United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Transportation EPA420-R-05-008
and Air Quality June 2005
Test Procedures for Highway
and Nonroad Engines and
Omnibus Technical
Amendments
Technical Support Document
and Summary and Analysis of
Comments
-------
EPA420-R-05-008
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) 107
Chapter 10: General Compliance Provisions (40 CFR part 1068) 109
-------
Technical Amendments
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)(l) already requires submission of data for all
pollutants.
We agree with this comment and are removing the
redundant paragraph.
-------
Technical Support Document
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 cycle-validation 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 discrete-
mode test cycle and procedures for model years 2007
through 2009.
86.1305: The incorrect reference to <
should be removed.
5.1358-2007
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 low-
sulfur diesel.
We agree with this comment and have made the
appropriate change to the regulations.
-------
Technical Amendments
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 small-
volume 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:
o 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.
o Correcting units in §86.1816 to reflect the appropriate requirements for testing heavy-
duty vehicles.
o 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.
o 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
-------
Technical Support Document
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 § 86.181 l-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 § 86.181 l-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:
o An incorrect regulatory reference is corrected in §86. 1 58-00;
o Revision to section 86. 161-00 inserts the correct humidity tolerance of plus-or-minus 5
grains of water/pound of dry air; and
o 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:
o Incorrect in-use formaldehyde standards for light-duty vehicles in tables R99-5 and R99-6
(§86.1708-99).
o Incorrect model year applicability of in-use standards for light-duty trucks (§ 86. 1709-
o Missing standards for light-duty trucks from 0-3750 loaded vehicle weight in Table R99-
14.2 (§86.1709-99).
o 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)).
-------
Technical Amendments
o Correcting a reference to 86.1705-99(e)(4) that should have been to 86.1707-99(d)(4) (§
86.1711-99).
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
-------
Technical Support Document
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 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 HDDS 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)
363
405
453
491
577
662
663
664
932
Incorrect
KPH
52.3
14.5
31
55.8
21.4
43.9
43.1
42.3
40.3
Correct
KPH
52.8
14.8
31.9
55.5
27.4
42.0
42.2
42.2
40.2
Correct
MPH
32.8
9.2
19.8
34.5
17.0
26.1
26.2
26.2
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 in 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
-------
Technical Amendments
manufacturers' sales-weighted corporate average remains below the standard. Averaging is also
optionally allowed for Class I and II motorcycles.
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:
o Changing the volume percent of aromatics from "35 minimum" to "35 maximum";
o 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);
o Changing the sulfur weight percent from 0.08 maximum to 0.008 maximum; and
o Changing the volatility test procedure from "ASTM D 3231" to "ASTM D 323."
c. Highway Motorcycles with engines below 50 cc
-------
Technical Support Document
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:
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
1 "Guidance Regarding Test Procedures for Heavy-Duty On-Highway and Non-Road
Engines, " December 3, 2002.
-------
Technical Amendments
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,
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 two-minute 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.
-------
Technical Support Document
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 light-
duty 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
LA 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
85.1515, which provided a list of the emission standards applicable to imported light-duty vehicles
10
-------
Technical Amendments
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 light-
duty 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
light-duty 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)(l) 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 Id'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
11
-------
Technical Support Document
greater 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 zero-
speed, 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-
12
-------
Technical Amendments
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:
%rpm- (MaxTestSpeed - CurbldleSpeed)
Actualrpm = - — + CurbldleSpeed
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.
13
-------
Technical Support Document
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 non-
integrated auxiliary engines would be considered land-
based 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.
14
-------
Technical Amendments
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 ARE 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.
15
-------
Technical Support Document
1039.501-Laboratory test systems: 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 §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:
o Revising §89.603 to clarify that the sales limit for Id'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 n below.
o Removing §1039.260, since this section has been replaced by §1068.260.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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
need for changes after publishing the proposed rule, but we did not make those changes to part 89 in
16
-------
Technical Amendments
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.
o §89.102: Clarify that equipment manufacturers using allowances under this section may use
lower-emitting engines than we currently require.
o §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 emission-
related warranty.
o §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.
o §89.410: Allow manufacturers to use ramped-modal testing, as specified for engines that
must meet the Tier 4 standards.
o Appendix A to subpart F: Correct the ranges of values to address an unintentional gap for
sales volumes between 300 and 500.
o §§89.913 and 89.914: Allow engine and equipment manufacturers to use the engine-dressing
provisions in §§1039.605 and 1039.610.
o §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).
o §89.1003: Clarify that violating the requirements to rebuild an engine to its original
configuration is considered tampering with respect to the applicable penalties.
o §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.
o §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.
o §1039.104, 1039.625, and 1039.655: Change cross-reference from §1039.260 to §1068.265.
o §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.
o §1039.225: Include a modified PEL as the basis for a change to the application for
certification, consistent with current practice.
o §1039.240: Adding section references that were inadvertently omitted.
o §1039.510: Remove provisions that are now covered by part 1065.
o §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.
o §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.
17
-------
Technical Support Document
o §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 Id'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
18
-------
Technical Amendments
original engine manufacturer 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.
19
-------
Technical Support Document
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
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
-------
Technical Amendments
propelled through 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
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 P16700.4NVIC 1-01, 11 December 2000.
21
-------
Technical Support Document
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 compression-
ignition 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.l-1).
Table 3.1-1
Application of Nonroad to Amphibious Vehicles
Cycle
Spark-ignition
Compression-
Ignition
Terrain
Rough
Rough
Rough
Non-rough
Non-rough
Rough or non-rough
Vehicle
Characteristics
Saddle and handlebar
No saddle, <25 mph
No saddle, >25 mph
<19kW
>19kW
Any
Applicable Standards
ATV
Small SI
ATV
Small SI
Large SI
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 lanuary 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 (LAPP) 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,
.
22
-------
Technical Amendments
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 Ibs, 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)
23
-------
Technical Support Document
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.
24
-------
Technical Amendments
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 land-
based 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:
o The marine engine must be identical in all material respects to a land-based engine covered
by a valid certificate of conformity;
o The marine engine may not be used as a propulsion engine;
o 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;
o The number of marine engines in the engine family must be smaller than the number of land-
based engines; and
25
-------
Technical Support Document
o 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, .
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
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
-------
Technical Amendments
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):
o 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
27
-------
Technical Support Document
manufacturer completes assembly of the engine. We don't allow stockpiling of uncertified
engines.
o 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.
o The original emissions-related label must remain on the engine.
o The dressing company must report annually to us the models that are exempt under this
provision.
o 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
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
-------
Technical Amendments
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)(l) 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.
29
-------
Technical Support Document
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:
o Any certified heavy-duty highway, nonroad, or locomotive engine will be eligible for the
dressing exemption.
o 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.
o Engines that qualify as dressed engines are considered to have a certificate under regulatory
programs for both land-based and marine engines.
o 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.
o 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
30
-------
Technical Amendments
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 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,
.
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
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
-------
Technical Support Document
engines and it 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
32
-------
Technical Amendments
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.
33
-------
Technical Support Document
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
34
-------
Technical Amendments
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 §94.21 l(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 comm enter'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 Cl 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
35
-------
Technical Support Document
proportional to the engine speed cubed ... which is the same as a propeller curve." Consequently, it
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.
36
-------
Technical Amendments
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
§92.1(a)&(d)
§92.2
§92.2
§92.2
§92.2
§92.2
§92.8(b)
§92.104(b)(l)(i)
§92.105(d)
§92.106(b)(l)(ii)
§92.109(c)(3)
§92.114(a)(2)
§92.114(d)(2)
§92.114(e)(l)
§92.123 (a)(2)(i)
§92.123 (a)(2)(ii)
Description of Change
Add paragraph (d) to clarify that subpart L applies to everyone.
Change "unique" to "specific" in definition of calibration.
Add to definition of locomotive an option to allow low power
locomotives to be certified under part 92
Clarify that 750 hp limit applies to total combined power for multi-
engine locomotives
Add "manufactured" to paragraph (5) of definition of new locomotive
Add "percent" to definition of repower
Add allowance to measure crankcase emissions separately
Add reference to speed and load "setpoints" and add 1.0 hp lower limit
for load setpoint tolerance
Delete separate voltmeter, ammeter, and wattmeter accuracy and
precision specification
Relax torque accuracy requirements
Change reference for alcohol fuels to part 1065 subpart I
Limit demonstration requirement to notch 8 operation
Allow lower backpressures
Change reference for "subpart N of part 86" to "40 CFR part 1065"
Move the word "only"
Delete the word "not"
Proposed or
Response to
Comment
Proposed
Proposed
Response to
Comment
Response to
Comment
Proposed
Proposed
Response to
Comment
Response to
Comment
Response to
Comment
Response to
Comment
Correction
Response to
Comment
Proposed
Proposed
Response to
Comment
Proposed
37
-------
Technical Support Document
Footnote 2 of Table
B124-1
Table B 124-1
§92.126(b)(3)
§92.131 (b)(3)
§92.132(d)
§92.203(d)(l)(i)
§92.204(a)
§92.205(a)&(e),
§92.210(d)(2)&(#),
§92.215(b)
§92.208(a) and (b)
§92.210
§92.212
§92.215(a)(2)(i)
(A)
§92.216
§92.403(b)
§92.508(e) and
§92.51 l(g)
§92.512(e)
§92.806
§92.906(a)
Allow shorter time in notch for smoke testing
Clarify that 15 minute maximum refers to time after lowest idle setting is
reached
Allow longer averaging times
Allow option to average steady-state smoke measurements
Correct equation:
KH= [Cl+C2exp((- .0143)(10.714))]/ [Cl+C2exp((-
0.0143)(1000H))]
Correct reference from §92.208 to §92.204
Clarify that separate families are required for freshly manufactured and
remanufactured locomotives
Correct reference from "subpart" to "part"
Change "in which" to "for which".
Make reference plural in paragraph (b)(l), 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.
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
Correct typo in "process"
Delete paragraph (a)(2) to allow the Office of Air and Radiation to
represent itself at hearings.
Change "effect" to "affect"
Change 30 days to 45 days
Delete "is made"
Add section to apply 40 CFR 1068.330
Delete "as defined in §92.2".
Response to
Comment
Proposed
Response to
Comment
Response to
Comment
Proposed
Proposed
Response to
Comment
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed and
Response to
Comment
Proposed
Proposed
Response to
Comment
Response to
Comment
Proposed
Response to
Comment
Proposed
38
-------
Technical Amendments
§92.907(a)(3) and (b)(3)
§92.912
§92.1106(a)
Appendix IV to part 92
Increase sales limits
Add a new provision allowing manufacturers to assemble engines in
different locations, as described in Chapter 1 .
Correct the penalty for tampering to be based on each engine in
violation, as opposed to each engine and each day.
Correct "13-mode" to "10-mode"
Response to
Comment
Response to
Comment
Proposed
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
case-by-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.
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
-------
Technical Support Document
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
40
-------
Technical Amendments
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, l,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 steady-
state 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 -
41
-------
Technical Support Document
• 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.
42
-------
Technical Amendments
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)(l) requires that the
43
-------
Technical Support Document
locomotive 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)(l)(i) and §92.106(b)(l)(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.
44
-------
Technical Amendments
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
1051 depend 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.
45
-------
Technical Support Document
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.
90. 1 19(a)(l)(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.
90.3 12(c)(2). EMA requested that we allow either zero air
or nitrogen to calibrate all analyzers for raw-gas
measurements.
90.324. EMA requested that we not require pressure-side
leak checks, since they do not affect measured results.
90.324(a)(3) and 90.409(c)(6). EMA noted the need to
correct certain references.
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.
90.426(a). EMA requested omitting the requirement to
submit CO2 emission levels for certification.
90.405(d)(10). EMA requested that we not require
measurement and reporting of fuel inlet pressure.
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.
90.417(a), 90.419(e), and 90.426(g). EMA requested that
we remove the requirement to measure and report brake-
specific fuel consumption, since it is unrelated to showing
that engines meet emission standards.
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 §90. 120 stating that any of the
references to part 1065 may be taken from part 86 as a pre-
approved alternative procedure.
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.
We believe this change is not appropriate, since some
analyzers respond differently to zero air and nitrogen. We
believe it is appropriate to leave §90.3 12 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.
We agree with this comment and have revised the
regulations accordingly.
We agree with this comment and have revised the
regulations accordingly.
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.
Manufacturers must measure CO2 to calculate final emission
results. It is important to report CO2 emission levels as a
way of verifying proper calculations.
We agree with this comment and have revised the
regulations accordingly.
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 fuel-
flow and torque affects to base the verification on good
engineering judgment, with a variety of suggested practices.
We agree with this comment and have revised the
regulations accordingly.
46
-------
Technical Amendments
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.
90.418. EMA requested that we decrease the minimum
sampling time from four minutes to two minutes.
90.4 19(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.
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 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.
We agree with this comment and have revised the
regulations accordingly.
We agree with this comment and have revised the
regulations accordingly.
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:
o 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.
o 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.
o Update current references to test procedures in 40 CFR part 86 by pointing instead to 40 CFR
part 1065.
47
-------
Technical Support Document
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 n 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.
48
-------
Technical Amendments
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.
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.
49
-------
Technical Support Document
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)(l) 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
highway-certified 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:
o Removing the specification in §1048.115 to require the capability to sample exhaust
emissions from production vehicles. This is adequately addressed in §1048.205.
o 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.
o 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.
o Keeping the maximum run time and sampling time in each mode only for lean-burn engines
that use NOx aftertreatment (§1048.505(a)(l)). 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.
50
-------
Technical Amendments
o 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.
o Adding a reference in §1048.510(c) to identify the appropriate duty cycles as those that we
specify in Appendix I or Appendix n of part 1048.
o 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.
o Adding clarifying language in §1048.501 and §1048.801 to reflect the adjusted engine-
mapping procedure in part 1065 for constant-speed engines.
o 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 plain-
language 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
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
51
-------
Technical Support Document
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
1048.1
1048.5
Proposed Change
We now state that the part 1048 requirements apply to Large SI engines, rather than to the
manufacturers of Large SI engines.
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
1048.101(a)
1048.101(g)
1048.105
1048.115(a)
1048.115(g)
1048.120(a)
Proposed Change
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
-------
Technical Amendments
1048.120(b)
1048.120(c)
1048.120(e)
1048.125(c)
1048.125(g)
1048.125(h)
1048.130(d)
1048.135(c)
1048.135(d)
1048.135(g)
1048.139
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.
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.
We add a requirement for manufacturers to describe the emission-related warranty provisions that
apply to their engines in the owners manual.
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.
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.
Consistent with § 1048. 125(g), we now require manufacturers to communicate the owner's
obligations to properly maintain their engines.
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.
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).
We are adding a provision to specifically allow manufacturers to include additional label
information related to meeting other emission standards, or properly maintaining engines.
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.
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.
53
-------
Technical Support Document
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
1048.201(g)
1048.205(a)
1048.205(b)
1048.205(b)(ll)
1048.205(r)
1048.205(t)
1048.250(b)
Proposed Change
We are including a clearer statement that we may require manufacturers to deliver test engines to a
particular facility for our testing.
We are clarifying the direction to describe emission-control systems to require that manufacturers
identify each unique configuration.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
54
-------
Technical Amendments
Subpart D — Production-line
1048.3 10(g)
Testing
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 small-volume 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 CO2 emissions. However, if
manufacturers use equipment and procedures that require measurement of CO2 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.
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.
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
-------
Technical Support Document
1048.630
1048.635
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.
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
1048.801
1048.801
1048.801
1048.801
1048.820
1048.825
Proposed Change
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.
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.
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.
We are changing our rounding specification from ASTM E29 to NIST Special Publication 811.
Our understanding is that these two publications have equivalent specifications.
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.
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.
56
-------
Technical Amendments
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
fuel-tank 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/mVday 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).
57
-------
Technical Support Document
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.
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 phase-in described for snowmobiles in 1051.103(a)(l).
1051.137: The NER equations need to be adjusted to avoid
NER values less than zero.
1051.145(b): The NER equation for products greater 225 cc
should apply to products greater than or equal to 225 cc.
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.
1051.501: Clarify the process for approving raw-gas sampling
as equivalent. Clarify which provisions in part 91 apply for
interim raw-gas measurements.
1051.145(e)(2): Include alternate ATV standards described in
§ 105 1 . 145(b) in the allowance for raw-gas sampling through
2008 MY.
1051.505 and 1051.615: Specifying a ramped-modal duty
cycle is acceptable, as long as it is at manufacturer's
discretion.
1051.135: Engine label: don'trequire engine manufacturing
date in the owners manual as an alternative to the label.
Allow date stamp on vehicle, not just engine.
1051.135: The regulations should clarify that the duplicate
label is needed only if the original label is not visible "during
normal maintenance."
105 1 .3 10(g): For PLT testing, omit requirement to test at
least five engines, and add a rounding requirement to the 1
percent limit on testing
We agree that § 105 1 . 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).
We agree with the comment and have changed the
regulations accordingly.
We agree with the comment and have changed the
regulations accordingly.
We agree with the comment and have changed the
regulations accordingly.
We agree with the comment and are not making this
proposed change.
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.
We agree with the comment and have changed the
regulations accordingly, with the additional
considerations described for the previous comment.
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.
We agree with the comment and have changed the
regulations accordingly.
We agree with the comment and have changed the
regulations accordingly.
Given the separate PLT sampling rate for small-volume
families, we agree that it is appropriate to rely on the one-
percent criterion alone to establish an upper limit on
testing. Rounding the calculated value to the nearest
whole number is appropriate.
58
-------
Technical Amendments
1051.225(f) and 1051.701(e): The proposed change to limit
mid-year PEL changes to future production is inappropriate,
since manufacturers have been planning for compliance
based on an ability to make PEL 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 AT Vs, 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 fornon-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.
59
-------
Technical Support Document
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 emission-
related 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.
60
-------
Technical Amendments
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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 1051.243(b)(l): Requiring that intermediate test points be evenly spaced over the service-
accumulation period.
o 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
61
-------
Technical Support Document
mathematically possible to do a least-squares fit with only two data points. The linear least-
squares fit applies to any calculations involving three or more data points.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 1051.501(d): Specify that service accumulation may be done using a commercially available
fuel in addition to the specified test fuel.
o 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.
o 1048.605 and 1048.610: Clarifying the provisions that apply to recreational vehicles relying
on certification from highway or Large SI programs.
o 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.
o 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 pigments, plasticizers, and UV inhibitors), and the emission-control strategy applied. For
hoses, key parameters include material, wall thickness, and emission-control strategy applied."
62
-------
Technical Amendments
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."
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
63
-------
Technical Support Document
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 in-
use 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
measurement. We clarify the appropriate test length by more clearly defining when a four-week test
may be used.
10Tuckner, P., Baker, J., "Fuel Permeation Testing using Gravimetric Methods," SAE
Paper 2000-01-1096, 2000, Docket A-2000-01, Document IV-A-96.
nNulman, 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
-------
Technical Amendments
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 PEL 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
vehicles are equipped with hour-meters instead of odometers. Therefore it makes sense to add
"hours of engine operation" to §1051.120(b).
65
-------
Technical Support Document
8. NEREquations (§1051.145 and §1051.137)
The regulations require manufacturers to label all their certified vehicles with a removable hang-
tag 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 raw-
gas 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
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 in-
66
-------
Technical Amendments
use 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 plain-
language 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
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.
67
-------
Technical Support Document
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
1051.1
Proposed Change
We now state that the part 1051 requirements
manufacturers of recreational vehicles.
apply to recreational vehicles,
rather than to the
n. Subpart B—Emission Standards and Related Requirements
Reference
1051.120(a)
1051.120(b)
1051.120(c)
1051.120(e)
1051.125(c)
1051.125(g)
1051.125(h)
Proposed Change
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.
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.
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.
We add a requirement for manufacturers to describe the emission-related warranty provisions that
apply to their engines in the owners manual.
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.
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.
Consistent with § 105 1 . 125(g), we now require manufacturers to communicate the owner's
obligations to properly maintain their engines.
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
-------
Technical Amendments
1051.130(d)
1051.135(c)
1051.135(d)
1051.135(g)
1051.145(c)
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.
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.
We are adding a provision to specifically allow manufacturers to include additional label
information related to meeting other emission standards, or properly maintaining engines.
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.
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.
HI. Subpart C—Certifying Engine Families
Reference
1051.201(g)
1051.205(a)
1051.205(b)
1051.205(b)(ll)
1051.205(k)
1051.205(1)
1051.250(b)
Proposed Change
We are including a clearer statement that we may require manufacturers to deliver test engines to a
particular facility for our testing.
We are clarifying the direction to describe emission-control systems to require that manufacturers
identify each unique configuration.
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.
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.
Add a requirement to include the hang-tag label with normalized emission rates in the application
for certification.
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.
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.
69
-------
Technical Support Document
IV. Subpart D—Testing Production-Line Engines
Reference
1051.310(g)
1051.345
Proposed Change
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.
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
1051.501(a)
1051.520
Proposed Change
We no longer specify that testing must include measurement of CO2 emissions. However, if
manufacturers use equipment and procedures that require measurement of CO2 emissions, then
this information must be included in the application for certification (see §1051.205).
The provisions that were adopted under this section are now included under §1051.243.
VI. Subpart G—Compliance Provisions
Reference
1051.605
1051.610
1051.635
Proposed Change
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.
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.
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
1051.701
1051.705
1051.710
1051.715
Proposed Change
We clarify the limits on using emission credits across families and model years, especially as it
relates to noncompliant engines.
We clarify the process for reconciling the balance of emission credits at the end of the model year.
We clarify the process for banking emission credits and using banked emission credits.
We clarify the process for trading emission credits.
70
-------
Technical Amendments
1051.725-735
1051.745
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.
We clarify the legal liabilities associated with using ABT provisions to comply with emission
standards.
VII. Subpart I—Definitions and Other Reference Information
Reference
1051.801
1051.801
1051.820
1051.825
Proposed Change
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.
We are changing our rounding specification from ASTM E29 to NIST Special Publication 811.
Our understanding is that these two publications have equivalent specifications.
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.
We are adding details to better define the process for requesting hearings under part 105 1 . 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.
71
-------
Technical Support Document
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)(l) 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)(l) 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)(l), 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)(l) 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.
72
-------
Technical Amendments
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)(l) 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.
73
-------
Technical Support Document
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
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?
1065. l(g) provides at website for "additional information
and updates regarding these procedures." A website
posting must not become a mechanism for "back door"
rulemaking.
1065.2(e) Is 40 CFR 2.301 a correct cite?
Response
In §89. 1 14 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".
We will not use website postings in an attempt to
circumvent our Administrative Procedure Act obligation
for notice and comment rulemakings.
It is correct.
74
-------
Technical Amendments
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.
1065. 15(a) lists the emission constituents for which
emission standards may be set. Smoke is not listed. Is this
intentional?
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 standard-setting
part. This provision does not restrict any use of
carryover data allowed by the standard-setting part.
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
(a ) and (b)
(g)
Description
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.
We added a reference to a location on our website where manufacturers
may find additional information.
Source
§1065.2 Statements in applications and approvals
Reference
Description
We reiterated anyone's obligation to report truthful information to us and
to reiterate our treatment of confidential business information.
Source
§1068.101
§1068.10
§1065.5 Overview and relationship to standard setting parts
Reference
(a)
Description
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.
Source
75
-------
Technical Support Document
§ 1065.10 Other procedures
Reference
(c)(l)
(c)(3)
(c)(6)
Description
See Section 8.I.A
We provided guidance on how to gradually update your test procedures to
eventually comply with Part 1065 based on §86.1306-07(c)(3).
Added allowance for manufacturers to ask to use earlier version of Part
1065 for 12 months after new provisions become effective.
Source
§86.1306-07(c)
§1065.12 Approval of alternate procedures
Reference
Description
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.®
Source
§86.1306-07(d)
§1065.15 Overview of procedures for lab and field testing
Reference
(c)(l)
(c)(2)
(c)(3)
Description
We described lab testing and field testing in a similar context.
We described engine operation during lab and field testing.
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 8 178.
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.
Source
40CFRPart86
40 CFR Part 89
ISO 8178
§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.
76
-------
Technical Amendments
§1065.25 Recordkee
Reference
ping
Description
We added a minimum 1-year requirement to keep records, which may be
superceded by requirements in the standard-setting part.
Source
Subpart B- Equipment Specifications
§1065.101 Overview
Reference
Description
We revised this subpart to only describe equipment specifications. We
described measurement instrument specifications in their own subpart:
Subpart C.
Source
§ 1065.110 Dynamometers and operator demand.
Reference
(a)
(b) - (d)
(e)
Description
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.
We added text to explain how to handle engine accessories.
We described of how to control engine operator demand (e.g. throttle) to
help ensure representative testing in the lab.
Source
§86.1308
§89.306
ISO 8178-1 §7.2
Proposed
§1065.122
§1065.120 Fuels and fuel temperature and pressure
Reference
(b)
Description
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.
Source
ISO 8178-1 §6
§1065.122 Engine cooling and lubrication.
Reference
Title
(a)
Description
We changed the section title to reflect the movement of accessory text to
§1065.110.
We describe how to cool an engine during testing.
Source
§1065.501(c)(5)
77
-------
Technical Support Document
§1065.125 Engine intake air
Reference
(b)
(c)
(d)
Description
We allowed emissions testing with a production intake air system to help
ensure representative testing in the lab.
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.
We allowed engine manufacturers to specify a range of intake restriction,
noting manufacturers' liability up to the maximum allowable restriction.
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)(l).
Source
§86.1344(e)(4)
8178-11 §5.2
§1065.127
Reference
Description
We added section to clarify the requirements for EGR systems.
Source
§1065.130 Engine exhaust
Reference
(a) through (d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Description
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.
We allowed forced aftertreatment cool-down based on guidance we
issued in the past (1), (2).
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.
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.
Source
CFR 86 Subpart N
§86.1335-90
§ 1065.140 Dilution for gases and PM.
Reference
(a)
Description
We adopted a minimum dilution air temperature of 15 C from §86. 13 10-
2007.(3)
Source
§86.1310-2007
78
-------
Technical Amendments
(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
(b)
(b)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Description
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.
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.
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.
We recommended how to install transfer lines, and we specified materials
and temperatures of transfer lines based on §86. 13 10-2007, which were
for diesel emissions sampling. We extended these specifications to
include some spark-ignition engines/3'
We allowed sample conditioning components in-line with transfer lines
basedon§86.1310-2007.(3)
Source
§86.1310-2007
§86.1310-2007
79
-------
Technical Support Document
§ 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)
40CFRPart86
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.®
§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
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e) and (f)
Description
We added PM stabilization and weighing environmental specifications
basedon§86.1312-2007.(3)
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.
We adopted §86. 13 12-2007 specifications for temperature and humidity,
and we added guidance on humidity control as a function of sulfuric acid
inPM.(3)
We adopted §86. 13 12-2007 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'
We adopted §86. 13 12-2007 specifications for balance installation and
balance accessories and tools. We added recommendations based on
previous guidance we issued to engine manufacturers. (1), (2)
Source
§86.1312-2007
§86.1312-2007
§86.1312-2007
§86.1312-2007
§86.1312-2007
§ 1065.195 PM stabilization environment for in-situ analyzers
Reference
Description
We described the stabilization environment for in-situ PM analyzers,
based on §86. 13 12 for gravimetric balances/3' We expected that these
instruments are likely to be used for field-testing PM measurement.
Source
§86.1312-2007
80
-------
Technical Amendments
(b)
(c)
We required HEPA filtration of equilibration air based on §86. 13 10.(3)
We adopted a (42 to 52) °C equilibration temperature range to align in-
situ PM measurement temperature with the PM sampling temperature in
§86. 13 10-2007.(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
§86.1310-2007
Subpart C- Measurement Instruments
§1065.201Overview and general provisions
Reference
(d)
(e)
(f)
Description
We allowed combining results of redundant measurements a single test
based on §86. 13 10-2007.®
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.
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".
Source
§86.1310-2007
§86.1338-2007
§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
81
-------
Technical Support Document
(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
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.
Source
§86.1308-84
§1065.215 Pressure, temperature, and dewpoint transducers
Reference
Description
We recommended specific transducers as guidance for future procurement
of such transducers.
Source
§1065.220 Fuel flow
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§89.415
§89.416
§1065.225 Intake airflow
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§89.414
§1065.230 Raw exhaust flow
Reference
Description
Source
82
-------
Technical Amendments
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
We required the same flow meter performance as specified in §86.1320-
90, and we provided additional guidance on flow meter selection.
Source
§86.1320-90
§1065.248 Gas divider
Reference
Description
We required the same flow meter performance as specified in §86. 13 14-
94 for gas dividers. We also required a periodic gas divider linearity
check.
Source
§86.1314-94
§1065.250 Nondispersive infra-red CO analyzer
Reference
Description
We required the same CO measurement technology as Part 86 and Part
89. We allowed interference compensation that targets a 0.0%
interference level.
Source
§86.1322-84
§89.309
§1065.255 Nondispersive infra-red CO2 analyzer
Reference
Description
We required the same CO2 measurement technology as Part 86 and Part
89. We allowed interference compensation that targets a 0.0%
interference level.
Source
§86.1324-84
§89.309
83
-------
Technical Support Document
§ 1065.260 Flame ionization detector analyzer for THC, NMHC, CH4
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§86.1321-84
§89.309
ISO 8178-1 §16.4
§1065.265 Nonmethane cutter for CH4
Reference
Description
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.
Source
ISO 8178-1 §16.4
§1065.267 Gas Chromatograph for CH4
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§86.1325-94
§89.324
§ 1065.270 Chemiluminescent detector analyzer for NOX
Reference
Description
We adopted the chemiluminescent detector analyzer specification in
§86.1323-2007 §89.321. We allowed interference compensation that
targets a 0.0% interference level.
Source
§86.1323-2007
§89.321
§1065.272 Nondispersive ultraviolet analyzer for NOX (NO and NO2)
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§1065.280 Paramagnetic and magnetopneumatic detector analyzers for oxygen
Reference
Description
Source
84
-------
Technical Amendments
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
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.
Source
§1065.290 Gravimetric balance forPM
Reference
Description
We adopted the gravimetric balance for PM specification from §86. 13 12-
2007.(3) We provided additional recommendations for features to
consider when procuring a PM balance.
Source
§86.1312-2007
§ 1065.295 Inertia! balance for PM
Reference
Description
We allowed the inertia! 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.
Source
Subpart D- Calibrations and verifications
§1065.301 Overview
Reference
(a) through (c)
(d)
Description
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.
We required the use of NIST traceable standards, but we noted that you
may ask to use other standards.
Source
§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.
85
-------
Technical Support Document
§1065.306 Summary of periodic calibration and verifications
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§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
We added a verification to determine that an analyzer had a uniform
response so that it could be added correctly to other analyzer signals.
Source
§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
§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.
86
-------
Technical Amendments
§1065.320 Fuel flow calibration.
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§1065.325 Intake airflow calibration
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§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
(e)
(f)
(g)
Description
We adopted CVS calibration specifications from §86. 13 19-90 and
especially §86. 13 19-90(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.
We adopted PDF calibration specifications from §86. 13 19-90, but we
reformulated the equations to make them easier to understand.
We adopted CFV calibration specifications from §86. 13 19-90 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. 13 19-90, 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.
We adopted the SSV calibration in §86. 13 19-90, but we used a molar
reference signal.
Source
§86.1319-90
§86.1319-90
§86.1319-90
§86.1319-90
87
-------
Technical Support Document
§1065.341 Propane check
Reference
Description
We adopted the propane check of § 13 19-90(f), but we extended its use to
check secondary dilution systems, and we added an option to use a flow-
based reference instead of the gravimetric reference in §1319-90(1) . 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 flow-
based reference we required compensation for the non-ideal gas behavior
of pure compressed propane.
Source
§1319-90(f)
§1065.345 Vacuum side leak check
Reference
Description
We adopted the leak checks from §86. 1337-90 and 89.3 16, 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.
Source
§86.1337-90
§89.316
§1065.350 CO2 NDIR analyzer H2O interference check.
Reference
Description
We adopted the performance specification in §89.3 18, and we described a
step-by-step procedure for this check.
Source
§89.318
§1065.355 CO NDIR analyzer CO2 and H2O interference check.
Reference
Description
We adopted the performance specification in §89.3 18, and we described a
step-by-step procedure for this check.
Source
§89.318
§1065.362 FID calibration, response optimization, CH4 response factor determination and FID flow check
Reference
Description
We adopted the performance specification in §89.3 18, 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.
Source
§89.318
§1065.362 Non-stoichiometric raw exhaust FID O2 interference verification
Reference
Description
We added a FID O2 interference verification for hydrocarbon sampling
from Non-stoichiometric raw exhaust. The verification was based on ISO
8178.
Source
§89.318
ISO 8178-1 §8.
80
.3
-------
Technical Amendments
§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 CLP H2O and CO2 interference check
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§86.1323-2007
§ 1065.372 NDUV NOX analyzer verification
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§ 1065.376 Thermal chiller NO2 penetration check
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§1065.378 NO2 to NO converter check
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§86.1323-84
ISO 8178-1 §8.7
§1065.390 PM weighing process verification
Reference
Description
We adopted the PM weighing process verification from §86. 13 12-
2007.(3), however we scaled this check to the PM emissions expected at
the standard. This prevents an unnecessarily stringent requirement for
PM weighing.
Source
§86.1312-2007
89
-------
Technical Support Document
§1065.395 Inertial PM balance specifications
Reference
Description
We added a section that describes how to verify the performance of an
inertia! PM balance.
Source
§86.1312-2007
Subpart E- Engine selection, preparation, and maintenance.
§ 1065.405 Test engine preparation and maintenance.
Reference
Description
We required specifications for engine selection, preparation, and
maintenance; however we stated that any requirements in any standard-
setting 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.
Source
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 steady-
state, 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
90
-------
Technical Amendments
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
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
91
-------
Technical Support Document
§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, hot-
starts, 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.
§1065.545 Validation of proportional flow control for batch sampling
Reference
Description
We adopted the performance specification of §86. 13 10-2007 for PM
sampling systems/3' We incorporated additional options for validating
proportional sampling based on the principles of CVS sampling.
Source
§86.1310-2007
§ 1065.550 Emissions analyzer range and drift validation.
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§86.1340-90,
§89.406,
ISO 8178-1 §11.8.
§1065.590 PM sample preconditioning and tare weighing
Reference
Description
We adopted §86. 13 12-2007. (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.
Source
§86.1312-2007
§1065.595 PM sample post-conditioning and total weighing.
Reference
Description
Source
92
-------
Technical Amendments
We adopted §86. 13 12-2007.(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
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.
Source
§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 flow-
weighted 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
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.
Source
§86.1333-90,
§89.410,
ISO 8178-1 §11. 5,
ISO 8178-1 §11.7
§1065.630 1980 International gravity formula
Reference
Description
Source
93
-------
Technical Support Document
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)(l)(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)(l)(i)
§1065.340 CVS calibration equations
Reference
(b)
(c)
(d)
Description
We adopted CVS calibration calculations from §86. 13 19-90 and
especially §86. 13 19-90(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.
We adopted PDF calibration calculations from §86. 13 19-90, but we
reformulated the equations to make them easier to understand.
We adopted CFV calibration calculations from §86. 13 19-90 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. 13 19-90, but we restricted use of the §86. 13 19-90
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.
We adopted the SSV equation in §86. 13 19-90, but we rearranged it to use
a molar reference signal.
Source
§86.1319-90
§86.1319-90
§86.1319-90
§86.1319-90
§1065.340 CVS flow rate equations
Reference
(a)
Description
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.
We adopted PDF flow rate calculations from §86. 13 19-90, but we
reformulated the equations to make them easier to understand.
Source
§86.1319-90
§86.1319-90
94
-------
Technical Amendments
(b)
(c)
We adopted CFV flow rate calculations from §86. 13 19-90 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. 13 19-90, 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.
We adopted the SSV flow rate equation in §86. 13 19-90, but we
rearranged it to calculate a molar flow rate.
§86.1319-90
§86.1319-90
§1065.645 Amount of water in an ideal gas.
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§1065.650 Emissions calculations
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§86.1342-94,
§89.418,
§89.419,
ISO 8178-1 §12
though §16.
§1065.655 Chemical balances
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§89.418
ISO 8178-1 Annexe
A
95
-------
Technical Support Document
§ 1065.657 Drift validation and correction.
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§86.1340-90,
§89.406,
ISO 8178-1 §11. 8.
§1065.659 Removed water correction.
Reference
Description
We adopted the corectionin §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.
Source
§86.1342-90,
§89.418,
ISO 8178-1 A.2.4
§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
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.
Source
§86.1342-94,
ISO 8178-1 §15. 5
and §15.6
96
-------
Technical Amendments
§ 1065.667 Dilution air background correction
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§86.1342-94,
§89.420
ISO 8178-1 §13. 5
§1065.670 NOX intake air humidity correction
Reference
Description
Source
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.
97
-------
Technical Support Document
1.4
1.3
Q.
£
"3)
1.2
I
~? 1.1
0)
N
!5 1-°
E
o
0.9
0.8
Normalized Brake-specific NOX versus Amount of Water in Intake Air
Uncorrected NOX, Corrected NOX, and Correction Factors
Part 86 >
correction
(overcorrection)
Uncorrected NO
Q
0.01 0.02 0.03
Amount of water in intake air, x H20 (mol/mol)
0.04
§1065.672 CLP quench check calculations.
Reference
Description
We adopted the chemiluminescent detector Nox analyzer quench check
performance specification from §86. 1323-2007. (3)
Source
§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.
98
-------
Technical Amendments
§1065.695 Required data.
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§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
(a)
(d)
(e)
Description
We are moving the general requirements for test fuels that were originally
in Part 1065 to Subpart H
Add a clarification that § 1065. 10(c)(l) does not apply for test fuels.
Add allowance to use other standard methods specified in 40 CFR Part 80
to measure fuel properties.
Add examples of typical ASTM fuel specifications for in-use fuels.
Source
Old Subpart C of
Part 1065
§1065.703 Distillate diesel fuel
Reference
Description
We deleted specific ranges of fuel parameters for diesel service
accumulation fuel, which is different from §86. 13 13-2007. 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. 13 13-
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.
Source
§86.1313-2007
§1065.705 Residual fuel [reserved]
Reference
Description
We reserved this section for a future marine residual fuel specification.
Source
§1065.710 Gasoline.
Reference
Description
We adopted the test fuels that were originally in Part 1065.
Source
Old Part 1065
§1065.715 Natural gas.
Reference
Description
We adopted the test fuels that were originally in Part 1065.
Source
Old Part 1065
99
-------
Technical Support Document
§1065.720 Liquefied propane gas
Reference
Description
We adopted the test fuels that were originally in Part 1065.
Source
Old Part 1065
§1065.740 Lubricants.
Reference
Description
We adopted the lubricant specification in §89.330.
Source
§89.330
§1065.745 Coolants.
Reference
Description
We adopted the coolant specification in §86. 1327-98
Source
§86.1327-98
§1065.750 Analytical gases.
Reference
(a)(2)
(b)
(d)
Description
We adopted the analytical gas specifications in §86. 13 14-94 and §89.3 12,
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.
Add recommendation to use representative level of O2 in FID gas
Add allowance to relabel gas standards
Add specific requirement to use good engineering judgment when
handling and storing gases to maintain stability.
Source
§86.1314-94,
§89.312
§1065.790 Mass standards
Reference
Description
We adopted the dynamometer calibration weight specifications in
§86.1308-84 and §89.305. We specified new requirements for
calibration weights for PM balances.
Source
§86.1308-84
§89.305
Subpart I- Testing with oxygenated fuels.
§1065.801 Applicability.
Reference
(b)
Description
Added paragraph to clarify that Subpart I applies for any testing that
requires measurement of alcohols or carbonyls.
Source
100
-------
Technical Amendments
§1065.805 Sampling systems.
Reference
(a)(-(d)
(e)
(f)
Description
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)
Allow collection of a single weighted sample.
Allow use of CARB NMOG procedures.
Source
§1065.845 Response factor determination.
Reference
Description
Add section to describe how to determine FID responses to oxygenated
compounds.
Source
§86.1321-90
§1065.850 Calculations.
Reference
Description
We relocated the calculations to
§1065.665.
Source
Subpart J- Field Testing
§1065.901 Applicability
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§1065.905 General provisions.
Reference
Description
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.
Source
§1065.910 Field testing equipment
Reference
Description
Source
101
-------
Technical Support Document
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
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)
Source
§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''
§1065.940 Emission calculations.
Reference
Description
Source
102
-------
Technical Amendments
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, Cl 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
Brakepower
Calibration and
Verification
Constant-speed
operation
NIST traceable
Description
Revised to clarify how accessory power is treated.
Verification is added to distinguish the term from calibration.
Elimination of examples.
Add definition and include allowance to use international
equivalents with approval.
Source
103
-------
Technical Support Document
Oxides of nitrogen
Tolerance
See Section 8.I.B.
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.
104
-------
Technical Amendments
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 NOX 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.
105
-------
Technical Support Document
(11) "Protocol for Measurement of Air Pollutant Emissions from Ferry Boats", Culnane Mary, San
Francisco Water Transit Authority, August 19, 2002.
106
-------
Technical Amendments
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)(ll), 91.325(c)(l)(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 sugge st adding an e quation to
complete the provision related to water quench, namely,
percent H2O quench = (D1-AR)/D x 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 -(0.906xt/uHfe)4
107
-------
Technical Support Document
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.
108
-------
Technical Amendments
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.
109
-------
Technical Support Document
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:
o Revising §1068.305 to change the phone number related to the importation form.
o 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.
110
-------
Technical Amendments
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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
spark-ignition 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.
o §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.
o §1068.30: Add or correct definitions to coordinate with the standard-setting parts and clarify
various terms.
o §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 years in cases where a new emission standard takes effect. We are changing
§1068.101(a)(l) to reflect these changes.
o §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
111
-------
Technical Support Document
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).
o §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.
o §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.
o §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.
o §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."
o §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.
o §1068.510: Clarify that manufacturers must describe the qualifications of repair personnel,
rather than simply stating that they are qualified.
112
------- |