Chris
Sharp
<
chris.
sharp@
swri.
org>
Transmission
Date:
03/
28/
2005
09:
21:
46
AM
To:
Alan
Stout/
AA/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc:
Subject:
RE:
Fw:
Tech
Amendmant
Questions
about
Part
89
text
Alan
I
think
that
covers
it
on
my
end.
Sorry
to
be
a
bit
out
of
date
on
my
copy.
Thanks
for
the
link
I
didn't
have
it
yet.
I
use
some
of
the
parts
of
this
site,
but
I
didn't
know
about
the
up­
to­
date
beta
section.
I
have
essentially
still
been
working
off
of
the
NPRM
documents
with
only
a
few
updates
so
that
should
help.

Thanks
Regards
Chris
Sharp
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Stout.
Alan@
epamail.
epa.
gov
[
mailto:
Stout.
Alan@
epamail.
epa.
gov]
Sent:
Monday,
March
28,
2005
6:
39
AM
To:
Chris
Sharp
Cc:
Spears.
Matt@
epamail.
epa.
gov
Subject:
RE:
Fw:
Tech
Amendmant
Questions
about
Part
89
text
Chris,
Fortunately
we're
one
step
ahead
of
you
on
this
one.
We
got
a
head
start
on
migrating
to
part
1065
in
the
Tier
4
rule.
Last
summer
we
added
89.113(
b)(
3)
as
follows:

§
89.114
Special
and
alternate
test
procedures.
(
a)
Special
test
procedures.
The
Administrator
may,
on
the
basis
of
written
application
by
a
manufacturer,
establish
special
test
procedures
other
than
those
set
forth
in
this
part,
for
any
nonroad
engine
that
the
Administrator
determines
is
not
susceptible
to
satisfactory
testing
under
the
specified
test
procedures
set
forth
in
subpart
E
of
this
part
or
40
CFR
part
86,
subpart
I.
(
b)
Alternate
test
procedures.
(
1)
A
manufacturer
may
elect
to
use
an
alternate
test
procedure
provided
that
it
yields
equivalent
results
to
the
specified
procedures,
its
use
is
approved
in
advance
by
the
Administrator,
and
the
basis
for
equivalent
results
with
the
specified
test
procedures
is
fully
described
in
the
manufacturer's
application.
(
2)
The
Administrator
may
reject
data
generated
under
alternate
test
procedures
which
do
not
correlate
with
data
generated
under
the
specified
procedures.
(
3)
A
manufacturer
may
elect
to
use
the
test
procedures
in
40
CFR
part
1065
as
an
alternate
test
procedure
without
advance
approval
by
the
Administrator.
The
manufacturer
must
identify
in
its
application
for
certification
that
the
engines
were
tested
using
the
procedures
in
40
CFR
part
1065.

Under
this
approach,
the
new
(
b)(
4)
I
described
earlier
would
be
a
complement
to
the
global
allowance
in
(
b)(
3).
As
for
the
piecemeal
migration
to
part
1065,
we
proposed
the
following
provision
in
1065.10
(
c)(
3):

1065.10
Other
procedures.
(
a)
Your
testing.
The
procedures
in
this
part
apply
for
all
testing
you
do
to
show
compliance
with
emission
standards,
with
certain
exceptions
listed
in
this
section.
In
some
other
sections
in
this
part,
we
allow
you
to
use
other
procedures
(
such
as
less
precise
or
less
accurate
procedures)
if
they
do
not
affect
your
ability
to
show
that
your
engines
comply
with
all
applicable
emission
standards.
This
generally
requires
emission
levels
to
be
far
enough
below
the
applicable
emission
standards
so
that
any
errors
caused
by
greater
imprecision
or
inaccuracy
do
not
affect
your
ability
to
state
unconditionally
that
the
engines
meet
all
applicable
emission
standards.
(
b)
Our
testing.
These
procedures
generally
apply
for
testing
that
we
do
to
determine
if
your
engines
comply
with
applicable
emission
standards.
We
may
perform
other
testing
as
allowed
by
the
Act.
(
c)
Exceptions.
We
may
allow
or
require
you
to
use
procedures
other
than
those
specified
in
this
part
in
the
following
cases,
which
may
apply
to
laboratory
testing,
field
testing,
or
both:
*
*
*
(
3)
In
a
given
model
year,
you
may
use
procedures
required
for
later
model
year
engines
without
request.
If
you
upgrade
your
testing
facility
in
stages,
you
may
rely
on
a
combination
of
procedures
for
current
and
later
model
year
engines
as
long
as
you
can
ensure,
using
good
engineering
judgment,
that
any
combination
you
use
does
not
affect
your
ability
to
show
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
standards.
I
think
this
combination
of
solutions
should
cover
your
situation.
Let
me
know
if
there
is
anything
left
to
address.

Alan
P.
S.
In
case
you
don't
already
have
it,
the
best
way
of
accessing
current
regulations
is
on
the
e­
CFR
site,
which
is
updated
daily.
The
url
for
part
89
is:
http://
ecfr.
gpoaccess.
gov/
cgi/
t/
text/
text­
idx?
c=
ecfr&
sid=
94cf84cc9b9f6927a1f
f4daf8d7f8642&
tpl=/
ecfrbrowse/
Title40/
40cfr89_
main_
02.
tpl
I
find
it
works
best
to
go
to
other
parts
by
changing
the
url
characters
at
the
end
(
e.
g.
change
40cfr89
to
40cfr1065),
rather
than
clicking
through
menus.

Chris
Sharp
<
chris.
sharp@
swri.
org
To:
Alan
Stout/
AA/
USEPA/
US@
EPA>
cc:
Matt
Spears/
AA/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject:
RE:
Fw:
Tech
Amendmant
Questions
about
Part
89
text
Transmission
Date:
03/
25/
2005
04:
17:
15
PM
Alan
Actually
I
thought
it
might
be
a
bit
complicated.
Thanks
for
the
calrifications.
I
figured
to
intent
was
not
to
require
1065
just
yet,
but
I
wasn't
sure.

On
the
Blue
Sky
only
thing...
get
ready
because
this
is
a
little
complicated:

The
question
comes
from
the
language
in
89.112
where
the
standards
are
called
out
in
(
a),
and
then
test
procedures
are
referenced
in
(
b)
for
gaseous
(
which
calles
for
Subpart
E
and
(
c)
for
PM
(
which
references
the
California
procedures.
There
are
no
changes
to
these
parts.

However,
under
pargraph
89.112
(
f)
(
which
refers
only
to
requirements
for
Blue
Sky
engines)
you
have
modified
language
under
(
f)(
3)
Test
Procedures
which
allows
the
use
of
1065
(
actually
it
seems
to
require
it).
Since
this
section
89.112(
f)
only
defines
the
Blue
Sky
stuff,
what
I
am
missing
is
the
explicity
authority
to
use
Part
1065
in
lieu
of
Subpart
E
(
and
the
California
stuff
for
PM).
To
grant
that
authority
I
would
have
thought
you
would
need
similar
language
under
89.112
(
b)
and
(
c)
as
well.

For
dilute
it
gets
more
complicated
still
because
later
under
89.419
Dilute
Sampling
system,
you
talk
about
1065
(
which
was
the
center
of
my
other
question
which
you
just
answered).
So
it
seems
that
dilute
is
covered
for
being
allowed
to
use
1065
by
that
(
or
maybe
not).
But
for
raw
the
similar
section
is
89.412,
which
does
not
have
any
new
language
covering
the
allowance
for
1065.

So.......(
sorry
this
is
getting
so
long),
what
I
can't
find
is
any
language
that
actually
permits
me
to
use
Part
1065
for
raw
sampling
equipment
or
procedures.

My
thinking
is
that
if
you
put
language
like
89.112
(
f)(
3)
(
except
not
mandatory)
under
89.112
(
b)
and
(
c)
you
would
grant
the
needed
authority
explicitly.
The
next
question
I
have
is
whether
all
of
the
89.4xx
parts
each
need
language
talking
about
1065
(
89.412
raw
equipment,
89.413
raw
procedures,
89.414
air
flow,
etc.),
or
can
you
make
some
kind
of
generic
statement
under
89.112
that
just
sends
someone
over
to
1065
in
total.

While
I
am
asking
questions,
is
it
permissible
to
use
some
of
1065
or
do
you
have
to
use
it
all?
I
ask
that
because
if
partial
use
is
permitted
(
or
intended)
you
might
need
the
1065
references
in
every
part
of
Subpart
E
(
89.4xx),
kind
of
like
they
are
in
Subpart
D
(
89.3xx).

Maybe
I'll
stop
here
in
the
email
since
it
is
already
getting
too
long,
and
this
is
probably
a
lot
to
digest.
If
you
want
to
talk
about
this
give
me
a
call
at
210­
522­
2661.

Thanks
again
for
the
help
Regards
Chris
Sharp
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Stout.
Alan@
epamail.
epa.
gov
[
mailto:
Stout.
Alan@
epamail.
epa.
gov]
Sent:
Friday,
March
25,
2005
2:
07
PM
To:
Chris
Sharp
Cc:
Spears.
Matt@
epamail.
epa.
gov
Subject:
RE:
Fw:
Tech
Amendmant
Questions
about
Part
89
text
Chris,
You
probably
thought
you
had
simple
questions,
but
this
has
taken
a
little
longer
to
figure
out.

I
think
it's
true
that
the
changes
to
part
89,
as
proposed,
would
require
you
to
upgrade
to
the
1065
procedures
where
there
are
current,
mandatory
references
to
part
86.
However,
this
is
clearly
not
the
intent
of
the
proposal.
We
can
probably
best
address
that
with
an
explanatory
note
in
89.114(
b)
as
follows:
(
4)
Where
we
specify
mandatory
compliance
with
the
procedures
of
40
CFR
part
1065,
such
as
in
89.419,
manufacturers
may
elect
to
use
the
procedures
specified
in
40
CFR
part
86,
subpart
N,
as
an
alternate
test
procedure
without
advance
approval
by
the
Administrator.

Also,
it
isn't
clear
to
me
why
you
interpret
the
changes
to
allow
raw
samping
according
to
1065
only
for
Blue
Sky
engines.
We
are
not
trying
to
say
that
,
but
If
you
could
point
out
the
source
of
the
problem,
we
can
figure
it
out.

Alan
Chris
Sharp
<
chris.
sharp@
swri.
org
To:
Alan
Stout/
AA/
USEPA/
US@
EPA>
cc:
Matt
Spears/
AA/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject:
RE:
Fw:
Tech
Amendmant
Questions
about
Part
89
text
Transmission
Date:
03/
21/
2005
10:
24:
07
AM
Alan
Thanks
for
the
answer
that
does
help.
But
it
also
brings
up
a
couple
of
other
questions.

Does
this
mean
that
as
soon
as
the
Tech
Amendmants
are
finalized,
it
becomes
immediately
illegal
to
use
Part
86
procedures
for
dilute
sampling
any
more?
If
I
get
the
dates
correct
that
means
that
we
are
only
talking
about
a
few
months
from
now.
That
leaves
essentially
no
time
at
all
for
someone
who
is
doing
dilute
measurement
for
nonroad
engines.
I
ask
about
this
primarily
because
we
do
a
lot
of
this
at
SwRI.

The
main
parts
of
concern
I
have
are
89.301
and
89.419,
where
the
language
is
not
optional,
but
is
instead
mandatory.
The
real
worries
are
related
to
89.419
where
this
would
mean
I
have
to
suddenly
follow
Part
1065
for
CVS
requirements,
system
response
checks,
etc.
Effectively
I
am
concerned
that
in
a
few
months
time,
all
of
our
dilute
cells
would
be
instantly
invalidated
for
nonroad
work,
until
such
time
as
we
upgrade
them
to
comply
with
Part
1065.
If
the
language
was
similar
to
the
other
areas
where
1065
is
an
option,
this
would
not
be
a
concern.

Also,
am
I
correct
in
interpreting
the
writing
that
for
Raw,
optional
use
of
Part
1065
is
only
allowed
for
Blue
Sky
series
engines?
The
only
ref
change
in
89.112
was
under
(
f)(
3)
which
is
the
section
under
Blue
Sky.
Otherwise,
the
procedural
references
are
unchanged
in
that
area
as
far
as
I
can
tell
(
other
than
the
specific
calibration
reference
procedures
for
each
instrument,
and
the
permission
to
use
RMC).
Did
I
miss
another
section
somewhere,
or
was
this
the
intent?

Sorry
for
the
continued
questions,
but
I
need
to
make
sure
of
a
few
of
these
details.

Thanks
Regards
Chris
Sharp
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
From:
Stout.
Alan@
epamail.
epa.
gov
[
mailto:
Stout.
Alan@
epamail.
epa.
gov]
Sent:
Monday,
March
21,
2005
7:
33
AM
To:
chris.
sharp@
swri.
org
Cc:
Spears.
Matt@
epamail.
epa.
gov
Subject:
Re:
Fw:
Tech
Amendmant
Questions
about
Part
89
text
Chris,
The
only
testing­
related
changes
we
are
trying
to
make
in
part
89
is
to
exhchange
all
the
references
to
part
86
and
make
them
references
to
the
appropriate
portions
of
part
1065.
Where
part
89
had
a
mandatory
provision
to
use
part
86,
that
becomes
a
mandatory
provision
to
use
the
analogous
portion
of
part
1065.
Where
it
is
a
an
optional
reference
or
something
for
background,
that
continues
to
be
the
same
kind
of
reference.
I'm
not
aware
of
any
existing
references
to
part
89,
subpart
E
that
are
switching
over
to
point
to
part
1065.

I
hope
this
helps.
Let
us
know
if
you
need
to
follow
up.

Alan
Matt
Spears
EPA­
OAR,
OTAQ,
ASD
To:
chris.
sharp@
swri.
org,
Alan
Stout/
AA/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc:
Subject:
Fw:
Tech
Amendmant
Questions
about
Part
89
text
Transmission
Date:
03/
18/
2005
04:
33:
11
PM
Hey
Chris:

I
don't
have
time
this
aft.
to
dig
into
your
questions,
and
I'm
on
vacation
all
next
week;
so
in
the
meantime,
please
contact
Alan
Stout,
who
I've
cc:­
ed
in
this
e­
mail.
He
has
been
largely
responsible
for
the
Tech
Ammendments
side
of
the
1065
Rule
so
I
think
he
can
help
you
out.

His
phone
number
is
734­
214­
4805.

If
you
haven't
gotten
your
questions
answered
by
March
28,
please
send
me
another
e­
mail.

Thanks,
Matt
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Matt
Spears/
AA/
USEPA/
US
on
03/
18/
2005
04:
28
PM
­­­­­
Chris
Sharp
<
chris.
sharp@
swri.
org>
To:
Matt
Spears/
AA/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc:
Subject:
Tech
Amendmant
Questions
about
Part
89
text
Transmission
Date:
03/
18/
2005
04:
13:
57
PM
Matt
I
was
recently
going
over
some
of
the
Part
89
text
in
the
Tech
Amendmants,
and
I
have
some
confusion
after
reading
it
about
where
you
can
and
can't
use
Part
1065.
Some
places
it
seems
optional,
others
seem
to
say
no.
Also,
there
are
some
sections,
as
written
that
seem
to
indicate
that
you
can
must
use
1065
once
the
amendmants
are
finalized
and
not
Subpart
E
anymore.

Before
I
send
you
a
longer
list
of
questions,
let
me
ask
an
initial
one.
Is
this
section
already
being
redone,
because
I
don't
want
to
ask
a
bunch
of
redundant
questions
about
things
that
have
already
been
changed.

thanks
Chris
Sharp
Principal
Engineer
Department
of
Engine
and
Emissions
Research
SwRI
210­
522­
2661
csharp@
swri.
org
