0001
1
UNITED
STATES
OF
AMERICA
2
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
3
4
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
X
5
Control
of
Emissions
of
Air
Pollution:
Docket
ID
No.
6
From
New
Motor
Vehicles:
In­
Use
:
OAR­
204­
0072
7
Testing
for
Heavy­
Duty
Diesel
Engines:
8
and
Vehicles;
Proposed
Rule
:
9
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
X
10
Washington,
D.
C.
11
Thursday,
July
15,
2004
12
13
The
above­
entitled
matter
was
held
in
14
the
offices
of
the
EPA,
1310
L
Street,
N.
W.,
Washington,
15
D.
C.,
at
10:
05
a.
m.,
Thursday,
July
15,
2004,
and
the
16
proceedings
being
taken
down
by
Stenotype
by
CARLA
L.
17
ANDREWS
and
transcribed
under
her
direction.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0002
1
APPEARANCES:
2
GLENN
PASSAVANT
(
Panel
member)
3
MICHAEL
HOROWITZ
(
Panel
member)
4
RICK
GEZELLE
(
Panel
member)
5
RICHARD
S.
WILCOX
(
Panel
member)
6
TIMOTHY
A.
FRENCH
(
Presenter
­­
Engine
7
Manufacturers
Association)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0003
1
P­
R­
O­
C­
E­
E­
D­
I­
N­
G­
S
2
MR.
PASSAVANT:
Good
morning.
Welcome
to
3
today's
hearing.
My
name
is
Glenn
Passavant,
and
I
am
4
the
director
of
the
Nonroad
Center
in
the
Assessment
5
Standards
Division
in
EPA's
Office
of
Transportation
and
6
Air
Quality.
Today
I
will
be
serving
as
the
presiding
7
officer
for
this
hearing.
8
We
will
be
hearing
testimony
today
on
a
9
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
for
a
manufacturer­
run,
10
in­
use
test
program
for
2007
and
later
model
year
11
heavy­
duty
diesel
engines
and
vehicles.
The
proposed
12
regulations
being
considered
today
were
published
in
the
13
June
10,
2004,
edition
of
the
Federal
Register.
This
14
proposal
advances
EPA's
clean
diesel
activities
by
15
helping
to
ensure
that
the
benefits
of
more
stringent
16
emission
standards
are
realized
under
real­
world
driving
17
conditions.
18
The
proposed
test
program
will
require
the
19
truck
engine
manufactures
to
measure
exhaust
emissions
20
from
their
diesel
engines
using
portable
emissions
21
measurement
systems
for
the
first
time.
Also
for
the
22
first
time,
all
manufacturers
will
be
regularly
23
providing
EPA
with
a
significant
quantity
of
emissions
24
data
generated
from
engines
used
in
regular
service,
25
which
EPA
will
evaluate
to
ensure
the
engines
comply
0004
1
with
specified
emissions
requirements.
The
proposed
2
rule
is
a
result
of
an
agreement
between
EPA
and
the
3
Engine
Manufacturers
Association.
4
As
part
of
the
in­
use
testing
regulations,
we
5
are
proposing
to
adopt
the
test
procedures
in
Part
1065,
6
Subpart
J,
entitled
Field
Testing
for
conducting
any
7
emissions
testing
required
in
this
program.
Therefore,
8
I
want
to
draw
your
attention
to
a
notice
of
proposed
9
rulemaking,
which
the
EPA
will
publish
in
the
Federal
10
Register
very
soon,
that
will
include
changes
to
the
11
current
version
of
Part
1065.
And
let
me
implement
in
12
there
parenthetically
they
have
been
approved.
It's
13
just
simply
a
matter
of
now
getting
it
into
the
final
14
signature
page
process.
We
have
placed
a
copy
of
the
15
draft
regulations
in
the
docket
for
this
NPRM
and
they
16
are
posted
on
the
OTAQ
website.
17
The
test
procedures
currently
in
Part
1065
18
are
sufficient
to
conduct
testing,
but
the
new
test
19
procedure
NPRM
proposes
to
reorganization
and
to
add
20
content
to
improve
these
procedures.
The
new
content
21
includes
proposed
procedures
for
measuring
very
low
22
concentrations
of
emissions,
using
new
measurement
23
technology,
and
performing
field
testing.
24
Regarding
field
testing,
this
companion
rule
25
proposes
that
in
general,
field
testing
equipment
and
0005
1
measurement
instruments
meet
the
same
specifications
and
2
for
performance
checks
that
laboratory
instruments
3
meet.
However,
for
field
testing
instruments,
the
test
4
procedure
rule
proposes
to
allow
certain
deviations
from
5
the
laboratory
specifications.
It
proposes
a
procedure
6
with
preparing
and
conducting
a
field
test,
and
7
additional
drift
and
noise
allowances
for
emissions
8
analyzers.
The
companion
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
9
will
also
clarify
an
important
aspect
of
the
information
10
reporting
requirements
for
proposed
manufacturer
in­
use
11
testing
of
heavy­
duty
vehicles.
12
The
preamble
of
the
in­
use
testing
proposal
13
provides
a
non­
exhaustive
listing
of
the
types
of
engine
14
parameters
commonly
stored
in
the
engine's
on­
board
15
computer
and
requires
manufacturers
to
report
these
16
parameters,
which
are
readily
available.
We
want
to
be
17
clear
that
not
only
should
those
parameters
be
reported
18
to
EPA,
but
that
they
also
must
be
reported
to
and
19
stored
by
any
portable
emissions
measurement
system
used
20
to
meet
the
testing
requirements
described
in
the
NPRM.
21
Because
the
proposed
regulatory
language
in
40
CFR,
Part
22
1065,
Subpart
J
contained
in
the
companion
test
23
procedure
notice
does
not
contain
all
the
parameters
we
24
intended
to
be
required
in
the
manufacture
in­
use
25
testing
program,
we
expect
that
section
0006
1
86.1920(
a)(
4)(
xii)
in
the
final
in­
use
testing
2
regulations
will
contain
language
that
will
better
3
reflect
this
intent
and
make
explicit
the
types
of
4
parameters
that
may
be
subject
to
the
reporting
5
requirements.
6
The
companion
test
procedure
proposal
7
contains
the
specific
language
for
Section
8
86.1920(
a)(
4)(
xii)
that
we
intend
to
adopt
in
the
final
9
in­
use
testing
regulations.
10
Comments
regarding
the
test
procedures
11
proposed
in
the
separate
companion
NPRM
to
this
notice
12
can
be
directed
as
comments
toward
that
notice
or
the
13
in­
use
testing
notice.
14
Following
this
public
hearing,
there
will
be
15
an
opportunity
for
everyone
to
send
us
written
16
comments.
We
expect
to
take
final
action
on
this
17
proposal
by
the
end
of
2004.
18
Representing
the
EPA
with
me
are
a
few
19
colleagues,
including
Michael
Horowitz
of
the
EPA's
20
Office
of
General
Counsel,
and
Rick
Gezelle
from
the
21
Certification
and
Compliance
Division,
and
Rich
Wilcox
22
from
the
Office
of
Air
Quality
and
Transportation.
23
I
will
read
a
prepared
statement
to
outline
24
how
we
will
hold
this
hearing.
We
are
conducting
this
25
hearing
in
accordance
with
Section
307(
d)(
5)
of
the
0007
1
amended
Clean
Air
Act,
which
requires
EPA
to
provide
2
interested
persons
with
an
opportunity
for
oral
3
presentation
of
data,
views,
or
arguments.
In
addition
4
to
an
opportunity
to
make
written
submissions,
this
5
hearing
provides
the
opportunity
for
such
oral
6
presentations.
7
The
official
record
of
this
hearing
will
be
8
kept
open
until
August
16,
2004,
as
provided
for
in
the
9
Act
and
for
submission
of
rebuttal
and
supplemental
10
testimony.
The
hearing
will
be
conducted
informally,
11
and
formal
rules
of
evidence
will
not
apply.
The
12
presiding
officer,
however,
is
authorized
to
strike
13
statements
from
the
record,
which
are
deemed
irrelevant
14
or
needlessly
repetitious,
and
to
enforce
reasonable
15
limits
on
the
duration
of
the
statement
of
any
witness.
16
Witnesses
must
state
their
name
and
17
affiliation
prior
to
making
their
statement.
When
a
18
witness
has
finished
his
or
her
presentation,
members
of
19
the
panel
will
have
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions
20
related
to
the
testimony.
Witnesses
are
reminded
that
21
any
false
statements
or
false
responses
to
the
questions
22
may
be
a
violation
of
law.
23
If
any
members
of
the
audience
wishing
to
24
testify
have
not
already
signed
up,
please
submit
your
25
name
­­
actually,
we
passed
around
a
roster
here
for
you
0008
1
all.
Sign
that
roster.
We
will
try
to
accommodate
2
everyone
who
wants
to
testify.
Everyone
attending
3
should
sign
the
register
whether
or
not
you
testify.
4
Finally,
if
you
would
like
a
transcript
of
5
the
proceedings,
you
should
make
arrangements
directly
6
with
Carla,
the
court
reporter,
during
one
of
the
7
breaks.
Before
we
begin
testimony,
I
want
to
ask
if
8
there
are
any
clarifying
questions.
9
So
far
I
only
know
of
one
party
who
is
going
10
to
testify.
Are
there
others?
All
right.
In
that
11
case,
I
will
ask
Mr.
Tim
French,
representing
the
Engine
12
Manufacturers
Association.
13
MR.
FRENCH:
Good
morning,
everyone.
My
name
14
is
Tim
French,
legal
counsel
with
the
Engine
15
Manufacturers
Association.
We
are
happy
to
be
here
16
today.
And
I
will
try
to
be
brief.
And
I
will
read
the
17
comments
that
we
prepared
to
submit
today
as
well
18
testimony.
And
I
tendered
each
of
you
a
copy
so
you
can
19
follow
along.
20
The
Engine
Manufacturers
Association
21
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
present
this
oral
22
statement
today
regarding
the
notice
of
proposed
23
rulemaking
NPRM
that
EPA
published
initially
on
24
June
10,
2004,
and
supplemented
on
June
21
with
Reg
25
language
relating
to
the
establishment
of
a
0009
1
manufacture­
run
in­
use
testing
program
for
heavy­
duty
2
on­
highway
diesel­
fueled
engines
and
vehicles.
3
EMA
is
the
trade
association
that
represents
4
the
world's
leading
manufacturers
of
internal
combustion
5
engines
used
in
a
wide
variety
of
applications,
6
including
the
diesel­
fueled
engines
that
will
be
used
in
7
the
heavy­
duty
trucks
that
are
to
be
tested
in­
use
under
8
road
conditions
under
the
proposed
in­
use
testing
rule.
9
As
with
any
EPA
rulemaking
that
impacts
HDOH
10
engines,
EMA
and
its
members
have
a
direct
and
11
significant
interest
in
the
proposed
in­
use
testing
rule
12
and
the
manner
in
which
it
will
be
revised,
finalized
13
and
implemented.
EMA's
interest
in
this
case
is
perhaps
14
even
more
heightened,
since
the
proposed
in­
use
testing
15
rule
stems
from
many
months
of
detailed
negotiations
16
between
EMA,
EPA,
and
the
California
Air
Resources
Board
17
aimed
at
settling
a
number
of
underlying
and
significant
18
legal
issues
and
challenges
relating
to
the
group
of
19
emission
control
requirements
referred
to
as
"
not­
to
20
exceed"
or
NTE
standards.
21
One
specific
result
from
those
NTE
settlement
22
negotiations
was
a
detailed
10­
page
outline
of
a
23
ground­
breaking
manufacturer­
run
in­
use
testing
program
24
to
assess
the
real­
world
compliance
and
impact
of
HDOH
25
vehicle
emissions
with
the
applicable
NTE
standards
0010
1
accordingly,
the
relevant
benchmark
­­
certainly
from
2
EMA's
perspective
­­
for
assessing
the
merits
of
3
feasibility
of
the
pending
rulemaking
is
the
extent
to
4
which
it
tracks
or,
alternatively,
deviates
from
the
5
agreed
upon
in­
use
testing
outline.
6
The
critical
importance
of
EPA
and
not
7
coincidentally
ARB
implementing
an
in­
use
testing
rule
8
that
is
fully
consistent
with
the
letter
and
spirit
of
9
the
in­
use
testing
outline
cannot
be
overstated.
The
10
type
of
manufacturer
in
run
in­
use
NTE
testing
that
is
11
at
issue
in
this
rulemaking
represents
a
true
paradigm
12
shift
from
the
regulatory
scream
that
heretofore
has
13
been
applied
to
control
emissions
from
the
heavy­
duty
14
highway
vehicles
and
engines.
Previously,
those
types
15
of
engine
standards
have
been
established
with
reference
16
to
specified
engine
development
and
testing
processes
17
that
are
carried
out
using
engine
dynamometers
in
18
carefully
controlled
and
monitored
engine
laboratories.
19
In
addition,
the
technical
feasibility
of
the
20
under
laying
engine
emission
standards,
as
well
as
an
21
the
engine's
compliance
with
those
standards,
22
traditionally
have
been
assessed
through
the
use
of
23
specific
engine
duty
cycles
(
designating
specified
test
24
modes
of
engine
speed
and
torque)
that
can
be
programmed
25
into
and
run
on
engine
dynamometers,
again,
in
carefully
0011
1
controlled
and
monitored
laboratory
settings.
2
An
in­
use
NTE
testing
program,
by
contrast,
3
represents
a
fundamental
break
­­
what
we
would
call
a
4
paradigm
shift
­­
from
the
traditional
heavy­
duty
on
5
highway
engine
development
and
testing
processes.
6
Instead
of
controlling,
monitored,
and
repeatable
engine
7
laboratory
conditions,
heavy­
duty
on
highway
engine
8
emissions
will
now
need
to
be
assessed
with
the
engine
9
fully
installed
in
the
vehicle
and
with
the
vehicle
10
operating
as
it
is
on
a
day­
to­
day
basis
under
11
real­
world
driving
conditions,
and
utilizing
12
still­
developing
onboard
emission
measurement
systems.
13
Engine
manufacturers
have
never
before
faced
14
this
level
of
challenge
in
performing
and
administering
15
emission
tests
in
uncontrolled
environments
utilizing
as
16
yet
to
be
proven
in
some
instances
emission
measurement
17
systems.
So,
in
sum,
it
is
a
true
paradigm
shift
that
18
you
are
dealing
with
under
this
rulemaking.
19
Now,
due
to
the
significant
(
in
fact,
20
unprecedented)
challenges
that
engine
manufacturers
will
21
face
in
trying
to
implement
the
in­
use
testing
program,
22
it
is
vital
that
the
in­
use
program
be
administered
on
a
23
uniform,
nationwide
basis,
without
any
unique
or
24
specific
or
special
provisions
for
particular
25
jurisdictions,
including
the
State
of
California.
And
0012
1
to
that
end,
the
in­
use
testing
outline
embodies
the
2
parties'
commitment
to
a
single
coordinated
program.
3
And
it
is
incumbent
on
both
EPA
and
ARB
that
they
work
4
diligently
together
to
ensure
that
those
commitments
to
5
a
single,
nationwide
in­
use
testing
program
are,
in
6
fact,
honored.
7
Indeed,
engine
manufacturers
have
expressly
8
relied
on
the
respective
agencies'
commitment
to
a
9
uniform
nationwide
program
in
developing
and
agreeing
to
10
the
in­
use
testing
outline.
And
it
is
also
important
as
11
we
have
all
committed
to
one
another
that
that
program
12
include
a
two­
year
program
to
prove
out
the
technologies
13
and
the
methods
for
generating
that
data.
And
we
14
appreciate
that
as
well.
And
so
the
cornerstone
15
commitment
to
uniformity
must
remain
in
place
in
any
16
final
rulemaking
relating
to
the
in­
use
testing.
17
Now
because
of
the
daunting
technical,
not
to
18
mention
financial,
challenges
that
manufacturers
will
19
face
in
implementing
an
in­
use
testing,
it
is
also
20
crucial
that
any
final
program
not
deviate
in
any
21
material
respect
from
the
in­
use
testing
outline
that
22
manufacturers
and
EPA
spent
a
long
time
carefully
23
negotiating
and
developing.
Indeed,
any
material
24
deviation
will
occasion
necessarily
material
issues
25
concerning
the
feasibility
and
cost­
effectiveness
of
an
0013
1
in­
use
testing
program.
2
Now,
for
the
most
part,
the
proposed
in­
use
3
testing
rule
accurately
reflects
the
agreed­
upon
4
outline.
And
this
is
particularly
the
case
with
respect
5
to
most
all
of
the
core
elements
of
the
in­
use
testing
6
program
and
specifically
those
that
relate
to
the
7
establishment
of
a
consistent
national
program
as
just
8
discussed
relating
to
the
number
of
engine
families
and
9
vehicles
to
be
tested,
relating
to
the
duration
of
10
vehicle
testing,
relating
to
the
criteria
for
assessing
11
whether
a
vehicle
passes
the
in­
use
testing
under
phase
12
one.
The
two­
faze
nature
of
the
in­
use
program
as
well
13
as
the
criteria
that
EPA
will
look
to
in
assessing
when
14
and
whether
remedial
action
might
be
warranted.
And
we
15
appreciate
that
very
much.
It
is,
in
fact,
the
core
for
16
a
workable
program
there
are.
17
There
are,
however,
a
number
of
other
18
elements
of
the
in­
use
testing
outline
that
do
not
19
accurately
reflect
the
terms
or
intent
of
the
outline,
20
or
that
otherwise
are
slightly
inconsistent
with
what
21
was
contemplated
when
manufacturers
agreed
to
the
22
paradigm
shift
that
will
be
required
to
implement
in­
use
23
testing.
And
it
our
written
comments,
EMA
will
detail
24
those
inconsistencies
and
offer
suggestions
for
25
remedying
them
so
that
we
can
implement
a
timely,
0014
1
effective,
and
feasible
in­
use
program
in
accordance
2
with
the
schedule
we
have
laid
out.
3
In
conclusion,
EMA
appreciates
the
4
opportunity
to
present
this
oral
statement
today
5
relating
to
the
proposed
in­
use
testing
program.
As
6
already
stated,
the
in­
use
program
represents
a
7
fundamental
and
ground­
breaking
paradigm
shift
in
the
8
regulation
and
control
of
emissions
from
the
heavy­
duty
9
on
highway
engines
and
vehicles.
And,
in
fact,
as
we
10
look
forward
it
may
actually
usher
a
means
to
shift
our
11
compliant
certification
focus
from
the
lab
to
the
field
12
from
beginning
to
end.
13
Accordingly,
while
many
challenges
lie
ahead,
14
EMA
looks
forward
to
an
ongoing
collaborative
effort
15
with
EPA
and
ARB
to
ensure
that
the
negotiated
in­
use
16
program
is
implemented
in
a
feasible,
cost­
effective
and
17
highly
successful
manner.
18
Thank
you
for
your
time,
and
i
will
be
happy
19
to
try
to
answer
any
questions
you
have.
20
MR.
PASSAVANT:
Tim,
thank
you
for
your
21
testimony.
I
did
take
an
opportunity
to
read
the
letter
22
that
you
had
sent
out
the
other
day.
And
I
think
you
23
pretty
well
highlighted
the
open
items
that
we
talked
24
about
in
the
past.
We
will
commit
to
working
through
25
this
with
you
over
the
course
of
the
next
couple
of
0015
1
months
as
we
move
toward
a
final
rule.
I
didn't
see
2
anything
in
your
letter
that
I
didn't
understand.
It
3
was
all
pretty
straightforward.
So
it's
just
a
matter
4
of
waiting
for
the
other
comments
and
working
through
5
the
process
and
see
how
we,
being
the
EMA
and
the
ARB,
6
come
to
a
final
conclusion.
7
I
don't
have
any
questions
right
now
myself.
8
MR.
HOROWITZ:
I
would
encourage
you
to
take
9
a
look
at
the
rights
that
are
in
the
docket
now
on
1065
10
for
the
testing
procedure.
11
MR.
FRENCH:
We
will
and
we
will
have
some
12
comments
on
our
Calibration
Standard
Task
Force
within
13
the
EMA
doing
that
even
as
we
speak.
14
MR.
PASSAVANT:
And
they
are
meeting
today,
I
15
believe,
with
our
guys.
So
things
are
moving
along.
You
16
did
get
the
copy
that
we
provided.
17
MR.
FRENCH:
Right.
I
circulated
that.
18
MR.
PASSAVANT:
Okay.
Would
anybody
like
to
19
make
a
statement
or
does
anybody
else
have
any
20
testimony?
Going
once,
going
twice.
This
meeting
is
21
adjourned.
22
(
At
10:
23
a.
m.,
the
meeting
was
concluded.)
23
24
25
