[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 245 (Friday, December 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88610-88611]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28249]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-102]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed December 11, 2023 10 a.m. EST Through December 18, 2023 10 a.m.
EST
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20230179, Third Draft Supplemental, USACE, CA, American River
Common Features, 2016 Flood Risk Management Project, Sacramento,
California Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report XIV, Comment Period Ends: 02/05/2024,
Contact: Guy Romine<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20230180, Draft, NRCS, WI, Coon Creek Watershed, Comment Period
Ends: 02/20/2024, Contact: Joshua Odekirk<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20230181, Draft, NRCS, WI, West Fork Kickapoo Watershed,
Comment Period Ends: 02/20/2024, Contact: Joshua Odekirk<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Amended Notice: EIS No. 20230175, Draft, Caltrans, CA, Last Chance
Grade Permanent Restoration Project Draft Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation,
Comment Period Ends: 02/13/2024, Contact: Steve Croteau<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 12/15/2023; Correction to document
title at lead agency's request.

    Dated: December 18, 2023.
Julie Smith,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2023-28249 Filed 12-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


in DEF dosing rate, although that was a possible method of compliance,
and the commenters have not shown that the increase in tank size that
would be associated with increased dosing, which need not be large,
would be inconsistent with space constraints.  While EPA agrees that the
warnings and inducements in place for failure to replenish DEF will
restrict the ability of operators to run without DEF, and have made
operation without DEF virtually unheard of, a DEF tank ratio of 1:1
greatly increases the likelihood that operators will need to make more
frequent stops to replenish DEF, and possibly may need to stop solely to
replenish DEF, which may place a greater burden on the operator in terms
of the frequency of DEF refills.  However, we request comment on this
proposal and we do not rule out the possibility we may in the final rule
allow a shorter maintenance interval at least in some situations beyond
what we have proposed.  In particular, we request comment on whether
such an interval may be appropriate in the future or whether an approach
that is limited to a portion of the heavy-duty engine category or that
uses an interval between 2:1 and 1:1 may be appropriate.

EPA also notes that the regulations allow any manufacturer to petition
EPA under the “paragraph (b)(7) process” for a shorter maintenance
interval than that promulgated for DEF refills if the manufacturer can
show that a shorter interval is technologically necessary for the
particular engine or vehicle configuration being certified.

Maintenance Intervals for Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines

EPA is also proposing to incorporate appropriate maintenance intervals
for the scheduled maintenance of DEF refills on SCR-equipped NRCI
engines.  We are proposing the same interval (i.e., 1:1 ratio) as was
approved under the § 1039.125(a)(5) process.

EPA believes it appropriate to evaluate the DEF refill rates by taking
into consideration the space and weight constraints typically involved
with the range of nonroad compression-ignition engines using SCR
systems, including safety and impacts of weight and dosing rates on
greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy.  EPA also believes it
appropriate to take into consideration the likelihood that the
maintenance of DEF refills will be performed by the owner or operator.

EPA knows of no SCR technology for NRCI engines that is yet capable of
attaining longer operation (generally beyond one tank full of diesel)
without a DEF refill.  As noted by the requests received for a shorter
interval, there are significant space and weight constraints associated
with increasing the DEF tank size in order to accommodate a 2:1 refill
ratio.  EPA believes it appropriate to take into consideration the need
for locating the DEF tank in close proximity to the fuel tank and the
remainder of the SCR system, as well as the increased likelihood that
the DEF tank will be refilled if it becomes standard operating practice
to refill it at the same time as the fuel tank.  EPA believes that such
nonroad equipment is similar to centrally-fueled heavy-duty on-highway
vehicles and that there is a sufficient basis and a reasonable
expectation that DEF tank refills will occur on a timely basis.  In
addition, because this maintenance is considered critical
emission-related maintenance, § 1039.125 requires that manufacturers
ensure that it have a reasonable likelihood of being done at the
recommended intervals on in-use engines.  Paragraph 1039.125(a)(1) sets
forth several methods by which such demonstration can be made, including
data showing that if a lack of maintenance increases emissions, it also
unacceptably degrades the engine’s performance.  Thus, manufacturers
will need to show compliance with this requirement to be certified.  In
the context of SCR systems and the potential of an empty DEF tank and an
inoperable SCR system, EPA notes that equipment under such operating
conditions are expected to shut down or idle only.

Nonroad Engines in Temporary Emergency Service

As noted previously, EPA is proposing to adopt special provisions for
engines used in dedicated emergency vehicles to ensure that
manufacturers are able to design and implement reliable, robust emission
control systems with regeneration strategies that do not interfere with
the mission of emergency vehicles.  However, we are not proposing to
extend this option for other engines that are not intended for emergency
vehicles.  Nevertheless, based on information provided to us from engine
manufacturers, we have some concern that nonroad engines not normally
used for emergencies may be needed in unusual emergency situations that
may require very limited and temporary relief so that  emission controls
do not hinder the engine’s performance in such emergency conditions.
This section describes a flexibility that we are proposing to address
this.

Our existing nonroad engine compliance regulations in 40 CFR
1068.101(b)(1)(ii) allow operators to temporarily disable or remove
emission controls to address emergency situations.  However, they do not
necessarily allow manufacturers to design the emission controls to be
disabled or removed.   This has become a potential problem for modern
electronically controlled engines, where many emission controls are
integrated into the engine’s control software.  There is currently no
way for an operator to selectively disable emission control software,
while maintaining engine function.  The proposed regulatory text would
effectively extend the policy expressed in 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1)(ii) to
emission control software.

Use of Nonroad Engines in Emergency Situations

The provisions we are proposing are intended primarily to address
engines used for power generation or in construction equipment.
However, it is important to note that we are not proposing to limit this
flexibility to such engines.  For example, portable diesel-powered
generators are often used to provide electrical power after natural
disasters.  If the generator is providing power to a medical facility,
then any interruption in service could risk the lives of the patients.
This is just one example of how an ordinary piece of nonroad equipment
could be used in an emergency situation.  Others would include
bulldozers repairing a levee or a crane removing debris.

The Tier 4 standards have resulted in much of this equipment being
equipped with SCR catalysts that require a reductant.  The reductant is
typically supplied as a urea water solution known as diesel exhaust
fluid (DEF). The engines in this equipment generally include controls
that limit the function of the engines if they are operated without
urea.  Such controls are generally call “inducements”, because they
induce the operator to supply urea to the equipment.  While we are
confident that DEF is now widely and easily available in the United
States, we are concerned that in emergency circumstances there may be a
possibility of a temporary supply shortage.  We believe that in such
situations, temporary flexibilities may be appropriate because the
possibility of risk to human life sufficiently outweighs the temporary
emissions increases that may occur if SCR-equipped engines are used
without DEF. As indicated below, this flexibility is very narrow and
contains several provisions to ensure the need for the relief.  We do
not believe it can or will be used in situations where there is no
critical need for such relief.

Proposed Regulatory Action

General Requirements

We are proposing a new section 1039.665 that would specify provisions
that allow for AECD’s that are necessary to ensure proper function of
engines and equipment in emergency situations.  AECD’s approved under
this section would not be defeat devices.  The section would include the
following provisions:

Manufacturers would be allowed to ask for approval at any time.  Still,
we would encourage manufacturers to obtain preliminary approval before
submitting an application for certification.  And in unusual
circumstances, we could allow manufacturers to apply an approved
emergency AECD to engines and equipment that have already been placed
into service as a “field fix”.

The manufacturer would be required to keep records to document requests
for and use of emergency AECD’s under this section and submit a report
to EPA within 60 days of the end of each calendar year in which it
authorizes use of the AECD

We would approve an AECD only where we determine certain criteria are
met, as described below.

We are proposing to address such AECD’s as part of certification and
would only authorize the certifying manufacturer to activate them.

Approval Criteria

Approval of AECD’s under the proposed regulations would be based on
certain general and specific criteria.  A general criterion is that the
AECD would need to be consistent with good engineering judgment.  When
used in our regulations, the phrase “good engineering judgment” has
a specific meaning as described in 40 CFR 1068.5.  By specifying that
the AECD be consistent with good engineering judgment, we address
unforeseen technical details that may arise.

We are also proposing three specific criteria that must be met.  Each of
these criteria is intended to ensure that any adverse environmental
impacts are minimized.  These criteria are:

The AECD must be designed so that it cannot be activated without the
specific permission of the certificate holder.  We would specify that
the AECD must require the input of a temporary code or equivalent
security feature.

The AECD must become inactive within 24 engine hours of becoming active
(or other period we approve in unusual circumstances).

The manufacturer must show that the AECD deactivate emission controls
(such as inducement strategies) only to the extent necessary to address
the expected emergency situation.

Allowable Use of Emergency AECD’s

This allowance is intended generally to address SCR-equipped engines
operating in emergency situations when DEF is unavailable.  In such
cases, inducement strategies could result in a loss of power of the
engine which could effectively prevent the equipment from functioning.
Under this provision, a manufacturer could include a dormant feature in
the engine’s control software that could be activated to disable
inducement strategies.

We are also proposing to allow this for other types of controls, where a
manufacturer can clearly demonstrate that this relief could be needed.
We are requesting comment about whether we should specifically identify
such other controls or leave the regulatory text more open ended.

Finally, we are requesting comment about the circumstances under which
we should allow the AECD to be activated.  Should emergency situations
include only those circumstances where human life is at stake?  Should
it be allowed automatically whenever a federal disaster is declared?

Economic, Environmental, and Health Impacts of Proposed Rule

Economic Impacts

Economic Impacts of Emergency Vehicle Proposal

EPA expects the economic effects of this proposal to be small, and to
potentially have benefits that are a natural result of easing
constraints.

Costs to Manufacturers

Due to the optional and voluntary nature of this proposal, there are no
direct regulatory compliance costs to engine manufacturers.  To the
extent manufacturers elect to develop and deploy upgrades to engines for
emergency vehicles, they may voluntarily incur some degree of costs
associated with the following:

Design and testing to determine effectiveness of potential AECD’s

Education & outreach to intermediate vehicle manufacturers and end users

Deployment of AECD’s onto new and in-use emergency vehicles

Labeling costs

EPA expects any fixed costs would be small, and any variable costs would
apply only to the engines sold for installation in emergency vehicles or
emergency equipment, which comprise less than one percent of the
heavy-duty on-road fleet, and an even smaller fraction of the nonroad
fleet. As per standard practice, manufacturers would be free to set a
fair market price for any approved AECD or field modification they
offer, to offset the costs incurred in its development.

Operational Costs

Depending on the type of AECD or field modification that a manufacturer
voluntarily elects to deploy, some operational costs could increase and
some could decrease.

Maintenance and Warranty Costs

When an emergency vehicle is experiencing frequent plugging of its DPF,
this increases maintenance costs for owners and warranty costs for
manufacturers.  Maintenance costs can include service calls for a
technician-controlled regeneration, towing fees where on-site
regeneration cannot be achieved, and costs to deploy reserve vehicles
while the impaired vehicle is being serviced. These costs are expected
to decrease with this proposal, and are discussed further below.

Manufacturers incur warranty costs when a vehicle under warranty must be
returned for service. Because this proposed action would allow
manufacturers the flexibility to improve the reliability of their
engines, EPA expects warranty costs for emergency vehicles and engines
in emergency vehicles would decrease as a result of this action.

Should an AECD be deployed that allows manual active regenerations at
more frequent intervals, this could increase the total number of
regenerations, exposing the DPF substrate to more frequent thermal
stress and general wear & tear.  However, while it is expected that the
frequency of regenerations would increase, the duration of each
regeneration would decrease because the total soot loading of the DPF
would likely remain unchanged or be reduced due to other control
strategies within the approved AECD.  Because manufacturers are held to
strict standards related to the warranty, maintenance and durability of
these systems, EPA expects that measures will be taken to ensure that
any AECD that is deployed would not decrease the ash cleaning interval
or otherwise decrease the durability of the emission control system.

With this proposal, manufacturers would have the flexibility to design
alternate calibrations to reduce soot loading to the DPF and extend the
interval between regenerations. There would also be more flexibility to
enable more passive and automatic active regenerations, which both
expose the DPF to less thermal stress than do manual active
regenerations.  In summary, EPA does not expect any warranty or
maintenance costs would increase due to this proposal, and it is very
likely that these would decrease. Furthermore, EPA believes that the
potential for reduced warranty costs may help to offset the cost to
produce and deploy any optional AECD’s.  Similarly, EPA believes the
potential for reduced maintenance and operational costs may offset the
cost to owners for obtaining requested AECD’s.

Fuel Costs from Dosing

Where DPF systems employ fuel dosing to enable active automatic
regenerations, it is uncertain whether liberalizing the parameters for
initiating regenerations would affect fuel consumption. Operators have
reported that vehicles burn more fuel during regenerations, though the
quantity varies among vehicles.

Where automatic active regenerations employ fuel dosing, it is uncertain
whether fuel consumption would increase with an increased number of
regenerations during a given operating period.  If all else were to
remain the same, it is likely that the duration of each automatic active
regeneration may be decreased.  To the extent regenerations are enabled
with other means besides fuel, or demand for regenerations is reduced
through recalibration, then any potential increase in fuel use from
dosing would be mitigated.

As an illustration, we have estimated the additional fuel use for a
truck with a dosing strategy where its regeneration interval is
decreased from 25 hours to eight hours, due to the increased
availability of operator-commanded regenerations.  In this example, we
assume a single regeneration consumes approximately half a gallon of
supplemental fuel. If the vehicle has average engine operating hours of
1,200 per year, then its number of regeneration events would increase
from about 50 per year to 150 per year, under the above assumptions.  If
the amount of supplemental fuel use remained unchanged under the new
regime (a conservative assumption) then potentially the vehicle could
consume an additional 50 gallons of fuel per year from the increased
frequency of regenerations alone. Considering current costs of ultra low
sulfur diesel fuel, this could translate to about $200 per vehicle in
additional annual fuel costs.

As explained above, EPA does not believe this is a likely scenario, as
the amount of fuel used per regeneration event would likely decrease
with increasing frequency, and engine manufacturers would be likely to
adjust combustion parameters to avoid placing additional thermal stress
on the DPF.  A more detailed analysis of fuel use and potential costs
associated with dosing strategies is included in a memo to the docket
associated with this rulemaking.

Societal Costs

Because this proposal eases constraints on the development of robust DPF
systems, the economic impacts can only improve with this action.  It is
presumed that the benefits to society of enabling first responders to
act quickly when needed outweigh the costs to society of any temporary
increase in emissions from this small segment of vehicles.

Economic impacts of SCR Maintenance Proposal

This action would codify previously published final agency actions
regarding SCR maintenance intervals.  No new regulatory burdens would be
imposed.  Rather, by codifying former decisions that were based on
administrative petitions and of limited applicability, EPA is providing
regulatory certainty that will allow affected manufacturers to plan
their product development accordingly.

Economic Impacts for Nonroad Engines Used in Emergency Situations

EPA expects the economic effects of this proposal to be small, and to
potentially have benefits that are a natural result of easing
constraints.  Due to the optional and voluntary nature of this proposal,
there are no direct regulatory compliance costs to engine manufacturers.
 To the extent manufacturers elect to develop and deploy upgrades to
engines for emergency vehicles, they may voluntarily incur some degree
of costs.   We do not expect there to be any operator costs for this
allowance, other than the potential cost associated with sending written
confirmation of an emergency situation to the certificate holder.
However, since this option would be activated rarely (or perhaps not at
all), total costs to operators would be negligible.

Environmental Impacts

Environmental Impacts of Emergency Vehicle Proposal

We expect any environmental impacts from this proposal would be small.
By promulgating these amendments, it is expected that the emissions from
this segment of the heavy-duty fleet would not change significantly.

Fleet Characterization and Emission Inventory

EPA estimates that on-road emergency vehicles comprise less than one
percent of the national heavy-duty fleet.  According to the
International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), less than one
percent of all new heavy-duty truck registrations in 2003 to 2007 were
for emergency vehicles (includes class 8 fire trucks plus other class
3-8 emergency vehicles).  On average, the ICCT’s data suggest that
approximately 5,700 new emergency vehicles are sold in the U.S. each
year; about 0.8 percent of the 3.4 million new heavy-duty trucks
registered between 2003 and 2007.  The available information indicates
that the emergency vehicles included in the scope of this rulemaking
have lower annual vehicle miles traveled than average non-emergency
vehicles.  Therefore, we conclude that they contribute less than 1% of
the annual air emissions from the heavy-duty diesel truck fleet.

Emission Impacts from Auxiliary Emission Control Devices on Emergency
Vehicles

Due to the optional and voluntary nature of this action, it is difficult
to estimate its overall emissions impact accurately. The proposed
amendments offer many options to manufacturers, and the emissions
impacts will depend on which options and strategies are employed, and
for how many vehicles.

NOX Emissions Impacts

During both automatic active and manual active regenerations, emission
rates increase for some pollutants, especially NOX when post-DPF
after-treatment devices are not present. The higher than normal
combustion chamber temperatures during active regeneration with high
rates of oxidation occurring across the catalyst can create conditions
conducive to NOX formation. From certification data for 2008 model year
engines, the difference between the NOX emission rate during normal
operation and the rate during active regeneration can range from an
undetectably small difference to a five-fold increase.  The magnitude of
the NOX increase is only part of the story, however.  As part of their
certifications, engine manufacturers may provide frequency factors that
adjust for the average excess emissions during DPF regeneration. As used
in engine certification, the frequency factor indicates the percent of
test cycles during which DPF regeneration is expected to occur.  From
certification data for 2008 and 2011 model year engines, DPF
regeneration frequency factors for heavy-duty engines range from near
zero to nearly 20 percent. Overall, the certification data indicate that
the higher the increase in NOX during a DPF regeneration event, the less
often active regeneration occurs on that engine, especially over the
transient test cycle. A summary of this information is presented in a
memo to the docket associated with this rulemaking.

 As a result of this proposed action, it is possible that some engine
manufacturers will submit applications for AECD’s with liberalized
parameters under which automatic active and/or manual active
regenerations may occur, for emergency vehicles.  Under these
liberalized parameters, several outcomes are possible, depending on the
engineering design.  While the NOX emission rate during DPF regeneration
could increase above the rate of the current certified configuration, it
is also possible that the duration of each event could decrease.  While
the frequency of manual active regenerations could increase if the
engine controls permitted operators to initiate parked regeneration at
any soot loading, it is also possible the frequency of automatic or
manual active regenerations could decrease with the new designs, making
wider use of passive regeneration strategies. Given that it is difficult
to estimate how popular each option may be, and what other actions may
be taken to alter engines and/or emission control systems, EPA has
provided examples of possible emission scenarios due to this proposal in
a memo to the docket.

PM emissions Impacts

In the comment letters EPA received urging swift action providing relief
for emergency vehicles, it was often cited that the pollution from a
structural fire is far worse than the tailpipe emissions of a fire
truck.  To provide some perspective on this, EPA is providing a brief
discussion of PM emissions in this section.

A rough method for estimating emissions from structural fires is
obtained by multiplying a national average factor of 2.3 fires per 1,000
residents by the national population, along with a PM emission factor of
10.8 lb per ton burned, and an average fuel loading of 1.1 tons burned
per fire. Using these estimates, EPA calculates just under 5,000 tons of
PM is emitted in the U.S. each year from structural fires. A more
detailed analysis of PM emissions from structural fires in relation to
PM emissions from emergency vehicles is included in a memo to the docket
associated with this rulemaking.

We expect manufacturers who choose to develop optional AECD’s for
emergency vehicles to employ strategies that prevent the occurrence of
abnormal conditions of the emission control system.  Where preventive
strategies alone are not demonstrated to be failsafe, EPA expects there
may be instances where it is justified to provide engine exhaust
backpressure relief, either mechanical or through other means.  While we
expect this will not be a widespread solution, there may be cases where
a relief valve may be employed on a vehicle whose DPF became plugged
frequently, allowing temporary emission control bypass to occur as a
last resort to prevent engine failure.  An example of possible PM
emissions changes due to this proposal is presented in a memo to the
docket associated with this rulemaking.

Fuel Use from Dosing

As described above in Section IV.C, only some control systems employ
fuel dosing as a strategy to initiate active regeneration.  In a memo to
the docket associated with this rulemaking, EPA estimates the potential
increase in fuel use due to more frequent operator-commanded
regenerations with dosing at an average of about 50 gallons per year per
vehicle, if other measures to reduce the need for regenerations are not
taken.  The emissions associated with this supplemental fuel use are
discussed above.  EPA requests comment on the impact of this proposed
action on fuel consumption in emergency vehicles whose active
regeneration strategies include fuel dosing.

Environmental Impacts of SCR Maintenance Proposal

EPA believes that the likelihood of emissions-related maintenance
occurring in use would remain unchanged as a result of this action.
Therefore, there are no anticipated adverse environmental impacts.

Environmental Impacts for Nonroad Engines Used in Emergency Situations

EPA does not expect any significant environmental effects as a result
this proposal.  This option would be activated rarely (or perhaps not at
all) and would only affect emissions for a very short period.

Health Effects

EPA’s clean diesel standards are already providing substantial
benefits to public health and welfare and the environment through
significant reductions in emissions of NOX, PM, nonmethane hydrocarbons
(NMHC), carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides (SOX), and air toxics. We project
that by 2030, the on-highway program alone will reduce annual emissions
of NOX, NMHC, and PM by 2.6 million, 115,000 and 109,000 tons,
respectively.  These emission reductions will prevent 8,300 premature
deaths, over 9,500 hospitalizations, and 1.5 million work days lost.
All told, the monetized benefits of the on-highway rule plus the nonroad
diesel Tier 4 rule total over $150 billion. A sizeable part of the
benefits in the early years of these programs has come from large
reductions in the amount of direct and secondary PM emitted by the
existing fleet of heavy-duty engines and vehicles, by requiring the use
of the higher quality diesel fuel in these vehicles.  While this
proposed action may slightly increase some emissions, as explained in
the previous section, we do not expect that these small increases will
significantly diminish the health benefits of our stringent clean diesel
standards.

Public Participation tc \l1 "VI.   Public Participation

We request comment by July 27, 2012 on all aspects of this proposal.
This section describes how you can participate in this process.

How Do I Submit Comments? tc \l2 "A.   How Do I Submit Comments?

We are opening a formal comment period by publishing this document. We
will accept comments through July 27, 2012.  If you have an interest in
the program described in this document, we encourage you to comment on
any aspect of this rulemaking. We request comment on various topics
throughout this proposal.

Your comments will be most useful if you include appropriate and
detailed supporting rationale, data, and analysis. If you disagree with
parts of the proposed program, we encourage you to suggest and analyze
alternate approaches to meeting the goals described in this proposal.
You should send all comments, except those containing proprietary
information, to our Air Docket (see ADDRESSES) before the end of the
comment period.

If you submit proprietary information for our consideration, you should
clearly separate it from other comments by labeling it “Confidential
Business Information (CBI).” You should send CBI directly to the
contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT instead of
the public docket. This will help ensure that no one inadvertently
places proprietary information in the docket. If you want us to use your
confidential information as part of the basis for the final rule, you
should send a non-confidential version of the document summarizing the
key data or information. We will disclose information covered by a claim
of confidentiality only through the application of procedures described
in 40 CFR part 2. If you do not identify information as confidential
when we receive it, we may make it available to the public without
notifying you.

EPA is also publishing a Direct Final Rule (DFR) addressing the
emergency vehicle provisions described in Section IV of this document.
If we receive adverse comments on the emergency vehicle provisions in
this proposal by [Insert date 30 days from date of publication in the
Federal Register], we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that the direct final rule will not take
effect, and we will complete the process of responding to comments and
issuing a final rule.

EPA is publishing the DFR to expedite the deployment of solutions that
will best ensure the readiness of the nation’s emergency vehicles.  We
request that commenters identify in your comments any portions of the
emergency vehicle proposed action described in Section IV above 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 emergency vehicles as supportive of
the direct final action.  In this way, the 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.

Note that Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-1032 is being used for both the
DFR and this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

Will There Be a Public Hearing? tc \l2 "B.   Will There Be a Public
Hearing?

We will hold a public hearing at the EPA’s National Vehicle and Fuels
Emission Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Road in Ann Arbor, Michigan on June
27, 2012.  The hearing will start at 10:00 am and continue until
everyone has had a chance to speak.

If you would like to present testimony at the public hearing, we ask
that you notify the contact person listed above under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT at least ten days before the hearing. You should
estimate the time you will need for your presentation and identify any
needed audio/visual equipment. We suggest that you bring copies of your
statement or other material for the EPA panel and the audience. It would
also be helpful if you send us a copy of your statement or other
materials before the hearing.

We will make a tentative schedule for the order of testimony based on
the notifications we receive. This schedule will be available on the
morning of the hearing. In addition, we will reserve a block of time for
anyone else in the audience who wants to give testimony. We will conduct
the hearing informally, and technical rules of evidence won’t apply.
We will arrange for a written transcript of the hearing and keep the
official record of the hearing open for 30 days to allow you to submit
supplementary information. You may make arrangements for copies of the
transcript directly with the court reporter.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms
of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any new information collection burden. The
proposed regulatory relief for emergency vehicles would be voluntary and
optional, and the proposed revisions for engine and vehicle maintenance
would merely codify existing guidelines. However, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the existing regulations under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB Control Numbers 2060-0104 and 2060-0287. The OMB
control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR
part 9.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 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 primarily engaged in
shipbuilding and repairing as defined by NAICS code 336611 with 1,000 or
fewer employees (based on Small Business Administration size standards);
 (2) a small business that is primarily engaged in freight or passenger
transportation on the Great Lakes as defined by NAICS codes 483113 and
483114 with 500 or fewer employees (based on Small Business
Administration size standards); (3) a small business primarily engaged
in commercial and industrial machinery and equipment repair and
maintenance as defined by NAICS code 811310 with annual receipts less
than $7 million (based on Small Business Administration size standards);
(4) 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 (5) 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 today’s proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary
purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and
address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.

This proposed rule provides regulatory relief related to emergency
vehicles and codifies existing guidelines related to engine and vehicle
maintenance.  As such, we anticipate no costs and therefore no
regulatory burden associated with this rule. We have concluded that this
rule will not increase regulatory burden for affected small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This proposal contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA for State, local, or tribal
governments.  The proposal imposes no enforceable duty on any State,
local or tribal governments.  EPA has determined that this proposal
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments.  The agency has determined that this proposal
does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of
$100 million or more for the private sector in any one year.
Manufacturers have the flexibility and will likely choose whether or not
to use optional AECD’s based on their strategies for complying with
the applicable emissions standards.  Similarly, manufacturers may choose
to use DEF maintenance intervals longer than the minimums proposed in
this action, and manufacturers may elect to use SCR strategies that
consume lower amounts of DEF. Thus, today’s proposal is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
“meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.”
 “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

This proposed action does not have federalism implications.  It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.  This proposed rule would apply to
manufacturers of heavy-duty diesel engines and not to state or local
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy
to promote communications between the agency and State and local
governments, the agency specifically solicits comment on this proposed
action from State and local officials.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).  This proposal will be
implemented at the Federal level and would impose compliance costs only
on affected engine manufacturers depending on the extent to which they
take advantage of the flexibilities offered.  Tribal governments would
be affected only to the extent they purchase and use vehicles with
regulated engines.  Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
proposed rule.  EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this
proposed action from tribal officials.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant”
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children.  If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential
to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects

This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 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 EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

	This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not
considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.

EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations.  This action is expected
to increase the level of environmental protection for all affected
populations because this proposed rule increases the ways that
manufacturers can demonstrate compliance with heavy-duty engine
standards.

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, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

40 CFR Part 1039

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

Dated: May 23, 2012					Lisa P. Jackson

									Administrator

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental Protection
Agency proposes to amend title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 85— CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES

  The authority citation for part 85 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart R–[Amended]

Add  §85.1716 to subpart R to read as follows:

§ 85.1716   Approval of an emergency vehicle field modification (EVFM).

This section describes how you may implement design changes for an
emergency vehicle that has already been placed into service to ensure
that the vehicle will perform properly in emergency situations.  This
applies for any light-duty vehicle, light-duty truck, or heavy-duty
vehicle meeting the definition of emergency vehicle in 40 CFR 86.004-2
or 86.1803.  In this section, “you” refers to the certifying
manufacturer and “we” refers to the EPA Administrator and any
authorized representatives.

(a) You must notify us in writing of your intent to install or
distribute an emergency vehicle field modification (EVFM). In some cases
you may install or distribute an EVFM only with our advance approval, as
specified in this section.

(b) Include in your notification a full description of the EVFM and any
documentation to support your determination that the EVFM is necessary
to prevent the vehicle from losing speed, torque, or power due to
abnormal conditions of its emission control system, or to prevent such
abnormal conditions from occurring during operation related to emergency
response.  Examples of such abnormal conditions may include excessive
exhaust backpressure from an overloaded particulate trap, or running out
of diesel exhaust fluid for engines that rely on urea-based selective
catalytic reduction.  Your determination must be based on an engineering
evaluation or testing or both.

(c) You may need our advance approval for your EVFM, as follows:

(1) Where the proposed EVFM is identical to an AECD we approved under
this part for an engine family currently in production, no approval of
the proposed EVFM is necessary.

(2) Where the proposed EVFM is for an engine family currently in
production but the applicable demonstration is based on an AECD we
approved under this part for an engine family no longer in production,
you must describe to us how your proposed EVFM differs from the approved
AECD.  Unless we say otherwise, your proposed EVFM is deemed approved 30
days after you notify us.

(3) If we have not approved an EVFM comparable to the one you are
proposing, you must get our approval before installing or distributing
it.  In this case, we may request additional information to support your
determination under paragraph (b) of this section, as follows:

(i) If we request additional information and you do not provide it
within 30 days after we ask, we may deem that you have retracted your
request for our approval; however, we may extend this deadline for
submitting the additional information.

(ii) We will deny your request if we determine that the EVFM is not
necessary to prevent the vehicle from losing speed, torque, or power due
abnormal conditions of the emission control system, or to prevent such
abnormal conditions from occurring, during operation related to
emergency response.

(iii) Unless we say otherwise, your proposed EVFM is deemed approved 30
days after we acknowledge that you have provided us with all the
additional information we have specified.

(4) If your proposed EVFM is deemed to be approved under paragraph
(c)(2) or (3) of this section and we find later that your EVFM in fact
does not meet the requirements of this section, we may require you to no
longer install or distribute it.

PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES AND
ENGINES

The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart A–[Amended]

  Section 86.004-2 is amended as follows:

a. By adding a definition for “Ambulance” in alphabetical order.

b. By revising the definition for “Defeat device”.

c. By adding definitions for “Diesel exhaust fluid”, “Emergency
vehicle”, and “Fire truck” in alphabetical order.

§ 86.004–2  Definitions.

*	*	*	*	*

	Ambulance has the meaning given in §86.1803.

	Defeat device means an auxiliary emission control device (AECD) that
reduces the effectiveness of the emission control system under
conditions which may reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal
vehicle operation and use, unless:

(1) Such conditions are substantially included in the applicable Federal
emission test procedure for heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines
described in subpart N of this part;

(2) The need for the AECD is justified in terms of protecting the
vehicle against damage or accident;

(3) The AECD does not go beyond the requirements of engine starting; or

(4) The AECD applies only for engines that will be installed in
emergency vehicles, and the need is justified in terms of preventing the
engine from losing speed, torque, or power due abnormal conditions of
the emission control system, or in terms of preventing such abnormal
conditions from occurring, during operation related to emergency
response.  Examples of such abnormal conditions may include excessive
exhaust backpressure from an overloaded particulate trap, and running
out of diesel exhaust fluid for engines that rely on urea-based
selective catalytic reduction.

	Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) has the meaning given in §86.1803.

	Emergency vehicle means a vehicle that is an ambulance or a fire truck.

	Fire truck has the meaning given in §86.1803.

*	*	*	*	*

  Section 86.004-25 is amended as follows:

a. By revising paragraph (b)(4) introductory text.

b. By adding paragraph (b)(4)(v).

c. By revising paragraph (b)(6)(i) introductory text and (b)(6)(i)(H).

d. By adding paragraph (b)(6)(i)(I).

§ 86.004-25  Maintenance.

*	*	*	*	*

(b)	*	*	*

(4)  For diesel-cycle heavy-duty engines, emission-related maintenance
in addition to or at shorter intervals than the following specified
values will not be accepted as technologically necessary, except as
provided in paragraph (b)(7) of this section:

*	*	*	*	*

(v) For engines that use selective catalytic reduction, the
replenishment of diesel exhaust fluid shall occur according to the
following schedule:

(A) For heavy-duty engines in vocational vehicles such as dump trucks,
concrete mixers, refuse trucks and similar applications that are
typically centrally fueled, at an interval, in miles or hours of vehicle
operation, that is no less than the vehicle’s fuel capacity.

(B) For all other heavy-duty engines, at an interval, in miles or hours
of vehicle operation, that is no less than twice the vehicle’s fuel
capacity.

*	*	*	*	*

(6)(i) The following components are defined as critical emission-related
components:

*	*	*	*	*

(H) Components comprising the selective catalytic reduction system
(including diesel exhaust fluid tank).

(I) Any other component whose primary purpose is to reduce emissions or
whose failure would commonly increase emissions of any regulated
pollutant without significantly degrading engine performance.

*	*	*	*	*

Section 86.0004-28 is amended by revising paragraph (i) introductory
text to read as follows:

§ 86.004-28   Compliance with emission standards.

*	*	*	*	*

(i) Emission results from heavy-duty engines equipped with exhaust
aftertreatment may need to be adjusted to account for regeneration
events. This provision only applies for engines equipped with emission
controls that are regenerated on an infrequent basis. For the purpose of
this paragraph (i), the term “regeneration” means an event during
which emission levels change while the aftertreatment performance is
being restored by design. Examples of regenerations are increasing
exhaust gas temperature to remove sulfur from an adsorber or increasing
exhaust gas temperature to oxidize PM in a trap. For the purpose of this
paragraph (i), the term “infrequent” means having an expected
frequency of less than once per transient test cycle. Calculation and
use of adjustment factors are described in paragraphs (i)(1)–(5) of
this section.  If your engine family includes engines with one or more
AECDs for emergency vehicle applications approved under paragraph (4) of
the definition of “defeat device” in § 86.004-2, do not consider
additional regenerations resulting from those AECDs when calculating
emission factors or frequencies under this paragraph (i).

*	*	*	*	*

 Section 86.095-35 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(O) to
read as follows:

§ 86.095-35  Labeling.

(a)	*	*	*

(3) 	*	*	*

(iii)		*	*	*

(O) For engines with one or more approved AECDs for emergency vehicle
applications under paragraph (4) of the definition of “defeat
device” in § 86.004-2, the statement: “THIS ENGINE IS FOR
INSTALLATION IN EMERGENCY VEHICLES ONLY.”

*	*	*	*	*

Subpart B–[Amended]

Section 86.131-00 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

§ 86.131-00   Vehicle preparation.

*	*	*	*	*

(g) You may disable any AECDs that have been approved solely for
emergency vehicle applications under paragraph (4) of the definition of
“defeat device” in § 86.004-2.  The emission standards do not apply
when any of these AECDs are active.

Subpart N–[Amended]

Section 86.1305-2010 is amended by adding paragraph (i) to read as
follows:

§ 86.1305-2010   Introduction; structure of subpart.

*	*	*	*	*

(i) You may disable any AECDs that have been approved solely for
emergency vehicle applications under paragraph (4) of the definition of
“defeat device: in § 86.004-2.  The emission standards do not apply
when any of these AECDs are active.

Section 86.1370-2007 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:

§ 86.1370-2007   Not-To-Exceed test procedures.

*	*	*	*	*

(h) Emergency vehicle AECDs. If your engine family includes engines with
one or more approved AECDs for emergency vehicle applications under
paragraph (4) of the definition of “defeat device” in § 86.004-2,
the NTE emission limits do not apply when any of these AECDs are active.

Subpart S–[Amended]

Section 86.1803-01 is amended as follows:

a. By adding a definition for “Ambulance” in alphabetical order.

b. By revising the definition for “Defeat device”.

c. By adding definitions for “Diesel exhaust fluid”, “Emergency
vehicle”, and “Fire truck” in alphabetical order.

§ 86.1803-01  Definitions.

*	*	*	*	*

	Ambulance means a vehicle used for emergency medical care that provides
all of the following:

(1) A driver’s compartment.

(2) A patient compartment to accommodate an emergency medical services
provider and one patient located on the primary cot so positioned that
the primary patient can be given intensive life-support during transit.

(3) Equipment and supplies for emergency care at the scene as well as
during transport.

(4) Safety, comfort, and avoidance of aggravation of the patient’s
injury or illness.

(5) Two-way radio communication.

(6) Audible and visual traffic warning devices.

*	*	*	*	*

	Defeat device means an auxiliary emission control device (AECD) that
reduces the effectiveness of the emission control system under
conditions which may reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal
vehicle operation and use, unless:

(1) Such conditions are substantially included in the Federal emission
test procedure;

(2) The need for the AECD is justified in terms of protecting the
vehicle against damage or accident;

(3) The AECD does not go beyond the requirements of engine starting; or

(4) The AECD applies only for emergency vehicles and the need is
justified in terms of preventing the vehicle from losing speed, torque,
or power due to abnormal conditions of the emission control system, or
in terms of preventing such abnormal conditions from occurring, during
operation related to emergency response.  Examples of such abnormal
conditions may include excessive exhaust backpressure from an overloaded
particulate trap, and running out of diesel exhaust fluid for engines
that rely on urea-based selective catalytic reduction.

*	*	*	*	*

	Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) means a liquid compound used in conjunction
with selective catalytic reduction to reduce NOX emissions.  Diesel
exhaust fluid is generally understood to conform to the specifications
of ISO 22241.

*	*	*	*	*

	Emergency vehicle means a vehicle that is an ambulance or a fire truck.

*	*	*	*	*

	Fire truck means a vehicle designed to be used under emergency
conditions to transport personnel and equipment and to support the
suppression of fires and mitigation of other hazardous situations.

*	*	*	*	*

  Section 86.1807-01 is amended by adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read
as follows:

§ 86.1807-01   Vehicle labeling.

*	*	*	*	*

(h) Vehicles powered by model year 2007 through 2013 diesel-fueled
engines must include permanent readily visible labels on the dashboard
(or instrument panel) and near all fuel inlets that state “Use Ultra
Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel Only” or “Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel
Only”.

(i) For vehicles with one or more approved AECDs for emergency vehicles
under paragraph (4) of the definition of defeat device in § 86.1803,
include the following statement on the emission control information
label: “THIS VEHICLE HAS A LIMITED EXEMPTION AS AN EMERGENCY
VEHICLE.”

§86.1807-07 – [Removed

  Subpart S is amended by removing §86.1807-07.

]

  Section 86.1834-01 is amended as follows:

a. By revising paragraph the introductory text of (b)(4).

b. By adding paragraph (b)(4)(iii).

c. By revising paragraph (b)(6)(i)(H).

d. By adding paragraph (b)(6)(i)(I).

§ 86.1834-01  Allowable maintenance.

*	*	*	*	*

(b)	*	*	*

(4) For diesel-cycle vehicles, emission-related maintenance in addition
to, or at shorter intervals than the following will not be accepted as
technologically necessary, except as provided in paragraph (b)(7) of
this section:

*	*	*	*	*

(iii) For vehicles that use selective catalytic reduction, the
replenishment of diesel exhaust fluid shall occur at an interval, in
miles or hours of vehicle operation, that is no less than the scheduled
oil change interval.

*	*	*	*	*

(6)	*	*	*

(i)	*	*	*

(H) Components comprising the selective catalytic reduction system
(including diesel exhaust fluid tank).

(I) Any other component whose primary purpose is to reduce emissions or
whose failure would commonly increase emissions of any regulated
pollutant without significantly degrading engine performance.

*	*	*	*	*

  Section 86.1840-01 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

§ 86.1840-01   Special test procedures.

*	*	*	*	*

(c) Manufacturers of vehicles equipped with periodically regenerating
aftertreatment devices must propose a procedure for testing and
certifying such vehicles, including SFTP testing, for the review and
approval of the Administrator. The manufacturer must submit its proposal
before it begins any service accumulation or emission testing. The
manufacturer must provide with its submittal sufficient documentation
and data for the Administrator to fully evaluate the operation of the
aftertreatment devices and the proposed certification and testing
procedure.

*	*	*	*	*

PART 1039–CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE NONROAD
COMPRESSION-IGNITION ENGINES

The authority citation for part 1039 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart B–[Amended]

  Section 1039.115 is amended by adding paragraphs (g)(4) and (5) to
read as follows:

§1039.115  What other requirements apply?  TC \l1 "

*	*	*	*	*

(g) *		*	*

(4) The auxiliary emission control device applies only for engines that
will be installed in emergency equipment and the need is justified in
terms of preventing the equipment from losing speed or power due to
abnormal conditions of the emission control system, or in terms of
preventing such abnormal conditions from occurring, during operation
related to emergency response.  Examples of such abnormal conditions may
include excessive exhaust backpressure from an overloaded particulate
trap, and running out of diesel exhaust fluid for engines that rely on
urea-based selective catalytic reduction.  The emission standards do not
apply when any AECDs approved under this paragraph (g)(4) are active.

(5) The auxiliary emission control device operates only in emergency
situations as defined in §1039.665 and meets all of the requirements of
that section, and you meet all of the requirements of that section.

  Section 1039.125 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and
(a)(3)(iii) to read as follows:

§ 1039.125   What maintenance instructions must I give to buyers?

*	*	*	*	*

(a)	*	*	*

(2)	*	*	*

(iii) For SCR systems, the minimum interval for replenishing the diesel
exhaust fluid is the number of engine operating hours necessary to
consume a full tank of fuel based on normal usage starting from full
fuel capacity for the equipment.

(3)	*	*	*

(iii) For SCR systems, the minimum interval for replenishing the diesel
exhaust fluid is the number of engine operating hours necessary to
consume a full tank of fuel based on normal usage starting from full
fuel capacity for the equipment.

*	*	*	*	*

  Section 1039.130 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:

§ 1039.130   What installation instructions must I give to equipment
manufacturers?

*	*	*	*	*

(b)	*	*	*

(3) Describe the instructions needed to properly install the exhaust
system and any other components. Include instructions consistent with
the requirements of §1039.205(u).  Also describe how to properly size
diesel exhaust fluid reservoirs consistent with the specifications in
§1039.125(a) if applicable.

*	*	*	*	*

  Section 1039.135 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(15) to read as
follows:

§1039.135  How must I label and identify the engines I produce?  TC \l1
"

*	*	*	*	*

(c)	*	*	*

(15) For engines with one or more approved auxiliary emission control
devices for emergency equipment applications under §1039.115(g)(4), the
statement: “THIS ENGINE IS FOR INSTALLATION IN EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT
ONLY.”

 *	*	*	*	*

Subpart F–[Amended]

Section 1039.501 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

§ 1039.501   How do I run a valid emission test?

*	*	*	*	*

(g) You may disable any AECDs that have been approved solely for
emergency equipment applications under §1039.115(g)(4).

Section 1039.525 is amended by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:

§ 1039.525   How do I adjust emission levels to account for
infrequently regenerating aftertreatment devices?

This section describes how to adjust emission results from engines using
aftertreatment technology with infrequent regeneration events. For this
section, “regeneration” means an intended event during which
emission levels change while the system restores aftertreatment
performance. For example, exhaust gas temperatures may increase
temporarily to remove sulfur from adsorbers or to oxidize accumulated
particulate matter in a trap. For this section, “infrequent” refers
to regeneration events that are expected to occur on average less than
once over the applicable transient duty cycle or ramped-modal cycle, or
on average less than once per typical mode in a discrete-mode test.  If
your engine family includes engines with one or more AECDs for emergency
equipment applications approved under §1039.115(g)(4), do not consider
additional regenerations resulting from those AECDs when calculating
emission factors or frequencies under this section.

*	*	*	*	*

Subpart G–[Amended]

  Add §1039.665 to subpart G to read as follows:

§1039.665  Special provisions for use of engines in emergency
situations.

This section specifies provisions that allow for AECDs that are
necessary to ensure proper functioning of engines and equipment
regulated under this part in emergency situations.  For purposes of this
section, an emergency situation is one in which the functioning (or
malfunctioning) of emission controls poses a significant risk to human
life.  For example, a situation in which a feature of emission controls
inhibits the performance of an engine being used to rescue a person from
a life-threatening situation would be an emergency situation.  AECDs
approved under this section are not defeat devices.

(a) Manufacturers may ask for approval under this section at any time;
however, we encourage manufacturers to obtain preliminary approval
before submitting an application for certification.  We may allow
manufacturers to apply an approved emergency AECD to engines and
equipment that have already been placed into service.

(b) We will approve an AECD where we determine the following criteria
are met:

(1) Activation of the AECD cannot occur without the specific permission
of the certificate holder, and must require the input of a temporary
code or equivalent security feature.

(2) The AECD must become inactive within 24 engine hours of becoming
active.

(3) The AECD may deactivate emission controls as necessary to address
the emergency situation.  For purposes of this paragraph (b)(3),
inducement strategies related to operating SCR-equipped engines without
reductant are considered to be emission controls.

(4) The AECD’s design is consistent with good engineering judgment.

(c)  The certificate holder must keep records to document requests for
and use of emergency AECDs under this section.

(1) The operator (or other person responsible for the engine/equipment)
must send a written request to the certificate holder prior to use, or a
written confirmation of a verbal request within 30 days of making the
request, including a description of the emergency situation, the reason
for the use of the AECD, and a signature from an official acknowledging
the conditions of the emergency situation (such as a county sheriff,
fire marshal, or hospital administrator).  Such requests are deemed to
be submissions to EPA.  Where written confirmation is not submitted by
the operator, we will deem operation of the engine with an activated
emergency AECD to be a violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1).

(2) If the operator does not submit the applicable confirmation within
30 days, the certificate holder must send written notification to the
operator that failure to submit written confirmation may subject the
operator to penalties under 40 CFR 1068.101.

(3) Within 60 days of the end of each calendar year in which the
certificate holder authorizes use of the AECD, the certificate holder
must send a report to the Designated Compliance Officer to summarize
such use, including a description of the emergency situation
precipitating each use, and copies of the written confirmation provided
by operators (or statements that the operator did not provide
confirmation).  We may require more frequent reporting if we find that
the certificate holder does not collect or attempt to collect written
confirmation for each situation.

(d)  We may set other reasonable conditions to ensure that this
provision is not used to circumvent the emission standards of this part.

  Add §1039.670 to subpart G to read as follows:

§ 1039.670   Approval of an emergency equipment field modification
(EEFM).

This section describes how you may implement design changes for
emergency equipment that has already been placed into service to ensure
that the equipment will perform properly in emergency situations.

(a) You must notify us in writing of your intent to install or
distribute an emergency equipment field modification (EEFM). In some
cases you may install or distribute an EEFM only with our advance
approval, as specified in this section.

(b) Include in your notification a full description of the EEFM and any
documentation to support your determination that the EEFM is necessary
to prevent the equipment from losing speed, torque, or power due to
abnormal conditions of its emission control system, or to prevent such
abnormal conditions from occurring during operation related to emergency
response.  Examples of such abnormal conditions may include excessive
exhaust backpressure from an overloaded particulate trap, or running out
of diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) for engines that rely on urea-based
selective catalytic reduction.  Your determination must be based on an
engineering evaluation or testing or both.

(c) You may need our advance approval for your EEFM, as follows:

(1) Where the proposed EEFM is identical to an AECD we approved under
this part for an engine family currently in production, no approval of
the proposed EEFM is necessary.

(2) Where the proposed EEFM is for an engine family currently in
production but the applicable demonstration is based on an AECD we
approved under this part for an engine family no longer in production,
you must describe to us how your proposed EEFM differs from the approved
AECD.  Unless we say otherwise, your proposed EEFM is deemed approved 30
days after you notify us.

(3) If we have not approved an EEFM comparable to the one you are
proposing, you must get our approval before installing or distributing
it.  In this case, we may request additional information to support your
determination under paragraph (b) of this section, as follows:

(i) If we request additional information and you do not provide it
within 30 days after we ask, we may deem that you have retracted your
request for our approval; however, we may extend this deadline for
submitting the additional information.

(ii) We will deny your request if we determine that the EEFM is not
necessary to prevent the equipment from losing speed, torque, or power
due abnormal conditions of the emission control system, or to prevent
such abnormal conditions from occurring, during operation related to
emergency response.

(iii) Unless we say otherwise, your proposed EEFM is deemed approved 30
days after we acknowledge that you have provided us with all the
additional information we have specified.

(4) If your proposed EEFM is deemed to be approved under paragraph
(c)(2) or (3) of this section and we find later that your EEFM in fact
does not meet the requirements of this section, we may require you to no
longer install or distribute it.

Subpart I–[Amended]

  Section 1039.801 is amended by adding definitions for “Diesel
exhaust fluid” and “Emergency equipment” in alphabetical order to
read as follows:

§ 1039.801   What definitions apply to this part?

*	*	*	*	*

	Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) means a liquid compound used in conjunction
with selective catalytic reduction to reduce NOX emissions.  Diesel
exhaust fluid is generally understood to conform to the specifications
of ISO 22241.

*	*	*	*	*

	Emergency equipment means either of the following types of equipment:

(1) Specialized vehicles used to perform aircraft rescue and
fire-fighting functions at airports, with particular emphasis on saving
lives and reducing injuries coincident with aircraft fires following
impact or aircraft ground fires.

(2) Wildland fire apparatus, which includes any apparatus equipped with
a slip-on fire-fighting module, designed primarily to support wildland
fire suppression operations.

*	*	*	*	*

  Section 1039.805 is amended by adding abbreviations for “DEF”,
“EEFM”, “ISO”, and “SCR” in alphabetical order to read as
follows:

§ 1039.805   What symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations does this part
use?

*	*	*	*	*

DEF	Diesel exhaust fluid.

EEFM	Emergency equipment field modification.

*	*	*	*	*

ISO	International Organization for Standardization (see www.iso.org).

*	*	*	*	*

SCR	Selective catalytic reduction.

*	*	*	*	*

 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles:  Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control
Requirements (66 FR 5001).

 Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines and
Fuel (69 FR 38958).

 In this proposal, emergency vehicle is defined as a fire truck or an
ambulance for on-highway applications, and for nonroad applications, we
are defining emergency equipment as specialized vehicles to perform
aircraft rescue and firefighting functions at airports, or wildland fire
apparatus.  See Section IV.C and proposed revisions at 40 CFR 86.1803-01
and 40 CFR 1039.801.

 Heavy-Duty Highway Final Rule, December 21, 2000 Response to Comments,
Section 3.2.1, “Technical Feasibility of Engine/Vehicle
Standards//Diesel Engine Exhaust Standards,” page 3-58 to 3-60,
available at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/highway-diesel/regs/2007-heavy-duty-highway.htm.

 Letter dated February 1, 2001 to C. Whitman, EPA Administrator from G.
Miller, President, National Association of State Fire Marshalls

 See, for example, letter dated October 22, 2009, from Roger Lackore of
the Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association and Randy Hanson of the
Ambulance Manufacturers Division, to Keisha Jennings of EPA.

 See, for example, letter dated October 4, 2011 from Congressman Filner
to EPA Administrator Jackson, and letter dated October 14, 2011, from
Director Cimini of the Southeast Association of Fire Chiefs to EPA
Administrator Jackson.

 See 49 U.S.C. 32902(e).

 Final Rule: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotives and
Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder, 73
FR 25098, May 6, 2008, and republished to correct typographical errors
on June 30, 2008, 73 FR 37096.

 Final Rule: Phase 2 Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-Ignition
Nonhandheld Engines at or Below 19 Kilowatts, 64 FR 15208, March 30,
1999.

 Final Rule: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines
and Equipment, 73 FR 59034, October 8, 2008.

 Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for the “2007 Heavy-Duty Highway
Rule,” EPA420-R-00-026, December 2000.  Chapter III, Emissions
Standards Feasibility, is available at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/highway-diesel/regs/ria-iii.pdf

 Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for “Control of Emissions from
Nonroad Diesel Engines,” EPA420-R-04-007, May 2004.  Chapter 4,
Technologies and Test Procedures for Low-Emission Engines, is available
http://www.epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr/420r04007e.pdf

 See Final RIA Chapter III, Note   NOTEREF _Ref319314940 \h  12 , above.

  EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 86.004-25(b)(4) for heavy-duty diesel
engine maintenance specify a minimum interval for DPF ash cleanout from
100,000 to 150,000 mi. Many manufacturers design DPF systems with longer
maintenance intervals.

  See http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/tru/documents/ashguide.pdf

  See memo dated May 4, 2012, “Diesel Particulate Filter
Regeneration,” Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-1032.

 MECA Diesel Particulate Filter Maintenance: Current Practices and
Experience (June 2005)  HYPERLINK
"http://www.meca.org/galleries/default-file/Filter_Maintenance_White_Pap
er_605_final.pdf"
http://www.meca.org/galleries/default-file/Filter_Maintenance_White_Pape
r_605_final.pdf

 Fire Apparatus Manufacturer’s Association, Fire Apparatus Duty Cycle
White Paper, August 2004, available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.deepriverct.us/firehousestudy/reports/Apparatus-Duty-Cycle.p
df"
http://www.deepriverct.us/firehousestudy/reports/Apparatus-Duty-Cycle.pd
f

 FAMA 2010, Emergency Vehicle SCR and DEF Inducement Guidelines; 2010
Engine Emissions Control Requirements

 American Trucking Associations, Technology & Maintenance Council, S3
Engine Study Group. Survey conducted Fall 2011, public slides dated
February 2012 available at
http://www.truckline.com/Federation/Councils/TMC/Documents/2012%20Annual
%20Meeting%20and%20Exhibition%20Documents/TMC12A_TECH2.pdf

 See ATA/TMC, Note   NOTEREF _Ref319070126 \h  21 .

 See Volvo 2010 product brochure, “Volvo’s SCR No Regen Engine,”
available at
http://www.volvotrucks.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/VTNA_Tree/ILF/Product
s/2010/09-VTM075_NoRegen_SS_041609.pdf

 See 40 CFR 86.082-2

 See 40 CFR 86.094-21 and 094-22

 U.S. General Services Administration, Federal Specification for the
Star-of-Life Ambulance, August 1, 2007,  http://www.deltaveh.com/f.pdf.

 See National Fire Protection Association web page. Accessed April 2012
at
http://www.nfpa.org/catalog/product.asp?title=Code-1901-2009-Automotive-
Fire-Apparatus&category%5Fname=&pid=190109&target%5Fpid=190109&src%5Fpid
=&link%5Ftype=search&icid=

 Frequency in percent refers to the fraction of engine test cycles
during which an automatic active regeneration occurs.

 Although this action would not affect certification of engine families
or test groups, EPA’s regulations do offer options to manufacturers
who wish to ensure that emission-related maintenance will occur in use,
including visible signals that are not reset until maintenance occurs.
40 CFR 86.004-25(b)(6)(ii).

 See letter dated March 31, 2009 from Giedrius Ambrozaitis, Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers, Director, Environmental Affairs to Karl Simon,
EPA, Director, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division; Letter
dated May 8, 2009 from Jed Mandel, Engine Manufacturers Ass’n to Karl
Simon, EPA, Director, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division;
Letters dated June 29, 2009 and October 8, 2009 from Steven C. Berry,
Director Government Relations Volvo Powertrain.

 See letter dated July 20, 2010 from Giedrius Ambrozaitis, Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers, Director, Environmental Affairs to Karl Simon,
EPA, Director, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division; Letter
dated June 13, 2011 from Timothy A. French, Engine Manufacturers Ass’n
to Justin G. Greuel, EPA, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division;
Letter dated April 28, 2011 from Steve Berry, Volvo Powertrain; Letters
dated August 18, 2011 and September 27, 2011 to Karl Simon, EPA,
Director, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division from R. Latane
Montague, Hogan Lovells.

  As discussed in Section IV above, we are proposing options for
manufacturers of emergency vehicles and engines to avoid the harsh
consequences of certain performance inducements.  Since 2010, some
manufacturers have been implementing guidance on alternative inducement
criteria for emergency vehicles.

  See 76 FR 32886 (June 7, 2011) and the studies cited at 32889-32891.

  See 77 FR 488, at 495-96 (January 5, 2012).

 See letters dated August 18, 2011 and September 27, 2011 to Karl Simon,
EPA, Director, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division from R.
Latane Montague and Hogan Lovells.

  See 40 CFR 1039.125(a)(5).

  See 76 FR 32886 (June 7, 2011) and related inducement criteria, see
also Note   NOTEREF _Ref322001935 \h  32  above regarding inducements
for emergency vehicles and engines.

ô

ú

ô

"

j°

j3

j¤

j'

摧㞰¬ȋ਀&䘋

摧㞰¬ȋ਀&䘋

¤

Ì

÷

¢

&

¤

Ì

÷

gd{

&

gd{

&

옍

옍

옍

옍

Ø	@

hÁ

hÁ

Ø	@

Ø	@

S

T

h

û

"

6

n

hÁ

Æ

Æ

S

Æ

옍

옍

ሀā㄀Ĥ摧ᢒUഀS

T

h

û

"

i

 h

 h

 h

 h

摧墽

 EPA prohibits engine manufacturers from requiring repair or replacement
of particulate traps on heavy heavy-duty diesel engines more than once
every 150,000 miles. 40 CFR 86.004-25(b)(4)(iii).

 See memo dated May 4, 2012, “Fuel Use With Dosing for DPF
Regeneration,” Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-1032.

 ICCT, May 2009, “Heavy-Duty Vehicle Market Analysis: Vehicle
Characteristics & Fuel Use, Manufacturer Market Shares.”

 See memo dated May 4, 2012, “NOX Emissions from DPF Regeneration,”
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-1032.

  See NOX Memo, Note   NOTEREF _Ref321231983 \h  41 , above.

 See memo dated May 4, 2012, “PM Emissions Impacts,” Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-1032

 See PM memo, Note   NOTEREF _Ref323902680 \h  43 , above.

 See Fuel Dosing Memo, note   NOTEREF _Ref323899111 \h  39 , above.

  PAGE  4

Page   PAGE  37  of 125