2810 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 86 

[FRL–8019–2] 

RIN 2060–AK76 

Emission Durability Procedures for 

New Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty 

Trucks and Heavy-Duty Vehicles 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rulemaking 

contains procedures to be used by 

manufacturers of light-duty vehicles, 

light-duty trucks, and some heavy-duty 

vehicles to demonstrate, for purposes of 

emission certification, that new motor 

vehicles will comply with EPA emission 

standards throughout their useful lives. 

Today’s action defines procedures to be 

used by manufacturers to demonstrate 

the expected rate of deterioration of the 

emission levels of their vehicles. 

DATES: This rule is effective February 

16, 2006. The information collection 

requirements of this rule have been 

approved by OMB and are effective 

February 16, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. OAR–2002–0079. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the EDOCKET 

index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Air 

Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 

B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General Contact: Linda Hormes, Vehicle 

Programs and Compliance Division, 

U.S. EPA, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, 

Michigan 48105, telephone (734) 214– 

4502, E-mail: hormes.linda@epa.gov. 

Technical Contact: Linc Wehrly, 

Vehicle Programs and Compliance 

Division, U.S. EPA, 2000 Traverwood, 

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, telephone: 

(734) 214–4286, E-mail: 

wehrly.linc@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Overview of certification process, CAP 

2000 history 

B. Durability demonstration process 

history 

1. Durability demonstration methods used 

prior to the CAP 2000 regulations 

2. Emission durability procedures under 

CAP 2000 

C. Ethyl petition to reconsider CAP 2000 

rules 

D. Judicial review of the CAP 2000 rules 

E. Applicability of the NPRM preamble 

discussion 

F. Supplemental notice regarding 

component durability 

II. Summary and Analysis of Comments 

A. The Durability Objective 

B. Evaluation of the certification durability 

procedures based on in-use emissions 

data 

C. Standard whole vehicle durability 

procedure 

1. Standard Road Cycle (SRC) 

2. Vehicle ballasting on SRC mileage 

accumulation 

3. Calculating the DF from mileage 

accumulation of 75% of full useful life 

mileage 

4. Testing required for DF calculation 

5. Use of an engine dynamometer to 

recreate the aging on the SRC 

D. Standard Bench Aging Procedure 

E. Catalyst time-at-temperature data 

measurement 

F. Customized/Alternative durability 

procedures 

1. Equivalency factors and alternative road 

cycles 

2. Bench durability aging 

3. Approval of customized/alternative 

durability procedures 

4. Experimentally determining a 

customized R-factor 

5. Alternative bench aging cycle content 

G. Component Durability 

H. Minor modifications to approved 

durability procedures 

I. Required notification to EPA that an 

approved durability procedure will be 

used for a particular durability group 

J. Public Availability of the equivalency 

factor and supporting data 

K. Carryover 

L. Evaporative Durability Procedures 

M. Starting model year for the rule 

N. Special provisions for new 

manufacturers 

O. Delete incorrect reference to 

intermediate useful life standards for the 

evaporative and refueling durability 

objective 

III. What is EPA promulgating today? 

A. Standard whole vehicle exhaust 

durability procedure 

B. Standard bench aging exhaust durability 

procedure 

1. The Standard Bench Cycle (SBC) 

2. The Bench Aging Time (BAT) 

calculation 

3. The effective reference temperature for 

the SBC 

C. Customization of the standard 

procedures 

1. Customization of the Standard Road 

Cycle 

2. Customization of the standard bench 

procedures 

3. Replication by outside parties 

D. Using In-Use Verification Program 

(IUVP) data to improve durability 

predictions 

E. Evaporative and refueling durability 

F. Effective date and carryover of existing 

durability data 

G. Miscellaneous regulatory amendments 

and corrections 

IV. What are the economic and 

environmental impacts? 

A. Economic impacts 

1. Comparison to CAP 2000 economic 

impacts 

2. Economic impact of today’s final rule 

B. Environmental impacts 

V. What are the Statutory and Executive 

Order Reviews for this Rule? 

A. Executive Order 128866: 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 

J. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background 

A. Overview of certification process, 

CAP 2000 history 

Before a manufacturer may introduce 

a new motor vehicle into commerce, the 

manufacturer must obtain an EPA 

certificate of conformity indicating 

compliance with all applicable emission 

standards over the vehicle’s useful life 

period. The useful life for cars and light 

trucks is currently 100,000 miles or 10 

years, whichever occurs first; for heavy 

light trucks, medium duty passenger 

vehicles (MDPV) and complete heavy 

duty vehicles the useful life period is 

120,000 miles or 11 years, whichever 

occurs first. [Section 202(d) of the Clean 

Air Act and 40 CFR 86.1805–04] 

To receive a certificate, the 

manufacturer submits an application to 

EPA containing various information 

specified in the regulations, including 

emissions test data. EPA reviews the 

submitted information as well as any 

other relevant information, and issues a 

Certificate upon a determination that 

the manufacturer has demonstrated that 

its new motor vehicle will meet the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act) 

and the regulations. [40 CFR 86.1848– 

01] A certificate of conformity is 

effective for only one model year; 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 2811 

1Separate certification regulations exist for 

heavy-duty highway vehicles and engines, which 

refer to the light-duty certification procedures. 

Today’s final rule will apply to those subsets for 

heavy-duty vehicles which use the same 

certification procedures as light-duty trucks. for 

convenience, the term ‘‘vehicle’’ or ‘‘motor vehicle’’

will be used in this preamble to mean those lightduty and heavy-duty motor vehicles subject to these 

regulations. 

2 63 FR 39654 (July 23, 1998). 

3Since a certificate must be issued before the new 

vehicles may be introduced into commerce, the 

emissions testing and other relevant data and 

information used to support an application for a 

certificate are usually developed on pre-production 

prototypes. 

4The durability demonstration program consists 

of two elements: emission deterioration and 

component durability. Emission deterioration 

prediction is a process of predicting to what degree 

emissions will increase during the vehicles useful 

life. The deterioration factor (DF) is a measure of 

deterioration. Component durability is a 

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 proscribed in 40 CFR 1834–01. The 

component durability demonstration is conducted 

by the manufacturer using good engineering 

judgement. 

5At the time this durability procedure was 

effective, the useful life mileage for light-duty 

vehicles was 100,000 miles. Refer to 40 CFR 

86.1805–04 for current useful life mileage values. 

6A multiplicative DF is calculated by performing 

a least-squares regression of the emission versus 

mileage data for each exhaust emission constituent 

and dividing the emission level at full useful life 

(historically, 100,000 miles) by the emission level 

at the 4,000 mile point. 

7Reference: 63 FR 39653, 39659 (July 23, 1998) 

(CAP 2000 NPRM). 

8EPA approved three types of emission durability 

programs under these procedures: whole vehicle, 

full mileage, whole vehicle, accelerated mileage; 

and bench aging procedures which involved 

thermal aging of the catalyst-plus-oxygen-sensor 

system. 

9Reference EPA Guidance Letter No. CD–94–13, 

‘‘Alternative Durability Guidance for MY94 through 

MY98’’, dated July 29, 1994. This letter explained 

that as-received, un-screened in-use data should be 

compared to vehicles run on the alternative 

durability program (ASADP). A ‘‘significant 

majority’’ of the in-use data should be covered by 

the durability program. We defined the acceptance 

ceriteria in that letter as follows: ‘‘EPA does not 

require ASADPs to meet a specific minimum 

severity level (or confidence level) because different 

methods may be used to estimate the degree of 

severity. * * * However, an ASADP would be 

acceptable to EPA if EPA believes that it were 

designed to match the in-use deterioration of 90–

95 percent of vehicles in the engine family.’’

therefore, new vehicle certification must 

occur annually. 

EPA’s regulations detail the process 

motor vehicle manufacturers must 

follow to obtain EPA emissions 

certification. In 2000, EPA issued a 

comprehensive update to the 

certification regulations for light-duty 

vehicles and light-duty trucks.1 These 

certification regulations are known as 

‘‘CAP [Compliance Assurance Program] 

2000’’.2 They include detailed 

procedures on the selection of vehicles 

for testing and testing procedure, 

specifications on the information that 

must be submitted to EPA, and other 

requirements pertaining to reporting 

and testing. 

Issuance of a certificate is based on a 

determination by EPA that the vehicles 

at issue will conform with the 

applicable emissions standards. 

Compliance with the emissions 

standards requires that the vehicles 

meet the standards for the specified 

useful life period. A determination of 

compliance, therefore, must be based on 

an evaluation of both the performance of 

the vehicles’ emissions control system 

when new, as well as performance over 

the entire time period of the vehicles’

useful life.3

The process of predicting how and to 

what degree a vehicle’s emission levels 

will change over its useful life period 

[emissions deterioration] as well as the 

robustness of the vehicle’s emissionrelated components [component 

durability] is known as an emission 

durability demonstration.4 Today’s final 

rule specifies the methods that 

manufacturers must use to determine 

emissions deterioration for the purpose 

of certification. 

Over the years, EPA has promulgated 

regulations prescribing several different 

emissions durability demonstration 

methods to fulfill EPA’s need to 

determine compliance with emission 

standards over the vehicle’s full useful 

life. The following is a short summary 

of this prior regulatory history, to put 

today’s final rule in context. 

B. Durability Demonstration Process 

History 

1. Durability Demonstration Methods 

Used Prior to the CAP 2000 Regulations 

Prior to CAP 2000, 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. It required manufacturers 

to accumulate mileage on a preproduction vehicle, known as a 

durability data vehicle (DDV), by 

driving it over the prescribed AMA 

driving cycle for the full useful life 

mileage.5 This was to simulate the realworld aging of the vehicle’s emissions 

control systems over the useful life. 

The DDV was tested in a laboratory 

for emissions at periodic intervals 

during AMA mileage accumulation, and 

a linear regression of the test data was 

performed to calculate a multiplicative 

deterioration factor (DF) for each 

exhaust constituent. Then, low mileage 

vehicles more representative of those 

intended to go into production (referred 

to as ‘‘emission data vehicles,’’ or EDVs) 

were emission-tested. The emission 

results from these tests were multiplied 

by the DFs 6 to project the emissions 

levels at full useful life (referred to as 

the ‘‘certification levels’’). The 

certification levels had to be at or below 

the applicable emission standards in 

order to obtain a certificate of 

conformity. 

EPA was concerned about the ability 

of any fixed cycle—including the AMA 

cycle—to produce emission durability 

data that accurately predicted in-use 

deterioration for all vehicles. EPA had 

particular concerns that the AMA did 

not represent current driving patterns 

and did not appropriately age current 

design vehicles. In addition, 

manufacturers have long identified the 

durability process based on mileage 

accumulation using the AMA cycle as 

very costly and requiring extensive lead 

time for completion. As a result, EPA 

came to believe that the AMA had 

become outdated 7. 

The AMA cycle was developed before 

vehicles were equipped with catalytic 

converters. It contains a substantial 

portion of low speed driving, designed 

to address concerns about engine 

deposits. While engine deposits were a 

major source of emissions deterioration 

in pre-catalyst vehicles, the advent of 

catalytic converters, better fuel control, 

and the use of unleaded fuel shifted the 

causes of deterioration from low speed 

driving to driving modes which include 

higher speed/load regimes that cause 

elevated catalyst temperatures. The 

AMA driving cycle does not adequately 

focus on these higher catalyst 

temperature driving modes. It also 

contains numerous driving modes 

which do not significantly contribute to 

deterioration. This makes the process 

longer but adds little benefit in 

predicting emission deterioration. 

In response to these concerns, EPA 

began a voluntary emission durability 

program in the 1994 model year for 

light-duty vehicles. This program 

allowed manufacturers to develop their 

own procedures to evaluate durability 

and deterioration subject to prior 

Agency approval.8 EPA’s approval 

criteria required the manufacturer to 

demonstrate that the durability 

procedures would cover a significant 

majority of in-use vehicle’s emission 

deterioration.9 One additional condition 

for approval was that the manufacturer 

conduct or fund an in-use test program 

to evaluate the effectiveness of its 

predictions. The initial program was 

referred to as revised durability program 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
2812 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

10Ref. 59 FR 36368 (July 19, 1994), 62 FR 11082 

(March 11, 1997) 62 FR 11138 (March 11, 1997) and 

62 FR 44872 (August 22, 1997). 

11An additive DF is calculated by performing a 

least-squares regression of the emission versus 

mileage data for each exhaust emission constituent 

and subtracting the 4,000-mile emission level from 

the full useful life emission level (historically, 

100,000 miles). The DF is then used with emission 

data from the emission data vehicle to demonstrate 

compliance with the standards for the purpose of 

certification. The sum of the emissions from the 

EDV plus the additive DF is referred to as the 

certification level and must be less than or equal to 

the emission standard to receive a certificate of 

conformity. 

12The CAP 2000 regulations ‘‘grand-fathered’’

procedures which had been already approved under 

the RDP provisions. Consequently, these grand 

fathered procedures were not approved again under 

the CAP 2000 provisions. [63 FR.39661] 

13Candidate in-use vehicles are vehicles selected 

under the provisions of the in-use verification 

program (IUVP). This includes mileage restrictions, 

procurement requirements, and screening 

requirements designed to eliminate only tampered, 

mis-used or unsafe vehicles. [reference: 40 CFR 

86.1845–01 and 40 CFR 86.1845.04] 

14An engine dynamometer bench generally 

consists of an engine dynanometer, a ‘‘slave’’

engine, and required controllers and sensors to 

achieve the desired operation of the engine on the 

dynanometer. 

15Under this alternative, emission components 

aged to the equivalent of full useful life would be 

installed on EDVs. The test data from the EDV 

would then serve to establish the certification level 

and show compliance with the full useful life 

emission standards. 

16Reference: 40 CFR 86.1845–01 and 40 CFR 

86.1845–04. 

17The Agency may withdraw approval for a 

durability process if the Administrator determines, 

based on IUVP or other data, that the durability 

process does not accurately predict emission levels 

or compliance with the standards. [Ref. 40 CFR 

86.1923–01(h)]. In addition, where the average inuse verification data for a test group (or several test 

groups) exceeds 1.3 times the applicable emission 

standard and at least 50% of the test vehicles fail 

the standard in use, manufacturers are required to 

supply additional ‘‘recall quality’’ in-use data. [Ref. 

40 CFR 86.1846–01]. 

I (RDP I). It was an interim program 

scheduled to expire after the 1995 

model year and was intended to serve 

as a bridge to an anticipated complete 

revision to the durability process. The 

provisions of RDP I were extended in a 

series of regulatory actions.10

Ultimately, the Agency instituted a 

comprehensive revision to the 

durability process as part of the CAP 

2000 rulemaking. 

For evaporative and refueling 

emissions deterioration, EPA allowed 

manufacturers to develop their own 

process to either bench age components 

or do whole vehicle aging, also subject 

to Agency review and approval. The 

evaporative and refueling deterioration 

factor is required to be additive.11

2. Emission Durability Procedures 

Under CAP 2000 

The CAP 2000 rulemaking was a 

comprehensive update to the entire 

light-duty vehicle certification process. 

One part of this involved the 

manufacturer’s required demonstration 

of emission durability. The Agency 

eliminated the requirement for the use 

of AMA for new durability 

demonstrations. In CAP 2000, the 

Agency replaced the AMA-based 

durability program with a durability 

process similar to the optional RDP–I 

program. Each manufacturer, except 

small volume manufacturers, was 

required to develop an emission 

durability process which would 

accurately predict the 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.12

Approval from the Agency required a 

demonstration that the durability 

process was designed to generate DFs 

representative of in-use deterioration. 

This demonstration was more than 

simply matching the 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 

deterioration than is reflected by the inuse data for a significant majority of 

their vehicles. Manufacturers were 

required to provide evidence that their 

durability process resulted in predicted 

emission deterioration that were equal 

to or more severe than the deterioration 

rates experienced by a significant 

majority (approximately 90%) of 

candidate in-use vehicles.13

Furthermore, this demonstration was 

required to cover the breadth of the 

vehicles covered by the durability 

procedure. 

This evaluation concerning coverage 

of a significant majority of the in-use 

data was usually made independently 

on several potential worst-case vehicles 

which bound the envelope of vehicles 

covered by the durability procedure. 

Manufacturers typically demonstrated 

that emission deterioration predicted by 

their durability program would cover 

approximately 90 percent of the in-use 

population using one (or more) of the 

following sources of data: in-use 

emission tests, in-use driving 

characteristics, or in-use catalyst 

temperature measurements. At that time 

EPA had not developed a specific 

required method to make this 

demonstration. 

Two major types of durability 

processes emerged from the CAP 2000 

experience: whole vehicle and bench 

aging processes. 

The whole vehicle aging procedures 

involve driving vehicles on a track or 

dynamometer on an aggressive driving 

cycle of the manufacturer’s design. In 

general, the speed, acceleration rates, 

and/or vehicle load are significantly 

increased compared to the AMA cycle 

or normal in-use driving patterns. The 

vehicle can be driven either for full 

useful-life mileage, or, for a higher stress 

cycle, the vehicle can be driven for a 

reduced number of miles (e.g., 1 mile on 

the high speed cycle equals 2 miles in 

use). In either case, the vehicle is tested 

periodically and a DF is calculated. 

The bench aging procedures involve 

the removal of critical emission 

components, such as the catalyst and 

oxygen sensor, and the accelerated aging 

of those components on an engine 

dynamometer bench.14 During the 

bench aging process important engine/ 

catalyst parameters are controlled to 

assure proper aging. Usually, elevated 

catalyst temperatures are maintained 

while fuel is controlled to include lean, 

rich, and stoichiometric control. 

Through a series of tests, manufacturers 

determine the amount of time needed to 

bench-age a catalyst so it is aged to the 

equivalent of 100,000 miles. In some 

cases the manufacturer developed the 

amount of aging time using catalyst 

temperature data measured on a road 

cycle. In other cases, the manufacturer 

developed the aging time through a trial 

and error process. Typical bench aging 

periods are 100–300 hours, although 

these can vary from manufacturer to 

manufacturer. Sources of deterioration 

other than thermal aging can be 

accounted for by aging the catalyst for 

an additional amount of time. 

The CAP 2000 regulations allow 

manufacturers to choose from three 

different methods to demonstrate 

emissions durability. Manufacturers 

could calculate additive DFs, 

multiplicative DFs, or test EDVs with 

aged hardware 15 installed on them. 

Regardless of whether manufacturers 

used whole vehicle or bench aging 

durability procedures, CAP 2000 also 

required the manufacturer to later 

collect emission data on candidate inuse vehicles selected under the 

provisions of the in-use verification 

program (IUVP).16 Among other uses of 

the data, the IUVP data must be used by 

the manufacturer to check on and 

improve its durability program. The 

data also is available to assist the 

Agency to target vehicle testing for its 

recall program. The Agency may 

intercede 17 when the in-use data 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 2813 

18A copy of the strike-out version of CAP 2000 

language is included in the Docket to this 

regulation. 

19Ref. 69 FR 17533 ‘‘EPA is not proposing to 

change the existing regulations for determining 

emission-related component durability’’. 

20Candidate in-use vehicles are vehicles selected 

under provisions of the in-use verification program 

(IUVP). This includes mileage restrictions, 

procurement requirements, and screening 

requirements designed to eliminate only tampered, 

mis-used or unsafe vehicles. [Reference: 40 CFR 

86.1845–01 and 40 CFR 86.1845–04] 

indicate the durability process 

underestimates in-use emission levels. 

The CAP 2000 regulations did not 

change the previous procedures used to 

obtain DFs for evaporative/refueling 

families. 

C. Ethyl Petition To Reconsider the CAP 

2000 Rules 

On August 17, 1999, Ethyl 

Corporation petitioned EPA to 

reconsider the CAP 2000 regulations. 

EPA requested public comment on the 

petition, 64 FR 60401 (November 5, 

1999 and 64 FR 70665 (December 17, 

1999), and received comments from 

various interested parties. After 

consideration of the petition and of all 

comments, EPA denied the petition for 

reconsideration. 66 FR 45777 (August 

30, 2001). 

Ethyl Corporation also petitioned the 

Agency to reconsider the final rule 

entitled ‘‘Emissions Control, Air 

Pollution From 2004 and Later Model 

Year Heavy-Duty Highway Engines and 

Vehicles; Light-Duty On-Board 

Diagnostics Requirements, Revision; 

Final Rule,’’ 65 FR 59896–59978 

(referred to here as the ‘‘Heavy Duty 

Rule’’). After consideration of the 

petition and all of the comments, EPA 

denied the petition for reconsideration. 

66 FR 45777 (August 30, 2001). 

D. Judicial Review of the CAP 2000 

Rules 

Ethyl Corporation petitioned for 

review of the CAP 2000 rulemaking, 

claiming among other things that the 

CAP 2000 durability provisions were 

unlawful as EPA had not promulgated 

methods and procedures for making 

tests by regulation as required by § 206. 

[Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 306 F.3d 1144 (DC 

Cir. Oct. 22, 2002).] 

In an opinion issued on October 22, 

2002, the Court found that the CAP 2000 

regulations did not satisfy the 

requirements of section 206(d) of the 

CAA to establish methods and 

procedures for making tests through 

regulation. 

The Court recognized that there was 

an important distinction between an 

EPA regulation that established general 

or vaguely articulated test procedures, 

with more specific details provided in a 

later proceeding, and a regulation which 

failed to establish any test procedures at 

all and only adopted procedures for the 

later development of tests. The former 

situation would receive deferential 

judicial review under the applicable 

case law. The latter case, however, 

would fail to meet the requirements of 

section 206(d). The Court held that the 

CAP 2000 regulations fell into this latter 

group, and were improper because EPA 

itself failed to establish any test 

procedures at all in the regulation, 

vaguely articulated or not. EPA’s 

regulation provided only for the 

manufacturer to develop its own test 

procedure and submit it for later EPA 

approval. This was inconsistent with 

the scope of section 206(d), [Ethyl at 

1149–50.] 

The Court also said that ‘‘nothing in 

our opinion requires that EPA use only 

a ‘one-size-fits-all’ test method. All that 

is required is that it establish its 

procedures, no matter how variegated, 

‘by regulation.’ ’’ [Ethyl at 1150.] 

Since the issue before the Court was 

the legality of EPA’s adoption of the 

CAP 2000 durability provisions, EPA 

believes the court’s vacature of ‘‘the 

CAP 2000 program’’ is limited to 

vacating the CAP 2000 durability 

provisions. 

The Court also remanded the case to 

EPA with instructions to establish test 

methods and procedures by regulation. 

Today’s final rule is the result of the 

court’s decision, and is limited to 

emission durability procedures. 

E. Applicability of the NPRM Preamble 

Discussion 

Unless otherwise indicated below, the 

discussion presented in the preamble to 

the notice of proposed rulemaking 

published at 69 FR 17532 is applicable 

to this final rule. 

F. Supplemental Notice Regarding 

Component Durability 

The Agency received a comment from 

Afton Chemical Corporation (‘‘Afton,’’

formerly known as Ethyl suggesting that 

EPA did not address the component 

durability portion of the emission 

durability process and should establish 

a procedure for determining component 

durability. After the Court decision 

which remanded EPA to write new 

regulations regarding emissions 

durability, EPA discussed with the 

Petitioner and automotive 

manufacturers the ramifications of that 

decision. To aid in these discussions, 

EPA provided a draft ‘‘mark-up’’ version 

of the CAP 2000 regulations, showing 

via stricken text exactly which 

regulations we believed had been 

vacated.18 We did not strike out the 

regulatory language regarding 

component durability. At that time, 

neither the petitioner nor the 

automotive manufacturers spoke out in 

opposition to this. We did not propose 

new procedures for component 

durability and proceeded with the 

proposed durability regulation, which 

retained the ‘‘good engineering 

judgment’’ language for component 

durability.19 Today’s final rule includes 

only procedures for the emission 

deterioration portion of the durability 

process, because our understanding was 

that component durability was not at 

issue. However, Afton’s comments are 

significant enough, that we believe it is 

appropriate to take the opportunity for 

further comment on component 

durability regulations. We believe it is 

appropriate, given the need for notice 

and comment for all interested parties, 

that we treat component durability in a 

separate action. Therefore, in addition 

to today’s final rule, EPA is also today 

publishing a separate Supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

requesting comments on a proposal 

which addresses component durability. 

Today’s final rule has not revised the 

regulatory language for component 

durability. 

II. Summary and Analysis of Comments 

EPA received comments from the 

automotive makers Ford, Volkswagen 

and Cummins, two automotive trade 

associations on behalf of their member 

automotive companies, the Afton 

Chemical Corporation (formerly know 

as the Ethyl Corporation), and one 

comment from a private citizen. 

The comments have been grouped 

together by subject matter. The 

following discussion presents the 

summary of EPA’s proposal, of the 

comments received on that proposal, 

and EPA’s response to those comments. 

A. The Durability Objective 

Summary of proposed rule. The 

proposed rules included a provision 

that defined the durability objective [Ref 

40 CFR 86.1823–08(a)] as follows: ‘‘The 

durability program must predict an 

expected in-use emission deterioration 

rate and emission level that effectively 

represents a significant majority 

(approximately 90 percent) of the 

distribution of emission levels and 

deterioration in actual use over the full 

and intermediate useful life of candidate 

in-use vehicles 20 of each vehicle design 

which uses the durability program.’’

Summary of Comments. The Alliance 

and AIAM commented that the phrase 

‘‘approximately 90 percent’’ could 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
2814 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

21Ref. CAP 2000 NPRM preamble 63 FR 39661. 

effectively increase the stringency of the 

standards by ignoring whether vehicles 

are passing the standards in-use and 

focusing on the probability distribution 

that in-use emissions exceed the 

emission levels projected at 

certification. This represents a 

substantial and unnecessary departure 

from the CAP 2000 rules. Instead, the 

rules should be in line with the 

‘‘significant majority’’ goal espoused in 

CAP 2000 and the RDP guidance letter 

(CD–94–13, July 29, 1994). 

In response to a request by EPA to 

clarify their comments, the Alliance 

stated that they were concerned that the 

proposed provision in the regulations 

themselves which defined ‘‘significant 

majority’’ to mean ‘‘approximately 90 

percent’’ could be interpreted to 

establish an inflexible percentage 

criterion and eliminate EPA’s discretion 

to consider other factors when 

evaluating the effectiveness of a 

manufacturer’s durability program taken 

as a whole. 

Response to Comments. The purpose 

of the durability program is to provide 

EPA with reasonable assurance that 

vehicles covered by a certificate of 

conformity will, in actual use, comply 

with the applicable emission standards 

over their full useful life. As discussed 

in the proposal, production variability 

or other reasons can lead to differences 

in actual emission levels among 

vehicles of the same nominal design. 

In the CAP 2000 rulemaking, EPA 

required that a durability program 

adequately predict emission 

deterioration for a significant majority of 

candidate in-use vehicles. In the CAP 

2000 program, EPA had typically 

considered ‘‘significant majority’’ to 

mean approximately 90 percent 

coverage of the distribution of in-use 

deterioration. This concept was 

discussed in the preamble to the CAP 

2000 rule 21; however, EPA had not set 

a strict numerical criteria in the CAP 

2000 regulations. 

It was not the EPA’s intention to 

establish in this rule a single rigid 

method or an inflexible numerical 

criteria to evaluate the durability 

objective. EPA understands the 

Alliance’s concerns that the proposed 

language might lend itself to a more 

rigid interpretation that may limit EPA 

discretion and/or impose unintended 

burdens on manufacturers. 

Consequently, EPA has removed the 

parenthetical phrase ‘‘approximately 90 

percent’’ from the finalized durability 

objective language in the regulations. 

By making this change we are not 

relaxing the requirement. The 

manufacturer must still demonstrate 

that a customized/alternative durability 

procedure is expected to effectively 

represent a significant majority of the 

distribution of emission deterioration in 

actual use to obtain EPA approval to use 

the procedure for certification. EPA and 

the manufacturers will still review IUVP 

data and/or other data to determine if 

the durability objective was achieved in 

use and whether it is appropriate to 

continue to use that durability process 

for future certification requests. EPA 

will consider a variety of different 

evidence and/or analyses that the 

durability objective has been or is 

expected to be achieved. However, a 

demonstration that approximately 90 

percent of the distribution of in-use 

emission deterioration or emission 

levels is effectively represented by the 

durability procedure will continue to be 

a satisfactory showing for this purpose. 

The following section discusses how 

the durability objective will be used to 

evaluate certification durability 

procedures based on in-use emission 

data. 

B. Evaluation of the Certification 

Durability Procedures Based on In-Use 

Emissions Data 

Summary of Proposal. Manufacturers 

must use information gathered from the 

IUVP, as well as other sources of in-use 

emissions data, to periodically review 

whether the durability procedure it 

employs achieves the durability 

objective. EPA may require a 

manufacturer to perform an analysis to 

evaluate its durability procedure. EPA 

may withdraw approval of a durability 

procedure, or require modifications to 

the procedure, if the Agency determines 

that the durability objective is not being 

achieved by the durability procedure. 

[Ref. 86.1823–08 (i) and (j)] 

Summary of Comments. The Alliance 

and AIAM stated that they had concerns 

that a number of variables could affect 

IUVP emission data (including in-use 

fuel characteristics, mal-maintenance, 

testing variability, small sample size, 

random recruitment and as-received 

testing (rather than testing properly 

maintained and used vehicles)) and that 

these variables could affect the accuracy 

of decisions made using IUVP data. 

They stated that these concerns ‘‘were 

already addressed in the CAP 2000 

rulemaking in an appropriate fashion’’. 

To illustrate their concern, the 

Alliance and AIAM provided this 

example: All in-use vehicles can be well 

below the applicable standards, but the 

durability procedure could be deemed 

deficient under the proposed rule 

merely because in-use emissions exceed 

the emission levels projected at 

certification. 

The Alliance and AIAM also 

suggested that ‘‘If the IUVP data show 

that a manufacturer meets emissions 

standards in use (because, for example, 

the manufacturer certified with a 

sufficient compliance margin, known as 

‘‘headroom’’), then the Agency should 

not be concerned and should not make 

decisions based on the accuracy of the 

certification emission deterioration seen 

in isolation.’’

In response to a request by EPA to 

clarify their comments, the Alliance 

stated that the new provision could be 

interpreted to require changes in their 

durability programs even when a 

significant majority of candidate in-use 

vehicles comply with emission 

standards. They believed that the 

proposed rule could, therefore, 

effectively tighten the applicable 

emission standards. 

Ford commented that: (1) The 

proposal effectively increases the 

stringency of the standards. (2) The 

focus of this criteria appear to change 

from the strawman which compared the 

IUVP emission results to the standard 

and the highest certification level of all 

certification and running change tests. 

(3) Applying the 90 percent criteria 

[significant majority] criteria to IUVP 

data (‘‘as received vehicles’’) rather than 

‘‘properly maintained and used’’

vehicles [the quality of data used to 

order recalls] further increase the 

stringency. (4) The proposed 

requirement forces change and cost 

increases to methods where 100% of the 

IUVP data meet applicable standards. 

(5) Reviewing the rate of deterioration is 

inconsistent with the use of certifying 

with aged components (rather than 

calculating a deterioration factor). 

The Alliance and AIAM also 

commented Review of durability 

processes should only be required when 

the in-use confirmatory test criteria are 

triggered. 

Response to Comments. EPA did not 

propose, nor are we finalizing, any 

changes to the IUVP testing program 

promulgated in the CAP 2000 

rulemaking. As discussed in the 

proposal, EPA does not believe these 

provisions were vacated by the Court’s 

decision and they remain effective 

without any further action required by 

the Agency. 

The provisions for using IUVP 

emissions data and/or other information 

to evaluate a durability procedure and 

for the Administrator to reject the use of 

a durability procedure based on such an 

evaluation were also contained in the 

CAP 2000 rules. The CAP 2000 rule 

established the requirement to reject a 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 2815 

22Mean In-Use Verification Program (IUVP) 

emissions for a test group exceed threshold of 1.3 

times the certification emission standard and at 

least 50% of test vehicles for that test group fail for 

the same pollutant. 

durability procedure when ‘‘the 

durability process has not been shown 

to effectively predict emission levels or 

compliance with the standards in use on 

candidate vehicles’’ using this data. 

This requirement is practically 

equivalent to the ‘‘not achieving the 

durability objective’’ language in the 

proposal. As long as in-use vehicle data 

is below the standards, the durability 

procedure would be considered 

acceptable, even if the in-use emissions 

exceed the emission levels projected at 

certification. However, if it was found 

that the in-use emissions were 

significantly higher than the projected 

certification levels, we may decide to 

review the durability procedure to 

determine why the in-use emission 

results are so far off from the projected 

certification results in order to improve 

the procedure being used. 

We disagree with the comment that 

the comparison of IUVP emission data 

to the durability objective in the 

proposal is a new requirement (not 

contained in the CAP 2000 rules) that 

increases the stringency of the 

standards. As discussed in the last 

paragraph, the basis for the evaluation 

of a durability program in CAP 2000 

was ‘‘candidate in-use vehicle’’ which 

are defined to be vehicles eligible for 

selection by the IUVP program. Clearly, 

comparing actual IUVP emission data to 

the durability objective is precisely 

what was intended by this requirement. 

Consequently, this requirement is not 

new and therefore does not increase 

stringency of the standards. Ford is 

confusing the ‘‘well maintained and 

used’’ quality of data requirement that 

applies to ordered recalls with the 

process of evaluating the effectiveness 

of a durability process for certification. 

As discussed in the CAP 2000 rule, EPA 

does not intend to order recalls of 

vehicles using unscreened IUVP data. 

EPA did not propose, nor are we 

finalizing, any provision that would 

change the process of ordering recalls of 

non-complying vehicles by using 

unscreened IUVP data. 

We continue to believe it is necessary 

to re-evaluate a manufacturer’s 

durability process using actual in-use 

emission, data such as IUVP data, when 

that information becomes available. It is 

only through such review that we can be 

assured that the predictions made at the 

time of certification are actually valid in 

use. When that data indicate that the 

durability process does not achieve the 

durability objective in actual use, then 

the Agency may decide to withdraw 

approval for the durability procedure or 

require modification to the procedure 

for future certification purposes. Again, 

such remedial action is necessary for the 

Agency to assure an effective 

certification program. It would be 

reckless for the Agency to allow the 

continued use of a unmodified 

durability process for future 

certification once it has been shown to 

be ineffective in actual use for similar 

vehicles. 

We disagree with the suggestion that 

review of the durability procedures 

should only occur when the in use 

confirmatory program (IUCP) triggers 22

are activated. The confirmatory test 

criteria are considered to be a screening 

criteria that identifies the very worst 

cases only for automatic 

reconsideration. EPA expects that there 

will be cases where the durability 

procedures are not working 

satisfactorily for a particular test group 

that are not identified by these criteria. 

Furthermore, reviewing in-use data in 

large groups allows the Agency to 

determine if there is an underlying 

trend that a durability process is not 

satisfactorily achieving the durability 

objective. In those cases, EPA is 

naturally and justifiably concerned 

about the accuracy of the durability 

process. These reviews conducted on a 

case-by-case basis are necessary for the 

Agency to assure an effective 

certification program. 

EPA has retained the proposed 

provision to eliminate unrepresentative 

in-use data when making this 

determination. 

EPA has not established a single 

required method to perform an analysis 

to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

durability process using in-use emission 

data. The Agency will consider all 

information and analyses presented by 

the manufacturer submitted within the 

60-day period specified in the 

regulations before reaching a final 

decision to withdraw approval for a 

durability procedure. Although there is 

no specified procedure for this 

evaluation, there are several 

observations which are applicable to 

this process. 

Calculating deterioration rates only 

from in-use emission results conducted 

at various vehicle mileage points on 

randomly procured vehicles within a 

test group can be misleading. It is well 

known that individual vehicle 

configurations within a test group or 

durability group will have different 

levels of absolute emissions. Since the 

IUVP uses random procurement, it is 

possible that the lower emission 

vehicles would be tested at low mileage 

and the higher emission vehicles would 

be tested at high mileage. This situation 

would lead to a exaggeratedly high 

calculated deterioration rate. This, in 

turn, could lead to the false 

determination that the durability 

process does not meet the durability 

objective. Comparing individual in-use 

emission levels to the certification 

levels or the applicable emission 

standards will result in more accurate 

evaluations of the in-use data and is 

recommended for that reason. 

It is better to make overall decisions 

about the effectiveness of a durability 

procedure using the largest possible 

data set of comparable vehicles. 

Consequently, EPA recommends 

performing analyses on a broad group of 

comparable vehicles rather than on 

single test groups or other small data 

sets. Comparable vehicles complying 

with different standards may be 

combined into the same analysis if the 

emission levels are standardized by the 

ratio of the emission standards. 

We agree with the Alliance and AIAM 

that the Agency should not make 

decisions based on the accuracy of the 

certification emission deterioration seen 

in isolation. Compliance margin should 

also be considered in the analysis. 

The proposed and finalized rules 

discuss ‘‘effectively representing a 

significant majority’’ (emphasis added). 

The word ‘‘effectively’’ in this context is 

intended to allow the use of compliance 

margin (also called ‘‘headroom’’) to 

expand the predictive coverage of a 

durability program. As stated 

previously, the purpose of the durability 

program is to provide EPA with 

reasonable assurance that vehicles 

covered by a certificate of conformity 

will, in actual use, comply with the 

applicable emission standards over their 

full useful life. 

This purpose may be accomplished by 

employing a durability process that 

directly predicts emission levels that 

represent a significant majority of the 

distribution of emission levels in actual 

use. Alternatively, the durability 

process may under-predict emission 

levels, but when coupled with the 

compliance margin, a significant 

majority of the vehicles comply with the 

emission standards in actual use. 

Providing that the same amount of 

compliance margin is used in future 

certification requests, it is reasonable to 

conclude that such a durability process 

when coupled with this level of 

compliance margin effectively 

represents a significant majority of the 

distribution of emission levels in actual 

use. 

For example: if after removing 

unrepresentative data only 70 percent of 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
2816 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

23Light light-duty trucks are trucks that are rated 

through 6000 pounds GVWR. This includes truck 

classes LDT1 and LDT2. 

the emission data was less than or equal 

to the predicted value (the certification 

level determined at certification time), 

then one could conclude that the 

predictive accuracy of the durability 

process was approximately 70% which 

would not constitute a ‘‘significant 

majority’’. If, however, when 

compliance margin is taken into 

account, 95% of the vehicles comply 

with the applicable emission standards, 

it could be safely concluded that a 

significant majority of vehicles are 

effectively represented by the durability 

procedure. Such an analysis would be 

performed separately for each 

applicable emission constituent and 

associated emission standard. 

Based on the preceding description of 

how the ‘‘effectively represent’’ criteria 

may be implemented, we disagree with 

the Alliance, AIAM, and Ford that the 

proposed requirements will result in the 

Agency withdrawing approving for a 

durability process when all the IUVP 

data is complying with the applicable 

standards. 

Lastly, we do not see an 

inconsistency, as a comment suggests, 

in comparing IUVP emission data to the 

durability objective when the 

manufacturer elects to certify using aged 

components rather than calculate a 

deterioration factor. EPA is allowing 

flexibility in the method for the 

manufacturer to conduct this analysis. 

EPA does not require (nor do we 

recommend, as discussed above) 

comparing certification DFs to DFs 

calculated from IUVP data. EPA’s 

preferred method for the analysis 

involves comparing IUVP emission 

results to certification levels and 

standards; all of this data is available to 

manufacturers electing to certify with 

aged components rather than calculating 

a certification DF. 

In summary, the Agency is retaining 

the proposed requirement to require 

manufacturers to evaluate the durability 

procedures using in-use emission data 

generated on candidate vehicles (such 

as IUVP data) and the authority for EPA 

to withdraw approval of the durability 

procedure if the durability objective was 

not achieved in actual use on 

comparable vehicles. The Agency did 

not propose, nor are we finalizing, a 

specific required method to evaluate 

certification durability procedures based 

on in-use emissions data. However, a 

demonstration that approximately 90 

percent of the distribution of in-use 

emission results (considering each 

emission constituent separately) comply 

with the applicable standard will be a 

satisfactory showing that the durability 

objective has been achieved. 

C. Standard Whole Vehicle Durability 

Procedure 

1. Standard Road Cycle (SRC) 

Summary of Proposal. The standard 

whole vehicle durability procedure 

consists of mileage accumulation on a 

durability vehicle following the 

standard road cycle (SRC). The SRC was 

defined in the proposal in Appendix V 

of part 86. 

Summary of Comments. The Alliance 

and AIAM commented that the 

proposed standard road cycle is 

effective at meeting the Agency’s intent. 

Response to Comments. Having 

received no adverse comments on the 

proposal, EPA is finalizing the SRC as 

proposed. 

2. Vehicle Ballasting on SRC Mileage 

Accumulation 

Summary of Proposal. The proposed 

rules required that during mileage 

accumulation ‘‘the durability data 

vehicle (DDV) must be ballasted to a 

minimum of the loaded vehicle weight 

for light-duty vehicles and a minimum 

of the ALVW for all other vehicles’’ [Ref 

86.1823–08(c)(1)(iii)]. 

Summary of Comments. The Alliance 

and AIAM suggested that EPA should 

harmonize the vehicle weight 

requirements for truck DDVs with the 

current emission testing requirements 

for emission data vehicles (EDV). 

Response to Comments. The proposal 

required heavier payload for truck 

mileage accumulation because trucks 

are designed to carry loads in addition 

to transporting the occupants of the 

vehicle. In our review of manufacturer 

vehicle design and durability processes, 

we found that trucks have special 

design and durability requirements 

acknowledging their load carrying 

capability. We also believe that trucks 

carry loads in actual use some fraction 

of the time. 

The standard whole vehicle durability 

program is designed to achieve the 

durability objective. The durability 

objective requires the durability 

program to represent a significant 

majority of the distribution of emission 

levels and deterioration experienced in 

actual use on those vehicles. To reach 

this goal of significant majority 

coverage, EPA believes that it is 

necessary to address heavier vehicle 

loads that occur in trucks some fraction 

of the time. The adjusted loaded vehicle 

weight (ALVW) loading requirement 

requires ballasting with half the payload 

rather than 300 pounds (the loaded 

vehicle weight which is applicable to 

light duty vehicle mileage accumulation 

in the proposal). 

The amount of ballasting for mileage 

accumulation should not be confused 

with the vehicle weight basis for 

conducting emission testing. EPA did 

not propose, nor are we finalizing, any 

change to the weight basis for emission 

testing, including testing that may be 

performed on the DDV to calculate a 

deterioration factor (DF). 

Although EPA continues to believe it 

is necessary to ballast most trucks to 

ALVW to assure that the durability 

objective is achieved, this requirement 

may to too severe for some light lightduty trucks.23 These lighter trucks are 

much more frequently used only for 

passenger transportation and more 

rarely used to transport significant 

payloads. Consequently, EPA is 

changing this provision in the final rule 

to require ballasting during mileage 

accumulation to a minimum of the 

loaded vehicle weight to apply to both 

light-duty vehicles and light light-duty 

trucks. We are retaining the provision to 

ballast all other vehicles to a minimum 

of the ALVW. 

3. Calculating the DF From Mileage 

Accumulation of 75% of Full Useful 

Life Mileage 

Summary of Proposal. The 

description of the proposed standard 

whole-vehicle durability procedure 

contained a provision [Ref. 86.1823–

08(c)(2)] that would require mileage 

accumulation of at least 75% of the full 

useful life mileage. If the mileage 

accumulation was less than 100% of the 

useful life mileage this provision would 

require the DF to be based on the upper 

80 percent statistical confidence limit 

calculated from the emission data. 

Summary of Comments. The Alliance 

and AIAM commented that projecting a 

full-useful life DF from data generated 

over 75% percent of the useful life is 

sufficient without adding the proposed 

80% confidence factor. The proposed 

requirement is more stringent than the 

original CAP 2000 and Tier 1 

requirement for projecting DFs. 

Projected full useful life emissions 

should use mean values rather than 

80% statistical point. 

Response to Comments. We disagree. 

EPA promulgated the provision to allow 

reduced (75% rather than 100% useful 

life) mileage accumulation in the CAP 

2000 and Tier 1 rules to address the 

concern of the excessive time necessary 

to complete full mileage accumulation 

with the AMA cycle. The excessive time 

concern has been addressed in the 

proposal by the SRC which is a 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 2817 

24The fastest allowable AMA cycle (with a top 

speed of 70 MPH) has an average speed of 30.72 

MPH while the SRC has an average speed of 46.26 

MPH. The time necessary to complete 120,000 

miles on the SRC [2594 run-hours] is less than time 

necessary on the AMA to complete 75% of the 

miles [90,000 miles take 2930 run-hours]. 

substantially faster 24 cycle than the 

AMA cycle. For that reason, EPA had 

considered eliminating the provision to 

allow less than full useful life mileage 

accumulation altogether. Although the 

provision has been rarely used in the 

past, EPA thought it would be 

worthwhile to retain it in the standard 

whole-vehicle durability procedure 

providing that the reduced mileage 

accumulation did not adversely affect 

the quality of the projected DF. 

It is a basic statistical principle to 

apply a confidence factor when 

performing projections from a limited 

data set. The confidence factor 

addresses the added uncertainty 

inherent in not generating actual data 

for the last 25% of the mileage 

accumulation. The one-sided 80 percent 

limit is a loose requirement; it is not 

uncommon in projections to apply a 

confidence factor of 90% or higher. 

Running less than the full useful life 

mileage accumulation is voluntary. 

The need for this confidence factor is 

heightened now that Tier 2 has 

extended useful life to a maximum of 

150K miles. The idea of allowing the 

150,000 mile useful life as an option in 

Tier 2 [and thereby avoiding compliance 

with the intermediate useful life 

standards] is predicated on the 

assumption that the added emission 

data between 120,000 and 150,000 miles 

would improve our statistical 

confidence that the vehicles comply 

with full useful life standards. If we 

now (as suggested in this comment) 

allow manufacturers to project emission 

compliance without considering 

statistical confidence when only 75% of 

useful life mileage is run, then 150,000 

durability could be demonstrated by 

running only 112,500 miles. Running 75 

percent of the 150,000 miles [112,500 

miles] is actually less breadth of data 

than the normal 120,000 miles and 

reduces our compliance confidence 

rather than enhancing it. 

Consequently, for the reasons 

discussed above, EPA is adopting its 

proposal to require the use of the upper 

80 percent one-sided statistical 

confidence limit when less than full 

mileage accumulation is conducted 

using the standard whole-vehicle 

durability procedure. 

4. Testing Required for DF Calculation 

Summary of Proposal. If a 

manufacturer elects to calculate a DF, 

then it must conduct at least one FTP 

emission test at each of five different 

mileage points selected using good 

engineering judgement. The required 

testing must include testing at 5,000 

miles and the highest mileage point run 

during mileage accumulation. 

Additional testing may be conducted. 

[Ref. 40 CFR 86.1823–08(c)(3)] 

Summary of Comments. 

Manufacturers should be allowed to 

choose the number of tests for DF 

testing on the SRC, rather than the 

Agency mandating the use of five (or 

more) tests at different mileage points as 

proposed. 

Response to Comments. The reason 

for specifying a minimum number and 

distribution of test points to be used in 

calculating a deterioration factor is to 

assure a minimum level of confidence 

in the result of the calculation. It is 

possible that the same level of 

confidence could be achieved with 

multiple tests conducted at a fewer 

number of discrete mileage points. 

Since the intention of this 

requirement was to provide a minimum 

level of confidence in the DF, another 

plan that results in at least as much 

confidence would equally achieve this 

goal. To allow greater flexibility in 

deterioration testing plans, we are 

adding a provision in the final rule that 

would allow other testing plans 

providing the manufacturer determines, 

using good engineering judgement, that 

the alternative plan would result in 

equivalent or superior DF confidence 

interval. 

To justify such an alternative testing 

plan, the manufacturer would need to 

document that the alternative testing 

intervals result in a DF confidence 

interval equal to or better than the 

confidence interval using the testing 

plan specified in the regulations [one 

test at 5,000 miles, one test at full useful 

life mileage, and three equally spaced 

tests between 5,000 miles and the full 

useful life mileage]. 

5. Use of an Engine Dynamometer To 

Recreate the Aging on the SRC 

Summary of Proposal. The proposal 

did not specifically address what type of 

dynamometer could be used for mileage 

accumulation on the SRC. The proposed 

regulation simply specified use of a 

mileage accumulation dynamometer. 

Summary of Comments. Cummins 

commented that vehicle mileage 

accumulation on the SRC could be 

effectively duplicated on an engine 

dynamometer by aging the complete 

engine and emission control system in 

an appropriate manner. They suggested 

that EPA allow the use of an engine 

dynamometer as an option for whole 

vehicle aging. 

Response to Comments. EPA agrees 

with Cummins that it is possible to 

replicate the aging that occurs on the 

SRC by installing a complete engine and 

emission control system on an engine 

dynamometer and appropriately 

controlling the engine load and other 

parameters during service 

accumulation. Although, this option 

was not prohibited in the proposal, EPA 

decided to clarify the language and 

specifically allow service accumulation 

on a engine dynamometer as an option 

method to conduct aging following the 

SRC. 

D. Standard Bench Aging Procedure 

Summary of Proposal. The standard 

bench aging procedure requires 

installation of the catalyst-plus-oxygensensor system on a catalyst aging bench. 

Aging on the bench is conducted by 

following the standard bench cycle 

(SBC) for the period of time calculated 

from the bench aging time (BAT) 

equation. The BAT equation requires, as 

input, catalyst time-at-temperature data 

measured on the SRC. This procedure 

was not applicable to diesel vehicles. 

Summary of Comments. The Alliance 

and AIAM commented that they believe 

that the standard bench cycle 

incorporates appropriate elements to 

provide an effective procedure to bench 

age exhaust emission hardware. 

Volkswagen commented that the 

proposed prohibition of bench aging 

procedure for use on diesel vehicles is 

inappropriate. The Agency should allow 

manufacturers the opportunity to 

propose an appropriate bench aging 

procedure for diesel vehicles which 

EPA would approve on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Cummins acknowledged that there is 

not an effective established procedure 

currently available for bench aging of 

diesel vehicles. However, they 

encouraged the Agency to provide some 

mechanism in the final rule that could 

allow approval of a bench aging 

procedure for diesels on a case-by-case 

basis at a later time without the need for 

further rulemaking. 

Response to Comments. Volkswagen’s 

and Cummins suggestion that EPA 

allow a manufacturer to propose a 

bench aging durability procedure 

applicable to diesel vehicles without the 

Agency promulgating any description of 

the framework of the bench aging 

durability procedure for diesel vehicles 

in the regulations do not fulfill the 

Court’s mandate. Nor does it fulfill the 

Clean Air Act requirement to establish 

methods and procedures for making 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
2818 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

tests through regulation [Ref. CAA 

section 206 (d)]. 

None of the comments take issue with 

EPA’s conclusion that the proposed 

bench aging procedures cannot be 

effectively used for diesel-fueled 

vehicles. The proposed bench aging 

procedures are designed to age the 

vehicle’s catalyst-oxygen-sensor system 

as well as to replicate the total aging 

that occurs in use. Diesel vehicles to not 

employ catalyst technology as the 

principle emission control strategy, 

consequently the proposed bench aging 

procedure will not be effective for 

diesels. The comments did not suggest 

a bench aging procedure that was 

effective for diesel vehicles. In fact, 

Cummins acknowledged that there is 

not an effective established procedure 

currently available for bench aging of 

diesel vehicles. 

Consequently, EPA is retaining the 

proposed exclusion of diesel-fueled 

vehicles from employing the bench 

aging procedures finalized in these 

regulations. At a later date, EPA may 

choose to propose regulations providing 

bench aging procedures applicable to 

diesel-fueled vehicles. In the meantime, 

diesel-fueled vehicles must use the 

whole vehicle exhaust durability 

provisions. 

E. Catalyst Time-at-Temperature Data 

Measurement 

Summary of Proposal. EPA proposed 

that catalyst temperature must be 

measured at the highest temperature 

location in the hottest catalyst on the 

DDV. Catalyst temperature must be 

measured at a rate of one hertz (one 

measurement per second). 

Summary of Comments. The Alliance 

and AIAM commented that the 

measurement rate of catalyst 

temperature of 1 hertz should be 

changed to allow manufacturers to 

determine the appropriate rate. EPA 

should not dictate the location of 

catalyst temperature measurements. 

Determining the worst-case location is 

not practical. 

Response to Comments. Both of these 

measurement procedures only apply to 

the standard bench procedure and its 

elements. Manufacturers may use other 

procedures if using a customized/ 

alternative process that does not use the 

EPA standard BAT equation, the 

standard aging bench design (as 

discussed in Appendix VIII) or EPA’s 

standard method to experimentally 

determine a customized R-factor for the 

BAT equation (as discussed in 

Appendix IX). 

Because the measured temperature is 

the basis for calculating aging time or 

determining that the appropriate 

amount of aging has actually occurred 

on the aging bench, it is important to 

carefully specify where to measure the 

temperature. Temperatures can vary by 

over 100 °C between various locations 

in a catalyst. In developing the BAT 

equation, EPA developed the equation 

based on measuring the maximum 

temperature in the catalyst. EPA has 

been receiving catalyst temperature data 

from manufacturers for many years 

which was measured at the hottest point 

in the catalyst to support carryover 

requests or to evaluate durability 

procedure approvals under RDP–I or 

CAP 2000. Typically, manufacturers 

have selected measure along the central 

axis of the catalyst about one inch back 

of the front face. This history indicates 

to the Agency that determination of the 

hottest location in the catalyst is 

practical. 

In Appendix VIII, EPA proposes that 

the measurement of catalyst temperature 

may be either at the highest temperature 

location or another location (providing 

the temperature is adjusted by a linear 

transform to represent the temperature 

measured at the hottest catalyst 

location). To address the practicality of 

actual measurement, EPA has modified 

the regulation language to correspond to 

the appendix. 

The temperature measured in a 

catalyst also can change quickly over 

time during the SBC. When EPA was 

developing the standard bench cycle we 

used time-at-temperature data recorded 

at a one hertz rate. The temperature 

measured in adjacent seconds 

frequently is different in these data sets. 

Consequently, EPA concluded that one 

hertz was the minimum acceptable 

frequency rate acceptable for this 

purpose. Faster measurement would be 

acceptable, because it would allow for 

more accurate measurement of the 

changing catalyst temperature. To allow 

faster measurement, EPA has changed 

the regulation from the proposal to 

specify that one hertz is a minimum 

frequency. 

F. Customized/Alternative Durability 

Procedures 

Summary of Proposal. Several of the 

comments received to the proposal 

discuss provisions that apply to 

different aspects of the customized/ 

alternative durability procedures. As 

background for the discussion of these 

general comments, the following 

paragraphs summarize the provisions 

that were proposed for customized/ 

alternative road cycles, calculation and 

use the equivalency factor, and 

customized/alternative bench aging 

durability procedures. 

Customized/Alternative Road Cycles. 

The Agency proposed that a customized 

or alternative road cycle could be used 

for certification if approved by the 

Administrator. The approval criteria 

require that the manufacturer 

demonstrate that whole vehicle mileage 

accumulation on the alternative/ 

customized road cycle is expected to 

achieve the durability objective in 

actual use for the full range of vehicles 

to be covered by the procedure. 

The equivalency factor. The 

manufacturer must calculate an 

equivalency factor that equates the 

alternative or customized road cycle to 

the SRC run for full useful life mileage. 

The equivalency factor is used to 

determine how much in-use data the 

manufacturer must present in the 

analysis that the durability objective is 

expected to be achieved. The 

equivalency factor would also be made 

available to outside parties for their use 

to recreate aging conducted by the 

manufacturer during certification. For 

example, if the equivalency factor is 

90% then the durability aging 

conducted by the manufacturer can be 

replicated by running the SRC for 90% 

of the useful life mileage or by bench 

aging using the SBC for the time 

calculated from the BAT equation using 

time-at-temperature data run on the SRC 

based on 90% of the useful life mileage. 

Customized/Alternative Bench Aging 

Durability Procedures. The Agency 

proposed that a customized or 

alternative bench aging procedure could 

be used for certification if approved by 

the Administrator. The proposal 

discussed seven types of customization 

allowable for the bench aging 

procedures and presented the criteria 

for their approval to the Agency. 

Specifically the Agency could approve 

the following customization to the 

standard bench aging durability 

procedure: 

• Use a different lower-control 

temperature on the SBC providing the 

BAT equation was used to calculate the 

appropriate aging time. 

• Use an customized R-factor in 

EPA’s BAT equation providing that it is 

determined experimentally using the 

manufacturer’s actual catalyst design. 

• Use an customized A-factor in 

EPA’s BAT equation, to ensure that the 

modified durability process will achieve 

the durability objective. 

• Conduct bench aging using fuel 

with additional compounds that may 

lead to catalyst poisoning, such as 

phosphorus, sulfur or lead, rather than 

the standard fuel. 

• Use an approved customized/ 

alternative road cycle (rather than the 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 2819 

SRC) to develop catalyst temperature 

histograms for use in the BAT equation. 

• Use a different bench cycle than the 

SBC with prior EPA approval. 

• Use a different method than the 

standard BAT equation to calculate 

bench aging time with prior EPA 

approval. 

1. Equivalency Factors and Alternative 

Road Cycles 

Summary of Comments. The Alliance 

and AIAM commented that it is pivotal 

that manufacturers be able to customize 

the standardized durability procedures. 

They support the equivalency factor 

approach because it provides the means 

for third parties to use the SRC to 

effectively replicate the aging effects 

produced by any manufacturer’s 

durability protocols without requiring 

manufacturers to disclose proprietary 

engineering data and analysis. The 

equivalency factor, as proposed, also 

allows these customized/alternative 

procedures to be linked to the standard 

procedures. They do not object to the 

publication of the equivalency factors, 

themselves, but they comment that 

release of the underlying proprietary 

information is not required and is 

contrary to the Freedom of Information 

Act requirements. 

Afton (formerly known as Ethyl) 

commented that EPA must use 

appropriate rulemaking procedures 

which meet the requirements of section 

307(d) of the CAA to adopt alternative 

road cycles rather than using the 

equivalency factor and the approval 

process discussed in the proposal. They 

acknowledge that the equivalency factor 

may provide a constructive means to 

attempt to balance the competing 

objectives of maintaining the secrecy of 

individualized certification test 

procedures, on the one hand, and 

disclosing to the public the test 

procedures on which the government 

relies to issue certification decisions, on 

the other. However, they state that the 

equivalency factor does not alter the 

Agency’s obligation to promulgate 

alternative test procedures by regulation 

and include underlying data upon 

which the alternative test procedure is 

based. Consequently they believe that 

the proposed provision to allow the 

Agency to approve alternative road 

cycles does not meet the CAA 

requirements nor does it comply with 

the Court’s mandate in Ethyl Corp. v. 

EPA. 

Response to Comments. We disagree 

with Afton’s comments that the 

proposed regulations, which allow the 

Agency to approve alternative road 

cycles, do not meet the CAA 

requirements and do not comply with 

the Court’s mandate in Ethyl Corp. v. 

EPA. The Court stated ‘‘nothing in our 

opinion requires that EPA use only a 

‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ test method. All that 

is required is that it establish its 

procedures, no matter how variegated, 

‘‘by regulation.’’ That is what we have 

done in this rulemaking. 

We have established procedures that 

define the SRC as the standard wholevehicle durability process. We have also 

described procedures to use a 

customized/alternative road cycle that is 

tied to a comparison of that cycle to the 

SRC and a demonstration that the cycle 

achieves the durability objective. In 

particular, the customized road cycle is 

the SRC run for a different distance. The 

actual distance run on a customized 

road cycle is the basis of the 

equivalency factor which EPA does not 

believe is confidential business 

information (CBI). The Agency plans to 

provide the equivalency factors to any 

interested party and post a listing on its 

Web site for public use. 

In the case of alternative cycles 

(cycles which use a different speedversus-time trace than the SRC), we 

have also proposed (and are finalizing) 

durability procedures using those 

cycles. We have proposed procedures 

that specify the amount and type of data 

necessary for approval of such a cycle. 

We have proposed procedures that 

specify the approval method used by the 

Agency for approving the cycle. We 

have proposed procedures (the 

equivalency factor) to equate a 

customized cycle to the SRC. We have 

determined that the equivalency factor 

may be publically released. 

Furthermore, we have determined that if 

an outside party ran a vehicle on the 

SRC for the distance specified by the 

equivalency factor, the resulting 

deterioration would be equivalent to the 

manufacturer’s durability showing using 

the customized road cycle. We have also 

proposed procedures that specify how 

to use the customized road cycle for 

calculating deterioration factors and/or 

conducting aged component testing. 

Lastly, we have proposed procedures for 

determining compliance using this data. 

In summary, in addition to the SRC, 

we have proposed and are finalizing, 

many details on the durability 

procedure for the use of customized 

road cycles. We believe we have clearly 

articulated a durability procedure (i.e., 

the SRC) by regulation fulfilling the 

mandate of the Court. We have also 

used our discretion in electing to 

describe most, but not all details, of the 

alternative road cycle durability process 

in the regulations. (See American 

Trucking Associations v. Department of 

Transportation, 166 F.3d 374 (DC Cir. 

1999) and New Mexico v. EPA, 114 F.3d 

290 (DC Cir. 1997). Agencies are entitled 

to broad deference in picking the 

suitable level of detail to specify in the 

regulations.) 

For the above reasons, EPA is 

finalizing the provision to allow 

alternative road cycles approved by the 

Administrator as proposed. 

2. Bench Durability Aging 

Summary of Comments. Afton 

expresses concern that whether and 

how new systems perform in the field 

can directly impact operation of the 

catalyst in ways that may not be 

captured by thermal aging. They 

specifically cite the lack of aging of 

certain engine and fuel system 

components. They expressed concern 

that the analysis presented in EPA’s 

draft technical support document (TSD) 

for the CAP 2000 proposal, which 

shows little engine-out deterioration, 

may be dated. Their concern is based on 

the fact that the analysis does not 

include vehicles using certain new 

technology devices and strategies which 

may, at some future time, begin to 

appear in production but which are not 

used in general production vehicles at 

this time. 

The Alliance and AIAM commented 

that the bench aging procedures 

incorporate appropriate elements to 

provide an effective method to bench 

age exhaust emission hardware. 

Response to Comments. We do not 

share Afton’s concern that the proposed 

bench aging procedures may not be 

sufficiently accurate for certification 

purposes. The bench aging procedures 

are designed to effectively replicate the 

aging that occurs during in-use 

operation. 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, the bench aging 

procedures are required to be adjusted 

to duplicate the full emission 

deterioration that occurs in-use by 

thermally aging the catalyst. This may 

result in over-aging the catalyst to 

account for emission deterioration that 

occurs from other sources. The amount 

of over-aging may be large or small. The 

proposed BAT equation includes a term 

(the A-factor) which is used for this 

purpose. EPA has set the initial value of 

A as 1.1 based on the low expected 

engine-out deterioration identified in 

the TSD. However, if for any cause 

(including unexpected emission control 

deterioration of components not aged on 

the aging bench, or based on the future 

technology that Afton mentions in their 

comments), the bench aging durability 

does not achieve the durability 

objective, EPA has proposed a 

requirement that manufacturers change 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
2820 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

the A factor to ensure that the durability 

goal is appropriately achieved by the 

bench aging process. Furthermore, EPA 

has proposed requirements that the 

manufacturer must periodically review 

their durability process to assure that 

the durability object is achieved in 

actual use. To facilitate this review, EPA 

requires manufacturers to provide IUVP 

emission data that must be used in this 

evaluation process. Lastly, EPA can 

require the manufacturer to change their 

durability process if the Administrator 

determines that the durability goal is 

not being achieved in actual use. 

Consequently, any risk that the bench 

aging process may not achieve the 

durability goal is controlled by this 

feedback process using IUVP emission 

data. 

For the above reasons, EPA is 

finalizing the standard bench aging 

durability procedures as proposed. 

3. Approval of Customized/Alternative 

Durability Procedures 

Summary of Comments. The Alliance 

and AIAM made a series of comments 

to ‘‘eliminate unnecessary and excessive 

administrative burden’’. Specifically 

they suggested: 

Manufacturers should be allowed to 

self-approve a customized/alternative 

durability road cycle if they can show 

it is more severe than the SRC. 

Manufacturers should not be required 

to submit data from 20 in-use vehicles 

to obtain approval, rather the 

manufacturer should review in-use data 

as it becomes available. 

The proposal requires the approval of 

a customized bench aging cycle even 

when the aging time is determined 

using the BAT equation. They suggest 

that this additional approval step is 

unnecessary and unjustified. 

EPA should eliminate all 

requirements for pre-approval and reauthorization of existing durability 

protocols absent in-use data which does 

not meet the existing requirements. 

Response to Comments. We disagree 

that the approval requirements of the 

proposal are either unnecessary or 

excessively burdensome. EPA must 

determine to its satisfaction that a 

potential customized/alternative 

durability process is expected to achieve 

the durability goal in use. Most of the 

durability procedures approved prior to 

the vacature of CAP 2000 rules were 

significantly changed based on the 

Agency’s review and comment during 

the Agency’s initial review. Although 

we now expect that most manufacturers 

have the skill necessary to design an 

appropriate customized/alternative 

process, we still believe that an initial 

review and approval by the Agency is 

still warranted. 

The proposal only requires an initial 

approval of the customized/alternative 

durability process. Once a process is 

approved, the manufacturer must 

determine, using good engineering 

judgement, whether to apply the 

procedure to future durability groups. 

The proposal does contain provisions 

to require less in-use data for EPA 

approval when the customized/ 

alternative cycle is shown to be 

significantly more severe than the SRC. 

We expect that approval of more severe 

cycles than the SRC to be granted, but 

the question still remains whether the 

customized/alternative cycle is severe 

enough to achieve the durability 

objective in use for the vehicles 

involved. Consequently, approval of a 

more severe customized/alternative 

cycle is not automatic. 

In the proposal, the amount of in-use 

emission data required for approval is 

varied depending whether the cycle is 

more or less severe than or 

approximately equivalent to the SRC. 

The amount of data required reflects the 

data necessary for the Agency to reach 

a valid conclusion to approve a cycle. 

As previously discussed, more severe 

cycles are rewarded in the approval 

process by a reduction in the amount of 

required data. 

The proposal requires approval of an 

alternative bench aging cycle because 

the distribution of air/fuel ratios and 

temperature is important to assure that 

adequate aging occurs. As discussed in 

the preamble to the proposed rule, a 

manufacturer must develop a new R 

factor if they change the bench aging 

cycle. Our standard R-factor applies 

only to the standard bench cycle (SBC). 

The determination of a customized Rfactor is necessary because the same 

temperature exposure will result in a 

different amount of emission 

deterioration if the bench aging cycle is 

changed. The use of the standard BAT 

equation [with a different R-factor] 

provides no added assurance that the 

bench aging cycle will effectively 

replicate the emission deterioration that 

occurs on the associated road cycle as 

suggested in the comment. 

Consequently, EPA is finalizing the 

requirement to obtain Agency approval 

for alternative bench cycles. 

The proposed requirements are 

different than the CAP 2000 

requirements, although the durability 

objective has not changed. Pertinent 

facts may have changed since the 

approval (under the CAP 2000 rules) of 

a particular durability procedure 

including production designs and the 

existence of more in-use data available 

for review. Although, the Agency 

expects that most of the durability 

processes that were approved prior to 

the court’s vacature of the CAP 2000 

rules will meet the requirements of this 

rule, we find no compelling case to 

make any blanket determination. 

Reviewing each durability process 

according to the new requirements on 

its own merits is an appropriate course 

of action for the Agency. Therefore, EPA 

is retaining and finalizing the proposed 

requirement that all customized/ 

alternative durability procedures must 

be approved under the new rules 

(including all procedures used before 

the vacature of the CAP 2000 rules). 

4. Experimentally Determining a 

Customized R-Factor 

Summary of the Proposal. EPA 

proposed that a manufacturer may 

determine an customized R-factor for 

use in the BAT equation. This would 

allow the BAT equation to be 

customized to better predict the 

required amount of bench aging 

necessary for a particular catalyst 

design. EPA proposed a standard 

experimental method for determining a 

customized R-factor in Appendix IX to 

the rule. EPA also proposed that other 

experimental techniques may be used if 

approved by the Administrator. To 

obtain approval the manufacturer must 

demonstrate that the calculated bench 

aging results in the same (or larger) 

amount of emission deterioration as the 

associated approved road cycle. 

Summary of Comments. The Alliance 

and AIAM commented that EPA’s 

standard method for experimentally 

determining a R-factor [in Appendix IX] 

is overly restrictive and significantly 

increases the stringency of determining 

an R-factor. 

Ford commented that the approval 

procedure for using alternative 

techniques to experimentally determine 

the R-factor for the BAT equation 

should be based on accomplishing the 

durability objective rather than a 

comparison to the associated road cycle 

(the criteria in the proposal). 

Ford suggested an alternative 

standardized method to experimentally 

determine the R-factor that they felt 

would be more accurate and easier to 

implement. Their proposal (a detailed 

description is in the docket) suggested 

that emissions rather than catalyst 

efficiency be measured and that the 

emission deterioration projected from a 

least-squares regression of the emission 

versus time data be calculated directly 

from the experimental data rather than 

the two step process proposed by EPA. 

Response to Comments. EPA agrees 

that the standard method for 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 2821 

experimentally determining an R-factor 

supplied by Ford in their comments 

would be appropriate to use for that 

purpose. We also anticipate that it 

would be easier to generate the emission 

data required in Ford’s alternative 

procedure than the conversion 

efficiency required in the proposed 

standard R-Factor determination 

procedure. Also this alternative 

approach eliminates one step compared 

to the proposed process. For those 

reasons, we have modified the 

Appendix in the final rule to allow this 

procedure. 

It should also be noted that other 

techniques, beyond the standard 

procedure outlined in Appendix IX to 

part 86, may be used as allowed in 40 

CFR 1823–08(e)(2)(iii). Ford 

recommended that we take a step back 

from the proposed approval criteria 

which require ‘‘that the calculated 

bench aging time results in the same (or 

larger) amount of emission deterioration 

as the associated approved road cycle.’’

They recommended that we require 

instead that the manufacturer should 

demonstrate that the use of the R-factor 

would achieve the durability objective. 

One concern was that the proposed text 

seemed to require the existence of a 

customized/alternative road cycle 

because this would be the only cycle 

that was ‘‘approved’’, the SRC could be 

used without a specific Agency 

approval. 

It was not our intention to require that 

a manufacturer have an approved 

customized/alternative road cycle to 

determine an R-factor by an alternative 

method (rather than the standard 

method in Appendix IX to Part 86). 

Manufacturer may also use an 

alternative method to calculate an RFactor when using the SRC as the 

associated road cycle to measure 

catalyst time-at-temperature data 

necessary to calculate aging time. It is 

our intention however, that a 

manufacturer must generate catalyst 

time-at-temperature data on either the 

SRC or an approved customized/ 

alternative road cycle. Furthermore, that 

an alternative method will only be 

approved if it results in the same (or 

more) aging as that associated cycle. 

We believe that the approval criteria 

suggested by Ford (achieving the 

durability objective) will be functionally 

the same as the proposed criteria to 

replicate the aging seen on the 

associated road cycle but potentially 

less burdensome. For an alternative 

bench cycle to be approved the 

manufacturer must demonstrate that it 

achieves the durability objective. 

However, in the case where a 

manufacturer is using the SRC, it may 

not have the necessary in-use emission 

data to demonstrate that durability 

objective is being achieved. For these 

reasons, we continue to believe that the 

proposed requirement is a less 

burdensome and equally effective 

requirement as Ford’s proposal. In 

today’s final regulation text we have 

clarified that the road cycle used for 

comparison may be either the SRC or an 

approved customized/alternative cycle. 

Otherwise, we have finalized the 

alternative R-factor methodology 

approval criteria as proposed. 

5. Alternative Bench Aging Cycle 

Content 

Summary of Proposal. EPA did not 

propose any limitations on the content 

of an alternative bench aging cycle. EPA 

did propose that to obtain approval for 

such an alternative bench cycle the 

manufacturer must demonstrate that 

bench aging with the new bench cycle 

provides the same or larger amount of 

emission deterioration as the associated 

road cycle. 

Summary of Comments. The Alliance 

suggested that we clarify which 

provisions (in the proposed section 

86.1823–08(e)(2)) pertain to 

manufacturers bench cycle and which 

provisions pertain to the EPA standard 

bench cycle. 

Response to Comments. EPA did not 

propose, nor are we finalizing, any 

limitations on the content of an 

alternative bench aging cycle. The 

alternative cycle may (among other 

differences) be of different length, have 

a different proportion of Air/Fuel ratios, 

different temperatures, different 

amounts of secondary air injection, and/ 

or use no secondary air injection at all. 

However, whatever the content, the 

manufacturer must demonstrate that the 

alternative bench aging cycle works 

effectively by reproducing (or 

alternatively overstating) the aging that 

occurs on the associated road cycle 

which was used to measure the time-attemperature data used to calculate the 

aging time on the aging bench. 

G. Component Durability 

Summary of Proposal. The proposal 

retains the CAP 2000 requirement that 

manufacturers use good engineering 

judgement to determine that all exhaustrelated components are designed to 

operate properly for the useful life of the 

vehicles in actual use. 

Summary of Comments. Afton argued 

that EPA did not meet the requirements 

of the Act or the Court’s mandate in 

Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, by not proposing 

test methods or procedures for assessing 

the durability of emission control 

system components, either separately 

for components, or for all the 

components operating together as an 

integrated system. 

In response to this comment, the 

Alliance and AIAM stated that there is 

no need to implement additional 

‘‘component’’ durability test methods 

and procedures because the SRC reestablishes the requisite threshold level 

of stringency for the components as well 

as the system as a whole. They also 

claim that the Court did not impose any 

obligation on EPA to establish a whole 

new regime of component durability 

tests. 

Response to Comments. While EPA 

believes that Afton has raised an 

important issue, the NPRM did not 

contemplate any revisions to the 

component durability regulations. 

Therefore, EPA believes that before 

taking any final action on component 

durability, it is appropriate to open this 

issue to further comment. Therefore, 

concurrent with today’s final rule, EPA 

is publishing a Supplemental Notice of 

Rulemaking (SNPRM) that addresses 

component durability. The SNPRM will 

seek comment on several options that 

EPA is considering for addressing 

component durability during the vehicle 

emissions certification process. After a 

formal comment period, EPA will 

consider any further comments received 

and issue a final rule. 

H. Minor Modifications to Approved 

Durability Procedures 

Summary of Proposal. The proposal 

contained a provision [ref. 86.1823 h) 

(1)] that allowed a manufacturer to 

modify an approved durability 

procedure by increasing or decreasing 

the number of miles run on an approved 

road cycle to represent full or 

intermediate useful life emissions 

deterioration or by changing the AFactor in the BAT equation for a bench 

aging, using good engineering judgment, 

to ensure that the modified procedure 

will achieve the durability objective. 

Summary of Comments. The Alliance 

and AIAM commented that EPA should 

restore the CAP 2000 provision that 

allowed manufacturers to make minor 

modifications (using good engineering 

judgement) to an approved durability 

procedure without the need to obtain a 

new approval from EPA. 

Response to Comments. The proposal 

listed only certain changes that the 

manufacturer could make to an 

approved durability procedure using 

good engineering judgement without 

obtaining approval by the 

Administrator. Those changes were 

increasing or decreasing the number of 

miles run on an approved road cycle or 

changing the A-Factor in the BAT 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
2822 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

equation. At that time, these were the 

only changes that the Agency 

envisioned that could be applied to the 

standard EPA durability procedures 

without considering the changes to 

constitute a customization of the 

standard procedures that would require 

Agency approval. We also proposed that 

these same changes could be made to 

customized/alternative durability 

procedures without requiring Agency 

approval. 

We agree that allowing some level of 

minor adjustments or changes to an 

approved customized/alternative 

manufacturer durability process would 

also be appropriate if the changes were 

limited in scope and made using good 

engineering judgement to assure that the 

modified durability procedures would 

achieve the durability objective. We 

believe that the level of adjustments 

allowed under CAP 2000 continue to be 

appropriate in the new durability 

regulations. In the vacated CAP 2000 

durability regulations we stated: (1) 

Such modifications will be limited to 

incorporating additional data into the 

original algorithms of the approved 

durability process and (2) if a 

manufacturer wishes to change the 

algorithms used to determine the aging 

characteristics of the durability process, 

these changes will be considered a new 

durability process and will require 

advance approval by the Administrator. 

Therefore, we have modified the final 

regulation language to include a 

provision for manufacturers to make 

these minor changes, using good 

engineering judgement, without 

obtaining new approval from the 

Agency. 

I. Required Notification to EPA That an 

Approved Durability Procedure Will Be 

Used for a Particular Durability Group 

Summary of Proposal. The 

manufacturer must notify the 

Administrator of its determination to 

use an approved (or modified) 

durability procedure on particular test 

groups and durability groups prior to 

emission data vehicle testing for the 

affected test groups (notification at an 

annual preview meeting scheduled 

before the manufacturer begins 

certification activities for the model year 

is preferred). 

Summary of Comments. The Alliance 

and AIAM commented that the timing 

of the notification (prior to emission 

data vehicle testing) is too early in the 

certification process. They suggested 

that notification in the Application for 

Certification should be sufficient and is 

preferable to them. 

Response to Comments. The purpose 

of this requirement is to provide the 

Agency the necessary information about 

the manufacturers durability 

demonstration plans early enough in the 

certification process to be useful to the 

Agency. In particular, if the Agency 

wished to question the manufacturers 

judgement to apply a durability 

procedure to a particular durability 

group, it would be more efficient to 

raise this issue earlier in the 

certification process. Consequently, the 

Agency suggested that the notification 

occurs in the annual preview meeting 

which is typically scheduled before a 

manufacturer begins certification 

activity for a model year. 

As discussed in the current good 

engineering judgement provisions [ref. 

40 CFR 86.1851–01 which is not being 

modified in today’s final action] the 

Administrator may reject a 

manufacturers decision, even after 

certification is granted, if it is not based 

on good engineering judgement. 

Consequently, EPA agrees that 

notification at the time of the 

Application for Certification would 

provide the opportunity for sufficient 

oversight for the Agency. The risk to the 

manufacturer is that any questions 

regarding the good engineering decision 

basis of the manufacturers decision to 

apply a durability procedure to a certain 

durability group will come late in the 

process (or even after certification was 

granted). The good engineering 

judgement provisions in the current rule 

provide sufficient tools for the Agency 

to address these concerns in that time 

period. We still suggest that the best 

time for the notification is at the 

preview meeting to avoid last minute 

questions in the certification process. 

Nevertheless, we are changing the final 

regulation language to require the 

notification prior to or concurrently 

with the Application for Certification. 

J. Public Availability of the Equivalency 

Factor and Supporting Data 

Summary of Proposal. EPA proposed 

methods to calculate the equivalency 

factor. EPA also stated the opinion in 

the proposal that the equivalency factor 

was not confidential business 

information (CBI) and it may be released 

to the public. EPA also announced its 

plan to post the equivalency factors on 

the Agency’s Web site. 

Summary of Comments. The Alliance 

agreed with the proposal that the 

equivalency factor is not confidential 

and may be released to the public. 

However, they stated that manufacturers 

should not be compelled to disclose to 

the public any of their underlying data 

or other proprietary information used to 

develop their durability process. 

The Alliance and AIAM also 

commented that EPA should not require 

extensive engineering reports justifying 

equivalency factors unless there is inuse or other data suggesting that the 

manufacturer’s cycle does not achieve 

the durability objective. 

They also commented that 

manufacturers should only be required 

to supply equivalency factors for 

processes that are used in the future 

(after the effective date of the proposed 

rules). 

Afton commented that the Court’s 

mandate Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, applies to 

all certification decisions made since 

the effective date of the mandate. 

Specifically, they disagreed with the 

Alliance and AIAM comment that 

equivalency factor need only be 

supplied for new durability procedures 

approved under the proposed rules and 

need not be reported for existing 

durability processes that were used after 

the vacature of the CAP 2000 rules as 

well as aging processes that were 

approved by EPA prior to the vacature. 

Response to Comments. EPA 

continues to believe that the 

equivalency factor is not confidential 

business information and may be 

released to the public. EPA renews its 

intention to post the equivalency factors 

on the Agency’s Web site for public use. 

We are not making any other 

determinations (beyond the equivalency 

factor) regarding whether other 

information submitted by a 

manufacturer is or is not confidential 

business information. These decisions 

to release other information will be 

made on a case-by-case basis using the 

existing regulations [Ref. 40 CFR part 2]. 

We agree with Afton that the Court’s 

mandate applies to all certification 

decisions made after the effective date 

of the mandate. However, once the 

Court’s mandate became effective, EPA 

ceased requiring durability showings as 

a prerequisite to issuing a certificate of 

conformity. The basis for granting 

certification after the vacature of the 

CAP 2000 rule was EPA reliance on a 

statement made by the manufacturer 

using good engineering judgement that 

the vehicles in question will comply 

with the applicable standards for their 

full useful life. This statement was 

typically placed in the Application for 

Certification and has not generally been 

viewed by manufacturers as confidential 

business information. There are no 

approved durability procedures between 

the effective date of the Court’s mandate 

and the effective date and model year of 

today’s final rules. Consequently, there 

are no equivalency factors nor any 

supporting data that can be made 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 2823 

available by the manufacturers that 

apply to certification during that period. 

K. Carryover 

Summary of Proposal. EPA did not 

propose any changes to the carryover 

provisions in the current regulations 

(ref. 40 CFR 86.1839–01). These 

provisions allow manufacturers to use 

durability data that was previously 

generated and used to support 

certification provided that the data 

‘‘represent a worst case or equivalent 

rate of deterioration’’. 

EPA proposed that the manufacturer 

may not, however, continue to use CAP 

2000 durability processes to generate 

new data starting with the effective date 

of the new regulations. When the 

proposed rule becomes effective, 

manufacturers must use durability 

procedures that have been approved 

under the new rules to generate new 

durability demonstrations. 

Summary of Comments. The Alliance 

and AIAM commented that, in addition 

to allowing carry over of existing 

durability data prior to CAP 2000 

vacature, manufacturers should also be 

allowed to use existing durability data 

employed after vacature from previously 

approved processes conforming with 

good engineering judgment. 

They also suggested that 

manufacturers should be allowed to 

carry over aging data generated after the 

vacature of the CAP 2000 rules 

providing that these data were compiled 

using aged component processes 

approved by EPA prior to the vacature. 

Lastly, they commented that 

manufacturers should be allowed to 

continue to use aging processes 

approved by EPA prior to the vacature 

to age components on future data fleet 

vehicles. 

Response to Comments. EPA did not 

propose any change to the carryover 

provisions. After the effective date of 

the new regulations, if a manufacturer 

can meet these requirements, it may use 

existing durability data (i.e., DFs or aged 

hardware). This would apply to any 

data that exists prior to the effective 

date of the today’s regulation which is 

compiled using a durability procedure 

that was approved prior to the vacature 

of the CAP 2000 rules. All new data 

generated after the effective date of 

today’s rulemaking must meet all the 

applicable requirements including the 

requirement that it was generated using 

an approved durability procedure. 

L. Evaporative Durability Procedures 

Summary of Proposal. The proposal 

contained provisions for conducting 

evaporative durability using either a (1) 

whole vehicle demonstration using the 

SRC or another approved road cycle or 

a (2) bench aging demonstration using 

procedures contained in the regulations 

or (3) a combination of whole vehicle 

and bench procedures. 

Summary of Comments. The Alliance 

and AIAM commented that the Court’s 

ruling dealt exclusively with tailpipe 

emissions and did not compel EPA to 

revisit evaporative durability. 

They also commented that separate 

durability demonstration for each 

evaporative family should be allowed 

via carryover using good engineering 

judgment. 

They also commented that EPA’s right 

to revoke use of evaporative durability 

based on IUVP is not in keeping with 

CAP 2000, which said that EPA would 

use the data primarily for modeling 

purposes. They are concerned that the 

sample size is too small and would force 

manufacturers to ensure that IUVP 

evaporative emission test vehicles 

match the emission level of certification 

test vehicles. Non-fuel related emissions 

can not be represented in the 

certification durability process. 

Response to Comments. We disagree 

that the Court’s decision regarding 

durability was limited to exhaust 

emission deterioration. Consequently, 

we proposed (and are finalizing) 

exhaust, evaporative, and refueling 

durability procedures. 

As discussed previously, the 

carryover procedures of the current 

regulations (ref. 40 CFR 86.1839–01) are 

not changed on the proposal. These 

provisions allow manufacturers to use 

durability data that was previously 

generated and used to support 

certification provided that the data 

‘‘represent a worst case or equivalent 

rate of deterioration’’. Consequently, 

existing evaporative durability data and 

results may be carried-over providing 

they meet these requirements. 

We agree that the IUVP sample size 

(one test per test group) is too small to 

make this decision on an individual test 

group basis. However, EPA intends to 

review in-use evaporative data and 

evaluate the effectiveness of the 

durability process to achieve the 

durability objective when a reasonable 

amount of data does exist for this 

purpose. This expanded data set could 

include data from another source or it 

may consist of data combined from 

several related test groups or from 

several years of IUVP data. If the 

expanded data set indicates a problem, 

EPA believes it is appropriate to invoke 

this provision to re-evaluate the 

manufacturer’s evaporative durability 

procedure. Furthermore, if the Agency 

ultimately concludes that there is 

sufficient data and that the data indicate 

that the durability objective is not 

achieved, EPA believes it is appropriate 

to require modifications to the 

durability procedure in the same 

method used for exhaust emission 

deterioration. It would not be acceptable 

to continue to use an evaporative 

durability process that was 

demonstrated to not achieve the 

durability objective; EPA relies on the 

accuracy of this data to make 

appropriate decisions to grant 

certification. Consequently, we are 

finalizing these provisions as proposed 

with the acknowledgment that a 

sufficient body of data must exist to 

make this determination with 

appropriate confidence. 

M. Starting Model Year for the Rule 

Summary of Proposal. EPA proposed 

that the rules would apply to 2006 

model year vehicles certified after the 

effective date of the regulations. 

Summary of Comments. The Alliance 

and AIAM commented that the 

proposed effective date of 2006 model 

year (MY) should be changed to 2008 

MY, or later if final rule published after 

August 2004. They stated that 

manufacturers are already doing 

durability testing on 2006 models, and 

developmental work is already 

underway for early introduction 2007 

models. 

Volkswagen commented that the 

effective date of 2006 MY is 

unworkable, but they do not propose an 

alternative date. 

Ford commented that the effective 

date for the regulation should be 

changed to 2009 MY if component 

durability issues are addressed in a 

single rulemaking and 2008 MY if the 

emission deterioration provisions are 

finalized separately. 

The Alliance and AIAM suggest that 

we add a provision allowing early optin at the manufacturer’s discretion. 

Response to Comments. We agree that 

2006 is no longer possible given the 

current timing for publication of the 

final rule. Because publication of the 

FRM has taken longer than expected, 

and manufacturers are now certifying 

2006 model year vehicles and already 

performing durability testing for 2007 

models, we are delaying the 

implementation of the rule to become 

effective beginning with the 2008 MY. 

N. Special Provisions for New 

Manufacturers 

Summary of Proposal. EPA did not 

propose any special procedures for new 

manufacturers to obtain approval of a 

customized/alternative durability 

procedure. However, the standard 

procedures may be employed by these 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
2824 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

manufacturers without generating any 

in-use emission data. Also, the Agency 

did not change the special certification 

procedures that apply to small volume 

manufacturers (ref. 40 CFR 86.1838–01). 

Summary of Comments. The Alliance 

and AIAM commented that new 

manufacturers should not have to rely 

on IUVP data for feedback purposes 

since they supply little or no IUVP data. 

They suggested that the rule should 

have clear provisions for new 

manufacturers. 

Response to Comments. New 

manufacturers may use the standard 

durability procedures without 

submitting in-use data or obtaining EPA 

approval. We believe that these standard 

procedures provide a reasonable method 

for new manufacturers to supply the 

required durability data without the 

need to compile in-use emission data. 

However, if a new manufacturer did 

wish to obtain approval for a 

customized/alternative durability road 

cycle, EPA would accept appropriate 

data from another manufacturer’s 

comparable in-use vehicles to 

demonstrate the effectiveness of their 

durability procedures to achieve the 

durability objective. 

O. Delete Incorrect Reference to 

Intermediate Useful Life Standards for 

the Evaporative and Refueling 

Durability Objective 

Response to Comment. We made the 

appropriate correction in the final 

regulations. 

P. Comments From a Private Citizen 

Summary of Comments. One citizen 

submitted comments that touched upon 

various topics, many of which were not 

germain to the proposed rule. In general, 

the consumer believed that the proposal 

was ‘‘too friendly’’ to manufacturers. 

The commenter requested that the 

public should always be invited to all 

meetings EPA has with manufacturers to 

assure that no ‘‘secret dealings’’ are 

taking place. 

EPA response. Some of the comments 

touched on issues that have been 

addressed elsewhere in this section. We 

disagree that the proposal was ‘‘too 

friendly’’ to manufacturers. Emissions 

durability requirements impose a 

significant burden on manufacturers, 

and the provisions to allow for 

alternatives does not lessen the 

responsibility placed upon 

manufacturers to perform the required 

emission durability demonstration. We 

also disagree that all meetings with 

manufacturers should be open to the 

public. The discussions at these 

meetings center around individual 

manufacturers’ business plans and are 

forward-looking in nature. Revealing 

these plans publicly would compromise 

the competitive automotive market. 

However, by informing the public of 

what sort of information is exchanged in 

these meetings, we believe we have 

provided the public with enough 

assurance that no ‘‘deals’’ are being 

made. 

III. What Is EPA Promulgating Today? 

Today’s final rule includes two welldefined test methods for determining 

the exhaust emissions durability of 

vehicles from which manufacturers may 

choose: the standard whole vehicle 

aging process and the standard bench 

aging process. It also includes welldefined criteria allowing EPA to 

approve customization of or alternatives 

to these test methods, based upon a 

demonstration to EPA of the level of 

stringency needed to meet the durability 

objective, and the level of stringency 

demonstrated for the SCR and the 

customization or alternative. 

A. Standard Whole Vehicle Exhaust 

Durability Procedure 

EPA is promulgating a standard road 

cycle (SRC) which is targeted to 

effectively cover a significant majority 

of the distribution of exhaust emission 

deterioration rates that occur on 

candidate in-use vehicles. The SRC is 

fuel-neutral. It applies to all vehicles, 

regardless of fuel used. The SRC 

consists of seven laps of 3.7 miles each. 

The average speed on the SRC is 46.3 

mph, the maximum cruise speed is 75 

mph, and the acceleration rates range 

from light to hard accelerations. Most 

accelerations are moderate and there are 

no wide-open-throttle accelerations. The 

SRC contains 24 fuel-cut decelerations. 

The deceleration rates range from coastdown (no brake force applied) to 

moderate. 

EPA is promulgating a standard whole 

vehicle durability procedure which 

consists of running a vehicle (the 

durability data vehicle (DDV)) on the 

SRC for the full useful life mileage of 

the vehicle. We are also finalizing rules 

that manufacturers may terminate 

mileage accumulation at 75% of full 

useful life and project DFs based upon 

the upper 80% statistical confidence 

limit. 

The weight of the vehicle during SRC 

mileage accumulation is proposed to be 

the loaded vehicle weight (curb plus 

300 pounds) for light-duty vehicles and 

light light-duty trucks. The weight basis 

for SRC mileage accumulation is the 

adjusted loaded vehicle weight ((curb + 

gross vehicle weight)/2) for all other 

vehicles covered by this rule. The fuel 

used on the SRC is proposed to be 

representative of commercially available 

gasoline (with a provision that extra 

poisoning may be added, such as 

phosphorus, sulfur or lead). 

EPA is retaining the CAP 2000 

options of determining emission 

compliance levels by either (1) 

calculating deterioration factors (DF) 

and applying the DF to the emission 

data vehicle (EDV) emission results or 

(2) testing the EDV with emission 

control components aged using the SRC 

and installed prior to testing. If DF’s are 

to be calculated, emission testing would 

be conducted at periodic intervals 

during milage accumulation. 

B. Standard Bench Aging Exhaust 

Durability Procedure 

Bench aging is a different way to 

achieve the same emission deterioration 

as whole-vehicle aging using a road 

cycle. EPA is promulgating a standard 

bench aging procedure that uses a bench 

aging time (BAT) equation and the 

standard bench cycle (SBC) to 

reproduce emission deterioration from a 

road cycle. EPA’s standard bench 

procedure specifies that the SRC be 

used to generate the catalyst 

temperature histogram needed to 

determine bench aging time. Because 

the standard bench aging procedure 

relies on increasing catalyst thermal 

aging to account for all sources of 

emission deterioration, this procedure is 

not applicable to diesel fueled vehicles 

or vehicles which do not use a catalyst 

as the principal after-treatment emission 

control device. 

The standard bench aging durability 

procedure has been designed to 

reproduce the exhaust emission 

deterioration that occurs on the 

standard whole vehicle durability 

procedure. The standard bench aging 

procedure is as follows: 

a. Catalyst temperature data is 

measured at a minimum rate of one 

hertz (one measurement per second) 

during at least two replicates of the 

standard road cycle (SRC). The 

temperature results are tabulated into a 

histogram with temperature bins of no 

larger than 25 °C. 

b. The effective reference temperature 

of the standard bench cycle (SBC), 

described below, is determined for the 

catalyst system and the aging bench 

which is to be used for the bench aging. 

c. The bench aging time is calculated 

using the bench aging time (BAT) 

equation, described below, using the 

effective reference temperature of the 

SBC and the catalyst temperature 

histogram measured on the SRC. 

d. The exhaust system (including the 

catalyst and oxygen sensors) is installed 

on the aging bench. The aging bench 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 2825 

follows the SBC for the amount of time 

calculated from the BAT equation. 

e. Catalyst temperatures and A/F 

ratios are measured during the bench 

aging process to assure that the proper 

amount of aging has actually occurred. 

Aging on the bench is extended if the 

aging targets are not properly achieved. 

1. The Standard Bench Cycle (SBC) 

EPA is promulgating a standard bench 

cycle (SBC) which contains a mix of 

rich, lean and stoichiometric A/F ratios 

designed to achieve appropriate 

emission deterioration on the aging 

bench when operated for the period of 

time calculated from the BAT equation. 

The standard bench cycle consists of 

a 60-second cycle which is defined 

based on the A/F ratio of the engine 

(which is part of the aging bench) and 

the amount of secondary air injection 

(shop air which is added to the exhaust 

stream in front of the first catalyst). 

2. The Bench-Aging Time (BAT) 

Calculation 

EPA is promulgating a bench aging 

time (BAT) equation to calculate the 

appropriate length of time to age a 

catalyst system on an aging bench to 

yield equivalent emission deterioration 

as running a vehicle on the associated 

road cycle. The standard bench aging 

durability procedure uses catalyst 

temperatures measured on the SRC to 

calculate the bench aging time necessary 

to reproduce the thermal exposure seen 

on the SRC. As discussed in the NPRM 

preamble, the BAT equation is based on 

the Arrehenius equation which relates 

chemical reaction rates with 

temperature. 

3. The Effective Reference Temperature 

for the SBC 

The BAT equation uses a single 

temperature value called the effective 

reference temperature to represent the 

entire temperature-history experienced 

during the SBC on the catalyst aging 

bench. The effective reference 

temperature will be calculated using 

catalyst temperature histogram data 

measured in the catalyst on the aging 

bench following the SBC. The BAT 

equation would then be used to 

calculate the effective reference 

temperature by iterative changes to the 

reference temperature (Tr) until the 

calculated aging time equaled the actual 

time representing in the catalyst 

temperature histogram. The resulting 

temperature is the effective reference 

temperature for the SBC. 

C. Customization of the Standard 

Procedures 

1. Customization of the Standard Road 

Cycle 

EPA has established criteria to obtain 

approval for a customized/alternative 

road cycle that require the manufacturer 

to demonstrate that the objective of the 

durability program will be achieved for 

the breadth of the vehicles which are 

covered by the cycle. Approval of a 

customized/alternative road cycle 

requires a thorough analysis of whether 

the cycle will achieve the durability 

program objective using in-use 

emissions data, including a 

demonstration of the relative stringency 

of the SRC and the manufacturer’s 

program. 

To make the initial demonstration 

necessary for the Agency to approve a 

customized/alternative cycle, EPA is 

requiring that the manufacturer supply 

high mileage in-use emission data on 

applicable candidate in-use vehicles. 

The vehicles would be randomly 

procured from actual customer use, 

generally with an age of 4 to 5 years and 

with a minimum of approximately 

50,000 miles. They would cover the 

breadth of the vehicles that the 

manufacturer intends to certify using 

the customized/alternative cycle. 

Vehicles would be procured and FTP 

tested as received under the provisions 

of the IUVP program (ref: 40 CFR 

86.1845–04). Manufacturers could use 

previously generated in-use data from 

the CAP 2000 high mileage IUVP 

program or the fourth-year-of-service 

RDP ‘‘reality check’’ in-use program as 

well as other sources of in-use 

emissions data for this purpose. EPA 

will also consider additional emissions 

data or analyses that the manufacturer 

may choose to provide, including data 

from vehicles which have been screened 

for proper maintenance and use. 

The amount of in-use emission data 

required for this analysis is based on 

whether the customized/alternative 

cycle is more or less severe than the 

SRC. In most cases, EPA will accept a 

minimum of 20 candidate in-use 

vehicles. There is less risk of 

underestimating actual in-use emission 

levels when the customized/alternative 

cycle is more severe than the SRC. 

However, if the customized/alternative 

cycle is significantly more severe than 

the SRC, EPA may accept less data. 

Conversely, if the customized/ 

alternative cycle is significantly less 

severe than the SRC, EPA may require 

more data up to a maximum of 30 

vehicles. 

EPA will also consider the 

equivalency factor of the customized/ 

alternative cycle when evaluating the 

cycle for approval. 

Once the durability process is 

approved, the manufacturer must 

determine, using good engineering 

judgement, whether to apply the 

durability procedure to a particular test 

group. The manufacturer may make 

modifications to an approved 

customized/alternative road cycle and 

apply them to a test group to ensure that 

the modified process will effectively 

achieve the durability objective for 

future candidate in-use vehicles. The 

manufacturer would be required to 

identify such changes in its certification 

application and explain the basis for the 

changes. Manufacturers must use good 

engineering judgement in making these 

decisions. Significant, major, or 

fundamental changes to a customized/ 

alternative cycle would be considered 

new cycles and would require advance 

approval by EPA. 

2. Customization of Standard Bench 

Procedures 

The manufacturers are allowed, 

subject to Agency approval, a limited 

degree of customization of the standard 

bench procedures. However, in all cases 

EPA is requiring that alternative bench 

aging procedures be based upon 

measured vehicle performance (such as 

catalyst temperature) on an approved 

road cycle. 

Specifically EPA is allowing 

customization of any or all of the 

following parameters when the 

accompanying conditions for approval 

are met: 

a. The lower control temperature on 

the SBC may be modified without prior 

EPA approval provided that the high 

control temperature is set 90 °C (± 10 °C) 

above the lower control temperature and 

an approved BAT equation is used to 

calculate bench aging time. 

b. The R-factor used in EPA’s BAT 

equation may be determined 

experimentally using EPA’s standard 

procedures (specified in the appendix to 

the regulations) without prior EPA 

approval. Other experimental 

techniques to calculate the R-factor 

require advance EPA approval. To 

obtain approval, the manufacturer must 

demonstrate that the calculated bench 

aging time results in the same (or larger) 

amount of emission deterioration as the 

associated road cycle. 

c. The A-factor used in EPA’s BAT 

equation may be modified, using good 

engineering judgement without prior 

EPA approval, to ensure that the 

modified durability process will achieve 

the durability objective (discussed 

previously). 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
2826 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

d. Bench-aging may be conducted 

using fuel with additional poisons (such 

as phosphorus, sulfur and lead) without 

prior EPA approval. Using fuel with 

additional poisons is worst case for 

emissions deterioration. Normally a 

manufacturer using fuel with additional 

poisons will either calculate a new Rfactor or A-factor to assure that the 

durability objective is properly 

achieved. 

e. An approved alternative road cycle 

or customized SRC may be used to 

develop catalyst temperature histograms 

for use in the BAT equation without 

additional EPA approval beyond the 

original approval necessary to use the 

road cycle for mileage accumulation. 

f. A different bench cycle may be used 

during bench aging with prior EPA 

approval. To obtain approval the 

manufacturer must demonstrate that 

bench aging with the new bench cycle 

provides the same (or larger) amount of 

emission deterioration as the associated 

road cycle. 

g. A different method to calculate 

bench aging time may be used with 

prior EPA approval. To obtain approval 

the manufacturer must demonstrate that 

bench aging for the time calculated by 

the alternative method results in the 

same (or larger) amount of emission 

deterioration as the associated road 

cycle. 

3. Reproducibility by Outside Parties 

EPA is finalizing the provision that an 

alternative road cycle must be designed 

to achieve the durability objective. As 

part of this evaluation, EPA is requiring 

that all alternative road cycles are 

equated to the SRC by means of an 

equivalency factor that determines the 

amount of SRC-driving that results in 

the same emission deterioration as the 

alternative cycle. EPA is requiring that 

every alternative bench aging procedure 

be based upon measured vehicle 

performance on an approved road cycle. 

Lastly, EPA is requiring that any 

alternative bench cycle be designed to 

result in the same levels of emission 

deterioration as the road cycle upon 

which it was based. 

An important element of the 

regulation is that, regardless of whether 

a manufacturer uses the EPA standard 

procedures or customized procedures, 

any interested party will be able to use 

the equivalency factor to reproduce the 

amount of emission deterioration 

produced by any manufacturer’s 

customized/alternative durability 

process used during vehicle 

certification. Any alternative road or 

bench procedure is equated to a given 

number of miles on the SRC. 

To reproduce the deterioration 

generated by a customized/alternative 

road cycle, standard bench procedure, 

or alternative bench procedure, an 

outside party may run a vehicle using 

the SRC for the number of miles 

indicated by the equivalency factor. 

Similarly, an outside party will be 

able to perform bench aging using the 

SBC. The aging time may be calculated 

using the BAT equation and measured 

catalyst temperature on the SRC (with 

full-useful-life-mileage adjusted by the 

equivalency factor). 

D. Using IUVP Data To Improve 

Durability Predictions 

Manufacturers are required to review 

their durability program and prepare an 

analysis for EPA evaluation when: (1) 

The IUVP emission levels exceed the 

applicable certification emission 

standard 50% or more of the test 

vehicles and (2) the average emission 

level is at least 1.3 times the applicable 

emission standard. These criteria would 

be evaluated independently for all 

applicable FTP emission constituents. 

Each constituent should be considered 

separately in this analysis. 

The Agency may, from time to time, 

require manufacturers to analyze 

available IUVP data, or other 

information, when it indicates that the 

durability objective is not being 

achieved for some portion of the fleet of 

vehicles covered by a durability 

procedure. This provision would apply 

whether or not the screening criteria are 

exceeded. 

As in the CAP 2000 program, EPA 

may withdraw approval of a durability 

program or require its modification if it 

determines that the program does not 

meet the objectives for a durability 

program. The Agency will give the 

manufacturer a preliminary notice at 

least 60 days prior to rendering a final 

decision to withdraw approval for or 

require modifications to a durability 

procedure. During this period the 

manufacturer may submit technical 

discussion, statistical analyses, 

additional data, or other information 

that is relevant to the decision. This 

may include an analysis to determine 

whether factors other than the durability 

program, such as part defects, are the 

source of the problem. The 

Administrator will consider all 

information submitted by the deadline 

before reaching a final decision. A final 

decision to withdraw approval or 

require modification to a durability 

procedure would apply to future 

applications for certification and to the 

portion of the manufacturer’s product 

line (or the entire product line) that the 

Administrator determines to be affected. 

If the manufacturer was using the 

standard road cycle or standard bench 

cycle, EPA will require the 

manufacturer to adjust the durability 

process so it would achieve the 

durability objective. The Agency will 

allow two options in this situation: (1) 

Increasing future DFs by the average 

percent-difference between certification 

levels and IUVP data, or (2) increasing 

the whole vehicle miles driven or 

catalyst aging time by the average 

percent-difference between certification 

levels and IUVP data. Additionally the 

manufacturer may obtain approval for a 

new alternative durability process that 

has been demonstrated to meet the 

durability objective. If the data set used 

in the analysis contains less than 20 

pieces of data, the Administrator may 

reduce the degree of adjustment 

required to account for uncertainty in 

the data. 

E. Evaporative and Refueling Durability 

EPA is finalizing provisions that 

require manufacturers determine the 

evaporative/refueling deterioration 

using either whole vehicle durability or 

bench aging methods or a combination 

of the two methods. 

Whole Vehicle Evaporative/Refueling 

Durability. Manufacturers may conduct 

evaporative and/or refueling durability 

program by running the DDV on the 

SRC or an approved alternative road 

cycle and conducting the applicable test 

at each testing point. Manufacturers 

may combine exhaust and evaporative/ 

refueling whole vehicle durability 

demonstrations. 

Bench-Aging Evaporative/Refueling 

Durability. Manufacturers may use 

bench procedures designed, using good 

engineering judgement, to evaluate the 

following potential causes of 

evaporative emission deterioration and 

achieve the durability objective: 

(1) Cycling of canister loading due to 

diurnal and refueling events, 

(2) Use of various commercially 

available fuels, including the Tier 2 

requirement to include alcohol fuel; 

(3) Vibration of components; 

(4) Deterioration of hoses, etc. due to 

environmental conditions; and 

(5) Deterioration of fuel cap due to 

wear. 

Manufacturers will determine 

evaporative and refueling DFs using 

good engineering judgement without the 

need for prior EPA approval. 

F. Compliance Date and Carryover of 

Existing Durability Data 

Manufacturers must meet the 

requirements of today’s action 

beginning with the 2008 model year. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 2827 

25Added burden will be in the form of the onetime reprogramming of automated driving or benchaging devices with the new driving/aging cycle, and 

other minor equipment adjustments. 

EPA is not making any changes to the 

carryover provisions in the current 

regulations (ref. 40 CFR 86.1839–01). 

These provisions allow manufacturers 

to use durability data that was 

previously generated and used to 

support certification provided that the 

data ‘‘represent a worst case or 

equivalent rate of deterioration’’. 

Beginning in the 2008 model year, if a 

manufacturer can meet these 

requirements, it may use existing 

durability data (i.e., DFs or aged 

hardware) to support certification. 

The manufacturer may not, however, 

continue to use CAP 2000 durability 

processes to generate new data starting 

with the 2008 model year. When the 

proposed rule becomes effective in the 

2008 model year, manufacturers must 

use durability procedures that have 

been approved under the new rules to 

generate new durability demonstrations. 

G. Miscellaneous Regulatory 

Amendments and Corrections 

1. With the addition of the new 

durability regulations (sections 

86.1823–08, 86.1824–08, and 86.1825–

08), the regulatory references in a 

number of other sections of subpart S of 

part 86 have been updated accordingly. 

2. Section 1864 of subpart S is being 

moved to section 1801. This section 

describes the applicability of subpart S 

to heavy-duty vehicles, and is more 

appropriately located in the 

Applicability section of the regulations. 

3. An outdated address in section 

1817–05 has been corrected. 

4. A typographical error in section 

1830–01(c) has been corrected. 

5. Two corrections are being made to 

section 86.1806–05, on-board 

diagnostics. First, in a previous 

regulatory action, this section was 

amended to add provisions for diesel 

vehicles and HDVs and MDPVs. In 

doing this, an inadvertent error was 

made in paragraph (a)(3). The provision 

allowing compliance with 86.004–17, in 

lieu of 1806–05, should be limited to 

apply only to MDPVs and HDVs. The 

language has been revised accordingly. 

Second, in the original CAP 2000 

regulation, there is an incorrect 

reference to section 86.094–17(e) and (f). 

The correct reference is 1806–05(e) and 

(f). 

IV. What Are the Economic and 

Environmental Impacts? 

A. Economic Impacts 

1. Comparison to CAP 2000 Economic 

Impacts 

In considering the economic and 

environmental impacts of today’s 

proposal, we used the CAP 2000 

regulations as a comparison benchmark. 

In those regulations, EPA estimated that 

there would be an average annual net 

savings to the automotive industry of 

about $55 million. The analysis 

performed to reach that conclusion was 

part of the record for the CAP 2000 

regulation, and was not contested. 

In today’s final rulemaking, one of our 

goals was to retain those savings. In the 

CAP 2000 cost analysis, about half of 

the total estimated annual savings was 

attributed to the durability component 

of the regulations. The elements of CAP 

2000 durability which provided the 

most significant savings are: 

a. Reduced number of durability data 

vehicles (DDVs). The creation of the 

‘‘durability group’’ under CAP 2000 

allowed manufacturers to significantly 

reduce the number of required 

durability demonstrations. The savings 

that are claimed in the CAP 2000 rule 

resulting from the ‘‘durability group’’

provision come from requiring 

physically fewer DDVs, fewer durability 

tests, and less reporting (e.g. instead of 

having to report 912 durability tests, 

there would only be 620 tests). The 

‘‘durability group’’ concept was not part 

of the Ethyl v. EPA litigation, nor was 

it mentioned in the Court’s opinion on 

this case. Thus EPA is not modifying the 

‘‘durability group’’ regulations in 

today’s final rule. 

In fact, it is possible that today’s final 

rule could actually slightly reduce some 

costs to the industry, in that 

manufacturers using one of the EPAprescribed durability processes (either 

whole-vehicle or bench) would no 

longer have to provide a description of 

their durability process (which was 

required under CAP 2000, and would 

continue to be required for 

manufacturers using customized 

procedures under today’s final rule). 

b. Reduced burden-hours per DDV. In 

addition to fewer DDVs, in the CAP 

2000 rulemaking, EPA also slightly 

reduced the estimated number of 

burden-hours required per DDV. As 

above, this element was not affected by 

the Court mandate, and is not impacted 

by today’s final rule. 

2. Economic Impact of Today’s Rule 

Today’s final rule prescribes two 

methods for determining the emission 

deterioration of vehicles over their 

useful life periods—the whole-vehicle 

procedure or the bench-aging procedure. 

Details of how to perform these 

procedures are prescribed in the 

proposed regulations. Because these 

procedures are similar in nature to those 

approved by EPA under the CAP 2000 

regulations, the added burden for 

manufacturers utilizing them will be 

minimal.25 The costs involved with 

either of these processes (equipment 

costs, vehicle costs, testing costs, labor 

costs, etc.) are fairly fixed. 

Manufacturers using one of the 

prescribed methods will not be required 

to make major changes to or add any 

new equipment, test any additional 

vehicles with any additional frequency, 

or to increase the amount of labor. We 

expect that manufacturers who, under 

the old CAP 2000 regulations, used a 

bench-aging (or whole-vehicle) process 

will continue to use a bench-aging (or 

whole-vehicle) process—the only 

difference is that now that process is 

codified. 

The final regulations also include the 

option for manufacturers to use 

customized or alternative procedures, 

with EPA approval. The approval 

requires the manufacturer to submit an 

analysis of about 20 in-use emission 

tests. Most manufacturers will be able to 

utilize in-use data and analyses that 

they have previously collected from 

other sources (such as the CAP 2000 inuse verification data). Some 

manufacturers may need to augment 

this data by running a few additional 

tests, but this would be a small, onetime cost. EPA estimates that this small 

added cost is more than offset by the 

fact that once approved, manufacturers 

will be able to use their durability 

programs without the need to make any 

changes to those programs. 

As discussed above, EPA is issuing a 

separate Supplemental Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking which addresses 

component durability. Any costs 

associated with that proposal will be 

addressed in that notice. 

B. Environmental Impacts 

In the CAP 2000 rule, no quantifiable 

environmental benefits were projected. 

Intangible benefits were possible due to 

the In-Use Verification Program (IUVP) 

element of the CAP 2000 rule—

manufacturers would be able to use the 

in-use data from this program to identify 

and fix in-use compliance problems and 

to make improvements upon their 

certification durability processes. This 

intangible benefit is not changed in 

today’s final rule—the in-use 

verification program is not affected by 

the Court mandate, and no changes to 

this program are being proposed. EPA is 

modifying an existing CAP 2000 

provision whereby manufacturers 

utilize the IUVP data to assess the 

ability of the durability program to 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
2828 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

predict in-use compliance. The 

modification includes more explicit 

instructions as to what the manufacturer 

is required to assess and when 

corrective action is required (see section 

III C.). This proposed provision will 

have the effect of improving the 

predictive qualities of the durability 

process, but again, with intangible 

environmental benefits. 

VI. What Are the Statutory and 

Executive Order Reviews for This 

Proposed Rule? 

A. Executive Order 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; 

(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. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA 

that it considers this a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ within the meaning 

of the Executive Order. OMB has 

waived review of this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. However, the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulations (64 

FR 23906) under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control number 2060–0104, EPA ICR 

number 0783.44. A copy of the OMB 

approved Information Collection 

Requests (ICR) may be obtained from 

Susan Auby, Collection Strategies 

Division; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by 

calling (202) 566–1672. 

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 are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 

15. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

EPA has determined that it is not 

necessary to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis in connection with 

this final rule. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administrations’ regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s final rule on small 

entities, EPA has concluded that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. A small 

business that manufacturers 

automobiles has a NAIC code of 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. 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 final rule. 

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 costeffective 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 

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 final 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 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 2829 

of the UMRA. Nothing in the final 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 final rule will impose no direct 

compliance costs on states. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, 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 final 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 of 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. 13045 

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 final rule does not involve 

consideration of any new technical 

standards. The durability test 

procedures that EPA is adopting are 

unique and have not been previously 

published in the public domain. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to Congress and the 

comptroller General of the United 

States. We will submit a report 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

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 Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, The Environmental 

Protection Agency title 40, chapter I of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows: 

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 § 86.1803–01 by adding a 

new definition in alphabetical order, to 

read as follows: 

§ 86.1803–01 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Secondary air injection means a 

system whereby air (not ingested by the 

engine) is introduced into the exhaust 

system in front of a catalyst. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 86.1804–01 by adding 

new acronyms in alphabetical order, to 

read as follows: 

§ 86.1804–01 Acronyms and abbreviations. 

* * * * * 

A/F—Air/Fuel 

* * * * * 

BAT—Bench-Aging Time 

* * * * * 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
2830 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

SBC—Standard Bench Cycle 

* * * * * 

SRC—Standard Road Cycle 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 86.1817–05 by revising 

paragraph (i)(3)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1817–05 Complete heavy-duty vehicle 

averaging, trading, and banking program. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) These reports shall be submitted 

within 90 days of the end of the model 

year to: Director, Certification and 

Compliance Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code 6405J, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 

NW., 20460. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Add a new § 86.1823–08 subpart S 

to read as follows: 

§ 86.1823–08 Durability demonstration 

procedures for exhaust emissions. 

This section applies to all 2008 and 

later model year vehicles which meet 

the applicability provisions of 

§ 86.1801. Optionally, a manufacturer 

may elect to use this section for earlier 

model year vehicles which meet the 

applicability provisions of § 86.1801. 

Eligible small volume manufacturers or 

small volume test groups may 

optionally meet the requirements of 

§§ 86.1838–01 and 86.1826–01 in lieu of 

the requirements of this section. A 

separate durability demonstration is 

required for each durability group. 

(a) Durability program objective. The 

durability program must predict an 

expected in-use emission deterioration 

rate and emission level that effectively 

represents a significant majority of the 

distribution of emission levels and 

deterioration in actual use over the full 

and intermediate useful life of candidate 

in-use vehicles of each vehicle design 

which uses the durability program. 

(b) Required durability 

demonstration. Manufacturers must 

conduct a durability demonstration for 

each durability group using a procedure 

specified in either paragraph (c), (d), or 

(e) of this section. 

(c) Standard whole-vehicle durability 

procedure. This procedure consists of 

conducting mileage accumulation and 

periodic testing on the durability data 

vehicle, selected under the provisions of 

§ 86.1822 described as follows: 

(1) Mileage accumulation must be 

conducted using the standard road cycle 

(SRC). The SRC is described in 

Appendix V of this part. 

(i) Mileage accumulation on the SRC 

may be conducted on a track or on a 

chassis mileage accumulation 

dynamometer. Alternatively, the entire 

engine and emission control system may 

be aged on an engine dynamometer 

using methods that will replicate the 

aging that occurs on the road for that 

vehicle following the SRC. 

(ii) The fuel used for mileage 

accumulation must comply with the 

mileage accumulation fuel provisions of 

§ 86.113 for the applicable fuel type 

(e.g., gasoline or diesel fuel). 

(iii) The DDV must be ballasted to a 

minimum of the loaded vehicle weight 

for light-duty vehicles and light lightduty trucks and a minimum of the 

ALVW for all other vehicles. 

(iv) The mileage accumulation 

dynamometer must be setup as follows: 

(A) The simulated test weight will be 

the equivalent test weight specified in 

§ 86.129 using a weight basis of the 

loaded vehicle weight for light-duty 

vehicles and ALVW for all other 

vehicles. 

(B) The road force simulation will be 

determined according to the provisions 

of § 86.129. 

(C) The manufacturer will control the 

vehicle, engine, and/or dynamometer as 

appropriate to follow the SRC using 

good engineering judgement. 

(2) Mileage accumulation must be 

conducted for at least 75% of the 

applicable full useful life mileage period 

specified in § 86.1805. If the mileage 

accumulation is less than 100% of the 

full useful life mileage, then the DF 

calculated according to the procedures 

of paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section 

must be based upon a line projected to 

the full-useful life mileage using the 

upper 80 percent statistical confidence 

limit calculated from the emission data. 

(3) If a manufacturer elects to 

calculate a DF pursuant to paragraph 

(f)(1) of this section, then it must 

conduct at least one FTP emission test 

at each of five different mileage points 

selected using good engineering 

judgement. Additional testing may be 

conducted by the manufacturer using 

good engineering judgement. The 

required testing must include testing at 

5,000 miles and at the highest mileage 

point run during mileage accumulation 

(e.g. the full useful life mileage). 

Different testing plans may be used 

providing that the manufacturer 

determines, using good engineering 

judgement, that the alternative plan 

would result in an equivalent or 

superior level of confidence in the 

accuracy of the DF calculation 

compared to the testing plan specified 

in this paragraph. 

(d) Standard bench-aging durability 

procedure. This procedure is not 

applicable to diesel fueled vehicles or 

vehicles which do not use a catalyst as 

the principle after-treatment emission 

control device. This procedure requires 

installation of the catalyst-plus-oxygensensor system on a catalyst aging bench. 

Aging on the bench is conducted by 

following the standard bench cycle 

(SBC) for the period of time calculated 

from the bench aging time (BAT) 

equation. The BAT equation requires, as 

input, catalyst time-at-temperature data 

measured on the SRC. 

(1) Standard bench cycle (SBC). 

Standard catalyst bench aging is 

conducted following the SBC 

(i) The SBC must be run for the period 

of time calculated from the BAT 

equation. 

(ii) The SBC is described in Appendix 

VII to Part 86. 

(2) Catalyst time-at-temperature data 

(i) Catalyst temperature must be 

measured during at least two full cycles 

of the SRC. 

(ii) Catalyst temperature must be 

measured at the highest temperature 

location in the hottest catalyst on the 

DDV. Alternatively, the temperature 

may be measured at another location 

providing that it is adjusted to represent 

the temperature measured at the hottest 

location using good engineering 

judgement. 

(iii) Catalyst temperature must be 

measured at a minimum rate of one 

hertz (one measurement per second). 

(iv) The measured catalyst 

temperature results must be tabulated 

into a histogram with temperature bins 

of no larger than 25° C. 

(3) Bench-aging time. Bench aging 

time is calculated using the bench aging 

time (BAT) equation as follows: 

te for a temperature bin = th e((R/Tr)¥(R/Tv))

Total te = Sum of te over all the 

temperature bins 

Bench-Aging Time = A (Total te ) 

Where: 

A = 1.1 This value adjusts the catalyst 

aging time to account for deterioration 

from sources other than thermal aging 

of the catalyst. 

R = Catalyst thermal reactivity 

coefficient. For the SBC, R=17500 for 

Tier 2 vehicles and R=18500 for all 

other vehicles. 

th = The time (in hours) measured 

within the prescribed temperature bin 

of the vehicle’s catalyst temperature 

histogram adjusted to a full useful life 

basis e.g., if the histogram represented 

400 miles, and full useful life was 

100,000 miles; all histogram time 

entries would be multiplied by 250 

(100000/400). 

Total te = The equivalent time (in hours) 

to age the catalyst at the temperature 

of Tr on the catalyst aging bench using 

the catalyst aging cycle to produce the 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 2831 

same amount of deterioration 

experienced by the catalyst due to 

thermal deactivation over the 

vehicle’s full useful life. 

te for a bin = The equivalent time (in 

hours) to age the catalyst at the 

temperature of Tr on the catalyst aging 

bench using the catalyst aging cycle to 

produce the same amount of 

deterioration experienced by the 

catalyst due to thermal deactivation at 

the temperature bin of Tv over the 

vehicle’s full useful life. 

Tr = The effective reference temperature 

(in °K) of the catalyst on the catalyst 

bench run on the bench aging cycle. 

The effective temperature is the 

constant temperature that would 

result in the same amount of aging as 

the various temperatures experienced 

during the bench aging cycle. 

Tv = The mid-point temperature (in °K) 

of the temperature bin of the vehicle 

on-road catalyst temperature 

histogram. 

(4) Effective reference temperature on 

the SBC. The effective reference 

temperature of the standard bench cycle 

(SBC) is determined for the actual 

catalyst system design and actual aging 

bench which will be used using the 

following procedures: 

(i) Measure time-at-temperature data 

in the catalyst system on the catalyst 

aging bench following the SBC. 

(A) Catalyst temperature must be 

measured at the highest temperature 

location of the hottest catalyst in the 

system. Alternatively, the temperature 

may be measured at another location 

providing that it is adjusted to represent 

the temperature measured at the hottest 

location using good engineering 

judgement. 

(B) Catalyst temperature must be 

measured at a minimum rate of one 

hertz (one measurement per second) 

during at least 20 minutes of bench 

aging. 

(C) The measured catalyst 

temperature results must be tabulated 

into a histogram with temperature bins 

of no larger than 10° C. 

(ii) The BAT equation must be used 

to calculate the effective reference 

temperature by iterative changes to the 

reference temperature (Tr) until the 

calculated aging time equals the actual 

time represented in the catalyst 

temperature histogram. The resulting 

temperature is the effective reference 

temperature on the SBC for that catalyst 

system and aging bench. 

(5) Catalyst Aging Bench. The 

manufacturer must design, using good 

engineering judgement, a catalyst aging 

bench that follows the SBC and delivers 

the appropriate exhaust flow, exhaust 

constituents, and exhaust temperature 

to the face of the catalyst. 

(i) A manufacturer may use the 

criteria and equipment discussed in 

Appendix VIII to part 86 to develop its 

catalyst aging bench without prior 

Agency approval. The manufacturer 

may use another design that results in 

equivalent or superior results with 

advance Agency approval. 

(ii) All bench aging equipment and 

procedures must record appropriate 

information (such as measured A/F 

ratios and time-at-temperature in the 

catalyst) to assure that sufficient aging 

has actually occurred. 

(6) Required Testing. If a 

manufacturer is electing to calculate a 

DF (as discussed in paragraph (f)(1) of 

this section), then it must conduct at 

least two FTP emissions tests on the 

DDV before bench aging of emission 

control hardware and at least two FTP 

emission tests on the DDV after the 

bench-aged emission hardware is reinstalled. Additional testing may be 

conducted by the manufacturer using 

good engineering judgement. 

(e) Additional durability procedures—

(1) Whole vehicle durability procedures. 

A manufacturer may use either a 

customized SRC or an alternative road 

cycle for the required durability 

demonstration, with prior EPA 

approval. 

(i) Customized SRC. A customized 

SRC is the SRC run for a different 

number of miles and/or using a different 

mileage accumulation fuel with higher 

levels of certain compounds that may 

lead to catalyst poisoning, such as 

phosphorus, sulfur and lead, than 

specified in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this 

section. 

(ii) Alternative Road Cycle. An 

alternative cycle is a whole vehicle 

mileage accumulation cycle that uses a 

different speed-versus-time trace than 

the SRC, conducted for either the full 

useful life mileage or for less than full 

useful life mileage. An alternative road 

cycle may also include the use of fuel 

with higher levels of certain compounds 

that may lead to catalyst poisoning, 

such as phosphorus, sulfur and lead, 

than specified in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of 

this section. 

(iii) Approval Criteria. The 

manufacturer must obtain approval from 

EPA prior to using a customized/ 

alternative road cycle. EPA may approve 

a customized/alternative cycle when the 

manufacturer demonstrates that the 

cycle is expected to achieve the 

durability program objective of 

paragraph (a) of this section for the 

breadth of vehicles using the 

customized/alternative cycle. To obtain 

approval the manufacturer must submit 

all the following information and 

perform all the following analyses: 

(A) The manufacturer must supply inuse FTP emission data on past model 

year vehicles which are applicable to 

the vehicle designs it intends to cover 

with the customized/alternative cycle. 

(1) The amount of in-use emission 

data required to demonstrate the 

effectiveness of a customized/alternative 

cycle in meeting the durability objective 

is based on whether the customized/ 

alternative cycle is more or less severe 

than the SRC. In most cases, EPA will 

accept a minimum of 20 candidate inuse vehicles tested as-received on the 

FTP cycle. If the customized/alternative 

cycle is significantly more severe than 

the SRC, EPA may accept less data. 

Conversely, if the customized/ 

alternative cycle is significantly less 

severe than the SRC, EPA may require 

more data, up to a maximum of 30 

vehicles. 

(2) This data set must consist of 

randomly procured vehicles from actual 

customer use. The vehicles selected for 

procurement must cover the breadth of 

the vehicles that the manufacturer 

intends to certify using the customized/ 

alternative cycle. Vehicles should be 

procured and FTP tested in as-received 

condition under the guidelines of the 

high mileage IUVP program (ref: 40 CFR 

86.1845–04). 

(3) Manufacturers may use previously 

generated in-use data from the CAP 

2000 IUVP or the RDP ‘‘reality check’’

in-use program as well as other sources 

of in-use emissions data for approval 

under this section. 

(4) Manufacturers must remove 

unrepresentative data from the data set 

using good engineering judgement. The 

manufacturer must provide EPA with 

the data removed from the analysis and 

a justification for the removal of that 

data. 

(5) Manufacturers may supply 

additional in-use data. 

(B) The manufacturer must submit an 

analysis which includes a comparison 

of the relative stringency of the 

customized/alternative cycle to the SRC 

and a calculated equivalency factor for 

the cycle. 

(1) The equivalency factor may be 

determined by an evaluation of the SRC 

and the customized/alternative cycle 

using catalyst time-at-temperature data 

from both cycles and the BAT equation 

to calculate the required bench aging 

time of each cycle. The equivalency 

factor is the ratio of the aging time on 

the SRC divided by the aging time on 

the alternative cycle. 

(2) If emissions data is available from 

the SRC, as well as time-at-temperature 

data, then that emissions information 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
2832 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

may be included in the evaluation of the 

relative stringency of the two cycles and 

the development of the equivalency 

factor. 

(3) A separate equivalency factor may 

be determined for each test group, or 

test groups may be combined together 

(using good engineering judgement) to 

calculate a single equivalency factor. 

(C) The manufacturer must submit an 

analysis which evaluates whether the 

durability objective will be achieved for 

the vehicle designs which will be 

certified using the customized/ 

alternative cycle. The analysis must 

address of the following elements: 

(1) How the durability objective has 

been achieved using the data submitted 

in paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(A) of this section. 

(2) How the durability objective will 

be achieved for the vehicle designs 

which will be covered by the 

customized/alternative cycle. This 

analysis should consider the emissions 

deterioration impact of the design 

differences between the vehicles 

included in the data set required in 

(e)(1)(iii)(A) of this section and the 

vehicle designs that the manufacturer 

intends to certify using the customized/ 

alternative cycle. 

(2) Bench-aging durability procedures. 

A manufacturer may use a customized 

or alternative bench aging durability 

procedure for a required durability 

demonstration, if approved as described 

in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (vii) of 

this section. A customized/alternative 

bench aging procedure must use vehicle 

performance data (such as catalyst 

temperature) measured on an approved 

road cycle as part of the algorithm to 

calculate bench aging time. The 

manufacturer must obtain approval from 

the Agency prior to using a customized 

bench durability procedure. 

(i) The lower control temperature on 

the SBC may be modified without prior 

EPA approval provided that the high 

control temperature is set 90 °C above 

the lower control temperature and an 

approved BAT equation is used to 

calculate bench aging time. 

(ii) The R-factor used in EPA’s BAT 

equation may be determined 

experimentally using EPA’s standard 

procedures (specified in Appendix IX of 

this part) without prior EPA approval. 

Other experimental techniques to 

calculate the R-factor require advance 

EPA approval. To obtain approval, the 

manufacturer must demonstrate that the 

calculated bench aging time results in 

the same (or larger) amount of emission 

deterioration as the associated road 

cycle. 

(iii) The A-factor used in EPA’s BAT 

equation may be modified, using good 

engineering judgement without prior 

EPA approval, to ensure that the 

modified durability process will achieve 

the durability objective of paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

(iv) Bench aging may be conducted 

using fuel with additional compounds 

that may lead to catalyst poisoning, 

such as phosphorus, sulfur or lead, 

without prior EPA approval. A 

manufacturer using fuel with these 

additional compounds may either 

calculate a new R-factor or A-factor to 

assure that the durability objective of 

paragraph (a) of this section is properly 

achieved regardless of the use of worstcase fuel, in which case the approval 

criteria for those changes would apply. 

(v) An approved customized/ 

alternative road cycle may be used to 

develop catalyst temperature histograms 

for use in the BAT equation without 

additional EPA approval beyond the 

original approval necessary to use that 

cycle for mileage accumulation. 

(vi) A different bench cycle than the 

SBC may be used during bench aging 

with prior EPA approval. To obtain 

approval the manufacturer must 

demonstrate that bench aging for the 

appropriate time on the new bench 

cycle provides the same or larger 

amount of emission deterioration as the 

associated road cycle. 

(vii) A different method to calculate 

bench aging time may be used with 

prior EPA approval. To obtain approval 

the manufacturer must demonstrate that 

bench aging for the time calculated by 

the alternative method results in the 

same or larger amount of emission 

deterioration as the associated road 

cycle. 

(f) Use of deterioration program to 

determine compliance with the 

standard. A manufacturer may select 

from two methods for using the results 

of the deterioration program to 

determine compliance with the 

applicable emission standards. Either a 

deterioration factor (DF) is calculated 

and applied to the emission data vehicle 

(EDV) emission results or aged 

components are installed on the EDV 

prior to emission testing. 

(1) Deterioration factors. 

(i) Deterioration factors are calculated 

using all FTP emission test data 

generated during the durability testing 

program except as noted: 

(A) Multiple tests at a given mileage 

point are averaged together unless the 

same number of tests are conducted at 

each mileage point. 

(B) Before and after maintenance test 

results are averaged together. 

(C) Zero-mile test results are excluded 

from the calculation. 

(D) Total hydrocarbon (THC) test 

points beyond the 50,000-mile (useful 

life) test point are excluded from the 

intermediate useful life deterioration 

factor calculation. 

(E) A procedure may be employed to 

identify and remove from the DF 

calculation those test results determined 

to be statistical outliers providing that 

the outlier procedure is consistently 

applied to all vehicles and data points 

and is approved in advance by the 

Administrator. 

(ii) The deterioration factor must be 

based on a linear regression, or another 

regression technique approved in 

advance by the Administrator. The 

deterioration must be a multiplicative or 

additive factor. Separate factors will be 

calculated for each regulated emission 

constituent and for the full and 

intermediate useful life periods as 

applicable. Separate DF’s are calculated 

for each durability group except as 

provided in § 86.1839. 

(A) A multiplicative DF will be 

calculated by taking the ratio of the full 

or intermediate useful life mileage level, 

as appropriate (rounded to four decimal 

places), divided by the stabilized 

mileage (reference § 86.1831–01(c), e.g., 

4000-mile) level (rounded to four 

decimal places) from the regression 

analysis. The result must be rounded to 

three-decimal places of accuracy. The 

rounding required in this paragraph 

must be conducted in accordance with 

§ 86.1837. Calculated DF values of less 

than one must be changed to one for the 

purposes of this paragraph. 

(B) An additive DF will be calculated 

to be the difference between the full or 

intermediate useful life mileage level (as 

appropriate) minus the stabilized 

mileage (reference § 86.1831–01(c), e.g. 

4000-mile) level from the regression 

analysis. The full useful life regressed 

emission value, the stabilized mileage 

regressed emission value, and the DF 

result must be rounded to the same 

precision and using the same 

procedures as the raw emission results 

according to the provisions of 

§ 86.1837–01. Calculated DF values of 

less than zero must be changed to zero 

for the purposes of this paragraph. 

(iii) The DF calculated by these 

procedures will be used for determining 

full and intermediate useful life 

compliance with FTP exhaust emission 

standards, SFTP exhaust emission 

standards, and cold CO emission 

standards. At the manufacturer’s option 

and using procedures approved by the 

Administrator, a separate DF may be 

calculated exclusively using cold CO 

test data to determine compliance with 

cold CO emission standards. Also at the 

manufacturer’s option and using 

procedures approved by the 

Administrator, a separate DF may be 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 2833 

calculated exclusively using US06 and/ 

or air conditioning (SC03) test data to 

determine compliance with the SFTP 

emission standards. 

(2) Installation of aged components 

on emission data vehicles. For full and 

intermediate useful life compliance 

determination, the manufacturer may 

elect to install aged components on an 

EDV prior to emission testing rather 

than applying a deterioration factor. 

Different sets of components may be 

aged for full and intermediate useful life 

periods. Components must be aged 

using an approved durability procedure 

that complies with paragraph (b) of this 

section. The list of components to be 

aged and subsequently installed on the 

EDV must selected using good 

engineering judgement. 

(g) Emission component durability. 

[Reserved] For guidance see 40 CFR 

86.1823–01(e). 

(h) Application of the durability 

procedure to future durability groups. 

The manufacturer may apply a 

durability procedure approved under 

paragraphs (c), (d) or (e) of this section 

to a durability group, including 

durability groups in future model years, 

if the durability process will achieve the 

objective of paragraph (a) of this section 

for that durability group. The 

manufacturer must use good 

engineering judgment in determining 

the applicability of an approved 

durability procedure to a durability 

group. 

(1) Modifications to a durability 

procedure. 

(i) Standard durability procedures. 

The manufacturer may modify a 

standard durability procedure (allowed 

in paragraphs (c) or (d) of this section) 

by increasing or decreasing the number 

of miles run on the SRC to represent full 

or intermediate useful life emissions 

deterioration or by changing the AFactor in the BAT equation for a bench 

aging, using good engineering judgment, 

to ensure that the modified procedure 

will achieve the objective of paragraph 

(a) of this section for that durability 

group. 

(ii) Customized/Alternative durability 

procedures. The manufacturer may 

modify an alternative/customized 

durability procedure approved under 

the provisions of paragraph (e) of this 

section, using good engineering 

judgment, for the purposes of ensuring 

that the modified procedure will 

achieve the objective of paragraph (a) of 

this section for that durability group. 

(2) The manufacturer must notify the 

Administrator of its determination to 

use an approved (or modified) 

durability procedure on particular test 

groups and durability groups prior to, or 

concurrently with, its submission of the 

Application for Certification for the 

affected test groups (notification at an 

annual preview meeting scheduled 

before the manufacturer begins 

certification activities for the model year 

is preferred). 

(3) Prior to certification, the 

Administrator may reject the 

manufacturer’s determination in 

paragraph (h) of this section to apply an 

approved or modified durability 

procedure for a durability group or test 

group if: 

(i) It is not made using good 

engineering judgment, 

(ii) It fails to properly consider data 

collected under the provisions of 

§§ 86.1845–04, 86.1846–01, and 

86.1847–01 or other information, or 

(iii) The Administrator determines 

that the durability procedure has not 

been shown to achieve the objective of 

paragraph (a) of this section for 

particular test groups which the 

manufacturer plans to cover with the 

durability procedure. 

(i) Evaluation of the certification 

durability procedures based on in-use 

emissions data. 

(1) Manufacturers must use the 

information gathered from the IUVP, as 

well as other sources of in-use 

emissions data, to periodically review 

whether the durability procedure it 

employs achieves the objective specified 

in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(2) Required analysis of a 

manufacturer’s approved durability 

procedures. 

(i) In addition to any periodic reviews 

under paragraph (i)(1) of this section, a 

manufacturer must conduct a review of 

whether the durability procedure it 

employs achieves the durability 

objective specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section when the criteria for 

additional testing specified in § 86.1846 

(b) are activated. 

(ii) These criteria are evaluated 

independently for all applicable FTP 

emission constituents. 

(iii) This analysis must be performed 

for each test group certified by the 

manufacturer. 

(iv) These procedures apply to the 

EPA standard durability procedures 

discussed in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section as well as durability 

procedures approved under paragraph 

(e) of this section, including 

modifications under paragraph (h) of 

this section. 

(v) The analysis must be submitted to 

EPA no later than 60 days after the 

submission of the IUVP data report 

specified in § 86.1847(f). 

(3) EPA may require a manufacturer to 

perform an analysis as described in 

paragraph (i)(2) of this section if EPA is 

concerned that the manufacturer’s 

durability procedure may not achieve 

the durability objective of paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

(j) If, based on the analysis required 

in paragraph (i) of this section and/or 

any other information, EPA determines 

that the durability procedure does not 

achieve the durability objective of 

paragraph (a) of this section, EPA may 

withdraw approval to use the durability 

procedure or condition approval on 

modifications to the durability 

procedure. Such withdrawal or 

conditional approval will apply to 

future applications for certification and 

to the portion of the manufacturer’s 

product line (or the entire product line) 

that the Administrator determines to be 

affected. Prior to such a withdrawal the 

Administrator will give the 

manufacturer a preliminary notice at 

least 60 days prior to the final decision. 

During this period, the manufacturer 

may submit technical discussion, 

statistical analyses, additional data, or 

other information which is relevant to 

the decision. The Administrator will 

consider all information submitted by 

the deadline before reaching a final 

decision. 

(k) If EPA withdraws approval, under 

the provisions of paragraph (j) of this 

section, for a durability procedure 

approved under the provisions of 

paragraphs (c) and/or (d) of this section, 

the following procedures apply: 

(1) The manufacturer must select one 

of the following options for future 

applications for certification for the 

applicable portion of the manufacturers 

product-line affect by the Agency’s 

decision: 

(i) Increase future DFs calculated 

using the applicable durability process 

by the average percent-difference 

between certification levels and IUVP 

data; or 

(ii) Increase the miles driven on the 

SRC or the aging time calculated by the 

BAT equation by the average percentdifference between certification levels 

and IUVP data, or 

(iii) The manufacturer may obtain 

approval for a new customized 

durability process, as allowed in 

paragraph (e) of this section, that has 

been demonstrated to meet the 

durability objective. 

(2) If EPA’s decision to withdraw 

approval under the provisions of 

paragraph (j) of this section is based on 

fewer than 20 tests, the Administrator 

may require a smaller adjustment than 

specified in paragraph (k)(1)(i) or (ii) of 

this section. 

(l) Any manufacturer may request a 

hearing on the Administrator’s 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
2834 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

withdrawal of approval in paragraphs (j) 

or (k) of this section. The request must 

be in writing and must include a 

statement specifying the manufacturer’s 

objections to the Administrator’s 

determinations, and data in support of 

such objection. If, after review of the 

request and supporting data, the 

Administrator finds that the request 

raises a substantial factual issue, she/he 

must provide the manufacturer a 

hearing in accordance with § 86.1853–

01 with respect to such issue. 

■ 6. Add § 86.1824–08 to subpart S to 

read as follows: 

§ 86.1824–08 Durability demonstration 

procedures for evaporative emissions. 

This section applies to gasoline-, 

methanol-, liquefied petroleum gas-, and 

natural gas-fueled 2008 and later model 

year vehicles which meet the 

applicability provisions of § 86.1801. 

Optionally, a manufacturer may elect to 

use this section for earlier model year 

gasoline-, methanol-, liquefied 

petroleum gas-, and natural gas-fueled 

vehicles which meet the applicability 

provisions of § 86.1801. Eligible small 

volume manufacturers or small volume 

test groups may optionally meet the 

requirements of §§ 86.1838–01 and 

86.1826–01 in lieu of the requirements 

of this section. A separate durability 

demonstration is required for each 

evaporative/refueling family. 

(a) Durability program objective. The 

durability program must predict an 

expected in-use emission deterioration 

rate and emission level that effectively 

represents a significant majority of the 

distribution of emission levels and 

deterioration in actual use over the full 

useful life of candidate in-use vehicles 

of each vehicle design which uses the 

durability program. 

(b) Required durability 

demonstration. Manufacturers must 

conduct a durability demonstration 

which satisfies the provisions of either 

paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of this section. 

(c) Whole vehicle evaporative 

durability demonstration. 

(1) Mileage accumulation must be 

conducted using the SRC or any road 

cycle approved under the provisions of 

§ 86.1823(e)(1). 

(2) Mileage accumulation must be 

conducted for either: 

(i) The applicable full useful life 

mileage period specified in § 86.1805, or 

(ii) At least 75 percent of the full 

useful life mileage. In which case, the 

manufacturer must calculate a df 

calculated according to the procedures 

of paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section, 

except that the DF must be based upon 

a line projected to the full-useful life 

mileage using the upper 80 percent 

statistical confidence limit calculated 

from the emission data. 

(3) The manufacturer must conduct at 

least one evaporative emission test at 

each of the five different mileage points 

selected using good engineering 

judgement. The required testing must 

include testing at 5,000 miles and at the 

highest mileage point run during 

mileage accumulation (e.g. the full 

useful life mileage). Additional testing 

may be conducted by the manufacturer 

using good engineering judgement. The 

manufacturer may select to run either 

the 2-day and/or 3-day evaporative test 

at each test point using good 

engineering judgement. 

(d) Bench aging evaporative durability 

procedures. Manufacturers may use 

bench procedures designed, using good 

engineering judgement, to evaluate the 

emission deterioration of evaporative 

control systems. Manufacturers may 

base the bench procedure on an 

evaluation the following potential 

causes of evaporative emission 

deterioration: 

(1) Cycling of canister loading due to 

diurnal and refueling events, 

(2) Use of various commercially 

available fuels, including the Tier 2 

requirement to include alcohol fuel; 

(3) Vibration of components; 

(4) Deterioration of hoses, etc. due to 

environmental conditions; and 

(5) Deterioration of fuel cap due to 

wear. 

(e) Combined whole-vehicle and 

bench-aging programs. Manufacturers 

may combine the results of whole 

vehicle aging and bench aging 

procedures using good engineering 

judgement. 

(f) Fuel requirements. 

(1) For gasoline fueled vehicles 

certified to meet the evaporative 

emission standards set forth in 

§ 86.1811–04(e)(1), any mileage 

accumulation method for evaporative 

emissions must employ gasoline fuel for 

the entire mileage accumulation period 

which contains ethanol in, at least, the 

highest concentration permissible in 

gasoline under federal law and that is 

commercially available in any state in 

the United States. Unless otherwise 

approved by the Administrator, the 

manufacturer must determine the 

appropriate ethanol concentration by 

selecting the highest legal concentration 

commercially available during the 

calendar year before the one in which 

the manufacturer begins its mileage 

accumulation. The manufacturer must 

also provide information acceptable to 

the Administrator to indicate that the 

mileage accumulation method is of 

sufficient design, duration and severity 

to stabilize the permeability of all nonmetallic fuel and evaporative system 

components to the mileage 

accumulation fuel constituents. 

(2) For flexible-fueled, dual-fueled, 

multi-fueled, ethanol-fueled and 

methanol-fueled vehicles certified to 

meet the evaporative emission standards 

set forth in § 86.1811–04(e)(1), any 

mileage accumulation method must 

employ fuel for the entire mileage 

accumulation period which the vehicle 

is designed to use and which the 

Administrator determines will have the 

greatest impact upon the permeability of 

evaporative and fuel system 

components. The manufacturer must 

also provide information acceptable to 

the Administrator to indicate that the 

mileage accumulation method is of 

sufficient design, duration and severity 

to stabilize the permeability of all nonmetallic fuel and evaporative system 

components to mileage accumulation 

fuel constituents. 

(3) A manufacturer may use other 

methods, based upon good engineering 

judgment, to meet the requirements of 

paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, 

as applicable. These methods must be 

approved in advance by the 

Administrator and meet the objectives 

of paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 

section, as applicable: to provide 

assurance that the permeability of all 

non-metallic fuel and evaporative 

system components will not lead to 

evaporative emission standard 

exceedance under sustained exposure to 

commercially available alcoholcontaining fuels for the useful life of the 

vehicle. 

(g) Calculation of a deterioration 

factor. The manufacturer must calculate 

a deterioration factor which is applied 

to the evaporative emission results of 

the emission data vehicles. The 

deterioration factor must be based on a 

linear regression, or an other regression 

technique approved in advance by the 

Administrator. The DF will be 

calculated to be the difference between 

the full life mileage evaporative level 

minus the stabilized mileage (e.g., 

4000¥mile) evaporative level from the 

regression analysis. The full useful life 

regressed emission value, the stabilized 

mileage regressed emission value, and 

the DF result must be rounded to the 

same precision and using the same 

procedures as the raw emission results 

according to the provisions of 

§ 86.1837–01. Calculated DF values of 

less than zero must be changed to zero 

for the purposes of this paragraph. 

(h) Emission component durability. 

[Reserved] For guidance see 40 CFR 

86.1824–01(d). 

(i) If EPA determines based on IUVP 

data or other information that the 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 2835 

durability procedure does not achieve 

the durability objective of paragraph (a) 

of this section, EPA may withdraw 

approval to use the durability procedure 

or condition approval on modifications 

to the durability procedure. Such 

withdrawal or conditional approval will 

apply to future applications for 

certification and to the portion of the 

manufacturer’s product line (or the 

entire product line) that the 

Administrator determines to be affected. 

Prior to such a withdrawal the 

Administrator will give the 

manufacturer a preliminary notice at 

least 60 days prior to the final decision. 

During this period, the manufacturer 

may submit technical discussion, 

statistical analyses, additional data, or 

other information which is relevant to 

the decision. The Administrator will 

consider all information submitted by 

the deadline before reaching a final 

decision. 

(j) Any manufacturer may request a 

hearing on the Administrator’s 

withdrawal of approval in paragraph (i) 

of this section. The request must be in 

writing and must include a statement 

specifying the manufacturer’s objections 

to the Administrator’s determinations, 

and data in support of such objection. 

If, after review of the request and 

supporting data, the Administrator finds 

that the request raises a substantial 

factual issue, she/he must provide the 

manufacturer a hearing in accordance 

with § 86.1853–01 with respect to such 

issue. 

■ 7. Add a new § 86.1825–08 to Subpart 

S to read as follows: 

§ 86.1825–08 Durability demonstration 

procedures for refueling emissions. 

This section applies to 2008 and later 

model year light-duty vehicles, lightduty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles 

which are certified under light-duty 

rules as allowed under the provisions of 

§ 86.1801–01(c)(1) which are subject to 

refueling loss emission compliance. 

Optionally, a manufacturer may elect to 

use this section for earlier model year 

light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, 

and heavy-duty vehicles which are 

certified under light-duty rules as 

allowed under the provisions of 

§ 86.1801–01(c)(1) which are subject to 

refueling loss emission compliance. 

Refer to the provisions of §§ 86.1811, 

86.1812, 86.1813, 86.1814, and 86.1815 

to determine applicability of the 

refueling standards to different classes 

of vehicles for various model years. 

Diesel fuel vehicles may qualify for an 

exemption to the requirements of this 

section under the provisions of 

§ 86.1810. 

(a) Durability program objective. The 

durability program must predict an 

expected in-use emission deterioration 

rate and emission level that effectively 

represents a significant majority of the 

distribution of emission levels and 

deterioration in actual use over the full 

useful life of candidate in-use vehicles 

of each vehicle design which uses the 

durability program. 

(b) Required durability 

demonstration. Manufacturers must 

conduct a durability demonstration 

which satisfies the provisions of either 

paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of this section. 

(c) Whole vehicle refueling durability 

demonstration. The following 

procedures must be used when 

conducting a whole vehicle durability 

demonstration: 

(1) Mileage accumulation must be 

conducted using the SRC or a road cycle 

approved under the provisions of 

§ 86.1823(e)(1). 

(2) Mileage accumulation must be 

conducted for either: 

(i) The applicable full useful life 

mileage period specified in § 86.1805, or 

(ii) At least 75 percent of the full 

useful life mileage. In which case, the 

manufacturer must calculate a df 

calculated according to the procedures 

of paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section, 

except that the DF must be based upon 

a line projected to the full-useful life 

mileage using the upper 80 percent 

statistical confidence limit calculated 

from the emission data. 

(3) The manufacturer must conduct at 

least one refueling emission test at each 

of the five different mileage points 

selected using good engineering 

judgement. The required testing must 

include testing at 5,000 miles and at the 

highest mileage point run during 

mileage accumulation (e.g. the full 

useful life mileage). Additional testing 

may be conducted by the manufacturer 

using good engineering judgement. 

(d) Bench aging refueling durability 

procedures. Manufacturers may use 

bench procedures designed, using good 

engineering judgement, to evaluate the 

emission deterioration of evaporative/ 

refueling control systems. 

Manufacturers may base the bench 

procedure on an evaluation the 

following potential causes of 

evaporative/refueling emission 

deterioration: 

(1) Cycling of canister loading due to 

diurnal and refueling events; 

(2) Use of various commercially 

available fuels, including the Tier 2 

requirement to include alcohol fuel; 

(3) Vibration of components; 

(4) Deterioration of hoses, etc. due to 

environmental conditions; and 

(5) Deterioration of fuel cap due to 

wear. 

(e) Combined whole-vehicle and 

bench-aging programs. Manufacturers 

may combine the results of whole 

vehicle aging and bench aging 

procedures using good engineering 

judgement. 

(f) [Reserved] 

(g) Calculation of a deterioration 

factor. The manufacturer must calculate 

a deterioration factor which is applied 

to the evaporative emission results of 

the emission data vehicles. The 

deterioration factor must be based on a 

linear regression, or an other regression 

technique approved in advance by the 

Administrator. The DF will be 

calculated to be the difference between 

the full life mileage evaporative level 

minus the stabilized mileage (e.g., 4000- 

mile) evaporative level from the 

regression analysis. The full useful life 

regressed emission value, the stabilized 

mileage regressed emission value, and 

the DF result must be rounded to the 

same precision and using the same 

procedures as the raw emission results 

according to the provisions of 

§ 86.1837–01. Calculated DF values of 

less than zero must be changed to zero 

for the purposes of this paragraph. 

(h) Emission component durability. 

[Reserved] For guidance see 40 CFR 

86.1845–01 (e). 

(i) If EPA determines based on IUVP 

data or other information that the 

durability procedure does not achieve 

the durability objective of paragraph (a) 

of this section, EPA may withdraw 

approval to use the durability procedure 

or condition approval on modifications 

to the durability procedure. Such 

withdrawal or conditional approval will 

apply to future applications for 

certification and to the portion of the 

manufacturer’s product line (or the 

entire product line) that the 

Administrator determines to be affected. 

Prior to such a withdrawal the 

Administrator will give the 

manufacturer a preliminary notice at 

least 60 days prior to the final decision. 

During this period, the manufacturer 

may submit technical discussion, 

statistical analyses, additional data, or 

other information which is relevant to 

the decision. The Administrator will 

consider all information submitted by 

the deadline before reaching a final 

decision. 

(j) Any manufacturer may request a 

hearing on the Administrator’s 

withdrawal of approval in paragraph (i) 

of this section. The request must be in 

writing and must include a statement 

specifying the manufacturer’s objections 

to the Administrator’s determinations, 

and data in support of such objection. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
2836 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

If, after review of the request and 

supporting data, the Administrator finds 

that the request raises a substantial 

factual issue, she/he must provide the 

manufacturer a hearing in accordance 

with § 86.1853–01 with respect to such 

issue. 

■ 8. Amend § 86.1826–01 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b)(3)(iv) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1826–01 Assigned deterioration 

factors for small volume manufacturers and 

small volume test groups. 

(a) Applicability. This program is an 

option available to small volume 

manufacturers certified under the small 

volume manufacturer provisions of 

§ 86.1838–01(b)(1) and small volume 

test groups certified under the small 

volume test group provisions of 

§ 86.1838–01(b)(2). Manufacturers may 

elect to use these procedures in lieu of 

the requirements of §§ 86.1823, 86.1824, 

and 86.1825 of this subpart. 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iv) The manufacturer must develop 

either deterioration factors or aged 

components to use on EDV testing by 

generating durability data in accordance 

with §§ 86.1823, 86.1824, and/or 

86.1825 on a minimum of 25 percent of 

the manufacturer’s projected sales 

(based on durability groups) that is 

equipped with unproven emission 

control systems. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 86.1829–01 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (d)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1829–01 Durability and emission 

testing requirements; waivers. 

(a) * * * 

(3) The DDV shall be tested and 

accumulate service mileage according to 

the provisions of §§ 86.1831–01, 

86.1823, 86.1824 and 86.1825. Small 

volume manufacturers and small 

volume test groups may optionally meet 

the requirements of § 86.1838–01. 

* * * * * 

(d)(1) Beginning in the 2004 model 

year, the exhaust emissions must be 

measured from all LDV/T exhaust 

emission data vehicles tested in 

accordance with the federal Highway 

Fuel Economy Test (HWFET; 40 CFR 

part 600, subpart B). The oxides of 

nitrogen emissions measured during 

such tests must represent the full useful 

life emissions in accordance with 

§ 86.1823–08(f) and subsequent model 

year provisions. Those results are then 

rounded and compared with the 

applicable emission standard in 

§ 86.1811–04. All data obtained from the 

testing required under this paragraph (d) 

must be reported in accordance with the 

procedures for reporting other exhaust 

emission data required under this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 86.1830–01 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(1), (c)(2), 

(c)(3) and (c)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1830–01 Acceptance of vehicles for 

emission testing. 

* * * * * 

(b) Special provisions for durability 

data vehicles. (1) For DDV’s, the mileage 

at all test points shall be within 250 

miles of the scheduled mileage point as 

required under § 86.1823–08(c)(3). 

Manufacturers may exceed the 250 mile 

upper limit if there are logistical reasons 

for the deviation and the manufacturer 

determines that the deviation will not 

affect the representativeness of the 

durability demonstration. 

(2) For DDV’s aged using the standard 

or a customized/alternative wholevehicle cycle, all emission-related 

hardware and software must be installed 

and operational during all mileage 

accumulation after the 5000-mile test 

point. 

* * * * * 

(c) Special provisions for emission 

data vehicles. (1) All EDV’s shall have 

at least the minimum number of miles 

accumulated to achieve stabilized 

emission results according to the 

provisions of § 86.1831–01(c). 

(2) Within a durability group, the 

manufacturer may alter any emission 

data vehicle (or other vehicles such as 

current or previous model year emission 

data vehicles, running change vehicles, 

fuel economy data vehicles, and 

development vehicles) in lieu of 

building a new test vehicle providing 

that the modification will not impact 

the representativeness of the vehicle’s 

test results. Manufacturers shall use 

good engineering judgment in making 

such determinations. Development 

vehicles which were used to develop 

the calibration selected for emission 

data testing may not be used as the EDV 

for that configuration. Vehicles from 

outside the durability group may be 

altered with advance approval of the 

Administrator. 

(3) Components used to reconfigure 

EDV’s under the provisions of paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section must be 

appropriately aged if necessary to 

achieve representative emission results. 

Manufacturers must determine the need 

for component aging and the type and 

amount of aging required using good 

engineering judgment. 

(4) Bench-aged hardware may be 

installed on an EDV for emission testing 

as a method of determining certification 

levels (projected emission levels at full 

or intermediate useful life) using bench 

aging procedures under the provisions 

of § 86.1823. 

■ 11. Amend § 86.1831–01 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1831–01 Mileage accumulation 

requirements for test vehicles. 

(a) Durability Data Vehicles. (1) The 

manufacturer must accumulate mileage 

on DDV’s using the procedures in 

§ 86.1823. 

(b) * * * 

(1) The standard method of mileage 

accumulation for emission data vehicles 

and running change vehicles is mileage 

accumulation using either the Standard 

Road Cycle specified in Appendix V to 

this part or the Durability Driving 

Schedule specified in Appendix IV to 

this part. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Amend § 86.1838–01 by revising 

paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1838–01 Small volume manufacturers 

certification procedures. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Durability demonstration. Use the 

provisions of § 86.1826–01 rather than 

the requirements of §§ 86.1823, 86.1824, 

and/or 86.1825. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Amend § 86.1839–01 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1839–01 Carryover of certification 

data. 

* * * * * 

(b) In lieu of using newly aged 

hardware on an EDV as allowed under 

the provisions of § 86.1823–08(f)(2), a 

manufacturer may use similar hardware 

aged for an EDV previously submitted, 

provided that the manufacturer 

determines that the previously aged 

hardware represents a worst case or 

equivalent rate of deterioration for all 

applicable emission constituents for 

durability demonstration. 

■ 14. Amend § 86.1841–01 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and 

(a)(2) and removing and reserving 

paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1841–01 Compliance with emission 

standards for the purpose of certification. 

(a) * * * 

(1) If the durability demonstration 

procedure used by the manufacturer 

under the provisions of §§ 86.1823, 

86.1824, or 86.1825 requires a DF to be 

calculated, the DF shall be applied to 

the official test results determined in 

§ 86.1835–01(c) for each regulated 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 2837 

emission constituent and for full and 

intermediate useful life, as appropriate, 

using the following procedures: 

* * * * * 

(2) If the durability demonstration 

procedure used by the manufacturer 

under the provisions of §§ 86.1823, 

86.1824, or 86.1825, as applicable, 

requires testing of the EDV with aged 

emission components, the official 

results of that testing determined under 

the provisions of § 86.1835–01(c) shall 

be rounded to the same level of 

precision as the standard for each 

regulated constituent at full and 

intermediate useful life, as appropriate. 

This rounded emission value is the 

certification level for that emission 

constituent at that useful life mileage. 

(3) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Amend § 86.1844–01 by revising 

paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1844–01 Information requirements: 

Application for certification and submittal of 

information upon request. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) Durability information. 

(i) A description of the durability 

method used to establish useful life 

durability, including exhaust and 

evaporative/refueling emission 

deterioration factors as required in 

§§ 86.1823, 86.1824 and 86.1825 when 

applicable. 

(ii) The equivalency factor required to 

be calculated in § 1823–06(e)(iii)(B), 

when applicable. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Add Appendices V, VII, VIII, and 

IX to part 86 to read as follows: 

Appendix V to Part 86—The Standard Road 

Cycle (SRC) 

1. The standard road cycle (SRC) is a 

mileage accumulation cycle that may be used 

for any vehicle which is covered by the 

applicability provisions of § 86.1801. The 

vehicle may be run on a track or on a mileage 

accumulation dynamometer. 

2. The cycle consists of 7 laps of a 3.7 mile 

course. The length of the lap may be changed 

to accommodate the length of the serviceaccumulation track. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE SRC 

Lap Description 

Typical 

accel rate 

(MPH/s) 

1 ............... (start engine) Idle 10 sec .................................................................................................................................................. 0 

1 ............... Mod accel to 30 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 

1 ............... Cruise at 30 MPH for 1⁄4 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

1 ............... Mod. decel to 20 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5 

1 ............... Mod accel to 30 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 

1 ............... Cruise at 30 MPH for 1⁄4 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

1 ............... Mod. decel to stop ............................................................................................................................................................ ¥5 

1 ............... Idle 5 sec ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

1 ............... Mod accel to 35 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 

1 ............... Cruise at 35 MPH for 1⁄4 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

1 ............... Mod. decel to 25 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5 

1 ............... Mod accel to 35 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 

1 ............... Cruise at 35 MPH for 1⁄4 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

1 ............... Mod. decel to stop ............................................................................................................................................................ ¥5 

2 ............... Idle 10 sec ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

2 ............... Mod accel to 40 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 

2 ............... Cruise at 40 MPH for 1⁄4 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

2 ............... Mod. decel to 30 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5 

2 ............... Mod accel to 40 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 

2 ............... Cruise at 40 MPH for 1⁄4 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

2 ............... Mod. decel to stop ............................................................................................................................................................ ¥5 

2 ............... Idle 5 sec ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

2 ............... Mod accel to 45 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 

2 ............... Cruise at 45 MPH for 1⁄4 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

2 ............... Mod. decel to 35 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5 

2 ............... Mod accel to 45 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 

2 ............... Cruise at 45 MPH for 1⁄4, lap ....................................................................................................................................... 0 

2 ............... Mod. decel to stop ............................................................................................................................................................ ¥5 

3 ............... Idle 10 sec ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

3 ............... Hard accel to 55 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 

3 ............... Cruise at 55 MPH for 1⁄4 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

3 ............... Mod. decel to 45 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5 

3 ............... Mod accel to 55 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 

3 ............... Cruise at 55 MPH for 1⁄4 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

3 ............... Mod. decel to 45 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5 

3 ............... Mod accel to 60 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 

3 ............... Cruise at 60 MPH for 1⁄4 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

3 ............... Mod. decel to 50 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5 

3 ............... Mod. accel to 60 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 

3 ............... Cruise at 60 MPH for 1⁄4 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

3 ............... Mod. decel to stop ............................................................................................................................................................ ¥4 

4 ............... Idle 10 sec ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

4 ............... Hard accel to 80 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 

4 ............... Coastdown to 70 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥1 

4 ............... Cruise at 70 MPH for 1⁄2 Lap ............................................................................................................................................ 0 

4 ............... Mod. decel to 50 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥3 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
2838 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

DESCRIPTION OF THE SRC—Continued 

Lap Description 

Typical 

accel rate 

(MPH/s) 

4 ............... Mod accel to 65 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 

4 ............... Cruise at 65 MPH for 1⁄2 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

4 ............... Mod. decel to 50 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥3 

5 ............... Mod accel to 75 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 

5 ............... Cruise at 75 MPH for 1⁄2 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

5 ............... Mod. decel to 50 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥3 

5 ............... Lt. accel to 70 MPH .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 

5 ............... Cruise at 70 MPH for 1⁄2 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

5 ............... Mod. decel 50 MPH .......................................................................................................................................................... ¥3 

6 ............... Mod accel to 70 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 

6 ............... Coastdown to 60 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥1 

6 ............... Cruise at 60 MPH for 1⁄2 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

6 ............... Mod. decel to 50 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥4 

6 ............... Mod. accel to 65 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 

6 ............... Cruise at 65 MPH for 1⁄2 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

6 ............... Mod. decel to stop ............................................................................................................................................................ ¥4 

7 ............... Idle 45 sec ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

7 ............... Hard accel to 55 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 

7 ............... Cruise at 55 MPH for 1⁄4 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

7 ............... Mod. decel to 40 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5 

7 ............... Mod. accel to 55 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 

7 ............... Cruise at 55 MPH for 1⁄4 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

7 ............... Mod. decel to 40 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5 

7 ............... Mod. accel to 50 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 

7 ............... Cruise at 50 MPH for 1⁄4 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

7 ............... Mod. decel to 40 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5 

7 ............... Mod. accel to 50 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 

7 ............... Cruise at 50 MPH for 1⁄4 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

7 ............... Mod. decel to stop ............................................................................................................................................................ ¥5 

The standard road cycle is 

represented graphically in the following 

figure: 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 2839 

* * * * * 

Appendix VII to Part 86—Standard Bench 

Cycle (SBC) 

1. The standard bench aging durability 

procedures [Ref. § 86.1823–08(d)] consist of 

aging a catalyst-oxygen-sensor system on an 

aging bench which follows the standard 

bench cycle (SBC) described in this 

appendix. 

2. The SBC requires use of an aging bench 

with an engine as the source of feed gas for 

the catalyst. 

3. The SBC is a 60-second cycle which is 

repeated as necessary on the aging bench to 

conduct aging for the required period of time. 

The SBC is defined based on the catalyst 

temperature, engine air/fuel (A/F) ratio, and 

the amount of secondary air injection which 

is added in front of the first catalyst. 

Catalyst Temperature Control 

1. Catalyst temperature shall be measured 

in the catalyst bed at the location where the 

highest temperature occurs in the hottest 

catalyst. Alternatively, the feed gas 

temperature may be measured and converted 

to catalyst bed temperature using a linear 

transform calculated from correlation data 

collected on the catalyst design and aging 

bench to be used in the aging process. 

2. Control the catalyst temperature at 

stoichiometric operation (01 to 40 seconds on 

the cycle) to a minimum of 800 °C (± 10 °C) 

by selecting the appropriate Engine speed, 

load, and spark timing for the engine. Control 

the maximum catalyst temperature that 

occurs during the cycle to 890 °C (± 10 °C) 

by selecting the appropriate A/F ratio of the 

engine during the ‘‘rich’’ phase described in 

the table below. 

3. If a low control temperature other than 

800 °C is utilized, the high control 

temperature shall be 90 °C higher than the 

low control temperature. 

STANDARD BENCH CYCLE (SBC) 

Time 

(seconds) Engine air/fuel ratio Secondary air injection 

01–40 ................ 14.7 (stoichiometric, with load, spark timing, and engine speed controlled to achieve a minimum catalyst 

temperature of 800 °C).

None 

41–45 ................ ‘‘Rich’’ (A/F ratio selected to achieve a maximum catalyst temperature over the entire cycle of 890 °C, or 

90° higher than low control temperature).

None 

46–55 ................ ‘‘Rich’’ (A/F ratio selected to achieve a maximum catalyst temperature over the entire cycle of 890 °C, or 

90° higher than low control temperature).

3% (± 0.1%) 

56—60 ............... 14.7 (stoichiometric, same load, spark timing, and engine speed as used in the 01–40 sec period of the 

cycle).

3% (± 0.1%) 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULESER17JA06.066</GPH>
2840 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Appendix VIII to Part 86—Aging Bench 

Equipment and Procedures 

This appendix provides specifications for 

standard aging bench equipment and aging 

procedures which may be used to conduct 

bench aging durability under the provisions 

of § 86.1823–08. 

1. Aging Bench Configuration 

The aging bench must provide the 

appropriate exhaust flow rate, temperature, 

air-fuel ratio, exhaust constituents and 

secondary air injection at the inlet face of the 

catalyst. 

a. The EPA standard aging bench consists 

of an engine, engine controller, and engine 

dynamometer. Other configurations may be 

acceptable (e.g. whole vehicle on a 

dynamometer, or a burner that provides the 

correct exhaust conditions), as long as the 

catalyst inlet conditions and control features 

specified in this appendix are met. 

b. A single aging bench may have the 

exhaust flow split into several streams 

providing that each exhaust stream meets the 

requirements of this appendix. If the bench 

has more than one exhaust stream, multiple 

catalyst systems may be aged simultaneously. 

2. Fuel and Oil 

The fuel used by the engine shall comply 

with the mileage accumulation fuel 

provisions of § 86.113 for the applicable fuel 

type (e.g., gasoline or diesel fuel). The oil 

used in the engine shall be representative of 

commercial oils and selected using good 

engineering judgement. 

3. Exhaust System Installation 

a. The entire catalyst(s)-plus-oxygensensor(s) system, together with all exhaust 

piping which connects these components, 

[the ‘‘catalyst system’’] will be installed on 

the bench. For engines with multiple exhaust 

streams (such as some V6 and V8 engines), 

each bank of the exhaust system will be 

installed separately on the bench. 

b. For exhaust systems that contain 

multiple in-line catalysts, the entire catalyst 

system including all catalysts, all oxygen 

sensors and the associated exhaust piping 

will be installed as a unit for aging. 

Alternatively, each individual catalyst may 

be separately aged for the appropriate period 

of time. 

4. Temperature Measurement 

Catalyst temperature shall be measured 

using a thermocouple placed in the catalyst 

bed at the location where the highest 

temperature occurs in the hottest catalyst 

(typically this occurs approximately one-inch 

behind the front face of the first catalyst at 

its longitudinal axis). Alternatively, the feed 

gas temperature just before the catalyst inlet 

face may be measured and converted to 

catalyst bed temperature using a linear 

transform calculated from correlation data 

collected on the catalyst design and aging 

bench to be used in the aging process. The 

catalyst temperature must be stored digitally 

at the speed of 1 hertz (one measurement per 

second). 

5. Air/Fuel Measurement 

Provisions must be made for the 

measurement of the air/fuel (A/F) ratio (such 

as a wide-range oxygen sensor) as close as 

possible to the catalyst inlet and outlet 

flanges. The information from these sensors 

must be stored digitally at the speed of 1 

hertz (one measurement per second). 

6. Exhaust Flow Balance 

Provisions must be made to assure that the 

proper amount of exhaust (measured in 

grams/second at stoichiometry, with a 

tolerance of ±5 grams/second) flows through 

each catalyst system that is being aged on the 

bench. The proper flow rate is determined 

based upon the exhaust flow that would 

occur in the original vehicle’s engine at the 

steady state engine speed and load selected 

for the bench aging in paragraph (7). 

7. Setup 

a. The engine speed, load, and spark timing 

are selected to achieve a catalyst bed 

temperature of 800 °C (± 10 °C) at steady-state 

stoichiometric operation. 

b. The air injection system is set to provide 

the necessary air flow to produce 3.0% 

oxygen (± 0.1%) in the steady-state 

stoichiometric exhaust stream just in front of 

the first catalyst. A typical reading at the 

upstream A/F measurement point (required 

in paragraph 5) is lambda 1.16 (which is 

approximately 3% oxygen). 

c. With the air injection on, set the ‘‘Rich’’

A/F ratio to produce a catalyst bed 

temperature of 890 °C (± 10 °C). A typical A/ 

F value for this step is lambda 0.94 

(approximately 2% CO). 

8. Aging Cycle 

The standard bench aging procedures use 

the standard bench cycle (SBC) which is 

described in Appendix VII to Part 86. The 

SBC is repeated until the amount of aging 

calculated from the bench aging time (BAT) 

equation [ref. § 86.1823–08 (d)(3)] is 

achieved. 

9. Quality Assurance 

a. The temperatures and A/F ratio 

information that is required to be measured 

in paragraphs (4) and (5) shall be reviewed 

periodically (at least every 50 hours) during 

aging. Necessary adjustments shall be made 

to assure that the SBC is being appropriately 

followed throughout the aging process. 

b. After the aging has been completed, the 

catalyst time-at-temperature collected during 

the aging process shall be tabulated into a 

histogram with temperature bins of no larger 

than 10 °C. The BAT equation and the 

calculated effective reference temperature for 

the aging cycle [ref. § 86.1823–08(d)] will be 

used to determine if the appropriate amount 

of thermal aging of the catalyst has in fact 

occurred. Bench aging will be extended if the 

thermal effect of the calculated aging time is 

not at least 95% of the target thermal aging. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULESER17JA06.067</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 2841 

10. Startup and Shutdown 

Care should be taken to assure that the 

maximum catalyst temperature for rapid 

deterioration (e.g., 1050 °C) does not occur 

during startup or shutdown. Special low 

temperature startup and shutdown 

procedures may be used to alleviate this 

concern. 

Appendix IX to Part 86—Experimentally 

Determining the R-Factor for Bench Aging 

Durability Procedures 

The R-Factor is the catalyst thermal 

reactivity coefficient used in the bench aging 

time (BAT) equation [Ref. § 86.1826–

08(d)(3)]. Manufacturers may determine the 

value of R experimentally using the following 

procedures. 

1. Using the applicable bench cycle and 

aging bench hardware, age several catalysts 

(minimum of 3 of the same catalyst design) 

at different control temperatures between the 

normal operating temperature and the 

damage limit temperature. Measure 

emissions (or catalyst inefficiency (1-catalyst 

efficiency)) for each constituent. Assure that 

the final testing yields data between one- and 

two-times the standard. 

2. Estimate the value of R and calculate the 

effective reference temperature (Tr) for the 

bench aging cycle for each control 

temperature according to the procedure 

described in § 86.1826–08(d)(4). 

3. Plot emissions (or catalyst inefficiency) 

versus aging time for each catalyst. Calculate 

the least-squared best-fit line through the 

data. For the data set to be useful for this 

purpose the data should have an 

approximately common intercept between 0 

and 4000 miles. See the following graph for 

an example. 

4. Calculate the slope of the best-fit line for 

each aging temperature. 

5. Plot the natural log (ln) of the slope of 

each best-fit line (determined in step 4) along 

the vertical axis, versus the inverse of aging 

temperature (1/(aging temperature, deg K)) 

along the horizontal axis, Calculate the leastsquared best-fit lines through the data. The 

slope of the line is the R-factor. See the 

following graph for an example. 

6. Compare the R-factor to the initial value 

that was used in Step 2. If the calculated Rfactor differs from the initial value by more 

than 5%, choose a new R-factor that is 

between the initial and calculated values, 

then repeat Steps 2–6 to derive a new Rfactor. Repeat this process until the 

calculated R-factor is within 5% of the 

initially assumed R-factor. 

7. Compare the R-factor determined 

separately for each constituent. Use the 

lowest R-factor (worst case) for the BAT 

equation. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULESER17JA06.068</GPH>
2842 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. 06–74 Filed 1–13–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULESER17JA06.069</GPH>