vehicle configuration, including an explanation of why it qualifies for
the exclusion and the production volume. A manufacturer having an off-
road vehicle failing to meet the criteria under the agencies' off-road
exemptions explained in 40 CFR 1037.631 and 49 CFR 523.6 is allowed to
submit a petition as required in 49 CFR 535.8 describing how and why
its vehicles should qualify for exclusion.
    Under Phase 1 compliance processes, manufacturers have not been
using the petitioning process when seeking clarification on off-road
vehicles not meeting the strict interpretation of the provision.
Instead, manufacturers are submitting information to EPA in advance of
the end of the model year to determine whether or not these vehicles
are exempted and to determine whether it is necessary to submit any
applications for certificates of conformity as required by 40 CFR
1037.201. EPA and NHTSA collaboratively determine whether manufacturers
are exempted and EPA shares the decision with the manufacturer. The
current process followed by the agencies makes it unnecessary to use
the petitioning process and has the added advantage of providing a
joint determine early enough in the model year whereas disapproved
manufacturer have adequate enough time to submit applications for
certificates of conformity.
    For the Phase 1 standards, the agencies are proposing to delete the
petitioning process and add provisions for manufacturers seeking
clarification on the qualifications of an off-road vehicle exemption to
send information to the agencies through EPA in advance of the model
year in order for us to make an appropriate determination. EPA plans to
add these provisions into its regulations as a part of 40 CFR
1037.150(h). Removal of the formal petition process is intended to
minimize the impact on manufacturers that are seeking an off-road
exemption while allowing the agencies to be proactive in making a
determination based on the criteria and individual merits of the
vehicles being requested for an exemption. Collaboration between the
agencies in making a decision about exemptions outside a formal
petition process should streamline the timing for a response and reduce
the burden upon the agencies and manufacturers.
(3) Innovative Technology Request Documentation Specifications
    For vehicle and engine technologies that can reduce GHG and fuel
consumption, but for which there is not yet an established method for
quantifying reductions, the agencies encourage the development of such
technologies through providing ``innovative technology'' credits.
Manufacturers seeking innovative technology credits must quantify the
reductions in fuel consumption and GHG emissions that the technology is
expected to achieve, above and beyond those achieved on the existing
test procedures.
    Manufacturers submitting innovative technology requests must send a
detailed description of the technology and a recommended test plan to
EPA as detailed in 40 CFR 1036.610 and 40 CFR 1037.610. The test plan
must include whether the manufacturer is applying for credits using the
improvement factor method or the separate-credit method. It is
recommended that manufacturers not conduct testing until the agencies
can collaboratively approve the test plan in which a determination is
made on the qualification of the technology as innovative. EPA and
NHTSA also make the decision at that time whether to seek public
comments on the test plan if there are unknown factors in the test
methodology.
    Under the current regulations, EPA and NHTSA have reviewed several
test plans from manufacturers seeking innovative technology credits.
The agencies have received feedback from manufacturers that the final
approval process is not clearly defined, which has caused a substantial
time commitment from manufacturers. To address this feedback, the
agencies are proposing to add further clarification in 40 CFR 1036.610
and 40 CFR 1037.610

defining the steps manufacturers must follow after an approval is
granted for a test plan. This includes specifications for submitting
the final documentation to the agencies for final approval and for
determining credit amounts. The agencies are adding the same level of
detail as required for the final documentation required in EPA's light
duty off-cycle program in 40 CFR 86.1869-12(e)(2). These specifications
should provide manufacturers with a clear understanding of the required
documentation and approval process to reduce the time burden placed on
manufacturers.
    NHTSA also proposes to add similar provisions from its light duty
CAFE program specified in 49 CFR 531.6(b)(2) and 533(c)(2) for limiting
the approval of innovative technologies under its program for those
technologies related to crash-avoidance technologies, safety critical
systems or systems affecting safety-critical functions, or technologies
designed for the purpose of reducing the frequency of vehicle crashes.
NHTSA prohibited credits for these technologies under any circumstances
in its CAFE program (see 77 FR 62730). NHTSA believes a similar
strategy is warranted for heavy-duty vehicle as well. Further, the
evaluation of crash avoidance technologies is better addressed under
NHTSA's vehicle safety authority than under a case-by-case innovative
technology credit process.
(4) Credit Acquisition Plan Requirements
    The National Program was designed to provide manufacturers with
averaging, banking and trading (ABT) flexibilities for meeting the GHG
and fuel efficiency standards to optimize the effectiveness of the
program. As a part of these flexibilities, manufacturers generating a
shortfall in fuel consumption credits for a given model year must
submit a credit plan to NHTSA describing how it plans to resolve its
deficits within 3 models year. To assist manufacturers, NHTSA is
proposing to modify 49 CFR 535.9(a)(6) of its regulation to clarify and
provide guidance to manufacturers on the requirements for a credit
allocation plan which contains provisions to acquire credits from
another manufacturer which will be earned in future model years.
    The current regulations do not specify if future credit acquisition
is permitted or not and the revision is intended to clarity that it is,
with respect to the limitation a credit shortfall can only be carried
forward three years. Providing this clarification is intended to
increase transparency within the program and ensure all manufacturers
are aware of its available flexibilities.
    In addition to providing this clarification, the regulation is also
being amended to outline the requirement that in order for a credit
allocation plan containing this provision to be reviewed for approval,
NHTSA will require an agreement signed by both manufacturers. This
requirement will assist NHTSA with its determination that the credits
will become available to the acquiring manufacturer given they are
earned.
(5) New Vehicle Field Inspections and Recordkeeping Requirements
    Previously, NHTSA decided not to include recordkeeping provisions
in its regulations for the Phase 1 program. EPA regulations include
recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 1036.250, 1036.735, 1036.835,
1037.250, 1037.735, and 1037.835. For the Phase 2 program, NHTSA is
proposing to add recordkeeping provisions to facilitate its compliance
validation program. For the Phase 1 program, manufacturers test and
conduct modeling to determine GHG emissions and fuel consumption
performance, and EPA and NHTSA perform validation testing. EPA uses the
results of the validation tests to create a finalized report that
confirms the manufacturer's final model year GHG emissions and fuel
consumption results. Each agency will use this report to enforce
compliance with its standards.
    NHTSA assesses compliance with fuel consumption standards each
year, based upon EPA final verified data submitted to NHTSA for its
heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency program established pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 32902(k). NHTSA may also conduct verification testing throughout
a given model year in order to validate data received from
manufacturers and will discuss any potential issues with EPA and the
manufacturer. See 49 CFR 535.9. After the end of the model year, NHTSA
may also decide to conduct field inspections in order to confirm
whether or not a new vehicle was manufactured as originally certified.
NHTSA may conduct field inspections separately or in coordination with
EPA. To facilitate inspections, the agencies propose to add additional
provisions to the EPA recordkeeping provisions to require manufacturers
to keep build documents for each manufactured tractor or vocational
vehicle. Each build document would be required to contain specific
information on the design, manufacturing, equipment and certified
components for a vehicle. NHTSA would request build documents through
EPA and the agencies would collaborate on the finding of all field
inspections. Manufacturers would be required to keep records of build
documents for a period of 8 calendar years.

XIV. Other Proposed Regulatory Provisions

    In addition to the new GHG standards proposed in these rules, EPA
and NHTSA are proposing to amend various aspects of the regulations as
part of the HD GHG Phase 1 standards for heavy-duty highway engines and
vehicles. EPA is also taking the opportunity to propose to amend
regulatory provisions for other requirements that apply for heavy-duty
highway engines, and for certain types of nonroad engines and
equipment. NHTSA is also proposing to amend its regulations to require
electronic submission of data for the CAFE program.

A. Proposed Amendments Related to Heavy-Duty Highway Engines and
Vehicles

    This section describes a range of proposed regulatory amendments
for heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles that are not directly
related to GHG emission standards. Section XIV.D describes additional
changes related to test procedures that affect heavy-duty highway
engines.
(1) Alternate Emission Standards for Specialty Heavy-Duty Vehicles
    Motor vehicles conventionally comprise a familiar set of vehicles
within a relatively narrow set of parameters--motorcycles, cars, light
trucks, heavy trucks, buses, etc. The definition of ``motor vehicle;''
however, is written broadly to include a very wide range of vehicles.
Almost any vehicle that can be safely operated on streets and highways
is considered a motor vehicle. Development of EPA's emission control
programs is generally focused on a consideration of the technology,
characteristics, and operating parameters of conventional vehicles, and
typically includes efforts to address concerns for special cases. For
example, the driving schedule for light-duty vehicles includes a
variation for vehicles that are not capable of reaching the maximum
speeds specified in the Federal Test Procedure.
    Industry innovation in some cases leads to some configurations that
make it particularly challenging to meet regulatory requirements. We
are aware that plug-in hybrid-electric heavy-duty vehicles are an
example of this. An engine for such a vehicle would be expected to have
a much lower power rating and duty cycle of engine speeds and loads
than a conventional heavy-

duty engine. The costs of regulatory compliance and the mismatch to the
specified duty cycle can make it cost-prohibitive for engine
manufacturers to certify such an engine under the heavy-duty highway
engine program. EPA's nonroad emission standards have reached a point
that involves near parity with the level of emission control
represented by the emission standards for heavy-duty highway engines.
    To address concerns about certifying heavy-duty engines to highway
standards for use in hybrid vehicles, we are therefore proposing to
allow manufacturers of heavy-duty highway vehicles the option to
install limited numbers of engines certified to alternate standards.
Qualifying engines would be considered motor vehicle engines, but they
would be certified to standards that are equivalent to those adopted
for comparable nonroad engines. Vehicles with hybrid powertrains would
be a focus of this allowance. EPA believes the same principles apply
for amphibious vehicles and for vehicles with maximum speed at or below
45 miles per hour and we are therefore proposing to apply the same
provisions to these additional vehicles.
    Under this approach, compression-ignition engines could be
certified to alternate standards that are equivalent to the emission
standards under 40 CFR part 1039, and spark-ignition engines could be
certified to alternate standards that are equivalent to the Blue Sky
emission standards under 40 CFR part 1048. Engines meeting these
alternate emission standards would generally be expected to use the
same technologies to control emissions as engines certified to the
applicable emission standards for heavy-duty highway engines. EPA would
disallow this approach for compression-ignition engines below 56 kW
since the nonroad standards for those engines are substantially less
stringent than the standards that apply for heavy-duty highway engines.
Also, since the nonroad duty cycles would generally better represent
the in-use operating characteristics of these vehicles, we would expect
the nonroad test procedures to be at least as effective in achieving
effective in-use emission control. The regulations at 40 CFR part 1048
include a simplified form of diagnostic controls, and we are proposing
in these rules to include simplified diagnostic controls for 40 CFR
part 1039. These engine-based diagnostic controls would substitute for
the diagnostic requirements that would otherwise apply under 40 CFR
86.010-18.
    It may also be appropriate to allow manufacturers of such heavy-
duty vehicles to use an engine from a smaller vehicle that is already
covered by chassis-based certification under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
Many of the heavy-duty vehicles described under this section would be
adequately powered by lower-displacement automotive engines, and the
level of emission control would clearly be expected to match or exceed
that of engines certified to the heavy-duty standards that would
otherwise apply. However, engines used in chassis-certified vehicles
involve some degree of calibration that relates engine operation to
vehicle parameters. Adapting these engines to heavy-duty vehicles would
therefore require some recalibration, which could involve changing the
effectiveness of emission controls. It is also unclear how the heavy-
duty vehicle would be designed for onboard diagnostic controls. EPA
requests comment on the technical and regulatory issues surrounding the
use of engines from chassis-certified vehicles in certain heavy-duty
vehicles.
    These alternate standards relate only to the engine certification-
based emission standards and certification requirements. All vehicle-
based requirements for evaporative and greenhouse gas emissions would
continue to apply as specified in the regulation.
    This allowance is intended to lower the barrier to introducing
innovative technology for motor vehicles. It is not intended to provide
a full alternative compliance path to avoid certifying to the emission
standards and control requirements for highway engines and vehicles. To
accomplish this, EPA is proposing to allow a manufacturer to produce no
more than 1,000 hybrid vehicles in a single model year under this
program, and no more than 200 amphibious vehicles or speed-limited
vehicles.
    California ARB is in the process of developing similar provisions
for a reduced compliance burden for a limited number of highway
vehicles toward the goal of incentivizing hybrid vehicles and other
advanced technology. EPA expects to be involved in that policy
development and would be interested in aligning programs as much as
possible. It may be necessary or appropriate for the final rule to
include a reference to any new policy that has been adopted by
California ARB in the meantime.
    EPA requests comment on all aspects of this program to create
alternate motor-vehicle emission standards that allow certified nonroad
engines to be used in the identified types of heavy-duty highway
vehicles.
(2) Chassis Certification of Class 4 Heavy-Duty Vehicles
    In the HD Phase 1 rule, the agencies included a provision allowing
manufacturers to certify Class 4 and larger heavy-duty vehicles to the
chassis-based emission standards in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. This
applied for greenhouse gas emission standards, but not criteria
emission standards. EPA revisited this issue in the recent Tier 3 final
rule, where we revised the regulation to allow this same flexibility
relative to exhaust emission standards for criteria pollutants.
However, this change to the regulation conflicted with our response to
a comment in that rulemaking that EPA should not change the
certification arrangement for criteria pollutants.
    Manufacturers have taken opposing views of the proper approach for
vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR. EPA requests comment on how best to
address this issue in a way that resolves the various and competing
concerns. In particular, EPA requests comment on the following specific
areas of interest:
     Should EPA treat 14,000 lbs as a bright line to disallow
any certification of larger vehicles to the chassis-based exhaust
emission standards?
     Should EPA allow for certifying the larger vehicles to the
chassis-based standards, but identify certain criteria to narrow the
scope of this allowance? For example, EPA could limit this to
compression-ignition or spark-ignition engines, we could identify a
maximum GVWR value above which chassis-based certification is not
allowed, or EPA could limit this allowance to vehicles that share
design characteristics with chassis-certified vehicles below 14,000 lbs
GVWR (as California ARB has done).
     If EPA allows for certifying the larger vehicles to the
chassis-based standards, what additional amendments are needed to
clarify how to apply the requirements of 40 CFR part 86, subpart S? For
example, some further specification may be needed to identify how to
apply requirements related to emission standards, driving schedule, and
emission credits?
(3) On-Board Diagnostics for Heavy-Duty Vehicles
    EPA defines the onboard diagnostic requirements for heavy-duty
vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR in 40 CFR 86.010-18, but we allow
manufacturers to meet OBD requirements based on the requirements
adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Manufacturers in almost
all cases certify based on the California procedures instead of EPA
procedures. Certification based on EPA

procedures is limited to certain spark-ignition engine families whose
certification is limited to states other than California. EPA requests
comment on a change to EPA regulation that simply requires that
manufacturers meet the California requirements. EPA has taken a similar
approach for vehicles at or below 14,000 lbs GVWR, as described in 40
CFR 86.1806-17. Under this approach, EPA would recognize California
ARB's approval as valid for EPA certification. EPA requests comment on
this approach. In particular, EPA requests comment on the need to
preserve EPA specifications for on-board diagnostics for any special
situations, and on the need to make any adjustments or allowances from
the California ARB regulations to work for EPA implementation.
(4) Nonconformance Penalties (NCPs)
    The Clean Air Act requires that heavy-duty standards for criteria
pollutants such as NOX must reflect the greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable through the application of technology
that EPA determines will be available. Such ``technology-forcing''
standards create the risk that one or more manufacturers may lag behind
in the development of their technology to meet the standard and, thus,
be forced out of the marketplace. Recognizing this risk, Congress
enacted CAA section 206(g) (42 U.S.C. 7525(g)), which requires EPA to
establish ``nonconformance penalties'' to protect these technological
laggards by allowing them to pay a penalty for engines that temporarily
are unable to meet the applicable emission standard, while removing any
competitive advantage those technological laggards may have.
    On September 5, 2012, EPA adopted final NCPs for heavy heavy-duty
diesel engines that could be used by manufacturers of heavy-duty diesel
engines unable to meet the current oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
emission standard. On December 11, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion vacating that Final
Rule. It issued its mandate for this decision on April 16, 2014, ending
the availability of the NCPs for the current NOX standard,
as well as vacating certain amendments to the NCP regulations due to
concerns about inadequate notice. In particular, the amendments revise
the text explaining how EPA determines when NCP should be made
available. EPA is proposing to remove the vacated regulatory text
specifying penalties, and re-proposing most of the other vacated
amendments to provide fuller notice. Finally, EPA is proposing a new 40
CFR 86.1103-2016 to replace the existing 40 CFR 86.1103-87.
(a) Vacated Penalties
    In EPA's regulations, NCP penalties are calculated from inputs
specific to the standards for which NCPs are available. The input
values are specified in 40 CFR 86.1105-87. EPA is proposing to remove
paragraph (j) of this section which specifies the vacated inputs for
the 2010 NOX emission standard. EPA does not request comment
on this change because this text has already been vacated by the Court.
Since all manufacturers are currently complying with these standards,
the text also no longer has any purpose.
(b) Re-Proposed Text
    The 2012 rule made amendments to four different sections in 40 CFR
part 86. The amendments to 40 CFR 86.1104-91 and 86.1113-87 were
supported during the rulemaking and were not questioned in the Court's
decision. Nevertheless, these revisions were vacated along with the
rest of the rule. EPA is re-proposing these changes. Since we are
proposing to vacate and restore the regulatory text, the proposal
consists of leaving these sections of the regulations unchanged.
(i) Upper Limits
    The changes to 40 CFR 86.1104-91 affected the upper limit. The
upper limit (UL) is the emission level established by regulation above
which NCPs are not available. A heavy duty engine cannot use NCPs to be
certified for a level above the upper limit. CAA section 206(g)(2)
refers to the upper limit as a percentage above the emission standard,
set by regulation, that corresponds to an emission level EPA determines
to be ``practicable.'' The upper limit is an important aspect of the
NCP regulations not only because it establishes an emission level above
which no engine may be certified using NCPs, but it is also a critical
component of the cost analysis used to develop the penalty rates. The
regulations specify that the relevant costs for determining the COC50
and the COC90 factors are the difference between an engine at the upper
limit and one that meets the applicable standards (see 40 CFR 86.1113-
87).
    The regulatory approach adopted under the prior NCP rules sets the
upper limit at the prior emission standard when a prior emission
standard exists and is then changed to become more stringent. EPA
concluded that this upper limit should be reasonably achievable by all
manufacturers with engines or vehicles in the relevant class. It should
be within reach of all manufacturers of HD engines or HD vehicles that
are currently allowed so that they can continue to sell their engines
and vehicles while finishing their development of fully complying
engines. A manufacturer of a previously certified engine or vehicle
should not be forced to immediately remove a HD engine or vehicle from
the market when an emission standard becomes more stringent. The prior
emission standard generally meets these goals because manufactures have
already certified their vehicles to that standard.
    EPA proposes to revise the regulations in 40 CFR 86.1104-91 to
clarify that EPA may set the upper limit at a level below the previous
standard if we determine that the lower level is achievable by all
engines or vehicles in the relevant subclass. This was the case for the
vacated NCP rule. EPA also proposes that we may set the upper limit at
a level above the previous standard in unusual circumstances, such as
where a new standard for a different pollutant or other requirement
effectively increases the stringency of the standard for which NCPs
would apply. This occurred for heavy heavy-duty engines with the 2004
standards.
(ii) Payment of Penalties
    The proposed changes to 40 CFR 86.1113-87 correct EPA
organizational units and mail codes to which manufacturers must send
information. The previous information is no longer valid.
(c) Criteria for the Availability of NCPs
    Since the promulgation of the first NCP rule in 1985, subsequent
NCP rules generally have been described as continuing ``phases'' of the
initial NCP rule. The first NCP rule (Phase I), sometimes referred to
as the ``generic'' NCP rule, established three basic criteria for
determining the eligibility of emission standards for nonconformance
penalties in any given model year (50 FR 35374, August 30, 1985). (For
regulatory language, see 40 CFR 86.1103-87). The first criterion is
that the emission standard in question must become more difficult to
meet. This can occur in two ways, either by the emission standard
itself becoming more stringent, or due to its interaction with another
emission standard that has become more stringent. Second, substantial
work must be required in order to meet the emission standard. EPA
considers ``substantial work'' to mean the application of technology
not previously used in that vehicle or engine class/subclass, or a
significant modification of existing technology, in

order to bring that vehicle/engine into compliance. EPA does not
consider minor modifications or calibration changes to be classified as
substantial work. Third, EPA must find that a manufacturer is likely to
be noncomplying for technological reasons (referred to in earlier rules
as a ``technological laggard''). Prior NCP rules have considered such a
technological laggard to be a manufacturer who cannot meet a particular
emission standard due to technological (not economic) difficulties and
who, in the absence of NCPs, might be forced from the marketplace.
During the 2012 rulemaking, some commenters raised issues relating to
EPA's interpretation of these criteria:

 The extent to which the criteria are intended to constrain
EPA's ability to set NCPs
 The timing for evaluating the criteria
 The meaning of technological laggard
(i) Constraints on EPA
    Several commenters argued (implicitly or explicitly) that EPA
cannot establish NCPs unless all of the regulatory criteria for NCPs
(in 40 CFR 86.1103-87) are met. Some went further to argue that EPA
must demonstrate that the criteria are met. However, the actual
regulatory text has never stated that EPA may establish NCPs only if
all criteria are met, but rather that EPA shall establish NCPs
``provided that EPA finds'' the criteria are met. These criteria were
included in the regulations to clarify that manufacturers should not
expect EPA to initiate a rulemaking to establish NCPs where these
criteria were not met. Moreover, the regulations clearly defer to EPA's
judgment for finding that the criteria are met. While EPA must explain
the basis of our finding, the regulatory language does not require us
to prove or demonstrate that the criteria are met.
    This interpretation is consistent with the text of the Clean Air
Act, which places no explicit restrictions on when EPA can set NCPs. In
fact, it seems to create a presumption that NCPs will be available. The
Act actually requires EPA to allow certification of engines that do not
meet the standard unless EPA determines the practicable upper limit to
be equal to the new emission standard.
    To address this confusion, the new proposed regulatory text would
explicitly state that where EPA cannot determine if all of the criteria
have been met, we may presume that they have. In other words, EPA does
not have the burden to prove they have been met.
(ii) Timing for Evaluating Criteria
    In order to properly understand the appropriate timing for
evaluating each of the NCP criteria, it is necessary to understand the
purpose of each. When considered together, these criteria evaluate the
likelihood that a manufacturer will be technologically unable to meet a
standard on time. However, when EPA initially proposed the NCP
criteria, we noted that the first two criteria addressed whether there
was a possibility for a technological laggard to develop. When the
first criterion is met, it creates the possibility for a technological
laggard to exist. When manufacturers must perform substantial work, it
is possible that at least one will be unsuccessful and will become a
laggard. Thus, when evaluating these first two criteria, the purpose is
to determine whether the standard created the possibility for a laggard
to exist. The third criterion is different because it asks whether that
possibility has turned into a likelihood that a technological laggard
has developed. For example, a standard may become significantly more
stringent and substantial effort might be required for compliance, but
all manufacturers may be meeting the applicable standard. In that
situation, a technological laggard is not likely and penalties would be
unnecessary.
    In this context, it becomes clear that since the first two of these
criteria are intended to address the question of whether a given
standard creates the possibility for this to occur, they are evaluated
before the third criterion that addresses the likelihood that the
possibility will actually happen. In most cases, it is possible to
evaluate these criteria at the point a new standard is adopted. This is
the value of these criteria, that they can usually be evaluated long
before there is enough information to know whether a technological
laggard is actually likely. For example, where EPA adopts a new
standard that is not technology-forcing, but rather merely an anti-
backsliding standard, EPA could determine at the time it is adopted
that the second criterion is not met so that manufacturers would know
in advance that no NCPs will be made available for that standard.
    One question that arose in the 2012 rule involved how to evaluate
the second criterion if significant time has passed and some work
toward meeting the standard has already been completed. To address this
question, the proposed regulations would clarify that this criterion is
to be evaluated based on actual work needed to go from meeting the
previous standard to meeting the current standard, regardless of the
timing of such changes. EPA looks at whether ``substantial work'' is or
was required to meet the revised standard at any time after the
standard was issued--the important question is whether manufacturers
who were using technology that met the previous standard would need to
build upon that technology to meet the revised standard. Other
interpretations would seem to be directly contrary to the purpose of
the statute, which is designed to allow technological laggards to be
able to certify engines even if other manufacturers have met the
standard.
(iii) Technological Laggards
    Questions also arose in 2012 about the meaning of the term
``technological laggard''. While the regulations do not define
``technological laggard'', EPA has previously interpreted this as
meaning a manufacturer who cannot meet the emission standard due to
technological difficulties, not merely economic difficulties (67 FR
51464-51465, August 8, 2002). Some have interpreted this to mean that
NCPs cannot be made available where a manufacturer tries and fails to
meet a standard with one technology but knew that another technology
would have allowed them to meet the standard. In other words, that it
made a bad business decision. However, EPA's reference to ``economic
difficulties'' applies where a technological path exists--at the time
EPA is evaluating the third criterion--that would allow the
manufacturer to meet the standard on time, but the manufacturer chooses
not to use it for economic reasons. The key question is whether or not
the technological path exists at the time of the evaluation. To address
this confusion, the proposed regulations would clarify that where there
is uncertainty about whether a failure to meet the standards is a
technological failure, EPA may presume that it was. Note that this does
not mean that EPA might declare any failure to meet standards as a
technological failure. It would only apply where it is not clear.
(5) In-Use Testing
    EPA and manufacturers have gained substantial experience with in-
use testing over the last four or five years. This has led to important
insights in ways that the test protocol can be adjusted to be more
effective. EPA is accordingly proposing to make the following changes
to the regulations in 40 CFR part 86, subparts N and T:
     Revise the NTE exclusion based on aftertreatment
temperature to associate

the exclusion with the specific aftertreatment device that does not
meet the temperature criterion. For example, there should be no
NOX exclusion if a diesel oxidation catalyst is below the
temperature threshold. EPA is also proposing to revise the exclusion to
include accommodation of CO emissions when there is a problem with low
temperatures in the exhaust.
     Clarify that exhaust temperatures should be measured
continuously to evaluate whether those temperatures stay above the 250
[deg]C threshold.
     Add specifications to describe where to measure
temperatures for exhaust systems with multiple aftertreatment devices.
     Include a provision to add 0.00042 g/hp-hr to the PM
measurement to account for PM emissions vented to the atmosphere
through the crankcase vent.
     Increase the time allowed for submitting quarterly reports
from 30 to 45 days after the end of the quarter.
(6) Miscellaneous Amendments to 40 CFR Part 86
    As described elsewhere, EPA is proposing to make several changes to
40 CFR part 86. This includes primarily the GHG standards for Class 2b
and 3 heavy-duty vehicles in subpart S. EPA is also proposing changes
related to hearing procedures, adjustment factors for infrequent
regeneration of aftertreatment devices, and the testing program for
heavy-duty in-use vehicles.
    EPA is proposing to make several minor amendments to 40 CFR part
86, subpart A, including the following:
     Revise 40 CFR 86.1823 to extend the default catalyst
thermal reactivity coefficient for Tier 2 vehicles to also apply for
Tier 3 vehicles. This change was inadvertently omitted from the recent
Tier 3 rulemaking. EPA is also interested in a broader review of the
appropriate default value for the catalyst thermal reactivity
coefficient. EPA would be interested in reviewing any available data
related to this issue. In any case, EPA would plan to revisit this
question in the future.
     Establish a minimum maintenance interval of 1500 hours for
DEF filters for heavy-duty engines. This reflects the technical
capabilities for filter durability and the expected maintenance in the
field.
     Remove the idle CO standard from 40 CFR 86.007-11 and 40
CFR 86.008-10. This standard no longer applies, since all engines are
now subject to diagnostic requirements instead of the idle CO standard.
    EPA is also proposing several amendments to remove obsolete text,
update cross references, and streamline redundant regulatory text. For
example, paragraph (f)(3) of Appendix I includes a duty cycle for
heavy-duty spark-ignition engines that is no longer specified as part
of the certification process.
(7) Applying 40 CFR Part 1068 to Heavy-Duty Highway Engines and
Vehicles
    As part of the Phase 1 standards, EPA applied the exemption and
importation provisions from 40 CFR part 1068, subparts C and D, to
heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles. EPA also specified that the
defect reporting provisions of 40 CFR 1068.501 were optional. In an
earlier rulemaking, EPA applied the selective enforcement auditing
under 40 CFR part 1068, subpart E (75 FR 22896, April 30, 2010). EPA is
proposing in this rule to adopt the rest of 40 CFR part 1068 for heavy-
duty highway engines and vehicles, with certain exceptions and special
provisions.
    40 CFR part 1068 captures a range of compliance provisions that are
common across our engine and vehicle programs. These regulatory
provisions generally provide the legal framework for implementing a
certification-based program. 40 CFR part 1068 works in tandem with the
standard-setting part for each type of engine/equipment. This allows
EPA to adopt program-specific provisions for emission standards and
certification requirements for each type of engine/equipment while
taking a uniform approach to the compliance provisions that apply
generally.
    Many of the provisions in 40 CFR part 1068 were originally written
to align with the procedures established in 40 CFR part 85 and part 86.
EPA expects the following provisions from 40 CFR part 1068 to not
involve a substantive change for heavy-duty highway engines and
vehicles:
     Part 1068, subpart A, describes how EPA handles
confidential information, how the Administrator may delegate decision-
making within the agency, how EPA may enter manufacturers' facilities
for inspections, what information manufacturers must submit to EPA, and
how EPA may require testing or perform testing. There is also a
description of labeling requirements that apply uniformly for different
types of engines/equipment.
     The prohibited acts, penalties, injunction provisions, and
related requirements of 40 CFR 1068.101 and 1068.125 correspond to what
is specified in Clean Air Act sections 203 through 207 (also see
section 213(d)).
     40 CFR 1068.103 describes how a certificate of conformity
applies on a model-year basis. With the exception of the stockpiling
provisions in paragraph (f), as described below, these provisions
generally mirror what already applies for heavy-duty highway engines.
     40 CFR 1068.115 describes manufacturers' warranty
obligations. EPA is proposing to amend this section to more carefully
conform to the warranty provisions in Clean Air Act section 207, as
described below. Note that EPA also includes a provision identifying
the warranty requirements from Clean Air Act section 203(a)(4), which
are specific to motor vehicles.
     40 CFR 1068.120 describes requirements that apply for
rebuilding engines. This includes more detailed provisions describing
how the rebuild requirements apply for cases involving a used engine to
replace a certified engine.
     40 CFR part 1068, subpart F, describes procedural
requirements for voluntary and mandatory recalls. As noted below, EPA
is proposing to modify these regulations to eliminate a few instances
where the part 1068 provisions differ from what is specified in 40 CFR
part 86, subpart S.
     40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, describes how EPA would hold
a hearing to consider a manufacturer's appeal of an adverse compliance
decision from EPA. These procedures apply for penalties associated with
violations of the prohibited acts, recall, nonconformance penalties,
and generally for decisions related to certification. As noted below,
EPA is proposing to migrate these procedures from 40 CFR part 86,
including an effort to align with EPA-wide regulations that apply in
the case of a formal hearing.
    Manufacturers are already required to use good engineering judgment
in many cases related to certifying engines under 40 CFR part 86 (see
40 CFR 1068.5).
    As noted above, the exemption provisions of 40 CFR part 1068,
subpart C, already apply for heavy-duty highway engines. EPA is
proposing to add a clarification that the exemption from the tampering
prohibition for competition purposes does not apply to heavy-duty
highway vehicles. This aligns with the statutory provisions for the
racing exemption.
    EPA is proposing to require that manufacturers comply with the
defect-reporting provisions in 40 CFR 1068.501. Defect reporting under
40 CFR 1068.501 involves a more detailed approach for manufacturers to
track possible defects and establishes thresholds to define when
manufacturers must perform an investigation to determine an actual rate
of emission-related defects. These

thresholds are scaled according to production volumes, which allows us
to adopt a uniform protocol for everything from locomotives to lawn and
garden equipment. Manufacturers that also produce nonroad engines have
already been following this protocol for several years. These defect-
reporting requirements are also similar to the rules that apply in
California.
    40 CFR part 1068 includes a definition of ``engine'' to clarify
that an engine becomes subject to certification requirements when a
crankshaft is installed in an engine block. At that point, a
manufacturer may not ship the engine unless it is covered by a
certificate of conformity or an exemption. Most manufacturers have
opted into this definition of ``engine'' as part of the replacement
engine exemption as specified in 40 CFR 85.1714. We are proposing to
make this mandatory for all manufacturers. A related provision is the
definition of ``date of manufacture'', which we use to establish that
an engine's model year is also based on the date of crankshaft
installation. To address the concern that engine manufacturers would
install a large number of crankshafts before new emission standards
start to apply as a means of circumventing those standards, we state in
40 CFR 1068.103(f) that manufacturers must follow their normal
production plans and schedules for building engines in anticipation of
new emission standards. In addition to that broad principle, we state
that we will consider engines to be subject to the standards for the
new model year if engine assembly is not complete within 30 days after
the end of the model year with the less stringent standards (a longer
time frame applies for engines with per-cylinder displacement above 2.5
liters).
    40 CFR part 1068 also includes provisions related to vehicle
manufacturers that install certified engines. EPA states in 40 CFR
1068.105(b) that vehicle manufacturers are in violation of the
tampering prohibition if they do not follow the engine manufacturers'
emission-related installation instructions, we approve as part of the
certification process.
    40 CFR part 1068 also establishes that vehicles have a model year
and that installing certified engines includes a requirement that the
engine be certified to emission standards corresponding to the
vehicle's model year. An exception to allow for normal production and
build schedules is described in 40 CFR 1068.105(a). This ``normal-
inventory'' allowance is intended to allow for installation of
previous-tier engines that are produced under a valid certificate by
the engine manufacturer shortly before the new emission standards start
to apply. Stockpiling such engines would be considered an unlawful
circumvention of the new emission standards. The range of companies and
production practices is much narrower for heavy-duty highway engines
and vehicles than for nonroad engines and equipment. EPA is therefore
proposing a further set of specifications to define or constrain
engine-installation schedules that would be considered to fall within
normal-inventory practices. In particular, vehicle manufacturers are
limited to three months of production, once new emission standards
start to apply, to install previous-tier engines without EPA approval.
For any subsequent installation of previous-tier engines, EPA is
proposing to require that vehicle manufacturers get EPA approval based
on a demonstration that the excess inventory was a result of
unforeseeable circumstances rather than circumvention of emission
standards. EPA is proposing that approval in those circumstances would
be limited to a maximum of 50 engines to be installed for up to three
additional months for a single vehicle manufacturer.
    The existing prohibitions and exemptions in 40 CFR part 1068
related to competition engines and vehicles need to be amended to
account for differing policies for nonroad and motor vehicle
applications. In particular, we generally consider nonroad engines and
vehicles to be ``used solely for competition'' based on usage
characteristics. This allows EPA to set up an administrative process to
approve competition exemptions, and to create an exemption from the
tampering prohibition for products that are modified for competition
purposes. There is no comparable allowance for motor vehicles. A motor
vehicle qualifies for a competition exclusion based on the physical
characteristics of the vehicle, not on its use. Also, if a motor
vehicle is covered by a certificate of conformity at any point, there
is no exemption from the tampering and defeat-device prohibitions that
would allow for converting the engine or vehicle for competition use.
There is no prohibition against actual use of certified motor vehicles
or motor vehicle engines for competition purposes; however, it is not
permissible to remove a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine from its
certified configuration regardless of the purpose for doing so.
    It is relatively straightforward to apply the provisions of 40 CFR
part 1068 to all engines subject to the criteria emission standards in
40 CFR part 86, subpart A, and the associated vehicles. Manufacturers
of comparable nonroad engines are already subject to all these
provisions. Class 2b and 3 heavy-duty vehicles subject to criteria
emission standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, are covered by a
somewhat different compliance program. EPA is therefore proposing to
apply the provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 only as described in the next
section for light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, medium-duty
passenger vehicles, and chassis-certified Class 2b and 3 heavy-duty
vehicles.

B. Amendments Affecting Gliders and Glider Kits

    As noted in Sections III, and V the agencies are proposing not to
exempt glider kits from the Phase 2 GHG emission and fuel consumption
standards.\877\ Gliders and glider kits are exempt from NHTSA's Phase 1
fuel consumption standards. The EPA Phase 1 rules exempted gliders and
glider kits produced by small businesses from CO2 standards
(see 40 CFR 1037.150(c)) but did not include such a blanket exemption
for other gliders and glider kits. EPA is proposing to amend its rules
applicable to engines installed in glider kits, a proposal which would
affect emission standards not only for GHGs but for criteria pollutants
as well. NHTSA is also considering including gliders under its Phase 2
standards. Finally, EPA believes glider manufacturers may not
understand how existing EPA regulations apply to them or otherwise are
not complying with existing requirements, resulting in a number of
uncertified vehicles. Therefore, EPA is also proposing to clarify its
requirements for certification and to revise its definitions for glider
manufacturers as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \877\ Glider vehicles are motor vehicles produced to accept
rebuilt engines (or other used engines) along with used axles and/or
transmissions. The common commercial term ``glider kit'' is used
here primarily to refer to a chassis into which the used/rebuilt
engine is installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to emphasize that EPA is not proposing to ban
gliders. Rather, as is described below, EPA proposing to restrict the
number of gliders that may be produced using engines not meeting
current standards.
    EPA requests comment on its proposed amendments and clarifications
regarding gliders. Commenters are encouraged to include technological
information and production data for the current glider market, as well
as for past practices. Commenters opposing the proposed provisions are
also encouraged to suggest alternate approaches that would prevent
glider kits from being used to

circumvent the current emission standards.
(1) Background Under the Clean Air Act
    EPA notes that under the anti-tampering provisions of the Clean Air
Act, and under EPA's regulatory requirements applicable to rebuilding
engines (see 40 CFR 86.004-40), rebuilt engines must continue to comply
with emission standards applicable to the model year for which they
were originally certified. These regulations specifically apply to
rebuilt engines independent of the vehicle into which they are
installed or reinstalled. As a general matter, EPA has considered the
question of whether the vehicle into which the rebuilt engine is
installed is a ``new motor vehicle'' separately from the status of the
engine. The use of a rebuilt or other previously used engine in an
otherwise newly manufactured vehicle (such as a glider kit) does not
keep the vehicle from being ``new'' under the Clean Air Act. (Or,
phrased positively, a newly manufactured vehicle remains ``new'' even
if a rebuilt engine is installed in it.) This issue became of increased
practical import with the advent of separate vehicle (i.e. non-engine)
standards for GHGs in the Phase 1 rule. Thus, before MY 2014, EPA did
not have separate standards for vehicles over 14,000 lbs GVWR. However,
EPA Phase 1 GHG vehicle standards apply for new MY 2014 and later
vehicles over 14,000 lbs. Thus, EPA generally considers glider kits to
be subject to the Phase 1 vehicle standards, and to have been subject
to them from the advent of the Phase 1 program.
    However, with respect to engines installed in glider kits, an EPA
Phase 1 provision in 40 CFR 1037.150(j) provided an exception allowing
the use of used or rebuilt engines \878\ that were certified to model
year 2013 or earlier (or model year 2015 or earlier for spark ignition
engines). The effect of this transition provision during Phase 1 was to
allow glider kits to use engines not certified to meet the engine GHG
or fuel consumption standards, although the glider kits were still
required to have an EPA vehicle certificate with respect to GHG
emissions. In addition, another provision of Phase 1 in 40 CFR
1037.150(c) exempted gliders and glider kits produced by small
businesses from the need to obtain a vehicle certificate, but did not
include such a blanket exemption for non-small business gliders and
glider kits. Thus, depending on the size of the business producing the
glider kit, gliders and glider kits may currently be subject to the
requirement to obtain a vehicle certificate prior to introduction into
commerce as a new vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \878\ Most glider vehicles being produced today are assembled
with rebuilt engines. However, it is also possible to use previously
used engines that are not rebuilt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Proposed Amendment to EPA Vehicle Standards
    EPA is proposing to end both 40 CFR 1037.150 provisions. EPA's
proposed program would generally treat glider vehicles the same as
other new vehicles. As a result, glider vehicles would have to be
certified to the Phase 2 vehicle standards, which (among other things)
would require a fuel map for the actual engine in order to run GEM. In
other words, manufacturers producing glider kits would need to meet the
applicable GHG vehicle standards and, as part of its compliance
demonstration, would need to have a fuel map for each engine that would
be used.
    EPA is proposing this provision because we believe there has been
adequate time for glider manufacturers to transition to a compliance
regime. Moreover, as noted more fully below, with increased numbers of
glider kits being produced, perpetuation of the interim exemption from
Phase 1 would turn a transition provision into an on-going loophole.
Nevertheless, EPA is proposing to replace this provision with a limited
allowance for small business manufacturers as described in the proposed
40 CFR 1037.635. EPA is also proposing new definitions of ``glider
vehicle'' and ``glider kit'' in 40 CFR 1037.801 that are generally
consistent with the common understanding of these terms as meaning new
chassis with a used engine or designed to accept a used engine.
(3) Proposed Change to EPA Engine Standards
    EPA is also proposing to amend its rules to require that engines
used in glider vehicles must be certified to the standards applicable
to the calendar year in which assembly of the glider vehicle is
completed. This requirement would apply to all pollutants, and thus
would encompass criteria pollutant standards as well as GHG standards.
Used or rebuilt engines could be used, as long as they had been
certified to the same standards as apply for the calendar year of
glider vehicle assembly. For example, if assembly of a glider vehicle
was completed in calendar year 2020, the engine standards applicable to
MY 2020 engines would have to be satisfied. (If the engine standards
for model year 2020 were the same as for model years 2017 through 2019,
then any model year 2017 or later engine could be used.)
    EPA is proposing to amend these rules because, with the advent in
MY 2007 of more stringent HD diesel engine criteria pollutant
standards, continuation of provisions allowing rebuilt and reused
engines to meet earlier MY criteria pollutant standards results in
unnecessarily high in-use emissions. GHG emissions from these engines
also are controllable. As more glider kits are produced, EPA believes
that these emissions should be controlled to the same levels as other
new engines.
    Since EPA has already justified the criteria pollutant emission
standards for heavy duty diesel engines pursuant to CAA section 202
(a)(3)(C), it is not clear that any further justification for applying
those standards to engines used in glider kits is needed. The GHG
engine standards for Phase 1 have likewise already been justified, and
the proposed Phase 2 engine standards' justification is set out in
Section II above. If any further justification is required, EPA notes
that the emission benefits of applying current criteria pollutant
standards would be substantial, and at low cost. Glider vehicle
production is not being reported to EPA, and we cannot determine
precisely how much of an emission impact these vehicles are having.
Nevertheless, since the current standards for NOX and PM are
at least 90 percent lower than the most stringent previously applicable
standards, we can be certain that the NOX and PM emissions
of any glider vehicles using pre-2007 engines are at least ten times as
high as emissions from equivalent vehicles being produced with brand
new engines.\879\ Thus, each glider vehicle that is purchased instead
of a new vehicle with a current MY engine results in significantly
higher in-use emissions. EPA recognizes that the environmental impacts
of gliders using 2010 and later engines would be much smaller, and
requests comment on whether we should treat such gliders differently
than gliders using older engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \879\ The NOX and PM standards for MY 2007 and later
engines are 0.20 g/hp-hr and 0.01 g/hp-hr, respectively. The
standards for MY 2004 through 2006 engines were ten times these
levels, and earlier standards were even higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These emission impacts are being compounded by the increasing sales
of these vehicles. Estimates provided to EPA indicate that production
of glider vehicles has increased by an order of magnitude from what it
was in the 2004-2006 time frame--from a few

hundred each year to thousands.\880\ While the few hundred glider
vehicles produced annually in the 2004-2006 timeframe may have been
produced for arguably legitimate purposes such as salvaging powertrains
from vehicles otherwise destroyed in accidents, EPA believes the
tenfold increase in glider kit production since the MY 2007 criteria
pollutant emission standards took effect reflects an attempt to
circumvent these more stringent standards and (ultimately) the Clean
Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \880\ ``Industry Characterization of Heavy Duty Glider Kits'',
MacKay & Company, September 30, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost for manufacturers to comply with the vehicle-based GHG
standards is similar for gliders as for other new vehicles. Similar to
EPA's analysis of emissions above, although we cannot precisely
quantify the cost of complying with the proposed engine requirements
for criteria pollutant standards because it is dependent on which
engines would be used and which would have otherwise been used, EPA
nevertheless believes that cost-effectiveness (dollars per ton) of the
proposed requirement relative to any pre-2007 engine would be similar
to the cost-effectiveness of the NOX and PM standards for
current model year engines, which EPA has already found to be cost
effective.
    The agencies (as well as the broader SBAR Panel) are, however,
concerned about adverse economic impacts on small businesses that
assemble gliders and build glider kits, and we recognize that
production of a smaller number of gliders by these small manufacturers
may be appropriate for salvaged engines or other non-circumvention
purposes. Therefore, EPA is proposing a new provision that would
preserve its regulatory status quo for existing small businesses, but
cap annual production based on recent sales. Thus, a limited number of
glider kits produced by small businesses would not have to meet the GHG
vehicle standards, and could use rebuilt or used engines provided those
engines were certified to the year of the engine's manufacture. For
example, an existing small business that produced between 100 and 200
glider vehicles per year would be allowed to produce up to 200 glider
vehicles per year under without having to certify them to the GHG
standards, or re-certifying the engines to the now-applicable EPA
standards for criteria pollutants and GHGs (so long as the engine is
certified to criteria pollutant standards for the year of its
manufacture). To be eligible for this provision, EPA is also proposing
that no small entity could produce more than 300 glider vehicles in any
given model year without certifying (or recertifying) to any EPA
standards. EPA believes that this level reflects the upper end of the
range of production that occurred before significant circumvention of
the 2007 criteria pollutant standards began. We request comment on the
appropriate caps (including the appropriate magnitude of the caps) and
on whether any other special provisions would be needed to accommodate
glider kits. EPA also requests comment on whether we should allow
larger manufacturers to produce some limited number of glider kits.
(4) Lead Time for Amended Standards
    EPA is proposing that this requirement for gliders to meet engine
and vehicle standards applicable to other new vehicles and engines take
effect on January 1, 2018. EPA believes this provides sufficient time
to ``permit the development and application of the requisite control
measures'' (CAA section 202 (a)(3)(D)) because compliant engines are
available today, although manufacturers would need several months to
change business practices to comply. EPA also solicits comment on
whether an earlier or later compliance date would be appropriate. We
also request comment on whether we should include a production limit if
we provide additional lead time in the Final Rule.
(5) Legal Authority and Definitions Under the Clean Air Act
    With respect to statutory authority under the Clean Air Act, EPA
notes first that it has broad authority to control all pollutant
emissions from ``any'' rebuilt heavy duty engines (including engines
beyond their statutory useful life). See CAA section 202(a)(3)(D). EPA
is to give ``appropriate'' consideration to issues of cost, energy, and
safety in developing such standards, and to provide necessary lead time
to implement those standards. As noted above, if a used engine is
placed in a glider kit, the engine would be considered a ``new motor
vehicle engine'' because it is being used in a new motor vehicle (as
explained in the following paragraph). See CAA section 216(3). With
respect to the vehicle-based GHG standards, there is no question that
the completed glider is a ``motor vehicle'' under the Clean Air Act (as
well as under NHTSA's safety provisions). Some in the trucking industry
have questioned whether a glider kit (without an engine) is a motor
vehicle. However, EPA considers glider kits to be incomplete motor
vehicles, and EPA has the authority to regulate incomplete motor
vehicles, including unmotorized chassis.
    Under the CAA, it is also important that ``new'' is determined
based on legal title and does not consider prior use. Thus, glider kits
that have a new vehicle identification number (VIN) and new title are
considered to be ``new motor vehicles'' even if they incorporate
previously used components. Note that under the Clean Air Act, EPA
would not consider the fact that a vehicle retained the VIN of the
donor vehicle from which the engine was obtained determinative of
whether or not the vehicle is new.
    The CAA also defines ``manufacturer'' to include any person who
assembles new motor vehicles. EPA is proposing to revise its regulatory
definitions of these terms in 40 CFR 1036.801 and 1037.801 to more
clearly reflect these aspects of the CAA definitions--that glider kits
are ``new motor vehicles'', previously used engines (whether rebuilt or
not) installed into glider kits are ``new motor vehicle engines'', and
any person who completes assembly of a glider is a ``manufacturer''.
EPA also notes that under the existing 40 CFR 1037.620, glider kit
assemblers would generally be considered to be secondary vehicle
manufacturers. That section, which EPA is proposing to redesignate as
40 CFR 1037.622, allows secondary vehicle manufacturers that have a
valid certificate or exemption to receive incomplete vehicles (such as
glider kits) from OEMs.
    To further clarify that EPA considers both glider kits and
completed glider vehicles to be motor vehicles, EPA is proposing to add
a clarification to our definition of ``motor vehicle'' in 40 CFR
85.1703 regarding vehicles such as gliders that clearly are intended
for use on highways, consistent with the CAA definition of ``motor
vehicle'' in CAA section 216 (2). The regulatory definition presently
contains a provision stating that vehicles lacking certain safety
features required by state or federal law are not ``motor vehicles''.
This caveat needs a proper context: Is the safety feature one that
would prevent operation on highways. If not, absence of that feature
does not result in the vehicle being other than a motor vehicle. The
proposed amendment would consequently make clear that vehicles that are
clearly intended for operation on highways are motor vehicles, even if
they do not have every safety feature. (EPA is also considering whether
to simply eliminate the clause ``or safety features required by state
and/or federal law'' from the regulatory definition.) This clarifying
provision would take effect upon promulgation.

    We note that NHTSA and EPA have separate definitions for motor
vehicles under their separate statutory authorities. As such, EPA's
determination of how its statute and regulations apply to glider kits
and glider vehicles has no bearing on how NHTSA may apply its safety
authority with regard to them. See Section XIV. B. (6) for additional
discussion of NHTSA's consideration of glider vehicles.
(6) Relation to NHTSA Fuel Efficiency Program and Safety Regulations
    NHTSA does not consider glider kits to be motor vehicles, but it
does consider assembled glider vehicles to be motor vehicles. As stated
above, NHTSA is considering including glider vehicles under its Phase 2
standards. NHTSA seeks comments from glider manufacturers on this
consideration.
    We believe that the agencies potentially having different policies
for glider kits and glider vehicles under the Phase 2 program would not
result in problematic disharmony between the NHTSA and EPA programs,
because of the small number of vehicles that would be involved. EPA
believes that its proposed changes would result in the glider market
returning to the pre-2007 levels, in which fewer than 1,000 glider
vehicles would be produced in most years. Given that a large fraction
of these vehicles would be exempted from EPA regulations because they
would be produced by qualifying small businesses, they would thus, in
practice, be treated the same under EPA and NHTSA regulations. Only
non-exempt glider vehicles would be subject to different requirements
under the NHTSA and EPA regulations. However, we believe that this is
unlikely to exceed a few hundred vehicles in any year, which would be
few enough not to result in any meaningful disharmony between the two
agencies.
    With regard to NHTSA's safety authority over gliders, the agency
notes that it has become increasingly aware of potential noncompliances
with its regulations applicable to gliders. NHTSA has learned of
manufacturers who are creating glider vehicles that are new vehicles
under 49 CFR 571.7(e), however, the manufacturers are not certifying
them and obtaining a new VIN as required. NHTSA plans to pursue
enforcement actions as applicable against noncompliant manufacturers.
In addition to enforcement actions, NHTSA may consider amending 49 CFR
571.7(e) and related regulations as necessary. NHTSA believes
manufacturers may not be using this regulation as originally intended.
C. Applying the General Compliance Provisions of 40 CFR Part 1068 to
Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty Trucks, Chassis-Certified Class 2B and
3 Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Highway Motorcycles
    As described above, EPA is proposing to apply all the general
compliance provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 to heavy-duty engines and
vehicles. EPA proposes to also apply the recall provisions and the
hearing procedures from 40 CFR part 1068 for highway motorcycles and
for all vehicles subject to standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
See the preceding section for a description of how the provisions from
40 CFR part 1068 compare to those in 40 CFR part 85 and part 86.
    EPA also requests comment on applying the rest of the provisions
from 40 CFR part 1068 to highway motorcycles and to all vehicles
subject to standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. EPA particularly
requests comment on applying the defect-reporting provisions in 40 CFR
1068.501 to these vehicles. The general approach is to replace a fixed
threshold of 25 defects as the basis for defect reporting with a scaled
approach that would require defect reporting only after the
manufacturer finds some larger number of actual emission-related
defects. The regulation calls for manufacturers to monitor possible
emission-related defects as evidenced by warranty claims, in-use
testing, and other indicators, and to start investigating for actual
defects once possible defects exceed an established threshold. The
existing regulation in 40 CFR 1068.501 generally calls for
investigating once possible defects exceed 5 to 10 percent of
production, with a requirement to report defects if confirmed defects
exceed a rate of 1 to 2 percent of production. The percentage
thresholds that apply for a given engine/vehicle model decrease with
increasing production volumes. This approach is similar to defect-
reporting requirements that already apply in California. Manufacturers
may be interested in complying with a single set of defect-reporting
provisions nationwide; EPA therefore also requests comment on simply
requiring manufacturers to follow the California defect-reporting
scheme for their EPA-certified vehicles.
    Note that EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 85.1701 to specify that
the exemption provisions apply to heavy-duty engines subject to
regulation under 40 CFR part 86, subpart A. This is intended to limit
the scope of this provision so that it does not apply for Class 2b and
3 heavy-duty vehicles subject to standards under 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S. This change corrects and inadvertently broad reference to
heavy-duty vehicles in 40 CFR 85.1701.

D. Amendments to General Compliance Provisions in 40 CFR Part 1068

    The general compliance provisions in 40 CFR part 1068 apply broadly
too many different types of engines and equipment. This section
describes how EPA is proposing to amend these procedures to make
various corrections and adjustments.
(1) Hearing Procedures
    EPA is proposing to update and consolidate its regulations related
to formal and informal hearings in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G. This
will allow us to rely on a single set of regulations for all the
different categories of vehicles, engines, and equipment that are
subject to emission standards. EPA also made an effort to write these
regulations for improved readability.
    The hearing procedures specified in 40 CFR part 1068 apply to the
various categories of nonroad engines and equipment (along with the
other provisions of part 1068). EPA is proposing in these rules to
apply these hearing procedures also to heavy-duty highway engines,
light-duty motor vehicles, and highway motorcycles. EPA believes there
is no reason to treat any of these sectors differently regarding
hearing procedures.
    EPA is proposing an introductory section that provides an overview
of requesting a hearing for all cases where a person or a company
objects to an adverse decision by the agency. In certain circumstances,
as spelled out in the regulations, a person or a company can request a
hearing before a Presiding Officer. Statutory provisions require formal
hearing procedures for administrative enforcement actions seeking civil
penalties. The Clean Air Act does not require a formal hearing for
other agency decisions; EPA is therefore proposing to specify that
informal hearing procedures apply for all such decisions.
    The introductory section also adds detailed provisions describing
the requirements for submitting information to the agency in a timely
manner. These provisions accommodate current practices for electronic
submission, distinguish between postal and courier delivery and provide
separate requirements for shipments made from inside and outside the
United States. The specified deadlines are generally based on the
traditional approach of a

postmark determining whether a submission is timely or not. Fax, email
and courier shipments are similarly specified as needing to be sent by
close of business on the day of the deadline. A different approach
applies for shipments originating from outside the United States.
Because time in transit can vary dramatically, we are proposing to
specify that foreign shipments need to be received in our office by the
specified deadline to be considered timely. Given the option to send
documents by email or by fax, EPA expects this approach would not pose
any disadvantage to anyone making an appeal from outside the United
States.
    EPA is proposing to replace the current reference to 40 CFR
86.1853-01 for informal hearings with a full-text approach that
captures this same material. EPA attempted to write these proposed
regulations in a way that would not change the underlying hearing
protocol.
    The regulations currently reference the formal hearing procedures
in 40 CFR 85.1807, which were originally drafted to apply to light-duty
motor vehicles. After we adopted the hearing procedures in 40 CFR
85.1807, EPA's Office of Administrative Law Judges finalized a set of
regulations defining formal hearing procedures that were intended to
apply broadly across the agency for appeals under every applicable
statute. See 40 CFR part 22, ``Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing
the Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation/
Termination or Suspension of Permits.'' EPA is therefore revising the
regulations in 40 CFR part 1068 to simply refer to these formal hearing
procedures in 40 CFR part 22.
(2) Additional Changes to General Compliance Provisions
    EPA is also proposing to make numerous changes across 40 CFR part
1068 to correct errors, to add clarification, and to make adjustments
based on lessons learned from implementing these regulatory provisions.
This includes the following proposed changes:
     Sec.  1068.1: Clarify applicability of part 1068 with
respect to legacy parts (such as 40 CFR parts 89 through 94).
     Sec.  1068.20: Clarify that EPA's inspection activities do
not depend on having a warrant or a court order. As noted in the
standard-setting parts, EPA may deny certification or suspend or revoke
certificates if a manufacturer denies EPA entry for an attempted
inspection or other entry.
     Sec.  1068.27: Clarify that EPA confirmatory testing may
properly be performed before issuance of a certificate of conformity.
We are also making an addition to state that we may require
manufacturers to give us any special components that are needed for EPA
testing.
     Sec.  1068.30: Add definitions of ``affiliated
companies'', ``parent company'', and ``subsidiaries'' to clarify how
small-business provisions apply for a range of business relationships.
     Sec.  1068.30: Clarify that a manufacturer can be
considered a certificate holder based on the current or previous model
year (to avoid problems from having a gap between model years).
     Sec.  1068.30: Spell out contact information for the
``Designated Compliance Officer'' to clarify how manufacturers should
submit information to the agency. This includes email addresses for the
various sectors.
     Sec.  1068.32: Add discussion to establish the meaning of
various terms and phrases for EPA regulations; for example, we
distinguish between standards, requirements, allowances, prohibitions,
and provisions. EPA is also clarifying terminology with respect to
singular/plural, inclusive lists, notes and examples in the regulatory
text, and references to ``general'' or ``typical'' circumstances. EPA
also describes some of the approach to determining when ``unusual
circumstances'' apply.
     Sec.  1068.45: Allow manufacturers to use coded dates on
engine labels; allow EPA to require the manufacturer to share
information to read the coded information.
     Sec.  1068.45: Clarify that engine labels are information
submissions to EPA.
     Sec. Sec.  1068.101 and 1068.125: Update penalty amounts
to reflect changes to 40 CFR part 19.
     Sec.  1068.101: Revise the penalty associated with the
tampering prohibition to be an engine-based penalty, as opposed to
assessing penalties per day of engine operation. This correction aligns
with Clean Air Act section 205.
     Sec.  1068.103: Clarify the process for reinstating
certificates after suspending, revoking, or voiding.
     Sec.  1068.103: Clarify that the prohibition against
``offering for sale'' uncertified engines applies only for engines
already produced. It is not a violation to invite customers to buy
engines as part of an effort to establish the economic viability of
producing engines, as would be expected for market research.
     Sec.  1068.105: Require documentation related to ``normal
inventory'' for stockpiling provision. EPA is also clarifying that
there is no specific deadline associated with producing ``normal-
inventory'' engines under this section, but emphasizing that vehicle/
equipment manufacturers may not delay engine installation beyond their
normal production schedules. EPA is also clarifying that the allowance
related to building vehicles/equipment in the early part of a model
year, before the start of a new calendar year corresponding to new
emission standards, applies only in cases where vehicle/equipment
assembly is complete before the start of the new calendar year. This is
intended to prevent manufacturers from circumventing new standards by
initiating production of large numbers of vehicles/equipment for
eventual completion after new standards have started to apply.
     Sec.  1068.115: Clarify warranty provisions to align with
statute.
     Sec.  1068.120: Describe how the rebuilding provisions
apply in the case of engine replacements where the new and old engines
are subject to standards under different standard-setting parts (such
as switching from spark-ignition to compression-ignition nonroad
engines).
     Sec.  1068.201: Describe how someone may sell an engine
under a different exemption than was originally intended or used.
     Sec.  1068.210: Remove the requirement for companies
getting approval for a testing exemption to send us written
confirmation that they meet the terms and conditions of the exemption.
We do not believe this submission is necessary for implementing the
testing exemption.
     Sec.  1068.220: Add description of how we might approve
engine operation under the display exemption. This is intended to more
carefully address circumstances in which engine operation is part of
the display function in question. We would want to consider a wide
range of factors in considering such a request; for example, we could
be more inclined to approve a request for a display exemption if the
extent of operation is very limited, or if the engine/equipment has
emission rates that are comparable to what would apply absent the
exemption. EPA is also removing the specific prohibition against
generating revenue with exempted engines/equipment, since this has an
unclear meaning and we can take any possible revenue generation into
account in considering whether to approve the exemption on its merits.
     Sec.  1068.230: Add provision allowing for engine
operation under the export exemption only as needed to prepare it for
export (this has already been in

place in part 85, and in part 1068 for engines/equipment imported for
export).
     Sec.  1068.235: Clarify that the standard-setting part may
set conditions on an exemption for competition engines/equipment.
     Sec.  1068.240: Describe the logistics for identifying the
disposition of engines being replaced under the replacement engine
exemption. In particular, manufacturers would need to identify the
disposition of each engine by the due date for the report under Sec.
1068.240(c) to avoid counting them toward the production limit for
untracked replacement engines. We are proposing to delay the due date
for the report until September 30 following the production year to
allow more time for manufacturers to make these determinations.
     Sec.  1068.240: Clarify the relationship between
paragraphs (d) and (e).
     Sec.  1068.250: Simplify the deadline for requesting
small-volume hardship.
     Sec.  1068.255: Clarify that hardship provisions for
equipment manufacturers are not limited to small businesses, and that a
hardship approval is generally limited to a single instance of
producing exempt equipment for up to 12 months.
     Sec.  1068.260: State that manufacturers shipping engines
without certain emission-related components need to identify the
unshipped components either with a performance specification (where
applicable) or with specific part numbers. We are also listing exhaust
piping before and after aftertreatment devices as not being emission-
related components for purposes of shipping engines in a certified
configuration.
     Sec. Sec.  1068.260 and 1068.262: Revise the text to
clarify that provisions related to partially complete engines have
limited applicability in the case of equipment subject to equipment-
based exhaust emission standards (such as recreational vehicles). These
provisions are not intended to prevent the sale of partially complete
equipment with respect to evaporative emission standards. We intend to
address this in the future by changing the regulation in 40 CFR part
1060 to address this more carefully.
     Sec.  1068.262: Revise text to align with the terminology
and description adopted for similar circumstances related to shipment
of incomplete heavy-duty vehicles under 40 CFR part 1037.
     Sec.  1068.301: Revise text to more broadly describe
importers' responsibility to submit information and store records and
explicitly allow electronic submission of EPA declaration forms and
other importation documents.
     Sec.  1068.305: Remove the provision specifying that
individuals may need to submit taxpayer identification numbers as part
of a request for an exemption or exclusion for imported engines/
equipment. We do not believe this information is necessary for
implementing the exemption and exclusion provisions.
     Sec.  1068.315: Allow for destroying engines/equipment
instead of exporting them under the exemption for importing engines/
equipment for repairs or alterations.
     Sec.  1068.315: Remove the time constraints on approving
extensions to a display exemption for imported engines/equipment. EPA
would continue to expect the default time frame of one year to be
appropriate, and extension of one to three years is sufficient for most
cases; however, we are aware that there are occasional circumstances
calling for a longer-term exemption. For example, an engine on display
in a museum might appropriately be exempted indefinitely once its place
in a standing exhibition is well established.
     Sec.  1068.315: Specify that engines under the ancient
engine exemption must be substantially in the original configuration.
     Sec.  1068.360: Clarify the provisions related to model
year for imported products by removing a circularity regarding ``new''
engines and ``new'' equipment.
     Sec.  1068.401: Add explicit statement that SEA testing is
at manufacturer's expense. This is consistent with current practice and
the rest of the regulatory text.
     Sec.  1068.401: Allow for requiring manufacturers other
than the certificate holder to perform selective enforcement audits in
cases where multiple manufacturers are cooperatively producing
certified engines.
     Sec.  1068.401: State that SEA non-cooperation may lead to
suspended or revoked certificate (like production-line testing).
     Sec.  1068.415: Set up new criteria for lower SEA testing
rate based on engine power to allow for a reduced testing rate of one
engine per day only for engines with maximum engine power above 560 kW,
but keep the allowance to approve a lower testing rate; that may be
needed, for example, if engine break-in (stabilization) and testing are
performed on the same dynamometer. EPA believes it is more appropriate
to base reduced testing rates on engine characteristics rather than
sales volumes, as has been done in the past.
     Sec.  1068.415: Revise the service accumulation
requirement to specify a maximum of eight days for stabilizing a test
engine. This is necessary to address a situation where an engine
operates only six hours per day to achieve stabilization after well
over 50 hours. For such cases, we would expect manufacturers to be able
to run engines much more than six hours per day. As with testing rates,
manufacturers may ask for our approval to use a longer stabilization
period if circumstances don't allow them to meet the specified service
accumulation targets.
     Sec.  1068.501, and Appendix I: Clarify that ``emission-
related components'' include components whose failure would commonly
increase emissions (not might increase), and whose primary purpose is
to reduce emissions (not sole purpose); current regulations are not
consistent.
     Sec.  1068.501: Add ``in-use testing'' to list of things
to consider for investigating potential defects.
     Sec.  1068.505: Clarify that manufacturers subject to a
mandatory recall must remedy noncompliant target vehicles without
regard to their age or mileage at the time of repair, consistent with
provisions that already apply under 40 CFR part 85.
     Sec.  1068.505: Revise the requirement for submitting a
remedial report from a 60-day maximum to a 45-day minimum (or 30-day
minimum in the event of a hearing). This adjusted approach already
applies to motor vehicles under 40 CFR part 85.
     Sec.  1068.515: Clarify an ambiguity to require that
manufacturers identify the facility where repairs or inspections are
performed.
     Sec.  1068.530: Specify that recall records must be kept
for five years, rather than three years. This is consistent with
longstanding recall policy for motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines
under 40 CFR part 85.
    Manufacturers and equipment operators have raised an additional
question about how the regulations apply for replacement engines where
the replacement engine is of a different type than the engine being
replaced. For example, someone operating a piece of industrial
equipment may want to replace an old spark-ignition engine with a
compression-ignition engine (or vice versa). The replacement engine
could be freshly manufactured, or it may have already been placed into
service. The tampering prohibition would generally disallow ``disabling
emission controls,'' but regulations do not directly address how this
applies relative to the multiple emission standards that apply. It is
important to

note that the standard-setting part often specifies that a used
replacement engine becomes new (and subject to certification
requirements) if it is installed in a piece of equipment from a
different category. For example, installing a used heavy-duty highway
engine in land-based nonroad equipment would make the engine ``new''
and subject to certification requirements as a nonroad engine. This
does not apply for spark-ignition engines and compression-ignition
engines installed in heavy-duty highway vehicles, or for spark-ignition
engines and compression-ignition engines installed in land-based
nonroad equipment. We request comment on the best approach to
delineating how the tampering prohibition should apply for these
scenarios.

E. Amendments to Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas Program Requirements

    EPA is proposing to make minor changes to correct errors and
clarify regulations in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, and 40 CFR part 600
relating to EPA's light-duty greenhouse gas emission standards. This
includes the following proposed changes:
     Sec.  86.1818-12: Correct a reference in paragraph (c)(4)
and clarify that CO2-equivalent debits for N2O
and CH4 are calculated in Megagrams and rounded to the
nearest whole Megagram.
     Sec.  86.1838-01: Correct references in paragraph
(d)(3)(iii).
     Sec.  86.1866-12: Correct a reference in paragraph (b).
     Sec.  86.1868-12: Clarify language in the introductory
paragraph explaining the model years of applicability of different
provisions for air conditioning efficiency credits. In paragraph (e)(5)
clarify that the engine-off specification of 2 minutes is intended to
be cumulative time. In paragraphs (f)(1), (g)(1), and (g)(3), clarify
language by pointing to the definitions in Sec.  86.1803-01.
     Sec.  86.1869-12: Make corrections to the language for
readability in paragraph (b)(2). In paragraph (b)(4)(ii) delete the
phrase ``backup/reverse lights'' because these lights were not intended
to be part of the stated eligibility criteria for high-efficiency
lighting credits. Correct references in paragraph (f).
     Sec.  86.1870-12: Add language that clarifies that a
manufacturer that meets the minimum production volume thresholds with a
combination of mild and strong hybrid electric pickup trucks is
eligible for credits.
     Sec.  86.1871-12: Clarify that credits from model years
2010-2015 are not limited to a life of 5 model years. A recent rule
extended the life of 2010-2015 credits to model year 2021; thus,
language referring to a 5-year life for emission credits generated in
these model years is being removed or revised.
     Sec.  600.113-12: Correct language in paragraph (m)(1),
which relates to vehicles operating on LPG, that erroneously refers to
methanol and methanol-fueled.
     Sec.  600.113-12: Correct references in paragraph (n) and
add a new paragraph (m) that reinstates language mistakenly dropped by
a previous regulation.
     Sec.  600.116-12: Correct description of physical quantity
to refer to ``energy'' rather than ``current'', and correct various
paragraph references.
     Sec.  600.208-12: Correct a reference in paragraph
(a)(2)(iii).
     Sec.  600.210-12: Correct a reference and text in
paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(C).

F. Amendments to Highway and Nonroad Test Procedures and Certification
Requirements

(1) Testing With Aftertreatment Devices Involving Infrequent
Regeneration
    Manufacturers generally rely on selective catalytic reaction and
diesel particulate filters to meet EPA's emission standards for highway
and nonroad compression-ignition engines. These emission control
devices typically involve infrequent regeneration, which can have a
significant effect on emission rates. EPA has addressed that for each
engine type by provisions for infrequent regeneration factors; this is
a calculation methodology that allows manufacturers to incorporate the
effect of infrequent regeneration into reported emission values whether
or not that regeneration occurs during an emission test. EPA adopted
separate provisions for highway, locomotive, marine, and land-based
nonroad compression-ignition engines. EPA is proposing to harmonize the
common elements of these procedures in 40 CFR part 1065, and to add
clarifying specifications in each of the standard-setting parts for
sector-specific provisions.
(2) Mapping for Constant-Speed Engines Under 40 CFR Part 1065
    EPA is proposing to revise this section as it applies to the two-
point mapping method for certain constant-speed engines. The
regulations currently cite a performance parameter in ISO 8528-5 that
does not apply for the design of these engines.
    Common practice for engines that produce electric power is to use
an isochronous governor for stand-alone generator sets. In some
parallel operations of multiple generator sets, droop is added as a
method for load sharing. The amount of droop can be tuned by the
generator set manufacturer or the site system integrator. Such engines
are commonly tested on an engine dynamometer with the isochronous
governor.
    Mapping with just two points works well for the case of 0 percent
droop (i.e. isochronous governor). For this case, a persistent speed
error is forced on the engine governor on the second point and this
will cause the governor to wind up to its maximum command. The second
point is effectively operating on the torque curve instead of the
isochronous governor. So, the second point captures the full fueling
torque (plus a small amount due to any rising torque curve). This
measured torque is used as the maximum test torque for computing the
emission test points. Since there is no designed-in droop, some target
amount of speed error is needed for the second point. The regulation at
40 CFR 1065.510(d)(5)(iii) currently has a default target speed on the
second point of 97.5 percent of the no-load speed measured on the first
point. This results in a persistent speed error of 2.5 percent of the
no-load speed. For an 1800 rpm no-load speed, this would give a target
speed of 1755 rpm and a 45 rpm speed error on an isochronous governor.
If the engine has a torque rise of 20 percent from 1800 to 1200 rpm
(0.0333 percent torque rise per rpm), this 45 rpm error will cause a
1.5 percent of point error in the determination of the intended maximum
test torque. This error is larger than desired for this type of
testing. Fortunately, engines and test cells have sufficient speed
resolution to select a lower speed error, which reduces this error in
maximum test torque. In practice, testing with a speed error at or
below 0.5 percent is more than adequate to cause the isochronous
governor to wind up to maximum fueling. Using a target speed of 99.5
percent on the second point gives a target speed of 1791 rpm for an
1800 rpm no-load speed and will reduce the error on the maximum test
torque to a reasonable 0.3 percent of point for the 20 percent torque
rise case described above.
    For governors with droop, if we attempt the two-point method, we
would have to calculate a target speed for the second point based on a
designed amount of droop. Unfortunately, the actual governor may not
have the same amount of droop as the design droop, which may cause
error in the measured torque versus the maximum test torque associated
with a

complete torque map. Also, the design droop may be based on a torque
value that is different from the intended maximum test torque. Thus,
the two-point method is not sufficient to yield a maximum test torque
equivalent to the value that would be obtained using a multi-point map.
Also the allowed speed error on the second point is 20 percent of the
speed droop, which allows an unacceptably large error in the maximum
test torque.
    Thus, for the reasons listed, we are proposing to limit the two-
point mapping method to any isochronous governed engines, not just
engines used to generate electric power.
(3) Calculating Maximum and Intermediate Test Speeds Under 40 CFR Part
1065
    EPA is proposing to improve the method for calculating maximum and
intermediate test speeds by applying a more robust calculation method.
The new calculation method would be consistent with the methodology
used for the maximum test torque determination, which we revised in our
light-duty Tier 3 rulemaking. Under the current regulations, the result
is a measured maximum test torque at one of the map points. The
proposed calculation method involves interpolation to determine the
measured maximum test torque, yielding a more representative maximum
test torque lbs.
(4) Additional Test Procedure Amendments
    EPA is proposing the following additional changes to test
procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 and part 1066:
     Sec.  1065.15: Allow manufacturers to use NMOG
measurements to demonstrate compliance with NMHC standards. We also
request comment on whether other forms of hydrocarbon standards (such
as VOC) should be allowed for alternative fuels.
     Sec.  1066.210: Revise the dynamometer force equation to
incorporate grade, consistent with the coastdown procedures being
proposed for heavy-duty vehicles. For operation at a level grade, the
additional parameters cancel out of the calculation.
     Sec.  1066.605: Adding an equation to the regulations to
spell out how to calculate emission rates in grams per mile. This
calculation is generally assumed, but we want to include the equation
to remove any uncertainty about calculating emission rates from mass
emission measurements and driving distance.
     Sec.  1066.815: Create an exception to the maximum value
for overall residence time for PM sampling methods that involve PM
samples collected for combined bags over a duty cycle. This is needed
to accommodate the reduced sample flow rates associated with these
procedures.

G. Amendments Related to Nonroad Diesel Engines in 40 CFR Part 1039

    EPA is proposing two changes to 40 CFR 1039.5 to clarify the scope
and applicability of standards under 40 CFR part 1039. First, EPA is
stating that engines using the provisions of 40 CFR 1033.625 for non-
locomotive-specific engines remain subject to certification
requirements as nonroad diesel engines under 40 CFR part 1039. Such
engines would need to be certified as both locomotive engines and as
nonroad diesel engines. Second, EPA is proposing to revise the
statement about how manufacturers may certify under 40 CFR part 1051
for engines installed in recreational vehicles (such as all-terrain
vehicles or snowmobiles). EPA is proposing to remove text that might be
interpreted to mean that there are circumstances in which certification
under neither part is required. The proper understanding of EPA's
policy in that regard is that certification under one part is a
necessary condition for being exempted from the other part.
    In 2008, EPA adopted a requirement in 40 CFR part 1042 for
manufacturers to design marine diesel engines using selective catalytic
reduction with basic diagnostic functions to ensure that these systems
were working as intended (73 FR 37096, June 30, 2008). EPA is proposing
to apply those same diagnostic control requirements to nonroad diesel
engines regulated under 40 CFR part 1039. This addresses the same
fundamental concern that engines would not be controlling emissions
consistent with the certified configuration if the engine is lacking
the appropriate quantity and quality of reductant. While some lead time
would be needed to make the necessary modifications, we believe it will
be straightforward to apply the same designs from marine diesel engines
to land-based nonroad diesel engines. EPA is accordingly proposing that
manufacturers meet the proposed diagnostic specifications starting with
model year 2018. These diagnostic controls would not affect the current
policy related to adjustable parameters and inducements related to
selective catalytic reduction. EPA requests comment on adding these
diagnostic requirements for nonroad diesel engines.
    EPA is proposing to make numerous changes across 40 CFR part 1039
to correct errors, to add clarification, and to make adjustments based
on lessons learned from implementing these regulatory provisions. This
includes the following proposed changes:
     Sec.  1039.2: Add a clarifying note to say that something
other than a conventional ``manufacturer'' may need to certify engines
that become new after being placed into service (such as engines
converted from highway or stationary use). This is intended to address
a possible assumption that only conventional manufacturers can certify
engines.
     Sec. Sec.  1039.30, 1039.730, and 1039.825: Consolidate
information-collection provisions into a single section.
     Sec.  1039.107: Remove the reference to deterioration
factors for evaporative emissions, since there are no deterioration
factors for demonstrating compliance with evaporative emission
standards.
     Sec.  1039.104(g): Correct the specified FEL cap for an
example scenario illustrating how alternate FEL caps work.
     Sec.  1039.120: Reduce extended-warranty requirements to
warranties that are actually provided to the consumer, rather than to
any published warranties that are offered. The principle is that the
emission-related warranty should not be less effective for emission-
related items than for items that are not emission-related.
     Sec.  1039.125: Allow for special maintenance procedures
that address low-use engines. For example, owners of recreational
marine vessels may need to perform engine maintenance after a smaller
number of hours than would otherwise apply based on the limited engine
operation over time.
     Sec.  1039.125: Establish a minimum maintenance interval
of 1500 hours for DEF filters. This reflects the technical capabilities
for filter durability and the expected maintenance in the field.
     Sec.  1039.125: Add fuel-water separator cartridges as an
example of a maintenance item that is not emission-related.
     Sec.  1039.135: Allow for including optional label content
only if the manufacturer does not opt to omit other information based
on limited availability of space on the label, and identify counterfeit
protection as an additional item that manufacturers may include on the
label.
     Sec.  1039.201: Clarify that manufacturers may amend their
application for certification after the end of the model year in
certain circumstances, but they may not produce engines for a given
model year after December 31 of the named year.

     Sec.  1039.201: Establish that manufacturers may deliver
to EPA for testing an engine that is identical to the test engine used
for certification. This may be necessary if the test engine has
accumulated too many hours, or if it is unavailable for any reason.
     Sec.  1039.205: Replace the requirement to submit data
from invalid tests with a requirement to simply notify EPA in the
application for certification if test was invalidated.
     Sec.  1039.205: Add a requirement for manufacturers to
include in their application for certification a description of their
practice for importing engines, if applicable. Note that where a
manufacturers' engines are imported through a wide variety of means,
EPA would not require this description to be comprehensive. In such
cases, a short description of the predominant practices would generally
be sufficient. We are also proposing to require manufacturers of
engines below 560 kW to name a test lab in the United States for the
possibility of us requiring tests under a selective enforcement audit.
We have adopted these same requirements in many of our other nonroad
programs.
     Sec.  1039.225: Clarify that manufacturers may amend the
application for certification after the end of the model year only in
certain circumstances, and not to add a new or modified engine
configuration.
     Sec.  1039.235: Add an explicit allowance for carryover
engine families to include the same kind of within-family running
changes that are currently allowed over the course of a model year. The
original text may have been understood to require that such running
changes be made separate from certifying the engine family for the new
model year.
     Sec. Sec.  1039.235, 1039.240, and 1039.601: Describe how
to demonstrate compliance with dual-fuel and flexible-fuel engines.
This generally involves testing with each separate fuel, or with a
worst-case fuel blend.
     Sec.  1039.240: Add instructions for calculating
deterioration factors for sawtooth deterioration patterns, such as
might be expected for periodic maintenance, such as cleaning or
replacing diesel particulate filters.
     Sec.  1039.240: Remove the instruction related to
calculating NMHC emissions from measured THC results, since this is
addressed in 40 CFR part 1065.
     Sec.  1039.250: Remove references to routine and standard
tests, and remove the shorter recordkeeping requirement for routine
data (or data from routine tests). All test records must be kept for
eight years. With electronic recording of test data, there should be no
advantage to keeping the shorter recordkeeping requirement for a subset
of test data. EPA also notes that the eight-year period restarts with
certification for a new model year if the manufacturer uses carryover
data.
     Sec.  1039.255: Clarify that rendering information false
or incomplete after submitting it is the same as submitting false or
incomplete information. For example, if there is a change to any
corporate information or engine parameters described in the
manufacturer's application for certification, the manufacturer must
amend the application to include the new information.
     Sec.  1039.255: Clarify that voiding certificates for a
recordkeeping or reporting violation would be limited to certificates
that relate to the particular recordkeeping or reporting failure.
     Sec.  1039.505: Correct the reference to the ISO C1 duty
cycle for engines below 19 kW.
     Sec.  1039.515: Correct the cite to 40 CFR 86.1370.
     Sec. Sec.  1039.605 and 1039.610: Revise the reporting
requirement to require detailed information about the previous year,
rather than requiring a detailed projection for the year ahead. The
information required in advance would be limited to a notification of
plans to use the provisions of these sections.
     Sec.  1039.640: Migrate engine branding to Sec.  1068.45.
     Sec.  1039.701 1039.730: Describe the process for retiring
emission credits. This may be referred to as donating credits to the
environment.
     Sec.  1039.705: Change terminology for counting engines
from ``point of first retail sale'' to ``U.S.-direction production
volume.'' This conforms to the usual approach for calculating emission
credits for nonroad engines.
     Sec.  1039.710: Clarify that it is not permissible to show
a proper balance of credits for a given model by using emission credits
from a future model year.
     Sec.  1039.730: Clarify terminology for ABT reports.
     Sec.  1039.740: Clarify that the averaging-set provisions
apply for credits generated by Tier 4 engines, not for credits
generated from engines subject to earlier standards that are used with
Tier 4 engines.
     Sec.  1039.801: Update the contact information for the
Designated Compliance Officer.
     Sec.  1039.801: Revise the definition of ``model year'' to
clarify that the calendar year relates to the time that engines are
produced under a certificate of conformity.
     Sec.  1039.815: Migrate provisions related to confidential
information to 40 CFR part 1068.
    EPA requests comment on removing regulatory provisions for
Independent Commercial Importers in 40 CFR part 1039. These provisions,
copied from highway regulations many years ago, generally allow for
small businesses to modify small numbers of uncertified products to be
in a certified configuration using alternative demonstration
procedures. We are not aware of anyone using these provisions for
nonroad engines in the last 15 years or more. We are therefore
interested in considering these provisions to be obsolete, in which
case they can be removed without consequence.

H. Amendments Related to Marine Diesel Engines in 40 CFR Parts 1042 and
1043

    EPA's emission standards and certification requirements for marine
diesel engines under the Clean Air Act are identified in 40 CFR part
1042.
(1) Continuous NOX Monitoring and On-Off Controls
    Manufacturers may produce certain marine diesel engines with on-off
features that disable NOX controls when the ship is
operating outside of a designated Emission Control Area (ECA) as long
as certain conditions are met (Sec.  1042.115(g)). This provision,
which applies to Category 3 engines meeting EPA Tier 3 standards, is
intended to address the special operating conditions posed by an ECA
and allows a ship that operates in and out of designated ECAs to
downgrade engine NOX emission controls while the ship is
operating outside of a designated ECA. This provision also applies for
Tier 4 NOX standards for those Category 1 and Category 2
auxiliary engines on Category 3 vessels covered by Sec.  1042.650(d);
this provision does not apply to any other auxiliary engines or to any
non-Category 3 propulsion engines. Engines with allowable on-off
controls must be certified to meet the previous tier of NOX
standards when the advanced NOX control strategies are
disabled (note that this would be Tier 2 for auxiliary engines as well
as Category 3 engines, pursuant to Sec.  1042.650(d)).
    Engines with on-off NOX controls are required to be
equipped to continuously monitor NOX concentrations in the
exhaust (Sec.  1042.110(d)). EPA has been asked to clarify what
``continuous'' means in the context of this requirement. Because the
purpose of this requirement is to show that the engine complies with
the NOX emission limits on a continuous basis, continuous

monitoring must be frequent enough to demonstrate that the
NOX controls are on and are properly functioning from the
time the ship enters the ECA until it leaves, which, depending on the
ECA and the ship's itinerary, could be a matter of hours or days. Since
many manufacturers equip their emission control systems with
NOX sensors to monitoring and log the performance of the
combined engine and emission control system, we are proposing that
continuous monitoring means measuring NOX emissions at least
every 60 seconds. EPA is also proposing that a manufacturer may request
approval of an alternative measurement period if that is necessary for
sufficiently accurate measurements. With regard to the functioning of
continuous NOX monitoring, the continuous emission
measurement device would be required to be included as part of the
engine system for EPA certification. Continuous NOX
monitoring would be required to be engaged before the ship enters an
ECA and continue until after it exits the ECA. Verification of
operation of the system would be included in required periodic vessel
surveys and certification that cover nearly all commercial U.S.
vessels. Enforcement is expected to be performed on a periodic basis by
appropriate authorities when a ship is in port.
    It should be noted that the above provisions with respect to on-off
controls and continuous emission monitoring do not apply for the 40 CFR
part 1042 PM standards. Engines certified to standards under 40 CFR
part 1042 must meet the PM limits at all times, except when the
operator has applied for and received permission to disable Tier 4 PM
controls while operating outside the United States pursuant to any of
the provisions of 40 CFR 1042.650(a) through (c).
(2) Category 1 and Category 2 Auxiliary Engines on Category 3 Vessels
    The regulation at 40 CFR 1042.650(d) exempts auxiliary Category 1
and Category 2 engines installed on U.S.-flag Category 3 vessels from
the part 1042 standards if those auxiliary engines meet certain
conditions. This provision is intended to facilitate compliance with
MARPOL Annex VI by certain qualified Category 3 vessels engaged in
international trade and to simplify compliance demonstrations while
those vessels are operating in foreign ports and foreign waters. EPA is
proposing two revisions to make clear that the engines on the Category
3 vessel must remain in compliance with Annex VI, and EPA is providing
clarifying language relating to engines with a power output of 130 kW
or less.
    First, EPA is proposing to revise the regulations to clarify that
the urea reporting requirements in Sec.  1042.660(b) (which requires an
owner or operator of any vessel equipped with SCR to report to EPA
within 30 days of any operation of such vessel without the appropriate
reductant) also apply to Category 1 and Category 2 auxiliary engines on
Category 3 vessels that are covered by Sec.  1042.650(d). This will
extend the urea reporting requirements to engines between 130 and 600
kW if they rely on SCR to meet the Annex VI Tier III NOX
limits. Engines covered by Sec.  1043.650(d) would be subject to
emission standards and testing requirements under MARPOL Annex VI and
the NOX Technical Code.
    Second, EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 1042.650(d) to clarify
that, while these Category 1 and Category 2 auxiliary engines may be
designed with on-off NOX controls, Annex VI requires that
the engines be certified to meet IMO Tier II NOX standards
anytime the IMO Tier III NOX configuration is disabled.
    EPA has become aware that there is some uncertainty about how the
scope of EPA's implementation of Annex VI through 40 CFR part 1043
relates to engines with a power output of 130 kW or less. The existing
regulations at Sec.  1043.30 state that an EIAPP certificate is
required for engines with a power output above 130 kW, but the
standards described in Sec.  1043.60 might be interpreted to apply to
engines of all sizes. EPA did not intend to appear to create additional
requirements or authority under part 1043 that is not contained in
Annex VI or its implementing legislation (the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships). EPA is therefore proposing to add clarifying language to
Sec.  1043.60, consistent with Regulation 13 of Annex VI and APPS, to
indicate that the international NOX limits do not apply to
engines with a power output of 130 kW or less. Note that EPA therefore
may not issue EIAPP certificates for engines with a power output of 130
kW or less even if manufacturers request it; this also means that such
auxiliary engines are not eligible for an exemption under Sec.
1042.650(d).
(3) Natural Gas Marine Engines
    EPA is also proposing to expand provisions that apply for marine
engines designed to operate on both diesel fuel and natural gas. Test
requirements apply separately for each ``fuel type''. EPA generally
considers an engine with a single calibration strategy that combines an
initial pilot injection of diesel fuel to burn natural gas to be a
single fuel type. This applies even if the natural gas portion must be
substantially reduced or eliminated to maintain proper engine operation
at light-load conditions. If the engine has a different calibration
allowing it to run only on diesel fuel, or on continuous mixtures of
diesel fuel and natural gas, we would consider it to be a dual-fuel
engine or a flexible-fuel engine, respectively. These terms are used
consistently across EPA programs for highway and nonroad applications.
There is an effort underway to revise the definition of ``dual-fuel''
in MARPOL Annex VI, which may be different than EPA's definition. It
should be noted that the 40 CFR part 1042 certification testing
requirement differs from that specified in MARPOL Annex VI and the
NOX Technical Code. While the international protocol
involves testing only on the engine calibration with the greatest
degree of diesel fuel, EPA certification requires manufacturers to
perform testing on each separate fuel type. This would involve one set
of tests with natural gas (with or without a diesel pilot fuel, as
appropriate), and an additional set of tests with diesel fuel alone.
This has been required since we first adopted standards, and this is
the same policy that applies across all our emission control programs.
EPA also proposes to include amended regulatory language to more
carefully describe these testing requirements, and to specify how this
applies differently for dual-fuel and flexible-fuel engines.
(4) Additional Marine Diesel Amendments
    EPA is proposing to make numerous changes across 40 CFR part 1042
to correct errors, to add clarification, and to make adjustments based
on lessons learned from implementing these regulatory provisions. This
includes the following proposed changes:
     Sec.  1042.1: Correct the tabulated applicability date for
engines with per-cylinder displacement between 7 and 15 liters; this
should refer to engines ``at or above'' 7 liters, rather than ``above 7
liters''.
     Sec.  1042.1: Replace an incorrect reference to 40 CFR
part 89 with a reference to 40 CFR part 94 for marine engines above 37
kW.
     Sec.  1042.2: Add a clarifying note to say that something
other than a conventional ``manufacturer'' may need to certify engines
that become new after being placed into service (such as engines
converted from highway or stationary use). This is intended to address
a possible assumption that only

conventional manufacturers can certify engines.
     Sec. Sec.  1042.30, 1042.730, and 1042.825: Consolidate
information-collection provisions into a single section.
     Sec.  1042.101: Revise the text to more carefully identify
engine subcategories and better describe the transition between Tier 3
and Tier 4 standards. These changes are intended to clarify which
standards apply and are not intended to change the emission standards
for any particular size or type of engine.
     Sec.  1042.101 and Appendix III: More precisely define
applicability of specific NTE standards for different types of engines
and pollutants; correct formulas defining NTE zones and subzones; and
add clarifying information to identify subzone points that could
otherwise be derived from existing formulas. None of these changes are
intended to change the standards, test procedures, or other policies
for implementing the NTE standards.
     Sec.  1042.101: Clarify the FEL caps for certain engines
above 3700 kW.
     Sec.  1042.101: Add a specification to define ``continuous
monitor'' for parameters requiring repeated discrete measurements, as
described above. The proposal also includes further clarification on
the relationship between on-off NOX controls and engine
diagnostic systems.
     Sec.  1042.110: Remove the requirement to notify operators
regarding an unsafe operating condition, since we can more generally
rely on the broader provision in Sec.  1042.115 that prohibits
manufacturers from incorporating design strategies that introduce an
unreasonable safety risk during engine operation.
     Sec.  1042.120: Reduce extended-warranty requirements to
warranties that are actually provided to the consumer, rather than to
any published warranties that are offered. The principle is that the
emission-related warranty should not be less effective for emission-
related items than for items that are not emission-related.
     Sec.  1042.125: Allow for special maintenance procedures
that address low-use engines. For example, owners of recreational
marine vessels may need to perform engine maintenance after a smaller
number of hours than would otherwise apply based on the limited engine
operation over time.
     Sec.  1042.125: Establish a minimum maintenance interval
of 1500 hours for DEF filters. This reflects the technical capabilities
for filter durability and the expected maintenance in the field.
     Sec.  1042.135: Clarify that ULSD labeling is required
only for engines that use sulfur-sensitive technology. If an engine can
meet applicable emission standards without depending on the use of
ULSD, the manufacturer should not be required to state on the engine
that ULSD is required.
     Sec.  1042.135: Allow for including optional label content
only if the manufacturer does not opt to omit other information based
on limited availability of space on the label.
     Sec.  1042.201: Clarify that manufacturers may amend their
application for certification after the end of the model year in
certain circumstances, but they may not produce engines for a given
model year after December 31 of the named year.
     Sec.  1042.201: Establish that manufacturers may deliver
to EPA for testing an engine that is identical to the test engine used
for certification. This may be necessary if the test engine has
accumulated too many hours, or if it is unavailable for any reason.
     Sec. Sec.  1042.205 and 1042.840: Replace the requirement
to submit data from invalid tests with a requirement to simply notify
EPA in the application for certification if test was invalidated.
     Sec.  1042.225: Clarify that manufacturers may amend the
application for certification after the end of the model year only in
certain circumstances, and not to add a new or modified engine
configuration.
     Sec.  1042.235: Add an explicit allowance for carryover
engine families to include the same kind of within-family running
changes that are currently allowed over the course of a model year. The
original text may have been understood to require that such running
changes be made separate from certifying the engine family for the new
model year.
     Sec. Sec.  1042.235, 1042.240, and 1042.601: Describe how
to demonstrate compliance with dual-fuel and flexible-fuel engines.
This generally involves testing with each separate fuel, or with a
worst-case fuel blend.
     Sec.  1042.240: Add instructions for calculating
deterioration factors for sawtooth deterioration patterns, such as
might be expected for periodic maintenance, such as cleaning or
replacing diesel particulate filters.
     Sec.  1042.250: Remove references to routine and standard
tests, and remove the shorter recordkeeping requirement for routine
data (or data from routine tests). All test records must be kept for
eight years. With electronic recording of test data, there should be no
advantage to keeping the shorter recordkeeping requirement for a subset
of test data. EPA also notes that the eight-year period restarts with
certification for a new model year if the manufacturer uses carryover
data.
     Sec.  1042.255: Clarify that rendering information false
or incomplete after submitting it is the same as submitting false or
incomplete information. For example, if there is a change to any
corporate information or engine parameters described in the
manufacturer's application for certification, the manufacturer must
amend the application to include the new information.
     Sec.  1042.255: Clarify that voiding certificates for a
recordkeeping or reporting violation would be limited to certificates
that relate to the particular recordkeeping or reporting failure.
     Sec.  1042.302: Clarify that manufacturers may fulfill the
requirement to test each Category 3 production engine by performing the
test before or after the engine is installed in the vessel. The largest
Category 3 engines are assembled in the vessel, but some smaller
Category 3 engines are assembled at a manufacturing facility where they
can be more easily tested. Manufacturers must perform such testing on
fully assembled production engines rather than relying on test results
from test bed engines.
     Sec.  1042.501: Remove test procedure specifications that
are already covered in 40 CFR part 1065.
     Sec.  1042.505: Correct the reference to the ISO C1 duty
cycle in 40 CFR part 1039.
     Sec.  1042.515: Remove an incorrect cite.
     Sec. Sec.  1042.605 and 1042.610: Revise the reporting
requirement to require detailed information about the previous year,
rather than requiring a detailed projection for the year ahead. The
information required in advance would be limited to a notification of
plans to use the provisions of these sections.
     Sec.  1042.630: Clarify that dockside examinations are not
inspections. Vessels subject to Coast Guard inspection are identified
in 46 U.S.C. 3301.
     Sec.  1042.640: Migrate engine branding to Sec.  1068.45.
     Sec.  1042.650: Clarify that vessel operators may modify
certified engines if they will be operated for an extended period
outside the United States where ULSD will be unavailable. This does not
preclude the possibility of vessel operators restoring engines to a
certified configuration in anticipation of bring the vessel back to the
United States.
     Sec.  1042.660: Identify the contact information for
submitting reports related to operation without SCR reductant.

     Sec.  1042.670: Specify that gas turbine engines are
presumed to have an equivalent power density below 35 kW per liter of
engine displacement; this is needed to identify which Tier 3 standards
apply.
     Sec.  1042.701: Clarify that emission credits generated
under 40 CFR part 94 may be used for demonstrating compliance with the
Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards in 40 CFR part 1042.
     Sec. Sec.  1042.701 and 1042.730: Describe the process for
retiring emission credits. This may be referred to as donating credits
to the environment.
     Sec.  1042.705: Change terminology for counting engines
from ``point of first retail sale'' to ``U.S.-direction production
volume.'' This conforms to the usual approach for calculating emission
credits for nonroad engines.
     Sec.  1042.710: Clarify that it is not permissible to show
a proper balance of credits for a given model by using emission credits
from a future model year.
     Sec.  1042.730: Clarify terminology for ABT reports.
     Sec.  1042.810: Clarify that it is only the
remanufacturing standards of subpart I, not the certification standards
that are the subject of the applicability determination in Sec.
1042.810.
     Sec.  1042.830: Add a provision to specifically allow
voluntary labeling for engines that are not subject to remanufacturing
standards, and to clarify that the label is required for engines that
are subject to remanufacturing standards.
     Sec.  1042.901: Update the contact information for the
Designated Compliance Officer.
     Sec.  1042.901: Revise the definition of ``model year'' to
correct cites and clarify that the calendar year relates to the time
that engines are produced under a certificate of conformity.
     Sec. Sec.  1042.901 and 1042.910: Update the reference
documents for Annex VI and NOX Technical Code to include
recent changes from the International Maritime Organization.
     Sec.  1042.915: Migrate provisions related to confidential
information to 40 CFR part 1068.

I. Amendments Related to Locomotives in 40 CFR Part 1033

    EPA's emission standards and certification requirements for
locomotives and locomotive engines under the Clean Air Act are
identified in 40 CFR part 1033.
    EPA is proposing to revise the engine mapping provisions in 40 CFR
part 1033 for locomotive testing to denote that manufacturers do not
have to meet the cycle limit values in 40 CFR 1065.514 when testing
complete locomotives. Also, for engine testing with a dynamometer,
while the validation criteria of CFR 1065.514 apply, EPA proposes to
allow manufacturers the option to check validation using manufacturer-
declared values for maximum torque, power, and speed. This option would
allow them to omit engine mapping under 40 CFR 1065.510, which is
already not required. These provisions would reduce test burden and
cost for the manufacturer, while preserving the integrity of the
certification requirements.
    EPA is also proposing text that describes the alternate ramped-
model cycle provisions in 40 CFR part 1033 as some of the notch setting
and durations are inconsistent with the description of the duty cycle
in Table 1 of 40 CFR 1033.520. EPA has determined that the table is
correct as published and the error lies in the text describing how to
carry out the ramped-modal test.
    We are also proposing to clarify that locomotives operating on a
combination of diesel fuel and gaseous fuel are subject to NMHC
standards, which is the same as if the locomotives operated only on
gaseous fuel. With respect to in-use fuels, we are proposing a
clarification in 40 CFR 1033.815 regarding allowable fuels for certain
Tier 4 and later locomotives. Specifically, we would note that
locomotives certified on ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, but that do not
include sulfur sensitive emission controls, could use low sulfur diesel