[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36135-36148]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11979]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1042, 1048, 1054, 1065,
1066, 1068

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0102; FRL 9772-2]
RIN 2060-AR48

Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle, and Nonroad Technical Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend provisions in the Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency final rule issued on
September 15, 2011. These proposed amendments would eliminate
duplicative reporting requirements, reduce inadvertent minor
differences between the EPA and NHTSA programs regarding such matters
as voluntary early model year compliance, better align testing
procedures to market realities, and reduce unnecessary testing burdens.
EPA is also proposing to amend several regulations by: Adjusting the
provisions of the replacement engine exemption; expanding EPA's
discretion to allow greater flexibility under the Transition Program
for Equipment Manufacturers related to the Tier 4 standards for nonroad
diesel engines; specifying multiple versions of the applicable SAE
standard for demonstrating that fuel lines for nonroad spark-ignition
engines above 19 kilowatts meet permeation requirements; and allowing
for the use of the ethanol-based test fuel specified by the California
Air Resources Board for nonroad spark-ignition engines at or below 19
kilowatts. Some of the individual provisions of this action may have
minor impacts on the costs and emission reductions of the underlying
regulatory programs amended in this action, though in most cases these
are simple technical amendments. For those provisions that may have a
minor impact on the costs or benefits of the amended regulatory
program, any potential impacts would be small and we have not attempted
to quantify the potential changes.

DATES: Comments on all aspects of this proposal must be received on or
before July 17, 2013. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section on
``Public Participation'' for more information about written comments.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0102, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket, Mail-code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0102. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0102. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section on ``Public
Participation'' for additional instructions on submitting written
comments.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., information claimed as
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Cullen, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment
and Standards Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan
48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This proposed action would affect companies that manufacture, sell,
or import into the United States new heavy-duty engines and new Class
2b through 8 vehicles, including combination tractors, school and
transit buses, vocational vehicles such as utility service trucks, as
well as \3/4\-ton and 1-ton pickup trucks and vans. The heavy-duty
category incorporates all motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating of 8,500 pounds or greater, and the engines that power them,
except for medium-duty passenger vehicles already covered by the
greenhouse gas emissions standards and corporate average fuel economy
standards issued for light-duty model year 2012-2016 vehicles (75 FR at
25324, May 7, 2010).
    This proposed action also would affect nonroad engine
manufacturers.
    Regulated categories and entities would include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Examples of potentially
            Category             NAICS Code \a\     affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................          336111  Motor Vehicle
                                         336112   Manufacturers, Engine
                                         333618   and Truck
                                         336120   Manufacturers.
Industry.......................          541514  Commercial Importers of
                                         811112   Vehicles and Vehicle
                                         811198   Components.

Industry.......................          336111  Alternative Fuel
                                         336112   Vehicle Converters.
                                         422720
                                         454312
                                         541514
                                         541690
                                         811198
                                         336510
Industry.......................          811310  Engine Repair,
                                                  Remanufacture, and
                                                  Maintenance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely covered by this proposed
rule. This table lists the types of entities that the agency is aware
may be regulated by this proposed action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your
activities would be regulated by this proposed action, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria in the referenced
regulations. You may direct questions regarding the applicability of
this proposed action to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?

    Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0102. EPA's
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

(1) Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     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 in the DATES section above.

(2) How do I submit confidential business information?

    Do not submit CBI to EPA through www.regulations.gov or email.
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

(3) Will the agency consider late comments?

    EPA will consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To
the extent practicable, we will also consider comments received after
that date. If interested persons believe that any new information the
agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit
comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should
consider that information for the final rule. However, the agency's
ability to consider any such late comments in this rulemaking will be
limited due to the time frame for issuing the final rule.
    If a comment is received too late for us to practicably consider in
developing the final rule, we will consider that comment as an informal
suggestion for future rulemaking action.

(4) How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the materials placed in the dockets for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the EPA Docket Center by going to the street
addresses given above under ADDRESSES.

I. Direct Final Rule

    In addition to this notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA is also
publishing a Direct Final Rule (DFR) addressing provisions described in
Sections III and IV of this document. We are doing this to expedite the
regulatory process to allow the amendments to occur as soon

as possible. However, if we receive relevant adverse comment on
distinct elements of any of the provisions in this proposal by July 17,
2013, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
indicating which provisions we are withdrawing. Any provisions of the
DFR that are not withdrawn will become effective on August 16, 2013,
notwithstanding adverse comment on any other provision. We will address
all public comments in the final rule based on this proposed rule.
    As noted above, EPA is publishing the DFR to expedite the
regulatory process to allow engine and vehicle certifications and
engine replacements to occur as soon as possible according to the
clarified regulations. We request that commenters identify in your
comments any portions of the proposed action described in Sections II
and III below with which you agree and support as proposed, in addition
to any comments regarding suggestions for improvement or provisions
with which you disagree. In the case of a comment that is otherwise
unclear whether it is adverse, EPA would interpret relevant comments
calling for more flexibility or less restrictions for engines or
vehicles as supportive of the direct final rule. In this way, EPA will
be able to adopt those elements of the DFR that are fully supported and
most needed today, while considering and addressing any adverse
comments received on the proposed rule, in the course of developing the
final rule. See the DFR for the regulatory text associated with this
proposal.
    Note that Docket Number EPA-HQ- OAR-2012-0102 is being used for
both the DFR and this NPRM.

II. Proposed Amendments to the Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Greenhouse
Gas Emission Standards Rule

    EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
developed the first-ever program to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and fuel consumption in the heavy-duty (HD) highway vehicle
sector. The rulemaking was developed as a single, national program with
both EPA and NHTSA promulgating complementary standards that allow
manufacturers to build one set of vehicles to comply with both
agencies' regulations. This broad heavy-duty sector--ranging from large
pickups to sleeper-cab tractors--together represent the second largest
contributor to oil consumption and GHG emissions from the mobile source
sector, after light-duty passenger cars and trucks. The final rule was
published in the Federal Register on September 15, 2011 (76 FR 57106).

A. Background of the HD GHG and Fuel Efficiency Standards and
Amendments

    EPA's GHG standards and NHTSA's fuel consumption standards apply to
manufacturers of the following types of heavy-duty vehicles and their
engines:

 Heavy-duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
 Combination Tractors
 Vocational Vehicles

    The rules include separate standards for the engines that power
combination tractors and vocational vehicles. Certain parts of the
program are exclusive to EPA's GHG standards. These include EPA's final
hydrofluorocarbon standards to control leakage from air conditioning
systems in combination tractors and in pickup trucks and vans. Also
exclusive to the EPA rules are standards for nitrous oxide
(N2O) and methane (CH4) emissions standards that
apply to all heavy-duty engines and to pickup trucks and vans.
    EPA's final greenhouse gas emission standards for heavy-duty
vehicles under the Clean Air Act will begin with model year 2014.
NHTSA's final fuel consumption standards under the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 will be voluntary in model years 2014 and
2015, becoming mandatory with model year 2016 for most regulatory
categories. Both agencies allow manufacturers to comply early in model
year 2013 and promote early compliance by providing incentives to do
so.
    In the final rulemaking, EPA established all-new regulations in 40
CFR parts 1036, 1037, and 1066. EPA also included changes to existing
regulations in 40 CFR parts 85, 86, 1039, 1065, and 1068. Similarly,
NHTSA modified its existing regulations in 49 CFR parts 523 and 534,
and established an all-new regulation in 49 CFR part 535.
    After publication of the heavy-duty rule, EPA and NHTSA began an
extensive outreach effort to aid in the rule's implementation. For
example, EPA and NHTSA held public workshops on November 3, 2011 and
August 10, 2012. In the course of these efforts, the agencies received
a series of comments on specific aspects of the rules and prepared
question and answer responses.\1\ In some cases, it became clear that
minor changes to the rules would better clarify the rule's intent, or
amend the rule to make it more effective. The amendments proposed in
this rule are largely based on these implementation discussions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See U.S. EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regs-heavy-duty.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed revisions related to the heavy-duty GHG emissions
regulations in this proposal are unique to EPA's regulations. Thus,
this section is further divided into subsections related to specific
parts of the Code of Federal Regulations.

B. Proposed Amendments to the Heavy-Duty GHG Regulations

    The following proposed amendments correct minor, technical
inconsistencies and add clarifications to the current regulatory text.
EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 85, 86, 1036, 1037, 1065, and 1066
to correct typographical errors, clarify test procedures and
certification procedures, and correct the regulations to make them
consistent with the intent expressed in the preamble to the final rules
(76 FR 57106). A comparison of the original and proposed regulatory
text is provided in a memorandum to the docket for this rulemaking.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Hicks, M. and A. Cullen. Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0102. Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Fuel Consumption Regulatory Changes. May 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Proposed Regulatory Changes to 40 CFR part 1036
    EPA proposes to amend portions of the regulations in 40 CFR part
1036, as described below.
     Hybrid Testing: Sec. Sec.  1036.525 and 1036.615 specify
requirements for testing hybrid engines and engines with Rankine cycle
waste heat recovery. The regulatory text includes references for
testing ``post-transmission'' and ``pre-transmission'' hybrid systems
in these sections. In a pre-transmission hybrid, the energy from both
the engine and motor is input into the drive shaft prior to the
transmission. In a post-transmission hybrid, the engine energy is input
into the drive shaft prior to the transmission, but the motor energy is
input into the drive shaft after the transmission. Since post-
transmission hybrid architecture is incompatible with engine testing,
EPA proposes to remove the reference to post-transmissions systems in
the hybrid engine test requirements in 40 CFR part 1036. 40 CFR
1037.525, 1037.550, and 1037.615 include requirements for testing post-
transmission hybrids using a vehicle test. EPA anticipates that there
would be no impact on manufacturers by the deletion of this text, since
the vehicle test procedures set out in the regulations specify how to
test post-transmission systems.
     EPA proposes to revise Sec. Sec.  1036.5, 1036.150, and
1036.615 to address typographical issues to correct

regulatory citations within the regulations.
     EPA proposes to correct Sec.  1036.150(g)(2) and (3) to
change the assigned additive deterioration factor (DF) for nitrous
oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) emissions from 0.02
to 0.020 g/hp-hr to account for the appropriate number of significant
digits.
     EPA proposes to amend Sec.  1036.225 to clarify that the
CO2 family emission limit (FEL) is not required on the
emission control information (ECI) label according to the provisions in
Sec.  1036.135.
     EPA proposes to clarify that the CH4 and
N2O emission standards apply to all testable configurations
in Sec.  1036.205.
     EPA proposes to add a definition of ``preliminary
approval'' to Sec.  1036.801.
(2) Proposed Regulatory Changes to 40 CFR Part 1037
    EPA also proposes to revise portions of the regulations in 40 CFR
Part 1037 to correct technical errors and provide additional clarity in
the regulations.
(a) Hybrid Testing
    Sections 1037.525, 1037.550, and 1037.615 describe or reference the
procedure to be used for testing hybrid vehicles with power take off
(PTO) devices on a whole vehicle test. Both pre- and post-transmission
hybrid architectures can be used with power take off (PTO) devices. The
current rule text states that manufacturers could test post-
transmission hybrids on the vehicle test procedure to quantify
CO2 and fuel consumption improvements resulting from running
PTO equipment, but inadvertently excluded pre-transmission hybrid
architecture from being tested on a vehicle test. Since PTO devices can
also be used in hybrid vehicles with pre-transmission architecture, EPA
is proposing to amend the language to allow these pre-transmission
hybrid vehicles with PTO to be tested on the whole vehicle test
procedure.
(b) Advanced Technologies Improvement Factor
    Section 1037.615 describes the procedure for measuring
CO2 improvements from vehicles with hybrid and other
advanced technologies (such as Rankine engines, electric vehicles and
fuel cell vehicles), in order to generate advanced technology
credits.\3\ Section 1037.615 specifies how manufacturers can measure
the effectiveness of the advanced system by chassis-testing a vehicle
equipped with the advanced system and an equivalent conventional
vehicle using the test procedures in 40 CFR Part 1037, subpart F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Advanced technology credits may be increased by a 1.5
multiplier and applied to any heavy-duty vehicle or engine
subcategory with certain maximum limits applying. See 40 CFR
1036.740, 1037.740 and 49 CFR 535.7(e) for description of advanced
technology credit program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effectiveness of the advanced system is calculated by measuring
the CO2 output from chassis tests of the vehicle with the
advanced system and an equivalent conventional vehicle, thereby
obtaining the relative marginal improvement between the two vehicles
(the ``improvement factor''). The ``benefit'' associated with the
advanced system is then calculated by multiplying the Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Model (GEM) result for the vehicle with advanced technology
by the dimensionless improvement factor. The benefit is then converted
to advanced technology credits in a model year for each vehicle family
within an averaging set.
    The final rule specified the procedure for applying an improvement
factor in simulating a chassis test with a post-transmission hybrid
system for A to B testing (Sec.  1037.550), but did not allow the
improvement factor to be applied to multiple vehicle configurations
having the same advanced technology (Sec.  1037.615). The post-
transmission system test procedure specifically allows the application
of an improvement factor or test results to multiple vehicle
configurations, as long as the values used for the calculations
``represent the vehicle configuration with the smallest potential
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the hybrid
capability'' and are consistent with good engineering judgment. EPA
proposes to amend the regulatory text that describes the measurement of
advanced technology improvement to include this specification as well.
    EPA proposes to revise Sec.  1037.615 to allow manufacturers to
generate advanced technology credits from multiple heavy-duty vehicle
configurations within a vehicle family group by testing a single
vehicle of that group, provided the vehicle tested has the smallest
potential reduction in fuel consumption of the vehicles with advanced
technology capability. EPA anticipates that this proposed change may
reduce testing and reporting costs for manufacturers while still
allowing flexibility in choosing to test additional configurations
within the family group. By limiting the use of this testing option to
vehicles with the smallest potential reduction in emissions (or fuel
consumption), emission reductions would not be compromised.

(c) Optional Certification for Up to Class 6 Spark-Ignition Engine
Vehicles

    Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans are pickup trucks and vans with a
gross vehicle weight rating between 8,501 pounds and 14,000 pounds
(Class 2b through 3 vehicles) manufactured as complete vehicles by a
single or final stage manufacturer or manufactured as incomplete
vehicles as designated by a manufacturer. Under the GHG rule, these
vehicles are certified on a chassis dynamometer test, as opposed to the
GEM simulation tool used to certify the vocational and tractor
categories. NHTSA's current regulations allow Classes 4 and 5 spark-
ignition vehicles the option of certifying on a chassis dynamometer
test, as those vehicles may have more similar characteristics to a
Class 2b-3 pickup or van than they do other vehicles in their class. At
the time of the final rule, NHTSA was unaware of any higher class spark
ignition vehicles that would be similarly appropriate to test on a
chassis dynamometer. EPA's current regulations allow spark-ignition
vehicles of all classes the option of certifying on a chassis
dynamometer test.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 40 CFR 1037.15(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed amendment would align the regulatory texts by closing
the current gap between NHTSA and EPA's optional certification
provisions. EPA therefore proposes to allow manufacturers of complete
or cab-complete vehicles up to and including Class 6 that have spark-
ignition engines the option of chassis dynamometer certification. See
references in Sec. Sec.  1037.104 and 1037.150.

(d) Configuration and Subconfiguration Definitions

    The existing EPA regulations contain definitions for
``configuration'' and ``subconfiguration,'' which define how to group
vehicles by similar characteristics within a test group when conducting
testing to determine CO2 emissions for heavy-duty pickup
trucks and vans. ``Configuration'' means a subclassification within a
test group that is based on engine code, transmission type and gear
ratios, final drive ratio and other parameters that EPA designates.
Likewise, ``subconfiguration'' means a unique combination within a
vehicle configuration of equivalent test weight, road-load horsepower,
and any other operational characteristics or parameters that EPA
determines may significantly affect CO2 emissions within a
vehicle configuration.

    The current definitions could be specified further according to
established principles to prevent any ambiguity for manufacturers in
conducting testing for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans. The terms
``transmission type'' and ``engine code'' can be further defined in the
definition for ``configuration,'' to reflect common industry
understanding of the terms. In addition, the term ``equivalent test
weight'' could be further defined in the definition for
``subconfiguration'' to carryover the existing definition included in
Sec.  1037.104(d)(11). Therefore, EPA is proposing to add these further
details to clarify these terms in Sec.  1037.104(d)(12).

(e) Vocational Tractor Vehicle Families

    The regulatory text in 40 CFR 1037.230 related to vocational
tractor families is unintentionally ambiguous, and is inconsistent
with, the preamble and other regulatory text. In the vocational tractor
provisions of Sec.  1037.630(b)(2), EPA requires that tractors
``reclassified under this provision must be certified as a separate
vehicle family. However, they remain part of the vocational regulatory
subcategory and averaging set that applies to their weight class.''
Although Sec.  1037.630(b)(2) requires two vocational tractor families
dependent on the GVWR of the vehicle, the text in Sec.  1037.230(a)(1)
implies only a single vocational tractor family default. This
inconsistency is the result of an oversight when provisions were added
allowing tractors to certify as vocational vehicles, and it is
inconsistent with the way vehicle families are treated throughout the
program, where they are split by weight class (76 FR at 57240,
September 15, 2011). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise Sec.
1037.230(a)(1) to be consistent with Sec.  1037.630(b)(2) by splitting
the vocational vehicles families into two groups, those above 33,000
pounds GVWR and those above 26,000 pounds GVWR and at or below 33,000
pounds GVWR.

(f) 40 CFR Part 1037 Aerodynamic Assessment

    A vehicle's design impacts the amount of power that is required to
move the vehicle down the road. Depending on the vehicle speed, two of
the largest impacts on GHG emissions and fuel consumption are
aerodynamics and tire rolling resistance. As part of the Heavy-Duty GHG
and Fuel Efficiency rule, manufacturers are required to meet vehicle-
based GHG emissions and fuel efficiency standards. Compliance with the
vehicle standard for combination tractors is determined based on a
vehicle simulation tool called the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model
(GEM). Various characteristics of the vehicle are measured and these
measurements are used as inputs to the model. These characteristics
relate to key technologies appropriate for this subcategory of truck--
including aerodynamic features, weight reductions, tire rolling
resistance, the presence of idle-reducing technology, and vehicle speed
limiters. See generally 76 FR 57135.
    The aerodynamic drag of a vehicle is determined by the vehicle's
coefficient of drag (Cd), frontal area, air density and speed. As noted
in the Heavy-Duty GHG and Fuel Efficiency rule, quantifying truck
aerodynamics as an input to the GEM presents technical challenges
because of the proliferation of vehicle configurations, the lack of a
clearly preferable standardized test method, and subtle variations in
measured aerodynamic values among various test procedures (76 FR 57148-
57151). Class 7 and 8 tractor aerodynamics are currently developed by
manufacturers using a range of techniques, including wind tunnel
testing, computational fluid dynamics, and constant speed tests.
    We developed a broad approach that allows manufacturers to use
these multiple different test procedures to demonstrate aerodynamic
performance of the tractor fleet given that no single test procedure is
superior in all aspects to other approaches. Allowing manufacturers to
use multiple test procedures and modeling coupled with good engineering
judgment to determine aerodynamic performance is consistent with the
current approach used in determining representative road load forces
for light-duty vehicle testing (40 CFR 86.129-00(e)(1)). However, we
also recognize the need for consistency and a level playing field in
evaluating aerodynamic performance.
    EPA and NHTSA developed a bin structure to group aerodynamic test
results for the proposed rulemaking, and adjusted the method used to
determine the bins in the final rule. The agencies, while working with
industry, developed an approach for the final rulemaking which
identified a reference aerodynamic test method and a procedure to align
results from other aerodynamic test procedures with the reference
method, an enhanced coastdown procedure. Manufacturers are able to use
any aerodynamic evaluation method in demonstrating a vehicle's
aerodynamic performance as long as the method is aligned to the
reference method.
    As discussed in the final rule, the agencies adopted aerodynamic
technology bins which divide the wide spectrum of tractor aerodynamics
into five bins (i.e., categories) for high roof tractors (see 76 FR
57149). The first high roof category, Bin I, is designed to represent
tractor bodies that prioritize appearance or special duty capabilities
over aerodynamics. These Bin I trucks incorporate few, if any,
aerodynamic features and may have several features that detract from
aerodynamics, such as bug deflectors, custom sunshades, B-pillar
exhaust stacks, and others. The second high roof aerodynamics category
is Bin II, which roughly represents the aerodynamic performance of the
average new tractor sold today. The agencies developed this bin to
incorporate conventional tractors that capitalize on a generally
aerodynamic shape and avoid classic features which increase drag. High
roof tractors within Bin III build on the basic aerodynamics of Bin II
tractors with added components to reduce drag in the most significant
areas on the tractor, such as integral roof fairings, side extending
gap reducers, fuel tank fairings, and streamlined grill/hood/mirrors/
bumpers, similar to SmartWay trucks today. The Bin IV aerodynamic
category for high roof tractors builds upon the Bin III tractor body
with additional aerodynamic treatments such as underbody airflow
treatment, down exhaust, and lowered ride height, among other
technologies. And finally, Bin V tractors incorporate advanced
technologies that are currently in the prototype stage of development,
such as advanced gap reduction, rearview cameras to replace mirrors,
wheel system streamlining, and advanced body designs.
    EPA and NHTSA developed the aerodynamic drag area, CdA, bin values
for the tractor categories based on coastdown testing conducted by EPA
using the enhanced coastdown test procedures adopted for the final HD
GHG and Fuel Efficiency rulemaking. EPA tested high roof sleeper cab
combination tractors from each of the manufacturers in order to
represent the aerodynamic performance that we would expect from a Bin
III vehicle. The test results used for the HD GHG and Fuel Efficiency
final rule are included in Table II-1 below.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ U.S. EPA and NHTSA. Final Rulemaking to Establish Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Regulatory Impact Analysis.
August 2011. Page 2-48.

                            Table II-1--Tractor CdA Values Used in HD GHG Final Rule
                                         [Class 8 high roof sleeper cab]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Truck                          Expected bin                   Source              CdA (m\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B-3JM2-2H-TXCR..........................  Bin III...................  EPA Test Program..........             6.4
B-3JM2-4N-TXCR..........................  Bin III-IV................  EPA Test Program..........             5.7
B-3JM2-2K-TXCR..........................  Bin III...................  EPA Test Program..........             6.3
C-3JM2-1B-TXCR..........................  Bin III...................  EPA Test Program..........             6.2
C-3JE2-1F-TXCR..........................  Bin II-III................  EPA Test Program..........             6.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of EPA's quality checks to the enhanced coastdown test
program, EPA supplied OEMs with the coastdown test data for their
individual trucks. Through post-rulemaking work with one OEM, EPA found
an error in the data attributable to a testing contractor. The
contractor had entered the same coastdown run twice into the dataset
provided to EPA for one of the trucks tested (one of 20 repeat runs was
entered twice). As a result the truck appeared to have a CdA value of
5.7, rather than its actual value of 6.6. As such, the data that should
have been used to establish the aerodynamic bins for the high roof
sleeper cabs are listed in Table II-2.

                                Table II-2--Tractor CdA Values Used in This NPRM
                                         [Class 8 high roof sleeper cab]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Truck                          Expected bin                   Source              CdA (m\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B-3JM2-2H-TXCR..........................  Bin III...................  EPA Test Program..........             6.4
B-3JM2-4N-TXCR..........................  Bin III...................  EPA Test Program..........             6.6
B-3JM2-2K-TXCR..........................  Bin III...................  EPA Test Program..........             6.3
C-3JM2-1B-TXCR..........................  Bin III-IV................  EPA Test Program..........             6.2
C-3JE2-1F-TXCR..........................  Bin II-III................  EPA Test Program..........             6.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the coastdown test is an input into the aerodynamic bins, EPA
proposes to correct the CdA range for the affected bin levels. The
proposed adjustment to the ranges would allow Bin III, which represents
a SmartWay truck, to still mean exactly what was intended in the HD GHG
and Fuel Efficiency final rule. The proposed Bins IV and V adjustments
would require the same level of improvement we expected in the HD GHG
and Fuel Efficiency final rule. This proposed amendment is a
correction, so will not change the standards or the costs or projected
emissions reductions. The HD GHG and Fuel Efficiency rulemaking
estimates of technology costs and the resulting aerodynamic efficiency
improvements were made separately from the test procedure normalization
reflected in the bin tables. Those cost and technical feasibility
assessments set the absolute values of the steps in the table, where
the testing results of the five tractors in Table II-2 set the range of
Bin III against which the rest of the aerodynamic bins are defined.
Since EPA is not proposing to change either the technical descriptions
of the bins or the estimates of the aerodynamic loss or benefits in
moving between bins in the table, EPA is estimating no change in HD GHG
and Fuel Efficiency final rulemaking costs or benefits. EPA is also not
proposing to change the input into GEM related to each aerodynamic bin;
therefore, this proposed change would have no impact on the GHG or on
fuel consumption standards.
    EPA proposes to make the adjustments shown in Table II-3 to correct
the technical error in the coastdown data used in the HD GHG and Fuel
Efficiency final rule. The proposed bin value adjustments would be used
by manufacturers to certify their vehicles in their 2013 MY and later
end of year reports.

            Table II-3--Proposed Table in Sec.   1037.520(b)
                        [High-roof sleeper cabs]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 If your measured CDA  (m\2\) is .   Then your bin level   Then your CD
                . .                       is . . .        input is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>= 7.6............................  Bin I...............            0.75
6.8-7.5...........................  Bin II..............            0.68
6.3-6.7...........................  Bin III.............            0.60
5.6-6.2...........................  Bin IV..............            0.52
<=5.5.............................  Bin V...............            0.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(g) Other 40 CFR Part 1037 Proposed Amendments

     Heavy-Duty Pickup Truck and Van Regulations: EPA proposes
to amend several provisions in Sec. Sec.  1037.15 and 1037.104 to
specify which parts of 40 CFR part 86 apply to these vehicles and to
specifically reference portions of 40 CFR part 86 in 40 CFR part 1037.
EPA also proposes to revise the language in Sec.  1037.150(a)(2) to
make it consistent with the preamble to the final rule, which
stipulates that the entire heavy-duty pickup truck and van fleet must
be certified to qualify for early credits (see 76 FR 57245). Also, EPA
proposes to clarify how heavy-duty pickup truck and van
subconfigurations are selected for testing in Sec.  1037.104(d)(9)(i)
through (iii). EPA is also proposing to revise Sec.
1037.104(g)(2)(ii), (g)(2)(iv), and (g)(5) to clarify the approach for
estimating analytically derived CO2 emission rates (ADCs).
     Air Conditioning (A/C) Leakage Provisions: The MY2017-2025
Light-Duty GHG and Fuel Economy Rule separated 40 CFR 86.1866 into four
sections for clarity. The A/C leakage section moved to 40 CFR 86.1867-
12. Thus, EPA proposes to amend Sec.  1037.115 to reflect this change.
In addition, EPA proposes to revise Sec.  1037.115 because the
procedure for determining the hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) leakage rate for
air conditioning systems with alternate refrigerants is already
addressed in SAE J2727, which is incorporated by reference in 40 CFR
86.1, and therefore does not need to be included in Sec.  1037.115.
     Labeling clarification: EPA proposes to clarify in Sec.
1037.135 that the emission control label for the vehicle only requires
a statement regarding the size of the fuel tank for vehicles that
contain an evaporative canister for controlling emissions.
     Typographical fixes: EPA proposes to address the
typographical errors in

Sec.  1037.135 relative to labeling, Sec.  1037.501 related to the
trailer specification, and Sec.  1037.520 which includes a weight
reduction explanation.
     EPA proposes to clarify that the general requirements for
obtaining a certificate of conformity and EPA's authority to perform
confirmatory testing on vehicles, including the vehicles used to
determine Falt-aero (see Sec.  1037.201).
     EPA proposes to revise Sec.  1037.550 to change the
nomenclature used for the vehicle speed variable from S to v to be
consistent with 40 CFR part 1065. EPA is also proposing to remove the
torque control option for testing post-transmission hybrid systems
because it causes testing issues when the vehicle is shifting and
braking and by removing the torque control mode from the dynamometer
control options it would reduce lab-to-lab variability.
     EPA proposes to clarify the regulatory text in Sec.
1037.620(a)(3) for instances where the secondary manufacturer who would
hold the vehicle GHG certificate may be a small business that would be
exempted from the GHG regulations.
     EPA proposes to revise Sec.  1037.660 related to the
automatic engine shutdown (AES) provisions. Sec.  1037.660(c) currently
allows manufacturers to obtain a discounted credit for installing AES
systems that expire prior to the end of the vehicle's life based on the
ratio of the set point relative to 1,259,000 miles.\6\ EPA is not
revising that provision, except to change the regulatory provision
numbering from Sec.  1037.660(c) to Sec.  1037.660(c)(1). EPA is not
revising that provision. However, similar to the reasons which
supported the development of vehicle speed limiter flexibilities, an
automatic engine shutdown system could be developed to alleviate other
potential concerns that impede its adoption. For example, some amount
of idling may be needed for truckers who experience significant ambient
temperature excursions that would necessitate extended idling or for
idle reduction technologies, such as auxiliary power units, that
malfunction and necessitate extended idling. A remedy to these concerns
would be to design the AES such that it allows for a predetermined
number of hours per year of idling. EPA is proposing to add Sec.
1037.660(c)(2) to appropriately quantify the CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption of a partial AES system by discounting the AES
input to GEM. EPA is using an assumption of 1,800 hours as the annual
idling time in the calculation, which is consistent with the final rule
(76 FR 57154). EPA used 1,800 hours as the annual idling time for
sleeper cabs because it reasonably reflects the available range of
idling time cited in several studies, as discussed in the preamble to
the final rule and in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (pages 2-67
and 2-68).\7\ The 1,800 hours of idling was used in the final rule to
determine the credit of 5 grams of CO2 per ton-mile for the
use of AES systems (page 2-68 of the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The basis for the lifetime mileage assumption for heavy-duty
tractors is discussed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Final Rule on page 2-69. Available in Docket  EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0162-3634.
    \7\ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking to Establish
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. August 2011. Available
in Docket  EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-3634.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     EPA proposes to add a provision to Sec.  1037.745. This
new proposed provision would clarify manufacturers' liability for
offsetting debits (or deficit credits) after certifying with emissions
above the standards for three years. We want to avoid claims that the
statute of limitations starts to apply in the first year of using
debits, since this could significantly limit our ability to adequately
enforce the requirement. We have generally adopted this approach in
other rules that allow debits to be carried forward a given number of
model years and are later offset with credits (40 CFR 86.1861-04(e),
86.1864-10(o), and 86.1865-12(k)).
     EPA proposes to add a definition of ``preliminary
approval'' to Sec.  1037.801.
     EPA proposes to revise the ``Regulatory Sub-category''
definitions in Sec.  1037.801 to match the definition of ``Class'' in
40 CFR 1037.801, be consistent with DOT's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
Classes in Table II of 49 CFR 565.15, and aggregate the heavy-duty
pickup truck and van sub-category to match the definition in 49 CFR
535.4.
(3) Proposed Regulatory Changes to 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066
    EPA proposes to restore text to Sec.  1065.610(c)(3)(i) through
(iii) which was inadvertently removed in the final rule for Category 3
marine diesel engines (75 FR 22896, April 30, 2010). This text was most
recently published in the final rule adopting standards for locomotive
engines and Category 1 and Category 2 marine diesel engines (73 FR
37325, June 30, 2008).
    EPA is also proposing to revise portions of the regulations in 40
CFR part 1066 to clarify test procedures. Specifically, we propose to
revise Sec.  1066.310(b) to clarify the coastdown process and simplify
the anemometer calibration process.
(4) Proposed Regulatory Changes to 40 CFR Part 85
    EPA proposes to revise Sec.  85.525 to separate the light-duty and
heavy-duty fuel conversion regulations to provide clarity regarding the
applicability of the fuel conversion regulations to heavy-duty pickup
trucks and vans.
(5) Proposed Regulatory Changes to 40 CFR Part 86
    EPA is also proposing to revise portions of the regulations in 40
CFR part 86. First, EPA is revising Sec.  86.010-18(q) to provide a
mechanism for engine manufacturers to identify engines which are only
suitable for installation in hybrid applications due to the on-board
diagnostics (OBD) calibration. Manufacturers who opt to produce a
unique set of engines for hybrid applications will include a compliance
statement on the ECI label that states ``for use in hybrid applications
only.''
    Second, EPA proposes to revise portions of Sec.  86.1865-12 to
clarify the provisions that specifically apply to the heavy-duty pickup
trucks and vans subject to 40 CFR 1037.104.
    Third, EPA proposes to remove Sec. Sec.  86.007-23(n) and 86.1844-
01(j), which describe how to report CO2, N2O, and
CH4 emissions. There is no need or benefit for manufacturers
to submit greenhouse gas emission data in the model years before
emission standards apply for those pollutants.
(6) Summary of Proposed Heavy-Duty GHG Amendments
    EPA does not expect that these proposed revisions to 40 CFR parts
85, 86, 1036, 1037, 1065, and 1066 would have any adverse cost impact
to the manufacturers. There are no testing costs associated with the
proposed revisions. There would be no environmental impact associated
with this regulatory action because this proposed rulemaking would not
change the heavy-duty engine and vehicle greenhouse gas emission
standards that manufacturers have to meet; it simply makes some minor
amendments to the regulations.

III. Other Technical Amendments

A. Replacement Engines

    In 1996, EPA adopted a provision allowing manufacturers in limited
circumstances to produce new, exempt engines for replacing failed
engines (61 FR 58102, November 12, 1996). With this approach,
manufacturers have been able to make new, exempt engines in

cases where engines certified to current standards do not have the
physical or performance characteristics needed to power the equipment
with the old engine. Without this provision, some equipment owners
would have been forced to prematurely scrap otherwise working equipment
(sometimes worth millions of dollars), because no engine meeting
current emission standards could be adapted for installation in the
space occupied by the original engine.
    EPA later added language to the replacement engine exemption to
address the complications related to producing partially complete
engines for replacement purposes, and to address the need to produce
and sell replacement engines such that they would be available to
operators with a critical need to avoid extended downtime in the case
of engine failure (73 FR 59034, October 8, 2008). This expanded
approach allowed manufacturers to sell a limited number of new, exempt
replacement engines without taking the steps that would otherwise be
required to document the need for the exemption and to arrange for the
proper disposition of the old engine. Along with this expanded
approach, EPA added circumvention language to describe the overall
purpose of the replacement engine exemption in an attempt to prevent
manufacturers and operators from using exempted engines in ways that
were unnecessary and/or detrimental to the environment. In particular,
this text states that the provisions Sec.  1068.240 are ``intended to
allow for replacement of engines that fail prematurely . . .'' This
language has been interpreted to mean that replacement engines may be
used for no other purpose.
    Since then, EPA has found that the circumvention language has had
some unintended consequences. For example, California has adopted
requirements for operators to reduce emissions from in-use equipment,
which has led to a desire to install new replacement engines that are
cleaner than the old engines. It is often the case that it is
infeasible or impractical to install replacement engines certified to
current standards, but suitable replacement engines designed to meet an
intermediate level of emission standards are available. The
circumvention language may prevent operators in California from
achieving overall emission reductions that would result from upgrading
their existing equipment with cleaner engines in this manner. It may
also be the case that an engine will simply wear out, rather than
experiencing premature failure, well before the equipment in which it
is installed is at the end of its life. Under the current regulation,
an operator under these circumstances would need to install a new
engine certified to current standards, or find a used engine, to keep
the equipment operating.
    EPA continues to believe that new, exempt replacement engines
should only be used in cases where a currently certified engine cannot
practically be installed to power the old equipment. EPA believes the
regulatory language without our description of intent to prevent
circumvention serves this purpose without the unintended consequences
described above. EPA is therefore proposing to remove the circumvention
provisions from the regulations in Sec.  1068.240. EPA expects
manufacturers and operators following the regulations to continue to
use the exemption provisions appropriately and not for the purpose of
circumventing the emission standards. EPA is proposing to add language
to explicitly limit this provision to equipment that has been in
service 25 years or less (at the point of installation) so that
manufacturers and operators do not use this provision to keep in
operation older dirtier, equipment beyond the normal lifetime of the
equipment, by continually using new engines to replace old engines. EPA
has adopted this same restriction for stationary engines under 40 CFR
60.4210(i), except that the maximum equipment age is 15 years. EPA will
continue to monitor compliance with the exemption provisions and will
consider any appropriate changes to the regulation in the future to
ensure that the exemption is properly used toward this purpose. This
proposed 25-year limit would not apply for marine diesel engines, since
those engines are subject to separate replacement engine provisions.
    The proposed tracked option specified in Sec.  1068.240(b) also
includes an additional step to qualify for the replacement engine
exemption for equipment not experiencing premature engine failure. In
particular, manufacturers would need to make a determination that the
replacement engine is designed with the greatest degree of emission
control that is available for the particular application. For example,
if the engine being replaced was built before the Tier 1 standards
started to apply and engines of that size are currently subject to Tier
2 standards, the manufacturer would need to also consider whether it
produces any Tier 1 or Tier 2 engines with the appropriate physical and
performance characteristics for replacing the old engine. If the
manufacturer produces a Tier 1 engine with the appropriate physical and
performance characteristics, engines emitting at levels above the Tier
1 standards would not qualify for an exemption. The proposed
requirement to use the cleanest available engine fits with the intent
of facilitating voluntary incentive programs involving replacement
engine upgrades toward the goal of reducing emissions from in-use
equipment, but without imposing a requirement that would involve new
technology development or impractical equipment design changes. This
provision has already been in place for marine diesel engines in Sec.
1042.615. In the case of equipment experiencing premature engine
failure, we would continue to apply the simpler requirement that the
replacement engine must meet emission standards that are the same as or
better than the standards that apply to the old engine.
    EPA is also proposing to adjust the provisions related to the
disposition of the old engine in Sec.  1068.240(b). To be re-introduced
into U.S. commerce, the old engine must either meet current emission
standards or qualify for an exemption as if it were a new engine. The
old engine could be re-used as a replacement engine for a different
piece of equipment. Under this proposed approach, an engine made from
all new parts and an engine built with a used engine block and any mix
of new or used additional parts would be treated the same way. For
example, the recycled replacement engine would be subject to all the
demonstrations and documentation requirements of Sec.  1068.240(b), and
it would count toward the allowance to produce a limited number of
replacement engines under Sec.  1068.240(c). For engines that are not
re-introduced into U.S. commerce, manufacturers must destroy the old
engine or confirm that it has been destroyed. These proposed changes
would further address the concern expressed in the circumvention
language described above; in particular, EPA believes it is necessary
to prevent the possibility of these old engines being installed in new
equipment.
    EPA is also proposing some clarification to the regulations to
address questions that have arisen, as well as making the following
changes:
     Proposing revision of the labeling requirements to account
for the possibility of using a new replacement engine to replace a
previously exempted replacement engine. To the extent that the proposed
revised label statement differs from that specified by California ARB,
we would expect to approve an adjusted statement that allows for a

single, 50-state label under Sec.  1068.201(c).
     Proposing to adjust the reporting deadline for untracked
replacement engines under Sec.  1068.240(c). This proposed change would
allow manufacturers some time after the end of the calendar year to
make the determinations and to take the required steps to fulfill the
tracking requirements for replacement engines under Sec.  1068.240(b).
Any engines for which these steps and determinations are incomplete by
the deadline for the report would need to be counted as untracked
replacement engines. Further, to account for prevailing practices and
typical timelines for replacement engines, we would move back the
deadline for this report from February 15 to March 31.
     Proposing to revise Sec.  1068.240(c)(1) to specify that
manufacturers may base sales limits for the untracked option on total
U.S. production of certified and exempted engines together (including
stationary engines).
     Proposing to add language to clarify that Sec.
1068.240(e) applies only for engines produced under a current, valid
certificate. An exemption under Sec.  1068.240(b) or (c) would be
required to produce an engine that is identical to one that is no
longer certified, even if the engine was formerly certified to
standards (or a Family Emission Limits) that are at least as stringent
as the current standards.
     Proposing clarifications to the provisions in Sec.
1068.240(d) related to partially complete engines also apply for
``current-tier'' replacement engines exempted under Sec.  1068.240(e).
     Proposing to add a statement to Sec.  1042.615 for marine
diesel engines to clarify our pre-determination that certified Tier 4
engines do not have the appropriate physical and performance
characteristics for replacing older engines in marine vessels. This
policy was established in our June 30, 2008 final rule (see 73 FR
37157).
    In addition, we are proposing to revise Sec.  1068.1 to correct two
errors regarding the applicability of part 1068. First, we propose to
restore highway motorcycles to the list of categories that are not
subject to part 1068. This was added, but then inadvertently removed,
when we were completing two parallel rulemakings. Second, we are
proposing to add a reference to 40 CFR part 85 to identify how part
1068 applies in certain circumstances for heavy-duty highway engines.
These proposed changes are intended to clarify and reinforce existing
requirements without modifying the underlying programs in any way.

B. Nonroad Diesel Engine Technical Hardship Program

    EPA is proposing to amend the nonroad diesel engine technical
hardship program to facilitate EPA granting exemptions to address
certain hardship circumstances that were not considered when the
original 2004 final rule was published. EPA adopted Tier 4 standards
for nonroad diesel engines under 40 CFR part 1039 in 2004 (69 FR 38958,
June 29, 2004). To meet these standards, engine manufacturers are
pursuing development of advanced technologies, including new approaches
for exhaust aftertreatment. Equipment manufacturers will need to modify
their equipment designs to accommodate these new engine technologies
and the corresponding changes to engine operating parameters (such as
operating temperatures and heat rejection rates). To provide
flexibility for equipment manufacturers in their efforts to respond to
these engine design changes, the Tier 4 standards included the
Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers. Flexibilities allowed
under this program include delaying compliance with small-volume
equipment models for several years or using allowances in the first
year to manage the transition to the Tier 4 engines.
    The Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers is intended to
allow nonroad equipment manufacturers wide discretion to manage their
product development timeline. Equipment manufacturers may comply either
based on a percent of their production (generally for high-volume
manufacturers, as described in Sec.  1039.625(b)(1)), or based on a
maximum number of exempted pieces of equipment (generally for low-
volume manufacturers, as described in Sec.  1039.625(b)(2)). At the
same time, the regulations include at Sec.  1039.625(m) an
acknowledgement that equipment manufacturers might face a wide range of
circumstances, including cases where engine manufacturers might be late
in providing compliant engines to nonintegrated equipment manufacturers
such that the specified allowances are insufficient to avoid a
disruption in the equipment manufacturer's production schedule. The
technical hardship provision at Sec.  1039.625(m) allows EPA to make a
judgment that an equipment manufacturer that buys engines from another
company, through no fault of its own, needs additional allowances to
manage the transition to Tier 4 products. The regulation specifies a
maximum allowance of 150 percent of a manufacturer's annual production
(relative to Sec.  1039.625(b)(1)), or a total of 1,100 allowances
(relative to Sec.  1039.625(b)(2)). The regulation also provides
economic hardship provisions under Sec.  1068.255; however, eligibility
depends on manufacturers showing that their solvency is in jeopardy
without relief. Economic hardship therefore serves as a flexibility
provision of last resort.
    As the compliance dates for the Tier 4 standards approach,
equipment manufacturers have described several scenarios where the
technical hardship provisions are too restrictive to address their
circumstances. For example, engine manufacturers have in some cases
delayed delivery of Tier 4 engines until six or even twelve months
after the Tier 4 standards start to apply, which could force equipment
manufacturers to use up all their allowances under Sec.  1039.625(b) in
the first year of the new standards. The maximum number of allowances
under Sec.  1039.625(m) would cover a good portion of the second year
of the Tier 4 standards, but we have heard how this too is inadequate
to allow equipment manufacturers to respond to late deliveries of
compliant engines.
    As another example where additional flexibility may be warranted,
corporate acquisitions can cause equipment manufacturers to find
themselves disadvantaged with respect to allowances because two
companies have become a single company for purposes of regulatory
compliance. Taken to an extreme, the combined company could exceed its
allowances under Sec.  1039.625(b) on the day of the merger because
each of the separate companies may have used allowances that, taken
together, exceed the specified thresholds for a single company. The
combined company may apply for technical hardship under Sec.
1039.625(m), but we have seen that this too can provide insufficient
relief for equipment manufacturers trying to incorporate Tier 4 engines
into their equipment.
    In these cases, the maximum allowable relief under Sec.
1039.625(m) is insufficient to allow equipment manufacturers to
transition to meeting Tier 4 requirements without disrupting their
ability to continue producing their equipment models. There have also
been cases where a company would meet the criteria to qualify for
consideration for technical hardship under Sec.  1039.625(m) except
that the regulation disallows technical hardship relief for all engines
above 560 kW and provides only limited relief for engines above 37 kW.
The regulation also provides only limited relief for companies that are
not small businesses. In these cases, no additional relief is

available under Sec.  1039.625(m), which again leaves equipment
manufacturers unable to continue producing their equipment models.
    We are proposing to amend the Transition Program for Equipment
Manufacturers in three ways to address these concerns. First, we
propose to remove the qualifying criteria so that any equipment
manufacturer may apply for technical hardship relief under Sec.
1039.625(m) for any size engine, rather than limiting the technical
hardship relief to small businesses and to engines within certain power
categories. We believe it is more appropriate to rely on our discretion
to evaluate each hardship application on its merits rather than
automatically precluding hardship relief based on certain
characteristics of the engine or the company. If hardship relief is not
appropriate because of an engine's power rating or a company's size or
financial standing, we would not approve the request.
    Second, we propose to remove the maximum number of allowances we
can approve under Sec.  1039.625(m), for both percent-of-production
(currently 150 percent) and small-volume allowances (currently 1,100
units), and we propose to remove the deadlines for exercising those
additional allowances. We have learned that the specified restrictions
on hardship allowances are in some cases too limiting to address the
legitimate concerns raised by equipment manufacturers. Again, we
believe it is most appropriate to resolve issues of extent of relief
once an equipment manufacturer has demonstrated that relief is
appropriate, rather than limiting it a priori. We would not approve a
greater number of technical hardship allowances than is needed to meet
the established objectives. Finally, we are proposing additional small-
volume allowances under Sec.  1039.625(b)(2) and (m)(4), where we may
waive the annual limits on the number of allowances instead of or in
addition to granting additional hardship allowances. There may be times
when manufacturers only need approval to use up their regular
allowances at a faster pace than the regulations currently allow.
    An additional concern has come to our attention as it relates to
marine engines. Vessel manufacturers may use certified land-based
engines in marine vessels as long as the engines are not modified from
their certified configuration (see Sec.  1042.605). We adopted this
provision with the understanding that, given the additional
technological challenges of operating engines in a marine environment,
marine standards are set to be no more stringent than land-based
standards and are often set at a level somewhat less stringent than the
standards that apply to the land-based engines. Vessel manufacturers
have used these provisions extensively to access a wide range of engine
models that are not available in a certified marine configuration. The
part 1039 Tier 4 standards have made this more complicated. The Tier 4
standards for land-based engines are much more stringent than the Tier
3 marine standards, which will continue to apply for many Category 1
engines. Engine distributors supplying product to vessel manufacturers
have reported that several engine models will not be available to them
in the transition period. In that way, vessel manufacturers are much
like nonroad equipment manufacturers, except that the vessels are not
actually required to use engines meeting the more stringent standards
now or, for engines below 600 kW, in the foreseeable future. It would
be a natural solution to use allowances under Sec.  1039.625, but the
regulations specifically require that vessel manufacturers may use only
certified land-based engines under Sec.  1042.605. There is a risk that
this gap would significantly limit their ability to continue producing
vessels in the near term. We are proposing to address this by revising
40 CFR part 1042 to specifically allow vessel manufacturers to use
allowances under Sec.  1039.625 for certain model year 2013 engines
installed in marine vessels. This proposed provision would not apply
for engines at or below 19 kW, since the land-based and marine
standards for those engines are very similar. This proposed provision
also would not apply for engines above 600 kW because the dynamic for
designing and certifying those high-power engines allows for a greater
expectation that they will be certified in a marine configuration. We
expect no negative environmental impact because the engines will be
meeting the nonroad Tier 3 standards, which will continue to be at
least as stringent as the standards that currently apply for marine
engines. It is important to note that this is only a temporary measure;
once allowances are no longer available under Sec.  1039.625, vessel
manufacturers will either need to use Tier 4 land-based engines or find
certified Tier 3 marine engines.
    There are further minor proposed changes to the regulations to
clarify some of the detailed transition provisions for nonroad diesel
engines, as follows:
     Proposing to revise Sec.  1039.104(g) to remove the
limitations on the number of engines using the specified alternate FEL
caps. Manufacturers have pointed out that this expanded flexibility
would address the same concerns as described in this section for
transitioning to the Tier 4 standards, but there would be no net
environmental impact since manufacturers would need to produce low-
emission engines that generate emission credits to offset the
additional credits used by transition engines certified to with higher
FELs. We are also proposing to revise the regulation to specify that
the same Temporary Compliance Adjustment Factor is the same whether an
engine is subject to NOx+NMHC standards or NOx-only standards. The
proposed revision also addresses Tier 3 carry-over engines that would
need to certify to the alternate FEL caps after the Tier 4 final
standards take effect.
     Proposing to add text to Sec.  1039.625(e) to clarify that
exempted engines may meet standards that are more stringent than those
specified in the regulation. This proposed change is intended only to
avoid the unintended consequence of disallowing a manufacturer from
making an engine that was cleaner than it needed to be. Even though
these engines are cleaner than they need to be under the replacement-
engine exemption, it is still the case that these engines are being
exempted from the standards that apply for certified engines; as such,
it would be inappropriate for these engines to generate emission
credits.
     Proposing to clarify Sec.  1039.625(e) which alternate
standards apply to exempted engines in cases where there is more than
one set of standards in a given model year. For example, the
appropriate standards for 19-56 kW engines are the Option 1 standards
specified in Sec.  1039.102, and the appropriate standards for bigger
engines are the phase-out standards specified in Sec.  1039.102.
     Proposing to adjust the provision for using interim Tier 4
engines under Sec.  1039.625(a)(2) to require that manufacturers use
engines that are identical to previously certified engines, rather than
requiring that the exempt engines be certified for the new model year.
This addresses an administrative complication related to certifying
exempted engines, without changing the requirements that apply.

C. Large SI Fuel Line Permeation

    EPA is proposing to amend the required version of the SAE procedure
for testing large SI fuel line permeation. In 2002 we adopted
evaporative emission standards for nonroad spark-ignition engines above
19 kW (Large SI engines) (67 FR 68242, November 8,

2002). This rule included a requirement that engines meet a permeation
control standard, that could be demonstrated by using fuel lines
compliant with SAE J2260, the latest version of which had been
completed in 1996 (see 40 CFR 1048.105). This SAE standard effectively
established a level of permeation control that had been widely used
with automotive products. In adopting this requirement, we expected
manufacturers to find ``off-the-shelf'' automotive-grade products for
the nonroad engines and equipment.
    In 2008, we revised this requirement by changing the regulation to
reference the 2004 version of SAE J2260, which had been finalized after
the initial rulemaking (73 FR 59034, October 8, 2008). As noted in our
proposed rule, we understood the purpose and effect of the change in
the SAE standard to be substantive with regard to the permeation
measurement procedure, but not necessarily with regard to the
stringency of the standard. The revised SAE protocol specifies a
tighter numerical standard, but this corresponded to an offsetting
change from a methanol-based test fuel to an ethanol-based test fuel.
Switching to ethanol improves the representativeness of the procedure,
and it is widely understood that ethanol permeates through fuel-system
materials less aggressively than methanol. It is also clear the fuel
change would have a non-uniform effect on different fuel-system
materials, but our overall expectation was that fuel lines meeting the
1996 version of the standard would also meet the 2004 version of the
standard. Following the proposed rule, we received no comments either
supporting or contradicting our understanding that updating to the new
standard would have no significant effect on the stringency or
practicability of the standard.
    Since completing the 2008 rulemaking, we have received information
indicating that the revision of the regulation to refer to the newer
version of SAE J2260 was having a substantive effect on manufacturers'
ability to meet the standard. First, it seems that automotive
manufacturers have moved beyond the SAE J2260 standard to develop their
own proprietary methods of sourcing fuel lines from their suppliers.
Since the evaporative emission standards for automotive products
involve whole-vehicle measurements in an enclosure, manufacturers have
the option to pursue different strategies of balancing emissions from
fuel-line permeation with emissions from other sources. In effect,
there is no longer a level of emission control or a type of fuel line
that we can characterize simply as ``automotive-grade''. It is also the
case that motor vehicle manufacturers buy fuel lines in large
quantities of pre-formed parts, rather than buying large spools of fuel
line that can be cut and formed for a particular application.
    Second, it appears that fuel line suppliers have a very limited
ability or willingness to supply fuel lines that they will describe as
meeting the 2004 version of SAE J2260. It is not clear whether this is
a result of a difference in stringency between the two versions of the
standard, or merely that fuel-line suppliers have moved beyond the SAE
standard to conform to separate specifications from individual
automotive manufacturers. In any case, Large SI equipment is not
manufactured in sufficient numbers to greatly influence the fuel line
manufacturers' activities, which has prevented Large SI equipment
manufacturers from being able to find and use fuel lines meeting the
exact specification in the regulations.
    We are proposing to address this by again revising the regulation,
this time to specify that either the 1996 or 2004 version of SAE J2260
provides an acceptable level of control for producing compliant Large
SI engines and equipment. We do not believe this would have a
significant effect on the stringency of the standard. However, to the
extent that this would modify the stringency of the existing fuel-line
permeation standards at all, it only revises it back to the level of
permeation control that we adopted originally in 2002. We note also
that the regulations from the California Air Resources Board continue
to rely on the 1996 version of SAE J2260. This proposed change
therefore would allow for a unified national approach to fuel-line
permeation standards.

D. Small SI Proposed Amendments

    Since the first emission standards for small spark-ignition (SI)
engines (< 19kW), EPA and the California ARB have required the same
basic exhaust emission test procedures and durability aging
requirements. Both agencies have accepted exhaust emission test results
on either agency's test fuel for purposes of certification. This has
traditionally meant that for small SI engines used in either handheld
or non-handheld equipment, EPA would accept exhaust emission test
results based on either its Indolene test fuel (specified at 40 CFR
1065.710) or on California test fuel (specified at section 2262 in the
California Code of Regulations (13 CCR 2262)). In 2008, when EPA
promulgated the current small SI exhaust emission standards, the
California test fuel, commonly referred to as California Phase 2
gasoline or CA RFG 2, was a seven pound per square inch (psi) Reid
Vapor Pressure (RVP) gasoline which had approximately 11 percent methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) as an oxygenate additive. This test fuel
had been used in the California small off road emission (SORE) program
since 1995.
    Our 2008 final rule included provisions at Sec.  1054.145(k)
indicating that EPA would not accept carryover exhaust emission
certification data on CA RFG 2 after the 2012 model year (73 FR 59034,
October 8, 2008). However, we left open the possibility of continuing
to accept carryover exhaust emission test data on CA RFG 2 subject to
the provisions of 40 CFR 1065.10, 1065.12 and 1065.701, which would
permit EPA to approve its continued use if it does not affect the
manufacturers' ability to show that the affected engines would comply
with all applicable emission standards using the fuel specified by EPA
in 40 CFR 1065.710. Manufacturers have recently provided emissions data
meeting the regulatory requirements listed above and EPA has permitted
the use of CA RFG 2 (California Phase 2 gasoline) for certification for
the 2013 model year.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See EPA Dear Manufacturer Letter CD-12-17 (NRSSI), October
29, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recently, California adopted new requirements for their gasoline
certification test fuel for nonroad engines. Over the period from 2013-
2020, manufacturers must transition from CA RFG 2 to a gasoline
certification test fuel that contains 10 percent ethanol (E10) and has
a seven psi RVP (commonly referred to as California Phase 3 gasoline or
CA RFG 3). This new requirement aligns California test fuels with their
current in-use gasoline.
    Considering this background and recent developments, EPA is
proposing to make two changes to its current regulatory provisions.
First, EPA believes it is appropriate to propose to extend its current
practice of accepting exhaust emission test results for small SI
engines to include CA RFG 3. For the 2013-2019 model years (inclusive),
EPA would accept exhaust emission certification data generated using CA
RFG 3 test fuel. Harmonization with California on test procedures and
test fuel requirements for small spark-ignition engines has significant
value to the engine and equipment manufacturers and users of those
products. It allows for development and

certification of only one engine for a given model or application by
the manufacturer and allows for greater model availability and lower
overall cost due to 50-state production. In addition, E10, which is
used in CA RFG 3, is common in gasoline sold across the U.S. today.
Therefore, permitting the use of CA RFG 3 in emissions certification
would allow test fuel to more closely match the in-use fuel used across
the U.S. Accounting for the ethanol in the fuel is likely to enhance
engine emissions in-use durability, because the presence of oxygen in
the ethanol in the test fuel would need to be accommodated in the
engine calibrations. This would reduce engine operating temperatures
in-use relative to engines calibrated on a test fuel without oxygen.
    While EPA is proposing to accept manufacturer use of CA RFG 3 for
the purposes of testing, EPA is not prepared to propose to accept use
of CA RFG 3 as a fully permissible replacement test fuel for Indolene.
Test data indicate that NMHC+NOX exhaust emissions using CA
RFG 3 will be comparable relative to results on Federal certification
fuel. However, due to the presence of an oxygenate (approximately 3
percent) caused by the inclusion of E10 in CA RFG 3, tested CO
emissions would be reduced when an engine is tested using CA RFG 3,
compared to Indolene which includes no oxygenates (see 40 CFR
1065.710). EPA's official test fuel is Indolene and the level of the CO
emission standards for small SI engines (see 40 CFR 1054.103 and
1054.105) is based on the use of that fuel. Therefore, EPA cannot fully
accept test results using CA RFG 3 as showing compliance with EPA CO
standards, because CO test emissions showing compliance using CA RFG 3
do not guarantee that an engine will be able to comply with EPA's CO
standard using Indolene.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to retain the option to conduct any
production line, confirmatory, and selective enforcement audit (SEA)
testing on EPA test fuel as specified in 40 CFR 1065.710.\9\ However,
as an option for the manufacturers, to bring some uniformity and
certainty to the engine development and calibration, emissions testing,
and emissions durability assessment processes, EPA proposes to use CA
RFG 3 test fuel for any production line, confirmatory, and SEA testing
if a manufacturer(s) agree to meet a lower CO emission standard. These
values, which substantially address the effect of oxygenate content on
CO emission rates, are 549 g/kW-hr for Classes I and II (non handheld
engines) and 536 g/kW-hr for Classes III-V (handheld engines). These
values are the same as California's current CO emission standards
(based on the use of CA RFG 2); they are 10-33 percent lower (depending
on Class) than EPA's CO emission standards (see 40 CFR 1054.103 and
1054.105) because they account for oxygenate content in that fuel. This
would not represent a proposed change in stringency, as the engine
designs and calibration would not change, but CO emissions would
decrease due to the oxygenate content of the California test fuel. This
proposed option would be available for Class I and II marine generators
at a CO emission standard of 4.5 g/kW-hr. This value was derived based
on the ratio of the California CO emission standards to the Federal
emission standards for other Class I and II marine generators. This
option would be available on a family-by-family basis for all Classes
of small SI engines. We consider these CO emission standards to be
interim values for purposes of this option only. EPA may revise the
level of its CO emission standard in the future if we propose to change
the Federal test fuel specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA already requires a ten percent ethanol blend for
evaporative emissions testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, EPA proposes to continue accepting exhaust emissions data
on CA RFG 2 after the 2012 model year (see 40 CFR 1054.145(k)).
Manufacturers have provided data for both handheld and nonhandheld
engines showing equivalent exhaust emission levels between CA RFG 2 and
the gasoline specified in 40 CFR 1065.710 (Indolene). Furthermore, the
move to CA RFG 3 sets in motion a process to eliminate CA RFG 2
certifications in the future as would have been required under 40 CFR
1054.145(k). Thus, to help enable an orderly and cost effective
transition, EPA believes it is appropriate for us to continue to accept
exhaust emission test data using CA RFG 2 for certification through the
2019 model year. We would expect engine families certified using CA RFG
2 carryover exhaust emission data to meet emissions standards on both
CA RFG 2 and EPA certification test fuel as specified in 40 CFR
1065.710 for any production line, SEA, or confirmatory testing.
    Both of these proposed actions would apply for certification for
model years 2013 to 2019, inclusive. EPA expects to revisit these
provisions before 2020 to determine if they should be extended or
otherwise modified. The primary EPA program using Indolene test fuel
and meeting the current EPA emission standards remains in place for
Federal certification for 2013 and beyond unless and until these
provisions are otherwise modified.
    We are also taking the opportunity to propose to revise the
regulatory provision in Sec.  1054.145(c) describing requirements
related to altitude kits for handheld engines. We adopted those
specifications based on the expectation that the Phase 3 exhaust
standards were unchanged from the Phase 2 exhaust standards. As such,
the emission standards do not apply at altitudes for which the
manufacturer would need to rely on an altitude kit. The regulation
should therefore be revised to no longer refer to the manufacturer
relying on an altitude kit ``to meet emission standards.'' This
proposed change in the regulations is not intended to change current
requirements, but rather simply clarifies the proper relationship of
the altitude kit to the certified configuration.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a `significant regulatory action' because it raises issues
that may have a potential effect on actions taken or planned by another
agency. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response
to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this
action.
    This proposal merely clarifies and corrects existing regulatory
language. EPA does not believe there will be costs associated with this
rule because the costs in this program were previously accounted for
under the existing rules (69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004; 73 FR 59034,
October 8, 2008; and 76 FR 57106, September 15, 2011). This proposed
rule is not anticipated to create additional burdens to the existing
requirements. As such, a regulatory impact evaluation or analysis is
unnecessary. EPA also does not expect this rule to have substantial
Congressional or public interest.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The information
collection requirements to ensure compliance with the

provisions in these rules were covered under ICR (2394.02).
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved
the information collection requirements contained in the existing
heavy-duty greenhouse gas emissions regulations under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2060-0678. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121,
110 Stat. 857), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by Small Business Administration regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, we conclude that this proposed action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This proposal would merely correct and clarify regulatory
provisions. In particular, as already adopted in the heavy-duty vehicle
GHG and fuel efficiency rules, EPA is deferring standards for
manufacturers meeting the Small Business Administration's definition of
small business as described in 13 CFR 121.201.
    There would be no costs and therefore no regulatory burden
associated with this proposed rule. We have therefore concluded that
this proposed rule would not increase regulatory burden for affected
small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts
of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed action contains no Federal mandates under the
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector. The proposed action would impose no enforceable
duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
Therefore, this proposed action is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This proposed action is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It
would 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 notice of
proposed rulemaking merely corrects and clarifies regulatory
provisions. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed
action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This notice of proposed rulemaking merely corrects and clarifies
regulatory provisions. Tribal governments would be affected only to the
extent they purchase and use regulated vehicles. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as
defined in Executive Order 12866, and because EPA does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed action
present a disproportionate risk to children. This notice of proposed
rulemaking merely corrects and clarifies regulatory provisions.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (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
notice of proposed rulemaking merely corrects and clarifies regulatory
provisions.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs agencies
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed action would slightly expand the use of voluntary
consensus standards by adding a reference standard under 40 CFR
1048.105. Other amendments in this proposed rule do not involve
application of new technical standards. However, the underlying
regulations in many cases rely on voluntary consensus standards. For
example, EPA included several voluntary consensus standards in the
development of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles
(76 FR 57106, September 15, 2011).

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 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 proposed rule would not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it merely would
correct provisions for manufacturers to use to demonstrate compliance
of heavy-duty engines and vehicles.

V. Statutory Authority

    Statutory authority for the vehicle controls is found in Clean Air
Act section 202(a) (which authorizes standards for emissions of
pollutants from new motor vehicles which emissions cause or contribute
to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare), sections 202(d), 203-209, 216, and 301 (42 U.S.C.
7521(a), 7521(d), 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7550, and
7601).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 85

    Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research,
Warranties.

40 CFR Part 86

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 1036

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Confidential business information, Environmental protection,
Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.

40 CFR Part 1037

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Confidential business information, Environmental protection,
Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.

40 CFR Part 1039

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Warranties.

40 CFR Part 1042

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Labeling, Penalties, Vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Warranties.

40 CFR Part 1048

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.

40 CFR Part 1054

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Warranties.

40 CFR Parts 1065 and 1066

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.

40 CFR Part 1068

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Imports, Motor vehicle pollution,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.

    Dated: May 9, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-11979 Filed 6-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P