TO:
Tom
Cackette
Mike
Carter
Rich
Gezelle
Stephan
Lemieux
Glenn
Passavant
Matt
Spears
Rich
Wilcox
CC:
Jed
R.
Mandel
FROM:
Timothy
A.
French
DATE:
November
29,
2004
RE:
Draft
Agenda
for
the
December
1,
2004
In­
Use
Testing
Technical
Meeting
Attached
is
the
draft
agenda
for
the
December
1,
2004
In­
Use
Testing
Technical
meeting
scheduled
at
the
Westin
Detroit
Metropolitan
Airport
Hotel.
I
look
forward
to
seeing
everyone
on
Wesdnesday
at
the
meeting.
If
you
have
any
questions,
please
do
not
hesitate
to
contact
me.
2
DRAFT
AGENDA
EMA/
EPA
Meeting
Manufacturer
In­
Use
Testing
Detroit
Metro
Westin
Hotel
December
1,
2004
1.
Draft
in­
use
database
and
electronic
reporting
format
2.
Guidance
documents
(
introductory
discussion)
3.
CBI
issues
4.
Other
issues
5.
Next
Steps
3
AGENDA
(
January
27,
2005)

I.
Introductions
II.
Pending
IMO­
Related
Issues
A.
Preparation
For
February
2005
IMO
DE
Meeting
1.
Membership
and
Anticipated
Roles
of
U.
S.
Delegation
2.
EMA's
Concerns
Regarding
IACS
Interpretation
Document
3.
Addressing
Family
Certification
Concerns
4.
Coordination
with
Other
Industry
Stakeholders
5.
Ensuring
Inclusion
in
Drafting
Group
Discussions
B.
Planning
For
July
2005
IMO
MEPC53
Meeting
1.
Potential
Discussion
Topics

Amendments
to
NOx
Technical
Code
to
facilitate
family
certification
(
and
avoid
multiple
EIAPPs)


Development
of
"
Tier
2"
regulations
2.
Submission
of
Written
Comments
(
March
2005?)
3.
Objectives
of
U.
S.
Delegation
(
EPA)
at
Meeting
C.
Effective
Date
of
Annex
VI
(
May
19,
2005)

1.
Status
of
U.
S.
Ratification
2.
Conversion
of
Voluntary
Certificates
into
EIAPP
Certificates

EPA
process
D.
Next
Steps
III.
EMA's
Marine
Useful
Life
Proposal
(
June
25,
2004)

A.
EPA
Response
B.
Next
Steps

Guidance
document

Regulatory
changes
4
IV.
Status
of
ANPRM
For
Marine
and
Locomotive
Engines
A.
Response
To
EMA's
Comments
(
August
30,
2004)


Separate
rulemakings

Timing/
stringency
of
standards
B.
Timetable
For
Rulemaking

Consultative
meetings
with
EMA
C.
Next
Steps
5
Measurement
Accuracy
Margin
for
the
Heavy­
Duty
In­
Use
Testing
Final
Rule
EPA
Staff
Working
Document
Background:
The
settlement
outline
states
that
new
measurement
accuracy
margins
for
the
heavy­
duty
in­
use
testing
(
HDIUT)
program
will
be
jointly
determined
by
EPA,
CARB,
and
the
engine
manufacturers.
The
purpose
of
these
margins
is
to
account
for
the
uncertainty
associated
with
portable
emissions
sampling
systems
incremental
to
laboratory
performance.
EPA
maintains
that
the
Final
Rule
needs
to
include
"
hard­
wired"
accuracy
margins
for
all
pollutants.
These
are
at
a
minimum
needed
for
the
"
pilot
programs."
EPA
has
indicated
that
it
would
provide
"
liberal"
values
for
these
interim
accuracy
margins
and
manufacturers
have
indicated
their
agreement
with
these
margins.
1
Further,
in
meetings
on
this
subject,
manufacturers
have
indicated
that
more
data
is
needed
to
establish
the
accuracy
margins
for
the
2007
fully
enforceable
program
for
gaseous
emissions
and
a
2008
fully
enforceable
program
for
particulate
matter
(
PM).
EPA
also
believes
that
more
data
would
be
helpful
in
determining
the
final
accuracy
margins
and
is
willing
to
engage
in
a
program
to
develop
that
information.
This
paper
identifies
how
the
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
can
be
developed
and
how
they
would
be
implemented
by
a
direct
final
rulemaking.
It
also
describes
the
consequences
of
failing
to
complete
the
program
to
define
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
in
time
to
start
either
of
the
enforceable
programs.

Program
Development:
EPA
will
develop
the
basic
scope
and
objectives
of
the
program
to
derive
the
data­
driven
margins
with
the
participation
of
the
engine
manufacturers.
It
would
be
highly
desirable
for
manufacturers
to
be
objectively
involved
in
the
design
of
the
program
given
the
scope
and
importance
of
the
project.
(
EPA
expects
that
each
manufacturer
would
have
one
representative
to
assist
in
developing
the
program.
CARB
may
also
choose
to
participate
[
CARB
has
committed
to
propose
an
in­
use
testing
program
in
substantial
conformance
with
EPA's.
The
nature
of
CARB's
participation
needs
to
be
conclusively
established
before
any
MOU
is
signed.]).
The
programmatic
objectives,
approach,
and
the
relative
roles
of
EPA
and
the
engine
manufacturers
and
other
points
of
agreement
necessary
for
a
successful
program
would
be
reflected
in
a
Memorandum
of
Understanding
(
MOU)
or
similar
document.

More
specifically,
the
MOU
would
address
the
development
of
both
gaseous
and
PM
accuracy
margins.
For
gaseous
emissions,
the
document
would
explicitly
detail
the
objectives,
testing,
data
analysis,
and
commitments
from
each
party
including
cost
sharing,
payments­
in­
kind,
or
other
possible
contributions.
2
The
MOU
would
contain
a
hard
funding
limit,
i.
e.,
not
to
exceed
value,
for
the
gaseous
emissions
test
program.
For
PM,
the
document
would
specify
that
the
parties
agree
to
develop
a
detailed
testing
and
data
analysis
plan
(
such
as
is
now
underway
for
the
gaseous
pollutants)
within
XX
months
of
signing
the
MOU.
The
document
would
also
explicitly
detail
for
PM
as
many
of
the
program
objectives,
scope,
and
commitments
from
each
party
as
possible,
including
cost
sharing,
payments­
in­
kind,
or
other
possible
contributions.
Furthermore,
the
MOU
would
specify
a
PM
test
plan
similar
in
approach
and
level
of
testing
as
that
used
to
develop
the
gaseous
emission
accuracy
margins.
The
PM
portion
of
the
MOU
would
also
contain
a
hard
funding
limit,
i.
e.,
not
to
exceed
value,
for
the
test
program.
Finally,
the
document
would
contain
an
agreement
that
the
parties
would
not
contest
the
data­
driven
gaseous
and
PM
results
so
long
as
they
are
derived
from
the
agreed
upon
test
program
and
the
application
of
the
agreed
upon
analytical
methods.

Objective,
Approach,
and
Accommodations:
The
margins
will
compensate
for
the
difference
between
in­
use
emission
measurement
accuracy
and
laboratory
emission
measurement
accuracy.
Individual
margins
will
be
established
for
NOx,
NMHC,
CO,
and
PM.
These
marginsThis
program
is
not
intended
to
determine
potential
accuracy
allowances
for
laboratory
testing
at
the
levels
of
the
2007/
2010
emission
standards.
The
margins
determined
by
this
program
will
be
established
by
a
rigorous
in­
field
and
laboratory
test
program
that
assesses,
at
a
minimum,
lab
to
PEMS
emission
differences
and
accounts
for
in­
use
environmental
effects
on
PEMS
units.
The
overall
scope,
experimental
design,
and
analytical
methodology
for
determining
each
accuracy
margin
would
be
agreed
upon
well
in
advance
of
initiating
the
test
program.
The
test
programs
for
gaseous
and
PM
pollutants
would
1
The
additive
interim
accuracy
margins
(
g/
bhp­
hr)
are
as
follows:
NMHC
=
0.17;
NOx
=
0.5;
CO
=
0.60;
and
PM
=
0.10.
2
As
currently
envisioned
for
the
gaseous
test
program,
the
primary
contribution
by
all
parties
will
be
money.
The
total
dollar
cost
would
be
split
equally
(
pro
rata)
between
industry
and
government.
Manufacturers
will
also
contribute
test
engines,
which
will
be
valued
as
part
of
their
monetary
contribution.
6
ideally
be
integrated
and
sequenced
into
the
overall
test
plan
to
provide
final
results
in
time
for
the
fully
enforceable
programs
described
above.
Nonetheless,
in
no
case
should
work
on
developing
the
gaseous
accuracy
margins
be
delayed
while
a
work
plan
for
the
PM
test
program
is
being
completed.
It
is
imperative
that
the
test
program
for
gaseous
emissions
is
initiated
and
completed
quickly
to
preventavoid
delaying
the
enforceable
program
that
begins
in
2007.

All
testing
and
subsequent
data
analysis
will
be
overseen
by
EPA
and
coordinated
with
the
engine
manufacturers.
It
is
anticipated
that
much
of
the
testing
and
data
analysis
will
be
performed
under
contract
by
an
agreed
upon
third
party
or
parties.
Furthermore,
it
is
anticipated
that
the
experimental
designs
will
be
submitted
to
a
statistician
to
ensure
that
the
information
generated
is
sufficient
and
appropriate
for
developing
the
accuracy
margins,
and
to
establish
an
algorithm
for
calculating
the
margins.
This
overall
approach
will
provide
assurances
that
the
experimental
designs
are
acceptable
to
all
participants
and
is
intended
to
prevent
multiple
interpretations
of
the
datadriven
results
so
that
the
margins
can
be
implemented
by
direct
final
rulemaking.
It
will
also
help
ensure
that
the
program
will
be
completed
on
schedule
and
budget.
(
Although
EPA
intends
to
implement
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
by
direct
final
rule,
the
Agency
cannot
guarantee
that
the
test
program
results
would
end
up
in
a
final
rule
if
significant
adverse
comments
are
received.)

Finally,
EPA
understands
that
participation
by
manufacturers
in
the
test
programs
will
result
in
some
burden
to
those
companies,
but
will
produce
useful
information.
Therefore,
if
manufacturers
agree
to
participate
in
the
test
programs,
EPA
believes
it
would
be
appropriate
to
reduce
the
manufacturers'
testing
burden
under
the
original
pilot
program
(
2005­
2006
for
gaseous
and
2006­
2007
for
PM)
to
five
vehicles
per
designated
engine
family.

Schedule:
In
order
to
provide
adequate
time
to
promulgate
the
data­
driven
accuracy
margins,
the
test
programs
will
generally
need
to
conform
to
the
following
schedule.
First,
the
MOU
containing
the
experimental
design,
analytical
methods,
and
resource
commitments
for
determining
the
accuracy
margins
should
be
signed
by
senior
management
of
all
parties
no
later
than
XX,
2005.
Second,
the
subsequent
detailed
test
and
data
analysis
plan
for
PM
should
be
signed
by
senior
management
of
all
parties
no
later
than
XX,
2005.
Third,
the
test
programs
should
be
completed
and
final
accuracy
margins
available
by
September
1,30,
2006
for
the
gaseous
emissions
and
by
September
1,30,
2007
for
PM.

Regulatory
Provision:
If
it
is
determined
that
the
test
programs
as
described
above
are
an
appropriate
mechanism
for
determining
final
accuracy
margins,
the
basic
programmatic
objectives
and
approach,
and
the
relative
roles
of
the
EPA
and
the
engine
manufacturers
would
be
reflected
in
the
HDIUT
final
rule.
The
key
provisions
of
the
MOU,
such
as
the
contributions
and
deliverables
for
each
party,
would
be
referenced
and
to
the
degree
possible
contained
in
the
preamble
of
the
rule.
Certain
key
provisions
would
also
be
reflected
in
the
regulatory
language
as
a
means
to
provide
certainty
to
all
parties.
These
provisions
would
include
items
such
as
the
pilot
program
provisions
and,
as
appropriate,
the
consequences
of
failing
to
complete
the
accuracy
margin
test
programs
as
specified
below.
The
accuracy
margin
algorithm
may
also
be
included
in
the
regulatory
text.

The
MOU
will
address
a
test
program
that
is
designed
to
provide
the
data
(
and
associated
data
analysis)
needed
to
derive
the
final
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
by
September
30,
2006
for
gaseous
emissions
and
September
30,
2007
for
PM.
3
The
MOU
will
specify
key
interim
deliverable
milestones.
It
will
also
specify
that
the
final
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
will
be
documented
in
a
final
report
from
the
contractor
as
soon
as
practicable,
but
in
no
case
later
December
1,
2006
for
gaseous
and
December
1,
2007
for
PM.
[
deleted
sentence;
awkward;
repetitive]
The
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
will
be
proposed
by
EPA
in
a
direct
final
rule
as
soon
as
possible
after
the
values
are
identified.
The
MOU
will
acknowledge
that
publishing
and
finalizing
the
direct
final
rule
with
the
data­
driven
margins
would
fulfill
EPA's
obligation
under
the
settlement
agreement.

If
a
failure
to
deliver
the
final
accuracy
values
by
the
December
1
date
is
the
fault
of
the
manufacturers,
the
respective
enforceable
program
goes
into
effect
using
the
previously
agreed
upon
interim
accuracy
margins.
A
manufacturers'
failure
may
be
demonstrated
by
missing
one
or
more
of
the
critical
milestones
as
follows:

3
Laboratory
and
environmental
testing
will
be
performed
by
a
third­
party
contractor.
7
­­
Torque/
BSFC
v.
speed/
load
and
AECD
maps
delivered
to
contractor
at
time
of
contract
signature
­­
Contracts
funded
and
signed
within
60
days
after
MOU
signature
­­
Engines
delivered
to
contractor
within
90
days
after
MOU
signature
[
these
dates
are
subject
to
further
due
diligence
to
assess
their
reasonableness]

If
manufacturers
fail
to
perform
as
agreed
upon
in
the
MOU
and
the
detailed
test
plan
for
PM,
and
that
failure
would
otherwise
delay
the
planned
start
an
enforceable
program,
the
respective
enforceable
program
would
begin
as
originally
scheduled
using
provisional
accuracy
margins.
The
provisional
accuracy
margins
will
be
the
lesser
of
the
interim
margins
as
previously
described,
or
new
accuracy
margins
developed
by
EPA
based
on
the
test
data
that
are
available
as
of
the
originally
scheduled
end
of
the
test
program.
These
provisional
accuracy
margins
will
remain
in
effect
until
the
relevant
final
data­
driven
margins
are
established.
A
failure
by
any
individual
manufacturer
that
leads
to
missing
one
or
more
of
the
critical
milestones
described
above
would
be
regarded
as
a
failure
by
all
manufacturers.

If
EPA
fails
to
perform
as
agreed
upon
in
the
MOU
and
the
detailed
test
plan
for
PM,
and
that
failure
would
otherwise
delay
the
originally
planned
completion
date
of
the
test
program,
the
18­
month
period
for
testing
and
reporting
under
the
respective
enforceable
program
could
be
delayed
by
up
to
three
months.
The
actual
delay
would
be
equal
to
the
time
needed
to
complete
the
test
program,
i.
e.,
a
one­
to­
one
correspondence.
The
enforceable
program
would
use
the
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
derived
from
the
results
of
the
test
program.
To
relieve
any
added
testing
burden
that
may
be
caused
by
overlapping
the
initial
test
period
onto
that
for
the
subsequent
model
year,
an
appropriate
reduction
in
the
number
of
engine
families
designated
for
testing
for
the
first
model
year
would
be
provided.
For
example,
if
the
test
program
was
delayed
for
three
months,
the
number
of
engine
families
tested
in
the
intervening
18
months
would
be
reduced
about
20
percent
(
3
÷
18
=
17%).
In
no
case,
however,
would
the
number
of
engine
families
designated
for
testing
by
any
manufacturers
be
less
than
one.
If
the
interim
accuracy
margins
go
into
effect
as
a
result
of
a
manufacturers'
failure,
EPA
may
pursue
a
separate
rulemaking
to
establish
different
accuracy
margins
for
any
subsequent
year
after
the
enforceable
program
begins.

If
EPA's
failure
to
perform
would
otherwise
delay
the
test
program
more
than
three
months,
the
respective
enforceable
program
would
go
into
abeyance
and
the
pilot
program
would
continue
as
originally
conceived
for
the
first
year,
i.
e.,
Phase
1
and
Phase
2,
a
failure
to
obtain
final
documentation
from
the
contractor
of
the
final
accuracy
values
by
the
December
1
date
is
the
fault
of
EPA
or
a
party
other
than
the
manufacturers,
and
the
delay
is
less
than
a
total
of
3
months,
the
enforceable
program
will
be
delayed
by
the
same
amount
of
time
it
takes
to
complete
and
finalize
the
final
contractor
report,
i.
e.,
a
one­
to­
one
correspondence.
4
If
the
final
documentation
of
the
final
values
is
delayed
beyond
3
months,
the
Phase
1
and
2
pilot
programs
will
be
implemented
for
that
year
using
the
interim
accuracy
margins
until
such
time
as
the
relevant
data­
driven
margins
are
established
and
the
respective
enforceable
program
begun.
If
necessary,
this
cycle
will
be
repeated
until
the
final
accuracy
margins
are
identified
and
documented
in
a
final
report.

If
the
enforceable
program
is
delayed,
however,
and
subject
to
the
negotiated
annual
cap
on
the
designation
of
engine
families
for
in­
use
testing,
the
applicable
2007
and
subsequent
model
year
engines
may
be
selected
and
subject
to
enforcement
testing
(
for
gaseous
as
well
as
PM
emissions)
once
the
accuracy
margins
are
established
and
the
enforcement
program
begins.

If
the
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
are
delayed
due
to
problems
that
are
not
the
fault
of
EPA
or
the
engine
manufacturers,
e.
g.,
unforeseen,
but
manageable
technical
issues
or
delays
by
other
involved
parties,
the
consequences
of
such
a
failure
would
be
the
same
as
described
above
for
a
failure
on
EPA's
part.

If
fundamental,
irresolvable
technical
problems
are
identified
relative
to
the
PM
portable
emission
measurement
systems,
the
PM
pilot
program
or
enforceable
program
goes
into
abeyance
until
such
time
as
suitable
emission
measurement
devices
are
identified
or
the
problems
otherwise
resolved.
If
the
enforceable
program
is
delayed,
however,
and
subject
to
the
negotiated
annual
cap
on
the
designation
of
engine
families
for
in­
use
testing;
the
4
The
anticipated
June
30
date
for
designating
engine
families,
which
initiates
the
18
month
testing/
reporting
period,
would
be
delayed.
8
applicable
2007
and
subsequent
model
year
engines
may
be
selected
and
subject
to
enforcement
testing
(
for
gaseous
as
well
as
PM
emissions)
once
the
accuracy
margins
are
established
and
the
enforcement
program
begins.

EPA
anticipates
that
CARB
will
agree
to
the
test
programs
and
provisions
described
above.

EMADOCS:
6567.16567.2
EMA
European
Office,
C.
P.
65,
CH­
1231
Conches,
Switzerland
Telephone
:
+
41
22
784
3357
Facsimile
+
41
22
784
3349
Two
North
LaSalle
Street
Suite
2200
Chicago,
Illinois
60602
Tel:
312/
827­
8700
Fax:
312/
827­
8737
www.
enginemanufacturers.
org
Document
comparison
done
by
DeltaView
on
Wednesday,
February
09,
2005
11:
43:
51
AM
Input:

Document
1
PowerDocs://
EMADOCS/
6567/
1
Document
2
PowerDocs://
EMADOCS/
6567/
2
Rendering
set
Standard
no
color
Legend:

Insertion
Deletion
Moved
from
Moved
to
Style
change
Format
change
Moved
deletion
Inserted
cell
Deleted
cell
Moved
cell
Split/
Merged
cell
Padding
cell
Statistics:

Count
Insertions
25
Deletions
13
Moved
from
0
Moved
to
0
Style
change
0
Format
changed
0
Total
changes
38
10
TO:
Glenn
Passavant,
U.
S.
EPA
CC:
Heavy­
Duty
On­
Highway
Committee
Mobile
Off­
Highway
Committee
Calibration
Standards
Task
Force
Jed
R.
Mandel
FROM:
Timothy
A.
French
DATE:
April
12,
2005
RE:
Revised
Draft
Memorandum
of
Agreement
Attached
please
find
a
black­
lined
version
of
the
proposed
Memorandum
of
Agreement
reflecting
EMA's
revisions
and
edits.
Please
contact
me
if
you
have
any
questions
regarding
this
document.
11
MEMORANDUM
OF
AGREEMENT
Program
to
Develop
Emission
Measurement
Accuracy
Margins
for
Heavy­
Duty
In­
Use
Testing
EPA
Staff
Working
Document
V5
1.
Parties:
The
Engine
Manufacturers
Association
(
EMA),
representing
its
member
companies
(
Caterpillar
Tractor
Company,
Cummins
Engine
Company,
Daimler
Chrysler,
International,
Isuzu,
John
Deere,
and
Mack/
Volvo)
that
manufacture
heavy­
duty
on­
highway
("
HDOH")
diesel­
fueled
engines,
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
and
the
California
Air
Resources
Board
(
CARB)
(
collectively
"
the
Signatories"
or
"
the
parties")
recognize
the
challenge
of
the
upcoming
emission
standards
for
heavy­
duty
diesel
engines
and
the
importance
of
meeting
thesethose
standards
in­
use,
if
the
expected
air
quality
benefits
of
the
new
requirements
are
to
be
realized.
EPA
has
proposed
and
will
soon
finalize
heavy­
duty
in­
use
testing
(
HDIUT)
regulations
aimed
at
assessing
in­
use
compliance
with
the
emission
standards.
Following
a
pilot
testing
program,
full
program
testing
would
begin
in
2007
for
gaseous
emissions
and
2008
for
particulate
matter
(
PM)
emissions.
This
program
would
require
the
use
of
portable
emission
measurement
systems
(
PEMS)
on
heavy­
duty
diesel
vehicles
in
actual
operation.
This
memorandum
of
agreement
describes
the
joint
understandings
and
agreements
of
the
signatoriesSignatories
with
regard
to
developing
data­
driven
emission
measurement
accuracy
margins
for
gaseous
and
PM
emissions
to
be
applied
to
the
results
of
PEMS
in
­
use
in­
field
testing
under
the
forthcoming
HDIUT
regulations.

2.
Background:
In
a
Settlement
Agreement
dated
June
3,
2003,
EPA
and
EMA
agreed
to
an
"
Outline
of
a
Regulatory
Proposal
for
a
Manufacturer
Run
In­
Use
Heavy­
Duty
Vehicle
NTE
Testing
Program."
The
outline
states
that
emission
measurement
accuracy
margins
for
the
HDIUT
program
will
be
jointly
determined
by
EPA,
CARB,
and
the
engine
manufacturers.
The
purpose
of
these
additive­
type
margins
is
to
account
for
the
emissions
measurement
variability
associated
with
PEMS
units
in
the
field,
incremental
to
that
experienced
in
laboratory
testing.
In
meetings
on
this
subject,
manufacturers
have
stated
their
belief
that
more
data
is
needed
to
establish
the
HDIUT
accuracy
margins
for
the
2007
fully
enforceable
program
(
FEP)
for
gaseous
emissions
(
scheduled
to
commence
in
2007)
and
the
2008
FEP
for
PM
(
scheduled
to
commence
in
2008).
EPA
and
CARB
agree
that
more
data
would
be
helpful
in
determining
thesethose
accuracy
margins.

3.
Purpose:
This
agreement
describes
how
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
for
gaseous
and
PM
emissions
will
be
developed,
the
roles
and
responsibilities
of
the
parties
to
this
agreement,
how
the
final
accuracy
margins
will
be
incorporated
into
the
governing
HDIUT
regulations,
and
the
consequences
of
failing
to
complete
the
program
to
develop
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
in
time
to
start
either
portion
(
gaseous
emissions
or
PM
emissions)
of
the
FEPsFEP.

4.
Program
for
Gaseous
Emission
Margins:

a.
Scope:
Working
together
with
CARB
and
the
engine
manufacturers,
EPA
has
prepared
a
document
(
attached)
which
serveswill
serve
as
the
test
plan
for
developing
data
­
driven
accuracy
margins
for
gaseous
emissions.
ItThe
test
plan
describes
the
basic
scope
and
objectives
of
this
research,
development,
and
demonstration
(
RDD)
program
and
defines
specific
analyses,
laboratory
experiments,
and
field
work
which
need
to
be
accomplished
to
develop
the
data
­
driven
accuracy
margins.
For
gaseous
emissions,
individual
margins
will
be
established
for
NOx,
NMHC,
and
CO.
The
test
plan
contains
the
following
basic
elements:

 
3rd
Third­
party
laboratory
experiments
to
assess
emissions
measurement
variability
of
PEMS
units
incremental
to
that
experienced
in
the
laboratory.
Results
will
be
used
to
"
calibrate"
a
computer
model
that
will
calculate
the
measurement
allowances.
 
3rd
Third­
party
laboratory
experiments
to
assess
the
effects
of
environmental
parameters
on
the
measurement
accuracy
capability
of
the
PEMS
units
and
their
ability
to
operate
correctly
and
consistently
in
use
over
a
normal
sampling
time.
Results
will
be
used
to
"
calibrate"
a
computer
model
that
will
calculate
the
measurement
allowances.
12
 
3rd
Third­
party
on
­
vehicle/
trailer
comparison
of
portable
emission
measurement
versus
field
laboratory
emission
measurement.
Results
will
be
used
to
validate
the
computer
model
used
to
calculate
the
measurement
allowances.
 
ManufacturerThird­
party
tests
and
manufacturer
voluntary
submissions
of
the
effects
of
NTE
events
with
activated
non­
deficiency
AECDs
and
other
factors
on
the
ability
to
estimate
torque/
bsfc
values
from
ECM
parameters
using
prescribed
mapping
procedures.
EPA
and
CARB
would
consider
information
for
an
additional
allowance
if
error
due
to
AECDs
is
consistent
across
manufacturers.
If
errors
are
infrequent,
large,
or
there
is
a
consistent
bias
in
errors,
EPA
and
CARB
will
expect
those
manufacturers
to
account
for
these
errors
by
creating
more
sophisticated
algorithms
for
calculating
torque/
BSFC
from
ECM
parameters.,
in
consultation
with
HDOH
engine
manufacturers,
will
utilize
this
information,
if
reasonably
common
among
manufacturers,
to
establish
a
margin
component
accounting
for
the
uncertainty
in
the
torque/
bsfe
values
used
in
the
NTE
brake­
specific
emission
calculations.
 
b.
Costs:
The
2007
gaseous
emission
test
programportion
of
the
RDD
program
to
develop
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
for
gaseous
emissions
is
not
intended
to
cost
more
than
$
1.5
million.
EPA's
participation
in
this
agreement
is
subject
to
the
availability
of
appropriated
funds.
In
addition
to
the
resources
EPA
commits
to
this
effort,
CARB
and
the
engine
manufacturing
industry
intend
to
donatecontribute
additional
resources
to
the
Agency
under
Section
104(
b)(
4)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
The
industry
intends
that
its
donation
be
no
more
than
$
750,000.
Theseit
will
contribute
a
50%
cost
share
up
to
$
750,000,
subject
to
EPA/
CARB
ensuring
the
funding
of
the
remainder
of
the
RDD
program.
Those
contributions
may
be
in
the
form
of
money
used
to
fund
contract
work
efforts,
and/
or
vehicles,
engines,
and
PEMS
test
equipment,
or
other
in­
kind
contributions
beneficial
to
the
completion
of
the
RDD
program.
Parties
whothat
contribute
the
use
of
such
items
such
as
vehicles,
engines,
and
PEMS
test
equipment,
or
other
beneficial
in­
kind
contributions
will
have
these
testthose
program
contributions
valued
as
part
of
their
overall
donationcontribution
based
on
the
current
fair
market
value
of
the
donation.
contribution.
The
parties
further
agree
that
this
project
should
be
funded
through
a
single
contract
vehicle
or
work
assignment
(
although
not
necessarily
a
single
contractor)
as
appropriate
to
support
the
RDD
project
that
will
be
financed
with
EPA
funds
and
donationscontributions
from
industry
and
CARB.

c.
Execution
of
the
Gaseous
Emission
Testing
Program:
TheIt
is
intended
that
the
RDD
program
project
will
follow
the
attached
test
plan
and
the
schedule
discussed
in
paragraph
4d,
below.
All
testing
and
subsequent
data
analyses
will
be
overseen
by
EPA
and
coordinated
withby
EPA,
the
HDOH
engine
manufacturersmanufacturer
members
of
EMA,
and
CARB.
Program
technical
direction
(
including
any
necessary
modifications
to
the
test
plan)
will
be
provided
by
a
Steering
Committee
drawn
from
representatives
of
the
Signatory
parties.
ThisThe
Steering
Committee
will
also
track
progress
of
program
completion
both
in
terms
of
technical
output
and
schedule.
EPA
will
keep
records
of
Steering
Committee
meetings
and
documents
related
to
this
project
and
make
them
part
of
the
public
record
for
the
direct
final
rule
discussed
below.

The
experimental
designs
have
beendescribed
in
the
attached
test
plan
will
be
submitted
to
a
statistician
to
ensure
that
the
information
generated
is
sufficient
and
appropriate
for
developing
the
gaseous
emission
accuracy
margins
and
to
establish
an
algorithm
for
calculating
the
margins
using
the
data
derived
from
the
program.
This
overall
approach
will
provide
assurance
that
the
experimental
designs
are
acceptable
to
all
participants
and
is
intended
to
prevent
multiple
and
competing
interpretations
of
the
data.
It
will
also
help
ensure
that
the
program
will
be
completed
on
schedule
and
within
budget.

Participation
by
HDOH
engine
manufacturers
in
the
testRDD
programs
will
result
in
some
burden
to
those
companies,
but
will
produce
useful
information.
Therefore,
for
each
engine
manufacturer
whothat
participates
in
these
testthe
RDD
programs,
EPA
intends
to
reduce
saidwill
limit
that
manufacturer's
testing
burden
under
the
original
pilot
program
(
2005­
2006
for
gaseous
emissions)
to
five
vehicles
per
designated
engine
family,
subject
to
the
allowable
annual
cap
on
the
number
of
engine
families
that
can
be
designated
for
in­
use
testing
in
a
single
calendar
year.

d.
Schedule:
In
order
to
provide
adequate
time
to
promulgate
the
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
for
gaseous
emissions,
the
testgaseous
emission
portion
of
the
RDD
program
will
need
to
be
completed
and
final
accuracy
margins
calculated
by
September
30,
2006.
The
parties
recognize
that
to
meet
this
milestone
all
laboratory
and
field
work
needsneed
to
be
completed
prior
to
June
2,
2006.
Toward
that
end,
the
following
not
­
later
­
than
dates
are
agreed
upon
by
the
parties:
13
Schedule
for
Gaseous
Measurement
Allowance
Program
Description
Date1
1
FundingDefinitive
funding
commitment
and
execution
of
lab
testing
contract
15
July
2005
2
Delivery
to
lab
of
all
agreed
upon
engines,
PEMS
and
other
equipment
to
be
provided
by
engine
manufacturers
8
August
20052
3
Delivery
of
PEMS
units
to
be
provided
by
PEMS
suppliers,
EPA
or
CARB
8
August
20052
34
CommencementInitial
funding
and
commencement
of
lab
testing
815
August
200520052
45
FundingInitial
funding
and
execution
of
field
testing
contract
9
December
200520052
56
Completion
and
final
funding
of
lab
testing
(~
6
months
duration)
3
February
200620062
67
Delivery
of
lab
testing
interim
report
3
March
2006
78
Delivery
to
field
of
agreed
upon
vehicle,
PEMS
and
other
equipment
3
April
20062
89
Commencement
of
field
testing
310
April
2006
91
0
Completion
and
final
funding
of
field
testing
(~
2
months
duration)
2
June
200620062
10
11
Delivery
of
field
testing
interim
report
30
June
2006
11
12
Delivery
of
contractor
final
report
with
accuracy
margin
inputs
15
September
2006
1All
dates
specified
at
time
of
close­
of
business
(
COB)
2Or
when
contractor
requires
payment
or
in­
kind
equipment,
whichever
is
later
5.
Program
for
PM
Emission
Margins:

a.
Scope:
EPA,
CARB,
and
the
engine
manufacturers
have
agreed
to
work
together
to
prepare
a
test
plan
for
developing
data
­
driven
accuracy
margins
for
PM
emissions.
As
is
the
case
for
gaseous
emissions,
itthe
test
plan
for
the
PM
portion
of
the
HDIUT
program
will
address
the
basic
scope
and
objectives
of
this
RDD
program,
definesand
define
specific
analyses,
laboratory
experiments,
and
field
work
which
need
to
be
accomplished
to
develop
the
data
driven
accuracy
margins.
for
PM
emissions.
The
test
plan
is
expected
to
contain
the
following
basic
provisions:

 
3rd
Third­
party
laboratory
experiments
to
assess
emissions
measurement
variability
of
PM
PEMS
units
incremental
to
that
experienced
in
the
laboratory.
Results
will
be
used
to
"
calibrate"
a
computer
model
that
will
calculate
the
measurement
allowances.
 
3rd
Third­
party
laboratory
experiments
to
assess
the
effects
of
environmental
parameters
on
the
measurement
accuracy
capability
of
the
PM
PEMS
units
and
their
ability
to
operate
correctly
and
consistently
in
use
over
a
normal
sampling
time.
Results
will
be
used
to
"
calibrate"
a
computer
model
that
will
calculate
the
measurement
allowances.
 
3rd
Third­
party
on
­
vehicle/
trailer
comparison
of
portable
PM
emission
measurement
versus
field
laboratory
PM
emission
measurement.
Results
will
be
used
to
validate
the
computer
model
used
to
calculate
the
measurement
allowances.

b.
Costs:
The
2008
PM
testportion
of
the
RDD
program
to
develop
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
for
PM
is
not
intended
to
cost
more
than
$
1.5
million.
EPA's
participation
in
this
agreement
is
subject
to
the
availability
of
appropriated
funds.
In
addition
to
the
resources
EPA
commits
to
this
effort,
CARB
and
the
engine
manufacturing
industry
intend
to
donatecontribute
additional
resources
to
the
Agency
under
Section
104(
b)(
4)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
The
industry
intends
that
its
donation
be
no
more
than
$
750,000.
Theseit
will
contribute
a
50%
cost
share
up
to
$
750,000,
subject
to
EPA/
CARB
ensuring
the
funding
of
the
remainder
of
the
RDD
program.
Those
contributions
may
be
in
the
form
of
money
used
to
fund
contract
work
efforts
and/
or
vehicles,
engines,
and
PEMS
test
equipment,
or
other
in­
kind
contributions
beneficial
to
the
completion
of
the
RDD
program.
Parties
whothat
contribute
the
use
of
such
items
such
as
vehicles,
engines,
and
PEMS
test
equipment,
or
other
beneficial
in­
kind
contributions
will
have
these
testthose
program
contributions
valued
as
part
of
their
overall
donation
based
on
the
current
fair
market
value
of
the
donation.
contribution.
The
parties
further
agree
that
this
project
should
be
funded
through
a
single
contract
vehicle
or
work
assignment
(
although
not
necessarily
a
single
14
contractor)
as
appropriate
to
support
the
RDD
project
that
will
be
financed
with
EPA
funds
and
donationscontributions
from
industry
and
CARB.

c.
Execution
of
the
PM
Emission
Testing
Program:
The
projectIt
is
intended
that
the
RDD
program
will
follow
the
test
plan
and
schedule
discussed
in
paragraph
5d,
below.
All
testing
and
subsequent
data
analysis
will
be
overseen
by
EPA
and
coordinated
withby
EPA,
the
HDOH
engine
manufacturersmanufacturer
members
of
EMA,
and
CARB.
Program
technical
direction
will
be
provided
by
a
Steering
Committee
drawn
from
representatives
of
the
Signatory
parties.
This
Steering
Committee
will
also
track
progress
of
program
completion
both
in
terms
of
technical
output
and
schedule.
EPA
will
keep
records
of
Steering
Committee
meetings
and
documents
related
to
this
project
and
make
them
part
of
the
public
record
for
the
direct
final
rule
discussed
below.

The
experimental
designs
to
be
set
forth
in
the
test
plan
will
be
submitted
to
a
statistician
to
ensure
that
the
information
generated
is
sufficient
and
appropriate
for
developing
the
PM
accuracy
margin
and
to
establish
an
algorithm
for
calculating
the
margin
using
the
data
derived
from
the
program.
This
overall
approach
will
provide
assurance
that
the
experimental
designs
are
acceptable
to
all
participants
and
is
intended
to
prevent
multiple
and
competing
interpretations
of
the
data.
It
will
also
help
ensure
that
the
program
will
be
completed
on
schedule
and
within
budget.

Participation
by
manufacturers
in
the
testRDD
programs
will
result
in
some
burden
to
those
companies,
but
will
produce
useful
information.
Therefore,
for
each
manufacturer
whothat
participates
in
these
testRDD
programs,
EPA
intends
to
reduce
saidwill
limit
that
manufacturer's
testing
burden
under
the
original
pilot
program
(
2006­
2007
for
PM
emissions)
to
five
vehicles
per
designated
engine
family,
subject
to
the
allowable
annual
cap
on
the
number
of
engine
families
that
may
be
designated
for
in­
use
testing
in
a
single
calendar
year.

d.
Schedule:
In
order
to
provide
adequate
time
to
promulgate
the
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
for
PM
emissions,
the
testRDD
program
will
need
to
be
completed
and
final
accuracy
margins
calculated
by
September
30,
2007.
The
parties
recognize
that
to
meet
this
milestone
all
laboratory
and
field
work
needswill
need
to
be
completed
prior
to
June
1,
2007.
Toward
that
end,
the
following
not
­
later
­
than
dates
are
agreed
upon
by
the
parties:

Schedule
for
PM
Measurement
Allowance
Program
Description
Date1
1
Working
group
agreement
on
PM
test
plan
29
July
2005
2
Final
agreement
on
PM
test
plan
30
September
2005
3
FundingDefinitive
funding
commitment
and
execution
of
lab
PM
testing
contract
14
July
2006
4
Delivery
to
lab
of
all
agreed
upon
engines,
PEMS
and
other
equipment
to
be
provided
by
engine
manufacture.
7
August
20062
5
Delivery
of
PEMS
units
to
be
provided
by
PEMS
suppliers,
EPA
or
CARB
7
August
20062
56
CommencementInitial
funding
and
commencement
of
lab
PM
testing
714
August
200620062
67
FundingInitial
funding
and
execution
of
field
PM
testing
contract
8
December
200620062
78
Completion
and
final
funding
of
lab
PM
testing
(~
6
months
duration)
2
February
200720072
89
Delivery
of
lab
PM
testing
interim
report
2
March
2007
91
0
Delivery
to
field
of
agreed
upon
vehicle,
PEMS
and
other
equipment
2
April
20072
10
11
Commencement
of
field
PM
testing
29
April
2007
11
12
Completion
and
final
funding
of
field
PM
testing
(~
2
months
duration)
1
June
200720072
12
13
Delivery
of
field
PM
testing
interim
report
29
June
2007
13
14
Delivery
of
contractor
final
report
with
PM
accuracy
margin
inputs
14
September
2007
1All
dates
specified
at
time
of
close­
of
business
(
COB)
2Or
when
contractor
requires
payment
or
in­
kind
equipment,
whichever
is
later
15
It
is
the
parties'
intentionintent
that
if
fundamental,
irresolvable
technical
problems
are
identified
relative
to
the
PM
portable
emission
measurement
systems,
the
PM
portion
of
the
RDD
program,
the
PM
pilot
program
and/
or
enforceable
program
goesthe
PM
portion
of
the
FEP,
as
the
case
might
be,
will
go
into
abeyance
until
such
time
as
suitable
emission
measurement
devices
are
identified
and
available,
or
the
problems
otherwise
resolved.
The
PM
FEP
would
alsoAccordingly,
the
parties'
inability
to
comply
with
any
of
the
dates
set
forth
in
the
schedule
above
due
to
fundamental,
irresolvable
technical
problems
may
result
in
holding
in
abeyance
the
RDD
program
for
establishing
data­
driven
PM
accuracy
margins
until
those
technical
problems
are
resolved.
Similarly,
the
PM
portion
of
the
FEP
also
will
be
delayed
until
the
PM
accuracy
margin
program
discussed
herein
is
completed.
EPA
would
make
the
final
determination
since
any
revisions
to
the
regulatory
program
would
require
a
regulatory
action.
and
two
years
of
a
PM
pilot
program
have
taken
place,
since
there
can
be
no
PM
portion
of
the
FEP
in
the
absence
of
the
finalization
of
a
data­
driven
PM
accuracy
margin
developed
through
the
PM
portion
of
the
RDD
program.
If
the
PM
portion
of
the
FEP
is
delayed,
2007
and
subsequent
model
year
engines
may
be
selected
and
subject
to
enforcement
testing
(
for
gaseous
as
well
as
PM
emissions)
once
the
data­
driven
PM
accuracy
margins
are
established
and
the
PM
portion
of
the
FEP
begins.
Such
engines
would
be
counted
toward
the
annual
cap
on
the
number
of
engine
families
that
may
be
designated
for
in­
use
testing
in
any
single
calendar
year.

6.
Resolution
of
Laboratory
Measurement
Error
Issue:
Concern
has
been
expressed
about
what
exactly
the
HDIUT
accuracy
margin
should
cover.
EPA
and
ARB
maintain
that
the
accuracy
margin
is
intended
to
address
the
incremental
measurement
variability
of
assessing
emissions
from
an
in­
use
vehicle
using
an
onboard
vehicle
PEMS
unit
versus
laboratory
measurements
using
Part
1065
compliant
laboratory
emissions
measurement
systems
of
NTE
events
as
short
as
30
seconds.
However,
EMA
is
concerned
that
laboratories
using
Part
1065
compliant
laboratory
emissions
measurement
systems
have
not
yet
been
optimized
to
measure
gaseous
emissions
over
30
second
intervals,
and
that
during
this
testing
the
laboratory
error
over
NTE
events
might
be
significantly
larger
than
the
error
that
is
known
to
exist
when
measuring
steady­
state
(
SET)
emissions.
EMA
is
concerned
that
a
larger
than
expectedlarge
laboratory
NTE
error
could
lead
to
a
very
small
or
nonexistent
PEMS
measurement
allowance
as
discussed
above.,
and
could
have
a
direct
impact
on
the
technological
feasibility
of
the
underlying
standards.

To
address
this
issue,
the
parties
agree
to
the
following
terms.
UsingFirst,
and
as
detailed
in
the
attached
test
plan,
the
error
determined
from
emissions
testing
in
a
laboratory
setting
utilizing
Part
1065
compliant
measurement
systems
and
testing
steady
state
points
(
within
the
NTE
Zone)
of
at
least
two
minutes
duration
will
be
subtracted
from
the
error
determined
from
the
testing
of
short­
term
30­
second
transient
NTE
events
utilizing
PEMS
to
determine
the
final
measurement
allowances.
Further,
using
the
results
of
the
testing
in
the
aforementioned
gaseous
emissions
test
plan,
if
the
lab
95th
percentile
NTE
error
is
greater
than
the
lab
99th
percentile
steady­
state
(
SET)
error
as
defined
in
the
test
plan,
then
EPA,
ARB,
and
EMA
would
agree
to
the
following:

a.
EMA
will
work
with
EPA
and
ARB
to
optimize
laboratory
NTE
measurement
specifications
and
procedures.
This
work
will
primarily
be
in
the
form
of
participating
in
and
supporting
joint
laboratory
NTE
test
procedure
development
efforts
and
meetings.
b.
EPA
would
intend
to
issue
a
guidance
document
and/
or
propose
changes
to
Part
1065
to
reflect
any
optimized
specifications
and
procedures
for
laboratory
NTE
testing
as
a
result
of
thesethose
efforts
and
meetings
no
later
than
the
end
of
calendar
year
2008.

7.
Preamble
and
Regulatory
Provisions:
The
HDIUT
program
and
associated
regulatory
language
will
be
contained
in
a
Final
Rule
to
be
promulgated
in
June
2005.
EPA
intends:
1)
that
the
basic
programmatic
objectives
and
approach
of
this
agreement
will
be
reflected
in
the
HDIUT
final
rule,
2)
that
the
key
provisions
of
this
agreement
will
be
referenced
and
to
the
degree
possible
contained
in
the
preamble
of
the
final
rule,
and
3)
certain
key
provisions
will
also
be
reflected
in
the
final
rule's
regulatory
language,
and
4)
theseincluding
provisions
would
include
items
such
as
the
interim
accuracy
margins1,
changes
in
the
pilot
program
provisions,
the
key
milestone
1
The
HDIUT
final
rule
will
establish
the
following
interim
additive
accuracy
margins
for
use
in
connection
with
the
pilot
programs:
NMHC=
0.17
g/
bhp­
hr;
NOx=
0.5
g/
bhp­
hr;
CO=
0.60
g/
bhp­
hr;
and
PM=
0.10
g/
bhp­
hr.
These
interim
accuracy
margins
will
have
no
enforceable
effect
and
are
16
dates
for
the
gaseous
emissions
and
PM
test
programsportions
of
the
RDD
program,
and
also
the
consequences
of
failing
to
meet
those
dates
and
complete
the
accuracy
margin
test
programs
as
specified
below.

EPA
intends
to
propose
the
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
in
direct
final
rules
as
soon
as
reasonably
practicable
after
the
final
values
and
documentation
are
available,
with
the
target
dates
of
15
December
2006
and
14
December
2007
for
the
rules
pertaining
to
gaseous
pollutantemission
and
PM
emission
margins,
respectively.
Although
EPA
intends
to
implement
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
by
direct
final
rule,
the
Agency
cannot
guarantee
that
the
results
of
the
RDD
test
programs
will
end
up
being
implemented
in
a
final
rule
if
significant
adverse
comments
are
received.
The
signatoriesSignatories
agree
to
support
the
final
accuracy
margins,
assuming
that
the
agreed
upon
program
to
develop
the
accuracy
margins
is
followed
and
the
results
of
the
RDD
test
programs
are
incorporated
in
the
final
rule.
All
parties
agree
to
use
thesethose
accuracy
margin
values
for
their
program
planning
and
implementation
efforts
for
the
FEPsFEP.

The
parties
agree
that
publishing
the
direct
final
rule
with
the
data­
driven
margins,
or
if
necessary
publishing
a
final
rule
based
on
the
data­
driven
test
results
(
due
to
public
comment
on
the
direct
final
rule
document),
will
fulfill
EPA's
obligation
under
the
settlement
agreement.
The
parties
further
agree
that
no
fully
enforceable
in­
use
testing
program
can
be
implemented
by
any
party
until
at
least
three
months
after
EPA
publishes
a
final
rule
establishing
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
for
the
emissions
at
issue.

8.
Consequences
If
Commitments
Are
Not
Met:
The
parties
agree
that
successful
completion
of
this
RDD
project
on
schedule
is
essential
to
implementation
of
the
FEPsFEP.
Critical
to
that
success
is
for
the
Signatories
to
meet
their
various
commitments
in
a
timely
manner.
All
of
the
Signatories
believe
that,
subject
to
the
caveats
set
forth
in
paragraph
5d
above
the
projects
described
in
the
attached
test
plan
can
be
completed
on
time
and
onwithin
budget
and
are
signing
this
agreement
in
the
cooperative
and
constructive
spirit
that
has
been
exhibited
in
development
of
the
gaseous
emissions
test
plan.
However,
to
address
potential
problems
the
following
are
agreed
upon
by
all
parties.

If
the
data­
driven
accuracy
margin
values
and
documentation
are
not
obtained
from
the
contractor(
s)
by
15
September
2006
for
gaseous
emissions
and
14
September
2007
for
PM
because
a
manufacturer(
s)
does
not
meet
its
commitments
under
this
agreement,
but
the
delay
is
less
than
a
total
of
3
months,
the
implementation
date
of
the
FEP
wouldwill
be
delayed
by
the
same
number
of
whole
months
(
rounded
up)
that
it
takes
to
complete
and
finalize
the
final
contractor
report.
12
If
the
final
values
and
documentation
are
delayed
beyond
3
months,
the
pilot
program
and
the
FEP
wouldwill
go
into
abeyance
for
the
pending
calendar
year
(
i.
e.,
2007
for
gaseous
emissions
or
2008
for
PM).
If
this
occurs,
the
number
of
engine
families
that
would
otherwise
have
been
designated
for
testing
in
that
year
if
the
FEP
was
not
delayed,
would
be
accumulated
and
may
be
designated
for
testing
when
the
FEP
is
initiated.
TheseThose
accumulated
tests
would
not
count
toward
the
allowable
annual
cap
on
the
number
of
engine
families
that
may
be
designated
for
in­
use
testing
in
that
year.
However,
the
normal
18­
month
period
for
testing
and
reporting
would
be
expanded
to
24
months
for
such
"
carryover"
engine
families.
If
necessary,
this
cycle
would
be
repeated
until
the
final
accuracy
margins
are
identified
and
documented
in
a
final
report
with
the
agreement
of
all
parties.
23
Under
no
circumstances,
however,
will
an
FEP
be
implemented
utilizing
the
interim
accuracy
margins.

A
delay
in
PM
testingthe
PM
portion
of
the
HDIUT
program
would
not
necessarily
trigger
a
delay
in
gaseous
emission
testing
for
that
calendar
year.
If
engine
families
are
selected
for
gaseous
emissions
testing,
EPA
would
retain
the
option
to
select
additional
engine
families
for
PM
testing
in
subsequent
years.,
subject
to
the
allowable
annual
cap
on
the
number
of
engine
families
that
may
be
designated
for
in­
use
testing
in
a
single
calendar
year.

intended
solely
as
interim
placeholder
margins
until
such
time
as
accurate
data­
driven
additive
accuracy
margins
can
be
determined
pursuant
to
the
RDD
test
programs.
12
The
anticipated
June
30
date
for
designating
engine
families,
which
initiates
the
18­
month
testing/
reporting
period,
would
be
delayed.
23
If
the
cycle
is
repeated,
the
six
month
additional
period
for
testing
will
be
continued
for
all
carryover
engine
families.
17
For
the
gaseous
emission
testingportion
of
the
RDD
program,
a
manufacturer's
failure
to
meet
its
commitments
may
be
demonstrated
by
missing
one
or
more
of
the
critical
milestones
as
follows:

Deliverables
Required
from
Manufacturers
for
Gaseous
Measurement
Allowance
Program
Description
Date1
1
Funding
ofDefinitive
funding
commitment
for
lab
testing
contract
15
July
2005
2
Delivery
to
lab
of
all
agreed
upon
engines,
PEMS
and
other
equipment
to
be
supplied
by
engine
manufacturers
8
August
20052
3
FundingInitial
funding
of
field
testing
contract
9
December
2005
4
Delivery
to
field
of
agreed
upon
vehicle,
PEMS
and
other
equipment
to
be
supplied
by
engine
manufacturers
3
April
20062
1All
dates
specified
at
time
of
close­
of
business
(
COB)
2Or
when
contractor
requires
payment
or
in­
kind
equipment,
whichever
is
later
Furthermore,
manufacturers
are
invited
to
voluntarily
submit
to
EPA/
CARB
laboratory
information
on
how
nondeficiency
AECDs
affect
the
accuracy
of
ECM­
derived
torque/
BSFC
for
NTE
events.
EPA/
CARB
will
not
consider
such
information
if
it
is
submitted
after
3
March30
June
2006.

For
the
PM
emission
testingportion
of
the
RDD
program,
a
manufacturer's
failure
to
meet
its
commitments
may
be
demonstrated
by
missing
one
or
more
of
the
critical
milestones
as
follows:

Deliverables
Required
from
Manufacturers
for
PM
Measurement
Allowance
Program
Description
Date1
1
Funding
ofDefinitive
funding
commitment
for
lab
PM
testing
contract
14
July
2006
2
Delivery
to
lab
of
all
agreed
upon
engines,
PEMS
and
other
equipment
to
be
supplied
by
engine
manufacturers
7
August
20062
3
Initial
Funding
of
field
PM
testing
contract
8
December
2006
4
Delivery
to
field
of
agreed
upon
vehicle,
PEMS
and
other
equipment
to
be
supplied
by
engine
manufacturers
2
April
20072
1All
dates
specified
at
time
of
close­
of
business
(
COB)
2Or
when
contractor
requires
payment
of
in­
kind
equipment,
whichever
is
later
A
failure
by
any
individual
manufacturer
that
leads
to
not
fulfilling
one
or
more
of
the
critical
milestones
described
above
(
for
gaseous
or
PM
testing)
could
trigger
this
provision
for
all
manufacturers.

If
a
failure
to
obtain
the
final
accuracy
values
and
documentation
from
the
contractor(
s)
by
15
September
2006
for
gaseous
emissions
(
14
September
2007
for
PM)
results
from
the
actions
or
inactions
of
CARB
or
EPA
or
a
party
other
than
the
engine
manufacturers,
and
the
delay
is
less
than
a
total
of
3
months,
the
FEP
wouldwill
be
delayed
by
the
same
number
of
whole
months
(
rounded
up)
that
takes
to
complete
and
finalize
the
final
contractor
report.
34
If
the
final
values
and
documentation
are
delayed
beyond
3
months,
the
Phase
1
pilot
program
would
be
implemented
for
that
year
using
the
interim
accuracy
margins
contained
in
the
HDIUT
regulations.
If
necessary,
and
agreed
upon
by
all
Signatories,
this
cycle
will
be
repeated
until
the
final
accuracy
margins
are
derived
and
documented
in
a
final
report.
Under
no
circumstances,
however,
will
an
FEP
be
implemented
utilizing
the
interim
accuracy
margins.

Regardless
of
the
reason,
if
either
the
FEP
for
gaseous
or
PM
emissionsemission
portion
of
the
FEP
is
delayed,
model
year
2007
engines
(
for
gaseous
emissions
()
and
model
year
2008
engines
(
for
PM
emissions)
and
subsequent
model
year
engines
may
be
selected
and
subjected
to
testing
once
the
accuracy
margins
are
established
and
the
FEP
begins.
Such
engines
would
be
counted
toward
the
total
number
of
engine
families
that
may
be
designated
for
in­
use
testing
in
any
single
calendar
year
as
described
earlier.

34
The
anticipated
June
30
date
for
designating
engine
families,
which
initiates
the
18­
month
testing/
reporting
period,
would
be
delayed.
18
9.
Commitment
of
CARB:
CARB
agrees
to
adopt
and
implement
an
HDIUT
program
that
is
fully
consistent
with
the
provisions
of
this
agreement
and
with
the
HDIUT
regulations
that
EPA
finalizes,
including,
without
limitation,
the
provisions
thereof
relating
to
the
development
and
adoption
of
data­
driven
accuracy
margins.

10.
Data
Ownership
and
Use:
The
parties
agree
to
work
together
to
ensure
that
any
contracts
with
thirdparties
to
implement
the
RDD
program
contain
mutually
acceptable
provisions
relating
to
the
ownership,
use,
confidentiality
and
dissemination
of
the
data
derived
under
any
such
contracts.

11.
Modifications:
The
terms
of
this
agreement
may
be
modified
at
any
time
and
from
time
to
time
by
mutual
written
agreement
among
the
parties.
All
parties
agree
to
meet
to
discuss
and
negotiate
any
revisions
which
in
judgment
of
any
party
are
needed
to
address
significant
changes
in
circumstances
or
to
assure
that
this
agreement
continues
to
accomplish
the
objectives
of
the
parties.
No
amendment
to
this
agreement
will
take
effect
unless
in
writing
and
signed
by
authorized
representatives
of
the
parties.

10.12.
General:
This
agreement
does
not
imply
a
requirement
to
commit
funds
or
other
resources
from
any
party
to
any
other
party.
The
activities
undertaken
in
connection
with
this
agreement
are
not
intended
to
provide
services
to
the
Federal
government
and
the
parties
agree
not
to
seek
compensation
from
the
other
parties
for
this
work.
The
Federal
Government
is
prohibited
from
endorsing
products
nor
does
it
recommend
for
or
against
the
purchase
of
specific
products.
This
agreement
does
not
negate
any
existing
legal
right
or
requirements,
nor
does
it
create
any
new
legal
rights,
benefits,
obligations
or
requirements,
substantive
or
procedural,
under
state
or
federal
law
or
equity.

EPA,
CARB,
EMA
sig
blocks
and
dates
NGEDOCS:
008753.0001:
1145222.11145222.2
Document
comparison
done
by
DeltaView
on
Tuesday,
April
12,
2005
9:
45:
50
AM
Input:

Document
1
PowerDocs://
NGEDOCS/
1145222/
1
Document
2
PowerDocs://
NGEDOCS/
1145222/
2
Rendering
set
Standard
no
color
Legend:

Insertion
Deletion
Moved
from
Moved
to
Style
change
Format
change
Moved
deletion
Inserted
cell
Deleted
cell
Moved
cell
Split/
Merged
cell
Padding
cell
Statistics:

Count
19
Insertions
236
Deletions
146
Moved
from
0
Moved
to
0
Style
change
0
Format
changed
0
Total
changes
382
20
Executive
Summary
In
2001,
the
Engine
Manufacturers
Association
("
EMA")
and
a
number
of
individual
engine
manufacturing
companies
filed
suit
against
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
("
EPA")
challenging
certain
supplemental
emission
requirements
referred
to
as
"
not­
to­
exceed"
("
NTE")
standards.
Generally,
the
NTE
standards
require
that
engine
emissions,
when
sampled
over
intervals
as
short
as
30
seconds
and
under
a
broad
range
of
operating
and
ambient
conditions
that
could
be
experienced
by
an
engine
in­
use,
not
exceed
an
established
multiple
(
either
1.5
or
1.2)
of
the
baseline
certification
emission
standards
for
the
engine
as
assessed
in
an
engine
dynamometer
emissions
laboratory
pursuant
to
the
20­
minute
Federal
Test
Procedure
("
FTP").
In
the
litigation,
EMA
contended,
among
other
things,
that
the
NTE
standards
lacked
a
corresponding,
uniform
and
repeatable
laboratory
test
procedure
that
could
be
utilized
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
standards,
and
so
were
fundamentally
infeasible.

On
June
3,
2003,
EMA
and
EPA
(
along
with
the
other
parties
to
the
NTE
litigation)
finalized
a
settlement
of
their
disputes
pertaining
to
the
NTE
standards.
Pursuant
to
that
settlement,
EPA
(
as
well
as
the
California
Air
Resources
Board
("
CARB"))
issued
guidance
documents
clarifying
the
types
of
engine
emission
laboratory
data
and
steady­
state
emissions
testing
that
could
be
sufficient
to
evidence
an
engine's
compliance
with
the
NTE
standards
at
the
time
of
engine
certification.
In
addition,
and
in
recognition
of
the
fact
that
the
principal
focus
of
the
NTE
standards
concerns
the
emissions
from
engines
and
vehicles
in
use
under
real­
world
operating
conditions,
EMA
and
EPA
(
and
CARB),
as
a
component
of
their
settlement,
negotiated
a
detailed
outline
for
a
regulation
to
implement
a
manufacturer­
run
heavy­
duty
in­
use
NTE
testing
("
HDIUT")
program
for
diesel­
fueled
engines
and
vehicles.

The
outline
for
the
HDIUT
regulation
recognizes
that
the
in­
use
emissions
testing
will
be
carried
out
with
portable
emissions
measurement
systems
("
PEMS").
The
outline
also
recognizes
that
the
accuracy
of
the
emissions
measurements
made
by
PEMS
in
the
field
under
varying
ambient
conditions
and
over
transient
emission
events
as
short
as
30
seconds
is
likely
to
be
less
than
the
accuracy
of
laboratory
emissions
measurement
systems
optimized
to
assess
steady­
state
engine
emissions
over
multi­
minute
sampling
events
(
as
under
the
FTP).
Accordingly,
the
outline
for
the
HDIUT
regulatory
program
specifies
that
the
in­
use
NTE
standards
will
include
an
additional
margin
to
account
for
in­
use
measurement
accuracy.
It
was
further
agreed
in
the
outline
for
the
HDIUT
regulation
that
the
additional
measurement
accuracy
margins
for
each
of
the
emissions
to
be
measured
by
the
PEMS
in­
use
(
i.
e.,
NOx,
NMHC,
CO
and
PM)
will
be
determined
through
the
processes
and
methodologies
to
be
developed
and
agreed
upon
by
EPA,
CARB,
and
EMA.

This
test
plan
sets
forth
the
agreed
upon
processes
and
methodologies
to
be
utilized
to
develop
data­
driven
measurement
accuracy
margins
for
the
gaseous
emissions
to
be
measured
by
PEMS
(
specifically,
NOx,
NMHC
and
CO)
under
the
HDIUT
regulatory
program.
It
is
intended
that
a
separate
test
plan
will
be
developed
and
agreed
upon
relating
to
the
determination
of
an
additive
data­
driven
measurement
accuracy
margin
for
PM.

As
detailed
in
this
test
plan,
there
is
a
clear
consensus
on
what
components
of
measurement
error
and
bias
are
intended
to
be
covered
by
the
data­
driven
measurement
accuracy
margins.
Specifically,
the
measurement
accuracy
margins
are
to
be
calculated
in
a
manner
that
subtracts
(
a)
the
variability
of
measuring
heavy­
duty
engine
emissions
at
steady­
state
test
points
within
the
NTE
zone
over
sampling
intervals
not
less
than
two
minutes
in
duration
and
utilizing
Part
1065
compliant
laboratory
emissions
measurement
systems
and
procedures,
from
(
b)
the
variability
of
measuring
heavy­
duty
engine
emissions
utilizing
PEMS
over
30­
second
transient
NTE
sampling
events
under
a
broad
range
of
ambient
and
environmental
conditions,
so
as
to
yield
(
c)
the
appropriate
"
PEMS
minus
laboratory"
delta
(
the
"
Measurement
Accuracy
Delta").
The
experimental
methods
and
procedures
specified
in
this
test
plan
for
determining,
modeling
and
comparing
each
of
the
various
components
of
measurement
variability
are
designed
to
generate
statistically
robust
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
that
will
accurately
quantify
the
Measurement
Accuracy
Delta
for
each
of
the
gaseous
emissions
at
issue
(
NOx,
NMHC
and
CO).

Under
the
HDIUT
regulation,
engine
manufacturers
will
engage
in
a
two­
year
"
pilot
program"
starting
in
mid­
2005
(
for
the
gaseous
emissions
at
issue)
to
assess
the
in­
use
emissions
from
a
limited
number
of
designated
engine
families.
The
principal
purpose
of
the
pilot
program
is
to
allow
manufacturers
to
gain
practical
experience
in
the
operation
of
PEMS,
the
collection
and
analysis
of
PEMS­
generated
emissions
data,
and
the
submission
of
in­
use
testing
data
and
results
to
EPA
and
ARB.
In
light
of
that
purpose,
EPA
and
ARB
have
agreed
that
they
will
not
pursue
any
form
of
enforcement
or
remedial
action
based
on
the
results
from
the
pilot
program
testing.
21
The
HDIUT
regulation
also
will
specify
interim
measurement
accuracy
margins
that
manufacturers
will
reference
during
the
pilot
program
testing.
However,
a
precondition
to
the
commencement
of
any
fully­
enforceable
HDIUT
program
is
the
replacement
of
those
interim
accuracy
margins,
pursuant
to
a
direct
final
EPA
rule
(
or
other
final
rulemaking),
with
the
data­
driven
accuracy
margins
that
will
be
developed
pursuant
to
this
test
plan.
Accordingly,
the
completion
of
the
work
to
be
performed
under
this
test
plan,
and
the
incorporation
of
the
resultant
data­
driven
in­
use
measurement
accuracy
margins
into
the
final
HDIUT
regulation,
are
fundamental
prerequisites
to
the
commencement
of
the
fully­
enforceable
HDIUT
program.

Given
the
foregoing,
the
work
to
be
completed
under
this
test
plan
is
a
vital
component
to
the
successful
implementation
of
a
fully­
enforceable
HDIUT
program.
Because
of
that,
it
is
critically
important
that
the
work
detailed
in
this
test
plan
be
carried
out
in
as
thorough,
careful
and
timely
a
manner
as
possible.

NGEDOCS:
008753.0001:
1148052.1
22
