  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 November 14, 2007

MEMORANDUM

TO:		EPA Air Docket 

FROM:	Zuimdie Guerra, Engineer

		Office of Transportation and Air Quality

		U.S. EPA

SUBJECT: 	Response to October 18 Comments Made by California’s Air
Resources Board 

California’s Air Resources Board (ARB) sent a comment on October 18,
2007 regarding the EPA direct final rule “Nonroad Diesel Technical
Amendments and Tier 3 Technical Relief Provision”, Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0652.

In its letter to the Agency, ARB commented on two issues regarding the
Tier 3 technical relief provision. ARB’s first concern was that EPA
could encourage requests for technical relief in the Tier 3 time frame
by finalizing regulatory provisions for it.  ARB’s second issue is
that if the manufacturer is requesting the relief due to no fault of
their own, it seems harsh to punish that manufacturer with a loss of
future Tier 4 allowances.

EPA contacted ARB staff by telephone November 5, 2007 to discuss ARB’s
concerns. Scott Rowland, Manager Off-Road Control Section, and Jeff
Lowry, staff engineer, represented ARB.  Cleophas Jackson, Assistant
Director Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division, and Zuimdie
Guerra, staff engineer, Assessment and Standards Division, represented
EPA.

With respect to the first issue, ARB’s concern is that non-integrated
equipment manufacturers may ask for more relief than they need. EPA has
developed this technical relief provision to address this issue should
it arise. This is not an automatic provision; requests for relief would
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The non-integrated equipment
manufacturer has to comply with a rigorous process to demonstrate the
need for this relief. The Agency is not obligated to provide any amount
of technical relief if the Agency is not convinced of the need for it.
EPA believes that this point is salient to the regulation as it is
written. Manufactures that may not have a demonstrated need for the
relief described in this regulatory provision will not be granted
relief. The Agency will only grant the percentage of the technical
relief that it determines is needed even if the manufacturer petitions
for a larger percentage.

The second issue was ARB's concern that for Tier 4, manufacturers that
used the Tier 3 technical relief may request additional relief for Tier
4 equipment.  EPA has been clear that any non-integrated equipment
manufacturer that decides to utilize this Tier 3 technical relief
provision must forfeit a percentage of the Tier 4 production flexibility
and a percentage of potential Tier 4 technical relief. Manufacturers are
aware of this provision in advance of Tier 4 so that should be taken
into consideration as the manufacturer reconciles its Tier 4 design
development with the perceived need for the Tier 3 technical relief. The
goal of the Agency is to mitigate any adverse environmental impact due
to the use of this provision. Manufacturers should not expect additional
Tier 4 relief.

ARB asked that the Agency address proper labeling of the engines using
this Tier 3 technical relief. The labeling requirement in this
regulation is being revised so that it only applies to the engines
utilizing this provision. EPA requires labels for these engines in the
same way as for the engines that will use the Tier 4 technical relief,
to help identify engines produced under this provision.  ARB had no
suggestions for further changes to the regulation.

