes are
likely to be causally associated with short-term exposure to ozone and
that evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between
cardiovascular
[[Page 17445]]
effects, central nervous system effects and total mortality and short-
term exposure to ozone.
For long-term exposure to ozone, the Ozone ISA concludes that
respiratory effects, including new onset asthma, pulmonary inflammation
and injury, are likely to be causally related with ozone exposure. The
Ozone ISA characterizes the evidence as suggestive of a causal
relationship for associations between long-term ozone exposure and
cardiovascular effects, metabolic effects, reproductive and
developmental effects, central nervous system effects and total
mortality. The evidence is inadequate to infer a causal relationship
between chronic ozone exposure and increased risk of cancer.
Finally, interindividual variation in human responses to ozone
exposure can result in some groups being at increased risk for
detrimental effects in response to exposure. In addition, some groups
are at increased risk of exposure due to their activities, such as
outdoor workers and children. The Ozone ISA identified several groups
that are at increased risk for ozone-related health effects. These
groups are people with asthma, children and older adults, individuals
with reduced intake of certain nutrients (i.e., Vitamins C and E),
outdoor workers, and individuals having certain genetic variants
related to oxidative metabolism or inflammation. Ozone exposure during
childhood can have lasting effects through adulthood. Such effects
include altered function of the respiratory and immune systems.
Children absorb higher doses (normalized to lung surface area) of
ambient ozone, compared to adults, due to their increased time spent
outdoors, higher ventilation rates relative to body size, and a
tendency to breathe a greater fraction of air through the mouth.
Children also have a higher asthma prevalence compared to adults.
Recent epidemiologic studies provide generally consistent evidence that
long-term ozone exposure is associated with the development of asthma
in children. Studies comparing age groups reported higher magnitude
associations for short-term ozone exposure and respiratory hospital
admissions and emergency room visits among children than for adults.
Panel studies also provide support for experimental studies with
consistent associations between short-term ozone exposure and lung
function and pulmonary inflammation in healthy children. Additional
children's vulnerability and susceptibility factors are listed in
Section XIII of the Preamble.
2. Particulate Matter
Scientific evidence spanning animal toxicological, controlled human
exposure, and epidemiologic studies shows that exposure to ambient PM
is associated with a broad range of health effects. These health
effects are discussed in detail in the Integrated Science Assessment
for Particulate Matter (PM ISA), which was finalized in December
2019.\148\ The PM ISA characterizes the causal nature of relationships
between PM exposure and broad health categories (e.g., cardiovascular
effects, respiratory effects, etc.) using a weight-of-evidence
approach.\149\ Within this characterization, the PM ISA summarizes the
health effects evidence for short- and long-term exposures to
PM2.5, PM10-2.5, and ultrafine particles, and
concludes that human exposures to ambient PM2.5 are
associated with a number of adverse health effects. The discussion
below highlights the PM ISA's conclusions pertaining to the health
effects evidence for both short- and long-term PM exposures. Further
discussion of PM-related health effects can also be found in the 2020
Policy Assessment for the review of the PM NAAQS.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
\149\ The causal framework draws upon the assessment and
integration of evidence from across scientific disciplines, spanning
atmospheric chemistry, exposure, dosimetry and health effects
studies (i.e., epidemiologic, controlled human exposure, and animal
toxicological studies), and assess the related uncertainties and
limitations that ultimately influence our understanding of the
evidence. This framework employs a five-level hierarchy that
classifies the overall weight-of-evidence with respect to the causal
nature of relationships between criteria pollutant exposures and
health and welfare effects using the following categorizations:
Causal relationship; likely to be causal relationship; suggestive
of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship; inadequate
to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship; and not
likely to be a causal relationship (U.S. EPA. (2019). Integrated
Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188,
Section P. 3.2.3).
\150\ U.S. EPA. Policy Assessment (PA) for the Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (Final
Report, 2020). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/452/R-20/002, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has concluded that recent evidence in combination with evidence
evaluated in the 2009 PM ISA supports a ``causal relationship'' between
both long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5 and mortality
and cardiovascular effects and a ``likely to be causal relationship''
between long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and respiratory
effects.\151\ Additionally, recent experimental and epidemiologic
studies provide evidence supporting a ``likely to be causal
relationship'' between long-term PM2.5 exposure and nervous
system effects, and long-term PM2.5 exposure and cancer. In
addition, EPA noted that there was more limited and uncertain evidence
for long-term PM2.5 exposure and reproductive and
developmental effects (i.e., male/female reproduction and fertility;
pregnancy and birth outcomes), long- and short-term exposures and
metabolic effects, and short-term exposure and nervous system effects
resulting in the ISA concluding ``suggestive of, but not sufficient to
infer, a causal relationship.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed extensively in the 2019 PM ISA, recent studies
continue to support and extend the evidence base linking short- and
long-term PM2.5 exposures and mortality.\152\ For short-term
PM2.5 exposure, recent multi-city studies, in combination
with single- and multi-city studies evaluated in the 2009 PM ISA,
provide evidence of consistent, positive associations across studies
conducted in different geographic locations, populations with different
demographic characteristics, and studies using different exposure
assignment techniques. Additionally, the consistent and coherent
evidence across scientific disciplines for cardiovascular morbidity,
particularly ischemic events and heart failure, and to a lesser degree
for respiratory morbidity, with the strongest evidence for
exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and
asthma, provide biological plausibility for cause-specific mortality
and ultimately total mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to reanalyses and extensions of the American Cancer
Society (ACS) and Harvard Six Cities (HSC) cohorts, multiple new cohort
studies conducted in the U.S. and Canada consisting of people employed
in a specific job (e.g., teacher, nurse), and that apply different
exposure assignment techniques provide evidence of positive
associations between long-term PM2.5 exposure and mortality.
Biological plausibility for mortality due to long-term PM2.5
exposure is provided by the coherence of effects across scientific
disciplines for cardiovascular morbidity, particularly for coronary
heart disease (CHD), stroke and atherosclerosis, and for respiratory
morbidity, particularly for the
[[Page 17446]]
development of COPD. Additionally, recent studies provide evidence
indicating that as long-term PM2.5 concentrations decrease
there is an increase in life expectancy.
A large body of recent studies examining both short- and long-term
PM2.5 exposure and cardiovascular effects supports and
extends the evidence base evaluated in the 2009 PM ISA. Some of the
strongest evidence from both experimental and epidemiologic studies
examining short-term PM2.5 exposures are for ischemic heart
disease (IHD) and heart failure. The evidence for cardiovascular
effects is coherent across studies of short-term PM2.5
exposure that have observed associations with a continuum of effects
ranging from subtle changes in indicators of cardiovascular health to
serious clinical events, such as increased emergency department visits
and hospital admissions due to cardiovascular disease and
cardiovascular mortality. For long-term PM2.5 exposure,
there is strong and consistent epidemiologic evidence of a relationship
with cardiovascular mortality. This evidence is supported by
epidemiologic and animal toxicological studies demonstrating a range of
cardiovascular effects including coronary heart disease, stroke,
impaired heart function, and subclinical markers (e.g., coronary artery
calcification, atherosclerotic plaque progression), which collectively
provide coherence and biological plausibility.
Recent studies continue to provide evidence of a relationship
between both short- and long-term PM2.5 exposure and
respiratory effects. Epidemiologic and animal toxicological studies
examining short-term PM2.5 exposure provide consistent
evidence of asthma and COPD exacerbations, in children and adults,
respectively. This evidence is supported by epidemiologic studies
examining asthma and COPD emergency department visits and hospital
admissions, as well as respiratory mortality. However, there is
inconsistent evidence of respiratory effects, specifically lung
function declines and pulmonary inflammation, in controlled human
exposure studies. Epidemiologic studies conducted in the U.S. and
abroad provide evidence of a relationship between long-term
PM2.5 exposure and respiratory effects, including consistent
changes in lung function and lung function growth rate, increased
asthma incidence, asthma prevalence, and wheeze in children;
acceleration of lung function decline in adults; and respiratory
mortality. The epidemiologic evidence is supported by animal
toxicological studies, which provide coherence and biological
plausibility for a range of effects including impaired lung
development, decrements in lung function growth, and asthma
development.
Since the 2009 PM ISA, a growing body of scientific evidence
examined the relationship between long-term PM2.5 exposure
and nervous system effects, resulting for the first time in a causality
determination for this health effects category. The strongest evidence
for effects on the nervous system come from epidemiologic studies that
consistently report cognitive decrements and reductions in brain volume
in adults. The effects observed in epidemiologic studies are supported
by animal toxicological studies demonstrating effects on the brain of
adult animals including inflammation, morphologic changes, and
neurodegeneration of specific regions of the brain. There is more
limited evidence for neurodevelopmental effects in children with some
studies reporting positive associations with autism spectrum disorder
(ASD) and others providing limited evidence of an association with
cognitive function. While there is some evidence from animal
toxicological studies indicating effects on the brain (i.e.,
inflammatory and morphological changes) to support a biologically
plausible pathway, epidemiologic studies of neurodevelopmental effects
are limited due to their lack of control for potential confounding by
copollutants, the small number of studies conducted, and uncertainty
regarding critical exposure windows.
Building off the decades of research demonstrating mutagenicity,
DNA damage, and endpoints related to genotoxicity due to whole PM
exposures, recent experimental and epidemiologic studies focusing
specifically on PM2.5 provide evidence of a relationship
between long-term PM2.5 exposure and cancer. Epidemiologic
studies examining long-term PM2.5 exposure and lung cancer
incidence and mortality provide evidence of generally positive
associations in cohort studies spanning different populations,
locations, and exposure assignment techniques. Additionally, there is
evidence of positive associations in analyses limited to never smokers.
The epidemiologic evidence is supported by both experimental and
epidemiologic evidence of genotoxicity, epigenetic effects,
carcinogenic potential, and that PM2.5 exhibits several
characteristics of carcinogens, which collectively provides biological
plausibility for cancer development.
For the additional health effects categories evaluated for
PM2.5 in the 2019 PM ISA, experimental and epidemiologic
studies provide limited and/or inconsistent evidence of a relationship
with PM2.5 exposure. As a result, the 2019 PM ISA concluded
that the evidence is ``suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer a
causal relationship'' for short-term PM2.5 exposure and
metabolic effects and nervous system effects, and long-term
PM2.5 exposures and metabolic effects as well as
reproductive and developmental effects.
In addition to evaluating the health effects attributed to short-
and long-term exposure to PM2.5, the 2019 PM ISA also
conducted an extensive evaluation as to whether specific components or
sources of PM2.5 are more strongly related with health
effects than PM2.5 mass. An evaluation of those studies
resulted in the 2019 PM ISA concluding that ``many PM2.5
components and sources are associated with many health effects, and the
evidence does not indicate that any one source or component is
consistently more strongly related to health effects than
PM2.5 mass.'' \153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For both PM10-2.5 and UFPs, for all health effects
categories evaluated, the 2019 PM ISA concluded that the evidence was
``suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship''
or ``inadequate to determine the presence or absence of a causal
relationship.'' For PM10-2.5, although a Federal Reference
Method (FRM) was instituted in 2011 to measure PM10-2.5
concentrations nationally, the causality determinations reflect that
the same uncertainty identified in the 2009 PM ISA with respect to the
method used to estimate PM10-2.5 concentrations in
epidemiologic studies persists. Specifically, across epidemiologic
studies, different approaches are used to estimate PM10-2.5
concentrations (e.g., direct measurement of PM10-2.5,
difference between PM10 and PM2.5
concentrations), and it remains unclear how well correlated
PM10-2.5 concentrations are both spatially and temporally
across the different methods used.
For UFPs, the uncertainty in the evidence for the health effect
categories evaluated across experimental and epidemiologic studies
reflects the inconsistency in the exposure metric used (i.e., particle
number concentration, surface area concentration, mass concentration)
as well as the size fractions examined. In
[[Page 17447]]
epidemiologic studies the size fraction can vary depending on the
monitor used and exposure metric, with some studies examining number
count over the entire particle size range, while experimental studies
that use a particle concentrator often examine particles up to 0.3
[mu]m. Additionally, due to the lack of a monitoring network, there is
limited information on the spatial and temporal variability of UFPs
within the U.S., as well as population exposures to UFPs, which adds
uncertainty to epidemiologic study results.
The 2019 p.m. ISA cites extensive evidence indicating that ``both
the general population as well as specific populations and life stages
are at risk for PM2.5-related health effects.''
154 155 For example, in support of its ``causal'' and
``likely to be causal'' determinations, the ISA cites substantial
evidence for (1) PM-related mortality and cardiovascular effects in
older adults; (2) PM-related cardiovascular effects in people with pre-
existing cardiovascular disease; (3) PM-related respiratory effects in
people with pre-existing respiratory disease, particularly asthma
exacerbations in children; and (4) PM-related impairments in lung
function growth and asthma development in children. The ISA
additionally notes that stratified analyses (i.e., analyses that
directly compare PM-related health effects across groups) provide
strong evidence for racial and ethnic differences in PM2.5
exposures and in the risk of PM2.5-related health effects,
specifically within Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations.
Additionally, evidence spanning epidemiologic studies that conducted
stratified analyses, experimental studies focusing on animal models of
disease or individuals with pre-existing disease, dosimetry studies, as
well as studies focusing on differential exposure suggest that
populations with pre-existing cardiovascular or respiratory disease,
populations that are overweight or obese, populations that have
particular genetic variants, populations that are of low socioeconomic
status, and current/former smokers could be at increased risk for
adverse PM2.5-related health effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
\155\ U.S. EPA. Policy Assessment (PA) for the Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (Final
Report, 2020). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/452/R-20/002, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Nitrogen Oxides
The most recent review of the health effects of oxides of nitrogen
completed by EPA can be found in the 2016 Integrated Science Assessment
for Oxides of Nitrogen--Health Criteria (Oxides of Nitrogen ISA).\156\
The primary source of NO2 is motor vehicle emissions, and
ambient NO2 concentrations tend to be highly correlated with
other traffic-related pollutants. Thus, a key issue in characterizing
the causality of NO2-health effect relationships consists of
evaluating the extent to which studies supported an effect of
NO2 that is independent of other traffic-related pollutants.
EPA concluded that the findings for asthma exacerbation integrated from
epidemiologic and controlled human exposure studies provided evidence
that is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between respiratory
effects and short-term NO2 exposure. The strongest evidence
supporting an independent effect of NO2 exposure comes from
controlled human exposure studies demonstrating increased airway
responsiveness in individuals with asthma following ambient-relevant
NO2 exposures. The coherence of this evidence with
epidemiologic findings for asthma hospital admissions and ED visits as
well as lung function decrements and increased pulmonary inflammation
in children with asthma describe a plausible pathway by which
NO2 exposure can cause an asthma exacerbation. The 2016 ISA
for Oxides of Nitrogen also concluded that there is likely to be a
causal relationship between long-term NO2 exposure and
respiratory effects. This conclusion is based on new epidemiologic
evidence for associations of NO2 with asthma development in
children combined with biological plausibility from experimental
studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of
Nitrogen--Health Criteria (2016 Final Report). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-15/068, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating a broader range of health effects, the 2016 ISA for
Oxides of Nitrogen concluded that evidence is ``suggestive of, but not
sufficient to infer, a causal relationship'' between short-term
NO2 exposure and cardiovascular effects and mortality and
between long-term NO2 exposure and cardiovascular effects
and diabetes, birth outcomes, and cancer. In addition, the scientific
evidence is inadequate (insufficient consistency of epidemiologic and
toxicological evidence) to infer a causal relationship for long-term
NO2 exposure with fertility, reproduction, and pregnancy, as
well as with postnatal development. A key uncertainty in understanding
the relationship between these non-respiratory health effects and
short- or long-term exposure to NO2 is copollutant
confounding, particularly by other roadway pollutants. The available
evidence for non-respiratory health effects does not adequately address
whether NO2 has an independent effect or whether it
primarily represents effects related to other or a mixture of traffic-
related pollutants.
The 2016 ISA for Oxides of Nitrogen concluded that people with
asthma, children, and older adults are at increased risk for
NO2-related health effects. In these groups and lifestages,
NO2 is consistently related to larger effects on outcomes
related to asthma exacerbation, for which there is confidence in the
relationship with NO2 exposure.
4. Carbon Monoxide
Information on the health effects of carbon monoxide (CO) can be
found in the January 2010 Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon
Monoxide (CO ISA).\157\ The CO ISA presents conclusions regarding the
presence of causal relationships between CO exposure and categories of
adverse health effects.\158\ This section provides a summary of the
health effects associated with exposure to ambient concentrations of
CO, along with the CO ISA conclusions.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ 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. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686.
\158\ 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.
\159\ Personal exposure includes contributions from many
sources, and in many different environments. Total personal exposure
to CO includes both ambient and non-ambient components; and both
components may contribute to adverse health effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controlled human exposure 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 observed associations between short-
term CO exposure and cardiovascular morbidity, particularly increased
emergency room visits and hospital admissions for
[[Page 17448]]
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 CO
ISA concludes that a causal relationship is likely to exist between
short-term exposures to CO and cardiovascular morbidity. It also
concludes that available data are inadequate to conclude that a causal
relationship exists between long-term exposures to CO and
cardiovascular morbidity.
Animal studies show various neurological effects with in-utero CO
exposure. Controlled human exposure studies report central nervous
system and behavioral effects following low-level CO exposures,
although the findings have not been consistent across all studies. The
CO ISA concludes that 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 studies cited in the CO ISA have evaluated the role of
CO exposure in birth outcomes such as preterm birth or cardiac birth
defects. There is limited epidemiologic 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 perinatal CO
exposure to affect birth weight, as well as other developmental
outcomes. The CO ISA concludes that the evidence is suggestive of a
causal relationship between long-term exposures to CO and developmental
effects and birth outcomes.
Epidemiologic studies provide evidence of associations between
short-term CO concentrations and respiratory morbidity such as changes
in pulmonary function, respiratory symptoms, and hospital admissions. 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 CO 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 CO ISA concludes that the epidemiologic evidence is
suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term concentrations
of CO and mortality. Epidemiologic evidence suggests an association
exists 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 CO ISA also concludes that
there is not likely to be a causal relationship between relevant long-
term exposures to CO and mortality.
5. Diesel Exhaust
In EPA's 2002 Diesel Health Assessment Document (Diesel HAD),
exposure to diesel exhaust was classified as likely to be carcinogenic
to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures, in accordance
with the revised draft 1996/1999 EPA cancer
guidelines.160 161 A number of other agencies (National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the International Agency
for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization, California EPA,
and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) made similar
hazard classifications prior to 2002. EPA also concluded in the 2002
Diesel HAD that it was not possible to calculate a cancer unit risk for
diesel exhaust due to limitations in the exposure data for the
occupational groups or the absence of a dose-response relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ U.S. EPA. (1999). Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment. Review Draft. NCEA-F-0644, July. Washington, DC: U.S.
EPA. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=54932.
\161\ U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document for Diesel
Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of research and
Development, Washington, DC. Retrieved on March 17, 2009 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. pp. 1-1 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of a cancer unit risk, the Diesel HAD sought to
provide additional insight into the significance of the diesel exhaust
cancer hazard by estimating possible ranges of risk that might be
present in the population. An exploratory analysis was used to
characterize a range of possible lung cancer risk. The outcome was that
environmental risks of cancer from long-term diesel exhaust exposures
could plausibly range from as low as 10-5 to as high as
10-3. Because of uncertainties, the analysis acknowledged
that the risks could be lower than 10-5, and a zero risk
from diesel exhaust exposure could not be ruled out.
Noncancer health effects of acute and chronic exposure to diesel
exhaust emissions are also of concern to EPA. EPA derived a diesel
exhaust reference concentration (RfC) from consideration of four well-
conducted chronic rat inhalation studies showing adverse pulmonary
effects. The RfC is 5 [micro]g/m\3\ for diesel exhaust measured as
diesel particulate matter. This RfC does not consider allergenic
effects such as those associated with asthma or immunologic or the
potential for cardiac effects. There was emerging evidence in 2002,
discussed in the Diesel HAD, that exposure to diesel exhaust can
exacerbate these effects, but the exposure-response data were lacking
at that time to derive an RfC based on these then-emerging
considerations. The Diesel HAD states, ``With [diesel particulate
matter] being a ubiquitous component of ambient PM, there is an
uncertainty about the adequacy of the existing [diesel exhaust]
noncancer database to identify all of the pertinent [diesel exhaust]-
caused noncancer health hazards.'' The Diesel HAD also notes ``that
acute exposure to [diesel exhaust] has been associated with irritation
of the eye, nose, and throat, respiratory symptoms (cough and phlegm),
and neurophysiological symptoms such as headache, lightheadedness,
nausea, vomiting, and numbness or tingling of the extremities.'' The
Diesel HAD notes that the cancer and noncancer hazard conclusions
applied to the general use of diesel engines then on the market and as
cleaner engines replace a substantial number of existing ones, the
applicability of the conclusions would need to be reevaluated.
It is important to note that the Diesel HAD also briefly summarizes
health effects associated with ambient PM and discusses EPA's then-
annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [micro]g/m\3\. In 2012, EPA revised
the annual PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 [micro]g/m\3\ and then retained
that standard in 2020, as of June 10, 2021 EPA is reconsidering the
PM2.5 NAAQS.\162\ There is a large and extensive body of
human data showing a wide spectrum of adverse health effects associated
with exposure to ambient PM, of which diesel exhaust is an important
component. The PM2.5 NAAQS is designed to provide protection
from the
[[Page 17449]]
noncancer health effects and premature mortality attributed to exposure
to PM2.5. The contribution of diesel PM to total ambient PM
varies in different regions of the country and also, within a region,
from one area to another. The contribution can be high in near-roadway
environments, for example, or in other locations where diesel engine
use is concentrated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-pm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2002, several new studies have been published which continue
to report increased lung cancer risk associated with occupational
exposure to diesel exhaust from older engines. Of particular note since
2011 are three new epidemiology studies which have examined lung cancer
in occupational populations, for example, truck drivers, underground
nonmetal miners and other diesel motor-related occupations. These
studies reported increased risk of lung cancer with exposure to diesel
exhaust with evidence of positive exposure-response relationships to
varying degrees.163 164 165 These newer studies (along with
others that have appeared in the scientific literature) add to the
evidence EPA evaluated in the 2002 Diesel HAD and further reinforce the
concern that diesel exhaust exposure likely poses a lung cancer hazard.
The findings from these newer studies do not necessarily apply to newer
technology diesel engines (i.e., heavy-duty highway engines from 2007
and later model years) since the newer engines have large reductions in
the emission constituents compared to older technology diesel engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ Garshick, Eric, Francine Laden, Jaime E. Hart, Mary E.
Davis, Ellen A. Eisen, and Thomas J. Smith. 2012. Lung cancer and
elemental carbon exposure in trucking industry workers.
Environmental Health Perspectives 120(9): 1301-1306.
\164\ Silverman, D.T., Samanic, C.M., Lubin, J.H., Blair, A.E.,
Stewart, P.A., Vermeulen, R., & Attfield, M.D. (2012). The diesel
exhaust in miners study: A nested case-control study of lung cancer
and diesel exhaust. Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
\165\ Olsson, Ann C., et al. ``Exposure to diesel motor exhaust
and lung cancer risk in a pooled analysis from case-control studies
in Europe and Canada.'' American journal of respiratory and critical
care medicine 183.7 (2011): 941-948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the growing body of scientific literature evaluating
the health effects of exposure to diesel exhaust, in June 2012 the
World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC), a recognized international authority on the carcinogenic
potential of chemicals and other agents, evaluated the full range of
cancer-related health effects data for diesel engine exhaust. IARC
concluded that diesel exhaust should be regarded as ``carcinogenic to
humans.'' \166\ This designation was an update from its 1988 evaluation
that considered the evidence to be indicative of a ``probable human
carcinogen.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ IARC [International Agency for Research on Cancer].
(2013). Diesel and gasoline engine exhausts and some nitroarenes.
IARC Monographs Volume 105. [Online at http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol105/index.php].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Air Toxics
Heavy-duty engine emissions contribute to ambient levels of air
toxics that are known or suspected human or animal carcinogens, or that
have noncancer health effects. These compounds include, but are not
limited to, benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and naphthalene. These
compounds were identified as national or regional risk drivers or
contributors in the 2014 National-scale Air Toxics Assessment and have
significant inventory contributions from mobile
sources.167 168 Chapter 4 of the draft RIA includes
additional information on the health effects associated with exposure
to each of these pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ U.S. EPA (2018) Technical Support Document EPA's 2014
National Air Toxics Assessment. https://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment/2014-nata-assessment-results.
\168\ U.S. EPA (2018) 2014 NATA Summary of Results. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-07/documents/nata_2014_summary_of_results.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Exposure and Health Effects Associated With Traffic
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, CO2, 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. The 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 large-scale review of air quality measurements in the 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.\169\ 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 gradient in
concentration. More recent studies continue to show significant
concentration gradients of traffic-related air pollution around major
roads.170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 There is evidence that
EPA's regulations for vehicles have lowered the near-road
concentrations and gradients.\178\ Starting in 2010, EPA required
through the NAAQS process that air quality monitors be placed near
high-traffic roadways for determining concentrations of CO,
NO2, and PM2.5
[[Page 17450]]
(in addition to those existing monitors located in neighborhoods and
other locations farther away from pollution sources). The monitoring
data for NO2 indicate that in urban areas, monitors near
roadways often report the highest concentrations of NO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ 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.
\170\ McDonald, B.C.; McBride, Z.C.; Martin, E.W.; Harley, R.A.
(2014) High-resolution mapping of motor vehicle carbon dioxide
emissions. J. Geophys. Res.Atmos.,119, 5283-5298, doi:10.1002/
2013JD021219.
\171\ Kimbrough, S.; Baldauf, R.W.; Hagler, G.S.W.; Shores,
R.C.; Mitchell, W.; Whitaker, D.A.; Croghan, C.W.; Vallero, D.A.
(2013) Long-term continuous measurement of near-road air pollution
in Las Vegas: seasonal variability in traffic emissions impact on
air quality. Air Qual Atmos Health 6: 295-305. DOI:10.1007/s11869-
012-0171-x.
\172\ Kimbrough, S.; Palma, T.; Baldauf, R.W. (2014) Analysis of
mobile source air toxics (MSATs)--Near-road VOC and carbonyl
concentrations. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association,
64:3, 349-359, DOI:10.1080/10962247.2013.863814.
\173\ Kimbrough, S.; Owen, R.C.; Snyder, M.; Richmond-Bryant, J.
(2017) NO to NO2 Conversion Rate Analysis and
Implications for Dispersion Model Chemistry Methods using Las Vegas,
Nevada Near-Road Field Measurements. Atmos Environ 165: 23-24.
\174\ Hilker, N.; Wang, J.W.; Jong, C-H.; Healy, R.M.; Sofowote,
U.; Debosz, J.; Su, Y.; Noble, M.; Munoz, A.; Doerkson, G.; White,
L.; Audette, C.; Herod, D.; Brook, J.R.; Evans, G.J. (2019) Traffic-
related air pollution near roadways: discerning local impacts from
background. Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 5247-5261. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-5247-2019.
\175\ Grivas, G.; Stavroulas, I.; Liakakou, E.; Kaskaoutis,
D.G.; Bougiatioti, A.; Paraskevopoulou, D.; Gerasopoulos, E.;
Mihalopoulos, N. (2019) Measuring the spatial variability of black
carbon in Athens during wintertime. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health
(2019) 12:1405-1417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-019-00756-y.
\176\ Apte, J.S.; Messier, K.P.; Gani, S.; Brauer, M.;
Kirchstetter, T.W.; Lunden, M.M.; Marshall, J.D.; Portier, C.J.;
Vermeulen, R.C.H.; Hamburg, S.P. (2017) High-Resolution Air
Pollution Mapping with Google Street View Cars: Exploiting Big Data.
Environ Sci Technol 51: 6999-7008. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00891.
\177\ Dabek-Zlotorzynska, E.; Celo, V.; Ding, L.; Herod, D.;
Jeong, C-H.; Evans, G.; Hilker, N. (2019) Characteristics and
sources of PM2.5 and reactive gases near roadways in two
metropolitan areas in Canada. Atmos Environ 218: 116980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.116980.
\178\ Sarnat, J.A.; Russell, A.; Liang, D.; Moutinho, J.L;
Golan, R.; Weber, R.; Gao, D.; Sarnat, S.; Chang, H.H.; Greenwald,
R.; Yu, T. (2018) Developing Multipollutant Exposure Indicators of
Traffic Pollution: The Dorm Room Inhalation to Vehicle Emissions
(DRIVE) Study. Health Effects Institute Research Report Number 196.
[Online at: https://www.healtheffects.org/publication/developing-multipollutant-exposure-indicators-traffic-pollution-dorm-room-inhalation].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. However, several studies have
measured aldehydes in multiple weather conditions and found higher
concentrations of many carbonyls downwind of
roadways.179 180 These findings suggest a substantial
roadway source of these carbonyls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ Liu, W.; Zhang, J.; Kwon, J.l; et l. (2006).
Concentrations and source characteristics of airborne carbonyl
compounds measured outside urban residences. J Air Waste Manage
Assoc 56: 1196-1204.
\180\ 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 https://www.healtheffects.org/system/files/Cahill149.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the past 20 years, many studies have been published with results
reporting 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.\181\ In
addition, numerous studies have found adverse health effects associated
with spending time in traffic, such as commuting or walking along high-
traffic roadways.182 183 184 185 The health outcomes with
the strongest evidence linking them with traffic-associated air
pollutants are respiratory effects, particularly in asthmatic children,
and cardiovascular effects. ANPR commenters stress the importance of
consideration of the impacts of traffic-related air pollution on
children's health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ 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.
\182\ Laden, F.; Hart, J.E.; Smith, T.J.; Davis, M.E.; Garshick,
E. (2007) Cause-specific mortality in the unionized U.S. trucking
industry. Environmental Health Perspect 115:1192-1196.
\183\ Peters, A.; von Klot, S.; Heier, M.; Trentinaglia, I.;
H[ouml]rmann, A.; Wichmann, H.E.; L[ouml]wel, H. (2004) Exposure to
traffic and the onset of myocardial infarction. New England J Med
351: 1721-1730.
\184\ Zanobetti, A.; Stone, P.H.; Spelzer, F.E.; Schwartz, J.D.;
Coull, B.A.; Suh, H.H.; Nearling, B.D.; Mittleman, M.A.; Verrier,
R.L.; Gold, D.R. (2009) T-wave alternans, air pollution and traffic
in high-risk subjects. Am J Cardiol 104: 665-670.
\185\ Adar, S.; Adamkiewicz, G.; Gold, D.R.; Schwartz, J.;
Coull, B.A.; Suh, H. (2007) Ambient and microenvironmental particles
and exhaled nitric oxide before and after a group bus trip. Environ
Health Perspect 115: 507-512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\186\ The panel rated how the
evidence for each type of health outcome supported a conclusion of a
causal association with traffic-associated air pollution as either
``sufficient,'' ``suggestive but not sufficient,'' or ``inadequate and
insufficient.'' The panel categorized evidence of a causal association
for exacerbation of childhood asthma as ``sufficient.'' The panel
categorized evidence of a causal association for new onset asthma as
between ``sufficient'' and ``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), non-asthmatic respiratory allergy, and cancer
in adults and children. Currently, HEI is conducting another expert
review of health studies associated with traffic-related air pollution
published after the studies included in their 2010 review.\187\ Other
literature reviews have been published with conclusions generally
similar to the 2010 HEI panel's.188 189 190 191 However, in
2014, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) published a systematic review and meta-analysis of
studies evaluating the risk of childhood leukemia associated with
traffic exposure and reported positive associations between
``postnatal'' proximity to traffic and leukemia risks, but no such
association for ``prenatal'' exposures.\192\ The U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services' National Toxicology Program (NTP) recently
published a monograph including a systematic review of traffic-related
air pollution (TRAP) and its impacts on hypertensive disorders of
pregnancy. NTP concluded that exposure to TRAP is ``presumed to be a
hazard to pregnant women'' for developing hypertensive disorders of
pregnancy.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ 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.
\187\ Health Effects Institute. (2019) Protocol for a Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis of Selected Health Effects of Long-Term
Exposure to Traffic-Related Air Pollution. PROSPERO 2019
CRD42019150642 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019150642.
\188\ Boothe, V.L.; Shendell, D.G. (2008). Potential health
effects associated with residential proximity to freeways and
primary roads: review of scientific literature, 1999-2006. J Environ
Health 70: 33-41.
\189\ 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.
\190\ Sun, X.; Zhang, S.; Ma, X. (2014) No association between
traffic density and risk of childhood leukemia: a meta-analysis.
Asia Pac J Cancer Prev 15: 5229-5232.
\191\ Raaschou-Nielsen, O.; Reynolds, P. (2006). Air pollution
and childhood cancer: a review of the epidemiological literature.
Int J Cancer 118: 2920-9.
\192\ Boothe, VL.; Boehmer, T.K.; Wendel, A.M.; Yip, F.Y. (2014)
Residential traffic exposure and childhood leukemia: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med 46: 413-422.
\193\ National Toxicology Program (2019) NTP Monograph n the
Systematic Review of Traffic-related Air Pollution and Hypertensive
Disorders of Pregnancy. NTP Monograph 7. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/trap/mgraph/trap_final_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).194 195 196 197
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ 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.
\195\ 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].
\196\ 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.
\197\ 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 may increase systemic inflammation,
affecting organ systems,
[[Page 17451]]
including blood vessels and lungs.198 199 200 201 Long-term
exposures in near-road environments have been associated with
inflammation-associated conditions, such as atherosclerosis and
asthma.202 203 204
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ Riediker, M. (2007). Cardiovascular effects of fine
particulate matter components in highway patrol officers. Inhal
Toxicol 19: 99-105. doi:10.1080/08958370701495238
\199\ Alexeef, SE; 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
\200\ Eckel. S.P.; Berhane, K.; Salam, M.T.; et al. (2011).
Residential Traffic-related pollution exposure and exhaled nitric
oxide in the Children's Health Study. Environ Health Perspect.
doi:10.1289/ehp.1103516.
\201\ 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].
\202\ Adar, S.D.; Klein, R.; Klein, E.K.; et al. (2010). Air
pollution and the microvasculature: 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.
\203\ Kan, H.; Heiss, G.; Rose, K.M.; et al. (2008). Prospective
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.
\204\ 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.205 206 207
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ 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.
\206\ 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.
\207\ 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. Every two years from 1997 to
2009 and in 2011, the U.S. Census Bureau's American Housing Survey
(AHS) conducted a survey that includes whether housing units are within
300 feet of an ``airport, railroad, or highway with four or more
lanes.'' \208\ The 2013 AHS was the last AHS that included that
question. The 2013 survey reports that 17.3 million housing units, or
13 percent of all housing units in the U.S., were in such areas.
Assuming that populations and housing units are in the same locations,
this corresponds to a population of more than 41 million U.S. residents
in close proximity to high-traffic roadways or other transportation
sources. According to the Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook,
based on data collected between 2012-2014, the United States had
6,586,610 km of roadways, 293,564 km of railways, and 13,513 airports.
As such, highways represent the overwhelming majority of transportation
facilities described by this factor in the AHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ The variable was known as ``ETRANS'' in the questions
about the neighborhood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also conducted a recent study to estimate the number of people
living near truck freight routes in the United States.\209\ Based on a
population analysis using the U.S. Department of Transportation's
(USDOT) Freight Analysis Framework 4 (FAF4) and population data from
the 2010 decennial census, an estimated 72 million people live within
200 meters of these freight routes.\210\ In addition, relative to the
rest of the population, people of color and those with lower incomes
are more likely to live near FAF4 truck routes. They are also more
likely to live in metropolitan areas. Past work has also shown that, 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.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\209\ U.S. EPA (2021). Estimation of Population Size and
Demographic Characteristics among People Living Near Truck Routes in
the Conterminous United States. Memorandum to the Docket.
\210\ FAF4 is a model from the USDOT's Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which
provides data associated with freight movement in the U.S. It
includes data from the 2012 Commodity Flow Survey (CFS), the Census
Bureau on international trade, as well as data associated with
construction, agriculture, utilities, warehouses, and other
industries. FAF4 estimates the modal choices for moving goods by
trucks, trains, boats, and other types of freight modes. It includes
traffic assignments, including truck flows on a network of truck
routes. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/.
\211\ EPA. (2011) Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition.
Chapter 16. [Online at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/efh-chapter16.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. It directs federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make achieving 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 defines environmental justice as
the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless
of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ Fair treatment means that ``no group of people should bear
a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the negative environmental
consequences of industrial, governmental and commercial operations
or programs and policies.'' Meaningful involvement occurs when ``(1)
potentially affected populations have an appropriate opportunity to
participate in decisions about a proposed activity [e.g.,
rulemaking] that will affect their environment and/or health; (2)
the public's contribution can influence [the EPA's rulemaking]
decision; (3) the concerns of all participants involved will be
considered in the decision-making process; and (4) [the EPA will]
seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially
affected.'' A potential EJ concern is defined as ``the actual or
potential lack of fair treatment or meaningful involvement of
minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous
peoples in the development, implementation and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations and policies.'' See ``Guidance on
Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of a
Regulatory Action.'' Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/guidance-considering-environmental-justice-during-development-action. See also https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 7619, February 1, 2021) also calls on
federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their
respective missions ``by developing programs, policies, and activities
to address the disproportionately high and adverse human health,
environmental, climate-related and other cumulative impacts on
disadvantaged communities, as well as the accompanying economic
challenges of such impacts.'' It declares a policy ``to secure
environmental justice and spur economic opportunity for disadvantaged
communities that have been historically marginalized and overburdened
by pollution and under-investment in housing, transportation, water and
wastewater infrastructure and health care.''
Under Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 18, 2011), federal
agencies may consider equity, human dignity, fairness, and
distributional considerations in their regulatory analyses, where
appropriate and permitted by law.
[[Page 17452]]
EPA's 2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice
in Regulatory Analysis'' provides recommendations on conducting the
highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing that data limitations,
time and resource constraints, and analytic challenges will vary by
media and regulatory context.\213\ When assessing the potential for
disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental impacts of
regulatory actions on minority populations, low-income populations,
Tribes, and/or indigenous peoples, the EPA strives to answer three
broad questions: (1) Is there evidence of potential environmental
justice (EJ) concerns in the baseline (the state of the world absent
the regulatory action)? Assessing the baseline will allow the EPA to
determine whether pre-existing disparities are associated with the
pollutant(s) under consideration (e.g., if the effects of the
pollutant(s) are more concentrated in some population groups). (2) Is
there evidence of potential EJ concerns for the regulatory option(s)
under consideration? Specifically, how are the pollutant(s) and its
effects distributed for the regulatory options under consideration?
And, (3) do the regulatory option(s) under consideration exacerbate or
mitigate EJ concerns relative to the baseline? It is not always
possible to quantitatively assess these questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice
in Regulatory Analysis.'' Epa.gov, Environmental Protection Agency,
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/ejtg_5_6_16_v5.1.pdf. (June 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2016 Technical Guidance does not prescribe or recommend a
specific approach or methodology for conducting an environmental
justice analysis, though a key consideration is consistency with the
assumptions underlying other parts of the regulatory analysis when
evaluating the baseline and regulatory options. Where applicable and
practicable, the Agency endeavors to conduct such an analysis. EPA is
committed to conducting environmental justice analysis for rulemakings
based on a framework similar to what is outlined in EPA's Technical
Guidance, in addition to investigating ways to further weave
environmental justice into the fabric of the rulemaking process.
EPA seeks to ensure that no group of people faces a
disproportionate burden of exposure to mobile-source pollution. In
general, we expect reduced tailpipe emissions of NOX from
heavy-duty diesel engines and reduced tailpipe emissions of
NOX, CO, PM, and VOCs from heavy-duty gasoline engines. See
Section VI.B for more detail on the emissions reductions from this
proposal.
There is evidence that communities with EJ concerns are
disproportionately impacted by the emissions associated with this
proposal.\214\ Numerous studies have found that environmental hazards
such as air pollution are more prevalent in areas where people of color
and low-income populations represent a higher fraction of the
population compared with the general population.215 216 217
Consistent with this evidence, a recent study found that most
anthropogenic sources of PM2.5, including industrial sources
and light- and heavy-duty vehicle sources, disproportionately affect
people of color.\218\ In addition, compared to non-Hispanic Whites,
some minorities experience greater levels of health problems during
some life stages. For example, in 2017-2019, about 14 percent of Black,
non-Hispanic and 8 percent of Hispanic children were estimated to
currently have asthma, compared with 6 percent of White, non-Hispanic
children.\219\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\214\ Mohai, P.; Pellow, D.; Roberts Timmons, J. (2009)
Environmental justice. Annual Reviews 34: 405-430. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-082508-094348.
\215\ Rowangould, G.M. (2013) A census of the near-roadway
population: public health and environmental justice considerations.
Trans Res D 25: 59-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.08.003.
\216\ Marshall, J.D., Swor, K.R.; Nguyen, N.P (2014)
Prioritizing environmental justice and equality: diesel emissions in
Southern California. Environ Sci Technol 48: 4063-4068. https://doi.org/10.1021/es405167f.
\217\ Marshall, J.D. (2008) Environmental inequality: air
pollution exposures in California's South Coast Air Basin. Atmos
Environ 21: 5499-5503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.02.005.
\218\ C. W. Tessum, D. A. Paolella, S. E. Chambliss, J. S. Apte,
J. D. Hill, J. D. Marshall, PM2.5 polluters
disproportionately and systemically affect people of color in the
United States. Sci. Adv. 7, eabf4491 (2021).
\219\ http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/most_recent_data.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section II.B.7 of this document, concentrations of
many air pollutants are elevated near high-traffic roadways. In
addition, numerous state and local commenters on the ANPR noted that
truck trips frequently start and end around goods movement facilities
including marine ports and warehouses, making consideration of truck
emissions an important element of addressing air quality experienced by
populations living near those facilities.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\220\ New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(2019) Albany South End Community Air Quality Study. Division of Air
Resources. [Online at https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/108978.html].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We conducted an analysis of the populations living in close
proximity to truck freight routes as identified in USDOT's Freight
Analysis Framework 4 (FAF4).\221\ FAF4 is a model from the USDOT's
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), which provides data associated with freight
movement in the U.S.\222\ Relative to the rest of the population,
people living near FAF4 truck routes are more likely to be people of
color and have lower incomes than the general population. People living
near FAF4 truck routes are also more likely to live in metropolitan
areas. Even controlling for region of the country, county
characteristics, population density, and household structure, race,
ethnicity, and income are significant determinants of whether someone
lives near a FAF4 truck route.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ U.S. EPA (2021). Estimation of Population Size and
Demographic Characteristics among People Living Near Truck Routes in
the Conterminous United States. Memorandum to the Docket.
\222\ FAF4 includes data from the 2012 Commodity Flow Survey
(CFS), the Census Bureau on international trade, as well as data
associated with construction, agriculture, utilities, warehouses,
and other industries. FAF4 estimates the modal choices for moving
goods by trucks, trains, boats, and other types of freight modes. It
includes traffic assignments, including truck flows on a network of
truck routes. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also reviewed existing scholarly literature examining the
potential for disproportionate exposure among people of color and
people with low socioeconomic status (SES), and we 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. Numerous studies evaluating
the demographics and socioeconomic status of populations or schools
near roadways have found that they include a greater percentage of
residents of color, as well as lower SES populations (as 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
[[Page 17453]]
State of California.223 224 225 226 227 228 Such disparities
may be due to multiple factors.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\ Marshall, J.D. (2008) Environmental inequality: Air
pollution exposures in California's South Coast Air Basin.
\224\ 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
\225\ 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
\226\ Green, R.S.; Smorodinsky, S.; Kim, J.J.; McLaughlin, R.;
Ostro, B. (2004) Proximity of California public schools to busy
roads. Environ Health Perspect 112: 61-66. doi:10.1289/ehp.6566
\227\ 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
\228\ 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.
\229\ Depro, B.; Timmins, C. (2008) Mobility and environmental
equity: Do housing choices determine exposure to air pollution? Duke
University Working Paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
pollution.230 231 232 233
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ 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
\231\ 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
\232\ 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.
\233\ 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several publications report nationwide analyses that compare the
demographic patterns of people who do or do not live near major
roadways.234 235 236 237 238 239 Three of these studies
found that people living near major roadways are more likely to be
minorities or low in SES.240 241 242 They also found that
the outcomes of their analyses varied between regions within the U.S.
However, only one such study looked at whether such conclusions were
confounded by living in a location with higher population density and
how demographics differ between locations nationwide.\243\ In general,
it found that higher density areas have higher proportions of low-
income residents and people of color. In other publications based on a
city, county, or state, the results are similar.244 245
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\234\ Rowangould, G.M. (2013) A census of the U.S. near-roadway
population: Public health and environmental justice considerations.
Transportation Research Part D; 59-67.
\235\ Tian, N.; Xue, J.; Barzyk, T.M. (2013) Evaluating
socioeconomic and racial differences in traffic-related metrics in
the United States using a GIS approach. J Exposure Sci Environ
Epidemiol 23: 215-222.
\236\ CDC (2013) Residential proximity to major highways--United
States, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 62(3): 46-50.
\237\ Clark, L.P.; Millet, D.B., Marshall, J.D. (2017) Changes
in transportation-related air pollution exposures by race-ethnicity
and socioeconomic status: Outdoor nitrogen dioxide in the United
States in 2000 and 2010. Environ Health Perspect https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP959.
\238\ Mikati, I.; Benson, A.F.; Luben, T.J.; Sacks, J.D.;
Richmond-Bryant, J. (2018) Disparities in distribution of
particulate matter emission sources by race and poverty status. Am J
Pub Health https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304297?journalCode=ajph.
\239\ Alotaibi, R.; Bechle, M.; Marshall, J.D.; Ramani, T.;
Zietsman, J.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Khreis, H. (2019) Traffic
related air pollution and the burden of childhood asthma in the
continuous United States in 2000 and 2010. Environ International
127: 858-867. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018325388.
\240\ Tian, N.; Xue, J.; Barzyk, T.M. (2013) Evaluating
socioeconomic and racial differences in traffic-related metrics in
the United States using a GIS approach. J Exposure Sci Environ
Epidemiol 23: 215-222.
\241\ Rowangould, G.M. (2013) A census of the U.S. near-roadway
population: Public health and environmental justice considerations.
Transportation Research Part D; 59-67.
\242\ CDC (2013) Residential proximity to major highways--United
States, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 62(3): 46-50.
\243\ Rowangould, G.M. (2013) A census of the U.S. near-roadway
population: Public health and environmental justice considerations.
Transportation Research Part D; 59-67.
\244\ Pratt, G.C.; Vadali, M.L.; Kvale, D.L.; Ellickson, K.M.
(2015) Traffic, air pollution, minority, and socio-economic status:
Addressing inequities in exposure and risk. Int J Environ Res Public
Health 12: 5355-5372. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120505355.
\245\ Sohrabi, S.; Zietsman, J.; Khreis, H. (2020) Burden of
disease assessment of ambient air pollution and premature mortality
in urban areas: The role of socioeconomic status and transportation.
Int J Env Res Public Health doi:10.3390/ijerph17041166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We analyzed two national databases that allowed us to evaluate
whether homes and schools were located near a major road and whether
disparities in exposure may be occurring in these environments. The
American Housing Survey (AHS) includes descriptive statistics of over
70,000 housing units across the nation. The survey is conducted every
two years by the U.S. Census Bureau.\246\ 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.\247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\246\ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, & U.S.
Census Bureau. (n.d.). Age of other residential buildings within 300
feet. In American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009 (pp. A-
1). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/2009/ahs-2009-summary-tables0/h150-09.html.
\247\ http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In analyzing the 2009 AHS, we focused on whether a housing unit was
located within 300 feet, the distance provided in the AHS data, of a
``4-or-more lane highway, railroad, or airport.'' \248\ We analyzed
whether there were differences between households in such locations
compared with those in locations farther from these transportation
facilities.\249\ We included other variables, such as land use
category, region of country, and housing type. We found that homes with
a non-White householder were 22-34 percent more likely to be located
within 300 feet of these large transportation facilities than homes
with White householders. Homes with a Hispanic householder were 17-33
percent more likely to be located within 300 feet of these large
transportation facilities than homes with non-Hispanic householders.
Households near large transportation facilities were, on average, lower
in income and educational attainment and more likely to be a rental
property and located in an urban area compared with households more
distant from transportation facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\248\ 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 of roadways, 224,792 km of
railways, and 15,079 airports. Highways thus represent the
overwhelming majority of transportation facilities described by this
factor in the AHS.
\249\ 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.\250\ To determine school proximities to
major
[[Page 17454]]
roadways, we used a geographic information system (GIS) to map each
school and roadways based on the U.S. Census's TIGER roadway file.\251\
We found that students of color were overrepresented at schools within
200 meters of the largest roadways, and schools within 200 meters of
the largest roadways had higher than expected numbers of students
eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.\252\ For example, Black
students represent 22 percent of students at schools located within 200
meters of a primary road, compared to 17 percent of students in all
U.S. schools. Hispanic students represent 30 percent of students at
schools located within 200 meters of a primary road, compared to 22
percent of students in all U.S. schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.
\251\ Pedde, M.; Bailey, C. (2011) Identification of Schools
within 200 Meters of U.S. Primary and Secondary Roads. Memorandum to
the docket.
\252\ For this analysis we analyzed a 200-meter distance based
on the understanding that roadways generally influence air quality
within a few hundred meters from the vicinity of heavily traveled
roadways or along corridors with significant trucking traffic. See
U.S. EPA, 2014. Near Roadway Air Pollution and Health: Frequently
Asked Questions. EPA-420-F-14-044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, there is substantial evidence that people who live or
attend school near major roadways are more likely to be of a non-White
race, Hispanic, and/or have a low SES. Although proximity to an
emissions source is an indicator of potential exposure, it is important
to note that the impacts of emissions from tailpipe sources are not
limited to communities in close proximity to these sources. For
example, the effects of potential decreases in emissions from sources
that would be affected by this proposal might also be felt many miles
away, including in communities with EJ concerns. The spatial extent of
these impacts depends on a range of interacting and complex factors
including the amount of pollutant emitted, atmospheric lifetime of the
pollutant, terrain, atmospheric chemistry and meteorology.
We also conducted an analysis of how the air quality impacts from
this proposed rule would be distributed among different populations,
specifically focusing on PM2.5 and ozone concentrations in
the contiguous U.S. This analysis assessed whether areas with the worst
projected baseline air quality in 2045 have larger numbers of people of
color living in them, and if those with the worst projected air quality
would benefit more from the proposed rule. We found that in the 2045
baseline, nearly double the number of people of color live within areas
with the worst air quality, compared to non-Hispanic Whites (NH-
Whites). We also found that the largest improvements in both ozone and
PM2.5 are estimated to occur in these areas with the worst
baseline air quality. See Section VII.H for additional information on
the demographic analysis.
In summary, we expect this proposed rule would result in reductions
of emissions that contribute to ozone, PM2.5, and other
harmful pollution. The emission reductions from this proposed rule
would result in widespread air quality improvements, including in the
areas with the worst baseline air quality, where a larger number of
people of color are projected to reside.
C. Environmental Effects Associated With Exposure to Pollutants
Impacted by This Proposal
This section discusses the environmental effects associated with
pollutants affected by this proposed rule, specifically particulate
matter, ozone, NOX and air toxics.
1. Visibility
Visibility can be defined as the degree to which the atmosphere is
transparent to visible light.\253\ Visibility impairment is caused by
light scattering and absorption by suspended particles and gases. It is
dominated by contributions from suspended particles except under
pristine conditions. 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 2019 PM
ISA.\254\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\253\ 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 website at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/2097/protecting-visibility-in-national-parks-and-wilderness-areas.
\254\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is working to address visibility impairment. Reductions in air
pollution from implementation of various programs associated with the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 provisions have resulted in
substantial improvements in visibility and will continue to do so in
the future. Because trends in haze are closely associated with trends
in particulate sulfate and nitrate due to the relationship between
their concentration and light extinction, visibility trends have
improved as emissions of SO2 and NOX have
decreased over time due to air pollution regulations such as the Acid
Rain Program.\255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\255\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Congress recognized
visibility's value to society by establishing a national goal to
protect national parks and wilderness areas from visibility impairment
caused by manmade pollution.\256\ In 1999, EPA finalized the regional
haze program to protect the visibility in Mandatory Class I Federal
areas.\257\ There are 156 national parks, forests and wilderness areas
categorized as Mandatory Class I Federal areas.\258\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ See Section 169(a) of the Clean Air Act.
\257\ 64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999.
\258\ 62 FR 38680-38681, July 18, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has also concluded that PM2.5 causes adverse effects
on visibility in other areas that are not targeted by the Regional Haze
Rule, such as urban areas, depending on PM2.5 concentrations
and other factors such as dry chemical composition and relative
humidity (i.e., an indicator of the water composition of the
particles). EPA revised the PM2.5 NAAQS in 2012, retained it
in 2020, and established a target level of protection that is expected
to be met through attainment of the existing secondary standards for
PM2.5.\259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\ On June 10, 2021, EPA announced that it will reconsider
the previous administration's decision to retain the PM NAAQS.
https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-pm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Plant and Ecosystem Effects of Ozone
The welfare effects of ozone include effects on ecosystems, which
can be observed across a variety of scales, i.e., subcellular,
cellular, leaf, whole plant, population and ecosystem. Ozone effects
that begin at small spatial scales, such as the leaf of an individual
plant, when they occur at sufficient magnitudes (or to a sufficient
degree) can result in effects being propagated along a continuum to
higher and higher levels of biological organization. For example,
effects at the individual plant level, such as altered rates of leaf
gas exchange, growth and reproduction,
[[Page 17455]]
can, when widespread, result in broad changes in ecosystems, such as
productivity, carbon storage, water cycling, nutrient cycling, and
community composition.
Ozone can produce both acute and chronic injury in sensitive plant
species depending on the concentration level and the duration of the
exposure.\260\ In those sensitive species,\261\ effects from repeated
exposure to ozone throughout the growing season of the plant can tend
to accumulate, so that even relatively low concentrations experienced
for a longer duration have the potential to create chronic stress on
vegetation.262 263 Ozone damage to sensitive plant species
includes impaired photosynthesis and visible injury to leaves. The
impairment of photosynthesis, the process by which the plant makes
carbohydrates (its source of energy and food), can lead to reduced crop
yields, timber production, and plant productivity and growth. Impaired
photosynthesis can also lead to a reduction in root growth and
carbohydrate storage below ground, resulting in other, more subtle
plant and ecosystems impacts.\264\ 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 areas with sensitive species could
potentially lead to species shifts and loss from the affected
ecosystems,\265\ resulting in a loss or reduction in associated
ecosystem goods and services. Additionally, 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 and
reduced use of sensitive ornamentals in landscaping.\266\ In addition
to ozone effects on vegetation, newer evidence suggests that ozone
affects interactions between plants and insects by altering chemical
signals (e.g., floral scents) that plants use to communicate to other
community members, such as attraction of pollinators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\260\ 73 FR 16486, March 27, 2008.
\261\ 73 FR 16491, March 27, 2008. Only a small percentage of
all the plant species growing within the U.S. (over 43,000 species
have been catalogued in the USDA PLANTS database) have been studied
with respect to ozone sensitivity.
\262\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Ozone
and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/012,
2020.
\263\ The concentration at which ozone levels overwhelm a
plant's ability to detoxify or compensate for oxidant exposure
varies. Thus, whether a plant is classified as sensitive or tolerant
depends in part on the exposure levels being considered.
\264\ 73 FR 16492, March 27, 2008.
\265\ 73 FR 16493-16494, March 27, 2008. Ozone impacts could be
occurring in areas where plant species sensitive to ozone have not
yet been studied or identified.
\266\ 73 FR 16490-16497, March 27, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ozone ISA presents more detailed information on how ozone
affects vegetation and ecosystems.267 268 The Ozone ISA
reports causal and likely causal relationships between ozone exposure
and a number of welfare effects and characterizes the weight of
evidence for different effects associated with ozone.\269\ The ISA
concludes that visible foliar injury effects on vegetation, reduced
vegetation growth, reduced plant reproduction, reduced productivity in
terrestrial ecosystems, reduced yield and quality of agricultural
crops, alteration of below-ground biogeochemical cycles, and altered
terrestrial community composition are causally associated with exposure
to ozone. It also concludes that increased tree mortality, altered
herbivore growth and reproduction, altered plant-insect signaling,
reduced carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems, and alteration
of terrestrial ecosystem water cycling are likely to be causally
associated with exposure to ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\267\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Ozone
and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/012,
2020.
\268\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Ozone
and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/012,
2020.
\269\ The Ozone ISA evaluates the evidence associated with
different ozone related health and welfare 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 more information on these
levels of evidence, please refer to Table II of the ISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Atmospheric Deposition
The Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of
Sulfur, and Particulate Matter--Ecological Criteria documents the
ecological effects of the deposition of these criteria air
pollutants.\270\ It is clear from the body of evidence that oxides of
nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, and particulate matter contribute to total
nitrogen (N) and sulfur (S) deposition. In turn, N and S deposition
cause either nutrient enrichment or acidification depending on the
sensitivity of the landscape or the species in question. Both
enrichment and acidification are characterized by an alteration of the
biogeochemistry and the physiology of organisms, resulting in harmful
declines in biodiversity in terrestrial, freshwater, wetland, and
estuarine ecosystems in the U.S. Decreases in biodiversity mean that
some species become relatively less abundant and may be locally
extirpated. In addition to the loss of unique living species, the
decline in total biodiversity can be harmful because biodiversity is an
important determinant of the stability of ecosystems and their ability
to provide socially valuable ecosystem services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\270\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Oxides
of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur and Particulate Matter Ecological
Criteria (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/278, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrestrial, wetland, freshwater, and estuarine ecosystems in the
U.S. are affected by N enrichment/eutrophication caused by N
deposition. These effects have been consistently documented across the
U.S. for hundreds of species. 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 Chapter 4 of the draft RIA.
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 biodiversity of fishes, zooplankton
and macroinvertebrates 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 in forests
include a decline in sensitive tree species, such as red spruce (Picea
rubens) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum).
Building materials including metals, stones, cements, and paints
undergo natural weathering processes from exposure to environmental
elements (e.g., wind, moisture, temperature fluctuations, sunlight,
etc.). Pollution can worsen and accelerate these effects. Deposition of
PM is associated with both physical damage (materials damage effects)
and impaired aesthetic qualities (soiling effects). Wet and dry
deposition of PM can physically affect materials, adding to the effects
of natural weathering processes, by potentially promoting or
accelerating the corrosion of metals, by degrading paints and by
deteriorating building materials such as
[[Page 17456]]
stone, concrete and marble.\271\ The effects of PM are exacerbated by
the presence of acidic gases and can be additive or synergistic due to
the complex mixture of pollutants in the air and surface
characteristics of the material. Acidic deposition has been shown to
have an effect on materials including zinc/galvanized steel and other
metal, carbonate stone (as monuments and building facings), and surface
coatings (paints).\272\ The effects on historic buildings and outdoor
works of art are of particular concern because of the uniqueness and
irreplaceability of many of these objects. In addition to aesthetic and
functional effects on metals, stone and glass, altered energy
efficiency of photovoltaic panels by PM deposition is also becoming an
important consideration for impacts of air pollutants on materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\271\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
\272\ Irving, P.M., e.d. 1991. Acid Deposition: State of Science
and Technology, Volume III, Terrestrial, Materials, Health, and
Visibility Effects, The U.S. National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program, Chapter 24, page 24-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 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 (VOCs), some of which
are considered air toxics, have long been suspected to play a role in
vegetation damage.\273\ In laboratory experiments, a wide range of
tolerance to VOCs has been observed.\274\ 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.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\273\ U.S. EPA. (1991). Effects of organic chemicals in the
atmosphere on terrestrial plants. EPA/600/3-91/001.
\274\ 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.
\275\ 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.276 277 278 The impacts of
VOCs on plant reproduction may have long-term implications for
biodiversity and survival of native species near major roadways. Most
of the studies of the impacts of VOCs on vegetation have focused on
short-term exposure and few studies have focused on long-term effects
of VOCs on vegetation and the potential for metabolites of these
compounds to affect herbivores or insects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\276\ Viskari E.-L. (2000). Epicuticular wax of Norway spruce
needles as indicator of traffic pollutant deposition. Water, Air,
and Soil Pollut. 121:327-337.
\277\ Ugrekhelidze D, F Korte, G Kvesitadze. (1997). Uptake and
transformation of benzene and toluene by plant leaves. Ecotox.
Environ. Safety 37:24-29.
\278\ 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. Proposed Test Procedures and Standards
In applying heavy-duty criteria pollutant emission standards, EPA
divides engines primarily into two types: Compression ignition (CI)
(primarily diesel-fueled engines) and spark-ignition (SI) (primarily
gasoline-fueled engines). The CI standards and requirements also apply
to the largest natural gas engines. Battery-electric and fuel-cell
vehicles are also subject to criteria pollutant standards and
requirements. All heavy-duty highway engines are subject to brake-
specific (g/hp-hr) exhaust emission standards for four criteria
pollutants: Oxides of nitrogen (NOX), particulate matter
(PM), hydrocarbons (HC), and carbon monoxide (CO).\279\ In this section
we describe two regulatory options for new emissions standards:
Proposed Option 1 and proposed Option 2 and updates we are proposing to
the test procedures that apply for these pollutants. Unless explicitly
stated otherwise, the proposed provisions in this section and Section
IV would apply to proposed Options 1 and 2, as well as the full range
of options in between them.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\279\ Reference to hydrocarbon (HC) standards includes
nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC), nonmethane-nonethane hydrocarbon
(NMNEHC) and nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent (NMHCE). See 40 CFR
86.007-11.
\280\ As detailed throughout Sections III and IV, we provide
proposed regulatory text for the proposed Option 1. We expect that
the proposed Option 2 regulatory text would be the same as text for
the proposed Option 1 except for the number of steps and numeric
values of the criteria pollutant standards and lengths of useful
life and warranty periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Overview
In the following section, we provide an overview of our proposal to
migrate and update our criteria pollutant regulations for model year
2027 and later heavy-duty highway engines, our proposed Options 1 and 2
standards and test procedures, and our analysis demonstrating the
feasibility of the proposed standards. The sections that follow provide
more detail on each of these topics. Section III.B and Section III.D
include the proposed changes to our laboratory-based standards and test
procedures for heavy-duty compression-ignition and spark-ignition
engines, respectively. Section III.C introduces our proposed off-cycle
standards and test procedures that extend beyond the laboratory to on-
the-road, real-world conditions. Section III.E describes our proposal
for new refueling standards for certain heavy-duty spark-ignition
engines. Each of these sections include descriptions of the current
standards and test procedures and our proposed updates, including our
feasibility demonstrations and the data we relied on to support our
proposals.
1. Migration and Clarifications of Regulatory Text
As noted in Section I of this preamble, we are proposing to migrate
our criteria pollutant regulations for model year 2027 and later heavy-
duty highway engines from their current location in 40 CFR part 86,
subpart A, to 40 CFR part 1036.\281\ Consistent with this migration,
the proposed compliance provisions discussed in this section refer to
the proposed regulations in their new location in part 1036. In
general, this migration is not intended to change the compliance
program previously specified in part 86, except as specifically
proposed in this rulemaking. See our memorandum to the docket for a
detailed description of the proposed migration.\282\ The proposal
includes updating cross references to 40 CFR parts 86 and 1036 in
several places to properly cite the new rulemaking provisions in this
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ As noted in the following sections, we are proposing some
updates to 40 CFR parts 1037, 1065, and 1068 to apply to other
sectors in addition to heavy-duty highway engines.
\282\ Stout, Alan; Brakora, Jessica. Memorandum to docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055. ``Technical Issues Related to Migrating Heavy-Duty
Highway Engine Certification Requirements from 40 CFR part 86,
subpart A, to 40 CFR part 1036''. October 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Compression- and Spark-Ignition Engines Regulatory Text
For many years, the regulations of 40 CFR part 86 have referred to
``diesel
[[Page 17457]]
heavy-duty engines'' and ``Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines''; however, as
we migrate the heavy-duty provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, to
40 CFR part 1036 in this proposal, we refer to these engines as
``compression-ignition'' (CI) and ``spark-ignition'' (SI),
respectively, which are more comprehensive terms and consistent with
existing language in 40 CFR part 1037 for heavy-duty motor vehicle
regulations. In this section, and throughout the preamble, reference to
diesel and Otto-cycle engines is generally limited to discussions
relating to current test procedures and specific terminology used in 40
CFR part 86. We are also proposing to update the terminology for the
primary intended service classes in 40 CFR 1036.140 to replace Heavy
heavy-duty engine with Heavy HDE, Medium heavy-duty engine with Medium
HDE, Light heavy-duty engine with Light HDE, and Spark-ignition heavy-
duty engine with Spark-ignition HDE.\283\ Our proposal includes
revisions throughout 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037 to reflect this updated
terminology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\283\ This proposed terminology for engines is also consistent
with the ``HDV'' terminology used for vehicle classifications in 40
CFR 1037.140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Heavy-Duty Hybrid Regulatory Text
Similar to our updates to more comprehensive and consistent
terminology for CI and SI engines, as part of this proposal we are also
updating and clarifying regulatory language for hybrid engines and
hybrid powertrains. We propose to update the definition of ``engine
configuration'' in 40 CFR 1036.801 to clarify that an engine
configuration would include hybrid components if it is certified as a
hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain. We are proposing first to clarify
in 40 CFR 1036.101(b) that regulatory references in part 1036 to
engines generally apply to hybrid engines and hybrid powertrains. We
are also proposing to clarify in 40 CFR 1036.101(b) that manufacturers
may optionally test the hybrid engine and powertrain together, rather
than testing the engine alone; this option would allow manufacturers to
demonstrate emission performance of the hybrid technology that are not
apparent when testing the engine alone.
To certify a hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain to criteria
pollutant standards, we propose that manufacturers would declare a
primary intended service class of the engine configuration using the
proposed updated 40 CFR 1036.140. The current provisions of 40 CFR
1036.140 distinguish classes based on engine characteristics and
characteristics of the vehicles for which manufacturers intend to
design and market their engines. Under this proposal, manufacturers
certifying hybrid engines and hybrid powertrains would use good
engineering judgment to identify the class that best describes their
engine configuration.\284\ Once a primary intended service class is
declared, the engine configuration would be subject to all the criteria
pollutant emission standards and related compliance provisions for that
class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\284\ For example, an engine configuration that includes an SI
engine and hybrid powertrain intended for a Class 4 vehicle would
certify to the proposed Spark-ignition HDE provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to update 40 CFR 1036.230(c) to include hybrid
powertrains and are proposing that engine configurations certified as
hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain may not be included in an engine
family with conventional engines, consistent with the current
provisions. We note that this provision would result in more engine
families for manufacturers certifying hybrids. We request comment on
our proposed clarification in 40 CFR 1036.101(b) that manufacturers may
optionally test the hybrid engine and powertrain together, rather than
testing the engine alone. Specifically, we are interested in
stakeholder input on whether EPA should require all hybrid engines and
powertrains to be certified together, rather than making it optional.
We are interested in commenters' views on the impact of additional
engine/powertrain families if we were to require powertrain testing for
all hybrid engine and powertrain engine configurations, including a
manufacturers' ability to conduct certification testing and any
recommended steps EPA should take to address such effects. We are also
interested in commenters' views on whether the powertrain test always
provides test results that are more representative of hybrid emission
performance in the real world, or if for some hybrid systems the engine
test procedure provides equally or more representative results. For
instance, we solicit comment on whether for some hybrids, such as mild-
hybrids, the powertrain test should continue to be an option, even if
we were to require that all other hybrids must use the powertrain test.
We are also interested in stakeholder input on potential
alternative approaches, such as if EPA were to add new, separate
service classes for hybrid engines and powertrains in the final rule.
Distinct service classes for hybrid engines and powertrains could allow
EPA to consider separate emission standards, useful life, and/or test
procedures for hybrids based on unique performance attributes; however,
it could also add burden to EPA and manufacturers by creating
additional categories to track and maintain. We request that commenters
suggesting separate primary intended service classes for hybrid engines
and powertrains include data, if possible, to support an analysis of
appropriate corresponding emission standards, useful life periods, and
other compliance requirements.
iii. Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles Regulatory Text
Similar to our updates to more comprehensive and consistent
terminology, as part of this proposal we are also updating and
consolidating regulatory language for battery-electric vehicles and
fuel cell electric vehicles (BEVs and FCEVs). For BEVs and FCEVs, we
are proposing to consolidate and update our regulations as part of a
migration of heavy-duty vehicle regulations from 40 CFR part 86 to 40
CFR part 1037. In the GHG Phase 1 rulemaking, EPA revised the heavy-
duty vehicle and engine regulations to make them consistent with our
regulatory approach to electric vehicles (EVs) under the light-duty
vehicle program. Specifically, we applied standards for all regulated
criteria pollutants and GHGs to all heavy-duty vehicle types, including
EVs.\285\ Starting in MY 2016, criteria pollutant standards and
requirements applicable to heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000
pounds GVWR in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, applied to heavy-duty EVs
above 14,000 pounds GVWR through the use of good engineering judgment
(see current 40 CFR 86.016-1(d)(4)). Under the current 40 CFR 86.016-
1(d)(4), heavy-duty vehicles powered solely by electricity are deemed
to have zero emissions of regulated pollutants; this provision also
provides that heavy-duty EVs may not generate NOX or PM
emission credits. Additionally, part 1037 applies to heavy-duty EVs
above 14,000 pounds GVWR (see current 40 CFR 1037.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ 76 FR 57106, September 15, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this rulemaking, we are proposing to consolidate certification
requirements for BEVs and FCEVs over 14,000 pounds GVWR in 40 CFR part
1037 such that manufacturers of BEVs and FCEVs over 14,000 pounds GVWR
would certify to meeting the emission standards and requirements of
part 1037, as provided
[[Page 17458]]
in the current 40 CFR 1037.1.\286\ In the proposed 40 CFR 1037.102(b),
we clarify that BEVs and FCEVs are subject to criteria pollutant
standards as follows: Prior to MY 2027, the emission standards under
the current 40 CFR 86.007-11 would apply, while the emission standards
under the proposed 40 CFR 1036.104 would apply starting in MY 2027. As
specified in the proposed 40 CFR 1037.205(q), starting in MY 2027, BEV
and FCEV manufacturers could choose to attest that vehicles comply with
the standards of 40 CFR 1037.102 instead of submitting test data.\287\
As discussed in Section IV.I, we are proposing in 40 CFR 1037.616 that,
starting in MY 2024, manufacturers may choose to generate
NOX emission credits from BEVs and FCEVs if the vehicle
meets durability requirements described in proposed 40 CFR
1037.102(b)(3).\288\ Manufacturers choosing to generate NOX
emission credits under proposed 40 CFR 1037.616 may attest to meeting
durability requirements while also submitting test results required for
calculating NOX emission credits and quantifying initial
battery or fuel cell performance.289 290 We are proposing to
continue to not to allow heavy-duty EVs to generate PM emission credits
since we are proposing not to allow any manufacturer to generate PM
emission credits for use in MY 2027 and later under the proposed
averaging, banking, and trading program presented in Section IV.G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\286\ Manufacturers of battery-electric and fuel cell electric
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR would continue complying
with the standards and requirements in CFR 40 part 86, subpart S,
instead of the requirements in 40 CFR 1037.
\287\ Prior to MY 2027, BEVs or FCEVs that are not used to
generate NOX emission credits would continue to be deemed
to have zero tailpipe emissions of criteria pollutants, as specified
in current 40 CFR 86.016-1(d)(4). See Section IV.I and the proposed
40 CFR 1037.205(q)(2) for information relevant to manufacturers
choosing to generate NOX emission credits from BEVs and
FCEVs starting in MY 2024.
\288\ Our proposal for how manufacturers could generate
NOX emissions credits from BEVs and FCEVs would be
available under any of the regulatory options that we are
considering for revised NOX standards (see Section IV.I
for details and requests for comments on this topic).
\289\ As provided in the current 40 CFR 1037.150(f), no
CO2-related emission testing is required for electric
vehicles and manufacturers would continue to use good engineering
judgment to apply other requirements of 40 CFR 1037.
\290\ See the proposed 40 CFR 1037.205(q) for information
required in a certification application for BEVs or FCEVs; Section
III.B.2.v.c includes additional discussion on proposed test
procedures for BEVs and FCEVs, with details included in 40 CFR
1037.552 or 40 CFR 1037.554 for BEVs or FCEVs, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Proposed Numeric Standards and Test Procedures for Compression-
Ignition and Spark-Ignition Engines
EPA is proposing new NOX, PM, HC, and CO emission
standards for heavy-duty engines that will be certified under 40 CFR
part 1036.291 292 As noted in the introduction to this
preamble, the highway heavy-duty vehicle market is largely segmented in
that a majority of the lightest weight class vehicles are powered by
gasoline-fueled spark-ignition engines and most of the heaviest weight
class vehicles are powered by diesel-fueled compression-ignition
engines. There is significant overlap in the engines installed in Class
4-6 applications.\293\ Considering the interchangeable nature of these
middle range vehicles, we have designed our proposed program options so
that, regardless of what the market chooses (e.g., gasoline- or diesel-
fueled engines), similar emission reductions would be realized over
their expected operational lives. We believe it is appropriate to
propose standards that are numerically fuel neutral yet account for the
fundamental differences between CI and SI engines.\294\ We believe this
proposed approach would result in roughly equivalent implementation
burdens for manufacturers. As described in this section, the proposed
Options 1 and 2 NOX and PM standards are based on test data
from our CI engine feasibility demonstration program. We also find that
they are feasible for SI engines based on currently available
technologies and we are adopting them for SI engines to maintain fuel
neutral standards. The proposed Options 1 and 2 HC and CO standards are
based on HD SI engine emission performance. We also find that they are
feasible for CI engines based on currently available technologies and
we are adopting them for CI engines to maintain fuel neutral standards.
We have not relied on the use of HEV, BEV, or FCEV technologies in the
development of our proposed Options 1 and 2 or the Alternative
standards; however, as discussed in Section IV, we are proposing to
allow these technologies to generate NOX emission credits as
a flexibility for manufacturers to spread out their investment and
prioritize technology adoption to the applications that make the most
sense for their businesses during their transition to meeting the
proposed more stringent standards (see Sections IV.G, IV.H, and, IV.I
for details on our proposed approach to NOX emission
credits). We do not expect that current market penetration of BEVs
(0.06 percent in MY 2019) or projected penetration rate in the MY 2027
timeframe (1.5 percent) would meaningfully impact our analysis for
developing the numeric level of the proposed Options 1 and 2 standards;
\295\ however, as noted in III.B.5, we are requesting comment on
whether to include HEV, BEV, and/or FCEV technologies in our
feasibility analysis for the final rule and may re-evaluate our
approach, especially if we receive information showing higher BEV/FCEV
market penetration in the MY 2027 or later timeframe.\296\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\291\ See proposed 40 CFR 1036.104.
\292\ We are proposing to migrate the current alternate
standards available for engines used in certain specialty vehicles
from 40 CFR 86.007-11 and 86.008-10 into 40 CFR 1036.605 without
modification, and are requesting comment on alternative options to
our proposal. See Section XII.B of this preamble for a discussion of
these standards and further details regarding our request for
comment.
\293\ The heavy-duty highway engines installed in vehicles with
a GVWR between 8,501 and 14,000 pounds (Class 2b and 3) that are not
chassis-certified, are subject to standards defined in 40 CFR
86.007-11 and 40 CFR 86.008-10. For CI engines this is only small
fraction of the Class 2b and 3 vehicles. For SI engines all Class 2b
and 3 gasoline-fueled vehicles are chassis-certified and would not
be affected by the proposals in this rulemaking.
\294\ Current emission controls for heavy-duty engines largely
target the emissions produced by the engine-specific combustion
process. The combustion process of diesel-fueled CI engines
inherently produces elevated NOX and PM that are
controlled by selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and diesel
particulate filter (DPF) technologies, while gasoline-fueled SI
engines are more likely to produce higher levels of HC and CO that
are controlled by three-way catalyst (TWC) technology. See Chapter 2
of the draft RIA for additional background on these emission control
technologies.
\295\ As discussed in IV.I, we are proposing that BEVs and FCEVs
can generate NOX credits that reflect the zero tailpipe
emission performance of these technologies; however, the value of
the NOX emission credits for BEVs and FCEVs relative to
the difference in the proposed versus current NOX
emission standards results in larger numbers of BEVs or FCEVs being
needed to offset the projected improvement in NOX
emission control from CI or SI engines relative to the number of
BEVs or FCEVs needed to offset the projected improvement in
CO2 emission control. This difference in the magnitude of
potential impact from BEVs or FCEVs on NOX versus
CO2 emission standards is further amplified by the
advanced technology emission credit multipliers included the HD GHG
Phase 2 program, which we are choosing not to propose for
NOX emission credits. In addition to this, we are
proposing an FEL for cap for NOX emissions that would
require all engines to certify below the current NOX
emission standard.
\296\ See Preamble XI for more discussion on BEV/FCEV market
projections and our proposal to account for them in revised HD GHG
Phase 2 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine manufacturers historically have demonstrated compliance with
EPA emission standards by measuring emissions while the engine is
operating over precisely defined duty cycles in an emissions testing
laboratory. The primary advantage of this approach is that it provides
very repeatable emission
[[Page 17459]]
measurements. In other words, the results should be the same no matter
when or where the test is performed, as long as the specified test
procedures are used. We continue to consider pre-production laboratory
engine testing (and durability demonstrations) as the cornerstone of
ensuring in-use emission standards compliance. However, tying each
emission standard to a specific, defined test cycle leaves open the
possibility of emission controls being designed more to the limited
conditions of the test procedures than to the full range of in-use
operation. Since 2004, we have applied additional off-cycle standards
for diesel engines that allow higher emission levels but are not
limited to a specific duty cycle, and instead measure emissions over
real-world, non-prescribed driving routes that cover a range of in-use
operation.\297\ Our proposal includes new and updated heavy-duty engine
test procedures and standards, both for duty cycle standards to be
tested in an emissions testing laboratory and for off-cycle standards
that can be tested on the road in real-world conditions, as described
in the following sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\297\ As discussed in Section IV.K, EPA regulations provide for
testing engines at various stages in the life of an engine; duty
cycle or off-cycle procedures may be used pre- or post-production to
verify that the engine meets applicable duty cycle or off-cycle
emission standards throughout useful life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Implementation of Proposed Program
As discussed in this section, we have evaluated the proposed
standards in terms of technological feasibility, lead time, stability,
cost, energy, and safety, consistent with the requirements in CAA
section 202(a)(3). We are proposing standards based on our CI and SI
engine feasibility demonstration programs, with Option 1 standards in
two steps for MY 2027 and MY 2031 and Option 2 standards in one step
starting in MY 2027. Our evaluation of available data shows that the
standards and useful life periods in both steps of proposed Option 1
are feasible and would result in the greatest emission reductions
achievable for the model years to which they are proposed to apply,
pursuant to CAA section 202(a)(3), giving appropriate consideration to
cost, lead time, and other factors. Our analysis further shows that the
standards and useful life periods in proposed Option 2 are feasible in
the 2027 model year, but would result in lower levels of emission
reductions compared to proposed Option 1. As explained further in this
section and Chapter 3 of the draft RIA, we expect that additional data
from EPA's ongoing work to demonstrate the performance of emission
control technologies, as well as information received in public
comments, will allow us to refine our assessments and consideration of
the feasibility of the combination of the standards and useful life
periods, particularly for the largest CI engines (HHDEs), in proposed
Options 1 and 2, after consideration of lead time, costs, and other
factors. Therefore, we are co-proposing Options 1 and 2 standards and
useful life periods, and the range of options in between them, as the
options that may potentially be appropriate to finalize pursuant to CAA
section 202(a)(3) once EPA has considered that additional data and
other information.
We are proposing MY 2027 as the first implementation year for both
options to align with the final step of the HD GHG Phase 2 standards,
which would provide at least four years of lead time from a final
rulemaking in 2022. As discussed in Section I and detailed in this
section, the four-year lead time for the proposed criteria pollutant
standards allows manufacturers to develop and apply the emission
control technologies needed to meet the proposed standards, and to
ensure those technologies will be durable for the proposed longer
useful life periods; four years of lead time is also consistent with
the CAA requirements.
In the event that manufacturers start production of some engine
families sooner than four years from our final rule, we are proposing
an option to split the 2027 model year.\298\ Specifically, we are
proposing that a MY 2027 engine family that starts production within
four years of the final rule could comply with the proposed MY 2027
standards for all engines produced for that engine family in MY2027 or
could split the engine family by production date in MY 2027 such that
engines in the family produced prior to four years after the final rule
would continue to be subject to the existing standards.\299\ This
proposed option to split the first model year provides assurance that
all manufacturers, regardless of when they start production of their
engine families, will have four years of lead time to the proposed
first implementation step in MY 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\298\ We are proposing an option to split the 2027 model year
for new MY 2027 criteria pollutant standards under any regulatory
option with such standards in MY 2027 that EPA may adopt for the
final rule.
\299\ See 40 CFR 86.007-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Option 1, the phased implementation would also provide four
years of stability before increasing stringency again in MY 2031.
Through comments received on our ANPR, we have heard from manufacturers
that given the challenge of implementing the third step of the HD GHG
rules in MY 2027, they believe it would take closer to four years to
adequately fine-tune and validate their products for a second step of
more stringent criteria pollutant control that also extends useful
life.\300\ In response to this concern, and the general request by
suppliers and environmental stakeholders for a nationally aligned
criteria pollutant program, we are proposing MY 2031 for the final step
of the proposed Option 1 standards to provide four additional years for
manufacturers to design and build engines that will meet the proposed
second step of the Option 1 standards and associated compliance
provisions.\301\ A MY 2031 final step would also align with the
Omnibus.\302\ We request comment on the general approach of a two-step
versus one-step program, and the advantages or disadvantages of the
proposed Option 1 two-step approach that EPA should consider in
developing the final rule. For instance, we seek commenters' views on
whether the Agency should adopt a first step of standards but defer any
second step of standards to a planned future rulemaking on heavy-duty
GHG emissions instead of adopting a second step of standards in this
rulemaking.\303\ We also request comment on whether there are
additional factors that we should consider when setting standards out
to the MY 2031 timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\300\ See comments from Volvo. Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
0463.
\301\ See comments from MECA, MEMA and Union of Concerned
Scientists. Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0463.
\302\ California Air Resources Board. Heavy-Duty Omnibus
Regulation. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox.
\303\ As noted in the Executive Summary and discussed in
Sections XI and XIII, this proposal is consistent with E.O. 14037,
which also directs EPA to consider undertaking a separate rulemaking
to establish new GHG emission standards for heavy-duty engines and
vehicles to begin as soon as MY 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in Section III.B.3, we have evaluated and considered
the costs of these technologies in our assessment of the proposed
Options 1 and 2 standards. The proposed Options 1 and 2 standards are
achievable without increasing the overall fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions of the engine for each of the duty cycles
(FTP, SET, and LLC) and the fuel mapping test procedures defined in 40
CFR 1036.535 and 1036.540, as discussed in the Chapter 3 of the draft
RIA.\304\ Finally,
[[Page 17460]]
the proposed Options 1 and 2 standards would have no negative impact on
safety, based on the existing use of these technologies in light-duty
vehicles and heavy-duty engines on the road today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\304\ The proposed ORVR requirements discussed in Section
III.E.2 would reduce fuel consumed from gasoline fuel engines, but
these fuel savings would not be measured on the duty cycles since
the test procedures for these tests measure tailpipe emissions and
do not measure emissions from refueling. We describe our estimate of
the fuel savings in Chapter 7.2.2 of the draft RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Summary of Proposed Compression-Ignition Exhaust Emission Standards
and Proposed Duty Cycle Test Procedures
1. Current Duty Cycle Test Procedures and Standards
Current criteria pollutant standards must be met by compression-
ignition engines over both the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) \305\ and
the Supplemental Emission Test (SET) duty cycles. The FTP duty cycles,
which date back to the 1970s, are composites of a cold-start and a hot-
start transient duty cycle designed to represent urban driving. There
are separate duty cycles for both SI and CI engines. The cold-start
emissions are weighted by one-seventh and the hot-start emissions are
weighted by six-sevenths.\306\ The SET is a more recent duty cycle for
diesel engines that is a continuous cycle with ramped transitions
between the thirteen steady-state modes.\307\ The SET does not include
engine starting and is intended to represent fully warmed-up operating
modes not emphasized in the FTP, such as more sustained high speeds and
loads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\305\ EPA specifies different FTP duty cycles for compression-
ignition and spark-ignition engines.
\306\ See 40 CFR 86.007-11 and 40 CFR 86.008-10.
\307\ See 40 CFR 86.1362.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission standards for criteria pollutants are currently set to the
same numeric value for FTP and SET test cycles. Manufacturers of
compression-ignition engines have the option to participate in our
averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program for NOX and PM
as discussed in Section IV.G.\308\ These pollutants are subject to
family emission limit (FEL) caps of 0.50 g/hp-hr for NOX and
0.02 g/hp-hr for PM.\309\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\308\ See 40 CFR 86.007-15.
\309\ See 40 CFR 86.007-11.
Table III-1--Current Diesel-Cycle Engine Standards Over the FTP and SET
Duty Cycles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX \a\ (g/hp-
hr) PM \b\ (g/hp-hr) HC (g/hp-hr) CO (g/hp-hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.20 0.01 0.14 15.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Engine families participating in the ABT program are subject to a
FEL cap of 0.50 g/hp-hr for NOX.
\b\ Engine families participating in the ABT program are subject to a
FEL cap of 0.02 g/hp-hr for PM.
EPA developed powertrain and hybrid powertrain test procedures for
the HD GHG Phase 2 Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas rulemaking (81 FR 73478,
October 25, 2016) with updates in the HD Technical Amendments rule (86
FR 34321, June 29, 2021).\310\ The powertrain and hybrid powertrain
tests allow manufacturers to directly measure the effectiveness of the
engine, the transmission, the axle and the integration of these
components as an input to the Greenhouse gas Emission Model (GEM) for
compliance with the greenhouse gas standards. As part of the technical
amendments, EPA allowed the powertrain test procedure to be used beyond
the current GEM drive cycles to include the FTP and SET engine-based
test cycles and to facilitate hybrid powertrain testing (40 CFR
1036.505 and 1036.510 and 40 CFR 1037.550).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\310\ See 40 CFR 1037.550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These heavy-duty diesel-cycle engine standards are applicable for a
useful life period based on the primary intended service class of the
engine.\311\ For certification, manufacturers must demonstrate that
their engines will meet these standards throughout the useful life by
performing a durability test and applying a deterioration factor (DF)
to their certification value.\312\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\311\ 40 CFR 86.004-2.
\312\ See 40 CFR 86.004-26(c) and (d) and 86.004-28(c) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, manufacturers must adjust emission rates for engines
with exhaust aftertreatment to account for infrequent regeneration
events accordingly.\313\ To account for variability in these
measurements, as well as production variability, manufacturers
typically add margin between the DF and infrequent regeneration
adjustment factor (IRAF) adjusted test result, and the family emission
limit (FEL). A summary of the margins manufacturers have included for
MY 2019 and newer engines is summarized in Chapter 3.1.2 of the draft
RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\313\ See 40 CFR 1036.501(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Proposed Test Procedures and Standards
EPA is proposing new NOX, PM, HC, and CO emission
standards for heavy-duty compression-ignition engines that will be
certified under 40 CFR part 1036.314 315 We are proposing
updates to emission standards for our existing laboratory test cycles
(i.e., FTP and SET) and proposing NOX, PM, HC and CO
emission standards based on a new low-load test cycle (LLC) as
described below.\316\ The proposed standards for NOX, PM,
and HC are in units of milligrams/horsepower-hour instead of grams/
horsepower-hour because using units of milligrams better reflects the
precision of the new standards, rather than adding multiple zeros after
the decimal place. Making this change would require updates to how
manufacturers report data to the EPA in the certification application,
but it does not require changes to the test procedures that define how
to determine emission values. We describe compression-ignition engine
technology packages that demonstrate the feasibility of achieving these
proposed Options 1 and 2 standards in Section III.B.3.ii and provide
additional details in Chapters 2 and 3 of the draft RIA for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\314\ See proposed 40 CFR 1036.104.
\315\ See proposed 40 CFR 1036.605 and Section XII.B of this
preamble for a discussion of our proposal for engines installed in
specialty vehicles.
\316\ See proposed 40 CFR 1036.104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of this rulemaking, we are proposing two options to
increase the useful life for each engine class as described in Section
IV.A. The proposed Options 1 and 2 emission standards outlined in this
section would apply for the longer useful life periods and
manufacturers would be responsible for demonstrating that their engines
will meet these standards as part of the proposed revisions to
durability requirements described in Section IV.F. In Section IV.G, we
discuss our proposed updates to the ABT program to account for our
proposal of three laboratory cycles (FTP, SET and LLC) with unique
standards.
As discussed in Section III.B.2, the proposal includes two sets of
standards: Proposed Option 1 and proposed Option
[[Page 17461]]
2. As described in Section III.B.3.ii, we believe the technology
packages evaluated for this proposal can achieve our proposed Options 1
and 2 duty-cycle standards. For Option 1, we are proposing the
standards in two steps in MY 2027 and MY 2031, because the proposed
Option 1 program includes not only numerical updates to existing
standards but also other new and revised standards and compliance
provisions such as a new duty-cycle procedure and standards, revised
off-cycle procedures and standards, longer useful life periods, and
other proposed requirements that, when considered collectively, merit a
phased approach to lead time. As discussed in Section I.G and in
Section III.B.4, we also present an alternative set of standards
(Alternative) that we also considered. The Alternative is more
stringent than either the proposed Option 1 MY 2031 standards or
proposed Option 2 because the Alternative has shorter lead time, lower
numeric NOX emission standards and longer useful life
periods. We note that we currently are unable to conclude that the
Alternative is feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe over the useful life
periods in this Alternative in light of deterioration in the emission
control technologies that we have evaluated to date, and we expect that
we would need additional supporting data or other information in order
to determine that the Alternative is feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe
to consider adopting it in the final rule.
The proposed options for NOX standards were derived to
consider the range of options that may potentially be appropriate to
adopt to achieve the maximum feasible emissions reductions from heavy-
duty diesel engines considering lead time, stability, cost, energy and
safety. To accomplish this, we evaluated what operation made up the
greatest part of the inventory as discussed in Section VI.B and what
technologies could be used to reduce emissions in these areas. As
discussed in Section I, we project that emissions from operation at low
power, medium-to-high power, and mileages beyond the current regulatory
useful life of the engine would account for the majority of heavy-duty
highway emissions in 2045. To achieve reductions in these three areas
we identified options for cycle-specific standards to ensure that the
maximum achievable reductions are seen across the operating range of
the engine. As described in Section IV, we are proposing to increase
both the regulatory useful life and the emission-related warranty
periods to ensure these proposed standards are met for a greater
portion of the engine's operational life.
To achieve the goal of reducing emissions across the operating
range of the engine, we are proposing two options for standards for
three duty cycles (FTP, SET and LLC). In proposing these standards, we
assessed the performance of the best available aftertreatment systems,
which are more efficient at reducing NOX emissions at the
higher exhaust temperatures that occur at high engine power, than they
are at reducing NOX emissions at low exhaust temperatures
that occur at low engine power. To achieve the maximum NOX
reductions from the engine at maximum power, the aftertreatment system
was designed to ensure that the downstream selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) catalyst was properly sized, diesel exhaust fluid (DEF)
was fully mixed with the exhaust gas ahead of the SCR catalyst and the
diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) was designed to provide a molar ratio
of NO to NO2 of near one. To reduce emissions under low
power operation and under cold-start conditions, we selected standards
for proposed Option 1, for the LLC and the FTP that would achieve an 80
to 90 percent, or more, reduction in emissions under these operating
conditions as compared to current standards. The proposed Options 1 and
2 standards are achievable by utilizing cylinder deactivation (CDA),
dual-SCR aftertreatment configuration and heated diesel exhaust fluid
(DEF) dosing. To reduce emissions under medium to high power, we
selected standards for proposed Option 1, for the SET that would
achieve a greater than 80 percent reduction in emissions under these
operating conditions. The proposed Options 1 and 2 SET standards are
achievable by utilizing improvements to the SCR formulation, SCR
catalyst sizing, and improved mixing of DEF with the exhaust. Further
information about these technologies can be found in Chapters 1 and 3
of the draft RIA.
For the proposed Options 1 and 2 PM standards, they were set at a
level to maintain the current emissions performance of diesel engines.
For the proposed Options 1 and 2 standards for HC and CO, they were
generally set at a level that is achievable by spark-ignition engines.
Each of these standards are discussed in more detail in the following
sections.
In proposed Option 1 for MY 2031 and later Heavy HDE, we are
proposing NOX standards at an intermediate useful life (IUL)
of 435,000 miles as discussed later in Section III.B.2. We believe that
the proposed Option 1 useful life for these engines of 800,000 miles
justifies the need for standards at IUL. It could be many years after
the engines are on the road before EPA could verify that the engines
meet the standards out to useful life if there is no IUL standard. As
discussed further in Section III.B.3.ii.a, IUL standards ensure that
the emissions from the engine are as low as feasible for the entire
useful life and provides an intermediate check on emission performance
deterioration over the UL.
As discussed in Section III.B.3, we have assessed the feasibility
of the proposed Options 1 and 2 standards for compression-ignition
engines by testing a Heavy HDE equipped with cylinder CDA technology
and dual-SCR aftertreatment configuration with heated DEF dosing. The
demonstration work consisted of two phases. The first phase of the
demonstration was led by CARB and is referred to as CARB Stage 3. In
this demonstration the aftertreatment was chemically- and
hydrothermally-aged to the equivalent of 435,000 miles. During this
aging the emissions performance of the engine was assessed after the
aftertreatment was degreened, at the equivalent of 145,000 miles,
290,000 miles and 435,000 miles. The second phase of the demonstration
was led by EPA and is referred to as the EPA Stage 3 engine. In this
phase, improvements were made to the aftertreatment by replacing the
zone-coated catalyzed soot filter with a separate DOC and diesel
particulate filter (DPF) that were chemically- and hydrothermally-aged
to the equivalent of 800,000 miles and improving the mixing of the DEF
with exhaust prior to the downstream SCR catalyst. The EPA Stage 3
engine was tested at an age equivalent to 435,000 and 600,000 miles.
The EPA Stage 3 engine will be tested at an age equivalent of 800,000
miles. Additionally, we plan to test a second aftertreatment system
referred to as ``Team A'' which is also a dual-SCR aftertreatment
configuration with heated DEF dosing, but has greater SCR catalyst
volume and a different catalyst washcoat formulation.
i. FTP
We are proposing new emission standards for testing over the FTP
duty-cycle as shown in Table III-2.\317\ These brake-specific FTP
standards would apply across the primary intended service classes over
the useful life periods shown in Table III-3. These Options 1 and 2
standards have been shown to be feasible for compression-ignition
engines based on testing of the
[[Page 17462]]
CARB Stage 3 and EPA Stage 3 engine with a chemically- and
hydrothermally-aged aftertreatment system.\318\ At the time of this
proposal, the catalyst was aged to an equivalent of 800,000 miles, but
the test data at the equivalent of 800,000 miles was not yet available.
EPA will continue to assess the feasibility of the proposed standards
as additional demonstration data becomes available during the course of
this rulemaking. For example, the EPA Stage 3 engine, and EPA's Team A
demonstration engine will be aged to and tested at the equivalent of
800,000 miles.\319\ A summary of the data used for EPA's feasibility
analysis can be found in Section III.B.3. To provide for additional
margin, in our technology cost analysis we increased the SCR catalyst
volume from what was used on the EPA and CARB Stage 3 engine. We are
proposing to continue an averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program
for NOX credits as a flexibility for manufacturers. Our
proposal includes targeted revisions to the current ABT program,
including new provisions to clarify how FELs apply for additional duty
cycles, lower FEL caps for NOX and restrictions for using
NOX emission credits (see Section IV.G for details on the
ABT program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\317\ See 40 CFR 1036.510 for FTP duty-cycle test procedure.
\318\ See Section III.B.2 for a description of the engine.
\319\ Data will be added to the public docket once it becomes
available.
Table III-2--Proposed Compression-Ignition Engine Standards Over the FTP Duty Cycle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX \a\
Model year Primary intended service class (mg/hp- PM (mg/hp- HC (mg/hp- CO (g/hp-
hr) hr) hr) hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1.................... 2027-2030........................... All HD Engines................. 35 5 60 6.0
2031 and later...................... Light HDE and Medium HDE....... 20 5 40 6.0
2031 and later...................... Heavy HDE through IUL.......... 20 5 40 6.0
2031 and later...................... Heavy HDE from IUL to FUL...... 40 5 40 6.0
Proposed Option 2.................... 2027 and later...................... All HD Engines................. 50 5 40 6.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Engine families participating in the ABT program would be subject to a NOX FEL cap, discussed in Section IV.G.3.
Table III-3--Proposed Useful Life Periods for Heavy-Duty Compression-Ignition Primary Intended Service Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Proposed Option 1 Proposed Option 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary intended MY 2027-2030 MY 2031+
service class -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miles Years Miles Years Miles Years Miles Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light HDE \a\... 110,000 10 190,000 12 270,000 15 250,000 10
Medium HDE...... 185,000 10 270,000 11 350,000 12 325,000 10
Heavy HDE \b\... 435,000 10 600,000 11 800,000 \c\ 12 650,000 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Current useful life period for Light HDE for GHG emission standards is 15 years or 150,000 miles. See 40 CFR
1036.108(d).
\b\ Proposed Option 1 includes an hours-based useful life for Heavy HDE of 32,000 operating hours for model year
2027 through 2030, and 40,000 operating hours for model year 2031 and later.
\c\ For MY 2031 and later Heavy HDE under proposed Option 1, we are proposing intermediate useful life periods
of 435,000 miles, 10 years, or 22,000 hours, whichever comes first. See Section III for a discussion of the
Option 1 standards we propose to apply for the intermediate and full useful life periods.
The proposed Options 1 and 2, 5 mg/hp-hr (0.005 g/hp-hr) FTP
standard for PM is intended to ensure that there is not an increase in
PM emissions from future engines. As summarized in Section
III.B.3.ii.b, manufacturers are submitting certification data to the
agency for current production engines well below the proposed PM
standard over the FTP duty cycle. Lowering the standard to 5 mg/hp-hr
would ensure that future engines will maintain the low level of PM
emissions of the current engines. Taking into account measurement
variability of the PM measurement test procedure in the proposed PM
standards, we believe that PM emissions from current diesel engines are
at the lowest feasible level for MY 2027 and later engines. We request
comment on whether 5 mg/hp-hr provides enough margin for particular
engine designs. For example, would 6 or 7 mg/hp-hr be a more
appropriate standard to maintain current PM emissions levels while
providing enough margin to account for the measurement variability of
the PM measurement test procedure.
We are proposing two options HC and CO standards based on the
feasibility demonstration for SI engines. As summarized in Section
III.B.3.ii.b, manufacturers are submitting data to the agency that show
emissions performance for current production CI engines is well below
the current and proposed standards. Keeping standards at the same value
for all fuels is consistent with the agency's approach to previous
criteria pollutant standards. See Section III.C for more information on
how the numeric values of these two options for proposed HC and CO
standards were determined.
In the ANPR, we requested comment on changing the weighting factors
for the FTP cycle for heavy-duty engines. The current FTP weighting of
cold-start and hot-start emissions was promulgated in 1980 (45 FR 4136,
January 21, 1980). It reflects the overall ratio of cold and hot
operation for heavy-duty engines generally and does not distinguish by
engine size or intended use. Specifically, we asked if FTP weighting
factors should vary by engine class and any challenges manufacturers
may encounter to implement changes to the weighting factors. We did not
receive any comments to change the weighting and received comments from
Roush and MECA that the current weighting factors are appropriate.
After considering these comments, we are not proposing any changes to
the weighting factors.
[[Page 17463]]
ii. SET
We are proposing new emissions standards for the SET test procedure
as shown in Table III-4 over the same useful life periods shown in
Table III-3. Consistent with our current standards, we are proposing
the same numeric values for the standards over the FTP and SET duty
cycles, and the brake-specific SET standards apply across engine
classes (primary intended service class). As with the FTP cycle, the
Options 1 and 2 standards have been shown to be feasible for
compression-ignition engines based on testing of the CARB Stage 3 and
EPA Stage 3 engines with a chemically- and hydrothermally-aged
aftertreatment system. At the time of this proposal, the catalyst was
aged to an equivalent of 800,000 miles, but the test data at the
equivalent of 800,000 miles was not yet available. EPA will continue to
assess the feasibility of the proposed standards as additional data
becomes available. To provide additional margin for meeting the SET
standards, we have accounted for additional SCR catalyst volume in our
cost analysis. A summary of the data used for EPA's feasibility
analysis can be found in Section III.B.3.
Table III-4--Proposed Compression-Ignition Engine Standards Over the SET Duty Cycle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/
Model year Primary intended service class hp-hr) PM (mg/hp- HC (mg/hp- CO (g/hp-
hr) hr) hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1.................... 2027-2030........................... All HD Engines................. 35 5 60 6.0
2031 and later...................... Light HDE and Medium HDE....... 20 5 40 6.0
2031 and later...................... Heavy HDE through IUL.......... 20 5 40 6.0
2031 and later...................... Heavy HDE from IUL to FUL...... 40 5 40 6.0
Proposed Option 2.................... 2027 and later...................... All HD Engines................. 50 5 40 6.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with the proposed PM standards for the FTP (see Section
III.B.2.i), the proposed Options 1 and 2 P.M. standards for SET is
intended to ensure that there is not an increase in PM emissions from
future engines. We request comment on whether 5 mg/hp-hr provides
enough margin for particular engine designs. For example, would 6 or 7
mg/hp-hr be a more appropriate standard to maintain current PM
emissions levels while providing enough margin to account for the
measurement variability of the PM measurement test procedure. As with
the options for proposed HC and CO standards for the FTP (see Section
III.B.2.i), we are proposing two options for standards for HC and CO
based on the feasibility demonstration for SI engines (see Section
III.C).
We have also observed an industry trend toward engine down-
speeding--that is, designing engines to do more of their work at lower
engine speeds where frictional losses are lower. To better reflect this
trend in our duty cycle testing, in the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule, we
promulgated new SET weighting factors for measuring CO2
emissions (81 FR 73550, October 25, 2016). Since we believe these new
weighting factors better reflect in-use operation of current and future
heavy-duty engines, we are proposing to apply these new weighting
factors to criteria pollutant measurement, as show in Table III-5, for
NOX and other criteria pollutants as well. To assess the
impact of the new test cycle on criteria pollutant emissions, we
analyzed data from the EPA Stage 3 engine that was tested on both
versions of the SET. The data summarized in Section III.B.3.ii.a show
that the NOX emissions from the EPA Stage 3 engine at an
equivalent of 435,000 miles are slightly lower using the proposed SET
weighting factors in 40 CFR 1036.505 versus the current SET procedure
in 40 CFR 86.1362. The lower emissions using the proposed SET cycle
weighting factors are reflected in the stringency of the proposed
Options 1 and 2 SET standards.
Table III-5 Proposed Weighting Factors for the SET
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighting
Speed/% load factor
(%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idle......................................................... 12
A, 100....................................................... 9
B, 50........................................................ 10
B, 75........................................................ 10
A, 50........................................................ 12
A, 75........................................................ 12
A, 25........................................................ 12
B, 100....................................................... 9
B, 25........................................................ 9
C, 100....................................................... 2
C, 25........................................................ 1
C, 75........................................................ 1
C, 50........................................................ 1
----------
Total.................................................... 100
Idle Speed................................................... 12
Total A Speed............................................ 45
Total B Speed............................................ 38
Total C Speed............................................ 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. LLC
EPA is proposing the addition of a low-load test cycle and standard
that would require CI engine manufacturers to demonstrate that the
emission control system maintains functionality during low-load
operation where the catalyst temperatures have historically been found
to be below their operational temperature (see Chapter 2.2.2 of the
draft RIA). We believe the addition of a low-load cycle would
complement the expanded operational coverage of our proposed off-cycle
testing requirements (see Section III.C).
During ``Stage 2'' of their Low NOX Demonstration
program, SwRI and NREL developed several candidate cycles with average
power and duration characteristics intended to test current diesel
engine emission controls under three low-load operating conditions:
Transition from high- to low-load, sustained low-load, and transition
from low- to high-load.\320\ In September 2019, CARB selected the 92-
minute ``LLC Candidate #7'' as the low load cycle they adopted for
their Low NOX Demonstration program and subsequent Omnibus
regulation.321 322
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\320\ California Air Resources Board. ``Heavy-Duty Low
NOX Program Public Workshop: Low Load Cycle
Development''. Sacramento, CA. January 23, 2019. Available online:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/hdlownox/files/workgroup_20190123/02-llc_ws01232019-1.pdf.
\321\ California Air Resources Board. Heavy-Duty Omnibus
Regulation. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox.
\322\ California Air Resources Board. ``Heavy-Duty Low
NOX Program: Low Load Cycle'' Public Workshop. Diamond
Bar, CA. September 26, 2019. Available online: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/hdlownox/files/workgroup_20190926/staff/03_llc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to adopt CARB's Omnibus LLC as a new test cycle,
the LLC. This cycle is described in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA for this
rulemaking and test procedures are specified in the proposed 40 CFR
1036.512. The proposed LLC includes applying the accessory loads
defined in the HD GHG Phase 2 rule. These accessory loads are 1.5, 2.5
and 3.5 kW for Light HDE,
[[Page 17464]]
Medium HDE, and Heavy HDE engines, respectively. To allow vehicle level
technologies to be recognized on this cycle we are proposing the
powertrain test procedure to include the LLC. More information on the
powertrain test procedure can be found in Section III.A.2.v. For the
determination of IRAF for the LLC, we are proposing the test procedures
defined in 40 CFR 1036.522, which is the same test procedure that is
used for the FTP and SET. We believe that the IRAF test procedures that
apply to the FTP and SET are appropriate for the LLC, but we request
comment on whether to modify how the regeneration frequency value in 40
CFR 1065.680 is determined, to account for the fact that a regeneration
frequency value is needed for three duty cycles and not just two.
Our proposed Options 1 and 2 emission standards for this proposed
LLC are presented in Table III-6. The brake-specific LLC standards
would apply across engine classes. As with the FTP cycle, the data from
the EPA Stage 3 demonstration engine with an aged aftertreatment system
shows that these proposed Options 1 and 2 standards are feasible with
available margins between the data and the proposed standards. In fact,
the margin between the proposed Option 1 MY 2031 standards and the
Stage 3 engine data is the largest on the LLC, suggesting that a lower
numeric NOX standard would be feasible at 435,000 and
600,000 miles than included in the proposed Option 1 IUL NOX
standard. The summary of this data can be found in Section III.B.3.
We request comment on the addition of a low-load test cycle and
standard, as well as the proposed accessory loads, or other engine
operation a low-load cycle should encompass, if finalized.
Table III-6--Proposed Compression-Ignition Engine Standards Over the LLC Duty Cycle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary intended service NOX (mg/hp- PM (mg/hp- HC (mg/hp- CO (g/hp-
Model year class hr) hr) hr) hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1................. 2027-2030......................... All HD Engines.............. 90 5 140 6.0
2031 and later.................... Light HDE and Medium HDE.... 50 5 60 6.0
2031 and later.................... Heavy HDE through IUL....... 50 5 60 6.0
2031 and later.................... Heavy HDE from IUL to FUL... 100 5 60 6.0
Proposed Option 2................. 2027 and later.................... All HD Engines.............. 100 5 60 6.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed LLC standards for PM are based on the effectiveness of
the diesel particulate filter (DPF) to reduce PM emissions across the
operating range of the engine, including under low loads. We request
comment on whether 5 mg/hp-hr provides enough margin for particular
engine designs. For example, would 6 or 7 mg/hp-hr be a more
appropriate standard for the LLC to maintain current PM emissions
levels while providing enough margin to account for the measurement
variability of the PM measurement test procedure. Since we are not
proposing standards on the LLC for SI engines, the data from the CARB
and EPA Stage 3 engine discussed in Section III.B.3 were used to assess
the feasibility of the proposed CO and HC standards. For both proposed
Option 1 and Option 2 standards, we are proposing the same numeric
standards for CO on the LLC as we have respectively proposed in Option
1 and Option 2 for the FTP and SET cycles. This is because the
demonstration data of the EPA Stage 3 engine shows that CO emissions on
the LLC are in similar to CO emissions from the FTP and SET. For the
proposed Options 1 and 2 for HC standards on the LLC, we are proposing
standards that are different than the standards of the FTP and SET
cycles, to reflect the performance of the EPA Stage 3 engine on the
LLC. The data discussed in Section III.B.3 of the preamble shows that
the proposed Options 1 and 2 standards are feasible for both current
and future new engines.
iv. Idle
CARB currently has an idle test procedure and accompanying standard
of 30 g/h of NOX for diesel engines to be ``Clean Idle
Certified''.\323\ In the Omnibus rule the CARB lowered the
NOX standard to 10 g/h for MY 2024 to MY 2026 engines and 5
g/h for MY 2027 and beyond. In the ANPR, we requested comment on the
need or appropriateness of setting a federal idle standard for diesel
engines. We received comments supporting action by EPA to adopt
California's Clean Idle NOX standard as a voluntary emission
standard for federal certification.\324\ For proposed Option 1 we are
proposing an optional idle standard in 40 CFR 1036.104(b) and a new
test procedure in 40 CFR 1036.514, based on CARB's test procedure,\325\
to allow compression-ignition engine manufacturers to voluntarily
choose to certify (i.e., it would be optional for a manufacturer to
include the idle standard in an EPA certification but once included the
idle standard would become mandatory and full compliance would be
required) to an idle NOX standard of 30.0 g/hr for MY 2023,
10.0 g/hr for MY 2024 to MY 2026 and 5.0 g/hr for MY 2027 and beyond.
As part of this optional idle standard, we are proposing to require
that the brake-specific HC, CO, and PM emissions during the Clean Idle
test may not exceed measured emission rates from the idle segments of
the FTP or the idle mode in the SET, in addition to meeting the
applicable idle NOX standard.\326\ For proposed Option 2 we
are proposing an idle NOX standard of 10.0 g/hr for MY 2027
and beyond. We request comment on whether EPA should make the idle
standards mandatory instead of voluntary for MY 2027 and beyond, as
well as whether EPA should set clean idle standards for HC, CO, and PM
emissions (in g/hr) rather than capping the idle emissions for those
pollutants based on the measured emission levels during the idle
segments of the FTP or the idle mode in the SET. We request comment on
the need for EPA to define a label that would be put on the vehicles
that are certified to the optional idle standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\323\ 13 CCR 1956.8 (a)(6)(C)--Optional NOX idling
emission standard.
\324\ See comments from CARB, Volvo, and Union of Concerned
Scientists, and Eaton. Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0463.
\325\ 86.1360-2007.B.4, California Exhaust Emission Standards
and Test Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engines and Vehicles, April 18, 2019.
\326\ See 40 CFR 1036.104(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. Powertrain
EPA recently finalized a separate rulemaking that included an
option for manufacturers to certify a hybrid powertrain to the FTP and
SET greenhouse gas engine standards by using a powertrain test
procedure (86 FR 34321, June 29, 2021).\327\ In this
[[Page 17465]]
rulemaking, we similarly propose to allow manufacturers to certify
hybrid powertrains, BEVs, and FCEVs to criteria pollutant emissions
standards by using the powertrain test procedure. In this section we
describe how manufacturers could apply the powertrain test procedure to
certify hybrid powertrains, and, separately, BEVs or FCEVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\327\ The powertrain test procedure was established in the GHG
Phase 1 rulemaking but the recent rulemaking included adjustments to
apply the test procedure to the engine test cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Development of Powertrain Test Procedures
Powertrain testing allows manufacturers to demonstrate emission
benefits that cannot be captured by testing an engine alone on a
dynamometer. For hybrid engines and powertrains, powertrain testing
captures when the engine operates less or at lower power levels due to
the use of the hybrid powertrain function; for BEVs and FCEVs
powertrain testing allows the collection of data on work produced,
energy used and other parameters that would normally be collected for
an engine during a dynamometer test. However, powertrain testing
requires the translation of an engine test procedure to a powertrain
test procedure. Chapter 2 of the draft RIA describes how we translated
the FTP, proposed SET for criteria pollutants, and proposed LLC engine
test cycles to the proposed powertrain test cycles.\328\ The two
primary goals of this process were to make sure that the powertrain
version of each test cycle was equivalent to each respective engine
test cycle in terms of positive power demand versus time and that the
powertrain test cycle had appropriate levels of negative power demand.
To achieve this goal, over 40 engine torque curves were used to create
the powertrain test cycles. We request comment on ways to further
improve the proposed powertrain test procedures, including approaches
to apply the proposed procedures to powertrains that include a
transmission as part of the certified configuration to make the idle
accessory load more representative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\328\ As discussed in Section III.B.1, as part of the technical
amendments rulemaking, EPA allowed the powertrain test procedure to
be used for GHG emission standards on the FTP and SET engine-based
test cycles. In this rulemaking we are proposing to allow the
powertrain test procedure to be used for criteria emission standards
on these test cycles and the proposed LLC. As discussed in Section
2.ii, we are proposing new weighting factors for the engine-based
SET procedure for criteria pollutant emissions, which would be
reflected in the SET powertrain test cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Testing Hybrid Engines and Hybrid Powertrains
As noted in the introduction of this Section III, we are proposing
to clarify in 40 CFR 1036.101 that manufacturers may optionally test
the hybrid engine and hybrid powertrain to demonstrate compliance. We
propose that the powertrain test procedures specified in 40 CFR
1036.505 and 1036.510, which were previously developed for
demonstrating compliance with GHG emission standards on the SET and FTP
test cycles, are applicable for demonstrating compliance with criteria
pollutant standards on the SET and FTP test cycles. In addition, for
GHG emission standards we are proposing updates to 40 CFR 1036.505 and
1036.510 to further clarify how to carry out the test procedure for
plug-in hybrids. We have done additional work for this rulemaking to
translate the proposed LLC to a powertrain test procedure, and we are
proposing that manufacturers could similarly certify hybrid engines and
hybrid powertrains to criteria pollutant emission standards on the
proposed LLC using the proposed test procedures defined in 40 CFR
1036.512.
We thus propose to allow manufacturers to use the powertrain test
procedures to certify hybrid engine and powertrain configurations to
all MY 2027 and later criteria pollutant engine standards. We also
propose to allow manufacturers to begin using powertrain test
procedures to certify hybrid configurations to criteria pollutant
standards in MY 2023. Manufacturers could choose to use either the SET
duty-cycle in 40 CFR 86.1362 or the proposed SET in 40 CFR 1036.505 in
model years prior to 2027.329 330
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\329\ We proposing to allow either the SET duty-cycle in 40 CFR
86.1362 or 40 CFR 1036.505 because the duty cycles are similar and
as shown in Chapter 3.1.2 of the Draft RIA the criteria pollutant
emissions level of current production engines is similar between the
two cycles.
\330\ Prior to MY 2027, only manufacturers choosing to
participate in the Early Adoption Incentive Program would need to
conduct LLC powertrain testing (see Section IV.H for details on the
Early Adoption Incentive Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to allow these procedures starting in MY 2023 for
plug-in hybrids and, to maintain consistency with the requirements for
LD plug-in hybrids, we are proposing that the applicable criteria
pollutant standards must be met under the worst case condition, which
is achieved by testing and evaluating emission under both charge
depleting and charge sustaining operation. This is to ensure that under
all drive cycles the powertrain meets the criteria pollutant standards
and is not based on an assumed amount of zero emissions range. We are
proposing changes to the test procedures defined in 40 CFR 1036.505 and
1036.510 to clarify how to weight together the charge depleting and
charge sustaining greenhouse gas emissions for determining the
greenhouse gas emissions of plug-in hybrids for the FTP and SET duty
cycles. This weighting would be done using an application specific
utility factor curve that is approved by EPA. We are also proposing to
not apply the cold and hot weighting factors for the determination of
the FTP composite emission result for greenhouse gas pollutants because
the charge depleting and sustaining test procedures proposed in 40 CFR
1036.510 include both cold and hot start emissions by running repeat
FTP cycles back-to-back. By running back-to-back FTPs, the proposed
test procedure captures both cold and hot emissions and their relative
contribution to daily greenhouse gas emissions per unit work, removing
the need for weighting the cold and hot emissions. We request comment
on our proposed approach to the FTP duty cycle for plug-in hybrids and
the proposed approach to the determination of the FTP composite
emissions result, including whether EPA should instead include cold and
hot weighting factors for the latter. If you comment that EPA should
include the cold and hot weighting factors, we request that you also
include an example of how these calculations would be carried out with
such an approach (how the calculations would include both the weighting
of charge sustaining and charge depleting emissions in conjunction with
the weighting of the cold and hot emissions results).
We propose to limit this test procedure to hybrid powertrains to
avoid having two different testing pathways for non-hybrid engines for
the same standards. On the other hand, there may be other technologies
where the emissions performance is not reflected on the engine test
procedures, so we request comment on whether this test procedure should
be available to other powertrains, and if so how to define those
powertrains.
Finally, for all pollutants, we request comment on if we should
remove 40 CFR 1037.551 or limit the use of it to only selective
enforcement audits (SEA). 40 CFR 1037.551 was added as part of the
Heavy-Duty Phase 2 GHG rulemaking to provide flexibility for an SEA or
a confirmatory test, by allowing just the engine of the powertrain to
be tested. Allowing just the engine to be tested over the engine speed
and torque cycle that was recorded during the powertrain test enables
the testing to be conducted in more widely available engine dynamometer
test cells, but this
[[Page 17466]]
flexibility could increase the variability of the test results. If you
submit comment in support of removing or limiting the use of 40 CFR
1037.551 to just SEA, we request that you include data supporting your
comment.
c. Testing Battery-Electric and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
As noted in the introduction to this Section III, and detailed in
Section IV.I, we are proposing to recognize the zero tailpipe emission
benefits of BEV and FCEV technologies by allowing manufacturers to
generate NOX emission credits with these technologies.\331\
We are further proposing that manufacturers who choose to generate
NOX emission credits from BEVs or FCEVs would be required to
conduct testing to measure work produced over a defined duty-cycle
test, and either useable battery energy (UBE) for BEVs or fuel cell
voltage (FCV) for FCEVs (see Section IV.I for details).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\331\ See Section IV.I, proposed 40 CFR 1037.616, and proposed
40 CFR 1036.741 for details on the proposed NOX emission
credits for BEVs and FCEVs. Briefly, manufacturers would generate
vehicle emissions credits, which would then be fungible between
vehicle and engine certification programs, such that NOX
credits generated through the vehicle program could be applied to
the proposed engine ABT program described in Section IV.G and
specified in proposed 40 CFR 1036.705.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To conduct the testing necessary for generating NOX
emission credits from BEVs or FCEVs, we are proposing that
manufacturers would use the powertrain test procedures for the FTP,
proposed SET and proposed LLC. Specifically, for BEVs, manufacturers
would run a series of powertrain FTP, SET and LLC tests over a defined
sequence referred to as a ``Multicycle Test'' (MCT), which is specified
in proposed 40 CFR 1037.552. For FCEVs, manufacturers would operate the
powertrain over an FTP, SET, and LLC and determine the average fuel
cell voltage (FCV) by taking the average of the FCV when the fuel cell
current is between 55 percent and 65 percent of rated fuel cell
current, as specified in proposed 40 CFR 1037.554.\332\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\332\ The MCT for BEVs (specified in 40 CFR 1037.552) and FCEVs
(specified in 40 CFR 1037.554) use the same foundational powertrain
test procedures for the FTP, SET, and LLC test cycles; however, the
MCT for BEVs includes additional iterations of the test cycles that
are needed to deplete the battery and measure UBE, while the MCT for
FCEVs includes the measurement of FCV, rather than UBE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MCT for BEVs consists of a fixed number of dynamic drive cycles
combined with constant-speed driving phases. The heavy-duty transient
cycle (HDTC) described in current 40 CFR 1036.510(a)(4), LLC described
in proposed 40 CFR 1036.512, and SET described in proposed 40 CFR
1036.505 are used to determine the energy consumption associated with
specific and established driving patterns. These dynamic drive cycles
make up a combined 57.92 miles of driving distance. The constant speed
cycles (CSC), which are located in the middle and the end of the test,
are intended to: Reduce test duration by depleting the battery more
rapidly than the established certification drive schedules; improve the
robustness of the energy determination by minimizing the impact of
drive style variation; and prevent inconsistent triggering of end-of-
test criteria that can occur at high power-demand points when a BEV is
following a dynamic drive schedule at low states-of-charge.
The CSC middle phase is located after the initial run through two
HDTCs, one LLC, and one SET. This CSC depletes the battery and allows
determination of the vehicle's performance on the HDTC, LLC, and SET
for both high and low states of charge. The distance traveled during
the CSC middle phase that is determined by this procedure ensures that
the second run through two HDTCs, one LLC, and one SET is conducted at
a substantially lower state of charge. The target distance traveled
over the CSC end phase is 20 percent or less of the total driven
distance for the combined initial and second runs through the HDTC,
LLC, or SET cycles.
The MCT for FCEVs consists of running a powertrain on the FTP, LLC,
and SET to determine the FCV when the fuel cell current (FCC) is
between 55 percent and 65 percent of rated FCC. Work is also measured
during the second HDTC in the FTP and used in the determination of the
FCEV conversion factor (CF) value for credit generation in proposed 40
CFR 1037.616.
We request comment on our proposed approach to powertrain testing
for BEVs and FCEVs, and specifically whether any modifications of the
FTP, SET and LLC powertrain test cycles would be needed for BEVs and
FCEVs. We further request comment on whether the MCT, as defined in
proposed 40 CFR 1037.552, would require modifications to accurately
measure work produced over the FTP cycle or the measure of UBE. We
request comment on whether the procedure in proposed 40 CFR 1037.554 is
appropriate for determining FCV. Finally, we request comment on if
current 40 CFR 1036.527 should be used to determine rated FCC.
vi. Closed Crankcase
During combustion, gases can leak past the piston rings sealing the
cylinder and into the crankcase. These gases are called blowby gases
and generally include unburned fuel and other combustion products.
Blowby gases that escape from the crankcase are considered crankcase
emissions (see 40 CFR 86.402-78). Current regulations restrict the
discharge of crankcase emissions directly into the ambient air. Blowby
gases from gasoline engine crankcases have been controlled for many
years by sealing the crankcase and routing the gases into the intake
air through a positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) valve. However, in
the past there have been concerns about applying a similar technology
for diesel engines. For example, high PM emissions venting into the
intake system could foul turbocharger compressors. As a result of this
concern, diesel-fueled and other compression-ignition engines equipped
with turbochargers (or other equipment) were not required to have
sealed crankcases (see 40 CFR 86.007-11(c)). For these engines,
manufacturers are allowed to vent the crankcase emissions to ambient
air as long as they are measured and added to the exhaust emissions
during all emission testing to ensure compliance with the emission
standards.
Because all new highway heavy-duty diesel engines on the market
today are equipped with turbochargers, they are not required to have
closed crankcases under the current regulations. Manufacturer
compliance data indicate approximately one-third of current highway
heavy-duty diesel engines have closed crankcases, indicating that some
heavy-duty engine manufacturers have developed systems for controlling
crankcase emissions that do not negatively impact the turbocharger. EPA
is proposing provisions in 40 CFR 1036.115(a) to require a closed
crankcase ventilation system for all highway compression-ignition
engines to prevent crankcase emissions from being emitted directly to
the atmosphere starting for MY 2027 engines.\333\ These emissions could
be routed upstream of the aftertreatment system or back into the intake
system. Unlike many other standards, this standard is a design standard
rather than a performance standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\333\ We are proposing to move the current crankcase emissions
provisions to a new paragraph (u) in the interim provisions of 40
CFR 1036.150, which would apply through model year 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our reasons for proposing a requirement for closed crankcases are
twofold. While the exception in the current regulations for certain
compression-ignition engines requires manufacturers to quantify their
engines'
[[Page 17467]]
crankcase emissions during certification, they report non-methane
hydrocarbons in lieu of total hydrocarbons. As a result, methane
emissions from the crankcase are not quantified. Methane emissions from
diesel-fueled engines are generally low; however, they are a concern
for compression-ignition-certified natural gas-fueled heavy-duty
engines because the blowby gases from these engines have a higher
potential to include methane emissions. EPA proposed to require that
all natural gas-fueled engines have closed crankcases in the Heavy-Duty
Phase 2 GHG rulemaking, but opted to wait to finalize any updates to
regulations in a future rulemaking, where we could then propose to
apply these requirements to natural gas-fueled engines and to the
diesel fueled engines that many of the natural gas-fueled engines are
based off of (81 FR 73571, October 25, 2016).
In addition to our concern of unquantified methane emissions, we
believe another benefit to closed crankcases would be better in-use
durability. We know that the performance of piston seals reduces as the
engine ages, which would allow more blowby gases and could increase
crankcase emissions. While crankcase emissions are included in the
durability tests that estimate an engine's deterioration, those tests
were not designed to capture the deterioration of the crankcase. These
unquantified age impacts continue throughout the operational life of
the engine. Closing crankcases could be a means to ensure those
emissions are addressed long-term to the same extent as other exhaust
emissions.
Chapter 1.1.4 of the draft RIA describes EPA's recent test program
to evaluate the emissions from open crankcase systems on two modern
heavy-duty diesel engines. Results suggest THC and CO emitted from the
crankcase can be a notable fraction of overall tailpipe emissions. By
closing the crankcase, those emissions would be rerouted to the engine
or aftertreatment system to ensure emission control.
3. Feasibility of the Diesel (Compression-Ignition) Engine Standards
i. Summary of Technologies Considered
Our proposed Options 1 and 2 standards for compression-ignition
engines are based on the performance of technology packages described
in Chapters 1 and 3 of the draft RIA for this rulemaking. Specifically,
we are evaluating the performance of next-generation catalyst
formulations in a dual SCR catalyst configuration with a smaller SCR
catalyst as the first substrate in the aftertreatment system for
improved low-temperature performance, and a larger SCR catalyst
downstream of the diesel particulate filter to improve NOX
conversion efficiency during high power operation and to allow for
passive regeneration of the particulate filter.\334\ Additionally, the
technology package includes CDA that reduces the number of active
cylinders, resulting in increased exhaust temperatures for improved
catalyst performance under light-load conditions and can be used to
reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. The technology
package also includes the use of a heated DEF injector for the upfront
SCR catalyst; the heated DEF injector allows DEF injection at
temperatures as low as approximately 140 [deg]C. The heated DEF
injector also improves the mixing of DEF and exhaust gas within a
shorter distance than with unheated DEF injectors, which enables the
aftertreatment system to be packaged in a smaller space. Finally, the
technology package includes hardware needed to close the crankcase of
diesel engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\334\ As described in Chapter 3 of the draft RIA, we are
evaluating 3 different aftertreatment systems that contain different
catalyst formulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Summary of Feasibility Analysis
a. Projected Technology Package Effectiveness and Cost
Based upon preliminary data from EPA's diesel demonstration
research and the CARB Heavy-duty Low NOX Stage 3 Research
Program (see Chapter 3.1.1.1 and Chapter 3.1.3.1 of the draft RIA),
Heavy HDE NOX reductions of 90 percent from current
NOX standards are technologically feasible when using CDA or
other valvetrain-related air control strategies in combination with
dual SCR systems. EPA has continued to evaluate aftertreatment system
durability via accelerated aging of advanced emissions control systems
as part of EPA's diesel engine demonstration program that is described
in Chapter 3 of the draft RIA. In assessing the feasibility of our
proposed standards, we have taken into consideration the proposed level
of the standards, the additional emissions from infrequent
regenerations, the proposed longer useful life, and lead time for
manufacturers.
Manufacturers are required to design engines that meet the duty
cycle and off-cycle standards throughout their useful life. In
recognition that emissions performance will degrade over time,
manufacturers design their engines to perform significantly better than
the standards when first sold to ensure that the emissions are below
the standard throughout useful life even as the emissions controls
deteriorate. As discussed below and in Chapter 3 of the draft RIA,
manufacturer margins can range from less than 25 percent to 100 percent
of the FEL. For Option 1, for Heavy HDEs that have the longest proposed
useful life, we are proposing intermediate useful life standards that
ensure that engines do not degrade in performance down to the duty
cycle and off-cycle standards too quickly and allow for an intermediate
check on emissions performance deterioration over the useful life.
To assess the feasibility of the proposed Option 1 MY 2031
standards for heavy HDE at the IUL of 435,000 miles, the data from the
EPA Stage 3 engine was used. As discussed in Section III.B.2 the EPA
Stage 3 engine includes improvements beyond the CARB Stage 3 engine,
namely replacing the zone-coated catalyzed soot filter with a separate
DOC and DPF and improving the mixing of the DEF with exhaust for the
downstream SCR. These improvements lowered the emissions on the FTP,
SET and LLC below what was measured with the CARB Stage 3 engine. The
emissions for the EPA Stage 3 engine on the FTP, SET and LLC aged to an
equivalent of 435,000 and 600,000 miles are shown in Table III-7 and
Table III-8. To assess the feasibility of the proposed Option 1
NOX standards for MY 2027 and MY 2031 for Heavy HDE at the
respective proposed Option 1 useful life periods, the data from the EPA
Stage 3 engine was used. The data from the EPA Stage 3 engine was used
because it included emission performance with the aftertreatment at the
equivalent age of 435,000 and 600,000 miles. Having data at multiple
points allowed us to use linear regression to project out the
performance of the EPA Stage 3 engine at 800,000 miles.\335\ To account
for the IRAF for both particulate matter and sulfur on the
aftertreatment system, we relied on an analysis by SwRI that is
summarized in Chapter 3 of the draft RIA. In this analysis SwRI
determined the IRAF at 2 mg/hp-hr for both the FTP and SET cycles and 5
mg/hp-hr for the LLC. Based on our analysis, the proposed Option 1 MY
2027 and MY 2031 emissions standards for Heavy HDE are feasible at the
respective proposed useful life periods. To provide for additional
margin, in our technology
[[Page 17468]]
cost analysis we increased the SCR catalyst volume from what was used
on the EPA and CARB Stage 3 engine. The increase in total SCR catalyst
volume relative to the EPA and CARB Stage 3 SCR was approximately 23.8
percent. We believe this further supports our conclusion that the
proposed Option 1 standards are achievable for the proposed useful life
of 800,000 miles for MY 2031 Heavy HDE. In addition to NOX,
the proposed Option 1 HC and CO standards are feasible for CI engines
on all three cycles. This is shown in Table III-7, where the
demonstrated HC and CO emissions results are below the proposed Option
1 standards discussed in Section III.B.2. The proposed Option 1
standards for PM of 5 mg/hp-hr for the FTP, SET and LLC, continue to be
feasible with the additional technology and control strategies needed
to meet the proposed Option 1 NOX standards, as seen by the
PM emissions results in Table III-7 below. As discussed in Section
III.B.2, taking into account measurement variability of the PM
measurement test procedure, we believe that PM emissions from current
diesel engines are at the lowest feasible level for MY 2027 and later
engines. We request comment on whether 5 mg/hp-hr provides enough
margin for particular engine designs or for any of the duty cycles
(FTP, SET, or LLC). For example, would 6 or 7 mg/hp-hr be a more
appropriate standard for the LLC to maintain current PM emissions
levels while providing enough margin to account for the measurement
variability of the PM measurement test procedure. In addition, we
request comment on if there are technologies that EPA could consider
that would enable a PM standard lower than 5 mg/hp-hr. Commenters
requesting a higher standard are encouraged to provide data supporting
such comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\335\ See Chapter 3.1.3 of the draft RIA for our analysis on
projecting emissions performance beyond 600,000 miles.
Table III-7--Stage 3 Engine Emissions at 435,000 Mile Equivalent Test Point Without Adjustments for IRAF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/ PM (mg/hp- NMHC (mg/ CO (g/hp- CO2 (g/ N2O (g/
Duty cycle hp-hr) hr) hp-hr) hr) hp-hr) hp-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP........................................... 20 2 12 0.141 514 0.076
SET \a\....................................... 17 1 1 0.030 455 0.024
LLC........................................... 29 3 35 0.245 617 0.132
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Using the weighting factors in our proposed test procedures (40 CFR 1036.505).
Table III-8--Stage 3 Engine Emissions at 600,000 Mile Equivalent Test Point Without Adjustments for IRAF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/ PM (mg/ NMHC (mg/ CO (g/hp- CO2 (g/ N2O (g/
Duty cycle hp-hr) hp-hr) hp-hr) hr) hp-hr) hp-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP........................................... 27 1 9 0.144 519 0.058
SET \a\....................................... 24 1 1 0.015 460 0.030
LLC........................................... 33 4 16 0.153 623 0.064
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Using the weighting factors in our proposed test procedures (40 CFR 1036.505).
As additional data is received from the EPA led demonstration
project, the demonstration data will inform whether the proposed Option
1 IUL standards for MY 2031 are needed. For example, if the
demonstration data shows much lower emissions for the first half of
useful life than for the second half of useful life, then this would
confirm our assumption that the proposed Option 1 IUL standard would
ensure that the emission reductions during the earlier portion of an
engine's useful life are achieved, while preserving sufficient margin
for deterioration during the second half of useful life. On the other
hand, if we find that the emissions values are relatively constant
through useful life, this may support that an IUL standard may not be
needed. This data will also inform whether the proposed Option 1 IUL
standard of 20 mg/hp-hr at 435,000 miles is appropriate for Heavy HDE
in MY 2031 and whether an IUL standard is also needed for MY 2027 to
account for deterioration out to the proposed Option 1 600,000-mile
useful life for MY 2027.
Our analysis also shows that the proposed Option 2 standards could
be met starting in MY 2027 with CDA and dual-SCR with heated dosing
(see draft RIA Chapter 3 for details of our analysis) as shown in Table
III-7. The proposed Option 2 includes a higher (less stringent)
NOX emission level for all CI engine classes over the FTP
and SET compared to either step of our proposed Option 1 NOX
FTP and SET standards. The FTP and SET standards in proposed Option 2
for PM, HC, and CO are numerically equivalent to our proposed Option 1
MY 2031 standards. As shown in Table III-7, we currently have data
demonstrating that the proposed Option 2 standards could be met out to
600,000 miles. These data show the proposed Option 2 standards are
feasible through the proposed Option 2 useful life periods for Light
HDE, Medium HDEs. Our evaluation of the current data suggests that the
proposed Option 2 standards would also be feasible out to the proposed
Option 2 Heavy HDE useful life; we are continuing to collect data to
confirm our extrapolation of data out to the longer useful life
mileage. As discussed in Section IV.A, useful life mileages for
proposed Option 2 are higher than our MY 2027 proposed useful life, but
lower than our proposed Option 2 useful life values for MY 2031.
In addition to evaluating the feasibility of the new criteria
pollutant standards, we also evaluated how CO2 was impacted
on the CARB Stage 3 engine. To do this we evaluated how CO2
emissions changed from the base engine on the FTP, SET, and LLC, as
well as the fuel mapping test procedures defined in 40 CFR 1036.535 and
1036.540. For all three cycles the Stage 3 engine emitted
CO2 with no measurable difference compared to the base 2017
Cummins X15 engine. Specifically, we compared the CARB Stage 3 engine
including the 0-hour (degreened) aftertreatment with the 2017 Cummins
X15 engine including degreened aftertreatment and found the percent
reduction in CO2 for the FTP, SET and LLC, was 1, 0 and 1
percent
[[Page 17469]]
respectively.\336\ We note that after this data was taken SwRI made
changes to the thermal management strategies of the CARB Stage 3 engine
to improve NOX reduction at low SCR temperatures. The data
from the EPA Stage 3 engine at the equivalent age of 435,000 miles
includes these calibration changes, and although there was an increase
in CO2, which resulted in the CO2 emissions for
the EPA Stage 3 engine being higher than the 2017 Cummins X15 engine
for the FTP, SET and LLC of 0.6, 0.7 and 1.3 percent respectively, this
was not a direct comparison because the 2017 Cummins X15 aftertreatment
had not been aged to an equivalent of 435,000 miles. As discussed in
Chapter 3 of the draft RIA, aging the EPA Stage 3 engine included
exposing the aftertreatment to ash, that increased the back pressure on
the engine, which contributed to the increase in CO2
emissions from the EPA Stage 3. To evaluate how the technology on the
CARB Stage 3 engine compares to the 2017 Cummins X15 with respect to
the HD GHG Phase 2 vehicle CO2 standards, both engines were
tested on the fuel mapping test procedures defined in 40 CFR 1036.535
and 1036.540. These test procedures define how to collect the fuel
consumption data from the engine for use in GEM. For these tests the
CARB Stage 3 engine was tested with the development aged
aftertreatment.\337\ The fuel maps from these tests were run in GEM and
the results from this analysis showed that the Stage 3 engine emitted
CO2 at the same rate as the 2017 Cummins X15. The details of
this analysis are described in Chapter 3.1 of the draft RIA. The
technologies included in the EPA demonstration engine were selected to
both demonstrate the lowest criteria pollutant emissions and have a
negligible effect on GHG emissions. Manufactures may choose to use
other technologies to meet the proposed standards, but manufacturers
will still also need to comply with the GHG standards that apply under
HD GHG Phase 2.\338\ Because of this we have not projected an increase
in GHG emissions resulting from compliance with the proposed standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\336\ See Chapter 3 of the draft RIA for the CO2
emissions of the 2017 Cummins X15 engine and the CARB Stage 3
engine.
\337\ The CARB Stage 3 0 hour (degreened) aftertreatment could
not be used for these tests, because it had already been aged past
the 0 hour point when these tests were conducted.
\338\ As explained in Section XI, EPA is also proposing targeted
updates to the Phase 2 Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emissions program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III-9 summarizes the incremental technology costs for the
proposed Options 1 and 2 standards, from the baseline costs shown in
Table III-13. While the standards vary between the proposed Option 1
and the proposed Option 2 standards, we are evaluating the same
technologies to assess the feasibility of the two sets of standards.
These values include aftertreatment system and CDA costs. The details
of this analysis can be found in Chapter 3 of the draft RIA.
Differences in the useful life and warranty periods between the
proposed Options 1 and 2 are accounted for in the indirect costs as
discussed in Chapter 7.1.2 of the draft RIA.\339\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\339\ See Table III-3 for the proposed useful life values and
Section IV.B.1 for the proposed emissions warranty periods for each
option.
Table III-9--Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost of Proposed Options 1
and 2 Standards for the Aftertreatment and CDA Technology
[2019 $]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium
Light HDE HDE Heavy HDE Urban bus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,685................................. $1,648 $2,266 $1,684
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in Chapter 3.1 of the draft RIA, we have estimated the
incremental technology cost for closed crankcase filtration systems for
all CI engines to be $37 (2017 $), noting that these technologies are
on some engines available in the market today.
b. Baseline Emissions and Cost
The basis for our baseline technology assessment is the data
provided by manufacturers in the heavy-duty in-use testing program.
This data encompasses in-use operation from nearly 300 LHD, MHD, and
HHD vehicles. Chapter 5 of the draft RIA describes how the data was
used to update the MOVES model emissions rates for HD diesel engines.
Chapter 3 of the draft RIA summarizes the in-use emissions performance
of these engines.
We also evaluated the certification data submitted to the agency.
The data includes test results adjusted for IRAF and FEL that includes
adjustments for deterioration and margin. The certification data,
summarized in Table III-10, shows that manufacturers vary in their
approach to how much margin is built into the FEL. Some manufactures
have greater than 100 percent margin built into the FEL, while other
manufacturers have less than 25 percent.
Table III-10--Summary of Certification Data for FTP Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (g/ PM (g/hp- NMHC (g/ CO (g/hp- N2O (g/
hp-hr) hr) hp-hr) hr) hp-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average.................................................. 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.18 0.07
Minimum.................................................. 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04
Maximum.................................................. 0.18 0.00 0.04 1.10 0.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III-11--Summary of Certification Data for SET Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (g/ PM (g/hp- NMHC (g/ CO (g/hp- N2O (g/
hp-hr) hr) hp-hr) hr) hp-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average.................................................. 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.06
Minimum.................................................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum.................................................. 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.20 0.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17470]]
In addition to analyzing the on-cycle certification data submitted
by manufacturers, we tested three modern HD diesel engines on an engine
dynamometer and analyzed the data. These engines were a 2018 Cummins
B6.7, 2018 Detroit DD15 and 2018 Navistar A26. These engines were
tested on cycles that range in power demand from the creep mode of the
Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck (HHDDT) schedule to the HD SET cycle
defined in 40 CFR 1036.505. Table III-12 summarizes the range of
results from these engines on the FTP, SET and LLC. As described in
Chapter 3 of the draft RIA, the emissions of current production Heavy-
Duty engines vary from engine to engine but the largest difference in
NOX between engines is seen on the LLC.
Table III-12--Range of NOX Emissions From MY2017 to MY2019 Heavy-Duty
Diesel Engines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SET in SET in
NOX (g/hp-hr) FTP 40 CFR 40 CFR LLC
composite 86.1333 1036.505
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum..................... 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.35
Maximum..................... 0.15 0.12 0.05 0.81
Average..................... 0.13 0.06 0.03 0.59
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III-13 summarizes the baseline sales-weighted total
aftertreatment cost of Light HDE, Medium HDE, Heavy HDE and urban bus
engines. The details of this analysis can be found in Chapter 3 of the
draft RIA.
Table III-13--Baseline Direct Manufacturing Aftertreatment Cost
[2019 $]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium
Light HDE HDE Heavy HDE Urban bus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ 2,804................................ $ 2,877 $ 4,587 $ 2,929
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Potential Alternative
We evaluated one alternative (the Alternative) to our proposed HD
CI exhaust emission standards (summarized in Table III-14, Table III-
15, and Table III-16). As discussed in this section and based on
information we have collected to date, we do not project that the
Alternative standards are feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe with the
technology we have evaluated (Table III-9).
The Alternative we considered includes lower (more stringent)
numeric NOX emission levels for Heavy HDEs, and lower HC
emission levels for all CI engine classes, combined with longer useful
life periods and shorter lead time compared to the proposed Option 1 MY
2031 standards. As shown in Table III-7, the test data we currently
have from the EPA Stage 3 engine is not sufficient to conclude that the
Alternative standards would be feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe.
Specifically, our data suggest that the numeric level of the FTP and
SET NOX emission standards would be very challenging to meet
through 435,000 miles (see draft RIA Chapter 3.1). For Light HDEs and
Medium HDEs, these data suggest that to meet the combination of numeric
levels of the NOX emission standards and useful life periods
of the Alternative, it may be appropriate for EPA to consider providing
manufacturers with additional lead time, beyond the MY 2027
implementation date of the Alternative. For Heavy HDEs, our
extrapolation of the data from 600,000 miles through the 850,000 miles
useful life period of the Alternative suggests that the numeric level
of the NOX emission control in the Alternative could not be
maintained through the Alternative useful life period (see draft RIA
Chapter 3.1 for details on available data and our evaluation). Wholly
different emission control technologies than we have evaluated to date
(i.e., not based on CDA and a dual SCR) would be needed to meet the
Alternative standards for Heavy HDEs; we request comment on this
conclusion and on the availability, or potential development and
timeline, of such additional technologies. We also note that the
Alternative is significantly more stringent than the CARB Omnibus
because of the combination of numeric level of the NOX
emission standards and useful life periods in the Alternative compared
to the CARB Omnibus. Specifically, for heavy HDEs, the Alternative
includes a 20 mg/hp-hr standard at a useful life of 850,000 miles,
whereas for MYs 2027 through 2030 the CARB Omnibus includes a 20 mg/hp-
hr standard at 435,000 miles and a 35 mg/hp-hr standard at 600,000
miles for heavy HDEs. Thus, the heavy HDE useful life period of the
Alternative is substantially longer than the CARB Omnibus useful life
periods that start in MY 2027, particularly when comparing the useful
life period for the 20 mg/hp-hr standard. Starting in MY 2031, the CARB
Omnibus NOX standard for heavy HDEs is 40 mg/hp-hr at a
useful life of 800,000 miles, which is again a higher numeric level of
the standard at a shorter useful life than the Alternative.
Table III-14--Proposed and Alternative Compression-Ignition Engine Standards for the FTP Test Procedure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/ PM (mg/ HC (mg/ CO (g/hp-
Model year Primary intended service class hp-hr) hp-hr) hp-hr) hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1.................... 2027-2030........................... All HD Engines................. 35 5 60 6.0
2031 and later...................... Light HDE and Medium HDE....... 20 5 40 6.0
2031 and later...................... Heavy HDE...................... 40 \a\ 5 40 6.0
Proposed Option 2.................... 2027 and later...................... All HD Engines................. 50 5 40 6.0
Alternative.......................... 2027 and later...................... All HD Engines................. 20 5 10 6.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Proposed Option 1 MY 2031 and later IUL NOX standard for Heavy HDE is 20 mg/hp-hr.
[[Page 17471]]
Table III-15--Proposed and Alternative Compression-Ignition Engine Standards for the SET Test Procedure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/ PM (mg/ HC (mg/ CO (g/hp-
Model year Primary intended service class hp-hr) hp-hr) hp-hr) hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1.................... 2027-2030........................... All HD Engines................. 35 5 60 6.0
2031 and later...................... Light HDE and Medium HDE....... 20 5 40 6.0
2031 and later...................... Heavy HDE...................... \a\ 40 5 40 6.0
Proposed Option 2.................... 2027 and later...................... All HD Engines................. 50 5 40 6.0
Alternative.......................... 2027 and later...................... All HD Engines................. 20 5 10 6.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Proposed Option 1 MY 2031 and later IUL NOX standard for Heavy HDE is 20 mg/hp-hr.
Table III-16--Proposed and Alternative Compression-Ignition Engine Standards for the LLC Test Procedure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/ PM (mg/ HC (mg/ CO (g/hp-
Model year Primary intended service class hp-hr) hp-hr) hp-hr) hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1.................... 2027-2030........................... All HD Engines................. 90 5 140 6.0
2031 and later...................... Light HDE and Medium HDE....... 50 5 60 6.0
2031 and later...................... Heavy HDE...................... \a\ 100 5 60 6.0
Proposed Option 2.................... 2027 and later...................... All HD Engines................. 100 5 60 6.0
Alternative.......................... 2027 and later...................... All HD Engines................. 100 5 60 6.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Proposed Option 1 MY 2031 and later IUL NOX standard for Heavy HDE is 50 mg/hp-hr.
For the optional idle NOX standard, the Alternative
includes a standard of 10.0 g/hr for MY 2027 and beyond. The proposed
Options 1 and 2 standards generally represent the range of options,
including the standards, regulatory useful life and emission-related
warranty periods and lead time provided, that we are currently
considering in this rule, depending in part on any additional
information we receive on the feasibility, costs, and other impacts of
the proposed Options 1 and 2 standards. In order to consider adopting
the Alternative in the final rule, we would need additional data to
project that the Alternative is feasible for the MY 2027 time frame. As
discussed in Section III.B.5, we are soliciting comment on the
feasibility of the Alternative and other alternatives outside the range
of options covered by the proposed Options 1 and 2 standards.
5. Summary of Requests for Comment on the Stringency of the CI Duty
Cycle Standards
We request comment on the following items related to the proposed
CI duty cycle standards. First, we request comment on the numeric value
of each proposed, or alternative, standard for each duty cycle and off-
cycle emissions and the proposed Option 1 two step, or the proposed
Option 2 one step, approach and implementation timetable, as well as
other standards or approaches recommended by the commenter, within the
approximate range of the proposed Options 1 and 2 standards. We request
comment, including relevant data and other information, on the
feasibility of the implementation model year, numeric levels of the
emission standards, and useful life and warranty periods included in
the Alternative, or other alternatives outside the range of options
covered by the proposed Options 1 and 2 standards. We request comment
on if a margin between the demonstrated emissions performance and the
proposed standards should be included and if so, we request comment on
if a specific margin should be used and what that value should be.
Commenters requesting a specific margin are encouraged to provide data
and analysis to support the numeric value of the margin(s).
We request comment on whether a lower numeric standard for
NOX should be set for the LLC based on the emission levels
achieved with the CARB Stage 3 engine or EPA Stage 3 engine. We request
comment on whether EPA should make the idle standards mandatory for MY
2027 and beyond. We request comment on whether the test procedures
defined in 40 CFR 1036.522 for IRAF should be applied to the LLC or if
alternative procedures should be considered. We request comment on
whether the proposed PM standards of 5 mg/hp-hr for the FTP, SET and
LLC provide enough margin to account for the measurement variability of
the PM measurement test procedure, while ensuring that the PM emissions
from HD CI engines do not increase. We are requesting comment on
whether we should include HEV, BEV, and/or FCEV technologies in our
feasibility analysis for the final rule.
As discussed in Section III.B.2.v, EPA requests comment on the
proposed powertrain test procedure, including any additional
requirements that are needed to ensure that the engine and respective
powertrain cycles are equivalent. We request comment on other
improvements that could be made specifically to make the idle accessory
load more representative for powertrains that include a transmission as
part of the certified configuration. EPA requests comment on whether
the powertrain test procedure option is needed for specific non-hybrid
powertrains where the engine test procedure is not representative of
in-use operation of the powertrain in a vehicle, and if so how should
we define these powertrains so that the powertrain test option is only
available for these powertrains. We request comment on our proposed
approach to powertrain testing for BEVs and FCEVs, and specifically
whether any modifications of the FTP, SET and LLC powertrain test
cycles would be needed for BEVs and FCEVs. We further request comment
on whether the MCT as defined in 40 CFR 1037.552 would require
modifications to accurately measure work produced over the FTP cycle or
the measure of useable battery energy (UBE). We request comment on
whether the procedure in 40 CFR 1037.554 is appropriate for determining
fuel cell voltage (FCV). In addition, we request
[[Page 17472]]
comment on if 40 CFR 1036.527 should be used to determine rated FCC.
Finally, we request comment on whether the standards should be
expressed in units of milligrams per kilowatt-hour, so that each value
of the standards is in the international system of units (SI units), as
we have done for the HD nonroad and locomotive standards.
C. Summary of Compression-Ignition Off-Cycle Standards and In-Use Test
Procedures
1. Current NTE Standards and Need for Changes to Off-Cycle Test
Procedures
Heavy-duty CI engines are currently subject to Not-To-Exceed (NTE)
standards that are not limited to specific test cycles, which means
they can be evaluated not only in the laboratory but also in-use. NTE
standards and test procedures are generally referred to as ``off-
cycle'' standards and test procedures. These off-cycle emission limits
are 1.5 (1.25 for CO) times the laboratory certification standard or
family emission limit (FEL) for NOX, HC, PM and CO and can
be found in 40 CFR 86.007-11. NTE standards have been successful in
broadening the types of operation for which manufacturers design their
emission controls to remain effective, including steady cruise
operation. However, there remains significant operation not covered by
NTE standards.
Compliance with an NTE standard is based on emission test data
(whether collected in a laboratory or in use) analyzed pursuant to 40
CFR 86.1370 to identify NTE events, which are intervals of at least 30
seconds when engine speeds and loads remain in the NTE control area or
``NTE zone''. The NTE zone excludes engine operation that falls below
certain torque, power, and speed values.\340\ The NTE procedure also
excludes engine operation that occurs in certain ambient conditions
(i.e., high altitudes, high intake manifold humidity), or when
aftertreatment temperatures are below 250[deg]C. Collected data is
considered a valid NTE event if it occurs within the NTE zone, lasts at
least 30 seconds, and does not occur during any of the exclusion
conditions (ambient conditions, or aftertreatment temperature).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\340\ Specifically, engine operations are excluded if they fall
below 30 percent of maximum torque, 30 percent of maximum power, or
15 percent of the European Stationary Cycle speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of the NTE test procedure is to measure emissions
during engine operation conditions that could reasonably be expected to
occur during normal vehicle use; however, only data in a valid NTE
event is then compared to the NTE emission standard. Our analysis of
existing heavy-duty in-use vehicle test data indicates that less than
ten percent of a typical time-based dataset are part of valid NTE
events, and hence subject to the NTE standards; the remaining test data
are excluded from consideration. We also found that emissions are high
during many of the excluded periods of operation, such as when the
aftertreatment temperature drops below the 250[deg]C exclusion
criterion. Our review of in-use data indicates that extended time at
low load and idle operation results in low aftertreatment temperatures,
which in turn lead to diesel engine SCR-based emission control systems
not functioning over a significant fraction of real-world
operation.\341\ \342\ \343\ Test data collected as part of EPA's
manufacturer-run in-use testing program indicate that low-load
operation could account for greater than 50 percent of the
NOX emissions from a vehicle over a given workday.\344\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\341\ Hamady, Fakhri, Duncan, Alan. ``A Comprehensive Study of
Manufacturers In-Use Testing Data Collected from Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engines Using Portable Emissions Measurement System (PEMS)''. 29th
CRC Real World Emissions Workshop, March 10-13, 2019.
\342\ Sandhu, Gurdas, et al. ``Identifying Areas of High
NOX Operation in Heavy-Duty Vehicles''. 28th CRC Real-
World Emissions Workshop, March 18-21, 2018.
\343\ Sandhu, Gurdas, et al. ``In-Use Emission Rates for MY
2010+ Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles''. 27th CRC Real-World Emissions
Workshop, March 26-29, 2017.
\344\ Sandhu, Gurdas, et al. ``Identifying Areas of High
NOX Operation in Heavy-Duty Vehicles''. 28th CRC Real-
World Emissions Workshop, March 18-21, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, 96 percent of tests in response to 2014, 2015, and
2016 EPA in-use testing orders passed with NOX emissions for
valid NTE events well below the 0.3 g/hp-hr NOX NTE
standard. When we used the same data to calculate NOX
emissions over all operation measured, not limited to valid NTE events,
the NOX emissions were more than double those within the
valid NTE events (0.5 g/hp-hr).\345\ The results were even higher when
we analyzed the data to consider only NOX emissions that
occur during low load events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\345\ Hamady, Fakhri, Duncan, Alan. ``A Comprehensive Study of
Manufacturers In-Use Testing Data Collected from Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engines Using Portable Emissions Measurement System (PEMS)''. 29th
CRC Real World Emissions Workshop, March 10-13, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA and others have compared the performance of US-certified
engines and those certified to European Union emission standards and
concluded that the European engines' NOX emissions are lower
in low-load conditions, but comparable to US-certified engines subject
to MY 2010 standards under city and highway operation.\346\ This
suggests that manufacturers are responding to the European
certification standards by designing their emission controls to perform
well under low-load operations, as well as highway operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\346\ Rodriguez, F.; Posada, F. ``Future Heavy-Duty Emission
Standards An Opportunity for International Harmonization''. The
International Council on Clean Transportation. November 2019.
Available online: https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Future%20_HDV_standards_opportunity_20191125.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The European Union ``Euro VI'' emission standards for heavy-duty
engines require manufacturers to check for ``in-service conformity'' by
operating their engines over a mix of urban, rural, and motorway
driving on prescribed routes using portable emission measurement system
(PEMS) equipment to measure emissions.347 348 Compliance is
determined using a work-based windows approach where emissions data are
evaluated over segments or ``windows.'' A window consists of
consecutive 1 Hz data points that are summed until the engine performs
an amount of work equivalent to the European transient engine test
cycle (World Harmonized Transient Cycle).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\347\ COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 582/2011, May 25, 2011.
Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02011R0582-20180118&from=EN.
\348\ COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2018/932, June 29, 2018.
Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018R0932&from=EN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing an approach similar to the European in-use
program, with key distinctions that build upon the Euro VI approach, as
discussed below.
2. Proposed Off-Cycle Standards and Test Procedures
As described in Section III.C.1, our current NTE test procedures
were not designed to capture low-load operation. We are proposing to
replace the NTE test procedures and standards (for NOX, PM,
HC and CO) for model year 2027 and later engines. Engine operation and
emissions test data would be assessed in 300-second moving average
windows (MAWs) of continuous engine operation.\349\ In contrast to the
current NTE approach that divides engine operation into two categories
(in the NTE zone and out of the NTE zone), the proposed approach would
divide engine operation into three categories (or ``bins'') based on
the time-weighted average engine power of each MAW of
[[Page 17473]]
engine data as described in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\349\ Our evaluation includes our current understanding that
shorter windows are more sensitive to measurement variability and
longer windows make it difficult to distinguish between duty cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the proposed program has similarities to the European
approach, we are not proposing to limit our standards to operation on
prescribed routes. Our current NTE program is not limited to prescribed
routes and we would consider it an unnecessary step backward to change
that aspect of the procedure.
In Section IV.G, we discuss our proposed updates to the ABT program
to account for our proposal of unique off-cycle standards.
i. Bins
We are proposing two options of off-cycle standards for three bins
of operation that cover the range of operation included in the duty
cycle test procedures and operation that is outside of the duty cycle
test procedures for each regulated pollutant (NOX, HC, CO,
and PM). The three bins represent three different domains of emission
performance. The idle bin represents extended idle operation and other
very low load operation where engine exhaust temperatures may drop
below the optimal temperature for aftertreatment function. The medium/
high load bin represents higher power operation including much of the
operation currently covered by the NTE. Operation in the medium/high
load bin naturally involves higher exhaust temperatures and catalyst
efficiencies. The low load bin represents intermediate operation and
could include a large fraction of urban driving. Because the proposed
approach divides 300 second windows into bins based on time-averaged
engine power of the window, any of the bins could include some idle or
high power operation. Like the duty cycle standards, we believe that
more than a single standard is needed to apply to the entire range of
operation that heavy-duty engines experience. A numerical standard that
would be technologically feasible under worst case conditions such as
idle would necessarily be much higher than the levels that are
achievable when the aftertreatment is functioning optimally. Similarly,
since the low load bin will consist of operation either between the
idle and medium/high load bins or be an average of the operation in the
two bins, the work specific emissions of the low load bin will
generally be lower than the idle bin and higher than the medium/high
load bin. Section III.C.2.iii includes the proposed Options 1and 2 off-
cycle standards.
Given the challenges of measuring engine power directly in-use, we
are proposing to use the CO2 emission rate (grams per
second) as a surrogate for engine power in defining the bins for an
engine. We are further proposing to normalize CO2 emission
rates relative to the nominal maximum CO2 rate of the
engine. So, if an engine with a maximum CO2 emission rate of
50 g/sec was found to be emitting CO2 at a rate of 10 g/sec,
its normalized CO2 emission rate would be 20 percent. We are
proposing that the maximum CO2 rate be defined as the
engine's rated maximum power multiplied by the engine's family
certification level (FCL) for the FTP certification cycle. We request
comment on whether the maximum CO2 mass emission rate should
instead be determined from the steady-state fuel mapping procedure in
40 CFR 1036.535 or the torque mapping procedure defined in 40 CFR
1065.510. We propose the bins to be defined as follows:
Idle bin: 300 second windows with normalized average
CO2 rate <= 6 percent
Low-load bin: 300 second windows with normalized average
CO2 rate > 6 percent and <= 20 percent
Medium/high-load bin: 300 second windows with normalized
average CO2 rate > 20 percent
The proposed bin cut points of six and twenty percent are near the
average power of the proposed low-load cycle and the FTP, respectively.
We request comment on whether the cut points should be defined at
different power levels or if other metrics should be used to define the
bins. We also request comment on whether it would be more appropriate
to divide in-use operation into two bins rather than three bins and, if
so, what the cut point should be.
To ensure that there is adequate data in each of the bins to
compare to the off-cycle standards, we are proposing a minimum of 2,400
moving average windows per bin. We are proposing that if during the
first shift day each of the bins does not include at least 2,400
windows, then the engine would need to be tested for additional day(s)
until the minimum requirement is met. We are also proposing that the
engine can be idled at the end of the shift-day to meet the minimum
window count requirement for the idle bin. This is to ensure that even
for duty cycles that do not include significant idle operation the
minimum window count requirement for the idle bin can be met without
testing additional days. We request comment on whether 2,400 windows is
the appropriate minimum to sufficiently reduce variability in the
results while not requiring an unnecessary number of shift-days to be
tested to meet the requirement.
ii. Off-Cycle Test Procedures
We are proposing to measure off-cycle emissions using the existing
test procedures that specify measurement equipment and the process of
measuring emissions during field testing in 40 CFR part 1065. We are
proposing in part 1036 subpart F the process for recruiting test
vehicles, how to test over the shift-day, how to evaluate the data,
what constitutes a valid test, and how to determine if an engine family
passes. Measurements may use either the general laboratory test
procedures in 40 CFR 1065, or the field test procedures in 40 CFR part
1065, subpart J. However, we are proposing special calculations for low
load and medium/high load bins in 40 CFR 1036.515 that would supersede
the brake-specific emission calculations in 40 CFR part 1065. The
proposed test procedures would require second-by-second measurement of
the following parameters:
Molar concentration of CO2 (ppm)
Molar concentration of NOX (ppm)
Molar concentration of HC (ppm)
Molar concentration of CO (ppm)
Concentration of PM (g/m3)
Exhaust flow rate (m3/s)
Mass emissions of CO2 and each regulated pollutant would
be separately determined for each 300-second window and would be binned
based on the normalized CO2 rate for each window.
The standards described in Section III.C.2.iii are expressed in
units of g/hr for the idle bin and g/hp-hr for the low and medium/high
load bins. However, unlike most of our exhaust standards, the hp-hr
values for the off-cycle standards do not refer to actual brake work.
Rather, they refer to nominal equivalent work calculated proportional
to the CO2 emission rate. Thus, we are proposing in 40 CFR
1036.515 that the NOX emissions (``e'') in g/hp-hr would be
calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.000
[[Page 17474]]
We are proposing a limited number of exclusions that would exclude
some data from being subject to the off-cycle standards. The first
exclusion is for data collected during periodic PEMS zero and span
drift checks or calibrations, where the emission analyzers are not
available to measure emissions during that time and these checks/
calibrations are needed to ensure the robustness of the data. Data
would also be excluded anytime the engine is off during the course of
the shift-day, including engine off due to automated start/stop, as no
exhaust emissions are being generated by the engine while it is not
operating. We are also proposing to exclude data when ambient
temperatures are below -7 [deg]C, or when ambient temperatures are
above the altitude-based value determined using Equation 40 CFR
1036.515-1. The colder temperatures can significantly inhibit the
engine's ability to maintain aftertreatment temperature above the
minimum operating temperature of the SCR catalyst while the higher
temperature conditions at altitude can limit the mass airflow through
the engine, which can adversely affect the engine's ability to reduce
engine out NOX through the use of exhaust gas recirculation
(EGR). In addition to affecting EGR, the air-fuel ratio of the engine
can decrease under high load, which can increase exhaust temperatures
above the conditions where the SCR catalyst is most efficient at
reducing NOX. Data would also be excluded for operation at
altitudes greater than 5,500 feet above sea level for the same reasons
as for high temperatures at altitude. We would also exclude data when
any approved Auxiliary Emission Control Device (AECD) for emergency
vehicles are active because the engines are allowed to exceed the
emission standards while these AECDs are active. Data collected during
infrequent regeneration events would also be excluded due to the fact
that the data collected may not include enough operation during the
infrequent regeneration to properly weight the emissions rates during
an infrequent regeneration event with emissions that occur without an
infrequent regeneration event. We request comment on the
appropriateness of these exclusions and whether other exclusions should
be included. We request comment on whether emissions during infrequent
regeneration should be included in determining compliance with the
proposed off-cycle standards and if so, how these emissions should be
included such that the emissions are properly weighted with the
emissions when infrequent regenerations are not occuring. While data is
excluded when any approved ACEDs for emergency vehicles are active,
data generated while other approved ACEDs are active may not be
excluded from the emissions calculations under the proposed 40 CFR
1036.515.
To reduce the influence of environmental conditions on the accuracy
and precision of the PEMS, we are proposing additional requirements in
40 CFR 1065.910(b). These requirements are to minimize the influence of
temperature, pressure, electromagnetic frequency, shock, and vibration
on the emissions measurement. If the design of the PEMS or the
installation of the PEMS does not minimize the influence of these
environmental conditions the PEMS must be installed in an environmental
chamber during the off-cycle test.
iii. Off-Cycle Standards
For NOX and HC, we are proposing separate standards for
distinct modes of operation. To ensure that the proposed duty-cycle
NOX standards and the proposed off-cycle NOX
standards are set at the same relative stringency level for each
option, the idle bin standard is proportional to the voluntary Idle
standard discussed in Section III.B.2.iv, the low load bin standard is
proportional to the proposed LLC standard discussed in Section
III.B.2.iii and the medium/high load bin standard is proportional to
the proposed SET standard discussed in Section III.B.2.ii. For HC for
each option the proposed low load bin standards are set at values
proportional to the LLC standard and the medium/high load bin standard
is proportional to the SET proposed standard. For PM and CO for each
option the standards for the FTP, SET and LLC are the same numeric
value, so the low load and medium/high load bin have the same
standards. The proposed Options 1 and 2 off-cycle standards for the low
load and medium/high load bin are shown in Table III-17. For the idle
bin, the proposed Option 1 NOX emission standard for all CI
primary intended service classes is 10.0 g/hr starting in model years
2027 through 2030 and 7.5 g/hr starting in model year 2031. For
proposed Option 2, the idle bin NOX standard for all CI
primary intended service classes is 15.0 g/hr starting in model year
2027. For PM, HC and CO we are not proposing standards for the idle bin
because the emissions from these pollutants are very small under idle
conditions and idle operation is extensively covered by the FTP, SET
and LLC duty cycles discussed in Section III.B.2. We request comment on
appropriate scaling factors or other approaches to setting off-cycle
standards. Finally, we request comment on whether there is a continued
need for measurement allowances in an in-use program such as described
below. A discussion of the measurement allowance values can be found in
Section III.C.5.iii.
Table III-17--Proposed Off-Cycle Low Load and Medium/High Load Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/hp- PM (mg/hp- HC (mg/hp-
Option/MY Primary intended service class Bin hr) hr) hr) CO (g/hp-hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1..................... All HD Engines................ Low load................ 180 10 280 12
MY 2027-2030 .............................. Medium/high load........ 70 ............ 120 ............
Proposed Option 1..................... Light HDE and Medium HDE...... Low load................ 75 8 90 9
Medium/high load........ 30 ............ 60 ............
MY 2031 and later..................... Heavy HDE..................... Low load................ \a\ 150 8 90 9
Medium/high load........ \b\ 60 ............ 60 ............
Proposed Option 2..................... All HD Engines................ Low load................ 150 8 90 9
MY 2027 and later .............................. Medium/high load........ 75 ............ 60 ............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Proposed Option 1 2031 and later low load bin IUL NOX standard is 75 mg/hp-hr for Heavy HDE.
\b\ Proposed Option 1 2031 and later medium/high load bin IUL NOX standard is 30 mg/hp-hr for Heavy HDE.
[[Page 17475]]
3. Feasibility of the Diesel (Compression-Ignition) Off-Cycle Standards
i. Technologies
As a starting point for our determination of the appropriate
numeric levels of our proposed off-cycle emission standards, we
considered whether manufacturers could meet the duty-cycle standard
corresponding to the type of engine operation included in a given bin,
as follows:
Idle bin operation is generally similar to operation at
idle and the lower speed portions of the LLC.
Low load bin operation is generally similar to operation
over the LLC and the FTP.
Medium/high load bin operation is generally similar to
operation over the FTP and much of the SET.
An important question is whether the proposed off-cycle standards
would require technology beyond what we are projecting would be
necessary to meet the duty-cycle standards. As described below, we do
not expect our proposed Options 1 and 2 off-cycle standards to require
different technologies. However, the proposed Option 1 standard for the
medium/high load bin would likely require manufacturers to increase the
volume of the SCR catalyst.
This is not to say that we expect manufacturers to be able to meet
these proposed Options 1 and 2 standards with no additional work.
Rather, we project that the proposed Options 1 and 2 off-cycle
standards could be met primarily through additional effort to calibrate
the duty-cycle technologies to function properly over the broader range
of in-use conditions. We also recognize that manufacturers could choose
to include additional technology, if it provided a less expensive or
otherwise preferred option.
When we evaluated the technologies discussed in Section III.B.3.i
with emissions controls that were designed to cover a broad range of
operation, it was clear that we should set the off-cycle standards to
higher numerical values than the duty-cycle standards for the off-cycle
test procedures being proposed. Section III.C.3.ii explains how the
technology and controls performed when testing with the off-cycle test
procedures over a broad range of operation. The data presented in
Section III.C.3.ii shows that even though there are similarities in the
operation between the duty cycles (LLC, FTP, and SET) and the off-cycle
bins (Idle bin, Low load bin, and Medium/high load bin), the broader
range of operation covered by the off-cycle test procedure results in a
broader range in emissions performance, which justifies the need for
higher off-cycle standards than the corresponding duty cycle standards.
In addition to this, the off-cycle test procedures and standards cover
a broader range of ambient temperature and pressure, which can also
increase the emissions from the engine as discussed in Section
III.C.2.ii. Commenters supporting lower or higher numerical standards
are encouraged to consider the proposed level of the standards in the
full context of the test procedures and compliance provisions. See
Section III.C.6.
ii. Summary of Feasibility Analysis
To identify appropriate numerical levels for the off-cycle
standards, we evaluated the performance of the EPA Stage 3 engine in
the laboratory on five different cycles that were created from field
data of HD engines that cover a range of off-cycle operation. These
cycles are the CARB Southern Route Cycle, Grocery Delivery Truck Cycle,
Drayage Truck Cycle, Euro-VI ISC Cycle (EU ISC) and the Advanced
Collaborative Emissions Study (ACES) cycle. The CARB Southern Route
Cycle is dominantly highway operation with elevation changes resulting
in extended motoring sections followed by high power operation. The
Grocery Delivery Truck Cycle represents goods delivery from regional
warehouses to downtown and suburban supermarkets and extended engine-
off events characteristic of unloading events at supermarkets. Drayage
Truck Cycle includes near dock and local operation of drayage trucks,
with extended idle and creep operation. Euro-VI ISC Cycle is modeled
after Euro VI ISC route requirements with a mix of 30 percent urban, 25
percent rural and 45 percent highway operation. ACES Cycle is a 5-mode
cycle developed as part of ACES program. Chapter 3 of the draft RIA
includes figures that show the engine speed, engine torque and vehicle
speed of the cycles.
The engine was initially calibrated to minimize NOX
emissions for the proposed duty cycles (FTP, SET, and LLC). It was then
further calibrated to achieve more optimal performance over the off-
cycle operation. Although the engine did not include the SCR catalyst
volume that is included in our cost analysis and that would enable
lower medium/high load bin NOX emissions, the test results
shown in Table III-18 provide a reasonable basis for evaluating the
feasibility of controlling off-cycle emissions to a useful life of
435,000 miles. Using this data along with the data from the CARB Stage
3 that was measured at multiple points in the age of the aftertreatment
to project out the emissions level to 800,000 miles, the proposed
Options 1 and 2 off-cycle NOX standards at each respective
useful life value are shown to be feasible. The summary of the results
is in Chapter 3 of the draft RIA.
Table III-18--EPA Stage 3 NOX Emissions Off-Cycle Operation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grocery
Bin CARB southern delivery ACES EU ISC Drayage
route cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idle bin (g/hr)................. 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.3
Low load bin (mg/hp-hr)......... 41 25 29 25 15
Medium/high load bin (mg/hp-hr). 30 18 16 33 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Idle Bin Evaluation
The proposed idle bin would include the idle operation and some of
the lower speed operation that occurs during the LLC and FTP. However,
it would also include other types of low-load operation observed with
in-use vehicles, such as operation involving longer idle times than
occur in the LLC. To ensure that the idle bin standard would be
feasible, we set the proposed Option 1 idle bin standard in MY 2027 and
MY 2031 at the level projected to be achievable engine-out with exhaust
temperatures below the light-off temperature. As can be seen see from
the results in Table III-18, the EPA Stage 3 engine performed well
below the proposed Options 1 and 2 NOX standards. The
summary of the results is located in Chapter 3 of the draft RIA.
[[Page 17476]]
b. Low and Medium/High Load Bin Evaluations
As can be seen see from the results in Table III-18, the emissions
from the Stage 3 engine in the low load bin were below the proposed
Options 1 and 2 standards for each of the off-cycles standards. The HC
and CO emissions measured for each of these off-cycle duty cycles was
well below the proposed Options 1 and 2 off-cycle standards for the low
and medium/high load bins. The summary of the results is located in
Chapter 3 of the draft RIA.
For the medium/high load bin, four of the five off-cycle duty
cycles had emission results below the proposed Option 1 NOX
standard for MY 2031 of 30 mg/hp-hr shown in Table III-17. As
mentioned, in Section III.B.2 the engine did not include the SCR
catalyst volume that is included in our cost analysis, so we will
continue to evaluate the emissions performance from the EPA Stage 3
engine and we will evaluate an aftertreatment that includes this
additional SCR volume referred to as EPA Team A. In addition, we will
conduct testing with these aftertreatments after they have been aged to
the equivalent of 800,000 miles to further evaluate the feasibility of
the proposed Option 1 off-cycle standards for the full proposed MY 2031
useful life period. For the proposed Option 2 medium/high load
standards, our extrapolation of the data from 435,000 miles to the
650,000 useful life of proposed Option 2 indicates that the standards
would be feasible starting in MY 2027.
We request comment on the proposed Options 1 and 2 off-cycle
standards, as well as the overall structure of the off-cycle program.
We also request comment on the need for fewer or more than 3 bins. As
described in Section III.C.3.ii, the emissions from CARB Stage 3 engine
have been demonstrated to be very similar across the three bins, which
may indicate that some or all bins can be combined. On the other hand,
this data was generated on the EPA Stage 3 engine with aftertreatment
that was chemically- and hydrothermally-aged to the equivalent of
435,000 miles and as the aftertreatment is aged beyond 435,000 miles it
may show a larger difference in NOX emissions performance
between the bins. See Chapter 3 of the draft RIA for more information
on how the FTP, SET, and LLC NOX emissions performance has
changed from the degreened system to the aftertreatment aged to an
equivalent of 600,000 miles.
4. Potential Alternatives
Following our approach for duty-cycle standards, we evaluated one
set of alternative off-cycle exhaust emission standards (the
Alternative) for CI HDE. These alternative off-cycle standards were
derived using the same approach as the proposed off-cycle standards.
(i.e., by setting the alternative off-cycle standards as a multiple of
the alternative certification duty-cycle standards). These off-cycle
standards for the Alternative are set at 1.5 times the Clean Idle test
standard (NOX only) for the idle bin, 1.5 times the LLC
standard for the low load bin, and 1.5 times the SET standard for the
medium/high load bin. This approach resulted in the same standards in
the Alternative and the proposed Options 1 and 2 standards for PM, but
different standards for NOX, HC and CO.
For the Alternative, data in Table III-18 show that the medium/high
load bin off-cycle NOX standard would be challenging to meet
at a useful life of 435,000 miles. Our extrapolation of the data out to
the 850,000 useful life for Heavy HDEs in this alternative suggests
that this off-cycle standard is not feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe.
We expect that wholly different emission control technologies than we
have evaluated to date (i.e., not based on CDA and a dual SCR) would be
needed to meet the standards in the Alternative; we request comment on
this conclusion and on the availability, or potential development and
timeline, of such additional technologies.
As with the proposed standards, the data presented in Chapter 3 of
the draft RIA shows that the Alternative PM, HC and CO standards are
feasible for CI engines in MY 2027.
Table III-19--Off-Cycle Standards for the Alternative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (g/hr)
for idle, (mg/
hp-hr) for low
Model year Bin and medium/ PM (mg/hp-hr) HC (mg/hp-hr) CO (g/hp-hr)
high load
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027 and later..................... Idle................. 15.0 No Standard............. No Standard............. No Standard.
Low load............. 150 8....................... 90...................... 9.
Medium/high load..... 30 ........................ 15.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Compliance and Flexibilities for Off-Cycle Standards
Given the similarities of the proposed off-cycle standards and test
procedures to the current NTE requirements that we are proposing they
would replace starting in MY 2027, we have evaluated the
appropriateness of applying the current NTE compliance provisions for
the proposed Options 1 and 2 off-cycle standards, as discussed below.
We are also requesting comment on a possible broadening of our in-use
compliance strategy to cover more engines and more operation.
i. Relation of Off-Cycle Standards to Defeat Devices
CAA section 203 prohibits bypassing or rendering inoperative a
certified engine's emission controls. When the engine is designed or
modified to do this, the engine is said to have a defeat device. With
today's engines, the greatest risks with respect to defeat devices
involve manipulation of the electronic controls of the engine. EPA
refers to an element of design that manipulates emission controls as an
Auxiliary Emission Control Device (AECD).\350\ Unless explicitly
permitted by EPA, AECDs that reduce the effectiveness of emission
control systems under conditions which may reasonably be expected to be
encountered in normal vehicle operation and use are prohibited as
defeat devices under current 40 CFR 86.004-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\350\ 40 CFR 86.082-2 defines Auxiliary Emission Control Device
(AECD) to mean ``any element of design which senses temperature,
vehicle speed, engine RPM, transmission gear, manifold vacuum, or
any other parameter for the purpose of activating, modulating,
delaying, or deactivating the operation of any part of the emission
control system.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17477]]
For certification, EPA requires manufacturers to identify and
describe all AECDs.\351\ For any AECD that reduces the effectiveness of
the emission control system under conditions which may reasonably be
expected to be encountered in normal vehicle operation and use,
manufacturers must provide a detailed justification.\352\ We are
proposing to migrate the definition of defeat device from 40 CFR
86.004-2 to 40 CFR 1036.115(h) and clarify that an AECD is not a defeat
device if such conditions are substantially included in the applicable
procedure for duty-cycle testing as described in 40 CFR 1036, subpart
F. ``Duty-cycle testing'' in 40 CFR 1036.115(h)(1)(i) would not include
the proposed off-cycle test procedure in 40 CFR 1036.515, since it is
an off-cycle test procedure and not a duty-cycle test procedure for the
purposes of this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\351\ See 40 CFR 86.094-21(b)(1)(i)(A).
\352\ See definition of ``defeat device'' in 40 CFR 86.004-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Heavy-Duty In-Use Testing Program
Under the current manufacturer-run heavy-duty in-use testing
(HDIUT) program, EPA annually selects engine families to evaluate
whether engines are meeting current emissions standards. Once we submit
a test order to the manufacturer to initiate testing, it must contact
customers to recruit vehicles that use an engine from the selected
engine family. The manufacturer generally selects five unique vehicles
that have a good maintenance history, no malfunction indicators on, and
are within the engine's regulatory useful life for the requested engine
family. The tests require use of portable emissions measurement systems
(PEMS) that meet the requirements of 40 CFR 1065, subpart J.
Manufacturers collect data from the selected vehicles over the course
of a day while they are used for their normal work and operated by a
regular driver, and then submit the data to EPA. Compliance is
evaluated with respect to the NTE standards.
We are proposing to continue the HDIUT program, with compliance
with respect to the new off-cycle standards and test procedures that
would be added to the program beginning with MY 2027 engines. We are
also proposing to not carry forward the Phase 2 HDIUT requirements in
40 CFR 86.1915 beginning with MY 2027. Under the current NTE based off-
cycle test program, if you are required to test ten engines under Phase
1 testing and less than 8 fully comply with the vehicle pass criteria
in 40 CFR 86.1912, then we could require you to initiate Phase 2 HDIUT
testing which would require you to test an additional 10 engines. We
are proposing that compliance with the off-cycle standards would be
determined by testing a maximum of 10 engines, which was the original
limit under Phase 1 HDIUT testing in 40 CFR 86.1915. Similar to the
current Phase 1 HDIUT requirements in 40 CFR 86.1912, the proposed 40
CFR 1036.425 requires initially testing five engines. If all five
engines pass, you are done testing and your engine family is in
compliance. If one of those engines does not comply fully with the off-
cycle bin standards, you would then test a sixth engine. If five of the
six engines tested pass, you are done testing and your engine family is
in compliance. If two of the six engines tested do not comply fully
with the off-cycle bin standards, you would then test four more for a
total of 10 engines. The engine family would fail off-cycle standards
if the arithmetic mean of the sum-over-sum emissions from the ten
engines for any of the 3 bins for any of the pollutants is above the
off-cycle bin standards. In regard to the averaging of data from the
ten engines, we are proposing to take the arithmetic mean of the
results by bin for each of the 10 engines determined in 40 CFR
1036.515(h) for each of the pollutants, thus creating mean bin results
of each pollutant for each bin for the 10 engines. We request comment
on determining this value by using all of the windows in a given bin
for a given pollutant over all 10 of the engines tested.
We are also proposing to allow manufacturers to test a minimum of 2
engines using PEMS, in response to a test order program, provided they
measure and report in-use data collected from the engine's on-board
NOX measurement system. This proposed option would be
available only where a manufacturer receives approval based on the
requirements in 40 CFR 1036.405(g).
We are proposing to not carry forward the provision in 40 CFR
86.1908(a)(6) that considers an engine misfueled if operated on a
biodiesel fuel blend that is either not listed as allowed or otherwise
indicated to be an unacceptable fuel in the vehicle's owner or operator
manual. We are proposing in 40 CFR 1036.415(c)(1) to allow vehicles to
be tested for compliance with the new off-cycle standards on any
commercially available biodiesel fuel blend that meets the
specifications for ASTM D975 or ASTM D7467. The proposal to make this
change is based on the availability of biodiesel blends up to B20
throughout the United States and thus its use as a motor fuel in the
heavy-duty fleet and the fact that engines must comply with the
emission standards when operated on both neat ultra-low sulfur diesel
(ULSD) and these biodiesel fuel blends.
Finally, we request comment on the need to measure PM emissions
during in-use testing of new or existing engines subject to in-use
testing if they are equipped with DPF. PEMS measurement is more
complicated and time-consuming for PM measurements than for gaseous
pollutants such as NOX and eliminating it for some or all of
in-use testing would provide significant cost savings. Commenters are
encouraged to address whether there are less expensive alternatives for
ensuring that engines meet the PM standards in use.
iii. PEMS Accuracy Margin
EPA worked with engine manufacturers on a joint test program to
establish measurement allowance values to account for the measurement
uncertainty associated with in-use testing in the 2008-time frame for
gaseous emissions and the 2010-time frame for PM emissions to support
NTE in-use testing.\353\ \354\ \355\ PEMS measurement allowance values
in 40 CFR 86.1912 are 0.01 g/hp-hr for HC, 0.25 g/hp-hr for CO, 0.15 g/
hp-hr for NOX, and 0.006 g/hp-hr for PM. We are proposing to
maintain the same values for HC, CO, and PM in this rulemaking. For
NOX we are proposing off-cycle NOX accuracy
margin (formerly known as measurement allowance) that is 10 percent of
the off-cycle standard for a given bin. This accuracy margin was based
on the Joint Research Council Real Driving Emissions (RDE): 2020
Assessment of Portable Emissions Measurement Systems (PEMS) Measurement
Uncertainty. In this study, JRC arrived at an accuracy margin of 23
percent. They note that their Real Driving Emissions (RDE) program does
not include linear drift correction of the emission measurements over
the course of the shift-day. They have analytically determined that if
they implement a
[[Page 17478]]
linear zero drift correction over the course of the shift-day, the
NOX accuracy margin would be reduced to 10 percent. It
should be noted that our off-cycle test procedures already include a
linear zero and span drift correction over at least the shift day, and
we are proposing to require at least hourly zero drift checks over the
course of the shift day on purified air that, we believe, will result
in measurement error that is on par with the analytically derived JRC
value of 10 percent.\356\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\353\ Feist, M.D.; Sharp, C.A; Mason, R.L.; and Buckingham, J.P.
Determination of PEMS Measurement Allowances for Gaseous Emissions
Regulated Under the Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine In-Use Testing Program.
SwRI 12024, April 2007.
\354\ Feist, M.D.; Mason, R.L.; and Buckingham, J.P. Additional
Analyses of the Monte Carlo Model Developed for the Determination of
PEMS Measurement Allowances for Gaseous Emissions Regulated Under
the Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine In-Use Testing Program. SwRI[supreg]
12859. July 2007.
\355\ Khalek, I.A.; Bougher, T.L.; Mason, R.L.; and Buckingham,
J.P. PM- PEMS Measurement Allowance Determination. SwRI Project
03.14936.12. June 2010.
\356\ Giechaskiel B., Valverde V., Clairotte M. 2020 Assessment
of Portable Emissions Measurement Systems (PEMS) Measurement
Uncertainty. JRC124017, EUR 30591 EN. https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also in the process of further assessing the gaseous PEMS
accuracy margin values for NOX. There have been improvements
made to the PEMS NOX analyzers that were used in the
emission original measurement allowance value determinations and some
of these improvements were implemented in the testing that resulted in
the 10 percent value derived by JRC and some were implemented after.
Based on information from the on-going PEMS test program using the most
current PEMS NOX analyzers, we may make further revisions to
the PEMS accuracy margin for NOX for the off-cycle
NOX standards. This may result in finalizing a different
accuracy margin or separate accuracy margins for each off-cycle bin
NOX standard that could be higher or lower than what we have
proposed. As results become available from this study, we will add them
to the docket.
These accuracy margins can be found in the proposed 40 CFR
1036.420. We request comment on our proposed approach to PEMS accuracy
margins for assessing in-use compliance with NOX and other
pollutant standards.
As part of the PEMS measurement uncertainty analysis we will be
continuing to evaluate proposed test procedure options that could
further reduce the uncertainty of PEMS measurements. This evaluation
includes the test procedures that define the drift check and drift
correction, linearity requirements for the analyzers, and the
requirements that define how the analyzer is zeroed and spanned
throughout the test. We have proposed updates to 40 CFR 1065.935 to
require hourly zeroing of the PEMS analyzers using purified air for all
analyzers. We are also proposing to update the drift limits for
NOX analyzers to improve data quality. Specifically, for
NOX analyzers, we are proposing an hourly or more frequent
zero verification limit of 2.5 ppm, a zero-drift limit over the entire
shift day of 10 ppm, and a span drift limit between the beginning and
end of the shift-day or more frequent span verification(s) of 4 percent of the measured span value. We request comment on the
proposed test procedure updates in 40 CFR 1065.935 and any changes that
would reduce the PEMS measurement uncertainty.
iv. Demonstrating Off-Cycle Standards for Certification
Consistent with current certification requirements in 40 CFR
86.007-21(p)(1), we are proposing a new paragraph in 40 CFR 1036.205(p)
that would require manufacturers to provide a statement in their
application for certification that their engine complies with the off-
cycle standards. Our proposal would require manufacturers to maintain
record of any test data or engineering analysis they used as a basis
for their statement but would not require manufactures to submit that
information as part of their application. We request comment on our
proposal to continue the practice of manufacturers submitting a
statement without test data as a means of demonstrating compliance with
off-cycle standards at certification.
For commenters suggesting manufacturers submit test data, we
request comment on defining a specific test for manufacturers to
demonstrate that they meet off-cycle standards at certification. The
proposed off-cycle standards were designed to apply in-use when engines
may not be operating on EPA's defined duty cycles. We are proposing
that manufacturers use the off-cycle test procedure of 40 CFR 1036.515
when evaluating their in-use emission performance relative to the off-
cycle standards. We request comment on demonstrating compliance with
off-cycle standards by applying the off-cycle test procedure proposed
in 40 CFR 1036.515 to one or more test cycles performed on an engine
dynamometer. We solicit comment on alternatively demonstrating
compliance with a field test using 40 CFR 1036.515.
6. Summary of Requests for Comment on the Stringency of the Off-Cycle
Standards
The effective stringency of the proposed off-cycle standards is
inherently tied to the way in which these standards are applied. To
assist commenters in considering the stringency of the standards in the
full context of the test procedures and compliance provisions, we have
summarized these factors in Table III-20 below.
Table III-20--Summary of Off-Cycle Test Procedure Values and Compliance
Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing Decreasing
Issue effective effective
stringency stringency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerical value................. Lower value....... Higher value.
Window length................... Shorter windows... Longer windows.
Test conditions................. Broader conditions Narrower
conditions.
Operation type.................. Broader operation. Narrower
operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These factors can be considered individually, but commenters are
encouraged to consider the tradeoffs between them. For example,
commenters supporting a broader range of test conditions, could address
the potential need for provisions to offset the stringency impact, such
as higher standards.
We are proposing to sum the total mass of emissions for a given
pollutant and divide by the sum of CO2 mass emissions per
bin once all the data has been separated into bins. This ``sum-over-
sum'' approach would account for all emissions; however, it would
require the measurement system (PEMS or a NOX sensor) to
provide accurate measurements across the complete range of emissions
concentrations. We specifically request comments on the numeric values
for the bin cut-points, the number of bins, the definition of the bin
cut-point and the reference cycle for each bin. The importance of each
of these values that define the proposed test procedure can be seen
from the NOX emissions achieved on the EPA Stage 3 engine
which is summarized in Section III.B.3. This data shows that the
emissions from this engine are relatively flat as a function of engine
power. This data could suggest that either fewer bins
[[Page 17479]]
are needed, for example combining the idle and low-load bin or that a
different bin definition other than window average power should be used
to bin the data.
We also request comment on the advantages and disadvantages of
other statistical approaches that evaluate a percentile window(s)
within each of the bins instead of the full data set as discussed in
Chapter 3.2.3 in the draft RIA.
D. Summary of Spark-Ignition Heavy-Duty Engine Exhaust Emission
Standards and Test Procedures
This section summarizes current exhaust emission standards and test
procedures for certain spark-ignition (SI) heavy-duty engines and our
proposed updates, as well as the feasibility demonstration and data
that support our proposed changes.
Heavy-duty SI engines are largely produced by integrated vehicle
manufacturers. These vehicle manufacturers sell most of their engines
as part of complete vehicles but may also sell incomplete vehicles
(i.e., an engine and unassembled chassis components) to secondary
vehicle manufacturers.\357\ In the latter case, secondary
manufacturers, sometimes referred to as ``finished vehicle builders,''
complete the body and sell the final commercial vehicle product to the
customer. Under current industry practice, the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer (i.e., chassis manufacturer) certifies both the engine and
incomplete vehicle pursuant to all exhaust and evaporative emission
requirements, performs testing to demonstrate compliance with the
standards and provides the secondary manufacturer with build
instructions to maintain compliance with the standards and to prevent
the secondary manufacturer from performing modifications that would
result in an un-certified configuration. Original chassis manufacturers
and secondary manufacturers share responsibility for ensuring that the
exhaust and evaporative emission control equipment is maintained in the
final product delivered to the end customer.\358\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\357\ See e.g., the definitions of ``vehicle'' and ``secondary
vehicle manufacturer'' in 40 CFR 1037.801.
\358\ Responsibilities for multiple manufacturers are described
in 40 CFR 1037.620(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Current Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures
Current Otto-cycle (spark-ignition) heavy-duty engine exhaust
emission standards in 40 CFR 86.008-10 apply to engines as provided in
40 CFR 86.016-1.\359\ The test procedure for these exhaust standards is
the heavy-duty Federal Test Procedure (FTP), which includes an engine
dynamometer schedule that represents urban driving. This test procedure
is used for certification, SEA, and in-use emissions testing.\360\
Similar to the FTP duty cycle for CI engines, SI engine manufacturers
evaluate their HD engines for exhaust emission standards by performing
the FTP duty cycle under cold-start and hot-start conditions and
determine a composite emission value by weighting the cold-start
emission results and the hot-start emission results as specified in 40
CFR 86.008-10(a)(2)(v). This test cycle and cold/hot-start weighting
was developed based on the typical operation of spark-ignition engines
and differs from its compression-ignition counterpart in the normalized
speed and torque setpoints, as well as the length of the cycle. The
current SI engine exhaust emission standards for this duty cycle are
identical to those for CI engines, as shown in Table III-21, consistent
with the principle of fuel neutrality applied in recent light-duty
vehicle criteria pollutant standards rulemakings.\361\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\359\ These engines include SI engines installed in vehicles
above 14,000 lb GVWR or incomplete vehicles at or below 14,000 lb
GVWR, but do not include engines installed in incomplete vehicles at
or below 14,000 lb GVWR that are voluntarily certified under 40 CFR
86, subpart S.
\360\ This duty cycle is summarized in Chapter 2.1.3 of the
draft RIA. The driving schedule can be found in paragraph (f)(1) of
Appendix I to 40 CFR part 86.
\361\ See 65 FR 6728 (February 10, 2000) and 79 FR 23454 (April
28, 2014).
Table III-21--Current Otto-Cycle Engine Exhaust Emission Standards Over the FTP Duty-Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC \b\ (g/hp-
NOX \a\ (g/hp-hr) PM (g/hp-hr) hr) CO (g/hp-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.20......................................................... 0.01 0.14 14.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Engine families participating in the ABT program are subject to a FEL cap of 0.50 g/hp-hr for NOX.
\b\ Engine families participating in the ABT program are subject to a FEL cap of 0.30 g/hp-hr for HC.
To generate specific duty cycles for each engine configuration,
engine manufacturers identify the maximum brake torque versus engine
speed using the engine mapping procedures of 40 CFR 1065.510. The
measured torque values are intended to represent the maximum torque the
engine can achieve under fully warmed-up operation when using the fuel
grade recommended by the manufacturer (e.g., regular unleaded, 87
octane fuel) across the range of engine speeds expected in real-world
conditions. The mapping procedure is intended to stabilize the engine
at discrete engine speed points ranging from idle to the
electronically-limited highest RPM before recording the peak engine
torque values at any given speed. The provision in 40 CFR
1065.510(b)(5)(ii) allows manufacturers to perform a transient sweep
from idle to maximum rated speed, which requires less time than
stabilizing at each measurement point.
The HD Technical Amendments rulemaking migrated some heavy-duty
highway engine test procedures from 40 CFR part 86 to part 1036.\362\
In addition to migrating the heavy-duty FTP drive schedule for SI
engines from paragraph (f) of appendix I to part 86 to paragraph (b) of
appendix II to part 1036, we added vehicle speed and road grade to the
duty-cycle, which are needed to facilitate powertrain testing of SI
engines for compliance with the HD Phase 2 GHG standards. As part of
the drive schedule migration, negative normalized vehicle torque values
over the HD FTP SI duty-cycle were removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\362\ 86 FR 34311, June 29, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Proposed Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures
We are proposing to migrate the existing provisions for heavy-duty
Otto-cycle engines from 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, into part 1036, with
the migrated part 1036 provisions applying to heavy-duty SI engines
starting in MY 2027.\363\ We are also proposing additional revisions as
noted in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\363\ Under the proposed migration into part 1036, Spark-
ignition HDE produced before model year 2027 would remain subject to
existing part 86 requirements, including the exhaust and crankcase
emission standards specified in 40 CFR 86.008-10(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17480]]
Our proposed revisions to 40 CFR 1036.1 include migrating and
updating the applicability provisions of 40 CFR 86.016-1. The
provisions proposed in this section would apply for SI engines
installed in vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR and incomplete vehicles at
or below 14,000 lb GVWR, but do not include engines voluntarily
certified to or installed in vehicles subject to 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S. We propose to update the primary intended service classes
currently defined in 40 CFR 1036.140 to refer to new acronyms such that
the proposed requirements in this section apply to the ``Spark-ignition
HDE'' primary intended service class. Additionally, we are proposing
updated Spark-ignition HDE exhaust emission standards in a new 40 CFR
1036.104. The proposal includes two sets of options for these
standards: Proposed Option 1 and proposed Option 2. Proposed Option 1
would apply in two steps, with a first step in MY 2027 and a second
step in MY 2031. Proposed Option 2 would apply in a single step
starting in MY 2027. The two proposed options generally represent the
range of lead time, standards, regulatory useful life periods, and
emission-related warranty periods we are currently considering in this
rule for HD SI engines.
As described in the following sections, Spark-ignition HDE
certification would continue to be based on emission performance in
lab-based engine dynamometer testing, with a proposed new SET duty
cycle to address high load operation and idle emission control
requirements to supplement our current FTP duty cycle.\364\ We are
proposing two options to lengthen useful life and emissions warranty
periods for all heavy-duty engines, including Spark-ignition HDE, as
summarized in the following sections and detailed in Sections IV.A and
IV.B.1 of this preamble.\365\ Engine manufacturers would continue to
have the flexibility to participate in EPA's ABT program. We are
proposing to update our ABT provisions in part 1036, subparts B and H,
to reflect our proposed standards and useful life periods (see Section
IV.G of this preamble). We are also proposing family emission limit
(FEL) caps for NOX in our proposed ABT program as described
in the following sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\364\ CARB's HD Omnibus rulemaking included ``in-use
thresholds'' (i.e., ``off-cycle standards'' in this proposal) for
heavy-duty Otto-cycle engines. We request comment on setting off-
cycle standards for Spark-ignition HDE. We are not proposing a
manufacturer-run in-use testing program for Spark-ignition HDE at
this time, though we may consider it in future rulemakings. See
California Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial Statement of
Reasons-Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and Associated Amendments. June 23,
2020. page III-33. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox.
\365\ We are proposing to migrate the current alternate
standards for engines used in certain specialty vehicles from 40 CFR
86.007-11 and 86.008-10 into 40 CFR 1036.605 without modification.
See Section XII.B of this preamble for a discussion of these
standards and options for which we are requesting comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Proposed Updates to the Federal Test Procedure and Standards
We propose to update 40 CFR part 1036, including the test procedure
provisions of part 1036, subpart F, to apply for criteria pollutant
testing. We propose that manufacturers would use the current FTP drive
schedule of Appendix II of part 1036.\366\ As part of migrating the FTP
drive schedule from part 86 to part 1036 in the recent HD Technical
Amendment rulemaking,\367\ negative torque values were replaced with
closed throttle motoring but there was no change to the weighting
factors or drive schedule speed values. As shown in Table III-22, we
are co-proposing two options to update our Spark-ignition HDE exhaust
standards for the FTP duty cycle. The proposed Spark-ignition HDE
exhaust standards maintain our fuel-neutral approach with standards
that are numerically identical to the two steps of the proposed
compression-ignition engine standards over our proposed lengthened
Spark-ignition HDE useful life periods.\368\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\366\ Note that we are proposing to rename this appendix to
Appendix B to part 1036.
\367\ 86 FR 34311, June 29, 2021.
\368\ Our proposed useful life periods are based on the
operational life of the engines and differ by primary intended
service class. See Section IV.A of this preamble for a discussion of
our proposed useful life periods.
Table III-22--Proposed Spark-Ignition HDE Exhaust Emission Standards Over the FTP Duty Cycle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX\a\ (mg/hp- Useful life
Scenario Model year hr) PM (mg/hp-hr) HC (mg/hp-hr) CO (g/hp-hr) (miles/years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1....................... 2027-2030.................. 35 5 60 6.0 155,000/12
2031 and later............. 20 5 40 6.0 200,000/15
Proposed Option 2....................... 2027 and later............. 50 5 40 6.0 150,000/10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Engine families participating in the ABT program would be subject to a NOX FEL cap of 150 mg/hp-hr for MYs 2027-2030 under proposed Option 1 or for
MYs 2027 and later under proposed Option 2, and 50 mg/hp-hr for MYs 2031 and later under proposed Option 1.
Our analysis of recent SI HDE certification data suggests that the
proposed Options 1 and 2 standards are already nearly achievable for
the existing useful life mileage values using emission control
technologies available today. All SI heavy-duty engines currently on
the market use a three-way catalyst (TWC) to simultaneously control
NOX, HC, and CO emissions.\369\ We project manufacturers
would continue to use TWC technology and would adopt advanced catalyst
washcoat technologies and refine their existing catalyst thermal
protection (fuel enrichment) strategies to prevent damage to engine and
catalyst components over our proposed longer useful life. Our
feasibility analysis in Section III.D.3 describes the derivation of the
proposed standards, including results from our SI technology
demonstration program showing the feasibility of meeting these
standards up to and beyond our proposed Options 1 and 2 useful life
mileage values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\369\ See Chapter 1.2 of the draft RIA for a detailed
description of the TWC technology and other strategies HD SI
manufacturers use to control criteria emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Proposed Updates to Engine Mapping Test Procedure
As noted in Section III.D.1, manufacturers use the engine fuel
mapping procedures of 40 CFR 1065.510 for certification. In Chapter
2.3.2 of our draft RIA, we describe torque variability that can result
from the electronic controls used in SI engines. We are proposing
updates to the engine mapping test procedure for heavy-duty engines to
require that the torque curve established during the mapping procedure
for highway heavy-duty engines be representative of the highest
[[Page 17481]]
torque level possible when using the manufacturer's recommended fuel
grade (e.g., regular unleaded, 87 octane). Specifically, our proposed
update to 40 CFR 1065.510(b)(5)(ii) would require manufacturers to
disable any electronic controls that they report to EPA as an auxiliary
emission control device (AECD) that would impact peak torque during the
engine mapping procedure.\370\ We are proposing these updates to apply
broadly for all engines covered under part 1065 (see 40 CFR 1065.1).
Section XII.I of this preamble includes a discussion of proposed
revisions to part 1065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\370\ AECDs are defined in 40 CFR 1036.801 and described in our
proposed, migrated new paragraph 1036.115(h). Manufacturers report
AECDs in their application for certification as specified in our
proposed, migrated and updated Sec. 1036.205(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Proposed Supplemental Emission Test and Standards
As discussed in Chapter 1 of the draft RIA, SI engines maintain
stoichiometric air-fuel ratio control for a majority of the points
represented on a fuel map. However, engine manufacturers program power
enrichment and catalyst protection enrichment commands to trigger
additional fuel to be delivered to the engine when either the engine
requires a power boost to meet a load demand or high exhaust
temperatures activate thermal protection for the catalyst. Generally,
these strategies temporarily allow the engine to deviate from its
``closed loop'' control of the air-fuel ratio to increase the fraction
of fuel (i.e., fuel enrichment) and lower exhaust temperatures or
increase engine power. Fuel enrichment is an effective means to protect
the catalyst and increase engine power, but frequent enrichment events
can lead to high criteria pollutant emissions and excessive fuel
consumption not captured in existing test cycles. In Chapter 2.2 of the
draft RIA, we highlight the opportunities to reduce emissions in high-
load operating conditions where engines often experience enrichment for
either catalyst protection or a power boost. Our feasibility discussion
in Section III.D.3 presents thermal management, catalyst design, and
engine control strategies engine manufacturers can implement to reduce
enrichment frequency and associated emissions to meet our proposed
standards.
Manufacturers implement enrichment strategies in real world
operation when engines are above about 90 percent throttle for a
duration that exceeds certain thresholds determined by the
manufacturer. The FTP duty cycle currently used for engine
certification does not capture prolonged operation in those regions of
the engine map. Historically, in light of the limited range of
applications and sales volumes of SI heavy-duty engines, especially
compared to CI engines, we believed the FTP duty cycle was sufficient
to represent the high-load and high-speed operation of SI engine-
powered heavy-duty vehicles. As the market for SI engines increases for
use in larger vehicle classes, these engines are more likely to operate
under extended high-load conditions, causing us to more closely examine
the adequacy of the test cycle in ensuring emissions control under real
world operating conditions.
The existing supplemental emission test (SET) duty cycle, currently
only applicable to CI engines, is a ramped modal cycle covering 13
steady-state torque and engine speed points that is intended to
exercise the engine over sustained higher load and higher speed
operation. We believe the SET procedure, including updates proposed in
this rule, could be applied to SI engines and we are proposing to add
the SET duty cycle and co-proposing two options for new SET emission
standards for the Spark-ignition HDE primary intended service
class.\371\ This new cycle would ensure that emission controls are
properly functioning in the high load and speed conditions covered by
that duty cycle. The proposed SET standards for Spark-ignition HDE are
based on the same SET procedure, with the same proposed updates, as for
heavy-duty CI engines, and we request comment on the need for any SI-
specific provisions. Specifically, we request comment on the
appropriateness of the CI-based weighting factors that determine the
time spent (i.e., dwell period) at each cycle mode. We encourage
commenters to submit data to support any alternative dwell periods we
should consider for SI engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\371\ See our proposed updates to the SET test procedure in 40
CFR 1036.505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received comments in response to our ANPR discussion of the
potential addition of an SET test cycle for HD SI engines.\372\ The
commenter suggested that additional test cycles to capture sustained
high load operation are not necessary and deviations from the FTP
emission control strategies are addressed through the case-by-case AECD
review process. While we agree that this process is available during
the certification of an engine or vehicle, we believe it is more
effective to evaluate the emission control system over measured test
cycles with defined standards, where such test cycles are available,
rather than relying solely on case-by-case identification by the
manufacturer and review by EPA of the AECDs for each engine family. The
commenter describes a high load enrichment AECD, which potentially
increases CO, NMHC and PM emissions (see RIA Ch 3.2). However, the
agency is also concerned about the potential for increased
NOX emissions during high load stoichiometric operation,
where the enrichment AECD is not active. The current FTP transient
cycle does not sufficiently represent these high load conditions, and
we believe that the SET cycle is appropriate for evaluating this type
of operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\372\ See comments from Roush CleanTech (EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
0303) in our docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to our fuel-neutral approach for FTP, we are proposing to
align the SET standards for CI and SI engines, as shown in Table III-
23. Specifically, we propose to adopt the SI HDE SET standards for
NOX and PM emissions based on the demonstrated ability of CI
engines to control these emissions under high load conditions. The
proposed Options 1 and 2 Spark-ignition HDE standards for HC and CO
emissions on the SET cycle are numerically equivalent to the respective
proposed FTP standards and are intended to ensure that SI engine
manufacturers utilize emission control hardware and calibration
strategies that maintain effective control of emissions during high
load operation.\373\ We believe the proposed SET duty cycle and
standards would accomplish this goal, and the level of our proposed
Options 1 and 2 HC and CO standards are feasible over our proposed
Options 1 and 2 useful life mileages based on our HD SI technology
demonstration program summarized in Section III.D.3.ii.b. We request
comment on the proposed SET test cycle and standards for Spark-ignition
HDE, and any modifications we should consider to adapt the current CI-
based SET duty cycle to SI HDEs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\373\ Test results presented in Chapter 3.2.3 of the draft RIA
and summarized in Section III.D.3 indicate that these standards are
achievable when the engine controls limit fuel enrichment and
maintain closed loop control of the fuel-air ratio.
[[Page 17482]]
Table III-23--Proposed Spark-Ignition HDE Exhaust Emission Standards Over the SET Duty-Cycle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/hp-hr) Useful life
Scenario Model year PM (mg/hp-hr) HC (mg/hp-hr) CO (g/hp-hr) (miles/years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1....................... 2027-2030.................. 35 5 60 6.0 155,000/12
2031 and later............. 20 5 40 6.0 200,000/15
Proposed Option 2....................... 2027 and later............. 50 5 40 6.0 150,000/10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also considering other approaches to address emissions from
enrichment events during high load operation. Our current provisions in
40 CFR 86.004-28(j) require engine manufacturers to account for
emission increases that are associated with aftertreatment systems that
infrequently regenerate.\374\ Compression-ignition engine manufacturers
currently apply these infrequent regeneration adjustment factor (IRAF)
provisions to account for emission increases that may occur when the
DPFs used for PM control on their engines require regenerations. These
infrequent regeneration events use additional fuel to temporarily heat
the DPF and clean the filter. Similar to the approach for infrequent
regeneration events, the agency seeks comment on whether to require
manufacturers to apply adjustment factors to SI FTP and/or SET emission
test results to quantify the HC, CO, NOX, and PM emission
increases that occur due to enrichment AECDs. These factors would be
quantified in a manner similar to that used in developing IRAFs, where
they are based on the estimated real-world frequency and the measured
emissions impact of these events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\374\ We are proposing to migrate the current IRAF provisions
into a new section 40 CFR 1036.522.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Proposed Idle Control for Spark-Ignition HDE
As described in Chapter 3.2 of the draft RIA, an idle test would
assess whether the main component of the SI engine emission control
system, the catalyst, remains effective during prolonged idle events.
Heavy-duty SI engines can idle for long periods during loading or
unloading of the vehicle cargo or to maintain cabin comfort (i.e.,
heating or cooling) when the vehicle is parked.
Our primary concern for extended idle operation is that prolonged
idling events may allow the catalyst to cool and reduce its efficiency
resulting in emission increases including large emission increases on
the driveaway until the catalyst temperatures increase. As discussed in
the draft RIA, our recent HD SI test program showed idle events that
extend beyond four minutes allow the catalyst to cool below the light-
off temperature of 350 [deg]C. The current heavy-duty FTP and proposed
SET duty cycles do not include sufficiently long idle periods to
represent these real-world conditions where the exhaust system cools
below the catalyst's light-off temperature. We are proposing in a new
paragraph at 40 CFR 1036.115(j)(1) to require the catalyst bed used in
SI HDEs to maintain a minimum temperature of 350 [deg]C to ensure
emission control during prolonged idle; manufacturers would also be
able to request approval of alternative strategies to prevent increased
emissions during idling. We believe this minimum temperature
requirement would sufficiently ensure emission control is maintained
during idle, while addressing ANPR commenter concerns that our proposed
idle requirements should not require significant additional test and
certification costs.\375\ We request comment on this proposal, as well
as additional or alternative strategies, such an idle test cycle and
standard, that are capable of representing real-world operation and
would address idle emissions not observed or measured on the current
and proposed duty cycles. Commenters are encouraged to include data
that represents engines expected to be available in the MY 2027 and
later timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\375\ Roush comments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0303).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recognize that over the next decade there may be an added
incentive to generally reduce idling as a compliance strategy to meet
EPA's heavy-duty greenhouse gas standards. Widespread adoption of idle
reduction technologies, such as engine stop-start, may reduce the
frequency and duration of prolonged idle and reduce the need for
exhaust temperature thresholds. However, these idle reduction
strategies may also cause emission increases when the engine is
restarted, where the catalyst and oxygen sensors may have cooled and
require a warm-up period. We request comment, including relevant data,
on the expected adoption rate of idle reduction technologies (e.g.,
stop-start) in the heavy-duty sector and the impact on criteria
pollutant emissions when these technologies are in use.
v. Proposed Powertrain Testing Option for Hybrids
As summarized in Section III.B, we are proposing to expand the
existing powertrain test procedures in 40 CFR 1037.550 to allow hybrid
manufacturers to certify their products as meeting EPA's criteria
pollutant standards.\376\ The procedure updates are intended to apply
to both CI and SI-based hybrid systems, but many of the default vehicle
parameters are based on CI systems. We request comment on the need for
SI-specific vehicle parameters such as vehicle mass, drag coefficients,
and rolling resistance coefficients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\376\ See Chapter 2 of the draft RIA for a detailed description
of the powertrain test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vi. Proposed Thermal Protection Temperature Modeling Validation
Manufacturers utilize some form of catalyst or critical exhaust
component temperature modeling within the ECM to determine when to
activate fuel enrichment strategies to protect engine and catalyst
hardware from excessive temperatures that may compromise durability.
Manufacturers typically design these models during the engine
development process by monitoring the actual temperatures of exhaust
system components that have been instrumented with thermocouples during
dynamometer testing. In these controlled testing conditions,
manufacturers can monitor temperatures and stop the test to protect
components from damage from any malfunctions and resulting excessive
temperatures. The accuracy of these models used by manufacturers is
critical in both ensuring the durability of the emission control
equipment and preventing excessive emissions that could result from
unnecessary or premature activation of thermal protection strategies.
The existing regulations require any catalyst protection strategies
adopted by HD SI engine manufacturers to be reported to EPA in the
application for certification as an AECD.\377\ The engine
[[Page 17483]]
controls used to implement these strategies often rely on a modeling
algorithm to predict high exhaust temperatures and to disable the
catalyst, which can change the emission control strategy and directly
impact real world emissions. During the certification process,
manufacturers typically disclose the temperature thresholds of the
critical components that need thermal protection and the parameter
values (e.g., time and temperature) at which the model activates the
protection strategy. The agency has historically determined the
appropriateness of these temperature limits based on information from
engine manufacturers and component suppliers. We are proposing to
standardize the process during certification of how a manufacturer
discloses and validates a thermal protection model's performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\377\ See 40 CFR 86.094-21(b)(1)(i) and our proposed migration
of those provisions to 40 CFR 1036.205(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to ensure that a manufacturer's model accurately estimates
the temperatures at which thermal protection modes are engaged, the
agency is proposing a validation process in a new paragraph 40 CFR
1036.115(j)(2) that would document the model performance during
certification testing. The proposed validation process would require
manufacturers to record component temperatures during engine mapping
and the FTP and proposed SET duty cycles and a second-by-second
comparison of the modeled temperature and the actual component
temperature applications and submit as part of their certification. We
propose that manufacturers must show that the measured component
temperatures and the software-derived temperature model estimates are
within 5 [deg]C. This limitation on temperature differential is
proposed to prevent model-based AECDs from being overly conservative in
their design such that catalyst protection and resulting emissions
increases due to fuel enrichment is triggered at lower temperatures
than necessary. Manufacturers would be exempt from this model
validation requirement for all engines that continuously monitor
component temperatures via temperature sensors in lieu of thermal
protection modeling.
As described in Section IV.C, we are proposing to expand the list
of OBD parameters accessible using a generic scan tool. We are
proposing that SI engine manufacturers monitoring component
temperatures to engage thermal protection modes would make the
component temperature parameters (measured and modeled, if applicable)
publicly available, as specified in a new 40 CFR 1036.110(c)(4).
The agency seeks comment on this model validation proposal,
including data that shows the frequency of preventable enrichment
occurrences. We request comment on our proposed temperature allowance
of 5 [deg]C and whether we should require a specific type of
thermocouple to measure the component temperatures. We also request
comment on whether we should specify a method to filter temperature
data to account for transient engine speed conditions. The agency also
seeks comment on requiring manufacturers to incorporate temperature
sensors on all production engines to continuously measure the
temperature of any exhaust component that is currently protected by use
of an enrichment strategy instead of relying on software models to
estimate temperature. Currently, temperature sensors are used in
production compression-ignition emission control systems and some
light-duty SI applications.
vii. Proposed OBD Flexibilities
We recognize that there can be some significant overlap in the
technologies and control systems adopted for products in the chassis-
certified and engine-certified markets. These vehicles may share common
engine designs and components, and their emission control systems may
differ only in catalyst sizing and packaging and the calibration
strategies used to meet the chassis- or engine-based emission
standards.
We are proposing to further incentivize HD SI engine manufacturers
to adopt their chassis-certified technologies and approaches in their
engine-certified products so that the emission control strategies of
their two product lines are more closely aligned. Specifically, we are
proposing to limit the need for duplicate OBD certification testing if
a manufacturer's chassis- and engine-certified technology packages are
sufficiently similar. The current regulations in 40 CFR part 86
distinctly separate the OBD requirements based on GVWR. Under 40 CFR
86.007-17, engines used in vehicles at or below 14,000 lb GVWR are
subject to the chassis-based OBD provisions of 40 CFR 86.1806. Engines
in vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR are subject to the engine-based
provisions of 40 CFR 86.010-18 and there is no pathway for these larger
vehicles to certify using the chassis-based OBD provisions.
In addition to the general heavy-duty OBD provisions proposed in
new section 40 CFR 1036.110, we are proposing to allow vehicle
manufacturers the option to request approval to certify the OBD of
their spark-ignition, engine-certified products using data from similar
chassis-certified Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles that meet the
provisions of 40 CFR 86.1806-17. As part of the approval request,
manufacturers would show that the engine- and chassis-certified
products use the same engines and generally share similar emission
controls (i.e., are ``sister vehicles''). Under this proposal,
manufacturers would still be required to submit a separate application
for certification for their engine-certified products, but EPA may
approve the use of OBD testing data from sister vehicles at or below
14,000 lb GVWR class for the engine-certified products. We request
comment on any additional provisions or limitations we should consider
adopting related to aftertreatment characteristics, chassis
configurations, or vehicle classes when evaluating a manufacturer's
request to share OBD data between engine- and chassis-certified product
lines. Specifically, we request comment, including data, on the impact
of varying vehicle components such as transmissions, axle ratios, and
fuel tank sizes on the OBD system. Finally, we request comment on
additional compliance provisions, beyond OBD, that could be streamlined
for these sister vehicles.
viii. Potential Off-Cycle Standards for Spark-Ignition HDE
As described in Section III.C, CI engines have been subject to not-
to-exceed (NTE) standards and in-use testing requirements for many
years. In Section III.C.2, we propose new off-cycle standards and
updated in-use test procedures for CI engines. The proposed in-use test
procedures in 40 CFR part 1036, subpart E, include the steps to perform
the manufacturer-run field testing program for CI engines as migrated
and updated from 40 CFR part 86, subpart T. The in-use procedures are
based on a new moving average window (MAW) procedure in 40 CFR 1036.515
that separates in-use operation into idle, low load and medium/high
load bins.
For SI engines, we request comment on setting off-cycle standards
that would be based on an approach similar to the one taken by CARB in
their HD Omnibus rulemaking.\378\ The Omnibus rule includes ``in-use
thresholds'' (i.e., off-cycle standards) for HD Otto cycle engines
based on the laboratory-run FTP and SET duty cycles, and manufacturers
[[Page 17484]]
may comply by attesting to meeting the in-use thresholds in their
application for CARB certification. The CARB in-use thresholds apply to
emissions measured over a shift day and processed into a single bin of
operation. The thresholds from the single HD Otto cycle engine bin
match CARB's standards in the medium/high load in-use bin for CI
engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\378\ California Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial
Statement of Reasons-Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Heavy-
Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and Associated
Amendments. June 23, 2020. page III-33. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not proposing to include Spark-ignition HDE in our
manufacturer-run field testing program at this time, and we currently
lack in-use data to assess the feasibility of doing so, but we may
consider it in a future rulemaking. We request comment on adopting in-
use provisions similar to those for HD Otto cycle engines in CARB's
program. Specifically, we request comment on allowing SI HDE
manufacturers to attest to compliance with off-cycle standards in the
application for certification and on not including SI HDE in our
manufacturer-run field testing program. We request comment, including
data, on the appropriate level of off-cycle standards we should
consider for Spark-ignition HDE. Table III-24 presents a potential set
of single bin off-cycle standards for Spark-ignition HDE that match the
medium/high load in-use bin standards of proposed Options 1 and 2 for
CI engines and similarly apply conformity factors to the proposed FTP
and SET duty cycle standards for each pollutant (i.e., 2.0 for MY 2027
through 2030 and 1.5 for MY 2031 and later under Option 1, and 1.5 for
MY 2027 and later under Option 2). We request comment on these or other
off-cycle standards we should consider for Spark-ignition HDE,
including whether we should include additional in-use bins if we
finalize LLC or other duty cycles in the future.
Table III-24--Potential Off-Cycle Exhaust Emission Standards for Spark-Ignition HDE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/hp-hr)
Scenario Model year PM (mg/hp-hr) HC (mg/hp-hr) CO (g/hp-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1............. 2027-2030....... 70 10 120 12.0
2031 and later.. 30 8 60 9.0
Proposed Option 2............. 2027 and later.. 75 8 60 9.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we are not proposing off-cycle standards or a manufacturer-
run in-use testing program for Spark-ignition HDE, we are soliciting
comment on draft regulatory text that could be included in 40 CFR
1036.104 and 1036.515 and in 40 part CFR 1036, subpart E, with
potential in-use provisions for Spark-ignition HDE.\379\ Even without a
regulatory requirement for manufacturers to perform field testing,
these test procedures would be valuable for Spark-ignition HDE
manufacturers or EPA to compare in-use emissions to the duty cycle
standards. Manufacturers could also use the procedures to verify their
DF under the proposed PEMS testing option in 40 CFR 1036.246. We
request comment on adopting in-use test procedures and setting off-
cycle standards for Spark-ignition HDE, including data to support the
appropriate level of the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\379\ Brakora, Jessica. Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055. ``Draft regulatory text for potential off-cycle standards and
in-use test procedures for Spark-ignition HDE'' July 21, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ix. Potential Low Load Cycle and Standards
Heavy-duty gasoline engines are currently subject to FTP testing,
and we are proposing a SET procedure to evaluate emissions performance
of HD SI engines under the sustained high speeds and loads that can
produce high emissions. We are also considering whether a low-load
cycle could address the potential for high emissions from SI engines
when catalysts may not maintain sufficient internal temperature to
remain effective.
Section III.B of this preamble describes the LLC duty cycle and
standards we are proposing for HD compression-ignition engines.\380\ In
our ANPR, we requested comment on the need for a low-load or idle cycle
in general, and suitability of CARB's diesel-targeted low-load and
clean idle cycles for evaluating the emissions performance of heavy-
duty gasoline engines. One commenter suggested the higher exhaust
temperatures of SI engines made catalyst deactivation less of a concern
so that a low load cycle was not warranted.\381\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\380\ See 40 CFR 1036.104 for the proposed LLC standards and
Sec. 1036.512 for the proposed test procedure.
\381\ Roush comments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0303).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in Section III.D.2.iv, we believe the proposed
catalyst temperature control would effectively address idle emissions,
but we recognize the value of demonstrating catalyst effectiveness
during periods of prolonged idle and at low load, including when the
vehicle accelerates from a stopped idle condition to higher speeds. We
are soliciting comment on adopting a LLC duty cycle and standards for
HD SI engines in addition to or in place of the idle control proposed
in Section III.D.2.iv. We currently do not have test results
demonstrating HD SI engine performance over the LLC duty cycle.
In considering Spark-ignition HDE standards over the LLC duty
cycle, we solicit comment on applying LLC standards over the useful
life periods of proposed Options 1 and 2 for the other Spark-ignition
HDE standards. We also solicit comment on adopting the same numeric
level of the standards for the same pollutants under proposed Options 1
and 2 for CI engines over the proposed Spark-ignition HDE useful life
periods. We request comment on the benefits and challenges of an LLC
standard for HD SI compliance, and encourage commenters to include
emission performance data over the LLC duty cycle or other cycles that
they believe would cause manufacturers to improve the emissions
performance of their heavy-duty SI engines under lower load operating
conditions.
3. Feasibility Analysis for the Proposed Exhaust Emission Standards
This section describes the effectiveness and projected costs of the
control technologies that we analyzed in developing our proposed Spark-
ignition HDE exhaust emission standards. In evaluating technology
feasibility, we considered impacts on energy by monitoring
CO2 emissions, the lead time manufacturers need to develop
and apply control strategies and implement performance demonstrations,
and the need to maintain utility and safety of the engines and
vehicles.
Our feasibility analyses for the proposed Options 1 and 2 FTP and
SET exhaust emission standards are based on the HD SI technology
demonstration program summarized in this section and detailed in
Chapter 3.2.2.3 of the draft RIA. Feasibility of the proposed FTP
standards is further supported by compliance data submitted by
manufacturers for the 2019 model year.
[[Page 17485]]
We also support the feasibility of the proposed Options 1 and 2 SET
standards using engine fuel mapping data from a test program performed
by the agency as part of the HD GHG Phase 2 rulemaking. See Chapter 3.2
of the draft RIA for more details related to these datasets.
i. Summary of Exhaust Emission Technologies Considered
This section summarizes the specific technologies and emission
control strategies we considered as the basis for our proposed exhaust
emission standards. The technologies presented in this section are
described in greater detail in Chapters 1 and 3 of the draft RIA.
Our proposed Options 1 and 2 Spark-ignition HDE exhaust emission
standards are based on the performance of the technology packages
widely adopted for SI engines in chassis-certified vehicles today. We
project manufacturers would meet our proposed standards by building on
their existing TWC-based emission control strategies. Our technology
demonstration evaluated advanced catalyst formulations, catalyst design
changes including light-off catalysts located closer to the engine,
engine down-speeding, and engine calibration strategies that can
minimize enrichment during high-load and accelerate light-off for lower
load and idle operations.
The catalyst system and related exhaust components have progressed
in recent light-duty applications and are currently able to tolerate
significantly higher exhaust gas temperatures while still maintaining
emission control over the current useful life. We expect that improved
materials, such as the advanced catalyst formulations evaluated in our
technology demonstration, along with more robust temperature management
would result in significant emission reductions and engines that are
able to meet the proposed standards. The advanced catalyst formulations
we evaluated were aged to 250,000 miles, which is longer than the
useful life mileages that would apply under proposed Options 1 and 2
for Spark-ignition HDE.\382\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\382\ Proposed Option 1 includes a useful life of 155,000 miles
or 12 years for model years 2027 through 2030 and 200,000 miles or
15 years for model years 2031 and later. Proposed Option 2 includes
a useful life of 150,000 miles or 10 years for model years 2027 and
later. See Section IV.A. for the development of our proposed useful
life periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine down speeding can help avoid the high speed, high exhaust
gas temperature conditions that typically result in fuel enrichment due
to engine component durability and catalyst thermal concerns. With the
integration of modern multi-speed electronically controlled
transmissions, this down speeding approach is extremely feasible and
likely to also reduce engine wear and improve fuel consumption with
little perceptible effect on performance for commercial vehicle
operation. In our demonstration program, we reduced the base engine's
manufacturer-stated maximum test speed of 4715 RPM to 4000 RPM to
evaluate the impact of engine down-speeding.
ii. Projected Exhaust Emission Technology Package Effectiveness
a. Technology Effectiveness Over the FTP Duty Cycle
Our HD SI technology demonstration program evaluated several
pathways manufacturers could use to achieve the proposed Options 1 and
2 standards. As shown in Table III-25, use of advanced catalysts
provided substantial NOX emission reductions over the FTP
duty cycle beyond the performance demonstrated by technologies on
recently certified engines.\383\ Engine down-speeding further decreased
CO emissions while maintaining NOX, NMHC, and PM control.
Engine down-speeding also resulted in a small improvement in brake
specific fuel consumption over the FTP duty cycle reducing from 0.46 to
0.45 lb/hp-hr. See Chapter 3.2.3 of the draft RIA for an expanded
description of the test program and results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\383\ As presented later in this section, MY 2019 gasoline-
fueled HD SI engine certification results included NOX
levels ranging from 29 to 160 mg/hp-hr at a useful life of 110,000
miles.
Table III-25--Exhaust Emission Results From FTP Duty Cycle Testing in the HD SI Technology Demonstration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/hp-hr) NMHC (mg/hp-
PM (mg/hp-hr) hr) CO (g/hp-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1 Standards (MY 2027-2030)...... 35 5 60 6.0
Proposed Option 1 Standards (MY 2031 and later). 20 5 40 6.0
Proposed Option 2 Standards (MY 2027 and later). 50 5 40 6.0
Base Engine with Advanced Catalyst \a\.......... 19 4.8 32 4.9
Down-sped Engine with Advanced Catalyst \b\..... 18 4.5 35 0.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Base engine's manufacturer-stated maximum test speed is 4,715 RPM; advanced catalyst aged to 250,000 miles.
\b\ Down-sped engine's maximum test speed lowered to 4,000 RPM; advanced catalyst aged to 250,000 miles.
We expect manufacturers could achieve similar emission performance
by adopting other approaches, including a combination of calibration
changes, optimized catalyst location, and fuel control strategies that
EPA was unable to evaluate in our demonstration program due to limited
access to proprietary engine controls.
In addition to our demonstration program, we evaluated the
feasibility of the proposed Options 1 and 2 FTP standards by
considering the performance of recently-certified engines. As detailed
in Chapter 3.2.3.1 of the draft RIA, MY 2019 compliance data over the
FTP duty cycle included the performance of six HD SI engine families
from four manufacturers, representing the emission performance of all
gasoline-fueled HD SI engines certified in MY 2019 as incomplete
vehicles (i.e., engine certified).
Table III-26 presents the manufacturer-reported MY 2019 levels for
the three pollutants addressed by TWCs: NOX, NMHC and
CO.\384\ PM emissions for most of these SI engines were undetectable
and reported as zero for certification. In the table, we identify the
six certified engines by descending NOX level and note that
three of the six engines, representing over 70 percent of the MY 2019
engine-certified, gasoline-fueled HD SI engines, achieve a
NOX level that is less than half the current standard of
0.20 g/hp-hr (i.e., 200 mg/hp-hr). When calibrating their engines, SI
manufacturers experience tradeoffs in
[[Page 17486]]
TWC performance for the three pollutants and each manufacturer may
optimize their emission controls differently while complying with
applicable emission standards. As expected, the certification results
show no clear relationship between NMHC or CO emissions and the level
of reduced NOX among the various engine calibrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\384\ U.S. EPA. ``Heavy-Duty Highway Gasoline and Diesel
Certification Data (Model Years: 2015-Present)''. Available online:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-01/heavy-duty-gas-and-diesel-engines-2015-present.xlsx. Accessed June 2020.
Table III-26--FTP Duty Cycle Emission Levels Reported for Six Engine-Certified, Gasoline-Fueled HD SI Engines in MY 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cert Engine 1 Cert Engine 2 Cert Engine 3 Cert Engine 4 Cert Engine 5 Cert Engine 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/hp-hr) \a\...................................... 160 120 104 89 70 29
NMHC (mg/hp-hr) \a\..................................... 50 60 80 42 80 42
CO (g/hp-hr)............................................ 3.7 6.6 8.6 1.5 12.7 2.3
Fraction of MY 2019 HD SI Gasoline-Fueled Engine Sales.. 2% 20% 4% 20% 48% 5%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ NOX and NMHC values are converted from g/hp-hr to mg/hp-hr to match the units of our proposed standards for NOX and HC, respectively.
To evaluate the NMHC and CO emissions, we calculated an overall
average for each pollutant that includes all engines, and separately
averaged a smaller subset of the three engines (i.e., Cert Engines 4-6)
with the lowest NOX levels. Table III-27 compares these two
averages with the EPA 2010 standards and results from the engine family
with the best NOX emission performance of the MY 2019
compliance data.
Table III-27--Average Emission Performance for Engine-Certified, Gasoline-Fueled HD SI Engines in MY 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA 2010 Overall Subset Best NOX
Pollutant standard average average performance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/hp-hr) \a\.............................. 200 95 63 29
NMHC (mg/hp-hr) \a\............................. 140 59 55 42
CO (g/hp-hr).................................... 14.4 5.9 5.5 2.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ NOX and NMHC values are converted from g/hp-hr to mg/hp-hr to match the units of our proposed standards for
NOX and HC, respectively.
Comparing the results in Table III-26 to the averages in Table III-
27, we see that the overall average NMHC level of 59 mg/hp-hr and CO
level of 5.9 g/hp-hr for the six engines are met by three engine
families today. We expect at least one additional family could achieve
the overall average NMHC and CO levels with calibration changes to
adjust cold start catalyst light-off timing and refine the catalyst
protection fuel enrichment levels. The NMHC and CO emissions averages
for these MY 2019 engines align with our MY 2027 proposed Options 1 and
2 standards for those pollutants. The emission levels of the engine
with the best NOX performance are approaching the levels we
are proposing for our Option 1 MY 2031 standards. While these recent
certification results suggest it may be feasible for some manufacturers
to meet the proposed Option 1 standards with current engine technology,
it is less clear if the same emission levels could be maintained at the
proposed useful life periods. We believe the combination of our
proposed Option 1 standards and lengthened useful life would force some
level of improved component durability or increased catalyst volumes
beyond what is available on current HD SI engines and it will take
additional time for manufacturers to develop their approach to
complying.
b. Technology Effectiveness Over the SET Duty Cycle
As noted in Section III.D.2.iii, we are proposing Spark-ignition
HDE standards for the SET duty cycle to ensure emissions are controlled
under high load and speed conditions. Our HD SI technology
demonstration program evaluated emission performance over the SET duty
cycle. As shown in Table III-28, the NOX and NMHC emissions
over the SET duty cycle were substantially lower than the emissions
from the FTP duty cycle (see Table III-25). Engine down-speeding
improved CO emissions significantly, while NOX, NMHC, and PM
remained low. Engine down-speeding also resulted in a small improvement
in brake specific fuel consumption over the SET duty cycle reducing
from 0.46 to 0.44 lb/hp-hr. See Chapter 3.2.3 of the draft RIA for an
expanded description of the test program and results.
Table III-28--Exhaust Emission Results From SET Duty Cycle Testing in the HD SI Technology Demonstration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/hp-hr) NMHC (mg/hp-
PM (mg/hp-hr) hr) CO (g/hp-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1 Standards (MY 2027-2030)...... 35 5 60 6.0
Proposed Option 1 Standards (MY 2031 and later). 20 5 40 6.0
Proposed Option 2 Standards (MY 2027 and later). 50 5 40 6.0
Base Engine with Advanced Catalyst \a\.......... 8 7 6 36.7
Down-sped Engine with Advanced Catalyst \b\..... 5 3 1 7.21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Base engine's manufacturer-stated maximum test speed is 4,715 RPM; advanced catalyst aged to 250,000 miles.
\b\ Down-sped engine's maximum test speed lowered to 4,000 RPM; advanced catalyst aged to 250,000 miles.
[[Page 17487]]
Similar to our discussion related to the FTP standards, we expect
manufacturers could achieve similar emission performance over the SET
duty cycle by adopting other approaches, including a combination of
calibration changes, optimized catalyst location, and fuel control
strategies that EPA was unable to evaluate due to limited access to
proprietary engine controls.
To evaluate the impact of fuel enrichment and supplement our SET
feasibility analysis, we created a surrogate array of SET test points
using HD SI engine fuel mapping data from a HD GHG Phase 2 test program
(see Chapter 3.2.3 of the draft RIA). The test program tested a V10
gasoline engine on an early version of EPA's steady-state fuel mapping
procedure that requires the engine to be run for 90 seconds at each of
nearly 100 speed and torque points.\385\ The first 60 seconds at each
point allowed the engine and fuel consumption to stabilize and the last
30 seconds were averaged to create the fuel map point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\385\ The final version of this test procedure is outlined in 40
CFR 1036.535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this analysis, we evaluated three subsets of the emissions data
(NOX, NMHC, and CO) over the range of engine speeds and
torque values. The first subset of data included conditions where the
engine went into power enrichment, as indicated by the air-fuel ratio.
The second subset of data included conditions where the engine
controller activated a catalyst protection fuel enrichment strategy
before a power enrichment strategy was enabled. The third subset
included only conditions where the engine maintained stoichiometric
air-fuel ratio.
Peak torque points for each of these data subsets were used to
calculate the A, B and C speeds and create three unique sets of
surrogate SET test points. Emission rates for NOX, NMHC, and
CO shown in Table III-29 were calculated by interpolating the data
subsets at each of the SET test points. Finally, the results were
weighted according to the existing CI-based weighting factors outlined
in 40 CFR 86.1362.
Table III-29--Emission Rates Calculated for Surrogate SET Test Points for Each Data Subset
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/hp-hr) NMHC (mg/hp-
hr) CO (g/hp-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1 Standards (MY 2027-2030)...................... 35 60 6.0
Proposed Option 1 Standards (MY 2031 and later)................. 20 40 6.0
Proposed Option 2 Standards (MY 2027 and later)................. 50 40 6.0
Power Enrichment Allowed........................................ 11 110 45.2
Catalyst Protection with No Power Enrichment.................... 19 30 11.4
Stoichiometric Operation........................................ 28 10 0.97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As observed in the surrogate SET test data, any enrichment mode,
whether for power or catalyst protection purposes, resulted in
substantial NMHC and CO emission increases from stoichiometric
operation. When the engine was commanded into power enrichment mode and
no longer maintained stoichiometric operation, NMHC and CO emissions
rose 10 and 50 times higher, respectively. These results suggest that
it is feasible for manufacturers to achieve low emission levels over
the 13 modes of an SET duty cycle if their engines maintain
stoichiometric operation. This can be accomplished with engine
calibrations to optimize the TWC tradeoffs and fuel-air control
strategies to limit preventable fuel enrichment.
iii. Derivation of the Proposed Standards
We are maintaining fuel neutrality of the proposed standards by
applying the same numerical standards across all primary intended
service classes. The proposed Options 1 and 2 NOX and PM
levels for the FTP and SET duty cycles are based on the emission
performance of technologies evaluated in our HD CI engine technology
demonstration program.\386\ We are basing the proposed Options 1 and 2
FTP and SET standards for HC and CO on HD SI engine performance as
described in Section III.D.3.ii and summarized in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\386\ Our assessment of the projected technology package for
compression-ignition engines is based on both CARB's and EPA's
technology demonstration programs. See Section III.B for a
description of those technologies and test programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results from our HD SI technology demonstration program (see Table
III-25 and Table III-28) show that the proposed NOX
standards based on our CI engine feasibility analysis are also feasible
for HD SI engines over the FTP and SET duty cycles for both options.
The proposed Option 1 MY 2031 NOX standard was achieved by
implementing an advanced catalyst with minor catalyst system design
changes, and NOX levels were further improved with engine
down-speeding. The emission control strategies that we evaluated did
not specifically target PM emissions, but we note that PM emissions
remained low in our demonstration. We project HD SI engine
manufacturers would be able to maintain near-zero PM levels with
limited effort. We request comment on challenges manufacturers may
experience to maintain effective PM control, including duty cycles
other than FTP.
For proposed Option 1, starting in model year 2027, we are
proposing to lower the HC and CO FTP standards consistent with the
overall average NMHC and CO levels achieved by engine-certified,
gasoline-fueled HD SI engines over the FTP cycle today (see Table III-
27). We note that the MY 2019 engine certified with the lowest
NOX (i.e., Cert Engine #6) is below our proposed MY 2027
NOX standard (35 mg/hp-hr) and maintains NMHC and CO
emissions below those average levels on the FTP cycle. We are proposing
the same standards of 60 mg HC/hp-hr and 6.0 g CO/hp-hr would apply
over the new SET duty cycle starting in MY 2027. We believe emission
levels based on average engine performance today would be a low cost
step to update and improve emission performance across all certified
Spark-ignition HDE, and serve as anti-backsliding standards as
manufacturers optimize their TWCs, implement a new duty cycle, and
improve component durability in response to the proposed longer useful
life periods. CO levels in our SET demonstration were above the
proposed standard, but manufacturers have opportunities to reduce CO
below our proposed standard by optimizing their TWC calibrations and
maintaining stoichiometric conditions over more of their high load
operation (see Table III-29).
Proposed Option 2 (MY 2027 and later) and step 2 of proposed Option
1 (MY 2031 and later) include the same proposed numeric HC standards of
40
[[Page 17488]]
mg HC/hp-hr and 6.0 g CO/hp-hr for the FTP and SET duty cycles. For the
FTP duty cycle, results of our demonstration program show that the
proposed HC standard would be achievable without compromising
NOX or CO emission control (see Table III-25). For the SET
duty cycle, lower levels of NMHC were demonstrated, but at the expense
of increased CO emissions in those higher load operating conditions
(see Table III-28). The considerably lower NOX and HC in our
SET duty cycle demonstration results leave enough room for
manufacturers to calibrate the tradeoff in TWC emission control of
NOX, HC, and CO to reduce CO below our proposed CO standard.
For these reasons, we are proposing the FTP standard of 40 mg HC/hp-hr
standard apply over the SET duty cycle. Proposed Options 1 and 2
generally represent the range of lead time, standards, and useful life
periods we are currently considering in this rule for HD SI engines.
We request comment on the proposed Spark-ignition HDE FTP and SET
standards, including the appropriateness of applying the same numeric
emission levels for both duty cycles. Commenters suggesting more
stringent standards are encouraged to provide data showing lower
standards are achievable at their suggested useful life periods. We
also request comment on our approaches to maintain fuel neutrality by
proposing numerically identical standards for heavy-duty CI and SI
engines.
iv. Summary of Costs To Meet the Proposed Exhaust Emission Standards
To project costs for HD SI technology packages manufacturers could
adopt to meet the proposed standards, we combined manufacturers' HD SI
MY 2019 compliance data into sales-weighted averages by vehicle
category to account for aftertreatment system differences by engine.
The discussion below summarizes our estimate of the technology costs to
meet our proposed Spark-ignition HDE standards. See Chapter 3.2.3 of
the draft RIA for an expanded description of the projected sales-
weighted average catalyst volumes, PGM loadings, and other factors used
to calculate our costs for HD SI engines and Section V of this preamble
for a summary of how these technology costs are included in the overall
cost of this proposal.
We calculated aftertreatment system costs for four categories of SI
engines. The largest category, liquid-fueled SI engines, includes
engines fueled by gasoline, ethanol, and ethanol blends, and represents
the majority of HD SI engines on the market today. The second category,
gaseous-fueled SI engines, includes engines fueled by compressed
natural gas (CNG) or liquified petroleum gas (LPG). In addition to the
general gaseous-fueled SI engines, we separately analyzed two subsets
of gaseous-fueled SI engines (HHD and urban bus) that have unique
market shares and distinct aftertreatment demands.
Table III-30 summarizes the projected technology costs for HD SI
engines to meet our proposed standards. Chapter 3.2.3 of the draft RIA
contains a more detailed breakdown of the costs. Our projected costs
for the liquid-fueled SI engines are based on the aftertreatment system
used in our HD SI technology demonstration program (see Section
III.D.3). As shown in our demonstration program, liquid-fueled SI
engine manufacturers could use the same catalyst systems in both
proposed Options, including both steps (MY 2027 and 2031) of Option 1
to meet the proposed exhaust emission standards, so we projected a
single cost. We request comment, including data, regarding calibration
costs for manufacturers to optimize their Option 1 MY 2027 systems to
meet the proposed Option 1 MY 2031 standards and costs for
manufacturers to reprogram the existing electronics and software to
down-speed their multi-speed transmissions. For this analysis, we
assumed these costs would be part of the general research and
development costs for the rule and did not separately quantify them. We
did not make any additional cost adjustments to account for the
proposed lengthened useful life, since the aftertreatment system used
in the demonstration program represented catalysts aged to 250,000
miles.
We projected that most of the gaseous-fueled SI engines would
include similar aftertreatment system upgrades as the liquid-fueled SI
engines to meet the proposed standards and those costs are also
summarized in Table III-30 and detailed in the draft RIA. The HHD and
urban bus gaseous-fueled SI engine categories in our analysis had lower
projected technology costs to meet the proposed standards. These two
subsets include engines that were certified in MY 2019 to California's
optional and more stringent 0.02 g/hp-hr NOX standard. We
assumed no additional technology would be needed for these engines to
meet the proposed standards in future model years. Our projected costs
for these engines were limited to durability improvements to the
catalyst substrate support structure (can material, mat, seals, etc.)
to meet the requirements of our proposed lengthened useful life
mileages.
Table III-30--Summary of Spark-Ignition HDE Direct Manufacturing Package Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaseous fueled
Cost packages (2019$) Liquid fueled -----------------------------------------------
SI engine SI engine SI HHD SI urban bus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Technology............................. $322 $365 $3,348 $2,511
Projected Technology............................ 732 646 3,376 2,531
Projected Technology Incremental................ 410 281 28 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Potential Alternative
We also considered the emissions impact of an alternative (the
Alternative) that is more stringent than our proposed Option 1 MY 2031
standards when considering the combination of numeric level of the
standards, length of useful life, and lead time (see Table III-31
through Table III-33). The Alternative matches our proposed Option 1 MY
2031 FTP and SET standards for NOX, PM, and CO, but has
lower (more stringent) HC standards, and starts four years earlier for
all pollutant standards, in MY 2027. The useful life and warranty
mileages for the Alternative are also longer than those of proposed
Option 1 for MYs 2031 and later SI engines. As shown in Table III-25
and Table III-28, available data indicate that the combination of
NOX, HC, and CO emission levels over the longer useful life
period reflected in the Alternative standards would be very challenging
to meet in the MY 2027 timeframe.
We believe the additional lead time provided by the second step of
the proposed Option 1 MY 2031 standards, combined with the higher
numeric standard for HC and the shorter useful life mileage, results in
the proposed
[[Page 17489]]
Option 1 standards being both feasible and technology forcing. Proposed
Option 1 represents the most stringent range of lead time, standards,
regulatory useful life periods, and emission-related warranty periods
we are currently considering in this rule for HD SI engines unless we
receive additional data to support a conclusion that the Alternative
standards are feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe.
Table III-31--Comparison of FTP Standards in the HD SI Engine Proposed Options and Alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/hp-hr)
Scenario Model years PM (mg/hp-hr) HC (mg/hp-hr) CO (g/hp-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1............. 2027-2030....... 35 5 60 6.0
2031 and later.. 20 5 40 6.0
Proposed Option 2............. 2027 and later.. 50 5 40 6.0
Alternative................... 2027 and later.. 20 5 10 6.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III-32--Comparison of SET Standards in the HD SI Engine Proposed Options and Alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/hp-hr)
Scenario Model years PM (mg/hp-hr) HC (mg/hp-hr) CO (g/hp-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1............. 2027-2030....... 35 5 60 6.0
2031 and later.. 20 5 40 6.0
Proposed Option 2............. 2027 and later.. 50 5 40 6.0
Alternative................... 2027 and later.. 20 5 10 6.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III-33--Comparison of Useful Life and Emissions Warranty Mileages in the HD SI Engine Proposed Options and
Alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Useful life Warranty
Scenario Model years mileage mileage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1............................. 2027-2030....................... 155,000 110,000
2031 and later.................. 200,000 160,000
Proposed Option 2............................. 2027 and later.................. 150,000 110,000
Alternative................................... 2027 and later.................. 250,000 200,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Section 5.2.2. for more details on how we used MOVES to model
our proposed options and alternative scenarios for the inventory
analysis. We projected the same HD SI technology costs would apply for
proposed Options 1 and 2. We believe the range of the proposed Options
1 and 2 standards could be achieved with the same advanced catalyst
system from our demonstration program with complete access to
calibration controls. That same catalyst system was aged to cover the
range of useful life mileages included in the proposed options. See
Section V of this preamble and Chapter 7 of the draft RIA for a
description of the overall costs of the proposed options. Since we do
not currently have information to indicate that the Alternative
standards are feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe with the emission
control technologies we evaluated, we are not presenting an analysis of
the costs of the Alternative.
5. Summary of Requests for Comment
For heavy-duty SI engines, we are requesting comment regarding the
cost, feasibility, and appropriateness of our proposed Options 1 and 2
standards, duty cycles, and test procedure updates. See the previous
sections for specific requests for comment on each of those topics.
When submitting comments, we request that commenters provide data,
where possible, or additional references to support their positions.
We request comment on the implementation years of the program, the
numeric levels of our proposed standards for FTP and SET duty cycles,
and our approach to propose the same numeric standards for the two duty
cycles and for both CI and SI engines.
We request comment on the proposed changes to test procedures,
including the addition of the SET duty cycle and the disabling of AECDs
that impact peak torque during engine mapping. We request commenters to
include data to support recommended modifications to the CI-based SET
duty cycle or powertrain test procedures for SI engine testing. We also
seek comment on whether adjustment factors, similar to IRAFs used for
CI engines, should be applied to SI duty cycle results to account for
the HC, CO, NOX, and PM emission increases that may occur
due to enrichment AECDs.
We introduced several proposals in this section intended to achieve
emission reductions without the need for manufacturers to perform
additional tests. We are not proposing HD SI standards over the low
load cycle or an idle test, but request comment on the need for these
emission performance demonstrations in addition to or to replace our
proposed procedures. We request comment on our proposed requirement
that manufacturers maintain a catalyst temperature above 350 [deg]C to
ensure effective idle emission control or if an idle test procedure
would be a better approach. Our proposed process to validate the
accuracy of catalyst protection models is based on a 5 [deg]C
temperature allowance. We request comment on that allowance, the need
for more specific procedures or technology specifications, and whether
we should require continuous monitoring using temperature sensors
instead of allowing the use of models. We are proposing flexibilities
in OBD certifications for integrated engine manufacturers and request
comment on additional flexibilities or restrictions we should consider.
E. Summary of Spark-Ignition Heavy-Duty Vehicle Refueling Emission
Standards and Test Procedures
Compliance with evaporative and refueling emission standards is
[[Page 17490]]
demonstrated at the vehicle level. The vehicle manufacturers that
produce HD SI engines sell complete vehicles and, in some instances,
sell incomplete vehicles to secondary manufacturers. As noted in the
following section, we are proposing refueling emission standards for
incomplete vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR under both proposed Options 1
and 2. These proposed standards would apply over a useful life of 15
years or 150,000 miles, whichever occurs first, consistent with
existing evaporative emission standards for these vehicles. Evaporative
and refueling emission standards currently apply for complete vehicles
and we are not reopening or proposing to change those requirements in
this rulemaking.
1. Current Refueling Emission Standard and Test Procedures
Spark-ignition engines generally operate with volatile liquid fuel
(such as gasoline or ethanol) or gaseous fuel (such as natural gas or
LPG) that have the potential to release high levels of evaporative and
refueling HC emissions. As a result, EPA has issued evaporative
emission standards that apply to vehicles powered by these
engines.\387\ Refueling emissions are evaporative emissions that result
when the pumped liquid fuel displaces the vapor in the vehicle tank.
Without refueling emission controls, most of those vapors are released
into the ambient air. The HC emissions emitted are a function of
temperature and the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP).\388\ The emissions
control technology which collects and stores the vapor generated during
refueling events is the Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\387\ 40 CFR 1037.103.
\388\ E.M. Liston, American Petroleum Institute, and Stanford
Research Institute. A Study of Variables that Effect the Amount of
Vapor Emitted During the Refueling of Automobiles. Available online:
https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Study_of_Variables_that_Effect_the_Amo.html?id=KW2IGwAACAAJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light-duty vehicles and chassis-certified complete heavy-duty
vehicles that are 14,000 lbs GVWR and under have been meeting
evaporative and refueling requirements for many years. ORVR
requirements for light-duty vehicles started phasing in as part of
EPA's National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) and Clean Fuel Vehicle (CFV)
programs in 1998.\389\ In EPA's Tier 2 vehicle program, all complete
vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 to 14,000 lbs were required to phase-in
ORVR requirements between 2004 and 2006 model years.\390\ In the Tier 3
rulemaking, all complete vehicles were required to meet a more-
stringent standard of 0.20 grams of HC per gallon of gasoline dispensed
by MY 2022 (see 40 CFR 86.1813-17(b)).\391\ Engine-certified incomplete
heavy-duty vehicles that run on volatile liquid fuels have evaporative
emission standards that phase in over model years 2018 through 2022,
but the refueling standards were optional for incomplete vehicles.\392\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\389\ 62 FR 31192 (June 6, 1997) and 63 FR 926 (January 7,
1998).
\390\ 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
\391\ 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014) and 80 FR 0978 (February 19,
2015).
\392\ Complete heavy-duty vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR are
subject to refueling standards starting in model year 2022. EPA has
not yet received any certification applications for complete
vehicles over 14,000 lb GVWR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current evaporative and refueling emissions test procedures in
40 CFR part 1066, subpart J, require that testing occur in a sealed
housing evaporative determination (SHED) enclosure containing the
complete vehicle. This procedure is used by all light-duty and heavy-
duty complete vehicles subject to the refueling standards, and
manufacturers have designed and built the SHEDs at their test
facilities for these vehicles. Since evaporative and refueling emission
control systems in heavy-duty vehicles are often larger versions of
those used in light-duty vehicles, EPA's regulations allow
manufacturers to certify their vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR using an
engineering analysis in lieu of providing test data.\393\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\393\ 40 CFR 1037.103(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During a recent test program, EPA learned that very few SHEDs are
available that could fit vehicles over 14,000 lb GVWR, as the length
and height of these vehicles exceed the dimensions of most
SHEDs.394 395 Additionally, the limited number of large-
volume SHEDs available at third-party laboratories have challenges in
accurately measuring refueling emissions because of the very large
volume inside the enclosures.\396\ These measurement challenges do not
currently impact manufacturers' ability to demonstrate compliance for
current evaporative emissions standards because the regulations allow
manufacturers to submit an engineering analysis to demonstrate
compliance in lieu of testing their heavier vehicles, and currently no
HD SI engine manufacturers certify complete vehicles in the over-14,000
lb GVWR vehicle class where testing is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\394\ SGS-Aurora, Eastern Research Group, ``Light Heavy-Duty
Gasoline Vehicle Evaporative Emissions Testing.'' EPA-420-R-19-017.
December 2019.
\395\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``Summary of ``Light
Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicle Evaporative Emissions Test Program'' ''
EPA-420-S-19-002. December 2019.
\396\ See Chapter 2.3 of the draft RIA for a summary of this
test program and the challenges of applying a test procedure
originally developed for light-duty vehicles to much larger chassis
that are certified as incomplete vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Proposed Updates to Refueling Requirements
As HD SI engines continue to improve in their ability to reduce
exhaust emissions, evaporative emissions become an increasingly
significant contributor to overall HC emissions. In response to our
ANPR, ORVR suppliers commented in support of refueling requirements for
incomplete heavy-duty vehicles, noting the industry's experience
improving, testing, and implementing the technology.\397\ We are
proposing refueling emission standards for incomplete vehicles above
14,000 lb GVWR starting in model year 2027 (see 40 CFR 1037.103). We
propose that these standards apply for a useful life of 15 years or
150,000 miles, whichever occurs first, consistent with the current
useful life for evaporative emission standards in 40 CFR 86.1805. We
are not proposing any change to the evaporative emission standards or
the useful life for the evaporative standards. Since the refueling and
evaporative emission standards are based on the use of similar fuel
system-based technologies, it is appropriate that the useful life for
the refueling standards be the same as the useful life for evaporative
standards. This approach to useful life for our proposed refueling
standards is consistent with the ORVR suppliers' comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\397\ See comments from the Manufacturers of Emission Controls
Association (EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0365) and Ingevity Corporation
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0271).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current refueling requirements are limited to complete vehicles,
and all current heavy-duty SI engines for the over-14,000 lb GVWR
vehicle classes are being certified as part of incomplete vehicles. As
a result, hydrocarbon vapors from the largest HD SI engines are
uncontrolled each time these vehicles are refueled. Results from a
recent EPA test program found refueling emissions of more than 10 times
the current light-duty ORVR standard for the two uncontrolled HD
gasoline-fueled vehicles tested.398 399 ORVR
[[Page 17491]]
systems include mature technologies that have been widely adopted in
vehicles below 8,500 lb GVWR since model year 2000.\400\ As we present
in our feasibility discussion in Section III.E.3.ii, the fuel systems
of these larger heavy-duty engines are similar to their chassis-
certified counterparts and we expect manufacturers would generally be
able to scale their existing light-duty systems to meet the needs of
the larger fuel tanks in their heavy-duty engine products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\398\ SGS-Aurora, Eastern Research Group, ``Light Heavy-Duty
Gasoline Vehicle Evaporative Emissions Testing.'' EPA-420-R-19-017.
December 2019.
\399\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``Summary of ``Light
Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicle Evaporative Emissions Test Program'' ''
EPA-420-S-19-002. December 2019.
\400\ 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Proposed ORVR Test Procedure and HC Standard
We are proposing a refueling emission standard of 0.20 grams HC per
gallon of liquid fuel for incomplete vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR,
which is the same as the existing refueling standard for complete
vehicles.\401\ We note that this proposed refueling emission standard
would apply to all liquid-fueled Spark-ignition HDE, including gasoline
and ethanol blends.\402\ As described in Section III.D.3, we believe it
is feasible for manufacturers to achieve this standard by adopting
large-scale versions of the technology in use on complete vehicles. We
request comment on our proposed standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\401\ See our proposed updates to 40 CFR 1037.103.
\402\ We are not proposing changes to the current refueling
requirements that apply for gaseous-fueled Spark-ignition HDE.
Vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR that are fueled by CNG or LNG would
continue to meet the fueling connection requirements (see 40 CFR
1037.103(d)) and fuel tank hold-time requirements (see 40 CFR
1037.103(e)), respectively, and would be deemed to comply with the
newly applicable proposed refueling standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current provision in 40 CFR 1037.103(c) allows vehicles above
14,000 lb GVWR to demonstrate they meet evaporative and optional
refueling standards using an engineering analysis that compares the
system to one certified in a full-scale SHED demonstration. We propose
to continue to allow manufacturers to demonstrate they meet the
proposed refueling standards using an engineering analysis, and
manufacturers would continue to use this provision in light of the SHED
testing challenges summarized in Section III.E.1 and in Chapter 2.3 of
the draft RIA. Nonetheless, in general we continue to view full-scale,
vehicle SHED testing as the most accurate representation of real world
evaporative and refueling emissions and consider it the preferred means
of demonstrating refueling emission control performance for
certification.
We are considering updates to adapt the current test procedures to
accommodate vehicles in the greater than 14,000 lb GVWR classes and to
address the challenges highlighted in EPA's test program.\403\ The
light-duty procedures require full-scale vehicle testing using complete
vehicles in SHED enclosures. The current test procedures and most
existing SHED facilities were designed to test passenger vehicles and
heavy-duty complete vehicles that are much smaller than commercial
vehicles in the over-14,000 lb GVWR classes. While a limited number of
third-party laboratories are available with larger SHED facilities, we
identified two key updates needed to accurately adapt the current
refueling procedures to larger SHEDs that would fit vehicles above
14,000 lb GVWR. As discussed in Chapter 2.3 of the draft RIA, we need
to extend the mixing time for the larger volume of ambient air to reach
a homogeneous distribution and identify a means to accurately calculate
the diverse vehicle volumes that displace air in the enclosure. We
currently have limited data to inform these updates and request
comment, including data, on appropriate mixing times and approaches to
calculating air displacement in larger SHED enclosures. Additionally,
we request comment on other aspects of the current test procedures that
could be improved for evaluating vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\403\ Chapter 2.3 of the draft RIA summarizes this test program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also request comment on the conditioning procedure to prepare
the canister for testing. The current preparatory cycle used by
complete HD vehicles is modeled after light-duty vehicle driving
patterns and vehicles typically with much smaller fuel tanks and
canisters.\404\ The current conditioning procedure is designed to
challenge the purge system in scenarios such as heavy traffic, slow
speeds and start-stop events over shorter drive distances and time.
Heavy-duty vehicles, with larger fuel tanks and canisters, may drive
more miles and longer time periods and have greater power demands that
may help purge the larger canisters more easily than allowed in the
current light duty vehicle test. Commercial vehicles typically
experience more daily operation in traffic and on roads delivering
goods but generally drive more miles and hours daily and operate under
higher loads, which can accelerate the removal of vapors stored in the
canister system from a diurnal or prior refueling event. We request
comment on a specific canister conditioning cycle or adjustments to the
current conditioning cycle that would better represent real world
loading for heavy-duty vehicles entering a refueling event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\404\ 40 CFR 86.132-00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also request comment on additional ORVR performance
demonstrations EPA should consider adopting. One option would be to
allow manufacturers to evaluate the entire ORVR system of an incomplete
vehicle (e.g., fuel tank, filler pipe, canister, control valves)
separate from the vehicle body and chassis. Using an approach of only
testing refueling components, manufacturers could use existing, widely-
available chassis testing SHED enclosures, since there would no longer
be a need to design expanded test cell volumes to accommodate the
larger and more diverse vehicle configurations produced as incomplete
vehicles. Similarly, an ORVR components test could also be performed in
a smaller scale SHED (sometimes referred to as a ``mini-SHED'' or ``rig
SHED''), which is allowed by CARB for certain evaporative tests and was
incorporated by reference as a phase-in option for evaporative
emissions testing in our Tier 3 light-duty rulemaking.\405\ A smaller
SHED enclosure provides a simpler test methodology with further reduced
variability. Since testing the refueling-related components independent
of the vehicle eliminates the challenge of minimizing other hydrocarbon
sources not associated with fuel or the fuel system (e.g., tires,
plastics, paints), we request comment on the appropriate numeric level
for the standard if evaluated using this simpler testing option, as the
proposed standard is currently based on a full-vehicle test procedure.
We request comment on these component-focused options or other
alternatives, including specific test procedures, numeric standards,
and appropriate canister conditioning cycles that we should consider to
represent real world operation for these heavy-duty vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\405\ 40 CFR 86.1813-17(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Impact on Secondary Manufacturers
For incomplete vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR, the chassis
manufacturer performs the evaporative emissions testing and obtains the
vehicle certificate from EPA. When the chassis manufacturer sells the
incomplete vehicle to a secondary vehicle manufacturer, the chassis
manufacturer provides specific instructions to the secondary
manufacturer indicating what they must do to maintain the certified
configuration, how to properly install components, and what, if any,
modifications may be performed. For the evaporative emission system, a
[[Page 17492]]
chassis manufacturer may require specific tube lengths and locations of
certain hardware, and modifications to the fuel tank, fuel lines,
evaporative canister, filler tube, gas cap and any other certified
hardware would likely be limited.
We expect that the addition of any ORVR hardware and all ORVR-
related aspects of the certified configuration would continue to be
managed and controlled by the chassis manufacturer that holds the
vehicle certificate. The engineering associated with all aspects of the
fuel system design, which would include the ORVR system, is closely
tied to the engine design, and the chassis manufacturer is the most
qualified party to ensure its performance and compliance with
applicable standards. Example fuel system changes the OEM may implement
include larger canisters bracketed to the chassis frame close to the
fuel tanks. Additional valves may be necessary to route the vapors to
the canister(s) during refueling. Most other evaporative and fuel lines
would remain in the same locations to meet existing evaporative
requirements. There may be slightly different filler neck tube designs
(smaller fuel transfer tube) as well as some additional tubes and
valves to allow proper fuel nozzle turn-off (click off) at the pump,
but this is not expected to include relocating the filler neck. Based
on the comments received on the ANPR, we believe these changes would
not adversely impact the secondary manufacturers finishing the
vehicles.\406\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\406\ See comments from the Manufacturers of Emission Controls
Association (EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0365) and Ingevity Corporation
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0271).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The instructions provided by the chassis manufacturer to the
secondary manufacturer to meet our proposed refueling standards should
include new guidelines to maintain the certified ORVR configuration. We
do not expect the new ORVR system to require significant changes to the
vehicle build process, since chassis manufacturers would have a
business incentive to ensure that the ORVR system integrates smoothly
in a wide range of commercial vehicle bodies. Accordingly, we do not
expect that addition of the ORVR hardware would result in any
appreciable change in the secondary manufacturer's obligations or
require secondary builders to perform significant modifications to
their products.
3. Feasibility Analysis for the Proposed Refueling Emission Standards
This section describes the effectiveness and projected costs of the
emissions technologies that we analyzed for our proposed refueling
standards. Feasibility of the proposed refueling standard of 0.20 grams
of HC per gallon is based on the widespread adoption of ORVR systems
used in the light-duty and complete heavy-duty vehicle sectors. As
described in this section, we believe manufacturers can effectively
scale the technologies to larger engine applications to meet the
proposed standard. For our inventory analysis, we assumed all heavy-
duty gasoline-fueled vehicles that are identified as LHD, MHD and HHD
regulatory subcategories in MOVES would implement ORVR systems starting
in MY 2027 and we adjusted the refueling emission rates for those
subcategories to reflect 100 percent implementation of a 0.20 grams of
HC per gallon of gasoline rate in MY 2027. See Chapter 5.2.2 of the
draft RIA for a discussion of our inventory model updates. The proposed
refueling controls would lower refueling VOC and benzene emissions by
88.5 percent by 2045 for heavy duty gasoline vehicles over 14,000 lb
GVWR. See the discussion and table in Chapter 5.3.3 of the draft RIA.
i. Summary of Refueling Emission Technologies Considered
This section summarizes the specific technologies we considered as
the basis for our analysis of the proposed refueling emission
standards. The technologies presented in this section are described in
greater detail in Chapter 1.2.3 of the draft RIA.
Instead of releasing HC vapors into the ambient air, ORVR systems
capture HC emissions during refueling events when liquid fuel displaces
HC vapors present in the vehicle fuel tank as the tank is filled. These
systems recover the HC vapors and store them for later purging from the
system and use as fuel to operate the engine. An ORVR system consists
of four main components that are incorporated into the existing fuel
system: Filler pipe and seal, flow control valve, carbon canister, and
purge system.
The filler pipe is the section of line from the fuel tank to where
fuel enters the fuel system from the fuel nozzle. The filler pipe is
typically sized to handle the maximum fill rate of liquid fuel allowed
by law and integrates either a mechanical or liquid seal to prevent
fuel vapors from exiting through the filler pipe to the atmosphere. The
flow control valve senses that the fuel tank is getting filled and
triggers a unique low-restriction flow path to the canister. The carbon
canister is a container of activated charcoal designed to effectively
capture and store fuel vapors. Carbon canisters are already a part of
HD SI fuel systems to control evaporative emissions. Fuel systems with
ORVR would require additional capacity, by increasing either the
canister volume or the effectiveness of the carbon material. The purge
system is an electro-mechanical valve used to redirect fuel vapors from
the fuel tank and canister to the running engine where they are burned
in the combustion chamber.\407\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\407\ This process displaces some amount of the liquid fuel that
would otherwise be used from the fuel tank and results in a small
fuel savings. See Chapter 7.2.2 of the draft RIA for our estimate of
the fuel savings from our proposed refueling standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fuel systems on over-14,000 lb GVWR incomplete heavy-duty
vehicles are similar to those on complete heavy-duty vehicles that are
currently subject to refueling standards. These incomplete vehicles may
have slightly larger fuel tanks than most chassis-certified (complete)
heavy-duty vehicles and are somewhat more likely to have dual fuel
tanks. These differences may necessitate greater ORVR system storage
capacity and possibly some unique accommodations for dual tanks (e.g.,
separate fuel filler locations), as commented by ORVR suppliers in
response to our ANPR.\408\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\408\ See comments from the Manufacturers of Emission Controls
Association (EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0365) and Ingevity Corporation
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0271).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Projected Refueling Emission Technology Packages
The ORVR emission controls we projected in our feasibility analysis
build upon four components currently installed on incomplete vehicles
above 14,000 lb GVWR to meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards:
The carbon canister, flow control valves, filler pipe and seal, and the
purge system. For our feasibility analysis, we assumed a 70-gallon fuel
tank to represent an average tank size of HD SI incomplete vehicles
above 14,000 lb GVWR. A summary of the projected technology updates and
costs are presented below. See Chapter 3.2 of the draft RIA for
additional details.
In order to capture the vapor volume of fuel tanks during
refueling, we project manufacturers would increase canister vapor or
``working'' capacity of their liquid-sealed canisters by 15 to 40
percent depending on the individual vehicle systems. If a manufacturer
chooses to increase the canister volume using conventional carbon, we
project a canister meeting Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements
with approximately 5.1 liters of conventional carbon would need up to
an additional
[[Page 17493]]
1.8 liters of carbon to capture refueling emissions from a 70-gallon
fuel tank. A change in canister volume to accommodate additional carbon
would result in increased costs for retooling and additional canister
plastic, as well as design considerations to fit the larger canister on
the vehicle. Alternatively, a manufacturer could choose to add a second
canister for the extra carbon volume to avoid the re-tooling costs. We
estimate projected costs for both a single larger canister and two
canisters in series. Another approach, based on discussions with
canister and carbon manufacturers, could be for manufacturers to use a
higher adsorption carbon and modify compartmentalization within the
existing shell to increase the canister working capacity. We do not
have data to estimate the performance or cost of higher adsorption
carbon and so did not include this additional approach in our analysis.
The projected increase in canister volumes assume manufacturers
would use a liquid seal in the filler pipe, which is less effective
than a mechanical seal. For a manufacturer that replaces their liquid
seal with a mechanical seal, we assumed an approximate 20 percent
reduction in the necessary canister volume. Despite the greater
effectiveness of a mechanical seal, manufacturers in the past have not
preferred this approach because it introduces another wearable part
that can deteriorate, introduces safety concerns, and may require
replacement during the useful life of the vehicle. To meet the proposed
ORVR standards, manufacturers may choose the mechanical seal design to
avoid retooling charges and we included it in our cost analysis. We
assumed a cost of $10.00 per seal for a manufacturer to convert from a
liquid seal to a mechanical seal. We assumed zero cost in our analysis
for manufacturers to maintain their current liquid seal approach for
filler pipes. While some of the largest vehicle applications with
unique tank locations or designs without filler necks may need
additional hardware modifications to provide enough back pressure to
stop the nozzle flow and avoid spitback, we believe the cost is similar
to converting to a mechanical seal, and we did not differentiate these
low volume applications in our cost analysis.
In order to manage the large volume of vapors during refueling,
manufacturers' ORVR updates would include flow control valves
integrated into the roll-over/vapor lines. We assumed manufacturers
would, on average, install one flow control valve per vehicle that
would cost $6.50 per valve. And lastly, we project manufacturers would
update their purge strategy to account for the additional fuel vapors
from refueling. Manufacturers may add hardware and optimize
calibrations to ensure adequate purge in the time allotted over the
preconditioning drive cycle of the demonstration test.
Table III-34 presents the ORVR system specifications and
assumptions used in our cost analysis, including key characteristics of
the baseline incomplete vehicle's evaporative emission control system.
Currently manufacturers size the canisters of their Tier 3 evaporative
emission control systems based on the diurnal test and the Bleed
Emission Test Procedure (BETP).\409\ During the diurnal test, the
canister is loaded with hydrocarbons over two or three days, allowing
the hydrocarbons to load a conventional carbon canister (1500 GWC,
gasoline working capacity) at a 70 percent efficiency. In contrast, a
refueling event takes place over a few minutes, and the ORVR directs
the vapor from the gas tank onto the carbon in the canister at a
canister loading efficiency of 50 percent. For our analysis, we added a
design safety margin of 10 percent extra carbon to our ORVR systems.
While less overall vapor mass may be vented into the canister from the
fuel tank during a refueling event compared to the three-day diurnal
test period, a higher amount of carbon is needed to contain the faster
rate of vapor loaded at a lower efficiency during a refueling event.
These factors were used to calculate the canister volumes for the two
filler neck options in our cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\409\ 40 CFR 86.1813-17(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assumed purge system updates are also shown in Table III-34.
The diurnal drive cycle duration is 30 minutes and targets 200 bed
volumes of purge to clean the canister before the evaporative emissions
test. The bed volumes of purge are multiplied by the canister volume to
calculate the total target purge volume. The total purge volume divided
by the number of minutes driving gives us the average purge rate. An
ORVR demonstration would also require conditioning of the canister in
preparation for the ORVR test. The current conditioning cycle used by
complete vehicles consists of a 97-minute drive cycle to prepare the
canister.\410\ However, as indicated in the table, a larger target bed
volume may be needed to purge the larger canister capacity required for
ORVR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\410\ Trucks with larger fuel tanks typically will drive more
miles in a day and between refueling events. As noted in Section
III.E.2, we are requesting comment on updating our canister
preconditioning driving procedure in order to better represent the
operation of these larger vehicles.
Table III-34--ORVR Specifications and Assumptions Used in the Cost Analysis for HD SI Incomplete Vehicles Above
14,000 lb GVWR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 3 ORVR Filler Neck Options
Baseline -------------------------------
---------------- ORVR
-------------------------------
Diurnal Mechanical
seal Liquid seal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diurnal Heat Build.............................................. 72-96 [deg]F 80 [deg]F ..............
RVP............................................................. 9 psi .............. ..............
Nominal Tank Volume............................................. 70 gallons .............. ..............
Fill Volume..................................................... 40% 10% to 100% ..............
Air Ingestion Rate.............................................. .............. 0% 13.50%
Mass Vented per heat build, g/d................................. 120 .............. ..............
Mass Vented per refueling event................................. .............. 255 315
Hot Soak Vapor Load............................................. 5 .............. ..............
Mass vented over 48-hour test................................... 227.2 .............. ..............
Mass vented over 72-hour test................................... 323.3 .............. ..............
1500 GWC, g/L (Efficiency) \a\.................................. 70 50 50
[[Page 17494]]
Excess Capacity................................................. 10% 10% 10%
Estimated Canister Volume Requirement, liters \b\
48-hour Evaporative only.................................... 3.6
72-hour Evaporative only.................................... 5.1
Total of 72-hour + ORVR \c\................................. .............. 5.6 6.9
Limiting Drive Cycle, minutes................................... 30 97 97
Target Bed Volumes of Purge \d\................................. 200 646 646
Total Purge Volume, liters \e\.................................. 1020 3618 4457
Average Purge Rate, LPM \f\..................................... 34 37 46
BETP Purge...................................................... .............. 37 46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Efficiency of conventional carbon.
\b\ Canister Volume = 1.1(mass vented)/1500 GWC (Efficiency).
\c\ ORVR adds .5 liters and 1.8 liters for Mechanical Seal and Liquid Seal respectively.
\d\ ORVR estimated volumes based on ratio of increased driving distance in ORVR procedure and not necessarily
reflective of necessary volumes to sufficiently purge canister.
\e\ Total Purge Volume, Liters = canister volume, liters * Bed Volumes Purge.
\f\ Average Purge Rate, LPM = Total Purge Volume, liters/Limiting Drive Cycle, minutes.
The ORVR components described in this section represent
technologies that we think most manufacturers would adopt to meet our
proposed refueling requirements. It is possible that manufacturers may
choose a different approach, or that unique fuel system characteristics
may require additional hardware modifications not described here, but
we do not have reason to believe costs would be significantly higher
than presented here. We request comment, including data, on our
assumptions related to the increased canister working capacity demands,
the appropriateness of our average fuel tank size, the technology costs
for the specific ORVR components considered and any additional
information that can improve our cost projections in the final rule
analysis.
iii. Summary of Costs To Meet the Proposed Refueling Emission Standards
Table III-35 shows cost estimations for the different approaches
evaluated. In calculating the overall cost of our proposed program, we
used $25, the average of both approaches, to represent the cost for
manufacturers to adopt the additional canister capacity and hardware to
meet our proposed refueling emission standards for incomplete vehicles
above 14,000 lb GVWR. See Section V of this preamble for a summary of
our overall program cost and Chapter 7 of the draft RIA for more
details.
Table III-35--Summary of Projected Per-Vehicle Costs To Meet the Proposed Refueling Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid seal Mechanical seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dual existing Dual existing
New canister canisters in New canister canisters in
series series
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Canister Costs....................... $20 $15 $8 $8
---------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Tooling \a\.......................... 0.50
0.50
Flow Control Valves............................. 6.50
6.50
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seal............................................ 0 0 10
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total \b\................................... 27 22 25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Assumes the retooling costs are spread over a five-year period.
\b\ Possible additional hardware for spitback requirements.
Incomplete vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR with dual fuel tanks may
require some unique accommodations to adopt ORVR systems. A chassis
configuration with dual fuel tanks would need separate canisters and
separate filler pipes and seals for each fuel tank. Depending on the
design, a dual fuel tank chassis configuration may require a separate
purge valve for each fuel tank. We assume manufacturers would install
one additional purge valve for dual fuel tank applications that also
incorporate independent canisters for the second fuel tank/canister
configuration and manufacturers adopting a mechanical seal in their
filler pipe would install an anti-spitback valve for each filler pipe.
See Chapter 1.2.4.5 of the draft RIA for a summary of the design
considerations for these fuel tank configurations. We did not include
an estimate of the population or impact of dual fuel tank vehicles in
our cost analysis of our proposed refueling emission standards.
[[Page 17495]]
4. Summary of Requests for Comment
We are requesting comment regarding the cost, feasibility, and
appropriateness of our proposed refueling emission standard for
incomplete vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR. The proposed standard is
based on the current refueling standard that applies to complete heavy-
duty gasoline-fueled vehicles. We are proposing that compliance with
these standards may be demonstrated under an existing regulatory
provision by using an engineering analysis due to uncertainties related
to testing these larger vehicles. We request comment on approaches to
adapt the current test procedures used by lower GVWR vehicles for
vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR. Specifically, we are interested in
comments including data or established procedures to calculate
appropriate mixing times and air displacement in larger SHED
enclosures. We also request comment on the appropriate conditioning
procedure for these larger vehicles. Finally, we request comment on
other testing options we should consider for manufacturers to
demonstrate the effectiveness of their ORVR systems on incomplete
vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR.
IV. Compliance Provisions and Flexibilities
EPA certification is a fundamental requirement of the Clean Air Act
for manufacturers of heavy-duty highway engines. EPA has employed
significant discretion over the past several decades in designing and
updating many aspects of our heavy-duty engine and vehicle
certification and compliance programs. In the following sections, we
discuss several proposed provisions that we believe would increase the
effectiveness of our regulations, including some opportunities to
streamline existing requirements. Unless explicitly stated otherwise,
the proposed provisions in this Section IV would apply to proposed
Options 1 and 2, as well as the full range of options in between them.
As noted in Section I, we are proposing to migrate our criteria
pollutant regulations for model years 2027 and later heavy-duty highway
engines from their current location in 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, to 40
CFR part 1036.\411\ Consistent with this migration, the proposed
compliance provisions discussed in this section refer to the proposed
regulations in their new location in part 1036. In general, this
migration is not intended to change the compliance program previously
specified in part 86, except as specifically proposed in this
rulemaking. See our memorandum to the docket for a detailed description
of the proposed migration.\412\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\411\ As noted in the following sections, we are proposing some
updates to 40 CFR parts 1037, 1065, and 1068 to apply to other
sectors in addition to heavy-duty highway engines.
\412\ Stout, Alan; Brakora, Jessica. Memorandum to docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055. ``Technical Issues Related to Migrating Heavy-Duty
Highway Engine Certification Requirements from 40 CFR part 86,
subpart A, to 40 CFR part 1036''. October 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Regulatory Useful Life
In addition to emission standards and test procedures discussed in
Section III, appropriate regulatory useful life periods are critical to
assure emission performance of heavy-duty highway engines. Our
regulations require manufacturers to perform durability testing to
demonstrate that engines will meet emission standards not only at
certification but also over the full useful life periods specified by
EPA. Useful life represents the period over which emission standards
apply for certified engines, and, practically, any difference between
the regulatory useful life and the generally longer operational life of
in-use engines represents miles and years of operation without an
assurance that emission standards will continue to be met.
In this section, we describe our estimates of the length of
operational lives of heavy-duty highway engines, which are almost
double the current useful life mileages in EPA's regulations for all
primary intended service classes. EPA is proposing to increase the
regulatory useful life mileage values for new heavy-duty engines to
better reflect real-world usage, extend the emissions durability
requirement for heavy-duty engines, and improve long-term emission
performance. Our proposed longer useful life periods for heavy-duty
engines vary by engine class to reflect the different lengths of their
estimated operational lives. As described in Section III, the proposed
numeric levels of the standards are the same across engine classes and
are based on the feasibility of achieving those standards at the
proposed useful life mileages. Proposed Option 1 useful life periods
would apply in two steps in MY 2027 and MY 2031 and proposed Option 2
useful life periods would apply in a single step in MY 2027.
For CI engines, the proposed Option 1 useful life mileage values
for MY 2031 and later are based on data on the average periods to the
first out-of-frame rebuild for these engines. Our CI engine
demonstration, which is based on the emission performance of an engine
in the Heavy HDE class, projects the engine can achieve the proposed
standards for MY 2031 at the proposed useful life mileage.\413\ Our
demonstration data does not currently show that it is feasible to
achieve the proposed Option 1 MY 2027 standards at the MY 2031 useful
life mileages, and the proposed Option 1 useful life mileage values for
MY 2027 through 2030 are approximately a midpoint between the current
useful life mileages and our proposed Option 1 MY 2031 and later
mileages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\413\ Demonstrating feasibility for the Heavy HDE class
indicates feasibility for the smaller CI engine classes, Medium HDE,
and Light HDE, which could adopt similar technologies to meet the
standards and have shorter proposed useful life periods over which
to demonstrate the performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the proposed Option 1 would increase useful life
mileages in two steps for the proposed standards for heavy-duty SI
engines that are not chassis-certified. Our proposed Option 1 first
step for these SI engines in MY 2027 through 2030 would better align
with the current useful life mileages for GHG emission standards
applicable to these engines and for chassis-certified complete vehicles
containing these engines. The proposed Option 1 second step for these
SI engines in MY 2031 and later would be based on the expected engine
service life for heavy-duty gasoline engines in the market today. The
SI demonstration program showed that the proposed Option 1 standards
are feasible over the proposed Option 1 useful life mileages.
In our ANPR, we presented CI engine rebuild data and noted that we
intended to propose useful life mileage values for all categories of
heavy-duty engines that are more reflective of real-world usage.
Comments received on the ANPR included varied support for increasing
engine useful life values. Environmental organizations and state,
local, and Tribal air agencies largely supported lengthened useful
life, and many supported aligning with CARB's HD Omnibus rulemaking.
Among the sixteen state, local, and Tribal governments and related
associations that expressed support, the National Tribal Air
Association stated that longer useful life requirements would lead to
longer design life targets for emissions systems commensurate with
actual vehicle service lengths.\414\ The International Council on Clean
Transportation (ICCT) commented that EPA should harmonize useful life
requirements with California and stated that it could be possible to
double the
[[Page 17496]]
useful life of the emission control systems with available
technologies.\415\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\414\ See comments from NTAA, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
0282.
\415\ See comments from ICCT, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
0304.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other commenters expressed cautious support. The Manufacturers of
Emission Controls Association (MECA) and Motor and Equipment
Manufacturers Association (MEMA) supported extending useful life with a
phased approach that allows suppliers time to design, test, and address
issues with their components' durability beyond today's
requirements.416 417 Several commenters expressed concern
related to the cost of extending longer useful life periods. The
American Truck Dealers Division of the National Automobile Dealers
Association (NADA) stated that longer useful life periods may be
warranted given the increasing number of miles heavy-duty engines
accumulate prior to engine rebuild.\418\ NADA asked EPA to carefully
assess higher up-front engine costs associated with longer useful life
periods and the potential for reduced maintenance and repair costs
resulting from increased useful life. Volvo stated that more durable
components are not available ``to pull from the shelf'' and costs to
extend the life of those components could result in significant costs
either to improve the components or incorporate a replacement as part
of the manufacturer's scheduled maintenance.\419\ Volvo also expressed
concern that second and third owners may use the vehicles for
applications that could stress the engine and its systems and threaten
emissions compliance within a lengthened useful life. The Truck and
Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) and Cummins commented that EPA
should carefully evaluate the benefits of extending the useful life
period.420 421 EMA stated a longer useful life could require
the replacement of aftertreatment systems during the lengthened period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\416\ See comments from MECA, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
0365.
\417\ See comments from MEMA, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
0462.
\418\ See comments from NADA, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
0369.
\419\ See comments from Volvo, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
0463.
\420\ See comments from EMA, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
0273.
\421\ See comments from Cummins, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
0359.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that as manufacturers develop compliance strategies to meet
our proposed emission standards and lengthened useful life periods,
they have the ability to design for increased durability of their
engine and emission controls and to create maintenance instructions
describing how to clean, repair, or replace emission components at
specified intervals subject to the limitations in our proposed
maintenance provisions.\422\ To address the feasibility of meeting the
proposed standards over the proposed useful life periods, the
technology demonstration projects described in Section III of this
preamble include demonstrating the durability and emissions performance
of CI and SI engines over mileages that cover the range of useful life
mileages being considered. We believe our proposed useful life periods
are feasible and would not require manufacturers to adopt component
replacement as part of their critical emission-related maintenance
strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\422\ See Section IV.B.5 of this preamble and proposed 40 CFR
1036.125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. History of Regulatory Useful Life
The Clean Air Act specifies that emission standards under section
202(a) ``shall be applicable to such vehicles and engines for their
useful life . . . whether such vehicles and engines are designed as
complete systems or incorporate devices to prevent or control such
pollution.'' Practically, this means that to receive an EPA certificate
of conformity under the CAA, a manufacturer must demonstrate that an
engine or vehicle, including the aftertreatment system, will meet each
applicable emission standard, including accounting for deterioration,
over the useful life period specified in EPA's regulations. In
addition, CAA section 207(c) requires manufacturers to recall and
repair vehicles or engines if the Administrator determines that ``a
substantial number of any class or category of vehicles or engines,
although properly maintained and used, do not conform to the
regulations prescribed under [section 202(a)], when in actual use
throughout their useful life (as determined under [section 202(d)]).''
Taken together, these sections define two critical aspects of
regulatory useful life: (1) The period over which the manufacturer must
demonstrate compliance with emissions standards to obtain EPA
certification, and (2) the period for which the manufacturer is subject
to in-use emissions compliance liability, e.g., for purposes of recall.
Manufacturers perform durability testing to demonstrate that engines
will meet emission standards over the full useful life. Manufacturers
may perform scheduled maintenance on their test engines only as
specified in the owner's manual. As part of the certification process,
EPA approves such scheduled maintenance, which is also subject to
minimum maintenance intervals as described in the regulation. See
Section IV.F for a description of the current and proposed durability
requirements and Section IV.B.5 for more information on our current and
proposed maintenance provisions. Manufacturer obligations under recall
are specified in 40 CFR 1068, subpart F, and we are not proposing to
update our recall provisions.
EPA prescribes regulations under CAA section 202(d) for determining
the useful life of vehicles and engines. CAA section 202(d) provides
that the minimum useful life for heavy-duty vehicles and engines is a
period of 10 years or 100,000 miles, whichever occurs first. This
section authorizes EPA to adopt longer useful life periods that we
determine to be appropriate. Under this authority, we established
useful life periods for heavy-duty engines by primary intended service
class. As introduced in Section I, heavy-duty highway engine
manufacturers identify the primary intended service class for each
engine family by considering the vehicles for which they design and
market their engines.\423\ Heavy-duty compression-ignition engines are
distinguished by their potential for rebuild and the weight class of
the final vehicles in which the engines are expected to be
installed.\424\ Heavy-duty spark-ignition engines are generally
classified as a single ``spark-ignition'' service class unless they are
designed or intended for use in the largest heavy-duty vehicles and are
thereby considered heavy heavy-duty engines.\425\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\423\ See 40 CFR 1036.140 as referenced in the definition of
``primary intended service class'' in 40 CFR 86.090-2.
\424\ As specified in the current 40 CFR 1036.140(a), light
heavy-duty engines are not designed for rebuild and are normally
installed in vehicles at or below 19,5000 pounds GVWR; medium heavy-
duty engines may be designed for rebuild and are normally installed
in vehicles from 19,501 to 33,000 lbs GVWR; heavy heavy-duty engines
are designed for multiple rebuilds and are normally installed in
vehicles above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
\425\ See 40 CFR 1036.140(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17497]]
The following useful life periods currently apply to the criteria
pollutant emission standards for heavy-duty highway engines:
426 427
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\426\ See 40 CFR 86.004-2. EPA adopted useful life values of
110,000, 185,000, and 290,000 miles for light, medium, and heavy
heavy-duty engines, respectively, in 1983 (48 FR 52170, November 16,
1983). The useful life for heavy heavy-duty engines was subsequently
increased to 435,000 miles for 2004 and later model years (62 FR
54694, October 21, 1997).
\427\ The same useful life periods apply for heavy-duty engines
certifying to the greenhouse gas emission standards, except that the
spark-ignition standards and the standards for model year 2021 and
later light heavy-duty engines apply over a useful life of 15 years
or 150,000 miles, whichever comes first. See 40 CFR 1036.108(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
110,000 miles or 10 years for heavy-duty spark-ignition
engines and light heavy-duty compression-ignition engines
185,000 miles or 10 years for medium heavy-duty
compression-ignition engines
435,000 miles, 10 years, or 22,000 hours for heavy heavy-
duty compression-ignition engines
In our 1983 rulemaking, which first established class-specific
useful life values for heavy-duty engines and vehicles, EPA adopted the
principle that useful life mileage values should reflect the typical
mileage to the first rebuild of the engine (or scrappage of the engine
if that occurs without rebuilding).\428\ Significantly, this approach
was adopted at a time when diesel engine emission control strategies
relied mainly on in-cylinder engine combustion controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\428\ U.S. EPA, ``Summary and Analysis of Comments on the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking for Revised Gaseous Emission Regulations for
1984 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Trucks and Heavy-Duty
Engines'', July 1983, p 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over time, mileage values became the primary metric for useful life
duration. This is because, due to advancements in general engine
durability, nearly all heavy-duty engines reach the mileage value in-
use long before 10 years have elapsed. The age (years) value has
meaning for only a small number of low-annual-mileage applications,
such as refuse trucks. Also, manufacturer durability demonstrations
generally target the mileage values, since deterioration is a function
of engine work and hours rather than years in service and a time-based
demonstration would be significantly longer in duration than one based
on applicable mileage value.
In the 1997 rulemaking that most recently increased heavy-duty
engine useful life, EPA included an hours-based useful life of 22,000
hours for the heavy heavy-duty engine intended service class. This
unique criterion was added to address the concern that urban vehicles,
particularly urban buses, equipped with heavy heavy-duty engines had
distinctly different driving patterns compared to the line-haul trucks
from which the agency based its useful life value of 435,000
miles.\429\ Commenters in that rulemaking indicated that urban bus
average speed was near 13 miles per hour. Considering that speed, many
of these bus engines would reach the end of their operational life or
be candidates for rebuild before the applicable mileage value or the
10-year criterion is reached. The 22,000 hours value was adopted in
lieu of a proposed minimum useful life value of 290,000 miles for heavy
heavy-duty engines. Considering the current 435,000 useful life mileage
for heavy heavy-duty engines, the 22,000-hour useful life value only
has significance for the small subset of vehicles equipped with heavy
heavy-duty engines with an average speed of less than 20 miles per
hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\429\ U.S. EPA, ``Summary and Analysis of Comments: Control of
Emissions of Air Pollution from Highway Heavy-Duty Engines'', EPA-
420-R-97-102, September 1997, pp 43-47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Phase 1 GHG rulemaking, we promulgated useful life periods
for the GHG emission standards for heavy-duty highway engines and their
corresponding heavy-duty vehicles that aligned with the current useful
life periods for criteria pollutant emission standards.\430\ In the HD
Phase 2 GHG rulemaking, we extended the useful life for Light HDV,
light heavy-duty engines, and spark-ignition engines for the GHG
emission standards to 15 years or 150,000 miles to align with the
useful life of chassis-certified heavy-duty vehicles subject to the
Tier 3 standards.\431\ See 40 CFR 1036.108 and 40 CFR 1037, subpart B,
for the GHG useful life periods that apply for heavy-duty highway
engines and vehicles, respectively. We are not proposing changes to the
useful life periods for GHG emission standards in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\430\ 76 FR 57181, September 15, 2011.
\431\ See 79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014 and 81 FR 73496, October
25, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Identifying Appropriate Useful Life Periods
Emission standards apply for the engine's useful life and
manufacturers must demonstrate the durability of engines to maintain
certified emission performance over their useful life. Thus, the
proposed emission standard options presented in Section III must be
considered together with their associated proposed useful life periods.
Larger useful life mileage values would require manufacturers to
demonstrate emission performance over a longer period and should result
in effective emission control over a greater proportion of an engine's
operational (sometimes referred to as ``service'') life. Consistent
with our approach to adopting useful life mileages in the 1983
rulemaking, we continue to consider a comprehensive out-of-frame
rebuild to represent the end of a heavy-duty CI engine's ``first life''
of operation. For SI engines that are less commonly rebuilt, engine
replacement would be a more appropriate measure of an engine's
operational life. Our proposed Option 1 useful life values are based on
the expected operational life of the engine or, for CI engines, an
estimate of the point at which an engine is typically rebuilt. We
expand on this approach in the following sections. We discuss the basis
of proposed Option 2 useful life values in Section IV.A.3.
i. Compression-Ignition Engine Rebuild Data
In 2013, EPA commissioned an industry characterization report on
heavy-duty diesel engine rebuilds.\432\ The report relied on existing
data from MacKay & Company surveys of heavy-duty vehicle operators. In
this report, an engine rebuild was categorized as either an in-frame
overhaul (where the rebuild occurred while the engine remained in the
vehicle) or an out-of-frame overhaul (where the engine was removed from
the vehicle for more extensive service).\433\ The study showed that the
mileage varied depending on the type of rebuild. Rebuilding an engine
while the block remained in the frame was typically done at lower
mileage than rebuilding an engine removed from the vehicle. The results
of the study by vehicle weight class are presented in Table IV-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\432\ ICF International, ``Industry Characterization of Heavy
Duty Diesel Engine Rebuilds'' EPA Contract No. EP-C-12-011,
September 2013.
\433\ Note that these mileage values reflect replacement of
engine components, but do not include aftertreatment components. At
the time of the report, the population of engines equipped with DPF
and SCR technologies was limited to relatively new engines that were
not candidates for rebuild.
[[Page 17498]]
Table IV-1--Average Mileage and Age at First Rebuild for Heavy-Duty CI Engines From 2013 EPA Rebuild Industry
Characterization Report
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-frame rebuild Out-of-frame rebuild
Vehicle weight class ---------------------------------------------------------------
Mileage Years Mileage Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 3......................................... 216,900 9.5 256,000 9.5
Class 4......................................... 236,800 11.6 346,300 10.3
Class 5......................................... 298,300 10.9 344,200 11.9
Class 6......................................... 332,200 13.0 407,700 10.6
Class 7......................................... 427,500 15.8 509,100 13.2
Class 8......................................... 680,200 11.9 909,900 8.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McKay & Company does not collect information on aftertreatment
systems (e.g., diesel oxidation catalysts, SCR systems, or three-way
catalysts), so neither EPA's 2013 report nor CARB's more recent report
for their HD Omnibus rulemaking include aftertreatment system age
information.\434\ We consider the mileage at rebuild or replacement of
an engine to represent the operational life of that engine, including
any aftertreatment components that were part of its original certified
configuration. We have no data to indicate aftertreatment systems lose
functionality before engines are rebuilt or replaced, and our
technology demonstrations in Section III show aftertreatment catalysts
are able to maintain performance when bench-aged to beyond the
equivalent of current useful life mileages.\435\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\434\ See Section IV.A.2.iii for a summary of the CARB report
that reflects engine rebuilds and replacements occurring between
calendar years 2012 and 2018.
\435\ See Section IV.F for a summary of catalyst bench-aging
procedures we are considering in this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We averaged the mileages for these vehicle classes according to
EPA's primary intended service classes for heavy-duty CI engines as
defined in 40 CFR 1036.140. Specifically, we averaged Classes 3, 4, and
5 to represent Light HDE, Classes 6 and 7 to represent Medium HDE, and
Class 8 to represent Heavy HDE. These values are shown in Table IV-2
with the current useful life mileages that apply to each intended
service class. As seen in the tables, the study reported typical engine
rebuild mileages that are more than double the current useful life
mileages for those classes.
Table IV-2--Average Mileage at First Rebuild for Heavy-Duty CI Engines Based on EPA Intended Service Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mileage at Mileage at
Primary intended service class first in-frame first out-of- Current useful
rebuild frame rebuild life mileage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light HDE (Vehicle Classes 3-5)................................. 250,667 315,500 \a\110,000
Medium HDE (Vehicle Classes 6-7)................................ 379,850 458,400 185,000
Heavy HDE (Vehicle Class 8)..................................... 680,200 909,900 435,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The useful life mileage that applies for Light HDE for GHG emission standards is 150,000 miles. See 40 CFR
1036.108(d).
We note that Light HDE intended for smaller vehicle classes are not
designed with cylinder liners to facilitate rebuilding, suggesting they
are more likely to be scrapped at the end of their operational life.
The rebuilding report notes that seven percent of the diesel-fueled
engines in the 2012 Class 3 vehicle population were removed from the
vehicle to be rebuilt, but does not include data on the corresponding
number of engines or vehicles scrapped in that year. We assume the
mileage at which an engine has deteriorated enough to consider
rebuilding would be similar to the mileage of an engine eligible for
scrappage and both similarly represent the operational life of an
engine for the purpose of this analysis.
ii. Spark-Ignition Engine Service Life Data
The useful life mileage that applies for GHG emission standards for
Spark-ignition HDE is 150,000 miles, which is longer than the current
useful life of 110,000 miles for criteria pollutant emission standards
for those same engines.\436\ For our proposed Option 1 updates to the
useful life for Spark-ignition HDE criteria pollutant emission
standards, we considered available data to represent the operational
life of recent heavy-duty SI engines. A review of market literature for
heavy-duty gasoline engines showed that at least one line of engine-
certified products is advertised with a service life of 200,000
miles.\437\ Compliance data for MY 2019 indicate that the advertised
engine model represents 20 percent of the Spark-ignition HDE certified
for MY 2019. Additionally, CARB's HD Omnibus rulemaking cited heavy-
duty Otto-cycle engines (i.e., Spark-ignition HDE) for vehicles above
14,000 lb GVWR that were replaced during calendar years 2012 through
2018 as reaching more than 217,000 miles on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\436\ See 40 CFR 1036.108(d) for the GHG useful life, and the
definition of ``useful life'' in 40 CFR 86.004-2 for the criteria
pollutant useful life.
\437\ See, e.g., Isuzu Truck web page. ``Isuzu Commercial
Vehicles: N-Series Gas Trucks.'' Available online: www.isuzucv.com/en/nseries/nseries_gas. Accessed February 28, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17499]]
average.\438\ The mileages in these two examples are almost double the
current useful life for Spark-ignition HDE, indicating many miles of
operation beyond the current useful life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\438\ California Air Resources Board/MacKay & Company, ``CARB
Summary Report on the Analysis of the MacKay & Company Data on
Heavy-Duty Engine Rebuilds and Replacements'', March 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. CARB HD Omnibus Useful Life Values
The CARB HD Omnibus rulemaking, finalized in August 2020, lengthens
useful life for heavy-duty CI and SI engines in two steps.\439\ As part
of their rule, CARB analyzed recent MacKay & Company survey data from
calendar years 2012 through 2018 and reported rebuild mileages for CI
engine categories that were similar to those described in the Section
IV.A.2.i. CARB also included average replacement mileage information
for heavy-duty Otto-cycle (HD SI) engines.\440\ The CARB/MacKay &
Company data is summarized in Table IV-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\439\ California Air Resources Board. Heavy-Duty Omnibus
Regulation. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox.
\440\ California Air Resources Board/MacKay & Company, ``CARB
Summary Report on the Analysis of the MacKay & Company Data on
Heavy-Duty Engine Rebuilds and Replacements'', March 2019.
Table IV-3--Summary of CARB/MacKay & Company Engine Rebuild and
Replacement Mileages for the HD Omnibus Regulation \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average mileage
Engine class at rebuild or
replacement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HD Otto (Spark-ignition HDE) (All Vehicle Classes 217,283
above 14,000 lb GVWR)................................
LHDD (Light HDE) (Vehicle Classes 4-5)................ 326,444
MHDD (Medium HDE) (Vehicle Classes 6-7)............... 432,652
HHDD (Heavy HDE) (Vehicle Class 8).................... 854,616
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ CARB's naming conventions for HD engines differ from the those in
this proposal; corresponding EPA names are noted in parentheses
Although the CARB HD Omnibus program begins in MY 2024, the program
maintains the current useful life values through MY 2026. Table IV-4
summarizes the useful life values finalized in the HD Omnibus rule for
heavy-duty Otto-cycle engines (HDO), and light heavy-duty diesel
(LHDD), medium heavy-duty diesel (MHDD), and heavy heavy-duty diesel
(HHDD) engines.
Table IV-4--CARB Useful Life Mileages for Heavy-Duty Engines in the HD Omnibus Rulemaking \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HDO (spark- HHDD (heavy HDE)
Model year ignition HDE) LHDD (light HDE) MHDD (medium HDE) \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024-2026....................... 110,000 miles..... 110,000 miles..... 185,000 miles..... 435,000 miles.
10 years.......... 10 years.......... 10 years.......... 10 years.
22,000 hours.
2027-2030....................... 155,000 miles..... 190,000 miles..... 270,000 miles..... 600,000 miles.
12 years.......... 12 years.......... 11 years.......... 11 years.
30,000 hours.
2031 and later.................. 200,000 miles..... 270,000 miles..... 350,000 miles..... 800,000 miles.
15 years.......... 15 years.......... 12 years.......... 12 years.
40,000 hours.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ CARB's naming conventions for HD engines differ from the those in this proposal; corresponding EPA names are
noted in parentheses.
\b\ CARB adopted an intermediate useful life mileage of 435,000 miles for MY 2027 and later HHDD engines. See
Section III.B for a discussion of the standards at the intermediate and full useful life mileages.
As seen in the table, CARB's Omnibus increases useful life first in
MY 2027 with a second step in MY 2031. The final useful life mileages
in the CARB regulation are the result of stakeholder engagement
throughout the development of CARB's HD Omnibus rulemaking. In two 2019
public workshops, CARB staff presented useful life mileage values under
consideration that were longer than these final mileages and, in their
September 2019 presentation, very close to the engine rebuild
mileages.\441\ In response to feedback from stakeholders indicating
concerns with availability of data for engines and emission controls at
those mileages, CARB shortened their final useful life mileages for MY
2031 and later engines from the values presented in 2019, and the MY
2027 values were chosen to be approximately the mid-point between the
current and final useful life mileages.\442\ Additionally, CARB
finalized an intermediate useful life mileage for MY 2027 and later
HHDD engines that correspond to the current useful life of 435,000
miles. See Section III.B for a discussion of the standards at the
intermediate and full useful life mileages. Consistent with current
useful life periods, CARB finalized hours values for the HHDD engine
class based on the useful life mileage and an average vehicle speed of
20 miles per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\441\ Brakora, Jessica. Memorandum to Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055. CARB 2019 Public Workshop Presentations Related to Regulatory
Useful Life and Emissions Warranty. March 19, 2021.
\442\ California Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial
Statement of Reasons--Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Heavy-
Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and Associated
Amendments. June 23, 2020. Page III-57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to the useful life mileage values, CARB's useful life
values in years were also adjusted from the values presented in their
public workshops based on stakeholder feedback. In particular, emission
controls
[[Page 17500]]
manufacturers recommended CARB consider replacing the 18-year useful
life presented in their September 2019 workshop with a useful life of
12 years for heavy-duty engines.\443\ CARB agreed that 12 years was
reasonable for MHDD and HHDD, but adopted a 15 year useful life for HDO
and LHDD based on the useful life in years that applies to chassis-
certified engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\443\ Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association.
``Preliminary Suggestions for Future Warranty and FUL
Requirements.'' Presentation to CARB. September 5, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Proposed Regulatory Useful Life Periods
In this section, we introduce our proposed regulatory useful life
periods for heavy-duty highway engines as specified in the new 40 CFR
1036.104(e). Our CI and SI engine technology demonstrations in Section
III support our conclusion that it is feasible for manufacturers to
meet our proposed standards for the proposed useful life periods of
Options 1 and 2. We note that our technology demonstrations rely on an
accelerated aging process for the catalyst-based aftertreatment systems
and we are proposing to update our durability demonstration provisions
to allow manufacturers to similarly accelerate the aging of their
catalysts for certification. See Section IV.F for a description of our
durability demonstration proposal.
We are proposing useful life mileage and years values for all
primary intended service classes that are based on our current estimate
of the operational lives of the engines in those classes. The useful
life values described in this section apply for exhaust emission
standards for criteria pollutants, as well as evaporative and refueling
emission standards, OBD, and requirements related to crankcase
emissions. Proposed Option 1 includes an hours specification for the
Heavy HDE class, which has the longest useful life mileages, to address
vehicles that frequently operate at idle or lower speeds. The proposed
Option 1 useful life periods generally align with those in the CARB HD
Omnibus regulation. We request comment on our proposal, including
whether it is appropriate to fully harmonize the federal and CARB
regulatory useful life periods in light of the authority and
requirements of section 202, and any concerns if EPA were to finalize
values that are or are not aligned with CARB for a given engine class
or range of model years.
i. Proposed Useful Life by Primary Intended Service Class
Data indicate heavy-duty highway engines remain on the road well
beyond the current regulatory useful life periods and compliance with
emission standards is uncertain for a large portion of engine
operational lives today. We are proposing to lengthen the useful life
periods to cover a larger fraction of the operational life of these
engines. Our proposed useful life periods for Spark-ignition HDE, Light
HDE, Medium HDE, and Heavy HDE classes are presented in Table IV-5 and
specified in a proposed new 40 CFR 1036.104(e).\444\ In Section III, we
discuss the feasibility of meeting the emission standards at the useful
life values of proposed Options 1 and 2. In Section IV.A.4, we
introduce an alternative set of useful life periods we considered in
addition to our proposed values as part of our feasibility analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\444\ We are proposing to migrate the current alternate
standards for engines used in certain specialty vehicles from 40 CFR
86.007-11 and 86.008-10 into 40 CFR 1036.605 without modification.
See Section XII.B of this preamble for a discussion of these
standards and options for which we are requesting comment.
Table IV-5--Proposed Options 1 and 2 Useful Life Periods by Primary Intended Service Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Proposed Option 1 Proposed Option 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary intended service class MY 2027-2030 MY 2031+
Miles Years ---------------------------------------------------------------- Miles Years
Miles Years Miles Years
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark-ignition HDE \a\.......................................... 110,000 10 155,000 12 200,000 15 150,000 10
Light HDE \a\................................................... 110,000 10 190,000 12 270,000 15 250,000 10
Medium HDE...................................................... 185,000 10 270,000 11 350,000 12 325,000 10
Heavy HDE \b\................................................... 435,000 10 600,000 11 \c\ 800,000 12 650,000 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Current useful life period for Spark-ignition HDE and Light HDE for GHG emission standards is 15 years or 150,000 miles. See 40 CFR 1036.108(d).
\b\ Proposed Option 1 includes an hours-based useful life for Heavy HDE of 32,000 operating hours for model year 2027 through 2030, and 40,000 operating hours for model year 2031 and later.
\c\ For MY 2031 and later Heavy HDE under proposed Option 1, we are proposing intermediate useful life periods of 435,000 miles, 10 years, or 22,000 hours, whichever comes first. See Section
III for a discussion of the Option 1 standards we propose to apply for the intermediate and full useful life periods.
We consider a comprehensive out-of-frame rebuild to represent the
end of a heavy-duty CI engine's ``first life'' of operation. The
proposed Option 1 useful life periods for all engine classes align with
the final values adopted by CARB in their HD Omnibus regulation and
cover a larger fraction of the expected operational lives of these
engines. Consistent with previous rulemakings, we believe we could
justify proposing useful life requirements equivalent to the
operational life data presented in Section IV.A.2, but are proposing
somewhat shorter (less stringent) values in proposed Option 1
considering the effect of useful life on the feasibility of meeting the
proposed Option 1 standards.\445\ The useful life mileages of proposed
Option 2 generally correspond to the average mileages at which CI
engines undergo the first in-frame rebuild as described in Section
IV.A.2.i. At these mileages, CI engine owners could be expected to
replace some critical components, but would be able to accrue many
additional miles before a comprehensive rebuild. The out-of-frame
rebuild data indicates that these engines can last well beyond the in-
frame rebuild mileages, and we are unlikely to finalize a single step
program with useful life mileages that are lower than proposed Option
2.\446\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\445\ 61 FR 33446 (June 27, 1996).
\446\ If our CI demonstration program is unable to achieve the
proposed standards beyond 600,000 miles, we expect to adjust the
numeric value of the standards to address feasibility concerns
before lowering useful life below in-frame rebuild mileages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For SI engines that are less commonly rebuilt, engine replacement
more appropriately marks the end of its operational life. The estimated
operational life data presented in Section IV.A.2 indicate that heavy-
duty highway engines can operate for nearly double their current
regulatory useful lives. As described in Section III, our SI engine
demonstration program evaluated emission performance at an equivalent
250,000 miles (beyond the SI HDE service life and replacement mileage
information presented in Section IV.A.2). Emission results from
[[Page 17501]]
our demonstration program were lower than the proposed Option 1 MY 2031
standards for all pollutants on the FTP duty cycle, and for all but CO
on the SET duty cycle. We project the proposed Option 1 MY 2031 CO
standard would be met by optimizing emission control calibrations. For
Option 1, we are proposing a MY 2031 useful life of 200,000 miles
(50,000 miles shorter than the equivalent mileage of the engine in our
demonstration program), which we believe would ensure the proposed
Option 1 MY 2031 standards are feasible for Spark-ignition HDE. For
Option 1, we are proposing shorter useful life mileages along with the
less stringent proposed Option 1 standards for MY 2027 to allow
manufacturers appropriate time to prepare their engines to meet
standards on the proposed new SET cycle, adopt our proposed idle
controls, and address other proposed compliance requirements. For SI
engines, the useful life mileage in proposed Option 2 aligns with the
current useful life mileage that applies for these engines for GHG
standards and represents the lowest useful life mileage we are
currently considering for Spark-ignition HDE. Commenters supporting the
SI engine useful life mileages for proposed Option 2 are encouraged to
provide data, since proposed Option 2 useful life mileages currently
apply for GHG standards and our SI engine test program has demonstrated
most of the proposed standards are achievable well beyond the proposed
Option 2 mileage.
Our CI engine demonstration evaluated emissions at mileages that
correspond to the Light HDE and Medium HDE operational life mileages
presented, and we continue to evaluate higher mileages that would cover
a greater portion of the operational life of Heavy HDE. The uncertainty
of emission performance at mileages close to Heavy HDE rebuild
mileages, coupled with the lack of aftertreatment performance
information in the rebuild data, has led us to propose Option 1 MY 2031
useful life mileages that cover a majority of the estimated operational
life mileages, but less than the full rebuild mileages presented in
Section IV.A.2. Since the EPA rebuild mileages are similar to the
rebuild mileages in CARB's recent rebuild analysis, we are proposing CI
HDE useful life mileages that align with CARB.
We request comment on the proposed approach to base these mileages
on the data presented. We request additional data to inform our
consideration of appropriate useful life mileages, including
rebuilding, replacement, and scrappage data, or other data that may
represent the operational life of a heavy-duty highway engine. We also
request comment on what portion of an engine's operational life should
be covered by the regulatory useful life and whether it should depend
on specific characteristics of the engine (e.g., primary intended
service class).
As seen in Table IV-5, our proposed Option 1 would increase the
years-based useful life values intended to address engines that
accumulate fewer miles annually. Our proposed increased useful life in
years for Option 1 would also occur in two steps that align with the
values finalized in CARB's HD Omnibus regulation.\447\ Proposed Option
1 would increase Heavy HDE and Medium HDE useful life years to 11 years
in MY 2027 and 12 years in MY 2031. The 12-year useful life value is
consistent with the recommendation by MECA.\448\ Proposed Option 1
would also increase Spark-ignition and Light HDE useful life years to
12 years in MY 2027 and 15 years in MY 2031. A 15-year useful life
value would be consistent with the existing useful life in years for
these engines for GHG emission standards. We propose to maintain the
existing years-based useful life of 10 years for all primary intended
service classes under proposed Option 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\447\ See Section IV.A.2.iii.
\448\ Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association.
``Preliminary Suggestions for Future Warranty and FUL
Requirements''. September 5, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1 also includes updates to the hours-based useful
life criteria for the Heavy HDE class to align with the proposed
mileage steps.\449\ Historically, EPA included a unique hours
specification for the Heavy HDE class to account for engines that
operated frequently, but accumulated relatively few miles due to lower
vehicle speeds.\450\ The 22,000-hour useful life value that currently
applies for Heavy HDE corresponds to an average vehicle speed of 20
miles per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\449\ Table 4 of proposed 40 CFR 1036.104(e) includes a
statement migrated from the current definition of ``useful life'' in
40 CFR 86.004-2 that the useful life for an individual engine is no
shorter than 10 years or 100,000 miles, whichever occurs first,
regardless of operating hours, as required by CAA section 202(d).
\450\ See background in Section IV.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with our original approach to defining an hour-based
useful life value, we are proposing to update the useful life hours of
operation value for the Heavy HDE primary intended service class based
on a 20 mile per hour speed threshold and the proposed useful life
mileages.\451\ For model year 2027 through 2030 Heavy HDE in Option 1,
we propose a useful life period of 11 years, 600,000 miles, or 32,000
hours, whichever comes first. Similarly, for model year 2031 and later
Heavy HDE in Option 1, we propose 12 years, 800,000 miles, or 40,000
miles, whichever comes first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\451\ This approach for the hours criterion is consistent with
the approach adopted in our 1997 rulemaking where we last increased
HHD engine useful life. See Section IV.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request comment on the need for a useful life hours criterion
for Heavy HDE and whether we should include one for other primary
intended service classes. If we were to include a useful life hours
criterion for other or all heavy-duty highway engines, we request
comment whether to use a speed other than 20 miles per hour for engines
intended for lower GVWR class vehicles.
We are proposing not to migrate paragraph (4)(iv) from the existing
definition of ``useful life'' in 40 CFR 86.004-2 to proposed 40 CFR
1036.104. It is our understanding that all modern ECMs contain time
counters, so it is reasonable to assume that manufacturers can reliably
access that information to document an engine's hours of operation and
the requirement for an ``accurate hours meter'' is unnecessary. We
request comment on the need to include an accurate hours meter
requirement as part of a useful life hours criterion in part 1036.
As introduced in Section III.A.1, we are proposing to clarify how
hybrid engines and powertrains can certify they meet criteria pollutant
regulations, which includes demonstrating that they meet emission
standards throughout the regulatory useful life.\452\ We propose that
manufacturers certifying hybrid engines and powertrains declare the
primary intended service class of their engine family using 40 CFR
1036.140, which is partially based on the GVWR of the vehicle in which
the engine configuration is intended to be used. Once a primary
intended service class is declared the engine configuration would be
subject to the corresponding emission standards and useful life values
from 40 CFR 1036.104(e). Our proposed approach to clarify that hybrid
components could be part of an engine configuration provides truck
owners and operators with consistent assurance
[[Page 17502]]
of durability based on the intended vehicle application. Our proposed
approach is similar to the CARB Omnibus rule requirements for hybrid
powertrains to meet useful life based on primary intended service
class, though we are proposing flexibility for manufacturers to
identify the appropriate service class for their engine
configurations.\453\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\452\ As outlined in Section III.A, we are proposing to clarify
in 40 CFR 1036.101(b) that regulatory references to engines in part
1036 generally apply to hybrid powertrains. We also propose to
update the definition of ``engine configuration'' in 40 CFR 1036.801
to clarify that an engine configuration would include hybrid
components if it is certified as a hybrid engine or hybrid
powertrain.
\453\ California Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial
Statement of Reasons--Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Heavy-
Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and Associated
Amendments. June 23, 2020. Page III-60. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/isor.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our proposal does not mean that a specific component of the
certified configuration, such as a hybrid battery, is required to last
the full useful life indicated by its primary intended service class.
Manufacturers continue to have options to address the repair or
replacement of components within the useful life, both in the
durability demonstration for certification and in-use, as specified in
the maintenance provisions of 40 CFR 1036.125. See Section IV.B.5 for a
discussion of our proposals related to maintenance. We request comment
on our proposed approach for manufacturers certifying hybrid engines
and powertrains to declare a primary intended service class and meet
the corresponding emission standards and useful life periods.
ii. Proposed Useful Life for Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles
As discussed in Section III.A, we are proposing clarifications and
updates to our regulations for heavy-duty electric vehicles, including
battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles
(FCEVs). Our proposal clarifies how the proposed useful life provisions
for criteria pollutant emission standards would apply to each of these
types of electric vehicles. Immediately below, we discuss the specifics
and rationale of our proposed approach to useful life periods for BEVs
and FCEVs. Additional information on our proposal and requests for
comment are included in the following subsections: IV.B.1.iv.b (BEV and
FCEV warranty requirements), IV.B.3.iii (request for comment on
maintenance and operational information to improve electric vehicle
serviceability), and IV.I (compliance options for generating
NOX emission credits from electric vehicles).
As noted in Section III.A and discussed in Section IV.I, we are
proposing a change from our current approach under 40 CFR 86.016-
1(d)(4) that would allow manufacturers to generate NOX
emission credits from BEVs and FCEVs starting in MY 2024, as specified
in the proposed 40 CFR 1037.616, if they conduct testing and meet
durability requirements in the proposed 40 CFR 1037.102(b).\454\ We
propose that manufacturers who choose to generate NOX
emission credits from BEVs or FCEVs would certify to the emission
standards and useful life values of an engine-based primary intended
service class, as specified in proposed 40 CFR 1037.102(b). Proposed 40
CFR 1037.102(b) specifies that for MYs 2024 through 2026, manufacturers
choosing to generate NOX emission credits from BEVs or FCEVs
would apply the useful life periods in current 40 CFR 86.001-2;
starting in MY 2027 manufacturers would apply the useful life periods
in proposed 40 CFR 1036.104. We also propose that starting in MY 2027,
manufacturers who choose not to generate NOX emission
credits from BEVs or FCEVs could alternatively choose to certify to a
shorter useful life period that is the same as those for GHG emissions
standards for the appropriate service class in the current 40 CFR
1037.105(e).\455\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\454\ See Section III.A.1 for discussion on the current approach
under 40 CFR part 86 for BEV and FCEV certification requirements.
Briefly, no testing is required and neither BEVs nor FCEVs may
generate NOX or PM emission credits.
\455\ We are not proposing any changes to the current useful
life periods for GHG emissions. As specified in the current 40 CFR
1037.150(f), all BEV and FCEV manufacturers would continue to use
good engineering judgment to apply useful life requirements for GHG
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers who choose not to generate NOX emission
credits from BEVs or FCEVs may choose to attest that their vehicle
complies with the standards in proposed 40 CFR 1037.102 instead of
submitting test data for MY 2027 and later, as specified in the
proposed 40 CFR 1037.205(q)(1).\456\ Manufacturers who choose to
generate NOX emission credits from BEVs or FCEVs as early as
MY 2024 may also attest that their BEV or FCEV meets the durability
requirements described in proposed 40 CFR 1037.102(b)(3) based on an
engineering analysis of measured values and other information,
consistent with good engineering judgment, instead of testing at the
end of the useful life; however they would also be required to submit
additional information as specified in the proposed 40 CFR
1037.205(q)(2) and discussed in Section IV.I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\456\ Prior to MY 2027, manufacturers who chose not to generate
NOX emission credits would apply the useful life periods
specified in the current 40 CFR 86.001-2; however, EPA would
continue the current approach of deeming these vehicles to have zero
emissions and allow manufacturers to apply good engineering judgment
to comply with requirements of the current 40 CFR 86 subpart A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of requiring BEV and FCEV manufacturers who choose to
generate NOX emission credits to meet durability
requirements is to ensure that manufacturers design the BEV and FCEV
products to be at least as durable as the engine products that would
rely on the NOX emission credits to comply with applicable
NOX standards. Since manufacturers would be able to use
NOX emissions credits from BEVs or FCEVs to produce other
engines with NOX emissions above the proposed standards for
MYs 2027 and later, we believe it is imperative that these technologies
provide zero-tailpipe emission performance throughout the useful life
period to which they certify and for which they generate NOX
emission credits.\457\ This approach would help to ensure that these
zero-tailpipe emission technologies can operate for the same periods as
the engine products that rely on the NOX emission credits.
We also note that data from transit buses show BEVs are capable of
operating more than 10 million miles and over 30 years of normal
service in a typical transit bus duty-cycle.458 459 460
Similarly, the DOE has set heavy-duty FCEV durability target at 1
million miles by 2030.\461\ Both the transit bus data and DOE target
support BEV and FCEVs technologies being capable of meeting the useful
life requirements of proposed Options 1 and 2 for CI engines in the
2027 and beyond timeframe. Nevertheless, we recognize that BEV and FCEV
technologies, and the batteries and fuel cells that power them, are
still developing; thus, we propose to allow BEV and FCEV manufacturers
not participating in the
[[Page 17503]]
NOX engine ABT program to certify to criteria pollutant
useful life requirements that are equivalent to the current
requirements for certifying to the GHG emission standards.\462\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\457\ See Section IV.G for discussion on proposed restrictions
that would limit emissions above the proposed standards when using
NOX emission credits.
\458\ (BYD, 2019) ``BYD Receives Largest Battery-Electric Bus
Order in U.S. History,'' BYD Motors, November 13, 2019, accessed
February 10, 2022. https://en.byd.com/news/byd-receives-largest-
battery-electric-bus-order-in-u-s-history/
#:~:text=BYD%20(Build%20Your%20Dreams)%20announced,date%20in%20the%20
United%20States.
\459\ (Mass Transit, 2015) ``BYD Announces 12 year Battery
Warranty,'' Mass Transit Magazine, March 26, 2015, accessed August
3, 2021. https://www.masstransitmag.com/home/press-release/12058920/byd-motors-llcbyd-announces-12-year-battery-warranty.
\460\ (Metro, 2019) ``Idaho's YRT to add Proterra battery-
electric buses, charging infrastructure,'' Metro Magazine, October
25, 2019, accessed August 3, 2021. https://www.metro-magazine.com/zero-emissions/news/736104/idaho-s-yrt-toproterra-battery-electric-buses-charging-infrastructure.
\461\ DOE. 2020. FC135: FC-PAD: Fuel Cell Performance and
Durability Consortium; https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review20/fc135_borup_weber_2020_o.pdf.
\462\ 40 CFR 1037, subpart B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request comment on our proposal to align BEV and FCEV useful
life periods with those for an engine-based service class for
manufacturers who choose to generate NOX emission credits.
We further request comment on allowing manufacturers who choose not to
generate NOX emission credits from BEVs or FCEVs to certify
to criteria pollutant useful life periods that are equivalent to the
current useful life periods for the GHG emission standards. We are also
interested in other approaches identified or recommended by commenters.
Commenters are encouraged to provide data on current BEV and FCEV
durability, as well as any additional information EPA should consider
when setting useful life periods and related requirements for BEVs and
FCEVs in the final rulemaking.
iii. Proposed Useful Life for Incomplete Vehicle Refueling Emission
Standards
As described in Section III.E., proposed Options 1 and 2 include
refueling standards for incomplete vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR.
Manufacturers would meet the proposed refueling emission standards by
installing onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems. ORVR
systems are based on the same carbon canister technology that
manufacturers currently use to control evaporative emissions on these
incomplete vehicles. Since both the evaporative and refueling emission
control systems are part of the same fuel system, and due to the
similarity of many of the components, we propose to align the useful
life periods for the two systems (see our proposed updates to 40 CFR
1037.103(f)). Specifically, proposed Options 1 and 2 include a useful
life of 15 years or 150,000 miles, whichever comes first, for refueling
standards for incomplete vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR.
Evaporative emission control systems are currently part of the fuel
system of incomplete vehicles, and manufacturers are meeting applicable
standards and useful life requirements for these systems today. ORVR is
a mature technology that has been installed on complete vehicles for
many years, and incomplete vehicle manufacturers have experience with
ORVR systems through their complete vehicle applications. Considering
the manufacturers' experience with evaporative emission standards for
incomplete vehicles, and their familiarity with ORVR systems, we
believe it would be feasible for manufacturers to apply the same
evaporative emission standard useful life periods to our proposed
refueling standards.
We request comment on our proposal to align the useful life for
refueling standards with the existing useful life periods for
evaporative emission standards and whether we should instead consider
aligning with the broader useful life periods proposed for Spark-
ignition HDE (e.g., the proposed Option 1 useful life periods of 12
years/155,000 miles for MY 2027 through 2030 and 15 years/200,000 miles
for MY 2031 and later), or whether we should take another approach. We
also request comment on the need for a transitional useful life step
for refueling standards for MY 2027 through 2030, including concerns
with component durability or testing that would require additional lead
time to address. Commenters are encouraged to include ORVR system data
at their recommended useful life values. Finally, we request comment on
any concerns about having different useful life values for refueling
standards compared to the useful life values for either evaporative
emission standards or Spark-ignition HDE standards.
4. Potential Alternative Useful Life Mileages
We considered an alternative set of useful life mileages
(Alternative), which would each apply in a single step beginning in MY
2027. Table IV-6 presents a comparison of the current useful life
mileages and the useful life mileages of the proposed Options and
Alternative.
Table IV-6--Comparison of Useful Life Mileages Considered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1
Primary intended service class Current -------------------------------- Proposed Alternative
MY 2027-2030 MY 2031+ Option 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark-ignition HDE.............. 110,000 155,000 200,000 150,000 250,000
Light HDE....................... 110,000 190,000 270,000 250,000 350,000
Medium HDE...................... 185,000 270,000 350,000 325,000 450,000
Heavy HDE....................... 435,000 600,000 800,000 650,000 850,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The useful life mileages that we considered in the Alternative are
longer than the proposed Option 1 MY 2031 useful life mileages. The
useful life mileages of this alternative match those presented in
CARB's September 2019 Public Workshop for their Heavy-Duty Low
NOX program as early CARB staff-level thinking; these draft
mileages were then lowered in the 2020 Omnibus program approved by CARB
governing board.\463\ While the CI engine mileages for the Alternative
are closer to the average mileage at which most CI engines undergo an
out-of-frame rebuild, currently available data indicate that the
Alternative standards presented in Section III would be very
challenging to meet at those useful life mileages for Light HDEs and
Medium HDEs, and thus data suggest that it may be appropriate for EPA
to consider providing manufacturers with additional lead time, beyond
the MY 2027 implementation date of the Alternative. For Heavy HDEs, our
extrapolation of the data from 435,000 miles through the 850,000 mile
useful life of the Alternative suggests that the numeric level of the
NOX emission control in the Alternative could not be
maintained through the Alternative useful life period (see Section III
for details).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\463\ Brakora, Jessica. Memorandum to Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055. CARB 2019 Public Workshop Presentations Related to Regulatory
Useful Life and Emissions Warranty. March 19, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SI mileage for the Alternative represents the equivalent
mileage of the bench-aged three-way catalyst used in the SI technology
demonstration for this rulemaking, but currently available data suggest
it would be very challenging to achieve the standards of this
alternative for all pollutants in the MY 2027
[[Page 17504]]
timeframe. For both CI and SI engines, we would need additional data to
be able to conclude that the standards combined with the useful
mileages included in the Alternative are feasible in the MY 2027
timeframe, and thereby consider finalizing these useful life mileages
in this rule. We did not evaluate alternative useful life mileages for
HD SI refueling standards. As noted in Section IV.A.3.iii, we would
consider transitional useful life mileages for our refueling standards
in the early years of the program or longer useful life mileages that
align with those for the final Spark-ignition HDE class if we receive
comment and data supporting alignment.
Our analyses of the emission impacts of the Alternative standards
and Alternative useful life mileage values are presented in Section VI.
We do not present an analysis of the costs of the Alternative since we
currently do not have information to conclude that the Alternative
standards are feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe with the emission
control technologies we have evaluated to date. We are also considering
other approaches that build on the relationship between useful life and
emissions warranty periods as described in Section IV.B.1.
5. Summary of the Requests for Comment on the Useful Life Proposal
We request comment on our proposed useful life values, including
the appropriateness of the data on which we base our proposals, or
other bases identified in this section or by the commenters.
Specifically, we request comment on our approaches to base useful life
mileages for CI engines on data on average mileage to first out-of-
frame rebuild for proposed Option 1 and average mileage to first in-
frame rebuild for proposed Option 2. We also request comment on whether
to finalize a consistent fraction of the estimated rebuild mileage
across the three CI service classes. For SI engines, we request comment
on our proposed Option 1 approach to update the MY 2031 useful life
mileage based on the advertised service life of a certified SI engine
in the market today, which is consistent with SI engine mileage from
recent CARB study, or the proposed Option 2 approach to update the
criteria pollutant useful life to be closer to the useful life mileage
that applies for GHG pollutants. As noted in this section and discussed
in Section III, proposed Options 1 and 2 reflect the general ranges of
mileages we are currently considering for each engine class, but we
request comment on a different set of mileages within those ranges that
may be appropriate. Commenters, especially if suggesting different
useful life mileages than EPA's proposed values, are encouraged to
support their comments by addressing feasibility and cost for their
recommended mileage values.
We request comment on our proposal to increase the useful life
years and to update Heavy HDE useful life hours-based values
proportional to the increased mileages for proposed Option 1.
Commenters supporting useful life hours for Heavy HDE are encouraged to
address whether EPA should apply a useful life hours criterion to other
engine service classes and if a 20 mile per hour average speed is
appropriate to represent ``low speed'' applications for each engine
class. As noted in this section, proposed Option 1 is largely aligned
with useful life periods adopted in the CARB HD Omnibus regulation. We
request comment our proposal, including whether it is appropriate to
fully harmonize the federal and CARB regulatory useful life periods in
light of the authority and requirements of section 202, and any
concerns if EPA were to finalize aspects of useful life that are or are
not aligned with CARB for a given engine class or range of model years.
B. Ensuring Long-Term In-Use Emissions Performance
In the ANPR, we introduced several ideas for an enhanced,
comprehensive strategy to ensure in-use emissions performance over more
of an engine's operational life, based on five areas:
Warranties that cover an appropriate fraction of engine
operational life.
Improved, more tamper-resistant electronic controls.
Serviceability improvements for vehicles and engines.
Education and potential incentives.
Engine rebuilding practices that ensure emission controls
are functional.
This section discusses proposed provisions for emissions
warranty, ECM security, and serviceability. Taken together, they are
intended to increase the likelihood that engine emission controls will
be maintained properly through more of the service life of heavy-duty
engines and vehicles, including beyond useful life. Our proposal also
expands on this suite of measures to include updated maintenance
provisions, which are described in Section IV.B.5. We are not including
specific proposals related to education and incentives, but request
comment on options we could consider in the future. As noted in Section
IV.B.4, we are also not proposing new or modified rebuilding provisions
in this rule. However, we intend to continue to monitor rebuilding
practices and may update our rebuilding regulatory provisions in a
future rulemaking.
1. Emission-Related Warranty Periods
EPA is proposing to lengthen the regulatory emission-related
warranty periods for all primary intended service classes to cover a
larger portion of the operational lives of new heavy-duty engines. In
this section we summarize the history of emissions warranty, introduce
our principles for lengthening the warranty periods, and present our
proposed values and alternatives considered.
i. EPA Regulatory Emission Warranty Background
The regulatory emission warranty period is the period over which
CAA section 207 requires an engine manufacturer to warrant to a
purchaser that the engine is designed, built, and equipped so as to
conform with applicable regulations under CAA section 202 and is free
from defects in materials or workmanship which would cause the engine
not to conform with applicable regulations for the warranty period. If
an emission-related component fails during the regulatory emission
warranty period, the manufacturer is required to pay for the cost of
repair or replacement. A manufacturer's general emissions warranty
responsibilities are currently set out in 40 CFR 1068.115. Note that
while an emission warranty provides protection to the owner against
emission-related repair costs during the warranty period, the owner is
responsible for properly maintaining the engine (40 CFR 1068.110(e)),
and the manufacturer may deny warranty claims for failures that have
been caused by the owner's or operator's improper maintenance or use
(40 CFR 1068.115(a)).
Regulatory warranty provisions were first included in the 1970
amendments to the Clean Air Act, as a new section 207(a) (``the
manufacturer of each new motor vehicle and new motor vehicle engine
shall warrant to the ultimate purchaser and each subsequent purchaser
that such vehicle or engine is (1) designed, built, and equipped so as
to conform at the time of sale with applicable regulations under
section 202, and (2) free from defects in materials and workmanship
which cause such vehicle or engine to fail to conform with applicable
regulations for
[[Page 17505]]
its useful life . . .'').\464\ Those amendments also instructed the
Administrator in section 202(b) to ``prescribe regulations which shall
require manufacturers to warrant the emission control device or system
of each new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine to which a
regulation under section 202 applies . . .'' emphasis added). The 1977
CAA amendments modified the section 207(b) requirements, specifying
that ``for the period after twenty-four months or twenty-four thousand
miles (whichever first occurs) the term 'emission control device or
system' means a catalytic converter, thermal reactor, or other
component installed on or in a vehicle for the sole or primary purpose
of reducing vehicle emissions.'' \465\ EPA's first heavy-duty truck
regulations, promulgated in 1983, set a specific warranty period of 5
years or 50,000 miles, whichever occurred first, for light-duty trucks,
gasoline heavy-duty engines, and light heavy-duty diesel engines, and 5
years or 100,000 miles, whichever occurred first, for all other heavy-
duty diesel engines.\466\ These emission warranty periods were carried
over in each subsequent revision of the emission control program (see
40 CFR 86.084-2, 86.085-2, 86.90-2, 86.94-2, 86.096-2, 86.004-2) and
persist to this day, even as the engine useful life periods were
increased.\467\ Today, there is a considerable difference between
useful life and emission warranty periods, as illustrated in Table IV-
7. The proposed changes to the useful life periods described in Section
IV.A would increase this difference in the absence of an accompanying
change to emissions warranty periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\464\ Public Law 91-604, December 31, 1970.
\465\ Public Law 95-95, August 7, 1977.
\466\ 48 FR 52170, November 16, 1983.
\467\ These same warranty periods apply in our GHG emission
reduction programs. 76 FR 57106, September 15, 2011 and 81 FR 73672,
October 25, 2016; see 40 CFR 1037.102(b).
Table IV-7--Comparison of Current Emissions Warranty and Regulatory Useful Life Periods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions warranty Useful life \a\
Engine class ---------------------------------------------------------------
Miles Years Miles Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark-ignition HDE.............................. 50,000 5 110,000 10
Light HDE....................................... 50,000 5 110,000 10
Medium HDE...................................... 100,000 5 185,000 10
Heavy HDE....................................... 100,000 5 435,000 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The useful life periods that apply for Spark-ignition HDE and Light HDE for GHG emission standards are
150,000 miles and 15 years. See 40 CFR 1036.108(d).
Today, the warranty mileage for Spark-ignition HDE, Light HDE, and
Medium HDE covers about half of the corresponding useful life for those
engines; the warranty mileage for Heavy HDE covers about a quarter of
useful life. The proposal to lengthen engine useful life means that the
warranty period would cover a smaller portion of useful life unless the
warranty period is also increased. In the following section, we
describe ways in which emission warranty periods can impact long-term
emission performance, which we believe justifies proposing emissions
warranties that cover more of the operational life of the engine.
ii. Lengthening the Regulatory Emission Warranty Period To Improve
Long-Term Emission Performance
As illustrated in Table IV-7, EPA's current emissions-related
warranty periods range from 22 percent to 54 percent of regulatory
useful life; the warranty periods have not changed since 1983 even as
the useful life periods were lengthened.\468\ As EPA is proposing to
lengthen the useful life periods in this rulemaking, we are also
proposing to lengthen the emission warranty periods and increase the
portion of useful life miles covered under warranty. These proposed
revised warranty periods are expected to result in better engine
maintenance and less tampering, helping to maintain the benefits of the
emission controls. In addition, longer regulatory warranty periods may
lead engine manufacturers to simplify repair processes and make them
more aware of system defects that need to be tracked and reported to
EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\468\ The useful life for heavy heavy-duty engines was increased
from 290,000 miles to 435,000 miles for 2004 and later model years
(62 FR 54694, October 21, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Longer regulatory warranty periods that are more consistent with
EPA's useful life periods are expected to lead owners to better
maintain their engines and vehicles over a longer period of time so as
to not void their emission warranty coverage. This is because existing
warranty provisions specify that owners are responsible for properly
maintaining their engines (40 CFR 1068.110(e)), and manufacturers may
deny warranty claims for failures that have been caused by the owner's
or operator's improper maintenance or use (40 CFR 1068.115(a)).\469\ A
longer warranty period is expected to lead to better engine emission
performance overall due to less mal-maintenance (see Chapter 5 of the
draft RIA for a discussion of mal-maintenance effects in our emission
inventory estimates). Similarly, longer regulatory emission warranty
periods are expected to reduce the likelihood of tampering, which would
also result in better engine emission performance (see Chapter 5 of the
draft RIA for a discussion of tampering effects in our emission
inventory estimates). Since emission-related repairs would be covered
for a longer period of time, the owner will be more likely to have
systems repaired and, consequently, may be less likely to tamper to
avoid the cost of a repair that is no longer covered by a warranty.
Owners may also be less likely to install defeat devices that are
marketed to boost engine performance since installing such a device
would void the engine warranty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\469\ See our proposal in Section IV.B.5 to update our allowable
maintenance provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission-related repair processes may get more attention from
manufacturers if they are responsible for repairs over a longer period
of time. As manufacturers try to remain competitive, longer emission
warranty periods may lead manufacturers to simplify repair processes
and provide better training to technicians in an effort to reduce their
warranty repair costs. Simplifying repair processes could include
modifying emission control components in terms of how systems are
serviced and how components are replaced. The current, relatively short
warranty period provides little incentive for manufacturers to specify
repairs be made at the lowest possible level of complexity, since the
owner pays for the
[[Page 17506]]
repairs after the warranty period ends. One way to reduce warranty
repair costs may be to design modular sub-assemblies that could be
replaced individually, resulting in a quicker, less expensive repair.
For example, if a DEF level sensor fails, repair practices may call for
the DEF sensor assembly to be replaced in its entirety (including level
sensor, quality sensor, lines, and even heaters) instead of only the
faulty part. Improved technician training may also reduce warranty
repair costs by improving identification and diagnosing component
failures more quickly and accurately, thus avoiding repeated failures
or misdiagnoses of failures and higher costs from repeat repair events
at service facilities. These improvements may also encourage owners to
have repairs made because down time is reduced.
Finally, longer regulatory emission warranty periods would increase
the period over which the engine manufacturer would be made aware of
emission-related defects. Manufacturers are currently required to track
and report defects to the Agency under the defect reporting provisions
of 40 CFR part 1068. Under 40 CFR 1068.501(b), manufacturers
investigate possible defects whenever a warranty claim is submitted for
a component. Therefore, manufacturers can easily monitor defect
information from dealers and repair shops who are performing those
warranty repair services, but after the warranty period ends, the
manufacturer would not necessarily know about these events, since
repair facilities are less likely to be in contact with the
manufacturers and they are less likely to use OEM parts. A longer
warranty period would allow manufacturers to have access to better
defect information over a period of time more consistent with engine
useful life.
The impact of a longer emissions warranty period may be slightly
different for SI engines. Spark-ignition engine systems rely on mature
technologies, including evaporative emission systems and three-way
catalyst-based emission controls, that have been consistently reliable
for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicle owners.\470\ We expect lengthened
emission warranty periods to help enhance long-term in-use emissions
performance of SI engines over time by reducing mal-maintenance and
tampering. Similar to CI engine owners, we believe a longer warranty
period would encourage owners of vehicles powered by SI engines to
follow manufacturer-prescribed maintenance procedures for a longer
period of time, as failure to do so would void the warranty. From a
tampering perspective, SI engine owners may not be motivated to tamper
with their catalyst systems to avoid repairs, but they may be less
inclined to purchase defeat devices intended to disable emission
controls to boost the performance of SI engines since installing such a
device would void the engine warranty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\470\ The last U.S. EPA enforcement action against a
manufacturer for three-way catalysts was settled with
DaimlerChrylser Corporation Settlement on December 21, 2005.
Available online: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/daimlerchrysler-corporation-settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA seeks comment on all aspects of our proposal to lengthen
emissions warranty periods for all primary intended service classes. We
encourage stakeholders to submit any available data on emission control
system repairs during and after heavy-duty engine emission warranty
periods, including frequency of incidents, costs of repairs, and
associated downtime.
iii. CARB's Recent Heavy-Duty Engine Emissions Warranty Updates
CARB recently finalized two regulatory programs to update emissions
warranty periods for heavy-duty engines as summarized in this section.
We considered the warranty updates adopted by CARB when developing the
proposed warranty periods for this rulemaking.
CARB's ``Step 1'' warranty program for heavy-duty engines sold in
California was finalized in 2019 and applied to MY 2022 heavy-duty
diesel engines.\471\ CARB increased the warranty mileage values for
heavy-duty diesel engines, but did not update the years-based warranty
periods during the Step 1 update. The Step 1 program also formally
linked warranty requirements to the HD OBD system by specifying that
failures that cause the vehicle's OBD MIL to illuminate are considered
warrantable conditions. CARB justified this linkage as helping to
ensure that repairs of malfunctioning emission-related parts would be
performed in a timelier manner during the lengthened warranty periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\471\ California Air Resources Board, ``HD Warranty 2018''.
Effective date: October 1, 2019. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2018/hd-warranty-2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB included a second step of warranty updates in their HD Omnibus
rulemaking that was approved by the Board in 2020.\472\ In the Omnibus
regulation, CARB lengthened the warranty periods for MY 2027 through MY
2030 and further lengthened the warranty periods for MY 2031 and later
heavy-duty diesel engines. The Omnibus regulation also lengthened
warranty periods for heavy-duty Otto cycle engines, and similarly
linked HD OBD MIL triggers to warrantable conditions, for the same
model years. The Omnibus also requires hybrid configurations to meet
the same warranty periods as the diesel or Otto cycle engine service
class to which they are certified. In addition, the Omnibus included
warranty periods for BEVs and FCEVs of 3 years or 50,000 miles. The
warranty periods adopted in the Omnibus included updated years- and
hours-based warranty periods. The hours-based values were generally
based on a 20 miles per hour vehicle speed and the warranty mileage for
each engine class. Table IV-8 summarizes the emissions warranty periods
from CARB's recent updates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\472\ California Air Resources Board, ``Heavy-Duty Omnibus
Regulation''. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox.
Table IV-8--Summary of CARB's Emission-Related Warranty Periods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1 (MY 2022- HD Omnibus (MY HD Omnibus (MY
CARB engine class \a\ Pre-MY 2022 2026) 2027-2030) 2031+)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HD Otto (Spark-ignition HDE).... 50,000 miles...... 50,000 miles...... 110,000 miles..... 160,000 miles.
5 years........... 5 years........... 7 years........... 10 years.
6,000 hours....... 8,000 hours.
LHDDE (Light HDE)............... 50,000 miles...... 110,000 miles..... 150,000 miles..... 210,000 miles.
5 years........... 5 years........... 7 years........... 10 years.
7,000 hours....... 10,000 hours.
[[Page 17507]]
MHDDE (Medium HDE).............. 100,000 miles..... 150,000 miles..... 220,000 miles..... 280,000 miles.
5 years........... 5 years........... 7 years........... 10 years.
11,000 hours...... 14,000 hours.
HHDDE........................... 100,000 miles..... 350,000 miles..... 450,000 miles..... 600,000 miles.
(Heavy HDE)..................... 5 years........... 5 years........... 7 years........... 10 years.
22,000 hours...... 30,000 hours.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ CARB's naming conventions for HD engines differ from the those in this proposal; corresponding EPA names are
noted in parentheses.
CARB's warranty updates were partially motivated by evidence that
emission-related component failures occur after the end of the current
emission warranty periods, when manufacturers are no longer responsible
for repair or replacement costs under the warranty provisions, but
before the end of the engine's regulatory useful life, through which
time engines are certified by the manufacturer to meet the emission
standards. According to the Updated Informative Digest prepared for
CARB's Amendments to California Emission Control System Warranty
Regulations and Maintenance Provisions, ``CARB's test programs have
identified numerous heavy-duty vehicles with mileages within their
applicable regulatory useful life periods, but beyond their warranty
period, that have NOX emission levels significantly above
their applicable certification standards.'' \473\ These incidents may
not be frequent enough to trigger an emission recall under California's
program, but CARB noted concern about engine-specific emission
equipment failures not covered by warranty. In addition, a survey of
owners and repair shops performed for CARB with respect to downtime for
repairs found that over half of the owners surveyed experienced
downtime to address repairs, and more than 60 percent of those repairs
were not covered by emission warranties.\474\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\473\ California Air Resources Board. ``HD Warranty 2018 Staff
Report: Initial Statement of Reasons'', May 2018. Available here:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2018/hdwarranty18/isor.pdf. See also the ANPR comments of the California
Air Resources Board, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0471.
\474\ California Air Resources Board. ``Survey and Analysis of
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Warranties in California'', December 2017; see
pages 6-7, Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2018/hdwarranty18/apph.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The market for extended warranties suggests that some truck
purchasers are concerned enough about out-of-warranty repairs to be
willing to purchase additional warranty coverage, either directly from
the manufacturers or from independent third parties. According to a
survey conducted on behalf of CARB in support of their heavy-duty
warranty program, approximately 40 percent of all new heavy-duty
vehicle buyers ``purchase or receive'' an extended warranty under which
the coverage is extended to 417,000 miles on average.475 476
This survey data correlates with information provided to CARB by the
Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association, which indicated that 50
percent of new heavy-duty Class 8 vehicles are sold with a 500,000 mile
extended warranty.\477\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\475\ California Air Resources Board. ``Survey and Analysis of
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Warranties in California'', December 2017; see
page 17, Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2018/hdwarranty18/apph.pdf.
\476\ Some of these extended warranties may be purchased by the
owners; others may be added by the dealer as part of the sales
package.
\477\ California Air Resources Board, ``Staff Report: Initial
Statement of Reasons'' May 2018, see page II-7. Available here:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2018/hdwarranty18/isor.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Proposed Emissions Warranty Provisions
This section describes the proposed regulatory emissions warranty
provisions, including the lengthened warranty periods we are proposing,
by engine category and the components covered. Our proposed warranty
provisions are in a new 40 CFR 1036.120. We request comment on the
proposed warranty mileage values, as well as the corresponding age-
based criteria. Commenters also are encouraged to address whether
warranty periods should be a consistent fraction of the final useful
life periods and whether we should align with CARB's Omnibus program
when considering warranty periods for the final rule.
a. Proposed Warranty Periods by Primary Intended Service Class
We are proposing to update our emissions warranty periods for
emission-related components designed to reduce criteria pollutant
emissions, beginning with model year 2027 and later heavy-duty
engines.\478\ Following our approach for the proposed useful life
periods, we are proposing two options (proposed Options 1 and 2) and
our proposed warranty periods vary by primary intended service class to
reflect the difference in average operational life of each class.\479\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\478\ We are proposing that components installed to control both
greenhouse gas (i.e., CO2, N2O, and
CH4) and criteria pollutant emissions would be subject to
the proposed warranty periods. See proposed 40 CFR 1036.150(w) and
Section XII.B for additional warranty considerations related to
greenhouse gas emissions.
\479\ All engines covered by a primary intended service class
would be subject to the corresponding warranty period, regardless of
fuel used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a manufacturer's certified configuration includes hybrid
system components (e.g., batteries, electric motors, and inverters),
those components are considered emission-related components, which
would be covered under the proposed warranty requirements in new 40 CFR
1036.120.\480\ Similar to the proposed approach for useful life in
Section IV.A, we are proposing that a manufacturer certifying a hybrid
engine or hybrid powertrain would declare a primary intended service
class for the engine family and apply the corresponding warranty
periods in the proposed 40 CFR 1036.120 when certifying the engine
configuration.\481\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\480\ See our proposed new definition of ``emission-related
component'' in 40 CFR 1036.801. Defects or failures of hybrid system
components can result in the engine operating more, and thus
increase emissions.
\481\ See proposed updates to 40 CFR 1036.140 for the primary
intended service classes that are partially based on the GVWR of the
vehicle in which the configuration is intended to be used. See also
the proposed update to definition of ``engine configuration'' in 40
CFR 1036.801 to clarify that an engine configuration would include
hybrid components if it is certified as a hybrid engine or hybrid
powertrain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17508]]
Also similar to our proposal for useful life, our proposed approach to
clarify that hybrid components are part of the broader engine
configuration provides truck owners and operators with consistent
warranty coverage based on the intended vehicle application.
Currently, emission warranties for most HD engine classes (Spark-
ignition HDE, Light HDE, and Medium HDE) cover about half of the
respective useful life mileages. As mentioned in Section IV.B.1.ii, we
believe that fewer incidents of mal-maintenance and tampering occur
during the warranty period, and thus fewer would occur overall if the
warranty period is lengthened. Consistent with our current
requirements, we believe it is appropriate to propose to lengthen the
warranty mileage to continue to cover at least half of the useful life
mileage for all engine classes.
More specifically, we are proposing two options that generally
represent the range of revised emission warranty periods we are
considering adopting in the final rule. Proposed Option 1 includes
warranty periods that are aligned with the MY 2027 and MY 2031 periods
adopted by CARB, which are close to 80 percent of useful life.\482\ At
this time, we assume most manufacturers would continue to certify 50-
state compliant engines in MY 2027 and later, and it would simplify the
certification process if there is consistency between CARB and federal
requirements. The warranty periods of proposed Option 2 would apply in
a single step beginning in model year 2027, and would match CARB's Step
1 warranty periods that will already be in effect beginning in model
year 2022 for engines sold in California.\483\ The proposed Option 2
mileages cover 40 to 55 percent of the proposed Option 1 MY 2031 useful
life mileages and represent an appropriate lower end of the range of
the revised regulatory emission warranty periods we are considering.
Our proposed emissions warranty periods for heavy-duty engines are
presented in Table IV-9.\484\ We estimated the emissions impacts of the
proposed warranty periods in our inventory analysis, which is
summarized in Section VI and discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of our
draft RIA. In Section V, we estimated indirect and operating costs
associated with the proposed warranty periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\482\ CARB's Omnibus MY 2031 warranty mileages for the range of
HD engine classes span 78 percent to 80 percent of the proposed
Option 1 useful life mileages presented in Section IV.A.
\483\ For SI engines, the proposed Option 2 warranty mileage
matches the current useful life for those engines, consistent with
the approach for Light HDE proposed Option 2 warranty.
\484\ We are proposing to migrate the current alternate
standards for engines used in certain specialty vehicles from 40 CFR
86.007-11 and 86.008-10 into 40 CFR 1036.605 without modification.
See Section XII.B of this preamble for a discussion of these
standards and options for which we are requesting comment.
Table IV-9--Proposed Options 1 and 2 Emissions Warranty Periods
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current \a\ Proposed Option 1 Proposed Option 2 \a\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary intended service class MY 2027-2030 \b\ MY 2031+ \c\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miles Miles Hours Miles Hours Miles Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark-Ignition HDE...................... 50,000 110,000 6,000 160,000 8,000 110,000 5,500
Light HDE............................... 50,000 150,000 7,000 210,000 10,000 110,000 5,500
Medium HDE.............................. 100,000 220,000 11,000 280,000 14,000 150,000 7,000
Heavy HDE............................... 100,000 450,000 22,000 600,000 30,000 350,000 17,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Current and proposed Option 2 warranty period is the stated miles or 5 years, or hours if applicable, whichever comes first.
\b\ The proposed Option 1 warranty period for model years 2027-2030 is the stated miles, hours, or 7 years, whichever comes first.
\c\ The proposed Option 1 warranty period for model years 2031 and later is the stated miles, hours, or 10 years, whichever comes first.
While we believe a majority of engines would reach the warranty
mileage in a reasonable amount of time, some applications may have very
low annual mileage due to infrequent use or low speed operation; these
engines may not reach the warranty mileage for many years. To ensure
manufacturers are not indefinitely responsible for components covered
under emissions warranty in these situations, we are proposing revised
years-based warranty periods and new hours-based warranty periods for
proposed Option 1 and new hours-based warranty periods for proposed
Option 2. Consistent with current warranty provisions, the warranty
period would be whichever warranty value (i.e., mileage, hours, or
years) occurs first.
For the years-based period, which would likely be reached first by
engines with lower annual mileage due to infrequent use, proposed
Option 1 would increase the current period from 5 years to 7 years for
MY 2027 through 2030, and to 10 years starting with MY 2031. We are
also proposing to add an hours-based warranty period to both proposed
options, as shown in Table IV-9, to cover engines that operate at low
speed and/or are frequently in idle mode. In contrast to infrequent
use, low speed and idle operation can strain emission control
components and we believe it is appropriate to factor that gradually-
accumulated work into a manufacturer's warranty obligations. We are
proposing warranty hours for all primary intended service classes based
on a 20 mile per hour average vehicle speed threshold to convert from
the proposed mileage values.\485\ We note that applying a consistent 20
miles per hour conversion factor to the proposed mileage periods would
result in a variable number of years of warranty coverage across
classes and, in some cases, fewer years than the years-based period for
a given model year. We request comment on applying a different
conversion speed for all classes or a unique speed to each engine class
to calculate the hours-based periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\485\ As noted in Section IV.A, we are proposing hours-based
useful life values for the Heavy HDE class in proposed Option 1
based on the same 20 mile per hour average vehicle speed conversion
factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with existing regulations, our proposed warranty
provisions in new 40 CFR 1036.120(c) identify the components covered by
emission warranty as the general emission-related components listed in
40 CFR 1068, appendix A, and any other components a manufacturer may
develop to control emissions. The emission-related components listed in
Appendix A are broad categories of components and systems that affect
emissions. We request comment on the completeness of this list and
whether we should consider adding other or more specific components or
systems. We also request comment on whether it is appropriate to expand
the list of components covered
[[Page 17509]]
by emission warranty to include any component whose failure causes the
vehicle's OBD MIL to illuminate, as adopted by CARB.\486\ While we
agree that an OBD MIL could be used by an owner or technician to
identify an underperforming or failed emission-related component that
should be replaced under warranty, we currently have concerns that not
all OBD MILs are tied directly to an emission-related component. If we
were to finalize a link between warranty and OBD MILs, we expect the
cost of expanding the list of warrantable components to include all
components that may trigger an OBD MIL, regardless of their direct
impact on emissions, would be unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\486\ California Air Resources Board. ``Staff Report: Initial
Statement of Reasons-Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Heavy-
Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and Associated
Amendments''. June 23, 2020. Page III-52. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/isor.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Proposed Warranty for Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles
Similar to the proposed approach for BEV and FCEV useful life
periods, described in IV.A, we are proposing in 40 CFR 1037.120(b)(2)
that BEV and FCEV manufacturers apply the warranty periods
corresponding to an engine-based primary intended service class, as
specified in the proposed 40 CFR 1037.120(b).487 488 The
proposed 40 CFR 1037.120(b)(2) specifies that prior to MY 2027
manufacturers choosing to generate NOX emission credits in
MYs 2024 through 2026 would apply the warranty periods in the current
40 CFR 86.001-2; starting in MY 2027 manufacturers would apply the
warranty periods specified in the proposed 40 CFR 1036.104.
Manufacturers choosing not to generate NOX emission credits
with their BEVs or FCEVs could alternatively choose in MY 2027 or later
to certify to the existing emission warranty requirements for GHGs, as
specified in the current 40 CFR 1037.120(b)(1).\489\ As specified in
the existing 40 CFR 1037.120(e), all manufacturers would continue to
describe in their owners' manual the warranty provisions that apply to
the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\487\ Manufacturers would identify a primary intended service
class as specified in proposed 40 CFR 1037.102(b)(1).
\488\ The warranty periods included in the Alternative would
similarly apply to BEVs and FCEVs; see Section IV.B.1.vi for more
discussion on the Alternative warranty periods considered for this
proposal.
\489\ Prior to MY 2027, manufacturers who chose not to generate
NOX emission credits would apply the warranty periods
specified in the current 40 CFR 86.001-2, which are equivalent to
those specified in the current 40 CFR 1037.120(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section IV.A, data from BEV transit buses and DOE
research and development work on FCEVs suggest that BEV and FCEV
technologies will be capable of operating over mileages or time periods
similar to CI engines in the 2027 and beyond timeframe; thus, we
believe it is appropriate for the same criteria pollutant warranty
requirements to apply to BEV and FCEV technologies as those specified
for CI engines for those manufacturers who choose to generate
NOX emission credits.
We further recognize that repeated repair or maintenance issues
with a BEV or FCEV could increase vehicle operating costs and lead
owners to purchase a vehicle powered by a CI or SI engine instead,
which would result in higher emissions than a zero-emission tailpipe
battery or fuel cell electric vehicle. Our proposed BEV and FCEV
warranty requirements for manufacturers who choose to generate
NOX emission credits from BEVs or FCEVs are expected to
decrease those operating costs in two ways. First, by encouraging
owners to conduct vehicle maintenance that ensures continued warranty
coverage and maintains the benefits of the zero-tailpipe emission
performance. Second, by encouraging manufacturers to simplify repair
processes and provide better training to technicians in an effort to
reduce their warranty repair costs.
As specified in the proposed 40 CFR 1037.120(c), we propose to
clarify that batteries and fuel cells in BEVs and FCEVs, respectively,
are considered covered components and would be subject to the proposed
warranty requirements in 40 CFR 1037.120(b)(2) for manufacturers
choosing to generate NOX emission credits. Our proposed
approach for component coverage reflects that defects or failures of
batteries or fuel cells could render the vehicle inoperable, and thus
the vehicle would cease to provide zero tailpipe emission performance
over the full useful life period despite having generated emission
credits for the full useful life period. We note that our proposed
approach is less comprehensive than the CARB Zero Emission Powertrain
(``ZEP'') Certification approach, which defines ``warranted part'' as
``any powertrain component'' in the case of zero-emission
powertrains.\490\ At the end of this subsection we request comment on
our proposed approach for component coverage relative to the CARB ZEP
Certification approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\490\ See Attachment C, ``Proposed, California Standards and
Test Procedures for New 2020 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Zero-
Emissions Powertrains'', p. 17 for details on warranty requirements.
Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/zepcert/15dayattc.pdf (last accessed August 24, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing our proposal for the duration of the warranty period
for BEVs and FCEVs, we considered two other options: (1) Align with
CARB Omnibus emission warranty requirements for BEVs and FCEVs of 3
years or 50,000 miles, or (2) align criteria pollutant warranty periods
with the periods specified for GHG emissions in the current 40 CFR
1037.120 for all manufacturers. The CARB Omnibus warranty requirements
for BEVs and FCEVs match what manufacturers are already required to
offer if they participate in the California Heavy-duty Vehicle
Incentive Program (HVIP), and are less than industry standards for
warranty periods based on information submitted to CARB through the
certification process.\491\ The second option we considered, aligning
criteria pollutant and GHG warranty periods for BEVs and FCEVs would be
a simplistic approach, but would not recognize the use of these
technologies to generate NOX emission credits; under the
proposed ABT program, we would allow these NOX emission
credits to be used to produce higher-emitting engines with longer
warranty period requirements.\492\ As such we are proposing that only
manufacturers who choose not to generate NOX emission
credits with BEVs or FCEVs could choose to certify to criteria
pollutant warranty requirements equivalent to the existing GHG emission
warranty requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\491\ California Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Initial
Statement of Reasons for Proposed Alternative Certification
Requirements and Test Procedures for Heavy-Duty Electric and Fuel
Cell Vehicles and Proposed Standards and Test Procedures for Zero-
Emission Powertrains (Zero-Emission Powertrain Certification
Regulation), December 31, 2018. Available online: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2019/zepcert/isor.pdf.
\492\ See Section IV.G for details on the proposed ABT program,
which includes restrictions for the extent to which engines could
emit emissions above the proposed standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request comment on our proposed approach for BEV and FCEV
warranty requirements to match those of the engine-based primary
intended service class for manufacturers who choose to generate
NOX emission credits from BEVs or FCEVs. Commenters are
encouraged to provide information and data on whether such requirements
would help to ensure the zero-emission tailpipe performance of these
technologies, or if they would hinder the integration of these
technologies
[[Page 17510]]
into the heavy-duty vehicle market. If commenters suggest that we
should finalize another alternative to our proposed approach, then we
request information and data supporting their views on how such an
alternative would support the environmental benefits of zero-emission
tailpipe technologies. We further request comment on our proposed
approach that batteries and fuel cells in BEVs and FCEVs, respectively,
are covered under warranty for manufacturers choosing to generate
NOX emission credits. If commenters suggest that we include
additional components in the final rule, such as the CARB ZEP
Certification approach, we request that commenters provide a list of
which specific components should be covered (e.g., electric motor,
axles), along with a rationale for why those components should be
covered under emission warranty.
c. Proposed Warranty for Incomplete Vehicle Refueling Emission
Standards
As noted in Section III.E, proposed Options 1 and 2 include
refueling emission standards for Spark-ignition HDE that are certified
as incomplete vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR.\493\ Our proposed
refueling standards are equivalent to the refueling standards that are
in effect for light- and heavy-duty complete Spark-ignition HDVs. We
project manufacturers would adapt the existing onboard refueling vapor
recovery (ORVR) systems from those complete vehicle systems to meet our
proposed refueling standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\493\ See our proposed updates to 40 CFR 1037.103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in Section III.E, we are not reopening or proposing to
change evaporative emission requirements that currently apply for all
SI engines or refueling emission standards that currently apply for
complete vehicles. Because the onboard refueling vapor recovery systems
necessary to meet the proposed refueling standards are expected to
build on existing evaporative systems, proposed Options 1 and 2 would
require that Spark-ignition HDE manufacturers provide a warranty for
the ORVR systems of incomplete vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR for the
same warranty periods that currently apply for evaporative emission
control components on these vehicles.\494\ Our proposal to apply the
existing warranty periods for evaporative emission control systems to
the ORVR systems is similar to our approach to the regulatory useful
life periods associated with our proposed refueling standards discussed
in Section IV.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\494\ Warranty periods for refueling emissions components on
incomplete Light HDV would be 5 years or 50,000 miles, and 5 years
or 100,000 miles for components on incomplete Medium HDV and Heavy
HDV. See our proposed updates to 40 CFR 1037.120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. Additional Considerations for Components Covered and Warranty Claims
Consistent with existing regulations, our proposed warranty
provisions in new 40 CFR 1036.120(c) identify the components covered by
emission warranty as the general emission-related components listed in
40 CFR 1068, appendix A, and any other components a manufacturer may
develop to control emissions. The emission-related components listed in
appendix A are broad categories of components and systems that affect
emissions. We request comment on the completeness of this list and
whether we should consider adding other systems or more specific
components of systems.
As mentioned in Section IV.B.1.iii, CARB recently expanded their
list of components covered by emission warranty to include any
component whose failure causes the vehicle's OBD MIL to illuminate to
ensure malfunctioning components were repaired in a timely manner.\495\
We believe the proposed lengthened warranty periods would effectively
encourage prompt maintenance without the need to expand the list of
components covered beyond those specifically identified as emission-
related components. We are also including several other proposed
updates to improve access to valuable maintenance information for
certain emission-related components. We are proposing to require
manufacturers to update their owner's manuals to improve serviceability
(Section IV.B.3) and to expand the list of OBD parameters available to
the public (Section IV.C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\495\ California Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial
Statement of Reasons-Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Heavy-
Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and Associated
Amendments. June 23, 2020. Page III-52. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/isor.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As specified in the current 40 CFR 1068.115 and referenced in
proposed 40 CFR 1036.120(d), manufacturers may deny warranty claims if
the engine was improperly maintained or used. In proposed 40 CFR
1036.125(h)(2), manufacturers would describe the documentation they
require for owners to demonstrate their engines are properly
maintained.\496\ ANPR commenters suggest that DEF quality sensor data
alone is an incomplete indicator of an owner's commitment to
maintaining high-quality DEF. EPA received comments describing
incidents where DEF quality faults were triggered repeatedly despite
flushing the system and filling the tank with new DEF, suggesting a
fault with a system sensor.\497\ A recent online discussion indicates
that some OEMs may be denying warranty claims on the basis of using
poor quality DEF.\498\ While this may be justified for repeated DEF
quality faults or extremely low urea concentrations (e.g., using
water), DEF quality sensor readings may also indicate only slightly
abnormal urea concentrations due to unintentionally long storage
periods or unpredicted improper storage temperatures. In either case,
we expect a DEF quality-triggered engine derate would induce a user to
address the DEF quality issue before it would cause a problem
downstream.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\496\ See our discussion in Section IV.B.5.
\497\ See the comments of the National Association of Small
Trucking Companies (``NASTC''), EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0456.
\498\ Wallace, Sam. ``Keep Your Diesel Exhaust Fluid From
Voiding Your Warranty'', Mitchell1 ShopConnection, August, 2015.
Available online: https://mitchell1.com/shopconnection/keep-your-diesel-exhaust-fluid-from-voiding-your-warranty/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that current 40 CFR 1068.115 allows manufacturers to deny a
warranty claim only if they show that a component failure was due to
improper maintenance or use by the owner or operator, by accidents for
which the manufacturer has no responsibility, or by acts of God subject
to certain limitations. For example, 40 CFR 1068.115(b)(3) does not
allow a manufacturer to deny a warranty claim based on action or
inaction by the operator unrelated to the warranty claim. In proposed
40 CFR 1036.120(d), we propose to further clarify that, as described in
40 CFR 1068.115, for highway heavy-duty engines a manufacturer may deny
warranty claims if the operator caused the problem through improper
maintenance or use. In other words, a manufacturer must use more than
just the presence of a system fault before denying a warranty claim for
improper maintenance and would have to show that a component failure
was directly connected to that fault. We request comment on the
availability of high-quality DEF and whether EPA should explicitly
state that manufacturers cannot deny warranty claims based on the use
of commonly available DEF, as is currently specified for fuel in 40 CFR
1068.115(b)(6). Commenters are encouraged to suggest if a commonly
available DEF provision should be limited to heavy-duty highway engines
in 40 CFR 1036.120 or
[[Page 17511]]
if it should be broadly applied to all sectors covered under part 1068.
vi. Analysis of Proposed Emission Warranty Periods and Alternatives
Consistent with our useful life discussion in Section IV.A.4, we
considered an alternative set of warranty periods (the Alternative)
that would apply as a single step beginning in model year 2027. The
warranty mileages for the Alternative are longer than the proposed
Option 1 MY 2031 useful life mileages. The Alternative mileages align
with the warranty mileages presented in CARB's September 2019 Public
Workshop for their Heavy-Duty Low NOX program and cover up
to 94 percent of the useful life mileages considered for the
Alternative.\499\ The warranty mileages of the Alternative would place
an even greater emphasis on the importance of holding manufacturers
responsible for emission control defects for a period of time that
aligns more closely with the operational life of the engine. However,
we believe it would be inappropriate to consider warranty mileages
equal to or beyond the proposed Option 1 MY 2031 useful life mileages,
which are the maximum useful life mileages we consider to be feasible
given the level of emission standards evaluated in this proposal based
on available data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\499\ Brakora, Jessica. Memorandum to Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055. CARB 2019 Public Workshop Presentations Related to Regulatory
Useful Life and Emissions Warranty. March 19, 2021.
Table IV-10--Comparison of Warranty Mileages Considered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1
Primary intended service class Current -------------------------------- Proposed Alternative
MY 2027-2030 MY 2031+ Option 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark-Ignition HDE.............. 50,000 110,000 160,000 110,000 200,000
Light HDE....................... 50,000 150,000 210,000 110,000 280,000
Medium HDE...................... 100,000 220,000 280,000 150,000 360,000
Heavy HDE....................... 100,000 450,000 600,000 350,000 800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alternative warranty mileages are equivalent to or longer than
the useful life mileages included in the proposed Options 1 and 2.
Since we do not believe that the emission warranty period should be
equal to or greater than the useful life period, we focus on the
warranty values of proposed Options 1 and 2 and the range in between
them for this proposal. We expect that we would need additional data
before we could project that the standards and useful life values of
the Alternative are feasible for the MY 2027 timeframe in order to
consider adopting them, or the Alternative warranty mileages, in the
final rule.
We estimated the emissions impacts of the Alternative warranty
periods in our inventory analysis, which is summarized in Section VI
and discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of our draft RIA. We do not
present an analysis of the costs of the Alternative, since those
warranty periods are out of the range of mileages we are currently
considering without additional information to indicate that the
standards and useful life values of the Alternative are feasible in the
MY 2027 timeframe.
vii. Other Approaches To Ensure Long-Term In-Use Emission Performance
Under our current and proposed warranty provisions, parts and labor
for emission-related components are equally and fully covered over the
entirety of the warranty period. A graduated warranty coverage
approach, which was introduced as a topic in the ANPR to this rule and
is described in more detail below, may provide a similar assurance of
long-term emission performance with a smaller impact on the purchase
price.
Manufacturers are responsible for repairing or replacing emission-
related components that are found to be defective within the specified
warranty period. Manufacturers include warranty repairs in the price of
an engine or vehicle, and the Agency considers the warranty cost
implications of all our emission control rules.\500\ In Section V, we
provide the cost impacts of the proposed warranty periods. The impact
that a longer warranty would have on the purchase price of an
individual engine will vary by factors such as a manufacturer's
estimate of the risk for an engine, their presumed competition in the
market, and their relationship with the purchaser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\500\ A manufacturer estimates the expected costs of warranty
repairs actuarially, and these costs are added to the purchase price
of the engine or vehicle, spreading the predicted repair costs over
the number of engines or vehicles sold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the current market, purchasers desiring greater warranty
protection can buy extended warranties, either from the engine
manufacturers or third-party companies. The experience with extended
warranties reveals information about the range of owner preferences
with respect to bearing the costs of out-of-warranty repairs. Some of
the estimated 40 percent of purchasers obtaining extended warranties
may be large companies that purchase extended warranty coverage because
they have comprehensive in-house service facilities and a business
relationship with engine manufacturers that allows them to perform
warranty repairs in-house. Other owners may be reliant on the engine
manufacturer for warranty repairs but prefer to purchase extended
warranties for insurance against the cost of out-of-warranty repairs,
in essence paying for those repairs up-front. Of the 60 percent of
purchasers that decline to purchase extended warranties, some companies
may reduce the risk of out-of-warranty repair costs by selling their
vehicles near the point when the warranty period ends. Others may
prefer to pay for out-of-warranty repairs when and if they occur. Still
others may choose to not make out-of-warranty repairs at all. It is
clear that lengthening the warranty period would remove some of a
purchaser's flexibility to address out-of-warranty repair costs. We
request comment on the extent to which emissions warranty period is an
important aspect of purchasers' business decisions, and the specific
impacts purchasers anticipate for the range of emissions warranty
periods we are considering in this rule. For instance, we are
interested in how a longer regulatory emissions warranty may impact the
timing of an engine or truck purchase, how long an engine or vehicle is
kept, and/or how well an engine is maintained.
[[Page 17512]]
In the ANPR, we described two different potential approaches to
graduated warranties. Under one approach, there could be longer,
prorated warranties that provide different levels of warranty coverage
based on a vehicle's age or mileage. Alternatively, the warranty could
be limited to include only certain parts during specified warranty
periods, and/or exclude labor for some, or even all, of the duration of
coverage. We received feedback from several stakeholders in response to
the ANPR. Allison Transmission supported EPA considering prorated parts
and labor as an approach to lengthening warranty periods.\501\ Volvo
suggested that applying the longer warranty periods to only critical
components could be a way to reduce manufacturer costs.\502\ NADA
recommended that longer warranty periods be proposed in a manner that
varies by class of component or system and include the approaches EPA
presented in the ANPR such as limited component and/or prorated
warranties.\503\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\501\ See comments from Allison, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
0461.
\502\ See comments from Volvo, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
0463.
\503\ See comments from NADA, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
0369.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not proposing and did not analyze a graduated warranty
approach for this proposal. However, we may consider a graduated
warranty as a viable alternative to our proposed warranty periods if we
receive additional information that would support such an approach. A
graduated warranty approach could extend beyond our proposed warranty
periods in mileage, hours, and years, to cover more of the operational
life of the engine, but it could be based on different phases of
varying coverage. These could include, for example:
Phase 1: Full parts and labor coverage for all emission-
related components,
Phase 2: Parts and labor coverage for limited emission-
related components, and
Phase 3: Parts-only coverage for limited emission-related
components.
We request comment on whether EPA should adopt a phased approach
for a longer emission warranty period. Supporters of such an approach
should comment on the number of phases, the length of each phase, and
the components to include in the set of limited emission-related
components under such an approach. With respect to Phase 1, which would
be similar to a traditional warranty with full parts and labor
coverage, EPA may consider the warranty mileages in proposed Option 2
as the minimum lower bound. For the other phases, commenters are
encouraged to include data to support their suggested mileage, hours,
and years of coverage. When considering the set of limited parts to be
covered in the other phase(s), EPA may consider including components
that are relatively high-cost components, or components that are labor-
intensive (and thus expensive) to replace. We request data to support
the set of limited emission-related components that should be included
in the other phase(s), including failure rates, component costs, and
labor costs to replace specific components. We note that our proposed
maintenance provisions in 40 CFR 1036.125 include two categories of
components we could consider as the set of limited emission-related
components covered in the graduated warranty approach. As described in
Section IV.B.5, these two categories of components include a proposed
list of specific components with minimum maintenance intervals, and
criteria to identify components that can only be replaced as part of
scheduled maintenance if the manufacturer covers the cost.
Finally, we request comment on whether a graduated warranty
approach would achieve the goals set out in Section IV.B.1.ii:
Providing an extended period of protection for purchasers, encouraging
proper maintenance, discouraging tampering, and incentivizing
manufacturers to design emission control components that are less
costly to repair.
2. Electronic Control Module Security
CAA section 203(a)(3)(B) and 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(2) prohibit
selling, offering to sell, or installing any part or component whose
principal effect is to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative a motor
vehicle emission control device or element of design (i.e., a ``defeat
device''), where the person knows or should know that the part is being
offered for sale, installed for such use or put to such use. Once
installed, defeat devices can result in significant tailpipe emissions
increases, and with the long service life of heavy-duty vehicles, would
produce a disproportionate amount of lifetime emissions, compared to a
vehicle with properly functioning emission controls. One of the key
enablers of defeat devices with modern engines is the unauthorized
modification, or tampering, with certified calibration parameters and/
or software within the electronic control module (``ECM''). Tampering
with the ECM can introduce a different calibration that allows the
engine to produce power at higher emission rates, or it can bypass or
disable inducement algorithms intended to ensure proper functioning of
SCR systems. The EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) has found extensive evidence of tampering with the emission
control systems on heavy-duty engines and vehicles nationwide, although
EPA lacks robust data on the exact rate of tampering.\504\ Recently,
OECA announced a new National Compliance Initiative (``NCI'') to
address the manufacture, sale, and installation of defeat devices on
vehicles and engines through civil enforcement.\505\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\504\ U.S. EPA. ``Tampered Diesel Pickup Trucks: A Review of
Aggregated Evidence from EPA Civil Enforcement Investigations'',
November 20, 2021, Available online: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/tampered-diesel-pickup-trucks-review-aggregated-evidence-epa-civil-enforcement.
\505\ U.S. EPA. National Compliance Initiative: Stopping
Aftermarket Defeat Devices for Vehicles and Engines. Available
online: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/national-compliance-initiative-stopping-aftermarket-defeat-devices-vehicles-and-engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has for decades had regulations to address the ``physically
adjustable parameters'' on heavy-duty highway engines that can alter
emissions performance.\506\ These regulations require the manufacturer,
subject to review by EPA, to identify the appropriate range of
adjustment on the operating parameters or physical settings on an
engine that could potentially increase emissions and the adequacy of
limits, stops, seals, or other mechanical means of limiting or
prohibiting adjustment outside of these appropriate ranges. Parameters
such as injection timing on a diesel engine were once physically
adjustable with common tools and clearly an adjustable parameter. With
a modern ECM, many of these parameters are now electronically
adjustable through changes to software and calibration settings. As
discussed in Section XII.A.2, we are proposing to revise our
regulations by adding 40 CFR 1068.50 to specifically address
electronically adjustable parameters and require that manufacturers
attest that they are using sufficient measures to secure the ECM,
thereby limiting adjustment or alteration beyond those used in the
certified configuration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\506\ 40 CFR 86.094-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECM tampering is often designed to avoid detection, where the
software, controls, and onboard diagnostics are intentionally
manipulated so commonly available scan tools cannot detect the presence
of a defeat device. This complicates the efforts of state
[[Page 17513]]
inspection and maintenance programs to identify and address tampered
vehicles. ECM tampering is also a concern for manufacturers, because
changes to the engine controls can adversely impact the durability of
the engine and lead to premature failure. If ECM tampering remains
undetected and a failure occurs within the warranty period, the
manufacturer would be responsible for the repair costs. Manufacturers
have been implementing measures to prevent tampering with software in
the engine's ECM, but manufacturers of defeat devices continue to find
ways to work around these security measures. Unauthorized access to the
ECM and other control modules on a vehicle is also a public safety
concern, as malicious tampering could affect the operation of the
advanced braking, stability, and cruise control systems found on modern
heavy-duty vehicles.\507\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\507\ Stachowski, S., Bielawski, R., Weimerskirch, A.
Cybersecurity Research Considerations for Heavy Vehicles (Report No.
DOT HS 812 636). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. December 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address the safety, financial liability, operational, and
privacy concerns that can result from tampering, manufacturers,
industry organizations, and regulators have been working to develop
standards and design principles that would improve vehicle
cybersecurity, including ECMs. Three such efforts where cybersecurity
guidelines and procedures are either under development or already in
publication are ISO/SAE J21434, UNECE WP29 Cybersecurity Regulation,
and SAE J3061.508 509 \510\ Manufacturers may choose to
utilize different mixes of technical standards or principles that these
organizations recommend. A one-size-fits-all approach with detailed
requirements for ECM security for all engines would be neither
practical nor prudent. Manufacturers need the flexibility to quickly
implement measures to address new or emerging threats and
vulnerabilities. Considering this need for flexibility and noting that
the security principles in these efforts are constantly evolving as new
threats are identified, we are not proposing to adopt any of these
specific guidelines as requirements for manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\508\ ``Road vehicles -- Cybersecurity engineering``, ISO/SAE
FDIS 21434, https://www.iso.org/standard/70918.html.
\509\ United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, ``UNECE
WP29 Automotive Cybersecurity Regulation'', Available online:
https://argus-sec.com/unece-wp29-automotive-cybersecurity-regulation/.
\510\ Society of Automotive Engineers, ``Cybersecurity Guidebook
for Cyber-Physical Vehicle Systems``. SAE J3061, Available online:
https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3061_201601/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 40 CFR 1036.205(s), we propose that manufacturers describe all
adjustable parameters in their application for certification, which
would include electronically controlled parameters. Electronically
controlled parameters may be considered practically adjustable as
described in proposed 40 CFR 1068.50(d)(2). This would include user-
selectable operating modes and modifications that owners can make with
available tools. We are proposing that manufacturers describe their
approach to limiting access to electronic controls in the certification
application. We retain the right to evaluate a manufacturer's
determination in their application considering the measures they are
using (whether proprietary standards, industry technical standards, or
a combination of both), to prevent access to the ECM. At a minimum,
this documentation should describe in sufficient detail the measures
that a manufacturer has used to: prevent unauthorized access; ensure
that calibration values, software, or diagnostic features cannot be
modified or disabled; and respond to repeated, unauthorized attempts at
reprogramming or tampering.\511\ Section XII.A.2 of this preamble
describes our proposed new section 40 CFR 1068.50 to codify a set of
provisions that are consistent with current industry best practices
with respect to adjustable parameters. Additional discussion can be
found in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\511\ We are proposing that engines are not in the certified
configuration if they are produced with adjustable parameters set
outside the range specified in their application for certification
or produced with other operating parameters that do not conform to
the certified configuration. See Section XII and proposed 40 CFR
1068.50(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Serviceability
Defective designs and tampering can contribute significantly to
increased in-use emissions. EPA has warranty provisions and tampering
prohibitions in place to address such issues. Mal-maintenance, which
includes delayed or improper repairs and delayed or unperformed
maintenance, also increases in-use emissions and can be intentional
(e.g., deferring repairs due to costs) or unintentional (e.g., not
being able to diagnose the actual problem and make the proper repair).
Mal-maintenance (by owners or repair facilities) can result from:
Difficulty and high costs to diagnose and repair
Inadequate troubleshooting guides and maintenance
instructions
Limited access to maintenance information and specialized
tools to make repairs
Vehicle owners, repair technicians, and manufacturers all play
important and distinct roles in achieving intended in-use emission
system performance and preventing mal-maintenance. Vehicle owners are
expected to properly maintain the engines, which includes performing
preventative maintenance, scheduled maintenance (e.g., maintaining
adequate DEF supply for their diesel engines' aftertreatment), and
completing repairs when components or systems degrade or fail. Repair
technicians are expected to properly diagnose and repair malfunctioning
emission systems. Finally, manufacturers play a key role in providing
both owners and repair technicians with access to the information they
need to perform such expected maintenance and repairs.
EPA published several rules between 1993 and 2003 that improved
service information access and required onboard diagnostic (OBD)
systems for light-duty vehicles up to 14,000 lb GVWR.\512\ In 2009, EPA
finalized similar requirements for the heavy-duty industry to ensure
that manufacturers make diagnostic and service information available to
any person repairing or servicing heavy-duty vehicles and engines (74
FR 8309, February 24, 2009).\513\ The service information requirements
include information necessary to make use of the OBD system and
instructions for making emission-related diagnoses and repairs,
training access, technical service bulletins, and other information
generally available to their franchised dealers or other persons
engaged in the repair, diagnosing or servicing of motor vehicles. Since
this time, manufacturers have entered into a service-related agreement
through trade associations representing the aftertreatment repair
industry and truck and engine manufacturers, highlighting concerns over
intellectual property and their continued need for proprietary
tools.\514\ EPA is not proposing changes to service
[[Page 17514]]
information regulations at this time. While the service information
regulations were an important first step in improving serviceability,
as emission control systems have continued to develop, it has become
necessary to consider other improvements that can be made to support
in-use maintenance and repair practices. CAA section 207(c)(3)(A)
requires manufacturers to provide instructions for the proper
maintenance and use of a vehicle or engine by the ultimate purchaser
and requires such instructions to correspond to EPA regulations.
Section 207(c)(3)(A) also requires manufacturers to provide notice in
those instructions that maintenance, replacement, or repair of emission
control devices and systems may be performed by any automotive repair
establishment or individual using any automotive part which has been
certified as provided in section 207(a)(2). Section 207(c)(3)(B)
requires that these instructions shall not include any condition on the
ultimate purchaser's using, in connection with such vehicle or engine,
any component or service (other than a component or service provided
without charge under the terms of the purchase agreement) which is
identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; or directly or
indirectly distinguishing between service performed by the franchised
dealers of such manufacturer or any other service establishments with
which such manufacturer has a commercial relationship, and service
performed by independent automotive repair facilities with which such
manufacturer has no commercial relationship; unless EPA finds the
vehicle or engine will function properly only if the component or
service so identified is used in connection with such vehicle or
engine, and that such a waiver is in the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\512\ See 58 FR 9468 (February 19, 1993); 60 FR 40474 (August 9,
1995); 65 FR 59896 (Oct 6, 2000); and 68 FR 38428 (June 27, 2003).
\513\ See 40 CFR 86.010-38(j) for the current service
information requirements. We are not proposing to migrate the
service information provisions at this time and these provisions
will remain in part 86. We are proposing to name the service
information provisions as an additional requirement in proposed 40
CFR 1036.601(b). EPA may consider migrating these provisions in a
future rulemaking.
\514\ Memorandum of Understanding National Commercial Vehicle
Service Information. August 2015. Available online: https://www.etools.org/Heavy-Duty-MOU-2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 207(c)(3)(C) states that manufacturers must affix a
permanent label indicating that the vehicle or engine is covered by a
certificate of conformity and containing other information relating to
control of motor vehicle emissions as prescribed by EPA regulations.
Finally, section 202(m)(5) clarifies that manufacturers must provide
this information promptly to anyone engaged in the repairing or
servicing of motor vehicles or engines, except as specified. This
section describes proposed regulatory amendments under these statutory
provisions and are intended to improve serviceability, reduce mal-
maintenance, and ensure owners are able to maintain emission
performance throughout the entire in-use life of heavy-duty engines.
i. Current Repair and Maintenance Experiences
Continued maintenance issues can result in, among other things,
owner dissatisfaction, which may cause some owners to remove or bypass
emission controls. Any actions we can take to reduce maintenance issues
could reduce incidents of tampering. In the ANPR, EPA requested comment
on experiences with serviceability and received comment in three
general categories: (1) Frustrations related to advanced emission
control system reliability; (2) misdiagnosis and improper repair by
professional facilities which lead to repeated trips to repair
facilities and significant downtime, and (3) limited access to
maintenance information which leads to the inability to self-diagnose
problems.
Serviceability concerns affect all trucking operations, although
different types of operators may experience these impacts in different
ways. EPA received comments from trade organizations representing very
large trucking fleets (e.g., the American Trucking Associations,
``ATA''), small fleets (e.g., National Association of Small Trucking
Companies, ``NASTC''), and owner-operators (e.g., Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association, ``OOIDA''), as well as from
independent commenters, indicating that serviceability issues are one
of the top concerns when operating trucks with advanced emission
control systems. ATA commented that current emission control systems
are still causing concerns for fleets and noted that in a recent study
by ATA's Truck Maintenance Council, aftertreatment maintenance issues,
serviceability, and ease of diagnostics were identified as major areas
of concern by their members.\515\ NASTC submitted comments directly
from their members indicating a number of concerns related to
serviceability.\516\ OOIDA commented that their members have
encountered various problems with emissions systems which have had a
dramatic impact on their businesses including expensive visits to
dealers, lost productivity, poor efficiency, and towing costs.\517\ A
number of other commenters described their experiences and how
improvements can be made to reduce cost and frustration.\518\ Trucking
companies participating in a round table discussion in EPA's Region 7
expressed similar concerns about impacts to business as a result of
delayed or missed deliveries, including lost customers, and possible
legal or contract consequences.\519\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\515\ See the comments of the American Trucking Association,
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0357.
\516\ See the comments of the National Association of Small
Trucking Companies, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0456.
\517\ See the comments of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0397.
\518\ For example, see the comments of Swanny's Trucking, Docket
ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0252.
\519\ Kopin, Amy. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055.
``EPA Region 7 Heavy-Duty NOX ANPR Roundtable
Discussion--Serviceability- and Inducement-Related Concerns``.
October 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to operators, EPA received comments from state and
local agencies supportive of improving access of maintenance
information and service tools for fleets and owner-
operators.520 521 For example, NACAA stated that EPA should
work to increase access to the information and tools needed to repair
the emission control systems on aging trucks, which is especially
important for small businesses, small fleets, independent owner/
operators, and rural operations, where access to dealer service
networks can be a challenge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\520\ See the comments of the National Association of Clean Air
Agencies, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0283.
\521\ See the comments of the Northeast States for Coordinated
Air Use Management, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0288.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Reliability of EPA 2010 Engines
We are keenly aware of significant discontent expressed by owners
concerning their experiences with emission systems on engines compliant
with EPA 2010 standards. EPA has also identified numerous Technical
Service Bulletins submitted by OEMs to NHTSA's website documenting
issues such as no trouble found, wiring concerns, or minor corrosion on
connectors which can lead to inducement.\522\ Although significant
improvements have been made to these systems since they were first
introduced into the market, reliability and serviceability continue to
cause concern. ATA commented that their members are experiencing
problems with a wide variety of issues such as: Aftertreatment wiring
harness failures, DEF nozzles plugging or over-injecting,
NOX sensor failures, defective DEF pumps and level sensors,
systems being less reliable in rain and cold weather, more frequent
required cleaning of DPFs, and problems related to DEF
[[Page 17515]]
build-up.\523\ ATA also stated that their members have reported that
mechanics at dealerships sometimes clear codes with no associated
repairs being made. Many of these issues can also lead to severe engine
derate and towing costs (see Section IV.D for further information on
proposed inducement provisions, including revisions to policy currently
in guidance). OOIDA commented that some of its members have experienced
emission technology failures that caused their engines to quickly
derate, placing truckers and other motorists in unsafe situations.\524\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\522\ See NHTSA Service Bulletins: ID Number 10058856, available
here: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2015/SB-;10058856-6479.pdf
and ID Number 10154333, available here: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2019/MC-10154333-9999.pdf.
\523\ See the comments of the American Trucking Association,
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0357.
\524\ See the comments of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the comments highlighting problems related to wiring
harness issues and sensor failures, a number of published articles have
presented similar findings. For example, ``Dealing with Aftertreatment
Issues'' in Fleet Equipment Magazine discusses how at least one OEM is
focusing on improving issues with wiring and sensors ``which are often
the culprits in aftertreatment downtime.'' \525\ A recent article from
Transport Topics highlights how fleets are experiencing wiring issues
and sensor failures that are creating problems that even sophisticated
diagnostic tools cannot solve easily.\526\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\525\ Crissey, Alex. Fleet Equipment Magazine. ``Dealing with
Aftertreatment Issues''. November 27, 2017. Available online:
https://www.fleetequipmentmag.com/dealing-aftertreatment-issues/.
\526\ Frantz, Gary. Transport Topics. ``Diesel Engine Makers
Tackle Challenges Posed by Stricter Emission Standards''. May 11,
2020. Available here: https://www.ttnews.com/articles/class-8-engine-makers-tackle-challenges-posed-stricter-emission-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Misdiagnosis and Improper Repairs
Misdiagnosis can lead to the unnecessary replacement of parts
without properly addressing the problem, which can result in additional
breakdowns and tows with return trips to repair facilities for
diagnostic service. ATA commented that several fleets are reporting the
need for 'comeback' repairs and that while emissions-related training
for diagnosis and repair work has improved, it is still severely
lagging behind expectations. The NASTC describes problems some owners
have experienced with repeated emission system component failures.\527\
In one example, an owner had to replace four NOX sensors,
two diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) filters, a DEF pump, a DPF, and a diesel
oxidation catalyst (DOC) within only 6 months of purchasing a new
truck. NASTC also described problems other owners experienced due to
failures of NOX sensors, DPF filters, DOCs, other emission-
related sensors, and wiring harnesses, as well as repeated DEF doser
injector pumps and valve failures. Other NASTC commenters described
improper repair experiences resulting in trucks being down for weeks at
a time. An independent commenter stated that repeated repairs in a 6-
month time period resulted in loss of his truck and the ability to
continue as an owner-operator.\528\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\527\ See the comments of the National Association of Small
Trucking Companies (``NASTC''), EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0456.
\528\ See the comments of J. Johnson, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-0265.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Limited Access to Repair Facilities, Maintenance Information, and
Service Tools
In response to the ANPR, EPA received numerous comments on
difficulties associated with repairs of emission control systems. Many
commenters indicated there is a substantial wait time to get a vehicle
into a specialized repair facility, which, in some cases, was more than
a week in addition to the time required to repair the vehicle.\529\
This wait time may be manageable if the vehicle remains operational,
but can have a significant impact on an owner's ability to generate
income from a vehicle if the truck is subject to an inducement and they
are unable to use the vehicle until the repair is made.\530\ EPA
received comments from the National Tribal Air Association and Keweenaw
Bay Indian Community suggesting that service information and tools are
not readily available and affordable for individual owners to diagnose
and fix their own vehicles, and improved access can be especially
important for small businesses, Tribes, and those in rural areas with
less ready access to original equipment manufacturer dealer
networks.\531\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\529\ See the comments of J. Sibley, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-0397 and those of the National Association of Small Trucking
Companies, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0456.
\530\ See Section IV.D for proposed inducement provisions, which
include revisions to policy currently in guidance.
\531\ See the comments of the National Tribal Air Association,
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA received a number of comments on difficulties getting the right
information or tools to repair vehicles outside of specialized repair
facilities. ATA commented that their members report that in order to
ensure proprietary tools are used, some manufacturers lock out certain
diagnostic programs needed to further diagnose and reset systems after
repairs, which ATA believes is a barrier to owners quickly diagnosing
emission control system problems. ATA added that while some large
fleets have added laptops in the field to help troubleshoot issues,
fleets with more than one brand of truck may face significant expense
to acquire multiple OEM software/diagnostic packages for these laptops.
NASTC members noted that there are very few independent repair
facilities that will repair emission systems problems, and given the
long lead times at traditional repair facilities, a single fault code
can remove a truck from service for more than a week. NASTC members
also commented that diagnostic tools for owners are not affordable but
are currently the only way to access diagnostic codes outside of a trip
to a repair facility. OOIDA commented that according to a 2018 survey,
73 percent of their members perform repairs and maintenance on their
own trucks.\532\ OOIDA added that being able to diagnose problems and
repair equipment outside of dealerships is important for owner-
operators and allows them to save time, avoid downtime, and reduce
operating costs; however, they believe that restrictions built into
existing trucks are preventing this practice. OOIDA supported an
emphasis on serviceability improvements so that professional drivers
can independently identify and repair problems with their engines and
aftertreatment as much as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\532\ See the comments of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Proposed Maintenance Information for Improved Serviceability
In addition to labeling, diagnostic, and service information
requirements, EPA is proposing to require important maintenance
information be made available in the owner's manual.\533\ The owner's
manual is a document or collection of documents prepared by the engine
or vehicle manufacturer for the owner or operator to describe
appropriate engine maintenance, applicable warranties, and any other
information related to operating or maintaining the engine or vehicle.
EPA is proposing to require additional maintenance information in the
owner's manual as a way to improve factors that may contribute to mal-
maintenance, resulting in better service experiences for independent
repair technicians,
[[Page 17516]]
specialized repair technicians, owners who repair their own equipment,
and possibly vehicle inspection and maintenance technicians.\534\
Combined with our proposed modifications to onboard diagnostic
requirements and proposed provisions for inducements, we expect these
proposed serviceability provisions would improve owner experiences
operating and maintaining heavy-duty engines and provide greater
assurance of long-term in-use emission reductions by reducing
likelihood of occurrences of tampering.\535\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\533\ Miller, Neil; Kopin, Amy. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055. ``Serviceability and Additional Maintenance
Information''. October 1, 2021.
\534\ EPA is also proposing changes to existing useful life
periods to incentivize improved component durability (see Section
IV.A)), onboard diagnostic requirements intended to make emission
system faults more easily diagnosed (see Section IV.C), and is
proposing inducement provisions for DEF replenishment, DEF quality
and certain SCR-related tamper-resistant design intended to ensure
manufacturers can meet adjustable parameter and critical emission-
related scheduled maintenance requirements (see Section IV.D).
\535\ See Section IV.C for discussion on proposed changes to
onboard diagnostic requirements and Section IV.D for proposed
inducement provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing changes to owner's manual and label requirements
that would be mandatory for MY 2027 and later engines. The existing
proposal would be voluntary for earlier model years, but we are seeking
comment on making all or parts of this proposal mandatory as soon as MY
2024. We expect these changes would increase owner understanding of
emission control systems, improve experiences at repair facilities,
provide better access to information to help identify concerns, and
enable owners to self-diagnose problems (especially important for aging
trucks). Our proposal is intended to ensure consistent access to
emission systems diagrams and part number information across the range
of commercial vehicle engines and improve clarity in the information
presented in those diagrams. Owner's manuals today include very
detailed descriptions of systems such as radios and infotainment
centers, fuse box and relay diagrams, and troubleshooting guides for
phone connectivity features, but generally include limited information
on emission control system operations. Given the importance and
complexity of emission control systems and the impact to drivers for
failing to maintain such systems (e.g., inducements), EPA believes
including additional information about emission control systems in the
owner's manual is critical.
We are proposing to require manufacturers to provide more
information concerning the emission control system in both the owner's
manual and the emissions label. Our proposal would require the owner's
manual to include descriptions of how the emissions systems operate,
troubleshooting information, and diagrams. The emissions label would
include an internet link to obtain this additional information. EPA has
had similar requirements in the past, such as when EPA required vacuum
hose diagrams to be included on the emission label to improve
serviceability and help inspection and maintenance facilities identify
concerns.\536\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\536\ See 53 FR 7675, March 9, 1988 and 55 FR 7177, February 29.
1990 for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, as a part of the new 40 CFR 1036.125(h)(3)-(9) and
(11), we propose that manufacturers provide the following additional
information in the owner's manual:
A description of how the owner can use the OBD system to
troubleshoot problems and access emission-related diagnostic
information and codes stored in onboard monitoring systems including
information about the role of the proposed health monitor to help
owners service their engines before components fail.
A general description of how the emission control systems
operate.
One or more diagrams of the engine and its emission-
related components with the following information:
[cir] The flow path for intake air and exhaust gas.
[cir] The flow path of evaporative and refueling emissions for
spark-ignition engines, and DEF for compression-ignition engines, as
applicable.
[cir] The flow path of engine coolant if it is part of the emission
control system described in the application for certification.
[cir] The identity, location, and arrangement of relevant sensors,
wiring, and other emission-related components in the diagram.
Terminology to identify components would be required to be consistent
with codes you use for the OBD system.
[cir] Expected pressures at the particulate filter and exhaust
temperatures throughout the aftertreatment system.
Exploded-view drawings to allow the owner to identify the
part numbers and basic assembly requirements for turbochargers,
aftercoolers, and all components required for proper functioning of EGR
and aftertreatment devices including enough detail to allow a mechanic
to replace any of those components.
A basic wiring diagram for aftertreatment-related
components including enough detail to allow a mechanic to detect
improper functioning of those components.
Statement instructing owners or service technicians where
to find emission recall and technical repair information available
without charge from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.\537\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\537\ In 2016, NHTSA issued a Federal Register notice (81 FR
16270, March 25, 2016) stating it would post all Technical Service
Bulletins and communications to dealers on defects in vehicles,
regardless of whether the defects were safety related to comply with
the Congressional mandate in in the ``Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21) enacted on July 6, 2012. More
information is available here: https://www.autosafety.org/how-to-find-technical-service-bulletins-and-other-manufacturer-communications-via-nhtsas-search-portal/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Troubleshooting guide to address DEF dosing- and DPF
regeneration-related warning signals that would be displayed in the cab
or with a generic scan tool, including a description of the fault
condition, the potential causes, the remedy, and the consequence of
continuing to operate without remedy including a list of all codes that
cause derate or inducement (e.g., list SPN/FMI combinations and
associated operating restrictions, see proposed requirements in 40 CFR
1036.110(b)(9)(vi)).
For the DPF system, instructions on how to remove DPF for
cleaning, criteria for cleaning the DPF including pressure drop across
the filter, clean filter weight, pre-installed filter weight, a
statement that DPF inlet and outlet pressures are available with a
generic scan tool, and information on maintenance practices to prevent
damage to DPFs.
We propose to include these eight additional provisions for all
engine configurations, including hybrids, where applicable.\538\ EPA is
seeking comment on these eight proposed additional provisions or other
approaches to improve the serviceability of heavy-duty engine emission
control systems. Finally, in 40 CFR 1036.135(c), EPA is proposing that
manufacturers include a Quick Response Code or ``QR Code'' on the
emission label that would direct repair technicians, owners, and
inspection and maintenance facilities to a website which provides
critical emissions systems information at no cost including: A digital
copy of the owner's manual (or just the emissions section of the
manual), engine family information, emission control system
identification, and fuel and lubricant requirements (see proposed
revisions in 40 CFR 1036.135). Many manufacturers already make digital
owner's manuals
[[Page 17517]]
available online.\539\ EPA recognizes that there may be a need to
accommodate different information formats relating to the QR code link
and requests comment on whether to include different options to achieve
the same goals, and if so, what those options should be. The
maintenance information we are proposing to add to the owner's manual
is critical to making necessary information available promptly to any
person performing emissions-related maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\538\ See Section IV.B.3.iii for discussion on potential
serviceability requirements for BEV and FCEV technologies on which
we are seeking comment. Section IV.I also discusses potential
maintenance requirements for manufacturers who choose to generate
NOX emission credits from BEVs or FCEVs.
\539\ Montoya, Ronald, ``How to Find Your Car Owner's Manual
Online.'' October 18th, 2013. Available online at: https://www.edmunds.com/how-to/how-to-find-your-car-owners-manual-online.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Including the proposed additional information in the owner's manual
and emission label can increase an owner's understanding of emission
systems operation and fault conditions. Providing owners and repair
technicians access to diagrams describing system layout and operation
can help reduce confusion where manufacturers may have different system
configurations. For example, some configurations may have the DPF in
front of the SCR catalyst, while others may have it behind the SCR
catalyst.\540\ Lack of easily accessible diagrams can lead to mal-
maintenance and improper repair where components that need to be
replaced are not identified properly. For example, some manufacturers
label exhaust gas temperature (EGT) sensors generically such as EGT1
and EGT2 and the positioning of these sensors may differ or be reversed
for the same engine model installed on vehicles with slightly different
frame configurations.\541\ If a technician is unfamiliar with this
change, they may replace the wrong EGT which would likely result in a
repeat visit to a repair facility. Similarly, a DPF temperature sensor
may be generically labeled ``Exhaust Temperature Sensor'' and may be
shown on an EGR parts diagram rather than a DPF parts diagram, making
it difficult to correctly identify replacement parts. With an easily
accessible parts diagram, owners, parts counter specialists, and repair
technicians can more quickly identify the correct parts to replace
which would save time and eliminate frustration, especially where a
truck is in an inducement. EPA is also seeking comment on the need to
require standardization of terminology for certain components in the
proposed labeling and owner's manual provisions to further reduce
confusion for owners and technicians performing repairs. For example,
some manufacturers call the DOC outlet temperature a DPF inlet
temperature. Lack of standardization, including naming conventions and
data output parameter scaling (e.g., NOX sensor output
scaling may vary between manufacturers), may lead to confusion and
inefficiencies when seeking replacement parts and performing
troubleshooting and repairs. SAE J2403 ``Medium-Heavy Duty E/E System
Diagnosis Nomenclature'' is designed to standardize nomenclature of
components and how systems with multiple sensors (e.g., multiple EGT
sensors) should be numbered starting from the same place (e.g.,
starting at the engine). CARB requires that, to the extent possible,
certification documentation shall use SAE J1930 or J2403 terms,
abbreviations, and acronyms. EPA is seeking comment on whether this
standard should be incorporated and required for use in naming certain
emission components such as exhaust temperature sensors as a part of
certification, maintenance instructions, diagnostic, or other
serviceability-related requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\540\ Powerstrokehub.com, ``6.7L Power Stroke Emissions Control
System.'' Available here: http://www.powerstrokehub.com/6.7-power-stroke-emissions.html.
\541\ Earlywine, Brad,''6.7L Power Stroke EGT Replacement.''
Available here: https://www.expertswrite.net/article/67l-powerstroke/changing-egt-sensors/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA seeks comment on other pertinent information that should be
included in owner's manuals so that owners can more easily understand
advanced emission control system operation and precautions that should
be taken in order to maintain them. To the extent EPA can ensure this
information is harmonized among manufacturers, we believe this could
improve owner, operators, parts counter specialist, and repair
technician experiences and reduce frustration which can lead to an
incentive to tamper.
iii. Request for Comments on Maintenance and Operational Information
for Improved Serviceability of Electric Vehicles
EPA is requesting comment on several potential serviceability
requirements for BEV and FCEV technologies. Many of these potential
serviceability provisions are similar to those proposed in Section
IV.B.3.ii for CI and SI engines but are specific to these technologies
that do not require a combustion engine or emissions aftertreatment
system. As noted in the introduction of Section III.A, under 40 CFR
86.016-1(d)(4), heavy-duty BEV and FCEV manufacturers currently use
good engineering judgment to apply the criteria pollutant requirements
of part 86, Subpart S, including maintenance provisions.
We are requesting comment on seven categories of potential
requirements for BEV and FCEV serviceability: (1) Labeling, (2)
purchaser guidance, (3) maintenance information, (4) maintenance
information requirements concerning the use of a standardized connector
and making malfunction codes and powertrain parameters accessible, (5)
onboard vehicle signals for service and repair technicians, (6)
information on battery energy used per trip, and (7) battery
information to facilitate battery recycling. We request comment on
whether each of these categories individually or in combination should
be finalized to support owners and repair technicians in maintaining
and repairing BEV and FCEV technologies, or if alternative provisions
suggested by commenters would better support these technologies while
minimizing burden to manufacturers. Each of these categories of
potential requirements is based on provisions of the 2019 CARB Zero
Emissions Powertrain Certification (ZEP Certification), which imposes
requirements on manufacturers choosing to generate NOX
emission credits under the CARB Omnibus rule.\542\ We believe that
adopting an approach based on the CARB ZEP Certification program would
provide manufacturers with consistency across the country. Consistent
with the ZEP Certification requirements, EPA believes that the
maintenance and operational information described in this section could
help potential BEV and FCEV purchasers to understand the possible
operational impacts of these technologies on their businesses, as well
as ensure the vehicles are supported during their use in the field.
Each of the areas in which we are requesting comment is briefly
discussed immediately below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\542\ CARB (2019) ``Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking,
Proposed Alternative Certification Requirements and Test Procedures
for Heavy-Duty Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicles and Proposed
Standards and Test Procedures for Zero Emission Powertrains.''
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/zepcert/fsor.pdf (accessed August 5, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the first area (labeling), as specified in the current 40 CFR
1037.125, all vehicle manufacturers currently must affix a label to
each vehicle with information such as manufacturer name, vehicle
certification family, and build date; however, some of the information
is specific to vehicles propelled by an engine (e.g., 40 CFR
1037.125(c)(6) requires manufacturers to specify the emission control
system).
[[Page 17518]]
We request comment on whether there is additional information specific
to BEVs and FCEVs that would be useful to include on the vehicle label
for repair technicians, owners, and inspection and maintenance
professionals. We also request input from commenters on whether we
should require a QR code on BEV and FCEV labels, similar to the
proposed QR code requirement in 40 CFR 1036.135(c). Specifically, the
BEV or FCEV label could include a QR code to a website which would
direct repair technicians, owners, or inspection and maintenance
facilities to a website with information including: A digital copy of
the owner's manual, vehicle family information, and powertrain
identification. Commenters are encouraged to provide details on how any
suggestions for additional information would help vehicle owners with
the repair and maintenance of BEVs or FCEVs, as well as the potential
burden to manufacturers to include such information on the vehicle
label.
For the second area (purchaser guidance), we request comment on
whether EPA should require BEV and FCEV manufacturers to provide
purchaser guidance information to potential owners on aspects of BEV or
FCEV ownership that may differ from owning a vehicle with a CI or SI
engine. Immediately below, we provide several examples of the types of
information that manufacturers could provide in purchaser guidance if
we were to finalize such a requirement in this rule or another future
rulemaking. For instance, purchaser guidance could include the range
the vehicle is capable of driving over a specified duty-cycle, top
speed, and maximum grade. As another example, manufacturers could
describe how vehicle load, ambient temperatures, and battery
degradation impact range, top speed, or maximum grade. Manufacturers
could also provide potential purchasers estimates of the time required
for maintenance and repairs of common malfunctions, as well as
potential vehicle transportation costs. Finally, manufacturers could
clearly describe any warranty coverage of the battery and other key
powertrain components that would be covered (see Section IV.B.1.iv.b
for our proposed warranty requirements).\543\ To minimize manufacturer
burden, EPA could provide an example statement in 40 CFR part 1037 that
manufacturers could choose to use if they attest that the statement is
accurate for their vehicle; the example statement could largely mirror
the statement that was proposed by CARB under the 2019 CARB ZEP
Certification and subsequently adopted into current CARB regulations
for GHG emissions from 2014 and later model vehicles.\544\ While an
example statement provided by EPA would minimize manufacturer burden,
it would also, by necessity, be more generic and not reflect parameters
specific to a given vehicle model (e.g., range). We encourage
commenters to provide input on the potential benefits of manufacturers
providing such purchaser guidance relative to the potential burden to
manufacturers to provide such guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\543\ As noted in Section IV.B.1.iv.b, the existing 40 CFR
1037.120(e) requires all manufacturers to describe in their owner's
manuals the warranty provisions that apply to the vehicle;
manufacturers could also provide the same information in purchaser
guidance such that it could help inform potential owners prior to
their purchase (i.e., prior to having an owner's manual for the
vehicle). Per discussion in IV.B.1.iv.b, the proposed warranty
requirements differ for manufacturers choosing to generate
NOX emission credits from BEVs or FCEVs versus
manufacturers choosing not to generate NOX emission
credits from these vehicles.
\544\ See Attachment B, ``California Greenhouse Gas Exhaust
Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2014 and Subsequent Model
Heavy-Duty Vehicles``, 3.17 Sales Disclosures, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/regact/2019/zepcert/froattb.pdf (accessed 8/5/2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the third area (maintenance information), we request comment on
whether EPA should require BEV and FCEV manufacturers to make
additional maintenance information available to owners and repair
technicians. Under the current 40 CFR 1037.125(f) manufacturers make
the service manual and any required service tools available to third-
party repair facilities at reasonable cost; however, we request comment
on any information specific to BEVs or FCEVs that would be important
for repair technicians in maintaining and repairing BEV and FCEV
technologies. In addition, we request comment on whether EPA should
require manufacturers to describe in their certification application
the monitoring and diagnostic strategies they use for the BEV or FCEV;
these strategies would also be included in their service manuals. In
addition to being similar to existing requirements for vehicles powered
by an engine, this potential provision would be consistent with the ZEP
Certification requirements.\545\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\545\ See Attachment C, ``Proposed, California Standards and
Test Procedures for New 2021 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Zero-
Emissions Powertrains'' for details of CARB serviceability
provisions available here: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/zepcert/froattc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the fourth area (standardized connector and accessible
malfunction codes and powertrain parameters), we request comment on
whether EPA should require that BEV and FCEV manufacturers use a
standardized connector that is compatible with automotive scan tools,
and further that all malfunction codes and key powertrain parameters
must be readable by a generic automotive scan tool. Commenters are
encouraged to provide information on whether the use of a standardized
connector would facilitate repair of BEVs and FCEVs, and the utility of
making all malfunction codes and key powertrain parameters readable by
a generic scan tool. We also request stakeholder input on the potential
burden to manufacturers to make the standardized connector, malfunction
codes, and key powertrain parameters accessible.
For the fifth area (onboard vehicle signals), we request comment on
whether EPA should require manufacturers to make powertrain monitoring
or diagnostic signals publicly accessible to repair and service
technicians to facilitate BEV and FCEV maintenance or repair. In
Section IV.I we request comment on whether and how manufacturers who
choose to generate NOX emission credits could make
information on battery or fuel cell durability readily accessible; here
we request comment on other potential parameters that may be useful for
maintaining and repairing BEVs and FCEVs:
Energy Storage System State of Charge (SOCE)
[cir] Function: Indicate the remaining energy left in the
battery(ies). Would allow users to identify battery degradation or
failure that may require maintenance or repair of the battery or
powertrain systems.
Energy Storage System State of Range (SOCR)
[cir] Function: Indicate the remaining range of the battery(ies).
Would allow users to identify battery degradation or failure that may
require maintenance or repair of the battery or powertrain systems.
Drive Motor System Efficiency
[cir] Function: Compare the energy use of the drive motor from the
current state to the as manufactured state to see degradation over time
(e.g., 100 percent being as manufactured and decreasing as the
performance of the drive motor decreases), or failure. Would allow
first owner and secondhand buyers to identify degradation in the
electric motor.
Battery Temperature
[cir] Function: Identify battery temperature. Would inform repair
technicians about when battery
[[Page 17519]]
thermal management system may need repair (e.g., identify when battery
thermal management system degradation impacts range or charge rate).
Percent Regenerative Braking
[cir] Function: Measure the amount of regenerative braking relative
to total capacity for capturing energy from regenerative braking.
Information could provide insight on when potential maintenance or
repair is needed for systems related to regenerative braking, as well
as feedback to users on driving behavior that results in greater energy
capture from regenerative braking.
Charging Rate
[cir] Function: Check performance of the inverter/converter and
batteries. Would allow service repair technicians to identify when
inverter/converter, batteries or other components may need repair.
Charging System Performance
[cir] Function: Identify current charge rate at optimal battery
temperature relative to charge rate at the time of manufacture. Would
allow service technicians to identify degradation or failure in key
components of the charging system.
Commenters are encouraged to provide input on whether each of the
listed parameters would be useful, or if there are additional
parameters that would be informative. We request that commenters
provide any additional specifics of why each signal would be useful for
EPA to include in the final rule, or as part of other future
rulemakings. We also invite stakeholder input on whether EPA should
recommend a common language for BEV and FCEV communication protocols
(e.g., J1979-2). Note that we are not requesting comment on whether and
how manufacturers would utilize signals or a common communication
protocol to monitor or diagnose problems. Commenters are encouraged to
provide information on why additional onboard vehicle information would
be important for BEV and FCEV repairs, and how EPA suggesting a common
communication protocol would, or would not, be useful for the industry.
For the sixth area (battery energy used per trip), we request
comment on whether manufacturers already utilize onboard vehicle
sensors that could provide estimates of energy consumption per trip,
and whether manufacturers could readily provide energy consumption per
trip information through a dashboard display. We further request
comment on whether battery energy used per trip would support users
understanding normal variance in battery performance due to factors
such as terrain, driving behavior, and temperature, versus battery
performance degradation that would necessitate maintenance or repair of
the powertrain. EPA will consider information provided by commenters to
evaluate the potential benefits of users understanding when a battery
may need repair relative to the potential burden to manufactures to
make such information available to users.
For the seventh area, we request comment (battery information) on
the utility and feasibility of adding a battery information requirement
for BEVs and FCEVs. If we were to include a battery information
requirement in the final rule, then manufacturers would: (1) Briefly
describe in their owner's manual how to handle the battery after it is
no longer capable of providing sufficient energy or power to the
vehicle (e.g., identify alternative uses and safe disposal methods for
the battery), and (2) affix a label on the battery, and include in the
owner's manual, information necessary to recycle the battery (e.g.,
manufacturer, chemistry, voltage, hazard statement, QR code to a
website for additional details). We believe such battery information
would be important for users to appropriately re-purpose, recycle, or
otherwise dispose of the battery, and thereby minimize total
environmental impact of the BEV or FCEV. Commenters are encouraged to
provide information on whether such battery information would
facilitate users identifying alternative uses for the battery or
otherwise recycling the battery. We are also interested in information
on the feasibility of vehicle manufacturers having sufficient
information from battery suppliers to provide information on battery
handling at the end of its life in a vehicle. EPA will consider
information provided in comments and weigh the potential environmental
benefits of users having battery information with the potential burden
to manufacturers to provide such information.
iv. Other Emission Controls Education Options
In addition to our proposals to provide more easily accessible
service information for users, we are seeking comment on whether
educational programs and voluntary incentives could lead to better
maintenance and real-world emission benefits. We received comments in
response to the ANPR supportive of improving such educational
opportunities to promote an understanding of how advanced emission
control technologies function and the importance of emissions controls
as they relate to the broader economy and the environment. Some
commenters were generally supportive of using educational programs and
incentives to improve maintenance practices. Commenters generally
agreed that there are actions EPA could take to reduce the
misinformation surrounding advanced emission control systems and that
any action that EPA could take to improve access to easily-
understandable maintenance information would be helpful.\546\ NADA
commented that they would ``welcome new emission control outreach and
incentives to combat misperceptions that can lead to emissions
tampering or mal-maintenance.'' \547\ The Motor and Equipment
Manufacturers Association (MEMA) commented that priority should be
given to improving education and training offered to service facilities
and technicians to reduce the misdiagnoses of faulty emission
components where ``it is a common diagnostic technique in service
repair shops to continually swap out emissions components until the
problem goes away.'' \548\ Lubrizol suggested that EPA provide
education to ensure fleets understand the proper lubricants required to
maintain engines.\549\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\546\ See the comments of the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0464; Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0267; and the
anonymous comments in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0306.
\547\ See the comments of the National Automobile Dealers
Association, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0369.
\548\ See the comments of the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0462.
\549\ See the comments of Lubrizol, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-0454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We seek comment on the potential benefits of educational and/or
voluntary, incentive-based programs such as EPA's SmartWay program and
how such a program could be designed and implemented.\550\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\550\ Learn about SmartWay. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/smartway/learn-about-smartway. Accessed October 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Rebuilding
Clean Air Act section 203(a)(3) prohibits removing or rendering
inoperative a certified engine's emission controls which typically
includes being paired with properly functioning aftertreatment devices.
The regulation at 40 CFR 1068.120 describes how this tampering
prohibition applies for engine rebuilding and other types of engine
maintenance. The regulation generally
[[Page 17520]]
requires that rebuilders return a certified engine to its original
configuration and keep records to document that the rebuilder had a
reasonable technical basis for believing that the rebuilt engine's
emission control system performs at least as well as the original
design.
Since the rebuilding provisions in 40 CFR 1068.120 broadly apply to
everyone involved in restoring a rebuilt engine to its certified
configuration, to the extent that vehicle owners or others remove an
engine from and install a rebuilt engine in a heavy-duty highway
vehicle, we consider those steps to be part of the rebuilding process.
We are not proposing new or modified rebuilding provisions in this
rule. However, we intend to continue to monitor rebuilding practices
and may develop updated regulatory provisions in a future rulemaking.
5. Maintenance
Consistent with the CAA and existing regulations, our proposed
standards would apply over the applicable useful life. Manufacturers
perform testing to demonstrate that engines will meet emission
standards over the full useful life. Manufacturers may perform
scheduled maintenance on their test engines only as specified in the
owner's manual. As part of the certification process, manufacturers
must get EPA approval for such scheduled maintenance, which is also
subject to minimum maintenance intervals as described in the
regulations. In this section, we describe the updated maintenance
provisions we are proposing for heavy-duty highway engines. Section
IV.F of this preamble summarizes the current the durability
demonstration requirements and our proposed updates.
Our proposed maintenance provisions, in a new section 40 CFR
1036.125, combine and amend the existing criteria pollutant maintenance
provisions from 40 CFR 86.004-25 and 86.010-38. Similar to other part
1036 sections we are adding in this proposal, the structure of the new
40 CFR 1036.125 is consistent with the maintenance sections in the
standard-setting parts of other sectors (e.g., nonroad compression-
ignition engines in 40 CFR 1039.125).\551\ In 40 CFR 1036.205(i), we
are proposing to codify the current manufacturer practice of including
maintenance instructions in their application for certification such
that approval of those instructions would be part of a manufacturer's
certification process.\552\ We are also proposing a new paragraph 40
CFR 1036.125(h) outlining several owner's manual requirements,
including migrated and updated provisions from 40 CFR 86.010-38(a). For
example, proposed 40 CFR 1036.125(h)(2) expands on the current
requirement for manufacturers to describe the documentation owners need
to provide to show maintenance occurred, by specifying that maintenance
instructions must clearly state how to ``properly maintain and use''
the engine. The new paragraph (h)(2) provides a clearer connection to
the regulatory requirements for warranty and defect reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\551\ Stout, Alan; Brakora, Jessica. Memorandum to docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055. ``Technical Issues Related to Migrating Heavy-Duty
Highway Engine Certification Requirements from 40 CFR part 86,
subpart A, to 40 CFR part 1036``. October 1, 2021.
\552\ See the current submission of maintenance instructions
provisions in 40 CFR 86.079-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section summarizes maintenance updates recently adopted by
CARB and introduces our proposed provisions to clarify the types of
maintenance, update the options for demonstrating critical emission-
related maintenance will occur and the minimum scheduled maintenance
intervals for certain components, and outline specific requirements for
maintenance instructions.
i. Recent Updates to CARB Maintenance Regulations
In two recent rulemakings, CARB updated their maintenance
regulations and we considered CARB's approach when designing our
maintenance provisions for this proposal. In its Step 1 warranty
program, CARB lengthened the minimum allowable maintenance intervals
for heavy-duty diesel engines to reflect current industry norms for
scheduling replacement of emissions-related parts.\553\ CARB stated
that this change limits manufacturers' ability to transfer the
liability for part replacements to vehicle owners for emissions-related
parts during the lengthened warranty periods, further strengthening
warranty coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\553\ California Air Resources Board. HD Warranty 2018 Staff
Report: Initial Statement of Reasons. May 8, 2018. p III-9.
Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2018/hd-warranty-2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB staff surveyed owner's manuals for all 2016 California-
certified on-road heavy-duty diesel engines and compiled the intervals
manufacturers published for specific emission-related components. The
maintenance intervals published in the owner's manuals were at or above
the minimum intervals that currently apply for emission-related
components. For MY 2022 and later HD diesel engines, CARB updated their
minimum scheduled maintenance intervals to match the shortest (i.e.,
most frequent) interval from those published values for each component.
If no manufacturer published an interval for a given component, CARB
set the minimum maintenance interval for that component to match the
current useful life mileage (i.e., 435,000 miles for HHDD engines).
CARB's Step 1 program also provides that manufacturers cannot schedule
replacements for turbochargers, DPF elements, catalyst beds, or exhaust
gas recirculation systems during the useful life of the engine unless
the manufacturer agrees to pay for the replacements. These four
emission-related components were chosen due to their direct emissions
impact or high cost to replace. Furthermore, CARB clarified that there
shall be no scheduled maintenance interval throughout the applicable
useful life for sensors or actuators that are integrated with the
turbocharger or exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) valve/cooler
components, as these parts cannot easily be replaced without removing
the larger systems from the engine. Other sensors and actuators that
are necessary for the proper function of other emissions-critical
systems or are not integrated with the turbocharger or EGR systems can
be included on a maintenance schedule at a minimum interval of 150,000
miles.
CARB's HD Omnibus rulemaking did not include further updates to the
maintenance provisions for diesel engines but addressed HD Otto-cycle
engines and hybrid vehicles.\554\ Similar to their strategy to identify
maintenance intervals for diesel engines, CARB surveyed owner's manuals
for 2018 California-certified HD Otto-cycle engines and updated the
minimum maintenance intervals for MY 2024 and later HD Otto-cycle
engines based on the shortest intervals published. For gasoline
vehicles, EGR systems and catalyst beds were designated ``not
replaceable'' components. CARB further clarified that the same minimum
intervals apply to diesel- and Otto-cycle engines used in hybrid
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\554\ California Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial
Statement of Reasons-Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Heavy-
Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and Associated
Amendments. June 23, 2020. Page III--49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Types of Maintenance
Our proposed new 40 CFR 1036.125 clarifies that maintenance
includes any inspection, adjustment, cleaning, repair, or replacement
of components and, consistent with 40 CFR 86.004-25(a)(2), broadly
classifies maintenance as
[[Page 17521]]
emission-related or non-emission-related and scheduled or unscheduled.
We propose to define the following five types of maintenance that
manufacturers may choose to schedule:
Critical emission-related maintenance
Recommended additional maintenance
Special maintenance
Noncritical emission-related maintenance
Non-emission-related maintenance
We are proposing to define these maintenance categories to
distinguish between the types of maintenance manufacturers may choose
to recommend to owners in maintenance instructions, identify the
requirements that apply to maintenance performed during certification
durability demonstrations, and clarify the relationship between the
different types of maintenance, emissions warranty requirements, and
in-use testing requirements. The proposed provisions described in this
section specify the conditions for scheduling each of these five
maintenance categories. Unscheduled maintenance (i.e., repair of failed
components) is unpredictable and would not be included in a
manufacturer's maintenance instructions or durability
demonstration.\555\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\555\ The current provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 describe a
manufacturer's requirements relating to failed emission-related
components with respect to emission-related warranty (40 CFR
1068.110(e)) and defect and recall (1068, subpart F). We are
proposing to note in a new paragraph 40 CFR 1036.125(h)(2) that
manufacturers may identify failure to repair critical emission-
related components as improper maintenance if the repairs are
related to an observed defect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A primary focus of the current and proposed maintenance provisions
is critical emission-related maintenance. Critical emission-related
maintenance includes any adjustment, cleaning, repair, or replacement
of emission-related components that manufacturers identify as having a
critical role in the emission control of their engines.\556\ Consistent
with the current 40 CFR 86.004-25(b)(6)(ii), our proposed 40 CFR
1036.125(a)(1) allows manufacturers to schedule critical emission-
related maintenance in their maintenance instructions based on the
manufacturer meeting two conditions: The manufacturer demonstrates the
maintenance is reasonably likely to occur on in-use engines, and the
recommended intervals are at least as long as the minimum intervals set
by EPA. We describe our proposed conditions for demonstrating critical
emission-related maintenance will occur in Section IV.B.5.iii. In
Section IV.B.5.iv, we describe our proposal to update the minimum
maintenance intervals currently specified in 40 CFR 86.004-25(b)(3) and
(4) for certain critical emission-related components. For new
technology, not included in the list of proposed components with
specified minimum maintenance intervals, we are proposing to migrate
and update the process specified in 40 CFR 86.094-25(b)(7), as
described in Section IV.B.5.v.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\556\ See Section IV.B.5.iv for our proposed definition of
critical emission-related components and a list of common critical
emission-related components for which we are proposing to specify
minimum scheduled maintenance intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The four other types of maintenance would require varying levels of
EPA approval. In 40 CFR 1036.125(b), we propose to define recommended
additional maintenance as maintenance that manufacturers recommend
owners perform for critical emission-related components in addition to
what is approved for those components under 40 CFR 1036.125(a). A
manufacturer may recommend that owners replace a critical emission-
related component at a shorter interval than the manufacturer received
approval to schedule for critical emission-related maintenance;
however, the manufacturer would have to clearly distinguish their
recommended intervals from the critical emission-related scheduled
maintenance in their maintenance instructions. As described below,
recommended additional maintenance is not performed in the durability
demonstration and cannot be used to deny a warranty claim, so
manufacturers would not be limited by the minimum maintenance intervals
or need the same approval from EPA by demonstrating the maintenance
would occur. Special maintenance, proposed in 40 CFR 1036.125(c), would
be more frequent maintenance approved at shorter intervals to address
special situations, such as atypical engine operation. Manufacturers
would clearly state that the maintenance is associated with a special
situation in the maintenance instructions provided to EPA and owners.
Our proposed definition of noncritical emission-related maintenance,
which is based on 40 CFR 86.010-38(d), includes inspections and
maintenance that is performed on emission-related components but is
considered ``noncritical'' because emission control will be unaffected.
As specified in proposed 40 CFR 1036.125(d), manufacturers may
recommend noncritical emission-related inspections and maintenance in
their maintenance instructions if they clearly state that it is not
required to maintain the emissions warranty. Finally, we define ``non-
emission-related maintenance'' as maintenance unrelated to emission
controls (e.g., oil changes) in proposed 40 CFR 1036.125(e). We propose
that manufacturers' maintenance instructions can include any amount of
nonemission-related maintenance that is needed for proper functioning
of the engine.
Maintenance instructions play an important role in the service
accumulation portion of a manufacturer's durability demonstration. We
currently require that all emission-related scheduled maintenance
during durability testing occur on the same schedule as specified in
the maintenance instructions for the purchaser.\557\ When accumulating
equivalent miles on an engine, manufacturers are currently allowed to
perform maintenance according to their maintenance instructions. In
this proposal, we clarify how this relates to the specific types of
maintenance in proposed 40 CFR 1036.125. Consistent with current
maintenance provisions, we propose that manufacturers can perform
critical emission-related maintenance at their approved schedules
during a durability demonstration. Since the proposed recommended
additional maintenance provisions do not include the same requirement
to demonstrate the maintenance will occur in-use, manufacturers could
not perform recommended additional maintenance during their durability
demonstration. Special maintenance would also not be performed during a
durability demonstration, since laboratory-based testing does not
reflect atypical operation. We propose that manufacturers may perform
noncritical emission-related inspections on their engines during their
durability demonstration at any frequency, but could only adjust,
clean, repair, or replace a component in response to an inspection if
scheduled maintenance is approved for that component. We propose
manufacturers can perform any amount of nonemission-related maintenance
that is needed for proper functioning of the engine during durability
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\557\ See 40 CFR 86.094-25(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current general warranty requirements of 40 CFR 1068.115(a)
allow a manufacturer to deny warranty claims for failures resulting
from improper maintenance or use. We are proposing a new owner's manual
requirement for manufacturers to specifically identify the steps an
owner
[[Page 17522]]
must take to properly maintain the engine, including documentation a
manufacturer may require for an owner to demonstrate the maintenance
occurred. In 40 CFR 1036.125, we propose to clarify the relationship
between the different types of maintenance and emissions warranty
requirements, and specify when manufacturers must note in their
maintenance instructions (i.e., owner's manual) if a maintenance type
cannot be used as the basis to deny a warranty claim. We expect
manufacturers would only schedule critical emission-related maintenance
and make the effort to demonstrate the maintenance is likely to occur
in-use for components that they recognize are strongly connected to
emission performance. As a result, our current maintenance provisions
allow, and our proposed provisions would continue to allow,
manufacturers to deny warranty claims if owners do not perform critical
emission-related maintenance at the recommended schedule, as specified
in 40 CFR 1068.115. Failure to perform recommended additional
maintenance could potentially impact emissions, but manufacturers would
not be able to deny a warranty claim if owners do not perform it,
because manufacturers would not have taken the extra steps to have it
approved as critical Manufacturers would be able to deny warranty
claims if an owner did not perform the special maintenance after it was
determined that the engine was operated in conditions that meet the
special situation described in the maintenance instructions. In
contrast, manufacturers would not be able to deny a warranty claim
citing ``improper maintenance or use'' for atypical operation if an
owner follows the corresponding special maintenance instructions. We
propose that failure to perform noncritical emission-related
maintenance and nonemission-related maintenance cannot be used to deny
emissions warranties.
Since failure to perform maintenance may also impact emissions when
the engine is in use, we have also identified the relationship between
the maintenance types and in-use testing. Compression-ignition engine
manufacturers are subject to off-cycle standards for in-use engines. As
part of the proposed manufacturer-run testing program in subpart E, we
specify that manufacturers can select vehicles and engines for testing
based on proper maintenance and use (see 40 CFR 1036.410(b)(2)). In 40
CFR 1036.125, we propose that if recommended additional maintenance or
noncritical emission-related maintenance is not performed on an engine,
it does not disqualify the engine from in-use testing. Manufacturers
may reject an engine for in-use testing if the other types of
maintenance (i.e., critical emission-related maintenance, special
maintenance, or nonemission-related maintenance) were not performed,
consistent with current provisions in 40 CFR 86.1908.
iii. Critical Emission-related Maintenance Demonstration
One of the current conditions for allowing scheduled maintenance to
be performed during the durability demonstration is that manufacturers
demonstrate the maintenance is reasonably likely to be performed in-
use.\558\ For critical emission-related scheduled maintenance, we are
generally including these same requirements in our proposed new
paragraph 40 CFR 1036.125(a)(1), with clarifications noted below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\558\ See 40 CFR 86.004-25 and 86.094-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under proposed 40 CFR 1036.125(a)(1)(i), manufacturers could
demonstrate that the critical maintenance is reasonably likely to occur
in-use on the recommended schedule by providing data showing that the
engine's performance unacceptably degrades if the maintenance is not
performed, consistent with 40 CFR 86.004-25(a)(6)(ii)(A). In this
proposal, we clarify that this paragraph is intended to cover emission
control technologies that have an inherent performance degradation that
coincides with emission increases, such as back pressure resulting from
a clogged DPF, and is not intended to apply to inducements where a
manufacturer-specified performance derate is triggered in response to a
detected or predicted emission increase. We are proposing a separate
statement in 40 CFR 1036.125(a)(1) that points to the new proposed
inducement provisions noting that we would accept DEF replenishment as
reasonably likely to occur if an engine meets the specifications in
proposed 40 CFR 1036.111.
Under proposed 40 CFR 1036.125 (a)(1)(ii) and consistent with 40
CFR 86.004-25(a)(6)(ii)(C), manufacturers could demonstrate a
reasonable likelihood that the critical maintenance will be performed
in-use by including a system that displays a visible signal to alert
drivers that maintenance is due. We are proposing additional criteria
for use of this visible signal, including that it be continuously
displayed while the engine is operating and not easily eliminated
without performing the specified maintenance. We request comment on
this proposal and any additional criteria we should consider before
approving a visible signal as a method to ensure critical emission-
related scheduled maintenance is performed.
Under proposed 40 CFR 1036.125(a)(1)(iii), manufacturers could
present survey data showing that 80 percent of engines in the field
receive the specified maintenance. We are maintaining this existing
option (see paragraphs (B) and (D) of 40 CFR 86.004-25(a)(6)(ii)) in
our proposal but note that manufacturers have not presented survey data
related to scheduled maintenance in recent years. We request comment on
this option and any updates we should consider, including how telematic
data could be applied and if 80 percent continues to be an appropriate
threshold.
We are also proposing in 40 CFR 1036.125(a)(1)(iv) to continue an
existing provision in 40 CFR 86.004-25(a)(6)(ii)(E) that a manufacturer
may rely on a clear statement in their maintenance instructions for
owners that it will provide the critical maintenance free of charge.
Finally, we propose to continue to allow manufacturers to present other
options for approval by EPA to demonstrate that critical emission-
related maintenance is reasonably likely to occur (see proposed 40 CFR
1036.125(a)(1)(v) and current 40 CFR 86.004-25(a)(6)(ii)(F)).
iv. Emission-Related Components and Minimum Maintenance Intervals
Manufacturers, with EPA approval, may define scheduled maintenance
for emission-related components, which would be included in maintenance
instructions directing owners to adjust, clean, or replace components
at specified intervals. The current regulations in 40 CFR 86.004-25(b)
specify minimum maintenance intervals for emission-related components,
such that manufacturers may not specify more frequent maintenance than
we allow. We propose to migrate and update the minimum maintenance
intervals from part 86, subpart A to 40 CFR 1036.125(a). These proposed
minimum intervals would apply for the scheduled adjustment, cleaning,
or replacement of many common critical emission-related components, as
described in this section. We are proposing not to migrate the list of
critical emission-related components currently specified in 40 CFR
86.004-25, and instead are proposing a new definition of ``critical
emission-related
[[Page 17523]]
component'' in 40 CFR 1068.30 that refers to 40 CFR part 1068, appendix
A.
As part of the migration to part 1036, we are proposing to update
the lists of components with minimum maintenance intervals to more
accurately reflect components in use today. We are not including
carburetors, idle mixture, and particulate trap oxidizers in the
proposed 40 CFR 1036.125 as these components are obsolete. Our proposed
language replaces the part 86 diesel particulate trap intervals with a
more general ``particulate filtration system'' that can apply to
particulate filters intended for SI or CI engines. We also no longer
specify an interval for electronic engine control units as we are
unaware of any scheduled maintenance for those components. Our proposed
minimum maintenance intervals for each emission-related component or
system continue to apply to any associated sensors or actuators. We are
further proposing that these intervals also apply to any hoses, valves,
and wiring connected to the component or system, such that
manufacturers would ensure that all parts necessary to keep the
component functional, including wires and wiring harnesses, remain
durable throughout useful life or schedule appropriate maintenance to
address any durability concerns.
We propose not to migrate the 100,000-mile minimum interval for
Spark-ignition HDE evaporative emission canister to 40 CFR 1036.125,
since evaporative emission control systems are covered under the
vehicle provisions of part 1037. Similarly, we propose that components
in the refueling emission control system that would be used to meet the
proposed refueling standards for certain SI HDE, including the carbon
canisters, filler pipes and seals, refueling flow controls, purge
systems, and related wiring, actuators, and sensors, would also be
covered under the maintenance provisions of part 1037.
We are proposing to add minimum scheduled replacement intervals for
other components and systems that correspond to technologies we expect
to be considered by manufacturers for meeting our proposed standards.
In general, the proposed minimum replacement intervals are set at the
current useful life for each engine class, since we do not have data
indicating that manufacturers are scheduling maintenance for these
components within the current useful life. We are proposing
NOX sensor minimum intervals at the current useful life
mileages for the Light, Medium, and Heavy HDE classes. We also propose
to add minimum intervals for replacing a rechargeable energy storage
system (RESS) in hybrid vehicles. Our proposed minimum intervals for
RESS equal the current useful life for the primary intended service
classes of the engines that these electric power systems are intended
to supplement or replace. We are not specifying distinct minimum
intervals for the electric power system components of BEVs and FCEVs;
instead, manufacturers could request approval for an interval using 40
CFR 1037.125(a).
Considering our proposed lengthened useful life periods, we
reevaluated the current minimum maintenance intervals for replacing
components and are proposing to extend the replacement intervals such
that they reflect the scheduled maintenance of components today. Table
IV-11 summarizes the minimum replacement interval mileages we are
proposing in a new table in 40 CFR 1036.125(a). Similar to the minimum
maintenance interval approach adopted by CARB in their recent
rulemakings (see Section IV.B.5.i), we are proposing to base our
revised minimum replacement intervals on the scheduled maintenance
submitted by engine manufacturers for certifying recent model year
engines.\559\ We believe it is appropriate to account for replacement
intervals that manufacturers have already identified and demonstrated
will occur for these components and we are proposing replacement
intervals for these components that align with the shortest mileage
interval (i.e., most frequent maintenance) of the published values. We
propose to update the minimum replacement mileages for remaining
components that currently do not have specified maintenance intervals
in the current list from the current 100,000 or 150,000 miles to the
current useful life mileage for each primary intended service class.
Since manufacturers are not scheduling replacement of these other
components within the current useful life of their engines today, we do
not expect manufacturers would have a technical need to do so in the
future. We are not proposing to update the maintenance intervals for
adjusting or cleaning critical emission-related components. These
intervals are proposed to be migrated, with updated component names
consistent with the proposed replacement intervals, from 40 CFR 86.004-
25 into a proposed new table in 40 CFR 1036.125(a). Consistent with
current regulations, our proposed 40 CFR 1036.125(a) would continue to
allow manufacturers to seek advance approval for new emission-related
maintenance they wish to include in maintenance instructions and
perform during durability demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\559\ Brakora, Jessica. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
055. ``Approved Scheduled Maintenance Intervals for MY 2019
Certified Heavy-Duty Engines'', April 27, 2021.
Table IV-11--Proposed Minimum Scheduled Maintenance Intervals for Replacing Critical Emission-Related Components
in 40 CR 1036.125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accumulated miles (hours) for components
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Spark-ignition
HDE Light HDE Medium HDE Heavy HDE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark plugs........................ 25,000 (750) NA NA NA
DEF filters........................ NA 100,000 (3,000) 120,000 (3,600) 175,000 (5,250)
Crankcase ventilation valves and 60,000 (1,800) 60,000 (1,800) 60,000 (1,800) 60,000 (1,800)
filters...........................
Oxygen sensors..................... 80,000 (2,400) NA NA NA
Ignition wires..................... 100,000 (3,000) NA NA NA
Air injection system components.... 110,000 (3,300) NA NA NA
Particulate filtration system 100,000 (3,000) 100,000 (3,000) 250,000 (7,500) 250,000 (7,500)
(other than filter elements)......
Catalyst systems (other than 110,000 (3,300) 110,000 (3,300) 185,000 (5,550) 435,000 (13,050)
catalyst beds); Fuel injectors;
Electronic control modules;
Evaporative emission canisters;
Turbochargers; EGR system
components (including filters and
coolers)..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17524]]
Table IV-12--Proposed Minimum Scheduled Maintenance Intervals for Adjusting and Cleaning Critical Emission-
Related Components in 40 CR 1036.125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accumulated miles (hours) for components
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Components and systems \a\ Spark-ignition
HDE Light HDE Medium HDE Heavy HDE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark plugs......................... 25,000 (750) NA NA NA
EGR-related filters and coolers; 50,000 (1,500) 50,000 (1,500) 50,000 (1,500) 50,000 (1,500)
Fuel injectors; Crankcase
ventilation valves and filters.....
DEF filters......................... NA 50,000 (1,500) 50,000 (1,500) 50,000 (1,500)
Ignition wire; Idle mixture......... 50,000 (1,500) NA NA NA
Oxygen sensors...................... 80,000 (2,400) NA NA NA
Air injection system components..... 100,000 (3,000) NA NA NA
Catalyst system components; EGR 100,000 (3,000) 100,000 (3,000) 150,000 (4,500) 150,000 (4,500)
system components (other than
filters or coolers); Particulate
filtration system components;
Turbochargers......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The minimum maintenance intervals presented in Table IV-11 and
Table IV-12 are based on mileage, since equivalent mileage accumulation
is the parameter used for the durability demonstration. Consistent with
our current maintenance provisions, we are proposing corresponding
minimum hours values based on a 33 miles per hour vehicle speed (e.g.,
150,000 miles would equate to 4,500 hours). We request comment on the
conversion factor between mileage and hours, noting that hours would
not apply to the manufacturers' durability demonstrations, but may
impact the frequency of scheduled maintenance for owners with lower
speed vehicle applications.\560\ Consistent with the current
maintenance intervals specified in part 86, we are not proposing year-
based minimum intervals; OEMs can use good engineering judgment if they
choose to include a scheduled maintenance interval based on years in
their owner's manuals, which is expected to only be used by a small
number of infrequently operated vehicles. We request comment on the
need to specify a minimum year-based interval, including data on
average annual mileages to convert the minimum mileage intervals to
years for each of the primary intended service classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\560\ We are proposing a 20 miles per hour average vehicle speed
to distinguish low speed vehicles in our emissions warranty proposal
(see Section IV.B.1) and in our inducement proposal (see Section
IV.D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request comment on all components and systems presented in Table
IV-11 and Table IV-12 and the corresponding minimum scheduled
maintenance intervals. Specifically, we request data to support
different interval values or specific components that should have
intervals distinct from presented systems. We request comment on our
proposal to update the list of components and systems, whether
additional components should be considered, and if any of the listed
components or systems should be more clearly defined. Additionally, if
a commenter believes there is value in prioritizing or otherwise
grouping emission control components, we encourage them to suggest
criteria to classify the components. We request comment on the numeric
values of the replacement intervals proposed, and our proposal to
preserve the current minimum intervals for adjusting and cleaning
components. Manufacturers and suppliers have shown an interest in
developing modular emission controls that can be serviced more easily.
We request comment on the specific emission control systems that may
use modular components, criteria for defining ``modular'', and
adjustments to the proposed minimum maintenance intervals or
replacement restrictions we should consider to account for improved
serviceability of modular components.
v. Critical Emission-Related Maintenance for New Technology
Current provisions of 40 CFR 86.094-25(b)(7) outline a process for
manufacturers to seek approval for new scheduled maintenance that
includes an EPA announcement of the maintenance interval in the Federal
Register. Regarding new scheduled maintenance on existing technology,
we are proposing not to migrate the provision in 40 CFR 86.094-
25(b)(7)(i) for maintenance practices that existed before 1980.
Instead, the maintenance demonstration and minimum maintenance interval
provisions we are proposing in the new 40 CFR 1036.125(a) would cover
the current process for new maintenance on critical emission-related
components currently in use.
Regarding scheduled maintenance on new technology, the provision
currently in 40 CFR 86.094-25(b)(7)(ii) provides a process for approval
of new critical emission-related maintenance associated with new
technology. We recognize that new emission control technology may be
developed in the future and it is important to retain a public process
for approving maintenance associated with new technology. We are
proposing to migrate and update 40 CFR 86.094-25(b)(7)(ii) into a new
40 CFR 1036.125(a)(3) for scheduled critical emission-related
maintenance associated with new technology. We are proposing to use
model year 2020 as the reference point for considering whether
technology is new. Manufacturers using new technology would request a
recommended maintenance interval, including data to support the need
for the maintenance, and demonstrate that the maintenance is likely to
occur at the recommended interval using one of the conditions proposed
in 40 CFR 1036.125(a)(1). We are also proposing to continue our
responsibility to communicate such a decision on maintenance for new
technology. As such, we propose to retain EPA's obligation to publish a
Federal Register notice based on information manufacturers submit and
any other available information to announce that we have established
new allowable minimum maintenance intervals.
Manufacturers would also continue to have the option currently
specified in 40 CFR 86.094-25(b)(7)(iii) to ask for a hearing if they
object to our decision. Hearing procedures are specified in 40 CFR
1036.820 and 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, including proposed new
provisions in 40 CFR part 1068. We request comment on our proposed
maintenance provisions for new technology, including our proposal to
[[Page 17525]]
use model year 2020 to distinguish ``new'' technology.
vi. Payment for Scheduled Maintenance
The minimum maintenance intervals specified in Table IV-11 would
apply for replacement of the listed components and systems. While we
are proposing replacement intervals for other components in the
catalyst and particulate filtration systems, current maintenance
provisions in 40 CFR 86.004-25(b)(4)(iii) state that only adjustment
and cleaning are allowed for catalyst beds and particulate filter
elements and that replacement is not allowed during the useful life.
Current 40 CFR 86.004 25(i) clarifies that these components could be
replaced or repaired if manufacturers demonstrate the maintenance will
occur and the manufacturer pays for it. We propose to continue to
restrict replacement of catalyst beds and particulate filter elements,
requiring that manufacturers pay for the repair or replacement of
catalyst beds and particulate filter elements, if needed, within the
regulatory useful life.
We are proposing to identify these and other components with
limited replacement using four criteria based on current provisions
that apply for nonroad compression-ignition engines.\561\ Our proposed
40 CFR 1036.125(g) states that manufacturers would pay for scheduled
maintenance, including parts and labor, if all the following criteria
are met:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\561\ See 40 CFR 1039.125(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each affected component was not in general use on similar
engines before 1980,
The primary function of each affected component is to
reduce emissions,
The cost of the scheduled maintenance is more than 2
percent of the price of the engine, and
Failure to perform the maintenance would not significantly
degrade the engine's performance.
Scheduled maintenance for the replacement of catalyst beds and
particulate filter elements meets the four criteria of 40 CFR
1036.125(g). We estimate that EGR valves, EGR coolers, and RESS also
meet the 40 CFR 1036.125(g) criteria and, under this proposal,
manufacturers would only be able to schedule replacement of these three
components if the manufacturer pays for it. In the HD Omnibus
rulemaking, CARB included turbochargers in their list of components
``not replaceable'' during the regulatory useful life. Under the
proposed criteria specified in 40 CFR 1036.125(g), scheduled
turbocharger maintenance would not meet all four criteria of the 40 CFR
1036.125(g), since a turbocharger's primary function is not to reduce
emissions and an underperforming or failed turbocharger would degrade
engine performance. We request comment on including turbochargers as
components that should have limited replacement irrespective of the
four 40 CFR 1036.125(g) criteria. We also request comment on other
components that meet the criteria, or other criteria EPA should
consider when determining which components should have limited
replacement during the scheduled maintenance approval process.
vii. Source of Parts and Repairs
CAA section 207(c)(3) prohibits manufacturers from requiring
maintenance work be completed only by OEM-authorized dealers. We are
proposing a new paragraph 40 CFR 1036.125(f) to clarify that
manufacturers cannot limit the source of parts and repairs for
maintenance.\562\ This paragraph would require manufacturers to clearly
state in their maintenance instructions that owners can choose any
repair shop or person to perform maintenance. Furthermore, the
manufacturers cannot specify a particular brand, trade, or corporate
name for components or service and cannot deny a warranty claim due to
``improper maintenance'' based on owners choosing not to use a
franchised dealer or service facility or a specific brand of part. The
existing and proposed provisions allow manufacturers to specify a
particular service facility and brand of parts only if they are
providing the service or component to the owner without charge or if
the manufacturer convinces EPA during the approval process that the
engine will only work properly with the identified service or
component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\562\ This provision has been adopted in the standard-setting
parts of several other sectors, including heavy-duty vehicles (see
1037.125(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
viii. Maintenance Instructions
Our proposed 40 CFR 1036.125 preserves the requirement that the
manufacturer provide written instructions for properly maintaining and
using the engine and emission control system. We are proposing a new 40
CFR 1036.125(h) to describe the information that would be required in
an owner's manual. The proposed 40 CFR 1036.125(h) generally migrates
the existing maintenance instruction provisions specified in 40 CFR
86.010-38(a) through (i) with updates as described in Sections IV.B.3
and IV.C of this preamble. As noted in Section IV.B.3, our
serviceability proposal supplements the current service information
provisions currently specified in 40 CFR 86.010-38(j). We are not
proposing to migrate the service information provisions into part 1036;
rather, we would preserve their current location in 40 CFR 86.010-
38(j), with updated references to any sections migrated to the new part
1036.
While 40 CFR 1036.120(d) allows manufacturers to deny warranty
claims for improper maintenance and use, owners have expressed concern
that it is unclear what recordkeeping is needed to document proper
maintenance and use. Consistent with the current 40 CFR 86.010-
38(a)(2), we propose that manufacturers describe in the owner's manual
the documentation they consider appropriate to demonstrate the engine
and emission control system are properly maintained (see 40 CFR
1036.125(h)(2)). Manufacturers should be able to identify specific
examples of maintenance practices they would consider improper, and to
identify their expectations for documenting routine maintenance and
repairs related to warranty claims. If a manufacturer requires a
maintenance log as part of their process for reviewing warranty claims,
we expect the owner's manual would provide an example log that includes
the required maintenance tasks and intervals and clearly states that
warranty claims require an up-to-date maintenance record. We would be
able to review the manufacturers information describing the parameters
and documentation for demonstrating proper maintenance before granting
certification for an engine family.
ix. Performing Scheduled Maintenance on Test Engines
Current provisions defining the limits on maintenance that can be
performed during testing are specified in 40 CFR 86.004-25(e) and (f).
We are not migrating those provisions into part 1036; instead, we are
proposing that the general provisions currently in 40 CFR 1065, subpart
E, would apply for criteria pollutant standards for model year 2027 and
later engines.\563\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\563\ We believe the idle speed adjustments, currently 40 CFR
86.004-25(e)(1), are obsolete, since idle is usually set by the ECM
and it would not need to be adjusted prior to testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to update 40 CFR 1065.410(c) to clarify that
inspections performed during testing include electronic monitoring of
engine parameters, such as prognostic systems. Manufacturers that
include prognostic
[[Page 17526]]
systems as part of their engine packages to identify or predict
malfunctioning components may use those systems during durability
testing and would include any maintenance performed as a result of
those systems, consistent with 40 CFR 1065.410(d), in their application
for certification. We note that, in order to apply these electronic
monitoring systems in testing, the inspection tool (e.g., prognostic
system) must be available to all customers or accessible at dealerships
and other service outlets.
C. Onboard Diagnostics
As used here, the terms ``onboard diagnostics'' and ``OBD'' refer
to systems of electronic controllers and sensors required by regulation
to detect malfunctions of engines and emission controls. EPA's existing
OBD regulations for heavy-duty engines are contained in 40 CFR 86.010-
18, which were initially promulgated February 24, 2009 (74 FR 8310).
EPA's OBD requirements promulgated in 2009 were harmonized with CARB's
OBD program then in place. Since 2009, CARB has revised their OBD
requirements, while EPA's requirements have not changed. EPA's existing
OBD program allows manufacturers to demonstrate how the OBD system they
have designed to comply with California OBD requirements for engines
used in applications greater than 14,000 pounds also complies with the
intent of existing EPA OBD requirements.\564\ When applying for EPA 50-
state certification, all manufacturers currently seek OBD approval from
CARB for OBD systems in engine families and then demonstrate compliance
with EPA's OBD regulations through this provision. Currently all heavy-
duty manufacturers are certifying to the revised CARB OBD regulations
that took effect in 2019.\565\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\564\ See 40 CFR 86.010-18(a)(5).
\565\ CARB Final Rulemaking Package took effect on October 3,
2019, available here: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/heavy-duty-obd-regulations-and-rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of our effort to evaluate EPA compliance programs, we are
proposing to update our OBD regulations both to better address newer
diagnostic methods and available technologies and to streamline
provisions where possible. These revised regulations are being proposed
in 40 CFR 1036.110.
1. Incorporation of California OBD Regulations by Reference
CARB OBD regulations for heavy-duty engines are codified in title
13, California Code of Regulations, sections 1968.2, 1968.5, 1971.1 and
1971.5. These regulations have been updated by CARB several times since
EPA initially promulgated HD OBD regulations in 2009. The most recent
updates were in October of 2019 and start to phase in with MY
2022.\566\ It is possible that CARB could further update their heavy-
duty OBD regulations prior to the final rulemaking for this program. In
July 2021, CARB proposed changes to their OBD program.\567\ These
amendments may include adding the use of Unified Diagnostic Services
(``UDS'') to address the concern about the limited number of remaining,
undefined 2-byte diagnostic trouble codes and the need for additional
codes for hybrid vehicles. These amendments may also modify freeze
frame requirements, in-use monitoring performance ratio requirements,
and expand readiness group lists. As discussed below, our proposal
intends to harmonize with the majority of CARB's existing OBD
regulations, as appropriate and consistent with the CAA. EPA also seeks
comment on harmonizing with any future OBD amendments that may result
from this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\566\ The most recent updates for 13 CCR 1971.1 and 13 CCR
1971.5 are available here https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/heavy-duty-obd-regulations-and-rulemaking.
\567\ CARB 2021 OBD II and Heavy-Duty OBD (HD OBD) Regulatory
Documents Public Notice for OBD Regulations Update, July 22, 2021.
Available here: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/obd-ii-regulations-and-rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the ANPR, EPA received a number of comments
supportive of EPA's adoption of the revised CARB OBD program including
the 2019 rule amendments.\568\ In particular, many commenters were
supportive of the new tracking requirements contained in CARB's updated
OBD program, known as the Real Emissions Assessment Logging (``REAL'')
program to track real-world emissions systems performance of heavy-duty
engines. This update requires the collection of onboard data using
existing OBD sensors and other vehicle performance parameters, which
would allow the assessment of real-world, in-use emission performance
relative to laboratory performance beginning in the 2022 model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\568\ For example, see comments from Roush, Docket ID EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0555-0303; International Council on Climate Change, Docket
ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0555-0304; and the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0555-0286.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the ANPR, we considered proposing to update the
current text in 40 CFR 86.010-18 and migrate it into the new 40 CFR
1036.110. However, given industry's familiarity with the current CARB
regulations, we have decided instead to propose incorporating by
reference in 40 CFR 1036.110 the existing CARB OBD regulations updated
in 2019 as the starting point for our updated OBD regulations. EPA's
proposed OBD requirements are closely aligned with CARB's existing
requirements with a few exceptions. We are proposing to exclude certain
provisions that are not appropriate for a federal program and to
include additional elements to improve on the usefulness of OBD systems
for users.\569\ We are taking comment on whether and to what extent we
should harmonize with CARB's next expected update to their OBD
regulations, or whether the proposed language in 40 CFR 1036.110(b) is
sufficient to accommodate any future divergence in CARB and EPA OBD
requirements. EPA anticipates that this language would allow for EPA
approval of OBD systems that meet certain parts of updated CARB
requirements (e.g., updated communication protocols), as long as such
provisions meet the intent of EPA OBD requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\569\ The legal effect of incorporation by reference is that the
material is treated as if it were published in the Federal Register
and CFR. This material, like any other properly issued rule, has the
force and effect of law. Congress authorized incorporation by
reference in the Freedom of Information Act to reduce the volume of
material published in the Federal Register and CFR. (See 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51). See https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. OBD Threshold Requirements
The most essential component of the OBD program is the threshold
requirement. Heavy-duty engine emission control components can
contribute to an increase in emissions if they malfunction and
therefore, they must be monitored by OBD systems. Existing OBD
requirements specify how OBD systems must monitor certain components
and indicate a fault code prior to when emissions would exceed emission
standards by a certain amount, known as an emission threshold. Emission
thresholds for these components are generally either an additive value
above the exhaust emission standard, or a multiple of the standard.
Reductions to emission standards mean that without additional action,
OBD thresholds would also be reduced proportionally.
The CARB Omnibus Amendments to the HD OBD regulation include a
provision that will not proportionally reduce NOX and PM OBD
threshold requirements that correspond to the new lower emission
standards.\570\ This
[[Page 17527]]
means the future numerical values of OBD NOX and PM
thresholds would remain unchanged from today's numerical thresholds as
a part of that rulemaking. CARB noted in the Omnibus rule that more
time is needed to fully evaluate the capability of HD OBD monitors to
accommodate lower thresholds that would correspond to lower emission
levels. EPA is proposing to harmonize with this policy and not lower
OBD NOX and PM threshold levels in our proposed OBD
regulations at this time. EPA may consider updating threshold
requirements in a separate action which may align with a future CARB
action. Specifically, we are proposing that heavy-duty compression-
ignition engines would be subject to NOX and PM thresholds
of 0.4 g/hp-hr and 0.03 g/hp-hr, respectively, for operation on the FTP
and SET duty cycles. For spark ignition engines, we are proposing the
following thresholds to align with CARB: 0.30 g/hp-hr for monitors
detecting a malfunction before NOX emissions exceed 1.5
times the applicable standard, 0.35 g/hp-hr for monitors detecting a
malfunction before NOX emissions exceed 1.75 times the
applicable standard, and 0.60 g/hp-hr for monitors detecting a
malfunction before NOX emissions exceed 3.0 times the
applicable standard. For spark ignition engines, we are also proposing
a 0.015 g/hp-hr threshold for PM emissions to align with CARB. EPA is
seeking comment on this proposed action, or whether thresholds should
be modified as a part of this proposal.\571\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\570\ California Air Resources Board. Heavy-Duty Omnibus
Regulation. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox.
\571\ California Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Initial
Statement of Reasons-Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Heavy-
Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and Associated
Amendments. June 23, 2020. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/isor.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. CARB OBD Provisions Revised or Not Included in the Proposed Federal
Program
EPA is proposing to adopt the majority of the CARB OBD program.
However, we are proposing that some provisions may not be appropriate
for the federal regulations.\572\ As part of CARB's development of the
2019 OBD program, a number of stakeholders submitted comments to
CARB.\573\ In developing this proposal, we have reviewed the concerns
raised by stakeholders to CARB to help us determine what provisions may
not be appropriate in a federal program. In a new 40 CFR 1036.110(b),
we are proposing clarifications and changes to the 2019 CARB
regulations we are otherwise incorporating by reference, including
provisions related to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\572\ Note that we are making no determination in this proposal
about the appropriateness of these provisions for CARB regulation.
\573\ Kopin, Amy. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055.
``Comments submitted to the California Air Resources Board during
the development of updated heavy-duty OBD requirements.'' October 1,
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Providing flexibilities to delay compliance up to three model
years for small manufacturers who have not previously certified an
engine in California,
2. Allowing good engineering judgment to correlate the CARB OBD
standards with EPA OBD standards,
3. Clarifying that engines must comply with OBD requirements
throughout EPA's useful life as specified in 40 CFR 1036.104, which may
differ from CARB for some model years,
4. Clarifying that the purpose and applicability statements in 13
CCR 1971.1(a) and (b) do not apply,
5. Specifying NOX and PM threshold requirements,
6. Not requiring the manufacturer self-testing and reporting
requirements in 13 CCR 1971.1(i)(2.3) and 1971.1(i)(2.4),
7. Retaining and migrating our existing deficiency policy into
proposed 40 CFR 1036.110(d), and specifying that the deficiency
provisions in 13 CCR 1971.1(k) do not apply,
8. Requiring additional freeze frame data requirements,
9. Requiring additional data stream parameters for compression- and
spark-ignition engines, and
10. Providing flexibilities to reduce redundant demonstration
testing requirements for engines certified to CARB OBD requirements.
Manufacturers indicated concern with the existing manufacturer
self-testing (``MST'') requirements in 13 CCR 1971.1(i)(2.3 and 2.4).
This provision requires manufacturers to obtain vehicles that have
reached their full useful life and remove the engine for extensive
testing to quantify emission performance and deterioration of the
system elements in a manner that allows comparison to deterioration and
performance levels achieved with the manufacturer's accelerated aging
process. In 2009, when EPA initially promulgated OBD regulations for
the heavy-duty industry, we were concerned about the difficulty and
expense of removing an in-use engine from a vehicle for engine
dynamometer testing, and we did not adopt such a requirement at that
time.\574\ EPA continues to be concerned that the cost of this testing
may be significant and is not warranted for the federal program.
Further, we believe that the information CARB gains from this program
can be shared with EPA and would help inform us of the ongoing progress
manufacturers are making with OBD compliance. Therefore, while we are
proposing to exclude this CARB OBD provision from the EPA OBD
regulations at this time, we are proposing that manufacturers submit
the results of any MST testing performed for CARB to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\574\ 74 FR 8347, February 24, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA requests comments and information on whether there are
opportunities for further reducing OBD compliance and certification
costs of the federal program through increasing the use of modeling or
other calculation-based methods as a part of the certification process
which could potentially replace certain testing requirements. Examples
could include test-out provisions or testing required for infrequent
adjustment factors. CARB's OBD program includes provisions that may
allow for certain components to meet specific test-out criteria which
would exempt them from monitoring requirements. For example, 13 CCR
1971.1(e)(3.2.6)(B) describes how EGR catalysts would be exempt from
monitoring if manufacturers can show that both of the following
criteria are satisfied: (1) No malfunction of the EGR catalyst can
cause emissions to increase by 15 percent or more of the applicable
NMHC, NOX, CO, or PM standard as measured from an applicable
emission test cycle; and (2) no malfunction of the EGR catalyst can
cause emissions to exceed the applicable NMHC, NOX, CO, or
PM standard as measured from an applicable emission test cycle. EPA is
seeking comment on whether manufacturers could use modeling or other
calculation-based methods to determine if such test-out criteria are
met.
Another example where the use of modeling or other calculation-
based methods could reduce testing requirements is for the calculation
of infrequent regeneration adjustment factors for engines equipped with
emission controls that experience infrequent regeneration events. These
adjustment factors are used to account for emissions from regeneration
events when determining compliance with EPA standards. Manufacturers
must conduct testing to develop these adjustment factors using the same
deteriorated component(s) used to determine if the test-out criteria
are being met. EPA is seeking comment on whether it is possible and
appropriate to consider modeling- or calculation-based methods to
replace certain hardware-based test methods in these or other
[[Page 17528]]
areas of certification to reduce costs without reducing the
functionality of the existing OBD requirements.
EPA is seeking comment on how these or other provisions in the
existing or any potential upcoming CARB OBD regulation could be
modified to better suit the federal OBD program.\575\ It is important
to emphasize that by not incorporating certain existing CARB OBD
requirements (e.g., the in-use engine test program) into our
regulations, we are not waiving our authority to require such testing
on a case-by-case basis. CAA section 208 gives EPA broad authority to
require manufacturers to perform testing not specified in the
regulations in such circumstances. Thus, should we determine in the
future that such testing is needed, we would retain the authority to
require it pursuant to CAA section 208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\575\ CARB intends to propose changes to their HD OBD program,
as mentioned in the CARB Workshop for 2020 OBD Regulations Update,
February 27, 2020. Available here: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/obdprog/obd_feb2020wspresentation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to retain our existing deficiency provisions in 40
CFR 86.010-18(n) and not harmonize with CARB's deficiency provisions in
13 CCR 1971.1(k).\576\ In the 2009 OBD rule, EPA stated that having a
deficiency provision is important ``because it facilitates OBD
implementation by allowing for certification of an engine despite
having a relatively minor shortfall,'' and that while the CARB OBD
regulations have a provision to charge fees associated with OBD
deficiencies, EPA has ``never had and will continue not to have any
such fee provisions.'' EPA is requesting comment on retaining our
existing deficiency requirements in its entirety or if any changes
should be made. EPA also seeks comment on how and for what reasons OEMs
have utilized CARB's deficiency policy, how this may impact compliance
with the new EPA and CARB requirements and how this may be impacted by
any future changes in OBD emission thresholds.\577\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\576\ We are proposing to migrate the existing deficiency
provisions of 40 CFR 86.010-18(n) into 40 CFR 1036.110(d).
\577\ California Code of Regulations, Title 13, section
1971.1(k)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's 2019 OBD update to 13 CCR 1971.1 also includes significant
changes applicable to hybrid vehicles. We are aware that current OBD
requirements necessitate close cooperation between engine and hybrid
powertrain system manufacturers for certification, which can present a
significant challenge for introducing heavy-duty hybrids into the
marketplace. To learn more about this potential challenge, EPA
requested input in the ANPR. We learned from commenters that no
manufacturers have pursued a certification flexibility that CARB put in
place in 2016 through the Innovative Technology Rule (ITR). The ITR
provided short-term certification flexibilities, such as allowing
hybrid manufacturers to use Engine Manufacturers Diagnostics (EMD),
rather than heavy-duty OBD for two to four consecutive model years
depending on the all-electric range of the
vehicle.578 579 580 We also heard from at least one hybrid
manufacturer suggesting that onboard NOX sensors could be
used in lieu of OBD for heavy-duty hybrids. The potential use of
onboard sensors to meet some OBD requirements for any heavy-duty
vehicle, including hybrids, is discussed in Section IV.C.2.ii below. We
continue to be interested in understanding from commenters and request
comment on whether and how OBD may present a barrier to the adoption of
heavy-duty hybrid systems, and any potential opportunities for EPA to
address such barriers. We have prepared a memorandum that further
explores these regulatory issues, with a discussion of a range of
possible options that we are considering for hybrid systems in heavy-
duty specialty vehicles, but which could apply more broadly to all
heavy-duty hybrid systems.\581\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\578\ Heavy-duty EMD requires diagnostic monitoring of the
performance and durability of the fuel system, exhaust gas
recirculation system (if so equipped), particulate trap, and other
emission-related electronic components.
\579\ California Code of Regulations, Title 13, section 2208.1
\580\ See the comments of the California Air Resources Board,
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0471.
\581\ Stout, Alan. Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055.
``Draft Amendments Related to Alternate Engine Standards for
Specialty Vehicles''. January 31, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, EPA is seeking comment on whether improvements could be
made to OBD to monitor inducement conditions. For example, while
individual components responsible for inducements currently are
monitored (e.g., DEF level sensors), there is no requirement that
inducements themselves be monitored to ensure a false inducement did
not occur or that such events are tracked for remediation. EPA seeks
comment on whether OBD systems should monitor the inducement process
and detect system malfunctions prior to a failure (e.g., for
deterioration of the DEF delivery system) to improve emission system
performance by providing opportunities for repairs to be made prior to
complete failures and by preventing inducements that either should not
have occurred or could have been avoided.
iii. Additional OBD Provisions in the Proposed Federal Program
EPA received comments on the ANPR from a wide variety of
stakeholders describing difficulties diagnosing problems with and
maintaining proper functionality of advanced emission technologies and
the important role accessible and robust diagnostics play in this
process. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association and
NACAA commented on the need for EPA to develop and maintain a robust
OBD program with diagnostic specificity that would ensure OBD continues
to accurately detect system failures for lower emission standards and
inform the person performing the repair of what the problem is and the
cause, so it can be promptly, proficiently and cost-effectively
repaired, as well as to facilitate the development of comprehensive
enforcement programs.582 583 The Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection commented that EPA should evaluate how
advances in OBD technology could be applied to enhance operations,
monitoring and maintenance capabilities of heavy-duty diesel
aftertreatment systems and how current and future technologies may use
OBD technologies to inform operators and repair technicians as to the
in-use efficacy of those systems across multiple duty cycles.\584\ ATA
commented that ease of diagnostics for emission component failures is a
significant concern for their members.\585\ NASTC members expressed
significant frustration with the inability to use existing diagnostics
to understand problems with emission components.\586\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\582\ See the comments of the California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0555-0275.
\583\ See the comments of the National Association of Clean Air
Agencies, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0283.
\584\ See the comments of The Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0455.
\585\ See the comments of the American Trucking Association,
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0357.
\586\ See the comments of the National Association of Small
Trucking Companies, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0456.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a part of our effort to update our OBD program and respond to
these concerns, EPA is proposing to include additional requirements as
well as modify certain CARB OBD requirements to better address newer
diagnostic methods and technologies and to ensure that OBD can be used
to properly diagnose and maintain emission control
[[Page 17529]]
systems to avoid increased real-world emissions. EPA intends to
continue to accept CARB OBD approval where a manufacturer can
demonstrate that the CARB program meets the intent of EPA OBD
requirements (see section IV.C.2.i.b. for further discussion), and
manufacturers would submit documentation as specified in proposed 40
CFR 1036.110(c)(5) to show that they meet the additional requirements
proposed here.
In this section we describe the following proposed additional EPA
certification requirements in 40 CFR 1036.110 for OBD systems:
1. Health monitors for the SCR, DPF, and EGR systems
2. Display health monitor and inducement-related information in the
cab
3. Diagnostic testing to measure the effectiveness of DEF dosing
must be made available for use with either a generic scan tool or an
equivalent alternative method
Enhanced OBD systems that provide more information and value to the
operator can play an important role in ensuring expected in-use
emission reductions are achieved long-term. For example, in comments to
the ANPR, CARB stated that their test programs have identified numerous
heavy-duty vehicles with mileages within their applicable regulatory
useful life periods, but beyond their warranty periods, that had
NOX emission levels significantly above the applicable
certification standards.\587\ CARB also stated that some stakeholders
such as fleet owners, retrofit installers, and equipment operators have
communicated to CARB that they are experiencing significant vehicle
downtime due to parts failures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\587\ See the comments of the California Air Resources Board,
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0471.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing the transparency and usefulness of OBD systems can help
to improve maintenance and repair experiences and also serve as a
mechanism to reduce owner frustration (which otherwise could provide
motivation to tamper). EPA is specifically proposing to improve the
robustness and usefulness of OBD systems by including emission system
health monitors, increasing the number of publicly available data
parameters, increasing the freeze frame data, and enabling certain
self-testing capabilities for owners. These changes will benefit the
environment by helping to reduce malfunctioning emission systems in-use
through access to additional data that may be useful for service
technicians, state and local inspection and maintenance operations, and
owners. These capabilities are also important to enable owners to avoid
potential inducement conditions that can result from certain component
failures.
a. Emissions Systems Health Monitor
The purpose of OBD is to reduce motor vehicle and motor vehicle
engine emissions by monitoring the systems in-use, detecting
malfunctions, informing the operator, and assisting with diagnosis of
emission system problems. One concept EPA is proposing to incorporate
into our updated OBD regulations is the development of ``health
monitors'' for specific emission control technologies on CI engines to
provide vehicle owners information on the overall health of important
emissions systems at a given point in time. While OBD systems are
highly proficient in monitoring emission systems and components, the
historic purpose of OBD has been to monitor systems but only notify
operators generically (e.g., through the Malfunction Indicator Light or
``MIL'') once there is a failure or malfunction, rather than to use
monitored data to proactively provide the operator with information on
the functionality and status of such systems. However, existing OBD
monitors and data parameters could also be used in a different way to
generate aftertreatment health monitors. This could be accomplished by
evaluating data indicating how much a system has been used or how close
a system is to exceeding an OBD threshold. While most large fleets have
already begun to use similar measures by using big data and telematics
to implement predictive maintenance, this concept is different in that
it would be focused on using a particular vehicle's data to evaluate
system status as opposed to using data from thousands of trucks to
predict system status.\588\ Predictive maintenance relies on analytics
that examine existing data to identify potential risks of failure on
particular trucks or components prior to the failures occurring in the
field.\589\ Predictive maintenance can enable operators to replace
components later than when utilizing a traditional preventative
maintenance approach and can essentially increase the service life of
certain emission system components, prevent breakdowns, and reduce
total operating costs. Predictive maintenance could also result in
components being changed more frequently to avoid or reduce breakdowns
and downtime, thereby also reducing total operating costs. An emissions
system health monitor, while not as comprehensive of a tool as
predictive maintenance, could provide similar types of benefits
resulting in more uptime for emission control systems. Health monitors
could also provide critical insight on the status of a vehicle's
emissions systems for buyers considering purchasing used trucks. EPA is
proposing that the health monitors' status would need to be made
available on the dash or other display for access to the data without
the use of a scan tool. The purpose of the health monitor is not to
guarantee the performance of an emissions system in the future, but
instead to provide status information on the functioning of the
relevant system at the moment in time. In addition, such a monitor
could be used to warn users of potential upstream failures that can
cause damage to aftertreatment components resulting in expensive
repairs. EPA worked with Environment and Climate Change Canada
(``ECCC'') to develop this concept. Using an emissions system health
monitor to improve and make more efficient heavy-duty engine and
vehicle maintenance practices could provide environmental benefits by
helping to sustain system performance long-term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\588\ Park, Jim. September 7, 2018. ``How Data Is Changing
Predictive Maintenance.'' Available here: https://www.truckinginfo.com/312738/how-data-is-changing-predictive-maintenance.
\589\ Lockridge, Deborah. May 31, 2019. ``How One Fleet is
Closing in on Predictive Maintenance.'' Available here: https://www.truckinginfo.com/332946/how-one-truck-fleet-is-closing-in-on-true-predictive-maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In discussions with ECCC about how to develop a health monitor
concept, they suggested that a single value representing the
performance of the vehicle's emission system as a whole would be less
effective than two or three individual ``health monitors'', and EPA
agrees. EPA is proposing, and seeking comment on the benefits of,
specific methods for CI engines to inform a vehicle operator of the
general health of the DPF, SCR, and EGR systems. There are two main
approaches EPA could use to achieve this goal: (1) A broad requirement
that leaves the identification and implementation of the specific
methodologies up to each manufacturer, or (2) a specific requirement
that prescribes the methodologies to be used by all manufacturers. EPA
is proposing the first alternative, and seeks comment on the second
alternative, or any other alternative that commenters believe would be
more beneficial or less costly and that would still provide benefits to
the owner and resulting environmental benefits from better performing
[[Page 17530]]
emissions controls systems. Under any approach, we are interested in
emissions system health monitors that better enable owners to
understand emission system functionality, help avoid potential
breakdowns, and reduce incentives to tamper with emission control
systems as a result of experiencing unplanned and catastrophic emission
system failures. A prescriptive approach may be more useful in that it
would provide consistency between manufacturers which could result in
more useful and stable data for users, however, a broad requirement
that allows manufacturers to better capitalize on their existing OBD
system design may also achieve the goals of this health monitor
proposal. This proposal focuses on leveraging existing OBD requirements
in new ways to develop health monitors for DPF, SCR, and EGR systems to
avoid costs that could be associated with an entirely new monitoring
requirement. EPA seeks comment on whether additional monitors could be
developed utilizing existing OBD requirements which can further help
prevent downtime, such as additional upstream health indicators (e.g.,
preventing excessive internal oil leaks) to proactively prevent damage
to expensive aftertreatment components.
(1) Proposed DPF Health Monitor
For the DPF system, EPA has identified essential information that
users should have access to for ensuring that proper maintenance and
use can occur. Having continuous access to DPF health information can
provide important insight on DPF system status. EPA is proposing that
users have access to the following information available for display in
the cab, which together would form the DPF health monitor: (1) A value
that indicates general system wear, for example a counter for the total
number of passive and active regeneration (``regen'') events that have
taken place on the existing DPF, (2) a value that indicates the average
active and passive regen frequency and a method for operators to track
changes in these values, (3) a value estimating (in miles or hours)
when the DPF needs to be cleaned to remove accumulated ash, and (4)
notification when active regens have been disabled by the system (even
temporarily) if accompanied by a derate, as well as the reason it was
disabled. While not specifically a part of the DPF health monitor, EPA
is proposing additional DPF maintenance information be made available
to users to improve serviceability experiences, see section IV.B.3.ii.
for more discussion on these proposed requirements.
Providing users with a general indicator of system wear can help
users make informed maintenance decisions. EPA would expect that a
manufacturer would allow this monitor to be reset if a DPF is replaced.
Manufacturers could in part utilize work that may be done to meet CARB
OBD requirements to implement this proposal. For example, the 2019 CARB
OBD program that we are proposing to harmonize with includes a
provision for MY 2024 that requires a lifetime counter of DPF regens
(see 13 CCR 1971.1(h)(5.8.2)). EPA is seeking comment on the use of
CARB's required lifetime counter to meet this proposed requirement, or
what alternative information manufacturers could use to meet this
requirement and whether this information should be standardized.
Providing users with an indication of the total average regen
frequency (active and passive) and with a method that could be used to
detect recent changes in system function can allow users to familiarize
themselves with proper system operation. For example, this could be
achieved by displaying the average regen frequency per a fixed number
of miles or hours and providing a resettable counter to show the most
recent average regen frequency. Such a feature would enable owners to
monitor the number of regens occurring over a particular route to
detect changes (e.g., a significant increase in the number of
regeneration events) which could inform them of the need to address
failures upstream of the DPF, clean the DPF, or service the DPF system.
In particular, EPA seeks to alert operators to potential conditions
that could indicate an upstream problem (e.g., an oil leak) that can
damage sensitive aftertreatment components prior to a catastrophic
failure or result in the need for costly repairs to aftertreatment
systems. Manufacturers may be able to utilize existing work already
being done to meet the frequent regeneration requirements in 13 CCR
1971.1(e)(8.2.2) to inform owners when regen frequency exceeds a
certain level that may indicate an upstream issue. As discussed
earlier, EPA is proposing that the health monitors' status would need
to be made available on the dash or other display for access to the
data without the use of a scan tool. EPA would expect that operators
would be able to access this information on demand, and that
manufacturers would not have the health monitor tied to the MIL to
avoid any confusion. EPA is seeking comment on whether this component
of the DPF health monitor is important enough to require that it be
communicated when the frequency of regens reaches a particular level
that may indicate the need for inspection and possibly repair, what
this level would be, and what such a warning system should look like.
Having access to information that indicates an estimate of when the
DPF needs to be cleaned would allow operators to plan ahead for
critical maintenance and reduce downtime. We are not proposing a
specific method manufacturers would use to generate the estimated time
to perform such a cleaning, rather we would leave it to manufacturers
to determine the best method of implementation.
Finally, providing operators with notification of when active
regens have been disabled by the system (even temporarily) as well as
the reason it was disabled would provide benefits to operators and
repair technicians. Manufacturers generally implement severe derates
when DPF system faults occur that prevent active regens from occurring.
Providing owners with information on the cause of a DPF-related derate
would reduce frustration and may reduce downtime by allowing repairs to
be made more quickly, increasing in-use emission system performance.
EPA is seeking comment on how manufacturers could lessen the
effects of duty cycle related regens frequency variability in the
health monitor (e.g., vehicles that operate more at lower speeds would
likely experience more active regens than those that operate at higher
steady-state speeds), through normalizing the reported data or focusing
on specific regions of operation where regens occur with more
regularity. For example, this DPF health monitor parameter could
include only passive regens that occur during certain vehicle
operation, such as operation that occurs in OBD REAL Bin 14. EPA is
seeking comment on whether the DPF health monitor should provide this
information on demand, and if it should also notify users of potential
concerns.
(2) Proposed SCR Health Monitor
For the SCR system, EPA has identified essential information that
users should have access to for ensuring that proper preventive
maintenance occurs. EPA is proposing that the SCR health monitors'
status would need to be made available on the dash or other display for
access to the data without the use of a scan tool. Having access to SCR
health information on demand can provide important insight on SCR
system status and help operators prevent inducements from occurring.
EPA is proposing that users have access to the following information
for the SCR
[[Page 17531]]
health monitor: (1) Indicator of average DEF consumption and a method
for operators to track changes in this value, (2) warnings before
blockages in the DEF line or dosing valve actually occur and an
inducement would be triggered, and (3) information on when DEF dosing
has been disabled by the system (even temporarily) if accompanied by a
derate as well as the reason it was disabled. EPA is not proposing
specific methods manufacturers would use to meet these requirements and
would be leaving it up to manufacturers to develop the most appropriate
method based on their product designs. We are taking comment on this
approach, or if instead we should specify the way the SCR health
monitor should be implemented, which would ensure consistency across
the fleet.
Providing users with an indication of average DEF consumption and
with a method that could be used to detect recent changes in that value
can allow users to familiarize themselves with proper system operation.
This could be achieved for example by manufacturers providing the
lifetime average DEF used per gallon of fuel and a recent or resettable
counter to show the most recent average DEF consumption value. Such a
feature would enable owners to develop a high-level understanding of
proper SCR function and operation, can alert the operator to changes
that may indicate a problem before there is a failure resulting in a
breakdown and corresponding downtime, and enable owners to monitor the
data over a particular route (or after a particular repair) to detect
system changes (or evaluate the effectiveness of a recent repair).
EPA is seeking comment on how manufacturers could lessen the
effects of duty cycle related DEF consumption variability in the health
monitor, through normalizing the reported data or focusing on specific
regions of operation where DEF consumption should be more stable. For
example, this SCR health monitor parameter could include provide
average DEF consumption that occurs during certain vehicle operations,
such as operation that occurs in OBD REAL Bin 14.
The SCR health monitor proposal also includes a requirement for
manufacturers to provide information to the operator regarding
potential plugging of the DEF line or dosing valve prior to a blockage
actually occurring. Manufacturers have likely developed strategies to
monitor such blockages in response to EPA's existing inducement
guidance.590 591 DEF can crystallize over time and build up
in SCR components such as the injector, which in some cases could also
result in a false inducement being triggered for conditions that appear
to be caused by tampering, which this health monitor can help
prevent.\592\ Further, it is critical to ensuring that DEF restrictions
are promptly addressed to maintain proper SCR system function. Finally,
EPA is proposing that the health monitor provide information on when
DEF dosing has been disabled by the system (even temporarily) as well
as the reason it was disabled if accompanied by a derate. Having access
to this information is critical to ensuring operators can perform
maintenance timely, and potentially prior to a vehicle going into
inducement. EPA is seeking comment on whether the SCR health monitor
should provide this information on demand, and if it should also notify
users of potential concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\590\ See CISD-09-04 REVISED.
\591\ See Section IV.D.4. for further discussion on proposed
inducement-related requirements for blocked DEF lines.
\592\ For example, see NHTSA Service Bulletin available here:
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2019/MC-10153679-9999.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, EPA is seeking comment on alternative methods to develop a
health monitor for SCR systems, for example including one that would
use DEF dosing trim values (i.e., DEF dosing rates at particular
operating points such as within NTE operating zones or REAL bins) and
compare the dosing rate that is occurring in real-time to what the
dosing rate was when the vehicle was new. The idea is that as
components wear and SCR performance deteriorates, the system may
compensate by increasing the DEF dosing rate at a particular operating
point; using the information contained in the engine controller
software could help alert operators to such changes and allow them to
perform repairs or maintenance prior to the vehicle experiencing a
catastrophic failure. This method, especially if combined with ammonia
slip information, could offer a better indication of system
performance.
(3) Proposed EGR Health Monitor
For the EGR system, EPA has identified essential information that
users should have access to for ensuing proper maintenance and use can
occur. In particular, we expect access to information indicating EGR
valve coking or EGR cooler failure, which are the two main failure
conditions, may avoid devastating impacts on downstream aftertreatment
components.593 594 We are proposing to require manufacturers
to provide an indication of EGR valve health. For example, they could
use existing OBD signals to provide an indication of the health of an
EGR valve by looking at the difference between commanded and actual EGR
valve position to indicate valve coking. The intent of this health
monitor is to enable operators to understand when the EGR valve is
becoming plugged and allow them to perform preventative maintenance
prior to a catastrophic failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\593\ Anderson, Jeremy. 2017 presentation at American Public
Transportation Association 2017 Annual Meeting & EXPO. Titled ``DPF
Maintenance: Avoid the Five Most Common Mistakes.'' Available here:
https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/Resources/mc/annual/previous/2017annual/LZpresentations/Learning%20Zone%20Presentations/Anderson,%20Jeremy.pdf.
\594\ Stanton, Bob. April 4, 2017. ``Aftertreatment System: A
New System Not to be Overlooked.'' Available here: https://www.worktruckonline.com/157340/aftertreatment-system-a-new-system-not-to-be-overlooked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, EPA is proposing a health monitor for the EGR cooler.
Manufacturers could in part utilize work already being done to meet
existing CARB requirements in 13 CCR 1971.1(e) for EGR cooler
performance monitoring to satisfy this requirement. These requirements
specify that manufacturers design their system to monitor the cooler
system for insufficient cooling malfunctions, including the individual
electronic components (e.g., actuators, valves, sensors). The OBD
system must detect a malfunction of the EGR cooler system prior to a
reduction from the manufacturer's specified cooling performance that
would cause an engine's NMHC, CO, or NOX emissions to exceed
2.0 times any of the applicable standards or the engine's PM emissions
to exceed the applicable standard plus 0.02 g/hp-hr. EPA is seeking
comment on these or other strategies that can help inform operators of
the functionality of the EGR system to help prevent breakdowns due to
EGR system failures, including whether or how to monitor for EGR cooler
leaks or plugging, such as through the use of pressure or temperature
sensors, and whether today's engines are equipped with sensors in the
EGR system that could be used for this purpose. We are also seeking
comment on whether fault codes related to incidents of engine derate
due to EGR-related failures should be displayed in the cab as a part of
this health monitor, similar to what is being proposed for SCR and DPF-
related derate issues.
[[Page 17532]]
b. Expanded List of Public OBD Parameters
In another area for improvement in the OBD program, EPA proposes to
harmonize with the revised list of data parameters CARB has developed
for MY 2024 through our incorporation by reference of CARB's revised
OBD regulations and to further expand the list of OBD parameters that
manufacturers are required to make publicly available. 13 CCR
1971.1(4.2) data stream requirements state that the listed signals be
made available on demand through the ``standardized data link
connector'' (OBD port) in accordance with J1979/J1939 specifications.
The requirements also specify that the actual signal value must be
used, the default or limp home value cannot be used. Until MY 2024,
CARB regulations require a list of 91 signals that must be made
publicly available, of which approximately ten are related to
aftertreatment and primarily include measures of the pressure and
temperature of the DPF. CARB updated these requirements in 2019 such
that additional aftertreatment-related signals will be added in MY 2022
and MY 2024. EPA is proposing to adopt CARB's parameter list through
our incorporation by reference of their updated 2019 OBD regulations,
to add signals to the list, and to specifically require the addition of
all parameters related to fault conditions that trigger vehicle
inducement to be made readily available using generic scan tools if the
engine is so equipped (see Section IV.D for more discussion on
inducements). EPA would expect that each of these additional
requirements would need to be addressed even where manufacturers relied
in part on a CARB OBD approval to meet the intent of our proposed OBD
regulations. The purpose of including additional parameters is to make
it easier to identify malfunctions of critical aftertreatment related
components, especially where failure of such components would trigger
an inducement. In addition, the proposed additional information can
make the repairs themselves easier by allowing for immediate access to
fault codes, which could alleviate the long wait times associated with
specialized emission repair facilities or where facilities are not
available when an inducement occurs (such as on the weekend or in a
remote location). In response to the ANPR, EPA received comments
supportive of such changes, for example from the National Tribal Air
Association (``NTAA'') who noted that service information and tools
should be made easily available and affordable for individual owners to
diagnose and fix their own vehicles, which can be especially important
for small businesses, Tribes, and those in rural areas with less ready
access to original equipment manufacturer dealer networks.\595\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\595\ See comments of the National Tribal Air Association,
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0555-0282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing a general requirement to make such parameters
available if they are used as the basis for an inducement response that
interferes with the operation of the engine or vehicle. For example, if
the failure of an open-circuit check for a DEF quality sensor leads to
an engine inducement, the owner/operator would be able to identify this
fault condition using a generic scan tool. This proposal should be
enabled in part by a change to the comprehensive component monitoring
requirements in CARB's 2019 OBD regulations. CARB now specifies that
for MY 2024 and later, comprehensive component monitoring must include
any electronic powertrain component/system that either provides input
to (directly or indirectly) or receives commands from an on-board
computer or smart device, which is also used as an input to an
inducement strategy or other engine derate (see 13 CCR
1971.1(g)(3.1.1)). We are also proposing some new parameters for HD SI
engines, as mentioned in Section III.D.2. We are proposing that
manufacturers make additional parameters available for all engines so
equipped, including:
For Compression Ignition engines:
[cir] Inlet DOC and Outlet DOC pressure and temperature
[cir] DPF Filter Soot Load (for all installed DPFs)
[cir] DPF Filter Ash Load (for all installed DPFs)
[cir] Engine Exhaust Gas Recirculation Differential Pressure
[cir] DEF quality
[cir] Parking Brake, Neutral Switch, Brake Switch, and Clutch
Switch Status
[cir] Aftertreatment Dosing Quantity Commanded and Actual
[cir] Wastegate Control Solenoid Output
[cir] Wastegate Position Commanded
[cir] DEF Tank Temperature
[cir] Injection Control Pressure Commanded and Actual
[cir] DEF System Pressure
[cir] DEF Pump Commanded Percentage
[cir] DEF Coolant Control Valve Control Position Commanded and
Actual
[cir] DEF Line Heater Control Outputs
For Spark Ignition Engines:
[cir] A/F Enrichment Enable flags: Throttle based, Load based,
Catalyst protection based
[cir] Percent of time not in stoichiometric operation (including
per trip, and since new)
[cir] Catalyst or component temperature parameters (measured and
modeled, if applicable) specifically used for thermal protection
control strategies as proposed in Section III.D.2.
EPA is seeking comment on whether any additional signals should be
included in this list to help ensure in-use emission benefits occur as
expected, and whether any other signals should be included such as any
signals related to maintenance derates (outside of inducements).
Although CARB currently requires a list of signals that must be made
public, EPA encountered difficulty accessing many of these signals in
recent testing on in-use trucks. EPA, working closely with Environment
and Climate Change Canada, used a number of generic scan tools on a
variety of vehicle makes and models and were unable to see all of the
publicly required data. While this could indicate a problem with a
specific generic scan tool design, none of the scan tools from a range
of price points was able to display the complete set of signals; some
tools read less than a third of the required signals. Some parameters
read ``No Response'' or ``Not Available'' or were missing a signal in
its entirety. This situation can cause frustration for owners who own
generic scan tools and are unable to access any required data when
trying to repair vehicles. EPA requests comment on operator experiences
with obtaining data using generic scan tools from trucks in-use.
c. Expanding Freeze Frame Data Parameters
One of the more useful features in the CARB OBD program for
diagnosing and repairing emissions components is the requirement for
``freeze frame'' data to be stored by the system. To comply with this
requirement, manufacturers must capture and store certain data
parameters (e.g., vehicle operating conditions such as the
NOX sensor output reading) within 10 seconds of the system
detecting a malfunction. The purpose of storing this data is in part to
record the likely area of malfunction. CARB has identified a list of
approximately 63 parameters that must be captured in the freeze frame
data for gasoline engines and 69 parameters for diesel engines.
Currently, the freeze frame data does not include additional signals
for aftertreatment systems. While existing CARB freeze frame data
requirements include some DPF-related parameters (e.g., inlet and
outlet pressure and temperature), there is essentially no SCR
information, which
[[Page 17533]]
EPA believes is essential for proper maintenance. We are therefore
proposing that EPA's updated OBD requirements include the additional
parameters proposed in section IV.C(1)(ii)(b) of this preamble and
those included in the following section of CARB's regulations sections
13 CCR 1971.1(h)(4.2.1)(D), 1971.1(h)(4.2.2)(H), 1971.1(h)(4.2.3)(F),
1971.1(h)(4.2.3)(G), 1971.1(h)(4.2.2)(I). We welcome comment on this
proposal, including whether additional data parameters should be
included in the freeze frame data to enable those diagnosing and
repairing vehicles to more effectively identify the source of the
malfunction and increase the usefulness of freeze frame data,
especially for conditions that result in inducement.
d. System Commanded Tests To Facilitate Inducement-Related Diagnoses
and Repairs
Today's vehicle control systems have built-in tests that can be
used to command components to perform a particular function in order to
confirm that they are working properly.\596\ An equally important
element of an effective OBD program is ensuring owners have the ability
to run certain engine or vehicle tests and view the results, especially
where they can be used by owners in diagnosing and repairing problems
that may result in inducement. If, for example, the problem was caused
by a faulty DEF pump, this type of repair likely does not require
specialized training to complete but is difficult to detect without
access to such a test. More immediate diagnosis and repair of faulty
components such as this would result in reduced costs for owners and
increased long-term environmental benefits through improved emission
control function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\596\ Morgan, Jason. January 21, 2019. ``What the right data can
tell you about aftertreatment issues.'' Available here: https://www.fleetequipmentmag.com/heavy-duty-truck-aftertreatment-service-issues-data/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, vehicle software scan tools can be designed to command a DEF
pump to operate, which allows a person diagnosing a DEF injection issue
to measure how much DEF is pumped during a certain time interval and
compare this amount to the specifications to determine whether or not
the pump and injector are functioning properly. Performing the test
would allow diagnosis of the vehicle and a quick determination of
whether the DEF pump is working, the DEF injector is not faulty, there
are no wiring-related issues, and DEF is being sprayed properly (both
in terms of amount and spray pattern). Due to the importance of the DEF
pump in maintaining full functionality of a vehicle (i.e., avoiding
inducement), EPA is proposing that the DEF dosing test be made
available for use with either a generic scan tool (be made available on
demand through the OBD port in accordance with J1979/J1939
specifications) or an alternative method (e.g., an option commanded
through a vehicle system menu).
Another important test that is used today is an SCR performance
test that some OEMs offer through their proprietary scan tools. This
type of test causes the diagnostic system to run the engine through a
specific operating cycle to check certain SCR parameters, providing a
pass/fail result and indicating what potential problems may exist. In
particular, this test allows for a repeatable method to be used to
compare a known set of engine operating parameters and SCR performance
specifications to verify that SCR performance is as-expected and to
narrow the scope of any existing problems that need to be fixed. There
are currently non-OEM scan tools that also can conduct the same test,
but the engine's diagnostic system may not allow the generic scan tool
to access the pass/fail results. The results of this test could be
especially helpful for users or technicians, may help avoid unexpected
breakdowns, and may improve in-use emissions. Running an SCR
performance test can enable the owner or technician to monitor system
parameters during the test (e.g., by watching SCR inlet and outlet
temperatures during a particular operating cycle) to evaluate if
certain components are functioning properly during the test and may
reduce the need for regens to be run instead, which can reduce wear on
the DPF system. We are requesting comment on whether EPA should make
SCR performance tests available via generic scan tool or other on-
vehicle method. EPA is also requesting comment on the need to make
other self-tests accessible with generic scan tools to improve in-use
emission systems maintenance and performance, for example being able to
command that the evaporative system on SI engines be sealed to allow
for leak testing or including the ability to perform manual regens for
DPF systems.
2. Other OBD Provisions
In addition to our proposal to update our OBD regulations by
incorporating much of the CARB OBD program by reference, we are also
requesting comment on other improvements to our OBD program. The
improvements would be intended to make the program more effective at
improving maintenance of in-use engines and vehicles, as well as
reducing the compliance burdens for manufacturers. We welcome comments
suggesting other ways to improve our OBD program.
i. OBD Provisions From the Recent HD Technical Amendment Rule
EPA recently revised our OBD regulations to harmonize with certain
CARB requirements in our HD Technical Amendments (HDTA) rulemaking (86
FR 34340, June 29, 2021). This rule finalized four updated OBD
provisions including: (1) Revising the misfire threshold, (2) adopting
updated misfire flexibilities, (3) revising our in-use minimum ratios,
and (4) allowing the use of CARB OBD reporting templates for EPA OBD
requirements. EPA did not take final action at that time on two
proposed revisions related to OBD demonstration testing and carry-over
of OBD certification. The following sections summarize the revisions
previously proposed and the concerns expressed in
comments.597 598
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\597\ See 85 FR 28152, May 12, 2020.
\598\ EPA, ``Improvements for Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Test
Procedures, and other Technical Amendments Response to Comments,''
December 2020, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0307, Publication Number: EPA-
420-R-20-026 (see discussion starting on page 80).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Demonstration Testing Requirements
One of the provisions EPA did not take final action on in the HDTA
rulemaking was related to determining the number of engines required to
undergo demonstration testing. The existing requirements of 40 CFR
86.010-18(l) and 13 CCR 1971.1(l) specify the number of test engines
for which a manufacturer must submit monitoring system demonstration
emissions data. Specifically, a manufacturer certifying one to five
engine families in a given model year must provide emissions test data
for a single test engine from one engine rating, a manufacturer
certifying six to ten engine families in a given model year must
provide emissions test data for a single test engine from two different
engine ratings, and a manufacturer certifying eleven or more engine
families in a given model year must provide emissions test data for a
single test engine from three different engine ratings.
The HDTA proposed rulemaking (85 FR 28152, May 12, 2020) proposed
to allow CARB certified configurations to not count as separate engine
families for the purposes of determining OEM demonstration testing
requirements for
[[Page 17534]]
EPA OBD approval. EPA received adverse comment on this proposal stating
that it was inconsistent for EPA to not include CARB-only families when
determining demonstration testing requirements for 49-state EPA
families, but to accept demonstration test data from CARB-only families
to meet 49-state EPA certification. There were additional concerns that
the proposal did not include the criteria that EPA would use to approve
or deny the request to not count certain families, and that this
proposal applied to ``special families'' which were not defined by EPA.
In the HDTA final rulemaking, EPA explained that this provision
required additional consideration and did not take final action on it
at that time.
We stated in the HDTA final rulemaking that we intended to review
this issue as a part of the HD 2027 proposal. EPA recently issued
guidance for certain cases, where an OBD system designed to comply with
California OBD requirements is being used in both a CARB proposed
family and a proposed EPA-only family and the two families are also
identical in all aspects material to expected emission characteristics.
EPA anticipates that a manufacturer would be able to demonstrate to EPA
that the intent of 40 CFR 86.010-18(l) is met for the EPA-only family
by providing proof that CARB has determined the monitoring system
demonstration requirements for the corresponding CARB proposed family
have been met.\599\ We are proposing to codify this as a provision in
40 CFR 1036.110(b)(11). We are requesting comment on this provision,
including whether additional restrictions should be included to ensure
engine families are appropriately counted. EPA is also seeking comment
on allowing a similar provision for cases where equivalent engine
families differ only in terms of inducement strategies (see section
IV.D.6 for further discussion). Finally, EPA is seeking comment on
whether we should include revisions beyond those proposed to address
this situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\599\ EPA Guidance Document CD-2021-04 (HD Highway), April 26,
2021, ``Information on OBD Monitoring System Demonstration for Pairs
of EPA and CARB Families Identical in All Aspects Other Than
Warranty.'' Available here: https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=52574&flag=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Use of CARB OBD Approval for EPA OBD Certification
EPA did not take final action on the proposed reordering of 40 CFR
86.010-18(a)(5) in the HDTA final rulemaking. These existing EPA OBD
regulations allow manufacturers seeking an EPA certificate of
conformity to comply with the federal OBD requirements by demonstrating
to EPA how the OBD system they have designed to comply with California
OBD requirements also meets the intent behind federal OBD requirements,
as long as the manufacturer complies with certain certification
documentation requirements. EPA has implemented these requirements by
allowing a manufacturer to submit an OBD approval letter from CARB for
the equivalent engine family where a manufacturer can demonstrate that
the CARB OBD program has met the intent of the EPA OBD program. In
other words, EPA has interpreted these requirements to allow OBD
approval from CARB to be submitted to EPA for approval.
We are proposing to migrate the language from 40 CFR 86.010-
18(a)(5) to 40 CFR 1036.110(a) to allow manufacturers to continue to
use a CARB OBD approval letter to demonstrate compliance with federal
OBD regulations for an equivalent engine family where manufacturers can
demonstrate that the CARB OBD program has met the intent of the EPA OBD
program. In the case where a manufacturer chooses not to include
information showing compliance with additional EPA OBD requirements in
their CARB certification package (e.g., not including the additional
EPA data parameters in their CARB certification documentation), EPA
would expect manufacturers to provide separate documentation along with
the CARB OBD approval letter to show they have met all EPA OBD
requirements. This process would also apply in the case where CARB has
further modified their OBD requirements such that they are different
from but meet the intent of existing EPA OBD requirements. For example,
if CARB finalizes the use of a different communication protocol than
EPA's requirements call for, as long as it meets the intent of EPA's
communication protocol requirements (e.g., can still be used with a
generic scan tool to read certain parameters), the proposed process
would apply. EPA expects manufacturers to submit all documentation as
is currently required by 40 CFR 86.010-18(m)(3), detailing how the
system meets the intent of EPA OBD requirements, why they have chosen
the system design, and information on any system deficiencies. As a
part of this update to EPA OBD regulations, we are clarifying in 40 CFR
1036.110(c)(4) that we can request that manufacturers send us
information needed for us to evaluate how they meet the intent of our
OBD program using this pathway. This would most often mean sending EPA
a copy of documents submitted to CARB during the certification process.
c. Potential Use of the J1979-2 Communications Protocol
In a February 2020 workshop, CARB indicated their intent to propose
allowing the use of Unified Diagnostic Services (``UDS'') through the
SAE J1979-2 communications protocol for heavy-duty OBD with an optional
implementation as early as MY 2022.600 601 CARB stated that
engine manufacturers are concerned about the limited number of
remaining undefined 2-byte diagnostic trouble codes (``DTC'') and the
need for additional DTCs for hybrid vehicles. J1979-2 provides 3-byte
DTCs, significantly increasing the number of DTCs that can be defined.
In addition, this change would provide additional features for data
access that improve the usefulness of generic scan tools to repair
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\600\ SAE J1979-2 was issued on April 22, 2021 and is available
here: https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j1979-2_202104/.
\601\ CARB Workshop for 2020 OBD Regulations Update, February
27, 2020. Available here: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/obdprog/obd_feb2020wspresentation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section IV.C.1. of this preamble asks for comment on whether EPA
should harmonize with any updated CARB OBD amendments finalized prior
to the issuing of this final rulemaking; however, it is not clear if
CARB's amendment including UDS would be finalized in time for EPA to
include it in this final rule. We will monitor the development of the
CARB OBD update and are seeking comment on whether we should finalize
similar provisions if CARB does not finalize their update before we
complete this final rule. CARB is expected to allow the optional use of
the J1979-2 protocol as soon as MY 2023. If manufacturers want to
certify their engine families for nationwide use, we would need to
establish a process for reviewing and approving manufacturers' requests
to comply using the alternative communications protocol. While we
support adoption of J1979-2 and are clarifying and proposing pathways
to accommodate its use, we are seeking comment on potential challenges
associated with this change.
While EPA believes our existing requirements in 40 CFR 86.010-
18(a)(5) allow us to accept OBD systems using J1979-2 that have been
approved by CARB, there may be additional considerations prior to the
finalization of this rule for OEMs that want to obtain
[[Page 17535]]
a 49-state certificate for engines that do not have CARB OBD approval.
For model years prior to MY 2027, since our proposed OBD revisions
would take effect in MY 2027 if finalized, EPA is proposing to include
interim provisions in 40 CFR 1036.150(v) to allow the use of J1979-2
for manufacturers seeking EPA OBD approval. Finally, once EPA's
proposed updated OBD requirements would be in effect for MY 2027, we
expect to be able to allow the use of J1979-2 based on the proposed
language in 40 CFR 1036.110(b). We are seeking comment on these
pathways to approval and on whether any additional changes need to be
made to our existing or proposed OBD requirements to accommodate the
use of J1979-2.
While there are expected environmental benefits associated with the
use of this updated protocol, we are seeking comment on whether the use
of this alternative protocol could have negative impacts on our
existing OBD program. In addition to potential impacts on EPA's OBD
program, EPA is seeking comment on any potential impacts this change
could have on our service information requirements (see Section
IV.B.3.ii. for more background on these provisions). CAA section
202(m)(4)(C) requires that the output of the data from the emission
control diagnostic system through such connectors shall be usable
without the need for any unique decoding information or device, and it
is not expected that the use of J1979-2 would conflict with this
requirement. Further, CAA section 202(m)(5) requires manufacturers to
provide promptly to any person engaged in the repairing or servicing of
motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines, and the Administrator for use
by any such persons, with any and all information needed to make use of
the emission control diagnostics system prescribed under this
subsection and such other information including instructions for making
emission related diagnosis and repairs. Manufacturers who choose to
voluntarily use J1979-2 as early as MY 2022 would need to provide
access to systems using this alternative protocol at that time and meet
all of the relevant requirements in 40 CFR 86.010-18.
EPA believes that the software and hardware changes needed to
accommodate J1979-2 are minimal, and that these changes would not
impact an OEM's ability to make vehicle data available at a fair and
reasonable cost. We seek comment on how tool vendors would be affected,
whether they would be able to support the new services and data
available in J1979-2, and if there are any concerns tool manufacturers
have regarding access to vehicle data at a fair and reasonable cost.
While the move to UDS has been discussed by OEMs in the past with
CARB, a proposal was expected to be released last year, but is now
expected this year, and while SAE is working on a new standard, J1978-2
to specify the scan tool requirements to interface with J1979-2, this
standard is not yet available.602 603 EPA is seeking comment
on the impact to generic scan tool manufacturers of the timing of the
voluntary allowance for the use of J1979-2 in MY 2023 and whether scan
tool manufacturers can provide updated tools for use to diagnose and
repair vehicles as well as for inspection and maintenance facilities in
time for MY 2023, or if this protocol should not be allowed for use
until a later model year and if so what the appropriate timing is.
Specifically, EPA is seeking comment on the following issues related to
generic scan tools:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\602\ IM Solutions, IM Solutions OBD Communication Update
Webinar, June 10, 2020. Available here: https://www.obdclearinghouse.com/Files/viewFile?fileID=2239.
\603\ SAE, J1978-2 available here: https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j1978-2/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will vendors be able to meet the MY 2023 timeframe?
Can existing tools be updated to accommodate the new
protocol or do new scan tools need to be developed to utilize J1979-2?
Will any additional hardware changes be required to
accommodate J1979-2?
Do tool vendors expect the price of tools that can utilize
J1979-2 to be comparable to tools that utilize J1979?
Do state inspection and maintenance facilities require
additional time to be able to modify or update equipment to handle
J1979-2?
Will generic scan tools be able to read both J1979-2 and
J1979 or will separate tools be required?
Will generic scan tool functionality be the same or better
with the implementation of J1979-2?
Will users require specialized training to use J1979-2
tools?
Is development going to be delayed until the adoption of
SAE J1978-2?
ii. Use of Tailpipe Emission Sensors
EPA is seeking comment on whether and how to allow manufacturers to
use onboard emission sensors to help reduce test burden associated with
OBD certification. In particular, EPA would like comment on ways to
reduce test cell time associated with component threshold testing, such
as ways to use NOX sensor data instead of test cycle
NOX measurements (provided those sensors meet the proper
specifications). There are further complications for testing outside of
a test cell to demonstrate compliance that need careful consideration
(as it is assumed that testing that relies on onboard NOX
sensors would happen outside of a test cell), including:
What alternative testing methods are reasonable and would
provide assurances that they are creating robust diagnostic systems?
For what operating conditions and over what time frame
should this testing occur?
What NOX values should be considered (e.g.,
average NOX over a certain period of time, or for a
particular set of operating conditions?)
What ambient and vehicle operating conditions should be
considered?
How can this methodology ensure repeatable results?
How would EPA verify this methodology for compliance
assurance?
This type of strategy could potentially reduce compliance costs
because it would reduce the amount of emission testing manufacturers
need to perform in a test cell during OBD development. We request
comment on this and other aspects of the OBD program that could be
improved through the use of emissions sensors. EPA is also seeking
comment on alternative methods to use onboard emission sensors that
could be used to generate and provide real-world data that may enable
improved diagnostics, assess the function of emissions critical
components and assess the implementation of dynamic AECD inputs. Such a
program could be voluntary and provide additional data that could be
used in the future to analyze whether changes to the OBD program should
be made to improve compliance demonstrations and reduce test cell
burden.
3. Cost Impacts
Heavy-duty engine manufacturers currently certify their engines to
meet CARB's OBD regulations before obtaining EPA certification for a
50-state OBD approval. We anticipate most manufacturers would continue
to certify with CARB and that they would certify to CARB's 2019 updated
OBD regulations well in advance of the EPA program taking effect;
therefore, we anticipate the incorporation by reference of CARB's 2019
OBD requirements would not result in any additional costs. EPA does not
believe the additional OBD requirements described here would result in
any significant costs, as there are no requirements for new monitors,
new data parameters, new hardware, or new
[[Page 17536]]
testing included in this rule. However, EPA has accounted for possible
additional costs that may result from the proposed expanded list of
public OBD parameters and expanded scan tool tests in the ``Research
and Development Costs'' of our cost analysis in Section V. EPA
recognizes that there could be cost savings associated with reduced OBD
testing requirements; however, we did not quantify the costs savings
associated with proposed changes to the CARB's OBD testing
requirements. We seek comment on our approach to including costs for
OBD and the savings associated with each proposed OBD testing
modification.
D. Inducements
1. Background
The 2001 final rule that promulgated the criteria pollutant
standards for MY 2010 and later heavy-duty highway engines included a
detailed analysis of available technologies for meeting the new
emission standards.\604\ Manufacturers ultimately deployed urea-based
SCR systems instead of catalyzed particulate traps and NOX
absorbers as EPA had projected in 2001. SCR is very different from
these other emission control technologies in that it requires operators
to maintain an adequate supply of diesel exhaust fluid (DEF), which is
generally a water-based solution with 32.5 percent urea. Operating an
SCR-equipped engine without the DEF would cause NOX
emissions to increase to levels comparable to having no NOX
controls at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\604\ 66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001; see Section I of the
preamble for more information on the history of emission regulations
for this sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As manufacturers prepared to certify their SCR-equipped engines to
the EPA 2010 standards, EPA was concerned that operators might not take
the necessary steps to maintain a supply of DEF to keep the emission
controls working properly. To address concerns regarding the design and
operation of SCR-equipped heavy-duty highway diesel engines and
vehicles, between 2007 and 2012 EPA published three guidance documents,
two notices and one request for comment in the Federal Register, and
participated in a joint public workshop with CARB.\605\ These documents
focused on the following three main categories of relevant regulatory
requirements in the context of the use of DEF in SCR-equipped engines:
(1) Critical emissions-related scheduled maintenance requirements, (2)
adjustable parameters requirements, and (3) auxiliary emission control
device (AECD) requirements. The EPA guidance identify possible
approaches to meeting these regulations for heavy-duty diesel engines
using SCR systems; however, the approaches were not required to be used
and EPA explained that no determination was made in the guidance on
whether the engine and vehicle designs that use the approaches are
acceptable for certification, since that determination must be made
based on the design of particular engines or vehicles. We broadly refer
to this engine derate guidance as an inducement policy and design
strategy. Throughout this preamble we refer to engine derates that
derive from DEF-related triggers as ``inducements.'' This section
discusses the relevant prior development and use of an inducement
policy and design strategy for heavy-duty highway vehicles and engines,
including comments we received on operators' experiences with
inducements under that strategy in our Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, principles for updating inducement approaches for heavy-
duty highway vehicles and engines, and proposed inducement provisions
for heavy-duty highway vehicles and engines.\606\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\605\ Kopin, Amy. Memorandum to Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055.
Inducement-Related Guidance Documents and Workshop Presentation,
October 1, 2021.
\606\ See 85 FR 3306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. DEF Replenishment as Critical Emissions-Related Scheduled
Maintenance
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 86.004-25 limit the emission-related
scheduled maintenance that may be performed by manufacturers for
purposes of durability testing and specify criteria for inclusion in
manufacturers' maintenance instructions provided to purchasers of new
motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines. Of particular relevance
here, the regulations in 40 CFR 86.004-25(a)(2) specify that
maintenance performed on vehicles, engines, subsystems, or components
used in the determination of emission deterioration factors is
classified as either emission-related or non-emission-related, and
either scheduled or un-scheduled. Emission-related scheduled
maintenance must be technologically necessary to assure in-use
compliance with the emission standards and must meet the specified
allowable minimum maintenance intervals, as provided in 40 CFR 86.004-
25(b) (including cross-referenced 40 CFR 86.094-25(b)(7)).\607\
Additionally, to ensure that emission controls used in the durability
demonstration do not under-perform in-use as a result of vehicle owners
failing to perform scheduled maintenance, manufacturers must show that
all critical emission-related scheduled maintenance have a reasonable
likelihood of being performed in-use (see 40 CFR 86.004-25(b)(6)(ii)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\607\ See Section IV.B.5 for our proposal to migrate and update
the maintenance provisions from 40 CFR 86.004-25 and 86.010-38 to 40
CFR 1036.125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the guidance document CISD-07-07 signed on March 27, 2007, EPA
stated that the use of DEF is consistent with the definition of
critical emission-related maintenance and therefore these requirements
would apply to the replenishment of the DEF tank. EPA stated that
manufacturers wanting to use SCR technology would likely have to
request a change to scheduled maintenance requirements per 40 CFR
86.094-25(b)(7), as the existing minimum maintenance intervals were
100,000 miles for medium-duty and 150,000 miles for heavy-duty diesel
engines. Following the completion of the guidance, EPA received several
requests for new maintenance intervals for SCR-equipped motor vehicles
and motor vehicle engines. EPA granted these requests for model years
2009 through 2011 for heavy-duty engines in a notice that was published
in the Federal Register (74 FR 57671, November 9, 2009). Engine and
vehicle manufacturers provided additional requests for new maintenance
intervals for vehicles and engines in model years not covered by the
November 9, 2009 Federal Register notice.
In the November 9, 2009 Federal Register notice and the guidance
document CISD-09-04-REVISED (CISD-09-04R), regarding the requirement
that manufacturers must show that all critical emission-related
scheduled maintenance have a reasonable likelihood of being performed
in-use, the document explained that manufacturers could make such a
showing by satisfying at least one of the conditions listed in the
then-applicable 40 CFR 86.094-25(b)(6)(ii)(A-F). In particular, the
guidance focused on two of the methods in the regulation: (1)
Presenting information establishing a connection between emissions and
vehicle performance such that as emissions increase due to lack of
maintenance the vehicle performance will deteriorate to a point
unacceptable for typical driving; and (2) installing a clearly
displayed visible signal system approved by EPA to alert the driver
that maintenance is due. In the CISD-09-04R guidance, EPA identified
possible approaches to show a reasonable likelihood that DEF in a
vehicle's tank will be maintained at acceptable levels.
[[Page 17537]]
For the first method, CISD-09-04R suggested that performance that
deteriorates to a point unacceptable for typical driving would be
sufficiently onerous to discourage operation without DEF. EPA suggested
in CISD-09-04R that a possible approach could be for the manufacturer
to include a derate of the engine's maximum available engine torque of
a sufficient magnitude for the operator to notice decreased operation,
explaining that a derate of at least 25 percent is likely to be needed
for such an effect, and a progression to further degradation to
severely restrict operation. For the second method, CISD-09-04R
suggested that a clearly displayed visible signal system could include
a DEF level indicator, messages in the instrument cluster, a DEF
indicator, engine shutdown lamp, or audible warnings to warn the driver
that maintenance is due (DEF refill is needed). The CISD-09-04R
guidance reiterated that these are possible general approaches to meet
the requirement that the critical maintenance is reasonably likely to
occur in use, but EPA will evaluate all approaches taken by
manufacturers at the time of certification, and such evaluation will be
based on the requirements in the regulations.
On January 5, 2012 (77 FR 488), EPA updated and extended its
approval of maintenance intervals for the refill of DEF tanks for
heavy-duty engines for 2011 and later model years. In a separate
rulemaking in 2014, EPA added DEF tank size (which dictates DEF
replenishment rate) to the list of scheduled emission-related
maintenance for diesel-fueled motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines
in 40 CFR 86.004-25(b)(4)(v).\608\ We are proposing to migrate this
provision into new 40 CFR 1036.115(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\608\ 79 FR 46356, August 8, 2014. ``Emergency Vehicle Rule--SCR
Maintenance and Regulatory Flexibility for Nonroad Equipment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also added a limitation in 40 CFR 86.004-25(b)(5)(ii) for DEF
replenishment (a critical emission-related scheduled maintenance item),
requiring that manufacturers must satisfy paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(A) or
(F) to be accepted as having a reasonable likelihood of the maintenance
item being performed in-use. EPA explained that the criteria in
(b)(6)(ii)(B)-(E) were not sufficiently robust for DEF replenishment,
and therefore would not be sufficient for demonstrating that DEF
replenishment is reasonably likely to occur in use. We are proposing
that the proposed inducement requirements in 40 CFR 1036.111 will
ensure the reasonable likelihood of DEF replenishment being performed
in-use. EPA is not proposing any changes to DEF refill intervals. We
are proposing to exclude the alternative option in (b)(6)(ii)(F) to
demonstrate DEF replenishment is reasonably likely to be performed in-
use, but are seeking comment on whether this provision should instead
be preserved. EPA is otherwise proposing to migrate the provisions in
40 CFR 86.004-25(b)(5)(ii) to 40 CFR 1036.125(a)(1) (section IV.D.3.
describes the proposal in detail).
ii. DEF as an Adjustable Parameter
EPA regulations in 40 CFR 86.094-22(e) require that manufacturers
comply with emission standards over the full adjustable range of
``adjustable parameters'' and state that we will determine the adequacy
of the limits, stops, seals or other means used to inhibit
adjustment.\609\ For any parameter that has not been determined to be
adequately limited, 40 CFR 86.094-22(e) authorizes the Administrator to
adjust the parameter to any setting within the physical limits or stops
during certification and other testing. In determining the parameters
subject to adjustment, EPA considers the likelihood that settings other
than the manufacturer's recommended setting will occur in-use,
considering such factors as, but not limited to, the difficulty and
cost of getting access to make an adjustment; damage to the vehicle if
an attempt is made; and the effect of settings other than the
manufacturer's recommended settings on engine performance. Adjustable
parameters historically included things like physical settings that are
controlled by a dial or screw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\609\ Section XII.A.2 describes how we are proposing to update
regulatory provisions in 40 CFR 1068.50 related to adjustable
parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In guidance document CISD-07-07, EPA provided clarification that an
SCR system utilizing DEF that needs to be periodically replenished
would meet the definition set forth in paragraphs 40 CFR 86.094-
22(e)(1) and 86.1833-01(a)(1) and could be considered an adjustable
parameter by the Agency. EPA is confirming that DEF is considered an
adjustable parameter because it is both physically capable of being
adjusted and significantly affects emissions. In particular, DEF level
and quality are parameters that can physically be adjusted and may
significantly affect emissions. SCR system designs rely on storing DEF
in a tank located on the vehicle, the operator refilling the tank with
quality DEF, and quality DEF being available. This design depends on
the vehicle operator being made aware that DEF needs to be replaced
through the use of warnings and vehicle performance deterioration. The
EPA guidance CISD-07-07 described that without a mechanism to inform
the vehicle operator that the DEF needs to be replaced, there is a high
likelihood that the adjustable parameter will be circumvented or
exceeded in-use and therefore EPA would not consider the system to be
adequately inaccessible or sealed. EPA stated in CISD-07-07 that we
would not prescribe a specific driver inducement design, but that the
options identified in the guidance could be utilized to demonstrate
that the driver inducement design was robust and onerous enough to
ensure that engines will not be operated without DEF in the vehicle
(e.g., if the operator ignored or deactivated the warning system). In
addition, the guidance stated that the driver inducement mechanism
should not create undue safety concerns, but should make sure vehicle
operators are adding DEF when appropriate by having the vehicle
performance degraded in a manner that would be safe but would be
onerous enough to discourage vehicles from being operated without DEF.
EPA stated that the key challenge of this approach is to determine what
would constitute an acceptable performance degradation strategy.
EPA guidance document CISD-09-04R re-emphasized that under the
adjustable parameter requirements, EPA makes a determination at
certification whether the engine is designed to prevent operation
without quality DEF. The guidance suggested a similar strategy for both
DEF level and quality could be used, which would alert the operator to
the problem and then use a gradually more onerous inducement strategy
to either fill the tank or correct the poor-quality DEF and discourage
its repeated use. CISD-09-04R also provided more detail on the
potential use of inducements with tamper resistant designs to reduce
the likelihood that the adjustable parameters will be circumvented in
use, noting that in particular, manufacturers should be careful to
review the tamper resistance of the system to prevent the disconnection
of certain components (e.g., DEF pump or dosing valve). EPA did not
determine in CISD-07-07 what specific amount of time or mileage would
be necessary for an inducement policy. EPA guidance document CD-13-13
was issued in November 2013 in response to concerns that operators may
dilute DEF with water to reduce
[[Page 17538]]
costs.\610\ CD-13-13 provides guidance to manufacturers of heavy-duty
on-highway engines on how EPA expects to determine the physical range
of adjustment of DEF quality for certification testing. EPA explained
that we generally would consider the range of adjustment for emission
testing to span the change in urea concentration from 32.5 percent
(unadulterated DEF) to the point at which poor DEF quality can be
detected. This guidance also provides possible measures manufacturers
may take, such as inducements, to sufficiently restrain the adjustment
of DEF quality to limit the need for testing outside the manufacturer's
specified range. EPA is proposing to adopt certain performance
degradation strategy requirements that must be met for EPA to make a
determination at certification that the engine is designed to prevent
operation without quality DEF under the adjustable parameter
requirements (section IV.D.3. describes the proposal in detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\610\ Kopin, Amy. Memorandum to Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055.
Inducement-Related Guidance Documents, and Workshop Presentation,
October 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. DEF Usage and Auxiliary Emission Control Devices (AECDs)
In CISD-09-04R EPA discussed that under extreme temperature
conditions DEF may freeze and not immediately flow to the SCR system.
There are, however, systems and devices that can be utilized to ensure
the flow of DEF. These systems are evaluated as AECDs (see 40 CFR
86.082-2) and manufacturers must describe this AECD and show that the
engine design does not incorporate strategies that reduce emission
control effectiveness compared to strategies used during the applicable
Federal emissions test procedures. EPA examines systems during
certification for ensuring proper dosing during extreme conditions such
as cold weather operation. CISD-09-04R provided an example of a test
procedure that could be used for ensuring the SCR system has adequate
DEF freeze protection. Under this example, SCR systems that are capable
of fully functional dosing at the conclusion of the test procedure
might be considered acceptable. EPA is not proposing any changes to
existing regulatory requirements for AECDs or to supersede guidance
with our proposed requirements, if finalized, except as explicitly
identified in section 40 CFR 1036.111.
iv. Tamper-Resistance Design
The existing EPA guidance and this section discuss inducements as a
tamper-resistant design strategy in the context of steps manufacturers
can take to prevent operation without quality DEF. Under the CAA,
engines must meet emission standards promulgated under section 202(a)
throughout useful life. Engines that do not meet those standards
throughout useful life may result in increased emissions that
fundamentally undermine EPA's emission control program and prevent us
from realizing the intended improvements in air quality. Tamper-
resistant design in engines can be an important part of a
manufacturer's compliance strategy to ensure that emissions standards
are met in-use throughout useful life. In addition to the reasons
described in the cited guidance documents, an inducement strategy for
SCR-system tamper-resistance can be part of a manufacturer's
demonstration at certification that engines will be built to meet
emission standards in-use throughout useful life.
The Agency believes that combining detection of open-circuit fault
conditions for SCR components (i.e., disconnection of SCR components)
with inducements would decrease the likelihood that the SCR system will
be circumvented through tampering.
2. ANPR Comments on the EPA's Inducement Guidance
The ANPR requested comment on EPA's existing guidance related to
SCR and DEF. A majority of the comments expressed concern that despite
the use of high-quality DEF and in the absence of tampering, in-use
vehicles are experiencing inducements for reasons outside of the
operator's control. Commenters stated that the reasons for these types
of inducements are often difficult to diagnose and can lead to repeat
trips to a repair facility and additional costs. Commenters also stated
that the existing schedule and speeds are not necessary to achieve
EPA's compliance goals, and instead the severe nature of these concerns
may be leading to unusual tampering rates. This section summarizes the
submitted comments.
Several commenters described problems with repeated occurrences of
inducements even with the use of a sufficient quantity of high-quality
DEF and in the absence of tampering (i.e., a ``false inducement'').
They reported that some of these cases were traceable to incidents
where the system detected a problem that did not exist and did not
create emission concerns, for example a vehicle with a full DEF tank
experienced an inducement due to a faulty DEF level sensor which
reported an empty tank. Commenters stated that false inducements can
occur, for example, as a result of software glitches, wiring harness
problems, minor corrosion of terminals, or faulty sensors, even if
those problems have no effect on the function of the emission control
system.\611\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\611\ For example, see the comments of the National Association
of Small Trucking Companies, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0456.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters stated that ``no trouble found'' events were common
where repair technicians were unable to diagnose a system fault after
the engine triggered an inducement. This condition has also been
documented by manufacturers who have issued technical service bulletins
(``TSBs'') discussing such concerns. EPA has identified a significant
number of TSBs documenting in-use problems that cause erratic fault
codes which can lead to inducements or engine derate despite operators
using high-quality DEF and not tampering.\612\ For example, some TSBs
describe faulty wire harness routing problems that can cause
inducements and recommend fixes that include adding extra zip ties or
tape. Commenters noted that erratic system problems can lead to
``defensive repairs'' as a diagnostic strategy for returning the
vehicle to service, which could result in repair expenses for replacing
parts that are not faulty and add risk of future costs if the problem
reoccurs, repeated tows are required, further diagnosis is done, and
more repairs are attempted. Commenters expressed a particular concern
for intermittent fault conditions that make diagnosis especially
difficult. To alleviate such concerns, ATA commented that EPA should
eliminate inducements for reasons other than maintaining an adequate
supply of high-quality DEF. ANPR commenters also expressed a concern
that technicians might repair a defective part without addressing the
root problem that caused the part to fail, which again leads to
repeated experiences of towing and repairing to restore an engine to
proper functioning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\612\ Miller, Neil; Kopin, Amy. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055. ``TSB Aftertreatment Faults.'' September 9, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters stated that, despite their continued diligence to use
high-quality DEF, they have repeated experiences with inducements
resulting in very onerous costs. Some commenters noted they were
subject to the most severe restrictions multiple times per year even
though DEF tanks were properly filled.
[[Page 17539]]
OOIDA commented that inducement-related costs can severely jeopardize
owner-operators' ability to stay in business, citing costs that
included towing and lost income from downtime in addition to diagnosis
and repair. Commenters were especially concerned with long-distance
routes, which might involve a vehicle that is several days distant from
the base of operations. Other commenters highlighted that service
information and tools should be made easily available and affordable
for individual owners to diagnose and fix their own vehicles, which can
be important for small businesses, Tribes, and those in rural areas
with less ready access to original equipment manufacturer dealer
networks.\613\ While these comments did not specifically discuss
inducements, EPA also considers these comments relevant to vehicles
that are in an inducement condition. Other commenters added that false
inducements in these situations can necessitate having engines serviced
at an unfamiliar repair facility that has no information on a given
vehicle's repair history, which can result in improper repairs and
increased travel expenses for drivers to return home.\614\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\613\ For example, see the comments of the Keweenaw Bay Indian
Community, Docket ID AX-20-000-3862.
\614\ Miller, Neil; Kopin, Amy. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055. ``ANPR Inducement Comment Summary.'' August 5, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters stated that the four hours of operation before engines
reach final inducement is poorly matched with typical wait times of
three or four days before repair technicians can look at and attempt to
diagnose the problem with their vehicles, plus additional time is
needed to complete the repairs. Commenters further stated that repair
technicians are often unable to diagnose the problem, repairs can take
several days in any case, with additional time lost if there is a need
to order parts and wait for shipment, and there are frequently ``come-
back'' repairs for vehicles not fixed properly the first time.
Commenters stated that the money needed for a tow would be better
spent on repairs.\615\ Some commenters emphasized that a speed
restriction of 5 mph caused the need for towing, even though a less
restrictive inducement would accomplish the same purpose without
incurring towing expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\615\ Commenters suggested the cost of a tow starts at $800,
which could approximately cover the cost to replace a faulty
NOX sensor. Others noted that the cost of a tow and
related repairs is estimated to be around $7500-8000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters described experiences of sudden inducements restricting
vehicle speed to 5 mph which they stated caused highway safety problems
for truck drivers and nearby vehicles.\616\ Others described having
safety concerns when a vehicle is stranded, such as having buses
carrying passengers parked along the highway or freeway.\617\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\616\ For example, see the anonymous comments in Docket ID EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0426.
\617\ See the comments of Theilen Bus Lines, Docket ID EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-0521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters stated that in addition to monetary costs, there
are other business impacts such as missing critical deadlines, loss of
customer trust and credibility, and loss of future contracts. Other
comments indicate that EPA's existing inducement policy, especially
where application of it has resulted in false inducements, may have
created a strong incentive to either tamper with SCR systems (e.g.,
installing ``delete kits'') and may be leading to owners extending the
life of older vehicles; they further asserted that these behaviors were
causing trucks to fail to accomplish the intended emission reduction
goal. For example, the American Truck Dealers division of National Auto
Dealers Association commented that in addition to emission-related
maintenance and repair issues, improperly functioning SCR derate
maintenance inducements have also led to emissions tampering.\618\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\618\ See the comments of the National Automotive American Truck
Dealers division of National Auto Dealers Association, Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0369.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is worth noting that in comments on CARB's Omnibus rule both the
California Trucking Association and ATA member companies requested CARB
work with EPA to further investigate the efficacy of progressive de-
rate inducements typically associated with low-volume or empty DEF
tanks or the use of poor-quality DEF. They added that the safety and
environmental implications of these types of de-rate occurrences need
additional evaluation and study prior to enacting additional
NOX controls. Further, they commented that following more
than a decade of experience, de-rates not related to low DEF levels or
inferior DEF quality continue to occur, and that among a sampling of
fleets operating more than 10,000 trucks, nearly 80 percent of de-rates
in 2019 were attributed to other causes such as sensor failures,
electrical defects and SCR component issues. ATA stated that many of
these causes are not associated with the emissions performance of the
SCR system and yet are initiating operational restrictions. After the
ANPR was issued, EPA received a letter from charter bus companies
detailing their concerns and difficulties experienced with existing
inducements. Specifically, they mentioned the inadequate timeframe for
which to resolve problems, the safety risk to passengers, the high cost
of towing, other costs incurred due to breakdowns such as
reimbursements owed for tickets to missed shows or flights, and the
cost to their reputation despite their efforts to maintain their fleets
and keep the emissions systems functioning properly.\619\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\619\ Kopin, Amy. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055.
``Letter to EPA from Bus and Motorcoach Operators Regarding
Inducement Experiences In-Use.'' November 17, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Principles for Updating Inducement Provisions
In general, emission control technology is integrated into engine
and vehicle systems in ways that do not require routine operator
interaction. However, ensuring that on-highway engines using SCR are
designed, consistent with our regulations, to prevent operation without
quality DEF through and dependent upon steps performed by operators in-
use presents unique challenges. Crafting an inducement policy includes
complex technological questions on how manufacturers should demonstrate
that SCR system standards and related requirements will be met and
challenging policy decisions on how to appropriately motivate or
restrict certain types of human behavior that are either necessary for
or directly impact in-use compliance with emissions standards. EPA
recognizes and commenters have highlighted that the existing inducement
policy and its implementation have resulted in a complex mix of
incentives and behaviors. Policymaking for inducements therefore
presents itself not as an engineering problem with a single solution.
EPA is proposing to codify inducement provisions, which include
adjustments as compared to our existing inducement guidance after
consideration of manufacturer designs and operator experiences with
SCR. We recognize that SCR technology has continued to mature, and
appropriate designs for heavy-duty engines using SCR systems have
evolved over the past decade. EPA continues to believe that designing
SCR-equipped engines with power derating is an effective and reasonable
measure to ensure that operators perform critical emissions-related
scheduled maintenance on the SCR system and to demonstrate to EPA that
it is reasonable to anticipate, consistent with requirements for
[[Page 17540]]
adjustable parameters, that the engine would normally be operated using
quality DEF. We are proposing inducement requirements whose objective
is to ensure that emission controls function and emission reductions
occur in-use while reducing potential impacts to operators through the
consideration of the following key principles.
EPA's inducement approach should result in:
1. Operators maintaining an adequate supply of high-quality DEF
while discouraging tampering of SCR systems,
2. a speed derating schedule for inducement that balances impacts
to operators while still achieving required emission control,
3. unique inducement schedules for different categories of vehicles
that reflect different primary operating conditions to ensure that the
final inducement speed is effective while acknowledging operating
constraints,
4. ensuring that the inducement condition is warranted,
5. clear communication of SCR system problems to the operator,
6. avoiding the need for intervention at a dealer or other
specialized service center where possible, and
7. reduced likelihood of in-use tampering based on a more targeted
inducement approach.
Development of regulatory inducement requirements that reflect
these key principles requires consideration of potentially competing
concerns. A minimally restrictive approach might result in increased
emissions because of extensive operation without scheduled maintenance
being performed and circumvention of the limit on the adjustable range
(i.e., without use of sufficient high-quality DEF). In contrast, an
overly restrictive approach might impose unnecessary costs and pose a
threat to operators' livelihoods, as well as leading to potentially
increased tampering with engines or reduced fleet turnover rates that
would lead to increased emissions.
The principles described here are those EPA used to develop the
proposed inducement provisions in 40 CFR 1036.111 and are discussed
later in this section for heavy-duty engines certified under 40 CFR
part 1036 that use SCR systems. These principles are based on our
existing guidance but include important adjustments. The first
principle is to develop an effective inducement proposal that ensure
that all critical emission-related scheduled maintenance has a
reasonable likelihood of being performed and allows manufacturers to
demonstrate an acceptable performance degradation strategy at the time
of certification to meet adjustable parameter requirements. This
principle should result in a proposal that would ensure operators will
add high-quality DEF and would help prevent tampering with the SCR
system by requiring increased levels of inducement to occur in stages
for reasons related to insufficient quantity of high-quality DEF or
tampering with the SCR system. This approach creates an immediate and
increasing incentive to remedy the problem. Operators would keep tanks
full of high-quality DEF prior to the inducement process starting and
avoid tampering with the SCR system.
Our second principle seeks to identify an appropriate speed
derating schedule for inducements that reflects experience gained over
the past decade with SCR. This schedule would better balance impacts to
operators while ensuring that all critical emission-related scheduled
maintenance has a reasonable likelihood of being performed and allow
manufacturers to demonstrate an acceptable performance degradation
strategy at the time of certification to meet adjustable parameter
requirements. An appropriate inducement speed and schedule should be
low enough to ensure that operators maintain a supply of high-quality
DEF, while allowing engines to operate at a limited speed over a
restricted timeframe that restricts commercial operation (e.g., highway
operation) but allows for safely operating the vehicle to return home
for repair and to perform the necessary post-repair diagnostic checks
to avoid ``come-back'' repairs. Almost all heavy-duty vehicles are
engaged in commercial activity for which it would be completely
unacceptable to operate indefinitely at vehicle speeds that do not
allow for travel on limited-access highways. This principle should
result in an inducement schedule that would allow a reduced level of
operation over a sufficient period of time for operators when there is
a need to get a driver home from a distance, deliver critical freight
(e.g., passengers, livestock, or concrete) or for scheduling repairs in
a time or area of limited openings in repair shops. Establishing an
inducement policy that would be consistent among manufacturers would
improve operator experiences. For example, today manufacturer
strategies may differ in ways that potentially may have significant
effects on operators (e.g., some manufacturers implement a final severe
inducement only after a vehicle is stopped, others implement it
immediately while a vehicle is in motion). EPA believes another
important aspect of this principle is to set an inducement schedule
that would include additional stages of derated engine power that would
be tied to drive-time to create a predictable schedule of increasing
incentive to repair the engine. We also believe that our proposed
approach, including the proposed inducement speeds and schedules, would
be the most effective way to minimize operational disruptions due to
potential supply chain problems such as component or DEF shortages.
The third principle is to recognize the diversity of the real-world
fleet and that one inducement schedule may not be appropriate for the
entire fleet. Instead, separate inducement speeds and schedules should
apply to vehicles that primarily operate at low- or high-speeds to
ensure an appropriate final inducement is applied. Certain vocational
vehicles, such as utility trucks, local delivery vehicles, refuse
trucks, cement mixers, and urban buses do not operate fast enough to be
effectively constrained by the same inducement speed that would be
appropriate for trucks with extended highway driving. Similarly,
applying a low final inducement speed to the entire fleet would overly
constrain vehicles that spend the majority of their time at highway
speeds. Rather than the EPA identifying a different inducement schedule
for each type of vehicle, vehicles would be subject to an alternative
inducement schedule based on the average vehicle speed history recorded
in the onboard computer.
The fourth principle would not apply an inducement if there is a
fault code flagged by the system but the SCR system is still
controlling NOX emissions. Under this principle, putting a
vehicle into an inducement for a condition that does not result in a
failure of the engine to comply with emission standards would be
inconsistent with the goal of an inducement policy. To apply
inducements consistent with this principle, manufacturers would design
their diagnostic system to override a detected fault condition if
NOX sensors confirm that the SCR system is in fact
appropriately reducing NOX emissions. The diagnostic system
depends on multiple sensors and complex algorithms to detect fault
conditions. This override feature could be helpful to reduce false
inducements that can occur when the fault is not due to tampering or
the absence of high-quality DEF in the system (e.g., a faulty DEF level
sensor in a tank full of DEF). An inducement approach that includes a
[[Page 17541]]
backup check would address problems with faulty sensors or part
shortages that can strand owners.\620\ Under CARB's updated 2019 OBD
regulations, which apply under CARB's regulations starting with MY 2023
compliant OBD systems would be able to query data in the most recent
``active 100-hour array'', which monitors and records the most recent
engine and emission control parameters at discrete operating conditions
to confirm that appropriate NOX reductions are occurring. We
are proposing to incorporate by reference these updated CARB OBD
requirements and to make them mandatory for MY 2027 and later, while
manufacturers could voluntarily choose to certify to these requirements
prior to that (see section IV.C.1. for further discussion on OBD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\620\ July 10, 2021. De Maris, Russ, ``Will a DEF head problem
ruin your trip?'' Available here: https://www.rvtravel.com/def-head-problem-ruin-trip/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fifth principle seeks to improve the type and amount of
information operators receive from the truck to help avoid or quickly
remedy a problem that is causing an inducement. This could include
manufacturers providing information on the dashboard or other display
to indicate when the first (and next) stage of derating will start in
addition to identifying the current (and next) restricted speed. It is
important for operators to understand what is happening to the truck as
well as whether or not they can make it back home or to a preferred
repair facility and reduce anxiety that can occur when an inducement or
engine derate occurs. The indicator would also show the fault condition
that caused the inducement. This status information would help to
prevent an unsafe condition resulting from an unexpected step down in
speed, and it would give operators important information for planning
routes to arrange for repairs.
The sixth principle includes allowing operators to perform an
inducement reset by using a generic scan tool or allowing for the
engine to self-heal through the completion of a drive cycle that will
warm up the SCR system to operating temperature and permit the system
to automatically reset the inducement condition as appropriate. This
approach would allow vehicle owners much more discretion to perform
repairs themselves or select appropriate repair facilities for their
vehicles. This flexibility becomes increasingly important as vehicles
get older, especially for second or third owners, who typically depend
on simpler maintenance procedures to keep operating costs low enough
for viable operation. Any system reset that does not follow the fault
condition being addressed would require the engine to immediately
return to the stage of inducement that applied before the reset, which
would address the risk of improper resets. Together with allowing more
time to diagnose and repair a vehicle, this provision would help to
address comments from Tribal interests stating that Tribes and others
operating in remote areas often have limited access to dealers or
specialized repair facilities for repairing engines including vehicles
that are in an inducement condition. These provisions would increase
options available to all vehicle owners and small fleets who perform
their own repair and maintenance and may be unable to service their own
vehicles if the fault condition occurs any distance from the home base.
A higher proposed final inducement speed would also allow the OBD
system to run an internal diagnostic check to confirm that the fault
condition is no longer active and that the SCR catalyst is again
reducing NOX emissions. This would be especially important
for vehicle owners that do their own repair work on older vehicles or
for operators in remote areas with limited access to dealers and
specialized tools.
The seventh principle seeks to develop an inducement schedule that
will ensure scheduled maintenance has a reasonable likelihood of being
performed and allow manufacturers to demonstrate they meet adjustable
parameter requirements at the time of certification while addressing
operator frustration with false inducements and severe inducement speed
restrictions that may potentially lead to in-use tampering of the SCR
system. We are concerned that engine designs that may have been
intended to be responsive to the existing SCR guidance may have
resulted in high levels of false inducement and overly restrictive
speed limitations and may have increased in-use tampering.\621\ For
example, there are many technical support bulletins that have been
released by manufacturers that detail inducements occurring for reasons
outside of operator control, such as minor corrosion on electrical
connectors.\622\ In addition, we received comments on the ANPR
regarding false inducements leading to emissions tampering.\623\ EPA is
aware there are products available in the marketplace to facilitate
tampering through the removal of SCR systems, which might be being
unlawfully used by vehicle owners who are adversely affected by false
inducements. After a decade of experience with SCR-equipped engines and
existing EPA guidance, several of the initial concerns with the use of
SCR that formed the basis of some elements of the existing guidance
have been resolved. DEF is widely available and the cost of DEF at the
pump is not that different from the cost of distilled water. A less
restrictive approach could be equally effective at encouraging
operators to maintain a supply of DEF, without causing problems that
may be leading to increased in-use tampering. A less restrictive
inducement schedule would allow operators more flexibility for on-time
delivery, reduce operator costs by allowing vehicles to be driven to
repair shops thereby avoiding towing fees, and allow more time for
proper diagnosis and repair to reduce the need for repeat visits to
repair shops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\621\ See section IV.D.1. for further discussion on existing
inducement guidance documents including: CISD-07-07 and CISD-09-04
REVISED.
\622\ Miller, Neil; Kopin, Amy. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055. ``TSB Aftertreatment Faults.'' September 9, 2021.
\623\ See comments from NADA, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
0369.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These seven principles, which include improved diagnostic fault
communication, NOX override checks, and revised inducement
speeds and schedules that reflect more realistic vehicle operations,
would result in a program that more effectively maintains in-use
emission reductions. We believe the proposed provisions described in
the following section would provide a net benefit to fleet operators,
small businesses, and the environment.
4. Proposed Inducement Provisions
Consistent with the seven principles described in Section IV.D.3.
EPA is proposing to specify in 40 CFR 1036.125(a)(1) that manufacturers
must meet the specifications in 40 CFR 1036.111 to demonstrate that DEF
replenishment is reasonably likely to occur at the recommended
intervals on in-use engines and that adjustable parameter requirements
will be met. We are proposing to exclude the alternative option in 40
CFR 86.004-25(b)(6)(ii)(F) to demonstrate DEF replenishment is
reasonably likely to be performed in use and are seeking comment on
whether manufacturers should be allowed to ask for approval to use an
alternative method of compliance to meet these requirements. Consistent
with the existing guidance, the proposed requirements would codify that
SCR-equipped engines must meet critical emission-related scheduled
maintenance requirements and limit the
[[Page 17542]]
physically adjustable range under the adjustable parameter requirements
by triggering inducements. EPA is proposing to adopt requirements that
inducements be triggered for fault conditions including: (1) DEF supply
is low, (2) DEF quality does not meet manufacturer specifications, or
(3) tampering with the SCR system. EPA is also proposing separate
inducement schedules for low- and high-speed vehicles. The proposed
inducement requirements would include a NOX override to
prevent false inducements. EPA is proposing to require manufacturers to
improve information provided to operators regarding inducements. The
proposal also includes a provision to allow operators to remove
inducement conditions after repairing the engine either through the use
of a generic scan tool or through a drive cycle to ensure that repairs
have been properly made. EPA is proposing that if multiple repeat fault
conditions are detected that the inducement schedule would not restart
with each new fault.
The proposed inducement provisions include several aspects. The
first three described here relate to proposed inducement triggers in 40
CFR 1036.111. First, EPA is proposing to require inducements related to
DEF quantity to ensure that high-quality DEF is used, similar to the
approach described in our existing guidance. Specifically, we propose
that SCR-equipped engines must trigger the start of an inducement when
the amount of DEF in the tank has been reduced to a level corresponding
to three hours of engine operation.
Second, EPA proposes to require inducements related to DEF quality
to ensure that high-quality DEF is used, similar to the approach
described in our existing guidance. There was a concern when SCR was
first introduced into the market a decade ago that DEF availability may
be limited and some operators may choose to use poor quality DEF, or,
for example, dilute DEF with water to reduce operating costs. DEF
quickly became widely available and today is conveniently available
even in pump form (e.g., next to diesel pumps at refueling stations) to
refill DEF tanks while refilling diesel tanks. Modern engines are
designed with feedback controls to increase or decrease DEF flow as the
system detects that a greater or lesser quantity of DEF is needed to
supply the amount of urea needed to keep the SCR catalyst working
properly or trigger an inducement. This DEF dosing feedback removes any
practical incentive for diluting DEF, as any such attempt would result
in more volume of DEF being consumed and trigger an inducement when
emissions control is no longer possible. Further, OEMs have made clear
to operators that using water without urea would cause extensive engine
damage and void the warranty. Today, the per-gallon price of DEF at the
pump is closer to the price of a gallon of distilled water. Given an
operator's ability to physically adjust DEF quality and the increase in
NOX emissions that would result if they do so, EPA maintains
that DEF quality is an adjustable parameter and is proposing to require
inducements when DEF quality fails to meet manufacturer concentration
specifications. Due to widespread DEF availability and familiarity with
operators, EPA believes operators would readily find and use high-
quality DEF to avoid inducements. As discussed in Section IV.D.1.ii,
CD-13-13 provides guidance on DEF quality as an adjustable parameter.
The guidance states that EPA generally considers the range of
adjustment for emission testing to span the change in urea
concentration from 32.5 percent (unadulterated DEF) to the point at
which poor DEF quality can be detected. This point represents the limit
for DEF quality adjustment because it is the first point at which a
manufacturer is able to implement inducements to prevent sustained
engine or vehicle operation with poor quality DEF. EPA is not proposing
changes to this guidance.
Third, EPA is proposing to require inducements to ensure that SCR
systems are designed to be tamper-resistant to reduce the likelihood
that the SCR system would be circumvented, similar to the approach
described in our existing guidance. CISD-09-04R discusses tamper-
resistant design with respect to a list of engine components in the SCR
system and suggests that manufacturers could design these components to
be physically difficult to access in addition to using warnings and
inducements if they are disconnected. We are proposing to require
monitoring for and triggering of an inducement for tampering with the
components listed in CISD-09-04R, as well as for a limited number of
other components. Specifically, we are proposing that open-circuit
fault conditions for the following components trigger inducements if
detected, to prevent disconnection through tampering: (1) DEF tank
level sensor, (2) DEF pump, (3) DEF quality sensor, (4) SCR wiring
harness, (5) NOX sensors, (6) DEF dosing valve, (7) DEF tank
heater, and (8) aftertreatment control module (ACM). Monitoring the DEF
tank heater is important to ensure AECD requirements are met. We are
not proposing to include the language from CISD-09-04R that such
components should be designed to be physically difficult to access
because an inducement condition would be triggered upon the unplugging
of a component (i.e., an open-circuit condition).\624\ Similar to the
approach described in CISD-09-04R which specified that disconnection of
the SCR wiring harness could trigger inducements as a tamper-resistant
design strategy, we are proposing to specify that the ACM also be
monitored for disconnection. In addition to proposing to require
detection of open-circuit conditions for certain components to prevent
tampering, EPA is also proposing to require that manufacturers trigger
an inducement for blocked DEF lines or dosing valves similar to the
approach described in CISD-09-04R.\625\ EPA is proposing that all
inducement-related diagnostic data parameters be made available with
generic scan tools (see section IV.C.1.iii.b. for further information).
Finally, EPA is proposing to require that manufacturers monitor for a
missing catalyst (see OBD requirements for this monitor in 13 CCR
1971.1(i)(3.1.6)) and trigger an inducement if this condition is found.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\624\ An Open-Circuit is a fault where the resistance of a
circuit has increased to the point where electrical current will no
longer flow through it, and is typically caused by a blown fuse,
broken wire, or removal of circuit components.
\625\ We are proposing in 40 CFR 1036.110(b)(8)(i) that
manufacturers notify operators of problems before blockages actually
occur to allow operators an opportunity to perform repairs and avoid
an inducement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As indicated in ANPR comments summarized in Section IV.D.2, many
operators report experiencing false inducements from faulty hardware
that are not a result of tampering. These experiences may indicate that
the existing triggers for inducements in engines may be too aggressive,
or that OEMs may not be able to clearly distinguish between tampering
and faulty hardware. EPA reviewed various manufacturer's inducement
strategies in their certification documents and compared those to our
existing guidance. Some manufacturers have certified engines with
nearly 200 different reasons for an engine to go into a derate
condition, including nearly 50 reasons for an SCR-related inducement.
Many of the derates are for engine protection, and we are not proposing
to make any changes to these types of derates. However, we are adopting
a list of SCR system inducement triggers for
[[Page 17543]]
meeting critical emissions-scheduled maintenance and adjustable
parameter requirements that focus on specific emission control
components and conditions that owners can control such as disconnecting
a DEF pump or other SCR-related emission control hardware. The proposed
list includes the tamper-resistance inducement triggers included in
CISD-09-04R as well as additional components. We believe that
standardizing the list of tampering inducement triggers would aid
owners, operators, and fleets in the repair of their vehicles by
reducing the cost and time required to diagnose the reason for
inducement.
Fourth, we are proposing separate four-step derate schedules and
final inducement speeds for vehicles that operate at low and high
speeds as shown in Table IV-13. We are proposing that the application
of low-speed inducements (LSI) and high-speed inducements (HSI) be
based on an individual vehicle's operating profile. In particular,
vehicles that have a stored average vehicle speed below 20 mph during
the previous 30 hours of engine operation (not including idle time)
would be considered low-speed vehicles and be subject to an LSI.
Excluding idle from the calculation of vehicle speed allows us to more
effectively evaluate each vehicle's speed profile, not time spent
idling, which does not impact the effectiveness of a final inducement
speed. EPA chose this speed based on an analysis of real-world vehicle
speed activity data from the FleetDNA database maintained by the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).\626\ Our analysis provided
us with insight into the optimum way to characterize high-speed and
low-speed vehicles in a way to ensure these categories received
appropriate inducements that would not be ineffective or overly
restrictive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\626\ Miller, Neil; Kopin, Amy. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055. ``Review and analysis of vehicle speed activity data from
the FleetDNA database.'' October 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to require specific inducement schedules for low-
speed and high-speed vehicles. We are proposing to codify progressively
increasing inducement derate schedules that allow the owner to
efficiently address conditions that trigger inducements. Table IV-13
shows the proposed default four-step inducement schedules in cumulative
hours. The time spent in each stage of inducement would include time
spent idling. The initial inducement of either 50 mph or 65 mph would
apply immediately when the OBD system detects: (1) There is
approximately three hours-worth of DEF remaining in the tank, (2) DEF
quality fails to meet manufacturers' concentration specifications, or
(3) when certain SCR system tampering events have occurred. The
inducement schedule would then step down over time to result in a final
inducement speed of either 35 mph or 50 mph depending on individual
vehicle operating profiles. In determining the appropriate final
inducement speeds for this proposal, EPA also relied in part on
analysis of data in the NREL FleetDNA database. Analyzing potential
impacts of final inducement speeds based on vehicle applications
involves a number of different considerations, beyond how much time a
particular application spent at different speeds. For example, the
ability to achieve higher speeds may be critical to many different duty
cycles and logistics necessary for commercial activities. Inducements
are intended to reduce/eliminate the ability to perform work such that
operators will replenish the tank with high-quality DEF and not tamper
with the SCR system. For example, our data show that combination long-
haul vehicles spend nearly almost 40 percent of their driving time over
65 mph. Based on this operation, an inducement speed of 65 mph will
cause a significant impact on the ability of the vehicle to be used for
commercial purposes, which means that any speed restriction below this
threshold is less likely to further incentivize operators to keep
emissions systems compliant. In addition, there were other segments
that may operate at lower average speeds, but when looking at their
duty cycle, it is clear that they depend on being able to complete
their work by achieving high rates of speed frequently, although not
for sustained periods (e.g., delivery vehicles that return to a
warehouse multiple times throughout the day to reload). These vehicles
may travel at lower speeds with frequent stop and go operation during
delivery but may need to travel on the highway to return to the
warehouse in order to complete a certain number of operations in a day.
Many vehicle segments in our sample exhibited this type of duty cycle
with frequent higher speeds, for example, some single short-haul
vehicles that had average speeds under 20 mph had duty cycles that
reached 60-70 mph briefly every hour.
We are proposing that the inducement schedules for low- and high-
speed vehicles include four stages that ramp down speeds to the final
LSI and HSI. The first stepped decrease in speed would apply six hours
after the initial inducement, which allows time for operators to fill
the DEF tank and resume operation in a way that allows the engine to
confirm a proper DEF supply without starting the next stage of
inducement. If the fault code is not resolved, the schedule continues
to reduce the vehicle speed by 5 mph increments in two additional
stages. One of the considerations in choosing the stepped speed
decreases is allowing drivers time to safely adjust to operation at a
lower speed while also adequately incentivizing action by vehicle
owners and operators, and we are proposing that 5 mph increments
achieve this balance. Commenters noted that even small changes in
allowable speeds are sufficient incentive to use high quality DEF.
Further, we believe the first step of our proposed inducement policy
would result in the use of high-quality DEF. The proposed additional
time would also allow for the diagnosis and repair of more extensive
problems and intermittent conditions.
The low-speed vehicle schedule and the final LSI speed of 35 mph is
designed for vehicles such as urban buses, school buses, and refuse
haulers that have sustained operation at low speeds, but frequently
travel at high speeds. Further, the final LSI speed would also apply to
concrete trucks, street sweepers, or other utility vehicles that have
low average speeds, but depend on higher speed operation to get to a
job site. In part, because of this high-speed operation, the final LSI
speed will be effective for compelling operators to properly maintain
their aftertreatment systems. The high-speed vehicle schedule and the
final HSI speed of 50 mph is designed for vehicles such as long-haul
freight trucks that have sustained operation at high speeds. The final
restricted speed of 50 mph prevents the vehicle from travel on most
interstate highways with state laws regarding impeding traffic and may
require the operator to use flashers to warn other vehicles of the
reduced speed.
We expect that the proposed derate schedules would be no less
effective than the current approach under existing guidance for
ensuring operators properly maintain aftertreatment systems and that it
would result in lower costs and impacts to operators and ultimately
result in lower tampering rates. EPA recognizes that the fleet is very
diverse, and believes that applying two inducement schedules and speeds
is an effective and reasonable approach that is not too aggressive or
too inconsequential to ensure operators maintain compliance. Our
analysis and proposed LSI and HSI schedules are intended to achieve the
proper balance
[[Page 17544]]
and limit unintended consequences such as increased tampering.
Table IV-13--Proposed Inducement Schedules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum speed (mi/hr)
-------------------------
Engine hours \a\ Low-speed All other
vehicles vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0............................................. 50 65
6............................................. 45 60
12............................................ 40 55
60............................................ 35 50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Hours start counting with the onset of the triggering condition
specified in paragraph (b) of this section. For DEF supply, you may
program the engine to reset the timer to three hours when the engine
detects zero DEF flow.
Sixth, to reduce occurrences of false inducements, the proposed
inducement approach would require a warning to be displayed to the
operator to indicate a fault, but utilize a NOX override
feature to prevent false inducement. We are proposing that an
inducement would not be triggered if average data from the
NOX sensor show that the catalyst is reducing NOX
emissions consistent with stored OBD REAL Bin data within an estimated
10 percent margin of error due to limitations of in-use detection and
measurement. A 10 percent reduction in NOX conversion
efficiency has been selected because the accuracy of the NOX
measurement can have errors as much as 10-20 percent based on a study
conducted by SwRI.\627\ This NOX sensor error increases as
the NOX concentration is reduced. Using a 10 percent error
is a reasonable threshold based on the work completed by SwRI and
considering continuing advances in technology of on-board
NOX sensors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\627\ ``Heavy-Duty Engine Low-Load Emission Control Calibration,
Low Load Test Cycle Development, and Evaluation of Engine Broadcast
Torque and Fueling Accuracy During Low-Load Operation,'' Low
NOX Demonstration Program--Stage 2, Christopher A. Sharp,
Southwest Research Institute, SwRI Project No. 03.22496, Final
Report, May 6, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For vehicles subject to a HSI, this data would come from Bin 14
which holds data taken during operation at vehicle speeds greater than
40 mph and when the engine power output is greater than 50 percent of
rated power. For vehicles subject to a Low Speed Inducement (LSI), this
data would come from Bin 13 which holds data taken during operation at
vehicle speeds greater than 25 mph and less than or equal to 40 mph and
when the engine power output is greater than 50 percent of rated power.
This data would indicate whether DEF is present in the system as zero
NOX reductions would occur without DEF, and data showing
reductions consistent with operation prior to the condition would
indicate that the operator is adding high-quality DEF. We propose that
the NOX sensor data used to evaluate the need for inducement
would come from the 100-hour active array, which would be reset at the
time an initial inducement trigger occurred. Resetting the array at
that time would ensure that the data used to evaluate whether
sufficient high-quality DEF is present in the system would be taken
after the initial inducement was triggered and not rely on historical
data to make the assessment. The OBD system would continue to monitor
the fault condition and provide a warning to the operator that an issue
should be addressed, but an inducement would not be triggered unless
NOX performance fell below the threshold of a 10 percent
reduction in NOX conversion efficiency (e.g., indicating
that the operator has not added DEF).
Seventh, as discussed in section IV.D.3, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR
1036.111(f) that manufacturers must display the condition that
triggered the pending or active derate and a countdown timer to
estimate the time or distance remaining before the next stage of
derating. This display requirement would apply even if the engine
overrides a detected fault condition based on NOX
measurements, and the display should indicate that the derates will not
apply as long as NOX sensors continue to show that emission
controls are functioning properly. It is critical that operators have
clear and ready access to information regarding inducements to reduce
potential anxiety over progressive engine derates (which can lead to
motivations to tamper) as well as to allow operators to make informed
decisions.
Eighth, we are proposing that the system would remove the
inducement and resume unrestricted engine operation once the OBD system
detects the condition has been remedied. EPA would also expect
manufacturers to enable the system to reset once the problem was
repaired. EPA is proposing to require that generic scan tools be able
to remove an inducement condition. This would allow owners who repair
vehicles outside of commercial facilities to complete the repair
without delay (e.g., flushing and refilling a DEF tank where
contaminated DEF was discovered). However, if the same fault condition
repeats within 80 hours of engine operation (e.g., in response to a DEF
quantity fault an owner adds a small but insufficient quantity of DEF),
we are proposing that the system would treat the reoccurring fault
condition as the same triggering condition and immediately resume the
derate at the same point in the derate schedule where it was last
deactivated. In addition, we are proposing that the Active 100 Hour
Array would not be reset if an additional fault occurs before the first
code is resolved. The 80 hour window should be long enough to prevent
operators from applying temporary remedies, but not so long that
operators are unfairly held to the schedule for a past fault condition
when a new fault occurs. This repeat fault provision would prevent
operators from circumventing requirements by not properly addressing
the problem.
As discussed in Section IV.C, EPA is seeking comment on whether
improvements could be made to OBD to monitor inducement conditions to
ensure a false inducement did not occur and to track such inducements
and the conditions that trigger them. Having access to additional OBD
data for inducement-related conditions can help operators and repair
technicians pinpoint and respond to conditions that currently are often
leading to reports of `no trouble found' or false inducements.
As noted in ANPR comments, vehicle operators have experienced
inducements that do not seem to be keyed to detected fault conditions,
and inducements have occurred on a different schedule than
anticipated.\628\ These problems may be caused by wear conditions,
malfunctioning components, or inadequate system logic. Successful
implementation of the proposed inducement provisions depends on
production of engines that operate according to the engine
manufacturers' designs over a lifetime of in-use operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\628\ See the comments of the American Trucking Associations on
the CARB Omnibus rulemaking, ``Proposed Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and Associated Amendments.'' Available
here: https://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/com-attach/45-hdomnibus2020-U2EHMQQ3AGNSegZl.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe this proposed approach minimizes potential adverse
impacts on operators while meeting the fundamental objective that
manufacturers design engines to ensure that operators maintain an
adequate supply of DEF to keep the SCR emission control system
functioning properly.
5. Requests for Comment
We are open to considering a wide range of adjustments to the
proposed inducement provisions and request comment on all aspects of
the proposal described in this section. We ask that commenters
suggesting alternative approaches or specifications consider the
principles identified in Section IV.D.3 to inform our development of
the
[[Page 17545]]
proposed provisions. We are interested in any alternative regulatory
provisions and any different principles recommended by commenters, as
well as commenters' views on how EPA applied the identified principles
in developing the proposed inducement provisions.
We are also interested in whether commenters support adoption of
inducement provisions that closely follow existing inducement
strategies in-use, for example derating to 5 miles per hour within four
hours of detecting certain fault conditions and, if so, whether such an
approach would meet the principles we described or whether there are
other principles that support such an approach.
While we believe the proposed derate schedule would effectively
lead every vehicle owner to address certain detected fault conditions
within the duration of the specified schedule, we invite comment and
relevant information that would help to assess how vehicle operators in
a wide variety of vehicle applications would respond to a derate at any
specific level of operating speed restriction. Toward that end, we ask
for comments in response to the following questions:
Is the proposed initial speed restriction of 50 (for low-
speed vehicles) and 65 miles per hour (for high-speed vehicles)
immediately upon detecting a fault condition meaningful? For example,
we may consider alternative initial speed restrictions of 40 and 55 mph
to focus the operator's attention on addressing the fault condition
since the remedy could be as simple as adding DEF or as extensive as
making substantial repairs after a thorough diagnosis.
Is the proposed final speed restriction of 35 (for low-
speed vehicles) and 50 miles per hour (for high-speed vehicles)
meaningful? For example, we may consider alternative final speed
restrictions of 25 and 40 mph.
Is it appropriate to create a fault condition that
triggers inducement three hours before the DEF supply will be depleted?
The engine could alternatively be designed to warn the operator when
DEF supply is running low and start the inducement when the DEF supply
is depleted.
Is the proposed six hours of non-idle operation the right
amount of time for the first stage of inducement to take effect at 50
or 65 miles per hour before progressing to the next stage of derating?
A shorter time may be appropriate for simply refilling DEF, but in
other situations that may frequently occur, the fault condition causing
the inducement requires diagnosing and repairing a defective component.
Is the proposed schedule for successive derates after 12
and 60 hours appropriate? We may consider additional steps. As an
example, we may also consider a longer schedule involving more time
between stages such as 20 and 120 hours. Similarly, we may consider a
shorter schedule reducing the time between stages such as 8 and 40
hours.
Is the proposed 80 hours of operation without repeating a
fault condition the appropriate length of time to distinguish between a
new fault condition that restarts the inducement schedule at the
initial derate speed and a repeated fault condition that resumes the
previous inducement at the same point that the system deactivated the
derate?
Is the proposed schedule of derating speeds over time for
high-speed vehicles from 65 to 50 miles per hour and from 50 to 35
miles per hour both reasonable and effective? Would a more or less
aggressive schedule work to prevent operators from being content with
restricted operation to avoid the cost or inconvenience of maintaining
SCR systems? We request that commenters also explain whether any
information provided would support an adjusted schedule consistent with
the principles described in Section IV.D.3.
Is the proposed average speed of 20 miles per hour over
the preceding 30 hours of operation the appropriate threshold speed for
a more restrictive derate schedule for low-speed vehicles? Is it
appropriate to exclude idle from the low-speed vehicle determination?
Should a high-speed vehicle that continues to operate at
the final inducement speed eventually be treated like a low-speed
vehicle if its average speed eventually falls to that level (20 miles
per hour) based on its slower operation during inducement? Using the
proposed values, this would cause a vehicle to eventually shift from a
final inducement speed of 50 miles per hour down to a final inducement
speed of 35 miles per hour. This question is fundamentally about
whether there are any applications or scenarios for high-speed vehicles
for which an inducement at 50 miles per hour (or another final
inducement speed for high-speed vehicles in the final rule) is
insufficient to compel corrective action.
Monitoring for tampering due to a blocked DEF line or
injector is intended to ensure that the line itself is not crimped or
the injector plugged intentionally. However, EPA is aware that urea
crystallization can mimic this type of tampering. OEMs can monitor DEF
line and injector pressures and know at what point they consider
pressure changes to be indicative of tampering. They should be able to
use these pressure readings to indicate that the system is plugging
over time and warn operators well in advance of an inducement (see
section IV.C.1.iii.2. for more information on this proposal). If
practical, should we specify the amount of time that manufacturers
should provide operators with advance notice of a blocked DEF line or
dosing valve prior to an inducement occurring for those cases where the
blockage is caused by plugging due to DEF crystallization as opposed to
direct tampering?
We request comment on the proposed set of fault conditions for
triggering inducements intended to address the unique aspect of SCR
systems that depend on cooperation from vehicle operators. Toward that
end, we raise the following questions:
Is it necessary and appropriate to include DEF
concentration as a fault condition, as proposed? There is an
established practice of using DEF and engines now have built-in
features to prevent diluting DEF or filling DEF tanks with water. Also,
with the proposed warranty provisions, owners may be more likely to
properly maintain their engines over longer periods, including use of
DEF that meets the owner's manual specifications. We request comment on
whether this concern about DEF quality continues to justify the
additional complexity and the associated risk of false inducements.
Are the proposed fault conditions of DEF fill level, DEF
quality, and tampering associated with the SCR system the proper way to
ensure an adequate supply of quality DEF in-use?
Does the proposal properly define tampering conditions for
inducement by identifying conditions that owners can control, such as
open-circuit faults for disconnected DEF pump, SCR wiring harness, DEF
dosing valve, DEF quality sensors, DEF tank heaters, DEF level sensors,
aftertreatment control module, and NOX sensors?
Is there a risk that the engine will incorrectly detect a
tampering fault condition based on the specified open-circuit faults?
For example, how likely is it that maintenance steps that require
disconnecting or disassembling certain components as part of a repair
will be identified as tampering? Or, how likely is it that a failing
sensor will give an incorrect signal indicating that one of the
specified components has been disconnected? The proposal addresses
this, at least in part, by including an override feature based on
measured
[[Page 17546]]
NOX emissions before and after the SCR catalyst.
Should we allow or require additional fault conditions to
ensure that SCR systems are working properly? We could identify
numerous additional fault conditions based on OBD system monitoring
that detects any number of SCR-related components that need to be
adjusted or replaced. We have focused the proposal on things that
owners can actually control consistent with the original focus of the
existing guidance on ensuring an adequate supply of high-quality DEF
paired with tamper-resistant SCR systems that focus on open-circuit
conditions. We request comment on any additional OBD fault conditions
that would be needed to ensure the functionality of the SCR system.
Should EPA codify the DEF freeze protection guidance that
describes how to meet EPA AECD requirements currently described in CD-
13-13?
Should EPA establish an acceptable range of DEF
concentration for defining the limits of the inducement fault
condition? Inducements for DEF quality are based on the change in urea
concentration from 32.5 percent (unadulterated DEF) to the point at
which poor DEF quality can be detected and inducements are triggered.
Manufacturers design some tolerance into their SCR systems to adapt to
and compensate for in-use DEF quality variances instead of triggering
an inducement for minor concentration differences. For example, if a
vehicle with DEF in the tank has not been driven for some time, some of
the water in the DEF can evaporate, leaving a slightly higher
concentration of urea in the DEF. We seek comment on the need to
clarify in the regulations appropriate DEF quality inducement triggers
to ensure that an acceptable tolerance is being designed into SCR
systems consistently across manufacturers and that reflects real-world
conditions. Further we seek comment on what an acceptable tolerance
would be.
The proposed approach for overriding inducements based on
NOX sensors showing that the SCR catalyst is working
properly is an important feature to reduce the risk of false
inducements. Operators would see a warning for a fault condition even
if the override prevents a speed restriction, which should allow the
operator to take the time necessary to address the fault condition. The
override should be set at a level of NOX conversion
efficiency to reliably indicate that an override is appropriate because
the detected fault condition in fact does not prevent the SCR catalyst
from working according to design. We request comment on the proposed
approach that allows for overriding inducement if the average data from
the NOX sensor show that the catalyst is reducing
NOX emissions consistent with stored OBD REAL Bin data
within an estimated 10 percent margin of error due to limitations of
in-use detection and measurement. Toward that end, we raise the
following questions:
Should the margin of error be more or less than 10
percent? NOX conversion efficiency is more stable at higher
speed and load conditions and is generally greater than 90 percent, so
overriding based on a greater margin of error should still be
effective. Fault conditions such as depleted DEF or disconnected
aftertreatment would cause NOX conversion efficiency to be
at or near zero and would quickly impact the NOX conversion
efficiency value due to the stored data array being reset at the time a
trigger is detected. In such cases a less rigorous or stringent
threshold value would be sufficient to evaluate the validity of the
detected fault condition. Note however that some system defects may
allow for partial NOX conversion.
Are the (reset) Active 100 Hour Array and the specified
Real Bins 13 and 14 the appropriate data to assess the NOX
override, as proposed? The selected operating conditions are intended
to be most favorable for a stable and repeatable current assessment of
NOX conversion efficiency. Would the NOX override
need to account for a wider range of vehicle operation to work properly
for the full range of vehicle applications?
Does the proposed final inducement speed in combination
with the provision for NOX overrides provide a proper self-
healing path for deactivating derates after correcting a fault
condition? There are likely times when this may be a preferrable option
for operators for resolving an inducement instead of relying on scan
tools.
EPA is seeking comment on provisions to accommodate equivalent
engine families that are identical except for the diagnostic system
adjustments needed to meet the different inducement protocols. If
finalized, we would count two equivalent engine families as one for the
purposes of determining the number of engine families that are subject
to OBD demonstration testing requirements for certification. This would
be analogous to the way we are proposing to treat engine families that
have a California-only federal certificate because of differences such
as warranty provisions (see Section IV.C.2.i.a. for further discussion
on this provision).
As described in Section IV.D.1, engine manufacturers have been
producing engines for many years with inducement strategies that align
with the potential approaches described in EPA guidance. If we replace
the guidance documents with regulatory provisions that include new
derating specifications, those specifications could be understood to
represent an alternative design strategy for meeting the objectives
described in guidance relative to requirements for maintenance
specifications and adjustable parameters. It may accordingly be
appropriate to allow engine manufacturers to modify earlier model year
engines to align with the new regulatory specifications. We are not
proposing to change the regulation to address this concern. We are
seeking comment on whether and how manufacturers might use field-fix
practices under EPA's field fix guidance to modify in-use engines with
algorithms that incorporate some or all of the inducement provisions we
include in the final rule.\629\ For example, this approach could
potentially allow engine manufacturers to change the final inducement
speed from 5 miles per hour to 50 miles per hour over a 60-hour period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\629\ ``Field Fixes Related to Emission Control-Related
Components,'' EPA Advisory Circular, March 17, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine manufacturers may similarly be interested in modifying
engines from the current model year by amending the application for
certification. See Section XII.B.3 for additional discussion related to
amending applications for certification.
Finally, EPA is seeking comment on whether existing manufacturer
inducement strategies are causing certain vocational segments to
transition from diesel to gasoline powertrains. For example, one school
bus manufacturer introduced gasoline-powered buses in late 2016, which
appear to have quickly come to represent nearly 25 percent of
sales.\630\ Another school bus manufacturer has indicated growing
interest in alternative fuel powertrains such as gasoline or propane in
response to SCR-related maintenance issues and downtime.\631\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\630\ ``Blue Bird delivers its 5,000th gasoline-powered school
bus'' March 13, 2019. Available here: https://blue-bird.com/about-us/press-releases/146-blue-bird-delivers-its-5-000th-gasoline-powered-school-bus.
\631\ ``Fleet Managers Rethinking Fuel Choice: Many Choosing New
Engines That Reduce Budget Pressure and Maintenance Headaches''
February 1, 2019. Available here: https://thomasbuiltbuses.com/bus-advisor/articles/fleet-managers-rethinking-fuel-choice/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17547]]
E. Certification Updates
In an effort to better serve the regulated community, EPA has taken
a number of important steps to streamline the data collection processes
that manufacturers use to apply for annual certificates of conformity
from the agency. These streamlining efforts include numerous
modifications and enhancements to improve the user experience, minimize
manual data submission processes, and eliminate duplication of effort
for manufacturers. Beginning with the overall process, EPA has made
user-centered design a central theme when developing systems for
manufacturers. Engaging manufacturers before and throughout the
development process helps reduce incorrect assumptions about their
business needs and ensures that systems are end-user tested for
viability. We recently transitioned our compliance information system
from the Verify System to a new Engines and Vehicles Compliance
Information System (EV-CIS). This new platform incorporates
manufacturer feedback and includes updates that help manufacturers work
more efficiently while minimizing the need for costly fixes which can
lead to rework. Although we have made significant progress to improve
the certification process, we welcome comments suggesting additional
improvements EPA could consider.
F. Durability Testing
EPA regulations require that a heavy-duty engine manufacturer's
application for certification include a demonstration that the engines
will meet applicable emission standards throughout their regulatory
useful life. This is often called the durability demonstration.
Manufacturers typically complete this demonstration by following
regulatory procedures to calculate a deterioration factor (DF).
Deterioration factors are additive or multiplicative adjustments
applied to the results from manufacturer testing to quantify the
emissions deterioration over useful life.\632\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\632\ See proposed 40 CFR 1036.240(c) and the definition of
``deterioration factor'' in 40 CFR 1036.801, which are proposed to
be migrated and updated from 40 CFR 86.004-26 and 86.004-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, a DF is determined directly by aging an engine and
exhaust aftertreatment system to useful life on an engine dynamometer.
This time-consuming service accumulation process requires manufacturers
to commit to product configurations well ahead of their pre-production
certification testing to complete the durability testing so EPA can
review the test results before issuing the certificate of conformity.
Some manufacturers run multiple, staggered durability tests in parallel
in case a component failure occurs that may require a complete restart
of the aging process.\633\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\633\ See 40 CFR 1065.415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA recognizes that durability testing over a regulatory useful
life is a significant undertaking, which can involve more than a full
year of continuous engine operation for Heavy HDE to test to the
equivalent of the current useful life of 435,000 miles. Manufacturers
have been approved, on a case-by-case basis, to age their systems to
between 35 and 50 percent of full useful life on an engine dynamometer,
and then extrapolate the test results to full useful life.\634\ This
extrapolation reduces the time to complete the aging process, but data
from a test program shared with EPA show that while engine out
emissions for SCR-equipped engines were predictable and consistent,
actual tailpipe emission levels were higher by the end of useful life
when compared to emission levels extrapolated to useful life from
service accumulation of 75 or lower percent useful
life.635 636 In response to the new data indicating DFs
generated by manufacturers using service accumulation less than useful
life may not be fully representative of useful life deterioration, EPA
worked with manufacturers and CARB to address this concern through
guidance for MY 2020 and later engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\634\ See 40 CFR 86.004-26.
\635\ U.S. EPA. ``Guidance on Deterioration Factor Validation
Methods for Heavy-Duty Diesel Highway Engines and Nonroad Diesel
Engines equipped with SCR.'' CD-2020-19 (HD Highway and Nonroad).
November 17, 2020.
\636\ Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association. ``EMA DF Test
Program.'' August 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we describe our proposal to migrate and update the
DF provisions for heavy-duty highway engines from their current
location in 40 CFR 86.004-26(c) and (d) and 86.004-28(c) and (d) to 40
CFR 1036.245 and 1036.246. While the current DF guidance is specific to
SCR-equipped engines, we are proposing to update our DF provisions to
apply certain aspects of the current DF guidance to all engine families
starting in model year 2027.\637\ We also propose that manufacturers
could optionally use these provisions to determine and verify their
deterioration factors for earlier model years. As noted in the
following section, we propose to continue the option for Spark-ignition
HDE manufacturers to request approval of an accelerated aging DF
determination, as is allowed in our current regulations (see 40 CFR
86.004-26(c)(2)), though our proposed provision would extend this
option to all primary intended service classes. We are not proposing
changes to the existing compliance demonstration provision in 40 CFR
1037.103(c) for evaporative and refueling emission standards. As
introduced in Section III.E, our proposal would apply refueling
emission standards to incomplete vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR.
Incomplete vehicle manufacturers certifying to the refueling emission
standards for the first time under this proposal would have the option
to use engineering analyses to demonstrate durability using the same
procedures that apply for the evaporative systems on their vehicles
today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\637\ As noted in Section III.A, the proposed update to the
definition of ``engine configuration'' in 40 CFR 1036.801 would
clarify that hybrid engines and powertrains would be part of a
certified configuration and subject to all of the criteria pollutant
emission standards and other requirements; thus the DF provisions
for heavy-duty engines discussed in this subsection would apply to
configurations that include hybrid components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Section IV.F.1, we propose two methods for determining DFs in a
new 40 CFR 1036.245, including a new option to bench-age the
aftertreatment system to limit the burden of generating a DF over the
lengthened useful life periods proposed in Section IV.A.3. We also
propose to codify the three DF verification options available to
manufacturers in the recent DF guidance. As described in Section
IV.F.2, the verification options in a new 40 CFR 1036.246 would confirm
the accuracy of the DF values submitted by manufacturers for
certification. In Section IV.F.3, we introduce a test program to
evaluate a rapid-aging protocol for diesel catalysts that we may
consider as an option for CI engine manufacturers to use in their
durability demonstration.
We request comment on the proposed options for DF determination and
verification, including other options we should consider. We further
request comment on whether DF testing of the engine is sufficient for
hybrid engines and powertrains, or if we should consider additional
testing requirements for manufacturers to demonstrate durability of
other key components included in a hybrid configuration (e.g., battery
durability testing).
As described in Section XII.A.8, we are also proposing to allow
manufacturers of nonroad engines to use the procedures described in
this section to establish deterioration factors based on bench-aged
aftertreatment, along with in-use verification testing.
[[Page 17548]]
1. Proposed Options for Determining Deterioration Factor
Accurate methods to demonstrate emission durability are key to
ensuring certified emission levels represent real world emissions, and
the efficiency of those methods is especially important in light of our
proposal to lengthen useful life periods. To address these needs, we
are proposing to migrate our existing regulatory options and include a
new option for heavy-duty highway engine manufacturers to determine DFs
for certification. We note that manufacturers apply these deterioration
factors to determine whether their engines meet the duty cycle
standards. For MY 2031 and later Heavy HDE, we are proposing separate
duty cycle standards at an intermediate useful life, and are further
proposing that a separate deterioration factor would apply for the
intermediate useful life as well.
Consistent with existing regulations, proposed 40 CFR 1036.245
would allow manufacturers to continue the current practice of
determining DFs based on engine dynamometer-based aging of the complete
engine and aftertreatment system out to regulatory useful life. In
addition, under our proposed new DF determination option, manufacturers
would be able to perform dynamometer testing of an engine and
aftertreatment system to a mileage that is less than regulatory useful
life. Manufacturers would then bench age the aftertreatment system to
regulatory useful life and combine the aftertreatment system with an
engine that represents the engine family. Manufacturers would run the
combined engine and bench-aged aftertreatment for at least 100 hours
before collecting emission data for determination of the deterioration
factor. Under this option, the manufacturer would propose a bench aging
procedure and obtain prior approval from the Agency, which could be a
bench aging procedure that is established today (e.g., procedures that
apply for light-duty vehicles under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S).
We request comment on the options proposed for DF determination.
Specifically, we ask commenters to consider if the proposed new bench-
aged aftertreatment option accurately evaluates the durability of the
emission-related components in a certified configuration. We are
proposing to allow manufacturers to define and seek approval for a
less-than-useful life mileage for the dynamometer portion of the bench-
aging option. We request comment on the need to define a minimum number
of engine hours of dynamometer testing beyond what is required to
stabilize the engine before bench-aging the aftertreatment.\638\ We
note that EPA's bench-aging proposal focuses on deterioration of
emission control components. We request comment on including a more
comprehensive durability demonstration of the whole engine, such as the
recent diesel test procedures from CARB's Omnibus regulation that
includes dynamometer-based service accumulation of 2,100 hours or more
based on engine class and other factors.\639\ We also request comment
on whether EPA should prescribe a standardized aging cycle for the
dynamometer portion, as was done by CARB in the Omnibus rule.\640\ We
also request cost and time data corresponding to the current DF
procedures, and projections of cost and time for the options proposed
in this section at the proposed useful life mileages. As discussed in
Section IV.F.3, EPA is currently validating an accelerated aging
protocol for heavy-duty diesel engine aftertreatment systems. We expect
that if the protocol is validated, manufacturers could choose to use
that protocol in lieu of developing their own for approval by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\638\ We are proposing to update the definition of ``low-hour''
in 40 CFR 1036.801 to include 300 hours of operation for engines
with NOX aftertreatment to be considered stabilized.
\639\ California Air Resources Board, ``Appendix B-1 Proposed
30-Day Modifications to the Diesel Test Procedures'', May 5, 2021,
Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/30dayappb1.pdf, page 54.
\640\ California Air Resources Board, ``Staff Report: Initial
Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Public Hearing to
Consider the Proposed Heavy-duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus
Regulation and Associated Amendments,'' June 23, 2020. Available
online: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/isor.pdf,
page III-80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Proposed Options for Verifying Deterioration Factors
In proposed new 40 CFR 1036.246, manufacturers would annually
verify an engine family's deterioration factor for each duty cycle
until all DFs are verified at 85 percent of useful life. We propose
that a manufacturer could request to apply an approved DF to a future
model year for that engine family, using the proposed updates to
carryover engine data provisions in 40 CFR 1036.235(d), as long as the
carryover data includes DF verification results for the production year
of that new model year as specified in proposed 40 CFR 1036.246(b).
Since emission performance is expected to be stable early in the life
of the engine, we are proposing not to require DF verification in the
first two calendar years following a DF determination for an engine
family. Starting in the third year, manufacturers would verify the DFs
using an in-use engine with a mileage at or greater than 35 percent of
the useful life for the original model year of that DF determination.
Subsequent years after production would increase minimum mileages in 10
percent increments each year. Table IV-14 presents the minimum age we
are proposing for each year after a DF is applied. We note that these
are minimum values and manufacturers could complete the testing earlier
if they recruit higher-mileage vehicles for verification testing. If a
manufacturer is unable to find enough test vehicles that meet the
mileage specifications, we propose that they would perform the testing
using vehicles with the highest available mileage and describe how they
would attempt to test properly qualified vehicles for later years. If
this occurs in the eighth year, they would continue testing in future
years until all tested vehicles have mileage that is at least 85
percent of the engine's useful life.
Table IV-14--Minimum Age for Obtaining In-Use Engines for DF
Verification Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum engine
service
Year of production following the initial model year accumulation
that relied on the deterioration factors (percent of
useful life)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................................... None
2.................................................... None
3.................................................... 35
4.................................................... 45
5.................................................... 55
6.................................................... 65
7.................................................... 75
8 or later........................................... 85
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We include three testing options in our proposed DF verification
provisions. For each option, manufacturers would select in-use engines
meeting the criteria proposed in 40 CFR 1036.246(c), including the
appropriate minimum mileage corresponding to the production year of the
engine family. We request comment on the proposed number of engines to
test under each of these three DF verification options, as well as the
corresponding pass threshold.
In the first verification option, proposed in new 40 CFR
1036.246(d)(1), manufacturers would test at least two in-use engines
over all duty cycles with brake-specific emission standards in 40 CFR
1036.104(a) by removing each engine from the vehicle to install it on
an engine dynamometer and measure emissions. Manufacturers would
[[Page 17549]]
determine compliance with the emission standards after applying
regeneration adjustment factors to their measured results. We propose
that the engine family passes the DF verification if 70 percent or more
of the engines tested meet the standards for each pollutant over all
duty cycles. If a manufacturer chooses to test two engines under this
option, both engines would have to meet the standards. We are proposing
that the aftertreatment system, including all the associated wiring,
sensors, and related hardware or software be installed on the test
engine. We request comment on whether EPA should require approval for
hardware or software used in testing that differs from those used for
production engines and criteria EPA should consider for that approval.
Under our second proposed verification option in new 40 CFR
1036.246(d)(2), manufacturers would perform the testing on-board the
vehicle using a PEMS. Manufacturers would bin and report the emissions
following the in-use testing provisions in 40 CFR part 1036, subpart E.
Compliance would be determined by comparing emission results to the
off-cycle standards for each pollutant for each bin after adjusting for
regeneration.\641\ We propose the PEMS-based verification would require
testing of at least five in-use engines to account for the increased
variability of vehicle-level measurement. We also propose that the same
70 percent threshold be used to determine a passing result for this
option, which is at least four engines if the manufacturer tests the
minimum of five engines. In the event that a DF verification fails
under the PEMS option, we propose that a manufacturer could reverse a
fail determination and verify the DF using the engine dynamometer
option in 40 CFR 1036.246(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\641\ For Spark-ignition HDE, we are not proposing off-cycle
standards; however, for the in-use DF verification options,
manufacturers would compare to the duty cycle standards applying a
2.0 multiplier for model years 2027 through 2030, and a 1.5
multiplier for model years 2031 and later, or multipliers consistent
with the corresponding medium/high load bin off-cycle standards for
CI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our third proposed option to verify DF is to measure NOX
emissions using the vehicle's on-board NOX measurement
system (i.e., a NOX sensor) according to 40 CFR
1036.246(d)(3). We expect manufacturers would only choose this option
if they have a well-established infrastructure to access on-board data
from a large number of vehicles (e.g., telematics). Manufacturers
choosing this option would verify their NOX measurement
system meets 40 CFR 1065.920(b), is functional within 100 seconds of
engine starting, and maintains functionality over the entire shift-day.
Due to further uncertainty in measurement accuracy, and the fact that
fewer pollutants would be monitored with a NOX sensor, we
propose the on-board NOX measurement system option would
require testing 50 percent of the production for that engine family
with a 70 percent threshold to pass. Similar to the PEMS option, we
propose that a manufacturer could reverse a fail determination and
verify the DF using the engine dynamometer option in 40 CFR
1036.246(d)(1).
In the case of a failed result from any of these verification
options, we proposed that manufacturers could request approval for a
revised DF or retest to determine a new DF, but the affected engine
families would not be able to generate emission credits using a DF that
failed to pass verification. We propose to allow the manufacturer to
continue to certify the engine family for one additional model year
using the original deterioration factor to provide time for the
manufacturer to change the engine and generate new DFs. We may require
manufacturers to certify with revised family emission limits and apply
revised DFs to retroactively adjust the family emission limits and
recalculate emission credits from previous model years that used the
invalidated DF. We note that a DF verification failure may result in an
expanded discovery process that could eventually lead to recall under
our existing provisions in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart F.
As part of the proposed new DF verification provisions, we include
a new 40 CFR 1036.246(c) specifying how to select and prepare engines
for testing. We are proposing to allow manufacturers to exclude
selected engines from testing if they have not been properly maintained
or used and require that the engine must be in a certified
configuration, including its original aftertreatment components.
Recognizing that manufacturers may schedule maintenance for emission-
related components, we request comment on whether restricting engines
to those with original components would considerably limit the number
of candidate engines for testing.
3. Diesel Aftertreatment Rapid Aging Protocol
As discussed in Section IV.F.1, we are proposing that manufacturers
could use engine dynamometer testing for less than full useful life in
combination with an accelerated catalyst aging protocol in their
demonstration of heavy-duty diesel engine aftertreatment durability
through full useful life. EPA has approved accelerated aging protocols
for spark-ignition engine manufacturers to apply in their durability
demonstrations for many years. While CI engine manufacturers could also
propose an accelerated aging protocol for EPA approval, CI engine
manufacturers have largely opted to seek EPA approval to use a service
accumulation test with reduce mileage and extrapolate to determine
their DF.
Other regulatory agencies have promulgated accelerated aging
protocols,642 643 and we are evaluating how these protocols
could apply to our heavy-duty highway engine compliance program. EPA is
in the process of validating a protocol that CI engine manufacturers
could potentially choose to use in lieu of developing their own
protocol as proposed in 40 CFR 1036.245. This validation program for a
diesel aftertreatment rapid-aging protocol (DARAP) builds on existing
rapid-aging protocols designed for light-duty gasoline vehicles (64 FR
23906, May 4, 1999) and heavy-duty engines.\644\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\642\ California Air Resources Board. California Evaluation
Procedure For New Aftermarket Diesel Particulate Filters Intended As
Modified Parts For 2007 Through 2009 Model Year On-Road Heavy-Duty
Diesel Engines, March 1, 2017. Available online: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2016/aftermarket2016/amprcert.pdf.
\643\ European Commission. Amending Regulation (EU) No 583/2011,
20 September 2016. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R1718&from=HU.
\644\ Eakle, S and Bartley, G (2014), ``The DAAAC Protocol for
Diesel Aftertreatment System Accelerated Aging''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The objective of this validation program is to artificially
recreate the three primary catalytic deterioration processes observed
in field-aged aftertreatment components: Thermal aging based on time at
high temperature, chemical aging that accounts for poisoning due to
fuel and oil contamination, and deposits. The validation program has
access to three baseline engines that were field-aged to the current
useful life of 435,000 miles. For comparison, we are aging engines and
their corresponding aftertreatment systems using our current, engine
dynamometer-based durability test procedure. We are also aging the
catalyst-based aftertreatment systems using a burner \645\ in place of
an engine. The validation test plan compares emissions at the following
approximate intervals: 0 percent, 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent,
and 100 percent of the current useful life of 435,000 miles.
[[Page 17550]]
We include more details of our DARAP test program in a memo to the
docket.\646\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\645\ A burner is a computer controlled multi-fuel reactor
designed to simulate engine aging conditions.
\646\ Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055: ``Diesel
Aftertreatment Rapid Aging Program''. George Mitchell. May 5, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DARAP validation program is currently underway, and we have
completed testing of one engine through the current useful life. Our
memo to the docket includes a summary of the preliminary validation
results from this engine. We will docket complete results from our
validation program in a final report for the final rule. If the
validation is successful, we would likely include an option for
manufacturers to reference this protocol for DF determination and
streamline approval under proposed 40 CFR 1036.245(b)(2). We request
comment on improvements we should consider for the protocol outlined in
our memo to the docket, including whether EPA should prescribe a
standardized aging cycle, as was done by CARB in the Omnibus rule, for
input to the DARAP.\647\ We also request comment on the current
proposal to require approval to use DARAP or if EPA should codify this
protocol as a test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\647\ California Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Initial
Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, ``Public Hearing to
Consider the Proposed Heavy-duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus
Regulation and Associated Amendments,'' June 23, 2020. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/isor.pdf, page III-80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Averaging, Banking, and Trading
EPA established an averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program
for heavy-duty engines in 1990 (55 FR 30584, July 26, 1990). By
offering the opportunity to use ABT credits and additional
flexibilities we can design progressively more stringent standards that
help meet our emission reduction goals at a faster and more cost-
effective pace.\648\ In Section III, we show that the proposed
standards are feasible without the use of credits. However, we see
value in maintaining an ABT program to provide flexibility for
manufacturers to spread out their investment and prioritize technology
adoption in the applications that make the most sense for their
businesses during the transition to meeting new standards. An ABT
program is also an important foundation for targeted incentives that we
are proposing to encourage manufacturers to adopt advanced technology
in advance of required compliance dates.\649\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\648\ See NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F. 2d 410, 425 (D.C. Cir. 1986)
that upheld emissions averaging after concluding that ``EPA's
argument that averaging will allow manufacturers more flexibility in
cost allocation while ensuring that a manufacturer's overall fleet
still meets the emissions reduction standards makes sense''.
\649\ See Section IV.H for our proposed early adoption
incentives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Section IV.G.1, we introduce our proposal to continue allowing
averaging, banking, and trading of NOX credits generated
against applicable heavy-duty engine NOX standards. We also
propose targeted revisions to the current ABT approach to account for
specific aspects of the broader proposed program, which include
discontinuing a credit program for HC and PM and new provisions to
clarify how FELs apply for additional duty cycles. We recognize that
ABT allows manufacturers to use generated emission credits (from
engines produced with emission levels below the standards) to produce
engines with emission levels above the standards. To limit the
production of new engines with higher emissions than the standards, we
are proposing restrictions for using emission credits generated in
model years 2027 and later that include averaging sets (Section
IV.G.2), FEL caps (Section IV.G.3), and limited credit life (Section
IV.G.4). We are also proposing that credits generated as early as MY
2024 against current criteria pollutant standards could only be used in
MY 2027 and later if they meet proposed requirements for the generation
of transitional credits (Sections IV.G.5 and IV.G.6).
The existing ABT provisions that apply for GHG standards in 40 CFR
part 1036, subpart H, were adapted for the Phase 1 GHG rulemaking from
earlier ABT provisions for HD engines (i.e., 40 CFR 86.007-15).\650\ In
this rulemaking and described in this section, we are proposing to
revise 40 CFR part 1036, subpart H, to also apply for criteria
pollutant standards.\651\ We are also proposing a new paragraph at 40
CFR 1036.104(c) to specify how the ABT provisions would apply for MY
2027 and later heavy-duty engines subject to the proposed criteria
pollutant standards in 40 CFR 1036.104(a). The proposed interim
provision in 40 CFR 1036.150(a)(1) describes how manufacturers could
generate credits in MY 2024 through 2026 that could be applied in MY
2027 and later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\650\ 76 FR 57127 and 57238, September 15, 2011.
\651\ Our proposal does not include substantive revisions to the
existing GHG provisions in 40 CFR 1036, subpart H; our proposed
revisions clarify whether paragraphs apply for criteria pollutant
standards or GHG standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request comment on our proposed revisions to the ABT program. As
discussed further below, we are particularly interested in stakeholder
feedback on alternative approaches to accounting for multiple standards
and duty cycles, as well as our proposed approaches for restricting the
use of credits that are generated for use in MY 2027 and later.
1. Multiple Standards and Duty Cycles
Heavy-duty compression-ignition engine manufacturers currently must
certify to FTP, SET, and off-cycle standards.\652\ Based on FTP and SET
test results, CI engine manufacturers participating in the ABT program
declare FELs in their application for certification. Spark-ignition
engine manufacturers that are only subject to FTP standards may also
declare FELs based on the FTP duty cycle testing. An FEL replaces the
standard and the manufacturer agrees to meet that FEL whenever the
engine is tested over the FTP or SET duty cycle--whether for
certification or a selective enforcement audit. The current NTE
standards apply in-use whenever a CI engine is operating within the NTE
applicability limits and are equal to 1.5 times the FTP and SET
standards. The same 1.5 adjustment factor applies to the declared FEL
for CI engine manufacturers participating in ABT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\652\ As discussed in Section III, the current standards use the
same numeric value for the FTP and SET cycles. The Not to Exceed
(NTE) standard is an off-cycle standard that applies when an engine
is not on a defined laboratory test cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not proposing changes to the following aspects of the ABT
program currently specified in 40 CFR 86.007-15:
Allow ABT credits for NOX
Calculate NOX credits based on a single
NOX Family Emission Limit (FEL) for an engine family
Specify FELs to the same number of decimal places as the
applicable standards
Apply FEL caps for NOX to constrain maximum
values for FELs
Calculate credits based on the work and miles of the FTP
cycle
Limit credits to four averaging sets corresponding to the
four primary intended service classes (detailed in Section IV.G.2)
As discussed in Section III, we are proposing to revise HC and PM
standards for heavy-duty engines to levels that are feasible without
the use of credits. We are proposing not to allow averaging, banking,
or trading for HC (including NOX+NMHC) or PM for MY 2027 and
later engines. This includes not allowing HC and PM emissions credits
from prior model years to be used for MY 2027 and later engines. For
engines certified to MY 2027 or later standards, manufacturers must
demonstrate in their application for certification that they meet the
proposed
[[Page 17551]]
PM, HC, and CO emission standards in 40 CFR 1036.104(a) without using
emission credits.
While we continue to consider the FTP duty cycle the appropriate
reference cycle for generating NOX emission credits, we are
proposing new provisions to ensure the NOX emission
performance over the FTP is proportionally reflected in the range of
cycles that we are proposing for these heavy-duty engines.
Specifically, we propose that manufacturers would declare an FEL to
apply for the FTP standards and then they would calculate a
NOX FEL for the other applicable cycles by applying an
adjustment factor based on their declared FELFTP.\653\ We
propose the adjustment factor be a ratio of the declared NOX
FELFTP to the FTP NOX standard to scale the
NOX FEL of the other duty cycle or off-cycle standards.\654\
For example, if a manufacturer declares an FELFTP of 30 mg
NOX/hp-hr in MY 2031 for a Heavy HDE, where the proposed
NOX standard is 40 mg/hp-hr, a ratio of 30/40 or 0.75 would
be applied to calculate a FEL to replace each NOX standard
that applies for these engines in the proposed 40 CFR 1036.104(a).
Specifically, for this example, a Heavy HDE manufacturer would replace
the intermediate and full useful life standards for SET, LLC, and the
three off-cycle bins with values that are three-quarters of the
proposed standards. For an SI engine manufacturer that declares an
FELFTP of 15 mg NOX/hp-hr compared to the
proposed MY 2031 of 20 mg/hp-hr, a ratio of 15/20 or 0.75 would be
applied to the SET duty cycle standard to calculate an
FELSET. Note that an FELFTP can also be higher
than the NOX standard in an ABT program if it is offset by
lower-emitting engines in an engine family that generates equivalent or
more credits in the averaging set. For an FEL higher than the
NOX standard, the adjustment factor would proportionally
increase the emission levels allowed when manufacturers demonstrate
compliance over the other applicable cycles.\655\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\653\ Our proposed approach for calculating a NOX FEL
is similar to the current approach for NTE standards; see Section
III.C.1 for more description of the current NTE standards.
\654\ We are proposing to require manufacturers to declare the
NOX FEL for the FTP duty cycle in their application for
certification. Manufacturers and EPA will calculate FELs for the
other applicable cycles using the procedures specified in 40 CFR
1036.104(c)(3) to evaluate compliance with the other cycles;
manufacturers would not be required to report the calculated FELs
for the other applicable cycles. As noted previously, manufacturers
would demonstrate they meet the standards for PM, CO, and HC and
would not calculate or report FELs for those pollutants.
\655\ We are proposing in 40 CFR 1036.104(c) that manufacturers
meet the PM, HC, and CO emission standards without generating or
using credits; they would not be required to calculate PM, HC, and
CO FELs as is proposed for NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the current and proposed ABT provisions, FELs serve as the
emission standards for the engine family for the respective testing. In
our proposal, manufacturers would include test results to demonstrate
their engines meet the declared and calculated FEL values for all
applicable cycles (see proposed 40 CFR 1036.240(a)). CI engine
manufacturers participating in ABT would use the FELs calculated for
the off-cycle bins to replace the standards in the in-use testing
provisions proposed in 1036, subpart E and PEMS-based DF verifications
in the proposed 40 CFR 1036.246(2).\656\ We expect manufacturers would
base their final FELFTP for credit generation on their
engine family's emission performance on the most challenging cycle. For
instance, if a CI engine manufacturer demonstrates NOX
emissions on the FTP that is 25 percent lower than the standard but can
only achieve 10 percent lower NOX emissions for the low load
cycle, the declared FELFTP would be based on that 10 percent
improvement to ensure the proportional FELLLC would be met.
For the duty cycle standards at intermediate useful life, we are
proposing that the DF determination data at the equivalent intermediate
useful life mileage serve as a demonstration of emission control
performance for certification. For off-cycle standards, we are
proposing that manufacturers may attest, rather than demonstrate, that
all the engines in the engine family comply with the proposed off-cycle
emission standards for all normal operation and use (see the proposed
40 CFR 1036.205(p)) in their application for certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\656\ We are not proposing off-cycle standards for SI engines;
SI engine manufacturers opting for PEMS-based DF verification in the
proposed 40 CFR 1036.246(2) would use their FEL to calculate the
effective in-use standard for those procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once FEL values are established, credits are calculated based on
the FTP duty cycle. We are not proposing substantive revisions to the
equation that applies for calculating emission credits in 40 CFR
1036.705, but we are proposing to update the variable names and
descriptions to apply for both GHG and criteria pollutant
calculations.\657\ In Equation IV-1, we reproduce the equation of 40
CFR 1036.705 to emphasize how the FTP duty cycle applies for
NOX credits. Credits are calculated as megagrams (i.e.,
metric tons) based on the emission rate over the FTP cycle. The
emission credit calculation represents the emission impact that would
occur if an engine operated over the FTP cycle for its full useful
life. The difference between the FTP standard and the family limit
(i.e., FEL for criteria pollutants) is multiplied by a conversion
factor that represents the average work performed over the FTP duty
cycle to get the per-engine emission rate over the cycle. This value is
then multiplied by the production volume of engines in the engine
family and the applicable useful life mileage. Credits are calculated
at the end of the model year using actual production volumes for the
engine family. The credit calculations are submitted to EPA as part of
a manufacturer's ABT report (see 40 CFR 1036.730).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\657\ The emission credits equations in the proposed 40 CFR
1036.705 and the current 40 CFR 86.007-15(c)(1)(i) are functionally
the same.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.001
Where:
StdFTP = the FTP duty cycle NOX emission
standard, in mg/hp-hr, that applies for engines not participating in
the ABT program
FEL = the engine family's FEL for NOX, in mg/hp-hr.
WorkFTP = the total integrated horsepower-hour over the
FTP duty cycle.
MilesFTP = the miles of the FTP duty cycle. For Spark-
ignition HDE, use 6.3 miles. For Light HDE, Medium HDE, and Heavy
HDE, use 6.5 miles.
Volume = the number of engine eligible to participate in the ABT
program within the given engine family during the model year, as
described in 40 CFR 1036.705(c).
UL = the useful life for the standard that applies for a given
engine family, in miles.
2. Averaging Sets
EPA has historically allowed averaging, banking, and trading only
[[Page 17552]]
within specified ``averaging sets'' for its heavy-duty engine emission
standards. This restriction is in place to avoid creating unfair
competitive advantages or environmental risks due to credit
inconsistency.\658\ We propose to continue this approach, using engine
averaging sets that correspond to the four primary intended service
classes,\659\ namely:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\658\ 66 FR 5002 January 18, 2001 and 81 FR 73478 October 25,
2016.
\659\ Primary intended service class is defined in 40 CFR
1036.140, which is referenced in the current 40 CFR 86.004-2.
Spark-ignition HDE
Light HDE
Medium HDE
Heavy HDE
As discussed in Section IV.I, we are proposing that manufacturers
could certify battery-electric and fuel cell electric vehicles to
generate NOX emission credits. Manufacturers would include
battery-electric and fuel cell electric vehicles in an averaging set
based on a manufacturer-declared primary intended service class
considering the GVWR of the vehicle.\660\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\660\ As specified in the proposed 40 CFR 1037.102(b)(1),
battery-electric and fuel cell electric vehicles would certify to
standards in the following engine categories: Light HDE, Medium HDE
and Heavy HDE, and as such would only generate NOX
emission credits in these averaging sets. The same restrictions
would apply to averaging, banking, or trading these credits only
within the averaging set in which they are generated (see the
proposed 40 CFR 1036.741)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. FEL Caps
EPA has historically capped FELs for a new criteria pollutant
standard at the level of the previous emission standard to avoid engine
technologies backsliding. FEL caps limit the amount that an individual
engine can emit above the level of emission standard when manufacturers
choose to use emission credits to comply with the standard. Without a
FEL cap, manufacturers could choose to use emission credits to produce
engines that emit at any numeric level for which they had sufficient
credits, whereas, with a FEL cap in place, EPA can constrain the level
of emissions from engines that are certified with the use of credits.
By setting the FEL cap at the level of the previous emission standard
EPA can ensure that all engines must at least maintain the current
level of emission control performance.
In this section, we are proposing a new approach to setting FEL
caps. We believe FEL caps continue to be critical to avoid backsliding
through use of emission credits. Considering our proposal to allow
manufacturers to include BEVs or FCEVs in the NOX ABT
program, we believe FEL cap levels below the previous standard are
appropriate. The zero-tailpipe emissions performance of BEVs and FCEVs
inherently provides the opportunity for manufacturers to generate more
credits from these vehicles relative to conventional engines that
produce emissions between zero and the level the standard. We believe
that lower FEL caps would provide a necessary constraint on allowable
emission levels from CI and SI engines that would use NOX
credits generated from BEVs or FCEVs. See Section IV.I for more
discussion on our proposal to allow manufacturers to generate
NOX emission credits from BEVs and FCEVs.
As specified in the proposed 40 CFR 1036.104(c)(2), the maximum
NOX FELFTP values for model year 2027 through
2030 under proposed Option 1, or model year 2027 and later under
proposed Option 2, would be 150 mg/hp-hr, which is consistent with the
average NOX emission levels achieved by recently certified
CI engines (see Chapter 3.1.2 of the draft RIA). We believe a cap based
on the average NOX emission levels of recent engines is more
appropriate than a cap at the current standard of 0.2 g/hp-hr (200 mg/
hp-hr) when considering the potential for manufacturers to apply
NOX credits generated from electric vehicles for the first
time. For MY 2031 and later under Option 1, we propose a consistent 30
mg/hp-hr allowance for each primary intended service class applied to
each full useful life standard. For Spark-ignition HDE, Light HDE, and
Medium HDE, this proposed allowance would equate to a NOX
FELFTP cap of 50 mg/hp-hr compared to the proposed full
useful life standard of 20 mg/hp-hr. Heavy HDE would have a separate
NOX FELFTP cap of 70 mg/hp-hr compared to the
proposed 40 mg/hp-hr full useful life standard. For MY 2031 and later
FEL caps under Option 1, we are proposing a 30 mg/hp-hr allowance in
lieu of the proposed Option 1 MY 2027 standard of 35 mg/hp-hr for two
reasons. First, we do not believe a 15 mg/hp-hr differential between
the MY 2031 and MY 2027 standards would provide an appropriate
incentive for Spark-ignition HDE, Light HDE, and Medium HDE
manufacturers to develop advanced technologies in early model years.
Second, the MY 2031 standard for Heavy HDE is higher than the MY 2027
standard to reflect deterioration over the longer useful life.
We request comment on our proposed FEL caps, including our approach
to base the cap for MY 2027 through 2030 under Option 1, or MY 2027 and
later under Option 2, on the recent average NOX emission
levels. We request comment on whether the NOX
FELFTP cap in MY 2027 should be set at a different value,
ranging from the current federal NOX standard of 205 mg/hp-
hr to the 50 mg/hp-hr standard that will be in place for engines
subject to CARB's HD Omnibus rule starting in MY
2024.661 662 663 We also request comment on the proposal to
set the proposed Option 1 MY 2031 NOX FEL caps at 30 mg/hp-
hr above the full useful life standards. We request comment on whether
different FEL caps should be considered if we finalize standards other
than those proposed (i.e., within the range between the standards of
proposed Options 1 and 2 as described in the feasibility analysis of
Section III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\661\ California Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Initial
Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, ``Public Hearing to
Consider the Proposed Heavy-duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus
Regulation and Associated Amendments,'' June 23, 2020. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/isor.pdf, page III-4.
\662\ Note that the current g/hp-hr emission standards are
rounded to two decimal places, which allow emission levels to be
rounded down by as much as 5 mg/hp-hr.
\663\ As noted in Section I.D, EPA is reviewing a waiver request
under CAA section 209(b) from California for the Omnibus rule; we
may include consideration of engines meeting the Omnibus
requirements as one of the factors in our determination of an
appropriate FEL cap level for the final EPA rule.
\664\ This includes credits generated by BEVs or FCEVs for use
in MYs 2027 and later, as discussed in Section IV.I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Credit Life for Credits Generated for Use in MY 2027 and Later
In the original heavy-duty criteria pollutant ABT program (55 FR
30584, July 26, 1990), the recent Phase 2 heavy-duty GHG rulemaking (81
FR 73638, October 25, 2016), and the current CARB HD Omnibus
rulemaking, a limited credit life was adopted to help encourage
continued technology development to meet the proposed standards. We are
proposing to update the existing credit life provisions in 40 CFR
1036.740(d) to apply for both CO2 and NOX
credits. As specified in the proposed 40 CFR 1036.740(d),
NOX emission credits generated for use in MY 2027 and later
could be used for five model years after the year in which they are
generated.\664\ For example, credits generated in model year 2025 could
be used to demonstrate compliance with emission standards through model
year 2030.
[[Page 17553]]
We are not proposing an expiration date for the ABT program, and
manufacturers could continue to generate credits by adopting
increasingly advanced technologies. However, we do not see a need for
manufacturers to bank credits generated in a given model year
indefinitely. We recognize the need to allow enough time for
manufacturers to apply credits generated early to cover the transition
to the more stringent standards of proposed Option 1 for MY 2031. We
believe a five-year credit life adequately covers a transition period
for that option, while continuing to encourage technology development
in later years. We are not proposing to migrate 40 CFR 86.004-
15(c)(1)(ii) that specifies a discount for credits that are banked or
traded. Discounted credits were originally included to incentivize
manufacturers to adopt new technology instead of relying on the use of
older credits (62 FR 54703, October 21, 1997). We believe the proposed
five-year credit life would provide the same incentive as a credit
discount. We request comment on our proposed five-year credit life.
5. Existing Credit Balances
Under the current HDE criteria pollutant ABT program, manufacturers
have generated NOX emission credits with an unlimited credit
life but have not used the credits in recent years. While emission
credits generated prior to MY 2027 could continue to be used to meet
the existing emission standards through MY 2026 under 40 CFR part 86,
subpart A, we are proposing that these banked credits could not be used
to meet the proposed MY 2027 and later standards for two reasons.
First, the credits were generated without demonstrating emissions
control under all test conditions of the proposed program, and thus are
not equivalent to credits that would be generated under the proposed
program. Specifically, the existing credits were generated without
demonstrating emission control on the proposed SET duty-cycle standard
for SI engines, or the proposed low-load duty-cycle standard and
proposed off-cycle standards and test procedures for CI engines.
Second, EPA did not rely on the use of existing credit balances to
demonstrate feasibility of the proposed standards (see Section III).
Taken together, these two factors lead us to believe that it would
not be appropriate to allow the unlimited use in the proposed new
NOX compliance program of credits generated under the
existing program. We are proposing a new interim provision in 40 CFR
1036.150(a) that includes the options for manufacturers to bank credits
for use in MY 2027 and later. In paragraph (a)(1), we are proposing
provisions to allow manufacturers to generate transitional
NOX credits prior to MY 2027 that could be applied for MY
2027 and later based on an approach that combines the current
NOX standards and the proposed test procedures (see Section
IV.G.6). Paragraph (a)(2) includes our proposal to allow manufacturers
to generate early adoption incentive credits by complying with the
proposed MY 2027 standards (or MY 2031 standards, if applicable) before
the required compliance date (see Section IV.H).\665\ Paragraph (a)(3)
would clarify that manufacturers must use one of these two options for
generating credits prior to MY 2027 for use in MY 2027 and later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\665\ Also see Section IV.I and the corresponding proposed
provisions in 40 CFR 1037 for a description of how these options
apply for manufacturers certifying electric vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Transitional Credits Generated in MYs 2024 Through 2026
We are proposing an option for manufacturers to generate
transitional credits in MYs 2024 through 2026 that could be applied in
MYs 2027 and later. We propose these transitional credits as a
flexibility that accounts for key differences between the current and
proposed compliance programs, and incentivizes manufacturers to adopt
the proposed test procedures earlier than required in MY 2027. As
described below, the proposed approach bases the transitional credit
calculation on the current NOX standards and useful life
periods; therefore, manufacturers may not need to adopt new
technologies or demonstrate durability over longer useful life periods,
which would otherwise be needed to comply with the proposed more
stringent emission standards and longer useful life periods.\666\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\666\ In Section IV.H, we propose early adoption incentives with
credit multipliers for manufacturers who achieve the full proposed
emission standards and compliance measures for engine families
before MY 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, we are proposing a new interim provision in 40 CFR
1036.150(a)(1) that manufacturers could use to generate transitional
credits in model years 2024 through 2026. The transitional credits rely
on the same structure as the general ABT provisions proposed in 40 CFR
1036.104(c) and subpart H, with differences noted in this section.
Manufacturers would similarly declare a NOX FEL for
operation over the FTP duty cycle. The FELFTP would then be
used to calculate FELs for operation over the other applicable duty
cycles and off-cycle bins for which there are no current standards.
Manufacturers would calculate an FEL for each other applicable cycle by
multiplying the corresponding MY 2027 standard for that cycle by the
ratio of their declared FELFTP to the MY 2027 FTP standard.
For an example model year 2025 Light HDE engine family, the
proposed Option 1 MY 2027 NOX standards are 35 mg/hp-hr for
FTP and SET, and 90 mg/hp-hr for LLC. If a Light HDE manufacturer
declares an FELFTP of 0.10 g/hp-hr, then the calculated MY
2025 FEL for LLC (FELLLC) would equal 0.090 g/hp-hr
multiplied by the ratio 0.10/0.035, i.e., 0.26 g/hp-hr. The
manufacturer would have to demonstrate that they can meet an LLC
NOX emission level of 260 mg/hp-hr for certification.
Similar to the general ABT program, the FELs calculated for these
cycles would serve as the emission standards for the engine family for
the respective testing, and manufacturers would demonstrate that they
meet those FELs in their application for certification. Compared to the
current ABT program, CI engine manufacturers opting to generate
transitional credits under this proposal would have to show that they
meet a calculated FELLLC on the proposed LLC test procedure
in 40 CFR 1036.512. SI engine manufacturers would have to show that
they meet a calculated FELSET on the proposed SET test
procedure in 40 CFR 1036.505.
To calculate transitional credits, we propose that manufacturers
would apply the declared FELFTP in the emission credits
equation in 40 CFR 1036.705(b)(1) (see Equation IV-1). We propose that
the credits be calculated relative to the current FTP standard of 0.20
g/hp-hr and the current useful life that applies for the engine family
as defined in 40 CFR 86.004-2.
Since transitional credits would be used in MYs 2027 or later, we
are proposing that transitional credits would have the same five-year
credit life as proposed for other credits generated for use in MYs 2027
and later. See proposed 40 CFR 1036.740(d). Similarly, to generate
transitional NOX emission credits, manufacturers would be
required to meet the applicable current PM, HC, and CO emission
standards in 40 CFR 86.007-11 or 86.008-10 without generating or using
emission credits. We propose that manufacturers would record the PM,
HC, and CO emission levels during testing over the proposed new duty
cycles, but they would not scale PM, HC, and CO as proposed for
NOX over the other cycles.
We request comment on our proposed approach to offer transitional
NOX
[[Page 17554]]
emission credits that incentivize manufacturers to adopt the proposed
test procedures earlier than required in MY 2027. We request comment on
if CI engines should be subject to off-cycle standards as proposed in
40 CFR part 1036, subpart E, to qualify for the transitional credits.
We are specifically interested in comments on other approaches to
calculating transitional credits before MY 2027 that would account for
the differences in our current and proposed compliance programs. We
also request comment on our proposal to apply a five-year credit life
for transitional NOX emission credits.
H. Early Adoption Incentives
We are proposing an early adoption incentive program as an interim
provision in 40 CFR 1036.150(a)(2). Manufacturers have four or more
model years of lead time to meet the proposed criteria pollutant
standards that would begin to apply in MYs 2027 and 2031 for proposed
Option 1 or MY 2027 for proposed Option 2. However, we recognize that
manufacturers have opportunities to introduce some technologies earlier
than required and that public health and the environment would benefit
from early introduction. Specifically, early introduction of new
emission control technologies can accelerate the entrance of lower-
emitting engines and vehicles into the heavy-duty vehicle fleet,
thereby reducing NOX emissions from the heavy-duty sector
and lowering its contributions to ozone and PM formation.
Early introduction of engines capable of meeting all of the
proposed standards and requirements for MY 2027, or MY 2031 if
applicable, would reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks across
operating modes and maintain that degree of emission control throughout
a longer portion of the engine operational life. For example, our
analysis shows that without the proposed standards, low-load emissions
would account for 28 percent of the heavy-duty NOX emission
inventory in calendar year 2045, which suggests that early introduction
of technologies capable of reducing low-load emissions could help
accelerate important reductions of this portion of the inventory.
Similarly, our analysis shows that emissions attributable to
deterioration of emission controls after the existing useful life
periods would account for 25 percent of the heavy-duty emission
inventory in calendar year 2045, which again suggests that early
adoption of technologies capable of reducing emissions for longer
periods of time could have important impacts on this part of the heavy-
duty emission inventory (see Section I.E for more details on Engine
Operation and Processes Contributing to Heavy-Duty NOX
Emission Inventory in 2045). As discussed in Section II, many state and
local agencies have asked the EPA to further reduce NOX
emissions, specifically from heavy-duty engines, because such
reductions will be a critical part of many areas' strategies to attain
and maintain the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Several of these
areas are working to attain or maintain NAAQS in timeframes leading up
to and immediately following the required compliance dates of the
proposed standards, which underscores the importance of the early
introduction of lower-emitting vehicles.
We are proposing an early adoption incentive program that would
recognize the environmental benefits of lower-emitting engines and
vehicles entering the fleet ahead of required compliance dates for the
proposed standards. Under the proposed new interim provision in 40 CFR
1036.150(a)(2), this optional program would allow manufacturers who
demonstrate early compliance with the proposed MY 2027, or MY 2031 if
applicable, standards to generate more NOX credits for the
relevant early compliance model years than under the proposed ABT
program for the model years for which the standards are applicable
(described in Section IV.G).
1. Eligibility for Early Adoption Incentives
In MYs 2024 through 2026, manufacturers may choose to participate
in the proposed early adoption incentive program by demonstrating
compliance with all of the proposed MY 2027 (or, alternatively, MY
2031) standards and other requirements specified in proposed 40 CFR
1036.205.\667\ Similarly, under proposed Option 1, manufacturers may
participate in the proposed early adoption incentive program in MYs
2027 through 2030 by demonstrating compliance with all of the proposed
Option 1 MY 2031 standards and other requirements. Early adoption
credits generated under proposed 40 CFR 1036.150(a)(2) could be used to
comply with the proposed NOX emission standards starting as
early as MY 2027 as further specified in proposed 40 CFR part 1036,
subpart H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\667\ See Section IV.G.1 for discussion on the relationship of
the FELFTP and demonstrating compliance with all duty-cycle
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Calculating Credits Under the Early Adoption Incentive Program
Our proposed early credit provisions in 40 CFR 1036.150(a)(2)
recognize the benefits of early adoption of low-NOX
technologies in two ways. First, we propose to reduce the declared FEL,
for purpose of calculating credits, to provide appropriate credit for
the additional years of emissions assurance that come with certifying
to a longer useful life. Second, we proposed to apply a traditional
credit multiplier to further incentivize early adoption of technologies
that will meet our standards. Our proposed multipliers would be based
on the current model year relative to the model year of the standards
to which the engine is being certified, with a larger multiplier for
meeting the MY 2031 requirements before MY 2027.
To calculate credits under the early adoption incentive program, we
are proposing a manufacturer would multiply the engine family's
declared FEL by a ratio of useful life period of the current model year
relative to the longer useful life period of the model year to which
the engine family is certified.\668\ For example, a manufacturer
certifying a MY 2027 Heavy HDE to proposed Option 1 MY 2031 standards
would multiply the declared FELFTP by the ratio of 600,000 miles to
800,000 miles (i.e., MY 2027 UL to MY 2031 UL for Heavy HDE under
proposed Option 1). The manufacturer would then apply a multiplier to
calculate the total early adoption credit for the engine family.
Equation IV-2 illustrates how the Eq. 1036.705-1 would be updated to
calculate early credits as proposed in 40 CFR 1036.150(a)(2). The
proposed Early Adoption Multiplier (ECM) values are shown in Table IV-
15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\668\ This approach is similar to the early compliance approach
adopted by CARB in the 30-Day Modifications to the HD Omnibus
regulation. See Appendix B-1 and Appendix B-2 available online:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17555]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.002
Where:
StdFTP = the FTP duty cycle NOX emission
standard, in mg/hp-hr, that applies for engines not participating in
the ABT program
FEL = the engine family's FEL for NOX, in mg/hp-hr.
ULMY = the useful life, in miles, that applies for
engines not participating in the ABT program in that model year.
UL = the useful life, in miles, for the standard that applies for
the applicable primary intended service class.
WorkFTP = the total integrated horsepower-hour over the
FTP duty cycle.
MilesFTP = the miles of the FTP duty cycle. For Spark-
ignition HDE, use 6.3 miles. For Light HDE, Medium HDE, and Heavy
HDE, use 6.5 miles.
Volume = the number of engines eligible to participate in the ABT
program within the given engine family during the model year, as
described in the existing 40 CFR 1036.705(c).
EAM = early adoption multiplier based on model year of the engine
family and the model year of the standard to which the engine family
is being certified. See Table IV-15.
Table IV-15--Proposed Early Adoption Multipliers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet all requirements Early adoption
Engine family model year \a\ for model year multiplier
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 through 2026............................................. 2027 1.5
2024 through 2026 \b\......................................... 2031 2.0
2027 through 2030 \b\......................................... 2031 1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ BEV and FCEV could generate NOX emission credits as described in Section IV.I.2.ii, but would not be
eligible for early adoption multipliers.
\b\ Early adoption multipliers for meeting MY 2031 standards would only apply under the two-step proposed Option
1.
Our proposal to reduce a manufacturer's declared FELFTP in the
early credit calculation would increase the number of credits relative
to the general ABT credit calculation in proposed 40 CFR 1036.705. We
believe it is appropriate to scale down the FEL using the useful life
ratio for all primary intended service classes to reflect the
durability improvements needed to meet the standards when the useful
life mileages differ. This adjustment is particularly important to
avoid negative credit values when calculating early credits for Heavy
HDE in model years 2027 through 2030 under the two-step approach of
proposed Option 1 when the proposed numeric value of the standard at
full useful life is lower than the MY 2031 standard.\669\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\669\ For example, without an FEL adjustment, the difference
between the proposed NOX standard of 35 mg/hp-hr in MY
2027 through 2030 and an otherwise credit-generating FEL in the
range of 36 to 40 mg/hp-hr would be negative (i.e., 35 mg/hp-hr - 40
mg/hp-hr = - 5 mg/hp-hr).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that the proposed 1.5 to 2.0 multipliers in the early
adoption incentive program appropriately balance providing an incentive
for manufacturers to develop and introduce lower-emitting technologies
earlier than required while also considering that the credits could be
used to produce higher-emitting engines in later model years. Our
proposed multipliers would encourage early introduction to augment
manufacturers' longer-term flexibility in product planning to meet the
proposed standards. As discussed in Section IV.G, we are proposing
credit life limits and FEL caps to ensure that NOX emission
credits generated through the early adoption incentive program do not
compromise the environmental benefits expected from the proposal.
Specifically, our proposed NOX FEL caps would ensure
significant emission reductions from all heavy-duty highway engines
compared to today's products.
We have aligned both the compliance requirements and numeric value
of our proposed early adoption multipliers with the Early Compliance
Credit Multipliers included in the Omnibus for MY 2024 and later. We
believe that aligning our approach with the CARB program provides
manufacturers with a common set of requirements and incentives for the
early introduction of lower emitting vehicles.\670\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\670\ We believe that aligning the proposed EPA early adoption
incentive program and the CARB Early Compliance Credit Multipliers
is useful for manufacturers even inf the standards and other
requirement of the EPA final rule do not fully align with the CARB
Omnibus provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Requests for Comment on Early Adoption Incentive Program
Our proposed approach would incentivize manufacturers to produce
lower emitting vehicles prior to required compliance dates by offering
more emission credits for early introduction of these cleaner
technologies. EPA requests comment on all aspects of our proposed early
adoption incentive program. Specifically, we are interested in
stakeholder feedback on our approach that engine families meet all
proposed MY 2027, or MY 2031 if applicable, requirements in order to
participate in the early adoption incentive program. The proposed
eligibility criteria would ensure that products participating in the
early adoption incentive program not only meet lower numeric levels of
the standards, but also maintain emission control across a broad range
of engine operations and over a longer duration of operational life,
consistent with the proposed requirements. Nevertheless, we are aware
that there may be aspects of the proposed requirements that are
challenging to meet ahead of the required compliance dates, and thus
EPA requests comment on any needed flexibilities that we should include
in the early adoption incentive program in the final rule.
We are also interested in stakeholder feedback on the proposed
numeric values of the credit multipliers in the early adoption
incentive program; commenters recommending alternative numeric values
for credit multipliers are encouraged to include data supporting why
those values are appropriate. In addition, we are interested in whether
EPA should further restrict the use of NOX credits generated
under the early adoption incentive program. For instance, we could
consider finalizing a shorter credit life for NOX emission
credits generated under the early adoption incentive program. We could
also consider finalizing a cap on the
[[Page 17556]]
number of engines with which a manufacturer could generate early
adoption incentive credits, or a cap on the number of credits per model
year that a manufacturer could generate.
Finally, we request comment on our approach to align the
requirements and numeric values of the multipliers with the Early
Compliance Credit Multipliers included in the Omnibus. In addition, we
are interested in stakeholder input on whether EPA should adopt
specific provisions that incentivize manufacturers to certify engine
families that meet the MY 2024 Omnibus requirements.\671\ As described
in Section IV.G.6, we are proposing a transitional credit option for MY
2024 through 2026 that is calculated relative to the current standards.
We may consider a multiplier or other incentive that reflects the CARB
MY 2024 requirements being a step more stringent than the current
standards, but less comprehensive than the proposed MY 2027
requirements. For instance, in MYs 2024 through 2026, EPA could offer
an early adoption multiplier of 1.25 for manufacturers certifying 50-
state engine families that meet all of the requirements of the MY 2024
Omnibus program. We request comment on incentivizing adoption of the MY
2024 Omnibus requirements, including suggested multipliers or other
approaches we should consider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\671\ As noted in Section I.D, EPA is reviewing a waiver request
under CAA section 209(b) from California for the Omnibus rule; if we
were to grant the waiver request for the CA Omnibus, then we may
consider in the final EPA rule ways to incentivize manufacturers to
produce engines that meet the Omnibus requirements and are available
for sale outside of CA or other states that may adopt the Omnibus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Compliance Options for Generating NOX Emission Credits
From Electric Vehicles
The number of heavy-duty electric vehicles (EVs) in the form of
hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and
fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) in the heavy-duty market today is a
small percentage of the total heavy-duty fleet based on estimates from
several sources.672 673 674 675 However, growing numbers of
these EV technologies are in production, in demonstration projects, or
planned for production in the early 2020s (see Chapter 1.4 of the draft
RIA for more discussion). Forecasting models and studies generally
agree that HEV, BEV, and FCEV production volumes will grow, yet the
predicted rate of growth ranges widely across various forecasts and
partly depend on the specific market segments and time periods being
evaluated, study methodologies, as well as underlying
assumptions.676 677 678 Many ANPR commenters asserted that
EV technologies would continue to grow as part of the heavy-duty fleet;
commenters generally focused on projected growth of BEVs based on their
own production plans and/or customer orders for their products,
although no specific data was provided by commenters.\679\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\672\ North American Council for Freight Efficiency ``Guidance
Report: Viable Class \7/8\ Electric, Hybrid and Alternative Fuel
Tractors``, available online at: https://nacfe.org/downloads/viable-class-7-8-alternative-vehicles/.
\673\ UCS (2019) ``Ready for Work: Now Is the Time for Heavy-
Duty Electric Vehicles``; www.ucsusa.org/resources/ready-work.
\674\ Nadel, S. and Junga, E. (2020) ``Electrifying Trucks: From
Delivery Vans to Buses to 18-Wheelers''. American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy White Paper, available online at: https://aceee.org/white-paper/electrifying-trucks-delivery-vans-buses-18.
\675\ Smith, D. et al. (2019) ``Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Electrification An Assessment of Technology and Knowledge Gaps''.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory and National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. ORNL/SPR-2020/7
\676\ Energy Information Association (2018) ``Annual Energy
Outlook; Table 50: Freight Transportation Energy Use'', available
at: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=58-
AEO2018®ion=0-
0&cases=ref2018&start=2016&end=2050&f=A&linechart=ref2018-
d121317a.6-58-AEO2018~ref2018-d121317a.11-58-AEO2018~ref2018-
d121317a.17-58-AEO2018~ref2018-d121317a.22-58-AEO2018~ref2018-
d121317a.28-58-AEO2018~ref2018-d121317a.33-58-
AEO2018&ctype=linechart&sid=ref2018-d121317a.22-58-AEO2018~ref2018-
d121317a.11-58-AEO2018~ref2018-d121317a.33-58-AEO2018&sourcekey=0.
\677\ Jadun, et al. (2017) ``Electrification Futures Study: End-
Use Electric Technology Cost and Performance Projections through
2050''. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-
6A20-70485. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70485.pdf.
\678\ Brooker et al. (2021) ``Vehicle Technologies and Hydrogen
and Fuel Cell Technologies Research and Development Programs
Benefits Assessment Report for 2020''. Golden, CO: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-79617. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79617.pdf.
\679\ For example, see Comments of Tesla Inc. ``Control of Air
Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine Standards,
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055, 85 Fed. Reg. 3306 (Jan. 21,
2020).'' Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0268.; Comments of Rivian.
``Comments on the Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles:
Heavy-Duty Engine Standards Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055; FRL-10004-16- OAR).'' Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-0272.; Comments of Volvo Group. ``Comments of the Volvo Group;
U.S. EPA Cleaner Trucks Initiative Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.'' Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0463.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the ANPR for this action we requested comment on any barriers or
incentives that EPA should consider to better encourage emission
reductions from HEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs.\680\ Most but not all ANPR
commenters were generally supportive of EPA following approaches used
in the past of offering emission credits and credit multipliers for EV
technologies.\681\ Commenters also noted that making credits in an ABT
program available for EV technologies, particularly credits available
prior to MY 2027, would provide manufacturers with flexibility by
providing additional time to develop the technologies to comply with
the proposed emission standards.\682\ However, under the current
criteria pollutant program, manufacturers do not have a pathway to
generate NOX emission credits for HEVs, BEVs, or FCEVs. For
BEVs and FCEVs, current 40 CFR 86.016-1(d)(4) stipulates that these
technologies may not generate NOX emission credits, and for
HEVs, there has historically not been a test procedure available to
demonstrate NOX emission performance of the technologies
(see Sections III.A and III.B for discussion on the current regulatory
provisions specific to heavy-duty electric vehicles, and test
procedures for HEVs, respectively).\683\ We outline in the subsections
that follow how we propose to address these barriers to generating
NOX emission credits for HEVs, and, separately, BEVs or
FCEVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\680\ 85 FR 3306, January 21, 2020.
\681\ For example, see Comments of Tesla Inc. ``Control of Air
Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine Standards,
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055, 85 Fed. Reg. 3306 (Jan. 21,
2020).'' Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0268.; Comments of Rivian.
``Comments on the Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles:
Heavy-Duty Engine Standards Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055; FRL-10004-16- OAR).'' Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-0272.; Comments of Volvo Group. '' Comments of the Volvo Group;
U.S. EPA Cleaner Trucks Initiative Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.'' Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0463.; Comments of Edison
Electric Institute. ``Comments of the Edison Electric Institute on
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine Standards.'' Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-0293.; Note that one commenter did not support credit
multipliers, see Comments of Eaton. ``Eaton Comments to EPA Control
of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine
Standards Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055.'' Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-0452.
\682\ Tesla Inc. ``Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine Standards, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055, 85 Fed. Reg. 3306 (Jan. 21, 2020).'' Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-0268.; Rivian. ``Comments on the Control of Air Pollution From
New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine Standards Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055; FRL-10004-16- OAR).''
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0272.; Volvo Group. ``Comments of the
Volvo Group; U.S. EPA Cleaner Trucks Initiative Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking.'' Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0463.
\683\ 40 CFR 86.016-1(d)(4) states: ``Electric heavy-duty
vehicles may not generate NOX or PM emission credits.
Heavy-duty vehicles powered solely by electricity are deemed to have
zero emissions of regulated pollutants.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to allow HEVs to generate NOX emission
credits based on
[[Page 17557]]
their near-zero tailpipe emissions and because they provide an
opportunity for manufacturers to develop and refine transferable
technologies to BEVs and FCEVs (e.g., batteries, electric motors). We
are proposing to allow BEVs and FCEVs to generate NOX
emission credits because of the zero-tailpipe emissions performance of
these technologies and after consideration of ANPR comments.\684\ We
are further proposing to allow manufacturers to generate BEV and FCEV
NOX emission credits starting in MY 2024 in response to ANPR
comments concerning the importance of such credits in providing
manufacturers with flexibility in their product planning. Some ANPR
comments also supported emission credit multipliers for HEVs, BEVs, and
FCEVs.\685\ In developing our proposal, we considered whether to
provide credit multipliers for these technologies in the early years of
the proposed program; however, we are choosing not to propose
NOX emission credit multipliers for HEVs, BEVs, or FCEVs due
to the potential emission impacts of the use of credit multipliers and
the current state of technology development and implementation (see
Section IV.I.4 for more details on this topic).\686\ The subsections
that follow discuss: (1) How manufacturers can certify HEV, BEVs, and
FCEVs to the proposed criteria pollutant standards, (2) proposed
requirements for generating NOX emission credits for these
technologies, (3) potential options for how EPA could approach
NOX emission credits from BEVs and FCEVs in the long-term
(e.g., post-MY 2031), and (4) our reasoning for not proposing credit
multipliers for NOX emission credits generated from HEVs,
BEVs, or FCEVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\684\ As noted in Section III.A, our proposal for how
manufacturers could generate NOX emissions credits from
BEVs and FCEVs would be available under any of the regulatory
options that we are considering for revised NOX
standards.
\685\ Rivian. ``Comments on the Control of Air Pollution From
New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine Standards Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055; FRL-10004-16- OAR).''
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0272.; Volvo Group. ``Comments of the
Volvo Group; U.S. EPA Cleaner Trucks Initiative Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking.'' Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0463.
\686\ As noted in Section IV.I.4, BEVs and FCEVs would not be
eligible for Early Adoption Incentive credit multipliers (see
Section IV.H for details of Early Adoption Incentives).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Certification Provisions for Generating NOX Emission
Credits From Electric Vehicles
As outlined in Section III.A, we are proposing to clarify in
proposed 40 CFR 1036.101(b) that manufacturers may optionally test the
hybrid engine and powertrain together, rather than testing the engine
alone; this option would allow manufacturers to demonstrate emission
performance of the hybrid technology that are not apparent when testing
the engine alone.\687\ To generate NOX emission credits with
a hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain, manufacturers would conduct the
emission testing described in Section IV.I.2.i and apply the results as
specified for the proposed engine ABT program discussed in Section
IV.G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\687\ We are also proposing to update the definition of ``engine
configuration'' in 40 CFR 1036.801 to clarify that an engine
configuration would include hybrid components if it is certified as
a hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, we propose to clarify the procedures for certifying BEVs
and FCEVs to criteria emission standards. As discussed in Section
III.A, we are proposing to consolidate criteria pollutant and GHG
emission certification requirements in 40 CFR part 1037 for BEVs and
FCEVs with a GVWR over 14,000 pounds, as specified in the current 40
CFR 1037.1 and proposed 40 CFR 1037.102.\688\ As noted in the
introduction to this Section IV.I, we are also proposing that BEVs and
FCEVs may generate NOX emission credits, as specified in
proposed 40 CFR 1037.616. Manufacturers choosing to participate in the
NOX ABT program would be required to conduct testing to
measure work produced over a defined duty-cycle test, and either
useable battery energy for BEVs or fuel cell voltage for FCEVs (see
Section IV.I.2 for details). Manufacturers would generate vehicle
emissions credits, which would then be fungible between vehicle and
engine ABT programs, such that NOX credits generated through
the vehicle program could be applied to the proposed engine ABT program
described in Section IV.G.\689\ See Sections IV.G.2, IV.G.3, IV.G.4,
and IV.G.6 for details on proposed limitations on the use of
NOX emission credits, including NOX emission
credits generated from BEVs or FCEVs, within the engine ABT program, as
specified in proposed 40 CFR 1036.741. Based on proposed 40 CFR
1037.102(b)(1) and proposed 40 CFR 1036.741, NOX emission
credits generated by BEVs or FCEVs would be restricted to use in the CI
engine averaging set in which those credits are generated; further
below we request comment on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\688\ As specified in proposed 40 CFR 1037.102(b)(1), we are
proposing that manufacturers apply the Light HDE provisions to Light
HDV, apply the Medium HDE provisions to Medium HDV, and apply the
Heavy HDE provisions to Heavy HDV.
\689\ As described in proposed 40 CFR 1036.705 and 1036.741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing our proposed approach of a vehicle certification
pathway for BEV and FCEV criteria pollutant requirements, we considered
two options: vehicle certification or powertrain certification. We are
proposing to allow vehicle manufacturers, rather than powertrain
manufacturers, to generate vehicle credits for BEVs or FCEVs because
the vehicle certification pathway is already utilized for certifying
BEVs and FCEVs to GHG standards, and thus would require fewer resources
to implement and carryout for both manufacturers and EPA's
certification program. We recognize that under our proposed approach
powertrain manufacturers would need to partner with vehicle
manufacturers in order to obtain an EPA certificate, and that EMA
commented on the proposed CARB HD NOX Omnibus regulation
that powertrain manufacturers, not vehicle manufacturers, should
generate NOX credits generated from zero tailpipe emission
vehicles.\690\ We further recognize that the final CARB Heavy-Duty
NOX Omnibus Regulation includes a powertrain certification
pathway for BEVs and FCEVs, rather than a vehicle certification
pathway. EPA believes that this incomplete alignment with the CARB
Omnibus program would be minor and minimally disruptive to
manufacturers since under the CARB Omnibus program NOX
credits can be generated from BEVs and FCEVs only through MY 2026.\691\
Further, we note that this concern does not apply to vertically
integrated powertrain manufacturers and that non-vertically integrated
powertrain manufacturers could develop their business arrangements with
the vehicle manufacturers such that NOX credits are
transferred to the powertrain manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\690\ California Air Resources Board, Responses to Comments on
the Environmental Analysis for the Proposed Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and Association Amendments. EMA Comment
on CARB Omnibus (see p. 132 of pdf at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/res20-23attbrtc.pdf).
\691\ Under the Omnibus, at the end of MY 2026 NOX
credits can no longer be generated from BEVs and FCEVs, and existing
NOX credits from BEVs and FCEVs can no longer be used,
and thus the lack of alignment between the CARB and proposed EPA
certification pathways for these technologies is only for a few
model years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On balance, EPA believes that the vehicle certification pathway for
BEVs and FCEVs leads to a lower burden to manufacturers and EPA's
certification program, and thus is the preferable option. Immediately
below we request comment on our proposed approach and broader concepts
related to NOX
[[Page 17558]]
emission credits for HEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs.
We request comment on the general proposed approach of allowing
HEVs, BEVs and FCEVs to generate NOX credits, which can then
be used in the heavy-duty ABT program. We also specifically request
comment on our proposal to allow BEV and FCEV vehicle manufacturers to
generate vehicle emission credits for NOX. We further
request comment on whether and how EPA could extend the opportunity to
generate NOX engine emission credits to other manufacturers
in the BEV and FCEV production process (e.g., non-vertically integrated
powertrain manufacturers in addition to or in lieu of vehicle
manufacturers). In addition, we request comment on our proposed
approach to limit the use of NOX emission credits generated
from BEV or FCEVs to the Light HDE, Medium HDE and Heavy HDE averaging
sets in which they are generated. In particular, we are interested in
stakeholder input on allowing NOX emission credits generated
by BEVs or FCEVs in the Light HDE or Medium HDE averaging sets to be
used in SI engine averaging sets.
2. Electric Vehicle Testing and Other Requirements for Generating
NOX Emission Credits
Similar to our approach for CI and SI engine manufacturers, EPA is
proposing that manufacturers of HEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs would submit test
data at the time of certification to support their calculation of
NOX emission credits. Manufacturers would calculate the
value of NOX emission credits generated from HEVs, BEVs, or
FCEVs using the same equation provided for engine emission credits (see
Equation IV-1 in Section IV.G.1). This equation relies on three key
inputs: (1) The engine family's FEL for NOX, in mg/hp-hr,
(2) work produced over the FTP duty-cycle, and (3) useful life mileage
of the engine. Immediately below we describe how manufacturers would
generate these three key inputs for HEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs,
respectively.
i. Hybrid Electric Vehicle Testing for NOX Emission Credits
For HEVs, we are proposing that starting in MY 2023 manufacturers
could use powertrain testing procedures to certify hybrid
configurations to criteria pollutant standards (see Section III.B.2 for
more discussion on our proposal to allow powertrain testing for hybrid
engines and powertrains).\692\ Manufacturers would generate the engine
family's FEL for NOX, in mg/hp-hr and work produced over the
FTP duty-cycle using the powertrain test procedure for the FTP duty-
cycle, as specified in the current 40 CFR 1036.510. By using the
powertrain testing protocol, manufacturers could demonstrate
NOX emissions performance of their hybrid powertrain
technology and, where appropriate, generate NOX emission
credits under the proposed ABT program described in Section IV.G.
Manufacturers would complete their NOX credit calculation
using the useful life mileage of the hybrid engine and powertrain
configuration. As discussed in Section IV.A.3, we are proposing that
hybrid engine and powertrain configurations certify to the same useful
life requirements as the conventional engine that would typically be
installed in the vehicle in order to provide truck owners and operators
with similar assurance of durability regardless of the powertrain
configuration they choose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\692\ As described in Section III.B.2, in a previous rulemaking
we included an option for manufacturers to use powertrain test
procedures to certify a hybrid powertrain to the FTP and SET
greenhouse gas engine standards; under this rulemaking we are
proposing to allow manufacturers to use powertrain test procedures
to certify hybrid powertrains to the proposed FTP, SET, and LLC
criteria emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Battery and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Testing Requirements for
NOX Emission Credits
We are proposing for the first input into the NOX
emission credit calculation (NOX FEL for the engine family)
that BEV and FCEV manufacturers would declare an FEL for
NOX, in mg/hp-hr that represents the NOX emission
standards that the vehicle will meet throughout useful life, as stated
in proposed 40 CFR 1037.616(a)(2). For the second input (work produced
over the FTP duty-cycle), we are proposing that manufacturers would use
data generated by a powertrain test procedure for a series of duty-
cycle tests (multicycle test, MCT) (see Section III.B and proposed 40
CFR 1037.552 and 1037.554 for details on the MCT for BEVs and FCEVs,
respectively). One of the duty-cycle tests included in each MCT is the
FTP, which provides the necessary input to the credit calculation (see
Section IV.I.2.iii for additional information on data generated by the
MCT). The third input (useful life mileage) is discussed in Section
IV.A.3 and specified in proposed 40 CFR 1037.102(b)(2). Briefly, we are
proposing that BEV and FCEV manufacturers meet the useful life period
of an equivalent engine-based service class. As discussed in Section
IV.A.3, we believe that current data support BEV and FCEV technologies
being capable of meeting the same useful life requirements of CI
engines in the MY 2027 and beyond timeframe.\693\ We further believe
that this approach provides truck owners and operators with equivalent
durability expectations regardless of the powertrain they choose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\693\ As described in Section IV.A and specified in proposed 40
CFR 1037.102(b)(2), prior to MY 2027, manufacturers choosing to
generate NOX emission credits with BEVs or FCEVs would
apply the useful life periods specified in the current 40 CFR
86.001-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Battery and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Durability Requirements for
NOX Emission Credits
The MCTs for BEVs and FCEVs would provide results that include work
produced over the FTP duty-cycle, as well as initial useable battery
energy (UBE) for BEVs, and initial fuel cell voltage (FCV) for
FCEVs.\694\ These additional measures (UBE and FCV) would provide
information critical to understanding the durability of the BEV or
FCEV. BEVs and FCEVs must be durable throughout the useful life period
to which they are certified in order to provide the zero-tailpipe
emissions performance for which they are generating NOX
credits. For instance, if the batteries or fuel cells of a BEV or FCEV
are only capable of propelling the vehicle through one half of the
certified useful life, and thus the BEV or FCEV can only travel half of
the miles used to calculate the NOX credits being generated,
then the remaining half of the NOX emission credits could be
used by manufacturers to produce higher emitting internal combustion
engines without actually achieving the real-world emission reductions
from a BEV or FCEV being used for the full useful life. In other words,
the zero-tailpipe emission performance of a BEV or FCEV could turn out
to be illusory if the BEV or FCEV is unable to operate, and is thereby
unable to achieve zero tailpipe emission performance, for its full
useful life. Where BEVs or FCEVs are used to generate emission credits
and thereby enable higher-emitting vehicles to be produced, it is
especially important for the manufacturer to provide an assurance that
the BEV or FCEV will be durable for the full useful life period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\694\ Useable battery energy is defined as the energy capacity
of the battery less any energy the manufacturer determines is
necessary for protecting the battery (e.g., thermal management).
Fuel cell voltage is defined as voltage measured when current is
between 55 percent-65 percent of rated stack current.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17559]]
To ensure that BEV and FCEV NOX credits are calculated
accurately and reflect the environmental benefit of vehicles with zero
tailpipe emissions over their full useful life, we are proposing that
in MY 2024 and beyond, BEVs and FCEVs used to generate NOX
emission credits must meet certain durability requirements. As
specified in proposed 40 CFR 1037.102(b)(3), BEV or FCEV manufacturers
would measure UBE or FCV at the start of useful life using the MCT
procedures in proposed 40 CFR 1037.552 or 1037.554, respectively. BEV
manufacturers could then attest, in lieu of demonstrating, that UBE
remains at 70 percent or greater of the initial value throughout useful
life. FCEV manufacturers could similarly attest, in lieu of
demonstrating, that FCV remains at 80 percent or greater of the initial
value throughout useful life. We recognize that BEV and FCEV
technologies, and the batteries and fuel cells that power them, are in
relatively nascent periods of development. Although we are proposing
that starting in MY 2024 manufacturers must maintain the same
percentage of UBE or FCV throughout useful life regardless of model
year, the useful life periods are shorter in the proposed earlier model
years. Specifically, the useful life period over which manufacturers
must demonstrate, or attest, that UBE or FCV will be maintained at or
above the proposed percentages are shorter for MYs 2024 through 2026
and increase for MYs 2027 through 2030, with a further increase for MYs
2031 and later (see proposed 40 CFR 1037.102(b)(2); see Section IV.A
for our proposed useful life periods). We are not proposing a minimum
requirement for UBE or FCV (i.e., manufacturers can design their
products with an initial UBE or FCV value of their choosing). Further,
there are multiple approaches that manufacturers could choose to use to
meet the proposed requirements for UBE and FCV. For instance,
manufacturers could choose to design the battery or fuel cell in their
product to have a larger capacity at the start of the vehicle life and
limit the extent to which the initial capacity is available for use; as
the battery or fuel cell ages, the manufacturer could design the
product to make more of the battery or fuel cell capacity available for
use, and thereby maintain the same percent of UBE or FCV.\695\ Another
approach that could be taken is the manufacturer could declare a UBE or
FCV that is lower than the result from running the respective test
procedures. This approach would give the user access to the full UBE or
FCV, but the manufacturer would only be accountable for meeting the
requirements in 40 CFR 1037.102(b)(3) for the value that they declared.
Alternatively, a manufacturer could choose to include battery or fuel
cell maintenance or replacement as part of critical emission-scheduled
maintenance; manufacturers choosing this option would need to
demonstrate that the maintenance is reasonably likely to be done on in-
use vehicles, as specified in the current 40 CFR 1037.125(a). As
described in Section IV.I.2.iv, we are requesting comment on whether we
should require manufacturers who choose this option to ensure that the
maintenance is reasonably likely to be done by providing the
maintenance free of charge and clearly stating so in their maintenance
instructions, per the current 40 CFR 1037.125(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\695\ As specified in 40 CFR 1037.552 and 1037.554,
manufacturers may declare a UBE or FCV lower than the measured value
in order to account for degradation over useful life; however, the
UBE or FCV available for operating the vehicle must be at least the
value that is declared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe the proposed battery and fuel cell durability
requirements are necessary to provide assurance that vehicles with
these technologies would continue to provide the zero-tailpipe
emissions performance throughout the useful life for which they are
given credits. Our proposed approach for UBE and FCV as measures of
durability builds on the ZEP Certification requirements and test
procedures developed by CARB, work on light-duty vehicle battery
durability under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE) Electric Vehicles and the Environment (EVE) Working Group for
the Working Party on Pollution and Energy, and work on fuel cell
durability by DOE.696 697 698 699 EPA believes the proposed
battery and fuel cell durability requirements for BEVs and FCEVs would
not only provide necessary assurance of zero-tailpipe emission
performance for emission credit calculations, but would also help to
ensure consistency in product quality as these technologies become
increasingly available in larger portions of the heavy-duty fleet.
Consistent product quality is critical not only for potential
purchasers to have confidence in selecting BEVs and FCEVs for use in
their business, but also for ensuring continued environmental benefits
from the technologies throughout their use in the field. We further
believe that basing our proposal on the approach being developed for
light-duty technologies allows manufacturers to leverage the research
and experience of the light-duty industry. The proposed percentages for
UBE durability over useful life are drawn from comparable percentages
for light-duty battery durability UBE under the UNECE EVE.\700\
Similarly, the proposed percentages for FCV durability are drawn from
DOE targets for fuel cell durability in heavy-duty
vehicles.701 702 We also note that at least one BEV bus
manufacturer currently provides warranty coverage for their battery
degrading below 80 percent of initial capacity.\703\ As discussed at
the end of this subsection, we request comment on whether these
percentages are appropriate for MY 2024 and later heavy-duty vehicles,
and whether we should finalize different percentages for BEVs and FCEVs
prior to MY 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\696\ California Air Resources Board. ``Attachment C: California
Standards and Test Procedures for New 2021 and Subsequent Model
Heavy-Duty Zero-Emissions Powertrains``, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/zepcert/froattc.pdf (last accessed September 20, 2021); see Section D for
details of CARB rated energy capacity test procedure requirements.
\697\ Informal Working Group (IWG) on Electric Vehicles and the
Environment (EVE). (July 2021) Proposal for a new UN GTR on In-
vehicle Battery Durability for Electrified Vehicles. Available at:
https://wiki.unece.org/download/attachments/128420965/Based%20on%20GRPE-83-09%208%209%20July%202021%20EC%20US%20proposal.docx?api=v2 (last
accessed August 6, 2021).
\698\ Adams, J. (2020) DOE H2 Heavy Duty Truck Targets.
Available at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/02/f71/fcto-compressed-gas-storage-workshop-2020-adams.pdf (last accessed
on August 5, 2021).
\699\ DOE. 2020. FC135: FC-PAD: Fuel Cell Performance and
Durability Consortium. Available at: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review20/fc135_borup_weber_2020_o.pdf
(last accessed August 20, 2021).
\700\ See Table 1 (Battery Energy based (SOCE) MPR) of Informal
Working Group (IWG) on Electric Vehicles and the Environment (EVE).
(July 2021) Proposal for a new UN GTR on In-vehicle Battery
Durability for Electrified Vehicles. Available at: https://wiki.unece.org/download/attachments/128420965/Based%20on%20GRPE-83-09%208%209%20July%202021%20EC%20US%20proposal.docx?api=v2 (last
accessed August 6, 2021).
\701\ Adams (2020) DOE H2 Heavy Duty Truck Targets. Available
at: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/02/f71/fcto-compressed-gas-storage-workshop-2020-adams.pdf (last accessed on
August 5, 2021).
\702\ Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office (2014) DOE
Technical Targets for Fuel Cell Transit Buses. Available at: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/doe-technical-targets-fuel-cell-transit-buses. (last accessed on August 5, 2021).
\703\ Blue Bird. (2019) Standard Limited Warranty. Available in
the docket for this rule EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17560]]
iv. Alternatives Considered and Requests for Comment on Battery
Electric and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Testing and Durability
Requirements for NOX Emission Credits
EPA recognizes that requiring BEV and FCEV manufacturers to run the
MCT to measure work produced over the FTP duty cycle and to measure UBE
and FCV places an additional burden on manufacturers who choose to
generate NOX emission credits. We considered two alternative
data sources for work produced over the FTP duty cycle in order to
allow BEV and FCEV manufacturers to calculate NOX emission
credits: (1) EPA could assume FTP work based on BEVs and FCEVs
performing comparable work to CI and SI heavy-duty engines in the same
engine service class, or (2) EPA could modify the GEM model to
calculate work performed by electric motors. EPA believes that both
alternative options would provide less accurate assessments of FTP-work
than our proposed approach due to variability between different
powertrains. We believe the value of the greater accuracy of our
proposed approach justifies the additional test burden to
manufacturers.
Similarly, in addition to the proposed 70 percent UBE and 80
percent FCV durability provisions, we considered two alternative
approaches for evaluating battery and fuel cell durability. Under the
first alternative manufacturers would measure battery energy
consumption using a battery bench test during which the battery would
be depleted at a constant rate. While this option would have a lower
test burden for manufacturers, depleting the battery at a constant rate
would not provide information on useable battery energy under realistic
driving conditions. The second alternative durability approach we
considered was for manufacturers to measure UBE or FCV by driving their
BEV or FCEV on a chassis dynamometer. While this option would provide
data that is slightly more reflective of UBE or FCV during realistic
driving conditions due to the inclusion of the full vehicle, it would
result in a much higher test burden for manufacturers given the limited
number of heavy-duty chassis dynamometers available for conducting this
type of testing. Ultimately, we believe that our proposed powertrain
test method for measuring UBE (for BEVs) or FCV (for FCEVs) would
provide assurance when calculating NOX emission credits that
the environmental benefits of zero tailpipe emission technologies would
be maintained throughout useful life, without imposing undue
manufacturer test burden.
We request comment on our proposed approach, along with the
suggested alternatives and other possible approaches for demonstrating
the amount of work performed on the FTP duty-cycle by BEVs and FCEVs,
as well as measuring UBE or FCV. We also request comment whether EPA
should adopt different percentages than 70 and 80 percent,
respectively, for the required percentage of UBE and FCV remaining at
the end of the useful life period for the NOX emission
credit calculation. We are also interested in input on whether
manufacturers who choose to include battery or fuel cell scheduled
maintenance or replacement as part of critical emission-related
maintenance during the useful life period should be required to provide
the maintenance free of charge and clearly state that in their
maintenance instructions, per the current 40 CFR 1037.125(a)(3) (i.e.,
rather than choosing any of the conditions listed in current 40 CFR
1037.125(a), manufacturers including battery or fuel cell maintenance
during the useful life period would be required to satisfy current 40
CFR 1037.125(a)(3)). We recognize that battery or fuel cell maintenance
during the useful life period may be costly, and thus it may be
necessary for manufacturers to provide the maintenance free of charge
in order to ensure that the maintenance is reasonably likely to occur
in-use and the vehicle continues to provide the zero-tailpipe emissions
performance over the useful life period for which it is generating
NOX credits. We are especially interested in comments and
data on battery and fuel cell durability, and information on how
manufacturers providing battery or fuel cell maintenance free of charge
during the proposed useful life periods could impact the upfront
purchase price of the vehicles.
We also request comment on whether to require manufacturers to make
readily available to the operator onboard the vehicle a reading of the
percent remaining UBE (for BEVs) or FCV (for FCEVs) relative to the
value at the time of certification (e.g., 85 percent UBE relative to
100 percent UBE at the time of certification). Such information could
support an understanding of UBE and FCV throughout useful life for both
EPA and users but may be an additional burden for manufacturers. For
instance, manufacturers could choose to display the remaining
percentage of UBE or FCV on the dashboard or make the reading available
through a generic scan tool. Manufacturers choosing to generate
NOX emission credits would measure initial UBE or initial
FCV using the same MCT for certification; however, manufacturers could
then utilize onboard vehicle sensors and an algorithm of their design
(based on battery or fuel cell durability test data or good engineering
judgment) to determine UBE (for BEVs) or FCV (for FCEVs) during vehicle
operation. Under this option, manufacturers at the time of
certification could choose to demonstrate or attest to the accuracy of
their onboard vehicle sensor measurements combined with an algorithm,
and EPA could measure UBE and FCV during any confirmatory testing.\704\
As an alternative option, EPA could require manufacturers to provide
data at the time of certification showing the accuracy of their
algorithm. We believe that information on the remaining UBE or FCV
would provide owners an understanding of battery and fuel cell
durability over time. We further believe that an understanding of
battery and fuel cell durability would allow users to identify
unexpected battery or fuel cell degradation and plan for repairs in a
manner that minimizes downtime. We encourage commenters to provide
input on utility and feasibility of displaying, or otherwise making
available to the operator, the percent remaining UBE or FCV, and
whether such information would support BEV or FCEV maintenance and
repair in the field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\704\ As described in Section IV.I.2.iii and specified in the
proposed 40 CFR 1037.205(q), manufacturers could attest, in lieu of
demonstrating, that UBE or FCV remains at or above the specified
percentage of the initial value through useful life, in addition to
attesting or demonstrating the accuracy of their algorithm for
calculating UBE or FCV throughout useful life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Options for Long-Term Treatment of Emission Credits for Electric
Vehicles
We are proposing to recognize the NOX emission benefits
of HEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs by allowing these technologies to generate
NOX emission credits. At the same time, we recognize that
NOX emission credits from HEV, BEV, and FCEV technologies
would enable manufacturers to use these credits to produce some CI and
SI engines with higher NOX emissions. We are proposing to
limit the potential impacts of this approach with revised FEL caps,
which restrict how much CI and SI engines could exceed the
NOX emission standard by relying on NOX credits
(see Section IV.G.3 for details on our proposed FEL caps). Even with
this restriction, there is the potential for a greater portion of CI
engines to emit up to the level of the FEL cap due to NOX
[[Page 17561]]
emission credits generated from BEVs or FCEVs relative to HEVs due to
the zero emissions tailpipe performance of BEVs and FCEVs.\705\ We
therefore believe it is important to consider what impact
NOX emission credits generated from BEVs and FCEVs might
have on the NOX emission reductions expected from the
proposed rulemaking and to evaluate potential restrictions for
NOX emission credits from BEVs and FCEVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\705\ As noted in Section IV.I.1 and specified in proposed 40
CFR 1037.102(b)(1) and 40 CFR 1036.741, we are proposing that
NOX emission credits generated from BEVs and FCEVs may
only be used within Light HDE, Medium HDE and Heavy HDE averaging
sets. We are requesting comment on whether to allow NOX
emission credits generated by BEVs or FCEVs to be used for the SI
engine service class, but do not expect NOX emission
credits from BEVs and FCEVs to result in higher-emitting SI engines
under our proposed approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the final rule or other future rulemakings, it may be
appropriate to restrict NOX emission credits from BEVs and
FCEVs in the longer term (e.g., beyond MY 2031).\706\ Long-term
adjustments to the proposed NOX emission credit provisions
for BEVs and FCEVs could include any of the following options: (1)
Sunsetting BEV and FCEV NOX emission credits, (2) setting
NOX emission standards for engines with consideration of the
availability of BEV and FCEV technologies, or (3) further restricting
the use of NOX emission credits from BEVs and FCEVs. We
discuss each of these options immediately below and request stakeholder
input on the appropriateness of each for the final rule or future
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\706\ We use MY 2031 as an example here; we may finalize one or
more of the options presented in this Section IV.I.3 for an earlier
or later model year (see Section XI.C for more discussion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the first option, we would sunset, i.e., end, the generation
and use of NOX emission credits for BEVs and FCEVs after a
specified period of time (e.g., ten years). Doing so would allow EPA to
recognize the zero emission tailpipe benefits of BEVs and FCEVs as they
transition into mainstream technologies in the heavy-duty market, and
later revert back to a more limited scope of flexibilities for
manufacturers to meet NOX emission standards within CI
engine averaging sets. We may adopt BEV and FCEV NOX
emission credit sunset provisions in the final rule, and we request
comment on both the broad approach of sunsetting NOX
emission credits for BEVs and FCEVs, as well as how EPA could determine
a specific time period or other metric (e.g., percentage of
manufacturer sales that are BEVs or FCEVs, percentage of U.S. heavy-
duty fleet that are BEVs or FCEVs) for ending NOX emission
credit generation and use for BEVs and FCEVs.
Under the second option, we could establish or revise the numeric
level of the NOX emission standards based in part on the
availability of EV technology in the baseline fleet or in projected
compliance options.\707\ If, for example, the BEV and FCEV technologies
were projected to reach a greater degree of market penetration than our
current projections, we could incorporate that level of BEV and FCEV
penetration into a calculation of an appropriate numerical standard to
represent the combined benefits of achieving NOX control
from engines along with zero tailpipe NOX emissions from BEV
and FCEV technologies. Depending on achieved and forecasted future
penetration rates and EPA decisions in the rulemaking, this option
could lead to a more stringent NOX emission standard that
would be achieved only if manufacturers develop and produce a certain
number of powertrain technologies with zero-tailpipe NOX
emissions. We request comment on both the broad principle of factoring
BEV and FCEV penetration into an assessment of the feasibility of
NOX emission standards in the final rule, or future rules,
as well as data and methods that EPA could use to appropriately
forecast market penetration levels and analyze cost and emissions
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\707\ See Section III.A.2 for discussion on our decision not to
rely on BEV or FCEV technologies in the development of our proposed
standards for NOX emissions, as well as our current
understanding of market projections for the MY 2027 timeframe and
the type of information that may lead us to reevaluate our approach
for the final rule. Section XI presents our analysis of EV market
projections in the MY 2027 timeframe as they relate to the proposed
revisions to HD GHG Phase 2 emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the third option, we could further restrict the generation
and/or use of NOX emission credits from BEVs and FCEVs. Such
restrictions could take one or more of the following forms. First, we
could restrict NOX emission credits for BEVs and FCEVs to
those powertrains that meet certain performance standards (e.g., an
energy efficiency standard). Alternatively, we could restrict the use
of NOX emission credits from BEVs and FCEVs to a shorter
period of time (e.g., a credit life of two years for credits generated
from BEVs and FCEVs, rather than the currently proposed five-year
credit life). We request comment on the general concept of further
restricting NOX emission credits from BEVs and FCEVs, as
well as specific approaches that EPA could take to further restrict
credits from these technologies.
4. Emission Credit Multipliers for Electric Vehicles
In some light-duty and heavy-duty vehicle ABT programs, EPA has
provided for emission credit multipliers for advanced technologies such
as HEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs. As discussed in Section XI, the HD GHG Phase
2 program currently provides multipliers of 3.5, 4.5, and 5.5 for HEVs,
BEVs, and FCEVs, respectively. Emission credit multipliers are an
approach to incentivize the investments that manufacturers make to
develop and produce technologies that are considered ``advanced'' at
the time of a rulemaking; however, the use of multipliers can result in
the production of a larger number of higher emitting engines or
vehicles than the number of lower emitting, advanced technology engines
or vehicles on which the credits are based, since the multiplier
inherently pairs one new advanced technology, low-emitting engine or
vehicle with more than one new less-advanced higher emitting engine or
vehicle.
For this proposal, we do not believe that advanced technology
NOX emission credit multipliers are appropriate for HEVs,
BEVs, or FCEVs. We are choosing not to propose NOX emission
credit multipliers for several reasons. First, specific to HEVs, these
technologies have the potential to generate NOX emissions,
and those emissions can vary based on the duty-cycle, battery state of
charge, payload, and other factors. The potential variability in
NOX emissions, and the likelihood for hybrid technology to
become a primary technology pathway for meeting heavy-duty emission
standards leads us to propose that NOX emission credit
multipliers are not appropriate for HEVs (plug-in or more mild hybrid
configurations).\708\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\708\ For more discussion on hybrid technology use in the heavy-
duty fleet see MECA 2020, ``Technology Feasibility for Heavy-Duty
Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90% Lower NOX Standards in
2027'', available online at: https://www.meca.org/wp-content/uploads/resources/MECA_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For BEVs and FCEVs, we are not proposing emission credit
multipliers for two reasons. First, multipliers inherently reduce the
NOX emission benefits of the proposal to a greater extent
than credits alone since the production of a single BEV or FCEV may be
used to offset a greater number of CI engines emitting above the
standard up to the FEL cap. We believe that the combination of FEL caps
limiting the extent to which an engine could emit above the standard
and the zero-tailpipe emission performance of BEVs and FCEVs warrant
emission credits but not
[[Page 17562]]
credit multipliers. Second, the current state of technology development
and implementation of HD BEVs and FCEVs leads us to believe that these
technologies, while still relatively nascent compared to CI and SI
engines, are mature enough not to warrant emission credit multipliers.
For instance, numerous reports document growing numbers of BEVs and
FCEVs entering the market over the next few model years (see draft RIA
Chapter 1.4). In addition, a recent analysis shows that BEV
technologies will reach parity in total cost of ownership with CI or SI
engine technologies in most market segments by 2025 or earlier.\709\
The emission credit multipliers in the HD GHG Phase 2 rule were
calculated based on higher costs of the particular advanced
technologies they were targeting relative to conventional vehicles. The
expectations for growing adoption of BEV and FCEV technologies combined
with expectations that the technologies will reach cost parity in the
near-term with conventional technologies lead us to propose that
NOX emission credit multipliers, in the form of advanced
technology credit multipliers or Early Adoption Incentive credit
multipliers described in Section IV.H, would not apply for BEVs and
FCEVs for the proposed criteria pollutant standards.\710\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\709\ MJ Bradley (2021) ``Medium- & Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Market
structure, Environmental Impact, and EV Readiness. Available online
at: https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/documents/EDFMHDVEVFeasibilityReport22jul21.pdf (last accessed August 21,
2021).
\710\ See Section XI for discussion on our current thinking for
emission credit multipliers under the HD GHG Phase 2 program. We are
requesting comment on potential revisions to the emission credit
multipliers under the GHG Phase 2 program and are proposing emission
credit multipliers are not appropriate under the proposed criteria
program based on current information. We are not proposing any
changes to advanced technology credit multipliers already
established for other programs or taking comment on emission credit
multipliers offered in previous rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although we are not proposing multipliers, we nonetheless request
comment on whether to include NOX emission credit
multipliers for HEVs, BEVs, or FCEVs in the final rule. We recognize
that there may be alternative approaches to our proposal, including the
alternatives detailed below with our request for comment. Commenters
are encouraged to submit data supporting their suggested approaches
(e.g., emissions impacts or manufacturing costs of advanced powertrain
technologies).
For instance, EPA is interested in whether emission credit
multipliers might be appropriate for specific market segments for which
heavy-duty EV technology development may be more challenging (e.g.,
extended range battery-electric or hydrogen fuel cell). We recognize
that current heavy-duty EV technologies generally claim to offer a
range of 250 miles or less prior to needing to recharge.\711\ While
there are a number of manufacturers with plans to produce or
demonstrate BEVs or FCEVs with longer-range capabilities in next few
model years, these longer-range capabilities would likely experience
more challenges to market entry than shorter-range vehicles (e.g.,
charging/hydrogen refilling infrastructure, battery density, powertrain
efficiency).\712\ \713\ \714\ Based on these challenges, it could make
sense to provide interim incentives such as multipliers for BEVs or
FCEVs capable of driving longer ranges prior to recharging/refilling
(e.g., 300+ miles). Under this approach, EPA could provide a multiplier
for longer-range BEVs or FCEVs (e.g., no multiplier for vehicles
capable of <300 miles, multiplier of 1.5 for vehicles capable of >=300
to 500 miles, multiplier of 2 for vehicles capable of >500 miles). In
any case, EPA anticipates that incentives associated with specific
performance criteria like the capability of driving a certain distance
prior to recharging or refilling would need to include a requirement
for manufacturers to demonstrate that capability to ensure the
performance for which they are generating credits. We encourage
commenters who support an approach that incentivizes specific
attributes or performance criteria to comment on what demonstration
requirement would be appropriate.\715\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\711\ UCS (2019) ``Ready for Work: Now Is the Time for Heavy-
Duty Electric Vehicles''; www.ucsusa.org/resources/ready-work.
\712\ NACFE (2019) ``Guidance Report: Viable Class 7/8 Electric,
Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Tractors'', available online at: https://nacfe.org/downloads/viable-class-7-8-alternative-vehicles/.
\713\ Nadel, S. and Junga, E. (2020) ``Electrifying Trucks: From
Delivery Vans to Buses to 18-Wheelers''. American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy White Paper, available online at: https://aceee.org/white-paper/electrifying-trucks-delivery-vans-buses-18.
\714\ Smith, D. et al. (2019) ``Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Electrification An Assessment of Technology and Knowledge Gaps''.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory and National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. ORNL/SPR-2020/7.
\715\ Similar to the discussion in Section III on in-use testing
procedures, we encourage commenters to include suggestions for non-
traditional demonstration mechanisms, such as the use of production
or demonstration vehicle data if it could be supplied in sufficient
quantity, quality, and representation of certification products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, EPA solicits comment on whether emission credit
multipliers for specific model years would be appropriate (e.g., 2 for
MY 2023-2024; 1.5 for MY 2025-2026). We are also interested in
commenters' views on whether BEVs and FCEVs should have different
numeric multiplier values. Both technologies have knowledge and
performance gaps to overcome in entering the market (e.g., battery
density, charging/refilling infrastructure, duty cycle requirements
analyses), and both technologies will likely be used in different
applications across the heavy-duty market.\716\ \717\ Nevertheless,
there may be inherent differences that lead to treating BEVs and FCEVs
differently regarding multipliers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\716\ NACFE (2019) ``Guidance Report: Viable Class 7/8 Electric,
Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Tractors'', available online at: https://nacfe.org/downloads/viable-class-7-8-alternative-vehicles/.
\717\ Smith, D. et al. (2019) ``Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Electrification An Assessment of Technology and Knowledge Gaps''.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory and National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. ORNL/SPR-2020/7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, we are choosing not to propose advanced technology
credit multipliers for HEVs, including plug-in HEVs (PHEVs), due to
inherent differences in tailpipe emission performance relative to BEVs
and FCEVs; however, we request comment on whether PHEVs should be
eligible for credit multipliers, and if so, how manufacturers could
demonstrate real-world NOX emission reductions given
differences in emissions based on factors such as driving behavior or
charging rate or frequency.
We request comment on all of these alternative options (model year
ranges, multiplier numeric value, common versus specific multiplier(s)
for BEV and FCEV technologies, and potential PHEV multiplier), or
additional alternatives commenters identify related to potential
emission credit multipliers for HEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs. If commenters
recommend that EPA include emission credit multipliers for HEVs, BEVs,
and/or FCEVs, then we encourage them to provide input and submit data
on how EPA should evaluate the potential emission impacts of any credit
multipliers. Commenters are also encouraged to submit data and analyses
relevant to BEV and FCEV sales projections, fleet turnover, and other
relevant information for such an analysis.
J. Fuel Quality
EPA has long recognized the importance of fuel quality on motor
vehicle emissions and has regulated fuel quality to enable compliance
with emission standards. In 1993, EPA limited diesel sulfur content to
a maximum of 500 ppm and put into
[[Page 17563]]
place a minimum cetane index of 40. Starting in 2006 with the
establishment of more stringent heavy-duty highway PM, NOX
and hydrocarbon emission standards, EPA phased-in a 15-ppm maximum
diesel fuel sulfur standard to enable heavy-duty diesel truck
compliance with the more stringent emission standards.\718\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\718\ 66 FR 5002 January 18, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA continues to recognize the importance of fuel quality on heavy-
duty vehicle emissions and is not currently aware of any additional
diesel fuel quality requirements that would be necessary for
controlling criteria pollutant emissions from these vehicles.
1. Biodiesel Fuel Quality
As discussed in Chapter 2.3.2 of the draft RIA, metals (e.g., Na,
K, Ca, Mg) can enter the biodiesel production stream and can adversely
affect emission control system performance if not sufficiently removed
during production. Our review of data collected by NREL, EPA, and CARB
indicates that biodiesel is compliant with the ASTM D6751-18 limits for
Na, K, Ca, and Mg. As such, we are not proposing to regulate biodiesel
blend metal content at this time because the available data does not
indicate that there is widespread off specification biodiesel blend
stock or biodiesel blends in the marketplace.
While occasionally there are biodiesel blends with elevated levels
of these metals, they are the exception. Data in the literature
indicates that Na, K, Ca, and Mg levels in these fuels are less than
100 ppb on average. Data further suggest that the low levels measured
in today's fuels are not enough to adversely affect emission control
system performance when the engine manufacturer properly sizes the
catalyst to account for low-level exposure.
Given the low levels measured in today's fuels, however, the ASTM
is currently evaluating a possible revision to the measurement method
for Na, K, Ca, and Mg in D6751-18 from EN14538 to a method that has
lower detection limits (e.g., UOP-389-15, ASTM D7111-16, or a method
based on the ICP-MS method used in the 2016 NREL study). We anticipate
that ASTM will likely specify Na, K, Ca, and Mg limits in ASTM 7467-19
for B6 to B20 blends that is an extrapolation of the B100 limits (see
draft RIA Chapter 2.3.2 for additional discussion of ASTM test methods,
as well as available data on levels of metal in biodiesel and potential
impacts on emission control systems).
2. Compliance Issues Related to Biodiesel Fuel Quality
Given the concerns we raised in the ANPR regarding the possibility
of catalyst poisoning from metals contained in biodiesel blends and
specifically heavy-duty vehicles fueled on biodiesel blends, EPA
requests comment on providing a process to receive EPA approval to
exempt test results from in-use testing compliance and test results
being considered for potential recall if an engine manufacturer can
show that the vehicle was historically fueled with biodiesel blends
whose B100 blend stock did not meet the ASTM D6751-20a limit for Na, K,
Ca, and/or Mg metal (metals which are a byproduct of biodiesel
production). The potential approach we are requesting comment on would
include requiring the engine manufacturer to provide proof of historic
misfueling with off-specification biodiesel blends, which would include
an analysis of the level of the poisoning agents on the catalysts in
the engine's aftertreatment system, to qualify for the test result
exemption(s).
K. Other Flexibilities Under Consideration
1. Overview of Verification Testing and Request for Comment on Interim
In-Use Standards
To verify that heavy-duty engines are meeting emission standards
and other certification requirements throughout useful life, EPA
regulations provide for testing engines at various stages in the life
of an engine. These compliance provisions are confirmatory testing,
selective enforcement audit (SEA) testing, and in-use testing.\719\
First, EPA may conduct confirmatory testing before an engine is
certified to verify the manufacturer's test results with our own
results.\720\ If conducted, the EPA confirmatory test results become
official test results and are compared against the manufacturer's FEL,
or family certification limit (FCL) for CO2. Second, EPA may require a
manufacturer to conduct SEA testing of engines that come off the
production line.\721\ Third, EPA and manufacturers can conduct in-use
testing of engines that have already entered commerce.\722\ In-use
testing is used to verify that the engine meets applicable duty cycle
or off-cycle emission standards throughout useful life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\719\ In this section the phrase ``in-use testing'' refers to
duty-cycle and off-cycle testing of field aged engines and does not
refer solely to manufacturer run in-use testing.
\720\ Confirmatory testing is addressed in proposed 40 CFR
1036.235.
\721\ SEA testing is conducted according to current 40 CFR part
1068, subpart E.
\722\ In-use testing is covered in the proposed 40 CFR part
1036, subpart E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typically, EPA sets the same standards for certification testing
and in-use testing but, in a few cases, we have allowed temporary
higher numerical in-use standards to give manufacturers time to gain
experience with the new technology needed to meet the standards and
reflect uncertainties about potential variabilities in performance
during the early years of implementing new technology.\723\ \724\ As
discussed in Section III, we are proposing lower numerical standards
and longer useful life periods for HD highway engines, which would
require manufacturers to include additional technology on the engines
they manufacture. As discussed in Section III.A.3, we are conducting
extensive analyses on the performance of next-generation SCR systems
and engine CDA technology that in combination can effectively reduce
NOX emissions to meet the proposed standards out to at least
435,000 miles. While we expect the data that we are continuing to
gather for the final rule would show that these technologies continue
to be capable of meeting the proposed Option 1 numeric levels of the
standards for Heavy HDEs out through 800,000 miles, we are considering
the degree to which there is uncertainty in how the emissions control
technologies deteriorate when the engine is installed in the wide
variety of heavy-duty vehicle applications that exist in the
marketplace and how to address such uncertainty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\723\ See 81 FR 23479, April 28, 2014.
\724\ See 66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the potential for uncertainty in how the emissions control
technologies would deteriorate in the field and across different
vehicle applications, we are soliciting comment on providing engine
manufacturers with higher (numerical) standards for an interim period
to gain experience with the additional emission control technologies
needed to meet the proposed Heavy HDE NOX standards (and
their rates of deterioration) while those technologies are operating in
the field. Manufacturers could, for instance, use the interim period to
collect data from field-aged engines in a range of applications to
inform how the engines can be designed to meet the standards throughout
useful life for all applications in which the engine is used.
In setting the duration of an interim period we would consider how
long it would take manufacturers to collect
[[Page 17564]]
field data from engines operating out to the useful life mileage
ultimately finalized in this rule. For example, if we were to finalize
a useful life mileage of 800,000 for Heavy HDEs and assume that
vehicles with Heavy HDEs typically travel 100,000 miles per year, then
we could consider that manufacturers who collect data from pre-
production test fleets starting in 2025 would have field-aged parts out
to 800,000 miles by 2033 (i.e., an eight-year period for data
collection and a six-year interim period from the start of the proposed
MY 2027 standards).
We understand that manufacturers generally aim to design and build
vehicles not only with a sufficient margin to ensure the emissions
control technology is meeting the applicable standards throughout the
full useful life, but also an additional margin to reflect the fact
that not every vehicle manufactured and every vehicle application will
perform identically to the laboratory tests.\725\ This is particularly
important, and challenging for manufacturers, when new technologies and
test procedures are being implemented. Thus, if we observe as part of
EPA's engine demonstration study that the engine just meets the
proposed standards including accounting for deterioration then we may
consider adopting higher temporary in-use standards than if we observe
the engine performing better compared to the proposed Option 1
standards after being aged to the equivalent of 800,000 miles. In this
rulemaking, we may consider adopting higher temporary in-use standards
for all of the proposed duty-cycle and off-cycle NOX
standards for Heavy HDEs in 40 CFR 1036.104. Table IV-16 and Table IV-
17 present the range of interim in-use standards that we are
considering for MY 2027 through MY 2033 Heavy HDEs under proposed
Option 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\725\ As discussed in Chapter 3 of the draft RIA, manufacturer
margins can range from less than 25 percent to 100 percent of the
FEL.
Table IV-16--Range of Potential Interim In-Use NOX FTP, SET and LLC Standards for MY 2027 Through 2033 Heavy
HDEs Under Proposed Option 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-use FTP
standards
Range \a\ Model year ---------------- In-use SET In-use LLC
NOX (mg/hp- standards standards
hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low End of the Range............... 2027-2030.................. 49 49 126
2031 and later through 28 28 70
intermediate useful life.
2031 and later for full 56 56 140
useful life.
High End of the Range.............. 2027-2030.................. 70 70 180
2031 and later through 40 40 100
intermediate useful life.
2031 and later for full 80 80 200
useful life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The table defines the range of in-use standards we are considering for proposed Option 1. We would only
finalize one standard for each, not a range.
Table IV-17--Range of Potential Interim In-Use NOX Idle, Low-Load and Medium/High Load Off-cycle Standards for
MY 2027 Through 2033 Heavy HDEs under Proposed Option 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-use In-use
off-cycle off-cycle In-use
idle low load off-cycle
Range \a\ Model year standards standards medium/
---------------------- high load
NOX (g/ NOX (mg/ standards
hr) hp-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low End of the Range..................... 2027--2030.......................... 14 252 98
2031 and later through intermediate 11 105 42
useful life.
2031 and later for full useful life. 11 210 84
High End of the Range.................... 2027--2030.......................... 20 360 140
2031 and later through intermediate 15 150 60
useful life.
2031 and later for full useful life. 15 300 120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The table defines the range of in-use standards we are considering for proposed Option 1. We would only
finalize one standard for each, not a range.
We request comment on whether we should consider including in the
final rule interim in-use standards to account for uncertainties about
potential variabilities in performance during the early years of
implementing new technology. Commenters are encouraged to provide input
on what types of information we should consider when setting the
duration and level of any interim in-use standard, and whether the ones
included in discussion in this section are appropriate, or if there are
other considerations that would be important for setting an interim in-
use standard. In particular we are seeking comment on whether, and if
so how, to take into consideration the effects of fuel quality of
biodiesel blends discussed in Section IV.J.2 in establishing interim
in-use standards, or whether that is unnecessary if we were to finalize
both an interim in-use standard for heavy HDE NOX standards
and an allowance to exempt test results from engines that have been
historically misfueled with off specification
[[Page 17565]]
biodiesel blends. We also request input on whether any interim in-use
standard should apply to engine classes other than heavy HDEs under
proposed Option 1, and whether we should consider including interim in-
use standards for pollutants other than NOX under proposed
Option 1. Finally, we request that commenters provide any available
field data on deterioration of next-generation SCR emission controls,
or other technologies that could achieve the proposed standards
throughout the proposed useful life periods.
2. Production Volume Allowance for Model Years 2027 Through 2029
We are considering a flexibility allowing engine manufacturers, for
model years 2027 through 2029 only, to certify up to 5 percent of their
total production volume of heavy-duty highway compression-ignition (CI)
engines in a given model year to the current, pre-MY 2027 engine
provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart A. The allowance we are
considering would be limited to Medium HDE or Heavy HDE engine families
that manufacturers show would be used in low volume, specialty
vocational vehicles. Such an allowance from the MY 2027 criteria
pollutant standards may be necessary to provide engine and vehicle
manufacturers additional lead time and flexibility to redesign some low
sales volume products to accommodate the technologies needed to meet
the proposed more stringent engine emission standards. One example of a
low sales volume vocational vehicle type for which this flexibility
could be appropriate is fire trucks, where the design cycles are
typically longer than other HD on-highway products and packaging of new
exhaust aftertreatment components within existing designs may
potentially present a challenge to engine, chassis, and body
manufacturers. Under this potential option, we are requesting comment
on cases where packaging and design challenges are present, allowing
specialty vocational vehicle manufacturers to install exempt engines,
as long as the number of exempt engines installed does not exceed 5
percent of the engine manufacturer's total production volume.
We request comment on this potential option of a three-year
allowance from the proposed MY 2027 criteria pollutant standards for
engines installed in specialty vocational vehicles, including whether
and why this flexibility is warranted and whether 5 percent of a
manufacturers engine production volume is an appropriate value for such
an interim provision. In addition, we request comment on whether this
flexibility should be limited to specific vocational vehicle regulatory
subcategories and the engines used in them.
V. Proposed Program Costs
In Chapter 3 of the draft RIA, we present the direct manufacturing
costs of the technologies we expect to be used to comply with the
proposed standards. In this section we build upon those direct
manufacturing costs to estimate the year-over-year costs going forward
from the first year of each phase of implementation. We also present
the indirect costs associated with the expected technologies. Like
direct costs, indirect costs are expected to increase under the
proposal, in large part due to the proposed warranty and useful life
changes. The analysis also includes estimates of the possible operating
costs associated with the proposed changes. We present total costs
associated with proposed Options 1 and 2 in Section V.C. All costs are
presented in 2017 dollars consistent with AEO 2018, unless noted
otherwise.
We request comment on all aspects of the cost analysis. In
particular, we request comment on our estimation of warranty and
research and development costs via use of scalars applied to indirect
cost contributors (see Section V.A.2) and our estimates of emission
repair cost impacts (see Section V.B.3). We also request comments that
include supporting data and/or alternative approaches that we might
consider when developing estimates for the final rulemaking.
A. Technology Package Costs
Technology costs are associated with the two phases of the proposed
Option 1 standards in MY 2027 and MY 2031, and with the single phase of
the proposed Option 2 standards in MY 2027 (see Chapter 3 of the draft
RIA). Individual technology piece costs are presented in Chapter 3 of
the draft RIA and, in general, consist of the direct manufacturing
costs (DMC) estimated for the first year of each phase of the proposed
Option 1, or the first year of Option 2 standards, and are used as a
starting point in estimating program costs. Following each year of when
costs are first incurred, we have applied a learning effect to
represent the cost reductions expected to occur via the ``learning by
doing'' phenomenon. This provides a year-over-year cost for each
technology as applied to new engine sales. We then applied industry
standard ``retail price equivalent'' (RPE) markup factors industry-
wide, with adjustments discussed below, to estimate indirect costs
associated with each technology. Both the learning effects applied to
direct costs and the application of markup factors to estimate indirect
costs are consistent with the cost estimation approaches used in EPA's
past transportation-related regulatory programs. The sum of the direct
and indirect costs represents our estimate of technology costs per
vehicle on a year-over-year basis where MY 2031 and later costs include
costs associated with MY 2027 and later. These technology costs
multiplied by estimated sales then represent the total technology costs
associated with the proposed standards.
This cost calculation approach presumes that the expected
technologies would be purchased by original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) from their suppliers. So, while the DMC estimates include the
indirect costs and profits incurred by the supplier, the indirect cost
markups we apply cover the indirect costs incurred by OEMs to
incorporate the new technologies into their vehicles and to cover
profit margins typical of the heavy-duty truck industry. We discuss the
indirect cost markups in more detail below.
1. Direct Manufacturing Costs
To produce a unit of output, manufacturers incur direct and
indirect costs. Direct costs include cost of materials and labor costs.
Indirect costs are discussed in the following section. The direct
manufacturing costs presented here include individual technology costs
for emission-related engine components and exhaust aftertreatment
systems (EAS).
Notably, for this analysis we include not only the marginal
increased costs associated with the proposed Options 1 or 2, but also
the emission control system costs for the baseline, or no action,
case.\726\ Throughout this discussion we refer to baseline case costs,
or baseline costs, which reflect our cost estimate of engine systems--
that portion that is emission-related--and the exhaust aftertreatment
system absent impacts of this proposed rule. This inclusion of baseline
system costs contrasts with EPA's approach in recent greenhouse gas
rules or the light-duty Tier 3 criteria pollutant rule where we
estimated costs relative to a baseline case, which obviated the need to
[[Page 17566]]
estimate baseline costs. We have included baseline costs in this
analysis because under both of the proposed options the emissions
warranty and regulatory useful life provisions are expected to have
some impact on not only the new technology added to comply with the
proposed standards, but also on emission control technologies already
developed and in use.\727\ The baseline direct manufacturing costs
detailed below are intended to reflect that portion of baseline case
engine hardware and aftertreatment systems for which new indirect costs
would be incurred due to the proposed warranty and useful life
provisions, even apart from changes in the level of emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\726\ See Section VI for more information about the emission
inventory baseline and how that baseline is characterized. For this
cost analysis, the baseline, or no action, case consists of engines
and emission control systems meeting 2019 era criteria emission
standards but in 2027 and later model years. Our rationale for
including costs for the no action case is described in this section.
\727\ The proposed warranty and useful life provisions would
increase costs not only for the new technology added in response to
the proposal, but also for the technology already in place (to which
the new technology is added) because the proposed warranty and
useful life provisions would apply to the entire emission-control
system, not just the new technology added in response to the
proposed standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have estimated the baseline engine costs based on recently
completed studies by the International Council on Clean Technology
(ICCT) as discussed in more detail in Chapter 7 of the draft RIA. As
discussed there, the baseline engine costs consist of turbocharging,
fuel system, exhaust gas recirculation, etc. These costs represent
those for technologies that would be subject to extended warranty and
useful life provisions under this proposal. For cylinder deactivation
costs under the proposal, we have used FEV-conducted teardown-based
cylinder deactivation costs as presented in Chapter 3 of the draft
RIA.\728\ As for the EAS costs, those are also presented in Chapter 3
of the draft RIA and, as discussed there, are based on an ICCT
methodology with extensive revision by EPA. As discussed in draft RIA
Chapter 3, we also have EAS cost estimates from a recent FEV-conducted
teardown study.\729\ As discussed in Chapter 3 of the draft RIA, these
teardown-based estimated EAS costs are similar to the EPA-estimated
costs and we may use those FEV-study teardown-based cost estimates in
the final rule. The direct manufacturing costs for the baseline
engine+aftertreatment and for the proposed Options 1 and 2 are shown
for diesel engines in Table V-1, gasoline engines in Table V-2 and CNG
engines in Table V-3. Note that direct manufacturing costs for proposed
Options 1 and 2 are equivalent because we expect that the same
technologies would be needed to meet the standards in each option.
Costs are shown for regulatory classes included in the cost analysis
and follow the categorization approach used in our MOVES model. Please
refer to Chapter 6 of the draft RIA for a description of the regulatory
classes and why the tables that follow include or do not include each
regulatory class. In short, where MOVES has regulatory class
populations and associated emission inventories, our cost analysis
estimates costs. Note also that, throughout this section, LHD = light
heavy-duty, MHD = medium heavy-duty, HHD = heavy heavy-duty, CDPF =
catlyzed diesel particulate filter, DOC = diesel oxidation catalyst,
SCR = selective catalytic reduction, HC = hydrocarbon, and CNG =
compressed natural gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\728\ Mamidanna, S. 2021. Heavy-Duty Engine Valvetrain
Technology Cost Assessment. U.S. EPA Contract with FEV North
America, Inc., Contract No. 68HERC19D0008, Task Order No.
68HERH20F0041. Submitted to the Docket.
\729\ Mamidanna, S. 2021. Heavy-Duty Vehicles Aftertreatment
Systems Cost Assessment. Submitted to the Docket.
Table V-1--Diesel Technology and Package Direct Manufacturing Costs per Vehicle by Regulatory Class for Proposed
Options 1 and 2, MY2027, 2017 Dollars \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Options 1 and 2
MOVES regulatory class Technology Baseline (MY2027 increment to
baseline)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LHD2b3................. LHD2b3 Package............. $3,788 $1,616
Engine hardware............ 1,097 0
Closed crankcase........... 0 0
Cylinder deactivation...... 0 196
CDPF....................... 504 0
DOC........................ 350 0
SCR........................ 1,837 1,174
Canning.................... 0 30
HC dosing.................. 0 216
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LHD45.................. LHD45 Package.............. 3,806 1,653
Engine hardware............ 1,097 0
Closed crankcase........... 18 37
Cylinder deactivation...... 0 196
CDPF....................... 504 0
DOC........................ 350 0
SCR........................ 1,837 1,174
Canning.................... 0 30
HC dosing.................. 0 216
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MHD67.................. MHD67 Package.............. 4,032 1,619
Engine hardware............ 1,254 0
Closed crankcase........... 18 37
Cylinder deactivation...... 0 147
CDPF....................... 570 0
DOC........................ 316 0
SCR........................ 1,875 1,183
Canning.................... 0 36
HC dosing.................. 0 216
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HHD8................... HHD8 Package............... 6,457 2,210
Engine hardware............ 2,038 0
[[Page 17567]]
Closed crankcase........... 18 37
Cylinder deactivation...... 0 206
CDPF....................... 1,067 0
DOC........................ 585 0
SCR........................ 2,750 1,681
Canning.................... 0 71
HC dosing.................. 0 216
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urban bus.............. Urban bus Package.......... 4,082 1,653
Engine hardware............ 1,254 0
Closed crankcase........... 18 37
Cylinder deactivation...... 0 147
CDPF....................... 567 0
DOC........................ 314 0
SCR........................ 1,929 1,469
Canning.................... 0 0
HC dosing.................. 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-2--Gasoline Technology and Package Direct Manufacturing Costs per Vehicle by Regulatory Class for
Proposed Options 1 and 2, MY2027, 2017 Dollars \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Options 1 and 2
MOVES regulatory class Technology Baseline (MY2027 increment to
baseline)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LHD45.................. LHD45 Package.............. $832 $417
Engine hardware............ 523 0
Aftertreatment............. 309 393
ORVR....................... 0 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MHD67.................. MHD67 Package.............. 832 417
Engine hardware............ 523 0
Aftertreatment............. 309 393
ORVR....................... 0 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HHD8................... HHD8 Package............... 832 417
Engine hardware............ 523 0
Aftertreatment............. 309 393
ORVR....................... 0 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Note that the analysis uses the baseline plus the proposal cost--i.e., Baseline+Proposal--when estimating
total costs; the incremental costs are shown here for ease of understanding the increased costs associated
with the proposed Option 1 or 2. Note also that all LHD2b3 gasoline vehicles are chassis certified so are not
expected to incur any costs associated with this proposal.
Table V-3--CNG Technology and Package Direct Manufacturing Costs per Vehicle by Regulatory Class, for Proposed
Options 1 and 2, MY2027, 2017 Dollars \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Options 1 and 2
MOVES regulatory class Technology Baseline (MY2027 increment to
baseline)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HHD8................... HHD8 Package............... $4,108 $27
Engine hardware............ 896 0
Aftertreatment............. 3,212 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urban bus.............. Urban bus Package.......... 3,081 19
Engine hardware............ 672 0
Aftertreatment............. 2,409 19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Note that the analysis uses the baseline plus the proposal cost--i.e., Baseline+Proposal--when estimating
total costs; the incremental costs are shown here for ease of understanding the increased costs associated
with the proposed Option 1 or 2. MOVES does not have any MHD67 CNG vehicles. Note also that the urban bus
regulatory class consists of MHD engines but is shown here as urban bus for consistency with MOVES vehicle
populations and inventories.
The direct costs are then adjusted to account for learning effects
going forward from the first year of each phase of implementation for
proposed Option 1, or simply the first year of implementation for
proposed Option 2. We describe in detail in Chapter 7 of the draft RIA
the approach used to apply learning effects in this analysis.
[[Page 17568]]
Learning effects were applied on a technology package cost basis, and
MOVES-projected sales volumes were used to determine first-year sales
and cumulative sales. The resultant direct manufacturing costs and how
those costs decrease over time are presented in Section V.A.3.
2. Indirect Costs
Indirect costs are all the costs associated with producing the unit
of output that are not direct costs--for example, they may be related
to production (such as research and development (R&D)), corporate
operations (such as salaries, pensions, and health care costs for
corporate staff), or selling (such as transportation, dealer support,
and marketing). Indirect costs are generally recovered by allocating a
share of the indirect costs to each unit of good sold. Although direct
costs can be allocated to each unit of good sold, it is more
challenging to account for indirect costs allocated to a unit of goods
sold. To ensure that regulatory analyses capture the changes in
indirect costs, markup factors (which relate total indirect costs to
total direct costs) have been developed and used by EPA and other
stakeholders. These factors are often referred to as retail price
equivalent (RPE) multipliers. RPE multipliers provide, at an aggregate
level, the relative shares of revenues, where:
Revenue = Direct Costs + Indirect Costs
Revenue/Direct Costs = 1 + Indirect Costs/Direct Costs = Retail
Price Equivalent (RPE)
Resulting in:
Indirect Costs = Direct Costs x (RPE--1)
If the relationship between revenues and direct costs (i.e., RPE)
can be shown to equal an average value over time, then an estimate of
direct costs can be multiplied by that average value to estimate
revenues, or total costs. Further, that difference between estimated
revenues, or total costs, and estimated direct costs can be taken as
the indirect costs. Cost analysts and regulatory agencies have
frequently used these multipliers to predict the resultant impact on
costs associated with manufacturers' responses to regulatory
requirements and we are using that approach in this analysis.
The proposed cost analysis estimates indirect costs by applying the
RPE markup factor used in past rulemakings (such as those setting
greenhouse gas standards for heavy-duty trucks).\730\ The markup
factors are based on financial filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for several engine and engine/truck manufacturers in the
heavy-duty industry.\731\ The RPE factors for HD engine manufacturers,
HD truck manufacturers and for the HD truck industry as a whole are
shown in Table V-4. Also shown in Table V-4 are the RPE factors for
light-duty vehicle manufacturers.\732\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\730\ 76 FR 57106; 81 FR 73478.
\731\ Heavy Duty Truck Retail Price Equivalent and Indirect Cost
Multipliers, Draft Report, July 2010.
\732\ Rogozhin, A., et al., Using indirect cost multipliers to
estimate the total cost of adding new technology in the automobile
industry. International Journal of Production Economics (2009),
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.11.031.
Table V-4--Retail Price Equivalent Factors in the Heavy-Duty and Light-
Duty Industries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LD
Cost contributor HD truck vehicle
industry industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct manufacturing cost......................... 1.00 1.00
Warranty.......................................... 0.03 0.03
R&D............................................... 0.05 0.05
Other (admin, retirement, health, etc.)........... 0.29 0.36
Profit (cost of capital).......................... 0.05 0.06
RPE............................................... 1.42 1.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this analysis, EPA based indirect cost estimates for diesel and
CNG regulatory classes on the HD Truck Industry RPE values shown in
Table V-4. Because most of the proposed changes apply to engines, we
first considered using the HD Engine Manufacturer values. However, the
industry is becoming more vertically integrated and the costs we are
analyzing are those that occur at the end purchaser, or retail, level.
For that reason, we believe that the truck industry values represent
the most appropriate factors for this analysis. For gasoline regulatory
classes, we used the LD Vehicle Industry values shown in Table V-4
since they more closely represent the cost structure of manufacturers
in that industry--Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler.
Of the cost contributors listed in Table V-4, Warranty and R&D are
the elements of indirect costs that the proposed requirements are
expected to impact. As discussed in Section III of the preamble, EPA is
proposing to lengthen the warranty period, which we expect to increase
the contribution of warranty costs to the RPE. EPA is also proposing to
extend the regulatory useful life, which we expect to result in
increased R&D expenses as compliant systems are developed. Profit is
listed to highlight that profit is being considered and included in the
analysis. All other indirect cost elements--those encapsulated by the
``Other'' category, including General and Administrative Costs,
Retirement Costs, Healthcare Costs, and other overhead costs--as well
as Profits, are expected to scale according to their historical levels
of contribution.
As mentioned, Warranty and R&D are the elements of indirect costs
that the proposed requirements are expected to impact. Warranty
expenses are the costs that a business expects to or has already
incurred for the repair or replacement of goods that it has sold. The
total amount of warranty expense is limited by the warranty period that
a business typically allows. After the warranty period for a product
has expired, a business no longer incurs a warranty liability; thus, a
longer warranty period results in a longer period of liability for a
product. At the time of sale, companies are expected to set aside money
in a warranty liability account to cover any potential future warranty
claims. If and when warranty claims are made by customers, the warranty
liability account is debited and a warranty claims account is credited
to cover warranty claim expenses.\733\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\733\ Warranty expense is recognized in the same period as the
sales for the products that were sold, if it is probable that an
expense will be incurred and the company can estimate the amount of
the expense (AccountingTools.com, December 24, 2020, accessed
January 28, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address the expected increased indirect cost contributions
associated with warranty (increased funding of the warranty liability
account) due to the proposed longer warranty requirements,
[[Page 17569]]
we have applied scaling factors commensurate with the changes in
proposed Option 1 or Option 2 to the number of miles included in the
warranty period (i.e., VMT-based scaling factors). For example, the
current required emission warranty period for Class 8 diesel trucks are
5 years or 100,000 miles. Proposed Option 1 would extend the required
warranty period for a Class 8 diesel to 7 years or 450,000 miles for
MYs 2027 through 2030, and then extend further to 10 years or 600,000
miles for MYs 2031 and beyond. As such, in our analysis of proposed
Option 1 for Class 8 diesel trucks we applied a scaling factor of 4.5
(450/100) to the 0.03 warranty contribution factor for MYs 2027 through
2030, and applied a scaling factor of 6.0 (600/100) for MYs 2031 and
later. This same approach is followed for the other regulatory classes,
and for our analysis of proposed Option 2.
Similarly, for R&D on that same Class 8 truck, the proposed Option
1 would extend regulatory useful life from 10 years or 435,000 miles to
11 years or 600,000 miles beginning in MY 2027, and then extend further
to 12 years or 800,000 miles for MYs 2031 and later, we have applied a
scaling factor of 1.38 (600/435) to the 0.05 R&D contribution factor
for MYs 2027 through 2029, and then 1.33 (800/600) for MYs 2031 through
2033. Notice the different treatment of the scaling factors for R&D
versus those for warranty. We would expect that once the development
efforts into longer useful life are complete, increased expenditures
would return to their normal levels of contribution. As such, we have
implemented the R&D scalars in three-year increments (2027 through 2029
and then 2031 through 2033). In MY 2034 and later (under the proposal),
the R&D scaling factor would no longer be applied.
The VMT-based scaling factors applied to warranty and R&D cost
contributors used in our cost analysis of proposed Options 1 and 2 are
shown in Table V-5 for diesel and CNG regulatory classes and in Table
V-6 for gasoline regulatory classes.
Table V-5--Scaling Factors Applied to RPE Contribution Factors To Reflect Changes in Their Contributions, Diesel & CNG Regulatory Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warranty scalars R&D scalars
Scenario MOVES regulatory class ---------------------------------------------------------------------
MY2027-2030 MY2031+ MY2027-2029 MY2031-2033 MY2034+
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................................... LHD.............................. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
LHD45............................ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MHD67............................ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
HHD8............................. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Urban Bus........................ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Option 1....................................... LHD.............................. 1.50 2.10 1.73 1.42 1.00
LHD45............................ 1.50 2.10 1.73 1.42 1.00
MHD67............................ 2.20 2.80 1.46 1.30 1.00
HHD8............................. 4.50 6.00 1.38 1.33 1.00
Urban Bus........................ 4.50 6.00 1.38 1.33 1.00
Option 2....................................... LHD.............................. 1.10 1.10 2.27 1.00 1.00
LHD45............................ 1.10 1.10 2.27 1.00 1.00
MHD67............................ 1.50 1.50 1.76 1.00 1.00
HHD8............................. 3.50 3.50 1.49 1.00 1.00
Urban Bus........................ 3.50 3.50 1.49 1.00 1.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-6--Scaling Factors Applied to RPE Contribution Factors To Reflect Changes in Their Contributions, Gasoline Regulatory Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warranty scalars R&D scalars
Scenario MOVES regulatory class ---------------------------------------------------------------------
MY2027-2030 MY2031+ MY2027-2029 MY2031-2033 MY2034+
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................................... LHD45............................ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MHD67............................ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
HHD8............................. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Option 1....................................... LHD45............................ 2.20 3.20 1.41 1.29 1.00
MHD67............................ 2.20 3.20 1.41 1.29 1.00
HHD8............................. 2.20 3.20 1.41 1.29 1.00
Option 2....................................... LHD45............................ 2.20 2.20 1.82 1.00 1.00
MHD67............................ 2.20 2.20 1.82 1.00 1.00
HHD8............................. 2.20 2.20 1.82 1.00 1.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, as mentioned in Section V.A.1, the markups for estimating
indirect costs are applied to our estimates of the absolute direct
manufacturing costs for emission-control technology shown in Table V-1,
Table V-2 and Table V-3, not just the incremental costs associated with
the proposal (i.e., the Baseline+Proposal costs, not just the
incremental costs of proposed Option 1 or 2). This is an important
element of the analysis as shown by the hypothetical example in Table
V-7. In the example, which is only for illustration, we assume that the
baseline technology cost is $5,000, the proposed incremental cost is
$1,000, and the indirect cost warranty contribution is 0.03 with a
simple scalar of 1.5 associated with a longer warranty period. In this
case, the costs could be calculated according to two approaches, as
shown. By including the baseline costs, we are estimating new warranty
costs in the proposal as illustrated by the example where including
baseline costs results in warranty costs of $270 while excluding
baseline costs results in warranty costs of $45.
[[Page 17570]]
We request comment on the approach used here. Specifically, we
request comment on the application of indirect costs to baseline plus
incremental costs as just described and as illustrated in Table V-7. We
also request comment on the scaling approach used to estimate indirect
cost impacts and the relative scaling of research and development costs
along with their return to traditional levels following a three year
period, and the absolute scaling of warranty costs and their
continuation at those levels in perpetuity rather than returning to
traditional levels at some future point.
Table V-7--Simplified Hypothetical Example of Indirect Warranty Costs
Calculated on an Incremental vs. Absolute Technology Package Cost
[Values Are Not From the Analysis and Are for Presentation Only]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excluding baseline Including
costs baseline costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Manufacturing Cost (DMC) $1000................ $5000 + $1000 =
$6000
Indirect Warranty Costs........ $1000 x 0.03 x 1.5 = $6000 x 0.03 x
$45. 1.5 = $270
DMC + Warranty................. $1000 + $45 = $1045.. $1000 + $270 =
$1270
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Technology Costs per Vehicle
The following tables present the technology costs estimated for the
proposed Options 1 and 2 on a per-vehicle basis for MY 2027 and MY
2031. Reflected in these tables are learning effects on direct
manufacturing costs and scaling effects--associated with increased
costs due to proposed program elements--on indirect costs. The sum is
also shown and reflects the cost per vehicle in the specific model year
that would be multiplied by sales to estimate the total costs
associated with each proposed option.\734\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\734\ Note that we have not estimated sales impacts associated
with the proposal (see Section X), so sales projections are
equivalent across scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We show costs per vehicle here, but it is important to note that
these are costs and not prices. We are not estimating how manufacturers
would price their products. Manufacturers may pass costs along to
purchasers via price increases in a manner consistent with what we show
here. However, manufacturers may also price certain products higher
than what we show while pricing others lower--the higher-priced
products thereby subsidizing the lower-priced products. This is true in
any market, not just the heavy-duty highway industry. This may be
especially true with respect to the indirect costs we have estimated
because, for example, R&D done to improve emission durability can
readily transfer across different engines whereas technology added to
an engine is uniquely tied to that engine. We request comment on this
issue--while we believe that the RPE markup and the indirect cost
contributor scaling approach is a reasonable approach to estimating
indirect costs, would it be preferable to consider indirect costs in
aggregate rather than on a per engine or per vehicle basis?
Table V-8--MY2027 & MY2031 Technology Costs per Vehicle for LHD2b3 Diesel, Average per Vehicle, 2017 Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tech cost
Model year Scenario DMC Warranty R&D Other Profit sum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027......................... Baseline....... $3,788 $114 $189 $1,099 $189 $5,379
Baseline+Propos 5,404 243 467 1,567 270 7,952
ed Option 1.
Baseline+Propos 5,404 178 614 1,567 270 8,034
ed Option 2.
Option 1 1,616 130 277 469 81 2,572
increase from
Baseline.
Option 2 1,616 65 425 469 81 2,655
increase from
Baseline.
2031......................... Baseline....... 3,504 105 175 1,016 175 4,976
Baseline+Propos 4,863 306 346 1,410 243 7,168
ed Option 1.
Baseline+Propos 4,863 160 243 1,410 243 6,920
ed Option 2.
Option 1 1,358 201 170 394 68 2,192
increase from
Baseline.
Option 2 1,358 55 68 394 68 1,944
increase from
Baseline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-9--MY2027 & MY2031 Technology Costs per Vehicle for LHD45 Diesel, Average per Vehicle, 2017 Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tech cost
Model year Scenario DMC Warranty R&D Other Profit sum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027......................... Baseline....... $3,806 $114 $190 $1,104 $190 $5,405
Baseline+Propos 5,459 246 471 1,583 273 8,032
ed Option 1.
Baseline+Propos 5,459 180 620 1,583 273 8,115
ed Option 2.
Option 1 1,653 131 281 479 83 2,627
increase from
Baseline.
Option 2 1,653 66 430 479 83 2,710
increase from
Baseline.
2031......................... Baseline....... 3,515 105 176 1,019 176 4,991
Baseline+Propos 4,900 309 348 1,421 245 7,223
ed Option 1.
Baseline+Propos 4,900 162 245 1,421 245 6,973
ed Option 2.
Option 1 1,385 203 172 402 69 2,232
increase from
Baseline.
[[Page 17571]]
Option 2 1,385 56 69 402 69 1,982
increase from
Baseline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-10--MY2027 & MY2031 Technology Costs per Vehicle for MHD67 Diesel, Average per Vehicle, 2017 Dollars *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tech cost
Model year Scenario DMC Warranty R&D Other Profit sum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027......................... Baseline....... $4,032 $121 $202 $1,169 $202 $5,725
Baseline+Propos 5,651 373 412 1,639 283 8,358
ed Option 1.
Baseline+Propos 5,080 229 254 1,473 254 7,290
ed Option 2.
Option 1 1,619 252 211 470 81 2,632
increase from
Baseline.
Option 2 1,357 117 68 394 68 2,003
increase from
Baseline.
2031......................... Baseline....... 3,723 112 186 1,080 186 5,287
Baseline+Propos 5,080 427 329 1,473 254 7,563
ed Option 1.
Baseline+Propos 5,080 229 254 1,473 254 7,290
ed Option 2.
Option 1 1,357 315 143 394 68 2,276
increase from
Baseline.
Option 2 1,357 117 68 394 68 2,003
increase from
Baseline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-11--MY2027 & MY2031 Technology Costs per Vehicle for HHD8 Diesel, Average per Vehicle, 2017 Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tech cost
Model year Scenario DMC Warranty R&D Other Profit sum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027......................... Baseline....... $6,457 $194 $323 $1,873 $323 $9,169
Baseline+Propos 8,668 1,170 598 2,514 433 13,382
ed Option 1.
Baseline+Propos 8,668 910 648 2,514 433 13,172
ed Option 2.
Option 1 2,210 976 275 641 111 4,213
increase from
Baseline.
Option 2 2,210 716 325 641 111 4,003
increase from
Baseline.
2031......................... Baseline....... 5,961 179 298 1,729 298 8,465
Baseline+Propos 7,813 1,406 521 2,266 391 12,396
ed Option 1.
Baseline+Propos 7,813 820 391 2,266 391 11,680
ed Option 2.
Option 1 1,851 1,227 223 537 93 3,931
increase from
Baseline.
Option 2 1,851 641 93 537 93 3,215
increase from
Baseline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-12--MY2027 & MY2031 Technology Costs per Vehicle for Urban Bus Diesel, Average per Vehicle, 2017 Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tech cost
Model year Scenario DMC Warranty R&D Other Profit sum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027......................... Baseline....... $4,082 $122 $204 $1,184 $204 $5,796
Baseline+Propos 5,734 774 395 1,663 287 8,854
ed Option 1.
Baseline+Propos 5,734 602 428 1,663 287 8,715
ed Option 2.
Option 1 1,653 652 191 479 83 3,058
increase from
Baseline.
Option 2 1,653 480 224 479 83 2,918
increase from
Baseline.
2031......................... Baseline....... 3,769 113 188 1,093 188 5,352
Baseline+Propos 5,153 928 344 1,494 258 8,177
ed Option 1.
Baseline+Propos 5,153 541 258 1,494 258 7,704
ed Option 2.
Option 1 1,385 815 155 402 69 2,825
increase from
Baseline.
Option 2 1,385 428 69 402 69 2,353
increase from
Baseline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-13--MY2027 & MY2031 Technology Costs per Vehicle for LHD45, MHD67 & HHD8 Gasoline, Average per Vehicle,
2017 Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tech cost
Model year Scenario DMC Warranty R&D Other Profit sum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027......................... Baseline....... $832 $25 $42 $299 $50 $1,248
Baseline+Propos 1,249 82 88 450 75 1,944
ed Option 1.
Baseline+Propos 1,249 82 114 450 75 1,969
ed Option 2.
Option 1 417 57 46 150 25 696
increase from
Baseline.
Option 2 417 57 72 150 25 722
increase from
Baseline.
2031......................... Baseline....... 768 23 38 277 46 1,152
Baseline+Propos 1,118 107 72 402 67 1,767
ed Option 1.
[[Page 17572]]
Baseline+Propos 1,118 74 56 402 67 1,717
ed Option 2.
Option 1 350 84 34 126 21 614
increase from
Baseline.
Option 2 350 51 17 126 21 565
increase from
Baseline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-14--MY2027 & MY2031 Technology Costs per Vehicle for HHD8 CNG, Average per Vehicle, 2017 Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tech cost
Model year Scenario DMC Warranty R&D Other Profit sum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027......................... Baseline....... $4,108 $123 $205 $1,191 $205 $5,833
Baseline+Propos 4,135 558 285 1,199 207 6,384
ed Option 1.
Baseline+Propos 4,135 434 309 1,199 207 6,284
ed Option 2.
Option 1 27 435 80 8 1 551
increase from
Baseline.
Option 2 27 311 104 8 1 450
increase from
Baseline.
2031......................... Baseline....... 3,793 114 190 1,100 190 5,386
Baseline+Propos 3,816 687 254 1,107 191 6,054
ed Option 1.
Baseline+Propos 3,816 401 191 1,107 191 5,705
ed Option 2.
Option 1 23 573 65 7 1 668
increase from
Baseline.
Option 2 23 287 1 7 1 318
increase from
Baseline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-15--MY2027 & MY2031 Technology Costs per Vehicle for Urban Bus CNG, Average per Vehicle, 2017 Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tech cost
Model year Scenario DMC Warranty R&D Other Profit sum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027......................... Baseline....... $3,081 $92 $154 $893 $154 $4,375
Baseline+Propos 3,100 419 214 899 155 4,787
ed Option 1.
Baseline+Propos 3,100 326 232 899 155 4,711
ed Option 2.
Option 1 19 326 60 6 1 412
increase from
Baseline.
Option 2 19 233 78 6 1 336
increase from
Baseline.
2031......................... Baseline....... 2,845 85 142 825 142 4,039
Baseline+Propos 2,861 515 191 830 143 4,539
ed Option 1.
Baseline+Propos 2,861 300 143 830 143 4,277
ed Option 2.
Option 1 16 430 48 5 1 500
increase from
Baseline.
Option 2 16 215 1 5 1 237
increase from
Baseline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Operating Costs
We have estimated three impacts on operating costs associated with
the proposed criteria pollutant standards: Increased diesel exhaust
fluid (DEF) consumption by diesel vehicles due to increased DEF dose
rates to enable compliance with more stringent NOX
standards; decreased fuel costs by gasoline vehicles due to new onboard
refueling vapor recovery systems that allow burning (in engine) of
otherwise evaporated hydrocarbon emissions; and emission repair
impacts. For the repair impacts we expect that the longer duration
warranty would result in lower owner/operator-incurred repair costs
since those costs would be borne by the manufacturer, and that the
longer duration useful life periods would result in increased emission
control system durability and fewer failing parts needing repair.
However, the possibility exists that higher-cost emission control
systems may result in higher repair costs if and when repairs are
needed. We have estimated the net effect on repair costs and describe
our approach, along with increased DEF consumption and reduced gasoline
consumption, below. Additional details on our methodology and estimates
of operating costs per mile impacts are included in draft RIA Chapter
7.2.
1. Costs Associated With Increased Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF)
Consumption in Diesel Engines
Consistent with the approach used to estimate technology costs, we
have estimated both baseline case DEF consumption and DEF consumption
under the proposed Options 1 and 2. For the baseline case, we estimated
DEF consumption using the relationship between DEF dose rate and the
reduction in NOX over the SCR catalyst. The relationship
between DEF dose rate and NOX reduction across the SCR
catalyst is based on methodology presented in the Technical Support
Document to the 2012 Nonconformance Penalty rule (the NCP Technical
Support Document, or NCP TSD).\735\ The DEF dose rate to NOX
reduction relationship based on that methodology considered FTP
emissions and, as such, the DEF dose rate increased as FTP tailpipe
emissions decreased. The DEF dose rate used is 5.18 percent of fuel
consumed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\735\ Nonconformance Penalties for On-highway Heavy-duty Diesel
Engines: Technical Support Document; EPA-420-R-12-014, August 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate DEF consumption impacts under the proposed Options 1
and 2, which involve changes to not only the FTP emission standards but
also the RMC and LLC standards along with new idle standards, we
developed a new approach to estimating DEF consumption. For this
analysis, we scaled DEF consumption with the NOX
[[Page 17573]]
reductions achieved under proposed Options 1 and 2. This was done by
considering the molar mass of NOX, the molar mass of urea,
the mass concentration of urea in DEF along with the density of DEF to
estimate the theoretical gallons of DEF consumed per ton of
NOX reduced. We estimated theoretical DEF consumption per
ton of NOX reduced at 442 gallons/ton which we then adjusted
based on testing to 527 gallons/ton, the value used in this analysis.
We describe this in more detail in Section 7.2.1 of the draft RIA.
These two DEF consumption metrics--dose rate per gallon and DEF
consumption per ton of NOX reduced--were used to estimate
total DEF consumption in the baseline, as well as the proposed Options
1 and 2. These DEF consumption rates were then multiplied by DEF price
per gallon, adjusted from the DEF prices presented in the NCP TSD, to
arrive at the impacts on DEF costs for diesel engines. These are shown
in Table V-16.
2. Costs Associated With ORVR and the Estimated Reduction in Fuel Costs
for Gasoline Engines
We have estimated a decrease in fuel costs, i.e., fuel savings,
associated with the proposed ORVR requirements on gasoline engines. Due
to the ORVR systems, evaporative emissions that would otherwise be
emitted into the atmosphere would be trapped and subsequently burned in
the engine. We describe the approach taken to estimate these impacts in
Chapter 7.2.2 of the draft RIA. These newly captured evaporative
emissions are converted to gallons and then multiplied by AEO 2018
reference case gasoline prices to arrive at the monetized impacts.
These impacts are shown in Table V-16.\736\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\736\ We estimate that the ORVR requirements in both the
proposal and Alternative 1 would result in a reduction of
approximately 0.3 million (calendar year 2027) to 4.8 million
(calendar year 2045) gallons of gasoline, representing roughly 0.1
percent of gasoline consumption from impacted vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Repair Cost Impacts Associated With Longer Warranty and Useful Life
Periods
The extended warranty and useful life requirements being proposed
would have an impact on emission-related repair costs incurred by truck
owners. Researchers have noted the relationships among quality,
reliability, and warranty for a variety of goods.\737\ Wu,\738\ for
instance, examines how analyzing warranty data can provide ``early
warnings'' on product problems that can then be used for design
modifications. Guajardo et al. describe one of the motives for
warranties to be ``incentives for the seller to improve product
quality;'' specifically for light-duty vehicles, they find that buyers
consider warranties to substitute for product quality, and to
complement service quality.\739\ Murthy and Jack, for new products, and
Saidi-Mehrabad et al. for second-hand products, consider the role of
warranties in improving a buyer's confidence in quality of the
good.740 741
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\737\ Thomas, M., and S. Rao (1999). ``Warranty Economic
Decision Models: A Summary and Some Suggested Directions for Future
Research.'' Operations Research 47(6):807-820.
\738\ Wu, S (2012). Warranty Data Analysis: A Review. Quality
and Reliability Engineering International 28: 795-805.
\739\ Guajardo, J., M Cohen, and S. Netessine (2016). ``Service
Competition and Product Quality in the U.S. Automobile Industry.''
Management Science 62(7):1860-1877. The other rationales are
protection for consumers against failures, provision of product
quality information to consumers, and a means to distinguish
consumers according to their risk preferences.
\740\ Murthy, D., and N. Jack (2009). ``Warranty and
Maintenance,'' Chapter 18 in Handbook of Maintenance Management and
Engineering, Mohamed Ben-Daya et al., editors. London: Springer.
\741\ Saidi-Mehrabad, M., R. Noorossana, and M. Shafiee (2010).
``Modeling and analysis of effective ways for improving the
reliability of second-hand products sold with warranty.''
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 46: 253-
265.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the one hand, we would expect owner-incurred emission repair
costs to decrease due to the proposed program because the longer
emission warranty requirements would result in more repair costs
covered by the OEMs. Further, we would expect improved serviceability
in an effort by OEMs to decrease repair costs they would incur. We
would also expect that the longer useful life periods in proposed
Options 1 or 2 would result in more durable parts to ensure regulatory
compliance over the longer timeframe. On the other hand, we would also
expect that the more costly emission control systems required by the
proposed Options 1 or 2 would result in higher repair costs which could
increase OEM costs during the warranty period and owner costs outside
the warranty period. As further explained below, while the longer
warranty period could potentially increase repair costs incurred by
OEMs, such costs would fall under our estimated warranty cost increases
as part of our indirect cost estimates described in Section V.A.2.
As discussed in Section V.A.2, we have estimated increased OEM
indirect costs associated with increased warranty liability (i.e.,
longer warranty periods), and for more durable parts resulting from the
longer useful life periods. These costs are accounted for via increased
warranty costs scaled by the longer warranty period, and increased
research and development (R&D) costs scaled by the longer useful life
period. We also included additional aftertreatment costs in the direct
manufacturing costs to address the increased useful life requirements
(e.g., larger catalyst volume; see Chapters 2 and 4 of the draft RIA
for detailed discussions). We estimate that these efforts would help to
reduce emission repair costs during the emission warranty and
regulatory useful life periods, and possibly beyond.
To estimate impacts on emission repair costs, we began with an
emission repair cost curve.\742\ We describe in detail how we generated
the emission repair cost curve and the data from which it was derived
in Chapter 7 of the draft RIA. Figure V-1 shows, conceptually, the
nature of the emission repair cost curve (the solid line) and the
maintenance and repair cost curve--all maintenance and repair, not just
emission repair--from which it was derived (the dotted line). The
emission repair cost curve is lower than the curve for all maintenance
and repairs since not all repair is emission-related.\743\ We have not
estimated any impact on maintenance costs associated with the longer
warranty and useful life periods in proposed Options 1 and 2, and we
have estimated that just over 10 percent of repair costs are emission-
related repairs impacted by the proposed action (see Chapter 7 of the
draft RIA for this derivation, which is based on the industry
whitepaper).\744\ From the generic emission repair cost curve in Figure
V-1, we generated a unique emission repair cost curve for each type of
vehicle (combination long-haul, single unit short-haul, etc.),
regulatory class (medium heavy-duty, heavy heavy-duty, etc.) and fuel
type (diesel, gasoline, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\742\ See ``Mitigating Rising Maintenance & Repair Costs for
Class-8 Truck Fleets, Effective Data & Strategies to Leverage Newer
Trucks to Reduce M&R Costs,'' Fleet Advantage Whitepaper Series,
2018.
\743\ Maintenance includes oil changes, tire replacements, brake
replacements, etc., i.e., items that are expected to wear out and
require replacement. Repair is the fixing of broken parts that are
not necessarily expected to break. Repairs might include replacing a
cracked particulate filter or a broken mirror or door handle.
\744\ See ``Mitigating Rising Maintenance & Repair Costs for
Class-8 Truck Fleets, Effective Data & Strategies to Leverage Newer
Trucks to Reduce M&R Costs,'' Fleet Advantage Whitepaper Series,
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted, Figure V-1 shows conceptually the relationship between
repair costs and the estimated age at
[[Page 17574]]
which the warranty period is reached for any given vehicle, where
repair costs are relatively low during the warranty period and repair
cost rates begin to increase every year beyond the warranty period.
Similarly, at the estimated age at which the useful life period ends,
maintenance and repair cost rates increase yet again until, in the
figure, costs flatten out. The ``estimated ages'' mentioned are meant
to reflect not the required warranty and/or useful life ages, but
rather the age at which the warranty (or useful life) is reached based
on the average miles traveled per year by a given vehicle type relative
to the required warranty/useful life ages and mileages. For example, a
current long-haul Class-8 truck has a required warranty of 5 years or
100,000 miles, whichever occurs first. Since the mileage accumulation
of such a vehicle is over 100,000 miles in the first year, the
``estimated age'' at which the warranty is reached would be 1
year.\745\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\745\ See ``Estimated Warranty and Useful Life Ages Used in
Estimating Emission Repair Costs'' memorandum from Todd Sherwood to
docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The flattening of costs per mile shown in Figure V-1 is due to a
lack of data beyond seven years of operation and, as such, we have
chosen to maintain a flat repair cost rate for subsequent years.\746\
We considered estimating increases in maintenance and repair cost per
mile beyond the useful life, but decided that increases in the cost per
mile rate applied to both the baseline case and the proposal would have
no net impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\746\ The only data source we are aware of is this industry
whitepaper, which includes costs through seven years of operation;
``Mitigating Rising Maintenance & Repair Costs for Class-8 Truck
Fleets, Effective Data & Strategies to Leverage Newer Trucks to
Reduce M&R Costs,'' Fleet Advantage Whitepaper Series, 2018.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.003
Figure V-2 illustrates how the generic cost curve was adjusted to
estimate the emission repair cost per mile for specific vehicles. To do
this, we first estimated the vehicle age (in years) at which the
warranty and useful life periods would end based on the typical miles
driven per year over the first seven years of operation.\747\ The
vehicle ages at which the warranty and useful life periods are
estimated to end are then applied to the generic emission repair cost
curve to generate a unique emission repair cost curve for each vehicle
depending on the unique warranty/useful life provisions and mileage
accumulation rates for that vehicle. Figure V-2 shows, conceptually,
the baseline emission repair cost curve (the solid line in Figure V-1
but now the dotted line, note the new y-axis scale) and the emission
repair cost curve under the proposal (the solid line, not shown in
Figure V-1). In this conceptual example, the warranty would expire in
year 5 instead of year 1. Further, the age at which the useful life has
been reached would be year 9 instead of year 6. Lastly, the emission
repair cost curve would reach a higher cost/mile level during the
warranty period, at the end of useful life, and then beyond the useful
life. This is due to the more costly emission controls that we estimate
would be fitted to engines as a result of the proposed requirements (as
discussed in Section V.A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\747\ We have chosen 7 years for this estimate as a fair
snapshot on costs; including fewer years would result in a higher
average number of miles/year given that mileage accumulation rates
tend to decrease year-over-year and, therefore, including more years
would tend to result in a lower average mileage accumulation rate.
We chose seven years as the fair, middle ground.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17575]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.004
The emission repair cost/mile curves shown in Figure V-2 would
result in an incremental cost/mile that is negative for the operating
years 2 through 7. During the first year, the incremental cost/mile
would be slightly higher due to the marginal technology costs
associated with the hypothetical proposed standard. From years 1
through 7, the cost/mile would be lower on increment due to the longer
warranty and useful life periods and the efforts we are estimating
manufacturers would undertake to improve durability to avoid warranty
costs after sale (efforts paid for in upfront indirect costs as
described in Section V.A.2). In the years of operation beyond the
useful life, emission repair costs/mile would then be expected to be
marginally higher, again due to the marginal technology costs
associated with the hypothetical proposed standard. Importantly, in
those later years of operation, miles driven per year tend to decrease
year-over-year, which serves to offset somewhat the effect of the
higher estimated cost/mile value on a cost/year basis. In the end, for
most vehicle types (i.e., MOVES sourcetypes) our analysis shows that,
in general, the net emission repair costs over the first 10 years of
operation would decrease (see Section 7.2.3 of the draft RIA).
We believe that it is reasonable to estimate that the emission
repair costs would remain flat, as shown in Figure V-2, during the
longer warranty periods being proposed under either option because of
the increased warranty and research and development costs we are
estimating in our technology costs. Note that we are also estimating
that the emission repair costs beyond the useful life would increase at
a slightly higher rate based on the source data which suggested such a
trend. Again, cost/mile rates are estimated to flatten beyond the
useful life since the source data included operating costs through only
seven years. It is possible that cost/mile rates continue to increase
with age and that those would increase at similar rates in both the
baseline case and under the proposed options. If true, the net effect
would be the same as estimated here and the net effect is of primary
concern in our analysis.
As noted, our methodology and estimated impacts are presented in
more detail in Chapter 7 of the draft RIA. We request comment on all
aspects of our approach. In particular, we request comment on how we
have used the data from which our repair cost curve was derived and how
we have adjusted that curve to represent costs for all of the vehicle
types under consideration. Further, we request data that would allow us
to build upon our approach or change our approach if a better one
exists.
C. Program Costs
Using the cost elements outlined in Sections V.A and V.B, we have
estimated the costs associated with the proposed criteria pollutant
standards; costs associated with proposed Options 1 and 2 are shown in
Table V-16 and Table V-17, respectively. Costs are presented in more
detail in Chapter 7 of the draft RIA. As noted earlier, costs are
presented in 2017 dollars in undiscounted annual values along with net
present values at both 3 and 7 percent discount rates with values
discounted to the 2027 calendar year.
We are not including an analysis of the costs of the Alternative
(described in Sections III and IV) because we currently do not have
sufficient information to conclude that the Alternative standards would
be feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe.
As shown in these tables, and more clearly in Figure V-3, our
analysis shows that the proposed Options 1 and 2 would result in
similar costs in the early years, but proposed Option 1 would result in
lower costs the longer term, despite higher costs in the mid-term
years, compared to proposed Option 2.
[[Page 17576]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.005
[[Page 17577]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.006
[[Page 17578]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.007
VI. Estimated Emission Reductions From the Proposed Program
The proposed criteria pollutant emission control program described
in Sections III and IV is expected to reduce emissions from highway
heavy-duty engines in several ways.\748\ We project reduced tailpipe
emissions of NOX as a result of the proposed emission
standards for heavy-duty diesel engines. The combination of the
proposed low-load duty-cycle standard and off-cycle standards for
diesel engines would help to ensure that the reduction in tailpipe
emissions is achieved in-use, not only under high-speed, on-highway
conditions, but under low-load and idle conditions as well. We also
project reduced tailpipe emissions of NOX, CO, PM, and VOCs
from heavy-duty gasoline engines, particularly under cold-start and
high-load operating conditions. The proposed longer emission warranty
and regulatory useful life requirements for heavy-duty diesel and
gasoline engines would help to maintain the expected emission
reductions for all pollutants for a longer portion of the operational
life of the engine.\749\ The proposed onboard refueling vapor recovery
requirements for heavy-duty gasoline engines would reduce VOCs and
associated air toxics. See draft RIA Chapter 5, Appendix 5.3 for
details on projected emission reductions of each pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\748\ This section describes estimated emission reductions from
the proposed criteria pollutant program described in Sections III
and IV. Discussion on estimated emission impacts from the proposed
revisions to the HD GHG Phase 2 rule are addressed in Section XI.
\749\ See Section IV.A for more discussion on the operational
life of the engine relative to useful life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section VI.A provides an overview of the methods used to estimate
emission reductions from our proposed program. All of the projected
emission reductions from the proposed Option 1 or 2 are outlined in
Section VI.B, with more details provided in the draft RIA Chapter 5.
Section VI.C presents projected emission reductions from Option 1 or 2
by engine operations and processes (e.g., medium-to-high load or low-
load engine operations). Section VI.D presents results of the
Alternative that we analyzed. Section VI.E discusses how heavy-duty
electric vehicles could affect the baseline emission inventory in the
final rule and requests comment on this topic.
As discussed in Section I and detailed in Sections III and IV,
proposed Option 2 is generally less stringent than MY 2031 standards in
proposed Option 1 due to the combination of higher numeric levels of
the NOX emission standards and shorter useful life periods
in proposed Option 2. The Alternative is more stringent than the Option
1 MY 2031 standards due to the combination of shorter lead time, lower
numeric levels of the NOX and HC emission standards, and
longer useful life periods in the Alternative. The proposed Options 1
and 2 standards generally contain values that represent a lower and
upper bound of the combined range of options that we are considering
for lead time, duty-cycle test standards, off-cycle standards, emission
warranty, and useful life requirements. We would need additional
information to be able to project that the Alternative is feasible in
the MY 2027 timeframe and thereby consider adopting it in the final
rule (see Section III for details).
The proposed Options 1 and 2 thus generally bracket the overall
range of options that EPA is currently considering and the range of
estimated emission inventory impacts that we currently project (see
Section I.G for discussion on potentially finalizing a program
different from our proposal based on additional data that we collect
and stakeholder input on this proposal).
A. Emission Inventory Methodology
To estimate the emission reductions from the proposed program as a
whole, we updated EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model
to include several changes related
[[Page 17579]]
specifically to heavy-duty vehicle emissions and activity (e.g., heavy-
duty engine start and running exhaust emission rates, heavy-duty
vehicle start and idle activity). These model updates are summarized in
Chapter 5.2 of the draft RIA and described in detail in several peer-
reviewed technical reports that are available in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking.\750\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\750\ Sonntag, Darrell. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055: ``Updates to MOVES for Emissions Analysis of the HD 2027
NPRM``. May 2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The draft RIA also provides a detailed description of our
methodology to develop model inputs for the proposed and alternative
control scenarios (see draft RIA Chapter 5.3.2 and 5.3.3). The model
inputs for the proposed and alternative control scenarios capture
emission reductions outlined in the introduction to this section.\751\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\751\ Note that our modeling does not include emission
reductions from the proposed useful life and warranty requirements
for gasoline and natural gas vehicles. These proposed control
requirements are expected to further decrease heavy-duty engine
emissions. See draft RIA Chapter 5 for details on anticipated
emission impacts and our expectations for modeling emission impacts
in the final rule where feasible based on data and modeling
capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We invite stakeholders to comment and provide additional
information on our approaches to use MOVES for modeling the proposed
duty-cycle and off-cycle standards, as well as longer warranty and
useful life periods; commenters may also provide input on other data or
modeling approaches that EPA should consider when estimating emission
inventory impacts in the final rulemaking.
B. Estimated Emission Reductions From the Proposed Criteria Pollutant
Program
As discussed in Sections I.G and III, EPA is co-proposing two
regulatory options with different numeric levels of emission standards,
as well as different regulatory useful life and emissions warranty
periods.\752\ Our estimates of the emission impacts that would result
from the proposed Options 1 and 2 in calendar years 2030, 2040, and
2045 are presented below in Table VI-1 Table VI-2, respectively. As
shown in Table VI-1, we estimate that the criteria pollutant program in
proposed Option 1 would reduce NOX emissions from highway
heavy-duty vehicles by 61 percent nationwide in 2045. We also estimate
a 26 percent reduction in primary exhaust PM2.5 from highway
heavy-duty vehicles. VOC emissions from heavy-duty vehicles would be 21
percent lower. Emissions of CO from heavy-duty vehicles are estimated
to decrease by 17 percent. Emission impacts of the proposed Option 1 on
other pollutants, including air toxics, range from an estimated
reduction of about 27 percent for benzene to no change in 1,3-
butadiene.\753\ As shown in Table VI-2, proposed Option 2 is estimated
to reduce heavy-duty vehicle NOX emissions by 47 percent in
2045; the estimated reductions in other pollutants are similar to
reductions from proposed Option 1. Draft RIA Chapter 5.5.3 includes
additional details on the emission reductions by vehicle fuel type;
Chapter 5.5.5 provides our estimates of criteria pollutant emissions
reductions for calendar years 2027 through 2045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\752\ As summarized in Section I and detailed in Sections III
and IV, the proposed Option 1 would be implemented in two steps,
while the proposed Option 2 would be implemented in a single step
starting in MY 2027. The numeric values of the proposed Option 2
standards are less stringent than the proposed Option 1 MY 2031
standards, with useful life and warranty mileages similar to those
in proposed Option 1 MY 2027 standards.
\753\ No change is observed in 1,3-butadiene emissions in the
control scenarios because 1,3-butadiene emissions do not contribute
to VOC emissions from MY 2027 and later diesel running and start
emissions, heavy-duty gasoline running emissions, and gasoline
refueling emissions in the version of MOVES updated for use in this
rulemaking, referred to as MOVES CTI NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the proposed standards are implemented, emission reductions are
expected to increase over time as the fleet turns over to new,
compliant engines.\754\ Under either proposed Option 1 or 2, we
estimate no change in CO2 emissions, based on data in our feasibility
and cost analyses of the proposed criteria pollutant program (see
Section III for more discussion).\755\ As shown in Tables VI-1 and
Table VI-2, we estimate a less than 1% reduction in CH4 emissions from
heavy-duty vehicles.\756\ On the whole, we expect either proposed
Option 1 or 2 to have only minor impacts on GHG emissions; however, we
request comment on the potential for GHG emission impacts from proposed
Option 1 or 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\754\ We do not currently expect the proposed rule to
incentivize additional market shifts to electrification; however, if
such shifts were to occur then additional emission reductions beyond
those projected in Section VI.B could occur.
\755\ This estimate includes the assumption that vehicle sales
will not change in response to the proposed rule. See Section X for
further discussion on vehicle sales impacts of this proposed rule.
See Section XI for discussion on estimated CO2 emission
impacts of the proposed revisions to the Heavy Duty GHG Phase 2
rulemaking.
\756\ The CH4 emissions reductions would be due to lower total
hydrocarbon emission rates from the tailpipe of heavy-duty gasoline
vehicles (see draft RIA Chapter 5.2.2 for more detail).
Table VI-1--Annual Emission Reductions From Heavy-Duty Vehicles in Calendar Years (CY) 2030, 2040, and 2045--Proposed Option 1 Emissions Relative to the
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions Baseline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY2030 CY2040 CY2045
Pollutant -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US short tons % Reduction US short tons % Reduction US short tons % Reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX..................................................... 153,608 16.4 491,318 55.9 558,780 60.5
VOC..................................................... 4,681 5.0 15,199 18.7 17,975 21.0
Primary Exhaust PM2.5................................... 408 3.4 1,741 23.7 2,005 26.4
CO...................................................... 51,154 3.2 241,974 15.2 289,835 17.2
1,3-Butadiene........................................... 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Acetaldehyde............................................ 8 0.4 46 2.5 52 2.7
Benzene................................................. 42 4.1 181 23.1 221 26.8
Formaldehyde............................................ 12 0.5 63 4.1 75 4.6
Methane (CH4)........................................... 166 0.2 881 0.7 1,025 0.7
Naphthalene............................................. 1.3 0.9 6.5 14.3 8 16.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17580]]
Table VI-2--Annual Emission Reductions From Heavy-Duty Vehicles in Calendar Years (CY) 2030, 2040, and 2045--Proposed Option 2 Emissions Relative to the
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions Baseline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 2030 CY 2040 CY 2045
Pollutant -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US short tons % Reduction US short tons % Reduction US short tons % Reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX..................................................... 140,691 15.0 383,350 43.6 437,869 47.4
VOC..................................................... 4,645 5.0 14,623 18.0 17,283 20.2
Primary Exhaust PM2.5................................... 408 3.4 1,600 21.8 1,856 24.4
CO...................................................... 51,154 3.2 216,413 13.6 262,574 15.6
1,3-Butadiene........................................... 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Acetaldehyde............................................ 8 0.4 32 1.8 37 1.9
Benzene................................................. 41 4.0 167 21.3 202 24.5
Formaldehyde............................................ 12 0.5 51 3.3 61 3.7
Methane (CH4)........................................... 160 0.1 654 0.5 770 0.6
Naphthalene............................................. 1.2 0.8 5.7 12.6 7 14.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Estimated Emission Reductions by Engine Operations and Processes
Looking more closely at the NOX emission inventory from
highway heavy-duty vehicles, our analysis shows that the proposed
standards would reduce emissions across several engine operations and
processes, with the greatest reductions attributable to medium-to-high
load engine operations, low-load engine operations, and age effects
(i.e., deterioration and mal-maintenance of emission controls, as well
as tampering). As noted in Section I, without the proposed program,
these processes are projected to contribute the most to the heavy-duty
NOX emission inventory in 2045. Table VI-3 compares
NOX emissions in 2045 from different engine operations and
processes with and without the proposed Options 1 and 2 standards.
Additional details on our analysis of NOX emissions by
process are included in the draft RIA Chapter 5.5.4.
Table VI-3--Heavy-Duty NO Emission Reductions by Process in CY2045
[US tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission Tons reduced Percent reduction from Emission inventory
inventory -------------------------------- baseline (%) contribution with proposed
contribution -------------------------------- options (%)
Engine operation or process without Proposed Proposed -------------------------------
proposed Option 1 Option 2 Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed
options (%) Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium- to High-Load.................... 36 286,661 243,887 81 73 17 18
Low-Load................................ 28 183,971 149,913 70 57 21 23
Aging................................... 24 82,340 23,389 38 11 38 40
Extended Idle & APU..................... 2 11,717 10,340 66 58 2 2
Starts.................................. 4 12,091 10,341 31 26 8 6
Historical Fleet (MY 2010 to 2026)...... 6 0 0 0 0 14 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Estimated Emission Reductions From the Alternative
As discussed in Section III, in addition to the proposed program,
EPA analyzed an alternative set of emission standards, with different
regulatory useful life and emissions warranty periods.\757\ Our
estimates of the emission impacts that would result from the
Alternative are presented below in Table VI-4. The Alternative is
estimated to reduce heavy-duty vehicle NOX emissions by 61
percent in 2045; estimated reductions in other pollutants are generally
higher in the Alternative compared to the proposed Options 1 or 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\757\ Under the Alternative, the numeric values of the
NOX and HC standards are lower than the proposed Option 1
MY 2031 standards; the useful life and warranty mileages are also
longer than those in proposed Option 1 for MY 2031.
Table VI-4--Annual Emission Reductions From Heavy-Duty Vehicles in Calendar Years 2030, 2040, and 2045--``the Alternative'' Emissions Relative to the
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions Baseline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 2030 CY 2040 CY 2045
Pollutant -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US short tons % Reduction US short tons % Reduction US short tons % Reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX..................................................... 155,954 16.7 500,367 56.9 566,100 61.3
VOC..................................................... 4,716 5.0 15,312 18.9 18,069 21.1
Primary Exhaust PM2.5................................... 408 3.4 1,822 24.8 2,090 27.5
CO...................................................... 51,154 3.2 247,475 15.5 295,561 17.5
1,3-Butadiene........................................... 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
[[Page 17581]]
Acetaldehyde............................................ 9 0.4 49 2.7 56 2.9
Benzene................................................. 44 4.3 183 23.3 222 26.9
Formaldehyde............................................ 13 0.6 66 4.3 78 4.7
Methane (CH4)........................................... 172 0.2 934 0.7 1,076 0.8
Naphthalene............................................. 1.4 0.9 6.6 14.6 8.0 16.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Evaluating Emission Impacts of Electric Vehicles in the Proposed
Emission Inventory Baseline
As described in Section III, we relied on next-generation emission
control technologies for CI and SI engines in our technology
feasibility assessment for the proposed standards. Since BEV and FCEV
technologies were not included in our feasibility assessment, and
because these technologies currently make up less than 1 percent of the
current heavy-duty market based on current EPA certification data, we
did not include BEV and FCEV technologies in our emission inventory
analysis described in Sections VI.B through VI.D, and detailed in draft
RIA Chapter 5.\758\ However, we have conducted a sensitivity analysis
of BEV and FCEV tailpipe emission impacts based on potential market
adoption (see draft RIA Chapter 1.4 and Chapter 5.5.5). Results of our
analysis show that we would not expect a significant change in the
percent emission reductions from the proposed criteria pollutant
program if BEVs were to make up a larger percentage of heavy-duty
vehicles in the 2045 baseline emission inventory (i.e., 28 percent of
medium heavy-duty and 10 percent of heavy heavy-duty vehicle sales in
MY 2045).759 760
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\758\ In MY 2019 manufacturers certified approximately 350
heavy-duty BEVs, based on production volume reports submitted to the
agency. This is out of nearly 615,000 heavy-duty diesel vehicles
certified in MY 2019, which represents approximately 0.06 percent of
the market. See Sections IV and XI, and RIA Chapter 1.4 for more
details on current and potential future production volumes of BEVs
and FCEVs.
\759\ See Preamble Section XI for discussion on our current
expectations for how additional electrification of the heavy-duty
market could impact the emission reductions expected from the HD GHG
Phase 2 program.
\760\ We used proposed Option 1 to conduct this sensitivity
analysis but expect similar results with proposed Option 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recognize that it is important to properly define the baseline
emission inventory for the final rule (i.e., heavy-duty emissions
without emission controls from this proposed EPA rule as finalized),
which could include projected market penetration rates of BEVs and
FCEVs. Specifically, in the final rule we may account for the recent
Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) rulemaking in California,\761\ and the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by 15 states.\762\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\761\ As noted in Section I.D, EPA is reviewing a waiver request
under CAA section 209(b) from California for the ACT rule; we may
consider including some analyses that account for BEVs and FCEVs
produced to meet the CARB ACT requirements in the final EPA rule.
\762\ ``Multi-state Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle
Memorandum of Understanding'' July 13, 2020. Available online at:
https://www.nescaum.org/topics/zero-emission-vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the draft RIA Chapter 1.4.2.3, the CA ACT requires
manufacturers to sell a certain percentage of zero emission heavy-duty
vehicles (BEVs or FCEVs) for each model year, starting in MY
2024.763 764 765 The sales requirements vary by vehicle
class, but start at 5 to 9 percent of total MY 2024 heavy-duty vehicle
sales in California and increase up to 40 to 75 percent of sales for MY
2035 and beyond.\766\ The 15-state MOU affirms a commitment to strive
towards at least 30 percent of new heavy-duty vehicle sales being zero
emission vehicles by 2030 and to reach 100 percent of new sales by
2050. While the MOU does not impose any binding requirements, it may
result in higher sales of BEVs and FCEVs in participating states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\763\ California Air Resources Board. ``Notice of Decision:
Advanced Clean Truck Regulation.'' June 2020. Available online at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2019/act2019/nod.pdf.
Additional discussion on the CARB ACT is also included in
Preamble XI.
\764\ Buysse and Sharpe. (July 20, 2020) ``California's Advanced
Clean Trucks regulation: Sales requirements for zero-emission heavy-
duty trucks``, available online at: https://theicct.org/publications/california-hdv-ev-update-jul2020 (last accessed August
11, 2021).
\765\ California is also developing an Advanced Clean Fleets
regulation that would require fleets that are well suited for
electrification to transition to BEVs or FCEVs where feasible. For
more information, see: California Air Resources Board. ``Advanced
Clean Fleets Fact Sheet.'' August 2021. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/advanced-clean-fleets-fact-sheet.
\766\ CARB. ``Appendix A Proposed Regulation Order'' Advanced
Clean Truck Regulation.'' May 2020. Available online at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2019/act2019/30dayatta.pdf (accessed July 24,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA solicits comment on whether and how to reflect the expectations
for higher sales volumes of BEVs and FCEVs in California and other
states in the baseline emission inventory for the final rule (i.e.,
without this EPA rule as finalized). EPA will consider public comments
and other relevant information in deciding to how to reflect future
sales volumes of BEVs and FCEVs in the emission inventory analysis of
the final rule.
VII. Air Quality Impacts of the Proposed Program
As discussed in Section VI, we expect the standards in the proposed
Options 1 and 2 to result in meaningful reductions in emissions of
NOX, VOC, CO and PM2.5. In this section, we
summarize the results of our air quality modeling based on the
projected emission reductions from the proposed Option 1
standards.\767\ The ``base'' case represents 2016 air quality. The
``reference'' scenario represents projected 2045 air quality without
the proposed rule and the ``control'' scenario represents projected
2045 emissions with proposed Option 1. Air quality modeling was done
for the future year 2045 when the program would be fully implemented
and when most of the regulated fleet would have turned over.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\767\ Due to resource constraints, we only conducted air quality
modeling for the proposed Option 1. As noted in Chapter 5.4 of the
draft RIA, while we refer to this modeling as for the proposed
Option 1, there are differences between the proposed Option 1
standards, emission warranty, and useful life provisions presented
in Sections III and IV of this preamble and those included in the
control scenario modeled for the air quality analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The air quality modeling predicts decreases in ambient
concentrations of air pollutants in 2045 due to the proposed Option 1,
including significant improvements in ozone concentrations. Ambient
PM2.5, NO2 and CO concentrations are also
[[Page 17582]]
predicted to improve in 2045 as a result of the proposed Option 1. The
proposed Option 1 is expected to result in improvements in nitrogen
deposition and visibility but is predicted to have relatively little
impact on ambient concentrations of air toxics. Additional information
and maps showing expected changes in ambient concentrations of air
pollutants in 2045 due to proposed Option 1 are included in Chapter 6
of the draft RIA and in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document.\768\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\768\ USEPA (2021) Technical Support Document: Air Quality
Modeling for the HD 2027 Proposal. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055. October
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Ozone
The proposed rule would reduce 8-hour ozone design values
significantly in 2045. The proposed Option 1 would decrease ozone
design values by more than 2 ppb in over 150 counties, and over 200
additional modeled counties are projected to have decreases in ozone
design values of between 1 and 2 ppb in 2045. Our modeling projections
indicate that some counties would have design values above the level of
the 2015 NAAQS in 2045, and the proposed Option 1 would help those
counties, as well as other counties, in reducing ozone concentrations.
Table VII-1 shows the average projected change in 2045 8-hour ozone
design values due to the proposed Option 1 standards. Counties within
10 percent of the level of the NAAQS are intended to reflect counties
that, although not violating the standard, would also be affected by
changes in ambient levels of ozone as they work to ensure long-term
attainment or maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. The projected changes in
design values, summarized in Table VII-1, indicate in different ways
the overall improvement in ozone air quality due to emission reductions
from the proposed Option 1 standards, if implemented as modeled.
Table VII-1--Average Change in Projected 8-Hour Ozone Design Values in 2045 Due to Proposed Option 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population-
weighted
Number of 2045 Average change average
Projected design value category counties Population\a\ in 2045 design change in
value (ppb) design value
(ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All modeled counties............................ 457 246,949,949 -1.87 -2.23
Counties with 2016 base year design values above 118 125,319,158 -2.12 -2.43
the level of the 2015 8-hour ozone standard....
Counties with 2016 base year design values 245 93,417,097 -1.83 -2.10
within 10% of the 2015 8-hour ozone standard...
Counties with 2045 reference design values above 15 37,758,488 -2.26 -3.03
the level of the 2015 8-hour ozone standard....
Counties with 2045 reference design values 56 39,302,665 -1.78 -2.02
within 10% of the 2015 8-hour ozone standard...
Counties with 2045 control design values above 10 27,930,138 -2.36 -3.34
the level of the 2015 8-hour ozone standard....
Counties with 2045 control design values within 42 31,395,617 -1.69 -1.77
10% of the 2015 8-hour ozone standard..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. (2015). Complete Demographic
Database. Washington, DC. http://www.woodsandpoole.com/index.php.
B. Particulate Matter
The proposed rule would reduce 24-hour and annual PM2.5
design values in 2045. The proposed Option 1 standards would decrease
projected annual PM2.5 design values in the majority of
modeled counties by between 0.01 and 0.05 ug/m3 and by greater than
0.05 ug/m3 in over 75 additional counties. The proposed Option 1
standards would decrease projected 24-hour PM2.5 design
values by between 0.15 and 0.5 ug/m3 in over 150 counties and by
greater than 0.5 ug/m3 in 5 additional counties. Our air quality
modeling projections indicate that some counties would have design
values above the level of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in 2045 and
the proposed Option 1 would help those counties, as well as other
counties, in reducing PM2.5 concentrations. Table VII-2 and
Table VII-3 present the average projected changes in 2045 annual and
24-hour PM2.5 design values. Counties within 10 percent of
the level of the NAAQS are intended to reflect counties that, although
not violating the standards, would also be affected by changes in
ambient levels of PM2.5 as they work to ensure long-term
attainment or maintenance of the annual and/or 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. The projected changes in PM2.5 design values,
summarized in Table VII-2 and Table VII-3, indicate in different ways
the overall improvement in PM2.5 air quality due to the
emission reductions resulting from the proposed Option 1 standards, if
implemented as modeled.
Table VII-2--Average Change in Projected Annual PM2.5 Design Values in 2045 Due to Proposed Option 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population-
Average change weighted
Number of 2045 in 2045 design average change
Projected design value category counties Population \a\ value (ug/ in design
m\3\) value (ug/
m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All modeled counties............................ 568 273,604,437 -0.04 -0.04
[[Page 17583]]
Counties with 2016 base year design values above 17 26,726,354 -0.09 -0.05
the level of the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard....
Counties with 2016 base year design values 5 4,009,527 -0.06 -0.06
within 10% of the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard...
Counties with 2045 reference design values above 12 25,015,974 -0.10 -0.05
the level of the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard....
Counties with 2045 reference design values 6 1,721,445 -0.06 -0.06
within 10% of the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard...
Counties with 2045 control design values above 10 23,320,070 -0.10 -0.05
the level of the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard....
Counties with 2045 control design values within 8 3,417,349 -0.08 -0.09
10% of the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. (2015). Complete Demographic
Database. Washington, DC. http://www.woodsandpoole.com/index.php.
Table VII-3--Average Change in Projected 24-Hour PM2.5 Design Values in 2045 Due to Proposed Option 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population-
Average change weighted
Number of 2045 in 2045 design average change
Projected design value category counties Population \a\ value (ug/ in design
m\3\) value (ug/
m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All modeled counties............................ 568 272,852,777 -0.12 -0.17
Counties with 2016 base year design values above 33 28,394,253 -0.40 -0.67
the level of the 2006 daily PM2.5 standard.....
Counties with 2016 base year design values 15 13,937,416 -0.18 -0.27
within 10% of the 2006 daily PM2.5 standard....
Counties with 2045 reference design values above 29 14,447,443 -0.38 -0.55
the level of the 2006 daily PM2.5 standard.....
Counties with 2045 reference design values 12 22,900,297 -0.30 -0.59
within 10% of the 2006 daily PM2.5 standard....
Counties with 2045 control design values above 29 14,447,443 -0.38 -0.55
the level of the 2006 daily PM2.5 standard.....
Counties with 2045 control design values within 10 19,766,216 -0.26 -0.60
10% of the 2006 daily PM2.5 standard...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. (2015). Complete Demographic
Database. Washington, DC. http://www.woodsandpoole.com/index.php.
C. Nitrogen Dioxide
Our modeling indicates that in 2045 the proposed Option 1 would
decrease annual NO2 concentrations in most urban areas and
along major roadways by more than 0.3 ppb and would decrease annual
NO2 concentrations by between 0.01 and 0.1 ppb across much
of the rest of the country. The proposed Option 1 emissions reductions
would also likely decrease 1-hour NO2 concentrations and
help any potential nonattainment areas attain and maintenance areas
maintain the NO2 standard.\769\ Section 6.3.4 of the draft
RIA contains more detail on the impacts of the proposed Option 1 on
NO2 concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\769\ As noted in Section II, there are currently no
nonattainment areas for the NO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Carbon Monoxide
Our modeling indicates that in 2045 the proposed Option 1 would
decrease annual CO concentrations by more than 0.5 ppb in many urban
areas and would decrease annual CO concentrations by between 0.02 and
0.5 ppb across much of the rest of the country. The emissions
reductions from proposed Option 1 would also likely decrease 1-hour and
8-hour CO concentrations and help any potential nonattainment areas
attain and maintenance areas maintain the CO standard.\770\ Section
6.3.5 of the draft RIA contains more detail on the impacts of the
proposed Option 1 on CO concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\770\ As noted in Section II, there are currently no
nonattainment areas for the CO NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Air Toxics
In general, our modeling indicates that the proposed Option 1 would
have relatively little impact on national average ambient
concentrations of the modeled air toxics in 2045. The proposed Option 1
standards would have smaller impacts on air toxic pollutants dominated
by primary emissions (or a decay product of a directly emitted
pollutant), and relatively larger impacts on air toxics that primarily
result from photochemical transformation, in this case due to the
projected large reductions in NOX emissions. Specifically,
in 2045, our modeling projects that the proposed Option 1 would
decrease ambient benzene and naphthalene concentrations by less than
0.001 ug/m3 across the country.
[[Page 17584]]
Acetaldehyde concentrations would increase slightly across most of the
country, while formaldehyde would generally have small decreases in
most areas and some small increases in urban areas. Section 6.3.6 of
the draft RIA contains more detail on the impacts of the proposed
Option 1 on air toxics concentrations.
F. Visibility
Air quality modeling of Option 1 was used to project visibility
conditions in 145 Mandatory Class I Federal areas across the U.S. The
results show that the proposed Option 1 standards would improve
visibility in these areas.\771\ The average visibility at all modeled
Mandatory Class I Federal areas on the 20 percent most impaired days is
projected to improve by 0.04 deciviews, or 0.37 percent, in 2045 due to
the proposed Option 1. Section 6.3.7 of the draft RIA contains more
detail on the visibility portion of the air quality modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\771\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Nitrogen Deposition
Our air quality modeling conducted for the proposed rule projects
substantial decreases in nitrogen deposition in 2045 as a result of the
proposed Option1. The proposed Option 1 standards would result in
annual decreases of greater than 4 percent in some areas and greater
than 1 percent over much of the rest of the country. For maps of
deposition impacts, and additional information on these impacts, see
Section 6.3.8 of the draft RIA.
H. Demographic Analysis of Air Quality
When feasible, EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality
conducts full-scale photochemical air quality modeling to demonstrate
how its national mobile source regulatory actions affect ambient
concentrations of regional pollutants throughout the United States. As
described in draft RIA Chapter 6.2, the air quality modeling we
conducted supports our analysis of future projections of
PM2.5 and ozone concentrations in a ``baseline'' scenario
absent the proposed rule and in a ``control'' scenario that assumes the
proposed Option 1 is in place. The incremental reductions in estimated
air quality concentrations between the two scenarios are therefore
attributed to the proposed rule. These baseline and control scenarios
are also used as inputs to the health benefits analysis. As
demonstrated in draft RIA Chapter 6.3 and Chapter 8.6, the ozone and
PM2.5 improvements that are projected to result from the
proposed rule, and the health benefits associated with those pollutant
reductions would be substantial.
This air quality modeling data can also be used to conduct a
demographic analysis of human exposure to future air quality in
scenarios with and without the proposed rule in place. To compare
demographic trends, we sorted projected 2045 baseline air quality
concentrations from highest to lowest concentration and created two
groups: areas within the contiguous U.S. with the worst air quality
(highest 5 percent of concentrations) and the rest of the country. This
approach can then answer two principal questions to determine disparity
among people of color:
1. What is the demographic composition of areas with the worst
baseline air quality in 2045?
2. Are those with the worst air quality benefiting more from the
proposed rule?
We found that in the 2045 baseline, the number of people of color
projected to live within the grid cells with the highest baseline
concentrations of ozone (26 million) is nearly double that of NH-Whites
(14 million). Thirteen percent of people of color are projected to live
in areas with the worst baseline ozone, compared to seven percent of
NH-Whites. The number of people of color projected to live within the
grid cells with the highest baseline concentrations of PM2.5
(93 million) is nearly double that of NH-Whites (51 million). Forty-six
percent of people of color are projected to live in areas with the
worst baseline PM2.5, compared to 25 percent of NH-Whites.
We also found that the largest predicted improvements in both ozone
and PM2.5 are estimated to occur in areas with the worst
baseline air quality, where larger numbers of people of color are
projected to reside. Chapter 6.3.9 of the draft RIA describes the data
and methods used to conduct the demographic analysis and presents our
results in detail. We seek comment on how to improve this analysis for
the final rule.
VIII. Benefits of the Proposed Program
The highway heavy-duty engines and vehicles subject to the proposed
criteria pollutant program are significant sources of mobile source air
pollution, including emissions of directly-emitted PM2.5 as
well as NOX and VOCs (both precursors to ozone formation and
secondarily-formed PM2.5). The proposed program would reduce
exhaust emissions of these pollutants from the regulated engines and
vehicles, which would reduce ambient concentrations of ozone and
PM2.5 (see Section VII). Exposures to these pollutants are
linked to adverse environmental and human health impacts, such as
premature deaths and non-fatal illnesses (see Section II).
In this section, we present the quantified and monetized human
health benefits from reducing concentrations of ozone and
PM2.5 using the air quality modeling results described in
Section VII. For the proposed rulemaking, we have quantified and
monetized health impacts in 2045, representing projected benefits in a
year when the program would be fully implemented and when most of the
regulated fleet would have turned over. Overall, we estimate that the
proposed program would lead to a substantial decrease in adverse
PM2.5- and ozone-related health impacts.
We adopt an updated analysis approach that was recently used to
quantify the benefits of changes in PM2.5 and ozone in the
final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update
RIA.772 773 While the steps to performing a criteria
pollutant benefits analysis remain unchanged from past mobile source
rulemakings (e.g., Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards
Final Rule),\774\ the final CSAPR RIA updated the suite of quantified
health endpoints included in the benefits analysis, as well as the data
used to quantify each health endpoint, to reflect more recent
scientific evidence. These updates were based on information drawn from
the recent PM2.5 and ozone Integrated Science Assessments
(ISAs), which were reviewed by the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee
(CASAC) and the public,775 776 and are summarized in a
[[Page 17585]]
technical support document (TSD) originally published for the final
Revised CSAPR Update titled Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-
Attributable Health Benefits.\777\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\772\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2021.
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revised Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. EPA-452/R-
21-002. March.
\773\ On March 15, 2021, EPA finalized the Revised Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Starting in the 2021 ozone season, the
rule will require additional emissions reductions of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) from power plants in 12 states. https://www.epa.gov/csapr/revised-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update.
\774\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2014.
Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle
Emission and Fuel Standards Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA-
420-R-14-005. March.
\775\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2019.
Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter (Final
Report, 2019). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-19/188, 2019.
\776\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2020.
Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Ozone and Related
Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/012, 2020.
\777\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2021.
Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-Attributable Health Benefits.
Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Final Revised Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone Season NAAQS. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0272. March.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VIII-1 and Table VIII-2 present quantified health benefits
from reductions in human exposure to ambient PM2.5 and
ozone, respectively, from proposed Option 1 in 2045.\778\ Table VIII-3
presents the total monetized benefits attributable to the proposed
Option 1 in 2045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\778\ As noted in Section VII, due to resource constraints we
only conducted air quality modeling for the proposed Option 1. Since
the air quality modeling results are necessary to quantify estimates
of avoided mortality and illness attributable to changes in ambient
PM2.5 or ozone due to the proposed rule, we only have
these estimates for proposed Option 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate that in 2045, the proposed Option 1 criteria pollutant
program would result in total annual monetized benefits of $12 and $33
billion at a 3 percent discount rate and $10 and $30 billion at a 7
percent discount rate (2017 dollars).
There are additional human health and environmental benefits
associated with reductions in exposure to ambient concentrations of
PM2.5, ozone, and NO2 that EPA has not quantified due to
data, resource, or methodological limitations. There would also be
benefits associated with reductions in air toxic pollutant emissions
that result from the proposed program, but EPA is not currently able to
monetize those impacts due to methodological limitations. The proposed
criteria pollutant standards would also reduce methane (CH4)
emissions due to lower total hydrocarbon emission rates from the
tailpipe of heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (see draft RIA Chapter 5.2.2
for more detail). The estimated benefits of the proposal would be
larger if we were able to monetize all unquantified benefits at this
time. We request comment on how to address the climate benefits and
other categories of non-monetized benefits of the proposed rule. For
more detailed information about the benefits analysis conducted for the
proposal, please refer to draft RIA Chapter 8 that accompanies this
preamble.
Table VIII-1--Estimated Avoided PM2.5 Mortality and Illnesses for the Proposed Option 1 Policy Scenario for 2045
[95 percent confidence interval] \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed option 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avoided premature mortality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turner et al. (2016)--Ages 30+...... 740
(500 to 980)
Di et al. (2017)--Ages 65+.......... 800
(780 to 830)
Woodruff et al. (2008)--Ages < 1.... 4.1
(-2.6 to 11)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-fatal heart attacks among adults
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-term exposure......................... Peters et al. (2001)................ 790
(180 to 1,400)
Pooled estimate..................... 85
(31 to 230)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morbidity effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-term exposure.......................... Asthma onset........................ 1,600
(1,500 to 1,600)
Allergic rhinitis symptoms.......... 10,000
(2,500 to 18,000)
Stroke.............................. 41
(11 to 70)
Lung cancer......................... 52
(16 to 86)
Hospital Admissions--Alzheimer's 400
disease. (300 to 500)
Hospital Admissions--Parkinson's 43
disease. (22 to 63)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-term exposure......................... Hospital admissions--cardiovascular. 110
(76 to 130)
ED visits--cardiovascular........... 210
(-82 to 500)
Hospital admissions--respiratory.... 68
(23 to 110)
ED visits--respiratory.............. 400
(78 to 830)
Asthma symptoms..................... 210,000
(-100,000 to 520,000)
[[Page 17586]]
Minor restricted-activity days...... 460,000
(370,000 to 550,000)
Cardiac arrest...................... 10
(-4.2 to 24)
Lost work days...................... 78,000
(66,000 to 90,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values rounded to two significant figures.
\b\ PM2.5 exposure metrics are not presented here because all PM health endpoints are based on studies that used
daily 24-hour average concentrations. Annual exposures are estimated using daily 24-hour average
concentrations.
Table VIII-2--Estimated Avoided Ozone Mortality and Illnesses for the Proposed Option 1 Policy Scenario for 2045
[95 percent confidence interval] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metric and season
\b\ Proposed Option 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avoided premature mortality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-term exposure............... Turner et al. (2016)..... MDA8................ 2,100
April-September..... (1,400 to 2,700)
Short-term exposure.............. Katsouyanni et al (2009). MDA1................ 120
April-September..... (-69 to 300)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morbidity effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-term exposure............... Asthma onset \c\......... MDA8................ 16,000
June-August......... (14,000 to 18,000)
Short-term exposure.............. Allergic rhinitis MDA8................ 88,000
symptoms. May-September....... (47,000 to 130,000)
Hospital admissions-- MDA1................ 350
respiratory. April-September..... (-91 to 770)
ED visits--respiratory... MDA8................ 5,100
May-September....... (1,400 to 11,000)
Asthma symptoms--Cough MDA8................ 920,000
\d\. May-September....... (-50,000 to 1,800,000)
Asthma symptoms--Chest MDA8................ 770,000
Tightness \d\. May-September....... (85,000 to 1,400,000)
Asthma symptoms-- MDA8................ 390,000
Shortness of Breath \d\. May-September....... (-330,000 to 1,100,000)
Asthma symptoms--Wheeze MDA8................ 730,000
\d\. May-September....... (-57,000 to 1,500,000)
Minor restricted-activity MDA1................ 1,600,000
days \d\. May-September....... (650,000 to 2,600,000)
School absence days...... MDA8................ 1,100,000
May-September....... (-150,000 to 2,200,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values rounded to two significant figures.
\b\ MDA8--maximum daily 8-hour average; MDA1--maximum daily 1-hour average. Studies of ozone vary with regards
to season, limiting analyses to various definitions of summer (e.g., April-September, May-September or June-
August). These differences can reflect state-specific ozone seasons, EPA-defined seasons or another seasonal
definition chosen by the study author. The paucity of ozone monitoring data in winter months complicates the
development of full year projected ozone surfaces and limits our analysis to only warm seasons.
\c\ The underlying metric associated with this risk estimate is daily 8-hour average from 10 a.m.-6 p.m. (AVG8);
however, we ran the study with a risk estimate converted to MDA8.
\d\ Applied risk estimate derived from full year exposures to estimates of ozone across a May-September ozone
season. When risk estimates based on full-year, long-term ozone exposures are applied to warm season air
quality projections, the resulting benefits assessment may underestimate impacts, due to a shorter timespan
for impacts to accrue.
[[Page 17587]]
Table VIII-3--Total Ozone and PM2.5-Attributable Benefits for the
Proposed Options 1 Policy Scenarios in 2045
[95 percent confidence interval; billions of 2017$] a b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annual benefits in
2045
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount Rate.......................... $12 ($0.72 to $31) \c\ and
$33 ($3.5 to $87) \d\
7% Discount Rate.......................... $10 ($0.37 to $28) \c\ and
$30 ($3.0 to $78) \d\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The benefits associated with the standards presented here do not
include the full complement of health, environmental, and climate-
related benefits that, if quantified and monetized, would increase the
total monetized benefits.
\b\ Values rounded to two significant figures. The two benefits
estimates separated by the word ``and'' signify that they are two
separate estimates. The estimates do not represent lower- and upper-
bound estimates though they do reflect a grouping of estimates that
yield more and less conservative benefit totals. They should not be
summed.
\c\ Sum of benefits using the Katsouyanni et al. (2009) short-term
exposure ozone respiratory mortality risk estimate and the Turner et
al. (2016) long-term exposure PM2.5 all-cause risk estimate.
\d\ Sum of benefits using the Turner et al. (2016) long-term exposure
ozone respiratory mortality risk estimate and the Di et al. (2017)
long-term exposure PM2.5 all-cause risk estimate.
The full-scale criteria pollutant benefits analysis for Option 1
presented in this section reflects spatially and temporally allocated
emissions inventories (see draft RIA Chapter 5), photochemical air
quality modeling (see draft RIA Chapter 6), and PM2.5 and
ozone benefits generated using BenMAP-CE (see draft RIA Chapter 8), all
for conditions projected to occur in calendar year 2045. As we
presented in Sections V and VI, national estimates of emissions and
program costs were generated for each analysis year from Option 1's
proposed implementation to a year when Option 1 would be fully phased-
in and the vehicle fleet would be approaching full turnover (2027-
2045). The computational requirements needed to conduct photochemical
air quality modeling to support a full-scale benefits analysis for
Option 2 in 2045 and for all Option 1 and Option 2 analysis years from
2027 to 2044 precluded the Agency from conducting benefits analyses
comparable to the calendar year 2045 Option 1 benefits analysis.
Instead, we have used a reduced-form approach to scale total Option 1
benefits in 2045 back to 2027 using projected reductions in year-over-
year NOX emissions so that we can estimate the present and
annualized values of the stream of estimated benefits for Option 1. We
have also used year-over-year Option 2 NOX emissions
reductions to scale the total benefits associated with Option 1 to
derive a best estimate of criteria pollutant benefits associated with
Option 2.\779\ For more information on the benefits scaling approach we
applied to estimate criteria pollutant benefits over time for the
proposed Options 1 and 2, please refer to draft RIA Chapter 8.7 that
accompanies this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\779\ Because NOX is the dominating pollutant
controlled by the proposed Options, we make a simplifying assumption
that total PM and ozone benefits can be scaled by NOX
emissions, even though emissions of other pollutants are controlled
in smaller amounts by the proposed program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VIII-4 and Table VIII-5 present the annual, estimated
undiscounted total health benefits (PM2.5 plus ozone) for
the stream of years beginning with the first year of rule
implementation, 2027, through 2045 for the proposed Options 1 and
2.\780\ The tables also present the present and annualized values of
benefits over this time series, discounted using both 3 percent and 7
percent discount rates and reported in 2017 dollars. Table VIII-4
presents total benefits as the sum of short-term ozone respiratory
mortality benefits for all ages, long-term PM2.5 all-cause
mortality benefits for ages 30 and above, and all monetized avoided
illnesses. Table VIII-5 presents total benefits as the sum of long-term
ozone respiratory mortality benefits for ages 30 and above, long-term
PM2.5 all-cause mortality benefits for ages 65 and above,
and all monetized avoided illnesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\780\ We are not including an analysis of benefits of the
Alternative (described in Sections III and IV) because we currently
do not have sufficient information to conclude that the Alternative
standards would be feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe (see Section
III for details).
Table VIII-4--Undiscounted Stream and Present Value of Human Health Benefits From 2027 Through 2045: Monetized
Benefits Quantified as Sum of Short-Term Ozone Respiratory Mortality Ages 0-99, and Long-Term PM2.5 All-Cause
Mortality Ages 30+
[Discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent; billions of 2017$] a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1 Proposed Option 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
3% 7% 3% 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ $0.57 $0.51 $0.52 $0.47
2028............................................ 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.98
2029............................................ 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.5
2030............................................ 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.1
2031............................................ 3.4 3.1 3.1 2.7
2032............................................ 4.3 3.9 3.8 3.4
2033............................................ 5.0 4.5 4.3 3.9
2034............................................ 5.6 5.0 4.9 4.4
2035............................................ 6.3 5.7 5.4 4.8
2036............................................ 6.9 6.2 5.8 5.3
2037............................................ 7.8 7.0 6.3 5.7
2038............................................ 8.6 7.7 6.7 6.0
2039............................................ 9.1 8.2 7.1 6.4
2040............................................ 9.6 8.6 7.5 6.7
2041............................................ 10 9.0 7.8 7.1
2042............................................ 10 9.4 8.2 7.4
2043............................................ 11 9.8 8.5 7.6
2044............................................ 11 10 8.8 7.9
2045 \c\........................................ 12 10 9.1 8.2
Present Value................................... 87 50 71 41
[[Page 17588]]
Annualized Value................................ 6.1 4.9 5.0 4.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The benefits associated with the standards presented here do not include the full complement of health,
environmental, and climate-related benefits that, if quantified and monetized, would increase the total
monetized benefits.
\b\ Benefits calculated as value of avoided: PM2.5--attributable deaths (quantified using a concentration-
response relationship from the Turner et al. 2016 study); Ozone-attributable deaths (quantified using a
concentration-response relationship from the Katsouyanni et al. 2009 study); and PM2.5 and ozone-related
morbidity effects.
\c\ Year in which PM2.5 and ozone air quality associated with Option 1 was simulated (2045).
Table VIII-5--Undiscounted Stream and Present Value of Human Health Benefits From 2027 Through 2045: Monetized
Benefits Quantified as Sum of Long-Term Ozone Respiratory Mortality Ages 30+, and Long-Term PM2.5 All-Cause
Mortality Ages 65+
[Discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent; billions of 2017$] a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1 Proposed Option 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
3% 7% 3% 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ $1.6 $1.4 $1.4 $1.3
2028............................................ 3.3 2.9 3.0 2.7
2029............................................ 5.1 4.6 4.7 4.2
2030............................................ 7.0 6.3 6.4 5.8
2031............................................ 9.6 8.6 8.5 7.6
2032............................................ 12 11 11 9.5
2033............................................ 14 13 12 11
2034............................................ 16 14 14 12
2035............................................ 18 16 15 14
2036............................................ 20 18 17 15
2037............................................ 22 20 18 16
2038............................................ 24 22 19 17
2039............................................ 26 23 20 18
2040............................................ 28 25 21 19
2041............................................ 29 26 23 20
2042............................................ 30 27 24 21
2043............................................ 31 28 24 22
2044............................................ 32 29 25 23
2045 \c\........................................ 33 30 26 23
Present Value................................... 250 140 200 120
Annualized Value................................ 17 14 14 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The benefits associated with the standards presented here do not include the full complement of health,
environmental, and climate-related benefits that, if quantified and monetized, would increase the total
monetized benefits.
\b\ Benefits calculated as value of avoided: PM2.5--attributable deaths (quantified using a concentration-
response relationship from the Di et al. 2017 study); Ozone-attributable deaths (quantified using a
concentration-response relationship from the Turner et al. 2016 study); and PM2.5 and ozone-related morbidity
effects.
\c\ Year in which PM2.5 and ozone air quality for Option 1 was simulated (2045).
This analysis includes many data sources as inputs that are each
subject to uncertainty. Input parameters include projected emission
inventories, air quality data from models (with their associated
parameters and inputs), population data, population estimates, health
effect estimates from epidemiology studies, economic data, and
assumptions regarding the future state of the world (i.e., regulations,
technology, and human behavior). When compounded, even small
uncertainties can greatly influence the size of the total quantified
benefits. Please refer to draft RIA Chapter 8 for more information on
the uncertainty associated with the benefits presented here.
IX. Comparison of Benefits and Costs
This section compares the estimated range of total monetized health
benefits to total costs associated with proposed Options 1 and 2 of the
criteria pollutant program. This section also presents the range of
monetized net benefits (benefits minus costs) associated with the same
options. Criteria pollutant program costs are detailed and presented in
Section V of this preamble. Those costs include costs for both the new
technology and the operating costs associated with that new technology,
as well as costs associated with the proposed warranty and useful life
provisions for Options 1 and 2. Criteria pollutant program benefits are
presented in Section VIII. Those benefits are the monetized economic
value of the reduction in PM2.5- and ozone-related premature
deaths and illnesses that result from reductions in NOX
emissions and directly emitted PM2.5 attributable to
implementation of the proposed options.
As noted in Sections IV through VIII, these estimated benefits,
costs, and net benefits do not reflect all of the anticipated impacts
of the proposed
[[Page 17589]]
revisions to the criteria pollutant program.\781\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\781\ As noted in draft RIA Chapter 5.4, there are differences
between the standards, emission warranty, and useful life provisions
of proposed Option 1 presented in Sections III and IV and those
included in our control case scenario modeled for the air quality
analysis (as noted in Section VII, due to resource constraints we
only conducted air quality modeling for the proposed Option 1). As
detailed in draft RIA Chapter 8, estimates of health benefits are
based on our air quality analysis, and thus differences between
proposed Option 1 and modeling are not reflected in the benefits
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Methods
EPA presents three different benefit-cost comparisons for proposed
Options 1 and 2: \782\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\782\ We are not including an analysis of costs or benefits of
the Alternative (described in Sections III and IV) because we
currently do not have sufficient information to conclude that the
Alternative standards would be feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe
(see Section III for details).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A future-year snapshot comparison of annual benefits and costs
in the year 2045, chosen to approximate the annual health benefits that
would occur in a year when the program would be fully implemented and
when most of the regulated fleet would have turned over. Benefits,
costs and net benefits are presented in year 2017 dollars and are not
discounted. However, 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates were
applied in the valuation of avoided premature deaths from long-term
pollution exposure to account for a twenty-year segmented cessation
lag.
2. The present value (PV) of the stream of benefits, costs and net
benefits calculated for the years 2027-2045, discounted back to the
first year of implementation of the proposed rule (2027) using both a 3
percent and 7 percent discount rate, and presented in year 2017
dollars. Note that year-over-year costs are presented in Section V and
year-over-year benefits can be found in Section VIII.
3. The equivalent annualized value (EAV) of benefits, costs and net
benefits representing a flow of constant annual values that, had they
occurred in each year from 2027 to 2045, would yield an equivalent
present value to those estimated in method 2 (using either a 3 percent
or 7 percent discount rate). Each EAV represents a typical benefit,
cost or net benefit for each year of the analysis and is presented in
year 2017 dollars.
The two estimates of monetized benefits (and net benefits) in each
of these benefit-cost comparisons reflect alternative combinations of
the economic value of PM2.5- and ozone-related premature
deaths summed with the economic value of illnesses for each discount
rate (see draft RIA Chapter 8 for more detail).
B. Results
Table IX-1 presents the benefits, costs and net benefits of
proposed Options 1 and 2 in annual terms for year 2045, in PV terms,
and in EAV terms.
Table IX-1--Annual Value, Present Value and Equivalent Annualized Value of Costs, Benefits and Net Benefits of
the Proposed Option 1 and Option 2
[Billions, 2017$] a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1 Proposed Option 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount 7% Discount 3% Discount 7% Discount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2045:
Benefits.................................... $12-$33 $10-$30 $9.1-$26 $8.2-$23
Costs....................................... $2.3 $2.3 $2.9 $2.9
Net Benefits................................ $9.2-$31 $8.1-$28 $6.2-$23 $5.3-$21
Present Value:
Benefits.................................... $88-$250 $52-$150 $71-$200 $41-$120
Costs....................................... $27 $19 $30 $21
Net Benefits................................ $61-$220 $33-$130 $41-$170 $21-$96
Equivalent Annualized Value:
Benefits.................................... $6.0-$17 $4.7-$13 $5.0-$14 $4.0-$11
Costs....................................... $1.9 $1.9 $2.1 $2.0
Net Benefits................................ $4.1-$15 $2.9-$12 $2.9-$12 $2.0-$9.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All benefits estimates are rounded to two significant figures; numbers may not sum due to independent
rounding. The range of benefits (and net benefits) in this table are two separate estimates and do not
represent lower- and upper-bound estimates, though they do reflect a grouping of estimates that yield more and
less conservative benefits totals. The costs and benefits in 2045 are presented in annual terms and are not
discounted. However, all benefits in the table reflect a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate used to account
for cessation lag in the valuation of avoided premature deaths associated with long-term exposure.
\b\ The benefits associated with the standards presented here do not include the full complement of health,
environmental, and climate-related benefits that, if quantified and monetized, would increase the total
monetized benefits.
Annual benefits of proposed Option 1 are larger than the annual
costs in 2045, with annual net benefits of $8.1 and $28 billion using a
7 percent discount rate, and $9.2 and $31 billion using a 3 percent
discount rate.\783\ Benefits also outweigh the costs when expressed in
PV terms (net benefits of $33 and $130 billion using a 7 percent
discount rate, and $61 and $220 billion using a 3 percent discount
rate) and EAV terms (net benefits of $2.9 and $12 billion using a 7
percent discount rate, and $4.1 and $15 billion using a 3 percent
discount rate).\784\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\783\ The range of benefits and net benefits presented in this
section reflect a combination of assumed PM2.5 and ozone
mortality risk estimates and selected discount rate.
\784\ As noted in Chapter 5.4 of the draft RIA, there are
differences between the proposed Option 1 standards, emission
warranty, and useful life provisions presented in Sections III and
IV of this preamble and those included in the control scenario
modeled for the air quality analysis. In contrast, our cost analysis
includes the proposed Option 1 standards, emission warranty, and
useful life provisions presented in Sections III and IV. As such,
our comparisons of benefits and costs of the proposed options may
underestimate the true benefits of each option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The benefits also outweigh the costs in annual 2045 terms when
looking at proposed Option 2, with annual net benefits of $5.3 and $21
billion using a 7 percent discount rate and $6.2 billion and $23
billion using a 3 percent discount rate. The benefits of proposed
Option 2 also outweigh the costs in PV and EAV terms.
Comparing proposed Options 1 and 2, our analysis shows that Option
2 has lower net benefits than Option 1 due to both higher costs and
lower emission reductions relative to Option 1. As outlined in Section
I.G and detailed in
[[Page 17590]]
Sections III and IV, we have considered several other factors,
including lead time and technological feasibility, in developing these
options and considering possible regulatory options.
Given these results, EPA expects that implementation of either
proposed option would provide society with a substantial net gain in
welfare, notwithstanding the health and other benefits we were unable
to quantify (see draft RIA Chapter 8.8 for more information about
unquantified benefits). EPA does not expect the omission of
unquantified benefits to impact the Agency's evaluation of regulatory
options since unquantified benefits generally scale with the emissions
impacts of the proposed options.
X. Economic Impact Analysis
This section describes our Economic Impact Analysis for the
proposed rule. Our analysis focuses on the potential impacts of the
proposed standards on heavy-duty (HD) vehicles (sales, mode shift,
fleet turnover) and employment in the HD industry. The sub-sections
below describe our evaluation.
A. Impact on Vehicle Sales, Mode Shift, and Fleet Turnover
This proposed rulemaking, if finalized, would require HD engine
manufacturers to develop and implement emission control technologies
capable of controlling NOX at lower levels over longer
emission warranty and regulatory useful life periods. These changes in
requirements would increase the cost of producing and selling compliant
HD vehicles. These increased costs are likely to lead to increases in
prices for HD vehicles, which might lead to reductions in truck sales.
In addition, there may be a period of ``pre-buying'' in anticipation of
potentially higher prices, during which there is an increase in new
vehicle purchases before the implementation of new requirements,
followed by a period of ``low-buying'' directly after implementation,
during which new vehicle purchases decrease. EPA acknowledges that the
proposed standards may lead to some pre-buy before the implementation
date of the standards, and some low-buy after the standards are
implemented. EPA is unable to estimate sales impacts based on existing
literature, and as such contracted with ERG to complete a literature
review, as well as conduct original research to estimate sales impacts
for previous EPA HD vehicle standards on pre- and low-buy for HD
vehicles. The resulting analysis examines the effect of four HD truck
regulations, those that became effective in 2004, 2007, 2010 and 2014,
on the sales of Class 6, 7 and 8 vehicles over the twelve months before
and after each standard. The 2004, 2007 and 2010 rules focused on
reducing criteria pollutant emissions. The 2014 regulation focused on
reducing GHG emissions. The report finds little evidence of sales
impacts for Class 6 and 7 vehicles. For Class 8 vehicles, evidence of
pre-buy was found before the 2010 and 2014 standards, and evidence of
low-buy was found after the 2002, 2007 and 2010 standards. Based on the
results of this study, EPA is outlining an approach that could be used
to estimate pre- and low-buy effects in the final RIA. In the draft
RIA, we explain the methods used to estimate sales effects, as well as
how the results could be applied to a regulatory analysis (see the
draft RIA, Chapter 10.1, for further discussion). Our example results
for proposed Option 1 suggest pre- and low-buy for Class 8 trucks may
range from zero to an approximately two percent increase in sales over
a period of up to 8 months before the 2031 standards begin (pre-buy),
and a decrease in sales from zero to approximately two percent over a
period of up to 12 months after the 2031 standards begin (low-buy). We
request comment on the approach that is discussed in the draft RIA, as
well as the specific inputs and methods. In addition, we request
comment on how additional external factors, including the current
global COVID-19 pandemic, might impact any pre- or low-buy that may
result from this proposed rulemaking. Commenters are encouraged to
provide data on how factors such as the pandemic may affect HD vehicle
sales, including on any possible pre- and low-buy resulting from this
proposed rule, as well as on the length of the possible sales effects.
In addition to potential sales impacts from changes in purchase
price, the proposed requirement for longer useful life and emission
warranty periods may also affect vehicle sales. While longer emission
warranty periods are likely to increase the purchase price of new HD
vehicles, these increases may be offset by reduced operating costs.
This is because longer useful life periods are expected to make
emission control technology components more durable, and more durable
components, combined with manufacturers paying for repairs during the
proposed longer warranty periods, would in turn reduce repair costs for
vehicle owners. These combined effects may increase (or reduce the
decrease in) sales of new HD vehicles if fleets and independent owner-
operators prefer to purchase more durable vehicles with overall lower
repair costs.\785\ EPA is unable to quantify these effects because
existing literature does not provide clear guidance on the relationship
between warranty changes, increases in prices due to increased warranty
periods, and sales impacts. EPA continues to investigate methods for
estimating sales impacts of extended warranty provisions, and requests
comment on data and methods to use in such analysis. See the draft RIA,
Chapter 10.1.1, for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\785\ The reduced repair costs may counteract some of the sales
effect of increased vehicle purchase cost. As a result, they may
reduce incentives for pre- and low-buy and mitigate adverse sales
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to potential sales impacts, another potential effect of
the proposed standards is transportation mode shift, which is a change
from truck to another mode of transportation (typically rail or
marine). Whether shippers switch to a different transportation mode for
freight depends not only on the cost per mile of the shipment (freight
rate), but also the value of the shipment, the time needed for
shipment, and the availability of supporting infrastructure. This
proposed rule is not expected to have a large impact on truck freight
rates given that the price of the truck is only a small part of the
cost per mile of a ton of goods. For that reason, we expect little mode
shift due to the proposed standards. The draft RIA, Chapter 10.1.3,
discusses this issue.
Another potential area of impact of the proposed standards is on
fleet turnover and the associated reduction in emissions from new
vehicles. After the implementation of the proposed standards, each
individual new vehicle sold would produce lower emissions per mile
relative to legacy vehicles. However, the proposed standards would
reduce total HD highway fleet emissions gradually. This is because,
initially, the vehicles meeting the proposed standards would be only a
small portion of the total fleet; over time, as more vehicles subject
to the standards enter the market and older vehicles leave the market,
greater emission reductions would occur. If pre-buy and low-buy
behaviors occur, then the initial emission reductions are likely to be
smaller than expected. This is because, under pre-buy conditions, the
pre-bought vehicles would be certified to less stringent standards and
their emission reductions would be smaller than would be realized if
those vehicles were subject to the proposed standards. However, the new
vehicles are likely less polluting than the older vehicles
[[Page 17591]]
that they are most likely to displace, and there may be an earlier
reduction in emissions than would have occurred without the standards
since the vehicles are being purchased ahead of the implementation of
new standards, rather than at a natural point in the purchase cycle.
Under low-buy, emission reductions would be slower because there is
slower adoption of new vehicles than without the standards. See the
draft RIA, Chapter 10.1.2, for more information on this, as well as the
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) discussion below.
An additional possible effect of the standards is a net reduction
in new vehicle sales if there is either a smaller pre-buy than the
post-standards low-buy, or some potential buyers decide not to purchase
at all. In this case, the VMT of older vehicles may increase to
compensate for the ``missing'' vehicles. To the extent that the older
vehicles emit more than the vehicles for which they are substituting,
emissions may increase. However, the VMT is more likely to be shifted
to the newer HD vehicles among the existing fleet. Because most of
those vehicles are expected to be in compliance with the previous tiers
of HD vehicle standards, the emission effect of increased VMT for older
vehicles is expected to be small.
EPA requests comment on all aspects of the estimated impact on
vehicle sales, mode shift, and fleet turnover, including the approach
outlined in the draft RIA to quantify sales impacts, and requests
stakeholder to recommend any additional methods and data that could be
used to inform our understanding of potential impacts on HD VMT, fleet
turnover, mode shift and vehicles sales.
B. Employment Impacts
This section discusses potential employment impacts due to this
proposed regulation, as well as our partial estimates of those impacts.
We focus our analysis on the motor vehicle manufacturing and the motor
vehicle parts manufacturing sectors because these sectors are most
directly affected.\786\ While the proposed rule primarily affects heavy
duty vehicle engines, the employment effects are expected to be felt
more broadly in the motor vehicle and parts sectors due to the effects
of the standards on sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\786\ The employment analysis in the draft RIA is part of the
EPA's ongoing effort to ``conduct continuing evaluations of
potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the
administration or enforcement of [the Act]'' pursuant to CAA section
321(a). Though the rule primarily affects heavy-duty engines, the
employment effects will be felt more broadly in the motor vehicle
and parts sectors due to the potential effects of the standards on
sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, the employment effects of environmental regulation are
difficult to disentangle from other economic changes (especially the
state of the macroeconomy) and business decisions that affect
employment, both over time and across regions and industries. In light
of these difficulties, we look to economic theory to provide a
constructive framework for approaching these assessments and for better
understanding the inherent complexities in such assessments.
Economic theory of labor demand indicates that employers affected
by environmental regulation may change their demand for different types
of labor in different ways. They may increase their demand for some
types, decrease demand for other types, or maintain demand for still
other types. To present a complete picture, an employment impact
analysis describes both positive and negative changes in employment. A
variety of conditions can affect employment impacts of environmental
regulation, including baseline labor market conditions, employer and
worker characteristics, industry, and region.
In the draft RIA, we describe three ways employment at the firm
level might be affected by changes in a firm's production costs due to
environmental regulation: A demand effect, caused by higher production
costs increasing market prices and decreasing demand; a cost effect,
caused by additional environmental protection costs leading regulated
firms to increase their use of inputs; and a factor-shift effect, in
which post-regulation production technologies may have different labor
intensities than their pre-regulation counterparts.787 788
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\787\ Morgenstern, Richard D., William A. Pizer, and Jhih-Shyang
Shih (2002). ``Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry-Level
Perspective.'' Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43:
412-436.
\788\ Berman and Bui have a similar framework in which they
consider output and substitution effects that are similar to
Morgenstern et al.'s three effect (Berman, E. and L.T.M. Bui (2001).
``Environmental Regulation and Labor Demand: Evidence from the South
Coast Air Basin.'' Journal of Public Economics 79(2): 265-295).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to data limitations, EPA is not quantifying the impacts of the
proposed regulation on firm-level employment for affected companies,
although we acknowledge these potential impacts. Instead, we discuss
demand, cost and factor-shift employment effects for the regulated
sector at the industry level in the draft RIA. In general, if the
proposed regulation causes HD sales to decrease, fewer people would be
needed to assemble trucks and to manufacture their components. If pre-
buy occurs, HD vehicle sales may increase temporarily in advance of the
standards, leading to temporary increases in employment, but if low-buy
occurs following the standards, there could be temporary decreases in
employment. Though we have outlined a method to quantify sales impacts,
we are not using them to estimate effects on fleet turnover in this
proposed rulemaking. As such, we cannot determine which of these
effects would dominate and therefore we do not estimate the demand-
effect impact on employment due to the proposed standards. In addition,
we do not have information on changes in labor intensity of production
due to the standards, and therefore we cannot estimate the factor-shift
effect on employment.
We do estimate partial employment impacts, namely labor effects
associated with increased costs of production. This cost effect
includes the impact on employment due to the increase in production
costs needed for vehicles to meet the standards. (Note that this
analysis is separate from any employment effect due to changes in
vehicle sales; in other words, the analysis holds output constant.) In
the draft RIA, we capture these effects using the historic share of
labor as a part of the cost of production to extrapolate future
estimates of the share of labor as a cost of production. This provides
a sense of the order of magnitude of expected impacts on employment.
These estimates are averages, covering all the activities in these
sectors. The estimates may not be representative of the labor effects
when expenditures are required on specific activities, or when
manufacturing processes change sufficiently that labor intensity
changes. In addition, these estimates do not include changes in
industries that supply these sectors, such as steel or electronics
producers, or in other potentially indirectly affected sectors (such as
shipping). Other sectors that sell, purchase, or service HD vehicles
may also face employment impacts due to the proposed standards. The
effects on these sectors would depend on the degree to which compliance
costs are passed through to prices for HD vehicles and the effects of
warranty requirements on demand for vehicle repair and maintenance. EPA
does not have data to estimate the full range of possible employment
impacts. For more information on how we estimate the employment impacts
due to increased costs, see Chapter 10 of the draft RIA.
Table X-1 shows the estimated employment effects due to increases
in
[[Page 17592]]
vehicle costs based on the ratio of labor to production costs derived
from historic data for proposed Option 1 and proposed Option 2. We only
quantitatively estimate employment impacts due to cost effects. In this
proposed rule, we provide estimates of sales impacts as part of an
example approach for commenters to consider, therefore we do not
estimate potential changes in employment due to changes in vehicle
sales. Results are shown in job-years, where a job-year is, for
example, one year of full-time work for one person, or one year of
half-time work for two people. Increased costs of vehicles and parts
would, by itself and holding labor intensity constant, be expected to
increase employment by 400 to 2,200 job years, and 300 to 1,800 job
years in 2027 and 2032 respectively under proposed Option 1. Employment
would be expected to increase by 400 to 2,200 job years, and 300 to
1,500 job years in 2027 and 2032 respectively under proposed Option 2.
Table X-1--Employment Effects Due to Increased Costs of Vehicles and Parts (Cost Effect), in Job-Years \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 1 Proposed Option 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
Year employment employment employment employment
due to cost due to cost due to cost due to cost
effect \b\ effect \c\ effect \b\ effect \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................ 400 2,200 400 2,200
2028............................................ 400 2,100 400 2,000
2029............................................ 400 2,000 400 1,900
2030............................................ 300 1,800 300 1,700
2031............................................ 400 1,900 300 1,600
2032............................................ 300 1,800 300 1,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Due to the data limitations, results do not reflect employment effects that result from changes in heavy-
duty vehicle sales.
\b\ Minimum employment impacts under both proposed Options are estimated in ASM for NAICS code 336112, Light
Truck and Utility Vehicle Manufacturing.
\c\ Maximum employment impacts under both proposed Options are estimated in EC for NAICS code 3363, Motor
Vehicle Parts Manufacturing.
While we estimate employment impacts, measured in job-years,
beginning with program implementation, some of these employment gains
may occur earlier as vehicle manufacturers and parts suppliers hire
staff in anticipation of compliance with the standards. Additionally,
holding all other factors constant, demand-effect employment may
increase prior to MY 2027 due to pre-buy, and may decrease, potentially
temporarily, afterwards.\789\ We present a range of possible results
because our analysis consists of data from multiple industrial sectors
that we expect would be directly affected by the proposed regulation,
as well as data from multiple sources. For more information on the data
we use to estimate the cost effect, see Chapter 10.2 of the draft RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\789\ Note that the standards are not expected to provide
incentives for manufacturers to shift employment between domestic
and foreign production. This is because the proposed standards would
apply to vehicles sold in the U.S. regardless of where they are
produced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
XI. Targeted Updates to the Phase 2 Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Program
The transportation sector is the largest U.S. source of GHG
emissions, representing 29 percent of total GHG emissions.\790\ Within
the transportation sector, heavy-duty vehicles are the second largest
contributor, at 23 percent.\791\ GHG emissions have significant impacts
on public health and welfare as evidenced by the well-documented
scientific record and as set forth in EPA's Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings under CAA section 202(a).\792\ Therefore, continued
emission reductions in the heavy-duty vehicle sector are appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\790\ Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2019 (EPA-430-R-21-005, published April 2021). Can be accessed
at https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks.
\791\ Ibid.
\792\ 74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009; 81 FR 54422, August 15,
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are at the early stages of a significant transition in the
history of the heavy-duty on-highway sector--a shift to zero-emission
vehicle technologies. This change is underway and presents an
opportunity for significant reductions in heavy-duty vehicle emissions.
Major trucking fleets, manufacturers and U.S. states have announced
plans to shift the heavy-duty fleet toward zero-emissions technology,
and over just the past few years we have seen the early introduction of
zero-emission technology into a number of heavy-duty vehicle market
segments. These developments have demonstrated that further
CO2 reductions in the MY 2027 timeframe are appropriate
considering cost, lead time, and other factors. This proposed action
would adjust the existing HD GHG Phase 2 program to account for the
growth in the market.
Proposed adjustments to the existing HD GHG Phase 2 program are
responsive to Executive Order 14037 on Strengthening American
Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks, which identifies three potential
regulatory actions for the heavy-duty vehicle sector for EPA to
consider undertaking: (1) This proposed rule for heavy-duty vehicles
for new criteria pollutant standards and strengthening of the MY 2027
GHG standards; (2) a separate rulemaking to establish more stringent
criteria and GHG emission standards for medium-duty vehicles for MY
2027 and later (in combination with light-duty vehicles); and (3) a
third rulemaking to establish new GHG standards for heavy-duty vehicles
for MY 2030 and later.\793\ The first step includes considering
targeted revisions to the already stringent HD GHG Phase 2 emission
standards for heavy-duty vehicles beginning with MY 2027 in
consideration of the role that heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles (HD
ZEVs) might have in further reducing emissions from certain market
segments. As part of this proposal, we are proposing to increase the
stringency of the existing CO2 emission standards for MY
2027 and later vehicles for many of the vocational vehicle and tractor
subcategories, specifically those where we project early introductions
of zero-emission vehicles. The proposed
[[Page 17593]]
increase in stringency is appropriate considering lead time, costs, and
other factors, including the market shifts to zero-emission
technologies in certain segments of the heavy-duty vehicle sector that
are occurring since the HD GHG Phase 2 rule was promulgated in 2016. In
addition, we are requesting comment on potential changes to the
advanced technology incentive program for electric vehicles beginning
in MY 2024. The proposed increased stringency is intended to balance
further incentivizing zero and near-zero emission vehicle development
with ensuring that the standards achieve an appropriate fleet-wide
level of CO2 emissions reductions. The proposed changes to
the CO2 standards are targeted and apply only to certain MY
2027 standards; the HD GHG Phase 2 program overall remains largely
unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\793\ 86 FR 43583, August 5, 2021. Executive Order 14037.
Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the Executive Summary, a number of stakeholders
have urged EPA to put in place policies that rapidly advance ZEVs in
this current rulemaking in order to prioritize environmental justice in
communities that are impacted by freight transportation and already
overburdened by pollution.\794\ One policy stakeholders have asked EPA
to consider is the establishment of a ZEV sales mandate (i.e., a
nationwide requirement for manufacturers to produce a portion of their
new vehicle fleet as ZEVs), which would culminate in standards
requiring 100 percent of all new heavy-duty vehicles be zero-emission
no later than 2035. In this current rulemaking EPA is not proposing to
establish a heavy-duty ZEV sales mandate; rather, in this rulemaking we
are considering how the development and deployment of ZEVs can further
the goals of environmental protection and best be reflected in the
establishment of EPA's standards and regulatory program for MY 2027 and
later heavy-duty vehicles. As discussed earlier in this section EPA
will also be considering the important role of ZEV technologies in the
upcoming light-duty and medium-duty vehicle proposal for MY 2027 and
later and in the heavy-duty vehicle proposal for MY 2030 and later. EPA
requests comment under this proposal on how we can best consider the
potential for ZEV technology to significantly reduce air pollution from
the heavy-duty vehicle sector (including but not limited to whether and
how to consider including specific sales requirements for HD ZEVs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\794\ Letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan from the Moving
Forward Network. October 26, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Sections XI.A through XI.F, we provide background on the
existing EPA heavy-duty GHG standards and the details of our proposed
updates to the Model Year 2027 GHG standards. EPA requests comment on
all aspects of these proposed updates.
A. Background on Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards
EPA sets HD GHG emission standards under its authority in CAA
section 202(a). Section 202(a)(1) states that ``the Administrator shall
by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) . . . standards
applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or
classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines . . ., which
in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.''
Section 202(a)(2) provides that standards under section 202(a) apply to
such vehicles and engines ``after such period as the Administrator
finds necessary to permit the development and application of the
requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of
compliance within such period'' and ``for their useful life.'' EPA also
may consider other factors and in previous heavy-duty vehicle GHG
standards rulemakings has considered the impacts of potential GHG
standards on the industry, fuel savings, oil conservation, energy
security and other energy impacts, as well as other relevant
considerations such as safety.
EPA finalized the Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase 2
program in 2016.\795\ This comprehensive program included GHG emission
standards tailored to highway heavy-duty engines and each of four
regulatory vehicle categories, including tractors and vocational
vehicles. In Phase 2, EPA set CO2 emission standards, in
addition to other GHG emission standards, for HD engines and vehicles
that phase in starting in MY 2021 through MY 2027. The HD GHG Phase 2
standards built upon the Phase 1 program promulgated in 2011, which
established the first set of GHG emission standards for heavy-duty
engines and trucks.\796\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\795\ Id. The U.S. Department of Transportation through the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) also
established coordinated Phase 2 fuel efficiency standards in this
same action as part of a joint EPA--NHTSA final rulemaking.
\796\ 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Background on the CO2 Emission Standards in the HD GHG
Phase 2 Program
In the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Heavy-Duty GHG rules, we finalized GHG
emission standards tailored for each of the three regulatory
categories--heavy-duty pickups and vans; vocational vehicles, and
combination tractors. In addition, we set separate standards for the
engines that power combination tractors and vocational vehicles. The
heavy-duty vehicle CO2 emission standards are measured in
grams per ton-mile, which represents the grams of CO2
emitted to move one ton of payload one mile. In this section we provide
background information on the two Phase 2 program categories for which
we are proposing to make targeted changes: vocational vehicles and
tractors.
i. Vocational Vehicles
Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles include a wide variety of vehicle
types and serve a wide range of functions. We define Class 2b-8
vocational vehicles as all heavy-duty vehicles that are not included in
the Heavy-duty Pickup Truck and Van or the Class 7 and 8 Tractor
categories. Some examples include service for urban delivery, refuse
hauling, utility service, dump, concrete mixing, transit service,
shuttle service, school bus, emergency, motor homes, and tow trucks.
The HD GHG Phase 2 program also includes a special regulatory category
called vocational tractors, which covers vehicles that are technically
tractors but generally operate more like vocational vehicles than line-
haul tractors. These vocational tractors include those designed to
operate off-road and in certain intra-city delivery routes.\797\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\797\ 40 CFR 1037.630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HD GHG Phase 2 vocational vehicle CO2 standards are
based on the performance of a wide array of control technologies. In
particular, the Phase 2 vocational vehicle standards recognize detailed
characteristics of vehicle powertrains and drivelines. Driveline
improvements present a significant opportunity for reducing fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions from vocational vehicles.
However, there is no single package of driveline technologies that will
be equally suitable for all vocational vehicles, because there is an
extremely broad range of driveline configurations available in the
market. This is due in part to the variety of final vehicle build
configurations, ranging from a purpose-built custom chassis to a
commercial
[[Page 17594]]
chassis that may be intended as a multi-purpose stock vehicle.
Furthermore, the wide range of applications and driving patterns of
these vehicles leads manufacturers to offer a variety of drivelines, as
each performs differently in use.
The final HD GHG Phase 2 rule has a structure for vocational
standards that allows the technologies that perform best at highway
speeds and those that perform best in urban driving to each be properly
recognized over appropriate drive cycles, while avoiding potential
unintended results of forcing vocational vehicles that are designed to
serve in different applications to be measured against a single drive
cycle. The final HD GHG Phase 2 rule includes three drive cycles with
the intent of balancing the competing pressures to recognize the
varying performance of technologies, serve the wide range of customer
needs, and maintain reasonable regulatory simplicity. The HD GHG Phase
2 primary vocational standards therefore have subcategories for
Regional, Multi-purpose, and Urban drive cycles in each of the three
weight classes (Light Heavy-Duty, Medium Heavy-Duty and Heavy-Heavy
Duty), which results in nine unique subcategories. These nine
subcategories apply for diesel (CI) vehicles. We separately, but
similarly, established six subcategories of gasoline (SI) vehicles. In
other words, there are 15 separate numerical performance-based emission
standards for each model year. In addition, we established optional
custom chassis CO2 emission standards for Motorhomes, Refuse
Haulers, Coach Buses, School Buses, Transit Buses, Concrete Mixers,
Mixed Use Vehicles, and Emergency Vehicles. In total, EPA set
CO2 emission standards for 15 subcategories of vocational
vehicles and eight subcategories of specialty vehicle types for a total
of 23 vocational vehicle subcategories.
The HD GHG Phase 2 standards phase in over a period of seven years,
beginning in the 2021 model year. The HD GHG Phase 2 program progresses
in three-year stages with an intermediate set of standards in MY 2024
and final standards in MY 2027 and beyond. In the 2016 final rule we
identified a potential technology path for complying with each of the
three increasingly stringent stages of the HD GHG Phase 2 program
standards. These standards were based on the performance of more
efficient engines, workday idle reduction technologies, improved
transmissions including mild hybrid powertrains, axle technologies,
weight reduction, electrified accessories, tire pressure systems, and
tire rolling resistance improvements. The Phase 2 vocational vehicle
CO2 standards were not premised on electric vehicles or fuel
cell vehicles. Details regarding the standards can be found in the
Phase 2 final rulemaking preamble and in 40 CFR part 1037.\798\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\798\ 81 FR 73682-73729 (October 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Tractors
EPA promulgated HD GHG Phase 2 CO2 emission standards
for combination tractors that reflect reductions that can be achieved
through improvements in the tractor's powertrain, aerodynamics, tires,
idle reduction, and other vehicle systems. EPA did not premise the HD
Phase 2 tractor standards on hybrid powertrains, fuel cells, or
electric vehicles, though we foresaw some limited use of these
technologies in 2021 and beyond.\799\ In the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule,
EPA analyzed the feasibility of achieving the CO2 standards
and identified means of achieving these standards.\800\ The tractor
regulatory structure is attribute-based in terms of dividing the
tractor category into ten subcategories based on the tractor's gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR), cab configuration, and roof height. The
tractor cab configuration is either day cab or sleeper cab. Day cab
tractors are typically used for shorter haul operations, whereas
sleeper cabs are often used in long haul operations. EPA set
CO2 emission standards for 10 tractor subcategories. Similar
to the vocational program, the HD GHG Phase 2 tractor standards begin
implementation in MY 2021 and fully phase-in in MY 2027. More details
can be found in the HD GHG Phase 2 final rulemaking preamble and in 40
CFR part 1037.\801\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\799\ 81 FR 73639 (October 25, 2016).
\800\ 81 FR 73573-73639 (October 25, 2016).
\801\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Background on the Advanced Technology Credit Multipliers in the HD
GHG Phase 1 and 2 Program
EPA provided advanced technology credits in HD GHG Phase 1 for
hybrid powertrains, Rankine cycle waste heat recovery systems on
engines, all-electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles to promote the
implementation of advanced technologies that were not included in our
technical basis of the feasibility of the Phase 1 standards (see 40 CFR
86.1819-14(k)(7), 1036.150(h), and 1037.150(p)). The HD GHG Phase 2
CO2 emission standards that followed Phase 1 were premised
on the use of mild hybrid powertrains in vocational vehicles and waste
heat recovery systems in a subset of the engines and tractors, making
them equivalent to other fuel-saving technologies in this context. At
the time of the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule, we believed the HD GHG Phase
2 standards themselves provided sufficient incentive to develop those
specific technologies. However, none of the HD GHG Phase 2 standards
were based on projected utilization of the other even more-advanced
Phase 1 advanced credit technologies (e.g., plug-in hybrid vehicles,
all-electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles). Overall, the comments
on the HD GHG Phase 2 proposal in 2016 indicated that there was support
for such advanced technology credit incentives among operators,
suppliers, and states. For HD GHG Phase 2, EPA promulgated the
following advanced credit multipliers through MY 2027, as shown in
Table XI-1 (see also 40 CFR 1037.150(p)).
Table XI-1--Advanced Technology Multipliers in Existing HD GHG Phase 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Multiplier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles............................ 3.5
All-electric vehicles....................................... 4.5
Fuel cell vehicles.......................................... 5.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in the HD GHG Phase 2 rulemaking, our intention with
these multipliers was to create a meaningful incentive to those
considering adopting these qualifying advanced technologies into their
vehicles. The multipliers are consistent with values recommended by
California Air Resources Board (CARB) in their supplemental HD GHG
Phase 2 comments.\802\ CARB's values were based on a cost analysis that
compared the costs of these technologies to costs of other conventional
GHG-reducing technologies. Their cost analysis showed that multipliers
in the range we ultimately promulgated would make these technologies
more competitive with the conventional technologies and could allow
manufacturers to more easily generate a viable business case to develop
these technologies for heavy-duty vehicles and bring them to market at
a competitive price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\802\ Letter from Michael Carter, CARB, to Gina McCarthy,
Administrator, EPA and Mark Rosekind, Administrator, NHTSA, June 16,
2016. EPA Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827_attachment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In establishing the multipliers in the final HD GHG Phase 2 rule,
we also considered the tendency of the heavy-duty sector to lag the
light-duty sector in the adoption of a number of advanced technologies.
There are many possible reasons for this, such as:
Heavy-duty vehicles are more expensive than light-duty
vehicles,
[[Page 17595]]
which makes it a greater monetary risk for purchasers to invest in
unproven technologies.
These vehicles are primarily work vehicles, which makes
predictable reliability and versatility important.
Sales volumes are much lower for heavy-duty vehicles,
especially for specialized vehicles.
At the time of the HD GHG Phase 2 rulemaking, we concluded that as
a result of factors such as these, and the fact that adoption rates for
these advanced technologies in heavy-duty vehicles were essentially
non-existent in 2016, it seemed unlikely that market adoption would
grow significantly within the next decade without additional
incentives.
As we stated in the 2016 HD GHG Phase 2 final rule preamble, we
determined that it was appropriate to provide such large multipliers
for these advanced technologies at least in the short term, because
they have the potential to provide very large reductions in GHG
emissions and fuel consumption and advance technology development
substantially in the long term. However, because the credit multipliers
are so large, we also stated that we should not necessarily allow them
to continue indefinitely. Therefore, they were included in the HD GHG
Phase 2 final rule as an interim program continuing only through MY
2027.
B. What has changed since we finalized the HD GHG Phase 2 rule?
When the HD GHG Phase 2 rule was promulgated in 2016, we
established CO2 standards and advanced technology incentives
on the premise that electrification of the heavy-duty market was
unlikely to occur in the timeframe of the program. Several factors have
changed our outlook for heavy-duty electric vehicles since 2016. First,
the heavy-duty market has evolved such that in 2021, there are a number
of manufacturers producing fully electric heavy-duty vehicles in
several applications. Second, the State of California has adopted an
Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) program that includes a manufacturer sales
requirement for zero-emission truck sales, specifically that
``manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles
with combustion engines would be required to sell zero-emission trucks
as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024
to 2035.'' 803 804 Finally, other states have signed a
Memorandum of Understanding establishing goals to increase the heavy-
duty electric vehicle market.\805\ These developments have demonstrated
that further CO2 emission reductions in the MY 2027
timeframe are feasible considering cost, lead time, and other factors.
We discuss the impacts of these factors on the heavy-duty market in
more detail in the following subsections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\803\ CARB (2021) Advanced Clean Truck Regulation, available
online at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2019/advancedcleantrucks.
\804\ EPA is reviewing a waiver request under CAA section 209(b)
from California for the ACT rule; we may consider including the ACT
in some of our analyses for the final rule.
\805\ Multi-State Zero Emission Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Initiative--Memorandum of Understanding (2020), available online at:
https://www.nescaum.org/documents/multistate-truck-zev-governors-mou-20200714.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The HD Battery Electric Vehicle Market
Since 2012, manufacturers have developed a number of prototype and
demonstration heavy-duty BEV projects, particularly in the state of
California, establishing feasibility and durability of the technology
for specific applications used for specific services, as well as
building out necessary infrastructure.\806\ In 2019, approximately 60
makes and models of BEVs were available for purchase, with additional
product lines in prototype or other early development
stages.807 808 809 Current production volumes of BEVs are
small, with the North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE)
estimating fewer than 100 BEV Class 7/8 trucks in production in the
U.S. in 2019.\810\ In 2020, approximately 900 heavy-duty BEVs were sold
in the U.S. and Canada combined, consisting primarily of transit buses
(54 percent), school buses (33 percent), and straight trucks (13
percent).\811\ M.J. Bradley's analysis of the heavy-duty BEV market in
2021 found 30 manufacturers that have at least one BEV model for sale
and an additional nine companies that have made announcements to begin
BEV production by 2025.\812\ BEV technology is increasingly used in the
transit bus market, with electric bus sales growing from 300 to 650 in
the U.S. between 2018 to 2019.813 814 Draft RIA Chapter
1.4.2 provides a snapshot of BEVs in the heavy-duty truck and bus
markets as of 2019, according to one source; however, given the dynamic
nature of the BEV market, the number and types of vehicles available
are changing fairly rapidly.\815\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\806\ NACFE (2019) ``Guidance Report: Viable Class 7/8 Electric,
Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Tractors'', available online at: https://nacfe.org/downloads/viable-class-7-8-alternative-vehicles/.
\807\ Nadel, S. and Junga, E. (2020) ``Electrifying Trucks: From
Delivery Vans to Buses to 18-Wheelers''. American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy White Paper, available online at: https://aceee.org/white-paper/electrifying-trucks-delivery-vans-buses-18.
\808\ The composition of all-electric truck models was: 36
buses, 10 vocational trucks, 9 step vans, 3 tractors, 2 street
sweepers, and 1 refuse truck (Nadel and Jung (2020) citing AFDC
(Alternative Fuels Data Center). 2018. ``Average Annual Vehicle
Miles Traveled by Major Vehicle Categories.'' www.afdc.energy.gov/data/widgets/10309.
\809\ Note that there are varying estimates of BEV and FCEV
models in the market; NACFE (2019) ``Guidance Report: Viable Class
7/8 Electric, Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Tractors``, available
online at: https://nacfe.org/downloads/viable-class-7-8-alternative-vehicles/ (NACFE 2019) provided slightly lower estimates than those
included here from Nadel and Jung 2020. A recent NREL study suggests
that there may be more models available, but it is unclear how many
are no longer on the market since the inventory includes vehicles
introduced and used in commerce starting in 2012 (Smith et al.
2019).
\810\ NACFE (2019) ``Guidance Report: Viable Class 7/8 Electric,
Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Tractors'', available online at: https://nacfe.org/downloads/viable-class-7-8-alternative-vehicles/.
\811\ International Council on Clean Transportation. ``Fact
Sheet: Zero-Emission Bus and Truck Market in the United States and
Canada: A 2020 Update.'' Pages 3-4. May 2021.
\812\ M.J. Bradley and Associates (2021) ``Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Vehicles: Market Structure, Environmental Impact, and EV
Readiness.'' Page 21. July 2021.
\813\ Tigue, K. (2019) ``U.S. Electric Bus Demand Outpaces
Production as Cities Add to Their Fleets'' Inside Climate News,
November 14. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14112019/electric-bus-cost-savings-health-fuel-charging.
\814\ Note that ICCT (2020) estimates 440 electric buses were
sold in the U.S. and Canada in 2019, with 10 of those products being
FCEV pilots. The difference in estimates of number of electric buses
available in the U.S. may lie in different sources looking at
production vs. sales of units.
\815\ Union of Concerned Scientists (2019) ``Ready for Work: Now
Is the Time for Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles''; www.ucsusa.org/resources/ready-work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA conducted an analysis for this proposal of manufacturer-
supplied end-of-year production reports provided to us as a requirement
of the certification process for heavy-duty vehicles to our GHG
emission standards.\816\ Based on the end-of-year production reports
for MY 2019, manufacturers produced approximately 350 certified heavy-
duty BEVs. This is out of nearly 615,000 heavy-duty diesel vehicles
produced in MY 2019, which represents approximately 0.06 percent of the
market. In MY 2020, 380 BEVs were certified. The BEVs were certified in
a variety of the Phase 1 vehicle subcategories, including light,
medium, and heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles and vocational
tractors. Out of the 380 vehicles certified in MY 2020, a total of 177
unique makes and models were available for purchase by 52 producers in
regulatory weight classes 3-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\816\ Memo to Docket. HD 2027 Proposed Changes to Heavy-Duty
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. November 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17596]]
Based on current trends, manufacturer announcements, and state-
level actions, electrification of the heavy-duty market is expected to
substantially increase from current levels. However, the rate of growth
varies widely across models. For instance, the 2021 Annual Energy
Outlook projects heavy-duty BEVs making up 0.12 percent of new truck
sales in 2027.\817\ A National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) study
evaluated three electrification scenarios to assess the power sector
requirements where HD electric vehicle sales in 2050 ranged between
less than one percent in the Reference scenario and up to 41 percent in
the High scenario.\818\ Though these projections should not be viewed
as a market driven projection, they do illustrate a wide range of
future possibilities. A variety of factors will influence the extent to
which BEVs are available for purchase and enter the market. NACFE
looked at 22 factors by which to compare BEVs with heavy-duty diesel
vehicles; they found that for the Class 7/8 market, a current lack of
availability of production-level vehicles resulted in BEVs being ranked
lower than diesels in 2019, but being ranked equal to or better than
diesel on most factors by 2030.\819\ Manufacturers also are announcing
their projections for zero emission heavy-duty vehicles, but they vary
across the industry. For example, Volvo recently issued a press release
that stated, ``Volvo Trucks believes the time is right for a rapid
upswing in electrification of heavy road transport.'' \820\ Similarly,
Daimler Trucks stated that it ``has the ambition to offer only new
vehicles that are CO2-neutral in driving operation ('from
tank to wheel') in Europe, North America and Japan by 2039.'' \821\
Cummins targets net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.\822\ We request
comment on these and other estimates and projections for the heavy-duty
EV market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\817\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. ``Annual Energy
Outlook 2021.'' Table 49. Can be accessed at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/tables_ref.php.
\818\ Mai, et al. ``Electrification Futures Study: Scenarios of
Electric Technology Adoption and Power Consumption for the United
States.'' National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Pages 25-30. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/71500.pdf.
\819\ Factors that NACFE considered fell into the following
categories: Weight, cost, maintenance effort, vehicle life, range,
``fuel'' availability, and general; for additional information on
the factors and how they compare in 2019 and 2030, see NACFE (2019)
``Guidance Report: Viable Class 7/8 Electric, Hybrid and Alternative
Fuel Tractors'', available online at: https://nacfe.org/downloads/viable-class-7-8-alternative-vehicles/.
\820\ AB Volvo. ``Volvo Trucks ready to electrify a large part
of goods transports (volvogroup.com).'' April 20, 2021. Last
accessed on September 10, 2021 at https://www.volvogroup.com/en/news-and-media/news/2021/apr/news-3948719.html.
\821\ Daimler Trucks. ``CO2-Neutral Commercial
Vehicle Fleet by 2039.'' October 25, 2019. Last accessed on
September 10, 2021 at https://www.daimler.com/sustainability/co2-neutral-commercial-vehicle-fleet-until-2039.html.
\822\ Cummins, Inc. ``Cummins Unveils New Environmental
Sustainability Strategy to Address Climate Change, Conserve Natural
Resources.'' November 14, 2019. Last accessed on September 10, 2021
at https://www.cummins.com/news/releases/2019/11/14/cummins-unveils-new-environmental-sustainability-strategy-address-climate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lifetime total cost of ownership (TCO), which includes
maintenance and fuel costs, is likely a primary factor for heavy-duty
fleets considering BEV purchases. In fact, a 2018 survey of fleet
owners showed ``lower cost of ownership'' as the second most important
motivator for electrifying their fleet.\823\ An International Council
for Clean Transportation (ICCT) analysis suggests that TCO for light-
and medium heavy-duty battery-electric vehicles could reach cost parity
with diesel in the early 2020s, while heavy heavy-duty battery-electric
or hydrogen vehicles are likely to reach cost parity with diesel closer
to the 2030 timeframe.\824\ Recent findings from Phadke et al. suggest
that BEV TCO could be 13 percent less than that of a diesel truck if
electricity pricing is optimized.\825\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\823\ The primary motivator for fleet managers was
``Sustainability and environmental goals''; the survey was conducted
by UPS and GreenBiz.
\824\ ICCT (2019) ``Estimating the infrastructure needs and
costs for the launch of zero-emissions trucks''; available online
at: https://theicct.org/publications/zero-emission-truck-infrastructure.
\825\ Phadke, A., et al. (2021) ``Why Regional and Long-Haul
Trucks are Primed for Electrification Now''; available online at:
https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/updated_5_final_ehdv_report_033121.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As both the ICCT and Phadke et al. studies suggest, fuel costs are
an important part of TCO. While assumptions about vehicle weight and
size can make direct comparisons between heavy-duty BEVs and ICEs
challenging, data show greater energy efficiency of battery-electric
technology relative to an ICE.826 827 Better energy
efficiency leads lower electricity costs for BEVs relative to ICE fuel
costs.828 829 Maintenance and service costs are also an
important component within TCO; although there is limited data
available on actual maintenance costs for heavy-duty BEVs, early
experience with BEV medium heavy-duty vehicles and transit buses
suggests the potential for lower maintenance costs after an initial
period of learning to refine both component durability and maintenance
procedures.\830\ To facilitate heavy-duty fleets transitioning to BEVs,
some manufacturers are currently including maintenance in leasing
agreements with fleets; it is unclear the extent to which a full
service leasing model will persist or will be transitioned to a more
traditional purchase after an initial period of
learning.831 832
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\826\ NACFE (2019) ``Guidance Report: Viable Class 7/8 Electric,
Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Tractors,'' available online at: https://nacfe.org/downloads/viable-class-7-8-alternative-vehicles/.
\827\ Nadel, S. and Junga, E. (2020) ``Electrifying Trucks: From
Delivery Vans to Buses to 18-Wheelers.'' American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy White Paper, available online at: https://aceee.org/white-paper/electrifying-trucks-delivery-vans-buses-18.
\828\ NACFE (2019) ``Guidance Report: Viable Class 7/8 Electric,
Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Tractors'', available online at: https://nacfe.org/downloads/viable-class-7-8-alternative-vehicles/.
\829\ Nadel, S. and Junga, E. (2020) ``Electrifying Trucks: From
Delivery Vans to Buses to 18-Wheelers''. American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy White Paper, available online at: https://aceee.org/white-paper/electrifying-trucks-delivery-vans-buses-18.
\830\ U.S. Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center
(AFDC), ``Developing Infrastructure to Charge Plug-In Electric
Vehicles'', https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure.html (accessed 2-27-20).
\831\ Fisher, J. (2019) ``Volvo's First Electric VNR Ready for
the Road.'' Fleet Owner, September 17. www.fleetowner.com/blue-fleets/volvo-s-first-electric-vnr-ready-road.
\832\ Gnaticov, C. (2018). ``Nikola One Hydrogen Electric Semi
Hits the Road in Official Film.'' Carscoops, Jan. 26.
www.carscoops.com/2018/01/nikola-one-hydrogen-electric-semi-hits-road-official-film/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The potential for lower fuel and maintenance costs to outweigh a
higher upfront cost for heavy-duty BEVs is reflected in ICCT and
others' projections of BEVs reaching cost parity with diesels within
the next several years; however, the current upfront cost can exceed
that of a diesel vehicle by 60 percent or more.\833\ Upfront purchase
price was listed as the primary barrier to heavy-duty fleet
electrification in a 2017 survey of fleet managers, which suggests that
state or local incentive programs to offset BEV purchase costs will
play an important role in the near term, with improvements in battery
costs playing a role in reducing costs in the longer-
term.834 835
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\833\ Nadel, S. and Junga, E. (2020) ``Electrifying Trucks: From
Delivery Vans to Buses to 18-Wheelers.'' American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy White Paper, available online at: https://aceee.org/white-paper/electrifying-trucks-delivery-vans-buses-18.
\834\ Other barriers that fleet managers prioritized for fleet
electrification included: Inadequate charging infrastructure--our
facilities, inadequate product availability, inadequate charging
infrastructure--public; for the full list of top barriers see Nadel
and Junga (2020), citing UPS and GreenBiz 2018.
\835\ Nadel, S. and Junga, E. (2020) ``Electrifying Trucks: From
Delivery Vans to Buses to 18-Wheelers.'' American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy White Paper, available online at: https://aceee.org/white-paper/electrifying-trucks-delivery-vans-buses-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BEV market for transit and school buses continues to grow. Los
Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) is one of the first
transit organizations
[[Page 17597]]
in the country to develop a program committed to transition to zero-
emission vehicles (ZEV). Started in 2017, this program stipulates that
all LADOT transit fleets will transition to entirely electric by 2030
or sooner--a target that is 10 years sooner than CARB's Innovative
Clean Transportation (ICT) regulation for all public transit to be
electric by 2040.\836\ Since these announcements, LADOT has purchased
27 EV transit and school buses from BYD and Proterra; by 2030, the
number of EV buses in the LADOT fleet is expected to grow to 492 buses.
Outside of California, major metropolitan areas including Chicago,
Seattle, New York City, and Washington DC have zero-emissions transit
programs with 100 percent ZEV target dates ranging from 2040-2045.\837\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\836\ LADOT, (2020). ``LADOT Transit Zero-Emission Bus Rollout
Plan'' https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/LADOT_ROP_Reso_ADA12172020.pdf.
\837\ https://www.sustainable-bus.com/electric-bus/cta-chicago-electric-buses/, https://dcist.com/story/21/06/10/metro-goal-entirely-electric-bus-fleet-2045/, https://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/metro/programs-projects/innovation-technology/zero-emission-fleet.aspx, and https://www.amny.com/transit/mta-says-45-to-60-more-buses-in-recent-procurement-will-be-zero-emissions/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EV school bus programs, frequently in partnership with local
utilities, are also being piloted across the country. These programs
include school districts in, but not limited to, California, Virginia,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Maryland, Illinois, New York, and
Pennsylvania.\838\ While these school districts may not have an EV
school bus target, the EV school bus program is a part of a broader
initiative for regional carbon neutrality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\838\ https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ev-programs-incentives,
https://chargedevs.com/newswire/nycs-new-school-bus-contract-includes-electric-bus-pilot/, https://olivineinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Pittsburg-USD-Electric-School-Bus-Final-Project-Report-Final.pdf, https://cleantechnica.com/2020/01/12/largest-electric-school-bus-program-in-united-states-launching-in-virginia/,
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/on-heels-of-253m-raise-highland-electric-lands-biggest-electric-school-bus-contract-in-the-u.s, and https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/va-house-slows-down-bill-that-would-allow-dominion-to-profit-off-electric-school-bus/article_edc69a16-5c2c-51c9-9733-8618d768106b.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a parallel path, large private heavy-duty fleet owners are also
committed to increasing their electric fleet.\839\ A report by
international agency International Energy Agency (IEA) provides a
comprehensive accounting of recent announcements made by UPS, Fedex,
DHL, Walmart, Anheuser-Busch, Amazon and PepsiCo for fleet
electrification.\840\ Amazon and UPS, for example, placed orders in
2020 for 10,000 BEV delivery vans from EV start-up Rivian, and Amazon
has plans to scale up to 100,000 BEV vans by 2030. Likewise, by the end
of 2021, PepsiCo will add 15 Tesla Semis, out of the 100 planned, to
its fleet. These announcements include not only orders for electric
delivery vans and semi-trucks, but more specific targets and dates to
full electrification or net-zero emissions. Amazon, Fedex, DHL, and
Walmart have set a commitment to fleet electrification, net-zero
emissions or carbon neutrality by 2040. We recognize that certain
delivery trucks and vans will likely fall into the Class 2b and 3
regulatory category, which are not covered in this rule's proposed
updates, but rather intend to address in a future light and medium-duty
vehicle rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\839\ Environmental Defense Fund (2021) Zero-Emission Truck
Deployments and Pledges in the U.S., available online at: https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2021/07/28/edf-analysis-finds-american-fleets-are-embracing-electric-trucks/and https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1l0m2Do1mjSemrb_DT40YNGou4o2m2Ee-KLSvHC-5vAc/edit#gid=2049738669.
\840\ Global EV Outlook 2021. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ed5f4484-f556-4110-8c5c-4ede8bcba637/GlobalEVOutlook2021.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the heavy-duty BEV market seems to be growing fastest
in the areas of school buses, transit buses, delivery trucks, and short
haul tractors. As the industry is dynamic and rapidly changing, the
policy and vehicle examples presented here represent only a sampling of
the BEV HDV policies and markets; outside of the US, Europe and Asia
will also contribute to the greater zero-emissions vehicle market. We
request comment on our assessment of the HD ZEV market and any
additional data sources we should consider.
2. California's Advanced Clean Trucks Rule
Heavy-duty vehicle sales and populations are significant in the
state of California. Approximately ten percent of U.S. heavy-duty
conventional vehicles (those powered by internal combustion engines) in
2016 were registered in California.\841\ California adopted an Advanced
Clean Trucks (ACT) rule in 2020, which could also influence the market
trajectory for battery-electric and fuel cell technologies.\842\ The
ACT requires manufacturers to sell a certain percentage of zero
emission heavy-duty vehicles (BEVs or fuel cell vehicles) for each
model year, starting in MY 2024. The sales requirements vary by vehicle
class, as shown in Table XI-2, starting at 5 to 9 percent of total MY
2024 heavy-duty vehicle sales in California and increasing to 40 to 75
percent of MY 2035 and later sales.\843\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\841\ FHWA. U.S. Highway Statistics. Available online at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm.
\842\ CARB. ``Notice of Decision: Advanced Clean Truck
Regulation.'' June 2020. Available online at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2019/act2019/nod.pdf. For more information on
this proposed rulemaking in California see: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2019/advancedcleantrucks.
\843\ CARB. ``Appendix A Proposed Regulation Order'' Advanced
Clean Truck Regulation. May 2020. Available online at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2019/act2019/30dayatta.pdf (accessed July 24,
2020).
Table XI-2--CARB's ACT ZEV Sales Requirements by Model Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 7-8
Model year (MY) Class 2b-3 Class 4-8 tractors
(percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024............................................................ 5 9 5
2025............................................................ 7 11 7
2026............................................................ 10 13 10
2027............................................................ 15 20 15
2028............................................................ 20 30 20
2029............................................................ 25 40 25
2030............................................................ 30 50 30
2031............................................................ 35 55 35
2032............................................................ 40 60 40
2033............................................................ 45 65 40
2034............................................................ 50 70 40
[[Page 17598]]
2035+........................................................... 55 75 40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. States' Interest in Shifting to Zero Emissions HD Vehicles
Outside of California, several states have signaled interest in
shifting to heavy-duty ZEV technologies and/or establishing specific
goals to increase the heavy-duty electric vehicle market. As one
example, a 2020 memorandum of understanding (MOU) entitled ``Multi-
State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle,'' organized by
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), sets
targets ``to make all sales of new medium and heavy-duty vehicles [in
the jurisdictions of the signatory states] zero emission vehicles by no
later than 2050'' with an interim goal of 30 percent of all sales of
new MD and HD vehicles being zero emission vehicles no later than
2030.\844\ The NESCAUM MOU was signed by governors and mayor of 15
states and districts including California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and
the District of Columbia. The MOU outlines more specific commitments of
the states to move toward zero-emissions vehicles through the Multi-
State ZEV Task Force and provides an action plan for zero-emissions
MHDVs with measurable sales targets and a focus on overburdened and
underserved communities. Several states that signed the MOU have since
issued proposals to adopt California's ACT under CAA section 177, and
we anticipate more states to follow with similar
proposals.845 846 847 848
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\844\ 15 states and one district sign Multi-State MOU. https://www.nescaum.org/documents/multistate-truck-zev-governors-mou-20200714.pdf.
\845\ EPA has not yet received a waiver request under CAA
section 209(b) from California for the ACT rule; if we were to
receive and grant a waiver request(s) for the ACT rule, then we may
consider including this rule in our analyses for the final rule.
\846\ Medium- and Heavy-Duty (MHD) Zero Emission Truck Annual
Sales Requirements and Large Entity Reporting. New York State
Register. September 8, 2021. Volume XLIII, Issue 36. Available
online at: https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/09/090821.pdf.
\847\ Advanced Clean Trucks Program and Fleet Reporting
Requirements. New Jersey State Register. April 19, 2021. Available
online at: https://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/proposals/20210419a.pdf.
\848\ Amending Chapter 173-423 WAC Low Emission Vehicles. State
of Washington Department of Ecology. June 22, 2021. Available online
at: https://ecology.wa.gov/DOE/files/29/291ec96d-5aca-4c40-a249-4ef82bca6026.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Proposed Changes to HD GHG Phase 2 CO2 Standards for Targeted
Subcategories
EPA is proposing under its authority in CAA section 202(a) to
revise CO2 emissions standards for a subset of MY 2027
heavy-duty vehicles. As discussed in Section XI.B, major trucking
fleets, manufacturers and U.S. states have announced plans to shift the
heavy-duty fleet toward zero-emissions technology beyond levels we
accounted for in setting the existing HD GHG Phase 2 standards in 2016.
We developed a proposed approach to make targeted updates that reflect
this growing HD electric vehicle market without fundamentally changing
the HD GHG Phase 2 program. Specifically, we propose to adjust HD GHG
Phase 2 vehicle CO2 emission standards by sales-weighting
the projected EV production levels of school buses, transit buses,
delivery trucks, and short-haul tractors and by lowering the applicable
CO2 emission standards for these vehicle types in MY 2027
accordingly. We are proposing to target these four vehicle types
because they will likely have the highest EV sales of all heavy-duty
vehicle types between now and 2030. These four EV vehicle types do not
correspond directly with specific HD GHG Phase 2 standards
subcategories (subcategories differentiated by vehicle weight, use,
fuel type, etc.), so we have used EPA certification data to determine
which subcategories of standards would be affected by EV production in
MY 2027. By sales-weighing the projected production levels of the four
EV vehicle types in 2027, our proposed approach would adjust 17 of the
33 MY 2027 HD GHG Phase 2 vocational vehicle and tractor standards. EPA
is not proposing to change any MY 2021 or MY 2024 vocational vehicle or
tractor CO2 emission standards, any Class 2b/3
CO2 emission standards, or any heavy-duty engine
CO2 emission standards.
To update the MY 2027 vehicle CO2 standards from the HD
GHG Phase 2 rulemaking to reflect the recent and projected trends in
the electrification of the HD market, we considered the impact these
trends would have on the emissions reductions from conventional
vehicles we had intended to achieve in setting the existing HD GHG
Phase 2 standards. As described in this section's technology cost
discussion, we derived the existing HD GHG Phase 2 standards by
evaluating combinations of emission-reducing technologies and adoption
rates in ``technology packages'' developed for each vehicle
subcategory, e.g., advanced aerodynamics, more efficient engines, etc.
We set the existing HD GHG Phase 2 standards at levels that would
require all conventional vehicles to install varying combinations of
emission-reducing technologies (the degree and types of technology can
differ, with some vehicles that have less being offset by others with
more), leading to CO2 emissions reductions.\849\ As
discussed in this section and quantified in more detail in a memo to
the docket, recent and projected developments in the electrification of
the heavy-duty vehicle market over the next several years have
demonstrated that further CO2 emission reductions in the MY
2027 timeframe are feasible considering lead time, cost, and other
factors.\850\ While we did anticipate some growth in electrification,
we did not expect the level of innovation observed that California
would adopt a requirement for such a large number of heavy-duty
electric vehicles to be sold in the timeframe of the
program.851 852 We are proposing adjustments to the MY 2027
HD GHG Phase 2 standards to reflect this innovation and facilitate the
transition to more stringent longer-term standards such that all
conventional vehicles would need some level and
[[Page 17599]]
combination of GHG emissions-reducing technology, as intended in the
original HD GHG Phase 2 rulemaking. Based on our evaluation of the
heavy-duty EV market in the MY 2027 timeframe, we expect school buses,
transit buses, delivery trucks, and short haul tractors to have the
highest EV sales of all heavy-duty vehicle types between now and 2030.
Therefore, we propose to make targeted changes to the MY 2027 standards
that are projected to be affected by these four types of electric
vehicles. As we describe in the next section, EPA has considered the
technological feasibility and cost of the proposed standards and the
available lead time for manufacturers to comply with the proposed
standards in MY 2027. We request comment on all aspects of these
proposed targeted updates to the MY 2027 HD GHG Phase 2 program,
including our projections that these four vehicle categories are the
appropriate heavy-duty vehicles EPA should focus on for our proposed
revisions, and if there are additional vehicle categories we should be
considering. We are also considering whether it would be appropriate in
the final rule to increase the stringency of the standards more than
what we have proposed. Therefore, we request information on heavy-duty
electric vehicle sales projections, including projections based on
future product plans, to help inform our HD electric vehicle sales
projections in the MY 2024 through MY 2029 timeframe. Furthermore, we
also request comment on potential impacts on small business vehicle
manufacturers if we finalize standards that are more stringent than the
proposal. We also request comment on whether to finalize the proposed
standards for small business vehicle manufacturers even if we finalize
more stringent standards for other manufacturers and whether to allow
small business vehicle manufacturers to voluntarily comply with more
stringent standards, if finalized, than those required for small
manufacturers (either under the existing Phase 2 standards or as
updated, if finalized).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\849\ Considering technological feasibility, compliance cost,
lead time, and other factors.
\850\ Memo to Docket. HD 2027 Proposed Changes to Heavy-Duty
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. November 2021.
\851\ EPA has not yet received a waiver request under CAA
section 209(b) from California for the ACT rule.
\852\ ACT requires manufacturers to sell a certain percentage of
zero emission heavy-duty vehicles (BEVs or fuel cell vehicles) for
each model year, starting in MY 2024. The sales requirements vary by
vehicle class, starting at 5 to 9 percent of total MY 2024 heavy-
duty vehicle sales in California and increasing to 15 to 20 percent
of MY 2027 sales. Several states have followed suit and issued
proposals to adopt California's ACT under CAA section 177, and we
anticipate more states to follow with similar proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also are considering whether to establish more stringent
standards beyond MY 2027, specifically in MY 2028 and MY 2029, using
the methodology discussed in Section XI.C.1 but adjusted by MY based on
projected penetration rates of ZEV technology for those years both
inside and outside of California. We request comment on the appropriate
stringency and supporting data for each of those model years, and
whether to finalize such an increase in stringency for those model
years' standards in a one-step (single MY) or multi-step (multiple MY)
approach. EPA requests comment and supporting data that could support
higher penetrations of HD ZEVs in the MY 2027 to 2029 timeframe which
could serve as the basis for the increase in the stringency
CO2 standards for specific Phase 2 vehicle subcategories.
For example, what information and data are available that would support
HD ZEV penetration rates of 5 percent or 10 percent (or higher) in this
timeframe, and in what HD vehicle applications and categories. We also
request comment on whether EPA should adjust our proposed approach to
allow HD ZEV manufacturers to generate NOX emission credits
if we were to increase the stringency of the CO2 standards
for specific Phase 2 vehicle subcategories based on higher projected
penetrations of HD ZEVs in the MY 2027 to 2029 timeframe (see Section
IV.I for our proposal to allow HD ZEV manufacturers to generate
NOX emission credits).
1. Determining the Proposed Standards
In Section XI.A we described how the HD GHG Phase 2 vehicle
CO2 standards are differentiated by vehicle weight, use,
fuel type, etc. to recognize the diverse nature of the industry,
resulting in 15 subcategories for vocational vehicle standards, with an
additional eight subcategories for specialty vehicle types, and 10
subcategories for tractor standards. These HD GHG Phase 2 standard
subcategories for vocational vehicles and tractors do not correspond
directly with our projections for the four high-sales EV vehicle
types--school buses, transit buses, delivery trucks, and short-haul
tractors. For example, there is no subcategory with a specific standard
for a ``delivery truck''; rather, a vocational vehicle used for
deliveries may fall into any one of several different subcategories
depending on its weight and use pattern. In fact, based on our review
of the applications for certification of MY 2020 and MY 2021 vehicles,
HD electric vehicle manufacturers of these four vehicle types are
certifying them into several of the EPA regulatory vocational vehicle
CI subcategories, the school bus and transit bus custom chassis
subcategories, and into all three of the Class 8 day cab tractor
subcategories.\853\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\853\ Note that the Class 7 Tractor CO2 emission
standards in 40 CFR 1037.106 apply to ``All Cab Styles'', but nearly
all tractors that are subject to these standards are day cabs.
Therefore, we refer to these as day cab tractor standards throughout
this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The changes we are proposing apply only to a subset of the MY 2027
heavy-duty CO2 vehicle emission standards. We are not
proposing any changes to the heavy-duty engine CO2 emission
standards. The current HD GHG Phase 2 engine standards only apply to
engines that are ``internal combustion engines.'' \854\ Electric
vehicles are not powered by internal combustion engines. Furthermore,
the CO2 emission credits generated from electric vehicles
are not allowed to be brought into the engine averaging sets.\855\
Therefore, electric vehicles have no effect on manufacturers'
strategies for meeting the HD engine GHG standards, and EPA is not
proposing to modify the HD engines GHG standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\854\ 40 CFR 1036.5(d).
\855\ 40 CFR 1036.740.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After careful consideration of an approach that would achieve
appropriate emission reductions and account for the emerging HD EV
market without changing the HD GHG Phase 2 program as a whole, we are
proposing to adjust the HD GHG Phase 2 vehicle CO2 emission
standards based on sales-weighting the projected EV production levels
of the four types of EVs and using that information to lower the
emission standards only for the vocational vehicle and six tractor
subcategories that are applicable to these four types of EVs (depending
on weight and use pattern) in MY 2027.
Our proposed approach involves three steps. First, we projected the
number of sales of electric school buses, transit buses, delivery
trucks, and short-haul tractors in MY 2027 based on sales data and
projections outlined in the next paragraph. Second, we determined the
percentage EVs relative to the total number of vehicles produced in the
nine CI vocational vehicle and day cab tractor subcategories, plus the
optional school bus and transit bus subcategories.\856\ Third, we
reduced the numeric level of the standards for the vocational vehicle
subcategories and the applicable tractor subcategories by the projected
percentage of electric vehicles. Under the resulting revised standards
that we are proposing and our projections of EVs, manufacturers would
need to either incorporate additional emissions reductions or not
generate as many emissions credits,
[[Page 17600]]
compared to our estimates at the time of the HD GHG Phase 2 rule. This
approach would adjust 17 of the 33 MY 2027 HD GHG Phase 2 standards. We
believe that it is not appropriate to propose updates to the sleeper
cab tractor standards in this action because the typical usage and
daily miles travelled by these vehicles is beyond the range available
in current electric tractors under development. We request comment on
this approach and the proposed revisions to MY 2027 CO2
emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\856\ We propose that vocational EVs could certify to any of the
CI subcategory standards, but would not be allowed to certify to any
SI subcategory standard. This is consistent with the approach
finalized for heavy-duty vehicles under 14,000 pounds (see 40 CFR
86.1819(a)(2)(ii)). The GHG credit averaging sets for vehicles are
based on GVWR and are not differentiated by SI or CI. Therefore,
credits generated from EVs would be used within an averaging set
that includes both SI and CI vehicles. We are not proposing any
changes to the SI vehicle standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projecting the production levels of conventional and electric HD
vehicles in MY 2027 and beyond is challenging. For this proposal, we
used information such as the projected number of zero emission vehicles
in the MY 2027 and beyond timeframe from CARB's ACT rulemaking
documents, the current level of national EV sales data from the
International Council on Clean Transportation, the number of
conventional vehicles and electric vehicles sold based on EPA's heavy-
duty vehicle GHG certification programs, product announcements, and
engineering judgment to inform our projection of EV production in the
national market for MY 2027, described in the next paragraph. We
request comment on this information, and on identification and
description of other available information sources including, more
specifically, data and product plans, to help inform these projections.
If additional data is submitted by commenters related to the approach
described in this section, we would consider it for the final rule,
including the potential for a more stringent adjustment to the MY 2027
standards.
As a starting point for our national projections, CARB's ACT
rulemaking includes (1) projections for the total number of heavy-duty
vehicles sold in California in MY 2024 through MY 2030 and (2) a
mandate requiring manufacturers to sell a specific percentage of zero-
emission vehicles each model year.\857\ As shown in Table XI-2, 20
percent of vocational vehicles and 15 percent of tractor vehicles sold
in California in MY 2027 are required by the mandate to be zero-
emission vehicles. Combining these two sets of information, we
estimated the number of electric vehicles that would be sold in
California in MY 2027, shown in Table XI-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\857\ CARB. Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation. Standardized
Regulatory Impact Analysis. Page 25. August 8, 2019.
Table XI-3--Projected Number of HD Electric Vehicles Sold in California
in MY 2027 Based on the CARB ACT Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected
number of Projected
conventional number of
and electric electric
vehicles in CA vehicles in CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 4-8 Vocational Vehicles........... 15,945 3,189
Tractors................................ 4,993 749
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We analyzed the information provided in a recent report by the
International Council on Clean Transportation to extrapolate the number
of new heavy-duty electric vehicles that we would expect to be sold in
the entire U.S. in MY 2027.\858\ The report includes the number of
heavy-duty electric vehicles registered by state and province in the
U.S. and Canada as of 2020. Based on these values, we estimate that
approximately 42 percent of the heavy-duty electric vehicle sales in
the U.S. are in California. Using this figure, we estimated the total
number of electric vehicles in the other 49 states in MY 2027, shown in
Table XI-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\858\ ICCT. ``Zero-emission bus and truck market in the United
States and Canada: A 2020 Update.'' May 2021. Pages 5-6. Can be
accessed online at https://theicct.org/publications/canada-race-to-zero-FS-may2021.
Table XI-4--Projected Number of HD Electric Vehicles Sold Nationally in MY 2027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected
Projected number of Projected
number of electric total electric
electric vehicles sold vehicles sold
vehicles sold in other 49 nationally
in California states
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 4-8 Vocational Vehicles................................... 3,189 4,404 7,593
Tractors........................................................ 749 1,034 1,783
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 3,938 5,538 9,376
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, we project the total number of U.S. heavy-duty vocational
vehicle and tractor sales in MY 2027. Our projections come from the
sales split by vehicle category used in the HD GHG Phase 2
rulemaking.\859\ Furthermore, we assumed the fraction of short-haul
tractors relative to the overall tractor sales at 37 percent based on
the split used in MOVES3 for heavy-duty vehicles in 2027.\860\ The
total number of projected HD vocational vehicle and day cab tractor
sales in MY 2027 are shown in Table XI-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\859\ U.S. EPA. ``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2.'' Table 7-55. Page 7-49. April 2016.
\860\ U.S. EPA. ``Population and Activity of Onroad Vehicles in
MOVES3.'' Table 4-44. Page 30. April 2021. Can be accessed at
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1011TF8.pdf.
[[Page 17601]]
Table XI-5--Projected Number of HD Vehicles Sold Nationally in MY 2027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total day cab
Total Class 4-8 vocational vehicles Total tractors Total day cab and vocational
tractors vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
523,805...................................................... 155,682 57,602 581,407
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing an approach of aggregating the total number of
heavy-duty electric vehicles and total number of day cab tractors and
vocational vehicles to calculate the proposed value to account for the
fact that many of the EV tractors will likely be certified as
``vocational'' tractors and certified to a vocational subcategory. We
estimate the overall percentage of heavy-duty electric vehicles in MY
2027 based on the values shown in Table XI-4 and Table XI-5 at
approximately 1.5 percent. EPA requests comment on this percent
projection, including if this value should be lower or higher, and the
data and rational for alternative projections which EPA should
consider.
At this projected level of EVs in MY 2027, we estimate that
approximately five percent of conventional heavy-duty vehicles would be
able to meet the current HD GHG Phase 2 standards without installing
emission-reducing technologies because the standards apply as a fleet-
average.\861\ As an example for the Class 8 high roof day cab tractor
subcategory, a manufacturer could produce 1.5 percent electric tractors
that emit 0 gram/ton-mile; 93.5 percent of conventional vehicles with
technology packages that emit on average at the MY 2027 standard of
75.7 g/ton-mile; and 5 percent vehicles that emit at the baseline level
of 98.2 g/ton-mile (i.e., no additional CO2 emission-
reducing technologies beyond Phase 1).\862\ On average, this example
fleet would meet the current HD GHG Phase 2 MY 2027 standard of 75.7 g/
ton-mile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\861\ Memo to Docket. HD 2027 Proposed Changes to Heavy-Duty
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. November 2021.
\862\ For the baseline value, see 81 FR 73588.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's heavy-duty vehicle GHG certification data shows that EV
products are being certified in most of the compression-ignition
vocational vehicle subcategories, including the school buses and
transit buses optional custom chassis subcategories, and the day cab
tractor subcategories (about half of the total tractor subcategories).
Therefore, we propose to revise the existing CO2 emission
standards in these 17 subcategories. The existing vocational vehicle
and tractor standards that would be affected are shown in Table XI-6
and Table XI-8.
With this proposed stringency increase, we intend for the five
percent fraction of conventional vehicles that theoretically would not
need additional technology to meet current HD GHG Phase 2 standards to
need to install some combination of emissions-reducing technologies
that on average would meet the current HD GHG Phase 2 standards.
Applying the proposed revisions to the MY 2027 standards to the Class 8
high roof day cab tractor subcategory example, in this hypothetical
fleet a manufacturer would produce 1.5 percent electric tractors and
all of the remaining conventional vehicles would themselves on average
have CO2 emission-reducing technologies that meet the
current HD GHG Phase 2 MY 2027 standard of 75.7 g/ton-mile standard. We
propose the revised MY 2027 standards for the vocational vehicle and
tractors standards, as shown in Table XI-7 and Table XI-9.\863\ In
addition, we propose that electric vocational vehicles beginning in MY
2027 be required to certify in one of the nine standards for
compression-ignition vehicles or the optional custom chassis
standards.\864\ This is consistent with the approach finalized for
heavy-duty vehicles under 14,000 pounds GVWR (see 40 CFR
86.1819(a)(2)(ii)). The GHG credit averaging sets for vehicles are
based on GVWR and are not differentiated by SI or CI. Therefore,
credits generated from EVs would be used within an averaging set that
includes both SI and CI vehicles. We are not proposing any changes to
the SI vehicle standards. We request comment on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\863\ See proposed 40 CFR 1037.105 and 1037.106.
\864\ See proposed 40 CFR 1037.101(c)(3).
Table XI-6--Existing MY 2027 Vocational Vehicle CO2 Emission Standards
[g/ton-mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CI medium
CI light heavy heavy CI heavy heavy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urban........................................................... 367 258 269
Multi-Purpose................................................... 330 235 230
Regional........................................................ 291 218 189
Optional Custom Chassis: School Bus............................. 271
Optional Custom Chassis: Transit Bus............................ 286
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table XI-7--Proposed MY 2027 Vocational Vehicle CO2 Emission Standards
[g/ton-mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CI medium
CI light heavy heavy CI heavy heavy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urban........................................................... 361 254 265
Multi-Purpose................................................... 325 231 226
Regional........................................................ 286 215 186
Optional Custom Chassis: School Bus............................. 267
Optional Custom Chassis: Transit Bus............................ 282
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17602]]
Table XI-8--Existing MY 2027 Tractor CO2 Emission Standards
[g/ton-mile]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 7
(all cab Class 8
styles) (day cab)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Roof Day Cab.................................. 96.2 73.4
Mid Roof Day Cab.................................. 103.4 78.0
High Roof Day Cab................................. 100.0 75.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table XI-9--Proposed MY 2027 Tractor CO2 Emission Standards
[g/ton-mile]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 7
(all cab Class 8
styles) (day cab)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Roof.......................................... 94.8 72.3
Mid Roof.......................................... 101.8 76.8
High Roof......................................... 98.5 74.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Technology Costs for the Proposed Changes
In HD GHG Phase 2, EPA projected that the CO2 emissions
reductions can be feasibly, and cost effectively, met through
technological improvements in several areas of the heavy-duty engine
and vehicle.\865\ The combination of improvements in the HD GHG Phase 2
analysis included advanced aerodynamics, more efficient engines, idle
reduction technologies, transmission and driveline improvements, and
lower rolling resistance tires and automatic inflation systems. In
establishing the HD GHG Phase 2 standards and determining the
associated technology costs, we evaluated each technology and its
effectiveness and estimated the most appropriate adoption rate of the
technology in each vehicle subcategory. A technology package that
combined the technologies and adoption rate was developed for each
vehicle subcategory and used to derive the current HD GHG Phase 2
standards. In proposing revised standards, we apply the same technology
packages and cost estimates developed for the existing HD GHG Phase 2
program in 2016 to the conventional vehicles that would not otherwise
need to apply technology due to the increase in electric vehicles
projected for MY 2027 and beyond, absent the changes we are proposing
in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\865\ 81 FR 73585 through 73613 (October 25, 2016); 81 FR 73693
through 73719 (October 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fleet-average incremental per-vehicle technology package costs
for each subcategory are summarized in the 2016 HD GHG Phase 2 preamble
with additional details provided in the HD GHG Phase 2 RIA Chapter
2.12. The technology cost analyses reflected both the direct costs and
indirect costs, which included items such as warranty. Table XI-10 and
Table XI-11 provide the per-vehicle costs of the technology packages to
meet the HD GHG Phase 2 MY 2027 CO2 emission standards for
tractors and vocational vehicles, respectively.866 867 As
discussed in the HD GHG Phase 2 preamble, the per vehicle costs
represent approximately a 12 percent increase in typical vehicle price
for tractors and 3 percent for vocational vehicles.\868\ However, the
benefits of the technology greatly exceed the costs and the payback
periods are short meaning that the purchaser will see substantial new
savings over the vehicle lifetime primarily due to reduced fuel
costs.\869\ These same per-vehicle technology costs would apply to the
subset of conventional vehicles that would require the technology
package to meet the proposed revised standards, as was originally
intended under the HD GHG Phase 2 program. We believe the technology
costs developed during HD GHG Phase 2 are still appropriate, but we
welcome comments on revising the technology costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\866\ 81 FR 73621, Table III-27 (October 25, 2016).
\867\ 81 FR 73718, Table V-30 (October 25, 2016).
\868\ 81 FR 73482 (October 25, 2016).
\869\ 81 FR 73481 (October 25, 2016).
Table XI-10--Tractor Technology Incremental Average Costs for MY 2027
[2013$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 7 high Class 8 low/mid Class 8 high
Class 7 low/mid roof day cab roof day cab roof day cab roof day cab
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$10,235...................................................... $10,298 $10,439 $10,483
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table XI-11--Vocational Vehicle Technology Incremental Average Costs for MY 2027
[2013$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light HD Medium HD Heavy HD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi- Multi- Multi-
Urban purpose Regional Urban purpose Regional Urban purpose Regional
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$2,533.................................. $2,571 $1,486 $2,727 $2,771 $1,500 $4,151 $5,025 $5,670
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In HD GHG Phase 2, we calculated the payback period, or time it
would take for the increase in technology package and associated costs
to be offset by the savings in operating costs, most notably fuel
costs. This analysis included the hardware costs of the new
technologies and their associated fixed costs, insurance, taxes, and
maintenance. In HD GHG Phase 2, we found that the fuel savings
significantly exceed the costs associated with the technologies over
the lifetime of the vehicles, with payback occurring in the fourth year
of operation for vocational vehicle and in the second year for tractor-
trailers.\870\ This same payback analysis would apply to the proposed
revised standards, again as we are applying the same technology
packages with the same costs and fuel saving to conventional vehicles
that were originally intended to have these packages under the existing
HD GHG Phase 2 program but would not with the current rise in
electrification, absent these changes we are proposing in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\870\ 81 FR 73904 (October 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Consistency of the Revised Standards With the Agency's Legal
Authority
The intent of the existing HD GHG Phase 2 program was to set the
stringency of the standards at a level
[[Page 17603]]
that all conventional vehicles would need to install some level and
combination of emission-reducing technologies or offset another
conventional vehicle not installing such technology, since at that time
we predicted very little market penetration of EVs. The proposed
revised standards are based on the same technology packages used to
derive the current HD GHG Phase 2 standards. To calculate the proposed
standards, we applied these same technology packages to the subset of
the vehicles that would otherwise not require CO2 emission-
reducing technologies due to the higher projection of HD electric
vehicles in MY 2027 and beyond. The HD GHG Phase 2 standards were based
on adoption rates for technologies in technology packages that EPA
regards as appropriate under CAA section 202(a) for the reasons given
in the HD GHG Phase 2 rulemaking in Section III.D.1 for tractors and
Section V.C.1 for vocational vehicles.\871\ We continue to believe
these technologies can be adopted at the estimated technology adoption
rates for these proposed revised standards within the lead time
provided. The fleet-wide average cost per tractor projected to meet the
proposed revised MY 2027 standards is approximately $10,200 to $10,500.
The fleet-wide average cost per vocational vehicle to meet the proposed
revised MY 2027 standards ranges between $1,500 and $5,700. These
increased costs would be recovered in the form of fuel savings during
the first two years of ownership for tractors and first four years for
vocational vehicles, which we still consider to be reasonable.\872\ In
addition, manufacturers retain leeway to develop alternative compliance
paths, increasing the likelihood of the standards' successful
implementation. In this proposal we have considered feasibility, cost,
lead time, emissions impact, and other relevant factors, and therefore
these revised proposed MY 2027 standards are appropriate under CAA
section 202(a).\873\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\871\ 81 FR 73585 through 73613 (October 25, 2016); 81 FR 73693
through 73719 (October 25, 2016).
\872\ 81 FR 73904 (October 25, 2016).
\873\ See Phase 2 Safety Impacts at 81 FR 73905 through 73909
(October 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. HD GHG Phase 2 Advanced Technology Credits for CO2 Emissions
EPA continues to believe there is a need to incentivize the
development of EVs in the heavy-duty sector in the near term as a path
towards zero-emissions in the long term. Early state action and
industry innovation related to EVs will achieve more GHG reductions in
the near term and help set the stage for longer-term actions. However,
the advanced technology credit multipliers for CO2 emissions
in HD GHG Phase 2 may no longer be appropriate based on our current
understanding of the heavy-duty market. The existing large advanced
technology credit multipliers could result in potential reductions in
the effective stringency of the existing MY 2024 through 2027
standards, particularly in combination with the rise in EVs including,
but not limited to, those built to satisfy the California ACT
requirement. In addition, an increase in production volumes of EVs
would likely reduce the cost differential between EVs and conventional
vehicles, correspondingly reducing the need for large, advanced
technology multipliers. Given these factors, we are requesting comment
on three approaches that would reduce the number of incentive credits
produced by electric vehicles in the MY 2024 through MY 2027 timeframe
(i.e., credit multiplier approach for EVs certified to meet
California's ACT Rule, advance technology credit cap approach, and
transitional credit cap approach). We are not proposing any one of
these approaches and request comment on all aspects of all three
approaches.
The HD GHG Phase 2 program currently includes advanced technology
credit multipliers for CO2 emissions for all-electric
vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel cell
vehicles.\874\ The HD GHG Phase 2 credit multipliers begin in MY 2021
and end after MY 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\874\ 40 CFR 1037.150(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CO2 emission credits for heavy-duty vehicles are
calculated using Equation XI-1. The CO2 emission credits for
heavy-duty electric vehicles built between MY 2021 and MY 2027 are then
multiplied by 4.5 and, for discussion purposes, can be visualized as
split into two shares.\875\ The first share of credits comes from the
reduction in CO2 emissions realized by the environment from
an electric vehicle that is not emitting from the tailpipe, represented
by the first 1.0 portion of the multiplier. For all-electric vehicles,
the family emission level (FEL) value is deemed to be 0 grams/ton-
mile.\876\ Therefore, each electric vehicle produced receives emission
credits equivalent to the level of the standard, even before taking
into account the effect of a multiplier. The second share of credits
does not represent CO2 emission reductions realized in the
real world, but was established by EPA to help incentivize a nascent
market: The emission credits for electric vehicles built between MY
2021 and 2027 receive an advanced technology credit multiplier of 4.5,
i.e., an additional 3.5 multiple of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\875\ 40 CFR 1037.705.
\876\ 40 CFR 1037.150(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equation XI-1: CO2 Emission Credit Calculation for Heavy-Duty Vehicles
Emission credits (Mg) = (Std-FEL) [middot] (PL) [middot] (Volume)
[middot] (UL) [middot] (10-6)
Where:
Std = the emission standard associated with the specific regulatory
subcategory (g/ton-mile)
FEL = the family emission limit for the vehicle subfamily (g/ton-
mile)
PL = standard payload, in tons
Volume = U.S.-directed production volume of the vehicle subfamily
UL = useful life of the vehicle, in miles, as described in 40 CFR
1037.105 and 1037.106
The HD GHG Phase 2 advanced technology credit multipliers represent
a tradeoff between encouraging a new technology that could have
significant benefits well beyond what is required under the standards
and providing credits that do not reflect real world reductions in
emissions which in effect allow for emissions increases by other
engines and vehicles. At the time we finalized the HD GHG Phase 2
program in 2016, we balanced these factors based on our estimate that
there would be very little market penetration of EVs in the heavy-duty
market in the MY 2021 to MY 2027 timeframe, during which the advanced
technology credit multipliers would be in effect. In fact, the primary
technology packages used to determine the HD GHG Phase 2 standards did
not include any EVs. For MY 2019, EPA's heavy-duty vehicle GHG
certification data show that approximately 0.06 percent of heavy-duty
vehicles certified were electric vehicles. At low adoption levels, we
believe the balance between the benefits of encouraging additional
electrification as compared to any negative emissions impacts of
multipliers would be appropriate and would justify maintaining the
current advanced technology multipliers. This is consistent with our
assessment conducted during the development of HD GHG Phase 2 where we
found only one all-electric HD vehicle manufacturer had certified
through 2016, and we projected ``limited adoption of all-electric
vehicles into the market.'' \877\ However, as discussed in Section
XI.B, we are now in a transitional period where manufacturers are
actively increasing their zero-emission HD vehicle offerings, and we
expect this
[[Page 17604]]
growth to continue through the timeframe of the HD GHG Phase 2 program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\877\ 81 FR 75300 (October 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we did anticipate some growth in electrification would occur
due to the credit incentives in the HD GHG Phase 2 rule, we did not
expect the level of innovation observed or that California would adopt
a requirement for such a large number of heavy-duty electric vehicles
to be sold at the same time these advanced technology multipliers were
in effect. 878 879 Based on this new information, we believe
that the existing advanced technology multiplier credit levels may no
longer be appropriate for maintaining the balance between encouraging
manufactures to continue to invest in new technologies over the long
term and potential emissions increases in the short term. We believe
that if left as is, the multiplier credits could allow for backsliding
of emission reductions expected from internal combustion engine
vehicles for some manufacturers in the near term, as sales of advanced
technology vehicles continue to increase. We show an example of this in
Figure XI-1 using the heavy heavy-duty vehicle averaging set. At
approximately 8.5 percent EV adoption rate into this averaging set,
approximately 100 percent of the projected reductions from HD GHG Phase
2 would be lost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\878\ EPA has not yet received a waiver request under CAA
section 209(b) from California for the ACT rule.
\879\ ACT requires manufacturers to sell a certain percentage of
zero emission heavy-duty vehicles (BEVs or fuel cell vehicles) for
each model year, starting in MY 2024. The sales requirements vary by
vehicle class, starting at 5 to 9 percent of total MY 2024 heavy-
duty vehicle sales in California and increasing to 15 to 20 percent
of MY 2027 sales. Several states have followed suit and issued
proposals to adopt California's ACT under CAA section 177, and we
anticipate more states to follow with similar proposals.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.008
Therefore, EPA is seeking comment on the potential need to update
the HD GHG Phase 2 advanced technology incentive program. In this
proposal, we seek comment on three potential approaches that would be
in addition to the proposed revised MY 2027 CO2 emission
standards. Each of these approaches is distinct and we would only
consider finalizing a single approach.
California's ACT rule was adopted in 2020 and is expected to cause
a shift in heavy-duty electric vehicle production in the U.S. The ACT
requires manufacturers to sell a certain percentage of zero emission
heavy-duty vehicles (BEVs or fuel cell vehicles) for each model year,
starting in MY 2024. The sales requirements vary by vehicle class,
starting at 5 to 9 percent of total MY 2024 heavy-duty vehicle sales in
California and increasing to 15 to 20 percent of MY 2027 sales. EPA has
received a waiver request under CAA section 209(b) from California for
the ACT rule and is reviewing that request. The first approach outlined
in this section is predicated on one potential outcome from the review
process, which is granting a waiver request for the ACT rule. Given the
timing of this proposed rulemaking, we have considered the
[[Page 17605]]
potential impacts of the California ACT rule on the HD GHG Phase 2
program and we solicit comment on how we could address such potential
impacts.
In all three approaches, the changes would begin in MY 2024 to
align with California's ACT program. If we finalize changes to the
advanced technology credit program in a final rule in 2022, then we
would be providing one year of lead time for the manufacturers' product
planning and two years to adjust the calculations in the ABT reports
for the MY 2024 changes.\880\ We request comment on the lead time
needed for each of these approaches. We are also seeking comment on
whether there are better, alternative methods that EPA should consider
and whether we should consider changes to the advanced technology
incentive program for fuel cell vehicles and/or plug-in hybrid
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\880\ 40 CFR 1037.730.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Credit Multiplier Approach for EVs Certified to Meet California's
ACT Rule
When EPA finalized the HD GHG Phase 2 program, including the
advanced technology credit program, we did not envision a large number
of EVs such as required in the California ACT rule. All multipliers
reduce the overall stringency of the standards as a trade-off for
encouraging early innovation and adoption of new technologies, and a
large number of vehicles that qualify for the credits can allow for
emissions increases by other engines and vehicles at the national
level. However, our view is that EVs built to satisfy California's ACT
requirement would not need an additional advanced technology credit
incentive from the HD GHG Phase 2 program. The technology feasibility
of the proposed revised standards, as we explain in Section XI.C, and
the flexibilities that would still be included in meeting those
standards with the 1.0 multiplier for the EVs, show that manufacturers
would still be able to meet the existing HD GHG Phase 2 standards in
the MY 2024 through MY 2026 timeframe and the proposed revised MY 2027
standards without the credits from the multipliers. Therefore, we are
requesting comment on an approach that would treat all EVs certified in
California in the MY 2024 through MY 2027 timeframe differently than
the vehicles certified outside of California. Under this approach, the
MY 2024 through MY 2027 EVs certified in California would not receive
the advanced technology credit multiplier that currently exists. We
note that these EVs would still continue to be deemed to have zero
grams CO2 per ton-mile emissions and receive significant
credits reflective of the difference between the applicable
CO2 emission standard and zero grams. The approach to EVs
certified to the EPA program for new vehicles sold outside of
California and not subject to California standards in other states
under Section 177 would remain unchanged and receive the advanced
credit multiplier. We request comment on this approach in general, and
we request specific comment on whether maintaining this multiplier for
EVs sold outside of California could impact manufacturer production
plans.
2. Advanced Technology Credit Cap Approach
In Phase 1, EPA included a provision that capped the amount of
advanced technology credits that could be brought into any averaging
set in any model year at 60,000 Mg of CO2 emissions to
prevent market distortions.\881\ The second approach we are requesting
comment on is similar to the Phase 1 advanced technology credit cap
approach. We did not finalize such a cap in HD GHG Phase 2 because, as
described at the beginning of this section, we believe we appropriately
balanced encouraging new technologies and potential emissions increases
under the assumption that there would be very limited adoption of EVs
during the HD GHG Phase 2 timeframe. However, the option for unlimited
advanced technology credit multipliers for CO2 emissions in
HD GHG Phase 2 may no longer be appropriate considering the observed
and projected rise in electrification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\881\ 76 FR 57246 (September 15, 2011). Regulations can be found
in 40 CFR 1036.740(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this credit cap approach, advanced technology credits
generated due to the production of EVs on an annual basis that are
under the cap would remain unchanged. Above the cap, the multiplier
would effectively be a value of 1.0; in other words, after a
manufacturer reaches their cap in any model year, the multiplier would
no longer be available and would have no additional effect on credit
calculations. Each electric vehicle produced would still receive
emission credits equivalent to the level of the standard (the real-
world emission reduction), but this effect would not be multiplied to
generate additional credits for that manufacturer.
The first step in developing this approach would be to determine
the appropriate level of EV adoption rate above which to apply the cap.
The cap could be set at a lower level to be more protective of the
environment or at a higher level to continue to provide strong
incentives to the development of heavy-duty EVs. In setting the value
EPA would consider how the selected cap level limits losses of the HD
GHG Phase 2 program's emission reduction efficacy.
We seek comment on an approach that would set a cap at a level that
would restrict the credit multipliers for EVs produced above a
threshold of one percent of the total projected vehicle production
volumes. We first projected the number of total vehicles certified in
each averaging set.\882\ In MY 2019, the most recent year for which we
have data, approximately 167,000 HD vehicles were certified into light
heavy-duty; approximately 177,000 into medium heavy-duty; and
approximately 267,000 into heavy heavy-duty averaging sets. Next, we
determined the number of EV manufacturers. In MY 2019, there were a
total of 26 manufacturers that had either certified electric vehicles
or notified EPA that they were a small manufacturer that produced
vehicles that were excluded from the regulations due to the small
business provision in 40 CFR 1037.150(c)(3). The potential cap values
represent approximately 65 vehicles per manufacturer per year in each
of the light and medium heavy-duty averaging sets and approximately 100
vehicles per manufacturer per year for the heavy heavy-duty averaging
sets. This advanced technology credit cap approach would limit the
credits generated by a manufacturer's use of the advanced technology
credit multipliers for battery electric vehicles to the following
levels of CO2 per manufacturer per model year beginning in
MY 2024 and extending through MY 2027:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\882\ Memo to Docket. HD 2027 Approaches to Change the Heavy-
Duty GHG Phase 2 Advanced Technology Credit Incentive Program.
September 2021.
Light Heavy-Duty Vehicle Averaging Set: 42,000 Mg
CO2
Medium Heavy-Duty Vehicle Averaging Set: 75,000 Mg
CO2
Heavy Heavy-Duty Vehicle Averaging Set: 325,000 Mg
CO2
We request comment on applying this general approach to a different
EV threshold based on a sales percentage or absolute emissions cap, the
structure of the credit cap, the assumptions that would be used in
developing the numerical value of the caps, and whether these credit
caps also should apply to plug-in hybrids and fuel cell vehicles.
[[Page 17606]]
3. Transitional Credit Multipliers Approach
A third option to limit the credit multiplier impact would be to
reduce and phase-out the magnitude of the credit multipliers over a
period of model years. EPA has always intended the credit multipliers
to serve as a temporary incentive for manufacturers to develop and use
zero-emission technologies. The HD GHG Phase 2 advanced technology
credit multipliers currently end after MY 2027. The credit multipliers
were not considered in determining the feasibility of the HD GHG Phase
2 CO2 emission standards. The feasibility was determined
through the evaluation of conventional technologies, as described in
Section XI.C.
As noted in Section XI.A.2, the HD GHG Phase 2 advanced technology
credit multipliers were derived based on CARB's cost analysis that
compared the costs of BEVs in the 2015/2016 timeframe to costs of other
conventional CO2-reducing technologies. CARB's cost analysis
showed that multipliers in the range we finalized for HD GHG Phase 2
would make these technologies closer to cost-competitive with the
conventional technologies. Since 2016, the electric vehicle market has
grown and is now projected to continue growing in ways we did not
anticipate in HD GHG Phase 2: Namely that we did anticipate small
growth in electrification due to the credit incentives, but we did not
predict the large numbers of heavy-duty EVs associated with
California's ACT requirement, as described in Section XI.B.2.
Therefore, the projected costs of electric vehicles in the future
continue to decrease to reflect the increase in learning and production
levels. For this proposal, EPA recreated the BEV technology cost
analysis to determine new values under consideration for the advanced
technology credits. The analysis was updated using new information on
the cost of EVs in the form of CARB's incremental BEV costs developed
in 2019.\883\ We maintained the conventional vehicle technology costs
and associated final HD GHG Phase 2 CO2 emission standards
in this analysis as we believe the cost of the conventional technology
packages developed under HD GHG Phase 2 is still appropriate. The
analysis for MY 2024 is shown in Table XI-12 and for MY 2027 in Table
XI-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\883\ California Air Resources Board. Advanced Clean Trucks
Regulation. Standardized Regulatory Impact Analysis. Table G8, Page
31. August 8, 2019.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.009
[[Page 17607]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.010
Under this approach, based on the values calculated in Table XI-12
and Table XI-13, EPA is taking comment on revising the advanced
technology multipliers for BEVs to transition by model year as shown in
Table XI-14. We request comment on this approach, the values used in
the credit multiplier calculations, and the impact of decrementing the
credit multipliers on the timeframe shown in Table XI-14. We request
comment on all aspects of this approach.
Table XI-14--Advanced Technology Credit Multipliers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Advanced Credit Multipliers for Electric 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.0
Vehicles...............................................
Advanced Credit Multipliers for Electric Vehicles under 4.5 3.5 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.0
Consideration..........................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Emissions and Cost Impacts of Proposed Revised MY 2027 CO2 Emission
Standards
As discussed throughout this section, we established the HD GHG
Phase 2 program in 2016 based in part on projections that
electrification of the heavy-duty market was unlikely to occur in the
timeframe of the program. The recent rise in EV product offerings,
which are projected to grow through MY 2027 and beyond, could affect
the amount of technology required to be installed on conventional
vehicles to meet the standards. As noted in Section XI.C, we derived
the HD GHG Phase 2 standards based on a ``technology package'' that
combined emission-reducing technologies with adoption rates developed
for each vehicle subcategory. We set the current HD GHG Phase 2
standards at levels that would require conventional vehicles to install
some combination of these technologies, leading to CO2
emissions reductions.\884\ We estimate that the increase in electric
vehicles in the timeframe of the HD GHG Phase 2 program would now allow
approximately five percent of conventional vehicles to meet the
standards without installing emission-reducing technologies.\885\ The
increase in the stringency we propose adjusts the standard levels such
that this five percent fraction of conventional vehicles would on
average need to install some combination of emissions-reducing
technology. As shown in Section XI.C, we estimate the overall
percentage of electric vehicles in the vocational and day cab tractor
subcategories in MY 2027 to be 1.5 percent, deriving the increase in
stringency from this value. The existing HD GHG Phase 2 program was
estimated to reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 1 billion
metric tons over the life of vehicles and engines sold during the
program and provide over $200 billion in net societal benefits at an
aggregate technology cost to HD vehicle buyers and operators of roughly
$25 billion (using a 3 percent discount rate).\886\ The small
adjustment to the select standards we are proposing would generally
maintain the anticipated costs and benefits of the HD GHG Phase 2
program, with a less than one percent decrease in CO2
emissions and less than two percent increase in technology costs
projected for the 2027 MY vehicles in the HD GHG Phase 2 rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\884\ Considering technological feasibility, compliance cost,
lead time and other factors noted in Section I.C.
\885\ Memo to Docket. HD 2027 Proposed Changes to Heavy-Duty
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. November 2021.
\886\ 81 FR 73482, and 73894-73905 (October 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed revised MY 2027 CO2 emission standards
would result in
[[Page 17608]]
modest additional changes in CO2 emission reductions. With
the existing HD GHG Phase 2 emission standards and our projected
increase in electric vehicles in the MY 2027, the MY 2027 vocational
vehicles and tractors are projected to emit 29 million metric tons of
CO2 emissions in calendar year 2027, as shown in the
Reference Case column of Table XI-15.\887\ Also as shown in Table XI-
15, the proposed increase in stringency of the MY 2027 vocational
vehicle and day cab tractor standards would lead to a 1.5 percent
reduction in the CO2 emissions only from the subcategories
of vehicles with the proposed revised standards. Overall, the proposed
standards would lead to a reduction of approximately 222,000 metric
tons in 2027 beyond the current HD GHG Phase 2 program. This represents
a 0.7 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from the overall
heavy-duty vocational vehicle and tractor sector (that includes sleeper
cab tractors that remain unchanged) in 2027 compared to the emissions
from these sectors with the existing HD GHG Phase 2 standards if they
were to remain unchanged. Similar levels of annual reductions in
CO2 emissions would be expected in the years beyond 2027 for
these MY 2027 vehicles, though those future-year impacts have not been
quantified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\887\ Memo to Docket. HD 2027 Proposed Changes to Heavy-Duty
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. November 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There would be climate-related benefits associated with the
CO2 emission reductions achieved by the targeted revisions,
but we are not monetizing them in this proposal.\888\ We request
comment on how to address the climate benefits and other categories of
non-monetized benefits of the proposed rule. We intend to conduct
additional analysis for the final rule after reviewing public comments
related to the proposed revised standards and considering any changes
to the proposed advanced technology credit program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\888\ The U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana has issued an injunction concerning the monetization of
the benefits of greenhouse gas emission reductions by EPA and other
defendants. See Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-01074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.
Feb. 11, 2022).
Table XI-15--CO2 Emissions Impact of Proposed Standards for 2027
Calendar Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference case
CO2 emissions CO2 emission
from MY 2027 reductions
vehicles (metric tons)
(metric tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light Heavy Vocational.................. 2,419,884 36,298
Medium Heavy Vocational................. 3,433,171 51,498
Heavy Heavy Vocational.................. 955,382 14,331
Medium Heavy Day Cab Tractors........... 4,068,458 61,027
Heavy Heavy Day Cab Tractors............ 3,921,448 58,822
Heavy Heavy Sleeper Cab Tractors........ 14,290,255 ..............
-------------------------------
Total............................... 29,088,598 221,975
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The aggregate technology costs resulting from the proposed changes
in the MY 2027 standards are shown in Table XI-16. The average costs
per vehicle represent the technology package costs developed for
conventional vehicles to meet the HD GHG Phase 2 standards. The
projected sales in MY 2027 were generated from MOVES3. The percentage
of conventional vehicles needed to improve to meet the proposed revised
standards are approximately five percent, as discussed in Section XI.C.
The aggregated technology cost in MY 2027 of the proposed revised
standards is approximately $98 million. This compares to the MY 2027
technology costs of the HD GHG Phase 2 rule of $5.2 billion
(2013$).\889\ We request comment on this cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\889\ U.S. EPA and NHTSA. ``Regulatory Impact Analysis:
Greenhouse Gas Emission and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles--Phase 2.'' EPA-420-R-16-900. August 2016.
Page 7-21.
Table XI-16--Technology Cost Due to Proposed Increase in Emission Standard Stringency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 2
Projected Percentage of Number of technology Total cost
sales in MY conventional conventional cost per (2013$
2027 vehicles vehicles vehicle millions)
affected (%) affected (2013$) \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light Heavy Vocational.......... 141,716 5 7,086 $2,533 $17.9
Medium Heavy Vocational......... 180,432 5 9,021 2,727 24.6
Heavy Heavy Vocational.......... 138,453 5 6,923 4,151 28.7
Medium Heavy Day Cab Tractors... 10,558 5 528 10,235 5.4
Heavy Heavy Day Cab Tractors.... 41,334 5 2,067 10,439 21.6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 81 FR 73620 and 73716 (October 25, 2016) noting the Urban subcategory costs.
[[Page 17609]]
F. Summary of Proposed Changes to HD GHG Phase 2
In summary, we are proposing some updates to the existing HD GHG
Phase 2 and seeking comment on other potential changes. First, we
propose to reduce the MY 2027 CO2 emission standards for the
compression-ignition vocational vehicles subcategories, the optional
school bus and other bus subcategories, and the day cab tractor
subcategories. We are also considering whether it would be appropriate
in the final rule to increase the stringency of the standards even more
than what we propose, specifically for MYs 2027, 2028, and/or 2029.
Second, we seek comment on three different approaches to potentially
revise the credits generated by a manufacturer's use of the advanced
technology credit multipliers for battery electric vehicles in MY 2024
through MY 2027. We request comments about all aspects of these
proposed updates to the CO2 emission standards and revisions
under consideration for the advanced technology incentive program.
XII. Other Amendments
This section describes several amendments to correct, clarify, and
streamline a wide range of regulatory provisions for many different
types of engines, vehicles, and equipment.\890\ Section XII.A includes
technical amendments to compliance provisions that apply broadly across
EPA's emission control programs to multiple industry sectors, including
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, marine diesel engines,
locomotives, and various types of nonroad engines, vehicles, and
equipment. Some of those amendments are for broadly applicable testing
and compliance provisions in 40 CFR parts 1065, 1066, and 1068. Other
cross-sector issues involve making the same or similar changes in
multiple standard-setting parts for individual industry sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\890\ A docket memo includes redline text to highlight all the
changes to the regulations in the proposed rule. See ``Redline
Document Showing Proposed Changes to Regulatory Text in the Heavy-
Duty 2027 Rule'', EPA memorandum from Alan Stout to Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing amendments in two areas of note for the general
compliance provisions in 40 CFR part 1068. First, we are proposing to
take a comprehensive approach for making confidentiality determinations
related to compliance information that companies submit to EPA. We are
proposing to apply these provisions for all highway, nonroad, and
stationary engine, vehicle, and equipment programs, as well as aircraft
and portable fuel containers. Second, we are proposing provisions that
include clarifying text to establish what qualifies as an adjustable
parameter and to identify the practically adjustable range for those
adjustable parameters. The adjustable parameters proposal also includes
specific provisions related to electronic controls that aim to deter
tampering.
The rest of Section XII describes proposed amendments that apply
uniquely for individual industry sectors. These proposed amendments
would apply to heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles, light-duty
motor vehicles, large nonroad SI engines, small nonroad SI engines,
recreational vehicles and nonroad equipment, marine diesel engines,
locomotives, and stationary emergency CI engines.
A. General Compliance Provisions (40 CFR Part 1068) and Other Cross-
Sector Issues
The regulations in 40 CFR part 1068 include compliance provisions
that apply broadly across EPA's emission control programs for engines,
vehicles, and equipment. This section describes several proposed
amendments to these regulations. This section also includes amendments
that make the same or similar changes in multiple standard-setting
parts for individual industry sectors. The following sections describe
these cross-sector issues.
1. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations
EPA adopts emission standards and corresponding certification
requirements and compliance provisions that apply to on-highway CI and
SI engines (such as those proposed in this action for on-highway heavy-
duty engines) and vehicles, and to stationary and nonroad CI and SI
engines, vehicles, and equipment. Nonroad applications include marine
engines, locomotives, and a wide range of other land-based vehicles and
equipment. Standards and certification requirements also apply for
portable fuel containers and for fuel tanks and fuel lines used with
some types of nonroad equipment. Standards and certification
requirements also apply for stationary engines and equipment, such as
generators and pumps. EPA also has emission standards for aircraft and
aircraft engines. Hereinafter, these are all ``sources.'' Under this
proposal, certain information the manufacturers must submit under the
standard-setting parts \891\ for certification, compliance oversight,
and in response to certain enforcement activities \892\ would be
subject to disclosure to the public without further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\891\ 40 CFR parts 2, 59, 60, 85, 86, 87, 1068, 1030, 1033,
1036, 1037, 1039, 1042, 1043, 1045, 1048, 1051, 1054, and 1060.
These parts are hereinafter collectively referred to as ``the
standard-setting parts.''
\892\ We also receive numerous FOIAs for information once
enforcement actions have concluded. In responding to those requests,
to the extent the information corresponds to a category of
certification or compliance information that we are proposing a
determination for in this rulemaking, if finalized we would
similarly consider such information emissions data or otherwise not
entitled to confidential treatment, or CBI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA states that ``[a]ny records, reports or information
obtained under [section 114 and parts B and C of Subchapter II] shall
be available to the public. . . .'' \893\ Thus, the CAA begins with a
presumption that the information submitted to EPA will be available to
be disclosed to the public.\894\ It then provides a narrow exception to
that presumption for information that ``would divulge methods or
processes entitled to protection as trade secrets. . . .'' \895\ The
CAA then narrows this exception further by excluding ``emission data''
from the category of information eligible for confidential treatment.
While the CAA does not define ``emission data,'' EPA has done so by
regulation at 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i). EPA releases, on occasion, some of
the information submitted under CAA sections 114 and 208 to parties
outside of the Agency of its own volition, through responses to
requests submitted under the Freedom of Information Act
(``FOIA''),\896\ or through civil litigation. Typically, manufacturers
may claim some of the information is entitled to confidential treatment
as confidential business information (``CBI''), which is exempt from
disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA.\897\ Generally, when we have
information that we intend to disclose publicly that is covered by a
claim of confidentiality under FOIA Exemption 4, EPA has a process to
make case-by-case or class determinations under 40 CFR part 2 to
evaluate whether such information qualifies for confidential treatment
under the exemption.\898\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\893\ CAA section 114(c) and 208(c); 42 U.S.C. 7414(c) and
7542(c).
\894\ CAA section 114(c) and 208(c); 42 U.S.C. 7414(c) and
7542(c).
\895\ CAA section 114(c) and 208(c); 42 U.S.C. 7414(c) and
7542(c).
\896\ 5 U.S.C. 552.
\897\ 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).
\898\ 40 CFR 2.205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rulemaking proposes provisions regarding the confidentiality
of information that is submitted for a wide range of engines, vehicles,
and equipment that are subject to emission
[[Page 17610]]
standards and other requirements under the CAA. This includes motor
vehicles and motor vehicle engines, nonroad engines and nonroad
equipment, aircraft and aircraft engines, and stationary engines. It
also includes portable fuel containers regulated under 40 CFR part 59,
subpart F, and fuel tanks, fuel lines, and related fuel system
components regulated under 40 CFR part 1060. The proposed regulatory
provisions regarding confidentiality determinations for these products
would be codified broadly in 40 CFR part 1068, with additional detailed
provisions for specific sectors in the regulatory parts referenced in
40 CFR 1068.1. With this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to make
categorical emission data and CBI determinations in advance through
this notice and comment rulemaking for some information collected by
EPA for engine, vehicle, and equipment certification and compliance,
including information collected during certain enforcement
actions.\899\ At this time, we are not proposing to determine that any
information is CBI or entitled to confidential treatment. We are
proposing to maintain the 40 CFR part 2 process for the information we
are not determining to be emission data or otherwise not entitled to
confidential treatment in this rulemaking. As explained further below,
the emission data and CBI determinations proposed in this action are
intended to increase the efficiency with which the Agency responds to
FOIA requests and to provide consistency in the treatment of the same
or similar information collected under the standard-setting parts. We
believe doing these determinations through this rulemaking will provide
predictability for both information requesters and submitters. We also
believe that the proposed emission data and CBI determinations will
lead to greater transparency in the certification programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\899\ Throughout this preamble, we refer to certification and
compliance information. Hereinafter, the enforcement information
covered by this proposed confidentiality determination is included
when we refer to certification and compliance information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2013 EPA published CBI class determinations for information
related to certification of engines and vehicles under the standard-
setting parts.\900\ These determinations established whether those
particular classes of information were releasable or entitled to
treatment as CBI and could be instructive when making case-by-case
determinations for other similar information within the framework of
the CAA and the regulations. However, the determinations did not
resolve all confidentiality questions regarding information submitted
to the Agency for the standard-setting parts, and EPA receives numerous
requests each year to disclose information that is not within the scope
of these 2013 CBI class determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\900\ EPA, Class Determination 1-13, Confidentiality of Business
Information Submitted in Certification Applications for 2013 and
subsequent model year Vehicles, Engines and Equipment, March 28,
2013, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-02/documents/1-2013_class_determination.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to this rulemaking, the Agency has followed the existing
process in 40 CFR part 2 when making case-by-case or class
confidentiality determinations. The part 2 CBI determination process is
time consuming for information requesters, information submitters, and
EPA. The determinations proposed in this rulemaking would allow EPA to
process requests for information more quickly, as the Agency would not
need to go through the part 2 process to make case-by-case
determinations. Additionally, the proposed determinations would also
provide predictability and consistency to information submitters on how
EPA will treat their information. Finally, the part 2 CBI determination
process is very resource-intensive for EPA, as it requires personnel in
the program office to draft letters to the manufacturers (of which
there may be many) requesting that they substantiate their claims of
confidentiality, review each manufacturer's substantiation response,
and provide a recommendation, and for the Office of General Counsel to
review all of the materials and make a final determination on the
entitlement of the information to confidential treatment. For these
reasons, we are proposing to amend our regulations in 40 CFR parts 2
and 1068 to establish a broadly applicable set of CBI determinations by
categories of information, through rulemaking. With this action, we
propose to supersede the class determinations made in 2013, though we
intend this rulemaking to be consistent with the 2013 class
determinations for Tables 1 and 2. Specifically, the CBI class
determinations reflected in Table 1 and Table 2 of the 2013
determination are consistent with the proposed determinations described
in Section XII.A.1.i. and Section XII.A.1.iii, respectively. However,
for the reasons described in Section XII.A.1.iv, we propose that the
information in Table 3 of the 2013 determination will be subject to the
existing part 2 process, such that EPA would continue to make case-by-
case CBI determinations as described below in Section XII.A.1.iv.
In this action, EPA is proposing regulations to establish
categories for the information submitted under the standard-setting
parts and to determine whether such categories of information are
entitled to confidential treatment, including proposed revisions to 40
CFR parts 2, 59, 60, 85, 86, 87, 1030, 1033, 1036, 1037, 1043, 1045,
1048, 1051, 1054, 1060, and 1068. The proposed confidentiality
determinations for these categories, and the basis for such proposed
determinations, are described below. Additionally, a detailed
description of the specific information submitted under the standard-
setting parts that currently falls within these categories is also
available in the docket for this rulemaking.\901\ The proposed
determinations made in this rulemaking, if finalized, will serve as
notification of the Agency's decisions on (1) the categories of
information the Agency will not treat as confidential, and (2) the
categories of information that may be claimed as confidential but will
remain subject to the existing part 2 process. We are not proposing in
this rulemaking to make a determination in favor of confidential
treatment for any information collected for certification and
compliance of engines, vehicles, equipment, and products subject to
evaporative emission standards. In responding to requests for
information not determined in this proposal to be emission data or
otherwise not entitled to confidential treatment, we propose to apply
the existing part 2 case-by-case process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\901\ See Zaremski, Sara. Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055. ``Supplemental Information for CBI Categories for All
Industries and All Programs''. October 1, 2021, and attachment ``CBI
Categories for All Industries All Programs'' (hereinafter ``CBI
Chart''), available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For future use, we are proposing provisions in the Agency's Clean
Air Act-specific FOIA regulations at 40 CFR 2.301(j)(2) and 2.301(j)(4)
concerning information determined to be entitled to confidential
treatment through rulemaking in 40 CFR part 1068. These provisions are
very similar to the regulations established by the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Program from 40 CFR part 98 that is addressed at 40 CFR
2.301(d). The proposed regulation at 40 CFR 2.301(j)(4)(ii) is intended
for the Agency to reconsider a determination that information is
entitled to confidential treatment under 40 CFR 2.204(d)(2) if there is
a change in circumstance in the future. This provision is intended to
maintain flexibility the Agency currently has
[[Page 17611]]
under its part 2 regulations. These proposed regulations at 40 CFR
2.301(j)(2) and (4) do not have any effect at this time since the
Agency is not proposing to find any information to be entitled to
confidential treatment in this rulemaking, but are being proposed for
future use.
The information categories we are proposing in this action are:
(1) Certification and compliance information,
(2) fleet value information,
(3) source family information,
(4) test information and results,
(5) averaging, banking, and trading (``ABT'') credit information,
(6) production volume information,
(7) defect and recall information, and
(8) selective enforcement audit (``SEA'') compliance information.
The information submitted to EPA under the standard-setting parts
can be grouped in these categories based on their shared
characteristics. That said, much of the information submitted under the
standard-setting parts could be logically grouped into more than one
category. For the sake of organization, we have chosen to label
information as being in just one category where we think it fits best.
We believe this approach will promote greater accessibility to the CBI
determinations proposed here, reduce redundancy within the categories
that could lead to confusion, and ensure consistency in the treatment
of similar information in the future. We are requesting comment on the
following: (1) Our proposed categories of information; (2) the proposed
confidentiality determination on each category; and (3) our placement
of each data point under the category proposed.
i. Information That Is Emission Data and Therefore Not Entitled to
Confidential Treatment.
In this proposal, we are applying the regulatory definition of
``emission data'' in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i) to propose that certain
categories of source certification and compliance information are not
entitled to confidential treatment. As relevant here, a source is
generally the engine, vehicle, or equipment covered by a certificate of
conformity. Alternatively, a source is each individual engine, vehicle,
or equipment produced under a certificate of conformity. The CAA
provides in sections 114 and 208 that certain information may be
entitled to confidential treatment; however, it expressly excludes
emission data from that category of information. The CAA does not
define ``emission data,'' but EPA has done so by regulation in 40 CFR
2.301(a)(2)(i).
Agency regulations broadly define emission data as information that
falls into one or more of three types of information. Specifically,
emission data is defined in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i), for any source of
emission of any substance into the air as:
Information necessary to determine the identity, amount,
frequency, concentration, or other characteristics (to the extent
related to air quality) of any emission which has been emitted by the
source (or of any pollutant resulting from any emission by the source),
or any combination of the foregoing;
Information necessary to determine the identity, amount,
frequency, concentration, or other characteristics (to the extent
related to air quality) of the emissions which, under an applicable
standard or limitation, the source was authorized to emit (including,
to the extent necessary for such purposes, a description of the manner
or rate of operation of the source); and
A general description of the location and/or nature of the
source to the extent necessary to identify the source and to
distinguish it from other sources (including, to the extent necessary
for such purposes, a description of the device, installation, or
operation constituting the source).
However, 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(ii) additionally provides a limitation
on the timing of any release to the public of emission data concerning
``any product, method, device, or installation (or any component
thereof) designed and intended to be marketed or used commercially but
not yet so marketed or used.'' Consistent with this limitation, and as
described in Sections XII.A.1.i and iii, we are proposing to maintain
confidential treatment prior to the introduction-into-commerce date for
the information included in an application for certification. Though we
are proposing that the information in these categories is emission
data, we are proposing that the information would not become subject to
release until the product for which the information was submitted has
been introduced into commerce, consistent with 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(ii).
The introduction to commerce date is specified in an application for
certification, unless a certificate of conformity is issued after the
introduction-into-commerce date, at which point we propose to use the
date of certificate issuance as the introduction-into-commerce date, as
stated in the proposed 40 CFR 1068.10(d)(1).
We are proposing to establish in 40 CFR 1068.11(a) that certain
categories of information the Agency collects in connection with the
Title II programs are information that meets the regulatory definition
of emission data under 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i). The following sections
describe the categories of information we are proposing to determine to
be emission data, based on application of the definition at 40 CFR
2.301(a)(2)(i) to the shared characteristics of the information in each
category and our rationale for each proposed determination. The CBI
Chart in the docket provides a comprehensive list of the current
regulatory citations under which we collect the information that we
propose to group into each proposed category and can be found in the
docket for this proposal. For ease of reference, we have also indicated
in the CBI Chart the reason(s) explained in Sections XII.A.1 and 3 of
this proposal for why the information submitted to EPA would not be
considered confidential. The CBI Chart provides the information EPA
currently collects that is covered by this proposed determination, the
regulatory citation the information is collected under, the information
category we propose for the information, the confidentiality
determination for the information, and the rationale used to determine
whether the information is not entitled to confidential treatment
(i.e., the information qualifies as emission data under one or more
subparagraph of the regulatory definition of emission data, is both
emission data and publicly available after the introduction-into-
commerce-date, etc.). We explain in this proposal that much of the
information covered by these proposed determinations are emission data
under more than one basis under the regulatory definition of emission
data, as described at the end of each of the sections that follow,
where each basis alone would support EPA finalizing a given proposed
determination. Therefore, we request that commenters provide responses
to every rationale presented in the CBI Chart, available in the docket,
for information we are proposing to determine is emission data.
[[Page 17612]]
a. Information Necessary To Determine the Identity, Amount, Frequency,
Concentration, or Other Characteristics (to the Extent Related to Air
Quality) of Any Emission Which Has Been Emitted by the Source (or of
Any Pollutant Resulting From Any Emission by the Source), or Any
Combination of the Foregoing
We are proposing the categories of information identified and
proposing to determine that the information in them meets the
regulatory definition of emission data under 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A),
which defines emission data to include ``[i]nformation necessary to
determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other
characteristics (to the extent related to air quality) of any emission
which has been emitted by the source (or of any pollutant resulting
from any emission by the source), or any combination of the
foregoing[.]'' \902\ For shorthand convenience, we refer to information
that qualifies as emission data under subparagraph (A) in the
definition of emission data as merely ``paragraph A information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\902\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA collects emission information during certification, compliance
reporting, SEAs, defect and recall reporting, in ABT programs, and in
various testing programs like production line testing (``PLT'') and in-
use testing. We are proposing that the following categories of
information are emission data under 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A):
(1) Fleet value information,
(2) test information and results (including certification testing,
PLT, in-use testing, fuel economy testing, and SEA testing),
(3) ABT credit information,
(4) production volume,
(5) defect and recall information, and
(6) SEA compliance information.
All these categories include information that fits under the other
emission data regulatory definition subparagraphs, therefore, the lists
in this section are not exhaustive of the information in each category.
We are proposing that the paragraph A information we identify in this
section under each of the categories is also emission data under
subparagraph (B) of the definition of emission data and may also be
emission data under subparagraph (C) of the definition of emission
data. In the CBI Chart in the docket, we have identified for every
piece of information in every category all the applicable emission data
definition subparagraphs. Nevertheless, under this proposal, we have
chosen to explain each piece of information in detail only under the
most readily understandable subparagraph of emission data, while
highlighting that the information could also qualify as emission data
under another subparagraph of the regulatory definition of emission
data. Consistent with 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(ii), under this proposed
determination, we would not release information included in an
application for certification prior to the introduction-into-commerce-
date, except under the limited circumstances already provided for in
that regulatory provision. The introduction-into-commerce-date is
specified in an application for certification or in the certificate
itself, if the certificate is issued after the introduction-into-
commerce-date.
Fleet Value Information: We are proposing that the fleet value
information category includes the following information that underlies
the ABT compliance demonstrations and fleet average compliance
information for on-highway and nonroad: Offsets, displacement, useful
life, power payload tons, load factor, integrated cycle work, cycle
conversion factor, and test cycle. The information in this proposed
category underlies the fleet average calculations, which are necessary
to understand the type and amount of emissions released in-use from
sources regulated under the standard-setting parts that require a fleet
average compliance value. These values represent compounds emitted,
though the raw emissions from an individual source may be different
from these values due to other variables in the fleet value
calculation. For these reasons, we propose to determine the fleet value
information category is emission data because it is necessary to
identify and determine the amount of emissions emitted by sources.\903\
Note, we are also proposing that a portion of the fleet value
information category meets another basis in the emission data
definition, as discussed in more detail in Section XII.A.1.i.b, as it
additionally provides ``[i]nformation necessary to determine the
identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other characteristics
(to the extent related to air quality) of the emissions which, under an
applicable standard or limitation, the source was authorized to emit
(including, to the extent necessary for such purposes, a description of
the manner or rate of operation of the source)[.]'' \904\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\903\ Id.
\904\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Information and Results: The proposed test information and
results category includes information collected during the
certification process, PLT testing, in-use testing programs, testing to
determine fuel economy, and testing performed during an SEA. This
category encompasses the actual test results themselves and information
necessary to understand how the test was conducted, and other
information to fully understand the results. We are proposing to
include in the test information and results category the certification
test results information, including emission test results which are
required under the standard-setting parts. Before introducing a source
into commerce, manufacturers must certify that the source meets the
applicable emission standards and emissions related requirements. To do
this, manufacturers conduct specified testing during the useful life of
a source and submit information related to those tests. Emission test
results are a straightforward example of emission data, as they
identify and measure the compounds emitted from the source during the
test. Furthermore, the tests were designed and are performed for the
explicit purpose of determining the identity, amount, frequency,
concentration, or other air quality characteristics of emissions from a
source. For these reasons, we propose to determine that test
information and results category is emission data because it is
necessary to determine the emissions emitted by a source.\905\ We are
also proposing that all the information in the test information and
results category, except fuel label information, meets another basis in
the emission data definition, as it is also ``[i]nformation necessary
to determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other
characteristics (to the extent related to air quality) of the emissions
which, under an applicable standard or limitation, the source was
authorized to emit (including, to the extent necessary for such
purposes, a description of the manner or rate of operation of the
source)[.]'' \906\ See Section XII.A.1.i.b for a more detailed
discussion for issues related to test information and results. See
Section XII.A.1.iv for additional discussion of fuel label information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\905\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A).
\906\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following test information and results are collected from the
PLT program: (1) For CI engines and vehicles: CO results, particulate
matter (PM) results, NOX results, NOX + HC
results, and HC results, and (2) for SI
[[Page 17613]]
engines and vehicles and for products subject to the evaporative
emission standards: Fuel type used, number of test periods, actual
production per test period, adjustments, modifications, maintenance,
test number, test duration, test date, end test period date, service
hours accumulated, test cycle, number of failed engines, initial test
results, final test results, and cumulative summation. Production line
testing is conducted under the standard-setting parts to ensure that
the sources produced conform to the certificate issued. PLT results are
emission test results and, for that reason, are among the most
straightforward examples of emission data, as they identify and measure
the compounds emitted from the source during the test. For example, the
measured amounts of specified compounds (like HC results, CO results,
and PM results) are measured emissions, the literal results of testing.
Similarly, the number of failed engines is emission data as it reflects
the results of emissions testing. Additionally, adjustments,
modifications, maintenance, and service hours accumulated are
information necessary for understanding the test results. We propose
that the information listed in this paragraph is necessary to
understand the context and conditions in which the test was performed,
like test number, test duration, test date, number of test periods,
actual production per test period, end test period, and is, therefore,
emission data because it is information necessary for understanding the
characteristics of the test as performed, the test results, and the
information that goes into the emissions calculations. Furthermore, PLT
is performed for the explicit purpose of determining the identity,
amount, frequency, concentration, or other air quality characteristics
of emissions from a source. For these reasons, we propose to determine
that test information and results category is emission data because it
is necessary to determine the emissions emitted by a source.\907\ Note,
we are also proposing that the PLT information in the test information
and results category meets another basis in the emission data
definition, as discussed in more detail in Section XII.A.1.i.b, as it
additionally provides ``[i]nformation necessary to determine the
identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other characteristics
(to the extent related to air quality) of the emissions which, under an
applicable standard or limitation, the source was authorized to emit
(including, to the extent necessary for such purposes, a description of
the manner or rate of operation of the source)[.]'' \908\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\907\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A).
\908\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed test information and results category also includes
the following information from the in-use testing program: A
description of how the manufacturer recruited vehicles, the criteria
use to recruit vehicles, the rejected vehicles and the reason they were
rejected, test number, test date and time, test duration and shift-days
of testing, weather conditions during testing (ambient temperature and
humidity, atmospheric pressure, and dewpoint), differential back
pressure, results from all emissions testing, total hydrocarbons (HC),
NMHC, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxygen, NOX, PM, and
methane, applicable test phase (Phase 1 or Phase 2), adjustments,
modifications, repairs, maintenance history, vehicle mileage at start
of test, fuel test results, total lifetime operating hours, total non-
idle operation hours, a description of vehicle operation during
testing, number of valid Not to Exceed (NTE) events, exhaust flow
measurements, recorded one-hertz test data, number of engines passed,
vehicle pass ratio, number of engines failed, outcome of Phase 1
testing, testing to determine why a source failed, the number of
incomplete or invalid tests, usage hours and use history, vehicle on
board diagnostic (``OBD'') system history, engine diagnostic system,
number of disqualified engines, and number of invalid tests. The in-use
testing information includes actual test results and the information
that goes into the emissions calculations. For example, the measured
amounts of specified compounds (like total HC) are measured emissions,
and adjustments, modifications, and repairs are information necessary
for understanding the test results. It is necessary to know if and how
a source has changed from its certified condition during its use, as
these changes may impact the source's emissions. Total lifetime
operating hours and usage hours information is also used to calculate
emissions during in-use testing. The diagnostic system information is
necessary for understanding emissions, as well, because it provides
context to and explains the test results; if an issue or question
arises from the in-use testing, the diagnostic system information
allows for greater understanding of the emissions performance.
Additionally, the number of disqualified engines is necessary to
determine the sources tested, if an end user has modified the source
such that it cannot be used for in-use testing, this directly relates
to the sources eligible for in-use testing and the emission
measurements resulting from those tests. For these reasons, we propose
to determine that the in-use testing information is emission data
because it is necessary to determine the emissions emitted by
sources.\909\ Note, we are also proposing that the in-use testing
information meets another basis in the emission data definition, as
discussed in more detail in Section XII.A.1.i.b, as it additionally
provides ``[i]nformation necessary to determine the identity, amount,
frequency, concentration, or other characteristics (to the extent
related to air quality) of the emissions which, under an applicable
standard or limitation, the source was authorized to emit (including,
to the extent necessary for such purposes, a description of the manner
or rate of operation of the source)[.]'' \910\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\909\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A).
\910\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also proposing that the test information and results
category include the underlying information necessary to determine the
adjusted and rounded fuel economy label values and the resulting label
values. The underlying information includes test result values that are
plugged into a calculation included in the standard-setting parts that
establish the fuel economy rating. These results represent emissions,
the rate at which they are released, and are necessary to understanding
the fuel economy rating. For these reasons, we propose that the fuel
economy label information is appropriately included in the test
information and results category. Accordingly, we propose to determine
that fuel economy label information is emission data because it is
necessary to determine the emissions emitted by sources.\911\ Note, we
are also proposing that a portion of the fuel economy label information
is not entitled to confidential treatment because it is required to be
publicly available and is discussed in more detail in Section
XII.A.1.iii. We are proposing in this rulemaking to supersede the 2013
class determination Table 3 for all fuel economy label information, but
our proposed CBI determination here applies only to a portion of the
fuel economy label information, as explained in Section XII.A.1.iv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\911\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing that the test information and results category
include the following information from SEA testing: The test procedure,
initial test results, rounded test results, final test results, final
deteriorated test results,
[[Page 17614]]
the number of valid tests conducted, the number of invalid tests
conducted, adjustments, modifications, repairs, test article
preparation, test article maintenance, and the number of failed engines
and vehicles. SEAs can be required of manufacturers that obtain
certificates of conformity for their engines, vehicles, and equipment.
SEA test information includes emission test results from tests
performed on production engines and equipment covered by a certificate
of conformity. These tests measure the emissions emitted from the test
articles; therefore, we propose that they are emission data and not
entitled to confidentiality. The information supporting the test
results, such as the number of valid tests conducted, the adjustments,
modifications, repairs, and maintenance regarding the test article, is
necessary to understand the test results and is, therefore, also
emission data. For these reasons, we also propose to determine that SEA
test information is appropriately grouped in test information and
results category and is emission data because it is necessary to
identify and determine the amount of emissions from a source.\912\ The
SEA test information, like all the information in the test information
and results category, is also emission data under another basis in the
emission data definition, as discussed in more detail in Section
XII.A.1.i.b, as it provides ``[i]nformation necessary to determine the
identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other characteristics
(to the extent related to air quality) of the emissions which, under an
applicable standard or limitation, the source was authorized to emit
(including, to the extent necessary for such purposes, a description of
the manner or rate of operation of the source)[.]'' \913\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\912\ Id.
\913\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production Volume: We are proposing to determine that the
production volume category is emission data and is not entitled to
confidential treatment because the information is necessary to
determine the total emissions emitted by the source, where the source
is the type of engine, vehicle, or equipment covered by a certificate
of conformity. The certificate of conformity for a source does not, on
its face, provide aggregate emissions information for all of the
sources covered by that certificate. Rather, it provides information
relative to each single unit of the source covered by a certificate.
The production volume is necessary to understand the amount, frequency,
and concentration of emissions emitted from the aggregate of units
covered by a single certificate that comprise the source. In other
words, unless there will only ever be one single engine, vehicle, or
equipment covered by the certificate of conformity, the emissions from
that source will not be expressed by the certificate and compliance
information alone. The total number of engines, vehicles, or equipment
produced, in combination with the certificate information, is necessary
to know the real-world impact on emissions from that source.
Additionally, the production volume is also collected for the purpose
of emission modeling. For example, engine population (the number of
engines in use) is used in the non-road emissions model to establish
emission standards. Production volume, when used in combination with
the other emission data we collect (certification test results, in-use
test results, defects and recalls, etc.), also allows EPA and
independent third parties to calculate total mobile source air
emissions. For these reasons, production volume is ``necessary to
determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other
characteristics (to the extent related to air quality) of any emission
which has been emitted by the source (or of any pollutant resulting
from any emission by the source), or any combination of the
foregoing[.]'' \914\ Note, we are also proposing to determine that the
production volume category meets another basis in the emission data
definition, as discussed in more detail in Section XII.A.1.i.c, as it
additionally provides ``[a] general description of the location and/or
nature of the source to the extent necessary to identify the source and
to distinguish it from other sources (including, to the extent
necessary for such purposes, a description of the device, installation,
or operation constituting the source).'' \915\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\914\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A).
\915\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defect and Recall Information: We propose to determine that the
defect and recall information category is emission data and not
entitled to confidential treatment because it is information necessary
to determine the emissions from a source that has been issued a
certificate of conformity.\916\ The only defects and recalls that
manufacturers or certificate holders are required to report to EPA are
ones that impact emissions or could impact emissions. Therefore, if a
defect or recall is reported to us, it is because it causes or may
cause increased emissions and information relating to that defect or
recall is necessarily emission data, as it directly relates to the
source's emissions. The proposed defect and recall information category
includes any reported emission data available. This information is the
available test results that a manufacturer has after conducting
emission testing, and an estimate of the defect's impact on emissions,
with an explanation of how the manufacturer calculated this estimate
and a summary of any available emission data demonstrating the impact
of the defect. Note, we are only proposing to determine that a portion
of the defect and recall information category is paragraph A
information. As discussed in Section XII.A.1.iv, we are not proposing
to make a confidentiality determination on the defect investigation
report at this time. We are also proposing to determine that the
information in this category, excluding the defect investigation
report, meets another basis in the emission data definition, as
discussed in more detail in Section XII.A.1.i.b, as it additionally
provides ``[i]nformation necessary to determine the identity, amount,
frequency, concentration, or other characteristics (to the extent
related to air quality) of the emissions which, under an applicable
standard or limitation, the source was authorized to emit (including,
to the extent necessary for such purposes, a description of the manner
or rate of operation of the source)[.]'' \917\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\916\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A).
\917\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(B) and (C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted throughout this section, the information included in the
proposed categories identified as paragraph A information could also
meet another prong of the definition of emission data.\918\ See Section
XII.A.1.i.b for our discussion of why we are proposing that this
information could also be emission data as defined at 40 CFR
2.301(a)(2)(i)(B). See Section XII.A.1.i.c for our discussion of why we
are proposing that this information could also be emission data as
defined at 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\918\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Information Necessary To Determine the Identity, Amount, Frequency,
Concentration, or Other Characteristics (to the Extent Related to Air
Quality) of the Emissions Which, Under an Applicable Standard or
Limitation, the Source Was Authorized To Emit (Including, to the Extent
Necessary for Such Purposes, a Description of the Manner or Rate of
Operation of the Source)
We are proposing that information within the proposed categories
[[Page 17615]]
explained in this subsection meets the regulatory definition of
emission data under 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(B) because it is
``[i]nformation necessary to determine the identity, amount, frequency,
concentration, or other characteristics (to the extent related to air
quality) of the emissions which, under an applicable standard or
limitation, the source was authorized to emit (including, to the extent
necessary for such purposes, a description of the manner or rate of
operation of the source)[.]'' We will refer to subparagraph (B) in the
definition of emission data as ``paragraph B information'' throughout
this section.
The vast majority of the information we collect for certification
and compliance fits within this subparagraph of the definition of
emission data. We are proposing that the following categories are
paragraph B information and not entitled to confidential treatment: (1)
Certification and compliance information, (2) ABT credit information,
(3) fleet value information, (4) production volumes, (5) test
information and results, (6) defect and recall information, and (7) SEA
compliance information. These categories are summarized here and
described in more detail below. Certification and compliance
information category includes information that is submitted in
manufacturers' certificate of conformity applications and information
reported after the certificate is issued to ensure compliance with both
the certificate and the applicable standards, which is required under
EPA's regulation. ABT credit information shows whether a manufacturer
participating in an ABT program has complied with the applicable
regulatory standards. Additionally, fleet value information is
collected in order to calculate average and total emissions for a fleet
of sources, thereby demonstrating compliance with the applicable
regulatory standards when a manufacturer participates in an ABT program
or for fleet averaging programs. A portion of the test and test result
category of information is distinguishable under the paragraph A
information basis. This portion of the test information and results
category includes information that explains how the tests and test
results demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards and is
identified and discussed in this section. The test information and
results described in Section XII.A.1.i.a is also necessary to
understand whether a source is in compliance with the applicable
standard-setting parts; however, we are only describing information
once in this preamble, though it may qualify under more than one
subparagraph of the emission data definition. The SEA compliance
information category includes information related to understanding how
the results of the SEA reflect whether a source was in compliance with
the applicable standard-setting parts. Consistent with 40 CFR
2.301(a)(2)(ii), under this proposed determination, we would not
release information included in an application for certification prior
to the introduction-into-commerce-date, except under the limited
circumstances already provided for in that regulatory provision. The
introduction-into-commerce-date is specified in an application for
certification, or in the certificate itself if the certificate is
issued after the introduction-into-commerce-date.
These categories apply to information submitted for certification
and compliance reporting across the standard-setting parts. These
categories make up the largest amount of information addressed by the
proposed confidentiality determinations.
Certification and Compliance Information: Once a source is
certified as conforming to applicable emission standards (i.e., the
source has a certificate of conformity), all sources the manufacturer
produces under that certificate must conform to the requirements of the
certificate for the useful life of the source. In short, a source's
compliance is demonstrated against the applicable certificate of
conformity through inspection and testing conducted by EPA and the
manufacturers. Therefore, certification and compliance information
falls under subparagraph B of emission data because it is ``necessary
to determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other
characteristic (to the extent related to air quality) of the emissions
which, under an applicable standard or limitation, the source was
authorized to emit (including, to the extent necessary for such
purposes, a description of the manner or rate of operation of the
source)[.]'' \919\ The certification and compliance information
category includes models and parts information, family determinants,
general emission control system information, and certificate request
information (date, requester, etc.), contact names, importers, agents
of service, and ports of entry used. The models and parts information
is necessary to determine that the sources actually manufactured
conform to the specifications of the certificate. Lastly, certificate
request information is general information necessary to identify the
applicable certificate of conformity for a source, as well as
understanding the timing and processing of the request. For these
reasons, we propose to determine certificate information is emission
data because it is necessary to determine whether a source has achieved
compliance with the applicable standards.\920\ Note, we are also
proposing that a portion of the category of certification and
compliance information meets another basis in the emission data
definition, as discussed in more detail in Section XII.A.1.i.c, as it
additionally provides ``[a] general description of the location and/or
nature of the source to the extent necessary to identify the source and
to distinguish it from other sources (including, to the extent
necessary for such purposes, a description of the device, installation,
or operation constituting the source).'' \921\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\919\ Id.
\920\ Id.
\921\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABT Credit Information: ABT programs are an option for compliance
with certain emissions standards. In ABT programs, manufacturers may
generate credits when they certify that their vehicles, engines, and
equipment achieve greater emission reductions than the applicable
standards require. ``Averaging'' within ABT programs means exchanging
emission credits between vehicle or engine families within a given
manufacturer's regulatory subcategories and averaging sets. This can
allow a manufacturer to certify one or more vehicle or engine families
within the same averaging set at levels worse than the applicable
emission standard under certain regulatory conditions. The increased
emissions over the standard would need to be offset by one or more
vehicle or engine families within that manufacturer's averaging set
that are certified better than the same emission standard, such that
the average emissions from all the manufacturer's vehicle or engine
families, weighted by engine power, regulatory useful life, and
production volume, are at or below the level required by the applicable
standards. ``Banking'' means the retention of emission credits by the
manufacturer for use in future model year averaging or trading.
``Trading'' means the exchange of emission credits between
manufacturers, which can then be used for averaging purposes, banked
for future use, or traded again to another manufacturer. The proposed
ABT credit information category includes a manufacturer's banked
credits,
[[Page 17616]]
transferred credits, traded credits, total credits, credit balance, and
annual credit balance. Because manufacturers participating in ABT
programs use credits to demonstrate compliance with the applicable
standards, ABT information is ``necessary to determine the identity,
amount, frequency, concentration, or other characteristic (to the
extent related to air quality) of the emissions which, under an
applicable standard or limitation, the source was authorized to emit
(including, to the extent necessary for such purposes, a description of
the manner or rate of operation of the source)[.]'' \922\ For these
reasons, we propose to determine ABT credit information is emission
data because it is necessary to determine whether a source has achieved
compliance with the applicable standards.\923\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\922\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(B).
\923\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet Value Information: ABT credit information must be reviewed in
conjunction with the fleet value information, which underlies a
manufacturer's credit balance. The two categories are distinct from
each other, though the information under the two categories is closely
related. In addition to reasons described in Section XII.A.1.i.a, fleet
value information is also used for compliance reporting under ABT
programs, though some fleet value information is collected during
certification for the on-highway sectors. The proposed fleet value
information category includes: Source classification, averaging set,
engine type or category, conversion factor, engine power, payload tons,
intended application, advanced technology (``AT'') indicator, AT
CO2 emission, AT improvement factor, AT CO2
benefit, innovative technology (``IT'') indicator, IT approval code,
and IT CO2 improvement factor. Additionally, the proposed
fleet value information category includes the following for light-duty
vehicles and engines, non-road SI engines, and products subject to
evaporative emission standards: Total area of the internal surface of a
fuel tank, adjustment factor, and deterioration factor. Fleet value
information is used in ABT programs to explain and support a
manufacturer's ABT credit balance. For the standard-setting parts that
require a fleet average compliance value, the fleet value information
is used to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standard setting
parts. For these reasons, we propose to determine that the fleet value
information category is emission data because it is information
necessary to understand the ABT compliance demonstration and compliance
with the fleet average value, as applicable.\924\ Additionally, a
portion of the fleet value information is emission data, as described
in Section XII.A.1.i.a, because it is ``necessary to determine the
identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other characteristics
(to the extent related to air quality) of any emission which has been
emitted by the source (or of any pollutant resulting from any emission
by the source), or any combination of the foregoing[.]'' \925\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\924\ Id.
\925\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production Volumes: The production volume category is emission data
because it is necessary to determine compliance with the standards when
a manufacturer meets requirements in an ABT credit, PLT, or in-use
testing program, and also for GHG fleet compliance assessment. When a
manufacturer is subject to these programs, the production volume is
necessary to determine whether that manufacturer has complied with the
applicable standards and limitations. In ABT programs, the averages
used to calculate credit balances are generated based on the production
volumes of the various families certified. For GHG standards
compliance, manufacturers comply based on their overall fleet average,
therefore, the production volume is necessary to calculate the fleet
average and whether the manufacturers' fleet complies with the
applicable standards. For these reasons, we propose that production
volume information is necessary to understanding the calculations
behind a manufacturer's credit generation and use, as well as a
manufacturer's fleet average, which are then used to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable standards.\926\ Additionally, for PLT
and in-use testing, production volumes are used to determine whether
and how many sources are required to be tested or, in some cases,
whether the testing program needs to be undertaken at all. In this way,
production volume is tied to compliance with the PLT and in-use testing
requirements and is paragraph B information necessary for demonstrating
compliance with an applicable standard. Note, we are proposing to
determine that the production volume category is emission data for
multiple reasons, as discussed in Sections X.A.1.i.a and X.A.1.i.c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\926\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Information and Results: The proposed test information and
results category includes the testing conducted by manufacturers and is
necessary to demonstrate that the test parameters meet the requirements
of the regulations. This ensures that the test results are reliable and
consistent. If a test does not meet the requirements in the applicable
regulations, then the results cannot be used for certification or
compliance purposes. The parameters and underlying information of an
emissions test is information necessary to understanding the test
results themselves. Adjustable parameter information is necessary to
understand the tests used to certify a source and, therefore, also
necessary to understand the test results and whether the source
achieved compliance with the applicable standard. For these reasons, we
propose that the test information and results category is ``necessary
to determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other
characteristic (to the extent related to air quality) of the emissions
which, under an applicable standard or limitation, the source was
authorized to emit (including, to the extent necessary for such
purposes, a description of the manner or rate of operation of the
source[.]'' \927\ Test information and results collected under the
standard-setting parts includes the following: Test temperature,
adjustable test parameters, exhaust emission standards and family
emission limits (FELs), emission deterioration factors, fuel type used,
intended application, CO standard, particulate matter (``PM'')
standard, NOX + HC standard, NOX standard, HC
standard, CO2 alternate standard, alternate standard
approval code, CO2 family emission limit (``FEL''),
CO2 family certification level (``FCL''), NOX and
NMHC + NOX standard, NOX and NMHC +
NOX alternate standard, N2O standard,
N2O FEL, CH4 standard, CH4 FEL,
NOX or NMHC + NOX FEL, PM FEL, test number, test
time, engine configuration, green engine factor, the test article's
service hours, the deterioration factor type, test location, test
facility, the manufacturer's test contact, fuel test results, vehicle
mileage at the start of the test, exhaust aftertreatment temperatures,
engine speed, engine brake torque, engine coolant temperature, intake
manifold temperature and pressure, throttle position, parameter sensed,
emission-control system controlled, fuel-injection timing, NTE
threshold, limited testing region, meets vehicle pass criteria (i.e.,
whether the test passes the applicable emission standard), number of
engines tested, number of engines still needing to be tested, number of
engines passed,
[[Page 17617]]
purpose of diagnostics, instances for OBD illuminated or set trouble
codes, instance of misfuelling, incomplete or invalid test information,
the minimum tests required, diagnostic system, and the number of
disqualified engines. For the reasons given, we propose to determine
that test information and results is emission data because it is both
necessary to understand how the source meets the applicable standards,
including, but not limited to, ABT compliance demonstrations, and to
ensure a source is complying with its certificate of conformity.\928\
Additionally, we are proposing that a portion of the information
included in the test information and results category meets another
basis in the emission data definition, as discussed in more detail in
Section XII.A.1.i.a, as it is also ``[i]nformation necessary to
determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other
characteristics (to the extent related to air quality) of any emission
which has been emitted by the source (or of any pollutant resulting
from any emission by the source), or any combination of the
foregoing[.]'' \929\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\927\ Id.
\928\ Id.
\929\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defect and Recall Information: We propose to determine that the
defect and recall information category is emission data and not
entitled to confidential treatment because it is information necessary
to determine compliance with an applicable standard or limitation.\930\
The only defects and recalls that manufacturers are required to report
to EPA are ones that impact emissions or could impact emissions.
Therefore, if a defect is reported to us, it is because it causes or
may cause increased emissions and information relating to that defect
is necessarily emission data, as it directly relates to the source's
compliance with an applicable standard. The proposed defect and recall
information category, including information collected under the
standard-setting parts, includes: System compliance reporting type, EPA
compliance report name, manufacturer compliance report, manufacturer
compliance report identifier, contact identifier, process code,
submission status, EPA submission status and last modified date,
submission creator, submission creation date, last modified date, last
modified by, EPA compliance report identifier, compliance report type,
defect category, defect description, defect emissions impact estimate,
defect remediation plan explanation, drivability problems description,
emission data available indicator, OBD MIL illumination indicator,
defect identification source/method, plant address where defects were
manufactured, certified sales area, carline manufacturer code,
production start date, defect production end date, total production
volume of affected engines or vehicles, estimated or potential number
of engines or vehicles affected, actual number identified, estimated
affected percentage, make, model, additional model identifier, specific
displacement(s) impacted description, specific transmission(s) impacted
description, related defect report indicator, related EPA defect report
identifier, related defect description, remediation description,
proposed remedy supporting information, description of the impact on
fuel economy of defect remediation, description of the impact on
drivability from remediation, description of the impact on safety from
remediation, recalled source description, part availability method
description, repair performance/maintenance description, repair
instructions, nonconformity correction procedure description,
nonconformity estimated correction date, defect remedy time, defect
remedy facility, owner demonstration of repair eligibility description,
owner determination method description, owner notification method
description, owner notification start date, owner notification final
date, number of units involved in recall, calendar quarter, calendar
year, quarterly report number, related EPA recall report/remedial plan
identifier, number of sources inspected, number of sources needing
repair, number of sources receiving repair, number of sources
ineligible due to improper maintenance, number of sources ineligible
for repair due to exportation, number of sources ineligible for repair
due to theft, number of sources ineligible for repair due to scrapping,
number of sources ineligible for repair due to other reasons,
additional owner notification indicator, and the number of owner
notifications sent. We are not proposing to include defect
investigation reports in this proposed category, and instead we propose
to continue with the part 2 process as described in Section XII.A.1.iv
for defect investigation reports. Additionally, we are proposing that a
portion of the information included in this category meets another
basis in the emission data definition, as discussed in more detail in
Section XII.A.1.i.a, as it is also ``[i]nformation necessary to
determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other
characteristics (to the extent related to air quality) of any emission
which has been emitted by the source (or of any pollutant resulting
from any emission by the source), or any combination of the
foregoing[.]'' \931\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\930\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(B).
\931\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEA Compliance Information: We are proposing that the SEA
compliance information category is emission data because it is
necessary to determine whether a source is in compliance with its
certificate and the standards. This proposed category includes the
facility name and location where the SEA was conducted, number of tests
conducted, model year, build date, hours of operation, location of
accumulated hours, the date the engines shipped, how the engines were
stored, and, for imported engines, the port facility and date of
arrival. This information collected through SEAs is necessary for
determining whether a source that was investigated through an SEA is in
compliance with the applicable standards. For that reason, EPA is
proposing to make a determination that this category is emission data
as defined at 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(B). Additionally, certain
information collected during an SEA is included in the test information
and results category. We propose that SEA compliance information is
emission data because it is both paragraph B information and
``[i]nformation necessary to determine the identity, amount, frequency,
concentration, or other characteristics (to the extent related to air
quality) of any emission which has been emitted by the source (or of
any pollutant resulting from any emission by the source), or any
combination of the foregoing[.]'' \932\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\932\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Information That Is Emission Data Because It Provides a General
Description of the Location and/or Nature of the Source to the Extent
Necessary To Identify the Source and To Distinguish It From Other
Sources (Including, to the Extent Necessary for Such Purposes, a
Description of the Device, Installation, or Operation Constituting the
Source)
We are proposing that certain categories of information meet the
regulatory definition of emission data under 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(C)
because they convey a ``[g]eneral description of the location and/or
nature of the source to the extent necessary to identify the source and
to distinguish it from other sources (including, to the extent
necessary for such purposes, a description of the device, installation,
or
[[Page 17618]]
operation constituting the source).'' \933\ We will refer to
subparagraph (C) in the definition of emission data as ``paragraph C
information'' throughout this section. We are proposing that two
categories of information fall primarily under this regulatory
definition of emissions data: (1) Source family information, and (2)
production volume information. We propose these categories are
paragraph C information and are, therefore, emission data and would not
be entitled to confidential treatment. However, under this proposed
determination, consistent with 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(ii), we would not
release information included in an application for certification prior
to the introduction-into-commerce-date, except under the limited
circumstances already provided for in that regulatory provision. The
introduction-into-commerce-date is specified in an application for
certification or in the certificate itself, if the certificate is
issued after the introduction-into-commerce-date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\933\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Family Information: The information included in the source
family information category includes engine family information, vehicle
family information, evaporative family information, equipment family
information, subfamily name, engine family designation, emission family
name, and test group information. The engine, vehicle, and evaporative
family information includes information necessary to identify the
emission source for which the certificate was issued; this determines
the emission standards that apply to the source and distinguishes the
source's emissions from other sources. Manufacturers request
certification using the family name of the engines, vehicles, or
equipment they intend to produce for sale in the United States. Test
group information identifies the sources tested and covered by a
certificate. The source family is the basic unit used to identify a
group of sources for certification and compliance purposes. The source
family is a code with 12 digits that identifies all parts of that
particular source. More specifically, information conveyed in the
source family code include the model year, manufacturer, industry
sector, engine displacement, and the manufacturer's self-designated
code for the source family. We are proposing that the source family
information category of information is emission data because it is
information that provides a ``[g]eneral description of the location
and/or nature of the source to the extent necessary to identify the
source and to distinguish it from other sources (including, to the
extent necessary for such purposes, a description of the device,
installation, or operation constituting the source).'' \934\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\934\ 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production Volume: Additionally, we are proposing that production
volume is emission data necessary to identify the source. Where the
source is each individual engine, vehicle, or equipment produced, the
production volume provides information necessary for EPA or the public
to identify that source (the certificate only identifies one source,
where the production volume identifies all the sources) and distinguish
that source's emissions from the emissions of other sources. In other
words, actual production volume provides necessary information to
identify the number of sources operating under a certificate of
conformity and distinguish their total emissions from other sources. In
this way, the total number of sources operating under a certificate of
conformity provides a ``[g]eneral description . . . of nature of the
source'' or, alternatively, provides information necessary such that
the source can be identified in total, since it is generally unlikely
that only a single unit of any engine, vehicle, or equipment would be
produced under a certificate. For this additional reason, we are
proposing to determine that the production volume category is emission
data, not only for the reasons provided in Sections X.A.1.i.a and b,
but also because it also provides a ``[g]eneral description of the
location and/or nature of the source to the extent necessary to
identify the source and to distinguish it from other sources
(including, to the extent necessary for such purposes, a description of
the device, installation, or operation constituting the source).''
\935\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\935\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. EPA Will Treat Preliminary and Superseded Information With the Same
Confidentiality Treatment It Provides to the Final Reported Information
In the course of certifying and demonstrating compliance,
manufacturers may submit information before the applicable deadline,
and that information may be updated or corrected before the deadline
for certification or compliance reporting. Similarly, manufacturers
routinely update their applications for certification to include more
or different information. EPA views this information as Agency records
as soon as it is received through the Engine and Vehicle Certification
Information System (EVCIS). We are proposing to apply the same
confidentiality determinations to this ``early'' information by
category as is applied to information included in the final
certification request or compliance report in the categories generally.
However, EPA does not intend to proactively publish or release such
preliminary or superseded information, because we believe that the
inclusion of preliminary information in Agency publications could lead
to an inaccurate or misleading understanding of emissions or of a
manufacturer's compliance status. Note, since such early information
are Agency records upon receipt, we may be obligated to release
information from those preliminary or superseded documents that does
not qualify as CBI if a FOIA requester specifically identifies such
pre-final information in the FOIA request. EPA also does not intend to
disclose information in submitted reports until we have reviewed them
to verify the reports' accuracy, though the Agency may be required to
release such information if it is specifically requested under the
FOIA. We request comment on how the Agency can treat this kind of
preliminary or superseded information to protect the public from
incomplete or inaccurate information.
iii. Information That Is Never Entitled to Confidential Treatment
Because It Is Publicly Available or Discernible Information or Becomes
Public After a Certain Date.
We are also proposing to determine that information that is or
becomes publicly available under the applicable standard-setting parts
is not entitled to confidential treatment by EPA. Information submitted
under the standard-setting parts generally becomes publicly available
in one of two ways: (1) Information is required to be publicly
disclosed under the standard-settings parts, or (2) information becomes
readily measurable or observable after the introduction to commerce
date. Information that is required to be publicly available under the
standard-setting parts includes: Information contained in the fuel
economy label, the vehicle emission control information (``VECI'')
label, the engine emission control information label, owner's manuals,
and information submitted by the manufacturer expressly for public
release. The information in the labels is designed to make the public
aware of certain emissions related information and thus is in no way
confidential. Similarly, manufacturers submit documents specifically
prepared for public disclosure to EPA with the
[[Page 17619]]
understanding that they are intended for public disclosure. We propose
that these public facing documents are not entitled to confidential
treatment, as they are prepared expressly for public availability.
Additionally, we propose to determine that the information provided in
the list below that is measurable or observable by the public after the
source is introduced into commerce is not entitled to confidential
treatment by EPA after the introduction to commerce date. This
information may be emission data and included in the one of the
categories proposed in this action, accordingly, we propose that it is
emission data as described in Section XII.A.1.i. The fact that this
information is or becomes publicly available is an additional reason
for it to be not entitled to confidential treatment after the
introduction into commerce date. This information includes: Model and
parts information, source footprint information, manufacturer, model
year, category, service class, whether the engine is remanufactured,
engine type/category, engine displacement, useful life, power, payload
tons, intended application, model year, fuel type, tier, and vehicle
make and model. Footprint information is readily observable by the
public after the introduction to commerce date, as one can measure and
calculate that value once the source is introduced into commerce.
Additionally, models and parts information is also readily available to
the public after the source is introduced into commerce. Because this
information is publicly available, it is not entitled to confidential
treatment. Though EPA is also proposing that these proposed categories
containing this information are not entitled to confidential treatment
because they are emission data, as described in Section XI.A.1.i, the
fact that the information becomes public after introduction to commerce
is an additional basis for determining that the information is not
entitled to confidential treatment. Therefore, we would not provide any
additional notice or process prior to releasing this information in the
future.
iv. Information Not Included in This Rule's Proposed Determinations
Would Be Treated as Confidential, if the Submitter Claimed it as Such,
Until a Confidentiality Substantiation Is Submitted and a Determination
Made Under the 40 CFR Part 2 Process.
We are not proposing to make a confidentiality determination under
40 CFR 1068.11 for certain information submitted to us for
certification and compliance. This information, if claimed as
confidential by the submitters, would be treated by EPA as confidential
until such time as it is requested under the FOIA or EPA otherwise goes
through a case-by-case or class determination process. At that time, we
would pursue a confidentiality determination in accordance with 40 CFR
part 2, and as proposed in this rulemaking under 40 CFR 2.301(j)(4). We
are proposing to supersede the Table 3 CBI class determination made in
2013, such that the same categories of information in Table 3 would not
have an applicable class determination and would be subject to the part
2 process. The information we are not proposing to include in this
determination, and that would remain subject to the part 2 process,
includes:
(1) Projected production and sales,
(2) production start and end dates outside of the defect and
recall context,
(3) specific and detailed descriptions of the emissions control
operation and function,
(4) design specifications related to aftertreatment devices,
(5) specific and detailed descriptions of auxiliary emission
control devices (AECDs),
(6) plans for meeting regulatory requirements (e.g., ABT pre-
production plans),
(7) procedures to determine deterioration factors and other
emission adjustment factors and any information used to justify
those procedures,
(8) financial information related to ABT credit transactions
(including dollar amount, parties to the transaction and contract
information involved) and manufacturer bond provisions (including
aggregate U.S. asset holdings, financial details regarding specific
assets, whether the manufacturer or importer obtains a bond, and
copies of bond policies),
(9) serial numbers or other information to identify specific
engines or equipment selected for testing,
(10) procedures that apply based on the manufacturers request to
test engines or equipment differently than we specify in the
applicable standard-setting parts,
(11) information related to testing vanadium catalysts in 40 CFR
part 1065, subpart L (proposed in this rule),
(12) GPS data identifying the location and route for in-use
emission testing, and
(13) defect investigation reports. The information contained in
defect investigation reports may encompass both emission data and
information that may be CBI, so we are not proposing a determination
for this report as whole. Instead, procedurally we will treat these
reports in accordance with the existing part 2 process.
Additionally, we are proposing a category of information to include
information received through ``comments submitted in the comment
field,'' where EPA's compliance reporting software has comment fields
to allow manufacturers to submit clarifying information. We are not
proposing to make a determination on this broad category of potential
information at this time, as the comments may or may not contain
emission data. Therefore, EPA is proposing to undertake a case-by-case
determination pursuant to part 2 for any information provided in a
comment field. After further consideration, EPA is also not proposing
to make a determination at this time regarding whether the information
in Table 3 of the 2013 determination may meet the definition of
emission data or otherwise may not be entitled to confidential
treatment in certain circumstances under individual standard-setting
parts, and instead thinks that a case-by-case determination process is
better suited to these categories of information.
2. Adjustable Parameters
One of the goals of the certification process is to ensure that the
emission controls needed to meet emission standards cannot be bypassed
or rendered inoperative. Consistent with this goal, the standard-
setting parts generally require that engines, vehicles, and equipment
with adjustable parameters meet all the requirements of part 1068 for
any adjustment in the physically adjustable range. This applies for
testing pre-production engines, production engines, and in-use engines.
The underlying principles of the current regulations and policy can
be traced to the early emission standards for mechanically controlled
engines. The regulations at 40 CFR 86.094-22(e) illustrate how the
relevant provisions currently apply for heavy-duty highway engines. The
earliest generation of engines with emission control technology subject
to emission standards included components such as simple screws to
adjust a variety of engine operating parameters, including fuel-air
ratio and idle speed. Owners were then able to adjust the engines based
on their priority for power, efficiency, or durability. At the same
time, manufacturers sought to reduce emissions by limiting the physical
range of adjustment of these parameters, so EPA developed regulations
to ensure that the engines' limitations were sufficiently robust to
minimize operation outside the specified range (48 FR 1418, January 12,
1983).
Since then, heavy-duty highway engine manufacturers have developed
new technologies that did not exist when we adopted the existing
regulations related to adjustable parameters. The regulations at 40 CFR
86.094-22(e) therefore provide a limited framework under which to
administer
[[Page 17620]]
the current certification for heavy-duty highway engines. Current
certification practice consists of applying these broad principles to
mechanically controlled operating parameters in a way that is similar
for both highway and nonroad applications. EPA developed guidance with
detailed provisions for addressing adjustable parameters at
certification for land-based nonroad spark-ignition engines below 19
kW.\936\ Electronically controlled operating parameters have generally
not been treated as adjustable parameters, except that manufacturers
need to identify all available operating modes (such as eco-performance
or rabbit/turtle operation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\936\ ``Clean Air Act Requirements for Small Nonroad Spark-
Ignition Engines: Reporting Adjustable Parameters and Enforcement
Guidance,'' EPA Guidance CD-12-11, August 24, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers are required by existing regulations to describe in
their application for certification how they address potentially
adjustable operating parameters. As with all elements of certification,
the regulations require manufacturers to use good engineering judgment
for decisions related to adjustable parameters. The regulations also
describe a process for manufacturers to ask for preliminary approval
for decisions related to new technologies, substantially changed engine
designs, or new methods for limiting adjustability. See, for example,
40 CFR 1039.115 and 1039.210.
We are proposing a new 40 CFR 1068.50 to update the current
regulatory provisions to better describe how the established principles
and requirements related to adjustable parameters also apply for
current technologies. Thus, the new provisions would describe how our
established principles regarding adjustable parameters apply for the
full range of emission control technologies.
The proposed provisions are largely based on the regulations that
already apply for highway engines and vehicles under 40 CFR 86.094-
22(e) and 86.1833-01. Most of what we are proposing in 40 CFR 1068.50
is an attempt to codify in one place a set of provisions that are
consistent with current practice. Some proposed provisions may
represent new or more detailed approaches, as described further below,
especially in the context of electronic controls. The proposed
provisions in 40 CFR 1068.50 are intended to apply broadly across EPA's
engine, vehicle, and equipment programs. The proposed language attempts
to capture the full range of engine technologies represented by spark-
ignition and compression-ignition engines used in highway, nonroad, and
stationary applications. We are accordingly proposing to apply the new
provisions for all the types of engines, vehicles and equipment that
are broadly subject to 40 CFR part 1068, as described in 40 CFR 1068.1.
For example, the proposed provisions would apply for nonroad sectors
and for heavy-duty highway engines, but not for highway motorcycles or
motor vehicles subject to standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. As
with other provisions in 40 CFR part 1068, if the standard-setting part
specifies some provisions that are different than 40 CFR 1068.50, the
provisions in the standard-setting part would apply instead of the
provisions in 40 CFR 1068.50. For example, we propose to continue to
rely on the provisions related to adjusting air-fuel ratios in 40 CFR
part 1051 for recreational vehicles in addition to the new provisions
from 40 CFR 1068.50. We are also proposing some minor adjustments to
the regulatory provisions in the standard-setting parts to align with
the proposed language in 40 CFR 1068.50.
i. Operating Parameters, Adjustable Parameters, and Statement of
Adjustable Range
The proposed regulations would codify the different meanings of the
terms ``operating parameter'' and ``adjustable parameter''. As
proposed, ``operating parameter'' would generally mean any feature that
can, by the nature of its design, be adjusted to affect emission
performance--whether that feature is a single component, a system of
components, or an electronic signal. This may include engine components
that are designed to be replaced. It may also include elements of
design involving consumption and replenishment, such as diesel exhaust
fluid (DEF) or hybrid batteries (see Section XII.A.2.i.c for a
discussion of these parameters). See proposed 40 CFR 1068.50(c).
Under the proposed regulations, an ``adjustable parameter'' would
generally be any operating parameter that is practically adjustable and
that can be adjusted using available tools in a way that affects
emissions without significantly degrading engine performance. For
example, while spark plug gap and valve lash are practically adjustable
operating parameters, we do not treat them as adjustable parameters
because adjusting them does not affect emissions without significantly
degrading engine performance. The following sections describe how we
propose to consider whether parameters are practically adjustable.
a. Mechanically Controlled Parameters
We propose in 40 CFR 1068.50(d)(1) that a mechanically controlled
parameter is considered ``not practically adjustable'' if adjustments
with ordinary tools take more than 15 minutes or involve service parts
that cost more than $30 for engines at or below 30 kW, or take more
than 60 minutes or involve service parts that cost more than $60 for
engines between 30 kW and 560 kW.\937\ This reference to ``ordinary
tools'' would include hand tools, solvents, or other supplies that are
available to the operator. Hand tools include screwdrivers, pliers,
hammers, awls, wrenches, electric screwdrivers, electric drills, and
any tools supplied by the manufacturer with the product. Any such items
that are sold at hardware stores, automotive parts supply stores, or on
the Internet are considered available. The proposed thresholds are
intended to be generally consistent with the provisions that apply
under current regulations but tailored to represent an appropriate
level of deterrence relative to typical maintenance experiences for the
different sizes of engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\937\ These costs are in 2020 dollars. Manufacturers would
adjust these values for certification by comparing to the most
recently available Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers
value published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics at https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/. The cost thresholds do not include
the cost of labor or the cost of any necessary tools or
nonconsumable supplies; the time thresholds refer to the time
required to access and adjust the parameter, excluding any time
necessary to purchase parts, tools, or supplies or to perform
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For engines at or above 560 kW, we propose to consider a
mechanically controlled parameter ``practically adjustable'' if the
parameter can be adjusted using any available tools. We would expect
this arrangement to cause manufacturers to take greater care for
limiting adjustability with engines at or above 560 kW. This is
appropriate because we expect owners of these low-volume, high-cost
engines are more likely to have ready access to experienced mechanics
to continuously manage the maintenance and performance of their
engines. For example, owners of marine vessels often have engineers
traveling with vessels to always be ready to perform extensive repairs
or maintenance as needed. Owners of engines at or above 560 kW also
commonly do their own work to substantially overhaul engines.
Mechanically controlled adjustable parameters usually have physical
limits or physical stops to limit the range of adjustability. We are
proposing to identify specific characteristics in 40 CFR 1068.50(e) to
illustrate how physical limits or stops should function
[[Page 17621]]
to control the adjustable range. For example, a physical stop defines
the limit of the range of adjustability for a mechanically controlled
adjustable parameter if operators cannot exceed the travel or rotation
limits using ordinary tools without causing damage exceeding specified
thresholds.
b. Electronically Controlled Parameters
We propose in 40 CFR 1068.50(d)(2) that electronically controlled
parameters would be considered ``practically adjustable'' if they can
be adjusted using any available tools (including devices that are used
to alter computer code). This would apply for engines with any degree
of electronic control. The proposed 40 CFR 1068.50(d) and (f) would
also include special provisions for determining whether electronic
control modules that can be adjusted by changing software or operating
parameters (``reflashed'') are practically adjustable and to determine
the practically adjustable range. First, where any of the following
characteristics apply for a given electronic parameter, it would be
considered practically adjustable:
If an engine family includes multiple algorithms that can
be selected or are easily accessible, the operating parameter would be
practically adjustable and each of the available settings would be
within the practically adjustable range.
If the manufacturer sells software (or other products)
that could be used to reflash the electronic control module, the
operating parameter would be practically adjustable and all those
settings would be within the practically adjustable range.
If the engines/equipment have other electronic settings
that can be adjusted using any available service tools (such as fuel
injection maps), the operating parameter would be practically
adjustable and all those settings would be within the practically
adjustable range.
Injection fuel maps and other similar electronic parameters would
not be considered practically adjustable if the manufacturer adequately
prevents access to the electronic control modules with encryption or
password protection consistent with good engineering judgment, such as
having adequate protections in place to prevent distribution and use of
passwords or encryption keys. Manufacturers would be able to exclude
electronic operating parameters from being considered adjustable
parameters (or identify them as adjustable parameters but narrow the
adjustable range) where they appropriately determine that the operating
parameters will not be subject to in-use adjustment; EPA would retain
the right to review such statements. The proposed regulations would
also allow us to specify conditions to ensure that the certified
configuration includes electronic parameter settings representing
adjustable ranges that reflect the expected range of in-use adjustment
or modification.
To address the safety, financial liability, operational, and
privacy concerns which can result from tampering, manufacturers,
industry organizations, and regulators have been working to develop
standards and design principles to improve the security of ECMs.\938\
Since security principles are constantly evolving as new threats are
identified, requiring them to be applied with specificity in an annual
emissions certification process could be problematic. In addition,
manufacturers may choose to utilize different mixes of technical
standards or principles of those recommended by these organizations,
and a one-size-fits-all approach with detailed requirements for ECM
security would be neither practical nor prudent. Manufacturers need the
flexibility to quickly implement measures to address new or emerging
threats and vulnerabilities. Accordingly, we are proposing that
manufacturers inform EPA of their ECM security measures at the time
they submit an application for certification. Manufacturers would be
required to identify and describe the measures they are using, whether
proprietary, industry technical standards, or a combination of both, to
prevent unauthorized access to the ECM. At a minimum, for determination
whether the parameter is an operating parameter or an adjustable
parameter this documentation would need to describe in sufficient
detail the measures that a manufacturer has used to: prevent
unauthorized access; ensure that calibration values, software, or
diagnostic features cannot be modified or disabled; and respond to
repeated, unauthorized attempts at reprogramming or tampering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\938\ See SAE J3061, ``Cybersecurity Guidebook for Cyber-
Physical Vehicle Systems,'' January 14, 2016. Efforts are also
underway to draft a cybersecurity agreement under the auspices of
the UNECE process for WP.29 (ISO/SAE J21434).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aftermarket fuel conversions for heavy-duty highway engines and
vehicles are a special case. We expect aftermarket converters to
continue their current practice of modifying engines to run on
alternative fuels under the clean alternative fuel conversion program
in 40 CFR part 85, subpart F. The anti-tampering provisions proposed in
40 CFR 1068.50 are not intended to interfere with actions aftermarket
converters may need to take to modify or replace ECMs as part of the
conversion process consistent with 40 CFR part 85, subpart F. The
proposed provisions direct manufacturers to prevent unauthorized access
to reprogram ECMs. Aftermarket converters would presumably need to
either use a replacement ECM with a full calibration allowing the
engine to run on the alternative fuel or perhaps create a piggyback ECM
that modifies the engine's calibration only as needed to accommodate
the unique properties of the alternative fuel. Aftermarket converters
could alternatively work with engine manufacturers to access and change
the engine's existing ECM programming for operation on the alternative
fuel. We request comment on any adjustment to the proposed regulatory
provisions that would be needed to address fuel conversions.
c. Consumption, Replenishment, and the Certified Configuration
Certain elements of design involving consumption and replenishment
may be considered adjustable parameters. Two significant examples are
DEF tank fill level and hybrid battery state of charge. The proposed
provisions in 40 CFR 1068.50(h) address these issues.
For these adjustable parameters, the range of adjustability is
determined based on the likelihood of in-use operation at a given point
in the physically adjustable range. We may determine that operation in
certain subranges within the physically adjustable range is
sufficiently unlikely that the subranges may be excluded from the
allowable adjustable range for testing. In such cases, the engines/
equipment are not required to meet the emission standards for operation
in an excluded subrange.
The proposal in 40 CFR 1068.50(h) describes how we would not
require new engines to be within the range of adjustability for a
certified configuration for adjustments related to consumption and
replenishment. Specifically, manufacturers would not violate the
prohibition in 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1) to introduce into commerce a
vehicle with an empty DEF tank or an uncharged hybrid battery.
Except for these special cases related to consumption and
replenishment, engines are not in the certified configuration if
manufacturers produce them with adjustable parameters set outside the
range specified in the application for certification. Similarly,
engines are not in the certified configuration if manufacturers produce
them with other operating parameters
[[Page 17622]]
that do not conform to the certified configuration. Such engines would
therefore not be covered by a certificate of conformity and would
therefore be subject to the violation provisions of 40 CFR
1068.101(a)(1).
ii. Certification Process
The existing regulations in each standard-setting part describe how
manufacturers need to identify their adjustable parameters, along with
the corresponding physical stops and adjustable ranges. The existing
certification process includes a review of the manufacturer's specified
adjustable parameters, including consideration of the limits of
adjustability. This has generally focused on mechanically controlled
parameters. We consider the totality of the circumstances as we
determine whether a manufacturer's effort to prevent inappropriate
adjustment is adequate. See text further clarifying this principle in
proposed 40 CFR 1068.50(g). Under the existing certification process we
may also evaluate the appropriateness of a manufacturer's statement
regarding an adjustable parameter if we learn from observation of in-
use engines with such parameters or other information that a parameter
was in fact practically adjustable or that the specified adjustable
range was in fact not correct.
We are proposing to require manufacturers in the certification
application to state, with supporting justification, that they designed
mechanically controlled adjustable parameters to prevent in-use
operation outside the intended physically adjustable range, and that
they have restricted access to the electronic controls as specified in
the proposed 40 CFR 1068.50 to prevent in-use operation outside the
practically adjustable range.
We are proposing in this rule to clarify that manufacturers must
consider electronically controlled parameters to be operating
parameters that may also be adjustable. For example, engine
calibrations may include user-selectable settings for different
operating modes. Different operating modes may alternatively be
available for certain users with assistance from dealers or other
authorized service centers. All operating modes available for selection
by the operator must be described in the certification application and
are considered to fall within the engine's practically adjustable
range. The manufacturer would also describe in the certification
application how they have restricted access to the electronic controls
to prevent unauthorized modification of in-use engines. We would expect
manufacturers to follow accepted industry best practices to include
password restrictions, encryption, two-step authentication, and other
methods as appropriate. These practices will change over time and we
would expect manufacturers to implement those newer methods, especially
where there are observed cases of unauthorized changes to in-use
engines.
Manufacturers would name all available operating modes in the
application for certification and describe their approach for
restricting access to electronic controls. This description would
include naming any applicable encryption protocols, along with any
additional relevant information to characterize how the system is
designed to prevent unauthorized access. Manufacturers separately
identify information regarding their auxiliary emission control
devices. Manufacturers would not need to report additional detailed
programming information describing electronically adjustable operating
parameters that are unavailable to owners.
While EPA would still retain the right to review the manufacturer's
specified adjustable parameters in the certification process, the
manufacturer would be responsible for ensuring all aspects of the
manufacturer's statements regarding adjustable parameters are
appropriate for each certification application. EPA may review this
information each year to evaluate whether the designs are appropriate.
As industry practices evolve to improve tamper-resistance with respect
to electronic controls, we may require manufacturers to upgrade tamper-
resistance features to include more effective protocols in order to
support their statement that the electronic controls are both
restricted from unauthorized access and limited to the identified
practically adjustable range.
We are proposing to apply the new provisions in 40 CFR 1068.50
starting with model year 2024. This proposed implementation date would
allow time for updating EPA's certification software and procedures.
Manufacturers would continue to be required to meet existing
regulations related to adjustable parameters before model year 2024
under this proposal. The proposed provisions are intended to include
only modest changes for mechanically controlled parameters. As
described in Section XII.2.i.b, engine manufacturers have described
their significant efforts to limit unauthorized access to
electronically controlled parameters. We therefore expect that
manufacturers would not need additional time beyond model year 2024 to
comply with the new provisions. We request comment on whether this
proposal provides sufficient time to comply with all the proposed
provisions in 40 CFR 1068.50.
The proposed provisions in 40 CFR 1068.50 are not intended to limit
the tampering prohibition of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1) or the defeat device
prohibition of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(2). For example, it would be
prohibited tampering to bypass a manufacturer's stops. Similarly,
software that reduces the effectiveness of controls specified by the
manufacturer in the application for certification would be a prohibited
defeat device. See proposed 40 CFR 1068.50(k).
If EPA discovers that someone manufactures or installs a modified
ECM or reflashes an engine's ECM in a way that is not a certified
configuration represented in the application for certification, those
persons could be held liable for violating the tampering prohibition of
40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1) or the defeat-device prohibition in 40 CFR
1068.101(b)(2). As we gather information about cases where third
parties have successfully penetrated ECM access restrictions, under our
proposed regulations the manufacturer would be responsible in each
certification application for ensuring all aspects of the
manufacturer's statements regarding such adjustable parameters are
still appropriate and we may also engage with the manufacturer to see
if there is need or opportunity to upgrade future designs for better
protection.
iii. Engine Inspections
EPA may want to inspect engines to determine if they meet the
proposed specifications. These inspections could be part of the
certification process, or we could inspect in-use engines after
certification. For example, we may request a production line engine be
sent to an EPA designated lab for inspection to test the limits of the
adjustable parameters as described in proposed 40 CFR 1068.50(d)(1).
iv. Right To Repair
Several states are pursuing legislative initiatives to require
engine manufacturers and other companies to make it easier for owners
to repair or modify products. As described in Section IV.B.3, this
proposed rule includes several provisions intended to improve or
increase access to service information for owners and mechanics. Given
the complexity of modern engines, access to service information is
important to sustain the expectation that engines and their emission
controls will
[[Page 17623]]
continue to work properly over their operating life.
That objective does not extend to engines to the extent they rely
on electronic controls to manage engine operation to achieve the
required level of emission control. In fact, the proposed approach to
treat electronic controls without adequately restricted access as
adjustable parameters is intended specifically to prevent owners and
mechanics from being able to modify those electronic controls to allow
in-use operation outside of the practically adjustable range. Any state
regulation requiring manufacturers to provide access to these controls
would be directly in conflict with the Clean Air Act prohibition
against tampering with certified engines and the prohibition against
using defeat devices to circumvent emission standards.
3. Exemptions for Engines, Vehicles, and Equipment Under 40 CFR Part
1068, Subparts C and D
40 CFR part 1068, subparts C and D, describe various exemption
provisions for engines, vehicles and equipment that are subject to
emission standards and certification requirements. We are proposing to
amend several of these exemption provisions. The following paragraphs
use the term engines to refer generically to regulated engines,
vehicles and equipment.
The test exemption in 40 CFR 1068.210 applies for certificate
holders performing test programs ``over a two-year period''. We are
proposing to remove this time limitation. We may impose reasonable time
limits on the duration of the exemption for individual engines under
another existing provision (40 CFR 1068.210(e)). Such limitations may
take the form of a defined time period for manufacturers to produce
exempt engines, or a defined time period for individual engines to
remain in exempt status. This exemption applies for a wide range of
products and experience has shown that circumstances may call for the
exemption to apply for longer than (or less than) two years. We may
therefore continue to apply a two-year limit for producing or using
exempt engines based on a case-specific assessment of the need for the
exemption. We could alternatively identify a shorter or longer
exemption period based on the circumstances for each requested
exemption. The exemption approval could also allow test engines to
operate indefinitely, perhaps with additional conditions on modifying
the engine to include software or hardware changes that result from the
test program or other design improvements. This approach may be
appropriate for manufacturing one or more engines as part of a pilot
project to prove out designs and calibrations for meeting new emission
standards. Separate provisions apply for importing engines under the
testing exemption in 40 CFR 1068.325, which we discuss further later in
this section.
The display exemption in 40 CFR 1068.220 applies for using
noncompliant engines/equipment for display purposes that are ``in the
interest of a business or the general public.'' The regulation
disallows the display exemption for private use, private collections,
and any other purposes we determine to be inappropriate. We have been
aware of several cases involving displays we may have considered to be
in the interest of the general public but they did not qualify for the
display exemption because they were mostly for private use. Experience
has shown that it may be difficult to distinguish private and public
displays. For example, private collections are sometimes shared with
the general public. We are accordingly proposing to preserve the
fundamental limitation of the display exemption to cases involving the
interest of a business or the general public. We propose to revise 40
CFR 1068.220 to no longer categorically disallow the display exemption
for engines and vehicles displayed for private use or for engines in
private collections. We propose to retain the discretion to disallow
the display exemption for inappropriate purposes. This would apply, for
example, if engines or vehicles from a private collection will not be
displayed for the general public or for any business interest.
Consistent with longstanding policy, such private displays do not
warrant an exemption from emission standards.
The regulation defines provisions that apply for ``delegated
assembly'' of aftertreatment and other components in 40 CFR 1068.261.
Under the current regulation, manufacturers must follow a set of
detailed requirements for shipping partially complete engines to
equipment manufacturers to ensure that the equipment manufacturer will
fully assemble the engine into a certified configuration. A much
simpler requirement applies for engine manufacturers that produce
engines for installation in equipment that they also produce.
Manufacturers have raised questions about how these requirements apply
in the case of joint ventures, subsidiary companies, and similar
business arrangements. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 1068.261(b)
through (d) to clarify that the simpler requirements for intra-company
shipments apply for engines shipped to affiliated companies.
Conversely, engine manufacturers shipping partially complete engines to
any unaffiliated company would need to meet the additional requirements
that apply for inter-company shipments. We define ``affiliated
companies'' in 40 CFR 1068.30.
The identical configuration exemption in 40 CFR 1068.315(h) allows
for importation of uncertified engines that are identical to engines
that have been certified. This might apply, for example, for engines
that meet both European and U.S. emission standards but were originally
sold in Europe. We are proposing to modify the regulatory language from
``identical'' to ``identical in all material respects.'' This change
allows for minor variation in engines/equipment, such as the location
of mounting brackets, while continuing to require that engines/
equipment remain identical to a certified configuration as described in
the manufacturer's application for certification.
The ancient engine/equipment exemption in 40 CFR 1068.315(i)
includes an exemption for nonconforming engines/equipment that are at
least 21 years old that are substantially in their original
configuration. We originally adopted these for nonroad spark-ignition
engines in 2002 to align with a similar exemption that was in place for
light-duty motor vehicles (67 FR 68242, November 8, 2002). Now that
part 1068 applies for a much wider range of applications, many with
very long operating lives, it has become clear that this exemption is
no longer appropriate for importing nonconforming engines. Keeping the
exemption would risk compromising the integrity of current standards to
the extent importers misuse this provision to import high-emitting
engines. This was not the original intent of the exemption. We are
therefore proposing to remove the ancient engine/equipment exemption.
The identical configuration exemption will continue to be available to
allow importation of nonconforming engines/equipment that continue to
be in a configuration corresponding to properly certified engines.
The regulations at 40 CFR 1068.325 describe provisions that apply
for temporarily exempting engines/equipment from certification
requirements. As noted in the introduction to 40 CFR 1068.325, we may
ask U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to require a specific bond
amount to make sure importers comply with applicable requirements.
[[Page 17624]]
We use the imports declaration form (3520-21) to request CBP to require
a bond equal to the value of these imported engines/equipment for
companies that are not certificate holders. Several of the individual
paragraphs describing provisions that apply for specific exemptions
include a separate statement requiring the importer to post bond for
these products. We are proposing to remove the reference to the bond
requirement in the individual paragraphs because the introduction
addresses the bonding requirement broadly for all of 40 CFR 1068.325.
We are proposing to revise the diplomatic or military exemption at
40 CFR 1068.325(e) to clarify that someone qualifying for an exemption
would show written confirmation of being qualified for the exemption to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, not EPA. This may involve
authorization from the U.S. State Department or a copy of written
orders for military duty in the United States. Consistent with current
practice, EPA would not be involved in the transaction of importing
these exempted products, except to the extent that U.S. Customs and
Border Protection seeks input or clarification of the requirements that
apply.
The regulations at 40 CFR 1068.260(c) currently include an
exemption allowing manufacturers to ship partially complete engines
between two of their facilities. This may be necessary for assembling
engines in stages across short distances. It might also involve
shipping engines across the country to a different business unit under
the same corporate umbrella. The regulation at 40 CFR 1068.325(g)
includes additional provisions for cases involving importation. Multi-
national corporations might also import partially complete engines from
outside the United States to an assembly plant inside the United
States. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 1068.325(g) to require that
imported engines in this scenario have a label that identifies the name
of the company and the regulatory cite authorizing the exemption. This
would provide EPA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection with essential
information to protect against parties exploiting this provision to
import noncompliant engines without authorization.
Most of the exemptions that allow manufacturers to import
uncertified engines include labeling requirements to identify the
engine manufacturer and the basis of the exemption. We are proposing to
add a general requirement in 40 CFR 1068.301 to clarify that labels are
required on all exempted engines. In cases where there are no labeling
specifications for a given exemption, we are proposing to create a
default labeling requirement to add a label for exempted engines to
identify the engine manufacturer and the basis of the exemption.
4. Other Amendments to 40 CFR Part 1068
We are proposing the following additional amendments to 40 CFR Part
1068:
Section 1068.1: Clarifying how part 1068 applies for older
engines. This is necessary for nonroad engines certified to standards
under 40 CFR parts 89, 90, 91, 92, and 94 because those emission
standards and regulatory provisions have been removed from the CFR.
These amendments were inadvertently omitted from the rule to remove
those obsolete parts.
Section 1068.1: Clarifying how part 1068 applies for motor
vehicles and motor vehicle engines. Vehicles and engines certified
under part 86 are subject to certain provisions in part 1068 as
specified in part 86. Vehicles and engines certified under parts 1036
and 1037 are subject to all the provisions of part 1068. This
correction aligns with regulatory text adopted in previous rulemakings.
Section 1068.101(a): The regulations at 40 CFR 1068.101(a)
set forth the prohibitions that apply for engines and equipment that
are subject to EPA emission standards and certification requirements.
The regulation includes at 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2) a prohibition related
to reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Section 1068.101(a)(3)
similarly includes a prohibition to ensure that EPA inspectors have
access to test facilities. These prohibitions derive from CAA section
208(a), which applies the information and access requirements to
manufacturers ``and other persons subject to the requirements of this
part or part C.'' The very first provision of 40 CFR part 1068 at 40
CFR 1068.1(a) clearly makes the provisions of part 1068 applicable ``to
everyone with respect to the engine and equipment categories as
described in this paragraph (a)[. . . .] including owners, operators,
parts manufacturers, and persons performing maintenance''. However, the
regulation in 40 CFR 1068.101(a) as written inadvertently limits the
prohibitions to manufacturers. We are accordingly proposing to revise
the scope of the prohibitions in 40 CFR 1068.101(a) to apply to both
manufacturers and ``other persons as provided in 40 CFR 1068.1(a)'' in
accord with those in CAA section 203(a).
Section 1068.101(b)(5): Removing extraneous words.
Section 1068.240(a): Removing reference to paragraph (d)
as an alternative method of qualifying for the replacement engine
exemption. Paragraph (d) only describes some administrative provisions
related to labeling partially complete engines so it is not correct to
describe that as an additional ``approach for exempting'' replacement
engines.
Section 1068.240(b) and (c): Adding text to clarify that
owners may retain possession of old engines after installing an exempt
replacement engine. This is intended to address a concern raised by
engine owners that they generally expect to be able to continue to use
a replaced engine.\939\ Engine owners stated that they expect to use
the replaced engine for either replacement parts or continued use in a
different piece of equipment and were surprised to learn that engine
manufacturers were insisting that the owner turn ownership of the old
engine to the engine manufacturer. The existing regulation disallows
simply installing those replaced engines in a different piece of
equipment, but destroying the engine block and using the engine core as
a source of replacement parts is acceptable under the existing
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\939\ Email exchange regarding replacement engines, August 2020,
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 1068.601 and 1068.630: Adding provisions to
establish procedures for hearings related to an EPA decision to approve
maintenance procedures associated with new technology for heavy-duty
highway engines. As described in Section IV.B.5.v, we are proposing to
update regulatory provisions related to engine maintenance for heavy-
duty highway engines. Section XII.A.9 describes how we may eventually
extend those same provisions for nonroad engines. The provisions
proposed in this rule include a commitment for EPA to describe approved
maintenance for new technology in a Federal Register notice, along with
an allowance for any manufacturer to request a hearing to object to
EPA's decision. The general provisions related to hearing procedures in
40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, cover the maintenance-related hearing
procedures. We are proposing to amend the regulation to provide
examples of the reasons aa manufacturer may request a hearing,
including if a manufacturer believes certain EPA decisions may cause
harm to its competitive position, and to add detailed specifications
for requesting
[[Page 17625]]
and administering such a hearing for maintenance-related decisions for
heavy-duty highway engines.
5. Engine and Vehicle Testing Procedures (40 CFR Parts 1036, 1037, 1065
and 1066)
The regulations in 40 CFR part 1036, subpart F, 40 CFR part 1037,
subpart F, and 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066 describe emission measurement
procedures that apply broadly across EPA's emission control programs
for engines, vehicles, and equipment. This rule includes several
proposed amendments to these regulations.
We are proposing to delete the hybrid engine test procedure in 40
CFR 1036.525 as it was applicable only for model year 2014 to 2020
engines and has been replaced with the hybrid powertrain test procedure
for model 2021 and later engines in 40 CFR 1037.550.
We are proposing updates to the engine mapping test procedure in 40
CFR 1065.510. To generate duty cycles for each engine configuration,
engine manufacturers identify the maximum brake torque versus engine
speed using the engine mapping procedures of 40 CFR 1065.510. The
measured torque values are intended to represent the maximum torque the
engine can achieve under fully warmed-up operation when using the fuel
grade recommended by the manufacturer across the range of engine speeds
expected in real-world conditions. Historically, the mapping procedure
required the engine to stabilize at discrete engine speed points
ranging from idle to the electronically limited highest RPM before
recording the peak engine torque values at any given speed. We adopted
a provision in 40 CFR 1065.510(b)(5)(ii) that allows manufacturers to
perform a transient sweep from idle to maximum rated speed, which
requires less time than stabilizing at each measurement point.
The proposed updates to the engine mapping test procedure in 40 CFR
1065.510 are intended to ensure the resulting engine map achieves its
intended purpose. The current test procedure is intended to generate a
``torque curve'' that represents the peak torque at any specific engine
speed point. The transient sweep from idle to maximum rated speed can
create engine conditions that trigger electronic control features on
modern heavy-duty spark-ignition engines that result in lower-than-peak
torque levels. Engine control features that can cause variability in
the maximum torque levels include spark advance, fuel-air ratio, and
variable valve timing that temporarily alter torque levels to meet
supplemental goals (such as torque management for transmissions
shifts).\940\ If the engine map does not capture the true maximum
torque, the duty cycles generated using the map may not accurately
recreate the highest-load conditions that could lead to higher
emissions in the real-world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\940\ These AECDS are typically electronic controls that are
timer-based and initiated for a set duration. In a transient test,
measurements are taken continuously, and the controls remain
engaged; the same controls would ``time out'' if each measurement
was taken at stabilized conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to update 40 CFR 1065.510(b)(5)(ii) to require
that the torque curve established during the mapping procedure
represent the highest torque level possible when using the
manufacturer's recommended fuel grade. Specifically, we are proposing
to require manufacturers to disable electronic controls or other
auxiliary emission control devices if they are of a transient nature
and impact peak torque during the engine mapping procedure.\941\
Manufacturers would continue to implement their engine control during
the duty cycle tests, enabling their engines to react to the test
conditions as they would in real world operation. The proposed changes
to the mapping procedure would ensure the test duty cycle appropriately
represents torque output and emissions during high-load and transient
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\941\ These electronic controls would be reported as an AECD
using 40 CFR 1036.205(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There may be other ways to update the mapping procedure to ensure
maximum torque, such as a change to the order or duration of the torque
measurement points. We seek comment, including relevant data, on the
proposed procedure update as well as other approaches we should
consider.
This rule includes the following additional proposed amendments to
40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066:
Sections 1065.301 and 1065.1001: Revising NIST-
traceability requirements to allow the use of international standards
recognized by the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement without prior EPA
approval. The current regulation allows us to approve international
standards that are not NIST-traceable, but this was intended only to
accommodate laboratories in other countries that meet CIPM requirements
instead of following NIST-traceable protocols. With this approach there
would no longer be any need for a separate approval process for using
international standards that are not NIST-traceable. NIST-traceable
standards are traceable to the International System of Units (SI) as
specified in NIST Technical Note 1297, which is referenced in the
definition of NIST-traceable in 40 CFR part 1065. This same
traceability to the International System of Units is required of
standards recognized by the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement, thus
putting them on par with NIST-traceable standards.
Section 1065.298: Proposing a new 40 CFR 1065.298 to
codify the in-use particulate matter (PM) measurement method that
augments real-time PM measurement with gravimetric PM filter
measurement for field-testing analysis. This method has been approved
for use for over 10 years as an alternative method under 40 CFR 1065.10
and 1065.12.
Section 1065.410: Clarifying that manufacturers may
inspect engines using electronic tools to monitor engine performance.
For example, this may apply for OBD signals, onboard health monitors,
and other prognostic tools manufacturers incorporate into their engine
designs. As described in the current regulation, inspection tools are
limited to those that are available in the marketplace. This prevents
engine manufacturers from handling a test engine more carefully than
what would be expected with in-use engines. Extending that principle to
inspection with electronic tools, we propose to limit the use of those
inspections to include only information that can be accessed without
needing specialized equipment.
Section 1065.650(c)(6): Adding an allowance to determine
nonmethane nonethane hydrocarbon (NMNEHC) for engines fueled with
natural gas as 1.0 times the corrected mass of NMHC if the test fuel
has 0.010 mol/mol of ethane or more. This may result in a higher
reported NMNEHC emission value. The engine manufacturer may use this
method if reducing test burden is more important than the potential for
a slightly higher reported emission value.
Section 1065.720: Removing the test fuel specification
related to volatility residue for liquefied petroleum gas. The
identified reference procedure, ASTM D1837, has been withdrawn, at
least in part, due to limited availability of mercury thermometers.
There is no apparent replacement for ASTM D1837. Rather than proposing
an alternative specification for volatility residue, we would instead
rely on the existing residual matter specification based on the
measurement procedure in ASTM D2158. This alternative specification
should adequately address concerns about nonvolatile impurities in the
test fuel.
Section 1065.910(b): Adding a requirement to locate the
PEMS during field testing in an area that minimizes
[[Page 17626]]
the effects of ambient temperature changes, electromagnetic radiation,
shock, and vibration. This may involve putting the PEMS in an
environmental enclosure to reduce the effect of these parameters. We
are also proposing to remove (1) the recommendation to install the PEMS
in the passenger compartment because that does not necessarily lead to
better mitigation of temperature effects as the cab temperature can
vary during vehicle soaks, (2) ambient pressure as a parameter to
minimize as there are no known pressure effects on PEMS, and (3)
ambient hydrocarbon as a parameter because it is more of a PEMS design
issue that is handled with an activated carbon filter on the burner air
inlet, which is already covered in 40 CFR 1065.915(c).
Section 1065.920: Broadening the PEMS calibration and
verification requirements to make them applicable to the new emission
measurement bin structure being proposed in 40 CFR part 1036. The
verification is now generic to verifications for both NTE and binned
windows where you acquire a shift-day's worth of data over 6 to 9 hours
and then process the data as you would for an in-use test (either NTE
or binned windows) and compare the performance of the PEMS to the lab-
based measurement system.
Section 1065.935(d): Updating the zero and span
verification requirements to include new provisions for the emission
measurement bin structure being proposed in 40 CFR part 1036 and
retaining the current requirements for NTE testing only. The procedure
now includes the requirement to perform zero-verifications at least
hourly using purified air. Span verifications must be performed at the
end of the shift-day or more frequently based on the PEMS
manufacturer's recommendation or good engineering judgment.
Section 1065.935(g)(6): Adding a new paragraph to include
new drift limits instead of those in 40 CFR 1065.550 for the emission
measurement bin structure being proposed in 40 CFR part 1036. The
analyzer zero drift limit between the hourly or more frequent zero
verifications is 2.5 ppm, while the limit over the entire shift-day (or
more frequently if you perform zero-adjustments) is 10 ppm. The
analyzer span drift limit between the beginning and end of the shift-
day or more frequent span verification(s) or adjustment(s) must be
within 4 percent of the measured span value.
Sections 1065.1123, 1065.1125, and 1065.1127: Adding new
regulatory sections to migrate the smoke test procedure in 40 CFR part
86, subpart I, into 40 CFR part 1065. This would provide a common
location for the test procedure and analyzer requirements for all parts
that still require smoke measurement with the exception of locomotive
testing. The locomotive test procedure would continue to reside in 40
CFR part 1033, subpart F, as it is specific to locomotive testing and
operation at specific notches. No updates were made to the procedure
that would affect analyzer requirements and setup or how a laboratory
would report test results. For all engines required to carry out smoke
testing, other than locomotive engines, we are proposing to update
operation at curb idle speed to warm idle speed and rated speed to
maximum test speed. We believe this proposed change will not adversely
affect the acceleration and lugging operation modes of the test and
this update will now make smoke testing consistent with all other
engine-based testing that now use warm idle speed and maximum test
speed.
Part 1066, subpart D: Referencing an updated version of
SAE J2263 for coastdown measurements. The updated standard incorporates
EPA guidance for vehicles certified under 40 CFR part 86, subpart
S.\942\ The updated version of the test method also reduces the wind
speed allowed for performing measurements, allows for adding ballast to
vehicles if needed, and adds clarifying procedures for testing on oval
tracks. These changes align with current practice for light-duty
vehicles, and the changes would have no substantial effect for
measurements with heavy-duty vehicles. We are therefore proposing to
apply the updated version of SAE J2263 for all light-duty and heavy-
duty vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\942\ ``Determination and Use of Vehicle Road-Load Force and
Dynamometer Settings'', EPA Guidance Document CD-15-04, February 23,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1066.420: Adding the existing 40 CFR 86.140-94
requirement to zero and span calibrate the hydrocarbon analyzer by
overflowing the zero and span gas at the hydrocarbon sampling system
probe inlet during analyzer calibration when testing vehicles that are
14,000 GVWR or less. This requirement was inadvertently missed during
the migration of the light-duty test procedures to 40 CFR part 1066.
Section 1066.831: Removing the reference to 40 CFR part
1065 regarding how to measure THC emissions, as the method for
measuring THC emission is already covered in 40 CFR part 1066, subparts
B and E.
This rule includes additional proposed amendments that are regarded
as clarifications in the following sections of 40 CFR parts 1036, 1037,
1065, and 1066:
40 CFR 1036.501, 1036.503, 1036.505, 1036.510, 1036.527, 1036.530,
1036.535, 1036.540, and 1036.543; 40 CFR 1037.320, 1037.510, 1037.515,
1037.520, 1037.534, 1037.540, 1037.550, 1037.551, 1037.555, 1037.601,
1037.615, and 1037.725; 40 CFR 1065.1, 1065.5, 1065.10, 1065.12,
1065.140, 1065.190, 1065.210, 1065.284, 1065.301, 1065.305, 1065.307,
1065.308, 1065.309, 1065.315, 1065.320, 1065.325, 1065.330, 1065.345,
1065.350, 1065.410, 1065.501, 1065.510, 1065.512, 1065,514, 1065.545,
1065.610, 1065.650, 1065.655, 1065.660, 1065.667, 1065.680, 1065.695,
1065.715, 1065.720, 1065.790, 1065.901, 1065.915, 1065.920, 1065.1001,
and 1065.1005; and 40 CFR 1066.110, 1066.220, 1066.415, 1066.710,
1066.815, 1066.835, 1066.845, 1066.1001, and 1066.1005.
6. Vanadium-Based SCR Catalysts
In certain diesel engine applications vanadium-based SCR catalysts
may provide a performance and cost advantage over other types of
catalysts. However, vanadium material can sublime from the catalyst in
the presence of high exhaust gas temperatures.\943\ Sublimation of
vanadium catalyst material leads to reduced NOX conversion
efficiency of the catalyst and possible exposure of the public to
vanadium emissions. In 2016 EPA provided certification guidance to
manufacturers of diesel engines equipped with vanadium-based SCR
catalysts (``2016 guidance'').\944\ The certification guidance
clarified EPA's expectations for manufacturers using vanadium-based SCR
catalysts and provided our views and recommendations on reasonable
steps manufacturers could take to protect against excessive loss of
vanadium from these SCR systems. We are now proposing to codify these
provisions as regulatory requirements for using vanadium-based SCR
catalysts. We propose to adopt these requirements for all types of
diesel engines. The proposed regulatory provisions are consistent with
the 2016 guidance and would begin to apply when the final rule becomes
effective. To make this effective immediately for all current and
future MY diesel engines, we are proposing to update 40 CFR 86.007-11
(to cover HD engines through MY 2026) to reference the new 40 CFR
1036.115(g)(2) which contains this
[[Page 17627]]
requirement. We request comment on any additional time needed by
manufacturers to comply with the proposed requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\943\ The temperature at which vanadium sublimation occurs
varies by engine and catalyst and is generally 550[deg] C or higher.
\944\ ``Certification of Diesel Engines Equipped with Vanadium-
based SCR Catalyst'', EPA guidance document CD-16-09, June 13, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, we are proposing that manufacturers of heavy-duty
diesel engines equipped with vanadium-based SCR catalysts determine
vanadium sublimation temperatures and thermal management strategies and
include documentation in their certification applications. EPA would
use the information submitted by manufacturers in its evaluation of a
manufacturer's engine and aftertreatment design as part of its
application for certification.
In their certification applications, engine manufacturers would be
required to provide information identifying the vanadium sublimation
temperature threshold for the specific catalyst product being used. To
identify the vanadium sublimation temperature, manufacturers would be
required to use the vanadium sublimation sampling and analytical test
method identified in the 2016 guidance.\945\ Manufacturers also would
be required to identify their thermal management strategy for
preventing the vanadium sublimation temperature from being exceeded. In
addition, manufacturers would be required to identify how their thermal
management strategy will protect the catalyst in the event of high
temperature exotherms resulting from upstream engine component
failures, as well as exotherms resulting from hydrocarbon buildup
during normal engine operation. EPA would expect to approve
applications that include thermal management strategies that prevent
exhaust gas temperatures from exceeding the sublimation temperature
threshold (i.e., the temperature below which vanadium emissions are
less than the method detection limit in the test method proposed to be
included in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart L).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\945\ EPA is proposing to codify the test method in CD-16-09 in
40 CFR part 1065, subpart L; 40 CFR 1065.12 describes the process
for approving alternative test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. ULSD-Related Exemption for Guam
EPA's in-use fuel requirements at 40 CFR part 1090 include an
exemption from the 15-ppm sulfur standard for Guam, American Samoa, and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (40 CFR 1090.620).
Diesel fuel meeting the 15-ppm standard is known as ultra-low sulfur
diesel or ULSD. EPA's emission standards for highway and nonroad diesel
engines generally involves SCR as a control technology. The durability
of SCR systems depends on the use of fuel meeting the 15-ppm ULSD
standard, so we adopted a corresponding exemption from the most
stringent emission standards for engines used in these three
territories (see 40 CFR 86.007-11(f) for heavy-duty highway engines and
40 CFR 1039.655 for land-based nonroad diesel engines).
Guam has in the meantime adopted rules requiring the 15-ppm sulfur
standard for in-use diesel fuel for both highway and nonroad engines
and vehicles. As a result, there is no longer a reason to keep the
exemption from emission standards for engines used in Guam. We are
therefore proposing to remove the exemption for these engines in Guam.
Since there is no question of feasibility or other issues related to
availability of certified engines for Guam, we are proposing to remove
the exemption upon the effective date of the final rule, which we
anticipate as late in 2022 or early in 2023. We request comment on the
need for lead time or any other transitional provisions related to
removing the exemption.
We are not proposing to remove the exemption from American Samoa
and the Northern Mariana Islands at this time as we are not aware of
the adoption of ULSD requirements in those territories. We seek comment
on the status of the use of ULSD in American Samoa and the Northern
Mariana Islands.
We are also proposing to clarify that the exemption for land-based
nonroad diesel engines at 40 CFR 1039.655 applies only for engines at
or above 56 kW. Smaller engines are not subject to NOX
standards that would lead manufacturers to use SCR or other sulfur-
sensitive technologies, so we would not expect anyone to be using this
exemption for engines below 56 kW in any area where the exemption
applies. We intend to revisit the exemption from the 15-ppm ULSD
standard for diesel fuel in Guam under 40 CFR part 1090 in a future
action. Removal of exemption for diesel fuel in Guam would likely
involve new or revised regulatory provisions for parties that make,
distribute, and sell diesel fuel in Guam such as additional reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance-related provisions.
8. Deterioration Factors for Certifying Nonroad Engines
Section IV describes a proposed approach for manufacturers of
heavy-duty highway engines to establish deterioration factors (DFs)
based on bench-aged aftertreatment in combination with a plan for
testing in-use engines to verify that the original deterioration factor
properly predicts an engine's emission levels at the end of the useful
life. As described in Section IV.F, we are proposing the new approach
for establishing deterioration factors to take advantage of available
techniques for bench-aging aftertreatment devices to streamline the
certification and product-development timeline. The leaner up-front
testing is complemented by measurements from in-use engines to verify
that the original deterioration factors are still appropriate for
certifying engines in later model years.
This same dynamic applies for nonroad applications. We are
therefore proposing to allow manufacturers of all types of nonroad
diesel engines and manufacturers of land-based nonroad spark-ignition
engines above 19 kW to use these same procedures to establish and
verify DFs. These proposed provisions would apply for 40 CFR parts
1033, 1039, 1042, and 1048. We are not proposing any changes to the
existing certification and durability procedures for certifying these
engines for those who choose not to rely on the proposed provisions
with bench-aged aftertreatment.
Most of the DF verification procedures proposed for heavy-duty
highway engines apply equally for nonroad engines, but unique aspects
of each certification program call for making the following
adjustments:
Marine and land-based nonroad diesel engines are subject
to not-to-exceed standards and corresponding test procedures that would
continue to apply instead of the in-use measurement protocols proposed
in this rule for heavy-duty highway engines.
Land-based nonroad spark-ignition engines above 19 kW
(Large SI engines) are subject to field-testing standards and
corresponding test procedures that would continue to apply instead of
the in-use measurement protocols proposed in this rule for heavy-duty
highway engines.
Locomotives are not subject to off-cycle emission
standards or emission measurement procedures that apply during normal
in-use operation. However, manufacturers can perform in situ testing on
in-use locomotives that meets all the specifications for certification
testing in a laboratory. This allows for testing in-use engines to
verify that deterioration factors based on bench-aged aftertreatment
devices are appropriate for predicting full-life emissions.
Each type of nonroad diesel engine already has sector-
specific methods for calculating infrequent regeneration adjustment
factors.
We are not proposing to allow this approach for certifying
recreational
[[Page 17628]]
vehicles, land-based nonroad spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kW,
or marine spark-ignition engines. These engines are generally subject
to certification of a useful life that is much shorter than the values
that apply for the types of engines for which we are proposing to allow
the new DF verification procedures. Many nonroad spark-ignition engines
are also certified without aftertreatment. As a result, it is not clear
that there would be any potential for manufacturers of these other
types of engines to find a benefit of using the proposed DF
verification procedures.
We request comment on this proposed alternative for establishing
and verifying deterioration factors for the identified nonroad engines.
We also request comment on the adjustments proposed for the identified
engine types, and on extending the DF verification protocol to the
other nonroad spark-ignition applications.
9. Serviceability, Allowable Maintenance, and Hearing Procedures
Section IV describes how we are proposing to update maintenance-
related specifications for heavy-duty highway engines. This includes
changes to require manufacturers to comply with emission standards
based on less frequent critical emission-related maintenance and to
provide greater access to servicing information on the engine's
emission control information label and in the owners manual. The
proposal also includes substantial changes to modernize the description
and organization of the maintenance specifications as part of the
overall migration of regulatory provisions from 40 CFR part 86 to 40
CFR part 1036. Many of these structural changes are intended to align
with analogous provisions already adopted for the various nonroad
sectors, but the proposal includes several things that depart from
those other regulations.
We are not proposing to make changes to maintenance-related
specifications for nonroad engines or equipment. However, we will
likely propose amendments in a future rulemaking to align nonroad
regulations with many of the maintenance-related provisions we adopt in
this rule. As a result, we encourage commenters to review this proposed
rule with consideration of the potential for these maintenance-related
provisions to apply in the future for each of the nonroad sectors as
appropriate.
B. Heavy-Duty Highway Engine and Vehicle Emission Standards (40 CFR
Parts 1036 and 1037)
1. Timing of Annual Reports
We are proposing to simplify annual reporting requirements to
account for the extensive information submissions related to the
greenhouse gas emission standards. Vehicle manufacturers are required
to report on GEM results and production volumes for thousands of
distinct vehicle configurations at the end of the model year to show
that emission credits related to calculated average CO2
emission rates are sufficient to comply with standards. The regulation
currently requires an interim end-of-year report by March 31 and a
final report by September 30 (see 40 CFR 1037.730). This same schedule
is typical for documentation related to emission credits for various
types of nonroad engines and vehicles. In contrast to those nonroad
programs, compliance with the heavy-duty highway CO2
emission standards relies on a detailed assessment of GEM results and
corresponding production volumes to determine all the necessary credit
calculations for the model year. We propose to modify the regulation at
40 CFR 1037.730 to no longer require the interim end-of-year report,
because we have observed that manufacturers need more time to complete
their effort to fully document their compliance for the model year and
we believe the interim end-of-year report is unnecessary for heavy-duty
vehicles. The regulation allows us to waive this interim report, and we
have routinely approved such requests. We are not proposing any change
to the final report due in September and would continue to rely on that
final report to evaluate compliance with standards.
Engine manufacturers generate and use emission credits based on
production volumes that correspond to the vehicle production. As a
result, it is beneficial for both EPA and engine manufacturers to align
the emission credit reporting requirements for engines and vehicles. We
are therefore proposing to revise 40 CFR 1036.730 to also omit the
interim end-of-year report and instead rely only on the final report
submitted by September 30 following each model year. In addition, the
regulations at 40 CFR 1036.250 and 1037.250 currently specify that
engine and vehicle manufacturers must report their production volumes
within 90 days after the end of the model year. For the same reasons
given for modifying the schedule for credit reports, we propose to
align this production reporting with the final ABT report, requiring
manufacturers to report their production volumes also by September 30
following the end of the model year. These proposed changes address a
comment by the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association in a recent
rulemaking.\946\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\946\ ``Comments of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association'' for Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0307, June 26, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Warranty Period for Medium HDV With Spark-Ignition Engines
In the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule, we set a vehicle-based warranty
period for the Medium HDV service class to five years or 100,000 miles
for 2021 and later model years (81 FR 73478, October 25, 2016), which
represents an increase in the warranty period for Class 6 through Class
8 heavy-duty vehicles with spark-ignition engines.\947\ These warranty
provisions apply for both evaporative and refueling emission standards
in 40 CFR 1037.103 and for greenhouse gas standards in 40 CFR 1037.105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\947\ This vehicle service class is defined in 40 CFR
1037.140(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Medium HDV warranty period differs from the warranty periods
associated with some engines that may be certified for use in those
vehicles. Compression-ignition engines from the ``Light HDE'' primary
intended service class and all spark-ignition engines certified to GHG
standards under 40 CFR 1036.108 are subject to warranty requirements
for five years or 50,000 miles (40 CFR 1036.120). We request comment on
whether to revise the warranty provisions in 40 CFR 1037.120 to include
a warranty period of five years or 50,000 miles for Medium HDV with
compression-ignition engines from the ``Light HDE'' primary intended
service class or with spark-ignition engines to be consistent with the
GHG warranty periods for those engines.
In Section IV.B, we propose to increase the warranty periods for
engines certified to model year 2027 and later criteria pollutant
standards. Under proposed 40 CFR 1036.150(w), those longer warranty
periods would not apply for engine technologies that are limited to
controlling greenhouse gas emissions, but we are not aware of any
current or projected technologies that would qualify as being dedicated
to meeting GHG standards. We request comment on whether to instead
align all warranty periods that apply for engine technologies,
irrespective of the emissions they are designed to control, with the
warranty periods that we finalize for criteria pollutant emission
control.
For model years 2027 and later, we recognize that our proposed
engine
[[Page 17629]]
warranty periods would differ from the vehicle warranty periods
described in this section. All the proposed engine warranties are
longer than the warranty periods under consideration for heavy-duty
vehicles. We request comment on whether these misaligned warranties may
pose a problem for certification or implementation.
3. Scope and Timing for Amending Applications for Certification
Engines must be produced in a certified configuration to be covered
by the certificate of conformity. Manufacturers routinely need to amend
their applications for certification during the model year to reflect
ongoing product development. These amendments may involve new
configurations or improvements to existing configurations. The current
regulations describe how manufacturers can make these amendments in a
way that allow them to comply with the general requirement to produce
engines that are in a certified configuration (see 40 CFR 1036.225 and
1037.225). We generally refer to these amendments as running changes.
Manufacturers apply these running changes to new engines they continue
to build during the model year. Applying these running changes to
engines that have already been produced is referred to as a ``field
fix''. We have provided ``field-fix'' guidance since the earliest days
of EPA emission standards.\948\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\948\ ``Field Fixes Related to Emission Control-Related
Components,'' EPA Advisory Circular, March 17, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recently adopted regulatory provisions in 40 CFR parts 1036 and
1037 to describe how manufacturers may modify engines as reflected in
the modified application for certification, which included essential
elements of the 1975 field-fix guidance (80 FR 73478, October 25,
2016).
There is also a related field-fix question of how to allow for
design changes to produced engines (before or after initial shipment)
that the manufacturer identifies after the end of the model year. The
preamble for that recent final rule explained that the regulatory
provisions also included how manufacturers may amend an application for
certification after the end of the model year to support intended
modifications to in-use engines.
After further consideration, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR
1036.225 and 1037.225 to limit manufacturers to having the ability to
amend an application for certification only during the production
period represented by the model year. These proposed revisions would
become effective upon the effective date of the final rule, if adopted.
Manufacturers would continue to be able to apply field fixes to engines
they have already produced if those engine modifications are consistent
with the amended application for certification.
The process for amending applications for certification under
proposed 40 CFR 1036.225 and 1037.225 would not apply to field fixes
that manufacturers identify after the end of the model year. Like our
approach in other standard-setting parts for nonroad applications, we
would refer manufacturers to the 1975 field-fix guidance for
recommendations on how to approach design changes after the end of the
model year. EPA's certification software is already set up to
accommodate manufacturers that submit documentation for field fixes
related to engine families from earlier model years. We believe this
approach is effective, and it involves less burden for EPA
implementation than allowing manufacturers to amend their application
for certification after the end of the model year.
We request comment on the proposed regulations for amending
applications for certification and field-fixes within the model year
for a given engine family.
We expect to propose to adopt further regulatory provisions in a
future rulemaking to update and clarify implementation of the field-fix
policy for design changes that occur after the end of the model year.
We expect that rulemaking to include consideration of such provisions
for all types of highway and nonroad engines and vehicles.
4. Alternate Standards for Specialty Vehicles
The final rule adopting HD GHG Phase 2 standards for heavy-duty
highway engines and vehicles included provisions allowing limited
numbers of specialty motor vehicles to have engines meeting alternate
standards derived from EPA's nonroad engine programs (80 FR 73478,
October 25, 2016). The provisions applied for amphibious vehicles,
vehicles with maximum operating speed of 45 mph or less, and all-
terrain vehicles with portal axles. The provisions also apply for
hybrid vehicles with engines that provide energy for a Rechargeable
Energy Storage System, but only through model year 2027.
We continue to recognize the need for and benefit of alternate
standards that address limitations associated with specialty vehicles.
We are therefore proposing to migrate these alternate standards from 40
CFR 86.007-11 and 86.008-10 into 40 CFR 1036.605 without modification.
At the same time, we are mindful of two important regulatory and
technological factors that will cause us to potentially revise the
alternate standards. First, certifying based on powertrain testing
addresses the testing limitations associated with nonstandard power
configurations. Second, emission control technologies may support more
stringent alternate emission standards than the current nonroad engine
standards. Furthermore, CARB has not adopted that same approach to
apply alternate standards for specialty vehicles and we are unaware of
manufacturers certifying any of these types of specialty vehicles to
the full engine and vehicle standards. We may therefore consider
revising the alternate standards, or discontinuing the alternate
standards entirely. We are also considering whether to sunset the
provisions for hybrid vehicles at the end of model year 2026 to align
with the new standards that will start in model year 2027. We have
prepared a memorandum that further explores these technological and
regulatory issues, with a discussion of a range of possible options
that we are considering.\949\ We request comment on all these potential
changes to the provisions related to alternate standards for specialty
vehicles. We might make those changes in this rule or in a future rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\949\ Stout, Alan. Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055.
``Draft Amendments Related to Alternate Engine Standards for
Specialty Vehicles''. January 31, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Additional Amendments
We are proposing to revise the regulatory text in 40 CFR parts 1036
and 1037 to describe units for tire rolling resistance as newtons per
kilonewton (N/kN) instead of kg/tonne. SAE J2452 treats these as
interchangeable units, but ISO 28580, which we incorporated by
reference at 40 CFR 1037.810, establishes N/kN as the appropriate units
for measuring rolling resistance. Since the units in the numerator and
denominator cancel each other out either way, this change in units has
no effect on the numerical values identified in the regulation or on
data submitted by manufacturers.
The regulation at 40 CFR 1037.115(e) describes how manufacturers
demonstrate that they meet requirements related to air conditioning
leakage. Paragraph (e) allows for alternative demonstration methods
where the specified method is impossible or impractical, but limits
[[Page 17630]]
that alternative to systems with capacity above 3000 grams of
refrigerant. We recognize alternative demonstrations may also be
necessary for systems with smaller capacity and are therefore proposing
to remove this qualifying criterion. The proposed change is also
consistent with changes that CARB has made as part of the Omnibus
rule.\950\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\950\ California Air Resources Board, ``Appendix B-3 Proposed
30-Day Modifications to the Greenhouse Gas Test Procedures'', May 5,
2021, Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/30dayappb3.pdf, page 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SET duty cycle table in 40 CFR 86.1362 contains the engine
speed and load as well as vehicle speed and road grade to carry out
either engine or powertrain testing. The table contains two errors in
the vehicle speed column for modes 1a and 14. The vehicle speed is set
to ``warm idle speed'' in the table, which is an engine test set point.
Since this is an idle mode and the vehicle is not moving, the vehicle
speeds should be set to 0 mi/hr. This correction will have no effect on
how powertrain testing over this duty cycle is carried out.
We are proposing to correct a typo in 40 CFR 1036.235(c)(5)(iv)(C)
regarding EPA's confirmatory testing of a manufacturer's fuel map for
demonstrating compliance with greenhouse gas emission standards. We
propose to update the ``greater than or equal to'' to ``at or below''
to be consistent with the related interim provision in 40 CFR
1036.150(q). The intent of the EPA testing is to confirm that the
manufacturer-declared value is at or below EPA's measured values.
We are proposing to clarify that ``mixed-use vehicles'' qualify for
alternate standards under 40 CFR 1037.105(h) if they meet any one of
the criteria specified in 40 CFR 1037.631(a)(1) or (2). In contrast,
vehicles meeting the criterion in 40 CFR 1037.631(a)(1) and at least
one of the criteria in 40 CFR 1037.631(a)(2) automatically qualify as
being exempt from GHG standards under 40 CFR part 1037.
C. Fuel Dispensing Rates for Heavy-Duty Vehicles (40 CFR Parts 80 and
1090)
EPA adopted a regulation limiting the fuel dispensing rate to a
maximum of 10 gallons per minute for gasoline dispensed into motor
vehicles (58 FR 16002, March 24, 1993). The dispensing limit
corresponded with the test procedure for vehicle manufacturers to
demonstrate compliance with a refueling spitback standard adopted in
the same final rule. Spitback involves a spray of liquid fuel during a
refueling event if the vehicle cannot accommodate the flow of fuel into
the fuel tank. The spitback standard applied only for vehicles at or
below 14,000 pounds GVWR, so we provided an exemption from the
dispensing limit for dispensing pumps dedicated exclusively to heavy-
duty vehicles (see 40 CFR 80.22(j) and 1090.1550(b)). Just like for
spitback testing with vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, vehicles
designed with onboard refueling vapor recovery systems depend on a
reliable maximum dispensing rate to manage vapor flow into the carbon
canister.
Now that we are proposing a requirement for all gasoline-fueled
heavy-duty highway vehicle manufacturers to comply with refueling
standards, it is no longer appropriate to preserve the exemption from
the dispensing rate limit for dispensing pumps dedicated exclusively to
heavy-duty vehicles. Retail stations and fleets rarely have dispensing
pumps that are dedicated to heavy-duty vehicles. Since there are no
concerns of feasibility or other issues related to meeting the 10
gallon per minute dispensing limit, we are proposing to remove the
exemption upon the effective date of the final rule. We request comment
on allowing additional lead time for any legacy installations that
continue to have higher dispensing rates for gasoline-fueled heavy-duty
vehicles. We expect few such cases. This may occur, for example, with a
remaining fleet of gasoline-fueled school buses or with farms that have
refueling capabilities for delivery trucks along with nonroad
implements.
We note that the proposed dispensing rate limits relate only to
gasoline-fueled motor vehicles. There is no rate restriction on
dispensing diesel fuel into motor vehicles, or on dispensing any kind
of fuel into aircraft, marine vessels, other nonroad equipment, or
portable or permanently installed storage tanks. We are also not
proposing new dispensing rate limits for these fuels in this action.
D. Refueling Interface for Motor Vehicles (40 CFR Parts 80 and 1090)
EPA first adopted a requirement for new gasoline-fueled cars and
trucks to have filler necks fitted with a limiting orifice to prevent
fueling with leaded fuel (38 FR 26450, Sept. 21, 1973). This purpose
became obsolete when leaded gasoline was disallowed as a fuel for motor
vehicles starting January 1, 1996. The requirement has nevertheless
endured, perhaps to accommodate Stage II refueling controls at retail
stations or to ensure compatibility with onboard refueling vapor
recovery systems.
In 2020, as part of a broader effort to streamline fuel
regulations, EPA proposed to migrate in-use fuel regulations from 40
CFR part 80 to 40 CFR part 1090 (85 FR 29034, May 14, 2020). Since the
requirements related to vehicle-refueling interface were in 40 CFR
80.24, we proposed to move those vehicle requirements to 40 CFR part 86
for light-duty vehicles and to 40 CFR part 1037 for heavy-duty
vehicles. In response to the proposed rule, we received comments
suggesting that we should modify the requirements for narrow-diameter
fuel necks to align with published voluntary consensus standards.\951\
In finalizing that rule, we deferred action on the proposed migration
of these provisions to further consider potential modifications (85 FR
78412, December 4, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\951\ See SAE J285 ``Dispenser Nozzle Spouts for Liquid Fuels
Intended for Use with Spark Ignition and Compression Ignition
Engines'', April 2019 and ISO 9158:1988 ``Road vehicles--Nozzle
spouts for unleaded gasoline'', March 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the meantime, we have focused on further understanding the
handful of heavy-duty vehicle models that have side-mounted fuel tanks.
These vehicles are generally derived from diesel-fueled truck models
and therefore are designed with large fuel tanks with no filler neck.
In evaluating the feasibility of applying refueling standards for these
vehicles, we again reviewed the narrow-diameter filler-neck
requirement. The filler-neck restriction is no longer needed to prevent
misfueling with leaded fuel. There is also no need for new vehicles to
be designed to accommodate Stage II refueling controls now that they
are subject to vehicle-based refueling standards. As a result, the only
remaining need for restricting the filler-neck diameter is for those
vehicles that depend on such a design to meet spitback and refueling
standards.
Since there is no longer an external emission-related design
constraint for filler necks, vehicle manufacturers will no longer be
constrained to design their vehicles to meet spitback and refueling
standards with a limiting orifice. If vehicle manufacturers need to
have a narrow-diameter filler neck to achieve a mechanical seal for
onboard refueling vapor recovery or to prevent spitback, then they will
need to include those design specifications. If they can use a
different orifice or no orifice at all and still meet spitback and
refueling standards, that would also represent a compliant
configuration. We therefore propose to remove the filler-neck
restrictions from 40 CFR 80.24 without migrating those requirements to
the CFR parts for light-duty or heavy-duty vehicles.
[[Page 17631]]
We acknowledge that there are commercial reasons to have
standardized specifications for filler necks. This is reflected by the
referenced voluntary consensus standards adopted to accomplish that
purpose. EPA's existing specifications are compatible with those
published standards but allow for a much wider range of dimensions. The
comment from the earlier rulemaking requested that we update our
specifications to match those in the voluntary consensus standards. We
request comment on the appropriateness of either keeping the existing
specifications or adopting the specifications from voluntary consensus
standards into the EPA regulations. We specifically request comment on
the benefit of adopting such standards and on the authority for
adopting such standards under the Clean Air Act considering that we
intend to remove the now obsolete requirements in 40 CFR 80.24.
E. Light-Duty Motor Vehicles (40 CFR Parts 85, 86, and 600)
EPA's emission standards, certification requirements, and fuel
economy provisions for light-duty motor vehicles are in 40 CFR part 85,
40 CFR part 86, subpart S, and 40 CFR part 600.
1. Testing With Updated Versions of SAE J1634
i. Existing BEV Test Procedures
EPA's existing regulations for testing Battery Electric Vehicles
(BEVs) can be found in 40 CFR part 600--Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions of Motor Vehicles. The existing EPA regulations (40 CFR
600.116-12(a) and 600.311-12(j) and (k)) reference the 2012 version of
the SAE Standard J1634--Battery Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and
Range Test Procedure.
Current regulations (40 CFR 600.116-12(a)) allow manufacturers to
perform either single cycle tests (SCT) or the multi-cycle test (MCT)
as described in the EPA regulations and the 2012 version of SAE J1634.
The SCT and MCT are used to determine the unrounded and unadjusted city
and highway range values and the city and highway mile per gallon
equivalent (MPGe) fuel economy values.
The 2012 version of SAE J1634 specifies 55 miles per hour (mph) as
the speed to be used during the mid-test and end-of-test constant speed
cycles of the MCT. The 2017 version of SAE J1634 specifies 65 mph as
the speed to be used during the constant speed cycles of the MCT.
Manufacturers have reached out to the Agency and requested to use the
2017 version of SAE J1634 to reduce the time required to perform the
MCT and the Agency has generally approved these requests. EPA's fuel
economy regulations allow manufacturers to use procedures other than
those specified in the regulations. The special test procedure option
is described in 40 CFR 600.111-08(h). This option is used when vehicles
cannot be tested according to the procedures in the EPA regulations or
when an alternative procedure is determined to be equivalent to the EPA
regulation.
EPA regulations found in 40 CFR 600.210-12(d)(3) specify three
options for manufacturers to adjust the unrounded and unadjusted 2-
cycle (city and highway) results for fuel economy labeling purposes.
The three methods include: Generating 5-cycle data; multiplying the 2-
cycle values by 0.7; and asking the Administrator to approve adjustment
factors based on operating data from in-use vehicles. To date the
Agency has not approved any requests to use operating data from in-use
vehicles to generate an adjustment factor.
Many manufacturers use the option to multiply their 2-cycle fuel
consumption and range result by the 0.7 adjustment factor. The benefit
of this option for the manufacturer is that the manufacturer does not
need to perform any of the additional 5-cycle tests to determine the
label result. This method is equivalent to the derived 5-cycle method
which allows manufacturers to adjust their 2-cycle fuel economy test
results for gasoline vehicles based on the EPA determined slope and
intercept values generated from 5-cycle testing performed on emission
data vehicles (EDVs).
A few manufacturers have been using the option to generate 5-cycle
data which is then used for determining a 5-cycle adjustment factor.
The specific 5-cycle adjustment factor is then multiplied by the
unrounded, unadjusted 2-cycle results to determine fuel economy label
values.
EPA's current regulations do not specify a method for performing 5-
cycle testing for BEVs. EPA acknowledged this in the 2011 rulemaking
that created the fuel economy label requirement for BEVs:
The 5-cycle testing methodology for electric vehicles is still
under development at the time of this final rule. This final rule
will address 2-cycle and the derived adjustments to the 2-cycle
testing, for electric vehicles. As 5-cycle testing methodology
develops, EPA may address alternate test procedures. EPA regulations
allow test methods alternate to the 2-cycle and derived 5-cycle to
be used with Administrator approval. (76 FR 39501, July 6, 2011)
The first manufacturer to approach EPA and request to perform 5-
cycle testing for BEVs was Tesla, and EPA approved Tesla's request. The
method Tesla proposed is known as the BEV 5-cycle adjustment factor
method, and it was added to Appendices B and C of the SAE J1634
Standard in the 2017 update.
Since publication of the 2017 version of SAE J1634, BEV
manufacturers in addition to Tesla have been approaching the Agency and
seeking to use the 5-cycle adjustment factor methodology outlined in
Appendices B and C. EPA has generally approved manufacturer requests to
use this method.
The 5-cycle method outlined in the 2017 version of SAE J1634 is
essentially the same method that EPA uses to determine 5-cycle fuel
economy for vehicles with internal combustion engines. There are,
however, two differences between the EPA approved BEV 5-cycle
adjustment factor method compared to the 5-cycle calculation
methodology outlined in 40 CFR 600.114-12, Vehicle-specific 5-cycle
fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust emission calculations. The
first difference is that the numerator of the City and Highway fuel
economy equations is 0.92 rather than 0.905. This was done to remove
the ethanol correction from the 5-cycle fuel economy equation for BEVs.
The second change was to allow BEV manufacturers to use the results of
a full charge depleting Cold Temperature Test Procedure (CTTP or
20[deg]F FTP) in the City fuel economy calculation when calculating the
running fuel consumption. Vehicles with internal combustion engines
(ICE) use only the bag 2 and bag 3 fuel economy results from the CTTP.
The CTTP is performed at an ambient temperature of 20[deg]F after the
vehicle has cold-soaked in the 20[deg]F test chamber for a minimum of
12 hours and a maximum of 36 hours. In addition, to reduce the testing
burden the current BEV 5-cycle procedure allows manufacturers to skip
the 10-minute key-off soak between UDDS cycles after the second UDDS
cycle. This test procedure allowance was made to reduce the time burden
for performing full charge depletion testing in the cold test chamber.
ii. Summary of Proposed Changes
EPA is proposing to update the SAE J1634 standard referenced in 40
CFR part 600 from the 2012 version to the 2017 version. This update
will require manufacturers to use 65 mph for the constant speed cycles
of the MCT. In addition, this update will allow
[[Page 17632]]
manufacturers to use the BEV 5-cycle adjustment factor methodology
outlined in Appendices B and C of the 2017 version of SAE J1634 with
the revisions described below.
For model year 2023, manufacturers may continue to perform full
charge depletion testing on BEVs when running the CTTP to determine the
5-cycle adjustment factor. However, EPA is proposing that in model year
2023 manufacturers would be required to perform a 10-minute key-off
soak between each UDDS cycle performed as part of the charge depleting
CTTP. We are not proposing to change the existing requirement to submit
a written request for EPA approval to perform 5-cycle testing prior to
beginning 5-cycle adjustment procedure testing. EPA is proposing that
manufacturers will be required to attest that the vehicle was not
preconditioned or connected to an external power source during the
20[deg]F cold soak period.
Beginning with model year 2024, EPA is proposing that manufacturers
would be allowed to perform only two UDDS cycles when running the CTTP,
with a 10-minute key-off soak between the UDDS cycles to generate their
BEV 5-cycle adjustment factor. The running fuel consumption for the
City fuel economy equation would be modified from the equation provided
in Appendix C of the 2017 version of SAE J1634. The charge depletion
value would be replaced with the results from Bag 2 of the first and
second UDDS and Bag 1 from the second UDDS. The Agency would allow
manufacturers to use their existing CTTP test results to make these
calculations, or they could perform new tests with the option to have
the vehicle's state-of-charge set to a value specified by the
manufacturer such that the vehicle can capture regeneration energy
during the first UDDS cycle.
The Agency is also proposing additional changes to the procedures
outlined in the 2017 version of SAE J1634 including: Specifying a
maximum constant speed phase time of 1 hour with a minimum 5-minute
soak following each one-hour constant speed phase; specifying the use
of the methods in Appendix A of the 2017 version of SAE J1634 to
determine the constant speed cycle's total time for the mid-test
constant speed cycle; and, specifying that energy depleted from the
propulsion battery during key-off engine soak periods is not included
in the useable battery energy (UBE) measurement.
iii. Discussion of Proposed Changes
The Agency is proposing to adopt portions of Appendix B and C of
the 2017 version of SAE J1634 as the process for determining the 5-
cycle adjustment factor with modifications. As proposed, manufacturers
will be required to request Administrator approval to use the process
outlined in the Appendices with modifications including: Requiring soak
periods of a minimum of 10 minutes between each UDDS cycle when
performing the charge depleting CTTP (the Appendices allow skipping the
key-off soak period between UDDS cycles, after the second UDDS cycle,
to reduce the charge depleting test burden); adding the specification
that preconditioning of any vehicle components, including the
propulsion battery and vehicle cabin, is prohibited; and, beginning in
the 2024 Model Year allowing only two UDDS cycles to be performed on
the CTTP instead of allowing manufacturers to choose how many UDDS
cycles to perform up to and including full charge depletion testing on
the CTTP.
The current approved 5-cycle test procedure includes allowing a
complete charge depleting CTTP to generate data for the city fuel
economy calculation. As the Agency has gathered data from manufacturers
performing this test, it has become apparent that the charge depletion
testing on the CTTP generates fuel consumption data that are not
representative of the extreme cold start test conditions this test was
designed to capture. A long-range BEV can complete as many as 50 UDDS
cycles at -7[deg]C (20[deg]F) before depleting the battery. With the
allowance to skip the 10-minute key off soak period after the second
UDDS a long-range BEV will reach a stabilized warmed-up energy
consumption condition after 6 to 10 UDDS cycles. At this point the
vehicle is warmed-up and will have approximately the same energy
consumption for each of the remaining 30 to 40 UDDS cycles. The
averaged energy consumption value from this full charge depletion
test--as many as 50 UDDS cycles--is entered into the 5-cycle equation
for the running fuel consumption for the city fuel economy calculation.
In contrast, for vehicles using fuels other than electricity the
running fuel consumption is calculated using the values from Bag 2 of
the first UDDS cycle and Bag 1 of the second UDDS cycle.
It has become apparent to the Agency that modifications are needed
to this method to ensure all vehicles are tested under similar
conditions and use equivalent data for generating fuel economy label
values. Allowing BEVs to perform a full charge depletion CTTP creates
test procedure differences between BEVs and non-BEVs. Non-BEVs are not
allowed to run more than one UDDS cycle followed by one Bag 1 phase
from the second UDDS cycle.
The intent of the CTTP is to capture the performance of vehicles
under extreme cold start conditions during short trip city driving. The
CTTP procedure used by vehicles other than BEVs consists of one UDDS
cycle (consisting of Bag 1 and Bag 2) followed by a 10-minute key-off
soak followed by the first 505 seconds (Bag 3) of the second UDDS
cycle. The data from these three bags are utilized by all vehicles,
other than BEVs, when calculating the vehicle's city fuel economy (40
CFR 600.114-12). Allowing BEVs to use a fuel consumption value based on
fully depleting the battery, while not performing any key-off soaks
between any UDDS cycle after the second UDDS cycle is not
representative of short trip urban driving or equivalent to the
procedure performed by vehicles using fuels other than electricity.
Based on these observations, the Agency has concluded that allowing
BEVs to perform full charge depletion testing on the CTTP, with only
one 10-minute key-off soak occuring between the first and second UDDS
cycle, does not generate data representative of the vehicles'
performance during extreme cold start short trip city driving
conditions. Therefore, starting in model year 2024, the Agency proposes
to allow BEVs to perform only two UDDS cycles with a 10-minute key-off
soak between them. The Agency proposes the following change to the
running fuel consumption equation used for calculating the city fuel
economy outlined in Appendix C of the 2017 Version of SAE J1634:
[[Page 17633]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.012
The Agency understands that the proposed test procedure and fuel
economy equation is different from that for non-BEVs. The Agency also
understands that BEV testing has primarily not consisted of measured
sample bags and, instead has focused on performing complete UDDS
cycles. Unlike vehicles using combustion engines, BEVs do not generate
significant quantities of waste heat from their operation, and
typically require using stored energy, when not being preconditioned at
cold ambient temperatures, to produce heat for both the cabin and the
battery. The Agency expects BEVs will require more than two UDDS cycles
with a 10-minute key-off soak between them for the vehicle to reach a
fully warmed up and stabilized operating point. As such, the Agency
believes it is reasonable to include an additional data point (i.e.,
UDDS2 Bag2) for use in the running fuel consumption equation for BEVs.
The Agency seeks comment on whether this is a reasonable procedure and
calculation method for generating BEV fuel economy results that are
comparable to the procedures and calculations used for non-BEVs, or, if
the test procedure and fuel economy equation should be the same for
BEVs and non-BEVs which would entail the BEV CTTP concluding following
the completion of the first Bag of the second UDDS cycle.
For model year 2024, the Agency proposes to allow manufacturers to
recalculate the city fuel economy for models they are carrying-over
using the first two UDDS cycles from their prior charge depletion CTTP
test procedures to generate new model year 2024 label values.
Manufacturers may not want to use these data, as the test may not be
representative, since the vehicle's regeneration capability may be
limited by the fully charged battery during the first and possibly
second UDDS cycles on the CTTP. The Agency proposes to perform the two
UDDS CTTP with the vehicle initially charged to a level defined by the
manufacturer and disclosed to the Agency. One possible approach
consists of charging the vehicle to a level that produces a battery
state-of-charge (SoC) equivalent to 50 percent following the first UDDS
cycle. The 2017 version of SAE J1634 refers to this SoC level as the
mid-point test charge (MC).
As BEVs have become more efficient and as battery capacities have
increased over the past decade, the time required to perform CTTP
charge depletion testing has dramatically increased. This proposal will
result in significant time savings for manufacturers as the proposed
BEV CTTP will consist of two UDDS cycles, and no longer allows charge
depletion testing which, in many instances, would require multiple
shifts to complete. The Agency also believes the results obtained from
the proposal will be more representative of the energy consumption
observed during short urban trips under extreme cold temperature
conditions. The Agency seeks comment on these proposals for reducing
test burden and reducing the test procedure variability between BEVs
and vehicles other than BEVs.
iv. Proposed Changes to Procedures for Testing Electric Vehicles
EPA is proposing to update from the 2012 to the 2017 version of SAE
J1634 and proposing to include regulatory provisions that amend or
clarify the BEV test procedures outlined in the 2017 version. These
amendments are being proposed to minimize test procedure variations
allowed in the 2017 version, which the Agency has concluded can impact
test results. For example, the SAE standard allows for the constant
speed cycles to be performed as a single phase or broken into multiple
phases with key-off soak periods. Depending on how the constant-speed
portion is subdivided, the UBE measurement can vary. These proposed
changes are intended to reduce the variations between tests and to
improve test-to-test and laboratory-to-laboratory repeatability.
The proposed changes include:
Allowing for Administrator approval for vehicles that
cannot complete the Multi-Cycle Range and Energy Consumption Test (MCT)
because of the distance required to complete the test or maximum speed
for the UDDS or HFEDS cycle.
In alignment with SAE J1634, Section 8.3.4, a 15 second
key-on pause time and a 10 minute key-off soak period would be required
between specific drive cycles where key-off soak periods have to be
conducted with the key or power switch in the ``off'' position, the
hood closed, and test cell fan(s) off, and the brake pedal not
depressed.
Manufacturers predetermine estimates of the mid-test
constant speed cycle distance (dM) using the methods in SAE J1634,
Appendix A.
Mid-test constant speed cycles that do not exceed one hour
do not need a key-off soak period. If the mid-test constant speed cycle
exceeds one hour, the cycle needs to be separated into phases of less
than one-hour, and a minimum 5-minute key-off soak is needed at the end
of each phase.
Using good engineering judgement, end-of-test constant
speed cycles do not exceed 20 percent of total distance driven during
the MCT, as described in SAE J1634, Section 8.3.3.
End-of-test constant speed cycles that do not exceed one
hour do not a need key-off soak period. If the end-of-test constant
speed cycle exceeds one hour, the cycle needs to be separated into
phases of less than one-hour, and a minimum 5-minute key-off soak is
needed at the end of each phase.
Discharge energy that occurs during the key-off soak
periods is not included in the useable battery energy.
Recharging the vehicle's battery must start within three
hours after testing.
The Administrator may approve a manufacturer's request to
use an earlier version of SAE J1634 for carryover vehicles.
All label values related to fuel economy, energy
consumption, and range must be based on 5-cycle testing, or values must
be adjusted to be equivalent to 5-cycle results. Manufacturers may
request Administrator approval to use SAE J1634, Appendix B and
Appendix C for determining 5-cycle adjustment factors.
2. Additional Light-Duty Changes Related to Certification Requirements
and Measurement Procedures
We are proposing the following additional amendments related to
[[Page 17634]]
criteria standards and general certification requirements:
40 CFR part 85, subpart V: Correcting the warranty periods
identified in the regulation to align with the Clean Air Act, as
amended, and clarifying that the warranty provisions apply to both
types of warranty specified in Clean Air Act section 207(a) and (b)--an
emission defect warranty and an emission performance warranty. EPA
adopted warranty regulations in 1980 to apply starting with model year
1981 vehicles (45 FR 34802, May 22, 1980). The Clean Air Act as amended
in 1990 changed the warranty period for model year 1995 and later
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks to 2 years or 24,000 miles of
use (whichever occurs first), except that a warranty period of 8 years
or 80,000 miles applied for specified major emission control
components.
Section 86.117-96: Revising paragraph (d)(1), which
describes how to calculate evaporative emissions from methanol-fueled
vehicles. The equation in the regulation inadvertently mimics the
equation used for calculating evaporative emissions from gasoline-
fueled vehicles. We are proposing to revise the equation to properly
represent the fuel-specific calculations in a way that includes
temperature correction for the sample volume based on the sample and
SHED temperatures.
Section 86.1810: Clarifying the certification
responsibilities for cases involving small-volume manufacturers that
modify a vehicle already certified by a different company and recertify
the modified vehicle to the standards that apply for a new vehicle
under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. Since the original certifying
manufacturer accounts for these vehicles in their fleet-average
calculations, these secondary vehicle manufacturers should not be
required to repeat those fleet-average calculations for the affected
vehicles. This applies to fleet average standards for criteria exhaust
emissions, evaporative emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions. The
secondary vehicle manufacturer would need to meet all the same bin
standards and family emission limits as specified by the original
certifying manufacturer. We recently proposed a similar amendment (85
FR 28140, May 12, 2020), but chose to re-propose this to include
greenhouse gas emissions in response to a comment, rather than
finalizing a revised provision in that rulemaking.
Section 86.1819-14: Clarifying that the definition of
``engine code'' for implementing heavy-duty greenhouse gas standards
(Class 2b and 3) is the same ``engine code'' definition that applies to
light-duty vehicles in the part 600 regulations.
Section 86.1823-08: Revising to specify a simulated test
weight based on Loaded Vehicle Weight for light light-duty trucks (LDT1
and LDT2). The regulation inadvertently applies adjusted loaded vehicle
weight, which is substantially greater and inappropriate for light
light-duty trucks because they are most often used like lightly loaded
passenger vehicles rather than cargo-carrying commercial trucks. In
practice, we have been allowing manufacturers to implement test
requirements for these vehicles based on Loaded Vehicle Weight. This
proposed revision is responsive to manufacturers' request to clarify
test weights for the affected vehicles.
Section 86.1843-01(f)(2): Delaying the end-of-year
reporting deadline to May 1 following the end of the model year.
Manufacturers requested that we routinely allow for later submissions
instead of setting the challenging deadline of January 1 and allowing
extensions.
We are proposing the following additional amendments related to
greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy testing:
Section 86.1823: We are proposing to revise paragraph
(m)(1) to reflect current business practices with respect to
CO2 durability requirements. For example, while conventional
vehicles currently have a multiplicative CO2 deterioration
factor of one or an additive deterioration factor of zero to determine
full useful life emissions for FTP and highway fuel economy tests, many
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles have non-zero additive CO2
deterioration factors (or manufacturers perform fuel economy tests
using aged components). Proposed changes have no impact on conventional
vehicles but strengthen the CO2 durability requirements for
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
Section 600.002: Revising the definition of ``engine
code'' to refer to a ``test group'' instead of an ``engine-system
combination''. This change reflects updated terminology corresponding
to current certification procedures.
Part 600, subpart B: Updating test procedures with
references to 40 CFR part 1066 to reflect the migration of procedures
from 40 CFR part 86, subpart B. The migrated test procedures allow us
to delete the following obsolete regulatory sections: 600.106, 600.108,
600.109, 600.110, and 600.112, along with references to those sections.
Sections 600.115 and 600.210: EPA issued guidance in 2015
for the fuel economy program to reflect technology trends.\952\ We are
proposing to codify these changes in the regulation. First, as outlined
in the EPA guidance letter and provisions of 40 CFR 600.210-
12(a)(2)(iv), ``[t]he Administrator will periodically update the slopes
and intercepts through guidance and will determine the model year that
the new coefficients must take effect.'' Thus, we are proposing to
update the coefficients used for calculating derived 5-cycle city and
highway mpg values in Section 600.210 to be consistent with the
coefficients provided in the 2015 EPA guidance letter and to be more
representative of the fuel economy characteristics of the current
fleet. Second, for reasons discussed on page 2 of the EPA guidance
letter, we are proposing to codify a change to 40 CFR 600.115 to allow
manufacturers to calculate derived 5-cycle fuel economy and
CO2 emission values using a factor of 0.7 only for battery
electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, and plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles (during charge depleting operation only).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\952\ ``Derived 5-cycle Coefficients for 2017 and Later Model
Years'', EPA Guidance Document CD-15-15, June 22, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 600.210: The regulation already allows
manufacturers to voluntarily decrease fuel economy values and raise
CO2 emission values if they determine that the values on the
fuel economy label do not properly represent in-use performance. The
expectation is that manufacturers would prefer not to include label
values that create an unrealistic expectation for consumers. We are
proposing to add a condition that the manufacturer may adjust these
values only if the manufacturer changes both values and revises any
other affected label value accordingly for a model type (including but
not limited to the fuel economy 1-10 rating, greenhouse gas 1-10
rating, annual fuel cost, and 5-year fuel cost information). We are
also proposing to extend these same provisions for electric vehicles
and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles based on both increasing energy
consumption values and lowering the electric driving range values.
Section 600.311: Adding clarifying language to reference
the adjusted driving ranges to reflect in-use driving conditions. These
adjusted values are used for fuel economy labeling. For plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles, we are also correcting terminology from ``battery
driving range'' to ``adjusted charge-depleting driving range
(Rcda)'' for clarity and to be consistent with the terms
used in SAE Recommended Practice J1711.
[[Page 17635]]
Section 600.510-12: Providing a more detailed cross
reference to make sure manufacturers use the correct equation for
calculating average combined fuel economy.
Section 600.512-12: Delaying the deadline for the model
year report from the end of March to May 1. The proposal aligns the
deadline provisions with the proposed amendment for end-of-year
reporting as described in 40 CFR 86.1843-01(f)(2).
F. Large Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines (40 CFR Part 1048)
EPA's emission standards and certification requirements for land-
based nonroad spark-ignition engines above 19 kW are set out in 40 CFR
part 1048. We are proposing the following amendments to part 1048:
Section 1048.501: Correct a mistaken reference to duty
cycles in appendix II.
Section 1048.620: Remove obsolete references to 40 CFR
part 89.
G. Small Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines (40 CFR Part 1054)
EPA's emission standards and certification requirements for land-
based nonroad spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kW (``Small SI
engines'') are set out in 40 CFR part 1054. We recently proposed
several amendments to part 1054 (85 FR 28140, May 12, 2020). Comments
submitted in response to that proposed rule suggested additional
amendments related to testing and certifying these Small SI engines.
The following discussion addresses some of these suggested additional
amendments that the EPA is proposing in this rule.
1. Engine Test Speed
The duty cycle established for nonhandheld Small SI engines
consists of six operating modes with varying load, and with engine
speed corresponding to typical governed speed for the intended
application. This generally corresponds to an ``A cycle'' with testing
at 3060 rpm to represent a typical operating speed for a lawnmower, and
a ``B cycle'' with testing at 3600 rpm to represent a typical operating
speed for a generator. While lawnmowers and generators are the most
common equipment types, there are many other applications with widely
varying speed setpoints.
In 2020, we issued guidance to clarify manufacturers' testing
responsibilities for the range of equipment using engines from a given
emission family.\953\ We are proposing to adopt the provisions
described in that guidance document. This includes two main items.
First, we are proposing to identify all equipment in which the
installed engine's governed speed at full load is at or above 3400 rpm
as ``rated-speed equipment'', and all equipment in which the installed
engine's governed speed at full load is below 3330 rpm as
``intermediate-speed equipment``. For equipment in which the installed
engine's governed speed at full load is between 3330 and 3400 rpm, the
engine manufacturer may consider that to be either ``rated-speed
equipment'' or ``intermediate-speed equipment''. This allows
manufacturers to reasonably divide their engine models into separate
families for testing only on the A cycle or the B cycle, as
appropriate. For emission families including both rated-speed equipment
and intermediate-speed equipment, manufacturers would measure emissions
over both the A cycle and the B cycle and certify based on the worst-
case HC+NOX emission results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\953\ ``Small Spark-Ignition Nonhandheld Engine Test Cycle
Selection,'' EPA guidance document CD-2020-06, May 11, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, we are proposing to limit the applicability of the A cycle
to engines with governed speed at full load that is at or above 2700
rpm, and limit the applicability of the B cycle to engines with
governed speed at full load that is at or below 4000 rpm. These values
represent an approximate 10 percent variation from the nominal test
speed. For engines with governed speed at full load outside of these
ranges, we propose to require that manufacturers use the provisions for
special procedures in 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(2) to identify suitable test
speeds for those engines. Manufacturers may take reasonable measures to
name alternate test speeds to represent multiple engine configurations
and equipment installations.
2. Steady-State Duty Cycles
As noted in Section XII.G.1, the duty cycle for nonhandheld engines
consists of a six-mode duty cycle including idle and five loaded test
points. This cycle is not appropriate for engines designed to be
incapable of operating with no load at a reduced idle speed. For many
years, we have approved a modified five-mode duty cycle for these
engines by removing the idle mode and reweighting the remaining five
modes. We are proposing to adopt that same alternative duty cycle into
the regulation and require its use for all engines that are not
designed to idle. For emission families that include both types of
engines, manufacturers would measure emissions over both the six-mode
and five-mode duty cycles and certify based on the worst-case
HC+NOX emission results.
The discussion in Section XII.G.1 applies equally for nonhandheld
engines whether or not they are designed to idle. As a result, if an
emission family includes engines designed for idle with governed speeds
corresponding to rated-speed equipment and intermediate-speed
equipment, and engines in the same emission family that are not
designed to idle have governed speeds corresponding to rated-speed
equipment and intermediate-speed equipment, the manufacturer would need
to perform A cycle and B cycle testing for both the six-mode duty cycle
and the five-mode duty cycle. Manufacturers would then perform those
four sets of emission measurements and certify based on the worst-case
HC+NOX emission results.
The nonhandheld six-mode duty cycle in appendix II to 40 CFR part
1054 includes an option to do discrete-mode or ramped-modal testing.
The ramped-modal test method involves collecting emissions during the
established modes and defined transition steps between modes to allow
manufacturers to treat the full cycle as a single measurement. With the
new five-mode duty cycle, we would need to decide whether to again
specify a corresponding ramped-modal duty cycle. We are proposing
rather to remove the ramped-modal test option for the six-mode duty
cycle. No manufacturer has ever used ramped-modal testing. This appears
to be based largely on the greater familiarity with discrete-mode
testing and on the sensitivity of small engines to small variations in
speed and load. Rather than increasing the complexity of the regulation
by multiplying the number of duty cycles, we are favoring the leaner
approach of limiting tests to those tests that manufacturers have
selected consistently over the years.
3. Engine Family Criteria
Manufacturers requested that we allow open-loop and closed-loop
engines to be included together in a certified emission family, with
the testing demonstration for certification based on the worst-case
configuration.
The key regulatory provision for this question is in 40 CFR
1054.230(b)(8), which says that engine configurations can be in the
same emission family if they are the same in the ``method of control
for engine operation, other than governing (mechanical or
electronic)``.
Engine families are intended to group different engine models and
configurations together if they will have similar emission
characteristics throughout the useful life. The general
[[Page 17636]]
description of an engine's ``method of control for engine operation''
requires that EPA apply judgment to establish which fuel-system
technologies should be eligible for treating together in a single
engine family. We have implemented this provision by allowing open-loop
and closed-loop engine configurations to be in the same emission family
if they have the same design values for spark timing and targeted air-
fuel ratio. This approach allows us to consider open-loop vs. closed-
loop configurations as different ``methods of control'' when the
engines have fundamentally different approaches for managing
combustion. We do not intend to change this current practice and we are
therefore not proposing to amend 40 CFR 1054.230 to address the concern
about open-loop and closed-loop engine configurations.
The existing text of 40 CFR 1054.230(b)(8) identifies ``mechanical
or electronic'' control to be fundamental for differentiating emission
families. However, as is expected for open-loop and closed-loop
configurations, we would expect engines with electronic throttle-body
injection and mechanical carburetion to have very similar emission
characteristics if they have the same design values for spark timing
and targeted air-fuel ratio. A more appropriate example to establish a
fundamental difference in method of control would be the contrast
between port fuel injection and carburetion (or throttle-body
injection). We are therefore proposing to revise the regulation with
this more targeted example. This revision would allow manufacturers to
group engine configurations with carburetion and throttle-body
injection into a shared emission family as long as they have the same
design values for spark timing and targeted air-fuel ratio.
4. Miscellaneous Amendments for Small Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines
We are proposing the following additional amendments to 40 CFR part
1054:
Section 1054.115: Revising the description of prohibited
controls to align with similar provisions from the regulations that
apply for other sectors.
Appendix I: Clarifying that requirements related to
deterioration factors, production-line testing, and in-use testing did
not apply for Phase 1 engines certified under 40 CFR part 90.
H. Recreational Vehicles and Nonroad Evaporative Emissions (40 CFR
parts 1051 and 1060)
EPA's emission standards and certification requirements for
recreational vehicles are set out in 40 CFR part 1051, with additional
specifications for evaporative emission standards in 40 CFR part 1060.
We are proposing the following amendments to parts 1051 and 1060:
Section 1051.115(d): Aligning the time and cost
specification related to air-fuel adjustments with those that apply for
mechanically adjustable parameters we are proposing in 40 CFR
1068.50(d)(1). This would create a uniform set of specifications for
time and cost thresholds for all adjustable parameters including air-
fuel ratio adjustment.
Sections 1051.501(c) and 1060.515(c) and (d): Creating an
exception to the ambient temperature specification for fuel-line
testing to allow for removing the test article from an environmental
chamber for daily weight measurements. This proposed change aligns with
our recent change to allow for this same exception in the measurement
procedure for fuel tank permeation (86 FR 34308, June 29, 2021).
Section 1051.501(c): Specifying that fuel-line testing
involves daily weight measurements for 14 days. This is consistent with
the specifications in 40 CFR 1060.515. This proposed amendment codifies
EPA's guidance to address these test parameters that are missing from
the referenced SAE J30 test procedure.\954\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\954\ ``Evaporative Permeation Requirements for 2008 and Later
Model Year New Recreational Vehicles and Highway Motorcycles'', EPA
guidance document CD-07-02, March 26, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1051.501(d): Updating referenced procedures. The
referenced procedure in 40 CFR 1060.810 is the 2006 version of ASTM
D471. We inadvertently left the references in 40 CFR 1051.501 to the
1998 version of ASTM D471. Citing the standard without naming the
version allows us to avoid a similar error in the future.
Section 1051.515: Revising the soak period specification
to allow an alternative of preconditioning fuel tanks at 435 [deg]C for 10 weeks. The existing regulation allows for a soak
period that is shorter and higher temperature than the specified soak
of 285 [deg]C for 20 weeks. This approach to an alternative
soak period is the same as what is specified in 40 CFR 1060.520(b)(1).
Section 1060.520: Adding ``'' where that was
inadvertently omitted in describing the temperature range that applies
for soaking fuel tanks for 10 weeks.
We are proposing an additional amendment related to snowmobile
emission standards. The original exhaust emission standards for
snowmobiles in 40 CFR 1051.103 included standards for NOX
emissions. However, EPA removed those NOX emission standards
in response to an adverse court decision.\955\ We are therefore
proposing to remove the reference to NOX emissions in the
description of emission credits for snowmobiles in 40 CFR 1051.740(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\955\ ``Bluewater Network vs. EPA, No. 03-1003, September Term,
2003'' Available here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-caDC-03-01249/pdf/USCOURTS-caDC-03-01249-0.pdf. The Court found that
the EPA had authority to regulate CO under CAA 213(a)(3) and HC
under CAA 213(a)(4), but did not have authority to regulate
NOX under CAA 213(a)(4) as it was explicitly referred to
in CAA 213(a)(2) and CAA 213(a)(4) only grants authority to regulate
emissions ``not referred to in paragraph (2).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Marine Diesel Engines (40 CFR parts 1042 and 1043)
EPA's emission standards and certification requirements for marine
diesel engines under the CAA are in 40 CFR part 1042. Emission
standards and related fuel requirements that apply internationally are
in 40 CFR part 1043.
1. Production-Line Testing
Engine manufacturers have been testing production engines as
described in 40 CFR part 1042. This generally involves testing up to 1
percent of production engines for engine families with production
volumes greater than 100 engines. We adopted these testing provisions
in 1999 with the expectation that most families would have production
volumes greater than 100 engines per year (64 FR 73300, December 29,
1999). That was the initial rulemaking to set emission standards for
marine diesel engines. As a result, there was no existing certification
history to draw on for making good estimates of the number of engine
families or the production volumes in those engine families. Now that
we have almost 20 years of experience in managing certification for
these engines, we can observe that manufacturers have certified a few
engine families with production volumes substantially greater than 100
engines per year, but many engine families are not subject to
production-line testing because production volumes are below 100
engines per year. As a result, manufacturers test several engines in
large engine families, but many engine families have no production-line
testing at all.
We are proposing to revise the production-line testing regimen for
marine diesel engines to reflect a more tailored approach. The biggest
benefit of production-line testing for this sector is
[[Page 17637]]
to confirm that engine manufacturers can go beyond the prototype engine
build for certification and move to building compliant engines in a
production environment. From this perspective, the first test is of
most value, with additional tests adding assurance of proper quality
control procedures for ongoing production. Additional testing might
also add value to confirm that design changes and updated production
practices over time do not introduce problems.
We are proposing to set up a default engine sampling rate of one
test per family. An engine test from a prior year would count as a
sufficient demonstration as long as the manufacturer certifies the
engine family using carryover emission data. At the same time, we are
proposing to remove the testing exemption for small-volume engine
manufacturers and low-volume engine families. In summary, this approach
would:
Remove the testing exemption for low-volume families and
small-volume manufacturers, and remove the 1 percent sampling rate.
Revise the engine sampling instruction to require one test for each
family. A test from a prior year can meet the test requirement for
carryover families. This includes tests performed before these changes
to the regulation become effective. This may also involve shared
testing for recreational and commercial engine families if they rely on
the same emission-data engine.
Require a single test engine randomly selected early in
the production run. EPA may direct the manufacturer to select a
specific configuration and build date. The manufacturer continues to be
subject to the requirement to test two more engines for each failing
engine, and notify EPA if an engine family fails.
Require a full test report within 45 days after testing is
complete for the family. There would be no additional quarterly report
or annual reports.
Allow manufacturers to transition to the new test
requirements by spreading out tests over multiple years if several
engine families are affected. Small-volume engine manufacturers would
need to test no more than two engine families in a single model year,
and other engine manufacturers would need to test no more than four
engine families in a single model year.
Allow EPA to withhold approval of a request for
certification for a family for a given year if PLT work from the
previous model year is not done.
Preserve EPA's ability to require an additional test in
the same model year or a later model year for cause even after there
was a passing result based on any reasonable suspicion that engines may
not meet emission standards.
In our recent rule proposing several regulatory amendments to
Marine CI provisions in 40 CFR part 1042 (and several other sectors),
we requested comment on changes to production-line testing that were
very similar to what we are proposing in this document (85 FR 28140,
May 12, 2020). That proposed rule referenced a memorandum with draft
regulatory amendments.\956\ The provisions in this proposal include the
following adjustments to reflect the input shared by commenters:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\956\ ``Alternative Production-Line Testing Requirements for
Marine Diesel Engines,'' EPA memorandum from Alan Stout to Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0307, January 23, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The start of testing must occur within 60 days after
production starts for a given Category 1 engine family, with an
accommodation for low-volume families that specifies that the engine
manufacturer must test the next engine produced if the 60-day time
frame is not sufficient for selecting a test engine.
The same provisions apply for selecting a Category 2
engine for testing, except that the 60-day period for engine selection
starts after the manufacturer produces the fifth engine from an engine
family. This approach is reflective of the production volumes that are
typical for Category 2 engines.
For the additional testing that is required after failing
results, we specify a 90-day time frame in case the engine family's
production volumes are too low to resume testing after producing 15
engines.
We are keeping the requirement to randomly select
production engines for testing, but we are clarifying that (1) the
fundamental feature of random selection is to ensure that test engines
have been assembled using the same instructions, procedures, and
quality-control oversight that applies for other production engines and
(2) random selection can include preferentially selecting engines
earlier than we specify. For example, a manufacturer may randomly
select a test engine for a high-volume Category 1 engine family in the
first 20 days of production instead of randomly selecting a test engine
from the first 60 days of production.
There are no test requirements until after the
manufacturer starts production for a given engine family.
The proposal giving us the discretion to require additional testing
for cause would include a more detailed description to illustrate the
types of concerns that would lead us to identify the need for
additional testing. Reporting defects for an engine family would raise
such a concern. In addition, amending applications for certification
might also raise concerns.\957\ Decreasing an engine family's Family
Emission Limit without submitting new emission data would be a concern
because the manufacturer would appear to be creating credits from what
was formerly considered a necessary compliance margin. Changing
suppliers or specifications for critical emission-related components
would raise concerns about whether the emission controls system is
continuing to meet performance expectations. Adding a new or modified
engine configuration always involves a judgment about whether the
original test data continue to represent the worst-case configuration
for the expanded family. In any of these cases, we may direct the
manufacturer to perform an additional test with a production engine to
confirm that the family meets emission standards. In addition to these
specific concerns, we expect manufacturers to have a greater vigilance
in making compliant products if they know that they may need to perform
additional testing. Conversely, removing the possibility of further
testing for the entirety of a production run spanning several years
could substantially weaken our oversight presence to ensure compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\957\ In this context, making the described changes in an
application for certification applies equally for running changes
within a model year and for changes that are introduced at the start
of a new model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The net effect of the proposed production-line test changes would
be a substantial decrease in overall testing. We estimate industry-wide
testing will decrease by about 30 engines per year. Spreading test
requirements more widely across the range of engine families should
allow for a more effective program in spite of the reduced testing
rate. We acknowledge that some individual companies will test more
engines under the proposal; however, by limiting default test rates to
one per engine family, including future years, this would represent a
small test burden even for the companies with new or additional testing
requirements.
We request comment on the timing for starting the transition to the
new approach, including any appropriate adjustments to the maximum
annual test rate for small-volume and other engine manufacturers. We
request comment on adjusting the criteria by which we would treat
different engine families to be the same for purposes of production-
line testing. We request
[[Page 17638]]
comment on the test schedule, especially for balancing the different
dynamics that apply for high-volume, low-volume, and seasonal engines.
We request comment on our attempt to clarify that engines must be
randomly selected even for the most challenging cases of low-volume
production and carefully constructed timelines. We request comment on
the schedule for reporting test results to properly balance the
interests of timely submissions with the practical realities of
assembling the information. We request comment on the proposed criteria
to inform our decision-making for requiring additional testing beyond
the mandatory first test engine; this may include clarification or
adjustment of the proposed criteria, and it may include consideration
of additional criteria that would support a concern for ongoing
compliance. More generally, we request comment on all aspects of the
proposed approach for sampling and testing production engines to
achieve the benefits of EPA's effective compliance oversight at a
reasonable level of testing for manufacturers.
We are proposing two additional clarifications related to
production-line testing. First, we are clarifying that test results
from the as-built engine are the final results to represent that
engine. Manufacturers may modify the test engine to develop alternative
strategies or to better understand the engine's performance; however,
testing from those modified engines do not represent the engine family
unless the manufacturer changes their production processes for all
engines to match those engine modifications. Testing modified engines
to meet production-line testing obligations would count as a separate
engine rather than replacing the original test results.
Second, we are clarifying that Category 3 auxiliary engines
exempted from EPA certification under part 1042 continue to be subject
to production-line testing under 40 CFR 1042.305. This question came up
because we recently amended 40 CFR 1042.650(d) to allow Category 3
auxiliary engines installed in certain ships to meet Annex VI
certification requirements instead of EPA certification requirements
under part 1042 (86 FR 34308, June 29, 2021). As with Category 1 and
Category 2 engines covered by production-line testing requirements in
40 CFR 1042.301, these test requirements apply for all engines subject
to part 1042, even if they are not certified under part 1042.
2. Applying Reporting Requirements to EGR-Equipped Engines
EPA has received comments suggesting that we apply the SCR-related
monitoring and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 1042.660(b) to engines
that instead use exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) to meet Tier 4
standards. We understand SCR and EGR to be fundamentally different in
ways that lead us not to propose this suggested change.
i. Maintenance
There are two principal modes of EGR failure: (1) Failure of the
valve itself (physically stuck or not able to move or adjust within
normal range) and (2) EGR cooler fouling. EGR cooler maintenance is
typically listed in the maintenance instructions provided by engine
manufacturers to owners. If done according to the prescribed schedule,
this should prevent fouling of the EGR cooler. Similarly, EGR valves
typically come with prescribed intervals for inspection and
replacement. For both components, the intervals are long and occur at
the time that other maintenance is routinely performed. Under 40 CFR
1042.125(a)(2), the minimum interval for EGR-related filters and
coolers is 1500 hours, and the minimum interval for other EGR-related
components is either 3000 hours or 4500 hours depending on the engine's
max power.
In contrast, SCR systems depend on the active, ongoing involvement
of the operator to maintain an adequate supply of Diesel Exhaust Fluid
(DEF) as a reductant to keep the catalyst functioning properly. EPA
does not prescribe the size of DEF storage tanks for vessels, but the
engine manufacturers provide installation instructions with
recommendations for tank sizing to ensure that enough DEF is available
onboard for the duration of a workday or voyages between ports. At the
frequencies that this fluid needs replenishing, it would not be
expected that other routine maintenance must also be performed, aside
from refueling.
DEF consumption from marine diesel engines is estimated to be 3-8
percent of diesel fuel consumption. Recommended DEF tank sizes are
generally about 10 percent of the onboard fuel storage, with the
expectation that operators would refill DEF tanks during a refueling
event.
Another point of contrast is that SCR systems have many failure
modes in addition to the failure to maintain an adequate supply of
reductant. For example, dosing could stop due to faulty sensors,
malfunctions of components in the reductant delivery system, or
freezing of the reductant.
Over the years of implementing regulations for which SCR is the
adopted technology, EPA has produced several guidance documents to
assist manufacturers in developing approvable SCR engine
designs.958 959 960 Many of the features implemented to
assure that SCR systems are properly maintained by vehicle and
equipment operators are not present with systems on marine vessels.
Thus, we rely on the reporting provision of 40 CFR 1042.660(b) to
enhance our assurance that maintenance will occur as prescribed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\958\ ``Revised Guidance for Certification of Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engines Using Selective Catalyst Reduction (SCR) Technologies'', EPA
guidance document CISD-09-04, December 30, 2009.
\959\ ``Nonroad SCR Certification'', EPA Webinar Presentation,
July 26, 2011.
\960\ ``Certification of Nonroad Diesel Engines Equipped with
SCR Emission Controls'', EPA guidance document CD-14-10, May 12,
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Tampering
Engine manufacturers and others have asked questions about
generation of condensate from an EGR-equipped engine. This condensate
is an acidic liquid waste that must be discharged in accordance with
water quality standards (and IMO, USCG, local port rules). The Tier 4
EGR-equipped engines that EPA has certified are believed to generate a
very small amount of EGR condensate. Larger quantities of condensate
may be generated from an aftercooler, but that is non-acidic, non-oily
water that would generally not need to be held onboard or treated. In
the absence of compelling information to the contrary, we believe that
the burden of storing, treating, and discharging the EGR condensate is
not great enough to motivate an operator to tamper with the engine.
Most EGR-equipped engines have internal valves and components that
are not readily accessible to operators. In these cases, the controls
to activate or deactivate EGR are engaged automatically by the engine's
electronic control module and are not vulnerable to operator tampering.
Where an engine design has external EGR, even though emission-related
components may be somewhat accessible to operators, the controls are
still engaged automatically by the engine's electronic control module
and continued compliance is ensured if prescribed maintenance is
performed on schedule and there is no tampering.
iii. Nature of the Risk
There are five manufacturers actively producing hundreds of
certified Category 1 marine diesel engines each year using EGR to
achieve Tier 3
[[Page 17639]]
emission standards. Nobody has suggested that these EGR controls are
susceptible to tampering or malmaintenance.
There is one manufacturer who has certified two Category 3 marine
diesel engine families using EGR to achieve the Tier 3 emission
standards for these large engines. If there is any risk with these,
it's that the ocean-going vessel may not visit an ECA often enough to
exercise the EGR valve and prevent it from getting corroded or stuck.
These engines are already subject to other onboard diagnostics and
reporting requirements, so we expect no need to expand 40 CFR
1042.660(b) for these engines.
There is one manufacturer producing Category 2 marine diesel
engines using EGR to achieve the Tier 4 emission standards. We again do
not see the need to include them in the reporting scheme in 40 CFR
1042.660(b).
3. Miscellaneous Amendments for Marine Diesel Engines
We are proposing the following additional amendments for our marine
diesel engine program:
Sections 1042.110 and 1042.205: Revising text to refer to
``warning lamp'' instead of ``malfunction indicator light'' to prevent
confusion with conventional onboard diagnostic controls. This aligns
with changes adopted for land-based nonroad diesel engines in 40 CFR
part 1039. We are also clarifying that the manufacturers description of
the diagnostic system in the application for certification should
identify which communication protocol the engine uses.
Section 1042.110: Revising text to refer more broadly to
detecting a proper supply of Diesel Exhaust Fluid to recognize, for
example, that a closed valve may interrupt the supply (not just an
empty tank).
Section 1042.115: Revising provisions related to
adjustable parameters, as described in Section XII.H.1.
Section 1042.115: Adding provisions to address concerns
related to vanadium sublimation, as described in Section XII.B.
Section 1042.615: Clarifying that engines used to repower
a steamship may be considered to qualify for the replacement engine
exemption. This exemption applies relative to EPA standards in 40 CFR
part 1042. We are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 1043.95 relative to
the application of MARPOL Annex VI requirements for repowering Great
Lakes steamships.
Section 1042.660(b): Revising the instruction for
reporting related to vessel operation without reductant for SCR-
equipped engines to describe the essential items to be reported, which
includes the cause, the remedy, and an estimate of the extent of
operation without reductant. We are also proposing to revise the
contact information for reporting, and to clarify that the reporting
requirement applies equally for engines that meet standards under
MARPOL Annex VI instead of or in addition to meeting EPA standards
under part 1042. We are also aware that vessel owners may choose to
voluntarily add SCR systems to engines certified without
aftertreatment; we propose to clarify that the reporting requirement of
40 CFR 1042.660(b) does not apply for these uncertified systems. These
changes are intended to clarify the reporting instructions for
manufacturers under this provision rather than creating a new reporting
obligation. We request comment on adjusting these information
requirements to meet the goal of providing essential information with a
minimal reporting burden.
Section 1042.901: Clarifying that the displacement value
differentiating Category 1 and Category 2 engines subject to Tier 1 and
Tier 2 standards was 5.0 liters per cylinder, rather than the value of
7.0 liters per cylinder that applies for engines subject to Tier 3 and
Tier 4 standards.
Part 1042, appendix I: Correcting the decimal places to
properly identify the historical Tier 1 and Tier 2 PM standards for 19-
37 kW engines.
Section 1043.20: Revising the definition of ``public
vessel'' to clarify how national security exemptions relate to
applicability of requirements under MARPOL Annex VI. Specifically,
vessels with an engine-based national security exemption are exempt
from NOX standards under MARPOL Annex VI, and vessels with a
fuel-based national security exemption are exempt from the fuel
standards under MARPOL Annex VI. Conversely, an engine-based national
security exemption does not automatically exempt a vessel from the fuel
standards under MARPOL Annex VI, and a fuel-based national security
exemption does not automatically exempt a vessel from the
NOX standards under MARPOL Annex VI. These distinctions are
most likely to come into play for merchant marine vessels that are
intermittently deployed for national (noncommercial) service.
Section 1043.55: Revising text to clarify that U.S. Coast
Guard is the approving authority for technologies that are equivalent
to meeting sulfur standards under Regulation 4 of MARPOL Annex VI.
Section 1043.95: Expanding the Great Lakes steamship
provisions to allow for engine repowers to qualify for the replacement
engine exemption in Annex VI, Regulation 13.2.2. This allows EPA to
approve a ship owner's request to install engines meeting the IMO Tier
II NOX standard. Since meeting the IMO Tier III
NOX standard for such a repower project would be cost-
prohibitive, this proposed provision is intended to create an incentive
for shipowners to upgrade the vessel by replacing the steam boilers
with IMO Tier II engines, with very substantial expected reductions in
NOX, PM, and CO2 emissions compared to emission
rates from continued operation as steamships. We are also proposing to
simplify the fuel-use exemption for Great Lakes steamships to allow for
continued use of high-sulfur fuel for already authorized steamships,
while recognizing that the fuel-use exemption is no longer available
for additional steamships.
J. Locomotives (40 CFR Part 1033)
EPA's emission standards and certification requirements for
locomotives and locomotive engines are in 40 CFR part 1033. This
proposed rule includes several amendments that affect locomotives, as
discussed in Sections XI.A and XI.L.
We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 1033.815 to clarify how penalty
provisions apply relative to maintenance and remanufacturing
requirements. We have become aware that the discussion of violations
and penalties in 40 CFR 1033.815(f) addresses failure to perform
required maintenance but omits reference to the recordkeeping
requirements described in that same regulatory section. We originally
adopted the maintenance and recordkeeping requirements with a statement
describing that failing to meet these requirements would be considered
a violation of the tampering prohibition in 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1). The
requirement for owners to keep records for the specified maintenance
are similarly tied to the tampering prohibition, but failing to keep
required records cannot be characterized as a tampering violation per
se. As a result, we are proposing to clarify that a failure to keep
records violates 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2).
We are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 1033.815(f) to specifically
name the tampering prohibition as the relevant provision related to
maintenance requirements for locomotives, rather than making a more
general reference to prohibitions in 40 CFR 1068.101.
[[Page 17640]]
We are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 1033.525 to remove the
smokemeter requirements and replace them with a reference to 40 CFR
1065.1125, which we are proposing as the central location for all
instrument and setup requirements for measuring smoke. We are also
proposing to add data analysis requirements for locomotives to 40 CFR
1033.525 that were never migrated over from 40 CFR 92.131;
manufacturers still use these procedures to analyze and submit smoke
data for certifying locomotives. It is our understanding is that all
current smoke testing includes computer-based analysis of measured
results; we are therefore proposing to remove the references to manual
or graphical analysis of smoke test data.
Finally, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 1033.1 to clarify that 40
CFR part 1033 applies to engines that were certified under part 92
before 2008. We are also proposing to remove 40 CFR 1033.102 and revise
40 CFR 1033.101 and appendix A of part 1033 to more carefully describe
how locomotives were subject to different standards in the transition
to the standards currently specified in 40 CFR 1033.101.
K. Stationary Compression-Ignition Engines (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart
IIII)
EPA's emission standards and certification requirements for
stationary compression-ignition engines are in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
IIII. Section 60.4202 establishes emission standards for stationary
emergency compression-ignition engines. We are proposing to correct a
reference in 40 CFR 60.4202 to the Tier 3 standards for marine engines
contained in 40 CFR part 1042. EPA emission standards for certain
engine power ratings go directly from Tier 2 to Tier 4. Such engines
are never subject to Tier 3 standards, so the reference in 40 CFR
60.4202 is incorrect. Section 60.4202 currently describes the engines
as those that otherwise ``would be subject to the Tier 4 standards''.
We propose to amend the regulation to more broadly refer to the
``previous tier of standards'' instead of naming Tier 3. In most case,
this would continue to apply the Tier 3 standards for these engines,
but the Tier 2 standards would apply if there was no applicable Tier 3
standard.
XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is an economically significant regulatory action that
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket. EPA prepared an analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis, the
draft ``Regulatory Impact Analysis--Control of Air Pollution from New
Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards NPRM,'' is
available in the docket. The analyses contained in this document are
also summarized in Sections V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XI of this
preamble.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document
that EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR Number 2621.01. You can
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here.
The proposed rule builds on existing certification and compliance
requirements required under title II of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7521 et seq.). Existing requirements are covered under two ICRs: (1)
EPA ICR Number 1684.20, OMB Control Number 2060-0287, Emissions
Certification and Compliance Requirements for Nonroad Compression-
ignition Engines and On-highway Heavy Duty Engines; and (2) EPA ICR
Number 1695.14, OMB Control Number 2060-0338, Certification and
Compliance Requirements for Nonroad Spark-ignition Engines. Therefore,
this ICR only covers the incremental burden associated with the updated
regulatory requirements as described in the proposed rule. The
resulting burden and costs estimates may be updated in response to
additional input the Agency receives in comments on the proposed
regulatory changes and to reflect any updates or revisions in the final
rule.
Respondents/affected entities: The entities potentially
affected by this action are manufacturers of engines and vehicles in
the heavy-duty on-highway industries, including alternative fuel
converters, secondary vehicle manufacturers, and electric vehicle
manufactures. Manufacturers of light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks,
marine diesel engines, locomotives, and various types of nonroad
engines, vehicles, and equipment may be affected to a lesser degree.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Regulated entities
must respond to this collection if they wish to sell their products in
the United States, as prescribed by CAA section 203(a). Participation
in some programs is voluntary; but once a manufacturer has elected to
participate, it must submit the required information.
Estimated number of respondents: Approximately 279
(total).
Frequency of response: Annually or On Occasion, depending
on the type of response.
Total estimated burden: 24,214 hours per year. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
Total estimated cost: $5,694,258 (per year), includes an
estimated $3,729,550 annualized capital or maintenance and operational
costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it 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.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to EPA using the docket identified at the
beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
[email protected]. Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Since OMB
is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than April 27,
2022. EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this proposed action are
heavy-duty alternative fuel engine converters, heavy-duty electric
vehicle manufacturers, a heavy-duty conventional vehicle manufacturer,
and heavy-duty secondary vehicle manufacturers. While the proposed rule
also includes regulatory amendments for sectors other than highway
heavy-duty engines and vehicles, these amendments for other sectors
correct, clarify, and streamline the regulatory provisions, and there
is no burden from
[[Page 17641]]
the proposed rule on small entities in these other sectors.
We identified 265 small entities in the heavy-duty sector that
would be subject to the proposed rule: Two heavy-duty alternative fuel
engine converters, 13 electric vehicle manufacturers, one conventional
vehicle manufacturer, and 249 heavy-duty secondary vehicle
manufacturers. The Agency has determined that 217 of the 265 small
entities subject to the rule would experience an impact of less than 1
percent of annual revenue; 48 small entities would experience an impact
of 1 to less than 3 percent of annual revenue; and no small entity
would experience an impact of 3 percent or greater of annual revenue.
Specifically, the two alternative fuel engine converters, the 13
electric vehicle manufacturers, the conventional vehicle manufacturer,
and 201 secondary vehicle manufacturers would experience an impact of
less than 1 percent of annual revenue, and 48 secondary vehicle
manufacturers would experience an impact of 1 to less than 3 percent of
annual revenue. Details of this analysis are presented in Chapter 11 of
the draft RIA.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This proposed rule contains no federal mandates under UMRA, 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538, for State, local, or Tribal governments. The proposed
rule would impose no enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal
government. This proposed rule would contain a federal mandate under
UMRA that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for the
private sector in any one year. Accordingly, the costs and benefits
associated with the proposed rule are discussed in Section IX and in
the draft RIA, which are in the docket for this rule.
This action 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.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on states, on the relationship
between the national government and states, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action. This action does not have substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
However, EPA plans to continue engaging with Tribal stakeholders in the
development of this rulemaking by offering a Tribal workshop and
offering government-to-government consultation upon request.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and EPA believes that the environmental health risks or
safety risks 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
program on children. The results of this evaluation are described in
Section II regarding the Need for Additional Emissions Control and
associated references in Section II.
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.\961\ 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.\962\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\961\ 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.
\962\ 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. Early lifestages (e.g., children) are thought to be more
susceptible to tumor development than adults when exposed to
carcinogenic chemicals that act through a mutagenic mode of
action.\963\ Exposure at a young age to these carcinogens could lead to
a higher risk of developing cancer later in life. Section II.B.7
describes a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that reported a positive
association between proximity to traffic and the risk of leukemia in
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\963\ 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. As
described in Section II.B, the Integrated Science Assessments 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.7 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.
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. Within these highly exposed groups,
children's exposure and susceptibility to health effects is greater
than adults due to school-related and seasonal activities, behavior,
and physiological factors.
Section VI.B of this preamble presents the estimated emissions
reductions from the proposed rule, including substantial reductions in
NOX and other criteria and toxic pollutants. Section VII of
this preamble presents the air quality impacts of the proposed rule.
The air quality modeling predicts decreases in ambient concentrations
of air pollutants in 2045 due to the proposed standards, including
significant improvements in ozone concentrations. Ambient
PM2.5, NO2 and CO concentrations are also
predicted to improve in 2045 because of the proposed program.
[[Page 17642]]
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.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. In fact, this proposal has an
incremental positive impact on energy supply and use. Section III.E and
Section V describe our projected fuel savings due to the proposed
refueling emissions standards for certain Spark-ignition HDE. These
refueling emission standards would require manufacturers to implement
emission control systems to recover evaporative emissions that would
otherwise be emitted to the ambient air during a refueling event for
use in those engines. Considering the estimated incremental fuel
savings from the proposed refueling emissions standards, we have
concluded that this proposal is not likely to have any adverse energy
effects.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. Except for the standards
discussed below, the standards included in the regulatory text as
incorporated by reference were all previously approved for IBR and no
change is included in this action.
In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing
to incorporate by reference the use of test methods and standards from
ASTM International (ASTM). The referenced standards and test methods
may be obtained through the ASTM website (www.astm.org) or by calling
(610) 832-9585. If ASTM adopts an updated version of the referenced
standards, we would expect to reference the most recent version. We are
proposing to incorporate by reference the following ASTM standards:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard or test method Regulation Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASTM D975-21, Standard 40 CFR 1036.415(c) Fuel specification
Specification for Diesel and 1036.810(a). needed for
Fuel''. manufacturer-run
field-testing
program. This is a
newly referenced
standard.
ASTM D4814-21c, Standard 40 CFR 1036.415(c) Fuel specification
Specification for and 1036.810(a). needed for
Automotive Spark-Ignition manufacturer-run
Engine Fuel. field-testing
program. This is a
newly referenced
standard.
ASTM D7467-20a, Standard 40 CFR 1036.415(c) Fuel specification
Specification for Diesel and 1036.810(a). needed for
Fuel Oil, Biodiesel Blend manufacturer-run
(B6 to B20). field-testing
program. This is a
newly referenced
standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing
to incorporate by reference the use of test methods and standards from
SAE International. The referenced standards and test methods may be
obtained through the SAE International website (www.sae.org) or by
calling (800) 854-7179. We are proposing to incorporate by reference
the following SAE International standards and test methods:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard or test method Regulation Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAE J1634, July 2017, 40 CFR 600.011(c), The procedure
Battery Electric Vehicle 600.116-12(a), describes how to
Energy Consumption and 600.210-12(d), and measure energy
Range Test Procedure. 600.311-12(j) and consumption and
(k). 40 CFR range from electric
1066.501(a) and vehicles. This is
1066.1010(b). an updated version
of the document
currently specified
in the regulation.
SAE J1711, June 2010, 40 CFR 1066.501(a), The recommended
Recommended Practice for 1066.1001, and practice describes
Measuring the Exhaust 1066.1010(b). how to measure fuel
Emissions and Fuel Economy economy and
of Hybrid-Electric emissions from
Vehicles, Including Plug-In light-duty
Hybrid Vehicles. vehicles, including
hybrid-electric
vehicles. This
proposal cites the
reference document
in an additional
place in the
regulation.
SAE J1979-2, April 22, 2021, 40 CFR 1036.150(v) The standard
E/E Diagnostic Test Modes: and 1036.810(e). includes
OBDonUDS. information
describing
interface protocols
for onboard
diagnostic systems.
This is a newly
referenced
standard.
SAE J2263, May 2020, Road 40 CFR 1037.528 The procedure
Load Measurement Using introductory text, describes how to
Onboard Anemometry and (a), (b), (d), and perform coastdown
Coastdown Techniques. (f), 1037.665(a), measurements with
and 1037.810(e). 40 light-duty and
CFR 1066.301(b), heavy-duty
1066.305, vehicles. This is
1066.310(b), an updated version
1066.1010(b). of the document
currently specified
in the regulation.
SAE J2711, May 2020, 40 CFR 1066.501(a) The recommended
Recommended Practice for and 1066.1010(b). practice describes
Measuring Fuel Economy and how to measure fuel
Emissions of Hybrid- economy and
Electric and Conventional emissions from
Heavy-Duty Vehicles. heavy-duty
vehicles, including
hybrid-electric
vehicles. This is
an updated version
of the document
currently specified
in the regulation.
SAE J2841, March 2009, 40 CFR 1037.550(a) The standard
Utility Factor Definitions and 1037.810(e). practice
for Plug-In Hybrid Electric establishes
Vehicles Using 2001 U.S. terminology and
DOT National Household procedures for
Travel Survey Data. calculating
emission rates and
fuel consumption
for plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17643]]
In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing
to incorporate by reference the use of test methods and standards from
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). This
reference standard is intended to support proposed changes to labeling
for heavy-duty engines. We request comment on the need or benefit of
amending the regulation to cite this same document where we currently
use an older version of the same reference standard for fuel economy
labels (see 40 CFR part 600, subpart D). The referenced standards and
test methods may be obtained through the ISO website (www.iso.org) or
by calling (41) 22749 0111. We propose to incorporate by reference the
following ISO standard:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard or test method Regulation Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISO/IEC 18004:2015(E), 40 CFR 1036.135(c) The standard
February 2015, Information and 1036.810(c). specifies a
technology--Automatic standardized code
identification and data protocol for
capture techniques--QR Code including on
bar code symbology engines' emission
specification, Third control information
Edition. labels. This is a
newly referenced
standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing
to incorporate by reference the use of test methods and standards from
the Idaho National Laboratory. The referenced standards and test
methods may be obtained through the Idaho National Laboratory website
(www.inl.gov) or by calling (866) 495-7440. We propose to incorporate
by reference the following test methods:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard or test method Regulation Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Advanced Battery 40 CFR 1037.552(a) The referenced
Consortium, Electric and 1037.810(f). procedure describes
Vehicle Battery Test a procedure for
Procedures Manual, Revision preconditioning
2, January 1996. batteries as part
of a performance
demonstration. This
is a newly
referenced
standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing
to incorporate by reference the use of test methods and standards from
the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The referenced standards and
test methods may be obtained through the CARB website (www.arb.ca.gov)
or by calling (916) 322-2884. We propose to incorporate by reference
the following CARB documents:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard or test method Regulation Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's 2019 OBD regulation-- 40 CFR 1036.110(b) The CARB standards
13 CCR 1968.2, 1968.5, and and 1036.810(d). establish
1971.5. requirements for
onboard diagnostic
systems for heavy-
duty vehicles.
These are newly
referenced
standards.
CARB's 2019 OBD regulation-- 40 CFR 1036.110(b) The CARB standards
13 CCR 1971.1. and (c), establish
1036.111(a) and requirements for
(c), and onboard diagnostic
1036.810(d). systems for heavy-
duty vehicles. This
is a newly
referenced
standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
EPA believes that this proposed rule does not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or
indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994). Section II.B.8 of this preamble provides a
qualitative summary of evidence that communities with environmental
justice concerns are disproportionately impacted by mobile source
emissions and would therefore benefit from the emissions reductions
that would result from this proposal. Section II.B.8 also presents the
results of new work that shows that, relative to the rest of the
population, people living near truck routes are more likely to be
people of color and have lower incomes than the general population.
With respect to emissions reductions and associated improvements in
air quality, EPA has determined that this rule would benefit all U.S.
populations, including minority populations, low-income populations and
indigenous peoples. Section VI of this preamble presents the estimated
emissions reductions from the proposed rule, including substantial
reductions in NOX and other criteria and toxic pollutants.
Section VII of this preamble presents the air quality impacts of the
proposed Option 1. The air quality modeling predicts decreases in
ambient concentrations of air pollutants in 2045 due to the proposed
standards, including significant improvements in ozone concentrations.
Ambient PM2.5, NO2 and CO concentrations are also
predicted to improve in 2045 because of the proposed Option 1 program.
In terms of benefits to human health, reduced ambient
concentrations of ozone and PM2.5 would lead to the
avoidance of many adverse environmental and human health impacts in
2045, including reductions in premature deaths and many non-fatal
illnesses. These health benefits, presented in Section VIII of the
preamble, would accrue to all U.S. populations, including minority
populations, low-income populations and indigenous peoples.
EPA also conducted a demographic analysis of air quality modeling
data in 2045 to examine trends in human exposure to future air quality
in scenarios both with and without the proposed Option 1 in place. That
analysis, summarized in Section VII.H of the preamble and presented in
more detail in draft RIA Chapter 6.3.9, found that in the 2045
baseline, nearly double the number of people of color live
[[Page 17644]]
within areas with the worst ozone and PM2.5 air quality
compared to non-Hispanic whites. We also found that the largest
predicted improvements in both ozone and PM2.5 are estimated
to occur in areas with the worst baseline air quality. While there
would be improvements in air quality for people of color, disparities
in PM2.5 and ozone exposure are projected to remain.
XIV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
Statutory authority for the requirements proposed in this
rulemaking can be found in CAA sections 202, 203, 206, 207, 208, 213,
216, and 301 (42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7547, 7550, and
7601).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 2
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Courts, Environmental protection, Freedom of information,
Government employees
40 CFR Part 59
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Labeling,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
40 CFR Part 60
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Aluminum, Beverages, Carbon monoxide, Chemicals, Coal, Electric power
plants, Fluoride, Gasoline, Glass and glass products, Grains,
Greenhouse gases, Household appliances, Industrial facilities,
Insulation, Intergovernmental relations, Iron, Labeling, Lead, Lime,
Metals, Motor vehicles, Natural gas, Nitrogen dioxide, Petroleum,
Phosphate, Plastics materials and synthetics, Polymers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Rubber and rubber products, Sewage
disposal, Steel, Sulfur oxides, Vinyl, Volatile organic compounds,
Waste treatment and disposal, Zinc.
40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Diesel fuel, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports,
Oil imports, Petroleum, Renewable fuel.
40 CFR Part 85
Confidential business information, Greenhouse gases, Imports,
Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Research, Warranties.
40 CFR Part 86
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 87
Environmental protection. Air pollution control, Aircraft.
40 CFR Part 600
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Electric power, Fuel economy, Incorporation by reference, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 1027
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 1030
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Aircraft,
Greenhouse gases.
40 CFR Part 1033
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Environmental protection, Labeling,
Penalties, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 1036
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control Confidential business information, Greenhouse
gases, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1037
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Incorporation
by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1039
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1042
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Environmental
protection, Imports, Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Vessels, Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1043
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Vessels.
40 CFR Parts 1045, 1051, and 1054
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1048
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Research, Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1060
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1065
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Research.
40 CFR Part 1066
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 1068
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1090
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Diesel fuel, Fuel
[[Page 17645]]
additives, Gasoline, Imports, Oil imports, Petroleum, Renewable fuel.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are amending title 40,
chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.
PART 2--PUBLIC INFORMATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, 552a, 553; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31
U.S.C. 3717.
0
2. Amend Sec. 2.301 by adding and reserving paragraph (i) and adding
paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 2.301 Special rules governing certain information obtained under
the Clean Air Act.
* * * * *
(i) [Reserved]
(j) Requests for or release of information subject to a
confidentiality determination through rulemaking as specified in 40 CFR
part 1068. This paragraph (j) describes provisions that apply for a
wide range of engines, vehicles, and equipment that are subject to
emission standards and other requirements under the Clean Air Act. This
includes motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines, nonroad engines and
nonroad equipment, aircraft and aircraft engines, and stationary
engines. It also includes portable fuel containers regulated under 40
CFR part 59, subpart F, and fuel tanks, fuel lines, and related fuel-
system components regulated under 40 CFR part 1060. Regulatory
provisions related to confidentiality determinations for these products
are codified broadly in 40 CFR part 1068, with additional detailed
provisions for specific sectors in the regulatory parts referenced in
40 CFR 1068.1. References in this paragraph (j) to 40 CFR part 1068
also include these related regulatory parts.
(1) Unless noted otherwise, 40 CFR 2.201 through 2.215 do not apply
for information covered by the confidentiality determinations in 40 CFR
part 1068 if EPA has determined through rulemaking that information to
be any of the following pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7414 or 7542(c) in a
rulemaking subject to 42 U.S.C. 7607(d):
(i) Emission data as defined in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this
section.
(ii) Data not entitled to confidential treatment.
(2) Unless noted otherwise, 40 CFR 2.201 through 2.208 do not apply
for information covered by the confidentiality determinations in 40 CFR
part 1068 if EPA has determined through rulemaking that information to
be entitled to confidential treatment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7414 or
7542(c) in a rulemaking subject to 42 U.S.C. 7607(d). EPA will treat
such information as confidential in accordance with the provisions of
Sec. 2.209 through 2.215, subject to paragraph (j)(4) of this section.
(3) EPA will deny a request for information under 5 U.S.C.
552(b)(4) if EPA has determined through rulemaking that the information
is entitled to confidential treatment under 40 CFR part 1068. The
denial notification will include a regulatory cite to the appropriate
determination.
(4) A determination made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7414 or 7542 in a
rulemaking subject to 42 U.S.C. 7607(d) that information specified in
40 CFR part 1068 is entitled to confidential treatment shall continue
in effect unless EPA takes one of the following actions to modify the
determination:
(i) EPA determines, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7414; 7542(c)) in a rulemaking subject to 42 U.S.C.
7607(d), that the information is entitled to confidential treatment, or
that the information is emission data or data that is otherwise not
entitled to confidential treatment by statute or regulation.
(ii) EPA determines, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7414; 7542(c)) that the information is emission data
or data that is otherwise clearly not entitled to confidential
treatment by statute or regulation under 40 CFR 2.204(d)(2).
(iii) The Office of General Counsel revisits an earlier
determination, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7414; 7542(c)), that the information is entitled to confidential
treatment because of a change in the applicable law or newly discovered
or changed facts. Prior to a revised final determination, EPA shall
afford the business an opportunity to submit a substantiation on the
pertinent issues to be considered, including any described in
Sec. Sec. 2.204(e)(4) or 2.205(b), within 15 days of the receipt of
the notice to substantiate. If, after consideration of any timely
comments made by the business in its substantiation, the Office of
General Counsel makes a revised final determination that the
information is not entitled to confidential treatment under 42 U.S.C.
7414 or 7542, EPA will notify the business in accordance with Sec.
2.205(f)(2).
(5) The provisions of 40 CFR 2.201 through 2.208 continue to apply
for the categories of information identified in 40 CFR 1068.11(c) for
which there is no confidentiality determination in 40 CFR part 1068.
PART 59--NATIONAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS
0
3. The authority citation for part 59 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414 and 7511b(e).
0
4. Revise Sec. 59.695 to read as follows:
Sec. 59.695 What provisions apply to confidential information?
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 and 1068.11 apply for submitted
information you claim as confidential information you submit under this
part.
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
0
5. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
6. Amend Sec. 60.4202 by revising paragraph (g) introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.4202 What emission standards must I meet for emergency
engines if I am a stationary CI internal combustion engine
manufacturer?
* * * * *
(g) Notwithstanding the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d)
of this section, stationary emergency CI ICE identified in paragraphs
(a) and (c) of this section may be certified to the provisions of 40
CFR part 1042 for commercial engines that are applicable for the
engine's model year, displacement, power density, and maximum engine
power if the engines will be used solely in either or both of the
locations identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section.
Engines that would be subject to the Tier 4 standards in 40 CFR part
1042 that are used solely in either or both of the locations identified
in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section may instead continue to be
certified to the previous tier of standards in 40 CFR part 1042. The
previous tier is Tier 3 in most cases; however, the previous tier is
Tier 2 if there are no Tier 3 standards specified for engines of a
certain size or power rating.
* * * * *
0
7. Revise Sec. 60.4218 to read as follows:
[[Page 17646]]
Sec. 60.4218 What General Provisions and confidential information
provisions apply to me?
(a) Table 8 to this subpart shows which parts of the General
Provisions in Sec. Sec. 60.1 through 60.19 apply to you.
(b) The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 and 1068.11 apply for engine
manufacturers. For others, the general confidential business
information (CBI) provisions apply as described in 40 CFR part 2.
0
8. Revise Sec. 60.4246 to read as follows:
Sec. 60.4246 What General Provisions and confidential information
provisions apply to me?
(a) Table 3 to this subpart shows which parts of the General
Provisions in Sec. Sec. 60.1 through 60.19 apply to you.
(b) The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 and 1068.11 apply for engine
manufacturers. For others, the general confidential business
information (CBI) provisions apply as described in 40 CFR part 2.
PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES
0
9. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7542, 7545, and 7601(a).
Subpart B--[Removed and reserved]
0
10. Remove and reserve subpart B.
PART 85--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES
0
11. The authority citation for part 85 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
12. Amend Sec. 85.1501 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 85.1501 Applicability.
(a) Except where otherwise indicated, this subpart is applicable to
motor vehicles offered for importation or imported into the United
States for which the Administrator has promulgated regulations under 40
CFR part 86, subpart D or S, prescribing emission standards, but which
are not covered by certificates of conformity issued under section
206(a) of the Clean Air Act (i.e., which are nonconforming vehicles as
defined in Sec. 85.1502), as amended, and part 86 at the time of
conditional importation. Compliance with regulations under this subpart
shall not relieve any person or entity from compliance with other
applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act. This subpart no longer
applies for heavy-duty engines certified under 40 CFR part 86, subpart
A, or 40 CFR part 1036; references in this subpart to ``engines''
therefore apply only for replacement engines intended for installation
in motor vehicles that are subject to this subpart.
* * * * *
Sec. 85.1513 --[Amended]
0
13. Amend Sec. 85.1513 by removing and reserving paragraph (e)(5).
0
14. Revise Sec. 85.1514 to read as follows:
Sec. 85.1514 Treatment of confidential information.
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 and 1068.11 apply for information
you submit under this subpart.
0
15. Amend Sec. 85.1515 by revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) to read as
follows:
Sec. 85.1515 Emission standards and test procedures applicable to
imported nonconforming motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(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 1066.801 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 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.
* * * * *
0
16. Amend Sec. 85.1701 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b), and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 85.1701 General applicability.
(a) * * *
(1) Beginning January 1, 2014, the exemption provisions of 40 CFR
part 1068, subpart C, apply instead of the provisions of this subpart
for heavy-duty motor vehicle engines and heavy-duty motor vehicles
regulated under 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, or 40 CFR part 1036 or part
1037, except that the nonroad competition exemption of 40 CFR 1068.235
and the nonroad hardship exemption provisions of 40 CFR 1068.245,
1068.250, and 1068.255 do not apply for motor vehicle engines. Note
that the provisions for emergency vehicle field modifications in Sec.
85.1716 continue to apply for heavy-duty engines.
* * * * *
(b) The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 and 1068.11 apply for
information you submit under this subpart.
(c) References to engine families and emission control systems in
this subpart or in 40 CFR part 1068 apply to durability groups and test
groups as applicable for manufacturers certifying vehicles under the
provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
* * * * *
Sec. 85.1712 --[Removed and Reserved]
0
17. Remove and reserve Sec. 85.1712.
0
18. Revise Sec. 85.1808 to read as follows:
Sec. 85.1808 Treatment of confidential information.
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 and 1068.11 apply for information
you submit under this subpart.
0
19. Amend Sec. 85.1901 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 85.1901 Applicability.
(a) The requirements of this subpart shall be applicable to all
1972 and later model year motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines,
except that the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.501 apply instead for heavy-
duty motor vehicle engines and heavy-duty motor vehicles certified
under 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, or 40 CFR part 1036 or 1037 starting
January 1, 2018.
* * * * *
0
20. Revise Sec. 85.1909 to read as follows:
Sec. 85.1909 Treatment of confidential information.
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 and 1068.11 apply for information
you submit under this subpart.
Subpart V--WARRANTY REGULATIONS AND VOLUNTARY AFTERMARKET
CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
0
21. The heading of subpart V is revised to read as set forth above.
0
22. Amend Sec. 85.2102 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (2), (4) through
(6), (10), and (13) to read as follows:
Sec. 85.2102 Definitions.
(a) * * *
(1) Act means Part A of Title II of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
7421 et seq.
(2) Office Director means the Director for the Office of
Transportation and Air
[[Page 17647]]
Quality in the Office of Air and Radiation of the Environmental
Protection Agency or other authorized representative of the Office
Director.
* * * * *
(4) Emission performance warranty means that warranty given
pursuant to this subpart and 42 U.S.C. 7541(b).
(5) Emission warranty means a warranty given pursuant to this
subpart and 42 U.S.C. 7541(a) or (b).
(6) Model year means the manufacturer's annual production period as
described in subpart X of this part.
* * * * *
(10) Useful life means that period established pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 7521(d) and regulations promulgated thereunder.
* * * * *
(13) Written instructions for proper maintenance and use means
those maintenance and operation instructions specified in the owner's
manual as being necessary to assure compliance of a vehicle with
applicable emission standards for the useful life of the vehicle that
are:
(i) In accordance with the instructions specified for performance
on the manufacturer's prototype vehicle used in certification
(including those specified for vehicles used under special
circumstances); and
(ii) In compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 86.1808; and
(iii) In compliance with any other EPA regulations governing
maintenance and use instructions.
* * * * *
0
23. Amend Sec. 85.2103 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 85.2103 Emission performance warranty.
(a) * * *
(3) Such nonconformity results or will result in the vehicle owner
having to bear any penalty or other sanction (including the denial of
the right to use the vehicle) under local, State or Federal law, then
the manufacturer shall remedy the nonconformity at no cost to the
owner; except that, if the vehicle has been in operation for more than
24 months or 24,000 miles, the manufacturer shall be required to remedy
only those nonconformities resulting from the failure of any of the
specified major emission control components listed in 42 U.S.C.
7541(i)(2) or components which have been designated by the
Administrator to be specified major emission control components until
the vehicle has been in operation for 8 years or 80,000 miles.
* * * * *
0
24. Amend Sec. 85.2104 by revising paragraphs (a) and (h) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 85.2104 Owners' compliance with instructions for proper
maintenance and use.
(a) An emission warranty claim may be denied on the basis of
noncompliance by a vehicle owner with the written instructions for
proper maintenance and use.
* * * * *
(h) In no case may a manufacturer deny an emission warranty claim
on the basis of--
* * * * *
0
25. Amend Sec. 85.2106 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text,
(c), (d) introductory text, (d)(2), and (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 85.2106 Warranty claim procedures.
* * * * *
(b) A claim under any emission warranty required by 42 U.S.C.
7541(a) or (b) may be submitted by bringing a vehicle to:
* * * * *
(c) To the extent required by any Federal or State law, whether
statutory or common law, a vehicle manufacturer shall be required to
provide a means for non-franchised repair facilities to perform
emission warranty repairs.
(d) The manufacturer of each vehicle to which the warranty is
applicable shall establish procedures as to the manner in which a claim
under the emission warranty is to be processed. The procedures shall--
* * * * *
(2) Require that if the facility at which the vehicle is initially
presented for repair is unable for any reason to honor the particular
claim, then, unless this requirement is waived in writing by the
vehicle owner, the repair facility shall forward the claim to an
individual or office authorized to make emission warranty
determinations for the manufacturer.
* * * * *
(g) The vehicle manufacturer shall incur all costs associated with
a determination that an emission warranty claim is valid.
0
26. Amend Sec. 85.2107 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 85.2107 Warranty remedy.
(a) The manufacturer's obligation under the emission warranties
provided under 42 U.S.C. 7541(a) and (b) shall be to make all
adjustments, repairs or replacements necessary to assure that the
vehicle complies with applicable emission standards of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, that it will continue to comply for
the remainder of its useful life (if proper maintenance and operation
are continued), and that it will operate in a safe manner. The
manufacturer shall bear all costs incurred as a result of the above
obligation, except that after the first 24 months or 24,000 miles
(whichever first occurs) the manufacturer shall be responsible only
for:
(1) The adjustment, repair or replacement of any of the specified
major emission control components listed in 42 U.S.C. 7541(i)(2) or
components which have been designated by the administrator to be
specified major emission control components until the vehicle has been
in operation for 8 years or 80,000 miles; and
(2) All other components which must be adjusted, repaired or
replaced to enable a component adjusted, repaired, or replaced under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section to perform properly.
(b) Manufacturers shall be liable for the total cost of the remedy
for any vehicle validly presented for repair under an emission warranty
to any authorized service facility authorized by the vehicle
manufacturer. State or local limitations as to the extent of the
penalty or sanction imposed upon an owner of a failed vehicle shall
have no bearing on this liability.
* * * * *
0
27. Amend Sec. 85.2109 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text
and (a)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 85.2109 Inclusion of warranty provisions in owners' manuals and
warranty booklets.
(a) A manufacturer shall furnish with each new motor vehicle, a
full explanation of the emission warranties required by 42 U.S.C.
7541(a) and (b), including at a minimum the following information:
* * * * *
(6) An explanation that an owner may obtain further information
concerning the emission warranties or that an owner may report
violations of the terms of the Emission warranties provided under 42
U.S.C. 7541(a) and (b) by contacting the Director, Compliance Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Dr, Ann Arbor, MI
48105 (Attention: Warranty) or email to: [email protected].
* * * * *
0
28. Amend Sec. 85.2111 by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (b) introductory text, (c), and (d) to read as follows:
[[Page 17648]]
Sec. 85.2111 Warranty enforcement.
The following acts are prohibited and may subject a manufacturer to
a civil penalty as described in paragraph (d) of this section:
* * * * *
(b) Failing or refusing to comply with the terms and conditions of
the emission warranties provided under 42 U.S.C. 7541(a) and (b) with
respect to any vehicle to which this subpart applies. Acts constituting
such a failure or refusal shall include, but are not limited to, the
following:
* * * * *
(c) To provide directly or indirectly in any communication to the
ultimate purchaser or any subsequent purchaser that emission warranty
coverage is conditioned upon the use of any name brand component, or
system or upon service (other than a component or service provided
without charge under the terms of the purchase agreement), unless the
communication is made pursuant to a written waiver by the Office
Director.
(d) The maximum penalty value is $37,500 for each offense that
occurs after November 2, 2015. Maximum penalty limits may be adjusted
based on the Consumer Price Index as described at 40 CFR part 19.
* * * * *
0
29. Revise Sec. 85.2123 to read as follows:
Sec. 85.2123 Treatment of confidential information.
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 and 1068.11 apply for information
you submit under this subpart.
PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES
AND ENGINES
0
30. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
31. Amend Sec. 86.007-11 by revising paragraphs (f) and (g)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 86.007-11 Emission standards and supplemental requirements for
2007 and later model year diesel heavy-duty engines and vehicles.
* * * * *
(f) Model year 2007 and later diesel-fueled heavy-duty engines and
vehicles for sale in Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands may be subject to alternative standards under
40 CFR 1036.655.
(g) Model years 2018 through 2026 engines at or above 56 kW that
will be installed in specialty vehicles as allowed by 40 CFR 1037.605
may meet alternate emission standards as follows:
* * * * *
0
32. Amend Sec. 86.008-10 by revising paragraph (g) introductory text
to read as follows:
Sec. 86.008-10 Emission standards for 2008 and later model year Otto-
cycle heavy-duty engines and vehicles.
* * * * *
(g) Model years 2018 through 2026 engines that will be installed in
specialty vehicles as allowed by 40 CFR 1037.605 may meet alternate
emission standards as follows:
* * * * *
0
33. Amend Sec. 86.010-18 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (o)
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 86.010-18 On-board Diagnostics for engines used in applications
greater than 14,000 pounds GVWR.
(a) General. Heavy-duty engines intended for use in a heavy-duty
vehicle weighing more than 14,000 pounds GVWR must be equipped with an
on-board diagnostic (OBD) system capable of monitoring all emission-
related engine systems or components during the life of the engine. The
OBD requirements of 40 CFR 1036.110 apply starting in model year 2027.
In earlier model years, manufacturers may meet the requirements of this
section or the requirements of 40 CFR 1036.110. Note that 40 CFR
1036.150(u) allows for an alternative communication protocol before
model year 2027. The OBD system is required to detect all malfunctions
specified in paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this section even though
the OBD system is not required to use a unique monitor to detect each
of those malfunctions.
* * * * *
0
34. Amend Sec. 86.016-1 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, (d) introductory text,
and (d)(4).
0
b. Adding and reserving paragraph (i).
0
c. Adding paragraph (j).
The revisions and additions 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
section. As described in paragraph (j) of this section, most of this
subpart no longer applies starting with model year 2027. Note that this
subpart does not apply for light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks,
medium-duty passenger vehicles, or vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds
GVWR that have no propulsion engine, such as electric 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 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:
* * * * *
(d) Non-petroleum fueled vehicles. Standards and requirements apply
to model year 2016 and later non-petroleum fueled motor vehicles as
follows:
* * * * *
(4) The standards and requirements of 40 CFR part 1037 apply for
vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR that have no propulsion engine, such
as electric vehicles. Electric heavy-duty vehicles may not generate PM
emission credits. Electric heavy-duty vehicles may not generate
NOX emission credits except as allowed under 40 CFR part
1037.
* * * * *
(i) [Reserved]
(j) Transition to 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037. Except for Sec.
86.010-38(j), this subpart no longer applies starting with model year
2027. Individual provisions in 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037 apply instead
of the provisions of this subpart before model year 2027 as specified
in this subpart and 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037.
0
35. Amend Sec. 86.090-5 by adding paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows.
Sec. 86.090-5 General standards; increase in emissions; unsafe
conditions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Manufacturers of engines equipped with vanadium-based SCR
catalysts must design the engine and its emission controls to prevent
vanadium sublimation and protect the catalyst from high temperatures as
described in 40 CFR 1036.115(g)(2).
0
36. Amend Sec. 86.117-96 by revising paragraph (d)(1) introductory
text and adding paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) and (iv) to read as follows.
[[Page 17649]]
Sec. 86.117-96 Evaporative emission enclosure calibrations.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) The calculation of net methanol and hydrocarbon mass change is
used to determine enclosure background and leak rate. It is also used
to check the enclosure volume measurements. The methanol mass change is
calculated from the initial and final methanol samples, the net
withdrawn methanol (in the case of diurnal emission testing with fixed-
volume enclosures), and initial and final temperature and pressure
according to the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.013
* * * * *
(iii) TE = temperature of sample withdrawn, R.
(iv) TSHED = temperature of SHED, R.
* * * * *
0
37. Add Sec. 86.450 to subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 86.450 Treatment of confidential information.
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 and 1068.11 apply for information
you submit under this subpart.
Subpart I--[Removed and Reserved]
0
38. Subpart I, consisting of Sec. Sec. 86.1101-87 through 86.1116-87,
is removed and reserved.
0
39. Add Sec. 86.1117 to subpart L to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1117 Labeling.
(a) Light-duty trucks and heavy-duty vehicles and engines for which
nonconformance penalties are to be paid in accordance with Sec.
86.1113-87(b) must have information printed on the emission control
information label or a supplemental label as follows.
(1) The manufacturer must begin labeling production engines or
vehicles within 10 days after the completion of the PCA.
(2) This statement shall read: ``The manufacturer of this [engine
or vehicle, as applicable] will pay a nonconformance penalty to be
allowed to introduce it into U.S. commerce at an emission level higher
than the applicable emission standard. The [compliance level or
alternative emission standard] for this engine/vehicle is [insert the
applicable pollutant and compliance level calculated in accordance with
Sec. 86.1112-87(a)].''
(3) If a manufacturer introduces an engine or vehicle into U.S.
commerce prior to the compliance level determination of Sec. 86.1112-
87(a), it must provide the engine or vehicle owner with a label as
described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section to be affixed in a
location in proximity to the emission control information label within
30 days of the completion of the PCA.
(b) The Administrator may approve in advance other label content
and formats, provided the alternative label contains information
consistent with this section.
0
40. Revise Sec. 86.1301 to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1301 Scope; applicability.
(a) This subpart specifies gaseous emission test procedures for
Otto-cycle and diesel heavy-duty engines, and particulate emission test
procedures for diesel heavy-duty engines.
(b) You may optionally demonstrate compliance with the emission
standards of this part by testing hybrid engines and hybrid powertrains
using the test procedures in 40 CFR part 1036, rather than testing the
engine alone. If you choose this option, you may meet the supplemental
emission test (SET) requirements by using the SET duty cycle specified
in either Sec. 86.1362 or 40 CFR 1036.505. Except as specified,
provisions of this subpart and subpart A of this part that reference
engines apply equally to hybrid engines and hybrid powertrains.
(c) The abbreviations and acronyms from subpart A of this part
apply to this subpart.
Sec. Sec. 86.1302-84, 86.1303-84, and 86.1304--[Removed]
0
41. Remove Sec. Sec. 86.1302-84, 86.1303-84, and 86.1304.
0
42. Amend Sec. 86.1362 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1362 Steady-state testing with a ramped-modal cycle.
* * * * *
(b) Measure emissions by testing the engine on a dynamometer with
the following ramped-modal duty cycle to determine whether it meets the
applicable steady-state emission standards in this part and 40 CFR part
1036:
[[Page 17650]]
Table 1 of Sec. 86.1362--Ramped-Modal Duty Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine testing Hybrid powertrain testing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RMC mode Time in Road-grade coefficients \4\ CO2weighting
mode Engine speed \1\ Torque (percent) Vehicle speed (mi/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (percent) \5\
(seconds) \2\ \2\ \3\ hr) \4\ a b c d e f g h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a Steady-state................ 170 Warm Idle......... 0................. 0................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
1b Transition.................. 20 Linear Transition. Linear Transition. Linear Transition. -1.898E-08 -5.895E-07 3.780E-05 4.706E-03 6.550E-04 -2.679E-02 -1.027E+00 1.542E+01 ................
2a Steady-state................ 173 A................. 100............... vrefA............. -1.235E-08 -5.506E-07 3.954E-05 1.248E-03 5.287E-04 -3.117E-02 -3.263E-01 1.627E+01 9
2b Transition.................. 20 Linear Transition. Linear Transition. Linear Transition. -1.640E-09 -4.899E-07 2.493E-05 5.702E-04 4.768E-04 -2.389E-02 -2.712E-01 1.206E+01 ................
3a Steady-state................ 219 B................. 50................ vrefB............. 8.337E-09 -4.758E-07 1.291E-05 2.874E-04 4.528E-04 -1.803E-02 -1.830E-01 8.808E+00 10
3b Transition.................. 20 B................. Linear Transition. vrefB............. 4.263E-09 -5.102E-07 2.010E-05 3.703E-04 4.852E-04 -2.242E-02 -2.068E-01 1.074E+01 ................
4a Steady-state................ 217 B................. 75................ vrefB............. 1.686E-10 -5.226E-07 2.579E-05 5.521E-04 5.005E-04 -2.561E-02 -2.393E-01 1.285E+01 10
4b Transition.................. 20 Linear Transition. Linear Transition. Linear Transition. 6.556E-10 -4.971E-07 2.226E-05 5.293E-04 4.629E-04 -2.185E-02 -1.819E-01 1.086E+01 ................
5a Steady-state................ 103 A................. 50................ vrefA............. 3.833E-09 -4.343E-07 1.369E-05 4.755E-04 4.146E-04 -1.605E-02 -1.899E-01 8.200E+00 12
5b Transition.................. 20 A................. Linear Transition. vrefA............. -7.526E-11 -4.680E-07 2.035E-05 7.214E-04 4.478E-04 -2.012E-02 -2.306E-01 1.043E+01 ................
6a Steady-state................ 100 A................. 75................ vrefA............. -4.195E-09 -4.855E-07 2.624E-05 8.345E-04 4.669E-04 -2.338E-02 -2.547E-01 1.215E+01 12
6b Transition.................. 20 A................. Linear Transition. vrefA............. 3.185E-09 -4.545E-07 1.549E-05 6.220E-04 4.308E-04 -1.724E-02 -2.093E-01 8.906E+00 ................
7a Steady-state................ 103 A................. 25................ vrefA............. 1.202E-08 -3.766E-07 6.943E-07 1.107E-04 3.579E-04 -8.468E-03 -1.243E-01 4.195E+00 12
7b Transition.................. 20 Linear Transition. Linear Transition. Linear Transition. 1.481E-09 -5.004E-07 2.151E-05 6.028E-04 4.765E-04 -2.197E-02 -2.669E-01 1.109E+01 ................
8a Steady-state................ 194 B................. 100............... vrefB............. -8.171E-09 -5.682E-07 3.880E-05 8.171E-04 5.462E-04 -3.315E-02 -2.957E-01 1.689E+01 9
8b Transition.................. 20 B................. Linear Transition. vrefB............. 3.527E-09 -5.294E-07 2.221E-05 4.955E-04 4.976E-04 -2.363E-02 -2.253E-01 1.156E+01 ................
9a Steady-state................ 218 B................. 25................ vrefB............. 1.665E-08 -4.288E-07 -1.393E-07 2.170E-05 4.062E-04 -1.045E-02 -1.266E-01 4.762E+00 9
9b Transition.................. 20 Linear Transition. Linear Transition. Linear Transition. 7.236E-09 -5.497E-07 1.998E-05 1.381E-04 5.110E-04 -2.333E-02 -2.154E-01 1.024E+01 ................
10a Steady-state............... 171 C................. 100............... vrefC............. -7.509E-10 -5.928E-07 3.454E-05 5.067E-04 5.670E-04 -3.353E-02 -2.648E-01 1.649E+01 2
10b Transition................. 20 C................. Linear Transition. vrefC............. 1.064E-08 -5.343E-07 1.678E-05 2.591E-04 5.101E-04 -2.331E-02 -2.017E-01 1.119E+01 ................
11a Steady-state............... 102 C................. 25................ vrefC............. 2.235E-08 -4.756E-07 -2.078E-06 -6.006E-05 4.509E-04 -1.213E-02 -1.261E-01 5.090E+00 1
11b Transition................. 20 C................. Linear Transition. vrefC............. 1.550E-08 -5.417E-07 1.114E-05 8.438E-05 5.051E-04 -2.005E-02 -1.679E-01 8.734E+00 ................
12a Steady-state............... 100 C................. 75................ vrefC............. 7.160E-09 -5.569E-07 2.234E-05 3.107E-04 5.301E-04 -2.644E-02 -2.177E-01 1.266E+01 1
12b Transition................. 20 C................. Linear Transition. vrefC............. 9.906E-09 -5.292E-07 1.694E-05 2.460E-04 5.058E-04 -2.304E-02 -1.990E-01 1.103E+01 ................
13a Steady-state............... 102 C................. 50................ vrefC............. 1.471E-08 -5.118E-07 9.881E-06 1.002E-04 4.864E-04 -1.904E-02 -1.678E-01 8.738E+00 1
13b Transition................. 20 Linear Transition. Linear Transition. Linear Transition. -1.482E-09 -1.992E-06 6.475E-05 -1.393E-02 1.229E-03 -3.967E-02 1.135E+00 -7.267E+00 ................
[[Page 17651]]
14 Steady-state................ 168 Warm Idle......... 0................. 0................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Engine 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 settings of the current mode to the settings of the next mode.
\3\ The percent torque is relative to maximum torque at the commanded engine speed.
\4\ See 40 CFR 1036.505(c) for a description of powertrain testing with the ramped-modal cycle, including the equation that uses the road-grade coefficients.
\5\ Use the specified weighting factors to calculate composite emission results for CO2 as specified in 40 CFR 1036.501.
[[Page 17652]]
0
43. Amend Sec. 86.1372 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.1372 Measuring smoke emissions within the NTE zone.
* * * * *
(a) For steady-state or transient smoke testing using full-flow
opacimeters, equipment meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 1065,
subpart L, or ISO/DIS-11614 ``Reciprocating internal combustion
compression-ignition engines--Apparatus for measurement of the opacity
and for determination of the light absorption coefficient of exhaust
gas'' is required. ISO/DIS-11614 is incorporated by reference (see
Sec. 86.1).
* * * * *
0
44. Amend Sec. 86.1801-12 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) introductory
text, (a)(2)(iii), (a)(3) introductory text, and (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.1801-12 Applicability.
(a) * * *
(2) The provisions of this subpart apply for medium-duty passenger
vehicles and all vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that have no
propulsion engine, such as electric vehicles. The provisions of this
subpart also apply for other complete heavy-duty vehicles at or below
14,000 pounds GVWR, except as follows:
* * * * *
(iii) The provisions of this subpart are optional for diesel-fueled
Class 3 heavy-duty vehicles in a given model year if those vehicles are
equipped with engines certified to the appropriate standards in Sec.
86.007-11 or 40 CFR 1036.104 for which less than half of the engine
family's sales for the model year in the United States are for complete
Class 3 heavy-duty vehicles. This includes engines sold to all vehicle
manufacturers. If you are the original manufacturer of the engine and
the vehicle, base this showing on your sales information. If you
manufacture the vehicle but are not the original manufacturer of the
engine, you must use your best estimate of the original manufacturer's
sales information.
(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 Sec. 86.016-1 and 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037).
However, this subpart applies to such vehicles in the following cases:
* * * * *
(g) Complete and incomplete vehicles. Several provisions in this
subpart, including the applicability provisions described in this
section, are different for complete and incomplete vehicles. We
differentiate these vehicle types as described in 40 CFR 1037.801.
* * * * *
0
45. Amend Sec. 86.1810-17 by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1810-17 General requirements.
* * * * *
(j) Small-volume manufacturers that modify a vehicle already
certified by a different company may recertify that vehicle under this
subpart S based on the vehicle supplier's compliance with fleet average
standards for criteria exhaust emissions, evaporative emissions, and
greenhouse gas emissions as follows:
(1) The recertifying manufacturer must certify the vehicle at bin
levels and family emission limits that are the same as or more
stringent than the corresponding bin levels and family emission limits
for the vehicle supplier.
(2) The recertifying manufacturer must meet all the standards and
requirements described in this subpart S, except for the fleet average
standards for criteria exhaust emissions, evaporative emissions, and
greenhouse gas emissions.
(3) The vehicle supplier must send the small-volume manufacturer a
written statement accepting responsibility to include the subject
vehicles in the vehicle supplier's exhaust and evaporative fleet
average calculations in Sec. Sec. 86.1860-17, 86.1864-10, and 86.1865-
12.
(4) The small-volume manufacturer must describe in the application
for certification how the two companies are working together to
demonstrate compliance for the subject vehicles. The application must
include the statement from the vehicle supplier described in paragraph
(j)(3) of this section.
(5) The vehicle supplier must include a statement that the vehicle
supplier is including the small volume manufacturer's sales volume and
emissions levels in the vehicle supplier's fleet average reports under
Sec. Sec. 86.1860-17, 86.1864-10, and 86.1865-12.
Sec. 86.1819 [Removed]
0
46. Remove Sec. 86.1819.
0
47. Amend Sec. 86.1819-14 by revising paragraph (d)(12)(i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.1819-14 Greenhouse gas emission standards for heavy-duty
vehicles.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(12) * * *
(i) Configuration means a subclassification within a test group
based on engine code, transmission type and gear ratios, final drive
ratio, and other parameters we designate. Engine code means the
combination of both ``engine code'' and ``basic engine'' as defined for
light-duty vehicles in 40 CFR 600.002.
* * * * *
0
48. Amend Sec. 86.1823-08 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(A).
0
b. Adding paragraph (m) introductory text.
0
c. Revising paragraph (m)(1).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 86.1823-08 Durability demonstration procedures for exhaust
emissions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) * * *
(A) The simulated test weight will be the equivalent test weight
specified in Sec. 86.129 using a weight basis of the loaded vehicle
weight for light-duty vehicles and light light-duty trucks, and ALVW
for all other vehicles.
* * * * *
(m) Durability demonstration procedures for vehicles subject to the
greenhouse gas exhaust emission standards specified in Sec. 86.1818.
Determine a deterioration factor for each exhaust constituent as
described in this paragraph (m) and in 40 CFR 600.113-12(h) through (m)
to calculate the composite CREE DF value.
(1) CO2. (i) Unless otherwise specified under paragraph (m)(1)(ii)
or (iii) of this section, manufacturers may use a multiplicative
CO2 deterioration factor of one or an additive deterioration
factor of zero to determine full useful life emissions for the FTP and
HFET tests.
(ii) Based on an analysis of industry-wide data, EPA may
periodically establish and/or update the deterioration factor for
CO2 emissions, including air conditioning and other credit-
related emissions. Deterioration factors established and/or updated
under this paragraph (m)(1)(ii) will provide adequate lead time for
manufacturers to plan for the change.
(iii) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and any other vehicle
model the manufacturer determines will experience increased
CO2 emissions over the vehicle's useful life, consistent
with good engineering judgment, manufacturers must either install aged
components on test vehicles as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this
section, determine a deterioration factor based on testing, or provide
an engineering analysis that the vehicle is designed such that
CO2 emissions will not increase over the vehicle's useful
life. Manufacturers may test using the whole-vehicle mileage
accumulation
[[Page 17653]]
procedures in Sec. 86.1823-08 (c) or (d)(1), or manufacturers may
request prior EPA approval for an alternative durability procedure
based on good engineering judgment. For the testing option, each FTP
test performed on the durability data vehicle selected under Sec.
86.1822 must also be accompanied by an HFET test, and combined FTP/HFET
CO2 results determined by averaging the city (FTP) and
highway (HFET) CO2 values, weighted 0.55 and 0.45
respectively. The deterioration factor will be determined for this
combined CO2 value. Calculated multiplicative deterioration
factors that are less than one shall be set to equal one, and
calculated additive deterioration factors that are less than zero shall
be set to zero.
* * * * *
0
49. Amend Sec. 86.1843-01 by revising paragraph (f)(2) and adding
paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1843-01 General information requirements.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) The manufacturer must submit a final update to Part 1 and Part
2 of the Application by May 1 following the end of the model year to
incorporate any applicable running changes or corrections which
occurred between January 1 of the applicable model year and the end of
the model year. A manufacturer may request an extension for submitting
the final update. The request must clearly indicate the circumstances
necessitating the extension.
* * * * *
(i) Confidential information. The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 and
1068.11 apply for information you submit under this subpart.
0
50. Amend Sec. 86.1869-12 by revising paragraph (d)(2)(i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.1869-12 CO2 credits for off-cycle CO2 reducing technologies.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Notice and opportunity for public comment. (i) The
Administrator will publish a notice of availability in the Federal
Register notifying the public of a manufacturer's proposed alternative
off-cycle credit calculation methodology. The notice will include
details regarding the proposed methodology but will not include any
Confidential Business Information (see 40 CFR 1068.10 and 1068.11). The
notice will include instructions on how to comment on the methodology.
The Administrator will take public comments into consideration in the
final determination and will notify the public of the final
determination. Credits may not be accrued using an approved methodology
until the first model year for which the Administrator has issued a
final approval.
* * * * *
PART 87--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM AIRCRAFT AND AIRCRAFT
ENGINES
0
51. The authority citation for part 87 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
52. Revise Sec. 87.4 to read as follows:
Sec. 87.4 Treatment of confidential information.
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 and 1068.11 apply for information
you submit under this part.
Sec. 87.42 [Amended]
0
53. Amend Sec. 87.42 by removing and reserving paragraph (d).
PART 600--FUEL ECONOMY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EXHAUST EMISSIONS OF
MOTOR VEHICLES
0
54. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901-23919q, Pub. L. 109-58.
0
55. Amend Sec. 600.001 by removing the paragraph heading from
paragraph (e) and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 600.001 General applicability.
* * * * *
(f) Unless we specify otherwise, send all reports and requests for
approval to the Designated Compliance Officer (see Sec. 600.002).
0
56. Amend Sec. 600.002 by adding a definition for ``Designated
Compliance Officer'' in alphabetical order and revising the definitions
for ``Engine code'', ``SC03'', and ``US06'' to read as follows:
Sec. 600.002 Definitions.
* * * * *
Designated Compliance Officer means the Director, Light-Duty
Vehicle Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood
Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; [email protected]; www.epa.gov/ve-certification.
* * * * *
Engine code means one of the following:
(1) For LDV, LDT, and MDPV, engine code means a unique combination,
within a test group (as defined in Sec. 86.1803 of this chapter), of
displacement, fuel injection (or carburetion or other fuel delivery
system), calibration, distributor calibration, choke calibration,
auxiliary emission control devices, and other engine and emission
control system components specified by the Administrator. For electric
vehicles, engine code means a unique combination of manufacturer,
electric traction motor, motor configuration, motor controller, and
energy storage device.
(2) For HDV, engine code has the meaning given in Sec. 86.1819-
14(d)(12) of this chapter.
* * * * *
SC03 means the test procedure specified in 40 CFR 1066.801(c)(2).
* * * * *
US06 means the test procedure as described in 40 CFR
1066.801(c)(2).
* * * * *
0
57. Amend Sec. 600.011 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c)(2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 600.011 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance
with 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 a document in the Federal Register and the
material must be available to the public. All approved material is
available for inspection at the EPA and at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). Contact EPA at: U.S. EPA, Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC 20460, www.epa.gov/dockets, (202) 202-1744. For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, email: [email protected], or go to:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. The material
may be obtained from the sources in the following paragraphs of this
section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) SAE J1634, Battery Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and
Range Test Procedure, revised July 2017; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
600.116-12(a); 600.210-12(d); 600.311-12(j) and (k).
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 600.106-08, 600.108-08, 600.109-08, and 600.110-
08 [Removed]
0
58. Amend subpart B by removing the following sections: Sec. Sec.
600.106-08, 600.108-08, 600.109-08, and 600.110-08.
[[Page 17654]]
0
59. Amend Sec. 600.111-08 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 600.111-08 Test procedures.
This section describes test procedures for the FTP, highway fuel
economy test (HFET), US06, SC03, and the cold temperature FTP tests.
See 40 CFR 1066.801(c) for an overview of these procedures. Perform
testing according to test procedures and other requirements contained
in this part 600 and in 40 CFR part 1066. This testing includes
specifications and procedures for equipment, calibrations, and exhaust
sampling. Manufacturers may use data collected according to previously
published test procedures for model years through 2021. In addition, we
may approve the use of previously published test procedures for later
model years as an alternative procedure under 40 CFR 1066.10(c).
Manufacturers must comply with regulatory requirements during the
transition as described in 40 CFR 86.101 and 86.201.
* * * * *
Sec. 600.112-08 [Removed]
0
60. Remove Sec. 600.112-08.
0
61. Amend Sec. 600.113-12 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b) through
(d), and (e)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 600.113-12 Fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and carbon-
related exhaust emission calculations for FTP, HFET, US06, SC03 and
cold temperature FTP tests.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) Calculate the weighted grams/mile values for the FTP test for
CO2, HC, and CO, and where applicable, CH3OH,
C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC,
N2O, and CH4 as specified in 40 CFR 1066.605.
Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in paragraph
(f) of this section.
* * * * *
(b) Calculate the HFET fuel economy as follows:
(1) Calculate the mass values for the highway fuel economy test for
HC, CO, and CO2, and where applicable, CH3OH,
C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC,
N2O, and CH4 as specified in 40 CFR 1066.605.
Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in paragraph
(f) of this section.
(2) Calculate the grams/mile values for the highway fuel economy
test for HC, CO, and CO2, and where applicable
CH3OH, C2H5OH,
C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC, N2O, and
CH4 by dividing the mass values obtained in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section, by the actual driving distance, measured in miles, as
specified in 40 CFR 1066.840.
(c) Calculate the cold temperature FTP fuel economy as follows:
(1) Calculate the weighted grams/mile values for the cold
temperature FTP test for HC, CO, and CO2, and where
applicable, CH3OH, C2H5OH,
C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC, N2O, and
CH4 as specified in 40 CFR 1066.605.
(2) Calculate separately the grams/mile values for the cold
transient phase, stabilized phase and hot transient phase of the cold
temperature FTP test as specified in 40 CFR 1066.605.
(3) Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(d) Calculate the US06 fuel economy as follows:
(1) Calculate the total grams/mile values for the US06 test for HC,
CO, and CO2, and where applicable, CH3OH,
C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC,
N2O, and CH4 as specified in 40 CFR 1066.605.
(2) Calculate separately the grams/mile values for HC, CO, and
CO2, and where applicable, CH3OH,
C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC,
N2O, and CH4, for both the US06 City phase and
the US06 Highway phase of the US06 test as specified in 40 CFR 1066.605
and 1066.831. In lieu of directly measuring the emissions of the
separate city and highway phases of the US06 test according to the
provisions of 40 CFR 1066.831, the manufacturer may optionally, with
the advance approval of the Administrator and using good engineering
judgment, analytically determine the grams/mile values for the city and
highway phases of the US06 test. To analytically determine US06 City
and US06 Highway phase emission results, the manufacturer shall
multiply the US06 total grams/mile values determined in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section by the estimated proportion of fuel use for the
city and highway phases relative to the total US06 fuel use. The
manufacturer may estimate the proportion of fuel use for the US06 City
and US06 Highway phases by using modal CO2, HC, and CO
emissions data, or by using appropriate OBD data (e.g., fuel flow rate
in grams of fuel per second), or another method approved by the
Administrator.
(3) Measure and record the test fuel's properties as specified in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(e) * * *
(1) Calculate the grams/mile values for the SC03 test for HC, CO,
and CO2, and where applicable, CH3OH,
C2H5OH, C2H4O, HCHO, NMHC,
N2O, and CH4 as specified in 40 CFR 1066.605.
* * * * *
0
62. Amend Sec. 600.115-11 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 600.115-11 Criteria for determining the fuel economy label
calculation method.
This section provides the criteria to determine if the derived 5-
cycle method for determining fuel economy label values, as specified in
Sec. 600.210-08(a)(2) or (b)(2) or Sec. 600.210-12(a)(2) or (b)(2),
as applicable, may be used to determine label values. Separate criteria
apply to city and highway fuel economy for each test group. The
provisions of this section are optional. If this option is not chosen,
or if the criteria provided in this section are not met, fuel economy
label values must be determined according to the vehicle-specific 5-
cycle method specified in Sec. 600.210-08(a)(1) or (b)(1) or Sec.
600.210-12(a)(1) or (b)(1), as applicable. However, dedicated
alternative-fuel vehicles (other than battery electric vehicles), dual
fuel vehicles when operating on the alternative fuel, MDPVs, and
vehicles imported by Independent Commercial Importers may use the
derived 5-cycle method for determining fuel economy label values
whether or not the criteria provided in this section are met.
Manufacturers may alternatively account for this effect for battery
electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, and plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles (when operating in the charge-depleting mode) by multiplying
2-cycle fuel economy values by 0.7 and dividing 2-cycle CO2
emission values by 0.7.
* * * * *
0
63. Amend Sec. 600.116-12 by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 600.116-12 Special procedures related to electric vehicles and
hybrid electric vehicles.
(a) Determine fuel economy values for electric vehicles as
specified in Sec. Sec. 600.210 and 600.311 using the procedures of SAE
J1634 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 600.011). Use the procedures
of SAE J1634, Section 8, with the following clarifications and
modifications for using this and other sections of SAE J1634:
(1) Vehicles that cannot complete the Multi-Cycle Range and Energy
Consumption Test (MCT) because they are unable travel the distance
required to complete the test with a fully charged battery, or they are
unable to achieve the maximum speed on either the UDDS or HFEDS
(Highway Fuel Economy Drive Cycle also known as the HFET) cycle should
seek Administrator approval to use the procedures outlined in SAE J1634
Section 7 Single Cycle Range and Energy Consumption Test (SCT).
(2) The MCT includes the following key-on soak times and key-off
soak periods:
[[Page 17655]]
(i) As noted in SAE J1634 Section 8.3.4, a 15 second key-on pause
is required between UDDS1 and HFEDS1, and
UDDS3 and HFEDS2. The key-on pause is considered
a part of the HFEDS1 and HFEDS2 drive cycle.
(ii) As noted in SAE J1634 Section 8.3.4, a 10 minute key-off soak
period is required between HFEDS1 and UDDS2, and
HFEDS2 and UDDS4.
(iii) A 5-minute minimum key-off soak period is required between
UDDS2 and the first phase of the mid-test constant speed
cycle, and UDDS4 and the first phase of the end-of-test
constant speed cycle.
(iv) If multiple phases are required during either the mid-test
constant speed cycle or the end-of-test constant speed cycle there must
be a minimum 5-minute key-off soak period between each constant speed
phase. The key-off soak periods between the constant speed phases may
last for up to a maximum of 30 minutes.
(3) As noted in SAE J1634 Section 8.3.4, during all `key-off' soak
periods, the key or power switch must be in the ``off'' position, the
hood must be closed, the test cell fan(s) must be off, and the brake
pedal not depressed. For vehicles which do not have a key or power
switch the vehicle must be placed in the `mode' the manufacturer
recommends when the vehicle is to be parked and the occupants exit the
vehicle.
(4) Either Method 1 or Method 2 described in Appendix A of SAE
J1634 may be used to estimate the mid-test constant speed cycle
distance (dM). The mid-test constant speed cycle distance
calculation needs to be performed prior to beginning the test and
should not use data from the test being performed. If Method 2 is used,
multiply the result determined by the Method 2 equation by 0.8 to
determine the mid-test constant speed cycle distance (dM).
(5) Divide the mid-test constant speed cycle distance
(dM) by 65 mph to determine the total time required for the
mid-test constant speed cycle. If the time required is one-hour or less
the mid-test constant speed cycle can be performed with no key-off soak
periods. If the time required is greater than one-hour the mid-test
constant speed cycle must be separated into phases such that no phase
exceeds more than one-hour. At the conclusion of each mid-test constant
speed phase a minimum 5-minute key-off soak will be performed.
(6) Using good engineering judgment determine the end-of-test
constant speed cycle distance so that it does not exceed 20% of the
total distance driven during the MCT as described in SAE J1634 Section
8.3.3.
(7) Divide the end-of-test constant speed cycle distance
(dE) by 65 mph to determine the total time required for the
end-of-test constant speed cycle. If the time required is one-hour or
less the end-of-test constant speed cycle can be performed with no key-
off soak periods. If the time required is greater than one-hour the
end-of-test constant speed cycle must be separated into phases such
that no phase exceeds more than one-hour. At the conclusion of each
end-of-test constant speed phase a minimum 5-minute key-off soak will
be performed.
(8) SAE J634 Section 3.13 defines useable battery energy (UBE) as
the total DC discharge energy (Edctotal), measured in DC watt-hours for
a full discharge test. The total DC discharge energy is the sum of all
measured phases of a test inclusive of all drive cycle types. As key-
off soak periods are not considered part of the test phase, the
discharge energy that occurs during the key-off soak periods is not
included in the useable battery energy.
(9) Recharging the vehicle's battery must start within three hours
after the end of testing.
(10) At the request of a manufacturer, the Administrator may
approve the use of an earlier version of SAE J1634 when a manufacturer
is carrying over data for vehicles tested using a prior version of SAE
J1634.
(11) All label values related to fuel economy, energy consumption,
and range must be based on 5-cycle testing or on values adjusted to be
equivalent to 5-cycle results. Prior to performing testing to generate
a 5-cycle adjustment factor, manufacturers must request Administrator
approval to use SAE J1634 Appendices B and C for determining a 5-cycle
adjustment factor with the following modifications, clarifications, and
attestations:
(i) The 20 [deg]F charge-depleting UDDS must be performed with a
minimum 10-minute key-off soak period between each UDDS cycle. Key-off
soak periods of up to 30 minutes are allowed. During all `key-off' soak
periods, the key or power switch must be in the ``off'' position, the
hood must be closed, the test cell fan(s) must be off, and the brake
pedal not depressed. For vehicles which do not have a key or power
switch the vehicle must be placed in the `mode' the manufacturer
recommends when the vehicle is to be parked and the occupants exit the
vehicle.
(ii) Prior to performing the 20 [deg]F charge-depleting UDDS the
vehicle must soak for a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 36 hours
at a temperature of 20 [deg]F. Prior to beginning the 12 to 36 hour
cold soak at 20 [deg]F the vehicle must be fully charged, the charging
can take place at test laboratory ambient temperatures (68 to 86
[deg]F) or at 20 [deg]F. During the 12 to 36 hour cold soak period the
vehicle may not be connected to a charger nor is the vehicle cabin or
battery to be preconditioned during the 20 [deg]F soak period.
(iii) Beginning with the 2024 model year the 20 [deg]F UDDS charge-
depleting UDDS test will be replaced with a 20 [deg]F UDDS test
consisting of 2 UDDS cycles performed with a 10-minute key-off soak
between the two UDDS cycles. The data from the two UDDS cycles will be
used to calculate the five-cycle adjustment factor, instead of using
the results from the entire charge-depleting data set. Manufacturers
that have submitted and used the average data from 20 [deg]F charge-
depleting UDDS data sets will be required to revise their 5-cycle
adjustment factor calculation and re-label vehicles using the data from
the first two UDDS cycles only. Manufacturers, at their discretion,
would also be allowed to re-run the 20 [deg]F UDDS test with the
battery charged to a state-of-charge (SoC) determined by the
manufacturer. The battery does not need to be at 100% SoC before the 20
[deg]F cold soak.
(iv) Manufacturers must submit a written attestation to the
Administrator at the completion of testing with the following
information:
(A) A statement noting the SoC level of the rechargeable energy
storage system (RESS) prior to beginning the 20[deg]F cold soak for
testing performed beginning with model year 2024.
(B) A statement confirming the vehicle was not charged or
preconditioned during the 12 to 36 hour 20 [deg]F soak period before
starting the 20 [deg]F UDDS cycle.
(C) A summary of all the 5-cycle test results and the calculations
used to generate the 5-cycle adjustment factor, including all of the 20
[deg]F UDDS cycles, the distance travelled during each UDDS and the
measured DC discharge energy during each UDDS phase. Beginning in model
year 2024, the 20 [deg]F UDDS test results will consist of only two
UDDS cycles.
(D) Beginning in model year 2024 the RunningFC equation used to
calculate the City Fuel Economy found on Page 30 in Appendix C of J1634
should be replaced with the following equation when calculating City
Fuel Economy:
[[Page 17656]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.014
(E) A description of each test group and configuration which will
use the 5-cycle adjustment factor, including the battery capacity of
the vehicle used to generate the 5-cycle adjustment factor and the
battery capacity of all the configurations to which it will be applied.
(v) At the conclusion of the manufacturers testing and after
receiving the attestations from the manufacturer regarding the
performance of the 20 [deg]F UDDS test processes, the 5-cycle test
results, and the summary of vehicles to which the manufacturer proposes
applying the 5-cycle adjustment factor, the Administrator will review
the submittals and inform the manufacturer in writing if the
Administrator concurs with the manufacturer's proposal. If not, the
Administrator will describe the rationale to the manufacturer for not
approving their request.
* * * * *
0
64. Amend Sec. 600.210-12 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text, (a)(2)(iii), and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 600.210-12 Calculation of fuel economy and CO2 emission values
for labeling.
(a) General labels. Except as specified in paragraphs (d) and (e)
of this section, fuel economy and CO2 emissions for general
labels may be determined by one of two methods. The first is based on
vehicle-specific model-type 5-cycle data as determined in Sec.
600.209-12(b). This method is available for all vehicles and is
required for vehicles that do not qualify for the second method as
described in Sec. 600.115 (other than electric vehicles). The second
method, the derived 5-cycle method, determines fuel economy and
CO2 emissions values from the FTP and HFET tests using
equations that are derived from vehicle-specific 5-cycle model type
data, as determined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Manufacturers
may voluntarily lower fuel economy (MPG) values and raise
CO2 values if they determine that the label values from any
method are not representative of the in-use fuel economy and
CO2 emissions for that model type, but only if the
manufacturer changes both the MPG values and the CO2 value
and revises any other affected label value accordingly for a model type
(including but not limited to the fuel economy 1-10 rating, greenhouse
gas 1-10 rating, annual fuel cost, 5-year fuel cost information).
Similarly, for any electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles, manufacturers may voluntarily lower the fuel economy (MPGe)
and raise the energy consumption (kW-hr/100 mile) values if they
determine that the label values are not representative of the in-use
fuel economy, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions for that
model type, but only if the manufacturer changes both the MPGe and the
energy consumption value and revises any other affected label value
accordingly for a model type. Manufacturers may voluntarily lower the
value for electric driving range if they determine that the label
values are not representative of the in-use electric driving range.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Unless and until superseded by written guidance from the
Administrator, the following intercepts and slopes shall be used in the
equations in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section:
City Intercept = 0.004091.
City Slope = 1.1601.
Highway Intercept = 0.003191.
Highway Slope = 1.2945.
* * * * *
(d) Calculating combined fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and driving
range. (1) If the criteria in Sec. 600.115-11(a) are met for a model
type, both the city and highway fuel economy and CO2
emissions values must be determined using the vehicle-specific 5-cycle
method. If the criteria in Sec. 600.115-11(b) are met for a model
type, the city fuel economy and CO2 emissions values may be
determined using either method, but the highway fuel economy and
CO2 emissions values must be determined using the vehicle-
specific 5-cycle method (or modified 5-cycle method as allowed under
Sec. 600.114-12(b)(2)).
(2) If the criteria in Sec. 600.115 are not met for a model type,
the city and highway fuel economy and CO2 emission label
values must be determined by using the same method, either the derived
5-cycle or vehicle-specific 5-cycle.
(3) Manufacturers may use one of the following methods to determine
5-cycle values for fuel economy, CO2 emissions, and driving
range for electric vehicles:
(i) Generate 5-cycle data as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section using the procedures of SAE J1634 (incorporated by reference in
Sec. 600.011) with amendments and revisions as described in Sec.
600.116-12(a).
(ii) Multiply 2-cycle fuel economy values and driving range by 0.7
and divide 2-cycle CO2 emission values by 0.7.
(iii) Manufacturers may ask the Administrator to approve adjustment
factors for deriving 5-cycle fuel economy results from 2-cycle test
data based on operating data from their in-use vehicles. Such data
should be collected from multiple vehicles with different drivers over
a range of representative driving routes and conditions. The
Administrator may approve such an adjustment factor for any of the
manufacturer's vehicle models that are properly represented by the
collected data.
* * * * *
0
65. Amend Sec. 600.311-12 by revising paragraphs (j)(2), (j)(4)
introductory text, and (j)(4)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 600.311-12 Determination of values for fuel economy labels.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(2) For electric vehicles, determine the vehicle's overall driving
range as described in Section 8 of SAE J1634 (incorporated by reference
in Sec. 600.011), with amendments and revisions as described in Sec.
600.116. Determine separate range values for FTP-based city and HFET-
based highway driving. Adjust these values to reflect actual in-use
driving conditions, then calculate a combined value by arithmetically
[[Page 17657]]
averaging the two values, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively, and
rounding to the nearest whole number.
* * * * *
(4) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, determine the adjusted
charge-depleting (Rcda) driving range, the adjusted all electric
driving range (if applicable), and overall adjusted driving range as
described in SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 600.011), as
described in Sec. 600.116, as follows:
(i) Determine the vehicle's Actual Charge-Depleting Range,
Rcda, and adjust these values to reflect actual in-use
driving conditions. Determine separate range values for FTP-based city
and HFET-based highway driving, then calculate a combined value by
arithmetically averaging the two values, weighted 0.55 and 0.45
respectively, and rounding to the nearest whole number. Precondition
the vehicle as needed to minimize engine operation for consuming stored
fuel vapors in evaporative canisters; for example, you may purge the
evaporative canister or time a refueling event to avoid engine starting
related to purging the canister. For vehicles that use combined power
from the battery and the engine before the battery is fully discharged,
also use this procedure to establish an all electric range by
determining the distance the vehicle drives before the engine starts,
rounded to the nearest mile. You may represent this as a range of
values. We may approve adjustments to these procedures if they are
necessary to properly characterize a vehicle's all electric range.
* * * * *
0
66. Amend Sec. 600.510-12 by revising the entry defining the term
``AFE'' in paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 600.510-12 Calculation of average fuel economy and average
carbon-related exhaust emissions.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
AFE = Average combined fuel economy as calculated in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section, rounded to the nearest 0.0001 mpg;
* * * * *
0
67. Amend Sec. 600.512-12 by adding paragraph (a)(3) and revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 600.512-12 Model year report.
(a) * * *
(3) Separate reports shall be submitted for passenger automobiles
and light trucks (as identified in Sec. 600.510-12).
(b) The model year report shall be in writing, signed by the
authorized representative of the manufacturer and shall be submitted no
later than May 1 following the end of the model year. A manufacturer
may request an extension for submitting the model year report if that
is needed to provide all additional required data as determined in
Sec. 600.507-12. The request must clearly indicate the circumstances
necessitating the extension.
* * * * *
PART 1027--FEES FOR VEHICLE AND ENGINE COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS
0
68. The authority citation for part 1027 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
69. Amend Sec. 1027.101 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1027.101 To whom do these requirements apply?
(a) * * *
(1) Motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines we regulate under 40
CFR part 86 or 1036. This includes light-duty vehicles, light-duty
trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles, highway motorcycles, and heavy-
duty highway engines and vehicles.
* * * * *
PART 1030--CONTROL OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM ENGINES
INSTALLED ON AIRPLANES
0
70. The authority citation for part 1030 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
71. Revise Sec. 1030.98 to read as follows:
Sec. 1030.98 Confidential information.
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 and 1068.11 apply for information
you submit under this part.
PART 1033--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM LOCOMOTIVES
0
72. The authority citation for part 1033 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
73. Amend Sec. 1033.1 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1033.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(e) This part applies for locomotives that were certified as
freshly manufactured or remanufactured locomotives under 40 CFR part
92.
Sec. 1033.5 [Amended]
0
74. Amend Sec. 1033.5 by removing and reserving paragraph (c).
0
75. Amend Sec. 1033.101 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 1033.101 Exhaust emission standards.
See appendix A of this part to determine how emission standards
apply before 2023.
* * * * *
Sec. 1033.102 Removed]
0
76. Remove Sec. 1033.102.
0
77. Amend Sec. 1033.115 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text
and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1033.115 Other requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Adjustable parameters. Locomotives that have adjustable
parameters must meet all the requirements of this part for any
adjustment in the approved adjustable range. General provisions for
adjustable parameters apply as specified in 40 CFR 1068.50. You must
specify in your application for certification the adjustable range of
each adjustable parameter on a new locomotive or new locomotive engine
to--
* * * * *
(c) Prohibited controls. (1) General provisions. You may not design
or produce your locomotives with emission control devices, systems, or
elements of design that cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to
public health, welfare, or safety while operating. For example, a
locomotive may not emit a noxious or toxic substance it would otherwise
not emit that contributes to such an unreasonable risk.
(2) Vanadium sublimation in SCR catalysts. For engines equipped
with vanadium-based SCR catalysts, you must design the engine and its
emission controls to prevent vanadium sublimation and protect the
catalyst from high temperatures. We will evaluate your engine design
based on the following information that you must include in your
application for certification:
(i) Identify the threshold temperature for vanadium sublimation for
your specified SCR catalyst formulation as described in 40 CFR
1065.1113 through 1065.1121.
(ii) Describe how you designed your engine to prevent catalyst
inlet temperatures from exceeding the temperature you identify in
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, including consideration of engine
wear through the useful life. Also describe your design for catalyst
protection in case catalyst temperatures exceed the specified
temperature. In your description, include how you considered elevated
catalyst temperature resulting from sustained high-load engine
operation, catalyst
[[Page 17658]]
exotherms, particulate filter regeneration, and component failure
resulting in unburned fuel in the exhaust stream.
* * * * *
0
78. Amend Sec. 1033.120 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1033.120 Emission-related warranty requirements.
* * * * *
(c) Components covered. The emission-related warranty covers all
components whose failure would increase a locomotive's emissions of any
regulated pollutant. This includes components listed in 40 CFR part
1068, appendix A, and components from any other system you develop to
control emissions. The emission-related warranty covers the components
you sell even if another company produces the component. Your emission-
related warranty does not need to cover components whose failure would
not increase a locomotive's emissions of any regulated pollutant. For
remanufactured locomotives, your emission-related warranty is required
to cover only those parts that you supply or those parts for which you
specify allowable part manufacturers. It does not need to cover used
parts that are not replaced during the remanufacture.
* * * * *
0
79. Amend Sec. 1033.205 by revising paragraph (d)(6) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1033.205 Applying for a certificate of conformity.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(6) A description of injection timing, fuel rate, and all other
adjustable operating parameters, including production tolerances. For
any operating parameters that do not qualify as adjustable parameters,
include a description supporting your conclusion (see 40 CFR
1068.50(c)). Include the following in your description of each
adjustable parameter:
(i) For mechanically controlled parameters, include the nominal or
recommended setting, the intended physically adjustable range, the
limits or stops used to limit adjustable ranges, and production
tolerances of the limits or stops used to establish each physically
adjustable range. Also include information showing why the physical
limits, stops or other means of limiting adjustment, are effective in
preventing adjustment of parameters on in-use engines to settings
outside your intended physically adjustable ranges.
(ii) For electronically controlled parameters, describe how your
engines are designed to prevent unauthorized adjustments.
* * * * *
0
80. Amend Sec. 1033.245 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1033.245 Deterioration factors.
* * * * *
(f) You may alternatively determine and verify deterioration
factors based on bench-aged aftertreatment as described in 40 CFR
1036.245 and 1036.246, with the following exceptions:
(1) Apply the percentage of useful life from Table 1 of 40 CFR
1036.246 based on hours of operation rather than vehicle mileage.
(2) Perform verification testing as described in subpart F of this
part rather than 40 CFR 1036.520. The provisions of 40 CFR
1036.246(d)(2) and (3) do not apply. Perform testing consistent with
the original certification to determine whether tested locomotives meet
the duty-cycle emission standards in Sec. 1033.101.
(3) Apply infrequent regeneration adjustment factors as specified
in Sec. 1033.535 rather than 40 CFR 1036.522.
0
81. Revise Sec. 1033.525 to read as follows:
Sec. 1033.525 Smoke opacity testing.
Analyze exhaust opacity test data as follows:
(a) Measure exhaust opacity using the procedures specified in 40
CFR 1065.1125. Perform the opacity test with a continuous digital
recording of smokemeter response identified by notch setting over the
entire locomotive test cycle specified in Sec. 1033.515(c)(4) or Sec.
1033.520(e)(4). Measure smokemeter response in percent opacity to
within one percent resolution.
(b) Calibrate the smokemeter as follows:
(1) Calibrate using neutral density filters with approximately 10,
20, and 40 percent opacity. Confirm that the opacity values for each of
these reference filters are NIST-traceable within 185 days of testing,
or within 370 days of testing if you consistently protect the reference
filters from light exposure between tests.
(2) Before each test, remove the smokemeter from the exhaust
stream, if applicable, and calibrate as follows:
(i) Zero. Adjust the smokemeter to give a zero response when there
is no detectable smoke.
(ii) Linearity. Insert each of the qualified reference filters in
the light path perpendicular to the axis of the light beam and adjust
the smokemeter to give a result within 1 percentage point of the named
value for each reference filter.
(c) Use computer analysis to evaluate percent opacity for each
notch setting. Treat the start of the first idle mode as the start of
the test. Each mode ends when operator demand changes for the next mode
(or for the end of the test). Analyze the opacity trace using the
following procedure:
(1) 3 second peak. Identify the highest opacity value over the test
and integrate the highest 3 second average including that highest
value.
(2) 30 second peak. Divide the test into a series of 30 second
segments, advancing each segment in 1 second increments. Determine the
opacity value for each segment and identify the highest opacity value
from all the 30 second segments.
(3) Steady-state. Calculate the average of second-by-second values
between 120 and 180 seconds after the start of each mode. For RMC modes
that are less than 180 seconds, calculate the average over the last 60
seconds of the mode. Identify the highest of those steady-state values
from the different modes.
(d) Determine values of standardized percent opacity, [kappa]std,
by correcting to a reference optical path length of 1 meter for
comparing to the standards using the following equation:
[[Page 17659]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.015
0
82. Amend Sec. 1033.630 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1033.630 Staged-assembly and delegated assembly exemptions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) In cases where an engine has been assembled in its certified
configuration, properly labeled, and will not require an aftertreatment
device to be attached when installed in the locomotive, no exemption is
needed to ship the engine. You do not need an exemption to ship engines
without specific components if they are not emission-related components
identified in appendix A of 40 CFR part 1068.
0
83. Amend Sec. 1033.815 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1033.815 Maintenance, operation, and repair.
* * * * *
(f) Failure to perform required maintenance is a violation of the
tampering prohibition in 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1). Failure of any person
to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of this section is a
violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2).
0
84. Amend Sec. 1033.901 by revising the definition of ``Designated
Compliance Officer'' to read as follows:
Sec. 1033.901 Definitions.
* * * * *
Designated Compliance Officer means the Director, Diesel Engine
Compliance Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; [email protected];
www.epa.gov/ve-certification.
* * * * *
0
85. Redesignate appendix I to part 1033 as appendix A to part 1033 and
revise newly redesignated appendix A to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 1033--Original Standards for Tier 0, Tier 1 and Tier
2 Locomotives
(a) Locomotives were originally subject to Tier 0, Tier 1, and
Tier 2 emission standards described in paragraph (b) of this
appendix as follows:
(1) The Tier 0 and Tier 1 standards in paragraph (b) of this
appendix applied instead of the Tier 0 and Tier 1 standards of Sec.
1033.101 for locomotives manufactured and remanufactured before
January 1, 2010. For example, a locomotive that was originally
manufactured in 2004 and remanufactured on April 10, 2011 was
subject to the original Tier 1 standards specified in paragraph (b)
of this appendix and became subject to the Tier 1 standards of Sec.
1033.101 when it was remanufactured on April 10, 2011.
(2) The Tier 2 standards in paragraph (b) of this appendix
applied instead of the Tier 2 standards of Sec. 1033.101 for
locomotives manufactured and remanufactured before January 1, 2013.
(b) The following NOX and PM standards applied before
the dates specified in paragraph (a) of this appendix:
Table 1 to Appendix A--Original Locomotive Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standards (g/bhp-hr)
Year of original -----------------------------------------------
Type of standard manufacture Tier PM-alternate
NOX PM-primary \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line-haul................... 1973-1992 Tier 0......... 9.5 0.60 0.30
1993-2004 Tier 1......... 7.4 0.45 0.22
2005-2011 Tier 2......... 5.5 0.20 0.10
Switch...................... 1973-1992 Tier 0......... 14.0 0.72 0.36
1993-2004 Tier 1......... 11.0 0.54 0.27
2005-2011 Tier 2......... 8.1 0.24 0.12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Locomotives certified to the alternate PM standards are also subject to alternate CO standards of 10.0 for
the line-haul cycle and 12.0 for the switch cycle.
[[Page 17660]]
(c) The original Tier 0, Tier 1, and Tier 2 standards for HC and
CO emissions and smoke are the same standards identified in Sec.
1033.101.
PART 1036--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HEAVY-DUTY
HIGHWAY ENGINES
0
86. Revise part 1036 to read as follows:
PART 1036--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HEAVY-DUTY
HIGHWAY ENGINES
Sec.
Subpart A--Overview and Applicability
1036.1 Applicability.
1036.2 Compliance responsibility.
1036.5 Excluded engines.
1036.10 Organization of this part.
1036.15 Other applicable regulations.
1036.30 Submission of information.
Subpart B--Emission Standards and Related Requirements
1036.101 Overview of exhaust emission standards.
1036.104 Criteria pollutant emission standards--NOX, HC,
PM, and CO.
1036.108 Greenhouse gas emission standards--CO2,
CH4, and N2O.
1036.110 Diagnostic controls.
1036.111 Inducements related to SCR.
1036.115 Other requirements.
1036.120 Emission-related warranty requirements.
1036.125 Maintenance instructions and allowable maintenance.
1036.130 Installation instructions for vehicle manufacturers.
1036.135 Labeling.
1036.140 Primary intended service class and engine cycle.
1036.150 Interim provisions.
Subpart C--Certifying Engine Families
1036.201 General requirements for obtaining a certificate of
conformity.
1036.205 Requirements for an application for certification.
1036.210 Preliminary approval before certification.
1036.225 Amending applications for certification.
1036.230 Selecting engine families.
1036.235 Testing requirements for certification.
1036.240 Demonstrating compliance with criteria pollutant emission
standards.
1036.241 Demonstrating compliance with greenhouse gas emission
standards.
1036.245 Deterioration factors for exhaust emission standards.
1036.246 Verifying deterioration factors.
1036.250 Reporting and recordkeeping for certification.
1036.255 EPA oversight on certificates of conformity.
Subpart D--Testing Production Engines and Hybrid Powertrains
1036.301 Measurements related to GEM inputs in a selective
enforcement audit.
Subpart E--In-use Testing
1036.401 Testing requirements for in-use engines.
1036.405 Overview of the manufacturer-run field-testing program.
1036.410 Selecting and screening vehicles and engines for testing.
1036.415 Preparing and testing engines.
1036.420 Pass criteria for individual engines.
1036.425 Pass criteria for engine families.
1036.430 Reporting requirements.
1036.435 Recordkeeping requirements.
1036.440 Warranty obligations related to in-use testing.
Subpart F--Test Procedures
1036.501 General testing provisions.
1036.503 Engine data and information to support vehicle
certification.
1036.505 Supplemental Emission Test.
1036.510 Federal Test Procedure.
1036.512 Low Load Cycle.
1036.514 Clean Idle test.
1036.515 Test procedures for off-cycle testing.
1036.520 Test procedures to verify deterioration factors.
1036.522 Infrequently regenerating aftertreatment devices.
1036.527 Powertrain system rated power determination.
1036.530 Calculating greenhouse gas emission rates.
1036.535 Determining steady-state engine fuel maps and fuel
consumption at idle.
1036.540 Determining cycle-average engine fuel maps.
1036.543 Carbon balance error verification.
Subpart G--Special Compliance Provisions
1036.601 Overview of compliance provisions.
1036.605 Alternate emission standards for engines used in specialty
vehicles.
1036.610 Off-cycle technology credits and adjustments for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
1036.615 Engines with Rankine cycle waste heat recovery and hybrid
powertrains.
1036.620 Alternate CO2 standards based on model year 2011
compression-ignition engines.
1036.625 In-use compliance with CO2 family emission
limits (FELs).
1036.630 Certification of engine greenhouse gas emissions for
powertrain testing.
1036.635 --[Reserved]
1036.655 Special provisions for diesel-fueled engines sold in
American Samoa or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Subpart H--Averaging, Banking, and Trading for Certification
1036.701 General provisions.
1036.705 Generating and calculating emission credits.
1036.710 Averaging.
1036.715 Banking.
1036.720 Trading.
1036.725 Required information for certification.
1036.730 ABT reports.
1036.735 Recordkeeping.
1036.740 Restrictions for using emission credits.
1036.741 Using emission credits from electric vehicles and hydrogen
fuel-cell vehicles.
1036.745 End-of-year CO2 credit deficits.
1036.750 Consequences for noncompliance.
1036.755 Information provided to the Department of Transportation.
Subpart I--Definitions and Other Reference Information
1036.801 Definitions.
1036.805 Symbols, abbreviations, and acronyms.
1036.810 Incorporation by reference.
1036.815 Confidential information.
1036.820 Requesting a hearing.
1036.825 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Appendix A of Part 1036--Summary of Previous Emission Standards
Appendix B of Part 1036--Transient Duty Cycles
Appendix C of Part 1036--Default Engine Fuel Maps for Sec. 1036.540
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart A--Overview and Applicability
Sec. 1036.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as specified in Sec. 1036.5, the provisions of this
part apply for engines that will be installed in heavy-duty vehicles
(including glider vehicles).
(b) Heavy-duty engines produced before model year 2027 are subject
to greenhouse gas emission standards and related provisions under this
part as specified in Sec. 1036.108; these engines are subject to
exhaust emission standards for HC, CO, NOX, and PM and
related provisions under 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, instead of this
part, except as follows:
(1) The provisions of Sec. Sec. 1036.115, 1036.501(f), and
1036.601 apply.
(2) 40 CFR parts 85 and 86 may specify that certain provisions
apply.
(3) This part describes how several individual provisions are
optional or mandatory before model year 2027. For example, Sec.
1036.150(a) describes how you may generate emission credits by meeting
the standards of this part before model year 2027.
(c) The provisions of this part also apply for fuel conversions of
all engines described in paragraph (a) of this section as described in
40 CFR 85.502.
(d) Gas turbine heavy-duty engines and other heavy-duty engines not
meeting the definition compression-ignition or spark-ignition are
deemed to be compression-ignition engines for purposes of this part.
(e) For the purpose of applying the provisions of this part,
engines include all emission-related components and any components or
systems that should be identified in your application for
[[Page 17661]]
certification, such as hybrid components for engines that are certified
as hybrid engines or hybrid powertrains.
Sec. 1036.2 Compliance responsibility.
The regulations in this part contain provisions that affect both
engine manufacturers and others. However, the requirements of this part
are generally addressed to the engine manufacturer(s). The term ``you''
generally means the engine manufacturer(s), especially for issues
related to certification. Additional requirements and prohibitions
apply to other persons as specified in subpart G of this part and 40
CFR part 1068.
Sec. 1036.5 Excluded engines.
(a) The provisions of this part do not apply to engines used in
medium-duty passenger vehicles or other heavy-duty vehicles that are
subject to regulation under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, except as
specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, and Sec. 1036.150(j). For
example, this exclusion applies for engines used in vehicles certified
to the standards of 40 CFR 86.1818 and 86.1819.
(b) An engine installed in a heavy-duty vehicle that is not used to
propel the vehicle is not a heavy-duty engine. The provisions of this
part therefore do not apply to these engines. Note that engines used to
indirectly propel the vehicle (such as electrical generator engines
that provide power to batteries for propulsion) are subject to this
part. See 40 CFR part 1039, 1048, or 1054 for other requirements that
apply for these auxiliary engines. See 40 CFR part 1037 for
requirements that may apply for vehicles using these engines, such as
the evaporative emission requirements of 40 CFR 1037.103.
(c) The provisions of this part do not apply to aircraft or
aircraft engines. Standards apply separately to certain aircraft
engines, as described in 40 CFR part 87.
(d) The provisions of this part do not apply to engines that are
not internal combustion engines, except as specified in Sec. 1036.741.
For example, the provisions of this part generally do not apply to fuel
cells. Note that gas turbine engines are internal combustion engines.
(e) The provisions of this part do not apply for model year 2013
and earlier heavy-duty engines unless they were:
(1) Voluntarily certified to this part.
(2) Installed in a glider vehicle subject to 40 CFR part 1037.
Sec. 1036.10 Organization of this part.
This part is divided into the following subparts:
(a) Subpart A of this part defines the applicability of this part
and gives an overview of regulatory requirements.
(b) Subpart B of this part describes the emission standards and
other requirements that must be met to certify engines under this part.
Note that Sec. 1036.150 describes certain interim requirements and
compliance provisions that apply only for a limited time.
(c) Subpart C of this part describes how to apply for a certificate
of conformity.
(d) Subpart D of this part addresses testing of production engines.
(e) Subpart E of this part describes provisions for testing in-use
engines.
(f) Subpart F of this part describes how to test your engines
(including references to other parts of the Code of Federal
Regulations).
(g) Subpart G of this part describes requirements, prohibitions,
and other provisions that apply to engine manufacturers, vehicle
manufacturers, owners, operators, rebuilders, and all others.
(h) Subpart H of this part describes how you may generate and use
emission credits to certify your engines.
(i) Subpart I of this part contains definitions and other reference
information.
Sec. 1036.15 Other applicable regulations.
(a) Parts 85 and 86 of this chapter describe additional provisions
that apply to engines that are subject to this part. See Sec.
1036.601.
(b) Part 1037 of this chapter describes requirements for
controlling evaporative emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from
heavy-duty vehicles, whether or not they use engines certified under
this part.
(c) Part 1065 of this chapter describes procedures and equipment
specifications for testing engines to measure exhaust emissions.
Subpart F of this part describes how to apply the provisions of part
1065 of this chapter to determine whether engines meet the exhaust
emission standards in this part.
(d) The requirements and prohibitions of part 1068 of this chapter
apply as specified in Sec. 1036.601 to everyone, including anyone who
manufactures, imports, installs, owns, operates, or rebuilds any of the
engines subject to this part, or vehicles containing these engines. See
Sec. 1036.601 to determine how to apply the part 1068 regulations for
heavy-duty engines. The issues addressed by these provisions include
these seven areas:
(1) Prohibited acts and penalties for engine manufacturers, vehicle
manufacturers, and others.
(2) Rebuilding and other aftermarket changes.
(3) Exclusions and exemptions for certain engines.
(4) Importing engines.
(5) Selective enforcement audits of your production.
(6) Recall.
(7) Procedures for hearings.
(e) Other parts of this chapter apply if referenced in this part.
Sec. 1036.30 Submission of information.
Unless we specify otherwise, send all reports and requests for
approval to the Designated Compliance Officer (see Sec. 1036.801). See
Sec. 1036.825 for additional reporting and recordkeeping provisions.
Subpart B--Emission Standards and Related Requirements
Sec. 1036.101 Overview of exhaust emission standards.
(a) You must show that engines meet the following exhaust emission
standards:
(1) Criteria pollutant standards for NOX, HC, PM, and CO
apply as described in Sec. 1036.104.
(2) Greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for CO2,
CH4, and N2O apply as described in Sec.
1036.108.
(b) You may optionally demonstrate compliance with the emission
standards of this part by testing hybrid engines and hybrid
powertrains, rather than testing the engine alone. Except as specified,
provisions of this part that reference engines apply equally to hybrid
engines and hybrid powertrains.
Sec. 1036.104 Criteria pollutant emission standards--NOX, HC, PM, and
CO.
This section describes the applicable NOX, HC, CO, and
PM standards for model years 2027 and later. These standards apply
equally for all primary intended service classes unless otherwise
noted.
(a) Emission standards. Exhaust emissions may not exceed the
standards in this section for the specified duty cycle, as follows:
(1) Measure emissions over the specified duty cycles using the test
procedures described in subpart F of this part.
(2) The following emission standards apply over the FTP and SET
duty cycles:
[[Page 17662]]
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 1036.104--FTP and SET Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/ HC (mg/ PM (mg/ CO (g/
Model year hp[middot]hr) hp[middot]hr) hp[middot]hr) hp[middot]hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027-2030....................................... 35 60 5 6.0
2031 and later.................................. \a\ 20 40 5 6.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The NO standard identified for Heavy HDE applies for an intermediate useful life of 435,000 miles, 10 years,
or 22,000 hours, whichever comes first. A standard of 40 mg/hp[middot]hr applies for the rest of the useful
life.
(3) The following emission standards apply for compression-ignition
engines over the Low Load Cycle:
Table 2 to Paragraph (a)(3) of Sec. 1036.104--Low Load Cycle Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/ HC (mg/ PM (mg/ CO (g/
Model Year hp[middot]hr) hp[middot]hr) hp[middot]hr) hp[middot]hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027-2030....................................... 90 140 5 6.0
2031 and later.................................. \a\ 50 60 5 6.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The NOX standard identified for Heavy HDE applies for an intermediate useful life of 435,000 miles, 10
years, or 22,000 hours, whichever comes first. A standard of 100 mg/hp[middot]hr applies for the rest of the
useful life.
(4) Off-cycle emission standards apply for compression-ignition
engines using the procedures specified in Sec. 1036.515. For the idle
bin, the NOX off-cycle emission standard is 10.0 g/hr
starting in model years 2027 through 2030 and 7.5 g/hr starting in
model year 2031. Additional off-cycle emission standards apply as
described in the following table:
Table 3 to Paragraph (a)(4) of Sec. 1036.104--Off-Cycle Emission Standards for Compression-Ignition Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (mg/ HC (mg/ PM (mg/ CO (g/
Model year Bin hp[middot]hr) hp[middot]hr) hp[middot]hr) hp[middot]hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027-2030..................... Low load........ 180 280 10 12.0
Medium/high load 70 120 10 12.0
2031 and later................ Low load........ \a\ 75 90 8 9.0
Medium/high load \a\ 30 60 8 9.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The low load and medium/high load NOX standards identified for Heavy HDE apply for an intermediate useful
life of 435,000 miles, 10 years, or 22,000 hours, whichever comes first. A low load bin standard of 150 mg/
hp[middot]hr and a medium/high load bin standard of 60 mg/hp[middot]hr apply for the rest of the useful life.
(b) Clean Idle. You may optionally certify compression-ignition
engines to the Clean Idle NOX emission standard using the
Clean Idle test specified in Sec. 1036.514. The optional Clean Idle
NOX emission standard is 30.0 g/h before model year 2024,
10.0 g/h for model years 2024 through 2026, and 5.0 g/hr for model year
2027 and later. The mass emission rate of HC, CO, and PM in g/hr during
the Clean Idle test may not exceed the emission results from the idle
modes of the SET duty cycle as described in Sec. 1036.505(h) or the
idle segments of the FTP duty cycle as described in Sec. 1036.510(g).
The standard applies separately to each mode of the Clean Idle test. If
you certify an engine family to the Clean Idle standards, it is subject
to all these voluntary standards as if they were mandatory.
(c) Averaging, banking, and trading. You may generate or use
emission credits under the averaging, banking, and trading (ABT)
program described in subpart H of this part for demonstrating
compliance with NOX emission standards in paragraph (a) of
this section. You must meet the PM, HC, and CO emission standards in
Sec. 1036.104(a) without generating or using emission credits.
(1) To generate or use emission credits, you must specify a family
emission limit for each engine family. Declare the family emission
limit corresponding to full useful life for engine operation over the
FTP duty cycle, FELFTP, expressed to the same number of
decimal places as the emission standard. Use FELFTP to
calculate emission credits in subpart H of this part.
(2) The following NOX FEL caps are the maximum values
you may specify for FELFTP:
(i) 150 mg/hp[middot]hr for model year 2027 through 2030 Spark-
ignition HDE, Light HDE, Medium HDE, and Heavy HDE.
(ii) 50 mg/hp[middot]hr for model year 2031 and later Spark-
ignition HDE, Light HDE, and Medium HDE.
(iii) 70 mg/hp[middot]hr for model year 2031 and later Heavy HDE.
(3) Calculate the NOX family emission limit,
FEL[cycle]NOX, that applies for each duty-cycle or off-cycle
standard using the following equation, noting that you must also use
this approach to determine the FEL for each cycle that applies for
Heavy HDE at intermediate useful life:
[[Page 17663]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.016
(4) The family emission limits in this paragraph (c) serve as the
emission standards for compliance testing instead of the standards
specified in this section.
(d) Fuel types. The exhaust emission standards in this section
apply for engines using the fuel type on which the engines in the
engine family are designed to operate. You must meet the numerical
emission standards for HC in this section based on the following types
of hydrocarbon emissions for engines powered by the following fuels:
(1) Alcohol-fueled engines: NMHCE emissions.
(2) Gaseous-fueled engines: NMNEHC emissions.
(3) Other engines: NMHC emissions.
(e) Useful life. The exhaust emission standards of this section
apply for the useful life, expressed in vehicle miles, or hours of
engine operation, or years in service, whichever comes first, as
follows:
Table 4 to Paragraph (e) of Sec. 1036.104--Useful Life by Primary Intended Service Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year 2027 through 2030 Model year 2031 and later
Primary intended service class ---------------------------------------------------------------
Miles Years Miles Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark-ignition HDE.............................. 155,000 12 200,000 15
Light HDE....................................... 190,000 12 270,000 15
Medium HDE...................................... 270,000 11 350,000 12
Heavy HDE \a\................................... 600,000 11 800,000b 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Useful life for Heavy HDE is also expressed as 32,000 operating hours for model year 2027 through 2030, and
40,000 operating hours for model year 2031 and later. For an individual engine, the useful life is no shorter
than 10 years or 100,000 miles, whichever occurs first, regardless of operating hours.
\b\ Additional standards apply for Heavy HDE during an intermediate useful life of 435,000 miles, 10 years, or
22,000 hours, whichever comes first.
(f) Applicability for testing. The emission standards in this
subpart apply to all testing, including certification, selective
enforcement audits, and in-use testing. For selective enforcement
audits, we may require you to perform the appropriate duty-cycle
testing as specified in Sec. Sec. 1036.505, 1036.510, and 1036.512.
The off-cycle standards in this section apply for duty-cycle testing
you perform for a selective enforcement audit. We may direct you to do
additional testing to show that your engines meet the off-cycle
standards.
Sec. 1036.108 Greenhouse gas emission standards--CO2, CH4, and N2O.
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 describes the applicable CO2, N2O, and
CH4 standards for engines.
(a) Emission standards. Emission standards apply for engines and
optionally powertrains measured using the test procedures specified in
subpart F of this part as follows:
(1) CO2 emission standards in this paragraph (a)(1)
apply based on testing as specified in subpart F of this part. The
applicable test cycle for measuring CO2 emissions differs
depending on the engine family's primary intended service class and the
extent to which the engines will be (or were designed to be) used in
tractors. For Medium HDE and Heavy HDE certified as tractor engines,
measure CO2 emissions using the SET
[[Page 17664]]
steady-state duty cycle specified in Sec. 1036.505. This testing with
the SET duty cycle is intended for engines designed to be used
primarily in tractors and other line-haul applications. Note that the
use of some SET-certified tractor engines in vocational applications
does not affect your certification obligation under this paragraph
(a)(1); see other provisions of this part and 40 CFR part 1037 for
limits on using engines certified to only one cycle. For Medium HDE and
Heavy HDE certified as both tractor and vocational engines, measure
CO2 emissions using the SET duty cycle specified in Sec.
1036.505 and the FTP transient duty cycle specified in Sec. 1036.510.
Testing with both SET and FTP duty cycles is intended for engines that
are designed for use in both tractor and vocational applications. For
all other engines (including Spark-ignition HDE), measure
CO2 emissions using the FTP transient duty cycle specified
in Sec. 1036.510.
(i) The CO2 standard is 627 g/hp[middot]hr for all
spark-ignition engines for model years 2016 through 2020. This standard
continues to apply in later model years for all spark-ignition engines
that are not Heavy HDE.
(ii) The following CO2 standards apply for compression-
ignition engines (in g/hp[middot]hr):
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of Sec. 1036.108--Compression-Ignition Engine Standards for Model Years 2014-
2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium heavy- Heavy heavy-
Model years Light heavy- duty- duty- Medium heavy- Heavy heavy-
duty vocational vocational duty- tractor duty- tractor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014-2016....................... 600 600 567 502 475
2017-2020....................... 576 576 555 487 460
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) The following CO2 standards apply for compression-
ignition engines and all Heavy HDE (in g/hp[middot]hr):
Table 2 to Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of Sec. 1036.108--Compression-Ignition Engine Standards for Model Years 2021
and Later
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium heavy- Heavy heavy-
Model years Light heavy- duty- duty- Medium heavy- Heavy heavy-
duty vocational vocational duty- tractor duty- tractor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021-2023....................... 563 545 513 473 447
2024-2026....................... 555 538 506 461 436
2027 and later.................. 552 535 503 457 432
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) You may certify spark-ignition engines to the compression-
ignition standards for the appropriate model year under this paragraph
(a). If you do this, those engines are treated as compression-ignition
engines for all the provisions of this part.
(2) The CH4 emission standard is 0.10 g/hp[middot]hr
when measured over the applicable transient duty cycle specified in
Sec. 1036.510. This standard begins in model year 2014 for
compression-ignition engines and in model year 2016 for spark-ignition
engines. Note that this standard applies for all fuel types just like
the other standards of this section.
(3) The N2O emission standard is 0.10 g/hp[middot]hr
when measured over the transient duty cycle specified in Sec.
1036.510. This standard begins in model year 2014 for compression-
ignition engines and in model year 2016 for spark-ignition engines.
(b) Family Certification Levels. You must specify a CO2
Family Certification Level (FCL) for each engine family. The FCL may
not be less than the certified emission level for the engine family.
The CO2 Family Emission Limit (FEL) for the engine family is
equal to the FCL multiplied by 1.03.
(c) Averaging, banking, and trading. You may generate or use
emission credits under the averaging, banking, and trading (ABT)
program described in subpart H of this part for demonstrating
compliance with CO2 emission standards. Credits (positive
and negative) are calculated from the difference between the FCL and
the applicable emission standard. As described in Sec. 1036.705, you
may use CO2 credits to certify your engine families to FELs
for N2O and/or CH4, instead of the
N2O/CH4 standards of this section that otherwise
apply. Except as specified in Sec. Sec. 1036.150 and 1036.705, you may
not generate or use credits for N2O or CH4
emissions.
(d) Useful life. The exhaust emission standards of this section
apply for the useful life, expressed as vehicle miles, or hours of
engine operation, or years in service, whichever comes first, as
follows:
Table 3 to Paragraph (d) of Sec. 1036.108--Useful Life by Primary
Intended Service Class for Model Year 2021 and Later
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary intended service class Miles Years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark-ignition HDE...................... 150,000 15
Light HDE............................... 150,000 15
Medium HDE.............................. 185,000 10
[[Page 17665]]
Heavy HDE \a\........................... 435,000 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Useful life for Heavy HDE is also expressed as 22,000 operating
hours. For an individual engine, the useful life is no shorter than 10
years or 100,000 miles, whichever occurs first, regardless of
operating hours.
(e) Applicability for testing. The emission standards in this
subpart apply as specified in this paragraph (e) to all duty-cycle
testing (according to the applicable test cycles) of testable
configurations, including certification, selective enforcement audits,
and in-use testing. The CO2 FCLs serve as the CO2
emission standards for the engine family with respect to certification
and confirmatory testing instead of the standards specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The FELs serve as the emission
standards for the engine family with respect to all other duty-cycle
testing. See Sec. Sec. 1036.235 and 1036.241 to determine which engine
configurations within the engine family are subject to testing. Note
that engine fuel maps and powertrain test results also serve as
standards as described in Sec. Sec. 1036.535, 1036.540, and 1036.630
and 40 CFR 1037.550.
Sec. 1036.110 Diagnostic controls.
Onboard diagnostic (OBD) systems must generally detect malfunctions
in the emission control system, store trouble codes corresponding to
detected malfunctions, and alert operators appropriately. Starting in
model year 2027, new engines must have OBD systems as described in this
section. You may optionally comply with any or all of the requirements
of this section instead of 40 CFR 86.010-18 in earlier model years.
(a) Chassis-based OBD requirements apply instead of the
requirements of this section for certain engines as follows:
(1) Heavy-duty engines intended to be installed in heavy duty
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR must meet the requirements in
40 CFR 86.1806.
(2) Heavy-duty spark-ignition engines intended to be installed in
heavy-duty vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR may meet the requirements
in 40 CFR 86.1806 if the engines share essential design characteristics
with engines that the engine manufacturer also installs in vehicles
certified under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
(b) Engines must comply with the 2019 heavy-duty OBD requirements
adopted for California as described in this paragraph (b). California's
2019 heavy-duty OBD requirements are part of 13 CCR 1968.2, 1968.5,
1971.1, and 1971.5 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1036.810). We
may approve your request to certify an OBD system meeting alternative
specifications if you demonstrate that it meets the intent of this
section. For example, we may approve your request for a system that
meets a later version of California's OBD requirements if you
demonstrate that it meets the intent of this section. To demonstrate
that your engine meets the intent of this section, the OBD system
meeting alternative specifications must address all the provisions
described in this paragraph (b) and in paragraph (c) of this section.
The following clarifications and exceptions apply for engines certified
under this part:
(1) We may approve a small manufacturer's request to delay
complying with the requirements of this section for up to three model
years if that manufacturer has not certified those engines or other
comparable engines in California for those model years.
(2) For engines 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 EPA standards that apply
under this part. You must describe in your application for
certification how you will perform testing to demonstrate compliance
with OBD requirements to represent all your engine families over five
or fewer model years.
(3) Engines must comply with OBD requirements throughout the useful
life as specified in Sec. 1036.104.
(4) The purpose and applicability statements in 13 CCR 1971.1(a)
and (b) do not apply.
(5) Compression-ignition engines are subject to a NOX
threshold of 0.40 g/hp-hr and a PM threshold of 0.03 g/hp-hr for
operation on the FTP and SET duty cycles. Spark-ignition engines are
subject to the following thresholds:
(i) 0.015 g/hp-hr for PM emissions.
(ii) 0.30 g/hp-hr for monitors detecting a malfunction before
NOX emissions exceed 1.5 times the applicable standard.
(iii) 0.35 g/hp-hr for monitors detecting a malfunction before
NOX emissions exceed 1.75 times the applicable standard.
(iv) 0.60 g/hp-hr for monitors detecting a malfunction before
NOX emissions exceed 3.0 times the applicable standard.
(6) The testing and reporting requirements in 13 CCR 1971.1(i)(2.3)
and (2.4) do not apply.
(7) The deficiency provisions described in paragraph (d) of this
section apply instead of 13 CCR 1971.1(k).
(8) Capture the following elements as freeze frame data:
(i) Data parameters specified in 13 CCR 1971.1(h)(4.2) and (4.3).
(ii) System health monitor parameters specified in paragraph (c)(3)
of this section.
(9) Design compression-ignition engines to make the following
parameters available for reading with a generic scan tool, if so
equipped:
(i) Engine and vehicle parameters. Status of parking brake, neutral
switch, brake switch, and clutch switch, wastegate control solenoid
output, wastegate position (commanded and actual), speed and output
shaft torque consistent with Sec. 1036.115(d).
(ii) Diesel oxidation catalyst parameters. Include inlet and outlet
pressure and temperature for the diesel oxidation catalyst.
(iii) Particulate filter parameters. Include filter soot load and
ash load for all installed particulate filters.
(iv) EGR parameters. Include differential pressure for exhaust gas
recirculation.
(v) SCR parameters. Include DEF quality-related signals, output of
aftertreatment doser system (pump and injectors), DEF coolant control
valve position (commanded and actual), DEF tank temperature, DEF system
pressure, DEF pump commanded percentage, DEF doser control status, DEF
line heater control outputs.
(vi) Additional parameters. Include any additional parameters if
they are related to engine derating or other inducements under Sec.
1036.111 or Sec. 1036.125.
(10) Design spark-ignition engines to make the following additional
[[Page 17666]]
parameters available for reading with a generic scan tool, if
appliable:
(i) Air/fuel enrichment parameters. Percent of time in enrichment,
both for each trip (key-on to key-off) and as a cumulative lifetime
value. Track values separately for enrichment based on throttle, engine
protection, and catalyst protection.
(ii) Component temperature parameters. Include component
temperatures (measured and modeled, if applicable) used for catalyst
protection.
(11) If you have an approved Executive order from the California
Air Resources Board for a given engine family, we may rely on that
Executive order to evaluate whether you meet federal OBD requirements
for that same engine family or an equivalent engine family. Engine
families are equivalent if they are identical in all aspects material
to emission characteristics. EPA would count two equivalent engines
families as one for the purposes of determining OBD demonstration
testing requirements. Send us the following information:
(i) You must submit additional information as needed to demonstrate
that you meet the requirements of this section that are not covered by
the California Executive order.
(ii) Send us results from any testing you performed for certifying
engine families (including equivalent engine families) with the
California Air Resources Board, including the results of any testing
performed under 13 CCR 1971.1(i)(2.3) and (2.4), 13 CCR 1971.1(l), and
13 CCR 1971.5(b).
(iii) We may require that you send us additional information if we
need it to evaluate whether you meet the requirements of this section.
This may involve sending us copies of documents you send to the
California Air Resources Board.
(c) The following additional provisions apply:
(1) Design the diagnostic system to display the following
information in the cab:
(i) The health monitoring information specified in paragraph (c)(3)
of this section.
(ii) The information related to inducements as specified in Sec.
1036.111(f).
(2) Diagnostic testing to measure the effectiveness of DEF dosing
must be made available for use with either a generic scan tool or an
equivalent alternative method (such as an option commanded through a
vehicle system menu).
(3) The following provisions related to system health monitors
apply:
(i) Provide the following information related to particulate
filters:
(A) An indicator of general system wear, such as the total number
of regeneration events that have taken place since installing the
current particulate filter.
(B) Indicator of historical and current active and passive
regeneration frequency.
(C) The estimated mileage until the particulate filter needs
cleaning to remove accumulated ash.
(D) Information describing any disabled regeneration if this is
accompanied by engine derating. Also include the reason for disabling.
(ii) Provide the following information related to SCR:
(A) An indicator of historical and current DEF consumption.
(B) Information describing any disabled DEF dosing if this is
accompanied by engine derating. Also include the reason for disabling.
(C) Information describing any detected flow obstruction in DEF
lines or dosing valve in anticipation of triggering an inducement under
Sec. 1036.111(b)(2).
(iii) Provide an indication of EGR valve health, such as by
comparing commanded and actual EGR position.
(iv) Provide an indicator of EGR cooler performance, such as by
displaying parameters described in 13 CCR 1971.1(e)(3.2.5).
(v) Provide current data under paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of
this section based on a default method of updating or resetting
collected data. For example, the current data may include information
from the Active 100-Hour Array or Stored 100-Hour Array. The system
must allow the operator to perform a manual reset to start collecting
new data on demand.
(d) You may ask us to accept as compliant an engine that does not
fully meet specific requirements under this section. The following
provisions apply regarding OBD system deficiencies:
(1) We will not approve a deficiency for gasoline-fueled or diesel-
fueled engines if it 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). We may
approve such deficiencies for engines using other fuels if you
demonstrate that the alternative fuel causes these monitors to be
unreliable.
(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 progress toward compliance
and you show that the necessary hardware or software modifications
would pose an unreasonable burden. We will approve a deficiency for
more than two years only if you further demonstrate that you need the
additional lead time to make substantial changes to engine hardware.
(4) We will not approve deficiencies retroactively.
Sec. 1036.111 Inducements related to SCR.
Engines using SCR to control emissions depend on a constant supply
of diesel exhaust fluid (DEF). This section describes how manufacturers
must design their engines to derate power output to induce operators to
take appropriate actions to ensure the SCR system is working properly.
The requirements of this section apply starting in model year 2027,
though you may comply with the requirements of this section in earlier
model years.
(a) General provisions. The following terms and general provisions
apply under this section:
(1) As described in Sec. 1036.110, this section relies on terms
and requirements specified for OBD systems by California ARB in 13 CCR
1971.1 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1036.810).
(2) The provisions of this section apply differently for low-speed
vehicles. A low-speed vehicle is one whose OBD system has recorded an
average speed below 20 miles per hour for the preceding 30 hours of
non-idle engine operation. Non-idle engine operation includes all
operating conditions except those that qualify as idle based on OBD
system controls as specified in 13 CCR 1971.1(h)(5.4.10).
(3) An inducement drive cycle consists of four hours of continuous
engine operation, without regard to engine starting.
(b) Fault conditions. Create derate strategies that monitor for and
trigger an inducement based on the following conditions:
(1) DEF supply falling to a level corresponding to three hours of
engine operation, based on available information on DEF consumption
rates.
(2) Blocked DEF lines or dosing valves.
[[Page 17667]]
(3) DEF quality failing to meet your concentration specifications.
(4) Open circuit faults related to the following: DEF tank level
sensor, DEF pump, DEF quality sensor, SCR wiring harness,
NOX sensors, DEF dosing valve, DEF tank heater and
aftertreatment control module.
(5) Monitor for a missing catalyst.
(c) NOX override. Reset the Active 100 Hour Array in the
OBD system when the engine detects a fault condition identified in
paragraph (b) of this section (but do not reset the Active 100 Hour
Array if an additional fault occurs before the fault condition is
resolved). Use NOX sensor data to override engine derates as
described in this paragraph (c) after the engine detects the fault
condition. Override the onset of derating associated with a fault
condition if the NOX conversion efficiency in the Active 100
Hour Array is within 10 percent of the NOX conversion
efficiency stored in the lifetime array for OBD REAL Bin 13 and 14. The
Active 100 Hour Array and the Lifetime Array are referenced in 13 CCA
1971.1(h)(5.3.2)(A) and (C), respectively. Calculate the NOX
conversion efficiency relative to the lifetime value using the
following equation and override inducements if the calculated override
factor is at or below 0.10:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.017
(d) Derate schedule. Engines must follow the derate schedule
described in this paragraph (d) if the engine detects a fault condition
identified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. The derate takes
the form of a maximum drive speed for the vehicle. This maximum drive
speed decreases over time based on hours of engine operation without
regard to engine starting or mode of operation. Apply speed-limiting
derates according to the following schedule:
Table 1 to Paragraph (d) of Sec. 1036.111--Derate Schedule for
Detected Faults
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum speed
Default for low-speed
Non-idle hours of engine operation-\a\ maximum speed vehicles (mi/
(mi/hr) hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 65 50
6....................................... 60 45
12...................................... 55 40
60...................................... 50 35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Hours start counting when the engine detects a fault condition
specified in paragraph (b) of this section and the override factor for
NOX conversion efficiency is above 0.10. For DEF supply, you may
program the engine to reset the timer to three hours when the engine
detects an empty DEF tank.
(e) Multiple and continuing faults. The following provisions apply
if the engine detects fault conditions after starting with the derate
schedule specified in paragraph (d) of this section:
(1) The determination to qualify a low-speed vehicle in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section applies at the point that the engine first
detects a fault condition and continues to apply until the fault
condition is fully resolved, as specified in paragraph (g) of this
section.
(2) Apply the provisions of this section independently for each
fault, except as specified in this section.
(f) In-cab display. The in-cab display required in Sec.
1036.110(c)(1) must indicate the condition that triggered the pending
or active derate. The display must indicate ``inducement pending'' as
long as the system is evaluating NOX conversion efficiency
without finding that the override factor is above 0.10. Once calculated
NOX conversion efficiency confirms the fault condition, the
display must identify the current stage of derating and show a
countdown timer to estimate the time or distance remaining before the
next stage.
(g) Deactivating derates. Once the override factor for
NOX conversion efficiency confirms a detected fault
condition, do not use it alone to deactivate derates. Rather, program
the engine to deactivate derates as follows:
(1) Evaluate whether the detected fault condition continues to
apply and reset the Active 100 Hour Array in the OBD system when the
fault condition no longer exists. Deactivate derates if the engine
confirms that the fault condition is resolved and the override factor
for NOX conversion efficiency is at or below 0.10 for a full
inducement drive schedule.
(2) Allow a generic scan tool to tentatively deactivate inducement-
related fault codes while the vehicle is not in motion. Reactivate the
derate at the same point in the derate schedule if the engine detects
the same fault condition during a full inducement drive schedule.
(3) Treat any fault condition that recurs within 80 hours of engine
operation as the same triggering condition, which would restart the
derate at the same point that the system last deactivated the derate.
Sec. 1036.115 Other requirements.
Engines that are required to meet the emission standards of this
part must meet the following requirements, except as noted elsewhere in
this part:
(a) Crankcase emissions. Crankcase emissions may not be discharged
directly into the ambient atmosphere from any engine throughout its
useful life. For purposes of this paragraph (a), crankcase emissions
that are routed to the exhaust upstream of exhaust aftertreatment
during all operation are not considered to be discharged directly into
the ambient atmosphere.
(b) Fuel mapping. You must perform fuel mapping for your engine as
described in Sec. 1036.510(b).
(c) Evaporative emissions. 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.
[[Page 17668]]
(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.
(d) Torque broadcasting. Electronically controlled engines must
broadcast their speed and output shaft torque (in newton-meters).
Engines may alternatively broadcast a surrogate value for determining
torque. Engines must broadcast engine parameters such that they can be
read with a remote device or broadcast them directly to their
controller area networks. This information is necessary for testing
engines in the field (see Sec. 1036.515).
(e) EPA access to broadcast information. If we request it, you must
provide us any hardware, tools, and information we would need to
readily read, interpret, and record all information broadcast by an
engine's on-board computers and electronic control modules. If you
broadcast a surrogate parameter for torque values, you must provide us
what we need to convert these into torque units. We will not ask for
hardware or tools if they are readily available commercially.
(f) Adjustable parameters. Engines that have adjustable parameters
must meet all the requirements of this part for any adjustment in the
physically adjustable range.
(1) We may require that you set adjustable parameters to any
specification within the adjustable range during any testing, including
certification testing, selective enforcement auditing, or in-use
testing.
(2) General provisions apply for adjustable parameters as specified
in 40 CFR 1068.50.
(3) DEF supply and DEF quality are adjustable parameters. The
physically adjustable range includes any amount or quality of DEF that
the engine's diagnostic system does not trigger inducement provisions
under Sec. 1036.111.
(g) Prohibited controls. (1) General provisions. You may not design
your engines with emission control devices, systems, or elements of
design that cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public
health, welfare, or safety while operating. For example, this would
apply if the engine emits a noxious or toxic substance it would
otherwise not emit that contributes to such an unreasonable risk.
(2) Vanadium sublimation in SCR catalysts. For engines equipped
with vanadium-based SCR catalysts, you must design the engine and its
emission controls to prevent vanadium sublimation and protect the
catalyst from high temperatures. We will evaluate your engine design
based on the following information that you must include in your
application for certification:
(i) Identify the threshold temperature for vanadium sublimation for
your specified SCR catalyst formulation as described in 40 CFR
1065.1113 through 1065.1121.
(ii) Describe how you designed your engine to prevent catalyst
inlet temperatures from exceeding the temperature you identify in
paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section, including consideration of engine
wear through the useful life. Also describe your design for catalyst
protection in case catalyst temperatures exceed the specified
temperature. In your description, include how you considered elevated
catalyst temperature resulting from sustained high-load engine
operation, catalyst exotherms, particulate filter regeneration, and
component failure resulting in unburned fuel in the exhaust stream.
(h) Defeat devices. You may not equip your engines with a defeat
device. A defeat device is an auxiliary emission control device (AECD)
that reduces the effectiveness of emission controls under conditions
that may reasonably be expected in normal operation and use. This does
not apply to auxiliary emission control devices you identify in your
application for certification if any of the following is true:
(1) The conditions of concern were substantially included in the
applicable procedure for duty-cycle testing as described in subpart F
of this part.
(2) You show your design is necessary to prevent engine (or
vehicle) damage or accidents.
(3) The reduced effectiveness applies only to starting the engine.
(4) The AECD applies only for engines that will be installed in
emergency vehicles, and the need is justified in terms of preventing
the engine from losing speed, torque, or power due abnormal conditions
of the emission control system, or in terms of preventing such abnormal
conditions from occurring, during operation related to emergency
response. Examples of such abnormal conditions may include excessive
exhaust backpressure from an overloaded particulate trap, and running
out of diesel exhaust fluid for engines that rely on urea-based
selective catalytic reduction.
(i) DEF tanks. Diesel exhaust fluid tanks must be sized to require
refilling no more frequently than the vehicle operator will need to
refill the fuel tank, even for worst-case assumptions related to fuel
efficiency and refueling volumes.
(j) Special provisions for spark-ignition engines. The following
provisions apply for spark-ignition engines starting with model year
2027:
(1) Catalyst bed temperature may not fall below 350 [deg]C during
extended idle. Describe how you designed your engine to meet this
requirement in your application for certification. You may ask us to
approve alternative strategies to prevent emissions from increasing
during idle.
(2) You may use modeled exhaust component temperatures to protect
the catalyst instead of designing the engine to continuously monitor
exhaust component temperatures as described in this paragraph (j)(2).
Measure and record component temperatures during engine mapping and
during emission measurements with each required duty cycle. You may use
modeled exhaust temperatures under this paragraph (j)(2) only if all
modeled and actual temperatures differ by 5 [deg]C or less. Submit a
second-by-second comparison of the modeled and actual component
temperatures as part of your application for certification.
Sec. 1036.120 Emission-related warranty requirements.
(a) General requirements. You must warrant to the ultimate
purchaser and each subsequent purchaser that the new engine, including
all parts of its emission control system, meets two conditions:
(1) It is designed, built, and equipped so it conforms at the time
of sale to the ultimate purchaser with the requirements of this part.
(2) It is free from defects in materials and workmanship that may
keep it from meeting these requirements.
(b) Warranty period. Your emission-related warranty must be valid
for at least as long as the minimum warranty periods listed in this
paragraph (b) in vehicle miles, or hours of engine operation, or years
in service, whichever comes first. You may offer an emission-related
warranty more generous than we require. The emission-related warranty
for the engine may not be shorter than any published warranty you offer
with or without charge for the engine. Similarly, the emission-related
warranty for any component may not be shorter than any published
warranty you offer
[[Page 17669]]
without charge for that component. If an extended warranty requires
owners to pay for a portion of repairs, those terms apply in the same
manner to the emission-related warranty. The warranty period begins
when the vehicle is placed into service. The following minimum warranty
periods apply:
Table 1 to Paragraph (b) of Sec. 1036.120--Warranty by Primary Intended Service Class \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year Model year 2027 through 2030 Model year 2031 and later
2026 and ---------------------------------------------------------------
Primary intended service class earlier
---------------- Mileage Hours Mileage Hours
Mileage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark-Ignition HDE.............. 50,000 110,000 6,000 160,000 8,000
Light HDE....................... 50,000 150,000 7,000 210,000 10,000
Medium HDE...................... 100,000 220,000 11,000 280,000 14,000
Heavy HDE....................... 100,000 450,000 22,000 600,000 30,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Warranty period is also expressed as 5 years for model years 2026 and earlier, 7 years for model years 2027
through 2030, and 10 years for model years 2031 and later.
(c) Components covered. The emission-related warranty covers all
components whose failure would increase an engine's emissions of any
regulated pollutant, including components listed in 40 CFR part 1068,
appendix A, and components from any other system you develop to control
emissions. The emission-related warranty covers these components even
if another company produces the component.
(d) Limited applicability. You may deny warranty claims under this
section if the operator caused the problem through improper maintenance
or use, subject to the provisions in Sec. 1036.125 and 40 CFR
1068.115.
(e) Owners manual. Describe in the owners manual the emission-
related warranty provisions from this section that apply to the engine.
Sec. 1036.125 Maintenance instructions and allowable maintenance.
Maintenance includes any inspection, adjustment, cleaning, repair,
or replacement of components and is classified as either emission-
related or nonemission-related and each of these can be classified as
either scheduled or unscheduled. Further, some emission-related
maintenance is also classified as critical emission-related
maintenance. Give the ultimate purchaser of each new engine written
instructions for maintaining and using the engine. As described in
paragraph (h) of this section, these instructions must identify how
owners properly maintain and use engines for applying regulatory
requirements such as emission-related warranty and defect reporting.
(a) Critical emission-related maintenance. Critical emission-
related maintenance includes any adjustment, cleaning, repair, or
replacement of components listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
This may also include other maintenance that you determine is critical,
including maintenance on other critical emission-related components as
defined in 40 CFR part 1068, if we approve it in advance. You may
perform scheduled critical emission-related maintenance during service
accumulation on your emission-data engines at the intervals you
specify.
(1) Maintenance demonstration. You must demonstrate that the
maintenance is reasonably likely to be done at the recommended
intervals on in-use engines. We will accept DEF replenishment and other
SCR-related maintenance as reasonably likely to occur if your engine
meets the specifications in Sec. 1036.111. We will accept other
scheduled maintenance as reasonably likely to occur if you satisfy any
of the following conditions:
(i) You present data showing that, if a lack of maintenance
increases emissions, it also unacceptably degrades the engine's
performance.
(ii) You design and produce your engines with a system we approve
that displays a visible signal to alert drivers that maintenance is
due, either as a result of component failure or the appropriate degree
of engine or vehicle operation. The signal must clearly display
``maintenance needed'', ``check engine'', or a similar message that we
approve. The signal must be continuous while the engine is operating
and not be easily eliminated without performing the specified
maintenance. Your maintenance instructions must specify resetting the
signal after completing the specified maintenance. We must approve the
method for resetting the signal. You may not design the system to be
less effective at the end of the useful life or after any other degree
of operation. If others install your engine in their vehicle, you may
rely on installation instructions to ensure proper mounting and
operation of the display. Disabling or improperly resetting the system
for displaying these maintenance-related signals without performing the
indicated maintenance violates the tampering prohibition in 42 U.S.C.
7522(a)(3).
(iii) You present survey data showing that at least 80 percent of
engines in the field get the maintenance you specify at the recommended
intervals.
(iv) You provide the maintenance free of charge and clearly say so
in your maintenance instructions.
(v) You otherwise show us that the maintenance is reasonably likely
to be done at the recommended intervals.
(2) Minimum scheduled maintenance intervals. You may not schedule
replacement of catalyst beds or particulate filters during an engine's
useful life. You may not schedule other critical emission-related
maintenance more frequently than the minimum intervals specified in
Table 1 and Table 2 of this section or otherwise allowed in this
paragraph (a). The minimum intervals specified for each component
applies to actuators, sensors, tubing, valves, and wiring associated
with that component, except as specified.
[[Page 17670]]
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 1036.125--Minimum Scheduled Maintenance Intervals for Replacement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accumulated miles (hours) for components
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Spark-Ignition
HDE Light HDE Medium HDE Heavy HDE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark plugs......................... 25,000 (750) NA NA NA
DEF filters......................... NA 100,000 (3,000) 120,000 (3,600) 175,000 (5,250)
Crankcase ventilation valves and 60,000 (1,800) 60,000 (1,800) 60,000 (1,800) 60,000 (1,800)
filters............................
Ignition wires...................... 100,000 (3,000) NA NA NA
Oxygen sensors...................... 80,000 (2,400) NA NA NA
Air injection system components..... 110,000 (3,300) NA NA NA
Particulate filtration system (other 100,000 (3,000) 100,000 (3,000) 250,000 (7,500) 250,000 (7,500)
than filters)......................
Catalyst systems (other than 110,000 (3,300) 110,000 (3,300) 185,000 (5,550) 435,000 (13,050)
catalyst beds).....................
Fuel injectors......................
Electronic control modules..........
Evaporative emission canisters......
Turbochargers.......................
EGR system components (including
filters and coolers)...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 1036.125--Minimum Scheduled Maintenance Intervals for Adjustment or
Cleaning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accumulated miles (hours) for components
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Spark-Ignition
HDE Light HDE Medium HDE Heavy HDE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark plugs......................... 25,000 (750) NA NA NA
EGR-related filters and coolers..... 50,000 (1,500) 50,000 (1,500) 50,000 (1,500) 50,000 (1,500)
Fuel injectors......................
Crankcase ventilation valves and
filters............................
DEF filters......................... NA 50,000 (1,500) 50,000 (1,500) 50,000 (1,500)
Ignition wires...................... 50,000 (1,500) NA NA NA
Idle mixture........................
Oxygen sensors...................... 80,000 (2,400) NA NA NA
Air injection system components..... 100,000 (3,000) NA NA NA
Catalyst system components.......... 100,000 (3,000) 100,000 (3,000) 150,000 (4,500) 150,000 (4,500)
EGR system components (other than
filters or coolers)................
Particulate filtration system
components.........................
Turbochargers.......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) New technology. You may ask us to approve scheduled critical
emission-related maintenance of components not identified in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section that is a direct result of the implementation of
new technology not used in model year 2020 or earlier engines, subject
to the following provisions:
(i) Your request must include your recommended maintenance
interval, including data to support the need for the maintenance, and a
demonstration that the maintenance is likely to occur at the
recommended interval using one of the conditions specified in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section.
(ii) For any such new technology, we will publish a Federal
Register notice based on information you submit and any other available
information to announce that we have established new allowable minimum
maintenance intervals. Any manufacturer objecting to our decision may
ask for a hearing (see Sec. 1036.820).
(b) Recommended additional maintenance. You may recommend any
amount of maintenance that is additional to what we approve for
critical emission-related components in paragraph (a) of this section
for those components, as long as you state clearly that the recommended
additional maintenance steps are not necessary to keep the emission-
related warranty valid. If operators do the maintenance specified in
paragraph (a) of this section, but not the recommended additional
maintenance, this does not allow you to disqualify those engines from
in-use testing or deny a warranty claim. Do not take these maintenance
steps during service accumulation on your emission-data engines.
(c) Special maintenance. You may specify more frequent maintenance
to address problems related to special situations, such as atypical
engine operation. You must clearly state that this special maintenance
is associated with the special situation you are addressing. We may
disapprove your maintenance instructions if we determine that you have
specified special maintenance steps to address engine operation that is
not atypical, or that the maintenance is unlikely to occur in use. If
we determine that certain maintenance items do not qualify as special
maintenance under this paragraph (c), you may identify them as
recommended additional maintenance under paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) Noncritical emission-related maintenance. You may specify any
amount of emission-related inspection or other maintenance that is not
approved critical emission-related maintenance under paragraph (a) of
this section, subject to the provisions of this paragraph (d).
Noncritical emission-related maintenance generally includes maintenance
on the components we specify in 40 CFR part 1068, appendix A, that is
not covered in paragraph (a) of this section. You must state in the
owners manual that these steps are not necessary to keep the emission-
related
[[Page 17671]]
warranty valid. If operators fail to do this maintenance, this does not
allow you to disqualify those engines from in-use testing or deny a
warranty claim. Do not take these inspection or other maintenance steps
during service accumulation on your emission-data engines.
(e) Nonemission-related maintenance. You may schedule any amount of
maintenance unrelated to emission controls that is needed for proper
functioning of the engine. This might include adding engine oil;
changing air, fuel, or oil filters; servicing engine-cooling systems;
adjusting idle speed, governor, engine bolt torque, valve lash,
injector lash, timing, or tension of air pump drive belts; and
lubricating the heat control valve in the exhaust manifold. You may
perform nonemission-related maintenance during service accumulation on
your emission-data engines at the least frequent intervals that you
recommend to the ultimate purchaser (but not the intervals recommended
for special situations).
(f) Source of parts and repairs. State clearly on the first page of
your written maintenance instructions that a repair shop or person of
the owner's choosing may maintain, replace, or repair emission control
devices and systems. Your instructions may not require components or
service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name. Also, do not
directly or indirectly condition your warranty on a requirement that
the engine be serviced by your franchised dealers or any other service
establishments with which you have a commercial relationship. You may
disregard the requirements in this paragraph (f) if you do one of two
things:
(1) Provide a component or service without charge under the
purchase agreement.
(2) Get us to waive this prohibition in the public's interest by
convincing us the engine will work properly only with the identified
component or service.
(g) Payment for scheduled maintenance. Owners are responsible for
properly maintaining their engines, which generally includes paying for
scheduled maintenance. However, you may commit to paying for scheduled
maintenance as described in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section to
demonstrate that the maintenance will occur. You may also schedule
maintenance not otherwise allowed by paragraph (a)(2) of this section
if you pay for it. You must pay for scheduled maintenance on any
component during the useful life if it meets all the following
conditions:
(1) Each affected component was not in general use on similar
engines before 1980.
(2) The primary function of each affected component is to reduce
emissions.
(3) The cost of the scheduled maintenance is more than 2 percent of
the price of the engine.
(4) Failure to perform the maintenance would not cause clear
problems that would significantly degrade the engine's performance.
(h) Owners manual. Include the following information in the owners
manual to clarify maintenance instructions and the owner's
responsibilities:
(1) Clearly describe the scheduled maintenance steps, consistent
with the provisions of this section, using nontechnical language as
much as possible. Include a list of components for which you will cover
scheduled replacement costs.
(2) Identify steps owners must take to qualify their engines as
properly maintained, consistent with the requirements of this section.
Also identify types of engine operation that would not qualify their
engines as being properly used. Describe what documentation you
consider appropriate for making these demonstrations. Note that you may
identify failure to repair critical emission-related components as
improper maintenance if the repairs are related to an observed defect.
(3) Describe how the owner can access the OBD system to
troubleshoot problems and find emission-related diagnostic information
and codes stored in onboard monitoring systems as described in Sec.
1036.110(b) and (c). For example, the instructions should identify the
communication protocol and any other information the owner would need
to read and understand stored codes.
(4) Include a general description of how the emission control
systems operate.
(5) Include one or more diagrams of the engine and its emission-
related components with the following information:
(i) The flow path for intake air and exhaust gas.
(ii) The flow path of evaporative and refueling emissions for
spark-ignition engines, and DEF for compression-ignition engines, as
applicable.
(iii) The flow path of engine coolant if it is part of the emission
control system described in the application for certification.
(iv) The identity, location, and arrangement of relevant sensors,
wiring, and other emission-related components in the diagram.
Terminology to identify components must be consistent with codes you
use for the OBD system.
(v) Expected pressures at the particulate filter and exhaust
temperatures throughout the aftertreatment system.
(6) Include exploded-view drawings to allow the owner to identify
the part numbers and basic assembly requirements for turbochargers,
aftercoolers, and all components required for proper functioning of EGR
and aftertreatment devices. Include enough detail to allow a mechanic
to replace any of those components.
(7) Include basic wiring diagrams for aftertreatment-related
components. Include enough detail to allow a mechanic to detect
improper functioning of those components.
(8) Include the following statement: ``Technical service bulletins
and other information for your engine may be available at
www.nhtsa.gov/recalls.''
(9) Include a troubleshooting guide to address warning signals
related to DEF dosing and particulate filter regeneration that would be
displayed in the cab or in a generic scan tool. The troubleshooting
guide must describe the fault condition, the potential causes, the
remedy, and the consequence of continuing to operate without remedy,
this would include a list of all codes that cause derate or inducement
(e.g., list SPN/FMI combinations) and associated operating restrictions
(e.g., percent torque derate).
(10) Note that Sec. 1036.135(c)(10) requires the owners manual for
an engine to be accessible electronically from a QR Code on the
emission control information label.
(11) Include the following information for engines with particulate
filters:
(i) Instructions on removing the particulate filter for cleaning.
(ii) Criteria for establishing that a particulate filter has been
cleaned, including maximum clean filter weight and pressure drop across
the filter. We recommend that you also specify a pre-installation
filter weight to represent a like-new configuration.
(iii) A statement that particulate filter inlet and outlet
pressures are available with a generic scan tool.
(iv) Suggested maintenance practices to prevent damage to
particulate filters.
Sec. 1036.130 Installation instructions for vehicle manufacturers.
(a) If you sell an engine for someone else to install in a vehicle,
give the engine installer instructions for installing it consistent
with the requirements of this part. Include all
[[Page 17672]]
information necessary to ensure that an engine will be installed in its
certified configuration.
(b) Make sure these instructions have the following information:
(1) Include the heading: ``Emission-related installation
instructions''.
(2) State: ``Failing to follow these instructions when installing a
certified engine in a heavy-duty motor vehicle violates federal law,
subject to fines or other penalties as described in the Clean Air
Act.''
(3) Provide all instructions needed to properly install the exhaust
system and any other components.
(4) Describe any necessary steps for installing any diagnostic
system required under Sec. 1036.110.
(5) Describe how your certification is limited for any type of
application. For example, if you certify Heavy HDE to the CO2 standards
using only transient FTP testing, you must make clear that the engine
may not be installed in tractors.
(6) Describe any other instructions to make sure the installed
engine will operate according to design specifications in your
application for certification. This may include, for example,
instructions for installing aftertreatment devices when installing the
engines.
(7) Give the following instructions if you do not ship diesel
exhaust fluid tanks with your engines:
(i) Specify that vehicle manufacturers must install diesel exhaust
fluid tanks meeting the specifications of Sec. 1036.115(i).
(ii) Describe how vehicle manufacturers must install diesel exhaust
fluid tanks with sensors as needed to meet the requirements of
Sec. Sec. 1036.110 and 1036.111.
(8) State: ``If you install the engine in a way that makes the
engine's emission control information label hard to read during normal
engine maintenance, you must place a duplicate label on the vehicle, as
described in 40 CFR 1068.105.''
(c) Give the vehicle manufacturer fuel map results as described in
Sec. 1036.503(b).
(d) You do not need installation instructions for engines that you
install in your own vehicles.
(e) Provide instructions in writing or in an equivalent format. For
example, you may post instructions on a publicly available website for
downloading or printing. If you do not provide the instructions in
writing, explain in your application for certification how you will
ensure that each installer is informed of the installation
requirements.
Sec. 1036.135 Labeling.
(a) Assign each engine a unique identification number and
permanently affix, engrave, or stamp it on the engine in a legible way.
(b) At the time of manufacture, affix a permanent and legible label
identifying each engine. The label must meet the requirements of 40 CFR
1068.45.
(c) The label must--
(1) Include the heading ``EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION''.
(2) Include your full corporate name and trademark. You may
identify another company and use its trademark instead of yours if you
comply with the branding provisions of 40 CFR 1068.45.
(3) Include EPA's standardized designation for the engine family.
(4) Identify the primary intended service class.
(5) State the engine's displacement (in liters); however, you may
omit this from the label if all the engines in the engine family have
the same per-cylinder displacement and total displacement.
(6) State the date of manufacture [DAY (optional), MONTH, and
YEAR]; however, you may omit this from the label if you stamp, engrave,
or otherwise permanently identify it elsewhere on the engine, in which
case you must also describe in your application for certification where
you will identify the date on the engine.
(7) State the FEL(s) to which the engines are certified if
certification depends on the ABT provision of subpart H of this part.
(8) State: ``THIS ENGINE COMPLIES WITH U.S. EPA REGULATIONS FOR
[MODEL YEAR] HEAVY-DUTY HIGHWAY ENGINES.''
(9) Identify any limitations on your certification. For example, if
you certify Heavy HDE to the CO2 standards using only
steady-state testing, include the statement ``TRACTORS ONLY''.
Similarly, for engines with one or more approved AECDs for emergency
vehicle applications under Sec. 1036.115(h)(4), the statement: ``THIS
ENGINE IS FOR INSTALLATION IN EMERGENCY VEHICLES ONLY''.
(10) Include a field on the label to allow for accessing
interactive information with mobile electronic devices. To do this,
include an image of a QR code that will direct mobile electronic
devices to a public Web site that you maintain. Generate the QR code as
specified in ISO/IEC 18004 (incorporated by reference in Sec.
1036.810). To the left of the QR code, include the vertically oriented
caption ``Smartphone QR CodeTM''. The website associated with the QR
code for a given engine must include a link to a public copy of the
owners manual and the following information for that engine:
(i) Include EPA's standardized designation for the engine family.
This may include multiple engine families in a given model year and it
may include multiple model years for those families as long as the
appropriate information is available for each engine.
(ii) Identify the emission control system. Use terms and
abbreviations as described in 40 CFR 1068.45.
(iii) Identify any requirements for fuel and lubricants that do not
involve fuel-sulfur levels.
(d) You may add information to the emission control information
label as follows:
(1) You may identify other emission standards that the engine meets
or does not meet. You may add the information about the other emission
standards to the statement we specify, or you may include it in a
separate statement.
(2) You may add other information to ensure that the engine will be
properly maintained and used.
(3) You may add appropriate features to prevent counterfeit labels.
For example, you may include the engine's unique identification number
on the label.
(e) You may ask us to approve modified labeling requirements in
this part if you show that it is necessary or appropriate. We will
approve your request if your alternate label is consistent with the
requirements of this part. We may also specify modified labeling
requirements to be consistent with the intent of 40 CFR part 1037.
(f) If you obscure the engine label while installing the engine in
the vehicle such that the label cannot be read during normal
maintenance, you must place a duplicate label on the vehicle. If others
install your engine in their vehicles in a way that obscures the engine
label, we require them to add a duplicate label on the vehicle (see 40
CFR 1068.105); in that case, give them the number of duplicate labels
they request and keep the following records for at least five years:
(1) Written documentation of the request from the vehicle
manufacturer.
(2) The number of duplicate labels you send for each engine family
and the date you sent them.
Sec. 1036.140 Primary intended service class and engine cycle.
You must identify a single primary intended service class for each
engine family that best describes vehicles for which you design and
market the engine, as follows:
(a) Divide compression-ignition engines into primary intended
service
[[Page 17673]]
classes based on the following engine and vehicle characteristics:
(1) Light HDE includes engines that are not designed for rebuild
and do not have cylinder liners. Vehicle body types in this group might
include any heavy-duty vehicle built from a light-duty truck chassis,
van trucks, multi-stop vans, and some straight trucks with a single
rear axle. Typical applications would include personal transportation,
light-load commercial delivery, passenger service, agriculture, and
construction. The GVWR of these vehicles is normally at or below 19,500
pounds.
(2) Medium HDE includes engines that may be designed for rebuild
and may have cylinder liners. Vehicle body types in this group would
typically include school buses, straight trucks with single rear axles,
city tractors, and a variety of special purpose vehicles such as small
dump trucks, and refuse trucks. Typical applications would include
commercial short haul and intra-city delivery and pickup. Engines in
this group are normally used in vehicles whose GVWR ranges from 19,501
to 33,000 pounds.
(3) Heavy HDE includes engines that are designed for multiple
rebuilds and have cylinder liners. Vehicles in this group are normally
tractors, trucks, straight trucks with dual rear axles, and buses used
in inter-city, long-haul applications. These vehicles normally exceed
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(b) Divide spark-ignition engines into primary intended service
classes as follows:
(1) Spark-ignition engines that are best characterized by paragraph
(a)(1) or (2) of this section are in a separate Spark-ignition HDE
primary intended service class.
(2) Spark-ignition engines that are best characterized by paragraph
(a)(3) of this section are included in the Heavy HDE primary intended
service class along with compression-ignition engines. Gasoline-fueled
engines are presumed not to be characterized by paragraph (a)(3) of
this section; for example, vehicle manufacturers may install some
number of gasoline-fueled engines in Class 8 trucks without causing the
engine manufacturer to consider those to be Heavy HDE.
(c) References to ``spark-ignition standards'' in this part relate
only to the spark-ignition engines identified in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section. References to ``compression-ignition standards'' in this
part relate to compression-ignition engines, to spark-ignition engines
optionally certified to standards that apply to compression-ignition
engines, and to all engines identified under paragraph (b)(2) of this
section as Heavy HDE.
Sec. 1036.150 Interim provisions.
The provisions in this section apply instead of other provisions in
this part. This section describes when these interim provisions expire,
if applicable.
(a) Transitional and early credits for NOX emissions. You may
generate and use transitional and early credits for NOX
emissions according to Sec. 1036.104(c) and subpart H of this part
subject to the following provisions:
(1) Transitional credits. Model year 2024 through 2026 engines may
generate transitional credits that can be used to certify model year
2027 and later engines as follows:
(i) Calculate transitional credits as described in Sec.
1036.705(b) relative to the NOX emission standard for FTP
testing in 40 CFR 86.007-11 or 86.008-10 using the useful life mileages
of 40 CFR 86.004-2.
(ii) Engines must also comply with NOX family emission
limits for each duty-cycle standard other than the FTP duty cycle in
Sec. 1036.104(a) using the test procedures in subpart F of this part.
Calculate these NOX family emission limits,
FEL[cycle]NOX, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.018
(iii) The family emission limits in this paragraph (a)(1) serve as
the emission standards to determine compliance for all testing instead
of the standards specified in 40 CFR 86.007-11 or 86.008-10.
(iv) Record PM, HC, and CO emission levels during all testing.
Demonstrate that you comply with applicable PM, HC, and CO emission
standards in 40 CFR 86.007-11 or 86.008-10.
(2) Early credits. Model year 2024 and later engines may generate
early credits under this paragraph (a)(2) only if they
[[Page 17674]]
comply with all the requirements that apply under this part for the
model year to which you are certifying. Calculate early credits as
described in Sec. 1036.705(b) with the following adjustments and
clarifications:
(i) Calculate early credits for all model year 2030 and earlier
engines relative to the NOX standard for FTP testing in 40
CFR 86.007-11 or 86.008-10 or Sec. 1036.104 that applies for an engine
family's model year.
(ii) Replace the FL term in Eq. 1036.705-1 with:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.019
(3) Limitations on using banked emission credits in model years
2027 and later. You must use one of the methods described in paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section for using NOX emission
credits generated by model year 2026 and earlier engines when
certifying model year 2027 and later engines. Similarly, you must use
the method described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for using
NOX emission credits generated by model year 2027 through
2030 engines when certifying model year 2031 and later engines.
(b) Model year 2014 N2O standards. In model year 2014 and earlier,
manufacturers may show compliance with the N2O standards using an
engineering analysis. This allowance also applies for later families
certified using carryover CO2 data from model 2014 consistent with
Sec. 1036.235(d).
(c) Engine cycle classification. Through model year 2020, engines
meeting the definition of spark-ignition, but regulated as compression-
ignition engines under Sec. 1036.140, must be certified to the
requirements applicable to compression-ignition engines under this
part. Such engines are deemed to be compression-ignition engines for
purposes of this part. Similarly, through model year 2020, engines
meeting the definition of compression-ignition, but regulated as Otto-
cycle under 40 CFR part 86 must be certified to the requirements
applicable to spark-ignition engines under this part. Such engines are
deemed to be spark-ignition engines for purposes of this part. See
Sec. 1036.140 for provisions that apply for model year 2021 and later.
(d) Small manufacturers. The greenhouse gas standards of this part
apply on a delayed schedule for manufacturers meeting the small
business criteria specified in 13 CFR 121.201. Apply the small business
criteria for NAICS code 336310 for engine manufacturers with respect to
gasoline-fueled engines and 333618 for engine manufacturers with
respect to other engines; the employee limits apply to the total number
employees together for affiliated companies. Qualifying small
manufacturers are not subject to the greenhouse gas emission standards
in Sec. 1036.108 for engines with a date of manufacture on or after
November 14, 2011 but before January 1, 2022. In addition, qualifying
small manufacturers producing engines that run on any fuel other than
gasoline, E85, or diesel fuel may delay complying with every later
standard under this part by one model year. Small manufacturers may
certify their engines and generate emission credits under this part
before standards start to apply, but only if they certify their entire
U.S.-directed production volume within that averaging set for that
model year. Note that engines not yet subject to standards must
nevertheless supply fuel maps to vehicle manufacturers as described in
paragraph (n) of this section. Note also that engines produced by small
manufacturers are subject to criteria pollutant standards.
(e) Alternate phase-in standards for greenhouse gas emissions.
Where a manufacturer certifies all of its model year 2013 compression-
ignition engines within a given primary intended service class to the
applicable alternate standards of this paragraph (e), its compression-
ignition engines within that primary intended service class are subject
to the standards of this paragraph (e) for model years 2013 through
2016. This means that once a manufacturer chooses to certify a primary
intended service class to the standards of this paragraph (e), it is
not allowed to opt out of these standards.
[[Page 17675]]
Table 1 to Paragraph (e) of Sec. 1036.150--Alternate Phase-In Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle type Model years LHD engines MHD engines HHD engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tractors........................ 2013-2015......... NA................ 512 g/hp[middot]hr 485 g/
hp[middot]hr.
2016 and later a................ NA................ 487 g/hp[middot]hr 460 g/
hp[middot]hr..
Vocational...................... 2013-2015......... 618 g/hp[middot]hr 618 g/hp[middot]hr 577 g/
hp[middot]hr.
2016 through 2020 576 g/hp[middot]hr 576 g/hp[middot]hr 555 g/
\a\. hp[middot]hr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\Note: These alternate standards for 2016 and later are the same as the otherwise applicable standards for
2017 through 2020.
(f) [Reserved]
(g) Default deterioration factors for greenhouse gas standards. You
may use default deterioration factors (DFs) without performing your own
durability emission tests or engineering analysis as follows:
(1) You may use a default additive DF of 0.0 g/hp[middot]hr for
CO2 emissions from engines that do not use advanced or off-
cycle technologies. If we determine it to be consistent with good
engineering judgment, we may allow you to use a default additive DF of
0.0 g/hp[middot]hr for CO2 emissions from your engines with
advanced or off-cycle technologies.
(2) You may use a default additive DF of 0.010 g/hp[middot]hr for
N2O emissions from any engine through model year 2021, and
0.020 g/hp-hr for later model years.
(3) You may use a default additive DF of 0.020 g/hp[middot]hr for
CH4 emissions from any engine.
(h) Advanced-technology credits. If you generate CO2
credits from model year 2020 and earlier engines certified for advanced
technology, you may multiply these credits by 1.5.
(i) CO2 credits for low N2O emissions. If you certify your model
year 2014, 2015, or 2016 engines to an N2O FEL less than
0.04 g/hp[middot]hr (provided you measure N2O emissions from
your emission-data engines), you may generate additional CO2
credits under this paragraph (i). Calculate the additional
CO2 credits from the following equation instead of the
equation in Sec. 1036.705:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.020
(j) Alternate standards under 40 CFR part 86. This paragraph (j)
describes alternate emission standards for loose engines certified
under 40 CFR 86.1819-14(k)(8). The standards of Sec. 1036.108 do not
apply for these engines. The standards in this paragraph (j) apply for
emissions measured with the engine installed in a complete vehicle
consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 86.1819-14(k)(8)(vi). The only
requirements of this part that apply to these engines are those in this
paragraph (j), Sec. Sec. 1036.115 through 1036.135, 1036.535, and
1036.540.
(k) [Reserved]
(l) Credit adjustment for spark-ignition engines and light heavy-
duty compression-ignition engines. For greenhouse gas emission credits
generated from model year 2020 and earlier spark-ignition and light
heavy-duty engines, multiply any banked CO2 credits that you
carry forward to demonstrate compliance with model year 2021 and later
standards by 1.36.
(m) Infrequent regeneration. For model year 2020 and earlier, you
may invalidate any test interval with respect to CO2
measurements if an infrequent regeneration event occurs during the test
interval. Note that Sec. 1036.522 specifies how to apply infrequent
regeneration adjustment factors for later model years.
(n) Supplying fuel maps. Engine manufacturers not yet subject to
standards under Sec. 1036.108 in model year 2021 must supply vehicle
manufacturers with fuel maps (or powertrain test results) as described
in Sec. 1036.130 for those engines.
(o) Engines used in glider vehicles. For purposes of recertifying a
used engine for installation in a glider vehicle, we may allow you to
include in an existing certified engine family those engines you modify
(or otherwise demonstrate) to be identical to engines already covered
by the certificate. We would base such an approval on our review of any
appropriate documentation. These engines must have emission control
information labels that accurately describe their status.
(p) Transition to Phase 2 CO2 standards. If you certify all your
model year 2020 engines within an averaging set to the model year 2021
FTP and SET standards and requirements, you may apply the provisions of
this paragraph (p) for enhanced generation and use of emission credits.
These provisions apply separately for Medium HDE and Heavy HDE.
(1) Greenhouse gas emission credits you generate with model year
2018 through 2024 engines may be used through model year 2030, instead
of being limited to a five-year credit life as specified in Sec.
1036.740(d).
(2) You may certify your model year 2024 through 2026 engines to
the following alternative standards:
Table 2 to Paragraph (p)(2) of Sec. 1036.150--Alternative Standards for Model Years 2024 Through 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium heavy- Heavy heavy- Medium heavy- Heavy heavy-
Model years duty-vocational duty-vocational duty-tractor duty-tractor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024-2026................................... 542 510 467 442
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(q) Confirmatory testing of fuel maps defined in Sec. 1036.503(b).
For model years 2021 and later, where the results from Eq. 1036.235-1
for a confirmatory test are at or below 2.0%, we will not replace the
manufacturer's fuel maps.
(r) [Reserved]
(s) Greenhouse gas compliance testing. Select duty cycles and
measure
[[Page 17676]]
emissions to demonstrate compliance with greenhouse gas emission
standards before model year 2027 as follows:
(1) For model years 2016 through 2020, measure emissions using the
FTP duty cycle specified in Sec. 1036.510 and SET duty cycle specified
in 40 CFR 86.1362, as applicable.
(2) The following provisions apply for model years 2021 through
2026:
(i) Determine criteria pollutant emissions during any testing used
to demonstrate compliance with greenhouse gas emission standards;
however, the duty-cycle standards of Sec. 1036.104 apply for measured
criteria pollutant emissions only as described in subpart F of this
part.
(ii) You may demonstrate compliance with SET-based greenhouse gas
emission standards in Sec. 1036.108(a)(1) using the SET duty cycle
specified in 40 CFR 86.1362 if you collect emissions with continuous
sampling. Integrate the test results by mode to establish separate
emission rates for each mode (including the transition following each
mode, as applicable). Apply the CO2 weighting factors specified in 40
CFR 86.1362 to calculate a composite emission result.
(t) [Reserved]
(u) Crankcase emissions. Through model year 2026, compression-
ignition engines may discharge crankcase emissions to the ambient
atmosphere if the emissions are added to the exhaust emissions (either
physically or mathematically) during all emission testing. If you take
advantage of this exception, you must do the following things:
(1) Manufacture the engines so that all crankcase emissions can be
routed into the applicable sampling systems specified in 40 CFR part
1065.
(2) Account for deterioration in crankcase emissions when
determining exhaust deterioration factors.
(v) OBD communication protocol. For model year 2026 and earlier
engines, we may approve the alternative communication protocol
specified in SAE J1979-2 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1036.810)
if the protocol is approved by the California Air Resources Board. The
alternative protocol would apply instead of SAE J1939 and SAE J1979 as
specified in 40 CFR 86.010-18(k)(1).
(w) Greenhouse gas warranty. For model year 2027 and later engines,
you may ask us to approve the model year 2026 warranty periods
specified in Sec. 1036.120 for components or systems needed to comply
with greenhouse gas emission standards if those components or systems
do not play a role in complying with criteria pollutant standards.
(x) Schedule for migrating provisions from 40 CFR part 86. This
part included provisions that applied uniquely for complying with
greenhouse gas standards before [the effective date of the final rule].
The following provisions apply through model year 2026:
(1) Subpart F of this part applies except as specified in this
section; otherwise, you may continue to comply with the earlier version
of the provisions of this part if those provisions are modified to
apply for complying with both criteria pollutant standards and
greenhouse gas standards.
(2) Engines exempted from the applicable standards of 40 CFR part
86 under the provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 are exempt from the
standards of this part without request.
(y) Powertrain testing for criteria pollutants. You may apply the
powertrain testing provisions of Sec. 1036.101(b) for demonstrating
compliance with criteria pollutant emission standards in 40 CFR part 86
before model year 2027.
Subpart C--Certifying Engine Families
Sec. 1036.201 General requirements for obtaining a certificate of
conformity.
(a) You must send us a separate application for a certificate of
conformity for each engine family. A certificate of conformity is valid
from the indicated effective date until December 31 of the model year
for which it is issued.
(b) The application must contain all the information required by
this part and must not include false or incomplete statements or
information (see Sec. 1036.255).
(c) We may ask you to include less information than we specify in
this subpart, as long as you maintain all the information required by
Sec. 1036.250.
(d) You must use good engineering judgment for all decisions
related to your application (see 40 CFR 1068.5).
(e) An authorized representative of your company must approve and
sign the application.
(f) See Sec. 1036.255 for provisions describing how we will
process your application.
(g) We may require you to deliver your test engines to a facility
we designate for our testing (see Sec. 1036.235(c)). Alternatively,
you may choose to deliver another engine that is identical in all
material respects to the test engine, or another engine that we
determine can appropriately serve as an emission-data engine for the
engine family.
(h) For engines that become new after being placed into service,
such as rebuilt engines installed in new vehicles, we may specify
alternate certification provisions consistent with the intent of this
part. See 40 CFR 1068.120(h) and the definition of ``new motor vehicle
engine'' in Sec. 1036.801.
Sec. 1036.205 Requirements for an application for certification.
This section specifies the information that must be in your
application, unless we ask you to include less information under Sec.
1036.201(c). We may require you to provide additional information to
evaluate your application.
(a) Identify the engine family's primary intended service class and
describe the engine family's specifications and other basic parameters
of the engine's design and emission controls with respect to compliance
with the requirements of this part. List the fuel type on which your
engines are designed to operate (for example, gasoline, diesel fuel, or
natural gas). For engines that can operate on multiple fuels, identify
whether they are dual-fuel or flexible-fuel engines; also identify the
range of mixtures for operation on blended fuels, if applicable. List
each distinguishable engine configuration in the engine family. List
the rated power for each engine configuration.
(b) Explain how the emission control system operates. Describe in
detail all system components for controlling greenhouse gas and
criteria pollutant emissions, including all auxiliary emission control
devices (AECDs) and all fuel-system components you will install on any
production or test engine. Identify the part number of each component
you describe. For this paragraph (b), treat as separate AECDs any
devices that modulate or activate differently from each other. Include
all the following:
(1) Give a general overview of the engine, the emission control
strategies, and all AECDs.
(2) Describe each AECD's general purpose and function.
(3) Identify the parameters that each AECD senses (including
measuring, estimating, calculating, or empirically deriving the
values). Include engine-based parameters and state whether you simulate
them during testing with the applicable procedures.
(4) Describe the purpose for sensing each parameter.
(5) Identify the location of each sensor the AECD uses.
(6) Identify the threshold values for the sensed parameters that
activate the AECD.
[[Page 17677]]
(7) Describe the parameters that the AECD modulates (controls) in
response to any sensed parameters, including the range of modulation
for each parameter, the relationship between the sensed parameters and
the controlled parameters and how the modulation achieves the AECD's
stated purpose. Use graphs and tables, as necessary.
(8) Describe each AECD's specific calibration details. This may be
in the form of data tables, graphical representations, or some other
description.
(9) Describe the hierarchy among the AECDs when multiple AECDs
sense or modulate the same parameter. Describe whether the strategies
interact in a comparative or additive manner and identify which AECD
takes precedence in responding, if applicable.
(10) Explain the extent to which the AECD is included in the
applicable test procedures specified in subpart F of this part.
(11) Do the following additional things for AECDs designed to
protect engines or vehicles:
(i) Identify any engine and vehicle design limits that make
protection necessary and describe any damage that would occur without
the AECD.
(ii) Describe how each sensed parameter relates to the protected
components' design limits or those operating conditions that cause the
need for protection.
(iii) Describe the relationship between the design limits/
parameters being protected and the parameters sensed or calculated as
surrogates for those design limits/parameters, if applicable.
(iv) Describe how the modulation by the AECD prevents engines and
vehicles from exceeding design limits.
(v) Explain why it is necessary to estimate any parameters instead
of measuring them directly and describe how the AECD calculates the
estimated value, if applicable.
(vi) Describe how you calibrate the AECD modulation to activate
only during conditions related to the stated need to protect components
and only as needed to sufficiently protect those components in a way
that minimizes the emission impact.
(c) Explain in detail how the engine diagnostic system works,
describing especially the engine conditions (with the corresponding
diagnostic trouble codes) that cause the malfunction indicator to go
on. Propose the conditions under which the diagnostic system should
disregard trouble codes as described in Sec. 1036.110.
(d) Describe the engines you selected for testing and the reasons
for selecting them.
(e) Describe any test equipment and procedures that you used,
including any special or alternate test procedures you used (see Sec.
1036.501).
(f) Describe how you operated the emission-data engine before
testing, including the duty cycle and the number of engine operating
hours used to stabilize emission levels. Explain why you selected the
method of service accumulation. Describe any scheduled maintenance you
did.
(g) List the specifications of the test fuel to show that it falls
within the required ranges we specify in 40 CFR part 1065.
(h) Identify the engine family's useful life.
(i) Include the maintenance instructions and warranty statement you
will give to the ultimate purchaser of each new engine (see Sec. Sec.
1036.120 and 1036.125).
(j) Include the emission-related installation instructions you will
provide if someone else installs your engines in their vehicles (see
Sec. 1036.130).
(k) Describe your emission control information label (see Sec.
1036.135). We may require you to include a copy of the label.
(l) Identify the duty-cycle emission standards from Sec. Sec.
1036.104(a) and (b) and 1036.108(a) that apply for the engine family.
Also identify FELs and FCLs as follows:
(1) Identify the NOX FEL over the FTP for the engine
family.
(2) Identify the CO2 FCLs for the engine family; also
identify any FELs that apply for CH4 and N2O. The
actual U.S.-directed production volume of configurations that have
CO2 emission rates at or below the FCL and CH4
and N2O emission rates at or below the applicable standards
or FELs must be at least one percent of your actual (not projected)
U.S.-directed production volume for the engine family. Identify
configurations within the family that have emission rates at or below
the FCL and meet the one percent requirement. For example, if your
U.S.-directed production volume for the engine family is 10,583 and the
U.S.-directed production volume for the tested rating is 75 engines,
then you can comply with this provision by setting your FCL so that one
more rating with a U.S.-directed production volume of at least 31
engines meets the FCL. Where applicable, also identify other testable
configurations required under Sec. 1036.230(f)(2)(ii).
(m) Identify the engine family's deterioration factors and describe
how you developed them (see Sec. Sec. 1036.240 and 1036.241). Present
any test data you used for this.
(n) State that you operated your emission-data engines as described
in the application (including the test procedures, test parameters, and
test fuels) to show you meet the requirements of this part.
(o) Present emission data from all valid tests on an emission-data
engine to show that you meet emission standards. Note that Sec.
1036.235 allows you to submit an application in certain cases without
new emission data. Present emission data as follows:
(1) For hydrocarbons (such as NMHC or NMHCE), NOX, PM,
and CO, as applicable, show your engines meet the applicable exhaust
emission standards we specify in Sec. 1036.104. Show emission figures
for duty-cycle exhaust emission standards before and after applying
adjustment factors for regeneration and deterioration factors for each
engine.
(2) For CO2, CH4, and NO2, show
that your engines meet the applicable emission standards we specify in
Sec. 1036.108. Show emission figures before and after applying
deterioration factors for each engine. In addition to the composite
results, show individual measurements for cold-start testing and hot-
start testing over the transient test cycle. For each of these tests,
also include the corresponding exhaust emission data for criteria
emissions.
(3) If we specify more than one grade of any fuel type (for
example, a summer grade and winter grade of gasoline), you need to
submit test data only for one grade, unless the regulations of this
part specify otherwise for your engine.
(p) State that all the engines in the engine family comply with the
off-cycle emission standards we specify in Sec. 1036.104 for all
normal operation and use when tested as specified in Sec. 1036.515.
Describe any relevant testing, engineering analysis, or other
information in sufficient detail to support your statement.
(q) We may ask you to send information to confirm that the emission
data you submitted were from valid tests meeting the requirements of
this part and 40 CFR part 1065. You must indicate whether there are
test results from invalid tests or from any other tests of the
emission-data engine, whether or not they were conducted according to
the test procedures of subpart F of this part. We may require you to
report these additional test results.
(r) Describe all adjustable operating parameters (see Sec.
1036.115(f)), including production tolerances. For any operating
parameters that do not qualify as adjustable parameters, include a
[[Page 17678]]
description supporting your conclusion (see 40 CFR 1068.50(c)). Include
the following in your description of each adjustable parameter:
(1) For mechanically controlled parameters, include the nominal or
recommended setting, the intended physically adjustable range, and the
limits or stops used to establish adjustable ranges. Also include
information showing why the limits, stops, or other means of inhibiting
adjustment are effective in preventing adjustment of parameters on in-
use engines to settings outside your intended physically adjustable
ranges.
(2) For electronically controlled parameters, describe how your
engines are designed to prevent unauthorized adjustments.
(s) Provide the information to read, record, and interpret all the
information broadcast by an engine's onboard computers and ECMs as
described in Sec. 1036.115(d). State that, upon request, you will give
us any hardware, software, or tools we would need to do this.
(t) Confirm that your emission-related installation instructions
specify how to ensure that sampling of exhaust emissions will be
possible after engines are installed in equipment and placed in
service. If this cannot be done by simply adding a 20-centimeter
extension to the exhaust pipe, show how to sample exhaust emissions in
a way that prevents diluting the exhaust sample with ambient air.
(u) State whether your certification is limited for certain
engines. For example, you might certify engines only for use in
tractors, in emergency vehicles, or in vehicles with hybrid
powertrains. If this is the case, describe how you will prevent use of
these engines in vehicles for which they are not certified.
(v) Unconditionally certify that all the engines in the engine
family comply with the requirements of this part, other referenced
parts of the CFR, and the Clean Air Act. Note that Sec. 1036.235
specifies which engines to test to show that engines in the entire
family comply with the requirements of this part.
(w) Include good-faith estimates of U.S.-directed production
volumes. Include a justification for the estimated production volumes
if they are substantially different than actual production volumes in
earlier years for similar models.
(x) Include the information required by other subparts of this
part. For example, include the information required by Sec. 1036.725
if you participate in the ABT program.
(y) Include other applicable information, such as information
specified in this part or 40 CFR part 1068 related to requests for
exemptions.
(z) Name an agent for service located in the United States. Service
on this agent constitutes service on you or any of your officers or
employees for any action by EPA or otherwise by the United States
related to the requirements of this part.
(aa) For imported engines, identify the following:
(1) Describe your normal practice for importing engines. For
example, this may include identifying the names and addresses of any
agents you have authorized to import your engines. Engines imported by
nonauthorized agents are not covered by your certificate.
(2) The location of a test facility in the United States where you
can test your engines if we select them for testing under a selective
enforcement audit, as specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart E.
(bb) Include information needed to certify vehicles to greenhouse
gas standards under 40 CFR part 1037 as described in Sec. 1036.503.
Sec. 1036.210 Preliminary approval before certification.
If you send us information before you finish the application, we
may review it and make any appropriate determinations, especially for
questions related to engine family definitions, auxiliary emission
control devices, adjustable parameters, deterioration factors, testing
for service accumulation, and maintenance. Decisions made under this
section are considered to be preliminary approval, subject to final
review and approval. We will generally not reverse a decision where we
have given you preliminary approval, unless we find new information
supporting a different decision. If you request preliminary approval
related to the upcoming model year or the model year after that, we
will make best-efforts to make the appropriate determinations as soon
as practicable. We will generally not provide preliminary approval
related to a future model year more than two years ahead of time.
Sec. 1036.225 Amending applications for certification.
Before we issue you a certificate of conformity, you may amend your
application to include new or modified engine configurations, subject
to the provisions of this section. After we have issued your
certificate of conformity, you may send us an amended application any
time before the end of the model year requesting that we include new or
modified engine configurations within the scope of the certificate,
subject to the provisions of this section. You must also amend your
application if any changes occur with respect to any information that
is included or should be included in your application.
(a) You must amend your application before you take any of the
following actions:
(1) Add an engine configuration to an engine family. In this case,
the engine configuration added must be consistent with other engine
configurations in the engine family with respect to the design aspects
listed in Sec. 1036.230.
(2) Change an engine configuration already included in an engine
family in a way that may affect emissions, or change any of the
components you described in your application for certification. This
includes production and design changes that may affect emissions any
time during the engine's lifetime.
(3) Modify an FEL or FCL for an engine family as described in
paragraph (f) of this section.
(b) To amend your application for certification, send the relevant
information to the Designated Compliance Officer.
(1) Describe in detail the addition or change in the engine model
or configuration you intend to make.
(2) Include engineering evaluations or data showing that the
amended engine family complies with all applicable requirements. You
may do this by showing that the original emission-data engine is still
appropriate for showing that the amended family complies with all
applicable requirements.
(3) If the original emission-data engine for the engine family is
not appropriate to show compliance for the new or modified engine
configuration, include new test data showing that the new or modified
engine configuration meets the requirements of this part.
(4) Include any other information needed to make your application
correct and complete.
(c) We may ask for more test data or engineering evaluations. You
must give us these within 30 days after we request them.
(d) For engine families already covered by a certificate of
conformity, we will determine whether the existing certificate of
conformity covers your newly added or modified engine. You may ask for
a hearing if we deny your request (see Sec. 1036.820).
(e) The amended application applies starting with the date you
submit the amended application, as follows:
(1) For engine families already covered by a certificate of
conformity,
[[Page 17679]]
you may start producing a new or modified engine configuration any time
after you send us your amended application and before we make a
decision under paragraph (d) of this section. However, if we determine
that the affected engines do not meet applicable requirements in this
part, we will notify you to cease production of the engines and may
require you to recall the engines at no expense to the owner. Choosing
to produce engines under this paragraph (e) is deemed to be consent to
recall all engines that we determine do not meet applicable emission
standards or other requirements in this part and to remedy the
nonconformity at no expense to the owner. If you do not provide
information required under paragraph (c) of this section within 30 days
after we request it, you must stop producing the new or modified
engines.
(2) [Reserved]
(f) You may ask us to approve a change to your FEL in certain cases
after the start of production, but before the end of the model year. If
you change an FEL for CO2, your FCL for CO2 is
automatically set to your new FEL divided by 1.03. The changed FEL may
not apply to engines you have already introduced into U.S. commerce,
except as described in this paragraph (f). You may ask us to approve a
change to your FEL in the following cases:
(1) You may ask to raise your FEL for your engine family at any
time. In your request, you must show that you will still be able to
meet the emission standards as specified in subparts B and H of this
part. Use the appropriate FELs/FCLs with corresponding production
volumes to calculate emission credits for the model year, as described
in subpart H of this part.
(2) You may ask to lower the FEL for your engine family only if you
have test data from production engines showing that emissions are below
the proposed lower FEL (or below the proposed FCL for CO2).
The lower FEL/FCL applies only to engines you produce after we approve
the new FEL/FCL. Use the appropriate FEL/FCL with corresponding
production volumes to calculate emission credits for the model year, as
described in subpart H of this part.
(g) You may produce engines or modify in-use engines as described
in your amended application for certification and consider those
engines to be in a certified configuration. Modifying a new or in-use
engine to be in a certified configuration does not violate the
tampering prohibition of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1), as long as this does
not involve changing to a certified configuration with a higher family
emission limit.
Sec. 1036.230 Selecting engine families.
(a) For purposes of certification to the standards of this part,
divide your product line into families of engines that are expected to
have similar characteristics for criteria emissions throughout the
useful life as described in this section. Your engine family is limited
to a single model year.
(b) Group engines in the same engine family if they are the same in
all the following design aspects:
(1) The combustion cycle and fuel. See paragraph (g) of this
section for special provisions that apply for dual-fuel and flexible-
fuel engines.
(2) The cooling system (water-cooled vs. air-cooled).
(3) Method of air aspiration, including the location of intake and
exhaust valves or ports and the method of intake-air cooling, if
applicable.
(4) The number, location, volume, and composition of catalytic
converters or other aftertreatment devices.
(5) Cylinder arrangement (such as in-line vs. vee configurations),
number of cylinders, and bore center-to-center dimensions.
(6) Method of control for engine operation other than governing
(i.e., mechanical or electronic).
(7) The numerical level of the applicable criteria emission
standards. For example, an engine family may not include engines
certified to different family emission limits for criteria emission
standards, though you may change family emission limits without
recertifying as specified in Sec. 1036.225(f).
(c) You may subdivide a group of engines that is identical under
paragraph (b) of this section into different engine families if you
show the expected criteria emission characteristics are different
during the useful life.
(d) In unusual circumstances, you may group engines that are not
identical with respect to the design aspects listed in paragraph (b) of
this section in the same engine family if you show that their criteria
emission characteristics during the useful life will be similar.
(e) Engine configurations certified as hybrid engines or hybrid
powertrains may not be included in an engine family with engines that
have nonhybrid powertrains. Note that this does not prevent you from
including engines in a nonhybrid family if they are used in hybrid
vehicles, as long as you certify them based on engine testing.
(f) You must certify your engines to the greenhouse gas standards
of Sec. 1036.108 using the same engine families you use for criteria
pollutants. The following additional provisions apply with respect to
demonstrating compliance with the standards in Sec. 1036.108:
(1) You may subdivide an engine family into subfamilies that have a
different FCL for CO2 emissions. These subfamilies do not
apply for demonstrating compliance with criteria standards in Sec.
1036.104.
(2) If you certify engines in the family for use as both vocational
and tractor engines, you must split your family into two separate
subfamilies.
(i) Calculate emission credits relative to the vocational engine
standard for the number of engines sold into vocational applications
and relative to the tractor engine standard for the number of engines
sold into non-vocational tractor applications. You may assign the
numbers and configurations of engines within the respective subfamilies
at any time before submitting the end-of-year report required by Sec.
1036.730. If the family participates in averaging, banking, or trading,
you must identify the type of vehicle in which each engine is
installed; we may alternatively allow you to use statistical methods to
determine this for a fraction of your engines. Keep records to document
this determination.
(ii) If you restrict use of the test configuration for your split
family only to tractors, or only to vocational vehicles, you must
identify a second testable configuration for the other type of vehicle
(or an unrestricted configuration). Identify this configuration in your
application for certification. The FCL for the engine family applies
for this configuration as well as the primary test configuration.
(3) If you certify both engine fuel maps and powertrain fuel maps
for an engine family, you may split the engine family into two separate
subfamilies. Indicate this in your application for certification, and
identify whether one or both of these sets of fuel maps applies for
each group of engines. If you do not split your family, all engines
within the family must conform to the engine fuel maps, including any
engines for with the powertrain maps also apply.
(4) If you certify in separate engine families engines that could
have been certified in vocational and tractor engine subfamilies in the
same engine family, count the two families as one family for purposes
of determining your obligations with respect to the OBD requirements
and in-use testing requirements. Indicate in the applications for
certification that the two engine families are covered by this
paragraph (f)(4).
[[Page 17680]]
(5) Except as described in this paragraph (f), engine
configurations within an engine family must use equivalent greenhouse
gas emission controls. Unless we approve it, you may not produce
nontested configurations without the same emission control hardware
included on the tested configuration. We will only approve it if you
demonstrate that the exclusion of the hardware does not increase
greenhouse gas emissions.
(g) You may certify dual-fuel or flexible-fuel engines in a single
engine family. You may include dedicated-fuel versions of this same
engine model in the same engine family, as long as they are identical
to the engine configuration with respect to that fuel type for the
dual-fuel or flexible-fuel version of the engine. For example, if you
produce an engine that can alternately run on gasoline and natural gas,
you can include the gasoline-only and natural gas-only versions of the
engine in the same engine family as the dual-fuel engine if engine
operation on each fuel type is identical with or without installation
of components for operating on the other fuel.
Sec. 1036.235 Testing requirements for certification.
This section describes the emission testing you must perform to
show compliance with the emission standards in Sec. Sec. 1036.104 and
1036.108.
(a) Select and configure a single emission-data engine from each
engine family.
(1) For criteria pollutant emission testing, select the engine
configuration most likely to exceed (or have emissions nearer to) an
applicable emission standard or FEL identified in Sec. 1036.205(l)(1).
To the extent we allow it for establishing deterioration factors,
select for testing those engine components or subsystems whose
deterioration represents the deterioration of in-use engines.
(2) For greenhouse gas emission testing, the standards of this part
apply only with respect to emissions measured from this tested
configuration and other configurations identified in Sec.
1036.205(l)(2). Note that configurations identified in Sec.
1036.205(l)(2) are considered to be ``tested configurations'' whether
or not you test them for certification. However, you must apply the
same (or equivalent) emission controls to all other engine
configurations in the engine family. In other contexts, the tested
configuration is sometimes referred to as the ``parent configuration'',
although the terms are not synonymous.
(b) Test your emission-data engines using the procedures and
equipment specified in subpart F of this part. In the case of dual-fuel
and flexible-fuel engines, measure emissions when operating with each
type of fuel for which you intend to certify the engine.
(1) For criteria pollutant emission testing, measure
NOX, PM, CO, and NMHC emissions using each duty cycle
specified in Sec. 1036.104.
(2) For greenhouse gas emission testing, measure CO2,
CH4, and N2O emissions; the following provisions
apply regarding test cycles for demonstrating compliance with tractor
and vocational standards:
(i) If you are certifying the engine for use in tractors, you must
measure CO2 emissions using the applicable SET specified in
Sec. 1036.505, taking into account the interim provisions in Sec.
1036.150(s), and measure CH4 and N2O emissions
using the specified transient cycle.
(ii) If you are certifying the engine for use in vocational
applications, you must measure CO2, CH4, and
N2O emissions using the specified transient duty cycle,
including cold-start and hot-start testing as specified in Sec.
1036.510.
(iii) You may certify your engine family for both tractor and
vocational use by submitting CO2 emission data from both SET
and transient cycle testing and specifying FCLs for both duty cycles.
(iv) Some of your engines certified for use in tractors may also be
used in vocational vehicles, and some of your engines certified for use
in vocational may be used in tractors. However, you may not knowingly
circumvent the intent of this part (to reduce in-use emissions of
CO2) by certifying engines designed for tractors or
vocational vehicles (and rarely used in the other application) to the
wrong cycle. For example, we would generally not allow you to certify
all your engines to the SET without certifying any to the transient
cycle.
(c) We may perform confirmatory testing by measuring emissions from
any of your emission-data engines. If your certification includes
powertrain testing as specified in Sec. 1036.630, this paragraph (c)
also applies for the powertrain test results.
(1) We may decide to do the testing at your plant or any other
facility. If we do this, you must deliver the engine to a test facility
we designate. The engine you provide must include appropriate
manifolds, aftertreatment devices, ECMs, and other emission-related
components not normally attached directly to the engine block. If we do
the testing at your plant, you must schedule it as soon as possible and
make available the instruments, personnel, and equipment we need.
(2) If we measure emissions on your engine, the results of that
testing become the official emission results for the engine as
specified in this paragraph (c). Unless we later invalidate these data,
we may decide not to consider your data in determining if your engine
family meets applicable requirements in this part.
(3) Before we test one of your engines, we may set its adjustable
parameters to any point within the physically adjustable ranges (see
Sec. 1036.115(f)).
(4) Before we test one of your engines, we may calibrate it within
normal production tolerances for anything we do not consider an
adjustable parameter. For example, we may calibrate it within normal
production tolerances for an engine parameter that is subject to
production variability because it is adjustable during production, but
is not considered an adjustable parameter (as defined in Sec.
1036.801) because it is permanently sealed. For parameters that relate
to a level of performance that is itself subject to a specified range
(such as maximum power output), we will generally perform any
calibration under this paragraph (c)(4) in a way that keeps performance
within the specified range.
(5) For greenhouse gas emission testing, we may use our emission
test results for steady-state, idle, cycle-average and powertrain fuel
maps defined in Sec. 1036.503(b) as the official emission results. We
will not replace individual points from your fuel map.
(i) We will determine fuel masses, mfuel[cycle], and
mean idle fuel mass flow rates, mifuelidle, if applicable,
using both direct and indirect measurement. We will determine the
result for each test point based on carbon balance error verification
as described in Sec. 1036.535(g)(3)(i) and (ii).
(ii) We will perform this comparison using the weighted results
from GEM, using vehicles that are appropriate for the engine under
test. For example, we may select vehicles that the engine went into for
the previous model year.
(iii) If you supply cycle-average engine fuel maps for the highway
cruise cycles instead of generating a steady-state fuel map for these
cycles, we may perform a confirmatory test of your engine fuel maps for
the highway cruise cycles by either of the following methods:
(A) Directly measuring the highway cruise cycle-average fuel maps.
(B) Measuring a steady-state fuel map as described in this
paragraph (c)(5) and using it in GEM to create our own cycle-
[[Page 17681]]
average engine fuel maps for the highway cruise cycles.
(iv) We will replace fuel maps as a result of confirmatory testing
as follows:
(A) Weight individual duty cycle results using the vehicle
categories determined in paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section and
respective weighting factors in 40 CFR 1037.510(c) to determine a
composite CO2 emission value for each vehicle configuration; then
repeat the process for all the unique vehicle configurations used to
generate the manufacturer's fuel maps.
(B) The average percent difference between fuel maps is calculated
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.021
Where:
i = an indexing variable that represents one individual weighted
duty cycle result for a vehicle configuration.
N = total number of vehicle configurations.
eCO2compEPAi = unrounded composite mass of CO2
emissions in g/ton-mile for vehicle configuration i for the EPA
test.
eCO2compManui = unrounded composite mass of
CO2 emissions in g/ton-mile for vehicle configuration i
for the manufacturer-declared map.
(C) Where the unrounded average percent difference between our
composite weighted fuel map and the manufacturer's is at or below 0%,
we will not replace the manufacturer's maps, and we will consider an
individual engine to have passed the fuel map.
(6) We may perform confirmatory testing with an engine dynamometer
to simulate normal engine operation to determine whether your emission-
data engine meets off-cycle emission standards. The accuracy margins
described in Sec. 1036.420(a) do not apply for such laboratory
testing.
(d) You may ask to use carryover emission data from a previous
model year instead of doing new tests, but only if all the following
are true:
(1) The engine family from the previous model year differs from the
current engine family only with respect to model year, items identified
in Sec. 1036.225(a), or other characteristics unrelated to emissions.
We may waive this criterion for differences we determine not to be
relevant.
(2) The emission-data engine from the previous model year remains
the appropriate emission-data engine under paragraph (a) of this
section.
(3) The data show that the emission-data engine would meet all the
requirements that apply to the engine family covered by the application
for certification. If the useful life for a new engine certification is
longer than the useful life for the model year corresponding to the
original testing, you must demonstrate that you meet the requirements
of Sec. Sec. 1036.245 and 1036.246 in a way that accounts for the
longer useful life for the new model year. For example, you may use
carryover bench-aged deterioration factors in model year 2030 only if
you originally performed bench-aging based on the useful life values
for model year 2030 or if you supplement your original bench-aging
procedures with additional bench-aging and emission measurements
corresponding to the longer useful life that applies for model year
2030.
(e) We may require you to test a second engine of the same
configuration in addition to the engines tested under paragraph (a) of
this section.
(f) If you use an alternate test procedure under 40 CFR 1065.10 and
later testing shows that such testing does not produce results that are
equivalent to the procedures specified in subpart F of this part, we
may reject data you generated using the alternate procedure.
(g) We may evaluate or test your engines to determine whether they
have a defeat device before or after we issue a certificate of
conformity. We may test or require testing on any vehicle or engine at
a designated location, using driving cycles and conditions that may
reasonably be expected in normal operation and use to investigate a
potential defeat device. If we designate an engine's AECD as a possible
defeat device, you must demonstrate to us that that the AECD does not
reduce emission control effectiveness when the engine operates under
conditions that may reasonably be expected in normal operation and use,
unless one of the specific exceptions described in Sec. 1036.115(h)
applies.
Sec. 1036.240 Demonstrating compliance with criteria pollutant
emission standards.
(a) For purposes of certification, your engine family is considered
in compliance with the emission standards in Sec. 1036.104 if all
emission-data engines representing that family have test results
showing official emission results and deteriorated emission levels at
or below these standards (including all corrections and adjustments).
This also applies for all test points for emission-data engines within
the family used to establish deterioration factors. Note that your FELs
are considered to be the applicable emission standards with which you
must comply if you participate in the ABT program in subpart H of this
part.
(b) Your engine family is deemed not to comply if any emission-data
engine representing that family has test results showing an official
emission result or a deteriorated emission level for any pollutant that
is above an applicable emission standard (including all corrections and
adjustments). Similarly, your engine family is deemed not to comply if
any emission-data engine representing that family has test results
showing any emission level above the applicable off-cycle emission
standard for any pollutant. This also applies for all test points for
emission-data engines within the family used to establish deterioration
factors.
(c) To compare emission levels from the emission-data engine with
the applicable duty-cycle emission standards, apply deterioration
factors to the measured emission levels for each pollutant. Section
1036.245 specifies how to test your engine to develop deterioration
factors that represent the deterioration expected in emissions over
your engines' useful life (or intermediate useful life, as applicable).
Your deterioration factors must take into account any available data
from in-use testing with similar engines. Small manufacturers may use
assigned deterioration factors that we establish. Apply deterioration
factors as follows:
(1) Additive deterioration factor for exhaust emissions. Except as
specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, use an additive
deterioration factor for exhaust emissions. An additive deterioration
factor is the difference
[[Page 17682]]
between exhaust emissions at the end of the useful life and exhaust
emissions at the low-hour test point. In these cases, adjust the
official emission results for each tested engine at the selected test
point by adding the factor to the measured emissions. If the factor is
less than zero, use zero. Additive deterioration factors must be
specified to one more decimal place than the applicable standard.
(2) Multiplicative deterioration factor for exhaust emissions. Use
a multiplicative deterioration factor if good engineering judgment
calls for the deterioration factor for a pollutant to be the ratio of
exhaust emissions at the end of the useful life to exhaust emissions at
the low-hour test point. For example, if you use aftertreatment
technology that controls emissions of a pollutant proportionally to
engine-out emissions, it is often appropriate to use a multiplicative
deterioration factor. Adjust the official emission results for each
tested engine at the selected test point by multiplying the measured
emissions by the deterioration factor. If the factor is less than one,
use one. A multiplicative deterioration factor may not be appropriate
in cases where testing variability is significantly greater than
engine-to-engine variability. Multiplicative deterioration factors must
be specified to one more significant figure than the applicable
standard.
(3) Sawtooth and other nonlinear deterioration patterns. The
deterioration factors described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this
section assume that the highest useful life emissions occur either at
the end of useful life or at the low-hour test point. The provisions of
this paragraph (c)(3) apply where good engineering judgment indicates
that the highest useful life emissions will occur between these two
points. For example, emissions may increase with service accumulation
until a certain maintenance step is performed, then return to the low-
hour emission levels and begin increasing again. Such a pattern may
occur with battery-based electric hybrid engines. Base deterioration
factors for engines with such emission patterns on the difference
between (or ratio of) the point at which the highest emissions occur
and the low-hour test point. Note that this applies for maintenance-
related deterioration only where we allow such critical emission-
related maintenance.
(4) Dual-fuel and flexible-fuel engines. In the case of dual-fuel
and flexible-fuel engines, apply deterioration factors separately for
each fuel type. You may accumulate service hours on a single emission-
data engine using the type of fuel or the fuel mixture expected to have
the highest combustion and exhaust temperatures; you may ask us to
approve a different fuel mixture if you demonstrate that a different
criterion is more appropriate.
(d) Determine the official emission result for each pollutant to at
least one more decimal place than the applicable standard. 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
engine.
Sec. 1036.241 Demonstrating compliance with greenhouse gas emission
standards.
(a) For purposes of certification, your engine family is considered
in compliance with the emission standards in Sec. 1036.108 if all
emission-data engines representing the tested configuration of that
engine family have test results showing official emission results and
deteriorated emission levels at or below the standards. Note that your
FCLs are considered to be the applicable emission standards with which
you must comply for certification.
(b) Your engine family is deemed not to comply if any emission-data
engine representing the tested configuration of that engine family has
test results showing an official emission result or a deteriorated
emission level for any pollutant that is above an applicable emission
standard (generally the FCL). Note that you may increase your FCL if
any certification test results exceed your initial FCL.
(c) Apply deterioration factors to the measured emission levels for
each pollutant to show compliance with the applicable emission
standards. Your deterioration factors must take into account any
available data from in-use testing with similar engines. Apply
deterioration factors as follows:
(1) Additive deterioration factor for greenhouse gas emissions.
Except as specified in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section, use
an additive deterioration factor for exhaust emissions. An additive
deterioration factor is the difference between the highest exhaust
emissions (typically at the end of the useful life) and exhaust
emissions at the low-hour test point. In these cases, adjust the
official emission results for each tested engine at the selected test
point by adding the factor to the measured emissions. If the factor is
less than zero, use zero. Additive deterioration factors must be
specified to one more decimal place than the applicable standard.
(2) Multiplicative deterioration factor for greenhouse gas
emissions. Use a multiplicative deterioration factor for a pollutant if
good engineering judgment calls for the deterioration factor for that
pollutant to be the ratio of the highest exhaust emissions (typically
at the end of the useful life) to exhaust emissions at the low-hour
test point. Adjust the official emission results for each tested engine
at the selected test point by multiplying the measured emissions by the
deterioration factor. If the factor is less than one, use one. A
multiplicative deterioration factor may not be appropriate in cases
where testing variability is significantly greater than engine-to-
engine variability. Multiplicative deterioration factors must be
specified to one more significant figure than the applicable standard.
(3) Sawtooth and other nonlinear deterioration patterns. The
deterioration factors described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this
section assume that the highest useful life emissions occur either at
the end of useful life or at the low-hour test point. The provisions of
this paragraph (c)(3) apply where good engineering judgment indicates
that the highest useful life emissions will occur between these two
points. For example, emissions may increase with service accumulation
until a certain maintenance step is performed, then return to the low-
hour emission levels and begin increasing again. Such a pattern may
occur with battery-based electric hybrid engines. Base deterioration
factors for engines with such emission patterns on the difference
between (or ratio of) the point at which the highest emissions occur
and the low-hour test point. Note that this applies for maintenance-
related deterioration only where we allow such critical emission-
related maintenance.
(4) [Reserved]
(5) Dual-fuel and flexible-fuel engines. In the case of dual-fuel
and flexible-fuel engines, apply deterioration factors separately for
each fuel type by measuring emissions with each fuel type at each test
point. You may accumulate service hours on a single emission-data
engine using the type of fuel or the fuel mixture expected to have the
highest combustion and exhaust temperatures; you may ask us to approve
a different fuel mixture if you demonstrate that a different criterion
is more appropriate.
(d) Calculate emission data using measurements to at least one more
decimal place than the applicable standard. Apply the deterioration
factor to the official emission result, as described in paragraph (c)
of this section, then round the adjusted figure
[[Page 17683]]
to the same number of decimal places as the emission standard. Compare
the rounded emission levels to the emission standard for each emission-
data engine.
(e) If you identify more than one configuration in Sec.
1036.205(l)(2), we may test (or require you to test) any of the
identified configurations. We may also require you to provide an
engineering analysis that demonstrates that untested configurations
listed in Sec. 1036.205(l)(2) comply with their FCL.
Sec. 1036.245 Deterioration factors for exhaust emission standards.
This section describes how to determine deterioration factors,
either with an engineering analysis, with pre-existing test data, or
with new emission measurements. Apply these deterioration factors to
determine whether your engines will meet the duty-cycle emission
standards as described in Sec. 1036.240. These standards generally
apply throughout the useful life; a separate deterioration factor
applies starting in model year 2031 for intermediate useful life for
Heavy HDE. The provisions of this section and Sec. 1036.246 apply for
all engine families starting in model year 2027; you may optionally use
these provisions to determine and verify deterioration factors for
earlier model years.
(a) You may ask us to approve deterioration factors for an engine
family based on an engineering analysis of emission measurements from
similar highway or nonroad engines if you have already given us these
data for certifying the other engines in the same or earlier model
years. Use good engineering judgment to decide whether the two engines
are similar. We will approve your request if you show us that the
emission measurements from other engines reasonably represent in-use
deterioration for the engine family for which you have not yet
determined deterioration factors.
(b) If you are unable to determine deterioration factors for an
engine family under paragraph (a) of this section, select engines,
subsystems, or components for testing. Determine deterioration factors
based on service accumulation and related testing to represent the
deterioration expected from in-use engines over the useful life. You
may perform maintenance on emission-data engines as described in Sec.
1036.125 and 40 CFR part 1065, subpart E. Use good engineering judgment
for all aspects of the effort to establish deterioration factors under
this paragraph (b). Send us your test plan for our preliminary approval
under Sec. 1036.210. You may apply deterioration factors based on
testing under this paragraph (b) to multiple engine families,
consistent with the provisions in paragraph (a) of this section.
Determine deterioration factors using one of the following procedures:
(1) Operate the emission-data engine in the certified configuration
on an engine dynamometer to represent the useful life.
(i) You may accelerate the service accumulation using higher-load
operation based on equivalent total fuel flow. However, the engine
operation for service accumulation must also include light-load
operation (or alternating light-load and high-load operation)
representing in-use behavior that may contribute to aging of
aftertreatment devices or systems.
(ii) Calculate deterioration factors by comparing exhaust emissions
at the end of the useful life and exhaust emissions at the low-hour
test point. For Heavy HDE starting in model year 2031, also calculate
deterioration factors by comparing exhaust emissions at the end of
intermediate useful life and exhaust emissions at the low-hour test
point. Create a linear curve fit if testing includes intermediate test
points. Calculate deterioration factors based on measured values,
without extrapolation.
(2) Determine deterioration factors based on bench-aged
aftertreatment. If you use this option, you must verify deterioration
factors based on emission measurements with in-use engines as described
in Sec. 1036.246.
(i) Perform bench aging of aftertreatment devices in a way that
accounts for thermal and chemical degradation to represent normal
engine operation over the useful life. For Heavy HDE starting in model
year 2031, also account for thermal and chemical degradation to
represent normal engine operation over the intermediate useful life.
Use an EPA-approved bench-aging procedure or propose an equivalent
procedure. For example, this might involve testing consistent with the
analogous procedures that apply for light-duty vehicles under 40 CFR
part 86, subpart S.
(ii) After bench-aging aftertreatment devices, install or reinstall
those aftertreatment devices and systems on an emission-data engine
that has been stabilized without aftertreatment (or an equivalent
engine). Ensure that the engine is in an appropriate certified
configuration to represent the engine family.
(iii) Measure all criteria pollutants after operating the engine
with the bench-aged aftertreatment devices to stabilize emission
controls for at least 100 hours on an engine dynamometer.
(iv) Calculate deterioration factors by comparing exhaust emissions
with the bench-aged aftertreatment at the useful life and exhaust
emissions at the low-hour test point. For Heavy HDE starting in model
year 2031, also calculate deterioration factors by comparing exhaust
emissions with the bench-aged aftertreatment at the intermediate useful
life and exhaust emissions at the low-hour test point. Create a linear
curve fit if testing includes intermediate test points. Calculate
deterioration factors based on measured values, without extrapolation.
(c) If you determine deterioration factors as described in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you may apply those deterioration
factors in later years for engine families that qualify for carryover
certification as described in Sec. 1036.235(d), subject to the
conditions described in Sec. 1036.246. You may also apply those
deterioration factors for additional engine families as described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) Include the following information in your application for
certification:
(1) If you use test data from a different engine family, explain
why this is appropriate and include all the emission measurements on
which you base the deterioration factors. If the deterioration factors
for the new engine family are not identical to the deterioration
factors for the different engine family, describe your engineering
analysis to justify the revised values and state that all your data,
analyses, evaluations, and other information are available for our
review upon request.
(2) If you determined deterioration factors based on testing under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, describe your procedure for service
accumulation, including a supporting rationale for any accelerated
aging.
(3) If you determined deterioration factors under paragraph (b)(2)
of this section, include the following information in the first year
that you use those deterioration factors:
(i) Describe your bench aging or other procedures to represent
full-life service accumulation for the engine's emission controls. Also
describe how you prepared the test engine before and after installing
aftertreatment systems to determine deterioration factors. Identify the
power rating of the emission-data engine used to determine
deterioration factors.
(ii) Describe your plan for verification testing under Sec.
1036.246. Include at least the following information:
(A) Identify whether you intend to test using procedures specified
in Sec. 1036.246(d)(1), (2), or (3).
[[Page 17684]]
(B) Describe how you intend to identify candidate vehicles for
testing, including consideration of how you will identify or prioritize
specific vehicle types and vehicle applications to represent the engine
family.
(C) Describe your intended schedule for recruiting and testing
vehicles.
(D) Describe any steps you will take to ensure that selected
vehicles have been properly maintained and used.
(4) If you determined deterioration factors under paragraph (b)(2)
of this section, include the following information in any later year
that you use those deterioration factors:
(i) Identify any changes or updates to your verification test plan
that you have made in your most recent testing, or that you plan to
make for later years.
(ii) Submit a report to describe any verification testing you have
performed under Sec. 1036.246 as described in Sec. 1036.246(e).
Include previously submitted results in addition to information related
to new testing you performed for the current submission.
Sec. 1036.246 Verifying deterioration factors.
This section describes how to perform in-use testing to verify that
your deterioration factors are appropriate. This applies for
deterioration factors you determine based on testing with bench-aged
aftertreatment devices or other procedures as described in Sec.
1036.245(b)(2). You may continue to use those deterioration factors for
later model years with carryover engines if in-use engines meet the
verification requirements of this section.
(a) Paragraph (d) of this section describes three different
verification procedures you may use for measuring emissions. We may
also approve your request to use an alternative verification procedure
if you demonstrate that it is at least as effective as one of the
specified verification procedures.
(b) Verify deterioration factors based on bench-aged aftertreatment
as follows:
(1) You may use the original deterioration factors for the original
model year and one additional model year, prior to the start of the
year three production verification, without restriction.
(2) You must verify the original deterioration factors with testing
that starts in the third year of production and continues in later
production years up to and including the eighth year of production.
(3) As long as your verification test has a passing result, you may
continue to use the original deterioration factors for the upcoming
model year without restriction.
(4) The provisions of paragraph (h) of this section apply if your
verification testing has a fail result.
(c) Select and prepare in-use engines for verification testing
under this section as follows:
(1) You may recruit candidate engines any time before testing. This
may involve creating a pool of candidate engines and vehicles in
coordination with vehicle manufacturers and vehicle purchasers to
ensure availability and to confirm a history of proper maintenance. You
may meet the testing requirements of this section by repeating tests on
a given engine as it ages, or you may test different engines over the
course of verification testing; however, you may not choose whether to
repeat tests on a given engine at a later stage based on its measured
emission levels. This generally requires that you describe your plan
for selecting engines in advance and justify any departures from that
plan.
(2) Selected vehicles must come from independent sources, unless we
approve your request to select vehicles that you own or manage. In your
request, you must describe how you will ensure that the vehicle
operator will drive in a way that represents normal in-use operation
for the engine family.
(3) Select vehicles with installed engines from the same engine
family and with the same power rating as the emission-data engine used
to determine the deterioration factors. You may ask for our approval to
modify engines in selected vehicles by reflashing the ECM or replacing
parts to change the engines to be in a different certified
configuration for proper testing. We may approve your request to modify
the engines or we may waive test specifications to allow you to test in
the as-received condition.
(4) You may exclude selected engines from testing if you determine
that they have not been properly maintained or used. Selected engines
may not have maintenance exceeding your instructions for the
maintenance items specified in Sec. 1036.125(a). Selected engines must
have their original aftertreatment components and be in a certified
configuration. Do not perform verification testing with an engine if
its critical emission-related components had a major repair other than
what we allow under Sec. 1036.125(a). You may ask us to approve
replacing a critical emission-related component with an equivalent part
that has undergone a comparable degree of aging.
(5) Select vehicles meeting the mileage specifications specified in
Table 1 of this paragraph (c)(5) for each stage of the verification
testing program. If you are unable to find enough test vehicles that
meet the mileage specifications, perform testing as described in this
section using vehicles with the highest available mileage and describe
how you will attempt to test properly qualified vehicles for later
years. If this occurs in the eighth year, continue testing in future
years until all tested vehicles have mileage that is at least 85
percent of the engine's useful life.
Table 1 to paragraph (c)(5) of Sec. 1036.246--Minimum Age Required for
Obtaining In-use Engines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
mileage for
selected
Year of production following the initial model year that vehicles as a
relied on the deterioration factors percentage of
the engine's
useful life
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... --
2....................................................... --
3....................................................... 35%
4....................................................... 45
5....................................................... 55
6....................................................... 65
7....................................................... 75
8....................................................... 85
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) You may accelerate the testing schedule specified in paragraph
(c)(5) of this section if all your test vehicles in a given year meet
the mileage specifications for a later year of testing.
(d) Perform verification testing each year with one of the
following procedures:
(1) Engine dynamometer testing. Measure emissions from engines
equipped with in-use aftertreatment systems on an engine dynamometer as
follows:
(i) Test at least two engines using the procedures specified in
subpart F of this part and 40 CFR part 1065. Install the aftertreatment
system from the selected in-use vehicle, including all associated
wiring, sensors, and related hardware and software, on one of the
following partially complete engines:
(A) The in-use engine from the same vehicle.
(B) The emission-data engine used to determine the deterioration
factors.
(C) A different emission-data engine from the same engine family
that has been stablized as described in 40 CFR 1065.405(c).
(ii) Perform testing on all duty cycles with brake-specific
emission standards (g/hp[middot]hr) to determine whether the engine
meets all the duty-cycle emission standards for criteria pollutants.
Apply
[[Page 17685]]
infrequent regeneration adjustment factors as specified in Sec.
1036.522.
(iii) Evaluate verification testing for each pollutant
independently. You pass the verification test if at least 70 percent of
tested engines meet standards for each pollutant over all duty cycles.
You fail the verification test if 70 percent or fewer engines meet
standards for a given pollutant over all duty cycles.
(2) PEMS testing. Measure emissions using PEMS with in-use engines
that remain installed in selected vehicles as follows:
(i) Test at least five engines using the procedures specified in
Sec. 1036.520 and 40 CFR part 1065, subpart J.
(ii) Measure emissions of NOX, HC, and CO as the test
vehicle's normal operator drives over a regular shift-day to determine
whether the engine meets all the off-cycle emission standards that
applied for the engine's original certification. Apply infrequent
regeneration adjustment factors as specified in Sec. 1036.522. For
Spark-ignition HDE, calculate off-cycle emission standards for purposes
of this subpart by multiplying the FTP duty-cycle standards in Sec.
1036.104(a) by 2.0 in model years 2027 through 2030 and by 1.5 in model
years 2031 and later, and rounding to the same number of decimal
places.
(iii) Evaluate verification testing for each pollutant
independently. You pass the verification test if at least 70 percent of
tested engines meet standards for each pollutant. You fail the
verification test if 70 percent or fewer engines do not meet standards
for a given pollutant.
(iv) You may reverse a fail determination under paragraph
(d)(2)(iii) of this section by restarting and successfully completing
the verification test for that year using the procedures specified in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section. If you do this, you must use the
verification testing procedures specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section for all remaining years of the verification testing program.
(3) Onboard NOX measurement. Collect on-board NOX data
from in-use engines that remain installed in selected vehicles as
follows:
(i) Test at least 50 percent of engines produced using the
procedures specified in Sec. 1036.520 and 40 CFR part 1065, subpart J.
Perform the overall verification of your onboard NOX
measurement system as described in 40 CFR 1065.920(b) using an engine
that emits NOX at levels at or below the off-cycle
NOX emission standard that applied for the engine's original
certification. The onboard NOX measurement system must be
functional within 100 seconds of engine starting and must remain
functional over the entire shift-day.
(ii) Collect NOX data as the test vehicle's normal
operator drives over a regular shift-day to determine whether the
engine meets the off-cycle NOX emission standards that
applied for the engine's original certification. Apply infrequent
regeneration adjustment factors as specified in Sec. 1036.522. For
Spark-ignition HDE, calculate off-cycle emission standards as described
in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section.
(iii) You pass the verification test if at least 70 percent of
tested engines meet the off-cycle NOX emission standard. You
fail the verification test if 70 percent or fewer engines do not meet
standards for a given pollutant.
(iv) You may reverse a fail determination under paragraph
(d)(3)(iii) of this section by restarting and successfully completing
the verification test for that year using the procedures specified in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section. If you do this, you must use the
verification testing procedures specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section for all remaining years of the verification testing program.
(e) You may stop testing before you meet all the requirements of
this section in the following circumstances:
(1) In a given year, you may discontinue the verification test
program and concede a fail result before you meet all the testing
requirements of this section. However, we may require you to do more
testing before we approve revised deterioration factors under paragraph
(h)(2) of this section.
(2) You may stop testing before the eight-year period specified in
paragraph (c)(5) of this section if you meet all the requirements with
vehicles that had mileage accumulation representing at least 85 percent
of the engine family's useful life.
(f) Prepare a report to describe your verification testing each
year. Include at least the following information:
(1) Identify whether you tested using the procedures specified in
Sec. 1036.246(d)(1), (2), or (3).
(2) Describe how the test results support a pass or fail decision
for the verification test. For in-field measurements, include
continuous 1 Hz data collected over the shift-day and binned emission
values determined under Sec. 1036.515.
(3) If your testing included invalid test results, describe the
reasons for invalidating the data. Give us the invalid test results if
we ask for them.
(4) Describe the types of vehicles selected for testing. If you
determined that any selected vehicles with enough mileage accumulation
were not suitable for testing, describe why you chose not to test them.
(5) For each tested engine, identify the vehicle's VIN, the
engine's serial number, the engine's power rating, and the odometer
reading and the engine's lifetime operating hours at the start of
testing (or engine removal).
(6) State that the tested engines have been properly maintained and
used and describe any noteworthy aspects of each vehicle's maintenance
history. Describe the steps you took to prepare the engines for
testing.
(7) For testing with engines that remain installed in vehicles,
identify the date and location of testing. Also describe the ambient
conditions and the driving route over the course of the shift-day.
(g) Send electronic reports to the Designated Compliance Officer
using an approved information format. If you want to use a different
format, send us a written request with justification.
(1) You may send us reports as you complete testing for an engine
instead of waiting until you complete testing for all engines.
(2) We may ask you to send us less information in your reports than
we specify in this section.
(3) We may require you to send us more information to evaluate
whether your engine family meets the requirements of this part.
(4) Once you send us information under this section, you need not
send that information again in later reports.
(5) We will review your test report to evaluate the results of the
verification testing at each stage. We will notify you if we disagree
with your conclusions, if we need additional information, or if you
need to revise your testing plan for future testing.
(h) The following provisions apply if your verification test has a
fail result for any deterioration factor:
(1) You may certify affected engine families for one additional
model year based on the original deterioration factors. We may require
you to certify with family emission limits that are at the maximum
values we allow in Sec. 1036.104(c)(2), or at some lower value
corresponding to your measured emission results. You may not generate
emission credits from affected engine families for any pollutant. We
may require you to apply the revised family emission limits to
recalculate emission credits and credit balances from previous model
years based on your test results.
(2) You may ask us to approve revised deterioration factors for
future model years based on your measured emission results. You may use
such revised
[[Page 17686]]
deterioration factors and continue verification testing under this
section if the engine family still meets emission standards (or family
emission limits) after applying the revised deterioration factors to
the low-hour test results from an emission-data engine.
(3) Unless we approve revised deterioration factors under paragraph
(h)(2) of this section, you must do new testing to establish
deterioration factors after the one additional model year described in
paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
(4) The provisions of this paragraph (h) apply for all engine
families relying on the deterioration factors that failed to pass
verification testing.
Sec. 1036.250 Reporting and recordkeeping for certification.
(a) By September 30 following the end of the model year, send the
Designated Compliance Officer a report including the total U.S.-
directed production volume of engines you produced in each engine
family during the model year (based on information available at the
time of the report). Report the production by serial number and engine
configuration. You may combine this report with reports required under
subpart H of this part. We may waive the reporting requirements of this
paragraph (a) for small manufacturers.
(b) Organize and maintain the following records:
(1) A copy of all applications and any summary information you send
us.
(2) Any of the information we specify in Sec. 1036.205 that you
were not required to include in your application.
(3) A detailed history of each emission-data engine. For each
engine, describe all of the following:
(i) The emission-data engine's construction, including its origin
and buildup, steps you took to ensure that it represents production
engines, any components you built specially for it, and all the
components you include in your application for certification.
(ii) How you accumulated engine operating hours (service
accumulation), including the dates and the number of hours accumulated.
(iii) All maintenance, including modifications, parts changes, and
other service, and the dates and reasons for the maintenance.
(iv) All your emission tests, including documentation on routine
and standard tests, as specified in part 40 CFR part 1065, and the date
and purpose of each test.
(v) All tests to diagnose engine or emission control performance,
giving the date and time of each and the reasons for the test.
(vi) Any other significant events.
(4) Production figures for each engine family divided by assembly
plant.
(5) Engine identification numbers for all the engines you produce
under each certificate of conformity.
(c) Keep routine data from emission tests required by this part
(such as test cell temperatures and relative humidity readings) for one
year after we issue the associated certificate of conformity. Keep all
other information specified in this section for eight years after we
issue your certificate.
(d) Store these records in any format and on any media, as long as
you can promptly send us organized, written records in English if we
ask for them. You must keep these records readily available. We may
review them at any time.
Sec. 1036.255 EPA oversight on certificates of conformity.
(a) If we determine an application is complete and shows that the
engine family meets all the requirements of this part and the Act, we
will issue a certificate of conformity for the engine family for that
model year. We may make the approval subject to additional conditions.
(b) We may deny an application for certification if we determine
that an engine family fails to comply with emission standards or other
requirements of this part or the Clean Air Act. We will base our
decision on all available information. If we deny an application, we
will explain why in writing.
(c) In addition, we may deny your application or suspend or revoke
a certificate of conformity if you do any of the following:
(1) Refuse to comply with any testing or reporting requirements in
this part.
(2) Submit false or incomplete information. This includes doing
anything after submitting an application that causes submitted
information to be false or incomplete.
(3) Cause any test data to become inaccurate.
(4) Deny us from completing authorized activities (see 40 CFR
1068.20). This includes a failure to provide reasonable assistance.
(5) Produce engines for importation into the United States at a
location where local law prohibits us from carrying out authorized
activities.
(6) Fail to supply requested information or amend an application to
include all engines being produced.
(7) Take any action that otherwise circumvents the intent of the
Act or this part.
(d) We may void a certificate of conformity if you fail to keep
records, send reports, or give us information as required under this
part or the Act. Note that these are also violations of 40 CFR
1068.101(a)(2).
(e) We may void a certificate of conformity if we find that you
intentionally submitted false or incomplete information. This includes
doing anything after submitting an application that causes submitted
information to be false or incomplete after submission.
(f) If we deny an application or suspend, revoke, or void a
certificate, you may ask for a hearing (see Sec. 1036.820).
Subpart D--Testing Production Engines and Hybrid Powertrains
Sec. 1036.301 Measurements related to GEM inputs in a selective
enforcement audit.
(a) Selective enforcement audits apply for engines as specified in
40 CFR part 1068, subpart E. This section describes how this applies
uniquely in certain circumstances.
(b) Selective enforcement audit provisions apply with respect to
your fuel maps as follows:
(1) A selective enforcement audit for an engine with respect to
fuel maps would consist of performing measurements with production
engines to determine fuel-consumption rates as declared for GEM
simulations, and running GEM for the vehicle configurations specified
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section based on those measured values. The
engine is considered passing for a given configuration if the new
modeled emission result for each applicable duty cycle is at or below
the modeled emission result corresponding to the declared GEM inputs.
The engine is considered failing if it is determined that its fuel map
test result is above the modeled emission result corresponding to the
result using the manufacturer-declared fuel maps, as specified in Sec.
1036.235(c)(5).
(2) If the audit includes fuel-map testing in conjunction with
engine testing relative to exhaust emission standards, the fuel-map
simulations for the whole set of vehicles and duty cycles counts as a
single test result for purposes of evaluating whether the engine family
meets the pass-fail criteria under 40 CFR 1068.420.
(c) If your certification includes powertrain testing as specified
in 40 CFR 1036.630, these selective enforcement audit provisions apply
with respect to powertrain test results as specified in 40 CFR part
1037, subpart D, and 40 CFR 1037.550. We may allow manufacturers to
instead perform the
[[Page 17687]]
engine-based testing to simulate the powertrain test as specified in 40
CFR 1037.551.
(d) We may suspend or revoke certificates for any appropriate
configurations within one or more engine families based on the outcome
of a selective enforcement audit.
Subpart E--In-Use Testing
Sec. 1036.401 Testing requirements for in-use engines.
(a) We may perform in-use testing of any engine family subject to
the standards of this part, consistent with the Clean Air Act and the
provisions of Sec. 1036.235.
(b) This subpart describes a manufacturer-run field-testing program
that applies for model year 2027 and later compression-ignition
engines. Note that the testing requirements of 40 CFR part 86, subpart
T, continue to apply for model year 2026 and earlier engines.
(c) In-use test procedures for spark-ignition engines apply as
described in Sec. 1036.515. We won't require routine manufacturer-run
field testing for spark-ignition engines, but the procedures of this
subpart describe how to use field-testing procedures to measure
emissions from engines installed in vehicles. Use good engineering
judgment to apply the measurement procedures for fuels other than
gasoline.
(d) We may void your certificate of conformity for an engine family
if you do not meet your obligations under this subpart. We may also
void individual tests and require you to retest those vehicles or take
other appropriate measures in instances where you have not performed
the testing in accordance with the requirements described in this
subpart.
Sec. 1036.405 Overview of the manufacturer-run field-testing program.
(a) You must test in-use engines from the families we select. We
may select the following number of engine families for testing, except
as specified in paragraph (b) of this section:
(1) We may select up to 25 percent of your engine families in any
calendar year, calculated by dividing the number of engine families you
certified in the model year corresponding to the calendar year by four
and rounding to the nearest whole number. We will consider only engine
families with annual U.S.-directed production volumes above 1,500 units
in calculating the number of engine families subject to testing each
calendar year under the annual 25 percent engine family limit. If you
have only three or fewer families that each exceed an annual U.S.-
directed production volume of 1,500 units, we may select one engine
family per calendar year for testing.
(2) Over any four-year period, we will not select more than the
average number of engine families that you have certified over that
four-year period (the model year when the selection is made and the
preceding three model years), based on rounding the average value to
the nearest whole number.
(3) We will not select engine families for testing under this
subpart from a given model year if your total U.S.-directed production
volume was less than 100 engines.
(b) If there is clear evidence of a nonconformity with regard to an
engine family, we may select that engine family without counting it as
a selected engine family under paragraph (a) of this section. For
example, there may be clear evidence of a nonconformity if you certify
an engine family using carryover data after reaching a fail decision
under this subpart in an earlier model year without modifying the
engine to remedy the problem.
(c) We may select any individual engine family for testing,
regardless of its production volume, as long as we do not select more
than the number of engine families described in paragraph (a) of this
section. We may select an engine family from model year 2027 or any
later model year.
(d) You must complete all the required testing and reporting under
this subpart (for all ten test engines, if applicable), within 18
months after we approve your proposed plan for recruiting, screening,
and selecting vehicles. We will typically select engine families for
testing and notify you in writing by June 30 of the applicable calendar
year. If you request it, we may allow additional time to send us this
information.
(e) If you make a good-faith effort to access enough test vehicles
to complete the testing requirements under this subpart for an engine
family, but are unable to do so, you must ask us either to modify the
testing requirements for the selected engine family or to select a
different engine family.
(f) We may select an engine family for repeat testing in a later
calendar year. Such a selection for repeat testing would count as an
additional engine family for that year under paragraph (a) of this
section.
(g) You may ask for approval to meet requirements under this
subpart for an engine family based on information from onboard
NOX sensors that have been shown to comply with the on-board
NOX measurement system verification described in 40 CFR
1065.920(b) using an engine that emits NOX at levels at or
below the applicable standard. Any on-board NOX measurement
system must be functional within 100 seconds of engine starting and
must remain functional during the entire shift-day. An alternative test
program would need to rely on telematic methods to collect
NOX emission values broadly from engines in the fleet to
evaluate whether emission controls are working properly across a wide
range of engine operation. The alternative test program must include
PEMS field-testing of at least two engines as described in this
subpart, including measurement of all regulated pollutants. In your
request, you must show us that the alternative program gives comparable
assurance that your engines meet the NOX standards of this
part. We may waive some or all of this subpart's requirements for the
engine family if we approve your alternative test program.
Sec. 1036.410 Selecting and screening vehicles and engines for
testing.
(a) Send us your proposed plan for recruiting, screening, and
selecting vehicles. Identify the types of vehicles, location, and any
other relevant criteria. We will approve your plan if it supports the
objective of measuring emissions to represent a broad range of
operating characteristics.
(b) Select vehicles and engines for testing that meet the following
criteria:
(1) The vehicles come from at least two independent sources.
(2) Powertrain, drivetrain, emission controls, and other key
vehicle and engine systems have been properly maintained and used. See
Sec. 1036.125.
(3) The engines have not been tampered with, rebuilt, or undergone
major repair that could be expected to affect emissions.
(4) The engines have not been misfueled. Do not consider engines
misfueled if they have used fuel meeting the specifications of Sec.
1036.415(c).
(5) The vehicles are likely to operate for at least three hours of
non-idle operation over a complete shift-day, as described in Sec.
1036.415(f).
(6) The vehicles have not exceeded the applicable useful life, in
miles, hours, or years; you may otherwise not exclude engines from
testing based on their age or mileage.
(7) The vehicle has appropriate space for safe and proper mounting
of the portable emission measurement system (PEMS) equipment.
(c) You must notify us before disqualifying any vehicle based on
the owner declining to participate, illuminated MIL or stored OBD
trouble
[[Page 17688]]
codes as described in Sec. 1036.415(b)(2), or for any other reasons
not specified in paragraph (b) of this section. For example, notify us
if you disqualify any vehicle because the engine does not represent the
engine family or the vehicle's usage is atypical for the particular
application.
Sec. 1036.415 Preparing and testing engines.
(a) You must limit maintenance to what is in the owners manual for
engines with that amount of service and age. For anything we consider
an adjustable parameter (see Sec. 1036.115(f)), you may adjust that
parameter only if it is outside its adjustable range. You must then set
the adjustable parameter to your recommended setting or the mid-point
of its adjustable range, unless we approve your request to do
otherwise. You must get our approval before adjusting anything not
considered an adjustable parameter. You must keep records of all
maintenance and adjustments, as required by Sec. 1036.435. You must
send us these records, as described in Sec. 1036.430(a)(2)(ix), unless
we instruct you not to send them.
(b) You may treat a vehicle with an illuminated MIL or stored
trouble code as follows:
(1) If a candidate vehicle has an illuminated MIL or stored trouble
code, either test the vehicle as received or repair the vehicle before
testing. You may disqualify the vehicle only if MIL illumination or
trouble code storage exceeds 12 hours. Once testing is initiated on the
vehicle, you accept that the vehicle has been properly maintained and
used.
(2) If a MIL illuminates or a trouble code appears on a test
vehicle during a field test, stop the test and repair the vehicle.
Determine test results as specified in Sec. 1036.515 using one of the
following options:
(i) Restart the testing and use only the portion of the full test
results without the MIL illuminated or trouble code set.
(ii) Initiate a new test and use only the post-repair test results.
(3) If you determine that repairs are needed but they cannot be
completed in a timely manner, you may disqualify the vehicle and
replace it with another vehicle.
(c) Use appropriate fuels for testing, as follows:
(1) You may use any diesel fuel that meets the specifications for
S15 in ASTM D975 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1036.810). You may
use any commercially available biodiesel fuel blend that meets the
specifications for ASTM D975 or ASTM D7467 (incorporated by reference
in Sec. 1036.810). You may use any gasoline fuel that meets the
specifications in ASTM D4814 (incorporated by reference in Sec.
1036.810). For other fuel types, you may use any commercially available
fuel.
(2) You may drain test vehicles' fuel tanks and refill them with
diesel fuel conforming to the specifications in paragraph (c)(1) of
this section.
(3) Any fuel that is added to a test vehicle's fuel tanks must be
purchased at a local retail establishment near the site of vehicle
recruitment or screening, or along the test route. Alternatively, the
fuel may be drawn from a central fueling source, as long as the fuel
represents commercially available fuel in the area of testing.
(4) No post-refinery fuel additives are allowed, except that
specific fuel additives may be used during field testing if you can
document that the test vehicle has a history of normally using the fuel
treatments and they are not prohibited in the owners manual or in your
published fuel-additive recommendations.
(5) You may take fuel samples from test vehicles to ensure that
appropriate fuels were used during field testing. If a vehicle fails
the vehicle-pass criteria and you can show that an inappropriate fuel
was used during the failed test, that particular test may be voided.
You may drain vehicles' fuel tanks and refill them with diesel fuel
conforming to the specifications described in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section. You must report any fuel tests that are the basis of voiding a
test in your report under Sec. 1036.430.
(d) You must test the selected engines using the test procedure
described in Sec. 1036.515 while they remain installed in the vehicle.
Testing consists of characterizing emission rates for moving average
300 second windows while driving, with those windows divided into bins
representing different types of engine operation over a shift-day. Use
one of the following methods to measure emissions:
(1) Perform all testing with PEMS and field-testing procedures
referenced in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart J. Measure emissions of HC, CO,
NOX, PM, and CO2. You may determine HC emissions
by any method specified in 40 CFR 1065.660(b).
(2) [Reserved]
(e) Operate the test vehicle under conditions reasonably expected
during normal operation. For the purposes of this subpart, normal
operation generally includes the vehicle's normal routes and loads
(including auxiliary loads such as air conditioning in the cab), normal
ambient conditions, and the normal driver.
(f) Once an engine is set up for testing, test the engine for at
least one shift-day. To complete a shift-day's worth of testing, start
sampling at the beginning of a shift and continue sampling for the
whole shift, subject to the calibration requirements of the PEMS. A
shift-day is the period of a normal workday for an individual employee.
Evaluate the emission data as described in Sec. 1036.420 and include
the data in the reporting and record keeping requirements specified in
Sec. Sec. 1036.430 and 1036.435.
(g) You may ask us to waive testing relative to one or more
emission standards if you can show that field testing for such
emissions is not necessary.
Sec. 1036.420 Pass criteria for individual engines.
Perform the following steps to determine whether an engine meets
the binned emission standards in Sec. 1036.104(a)(4):
(a) Determine the binned or shift-day emission standard, as
applicable, for each regulated pollutant by adding the following
accuracy margins for PEMS to the off-cycle standards in Sec.
1036.104(a)(4):
(1) HC: 10 mg/hp[middot]hr.
(2) CO: 0.025 g/hp[middot]hr.
(3) PM: 6 mg/hp[middot]hr.
(4) NOX: 10% of the standard.
(b) Calculate the mass emission rate for each pollutant as
specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart G, for use in the calculations
in Sec. 1036.515.
(c) For compression-ignition engines, determine the number of
windows in each bin. A bin is valid under this section only if it has
more than 2,400 windows. If the 2,400 valid windows in any bin is not
achieved, continue testing additional shift-days as necessary to
achieve the minimum window requirements for each bin. You may idle the
engine anytime during the shift day to increase the number of windows
in the idle bin.
(d) An engine passes if the result for each valid bin is at or
below the standard determined in paragraph (a) of this section. An
engine fails if the result for any valid bin for any pollutant is above
the standard determined in paragraph (a) of this section. Having no
valid bins for a bin category over a shift-day does not disqualify an
engine from pass-fail determinations under this paragraph (d).
Sec. 1036.425 Pass criteria for engine families.
For testing with PEMS under Sec. 1036.415(d)(1), determine the
number of engines you must test from each selected engine family and
the family pass criteria as follows:
[[Page 17689]]
(a) Start by measuring emissions from five engines using the
procedures described in this subpart E and Sec. 1036.515. If all five
engines comply fully with the off-cycle bin standards, the engine
family passes, and you may stop testing.
(b) If only one of the engines tested under paragraph (a) of this
section does not comply fully with the off-cycle bin standards, test
one more engine. If this additional engine complies fully with the off-
cycle bin standards, the engine family passes, and you may stop
testing.
(c) If two or more engines tested under paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section do not comply fully with the off-cycle bin standards, test
additional engines until you have tested a total of ten engines.
Calculate the arithmetic mean of the sum-over-sum emissions from the
ten engine tests as specified in Sec. 1036.515(g) for each pollutant.
If the results are at or below the off-cycle bin standards, the engine
family passes. If the result for any pollutant is above an off-cycle
bin standard, the engine family fails.
Sec. 1036.430 Reporting requirements.
(a) Report content. Prepare test reports as follows:
(1) Include the following for each engine family:
(i) Describe how you recruited vehicles. Describe how you used any
criteria or thresholds to narrow your search or to screen individual
vehicles.
(ii) Include a summary of the vehicles you have disqualified and
the reasons you disqualified them, whether you base the
disqualification on the criteria in Sec. 1036.410(b) or anything else.
If you disqualified a vehicle due to misfueling, include the results of
any fuel sample tests. If you reject a vehicle due to tampering,
describe how you determined that tampering occurred.
(iii) Identify how many engines you have tested from the applicable
engine family and how many engines still need to be tested. Identify
how many tested engines have passed or failed under Sec. 1036.420.
(iv) After the final test, report the results and state the outcome
of testing for the engine family based on the criteria in Sec.
1036.425.
(v) Describe any incomplete or invalid tests that were conducted
under this subpart.
(2) Include the following information for the test vehicle:
(i) The EPA engine-family designation, and the engine's model
number, total displacement, and power rating.
(ii) The date EPA selected the engine family for testing.
(iii) The vehicle's make and model and the year it was built.
(iv) The vehicle identification number and engine serial number.
(v) The vehicle's type or application (such as delivery, line haul,
or dump truck). Also, identify the type of trailer, if applicable.
(vi) The vehicle's maintenance and use history.
(vii) The known status history of the vehicle's OBD system and any
actions taken to address OBD trouble codes or MIL illumination over the
vehicle's lifetime.
(viii) Any OBD codes or MIL illumination that occur after you
accept the vehicle for field testing under this subpart.
(ix) Any steps you take to maintain, adjust, modify, or repair the
vehicle or its engine to prepare for or continue testing, including
actions to address OBD trouble codes or MIL illumination. Include any
steps you took to drain and refill the vehicle's fuel tank(s) to
correct misfueling, and the results of any fuel test conducted to
identify misfueling.
(3) Include the following data and measurements for each test
vehicle:
(i) The date and time of testing, and the test number.
(ii) Number of shift-days of testing (see Sec. 1036.415(f)).
(iii) Route and location of testing. You may base this description
on the output from a global-positioning system (GPS).
(iv) The steps you took to ensure that vehicle operation during
testing was consistent with normal operation and use, as described in
Sec. 1036.415(e).
(v) Fuel test results, if fuel was tested under Sec. 1036.410 or
Sec. 1036.415.
(vi) The vehicle's mileage at the start of testing. Include the
engine's total lifetime hours of operation, if available.
(vii) The number of windows in each bin (see Sec. 1036.420(c)).
(viii) The bin emission value per vehicle for each pollutant.
Describe the method you used to determine HC as specified in 40 CFR
1065.660(b).
(ix) Recorded 1 Hz test data for at least the following parameters,
noting that gaps in the 1 Hz data file over the shift-day are only
allowed during analyzer zero and span verifications:
(A) Ambient temperature.
(B) Ambient pressure.
(C) Ambient humidity.
(D) Altitude.
(E) Emissions of HC, CO, CO2, and NOX. Report
results for PM if it was measured in a manner that provides 1 Hz test
data.
(F) Differential backpressure of any PEMS attachments to vehicle
exhaust.
(G) Exhaust flow.
(H) Exhaust aftertreatment temperatures.
(I) Engine speed.
(J) Engine brake torque.
(K) Engine coolant temperature
(L) Intake manifold temperature.
(M) Intake manifold pressure.
(N) Throttle position.
(O) Any parameter sensed or controlled to modulate the emission
control system or fuel-injection timing.
(4) Include the following summary information after you complete
testing with each engine:
(i) State whether the engine meets the off-cycle standards for each
bin for each pollutant as described in Sec. 1036.420(d).
(ii) Describe if any testing or evaluations were conducted to
determine why a vehicle failed the off-cycle emission standards
described in Sec. 1036.420.
(iii) Describe the purpose of any diagnostic procedures you
conduct.
(iv) Describe any instances in which the OBD system illuminated the
MIL or set trouble codes. Also describe any actions taken to address
the trouble codes or MIL.
(v) Describe any instances of misfueling, the approved actions
taken to address the problem, and the results of any associated fuel
sample testing.
(b) Submission. Send electronic reports to the Designated
Compliance Officer using an approved information format. If you want to
use a different format, send us a written request with justification.
(1) You may send us reports as you complete testing for an engine
instead of waiting until you complete testing for all engines.
(2) We may ask you to send us less information in your reports than
we specify in this section.
(3) We may require you to send us more information to evaluate
whether your engine family meets the requirements of this part.
(4) Once you send us information under this section, you need not
send that information again in later reports.
(c) Additional notifications. Notify the Designated Compliance
Officer describing progress toward completing the required testing and
reporting under this subpart, as follows:
(1) Notify us once you complete testing for an engine.
(2) Notify us if your review of the test data for an engine family
indicates that two of the first five tested engines have failed to
comply with the vehicle-pass criteria in Sec. 1036.420(d).
(3) Notify us if your review of the test data for an engine family
indicates that the engine family does not comply with the family-pass
criteria in Sec. 1036.425(c).
(4) Describe any voluntary vehicle/engine emission evaluation
testing you
[[Page 17690]]
intend to conduct with PEMS on the same engine families that are being
tested under this subpart, from the time that engine family was
selected for field testing under Sec. 1036.405 until the final results
of all testing for that engine family are reported to us under this
section.
Sec. 1036.435 Recordkeeping requirements.
Keep the following paper or electronic records of your field
testing for five years after you complete all the testing required for
an engine family:
(a) Keep a copy of the reports described in Sec. 1036.430.
(b) Keep any additional records, including forms you create,
related to any of the following:
(1) The recruitment, screening, and selection process described in
Sec. 1036.410, including the vehicle owner's name, address, phone
number, and email address.
(2) Pre-test maintenance and adjustments to the engine performed
under Sec. 1036.415.
(3) Test results for all void, incomplete, and voluntary testing
described in Sec. 1036.430.
(4) Evaluations to determine why a vehicle failed any of the bin
standards described in Sec. 1036.420.
(c) Keep a copy of the relevant calibration results required by 40
CFR part 1065.
Sec. 1036.440 Warranty obligations related to in-use testing.
Testing under this subpart that finds an engine exceeding emission
standards under this subpart is not by itself sufficient to show a
breach of warranty under 42 U.S.C. 7541(a)(1). A breach of warranty
would also require one of the following:
(a) That the engine or vehicle, as designed, built, and equipped at
the time of sale, does not conform in all material respects reasonably
related to emission controls to the engine as described in the
application for certification and covered by the certificate.
(b) A defect in a component's materials or workmanship causes the
vehicle or engine to fail to conform to the applicable regulations for
its useful life.
Subpart F--Test Procedures
Sec. 1036.501 General testing provisions.
(a) Use the equipment and procedures specified in this subpart and
40 CFR part 1065 to determine whether engines meet the emission
standards in Sec. Sec. 1036.104 and 1036.108.
(b) You may use special or alternate procedures to the extent we
allow them under 40 CFR 1065.10.
(c) This subpart is addressed to you as a manufacturer, but it
applies equally to anyone who does testing for you, and to us when we
perform testing to determine if your engines meet emission standards.
(d) For engines that use aftertreatment technology with infrequent
regeneration events, apply infrequent regeneration adjustment factors
as described in Sec. 1036.522.
(e) Determine engine fuel maps as described in Sec. 1036.503(b).
(f) If your engine is intended for installation in a vehicle
equipped with stop-start technology, you may turn the engine off during
idle portions of the duty cycle to represent in-use operation. We
recommend installing a production engine starter motor and allowing the
engine's ECM to manipulate the starter motor to control the engine stop
and start events.
Sec. 1036.503 Engine data and information to support vehicle
certification.
You must give vehicle manufacturers information as follows so they
can certify their vehicles to greenhouse gas emission standards under
40 CFR part 1037:
(a) Identify engine make, model, fuel type, combustion type, engine
family name, calibration identification, and engine displacement. Also
identify whether the engines meet CO2 standards for
tractors, vocational vehicles, or both.
(b) This paragraph (b) describes four different methods to generate
engine fuel maps. For engines without hybrid components and for mild
hybrid engines where you do not include hybrid components in the test,
generate fuel maps using either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this
section. For other hybrid engines, generate fuel maps using paragraph
(b)(3) of this section. For powertrains and for vehicles where the
transmission is not automatic, automated manual, manual, or dual-
clutch, generate fuel maps using paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(1) Determine steady-state engine fuel maps as described in Sec.
1036.535(b). Determine fuel consumption at idle as described in Sec.
1036.535(c). Determine cycle-average engine fuel maps as described in
Sec. 1036.540, excluding cycle-average fuel maps for highway cruise
cycles.
(2) Determine steady-state fuel maps as described in either Sec.
1036.535(b) or (d). Determine fuel consumption at idle as described in
Sec. 1036.535(c). Determine cycle-average engine fuel maps as
described in Sec. 1036.540, including cycle-average engine fuel maps
for highway cruise cycles. We may do confirmatory testing by creating
cycle-average fuel maps from steady-state fuel maps created in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section for highway cruise cycles. In Sec.
1036.540 we define the vehicle configurations for testing; we may add
more vehicle configurations to better represent your engine's operation
for the range of vehicles in which your engines will be installed (see
40 CFR 1065.10(c)(1)).
(3) Determine fuel consumption at idle as described in Sec.
1036.535(c) and (d), and determine cycle-average engine fuel maps as
described in 40 CFR 1037.550, including cycle-average engine fuel maps
for highway cruise cycles.
(4) Generate powertrain fuel maps as described in 40 CFR 1037.550
instead of fuel mapping under Sec. 1036.535 or Sec. 1036.540. Note
that the option in 40 CFR 1037.550(b)(2) is allowed only for hybrid
engine testing.
(c) Provide the following information if you generate engine fuel
maps using either paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section:
(1) Full-load torque curve for installed engines and the full-load
torque curve of the engine (parent engine) with the highest fueling
rate that shares the same engine hardware, including the turbocharger,
as described in 40 CFR 1065.510. You may use 40 CFR 1065.510(b)(5)(i)
for Spark-ignition HDE. Measure the torque curve for hybrid engines
that have an RESS as described in 40 CFR 1065.510(g)(2) with the hybrid
system active. Test hybrid engines with no RESS as described in 40 CFR
1065.510(b)(5)(ii).
(2) Motoring torque curve as described in 40 CFR 1065.510(c)(2) and
(5) for conventional and hybrid engines, respectively. For engines with
a low-speed governor, remove data points where the low-speed governor
is active. If you don't know when the low-speed governor is active, we
recommend removing all points below 40 r/min above the warm low-idle
speed.
(3) Declared engine idle speed. For vehicles with manual
transmissions, this is the engine speed with the transmission in
neutral. For all other vehicles, this is the engine's idle speed when
the transmission is in drive.
(4) The engine idle speed during the transient cycle-average fuel
map.
(5) The engine idle torque during the transient cycle-average fuel
map.
(d) If you generate powertrain fuel maps using paragraph (b)(4) of
this section, determine the system continuous rated power according to
Sec. 1036.527.
[[Page 17691]]
Sec. 1036.505 Supplemental Emission Test.
(a) Measure emissions using the steady-state SET duty cycle as
described in this section. Note that the SET duty cycle is operated as
a ramped-modal cycle rather than discrete steady-state test points.
(b) Perform SET testing with one of the following procedures:
(1) For testing nonhybrid engines, the SET duty cycle is based on
normalized speed and torque values relative to certain maximum values.
Denormalize speed as described in 40 CFR 1065.512. Denormalize torque
as described in 40 CFR 1065.610(d).
(2) Test hybrid engines and hybrid powertrains as described in 40
CFR 1037.550, except as specified in this paragraph (b)(2). Do not
compensate the duty cycle for the distance driven as described in 40
CFR 1037.550(g)(4). For hybrid engines, select the transmission from
Table 1 of Sec. 1036.540, substituting ``engine'' for ``vehicle'' and
``highway cruise cycle'' for ``SET''. Disregard duty cycles in 40 CFR
1037.550(j). For cycles that begin with idle, leave the transmission in
neutral or park for the full initial idle segment. Place the
transmission into drive no earlier than 5 seconds before the first
nonzero vehicle speed setpoint. For SET testing only, place the
transmission into park or neutral when the cycle reaches the final idle
segment. Use the following vehicle parameters instead of those in 40
CFR 1037.550 to define the vehicle model in 40 CFR 1037.550(a)(3):
(i) Determine the vehicle test mass, M, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.022
Where:
Pcontrated = the continuous rated power of the hybrid
system determined in Sec. 1036.527.
Example:
Pcontrated = 350.1 kW
M = 15.1[middot]350.1\1.31\ = 32499 kg
[[Page 17692]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.023
[[Page 17693]]
Example:
Mrotating = 0.07 [middot] 11833 = 828.3 kg
(vii) Select a drive axle ratio, ka, that represents the
worst-case combination of final gear ratio, drive axle ratio, and tire
size for CO2 expected for vehicles in which the hybrid
powertrain or hybrid engine will be installed. This is typically the
highest axle ratio.
(viii) Select a tire radius, r, that represents the worst-case pair
of tire size and drive axle ratio for CO2 expected for
vehicles in which the hybrid powertrain or hybrid engine will be
installed. This is typically the smallest tire radius.
(ix) If you are certifying a hybrid engine, use a default
transmission efficiency of 0.95 and create the vehicle model along with
its default transmission shift strategy as described in 40 CFR
1037.550(a)(3)(ii). Use the transmission parameters defined in Table 1
of Sec. 1036.540 to determine transmission type and gear ratio. For
Light HDV and Medium HDV, use the Light HDV and Medium HDV parameters
for FTP, LLC, and SET duty cycles. For Tractors and Heavy HDVs, use the
Tractor and Heavy HDV transient cycle parameters for the FTP and LLC
duty cycles and the Tractor and Heavy HDV highway cruise cycle
parameters for the SET duty cycle.
(c) Measure emissions using the SET duty cycle shown in Table 1 of
this section to determine whether engines meet the steady-state
compression-ignition standards specified in subpart B of this part.
Table 1 of this section specifies test settings, as follows:
(1) The duty cycle for testing engines (including hybrid engines)
involves a schedule of normalized engine speed and torque values.
(2) The duty cycle for testing hybrid powertrains involves a
schedule of vehicle speeds and road grade as follows:
(i) Determine road grade at each point based on the continuous
rated power of the hybrid powertrain system, Pcontrated, in
kW determined in Sec. 1036.527, the vehicle speed (A, B, or C) in mi/
hr for a given SET mode, vref[speed], and the specified
road-grade coefficients using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.024
Example for SET mode 3a in Table 1 of this section:
Pcontrated = 345.2 kW
vrefB = 59.3 mi/hr
Road grade = 8.296 [middot] 10-9 [middot] 345.23
+ (-4.752 [middot] 10-7) [middot] 345.22 [middot]
59.3 + 1.291 [middot] 10-5 + 2.88 [middot] 10-4
[middot] 59.32 + 4.524 [middot] 10-4 [middot]
345.2 [middot] 59.3 + (-1.802 [middot] 10-2) [middot] 345.2
+ (-1.83 [middot] 10-1) [middot] 59.3 + 8.81 = 0.53%
(ii) Use the vehicle C speed determined in Sec. 1036.527.
Determine vehicle A and B speeds as follows:
(A) Determine vehicle A speed using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.025
(B) Determine vehicle B speed using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.026
(3) Table 1 follows:
[[Page 17694]]
Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(3) of Sec. 1036.505--Supplemental Emission Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine testing Hybrid powertrain testing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SET mode Time in Road-grade coefficients
mode Engine speed \a\ \b\ Torque (percent) \b\ Vehicle speed (mi/hr) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(seconds) \c\ a b c d e f g h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a Steady-state..................... 124 Warm Idle.............. 0..................... 0..................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1b Transition....................... 20 Linear Transition...... Linear Transition..... Linear Transition..... -1.898E-08 -5.895E-07 3.780E-05 4.706E-03 6.550E-04 -2.679E-02 -1.027E+00 1.542E+01
2a Steady-state..................... 196 A...................... 100................... vrefA................. -1.227E-08 -5.504E-07 3.946E-05 1.212E-03 5.289E-04 -3.116E-02 -3.227E-01 1.619E+01
2b Transition....................... 20 Linear Transition...... Linear Transition..... Linear Transition..... -2.305E-09 -4.873E-07 2.535E-05 8.156E-04 4.730E-04 -2.383E-02 -2.975E-01 1.277E+01
3a Steady-state..................... 220 B...................... 50.................... vrefB................. 8.296E-09 -4.752E-07 1.291E-05 2.880E-04 4.524E-04 -1.802E-02 -1.830E-01 8.810E+00
3b Transition....................... 20 B...................... Linear Transition..... vrefB................. 4.642E-09 -5.143E-07 1.991E-05 3.556E-04 4.873E-04 -2.241E-02 -2.051E-01 1.068E+01
4a Steady-state..................... 220 B...................... 75.................... vrefB................. 1.818E-10 -5.229E-07 2.579E-05 5.575E-04 5.006E-04 -2.561E-02 -2.399E-01 1.287E+01
4b Transition....................... 20 Linear Transition...... Linear Transition..... Linear Transition..... 5.842E-10 -4.992E-07 2.244E-05 4.700E-04 4.659E-04 -2.203E-02 -1.761E-01 1.072E+01
5a Steady-state..................... 268 A...................... 50.................... vrefA................. 3.973E-09 -4.362E-07 1.365E-05 4.846E-04 4.158E-04 -1.606E-02 -1.908E-01 8.206E+00
5b Transition....................... 20 A...................... Linear Transition..... vrefA................. -2.788E-10 -4.226E-07 1.812E-05 6.591E-04 4.158E-04 -1.846E-02 -2.201E-01 1.001E+01
6a Steady-state..................... 268 A...................... 75.................... vrefA................. -4.216E-09 -4.891E-07 2.641E-05 8.796E-04 4.692E-04 -2.348E-02 -2.595E-01 1.226E+01
6b Transition....................... 20 A...................... Linear Transition..... vrefA................. 3.979E-09 -4.392E-07 1.411E-05 2.079E-04 4.203E-04 -1.658E-02 -1.655E-01 7.705E+00
7a Steady-state..................... 268 A...................... 25.................... vrefA................. 1.211E-08 -3.772E-07 6.209E-07 1.202E-04 3.578E-04 -8.420E-03 -1.248E-01 4.189E+00
7b Transition....................... 20 Linear Transition...... Linear Transition..... Linear Transition..... 1.659E-09 -4.954E-07 2.103E-05 4.849E-04 4.776E-04 -2.194E-02 -2.551E-01 1.075E+01
8a Steady-state..................... 196 B...................... 100................... vrefB................. -8.232E-09 -5.707E-07 3.900E-05 8.150E-04 5.477E-04 -3.325E-02 -2.956E-01 1.689E+01
8b Transition....................... 20 B...................... Linear Transition..... vrefB................. 4.286E-09 -5.150E-07 2.070E-05 5.214E-04 4.882E-04 -2.291E-02 -2.271E-01 1.157E+01
9a Steady-state..................... 196 B...................... 25.................... vrefB................. 1.662E-08 -4.261E-07 -2.705E-07 2.098E-05 4.046E-04 -1.037E-02 -1.263E-01 4.751E+00
9b Transition....................... 20 Linear Transition...... Linear Transition..... Linear Transition..... 7.492E-09 -5.451E-07 1.950E-05 2.243E-04 5.114E-04 -2.331E-02 -2.270E-01 1.062E+01
10a Steady-state.................... 28 C...................... 100................... vrefC................. -1.073E-09 -5.904E-07 3.477E-05 5.069E-04 5.647E-04 -3.354E-02 -2.648E-01 1.651E+01
10b Transition...................... 20 C...................... Linear Transition..... vrefC................. 9.957E-09 -5.477E-07 1.826E-05 2.399E-04 5.196E-04 -2.410E-02 -2.010E-01 1.128E+01
11a Steady-state.................... 4 C...................... 25.................... vrefC................. 1.916E-08 -5.023E-07 3.715E-06 3.634E-05 4.706E-04 -1.539E-02 -1.485E-01 6.827E+00
11b Transition...................... 20 C...................... Linear Transition..... vrefC................. 1.474E-08 -5.176E-07 1.027E-05 1.193E-04 4.911E-04 -1.937E-02 -1.713E-01 8.872E+00
12a Steady-state.................... 4 C...................... 75.................... vrefC................. 6.167E-09 -5.577E-07 2.354E-05 3.524E-04 5.319E-04 -2.708E-02 -2.253E-01 1.313E+01
12b Transition...................... 20 C...................... Linear Transition..... vrefC................. 1.039E-08 -5.451E-07 1.756E-05 2.257E-04 5.165E-04 -2.366E-02 -1.978E-01 1.106E+01
13a Steady-state.................... 4 C...................... 50.................... vrefC................. 6.209E-09 -5.292E-07 2.126E-05 3.475E-04 5.132E-04 -2.552E-02 -2.212E-01 1.274E+01
13b Transition...................... 20 Linear Transition...... Linear Transition..... Linear Transition..... 4.461E-09 -6.452E-07 1.301E-05 1.420E-03 5.779E-04 -1.564E-02 1.949E-01 7.998E+00
14 Steady-state..................... 144 Warm Idle.............. 0..................... 0..................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Engine speed terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065.
\b\ Advance from one mode to the next within a 20 second transition phase. During the transition phase, command a linear progression from the settings of the current mode to the settings of the next mode.
\c\ The percent torque is relative to maximum torque at the commanded engine speed.
[[Page 17695]]
(d) Determine criteria pollutant emissions for plug-in hybrid
engines and powertrains as follows:
(1) Precondition the engine or powertrain in charge-sustaining
mode. Perform testing as described in this section for hybrid engines
and hybrid powertrains in charge-sustaining mode.
(2) Carry out a charge-depleting test as described in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section, except as follows:
(i) Fully charge the RESS after preconditioning.
(ii) Operate the hybrid engine or powertrain continuously over
repeated SET duty cycles until you reach the end-of-test criterion
defined in 40 CFR 1066.501(a)(3).
(iii) Calculate emission results for each SET duty cycle. Figure 1
of this section provides an example of a charge-depleting test sequence
where there are two test intervals that contain engine operation.
(3) Report the highest emission result for each criteria pollutant
from all tests in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, even if
those individual results come from different test intervals.
(4) Figure 1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.027
(e) Determine greenhouse gas pollutant emissions for plug-in hybrid
engines and powertrains using the emissions results for all the SET
test intervals for both charge-depleting and charge-sustaining
operation from paragraph (d)(2) of this section. Calculate the utility
factor-weighted composite mass of emissions from the charge-depleting
and charge-sustaining test results, eUF[emission]comp, using
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.028
Where:
i = an indexing variable that represents one test interval.
N = total number of charge-depleting test intervals.
e[emission][int]CDi = total mass of emissions in the
charge-depleting portion of the test for each test interval, i,
starting from i = 1, including the test interval(s) from the
transition phase.
UFDCDi = utility factor fraction at distance DCDi from
Eq. 1036.505-11, as determined by interpolating the approved utility
factor curve for each test interval, i, starting from i = 1. Let
UFDCD0 = 0.
j = an indexing variable that represents one test interval.
M = total number of charge-sustaining test intervals.
e[emission][int]CSj = total mass of emissions in the
charge-sustaining portion of the test for each test interval, j,
starting from j = 1.
UFRCD = utility factor fraction at the full charge-
depleting distance, RCD, as determined by interpolating the approved
utility factor curve. RCD is the cumulative distance driven over N
charge-depleting test intervals.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.029
Where:
k = an indexing variable that represents one recorded velocity
value.
Q = total number of measurements over the test interval.
v = vehicle velocity at each time step, k, starting from k = 1. For
tests completed under this section, v is the vehicle
[[Page 17696]]
velocity from the vehicle model in 40 CFR 1037.550. Note that this
should include charge-depleting test intervals that start when the
engine is not yet operating.
[Delta]t = 1/frecord
frecord = the record rate.
Example using the charge-depletion test in Figure 1 of Sec.
1036.505 for the SET for CO2 emission determination:
Q = 24000
v1 = 0 mi/hr
v2 = 0.8 mi/hr
v3 = 1.1 mi/hr
frecord = 10 Hz
[Delta]t = 1/10 Hz = 0.1 s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.030
DCD2 = 30.0 mi
DCD3 = 30.1 mi
DCD4 = 30.2 mi
DCD5 = 30.1 mi
N = 5
UFDCD1 = 0.11
UFDCD2 = 0.23
UFDCD3 = 0.34
UFDCD4 = 0.45
UFDCD5 = 0.53
eCO2SETCD1 = 0 g/hp[middot]hr
eCO2SETCD2 = 0 g/hp[middot]hr
eCO2SETCD3 = 0 g/hp[middot]hr
eCO2SETCD4 = 0 g/hp[middot]hr
eCO2SETCD5 = 174.4 g/hp[middot]hr
M = 1
eCO2SETCS = 428.1 g/hp[middot]hr
UFRCD = 0.53
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.031
(f) Calculate and evaluate cycle statistics as specified in 40 CFR
1065.514 for nonhybrid engines and 40 CFR 1037.550 for hybrid engines
and hybrid powertrains.
(g) Calculate cycle work for powertrain testing using system power,
Psys. Determine Psys, using Sec. 1036.527(e).
(h) If you certify to the clean idle standard in Sec. 1036.104(b),
determine the mean mass emission rate, mI[emission], in g/hr
over the combined warm idle modes 1a and 14 of the SET duty cycle for
HC, CO, and PM by calculating the total emission mass
m[emission] and dividing by the total time. Note that this
requires creating composite emission values from separate samples for
CO and PM. These values for mI[emission] serve as emission
standards for testing over the Clean Idle test in Sec. 1036.514.
(Note: For plug-in hybrid engines and powertrains, use the SET results
from the charge-sustaining or charge-depleting tests that have the
highest emission values.)
Sec. 1036.510 Federal Test Procedure.
(a) Measure emissions using the transient Federal Test Procedure
(FTP) as described in this section to determine whether engines meet
the emission standards in subpart B of this part. Operate the engine or
hybrid powertrain over one of the following transient duty cycles:
(1) For engines subject to spark-ignition standards, use the
transient duty cycle described in paragraph (b) of appendix B of this
part.
(2) For engines subject to compression-ignition standards, use the
transient duty cycle described in paragraph (c) of appendix B of this
part.
(b) The following procedures apply differently for testing engines
and hybrid powertrains:
(1) The transient duty cycles for nonhybrid engine testing are
based on normalized speed and torque values. Denormalize speed as
described in 40 CFR 1065.512. Denormalize torque as described in 40 CFR
1065.610(d).
(2) Test hybrid engines and hybrid powertrains as described in
Sec. 1036.505(b)(2), with the following exceptions:
(i) Replace Pcontrated with Prated, which is
the peak rated power determined in Sec. 1036.527.
(ii) Keep the transmission in drive for all idle segments after the
initial idle segment.
(iii) For hybrid engines, select the transmission from Table 1 of
Sec. 1036.540, substituting ``engine'' for ``vehicle''.
(iv) For hybrid engines, you may request to change the engine-
commanded torque at idle to better represent curb idle transmission
torque (CITT).
(v) For plug-in hybrid engines and powertrains, test over the FTP
in both charge-sustaining and charge-depleting operation for both
criteria and greenhouse gas pollutant determination.
(c) The FTP duty cycle consists of an initial run through the
transient duty cycle from a cold start as described in 40 CFR part
1065, subpart F, followed by a (20 1) minute hot soak with
no engine operation, and then a final hot start run through the same
transient duty cycle. Engine starting is part of both the cold-start
and hot-start test intervals. Calculate the total emission mass of each
constituent, m, and the total work, W, over each test interval as
described in 40 CFR 1065.650. Calculate total work over each test
interval for powertrain testing using system power, Psys.
Determine Psys using Sec. 1036.527(e). For powertrains with
automatic transmissions, account for and include the work produced by
the engine from the CITT load. Calculate the official transient
emission result from the cold-start and hot-start test intervals using
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.032
[[Page 17697]]
(d) Determine criteria pollutant emissions for plug-in hybrid
engines and powertrains as follows:
(1) Precondition the engine or powertrain in charge-sustaining
mode. Perform testing as described in this section for hybrid engines
and hybrid powertrains in charge-sustaining mode.
(2) Carry out a charge-depleting test as described in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section, except as follows:
(i) Fully charge the battery after preconditioning.
(ii) Operate the hybrid engine or powertrain over one FTP duty
cycle followed by alternating repeats of a 20-minute soak and a hot
start test interval until you reach the end-of-test criteria defined in
40 CFR 1066.501.
(iii) Calculate emission results for each successive pair of test
intervals. Calculate the emission result by treating the first of the
two test intervals as a cold-start test. Figure 1 of this section
provides an example of a charge-depleting test sequence where there are
three test intervals with engine operation for two overlapping FTP duty
cycles.
(3) Report the highest emission result for each criteria pollutant
from all tests in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, even if
those individual results come from different test intervals.
(4) Figure 1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.033
(e) Determine greenhouse gas pollutant emissions for plug-in hybrid
engines and powertrains using the emissions results for all the
transient duty cycle test intervals described in either paragraph (b)
or (c) of appendix B of this part for both charge-depleting and charge-
sustaining operation from paragraph (d)(2) of this section. Calculate
the utility factor weighted composite mass of emissions from the
charge-depleting and charge-sustaining test results,
eUF[emission]comp, as described in Sec. 1036.505(e),
replacing occurances of ``SET'' with ``transient test interval''. Note
this results in composite FTP GHG emission results for plug-in hybrid
engines and powertrains without the use of the cold-start and hot-start
test interval weighting factors in Eq. 1036.510-1.
(f) Calculate and evaluate cycle statistics as specified in 40 CFR
1065.514 for nonhybrid engines and 40 CFR 1037.550 for hybrid engines
and hybrid powertrains.
(g) If you certify to the clean idle standard in Sec. 1036.104(b),
determine the mean mass emission rate, mI[emission], in g/hr
over the idle segments of the FTP duty cycle for HC, CO, and PM by
calculating the total emission mass m[emission] and dividing
by the total time. Note that this requires creating composite emission
values from separate samples for CO and PM. These values for
mI[emission] serve as emission standards for testing over
the Clean Idle test in Sec. 1036.514. (Note: For plug-in hybrid
engines and powertrains, use the FTP results from the charge-sustaining
or charge-depleting tests that have the highest emission values.)
Sec. 1036.512 Low Load Cycle.
(a) Measure emissions using the transient Low Load Cycle (LLC) as
described in this section to determine whether engines meet the LLC
emission standards in Sec. 1036.104.
(b) The operating profile for the LLC is in paragraph (d) of
appendix B of this part. The following procedures apply differently for
testing engines and hybrid powertrains:
(1) For engine testing, the duty cycle is based on normalized speed
and torque values.
(i) Denormalize speed as described in 40 CFR 1065.512. Denormalize
torque as described in 40 CFR 1065.610(d).
(ii) For idle segments more than 200 seconds, set reference torques
to zero instead of CITT. This is to represent shifting the transmission
to park or neutral at the start of the idle segment. Change the
reference torque to CITT no earlier than 5 seconds before the end of
the idle segment. This is to represent shifting the transmission to
drive.
(2) Test hybrid powertrains as described in Sec. 1036.505(b)(2),
with the following exceptions:
(i) Replace Pcontrated with Prated, which is
the peak rated power determined in Sec. 1036.527.
(ii) Keep the transmission in drive for all idle segments 200
seconds or less. For idle segments more than 200 seconds, place the
transmission in park or neutral at the start of the idle segment and
place the transmission into drive
[[Page 17698]]
again no earlier than 5 seconds before the first nonzero vehicle speed
setpoint.
(3) For gaseous-fueled engine testing with a single-point fuel
injection system, you may apply all the statistical criteria in Sec.
1036.540(d)(3) to validate the LLC.
(c) Set dynamometer torque demand such that vehicle power
represents an accessory load for all idle operation as described in
Table 1 of paragraph (c)(4) of this section for each primary intended
service class. Additional provisions related to accessory load apply
for the following special cases:
(1) For engines with stop-start technology, account for accessory
load during engine-off conditions by determining the total engine-off
power demand over the test interval and distributing that load over the
engine-on portions of the test interval based on calculated average
power. You may determine the engine-off time by running practice cycles
or through engineering analysis.
(2) Apply accessory loads for hybrid powertrain testing that
includes the transmission either as a mechanical or electrical load.
(3) You may apply the following deviations from specified torque
settings for smoother idle (other than idle that includes motoring), or
you may develop different procedures for adjusting accessory load at
idle consistent with good engineering judgment:
(i) Set the reference torque to correspond to the applicable
accessory load for all points with normalized speed at or below zero
percent and reference torque from zero up to the torque corresponding
to the accessory load.
(ii) Change the reference torques to correspond to the applicable
accessory load for consecutive points with reference torques from zero
up to the torque corresponding to the accessory load that immediately
precedes or follows idle points.
(4) Table 1 follows:
Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(4) of Sec. 1036.512--Accessory Load at Idle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power
representing
Primary intended service class accessory load
(kW)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light HDE............................................... 1.5
Medium HDE.............................................. 2.5
Heavy HDE............................................... 3.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) The transient test sequence consists of preconditioning the
engine by running one or two FTPs with each FTP followed by (20 1) minutes with no engine operation and running the LLC. You may
start any preconditioning FTP with a hot engine. Perform testing as
described in 40 CFR 1065.530 for a test interval that includes engine
starting. Calculate the total emission mass of each constituent, m, and
the total work, W, as described in 40 CFR 1065.650.
(e) Determine criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions for
plug-in hybrid engines and powertrains as described in Sec.
1036.505(d) and (e), replacing ``SET'' with ``LLC''.
(f) Calculate and evaluate cycle statistics as specified in 40 CFR
1065.514 for nonhybrid engines and 40 CFR 1037.550 for hybrid engines
and hybrid powertrains.
Sec. 1036.514 Clean Idle test.
Measure emissions using the procedures described in this section to
determine whether engines and hybrid powertrains meet the clean idle
emission standards in Sec. 1036.104(b). For plug-in hybrid engines and
powertrains, perform the test with the hybrid function disabled.
(a) The clean idle test consists of two separate test intervals as
follows:
(1) Mode 1 consists of engine operation with a speed setpoint at
your recommended warm idle speed. Set the dynamometer torque demand
corresponding to vehicle power requirements at your recommended warm
idle speed that represent in-use operation.
(2) Mode 2 consists of engine operation with a speed setpoint at
1100 r/min. Set the dynamometer torque demand to account for the sum of
the following power loads:
(i) Determine power requirements for idling at 1100 r/min.
(ii) Apply a power demand of 2 kW to account for appliances and
accessories the vehicle operator may use during rest periods.
(3) Determine torque demand for testing under this paragraph (a)
based on an accessory load that includes the engine cooling fan,
alternator, coolant pump, air compressor, engine oil and fuel pumps,
and any other engine accessory that operates at the specific test
condition. Also include the accessory load from the air conditioning
compressor operating at full capacity for Mode 2. Do not include any
other load for air conditioning or other cab or vehicle accessories
except as specified.
(b) Perform the Clean Idle test as follows:
(1) Warm up the engine by operating it over the FTP or SET duty
cycle, or by operating it at any speed above peak-torque speed and at
(65 to 85) % of maximum mapped power. The warm-up is complete when the
engine thermostat controls engine temperature or when the engine
coolant's temperature is within 2% of its mean value for at least 2
minutes.
(2) Start operating the engine in Mode 1 as soon as practical after
the engine warm-up is complete.
(3) Start sampling emissions 10 minutes after reaching the speed
and torque setpoints and continue emission sampling and engine
operation at those setpoints. Stop emission sampling after 1200 seconds
to complete the test interval.
(4) Linearly ramp the speed and torque setpoints over 5 seconds to
start operating the engine in Mode 2. Sample emissions during Mode 2 as
described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(c) Verify that the test speed stays within 50 r/min of
the speed setpoint throughout the test. The torque tolerance is 2 percent of the maximum mapped torque at the test speed. Verify
that measured torque meets the torque tolerance relative to the torque
setpoint throughout the test.
(d) Calculate the mean mass emission rate of NOX, HC,
CO, and PM, mi[emission] over each test interval by
calculating the total emission mass m[emission] and dividing
by the total time.
Sec. 1036.515 Test procedures for off-cycle testing.
(a) General. This section describes the measurement and calculation
procedures to perform field testing under subpart E of this part. Use
good engineering judgment if you use these procedures to simulate
vehicle operation in the laboratory.
(b) Emission measurement. Set up the vehicle for testing with a
portable emissions measurement system (PEMS) as specified in 40 CFR
part 1065, subpart J. Measure emissions over one or more shift-days as
specified in subpart E of this part. Collect data using moving average
windows as follows:
(1) Start the engine at the beginning of the shift-day only after
confirming that engine coolant temperature is at or below 30 [deg]C and
that all measurement systems are activated as described in 40 CFR
1065.935(c)(3). Start emission sampling just before starting the
engine.
(2) Determine the test interval as follows:
(i) For Light HDE, Medium HDE, and Heavy HDE, establish a test
interval for every 300 second moving average window until key-off.
Create each new window starting 1 second after the start of the
previous window. Note that most 1 Hz data points will be included in
300 windows.
[[Page 17699]]
(ii) For Spark-ignition HDE, your test interval is the entire
shift-day except for data excluded under paragraph (c) of this section.
(3) For Light HDE, Medium HDE, and Heavy HDE, create windows as
follows if you exclude data under paragraph (c) of this section:
(i) For excluded blocks of data that are less than 300 seconds
long, create 300 second moving average windows that include operation
before and after the excluded portion. The resulting windows might
include multiple interruptions less than 300 seconds long that may
total more than 300 seconds.
(ii) For excluded blocks of data that are 300 seconds or longer,
discontinue windows at the start of the excluded portion. Create new
300 second moving average windows following the excluded portion, like
at the start of the shift-day.
(c) Exclusions. Exclude the following shift-day data:
(1) Data collected during the PEMS zero and span drift checks or
zero and span calibrations. Emissions analyzers are not available to
measure emissions during that time and these checks/calibrations are
needed to ensure the robustness of the data.
(2) Data collected where the engine is off, including engine off
due to automated start/stop.
(3) Data collected during infrequent regeneration events. The data
collected for the test order may not collect enough operation during
the infrequent regeneration to properly weight the emissions rates
during an infrequent regeneration event with emissions that occur
without an infrequent regeneration event.
(4) Data collected where the instantaneous ambient air temperature
is below -7 [deg]C or above the value in degrees Celsius calculated
using Eq. 1036.515-1. Colder temperatures can significantly inhibit the
engine's ability to maintain aftertreatment temperature above the
minimum operating temperature of the SCR catalyst while high
temperature conditions at altitude can adversely affect (limit) the
mass airflow through the engine, which can affect the engine's ability
to reduce engine out NOX through the use of EGR. In addition
to affecting EGR, the air-fuel ratio of the engine can decrease under
high load, which can increase exhaust temperatures above the condition
where the SCR catalyst is most efficient at reducing NOX.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.034
Where:
h = instantaneous altitude in feet above sea level (h is negative
for altitudes below sea-level).
(5) Data collected where the altitude more than 5,500 feet above
sea level for the same reasons given for the high temperature at
altitude exclusion in paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(6) If your engine family includes engines with one or more
approved AECDs for emergency vehicle applications under Sec.
1036.115(h)(4), any data where these AECDs are active because the
engines are allowed to exceed the emission standards when these AECDs
are active. Do not exclude data for any other AECDs.
(d) Mean mass percent of CO2 from normalized CO2 rate. For Light
HDE, Medium HDE, and Heavy HDE, determine the mean mass percent of
CO2 of a window, wCO2win, using the following
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.035
Where:
miCO2win = mean mass rate of CO2 over the
valid window.
mCO2max = eCO2FTPFCL [middot] Pmax
eCO2FTPFCL = the engine's FTP FCL CO2 emission
value.
Pmax = the engine family's maximum power determined
according to the torque mapping test procedure defined in 40 CFR
1065.510.
Example:
miCO2win = 13.16 g/s = 47368 g/hr
eCO2FTPFCL = 428.2 g/hp[middot]hr
Pmax = 406.5 hp
mCO2max = 428.2 [middot] 406.5 = = 174063 g/hr
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.036
(e) Binning. For Light HDE, Medium HDE, and Heavy HDE, segregate
test results from each 300 second window over the shift-day based on
its mean mass percent of CO2 into one of the following bins:
Table 1 to paragraph (e) of Sec. 1036.515--Criteria for Off-Cycle Bin
Types
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin Mean mass percent of CO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idle...................................... wCO2win <= 6%.
Low load.................................. 6% < wCO2win <= 20%.
Medium/high load.......................... wCO2win > 20%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) Window emission values. For Light HDE, Medium HDE, and Heavy
HDE, determine the emission mass for a given window,
m[emission]win, for CO2 and other measured
emissions using the following equation:
[[Page 17700]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.037
Where:
i = an indexing variable that represents one recorded emission
value.
N = total number of measurements in the window.
m[emission] = mass emission rate at a point in time
within a given window.
[Delta]t = 1/[fnof]record
[fnof]record = the record rate.
Example:
N = 300
mNOx1 = 0.0179 g/s
mNOx2 = 0.0181 g/s
[fnof]record = 1 Hz
[Delta]t = 1/1 Hz = 1 s
mNOxwin = (0.0179 + 0.0181+ . . . +mNOx300)
[middot] 1 = 5.46 g
(g) Bin emission values. For Light HDE, Medium HDE, and Heavy HDE,
determine the emission value for each bin, which may include
measurement windows from multiple vehicles.
(1) Determine the sum of the NOX emissions from each
window for the idle bin, eNOxidle, using the following
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.038
Where:
i = an indexing variable that represents one window.
N = total number of windows in the bin.
mNOxidlewin = total mass of NOX emissions for
a given window as determined in paragraph (f) of this section.
ti = duration for a given window = 300 seconds.
Example:
N = 10114
mNOxidlewin1 = 0.021 g
mNOxidlewin2 = 0.025 g
t1 = 300 s
t2 = 300 s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.039
(2) Determine the sum of mass emissions from each window over the
sum of CO2 emissions from each window for the low load and
medium high load bins, esos[emission][bin], for each
measured pollutant using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.040
Where:
i = an indexing variable that represents mass emissions from one
window.
N = total number of windows in the bin.
m[emission][bin]win = sum of mass for each emission for a
given window and bin as determined in paragraph (f) of this section.
mCO2[bin]win = sum of mass for CO2 for a given
window and bin as determined in paragraph (f) of this section.
eCO2FTPFCL = the FCL value for CO2 emissions
over the FTP duty cycle identified in the engine family's
application for certification.
Example:
N = 15439
mNOxmediumhighloadwin1 = 0.546 g
mNOxmediumhighloadwin2 = 0.549 g
mCO2mediumhighloadwin1 = 10950.2 g
mCO2mediumhighloadwin2 = 10961.3 g
eCO2 FTPFCL = 428.1 g/hp[middot]hr
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.041
(h) Shift-day emission values for spark-ignition engines. For
spark-ignition engines, determine the shift-day emission values as
follows:
(1) Determine the emission mass for a shift-day,
m[emission]shift, for each measured pollutant and
CO2 using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.042
[[Page 17701]]
Where:
i = an indexing variable that represents one recorded emission
value.
N = total number of measurements in the shift-day.
m[emission] = mass emission rate at a point in time
within a given shift-day.
[Delta]t = 1/[fnof]record
[fnof]record = the record rate.
Example:
N = 24543
mNOx1 = 0.0187 g/s
mNOx2 = 0.0191 g/s
[fnof]record = 1 Hz
[Delta]t = 1/1 Hz = 1 s
mNOxshift = (0.0187 + 0.0191 + . . . +
mNOX24543)= [middot] 1 = 1.337 g
(2) Determine the sum of mass emissions from the shift day over the
sum of CO2 emissions from the shift day,
esos[emission]shift, for each measured pollutant using the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.043
Where:
m[emission]shift = sum of mass for each emission for the
shift day as determined in paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
mCO2shift = sum of mass for CO2 for the shift
day as determined in paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
eCO2FTPFCL = the FCL value for CO2
emissions over the FTP duty cycle identified in the engine family's
application for certification.
Example:
mNOxshift = 1.337 g
mCO2shift = 18778 g
eCO2 FTPFCL = 505.1 g/hp[middot]hr
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.044
Sec. 1036.520 Test procedures to verify deterioration factors.
Sections 1036.240 through 1036.246 describe certification
procedures to determine, verify, and apply deterioration factors. This
section describes the measurement procedures for verifying
deterioration factors using PEMS or onboard NOX sensors with
in-use vehicles.
(a) Use PEMS or onboard NOX sensors to collect 1 Hz data
throughout a shift-day of driving. Collect all the data elements needed
to determine brake-specific emissions. Calculate emission results using
moving average windows as described in Sec. 1036.515.
(b) Collect data as needed to perform the calculations specified in
paragraph (a) of this section and to submit the test report specified
in Sec. 1036.246(f).
Sec. 1036.522 Infrequently regenerating aftertreatment devices.
For engines using aftertreatment technology with infrequent
regeneration events that may occur during testing, take one of the
following approaches to account for the emission impact of regeneration
on criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions:
(a) You may use the calculation methodology described in 40 CFR
1065.680 to adjust measured emission results. Do this by developing an
upward adjustment factor and a downward adjustment factor for each
pollutant based on measured emission data and observed regeneration
frequency as follows:
(1) Adjustment factors should generally apply to an entire engine
family, but you may develop separate adjustment factors for different
configurations within an engine family. Use the adjustment factors from
this section for all testing for the engine family.
(2) You may use carryover data to establish adjustment factors for
an engine family as described in Sec. 1036.235(d), consistent with
good engineering judgment.
(3) Identify the value of F[cycle] in each application
for the certification for which it applies.
(4) Calculate separate adjustment factors for each required duty
cycle.
(b) You may ask us to approve an alternate methodology to account
for regeneration events. We will generally limit approval to cases
where your engines use aftertreatment technology with extremely
infrequent regeneration and you are unable to apply the provisions of
this section.
(c) You may choose to make no adjustments to measured emission
results if you determine that regeneration does not significantly
affect emission levels for an engine family (or configuration) or if it
is not practical to identify when regeneration occurs. You may omit
adjustment factors under this paragraph (c) for N2O,
CH4, or other individual pollutants under this paragraph (c)
as appropriate. If you choose not to make adjustments under paragraph
(a) or (b) of this section, your engines must meet emission standards
for all testing, without regard to regeneration.
Sec. 1036.527 Powertrain system rated power determination.
This section describes how to determine the peak and continuous
rated power of conventional and hybrid powertrain systems and the
vehicle speed for carrying out testing according to Sec. Sec. 1036.505
and 1036.510 and 40 CFR 1037.550.
(a) Set up the powertrain according to 40 CFR 1037.550, but use the
vehicle parameters in Sec. 1036.505(b)(2), except replace
Pcontrated with the manufacturer declared system peak power
and use applicable automatic transmission for the engine. Note that if
you repeat the system rated power determination as described in
paragraph (f)(4) of this section, use the measured system peak power in
place of Pcontrated.
(b) Prior to the start of each test interval verify the following:
(1) The state-of-charge of the rechargeable energy storage system
(RESS) is >= 90% of the operating range between the minimum and maximum
RESS energy levels specified by the manufacturer.
(2) The conditions of all hybrid system components are within their
normal operating range as declared by the manufacturer.
(3) RESS restrictions (e.g., power limiting, thermal limits, etc.)
are not active.
(c) Carry out the test as follows:
(1) Warm up the powertrain by operating it. We recommend operating
the powertrain at any vehicle speed and road grade that achieves
approximately 75% of its expected maximum power.
[[Page 17702]]
Continue the warm-up until 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.
(2) Once warmup is complete, bring the vehicle speed to 0 mi/hr and
start the test by operating the powertrain at 0 mi/hr for 50 seconds.
(3) Set maximum driver demand for a full load acceleration at 6%
road grade with an initial vehicle speed of 0 mi/hr. After 268 seconds,
linearly ramp the grade from 6% down to 0% over 300 seconds. Stop the
test after the vehicle speed has reached a maximum value.
(d) Record the powertrain system angular speed and torque values
measured at the dynamometer at 100 Hz and use these in conjunction with
the vehicle model to calculate Psys,vehicle.
(e) Calculate the system power, Psys, for each data
point as follows:
(1) For testing with the speed and torque measurements at the
transmission input shaft, Psysi is equal to the calculated
vehicle system power, Psysi,vehicle, determined
in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(2) For testing with the speed and torque measurements at the axle
input shaft or the wheel hubs, determine Psys for each data
point using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.045
(f) The system peak rated power, Prated, is the highest
calculated Psys where the coefficient of variation (COV)
<2%. The COV is determined as follows:
(1) Calculate the standard deviation, [sigma](t).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.046
Where:
N = the number of measurement intervals = 20.
Psysi = the N samples of Psys in the 100 Hz
signal previously used to calculate the respective
Psys(t) values at the time step t.
Psys(t) = the power vector from the results of each test
run that is determined by a moving averaging of 20 consecutive
samples of Psys in the 100 Hz that converts
Psys(t) to a 5 Hz signal.
(2) The resulting 5 Hz power and covariance signals are used to
determine system rated power.
(3) The coefficient of variation COV(t) shall be calculated as the
ratio of the standard deviation, [sigma](t), to the mean value of
power,Psys(t), for each time step t.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.047
(4) If the determined system peak rated power is not within 3% of the system peak rated power as declared by the
manufacturer, you must repeat the procedure in paragraphs (a) through
(f)(3) of this section using the measured system peak rated power
determined in this paragraph (f) instead of the manufacturer declared
value. The result from this repeat is the final determined system peak
rated power.
(5) If the determined system peak rated power is within 3% of the system peak rated power as declared by the
[[Page 17703]]
manufacturer, the declared system peak rated power shall be used.
(g) Determine continuous rated power as follows:
(1) For conventional powertrains, Pcontrated equals
Prated.
(2) For hybrid powertrains, continuous rated power,
Pcontrated, is the maximum measured power from the data
collected in paragraph (c)(3) of this section that meets the
requirements in paragraph (f) of this section.
(h) Vehicle C speed, vrefC, is determined as follows:
(1) For powertrains where Psys is greater than
0.98[middot]Pcontrated in top gear at more than one vehicle
speed, vrefC is the average of the minimum and maximum
vehicle speeds from the data collected in paragraph (c)(3) of this
section that meets the requirements in paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) For powertrains where Psys is less than
0.98[middot]Pcontrated in top gear at more than one vehicle
speed, vrefC is the maximum vehicle speed from the data
collected in paragraph (c)(3) of this section that meets the
requirements in paragraph (f) of this section where Psys is
greater than 0.98[middot]Pcontrated.
Sec. 1036.530 Calculating greenhouse gas emission rates.
This section describes how to calculate official emission results
for CO2, CH4, and N2O.
(a) Calculate brake-specific emission rates for each applicable
duty cycle as specified in 40 CFR 1065.650. Apply infrequent
regeneration adjustment factors as described in Sec. 1036.522.
(b) Adjust CO2 emission rates calculated under paragraph
(a) of this section for measured test fuel properties as specified in
this paragraph (b). This adjustment is intended to make official
emission results independent of differences in test fuels within a fuel
type. Use good engineering judgment to develop and apply testing
protocols to minimize the impact of variations in test fuels.
(1) Determine your test fuel's mass-specific net energy content,
Emfuelmeas, also known as lower heating value, in MJ/kg,
expressed to at least three decimal places. Determine
Emfuelmeas as follows:
(i) For liquid fuels, determine Emfuelmeas according to
ASTM D4809 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1036.810). Have the
sample analyzed by at least three different labs and determine the
final value of your test fuel's Emfuelmeas as the median all
of the lab results you obtained. If you have results from three
different labs, we recommend you screen them to determine if additional
observations are needed. To perform this screening, determine the
absolute value of the difference between each lab result and the
average of the other two lab results. If the largest of these three
resulting absolute value differences is greater than 0.297 MJ/kg, we
recommend you obtain additional results prior to determining the final
value of Emfuelmeas.
(ii) For gaseous fuels, determine Emfuelmeas according
to ASTM D3588 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1036.810).
(2) Determine your test fuel's carbon mass fraction, wC,
as described in 40 CFR 1065.655(d), expressed to at least three decimal
places; however, you must measure fuel properties rather than using the
default values specified in Table 1 of 40 CFR 1065.655.
(i) For liquid fuels, have the sample analyzed by at least three
different labs and determine the final value of your test fuel's
wC as the median of all of the lab results you obtained. If
you have results from three different labs, we recommend you screen
them to determine if additional observations are needed. To perform
this screening, determine the absolute value of the difference between
each lab result and the average of the other two lab results. If the
largest of these three resulting absolute value differences is greater
than 1.56 percent carbon, we recommend you obtain additional results
prior to determining the final value of wC.
(ii) For gaseous fuels, have the sample analyzed by a single lab
and use that result as your test fuel's wC.
(3) If, over a period of time, you receive multiple fuel deliveries
from a single stock batch of test fuel, you may use constant values for
mass-specific energy content and carbon mass fraction, consistent with
good engineering judgment. To use these constant values, you must
demonstrate that every subsequent delivery comes from the same stock
batch and that the fuel has not been contaminated.
(4) Correct measured CO2 emission rates as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.048
Where:
eCO2 = the calculated CO2 emission result.
Emfuelmeas = the mass-specific net energy content of the
test fuel as determined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Note
that dividing this value by wCmeas (as is done in this
equation) equates to a carbon-specific net energy content having the
same units as EmfuelCref.
EmfuelCref = the reference value of carbon-mass-specific
net energy content for the appropriate fuel type, as determined in
Table 1 in this section.
wCmeas = carbon mass fraction of the test fuel (or
mixture of test fuels) as determined in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
Example:
eCO2 = 630.0 g/hp[middot]hr
Emfuelmeas = 42.528 MJ/kg
EmfuelCref = 49.3112 MJ/kgC
wCmeas = 0.870
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.049
eCO2cor = 624.5 g/hp[middot]hr
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(4) of Sec. 1036.530--Reference Fuel Properties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference fuel carbon-
mass-specific net Reference fuel carbon
Fuel type \a\ energy content, mass fraction, wCref
EmfuelCref, (MJ/kgC) b \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel fuel................................................... 49.3112 0.874
Gasoline...................................................... 50.4742 0.846
Natural Gas................................................... 66.2910 0.750
LPG........................................................... 56.5218 0.820
Dimethyl Ether................................................ 55.3886 0.521
High-level ethanol-gasoline blends............................ 50.3211 0.576
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For fuels that are not listed, you must ask us to approve reference fuel properties.
\b\ For multi-fuel streams, such as natural gas with diesel fuel pilot injection, use good engineering judgment
to determine blended values for EmfuelCref and wCref using the values in this table.
[[Page 17704]]
(c) Your official emission result for each pollutant equals your
calculated brake-specific emission rate multiplied by all applicable
adjustment factors, other than the deterioration factor.
Sec. 1036.535 Determining steady-state engine fuel maps and fuel
consumption at idle.
The procedures in this section describe how to determine an
engine's steady-state fuel map and fuel consumption at idle for model
year 2021 and later vehicles; these procedures apply as described in
Sec. 1036.503. Vehicle manufacturers may need these values to
demonstrate compliance with emission standards under 40 CFR part 1037.
(a) General test provisions. Perform fuel mapping using the
procedure described in paragraph (b) of this section to establish
measured fuel-consumption rates at a range of engine speed and load
settings. Measure fuel consumption at idle using the procedure
described in paragraph (c) of this section. Paragraph (d) of this
section describes how to apply the steady-state mapping from paragraph
(b) of this section for the special case of cycle-average mapping for
highway cruise cycles as described in Sec. 1036.540. Use these
measured fuel-consumption values to declare fuel-consumption rates for
certification as described in paragraph (g) of this section.
(1) Map the engine's torque curve and declare engine idle speed as
described in Sec. 1036.503(c)(1) and (3). Perform emission
measurements as described in 40 CFR 1065.501 and 1065.530 for discrete-
mode steady-state testing. This section uses engine parameters and
variables that are consistent with 40 CFR part 1065.
(2) Measure NOX emissions as described in paragraph (f)
of this section. Include these measured NOX values any time
you report to us your fuel consumption values from testing under this
section.
(3) You may use shared data across engine configurations to the
extent that the fuel-consumption rates remain valid.
(4) The provisions related to carbon balance error verification in
Sec. 1036.543 apply for all testing in this section. These procedures
are optional, but we will perform carbon balance error verification for
all testing under this section.
(5) Correct fuel mass flow rate to a mass-specific net energy
content of a reference fuel as described in paragraph (e) of this
section.
(b) Steady-state fuel mapping. Determine steady-state fuel-
consumption rates for each engine configuration over a series of paired
engine speed and torque setpoints as described in this paragraph (b).
For example, if you test a high-output (parent) configuration and
create a different (child) configuration that uses the same fueling
strategy but limits the engine operation to be a subset of that from
the high-output configuration, you may use the fuel-consumption rates
for the reduced number of mapped points for the low-output
configuration, as long as the narrower map includes at least 70 points.
Perform fuel mapping as follows:
(1) Generate the fuel-mapping sequence of engine speed and torque
setpoints as follows:
(i) Select the following required speed setpoints: Warm idle speed,
fnidle the highest speed above maximum power at which 70% of
maximum power occurs, nhi, and eight (or more) equally
spaced points between fnidle and nhi. (See 40 CFR
1065.610(c)). For engines with adjustable warm idle speed, replace
fnidle with minimum warm idle speed fnidlemin.
(ii) Determine the following default torque setpoints at each of
the selected speed setpoints: Zero (T = 0), maximum mapped torque,
Tmax mapped, and eight (or more) equally spaced points
between T = 0 and Tmax mapped. Select the maximum torque
setpoint at each speed to conform to the torque map as follows:
(A) Calculate 5 percent of Tmax mapped. Subtract this
result from the mapped torque at each speed setpoint, Tmax.
(B) Select Tmax at each speed setpoint as a single
torque value to represent all the default torque setpoints above the
value determined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. All the
default torque setpoints less than Tmax at a given speed
setpoint are required torque setpoints.
(iii) You may select any additional speed and torque setpoints
consistent with good engineering judgment. For example you may need to
select additional points if the engine's fuel consumption is nonlinear
across the torque map. Avoid creating a problem with interpolation
between narrowly spaced speed and torque setpoints near
Tmax. For each additional speed setpoint, we recommend
including a torque setpoint of Tmax; however, you may select
torque setpoints that properly represent in-use operation. Increments
for torque setpoints between these minimum and maximum values at an
additional speed setpoint must be no more than one-ninth of
Tmax,mapped. Note that if the test points were added for the
child rating, they should still be reported in the parent fuel map. We
will test with at least as many points as you. If you add test points
to meet testing requirements for child ratings, include those same test
points as reported values for the parent fuel map. For our testing, we
will use the same normalized speed and torque test points you use, and
we may select additional test points.
(iv) Start fuel-map testing at the highest speed setpoint and
highest torque setpoint, followed by decreasing torque setpoints at the
highest speed setpoint. Continue testing at the next lowest speed
setpoint and the highest torque setpoint at that speed setpoint,
followed by decreasing torque setpoints at that speed setpoint. Follow
this pattern through all the speed and torque points, ending with the
lowest speed (fnidle or fnidlemin) and torque
setpoint (T = 0). The following figure illustrates an array of test
points and the corresponding run order.
[[Page 17705]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.050
(v) The highest torque setpoint for each speed setpoint is an
optional reentry point to restart fuel mapping after an incomplete test
run.
(vi) The lowest torque setpoint at each speed setpoint is an
optional exit point to interrupt testing. Paragraph (b)(7) of this
section describes how to interrupt testing at other times.
(2) If the engine's warm idle speed is adjustable, set it to its
minimum value, fnidlemin.
(3) The measurement at each unique combination of speed and torque
setpoints constitutes a test interval. Unless we specify otherwise, you
may program the dynamometer to control either speed or torque for a
given test interval, with operator demand controlling the other
parameter. Control speed and torque so that all recorded speed points
are within 1% of nhi from the target speed and
all recorded engine torque points are within 5% of
Tmax mapped from the target torque during each test
interval, except as follows:
(i) For steady-state engine operating points that cannot be
achieved, and the operator demand stabilizes at minimum; program the
dynamometer to control torque and let the engine govern speed (see 40
CFR 1065.512(b)(1)). Control torque so that all recorded engine torque
points are within 25 N[middot]m from the target torque. The
specified speed tolerance does not apply for the test interval.
(ii) For steady-state engine operating points that cannot be
achieved and the operator demand stabilizes at maximum and the speed
setpoint is below 90% of nhi even with maximum operator
demand, program the dynamometer to control speed and let the engine
govern torque (see 40 CFR 1065.512(b)(2)). The specified torque
tolerance does not apply for the test interval.
(iii) For steady-state engine operating points that cannot be
achieved and the operator demand stabilizes at maximum and the speed
setpoint is at or above 90% of nhi even with maximum
operator demand, program the dynamometer to control torque and let the
engine govern speed (see 40 CFR 1065.512(b)(1)). The specified speed
tolerance does not apply for the test interval.
(iv) For the steady-state engine operating points at the minimum
speed setpoint and maximum torque setpoint, you may program the
dynamometer to control speed and let the engine govern torque. The
specified torque tolerance does not apply for this test interval if
operator demand stabilizes at its maximum or minimum limit.
(4) Record measurements using direct and/or indirect measurement of
fuel flow as follows:
(i) Direct fuel-flow measurement. Record speed and torque and
measure fuel consumption with a fuel flow meter for (30 1)
seconds. Determine the corresponding mean values for the test interval.
Use of redundant direct fuel-flow measurements require prior EPA
approval.
(ii) Indirect fuel-flow measurement. Record speed and torque and
measure emissions and other inputs needed to run the chemical balance
in 40 CFR 1065.655(c) for (30 1) seconds. Determine the
corresponding mean values for the test interval. Use of redundant
indirect fuel-flow measurements require prior EPA approval. Measure
background concentration as described in 40 CFR 1065.140, except that
you may use one of the following methods to apply a
[[Page 17706]]
single background reading to multiple test intervals:
(A) For batch sampling, you may sample periodically into the bag
over the course of multiple test intervals and read them as allowed in
paragraph (b)(7)(i) of this section. You must determine a single
background reading for all affected test intervals if you use the
method described in this paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A).
(B) You may measure background concentration by sampling from the
dilution air during the interruptions allowed in paragraph (b)(7)(i) of
this section or at other times before or after test intervals. Measure
background concentration within 30 minutes before the first test
interval and within 30 minutes before each reentry point. Measure the
corresponding background concentration within 30 minutes after each
exit point and within 30 minutes after the final test interval. You may
measure background concentration more frequently. Correct measured
emissions for test intervals between a pair of background readings
based on the average of those two values. Once the system stabilizes,
collect a background sample over an averaging period of at least 30
seconds.
(5) Warm up the engine as described in 40 CFR 1065.510(b)(2).
Within 60 seconds after concluding the warm-up, linearly ramp the speed
and torque setpoints over 5 seconds to the starting test point from
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(6) Stabilize the engine by operating at the specified speed and
torque setpoints for (70 1) seconds and then start the
test interval. Record measurements during the test interval. Measure
and report NOX emissions over each test interval as
described in paragraph (f) of this section.
(7) After completing a test interval, linearly ramp the speed and
torque setpoints over 5 seconds to the next test point.
(i) You may interrupt the fuel-mapping sequence before a reentry
point as noted in paragraphs (b)(1)(v) and (vi) of this section. If you
zero and span analyzers, read and evacuate background bag samples, or
sample dilution air for a background reading during the interruption,
the maximum time to stabilize in paragraph (b)(6) of this section does
not apply. If you shut off the engine, restart with engine warm-up as
described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
(ii) You may interrupt the fuel-mapping sequence at a given speed
setpoint before completing measurements at that speed. If this happens,
you may measure background concentration and take other action as
needed to validate test intervals you completed before the most recent
reentry point. Void all test intervals after the last reentry point.
Restart testing at the appropriate reentry point in the same way that
you would start a new test. Operate the engine long enough to stabilize
aftertreatment thermal conditions, even if it takes more than 70
seconds. In the case of an infrequent regeneration event, interrupt the
fuel-mapping sequence and allow the regeneration event to finish with
the engine operating at a speed and load that allows effective
regeneration.
(iii) If you void any one test interval, all the testing at that
speed setpoint is also void. Restart testing by repeating the fuel-
mapping sequence as described in this paragraph (b);
include all voided speed setpoints and omit testing at speed setpoints
that already have a full set of valid results.
(8) If you determine fuel-consumption rates using emission
measurements from the raw or diluted exhaust, calculate the mean fuel
mass flow rate, mifuel, for each point in the fuel map using
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.051
Where:
mifuel = mean fuel mass flow rate for a given fuel map
setpoint, expressed to at least the nearest 0.001 g/s.
MC = molar mass of carbon.
wCmeas = carbon mass fraction of fuel (or mixture of test
fuels) as determined in 40 CFR 1065.655(d), except that you may not
use the default properties in Table 2 of 40 CFR 1065.655 to
determine [alpha], [beta], and wC. You may not account
for the contribution to [alpha], [beta], [gamma], and [delta] of
diesel exhaust fluid or other non-fuel fluids injected into the
exhaust.
niexh = the mean raw exhaust molar flow rate from which
you measured emissions according to 40 CFR 1065.655.
xCcombdry = the mean concentration of carbon from fuel
and any injected fluids in the exhaust per mole of dry exhaust as
determined in 40 CFR 1065.655(c).
xH2Oexhdry = the mean concentration of H2O in
exhaust per mole of dry exhaust as determined in 40 CFR 1065.655(c).
miCO2DEF = the mean CO2 mass emission rate
resulting from diesel exhaust fluid decomposition as determined in
paragraph (b)(9) of this section. If your engine does not use diesel
exhaust fluid, or if you choose not to perform this correction, set
miCO2DEF equal to 0.
MCO2 = molar mass of carbon dioxide.
Example:
MC = 12.0107 g/mol
wCmeas = 0.869
niexh = 25.534 mol/s
xCcombdry = 0.002805 mol/mol
xH2Oexhdry = 0.0353 mol/mol
miCO2DEF = 0.0726 g/s
MCO2 = 44.0095 g/mol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.052
(9) If you determine fuel-consumption rates using emission
measurements with engines that utilize diesel exhaust fluid for
NOX control and you correct for the mean CO2 mass
emission rate resulting from diesel exhaust fluid decomposition as
described in paragraph (b)(8) of this section, perform this correction
at each fuel map setpoint using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.053
Where:
miDEF = the mean mass flow rate of injected urea solution
diesel exhaust fluid for a
[[Page 17707]]
given sampling period, determined directly from the ECM, or measured
separately, consistent with good engineering judgment.
MCO2 = molar mass of carbon dioxide.
wCH4N2O = mass fraction of urea in diesel exhaust fluid
aqueous solution. Note that the subscript ``CH4N2O'' refers to urea
as a pure compound and the subscript ``DEF'' refers to the aqueous
urea diesel exhaust fluid as a solution of urea in water. You may
use a default value of 32.5% or use good engineering judgment to
determine this value based on measurement.
MCH4N2O = molar mass of urea.
Example:
miDEF = 0. 304 g/s
MCO2 = 44.0095 g/mol
wCH4N2O = 32.5% = 0.325
MCH4N2O = 60.05526 g/mol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.054
(c) Fuel consumption at idle. Determine fuel-consumption rates at
idle for each engine configuration that is certified for installation
in vocational vehicles. Determine fuel-consumption rates at idle by
testing engines over a series of paired engine speed and torque
setpoints as described in this paragraph (c). Perform measurements as
follows:
(1) The idle test sequence consists of measuring fuel consumption
at four test points representing each combination of the following
speed and torque setpoints in any order.
(i) Speed setpoints for engines with adjustable warm idle speed are
minimum warm idle speed, fnidlemin, and maximum warm idle
speed, fnidlemax. Speed setpoints for engines with no
adjustable warm idle speed (with zero torque on the primary output
shaft) are fnidle and 1.15 times fnidle.
(ii) Torque setpoints are 0 and 100 N [middot] m.
(2) Control speed and torque as follows:
(i) Adjustable warm idle speed. Set the engine's warm idle speed to
the next speed setpoint any time before the engine reaches the next
test point. Control both speed and torque when the engine is warming up
and when it is transitioning to the next test point. Start to control
both speed and torque. At any time prior to reaching the next engine-
idle operating point, set the engine's adjustable warm idle speed
setpoint to the speed setpoint of the next engine-idle operating point
in the sequence. This may be done before or during the warm-up or
during the transition. Near the end of the transition period control
speed and torque as described in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section
shortly before reaching each test point. Once the engine is operating
at the desired speed and torque setpoints, set the operator demand to
minimum; control torque so that all recorded engine torque points are
within 25 N[middot]m from the target torque.
(ii) Nonadjustable warm idle speed. For the lowest speed setpoint,
control speed and torque as described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this
section, except for adjusting the warm idle speed. For the second-
lowest speed setpoint, control speed and torque so that all recorded
speed points are within 1% of nhi from the
target speed and engine torque within 5% of
Tmax mapped from the target torque.
(3) Record measurements using direct and/or indirect measurement of
fuel flow as follows:
(i) Direct fuel flow measurement. Record speed and torque and
measure fuel consumption with a fuel flow meter for (600 1)
seconds. Determine the corresponding mean values for the test interval.
Use of redundant direct fuel-flow measurements require prior EPA
approval.
(ii) Indirect fuel flow measurement. Record speed and torque and
measure emissions and other inputs needed to run the chemical balance
in 40 CFR 1065.655(c) for (600 1) seconds. Determine the
corresponding mean values for the test interval. Use of redundant
indirect fuel-flow measurements require prior EPA approval. Measure
background concentration as described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this
section. We recommend setting the CVS flow rate as low as possible to
minimize background, but without introducing errors related to
insufficient mixing or other operational considerations. Note that for
this testing 40 CFR 1065.140(e) does not apply, including the minimum
dilution ratio of 2:1 in the primary dilution stage.
(4) Warm up the engine as described in 40 CFR 1065.510(b)(2).
Within 60 seconds after concluding the warm-up, linearly ramp the speed
and torque over 20 seconds to the first speed and torque setpoint.
(5) The measurement at each unique combination of speed and torque
setpoints constitutes a test interval. Operate the engine at the
selected speed and torque set points for (180 1) seconds,
and then start the test interval. Record measurements during the test
interval. Measure and report NOX emissions over each test
interval as described in paragraph (f) of this section.
(6) After completing each test interval, repeat the steps in
paragraphs (c)(4) and (5) of this section for all the remaining engine-
idle test points.
(7) Each test point represents a stand-alone measurement. You may
therefore take any appropriate steps between test intervals to process
collected data and to prepare engines and equipment for further
testing. Note that the allowances for combining background in paragraph
(b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section do not apply. If an infrequent
regeneration event occurs, allow the regeneration event to finish; void
the test interval if the regeneration starts during a measurement.
(8) Correct the measured or calculated mean fuel mass flow rate, at
each of the engine-idle operating points to account for mass-specific
net energy content as described in paragraph (e) of this section.
(d) Steady-state fuel maps used for cycle-average fuel mapping of
the highway cruise cycles. Determine steady-state fuel-consumption
rates for each engine configuration over a series of paired engine
speed and torque setpoints near idle as described in this paragraph
(d). Perform fuel mapping as described in paragraph (b) of this section
with the following exceptions:
(1) Select speed setpoints to cover a range of values to represent
in-use operation at idle. Speed setpoints for engines with adjustable
warm idle speed must include at least minimum warm idle speed,
fnidlemin, and a speed at or above maximum warm idle speed,
fnidlemax. Speed setpoints for engines with no adjustable
idle speed must include at least warm idle speed (with zero torque on
the primary output shaft), fnidle, and a speed at or above
1.15 [middot] fnidle.
(2) Select the following torque setpoints at each speed setpoint to
cover a range of values to represent in-use operation at idle:
(i) The minimum torque setpoint is zero.
(ii) Choose a maximum torque setpoint that is at least as large as
the
[[Page 17708]]
value determined by the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.055
Where:
Tfnstall = the maximum engine torque at
fnstall.
fnidle = for engines with an adjustable warm idle speed,
use the maximum warm idle speed, fnidlemax. For engines
without an adjustable warm idle speed, use warm idle speed,
fnidle.
fnstall = the stall speed of the torque converter; use
fntest or 2250 r/min, whichever is lower.
Pacc = accessory power for the vehicle class; use 1500 W
for Vocational Light HDV, 2500 W for Vocational Medium HDV, and 3500
W for Tractors and Vocational Heavy HDV. If your engine is going to
be installed in multiple vehicle classes, perform the test with the
accessory power for the largest vehicle class the engine will be
installed in.
Example:
Tfnstall = 1870 N [middot] m
fntest = 1740.8 r/min = 182.30 rad/s
fnstall = 1740.8 r/min = 182.30 rad/s
fnidle = 700 r/min = 73.30 rad/s
Pacc = 1500 W
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.056
(iii) Select one or more equally spaced intermediate torque
setpoints, as needed, such that the increment between torque setpoints
is no greater than one-ninth of Tmax,mapped. Remove the
points from the default map that are below 115% of the maximum speed
and 115% of the maximum torque of the boundaries of the points measured
in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(e) Correction for net energy content. Correct the measured or
calculated mean fuel mass flow rate, mifuel, for each test
interval to a mass-specific net energy content of a reference fuel
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.057
Where:
Emfuelmeas = the mass-specific net energy content of the
test fuel as determined in Sec. 1036.530(b)(1).
EmfuelCref = the reference value of carbon-mass-specific
net energy content for the appropriate fuel. Use the values shown in
Table 1 in Sec. 1036.530 for the designated fuel types, or values
we approve for other fuel types.
wCref = the reference value of carbon mass fraction for
the test fuel as shown in Table 1 of Sec. 1036.530 for the
designated fuels. For any fuel not identified in the table, use the
reference carbon mass fraction of diesel fuel for engines subject to
compression-ignition standards, and use the reference carbon mass
fraction of gasoline for engines subject to spark-ignition
standards.
Example:
mifuel = 0.933 g/s
Emfuelmeas = 42.7984 MJ/kgC
EmfuelCref = 49.3112 MJ/kgC
wCref = 0.874
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.058
(f) Measuring NOX emissions. Measure NOX emissions for
each sampling period in g/s. You may perform these measurements using a
NOX emission-measurement system that meets the requirements
of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart J. If a system malfunction prevents you
from measuring NOX emissions during a test under this
section but the test otherwise gives valid results, you may consider
this a valid test and omit the NOX emission measurements;
however, we may require you to repeat the test if we determine that you
inappropriately voided the test with respect to NOX emission
measurement.
(g) Measured vs. declared fuel-consumption. Determine declared fuel
consumption as follows:
(1) Select fuel-consumption rates in g/s to characterize the
engine's fuel maps. You must select a declared value for each test
point that is at or above the corresponding value determined in
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, including those from
redundant measurements.
(2) Declared fuel-consumption serves as emission standards under
Sec. 1036.108. These are the values that vehicle manufacturers will
use for certification under 40 CFR part 1037. Note that production
engines are subject to GEM cycle-weighted limits as described in Sec.
1036.301.
(3) If you perform the carbon balance error verification, select
declared values that are at or above the following emission
measurements:
(i) If you pass the [epsi]rC verification, you may use
the average of the values from direct and indirect fuel measurements.
(ii) If you fail [epsi]rC verification, but pass either
the [epsi]aC or [epsi]aCrate verification, use
the value from indirect fuel measurement.
(iii) If you fail all three verifications, you must either void the
test interval or use the highest value from direct and indirect fuel
measurements. Note that we will consider our test results to be invalid
if we fail all three verifications.
Sec. 1036.540 Determining cycle-average engine fuel maps.
(a) Overview. This section describes how to determine an engine's
cycle-average fuel maps for model year 2021 and later vehicles. Vehicle
manufacturers may need cycle-average
[[Page 17709]]
fuel maps for transient duty cycles, highway cruise cycles, or both to
demonstrate compliance with emission standards under 40 CFR part 1037.
Generate cycle-average engine fuel maps as follows:
(1) Determine the engine's torque maps as described in Sec.
1036.503(c).
(2) Determine the engine's steady-state fuel map and fuel
consumption at idle as described in Sec. 1036.535. If you are applying
cycle-average fuel mapping for highway cruise cycles, you may instead
use GEM's default fuel map instead of generating the steady-state fuel
map in Sec. 1036.535(b).
(3) Simulate several different vehicle configurations using GEM
(see 40 CFR 1037.520) to create new engine duty cycles as described in
paragraph (c) of this section. The transient vehicle duty cycles for
this simulation are in 40 CFR part 1037, appendix A; the highway cruise
cycles with grade are in 40 CFR part 1037, appendix D. Note that GEM
simulation relies on vehicle service classes as described in 40 CFR
1037.140.
(4) Test the engines using the new duty cycles to determine fuel
consumption, cycle work, and average vehicle speed as described in
paragraph (d) of this section and establish GEM inputs for those
parameters for further vehicle simulations as described in paragraph
(e) of this section.
(b) General test provisions. The following provisions apply for
testing under this section:
(1) To perform fuel mapping under this section for hybrid engines,
make sure the engine and its hybrid features are appropriately
configured to represent the hybrid features in your testing.
(2) Measure NOX emissions for each specified sampling
period in grams. You may perform these measurements using a
NOX emission-measurement system that meets the requirements
of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart J. Include these measured NOX
values any time you report to us your fuel consumption values from
testing under this section. If a system malfunction prevents you from
measuring NOX emissions during a test under this section but
the test otherwise gives valid results, you may consider this a valid
test and omit the NOX emission measurements; however, we may
require you to repeat the test if we determine that you inappropriately
voided the test with respect to NOX emission measurement.
(3) The provisions related to carbon balance error verification in
Sec. 1036.543 apply for all testing in this section. These procedures
are optional, but we will perform carbon balance error verification for
all testing under this section.
(4) Correct fuel mass flow rate to a mass-specific net energy
content of a reference fuel as described in paragraph (d)(13) of this
section.
(5) This section uses engine parameters and variables that are
consistent with 40 CFR part 1065.
(c) Create engine duty cycles. Use GEM to simulate your engine
operation with several different vehicle configurations to create
transient and highway cruise engine duty cycles corresponding to each
vehicle configuration as follows:
(1) Set up GEM to simulate your engine's operation based on your
engine's torque maps, steady-state fuel maps, warm-idle speed as
defined in 40 CFR 1037.520(h)(1), and fuel consumption at idle as
described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(2) Set up GEM with transmission parameters for different vehicle
service classes and vehicle duty cycles. Specify the transmission's
torque limit for each gear as the engine's maximum torque as determined
in 40 CFR 1065.510. Specify the transmission type as Automatic
Transmission for all engines and for all engine and vehicle duty
cycles, except that the transmission type is Automated Manual
Transmission for Heavy HDE operating over the highway cruise cycles or
the SET duty cycle. For automatic transmissions set neutral idle to
``Y'' in the vehicle file. Select gear ratios for each gear as shown in
the following table:
Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(2) of Sec. 1036.540--GEM Input for Gear Ratio
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark-ignition
HDE, light
HDE, and Heavy HDE-- Heavy HDE--
Gear No. medium HDE-- transient and cruise and SET
all engine and FTP duty duty cycles
vehicle duty cycles
cycles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... 3.10 3.51 12.8
2............................................................... 1.81 1.91 9.25
3............................................................... 1.41 1.43 6.76
4............................................................... 1.00 1.00 4.90
5............................................................... 0.71 0.74 3.58
6............................................................... 0.61 0.64 2.61
7............................................................... .............. .............. 1.89
8............................................................... .............. .............. 1.38
9............................................................... .............. .............. 1.00
10.............................................................. .............. .............. 0.73
Lockup Gear..................................................... 3 3 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Run GEM for each simulated vehicle configuration and use the
GEM outputs of instantaneous engine speed and engine flywheel torque
for each vehicle configuration to generate a 10 Hz transient duty cycle
corresponding to each vehicle configuration operating over each vehicle
duty cycle. Run GEM for the specified number of vehicle configurations.
You may run additional vehicle configurations to represent a wider
range of in-use vehicles. Run GEM as follows:
[[Page 17710]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.060
Where:
fn[speed] = engine's angular speed as determined in
paragraph (c)(3)(ii) or (iii) of this section.
ktopgear = transmission gear ratio in the highest
available gear from Table 1 of this section.
vref = reference speed. Use 65 mi/hr for the transient
cycle and the 65 mi/hr highway cruise cycle and use 55 mi/hr for the
55 mi/hr highway cruise cycle.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.061
(ii) Vehicle configurations for Spark-ignition HDE, Light HDE, and
Medium HDE. Test at least eight different vehicle configurations for
engines that will be installed in vocational Light HDV or vocational
Medium HDV using vehicles in the following table:
[[Page 17711]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.062
(iii) Vehicle configurations for Heavy HDE. Test at least nine
different vehicle configurations for engines that will be installed in
vocational Heavy HDV and for tractors that are not heavy-haul tractors.
Test six different vehicle configurations for engines that will be
installed in heavy-haul tractors. Use the settings specific to each
vehicle configuration as shown in Table 3 or Table 4 in this section,
as appropriate. Engines subject to testing under both Table 3 and Table
4 in this section need not repeat overlapping vehicle configurations,
so complete fuel mapping requires testing 12 (not 15) vehicle
configurations for those engines. However, the preceding sentence does
not apply if you choose to create two separate maps from the vehicle
configurations defined in Table 3 and Table 4 in this section. Tables 3
and 4 follow:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.063
[[Page 17712]]
(iv) Vehicle configurations for mixed-use engines. If the engine
will be installed in a combination of vehicles defined in paragraphs
(c)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section, use good engineering judgment to
select at least nine vehicle configurations from Table 2 and Table 3 in
this section that best represent the range of vehicles your engine will
be sold in. This may require you to define additional representative
vehicle configurations. For example, if your engines will be installed
in vocational Medium HDV and vocational Heavy HDV, you might select
Tests 2, 4, 6 and 8 of Table 2 of this section to represent vocational
Medium HDV and Tests 3, 6, and 9 of Table 3 in this section to
represent vocational Heavy HDV and add two more vehicle configurations
that you define.
(v) Programming GEM. Use the defined values in Tables 1 through 4
in this section to set up GEM with the correct regulatory subcategory
and vehicle weight reduction.
(d) Test the engine with GEM cycles. Test the engine over each of
the transient engine duty cycles generated in paragraph (c) of this
section as follows:
(1) Operate the engine over a sequence of required and optional
engine duty cycles as follows:
(i) Sort the list of engine duty cycles into three separate groups
by vehicle duty cycle: Transient vehicle cycle, 55 mi/hr highway cruise
cycle, and 65 mi/hr highway cruise cycle.
(ii) Within each group of engine duty cycles derived from the same
vehicle duty cycle, first run the engine duty cycle with the highest
reference cycle work, followed by the cycle with the lowest cycle work;
followed by the cycle with second-highest cycle work, followed by the
cycle with the second-lowest cycle work; continuing through all the
cycles for that vehicle duty cycle. The series of engine duty cycles to
represent a single vehicle duty cycle is a single fuel-mapping
sequence. Each engine duty cycle represents a different interval.
Repeat the fuel-mapping sequence for the engine duty cycles derived
from the other vehicle duty cycles until testing is complete.
(iii) Operate the engine over two full engine duty cycles to
precondition before each interval in the fuel-mapping sequence.
Precondition the engine before the first and second engine duty cycle
in each fuel-mapping sequence by repeating operation with the engine
duty cycle with the highest reference cycle work over the relevant
vehicle duty cycle. The preconditioning for the remaining cycles in the
fuel-mapping sequence consists of operation over the preceding two
engine duty cycles in the fuel-mapping sequence (with or without
measurement). For transient vehicle duty cycles, start each engine duty
cycle within 10 seconds after finishing the preceding engine duty cycle
(with or without measurement). For highway cruise cycles, start each
engine duty cycle and interval after linearly ramping to the speed and
torque setpoints over 5 seconds and stabilizing for 15 seconds.
(2) If the engine has an adjustable warm idle speed setpoint, set
it to the value defined in 40 CFR 1037.520(h)(1).
(3) Control speed and torque to meet the cycle validation criteria
in 40 CFR 1065.514 for each interval, except that the standard error of
the estimate in Table 2 of 40 CFR 1065.514 is the only speed criterion
that applies if the range of reference speeds is less than 10 percent
of the mean reference speed. For spark-ignition gaseous-fueled engines
with fuel delivery at a single point in the intake manifold, you may
apply the statistical criteria in Table 5 in this section for transient
testing. Note that 40 CFR part 1065 does not allow reducing cycle
precision to a lower frequency than the 10 Hz reference cycle generated
by GEM.
Table 5 to Paragraph (c)(3) of Sec. 1036.540--Statistical Criteria for Validating Duty Cycles for Spark-
Ignition Gaseous-Fueled Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Speed Torque Power
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slope, a1........................ See 40 CFR 1065.514................ See 40 CFR 1065.514 See 40 CFR
1065.514.
Absolute value of intercept, See 40 CFR 1065.514................ <=3% of maximum See 40 CFR
[verbar]a0[verbar]. mapped torque. 1065.514.
Standard error of the estimate, See 40 CFR 1065.514................ <=15% of maximum <=15% of maximum
SEE. mapped torque. mapped power.
Coefficient of determination, See 40 CFR 1065.514................ >=0.700............ >=0.750.
r\2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Record measurements using direct and/or indirect measurement of
fuel flow as follows:
(i) Direct fuel-flow measurement. Record speed and torque and
measure fuel consumption with a fuel flow meter for the interval
defined by the engine duty cycle. Determine the corresponding mean
values for the interval. Use of redundant direct fuel-flow measurements
require prior EPA approval.
(ii) Indirect fuel-flow measurement. Record speed and torque and
measure emissions and other inputs needed to run the chemical balance
in 40 CFR 1065.655(c) for the interval defined by the engine duty
cycle. Determine the corresponding mean values for the interval. Use of
redundant indirect fuel-flow measurements require prior EPA approval.
Measure background concentration as described in 40 CFR 1065.140,
except that you may use one of the following methods to apply a single
background reading to multiple intervals:
(A) If you use batch sampling to measure background emissions, you
may sample periodically into the bag over the course of multiple
intervals. If you use this provision, you must apply the same
background readings to correct emissions from each of the applicable
intervals.
(B) You may determine background emissions by sampling from the
dilution air over multiple engine duty cycles. If you use this
provision, you must allow sufficient time for stabilization of the
background measurement; followed by an averaging period of at least 30
seconds. Use the average of the two background readings to correct the
measurement from each engine duty cycle. The first background reading
must be taken no greater than 30 minutes before the start of the first
applicable engine duty cycle and the second background reading must be
taken no later than 30 minutes after the end of the last applicable
engine duty cycle. Background readings may not span more than a full
fuel-mapping sequence for a vehicle duty cycle.
(5) Warm up the engine as described in 40 CFR 1065.510(b)(2).
Within 60 seconds after concluding the warm-up, start the linear ramp
of speed and torque over 20 seconds to the first speed and torque
setpoint of the preconditioning cycle.
(6) Precondition the engine before the start of testing as
described in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section.
(7) Operate the engine over the first engine duty cycle. Record
measurements during the interval. Measure and report NOX
emissions over
[[Page 17713]]
each interval as described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(8) Continue testing engine duty cycles that are derived from the
other vehicle duty cycles until testing is complete.
(9) You may interrupt the fuel-mapping sequence after completing
any interval. You may calibrate analyzers, read and evacuate background
bag samples, or sample dilution air for measuring background
concentration before restarting. Shut down the engine during any
interruption. If you restart the sequence within 30 minutes or less,
restart the sequence at paragraph (d)(6) of this section and then
restart testing at the next interval in the fuel-mapping sequence. If
you restart the sequence after more than 30 minutes, restart the
sequence at paragraph (d)(5) of this section and then restart testing
at the next interval in the fuel-mapping sequence.
(10) The following provisions apply for infrequent regeneration
events, other interruptions during intervals, and otherwise voided
intervals:
(i) Stop testing if an infrequent regeneration event occurs during
a interval or a interval is interrupted for any other reason. Void the
interrupted interval and any additional intervals for which you are not
able to meet requirements for measuring background concentration. If
the infrequent regeneration event occurs between intervals, void
completed intervals only if you are not able to meet requirements for
measuring background concentration for those intervals.
(ii) If an infrequent regeneration event occurs, allow the
regeneration event to finish with the engine operating at a speed and
load that allows effective regeneration.
(iii) If you interrupt testing during an interval, if you restart
the sequence within 30 minutes or less, restart the sequence at
paragraph (d)(6) of this section and then restart testing at the next
interval in the fuel-mapping sequence. If you restart the sequence
after more than 30 minutes, restart the sequence at paragraph (d)(5) of
this section and then restart testing at the next interval in the fuel-
mapping sequence.
(iv) If you void one or more intervals, you must perform additional
testing to get results for all intervals. You may rerun a complete
fuel-mapping sequence or any contiguous part of the fuel-mapping
sequence. If you get a second valid measurement for any interval, use
only the result from the last valid interval. If you restart the
sequence within 30 minutes or less, restart the sequence at paragraph
(d)(6) of this section and then restart testing at the first selected
interval in the fuel-mapping sequence. If you restart the sequence
after more than 30 minutes, restart the sequence at paragraph (d)(5) of
this section and then restart testing at the first selected interval in
the fuel-mapping sequence. Continue testing until you have valid
results for all intervals. The following examples illustrate possible
scenarios for a partial run through a fuel-mapping sequence:
(A) If you voided only the interval associated with the fourth
engine duty cycle in the sequence, you may restart the sequence using
the second and third engine duty cycles as the preconditioning cycles
and stop after completing the interval associated with the fourth
engine duty cycle.
(B) If you voided the intervals associated with the fourth and
sixth engine duty cycles, you may restart the sequence using the second
and third engine duty cycles for preconditioning and stop after
completing the interval associated with the sixth engine duty cycle.
(11) You may send signals to the engine controller during the test,
such as current transmission gear and vehicle speed, if that allows
engine operation during the to better represent in-use operation.
(12) Calculate the fuel mass flow rate, mfuel, for each
duty cycle using one of the following equations:
(i) Determine fuel-consumption rates using emission measurements
from the raw or diluted exhaust, calculate the mass of fuel for each
duty cycle, mfuel[cycle], as follows:
(A) For calculations that use continuous measurement of emissions
and continuous CO2 from urea, calculate
mfuel[cycle] using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.064
Where:
MC = molar mass of carbon.
wCmeas = carbon mass fraction of fuel (or mixture of
fuels) as determined in 40 CFR 1065.655(d), except that you may not
use the default properties in Table 2 of 40 CFR 1065.655 to
determine a, b, and wC. You may not account for the
contribution to a, b, g, and d of diesel exhaust fluid or other non-
fuel fluids injected into the exhaust.
i = an indexing variable that represents one recorded emission
value.
N = total number of measurements over the duty cycle.
nexh = exhaust molar flow rate from which you measured
emissions.
xCcombdry = amount of carbon from fuel and any injected
fluids in the exhaust per mole of dry exhaust as determined in 40
CFR 1065.655(c).
xH2Oexhdry = amount of H2O in exhaust per mole
of exhaust as determined in 40 CFR 1065.655(c).
[Delta]t = 1/frecord
MCO2 = molar mass of carbon dioxide.
mC02DEFi = mass emission rate of CO2 resulting
from diesel exhaust fluid decomposition over the duty cycle as
determined from Sec. 1036.535(b)(9). If your engine does not
utilize diesel exhaust fluid for emission control, or if you choose
not to perform this correction, set mC02DEFi equal to 0.
Example:
MC = 12.0107 g/mol
wCmeas = 0.867
N = 6680
nexh1= 2.876 mol/s
nexh2 = 2.224 mol/s
xCcombdry1 = 2.61[middot]10-3 mol/mol
xCcombdry2 = 1.91[middot]10-3 mol/mol
xH2Oexh1= 3.53[middot]10-2 mol/mol
xH2Oexh2= 3.13[middot]10-2 mol/mol
frecord = 10 Hz
[Delta]t = 1/10 = 0.1 s
MCO2 = 44.0095 g/mol
mCO2DEF1 = 0.0726 g/s
mCO2DEF2 = 0.0751 g/s
mfueltransientTest1 =
[[Page 17714]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.065
[[Page 17715]]
Where:
i = an indexing variable that represents one recorded value.
N = total number of measurements over the duty cycle. For batch fuel
mass measurements, set N = 1.
mfueli = the fuel mass flow rate, for each point, i,
starting from i = 1.
[Delta]t = 1/frecord
frecord = the data recording frequency.
Example:
N = 6680
mfuel1 = 1.856 g/s
mfuel2 = 1.962 g/s
frecord = 10 Hz
Dt = 1/10 = 0.1 s
mfueltransient = (1.856 + 1.962 + . . . +
mfuel6680) [middot] 0.1
mfueltransient = 111.95 g
(13) Correct the measured or calculated fuel mass flow rate,
mfuel, for each result to a mass-specific net energy content
of a reference fuel as described in Sec. 1036.535(e), replacing
mifuel with mfuel in Eq. 1036.535-4.
(e) Determine GEM inputs. Use the results of engine testing in
paragraph (d) of this section to determine the GEM inputs for the
transient duty cycle and optionally for each of the highway cruise
cycles corresponding to each simulated vehicle configuration as
follows:
(1) Your declared fuel mass consumption, mfuel[cycle].
Using the calculated fuel mass consumption values described in
paragraph (d) of this section, declare values using the methods
described in Sec. 1036.535(g)(2) and (3).
(2) We will determine mfuel[cycle] values using the
method described in Sec. 1036.535(g)(3).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.066
(4) Positive work determined according to 40 CFR part 1065,
W[cycle], by using the engine speed and engine torque
measured during the engine test while the vehicle is moving. Note that
the engine cycle created by GEM has a flag to indicate when the vehicle
is moving.
(5) The engine idle speed and torque, by taking the average engine
speed and torque measured during the engine test while the vehicle is
not moving. Note that the engine cycle created by GEM has a flag to
indicate when the vehicle is moving.
(6) The following table illustrates the GEM data inputs
corresponding to the different vehicle configurations for a given duty
cycle:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.067
Sec. 1036.543 Carbon balance error verification.
The optional carbon balance error verification in 40 CFR 1065.543
compares independent assessments of the flow of carbon through the
system (engine plus aftertreatment). This procedure applies for each
individual interval in Sec. 1036.535(b), (c), and (d), Sec. 1036.540,
and 40 CFR 1037.550.
Subpart G--Special Compliance Provisions
Sec. 1036.601 Overview of compliance provisions.
(a) Engine and vehicle manufacturers, as well as owners, operators,
and rebuilders of engines subject to the requirements of this part, and
all other persons, must observe the provisions of this part, the
provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, and the provisions of the Clean Air
Act. The provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 apply for heavy-duty highway
engines as specified in that part, subject to the following provisions:
(1) The exemption provisions of 40 CFR 1068.201 through 1068.230,
1068.240, and 1068.260 through 265 apply for heavy-duty motor vehicle
engines. The other exemption provisions, which are specific to
[[Page 17716]]
nonroad engines, do not apply for heavy-duty vehicles or heavy-duty
engines.
(2) Engine signals to indicate a need for maintenance under Sec.
1036.125(a)(1)(ii) are considered an element of design of the emission
control system. Disabling, resetting, or otherwise rendering such
signals inoperative without also performing the indicated maintenance
procedure is therefore prohibited under 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1).
(3) The warranty-related prohibitions in section 203(a)(4) of the
Act (42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(4)) apply to manufacturers of new heavy-duty
highway engines in addition to the prohibitions described in 40 CFR
1068.101(b)(6). We may assess a civil penalty up to $44,539 for each
engine or vehicle in violation.
(b) The following provisions from 40 CFR parts 85 and 86 continue
to apply after model year 2026 for engines subject to the requirements
of this part:
(1) The tampering prohibition in 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1) applies for
alternative fuel conversions as specified in 40 CFR part 85, subpart F.
(2) Engine manufacturers must meet service information requirements
as specified in 40 CFR 86.010-38(j).
(3) Provisions related to nonconformance penalties apply as
described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart L.
(4) The manufacturer-run in-use testing program applies as
described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart T.
(c) The emergency vehicle field modification provisions of 40 CFR
85.1716 apply with respect to the standards of this part.
(d) Subpart C of this part describes how to test and certify dual-
fuel and flexible-fuel engines. Some multi-fuel engines may not fit
either of those defined terms. For such engines, we will determine
whether it is most appropriate to treat them as single-fuel engines,
dual-fuel engines, or flexible-fuel engines based on the range of
possible and expected fuel mixtures. For example, an engine might burn
natural gas but initiate combustion with a pilot injection of diesel
fuel. If the engine is designed to operate with a single fueling
algorithm (i.e., fueling rates are fixed at a given engine speed and
load condition), we would generally treat it as a single-fuel engine.
In this context, the combination of diesel fuel and natural gas would
be its own fuel type. If the engine is designed to also operate on
diesel fuel alone, we would generally treat it as a dual-fuel engine.
If the engine is designed to operate on varying mixtures of the two
fuels, we would generally treat it as a flexible-fuel engine. To the
extent that requirements vary for the different fuels or fuel mixtures,
we may apply the more stringent requirements.
Sec. 1036.605 Alternate emission standards for engines used in
specialty vehicles.
Starting in model year 2027, compression-ignition engines at or
above 56 kW and spark-ignition engines of any size that will be
installed in specialty vehicles as allowed by 40 CFR 1037.605 are
exempt from the standards of subpart B this part. Qualifying engines
must certify under this part by meeting alternate emission standards as
follows:
(a) Spark-ignition engines must be of a configuration that is
identical to one that is certified under 40 CFR part 1048 to Blue Sky
standards under 40 CFR 1048.140.
(b) Compression-ignition engines must be of a configuration that is
identical to one that is certified under 40 CFR part 1039, and meet the
following additional standards using the same duty cycles that apply
under 40 CFR part 1039:
(1) The engines must be certified with a Family Emission Limit for
PM of 0.020 g/kW-hr.
(2) Diesel-fueled engines using selective catalytic reduction must
meet an emission standard of 0.1 g/kW-hr for N2O.
(c) Except as specified in this section, engines certified under
this section must meet all the requirements that apply under 40 CFR
part 1039 or 1048 instead of the comparable provisions in this part.
Before shipping engines under this section, you must have written
assurance from vehicle manufacturers that they need a certain number of
exempted engines under this section. In your annual production report
under 40 CFR 1039.250 or 1048.250, count these engines separately and
identify the vehicle manufacturers that will be installing them. Treat
these engines as part of the corresponding engine family under 40 CFR
part 1039 or part 1048 for compliance purposes such as testing
production engines, in-use testing, defect reporting, and recall.
(d) The engines must be labeled as described in Sec. 1036.135,
with the following statement instead of the one specified in Sec.
1036.135(c)(8): ``This engine conforms to alternate standards for
specialty vehicles under 40 CFR 1036.605.'' Engines certified under
this section may not have the label specified for nonroad engines in 40
CFR part 1039 or part 1048 or any other label identifying them as
nonroad engines.
(e) In a separate application for a certificate of conformity,
identify the corresponding nonroad engine family, describe the label
required under section, state that you meet applicable diagnostic
requirements under 40 CFR part 1039 or part 1048, and identify your
projected U.S.-directed production volume.
(f) No additional certification fee applies for engines certified
under this section.
(g) Engines certified under this section may not generate or use
emission credits under this part or under 40 CFR part 1039. The
vehicles in which these engines are installed may generate or use
emission credits as described in 40 CFR part 1037.
Sec. 1036.610 Off-cycle technology credits and adjustments for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
(a) You may ask us to apply the provisions of this section for
CO2 emission reductions resulting from powertrain
technologies that were not in common use with heavy-duty vehicles
before model year 2010 that are not reflected in the specified
procedure. While you are not required to prove that such technologies
were not in common use with heavy-duty vehicles before model year 2010,
we will not approve your request if we determine that they do not
qualify. We will apply these provisions only for technologies that will
result in a measurable, demonstrable, and verifiable real-world
CO2 reduction. Note that prior to model year 2016, these
technologies were referred to as ``innovative technologies''.
(b) The provisions of this section may be applied as either an
improvement factor (used to adjust emission results) or as a separate
credit, consistent with good engineering judgment. Note that the term
``credit'' in this section describes an additive adjustment to emission
rates and is not equivalent to an emission credit in the ABT program of
subpart H of this part. We recommend that you base your credit/
adjustment on A to B testing of pairs of engines/vehicles differing
only with respect to the technology in question.
(1) Calculate improvement factors as the ratio of in-use emissions
with the technology divided by the in-use emissions without the
technology. Adjust the emission results by multiplying by the
improvement factor. Use the improvement-factor approach where good
engineering judgment indicates that the actual benefit will be
proportional to emissions measured over the procedures specified in
this part. For example, the benefits from technologies that reduce
engine operation would generally be proportional to the engine's
emission rate.
[[Page 17717]]
(2) Calculate separate credits based on the difference between the
in-use emission rate (g/ton-mile) with the technology and the in-use
emission rate without the technology. Subtract this value from your
measured emission result and use this adjusted value to determine your
FEL. We may also allow you to calculate the credits based on g/
hp[middot]hr emission rates. Use the separate-credit approach where
good engineering judgment indicates that the actual benefit will not be
proportional to emissions measured over the procedures specified in
this part.
(3) We may require you to discount or otherwise adjust your
improvement factor or credit to account for uncertainty or other
relevant factors.
(c) Send your request to the Designated Compliance Officer. We
recommend that you do not begin collecting data (for submission to EPA)
before contacting us. For technologies for which the vehicle
manufacturer could also claim credits (such as transmissions in certain
circumstances), we may require you to include a letter from the vehicle
manufacturer stating that it will not seek credits for the same
technology. Your request must contain the following items:
(1) A detailed description of the off-cycle technology and how it
functions to reduce CO2 emissions under conditions not
represented on the duty cycles required for certification.
(2) A list of the engine configurations that will be equipped with
the technology.
(3) A detailed description and justification of the selected
engines.
(4) All testing and simulation data required under this section,
plus any other data you have considered in your analysis. You may ask
for our preliminary approval of your plan under Sec. 1036.210.
(5) A complete description of the methodology used to estimate the
off-cycle benefit of the technology and all supporting data, including
engine testing and in-use activity data. Also include a statement
regarding your recommendation for applying the provisions of this
section for the given technology as an improvement factor or a credit.
(6) An estimate of the off-cycle benefit by engine model, and the
fleetwide benefit based on projected sales of engine models equipped
with the technology.
(7) A demonstration of the in-use durability of the off-cycle
technology, based on any available engineering analysis or durability
testing data (either by testing components or whole engines).
(d) We may seek public comment on your request, consistent with the
provisions of 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d). However, we will generally not seek
public comment on credits/adjustments based on A to B engine
dynamometer testing, chassis testing, or in-use testing.
(e) We may approve an improvement factor or credit for any
configuration that is properly represented by your testing.
(1) For model years before 2021, you may continue to use an
approved improvement factor or credit for any appropriate engine
families in future model years through 2020.
(2) For model years 2021 and later, you may not rely on an approval
for model years before 2021. You must separately request our approval
before applying an improvement factor or credit under this section for
2021 and later engines, even if we approved an improvement factor or
credit for similar engine models before model year 2021. Note that
approvals for model year 2021 and later may carry over for multiple
years.
Sec. 1036.615 Engines with Rankine cycle waste heat recovery and
hybrid powertrains.
This section specifies how to generate advanced-technology emission
credits for hybrid powertrains that include energy storage systems and
regenerative braking (including regenerative engine braking) and for
engines that include Rankine-cycle (or other bottoming cycle) exhaust
energy recovery systems. This section applies only for model year 2020
and earlier engines.
(a) Pre-transmission hybrid powertrains. Test pre-transmission
hybrid powertrains with the hybrid engine procedures of 40 CFR part
1065 or with the post-transmission procedures in 40 CFR 1037.550. Pre-
transmission hybrid powertrains are those engine systems that include
features to recover and store energy during engine motoring operation
but not from the vehicle's wheels. Engines certified with pre-
transmission hybrid powertrains must be certified to meet the
diagnostic requirements as specified in Sec. 1036.110 with respect to
powertrain components and systems; if different manufacturers produce
the engine and the hybrid powertrain, the hybrid powertrain
manufacturer may separately certify its powertrain relative to
diagnostic requirements.
(b) Rankine engines. Test engines that include Rankine-cycle
exhaust energy recovery systems according to the procedures specified
in subpart F of this part unless we approve alternate procedures.
(c) Calculating credits. Calculate credits as specified in subpart
H of this part. Credits generated from engines and powertrains
certified under this section may be used in other averaging sets as
described in Sec. 1036.740(c).
(d) Off-cycle technologies. You may certify using both the
provisions of this section and the off-cycle technology provisions of
Sec. 1036.610, provided you do not double-count emission benefits.
Sec. 1036.620 Alternate CO2 standards based on model year 2011
compression-ignition engines.
For model years 2014 through 2016, you may certify your
compression-ignition engines to the CO2 standards of this
section instead of the CO2 standards in Sec. 1036.108.
However, you may not certify engines to these alternate standards if
they are part of an averaging set in which you carry a balance of
banked credits. You may submit applications for certifications before
using up banked credits in the averaging set, but such certificates
will not become effective until you have used up (or retired) your
banked credits in the averaging set. For purposes of this section, you
are deemed to carry credits in an averaging set if you carry credits
from advanced technology that are allowed to be used in that averaging
set.
(a) The standards of this section are determined from the measured
emission rate of the engine of the applicable baseline 2011 engine
family or families as described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section. Calculate the CO2 emission rate of the baseline
engine using the same equations used for showing compliance with the
otherwise applicable standard. The alternate CO2 standard
for light and medium heavy-duty vocational-certified engines (certified
for CO2 using the transient cycle) is equal to the baseline
emission rate multiplied by 0.975. The alternate CO2
standard for tractor-certified engines (certified for CO2
using the SET duty cycle) and all other Heavy HDE is equal to the
baseline emission rate multiplied by 0.970. The in-use FEL for these
engines is equal to the alternate standard multiplied by 1.03.
(b) This paragraph (b) applies if you do not certify all your
engine families in the averaging set to the alternate standards of this
section. Identify separate baseline engine families for each engine
family that you are certifying to the alternate standards of this
section. For an engine family to be considered the baseline engine
family, it must meet the following criteria:
(1) It must have been certified to all applicable emission
standards in model year 2011. If the baseline engine was
[[Page 17718]]
certified to a NOX FEL above the standard and incorporated
the same emission control technologies as the new engine family, you
may adjust the baseline CO2 emission rate to be equivalent
to an engine meeting the 0.20 g/hp[middot]hr NOX standard
(or your higher FEL as specified in this paragraph (b)(1)), using
certification results from model years 2009 through 2011, consistent
with good engineering judgment.
(i) Use the following equation to relate model year 2009-2011
NOX and CO2 emission rates (g/hp[middot]hr):
CO2 = a x log(NOX)+b.
(ii) For model year 2014-2016 engines certified to NOX
FELs above 0.20 g/hp[middot]hr, correct the baseline CO2
emissions to the actual NOX FELs of the 2014-2016 engines.
(iii) Calculate separate adjustments for emissions over the SET
duty cycle and the transient cycle.
(2) The baseline configuration tested for certification must have
the same engine displacement as the engines in the engine family being
certified to the alternate standards, and its rated power must be
within five percent of the highest rated power in the engine family
being certified to the alternate standards.
(3) The model year 2011 U.S.-directed production volume of the
configuration tested must be at least one percent of the total 2011
U.S.-directed production volume for the engine family.
(4) The tested configuration must have cycle-weighted BSFC
equivalent to or better than all other configurations in the engine
family.
(c) This paragraph (c) applies if you certify all your engine
families in the primary intended service class to the alternate
standards of this section. For purposes of this section, you may
combine Light HDE and Medium HDE into a single averaging set. Determine
your baseline CO2 emission rate as the production-weighted
emission rate of the certified engine families you produced in the 2011
model year. If you produce engines for both tractors and vocational
vehicles, treat them as separate averaging sets. Adjust the
CO2 emission rates to be equivalent to an engine meeting the
average NOX FEL of new engines (assuming engines certified
to the 0.20 g/hp[middot]hr NOX standard have a
NOX FEL equal to 0.20 g/hp[middot]hr), as described in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(d) Include the following statement on the emission control
information label: ``THIS ENGINE WAS CERTIFIED TO AN ALTERNATE
CO2 STANDARD UNDER Sec. 1036.620.''
(e) You may not bank CO2 emission credits for any engine
family in the same averaging set and model year in which you certify
engines to the standards of this section. You may not bank any
advanced-technology credits in any averaging set for the model year you
certify under this section (since such credits would be available for
use in this averaging set). Note that the provisions of Sec. 1036.745
apply for deficits generated with respect to the standards of this
section.
(f) You need our approval before you may certify engines under this
section, especially with respect to the numerical value of the
alternate standards. We will not approve your request if we determine
that you manipulated your engine families or engine configurations to
certify to less stringent standards, or that you otherwise have not
acted in good faith. You must keep and provide to us any information we
need to determine that your engine families meet the requirements of
this section. Keep these records for at least five years after you stop
producing engines certified under this section.
Sec. 1036.625 In-use compliance with CO2 family emission limits
(FELs).
Section 1036.225 describes how to change the FEL for an engine
family during the model year. This section, which describes how you may
ask us to increase an engine family's CO2 FEL after the end
of the model year, is intended to address circumstances in which it is
in the public interest to apply a higher in-use CO2 FEL
based on forfeiting an appropriate number of emission credits. For
example, this may be appropriate where we determine that recalling
vehicles would not significantly reduce in-use emissions. We will
generally not allow this option where we determine the credits being
forfeited would likely have expired.
(a) You may ask us to increase an engine family's FEL after the end
of the model year if you believe some of your in-use engines exceed the
CO2 FEL that applied during the model year (or the
CO2 emission standard if the family did not generate or use
emission credits). We may consider any available information in making
our decision to approve or deny your request.
(b) If we approve your request under this section, you must apply
emission credits to cover the increased FEL for all affected engines.
Apply the emission credits as part of your credit demonstration for the
current production year. Include the appropriate calculations in your
final report under Sec. 1036.730.
(c) Submit your request to the Designated Compliance Officer.
Include the following in your request:
(1) Identify the names of each engine family that is the subject of
your request. Include separate family names for different model years
(2) Describe why your request does not apply for similar engine
models or additional model years, as applicable.
(3) Identify the FEL(s) that applied during the model year and
recommend a replacement FEL for in-use engines; include a supporting
rationale to describe how you determined the recommended replacement
FEL.
(4) Describe whether the needed emission credits will come from
averaging, banking, or trading.
(d) If we approve your request, we will identify the replacement
FEL. The value we select will reflect our best judgment to accurately
reflect the actual in-use performance of your engines, consistent with
the testing provisions specified in this part. We may apply the higher
FELs to other engine families from the same or different model years to
the extent they used equivalent emission controls. We may include any
appropriate conditions with our approval.
(e) If we order a recall for an engine family under 40 CFR
1068.505, we will no longer approve a replacement FEL under this
section for any of your engines from that engine family, or from any
other engine family that relies on equivalent emission controls.
Sec. 1036.630 Certification of engine greenhouse gas emissions for
powertrain testing.
For engines included in powertrain families under 40 CFR part 1037,
you may choose to include the corresponding engine emissions in your
engine families under this part instead of (or in addition to) the
otherwise applicable engine fuel maps.
(a) If you choose to certify powertrain fuel maps in an engine
family, the declared powertrain emission levels become standards that
apply for selective enforcement audits and in-use testing. We may
require that you provide to us the engine cycle (not normalized)
corresponding to a given powertrain for each of the specified duty
cycles.
(b) If you choose to certify only fuel map emissions for an engine
family and to not certify emissions over powertrain cycles under 40 CFR
1037.550, we will not presume you are responsible for emissions over
the powertrain cycles. However, where we determine that you are
responsible in whole or in part for the emission exceedance in such
cases,
[[Page 17719]]
we may require that you participate in any recall of the affected
vehicles. Note that this provision to limit your responsibility does
not apply if you also hold the certificate of conformity for the
vehicle.
(c) If you split an engine family into subfamilies based on
different fuel-mapping procedures as described in Sec. 1036.230(f)(2),
the fuel-mapping procedures you identify for certifying each subfamily
also apply for selective enforcement audits and in-use testing.
Sec. 1036.635 [Reserved]
Sec. 1036.655 Special provisions for diesel-fueled engines sold in
American Samoa or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
(a) The prohibitions in 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1) do not apply to
diesel-fueled engines, subject to the following conditions:
(1) The engine is intended for use and will be used in American
Samoa or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
(2) The engine meets the emission standards that applied to model
year 2006 engines as specified in appendix A of this part.
(3) You meet all the requirements of 40 CFR 1068.265.
(b) If you introduce an engine into U.S. commerce under this
section, you must meet the labeling requirements in Sec. 1036.135, but
add the following statement instead of the compliance statement in
Sec. 1036.135(c)(8):
THIS ENGINE (or VEHICLE, as applicable) CONFORMS TO US EPA EMISSION
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO MODEL YEAR 2006. THIS ENGINE (or VEHICLE, as
applicable) DOES NOT CONFORM TO US EPA EMISSION REQUIREMENTS IN EFFECT
AT TIME OF PRODUCTION AND MAY NOT BE IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES OR
ANY TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES EXCEPT AMERICAN SAMOA OR THE
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.
(c) Introducing into U.S. commerce an engine exempted under this
section in any state or territory of the United States other than
American Samoa or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
throughout its lifetime, violates the prohibitions in 40 CFR
1068.101(a)(1), unless it is exempt under a different provision.
(d) The exemption provisions in this section also applied for model
year 2007 and later engines introduced into commerce in Guam before
[the effective date of the final rule].
Subpart H--Averaging, Banking, and Trading for Certification
Sec. 1036.701 General provisions.
(a) You may average, bank, and trade (ABT) emission credits for
purposes of certification as described in this subpart and in subpart B
of this part to show compliance with the standards of Sec. Sec.
1036.104 and 1036.108. Participation in this program is voluntary. Note
that certification to NOX standards in Sec. 1036.104 is
based on a Family Emission Limit (FEL) and certification to
CO2 standards in Sec. 1036.108 is based on a Family
Certification Level (FCL). This subpart refers to ``FEL/FCL'' to
simultaneously refer to FELs for NOX and FCLs for
CO2. Note also that subpart B of this part requires you to
assign an FCL to all engine families, whether or not they participate
in the ABT provisions of this subpart.
(b) The definitions of subpart I of this part apply to this subpart
in addition to the following definitions:
(1) Actual emission credits means emission credits you have
generated that we have verified by reviewing your final report.
(2) Averaging set means a set of engines in which emission credits
may be exchanged. See Sec. 1036.740.
(3) Broker means any entity that facilitates a trade of emission
credits between a buyer and seller.
(4) Buyer means the entity that receives emission credits as a
result of a trade.
(5) Reserved emission credits means emission credits you have
generated that we have not yet verified by reviewing your final report.
(6) Seller means the entity that provides emission credits during a
trade.
(7) Standard means the emission standard that applies under subpart
B of this part for engines not participating in the ABT program of this
subpart.
(8) Trade means to exchange emission credits, either as a buyer or
seller.
(c) Emission credits may be exchanged only within an averaging set,
except as specified in Sec. 1036.740.
(d) You may not use emission credits generated under this subpart
to offset any emissions that exceed an FEL/FCL or standard. This
paragraph (d) applies for all testing, including certification testing,
in-use testing, selective enforcement audits, and other production-line
testing. However, if emissions from an engine exceed an FEL/FCL or
standard (for example, during a selective enforcement audit), you may
use emission credits to recertify the engine family with a higher FEL/
FCL that applies only to future production.
(e) You may use either of the following approaches to retire or
forego emission credits:
(1) You may retire emission credits generated from any number of
your engines. This may be considered donating emission credits to the
environment. Identify any such credits in the reports described in
Sec. 1036.730. Engines must comply with the applicable FELs even if
you donate or sell the corresponding emission credits. Donated credits
may no longer be used by anyone to demonstrate compliance with any EPA
emission standards.
(2) You may certify an engine family using an FEL/FCL below the
emission standard as described in this part and choose not to generate
emission credits for that family. If you do this, you do not need to
calculate emission credits for those engine families, and you do not
need to submit or keep the associated records described in this subpart
for that family.
(f) Emission credits may be used in the model year they are
generated. Surplus emission credits may be banked for future model
years. Surplus emission credits may sometimes be used for past model
years, as described in Sec. 1036.745.
(g) You may increase or decrease an FEL/FCL during the model year
by amending your application for certification under Sec. 1036.225.
The new FEL/FCL may apply only to engines you have not already
introduced into commerce.
(h) See Sec. 1036.740 for special credit provisions that apply for
greenhouse gas credits generated under 40 CFR 86.1819-14(k)(7) or Sec.
1036.615 or 40 CFR 1037.615.
(i) Unless the regulations in this part explicitly allow it, you
may not calculate Phase 1 credits more than once for any emission
reduction. For example, if you generate Phase 1 CO2 emission
credits for a hybrid engine under this part for a given vehicle, no one
may generate CO2 emission credits for that same hybrid
engine and the associated vehicle under 40 CFR part 1037. However,
Phase 1 credits could be generated for identical vehicles using engines
that did not generate credits under this part.
(j) Credits you generate with compression-ignition engines in 2020
and earlier model years may be used in model year 2021 and later as
follows:
(1) For credit-generating engines certified to the tractor engine
standards in Sec. 1036.108, you may use credits calculated relative to
the tractor engine standards.
[[Page 17720]]
(2) For credit-generating engines certified to the vocational
engine standards in Sec. 1036.108, you may optionally carry over
adjusted vocational credits from an averaging set, and you may use
credits calculated relative to the emission levels in the following
table:
Table 1 to Paragraph (j)(2) of Sec. 1036.701--Emission Levels for
Credit Calculation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium heavy-duty engines Heavy heavy-duty engines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
558 g/hp[middot]hr........................ 525 g/hp[middot]hr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(k) Engine families you certify with a nonconformance penalty under
40 CFR part 86, subpart L, may not generate emission credits.
Sec. 1036.705 Generating and calculating emission credits.
(a) The provisions of this section apply separately for calculating
emission credits for each pollutant.
(b) For each participating family, calculate positive or negative
emission credits relative to the otherwise applicable emission
standard. Calculate positive emission credits for a family that has an
FEL/FCL below the standard. Calculate negative emission credits for a
family that has an FEL/FCL above the standard. Sum your positive and
negative credits for the model year before rounding.
(1) Calculate emission credits to the nearest megagram (Mg) for
each family or subfamily using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.068
Where:
Std = the emission standard, in (mg NOX)/hp[middot]hr or
(g CO2)/hp[middot]hr, that applies under subpart B of
this part for engines not participating in the ABT program of this
subpart (the ``otherwise applicable standard'').
FL = the engine family's FEL for NOX, in mg/hp[middot]hr,
and FCL for CO2, in g/hp[middot]hr, rounded to the same
number of decimal places as the emission standard.
CF = a transient cycle conversion factor (hp[middot]hr/mile),
calculated by dividing the total (integrated) horsepower-hour over
the applicable duty cycle by 6.3 miles for engines subject to spark-
ignition standards and 6.5 miles for engines subject to compression-
ignition standards. This represents the average work performed over
the duty cycle. See paragraph (b)(3) of this section for provisions
that apply for CO2.
Volume = the number of engines eligible to participate in the
averaging, banking, and trading program within the given engine
family or subfamily during the model year, as described in paragraph
(c) of this section.
UL = the useful life for the standard that applies for a given
primary intended service class, in miles.
c = use 10-6 for CO2 and 10-9 for
NOX.
Example for model year 2025 Heavy HDE generating CO2 credits for a
model year 2028 Heavy HDE:
Std = 432 g/hp[middot]hr
FL = 401 g/hp[middot]hr
CF = 9.78 hp[middot]hr/mile
Volume = 15,342
UL = 435,000 miles
c = 10-6
Emission credits = (432-401) [middot] 9.78 [middot] 15,342 [middot]
435,000 [middot] 10-6 = 28,131,142 Mg
(2) [Reserved]
(3) The following additional provisions apply for calculating
CO2 credits:
(i) For engine families certified to both the vocational and
tractor engine standards, calculate credits separately for the
vocational engines and the tractor engines. We may allow you to use
statistical methods to estimate the total production volumes where a
small fraction of the engines cannot be tracked precisely.
(ii) Calculate the transient cycle conversion factor for vocational
engines based on the average of vocational engine configurations
weighted by their production volumes. Similarly, calculate the
transient cycle conversion factor for tractor engines based on the
average of tractor engine configurations weighted by their production
volumes. Note that calculating the transient cycle conversion factor
for tractors requires you to use the conversion factor even for engines
certified to standards based on the SET duty cycle.
(iii) The FCL for CO2 is based on measurement over the
FTP duty cycle for vocational engines and over the SET duty cycle for
tractor engines.
(4) You may not generate emission credits for tractor engines
(i.e., engines not certified to the transient cycle for CO2)
installed in vocational vehicles (including vocational tractors
certified under 40 CFR 1037.630 or exempted under 40 CFR 1037.631). We
will waive this provision where you demonstrate that less than five
percent of the engines in your tractor family were installed in
vocational vehicles. For example, if you know that 96 percent of your
tractor engines were installed in non-vocational tractors but cannot
determine the vehicle type for the remaining four percent, you may
generate credits for all the engines in the family.
(5) You may generate CO2 emission credits from a model
year 2021 or later medium heavy-duty engine family subject to spark-
ignition standards for exchanging with other engine families only if
the engines in the family are gasoline-fueled. You may generate
CO2 credits from non-gasoline engine families only for the
purpose of offsetting CH4 and/or N2O emissions
within the same engine family as described in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(c) As described in Sec. 1036.730, compliance with the
requirements of this subpart is determined at the end of the model year
based on actual U.S.-directed production volumes. Keep appropriate
records to document these production volumes. Do not include any of the
following engines to calculate emission credits:
(1) Engines that you do not certify to the CO2 standards
of this part because they are permanently exempted under subpart G of
this part or under 40 CFR part 1068.
(2) Exported engines.
(3) Engines not subject to the requirements of this part, such as
those excluded under Sec. 1036.5. For example, do not include engines
used in vehicles certified to the greenhouse gas standards of 40 CFR
86.1819.
(4) Any other engines if we indicate elsewhere in this part that
they are not to be included in the calculations of this subpart.
(d) You may use CO2 emission credits to show compliance
with CH4 and/or N2O FELs instead of the otherwise
applicable emission standards. To do
[[Page 17721]]
this, calculate the CH4 and/or N2O emission
credits needed (negative credits) using the equation in paragraph (b)
of this section, using the FEL(s) you specify for your engines during
certification instead of the FCL. You must use 34 Mg of positive
CO2 credits to offset 1 Mg of negative CH4
credits for model year 2021 and later engines, and you must use 25 Mg
of positive CO2 credits to offset 1 Mg of negative
CH4 credits for earlier engines. You must use 298 Mg of
positive CO2 credits to offset 1 Mg of negative
N2O credits.
Sec. 1036.710 Averaging.
(a) Averaging is the exchange of emission credits among your engine
families. You may average emission credits only within the same
averaging set, except as specified in Sec. 1036.740.
(b) You may certify one or more engine families to an FEL/FCL above
the applicable standard, subject to any applicable FEL caps and other
the provisions in subpart B of this part, if you show in your
application for certification that your projected balance of all
emission-credit transactions in that model year is greater than or
equal to zero, or that a negative balance is allowed under Sec.
1036.745.
(c) If you certify an engine family to an FEL/FCL that exceeds the
otherwise applicable standard, you must obtain enough emission credits
to offset the engine family's deficit by the due date for the final
report required in Sec. 1036.730. The emission credits used to address
the deficit may come from your other engine families that generate
emission credits in the same model year (or from later model years as
specified in Sec. 1036.745), from emission credits you have banked, or
from emission credits you obtain through trading.
Sec. 1036.715 Banking.
(a) Banking is the retention of surplus emission credits by the
manufacturer generating the emission credits for use in future model
years for averaging or trading.
(b) You may designate any emission credits you plan to bank in the
reports you submit under Sec. 1036.730 as reserved credits. During the
model year and before the due date for the final report, you may
designate your reserved emission credits for averaging or trading.
(c) Reserved credits become actual emission credits when you submit
your final report. However, we may revoke these emission credits if we
are unable to verify them after reviewing your reports or auditing your
records.
(d) Banked credits retain the designation of the averaging set in
which they were generated.
Sec. 1036.720 Trading.
(a) Trading is the exchange of emission credits between
manufacturers. You may use traded emission credits for averaging,
banking, or further trading transactions. Traded emission credits
remain subject to the averaging-set restrictions based on the averaging
set in which they were generated.
(b) You may trade actual emission credits as described in this
subpart. You may also trade reserved emission credits, but we may
revoke these emission credits based on our review of your records or
reports or those of the company with which you traded emission credits.
You may trade banked credits within an averaging set to any certifying
manufacturer.
(c) If a negative emission credit balance results from a
transaction, both the buyer and seller are liable, except in cases we
deem to involve fraud. See Sec. 1036.255(e) for cases involving fraud.
We may void the certificates of all engine families participating in a
trade that results in a manufacturer having a negative balance of
emission credits. See Sec. 1036.745.
Sec. 1036.725 Required information for certification.
(a) You must declare in your application for certification your
intent to use the provisions of this subpart for each engine family
that will be certified using the ABT program. You must also declare the
FEL/FCL you select for the engine family for each pollutant for which
you are using the ABT program. Your FELs must comply with the
specifications of subpart B of this part, including the FEL caps.
(b) Include the following in your application for certification:
(1) A statement that, to the best of your belief, you will not have
a negative balance of emission credits for any averaging set when all
emission credits are calculated at the end of the year; or a statement
that you will have a negative balance of emission credits for one or
more averaging sets, but that it is allowed under Sec. 1036.745.
(2) Detailed calculations of projected emission credits (positive
or negative) based on projected U.S.-directed production volumes. We
may require you to include similar calculations from your other engine
families to project your net credit balances for the model year. If you
project negative emission credits for a family, state the source of
positive emission credits you expect to use to offset the negative
emission credits.
Sec. 1036.730 ABT reports.
(a) If you certify any of your engine families using the ABT
provisions of this subpart, you must send us a final report by
September 30 following the end of the model year.
(b) Your report must include the following information for each
engine family participating in the ABT program:
(1) Engine-family designation and averaging set.
(2) The emission standards that would otherwise apply to the engine
family.
(3) The FEL/FCL for each pollutant. If you change the FEL/FCL after
the start of production, identify the date that you started using the
new FEL/FCL and/or give the engine identification number for the first
engine covered by the new FEL/FCL. In this case, identify each
applicable FEL/FCL and calculate the positive or negative emission
credits as specified in Sec. 1036.225(f).
(4) The projected and actual U.S.-directed production volumes for
the model year. If you changed an FEL/FCL during the model year,
identify the actual U.S.-directed production volume associated with
each FEL/FCL.
(5) The transient cycle conversion factor for each engine
configuration as described in Sec. 1036.705.
(6) Useful life.
(7) Calculated positive or negative emission credits for the whole
engine family. Identify any emission credits that you traded, as
described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(c) Your report must include the following additional information:
(1) Show that your net balance of emission credits from all your
participating engine families in each averaging set in the applicable
model year is not negative, except as allowed under Sec. 1036.745.
Your credit tracking must account for the limitation on credit life
under Sec. 1036.740(d).
(2) State whether you will reserve any emission credits for
banking.
(3) State that the report's contents are accurate.
(d) If you trade emission credits, you must send us a report within
90 days after the transaction, as follows:
(1) As the seller, you must include the following information in
your report:
(i) The corporate names of the buyer and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to the trade.
(iii) The averaging set corresponding to the engine families that
generated emission credits for the trade, including the number of
emission credits from each averaging set.
[[Page 17722]]
(2) As the buyer, you must include the following information in
your report:
(i) The corporate names of the seller and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to the trade.
(iii) How you intend to use the emission credits, including the
number of emission credits you intend to apply for each averaging set.
(e) Send your reports electronically to the Designated Compliance
Officer using an approved information format. If you want to use a
different format, send us a written request with justification for a
waiver.
(f) Correct errors in your report as follows:
(1) If you or we determine by September 30 after the end of the
model year that errors mistakenly decreased your balance of emission
credits, you may correct the errors and recalculate the balance of
emission credits. You may not make these corrections for errors that
are determined later than September 30 after the end of the model year.
If you report a negative balance of emission credits, we may disallow
corrections under this paragraph (f)(1).
(2) If you or we determine any time that errors mistakenly
increased your balance of emission credits, you must correct the errors
and recalculate the balance of emission credits.
Sec. 1036.735 Recordkeeping.
(a) You must organize and maintain your records as described in
this section. We may review your records at any time.
(b) Keep the records required by this section for at least eight
years after the due date for the end-of-year report. You may not use
emission credits for any engines if you do not keep all the records
required under this section. You must therefore keep these records to
continue to bank valid credits. Store these records in any format and
on any media, as long as you can promptly send us organized, written
records in English if we ask for them. You must keep these records
readily available. We may review them at any time.
(c) Keep a copy of the reports we require in Sec. Sec. 1036.725
and 1036.730.
(d) Keep records of the engine identification number (usually the
serial number) for each engine you produce that generates or uses
emission credits under the ABT program. You may identify these numbers
as a range. If you change the FEL after the start of production,
identify the date you started using each FEL/FCL and the range of
engine identification numbers associated with each FEL/FCL. You must
also identify the purchaser and destination for each engine you produce
to the extent this information is available.
(e) We may require you to keep additional records or to send us
relevant information not required by this section in accordance with
the Clean Air Act.
Sec. 1036.740 Restrictions for using emission credits.
The following restrictions apply for using emission credits:
(a) Averaging sets. Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this
section, emission credits may be exchanged only within the following
averaging sets based on primary intended service class:
(1) Spark-ignition HDE.
(2) Light HDE.
(3) Medium HDE.
(4) Heavy HDE.
(b) Applying credits to prior year deficits. Where your
CO2 credit balance for the previous year is negative, you
may apply credits to that deficit only after meeting your credit
obligations for the current year.
(c) CO2 credits from hybrid engines and other advanced
technologies. CO2 credits you generate under Sec. 1036.615
may be used for any of the averaging sets identified in paragraph (a)
of this section; you may also use those credits to demonstrate
compliance with the CO2 emission standards in 40 CFR 86.1819
and 40 CFR part 1037. Similarly, you may use Phase 1 advanced-
technology credits generated under 40 CFR 86.1819-14(k)(7) or 40 CFR
1037.615 to demonstrate compliance with the CO2 standards in
this part. In the case of Spark-ignition HDE and Light HDE you may not
use more than 60,000 Mg of credits from other averaging sets in any
model year.
(1) The maximum CO2 credits you may bring into the
following service class groups is 60,000 Mg per model year:
(i) Spark-ignition HDE, Light HDE, and Light HDV. This group
comprises the averaging sets listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of
this section and the averaging set listed in 40 CFR 1037.740(a)(1).
(ii) Medium HDE and Medium HDV. This group comprises the averaging
sets listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section and 40 CFR
1037.740(a)(2).
(iii) Heavy HDE and Heavy HDV. This group comprises the averaging
sets listed in paragraph (a)(4) of this section and 40 CFR
1037.740(a)(3).
(2) Paragraph (c)(1) of this section does not limit the advanced-
technology credits that can be used within a service class group if
they were generated in that same service class group.
(d) NOX and CO2 credit life. NOX and CO2
credits may be used only for five model years after the year in which
they are generated. For example, credits you generate in model year
2027 may be used to demonstrate compliance with emission standards only
through model year 2032.
(e) Other restrictions. Other sections of this part specify
additional restrictions for using emission credits under certain
special provisions.
Sec. 1036.741 Using emission credits from electric vehicles and
hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles.
NOX credits you generate under 40 CFR 1037.616 from
electric vehicles may be used to demonstrate compliance with the
NOX emission standards in this part as follows:
(a) Credits may be averaged, banked, or traded as described in this
subpart H.
(b) Averaging sets apply as specified in Sec. 1036.740 and 40 CFR
1037.102(b)(1).
(c) Banked credits may be used only for five model years as
described in Sec. 1036.740(d).
Sec. 1036.745 End-of-year CO2 credit deficits.
Except as allowed by this section, we may void the certificate of
any engine family certified to an FCL above the applicable standard for
which you do not have sufficient credits by the deadline for submitting
the final report.
(a) Your certificate for an engine family for which you do not have
sufficient CO2 credits will not be void if you remedy the
deficit with surplus credits within three model years. For example, if
you have a credit deficit of 500 Mg for an engine family at the end of
model year 2015, you must generate (or otherwise obtain) a surplus of
at least 500 Mg in that same averaging set by the end of model year
2018.
(b) You may not bank or trade away CO2 credits in the
averaging set in any model year in which you have a deficit.
(c) You may apply only surplus credits to your deficit. You may not
apply credits to a deficit from an earlier model year if they were
generated in a model year for which any of your engine families for
that averaging set had an end-of-year credit deficit.
(d) You must notify us in writing how you plan to eliminate the
credit deficit within the specified time frame. If we determine that
your plan is unreasonable or unrealistic, we may deny an application
for certification for a vehicle family if its FEL would increase your
credit deficit. We may determine that your plan is unreasonable or
unrealistic based on a consideration of past and projected use of
specific technologies, the historical sales mix of your vehicle models,
your
[[Page 17723]]
commitment to limit production of higher-emission vehicles, and
expected access to traded credits. We may also consider your plan
unreasonable if your credit deficit increases from one model year to
the next. We may require that you send us interim reports describing
your progress toward resolving your credit deficit over the course of a
model year.
(e) If you do not remedy the deficit with surplus credits within
three model years, we may void your certificate for that engine family.
We may void the certificate based on your end-of-year report. Note that
voiding a certificate applies ab initio. Where the net deficit is less
than the total amount of negative credits originally generated by the
family, we will void the certificate only with respect to the number of
engines needed to reach the amount of the net deficit. For example, if
the original engine family generated 500 Mg of negative credits, and
the manufacturer's net deficit after three years was 250 Mg, we would
void the certificate with respect to half of the engines in the family.
(f) For purposes of calculating the statute of limitations, the
following actions are all considered to occur at the expiration of the
deadline for offsetting a deficit as specified in paragraph (a) of this
section:
(1) Failing to meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section.
(2) Failing to satisfy the conditions upon which a certificate was
issued relative to offsetting a deficit.
(3) Selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering into U.S.
commerce, or importing vehicles that are found not to be covered by a
certificate as a result of failing to offset a deficit.
Sec. 1036.750 Consequences for noncompliance.
(a) For each engine family participating in the ABT program, the
certificate of conformity is conditioned upon full compliance with the
provisions of this subpart during and after the model year. You are
responsible to establish to our satisfaction that you fully comply with
applicable requirements. We may void the certificate of conformity for
an engine family if you fail to comply with any provisions of this
subpart.
(b) You may certify your engine family to an FEL/FCL above an
applicable standard based on a projection that you will have enough
emission credits to offset the deficit for the engine family. See Sec.
1036.745 for provisions specifying what happens if you cannot show in
your final report that you have enough actual emission credits to
offset a deficit for any pollutant in an engine family.
(c) We may void the certificate of conformity for an engine family
if you fail to keep records, send reports, or give us information we
request. Note that failing to keep records, send reports, or give us
information we request is also a violation of 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(2).
(d) You may ask for a hearing if we void your certificate under
this section (see Sec. 1036.820).
Sec. 1036.755 Information provided to the Department of
Transportation.
After receipt of each manufacturer's final report as specified in
Sec. 1036.730 and completion of any verification testing required to
validate the manufacturer's submitted final data, we will issue a
report to the Department of Transportation with CO2 emission
information and will verify the accuracy of each manufacturer's
equivalent fuel consumption data that required by NHTSA under 49 CFR
535.8. We will send a report to DOT for each engine manufacturer based
on each regulatory category and subcategory, including sufficient
information for NHTSA to determine fuel consumption and associated
credit values. See 49 CFR 535.8 to determine if NHTSA deems submission
of this information to EPA to also be a submission to NHTSA.
Subpart I--Definitions and Other Reference Information
Sec. 1036.801 Definitions.
The following definitions apply to this part. The definitions apply
to all subparts unless we note otherwise. All undefined terms have the
meaning the Act gives to them. The definitions follow:
Act means the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Adjustable parameter has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.50.
Advanced technology means technology certified under 40 CFR
86.1819-14(k)(7), Sec. 1036.615, or 40 CFR 1037.615.
Aftertreatment means relating to a catalytic converter, particulate
filter, or any other system, component, or technology mounted
downstream of the exhaust valve (or exhaust port) whose design function
is to decrease emissions in the engine exhaust before it is exhausted
to the environment. Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and turbochargers
are not aftertreatment.
Aircraft means any vehicle capable of sustained air travel more
than 100 feet above the ground.
Alcohol-fueled engine mean an engine that is designed to run using
an alcohol fuel. For purposes of this definition, alcohol fuels do not
include fuels with a nominal alcohol content below 25 percent by
volume.
Auxiliary emission control device means any element of design that
senses temperature, motive speed, engine speed (r/min), transmission
gear, or any other parameter for the purpose of activating, modulating,
delaying, or deactivating the operation of any part of the emission
control system.
Averaging set has the meaning given in Sec. 1036.740.
Calibration means the set of specifications and tolerances specific
to a particular design, version, or application of a component or
assembly capable of functionally describing its operation over its
working range.
Carryover means relating to certification based on emission data
generated from an earlier model year as described in Sec. 1036.235(d).
Certification means relating to the process of obtaining a
certificate of conformity for an engine family that complies with the
emission standards and requirements in this part.
Certified emission level means the highest deteriorated emission
level in an engine family for a given pollutant from the applicable
transient and/or steady-state testing, rounded to the same number of
decimal places as the applicable standard. Note that you may have two
certified emission levels for CO2 if you certify a family
for both vocational and tractor use.
Charge-depleting has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1066.1001.
Charge-sustaining has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1066.1001.
Complete vehicle means a vehicle meeting the definition of complete
vehicle in 40 CFR 1037.801 when it is first sold as a vehicle. For
example, where a vehicle manufacturer sells an incomplete vehicle to a
secondary vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle is not a complete vehicle
under this part, even after its final assembly.
Compression-ignition means relating to a type of reciprocating,
internal-combustion engine that is not a spark-ignition engine. Note
that Sec. 1036.1 also deems gas turbine engines and other engines to
be compression-ignition engines.
Crankcase emissions means airborne substances emitted to the
atmosphere from any part of the engine crankcase's ventilation or
lubrication systems. The crankcase is the housing for the crankshaft
and other related internal parts.
Criteria pollutants means emissions of NOX, HC, PM, and
CO.
[[Page 17724]]
Critical emission-related component has the meaning given in 40 CFR
1068.30.
Defeat device has the meaning given in Sec. 1036.115(h).
Designated Compliance Officer means one of the following:
(1) For engines subject to compression-ignition standards,
Designated Compliance Officer means Director, Diesel Engine Compliance
Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive,
Ann Arbor, MI 48105; [email protected]; www.epa.gov/ve-certification.
(2) For engines subject to spark-ignition standards, Designated
Compliance Officer means Director, Gasoline Engine Compliance Center,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor,
MI 48105; [email protected]; www.epa.gov/ve-certification.
Deteriorated emission level means the emission level that results
from applying the appropriate deterioration factor to the official
emission result of the emission-data engine. Note that where no
deterioration factor applies, references in this part to the
deteriorated emission level mean the official emission result.
Deterioration factor means the relationship between emissions at
the end of useful life (or point of highest emissions if it occurs
before the end of useful life) and emissions at the low-hour/low-
mileage point, expressed in one of the following ways:
(1) For multiplicative deterioration factors, the ratio of
emissions at the end of useful life (or point of highest emissions) to
emissions at the low-hour point.
(2) For additive deterioration factors, the difference between
emissions at the end of useful life (or point of highest emissions) and
emissions at the low-hour point.
Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) means a liquid reducing agent (other
than the engine fuel) used in conjunction with selective catalytic
reduction to reduce NOX emissions. Diesel exhaust fluid is
generally understood to be an aqueous solution of urea conforming to
the specifications of ISO 22241.
Dual-fuel means relating to an engine designed for operation on two
different types of fuel but not on a continuous mixture of those fuels
(see Sec. 1036.601(d)). For purposes of this part, such an engine
remains a dual-fuel engine even if it is designed for operation on
three or more different fuels.
Electronic control module (ECM) means an engine's electronic device
that uses data from engine sensors to control engine parameters.
Emission control system means any device, system, or element of
design that controls or reduces the emissions of regulated pollutants
from an engine.
Emission-data engine means an engine that is tested for
certification. This includes engines tested to establish deterioration
factors.
Emission-related component has the meaning given in 40 CFR part
1068, appendix A.
Emission-related maintenance means maintenance that substantially
affects emissions or is likely to substantially affect emission
deterioration.
Engine configuration means a unique combination of engine hardware
and calibration (related to the emission standards) within an engine
family, which would include hybrid components for engines certified as
hybrid engines and hybrid powertrains. Engines within a single engine
configuration differ only with respect to normal production variability
or factors unrelated to compliance with emission standards.
Engine family has the meaning given in Sec. 1036.230.
Excluded means relating to engines that are not subject to some or
all of the requirements of this part as follows:
(1) An engine that has been determined not to be a heavy-duty
engine is excluded from this part.
(2) Certain heavy-duty engines are excluded from the requirements
of this part under Sec. 1036.5.
(3) Specific regulatory provisions of this part may exclude a
heavy-duty engine generally subject to this part from one or more
specific standards or requirements of this part.
Exempted has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Exhaust gas recirculation means a technology that reduces emissions
by routing exhaust gases that had been exhausted from the combustion
chamber(s) back into the engine to be mixed with incoming air before or
during combustion. The use of valve timing to increase the amount of
residual exhaust gas in the combustion chamber(s) that is mixed with
incoming air before or during combustion is not considered exhaust gas
recirculation for the purposes of this part.
Family certification level (FCL) means a CO2 emission
level declared by the manufacturer that is at or above emission results
for all emission-data engines. The FCL serves as the emission standard
for the engine family with respect to certification testing if it is
different than the otherwise applicable standard.
Family emission limit (FEL) means one of the following:
(1) For NOX emissions, family emission limit (FEL) means
a NOX emission level declared by the manufacturer to serve
in place of an otherwise applicable emission standard under the ABT
program in subpart H of this part. The FEL serves as the emission
standard for the engine family with respect to all required testing.
(2) For greenhouse gas standards, family emission limit (FEL) is
the standard that applies for testing individual engines. The
CO2 FEL is equal to the CO2 FCL multiplied by
1.03 and rounded to the same number of decimal places as the standard.
Federal Test Procedure (FTP) means the applicable transient duty
cycle described in Sec. 1036.510 designed to measure exhaust emissions
during urban driving.
Flexible-fuel means relating to an engine designed for operation on
any mixture of two or more different types of fuels (see Sec.
1036.601(d)).
Fuel type means a general category of fuels such as diesel fuel,
gasoline, or natural gas. There can be multiple grades within a single
fuel type, such as premium gasoline, regular gasoline, or gasoline with
10 percent ethanol.
Good engineering judgment has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
See 40 CFR 1068.5 for the administrative process we use to evaluate
good engineering judgment.
Greenhouse gas means one or more compounds regulated under this
part based primarily on their impact on the climate. This generally
includes CO2, CH4, and N2O.
Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM) means the GEM simulation tool
described in 40 CFR 1037.520. Note that an updated version of GEM
applies starting in model year 2021.
Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) means the value specified by the
vehicle manufacturer as the maximum design loaded weight of a single
vehicle, consistent with good engineering judgment.
Heavy-duty engine means any engine which the engine manufacturer
could reasonably expect to be used for motive power in a heavy-duty
vehicle. For purposes of this definition in this part, the term
``engine'' includes internal combustion engines and other devices that
convert chemical fuel into motive power. For example, a fuel cell or a
gas turbine used in a heavy-duty vehicle is a heavy-duty engine.
Heavy-duty vehicle means any motor vehicle above 8,500 pounds GVWR.
An incomplete vehicle is also a heavy-duty vehicle if it has a curb
weight above
[[Page 17725]]
6,000 pounds or a basic vehicle frontal area greater than 45 square
feet. Curb weight and basic vehicle frontal area have the meaning given
in 40 CFR 86.1803-01.
Hybrid means an engine or powertrain that includes energy storage
features other than a conventional battery system or conventional
flywheel. Supplemental electrical batteries and hydraulic accumulators
are examples of hybrid energy storage systems. Note that certain
provisions in this part treat hybrid engines and hybrid powertrains
intended for vehicles that include regenerative braking different than
those intended for vehicles that do not include regenerative braking.
Hybrid engine means a hybrid system with features for storing and
recovering energy that are integral to the engine or are otherwise
upstream of the vehicle's transmission other than a conventional
battery system or conventional flywheel. Supplemental electrical
batteries and hydraulic accumulators are examples of hybrid energy
storage systems. Examples of hybrids that could be considered hybrid
engines are P0, P1, and P2 hybrids where hybrid features are connected
to the front end of the engine, at the crankshaft, or connected between
the clutch and the transmission where the clutch upstream of the hybrid
feature is in addition to the transmission clutch(s), respectively.
Note other examples of systems that qualify as hybrid engines are
systems that recover kinetic energy and use it to power an electric
heater in the aftertreatment.
Hybrid powertrain means a powertrain that includes energy storage
features other than a conventional battery system or conventional
flywheel. Supplemental electrical batteries and hydraulic accumulators
are examples of hybrid energy storage systems. Note other examples of
systems that qualify as hybrid powertrains are systems that recover
kinetic energy and use it to power an electric heater in the
aftertreatment.
Hydrocarbon (HC) has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Identification number means a unique specification (for example, a
model number/serial number combination) that allows someone to
distinguish a particular engine from other similar engines.
Incomplete vehicle means a vehicle meeting the definition of
incomplete vehicle in 40 CFR 1037.801 when it is first sold (or
otherwise delivered to another entity) as a vehicle.
Innovative technology means technology certified under Sec.
1036.610 (also described as ``off-cycle technology'').
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) means a liquid hydrocarbon fuel that
is stored under pressure and is composed primarily of nonmethane
compounds that are gases at atmospheric conditions. Note that, although
this commercial term includes the word ``petroleum'', LPG is not
considered to be a petroleum fuel under the definitions of this
section.
Low-hour means relating to an engine that has stabilized emissions
and represents the undeteriorated emission level. This would generally
involve less than 300 hours of operation for engines with
NOX aftertreatment and 125 hours of operation for other
engines.
Manufacture means the physical and engineering process of
designing, constructing, and/or assembling a heavy-duty engine or a
heavy-duty vehicle.
Manufacturer has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Medium-duty passenger vehicle has the meaning given in 40 CFR
86.1803.
Mild hybrid means a hybrid engine or powertrain with regenerative
braking capability where the system recovers less than 20 percent of
the total braking energy over the transient cycle defined in appendix A
of 40 CFR part 1037.
Model year means the manufacturer's annual new model production
period, except as restricted under this definition. It must include
January 1 of the calendar year for which the model year is named, may
not begin before January 2 of the previous calendar year, and it must
end by December 31 of the named calendar year. Manufacturers may not
adjust model years to circumvent or delay compliance with emission
standards or to avoid the obligation to certify annually.
Motor vehicle has the meaning given in 40 CFR 85.1703.
Natural gas means a fuel whose primary constituent is methane.
New motor vehicle engine has the meaning given in the Act. This
generally means a motor vehicle engine meeting any of the following:
(1) A motor vehicle engine for which the ultimate purchaser has
never received the equitable or legal title is a new motor vehicle
engine. This kind of engine might commonly be thought of as ``brand
new'' although a new motor vehicle engine may include previously used
parts. Under this definition, the engine is new from the time it is
produced until the ultimate purchaser receives the title or places it
into service, whichever comes first.
(2) An imported motor vehicle engine is a new motor vehicle engine
if it was originally built on or after January 1, 1970.
(3) Any motor vehicle engine installed in a new motor vehicle.
Noncompliant engine means an engine that was originally covered by
a certificate of conformity, but is not in the certified configuration
or otherwise does not comply with the conditions of the certificate.
Nonconforming engine means an engine not covered by a certificate
of conformity that would otherwise be subject to emission standards.
Nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) means the sum of all hydrocarbon
species except methane, as measured according to 40 CFR part 1065.
Nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent (NMHCE) has the meaning given in
40 CFR 1065.1001.
Nonmethane nonethane hydrocarbon equivalent (NMNEHC) has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Off-cycle technology means technology certified under Sec.
1036.610 (also described as ``innovative technology'').
Official emission result means the measured emission rate for an
emission-data engine on a given duty cycle before the application of
any deterioration factor, but after the applicability of any required
regeneration or other adjustment factors.
Owners manual means a document or collection of documents prepared
by the engine or vehicle manufacturer for the owner or operator to
describe appropriate engine maintenance, applicable warranties, and any
other information related to operating or keeping the engine. The
owners manual is typically provided to the ultimate purchaser at the
time of sale. The owners manual may be in paper or electronic format.
Oxides of nitrogen has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Percent has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. Note that this
means percentages identified in this part are assumed to be infinitely
precise without regard to the number of significant figures. For
example, one percent of 1,493 is 14.93.
Placed into service means put into initial use for its intended
purpose, excluding incidental use by the manufacturer or a dealer.
Preliminary approval means approval granted by an authorized EPA
representative prior to submission of an application for certification,
consistent with the provisions of Sec. 1036.210.
Primary intended service class has the meaning given in Sec.
1036.140.
QR Code means Quick Response Code, which is a registered trademark
of Denso Wave, Incorporated.
[[Page 17726]]
Rechargeable Energy Storage System (RESS) has the meaning given in
40 CFR 1065.1001.
Relating to as used in this section means relating to something in
a specific, direct manner. This expression is used in this section only
to define terms as adjectives and not to broaden the meaning of the
terms.
Revoke has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Round has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Sample means the collection of engines selected from the population
of an engine family for emission testing. This may include testing for
certification, production-line testing, or in-use testing.
Scheduled maintenance means adjusting, removing, disassembling,
cleaning, or replacing components or systems periodically to keep a
part or system from failing, malfunctioning, or wearing prematurely.
Small manufacturer means a manufacturer meeting the criteria
specified in 13 CFR 121.201. The employee and revenue limits apply to
the total number of employees and total revenue together for affiliated
companies. Note that manufacturers with low production volumes may or
may not be ``small manufacturers''.
Spark-ignition means relating to a gasoline-fueled engine or any
other type of engine with a spark plug (or other sparking device) and
with operating characteristics significantly similar to the theoretical
Otto combustion cycle. Spark-ignition engines usually use a throttle to
regulate intake air flow to control power during normal operation.
Steady-state has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. This
includes fuel mapping and idle testing where engine speed and load are
held at a finite set of nominally constant values.
Suspend has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Test engine means an engine in a sample.
Tractor means a vehicle meeting the definition of ``tractor'' in 40
CFR 1037.801, but not classified as a ``vocational tractor'' under 40
CFR 1037.630, or relating to such a vehicle.
Tractor engine means an engine certified for use in tractors. Where
an engine family is certified for use in both tractors and vocational
vehicles, ``tractor engine'' means an engine that the engine
manufacturer reasonably believes will be (or has been) installed in a
tractor. Note that the provisions of this part may require a
manufacturer to document how it determines that an engine is a tractor
engine.
Ultimate purchaser means, with respect to any new engine or
vehicle, the first person who in good faith purchases such new engine
or vehicle for purposes other than resale.
United States has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Upcoming model year means for an engine family the model year after
the one currently in production.
U.S.-directed production volume means the number of engines,
subject to the requirements of this part, produced by a manufacturer
for which the manufacturer has a reasonable assurance that sale was or
will be made to ultimate purchasers in the United States. This does not
include engines certified to state emission standards that are
different than the emission standards in this part.
Vehicle has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1037.801.
Vocational engine means an engine certified for use in vocational
vehicles. Where an engine family is certified for use in both tractors
and vocational vehicles, ``vocational engine'' means an engine that the
engine manufacturer reasonably believes will be (or has been) installed
in a vocational vehicle. Note that the provisions of this part may
require a manufacturer to document how it determines that an engine is
a vocational engine.
Vocational vehicle means a vehicle meeting the definition of
``vocational'' vehicle in 40 CFR 1037.801.
Void has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
We (us, our) means the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and any authorized representatives.
Sec. 1036.805 Symbols, abbreviations, and acronyms.
The procedures in this part generally follow either the
International System of Units (SI) or the United States customary
units, as detailed in NIST Special Publication 811 (incorporated by
reference in Sec. 1036.810). See 40 CFR 1065.20 for specific
provisions related to these conventions. This section summarizes the
way we use symbols, units of measure, and other abbreviations.
(a) Symbols for chemical species. This part uses the following
symbols for chemical species and exhaust constituents:
Table 1 to Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1036.805--Symbols for Chemical
Species and Exhaust Constituents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symbol Species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C......................................... carbon.
CH4....................................... methane.
CH4N2O.................................... urea.
CO........................................ carbon monoxide.
CO2....................................... carbon dioxide.
H2O....................................... water.
HC........................................ hydrocarbon.
NMHC...................................... nonmethane hydrocarbon.
NMHCE..................................... nonmethane hydrocarbon
equivalent.
NMNEHC.................................... nonmethane nonethane
hydrocarbon.
NO........................................ nitric oxide.
NO2....................................... nitrogen dioxide.
NOX....................................... oxides of nitrogen.
N2O....................................... nitrous oxide.
PM........................................ particulate matter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Symbols for quantities. This part uses the following symbols
and units of measure for various quantities:
Table 2 to Paragraph (b) of Sec. 1036.805--Symbols for Quantities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit in terms of
Symbol Quantity Unit Unit symbol SI base units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a............................... atomic hydrogen-to- mole per mole..... mol/mol........... 1
carbon ratio.
A............................... Area.............. square meter...... m\2\.............. m\2\
b............................... atomic oxygen-to- mole per mole..... mol/mol........... 1
carbon ratio.
CdA............................. drag area......... meter squared..... m\2\.............. m\2\
Crr............................. coefficient of newton per N/kN.............. 10-3
rolling kilonewton.
resistance.
D............................... distance.......... miles or meters... mi or m........... m
e............................... efficiency
E............................... Difference or
error quantity
e............................... mass weighted grams/ton-mile.... g/ton-mi.......... g/kg-km
emission result.
Eff............................. efficiency
Em.............................. mass-specific net megajoules/ MJ/kg............. m\2\[middot]s-2
energy content. kilogram.
fn.............................. angular speed revolutions per r/min............. [pi][middot]30[mid
(shaft). minute. dot]s-1
[[Page 17727]]
g............................... gravitational meters per second m/s\2\............ m[middot]s-\2\
acceleration. squared.
i............................... indexing variable
ka.............................. drive axle ratio.. .................. .................. 1
ktopgear........................ highest available
transmission gear
m............................... Mass.............. pound mass or lbm or kg......... kg
kilogram.
M............................... molar mass........ gram per mole..... g/mol............. 10-
\3\[middot]kg[mid
dot]mol-\1\
M............................... total number in a
series
M............................... vehicle mass...... kilogram.......... kg................ kg
Mrotating....................... inertial mass of kilogram.......... kg................ kg
rotating
components.
N............................... total number in a
series
Q............................... total number in a
series
P............................... Power............. kilowatt.......... kW................ 103[middot]m\2\[mi
ddot]kg[middot]s-
3
r............................... mass density...... kilogram per cubic kg/m3............. m-\3\[middot]kg
meter.
r............................... tire radius....... meter............. m................. m
SEE............................. standard error of
the estimate
s............................... standard deviation
T............................... torque (moment of newton meter...... N[middot]m........ m\2\[middot]kg[mid
force). dot]s-2
t............................... Time.............. second............ s................. s
Dt.............................. time interval, second............ s................. s
period, 1/
frequency.
UF.............................. utility factor
v............................... Speed............. miles per hour or mi/hr or m/s...... m[middot]s-1
meters per second.
W............................... Work.............. kilowatt-hour..... kW[middot]hr...... 3.6[middot]m\2\[mi
ddot]kg[middot]s-
1
wC.............................. carbon mass gram/gram......... g/g............... 1
fraction.
wCH4N2O......................... urea mass fraction gram/gram......... g/g............... 1
x............................... amount of mole per mole..... mol/mol........... 1
substance mole
fraction.
xb.............................. brake energy
fraction
xbl............................. brake energy limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Superscripts. This part uses the following superscripts for
modifying quantity symbols:
Table 3 to Paragraph (c) of Sec. 1036.805--Superscripts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superscript Meaning
------------------------------------------------------------------------
overbar (such as y)....................... arithmetic mean.
overdot (such as y)....................... quantity per unit time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Subscripts. This part uses the following subscripts for
modifying quantity symbols:
Table 4 to Paragraph (d) of Sec. 1036.805--Subscripts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscript Meaning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
65............................... 65 miles per hour.
A................................ A speed.
a................................ absolute (e.g., absolute difference or error).
acc.............................. accessory.
app.............................. approved.
axle............................. axle.
B................................ B speed.
C................................ C speed.
C................................ carbon mass.
Ccombdry......................... carbon from fuel per mole of dry exhaust.
CD............................... charge-depleting.
CO2DEF........................... CO2 resulting from diesel exhaust fluid decomposition.
comb............................. combustion.
comp............................. composite.
cor.............................. corrected.
CS............................... charge-sustaining.
cycle............................ cycle.
D................................ distance.
D................................ D speed.
DEF.............................. diesel exhaust fluid.
engine........................... engine.
exh.............................. raw exhaust.
front............................ frontal.
fuel............................. fuel.
H2Oexhaustdry.................... H2O in exhaust per mole of exhaust.
[[Page 17728]]
hi............................... high.
i................................ an individual of a series.
idle............................. idle.
int.............................. test interval.
j................................ an individual of a series.
k................................ an individual of a series.
m................................ mass.
max.............................. maximum.
mapped........................... mapped.
meas............................. measured quantity.
MY............................... model year.
neg.............................. negative.
pos.............................. positive.
R................................ range.
r................................ relative (e.g., relative difference or error).
rate............................. rate (divided by time).
rated............................ rated.
record........................... record.
ref.............................. reference quantity.
speed............................ speed.
stall............................ stall.
test............................. test.
tire............................. tire.
transient........................ transient.
[mu]............................. vector.
UF............................... utility factor.
vehicle.......................... vehicle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Other acronyms and abbreviations. This part uses the following
additional abbreviations and acronyms:
Table 5 to Paragraph (e) of Sec. 1036.805--Other Acronyms and Abbreviations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronym Meaning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABT.............................. averaging, banking, and trading.
AECD............................. auxiliary emission control device.
ASTM............................. American Society for Testing and Materials.
BTU.............................. British thermal units.
CD............................... charge-depleting.
CFR.............................. Code of Federal Regulations.
CI............................... compression-ignition.
COV.............................. coefficient of variation.
CS............................... charge-sustaining.
DEF.............................. diesel exhaust fluid.
DF............................... deterioration factor.
DOT.............................. Department of Transportation.
E85.............................. gasoline blend including nominally 85 percent denatured ethanol.
ECM.............................. Electronic Control Module.
EGR.............................. exhaust gas recirculation.
EPA.............................. Environmental Protection Agency.
FCL.............................. Family Certification Level.
FEL.............................. Family Emission Limit.
FTP.............................. Federal Test Procedure.
GEM.............................. Greenhouse gas Emissions Model.
g/hp[middot]hr................... grams per brake horsepower-hour.
GPS.............................. global positioning system.
GVWR............................. gross vehicle weight rating.
Heavy HDE........................ heavy heavy-duty engine (see Sec. 1036.140).
Heavy HDV........................ heavy heavy-duty vehicle (see 40 CFR 1037.140).
Light HDE........................ light heavy-duty engine (see Sec. 1036.140).
Light HDV........................ light heavy-duty vehicle (see 40 CFR 1037.140).
LLC.............................. Low Load Cycle.
LPG.............................. liquefied petroleum gas.
Medium HDE....................... medium heavy-duty engine (see Sec. 1036.140).
Medium HDV....................... medium heavy-duty vehicle (see 40 CFR 1037.140).
NARA............................. National Archives and Records Administration.
NHTSA............................ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[[Page 17729]]
NTE.............................. not-to-exceed.
PEMS............................. portable emission measurement system.
RESS............................. rechargeable energy storage system.
SCR.............................. selective catalytic reduction.
SEE.............................. standard error of the estimate.
SET.............................. Supplemental Emission Test.
Spark-ignition HDE............... spark-ignition heavy-duty engine (see Sec. 1036.140).
SI............................... spark-ignition.
UL............................... useful life.
U.S.............................. United States.
U.S.C............................ United States Code.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) Constants. This part uses the following constants:
Table 6 to Paragraph (f) of Sec. 1036.805--Constants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symbol Quantity Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
g........................... gravitational 9.80665 m[middot]s-
constant. \2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g) Prefixes. This part uses the following prefixes to define a
quantity:
Table 7 to Paragraph (g) of Sec. 1036.805--Prefixes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symbol Quantity Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mu]........................... micro.................. 10-6
m.............................. milli.................. 10-3
c.............................. centi.................. 10-2
k.............................. kilo................... 10\3\
M.............................. mega................... 106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1036.810 Incorporation by reference.
Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with
the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with
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 a document in the Federal Register and the material
must be available to the public. All approved material is available for
inspection at the EPA and at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). Contact EPA at: U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Room B102,
EPA West Building, Washington, DC 20460, www.epa.gov/dockets, (202)
202-1744. For information on the availability of this material at NARA,
email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. The material may be obtained from the
following sources:
(a) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (877) 909-2786, or www.astm.org.
(1) ASTM D975-21, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel, approved
August 1, 2021 (``ASTM D975''); IBR approved for Sec. 1036.415(c).
(2) ASTM D3588-98 (Reapproved 2017)e1, Standard Practice for
Calculating Heat Value, Compressibility Factor, and Relative Density of
Gaseous Fuels, approved April 1, 2017 (``ASTM D3588''); IBR approved
for Sec. 1036.530(b).
(3) ASTM D4809-13, Standard Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid
Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method), approved May
1, 2013 (``ASTM D4809''); IBR approved for Sec. 1036.530(b).
(4) ASTM D4814-21c, Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-
Ignition Engine Fuel, approved December 15, 2021 (``ASTM D4814''); IBR
approved for Sec. 1036.415(c).
(5) ASTM D7467-20a, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oil,
Biodiesel Blend (B6 to B20), approved June 1, 2020 (``ASTM D7467'');
IBR approved for Sec. 1036.415(c).
(b) National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau
Drive, Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070, (301) 975-6478, or
www.nist.gov.
(1) NIST Special Publication 811, Guide for the Use of the
International System of Units (SI), 2008 Edition, March 2008; IBR
approved for Sec. 1036.805.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) International Organization for Standardization, Case Postale
56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, (41) 22749 0111, www.iso.org, or
[email protected].
(1) ISO/IEC 18004:2015(E), Information technology--Automatic
identification and data capture techniques--QR Code bar code symbology
specification, Third Edition, February 2015; IBR approved for Sec.
1036.135(c).
(2) [Reserved]
(d) California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA
95812, (916) 322-2884, or www.arb.ca.gov:
[[Page 17730]]
(1) California's 2019 heavy-duty OBD requirements adopted under 13
CCR 1968.2, 1968.5, and 1971.5; IBR approved for Sec. 1036.110(b).
(2) California's 2019 heavy-duty OBD requirements adopted under 13
CCR 1971.1; IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 1036.110(b) and (c);
1036.111(a) and (c).
(e) SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, PA 15096-
0001, (877) 606-7323 (U.S. and Canada) or (724) 776-4970 (outside the
U.S. and Canada), or www.sae.org:
(1) SAE J1979-2, E/E Diagnostic Test Modes: OBDonUDS, April 22,
2021; IBR approved for Sec. 1036.150(u).
(2) [Reserved]
Sec. 1036.815 Confidential information.
(a) The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 and 1068.11 apply for
submitted information you submit under this part.
(b) Emission data or information that is publicly available cannot
be treated as confidential business information as described in 40 CFR
1068.11. Data that vehicle manufacturers need for demonstrating
compliance with greenhouse gas emission standards, including fuel-
consumption data as described in Sec. 1036.535 and 40 CFR 1037.550,
also qualify as emission data for purposes of confidentiality
determinations.
Sec. 1036.820 Requesting a hearing.
(a) You may request a hearing under certain circumstances, as
described elsewhere in this part. To do this, you must file a written
request, including a description of your objection and any supporting
data, within 30 days after we make a decision.
(b) For a hearing you request under the provisions of this part, we
will approve your request if we find that your request raises a
substantial factual issue.
(c) If we agree to hold a hearing, we will use the procedures
specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G.
Sec. 1036.825 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) This part includes various requirements to submit and record
data or other information. Unless we specify otherwise, store required
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. We may review these
records at any time. You must promptly give us organized, written
records in English if we ask for them. We may require you to submit
written records in an electronic format.
(b) The regulations in Sec. 1036.255 and 40 CFR 1068.25 and
1068.101 describe your obligation to report truthful and complete
information. This includes information not related to certification.
Failing to properly report information and keep the records we specify
violates 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2), which may involve civil or criminal
penalties.
(c) Send all reports and requests for approval to the Designated
Compliance Officer (see Sec. 1036.801).
(d) Any written information we require you to send to or receive
from another company is deemed to be a required record under this
section. Such records are also deemed to be submissions to EPA. Keep
these records for eight years unless the regulations specify a
different period. We may require you to send us these records whether
or not you are a certificate holder.
(e) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the
Office of Management and Budget approves the reporting and
recordkeeping specified in the applicable regulations. The following
items illustrate the kind of reporting and recordkeeping we require for
engines and vehicles regulated under this part:
(1) We specify the following requirements related to engine
certification in this part:
(i) In Sec. 1036.135 we require engine manufacturers to keep
certain records related to duplicate labels sent to vehicle
manufacturers.
(ii) In Sec. 1036.150 we include various reporting and
recordkeeping requirements related to interim provisions.
(iii) In subpart C of this part we identify a wide range of
information required to certify engines.
(iv) In Sec. Sec. 1036.430 and 1036.435 we identify reporting and
recordkeeping requirements related to field testing in-use engines.
(v) In subpart G of this part we identify several reporting and
recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval
related to various special compliance provisions.
(vi) In Sec. Sec. 1036.725, 1036.730, and 1036.735 we specify
certain records related to averaging, banking, and trading.
(2) We specify the following requirements related to testing in 40
CFR part 1065:
(i) In 40 CFR 1065.2 we give an overview of principles for
reporting information.
(ii) In 40 CFR 1065.10 and 1065.12 we specify information needs for
establishing various changes to published procedures.
(iii) In 40 CFR 1065.25 we establish basic guidelines for storing
information.
(iv) In 40 CFR 1065.695 we identify the specific information and
data items to record when measuring emissions.
(3) We specify the following requirements related to the general
compliance provisions in 40 CFR part 1068:
(i) In 40 CFR 1068.5 we establish a process for evaluating good
engineering judgment related to testing and certification.
(ii) In 40 CFR 1068.25 we describe general provisions related to
sending and keeping information
(iii) In 40 CFR 1068.27 we require manufacturers to make engines
available for our testing or inspection if we make such a request.
(iv) In 40 CFR 1068.105 we require vehicle manufacturers to keep
certain records related to duplicate labels from engine manufacturers.
(v) In 40 CFR 1068.120 we specify recordkeeping related to
rebuilding engines.
(vi) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart C, we identify several reporting
and recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval
related to various exemptions.
(vii) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart D, we identify several reporting
and recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval
related to importing engines.
(viii) In 40 CFR 1068.450 and 1068.455 we specify certain records
related to testing production-line engines in a selective enforcement
audit.
(ix) In 40 CFR 1068.501 we specify certain records related to
investigating and reporting emission-related defects.
(x) In 40 CFR 1068.525 and 1068.530 we specify certain records
related to recalling nonconforming engines.
(xi) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, we specify certain records for
requesting a hearing.
Appendix A of Part 1036--Summary of Previous Emission Standards
The following standards, which EPA originally adopted under 40
CFR part 85 or part 86, apply to compression-ignition engines
produced before model year 2007 and to spark-ignition engines
produced before model year 2008:
(a) Smoke. Smoke standards applied for compression-ignition
engines based on opacity measurement using the test procedures in 40
CFR part 86, subpart I, as follows:
(1) Engines were subject to the following smoke standards for
model years 1970 through 1973:
[[Page 17731]]
(i) 40 percent during the engine acceleration mode.
(ii) 20 percent during the engine lugging mode.
(2) The smoke standards in 40 CFR 86.007-11 started to apply in
model year 1974.
(b) Idle CO. A standard of 0.5 percent of exhaust gas flow at
curb idle applied through model year 2016 to the following engines:
(1) Spark-ignition engines with aftertreatment starting in model
year 1987. This standard applied only for gasoline-fueled engines
through model year 1997. Starting in model year 1998, the same
standard applied for engines fueled by methanol, LPG, and natural
gas. The idle CO standard no longer applied for engines certified to
meet onboard diagnostic requirements starting in model year 2005.
(2) Methanol-fueled compression-ignition engines starting in
model year 1990. This standard also applied for natural gas and LPG
engines starting in model year 1997. The idle CO standard no longer
applied for engines certified to meet onboard diagnostic
requirements starting in model year 2007.
(c) Crankcase emissions. The requirement to design engines to
prevent crankcase emissions applied starting with the following
engines:
(1) Spark-ignition engines starting in model year 1968. This
standard applied only for gasoline-fueled engines through model year
1989, and applied for spark-ignition engines using other fuels
starting in model year 1990.
(2) Naturally aspirated diesel-fueled engines starting in model
year 1985.
(3) Methanol-fueled compression-ignition engines starting in
model year 1990.
(4) Naturally aspirated gaseous-fueled engines starting in model
year 1997, and all other gaseous-fueled engines starting in 1998.
(d) Early steady-state standards. The following criteria
standards applied to heavy-duty engines based on steady-state
measurement procedures:
Table 1 of Appendix A--Early Steady-State Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant
Model year Fuel -----------------------------------------------------------
HC NOX + HC CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1970-1973....................... gasoline.......... 275 ppm........... .................. 1.5 volume
percent.
1974-1978....................... gasoline and .................. 16 g/hp[middot]hr. 40 g/hp[middot]hr.
diesel.
1979-1984 \a\................... gasoline and .................. 5 g/hp[middot]hr 25 g/hp[middot]hr.
diesel. for diesel.
5.0 g/hp[middot]hr
for gasoline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ An optional NOX + HC standard of 10 g/hp[middot]hr applied in 1979 through 1984 in conjunction with a
separate HC standard of 1.5 g/hp[middot]hr.
(e) Transient emission standards for spark-ignition engines. The
following criteria standards applied for spark-ignition engines
based on transient measurement using the test procedures in 40 CFR
part 86, subpart N. Starting in model year 1991, manufacturers could
generate or use emission credits for NOX and
NOX + NMHC standards. Table 2 to this appendix follows:
Table 2 of Appendix A--Transient Emission Standards for Spark-Ignition Engines \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant (g/hp[middot]hr)
Model year ---------------------------------------------------------------
HC CO NOX NOX + NMHC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985-1987....................................... 1.1 14.4 10.6 ..............
1988-1990....................................... 1.1 14.4 6.0 ..............
1991-1997....................................... 1.1 14.4 5.0 ..............
1998-2004 \c\................................... 1.1 14.4 4.0 ..............
2005-2007....................................... .............. 14.4 .............. \d\ 1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standards applied only for gasoline-fueled engines through model year 1989. Standards started to apply for
methanol in model year 1990, and for LPG and natural gas in model year 1998.
\b\ Engines intended for installation only in heavy-duty vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR were subject to an HC
standard of 1.9 g/hp[middot]hr for model years 1987 through 2004, and a CO standard of 37.1 g/hp[middot]hr for
model years 1987 through 2007. In addition, for model years 1987 through 2007, up to 5 percent of a
manufacturer's sales of engines intended for installation in heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds
GVWR could be certified to the alternative HC and CO standards.
\c\ For natural gas engines in model years 1998 through 2004, the NOX standard was 5.0 g/hp[middot]hr; the HC
standards were 1.7 g/hp[middot]hr for engines intended for installation only in vehicles above 14,000 pounds
GVWR, and 0.9 g/hp[middot]hr for other engines.
\d\ Manufacturers could delay the 1.0 g/hp[middot]hr NOX + NMHC standard until model year 2008 by meeting an
alternate NOX + NMHC standard of 1.5 g/hp[middot]hr applied for model years 2004 through 2007.
(f) Transient emission standards for compression-ignition
engines. The following criteria standards applied for compression-
ignition engines based on transient measurement using the test
procedures in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N. Starting in model year
1991, manufacturers could generate or use emission credits for
NOX, NOX + NMHC, and PM standards. Table 3 to
this appendix follows:
Table 3 of Appendix A--Transient Emission Standards for Compression-Ignition Engines \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant (g/hp[middot]hr)
Model year ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC CO NOX NOX + NMHC PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985-1987..................... 1.3 15.5 10.7 .............. ................
1988-1989..................... 1.3 15.5 10.7 .............. 0.60.
1990.......................... 1.3 15.5 6.0 .............. 0.60.
1991-1992..................... 1.3 15.5 5.0 .............. 0.25.
1993.......................... 1.3 15.5 5.0 .............. 0.25 truck, 0.10
bus.
1994-1995..................... 1.3 15.5 5.0 .............. 0.10 truck, 0.07
urban bus.
[[Page 17732]]
1996-1997..................... 1.3 15.5 5.0 .............. 0.10 truck, 0.05
urban bus.\b\
1998-2003..................... 1.3 15.5 4.0 .............. 0.10 truck, 0.05
urban bus.\b\
2004-2006..................... .............. 15.5 .............. \c\ 2.4 0.10 truck, 0.05
urban bus.\b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standards applied only for diesel-fueled engines through model year 1989. Standards started to apply for
methanol in model year 1990, and for LPG and natural gas in model year 1997. An alternate HC standard of 1.2 g/
hp[middot]hr applied for natural gas engines for model years 1997 through 2003.
\b\ The in-use PM standard for urban bus engines in model years 1996 through 2006 was 0.07 g/hp[middot]hr.
\c\ An optional NOX + NMHC standard of 2.5 g/hp[middot]hr applied in 2004 through 2006 in conjunction with a
separate NMHC standard of 0.5 g/hp[middot]hr.
Appendix B of Part 1036--Transient Duty Cycles
(a) This appendix specifies transient duty cycles for the engine
and powertrain testing described in Sec. Sec. 1036.510 and
1036.512, as follows:
(1) The transient duty cycle for testing engines involves a
schedule of normalized engine speed and torque values.
(2) The transient duty cycles for powertrain testing involves a
schedule of vehicle speeds and road grade. Determine road grade at
each point based on the peak rated power of the powertrain system,
Prated, determined in Sec. 1036.527 and road grade coefficients
using the following equation: Road grade = a [middot]
P\2\rated + b [middot] Prated + c
(b) The following transient duty cycle applies for spark-
ignition engines and powertrains:
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 17733]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.134
[[Page 17734]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.135
[[Page 17735]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.136
[[Page 17736]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.137
[[Page 17737]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.138
[[Page 17738]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.139
[[Page 17739]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.140
[[Page 17740]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.141
[[Page 17741]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.142
[[Page 17742]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.143
[[Page 17743]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.144
[[Page 17744]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.145
[[Page 17745]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.146
[[Page 17746]]
(c) The following transient duty cycle applies for compression-
ignition engines and powertrains:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.147
[[Page 17747]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.148
[[Page 17748]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.149
[[Page 17749]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.150
[[Page 17750]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.151
[[Page 17751]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.152
[[Page 17752]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.153
[[Page 17753]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.154
[[Page 17754]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.155
[[Page 17755]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.156
[[Page 17756]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.157
[[Page 17757]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.158
[[Page 17758]]
(d) The following transient Low Load Cycle applies for
compression-ignition engines and powertrains:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.159
[[Page 17759]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.160
[[Page 17760]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.161
[[Page 17761]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.162
[[Page 17762]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.163
[[Page 17763]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.164
[[Page 17764]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.165
[[Page 17765]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.166
[[Page 17766]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.167
[[Page 17767]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.168
[[Page 17768]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.169
[[Page 17769]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.170
[[Page 17770]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.171
[[Page 17771]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.172
[[Page 17772]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.173
[[Page 17773]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.174
[[Page 17774]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.175
[[Page 17775]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.176
[[Page 17776]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.177
[[Page 17777]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.178
[[Page 17778]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.179
[[Page 17779]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.180
[[Page 17780]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.181
[[Page 17781]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.182
[[Page 17782]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.183
[[Page 17783]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.184
[[Page 17784]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.185
[[Page 17785]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.186
[[Page 17786]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.187
[[Page 17787]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.188
[[Page 17788]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.189
[[Page 17789]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.190
[[Page 17790]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.191
[[Page 17791]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.192
[[Page 17792]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.193
[[Page 17793]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.194
[[Page 17794]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.195
[[Page 17795]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.196
[[Page 17796]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.197
[[Page 17797]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.198
[[Page 17798]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.199
[[Page 17799]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.200
[[Page 17800]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.201
[[Page 17801]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.202
[[Page 17802]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.203
[[Page 17803]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.204
[[Page 17804]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.205
[[Page 17805]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.206
Appendix C of Part 1036--Default Engine Fuel Maps for Sec. 1036.540
GEM contains the default steady-state fuel maps in this appendix
for performing cycle-average engine fuel mapping as described in
Sec. 1036.503(b)(2). Note that manufacturers have the option to
replace these default values in GEM if they generate a steady-state
fuel map as described in Sec. 1036.535(b).
(a) Use the following default fuel map for compression-ignition
engines that will be installed in Tractors and Vocational Heavy HDV:
[[Page 17806]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.207
[[Page 17807]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.208
[[Page 17808]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.209
(b) Use the following default fuel map for compression-ignition
engines that will be installed in Vocational Light HDV and
Vocational Medium HDV:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.210
[[Page 17809]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.211
[[Page 17810]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.212
(c) Use the following default fuel map for all spark-ignition
engines:
[[Page 17811]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.213
[[Page 17812]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.214
[[Page 17813]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.215
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
PART 1037--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW HEAVY-DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES
0
87. The authority citation for part 1037 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
88. Amend Sec. 1037.1 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.1 Applicability.
(a) The regulations in this part 1037 apply for all new heavy-duty
vehicles, except as provided in Sec. Sec. 1037.5 and 1037.104. This
includes electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, and vehicles fueled by
conventional and alternative fuels. This also includes certain trailers
as described in Sec. Sec. 1037.5, 1037.150, and 1037.801.
* * * * *
0
89. Amend Sec. 1037.5 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.5 Excluded vehicles.
* * * * *
(e) Vehicles subject to the heavy-duty emission standards of 40 CFR
part 86. See 40 CFR 86.1816 and 86.1819 for emission standards that
apply for these vehicles. This exclusion generally applies for complete
heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR and all vehicles at
or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that have no installed propulsion engine,
such as electric vehicles.
* * * * *
0
90. Amend Sec. 1037.10 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.10 How is this part organized?
* * * * *
(c) Subpart C of this part describes how to apply for a certificate
of conformity.
* * * * *
0
91. Revise Sec. 1037.101 to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.101 Overview of emission standards.
This part specifies emission standards for certain vehicles and for
certain pollutants. This part 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.
(a) You must show that vehicles meet the following emission
standards:
(1) Exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants. Criteria pollutant
standards for NOX, HC, PM, and CO apply as described in
Sec. 1037.102. These pollutants are sometimes described collectively
as ``criteria pollutants'' because they are either criteria pollutants
under the Clean Air Act or precursors to the criteria pollutants ozone
and PM.
(2) Exhaust emissions of greenhouse gases. These pollutants are
described collectively in this part as ``greenhouse gas pollutants''
because they are regulated primarily based on their impact on the
climate. Emission standards apply as follows for greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions:
(i) CO2, CH4, and N2O emission
standards apply as described in Sec. Sec. 1037.105 through 1037.107.
(ii) Hydrofluorocarbon standards apply as described in Sec.
1037.115(e). These pollutants are also ``greenhouse
[[Page 17814]]
gas pollutants'' but are treated separately from exhaust greenhouse gas
pollutants listed in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section.
(3) Fuel evaporative emissions. Requirements related to fuel
evaporative emissions are described in Sec. 1037.103.
(b) The regulated heavy-duty vehicles are addressed in different
groups as follows:
(1) For criteria pollutants, vocational vehicles and tractors are
regulated based on gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), whether they are
considered ``spark-ignition'' or ``compression-ignition,'' and whether
they are first sold as complete or incomplete vehicles.
(2) For greenhouse gas pollutants, vehicles are regulated in the
following groups:
(i) Tractors above 26,000 pounds GVWR.
(ii) Trailers.
(iii) Vocational vehicles.
(3) The greenhouse gas emission standards apply differently
depending on the vehicle service class as described in Sec. 1037.140.
In addition, standards apply differently for vehicles with spark-
ignition and compression-ignition engines. References in this part 1037
to ``spark-ignition'' or ``compression-ignition'' generally relate to
the application of standards under 40 CFR 1036.140. For example, a
vehicle with an engine certified to spark-ignition standards under 40
CFR part 1036 is generally subject to requirements under this part 1037
that apply for spark-ignition vehicles. However, note that emission
standards for Heavy HDE are considered to be compression-ignition
standards for purposes of applying vehicle emission standards under
this part. Also, for spark-ignition engines voluntarily certified as
compression-ignition engines under 40 CFR part 1036, you must choose at
certification whether your vehicles are subject to spark-ignition
standards or compression-ignition standards. Heavy-duty vehicles with
no installed propulsion engine, such as electric vehicles, are subject
to compression-ignition emission standards for the purpose of
calculating emission credits.
(4) 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.
0
92. Revise Sec. 1037.102 to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.102 Exhaust emission standards for NOX, HC, PM, and CO.
(a) Engines installed in heavy-duty vehicles are subject to
criteria pollutant standards for NOX, HC, PM, and CO under
40 CFR part 86 through model year 2026 and 40 CFR part 1036 for model
years 2027 and later.
(b) Heavy-duty vehicles with no installed propulsion engine, such
as electric vehicles, are subject to criteria pollutant standards under
this part. The emission standards that apply are the same as the
standards that apply for compression-ignition engines under 40 CFR
86.007-11 and 1036.104 for a given model year. Additional requirements
apply to vehicles with no installed propulsion engine as specified in
this part.
(1) Where this part references standards or other requirements in
40 CFR part 86 or 1036 that apply differently based on primary intended
service class, apply the Light HDE provisions to Light HDV, apply the
Medium HDE provisions to Medium HDV, and apply the Heavy HDE provisions
to Heavy HDV.
(2) Criteria pollutant emission standards and related requirements
apply for the useful life specified in 40 CFR 86.001-2 through model
year 2026 and as specified in 40 CFR 1036.104 for model year 2027 and
later. You may alternatively select the useful life values identified
in Sec. 1037.105(e) if you do not generate NOX credits
under Sec. 1037.616.
(3) The following requirements apply for vehicles generating
NOX credits under Sec. 1037.616:
(i) Electric vehicles. Measure initial useable battery energy for
electric vehicles using the test procedure in Sec. 1037.552. Useable
battery energy must remain at or above 70 percent throughout the useful
life.
(ii) Fuel cell vehicles. Measure initial fuel cell voltage for fuel
cell vehicles using the test procedure in Sec. 1037.554. Fuel cell
voltage must remain at or above 80 percent throughout the useful life.
0
93. Amend Sec. 1037.103 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1).
0
b. Removing paragraph (b)(6).
0
c. Revising paragraphs (f) and (g)(1) and (2).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1037.103 Evaporative and refueling emission standards.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The refueling standards in 40 CFR 86.1813-17(b) apply to
complete vehicles starting in model year 2022; they apply for
incomplete vehicles starting in model year 2027.
* * * * *
(f) Useful life. The evaporative and refueling emission standards
of this section apply for the full useful life, expressed in service
miles or calendar years, whichever comes first. The useful life values
for the standards of this section are the same as the values described
for evaporative emission standards in 40 CFR 86.1805.
(g) * * *
(1) Auxiliary engines and associated fuel-system components must be
installed when testing fully assembled 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 partially assembled 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
94. Amend Sec. 1037.105 by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (g)(2), and
(h)(1) and (5) through (7) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.105 CO2 emission standards for vocational vehicles.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Model year 2027 and later vehicles are subject to
CO2 standards corresponding to the selected subcategories as
shown in the following table:
[[Page 17815]]
Table 1 of Sec. 1037.105--Phase 2 CO2 Standards for Model Year 2027 and Later Vocational Vehicles
[g/ton-mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine cycle Vehicle size Multi-purpose Regional Urban
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compression-ignition.................. Light HDV............... 325 286 361
Compression-ignition.................. Medium HDV.............. 231 215 254
Compression-ignition.................. Heavy HDV............... 226 186 265
Spark-ignition........................ Light HDV............... 372 319 413
Spark-ignition........................ Medium HDV.............. 268 247 297
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) Class 8 hybrid vehicles with Light HDE or Medium HDE may be
certified to compression-ignition standards for the Heavy HDV service
class. You may generate and use credits as allowed for the Heavy HDV
service class.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) The following alternative emission standards apply by vehicle
type and model year as follows:
Table 5 of Sec. 1037.105--Phase 2 Custom Chassis Standards
[g/ton-mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle type \a\ Assigned vehicle service class MY 2021-2026 MY 2027+
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School bus................................... Medium HDV...................... 291 267
Motor home................................... Medium HDV...................... 228 226
Coach bus.................................... Heavy HDV....................... 210 205
Other bus.................................... Heavy HDV....................... 300 282
Refuse hauler................................ Heavy HDV....................... 313 298
Concrete mixer............................... Heavy HDV....................... 319 316
Mixed-use vehicle............................ Heavy HDV....................... 319 316
Emergency vehicle............................ Heavy HDV....................... 324 319
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Vehicle types are generally defined in Sec. 1037.801. ``Other bus'' includes any bus that is not a school
bus or a coach bus. A ``mixed-use vehicle'' is one that meets at least one of the criteria specified in Sec.
1037.631(a)(1) or (2).
* * * * *
(5) Emergency vehicles are deemed to comply with the standards of
this paragraph (h) if they use tires with TRRL at or below 8.4 N/kN
(8.7 N/kN for model years 2021 through 2026).
(6) Concrete mixers and mixed-use vehicles are deemed to comply
with the standards of this paragraph (h) if they use tires with TRRL at
or below 7.1 N/kN (7.6 N/kN for model years 2021 through 2026).
(7) Motor homes are deemed to comply with the standards of this
paragraph (h) if they have tires with TRRL at or below 6.0 N/kN (6.7 N/
kN for model years 2021 through 2026) and automatic tire inflation
systems or tire pressure monitoring systems with wheels on all axles.
* * * * *
0
95. Amend Sec. 1037.106 by revising paragraphs (b) and (f)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1037.106 Exhaust emission standards for tractors above 26,000
pounds GVWR.
* * * * *
(b) The CO2 standards for tractors above 26,000 pounds
GVWR in Table 1 of this section apply based on modeling and testing as
described in subpart F of this part. The provisions of Sec. 1037.241
specify how to comply with these standards in this paragraph (b).
Table 1 of Sec. 1037.106--CO2 Standards for Class 7 and Class 8 Tractors by Model Year
[g/ton-mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 2 Phase 2
standards for standards for standards for standards for standards for
Subcategory \a\ model years model years model years model years model year 2027
2014-2016 2017-2020 2021-2023 2024-2026 and later
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 7 Low-Roof (all cab 107 104 105.5 99.8 94.8
styles)......................
Class 7 Mid-Roof (all cab 119 115 113.2 107.1 101.8
styles)......................
Class 7 High-Roof (all cab 124 120 113.5 106.6 98.5
styles)......................
Class 8 Low-Roof Day Cab...... 81 80 80.5 76.2 72.3
Class 8 Low-Roof Sleeper Cab.. 68 66 72.3 68.0 64.1
Class 8 Mid-Roof Day Cab...... 88 86 85.4 80.9 76.8
Class 8 Mid-Roof Sleeper Cab.. 76 73 78.0 73.5 69.6
Class 8 High-Roof Day Cab..... 92 89 85.6 80.4 74.6
Class 8 High-Roof Sleeper Cab. 75 72 75.7 70.7 64.3
Heavy-Haul Tractors........... .............. .............. 52.4 50.2 48.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Sub-category terms are defined in Sec. 1037.801.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) You may optionally certify 4x2 tractors with Heavy HDE to the
standards and useful life for Class 8 tractors, with no restriction on
[[Page 17816]]
generating or using emission credits within the Class 8 averaging set.
* * * * *
0
96. Amend Sec. 1037.115 by revising paragraphs (a) and (e)(3) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1037.115 Other requirements.
* * * * *
(a) Adjustable parameters. Vehicles that have adjustable parameters
must meet all the requirements of this part for any adjustment in the
physically adjustable range. We may require that you set adjustable
parameters to any specification within the adjustable range during any
testing. See 40 CFR 1068.50 for general provisions related to
adjustable parameters. You must ensure safe vehicle operation
throughout the physically adjustable range of each adjustable
parameter, including consideration of production tolerances. Note that
adjustable roof fairings and trailer rear fairings are deemed not to be
adjustable parameters.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) If air conditioning systems are designed such that a compliance
demonstration under 40 CFR 86.1867-12(a) is impossible or impractical,
you may ask to use alternative means to demonstrate that your air
conditioning system achieves an equivalent level of control.
0
97. Amend Sec. 1037.120 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1037.120 Emission-related warranty requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Warranty period. (1) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section, your emission-related warranty must be valid for at
least:
(i) 5 years or 50,000 miles for Light HDV (except tires).
(ii) 5 years or 100,000 miles for Medium HDV and Heavy HDV (except
tires).
(iii) 5 years for trailers (except tires).
(iv) 1 year for tires installed on trailers, and 2 years or 24,000
miles for all other tires.
(2) Your emission-related warranty with respect to the standards
under Sec. 1037.102(b) must be valid for at least the periods
specified for engines in 40 CFR 1036.120(b) if you generate
NOX credits under Sec. 1037.616.
(3) You may offer an emission-related warranty more generous than
we require. The emission-related warranty for the vehicle may not be
shorter than any basic mechanical warranty you provide to that owner
without charge for the vehicle. Similarly, the emission-related
warranty for any component may not be shorter than any warranty you
provide to that owner without charge for that component. This means
that your warranty for a given vehicle may not treat emission-related
and nonemission-related defects differently for any component. The
warranty period begins when the vehicle is placed into service.
(c) Components covered. The emission-related warranty covers tires,
automatic tire inflation systems, tire pressure monitoring systems,
vehicle speed limiters, idle-reduction systems, hybrid system
components, and devices added to the vehicle to improve aerodynamic
performance (not including standard components such as hoods or mirrors
even if they have been optimized for aerodynamics), to the extent such
emission-related components are included in your application for
certification. The emission-related warranty also covers other added
emission-related components to the extent they are included in your
application for certification. The emission-related warranty covers
components designed to meet requirements under Sec. 1037.102(b)(3).
The emission-related warranty covers all components whose failure would
increase a vehicle's emissions of air conditioning refrigerants (for
vehicles subject to air conditioning leakage standards), and it covers
all components whose failure would increase a vehicle's evaporative and
refueling emissions (for vehicles subject to evaporative and refueling
emission standards). The emission-related warranty covers these
components even if another company produces the component. Your
emission-related warranty does not need to cover components whose
failure would not increase a vehicle's emissions of any regulated
pollutant.
* * * * *
0
98. Amend Sec. 1037.125 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.125 Maintenance instructions and allowable maintenance.
* * * * *
(d) Noncritical emission-related maintenance. Subject to the
provisions of this paragraph (d), you may schedule any amount of
emission-related inspection or maintenance that is not covered by
paragraph (a) of this section (that is, maintenance that is neither
explicitly identified as critical emission-related maintenance, nor
that we approve as critical emission-related maintenance). Noncritical
emission-related maintenance generally includes maintenance on the
components we specify in 40 CFR part 1068, appendix A, that is not
covered in paragraph (a) of this section. You must state in the owners
manual that these steps are not necessary to keep the emission-related
warranty valid. If operators fail to do this maintenance, this does not
allow you to disqualify those vehicles from in-use testing or deny a
warranty claim. Do not take these inspection or maintenance steps
during service accumulation on your emission-data vehicles.
* * * * *
0
99. Amend Sec. 1037.130 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1037.130 Assembly instructions for secondary vehicle
manufacturers.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Describe the necessary steps for installing emission-related
diagnostic systems.
* * * * *
0
100. Amend Sec. 1037.135 by revising paragraph (c)(6) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1037.135 Labeling.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(6) Identify the emission control system. Use terms and
abbreviations as described in appendix C to this part or other
applicable conventions. Phase 2 tractors and Phase 2 vocational
vehicles may omit this information.
* * * * *
0
101. Amend Sec. 1037.140 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.140 Classifying vehicles and determining vehicle
parameters.
* * * * *
(g) The standards and other provisions of this part apply to
specific vehicle service classes for tractors and vocational vehicles
as follows:
(1) Phase 1 and Phase 2 tractors are divided based on GVWR into
Class 7 tractors and Class 8 tractors. Where provisions of this part
apply to both tractors and vocational vehicles, Class 7 tractors are
considered ``Medium HDV'' and Class 8 tractors are considered ``Heavy
HDV''. This paragraph (g)(1) applies for hybrid and non-hybrid
vehicles.
(2) Phase 1 vocational vehicles are divided based on GVWR. ``Light
HDV'' includes Class 2b through Class 5 vehicles; ``Medium HDV''
includes Class 6 and Class 7 vehicles; and ``Heavy HDV'' includes Class
8 vehicles.
(3) Phase 2 vocational vehicles propelled by engines subject to the
spark-ignition standards of 40 CFR part 1036 are divided as follows:
(i) Class 2b through Class 5 vehicles are considered ``Light HDV''.
[[Page 17817]]
(ii) Class 6 through Class 8 vehicles are considered ``Medium
HDV''.
(4) Phase 2 vocational vehicles propelled by engines subject to the
compression-ignition standards in 40 CFR part 1036 are divided as
follows:
(i) Class 2b through Class 5 vehicles are considered ``Light HDV''.
(ii) Class 6 through 8 vehicles are considered ``Heavy HDV'' if the
installed engine's primary intended service class is Heavy HDE (see 40
CFR 1036.140), except that Class 8 hybrid vehicles are considered
``Heavy HDV'' regardless of the engine's primary intended service
class.
(iii) All other Class 6 through Class 8 vehicles are considered
``Medium HDV''.
(5) Heavy-duty vehicles with no installed propulsion engine, such
as electric vehicles, are divided as follows:
(i) Class 2b through Class 5 vehicles are considered ``Light HDV''.
(ii) Class 6 and 7 vehicles are considered ``Medium HDV''.
(iii) Class 8 vehicles are considered ``Heavy HDV''.
(6) In certain circumstances, you may certify vehicles to standards
that apply for a different vehicle service class. For example, see
Sec. Sec. 1037.105(g) and 1037.106(f). If you optionally certify
vehicles to different standards, those vehicles are subject to all the
regulatory requirements as if the standards were mandatory.
* * * * *
0
102. Amend Sec. 1037.150 by revising paragraphs (f) and (y)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1037.150 Interim provisions.
* * * * *
(f) Electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Tailpipe emissions of
regulated GHG pollutants from electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles are deemed to be zero. No CO2-related emission
testing is required for electric vehicles. Use good engineering
judgment to apply other requirements of this part to electric vehicles.
* * * * *
(y) * * *
(1) For vocational Light HDV and vocational Medium HDV, emission
credits you generate in model years 2018 through 2021 may be used
through model year 2027, instead of being limited to a five-year credit
life as specified in Sec. 1037.740(c). For Class 8 vocational vehicles
with Medium HDE, we will approve your request to generate these credits
in and use these credits for the Medium HDV averaging set if you show
that these vehicles would qualify as Medium HDV under the Phase 2
program as described in Sec. 1037.140(g)(4).
* * * * *
0
103. Amend Sec. 1037.205 by revising paragraphs (p) and (q) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1037.205 What must I include in my application?
* * * * *
(p) Where applicable, describe all adjustable operating parameters
(see Sec. 1037.115), including production tolerances. For any
operating parameters that do not qualify as adjustable parameters,
include a description supporting your conclusion (see 40 CFR
1068.50(c)). Include the following in your description of each
adjustable parameter:
(1) For mechanically controlled parameters, include the nominal or
recommended setting, the intended physically adjustable range, and the
limits or stops used to establish adjustable ranges. Also include
information showing why the limits, stops, or other means of inhibiting
adjustment are effective in preventing adjustment of parameters on in-
use engines to settings outside your intended physically adjustable
ranges.
(2) For electronically controlled parameters, describe how your
engines are designed to prevent unauthorized adjustments.
(q) Include the following information for electric vehicles and
fuel cell vehicles to show that they meet the standards of this part:
(1) You may attest that vehicles comply with the standards of Sec.
1037.102 instead of submitting test data.
(2) For vehicles generating credits under Sec. 1037.616, you may
attest that the vehicle meets the durability requirements described in
Sec. 1037.102(b)(3) based on an engineering analysis of measured
values and other information, consistent with good engineering
judgment, instead of testing at the end of the useful life. Send us
your test results for work produced over the FTP and initial useable
battery energy or initial fuel cell voltage. Also send us your
engineering analysis describing how you meet the durability
requirements if we ask for it.
* * * * *
0
104. Amend Sec. 1037.225 by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.225 Amending applications for certification.
Before we issue you a certificate of conformity, you may amend your
application to include new or modified vehicle configurations, subject
to the provisions of this section. After we have issued your
certificate of conformity, you may send us an amended application any
time before the end of the model year requesting that we include new or
modified vehicle configurations within the scope of the certificate,
subject to the provisions of this section. You must amend your
application if any changes occur with respect to any information that
is included or should be included in your application.
* * * * *
(g) You may produce vehicles or modify in-use vehicles as described
in your amended application for certification and consider those
vehicles to be in a certified configuration. Modifying a new or in-use
vehicle to be in a certified configuration does not violate the
tampering prohibition of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1), as long as this does
not involve changing to a certified configuration with a higher family
emission limit. See Sec. 1037.621(g) for special provisions that apply
for changing to a different certified configuration in certain
circumstances.
0
105. Amend Sec. 1037.230 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.230 Vehicle families, sub-families, and configurations.
* * * * *
(c) Group vehicles into configurations consistent with the
definition of ``vehicle configuration'' in Sec. 1037.801. Note that
vehicles with hardware or software differences that are related to
measured or modeled emissions are considered to be different vehicle
configurations even if they have the same modeling inputs and FEL. Note
also, that you are not required to separately identify all
configurations for certification. Note that you are not required to
identify all possible configurations for certification; also, you are
required to include in your final ABT report only those configurations
you produced.
* * * * *
0
106. Amend Sec. 1037.231 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1037.231 Powertrain families.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Engine family as specified in 40 CFR 1036.230.
* * * * *
0
107. Amend Sec. 1037.250 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.250 Reporting and recordkeeping.
(a) By September 30 following the end of the model year, send the
Designated Compliance Officer a report including
[[Page 17818]]
the total U.S.-directed production volume of vehicles you produced in
each vehicle family during the model year (based on information
available at the time of the report). Report by vehicle identification
number and vehicle configuration and identify the subfamily identifier.
Report uncertified vehicles sold to secondary vehicle manufacturers. We
may waive the reporting requirements of this paragraph (a) for small
manufacturers.
* * * * *
0
108. Amend Sec. 1037.320 by removing Table 1 to Sec. 1037.320 and
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.320 Audit procedures for axles and transmissions.
* * * * *
(b) Run GEM for each applicable vehicle configuration and GEM
regulatory subcategory identified in 40 CFR 1036.540 and for each
vehicle class as defined in Sec. 1037.140(g) using the applicable
default engine map in appendix C of 40 CFR part 1036, the cycle-average
fuel map in Table 1 of this section, the torque curve in Table 2 of
this section for both the engine full-load torque curve and parent
engine full-load torque curve, the motoring torque curve in Table 3 of
this section, the idle fuel map in Table 4 of this section. For axle
testing, this may require omitting several vehicle configurations based
on selecting axle ratios that correspond to the tested axle. For
transmission testing, use the test transmission's gear ratios in place
of the gear ratios defined in 40 CFR 1036.540. The GEM ``Default FEL
CO2 Emissions'' result for each vehicle configuration counts
as a separate test for determining whether the family passes the audit.
For vocational vehicles, use the GEM ``Default FEL CO2
Emissions'' result for the Regional subcategory. Table 1 through Table
4 follow:
BILLING CODE 6560-01-P
[[Page 17819]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.216
BILLING CODE 6560-01-C
[[Page 17820]]
Table 2 to Paragraph (b) of Sec. 1037.320--Full-Load Torque Curves by Vehicle Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light HDV and medium HDV--spark-ignition Light HDV and medium HDV--compression-ignition Heavy HDV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine torque Engine torque Engine torque
Engine speed (r/min) (N[middot]m) Engine speed (r/min) (N[middot]m) Engine speed (r/min) (N[middot]m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
600 433 750 470 600 1200
700 436 907 579 750 1320
800 445 1055 721 850 1490
900 473 1208 850 950 1700
1000 492 1358 876 1050 1950
1100 515 1507 866 1100 2090
1200 526 1660 870 1200 2100
1300 541 1809 868 1250 2100
1400 542 1954 869 1300 2093
1500 542 2105 878 1400 2092
1600 542 2258 850 1500 2085
1700 547 2405 800 1520 2075
1800 550 2556 734 1600 2010
1900 551 2600 0 1700 1910
2000 554 ....................... ........................ 1800 1801
2100 553 ....................... ........................ 1900 1640
2200 558 ....................... ........................ 2000 1350
2300 558 ....................... ........................ 2100 910
2400 566 ....................... ........................ 2250 0
2500 571
2600 572
2700 581
2800 586
2900 587
3000 590
3100 591
3200 589
3300 585
3400 584
3500 582
3600 573
3700 562
3800 555
3900 544
4000 534
4100 517
4200 473
4291 442
4500 150
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 to Paragraph (b) of Sec. 1037.320--Motoring Torque Curves by Vehicle Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light HDV and medium HDV--spark-ignition Light HDV and medium HDV--compression-ignition Heavy HDV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine torque Engine torque Engine torque
Engine speed (r/min) (N[middot]m) Engine speed (r/min) (N[middot]m) Engine speed (r/min) (N[middot]m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
700 -41 750 -129 600 -98
800 -42 907 -129 750 -121
900 -43 1055 -130 850 -138
1000 -45 1208 -132 950 -155
1100 -48 1358 -135 1050 -174
1200 -49 1507 -138 1100 -184
1300 -50 1660 -143 1200 -204
1411 -51 1809 -148 1250 -214
1511 -52 1954 -155 1300 -225
1611 -53 2105 -162 1400 -247
1711 -56 2258 -170 1500 -270
1811 -56 2405 -179 1520 -275
1911 -57 2556 -189 1600 -294
2011 -57 ....................... ........................ 1700 -319
2111 -58 ....................... ........................ 1800 -345
2211 -60 ....................... ........................ 1900 -372
2311 -65 ....................... ........................ 2000 -400
2411 -81 ....................... ........................ 2100 -429
2511 -85
2611 -87
[[Page 17821]]
2711 -88
2811 -89
2911 -91
3011 -91
3111 -96
3211 -96
3311 -97
3411 -98
3511 -99
3611 -104
3711 -105
3811 -108
3911 -108
4011 -111
4111 -111
4211 -115
4291 -112
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 to Paragraph (b) of Sec. 1037.320--Engine Idle Fuel Maps by Vehicle Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light HDV and medium HDV--spark-ignition Light HDV and medium HDV--compression-ignition Heavy HDV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine speed (r/ Engine torque Fuel mass rate (g/ Engine speed (r/ Engine torque Fuel mass rate Engine speed Engine torque Fuel mass rate
min) (N[middot]m) s) min) (N[middot]m) (g/s) (r/min) (N[middot]m) (g/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
600 0 0.4010 750 0 0.2595 600 0 0.3501
700 0 0.4725 850 0 0.2626 700 0 0.4745
600 100 0.6637 750 100 0.6931 600 100 0.6547
700 100 0.7524 850 100 0.7306 700 100 0.8304
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
109. Amend Sec. 1037.510 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (2), and
(3) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.510 Duty-cycle exhaust testing.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Transient cycle. The transient cycle is specified in appendix A
of this part. Warm up the vehicle. Start the duty cycle within 30
seconds after concluding the preconditioning procedure. Start sampling
emissions at the start of the duty cycle.
* * * * *
(2) Perform cycle-average engine fuel mapping as described in 40
CFR 1036.540. For powertrain testing under Sec. 1037.550 or Sec.
1037.555, perform testing as described in this paragraph (a)(2) to
generate GEM inputs for each simulated vehicle configuration, and test
runs representing different idle conditions. Perform testing as
follows:
(i) Transient cycle. The transient cycle is specified in appendix A
of this part.
(ii) Highway cruise cycles. The grade portion of the route
corresponding to the 55 mi/hr and 65 mi/hr highway cruise cycles is
specified in appendix D of this part. Maintain vehicle speed between -
1.0 mi/hr and 3.0 mi/hr of the speed setpoint; this speed tolerance
applies instead of the approach specified in 40 CFR 1066.425(b)(1) and
(2).
(iii) Drive idle. Perform testing at a loaded idle condition for
Phase 2 vocational vehicles. For engines with an adjustable warm idle
speed setpoint, test at the minimum warm idle speed and the maximum
warm idle speed; otherwise simply test at the engine's warm idle speed.
Warm up the powertrain as described in 40 CFR 1036.527(c)(1). Within 60
seconds after concluding the warm-up, linearly ramp the powertrain down
to zero vehicle speed over 20 seconds. Apply the brake and keep the
transmission in drive (or clutch depressed for manual transmission).
Stabilize the powertrain for (60 1) seconds and then
sample emissions for (30 1) seconds.
(iv) Parked idle. Perform testing at an no-load idle condition for
Phase 2 vocational vehicles. For engines with an adjustable warm idle
speed setpoint, test at the minimum warm idle speed and the maximum
warm idle speed; otherwise simply test at the engine's warm idle speed.
Warm up the powertrain as described in 40 CFR 1036.527(c)(1). Within 60
seconds after concluding the warm-up, linearly ramp the powertrain down
to zero vehicle speed in 20 seconds. Put the transmission in park (or
neutral for manual transmissions and apply the parking brake if
applicable). Stabilize the powertrain for (180 1) seconds
and then sample emissions for (600 1) seconds.
(3) Where applicable, perform testing on a chassis dynamometer as
follows:
(i) Transient cycle. The transient cycle is specified in appendix A
of this part. Warm up the vehicle by operating over one transient
cycle. Within 60 seconds after concluding the warm up cycle, start
emission sampling and operate the vehicle over the duty cycle.
(ii) Highway cruise cycle. The grade portion of the route
corresponding to the 55 mi/hr and 65 mi/hr highway cruise cycles is
specified in appendix D of this part. Warm up the vehicle by operating
it at the appropriate speed setpoint over the duty cycle. Within 60
seconds after concluding the preconditioning cycle, start emission
sampling and operate the vehicle over the duty cycle, maintaining
vehicle speed within 1.0 mi/hr of the speed setpoint; this
speed tolerance applies
[[Page 17822]]
instead of the approach specified in 40 CFR 1066.425(b)(1) and (2).
* * * * *
(d) For highway cruise and transient testing, compare actual
second-by-second vehicle speed with the speed specified in the test
cycle and ensure any differences are consistent with the criteria as
specified in Sec. 1037.550(g)(1). If the speeds do not conform to
these criteria, the test is not valid and must be repeated.
* * * * *
0
110. Amend Sec. 1037.520 by revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (3), (f),
and (h)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.520 Modeling CO2 emissions to show compliance for
vocational vehicles and tractors.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Measure tire rolling resistance in kg per metric ton as
specified in ISO 28580 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1037.810),
except as specified in this paragraph (c). Use good engineering
judgment to ensure that your test results are not biased low. You may
ask us to identify a reference test laboratory to which you may
correlate your test results. Prior to beginning the test procedure in
Section 7 of ISO 28580 for a new bias-ply tire, perform a break-in
procedure by running the tire at the specified test speed, load, and
pressure for (60 2) minutes.
(3) For each tire design tested, measure rolling resistance of at
least three different tires of that specific design and size. Perform
the test at least once for each tire. Calculate the arithmetic mean of
these results to the nearest 0.1 N/kN and use this value or any higher
value as your GEM input for TRRL. You must test at least one tire size
for each tire model, and may use engineering analysis to determine the
rolling resistance of other tire sizes of that model. Note that for
tire sizes that you do not test, we will treat your analytically
derived rolling resistances the same as test results, and we may
perform our own testing to verify your values. We may require you to
test a small sub-sample of untested tire sizes that we select.
* * * * *
(f) Engine characteristics. Enter information from the engine
manufacturer to describe the installed engine and its operating
parameters as described in 40 CFR 1036.503. Note that you do not need
fuel consumption at idle for tractors.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) For engines with no adjustable warm idle speed, input vehicle
idle speed as the manufacturer's declared warm idle speed. For engines
with adjustable warm idle speed, input your vehicle idle speed as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your default
And your engine is vehicle idle
If your vehicle is a . . . subject to . . . speed is . .
.\a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Heavy HDV................. compression-ignition 600 r/min.
or spark-ignition
standards.
(ii) Medium HDV tractor....... compression-ignition 700 r/min.
standards.
(iii) Light HDV or Medium HDV compression-ignition 750 r/min.
vocational vehicle. standards.
(iv) Light HDV or Medium HDV.. spark-ignition 600 r/min.
standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ If the default idle speed is above or below the engine
manufacturer's whole range of declared warm idle speeds, use the
manufacturer's maximum or minimum declared warm idle speed,
respectively, instead of the default value.
* * * * *
0
111. Amend Sec. 1037.534 by revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1037.534 Constant-speed procedure for calculating drag area
(CdA).
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Perform testing as described in paragraph (d)(3) of this
section over a sequence of test segments at constant vehicle speed as
follows:
(i) (300 30) seconds in each direction at 10 mi/hr.
(ii) (450 30) seconds in each direction at 70 mi/hr.
(iii) (450 30) seconds in each direction at 50 mi/hr.
(iv) (450 30) seconds in each direction at 70 mi/hr.
(v) (450 30) seconds in each direction at 50 mi/hr.
(vi) (300 30) seconds in each direction at 10 mi/hr.
* * * * *
0
112. Amend Sec. 1037.540 by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (b)(3), (7), and (8), and (f)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.540 Special procedures for testing vehicles with hybrid
power take-off.
This section describes optional procedures for quantifying the
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for vehicles as a result of
running power take-off (PTO) devices with a hybrid energy delivery
system. See Sec. 1037.550 for powertrain testing requirements that
apply for drivetrain hybrid systems. The procedures are written to test
the PTO by ensuring that the engine produces all of the energy with no
net change in stored energy (charge-sustaining), and for plug-in hybrid
vehicles, also allowing for drawing down the stored energy (charge-
depleting). The full charge-sustaining test for the hybrid vehicle is
from a fully charged rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) to a
depleted RESS and then back to a fully charged RESS. You must include
all hardware for the PTO system. You may ask us to modify the
provisions of this section to allow testing hybrid vehicles other than
battery electric hybrids, consistent with good engineering judgment.
For plug-in hybrids, use a utility factor to properly weight charge-
sustaining and charge-depleting operation as described in paragraph
(f)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Denormalize the PTO duty cycle in appendix B of this part using
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.069
Where:
prefi = the reference pressure at each point i in the PTO
cycle.
pi = the normalized pressure at each point i in the PTO cycle
(relative to pmax).
pmax = the mean maximum pressure measured in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
pmin = the mean minimum pressure measured in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
(7) Depending on the number of circuits the PTO system has, operate
the vehicle over one or concurrently over both of the denormalized PTO
duty cycles in appendix B of this part. Measure emissions during
operation over each duty cycle using the provisions of 40 CFR part
1066.
(8) Measured pressures must meet the cycle-validation
specifications in the following table for each test run over the duty
cycle:
[[Page 17823]]
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(8) of Sec. 1037.540--Statistical Criteria for
Validating Each Test Run Over the Duty Cycle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter \a\ Pressure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slope, a1................................. 0.950 <= a1 <= 1.030
Absolute value of intercept, <=2.0% of maximum mapped
[verbar]a0[verbar]. pressure
Standard error of the estimate, SEE....... <=10% of maximum mapped
pressure
Coefficient of determination, r\2\........ >=0.970
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Determine values for specified parameters as described in 40 CFR
1065.514(e) by comparing measured values to denormalized pressure
values from the duty cycle in appendix B of this part.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles calculate the utility
factor weighted fuel consumption in g/ton-mile, as follows:
(i) Determine the utility factor fraction for the PTO system from
the table in appendix E of this part using interpolation based on the
total time of the charge-depleting portion of the test as determined in
paragraphs (c)(6) and (d)(3) of this section.
(ii) Weight the emissions from the charge-sustaining and charge-
depleting portions of the test to determine the utility factor-weighted
fuel mass, mfuelUF[cycle]plug-in, using the following
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.070
Where:
i = an indexing variable that represents one test interval.
N = total number of charge-depleting test intervals.
mfuelPTOCD = total mass of fuel per ton-mile in the
charge-depleting portion of the test for each test interval, i,
starting from i = 1.
UFDCDi = utility factor fraction at time tCDi
as determined in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section for each test
interval, i, starting from i = 1.
j = an indexing variable that represents one test interval.
M = total number of charge-sustaining test intervals.
mfuelPTOCS = total mass of fuel per ton-mile in the
charge-sustaining portion of the test for each test interval, j,
starting from j = 1.
UFRCD = utility factor fraction at the full charge-
depleting time, tCD, as determined by interpolating the
approved utility factor curve. tCD is the sum of the time
over N charge-depleting test intervals.
* * * * *
0
113. Revise Sec. 1037.550 to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.550 Powertrain testing.
This section describes the procedure to measure fuel consumption
and create engine fuel maps by testing a powertrain that includes an
engine coupled with a transmission, drive axle, and hybrid components
or any assembly with one or more of those hardware elements. Engine
fuel maps are part of demonstrating compliance with Phase 2 vehicle
standards under this part; the powertrain test procedure in this
section is one option for generating this fuel-mapping information as
described in 40 CFR 1036.503. Additionally, this powertrain test
procedure is one option for certifying hybrids to the engine standards
in 40 CFR 1036.108.
(a) General test provisions. The following provisions apply broadly
for testing under this section:
(1) Measure NOX emissions as described in paragraph (k)
of this section. Include these measured NOX values any time
you report to us your greenhouse gas emissions or fuel consumption
values from testing under this section.
(2) The procedures of 40 CFR part 1065 apply for testing in this
section except as specified. This section uses engine parameters and
variables that are consistent with 40 CFR part 1065.
(3) Powertrain testing depends on models to calculate certain
parameters. You can use the detailed equations in this section to
create your own models, or use the GEM HIL model (incorporated by
reference in Sec. 1037.810) to simulate vehicle hardware elements as
follows:
(i) Create driveline and vehicle models that calculate the angular
speed setpoint for the test cell dynamometer,
[fnof]nref,dyno, based on the torque measurement location.
Use the detailed equations in paragraph (f) of this section, the GEM
HIL model's driveline and vehicle submodels, or a combination of the
equations and the submodels. You may use the GEM HIL model's
transmission submodel in paragraph (f) of this section to simulate a
transmission only if testing hybrid engines.
(ii) Create a driver model or use the GEM HIL model's driver
submodel to simulate a human driver modulating the throttle and brake
pedals to follow the test cycle as closely as possible.
(iii) Create a cycle-interpolation model or use the GEM HIL model's
cycle submodel to interpolate the duty-cycles and feed the driver model
the duty-cycle reference vehicle speed for each point in the duty-
cycle.
(4) The powertrain test procedure in this section is designed to
simulate operation of different vehicle configurations over specific
duty cycles. See paragraphs (h) and (j) of this section.
(5) For each test run, record engine speed and torque as defined in
40 CFR 1065.915(d)(5) with a minimum sampling frequency of 1 Hz. These
engine speed and torque values represent a duty cycle that can be used
for separate testing with an engine mounted on an engine dynamometer
under Sec. 1037.551, such as for a selective enforcement audit as
described in Sec. 1037.301.
(6) For hybrid powertrains with no plug-in capability, correct for
the net energy change of the energy storage device as described in 40
CFR 1066.501. For plug-in hybrid electric powertrains, follow 40 CFR
1066.501 to determine End-of-Test for charge-depleting operation. You
must get our approval in advance for your utility factor curve; we will
approve it if you can show that you created it, using good engineering
judgment, from sufficient in-use data of vehicles in the same
application as the vehicles in which the plug-in hybrid electric
powertrain will be installed. You may use methodologies described in
SAE J2841 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 1037.810) to develop the
utility factor curve.
(7) The provisions related to carbon balance error verification in
40 CFR
[[Page 17824]]
1036.543 apply for all testing in this section. These procedures are
optional if you are only performing direct or indirect fuel-flow
measurement, but we will perform carbon balance error verification for
all testing under this section.
(8) If you test a powertrain over the duty cycle specified in 40
CFR 1036.512, control and apply the electrical accessory loads using
one of the following systems:
(i) An alternator with dynamic electrical load control.
(ii) A load bank connected directly to the powertrain's electrical
system.
(b) Test configuration. Select a powertrain for testing as
described in Sec. 1037.235 or 40 CFR 1036.235 as applicable. Set up
the engine according to 40 CFR 1065.110 and 40 CFR 1065.405(b). Set the
engine's idle speed to the minimum warm-idle speed. If warm idle speed
is not adjustable, simply let the engine operate at its warm idle
speed.
(1) The default test configuration consists of a powertrain with
all components upstream of the axle. This involves connecting the
powertrain's output shaft directly to the dynamometer or to a gear box
with a fixed gear ratio and measuring torque at the axle input shaft.
You may instead set up the dynamometer to connect at the wheel hubs and
measure torque at that location. The preceeding sentence may apply if
your powertrain configuration requires it, such as for hybrid
powertrains or if you want to represent the axle performance with
powertrain test results.
(2) For testing hybrid engines, connect the engine's crankshaft
directly to the dynamometer and measure torque at that location.
(c) Powertrain temperatures during testing. Cool the powertrain
during testing so temperatures for oil, coolant, block, head,
transmission, battery, and power electronics are within the
manufacturer's expected ranges for normal operation. You may use
electronic control module outputs to comply with this paragraph (c).
You may use auxiliary coolers and fans.
(d) Engine break in. Break in the engine according to 40 CFR
1065.405, the axle assembly according to Sec. 1037.560, and the
transmission according to Sec. 1037.565. You may instead break in the
powertrain as a complete system using the engine break in procedure in
40 CFR 1065.405.
(e) Dynamometer setup. Set the dynamometer to operate in speed-
control mode (or torque-control mode for hybrid engine testing at idle,
including idle portions of transient duty cycles). Record data as
described in 40 CFR 1065.202. Command and control the dynamometer speed
at a minimum of 5 Hz, or 10 Hz for testing engine hybrids. Run the
vehicle model to calculate the dynamometer setpoints at a rate of at
least 100 Hz. If the dynamometer's command frequency is less than the
vehicle model dynamometer setpoint frequency, subsample the calculated
setpoints for commanding the dynamometer setpoints.
(f) Driveline and vehicle model. Use the GEM HIL model's driveline
and vehicle submodels or the equations in this paragraph (f) to
calculate the dynamometer speed setpoint, [fnof]nref,dyno,
based on the torque measurement location. Note that the GEM HIL model
is configured to set the accessory load to zero and it comes configured
with the tire slip model disabled. Note that the GEM HIL model is
configured to set the accessory load to zero and it comes configured
with the tire slip model disabled.
(1) Driveline model with a transmission in hardware. For testing
with torque measurement at the axle input shaft or wheel hubs,
calculate, fnref,dyno, using the GEM HIL model's driveline
submodel or the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.071
Where:
ka[speed] = drive axle ratio as determined in paragraph
(h) of this section. Set ka[speed] equal to 1.0 if torque
is measured at the wheel hubs.
vrefi = simulated vehicle reference speed as calculated
in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
r[speed] = tire radius as determined in paragraph (h) of
this section.
(2) Driveline model with a simulated transmission. For testing with
the torque measurement at the engine's crankshaft,
fnref,dyno is the dynamometer target speed from the GEM HIL
model's transmission submodel. You may request our approval to change
the transmission submodel, as long as the changes do not affect the
gear selection logic. Before testing, initialize the transmission model
with the engine's measured torque curve and the applicable steady-state
fuel map from the GEM HIL model. You may request our approval to input
your own steady-state fuel map. For example, this request for approval
could include using a fuel map that represents the combined performance
of the engine and hybrid components. Configure the torque converter to
simulate neutral idle when using this procedure to generate engine fuel
maps in 40 CFR 1036.503 or to perform the Supplemental Emission Test
(SET) testing under 40 CFR 1036.505. You may change engine commanded
torque at idle to better represent CITT for transient testing under 40
CFR 1036.510. You may change the simulated engine inertia to match the
inertia of the engine under test. We will evaluate your requests under
this paragraph (f)(2) based on your demonstration that that the
adjusted testing better represents in-use operation.
(i) The transmission submodel needs the following model inputs:
(A) Torque measured at the engine's crankshaft.
(B) Engine estimated torque determined from the electronic control
module or by converting the instantaneous operator demand to an
instantaneous torque in N[middot]m.
(C) Dynamometer mode when idling (speed-control or torque-control).
(D) Measured engine speed when idling.
(E) Transmission output angular speed, fni,transmission,
calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.072
Where:
ka[speed] = drive axle ratio as determined in paragraph
(h) of this section.
vrefi = simulated vehicle reference speed as calculated
in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
r[speed] = tire radius as determined in paragraph (h) of
this section.
(ii) The transmission submodel generates the following model
outputs:
(A) Dynamometer target speed.
(B) Dynamometer idle load.
(C) Transmission engine load limit.
(D) Engine speed target.
(3) Vehicle model. Calculate the simulated vehicle reference speed,
vrefi, using the GEM HIL model's vehicle submodel or the
equations in this paragraph (f)(3):
[[Page 17825]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.073
Where:
i= a time-based counter corresponding to each measurement during the
sampling period. Let vref1 = 0; start calculations at i =
2. A 10-minute sampling period will generally involve 60,000
measurements.
T = instantaneous measured torque at the axle input, measured at the
wheel hubs, or simulated by the GEM HIL model's transmission
submodel.
Effaxle = axle efficiency. Use Effaxle = 0.955
for T >= 0, and use Effaxle = 1/0.955 for T < 0. Use
Effaxle = 1.0 if torque is measured at the wheel hubs.
M = vehicle mass for a vehicle class as determined in paragraph (h)
of this section.
g = gravitational constant = 9.80665 m/s\2\.
Crr = coefficient of rolling resistance for a vehicle
class as determined in paragraph (h) of this section.
Gi-1 = the percent grade interpolated at distance,
Di-1, from the duty cycle in appendix D to this part
corresponding to measurement (i-1).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.074
r = air density at reference conditions. Use r = 1.1845 kg/m\3\.
CdA = drag area for a vehicle class as determined in
paragraph (h) of this section.
Fbrake,i-1 = instantaneous braking force
applied by the driver model.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.133
Dt = the time interval between measurements. For example, at 100 Hz,
Dt = 0.0100 seconds.
Mrotating = inertial mass of rotating components. Let
Mrotating = 340 kg for vocational Light HDV or vocational
Medium HDV. See paragraph (h) of this section for tractors and for
vocational Heavy HDV.
(4) Example. The following example illustrates a calculation of
fnref,dyno using paragraph (f)(1) of this section where
torque is measured at the axle input shaft. This example is for a
vocational Light HDV or vocational Medium HDV with 6 speed automatic
transmission at B speed (Test 4 in Table 1 to paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of
this section).
kaB = 4.0
rB = 0.399 m
T999 = 500.0 N[middot]m
Crr = 7.7 N/kN = 7.7[middot]10-3 N/N
M = 11408 kg
CdA = 5.4 m2
G999 = 0.39% = 0.0039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.075
Fbrake,999 = 0 N
vref,999 = 20.0 m/s
Fgrade,999 = 11408 [middot] 981 [middot]
sin(atan(0.0039)) = 436.5 N
[Delta]t = 0.0100 s
Mrotating = 340 kg
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.077
(g) Driver model. Use the GEM HIL model's driver submodel or design
a driver model to simulate a human driver modulating the throttle and
brake pedals. In either case, tune the model to follow the test cycle
as closely as possible meeting the following specifications:
(1) The driver model must meet the following speed requirements:
(i) For operation over the highway cruise cycles, the speed
requirements described in 40 CFR 1066.425(b) and (c).
(ii) For operation over the transient cycle specified in appendix A
of this part, the SET as defined 40 CFR 1036.505, the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) as defined in 40 CFR 1036.510, and the Low Load Cycle
(LLC) as defined in 40 CFR 1036.512, the speed requirements described
in 40 CFR 1066.425(b) and (c).
(iii) The exceptions in 40 CFR 1066.425(b)(4) apply to the highway
cruise cycles, the transient cycle specified in appendix A of this
part, SET, FTP, and LLC.
[[Page 17826]]
(iv) If the speeds do not conform to these criteria, the test is
not valid and must be repeated.
(2) Send a brake signal when operator demand is zero and vehicle
speed is greater than the reference vehicle speed from the test cycle.
Include a delay before changing the brake signal to prevent dithering,
consistent with good engineering judgment.
(3) Allow braking only if operator demand is zero.
(4) Compensate for the distance driven over the duty cycle over the
course of the test. Use the following equation to perform the
compensation in real time to determine your time in the cycle:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.078
Where:
vvehicle = measured vehicle speed.
vcycle = reference speed from the test cycle. If
vcycle,i-1 < 1.0 m/s, set vcycle,i-1 =
vvehicle,i-1.
(h) Vehicle configurations to evaluate for generating fuel maps as
defined in 40 CFR 1036.503. Configure the driveline and vehicle models
from paragraph (f) of this section in the test cell to test the
powertrain. Simulate multiple vehicle configurations that represent the
range of intended vehicle applications using one of the following
options:
(1) Use at least three equally spaced axle ratios or tire sizes and
three different road loads (nine configurations), or at least four
equally spaced axle ratios or tire sizes and two different road loads
(eight configurations). Select axle ratios to represent the full range
of expected vehicle installations. Instead of selecting axle ratios and
tire sizes based on the range of intended vehicle applications as
described in paragraph (h)(2) of this section, you may select axle
ratios and tire sizes such that the ratio of engine speed to vehicle
speed covers the range of ratios of minimum and maximum engine speed to
vehicle speed when the transmission is in top gear for the vehicles in
which the powertrain will be installed. Note that you do not have to
use the same axle ratios and tire sizes for each GEM regulatory
subcategory. You may determine your own Crr, CdA,
and M to cover the range of intended vehicle applications or you may
use the road loads in paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
(2) Determine the vehicle model inputs for a set of vehicle
configurations as described in 40 CFR 1036.540(c)(3) with the following
exceptions:
(i) In the equations of 40 CFR 1036.540(c)(3)(i),
ktopgear is the actual top gear ratio of the powertrain
instead of the transmission gear ratio in the highest available gear
given in Table 1 in 40 CFR 1036.540.
(ii) Test at least eight different vehicle configurations for
powertrains that will be installed in Spark-ignition HDE, vocational
Light HDV, and vocational Medium HDV using the following table instead
of Table 2 in 40 CFR 1036.540:
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.079
(iii) Select and test vehicle configurations as described in 40 CFR
1036.540(c)(3)(iii) for powertrains that will be installed in
vocational Heavy HDV and tractors using the following tables instead of
Table 3 and Table 4 in 40 CFR 1036.540:
[[Page 17827]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.080
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
(3) For hybrid powertrain systems where the transmission will be
simulated, use the transmission parameters defined in 40 CFR
1036.540(c)(2) to determine transmission type and gear ratio. Use a
fixed transmission efficiency of 0.95. The GEM HIL transmission model
uses a transmission parameter file for each test that includes the
transmission type, gear ratios, lockup gear, torque limit per gear from
40 CFR 1036.540(c)(2), and the values from 40 CFR 1036.503(b)(4) and
(c).
(i) [Reserved]
(j) Duty cycles to evaluate. Operate the powertrain over each of
the duty cycles specified in Sec. 1037.510(a)(2), and for each
applicable vehicle configuration from paragraph (h) of this section.
Determine cycle-average powertrain fuel maps by testing the powertrain
using
[[Page 17828]]
the procedures in 40 CFR 1036.540(d) with the following exceptions:
(1) Understand ``engine'' to mean ``powertrain''.
(2) Warm up the powertrain as described in 40 CFR 1036.527(c)(1).
(3) Within 90 seconds after concluding the warm-up, start the
transition to the preconditioning cycle as described in paragraph
(j)(5) of this section.
(4) For plug-in hybrid engines, precondition the battery and then
complete all back-to-back tests for each vehicle configuration
according to 40 CFR 1066.501 before moving to the next vehicle
configuration.
(5) If the preceding duty cycle does not end at 0 mi/hr, transition
between duty cycles by decelerating at a rate of 2 mi/hr/s at 0% grade
until the vehicle reaches zero speed. Shut off the powertrain. Prepare
the powertrain and test cell for the next duty-cycle.
(6) Start the next duty-cycle within 60 to 180 seconds after
shutting off the powertrain.
(i) To start the next duty-cycle, for hybrid powertrains, key on
the vehicle and then start the duty-cycle. For conventional powertrains
key on the vehicle, start the engine, wait for the engine to stabilize
at idle speed, and then start the duty-cycle.
(ii) If the duty-cycle does not start at 0 mi/hr, transition to the
next duty cycle by accelerating at a target rate of 1 mi/hr/s at 0%
grade. Stabilize for 10 seconds at the initial duty cycle conditions
and start the duty-cycle.
(7) Calculate cycle work using GEM or the speed and torque from the
driveline and vehicle models from paragraph (f) of this section to
determine the sequence of duty cycles.
(8) Calculate the mass of fuel consumed for idle duty cycles as
described in paragraph (n) of this section.
(k) Measuring NOX emissions. Measure NOX emissions for
each sampling period in grams. You may perform these measurements using
a NOX emission-measurement system that meets the
requirements of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart J. If a system malfunction
prevents you from measuring NOX emissions during a test
under this section but the test otherwise gives valid results, you may
consider this a valid test and omit the NOX emission
measurements; however, we may require you to repeat the test if we
determine that you inappropriately voided the test with respect to
NOX emission measurement.
(l) [Reserved]
(m) Measured output speed validation. For each test point, validate
the measured output speed with the corresponding reference values. If
the range of reference speed is less than 10 percent of the mean
reference speed, you need to meet only the standard error of the
estimate in Table 1 of this section. You may delete points when the
vehicle is stopped. If your speed measurement is not at the location of
fnref, correct your measured speed using the constant speed
ratio between the two locations. Apply cycle-validation criteria for
each separate transient or highway cruise cycle based on the following
parameters:
Table 4 to Paragraph (m) of Sec. 1037.550--Statistical Criteria for
Validating Duty Cycles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter \a\ Speed control
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slope, [alpha]1........................... 0.990 <= [alpha]1 <= 1.010.
Absolute value of intercept, <=2.0% of maximum fnref
[bond][alpha]0[bond]. speed.
Standard error of the estimate, SEE....... <=2.0% of maximum fnref
speed.
Coefficient of determination, r2.......... >=0.990.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Determine values for specified parameters as described in 40 CFR
1065.514(e) by comparing measured and reference values for fnref,dyno.
(n) Fuel consumption at idle. Determine the mass of fuel consumed
at idle for the applicable duty cycles described in Sec.
1037.510(a)(2) as follows:
(1) Measure fuel consumption with a fuel flow meter and report the
mean idle fuel mass flow rate for each duty cycle as applicable,
mifuelidle.
(2) If you do not measure fuel mass flow rate, calculate the idle
fuel mass flow rate for each duty cycle, mifuelidle, for
each set of vehicle settings, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.081
Where:
MC = molar mass of carbon.
wCmeas = carbon mass fraction of fuel (or mixture of test
fuels) as determined in 40 CFR 1065.655(d), except that you may not
use the default properties in Table 2 of 40 CFR 1065.655 to
determine a, b, and wC for liquid fuels.
niexh = the mean raw exhaust molar flow rate from which
you measured emissions according to 40 CFR 1065.655.
xCcombdry = the mean concentration of carbon from fuel
and any injected fluids in the exhaust per mole of dry exhaust.
xH2Oexhdry = the mean concentration of H2O in
exhaust per mole of dry exhaust.
miCO2DEF = the mean CO2 mass emission rate
resulting from diesel exhaust fluid decomposition over the duty
cycle as determined in 40 CFR 1036.535(b)(7). If your engine does
not use diesel exhaust fluid, or if you choose not to perform this
correction, set miCO2DEF equal to 0.
MCO2 = molar mass of carbon dioxide.
Example:
MC = 12.0107 g/mol
wCmeas = 0.867
niexh = 25.534 mol/s
xCcombdry = 2.805 [middot] 10-3 mol/mol
xH2Oexhdry = 3.53 [middot] 10-2 mol/mol
miCO2DEF = 0.0726 g/s
MCO2 = 44.0095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.082
mifuelidle = 0.405 g/s = 1458.6 g/hr
(o) Create GEM inputs. Use the results of powertrain testing to
determine GEM inputs for the different simulated vehicle configurations
as follows:
(1) Correct the measured or calculated fuel masses,
mfuel[cycle], and mean idle fuel mass flow rates,
mifuelidle, if applicable, for each test result to a mass-
specific net energy content of a reference fuel as described in 40 CFR
1036.535(f), replacing mifuel with mmfuel[cycle]
where applicable in Eq. 1036.535-4.
[[Page 17829]]
(2) Declare fuel masses, mfuel[cycle] and
mifuelidle. Determine mmfuel[cycle] using the
calculated fuel mass consumption values described in 40 CFR
1036.540(d). In addition, declare mean fuel mass flow rate for each
applicable idle duty cycle, mifuelidle. These declared
values may not be lower than any corresponding measured values
determined in this section. If you use both direct and indirect
measurement of fuel flow, determine the corresponding declared values
as described in 40 CFR 1036.535(g)(2) and (3). These declared values,
which serve as emission standards, collectively represent the
powertrain fuel map for certification.
(3) For engines designed for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, the
mass of fuel for each cycle, mfuel[cycle], is the utility
factor-weighted fuel mass, mfuelUF[cycle]. This is
determined by calculating mfuel for the full charge-
depleting and charge-sustaining portions of the test and weighting the
results, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.083
Where:
i = an indexing variable that represents one test interval.
N = total number of charge-depleting test intervals.
mfuel[cycle]CDi = total mass of fuel in the charge-
depleting portion of the test for each test interval, i, starting
from i = 1, including the test interval(s) from the transition
phase.
UFDCDi = utility factor fraction at distance
DCDi from Eq. 1037.505-9 as determined by interpolating
the approved utility factor curve for each test interval, i,
starting from i = 1. Let UFDCD0 = 0
j = an indexing variable that represents one test interval.
M = total number of charge-sustaining test intervals.
mfuel[cycle]CSj = total mass of fuel over the charge-
sustaining portion of the test for each test interval, j, starting
from j = 1.
UFRCD = utility factor fraction at the full charge-
depleting distance, RCD, as determined by interpolating
the approved utility factor curve. RCD is the cumulative
distance driven over N charge-depleting test intervals.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.084
Where:
k = an indexing variable that represents one recorded velocity
value.
Q = total number of measurements over the test interval.
v = vehicle velocity at each time step, k, starting from k = 1. For
tests completed under this section, v is the vehicle velocity as
determined by Eq. 1037.550-1. Note that this should include charge-
depleting test intervals that start when the engine is not yet
operating.
[Delta]t = 1/frecord
frecord = the record rate
Example for the 55 mi/hr cruise cycle:
Q = 8790
v1 = 55.0 mi/hr
v2 = 55.0 mi/hr
v3 = 55.1 mi/hr
frecord = 10 Hz
[Delta]t = 1/10 Hz = 0.1 s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.085
DCD2 = 13.4 mi
DCD3 = 13.4 mi
N = 3
UFDCD1 = 0.05
UFDCD2 = 0.11
UFDCD3 = 0.21
mfuel55cruiseCD1 = 0 g
mfuel55cruiseCD2 = 0 g
mfuel55cruiseCD3 = 1675.4 g
M = 1
mfuel55cruiseCS = 4884.1 g
UFRCD = 0.21
[[Page 17830]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.086
(ii) For testing with torque measurement at the wheel hubs, use Eq.
1037.550-8 setting ka equal to 1.
(iii) For testing with torque measurement at the engine's
crankshaft:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.087
Where:
fengine = average engine speed when vehicle speed is at
or above 0.100 m/s.
vref = average simulated vehicle speed at or above 0.100
m/s.
Example:
fengine = 1870 r/min = 31.17 r/s
vref = 19.06 m/s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.088
(5) Calculate positive work, W[cycle], as the work over
the duty cycle at the axle input shaft, wheel hubs, or the engine's
crankshaft, as applicable, when vehicle speed is at or above 0.100 m/s.
For plug-in hybrids engines and powertrains, calculate,
W[cycle], by calculating the positive work over each of the
charge-sustaining and charge-depleting test intervals and then
averaging them together.
(6) Calculate engine idle speed, by taking the average engine speed
measured during the transient cycle test while the vehicle speed is
below 0.100 m/s.
(7) The following table illustrates the GEM data inputs
corresponding to the different vehicle configurations for a given duty
cycle:
[[Page 17831]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.089
0
114. Amend Sec. 1037.551 by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.551 Engine-based simulation of powertrain testing.
Section 1037.550 describes how to measure fuel consumption over
specific duty cycles with an engine coupled to a transmission; Sec.
1037.550(a)(5) describes how to create equivalent duty cycles for
repeating those same measurements with just the engine. This Sec.
1037.551 describes how to perform this engine testing to simulate the
powertrain test. These engine-based measurements may be used for
confirmatory testing as described in Sec. 1037.235, or for selective
enforcement audits as described in Sec. 1037.301, as long as the test
engine's operation represents the engine operation observed in the
powertrain test. If we use this approach for confirmatory testing, when
making compliance determinations, we will consider the uncertainty
associated with this approach relative to full powertrain testing. Use
of this approach for engine SEAs is optional for engine manufacturers.
* * * * *
(b) Operate the engine over the applicable engine duty cycles
corresponding to the vehicle cycles specified in Sec. 1037.510(a)(2)
for powertrain testing over the applicable vehicle simulations
described in Sec. 1037.550(j). Warm up the engine to prepare for the
transient test or one of the highway cruise cycles by operating it one
time over one of the simulations of the corresponding duty cycle. Warm
up the engine to prepare for the idle test by operating it over a
simulation of the 65-mi/hr highway cruise cycle for 600 seconds. Within
60 seconds after concluding the warm up cycle, start emission sampling
while the engine operates over the duty cycle. You may perform any
number of test runs directly in succession once the engine is warmed
up. Perform cycle validation as described in 40 CFR 1065.514 for engine
speed, torque, and power.
(c) Calculate the mass of fuel consumed as described in Sec.
1037.550(n) and (o). Correct each measured value for the test fuel's
mass-specific net energy content as described in 40 CFR 1036.530. Use
these corrected values to determine whether the engine's emission
levels conform to the declared fuel-consumption rates from the
powertrain test.
0
115. Add Sec. 1037.552 to subpart F read as follows:
Sec. 1037.552 Multicycle powertrain test for battery electric
vehicles.
This section describes a procedure to measure work produced over
the Heavy-Duty Transient Cycle (HDTC), useable battery energy (UBE) of
a powertrain that propels a battery electric vehicle, and a transient
cycle conversion factor, CFBEV, for use in Sec. 1037.616.
Work produced over the HDTC and UBE are part of demonstrating
compliance with criteria pollutant standards under Sec. 1037.102 if
you choose to generate NOX emission credits under this part.
This test procedure is one option for generating work produced over the
HDTC and UBE. You may ask to use alternative test methods to
demonstrate compliance with the standards.
(a) General test provisions. The following provisions apply broadly
for testing under this section:
(1) The procedures of 40 CFR part 1065 apply for testing in this
section except as specified. This section uses engine parameters and
variables that are consistent with 40 CFR part 1065.
(2) For powertrains that propel a battery electric vehicle, follow
the procedures of 40 CFR 1036.505, 1036.510, and 1036.512 for testing
the respective duty-cycles in this section except as specified. For the
purposes of testing under this section, testing over the HDTC is
carried out using the transient duty cycle described in 40 CFR
1036.510(a)(2) with a cold start testing only being required for the
first HDTC of the test sequence.
(3) The following instruments are required for determination of the
required voltages and currents during testing and must be installed on
the powertrain to measure these values during testing:
(i) Measure the voltage and current of the battery pack directly
with a DC wideband voltage, Ampere, and Watt-hour meter (power
analyzer). Install this meter in such a way as to measure all current
leaving and entering the battery pack (no other connections upstream of
the measurement point). The maximum integration period for ampere-hour
meters using an integration technique is 0.05 seconds to accommodate
abrupt current changes without introducing significant integration
errors. Use a power analyzer that has an accuracy for current and
voltage measurements of 1% of point or 0.3% of max, whichever is
greater. Use an instrument that is not susceptible to offset errors
while measuring current as very small current offsets can be integrated
throughout the cycle and provide erroneous energy or ampere-hour
results.
(ii) If voltage sensing is not available, then optionally measure
amp hours without directly measuring voltage
[[Page 17832]]
using a DC wideband ampere-hour meter. In this case, the voltage is
determined from the powertrain ECM.
(iii) Install an AC Watt-hour meter to measure AC recharge energy
in such a way as to measure all AC electrical energy entering the
powertrain charger. Use an AC Watt-hour meter that has an accuracy for
current and voltage measurements of 1% of point or 0.3% of max,
whichever is greater.
(4) You must include in the test the powertrain's cooling system
(e.g., battery, power electronics, and electric motor(s)) such that the
energy used from these accessories is accounted for during the test,
including the pre- and post- test soak and charging periods.
(5) Stabilize powertrains tested under this section by following
manufacturer recommendations.
(i) For determining the initial UBE, test a powertrain that has
accumulated a minimum of 1,000 miles, but no more than 6,200 miles
using a manufacturer defined durability driving schedule. Age the
battery as follows:
(A) Include it in the powertrain that was operated over the
durability driving schedule.
(B) Condition it using test procedure #2, Constant Current
Discharge Test Series, in the United States Advanced Battery
Consortium's Electric Vehicle Battery Test Procedures Manual
(incorporated by reference in Sec. 1037.810). Note that the number of
charge/discharge cycles for bench aging a lead acid battery must be
equivalent to at least 1000 vehicle miles. You may use other battery
aging periods for non-lead-acid battery technologies, if supported by
the manufacturer as being equivalent.
(ii) For determining aged UBE, test a powertrain that has
accumulated targeted aged miles.
(6) Cycle all batteries in accordance with the powertrain
manufacturers' recommendations before starting testing.
(b) Precondition the powertrain by repeatedly operating it over the
HDTC, without soaks and leaving the key in the on position between
cycles, until the powertrain's battery is fully depleted. This method
is recommended to ensure that the subsequent recharge event produces a
repeatable battery energy capacity prior to the test; however, a
preconditioning sequence that does not fully deplete the battery but
consists of at least one HDTC is also acceptable if it results in
equivalent pre-test UBE.
(c) Following the preconditioning, soak the powertrain, including
the battery and thermal management system, if any, at (20 to 30) [deg]C
for 12 to 36 hours. Charge the powertrain for the duration of the soak
period measuring the DC recharge energy, EDCRC, and do not
end the soak period prior to reaching full charge. Upon completion of
the soak, install the powertrain, if not already installed, in the test
cell and attach it to the dynamometer. The powertrain will be tested in
a cold start condition for this test. Start the powertrain test no more
than one hour after the powertrain is taken off charge.
(d) Measure DC discharge energy, EDCD, in Watt-hours and
DC discharge current per hour, CD, for the entire Multicycle
Test (MCT). The measurement points for the battery(ies) must capture
all the current flowing into and out of the battery(ies) during
powertrain operation, including current associated with regenerative
braking. The equation for calculating powertrain EDCD is
given in Eq. 1037.552-1, however, it is expected that this calculation
will typically be performed internally by the power analyzer specified
in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section. Battery voltage measurements
made by the powertrain's own on-board sensors (such as those available
via a diagnostic port) may be used for calculating EDCD if
these measurements are equivalent to those produced by applicable
external measurement equipment, such as a power analyzer.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.090
Where:
f = frequency of the current measurement in Hz.
i = an indexing variable that represents one individual measurement.
N = total number of measurements.
V = battery DC bus voltage in volts.
I = battery current in amps.
(e) The MCT range test consists of four HDTCs, two LLCs, two SETs,
and two constant speed cycles: CSCM at the mid-test point
and CSCE at the end of test.
(1) The test sequence follows: HDTC-HDTC-LLC-SET-CSCM-
HDTC-HDTC-LLC-SET-CSCE.
(2) The CSC is used to rapidly deplete battery energy, and consists
of a steady-state speed schedule of 55 mi/hr or 90% of maximum
sustainable speed if a powertrain cannot reach 55 mi/hr. When
transitioning from the SET to CSC, smoothly accelerate to 55 mi/hr
within 1 minute of the key switch being placed in the ``on'' position.
Maintain powertrain speed to within 1.0 mi/hr of the speed
setpoint.
(3) Use one of the following methods to determine the duration of
CSCM, tCSCM, prior to carrying out the test
sequence:
(i) DC recharge energy method. This method requires data from the
recharge event preceding the test as described in paragraph (b) of this
section or known UBE, cycle DC discharge energy,
EDCD[dutycycle], and DC energy consumption rates, EC,
measured either before or during the MCT.
(A) If a reasonable estimate of the powertrain's UBE is not
available, determine UBEest as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.091
Where:
Beff = estimated battery efficiency = 0.95. You may
develop your own estimated battery efficiency.
EDCRC = DC recharge energy measured during the pre-test
recharging event. If DC recharge energy is not available, use the AC
recharge energy, EACRC, from the pre-test recharging
event which includes the total AC energy supplied to the powertrain
from the electrical grid, including all energy used to power
charging equipment (e.g., charger, electrical vehicle supply
equipment, 12V battery charger, etc.), and define a suitable (lower)
battery plus charger efficiency factor to calculate
UBEest.
Example:
EDCRC = 600000 W [middot] hrs
Beff = 0.95
UBEest = 0.95 [middot] 600000 = 570000 W [middot] hrs
(B) Determine length of CSCM, DCSCM, using
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.092
[[Page 17833]]
Where:
CSCMfactor = multiplier intended to leave 10% of the
total energy for CSCE = 0.9. You may choose a smaller
factor, but target no more than 20% of the total energy for
CSCE.
EDCDHDTC = discharge energy from HDTC #2 of the MCT.
EDCDLLC = discharge energy from LLC #1 of the MCT.
EDCDSET = discharge energy from SET #1 of the MCT.
ECCSC = DC energy consumption from the preconditioning
run in paragraph (b) of this section.
Example:
EDCDHDTC = 25604 W [middot] hr
EDCDLLC = 37312 W [middot] hr
EDCDSET = 129009 W [middot] hr
ECCSC = 1380 W [middot] hr/mi
CSCMfactor = 0.9
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.093
(C) Determine tCSCM using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.094
Where:
vCSC = powertrain speed over the CSC = 55 mi/hr.
Example:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.095
(ii) Projected range method. Use this method if the DC cycle
discharge energy and DC recharge energy are unknown. Determine
CSCM using the powertrain's projected range on the HDTC,
LLC, SET, and CSC.
(A) Using the powertrain's projected range and distance on the duty
cycle(s), determine DCSCM as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.096
Where:
RCSCest = estimated range from the charge depleting test
run in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
RHDTCest = estimated range on repeat HDTC cycles
determine in paragraph (k) of this section.
RLLCest = estimated range on repeat LLC cycles determine
in paragraph (k) of this section.
RSETest = estimated range on repeat SET cycles determine
in paragraph (k) of this section.
DHDTC = scheduled driving distance of one HDTC = 6.75
miles.
DLLC = scheduled driving distance of one LLC = 15.70
miles.
DSET = scheduled driving distance of one SET = 35.47
miles.
CSCEfactor = multiplier intended to leave 20% of the
total energy for CSCE = 0.2. You may choose a smaller
factor if your range estimates allow for accurate determination of
the factor.
Example:
RCSCest = 413.0 miles
RHDTCest = 180.3 miles
RLLCest = 299.8 miles
RSETest = 156.7 miles
DHDTC = 6.75 miles
DLLC = 15.70 miles
DSET = 35.47 miles
CSCEfactor = 0.2
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.097
(B) Determine tCSCM using Eq. 1037.552-4.
Example:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.098
(4) Operate the powertrain over the test sequence described in
Figure 1 of this section. Measure and report the total work,
W[cycle], EDCD, and CD from each of
the test intervals. During soaks, use test cell ventilation to maintain
a powertrain soak temperature of (20 to 30) [deg]C with the key or
power switch in the ``off'' position and the brake pedal not depressed.
[[Page 17834]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.099
(f) The test is complete when the following end-of-test criteria
during CSCE have been met.
(1) The test termination criterion for the full-depletion range and
energy consumption test for powertrains capable of meeting the
prescribed speed vs. time relationship of the applicable drive cycle
follows:
(i) The test is complete when the powertrain, due to power
limitations, is incapable of maintaining 1.0 mi/hr of the
speed setpoint or the manufacturer determines that the test should be
terminated for safety reasons (e.g., excessively high battery
temperature, abnormally low battery voltage, etc.).
(ii) Immediately apply the brake and decelerate the powertrain to a
stop within 15 seconds once the test termination criteria have been
met.
(2) The test termination criterion for the full-depletion range and
energy consumption test for powertrains that are not capable of meeting
the prescribed speed vs. time relationship of the applicable drive
cycle for the initial phase of that cycle (i.e., the phase that begins
with the powertrain fully charged) and operated at maximum available
power follows:
(i) The test is complete when the powertrain, while operated at
maximum available power or ``full throttle'', is unable to reproduce
the best-effort speed vs. time relationship established by the
powertrain in the first phase of the test.
(ii) The best-effort trace drive tolerance are the speed
requirements described in 40 CFR 1066.425(b)(1) and (2).
(g) Place the powertrain on-charge within 3 hours of completing the
MCT and charge the battery to full capacity to measure the total AC
recharge energy, EACRC, and DC recharge current per hour,
CRC.
(1) Carryout recharging at the same nominal ambient temperature as
the pre-test soak/charging period.
(2) Established that the system is fully charged using the
manufacturer's recommended charging procedure and appropriate
equipment. Use the powertrain charger if it came equipped with one.
Otherwise, charge the powertrain using an external charger recommended
by the powertrain manufacturer. If multiple charging power levels are
available, recharge the powertrain at the power level recommended by
the manufacturer. If the manufacturer does not specify a power level,
recharging the system at the power level expected to be most widely
used by end users. Use this power level for all pre- and post-test
recharging events.
(3) Measure all AC energy supplied to the powertrain from the
electrical grid, including all energy used to power charging equipment
(e.g., charger, electrical vehicle supply equipment, 12V battery
charger, etc.).
(4) Determine EAC in Watt-hours and CC in amp
hours, using the instruments specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section, for powertrains that require less than 12 hours to reach full
charge by measuring the EAC and CC for a 12 hour
period following the connection of the powertrain to the electrical
vehicle supply equipment.
(5) Collect data for powertrains requiring more than 12 hours to
reach full charge, until full charge is achieved.
[[Page 17835]]
Note that the 12 hour minimum data collection period is intended to
better replicate expected in-use charging practices (i.e., overnight
charging) and to provide a standard time period that can be used
quantify any ancillary recharging loads, such as those resulting from
battery thermal conditioning.
(6) Charge recovery is used to evaluate the equivalence of the pre-
and post-test charge. Since the net amp-hours required to return the
battery to a full charge during the post MCT recharging event in
paragraph (g)(1) of this section must be greater than or equal to net
amp hours discharged by the battery during the MCT, the charge recovery
ratio should be >=1 for most battery types. Since the determination of
full charge verification must also take into account error in the
associated measurement devices, the pre- and post-test charge events
can be considered equivalent if the charge recovery is greater than
0.97. Verify the charge recovery, CR, of the post-test battery charge
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.100
Where:
CDCRC = total post-MCT DC recharge current per hour.
CDCD = total DC discharge current per hour during the
MCT.
Example:
CDCRC = 1425.0 amp [middot] hrs
CDCD = 1452.1 amp [middot] hrs
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.101
(h) The UBE is defined as the total DC discharge energy,
EDCDtotal, measured in DC Watt hours, over the MCT as
determined as described in paragraph (d) of this section. The UBE
represents the total deliverable energy the battery is capable of
providing while a powertrain is following a duty cycle on a
dynamometer. Determine a declared UBE that is at or below the
corresponding value determined in paragraph (d) of this section,
including those from redundant measurements. This declared UBE serves
as the initial UBE that must be submitted under Sec. 1037.205(q)(2).
(i) [Reserved]
(j) Determine the transient cycle conversion factor,
CFBEV, in hp [middot] hr/mile. This represents the average
work performed over the test interval for use in the credit calculation
for battery electric vehicles in Sec. 1037.616.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.102
Where:
WHDTC2 = total (integrated) work generated over the
second HDTC test interval in the MTC.
d = duty-cycle distance for engines subject to compression-ignition
standards from the CF determination for the emission credit
calculation in 40 CFR 1036.705 = 6.5 miles.
Example:
WHDTC2 = 32.62 hp [middot] hr
d = 6.5 miles
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.103
(k) If you use the projected range option for determining the
duration of CSCM, tCSCM, in paragraph (e)(3)(ii)
of this section, determine the total range and energy consumption for a
BEV over the HDTC, LLC, and SET when operated on a dynamometer over
repeats of a respective duty-cycle. This is a single cycle test (SCT)
where the powertrain is driven until the useable energy content of the
powertrain's battery is fully depleted. The intent of this section is
to provide a standard powertrain procedure for testing BEVs so that
their performances can be compared when operated over the certification
duty cycles. Measure CD as described in paragraph (d) of
this section during the entire dynamometer test procedure (duty cycles
and soaks) in order to validate the equivalence of the pre- and post-
test charge.
(1) Precondition and soak the powertrain prior to testing as
described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(2) Operate the powertrain over one of the following drive cycles:
(i) HDTC.
(ii) LLC.
(iii) SET.
(3) Operate the powertrain over one of the duty-cycles described in
paragraph (k)(2) of this section using the following soak times between
each duty-cycle; soak the powertrain as described in paragraph (e)(4)
of this section:
(i) HDTC. 10 to 30 minutes between each duty-cycle.
(ii) LLC. A 15 second key on pause.
(iii) SET. A 15 second key on pause.
(4) Repeat testing over the duty cycle until the end-of-test
criteria in paragraph (f) of this section have been met. You may
specify other earlier test termination criterion, for example, to
prevent battery damage. In this case, you may specify a battery
characteristic such as terminal voltage under load to be the test
termination criterion.
(5) Place the powertrain on-charge within 3 hours of completing the
SCT and charge the battery to full capacity as described in paragraph
(g) of this section.
(6) The range for an SCT, R[cycle], is defined as the
total test distance driven in miles from the beginning of the test
until the point where the powertrain reaches zero speed after
satisfying the end-of-test criteria.
0
116. Add Sec. 1037.554 to subpart F read as follows:
Sec. 1037.554 Multicycle powertrain test for fuel cell vehicles.
This section describes a procedure to measure work produced over
the heavy-duty transient cycle (HDTC) and fuel cell voltage (FCV) of a
powertrain that propels a fuel cell vehicle. Work produced over the
HDTC and FCV are part of demonstrating compliance with criteria
pollutant standards under Sec. 1037.102 if you choose to generate
NOX emission credits under this part. This test procedure is
one option for generating work produced over the HDTC and FCV. You may
ask to use alternative test methods to demonstrate compliance with the
standards.
(a) The following provisions apply broadly for testing under this
section:
(1) The procedures of 40 CFR part 1065 apply for testing in this
section except as specified. This section uses engine parameters and
variables that are consistent with 40 CFR part 1065.
(2) For powertrains that propel a fuel cell vehicle, follow the
procedures of 40 CFR 1036.505, 1036.510, and 1036.512 for testing the
respective duty-cycles in this section except as specified.
(3) Use the instruments in Sec. 1037.552(a)(3)(i) and (ii) for
determination of the required voltages and currents during testing and
install these on the powertrain to measure these values during testing.
(4) Stabilize powertrains tested under this section by following
manufacturer recommendations.
[[Page 17836]]
(i) For determining the initial mean fuel cell voltage, FCV, test a
powertrain that has accumulated a minimum of 1000 miles, but no more
than 6200 miles using a manufacturer defined durability driving
schedule.
(ii) For determining aged FCV, test a powertrain that has
accumulated targeted aged miles.
(b) Operate the powertrain over the SET, FTP, and LLC as defined in
40 CFR 1036.505, 1036.510(a)(2), and 1036.512, while measuring FCV and
fuel cell current (FCC) upstream of any RESS, if present.
(c) Determine FCV, by taking the mean of the FCV when the FCC is
between 55% and 65% of rated stack current, using the data collected in
paragraph (b) of this section. Determine a declared that is at or below
the corresponding value determined in this paragraph (c). This declared
serves as the FCV that must be submitted under Sec. 1037.205(q)(2).
(d) Determine the transient cycle conversion factor,
CFFCEV, in hp [middot] hr/mile. This represents the average
work performed over the test interval for use in the credit calculation
for fuel cell vehicles in Sec. 1037.616.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.104
Where:
WHDTC = total (integrated) work generated over the hot-
start HDTC test interval from the FTP test.
D = duty-cycle distance for engine subject to compression-ignition
standards from the CF determination for the emission credit
calculation in 40 CFR 1036.705 = 6.5 miles.
Example:
WHDTC = 31.71 hp [middot] hr
D = 6.5 miles
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR22.105
0
117. Amend Sec. 1037.555 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.555 Special procedures for testing Phase 1 hybrid systems.
* * * * *
(g) The driver model should be designed to follow the cycle as
closely as possible and must meet the requirements of Sec. 1037.510
for steady-state testing and 40 CFR 1066.425 for transient testing. The
driver model should be designed so that the brake and throttle are not
applied at the same time.
* * * * *
0
118. Amend Sec. 1037.601 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1037.601 General compliance provisions.
(a) * * *
(1) Except as specifically allowed by this part or 40 CFR part
1068, it is a violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1) to introduce into U.S.
commerce a tractor or vocational vehicle that is not certified to the
applicable requirements of this part. Similarly, it is a violation of
40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1) to introduce into U.S. commerce a tractor or
vocational vehicle containing an engine that is not certified to the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 86 or 1036. Further, it is a
violation to introduce into U.S. commerce a Phase 1 tractor containing
an engine not certified for use in tractors; or to introduce into U.S.
commerce a vocational vehicle containing a Light HDE or Medium HDE not
certified for use in vocational vehicles. These prohibitions apply
especially to the vehicle manufacturer. Note that this paragraph (a)(1)
allows the use of Heavy heavy-duty tractor engines in vocational
vehicles.
* * * * *
0
119. Amend Sec. 1037.605 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text
and (a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.605 Installing engines certified to alternate standards for
specialty vehicles.
(a) General provisions. This section allows vehicle manufacturers
to introduce into U.S. commerce certain new motor vehicles using
engines certified to alternate emission standards specified in 40 CFR
1036.605 for motor vehicle engines used in specialty vehicles. You may
not install an engine certified to these alternate standards if there
is an engine certified to the full set of requirements of 40 CFR part
1036 that has the appropriate physical and performance characteristics
to power the vehicle. Note that, although these alternate emission
standards are mostly equivalent to standards that apply for nonroad
engines under 40 CFR part 1039 or 1048, they are specific to motor
vehicle engines. The provisions of this section apply for the following
types of specialty vehicles:
* * * * *
(4) Through model year 2027, vehicles with a hybrid powertrain in
which the engine provides energy only for the Rechargeable Energy
Storage System.
* * * * *
0
120. Amend Sec. 1037.615 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.615 Advanced technologies.
* * * * *
(f) For electric vehicles and for fuel cells powered by hydrogen,
calculate CO2 credits using an FEL of 0 g/ton-mile. Note
that these vehicles are subject to compression-ignition standards for
CO2.
* * * * *
0
121. Add Sec. 1037.616 to subpart G to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.616 NOX credits for electric vehicles and fuel cell
vehicles.
Starting in model year 2024, electric vehicles and fuel cell
vehicles may generate NOX credits for certifying heavy-duty
engines under 40 CFR part 1036 as follows:
(a) Calculate NOX credits as described in 40 CFR
1036.705 based on the following values:
(1) Select a useful life value as specified in Sec. 1037.102(b).
(2) Select the family emission limit that represents the
NOX emission standards that the vehicle will meet throughout
the vehicle's useful life.
(3) Use the NOX emission standard that applies as
specified in Sec. 1037.102(b) for engines tested over the FTP duty
cycle corresponding to the vehicle's model year.
(4) For ``volume'', use the number of vehicles generating emission
credits within each averaging set specified in Sec. 1037.740 during
the model year.
(5) Determine conversion factors, CF, in hp [middot] hr/mile using
the procedures specified in Sec. Sec. 1037.552 and 1037.554.
(b) You may use NOX credits generated under this section
as specified in 40 CFR 1036.741.
0
122. Amend Sec. 1037.635 by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1037.635 Glider kits and glider vehicles.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) The engine must meet the criteria pollutant standards of 40 CFR
part 86 or 40 CFR part 1036 that apply for the engine model year
corresponding to the vehicle's date of manufacture.
* * * * *
[[Page 17837]]
0
123. Amend Sec. 1037.705 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.705 Generating and calculating emission credits.
* * * * *
(b) For each participating family or subfamily, calculate positive
or negative emission credits relative to the otherwise applicable
emission standard. Calculate positive emission credits for a family or
subfamily that has an FEL below the standard. Calculate negative
emission credits for a family or subfamily that has an FEL above the
standard. Sum your positive and negative credits for the model year
before rounding. Round the sum of emission credits to the nearest
megagram (Mg), using consistent units with the following equation:
Emission credits (Mg) = (Std-FEL) [middot] PL [middot] Volume [middot]
UL [middot] 10-6
Where:
Std = the emission standard associated with the specific regulatory
subcategory (g/ton-mile).
FEL = the family emission limit for the vehicle subfamily (g/ton-
mile).
PL = standard payload, in tons.
Volume = U.S.-directed production volume of the vehicle subfamily.
For example, if you produce three configurations with the same FEL,
the subfamily production volume would be the sum of the production
volumes for these three configurations.
UL = useful life of the vehicle, in miles, as described in
Sec. Sec. 1037.105 and 1037.106. Use 250,000 miles for trailers.
* * * * *
0
124. Amend Sec. 1037.725 by revising the section heading to read as
follows:
Sec. 1037.725 Required information for certification.
* * * * *
0
125. Amend Sec. 1037.730 by revising paragraphs (a), (b) introductory
text, (c), and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.730 ABT reports.
(a) If you certify any vehicle families using the ABT provisions of
this subpart, send us a final report by September 30 following the end
of the model year.
(b) Your report must include the following information for each
vehicle family participating in the ABT program:
* * * * *
(c) Your report must include the following additional information:
(1) Show that your net balance of emission credits from all your
participating vehicle families in each averaging set in the applicable
model year is not negative, except as allowed under Sec. 1037.745.
Your credit tracking must account for the limitation on credit life
under Sec. 1037.740(c).
(2) State whether you will retain any emission credits for banking.
If you choose to retire emission credits that would otherwise be
eligible for banking, identify the families that generated the emission
credits, including the number of emission credits from each family.
(3) State that the report's contents are accurate.
(4) Identify the technologies that make up the certified
configuration associated with each vehicle identification number. You
may identify this as a range of identification numbers for vehicles
involving a single, identical certified configuration.
* * * * *
(f) Correct errors in your report as follows:
(1) If you or we determine by September 30 after the end of the
model year that errors mistakenly decreased your balance of emission
credits, you may correct the errors and recalculate the balance of
emission credits. You may not make these corrections for errors that
are determined later than September 30 after the end of the model year.
If you report a negative balance of emission credits, we may disallow
corrections under this paragraph (f)(1).
(2) If you or we determine any time that errors mistakenly
increased your balance of emission credits, you must correct the errors
and recalculate the balance of emission credits.
0
126. Amend Sec. 1037.735 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.735 Recordkeeping.
* * * * *
(b) Keep the records required by this section for at least eight
years after the due date for the final report. You may not use emission
credits for any vehicles if you do not keep all the records required
under this section. You must therefore keep these records to continue
to bank valid credits.
* * * * *
0
127. Amend Sec. 1037.740 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.740 Restrictions for using emission credits.
* * * * *
(b) Credits from hybrid vehicles and other advanced technologies.
The following provisions apply for credits you generate under Sec.
1037.615.
(1) Credits generated from Phase 1 vehicles may be used for any of
the averaging sets identified in paragraph (a) of this section; you may
also use those credits to demonstrate compliance with the CO2 emission
standards in 40 CFR 86.1819 and 40 CFR part 1036. Similarly, you may
use Phase 1 advanced-technology credits generated under 40 CFR 86.1819-
14(k)(7) or 40 CFR 1036.615 to demonstrate compliance with the CO2
standards in this part. The maximum amount of advanced-technology
credits generated from Phase 1 vehicles that you may bring into each of
the following service class groups is 60,000 Mg per model year:
(i) Spark-ignition HDE, Light HDE, and Light HDV. This group
comprises the averaging set listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section
and the averaging set listed in 40 CFR 1036.740(a)(1) and (2).
(ii) Medium HDE and Medium HDV. This group comprises the averaging
sets listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and 40 CFR
1036.740(a)(3).
(iii) Heavy HDE and Heavy HDV. This group comprises the averaging
sets listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section and 40 CFR
1036.740(a)(4).
(iv) This paragraph (b)(1) does not limit the advanced-technology
credits that can be used within a service class group if they were
generated in that same service class group.
(2) Credits generated from Phase 2 vehicles are subject to all the
averaging-set restrictions that apply to other emission credits.
* * * * *
0
128. Amend Sec. 1037.801 by:
0
a. Adding definitions for ``Charge-depleting'', and ``Charge-
sustaining'' in alphabetical order.
0
b. Revising the definitions of ``Designated Compliance Officer''.
0
c. Adding a definition for ``Emission-related component'' in
alphabetical order.
0
d. Revising the definitions for ``Low rolling resistance tire'',
``Neutral coasting'', ``Rechargeable Energy Storage System (RESS)'',
and ``Tire rolling resistance level (TRRL)''.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1037.801 Definitions.
* * * * *
Charge-depleting has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1066.1001.
Charge-sustaining has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1066.1001.
* * * * *
Designated Compliance Officer means one of the following:
(1) For compression-ignition engines, Designated Compliance Officer
means Director, Diesel Engine Compliance Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105;
[email protected]; www.epa.gov/ve-certification.
[[Page 17838]]
(2) For spark-ignition engines, Designated Compliance Officer means
Director, Gasoline Engine Compliance Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105;
[email protected]; www.epa.gov/ve-certification.
* * * * *
Emission-related component has the meaning given in 40 CFR part
1068, appendix A.
* * * * *
Low rolling resistance tire means a tire on a vocational vehicle
with a TRRL at or below of 7.7 N/kN, a steer tire on a tractor with a
TRRL at or below 7.7 N/kN, a drive tire on a tractor with a TRRL at or
below 8.1 N/kN, a tire on a non-box trailer with a TRRL at or below of
6.5 N/kN, or a tire on a box van with a TRRL at or below of 6.0 N/kN.
* * * * *
Neutral coasting means a vehicle technology that automatically puts
the transmission in neutral when the vehicle has minimal power demand
while in motion, such as driving downhill.
* * * * *
Rechargeable Energy Storage System (RESS) has the meaning given in
40 CFR 1065.1001.
* * * * *
Tire rolling resistance level (TRRL) means a value with units of N/
kN that represents the rolling resistance of a tire configuration.
TRRLs are used as modeling inputs under Sec. Sec. 1037.515 and
1037.520. Note that a manufacturer may use the measured value for a
tire configuration's coefficient of rolling resistance, or assign some
higher value.
* * * * *
0
129. Amend Sec. 1037.805 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e),
and (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.805 Symbols, abbreviations, and acronyms.
* * * * *
(a) Symbols for chemical species. This part uses the following
symbols for chemical species and exhaust constituents:
Table 1 to Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1037.805--Symbols for Chemical
Species and Exhaust Constituents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symbol Species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C......................................... carbon.
CH4....................................... methane.
CO........................................ carbon monoxide.
CO2....................................... carbon dioxide.
H2O....................................... water.
HC........................................ hydrocarbon.
NMHC...................................... nonmethane hydrocarbon.
NMHCE..................................... nonmethane hydrocarbon
equivalent.
NO........................................ nitric oxide.
NO2....................................... nitrogen dioxide.
NOX....................................... oxides of nitrogen.
N2O....................................... nitrous oxide.
PM........................................ particulate matter.
THC....................................... total hydrocarbon.
THCE...................................... total hydrocarbon
equivalent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Symbols for quantities. This part 1037 uses the following
symbols and units of measure for various quantities:
Table 2 to Paragraph (b) of Sec. 1037.805--Symbols for Quantities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit in terms of SI base
Symbol Quantity Unit Unit symbol units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A................. vehicle pound force or lbf or N.................... kg[middot]m[middot]s-2.
frictional load. newton.
a................. axle position
regression
coefficient.
[alpha]........... atomic hydrogen- mole per mole.... mol/mol..................... 1.
to-carbon ratio.
[alpha]........... axle position
regression
coefficient.
[alpha]0.......... intercept of air
speed correction.
[alpha]1.......... slope of air
speed correction.
ag................ acceleration of meters per second m/s2........................ m[middot]s-2.
Earth's gravity. squared.
a0................ intercept of
least squares
regression.
a1................ slope of least
squares
regression.
B................. vehicle load from pound force per lbf/(mi/hr) or N[middot]s/m. kg[middot]s-1.
drag and rolling mile per hour or
resistance. newton second
per meter.
b................. axle position
regression
coefficient.
[beta]............ atomic oxygen-to- mole per mole.... mol/mol..................... 1.
carbon ratio.
[beta]............ axle position
regression
coefficient.
[beta]0........... intercept of air
direction
correction.
[beta]1........... slope of air
direction
correction.
Beff.............. estimated battery
efficiency.
C................. vehicle-specific pound force per lbf/mph2 or N[middot]s2/m2.. kg[middot]m-1.
aerodynamic mile per hour
effects. squared or
newton-second
squared per
meter squared.
C................. current of one ampere per hour.. kA[middot]hr................ 3.6 kA[middot]s.
ampere flowing
for one hour.
c................. axle position
regression
coefficient.
ci................ axle test
regression
coefficients.
Ci................ constant.........
[Delta]CdA........ differential drag meter squared.... m2.......................... m2.
area.
CdA............... drag area........ meter squared.... m2.......................... m2.
Cd................ drag coefficient.
CF................ correction factor
CF................ conversion factor
CR................ charge recovery..
Crr............... coefficient of newton per N/kN........................ 10-3.
rolling kilonewton.
resistance.
D................. distance......... miles or meters.. mi or m..................... m.
E................. energy........... kilowatt-hour.... kW[middot]hr................ 3.6[middot]m2[middot]kg[
middot]s-1.
e................. mass-weighted grams per ton- g/ton-mi.................... g/kg-km.
emission result. mile.
EC................ energy kilowatt-hour per kW[middot]hr/mi............. 3.6[middot]m2[middot]kg[
consumption. mile. middot]s-1[middot]mi-1.
Eff............... efficiency.......
F................. adjustment factor
[[Page 17839]]
F................. force............ pound force or lbf or N.................... kg[middot]m[middot]s-2.
newton.
fn................ angular speed revolutions per r/min....................... [pi][middot]30[middot]s-
(shaft). minute. 1.
G................. road grade....... percent.......... %........................... 10-2.
g................. gravitational meters per second m/s2........................ m[middot]s-2.
acceleration. squared.
h................. elevation or meters........... m........................... m.
height.
I................. current.......... amphere.......... A........................... A.
i................. indexing variable
ka................ drive axle ratio. ................. ............................ 1.
kd................ transmission gear
ratio.
ktopgear.......... highest available
transmission
gear.
L................. load over axle... pound force or lbf or N.................... kg[middot]m[middot]s-2.
newton.
m................. mass............. pound mass or lbm or kg................... kg.
kilogram.
M................. molar mass....... gram per mole.... g/mol....................... 10-3[middot]kg[middot]mo
l-1.
M................. total number in
series.
M................. vehicle mass..... kilogram......... kg.......................... kg.
Me................ vehicle effective kilogram......... kg.......................... kg.
mass.
Mrotating......... inertial mass of kilogram......... kg.......................... kg.
rotating
components.
N................. total number in
series.
n................. number of tires..
n................. amount of mole per second.. mol/s....................... mol[middot]s-1.
substance rate.
Q................. total number in
series.
P................. power............ kilowatt......... kW.......................... 103[middot]m2[middot]kg[
middot]s-3.
p................. pressure......... pascal........... Pa.......................... kg[middot]m-1[middot]s-
2.
[rho]............. mass density..... kilogram per kg/m3....................... kg[middot]m-3.
cubic meter.
PL................ payload.......... tons............. ton......................... kg.
[phis]............ direction........ degrees.......... [deg]....................... [deg].
[Psi]............. direction........ degrees.......... [deg]....................... [deg].
R................. range............ miles or meters.. mi or m..................... m.
r................. tire radius...... meter............ m........................... m.
r2................ coefficient of
determination.
Re............... Reynolds number..
SEE............... standard error of
the estimate.
[sigma]........... standard
deviation.
TRPM.............. tire revolutions revolutions per r/mi........................
per mile. mile.
TRRL.............. tire rolling newton per N/kN........................ 10-3.
resistance level. kilonewton.
T................. absolute kelvin........... K........................... K.
temperature.
T................. Celsius degree Celsius... [deg]C...................... K-273.15.
temperature.
T................. torque (moment of newton meter..... N[middot]m.................. m2[middot]kg[middot]s-2.
force).
t................. time............. hour or second... hr or s..................... s.
[Delta]t.......... time interval, second........... s........................... s.
period, 1/
frequency.
UBE............... useable battery watt-hour........ W[middot]hr................. 3600[middot]m2[middot]kg
energy. [middot]s-1.
UF................ utility factor...
V................. voltage.......... volts............ V........................... kg[middot]m2[middot]s-
3[middot]A-1.
v................. speed............ miles per hour or mi/hr or m/s................ m[middot]s-1.
meters per
second.
w................. weighting factor.
w................. wind speed....... miles per hour... mi/hr....................... m[middot]s-1.
W................. work............. kilowatt-hour.... kW[middot]hr................ 3.6[middot]m2[middot]kg[
middot]s-1.
wC................ carbon mass Gram per gram.... g/g......................... 1.
fraction.
WR................ weight reduction. pound mass....... lbm......................... kg.
x................. amount of mole per mole.... mol/mol..................... 1.
substance mole
fraction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(d) Subscripts. This part uses the following subscripts for
modifying quantity symbols:
Table 4 to Paragraph (d) of Sec. 1037.805--Subscripts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscript Meaning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.................... 6[deg] yaw angle sweep.
A................................ A speed.
AC............................... alternating current.
ACRC............................. alternating current recharge.
air.............................. air.
aero............................. aerodynamic.
alt.............................. alternative.
act.............................. actual or measured condition.
air.............................. air.
[[Page 17840]]
axle............................. axle.
B................................ B speed.
BEV.............................. battery electric vehicle.
brake............................ brake.
C................................ C speed.
Ccombdry......................... carbon from fuel per mole of dry exhaust.
CD............................... charge-depleting.
circuit.......................... circuit.
CO2DEF........................... CO2 resulting from diesel exhaust fluid decomposition.
CO2PTO........................... CO2 emissions for PTO cycle.
coastdown........................ coastdown.
comp............................. composite.
CS............................... charge-sustaining.
CSC.............................. constant-speed cycle.
CSCM............................. constant-speed cycle midpoint.
cycle............................ test cycle.
D................................ distance.
DC............................... direct current.
DCD.............................. direct current discharge.
DCRC............................. direct current recharge.
drive............................ drive axle.
drive-idle....................... idle with the transmission in drive.
driver........................... driver.
dyno............................. dynamometer.
E................................ end-of-test.
effective........................ effective.
end.............................. end.
eng.............................. engine.
factor........................... factor.
FCEV............................. fuel cell electric vehicle.
est.............................. estimate.
event............................ event.
FTP.............................. Federal Test Procedure.
fuel............................. fuel.
full............................. full.
grade............................ grade.
H2Oexhaustdry.................... H2O in exhaust per mole of exhaust.
HDTC............................. Heavy-Duty Transient Cycle.
hi............................... high.
i................................ an individual of a series.
idle............................. idle.
in............................... inlet.
inc.............................. increment.
j................................ an individual of a series.
k................................ an individual of a series.
LLC.............................. Low Load Cycle.
lo............................... low.
loss............................. loss.
M................................ midpoint.
max.............................. maximum.
meas............................. measured quantity.
med.............................. median.
min.............................. minimum.
moving........................... moving.
out.............................. outlet.
P................................ power.
pair............................. pair of speed segments.
parked-idle...................... idle with the transmission in park.
partial.......................... partial.
ploss............................ power loss.
plug-in.......................... plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.
powertrain....................... powertrain.
PTO.............................. power take-off.
R................................ range.
rated............................ rated speed.
RC............................... recharge.
record........................... record.
ref.............................. reference quantity.
RL............................... road load.
rotating......................... rotating.
seg.............................. segment.
SET.............................. Supplemental Emission Test.
[[Page 17841]]
speed............................ speed.
spin............................. axle spin loss.
start............................ start.
steer............................ steer axle.
t................................ tire.
test............................. test.
th............................... theoretical.
total............................ total.
trac............................. traction.
trac10........................... traction force at 10 mi/hr.
trailer.......................... trailer axle.
transient........................ transient.
TRR.............................. tire rolling resistance.
UF............................... utility factor.
urea............................. urea.
veh.............................. vehicle.
w................................ wind.
wa............................... wind average.
yaw.............................. yaw angle.
ys............................... yaw sweep.
zero............................. zero quantity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Other acronyms and abbreviations. This part uses the following
additional abbreviations and acronyms:
Table 5 to Paragraph (e) of Sec. 1037.805--Other Acronyms and Abbreviations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronym Meaning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABT.............................. averaging, banking, and trading.
AC............................... alternating current.
AECD............................. auxiliary emission control device.
AES.............................. automatic engine shutdown.
APU.............................. auxiliary power unit.
CD............................... charge-depleting.
CFD.............................. computational fluid dynamics.
CFR.............................. Code of Federal Regulations.
CITT............................. curb idle transmission torque.
CS............................... charge-sustaining.
CSC.............................. constant-speed cycle.
DC............................... direct current.
DOT.............................. Department of Transportation.
ECM.............................. electronic control module.
EPA.............................. Environmental Protection Agency.
FCC.............................. fuel cell current.
FCV.............................. fuel cell voltage.
FE............................... fuel economy.
FEL.............................. Family Emission Limit.
FTP.............................. Federal Test Procedure.
GAWR............................. gross axle weight rating.
GCWR............................. gross combination weight rating.
GEM.............................. greenhouse gas emission model.
GVWR............................. gross vehicle weight rating.
HDTC............................. Heavy-Duty Transient Cycle.
Heavy HDE........................ heavy heavy-duty engine (see 40 CFR 1036.140).
Heavy HDV........................ heavy heavy-duty vehicle (see Sec. 1037.140).
HVAC............................. heating, ventilating, and air conditioning.
ISO.............................. International Organization for Standardization.
Light HDE........................ light heavy-duty engine (see 40 CFR 1036.140).
Light HDV........................ light heavy-duty vehicle (see Sec. 1037.140).
LLC.............................. Low Load Cycle.
MCT.............................. Multicycle Test.
Medium HDE....................... medium heavy-duty engine (see 40 CFR 1036.140).
Medium HDV....................... medium heavy-duty vehicle (see Sec. 1037.140).
NARA............................. National Archives and Records Administration.
NHTSA............................ National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.
PHEV............................. plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.
PTO.............................. power take-off.
RESS............................. rechargeable energy storage system.
[[Page 17842]]
SAE.............................. SAE International.
SCT.............................. single cycle test.
SEE.............................. standard error of the estimate.
SET.............................. Supplemental Emission Test.
SKU.............................. stock-keeping unit.
Spark-ignition HDE............... spark-ignition heavy-duty engine (see 40 CFR 1036.140).
TRPM............................. tire revolutions per mile.
TRRL............................. tire rolling resistance level.
UBE.............................. useable battery energy.
U.S.C............................ United States Code.
VSL.............................. vehicle speed limiter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(g) Prefixes. This part uses the following prefixes to define a
quantity:
Table 7 to Paragraph (g) of Sec. 1037.805--Prefixes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symbol Quantity Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[micro]......................... micro............. 10-6
m............................... milli............. 10-3
c............................... centi............. 10-2
k............................... kilo.............. 103
M............................... mega.............. 106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
130. Amend Sec. 1037.810 by revising paragraphs (a) and (e) and adding
paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.810 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance
with 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 a document in the Federal Register and the
material must be available to the public. All approved material is
available for inspection at the EPA and at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). Contact EPA at: U.S. EPA, Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC 20460, www.epa.gov/dockets, (202) 202-1744. For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, email: [email protected], or go to:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. The material
may be obtained from the sources in the following paragraphs of this
section.
* * * * *
(e) SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, PA 15096-
0001, (877) 606-7323 (U.S. and Canada) or (724) 776-4970 (outside the
U.S. and Canada), www.sae.org.
(1) SAE J1025, Test Procedures for Measuring Truck Tire Revolutions
Per Kilometer/Mile, Stabilized August 2012, (``SAE J1025''); IBR
approved for Sec. 1037.520(c).
(2) SAE J1252, SAE Wind Tunnel Test Procedure for Trucks and Buses,
Revised July 2012, (``SAE J1252''); IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
1037.525(b); 1037.530(a).
(3) SAE J1263, Road Load Measurement and Dynamometer Simulation
Using Coastdown Techniques, revised March 2010, (``SAE J1263''); IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 1037.528 introductory text, (a), (b), (c), (e),
and (h); 1037.665(a).
(4) SAE J1594, Vehicle Aerodynamics Terminology, Revised July 2010,
(``SAE J1594''); IBR approved for Sec. 1037.530(d).
(5) SAE J2071, Aerodynamic Testing of Road Vehicles--Open Throat
Wind Tunnel Adjustment, Revised June 1994, (``SAE J2071''); IBR
approved for Sec. 1037.530(b).
(6) SAE J2263, Road Load Measurement Using Onboard Anemometry and
Coastdown Techniques, Revised May 2020, (``SAE J2263''); IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 1037.528 introductory text, (a), (b), (d), and (f);
1037.665(a).
(7) SAE J2343, Recommended Practice for LNG Medium and Heavy-Duty
Powered Vehicles, Revised July 2008, (``SAE J2343''); IBR approved for
Sec. 1037.103(e).
(8) SAE J2452, Stepwise Coastdown Methodology for Measuring Tire
Rolling Resistance, Revised June 1999, (``SAE J2452''); IBR approved
for Sec. 1037.528(h).
(9) SAE J2841, Utility Factor Definitions for Plug-In Hybrid
Electric Vehicles Using 2001 U.S. DOT National Household Travel Survey
Data, Issued March 2009, (``SAE J2841''); IBR approved for Sec.
1037.550(a).
(10) SAE J2966, Guidelines for Aerodynamic Assessment of Medium and
Heavy Commercial Ground Vehicles Using Computational Fluid Dynamics,
Issued September 2013, (``SAE J2966''); IBR approved for Sec.
1037.532(a).
(f) Idaho National Laboratory, 2525 Fremont Ave., Idaho Falls, ID
83415-3805, (866) 495-7440, or www.inl.gov.
(1) U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium, Electric Vehicle Battery Test
Procedures Manual, Revision 2, January 1996; IBR approved for Sec.
1037.552(a).
(2) [Reserved]
0
131. Revise Sec. 1037.815 to read as follows:
Sec. 1037.815 Confidential information.
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 and 1068.11 apply for information
you submit under this part.
Appendix I to Part 1037--[Redesignated as Appendix A to Part 1037]
Appendix II to Part 1037--[Redesignated as Appendix B to Part 1037]
Appendix III to Part 1037--[Redesignated as Appendix C to Part 1037]
Appendix IV to Part 1037--[Redesignated as Appendix D to Part 1037]
Appendix V to Part 1037--[Redesignated as Appendix E to Part 1037]
0
132. Redesignate appendices to part 1037 as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old appendix New appendix
------------------------------------------------------------------------
appendix I to part 1037 appendix A to part 1037
appendix II to part 1037 appendix B to part 1037
appendix III to part 1037 appendix C to part 1037
appendix IV to part 1037 appendix D to part 1037
appendix V to part 1037 appendix E to part 1037
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 1039--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE NONROAD
COMPRESSION-IGNITION ENGINES
0
133. The authority citation for part 1039 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
[[Page 17843]]
0
134. Amend Sec. 1039.105 by revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a) introductory text and (b) introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 1039.105 What smoke opacity standards must my engines meet?
(a) The smoke opacity standards in this section apply to all
engines subject to emission standards under this part, except for the
following engines:
* * * * *
(b) Measure smoke opacity as specified in Sec. 1039.501(c). Smoke
opacity from your engines may not exceed the following standards:
* * * * *
0
135. Amend Sec. 1039.115 by revising paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1039.115 What other requirements apply?
* * * * *
(e) Adjustable parameters. Engines that have adjustable parameters
must meet all the requirements of this part for any adjustment in the
physically adjustable range. We may require that you set adjustable
parameters to any specification within the adjustable range during any
testing, including certification testing, selective enforcement
auditing, or in-use testing. General provisions for adjustable
parameters apply as specified in 40 CFR 1068.50.
(f) Prohibited controls. (1) General provisions. You may not design
your engines with emission control devices, systems, or elements of
design that cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public
health, welfare, or safety while operating. For example, an engine may
not emit a noxious or toxic substance it would otherwise not emit that
contributes to such an unreasonable risk.
(2) Vanadium sublimation in SCR catalysts. For engines equipped
with vanadium-based SCR catalysts, you must design the engine and its
emission controls to prevent vanadium sublimation and protect the
catalyst from high temperatures. We will evaluate your engine design
based on the following information that you must include in your
application for certification:
(i) Identify the threshold temperature for vanadium sublimation for
your specified SCR catalyst formulation as described in 40 CFR
1065.1113 through 1065.1121.
(ii) Describe how you designed your engine to prevent catalyst
inlet temperatures from exceeding the temperature you identify in
paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section, including consideration of engine
wear through the useful life. Also describe your design for catalyst
protection in case catalyst temperatures exceed the specified
temperature. In your description, include how you considered elevated
catalyst temperature resulting from sustained high-load engine
operation, catalyst exotherms, DPF regeneration, and component failure
resulting in unburned fuel in the exhaust stream.
* * * * *
0
136. Amend Sec. 1039.205 by revising paragraph (s) to read as follows:
Sec. 1039.205 What must I include in my application?
* * * * *
(s) Describe all adjustable operating parameters (see Sec.
1039.115(e)), including production tolerances. For any operating
parameters that do not qualify as adjustable parameters, include a
description supporting your conclusion (see 40 CFR 1068.50(c)). Include
the following in your description of each adjustable parameter:
(1) For mechanically controlled parameters, include the nominal or
recommended setting, the intended physically adjustable range, and the
limits or stops used to limit adjustable ranges, and production
tolerances of the limits or stops used to establish each physically
adjustable range. Also include information showing why the limits,
stops, or other means of inhibiting adjustment are effective in
preventing adjustment of parameters on in-use engines to settings
outside your intended physically adjustable ranges.
(2) For electronically controlled parameters, describe how your
engines are designed to prevent unauthorized adjustments.
* * * * *
0
137. Amend Sec. 1039.245 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1039.245 How do I determine deterioration factors from exhaust
durability testing?
* * * * *
(e) You may alternatively determine and verify deterioration
factors based on bench-aged aftertreatment as described in 40 CFR
1036.245 and 1036.246, with the following exceptions:
(1) Apply the percentage of useful life from Table 1 of 40 CFR
1036.246 based on hours of operation rather than vehicle mileage.
(2) Use good engineering judgment to perform verification testing
using the procedures of Sec. 1039.515 rather than 40 CFR 1036.520.
Measure emissions as the equipment goes through its normal operation
over the course of the day (or shift-day).
(3) Apply infrequent regeneration adjustment factors as specified
in Sec. 1039.525 rather than 40 CFR 1036.522.
0
138. Amend Sec. 1039.501 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1039.501 How do I run a valid emission test?
* * * * *
(c) Measure smoke opacity using the procedures in 40 CFR part 1065,
subpart L, for evaluating whether engines meet the smoke opacity
standards in Sec. 1039.105, except that you may test two-cylinder
engines with an exhaust muffler like those installed on in-use engines.
* * * * *
0
139. Revise Sec. 1039.655 to read as follows:
Sec. 1039.655 What special provisions apply to engines sold in
American Samoa or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands?
(a) The prohibitions in 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1) do not apply to
engines at or above 56 kW if the following conditions are met:
(1) The engine is intended for use and will be used in American
Samoa or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
(2) The engine meets the latest applicable emission standards in
appendix I of this part.
(3) You meet all the requirements of 40 CFR 1068.265.
(b) If you introduce an engine into commerce in the United States
under this section, you must meet the labeling requirements in Sec.
1039.135, but add the following statement instead of the compliance
statement in Sec. 1039.135(c)(12):
THIS ENGINE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH U.S. EPA TIER 4 EMISSION
REQUIREMENTS. IMPORTING THIS ENGINE INTO THE UNITED STATES OR ANY
TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES EXCEPT AMERICAN SAMOA OR THE
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS MAY BE A VIOLATION OF
FEDERAL LAW SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTY.
(c) Introducing into commerce an engine exempted under this section
in any state or territory of the United States other than American
Samoa or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, throughout
its lifetime, violates the prohibitions in 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1),
unless it is exempt under a different provision.
(d) The exemption provisions in this section also applied for
engines that were introduced into commerce in
[[Page 17844]]
Guam before [the effective date of the final rule] if they would
otherwise have been subject to Tier 4 standards.
0
140. Amend Sec. 1039.801 by revising the definitions of ``Critical
emission-related component'' and ``Designated Compliance Officer'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 1039.801 What definitions apply to this part?
* * * * *
Critical emission-related component has the meaning given in 40 CFR
1068.30.
* * * * *
Designated Compliance Officer means the Director, Diesel Engine
Compliance Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; [email protected];
www.epa.gov/ve-certification.
* * * * *
PART 1042--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE MARINE
COMPRESSION-IGNITION ENGINES AND VESSELS
0
141. The authority citation for part 1042 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
142. Amend Sec. 1042.110 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1042.110 Recording reductant use and other diagnostic functions.
(a) * * *
(1) The diagnostic system must monitor reductant supply and alert
operators to the need to restore the reductant supply, or to replace
the reductant if it does not meet your concentration specifications.
Unless we approve other alerts, use a warning lamp and an audible
alarm. You do not need to separately monitor reductant quality if your
system uses input from an exhaust NOX sensor (or other
sensor) to alert operators when reductant quality is inadequate.
However, tank level or DEF flow must be monitored in all cases.
* * * * *
0
143. Amend Sec. 1042.115 by revising paragraphs (d) introductory text
and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1042.115 Other requirements.
* * * * *
(d) Adjustable parameters. General provisions for adjustable
parameters apply as specified in 40 CFR 1068.50. The following
additional category-specific provisions apply:
* * * * *
(e) Prohibited controls. (1) General provisions. You may not design
your engines with emission control devices, systems, or elements of
design that cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public
health, welfare, or safety while operating. For example, an engine may
not emit a noxious or toxic substance it would otherwise not emit that
contributes to such an unreasonable risk.
(2) Vanadium sublimation in SCR catalysts. For engines equipped
with vanadium-based SCR catalysts, you must design the engine and its
emission controls to prevent vanadium sublimation and protect the
catalyst from high temperatures. We will evaluate your engine design
based on the following information that you must include in your
application for certification:
(i) Identify the threshold temperature for vanadium sublimation for
your specified SCR catalyst formulation as described in 40 CFR
1065.1113 through 1065.1121.
(ii) Describe how you designed your engine to prevent catalyst
inlet temperatures from exceeding the temperature you identify in
paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, including consideration of engine
wear through the useful life. Also describe your design for catalyst
protection in case catalyst temperatures exceed the specified
temperature. In your description, include how you considered elevated
catalyst temperature resulting from sustained high-load engine
operation, catalyst exotherms, DPF regeneration, and component failure
resulting in unburned fuel in the exhaust stream.
* * * * *
0
144. Amend Sec. 1042.145 by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 1042.145 Interim provisions.
* * * * *
(h) Expanded production-line testing. Production-line testing
requirements for Category 1 engine families with a projected U.S.-
directed production volume below 100 engines and for all families
certified by small-volume engine manufacturers start to apply in model
year 2024. All manufacturers must test no more than four engine
families in a single model year, and small-volume engine manufacturers
must test no more than two engine families in a single model year.
* * * * *
0
145. Amend Sec. 1042.205 by revising paragraphs (c) and (s) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1042.205 Application requirements.
* * * * *
(c) If your engines are equipped with an engine diagnostic system
as required under Sec. 1042.110, explain how it works, describing
especially the engine conditions (with the corresponding diagnostic
trouble codes) that cause the warning lamp to go on. Also identify the
communication protocol (SAE J1939, SAE J1979, etc.).
* * * * *
(s) Describe all adjustable operating parameters (see Sec.
1042.115(d)), including production tolerances. For any operating
parameters that do not qualify as adjustable parameters, include a
description supporting your conclusion (see 40 CFR 1068.50(c)). Include
the following in your description of each adjustable parameter:
(1) For mechanically controlled parameters, include the nominal or
recommended setting, the intended physically adjustable range, and the
limits or stops used to establish adjustable ranges.
(i) For Category 1 engines, include information showing why the
limits, stops, or other means of inhibiting mechanical adjustment are
effective in preventing adjustment of parameters on in-use engines to
settings outside your intended physically adjustable ranges.
(ii) For Category 2 and Category 3 engines, propose a range of
mechanical adjustment for each adjustable parameter, as described in
Sec. 1042.115(d). Include information showing why the limits, stops,
or other means of inhibiting mechanical adjustment are effective in
preventing adjustment of parameters on in-use engines to settings
outside your proposed adjustable ranges.
(2) For electronically controlled parameters, describe how your
engines are designed to prevent unauthorized adjustments.
* * * * *
0
146. Amend Sec. 1042.245 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1042.245 Deterioration factors.
* * * * *
(e) You may alternatively determine and verify deterioration
factors based on bench-aged aftertreatment as described in 40 CFR
1036.245 and 1036.246, with the following exceptions:
(1) Apply the percentage of useful life from Table 1 of 40 CFR
1036.246 based on hours of operation rather than vehicle mileage.
(2) Use good engineering judgment to perform verification testing
using the procedures of Sec. 1042.515 rather than 40 CFR 1036.520.
Measure emissions as the vessel goes through its normal operation over
the course of the day (or shift-day).
(3) Apply infrequent regeneration adjustment factors as specified
in Sec. 1042.525 rather than 40 CFR 1036.522.
[[Page 17845]]
0
147. Revise Sec. 1042.301 to read as follows:
Sec. 1042.301 General provisions.
(a) If you produce freshly manufactured marine engines that are
subject to the requirements of this part, you must test them as
described in this subpart.
(b) We may suspend or revoke your certificate of conformity for
certain engine families if your production-line engines do not meet the
requirements of this part or you do not fulfill your obligations under
this subpart (see Sec. Sec. 1042.325 and 1042.340). Similarly, we may
deny applications for certification for the upcoming model year if you
do not fulfill your obligations under this subpart (see Sec.
1042.255(c)(1)).
(c) Other regulatory provisions authorize us to suspend, revoke, or
void your certificate of conformity, or order recalls for engine
families, without regard to whether they have passed production-line
testing requirements. The requirements of this subpart do not affect
our ability to do selective enforcement audits, as described in 40 CFR
part 1068. Individual engines in families that pass production-line
testing requirements must also conform to all applicable regulations of
this part and 40 CFR part 1068.
(d) You may ask to use another alternate program or measurement
method for testing production-line engines. In your request, you must
show us that the alternate program gives equal assurance that your
engines meet the requirements of this part. We may waive some or all of
this subpart's requirements if we approve your alternate program.
(e) If you certify a Category 1 or Category 2 engine family with
carryover emission data, as described in Sec. 1042.235(d), you may
omit production-line testing if you fulfilled your testing requirements
with a related engine family in an earlier year, except as follows:
(1) We may require that you perform additional production-line
testing under this subpart in any model year for cause, such as if you
file a defect report related to the engine family or if you amend your
application for certification in any of the following ways:
(i) You designate a different supplier or change technical
specifications for any critical emission-related components.
(ii) You add a new or modified engine configuration such that the
test data from the original emission-data engine do not clearly
continue to serve as worst-case testing for certification.
(iii) You change your family emission limit without submitting new
emission data.
(2) If you certify an engine family with carryover emission data
with no production-line testing for more than five model years, we may
require that you perform production-line testing again for one of those
later model years unless you demonstrate that none of the circumstances
identified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section apply for the engine
family.
(f) We may ask you to make a reasonable number of production-line
engines available for a reasonable time so we can test or inspect them
for compliance with the requirements of this part. For Category 3
engines, you are not required to deliver engines to us, but we may
inspect and test your engines at any facility at which they are
assembled or installed in vessels.
0
148. Amend Sec. 1042.302 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 1042.302 Applicability of this subpart for Category 3 engines.
If you produce Tier 3 or later Category 3 engines that are subject
to the requirements of this part, you must test them as described in
this subpart, except as specified in this section.
* * * * *
0
149. Amend Sec. 1042.305 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1042.305 Preparing and testing production-line engines.
* * * * *
(a) Test procedures. Test your production-line engines using the
applicable testing procedures in subpart F of this part to show you
meet the duty-cycle emission standards in subpart B of this part. For
Category 1 and Category 2 engines, the not-to-exceed standards apply
for this testing of Category 1 and Category 2 engines, but you need not
do additional testing to show that production-line engines meet the
not-to-exceed standards. The mode cap standards apply for testing
Category 3 engines subject to Tier 3 standards (or for engines subject
to the Annex VI Tier III NOX standards under Sec.
1042.650(d)).
* * * * *
0
150. Revise Sec. 1042.310 to read as follows:
Sec. 1042.310 Engine selection for Category 1 and Category 2 engines.
(a) For Category 1 and Category 2 engine families, the minimum
sample size is one engine. You may ask us to approve treating
commercial and recreational engines as being from the same engine
family for purposes of production-line testing if you certify them
using the same emission-data engine.
(b) Select engines for testing as follows:
(1) For Category 1 engines, randomly select one engine within the
first 60 days of the start of production for each engine family.
(2) For Category 2 engines, randomly select one engine within 60
days after you produce the fifth engine from an engine family (or from
successive families that are related based on your use of carryover
data under Sec. 1042.230(d)).
(3) If you do not produce an engine from the engine family in the
specified time frame, test the next engine you produce.
(4) You may preferentially test engines earlier than we specify.
(5) You meet the requirement to randomly select engines under this
section if you assemble the engine in a way that fully represents your
normal production and quality procedures.
(c) For each engine that fails to meet emission standards, test two
engines from the same engine family from the next fifteen engines
produced or within seven days, whichever is later. If you do not
produce fifteen additional engines within 90 days, test two additional
engines within 90 days or as soon as practicable. If an engine fails to
meet emission standards for any pollutant, count it as a failing engine
under this paragraph (c).
(d) Continue testing until one of the following things happens:
(1) You test the number of engines required under paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section. For example, if the initial engine fails and
then two engines pass, testing is complete for that engine family.
(2) The engine family does not comply according to Sec. 1042.315
or you choose to declare that the engine family does not comply with
the requirements of this subpart.
(e) You may elect to test more randomly chosen engines than we
require under this section.
0
151. Amend Sec. 1042.315 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1042.315 Determining compliance.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) Initial and final test results. Calculate and round the test
results for each engine. If you do multiple tests on an engine in a
given configuration (without modifying the engine), calculate the
initial results for each test, then add all the test results together
and divide by the number of tests. Round
[[Page 17846]]
this final calculated value for the final test results on that engine.
Include the Green Engine Factor to determine low-hour emission results,
if applicable.
* * * * *
(b) For Category 1 and Category 2 engines, if a production-line
engine fails to meet emission standards and you test additional engines
as described in Sec. 1042.310, calculate the average emission level
for each pollutant for all the engines. If the calculated average
emission level for any pollutant exceeds the applicable emission
standard, the engine family fails the production-line testing
requirements of this subpart. Tell us within ten working days if an
engine fails. You may request to amend the application for
certification to raise the FEL of the engine family as described in
Sec. 1042.225(f).
0
152. Amend Sec. 1042.320 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1042.320 What happens if one of my production-line engines fails
to meet emission standards?
* * * * *
(c) Use test data from a failing engine for the compliance
demonstration under Sec. 1042.315 as follows:
(1) Use the original, failing test results as described in Sec.
1042.315, whether or not you modify the engine or destroy it. However,
for catalyst-equipped engines, you may ask us to allow you to exclude
an initial failed test if all the following are true:
(i) The catalyst was in a green condition when tested initially.
(ii) The engine met all emission standards when retested after
degreening the catalyst.
(iii) No additional emission-related maintenance or repair was
performed between the initial failed test and the subsequent passing
test.
(2) Do not use test results from a modified engine as final test
results under Sec. 1042.315, unless you change your production process
for all engines to match the adjustments you made to the failing
engine. If you change production processes and use the test results
from a modified engine, count the modified engine as the next engine in
the sequence, rather than averaging the results with the testing that
occurred before modifying the engine.
0
153. Amend Sec. 1042.325 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1042.325 What happens if an engine family fails the production-
line testing requirements?
* * * * *
(b) We will tell you in writing if we suspend your certificate in
whole or in part. We will not suspend a certificate until at least 15
days after the engine family fails as described in Sec. 1042.315(b).
The suspension is effective when you receive our notice.
* * * * *
0
154. Revise Sec. 1042.345 to read as follows:
Sec. 1042.345 Reporting.
(a) Send us a test report within 45 days after you complete
production-line testing for a Category 1 or Category 2 engine family,
and within 45 days after you finish testing each Category 3 engine. We
may approve a later submission for Category 3 engines if it allows you
to combine test reports for multiple engines.
(b) Include the following information in the report:
(1) Describe any facility used to test production-line engines and
state its location.
(2) For Category 1 and Category 2 engines, describe how you
randomly selected engines.
(3) Describe each test engine, including the engine family's
identification and the engine's model year, build date, model number,
identification number, and number of hours of operation before testing.
Also describe how you developed and applied the Green Engine Factor, if
applicable.
(4) Identify how you accumulated hours of operation on the engines
and describe the procedure and schedule you used.
(5) Provide the test number; the date, time and duration of
testing; test procedure; all initial test results; final test results;
and final deteriorated test results for all tests. Provide the emission
results for all measured pollutants. Include information for both valid
and invalid tests and the reason for any invalidation.
(6) Describe completely and justify any nonroutine adjustment,
modification, repair, preparation, maintenance, or test for the test
engine if you did not report it separately under this subpart. Include
the results of any emission measurements, regardless of the procedure
or type of engine.
(c) We may ask you to add information to your written report so we
can determine whether your new engines conform with the requirements of
this subpart. We may also ask you to send less information.
(d) An authorized representative of your company must sign the
following statement:
We submit this report under sections 208 and 213 of the Clean Air
Act. Our production-line testing conformed completely with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 1042. We have not changed production
processes or quality-control procedures for test engines in a way that
might affect emission controls. All the information in this report is
true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I know of the penalties
for violating the Clean Air Act and the regulations. (Authorized
Company Representative)
(e) Send electronic reports of production-line testing to the
Designated Compliance Officer using an approved information format. If
you want to use a different format, send us a written request with
justification for a waiver. You may combine reports from multiple
engines and engine families into a single report.
(f) We will send copies of your reports to anyone from the public
who asks for them. See Sec. 1042.915 for information on how we treat
information you consider confidential.
0
155. Amend Sec. 1042.515 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 1042.515 Test procedures related to not-to-exceed standards.
* * * * *
(d) Engine testing may occur at any conditions expected during
normal operation but that are outside the conditions described in
paragraph (c) of this section, as long as measured values are corrected
to be equivalent to the nearest end of the specified range, using good
engineering judgment. Correct NOX emissions for humidity as
specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart G.
* * * * *
0
156. Amend Sec. 1042.615 by revising paragraph (g) introductory text
to read as follows:
Sec. 1042.615 Replacement engine exemption.
* * * * *
(g) In unusual circumstances, you may ask us to allow you to apply
the replacement engine exemption of this section for repowering a
steamship or a vessel that becomes a ``new vessel'' under Sec.
1042.901 as a result of modifications, as follows:
* * * * *
0
157. Amend Sec. 1042.660 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1042.660 Requirements for vessel manufacturers, owners, and
operators.
* * * * *
(b) For vessels equipped with SCR systems requiring the use of urea
or other reductants, owners and operators must report to the Designated
Compliance Officer within 30 days any operation of such vessels without
the appropriate reductant. For each
[[Page 17847]]
reportable incident, include the cause of the noncompliant operation,
the remedy, and an estimate of the extent of operation without
reductant. You must remedy the problem as soon as practicable to avoid
violating the tampering prohibition in 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1). If the
remedy is not complete within 30 days of the incident, notify the
Designated Compliance Officer when the issue is resolved, along with
any relevant additional information related to the repair. This
reporting requirement applies for all engines on covered vessels even
if the engines are certified to Annex VI standards instead of or in
addition to EPA standards under this part. Failure to comply with the
reporting requirements of this paragraph (b) is a violation of 40 CFR
1068.101(a)(2). Note that operating such engines without reductant is a
violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1).
* * * * *
0
158. Amend Sec. 1042.901 by revising the definitions of ``Category
1'', ``Category 2'', ``Critical emission-related component'', and
``Designated Compliance Officer'' and removing the definition of
``Designated Enforcement Officer'' to read as follows:
Sec. 1042.901 Definitions.
* * * * *
Category 1 means relating to a marine engine with specific engine
displacement below 7.0 liters per cylinder. See Sec. 1042.670 to
determine equivalent per-cylinder displacement for nonreciprocating
marine engines (such as gas turbine engines). Note that the maximum
specific engine displacement for Category 1 engines subject to Tier 1
and Tier 2 standards was 5.0 liters per cylinder.
Category 2 means relating to a marine engine with a specific engine
displacement at or above 7.0 liters per cylinder but less than 30.0
liters per cylinder. See Sec. 1042.670 to determine equivalent per-
cylinder displacement for nonreciprocating marine engines (such as gas
turbine engines). Note that the minimum specific engine displacement
for Category 2 engines subject to Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards was 5.0
liters per cylinder.
* * * * *
Critical emission-related component has the meaning given in 40 CFR
1068.30.
* * * * *
Designated Compliance Officer means the Director, Diesel Engine
Compliance Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; [email protected];
www.epa.gov/ve-certification.
* * * * *
0
159. Amend appendix I to part 1042 by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Appendix I to Part 1042--Summary of Previous Emission Standards
* * * * *
(a) Engines below 37 kW. Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards for engines
below 37 kW originally adopted under 40 CFR part 89 apply as
follows:
Table 1 to Appendix I--Emission Standards for Engines Below 37 kW
[g/kW-hr]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated power (kW) Tier Model year NMHC + NOX CO PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kW < 8........................ Tier 1.......... 2000 10.5 8.0 1.0
Tier 2.......... 2005 7.5 8.0 0.80
8 <= kW <= 19................. Tier 1.......... 2000 9.5 6.6 0.80
Tier 2.......... 2005 7.5 6.6 0.80
19 >= kW >= 37................ Tier 1.......... 1999 9.5 5.5 0.80
Tier 2.......... 2004 7.5 5.5 0.60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 1043--CONTROL OF NOX, SOX, AND PM EMISSIONS FROM MARINE
ENGINES AND VESSELS SUBJECT TO THE MARPOL PROTOCOL
0
160. The authority citation for part 1043 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1901-1912.
0
161. Amend Sec. 1043.20 by removing the definition of ``Public
vessels'' and adding a definition of ``Public vessel'' in alphabetical
order to read as follows:
Sec. 1043.20 Definitions.
* * * * *
Public vessel means a warship, naval auxiliary vessel, or other
vessel owned or operated by a sovereign country when engaged in
noncommercial service. Vessels with a national security exemption under
40 CFR 1042.635 are deemed to be public vessels with respect to
compliance with NOX-related requirements of this part when
engaged in noncommercial service. Similarly, vessels with one or more
installed engines that have a national security exemption under 40 CFR
1090.605 are deemed to be public vessels with respect to compliance
with fuel content requirements when engaged in noncommercial service.
* * * * *
0
162. Amend Sec. 1043.55 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1043.55 Applying equivalent controls instead of complying with
fuel requirements.
* * * * *
(a) The U.S. Coast Guard is the approving authority under APPS for
such equivalent methods for U.S.-flagged vessels.
(b) The provisions of this paragraph (b) apply for vessels equipped
with controls certified by the U.S. Coast Guard or the Administration
of a foreign-flag vessel to achieve emission levels equivalent to those
achieved by the use of fuels meeting the applicable fuel sulfur limits
of Regulation 14 of Annex VI. Fuels not meeting the applicable fuel
sulfur limits of Regulation 14 of Annex VI may be used on such vessels
consistent with the provisions of the IAPP certificate, APPS and Annex
VI.
* * * * *
0
163. Amend Sec. 1043.95 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1043.95 Great Lakes provisions.
* * * * *
(b) The following exemption provisions apply for ships qualifying
under paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) The fuel-use requirements of this part do not apply through
December 31, 2025, if we approved an exemption under this section
before [effective date of the final rule] based on the use of
replacement engines certified to applicable standards under 40 CFR part
1042 corresponding to the date the vessel entered dry dock for service.
All other requirements under this part 1043 continue to apply to
exempted vessels,
[[Page 17848]]
including requirements related to bunker delivery notes.
(2) A marine diesel engine installed to repower a steamship may be
a replacement engine under Regulation 13.2.2 of Annex VI. Such an
engine may qualify for an exemption from the Tier III NOX
standard under Regulation 13.2.2 of Annex VI.
* * * * *
PART 1045--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM SPARK-IGNITION PROPULSION
MARINE ENGINES AND VESSELS
0
164. The authority citation for part 1045 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
165. Amend Sec. 1045.115 by revising paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1045.115 What other requirements apply?
* * * * *
(e) Adjustable parameters. Engines that have adjustable parameters
must meet all the requirements of this part for any adjustment in the
physically adjustable range. We may require that you set adjustable
parameters to any specification within the adjustable range during any
testing, including certification testing, production-line testing, or
in-use testing. General provisions for adjustable parameters apply as
specified in 40 CFR 1068.50.
(f) Prohibited controls. You may not design your engines with
emission control devices, systems, or elements of design that cause or
contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety
while operating. For example, an engine may not emit a noxious or toxic
substance it would otherwise not emit that contributes to such an
unreasonable risk.
* * * * *
0
166. Amend Sec. 1045.205 by revising paragraph (r) to read as follows:
Sec. 1045.205 What must I include in my application?
* * * * *
(r) Describe all adjustable operating parameters (see Sec.
1045.115(e)), including production tolerances. For any operating
parameters that do not qualify as adjustable parameters, include a
description supporting your conclusion (see 40 CFR 1068.50(c)). Include
the following in your description of each adjustable parameter:
(1) For mechanically controlled parameters, include the nominal or
recommended setting, the intended physically adjustable range, and the
limits or stops used to establish adjustable ranges. Also include
information showing why the limits, stops, or other means of inhibiting
adjustment are effective in preventing adjustment of parameters on in-
use engines to settings outside your intended physically adjustable
ranges.
(2) For electronically controlled parameters, describe how your
engines are designed to prevent unauthorized adjustments.
* * * * *
0
167. Amend Sec. 1045.801 by revising the definition of ``Critical
emission-related component'' to read as follows:
Sec. 1045.801 What definitions apply to this part?
* * * * *
Critical emission-related component has the meaning given in 40 CFR
1068.30.
* * * * *
0
168. Revise Sec. 1045.815 to read as follows:
Sec. 1045.815 What provisions apply to confidential information?
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 and 1068.11 apply for information
you submit under this part.
PART 1048--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW, LARGE NONROAD SPARK-
IGNITION ENGINES
0
169. The authority citation for part 1048 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
170. Amend Sec. 1048.115 by revising paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1048.115 What other requirements apply?
* * * * *
(e) Adjustable parameters. Engines that have adjustable parameters
must meet all the requirements of this part for any adjustment in the
physically adjustable range. We may require that you set adjustable
parameters to any specification within the adjustable range during any
testing, including certification testing, production-line testing, or
in-use testing. General provisions for adjustable parameters apply as
specified in 40 CFR 1068.50.
(f) Prohibited controls. You may not design your engines with
emission control devices, systems, or elements of design that cause or
contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety
while operating. For example, an engine may not emit a noxious or toxic
substance it would otherwise not emit that contributes to such an
unreasonable risk.
* * * * *
0
171. Amend Sec. 1048.205 by revising paragraph (t) to read as follows:
Sec. 1048.205 What must I include in my application?
* * * * *
(t) Describe all adjustable operating parameters (see Sec.
1048.115(e)), including production tolerances. For any operating
parameters that do not qualify as adjustable parameters, include a
description supporting your conclusion (see 40 CFR 1068.50(c)). Include
the following in your description of each adjustable parameter:
(1) For mechanically controlled parameters, include the nominal or
recommended setting, the intended physically adjustable range, and the
limits or stops used to establish adjustable ranges. Also include
information showing why the limits, stops, or other means of inhibiting
adjustment are effective in preventing adjustment of parameters on in-
use engines to settings outside your intended physically adjustable
ranges.
(2) For electronically controlled parameters, describe how your
engines are designed to prevent unauthorized adjustments.
* * * * *
0
172. Amend Sec. 1048.240 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1048.240 How do I demonstrate that my engine family complies
with exhaust emission standards?
* * * * *
(f) You may alternatively determine and verify deterioration
factors based on bench-aged aftertreatment as described in 40 CFR
1036.245 and 1036.246, with the following exceptions:
(1) Apply the percentage of useful life from Table 1 of 40 CFR
1036.246 based on hours of operation rather than vehicle mileage.
(2) Use good engineering judgment to perform verification testing
using the procedures of Sec. 1048.515 rather than 40 CFR 1036.520.
Measure emissions as the equipment goes through its normal operation
over the course of the day (or shift-day).
0
173. Amend Sec. 1048.501 by revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1048.501 How do I run a valid emission test?
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) For engines equipped with carbon canisters that store fuel
vapors that will be purged for combustion in the engine, precondition
the canister as specified in 40 CFR 86.132-96(h) and then operate the
engine for 60 minutes over repeat runs of the duty cycle specified in
appendix II of this part.
* * * * *
[[Page 17849]]
0
174. Amend Sec. 1048.620 by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (d), and (e)
to read as follows:
Sec. 1048.620 What are the provisions for exempting large engines
fueled by natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas?
(a) * * *
(3) The engine must be in an engine family that has a valid
certificate of conformity showing that it meets emission standards for
engines of that power rating under 40 CFR part 1039.
* * * * *
(d) Engines exempted under this section are subject to all the
requirements affecting engines under 40 CFR part 1039. The requirements
and restrictions of 40 CFR part 1039 apply to anyone manufacturing
engines exempted under this section, anyone manufacturing equipment
that uses these engines, and all other persons in the same manner as if
these were nonroad diesel engines.
(e) You may request an exemption under this section by submitting
an application for certification for the engines under 40 CFR part
1039.
0
175. Amend Sec. 1048.801 by revising the definition of ``Critical
emission-related component'' to read as follows:
Sec. 1048.801 What definitions apply to this part?
* * * * *
Critical emission-related component has the meaning given in 40 CFR
1068.30.
* * * * *
0
176. Revise Sec. 1048.815 to read as follows:
Sec. 1048.815 What provisions apply to confidential information?
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 and 1068.11 apply for information
you submit under this part.
PART 1051--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM RECREATIONAL ENGINES AND
VEHICLES
0
177. The authority citation for part 1051 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
178. Amend Sec. 1051.115 by revising paragraphs (c), (d) introductory
text, (d)(1), (d)(2) introductory text, and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1051.115 What other requirements apply?
* * * * *
(c) Adjustable parameters. Vehicles that have adjustable parameters
must meet all the requirements of this part for any adjustment in the
physically adjustable range. Note that parameters that control the air-
fuel ratio may be treated separately under paragraph (d) of this
section. We may require that you set adjustable parameters to any
specification within the adjustable range during any testing, including
certification testing, production-line testing, or in-use testing.
General provisions for adjustable parameters apply as specified in 40
CFR 1068.50.
(d) Other adjustments. The following provisions apply for engines
with carburetor jets or needles, and for engines with any other
technology involving service to adjust air-fuel ratio that falls within
the time and cost specifications of 40 CFR 1068.50(d)(1):
(1) In your application for certification, specify the physically
adjustable range of air-fuel ratios you expect to occur in use. You may
specify it in terms of engine parts (such as the carburetor jet size
and needle configuration as a function of atmospheric conditions).
(2) The physically adjustable range specified in paragraph (d)(1)
of this section must include all air-fuel ratios between the lean limit
and the rich limit, unless you can show that some air-fuel ratios will
not occur in use.
* * * * *
(e) Prohibited controls. You may not design your engines with
emission control devices, systems, or elements of design that cause or
contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety
while operating. For example, an engine may not emit a noxious or toxic
substance it would otherwise not emit that contributes to such an
unreasonable risk.
* * * * *
0
179. Amend Sec. 1051.205 by revising paragraph (q) to read as follows:
Sec. 1051.205 What must I include in my application?
* * * * *
(q) Describe all adjustable operating parameters (see Sec.
1051.115(e)), including production tolerances. For any operating
parameters that do not qualify as adjustable parameters, include a
description supporting your conclusion (see 40 CFR 1068.50(c)). Include
the following in your description of each adjustable parameter:
(1) For mechanically controlled parameters, include the nominal or
recommended setting, the intended physically adjustable range, and the
limits or stops used to establish adjustable ranges. Also include
information showing why the limits, stops, or other means of inhibiting
adjustment are effective in preventing adjustment of parameters on in-
use engines to settings outside your intended physically adjustable
ranges.
(2) For electronically controlled parameters, describe how your
vehicles or engines are designed to prevent unauthorized adjustments.
* * * * *
0
180. Amend Sec. 1051.501 by revising paragraphs (c)(2), (d)(2)(i) and
(d)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 1051.501 What procedures must I use to test my vehicles or
engines?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Prior to permeation testing of fuel line, precondition the fuel
line by filling it with the fuel specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this
section, sealing the openings, and soaking it for 4 weeks at (23 5) [deg]C. To measure fuel-line permeation emissions, use the
equipment and procedures specified in SAE J30 as described in 40 CFR
1060.810. Use the fuel specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
Perform daily measurements for 14 days, except that you may omit up to
two daily measurements in any seven-day period. Maintain an ambient
temperature of (23 2) [deg]C throughout the sampling
period, except for intervals up to 30 minutes for weight measurements.
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) For the preconditioning soak described in Sec. 1051.515(a)(1)
and fuel slosh durability test described in Sec. 1051.515(d)(3), use
the fuel specified in 40 CFR 1065.710(b), or the fuel specified in 40
CFR 1065.710(c) blended with 10 percent ethanol by volume. As an
alternative, you may use Fuel CE10, which is Fuel C as specified in
ASTM D471 (see 40 CFR 1060.810) blended with 10 percent ethanol by
volume.
* * * * *
(3) Fuel hose permeation. Use the fuel specified in 40 CFR
1065.710(b), or the fuel specified in 40 CFR 1065.710(c) blended with
10 percent ethanol by volume for permeation testing of fuel lines. As
an alternative, you may use Fuel CE10, which is Fuel C as specified in
ASTM D471 (see 40 CFR 1060.810) blended with 10 percent ethanol by
volume.
* * * * *
0
181. Amend Sec. 1051.515 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1051.515 How do I test my fuel tank for permeation emissions?
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) Fill the tank with the fuel specified in Sec.
1051.501(d)(2)(i), seal it,
[[Page 17850]]
and allow it to soak at 28 5 [deg]C for 20 weeks or at (43
5) [deg]C for 10 weeks.
* * * * *
0
182. Amend Sec. 1051.740 by revising paragraph (b)(5) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1051.740 Are there special averaging provisions for snowmobiles?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) Credits can also be calculated for Phase 3 using both sets of
standards. Without regard to the trigger level values, if your net
emission reduction for the redesignated averaging set exceeds the
requirements of Phase 3 in Sec. 1051.103 (using both HC and CO in the
Phase 3 equation in Sec. 1051.103), then your credits are the
difference between the Phase 3 reduction requirement of that section
and your calculated value.
0
183. Amend Sec. 1051.801 by revising the definition of ``Critical
emission-related component'' to read as follows:
Sec. 1051.801 What definitions apply to this part?
* * * * *
Critical emission-related component has the meaning given in 40 CFR
1068.30.
* * * * *
0
184. Revise Sec. 1051.815 to read as follows:
Sec. 1051.815 What provisions apply to confidential information?
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 and 1068.11 apply for information
you submit under this part.
PART 1054--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW, SMALL NONROAD SPARK-
IGNITION ENGINES AND EQUIPMENT
0
185. The authority citation for part 1054 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
186. Amend Sec. 1054.115 by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1054.115 What other requirements apply?
* * * * *
(b) Adjustable parameters. Engines that have adjustable parameters
must meet all the requirements of this part for any adjustment in the
physically adjustable range. We may require that you set adjustable
parameters to any specification within the adjustable range during any
testing, including certification testing, production-line testing, or
in-use testing. You may ask us to limit idle-speed or carburetor
adjustments to a smaller range than the physically adjustable range if
you show us that the engine will not be adjusted outside of this
smaller range during in-use operation without significantly degrading
engine performance. General provisions for adjustable parameters apply
as specified in 40 CFR 1068.50.
* * * * *
(d) Prohibited controls. You may not design your engines with
emission control devices, systems, or elements of design that cause or
contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety
while operating. For example, an engine may not emit a noxious or toxic
substance it would otherwise not emit that contributes to such an
unreasonable risk.
* * * * *
0
187. Amend Sec. 1054.205 by revising paragraph (q) to read as follows:
Sec. 1054.205 What must I include in my application?
* * * * *
(q) Describe all adjustable operating parameters (see Sec.
1054.115(b)), including production tolerances. For any operating
parameters that do not qualify as adjustable parameters, include a
description supporting your conclusion (see 40 CFR 1068.50(c)). Include
the following in your description of each adjustable parameter:
(1) For mechanically controlled parameters, include the nominal or
recommended setting, the intended physically adjustable range, and the
limits or stops used to establish adjustable ranges. Also include
information showing why the limits, stops, or other means of inhibiting
adjustment are effective in preventing adjustment of parameters on in-
use engines to settings outside your intended physically adjustable
ranges.
(2) For electronically controlled parameters, describe how your
engines are designed to prevent unauthorized adjustments.
* * * * *
0
188. Amend Sec. 1054.230 by revising paragraphs (b)(8) and (9) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1054.230 How do I select emission families?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(8) Method of control for engine operation, other than governing.
For example, multi-cylinder engines with port fuel injection may not be
grouped into an emission family with engines that have a single
throttle-body injector or carburetor.
(9) The numerical level of the applicable emission standards. For
example, an emission family may not include engines certified to
different family emission limits, though you may change family emission
limits without recertifying as specified in Sec. 1054.225.
* * * * *
0
189. Amend Sec. 1054.505 by revising paragraphs (a), (b) introductory
text, (b)(2), and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 1054.505 How do I test engines?
(a) This section describes how to test engines under steady-state
conditions. We may also perform other testing as allowed by the Clean
Air Act. Sample emissions separately for each mode, then calculate an
average emission level for the whole cycle using the weighting factors
specified for each mode. Control engine speed as specified in this
section. Use one of the following methods for confirming torque values
for nonhandheld engines:
(1) Calculate torque-related cycle statistics and compare with the
established criteria as specified in 40 CFR 1065.514 to confirm that
the test is valid.
(2) Evaluate each mode separately to validate the duty cycle. All
torque feedback values recorded during non-idle sampling periods must
be within 2 percent of the reference value or within