Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action on several revisions to EPA's mobile source emission programs standards and test procedures. EPA believes that each of these is minor and non-controversial in nature. Most of the changes arise from the results of the collaborative test program and related technical work we conducted for the highway heavy-duty diesel in-use testing program. Most noteworthy here is the adoption of a particulate matter measurement allowance for use with portable emission measurement systems. Related to this are two provisions to align the in-use program timing requirements with completion of the program as required in current regulations and the incorporation of revisions to a few technical requirements in the testing regulations based on information learned in this and one other test program. Finally, the DFR modifies a few transitional flexibilities for locomotive, recreational marine, and Tier 4 nonroad engines and incorporates a handful of minor corrections.
This is effective on January 7, 2011 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 8, 2010
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
•
• E-mail:
•
•
•
Rich Wilcox, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214–4390; fax number: (734) 214–4050; e-mail address:
EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposal because we view this action as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
If EPA receives adverse comment or a request for public hearing regarding this rule or any discrete portion of this rule, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule, or that portion of the rule that has received adverse comment, in the
This action will affect companies that manufacture and certify all-terrain vehicles for sale in the United States.
To determine whether particular activities may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct questions regarding the applicability of this action as noted in
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
• Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
The manufacturer-run, in-use testing program for heavy-duty diesel vehicles that are used on the highway was promulgated in June 2005 to monitor the emissions performance of the engines used in 2007 and later model year vehicles when operated under a wide range of real world driving conditions.
The program was amended in March 2008 to delay some of the implementation dates and reporting deadlines and to adopt final PEMS measurement “accuracy” margins for gaseous emissions (
The in-use testing program began with a mandatory two-year pilot program for gaseous emissions in calendar years 2005 and 2006. The program also included a pilot program for PM emissions in calendar years 2007 and 2008. The programs are fully enforceable after their respective pilot program ends,
The in-use testing program is based on the NTE emission standards. For the purposes of the in-use testing program, EPA established a vehicle pass/fail criterion for each pollutant that compares a vehicle's measured in-use emissions to a corresponding numerical compliance limit,
When the in-use testing program was first established in June of 2005, there was uncertainty regarding what specific accuracy margins should be used in the in-use testing program, since the portable measurement devices that were expected to be used in the program had not been rigorously tested at that time. As a result, we originally promulgated interim accuracy margins for use in the pilot programs.
In May of 2005, shortly before the in-use test program was promulgated, EPA entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the manufacturers of heavy-duty highway diesel engines (through the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)) to develop “data driven” emission measurement allowances through a comprehensive research, development, and demonstration program for the fully enforceable programs.
The MOA and the June 2005 final rulemaking addressed the consequences of failing to complete the accuracy margin development work in time for the scheduled start of the PM enforceable program.
The MOA described above called for development of a comprehensive test plan for determining the final emission measurement accuracy margins for the manufacturer-run, in-use testing program.
After the simulation modeling results were completed, the test plan called for the final accuracy margin to be determined by the following generalized process. First, select the PEMS with the lowest or minimum positive value. Second, select the calculation method that has the lowest or minimum positive value. Third, and finally, use the results from that method to determine the final measurement accuracy margin.
The cooperative test program for PM as described in the MOA is complete and a final report has been issued.
As described above, the PM accuracy margin test program has been completed. However due to unexpected delays in beginning the test program, issues in the development of PM PEMS technology, and other challenges in conducting the work, the program took two years longer than originally anticipated. Accordingly, in-use test program regulations require that the first two years of the previously adopted enforceable program, which was originally scheduled for the calendar year 2009, be placed into abeyance for two years. Hence, the enforceable PM program will now begin in 2011 calendar year.
As already noted, the current in-use test program regulations require that the PM pilot program, which began in the 2007 calendar year, be continued for an additional two years through calendar year 2010. This would result in four years of pilot testing for PM. However, our current assessment shows that such extended pilot program testing is unnecessary as described below.
The intent of the original two-year pilot program for PM was to make certain that engine manufacturers had adequate real-world operational experience,
As a result of the decision to delay the enforceable program for PM until the 2011 calendar year and the decision not to extend the two-year pilot program, we needed to reassess the schedule for conducting the required tests for the pilot program. Two considerations are especially important here. First, there is no apparent advantage to require that engine manufacturers conduct testing over a single, consecutive two-year period,
Finally, we previously designated the engine families for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 calendar years that each engine manufacturer must test, and we have recently designated engine families for the 2010 calendar year program. Given the new flexibility in choosing which two of the four years to fulfill their testing obligations for the PM pilot program, each engine manufacturer must notify EPA by letter to the Agency's designated compliance officer to explicitly identify both: (1) The designated calendar year(s) where in-use PM pilot program testing will be forgone, and (2) the designated calendar year(s) when their obligations for PM pilot testing will be completed. This notification must be provided to the Agency by January 7, 2011 and must be quickly updated if planned testing changes for any calendar year.
We are taking this opportunity to delete the references in § 86.1935 that pertain to the final report for PM emission accuracy margin and the consequences that would ensue if the report was delayed beyond certain dates. These provisions are no longer needed because accuracy margin for PM pollutants are being promulgated in this Direct Final Rule. This will result in removal of § 86.1935 from the regulations in its entirety and any references made to § 86.1935 throughout 40 CFR part 86.
Section 1033.150(e) allows the use of certified 2008 and later nonroad engines in switch locomotives. We are extending the allowance to include nonroad engines produced in model years before 2008 as long as they were certified to the same standards as 2008 engines. This extension will not have any emissions impact since the engines will be required to have the same emission controls with or without the revisions.
We are taking this opportunity to make minor technical amendments to 40 CFR part 1065 that are mostly related to the requirements for in-use PM instrumentation and that arose from knowledge gained during the accuracy margin laboratory and field work mentioned in Section A. above. The changes are specified in the following paragraph. The reasons for these changes are detailed in a separate document.
The amendments are as follows:
1. The requirement to control dilution air temperature has been removed for in-use testing;
2. An in-use filter face velocity specification has been added;
3. An in-use filter face temperature specification has been added;
4. We are specifying that there is no requirement for control of humidity control for in-situ PM analyzers;
5. We are allowing the use of a fixed molar mass for the dilute exhaust mixture for field testing;
6. We are deleting the frequency and rise/fall time specs for inertial batch PM analyzers;
7. We are adding a statement that field testing applies at any ambient temperature, pressure and humidity, unless otherwise specified in the standard setting part (
8. We are adding language to state that EPA approves of electrostatic deposition technique for PM collection and that the technique must meet 95% collection efficiency, as validated by the manufacturer;
9. We are excluding PM PEMS from the system-response and updating-recording verification requirements;
10. We are clarifying when an HC contamination check of the sampling system should take place;
11. We are allowing the use of a PM loss correction to account for PM loss in the inertial balance, including the sample handling system for in-use testing only;
12. We are making a clarification on how to handle positive displacement pump (PDP) pressure calibrations at maximum pressure;
13. We are allowing a restart of the hot portion of the transient test if the hot start was void;
14. We are making some language changes to make the language used more consistent throughout the document; and
15. We are correcting typographical errors.
We are taking this opportunity to make changes to 40 CFR 1065.140(d) to allow the use of partial flow sampling systems for measurement of PM during transient test cycles for laboratory testing.
PM measurement has been traditionally performed using a full flow dilution tunnel where the entire amount of engine exhaust gas is collected and made available for sampling. With this sampling method, commonly referred to as a constant volume sampler (CVS), the size of the dilution tunnel depends on the exhaust gas volume, thus the greater the volume of exhaust gas emitted from the engine, the larger the dilution tunnel must be. As an alternative, a partial-flow dilution tunnel allows sampling of part of the total exhaust flow, which reduces the size of the sampling system. One of the drawbacks to partial flow sampling systems in the past was that the flow controllers did not have a fast enough response time to accurately respond to the changing exhaust flow rates during a transient cycle. Thus partial flow sampling systems were only allowed for use during steady-state cycle testing. Recent advancements in the development of fast response flow control systems, along with the advancement in the understanding of PM formation characteristics have made partial flow sampling systems a viable technology for use in transient applications when compared to the CVS reference method.
We currently allow the use of partial flow sampling systems for measurement of PM for steady-state and ramped modal cycle (RMC) testing and have put specifications in place in 40 CFR 1065.140(e) with respect to dilution air temperature, minimum dilution ratio, filter face temperature, and residence time to control PM formation. These specifications have further worked to improve the accuracy of partial flow systems when compared to the CVS.
We initially proposed this allowance in the locomotive and compression-ignition marine engines less than 30 liters per cylinder NPRM, but did not finalize it due to concerns over the viability of partial flow systems in transient applications.
We are taking this opportunity to further define how to handle regeneration events that occur during real world in-use NTE tests. The current text as it exists in 40 CFR 86.1370–2007(d)(2) has caused confusion with respect to determination of the NTE minimum averaging period.
This revision establishes a new method to calculate the minimum averaging period. The intent here is to minimize the number of voided NTE events due to regeneration for systems that undergo frequent and/or infrequent regeneration, while ensuring that the NTE averaging time is appropriate based on the regeneration time.
The regeneration duty cycle fraction over the course of the entire test day can be determined by dividing the mean time of the complete regeneration events (state 2) by the sum of the mean time of the non-regeneration events (state 0) and the mean time of the complete regeneration segments including time in those segments where regeneration is pending (states 1 and 2).
To determine whether an NTE that includes a regeneration event is valid, the minimum average time is determined by summing the portion of the NTE event that occurs during regeneration and dividing by the fraction of time over the entire sampling period,
We are taking this opportunity to allow the use of fuel rate data that is available from the engine's electronic control module (ECM) along with other information, including the CO
Our current regulations for sterndrive/inboard marine SI engines allow for delayed implementation of emission standards for small-volume manufacturers making sterndrive/inboard marine SI engines (
When creating 40 CFR 1039.102 (69 FR 39213, June 29, 2004), we included provisions intended to allow engine manufacturers to use emission credits to continue producing a small number of Tier 3 nonroad diesel engines after the Tier 4 standards began to apply. However, we now realize that the provisions may not work as intended because the Tier 4 averaging programs inadvertently do not allow manufacturers to show compliance with the applicable 0.19 g/kW-hr NMHC standard using credits. In today's rulemaking, we are amending this section to allow manufacturers to use credits to show compliance with alternate NO
We have been made aware of a number of unique challenges involved in implementing Tier 4 requirements for certain specialized high-altitude equipment. In setting the Tier 4 standards in 2004, we anticipated that typical engineering challenges would arise in redesigning machines to use the new engines, and we restructured our transition program for equipment manufacturers, first established in the Tier 2/Tier 3 rule, to help manufacturers deal with these challenges. This important flexibility program has been highly successful. We do feel that a minor adjustment is warranted for the specialized high-altitude equipment identified.
This equipment is designed for use on snow and, for at least some of its operating life, at elevations more than 9,000 feet above sea level. The applications are ski area snow groomers, both alpine and cross-county, and personnel transporters used in search and rescue operations, and maintenance of utility lines and towers.
One manufacturer of this equipment, has identified a number of technical issues specific to the equipment, including:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In identifying these issues, the manufacturer stated that it expects two, possibly three, winters of prototype testing are needed to work through these issues and believes that flexibility in the use of exemptions provided by the Tier 4 transition program is key to enabling this. We have evaluated the technical issues, and have concluded there are likely to be some unique challenges in implementing Tier 4 for high-altitude equipment of this type.
In response, to provide modest but meaningful additional flexibility, we are removing the single engine family restriction for the use of the small volume provision allowing 700 exempted units over seven years. This additional flexibility would only apply for manufacturers of specialized high-altitude equipment (designed to commonly operate above 9,000 feet), and only in the first two model years of Tier 4 standards. Afterward, the single engine family restriction would apply. In no case would the 700 unit maximum over seven years be exceeded.
We do not expect that this change will result in a significant negative impact on any engine or equipment manufacturers. Engine manufacturers are already expecting to produce some Tier 4 engines for the transition program, and the number of additional exempted engines will be relatively small. Equipment manufacturers can either take advantage of this change, or are already able to exempt the same number of affected machines for several years under the existing transition program provisions.
We also believe the impact of this modification on Tier 4 environmental benefits will be negligible, given that: (1) It only applies to the small volume portion of the transition program, (2) the total U.S. annual sales of specialized high-altitude equipment is, at most, a few hundred, (3) much of this equipment operates for only a part of the year, (4) the modification only applies in the first two Tier 4 model years, and does not increase the overall exemption limit of 700 over seven years.
The existing regulations related to emission standards for nonroad spark-ignition engines below 19 kW specifically prohibit the sale of nonhandheld equipment equipped with handheld engines. The regulations in § 1054.101 state that handheld engines may not be installed in nonhandheld equipment, but the regulatory text does not state that this is prohibited under § 1068.101 or identify which penalty provisions apply. In this rule we are adding a statement to § 1054.101(e) to describe how this action violates the prohibited acts identified in § 1068.101, consistent with the regulations under 40 CFR part 90.
The existing regulations contain an error in the time at mode for each steady-state point when certifying an engine to the E2 ramped modal cycle (RMC). When the E2 RMC cycle was generated, the times at mode were not correct based on the weighting of the discrete-mode cycle. In this rule we are correcting the time at mode for all four steady-state portions of the E2 RMC cycle to correspond with the mode weighting for the discrete-mode test.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. EPA is taking direct final action on several revisions to EPA's mobile source emission programs standards and test procedures. This direct final rule merely contains several minor and noncontroversial amendments to EPA's mobile source emission programs as described in the Summary and Section IV. Details of the Rule.
This action does not impose a new information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will not impose any new requirements on small entities.
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this direct final rule. It merely contains several minor and noncontroversial technical amendments to EPA's mobile source emission programs as described in the Summary and Section IV. Details of the Rule. We have, therefore, concluded that today's final rule will not affect the regulatory burden for small entities and will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of Section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why such an alternative was adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under Section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
This rule contains no federal mandates for state, local, or tribal governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these governmental entities. Nothing in the rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has determined that this rule contains no federal mandates that may result in expenditures of more than $100 million to the private sector in any single year. It merely contains several minor and noncontroversial technical amendments to EPA's mobile source emission programs as described in the Summary and Section IV. Details of the Rule. The requirements of UMRA, therefore, do not apply to this action.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation.
Section 4 of the Executive Order contains additional requirements for rules that preempt State or local law, even if those rules do not have federalism implications (
This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This direct final rule merely contains several minor and noncontroversial technical amendments to EPA's mobile source emission programs as described in the Summary and Section IV. Details of the Rule.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.”
This rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, Section 5–501 of the Order directs the Agency to evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This direct final rule merely contains several minor and noncontroversial technical amendments to EPA's mobile source emission programs as described in the Summary and Section IV. Details of the Rule.
This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This direct final rule merely contains several and noncontroversial minor technical amendments to EPA's mobile source emission programs as described in the Summary and Section IV. Details of the Rule.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104–113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (such as materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This direct final rule does not involve technical standards. It merely contains several minor and noncontroversial technical amendments to EPA's mobile source emission programs as described in the Summary and Section IV. Details of the Rule. Thus, we have determined that the requirements of the NTTAA do not apply.
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This direct final rule merely contains several minor and noncontroversial technical amendments to EPA's mobile source emission programs as described in the Summary and Section IV. Details of the Rule.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States. We will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States before publication of the rule in the
The statutory authority for this action comes from 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q and 33 U.S.C. 1901–1915.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Penalties, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Penalties, Vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
(d)
(2) For engines equipped with emission controls that include discrete regeneration events and that send a recordable electronic signal indicating the start and end of the regeneration event, determine the minimum averaging period for each NTE event that includes regeneration active operation as described in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section. This minimum averaging period is used to determine whether the individual NTE event is a valid NTE event. For engines equipped with emission controls that include multiple discrete regeneration events (
(i) Calculate the minimum averaging period,
(ii) Calculate the regeneration fraction,
(iii) If either N
(iv) Compare the minimum averaging period for the candidate NTE event,
(v) You may choose to not void emission results for a candidate NTE event even though we allow you to void the NTE event under paragraph (d)(2)(iii) or (iv) of this section. If you choose this option, you must include the results for all regulated pollutants that were measured and validated during the NTE event for a given NTE monitoring system.
(vi)(A) The following is an example of calculating the minimum averaging period,
(B) The duration of the three complete non-regeneration events within the shift-day are:
(C) The sums of all the regeneration active periods in the two complete regeneration events are:
(D) The duration of each of the two complete regeneration events within the shift-day are:
(E) The
(F) For this example, consider a candidate NTE event where there are two periods of regeneration active operation (state 2).
(G) The minimum averaging period for this candidate NTE event is:
(a) If you manufacture diesel heavy-duty engines above 8,500 lbs. GVWR that are subject to engine-based exhaust emission standards under this part, you must test them as described in this subpart. You must measure all emissions listed in § 86.1910(d) other than PM beginning in calendar year 2005 and you must measure PM emissions beginning in calendar year 2007.
(c) * * *
(2) 2011 for PM testing.
(g) Once an engine is set up for testing, test the engine for at least one shift-day. To complete a shift-day's
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(xiii) PM: 0.006 grams per brake horsepower-hour.
(5) * * *
(iv) PM: 0.006 grams per brake horsepower-hour.
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(xii) * * *
(E) Emissions of THC, NMHC, CO, CO
(a) We may direct you to test engines under this subpart for emissions other than PM in 2005 and 2006, and for PM emissions in 2007 through 2010. In those interim periods, all the provisions of this subpart apply, except as specified in this paragraph (a). You may apply the exceptions identified in this section for both years of the applicable years for emissions other than PM. You may omit testing and reporting in two of the four applicable years for PM emissions.
(1) We will select engine families for testing of emissions other than PM only when the manufacturer's Statement of Compliance specifically describes the family as being designed to comply with NTE requirements.
(2) We will not direct you to do the Phase 2 testing in § 86.1915(c), regardless of measured emission levels.
(3) For purposes of calculating the NTE thresholds under § 86.1912(a) for any 2006 and earlier model year engine that is not subject to the emission standards in § 86.007–11, determine the applicable NTE standards as follows:
(i) If any numerical NTE requirements specified in the terms of any consent decree apply to the engine family, use those values as the NTE standards for testing under this subpart.
(ii) If a numerical NTE requirement is not specified in a consent decree for the engine family, the NTE standards are 1.25 times the applicable FELs or the applicable emission standards specified in § 86.004–11(a)(1) or § 86.098–11(a)(1).
(4) In the report required in § 86.1920(b), you must submit the deficiencies and limited testing region reports (see §§ 86.007–11(a)(4)(iv) and 86.1370–2007(b)(6) and (7)) for 2006 and earlier model year engines tested under this section.
(5) You must notify the Designated Compliance Officer by September 30, 2010 whether or not you will submit test reports for PM emissions for each of the four years from 2007 through 2010. See 40 CFR 1068.30 for the contact information for the Designated Compliance Officer.
(6) You must submit reports by the deadlines specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The following deadlines apply for reporting test results under this subpart:
(1) You must complete all the required testing and reporting under this subpart related to emissions other than PM by the following dates:
(i) November 30, 2007 for engine families that we designate for testing in 2005.
(ii) November 30, 2008 for engine families that we designate for testing in 2006.
(iii) November 30, 2009 for engine families that we designate for testing in 2007.
(iv) March 31, 2010 for engine families we designate for testing in 2008.
(v) April 30, 2011 for engine families we designate for testing in 2009.
(2) You must complete all the required testing and reporting under this subpart related to PM emissions by the following dates:
(i) May 31, 2010 for engine families that we designate for testing in 2007.
(ii) September 30, 2010 for engine families we designate for testing in 2008.
(iii) April 30, 2011 for engine families we designate for testing in 2009.
(iv) November 30, 2011 for engine families we designate for testing in 2009.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) April 30, 2011 for engine families that we designate for non-PM testing in 2009.
42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
(e) * * *
(1) All of the engines on the switch locomotive must be covered by a certificate of conformity issued under 40 CFR part 89 or 1039 for model year 2008 or later (or earlier model years if the same standards applied as in 2008). Engines over 750 hp certified to the Tier 4 standards for non-generator set engines are not eligible for this allowance after 2014.
42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
(e)
(1) For engines in the 56–130 kW power category, apply the following alternate NO
(i) If you use the provisions of paragraph (d)(1) of this section, your alternate NO
(ii) If you use the provisions of paragraph (d)(2) of this section, your alternate NO
(iii) If you do not use the provisions of paragraph (d) of this section, you may apply the alternate NO
(2) For engines in the 130–560 kW power category, the alternate NO
(3) You use NO
(g) * * *
(5) You may certify engines under this paragraph (g) without regard to whether or not the engine family's FEL is at or below the otherwise applicable FEL cap. For example, a 200 kW engine certified to the NO
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) In each power category at or above 56 kW, you may apply the provisions of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section in the first two model years for which Tier 4 standards apply, regardless of the number of engine families you use in your equipment, provided you exceed the single engine family restriction of that paragraph primarily due to production of equipment intended specifically to travel on snow and to commonly operate at more than 9,000 feet above sea level. After the first two Tier 4 model years in a power category, you may continue to apply the provisions of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, subject to the single engine family restriction.
42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
(c) * * *
(2) The following duty cycle applies for ramped-modal testing:
42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
(a)
42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
(e)
42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
(d)
(1)
(ii) You may use PFD to extract a proportional raw exhaust sample for any batch or continuous gaseous emission sampling over any transient duty cycle, any steady-state duty cycle, or any ramped-modal cycle.
(iii) You may use PFD to extract a proportional raw exhaust sample for any batch or continuous field-testing.
(iv) You may use PFD to extract a proportional diluted exhaust sample from a CVS for any batch or continuous emission sampling.
(v) You may use PFD to extract a constant raw or diluted exhaust sample for any continuous emission sampling.
(vi) You may use PFD to extract a constant raw or diluted exhaust sample for any steady-state emission sampling.
(e)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(d) * * *
(9)
(e) * * *
(8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (e)(6) and (7) of this section to record data at a minimum of six restrictor positions ranging from the wide open restrictor position to the minimum expected pressure at the PDP inlet.
(c) * * *
(2) You may use an automated procedure to verify balance performance. For example many balances have internal calibration weights that are used automatically to verify balance performance.
(c) * * *
(3) Void the entire test if the engine stalls at any time after emission sampling begins, except as described in § 1065.526. If you do not void the entire test, you must void the individual test mode or test interval in which the engine stalls.
(d) Shut down the engine according to the manufacturer's specifications.
(a) Test modes and test intervals can be voided because of instrument malfunctions, engine stalling, or emissions exceeding instrument ranges. This section specifies circumstances for which a test mode or test interval can be repeated without repeating the entire test.
(b) This section is intended to result in replicate test modes and test intervals that are identical to what would have occurred if the cause of the voiding had not occurred. It does not allow you to repeat test modes or test intervals in any circumstances that would be inconsistent with good engineering judgment. For example, the procedures specified here for repeating a mode or interval may not apply for certain engines that include hybrid energy storage features or emission controls that involve physical or chemical storage of pollutants. This section applies for circumstances in which emission concentrations exceed the analyzer range only if it is due to operator error or analyzer malfunction. It does not apply for circumstances in which the emission concentrations exceed the range because they were higher than expected.
(c) If one of the modes of a discrete-mode test is voided as provided in this section, you may void the results for that individual mode and continue the test as follows:
(1) If the engine has stalled or been shut down, restart the engine.
(2) Use good engineering judgment to restart the test sequence using the appropriate steps in § 1065.530(b).
(3) Precondition the engine by operating it at the previous mode for approximately the same amount of time it operated at that mode for the previous emission measurement.
(4) Advance to the mode at which the test was interrupted and continue with the duty cycle as specified in the standard-setting part.
(d) If a transient or ramped-modal cycle test interval is voided as provided in this section, you may repeat the test interval as follows:
(1) Use good engineering judgment to restart (as applicable) and precondition the engine and emission sampling system to the same condition as would apply for normal testing. This may require you to complete the voided test interval. For example, you may generally repeat a hot-start test of a heavy-duty highway engine after completing the voided hot-start test and allowing the engine to soak for 20 minutes.
(2) Complete the remainder of the test according to the provisions in this subpart.
(e) Keep records from the voided test mode or test interval in the same manner as required for unvoided tests, and include a description of the reason for voiding the test mode or test interval.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) For the entire duty cycle and for each measured exhaust constituent, the difference between the uncorrected and corrected composite brake-specific emission values over the entire duty cycle is within ± 4% of the uncorrected value or the applicable emission standard, whichever is greater. Note that for purposes of drift validation using composite brake-specific emission values over the entire duty cycle, leave unaltered any negative emission results over a given test interval (
(2) For standards consisting of combined, individual measurements of exhaust constituents (such as NO
(i) For each test interval of the duty cycle and for each individually measured exhaust constituent (
(ii) For each test interval of the duty cycle or for the entire duty cycle the difference between the combined (
(4) The provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) apply for measurement of pollutants other than CO
(c) * * *
(5) The following example illustrates the use of the governing equations to calculate the discharge coefficient,
γ = 1.399
β = 0.8
Δ
(c)
(b) * * *
(2) For nonmethane cutters, calculate
(i) Use the following equation for penetration fractions determined using an NMC configuration as outlined in § 1065.365(d):
(ii) For penetration fractions determined using an NMC configuration as outlined in section § 1065.365(e), use the following equation:
(iii) For penetration fractions determined using an NMC configuration as outlined in section § 1065.365(f), use the following equation:
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(xi) N
(c) * * *
(6) What are the limits on ambient conditions for field testing? Note that the ambient condition limits in § 1065.520 do not apply for field testing. Field testing may occur at any ambient temperature, pressure, and humidity unless otherwise specified in the standard-setting part.
(d) * * *
(2) Use equipment specifications in § 1065.101 and in the sections from § 1065.140 to the end of subpart B of this part, with the exception of § 1065.140(e)(1) and (4), § 1065.170(c)(1)(vi), and § 1065.195(c). Section 1065.910 identifies additional equipment that is specific to field testing.
(i) For PM samples, configure dilution systems as follows:
(A) Use good engineering judgment to control diluent (i.e., dilution air) temperature. If you choose to directly and actively control diluent temperature, set the temperature to 25 °C.
(B) Control sample temperature to a (32 to 62) °C tolerance, as measured anywhere within 20 cm upstream or downstream of the PM storage media (such as a filter or oscillating crystal), where the tolerance applies only during sampling.
(C) Maintain filter face velocity to a (5 to 100) cm/s tolerance for flow-through media. Compliance with this provision can be verified by engineering analysis. This provision does not apply for non-flow-through media.
(ii) For inertial PM balances, there is no requirement to control the stabilization environment temperature or dewpoint.
(a)
(d) * * *
(5)
(iv)
(v)
(a)
(h) Verify the amount of contamination in the PEMS HC sampling system before the start of the field test as follows:
(a) Perform emission calculations as described in § 1065.650 to calculate brake-specific emissions for each test interval using any applicable information and instructions in the standard-setting part.
(b) You may use a fixed molar mass for the diluted exhaust mixture for field testing. Determine this fixed value by engineering analysis.