same data to calculate NOX emissions over all operation
measured, not limited to valid NTE events, the NOX emissions
were more than double (0.5 g/hp-h).\99\ The results were higher when we
analyzed the data to only consider NOX emissions that occur
during low load events. These results suggest there may be great
potential to improve in-use performance by considering more of the
engine operation when we evaluate in-use compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Hamady, Fakhri, Duncan, Alan. ``A Comprehensive Study of
Manufacturers In-Use Testing Data Collected from Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engines Using Portable Emissions Measurement System (PEMS)''. 29th
CRC Real World Emissions Workshop, March 10-13, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The European Union ``Euro VI'' emission standards for heavy-duty
engines require in-use testing starting with model year 2014
engines.100 101 Manufacturers must check for ``in-service
conformity'' by operating their engines over a mix of urban, rural, and
freeway driving on prescribed routes using portable emission
measurement system (PEMS) equipment to measure emissions. Compliance is
determined using a work-based windows approach where emissions data are
evaluated over segments or ``windows.'' A window consists of
consecutive 1 Hz data points that are summed until the engine performs
an amount of work equivalent to the European transient engine test
cycle (World Harmonized Transient Cycle). EPA and others have compared
the performance of U.S.-certified engines and Euro VI-certified engines
and concluded that the European engines' NOX emissions are
comparable to U.S. 2010 standards-certified engines under city and
highway operation, but lower in light-load conditions.\102\ This
suggests that manufacturers respond to the Euro VI test procedures by
designing their emission controls to perform well over broader
operation. EPA intends the CTI to expand our in-use procedures to
capture nearly all real-world operation. We are considering an approach
similar to the European in-use program, with key distinctions that
improve upon the Euro VI approach, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 582/2011, May 25, 2011.
Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02011R0582-20180118&from=EN.
    \101\ COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2018/932, June 29, 2018.
Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018R0932&from=EN.
    \102\ Rodriguez, F.; Posada, F. ``Future Heavy-Duty Emission
Standards An Opportunity for International Harmonization''. The
International Council on Clean Transportation. November 2019.
Available online: https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Future%20_HDV_standards_opportunity_20191125.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most importantly, we are not currently intending to propose
prescribed routes for our in-use compliance test program. Our current
program requires data to be collected in real-world operation and we
would consider it an unnecessary step backward to change that aspect of
the procedure. In what we believe to be an improvement to a work-based
window, we are considering a moving average window (MAW) approach
consisting of time-based windows. Instead of basing window size on an
amount of work, we are evaluating window sizes ranging from 180 to 300
seconds.\103\ The time-based windows would be intended to equally
weight each data point collected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Our evaluation includes weighing our current understanding
that shorter windows are more sensitive to measurement error and
longer windows make it difficult to distinguish between duty cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also recognize that it would be difficult to develop a single
standard that would be appropriate to cover the entire range of
operation that heavy-duty engines experience. For example, a numerical
standard that would be technologically feasible under worst case
conditions such as idle, would necessarily be much higher than the
levels that are feasible when the aftertreatment is functioning
optimally. Thus, we are considering separate standards for distinct
modes of operation. Our current thinking is to group the second-by-
second in-use data into one of three bins using a ``normalized average
CO2 rate'' from the certification test cycles to identify
the boundaries.\104\ Data points with a normalized average
CO2 rate greater than 25 percent (equivalent to the average
power of the current FTP) could be classified as medium-/high-load
operation and binned together. We are considering two options for
identifying idle data points. The first option would use a vehicle
speed less than 1 mph. The second option would use the normalized
average CO2 rate of a low-load certification cycle.\105\ The
remaining data points, bounded by the idle and medium-/high-load bins,
would contribute to the low-load bin data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ We plan to propose that ``normalized average
CO2 rate'' be defined as the mass of NOX (in
grams) divided by the mass of CO2 (in grams) and
converted to units of mass of NOX per unit of work by
multiplying by the work-specific CO2 emissions value. Our
current thinking is to use the work-specific CO2 value
reported to EPA as part of the engine's family certification level
(FCL) for the FTP certification cycle.
    \105\ The low load cycle proposed by CARB has an average power
of eight percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are considering several approaches for evaluating the emissions
performance of the binned data. One approach would sum the total
NOX mass emissions divided by the sum of CO2 mass
emissions. This ``sum-over-sum'' approach would successfully account
for all NOX emissions; however, it would require the
measurement system (PEMS or a NOX sensor) to be accurate
across the complete range of emissions concentrations. We are also
considering the advantages and disadvantages other statistical
approaches that evaluate a high percentile of the data instead of the
full set. We request comment on all aspects

of a moving average window analysis approach. Commenters are encouraged
to share the benefits and limitations of the window sizes, binning
criteria, and performance calculations introduced here, as well as
other strategies EPA should consider. We also request data providing
time and cost estimates for implementing a MAW-based in-use program and
what aspects of this approach could be phased-in to reduce some of the
upfront burden.
    As mentioned previously, we are considering a separate MAW-based
standard for each bin. In our current NTE-based program, the NTE
standards are 1.5 times the certification duty-cycle standards.
Similarly, for the MAW-based standards, we could design our
certification and in-use programs to include corresponding laboratory-
based cycles and in-use bins with emission standards that relate by a
scaling factor. Alternatively, a percentile-based performance
evaluation may make a scaling factor unnecessary. We request comment on
appropriate scaling factors or other approaches to setting MAW-based
standards. Finally, we request comment on whether there is a continued
need for measurement allowances in an in-use program such as described
above.

D. Extended Regulatory Useful Life

    Under the Clean Air Act, an engine or vehicle's useful life is the
period for which the manufacturer must demonstrate, to receive EPA
certification, that the engine or vehicle will meet the applicable
emission standard, including accounting for deterioration over time.
Section 207(c) of the Act requires manufacturers to recall and repair
engines if ``a substantial number of any class or category'' of them
``do not conform to the regulations . . . when in actual use throughout
their useful life.'' Thus, there are two critical implications for the
length of the useful life: (1) It defines the emission durability the
manufacturer must demonstrate for certification, and (2) it is the
period for which the manufacturer is liable for compliance in-use. With
respect to the durability demonstration, manufacturers can either show
that the components will generally last the full useful life and retain
their function in meeting the applicable standard, or show that they
will be replaced at appropriate intervals by owners.
    Section 202(d) of the Act directs EPA to ``prescribe regulations
under which the useful life of vehicles and engines shall be
determined'' and establishes minimum values of 10 years or 100,000
miles, whichever occurs first. The Act authorizes EPA to adopt longer
periods that we determine to be appropriate. Under this authority, we
have established the following useful life mileage values for heavy-
duty engines: \106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ EPA adopted useful life values 110,000, 185,000, and
290,000 miles for light, medium, and heavy heavy-duty engines
(respectively) in 1983. (48 FR 52170, November 16, 1983). The useful
life for heavy heavy-duty engines was subsequently increased to
435,000 miles for 2004 and later model years. (62 FR 54694, October
21, 1997).

 110,000 miles for gasoline-fueled and light heavy-duty diesel
engines
 185,000 miles for medium heavy-duty diesel engines
 435,000 miles for heavy heavy-duty diesel engines

    Analysis of in-use mileage accumulation and typical rebuild
intervals shows that current regulatory useful life values are much
lower than actual in-use lifetimes of heavy-duty engines and vehicles.
In 2013, EPA commissioned an industry characterization report that
focused on heavy-duty diesel engine rebuilds.\107\ The report relied on
existing data from MacKay & Company surveys of heavy-duty vehicle
operators. An engine rebuild was categorized as either an in-frame
overhaul (where the rebuild occurred while the engine remained in the
vehicle) or as an out-of-frame overhaul (where the engine was removed
from the vehicle for somewhat more extensive service). We believe an
out-of-frame overhaul is a reasonable estimate of a heavy-duty engine's
primary operational life.\108\ The following average mileage values
were associated with out-of-frame overhauled engines from each of the
heavy-duty vehicle classes in the report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ ICF International, ``Industry Characterization of Heavy
Duty Diesel Engine Rebuilds'' EPA Contract No. EP-C-12-011,
September 2013.
    \108\ In-frame rebuilds tend to be less complete and occur at
somewhat lower mileages.

 Class 3: 256,000 miles
 Class 4: 346,300 miles
 Class 5: 344,200 miles
 Class 6: 407,700 miles
 Class 7: 509,100 miles
 Class 8: 909,900 miles

    We translated these vehicle classes to EPA's regulatory classes for
engines assuming Classes 3, 4, and 5 represent light heavy-duty diesel
engines (LHDDEs), Classes 6 and 7 represent medium heavy-duty diesel
engines (MHDDEs) and Class 8 represents heavy heavy-duty diesel engines
(HHDDEs). The resulting average rebuild ages for LHDDE, MHDDE, and
HHDDE are 315,500; 458,400; and 909,900, respectively.\109\ The current
regulatory useful life of today's engines covers less than half of the
primary operational life of HHDDEs and MHDDEs and less than a third of
LHDDEs--assuming the engines are only overhauled one time. We welcome
comment on the average number of times an engine core receives an
overhaul before being scrapped. We are also requesting comment on the
whether the 2013 EPA report continues to reflect modern engine
rebuilding practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ Note that these mileage values reflect replacement of
engine components, but do not include aftertreatment components. At
the time of the report, the population of engines equipped with DPF
and SCR technologies was limited to relatively new engines that were
not candidates for rebuild.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We see no reason to change the useful life values with respect to
years. However, based on available data, we intend to propose new
useful life mileage values for all categories of heavy-duty engines to
be more reflective of real-world usage. Although we are continuing to
analyze the issue, we may propose to base the new useful life values
for engines on the median or average period to the first rebuild,
measured as mileage at the first out-of-frame overhaul. The reason to
tie useful life to rebuild intervals stems from the changes to an
engine when it is rebuilt. Rebuilding involves disassembling
significant parts of the engine and replacing or remachining certain
combustion-related components.
    We are also evaluating the useful life for gasoline engines.
Beginning no later than model year 2021, chassis-certified heavy-duty
gasoline vehicles are subject to a 150,000-mile useful life. We request
comment on whether this would be the appropriate value for heavy-duty
gasoline engines, or if a higher value would be more appropriate.
Consistent with Section III.A.2.i, we would expect to apply the same
useful life for evaporative emissions technologies.
    A direct result of longer useful life values would be to require
manufacturers to change their durability demonstrations. Currently
manufacturers measure emissions from a representative engine as they
accumulate service hours on it. If we extend useful life with no other
changes to this approach, manufacturers would need to extend this
durability testing out further.\110\ We request comment on alternative
approaches that should be considered. For example, we could allow
manufacturers to base the durability demonstration on component
replacement if manufacturers could demonstrate that the component would
actually be replaced in use. EPA has previously stated that a
manufacturer's

commitment to perform the component replacement maintenance free of
charge may be considered adequate, depending on the component. See 40
CFR 86.004-25 and related sections for other examples of how a
manufacturer could potentially demonstrate durability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See Section III.F.4, which describes potential
opportunities to streamline our durability demonstration
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conversations with rebuilding facilities, it appears that
aftertreatment components typically remain with the vehicle when
engines are rebuilt out of frame and are not part of the rebuild
process. We request comment on the performance and longevity of the
aftertreatment components when the engine has reached the point of
requiring a rebuild. Currently, aftertreatment components are covered
by the useful life of the engine overall. While our current logic,
explained above, would not support proposing useful life values for the
entire engine that extend beyond the rebuild interval, it may not be
appropriate for the durability requirements for the aftertreatment to
be limited by the rebuild interval for the rest of the engine if
current aftertreatment systems remain in service much longer. Thus, we
are requesting comment on how to treat such components, including
whether there is a need for separate provisions for aftertreatment
components. One potential approach could be to establish a longer
useful life for such components. However, we are also considering the
possibility of requiring an a more extensive durability demonstration
for such parts. For example, this might include a more aggressive
accelerated aging protocol or an engineering analysis demonstrating a
greater resistance to catalyst deterioration.
    Another approach could be to develop a methodology to incorporate
aftertreatment failure rates reflective of real-world experiences into
engine deterioration factors at the time of certification, using
methodology similar to incorporation of infrequent regeneration
adjustment factors (``IRAF''). In 2018, CARB published an Initial
Statement of Reasons document regarding proposed amendments to heavy-
duty maintenance and warranty requirements. This document includes
analysis of warranty data indicating that emission components for heavy
heavy-duty engines had failure rates ranging from 1-17 percent, while
medium heavy-duty engines had emission component failure rates ranging
from 0-37 percent.111 112 ARB did this analysis using data
from MY2012 engines, as this was the only model year with a complete
five-year history. That model year included the phase-in of advanced
emission controls systems, which may have an impact on failure rates
compared to other model years. EPA is seeking comment on whether these
rates reflect component failures for other model year engines and
information on representative failure rates for all model years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ California Air Resources Board, ``Public Hearing to
Consider Proposed Amendments to California Emission Control System
Warranty Regulations and Maintenance Provisions for 2022 and
Subsequent Model Year On-road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles and Heavy-
Duty Engines with Gross Vehicle Weight Ratings Greater Than 14,000
pounds and Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines in such Vehicles. Staff Report:
Initial Statement of Reasons'' May 2018. Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2018/hdwarranty18/isor.pdf.
    \112\ California Air Resources Board, Appendix C: Economic
Impact Analysis/Assessment to the Heavy-Duty Warranty Initial
Statement of Reasons, page C-8. June 28, 2018. Available online:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2018/hdwarranty18/appc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Ensuring Long-Term In-Use Emissions Performance

    As discussed above, deterioration of emission controls can increase
emissions from in-use vehicles. Such deterioration can be inherent to
the design and materials of the controls, the result of component
failures, or the result of mal-maintenance or tampering. We are
requesting comment on ways to reduce in-use deterioration of emissions
controls from all sources. We have identified five key areas of
potential focus and seek comment on the following topics:

 Warranties that cover an appropriate fraction of engine
operational life
 Improved, more tamper-resistant electronic controls
 Serviceability improvements for vehicles and engines
 Education and potential incentives
 Engine rebuilding practices that ensure emission controls are
functional

    We believe addressing these five areas could offer a comprehensive
strategy for ensuring in-use emissions performance over more of an
engine's operational life.\113\ The following sections describe
possible provisions we believe could especially benefit second or third
owners of future engines who, under the current structure, may not have
access to resources for maintaining compliance of their higher-mileage
engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055. ``Enhanced and
Alternative Strategies to Achieve Long-term Compliance for Heavy-
Duty Vehicles and Engines; the WISER Strategy'', Amy Kopin, December
12, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Lengthened Emissions Warranty
    Section 207(a) of the Clean Air Act requires manufacturers to
provide an emissions warranty. This warranty offers protection for
purchasers from costly repairs of emission controls during the warranty
period and generally covers all expenses related to diagnosing and
repairing or replacing emission-related components.\114\ EPA has
established by regulation the warranty periods for heavy-duty engines
to be whichever comes first of 5 years or 50,000 to 100,000 miles,
depending on engine size (see 40 CFR 86.085). However, due to the high
annual mileage accumulation of many trucks, our early assessment is
that the current warranty periods are insufficient for real-world
operations. For example, today's mileage requirements may represent
less than a single year's worth of coverage for some Class 8
vehicles.\115\ We welcome comment on annual vehicle miles travelled for
different classes and vocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ See 40 CFR 1068.115 and Appendix I to Part 1068 for a list
of covered emission-related components.
    \115\ American Transportation Research Institute, ``An Analysis
of the Operational Costs of Trucking: 2017 Update'' October 2017.
Available here: https://truckingresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ATRI-Operational-Costs-of-Trucking-2017-10-2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We intend to propose longer emissions warranty periods. A longer
emissions warranty period could provide an extended period of
protection for purchasers, as well as a greater incentive for
manufacturers to design emission control components that are more
durable and less costly to repair. Longer periods of protection for
purchasers could provide a greater incentive for owners to
appropriately maintain their engines and aftertreatment systems so as
not to void their warranty. Designing more durable components could
help reduce the potential for problems later in the vehicle life that
lead to breakdowns and recalls. For instance, in at least one recent
recall related to certain SCR catalysts in heavy-duty vehicles, the
recall was not announced until nearly nine years after the initial sale
of these engines; as such, there was a prolonged period of real-world
emissions increases, and some owners likely absorbed significant cost
and downtime for repairs that could have been covered by an extended
warranty.116 117 More

durable parts could also lead to fewer breakdowns, which would likely
reduce the desire for owners to tamper with emissions controls by
bypassing DPF or SCR systems. In addition, extended warranties would
result in additional tracking by OEMs of potential defect issues, which
would increase the likelihood that emission defects (such as those
involved in the recent recall) would be corrected in a timely manner.
We request comment on emission component durability, as well as
maintenance or operational strategies that could substantially extend
the life of emission components and any regulatory barriers to
implementing these strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``EPA Announces
Largest Voluntary Recall of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks.'' July
31, 2018. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-largest-voluntary-recall-medium-and-heavy-duty-trucks.
    \117\ Jaillet, James, ``Volvo setting aside $780M to address
emission system degradation problem'' January 4, 2019. Available
here: https://www.ccjdigital.com/volvo-setting-aside-780m-to-address-emissions-system-degradation-problem/ Accessed 10/2/19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By rule, manufacturers providing a basic mechanical warranty must
also cover emission related repairs for those same components.\118\
Most engine manufacturers offer a 250,000-mile base warranty on their
heavy heavy-duty engines, which already exceeds the current minimum
100,000-mile emission warranty requirement. We request comment on an
appropriate length of emissions warranty period for engine and
aftertreatment components to incentivize improved durability with
reasonable cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See 40 CFR 86.004-2, definition of ``warranty period''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One mechanism to maintain lower costs for a longer emissions
warranty period could be to vary the length of warranty coverage across
different types of components. For example, certain components (e.g.,
aftertreatment components) could have a longer warranty period.
Commenters are encouraged to address whether warranty should be tied to
longer useful life, as well as whether the warranty period should vary
by component and/or engine category.
    With traditional warranty structures, parts and labor are covered
100 percent throughout a limited warranty period. We welcome comments
addressing whether there would be value in alternative approaches.
Figure 2 below provides a high-level illustration of alternative
approaches to the traditional warranty structure. For example, there
could be longer, prorated warranties that provide different levels of
warranty coverage based on a vehicle's age or mileage. In addition, the
warranty could be limited to include only certain parts after a certain
amount of time, and/or not include labor for part, or even all, of the
duration of coverage. We are seeking comment on any combination of
these or other approaches. Commenters should consider discussing the
components that could be included under each approach, and an
appropriate period of time for given classes of vehicle and individual
components. Commenters are encouraged to consider this issue in the
context of the benefits of longer emissions warranty periods--namely
providing an extended period of protection for purchasers, as well as a
greater incentive for manufacturers to design emission control
components that are more durable and less costly to repair.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21JA20.039

2. Tamper-Resistant Electronic Controls
    Although EPA lacks robust data on the frequency of tampering with
heavy-duty engines and vehicles, enforcement activities continue to
find evidence of tampering nationwide. Recently, EPA announced a new
National Compliance Initiative (``NCI'') that will include enhanced
collaboration with states to reduce the manufacture, sale, and
installation of defeat devices on vehicles and engines, with a focus on
commercial truck fleets.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Belser, Evan, ``Tampering and Aftermarket Defeat Devices''
Presented to the National Association of Clean Air Agencies.
September 18, 2019. Available here: http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/resources/EPA%20Presentation%20to%20NACAA%20re%20Tampering%20and%20Aftermarket%20Defeat%20Device%20Sept%202019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have identified several different ways that tampering can
occur.\120\ Most commonly, the engine's emission system parts are
physically removed or ``deleted'' electronically through the use of
software which can disable these components. One of the key methods to

enable such actions is through tampering with the engine control module
(ECM) calibration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Enforcement Data
and Results'', Available online: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/enforcement-data-and-results. Accessed September 18, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are considering several approaches to prevent tampering with the
ECM. One approach could be for manufacturers to provide public access
to unique data channels that can be used by owners or enforcement
agencies to confirm emission controls are active and functioning
properly. A second approach to improved ECM security could be to
develop methodologies that flag when ECMs are flashed with improper
calibrations. This approach would require a process to distinguish
between authorized and unauthorized flashing events, detect an
unauthorized event, and store information documenting such events in
the ECM. Finally, we are following ongoing work at SAE International
that focuses on preventing cyber security hacking activity. The efforts
to combat such safety- and security-related concerns may provide a
pathway to apply similar solutions for emission control software and
modules. We anticipate such a long-term approach would require effort
beyond the CTI rulemaking timeframe. EPA requests comment on these or
other actions we could take to help prevent ECM tampering.
3. Serviceability Improvements
    Vehicle owners play an important role in achieving the intended
emission reductions of the technologies that manufacturers implement to
meet EPA standards. Vehicle owners are expected to properly maintain
the engines, which includes scheduled (preventive) maintenance (e.g.,
maintaining adequate DEF supply for their diesel engines'
aftertreatment) and repairs when components or systems degrade or fail.
Although defective designs and tampering can contribute significantly
to increased in-use emissions, mal-maintenance (which includes improper
repairs, delayed repairs, and delayed or unperformed maintenance) also
increases in-use emissions. Mal-maintenance (by owners or repair
facilities) can result from:

 High costs to diagnose and repair
 Inadequate maintenance instructions
 Limited access to service information and specialized tools to
make repairs

As discussed below, we are looking to improve in-use maintenance
practices by addressing these factors. We also discuss how maintenance
concerns can increase tampering.
    We are especially interested in the repair and maintenance
practices of second owners, which are typically individual owners and
small fleets that do not have the sophisticated repair facilities of
the larger fleets. These second owners often experience emission-
related problems that cannot be diagnosed easily, causing the repairs
to be delayed. While fleets often have sufficient resources to obtain
engine manufacturer-specific diagnostic tools for their trucks and can
diagnose emission-systems problems quickly, smaller fleets or
individual owners may be required to tow their truck to a dealer to
diagnose and address the problem.
    In 2009, EPA finalized regulations for the heavy-duty industry to
ensure that manufacturers make ``service information'' available to any
person repairing or servicing heavy-duty vehicles and engines (see 74
FR 8309, February 24, 2009). This service information includes:
Information necessary to make use of the OBD system, instructions for
making emission-related diagnoses and repairs, training information,
technical service bulletins, etc. EPA is considering whether the
service information and tools needed to diagnose problems with heavy-
duty emission control systems are available and affordable. EPA
requests comment on the following serviceability topics:

 Usefulness of currently available emission diagnostic
information and equipment
 The adequacy of emission-related training for diagnosis and
repair of these systems
 The readiness and capabilities of repair facilities in making
repairs
 The reasonableness of the cost of purchasing this information
and the equipment
 The prevalence of using of this equipment outside of large
repair facilities
 If there are any existing barriers to enabling owners to
quickly diagnose emission control system problems

    We are currently evaluating which OBD signals are needed to
diagnose and repair emission control components. While SAE's J1939
protocol establishes a comprehensive list of signals and parameters
used in heavy-duty trucks, many signals are not required to be
broadcast publicly. Ensuring that all owners, including those who
operate older, higher-mileage vehicles, have access to service
information to properly diagnose problems with their truck's emission
system could reduce the cost for many owners who choose to do some
maintenance on their own. Although J1939 includes nearly 2,000
parameters OBD regulations dictate a limited number of signals must be
broadcast publicly. While today, some manufacturers broadcast more
signals than are required, there is no guarantee that this practice
will continue which could lead to loss of diagnostic ability.
Therefore, we request comment on which signals we should require to be
made available publicly to ensure adequate access to critical emissions
diagnostic information.
    Maintenance issues can result in owner dissatisfaction, which can
incentivize removal or bypass of emission controls. EPA is aware of
significant discontent expressed by owners concerning their experiences
with emission systems on vehicles compliant with fully phased-in 2010
standards--in particular, for the first several model years after the
new standards went into effect. Although significant improvements have
been made to these systems since they were introduced into the market,
reliability issues continue to cause concern for owners. For example,
software and/or component failures can occur with little-to-no warning.
Misdiagnosis can also lead to repeated repairs that don't solve the
problem with the risk of repeated breakdowns, tows, and trips to repair
facilities. We believe that reducing maintenance issues could also
reduce tampering.
    We are also evaluating the use of maintenance-inducing control
features (``inducements'') that degrade engine performance as a means
to ensure that certain critical maintenance steps are performed. For
example, SCR-equipped engines generally include features that
``derate'' or severely limit engine operation if a vehicle is operated
without DEF. EPA guidance for such features was issued in 2009.\121\
While inducements were designed to encourage owners to perform proper
maintenance, an inducement can be triggered for a variety of reasons
that an owner cannot control (e.g., faulty wiring, software glitches,
or sensor failures) and may not degrade emission control performance.
EPA understands that some owners view derate inducements as
particularly problematic when they are not due to improper maintenance,
because they are difficult to predict and may occur at inconvenient
locations, far from preferred repair facilities. Owners' prior concerns
over parts durability and potential breakdowns are likely heightened by
the risk of inducements. Given that we are nearing a decade of industry
experience in understanding

maintenance of SCR systems, we believe it is time to reevaluate these
features, and potentially allow for less severe inducements. We believe
such relief may also reduce tampering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``Certification
Requirements for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines Using Selective Catalyst
Reduction (SCR) technologies'', February 18, 2009, CISD-09-04
(HDDE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We broadly request comment on actions EPA should take, if any, to
improve maintenance practices and the repair experience for owners. We
welcome comment on the adequacy of existing emission control system
maintenance instructions provided by OEMs. In addition, we request
comment on whether other stakeholders (such as state and local
agencies) may find it difficult in the field to detect tampering due to
limitations of available scan tools and limited publicly available
broadcast OBD parameters. We request comment on signals that are not
currently broadcast publicly that would enable agencies to ensure
vehicles are compliant during inspections.
4. Emission Controls Education and Incentives
    In addition to more easily accessible service information for
users, we believe that there may also be educational programs and
voluntary incentives that could lead to better maintenance and real-
world emission benefits. We understand that there continues to be
misinformation in the marketplace regarding exhaust aftertreatment
systems, including predatory websites that incorrectly indicate that
their fuel economy-boosting delete kits are legal. We seek comment on
the potential benefits of educational and/or voluntary, incentive-based
programs such as EPA's SmartWay program.\122\ Such a program could
provide online training on issues such as the importance of the
emissions equipment, how it functions, how emissions systems impact
fuel economy, users' ability to access service information, and how to
identify legitimate methods and services that do not compromise their
vehicles' emissions compliance. In addition to educational elements, we
are seeking comment on whether and how to develop tools allowing fleets
to commit to selling used vehicles with fully functional and verified
emissions control systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ Learn about SmartWay. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/smartway/learn-about-smartway. Accessed October 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Improving Engine Rebuilding Practices 123
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ As used here, the term ``rebuilding'' generally includes
practices known commercially as ``remanufacturing''. Under 40 CFR
part 1068, rebuilding refers to practices that fall short of
producing a ``new'' engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under 40 CFR 1068.120(b), EPA defines requirements for rebuilding
engines to avoid violating the tampering prohibition in 1068.101(b)(1).
EPA supports engine rebuilding that maintains emissions compliance, but
it is unclear if the rebuilding industry's current practices adequately
address the functioning of aftertreatment systems during this process.
We are interested in improving engine rebuilding practices to help
ensure emission controls continue to function properly after an engine
is rebuilt. In particular, we are concerned about components that
typically remain with the vehicle when the engine is removed for
rebuilding, especially aftertreatment components. Because these
components may not be included when an engine is overhauled, we believe
that additional provisions may be needed to help ensure that these
other components maintain proper function to the same degree that the
rebuilt components do.
    There are practical limitations to implementing new regulations
that would include testing and repairing the aftertreatment system
during each rebuild event. Currently, engine rebuilding is focused on
the engine; aftertreatment systems may not be evaluated at the time of
rebuild--especially when it remains with the vehicle during an out-of-
frame rebuild. We recognize the potentially significant financial
undertaking that might be necessary for the rebuilding industry to
restructure their businesses to include aftertreatment systems in their
processes.
    Instead, our goal of proposing new regulations for rebuilding would
be to ensure the aftertreatment system is functioning properly at the
time of rebuild. We are considering a program where rebuilders would
collect information documenting certain OBD codes to determine whether
their emission systems are on the truck and functioning prior to
placing an order for a factory-rebuilt engine or sending their engine
out for rebuilding. This could consist of the engine rebuilder
requesting that the owner provide them with a report showing the
results of a limited number of OBD parameters that indicate broadly the
status of the emissions systems. Such a program could involve the
rebuilder ensuring this report has been received, reviewed, and
retained. This sort of check would not be intended to impede the sale
of the rebuilt engine. We acknowledge that some engines may have
experienced catastrophic failures that may result in numerous ``check
engine'' codes and prevent owners or repair facilities from running
additional OBD monitors to confirm the aftertreatment system status.
    We solicit comment on whether we could appropriately ensure
compliance without creating unnecessary market disruption by requiring
owners to attest that any problems shown in their engine's report will
be repaired within a certain timeframe. We believe this documentation
requirement would introduce a level of accountability with respect to
aftertreatment systems when engines are rebuilt, with minimal burden on
the rebuilders and owners. We request comment on the feasibility and
challenges of such an approach, including suggestions of relevant OBD
parameters, report format, and how to collect the information (e.g.,
could manufacturers build into new vehicles the ability for such a
status report to be run using a generic scan tool and be output in a
text file).

F. Certification and Compliance Streamlining

    The fundamental requirements for certification of heavy-duty
engines are specified by the Clean Air Act. For example, the Act
provides:

 Manufacturers must obtain a certificate of conformity from EPA
before introducing an engine into commerce
 Manufacturers must obtain new certificates each year
 The certificate must be based on test data
 The manufacturer must provide an emissions warranty to the
purchaser

    However, EPA has significant discretion for many aspects of our
certification and compliance programs, and we are requesting comment on
potential opportunities to streamline our requirements, while ensuring
no change in protection for public health and the environment,
including EPA's ability to ensure compliance with the requirements of
the CAA and our regulations. Commenters are encouraged to consider not
just potential cost savings associated with each aspect of
streamlining, but also ways to prevent any adverse impacts on the
effectiveness of our certification and in-use compliance program.
1. Certification of Carry-Over Engines
    Our regulations currently require engine families to undergo a
thorough certification process each year. This includes ``carry-over''
engines with no year-to-year calibration or hardware changes. Although
we have already adopted certain simplifications, we intend to consider
additional

improvements to this this process under the CTI to reduce the burden of
certification for carry-over engines. We request comment on specific
revisions that could apply for certifying carry-over engines.
2. Modernizing of Heavy-Duty Engine Regulations
    Heavy-duty engine criteria pollutant standards and related
regulations were codified into 40 CFR part 86 in the 1980s. We believe
the CTI provides an opportunity to clarify (and otherwise improve) the
wording of our existing heavy-duty criteria pollutant regulations in
plain language and migrate them to part 1036. This part, which was
created for the Phase 1 GHG program, provides a consistent, modern
format for our regulations, with improved organization. This migration
would not be intended to make any change to the compliance program,
except as specifically and expressly addressed in the CTI rulemaking.
We request comment on the benefits and concerns with this undertaking.
3. Heavy-Duty In-Use Testing Program
    Under the current manufacturer-run heavy-duty in-use testing
program, EPA annually selects engine families to evaluate whether
engines are meeting current emissions standards. Once we submit a test
order to the manufacturer to initiate testing, it must contact
customers to recruit vehicles that use an engine from the selected
engine family. The manufacturer generally selects five unique vehicles
that have a good maintenance history, no malfunction indicators on, and
are within the engine's regulatory useful life for the requested engine
family. The tests require use of portable emissions measurement systems
(PEMS) that meet the requirements of 40 CFR 1065 subpart J.
Manufacturers collect data from the selected vehicles over the course
of a day while they are used for their normal work and operated by a
regular driver, and then submit the data to EPA.
    EPA's current process for selecting an engine family test order is
undefined and can be based on a range of factors including, but not
limited to, recent compliance performance or simply length of time
since last data collection on that family. Onboard NOX
sensors present an opportunity to better define EPA's criteria for test
orders. For example, onboard NOX data could be used to
screen in-use engines for key performance characteristics that may
indicate a problem. We welcome comment on possible strategies and
challenges to incorporating onboard NOX sensor data in EPA's
engine family test order process.
    An evolution of our current PEMS-based in-use testing approach
could be to use onboard NOX sensors that are already on
vehicles instead of (or potentially in addition to) PEMS as the
emission measurement tool for in-use compliance. In this scenario,
manufacturers would collect and store performance data on the engine's
computer until it is retrieved. When a test order is sent,
manufacturers could simply collect the stored data and send it to EPA,
reducing the burden of today's PEMS-based collection procedures. This
simplified data collection could potentially expand the pool of
vehicles evaluated for a given test order and compliance could be based
on a much greater percentage of the in-use fleet with broader coverage
of the industry's diverse operation. We are currently in the early
stages of evaluating key questions for this type of evolution in
approach to in-use testing. These key issues include: NOX
sensor performance (noted in III.A.3), appropriate engine parameters to
target, quantity of data to collect, performance metrics to calculate,
and frequency of reporting. Additionally, we are evaluating several
candidate processes for aggregating the results. See Section III.C for
a discussion of our early thinking on these topics as they relate to
potential updates to EPA's manufacturer-run in-use testing program.
    Another aspect of this potential evolution in the in-use testing
program could be combining the use of onboard sensors with telematic
communication technologies that facilitate manufacturers receiving and
sending information from/to the vehicle in real time. Telematics
services are already increasingly used by the industry due to the
Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration's Electronic Logging Device (ELD) Rule that requires the
use of ELDs by the end of 2019.\124\ The value of being able to measure
NOX emissions from the in-use fleet could be increased if
coupled with real-time communication between the engine manufacturers
and the vehicles. For example, such a combination could enable
manufacturers to identify emission problems early. By being able to
schedule repairs proactively or otherwise respond promptly, operators
would be able to prevent or mitigate failures during in-use operation
and make arrangements to avoid disrupting operations. We request
comment on the potential use of telematics and communication technology
in ensuring in-use emissions compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ DOT Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. ``ELD
Factsheet,'' Available online: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hours-service/elds/eld-fact-sheet-english-version.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we request comment on the need to measure PM emissions
during in-use testing of DPF-equipped engines--whether under the
current regulations or under some future program. PEMS measurement is
more complicated and time-consuming for PM measurements than for
gaseous pollutants such as NOX and eliminating it for some
or all in-use testing would provide significant cost savings.
Commenters are encouraged to address whether there are less expensive
alternatives for ensuring that engines meet the PM standards in use.
4. Durability Testing
    Pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 206, EPA's regulations require
that a manufacturer's application for certification include a
demonstration that the new engines will meet applicable emission
standards throughout the engines' useful life. This is often called the
durability demonstration. The core of this demonstration includes
procedures to calculate a deterioration factor (DF) to project full
useful life emissions compliance based on testing a low-hour
engine.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ 40 CFR 86.1823-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A deterioration factor can be determined directly for heavy-duty
diesel engines by aging the engine and exhaust aftertreatment system to
full useful life on an engine dynamometer. This time-consuming process
requires manufacturers to commit to product configurations well ahead
of their pre-production certification testing in order to ensure the
durability testing is complete. Some manufacturers run multiple,
staggered durability tests in parallel in case a component failure
occurs that would require a complete restart of the aging process.
    Recognizing that full useful life testing is a significant
undertaking (that can involve more than one full year of continuous
engine operation for heavy heavy-duty engines), EPA has allowed
manufacturers to age their systems to between 35 and 50 percent of full
useful life on an engine dynamometer and extrapolate the data to full
useful life. This extrapolation reduces the time to complete the aging
process, but it is unclear if it accurately captures the emissions
deterioration of the system.

i. Diesel Aftertreatment Rapid Aging Protocol
    The current durability demonstration provisions were developed
before aftertreatment systems were widely adopted for emission control
and we believe some of the inaccuracy of the deterioration
extrapolation may be due to the deterioration mechanisms unique to
catalysts. We believe a more cost-efficient demonstration protocol
could focus on the emissions-critical catalytic aftertreatment system
to accelerate the process and possibly improve accuracy.
    EPA is developing a protocol for demonstrating aftertreatment
durability through an accelerated catalyst aging procedure. The
objective of this protocol is to artificially recreate the three
primary catalytic deterioration processes observed in field-aged
components: Thermal aging based on time at high temperature, chemical
aging that accounts for poisoning due to fuel and oil contamination,
and deposits. This work to develop a diesel aftertreatment rapid-aging
protocol (DARAP) builds on an existing rapid-aging protocol designed
for light-duty gasoline vehicles (64 FR 23906).
    A necessary feature of this protocol development would be a process
to validate deterioration projections from accelerated aging. Three
engines and their corresponding aftertreatment systems will be aged
using our current, engine-focused durability test procedure. Three
comparable aftertreatment systems will be aged using a burner in place
of an engine. We are planning to evaluate emissions using this
accelerated approach, compared to the standard approach, at the
following approximate intervals: 0; 280,000; 425,000; 640,000; and
850,000 miles.
    We anticipate this validation program will take six months per
engine platform. We expect the program will be completed after the CTI
NPRM is issued. We plan to have results from one of the test engines in
time to consider when developing the proposal, with the remaining
results and final report completed before the final rulemaking. We
request comment on the need, usefulness and appropriateness for a
diesel aftertreatment rapid-aging protocol, and we request comment on
the test program EPA has initiated to inform the accelerated durability
demonstration method outlined here.
ii. Durability Certification
    As mentioned previously, EPA has issued guidance to ensure
manufacturers report accurate deterioration factors. EPA is considering
updates to the durability demonstration currently required for
manufacturers, which may still require manufacturers to validate their
reported values. We believe onboard data collected for in-use
compliance could provide a pathway for manufacturers to show the
deterioration performance of their engines in the real world with
reduced need for upfront durability demonstrations. We request comment
on the suitability of onboard data to supplement our current or future
deterioration factor demonstrations, as well as opportunities to reduce
testing burden by reporting in-use data.

G. Incentives for Early Emission Reductions

    The Clean Air Act requires that EPA provide manufacturers
sufficient lead time to meet new standards. However, we recognize that
manufacturers may have opportunities to introduce some technologies
earlier than required, and that public health and the environment could
benefit from such early introduction. Thus, we are requesting comments
on potential provisions that would provide a regulatory incentive for
reducing emissions earlier than required, including but not limited to
incentives for low-emission, advanced powertrain technologies.\126\
Such approaches can have the effect of accelerating the turnover of the
existing fleet of heavy-duty vehicles to lower-emitting vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ See Section III.A.4 for more discussion on advanced
powertrain technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have often relied on emission credit banking provisions, such as
those in 40 CFR 1036.715, to incentivize early emission reductions.
This approach has worked well for rulemakings that set numerically
lower standards but keep the same test cycles and other procedures.
However, this would not necessarily be the case for the CTI, where we
expect to adopt new test cycles or other fundamentally new approaches.
Manufacturers could generate and bank emission credits for the two
current EPA test cycles (the FTP and RMC) in the near-term, but it is
unclear how those credits could be used to show compliance with respect
to operating modes that are not reflected in the current cycles.
    Manufacturers could certify to any new CTI provisions once the rule
is finalized, but that may not leave sufficient time for manufacturers
to complete all of the steps required to certify new engines early. For
example, manufacturers would not know the new useful life mileages
until the rule is finalized, which may hinder them from completing
durability work early. Therefore, we request comment on alternative
approaches to incentivize early emission reductions.
    In particular, we would be interested in the early adoption of
technology that reduces low-load emissions. One approach we are
considering would be for manufacturers to certify engines with new
technology to the existing requirements (i.e., FTP and RMC test cycles
and durability demonstration), but then track the engines in-use using
improved in-use provisions. This approach could demonstrate that the
engines have lower emissions in use than other engines (including low-
load operation) and serve as a pilot program for an updated in-use
program. We request comment on options to potentially generate
numerical off-cycle credit under this approach, or other interim
benefits, such as delayed compliance for some other engine family, that
could incentivize early emissions reductions.

IV. Next Steps

    As described above, EPA has made important progress in the
development of technical information to support new, more stringent
NOX emission standards and other potential program elements.
We also expect to receive additional technical information in the
comments on this ANPR. We intend to publish a NPRM this year, after
reviewing the comments and considering how any new information we
receive may be used in the analysis we have underway to support the CTI
NPRM.
    See the PUBLIC PARTICIPATION section at the beginning of this
notice for details on how to submit comments.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this is not a ``significant
regulatory action.'' Because this action does not propose or impose any
requirements, the various statutes and Executive Orders that apply to
rulemaking do not apply in this case. Should EPA subsequently pursue a
rulemaking, EPA will address the statutes and Executive Orders as
applicable to that rulemaking. Nevertheless, the Agency welcomes
comments and/or information that would help the Agency to assess any of
the following:
     The potential impact of a rule on small entities pursuant
to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Potential impacts on federal, state, or local governments
pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538);

     Federalism implications pursuant to Executive Order 13132,
entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, November 2, 1999);
     Availability of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113;
     Tribal implications pursuant to Executive Order 13175,
entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
(65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000);
     Environmental health or safety effects on children
pursuant to Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997)--applies to regulatory actions that: (1) Concern environmental
health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children and (2) are economically significant
regulatory action, as defined by Executive Order 12866;
     Energy effects pursuant to Executive Order 13211, entitled
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Paperwork burdens pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501); or
     Human health or environmental effects on minority or low-
income populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The Agency will consider such comments during the development of
any subsequent proposed rulemaking.

    Dated: January 6, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-00542 Filed 1-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P