EPA420­
R­
05­
xxx
June
2005
Test
Procedures
for
Highway
and
Nonroad
Engines
and
Omnibus
Technical
Amendments
Technical
Support
Document
and
Summary
and
Analysis
of
Comments
Assessment
and
Standards
Division
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Table
of
Contents
Chapter
1:
Highway
engines
and
vehicles
(
40
CFR
parts
85
and
86)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
Chapter
2:
Land­
based
nonroad
diesel
engines
(
40
CFR
parts
89
and
1039)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
Chapter
3:
Marine
diesel
engines
(
40
CFR
part
94)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
Chapter
4:
Locomotives
(
40
CFR
part
92)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
37
Chapter
5:
Small
nonroad
spark­
ignition
engines
(
40
CFR
part
90)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
Chapter
6:
Large
nonroad
spark­
ignition
engines
(
40
CFR
part
1048)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
Chapter
7:
Recreational
vehicles
(
40
CFR
part
1051)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
Chapter
8:
Test
Procedures
(
40
CFR
part
1065)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
72
Chapter
9:
Marine
Spark­
Ignition
Engines
(
40
CFR
part
91)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
105
Chapter
10:
General
Compliance
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
1068)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
107
Technical
Amendments
1
Chapter
1:
Highway
engines
and
vehicles
(
40
CFR
parts
85
and
86)

I.
Summary
and
Analysis
of
Comments
We
received
comments
on
many
of
the
proposed
provisions
in
parts
85
and
86,
with
additional
comments
raising
new
issues
for
us
to
consider.
The
following
discussion
presents
a
summary
and
analysis
of
all
these
comments.
Section
II
discusses
the
changes
included
in
the
proposal.

Issue
Response
86.095­
35:
Volvo
commented
that
we
should
allow
branding
for
heavy­
duty
highway
engines
We
agree
that
the
proposed
provisions
to
allow
another
company's
trademark
on
the
engine
label
is
also
appropriate
for
heavy­
duty
highway
engines.

85.1511:
The
Engine
Manufacturers
Association
(
EMA)
recommended
changing
the
repair
exemption
to
align
with
the
similar
provisions
for
locomotive
and
marine
diesel
engines.
This
would
generally
allow
engine
operation
as
needed
for
transportation
to
facilitate
repairs.
We
are
concerned
that
allowing
noncompliant
heavy­
duty
vehicles
to
drive
to
repair
facilities
in
the
United
States
would
be
much
harder
to
monitor
than
the
comparable
provisions
for
locomotive
or
marine
diesel
engines.
We
are
therefore
not
adopting
these
provisions
at
this
time.
We
may
in
the
future
consider
what
additional
requirements
would
be
necessary
to
allow
this
type
of
operation
without
opening
a
loophole
that
would
allow
unanticipated
use
of
this
exemption
to
circumvent
the
regulations.

85.1713:
Cummins
and
EMA
responded
to
our
request
for
comment
related
to
a
provision
that
would
allow
engine
manufacturers
to
ship
certified
engines
without
applicable
aftertreatment
components,
while
providing
for
separate
shipment
of
those
components
to
equipment
manufacturers.
The
manufacturers
commented
that
such
a
provision
should
be
set
up
to
require
either
that
the
component
cost
be
included
in
the
price
of
the
engine,
or
auditing
requirements
for
engine
manufacturers,
but
not
both,
since
the
equipment
manufacturer
has
enough
incentive
to
make
the
final
installation
without
additional
oversight.
They
also
objected
to
the
need
to
apply
a
temporary
label,
since
it
would
add
a
burden
that
provides
no
added
value.
The
preamble
addresses
the
principal
aspects
of
this
comment.
Regarding
the
temporary
label,
we
believe
that
it
would
add
an
incremental
improvement
in
preventing
problems,
primarily
related
to
the
possibility
of
a
vehicle
manufacturer
inadvertently
treating
the
engine
as
not
requiring
some
specific
aftertreatment
component.
We
believe,
however,
that
the
requirement
for
engine
manufacturers
to
receive
confirmation
that
the
vehicle
manufacturer
has
ordered
the
aftertreatment
component
to
adequately
address
this
concern.

86.007­
11:
EMA
commented
that
the
flexibility
of
meeting
the
phase­
in
requirements
for
heavy­
duty
diesel
engines
based
on
either
model
year
or
calendar
year
should
also
apply
to
phase­
out
engines.
We
intended
for
the
proposed
change
to
address
this
situation
and
have
modified
the
regulatory
language
to
make
this
clearer.

86.007­
21:
EMA
noted
that
paragraph
(
o)(
5)
requiring
submission
of
PM
data
was
redundant,
since
paragraph
(
o)(
1)
already
requires
submission
of
data
for
all
pollutants.
We
agree
with
this
comment
and
are
removing
the
redundant
paragraph.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
2
85.1713:
Caterpillar
commented
that
we
should
allow
them
to
complete
their
engine
assembly
at
different
facilities,
including
some
steps
performed
by
another
company
under
contract.
We
have
added
a
new
provision
allowing
manufacturers
to
assemble
engines
in
different
locations,
provided
that
they
maintain
control
of
the
engines
at
all
times,
and
inform
us
that
they
are
using
this
exemption.
We
may
require
that
manufacturers
take
certain
steps
to
ensure
that
engines
end
up
in
their
certified
configuration.

86.1305:
EMA
commented
that
part
1065
already
provides
for
the
use
of
partial­
flow
sampling
systems
for
transient
PM
measurements
in
the
laboratory
only
after
an
equivalence
demonstration,
and
that
the
standard­
setting
part
should
not
impose
any
further
restriction.
We
agree
with
this
comment
and
have
taken
out
the
specific
reference
to
partial­
flow
sampling
in
§
86.1305.

86.1301:
EMA
requested
that
we
not
require
migration
to
the
test
procedures
until
2010.
This
would
minimize
disruption
in
the
transition,
since
manufacturers
will
start
meeting
the
long­
term
standards
in
that
year.
We
agree
that
delaying
mandatory
testing
under
part
1065
until
2010
is
appropriate.
We
have
added
clarifying
language
related
to
EPA
testing
in
the
transition
period.
We
intend
to
upgrade
to
the
more
accurate
test
procedures
for
any
confirmatory
testing.
For
some
provisions
in
part
1065,
however,
this
would
not
be
appropriate
if
manufacturers
have
not
yet
based
their
testing
on
the
part
1065
procedures.
We
now
specify
that
our
testing
will
use
the
manufacturer's
selected
procedures
for
mapping
engines,
generating
duty
cycles,
and
applying
cyclevalidation
criteria.
For
any
other
parameters,
EPA
may
conduct
testing
using
either
of
the
specified
procedures.

86.1301:
Similarly,
Cummins
and
EMA
requested
that
we
initiate
the
migration
to
the
new
test
procedures
starting
with
the
2004
model
year.
In
later
comments,
EMA
requested
that
we
delay
the
start
of
the
new
test
procedures
until
the
2005
model
year,
but
added
no
explanation
to
describe
the
changed
recommendation.
Manufacturers
have
already
certified
their
2004
and
2005
model
year
products,
so
selecting
the
starting
point
for
the
new
test
procedures
has
no
bearing
on
the
certification
process
for
either
of
these
model
years.
We
are
therefore
staying
with
the
manufacturers'
initial
suggestion
of
the
2004
model
year
for
the
most
straightforward
presentation
in
the
regulations,
since
new
emission
standards
also
started
in
2004.

86.1362
and
1363:
EMA
also
requested
that
EPA
allow
the
use
of
the
original
discrete­
mode
test
cycle
and
procedures
from
2007­
2009,
rather
than
changing
immediately
to
ramped­
modal
testing
in
2007,
without
allowing
the
original
test
procedures
as
an
option.
EMA
said
that
some
of
its
members
had
already
made
decisions
for
those
model
years
based
on
the
original
test
procedures.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
will
allow
the
discretemode
test
cycle
and
procedures
for
model
years
2007
through
2009.

86.1305:
The
incorrect
reference
to
§
86.1358­
2007
should
be
removed.
We
agree
with
this
comment
and
have
made
the
appropriate
change
to
the
regulations.

86.007­
35,
EMA
pointed
out
that
the
model
year
for
heavy­
duty
engines
may
not
match
the
model
year
of
the
vehicle
if
the
engines
are
installed
in
light­
duty
trucks.
The
labeling
requirements
should
reflect
this
to
avoid
an
anomalous
requirement
to
identify
the
applicable
fuel
as
low­
sulfur
diesel,
where
the
label
should
say
ultra
lowsulfur
diesel.
We
agree
with
this
comment
and
have
made
the
appropriate
change
to
the
regulations.
Technical
Amendments
3
86.1807­
07
and
86.1808­
07:
Similarly,
manufacturers
pointed
out
that
the
maintenance
instructions
and
labeling
requirements
for
light­
duty
vehicles
need
to
be
updated
to
reflect
the
timing
of
our
requirements
to
introduce
ultra
low­
sulfur
fuel
for
gasoline
vehicles.
We
agree
with
this
comment
and
have
made
the
appropriate
change
to
the
regulations.

86.884:
Manufacturers
requested
that
we
remove
the
minimum
specification
for
the
placement
of
smokemeters,
which
is
currently
specified
as
10­
32
feet
downstream
of
the
exhaust
manifold
(
or
other
engine
hardware).
We
agree
that
smokemeters
can
accurately
measure
smoke
emissions
closer
than
10
feet
downstream
of
engine
components.
We
are
changing
the
regulation
to
specify
only
a
maximum
distance
of
32
feet.
This
change
should
have
no
effect
on
the
stringency
of
applicable
smoke
standards.

86.413:
The
Motorcycle
Industry
Council
pointed
out
that
the
label
for
highway
motorcycles
should
identify
emission
rates
in
g/
km,
not
g/
mile.
We
agree
that
the
label
should
identify
the
appropriate
units
as
g/
km.

86.410:
The
Motorcycle
Industry
Council
commented
that
the
two­
year
delay
in
permeation
standards
for
smallvolume
manufacturers
of
highway
motorcycles
was
not
in
the
regulations,
even
though
this
was
clearly
described
in
the
preamble
to
that
final
rule.
We
inadvertently
adopted
the
standards
for
highway
motorcycles
without
this
provision.
The
final
rule
includes
this
provision
in
§
68.410­
2006.

In
addition
to
these
comments,
we
have
identified
a
variety
of
additional
minor
changes
and
adjustments
to
include
in
the
final
rule.
There
are
a
variety
of
changes
simply
to
correct
typographical
and
nomenclature
errors.
In
addition,
these
changes
include:

"
Cleaning
up
the
provisions
of
§
§
86.447
and
86.448.
We
revised
the
language
in
several
places
to
more
clearly
address
the
situation
for
motorcycle
manufacturers
installing
engines
certified
to
other
programs.

"
Correcting
units
in
§
86.1816
to
reflect
the
appropriate
requirements
for
testing
heavy­
duty
vehicles.

"
Adding
86.1333­
2010
to
the
list
of
sections
in
part
86,
subpart
N,
that
continue
to
apply
after
2010.
This
section
describes
the
applicable
duty
cycles
for
heavy­
duty
engines.

"
Adding
a
reference
in
§
86.1370­
2007
to
point
to
§
86.1301.
This
clarifies
the
applicability
of
the
procedures
in
part
86
and
part
1065
to
Not­
To­
Exceed
testing
and
field
testing.

II.
Summary
of
Rulemaking
Changes
The
following
discussion
describes
what
we
proposed
to
change
for
light­
duty
vehicles,
highway
motorcycles,
and
heavy­
duty
highway
engines,
with
adjustments
as
noted
above
in
response
to
public
comments.

1.
Light­
duty
Vehicles
a.
Calculation
Method
for
Nonmethane
Hydrocarbons
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
4
We
are
revising
regulatory
provisions
to
properly
align
EPA
and
CARB
calculation
methods
for
measuring
nonmethane
hydrocarbons
from
gasoline,
diesel,
methanol,
ethanol,
and
liquefied
petroleum
gas
fueled
light­
duty
vehicles.
Harmonization
of
EPA
and
CARB
testing
and
calculation
practices,
including
proper
accounting
for
the
methane
response
of
the
total
hydrocarbon
FID,
was
anticipated
when
Tier
2
regulations
were
developed.
Modifying
the
language
in
86.121­
90(
d)
and
86.144­
94(
c)(
8)(
vi)
to
explicitly
require
the
use
of
a
measured
methane
response
factor,
as
opposed
to
the
current
CFR
text
which
specifies
an
assumed
methane
response
factor
of
1.0,
will
align
the
calculation
methods.
Calculating
nonmethane
hydrocarbon
using
a
measured
methane
response
factor
is
the
technically
correct
calculation
and
measurement
method.

b.
Correction
to
Tier
2
Regulations
On
December
6,
2002,
we
made
some
minor
technical
amendments
to
EPA's
Tier
2/
Gasoline
Sulfur
regulations
(
67
FR
72821,
December
6,
2002).
However,
those
actions
mistakenly
reversed
a
prior
correction
to
Table
S04­
2
in
§
86.1811­
04(
c)(
6)
that
was
made
on
February
28,
2000
(
65
FR
10598,
February
28,
2000).
We
are
now
reestablishing
the
correct
version
of
that
table.
Specifically,
in
§
86.1811­
04(
c)(
6),
in
Table
S04­
2,
the
"
Notes"
entry
corresponding
with
"
Bin
No.
9"'
should
read
"
a
b
e
f
g
h".

c.
Correction
to
Supplemental
Federal
Test
Procedure
Regulations
We
are
making
the
following
corrections
to
regulatory
references,
spelling,
and
the
like
with
these
technical
amendments:

"
An
incorrect
regulatory
reference
is
corrected
in
§
86.158­
00;

"
Revision
to
section
86.161­
00
inserts
the
correct
humidity
tolerance
of
plus­
or­
minus
5
grains
of
water/
pound
of
dry
air;
and
"
Revision
to
the
equation
in
section
86.164­
00
adds
plus
("+")
signs
that
were
omitted
in
the
regulations.

d.
Correction
to
National
Low
Emission
Vehicle
Regulations
In
several
places
in
the
National
Low
Emission
Vehicle
(
NLEV)
emissions
standards
there
are
typographical
errors
affecting
emission
standards
and
testing
provisions
which
require
correction:

"
Incorrect
in­
use
formaldehyde
standards
for
light­
duty
vehicles
in
tables
R99­
5
and
R99­
6
(
§
86.1708­
99).

"
Incorrect
model
year
applicability
of
in­
use
standards
for
light­
duty
trucks
(
§
86.1709­
99(
c)(
1)).

"
Missing
standards
for
light­
duty
trucks
from
0­
3750
loaded
vehicle
weight
in
Table
R99­
14.2
(
§
86.1709­
99).

"
Correction
of
fleet
average
NMOG
standards
for
calculating
credits
for
1997
and
1998
model
years
in
the
Northeast
Trading
Region
(
§
86.1710­
99(
c)(
8)).

"
Correcting
a
reference
to
86.1705­
99(
e)(
4)
that
should
have
been
to
86.1707­
99(
d)(
4)
(
§
86.1711­
99).
Technical
Amendments
5
e.
Revisions
and
corrections
to
dynamometer
driving
schedules.

i.
SC03
and
US06
driving
cycles
This
rule
corrects
errors
in
the
SC03
driving
cycle
and
to
reconcile
several
discrepancies
between
the
CFR
language
and
the
second­
by­
second
US06
and
SC03
drive
cycle
traces
in
the
appendices
to
part
86.

We
are
revising
the
SC03
cycle
in
Appendix
I,
paragraph
(
h)
so
it
is
lengthened
to
600
seconds
by
adding
six
seconds
of
zero
miles
per
hour
after
594
seconds.
This
change
and
additional
language
changes
eliminates
confusion
in
how
to
execute
the
requirements
in
sections
86.160­
00(
c)(
12)
and
86.159­
00(
f)(
2)(
ix).
Sections
86.159­
00(
f)(
2)(
ix)
and
86.160­
00(
c)(
12)
both
state
that
the
engine
is
turned
off
2
seconds
after
the
end
of
the
deceleration
(
which
occurs
at
594
seconds
and
driving
stops
at
596
seconds.)

With
respect
to
the
SC03
drive
trace,
section
86.160­
00(
c)(
10)
reads
"
Twenty
seconds
after
the
engine
starts,
begin
the
initial
vehicle
acceleration
of
the
driving
schedule."
However,
this
is
incorrect.
The
printed
driving
schedule
in
Appendix
I,
paragraph
(
h),
correctly
shows
eighteen
seconds
of
idle.
The
regulatory
language
is
modified
to
reflect
eighteen
seconds
of
idle,
rather
than
twenty.

Section
86.160­
00(
c)(
12)
currently
reads
"
Turn
the
engine
off
2
seconds
after
the
end
of
the
last
deceleration,"
but
the
Appendix
I,
paragraph
(
h),
drive
schedule
has
no
idle
seconds
at
the
end
of
the
SC03
cycle.
Idle
speed
values
are
added
to
the
end
of
the
SC03
drive
schedule
to
make
it
consistent
with
the
regulatory
language.
This
clarifies
that
the
first
non­
zero
speed
value
to
be
at
trace
time
t=
19
seconds.
This
section
is
amended
to
clarify
that
driving
stops
at
trace
time
t=
596
seconds.

The
US06
drive
schedule
has
a
similar
discrepancy.
Section
86.159­
00(
f)(
2)(
ix)
reads
"
Turn
the
engine
off
2
seconds
after
the
end
of
the
last
deceleration."
However,
the
drive
schedule
in
Appendix
I
(
g)
has
six
idle
seconds
at
the
end
of
the
US06
cycle.
We
are
amending
this
section
to
clarify
that
driving
stops
at
trace
time
t=
596
seconds.

ii.
Urban
Dynamometer
Driving
Schedule
We
are
also
taking
action
to
correct
two
minor
errors
in
the
Appendix
I,
paragraph
(
a),
Urban
Dynamometer
Driving
Schedule
(
UDDS)
that
have
existed
since
the
1970'
s.
Originally
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
November
10,
1970
(
35
FR
17311),
the
UDDS
is
the
driving
cycle
that
is
the
basis
of
the
Federal
Test
Procedure.
Since
it
was
published,
however,
two
speed
values
in
the
UDDS
were
erroneously
modified.
Specifically,
the
speed
value
at
t=
961
seconds
was
changed
from
5.3
mph
to
5.0
mph
in
1972,
and
the
speed
value
at
t=
1345
seconds
was
changed
from
18.3
mph
to
18.8
sometime
between
1973
and
1977.
The
speed
value
of
5.0
mph
at
t=
961
creates
an
acceleration
of
3.6
mph/
sec
to
8.6
mph
at
t=
962,
which
is
inconsistent
with
the
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
6
acknowledged
3.3
mph/
sec
maximum
acceleration
rate
due
to
dynamometer
limitations.
The
speed
value
of
18.8
mph
at
t=
1345
is
inconsistent
with
what
should
be
a
gradually
decreasing
acceleration
rate
from
t=
1343
to
t=
1347
seconds.
This
rule
reverts
these
values
back
to
the
speed
values
as
they
were
published
in
1970.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
regulated
industry
and
EPA
have
been
using
the
correct
speed
values
since
1970,
despite
the
error
in
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR).

In
addition,
a
dynamometer
manufacturer
commented
to
EPA
that
the
CFR
has
several
errors
in
the
Appendix
I,
paragraph
(
b),
version
of
the
UDDS
that
is
expressed
in
kilometers
per
hour.
EPA
has
verified
that
these
errors
are
not
rounding
errors
when
converting
from
miles
per
hour,
but
are
more
likely
the
result
of
errors
in
typing.
The
table
below
indicates
the
correct
mile
per
hour
and
kilometer
per
hour
values,
as
well
as
the
incorrect
value.
This
final
rule
makes
these
corrections.

Time
(
seconds)
Incorrect
KPH
Correct
KPH
Correct
MPH
363
52.3
52.8
32.8
405
14.5
14.8
9.2
453
31
31.9
19.8
491
55.8
55.5
34.5
577
21.4
27.4
17.0
662
43.9
42.0
26.1
663
43.1
42.2
26.2
664
42.3
42.2
26.2
932
40.3
40.2
25.0
2.
Highway
Motorcycles
a.
Highway
Motorcycle
Labeling
Requirements
On
January
15,
2004,
we
finalized
new
emission
standards
for
highway
motorcycles
(
69
FR
2398,
January
15,
2004).
These
new
standards
are
implemented
in
two
stages:
a
"
Tier
1"
that
is
effective
in
the
2006
through
2009
model
years,
and
a
"
Tier
2"
that
takes
effect
starting
with
the
2010
model
year.
These
standards
are
generally
harmonized
with
California
emission
standards
that
take
effect
two
years
earlier.
Under
the
new
standards,
Class
III
motorcycles
must
comply
with
a
new
HC+
NOx
emission
standard
on
a
corporate
average
basis.
This
new
flexibility
allows
manufacturers
to
market
motorcycles
that
produce
more
pollution
than
the
designated
average
standard
as
long
as
they
are
balanced
out
by
sales
of
less­
polluting
models
such
that
the
manufacturers'
sales­
weighted
corporate
average
remains
below
the
standard.
Averaging
is
also
optionally
allowed
for
Class
I
and
II
motorcycles.
Technical
Amendments
7
Since
publishing
the
final
rule,
however,
we
realized
that
the
labeling
language
for
highway
motorcycles
is
not
helpful
in
the
context
of
the
new
averaging
standard.
The
current
federal
labeling
language
(
see
40
CFR
86.413­
78)
only
requires
that
a
motorcycle
label
indicate
compliance
with
EPA
standards
for
a
given
model
year.
This
is
all
that
is
needed
when
there
is
no
uncertainty
regarding
what
the
applicable
emission
standards
are.
In
the
context
of
the
type
of
averaging
program
we
finalized,
however,
the
manufacturers
essentially
choose
their
own
emission
standard
(
up
to
a
cap)
for
each
engine
family.
The
manufacturer­
selected
emission
standard
is
known
as
a
"
Family
Emission
Limit,"
or
FEL.
For
example,
a
manufacturer
with
two
engine
families
might
market
one
meeting
a
standard
of
2.2
grams/
mile
HC+
NOx
and
another
one
meeting
a
standard
of
0.5
grams/
mile
HC+
NOx.
If
these
are
equally­
selling
engine
families,
then
the
manufacturer
will
meet
the
required
Tier
1
average
of
1.4
grams/
mile
HC+
NOx.

In
the
case
described
above,
a
label
showing
only
the
model
year
will
not
provide
adequate
information
regarding
the
applicable
emission
standard.
Historically
both
EPA
and
ARB
have
required
labels
that
identify
the
specific
applicable
FEL
for
vehicles
certified
under
averaging
programs.
Therefore,
we
are
amending
the
labeling
requirements
with
two
goals
in
mind.
First,
the
label
must
provide
sufficient
information
regarding
the
applicable
emission
standard
and
model
year,
as
well
as
specific
tune­
up
information.
Second,
the
label
requirements
should
be
aligned
with
ARB
to
the
greatest
degree
possible
to
prevent
a
situation
where
the
manufacturer
has
to
apply
two
labels
to
a
motorcycle
to
meet
two
different
sets
of
requirements.
The
new
labeling
language
in
40
CFR
86.413­
2006
accomplishes
both
of
these
goals.

b.
Highway
Motorcycle
Fuel
Specifications
In
our
final
rule
setting
new
emission
standards
for
highway
motorcycles
(
69
FR
2398,
January
15,
2004)
we
updated
the
fuel
specifications
for
motorcycle
emission
testing
to
be
consistent
with
the
fuel
specifications
finalized
on
February
10,
2000,
as
part
of
our
"
Tier
2
Motor
Vehicle
Emissions
Standards
and
Gasoline
Sulfur
Control
Requirements"
(
65
FR
6697,
February
10,
2000).
This
was
necessary
to
ensure
that
motorcycles
are
tested
using
fuels
consistent
with
those
available
in
the
marketplace.
We
received
no
negative
comments
on
making
this
change.
It
is
necessary
at
this
time
to
correct
some
errors
that
were
made
in
updating
the
motorcycle
test
fuel
specification.
The
specific
corrections
are:

"
Changing
the
volume
percent
of
aromatics
from
"
35
minimum"
to
"
35
maximum";

"
Changing
the
phosphorous
g/
liter
specification
from
0.005
g/
liter
to
0.0013
g/
liter
(
the
alternative
specification
is
0.005
g/
U.
S.
gallon);

"
Changing
the
sulfur
weight
percent
from
0.08
maximum
to
0.008
maximum;
and
"
Changing
the
volatility
test
procedure
from
"
ASTM
D
3231"
to
"
ASTM
D
323."

c.
Highway
Motorcycles
with
engines
below
50
cc
We
are
adopting
modified
language
in
§
86.447
and
§
86.448
to
clarify
various
aspects
of
the
provision
allowing
manufacturers
to
use
products
certified
to
nonroad
emission
standards
instead
of
the
standards
for
highway
motorcycles
under
part
86.
These
changes
include
the
following:
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
1
"
Guidance
Regarding
Test
Procedures
for
Heavy­
Duty
On­
Highway
and
Non­
Road
Engines,
"
December
3,
2002.

8
­
Clarify
the
requirement
related
to
the
number
of
engines
that
may
be
certified
under
nonroad
programs.
­
Define
the
requirements
related
to
generating
and
using
emission
credits
with
these
engines.
­
Add
language
to
better
define
the
legal
responsibilities
for
companies
involved
in
producing
motorcycles
under
this
provision.

3.
Heavy­
duty
highway
engines
a.
Miscellaneous
changes
We
are
adopting
the
lab­
testing
and
field­
testing
specifications
in
part
1065
for
heavy­
duty
highway
engines,
including
both
diesel
and
Otto­
cycle
engines.
These
procedures
replace
those
currently
published
in
40
CFR
part
86,
subpart
N.
We
are
making
this
transition
over
several
model
years
to
fully
migrate
to
part
1065,
no
later
than
model
year
2010.
Manufacturers
do
not
need
to
conduct
new
testing
if
they
are
able
to
use
carryover
data,
but
any
new
testing
for
2010
and
later
model
years
must
be
done
using
the
part
1065
procedures.
Migrating
heavy­
duty
highway
engines
to
the
part
1065
procedures
allows
us
to
include
all
the
testing­
related
improvements
in
the
HD2007
rule,
including
those
we
have
adopted
through
guidance.
1
In
addition,
part
1065
incorporates
revisions
based
on
updated
procedures
for
sampling
low
concentrations
of
PM.

We
are
also
clarifying
that
certain
data
requirements
related
to
Supplemental
Emission
Testing
are
required
only
when
engines
are
subject
to
Maximum
Allowable
Emission
Limits.

We
are
making
a
minor
adjustment
to
the
phase­
in
process
for
the
HD2007
standards
to
allow
manufacturers
to
make
their
compliance
demonstration
either
on
the
basis
of
model
years
or
calendar
years.
This
increases
the
flexibility
for
manufacturers
to
define
their
model
year
without
affecting
their
ability
to
show
that
they
meet
their
phase­
in
obligations.
Because
the
phase­
in
period
is
three
years
under
either
approach,
we
believe
this
adjustment
does
not
harm
the
environmental
objectives
of
the
program.

b.
Ramped­
modal
testing
Manufacturers
must
meet
emission
standards
using
a
Supplemental
Emission
Test
(
SET)
starting
in
2007.
The
SET
measures
emissions
during
13
separate
steady­
state
modes
of
engine
operation.
For
the
laboratory­
based
SET
specified
in
§
86.1360­
2007,
we
are
adopting
a
requirement
for
the
13­
mode
test
cycle
to
be
run
using
a
Ramped­
Modal
Cycle
(
RMC),
which
is
discussed
below.
Manufacturers
may
switch
to
using
RMC
starting
with
the
2007
model
year,
Technical
Amendments
9
with
full
use
of
the
RMC
required
starting
with
the
2010
model
year.
The
timing
of
the
implementation
of
the
RMC
is
paired
with
the
overall
migration
of
test
procedures
to
part
1065.

An
RMC
operates
at
the
same
engine
speeds
and
loads
as
in
conventional
discrete­
mode
testing,
but
the
modes
are
connected
by
gradual
ramps
in
engine
speed
and/
or
torque
for
a
single,
continuous
emission­
sampling
period.
For
the
RMC
we
are
adopting
for
the
SET,
the
steady­
state
modes
are
connected
with
twenty­
second
linear
speed
transitions
and
linear
torque
transitions,
which
is
consistent
with
the
transition
time
currently
allowed
in
§
86.1360­
2007.
The
difference
is
that
these
transitions
are
sampled
as
part
of
the
SET.
That
is,
emission
sampling
starts
at
the
beginning
of
an
RMC
and
does
not
stop
until
its
last
mode
is
completed.

The
RMC
for
the
SET
involves
a
different
sequence
of
modes
than
is
currently
specified
in
§
86.1360­
2007.
For
example,
the
first
mode,
which
is
engine
idle,
is
split
so
that
half
the
idle
mode
occurs
at
the
beginning
of
the
test
and
half
occurs
at
the
end
of
the
test.
This
helps
facilitate
certain
technical
aspects
of
emission
sampling.
Instead
of
using
weighting
factors
for
each
steady­
state
mode,
an
RMC
specifies
different
time
durations
for
each
mode.
Time
durations
of
the
modes
and
transitions
are
proportioned
to
the
established
modal
weighting
factors
in
§
86.1360­
2007.
The
information
needed
to
run
the
SET
as
an
RMC
is
given
in
the
table
below.

There
are
several
advantages
to
running
the
SET
as
an
RMC.
First,
we
anticipate
that
manufacturers
will
use
aftertreatment
systems
with
discrete
regeneration
events
to
meet
the
emission
standards
for
2007
and
later
model
year
heavy­
duty
diesel
engines
(
January
18,
2001,
66
FR
5002).
Under
the
current
procedure
for
conducting
an
SET
in
§
86.1360­
2007,
manufacturers
sample
emissions
for
an
unspecified
time
duration
near
the
end
of
each
of
thirteen
individual
twominute
modes
(
except
idle,
which
is
four
minutes).
The
result
is
thirteen
separate
measurements
that
must
be
combined
mathematically
to
yield
an
overall
emission
result
in
g/
hp­
hr.
Because
discrete
aftertreatment
regeneration
events
typically
cause
short
but
large
increases
in
emissions,
the
current
procedure
in
§
86.1360­
2007
may
not
be
repeatable
 
a
regeneration
event
may
or
may
not
be
sampled
in
a
given
mode.
For
sampling
low
concentrations
of
PM,
this
effect
is
exaggerated
because
sample
times
per
mode
may
be
as
short
as
twenty
seconds.
Furthermore,
without
specific
start
and
stop
times
for
sampling
each
mode,
an
anticipated
regeneration
event
may
be
intentionally
or
unintentionally
included
or
excluded.
With
an
RMC,
this
variability
is
removed
by
requiring
emissions
sampling
for
the
entire
forty­
minute
cycle.

The
RMC
involves
one
emission
measurement
rather
than
13
separate
measurements
for
each
mode.
The
more
frequent,
separate
measurements
can
cause
inaccuracy,
especially
at
low
emission
levels,
since
dead
volumes
in
the
sampling
system
and
delayed
sampling
can
cause
the
system
to
assign
one
mode's
emissions
to
a
different
mode.
The
RMC
avoids
this
by
collecting
the
total
emissions
into
a
single
sample
and
dividing
by
the
total
work
done
over
the
test
period.
A
single
measurement
also
substantially
reduces
the
resource
burden
to
conduct
testing.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
10
The
RMC
enables
the
use
of
batch
sampling
systems
such
as
bag
samplers.
This
is
an
advantage
at
low
emissions,
because
these
sampling
systems
are
capable
of
quantifying
lower
levels
than
continuous
sampling
systems.

The
longer
sampling
period
for
RMC
testing
also
increases
the
total
collected
mass
of
pollutants.
This
is
especially
significant
because
the
heavy­
duty
highway
diesel
PM
standard,
effective
in
2007,
approaches
current
PM
microbalance
quantification
limits.
Sampling
for
40
minutes
over
the
RMC
increases
the
total
collected
PM
by
500
percent
compared
with
the
conventional
discrete­
mode
procedure.

4.
Importation
of
nonconforming
highway
engines
and
vehicles.

The
Agency
is
adopting
revisions
to
40
CFR
part
85,
subpart
P
regarding
the
applicable
emission
standards
for
imported
nonconforming
highway
vehicles
and
engines,
including
lightduty
vehicles
(
passenger
cars),
light­
duty
trucks,
heavy­
duty
vehicles,
heavy­
duty
engines,
and
motorcycles.
This
change
clarifies
that
these
nonconforming
vehicles
and
engines
are
required
to
meet
the
emission
standards
in
effect
when
the
vehicle
or
engine
was
originally
produced,
not
the
emission
standards
in
effect
when
the
vehicle
or
engine
is
modified.
This
approach
is
consistent
with
the
requirements
for
light­
duty
Independent
Commercial
Importers
(
ICIs)
which
have
been
in
effect
since
1996
(
61
FR
5842,
February
14,
1996).

Most
of
the
issues
related
to
this
final
rule
were
previously
addressed
in
the
1996
rule.
An
excerpt
from
that
1996
rule
provides
the
a
brief
summary
of
the
basis
for
this
final
rule.
Section
I.
A
of
the
1996
final
rule
reads
in
part:
As
proposed,
EPA
is
eliminating
the
requirement
that
nonconforming
light­
duty
vehicles
and
Light­
duty
trucks
imported
pursuant
to
40
CFR
85.1501
or
85.1509
meet
the
part
86
emission
standards
in
effect
at
the
time
of
modification.
These
vehicles,
with
a
few
exceptions,
will
instead
be
required
to
meet
emission
standards
(
with
applicable
deterioration
factors
applied)
that
were
in
effect
at
the
time
of
original
vehicle
production,
using
currently
applicable
testing
procedures.

The
specific
standards
applicable
to
these
vehicles
are
contained
in
a
new
§
85.1515....

As
discussed
in
the
proposal
(
Supplementary
Document
pp.
27­
28,
Docket
No.
A­
89­
20),
when
EPA
promulgated
the
prior
requirement
to
meet
standards
applicable
at
the
time
of
modification,
the
Agency
had
no
data
or
evidence
suggesting
that
older
vehicles
could
not
be
modified
to
meet
current
year
emission
standards.

Since
that
rulemaking,
EPA
has
obtained
evidence
suggesting
that
many
older
vehicles
cannot
be
modified
to
meet
current
year
standards
without
extraordinary
cost,
which
makes
the
conversion
financially
unfeasible
for
many
owners
of
such
vehicles.
Today's
rule
would
give
owners
of
older
vehicles
a
way
to
import
their
vehicles.

In
addition,
it
would
have
been
significantly
more
difficult
and
costly
for
importers
to
modify
vehicles
to
comply
with
the
current
model
year
standards
beginning
in
January,
1996,
when
the
standards
applicable
to
small
volume
manufacturers
became
substantially
more
stringent.
EPA
agrees
with
the
statements
submitted
by
ICIs
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
that
the
expense
of
such
modifications
would
have
a
serious
deleterious
effect
on
their
businesses
and
would
not
justify
the
costs.

Although
the
intent
of
the
1996
rule
was
clear,
we
are
adopting
regulation
changes
to
make
the
regulation
language
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
1996
rule.
The
1996
final
rule
added
40
CFR
Technical
Amendments
11
85.1515,
which
provided
a
list
of
the
emission
standards
applicable
to
imported
light­
duty
vehicles
and
light­
duty
trucks
based
on
the
original
production
(
OP)
year
of
the
vehicle.
Tables
1
and
2
in
40
CFR
85.1515
correctly
indicate
that
the
emission
standards
applicable
for
pre­
1994
imported
lightduty
vehicles
and
light­
duty
trucks
are
based
on
the
original
production
year
of
the
vehicle.
Tables
1
and
2
also
correctly
indicate
(
in
a
footnote)
that
1994
and
later
imported
light­
duty
vehicles
and
lightduty
trucks
are
required
to
meet
the
applicable
emission
standards
as
"
Specified
in
40
CFR
part
86
for
the
OP
year
of
the
vehicle,
per
85.1515(
c)."
However
§
85.1515(
c)(
1)
incorrectly
indicates
that
"
Nonconforming
motor
vehicles
or
motor
vehicle
engines
of
1994
OP
model
year
and
later
conditionally
imported
pursuant
to
§
85.1505
or
§
85.1509
shall
meet
all
of
the
emission
standards
specified
in
40
CFR
part
86
for
the
model
year
in
which
the
motor
vehicle
or
motor
vehicle
engine
is
modified."
(
emphasis
added)

This
ambiguity
in
the
regulations
was
unfortunately
not
corrected
after
the
1996
rule
changes
became
effective.
Nor
was
it
corrected
when
Interim
non­
Tier
2
and
Tier
2
requirements
were
adopted
for
import
vehicles
(
65
FR
6698,
February
10,
2000).
Although
the
2000
rulemaking
did
not
intend
to
change
the
highway
engine
or
vehicle
importation
process,
the
regulations
continued
to
indicate
that
nonconforming
motor
vehicles
and
motor
vehicle
engines
must
meet
the
emission
standards
in
the
model
year
in
which
the
motor
vehicle
or
motor
vehicle
engine
is
modified;
see
40
CFR
85.1515(
c)(
2)(
ii)
through
(
d).
We
have
now
received
several
petitions
from
light
duty
ICIs
to
correct
the
regulations
to
permit
vehicles
imported
by
ICIs
to
meet
OP
year
standards.

In
summary,
for
the
reasons
discussed
in
the
provisions
of
61
FR
5842,
February
14,
1996,
we
are
adopting
changes
to
correct
the
regulations
for
nonconforming
highway
vehicles
so
they
are
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
1996
final
rule.
This
final
rule
will
require
imported
highway
vehicles
to
meet
the
emission
standards
in
effect
the
year
the
vehicle
was
originally
produced,
not
the
emission
standards
in
effect
in
the
year
the
vehicle
or
engine
is
modified.
We
are,
however,
concerned
that
ICI
provisions
which
apply
OP
year
standards
could
be
used
as
a
way
to
circumvent
our
Tier
2
light
duty
standards
and
our
new
more
stringent
motorcycle
standards.
Thus
we
are
capping
each
ICI's
annual
production
of
vehicles
meeting
OP
year
standards
when
OP
year
standards
are
less
stringent
than
the
standards
that
apply
during
the
year
of
modification.
We
are
adopting
a
cap
of
a
total
of
50
light
duty
vehicles
and
trucks
and
50
motorcycles.
This
does
not
impact
the
number
of
vehicles
an
ICI
may
produce
that
are
certified
to
the
standards
that
apply
during
the
year
of
modification.

While
we
have
never
had
an
ICI
for
highway
HDEs,
we
are
clarifying
that
the
applicable
standards
for
HDEs
imported
by
an
ICI
are
also
those
of
the
year
of
original
production.
For
HDEs,
we
are
adopting
an
annual
cap
of
five
on
an
ICI's
production
of
engines
certified
to
OP
year
standards
that
are
less
stringent
than
those
that
apply
during
the
year
of
modification.
This
will
address
the
possibility
that
ICIs
could
provide
an
avenue
by
which
truck
purchasers
could
avoid
the
additional
costs
of
new
trucks
with
engines
meeting
aftertreatment­
based
engine
standards.
We
are
adopting
a
similar
amendment
for
nonroad
diesel
engines,
as
described
elsewhere
in
this
document.

We
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
have
different
caps
on
the
quantity
of
vehicles
and
engines
that
can
be
certified
to
OP
year
standards,
where
OP
year
standards
are
less
stringent
than
those
that
apply
during
the
year
of
modification.
The
sales
of
light­
duty
vehicles
and
trucks
are
many
times
greater
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
12
than
those
of
heavy­
duty
highway
engines
and
nonroad
diesel
engines
combined.
Further,
we
believe
that
the
caps
for
light­
duty
vehicles
light­
duty
trucks,
and
motorcycles
should
be
larger
than
those
for
nonroad
and
highway
engines
to
accommodate
an
industry
that
has
grown
up
around
the
light­
duty
ICI
program.
The
light­
duty
and
motorcycle
ICIs
can
provide
additional
consumer
choice
and
also
provide
an
avenue
by
which
(
for
a
price)
someone
who
has
lived
outside
of
the
United
States,
including
returning
U.
S.
military
personnel,
can
bring
a
used
personal
vehicle
they
acquired
overseas
into
conformity
with
U.
S.
emission
requirements.
No
such
ICI
industry
exists
for
highway
or
nonroad
engines.
Where
OP
year
standards
are
applied
to
highway
and
nonroad
engines,
we
are
adopting
a
lower
cap.
We
believe
it
will
be
appropriate
to
limit
the
activities
of
engine
ICIs,
when
previous
model
year
engines
are
involved,
to
those
specialized
trucks
or
pieces
of
equipment
for
which
demand
is
so
low
that
normal
certification
didn't
occur
or
might
not
occur.
While
we
want
to
provide
an
opportunity
for
the
importation
of
highly
specialized
vehicles
or
equipment
that
might
otherwise
be
unavailable
in
the
United
States,
we
do
not
want
to
develop
an
industry
that
simply
provides
older
equipment
that
will
most
likely
be
built
with
engines
meeting
significantly
less
stringent
standards.

III.
Maximum
test
speed
In
the
proposal,
we
requested
comment
on
an
issue
related
to
defining
maximum
test
speed
for
heavy­
duty
highway
engines.
Because
maximum
test
speed
in
part
1065
differs
from
rated
speed
in
part
86,
we
were
considering
a
change
to
adjust
how
maximum
test
speed
is
applied
to
heavy­
duty
highway
diesel
engines.
These
speeds
are
used
to
transform
normalized
speeds
into
reference
speeds
for
emission
testing.
Specifically,
we
requested
comment
on
whether
or
not
we
should
specify
that
maximum
test
speed
should
be
equal
to
the
112
%
speed
from
the
duty
cycle
for
this
particular
sequence.
As
explained
below,
we
have
determined
that
is
appropriate
to
set
the
112
%
speed
from
the
duty
cycle
equal
to
the
maximum
test
speed
specified
in
part
1065,
and
have
added
a
new
section
to
do
this
in
§
86.1333­
2010.

For
heavy­
duty
highway
diesel
engines,
we
require
emission
testing
over
the
sequence
speeds
and
torques
in
40
CFR
part
86,
Appendix
I,
paragraph
(
f)(
2),
where
rated
speed
has
been
represented
by
100
%
speed
(
40
CFR
86.1333­
90(
g))
and
the
maximum
engine
speed
that
occurs
over
the
test
cycle
is
112
%
of
rated
speed.
Part
1065
bases
the
denormalized
duty
cycles
on
"
maximum
test
speed,"
which
is
intended
to
roughly
represent
the
highest
non­
idle
speed
at
which
the
engine
operates
in
use,
without
regard
to
maximum
engine
power.

Rated
speed
is
generally
declared
by
the
manufacturer
and
must
be
at
least
as
high
as
the
lowest
speed
at
which
an
engine
generates
98
%
maximum
power.
As
stated
in
40
CFR
86.1333­
90(
g),
"[
Rated
speed]
is
generally
intended
to
represent
the
rpm
at
which
maximum
brake
horsepower
occurs."
In
contrast,
maximum
test
speed
in
part
1065
is
the
speed
that
lies
farthest
from
the
zerospeed
zero­
power
point
on
an
engine
power
map
that
is
normalized
to
100
%
power
and
100
%
speed
at
that
power.
For
engines
with
low
torque­
rise,
maximum
test
speed
is
at
maximum
power.
So
for
these
engines,
there
is
little
difference
between
maximum
test
speed
and
rated
speed.
(
Note
that
torque­
rise
means
an
increase
in
maximum
torque
from
maximum
power
to
maximum
torque.)
We
have
observed,
however,
that
all
modern
heavy­
duty
highway
diesel
engines
have
high
torque­
Technical
Amendments
13
rise,
which
causes
maximum
test
speed
to
be
(
15
to
35)
%
higher
than
rated
speed.
For
these
engines,
denormalizing
the
duty
cycle
based
on
maximum
test
speed
is
necessary
in
order
to
test
these
engines
over
their
complete
operating
ranges.

The
regulations
being
adopted
(
§
86.1333­
2010)
specify
that
heavy­
duty
highway
engine
manufacturers
determine
the
maximum
test
speed
as
described
in
Part
1065
and
set
this
speed
equal
to
the
highest
speed
in
the
highway
transient
cycle,
which
is
the
112
%
speed.
All
other
speeds
will
be
normalized
relative
to
this
speed:

(
)
Actualrpm
rpm
MaxTestSpeed
CurbIdleSpeed
CurbIdleSpeed
=
 
 
+
%

112
Note
that
the
new
§
86.1333­
2010
is
shorter
than
the
older
§
86.1333­
90.
Many
of
the
provisions
in
the
old
§
86.1333­
90,
such
as
those
related
to
mapping
the
engine,
idle
speed
enhancements
devices,
and
transmissions
are
no
longer
necessary
since
they
are
now
addressed
in
part
1065.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
14
Chapter
2:
Land­
based
nonroad
diesel
engines
(
40
CFR
parts
89
and
1039)

I.
Summary
and
Analysis
of
Comments
We
received
comments
on
many
of
the
proposed
provisions,
with
additional
comments
raising
new
issues
for
us
to
consider.
The
following
discussion
presents
a
summary
and
analysis
of
all
these
comments.
Section
II
identifies
the
changes
included
in
the
proposal,
with
a
brief
rationale
for
each
of
those
changes.

Issue
Response
89.1
 
Applicability:
EMA
pointed
out
that
the
regulations
in
part
89
don't
have
a
provision
corresponding
to
§
1048.620
to
allow
certain
Large
SI
engines
to
certify
to
the
standards
in
part
89.
We
agree
with
this
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
accordingly.

89.2
 
Definitions:
EMA
stated
a
presumption
that
nonintegrated
auxiliary
engines
would
be
considered
landbased
engines
subject
to
the
emission
standards
in
40
CFR
part
89.
We
agree
with
this
position,
as
described
in
Chapter
3.
The
definition
of
"
marine
engine,"
as
proposed
and
as
adopted,
is
consistent
with
this
position.

89.130
 
Rebuilding:
EMA
noted
that
the
rebuilding
requirements
currently
do
not
apply
to
Tier
1
engines
over
130
kW.
We
agree
with
the
comment,
except
that
the
current
requirements
do
not
apply
to
Tier
1
engines
at
or
above
37
kW.
The
regulations
have
been
modified
accordingly.

89.114:
Southwest
Research
Institute
and
EMA
requested
clarification
that
updating
the
test­
procedure
references
from
part
86
to
part
1065
aren't
intended
to
require
lab
upgrades.
The
references
introduced
in
part
89
are
intended
only
to
facilitate
the
migration
of
specified
test
procedures
for
heavy­
duty
highway
engines
from
part
86,
subpart
N,
to
part
1065.
Most
of
these
references
point
to
background
information
or
optional
systems.
There
is
no
intent
to
require
new
equipment
or
revised
procedures
as
a
result
of
these
changed
references.
To
ensure
that
this
is
the
case,
we
are
adding
a
provisions
stating
that
any
of
the
references
to
part
1065
may
be
taken
from
part
86
as
a
pre­
approved
alternative
procedure.

89.611:
EMA
recommended
changing
the
exemption
allowing
an
owner
to
import
a
nonroad
engine
solely
for
the
purpose
of
repair
or
alteration.
The
change
would
align
with
the
similar
provisions
for
locomotive
and
marine
diesel
engines.
This
would
generally
allow
engine
operation
for
such
engines
as
needed
for
transportation
to
facilitate
repairs.
Nonroad
equipment
generally
does
not
need
to
travel
under
its
own
power
for
long
distances
to
arrive
at
a
repair
facility.
However,
we
agree
that
the
equipment
may
need
to
be
operated,
for
example,
to
drive
up
onto
a
trailer.
We
don't
believe
expanding
the
exemption
will
lead
companies
to
improperly
use
engines
under
this
provision,
and
have
changed
the
regulation
accordingly.

89.913
 
Engine
dressing:
EMA
generally
supports
the
expanded
provision
allowing
manufacturers
to
use
certified
highway
engines
in
nonroad
applications
without
certifying
them
separately
to
nonroad
emission
standards.
However,
EMA
believes
a
supplemental
label
should
not
be
required.
We
are
finalizing
these
provisions
as
proposed.
As
we
have
concluded
in
other
programs
with
the
engine­
dressing
provisions,
we
believe
it
is
important
for
engines
that
are
modified
and
used
in
other
applications
to
have
a
label
identifying
the
company
that
made
the
conversion.
The
label
also
identifies
the
proper
certification
status
of
the
engine
for
marine
installations.
Technical
Amendments
15
89.1003
 
Replacement
engines:
EMA
objects
to
the
change
that
would
require
different
labels
for
replacement
engines
that
must
meet
standards
that
applied
at
the
time
the
replaced
engine
was
built,
since
they
would
need
to
make
separate
labels
for
each
power
rating.
We
are
specifying
label
language
for
uncontrolled
engines
that
is
identical
to
the
current
regulation,
which
will
prevent
the
need
to
revise
labels
that
may
already
be
designed
and
printed.
For
replacing
certified
engines,
we
believe
it
is
important
for
the
label
to
identify
the
fact
that
the
replacement
engine
is
subject
to
certain
emission­
control
requirements,
and
are
therefore
specifying
the
same
label
language
as
we
specify
in
part
1068
for
this
situation,
which
we
have
modified
to
address
EMA's
concerns
(
see
Chapter
9).
Separate
labels
are
not
needed
for
each
power
rating.

89.1009
 
branding:
EMA
supports
the
change
to
allow
branding
for
Tier
2
and
Tier
3
engines,
but
suggested
using
a
reference
to
40
CFR
1039.640
instead
of
repeating
regulatory
text.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
amended
the
regulation
in
§
89.1009
accordingly.

89.1009
 
branding:
Volvo
requested
that
we
clarify
that
the
required
contractual
agreement
include
a
legally
binding
arrangements
without
a
formal
contract.
They
also
suggested
that
we
allow
them
to
use
multiple
trademarks.
We
agree
that
the
requirement
for
a
contractual
agreement
is
general,
such
that
any
legally
binding
business
arrangement
meets
the
provisions
of
this
section.
The
regulations
specify
that
the
manufacturer
may
put
another
company's
trademark
on
each
label.
There
is
nothing
to
restrict
the
manufacturer
from
putting
different
trademarks
on
different
labels,
as
long
as
there
is
a
contractual
agreement
with
each
company
represented
by
the
different
trademarks.

1039.240
 
Deterioration
factors:
EMA
noted
that
and
should
be
changed
to
or.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
accordingly.

1039.625
 
Equipment
manufacturer
flexibility:
EMA
noted
a
typographical
error
in
Table
1.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
accordingly.

1039.705
 
ABT
calculations:
EMA
objected
to
our
proposed
provision
to
limit
manufacturers'
ability
to
include
in
ABT
calculations
those
engines
sold
in
states
with
separate
emission
standards.
California
ARB
has
adopted
our
Tier
4
standards
without
any
adjustments
that
would
affect
the
stringency
of
standards.
They
also
are
not
adopting
any
provisions
that
would
require
a
separate
calculation
of
ABT
credits
for
engines
sold
in
California.
The
proposed
provision
is
therefore
moot
for
the
foreseeable
future.
If
either
of
these
factors
change,
we
would
intend
to
propose
a
regulatory
provision
requiring
manufacturers
to
exclude
California
engines
from
their
federal
ABT
calculations.

1039.101
 
Useful
life:
In
response
to
our
request
for
comment,
EMA
recommended
keeping
the
provision
to
demonstrate
shortened
useful
life.
They
further
recommended
adopting
the
analogous
regulatory
language
for
Large
SI
engines
in
part
1048.
We
continue
to
believe
that
the
provisions
for
a
shorter
useful
life
are
less
likely
to
be
needed
than
they
are
for
other
programs;
however,
we
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
keep
the
regulatory
option
in
place.
Harmonizing
these
provisions
across
programs
is
also
appropriate,
so
we
have
changed
the
regulatory
language
in
§
1039.101
to
reflect
the
current
provisions
in
part
1048.

We
requested
comment
on
the
need
to
adopt
provisions
to
address
re­
importation
of
certified
engines
that
had
gone
into
service
outside
the
United
States
where
the
engine
may
have
used
fuel
that
compromised
the
effectiveness
of
the
engine's
emission­
control
system.
EMA
argued
that
this
would
be
a
minor
problem
and
that
the
suggested
fixes
would
be
impractical
and
costly.
We
will
continue
to
monitor
this
situation
and
will
consider
regulatory
provisions
in
the
future
if
that
is
appropriate.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
16
1039.501
 
Laboratory
test
systems:
EMA
commented
that
part
1065
already
provides
for
the
use
of
partialflow
sampling
systems
for
transient
PM
measurements
in
the
laboratory
only
after
an
equivalence
demonstration,
and
that
the
standard­
setting
part
should
not
impose
any
further
restriction.
We
agree
with
this
comment
and
have
taken
out
the
specific
reference
to
partial­
flow
sampling
in
§
1039.501.

89.614:
Manufacturers
have
expressed
a
need
for
an
exemption
that
would
allow
them
to
import
engines
that
are
covered
by
a
certificate,
but
are
not
yet
in
their
certified
configuration.
Final
assembly
is
planned
inside
the
United
States.
We
are
including
in
the
final
rule
a
cross
reference
in
part
89
to
40
CFR
1068.330,
which
was
designed
for
this
situation.

89.915:
Caterpillar
commented
that
we
should
allow
them
to
complete
their
engine
assembly
at
different
facilities,
including
some
steps
performed
by
another
company
under
contract.
We
have
added
a
new
provision
allowing
manufacturers
to
assemble
engines
in
different
locations,
provided
that
they
maintain
control
of
the
engines
at
all
times,
and
inform
us
that
they
are
using
this
exemption.
We
may
require
that
manufacturers
take
certain
steps
to
ensure
that
engines
end
up
in
their
certified
configuration.

In
addition
to
these
comments,
we
have
identified
a
variety
of
additional
minor
changes
and
adjustments
to
include
in
the
final
rule,
such
as
changes
to
correct
organizational
and
nomenclature
errors.
In
addition,
these
changes
include:

"
Revising
§
89.603
to
clarify
that
the
sales
limit
for
ICI's
importing
engines
certified
to
standards
based
on
the
original­
production
year
are
based
on
a
corporate­
wide
basis,
not
a
per­
family
basis.
See
the
further
discussion
in
Section
II
below.

"
Removing
§
1039.260,
since
this
section
has
been
replaced
by
§
1068.260.

"
Adding
a
footnote
to
the
table
defining
the
transient
duty
cycle
to
clarify
that
percent
torque
is
relative
to
maximum
torque
at
the
commanded
engine
speed.

"
As
described
in
Chapter
1,
we
identified
a
need
to
clarify
a
provisions
related
to
the
migration
to
the
new
test
procedures
in
part
1065.
We
intend
to
upgrade
to
the
more
accurate
test
procedures
for
any
confirmatory
testing.
For
some
provisions
in
part
1065,
however,
this
would
not
be
appropriate
if
manufacturers
have
not
yet
based
their
testing
on
the
part
1065
procedures.
We
now
specify
that
our
testing
will
use
the
manufacturer's
selected
procedures
for
mapping
engines,
generating
duty
cycles,
and
applying
cycle­
validation
criteria.
For
any
other
parameters,
EPA
may
conduct
testing
using
either
of
the
specified
procedures.

"
As
described
in
the
preamble,
we
believe
it
is
appropriate
in
response
to
a
comment
from
another
category
to
remove
the
requirement
in
§
1039.120
to
apply
the
emission­
related
warranty
to
components
that
are
covered
by
a
service
contract
purchased
by
the
consumer,
where
the
emission­
related
warranty
was
required
to
correspond
with
the
service
contract
(
or
extended
warranty).

II.
Summary
of
Rulemaking
Changes
We
recently
adopted
a
new
tier
of
emission
standards
for
nonroad
diesel
engines,
codifying
these
standards
in
40
CFR
part
1039.
That
rulemaking
led
us
to
make
several
regulatory
changes
to
the
existing
tiers
of
standards
for
these
engines
in
40
CFR
part
89.
In
some
cases,
we
discovered
the
Technical
Amendments
17
need
for
changes
after
publishing
the
proposed
rule,
but
we
did
not
make
those
changes
to
part
89
in
the
final
rule
out
of
concern
that
the
public
had
not
had
an
opportunity
for
comment.
We
are
adopting
these
changes
in
this
final
rule.
Similarly,
we
are
adopting
some
adjustments
to
part
1039,
based
on
information
that
surfaced
late
in,
or
shortly
after,
that
rulemaking.
The
following
changes
in
part
89
and
part
1039
were
in
the
proposed
rulemaking,
with
any
appropriate
adjustments
as
noted
above.

"
§
89.102:
Clarify
that
equipment
manufacturers
using
allowances
under
this
section
may
use
lower­
emitting
engines
than
we
currently
require.

"
§
89.110
and
§
89.1009:
Allow
manufacturers
to
identify
a
different
company's
name
and
trademark
on
the
emission
control
information
label,
with
additional
provisions
to
ensure
that
operators
take
certain
steps
to
ensure
that
operators
have
the
full
benefit
of
the
emissionrelated
warranty.

"
§
89.130:
Refer
to
the
nearly
identical
provisions
for
rebuilding
engines
in
§
1068.120.
These
requirements
do
not
apply
to
Tier
1
engines
at
or
above
37
kW.

"
§
89.410:
Allow
manufacturers
to
use
ramped­
modal
testing,
as
specified
for
engines
that
must
meet
the
Tier
4
standards.

"
Appendix
A
to
subpart
F:
Correct
the
ranges
of
values
to
address
an
unintentional
gap
for
sales
volumes
between
300
and
500.

"
§
§
89.913
and
89.914:
Allow
engine
and
equipment
manufacturers
to
use
the
engine­
dressing
provisions
in
§
§
1039.605
and
1039.610.

"
§
89.1003:
Clarify
that
engine
manufacturers
may
ensure
that
the
replaced
engine
is
destroyed
instead
of
taking
possession
of
it;
add
a
new
label
requirement
for
replacement
engines
that
are
allowed
to
meet
a
less
stringent
set
of
standards
that
are
in
effect
when
the
replacement
engine
is
built
(
to
address
the
case
where
the
engine
being
replaced
was
subject
to
emission
standards
less
stringent
than
the
current
standards).

"
§
89.1003:
Clarify
that
violating
the
requirements
to
rebuild
an
engine
to
its
original
configuration
is
considered
tampering
with
respect
to
the
applicable
penalties.

"
§
89.1
and
§
1039.5:
Allow
manufacturers
to
include
auxiliary
marine
engines
in
an
engine
family
certified
under
part
89
or
1039,
subject
to
certain
limitations.

"
§
1039.1:
Clarify
that
residence­
time
limits
do
not
apply
to
engines
used
in
stationary
applications
if
they
have
been
certified
to
nonroad
emission
standards.

"
§
1039.104,
1039.625,
and
1039.655:
Change
cross­
reference
from
§
1039.260
to
§
1068.265.

"
§
1039.125:
Clarify
that
a
manufacturer's
obligation
to
pay
for
scheduled
maintenance
under
certain
situations
is
limited
to
the
useful
life
of
the
engine.

"
§
1039.225:
Include
a
modified
FEL
as
the
basis
for
a
change
to
the
application
for
certification,
consistent
with
current
practice.

"
§
1039.240:
Adding
section
references
that
were
inadvertently
omitted.

"
§
1039.510:
Remove
provisions
that
are
now
covered
by
part
1065.

"
§
1039.605
and
§
1039.610:
Clarify
the
ABT
responsibilities
relative
to
engines
or
vehicles
that
are
certified
under
the
motor­
vehicle
program
and
used
in
nonroad
applications.

"
§
1039.740:
Correct
the
provisions
allowing
the
use
of
emission
credits
from
previous
tiers
of
emission
standards
to
include
an
item
that
was
inadvertently
omitted
from
the
Tier
4
final
rule,
as
described
in
the
preamble
to
that
final
rule.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
18
"
§
1039.801:
Update
various
definitions
to
reflect
the
change
to
move
the
full
text
of
these
definitions
to
part
1068.

In
addition,
we
are
clarifying
the
standards
applicable
to
Independent
Commercial
Importers
under
Part
89
Subpart
G,
which
are
also
referenced
in
§
1039.660.
The
applicable
standards
for
nonroad
diesel
engines
imported
by
ICIs
are
those
that
applied
during
the
year
of
the
original
production
of
the
engine.
The
current
regulations
were
written
when
Part
89
was
new
and
there
was
only
one
tier
of
standards.
At
that
time,
there
were
only
two
categories
of
engines
 
those
produced
before
the
date
of
applicable
standards
and
those
produced
after.
Engines
produced
before
any
applicable
standards
are
clearly
unregulated
under
the
Act
and
may
be
imported
without
any
modification
(
although
that
does
not
mean
they
can
be
freely
installed
in
any
piece
of
equipment).
For
those
that
were
produced
after
the
effective
date
of
applicable
standards,
there
was
no
question
as
to
which
set
of
standards
applied
(
what
we
now
call
Tier
1).
Unfortunately,
no
amendments
were
made
to
the
ICI
provisions
as
first
Tier
2,
then
Tier
3
and
finally
Tier
4
standards
were
promulgated.

In
Chapter
1,
we
explain
that
we
are
correcting
text
in
the
ICI
provisions
applicable
to
motor
vehicles
and
motor
vehicle
engines
to
make
clear
that
the
applicable
standards
for
those
vehicles
and
engines
are
those
of
the
original
production
year.
There
we
set
forth,
from
a
1996
final
rule,
that
"
many
older
vehicles
cannot
be
modified
to
meet
current
year
standards
without
extraordinary
cost,
which
makes
the
conversion
financially
unfeasible
for
many
owners
of
such
vehicles."
Particularly
with
the
stringency
of
the
Tier
4
standards,
we
believe
that
this
statement
also
applies
to
past
model
year
nonroad
engines
that
might
be
imported
by
ICIs.
Thus,
we
believe
that
the
appropriate
standards
are
those
from
the
original
year
of
production.
However,
as
a
precaution
against
the
ICI
program
being
used
to
circumvent
new
standards
for
large
numbers
of
motor
vehicles
and
motor
vehicle
engines,
we
are
capping
each
ICI's
usage
of
the
program
at
a
total
of
50
light­
duty
vehicles
and
trucks,
50
motorcycles,
and
5
motor
vehicle
engines
in
cases
where
the
year
of
production
standards
are
less
stringent
than
the
standards
that
apply
during
the
year
of
modification.

We
have
issued
only
three
certificates
of
conformity
for
nonroad
engine
ICIs
in
the
history
of
our
nonroad
regulations,
and
each
of
those
ICIs
imported
only
a
small
number
of
engines.
There
are
currently
no
ICIs
with
valid
nonroad
engine
certificates.
Additionally,
the
regulations
generally
require
that,
after
certification,
every
third
engine
imported
by
an
ICI
be
tested
on
an
engine
dynamometer
under
the
federal
test
procedure
(
FTP).
For
these
reasons,
we
do
not
believe
that
specifying
original
production
year
standards
for
these
engines
will
lead
to
significant
importation
of
older
nonroad
equipment
or
engines
in
the
Tier
4
timeframe
as
a
way
to
avoid
incremental
costs
associated
with
Tier
4
engines.
Still,
as
a
precaution,
we
are
capping
the
number
of
nonroad
diesel
engines
that
may
be
imported
by
an
ICI
in
a
given
model
year
at
5
per
year
where
the
original
production
year
standards
are
less
stringent
than
those
that
apply
during
the
year
of
modification.
We
believe
this
cap
eliminates
any
concern
that
the
goals
of
the
Tier
4
program
might
be
jeopardized,
without
impacting
the
current
activities
of
any
ICI..
We
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
take
this
action
to
provide
the
opportunity
for
ICIs
to
participate
in
the
U.
S.
market.
They
have
historically
been
small
businesses
and
their
existence
may
help
to
increase
equipment
choices
available
in
the
U.
S.
We
believe,
for
example,
that
ICIs
may
at
some
point
provide
a
mechanism
for
the
importation
of
unique
and
highly
specialized
machines
where
volumes
are
so
small
that
the
original
engine
manufacturer
Technical
Amendments
19
elects
not
to
certify,
so
that
the
equipment
might
not
be
otherwise
available
in
the
U.
S.
We
intend
to
monitor
the
usage
of
the
ICI
provisions
when
aftertreatment­
based
standards
take
effect
for
nonroad
engines.
If
we
believe
that
the
ICI
provisions
are
being
misused,
or
adversely
impacting
air
quality
in
a
particular
location,
we
will
consider
addressing
the
problem
through
future
rulemaking.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
2Annex
VI
has
been
ratified
by
the
required
number
of
countries
(
15
countries
representing
at
least
50
percent
of
the
world's
merchant
shipping
tonnage)
and
will
enter
into
force
May
20,
2005.
The
countries
that
have
ratified
are:
Azerbaijan,
Bahamas,
Bangladesh,
Barbados,
Cyprus,
Denmark,
Germany,
Greece,
Liberia,
Marshall
Islands,
Norway,
Panama,
Samoa,
Singapore,
Spain,
Sweden,
United
Kingdom,
and
Vanuatu,
representing
about
59.9
percent
of
the
world's
merchant
shipping
tonnage.
More
information
about
this
Convention
can
be
found
on
our
website,
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/
marine.
htm
and
on
the
International
Maritime
Organization
website,
www.
imo.
org.

20
Chapter
3:
Marine
diesel
engines
(
40
CFR
part
94)

This
chapter
contains
an
explanation
of
several
changes
and
clarifications
to
our
marine
diesel
engine
emission­
control
program.
We
are
adding
a
definition
of
amphibious
vehicle
and
clarifying
the
meaning
of
auxiliary
marine
engine.
We
are
also
clarifying
the
application
of
certain
certification
flexibility
provisions.
These
changes
and
clarifications
are
necessary
to
address
issues
that
were
raised
by
manufacturers
and
vessel
owners
as
they
implement
this
program.
We
received
substantive
comments
on
several
of
these
changes,
which
are
noted
below
along
with
our
responses.
The
last
section
of
this
chapter
contains
a
brief
summary
of
comments
on
minor
aspects
of
the
program.

Note
that
the
revisions
described
below
do
not
affect
the
requirements
contained
in
Annex
VI,
Air
Pollution,
to
the
International
Convention
on
the
Prevention
of
Pollution
from
Ships,
1978,
as
modified
by
the
protocol
of
1978
relating
thereto.
Engine
manufacturers,
boat
builders,
and
vessel
operators
will
be
subject
to
those
requirements
once
the
Annex
goes
into
force.
2
3.1
Definition
of
Amphibious
Vehicle
(
94.2)

3.1.1
Background
In
our
original
nonroad
diesel
and
marine
engine
emission­
control
programs,
we
adopted
a
definition
of
marine
vessel
that
is
consistent
with
the
General
Provisions
of
1
U.
S.
C.
3.
(
see
40
CFR
89.2,
91.2,
and
94.2).
According
to
that
definition,
"
the
word
`
vessel'
includes
every
description
of
watercraft
or
other
artificial
contrivance
used,
or
capable
of
being
used,
as
a
means
of
transportation
on
water."

In
our
recreational
vehicle
rule
(
67
FR
68242,
November
8,
2002),
we
adopted
a
different
definition
of
marine
vessel
for
our
standards
for
spark­
ignition
nonroad
engines
(
40
CFR
Parts
90
and
1048).
According
to
this
definition,
a
marine
vessel
is
"
a
vehicle
that
is
capable
of
operation
in
water
but
is
not
capable
of
operation
out
of
water."
This
definition
also
specifies
that
"
amphibious
vehicles
are
not
marine
vessels."
(
40
CFR
90.2
and
40
CFR
1048.801).
This
modification
was
intended
to
address
certain
kinds
of
all­
terrain
vehicles
that
can
be
used
on
both
land
and
water.
These
include
the
Argo
and
the
Max
all­
terrain
vehicles,
which
are
offroad
utility
vehicles
that
can
also
be
used
in
water.
The
body
design
of
these
nonroad
vehicles
allows
them
to
float.
They
are
propelled
through
Technical
Amendments
3According
to
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard,
the
three
main
types
of
vehicles
used
in
the
amphibious
industry
today
were
originally
designed
as
military
transports
and
are
known
as
DUKWs
(
D=
1942;
U=
Utility;
K=
Front
Wheel
Drive;
and
W=
Two
rear
driving
axels),
LARCs
(
Lighter,
Amphibious,
Resupply,
Cargo),
and
ALVIS
STALWARTs.
DUKWs
were
originally
manufactured
in
the
early
1940s
for
the
U.
S.
Army,
while
LARCs
were
manufactured
for
the
Navy.
STALWARTs
were
manufactured
for
the
British
Army
in
the
late
1960s.
See
Navigation
and
Vessel
Inspection
Circular
No.
1­
01,
Inspection
of
Amphibious
Passenger
Carrying
Vehicles,
COMDTPUB
P16700.4
NVIC
1­
01,
11
December
2000.

21
the
water
by
their
tires,
which
can
act
as
linear
propellers,
or
by
a
jet
or
other
type
of
propeller.
These
vehicles
are
designed
to
carry
up
to
six
passengers
or
two
passengers
plus
a
payload
and
are
often
used
as
utility
or
research
vehicles
in
wetlands
and
swampy
areas.
Some
are
also
marketed
for
recreational
fishing
in
such
areas.
Because
these
vehicles
are
primary
intended
for
use
on
land,
however,
we
determined
that
it
is
appropriate
that
they
be
certified
to
the
applicable
ATV
or
offroad
utility
vehicle
standards.

We
have
since
learned
that
there
are
similar
amphibious
vehicles
that
use
compression­
ignition
engines.
These
include
small
vehicles
like
the
Supacat
as
well
as
larger
vehicles
like
the
DUKW,
LARC,
and
ALVIS
STALWART.
3
The
existence
of
these
land/
sea
vehicles
leads
us
to
reconsider
the
definition
of
marine
vessel
in
our
other
nonroad
programs
with
the
goal
of
treating
such
vessels
the
same
across
our
programs
and
to
have
a
uniform
definition.

3.1.2
Definition
of
Amphibious
Vehicle
For
the
purpose
of
our
mobile­
source
emission­
control
program,
we
are
defining
amphibious
vehicle
as
a
vehicle
with
two
or
more
wheels
or
with
tracks
and
which
is
designed
to
be
operated
primarily
on
land
but
is
also
capable
of
operating
in
water.
Amphibious
vehicles
are
not
considered
marine
vessels
and
are
instead
subject
to
the
emission
standards
that
apply
to
the
land­
based
equivalent
of
the
vehicle.
We
believe
this
approach
is
appropriate,
because
it
subjects
all
vehicles
of
a
similar
nature
to
the
same
set
of
emission
standards.
Otherwise,
a
manufacturer
who
makes
available
a
marine­
capable
version
of
a
land­
based
vehicle
would
have
to
certify
the
vehicle
to
two
different
standards.

We
are
adding
this
definition
to
our
regulations
for
land­
based
compression­
ignition
nonroad
engines
(
40
CFR
89),
spark­
ignition
marine
engines
(
40
CFR
91),
compression­
ignition
marine
engines
(
40
CFR
94),
spark­
ignition
nonroad
engine
below
19
kW
(
40
CFR
90),
spark­
ignition
nonroad
engine
above
19
kW
(
40
CFR
1048),
and
recreational
vehicles
(
40
CFR
1051).
We
are
also
making
the
necessary
changes
to
the
definition
of
marine
vessel
in
those
regulations.

3.1.3
Applicable
Emission
Standards
Amphibious
vehicles
can
be
street­
legal,
such
as
excursion
vehicles
for
tourism
purposes
(
e.
g.,
TrolleyBoats)
or
designed
only
for
off­
highway
use
(
e.
g.,
Argo,
Max,
DUKW).
The
applicable
emission
standards
are
those
that
apply
to
the
land­
based
application.
This
means
that
any
vehicle
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
22
that
meets
our
definition
of
"
motor
vehicle"
in
85.1703(
a)
must
meet
the
highway
emission
standards
that
would
otherwise
be
applicable
to
the
vehicle
if
it
were
not
capable
of
operating
in
water.
So,
for
example,
a
street­
legal
TrolleyBoat
must
have
an
engine
that
meets
our
standards
for
heavy­
duty
highway
diesel
engines.

If
an
amphibious
vehicle
is
not
street­
legal,
i.
e.,
it
is
designed
only
for
off­
highway
use,
then
it
must
meet
the
emission
standards
in
effect
for
a
similar
nonroad
vehicle.
If
it
has
a
compressionignition
engine
(
e.
g.,
a
DUKW),
it
must
be
certified
to
meet
our
nonroad
diesel
engine
standards.
If
it
has
a
spark­
ignition
engine,
it
must
be
certified
to
meet
the
applicable
nonroad
standards:
all­
terrain
vehicle
standards,
small
SI
(<
19
kW)
standards,
or
large
(>
19
kW)
SI
standards
(
see
table
X.
1­
1).

Table
3.1­
1
Application
of
Nonroad
to
Amphibious
Vehicles
Cycle
Terrain
Vehicle
Characteristics
Applicable
Standards
Spark­
ignition
Rough
Saddle
and
handlebar
ATV
Rough
No
saddle,
<
25
mph
Small
SI
Rough
No
saddle,
>
25
mph
ATV
Non­
rough
<
19
kW
Small
SI
Non­
rough
>
19
kW
Large
SI
Compression­
Ignition
Rough
or
non­
rough
Any
Nonroad
CI
The
new
definition
of
amphibious
vehicle
and
revision
of
our
definition
of
marine
vessel
are
intended
solely
for
the
purpose
of
our
national
emission­
control
programs.
These
definitions
do
not
affect
in
any
way
how
these
vehicles
are
treated
by
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard
or
any
other
federal,
state,
or
local
agency
that
may
have
requirements
for
the
safety,
registration,
or
operation
of
such
vehicles.
It
also
does
not
affect
the
requirements
for
amphibious
vessels
under
MARPOL
Annex
VI.
Specifically,
after
the
Annex
comes
into
force,
amphibious
vessels
with
diesel
engines
above
130
kW
that
are
built
or
undergo
a
major
conversion
on
or
after
January
1,
2000,
will
be
required
to
have
MARPOL­
compliant
engines
as
demonstrated
by
an
Engine
International
Air
Pollution
Prevention
(
EIAPP)
certificate
and
related
documentation
(
Technical
File
and
Record
Book
of
Engine
Parameters).
In
addition,
vessels
above
400
gross
tons
will
be
required
to
have
an
International
Air
Pollution
Prevention
(
IAPP)
certificate.
These
requirements
are
described
in
our
rulemaking
for
marine
diesel
engines
at
or
above
30
liters
per
cylinder,
which
is
available
on
our
website,
<
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/
marine.
htm>.
Technical
Amendments
23
3.1.4
Hovercraft
We
have
learned
that
there
are
small
hydrofoils
(
hovercraft)
that
can
also
operate
on
land
as
well
as
water.
One
example
is
the
Griffon
Hovercraft,
which
includes
models
weighing
from
825
to
2,200
lbs,
with
the
ability
to
carry
5
to
80
passengers.

A
hovercraft
is
not
considered
an
amphibious
vehicle
under
the
above
definition
because
it
has
neither
wheels
nor
tracks.
Instead,
it
is
considered
a
marine
vessel
and
its
engines
are
subject
to
our
marine
engine
emission­
control
program.
To
meet
these
requirements,
a
hovercraft
manufacturer
may
either
purchase
and
install
a
certified
marine
engine
or
take
advantage
of
our
marine
engine
dresser
provision.
This
provision
allows
an
engine
manufacturer,
post­
manufacturer
marinizer,
or
boat
builder
to
install
a
certified
land­
based
nonroad
or
highway
engine
on
a
marine
vessel
as
long
as
the
engine
has
a
valid
certificate
of
conformity,
it
is
properly
labeled,
and
no
changes
are
made
to
the
engine
that
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
increase
its
emissions.
There
are
certain
conditions
associated
with
this
flexibility:
the
original
engine
label
must
be
clearly
visible,
a
supplemental
label
must
be
affixed
to
the
engine
identifying
it
as
a
dressed
engine,
and
certain
information
must
be
submitted
to
EPA
with
respect
to
the
engine
and
the
identity
of
the
manufacturer.
Section
3.4,
below,
has
additional
information
about
our
engine
dresser
program.

3.2
Auxiliary
Engines
(
94.2)

3.2.1
Background
In
our
December
1999
marine
diesel
engine
rulemaking,
we
adopted
a
definition
of
"
marine
engine"
that
is
based
on
whether
an
engine
is
installed
or
intended
to
be
installed
on
a
marine
vessel
(
40
CFR
94.2).
Some
manufacturers
have
requested
further
interpretation
of
the
phrase
"
installed
or
intended
to
be
installed"
as
used
in
the
definition
to
determine
whether
their
engines
are
subject
to
emission
standards
for
land­
based
or
marine
engines.

The
definition
adopted
in
1999
states:

Marine
engine
means
an
engine
that
is
installed
or
intended
to
be
installed
on
a
marine
vessel.
This
definition
does
not
include
portable
auxiliary
engines
for
which
the
fueling,
cooling
and
exhaust
systems
are
not
integral
parts
of
the
vessel.
(
64
FR
73334)

In
our
rule,
we
explained
some
background
we
considered
in
adopting
this
definition:

In
the
final
land­
based
nonroad
engine
rule,
we
determined
that
a
portable
auxiliary
engine
used
onboard
a
marine
vessel
should
not
be
considered
a
marine
engine
(
October
23,
1998,
63
FR
56967).
Instead,
a
portable
auxiliary
engine
is
considered
to
be
a
land­
based
engine
subject
to
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
Part
89.
To
distinguish
a
marine
auxiliary
engine
installed
on
a
marine
vessel
from
a
land­
based
portable
auxiliary
engine
used
on
a
marine
vessel,
we
specified
in
that
rulemaking
that
an
auxiliary
engine
is
installed
on
a
marine
vessel
if
its
fuel,
cooling,
or
exhaust
systems
are
an
integral
part
of
the
vessel.
These
auxiliary
engines
are
therefore
not
fundamentally
different
than
land­
based
engines
and
we
regulate
them
under
40
CFR
Part
89.
(
64
FR
73302,
discussing
EPA's
determination
in
"
Summary
and
Analysis
of
Comments:
Control
of
Emissions
from
Nonroad
Diesel
Engines,"
August
1998,
p.
92)
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
24
The
regulatory
text
and
explanation
in
the
final
rule
permit
some
narrow
amount
of
portability
for
an
engine
to
be
considered
"
installed
or
to
be
installed
on
a
marine
vessel"
and
thus
a
marine
engine.
However,
this
portability
is
limited
to
engines
that
have
systems
that
are
integral
to
the
vessel.
If
the
engine
does
not
have
systems
that
are
integral
to
the
vessel,
it
will
be
considered
a
land­
based
nonroad
engine.

3.2.2
Clarification
of
"
portable"

Since
we
finalized
the
above
definition,
we
learned
that
there
continues
to
be
confusion
about
what
is
meant
by
"
portable"
in
our
definition
of
marine
engine.
At
least
one
engine
manufacturer
sought
further
clarification
about
whether,
for
example,
an
engine
that
is
attached
to
a
barge
would
be
considered
portable.

EPA
will
not
consider
an
engine
"
installed"
if
it
can
easily
be
removed
from
a
vessel
to
provide
power
to
another
application
without
modifications.
In
this
case,
a
pump
engine
that
is
bolted
onto
the
main
deck
of
a
boat
or
barge
will
not
be
considered
installed
if
it
can
be
readily
disconnected
from
the
pump
machinery
and
lifted
off
the
vessel
to
power
a
pump
(
or
other
device)
elsewhere.
Such
an
engine
operates
more
as
a
stand­
alone
auxiliary
engine
than
a
marine
engine.
In
contrast,
EPA
will
consider
an
engine
installed
if
it
is
mounted
in
such
a
way
that
requires
significant
effort
to
remove
the
engine
(
i.
e.,
there
is
more
to
the
mounting
than
a
few
brackets
or
straps).

The
one
exception
to
this
"
removability"
interpretation
of
the
regulation
is
for
those
engines
that
can
easily
be
removed
from
a
vessel,
but
whose
fueling,
cooling
or
exhaust
systems
are
integral
to
the
vessel.
Such
an
engine,
though
conceptually
portable
because
of
its
relationship
to
the
vessel,
cannot
operate
without
a
connection
to
the
vessel.
For
example,
if
a
portable
engine
is
designed
with
a
quick­
connect
access
to
the
onboard
fuel
supply
or
with
other
hardware
that
allows
the
engine
to
tie
into
the
vessel's
cooling
or
exhaust
systems,
EPA
will
consider
such
an
engine
installed.
Even
though
it
is
portable,
such
an
engine
generally
cannot
operate
without
the
fueling
or
other
systems
available
on
the
vessel.
In
other
words,
it
cannot
be
operated
once
it
is
removed
from
the
vessel.

One
commenter
requested
further
clarification.
This
commenter
assumed
that
a
"
non­
integrated"
auxiliary
engine
such
as
a
generator
set
or
air
compressor
that
sits
on
the
deck
of
a
marine
vessel
would
be
considered
to
be
subject
to
Part
89.
According
to
the
above
discussion
this
would
be
correct
only
if
none
of
the
criteria
that
make
an
engine
a
marine
diesel
auxiliary
engine
are
met.
As
explained
above,
a
marine
diesel
engine
is
characterized
by
how
it
is
installed
or
intended
to
be
installed
on
a
vessel.
The
fact
that
a
generator
set
or
air
compressor
"
sits
on
the
deck
of
a
marine
vessel"
is
not
in
and
of
itself
enough
to
ensure
that
the
engine
is
covered
by
Part
89.
What
matters
is
if
its
fuel,
cooling,
exhaust
or
other
systems
are
an
integral
part
of
the
vessel,
i.
e.,
whether
the
engine
can
be
removed
from
a
vessel
to
provide
power
to
another
application
without
modification.
If
an
engine
can
be
removed
in
this
way,
it
operates
more
as
a
stand­
alone
auxiliary
engine
than
a
marine
engine.
If
the
engine
is
mounted
in
such
a
way
that
would
require
significant
effort
to
remove
the
engine
(
i.
e.,
there
is
more
to
the
mounting
than
a
few
brackets
or
straps)
it
is
considered
a
marine
engine.
Technical
Amendments
25
3.2.3
Regulatory
revision
The
clarification
described
in
this
section
does
not
require
further
regulatory
text
in
40
CFR
94.
However,
we
are
adding
this
definition
to
our
other
nonroad
programs,
including
our
land­
based
compression­
ignition
nonroad
engine
regulations
(
40
CFR
89),
our
spark­
ignition
marine
engine
regulations
(
40
CFR
91),
our
spark­
ignition
nonroad
engine
<
19
kW
regulations
(
40
CFR
90),
and
our
spark­
ignition
nonroad
engine
>
19
kW
regulations
(
40
CFR
1048).

3.3
Certification
of
Marine
Auxiliary
Engines
(
94.912)

3.3.1
Background
As
explained
above,
an
auxiliary
engine
would
be
considered
a
marine
auxiliary
engine
if
(
1)
it
is
tied
to
the
ship's
fuel,
cooling,
or
exhaust
systems,
or
(
2)
it
is
mounted
on
the
vessel
in
such
a
way
that
requires
significant
effort
to
remove
it.

The
general
industry
practice
is
to
produce
marine
engines
by
modifying
land­
based
engines
so
they
are
suitable
for
marine
application.
The
most
important
changes
usually
relate
to
tuning
the
power
characteristics
for
marine
propulsion,
adapting
the
engine
for
use
with
water­
based
cooling,
and
changing
various
parts
for
improved
corrosion
resistance
or
compliance
with
Coast
Guard
requirements.
In
these
cases,
the
changes
made
to
the
engine
may
affect
its
emission
characteristics
and
therefore
certification
to
the
marine
standards
is
required.
However,
manufacturers
have
also
informed
us
that
they
sometimes
sell
engines
for
marine
auxiliary
service
that
are
identical
to
landbased
engines.
These
engines
are
not
modified
for
use
on
marine
vessels;
however,
they
fall
under
the
definition
of
marine
engine
because
they
are
installed
on
the
vessel
in
such
as
way
that
they
are
not
easily
removed.
To
avoid
the
regulatory
and
compliance
burdens
associated
with
certifying
identical
auxiliary
engines
under
two
separate
programs,
land­
based
and
marine,
we
are
adopting
provisions
to
allow
streamlined
certification.

3.3.2
Streamlined
certification
for
marine
auxiliary
engines
Under
the
streamline
certification
approach
for
marine
auxiliary
engines,
manufacturers
may
include
auxiliary
marine
diesel
engines
in
a
land­
based
engine
family
certified
under
40
CFR
part
89
or
1039,
with
the
following
conditions:

"
The
marine
engine
must
be
identical
in
all
material
respects
to
a
land­
based
engine
covered
by
a
valid
certificate
of
conformity;

"
The
marine
engine
may
not
be
used
as
a
propulsion
engine;

"
The
engine
must
have
the
emission
control
information
label
required
under
the
land­
based
program,
including
additional
information
to
identify
the
engine
as
certified
also
for
marine
auxiliary
purposes;

"
The
number
of
marine
engines
in
the
engine
family
must
be
smaller
than
the
number
of
landbased
engines;
and
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
4MARPOL
Annex
VI
is
Annex
VI,
Air
Pollution,
to
the
International
Convention
on
the
Prevention
of
Pollution
from
Ships,
1978,
as
modified
by
the
protocol
of
1978
relating
thereto.
More
information
about
this
Convention
can
be
found
on
our
website,
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/
marine.
htm
and
on
the
International
Maritime
Organization
website,
www.
imo.
org.

26
"
The
application
for
certification
must
identify
the
possibility
of
marine
auxiliary
installations,
including
projected
sales
of
marine
engines;
if
the
projected
marine
sales
are
substantial,
we
may
ask
for
the
year­
end
report
of
production
volumes
to
include
actual
marine
auxiliary
engine
sales.

The
requirement
that
the
marine
engine
be
identical
in
all
material
respect
to
a
land­
based
engine
covered
by
a
valid
certificate
of
conformity
means
that
there
must
be
no
changes
to
the
engine
for
use
in
the
marine
application.
There
can
be
no
changes
to
the
fuel
system,
the
turbocharger,
the
cooling
system
requirements
or
any
other
characteristic
that
may
affect
emissions.
The
engine
must
be
able
to
be
used
interchangeably
in
a
marine
or
land­
based
application
without
modification.

This
streamlined
certification
for
auxiliary
engines
is
intended
solely
for
the
purpose
of
our
national
emission­
control
programs.
This
streamlined
certification
does
not
affect
in
any
way
how
these
engines
are
treated
by
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard
or
any
other
federal,
state,
or
local
agency
that
may
have
requirements
for
the
safety,
registration,
or
other
operation
of
such
engines.
It
also
does
not
affect
the
requirements
for
auxiliary
engines
under
MARPOL
Annex
VI.
4
Specifically,
after
the
Annex
comes
into
force,
any
diesel
engine
above
130
kW
installed
on
a
marine
vessel
constructed
on
or
after
January
1,
2000,
and
any
engine
above
130
kW
that
undergoes
a
substantial
conversion
on
or
after
January
1,
2000,
will
be
required
to
be
MARPOL­
compliant
as
demonstrated
by
an
Engine
International
Air
Pollution
Prevention
(
EIAPP)
certificate
and
related
documentation
(
Technical
File
and
Record
Book
of
Engine
Parameters).
Therefore,
engine
manufacturers
who
take
advantage
of
the
streamlined
certification
for
auxiliary
engines
and
who
may
sell
those
engines
for
use
on
vessels
subject
to
MARPOL
Annex
VI
should
make
sure
they
obtain
the
necessary
MARPOL
Annex
VI
certification
when
they
apply
for
certification
of
their
land­
based
family.
The
MARPOL
Annex
VI
requirements
are
described
in
our
rulemaking
for
marine
diesel
engines
at
or
above
30
liters
per
cylinder,
which
is
available
on
our
website,
<
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/
marine.
htm>.

We
received
two
comments
on
this
provision,
recommending
that
the
requirements
for
additional
information
on
the
engine
label
and
sales
projections
be
deleted.
We
disagree
with
the
recommendation
to
delete
the
requirement
that
the
emission
control
label
identify
the
engine
as
being
certified
for
marine
auxiliary
applications.
In
general,
any
marine
diesel
engine
installed
on
a
vessel
must
be
compliant
with
the
marine
diesel
emission
program.
This
is
demonstrated
by
the
manufacturer's
label.
Because
these
auxiliary
engines
are
still
marine
engines,
they
must
also
be
labeled
as
such.
Without
this
label,
the
vessel
manufacturer
or
owner
will
not
know
if
they
are
purchasing
and
installing
an
auxiliary
engine
that
is
certified
for
use
in
a
marine
application.
In
addition,
the
absence
of
a
label
may
lead
vessel
manufacturers
and
owners
to
form
the
mistaken
impression
that
any
nonroad
auxiliary
engine
is
suitable
for
installation
on
a
marine
vessel.
The
label
will
indicate
that
the
engine
is
either
certified
under
Part
94
or
it
falls
under
the
streamlined
Technical
Amendments
27
certification
program
and
the
engine
manufacturer
has
met
the
requirements
set
out
in
94.912.
Otherwise,
there
would
be
no
mechanism
to
determine
if
an
engine
certified
under
Part
89
has
met
the
requirements.
The
people
who
are
intended
to
be
informed
by
this
information
are
boat
builders,
vessel
owners,
and
various
inspection
personnel.
Recognizing
that
the
engine
manufacturer
may
not
know
when
the
engine
is
produced
if
it
will
be
used
in
a
marine
application,
the
entity
exercising
the
exemption
will
be
the
entity
required
to
attach
this
label
to
the
engine.

We
also
do
not
agree
with
the
recommendation
to
delete
the
request
for
sales
projections
to
determine
that
the
marine
auxiliary
engines
do
not
represent
more
than
50
percent
of
the
annual
sales
of
an
engine
family.
The
commenter
wrote
that
the
engine
manufacturers
may
not
be
able
to
predict
at
the
time
of
certification
the
number
of
engines
sold
into
marine
applications.
We
do
not
find
this
reason
compelling
and
continue
to
believe
that
engine
manufacturers
should
be
able
to
reasonably
estimate,
based
on
past
sales
or
their
internal
sales
projections,
the
proportion
of
an
engine
family's
sales
that
are
expected
to
go
into
marine
applications.
It
should
be
remembered
that
this
program
is
intended
only
for
those
marine
auxiliary
engines
that
are
exactly
identical
to
their
land­
based
counterparts
(
no
changes
to
any
aspect
of
the
engine
for
installation
on
a
marine
vessel).
We
do
not
believe
there
will
be
substantial
numbers
of
engines
that
will
meet
the
requirements
of
this
program,
since
most
engines
that
are
installed
on
a
vessel
are
modified
in
some
way.
Finally,
regardless
of
EPA's
program,
engine
manufacturers
will
need
to
account
for
at
least
those
engines
that
qualify
that
are
above
130
kW,
since
those
engines
may
still
need
to
be
certified
to
the
NOx
standards
of
MARPOL
Annex
VI.

3.4
Engine
Dressing
Provisions
(
94.907)

3.4.1
Background
Some
companies
produce
marine
engines
by
modifying
new,
land­
based
engines
and
modifying
for
installation
on
a
marine
vessel.
This
can
be
done
in
a
way
that
does
not
affect
emissions.
For
example,
the
modifications
may
consist
of
adding
a
generator
or
reduction
gears
for
propulsion.
It
can
also
involve
installing
a
new
marine
cooling
system
that
meets
original
manufacturer
specifications
and
duplicates
the
cooling
characteristics
of
the
land­
based
engine,
but
with
a
different
cooling
medium
(
i.
e.,
water).
This
is
similar
to
the
process
of
buying
certified
land­
based
engines
to
make
a
generator
or
other
equipment.
This
simplified
approach
of
producing
an
engine
can
be
described
as
dressing
an
engine
for
a
particular
marine
application.
Because
the
modified
land­
based
engine
is
subsequently
used
on
a
marine
vessel,
however,
it
will
be
considered
a
marine
diesel
engine
pursuant
to
our
definition
of
marine
engine.

We
included
a
provision
in
our
final
commercial
marine
diesel
engine
rule
that
exempts
engines
from
the
marine
certification
requirements
if
the
marinizing
company
meets
the
following
conditions
(
64
CFR
73303,
December
29,
1999;
see
40
CFR
907):

"
The
engine
being
dressed,
(
the
"
base"
engine)
must
be
a
heavy­
duty
highway,
land­
based
nonroad,
or
locomotive
engine,
certified
pursuant
to
40
CFR
86,
40
CFR
89,
or
40
CFR
92.
The
base
engine
must
be
certified
to
the
standards
that
apply
at
the
time
the
base
engine
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
5Post­
manufacturer
marinizers
are
companies
that
produce
a
marine
engine
by
modifying
a
non­
marine
engine
and
vessel
manufacturers
that
substantially
modify
marine
engines.

28
manufacturer
completes
assembly
of
the
engine.
We
don't
allow
stockpiling
of
uncertified
engines.

"
The
dressing
process
must
not
involve
any
changes
that
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
increase
engine
emissions.
This
includes
a
requirement
that
engine
cooling
and
aftercooling
systems
stay
within
the
ranges
specified
by
the
original
engine
manufacturer.

"
The
original
emissions­
related
label
must
remain
on
the
engine.

"
The
dressing
company
must
report
annually
to
us
the
models
that
are
exempt
under
this
provision.

"
The
engine
model
must
not
be
primarily
for
marine
application.

Note
that
the
goal
of
our
engine
dressing
provisions
is
to
eliminate
the
burden
of
certification
and
other
compliance
requirements
where
we
have
confidence
that
an
engine
already
certified
to
comparable
standards
for
another
program
will
meet
marine
engine
emission
standards.
However,
the
certificate
holder
for
the
base
engine
continues
to
be
liable,
under
the
terms
of
the
original
certification,
for
the
emissions
performance
of
the
dressed
engine.

3.4.2
Regulatory
Changes
The
engine
dresser
provisions
as
they
are
currently
written
can
be
exercised
by
engine
manufacturers,
including
post­
manufacturer
marinizers.
5
We
are
expanding
the
list
of
companies
that
can
use
this
flexibility
to
include
boat
builders
that
produce
a
marine
engine
by
installing
a
non­
marine
engine
on
a
vessel
without
substantially
modifying
it.
This
provision
is
intended
to
cover
circumstances,
like
the
hovercraft
example
described
in
Section
3.2,
in
which
a
vessel
manufacturer
uses
a
highway
or
nonroad
engine
on
a
vessel
but
does
not
modify
it
in
any
way
that
could
affect
its
emissions.
In
the
hovercraft
example,
the
engine
is
used
to
run
an
air
compressor
that
inflates
the
floating
platform
and
generates
air
turbulence
to
propel
the
vessel
forward.
The
engine
does
not
require
marine
engine
cooling
systems,
it
is
not
adjusted
to
provide
more
power,
and
it
requires
no
special
fuel
handling
systems.
A
similar
situation
exists
for
airboats,
where
a
highway
or
nonroad
engine
is
used
to
run
a
large
fan
to
propel
the
vessel
forward.
Because
such
engines
are
installed
on
a
vessel
they
are
considered
to
be
marine
engines.
Under
our
existing
programs,
the
boat
builder
manufacturer
must
certify
the
engines
as
marine
engines
even
if
they
have
a
certificate
of
conformity
under
our
highway
or
nonroad
emission­
control
programs
because
they
do
not
qualify
as
engine
manufacturers
or
post­
manufacturer
marinizers.
The
revised
regulations
make
clear
that
these
vessel
manufacturers
also
qualify
for
the
engine
dressing
exemption.

In
addition,
we
are
clarifying
the
provision
regarding
the
requirement
to
demonstrate
that
the
engine
model
is
not
primarily
used
in
marine
applications.
This
demonstration
requires
that
the
engine
manufacturer
show
that
fewer
than
50
percent
of
the
engine
model's
total
sales
for
the
model
year
are
dressed
engines.
This
includes
engines
dressed
by
others
as
well
as
the
manufacturer
of
the
base
engine.
This
can
be
shown
based
on
sales
information.
Engine
dressers
who
are
not
also
the
Technical
Amendments
29
manufacturer
of
the
base
engine
must
get
the
original
manufacturer
to
confirm
that
the
engine
is
not
primarily
a
marine
engine.

We
are
also
clarifying
the
requirements
related
to
generating
and
using
emission
credits
with
these
engines.
Engines
adapted
for
marine
use
through
the
engine
dressing
provisions
may
not
generate
or
use
emission
credits
under
part
94.
However,
they
may
generate
credits
or
use
credits
under
the
averaging,
banking,
and
trading
(
ABT)
provisions
of
the
program
under
which
they
are
originally
regulated
(
highway,
land­
based
nonroad,
locomotive).

One
commenter
wrote
that
we
should
revise
the
proposed
regulatory
language
to
delete
paragraph
(
g)
regarding
failure
to
comply
because
it
restates
the
obvious
point
that
engines
not
meeting
the
requirement
set
out
in
94.907
are
not
eligible
for
the
exemption.
The
purpose
of
paragraph
(
g)
is
to
clarify
that
if
an
engine
that
takes
advantage
of
this
exemption
is
not
in
fact
exempt
(
it
does
not
meet
the
criteria
set
out
in
94.907),
then
not
only
is
the
engine
not
certified
under
Part
94
but
in
addition
the
engine
manufacturer
has
violated
the
prohibited
acts
described
in
94.1103(
a)(
1)
and
may
be
subject
to
penalties.
While
this
may
be
obvious
to
large
engine
manufacturers,
it
may
not
be
obvious
for
small
engine
manufacturers
for
whom
this
provision
was
originally
intended.
It
is
also
important
to
clarify
exactly
which
regulatory
prohibitions
apply,
since
this
exemption
addresses
engines
that
are
at
varying
stages
subject
to
different
provisions.

This
commenter
also
wrote
that
the
use
of
the
word
"
eligible"
in
(
d)
does
not
seem
to
be
appropriate.
We
describe
the
engines
as
"
eligible"
for
the
exemption
simply
because
manufacturers
may
in
some
cases
choose
to
certify
the
engines
to
the
standards
in
part
94,
even
though
the
earlier
certification
could
be
used
to
meet
the
requirements
of
part
94.
In
such
a
case,
an
eligible
engine
is
not
exempt
until
the
manufacturer
exercises
the
provisions
of
this
section.

3.4.3
Requirement
to
Submit
Emission
Data
Under
our
existing
program,
base
engine
manufacturers
utilizing
the
dressing
exemption
must
submit
marine­
specific
emission
data
on
their
dressed
marine
engines.
In
addition,
we
may
request
marine­
specific
data
from
the
original
engine
manufacturer
if
another
company
is
dressing
their
engines
for
marine
application.
We
are
not
changing
this
provision.

We
intend
to
use
this
data
for
program
oversight,
to
determine
the
validity
of
the
exemption.
This
is
important
because
marine
engines
are
not
operated
in
the
same
way
as
highway
or
land­
based
nonroad
engines.
This
is
reflected
in
the
different
duty
cycles
used
for
certification
testing.

Specifically,
we
will
use
the
test
data
to
evaluate
the
extent
to
which
the
highway
or
land­
based
nonroad
engines
can
be
expected
to
achieve
our
marine
engine
emission
limits
when
operated
as
marine
engines.
If
we
find
that
highway
or
land­
based
nonroad
engines
exceed
the
marine
standards
based
on
the
marine
duty
cycle
we
will
consider
suspending
this
flexibility.
The
suspension
of
this
flexibility
would
not
affect
marine
engines
already
in
the
fleet,
unless
there
is
a
substantial
emission
exceedence.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
30
Using
the
data
obtained
under
the
engine
dresser
flexibility
program
to
evaluate
the
validity
of
the
exemption
suggests
that
engine
manufacturers
will
need
to
design
their
highway
or
land­
based
nonroad
engine
certification
test
programs
to
include
the
marine
duty
cycle
if
the
engine
may
be
sold
into
a
marine
application.
We
do
not
believe
this
will
be
burdensome,
especially
considering
that
the
alternative
is
to
do
a
full
certification
application
for
the
marine
engine.

As
discussed
above,
land­
based
engines
that
are
credit­
users
are
eligible
for
the
engine
dressing
exemption.
Although
they
are
properly
certified,
such
dressed
marine
diesel
engines
may
exceed
the
marine
emission
standards.
We
will
take
ABT
credit
use
into
account
when
we
evaluate
the
validity
of
the
program.

3.4.4
Other
engine
dressing
provisions
remain
unchanged
The
other
components
of
our
engine
dressing
provisions
remain
unchanged.
These
include
the
following:

"
Any
certified
heavy­
duty
highway,
nonroad,
or
locomotive
engine
will
be
eligible
for
the
dressing
exemption.

"
The
marine
not­
to­
exceed
(
NTE)
zone
provisions
do
not
apply
to
dressed
engines,
unless
NTE
provisions
are
in
place
for
the
certified
base
engine.

"
Engines
that
qualify
as
dressed
engines
are
considered
to
have
a
certificate
under
regulatory
programs
for
both
land­
based
and
marine
engines.

"
If
we
find
that
a
company
with
an
engine
dressing
exemption
does
not,
in
fact,
meet
the
criteria
spelled
out
in
the
regulations,
the
engines
are
not
exempt
and
we
may
pursue
enforcement
for
selling
uncertified
marine
engines
and/
or
tampering
with
certified
engines.

"
The
engine
dressing
company
must
put
a
supplemental
label
on
each
exempted
engine
stating
the
name
of
the
dressing
company
and
the
fact
that
the
engine
was
marinized
without
affecting
emission
controls.
This
will
make
clear
that
the
engine
is
acceptable
for
use
in
a
marine
vessel.
In
addition,
dressing
companies
will
need
to
give
us
minimal
notification
that
they
are
modifying
certified
engines.
This
can
be
done
once
annually
for
a
company's
whole
range
of
dressed
marine
engines.

In
addition
to
the
labeling
requirement,
we
encourage
engine
manufacturers
to
inform
companies
dressing
their
engines
of
these
requirements.
This
will
not
only
aid
us
in
educating
affected
companies,
it
may
help
protect
engine
manufacturers
from
exposure
to
liability
if
their
engines
are
ever
found
in
a
marine
vessel
without
proper
documentation.

The
dressing
provisions
are
intended
solely
for
the
purpose
of
our
national
emission­
control
programs.
This
streamlined
certification
does
not
affect
in
any
way
how
these
engines
are
treated
by
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard
or
any
other
federal,
state,
or
local
agency
that
may
have
requirements
for
the
safety,
registration,
or
other
operation
of
such
engines.
It
also
does
not
affect
the
requirements
for
Technical
Amendments
6MARPOL
Annex
VI
is
Annex
VI,
Air
Pollution,
to
the
International
Convention
on
the
Prevention
of
Pollution
from
Ships,
1978,
as
modified
by
the
protocol
of
1978
relating
thereto.
More
information
about
this
Convention
can
be
found
on
our
website,
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/
marine.
htm
and
on
the
International
Maritime
Organization
website,
www.
imo.
org.

31
engines
under
MARPOL
Annex
VI.
6
Specifically,
after
the
Annex
comes
into
force,
any
diesel
engine
above
130
kW
installed
on
a
marine
vessel
constructed
on
or
after
January
1,
2000,
and
any
engine
above
130
kW
that
undergoes
a
substantial
conversion
on
or
after
January
1,
2000,
will
be
required
to
be
MARPOL­
compliant
as
demonstrated
by
an
Engine
International
Air
Pollution
Prevention
(
EIAPP)
certificate
and
related
documentation
(
Technical
File
and
Record
Book
of
Engine
Parameters).
Therefore,
engine
manufacturers
who
take
advantage
of
the
engine
dressing
provisions
and
who
may
sell
those
engines
for
use
on
vessels
subject
to
MARPOL
Annex
VI
should
be
sure
they
obtain
the
necessary
MARPOL
Annex
VI
certification
when
they
apply
for
certification
of
their
landbased
family.
The
MARPOL
Annex
VI
requirements
are
described
in
our
rulemaking
for
marine
diesel
engines
at
or
above
30
liters
per
cylinder,
which
is
available
on
our
website,
<
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/
marine.
htm>.

3.5
Engine
Repowers
(
94.1103(
b))

We
have
received
several
requests
for
clarification
about
vessel
repowers.
Much
of
the
existing
confusion
results
from
the
fact
that
our
marine
engine
program
and
the
Annex
VI
program
are
slightly
different
and
have
different
results
depending
on
whether
the
engine
used
to
repower
the
vessel
is
new
or
used.

3.5.1
Repowering
With
a
New
Engine
If
a
vessel
owner
is
going
to
replace
an
existing
engine
on
an
existing
vessel
with
a
new
engine,
then
the
new
engine
must
comply
with
the
requirements
of
MARPOL
Annex
VI
and
the
EPA
program.
Under
MARPOL
Annex
VI,
the
engine
must
meet
the
Regulation
13
NOx
limits
(
it
must
have
a
Statement
of
Voluntary
Compliance
or
an
EIAPP).
Under
the
EPA
program,
the
engine
must
comply
with
the
emission
limits
that
are
in
effect
when
the
repower
occurs.
Note
that
if
the
replacement
engine
is
certified
to
our
Tier
2
standards
it
should
also
have
a
Statement
of
Voluntary
Compliance
or
EIAPP
and
therefore
will
meet
both
the
MARPOL
Annex
VI
NOx
requirements
and
the
EPA
requirements.

We
provide
an
exemption
in
40
CFR
94.1103(
b)(
3)
which
allows
a
vessel
owner
to
replace
an
existing
engine
with
a
new
uncertified
engine
or
a
new
engine
certified
to
an
earlier
standard
engine
if
it
can
be
demonstrated
that
no
new
engine
that
is
certified
to
the
emission
limits
in
effect
at
that
time
is
produced
by
any
manufacturer
with
the
appropriate
physical
or
performance
characteristics
needed
to
repower
the
vessel.
In
other
words,
if
a
new
certified
engine
is
not
available
that
can
be
used,
an
engine
manufacturer
may
produce
a
replacement
engine
that
does
not
meet
all
of
the
requirements
of
our
marine
emission­
control
program.
For
example,
if
an
vessel
has
twin
uncertified
engines
and
it
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
32
becomes
necessary
to
replace
one
of
them,
the
vessel
owner
can
request
approval
for
an
engine
manufacture
to
produce
a
new
uncertified
engine
if
it
can
be
demonstrated
that
the
vessel
will
not
function
properly
if
the
engines
are
not
identically
matched.

There
are
certain
conditions
for
this
exemption.
The
replacement
engine
must
meet
standards
at
least
as
stringent
as
those
of
the
original
engine.
So,
for
example,
if
the
original
engine
is
a
pre­
Tier
1
engine,
then
the
replacement
engine
need
not
meet
emission
limits.
If
it
is
a
Tier
1
engine,
it
need
not
meet
the
Tier
2
limits
if
those
are
the
limits
in
place
when
the
replacement
occurs.
It
should
be
noted,
however,
that
engines
that
qualify
for
this
exemption
may
still
be
subject
to
the
Annex
VI
engine
requirements.
The
Annex
VI
NOx
limits
apply
to
any
engine
that
undergoes
a
major
conversion
on
or
after
January
1,
2000.
This
includes
the
case
where
an
engine
is
replaced
by
a
new
engine
built
on
or
after
January
1,
2000.
If
a
new
replacement
engine
is
installed,
that
engine
must
be
certified
to
the
Annex
VI
NOx
limits.

Also
as
a
condition
for
the
exemption,
the
engine
manufacturer
must
take
possession
of
the
original
engine
or
make
sure
it
is
destroyed.
In
addition,
the
replacement
engine
must
be
clearly
labeled
to
show
that
it
does
not
comply
with
the
standards
and
that
sale
or
installation
of
the
engine
for
any
purpose
other
than
as
a
replacement
engine
is
a
violation
of
federal
law
and
subject
to
civil
penalty.
Our
regulations
contain
the
information
that
must
be
on
the
label;
we
are
adding
a
provision
to
cover
the
case
where
the
engine
meets
a
previous
tier
of
standards.

One
commenter
objected
to
the
new
label
provision,
asserting
that
such
a
requirement
would
be
overly
burdensome
on
the
engine
manufacturers.
This
is
because
the
requirement
would
require
the
engine
manufacturer
to
create
a
different
label
for
every
rating
that
it
wants
to
continue
to
sell
as
replacement
engines.
The
commenter
also
objected
to
the
provision
requiring
a
determination
by
the
Administrator
that
no
certified
engine
is
produced
by
any
manufacturer
with
the
appropriate
physical
or
performance
characteristics
needed
before
it
allows
an
engine
manufacturer
to
produce
and
sell
an
uncertified
replacement
engine.
The
commenter
wrote
that
this
requirement
"
imposes
an
unreasonable
and
onerous
burden
on
engine
manufacturers."
The
replacement
engine
situation
typically
arises
when
there
is
a
catastrophic
failure
of
an
engine.
Waiting
for
the
Administrator
to
make
a
determination
may
take
a
considerable
amount
of
time,
which
could
impose
significant
costs
on
the
vessel
owner.
The
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
modify
this
provision
to
make
it
consistent
with
§
89.1003(
b)(
7),
which
allows
the
engine
manufacturer
to
make
the
determination.

With
regard
to
the
labeling
requirements,
we
are
revising
the
requirements
to
be
consistent
with
the
provisions
we
are
finalizing
for
nonroad
diesel
engines
(
see
Chapter
2).
We
continue
to
believe
it
is
important
to
label
these
replacement
engines
to
ensure
that
the
ship
owner
understands
his
responsibilities
with
regard
to
the
replacement
engine,
that
a
vessel
surveyor
can
verify
that
the
engine
is
compliant,
and
that
the
engine
is
not
used
for
unauthorized
purposes
at
some
later
date.
We
believe
that
the
simplified
language
for
the
label
will
make
it
easier
for
engine
manufacturers
to
comply
with
this
requirement.

We
did
not
propose
to
revise
the
requirement
that
the
determination
be
made
by
the
Administrator
that
no
compliant
engine
will
meet
the
appropriate
physical
or
performance
Technical
Amendments
33
characteristics
needed
before
an
engine
manufacturer
may
produce
and
sell
an
uncertified
replacement
engine.
We
originally
adopted
the
provision
as
it
is
because
marine
vessels
are
different
from
other
types
of
nonroad
equipment
in
that
the
physical
and
performance
constraints
for
replacement
engines
are
not
as
great.
Most
nonroad
equipment
have
tightly
constrained
engine
compartments
that
impose
physical
limitations
on
replacement
engines.
This
is
not
the
case
for
most
marine
vessels,
given
the
large
size
of
the
engine
compartment
and
potentially
greater
flexibility
in
how
an
engine
is
installed.

In
subsequent
discussions,
engine
manufacturers
indicated
that
their
concern
about
the
Administrator
determination
arises
from
the
time
constraint
associated
with
the
conditions
under
which
a
vessel
owner
would
be
requesting
a
replacement
engine.
This
typically
occurs
when
there
has
been
a
catastrophic
engine
failure.
In
these
cases
the
vessel
is
not
usable
until
a
replacement
engine
is
found
and
installed.
The
engine
manufacturers
are
concerned
that
Administrator
review
would
take
a
considerable
amount
of
time.
In
addition,
they
are
also
concerned
that
reviewing
all
potential
replacement
engines
for
suitability
would
also
take
a
lot
of
time.

After
considering
these
comments,
we
are
revising
this
provision
to
allow
manufacturer
determination
that
no
compliant
engine
can
be
used
for
a
replacement
engine,
provided
that
certain
conditions
are
met.
First,
the
manufacturer
must
deterimine
that
no
certified
engine
is
available,
either
from
its
own
product
lineup
or
that
of
the
manufacturer
of
the
original
engine
(
if
different).
In
cases
where
a
vessel
owner
simply
wants
to
replace
an
engine
with
a
new
version
of
the
same
engine
as
part
of
a
vessel
overhaul
for
example,
it
will
still
be
necessary
to
obtain
Administrator
approval.
Second,
the
engine
manufacturer
must
document
the
reasons
why
an
engine
of
a
newer
tier
is
not
usable,
and
this
report
must
made
available
to
EPA
upon
request.
Finally,
no
other
significant
modifications
to
the
vessel
can
be
made
as
part
of
the
process
of
replacing
the
engine,
or
for
a
period
of
6
months
thereafter.
This
is
to
avoid
the
situation
where
an
engine
is
replaced
prior
to
a
vessel
modification
that
would
otherwise
result
in
the
vessel
becoming
"
new"
and
its
engines
becoming
subject
to
the
new
engine
standards.
In
addition,
the
replacement
of
important
navigation
systems
at
the
same
time
may
actually
allow
the
use
of
a
newer
tier
engine.

3.5.2
Repowering
With
a
Used
(
Rebuilt)
Engine
If
a
vessel
owner
replaces
an
existing
engine
with
a
used
(
rebuilt)
engine,
then
that
replacement
engine
is
not
required
to
be
certified
to
our
marine
standards.

Note
however,
that
if
a
vessel
owner
is
going
to
replace
an
existing
engine
on
an
existing
vessel
constructed
on
or
after
January
1
2000
with
a
used
(
rebuilt)
engine,
the
engine
must
comply
with
the
requirements
of
MARPOL
Annex
VI.
Under
these
requirements,
the
Annex
VI
NOx
limits
apply
if
the
used
(
rebuilt)
engine
undergoes
a
major
conversion.
This
means
it
is
substantially
modified
during
the
rebuilding
process
(
e.
g.,
more
was
done
than
simply
replacing
used
parts
with
identical
new
part)
or
it
has
a
maximum
continuous
rating
more
than
10
percent
higher
than
the
old
engine.
If
the
original
engine
is
being
replaced
by
an
identical
used
(
rebuilt)
engine,
then
there
are
no
Annex
VI
emission
requirements
for
the
used
(
rebuilt)
engine.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
34
The
MARPOL
Annex
VI
requirements
apply
to
diesel
marine
engines
above
130
kW.
If
the
engine
is
not
a
diesel
engine
or
is
a
diesel
engine
at
or
below
130
kW,
then
there
are
no
requirements
for
the
used
(
rebuilt)
engine
under
Annex
VI.

3.5.3
Disposal
of
the
Replaced
Engine
Our
current
regulations
require
the
engine
manufacturer
to
take
possession
of
the
engine
that
is
replaced.
We
are
revising
this
provision
to
allow
the
manufacturer
to
confirm
that
the
engine
has
been
destroyed
instead.

3.6
Other
Revisions
3.6.1
Excluded
and
Exempted
Engines
(
94.904)

We
are
adding
a
new
provision
to
Subpart
J,
Exclusion
and
Exemption
Provisions,
to
allow
an
engine
manufacturer
to
take
an
action
with
respect
to
an
exempted
or
excluded
engine
that
would
otherwise
be
prohibited,
such
as
selling
it.
Before
the
engine
manufacturer
can
take
such
an
action,
the
engine
must
either
be
certified
or
modified
to
make
it
identical
to
an
engine
that
is
already
covered
by
a
certificate.

One
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
delete
this
provision,
noting
that
the
language
of
the
exemption,
"
If
you
want
to
take
an
action
with
respect
to
an
exempted
or
excluded
engine
that
is
prohibited
by
the
exemption
or
exclusion,
such
as
selling
it,
you
need
to
certify
the
engine"
appears
to
restate
the
obvious.

The
purpose
of
the
new
language
in
94.904
was
intended
to
explicitly
allow
the
engine
manufacturer
to
remove
an
engine
from
exempted
or
excluded
status
and
allow
it
to
be
transferred
to
an
ultimate
purchaser
or
owner
or
some
other
action
to
be
taken.
Otherwise,
it
is
not
clear
that
the
exempted
or
excluded
designation
can
be
changed
once
it
is
applied
to
an
engine.
This
provision
also
describes
what
must
be
done
to
the
otherwise
exempted
or
excluded
engine
to
allow
such
an
action:
it
must
be
certified
or
made
identical
to
a
certified
engine.
This
is
identical
to
the
provision
we
recently
adopted
for
nonroad
land­
based
diesel.
We
are
finalizing
the
provision
as
proposed.

3.6.2
Requirements
Applicable
to
Vessel
Manufacturers,
Owners,
and
Operators
(
94.1001)

We
considered
revising
the
applicability
provisions
in
§
94.1001
in
Subpart
K,
Requirements
Applicable
to
Vessel
Manufacturers,
Owners,
and
Operators,
to
specify
that
some
of
the
requirements
in
that
subpart
apply
to
manufacturers,
owners,
and
operators
of
marine
vessels
that
contain
engines
with
per­
cylinder
displacement
of
at
least
2.5
liters.
Currently,
the
provisions
in
this
subpart
apply
only
to
manufacturers,
owners,
and
operators
of
marine
vessels
that
contain
engines
with
per­
cylinder
displacement
at
or
above
30
liters.

One
commenter
objected
to
this
change,
noting
that
the
requirement
in
94.1003(
c)
that
requires
vessel
manufacturers,
owners,
and
operators
to
allow
emission
tests
and
inspections
to
be
conducted
Technical
Amendments
35
and
provide
reasonable
assistance
to
perform
such
tests
or
inspections
would
be
too
onerous
for
vessels
smaller
than
those
with
Category
3
marine
diesel
engines.
This
commenter
noted
that
this
requirement
"
infringes
on
the
rights
of
vessel
owners
and
operators
by
requiring
them
to
make
their
vessels
available
for
testing
and
inspections."
The
commenter
also
note
that
EPA
proposed
this
change
without
consulting
with
owners
and
operators
of
smaller
vessels.
The
commenter
recommend
that,
at
minimum,
EPA
specify
that
94.1004(
a),
(
d),
and
(
e)
do
not
apply
to
smaller
vessels.

We
agree
with
this
comment
and
are
retaining
the
applicability
of
these
requirements
to
engines
with
per­
cylinder
displacement
at
or
above
30
liters
with
minor
editorial
changes
to
reflect
that
the
requirements
apply
only
to
Category
3
marine
diesel
engines.
We
are
also
modifying
§
94.211(
k),
which
originally
specified
that
engine
manufacturers
must
provide
the
Technical
File
required
under
MARPOL
Annex
VI
to
boat
owners;
we
believe
this
provision
should
apply
only
to
Category
3
engines
at
this
time.
Note
that
some
of
the
provisions
outlined
in
this
section
are
the
same
as
those
required
by
MARPOL
Annex
VI
and
the
NOx
Technical
Code,
and
that
those
provisions
will
apply
to
engines
above
130
kW
once
the
Annex
goes
into
force.

3.6.3
Useful
Life
One
commenter
wrote
that
the
current
useful
life
periods
for
marine
diesel
engines
are
"
arbitrarily"
set
at
10,000
hours
for
Category
1
engines,
20,000
hours
for
Category
2
engines,
and
1,000
hours
for
recreational
engines.
This
commenter
"
believes
that
these
values
do
not
fairly
represent
the
useful
lives
of
current
marine
engines
and
that
this
section
should
be
changed
accordingly."
They
also
provided
a
proposal
for
changing
the
prescribed
useful
life
periods.

We
acknowledge
the
commenter's
concern
about
the
length
of
the
useful
life
period
for
marine
diesel
engines.
The
rationale
for
the
useful
lives
in
our
current
regulations
is
set
out
in
our
previous
rulemakings
(
see
64
FR
73300,
December
29,
1999
and
67
FR
68242,
November
8,
2002.
A
revision
of
these
periods
was
not
proposed
and
would
require
considerable
analysis
of
data
about
the
ways
in
which
these
engines
are
used
that
are
not
available
at
this
time.
It
would
also
require
considerable
discussion
with
many
engine
manufacturers,
including
recreational
marine
diesel
engine
manufacturers,
as
well
as
with
other
stakeholders.
Because
the
information
presented
is
not
substantial
enough
to
justify
revision
of
the
useful
lives
in
our
current
regulations
,
we
are
not
adopting
any
changes
to
our
useful
life
provisions
in
this
action.
Instead,
we
will
consider
the
proposal
as
we
develop
our
new
marine
diesel
engine
proposal
(
see
Advance
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking,
Control
of
Emissions
of
Air
Pollution
from
New
Locomotive
Engines
and
New
Marine
Compression­
Ignition
Engines
Less
Than
30
Liters
per
Cylinder,
69
FR
39276,
June
29,
2004).

3.6.4
Test
Cycle
One
commenter
requested
EPA
allow
the
use
of
the
E3
duty
cycle
for
certifying
propeller­
law
operated
variable­
speed
auxiliary
engines
as
an
optional
alternative
to
the
use
of
the
C1
duty
cycle.
Another
commenter
subsequently
informed
EPA
that
this
revision
is
needed
because
auxiliary
engines
that
are
used
to
drive
liquid
pumps
operate
in
such
a
way
that
the
"
load
used
to
drive
it
is
proportional
to
the
engine
speed
cubed
...
which
is
the
same
as
a
propeller
curve."
Consequently,
it
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
36
would
make
more
sense
to
use
the
E3
duty
cycle
for
engines
operated
in
that
way.
This
is
not
currently
possible
because
the
provisions
of
§
94.105(
b)
state
that
the
E3
cycle
applies
to
propulsion
engines
with
fixed­
pitch
propellers
and
engines
for
which
the
other
specified
duty
cycles
do
not
apply.

After
consideration
of
this
issue
we
agree
that
the
E3
cycle
most
appropriately
tests
marine
auxiliary
engines
used
in
this
way.
Therefore,
we
are
revising
§
94.105(
b)
to
clarify
that
some
marine
auxiliary
engines
can
be
certified
using
the
E3
duty
cycle,
so
long
as
the
manufacturer
can
demonstrate,
as
is
the
case
with
auxiliary
engines
used
to
drive
liquid
pumps,
that
the
E3
cycle
is
more
appropriate
than
any
of
the
other
specified
cycles.
It
should
be
noted
that
MARPOL
Annex
VI
allows
use
of
the
E3
duty
cycle
for
propeller­
law­
operated
main
and
propeller­
law­
operated
auxiliary
engines.

3.6.5
Miscellaneous
Corrections.

We
are
making
the
following
additional
changes
to
address
minor
corrections
from
the
proposal:
­
94.2
Definitions:
Remove
obsolete
definitions
for
auxiliary
and
propulsion
engines.
­
94.9
Useful
life:
We
are
revising
the
provisions
for
manufacturers
to
request
a
shorter
useful
life
with
the
similar
provisions
already
in
place
for
Large
SI
engines,
consistent
with
comments
received
from
manufacturers
or
marine
diesel
engines.
This
also
involves
labeling
engines
with
useful­
life
information
only
if
the
applicable
useful
life
is
different
than
the
specified
default
values.
­
94.12
Small­
volume
provisions:
Fix
cross
references.
­
94.106
NTE
testing
procedures:
Fix
the
formula
for
the
lower
bound
on
the
NTE
zone
to
match
the
formula
given
in
the
corresponding
figure.
­
94.212
Labeling:
Correct
improper
reference,
and
remove
the
requirement
to
include
useful
life
from
the
label
in
situations
where
the
manufacturer
uses
the
default
value
specified
in
the
regulation.
Manufacturers
would
need
to
include
useful
life
on
the
label
only
if
they
specify
a
shorter
or
longer
useful
life
under
the
provisions
of
§
94.9(
a)(
2)
or
(
a)(
3).
­
94.806
Importation
of
partially
complete
engines:
To
allow
for
importation
of
engines
that
are
not
yet
in
their
certified
configuration,
we
are
adding
a
reference
to
40
CFR
1068.330.
This
includes
certain
limitations
to
prevent
importers
from
abusing
this
provision.
­
94.907
Engine
dressing:
Fix
cross
reference.
­
94.912
Exemption
for
marine
engines
in
land­
based
family:
Make
sure
that
the
overview
information
in
§
94.904
references
this
new
section.
­
94.915
Staged­
assembly
exemption:
As
described
in
Chapter
1,
we
have
added
a
new
provision
allowing
manufacturers
to
assemble
engines
in
different
locations,
provided
that
they
maintain
control
of
the
engines
at
all
times,
and
inform
us
that
they
are
using
this
exemption.
We
may
require
that
manufacturers
take
certain
steps
to
ensure
that
engines
end
up
in
their
certified
configuration.
­
94.1103
Engine
repower:
Fix
paragraph
numbering.
Technical
Amendments
37
Chapter
4:
Locomotives
(
40
CFR
part
92)

Changes
Being
Adopted
We
are
making
the
following
changes
to
40
CFR
part
92.
A
large
number
of
these
changes
were
proposed.
One
is
a
correction
to
update
the
reference
to
the
appropriate
test
method.
The
remainder
are
being
made
in
response
to
public
comments.
In
most
cases,
the
comment
came
from
the
Engine
Manufacturers
Association.
See
the
text
after
the
table
for
additional
discussion
of
the
public
comments.

Regulatory
Section
Description
of
Change
Proposed
or
Response
to
Comment
§
92.1
(
a)
&
(
d)
Add
paragraph
(
d)
to
clarify
that
subpart
L
applies
to
everyone.
Proposed
§
92.2
Change
"
unique"
to
"
specific"
in
definition
of
calibration.
Proposed
§
92.2
Add
to
definition
of
locomotive
an
option
to
allow
low
power
locomotives
to
be
certified
under
part
92
Response
to
Comment
§
92.2
Clarify
that
750
hp
limit
applies
to
total
combined
power
for
multiengine
locomotives
Response
to
Comment
§
92.2
Add
"
manufactured"
to
paragraph
(
5)
of
definition
of
new
locomotive
Proposed
§
92.2
Add
"
percent"
to
definition
of
repower
Proposed
§
92.8(
b)
Add
allowance
to
measure
crankcase
emissions
separately
Response
to
Comment
§
92.104(
b)(
1)(
i)
Add
reference
to
speed
and
load
"
setpoints"
and
add
1.0
hp
lower
limit
for
load
setpoint
tolerance
Response
to
Comment
§
92.105(
d)
Delete
separate
voltmeter,
ammeter,
and
wattmeter
accuracy
and
precision
specification
Response
to
Comment
§
92.106(
b)(
1)(
ii)
Relax
torque
accuracy
requirements
Response
to
Comment
§
92.109(
c)(
3)
Change
reference
for
alcohol
fuels
to
part
1065
subpart
I
Correction
§
92.114(
a)(
2)
Limit
demonstration
requirement
to
notch
8
operation
Response
to
Comment
§
92.114(
d)(
2)
Allow
lower
backpressures
Proposed
§
92.114(
e)(
1)
Change
reference
for
"
subpart
N
of
part
86"
to
"
40
CFR
part
1065"
Proposed
§
92.123
(
a)(
2)(
i)
Move
the
word
"
only"
Response
to
Comment
§
92.123
(
a)(
2)(
ii)
Delete
the
word
"
not"
Proposed
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
38
Footnote
2
of
Table
B124­
1
Allow
shorter
time
in
notch
for
smoke
testing
Response
to
Comment
Table
B124­
1
Clarify
that
15
minute
maximum
refers
to
time
after
lowest
idle
setting
is
reached
Proposed
§
92.126
(
b)(
3)
Allow
longer
averaging
times
Response
to
Comment
§
92.131
(
b)(
3)
Allow
option
to
average
steady­
state
smoke
measurements
Response
to
Comment
§
92.132(
d)
Correct
equation:
KH=
[
C1+
C2exp((­
.0143)(
10.714))]/
[
C1+
C2exp((­
0.0143)(
1000H))]
Proposed
§
92.203(
d)(
1)(
i)
Correct
reference
from
§
92.208
to
§
92.204
Proposed
§
92.204(
a)
Clarify
that
separate
families
are
required
for
freshly
manufactured
and
remanufactured
locomotives
Response
to
Comment
§
92.205(
a)&(
e),
§
92.210(
d)(
2)&(#),
§
92.215(
b)
Correct
reference
from
"
subpart"
to
"
part"
Proposed
§
92.208(
a)
and
(
b)
Change
"
in
which"
to
"
for
which".
Proposed
§
92.210
Make
reference
plural
in
paragraph
(
b)(
1),
and
add
paragraph
(
b)(
2)
to
clarify
that
manufacturers
making
engine
modifications
within
an
engine
family
must
show
that
the
modified
engines
still
meet
emission
standards.
Proposed
§
92.212
Correct
typo
in
(
b)(
2)(
v)(
G),
replace
"
Locomotive"
with
"
Engine"
in
(
c)(
2)(
v)(
A),
correct
the
applicable
manufacture
date
in
(
c)(
2)(
v)(
D)(
2),
and
clarify
that
manufacturers
and
remanufacturers
may
add
a
subheading
to
minimize
mislabeling
Proposed
and
Response
to
Comment
§
92.215(
a)(
2)(
i)
(
A)
Correct
typo
in
"
process"
Proposed
§
92.216
Delete
paragraph
(
a)(
2)
to
allow
the
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
to
represent
itself
at
hearings.
Proposed
§
92.403(
b)
Change
"
effect"
to
"
affect"
Response
to
Comment
§
92.508(
e)
and
§
92.511(
g)
Change
30
days
to
45
days
Response
to
Comment
§
92.512(
e)
Delete
"
is
made"
Proposed
§
92.806
Add
section
to
apply
40
CFR
1068.330
Response
to
Comment
§
92.906(
a)
Delete
"
as
defined
in
§
92.2".
Proposed
Technical
Amendments
7"
Inclusion
of
the
Railpower
Green
Goat
Hybrid
Locomotive
40
CFR
92
Averaging,
Trading,
and
Banking"
e­
mail
from
Christopher
Weaver,
Railpower,
May
7,
2004
(
Docket
#
OAR­
2004­
0017­
0003).

39
§
92.907(
a)(
3)
and
(
b)(
3)
Increase
sales
limits
Response
to
Comment
§
92.912
Add
a
new
provision
allowing
manufacturers
to
assemble
engines
in
different
locations,
as
described
in
Chapter
1.
Response
to
Comment
§
92.1106(
a)
Correct
the
penalty
for
tampering
to
be
based
on
each
engine
in
violation,
as
opposed
to
each
engine
and
each
day.
Proposed
Appendix
IV
to
part
92
Correct
"
13­
mode"
to
"
10­
mode"
Proposed
Public
Comments
Definition
of
Locomotives
and
Hybrids
By
definition,
the
standards
for
locomotive
engines
currently
do
not
apply
to
engines
used
in
locomotives
if
the
locomotive
has
a
maximum
power
below
750
kW.
These
engines
are
generally
designed
and
manufactured
for
other
applications,
so
they
were
excluded
from
locomotive
standards
and
procedures.
Prior
to
the
proposal,
we
received
a
request
to
allow
engines
below
750
kW
that
are
used
in
locomotives
to
optionally
certify
to
locomotive
standards
instead
of
the
otherwise
applicable
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
89,
and
we
requested
comment
regarding
this
issue
and
the
related
issue
of
hybrid
locomotives.
7
We
are
finalizing
a
provision
that
will
allow
manufacturers
to
certify
locomotives
that
have
total
power
less
than
750kW.
This
provision
will
allow
manufacturers
of
hybrid
locomotives
to
certify
under
40
CFR
part
92.
EMA
commented
that
if
we
do
this,
we
should
specify
test
procedures
and
duty­
cycle
weightings
for
such
hybrids.
We
agree
that
this
would
be
appropriate
in
the
long
term,
but
do
not
believe
that
this
rulemaking
would
be
the
proper
place
for
such
provisions.
Instead,
we
expect
to
rely
the
testing
and
calculation
flexibility
of
§
92.207
and
§
92.132(
e)
to
certify
hybrids
on
a
caseby
case
basis
in
order
to
meet
the
stated
goal
of
§
92.103
to
measure
emissions
"
in
a
manner
representative
of
a
typical
operating
cycle."
A
manufacturer
seeking
a
certificate
for
a
hybrid
should
first
identify
the
typical
operating
cycle
for
the
locomotive.
EPA
would
then
determine
the
typical
operating
modes
to
be
tested
and
how
to
weight
them
to
be
representative
of
a
typical
operating
cycle.

This
flexibility
would
not
allow
EPA
to
account
for
the
lower
engine
horsepower
needed
with
hybrids
to
provide
equivalent
tractive
horsepower.
While
we
agree
in
concept
that
such
adjustment
may
be
appropriate,
the
existing
flexibility
does
not
allow
for
them
and
we
believe
it
would
be
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rule
to
revise
the
regulations
to
allow
for
such
adjustments.
These
regulatory
changes
would
more
properly
be
considered
in
a
rulemaking
more
focused
on
issues
of
emission
standard
stringency.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
40
Definition
of
Remanufacture
The
existing
definition
says
that
"
remanufacture
means
to
replace,
or
inspect
and
qualify,
each
and
every
power
assembly
of
a
locomotive
or
locomotive
engine,
whether
during
a
single
maintenance
event
or
cumulatively
within
a
five
year
period."
EMA
asked
that
remanufacturers
be
allowed
to
limit
the
practice
of
"
inspecting
and
qualifying"
(
i.
e.,
not
replacing
every
power
assembly
with
remanufactured
power
assemblies
at
the
time
of
engine
remanufacture).
However,
remanufacturers
already
can
limit
this
practice.
Therefore
we
do
not
need
to
make
any
changes
to
the
regulations
in
response
to
this
comment.

More
importantly,
the
remanufacturer
is
actually
expected
to
maintain
this
kind
of
control
over
the
remanufacturing
process.
By
allowing
an
engine
to
be
remanufactured
under
its
certificate,
the
remanufacturer
is
assuming
responsibility
for
the
emission
performance
of
that
remanufactured
engine.
As
such,
it
should
take
whatever
steps
are
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
remanufactured
locomotive
is
identical
to
the
locomotive
described
in
the
application
for
certification.
Remanufacturers
should
allow
inspecting
and
qualifying
power
assemblies
only
in
those
cases
in
which
they
can
be
certain
that
the
previously
used
power
assembly
will
not
cause
an
engine
to
exceed
an
emission
standard.
The
remanufacturer
might
also
limit
the
certificate
to
only
those
engines
remanufactured
by
installers
that
been
properly
trained.

While
certificate
holders
have
responsibility
for
the
emission
performance
of
locomotives
remanufactured
under
their
certificates,
§
92.209
also
assigns
responsibility
to
others
involved
in
the
remanufacturing
process.
In
practice,
EPA
will
generally
try
to
require
remedial
action
for
in­
use
noncompliance
from
the
persons
who
caused
the
problem.

Fuel
Flow
Measurements
The
regulations
specify
one­
minute
or
lower
averaging
times
for
continuous
fuel
flow
measurements.
EMA
ask
to
allow
longer
averaging
times.
We
agree
that
longer
averaging
time
may
be
appropriate.
Revised
section
92.126(
b)(
3)
states:

Sampling
periods
greater
than
one
minute
are
allowed,
consistent
with
good
engineering
practice.
Fuel
flow
averaging
periods
should
generally
match
the
emission
sampling
periods
as
closely
as
is
practicable.

Assuming
that
actual
fuel
flow
rates
are
constant
in
each
notch,
longer
averaging
times
should
be
consistent
with
"
good
engineering
practice".
However,
if
the
fuel
flow
rate
varies
with
time,
then
the
averaging
period
should
be
such
that
it
best
represents
the
amount
of
fuel
consumed
during
the
same
period
over
which
emissions
are
being
averaged.

Test
Fuel
EMA
asked
that
EPA
lower
the
required
sulfur
content
of
locomotive
and
marine
diesel
test
fuel
to
be
limited
to
500
ppm,
consistent
with
the
upcoming
change
to
the
in­
use
fuel.
However,
such
a
Technical
Amendments
41
change
would
have
the
effect
of
relaxing
the
existing
PM
standards.
We
believe
that
any
change
to
the
test
fuel
specifications
must
be
made
in
conjunction
with
a
revision
to
the
Tier
0,
1,
and
2
PM
emission
standards.

Test
Conditions
EMA
commented
that
testing
should
be
limited
to
temperatures
between
45
°
F
and
105
°
F,
and
EPA
eliminate
the
option
for
manufacturers/
remanufacturers
to
test
at
higher
temperatures
without
correction.
However,
we
see
no
harm
in
allowing
manufacturers/
remanufacturers
the
option
of
testing
at
higher
temperatures.
Given
the
size
of
locomotives,
outdoor
testing
can
be
more
practical
than
indoor
testing
in
some
cases,
and
in
some
regions
of
the
country,
temperature
spikes
above
105
°
F
will
occur.
This
option
allows
manufacturers/
remanufacturers
to
use
higher
temperature
test
data
instead
of
retesting.
It
is
also
important
to
note
that
EPA
does
not
have
this
option,
and
thus,
this
option
does
not
create
any
risk
to
manufacturers/
remanufacturers.

Smoke
Testing
The
previous
regulations
define
the
steady­
state
smoke
emission
rates
as
the
highest
reading
occurring
more
than
two
minutes
after
the
notch
change
(
excluding
peaks
lasting
less
than
5
seconds,
caused
by
such
random
events
as
the
cycling
of
an
air
compressor).
EMA
commented
that
steadystate
smoke
emission
rate
should
instead
be
an
average
value.
The
existing
regulations
were
intended
to
allow
the
steady­
state
value
to
be
easily
read
from
a
strip
chart
recorder
without
mathematical
manipulation.
Peaks
caused
by
the
cycling
of
an
air
compressor
can
be
readily
ignored
using
this
approach,
and
the
highest
non­
peak
value
can
be
readily
identified.
We
still
believe
that
this
is
the
best
approach
for
reading
strip
chart
smoke
traces.
However,
we
agree
that
this
is
not
the
best
approach
for
digitally
recorded
smoke
measurements.
Mathematical
averaging
is
simple
with
digitally
recorded
data,
but
identifying
compressor
peaks
can
be
more
complicated.
Thus,
we
are
revising
§
92.131(
b)(
3)
to
allow
manufacturers
the
option
to
use
the
average
value
including
peaks.
Using
the
average
value
instead
of
the
highest
value
would
lower
the
smoke
value
for
digital
data,
while
including
the
compressor
peaks
would
raise
the
value.
We
believe
that
the
combination
of
these
two
effects
would
result
in
no
net
change
in
the
stringency
of
the
steady­
state
smoke
standard.

NOx
Correction
Section
92.132(
e)
allows
for
the
use
of
calculations
other
than
those
listed
in
the
regulations.
EMA
suggested
in
its
comments
the
following
specific
criteria
for
the
approval
of
alternative
correction
equations:

(
a)
The
manufacturer
will
define
the
ambient
temperature
and
humidity
range
for
which
their
developed
NOx
correction
factor
will
apply.
(
b)
(
1)
Temperature
and
humidity
effects
on
NOx
concentration
in
the
engine
exhaust
must
be
evaluated
at
a
minimum
of
3
points
across
the
defined
temperature
and
defined
humidity
range.
(
2)
The
manufacturer
will
be
required
to
measure
NOx
emissions,
for
each
temperature/
humidity
matrix
point,
at
a
minimum
of
three
engine
notch
or
power
settings
as
follows
­
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
42
°
full
load
°
intermediate
load
°
idle
(
c)
The
alternative
correction
factor
must
adjust
to
standard
ambient
conditions
of
86
°
F
for
temperature
and
humidity
of
75
grains
moisture
per
pound
of
dry
air
for
locomotive
engine
operations.
(
d)
Test
variability
should
be
minimized,
to
the
extent
possible,
for
other
parameters
that
are
not
directly
relevant
to
the
investigation
of
the
effects
on
NOx
emissions
that
result
from
changes
in
ambient
temperature
and
humidity.
(
e)
All
test
data
and
calculations
used
in
the
development
of
the
manufacturer's
alternative
correction
factor
will
be
submitted
to
EPA
for
review
and
approval.
(
f)
EPA
will
review
manufacturers'
submissions
and
grant
or
deny
approval
within
90
calendar
days
of
receipt
of
the
request
by
EPA.

While
we
believe
that
these
criteria
would
generally
be
appropriate,
we
are
not
incorporating
these
specifications
into
the
regulations
at
this
time.
We
agree
completely
with
paragraphs
(
c),
(
d),
and
(
e)
of
EMA's
recommendation,
but
see
EMA's
recommendation
of
the
number
of
data
points
required
in
paragraph
(
b)
as
a
minimum
number.
Good
engineering
practice
would
obviously
require
additional
points
where
test­
to­
test
variability
is
significant
or
where
the
fit
of
the
data
is
not
linear.
We
agree
with
EMA's
paragraph
(
a),
with
the
clarification
that
EMA
means
that
corrections
cannot
be
used
outside
of
the
range
of
data.
For
example,
if
the
lowest
temperature
tested
to
develop
the
correction
factor
is
60
°
F,
then
the
correction
cannot
be
used
for
testing
below
60
°
F.
Finally,
given
the
potential
complexity
involve
in
NOx
correction
factors,
we
cannot
agree
to
always
approve
or
deny
approval
within
90
days.
Nevertheless,
we
will
attempt
to
complete
the
approval
process
as
quickly
as
possible.

Use
of
Nonroad
Engines
Section
92.907
allows
the
use
of
a
limited
number
of
nonroad
engines
in
locomotive
applications
without
certifying
under
the
locomotive
program.
Cummins
requested
that
EPA
lift
the
restrictions
on
the
number
of
nonroad­
certified
engines
that
may
be
used
in
locomotive
applications,
and
asked
for
a
clarification
of
EPA's
justification
for
the
limits.
We
have
limits
on
the
number
of
nonroad
engines
that
can
be
used
for
four
primary
reasons:

1)
The
locomotive
program
is
uniquely
tailored
to
the
railroad
industry
to
ensure
emission
reductions
for
actual
locomotive
operation
over
30­
40
year
service
lives.
2)
At
sufficiently
high
sales
levels,
the
per
locomotive
cost
of
certifying
under
part
92
become
less
significant.
3)
It
is
somewhat
unfair
to
allow
nonroad
engine
manufacturers
the
option
of
certifying
the
engines
in
whichever
program
they
believe
to
be
more
advantageous
to
them,
considering
factors
such
as
compliance
testing
requirements.
4)
States
and
localities
have
much
less
ability
to
regulate
locomotives
than
other
engine
types,
and
thus
EPA
has
an
obligation
to
monitor
locomotive
performance
more
closely.
Technical
Amendments
43
We
believe
that
these
reasons
remain
valid.
Nevertheless,
we
have
reconsidered
the
sales
limits
and
are
adjusting
them
upward.
We
now
believe
there
may
be
cases
in
which
the
use
of
nonroad­
certified
will
provide
very
significant
additional
emission
reductions
beyond
the
locomotive
program.
In
these
cases
we
would
like
to
have
the
ability
to
allow
slightly
higher
numbers.
However,
under
the
revised
regulations,
we
will
still
retain
the
right
to
deny
such
exemptions
because
of
"
adverse
environmental
or
economic
impacts."

Cummins
also
asked
that
EPA
clarify
that
the
use
of
nonroad
certified
engines
is
applicable
to
both
new
and
remanufactured
locomotives.
We
believe
that
the
regulations
are
already
clear
that
§
92.907(
a)
applies
to
repowering
existing
(
i.
e.,
remanufactured)
locomotives
and
§
92.907(
b)
applies
to
freshly
manufactured
switch
locomotives.

Offer
for
Sale
EMA
asked
that
EPA
not
use
the
term
"
offer
for
sale"
in
the
prohibited
acts
(
40
CFR
92.1103).
They
are
concerned
that
this
would
be
problematic
because
locomotives
are
generally
manufactured
only
after
a
sales
agreement
has
been
completed.
The
manufacturer
offers
to
manufacture
and
sell
a
locomotive
at
least
several
months
before
it
actually
has
obtained
a
certificate
of
conformity
for
the
locomotive.
However,
the
phrase
"
offer
to
sell"
does
not
apply
to
products
that
have
not
yet
been
manufactured
(
or
remanufactured,
as
applicable).
It
is
used
in
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
in
many
other
EPA
rules
and
has
not
caused
problems
in
the
past.

Repowering
and
Replacement
Engines
EMA
asked
that
EPA
exempt
replacement
engines
as
we
do
in
other
nonroad
engine
programs.
However,
such
exemption
is
not
necessary
with
locomotives.
Long
after
the
manufacturer
has
stopped
manufacturing
brand
new
engines,
that
manufacturer
(
along
with
other
remanufacturers)
will
be
certifying
remanufacturing
systems,
and
remanufactured
engines
will
likely
be
available.
Thus,
we
believe
that
the
cases
in
which
a
brand
new
engine
will
be
needed
will
be
rare.
Nevertheless,
we
are
finalizing
a
regulatory
change
in
40
CFR
92.204
to
explicitly
allow
manufacturers
to
include
freshly
manufactured
locomotive
engines
in
the
same
engine
family
as
remanufactured
locomotives.
In
some
cases,
all
of
the
parts
of
a
truly
remanufactured
engine
are
brand
new
except
for
the
engines
block.
We
do
not
see
why
the
engine
should
be
treated
differently
merely
because
it
also
has
a
new
block.
Thus,
under
the
revised
regulations,
manufacturers
will
be
allowed
to
include
entirely
new
engines
in
their
remanufactured
engine
family,
provide
the
engine
is
identical
to
those
described
in
the
application.
We
believe
that
this
will
resolve
the
issue,
since
manufacturers
would
merely
need
to
certify
a
remanufacturing
system
for
each
engine
it
manufactures.

Labeling
EMA
commented
that
EPA
should
make
the
locomotive
and
engine
label
identical
to
avoid
mislabeling.
However,
these
labels
serve
very
different
purposes.
The
locomotive
label
defines
the
standards
and/
or
FELs
to
which
the
locomotive
is
initially
certified
and
that
will
thus
apply
to
engines
used
later
in
that
locomotive.
It
is
worth
clarifying
that
§
92.212(
b)(
1)
requires
that
the
locomotive
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
44
label
be
applied
only
when
a
locomotive
is
originally
manufactured
(
or
originally
remanufactured
as
a
Tier
0
locomotive)
or
when
a
remanufacturer
chooses
to
certify
the
locomotive
to
a
different
FEL
than
it
was
originally
certified.
Thus
mislabeling
should
not
be
a
long
term
problem.
Nevertheless,
we
are
adding
an
interim
provision
to
the
regulations
that
will
allow
manufacturers
to
use
identical
engine
and
locomotive
labels
for
Tier
0
locomotives,
provided
they
demonstrate
to
us
that
they
will
not
supply
two
labels
in
kits
for
locomotives
that
have
already
been
labeled
during
a
previous
remanufacture.
This
will
prevent
the
availability
of
"
extra"
labels
that
could
be
fraudulently
used
to
make
uncertified
engines
appear
to
be
in
compliance
with
the
standards.

Other
issues
There
are
several
other
minor
changes
that
we
are
making
in
response
to
comment
that
are
worth
discussing
very
briefly.
Several
of
the
comments
requested
simplifications
of
the
test
procedures.
We
determined
that
these
changes
will
not
compromise
test
accuracy
and
are
adopting
them.
More
specifically,
we
are
revising
§
92.8(
b)
to
allow
crankcase
emissions
to
be
measured
in
the
same
way
as
other
nonroad
engines.
We
are
revising
§
92.104(
b)(
1)(
i)
and
§
92.106(
b)(
1)(
ii)
to
address
problems
that
can
occur
at
very
low
power
levels
or
very
low
torque
levels.
We
are
revising
§
92.114(
a)(
2)
and
footnote
2
of
Table
B124­
1
to
eliminate
unnecessary
test
burdens.

Under
the
previous
regulations
manufacturers
were
required
to
submit
production­
line
testing
reports
within
30
days
of
the
end
of
each
quarter.
Manufacturers
noted
that
occasionally
new
information
would
become
available
a
few
days
after
the
deadline.
We
decided
that
it
is
better
to
allow
the
manufacturers
15
additional
days
to
ensure
that
their
reports
are
complete.

Finally,
we
are
adding
§
92.806.
This
change
is
being
made
to
be
consistent
with
other
nonroad
programs.
Technical
Amendments
45
Chapter
5:
Small
nonroad
spark­
ignition
engines
(
40
CFR
part
90)

I.
Summary
and
Analysis
of
Comments
We
received
comments
on
some
of
the
proposed
provisions,
with
additional
comments
raising
new
issues
for
us
to
consider.
The
following
discussion
presents
a
summary
and
analysis
of
all
these
comments.
Section
II
identifies
the
changes
included
in
the
proposal,
with
a
brief
rationale
for
each
of
those
changes.

Issue
Response
90.612:
EMA
recommended
changing
the
exemption
allowing
an
owner
to
import
a
nonroad
engine
solely
for
the
purpose
of
repair
or
alteration.
The
change
would
align
with
the
similar
provisions
for
locomotive
and
marine
diesel
engines.
This
would
generally
allow
engine
operation
for
such
engines
as
needed
for
transportation
to
facilitate
repairs.
Nonroad
equipment
generally
does
not
need
to
travel
under
its
own
power
for
long
distances
to
arrive
at
a
repair
facility.
However,
we
agree
that
the
equipment
may
need
to
be
operated,
for
example,
to
drive
up
onto
a
trailer.
We
don't
believe
expanding
the
exemption
will
lead
to
abuse,
and
have
changed
the
regulation
accordingly..

90.3:
EMA
and
Briggs
recommended
keeping
the
current
definition
of
gross
power,
which
gives
manufacturers
the
discretion
to
pick
the
appropriate
value.
We
did
not
propose
to
make
a
change,
but
requested
comment
on
the
concept
of
revising
power
definitions
for
determining
whether
an
engine
should
be
subject
to
part
90,
which
hinges
on
whether
an
engine
is
above
or
below
19
kW
(
or
30
kW
if
displacement
is
at
or
below
1000
cc).
For
current
engine
designs,
the
displacement
threshold
seems
to
be
more
of
a
determining
factor
than
the
power.
We
therefore
believe
it
is
best
to
address
this
concern
in
the
upcoming
rulemaking
to
set
new
standards
for
these
engines.
However,
the
relationship
of
part
90
to
parts
1048
and
1051depend
on
common
definitions.
These
other
parts
use
the
term
maximum
engine
power,
so
we
are
making
the
nonsubstantive
change
to
add
a
definition
for
maximum
engine
power
based
on
the
existing
definition
in
90.3
for
gross
power.

90.615:
Manufacturers
have
expressed
a
need
for
an
exemption
that
would
allow
them
to
import
engines
that
are
covered
by
a
certificate,
but
are
not
yet
in
their
certified
configuration.
Final
assembly
is
planned
inside
the
United
States.
We
are
including
in
the
final
rule
a
cross
reference
in
part
90
to
40
CFR
1068.330,
which
was
designed
for
this
situation.

EMA
and
Briggs
suggested
to
initiate
a
task
force
before
applying
part
1065
to
Small
SI,
since
it
is
geared
toward
testing
diesel
engines.
The
testing
regulations
in
part
1065
were
initially
developed
for
recreational
and
industrial
applications
of
spark­
ignition
engines,
so
we
believe
it
will
require
only
minor
modifications
before
applying
to
small
consumer
engines.
Manufacturers
are
encouraged
to
raise
any
specific
concerns
with
the
test
procedures
in
part
1065,
either
before
or
after
we
propose
to
apply
them
to
Small
SI
engines.
In
meetings
with
engine
manufacturers,
we
have
started
the
process
of
reviewing
test
procedures
to
ensure
that
we
adopt
appropriate
provisions
for
Small
SI
engines.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
46
90.120:
Southwest
Research
Institute
and
EMA
requested
clarification
that
updating
the
test­
procedure
references
from
part
86
to
part
1065
aren't
intended
to
require
lab
upgrades.
The
references
introduced
in
part
89
are
intended
only
to
facilitate
the
migration
of
specified
test
procedures
for
heavyduty
highway
engines
from
part
86,
subpart
N,
to
part
1065.
Most
of
these
references
point
to
background
information
or
optional
systems.
There
is
no
intent
to
require
new
equipment
or
revised
procedures
as
a
result
of
these
changed
references.
To
ensure
that
this
is
the
case,
we
are
adding
a
provision
in
§
90.120
stating
that
any
of
the
references
to
part
1065
may
be
taken
from
part
86
as
a
pre­
approved
alternative
procedure.

90.119(
a)(
1)(
i).
EMA
suggested
that
EPA
allow
rated
and
intermediate
speed
engines
in
the
same
family
and
base
the
certification
of
that
family
on
the
worst
case
engine/
test
cycle
combination.
Production
line
audit
or
SEA
audit
tests
for
individual
engines
should
be
based
on
the
intended
use
of
the
engine.
We
agree
that
this
makes
sense
for
the
main
difference
between
these
engines
is
the
governor
specification.
Industry
will
make
a
fair
determination
of
worst
case
for
certification.

90.312(
c)(
2).
EMA
requested
that
we
allow
either
zero
air
or
nitrogen
to
calibrate
all
analyzers
for
raw­
gas
measurements.
We
believe
this
change
is
not
appropriate,
since
some
analyzers
respond
differently
to
zero
air
and
nitrogen.
We
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
leave
§
90.312
unchanged
for
Phase
2
engines
and
address
the
broader
issue
of
calibration
procedures
to
part
1065
(
in
the
context
of
the
upcoming
Phase
3
rulemaking),
which
takes
a
substantially
different
approach.

90.324.
EMA
requested
that
we
not
require
pressure­
side
leak
checks,
since
they
do
not
affect
measured
results.
We
agree
with
this
comment
and
have
revised
the
regulations
accordingly.

90.324(
a)(
3)
and
90.409(
c)(
6).
EMA
noted
the
need
to
correct
certain
references.
We
agree
with
this
comment
and
have
revised
the
regulations
accordingly.

90.326.
EMA
requested
that
we
change
the
regulations
to
no
longer
require
calibration
using
all
of
an
analyzer's
ranges,
but
rather,
to
require
this
only
for
the
ranges
used
during
testing.
We
believe
the
regulations
do
not
require
calibration
using
ranges
that
are
not
used
during
testing,
but
we
have
modified
the
language
to
make
this
clearer.

90.426(
a).
EMA
requested
omitting
the
requirement
to
submit
CO2
emission
levels
for
certification.
Manufacturers
must
measure
CO2
to
calculate
final
emission
results.
It
is
important
to
report
CO2
emission
levels
as
a
way
of
verifying
proper
calculations.

90.405(
d)(
10).
EMA
requested
that
we
not
require
measurement
and
reporting
of
fuel
inlet
pressure.
We
agree
with
this
comment
and
have
revised
the
regulations
accordingly.

90.408(
b)(
2).
EMA
recommended
that
we
allow
manufacturers
to
assess
the
influence
of
the
sample
collection
o
fuel
flow
and
torque
after
testing.
We
agree
that
this
verification
can
be
done
independently
of
testing.
In
fact,
measurement
technologies
have
developed
substantially
since
these
regulations
were
originally
drafted.
We
are
therefore
adopting
a
revised
provision
related
to
fuelflow
and
torque
affects
to
base
the
verification
on
good
engineering
judgment,
with
a
variety
of
suggested
practices.

90.417(
a),
90.419(
e),
and
90.426(
g).
EMA
requested
that
we
remove
the
requirement
to
measure
and
report
brakespecific
fuel
consumption,
since
it
is
unrelated
to
showing
that
engines
meet
emission
standards.
We
agree
with
this
comment
and
have
revised
the
regulations
accordingly.
Technical
Amendments
47
90.417(
b).
EMA
requested
that
we
change
the
requirement
to
control
fuel
flow
measurements
to
within
1
percent
of
full
scale,
by
revising
this
specification
to
2
percent
of
full
scale
for
non­
idle
modes
.
This
points
out
that
the
provision
in
this
paragraph
is
inconsistent
with
the
table
of
values
in
the
appendix
to
this
subpart.
We
disagree
with
this
comment.
The
table
of
values,
in
Appendix
to
subpart
D,
specifies
a
different
allowance
for
fuel­
measurement
variability,
but
this
relates
to
a
system
measurement,
rather
than
some
specification
for
the
fuel­
flow
measurement
specifically.
Variations
up
to
2
percent
of
full
scale
would
allow
too
much
variability
for
this
measurement.
For
part
1065,
we
are
moving
in
the
direction
of
reducing
the
variability
in
this
measurement.

90.418.
EMA
requested
that
we
decrease
the
minimum
sampling
time
from
four
minutes
to
two
minutes.
We
agree
with
this
comment
and
have
revised
the
regulations
accordingly.

90.419(
b)
and
(
c),
and
90.426(
e)
and
(
f).
EMA
recommended
changing
the
humidity
correction
for
NOx
emissions
to
follow
the
provisions
proposed
for
part
1065,
which
involves
a
linear
correction.
We
agree
with
this
comment
and
have
revised
the
regulations
accordingly.

90.706:
Manufacturers
pointed
out
that
the
equation
for
determining
sample
sizes
for
production­
line
testing
should
be
corrected
to
match
the
similar
equations
from
other
regulatory
parts.
We
agree
that
the
equation
was
published
with
the
exponent
in
the
wrong
place
and
have
revised
the
regulations
to
correct
this.

In
addition
to
these
comments,
we
have
identified
a
need
to
revise
the
proposed
language
for
§
90.421.
This
section
included
a
variety
of
references
in
paragraph
(
b)(
4)(
ii)
to
part
1065.
While
it
is
appropriate
to
change
any
existing
part
86
references
to
point
to
part
1065,
we
mistakenly
changed
some
part
90
references
to
point
to
part
1065.
We
are
therefore
removing
these
subparagraphs
from
the
regulatory
language
in
this
rulemaking
to
keep
the
existing
regulations
and
references
unchanged
for
those
provisions.

II.
Summary
of
Rulemaking
Changes
We
proposed
the
following
changes
part
90:

"
Add
a
new
§
90.913
to
better
define
the
responsibilities
for
manufacturers
choosing
to
certify
their
engines
below
19
kW
to
the
emission
standards
for
Large
SI
engines
in
40
CFR
part
1048.

"
Revise
§
90.1
to
cross­
reference
provisions
in
parts
86,
1048,
and
1051
that
allow
highway
motorcycle
engines
and
nonroad
engines
above
19
kW
to
meet
the
requirements
in
part
90
under
certain
conditions.

"
Update
current
references
to
test
procedures
in
40
CFR
part
86
by
pointing
instead
to
40
CFR
part
1065.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
48
Chapter
6:
Large
nonroad
spark­
ignition
engines
(
40
CFR
part
1048)

I.
Summary
and
Analysis
of
Comments
We
received
comments
on
some
of
the
proposed
provisions
in
part
1048,
with
additional
comments
raising
new
issues
for
us
to
consider.
The
following
discussion
presents
a
summary
and
analysis
of
all
these
comments.
Section
II
identifies
the
changes
included
in
the
proposal,
with
a
brief
rationale
for
each
of
those
changes.

Issue
Response
1048.205:
Impco
responded
to
the
proposed
changes
in
the
application
for
certification,
noting
that
the
detailed
specifications
describing
auxiliary
emission­
control
devices
will
take
an
additional
10­
20
hours
longer
for
each
family,
with
no
benefit.
While
the
regulations
call
for
a
long
list
of
parameters
and
other
information,
much
of
this
defaults
to
a
simple
description
for
Large
SI
engines.
We
are
not
interested
in
seeing
a
great
level
of
detail
for
these
engines,
since
their
emission­
control
systems
generally
use
well
established
technologies
to
maintain
proper
engine
operation.

1048.120(
e):
NACCO
noted
that
updating
warranty
statement
annually
in
the
owners
manual
is
a
big
burden.
Also,
there
is
no
single
document
that
serves
as
the
owners
manual,
but
rather
a
collection
of
operator
manuals,
maintenance
and
service
manuals,
and
warranty
manuals.
The
warranty
information
generally
does
not
change
from
year
to
year,
so
adding
the
warranty
information
to
the
owners
manual
should
be
a
one­
time
effort.
Also,
we
have
revised
the
regulations
in
§
1048.801
to
include
a
definition
of
owners
manual
to
include
a
collection
of
documents
for
the
operator.

1048.135:
NACCO
commented
that
we
should
not
require
the
emission
standard
to
be
printed
on
the
label.
It
is
not
clear
whether
the
label
should
include
individual
emission
results,
worst­
case
emissions,
or
something
else.
Emission
numbers
aren't
useful
to
the
operator.
The
regulations
clearly
state
that
the
applicable
emission
standards
need
to
be
on
the
label,
not
any
test
results.
This
information
will
only
change
over
time
if
the
manufacturer
chooses
to
certify
Tier
2
engines
to
a
different
point
on
the
curve
of
HC+
NOx
vs.
CO
standards.
It
is
important
for
the
emission
standard
to
be
on
the
label,
for
example,
for
EPA
officials
to
determine
whether
the
engine
meets
applicable
requirements
(
especially
for
Tier
2).
It
will
also
facilitate
the
purchaser's
ability
to
choose
engines
with
HC+
NOx
vs.
CO
tradeoffs
that
the
purchaser
believes
is
appropriate
for
the
engine's
intended
use.

1048.101(
g):
Wisconsin
Motors
responded
to
our
request
for
comment
related
to
the
useful
life
for
severe­
duty
engines,
pointing
out
that
it
is
clear
severe­
duty
engines
need
shorter
useful
life
and
that
we
should
adopt
a
shorter
useful
life
for
these
engines
in
the
regulation
so
that
they
don't
have
to
go
through
an
administrative
process
to
demonstrate
some
alternate
useful
life.
We
agree
that
severe­
duty
engines
should
be
expected
to
have
a
shorter
useful
life
and
that
manufacturers
should
have
some
certainty
in
the
early
design
stages
regarding
the
targets
for
making
durable
emission
controls.
Accordingly,
we
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
revise
§
1048.101
to
include
a
useful
life
of
1500
hours
for
severe­
duty
engines,
which
is
the
period
recommended
by
Wisconsin
in
in
their
comments
on
the
November
2002
final
rule.
Technical
Amendments
49
1065.514:
Wisconsin
Motors
emphasized
that
it
is
important
to
keep
the
provisions
in
part
1065
allowing
relaxed
values
for
cycle
validation
if
that
is
necessary
for
a
particular
engine
system.
We
are
adopting
these
provisions
as
proposed.

1048.501:
Wisconsin
Motors
commented
that
they
would
like
to
use
raw­
gas
sampling
for
their
certification
measurements.
They
noted
that
the
difference
between
dilute
and
raw­
gas
methods
is
less
than
1
percent.
We
believe
the
improved
procedures
for
raw
sampling
specified
in
the
proposed
changes
in
part
1065
are
adequate
to
ensure
sufficiently
accurate
results
from
raw
sampling
systems.
Current
raw
sampling
systems
may
need
upgrades
to
meet
the
new
requirements,
but
any
raw
sampling
system
that
can
meet
applicable
specifications
is
acceptable
for
valid
measurements.
We
are
therefore
removing
from
§
1048.501
the
requirement
to
use
only
dilute
sampling
procedures.

1048.115(
a):
The
Motorcycle
Industry
Council
commented
for
recreational
vehicles
that
the
requirement
related
to
controlling
crankcase
emissions
should
be
limited
to
the
useful
life.
We
agree
with
this
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
to
limit
the
responsibility
for
controlling
crankcase
controls
to
the
engine's
useful
life.

1048.135(
f):
The
Motorcycle
Industry
Council
commented
for
recreational
vehicles
that
the
regulations
should
clarify
that
duplicate
labels
are
needed
only
if
the
original
label
is
not
visible
"
during
normal
maintenance."
We
agree
with
this
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
as
recommended.

1048.210:
The
Motorcycle
Industry
Council
commented
for
recreational
vehicles
that
the
provisions
for
preliminary
approvals
should
be
revised
to
add
assurance
that
EPA
won't
reverse
a
decision
without
establishing
that
the
manufacturer
intentionally
used
false
information
in
its
request
or
that
the
preliminary
approval
would
lead
to
noncompliance.
We
agree
with
this
comment
and
have
added
language
to
1048.210
specifying
that
we
will
not
reverse
a
decision
granted
as
preliminary
approval
without
new
information.

1048.110
and
1048.115:
Nissan
raised
issues
or
questions
related
to
the
diagnostic
and
broadcasting
requirements.
(
1)
The
regulatory
language
may
inappropriately
prevent
a
particular
configuration.
(
2)
The
specified
diagnostic
codes
don't
address
items
specific
to
LPG­
fueled
engines.
(
1)
We
agree
that
the
regulatory
language
needs
adjustment
to
address
the
variety
of
systems
manufacturers
may
use,
primarily
to
allow
manufacturers
to
broadcast
speed
values
(
not
just
torque
values)
to
a
remote
device
instead
of
broadcasting
to
the
engine's
controller
area
network.
(
2)
1048.110(
g)
already
considers
the
need
to
use
codes
that
are
different
than
ISO,
subject
to
EPA
approval.
We
will
consider
whether
it
might
be
possible
to
move
in
the
direction
of
normalizing
codes
for
common
configurations.

1048.310:
ECO
LLC
commented
that
the
proposed
change
requiring
a
minimum
of
eight
production­
line
tests
annually
was
overly
burdensome
for
very
small
engine
families.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
modified
the
regulations,
as
described
below.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
50
1048.101:
We
asked
for
comment
regarding
adjustments
that
might
be
needed
to
allow
for
testing
high­
speed
engines
over
the
transient
duty
cycle,
since
denormalizing
the
published
duty
cycle
for
these
engines
can
result
in
unrealistic
acceleration
rates.
Polaris
noted
generally
that
the
transient
test
was
one
of
the
reasons
they
thought
the
standards
of
part
1048
should
not
apply
to
high­
speed
offroad
utility
vehicles
over
30
kW.
While
we
believe
that
the
particular
vehicles
and
engines
in
question
should
still
be
subject
to
the
standards
in
part
1048,
we
believe
the
best
approach
to
addressing
the
testing
concerns
is
to
waive
the
requirement
for
transient
testing
for
engines
with
maximum
test
speed
over
3400
rpm.
This
would
apply
to
applications
that
are
more
like
recreational
products
without
changing
the
current
requirements
for
industrial
engines,
which
are
generally
governed
for
maximum
speeds
of
2800
or
3000
rpm.

1048.245:
Nissan
pointed
out
that
Underwriters
Laboratories
(
UL)
has
interpreted
their
requirements
to
provide
for
manufacturers
to
design
their
gasoline
tanks
to
allow
venting
under
vacuum
pressures
short
of
the
specified
level
of
1.5
psi
for
those
products
that
are
subject
to
the
applicable
requirements
under
the
UL558
standard.
These
changes
make
the
EPA
specification
inconsistent
with
that
of
UL.
Our
specification
of
1.5
psi
for
design­
based
certification
was
intended
simply
to
match
UL,
with
the
expectation
that
the
existing
specification
established
the
feasibility
of
such
a
system.
A
much
less
challenging
specification
would
be
appropriate
for
EPA's
purpose
of
ensuring
sealed
fuel
tanks
to
control
vapor
losses
during
daily
temperature
swings,
since
those
emissions
are
driven
by
a
positive
pressure.
We
are
therefore
changing
the
specification
in
§
1048.245(
e)(
1)
to
require
sealed
fuel
tanks
for
vacuum
pressures
up
to
0.1
psi
gauge
pressure.

1048.620:
Cummins
commented
that
we
should
consider
diesel­
derived
natural
gas
engines
to
be
diesel
engines
for
emission
regulations.
This
could
be
done
by
expanding
the
scope
of
40
CFR
part
89
and
1039,
or
by
revising
the
provisions
of
§
1048.620
to
(
1)
include
LPG­
fueled
engines,
(
2)
include
engines
below
250
kW,
(
3)
allow
the
use
of
highwaycertified
engines
in
nonroad
applications
without
recertifying.
This
approach
would
harmonize
with
EPA's
treatment
of
highway
engines
and
with
California
ARB's
treatment
of
nonroad
engines.
This
is
appropriate
considering
consumer
demands
for
performance,
duty
cycles,
and
operating
characteristics.
While
we
requested
comment
on
changing
the
definition
for
spark­
ignition
engines,
a
broad
change
to
the
definition
as
suggested
in
the
comment
would
require
considerable
coordination
with
the
public
that
would
need
to
be
addressed
with
full
notice
and
comment.
The
individual
changes
suggested
can
be
considered
separately,
as
follows:
(
1)
We
agree
that
it
is
appropriate
to
include
LPG­
fueled
engines
under
§
1048.620.
Since
natural
gas
is
the
dominant
alternative
fuel
for
these
engines,
we
simply
did
not
contemplate
applying
this
provision
to
LPG­
fueled
engines.
(
2)
We
believe
it
would
be
necessary
to
address
the
concern
for
engines
below
250
kW
in
a
separate
rulemaking,
since
this
change
could
adversely
affect
other
companies
that
have
expressed
a
concern
about
making
small
natural
gas
engines
subject
to
standards
for
diesel
engines.
(
3)
The
provisions
of
§
1048.605
and
§
1048.610
already
allow
for
using
certified
highway
engines
in
nonroad
applications
without
recertifying.

In
addition
to
these
comments,
we
have
identified
a
variety
of
additional
minor
changes
and
adjustments
to
include
in
the
final
rule.
There
are
a
variety
of
changes
simply
to
correct
typographical,
grammatical,
and
nomenclature
errors.
In
addition,
these
changes
include:

"
Removing
the
specification
in
§
1048.115
to
require
the
capability
to
sample
exhaust
emissions
from
production
vehicles.
This
is
adequately
addressed
in
§
1048.205.

"
Specifying
in
§
1048.205(
aa)
that
manufacturers
must
name
an
agent
for
service
of
process
in
the
United
States.
This
puts
into
the
regulations
a
well
established
expectation
to
identify
a
person
in
the
United
States
who
can
represent
the
company
for
official
business.
Technical
Amendments
51
"
Moving
the
provisions
related
to
stabilizing
test
engines
within
50
hours
of
engine
operating
time
from
40
CFR
part
1065
to
§
1048.501.
This
allows
us
to
change
the
default
stabilization
time
in
part
1065
to
12
hours.
This
change
does
not
affect
the
requirements
for
Large
SI
engines.

"
Keeping
the
maximum
run
time
and
sampling
time
in
each
mode
only
for
lean­
burn
engines
that
use
NOx
aftertreatment
(
§
1048.505(
a)(
1)).
Specifying
maximum
values
is
important
for
appropriately
measuring
emissions
from
lean­
burn
engines,
but
this
is
not
necessary
for
the
more
common
stoichimetric
engines,
even
if
they
use
NOx
aftertreatment.

"
Clarifying
the
provisions
of
§
§
1048.605
and
1048.610.
This
includes
a
correction
to
remove
a
reference
to
compression­
ignition
engines,
since
this
part
is
applicable
to
spark­
ignition
engines.
We
also
clarify
that
engines
for
highway
motorcycles
are
not
covered
by
these
provisions,
since
that
was
not
intended
and
this
would
not
be
appropriate,
given
the
relative
stringency
of
the
applicable
emission
standards.
Finally,
we
revised
the
language
in
several
places
to
more
clearly
address
the
situation
for
nonroad
equipment
manufacturers
installing
certified
highway
engines.

"
Adding
a
reference
in
§
1048.510(
c)
to
identify
the
appropriate
duty
cycles
as
those
that
we
specify
in
Appendix
I
or
Appendix
II
of
part
1048.

"
Changing
§
1048.125(
f)
to
specify
that
engine
manufacturers
must
not
condition
warranty
on
specific
individuals
or
companies
providing
engine
service,
as
opposed
to
providing
service
for
the
equipment.
The
equipment
manufacturer,
not
the
engine
manufacturer,
would
generally
be
in
a
position
to
prescribe
maintenance
for
the
equipment.
Also,
the
warranty
applies
to
the
engine,
so
this
change
is
appropriate.

"
Adding
clarifying
language
in
§
1048.501
and
§
1048.801
to
reflect
the
adjusted
enginemapping
procedure
in
part
1065
for
constant­
speed
engines.

"
As
described
in
the
preamble,
we
believe
it
is
appropriate
in
response
to
a
comment
from
another
category
to
remove
the
requirement
to
apply
the
emission­
related
warranty
to
components
that
are
covered
by
a
service
contract
purchased
by
the
consumer,
where
the
emission­
related
warranty
was
required
to
correspond
with
the
service
contract
(
or
extended
warranty).
We
have
changed
1048.120(
b)
accordingly.

II.
Summary
of
Rulemaking
Changes
We
adopted
emission
standards
for
Large
SI
engines
in
November
2002
(
67
FR
68242).
The
regulations
in
40
CFR
part
1048
were
our
first
attempt
to
draft
emission­
control
regulations
in
plainlanguage
format.
In
the
recent
final
rule
for
nonroad
diesel
engines,
we
went
through
a
similar
process,
including
extensive
interaction
with
a
different
set
of
manufacturers.
This
process
led
us
to
adopt
regulatory
provisions
in
40
CFR
part
1039
that
differ
from
those
in
part
1048.
Since
the
process
of
meeting
standards,
applying
for
certificates,
and
complying
with
other
emission­
related
requirements
has
a
lot
of
commonality
across
programs,
we
have
a
strong
interest
in
adopting
consistent
provisions
and
uniform
terminology
as
much
as
possible.
As
a
result,
we
are
making
extensive
changes
in
part
1048
to
align
with
the
regulations
in
part
1039.

Many
of
the
changes
for
part
1048
involve
relatively
minor
wording
differences.
Several
other
changes
involve
new
or
revised
language
to
express
a
regulatory
provision
more
clearly
without
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
8
See
"
Redline
Version
of
40
CFR
Part
1048
Showing
Proposed
Changes,"
EPA
memo
from
Alan
Stout
to
Docket
OAR­
2004­
0017,
July
5,
2004.

52
changing
the
underlying
policy.
There
are
also
some
minor
organizational
changes
to
move
certain
provisions
to
a
different
location
that
better
reflects
their
relationship
to
the
overall
process
of
certifying
engines.
We
believe
it
is
important
to
make
these
changes
to
avoid
a
situation
where
we
unintentionally
apply
slightly
different
provisions
to
different
categories
of
engines.
These
changes
that
are
intended
to
involve
no
change
in
policy
are
not
listed
here.
8
The
following
tables
highlight
many
of
the
specific
changes
to
part
1048.

Subpart
A
 
Overview
and
Applicability
Reference
Proposed
Change
1048.1
We
now
state
that
the
part
1048
requirements
apply
to
Large
SI
engines,
rather
than
to
the
manufacturers
of
Large
SI
engines.

1048.5
We
no
longer
state
that
aircraft
engines
are
excluded
from
emission
standards
under
40
CFR
part
1048,
since
we
have
changed
the
definition
of
nonroad
engine
to
clarify
that
aircraft
are
not
considered
nonroad
engines.

Subpart
B
 
Emission
Standards
and
Related
Requirements
Reference
Proposed
Change
1048.101(
a)
In
the
November
2002
final
rule,
we
excluded
engines
above
560
kW
from
transient
emission
standards
on
an
interim
basis,
primarily
to
defer
this
decision
to
the
rulemaking
for
nonroad
diesel
engines.
Consistent
with
that
rulemaking,
we
are
affirming
this
decision
as
a
long­
term
provision
and
are
accordingly
moving
it
from
1048.145
to
1048.101.
These
engines
must
still
design
for
controlling
transient
emissions,
but
are
not
subject
to
the
transient
emission
standards
(
see
1048.205).

1048.101(
g)
The
provision
for
a
shorter
useful
life
now
includes
provisions
to
clarify
how
a
manufacturer
can
select
and
support
some
alternate
useful
life
period.
We
also
identify
this
as
a
shorter
useful
life
in
operating
hours,
not
in
years.
Note
that
we
are
defining
a
fixed
useful­
life
period
for
severe­
duty
engines,
as
described
in
Section
I
above.

1048.105
We
are
exempting
marine
auxiliary
engines
from
the
evaporative
emission
standards,
since
we
are
separately
pursuing
evaporative
controls
for
marine
systems,
which
will
eventually
extend
to
fuel
systems
for
both
propulsion
and
auxiliary
engines.

1048.115(
a)
Provisions
related
to
controlling
crankcase
emissions
more
carefully
explain
how
to
account
for
crankcase
emissions
in
those
cases
where
manufacturers
add
crankcase
emissions
to
measured
exhaust
emissions.

1048.115(
g)
The
prohibition
regarding
defeat
devices
originally
specified
that
an
emission­
control
strategy
that
is
active
during
testing
over
the
specific
duty
cycles
will
not
be
considered
a
defeat
device.
We
have
expanded
that
to
include
field­
testing
operation
by
excluding
operation
that
occurs
during
all
testing
under
the
procedures
of
Part
1048,
Subpart
F.
Technical
Amendments
53
1048.120(
a)
The
scope
of
the
warranty
now
explicitly
includes
secondary
purchasers
to
make
clear
that
the
emission­
related
warranty
is
fully
transferrable
throughout
the
specified
warranty
period.
Also,
the
scope
of
the
warranty
includes
the
engine
and
all
its
emission­
related
components.

1048.120(
b)
Warranty
periods
are
clarified:
(
1)
If
mechanical
warranties
are
offered
without
charge,
the
emission­
related
warranty
for
the
corresponding
components
(
or
the
whole
engine,
as
applicable)
may
not
be
shorter
than
the
mechanical
warranty.
(
2)
If
manufacturers
offer
an
extended
warranty
for
an
extra
charge,
the
emission­
related
warranty
may
not
be
shorter
than
that,
but
only
for
those
particular
engines.
(
3)
We
clarify
that
the
warranty
period
starts
when
the
engine
is
first
placed
into
service.

1048.120(
c)
We
clarify
that
the
warranty
includes
components
such
as
catalysts
that
are
manufactured
by
another
company,
even
if
the
component
is
shipped
separately
and
the
certifying
manufacturer
never
takes
possession
of
those
components.

1048.120(
e)
We
add
a
requirement
for
manufacturers
to
describe
the
emission­
related
warranty
provisions
that
apply
to
their
engines
in
the
owners
manual.

1048.125(
c)
The
rule
originally
allowed
for
extra
maintenance
for
special
situations.
We
are
clarifying
this
to
point
out
that
manufacturers
must
make
clear
to
the
operator
that
this
additional
maintenance
is
tied
to
some
special
situation.

1048.125(
g)
This
provision
was
originally
adopted
as
§
1048.120(
d).
We
have
modified
this
to
more
carefully
track
provisions
in
the
Clean
Air
Act.
In
particular,
this
provision
now
clarifies
that
owners
must
generally
pay
for
scheduled
maintenance,
with
an
exception
for
relatively
expensive
parts
that
have
been
added
to
meet
emission
standards
and
that
are
not
needed
for
proper
engine
performance.

1048.125(
h)
Consistent
with
§
1048.125(
g),
we
now
require
manufacturers
to
communicate
the
owner's
obligations
to
properly
maintain
their
engines.

1048.130(
d)
We
have
added
a
provision
allowing
manufacturers
to
communicate
installation
instructions
to
engine
installers
other
than
sending
a
copy
of
the
instructions
along
with
each
engine.
Manufacturers
may
describe
in
their
application
for
certification
that
they,
for
example,
post
their
installation
instructions
on
a
publicly
available
web
site.

1048.135(
c)
We
have
modified
the
requirements
for
the
emission
control
information
label:
(
1)
We
now
allow
manufacturers
to
apply
the
corporate
name
and
trademark
from
another
company,
(
2)
The
manufacturing
date
need
not
be
on
the
label,
as
long
as
the
manufacturer
keeps
records
that
allow
us
to
find
out
the
manufacturing
date,
(
3)
The
maintenance
specifications
may
be
omitted
from
the
label
if
there
is
not
enough
room
on
the
label
and
the
information
is
instead
printed
in
the
owners
manual.
(
4)
Useful
life
must
be
included
only
if
it
is
different
than
the
default
value
specified
in
§
1048.101(
g).

1048.135(
d)
We
are
adding
a
provision
to
specifically
allow
manufacturers
to
include
additional
label
information
related
to
meeting
other
emission
standards,
or
properly
maintaining
engines.

1048.135(
g)
We
are
adding
a
requirement
for
engine
manufacturers
to
supply
duplicate
labels
to
equipment
manufacturers
that
need
them
and
to
keep
basic
records
to
document
the
transactions.
We
have
already
adopted
corresponding
limits
on
what
equipment
manufacturers
must
do
to
properly
apply
these
duplicate
labels
and
prevent
abuse,
such
as
proliferation
of
counterfeit
labels.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
54
1048.139
We
are
adding
a
new
section
that
describes
more
precisely
how
to
determine
maximum
engine
power.
This
applies
to
any
provision
in
the
regulations
that
relates
to
engine
power,
such
as
the
applicability
to
engines
above
19
kW.
Maximum
engine
power
values
also
serve
to
define
a
unique
engine
configuration
(
within
normal
production
tolerances).
If
manufacturers
want
to
include
engines
with
different
values
for
maximum
engine
power
in
an
engine
family,
they
would
treat
those
as
separate
engine
configurations.

1048.140
We
are
adding
a
new
set
of
voluntary
emission
standards
that
allow
a
manufacturer
to
qualify
for
the
Blue
Sky
designation.
Some
manufacturers
have
expressed
an
interest
in
using
automotive
engines
in
nonroad
applications.
The
additional
voluntary
standards
are
intended
to
more
closely
reflect
the
emission­
control
potential
of
a
modern
automotive
engine
(
light­
duty
or
heavy­
duty)
when
produced
for
nonroad
applications.
We
are
also
interested
in
aligning
our
voluntary
standards
with
those
under
consideration
by
the
California
Air
Resources
Board.
The
final
rule
therefore
includes
adjusted
levels
of
voluntary
standards,
consistent
with
ongoing
regulatory
developments
in
California.

1048.145(
a)
We
are
clarifying
the
provisions
related
to
family
banking.
For
example,
we
are
adding
a
requirement
that
manufacturers
start
producing
early
engines
by
September
1,
2006
to
reduce
the
compliance
burden
in
2007.
This
prevents
manufacturers
from
reducing
their
burden
by
producing
engines
marginally
earlier
than
is
required
under
the
Tier
2
standards.
Once
a
manufacturer
qualifies,
all
the
engines
produced
before
January
1,
2007
count
toward
reducing
the
Tier
2
compliance
burden.
We
also
clarify
that
the
"
late"
engines
need
to
continue
to
be
certified
to
Tier
1
emission
standards,
with
all
the
associated
requirements.
Finally,
we
require
manufacturers
opting
into
family
banking
to
report
at
the
end
of
each
year
how
many
"
early"
or
"
late"
engines
they
produced
in
the
preceding
year.

Subpart
C
 
Certifying
Engine
Families
Reference
Proposed
Change
1048.201(
g)
We
are
including
a
clearer
statement
that
we
may
require
manufacturers
to
deliver
test
engines
to
a
particular
facility
for
our
testing.

1048.205(
a)
We
are
clarifying
the
direction
to
describe
emission­
control
systems
to
require
that
manufacturers
identify
each
unique
configuration.

1048.205(
b)
We
are
adding
a
clarifying
note
to
include
part
numbers
for
emission­
related
components.
This
information,
which
is
already
commonly
included
in
applications,
helps
us
to
manage
the
information
related
to
the
certified
configuration,
especially
as
it
relates
to
running
changes
in
an
engine
family.

1048.205(
b)(
11)
The
instructions
for
completing
the
certification
application
now
include
detailed
items
related
to
auxiliary
emission­
control
devices.
This
clarifies
the
manufacturers'
existing
responsibility
to
describe
their
emission­
control
systems.

1048.205(
r)
Consistent
with
the
Tier
4
final
rule
for
nonroad
diesel
engines,
we
require
manufacturers
of
engines
above
560
kW
to
show
how
they
control
transient
emissions.
This
gives
us
an
opportunity
in
the
certification
process
to
ensure
that
engines
are
designed
with
control
strategies
that
are
similar
to
those
for
smaller
engines
and
to
ensure
that
engines
have
no
defeat
devices.

1048.205(
t)
In
addition
to
the
existing
requirement
to
describe
adjustable
parameters,
we
are
including
a
requirement
to
describe
how
the
adjustment
limits
are
effective
in
preventing
operators
from
making
inappropriate
adjustments.
Technical
Amendments
9
Final
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis:
Control
of
Emissions
from
Nonroad
Diesel
Engines,
U.
S.
EPA,
May
2004,
EPA420­
R­
04­
007
(
Docket
OAR­
2004­
0017­
0044).

55
1048.250(
b)
We
are
adding
a
requirement
to
keep
records
related
to
production
figures
by
separate
assembly
plants
and
lists
of
engine
identification
numbers
in
each
engine
family.

Subpart
D
 
Production­
line
Testing
1048.310(
g)
Clarify
the
maximum
testing
rate
of
1
percent
for
production­
line
testing
for
small­
volume
families.
We
modified
this
provision
in
response
to
a
comment
received.
The
maximum
testing
rate
is
scaled
according
to
projected
sales
volumes
to
allow
for
testing
less
than
1
percent
of
production
for
smallvolume
production.

Subpart
F
 
Test
Procedures
Reference
Proposed
Change
1048.501(
a)
We
are
allowing
testing
with
partial­
flow
dilute
sampling.
This
approach
is
generally
used
for
larger
diesel
engines,
but
some
laboratories
may
also
be
set
up
to
use
partial­
flow
sampling
for
Large
SI
engines.

1048.501(
a)
We
no
longer
specify
that
testing
must
include
measurement
of
CO
2
emissions.
However,
if
manufacturers
use
equipment
and
procedures
that
require
measurement
of
CO
2
emissions,
then
this
information
must
be
included
in
the
application
for
certification
(
see
§
1048.205).

1048.505
We
adopted
conventional
duty
cycles
and
procedures
for
steady­
state
testing
in
the
November
2002
final
rule.
We
are
supplementing
these
procedures
with
an
option
to
test
engines
using
a
different
kind
of
steady­
state
testing.
Ramped
modal
cycles
incorporate
the
same
testing
modes
(
in
engine
speed
and
load)
into
a
single,
continuous
sampling
period
that
involves
gradual
ramps
to
transition
from
one
mode
to
the
next.
See
the
related
supporting
document
for
additional
explanation
of
the
development
of
ramped­
modal
testing.
9
We
are
not
requiring
ramped­
modal
testing
instead
of
conventional
discrete­
mode
testing,
since
the
emission­
control
systems
on
Large
SI
engines
generally
do
not
have
technologies
that
are
time­
sensitive
(
such
as
aftertreatment
devices
that
undergo
regeneration
events),
nor
are
emission
levels
so
low
that
it
is
difficult
to
get
accurate
measurements
over
relatively
short
sampling
periods.

Subpart
G
 
Compliance
Provisions
Reference
Proposed
Change
1048.605
We
have
made
changes
to
this
section
to
clarify
the
responsibilities
of
the
original
manufacturer
of
the
engine
and
that
of
the
"
engine
dressing"
company.
We
also
clarify
the
ABT
responsibilities
relative
to
engines
or
vehicles
that
are
certified
under
the
motor­
vehicle
program
and
used
in
nonroad
applications.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
56
1048.610
This
section
includes
the
same
changes
made
in
1048.605
and
adds
a
criterion
such
that
adding
500
pounds
to
the
weight
of
the
vehicle
is
considered
to
be
a
substantial
change
to
the
engine.
This
is
consistent
with
the
approach
we
have
taken
in
guidance
documents
under
current
regulations.
The
requirement
to
avoid
changing
the
emission­
control
system
now
includes
the
refueling
controls,
since
the
vehicle
is
being
used
in
nonroad
service
in
its
certified
configuration;
no
engine
installation
is
required.

1048.625
Provisions
related
to
engines
burning
noncommercial
fuels
have
been
modified
to
clarify
the
engine
manufacturer's
responsibilities
under
this
section.
We
have
also
modified
the
definition
of
noncommercial
fuel
to
include
fuel
that
is,
for
example,
captured
from
an
oil
well
and
sold
without
processing
the
fuel
to
conform
to
any
standardized
specifications
for
commercial
fuels.

1048.630
We
are
adding
provisions
describing
a
process
by
which
manufacturers
may
produce
engines
that
will
be
used
solely
for
competition.
These
are
consistent
with
provisions
we
have
adopted
for
nonroad
diesel
engines.

1048.635
We
are
adding
provisions
that
will
allow
manufacturers
to
place
another
company's
brand
name
on
the
emission
control
information
label.
This
is
consistent
with
provisions
we
have
adopted
for
nonroad
diesel
engines.

Subpart
I
 
Definitions
and
Other
Reference
Information
Reference
Proposed
Change
1048.801
We
are
revising
the
definition
of
brake
power
to
focus
on
power
required
to
fuel,
lubricate,
heat,
and
cool
the
engine,
rather
than
on
the
components
that
do
these
things.
This
is
necessary
to
address
the
ambiguity
that
would
result
from
a
single
component
such
as
a
heat
exchanger
that
cools
the
engine
in
addition
to
providing
cooling
for
other
purposes.

1048.801
We
are
revising
the
definition
for
constant­
speed
engines
to
clarify
the
that
there
are
two
distinct
types
of
constant­
speed
governing.
We
also
differentiate
between
constant­
speed
engines
(
certified
using
constant­
speed
duty
cycles)
and
constant­
speed
operation
(
any
kind
of
engine
operation
that
is
governed
to
stay
at
a
constant­
speed).
This
distinction
is
necessary
because
some
engines
that
are
not
restricted
to
constant­
speed
certification
may
be
installed
in
constant­
speed
applications.

1048.801
We
have
broadened
the
definition
of
noncommercial
fuel
slightly
to
allow
naturally
emitted
gases
(
such
as
from
a
landfill)
to
continue
to
be
noncommercial
fuels
even
if
they
are
sold
to
an
operator,
as
long
as
the
product
is
not
modified
or
processed
in
a
way
that
would
allow
it
to
meet
applicable
standards
for
commercial
fuels.

1048.801
We
are
changing
our
rounding
specification
from
ASTM
E29
to
NIST
Special
Publication
811.
Our
understanding
is
that
these
two
publications
have
equivalent
specifications.

1048.820
We
are
revising
these
provisions
to
clarify
that
we
handle
confidential
information
that
we
gather
from
manufacturers
during
inspections
the
same
way
that
we
handle
what
manufacturers
send
to
us.

1048.825
We
are
adding
details
to
better
define
the
process
for
requesting
hearings
under
part
1048.
For
example,
manufacturers
need
to
send
a
written
request
within
30
days
of
an
EPA
judgment.
Also,
we
will
limit
hearings
to
substantial
factual
issues.
These
are
consistent
with
longstanding
regulatory
provisions
from
other
programs.
Technical
Amendments
57
Chapter
7:
Recreational
vehicles
(
40
CFR
part
1051)

I.
Summary
and
Analysis
of
Comments
The
following
table
describes
the
comments
related
to
the
regulation
of
recreational
vehicles
in
40
CFR
part
1051,
with
our
response
to
each
of
these
comments.
Most
of
these
comments
came
from
the
Motorcycle
Industry
Council
and
the
International
Snowmobile
Manufacturers
Association.

Issue
Response
1051.230:
Allow
combined
evap
families
for
varying
wall
thicknesses
for
tanks
and
hoses.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
accordingly.

1051.135:
Clarify
that
engine
label
may
have
a
single
engine
family
name
for
exhaust
and
evaporative
emissions.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
accordingly.

1051.515:
For
permeation
testing,
the
procedures
say
that
fueltank
outlets
must
be
closed
using
nonpermeable
fittings.
The
fill
cap,
gaskets,
and
petcocks
should
therefore
not
be
considered
part
of
the
fuel
tank.
The
fill
cap
and
gaskets
are
clearly
part
of
the
designed
and
manufactured
fuel
tank,
so
they
are
considered
part
of
the
fuel
tank
for
testing.
Petcocks
would
not
be
included,
since
we
consider
them
auxiliary
equipment.
We
are
incorporating
these
changes
in
the
definition
for
fuel
lines
in
§
1051.801,
as
described
below.

1051.110
and
1051.801:
Do
not
treat
vapor
lines
or
lines
open
to
the
atmosphere
as
fuel
lines
subject
to
emission
standards.
Available
data
show
that
closed
vapor
lines
have
permeation
rates
comparable
to
liquid
fuel
line,
so
they
should
be
subject
to
emission
standards.
However,
vent
lines,
PCV
hoses,
and
other
lines
open
to
the
atmosphere
are
not
considered
fuel
lines
subject
to
permeation
standards.

1051.515
and
1051.720:
The
proposed
requirement
for
linear
emission
measurements
when
changing
to
gasoline
as
a
test
fuel
for
permeation
measurements
prevents
stabilization
on
gasoline.
Making
this
change
would
necessitate
ABT
changes
to
allow
early
banking
and
deficit
credits
through
2011
model
year.
ABT
calculations
for
permeation
should
be
based
on
an
assigned
rate
of
10.4
g/
m2/
day.
As
described
below,
the
allowance
to
test
with
gasoline
is
for
testing
convenience
and
is
not
intended
to
allow
for
the
lower
measured
values
that
would
result
from
stabilizing
with
gasoline
test
fuel.
We
agree
with
the
comments
related
to
ABT
adjustments
and
have
changed
the
regulations
in
§
1051.720
accordingly,
with
the
notable
revision
that
ABT
calculations
may
be
based
on
an
assigned
rate
of
7.6
g/
m2/
day
for
generating
credits
and
10.4
g/
m2/
day
for
using
credits.
The
lower
figure
represents
a
common
emission
rate
for
uncontrolled
tanks
that
have
somewhat
less
susceptibility
to
permeation,
which
is
appropriate
to
specify
to
avoid
windfall
credits.
Credits
may
alternatively
be
based
on
measured
values.
We
also
agree
that
the
ABT
program
should
make
provision
for
early
banking
and
deficit
credits,
as
suggested
by
the
manufacturers;
these
provisions
are
found
in
§
1051.145(
g)
and
(
h),
with
a
corresponding
change
in
§
1051.745(
b).
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
58
1051.515
and
1051.720:
Polaris
pointed
out
that
EPA's
draft
regulation
language
for
early
credits,
as
described
in
the
previous
item,
did
not
clearly
allow
the
use
of
credits
after
the
evaporative
emission
standards
started
to
apply.
They
also
wanted
clarification
that
they
could
use
a
baseline
level
of
10.4/
m2/
day
for
all
tanks
without
new
emission
measurements.
We
agree
that
§
1051.145(
g)(
4)
should
state
clearly
that
early
emission
credits
may
be
used
just
like
credits
generated
under
the
full
program.
We
have
added
language
to
§
1051.720(
a)(
4)
to
clarify
that
manufacturers
may
select
the
specified
baseline
emission
rate
for
all
their
tanks
(
except
those
certified
at
or
below
the
applicable
emission
standard).

1051.145(
b):
Clarify
phase­
in
text
to
specify
that
ATV
engines
above
and
below
225
cc
are
considered
together
for
meeting
the
50
percent
phase­
in.
Use
the
same
language
for
the
phasein
described
for
snowmobiles
in
1051.103(
a)(
1).
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
accordingly.

1051.137:
The
NER
equations
need
to
be
adjusted
to
avoid
NER
values
less
than
zero.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
accordingly.

1051.145(
b):
The
NER
equation
for
products
greater
225
cc
should
apply
to
products
greater
than
or
equal
to
225
cc.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
accordingly.

1051.615:
Do
not
make
the
changes
in
the
proposed
paragraph
(
e),
since
the
NER
equations
for
those
engines
are
already
covered
in
the
labeling
section.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
are
not
making
this
proposed
change.

1051.501:
Clarify
the
process
for
approving
raw­
gas
sampling
as
equivalent.
Clarify
which
provisions
in
part
91
apply
for
interim
raw­
gas
measurements.
We
believe
the
improved
procedures
for
raw
sampling
specified
in
the
proposed
changes
in
part
1065
are
adequate
to
ensure
sufficiently
accurate
results
from
raw
sampling
systems.
Current
raw
sampling
systems
may
need
upgrades
to
meet
the
new
requirements,
but
any
raw
sampling
system
that
can
meet
applicable
specifications
is
acceptable
for
valid
measurements.
This
removes
the
need
for
manufacturers
to
demonstrate
that
raw­
sampling
procedures
are
equivalent
to
specified
procedures
with
dilute
sampling.

1051.145(
e)(
2):
Include
alternate
ATV
standards
described
in
§
1051.145(
b)
in
the
allowance
for
raw­
gas
sampling
through
2008
MY.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
accordingly,
with
the
additional
considerations
described
for
the
previous
comment.

1051.505
and
1051.615:
Specifying
a
ramped­
modal
duty
cycle
is
acceptable,
as
long
as
it
is
at
manufacturer's
discretion.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
drafted
the
regulations
accordingly.
EPA
testing,
however,
may
use
ramped­
modal
testing
even
if
manufacturers
opt
for
discrete­
mode
testing.

1051.135:
Engine
label:
don't
require
engine
manufacturing
date
in
the
owners
manual
as
an
alternative
to
the
label.
Allow
date
stamp
on
vehicle,
not
just
engine.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
accordingly.

1051.135:
The
regulations
should
clarify
that
the
duplicate
label
is
needed
only
if
the
original
label
is
not
visible
"
during
normal
maintenance."
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
accordingly.

1051.310(
g):
For
PLT
testing,
omit
requirement
to
test
at
least
five
engines,
and
add
a
rounding
requirement
to
the
1
percent
limit
on
testing
Given
the
separate
PLT
sampling
rate
for
small­
volume
families,
we
agree
that
it
is
appropriate
to
rely
on
the
onepercent
criterion
alone
to
establish
an
upper
limit
on
testing.
Rounding
the
calculated
value
to
the
nearest
whole
number
is
appropriate.
Technical
Amendments
59
1051.225(
f)
and
1051.701(
e):
The
proposed
change
to
limit
mid­
year
FEL
changes
to
future
production
is
inappropriate,
since
manufacturers
have
been
planning
for
compliance
based
on
an
ability
to
make
FEL
changes
retroactive
to
cover
a
full
engine
family.
We
agree
that
the
most
appropriate
remedy
for
recreational
vehicles
failing
PLT
tests
is
to
require
a
recalculation
of
ABT
credits
for
the
whole
family.
We
are
therefore
not
pursuing
the
proposed
change.

1051.1(
a):
Treat
high­
speed
utility
vehicles
as
ATVs,
even
if
max
power
is
over
30
kW,
as
long
as
the
engine
is
already
certified
under
part
1051.
This
suggested
change
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
proposal.
We
expect
to
consider
any
such
change
in
the
context
of
a
future
rulemaking.
Note
that
we
are
adjusting
the
test
procedures
for
Large
SI
engines
in
part
1048
to
address
these
concerns
(
see
Chapter
6).

1051.301:
Allow
omitting
PLT
for
non­
ABT
families
also
for
Phase
3.
Don't
repeat
list
of
standards
in
301(
h).
We
believe
it
is
not
appropriate
to
pre­
judge
a
final
decision
regarding
Phase
3
emission
standards.
Once
we
understand
better
which
technologies
manufacturers
will
use
for
Phase
3
engines,
we
can
make
an
informed
judgment
regarding
the
appropriateness
of
extending
the
provision
to
waive
production­
line
testing
for
engine
families
not
participating
in
ABT.
We
have
removed
the
duplicate
provisions
in
§
1051.145.

1051.240(
d):
Specify
that
there
is
a
single
deterioration
factor
for
HC+
NOx,
instead
of
applying
separate
deterioration
factors
and
adding
results.
In
the
case
of
spark­
ignition
engines,
it
is
especially
true
that
changing
carburetor
calibrations
and
other
things
affecting
air­
fuel
ratios
have
a
direct
inverse
relationship
on
HC
and
NOx
emissions.
Where
deterioration
factors
are
based
on
service
accumulation
through
the
entire
useful
life,
we
believe
it
is
therefore
appropriate
to
base
deterioration
factors
for
spark­
ignition
engines
subject
to
HC+
NOx
emission
standards
on
a
single
deterioration
factor
for
the
combined
pollutants.
We
are
making
a
related,
additional
change
to
clarify
that
manufacturers
must
include
both
low­
hour
and
deteriorated
emission
measurements
for
each
pollutant,
rather
than
reporting
only
HC+
NOx
emissions
as
a
sum.

1051.210:
The
provisions
for
preliminary
approvals
should
be
revised
to
add
assurance
that
EPA
won't
reverse
a
decision
without
establishing
that
the
manufacturer
intentionally
used
false
information
in
its
request
or
that
the
preliminary
approval
would
lead
to
noncompliance.
We
agree
with
the
concern
expressed
and
have
changed
the
regulations
to
limit
reversed
decisions
to
circumstances
where
new
information
becomes
available.

1051.255:
Regarding
EPA
decisions:
­
The
requirement
to
provide
reasonable
assistance
should
be
limited
to
those
things
specifically
required
by
warrant,
court
order,
or
the
regulations.
­
The
meaning
of
the
new
paragraph
1051.255(
c)(
7)
is
unclear
and
should
be
removed.
This
paragraph
would
allow
EPA
to
make
a
judgment
for
actions
that
circumvent
the
intent
of
the
Act
or
the
regulation.
­
Revise
the
requirement
for
submitting
information,
requiring
only
submissions
needed
to
comply
with
regulatory
provisions.
­
All
manner
of
reasonable
assistance
is
required
to
support
EPA's
efforts
to
access
information
that
should
be
made
available;
we
believe
the
reasonable
assistance
should
not
be
limited
as
described
in
the
comment.
­
We
believe
it
is
quite
clear
to
prohibit
circumventing
the
Act
or
the
regulation.
­
We
agree
that
the
information
submissions
should
be
limited
to
regulatory
provisions,
and
are
changing
§
1051.255(
d)
accordingly.

1051.115(
a):
Require
closed
crankcases
only
through
useful
life.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
accordingly.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
60
1051.115(
d):
Clarify
adjustable
parameters
to
allow
specified
carburetor
screw
settings
on
a
jet
chart.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
accordingly.

1051.301:
Allow
PLT
"
families"
based
on
an
aggregation
of
engine
families
using
common
technologies.
Failing
engine
families
would
trigger
more
testing
for
related
engine
families.
While
we
do
not
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
make
this
suggested
change,
under
the
current
regulations
manufacturers
may
pursue
alternate
programs
to
comply
with
production­
line
testing
requirements.
Programs
yielding
an
equivalent
assurance
of
emission
control
can
be
considered
in
the
context
of
our
certification
process.

1051.701:
Allow
evap
credits
to
be
exchanged
across
all
categories
of
recreational
vehicles
to
avoid
product
disruptions
during
transition
to
new
standards.
We
believe
it
is
still
appropriate
to
prevent
credit
exchanges
across
vehicle
categories.
Since
this
is
a
first
effort
to
set
evaporative
standards
for
this
category,
we
are
concerned
that
manufacturers
would
be
able
to
generate
sufficient
credits
to
allow
them
to
avoid
product
improvement
for
a
substantial
portion
of
their
production.
Also,
the
level
on
the
standards
were
selected
based
on
the
corresponding
credit
program.
Expanding
the
flexibility
of
the
credit
program
would
therefore
call
for
reducing
the
level
of
the
standard.

1051.701(
d):
Drop
the
proposed
provision
to
limit
manufacturers'
ability
to
include
in
ABT
calculations
those
engines
sold
in
states
with
separate
emission
standards.
We
are
adopting
a
provision
in
the
final
rule
to
require
exclusion
of
California
sales
from
federal
ABT
calculations
if
a
company
is
subject
to
more
stringent
state
standards,
or
if
a
company
generates
or
uses
emissions
credits
to
show
that
it
meets
California
standards.
This
provision
is
necessary
to
prevent
double­
counting
of
emission
credits.
In
the
case
of
recreational
vehicles,
California
adopted
emission
standards
that
predate
the
EPA
rulemaking.
The
California
emission
standards
are
based
on
a
similar
technology
assessment,
but
are
in
a
very
different
form.
For
example,
California
specifies
different
numerical
standards
that
apply
to
hydrocarbon
emissions
only,
while
EPA's
standards
apply
to
HC+
NOx
emissions.
Given
the
difficulty
in
comparing
these
two
sets
of
standards,
we
are
making
the
judgment
that,
for
the
purposes
of
ABT
calculations,
California's
current
exhaust
emission
standards
are
equivalent
to
the
EPA
standards.
Under
the
current
requirements,
companies
would
therefore
exclude
their
California
products
from
federal
ABT
calculations
only
if
those
products
generate
or
use
emission
credits
under
the
California
program.
If
California
adopts
new
standards
for
recreational
vehicles,
we
will
again
make
a
judgment
regarding
the
relative
stringency
of
the
two
programs
for
ABT
purposes.

1051.125:
Apply
the
proposed
changes
in
non
emissionrelated
maintenance
from
Large
SI
engines
(
part
1048)
to
recreational
vehicles
(
part
1051).
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
accordingly.

1051.515:
Add
a
tolerance
of
±
2
°
C
to
the
specified
temperature
for
measuring
permeation
emissions.
We
agree
that
the
specified
temperature
needs
a
tolerance
to
have
a
complete
meaning,
and
believe
that
the
suggested
±
2
°
C
is
appropriate
for
this
particular
measurement.
Technical
Amendments
61
1051.103,
1051.105,
and
1051.107:
Don't
exclude
California
sales
from
the
phase­
in
demonstration.
We
agree
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
specify
that
manufacturers
should
segregate
out
their
California
sales
for
one
year
to
show
that
they
meet
the
targeted
sales
levels
to
meet
phase­
in
requirements.

1051.110:
Change
the
compliance
requirement
from
"
All
your
new
vehicles
must
meet
the
emission
standards..."
to
"
Your
new
vehicles
must
be
certified
to
comply
with
the
emission
standards."
This
would
remove
the
possibility
of
third
parties
taking
legal
action
for
individual
failing
engines.
We
believe
it
is
important
to
maintain
the
principle
that
manufacturers
are
responsible
for
the
emission­
control
performance
of
each
vehicle.
While
our
recall
provisions
implement
a
process
for
taking
action,
we
do
not
want
to
imply
that
a
manufacturer's
responsibility
for
products
that
have
been
certified
is
limited
to
such
a
finding.

1051.120:
Don't
apply
emission­
related
warranty
requirements
to
components
that
are
covered
by
a
service
contract
purchased
by
the
consumer.
As
described
in
the
preamble,
we
agree
with
this
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
for
all
engine
categories
where
this
change
is
necessary.

1051.125:
Allow
inspections
of
test
vehicles
during
service
accumulation
to
ensure
safe
operation.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
accordingly.

1051.135:
Omit
the
requirement
to
include
an
engine's
power
rating
on
the
emission
control
information
label,
since
this
conflicts
with
the
longstanding
federal
policy
discouraging
the
use
of
rated
power
for
marketing
purposes.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
accordingly.
The
label
continues
to
require
engine
displacement,
which
is
consistent
with
the
common
approach
of
identifying
an
engine's
capability.

1051.801:
Clarify
the
proposed
change
to
the
definition
of
"
useful
life,"
in
which
manufacturers
are
directed
to
disregard
the
element
of
useful
life
related
to
engine
operating
hours
if
engines
have
no
odometer
or
hour
meter.
We
agree
that
the
proposed
language
was
unclear.
The
definition
now
states
that
a
vehicle's
useful
life
determination
is
not
affected
by
the
degree
of
engine
operation
unless
the
number
of
hours
or
kilometers
can
be
verified,
either
with
a
meter
or
through
some
other
means.

1051.515:
Adding
timing
flexibility
to
the
procedure
for
exposing
fuel
tanks
to
ultraviolet
light.
The
original
regulations
called
for
exposing
tanks
to
ultraviolet
light
for
15
hours
per
day
for
30
days.
Testing
for
450
consecutive
hours
instead
of
simulating
intermittent
sun
exposure
would
allow
for
accelerated
testing.
We
believe
this
flexibility
would
allow
for
reduced
testing
burden
without
sacrificing
the
intent
of
the
durability
procedure
and
have
changed
the
regulations
to
specify
a
450­
hour
exposure
to
the
specified
ultraviolet
light.

In
addition
to
these
comments,
we
have
identified
a
variety
of
additional
changes
and
adjustments
to
include
in
the
final
rule.
There
are
a
variety
of
changes
simply
to
correct
typographical,
grammatical,
and
nomenclature
errors,
or
to
make
minor
clarifications.
In
addition,
these
changes
include:

"
1051.205:
Specifying
that
manufacturers
must
name
an
agent
for
service
of
process
in
the
United
States.
This
puts
into
the
regulations
a
well
established
expectation
to
identify
a
person
in
the
United
States
who
can
represent
the
company
for
official
business.

"
1051.230:
Differentiating
emission
families
based
on
production
methods
for
fuel
tanks
or
fuel
lines.
This
would,
for
example,
keep
sulfonated
and
fluourinated
fuel
tanks
of
the
same
size
and
wall
thickness
in
separate
families.

"
1051.243(
b)(
1):
Requiring
that
intermediate
test
points
be
evenly
spaced
over
the
serviceaccumulation
period.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
62
"
1051.243(
b)(
4):
Specifying
a
simple,
straight­
line
calculation
for
deterioration
factors
where
there
are
only
low­
hour
and
full­
life
emission
values.
This
is
necessary,
since
it
is
not
mathematically
possible
to
do
a
least­
squares
fit
with
only
two
data
points.
The
linear
leastsquares
fit
applies
to
any
calculations
involving
three
or
more
data
points.

"
1051.801:
Revising
the
specified
point
of
low­
hour
testing
from
100
hours
or
1,000
kilometers
to
24
hours
or
240
kilometers.
This
reflects
current
practice
and
prevents
a
manufacturer
from
selecting
a
low­
hour
test
point
that
is
significantly
through
the
applicable
useful
life.

"
1051.301(
h):
Clarifying
that
manufacturers
may
omit
production­
line
testing
for
their
engine
families
only
if
they
do
not
rely
on
ABT
calculations
to
show
compliance
with
any
of
their
families.

"
1051.501(
b):
For
products
using
motorcycles
and
ATVs
using
chassis­
based
procedures
in
40
CFR
part
86,
adding
the
provision
to
consider
emissions
stabilized
after
12
hours
of
engine
operation.
This
is
consistent
with
the
specification
already
adopted
in
40
CFR
part
1065
for
engine­
based
testing.

"
1051.501(
d):
Specify
that
service
accumulation
may
be
done
using
a
commercially
available
fuel
in
addition
to
the
specified
test
fuel.

"
1051.505:
Omitting
the
maximum
run
time
and
sampling
time
in
each
mode
only
for
engines
that
use
NOx
aftertreatment.
Specifying
maximum
values
is
important
for
appropriately
measuring
emissions
from
lean­
burn
engines,
but
this
is
not
necessary
for
the
more
common
experience
of
stoichimetric
or
rich
air­
fuel
ratios.

"
1048.605
and
1048.610:
Clarifying
the
provisions
that
apply
to
recreational
vehicles
relying
on
certification
from
highway
or
Large
SI
programs.

"
1051.805:
Adding
a
definition
of
owners
manual
to
include
a
collection
of
documents
for
the
operator.
This
change
is
responsive
to
a
comment
from
a
manufacturer
of
engines
not
covered
by
part
1051.

"
1051.515:
Adding
a
definition
for
ultraviolet
light
to
identify
the
applicable
wavelength
of
300
to
400
nanometers.
This
change
is
needed
for
selecting
light
bulbs
for
aging
fuel
tanks
to
simulate
daylight
exposure.
This
is
consistent
with
the
commonly
accepted
wavelength
range
representing
the
ultraviolet
light
that
penetrates
the
atmosphere
and
cloud
cover.

II.
Summary
of
Rulemaking
Changes
We
are
making
several
adjustments
to
the
test
procedures,
definitions,
and
other
provisions
related
to
the
emission­
control
program
for
recreational
vehicles.

1.
Evaporative
Emission
Family
Definition
(
§
1051.230)

Manufacturers
certify
their
fuel
systems
by
grouping
them
into
emission
families
that
have
similar
emission
characteristics.
The
emission
family
definition
is
fundamental
to
the
certification
process
and
to
a
large
degree
determines
the
amount
of
testing
required
for
certification.
In
the
preamble
for
recreational
vehicle
final
rule
(
67
FR
68242,
November
8,
2002),
we
stated
that
"
the
regulations
include
specific
characteristics
for
grouping
emission
families
for
each
category
of
tanks
and
hoses.
For
fuel
tanks,
key
parameters
include
wall
thickness,
material
used
(
including
additives
such
as
Technical
Amendments
63
pigments,
plasticizers,
and
UV
inhibitors),
and
the
emission­
control
strategy
applied.
For
hoses,
key
parameters
include
material,
wall
thickness,
and
emission­
control
strategy
applied."

However,
the
regulatory
text
simply
states
"
evaporative
emission
controls"
as
a
subset
of
the
engine
family
without
detailing
specific
characteristics.
We
are
modifying
§
1051.230(
b)(
8)
to
include
the
key
parameters
discussed
above.
Types
of
evaporative
emission
controls
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
permeation
barriers,
surface
treatments,
and
barrier
platelets
(
i.
e.,
Selar
®
)
.
In
response
to
comments,
we
are
also
adjusting
the
proposed
language
to
clarify
that
tanks
and
hoses
with
varying
wall
thickness
may
be
included
in
the
same
engine
family,
as
long
as
the
products
selected
for
testing
result
from
the
same
manufacturing
processes,
and
are
the
most
thin­
walled
in
the
family
to
ensure
worst­
case
measurements.

In
addition
we
are
restructuring
this
section
to
distinguish
between
exhaust
and
evaporative
emission
families.
Currently,
the
regulations
state
that
"
you
may
ask
us
to
create
separate
families
for
exhaust
emissions
and
evaporative
emissions."
The
regulations
now
specify
that
the
primary
approach
is
for
separate
exhaust
and
evaporative
emission
families,
with
the
option
for
the
manufacturer
to
combine
these
families
into
a
single
emission
family.

2.
Sealing
the
Fuel
Tank
During
Permeation
Testing
(
§
1051.515)

Section
1051.515
of
the
regulations
specifies
that
the
fuel
tank
must
be
sealed
during
the
preconditioning
fuel
soak
and
permeation
test.
In
§
1051.515(
a)(
5),
we
expanded
on
how
a
tank
may
be
sealed
by
stating:
"
Seal
the
fuel
tank
using
nonpermeable
fittings,
such
as
metal
or
Teflon
 
.
"
This
statement,
as
it
is
written,
has
led
to
some
confusion.
One
manufacturer
was
under
the
impression
that
they
could
seal
all
openings
in
the
fuel
tank
with
metal
fittings
including
those
openings
that
would
be
sealed
in
some
other
way
in
production
vehicles.

However,
the
intent
of
this
statement
was
only
to
allow
nonpermeable
plugs
in
openings
that
are
not
normally
sealed,
such
as
hose
connection
fittings.
In
the
case
where
a
fuel
cap
directly
mounted
to
the
fuel
tank,
the
production
fuel
cap
(
including
gaskets)
must
be
used
during
a
permeation
test.
The
inside
surface
area
of
the
fuel
cap
must
be
included
in
the
calculation
of
total
tank
surface
area.
However,
if
there
is
a
vent
hole
in
the
fuel
cap,
the
vent
hole
may
be
sealed
using
a
nonpermeable
plug.

We
are
modifying
§
1051.515(
a)(
5)
to
read:
Seal
the
fuel
tank
using
fuel
caps
and
other
fittings
(
excluding
petcocks)
that
can
be
used
to
seal
openings
in
a
production
fuel
tank.
In
cases
where
openings
are
not
normally
sealed
on
the
fuel
tank
(
such
as
hose­
connection
fittings
and
vents
in
fuel
caps),
these
openings
may
be
sealed
using
nonpermeable
fittings
such
as
metal
or
fluoropolymer
plugs.

In
addition,
we
are
clarifying
the
definition
of
fuel
system
to
state:
"
In
the
case
where
the
fuel
tank
cap
or
other
components
(
excluding
fuel
lines)
are
directly
mounted
on
the
fuel
tank,
they
are
considered
to
be
a
part
of
the
fuel
tank."
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
10Tuckner,
P.,
Baker,
J.,
"
Fuel
Permeation
Testing
using
Gravimetric
Methods,"
SAE
Paper
2000­
01­
1096,
2000,
Docket
A­
2000­
01,
Document
IV­
A­
96.

11Nulman,
M.,
Olejnik,
A.,
Samus,
M.,
Fead,
E.,
Rossi,
G.,
"
Fuel
Permeation
Performance
of
Polymeric
Materials,"
SAE
Paper
2001­
01­
1999,
2001,
Docket
A­
2000­
01,
Document
IV­
A­
23.

12Stevens,
M.,
Demorest,
R.,
"
Fuel
Permeation
Analysis
Method
Correction,"
SAE
Paper
1999­
01­
0376,
1999,
Docket
A­
2000­
02,
Document
IV­
A­
03.

13Lockhart,
M.,
Nulman,
M.,
Rossi,
G.,
"
Estimating
Real
Time
Diurnal
Permeation
from
Constant
Temperature
Measurements,"
SAE
Paper
2001­
01­
0730,
Docket
A­
2000­
01,
Document
IV­
A­
21.

64
3.
Definition
of
fuel
lines
(
§
1051.801)

The
original
permeation
provisions
for
fuel
hose
referred
to
"
fuel
lines"
without
providing
a
definition
of
what
fuel
lines
are.
The
intent
of
the
permeation
standards
is
to
prevent
hydrocarbons
from
permeating
through
the
walls
of
the
fuel
system.
This
permeation
occurs
at
the
same
rate
for
materials
exposed
to
saturated
fuel
vapor
as
it
does
for
materials
exposed
to
fuel.
10,11,12,13
The
intent
of
the
permeation
standards
was
therefore
to
include
all
hose
and
tubing
in
the
fuel
system
that
carries
fuel
or
fuel
vapor.
However,
as
discussed
in
the
comments,
this
does
not
include
fuel
lines
that
are
open
to
the
atmosphere.
To
clarify
these
points
we
are
adopting
the
following
definition:
Fuel
line
means
all
hoses
or
tubing
designed
to
contain
liquid
fuel
or
fuel
vapor.
This
includes
all
hoses
or
tubing
for
the
filler
neck,
for
connections
between
dual
fuel
tanks,
and
for
connecting
a
carbon
canister
to
the
fuel
tank.
This
does
not
include
hoses
or
tubing
for
routing
crankcase
vapors
to
the
engine's
intake
or
any
other
hoses
or
tubing
that
are
open
to
the
atmosphere.

4.
Timing
of
the
permeation
test
run
(
§
1051.515)

The
permeation
test
for
fuel
tanks
currently
includes
a
soak
period
on
gasoline
blended
with
10%
ethanol
(
E10).
The
purpose
of
this
soak
is
to
stabilize
the
permeation
rate
of
the
fuel
through
the
fuel
tank.
E10
is
used
because
it
generally
represents
the
worst
case
for
fuel
that
is
commonly
used
by
inuse
vehicles.
After
the
soak,
the
fuel
tank
is
drained
and
refilled
with
fresh
fuel
prior
to
the
permeation
weight
loss
test.
The
intent
is
to
begin
the
test
as
soon
as
the
fuel
in
the
tank
reaches
the
test
temperature.
However,
the
original
regulations
to
not
specify
the
allowable
period
between
the
fuel
soak
and
the
permeation
test
run.
We
now
require
the
permeation
test
run
to
begin
within
eight
hours
of
fueling
the
tank.
This
should
provide
ample
time
for
the
fuel
to
stabilize
within
the
test
temperature
range.

The
length
of
the
test
run
as
described
in
the
preamble
is
two
weeks.
This
was
determined
to
be
ample
time
for
the
weight
loss
to
be
large
enough
for
an
accurate
measurement
to
be
made
on
a
fuel
tank
meeting
the
permeation
standards.
In
the
regulations,
we
specify
a
range
of
2
to
4
weeks
using
good
engineering
judgement
based
on
the
permeation
rate.
The
intent
of
this
is
to
allow
more
time
for
tests
on
very
low
permeating
fuel
tanks
to
gain
a
large
enough
weight
loss
to
make
an
accurate
Technical
Amendments
65
measurement.
We
clarify
the
appropriate
test
length
by
more
clearly
defining
when
a
four­
week
test
may
be
used.

The
concern
with
the
above
timing
issues
relates
primarily
to
the
effects
of
ethanol
on
a
fuel
system.
When
the
fuel
tank
is
soaked
using
E10,
the
ethanol
in
the
fuel
can
temporarily
change
the
structure
of
the
polymers
used
to
construct
the
fuel
tank.
This
change
in
structure
increases
the
permeation
rate
through
most
materials.
The
fuel
permeation
test
run
itself
can
be
performed
using
either
gasoline
or
E10.
We
anticipated
that
either
fuel
would
produce
the
same
permeation
results
because,
even
if
gasoline
were
used,
the
effects
of
the
ethanol
fuel
soak
would
not
be
reversed
in
the
short
time
needed
to
perform
the
weight
loss
test.
Clearly,
if
the
fuel
tank
were
allowed
to
soak
too
long
with
gasoline
during
the
permeation
test,
the
effects
of
the
ethanol
soak
would
be
reversed
and
the
measured
emissions
could
be
underestimated.

To
provide
further
assurance
that
the
effects
of
the
ethanol
soak
are
included
in
the
permeation
test,
we
are
adopting
another
requirement
for
fuel
tanks
tested
for
permeation
on
gasoline.
Weight
measurements
of
the
fuel
tank
must
be
made
daily.
In
this
case,
"
daily"
means
five
days
per
week
to
allow
for
weekends.
The
daily
weight
loss
must
be
plotted
versus
time
to
determine
if
a
linear
relationship
is
observed.
We
expect
that
if
the
ethanol
effects
were
to
begin
to
reverse,
that
the
slope
of
the
weight
loss
line
would
flatten.
If
a
linear
relationship
(
minimum
R­
squared
of
0.8)
was
not
seen
through
the
entire
permeation
test
run,
the
test
would
be
void.
To
avoid
the
issue
of
fuel
effects
on
the
permeation
rate,
EPA
will
likely
perform
any
confirmatory
tests
using
E10
fuel.

5.
Phase­
In
for
Youth
ATV
and
Off­
Highway
Motorcycle
Models
(
§
1051.105)

It
was
our
intention
in
the
recreational
vehicle
regulations
to
include
youth
ATV
and
off­
highway
motorcycle
models
to
be
counted
in
the
phase­
in
percentage
requirements
for
ATVs
and
off­
highway
motorcycles.
We
are
adopting
language
to
clarify
that
ATVs
with
a
total
displacement
of
100
cc
or
less
and
off­
highway
motorcycles
with
a
total
displacement
of
70
cc
or
less
will
count
in
the
phase­
in
(
percentage)
requirements
of
§
1051.105.

6.
CO
Maximum
FEL
for
ATVs
(
§
1051.107)

For
standards
that
allow
averaging,
EPA
has
traditionally
set
a
maximum
allowable
family
emission
limit
(
FEL)
to
ensure
that
manufacturers
won't
establish
FELs
that
unneccesarily
exceed
the
standard.
Table
1
of
§
1051.107,
which
lists
the
exhaust
emission
standards
for
ATVs,
lists
a
maximum
allowable
family
emission
limit
of
50
g/
km
for
the
CO
standard.
However,
since
there
is
not
an
option
for
CO
averaging
for
ATVs,
there
is
no
need
for
a
maximum
allowable
family
emission
limit.
We
are
therefore
removing
the
FEL
cap
of
50
g/
km
for
ATVs.

7.
Emission­
Related
Warranty
Period
(
§
1051.120)

The
language
in
§
1051.120(
b)
states
"
the
emission­
related
warranty
period
must
be
valid
for
at
least
50
percent
of
the
vehicles
minimum
useful
life
in
kilometers."
However,
many
recreational
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
66
vehicles
are
equipped
with
hour­
meters
instead
of
odometers.
Therefore
it
makes
sense
to
add
"
hours
of
engine
operation"
to
§
1051.120(
b).

8.
NER
Equations
(
§
1051.145
and
§
1051.137)

The
regulations
require
manufacturers
to
label
all
their
certified
vehicles
with
a
removable
hangtag
showing
its
emission
characteristics
relative
to
other
models.
In
lieu
of
providing
certification
emission
levels
on
the
tag,
manufacturers
are
required
to
calculate
and
provide
a
normalized
emission
rate
(
NER).
The
regulations
require
manufacturers
to
round
the
NER
to
the
nearest
whole
number.
However,
we
believe
that
it
is
more
appropriate
and
equitable
to
round
to
one
decimal
place
instead.
We
are
therefore
modifying
the
regulations
to
allow
rounding
to
one
decimal
place
rather
than
to
the
nearest
whole
number.

We
are
also
adopting
an
additional
equation
for
engines
under
225
cc
that
are
certified
to
g/
kW­
hr
standards.
The
new
equation
is
similar
to
the
existing
equation
that
will
continue
to
apply
to
larger
engines
certified
under
§
1051.145(
b),
but
accounts
for
the
higher
standards
that
apply
to
engines
under
225
cc.

9.
Useful
Life
for
Youth
ATV
and
Off­
Highway
Motorcycle
Models
(
§
1051.107
and
§
1051.107)

In
§
1051.105(
c)
and
§
1051.107(
c),
we
state
that
"...
ATVs
and
off­
highway
motorcycles
must
meet
a
minimum
useful
life
of
10,000
kilometers,
1000
hours
of
operation,
or
five
years,
whichever
comes
first."
The
Motorcycle
Industry
Council
(
MIC)
provided
us
with
survey
data
that
indicates
that
for
off­
highway
motorcycles
with
a
displacement
less
than
70
cc
and
ATVs
with
a
displacement
less
than
100
cc,
the
minimum
useful
life
should
be
half
of
that
for
the
larger
displacement
models.
We
are
therefore
changing
the
minimum
useful
life
for
these
youth
models
to
5,000
kilometers
and
500
hours.

10.
Raw
Gas
Sampling
Provisions
(
§
1051.145
and
§
1051.501)

In
the
preamble
of
the
final
rule
adopting
standards
for
recreational
vehicles,
we
described
our
intent
to
allow
all
ATVs
certifying
to
the
J1088
cycle
to
use
existing
raw­
gas
sampling
procedures.
However,
through
oversight,
this
provision
did
not
appear
in
the
regulations.
We
are
therefore
adopting
the
intended
provision
allowing
all
ATVs
certifying
to
J1088
to
use
the
raw
gas
sampling
provisions
of
40
CFR
part
90
or
91
for
engine
testing
through
the
2008
model
year.
ATVs
under
100
cc
and
off­
highway
motorcycles
under
70
cc
certifying
using
J1088
may
continue
to
use
these
rawgas
sampling
procedures
through
the
2010
model
year.

11.
Engine
Test
Speed
(
§
1051.501)

The
International
Snowmobile
Manufacturers
Association
(
ISMA)
and
the
Motorcycle
Industry
Council
(
MIC)
have
both
stated
that
due
to
the
nature
of
how
snowmobiles
and
ATVs
operate,
§
1065.515(
d)
which
describes
how
to
determine
"
maximum
test
speed,"
is
inappropriate
and
overly
Technical
Amendments
67
burdensome.
They
have
suggested
language
that
significantly
reduces
the
number
of
steps
involved
in
determining
maximum
test
speed.
ISMA
has
suggested
the
following
language:
"
Maximum
test
speed
for
snowmobile
testing
is
the
maximum
steady
speed
of
the
installed
engine
during
normal
inuse
operation
at
wide­
open
throttle."
MIC
suggested
the
following
language:
"
For
constant­
speed
engines,
maximum
test
speed
is
the
same
as
the
engine's
maximum
operating
speed
in
use.
For
variable­
speed
engines,
maximum
test
speed
is
the
vehicle's
rated
speed,
where
rated
speed
is
the
point
at
which
the
engine's
peak
power
occurs."
Rather
than
the
specific
wording
recommended,
we
are
adopting
a
more
general
approach
that
allows
manufacturers
to
test
engines
from
recreational
vehicles
based
on
an
engine's
maximum
power
if
that
better
represents
in­
use
operation
(
see
§
1051.501(
e)).

12.
Low­
speed
ATVs
(
§
1051.801)

There
are
two
types
of
vehicles
that
meet
the
definition
of
all­
terrain
vehicle.
First,
traditional
ATV
models
have
four
wheels,
a
single
seat
straddled
by
the
rider
and
handlebars.
We
also
define
other
vehicles
to
be
all­
terrain
vehicles
if
they
are
designed
for
operation
over
rough
terrain.
However,
we
exclude
rough­
terrain
vehicles
if
they
meet
certain
criteria
as
utility
vehicles.
Manufacturers
have
raised
the
concern
that
they
produce
low­
speed
models
that
meet
the
second
meaning
of
the
definition
for
all­
terrain
vehicle.
The
engine
technology
and
vehicle
operation,
however,
are
much
more
like
that
for
Small
SI
engines
covered
under
40
CFR
part
90.
To
address
this,
we
are
setting
a
threshold
to
qualify
as
an
all­
terrain
vehicle
under
this
second
meaning
of
the
definition.
Any
such
vehicles
with
maximum
speed
below
25
miles
per
hour
will
not
be
considered
all­
terrain
vehicles
and
will
therefore
be
subject
to
emission
standards
under
40
CFR
part
90.

13.
Ramped­
modal
Testing
(
§
1051.505
and
§
1051.615)

As
described
in
Chapter
1,
we
have
developed
a
testing
method
that
simplifies
steady­
state
emission
measurements.
Ramped­
modal
procedures
combine
the
several
discrete
modes
into
a
defined
sequence
of
operation
with
a
fixed
amount
of
time
in
each
mode
to
capture
the
appropriate
weighting
factor
for
individual
modes.
Emissions
are
measured
continuously
during
engine
operation,
so
there
is
a
single
measurement
to
quantify,
rather
than
separately
measuring
emissions
from
each
mode
and
mathematically
determining
the
overall
brake­
specific
emission
level.
We
are
adopting
a
provision
allowing
manufacturers
to
use
either
the
established
discrete­
mode
duty
cycle
or
the
equivalent
ramped­
modal
duty
cycle
for
engine
testing.

14.
Other
Changes
We
adopted
emission
standards
for
recreational
vehicles
in
November
2002
(
67
FR
68242).
The
regulations
in
40
CFR
part
1051
were
our
first
attempt
to
draft
emission­
control
regulations
in
plainlanguage
format.
In
the
recent
final
rule
for
nonroad
diesel
engines,
we
went
through
a
similar
process,
including
extensive
interaction
with
a
different
set
of
manufacturers.
This
process
led
us
to
adopt
regulatory
provisions
in
40
CFR
part
1039
that
differ
from
those
in
part
1051.
Since
the
process
of
meeting
standards,
applying
for
certificates,
and
complying
with
other
emission­
related
requirements
has
a
lot
of
commonality
across
programs,
we
have
a
strong
interest
in
adopting
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
14
See
"
Redline
Version
of
40
CFR
Part
1051
Showing
Proposed
Changes,"
EPA
memo
from
Alan
Stout
to
Docket
OAR­
2004­
0017,
July
5,
2004.

68
consistent
provisions
and
uniform
terminology
as
much
as
possible.
As
a
result,
we
are
extensively
changing
part
1051
to
align
with
the
regulations
in
part
1039.

Many
of
the
changes
for
part
1051
involve
relatively
minor
wording
differences.
Several
other
changes
involve
new
or
revised
language
to
express
a
regulatory
provision
more
clearly
without
changing
the
underlying
policy.
There
are
also
some
minor
organizational
changes
to
move
certain
provisions
to
a
different
location
that
better
reflects
their
relationship
to
the
overall
process
of
certifying
engines.
We
believe
it
is
important
to
make
these
changes
to
avoid
a
situation
where
we
unintentionally
apply
slightly
different
provisions
to
different
categories
of
engines.
These
changes
that
are
intended
to
involve
no
change
in
policy
are
not
listed
here.
14
The
following
tables
highlight
many
of
the
specific
changes
to
part
1051.

I.
Subpart
A
 
Overview
and
Applicability
Reference
Proposed
Change
1051.1
We
now
state
that
the
part
1051
requirements
apply
to
recreational
vehicles,
rather
than
to
the
manufacturers
of
recreational
vehicles.

II.
Subpart
B
 
Emission
Standards
and
Related
Requirements
Reference
Proposed
Change
1051.120(
a)
The
scope
of
the
warranty
now
explicitly
includes
secondary
purchasers
to
make
clear
that
the
emission­
related
warranty
is
fully
transferrable
throughout
the
specified
warranty
period.
Also,
the
scope
of
the
warranty
includes
the
engine
and
all
its
emission­
related
components.

1051.120(
b)
Warranty
periods
are
clarified:
(
1)
If
mechanical
warranties
are
offered
without
charge,
the
emission­
related
warranty
for
the
corresponding
components
(
or
the
whole
engine,
as
applicable)
may
not
be
shorter
than
the
mechanical
warranty.
(
2)
We
clarify
that
the
warranty
period
starts
when
the
engine
is
first
placed
into
service.

1051.120(
c)
We
clarify
that
the
warranty
includes
components
such
as
catalysts
that
are
manufactured
by
another
company,
even
if
the
component
is
shipped
separately
and
the
certifying
manufacturer
never
takes
possession
of
those
components.

1051.120(
e)
We
add
a
requirement
for
manufacturers
to
describe
the
emission­
related
warranty
provisions
that
apply
to
their
engines
in
the
owners
manual.

1051.125(
c)
The
rule
originally
allowed
for
extra
maintenance
for
special
situations.
We
are
clarifying
this
to
point
out
that
manufacturers
must
make
clear
to
the
operator
that
this
additional
maintenance
is
tied
to
some
special
situation.

1051.125(
g)
This
provision
was
originally
adopted
as
§
1051.120(
d).
We
have
modified
this
to
more
carefully
track
provisions
in
the
Clean
Air
Act.
In
particular,
this
provision
now
clarifies
that
owners
must
generally
pay
for
scheduled
maintenance,
with
an
exception
for
relatively
expensive
parts
that
have
been
added
to
meet
emission
standards
and
that
are
not
needed
for
proper
engine
performance.
Technical
Amendments
69
1051.125(
h)
Consistent
with
§
1051.125(
g),
we
now
require
manufacturers
to
communicate
the
owner's
obligations
to
properly
maintain
their
engines.

1051.130(
d)
We
have
added
a
provision
allowing
manufacturers
to
communicate
installation
instructions
to
engine
installers
other
than
sending
a
copy
of
the
instructions
along
with
each
engine.
Manufacturers
may
describe
in
their
application
for
certification
that
they,
for
example,
post
their
installation
instructions
on
a
publicly
available
web
site.

1051.135(
c)
We
have
modified
the
requirements
for
the
emission
control
information
label:
(
1)
We
now
allow
manufacturers
to
apply
the
corporate
name
and
trademark
from
another
company,
(
2)
The
manufacturing
date
need
not
be
on
the
label,
as
long
it
is
as
the
manufacturer
keeps
records
that
allow
us
to
find
out
the
manufacturing
date
or
stamp
the
date
on
the
engine
or
vehicle,
(
3)
Only
the
exhaust
emission
levels
must
be
printed
on
the
label.

1051.135(
d)
We
are
adding
a
provision
to
specifically
allow
manufacturers
to
include
additional
label
information
related
to
meeting
other
emission
standards,
or
properly
maintaining
engines.

1051.135(
g)
We
are
adding
a
requirement
for
engine
manufacturers
to
supply
duplicate
labels
to
equipment
manufacturers
that
need
them
and
to
keep
basic
records
to
document
the
transactions.
We
have
already
adopted
corresponding
limits
on
what
equipment
manufacturers
must
do
to
properly
apply
these
duplicate
labels
and
prevent
abuse,
such
as
proliferation
of
counterfeit
labels.

1051.145(
c)
We
are
correcting
the
provision
related
to
waived
production­
line
testing
for
engines
that
do
not
generate
or
use
ABT
credits;
the
corrected
language
refers
to
all
the
different
emission
standards
to
which
this
applies.
We
are
also
moving
this
provision
to
§
1051.301,
since
it
does
not
expire.

III.
Subpart
C
 
Certifying
Engine
Families
Reference
Proposed
Change
1051.201(
g)
We
are
including
a
clearer
statement
that
we
may
require
manufacturers
to
deliver
test
engines
to
a
particular
facility
for
our
testing.

1051.205(
a)
We
are
clarifying
the
direction
to
describe
emission­
control
systems
to
require
that
manufacturers
identify
each
unique
configuration.

1051.205(
b)
We
are
adding
a
clarifying
note
to
include
part
numbers
for
emission­
related
components.
This
information,
which
is
already
commonly
included
in
applications,
helps
us
to
manage
the
information
related
to
the
certified
configuration,
especially
as
it
relates
to
running
changes
in
an
engine
family.

1051.205(
b)(
11)
The
instructions
for
completing
the
certification
application
now
include
detailed
items
related
to
auxiliary
emission­
control
devices.
This
clarifies
the
manufacturers'
existing
responsibility
to
describe
their
emission­
control
systems.

1051.205(
k)
Add
a
requirement
to
include
the
hang­
tag
label
with
normalized
emission
rates
in
the
application
for
certification.

1051.205(
t)
In
addition
to
the
existing
requirement
to
describe
adjustable
parameters,
we
are
including
a
requirement
to
describe
how
the
adjustment
limits
are
effective
in
preventing
operators
from
making
inappropriate
adjustments.

1051.250(
b)
We
are
adding
a
requirement
to
keep
records
related
to
production
figures
by
separate
assembly
plants
and
lists
of
engine
identification
numbers
in
each
engine
family.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
70
IV.
Subpart
D
 
Testing
Production­
Line
Engines
Reference
Proposed
Change
1051.310(
g)
Clarify
that
the
maximum
testing
rate
of
1
percent
for
production­
line
testing
is
determined
by
rounding
the
calculated
value
to
the
nearest
whole
number.
We
are
not
adopting
the
proposed
requirement
to
test
a
minimum
of
five
vehicles,
as
described
above.

1051.345
Change
reporting
requirements
based
on
calendar
quarters
to
refer
instead
to
the
test
period.
This
addresses
small­
volume
families
for
which
the
test
period
is
the
full
model
year.

V.
Subpart
F
 
Test
Procedures
Reference
Proposed
Change
1051.501(
a)
We
no
longer
specify
that
testing
must
include
measurement
of
CO
2
emissions.
However,
if
manufacturers
use
equipment
and
procedures
that
require
measurement
of
CO
2
emissions,
then
this
information
must
be
included
in
the
application
for
certification
(
see
§
1051.205).

1051.520
The
provisions
that
were
adopted
under
this
section
are
now
included
under
§
1051.243.

VI.
Subpart
G
 
Compliance
Provisions
Reference
Proposed
Change
1051.605
We
have
made
changes
to
this
section
to
clarify
the
responsibilities
of
the
original
manufacturer
of
the
engine
and
that
of
the
"
engine
dressing"
company.
We
also
clarify
the
ABT
responsibilities
relative
to
engines
or
vehicles
that
are
certified
under
the
motor­
vehicle
program
and
used
in
recreational
vehicles.

1051.610
This
section
includes
the
same
changes
made
in
1051.605
and
adds
a
criterion
such
that
adding
500
pounds
to
the
weight
of
the
vehicle
is
considered
to
be
a
substantial
change
to
the
engine.
This
is
consistent
with
the
approach
we
have
taken
in
guidance
documents
under
current
regulations.
The
requirement
to
avoid
changing
the
emission­
control
system
now
includes
the
refueling
controls,
since
the
vehicle
is
being
used
in
nonroad
service
in
its
certified
configuration;
no
engine
installation
is
required.

1051.635
We
are
adding
provisions
that
will
allow
manufacturers
to
place
another
company's
brand
name
on
the
emission
control
information
label.
This
is
consistent
with
provisions
we
have
adopted
for
nonroad
diesel
engines.

VI.
Subpart
H
 
ABT
Provisions
Reference
Proposed
Change
1051.701
We
clarify
the
limits
on
using
emission
credits
across
families
and
model
years,
especially
as
it
relates
to
noncompliant
engines.

1051.705
We
clarify
the
process
for
reconciling
the
balance
of
emission
credits
at
the
end
of
the
model
year.

1051.710
We
clarify
the
process
for
banking
emission
credits
and
using
banked
emission
credits.

1051.715
We
clarify
the
process
for
trading
emission
credits.
Technical
Amendments
71
1051.725
­
735
We
clarify
the
requirements
for
sending
us
ABT­
related
information
in
the
application
for
certification
and
the
end­
of­
year
report,
and
for
keeping
such
records.

1051.745
We
clarify
the
legal
liabilities
associated
with
using
ABT
provisions
to
comply
with
emission
standards.

VII.
Subpart
I
 
Definitions
and
Other
Reference
Information
Reference
Proposed
Change
1051.801
We
are
revising
the
definition
of
brake
power
to
focus
on
power
required
to
fuel,
lubricate,
heat,
and
cool
the
engine,
rather
than
on
the
components
that
do
these
things.
This
is
necessary
to
address
the
ambiguity
that
would
result
from
a
single
component
such
as
a
heat
exchanger
that
cools
the
engine
in
addition
to
providing
cooling
for
other
purposes.

1051.801
We
are
changing
our
rounding
specification
from
ASTM
E29
to
NIST
Special
Publication
811.
Our
understanding
is
that
these
two
publications
have
equivalent
specifications.

1051.820
We
are
revising
these
provisions
to
clarify
that
we
handle
confidential
information
that
we
gather
from
manufacturers
during
inspections
the
same
way
that
we
handle
what
manufacturers
send
us.

1051.825
We
are
adding
details
to
better
define
the
process
for
requesting
hearings
under
part
1051.
For
example,
manufacturers
must
send
a
written
request
within
30
days
of
an
EPA
judgment.
Also,
we
will
limit
hearings
to
substantial
factual
issues.
These
are
consistent
with
longstanding
regulatory
provisions
from
other
programs.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
72
Chapter
8:
Test
Procedures
(
40
CFR
part
1065)

I.
Summary
and
Analysis
of
Comments
We
received
comments
on
many
of
the
proposed
provisions
in
part
1065,
with
additional
comments
raising
new
issues
for
us
to
consider.
The
majority
of
these
comments
have
been
addressed
by
making
changes
to
the
regulations.
These
changes
are
described
in
section
8.
II.
The
following
discussion
presents
a
summary
and
analysis
of
a
few
these
comments
that
warrant
extended
discussion
and
other
comments
which
are
not
being
incorporated.

A.
Representative
testing
Manufacturers
expressed
concern
about
the
requirement
in
§
1065.10(
c)(
1)
for
manufacturers
to
notify
us
in
cases
in
which
they
determine
that
the
specified
test
procedures
would
result
in
measurements
that
do
not
represent
in­
use
operation.
Specifically,
they
expressed
concern
about
the
potential
impact
on
stringency,
the
need
for
lead
time
to
make
changes,
the
vagueness
of
the
language,
and
the
need
for
changes
to
be
made
through
a
notice
and
comment
rulemaking.
In
response
to
their
concerns,
we
have
modified
this
provision
as
follows
to
make
it
clearer
what
the
manufacturers
burdens
are
and
what
process
EPA
would
use
to
modify
the
test
procedures:

§
1065.10(
c)(
1)
The
objective
of
the
procedures
in
this
part
is
to
produce
emission
measurements
equivalent
to
those
that
would
result
from
measuring
emissions
during
in­
use
operation
using
the
same
engine
configuration
as
installed
in
a
vehicle.
However,
in
unusual
circumstances
these
procedures
may
result
in
measurements
that
do
not
represent
in­
use
operation.
You
must
notify
us
if
good
engineering
judgment
indicates
that
the
specified
procedures
cause
unrepresentative
emission
measurements
for
your
engines.
Note
that
you
need
not
notify
us
of
unrepresentative
aspects
of
the
test
procedure
if
measured
emissions
are
equivalent
to
in­
use
emissions.
If
you
notify
us
of
unrepresentative
procedures
under
this
paragraph
(
c)(
1),
we
will
cooperate
with
you
to
establish
whether
and
how
the
procedures
should
be
appropriately
changed
to
result
in
more
representative
measurements.
While
the
provisions
of
this
paragraph
(
c)(
1)
allow
us
to
be
responsive
to
issues
as
they
arise,
we
would
generally
work
toward
making
these
testing
changes
generally
applicable
through
rulemaking.
We
will
allow
reasonable
lead
time
for
compliance
with
any
resulting
change
in
procedures.
We
will
consider
the
following
factors
in
determining
the
importance
of
pursuing
changes
to
the
procedures:
(
i)
Whether
supplemental
emission
standards
or
other
requirements
in
the
standard­
setting
part
address
the
type
of
operation
of
concern
or
otherwise
prevent
inappropriate
design
strategies.
(
ii)
Whether
the
unrepresentative
aspect
of
the
procedures
affect
your
ability
to
show
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
standards.
(
iii)
The
extent
to
which
the
established
procedures
require
the
use
of
emission­
control
technologies
or
strategies
that
are
expected
to
ensure
a
comparable
degree
of
emission
control
under
the
in­
use
operation
that
differs
from
the
specified
procedures.
Technical
Amendments
73
We
believe
this
revised
language
addresses
the
manufacturers'
concerns.
At
the
same
time,
this
language
retains
the
principle
features
of
the
old
language.
First,
it
clearly
states
that
the
goal
of
the
test
procedures
is
to
"
produce
emission
measurements
equivalent
to
those
that
would
result
from
measuring
emissions
during
in­
use
operation
using
the
same
engine
configuration
as
installed
in
a
vehicle."
Clearly,
the
purpose
of
our
regulations
is
to
achieve
in­
use
emission
reductions
by
requiring
manufacturers
to
demonstrate
that
they
meet
certain
emission
standards.
For
example,
the
recall
requirements
in
§
207(
c)(
1)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
refer
to
conforming
to
the
regulations
when
the
engine
is
"
in
actual
use".
Thus,
it
is
important
that
certification
emission
testing
be
largely
representative
of
in­
use
operation.
Testing
that
is
not
representative
of
actual
in­
use
operation
does
not
necessarily
tell
us
anything
about
whether
any
emission
reductions
occur.
By
including
this
clear
statement
of
our
intent,
we
hope
to
discourage
manufacturers
from
considering
only
the
specified
test
procedures,
rather
than
in­
use
performance,
when
designing
their
emission
controls.
Most
manufacturers
would,
as
a
matter
of
good
faith,
consider
both
the
test
procedures
and
in­
use
performance.
This
provision
will
provide
these
manufacturers
with
the
assurance
that
we
will
ensure
that
all
other
manufacturers
are
being
equally
responsible.

Second,
the
revised
language
recognizes
that
in
most
cases,
it
will
be
the
manufacturers
themselves
who
will
first
become
aware
of
potential
problems
with
the
representativeness
of
the
test
procedures
for
their
engines.
When
they
do
become
aware
of
such
problems,
it
would
not
be
appropriate
for
the
manufacturers
to
withhold
such
information
from
us,
and
we
are
unlikely
to
ask
for
such
information
unless
we
are
already
aware
of
the
problem.
Thus,
this
provision
requires
that
manufacturers
notify
us
of
such
problems.
This
provision
does
not
create
an
obligation
for
manufacturers
to
find
all
potential
problems,
but
only
to
notify
us
when
they
become
aware
of
them.
Without
this
notification,
we
would
likely
be
unable
to
achieve
the
stated
goal
of
the
test
procedures.
However,
in
response
to
manufacturers
concerns
we
have
added
a
sentence
noting
that
they
do
not
need
to
notify
us
in
cases
in
which
the
measured
emissions
would
still
be
equivalent
to
in­
use
emissions.
It
is
important
to
emphasize
that
we
are
stating
that
emissions
need
to
be
"
equivalent"
rather
than
"
the
same
as"
in­
use
emissions.
We
say
"
equivalent"
because
we
are
only
interested
in
test
details
that
have
a
significant
impact
on
measured
emission
levels.
We
recognize
that
many
compromises
must
be
made
between
the
practicality
of
testing
and
the
matching
of
in­
use
operation.
We
have
considered
many
aspects
of
the
test
procedures
in
this
respect
for
the
engines
and
emission
controls
of
which
we
are
currently
aware.
We
have
concluded
that
the
test
procedures
in
part
1065
will
generally
result
in
emission
measurements
that
are
sufficiently
representative
of
in­
use
emissions,
even
though
not
all
in­
use
operation
will
occur
during
testing.
Thus,
we
expect
manufacturers
to
need
to
notify
us
only
when
they
discover
some
unrepresentative
feature
of
the
test
procedures
specific
to
a
given
engine
design
or
resulting
from
the
application
of
some
new
emission
control
technology.

Finally,
the
revised
language
still
includes
the
flexibility
to
modify
the
test
procedures
to
make
them
more
representative
of
in­
use
operation.
However,
we
have
added
new
language
to
recognize
that
while
some
minor
changes
can
be
made
immediately,
others
will
require
some
additional
lead
time,
and
still
others
we
likely
require
a
full
notice
and
comment
rulemaking.
The
new
regulatory
language
also
states
that
we
will
work
cooperatively
with
the
manufacturers
to
make
the
changes.
It
is
not
our
intent
to
use
this
as
a
means
of
increasing
the
stringency
of
the
standards.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
74
B.
NOx
Definition
In
subpart
C
of
part
1065,
we
specify
the
use
of
either
a
chemiluminescent
detector
(
CLD)
or
a
nondispersive
ultraviolet
(
NDUV)
analyzer
to
measure
NOx
concentrations.
We
also
note
in
the
regulations
that
these
analyzers
measure
only
NO
and
NO2,
and
that
manufacturers
need
to
use
good
engineering
judgment
to
measure
other
oxides
of
nitrogen.
Manufacturers
were
concerned
that
this
could
lead
to
confusion
about
whether
or
not
they
are
required
to
measure
any
other
oxides
of
nitrogen.
Thus
we
have
revised
the
regulations
to
clarify
that
manufacturers
only
need
to
measure
other
oxides
of
nitrogen
when
directed
by
the
standard­
setting
part.
Manufacturers
had
asked
to
remove
the
entire
reference
to
other
oxides
of
nitrogen.
However,
it
is
necessary
to
retain
this
reference
to
avoid
confusion
about
what
is
being
measured.
This
approach
is
appropriate
at
this
time
since
conventional
engines
and
aftertreatment
systems
do
not
emit
significant
amounts
of
NOx
species
other
than
NO
and
NO2.
Moreover,
the
allowance
for
the
use
of
other
measurement
procedures
addresses
the
possibility
that
other
oxides
of
nitrogen
may
need
to
be
measured
under
future
standards­
setting
parts
or
to
address
future
public
health
risks
such
as
those
prohibited
by
§
1048.115(
f).

C.
Other
comments
MIC
commented
that
the
provisions
for
alternate
test
procedures
appear
to
disallow
using
more
accurate
or
more
precise
procedures
in
§
1065.10.
This
was
not
intended.
We
have
revised
the
text
to
clarify
that
improved
accuracy
and
precision
don't
preclude
equivalence.

D.
Part
1065
Comments
Not
Being
Incorporated
into
Regulatory
Text
Comment
Response
1065.1(
a)(
2)
indicates
that
1065
applies
to
land­
based
nonroad
diesel
engines
regulated
under
40CFR
1039.
1039.1
indicates
that
part
1039
phases
in
2008­
2012
by
power
category.
Is
it
intended
that
1065
procedures
can
not
be
used
for
some
NR
engines
until
2012
MY?
In
§
89.114
we
state
that
"
a
manufacturer
may
elect
to
use
the
test
procedures
in
40
CFR
part
1065
as
an
alternate
test
procedure
without
advance
approval".

1065.1(
g)
provides
at
website
for
"
additional
information
and
updates
regarding
these
procedures."
A
website
posting
must
not
become
a
mechanism
for
"
back
door"
rulemaking.
We
will
not
use
website
postings
in
an
attempt
to
circumvent
our
Administrative
Procedure
Act
obligation
for
notice
and
comment
rulemakings.

1065.2(
e)
Is
40
CFR
2.301
a
correct
cite?
It
is
correct.
Technical
Amendments
75
1065.10
(
c)
(
6)
states
that
"
During
the
12
months
following
the
effective
date
of
any
change
in
the
provision
of
this
part
1065,
you
may
ask
to
use
data
collected
using
procedures
specified
in
the
previously
applicable
version
of
this
part
1065."
Use
of
the
previously
applicable
version
should
not
subject
to
approval.
Testing
data
from
carryover
families
must
be
allowed
regardless
of
changes
to
the
1065
test
procedures.
We
cannot
categorically
allow
use
of
earlier
procedures.
Some
of
the
future
changes
we
will
make
to
part
1065
may
be
so
necessary
technically
that
it
may
be
inappropriate
to
allow
the
use
of
earlier
procedures.
The
use
of
carryover
is
a
separate
issue
that
should
be
addressed
for
each
engine
category
in
the
standardsetting
part.
This
provision
does
not
restrict
any
use
of
carryover
data
allowed
by
the
standard­
setting
part.

1065.15(
a)
lists
the
emission
constituents
for
which
emission
standards
may
be
set.
Smoke
is
not
listed.
Is
this
intentional?
Part
1065
does
not
include
procedures
for
measuring
smoke
emissions.

II.
Summary
or
Rulemaking
Changes
Subpart
A
 
Applicability
and
General
Provisions
§
1065.1
Applicability
Reference
Description
Source
(
a
)
and
(
b)
We
broadened
applicability
of
Part
1065
to
include
Model
year
2010
and
later
heavy­
duty
highway
engines
we
regulate
under
40
CFR
Part
86.
For
earlier
model
years,
manufacturers
may
use
the
test
procedures
in
this
part
or
those
specified
in
40
CFR
Part
86,
Subpart
N.

(
g)
We
added
a
reference
to
a
location
on
our
website
where
manufacturers
may
find
additional
information.

§
1065.2
Statements
in
applications
and
approvals
Reference
Description
Source
We
reiterated
anyone's
obligation
to
report
truthful
information
to
us
and
to
reiterate
our
treatment
of
confidential
business
information.
§
1068.101
§
1068.10
§
1065.5
Overview
and
relationship
to
standard
setting
parts
Reference
Description
Source
(
a)
We
revised
the
list
of
information
needed
from
standard
setting
parts
to
conduct
emissions
testing
according
to
this
part.
We
revised
the
list
to
reflect
a
broader
set
of
field
testing
requirements
among
the
standard
setting
parts.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
76
§
1065.10
Other
procedures
Reference
Description
Source
(
c)(
1)
See
Section
8.
I.
A
(
c)(
3)
We
provided
guidance
on
how
to
gradually
update
your
test
procedures
to
eventually
comply
with
Part
1065
based
on
§
86.1306­
07(
c)(
3).
§
86.1306­
07(
c)

(
c)(
6)
Added
allowance
for
manufacturers
to
ask
to
use
earlier
version
of
Part
1065
for
12
months
after
new
provisions
become
effective.

§
1065.12
Approval
of
alternate
procedures
Reference
Description
Source
We
incorporated
and
revised
text
from
§
86.1306­
07(
d).
We
revised
§
86.1306­
07(
d)
text
to
provide
additional
guidance
on
how
to
use
statistical
tests
and
how
to
use
the
statistics
for
field
testing.(
3)
§
86.1306­
07(
d)

§
1065.15
Overview
of
procedures
for
lab
and
field
testing
Reference
Description
Source
We
described
lab
testing
and
field
testing
in
a
similar
context.

(
c)(
1)
We
described
engine
operation
during
lab
and
field
testing.

(
c)(
2)
We
allowed
both
continuous
and
batch
(
e.
g.
bag,
PM
filter)
sampling
of
emissions.
In
Part
1065
we
incorporate
specifications
in
Part
86,
Part
89,
and
ISO
8178.
40
CFR
Part
86
40
CFR
Part
89
ISO
8178
(
c)(
3)
We
allowed
work
determination
via
chemical
balances
of
fuel
and
exhaust.
This
enables
field
testing
without
a
direct
torque
measurement
and
without
a
flow
measurement
that
is
accurate
to
flow,
but
only
linearly
proportional
to
flow.

§
1065.20
Units
of
measure
and
overview
of
calculations.

Reference
Description
Source
(
a)
We
adopted
the
international
system
of
units
(
SI)
for
all
calculations.
We
revised
Part
1065
to
comply
with
a
federal
agency
requirement
to
adopt
SI.
15
CFR
1170
(
a)
We
adopted
a
molar
basis
for
calculating
ideal
gas
flows,
which
includes
intake
air,
dilution
air
and
raw
and
diluted
exhaust.
We
deleted
the
volume
and
mass
bases
to
eliminate
the
associated
confusion
from
different
datums
of
standard
pressure
and
standard
temperature.

(
f)
We
revised
equipment
and
measurement
instrument
specifications
in
Part
1065
to
scale
with
our
emissions
standards
and
with
the
power
of
your
engine.
We
revised
these
specifications
to
enable
Part
1065
to
be
applicable
across
a
wide
range
of
emissions
standards
and
engine
sizes.
Technical
Amendments
77
§
1065.25
Recordkeeping
Reference
Description
Source
We
added
a
minimum
1­
year
requirement
to
keep
records,
which
may
be
superceded
by
requirements
in
the
standard­
setting
part.

Subpart
B
 
Equipment
Specifications
§
1065.101
Overview
Reference
Description
Source
We
revised
this
subpart
to
only
describe
equipment
specifications.
We
described
measurement
instrument
specifications
in
their
own
subpart:
Subpart
C.

§
1065.110
Dynamometers
and
operator
demand.

Reference
Description
Source
(
a)
We
revised
dynamometer
specifications
for
different
applications,
including
duty
cycles
with
motoring
commands.
We
broadened
specifications
for
standard
setting
parts
that
have
motoring
in
their
duty
cycles.
Based
on
comments
from
EMA,
we
described
how
to
incorporate
and/
or
simulate
other
work
inputs
and
outputs
in
order
to
enable
representative
testing
of
engine
subsystems
such
as
turbocharger
driven
alternators,
thermoelectric
heat
recovery
devices,
hybrid
power
trains,
and
other
work
inputs
and
outputs.
§
86.1308
§
89.306
ISO
8178­
1
§
7.2
(
b)
­
(
d)
We
added
text
to
explain
how
to
handle
engine
accessories.
Proposed
§
1065.122
(
e)
We
described
of
how
to
control
engine
operator
demand
(
e.
g.
throttle)
to
help
ensure
representative
testing
in
the
lab.

§
1065.120
Fuels
and
fuel
temperature
and
pressure
Reference
Description
Source
(
b)
We
allowed
manufacturers
to
specify
the
fuel
temperature
and
pressure
to
the
engine
to
help
ensure
representative
testing
in
the
lab.
Based
on
comments
from
EMA,
we
described
how
to
test
an
engine
when
a
manufacturer
does
not
specify
certain
pressures
and
temperatures.
ISO
8178­
1
§
6
§
1065.122
Engine
cooling
and
lubrication.

Reference
Description
Source
Title
We
changed
the
section
title
to
reflect
the
movement
of
accessory
text
to
§
1065.110.

(
a)
We
describe
how
to
cool
an
engine
during
testing.
§
1065.501(
c)(
5)
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
78
§
1065.125
Engine
intake
air
Reference
Description
Source
We
allowed
emissions
testing
with
a
production
intake
air
system
to
help
ensure
representative
testing
in
the
lab.

(
b)
We
allowed
use
of
a
central
barometer
within
1
kPa
of
pressure
at
engine,
instead
of
0.1
%
of
point
as
in
§
86.1344(
e)(
4),
which
is
overly
stringent
considering
exhaust
conditions
are
only
held
within
1.2
kPa.
§
86.1344(
e)(
4)

(
c)
We
allowed
engine
manufacturers
to
specify
a
range
of
intake
restriction,
noting
manufacturers'
liability
up
to
the
maximum
allowable
restriction.

(
d)
We
allowed
the
use
of
coolant
as
cool
as
25

C.
We
required
the
use
of
a
cooler
with
a
typical
charge
air
volume
to
help
ensure
representative
testing
in
the
lab.
We
described
how
to
cool
the
intake
air
consistent
with
§
1065.10(
c)(
1).
8178­
11
§
5.2
§
1065.127
Reference
Description
Source
We
added
section
to
clarify
the
requirements
for
EGR
systems.

§
1065.130
Engine
exhaust
Reference
Description
Source
(
a)
through
(
d)
We
scaled
the
exhaust
system
material,
design,
and
component
specifications
in
Part
86
Subpart
N
to
enable
Part
1065
to
be
applicable
across
a
wide
range
of
engine
powers.
In
response
to
EMA
comments,
we
maintained
some
absolute
limits
to
laboratory
exhaust
system
lengths.
CFR
86
Subpart
N
(
e)
We
allowed
forced
aftertreatment
cool­
down
based
on
guidance
we
issued
in
the
past
(
1),
(
2).
§
86.1335­
90
(
f)
We
allowed
engine
manufacturers
to
use
a
range
of
exhaust
restrictions
based
on
the
maximum
recommended
value,
noting
manufacturers'
liability
up
to
the
maximum
allowable
restriction.

(
g)
We
added
specifications
on
how
to
route
open
crankcase
emissions
to
accommodate
standard
setting
parts
that
require
open
crankcase
emissions
measurements.
Based
on
EMA
comments,
we
allowed
the
use
of
conductive
non­
reactive
non­
metallic
crankcase
emissions
tubing.

§
1065.140
Dilution
for
gases
and
PM.

Reference
Description
Source
(
a)
We
adopted
a
minimum
dilution
air
temperature
of
15
C
from
§
86.1310­
2007.(
3)
§
86.1310­
2007
Technical
Amendments
79
(
b)
We
recommended
HEPA
filtration,
and
we
limited
PM
background
if
HEPA
filtration
is
not
used
to
improve
PM
measurement
repeatability.
Based
on
EMA
comments
we
allowed
a
wider
range
of
possible
background
emissions
sampling
options.
§
86.1310­
2007
(
c)
We
revised
the
CVS
specifications,
which
we
based
on
§
86.1310­
2007,
to
scale
across
a
broad
range
of
engine
powers
to
enable
Part
1065
to
be
applicable
across
a
broad
range
of
engine
powers.
Based
on
EMA
comments,
for
our
testing,
we
will
maintain
raw
exhaust
pressure
control
within
a
tighter
tolerance
that
the
default
1.2
kPa,
if
a
manufacturer
shows
by
data
or
engineering
analysis
that
the
tighter
tolerance
is
needed
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
applicable
standards
and
that
the
manufacturer
also
maintains
the
tighter
tolerance
during
testing.
§
86.1310­
2007
(
d)
We
allowed
constant­
dilution
ratio
partial
flow
dilution
samplers
such
as
CVS
secondary
dilution
systems.
Previously
we
allowed
this
according
to
§
86.1310­
2007.
We
also
allowed
varying
dilution
ratio
samplers
for
gaseous
emissions,
such
as
bag
mini­
diluters.
We
only
allowed
varying
dilution
ratio
PFD
systems
for
PM
measurement
for
steady­
state
testing,
including
ramped
modal
testing.
For
transient
duty
cycle
partial
flow
PM
testing,
we
required
prior
approval
from
us
according
to
§
1065.10
and
§
1065.12.
§
86.1310­
2007
(
e)
We
specified
temperature
control
during
PM
sampling
the
same
as
we
specified
in
86.1310­
2007.(
3)
§
86.1310­
2007
§
1065.145
Gaseous
and
PM
probes,
transfer
lines,
and
sample
conditioning
components
Reference
Description
Source
(
b)
We
defined
a
probe
as
only
that
section
of
a
sampling
system
inside
the
raw
or
dilute
exhaust
duct.
Note
that
this
is
a
change
from
some
of
our
other
regulations
where
we
allowed
up
to
1
meter
of
transfer
line
to
be
considered
part
of
the
probe.

(
b)
We
allowed
single
port
or
multiport
probes
oriented
in
any
direction
for
gaseous
emissions
sampling.
Note
that
this
is
a
change
from
some
of
our
other
regulations
where
we
required
certain
probes
and
orientations
for
gas
sampling.
We
allowed
a
wider
variety
of
probes.
because
gas
sampling
is
insensitive
to
the
previous
specifications.

(
b)
We
required
a
more
prescriptive
design
and
orientation
of
for
PM
probes
to
ensure
proper
PM
sampling.
Based
on
European
Union
comments,
we
allowed
the
use
of
a
"
hat"
type
PM
preclassifier
on
the
end
of
PM
probes
as
long
as
no
other
preclassifier
is
used
downstream
of
the
hat.

(
c)
We
recommended
how
to
install
transfer
lines,
and
we
specified
materials
and
temperatures
of
transfer
lines
based
on
§
86.1310­
2007,
which
were
for
diesel
emissions
sampling.
We
extended
these
specifications
to
include
some
spark­
ignition
engines.(
3)
§
86.1310­
2007
(
d)
We
allowed
sample
conditioning
components
in­
line
with
transfer
lines
based
on
§
86.1310­
2007.(
3)
§
86.1310­
2007
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
80
§
1065.170
Batch
sampling
for
gaseous
and
PM
constituents
Reference
Description
Source
(
a)
and
(
b)
We
allowed
gaseous
batch
sampling
(
e.
g.
bag
sampling)
based
on
Part
86
subpart
B,
and
we
revised
batch
sampling
to
include
high
temperature
batch
sampling
(
i.
e.
191
C)
based
on
86.1310­
2007.(
3)
40
CFR
Part
86
Subpart
B
§
86.1310­
2007
(
c)
We
required
the
same
PM
sample
media
(
i.
e
filters)
that
we
required
in
86.1310­
2007.
In
addition
we
required
a
more
prescriptive
filter
specification
for
standards
below
0.05
g/
kW­
hr.
We
required
this
to
prevent
gas­
phase
hydrocarbon
adsorption
onto
the
PM
sample
media,
which
would
cause
an
incorrect
result.(
3)
§
86.1310­
2007
(
c)
We
added
PM
sample
media
and
PM
batch
sampling
specifications
based
on
86.1310­
2007.(
3)
We
added
a
PM
surface
concentration
specification
that
limits
the
use
of
lower
efficiency
filters
(
that
also
have
much
lower
pressure
drop)
to
conditions
where
the
PM
concentration
itself
rapidly
increases
the
efficiency
of
an
initially
less
efficient
filter.
We
essentially
only
allowed
lower
efficiency
filters
where
PM
testing
at
high
PM
standards
cause
initilly
high
efficiency
(
high
pressure
drop)
filters
to
overload
during
a
test.
§
86.1310­
2007
§
1065.190
PM
stabilization
and
weighing
environments
for
gravimetric
analysis
Reference
Description
Source
We
added
PM
stabilization
and
weighing
environmental
specifications
based
on
§
86.1312­
2007.(
3)
§
86.1312­
2007
(
b)
We
revised
our
recommended
clean
room
specification
from
an
obsolete
federal
standard
to
an
ISO
standard.
We
reduced
the
stringency
of
this
recommendation
by
an
order
of
magnitude
to
reflect
best
practices.
We
recommend
deviating
from
the
ISO
standard
to
control
air
velocities
near
a
balance.
§
86.1312­
2007
(
c)
We
adopted
§
86.1312­
2007
specifications
for
temperature
and
humidity,
and
we
added
guidance
on
humidity
control
as
a
function
of
sulfuric
acid
in
PM.(
3)
§
86.1312­
2007
(
d)
We
adopted
§
86.1312­
2007
specifications
for
temperature
and
humidity
monitoring,
but
we
are
less
prescriptive
on
the
averaging
of
these
parameters
to
allow
for
other
acceptable
system
designs.(
3)
§
86.1312­
2007
(
e)
and
(
f)
We
adopted
§
86.1312­
2007
specifications
for
balance
installation
and
balance
accessories
and
tools.
We
added
recommendations
based
on
previous
guidance
we
issued
to
engine
manufacturers.
(
1),
(
2)
§
86.1312­
2007
§
1065.195
PM
stabilization
environment
for
in­
situ
analyzers
Reference
Description
Source
We
described
the
stabilization
environment
for
in­
situ
PM
analyzers,
based
on
§
86.1312
for
gravimetric
balances.(
3)
We
expected
that
these
instruments
are
likely
to
be
used
for
field­
testing
PM
measurement.
§
86.1312­
2007
Technical
Amendments
81
(
b)
We
required
HEPA
filtration
of
equilibration
air
based
on
§
86.1310.(
3)

§
86.1310­
2007
(
c)
We
adopted
a
(
42
to
52)

C
equilibration
temperature
range
to
align
insitu
PM
measurement
temperature
with
the
PM
sampling
temperature
in
§
86.1310­
2007.(
3)
We
adopted
this
temperature
range
to
ensure
fast
equilibration
and
measurement
in­
situ.
We
added
guidance
on
humidity
control
as
a
function
of
sulfuric
acid
in
PM
to
align
in­
situ
PM
measurement
guidance
with
gravimetric
PM
measurement
guidance.
§
86.1310­
2007
Subpart
C
 
Measurement
Instruments
§
1065.201Overview
and
general
provisions
Reference
Description
Source
(
d)
We
allowed
combining
results
of
redundant
measurements
a
single
test
based
on
§
86.1310­
2007.(
3)
§
86.1310­
2007
(
e)
We
allowed
using
an
instrument's
response
if
it
is
greater
than
100
%
of
the
instrument's
range,
but
we
required
additional
testing,
which
is
similar
to
§
86.1338­
2007.
§
86.1338­
2007
(
f)
We
required
continuous
analyzer
signals
to
be
matched
to
other
continuous
signals
to
improve
repeatability
and
correlation
between
continuous
sampling
and
batch
sampling
systems.
We
defined
this
matching
as
"
dispersion".

§
1065.202
Data
recording
and
control
Reference
Description
Source
(
a)
We
required
minimum
recording
frequencies
of
data.
We
took
into
account
recent
research
that
indicated
that
significant
changes
in
raw
exhaust
flow
can
occur
over
a
period
as
short
as
200
milliseconds.(
4)

Combined
with
the
signal
dispersion
and
time
alignment
that
we
required
in
§
1065.201,
we
improved
repeatability
and
correlation
between
continuous
sampling
and
batch
sampling.

§
1065.205
Performance
specifications.

Reference
Description
Source
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
82
(
a)
We
recommended
performance
specifications
for
individual
instruments,
and
we
relied
on
the
calibrations
and
performance
checks
in
Subpart
D
to
ensure
that
complete
measurement
systems
perform
adequately.
We
recommended
performance
specifications
based
on
calibration
requirements
in
40
CFR
86
Subpart
N,
40
CFR
89
Subpart
D
Appendix
A,
and
ISO
8178­
1.
We
defined
accuracy,
repeatability,
and
noise
in
Part
1065
Subpart
D.
We
defined
these
values
relative
to
emissions
levels
at
a
standard;
not
a
lower
value
such
as
at
2
%
of
the
standard,
which
is
how
some
of
our
regulations
previously
specified
accuracy.
Essentially
we
allowed
instruments
to
be
matched
to
their
application
without
forcing
the
use
of
higher
performing
instruments
than
required.
40
CFR
86
Subpart
N
40
CFR
89
Subpart
D
Appendix
A
ISO
8178­
1
§
1065.210
Work
input
and
output
sensors
Reference
Description
Source
We
required
the
same
speed
and
torque
transducer
as
§
86.1308­
84.
We
added
a
figure
to
illustrate
how
to
measure
and
account
for
auxiliary
work
inputs
and
outputs.
We
added
recommendations
on
how
to
measure
auxiliary
work
inputs
and
outputs
including
electrical,
pump,
and
compressor
work.
§
86.1308­
84
§
1065.215
Pressure,
temperature,
and
dewpoint
transducers
Reference
Description
Source
We
recommended
specific
transducers
as
guidance
for
future
procurement
of
such
transducers.

§
1065.220
Fuel
flow
Reference
Description
Source
We
allowed
fuel
flow
to
be
directly
measured
or
calculated
by
chemical
balances
of
fuel,
intake
air,
and
exhaust,
plus
either
an
intake
air
flow
or
exhaust
flow
measurement.
We
allowed
both
options
to
help
facilitate
field
testing
and
redundant
measurements
for
lab
testing.
§
89.415
§
89.416
§
1065.225
Intake
air
flow
Reference
Description
Source
We
allowed
intake
air
flow
to
be
directly
measured
or
calculated
by
chemical
balances
of
fuel,
intake
air,
and
exhaust,
plus
either
a
fuel
or
exhaust
flow
measurement.
We
allowed
both
options
to
help
facilitate
field
testing
and
redundant
measurements
for
lab
testing.
§
89.414
§
1065.230
Raw
exhaust
flow
Reference
Description
Source
Technical
Amendments
83
We
allowed
exhaust
flow
to
be
directly
measured
or
calculated
by
chemical
balances
of
fuel,
intake
air,
and
exhaust,
plus
either
a
fuel
or
intake
air
flow
measurement.
We
allowed
both
options
to
help
facilitate
field
testing
and
redundant
measurements
for
lab
testing.
We
created
this
section
because
new
exhaust
flow
measurement
technology
has
matured
since
we
last
revised
our
regulations.
Combined
with
a
new
way
to
calculate
brake­
specific
emissions
that
we
allowed
in
§
1065.650,
a
signal
that
is
not
absolutely
calibrated­­
but
just
linearly
proportional
to
exhaust
flow­­
may
be
used
to
determine
brake­
specific
emissions.

§
1065.240
Dilution
air
and
diluted
exhaust
flow
Reference
Description
Source
We
required
the
same
flow
meters
as
in
§
86.1310­
2007
for
CVS
systems,
and
we
added
a
new
CVS
flow
meter,
an
ultrasonic
air
flow
meter,
because
this
technology
has
matured
since
we
last
updated
our
regulations.(
3)
We
added
provisions
for
the
common
practice
of
using
muliple
CFVs
in
parallel
in
a
CVS.
§
86.1310­
2007
§
1065.245
Sample
flow
Reference
Description
Source
We
required
the
same
flow
meter
performance
as
specified
in
§
86.1320­
90,
and
we
provided
additional
guidance
on
flow
meter
selection.
§
86.1320­
90
§
1065.248
Gas
divider
Reference
Description
Source
We
required
the
same
flow
meter
performance
as
specified
in
§
86.1314­
94
for
gas
dividers.
We
also
required
a
periodic
gas
divider
linearity
check.
§
86.1314­
94
§
1065.250
Nondispersive
infra­
red
CO
analyzer
Reference
Description
Source
We
required
the
same
CO
measurement
technology
as
Part
86
and
Part
89.
We
allowed
interference
compensation
that
targets
a
0.0%
interference
level.
§
86.1322­
84
§
89.309
§
1065.255
Nondispersive
infra­
red
CO2
analyzer
Reference
Description
Source
We
required
the
same
CO2
measurement
technology
as
Part
86
and
Part
89.
We
allowed
interference
compensation
that
targets
a
0.0%
interference
level.
§
86.1324­
84
§
89.309
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
84
§
1065.260
Flame
ionization
detector
analyzer
for
THC,
NMHC,
CH4
Reference
Description
Source
We
required
the
same
THC,
NMHC
measurement
technology
as
Part
86
and
Part
89
and
we
allowed
a
flame
ionization
detector
to
be
coupled
with
a
nonmethane
cutter
to
facilitate
CH4
measurement
according
to
ISO
8178­
1
§
16.4.
We
allowed
interference
compensation
that
targets
a
0.0%
interference
level.
§
86.1321­
84
§
89.309
ISO
8178­
1
§
16.4
§
1065.265
Nonmethane
cutter
for
CH4
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
same
nonmethane
cutter
performance
specification
as
ISO
8178­
1
to
provide
an
alternative
to
the
gas
chromatograph
we
specified
in
§
1065.267.
We
allowed
this
to
facilitate
continuous
sampling
of
NMHC
because
the
gas
chromatograph
is
only
applicable
to
batch
(
e.
g.
bag)
measurements.
We
allowed
interference
compensation
that
targets
a
0.0%
interference
level.
Based
on
instrument
manufacturer
comments
we
allow
humidification
and
oxygen
dilution
of
a
sample
upstream
of
an
NMC.
ISO
8178­
1
§
16.4
§
1065.267
Gas
Chromatograph
for
CH4
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
a
gas
chromatograph
performance
specification
based
on
the
methane
analyzer
descriptions
in
§
86.1325­
94
and
§
89.324.
We
allowed
interference
compensation
that
targets
a
0.0%
interference
level.
§
86.1325­
94
§
89.324
§
1065.270
Chemiluminescent
detector
analyzer
for
NOx
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
chemiluminescent
detector
analyzer
specification
in
§
86.1323­
2007
§
89.321.
We
allowed
interference
compensation
that
targets
a
0.0%
interference
level.
§
86.1323­
2007
§
89.321
§
1065.272
Nondispersive
ultraviolet
analyzer
for
NOx
(
NO
and
NO2)

Reference
Description
Source
We
allowed
the
nondispersive
ultraviolet
detector
NOx
analyzer
because
it
has
matured
since
we
last
updated
our
regulations.
We
allowed
this
technology
to
provide
more
measurement
options,
especially
for
field
testing.
We
allowed
interference
compensation
that
targets
a
0.0%
interference
level.
Technical
Amendments
85
§
1065.280
Paramagnetic
and
magnetopneumatic
detector
analyzers
for
oxygen
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
paramagnetic
detector
analyzer
specification
for
oxygen
measurement
from
ISO
8178­
1.
We
allowed
interference
compensation
that
targets
a
0.0%
interference
level.
We
allowed
the
use
of
magnetopneumatic
detectors.
ISO
8178­
1
§
8.9.4
§
1065.284
Zirconia
sensor
for
air­
to­
fuel
ratio
Reference
Description
Source
We
allowed
the
zirconia
air­
to­
fuel
ratio
sensor
O2
because
it
has
matured
since
we
last
updated
our
regulations.
We
allowed
this
technology
to
provide
more
measurement
options,
especially
for
field
testing.
We
allowed
interference
compensation
that
targets
a
0.0%
interference
level.

§
1065.290
Gravimetric
balance
for
PM
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
gravimetric
balance
for
PM
specification
from
§
86.1312­
2007.(
3)
We
provided
additional
recommendations
for
features
to
consider
when
procuring
a
PM
balance.
§
86.1312­
2007
§
1065.295
Inertial
balance
for
PM
Reference
Description
Source
We
allowed
the
inertial
balance
for
PM
because
it
has
matured
since
we
last
updated
our
regulations.
We
allowed
this
technology
to
provide
more
measurement
options,
especially
for
field
testing.
We
allowed
interference
compensation
that
targets
a
0.0%
interference
level.

Subpart
D
 
Calibrations
and
verifications
§
1065.301
Overview
Reference
Description
Source
(
a)
through
(
c)
We
required
calibrations
and
verifications
on
complete
laboratory
and
field
testing
measurement
systems,
which
include
the
probes,
transfer
lines,
sample
conditioning
equipment,
analyzers,
and
any
analog
to
digital
conversion
and
data
acquisition
devices.
We
replaced
some
calibrations
in
40
CFR
Part
86
and
40
CFR
Part
89
with
verifications.

(
d)
We
required
the
use
of
NIST
traceable
standards,
but
we
noted
that
you
may
ask
to
use
other
standards.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
86
§
1065.305
Accuracy,
repeatability,
and
noise
verification.

Reference
Description
Source
We
defined
accuracy,
repeatability,
and
noise
by
the
procedure
that
we
specify
for
determining
these
values.
We
defined
these
values
procedurally
to
prevent
sellers
and
buyers
of
measurement
systems
from
misinterpreting
our
specifications.
We
defined
noise
is
a
limit
value,
below
which
you
may
set
recorded
values
to
zero.

§
1065.306
Summary
of
periodic
calibration
and
verifications
Reference
Description
Source
We
summarized
how
frequently
each
check
in
this
subpart
must
be
performed.
We
provided
this
summary
so
that
laboratories
and
field
test
operators
might
use
it
as
a
template
for
part
of
a
preventive
maintenance
plan.

§
1065.307
Linearity
check.

Reference
Description
Source
We
replaced
many
calibrations
that
we
required
according
to
40
CFR
Part
86
and
40
CFR
Part
89.
We
revised
our
approach
toward
instrument
calibration
because
it
did
not
apply
to
modern
instruments
that
use
other
signals
to
correct
for
interferences.

§
1065.308
Continuous
analyzer
system
response
and
updating­
recording
verification
Reference
Description
Source
We
added
a
verification
to
determine
the
response
of
analyzers
and
the
alignment
of
any
compensation
signals.
We
added
this
check
to
verify
that
analyzer
response
and
recording
rate
were
matched
and
that
other
signals
used
to
compensate
for
interferences
were
aligned
with
the
primary
emissions
signal.

§
1065.309
Continuous
analyzer
uniform
response
verification
Reference
Description
Source
We
added
a
verification
to
determine
that
an
analyzer
had
a
uniform
response
so
that
it
could
be
added
correctly
to
other
analyzer
signals.

§
1065.310
Torque
calibration
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
calibration
specifications
in
§
86.1308­
84,
§
89.306,
and
§
89.307,
but
we
scaled
them
to
the
maximum
torque
of
an
engine
to
make
Part
1065
applicable
across
a
wide
range
of
maximum
engine
torques.
§
86.1308­
84
§
89.306
§
89.307
Technical
Amendments
87
§
1065.315
Pressure,
temperature,
and
dewpoint
calibration.

Reference
Description
Source
We
provided
guidance
on
pressure,
temperature,
and
dewpoint
calibration.
We
allowed
laboratories
to
develop
their
own
calibration
procedures
because
of
the
diversity
of
measurement
technologies.
We
relied
on
verifications
such
as
the
linearity
check
to
ensure
measurement
system
performance.

§
1065.320
Fuel
flow
calibration.

Reference
Description
Source
We
provided
guidance
on
fuel
flow
calibration.
We
allowed
laboratories
to
develop
their
own
calibration
procedures
because
of
the
diversity
of
measurement
technologies.
We
relied
on
verifications
such
as
the
linearity
check
to
ensure
measurement
system
performance.

§
1065.325
Intake
air
flow
calibration
Reference
Description
Source
We
provided
guidance
on
intake
air
flow
calibration.
We
allowed
laboratories
to
develop
their
own
calibration
procedures
because
of
the
diversity
of
measurement
technologies.
We
relied
on
verifications
such
as
the
linearity
check
to
ensure
measurement
system
performance.

§
1065.330
Exhaust
flow
check.

Reference
Description
Source
We
provided
guidance
on
exhaust
flow
calibration.
We
allowed
laboratories
to
develop
their
own
calibration
procedures
because
of
the
diversity
of
measurement
technologies.
We
relied
on
verifications
such
as
the
linearity
check
to
ensure
measurement
system
performance.

§
1065.340
CVS
calibration
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
CVS
calibration
specifications
from
§
86.1319­
90
and
especially
§
86.1319­
90(
e)(
3),
which
specified
calculations
that
assume
isentropic
compressible
flow.
We
adopted
molar
flow
reference
signals
for
calibration
to
eliminate
the
use
of
standard
pressure
and
temperature
values,
which
have
been
a
frequent
source
of
confusion
 
especially
across
different
regulations.
We
recognized
that
40
CFR
Part
86,
40
CFR
Part
89,
and
ISO
8178­
1
all
have
different
standard
conditions
specified
in
different
sections.
§
86.1319­
90
(
e)
We
adopted
PDP
calibration
specifications
from
§
86.1319­
90,
but
we
reformulated
the
equations
to
make
them
easier
to
understand.
§
86.1319­
90
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
88
(
f)
We
adopted
CFV
calibration
specifications
from
§
86.1319­
90
CFV,
but
we
reformulated
the
calibration
to
take
into
account
isentropic
compressible
flow.
We
specified
the
new
calibration
formulation
to
extend
use
of
the
calibration
data
to
a
wider
range
of
molar
masses
of
an
exhaust
mixture.
We
allowed
assumptions
to
be
made
in
order
to
reduce
the
new
formulation
to
the
formulation
in
§
86.1319­
90,
but
we
restricted
use
of
the
§
86.1319­
90
formulation
to
a
range
of
molar
masses
of
flow.
We
provided
similar
guidance
to
this
effect
in
the
past.(
1),(
2)
We
specified
how
to
calibrate
multiple
CFVs
in
parallel.
§
86.1319­
90
(
g)
We
adopted
the
SSV
calibration
in
§
86.1319­
90,
but
we
used
a
molar
reference
signal.
§
86.1319­
90
§
1065.341
Propane
check
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
propane
check
of
§
1319­
90(
f),
but
we
extended
its
use
to
check
secondary
dilution
systems,
and
we
added
an
option
to
use
a
flowbased
reference
instead
of
the
gravimetric
reference
in
§
1319­
90(
f)
.
We
recognized
that
the
flow­
based
reference
has
been
used
successfully
in
light­
duty
CVS
applications,
and
we
allowed
this
reference
to
provide
more
options
to
engine
dynamometer
CVS
laboratories.
For
the
flowbased
reference
we
required
compensation
for
the
non­
ideal
gas
behavior
of
pure
compressed
propane.
§
1319­
90(
f)

§
1065.345
Vacuum
side
leak
check
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
leak
checks
from
§
86.1337­
90
and
89.316,
but
we
revised
this
check
to
include
two
step­
by­
step
procedures
to
perform
the
check.
We
allowed
either
form
of
the
check
to
provide
more
options
to
engine
dynamometer
laboratory
operators
and
field
test
system
operators.
§
86.1337­
90
§
89.316
§
1065.350
CO2
NDIR
analyzer
H2O
interference
check.

Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
performance
specification
in
§
89.318,
and
we
described
a
step­
by­
step
procedure
for
this
check.
§
89.318
§
1065.355
CO
NDIR
analyzer
CO2
and
H2O
interference
check.

Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
performance
specification
in
§
89.318,
and
we
described
a
step­
by­
step
procedure
for
this
check.
§
89.318
Technical
Amendments
89
§
1065.362
FID
calibration,
response
optimization,
CH4
response
factor
determination
and
FID
flow
check
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
performance
specification
in
§
89.318,
and
we
described
a
step­
by­
step
procedure
for
this
check.
We
allowed
a
simplified
check
that
when
completed
successfully,
significantly
reduced
the
burden
of
the
complete
check.
We
currently
use
this
simplified
check
successfully
at
our
EPA
labs;
therefore,
we
allowed
others
to
use
it.
§
89.318
§
1065.362
Non­
stoichiometric
raw
exhaust
FID
O2
interference
verification
Reference
Description
Source
We
added
a
FID
O2
interference
verification
for
hydrocarbon
sampling
from
Non­
stoichiometric
raw
exhaust.
The
verification
was
based
on
ISO
8178.
§
89.318
ISO
8178­
1
§
8.8.3
§
1065.365
Nonmethane
cutter
penetration
determination.

Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
a
revised
version
of
the
nonmethane
cutter
efficiency
determination,
which
is
specified
in
ISO
8178­
1
§
8.8.4.
We
revised
this
section
to
include
a
more
prescriptive
step­
by­
step
procedure,
and
a
simplified
calculation
to
detemine
nonmethane
cutter
penetration
if
two
FIDs
are
used
to
determine
NMHC.
ISO
8178­
1
§
8.8.4
§
1065.370
CLD
H2O
and
CO2
interference
check
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
CLD
H2O
and
CO2
interference
check
from
§
86.1323­
2007.(
3)
Based
on
instrument
manufacturer
comments,
we
recommended
humidifying
the
calibration
gases
to
the
humidity
expected
during
testing.
§
86.1323­
2007
§
1065.372
NDUV
NOx
analyzer
verification
Reference
Description
Source
We
required
a
verification
specifically
for
nondispersive
ultraviolet
detector
NOx
analyzers.
We
required
this
check
because
of
its
limitations.
We
required
this
check
to
ensure
that
these
instruments
are
designed
and
operated
appropriately.

§
1065.376
Thermal
chiller
NO2
penetration
check
Reference
Description
Source
We
required
this
verification
if
a
thermal
chiller
is
used
upstream
of
an
NO2
detector
or
NO2
to
NO
converter.
We
required
this
check
because
of
its
limitations.
We
required
this
check
to
ensure
that
these
instruments
are
designed
and
operated
appropriately.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
90
§
1065.378
NO2
to
NO
converter
check
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
NO2
to
NO
converter
efficiency
specifications
in
§
86.1323­
84
and
ISO
8178­
1
§
8.7,
however
we
scaled
performance
to
the
level
of
NO2
expected
during
testing.
We
scaled
this
check
to
make
it
less
stringent
for
emissions
tests
that
are
not
affected
by
its
performance
and
more
stringent
for
emissions
tests
that
are
significantly
affected
by
its
performance.
§
86.1323­
84
ISO
8178­
1
§
8.7
§
1065.390
PM
weighing
process
verification
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
PM
weighing
process
verification
from
§
86.1312­
2007.(
3),
however
we
scaled
this
check
to
the
PM
emissions
expected
at
the
standard.
This
prevents
an
unnecessarily
stringent
requirement
for
PM
weighing.
§
86.1312­
2007
§
1065.395
Inertial
PM
balance
specifications
Reference
Description
Source
We
added
a
section
that
describes
how
to
verify
the
performance
of
an
inertial
PM
balance.
§
86.1312­
2007
Subpart
E
 
Engine
selection,
preparation,
and
maintenance.

§
1065.405
Test
engine
preparation
and
maintenance.

Reference
Description
Source
We
required
specifications
for
engine
selection,
preparation,
and
maintenance;
however
we
stated
that
any
requirements
in
any
standardsetting
part
take
precedence
over
the
specifications
in
this
subpart.

We
allowed
a
default
value
125
hours
of
engine
service
accumulation
for
compression­
ignition
engines
without
emissions
measurement.

We
allowed
the
simulation
of
production
governors
for
constant­
speed
engines.

We
described
how
to
test
engines
that
normally
have
evaporative
emissions
control
systems
(
i.
e.,
canisters)
attached
to
them.
Technical
Amendments
91
Subpart
F
 
Running
an
emissions
test
in
a
laboratory
§
1065.501
Overview
Reference
Description
Source
We
summarized
all
of
the
step­
by­
step
procedures
for
running
an
emissions
test
in
a
laboratory,
and
we
reiterated
that
standard
setting
parts
specify
other
information
required
to
run
an
emissions
test.
We
required
variable
speed
and
constant
speed
engines
subject
to
steadystate
ramped
modal,
and
transient
testing
to
be
tested
according
to
this
subpart,
including
any
cold­
start
testing,
hot­
start
testing,
and
warmed­
up
running
engine
testing.
We
adopted
procedures
in
§
86.1327
through
§
86.1337
(
3),
§
89.404
through
§
89.408
and
ISO
8178­
1
§
11.
We
added
requirements
and
options
to
the
specifications
in
§
86.1327
through
§
86.1337
(
3),
§
89.404
through
§
89.408
and
ISO
8178­
1
§
11.
§
86.1327­
§
86.1337
§
86.1341
§
89.404­
§
89.408
§
89.410
ISO
8178­
1
§
11
§
1065.510
Engine
mapping
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
§
86.1332­
90
for
variable
speed
engines.
We
added
new
requirements
for
constant­
speed
engines,
which
rely
on
the
engine's
governor
or
simulated
governor
to
select
the
engine
speed
during
an
emissions
test.
We
required
this
to
ensure
that
constant
speed
engines
are
tested
in
a
representative
way.
We
describe
how
to
map
when
an
engine
is
configured
with
auxiliary
inputs
and
outputs.
We
described
how
to
declare
certain
speeds
and
torques,
and
when
measured
speeds
and
torques
must
be
used
instead
of
declared
speeds
and
torques.
§
86.1332­
90
§
1065.512
Duty
cycle
generation.

Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
§
86.1333­
90,
§
89.410,
ISO
8178­
1
§
11.5,
and
ISO
8178­
1
§
11.7
to
combine
the
requirements
for
steady­
state,
ramped
modal,
and
transient
test
cycle
generation.
We
allowed
constant
speed
engines
to
operate
at
the
speed
selected
by
the
engine's
governor
or
simulated
governor.
We
specified
how
to
process
mapping
data
to
generate
duty
cycles
for
a
specific
engine.
§
86.1333­
90,
§
89.410,
ISO
8178­
1
§
11.5,
ISO
8178­
1
§
11.7
§
1065.514
Cycle
validation
criteria
Reference
Description
Source
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
92
We
adopted
the
cycle
validation
criteria
of
§
86.1341­
90,
but
we
revised
the
point
omission
criteria
easier
to
understand.
We
revised
some
of
the
statistics
to
reflect
the
dependence
of
power
on
speed
and
torque.
We
revised
the
statistics
to
reflect
the
capabilities
of
modern
dynamometer
and
operator
demand
control
systems.
We
required
only
torque
validation
criteria
for
constant
speed
engines
because
we
allow
constant
speed
engines
to
be
governed
by
their
governor
or
simulated
governor
during
emissions
testing.
§
86.1341­
90
§
1065.520
Pre­
test
verification
procedures
and
pre­
test
data
collection
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
§
86.1330­
90,
§
86.1334­
84
and
§
89.406,
including
the
preconditioning
cycle
we
added
to
§
86.1330­
90
in
January
of
2001.(
3)

We
replaced
the
hydrocarbon
overflow
zero
and
span
procedure
with
a
hydrocarbon
sampling
system
contamination
check.
Up
to
a
certain
amount
of
contamination,
we
allowed
emissions
results
correction
by
subtracting
the
contamination
determined
with
an
overflow
zero
check
performed
after
an
analyzer
port
zero
and
span.
We
required
this
to
prevent
excessive
hydrocarbon
contamination
from
biasing
results.
We
allowed
some
contamination
to
be
appropriately
subtracted
from
emissions
results,
which
is
how
the
original
overflow
procedure
worked,
except
that
it
had
no
limits
on
contamination.
We
required
this
procedure
to
improve
test
repeatability.
§
86.1330­
90
§
86.1334­
84
§
89.406
§
1065.525
Engine
starting,
restarting
and
shutdown
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
§
86.1334­
84,
but
we
have
simplified
the
requirements
because
§
86.1334­
84
described
some
starting
procedures
with
obsolete
engine
components.
We
revised
§
86.1334­
84
to
achieve
the
same
intent.
We
specified
a
procedure
for
restarting
an
engine
if
it
stalls
during
a
discrete­
mode
steady­
state
test.
§
86.1334­
84
§
1065.530
Emission
test
sequence.

Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
§
86.1337­
90,
§
89.407,
and
ISO
8178­
1
§
11.7.1
and
combined
them
to
include
PM
sampling,
continuous
and
batch
sampling,
and
raw
and
dilute
sampling.
We
required
procedures
to
check
for
analyzer
drift.
We
allowed
collecting
and
correcting
for
background
emissions
in
dilution
air.
We
required
procedures
for
cold­
starts,
hotstarts
soak
periods,
and
hot
running
tests.
We
specified
how
to
cool
down
aftertreatment
systems.
We
recommended
verifying
gas
analyzer
zero
and
span
by
using
a
mid­
span
reference
gas.
We
specified
how
to
retest
a
constant
speed
engine
when
it
does
not
maintain
constant
speed
at
the
highest
torque.
§
86.1337­
90,
§
89.407,
ISO
8178­
1
§
11.7.1.
Technical
Amendments
93
§
1065.545
Validation
of
proportional
flow
control
for
batch
sampling
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
performance
specification
of
§
86.1310­
2007
for
PM
sampling
systems.(
3)
We
incorporated
additional
options
for
validating
proportional
sampling
based
on
the
principles
of
CVS
sampling.
§
86.1310­
2007
§
1065.550
Emissions
analyzer
range
and
drift
validation.

Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
performance
specifications
in
§
86.1340­
90,
§
89.406,
and
ISO
8178­
1
§
11.8.
We
allowed
for
correction
of
a
limited
amount
of
analyzer
drift.
We
developed
this
procedure
jointly
with
measurement
instrument
manufacturers
and
engine
manufactures.
§
86.1340­
90,
§
89.406,
ISO
8178­
1
§
11.8.

§
1065.590
PM
sample
preconditioning
and
tare
weighing
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
§
86.1312­
2007.(
3)
We
added
an
option
to
perform
substitution
weighing,
which
has
been
used
in
ambient
PM
sampling
successfully
 
especially
when
PM
concentrations
are
very
low.
§
86.1312­
2007
§
1065.595
PM
sample
post­
conditioning
and
total
weighing.

Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
§
86.1312­
2007.(
3)
We
added
an
option
to
perform
substitution
weighing,
which
has
been
used
in
ambient
PM
sampling
successfully
 
especially
when
PM
concentrations
are
very
low.
§
86.1312­
2007
Subpart
G
 
Calculations
and
data
requirements
§
1065.601
Applicability.

Reference
Description
Source
We
consolidated
calculations
that
were
specified
multiple
times
in
this
part
(
i.
e.
Part
1065).
For
example
we
consolidated
statistical
calculations
for
instrument
performance,
alternate
system
approval,
and
duty
cycle
validation
in
§
1065.602.

We
adopted
SI
units
for
all
calculations,
except
for
one
set
of
example
calculations
in
§
1065.640
where
we
showed
how
to
convert
different
reference
flow
meter
signals
to
molar
reference
signals.

We
provided
completely
worked­
out
examples
for
every
calculation,
including
conversion
factors
for
various
engineering
units.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
94
§
1065.602
Statistics
Reference
Description
Source
We
consolidated
statistics
calculations
that
were
specified
multiple
times
in
this
part
(
i.
e.
Part
1065).
For
example
we
consolidated
statistical
calculations
for
instrument
performance,
alternate
system
approval,
and
duty
cycle
validation.
We
added
examples
on
how
to
calculate
flowweighted
average
concentrations
at
a
given
standard
for
various
engines.
We
provided
these
examples
because
we
scale
many
measurement
instrument
specifications
to
this
value
tto
ensure
that
Part
1065
is
applicable
across
a
wide
range
of
emissions
standards
and
sampling
techniques
(
e.
g.
raw,
dilute,
continuous,
and
batch
sampling)

§
1065.610
Test
cycle
generation
Reference
Description
Source
We
consolidated
all
of
the
calculations
for
discrete­
mode,
ramped
modal,
and
transient
test
cycle
generation
from
§
86.1333­
90,
§
89.410,
ISO
8178­
1
§
11.5,
and
ISO
8178­
1
§
11.7.
We
allowed
constant
speed
engines
to
operate
at
the
speed(
s)
selected
by
the
engine's
governor
or
simulated
governor.
§
86.1333­
90,
§
89.410,
ISO
8178­
1
§
11.5,
ISO
8178­
1
§
11.7
§
1065.630
1980
International
gravity
formula
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
this
formula
to
prescribe
what
we
meant
in
previous
regulations
when
we
required
that
you
account
for
local
effects
on
gravity
at
your
location,
such
as
in
§
86.1308­
84(
e)(
1)(
i).
We
recommended
to
use
this
formula
when
conducting
dynamometer
torque
calibration
and
torque
linearity
checks
according
to
§
1065.308
and
§
1065.310.
§
86.1308­
84(
e)(
1)(
i)

§
1065.340
CVS
calibration
equations
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
CVS
calibration
calculations
from
§
86.1319­
90
and
especially
§
86.1319­
90(
e)(
3),
which
specified
calculations
that
assume
isentropic
compressible
flow.
We
adopted
molar
flow
reference
signals
for
calibration
to
eliminate
the
use
of
standard
pressure
and
temperature
values,
which
have
been
a
frequent
source
of
confusion
 
especially
across
different
regulations.
We
recognized
that
40
CFR
Part
86,
40
CFR
Part
89,
and
ISO
8178­
1
all
have
different
standard
conditions
specified
in
different
sections.
§
86.1319­
90
(
b)
We
adopted
PDP
calibration
calculations
from
§
86.1319­
90,
but
we
reformulated
the
equations
to
make
them
easier
to
understand.
§
86.1319­
90
Technical
Amendments
95
(
c)
We
adopted
CFV
calibration
calculations
from
§
86.1319­
90
CFV,
but
we
reformulated
the
equations
to
take
into
account
isentropic
compressible
flow.
We
specified
the
new
calibration
equation
to
extend
use
of
the
calibration
data
to
a
wider
range
of
molar
masses
of
an
exhaust
mixture.
We
allowed
assumptions
to
be
made
in
order
to
reduce
the
new
equation
to
the
equation
in
§
86.1319­
90,
but
we
restricted
use
of
the
§
86.1319­
90
equation
to
a
range
of
molar
masses
of
flow.
We
provided
similar
guidance
to
this
effect
in
the
past.(
1),(
2)
We
provided
a
description
of
how
to
account
for
Reynolds
number
viscosity
effects.
We
reformulated
the
statistical
tolerance
criteria
for
an
acceptable
calibration
equation.
We
described
how
to
calibrate
multiple
CFVs
in
parallel.
§
86.1319­
90
(
d)
We
adopted
the
SSV
equation
in
§
86.1319­
90,
but
we
rearranged
it
to
use
a
molar
reference
signal.
§
86.1319­
90
§
1065.340
CVS
flow
rate
equations
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
CVS
flow
rate
calculations
from
§
86.1319­
90
and
especially
§
86.1319­
90(
e)(
3),
which
specified
calculations
that
assume
isentropic
compressible
flow.
We
adopted
molar
flow
rates
to
eliminate
the
use
of
standard
pressure
and
temperature
values,
which
have
been
a
frequent
source
of
confusion
 
especially
across
different
regulations.
We
recognized
that
40
CFR
Part
86,
40
CFR
Part
89,
and
ISO
8178­
1
all
have
different
standard
conditions
specified
in
different
sections.
§
86.1319­
90
(
a)
We
adopted
PDP
flow
rate
calculations
from
§
86.1319­
90,
but
we
reformulated
the
equations
to
make
them
easier
to
understand.
§
86.1319­
90
(
b)
We
adopted
CFV
flow
rate
calculations
from
§
86.1319­
90
CFV,
but
we
reformulated
the
equations
to
take
into
account
isentropic
compressible
flow.
We
specified
the
new
flow
rate
equation
to
extend
use
of
the
flow
meter
to
a
wider
range
of
molar
masses
of
an
exhaust
mixture.
We
allowed
assumptions
to
be
made
in
order
to
reduce
the
new
flow
rate
equation
to
the
equation
in
§
86.1319­
90,
but
we
restricted
use
of
the
§
86.1319­
90
flow
rate
equation
to
a
range
of
molar
masses
of
flow.
We
provided
similar
guidance
to
this
effect
in
the
past.(
1),(
2)
We
described
how
to
calculate
total
CVS
flow
through
multiple
CFVs
in
parallel.
§
86.1319­
90
(
c)
We
adopted
the
SSV
flow
rate
equation
in
§
86.1319­
90,
but
we
rearranged
it
to
calculate
a
molar
flow
rate.
§
86.1319­
90
§
1065.645
Amount
of
water
in
an
ideal
gas.

Reference
Description
Source
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
96
We
consolidated
several
other
sections'
requirements
to
calculate
this
value,
such
as
those
sections
that
required
an
amount
of
water
removed
correction,
a
buoyancy
correction,
a
background
emissions
correction,
chemical
balances
of
fuel,
exhaust,
and
intake
air,
and
flowmeter
calibrations
and
verifications.
We
specified
this
calculation
only
once
in
Part
1065
to
ensure
that
this
value
is
calculated
in
only
one
way.
We
adopted
an
internationally
accepted
formulation
for
this
value
from
the
World
Meteorological
Organization
(
WMO),
and
we
verified
that
our
formula
is
consistent
with
that
of
Gratch
because
some
recent
versions
of
WMO
publications
have
had
some
errors
in
this
formula.

§
1065.650
Emissions
calculations
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
emissions
calculations
from
§
86.1342­
94,
§
89.418,
§
89.419,
and
ISO
8178­
1
§
12
though
§
16
to
combine
steady­
state,
ramped
modal,
and
transient
testing
calculations.
We
included
raw,
dilute,
continuous,
and
batch
sampling.
We
added
a
new
way
to
calculate
brake­
specific
emissions
based
on
the
ratio
of
a
value
proportional
to
an
emissions
mass
and
another
value
similarly
proportional
to
work.
§
86.1342­
94,
§
89.418,
§
89.419,
ISO
8178­
1
§
12
though
§
16.

§
1065.655
Chemical
balances
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
chemical
balances
from
§
89.418
and
ISO
8178­
1
Annexe
A.
We
specified
how
to
use
chemical
balances
to
determine
the
amount
of
water
in
exhaust,
the
amount
of
carbon­
containing
emissions
in
exhaust,
and
the
dilution
fraction
of
dilution
air
in
diluted
raw
exhaust.
We
specified
how
to
use
these
formulas
to
calculate
raw
exhaust
flow
based
on
intake
air
or
fuel
flow.
§
89.418
ISO
8178­
1
Annexe
A
§
1065.657
Drift
validation
and
correction.

Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
drift
performance
specification
from
§
86.1340­
90,
§
89.406,
and
ISO
8178­
1
§
11.8.
We
added
a
drift
correction
to
account
for
a
limited
amount
of
analyzer
drift.
We
developed
this
procedure
with
instrument
manufacturers
and
engine
manufactures.
We
added
this
correction
to
improve
repeatability.
§
86.1340­
90,
§
89.406,
ISO
8178­
1
§
11.8.

§
1065.659
Removed
water
correction.

Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
corection
in
§
86.1342­
90,
§
89.418,
,
ISO
8178­
1
A.
2.4,
but
we
have
revised
it
to
take
into
account
any
condensation
that
occurs
upstream
of
a
flow
meter.
§
86.1342­
90,
§
89.418,
ISO
8178­
1
A.
2.4
Technical
Amendments
97
§
1065.660
THC
and
NMHC
determination
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
THC
and
NMHC
determination
from
§
86.1342­
94,
ISO
8178
§
15.4.
We
allowed
multiplying
THC
by
0.98
as
an
approximation
for
NMHC.
We
replaced
the
hydrocarbon
overflow
zero
and
span
procedure
with
a
hydrocarbon
sampling
system
contamination
check.
Up
to
a
certain
amount
of
contamination,
we
allowed
emissions
results
correction
by
subtracting
the
contamination
determined
with
an
overflow
zero
check
performed
after
an
analyzer
port
zero
and
span.
We
required
this
to
prevent
excessive
hydrocarbon
contamination
from
biasing
results.
We
allowed
some
contamination
to
be
appropriately
subtracted
from
emissions
results,
which
is
how
the
original
overflow
procedure
worked,
except
that
it
had
no
limits
on
contamination.
We
required
this
procedure
to
improve
test
repeatability.
§
86.1342­
94,
ISO
8178
§
15.4
§
1065.665
NMHCE
determination
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
THCE
and
NMHCE
determination
from
§
86.1342­
94
and
ISO
8178­
1
§
15.5
and
§
15.6.
We
allowed
multiplying
THC
by
0.98
as
an
approximation
for
NMHC.
We
replaced
the
hydrocarbon
overflow
zero
and
span
procedure
with
a
hydrocarbon
sampling
system
contamination
check.
Up
to
a
certain
amount
of
contamination,
we
allowed
emissions
results
correction
by
subtracting
the
contamination
determined
with
an
overflow
zero
check
performed
after
an
analyzer
port
zero
and
span.
We
required
this
to
prevent
excessive
hydrocarbon
contamination
from
biasing
results.
We
allowed
some
contamination
to
be
appropriately
subtracted
from
emissions
results,
which
is
how
the
original
overflow
procedure
worked,
except
that
it
had
no
limits
on
contamination.
We
required
this
procedure
to
improve
test
repeatability.
§
86.1342­
94,
ISO
8178­
1
§
15.5
and
§
15.6
§
1065.667
Dilution
air
background
correction
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
dilution
air
background
correction
from
§
86.1342­
94,
§
89.420,
and
ISO
8178­
1
§
13.5.
We
recommend
when
to
remove
background
emissions
from
dilution
air.
§
86.1342­
94,
§
89.420
ISO
8178­
1
§
13.5
§
1065.670
NOx
intake
air
humidity
correction
Reference
Description
Source
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
98
As
is
the
case
for
all
other
provisions
in
Part
1065,
we
specified
that
any
NOx
humidity
corrections
in
the
standard­
setting
parts
may
take
precedent
over
the
correction
in
Part
1065.
For
the
Part
1065
correction,
we
adopted
the
NOx
intake
air
humidity
correction
from
§
86.1342­
94,
§
89.418,
and
ISO
8178­
1
§
13.4,
but
we
revised
the
equation.
We
used
a
linear
fit
to
a
recent
set
of
comprehensive
data
collected
for
the
purpose
of
determining
a
NOx
humidity
correction
factor.(
5)
We
generated
the
equation
with
a
least
squares
linear
regression
line
of
more
than
300
data
points
generated
with
six
different
engines
over
a
broad
range
of
humidity
conditions.
We
forced
the
correction
to
pass
through
a
value
of
one
(
1)
at
75
grains
of
water
per
pound
of
dry
air
(
10.71
g/
kg
dry
air)
to
align
it
with
the
correction
from
§
86.1342­
94,
§
89.418,
and
ISO
8178­
1
§
13.4.
This
correction
is
significantly
more
consistent
with
computer
NOx
models
versus
the
previous
correction.
For
example,
from
the
range
of
(
0
to
95)
%
relative
humidity
at
30

C
ambient
temperature,
the
NOx
correction
from
§
86.1342­
94,
§
89.418,
and
ISO
8178­
1
§
13.4
was
1.70
while
the
linear
correction
we
adopted
was
1.48.
A
computer
NOx
model,
ALAMO,(
6)
predicted
a
correction
of
1.42
for
an
engine
at
rated
conditions
across
the
same
humidity.
For
this
example
the
linear
correction
is
4
%
higher
than
the
model,
but
the
correction
from
§
86.1342­
94,
§
89.418,
and
ISO
8178­
1
§
13.4
is
20
%
high.
We
based
this
revised
equation
on
data
and
verified
it
with
a
computer
model
to
improve
test
repeatability.
Below
is
an
illustration
of
the
uncorrected
data(
5),
the
data
corrected
according
to
§
86.1342­
94,
§
89.418,
and
ISO
8178­
1
§
13.4,(
5)
the
data
corrected
to
the
equation
we
adopted
in
Part
1065,
and
lines
depicting
the
corresponding
correction
factors.
§
86.1342­
94,
§
89.418,
ISO
8178­
1
§
13.4.
Technical
Amendments
99
§
1065.672
CLD
quench
check
calculations.

Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
chemiluminescent
detector
Nox
analyzer
quench
check
performance
specification
from
§
86.1323­
2007.(
3)
§
86.1323­
2007
§
1065.690
PM
sample
media
buoyancy
correction.

Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
bu
§
86.1312­
2007,(
3)
but
we
eliminated
the
temperature
and
humidity
portions
of
the
correction
because
we
specified
tight
humidity
and
temperature
control
in
the
PM
weighing
environment.
We
determined
that
making
corrections
based
on
small
changes
in
temperature
and
humidity
might
induce
error
due
to
the
measurement
error
associated
with
them.
We
revised
the
correction
so
that
it
only
accounts
for
changes
in
barometric
pressure,
which
is
the
dominant
parameter
that
causes
a
change
in
PM
sample
media
buoyancy.
We
allowed
the
optional
use
of
humidity
and
temperature
buoyancy
corrections,
however.
§
86.1312­
2007.
Normalized
Brake­
specific
NOx
versus
Amount
of
Water
in
Intake
Air
Uncorrected
NOx,
Corrected
NOx,
and
Correction
Factors
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Amount
of
water
in
intake
air,
x
H2O
(
mol/
mol)
Normalized
NOx,
eNOx
(
g/
hp­
hr)

Uncorrected
NOx
Part
86
correction
(
overcorrection)

Part
1065
correction
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
100
§
1065.695
Required
data.

Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
data
requirements
from
§
86.1344­
94,
and
we
combined
these
with
required
data
from
various
standard
setting
parts
and
our
most
recent
application
formats
for
certification.
§
86.1344­
94
EPA's
most
recent
application
formats
for
certification.

Subpart
H
 
Engine
fluids,
test
fuels,
analytical
gases,
and
other
calibration
standards
§
1065.701
General
requirements
for
test
fuels
Reference
Description
Source
We
are
moving
the
general
requirements
for
test
fuels
that
were
originally
in
Part
1065
to
Subpart
H
Old
Subpart
C
of
Part
1065
(
a)
Add
a
clarification
that
§
1065.10(
c)(
1)
does
not
apply
for
test
fuels.

(
d)
Add
allowance
to
use
other
standard
methods
specified
in
40
CFR
Part
80
to
measure
fuel
properties.

(
e)
Add
examples
of
typical
ASTM
fuel
specifications
for
in­
use
fuels.

§
1065.703
Distillate
diesel
fuel
Reference
Description
Source
We
deleted
specific
ranges
of
fuel
parameters
for
diesel
service
accumulation
fuel,
which
is
different
from
§
86.1313­
2007.
We
adopted
a
10
mg/
kg
minimum
limit
for
aromatics,
which
is
the
same
as
the
nonroad
diesel
engine
Tier
IV
rule,(
7)
instead
of
25
mg/
kg,
which
was
in
§
86.1313­
2007.
We
eliminated
the
specification
for
Cetane
Index
because
it
is
obsolete
and
because
we
require
Cetane
Number,
which
is
a
more
accurate
determination
of
Cetane.
§
86.1313­
2007
§
1065.705
Residual
fuel
[
reserved]

Reference
Description
Source
We
reserved
this
section
for
a
future
marine
residual
fuel
specification.

§
1065.710
Gasoline.

Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
test
fuels
that
were
originally
in
Part
1065.
Old
Part
1065
§
1065.715
Natural
gas.

Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
test
fuels
that
were
originally
in
Part
1065.
Old
Part
1065
Technical
Amendments
101
§
1065.720
Liquefied
propane
gas
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
test
fuels
that
were
originally
in
Part
1065.
Old
Part
1065
§
1065.740
Lubricants.

Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
lubricant
specification
in
§
89.330.
§
89.330
§
1065.745
Coolants.

Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
coolant
specification
in
§
86.1327­
98
§
86.1327­
98
§
1065.750
Analytical
gases.

Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
analytical
gas
specifications
in
§
86.1314­
94
and
§
89.312,
however,
we
allowed
zero
gas
contamination
to
scale
with
the
concentration
expected
at
the
standard.
In
some
cases
this
will
be
a
decrease
in
stringency,
however,
we
significantly
increased
the
stringency
on
the
level
of
contaminants
when
very
low
levels
of
emissions
are
expected
at
the
standard.
We
adopted
these
changes
to
improve
test
repeatability.
§
86.1314­
94,
§
89.312
(
a)(
2)
Add
recommendation
to
use
representative
level
of
O2
in
FID
gas
(
b)
Add
allowance
to
relabel
gas
standards
(
d)
Add
specific
requirement
to
use
good
engineering
judgment
when
handling
and
storing
gases
to
maintain
stability.

§
1065.790
Mass
standards
Reference
Description
Source
We
adopted
the
dynamometer
calibration
weight
specifications
in
§
86.1308­
84
and
§
89.305.
We
specified
new
requirements
for
calibration
weights
for
PM
balances.
§
86.1308­
84
§
89.305
Subpart
I
 
Testing
with
oxygenated
fuels.

§
1065.801
Applicability.

Reference
Description
Source
(
b)
Added
paragraph
to
clarify
that
Subpart
I
applies
for
any
testing
that
requires
measurement
of
alcohols
or
carbonyls.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
102
§
1065.805
Sampling
systems.

Reference
Description
Source
(
a)(­(
d)
Specify
requirements
that
were
described
in
40
CFR
part
86.
We
also
allow
a
photo­
acoustic
analyzer
to
be
used
to
measure
methanol
and
ethanol
in
exhaust.
We
provided
similar
guidance
in
the
past,(
8)
which
is
consistent
with
regulations
published
by
the
California
Air
Resources
Board.(
9)

(
e)
Allow
collection
of
a
single
weighted
sample.

(
f)
Allow
use
of
CARB
NMOG
procedures.

§
1065.845
Response
factor
determination.

Reference
Description
Source
Add
section
to
describe
how
to
determine
FID
responses
to
oxygenated
compounds.
§
86.1321­
90
§
1065.850
Calculations.

Reference
Description
Source
We
relocated
the
calculations
to
§
1065.665.

Subpart
J
 
Field
Testing
§
1065.901
Applicability
Reference
Description
Source
We
applied
this
subpart
to
engines
with
field
testing
requirements,
including
manufacturer­
run
on­
vehicle
testing
requirements.
We
also
allowed
the
equipment
specified
in
this
subpart
to
be
used
for
laboratory
testing.
Refer
to
the
standard
setting
part
for
applicability.

We
superceded
the
current
field
testing
subpart
in
Part
1065
with
a
new
subpart.

§
1065.905
General
provisions.

Reference
Description
Source
We
provided
a
list
of
information
needed
from
standard
setting
parts
to
conduct
field
testing
according
to
this
part.
We
indicated
that
much
of
this
subpart
relies
on
specifications
in
other
subparts
of
Part
1065.
Technical
Amendments
103
§
1065.910
Field
testing
equipment
Reference
Description
Source
We
specified
the
equipment
we
require
for
field
testing.
We
included
equipment
for
routing
exhaust
for
sampling
and
flow
measurement,
mounting
hardware,
and
power
supplies.

§
1065.915
Measurement
instruments.

Reference
Description
Source
We
specified
the
measurement
instruments
we
require
for
field
testing
by
referring
to
Subpart
C.
We
explained
how
to
use
signals
from
an
engine's
electronic
control
module.
We
specified
how
to
use
redundant
measurements.
We
specified
how
to
address
the
effects
of
ambient
conditions
on
field
test
measurement
systems.
We
specified
how
to
estimate
torque
in
the
field.

§
1065.920
Calibrations
and
verifications
Reference
Description
Source
We
referred
to
Subpart
D
for
verifications.
We
specified
an
overall
field
test
system
verification
against
a
laboratory
that
meets
Part
1065.

§
1065.925
Measurement
instrument
and
equipment
preparation
Reference
Description
Source
We
specified
a
step­
by­
step
set
of
instructions
for
preparing
a
field
test
measurement
system
for
use.
We
based
the
instructions
on
a
generic
field
test
system
by
drawing
on
our
own
field
testing
experience
and
reports
outlining
similar
instructions.(
10),
(
11)

§
1065.930
Engine
starting,
restarting,
and
shutdown
Reference
Description
Source
We
specified
a
step­
by­
step
set
of
instructions
for
engine
starting,
restarting
and
shutdown
based
on
lab
testing,
except
that
an
engine
may
be
shut
down
and
restarted
any
number
of
times
during
a
field
test.

§
1065.935
Emission
test
sequence.

Reference
Description
Source
We
specified
a
step­
by­
step
set
of
instructions
for
running
a
field
test.
We
based
the
instructions
on
a
generic
field
test
system
by
drawing
on
our
own
field
testing
experience
and
reports
outlining
similar
instructions.(
10),
(
11)
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
104
§
1065.940
Emission
calculations.

Reference
Description
Source
We
specified
the
same
emissions
calculations
as
used
in
a
laboratory
according
to
§
1065.650.
We
noted
that
information
from
the
standard
setting
parts
are
required
to
define
individual
test
intervals
within
a
field
test.

Subpart
K
 
Definitions
and
other
reference
information
§
1065.1001
Definitions
Description
Regulatory
Text
Reference
We
added
these
definitions
to
clarify
that
they
have
the
specified
conventional
meaning.
300
series
stainless
steel,
Aerodynamic
diameter,
Allowed
procedures,
Alternate
procedures,
Applicable
standard,
Aqueous
condensation,
Atmospheric
pressure,
Auto­
ranging,
C1
equivalent
(
or
basis),
Confidence
interval,
Coriolis
meter,
Dewpoint,
Dispersion,
Drift,
Duty
cycle,
Electronic
control
module,
Engine
governed
speed,
Fall
time,
Flow­
weighted
mean,
HEPA
filter,
Hydraulic
diameter,
Hydrocarbon,
Linearity,
Noise,
Open
crankcase
emissions,
Partial
pressure,
Percent,
Portable
emission
measurement
system,
Procedures,
Proving
ring,
PTFE,
Regression
statistics,
Repeatability,
Rise
time,
Roughness,
Round,
Shared
atmospheric
pressure
meter,
Shared
humidity
measurement,
Special
procedures,
Specified
procedures,
Standard
deviation,
Storage
medium,
Test
interval,
Useful
life,
Variable­
speed
engine,
Vehicle,
We,
and
Zero
gas.

We
added
or
revised
these
definitions
to
have
the
meaning
specified
in
other
recently
adopted
or
revised
parts
of
Subchapter
U.
Adjustable
parameter,
Aftertreatment,
Auxiliary
emission­
control
device,
Designated
Compliance
Officer,
Discrete­
mode,
Emission­
control
system,
Emission­
data
engine,
Engine
family,
Exhaust­
gas
recirculation,
Fuel
type,
Good
engineering
judgment,
Idle
speed,
Intermediate
test
speed,
Nonmethane
hydrocarbon
equivalent,
Nonroad
engine,
Ramped­
modal,
Scheduled
maintenance,
Spark­
ignition,
Steady­
state,
and
Total
hydrocarbon
equivalent.

We
deleted
these
terms
which
are
no
longer
used
in
Part
1065.
Engine­
based,
Equipment­
based,
Fuel
system,
Revoking
a
certificate,
Suspending
a
certificate,
Wide­
open
throttle.

§
1065.1001
Definitions
­
continued.

Reference
Description
Source
Brakepower
Revised
to
clarify
how
accessory
power
is
treated.

Calibration
and
Verification
Verification
is
added
to
distinguish
the
term
from
calibration.
Technical
Amendments
105
Constant­
speed
operation
Elimination
of
examples.

NIST
traceable
Add
definition
and
include
allowance
to
use
international
equivalents
with
approval.

Oxides
of
nitrogen
See
Section
8.
I.
B.

Tolerance
Add
definition
to
clarify
meaning
of
ranges
of
accuracy/
precision.

§
1065.1005
Symbols,
abbreviations,
acronyms,
and
units
of
measure.

Reference
Description
Source
We
defined
the
symbols,
abbreviations,
acronyms,
and
units
of
measure
that
we
use
in
Part
1065.
We
minimized
repeating
symbols
for
different
quantities.
We
used
symbols
consistent
with
ISO
31.
We
revised
symbols,
abbreviations,
acronyms,
and
units
of
measure
to
reflect
the
use
of
Part
1065
test
procedures
and
the
application
of
SI
units,
and
molar
flow
rates.

§
1065.1010
Reference
materials.

Reference
Description
Source
We
revised
Part
1065
reference
materials
to
include
new
ASTM,
ISO
and
NIST
publications.
We
also
added
a
reference
to
California's
NMOG
Test
Procedures.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
106
References
for
Chapter
8
(
1)
Letter
from
EPA
to
EMA,
"
Guidance
Regarding
Test
Procedures
for
Heavy­
Duty
On­
Highway
and
Non­
Road
Engines",
Gregory
Green,
Division
Director,
Certification
and
Compliance
Division,
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
December
3,
2002.

(
2)
"
Supporting
Document
for
Letter
to
EMA
Regarding
Acceptable
Interpretations
and
Alternatives
to
the
Rules
and
Regulations
published
in
the
Federal
Register,
Vol.
66,
No.
12,
Thursday,
January
18,
2001",
Matthew
Spears,
Assessment
and
Standards
Division,
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
December
3,
2002.

(
3)
"
Description
of
Changes
to
the
Test
Procedures
Specified
in
40
CFR
Part
86
for
Model
Year
2007
and
Later
Heavy­
Duty
Engines",
Air
Docket
A­
99­
06,
IV­
B­
11,
Matthew
Spears,
Assessment
and
Standards
Division,
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
December
6,
2000.

(
4)
"
Performance
of
Partial
Flow
Sampling
Systems
Relative
to
Full
Flow
Cvs
for
Determination
of
Particulate
Emissions
Under
Steady­
State
and
Transient
Diesel
Engine
Operation",
Khalek
Imad
A.,
et
al.,
Southwest
Research
Institute,
Society
of
Automotive
Engineers
Technical
Paper
2002­
01­
1718,
May
2002.

(
5)
"
Heavy­
Duty
Diesel
Engine
NO
x
and
PM
Correction
Factors",
Project
08­
2597,
Southwest
Research
Institute,
San
Antonio,
TX,
July
27,
1999.

(
6)
"
A
PC­
Based
Model
for
Predicting
Nox
Reductions
in
Diesel
Engines",
Dodge,
Lee
G.,
Leone,
Douglas
M.,
Naegeli,
David
W.,
Dickey
Daniel,
W.,
Swenson,
Kendall
R.,
Southwest
Research
Institute
Society
of
Automotive
Engineers
Technical
paper
962060,
1996.

(
7)
Nonroad
Diesel
Tier
IV
Rule,
EPA420­
F­
04­
037,
May
2004.

(
8)"
Approval
of
the
Request
to
Use
the
Innova
1312
Photoacoustic
Multi­
gas
Monitor
in
the
Measurement
of
Ethanol
in
Exhaust
and
Evaporative
Emissions",
Gregory
Green,
Division
Director,
Certification
and
Compliance
Division,
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
January
25,
2002.

(
9)
Use
of
Innova
Photoacoustic
Multi­
gas
Monitor
to
Measure
Ethanol
Exhaust
and
Evaporative
Vehicle
Emissions",
Mail­
Out
#
MSO
2000­
08,
Summerfield,
R.
B,
Mobile
Source
Operations
Division,
California
Air
Resources
Board,
June
29,2000.

(
10)
"
On­
vehicle,
In­
use,
Heavy
Duty
Diesel
Engine
(
HDDE)
Protocol",
Czachura
Barry
S.
J.,
Analytical
Engineering
Incorporated,
September
2,
2003.
Technical
Amendments
107
(
11)
"
Protocol
for
Measurement
of
Air
Pollutant
Emissions
from
Ferry
Boats",
Culnane
Mary,
San
Francisco
Water
Transit
Authority,
August
19,
2002.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
108
Chapter
9:
Marine
Spark­
Ignition
Engines
(
40
CFR
part
91)

The
following
table
describes
the
comments
related
to
the
regulation
of
marine
spark­
ignition
engines
in
40
CFR
part
91,
with
our
response
to
each
of
these
comments.
All
the
comments
came
from
Mercury
Marine
or
the
National
Marine
Manufacturers
Association.

Issue
Response
91.707:
Mercury
and
NMMA
expressed
a
need
for
an
exemption
that
would
allow
them
to
import
engines
that
are
covered
by
a
certificate,
but
are
not
yet
in
their
certified
configuration.
Final
assembly
is
planned
inside
the
United
States.
We
are
including
in
the
final
rule
a
cross
reference
in
§
91.707
to
40
CFR
1068.330,
which
was
designed
for
this
situation.

91.119:
Southwest
Research
Institute
and
EMA
requested
clarification
that
updating
the
test­
procedure
references
from
part
86
to
part
1065
aren't
intended
to
require
lab
upgrades.
The
references
introduced
in
part
89
are
intended
only
to
facilitate
the
migration
of
specified
test
procedures
for
heavy­
duty
highway
engines
from
part
86,
subpart
N,
to
part
1065.
Most
of
these
references
point
to
background
information
or
optional
systems.
There
is
no
intent
to
require
new
equipment
or
revised
procedures
as
a
result
of
these
changed
references.
To
ensure
that
this
is
the
case,
we
are
adding
a
provision
in
§
91.119
stating
that
any
of
the
references
to
part
1065
may
be
taken
from
part
86
as
a
pre­
approved
alternative
procedure.

Mercury
and
NMMA
noted
the
need
to
fix
typographical
problems
that
caused
incorrect
arithmetic
symbols
in
equations
in
91.316(
d)(
6),
91.318(
b)(
11),
91.325(
c)(
1)(
iv),
91.325(
c)(
2)(
iii),
and
91.316(
d)(
6).
We
agree
with
the
corrections
noted
in
the
comment
and
have
revised
the
regulations
accordingly.

91.325:
Mercury
and
NMMA
suggest
adding
an
equation
to
complete
the
provision
related
to
water
quench,
namely,
percent
H
2
O
quench
=
(
D1­
AR)/
D
×
100
We
agree
with
the
need
to
add
an
equation
for
the
water
quench
check.
To
do
this,
we
copied
the
comparable
existing
provisions
from
part
89,
which
apply
equally
well
to
marine
spark­
ignition
engines.

Table
2
of
Appendix
A
to
subpart
E:
Mercury
and
NMMA
point
out
that
the
regulations
specify
a
mode
4
torque
point
of
25
percent,
and
suggest
changing
this
to
25.3
to
align
with
the
cycle
specified
by
the
International
Organization
for
Standardization
(
ISO).
We
do
not
object
to
the
recommended
change
in
the
duty
cycle,
but
we
did
not
include
this
in
the
proposal.
Since
changing
the
duty
cycle,
even
modestly,
can
affect
the
stringency
of
the
standards
and
therefore
affect
whether
an
engine
meets
emission
standards
or
not,
we
believe
it
is
not
appropriate
to
adopt
the
recommended
change
at
this
time.
We
may
include
this
in
the
upcoming
rulemaking
to
adopt
a
new
tier
of
standards
for
marine
spark­
ignition
engines.

91.207:
Mercury
and
NMMA
requested
that
we
clarify
the
equation
for
survival
function
in
calculating
emission
credits,
especially
for
the
last
digit,
which
isn't
not
clearly
identified
as
an
exponent.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
adopted
the
following
revised
form
of
the
equation
to
reduce
the
risk
of
ambiguity
in
published
form:
S(
t)
=
exp
­(
0.906
×
t/

life)
4
Technical
Amendments
109
91.113:
Mercury
and
NMMA
requested
that
manufacturers
be
allowed
to
omit
the
model
year
from
the
engine
label,
since
boat
owners
have
been
confused
when
the
model
year
of
the
boat
does
not
match
the
model
year
of
the
engine
(
due
to
manufacturing
processes
and
inventories).
It
is
acceptable
to
include
the
full
engine
family
name
on
the
label,
which
includes
a
code
for
the
model
year.
We
suggested
an
alternate
approach,
in
which
the
manufacturer
would
include
the
engine's
manufacture
date
instead
of
the
model
year.
Manufacturers
requested
that
we
defer
action
on
this
item,
rather
than
make
such
a
change
to
the
regulations
at
this
time.
We
are
taking
no
action
on
this
item
in
the
final
rule,
but
expect
to
revisit
the
issue
in
the
future.

91.506:
Mercury
and
NMMA
suggested
that
EPA
should
allow
manufacturers
to
select
engine
families
for
in­
use
testing,
with
30
days
for
EPA
to
object
to
the
family
selection.
This
concern
comes
from
recent
experiences
of
waiting
until
late
in
the
model
year
to
know
which
family
to
prepare
for
testing,
which
made
it
harder
to
execute
the
test
plan.
We
believe
it
is
important
for
us
to
continue
selecting
engine
families
for
in­
use
testing.
Selecting
all
the
families
for
in­
use
testing
early
in
the
year
is
problematic,
since
it
is
possible
in
many
cases
for
manufacturers
to
produce
all
the
engines
in
the
engine
family
in
much
less
than
a
12­
month
period.
We
believe
the
best
approach
is
to
select
most
of
the
families
early
in
the
model
year,
reserving
a
small
number
of
families
that
can
be
selected
later
in
the
year.
Manufacturers
are
welcome
to
share
their
suggestions
for
selecting
families
at
any
time.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
110
Chapter
10:
General
Compliance
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
1068)

I.
Summary
and
Analysis
of
Comments
We
received
several
comments
on
the
proposed
provisions
in
40
CFR
part
1068,
with
additional
comments
raising
new
issues
for
us
to
consider.
All
these
comments
came
from
the
Engine
Manufacturers
Association,
except
where
otherwise
indicated.
The
following
discussion
presents
a
summary
and
analysis
of
all
these
comments.
Section
II
identifies
the
changes
included
in
the
proposal,
with
a
brief
rationale
for
each
of
those
changes.

Issue
Response
1068.30
 
Definitions:
The
proposed
change
to
the
definition
of
Exemption
should
reference
Tier
4
and
Tier
3
(
not
Tier
2
and
Tier
1).
Since
part
1068
applies
broadly
to
different
engine
categories,
we
believe
it
is
important
to
make
the
language
as
general
as
possible.
We
are
therefore
changing
the
definition
to
address
the
situation
for
an
exemption
from
a
Tier
3
standard,
which
may
require
the
manufacturer
to
meet
less
stringent
Tier
1
or
Tier
2
standards
as
a
condition
of
the
exemption.

1068.30
 
Definitions:
The
definition
for
Motor
vehicle
should
recite
the
full
definition
or
simply
refer
to
part
85,
rather
than
summarizing
content.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
accordingly.

1068.240
 
Replacement
engines:
Change
label
language
to
more
clearly
specify
the
year
of
applicable
standards.
The
label
should
state
the
first
applicability
date
for
the
standards
for
which
the
exemption
applies,
and
the
first
applicability
date
for
the
standards
that
were
in
effect
for
the
replaced
engine.
We
agree
with
the
comment
and
have
changed
the
regulations
accordingly.

1068.245
and
1068.250
 
Hardship:
An
engine
meeting
alternate
standards
should
have
a
label
saying
the
engine
is
exempt,
not
"
meets
requirements
under
1068.245
or
1068.250."
Industry
comments
from
previous
rulemakings
have
led
us
to
differentiate
engines
exempted
with
a
requirement
to
meet
less
stringent
standards
from
those
that
remain
uncontrolled.
For
marketing
reasons
and
for
EPA
compliance
efforts,
it
is
important
to
identify
an
engine
as
meeting
applicable
requirements,
if
alternate
standards
apply.
The
proposed
§
1068.265
included
label
language
that
would
conflict
with
the
proposed
labeling
changes
in
§
1068.245
and
§
1068.250.
We
have
changed
the
hardship
provisions
to
allow
EPA
to
specify
label
language
appropriate
for
such
engines.
Technical
Amendments
111
1068.260
 
Delegated
assembly:
The
current
requirements
allowing
separate
shipment
of
aftertreatment
components
should
be
set
up
to
waive
auditing
requirements
for
manufacturers
that
include
the
price
of
the
aftertreatment
in
the
cost
of
the
engine
for
the
equipment
manufacturer.
If
the
component
cost
is
already
covered,
the
equipment
manufacturer
has
enough
incentive
to
make
the
final
installation
without
additional
oversight.
The
cost
of
shipping
should
not
be
counted
as
part
of
the
cost
of
the
component.
Also,
the
temporary
label
shipping
as
part
of
the
aftertreatment
cost.
The
temporary
label
adds
an
unnecessary
burden
that
provides
no
added
value.
The
commenter
also
requested
clarification
regarding
the
method
for
auditing
an
equipment
manufacturer
if
the
engine
manufacturer
also
makes
the
equipment.
We
continue
to
believe
the
provisions
adopted
in
§
1068.260
are
appropriate
for
nonroad
engines.
The
more
extensive
oversight
and
control
mechanisms
are
important
to
ensuring
that
engines
are
assembled
correctly,
since
there
are
so
many
possible
equipment
manufacturers
and
so
many
different
business
relationships
among
companies.
Given
that
we
are
requiring
engine
manufacturers
to
include
the
cost
of
aftertreatment
components
in
the
price
of
the
engine,
we
believe
it
is
implicitly
clear
that
the
engine
manufacturer
is
responsible
for
shipping
costs,
so
we
have
removed
the
proposal
to
restate
that
in
the
regulations.
We
are
making
two
other
adjustments
to
the
proposal:
­
We
are
removing
the
requirement
for
engine
manufacturers
to
arrange
for
direct
shipment
of
aftertreatment
components
from
the
supplier
to
the
equipment
manufacturer,
since
a
third
party
may
appropriately
be
involved
to
produce
system
assemblies
for
integration
into
equipment.
­
We
are
adding
a
paragraph
to
clarify
that
integrated
manufacturers
can
meet
their
auditing
requirements
by
maintaining
a
database
for
matching
up
engiens
with
the
appropriate
aftertreatment
components.

1068.260
 
Caterpillar
commented
that
we
should
allow
them
to
complete
their
engine
assembly
at
different
facilities,
including
some
steps
performed
by
another
company
under
contract.
We
have
added
a
new
provision
allowing
manufacturers
to
assemble
engines
in
different
locations,
provided
that
they
maintain
control
of
the
engines
at
all
times,
and
inform
us
that
they
are
using
this
exemption.
We
may
require
that
manufacturers
take
certain
steps
to
ensure
that
engines
end
up
in
their
certified
configuration.
We
have
also
modified
the
labeling
requirements
in
1068.201(
c)
to
allow
for
more
flexible
approaches
to
labeling
exempted
engines.

1068.265
 
Conditional
exemptions:
EMA
requested
that
we
clarify
the
requirement
to
use
an
alternative
to
the
engine­
family
name
on
the
label.
The
labeling
requirements
should
also
be
coordinated
with
the
label
language
under
the
applicable
exemption
provisions.
We
have
modified
the
label
language
to
more
clearly
describe
the
way
manufacturers
must
identify
the
engines.
The
full
engine
family
name
would
be
inappropriate,
since
the
engines
are
not
certified
and
therefore
do
not
have
an
engine­
family
identification.
At
the
same
time,
all
the
engine­
family
identifiers
apply
except
for
the
model
year,
so
we
have
revised
the
regulations
to
require
the
label
to
identify
the
engine
by
the
otherwise
applicable
engine­
family
code
except
for
the
digit
related
to
model
year.

1068.325
 
Repair
exemption:
EMA
recommended
changing
the
exemption
allowing
an
owner
to
import
a
nonroad
engine
solely
for
the
purpose
of
repair
or
alteration
to
align
with
the
similar
provisions
for
locomotive
and
marine
diesel
engines.
This
would
generally
allow
engine
operation
as
needed
for
transportation
to
facilitate
repairs.
This
change
is
already
incorporated
into
the
regulatory
provisions
of
1068.325.
No
further
change
is
needed.

In
addition
to
these
comments,
we
have
identified
a
variety
of
additional
minor
changes
and
adjustments
to
include
in
the
final
rule,
such
as
changes
to
correct
organizational
and
nomenclature
errors.
In
addition,
these
changes
include:

"
Revising
§
1068.305
to
change
the
phone
number
related
to
the
importation
form.
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
112
"
Revising
§
1068.315
to
add
a
reference
to
the
new
exemption
for
delegated
assembly,
include
a
specific
reference
to
the
hardship
provisions
in
§
1068.250,
and
renumber
the
surrounding
paragraphs
accordingly.

"
Revising
§
1068.325
to
remove
the
general
requirement
to
get
EPA
approval
for
engines
that
are
imported
under
a
temporary
exemption.
The
provisions
or
individual
exemptions
may
require
EPA
approval,
but
our
longstanding
policy
for
most
temporary
exemptions
is
to
rely
on
the
bonding
requirement
to
ensure
compliance,
rather
than
a
specific
approval
step.

"
Revising
§
1068.330
to
include
an
exemption
for
importing
complete
engines
that
will
be
installed
in
an
application
subject
to
equipment­
based
standards.
This
was
intended
under
the
original
regulations,
but
this
is
unclear
due
to
the
different
situation
for
products
subject
to
engine­
based
and
equipment­
based
standards.
We
are
also
defining
"
equipment"
in
§
1068.30
to
further
clarify
these
provisions.
Also,
we
have
made
a
change
to
remove
the
bonding
requirement
for
certificate
holders
importing
partially
complete
engines.
Since
we
have
an
established
compliance
relationship
with
these
companies,
we
believe
it
would
be
unnecessarily
burdensome
to
require
them
to
maintain
a
bond
for
their
ongoing
production
processes.

"
Revising
§
1068.335
to
clarify
that
the
temporary
exemptions
in
both
§
1068.325
and
§
1068.330
are
covered
by
the
applicable
penalty
language.
This
is
intended
primarily
to
clarify
that
the
exemption
for
partially
complete
engines
is
treated
as
one
of
the
temporary
exemptions,
even
though
it
is
not
listed
with
the
usual
set
of
temporary
exemptions
for
importing
noncompliant
products.

"
Clarifying
the
reporting
responsibilities
under
the
separate­
shipment
provisions
of
§
1068.260.
The
original
regulation
was
unclear
about
deadlines
whether
there
was
a
problem
to
report
or
not.
We
are
revising
the
language
consistent
with
the
most
appropriate
interpretation,
that
the
specified
90­
day
reporting
requirement
in
§
1068.260(
a)(
6)(
ii)
applies
to
audit
reports
where
there
is
no
problem.
The
existing
requirement
to
report
problems
after
15
days
in
§
1068.260(
d)
is
independent
of
this
routine
reporting
responsibility.

II.
Summary
of
Rulemaking
Changes
We
are
making
various
changes
to
the
general
compliance
provisions
in
40
CFR
part
1068,
which
currently
applies
to
land­
based
nonroad
diesel
engines,
recreational
vehicles,
and
nonroad
sparkignition
engines
over
19
kW.
We
encourage
manufacturers
of
other
engines
to
take
note
of
these
changes,
since
we
intend
eventually
to
apply
the
provisions
of
part
1068
to
all
engines
subject
to
EPA
emission
standards.
The
following
changes
in
part
1068
were
in
the
proposed
rulemaking,
with
any
appropriate
adjustments
as
noted
above.

"
§
1068.10:
Clarify
confidentiality
provisions
to
address
how
we
treat
information
that
we
collect
from
on­
site
visits
or
testing,
as
opposed
to
information
that
manufacturers
send
to
us.

"
§
1068.30:
Add
or
correct
definitions
to
coordinate
with
the
standard­
setting
parts
and
clarify
various
terms.

"
§
1068.105:
Expand
paragraph
(
a)
to
better
explain
requirements
for
equipment
manufacturers
to
use
current
model­
year
engines.
This
relates
especially
to
the
existing
provision
that
allows
equipment
manufacturers
to
use
up
their
normal
inventories
of
engines
from
previous
model
Technical
Amendments
113
years
in
cases
where
a
new
emission
standard
takes
effect.
We
are
changing
§
1068.101(
a)(
1)
to
reflect
these
changes.

"
§
1068.110:
Clarify
that
the
manufacturers'
warranty
obligation
includes
all
expenses
related
to
diagnosing
and
repairing
or
replacing
emission­
related
parts.
This
is
not
intended
to
include
incidental
expenses
(
such
as
replacement
units
during
warranty
service),
consequential
damage
(
such
as
damage
caused
by
engine
malfunction),
or
opportunity
costs
(
such
as
foregone
revenue
from
engine
downtime).

"
§
1068.115:
Add
text
to
paragraph
(
a)
to
provide
a
complete
list
of
reasons
for
manufacturers
to
deny
warranty
claims.
This
clarifies
that
the
list
of
reasons
given
in
paragraph
(
b)
is
descriptive,
and
is
not
intended
to
be
comprehensive.

"
§
1068.245:
Clarify
that
manufacturers
applying
for
hardship
must
use
the
provisions
of
§
1068.250
(
if
applicable)
before
applying
for
hardship
under
§
1068.245.
This
is
necessary
to
remove
the
ambiguity
resulting
from
the
current
approach,
which
specifies
that
both
§
§
1064.245
and
1068.250
are
provisions
of
last
resort.

"
§
1068.265:
Add
provisions
that
clarify
what
manufacturers
must
do
when
they
are
required
to
meet
emission
standards
for
engines
that
are
not
certified.
A
typical
example
would
be
an
exemption
that
applies
to
new
engines
that
replace
an
old
engine
that
was
certified
to
emission
standards.
We
already
require
these
engines
to
have
the
same
degree
of
emission
control
as
the
replaced
engine.
We
do
not
want
manufacturers
to
certify
these
engines,
but
we
are
adding
requirements
to
clarify
how
manufacturers
can
show
that
the
new
engines
meet
an
older
set
of
emission
standards.
This
involves
either
using
an
engine
that
is
the
same
as
one
that
was
certified
in
an
earlier
model
year,
or
performing
tests
to
show
that
the
engines
meet
the
specified
emission
levels.
In
any
case,
manufacturers
need
not
go
through
the
process
or
pay
the
fees
associated
with
certification.
We
recently
adopted
these
same
provisions
for
nonroad
diesel
engines
and
are
extending
them
to
the
other
engine
categories
covered
by
part
1068.

"
§
1068.315:
Reduce
the
ownership
requirement
for
the
identical
configuration
exemption
from
one
year
to
six
months;
also,
change
the
qualifying
criterion
from
"
the
same
as"
to
"
identical
to."

"
§
1068.410:
Add
provisions
allowing
manufacturers
to
test
engines
up
to
three
times
total
if
an
engine
family
reaches
a
fail
decision
under
selective
enforcement
auditing,
consistent
with
the
provisions
that
apply
under
most
of
our
programs.

"
§
1068.510:
Clarify
that
manufacturers
must
describe
the
qualifications
of
repair
personnel,
rather
than
simply
stating
that
they
are
qualified.
