Component Durability Procedures for New Light-Duty Vehicles,
Light-Duty Trucks and Heavy-Duty Vehicles
[Federal Register: January 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 10)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2843-2855]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17ja06-23]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 86
[FRL-8019-1]
RIN 2060-AN01
Component Durability Procedures for New Light-Duty Vehicles,
Light-Duty Trucks and Heavy-Duty Vehicles
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 2, 2004 (69 FR 17531), EPA issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to propose procedures to be used by
manufacturers of light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks and heavy-duty
vehicles to demonstrate, for purposes of emission certification, that
new motor vehicles will comply with EPA emissions standards throughout
their useful lives. The NPRM proposed emissions certification
durability procedures to be used by manufacturers to demonstrate the
expected rate of deterioration of the emission levels of their
vehicles. The Agency received several comments concerning the component
durability portion of the durability process. Options for addressing
component durability were not discussed in the April 2004 proposal, and
EPA believes it is appropriate to address component durability in a
supplemental proposal. Therefore, EPA is issuing this action to request
comments on three options for addressing component durability during
the vehicle emissions certification process.
DATES: Written comments on this SNPRM must be submitted on or before
February 16, 2006. A public hearing will be held on February 1, 2006.
Requests to present oral testimony must be received on or before
January 27, 2006. If EPA receives no requests to present oral testimony
by this date, the hearing will be canceled.
ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments may be submitted by mail to: Air Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0079.
Comments may also be submitted electronically, by facsimile, or through
hand delivery/courier. For more information submitting comments and on
the comment procedure and public hearings, follow the detailed
instructions as provided in Section XI, ``Public Participation''
section. We must receive them by the date indicated under DATES above.
Paper copies of written comments (in duplicate if possible) should also
be sent to the general contact person listed below.
Docket: EPA's Air Docket makes materials related to this rulemaking
available for review in Public Docket No. A-2002-0079 at the following
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Air Docket (6102),
Room M-1500 (on the ground floor in Waterside Mall), 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460 between 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except on government holidays. You can reach the Air Docket by
telephone at (202) 260-7548, and by facsimile (202) 260-4400. We may
charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials, as provided in 40
CFR part 2.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Pugliese, U.S. EPA, National
Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; Telephone (734) 214-4288; FAX: (734) 214-4053; e-mail:
pugliese.holly@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Why is this Action being taken?
II. History of EPA's Component Durability Requirements
III. What comments has EPA received on component durability?
IV. What are the differences between component durability and
emissions durability?
V. Statutory Authority
VI. How has EPA evaluated component durability in the past in
deciding to issue a certificate?
VII. Is EPA required to use testing to evaluate component durability?
VIII. What options are being considered by EPA?
IX. Request for Comments
X. What are the environmental and economic impacts?
XI. What are the opportunities for public participation?
A. Copies of This Proposal and Other Related Information
B. Submitting Comments on This Proposal
C. Public Hearing
XII. What are the Administrative Requirements for this Proposed Rule?
A. EO 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
I. Why is this Action being taken?
The demonstration of light-duty vehicle emission durability for
purposes of certification consists of two elements: Emission
deterioration and component durability. On April 2, 2004, EPA published
an NPRM that proposed durability procedures to be used by manufacturers
to demonstrate the expected rate of deterioration of the emission
levels of their vehicles. The proposal did not make any changes to
component durability procedures. It carried over the component
durability requirements from the updated certification regulations for
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks published in 1999 known as
``CAP 2000'' (Compliance Assurance Program). EPA received several
comments on the NPRM pertaining to component durability.
Because of the complex nature of the comments, we determined that
the issue of component durability warranted further consideration and
discussion. EPA intends to proceed with finalization of the emission
deterioration procedures discussed in the NPRM, but will consider
issues regarding component durability in this supplemental proposal.
II. History of EPA's Component Durability Requirements
A. Pre-1994 Component Durability
Prior to 1994, EPA's regulations (ref. 40 CFR part 86) specified
the method to demonstrate a vehicle's emission durability. The method
used a whole vehicle mileage accumulation cycle, commonly referred to
as the Approved Mileage Accumulation (AMA) cycle.\1\ It required
manufacturers to accumulate mileage on a pre-production vehicle, known
as a durability data vehicle (DDV), by driving it over the prescribed
AMA driving cycle for the full useful life mileage.\2\ This was to
simulate the real-world aging of the vehicle's emissions control
systems and components over the useful life. The AMA whole vehicle
mileage accumulation was used to develop evidence to demonstrate both
component durability and emission deterioration. Component durability
is a demonstration that all emission-related components are designed to
operate properly for the full useful life of the vehicles in actual
use. Successful
[[Page 2844]]
completion of the required whole vehicle useful life mileage
accumulation without the need to replace or adjust those components
(beyond that allowed by regulation) provided evidence that those
components could be considered durable and would operate properly for
the full useful life. Separate or additional evidence of component
durability was not developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ref. 40 CFR Part 86 Appendix IV.
\2\ Useful life is the period of use (mileage) or time during
which an emission standard applies to light-duty vehicles and light-
duty trucks. For most light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, the
useful life requirement is 120,000 miles or 10 years, which ever
comes first (86.1805-01 and 86.1805-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Revised Durability Program (RDP) and Component Durability
EPA's first separate component durability demonstration
requirements came with the promulgation of the revised durability
program (RDP) \3\. Under these provisions (which took effect in 1994),
manufacturers were given options for demonstrating emission
deterioration. One option allowed rapid bench-aging techniques instead
of mileage accumulation on a whole vehicle to conduct emission
deterioration evaluation. In the preamble to the proposed RDP rule, EPA
stated that ``accumulation of mileage by the DDVs provides valuable
information on the physical durability of individual emission-related
components, because these components are exercised during the operation
of the DDV.'' [57 FR 18545, April 30, 1992.] EPA went on to propose
conditions under which it would issue a certificate of conformity for
manufacturers using the rapid aging techniques. One of these conditions
was that ``the manufacturer provides data that shows to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that all emission-related components
are designed to properly operate for the useful life of the vehicles in
actual use (or such minimum intervals, as specified in allowable
scheduled maintenance regulations).'' ``[Id. at 18548]'' EPA adopted
this condition in its final RDP rule. The regulations required that
manufacturers using the rapid aging option were required to ``provide
reliability data that shows to the Administrator's satisfaction that
all emission-related components are designed to operate properly for
the durability useful life of the vehicles in actual use (or such
shorter intervals as permitted in section Sec. 86.094-25).'' [40 CFR
86.094-13(e)(7)(ii)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ref. 59 FR 36368 (July 18, 1994), 62 FR 11082 (March 11,
1997), 62 FR 11138 (March 11, 1997) and 62 FR 44872 (August 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When implementing the RDP regulations, EPA issued a guidance letter
which provided further instructions to manufacturers on the process to
obtain EPA approval to use alternate durability processes.\4\ The
guidance addressed component durability by stating that ``[F]or each
ASADP [Alternate Service Accumulation Durability Process, also known as
``RDP''] engine family, the manufacturer should submit a plan to
demonstrate component durability for that engine family. Sources of
data for component durability are defect reports, bench testing of
components, and other similar data.'' In meeting these requirements,
many manufacturers demonstrated to us their own extensive validation
process to ensure the durability of the components used in production
vehicles.\5\ It was clear that the scope of this validation work far
exceeded in rigorousness the durability demonstration requirement of
running a single pre-production prototype vehicle on a driving cycle
for the full useful life mileage. Thus, the manufacturer component
validation processes added significant assurance of component
durability, and in fact is the primary source of such assurance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ CD-94-13 July 24, 1994.
\5\ Emission related parts and systems are evaluated for
durability by manufacturers during the vehicle and emission control
system development process. Evaluations can take several forms
including mileage accumulation, engineering evaluations, validation
testing, and computer simulations. Manufacturers use these processes
to develop performance and design specifications that are supplied
to part vendors and/or used during their own manufacturing
processes. During production of these parts, manufacturers evaluate
random samples of parts to assure compliance with design
specifications. The supplier who designs the emission components for
the vehicle manufacturer perform extensive product validation
testing to ensure that the component design is durable before it is
ever used on the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. CAP 2000 Regulations and Component Durability
The CAP 2000 rulemaking (applicable beginning with the 2001 model
year), was a comprehensive update to the entire light-duty vehicle
certification process. A major part of this involved the manufacturer's
required demonstration of emission durability. The Agency eliminated
the use of the AMA cycle as the default mileage accumulation cycle. In
CAP 2000, the Agency replaced the AMA-based durability program with a
durability process similar to the optional Revised Durability Program
(RDP). Each manufacturer, except small manufacturers, was required to
develop an emission durability process which would accurately predict
in-use deterioration of the vehicles they produce. The manufacturer had
the flexibility to design an efficient program that met that objective.
The manufacturer's plan was then reviewed by EPA for approval. Many
manufacturers continued using the processes previously approved under
the RDP program. Approval from the Agency for purposes of CAP 2000
required a demonstration that the emission deterioration process was
designed to generate emission deterioration factors (DFs)
representative of in-use deterioration. This demonstration was more
than simply matching average in-use deterioration with DFs.
Manufacturers needed to demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that their
durability process would result in the same or more emissions
deterioration than is reflected by the in-use data for a significant
majority of their vehicles. If, in the course of EPA's review, we found
that certain aspects of a manufacturer's plan were inadequate, we would
make recommendations to the manufacturer as to how to improve their
plan and the manufacturer would make the appropriate modifications.
Upon the conclusion of our extensive review, we would approve the plan.
EPA also adopted a component durability provision applicable to all
vehicles that required manufacturers to ``use good engineering judgment
to determine that all emission-related components are designed to
operate properly for the full useful life of the vehicles in actual
use.'' \6\ While the manufacturer did not need to submit the underlying
engineering evaluation with its certification application, EPA reserved
the right to evaluate the basis underlying this engineering determination.
40 CFR 86.1823-01(e), 86.1824-01(d), 86.1825-01(e), 86.1826-01(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ref. 40 CFR 18.1823-01(e) and EPA Guidance Letter No. CD-94-
13, ``Alternative Durability Guidance for MY94 through MY98'', dated
July 29, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This component durability requirement was based on our experience
under RDP, in which we obtained significant information about
manufacturers' internal component validation processes. In general,
information from defect reports, in-use testing, and in-use on-board
diagnostics (OBD) data indicated that problems usually occurred at the
production stage or later.\7\ EPA was confident that
[[Page 2845]]
manufacturers would continue using their component validation processes
and other component-related information for component durability as a
basis to develop the good engineering judgement that was required. The
CAP 2000 regulations include a provision allowing EPA to review and
evaluate the basis for a manufacturer's engineering judgment decision,
when appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) systems regulations (40 CFR
86.1808-01) require the on-board computer to monitor most emission
control components and illuminate a dashboard light when the
components fail or operate improperly. The defect reporting
regulations (40 CFR 86.1903) require manufacturers to report
occurrences of a significant number of defective emission control
components to the Agency. The recall provisions (40 CFR 85 Subpart
S) allow EPA to order recalls when properly maintained and used
vehicles fail to comply with the applicable regulations promulgated
under section 202 of the Clean Air Act. All of these are important
means for identifying and repairing or replacing failed emission
components in use. However, they also serve the important function
of alerting manufacturers and the Agency of potential design or
manufacturing problems that need to be addressed and resolved so
that they are prevented in future model years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What comments has EPA received on component durability?
Comments related to component durability were submitted to the EPA
Docket A-2002-0079 during the comment period for the proposed emissions
deterioration rule being finalized in a separate action today. These
comments are summarized below. In today's SNPRM, EPA is seeking
comments in addition to those already submitted.
The comments were submitted by the Afton Corporation (Afton,
formerly Ethyl Corporation) and jointly by the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (Alliance and the Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers (AIAM).
Afton comments (May 17):
? Based on recent events pointing to an emission component
failure allegedly caused by one of Afton's products and Afton's
investigation of emission-related component defect reports from recent
model years, Afton questions whether an exclusive focus on thermal
aging of the catalytic converter and oxygen sensor provides an adequate
means to ensure proper vehicle operation in the field.
? EPA has failed to propose test methods and procedures for
assessing the durability of emission control system components as
required under Section 206 of the CAA as ordered by the Court in Ethyl
Corp. v. EPA. EPA has clearly recognized that certification requires
``testing of emission system component durability''. CAP 2000
regulations require manufacturers to provide a description of the
procedures used to establish durability and exhaust * * * deterioration
factors; indicating that component durability is a necessary part of
certification.
? EPA's component durability requirements of good
engineering judgment allow EPA and manufacturers to agree on the
methods and procedures for testing component durability on a case-by-
case basis is in violation of CAA Section 206(d), thus falling on the
Court's ``forbidden side of the line''.
? EPA has instead proposed that manufacturers continue to
develop test methods and procedures for component durability on a case-
by-case basis, without rulemaking.
? EPA should focus on emission control components as a
system, rather than as individual components. How the system performs
as a whole in the field cannot be captured by thermal aging of the
catalytic converter.
? Evidence that components are failing in use is found in
the defect reports submitted by manufacturers, showing that millions of
vehicles are affected by defects, but very few are recalled.
? Component durability must include insurance (1) the
durability of each component, (2) the durability of the entire emission
control system operated in an integrated manner and (3) any
deterioration in an otherwise durable system of components will not
cause emissions to exceed the useful life standards.
? A catalyst cannot be ``overaged'' to mimic component
defects when such defect would cause an emission failure, because this
would preclude certification.
? EPA provided no factual basis in the docket supporting its
presumption that all components will be durable. Defect reports
submitted by manufacturers indicate otherwise.
? Congress intended certification to include assurance of
component durability. By limiting the warranty period Congress was
recognizing that other elements of the regulatory program would protect
the consumer, citing H.R. Rep. No. 101-490 at 308 (1990).
Alliance/AIAM comments (June 17):
? CAA provisions are clear that Congress' concern was the
ability of vehicles to comply with standards over useful life.
Durability NPRM complies with this by implementing SRC as a baseline
stringency for demonstrating emission control system durability,
similar to how the AMA had done prior to CAP 2000. System durability is
a function of the durability of its components.
? Nothing in CAA purports to require separate durability
tests for each and every component of a system.
? Contrary to Afton contention, component durability has
never been done as a separate analysis of each individual component,
nor does the law require it to be handled in such a manner.
? No need to establish separate procedures since the SRC provides
requisite stringency level for components as well as system as a whole.
? Court did not cite 86.1823(e) in its opinion.
? 1823(e) goes beyond CAA testing requirements in requiring
manufacturers to make a qualitative evaluation of component durability.
? Afton's use of defect reports as evidence of widespread
ineffectiveness of component durability is flagrant misinterpretation
of the reports. These reports summarize manufacturing problems,
installation of incorrect components, or components not functioning as
intended. No amount of durability testing on design intent systems
would uncover such issues. The defect reporting threshold of 25 known
occurrences is not necessarily indicative of systematic problem,
exceedance of standards or even an emissions increase.
? Best way to address impact of fuel additives on component
durability is through the regulations under CAA 211 for fuel additives
? EPA regulations have never imposed requirements that
manufacturers conduct tests to evaluate component durability.
? Component-by-component durability testing not feasible for
certification.
Afton Response comments (Aug 5):
? Agrees with industry claim that SRC sets the threshold
stringency for emission control system as a whole and supports that EPA
clarify this.
? Disagrees that EPA has never imposed a test requirement
for component durability. Prior to RDP, AMA useful life driving was the
test. With RDP, the requirement was for mfrs. to demonstrate full-life
durability for all emission related components. CAP 2000 clearly
contains a requirement for component durability testing.
? Agree with mfr that durability of a system is a function
of the durability of its components and confirms concerns about merit
of relying exclusively on thermal aging of cat and O2
sensor. Not clear how bench aging cat is sufficient to assess the many
other components of a system.
IV. What are the differences between component durability and emissions
deterioration?
For the purpose of emission certification, EPA evaluates component
durability to determine whether emission control system components are
designed to operate properly for the full useful life in actual use.
More specifically, component durability is a
[[Page 2846]]
demonstration that the emission control components will not break and
will continue to operate as described in the Application for
Certification during the minimum maintenance interval prescribed in 40
CFR 86.1834-01. The factors that can effect emissions control
components fall into three general categories: In-use exposure, design
flaws and production factors. In-use exposure is the expected normal
wear and tear resulting from exposure to the elements and the vehicle's
operating environment. Design flaws result in the unintentional failure
of a component as a result of a poor design. Production factors consist
of manufacturing problems and installation problems (e.g., installation
of incorrect parts or improper installation of correct parts on the
assembly line). The assurance needed at the time of emission
certification is that the components are designed to operate properly
for the full useful life in actual use. The certification process,
because it occurs pre-production, cannot predict problems that may
occur during the manufacturing or installation of emission components.
EPA has other mechanisms in place (such as defect reporting and other
in-use programs) which help to identify and correct manufacturing or
installation problems. The component durability process is designed to
provide EPA with adequate information to make the required pre-
production certification decision.
In contrast to component durability, EPA's emission deterioration
procedures, finalized in a separate action are designed to provide a
quantitative prediction of how the emissions of a vehicle will
deteriorate over time. The deterioration factor (DF) is a measure of
the deterioration. Successful completion of the emission deterioration
combined with adequate demonstration of component durability informs
EPA that vehicles are likely to comply with emission standards for
their useful life. Although some of the emission components may not
actually be installed on the vehicle during the required emissions
deterioration testing during a bench aging procedure (which ages only
the catalytic converter and oxygen sensor), the results of this
procedure (e.g. the deterioration factors) are applied to an entire
vehicle, including any and all emission control components and systems
that will be used.
V. Statutory Authority
Section 206(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act states that the
Administrator shall test, or require to be tested in such a manner as
he deems appropriate, any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine
submitted by a manufacturer to determine whether such vehicle or engine
conforms with the emission standard regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1).
Section 206(d) states that the Administrator shall by regulation
establish methods and procedures for making tests under this section.
42 U.S.C. 7525(d). If such a vehicle conforms with the regulations
prescribing establishing emissions standards, the Administrator shall
issue a certificate of conformity. 42 U.S.C. 7525(a). The statute also
requires that the vehicle conform to the standard for its useful life.
42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1).
VI. How has EPA evaluated component durability in the past in deciding
to issue a certificate under CAA section 206?
Issuance of a certificate of conformity is based on EPA determining
whether the vehicle or group of vehicles will conform to the applicable
emissions standards over the applicable useful life period. EPA has
traditionally evaluated two forms of durability in making this pre-
production determination--emissions deterioration and component
durability. For many years EPA relied on the whole vehicle mileage
accumulation process, used to evaluate emissions deterioration, to also
evaluate component durability. When EPA later allowed a manufacturer to
accelerate aging of a vehicle under RDP, EPA required submission of
reliability data showing that all emission related components were
designed to operate properly for the useful life of the vehicles in
actual use. See 40 CFR 86.094-13(e)(7)(ii). Under CAP 2000, EPA
required the manufacturer to determine, using good engineering
judgement, that all emission-related components are designed to operate
properly for the full useful life of the vehicle in actual use. While
the manufacturer did not need to submit the underlying engineering
evaluation with its certification application, EPA reserved the right
to evaluate the basis underlying this engineering determination. 40 CFR
86.1823-01(e), 86.1824-01(d), 86.1825-01(e), 86.1826-01(c).
EPA continues to believe that the durability demonstration for
purposes of certification should consist of two elements: emission
deterioration and component durability.\8\ Therefore, EPA will evaluate
component durability at the certification stage as part of ensuring
that a new motor vehicle will meet the emissions standards for its
useful life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 69 FR 17532 (April 2, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Is EPA required to use testing to evaluate component durability?
Section 206(a)(1) clearly requires that EPA either conduct or
require manufacturers to conduct testing as part of the certification
process. At the same time, this section does not preclude EPA from also
relying on information other than that derived from testing. This
provision provides significant discretion to EPA to determine the
appropriate mix of information from required testing and information
from other sources for use in determining whether a vehicle or group of
vehicles will be expected to comply with the emissions standards for
their useful lives.
In this case, EPA is clearly requiring a significant amount of
emissions durability testing to be performed for purposes of
certification. The required testing is focused on obtaining information
useful to determine emissions deterioration. EPA believes that the kind
of emissions durability testing required by EPA will provide
information that is highly useful in determining how the emissions
performance of the emissions control system can be expected to
deteriorate over the useful life of the vehicle. The issue in this
proposal concerns whether additional or different durability testing
should also be required to obtain information to evaluate component
durability, or whether it is appropriate to require manufacturers to
develop information concerning component durability in a manner other
than requiring testing of component durability. EPA believes that CAA
section 206(a)(1), which limits required testing to testing ``in such
manner as [the Administrator] deems appropriate,'' provides discretion
in these circumstances on whether and how EPA requires testing to
obtain information to evaluate component durability as part of the
certification process. 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1).
EPA recognizes that there are various ways that information can be
obtained on component durability for purposes of pre-production
certification. One method that EPA has used in the past involves
requiring whole vehicle mileage accumulation to test component
durability, as was done under the AMA program. However whole vehicle
mileage accumulation provides only a limited kind of information on
component durability, basically a simple pass-fail test that is not
very probative of component durability. Another method that EPA has
used in the past involves requiring the
[[Page 2847]]
manufacturer to conduct an engineering analysis to evaluate component
durability for the entire emissions control system. This allows the
evaluation of a wide variety of different types of information,
including information ranging from real world in-use experience to
performance information on a supplier's products and the supplier's
quality control practices and can include computer modeling of design
performance. Actual physical testing of a product or system may make up
only a small part and perhaps no part at all of the information used to
perform such an engineering evaluation. EPA believes that in many ways
that kind of engineering evaluation, tailored to the parts and systems
at issue, can provide a more in-depth and comprehensive evaluation and
result in a better real world prediction of in-use durability than a
simple pass-fail type of test using whole vehicle mileage accumulation
on a pre-production prototype vehicle.
Given the potential benefit for in-use emissions control in using
such an engineering evaluation approach, EPA believes it is reasonable
and within the discretion provided by section 206(a)(1) to consider an
option requiring a manufacturer to conduct such an engineering
evaluation of component durability, and not require the manufacturer to
perform a specified test for component durability. This engineering
evaluation would then be combined with the results of testing performed
to evaluate emissions deterioration, as well as any other relevant
information, in making the conformity determination required for
issuance of a certificate. Under this engineering evaluation option,
EPA would not specify a test procedure under section 206(d) for
component durability, as EPA is not requiring component durability
testing. EPA believes the requirement of section 206(d) only applies
where EPA requires testing to be conducted under section 206(a)(1), as
it does for evaluation of emissions deterioration.
EPA is also considering requiring manufacturers to conduct a
limited amount of whole vehicle aging to test component durability.
Both options are discussed in more detail below.
VIII. What options are being considered by EPA?
EPA is today proposing three options to address component
durability. Based upon further comments received, EPA intends to
finalize one of these options.
A. Retain the Good Engineering Judgement Determination on Component
Durability
In this option, EPA would retain the approach taken in the
component durability regulations contained in the original CAP 2000
regulations (40 CFR 86.1823-01(e), 86.1824-01(d), 86.1825-01(e), and
86.1826-01(c)). Under CAP 2000, EPA required the manufacturer to
determine, using good engineering judgement, that all emission-related
components are designed to operate properly for the full useful life of
the vehicle in actual use. While the manufacturer did not need to
submit the underlying engineering evaluation with its certification
application, EPA reserved the right to evaluate the basis underlying
this engineering determination (40 CFR 86.1844(g)(1)).
EPA's experience indicates that the basis for past determinations
of component durability good engineering judgement came from a wide
variety of sources. In some cases, the determination has been based on
accelerated customer fleet vehicles or other durability mileage data,
component bench testing, engineering analysis data, computer modeling
data, purchase agreements, component specifications, or other
information. However, it was never based on testing alone. Even though
the basis for the good engineering judgement may include reliance on a
limited amount of testing, in general, the preponderance of the data is
derived from sources other than testing.
EPA's requirement to make the good engineering judgement
determination does not constitute a requirement to do testing. Under
this option, EPA would not specify what information manufacturers must
rely on as a basis for making the good engineering judgement
determination. Even though some of the information may be a result of
some testing, EPA does not consider this a requirement to conduct
testing, since testing is not required as a basis for the good
engineering judgement statement and typically is, at most, a limited
part of the engineering determination. Because testing is not required,
EPA is not required to ``establish methods and procedures for making
tests by regulation,'' and section 206(d) does not apply. 42 U.S.C. 7525(d).
B. Good Engineering Judgement Determination Combined With Whole Vehicle
Testing for Worst-Case Vehicle Configuration
This option would require manufacturers to continue to make the
good engineering judgement determination, as discussed above in option
A, but would also require manufacturers to conduct a limited amount of
whole vehicle aging. This option would include the requirement to
perform full useful life mileage accumulation, using either the EPA
Standard Road Cycle (included in final rulemaking issued concurrently
with this SNPRM), or a modified or alternative cycle approved by EPA.
In this option EPA would allow any whole mileage accumulation cycle
which EPA has approved for emission deterioration to be used for
demonstrating component durability.
The vehicle's OBD system is designed to monitor most emission
control components and report faults by illuminating malfunction
indicator light (MIL). Consequently, EPA is proposing that the OBD
light will be used to detect emission control component failures during
mileage accumulation. The manufacturer must record any OBD MIL
illumination during the course of the mileage accumulation and also
record readiness codes and active fault codes on the OBD system
proceeding and following each FTP test conducted. As a further
demonstration of component durability, EPA is proposing that the
vehicle demonstrate compliance with all applicable FTP standards
following mileage accumulation.
The same vehicle used for the component durability demonstration
could also be used for emission deterioration purposes for either
exhaust or evaporative emissions. Under this option, manufacturers
would choose a vehicle expected to be ``worst case'' for emission
component durability. Manufacturers would be allowed to apply the
component durability demonstration from that vehicle to other vehicles
across other test groups having components similar enough that the
vehicle tested would be reasonably considered worst case (known as
``carry across''). EPA would also permit manufacturers to ``carry
over'' a component durability demonstration from a previous model year
to subsequent model years, when appropriate. Although EPA does not view
it as essential, some limited whole-vehicle testing in addition to good
engineering judgement determination would provide a limited amount of
additional component durability information using the entire vehicle
emission control system operated in an integrated manner. This
information would enhance the data received from the good engineering
requirements that already come from a wide variety of sources. EPA
would continue to
[[Page 2848]]
augment its evaluation of component durability with an assessment of
the information from the defect reports, IUVP data, recall data, etc.
We are limiting the whole-vehicle testing to a ``worst case''
configuration rather than requiring it for all durability groups \9\ to
limit the additional durability test burden to manufacturers,
recognizing that EPA believes the whole vehicle aging provides only a
limited benefit on top of that obtained from good engineering judgement
determinations. One of the benefits of allowing bench-aging in
evaluating emissions deterioration is that emission deterioration
testing can be done much quicker than with whole-vehicle testing. Whole
vehicle testing can take up to four months to complete, whereas bench
aging can be completed within several weeks. The CAP 2000 rulemaking
and the emissions deterioration regulations issues separately from this
notice, provide highly valuable information on emission deterioration
in a manner that minimizes the testing burden on manufacturers.
Requiring whole-vehicle testing for all durability groups would
effectively defeat this aspect of CAP 2000 for many manufacturers,
since those manufacturers that use bench aging would also be required
to perform whole-vehicle testing, dramatically increasing their testing
burden and it would provide only limited additional benefit in
evaluating component durability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Manufacturers divide their motor vehicles into groups called
``durability groups'' which include vehicles which are likely to
exhibit similar exhaust emission deterioration over their useful
lives, based on those characteristics of current-technology vehicles
that most significantly affect the deterioration of emission control
over time. Durability groups are based on engine type, fuel type,
fuel system, catalyst construction, type of precious metals used in
the catalyst, and relative engine/catalyst size and loading rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because most of the emission control technologies and components
used by manufacturers are very similar in design and function among
their different vehicle models, we are confident that whole-vehicle
test data from a ``worst case'' component durability vehicle in
conjunction with the information from the manufacturer's good
engineering assessment will be sufficient for EPA to make a
determination as to whether a manufacturer's durability plan is
acceptable. Since the emission control components are similar in design
and function, one of the most significant differences between vehicle
models is the location of the components on the vehicle. The worst case
vehicle may likely be the vehicle that has ``packaging'' constraints
where some components have to be located on the vehicle in placements
that may make them more susceptible to damage, wear, or failure.
C. Good Engineering Judgement Determination Combined With Whole Vehicle
Testing for Vehicle Configurations With New Types of Components or
Technology
This option would be identical to option B above except that
instead of testing the ``worst case'' vehicle, the manufacturer would
only test a vehicle when a new type of component or a new technology
was being introduced. A new type of component or technology would be
defined as a component or technology that has not been previously used
in production by that manufacturer. \10\ A manufacturer would have to
get approval from EPA before determining whether a component would be
considered new. New components or technologies not yet used on
production vehicles but that have been used on prototype or development
vehicles would be subject to the whole-vehicle mileage accumulation and
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ An example of a new type of component or technology would
be a manufacturer switching from vacuum-based EGR to electronic EGR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requiring whole-vehicle testing for new types of technology would
limit the testing to the vehicles where typically less is known about
component durability. The information provided from the good
engineering assessment would be used generally to assess component
durability and this option would require additional information on
component durability from whole-vehicle testing for technologies or
components that are new to a manufacturer, where they typically have
less data or information to evaluate component durability.
IX. Request for Comments
EPA requests comments on each of these proposed options, in terms
of their technical and legal merits. In particular, comments are
requested on the following topics:
? The burden of Options B and C on regulated entities,
including supporting data for those conclusions, where possible.
? The extent to which Options B and C provide any additional
environmental benefit over Option A.
? Whether whole-vehicle mileage accumulation and related
emissions testing provides an adequate demonstration of component
durability, and what other options exist for demonstrating component
durability prior to certification.
? Any comment which augment those already submitted to the
Docket for this rulemaking.
? Whether the options are consistent with section 206 of the CAA.
X. What are the environmental and economic impacts?
A. Environmental Impacts
No quantifiable environmental impacts are anticipated by this
proposed rule. Having appropriate procedures to address component
durability in the certification process helps to ensure that the
benefits already claimed in the regulations promulgating those
standards are more likely to be realized. However, even absent this
proposal, there are other requirements in place which help to ensure
that manufacturers make durable emissions components: customer
satisfaction, In-Use Verification Program (IUVP), and, EPA recall
authority among others.
B. Economic Impacts
Under option A, there would be no economic impact. Manufacturers
would be allowed to continue using their good engineering judgment to
determine component durability. For options B and C there would be some
economic impact. Some manufacturers use whole-vehicle testing
exclusively. For those manufacturers, there would be no need to perform
any additional whole-vehicle testing for component durability purposes.
Other manufacturers use a combination of whole-vehicle testing and
bench testing. These manufacturers could choose to test their ``worst
case'' vehicle or any new type of emission control components or
technologies as part of their already existing whole-vehicle test
program. Thus, there would be no additional testing costs for them.
For those manufacturers who perform bench testing exclusively,
there would be some economic impact. For option B, we would only
require a manufacturer to perform whole-vehicle testing for the ``worst
case'' vehicle configuration. Therefore, our cost estimate for option B
is based on testing a single vehicle. We believe this same logic would
apply for option C where a manufacturer is only required to perform
whole-vehicle testing for new types of emission control components or
technologies. We feel that for option C, a manufacturer would only be
required to test a single vehicle as well. Our estimate of total annual
cost of whole-vehicle testing for component durability is based on a
single vehicle tested over the Standard Road Cycle for a useful life of
120,000 miles with periodic FTP emission tests. We estimated two FTP
tests for the
[[Page 2849]]
minimum estimate and six FTP tests for the maximum estimate with costs
ranging from $800 to $1,200 per FTP test. We did not include any
Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) tests.
Table X. B-1 presents the total annual cost for industry to perform
whole-vehicle testing on a ``worst case'' vehicle or a vehicle equipped
with a new type of emission control component or technology. We did not
include any small volume manufacturers in our estimate. For a more
conservative estimate, we included all manufacturers regardless of
whether they currently perform whole-vehicle testing for emission
deterioration. The estimated annual cost for industry to perform whole-
vehicle testing would range from $3,750,600 to $5,401,200.
Table X.--B-1.--Estimated Annual Cost to Industry for Whole-Vehicle
Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum cost Maximum cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$3,750,600 $5,401,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen in Table X. B-2, the estimated annual cost per
manufacturer to perform whole-vehicle testing on a ``worst case''
vehicle or a vehicle equipped with a new type of emission control
component or technology would range from $178,600 to $257,200.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ These numbers were derived from the CAP 2000 rulemaking and
can be found in the Support Document on the EPA Web site at http://
www.epa.gov/otaq. We choose to use the more conservative 1999 dollar
estimates, since the Producer Price Index (PPI) for 2004 actually
decreased from the 1999 index value. The index used can be found on
the U.S. Department of Labor Web site at http://www.data.bls.gov.
Series Id: PCU336110336110.
Table X.--B-2.--Estimated Annual Cost Per Manufacturer for Whole-Vehicle
Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum cost Maximum cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$178,600 $257,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has requested comment on the potential burden associated with
the options it considered to require a minimum amount of whole-vehicle
mileage accumulation. (See Sec. IV. above).
XI. What are the opportunities for public participation?
A. Copies of This Proposal and Other Related Information
1. Docket
EPA has established an official public docket for this action under
Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0079. The official public docket consists of the
documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments
received, and other information related to this action. Although a part
of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of
materials that is available for public viewing by referencing Docket
No. OAR-2002-0079 at the EPA Air Docket Section, (see ADDRESSES section
above). You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through
hand delivery/courier as described below. To ensure proper receipt by
EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the
subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.''
EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to
submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute,
please follow the instructions in Section V.B.3 Do not use EPA Dockets
or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
2. Electronic Access
You may access this Federal Register document electronically
through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public
docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment
system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/
edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of
the contents of the official public docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket
identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket.
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through
the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards
providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket
materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.
B. Submitting Comments on This Proposal
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or
through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject
line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.''
[[Page 2850]]
EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
1. Electronically
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this
contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit,
and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures
that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows
EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of
your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and
any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a
comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.
a. EPA Dockets
Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic
public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select ``Information
Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, select
``Quick Search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0079. The
system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know
your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
b. E-mail
Comments may be sent by electronic mail to hormes.linda@epa.gov,
Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0079. In contrast to EPA's electronic
public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an ``anonymous access''
system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without
going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system
automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are
automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of
the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made
available in EPA's electronic public docket.
c. Disk or CD ROM
You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the
mailing address identified in section I.C.2. These electronic
submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid
the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
2. By Mail
Send your comments to: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0079.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier
Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West,
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC., Attention
Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0079. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Docket's normal hours of operation from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
4. By Facsimile
Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, Attention Docket ID. No. OAR-
2002-0079.
5. Submitting Comments With Proprietary Information
Commenters who wish to submit proprietary information for
consideration should clearly separate such information from other
comments by (1) labeling proprietary information ``Confidential
Business Information'' and (2) sending proprietary information directly
to the contact person listed (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and
not to the public docket. This helps insure that proprietary
information is not inadvertently placed in the docket. If a commenter
wants EPA to use a submission labeled as confidential business
information as part of the basis for the final rule, then a non-
confidential version of the document, which summarizes the key data or
information, should be sent to the docket.
Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed
by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40
CFR Part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission
when it is received by EPA, the submission may be made available to the
public without notifying the commenters.
C. Public Hearing
Anyone wishing to present testimony about this proposal at the
public hearing (see DATES) should notify the general contact person
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than five days prior to
the day of the hearing. The contact person should be given an estimate
of the time required for the presentation of testimony and notification
of any need for audio/visual equipment. Testimony will be scheduled on
a first come, first serve basis. A sign-up sheet will be available at
the registration table the morning of the hearing for scheduling those
who have not notified the contact earlier. This testimony will be
scheduled on a first come, first serve basis to follow the previously
scheduled testimony.
EPA requests that approximately 50 copies of the statement or
material to be presented be brought to the hearing for distribution to
the audience. In addition, EPA would find it helpful to receive an
advanced copy of any statement or material to be presented at the
hearing at least one week before the scheduled hearing date. This is to
give EPA staff adequate time to review such material before the hearing.
Such advanced copies should be submitted to the contact person listed.
The official records of the hearing will be kept open for 30 days
following the hearing to allow submission of rebuttal and supplementary
testimony. All such submissions should be directed to the Air Docket
Section, Docket No. OAR-2002-0079 (see ADDRESSES). The hearing will be
conducted informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. A
written transcript of the hearing will be placed in the above docket
for review. Anyone desiring to purchase a copy of the transcript should
make individual arrangements with the court reporter recording the
proceedings.
XII. What Are the Administrative Requirements for This Proposed Rule?
A. E.O. 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 October 4, 1993), EPA must
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of this Executive Order. The Order defines a
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, Local, or Tribal governments or communities;
[[Page 2851]]
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
Today's action proposes three different options under consideration
for component durability testing. If option A is finalized, this action
would not impose any new information collection burden. However, if
options B or C were finalized, new information collection requirements
would be imposed. The information collection requirements for options B
or C in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 783.49.
The information being collected is to be used by EPA to ensure that
new light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks comply with applicable
emissions standards through certification requirements including whole-
vehicle testing for emission component durability assurance.
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 88 hours per
response, with collection required annually. The estimated number of
respondents is 21. The total annual cost of the program is estimated to
be $3,750,600 per year and includes no annualized capital costs,
$101,640 in operating and maintenance costs, at a total of 1,848 hours
per year.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which
includes this ICR, under Docket ID number. Submit any comments related
to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See ``Addresses''
section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to
EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after January 17, 2006, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by February 16, 2006. The final rule
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
manufactures automobiles as defined by NAIC code 336111. Based on Small
Business Administration size standards, a small business for this NAIC
code is defined as a manufacturer having less than 1000 employees; (2)
a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
requirements are only applicable to manufacturers of motor vehicles, a
group which does not contain a substantial number of small entities.
Out of a total of approximately 80 automotive manufacturers subject to
today's proposal, EPA estimates that approximately 15-20 of these could
be classified as small entities based on SBA size standards. EPA's CAP
2000 compliance regulations include numerous regulatory relief
provisions for such small entities. Those provisions remain in effect
and are not impacted by today's proposal. Thus, we have determined that
small entities will not experience any economic impact as a result of
this proposal. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of
the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory action on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and proposed rules with ``Federal mandates''
that may result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Before promulgation an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the proposed
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
Before we establish any regulatory requirement that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, we must develop, under section 203 of the UMRA, a small
government agency
[[Page 2852]]
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small
governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the development of our regulatory
proposals with significant federal intergovernmental mandates. The plan
must also provide for informing, educating, and advising small
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA believes this proposed rule contains no federal mandates for
state, local, or tribal governments. Nor does this rule have federal
mandates that may result in the expenditures of $100 million or more in
any year by the private sector as defined by the provisions of Title II
of the UMRA. Nothing in the proposed rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule will impose no direct compliance costs on
states. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
The requirements proposed by this action impact private sector
businesses, particularly the automotive and engine manufacturing
industries. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045
because it is based on technology performance and not on health or
safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rule does not involve consideration of any new
technical standards. The durability test procedures that EPA is
proposing are unique and have not been previously published in the
public domain.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Motor vehicle
pollution, Confidential business information, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 29, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 86 of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
Draft Regulatory Language for Option A
PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES
AND ENGINES
1. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart S--General Compliance Provisions for Control of Air
Pollution From New and In-use Light-duty Vehicles, Light-duty
Trucks, and Complete Otto-cycle Heavy-duty Vehicles
2. Amend Sec. 86.1823-08 to revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1823-08 Durability demonstration procedures for exhaust
emissions.
* * * * *
(g) Emission component durability. The manufacturer shall use good
engineering judgment to determine that all emission-related components
are designed to operate properly for the full useful life of the
vehicles in actual use.
* * * * *
3. Amend Sec. 86.1824-08 to revise paragraph (h) to read as follows:
[[Page 2853]]
Sec. 86.1824-08 Durability demonstration procedures for evaporative
emissions.
* * * * *
(h) Emission component durability. The manufacturer shall use good
engineering judgment to determine that all evaporative emission-related
components are designed to operate properly for the full useful life of
the vehicles in actual use.
* * * * *
4. Amend Sec. 86.1825-08 to revise paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1825-08 Durability demonstration procedures for refueling
emissions.
* * * * *
(h) Emission component durability. The manufacturer shall use good
engineering judgment to determine that all emission-related components
are designed to operate properly for the full useful life of the
vehicles in actual use.
* * * * *
5. Amend Sec. 86.1826-01 to revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1826-01 Assigned deterioration factors for small volume
manufacturers and small volume test groups.
* * * * *
(c) Emission component durability. The manufacturer shall use good
engineering judgment to determine that all emission-related components
are designed to operate properly for the full useful life of the
vehicles in actual use.
Draft Regulatory Language for Option B
6. Amend Sec. 86.1823-08 to revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1823-08 Durability demonstration procedures for exhaust
emissions.
* * * * *
(g) Emission component durability. Manufacturers must determine
that all exhaust emission-related components are designed to operate
properly for the full useful life of the vehicles in actual use. The
manufacturer must demonstrate emission component durability using the
following procedures.
(1) The manufacturer must determine using good engineering
judgement the vehicle (or vehicles) that are worst case for component
durability. In making this determination the manufacturer must evaluate
their entire product line. For the vehicles that will be represented,
the manufacturer must consider at a minimum all the following information:
(i) The past in-use history of component durability for the
emission related parts;
(ii) The effect of the vehicle environment (temperature, flow rate,
exhaust constituents, vibration, exposure to elements etc.) on the
durability of the part;
(iii) How sensitive in-use emission compliance is to the potential
failure of a particular part; and
(iv) If the design of the part is new (without proven in-use
component durability and emission compliance).
(2) For the vehicle (or vehicles) identified as worst case in
paragraph (g)(1) of this section, the manufacturer must conduct full
useful life mileage accumulation on a whole vehicle with all emission
control hardware installed and operating. The mileage accumulation
procedure used must meet the requirements of either paragraph (c) or
paragraph (e) (1) of this section. The mileage accumulation must be
conducted either on the road or on a vehicle dynamometer; it may not be
conducted on an engine dynamometer for this purpose.
(3) The manufacturer must conduct at least one FTP test following
completion of full useful life mileage accumulation. Up to three FTP
tests may be conducted. If more than one test is conducted the emission
results are averaged. Prior to conducting the testing the manufacturer
must assure that all OBD readiness codes are set (completed). Up to 100
miles of off-cycle mileage accumulation may be conducted to achieve the
completion of all OBD monitoring.
(4) The manufacturer must record any OBD illumination during the
course of the mileage accumulation and must record readiness codes and
active fault codes on the OBD system preceding and following each test
conducted under the provisions of paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
(5) If the OBD light becomes illuminated during the course of
mileage accumulation, the manufacturer must investigate the cause of
the OBD illumination and record the active fault code that caused
illumination of the light.
(6) To demonstrate acceptable component durability:
(i) The test results (or the average of multiple test results) must
comply with all applicable emission standards; and
(ii) The OBD system must not set any valid active fault codes that
pertain to emission related parts or systems during the course of
mileage accumulation, including before and after testing.
* * * * *
7. Amend Sec. 86.1824-08 to revise paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1824-08 Durability demonstration procedures for evaporative
emissions.
* * * * *
(h) Emission component durability. Manufacturers must determine
that all evaporative emission-related components are designed to
operate properly for the full useful life of the vehicles in actual
use. The manufacturer must demonstrate emission component durability
using the following procedures.
(1) The manufacturer must determine using good engineering
judgement the vehicle (or vehicles) that are worst case for component
durability. In making this determination the manufacturer must evaluate
their entire product line. For the vehicles that will be represented,
the manufacturer must consider at a minimum all the following information:
(i) The past in-use history of component durability for the
emission related parts;
(ii) The effect of the vehicle environment (temperature, flow rate,
exhaust constituents, vibration, exposure to elements etc.) on the
durability of the part;
(iii) How sensitive in-use emission compliance is to the potential
failure of a particular part; and
(iv) If the design of the part is new (without proven in-use
component durability and emission compliance).
(2) For the vehicle (or vehicles) identified as worst case in
paragraph (g)(1) of this section, the manufacturer must conduct full
useful life mileage accumulation on a whole vehicle with all emission
control hardware installed and operating. The mileage accumulation
procedure used must meet the requirements of either paragraph (c) or
paragraph (e)(1) of this section. The mileage accumulation must be
conducted either on the road or on a vehicle dynamometer; it may not be
conducted on an engine dynamometer for this purpose.
(3) The manufacturer must conduct at least one evaporative 2-day
test following completion of full useful life mileage accumulation. Up
to three tests may be conducted. If more than one test is conducted the
emission results are averaged. Prior to conducting the testing the
manufacturer must assure that all OBD readiness codes are set
(completed). Up to 100 miles of off-cycle mileage accumulation may be
conducted to achieve the completion of all OBD monitoring.
(4) The manufacturer must record any OBD illumination during the
course of the mileage accumulation and must record readiness codes and
active fault codes on the OBD system preceding and following each test
conducted under the provisions of paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
[[Page 2854]]
(5) If the OBD light becomes illuminated during the course of
mileage accumulation, the manufacturer must investigate the cause of
the OBD illumination and record the active fault code that caused
illumination of the light.
(6) To demonstrate acceptable component durability:
(i) The test results (or the average of multiple test results) must
comply with all applicable emission standards; and
(ii) The OBD system must not set any valid active fault codes that
pertain to emission related parts or systems during the course of
mileage accumulation, including before and after testing.
* * * * *
8. Amend Sec. 86.1825-08 to revise paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1825-08 Durability demonstration procedures for refueling
emissions.
* * * * *
(h) Emission component durability. Manufacturers must determine
that all refueling emission-related components are designed to operate
properly for the full useful life of the vehicles in actual use. The
manufacturer must demonstrate component durability using the following
procedures.
(1) The manufacturer must determine using good engineering
judgement the vehicle (or vehicles) that are worst case for refueling
component durability. In making this determination the manufacturer
must evaluate their entire product line. For the vehicles that will be
represented, the manufacturer must consider at a minimum all the
following information:
(i) The past in-use history of component durability for the
emission related parts;
(ii) The effect of the vehicle environment (temperature, flow rate,
exhaust constituents, vibration, exposure to elements etc.) on the
durability of the part;
(iii) How sensitive in-use emission compliance is to the potential
failure of a particular part; and
(iv) If the design of the part is new (without proven in-use
component durability and emission compliance).
(2) For the vehicle (or vehicles) identified as worst case in
paragraph (g)(1)of this section, the manufacturer must conduct full
useful life mileage accumulation on a whole vehicle with all emission
control hardware installed and operating. The mileage accumulation
procedure used must meet the requirements of either paragraph (c) or
paragraph (e)(1) of this section. The mileage accumulation must be
conducted either on the road or on a vehicle dynamometer; it may not be
conducted on an engine dynamometer for this purpose.
(3) The manufacturer must conduct at least one refueling test
following completion of full useful life mileage accumulation. Up to
three tests may be conducted. If more than one test is conducted the
emission results are averaged. Prior to conducting the testing the
manufacturer must assure that all OBD readiness codes are set
(completed). Up to 100 miles of off-cycle mileage accumulation may be
conducted to achieve the completion of all OBD monitoring.
(4) The manufacturer must record any OBD illumination during the
course of the mileage accumulation and must record readiness codes and
active fault codes on the OBD system preceding and following each test
conducted under the provisions of paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
(5) If the OBD light becomes illuminated during the course of
mileage accumulation, the manufacturer must investigate the cause of
the OBD illumination and record the active fault code that caused
illumination of the light.
(6) To demonstrate acceptable component durability:
(i) The test results (or the average of multiple test results) must
comply with all applicable emission standards; and
(ii) The OBD system must not set any valid active fault codes that
pertain to emission related parts or systems during the course of
mileage accumulation, including before and after testing.
* * * * *
Draft Regulatory Language for Option C
9. Amend Sec. 86.1823-08 to revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1823-08 Durability demonstration procedures for exhaust
emissions.
* * * * *
(g) Emission component durability. Manufacturers must determine
that all exhaust emission-related components are designed to operate
properly for the full useful life of the vehicles in actual use. The
manufacturer must demonstrate emission component durability using the
following procedures.
(1) The manufacturer must determine using good engineering
judgement the vehicle (or vehicles) that use a new component or
technology for component durability. In making this determination the
manufacturer must evaluate their entire product line. For the vehicles
that will be represented, the manufacturer must consider at a minimum
all the following information:
(i) If the design of the part is new (without proven in-use
component durability and emission compliance);
(ii) The effect of the vehicle environment (temperature, flow rate,
exhaust constituents, vibration, exposure to elements etc.) on the
durability of the part; and
(iii) How sensitive in-use emission compliance is to the potential
failure of a particular part.
(2) For the vehicle (or vehicles) identified as worst case in
paragraph (g)(1)of this section, the manufacturer must conduct full
useful life mileage accumulation on a whole vehicle with all emission
control hardware installed and operating. The mileage accumulation
procedure used must meet the requirements of either paragraph (c) or
paragraph (e)(1) of this section. The mileage accumulation must be
conducted either on the road or on a vehicle dynamometer; it may not be
conducted on an engine dynamometer for this purpose.
(3) The manufacturer must conduct at least one FTP test following
completion of full useful life mileage accumulation. Up to three FTP
tests may be conducted. If more than one test is conducted the emission
results are averaged. Prior to conducting the testing the manufacturer
must assure that all OBD readiness codes are set (completed). Up to 100
miles of off-cycle mileage accumulation may be conducted to achieve the
completion of all OBD monitoring.
(4) The manufacturer must record any OBD illumination during the
course of the mileage accumulation and must record readiness codes and
active fault codes on the OBD system preceding and following each test
conducted under the provisions of paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
(5) If the OBD light becomes illuminated during the course of
mileage accumulation, the manufacturer must investigate the cause of
the OBD illumination and record the active fault code that caused
illumination of the light.
(6) To demonstrate acceptable component durability:
(i) The test results (or the average of multiple test results) must
comply with all applicable emission standards; and
(ii) The OBD system must not set any valid active fault codes that
pertain to emission related parts or systems during the course of
mileage accumulation, including before and after testing.
* * * * *
10. Amend Sec. 86.1824-08 to revise paragraph (h) to read as follows:
[[Page 2855]]
Sec. 86.1824-08 Durability demonstration procedures for evaporative
emissions.
* * * * *
(h) Emission component durability. Manufacturers must determine
that all evaporative emission-related components are designed to
operate properly for the full useful life of the vehicles in actual
use. The manufacturer must demonstrate emission component durability
using the following procedures.
(1) The manufacturer must determine using good engineering
judgement the vehicle (or vehicles) that use a new component or
technology for component durability. In making this determination the
manufacturer must evaluate their entire product line. For the vehicles
that will be represented, the manufacturer must consider at a minimum
all the following information:
(i) If the design of the part is new (without proven in-use
component durability and emission compliance);
(ii) The effect of the vehicle environment (temperature, flow rate,
exhaust constituents, vibration, exposure to elements etc.) on the
durability of the part; and
(iii) How sensitive in-use emission compliance is to the potential
failure of a particular part.
(2) For the vehicle (or vehicles) identified as worst case in
paragraph (g)(1) of this section, the manufacturer must conduct full
useful life mileage accumulation on a whole vehicle with all emission
control hardware installed and operating. The mileage accumulation
procedure used must meet the requirements of either paragraph (c) or
paragraph (e) (1) of this section. The mileage accumulation must be
conducted either on the road or on a vehicle dynamometer; it may not be
conducted on an engine dynamometer for this purpose.
(3) The manufacturer must conduct at least one evaporative 2-day
test following completion of full useful life mileage accumulation. Up
to three tests may be conducted. If more than one test is conducted the
emission results are averaged. Prior to conducting the testing the
manufacturer must assure that all OBD readiness codes are set
(completed). Up to 100 miles of off-cycle mileage accumulation may be
conducted to achieve the completion of all OBD monitoring.
(4) The manufacturer must record any OBD illumination during the
course of the mileage accumulation and must record readiness codes and
active fault codes on the OBD system preceding and following each test
conducted under the provisions of paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
(5) If the OBD light becomes illuminated during the course of
mileage accumulation, the manufacturer must investigate the cause of
the OBD illumination and record the active fault code that caused
illumination of the light.
(6) To demonstrate acceptable component durability:
(i) The test results (or the average of multiple test results) must
comply with all applicable emission standards; and
(ii) The OBD system must not set any valid active fault codes that
pertain to emission related parts or systems during the course of
mileage accumulation, including before and after testing.
* * * * *
11. Amend Sec. 86.1825-08 to revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1825-08 Durability demonstration procedures for refueling
emissions.
* * * * *
(e) Emission component durability. Manufacturers must determine
that all refueling emission-related components are designed to operate
properly for the full useful life of the vehicles in actual use. The
manufacturer must demonstrate component durability using the following
procedures.
(1) The manufacturer must determine using good engineering
judgement the vehicle (or vehicles) that use a new component or
technology for component durability. In making this determination the
manufacturer must evaluate their entire product line. For the vehicles
that will be represented, the manufacturer must consider at a minimum
all the following information:
(i) If the design of the part is new (without proven in-use
component durability and emission compliance);
(ii) The effect of the vehicle environment (temperature, flow rate,
exhaust constituents, vibration, exposure to elements etc.) on the
durability of the part; and
(iii) How sensitive in-use emission compliance is to the potential
failure of a particular part.
(2) For the vehicle (or vehicles) identified as worst case in
paragraph (g)(1)of this section, the manufacturer must conduct full
useful life mileage accumulation on a whole vehicle with all emission
control hardware installed and operating. The mileage accumulation
procedure used must meet the requirements of either paragraph (c) or
paragraph (e) (1) of this section. The mileage accumulation must be
conducted either on the road or on a vehicle dynamometer; it may not be
conducted on an engine dynamometer for this purpose.
(3) The manufacturer must conduct at least one refueling test
following completion of full useful life mileage accumulation. Up to
three tests may be conducted. If more than one test is conducted the
emission results are averaged. Prior to conducting the testing the
manufacturer must assure that all OBD readiness codes are set
(completed). Up to 100 miles of off-cycle mileage accumulation may be
conducted to achieve the completion of all OBD monitoring.
(4) The manufacturer must record any OBD illumination during the
course of the mileage accumulation and must record readiness codes and
active fault codes on the OBD system preceding and following each test
conducted under the provisions of paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
(5) If the OBD light becomes illuminated during the course of
mileage accumulation, the manufacturer must investigate the cause of
the OBD illumination and record the active fault code that caused
illumination of the light.
(6) To demonstrate acceptable component durability:
(i) The test results (or the average of multiple test results) must
comply with all applicable emission standards; and
(ii) The OBD system must not set any valid active fault codes that
pertain to emission related parts or systems during the course of
mileage accumulation, including before and after testing.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-73 Filed 1-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U