Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 2843 

1Ref. 40 CFR Part 86 Appendix IV. 

2Useful life is the period of use (mileage) or time 

during which an emission standard applies to lightduty vehicles and light-duty trucks. For most lightduty vehicles and light-duty trucks, the useful life 

requirement is 120,000 miles or 10 years, which 

ever comes first (86.1805–01 and 86.1805–04). 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 86 

[FRL–8019–1] 

RIN 2060–AN01 

Component Durability Procedures for 

New Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty 

Trucks and Heavy-Duty Vehicles 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Supplemental Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: On April 2, 2004 (69 FR 

17531), EPA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to propose 

procedures to be used by manufacturers 

of light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks 

and heavy-duty vehicles to demonstrate, 

for purposes of emission certification, 

that new motor vehicles will comply 

with EPA emissions standards 

throughout their useful lives. The 

NPRM proposed emissions certification 

durability procedures to be used by 

manufacturers to demonstrate the 

expected rate of deterioration of the 

emission levels of their vehicles. The 

Agency received several comments 

concerning the component durability 

portion of the durability process. 

Options for addressing component 

durability were not discussed in the 

April 2004 proposal, and EPA believes 

it is appropriate to address component 

durability in a supplemental proposal. 

Therefore, EPA is issuing this action to 

request comments on three options for 

addressing component durability during 

the vehicle emissions certification 

process. 

DATES: Written comments on this 

SNPRM must be submitted on or before 

February 16, 2006. A public hearing will 

be held on February 1, 2006. Requests 

to present oral testimony must be 

received on or before January 27, 2006. 

If EPA receives no requests to present 

oral testimony by this date, the hearing 

will be canceled. 

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments may 

be submitted by mail to: Air Docket, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

Attention Docket ID No. OAR–2002– 

0079. Comments may also be submitted 

electronically, by facsimile, or through 

hand delivery/courier. For more 

information submitting comments and 

on the comment procedure and public 

hearings, follow the detailed 

instructions as provided in Section XI, 

‘‘Public Participation’’ section. We must 

receive them by the date indicated 

under DATES above. Paper copies of 

written comments (in duplicate if 

possible) should also be sent to the 

general contact person listed below. 

Docket: EPA’s Air Docket makes 

materials related to this rulemaking 

available for review in Public Docket 

No. A–2002–0079 at the following 

address: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Air Docket (6102), Room 

M–1500 (on the ground floor in 

Waterside Mall), 401 M Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20460 between 8 a.m. 

to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except on government holidays. You 

can reach the Air Docket by telephone 

at (202) 260–7548, and by facsimile 

(202) 260–4400. We may charge a 

reasonable fee for copying docket 

materials, as provided in 40 CFR part 2. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Holly Pugliese, U.S. EPA, National 

Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, 

2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 

48105; Telephone (734) 214–4288; FAX: 

(734) 214–4053; e-mail: 

pugliese.holly@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Why is this Action being taken? 

II. History of EPA’s Component Durability 

Requirements 

III. What comments has EPA received on 

component durability? 

IV. What are the differences between 

component durability and emissions 

durability? 

V. Statutory Authority 

VI. How has EPA evaluated component 

durability in the past in deciding to issue 

a certificate? 

VII. Is EPA required to use testing to evaluate 

component durability? 

VIII. What options are being considered by 

EPA? 

IX. Request for Comments 

X. What are the environmental and economic 

impacts? 

XI. What are the opportunities for public 

participation? 

A. Copies of This Proposal and Other 

Related Information 

B. Submitting Comments on This Proposal 

C. Public Hearing 

XII. What are the Administrative 

Requirements for this Proposed Rule? 

A. EO 12866: Regulatory Planning and 

Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Children’s 

Health Protection 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

I. Why is this Action being taken? 

The demonstration of light-duty 

vehicle emission durability for purposes 

of certification consists of two elements: 

Emission deterioration and component 

durability. On April 2, 2004, EPA 

published an NPRM that proposed 

durability procedures to be used by 

manufacturers to demonstrate the 

expected rate of deterioration of the 

emission levels of their vehicles. The 

proposal did not make any changes to 

component durability procedures. It 

carried over the component durability 

requirements from the updated 

certification regulations for light-duty 

vehicles and light-duty trucks published 

in 1999 known as ‘‘CAP 2000’’ 

(Compliance Assurance Program). EPA 

received several comments on the 

NPRM pertaining to component 

durability. 

Because of the complex nature of the 

comments, we determined that the issue 

of component durability warranted 

further consideration and discussion. 

EPA intends to proceed with 

finalization of the emission 

deterioration procedures discussed in 

the NPRM, but will consider issues 

regarding component durability in this 

supplemental proposal. 

II. History of EPA’s Component 

Durability Requirements 

A. Pre-1994 Component Durability 

Prior to 1994, EPA’s regulations (ref. 

40 CFR part 86) specified the method to 

demonstrate a vehicle’s emission 

durability. The method used a whole 

vehicle mileage accumulation cycle, 

commonly referred to as the Approved 

Mileage Accumulation (AMA) cycle.1 It 

required manufacturers to accumulate 

mileage on a pre-production vehicle, 

known as a durability data vehicle 

(DDV), by driving it over the prescribed 

AMA driving cycle for the full useful 

life mileage.2 This was to simulate the 

real-world aging of the vehicle’s 

emissions control systems and 

components over the useful life. The 

AMA whole vehicle mileage 

accumulation was used to develop 

evidence to demonstrate both 

component durability and emission 

deterioration. Component durability is a 

demonstration that all emission-related 

components are designed to operate 

properly for the full useful life of the 

vehicles in actual use. Successful 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS4
2844 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

3Ref. 59 FR 36368 (July 18, 1994), 62 FR 11082 

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

and 62 FR 44872 (August 22, 1997). 

4CD–94–13 July 24, 1994. 

5Emission related parts and systems are 

evaluated for durability by manufacturers during 

the vehicle and emission control system 

development process. Evaluations can take several 

forms including mileage accumulation, engineering 

evaluations, validation testing, and computer 

simulations. Manufacturers use these processes to 

develop performance and design specifications that 

are supplied to part vendors and/or used during 

their own manufacturing processes. During 

production of these parts, manufacturers evaluate 

random samples of parts to assure compliance with 

design specifications. The supplier who designs the 

emission components for the vehicle manufacturer 

perform extensive product validation testing to 

ensure that the component design is durable before 

it is ever used on the vehicle. 

6Ref. 40 CFR 18.1823–01(e) and EPA Guidance 

Letter No. CD–94–13, ‘‘Alternative Durability 

Guidance for MY94 through MY98’’, dated July 29, 

1994. 

7The On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) systems 

regulations (40 CFR 86.1808–01) require the onboard computer to monitor most emission control 

components and illuminate a dashboard light when 

the components fail or operate improperly. The 

defect reporting regulations (40 CFR 86.1903) 

require manufacturers to report occurrences of a 

significant number of defective emission control 

components to the Agency. The recall provisions 

(40 CFR 85 Subpart S) allow EPA to order recalls 

when properly maintained and used vehicles fail to 

comply with the applicable regulations 

promulgated under section 202 of the Clean Air 

Act. All of these are important means for 

completion of the required whole 

vehicle useful life mileage accumulation 

without the need to replace or adjust 

those components (beyond that allowed 

by regulation) provided evidence that 

those components could be considered 

durable and would operate properly for 

the full useful life. Separate or 

additional evidence of component 

durability was not developed. 

B. Revised Durability Program (RDP) 

and Component Durability 

EPA’s first separate component 

durability demonstration requirements 

came with the promulgation of the 

revised durability program (RDP) 3. 

Under these provisions (which took 

effect in 1994), manufacturers were 

given options for demonstrating 

emission deterioration. One option 

allowed rapid bench-aging techniques 

instead of mileage accumulation on a 

whole vehicle to conduct emission 

deterioration evaluation. In the 

preamble to the proposed RDP rule, EPA 

stated that ‘‘accumulation of mileage by 

the DDVs provides valuable information 

on the physical durability of individual 

emission-related components, because 

these components are exercised during 

the operation of the DDV.’’ [57 FR 

18545, April 30, 1992.] EPA went on to 

propose conditions under which it 

would issue a certificate of conformity 

for manufacturers using the rapid aging 

techniques. One of these conditions was 

that ‘‘the manufacturer provides data 

that shows to the satisfaction of the 

Administrator that all emission-related 

components are designed to properly 

operate for the useful life of the vehicles 

in actual use (or such minimum 

intervals, as specified in allowable 

scheduled maintenance regulations).’’

‘‘[Id. at 18548]’’ EPA adopted this 

condition in its final RDP rule. The 

regulations required that manufacturers 

using the rapid aging option were 

required to ‘‘provide reliability data that 

shows to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction that all emission-related 

components are designed to operate 

properly for the durability useful life of 

the vehicles in actual use (or such 

shorter intervals as permitted in section 

§ 86.094–25).’’ [40 CFR 86.094–

13(e)(7)(ii)]. 

When implementing the RDP 

regulations, EPA issued a guidance 

letter which provided further 

instructions to manufacturers on the 

process to obtain EPA approval to use 

alternate durability processes.4 The 

guidance addressed component 

durability by stating that ‘‘[F]or each 

ASADP [Alternate Service 

Accumulation Durability Process, also 

known as ‘‘RDP’’] engine family, the 

manufacturer should submit a plan to 

demonstrate component durability for 

that engine family. Sources of data for 

component durability are defect reports, 

bench testing of components, and other 

similar data.’’ In meeting these 

requirements, many manufacturers 

demonstrated to us their own extensive 

validation process to ensure the 

durability of the components used in 

production vehicles.5 It was clear that 

the scope of this validation work far 

exceeded in rigorousness the durability 

demonstration requirement of running a 

single pre-production prototype vehicle 

on a driving cycle for the full useful life 

mileage. Thus, the manufacturer 

component validation processes added 

significant assurance of component 

durability, and in fact is the primary 

source of such assurance. 

C. CAP 2000 Regulations and 

Component Durability 

The CAP 2000 rulemaking (applicable 

beginning with the 2001 model year), 

was a comprehensive update to the 

entire light-duty vehicle certification 

process. A major part of this involved 

the manufacturer’s required 

demonstration of emission durability. 

The Agency eliminated the use of the 

AMA cycle as the default mileage 

accumulation cycle. In CAP 2000, the 

Agency replaced the AMA-based 

durability program with a durability 

process similar to the optional Revised 

Durability Program (RDP). Each 

manufacturer, except small 

manufacturers, was required to develop 

an emission durability process which 

would accurately predict in-use 

deterioration of the vehicles they 

produce. The manufacturer had the 

flexibility to design an efficient program 

that met that objective. 

The manufacturer’s plan was then 

reviewed by EPA for approval. Many 

manufacturers continued using the 

processes previously approved under 

the RDP program. Approval from the 

Agency for purposes of CAP 2000 

required a demonstration that the 

emission deterioration process was 

designed to generate emission 

deterioration factors (DFs) 

representative of in-use deterioration. 

This demonstration was more than 

simply matching average in-use 

deterioration with DFs. Manufacturers 

needed to demonstrate to EPA’s 

satisfaction that their durability process 

would result in the same or more 

emissions deterioration than is reflected 

by the in-use data for a significant 

majority of their vehicles. If, in the 

course of EPA’s review, we found that 

certain aspects of a manufacturer’s plan 

were inadequate, we would make 

recommendations to the manufacturer 

as to how to improve their plan and the 

manufacturer would make the 

appropriate modifications. Upon the 

conclusion of our extensive review, we 

would approve the plan. 

EPA also adopted a component 

durability provision applicable to all 

vehicles that required manufacturers to 

‘‘use good engineering judgment to 

determine that all emission-related 

components are designed to operate 

properly for the full useful life of the 

vehicles in actual use.’’ 6 While the 

manufacturer did not need to submit the 

underlying engineering evaluation with 

its certification application, EPA 

reserved the right to evaluate the basis 

underlying this engineering 

determination. 40 CFR 86.1823–01(e), 

86.1824–01(d), 86.1825–01(e), 86.1826–

01(c). 

This component durability 

requirement was based on our 

experience under RDP, in which we 

obtained significant information about 

manufacturers’ internal component 

validation processes. In general, 

information from defect reports, in-use 

testing, and in-use on-board diagnostics 

(OBD) data indicated that problems 

usually occurred at the production stage 

or later.7 EPA was confident that 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 2845 

identifying and repairing or replacing failed 

emission components in use. However, they also 

serve the important function of alerting 

manufacturers and the Agency of potential design 

or manufacturing problems that need to be 

addressed and resolved so that they are prevented 

in future model years. 

manufacturers would continue using 

their component validation processes 

and other component-related 

information for component durability as 

a basis to develop the good engineering 

judgement that was required. The CAP 

2000 regulations include a provision 

allowing EPA to review and evaluate the 

basis for a manufacturer’s engineering 

judgment decision, when appropriate. 

III. What comments has EPA received 

on component durability? 

Comments related to component 

durability were submitted to the EPA 

Docket A–2002–0079 during the 

comment period for the proposed 

emissions deterioration rule being 

finalized in a separate action today. 

These comments are summarized below. 

In today’s SNPRM, EPA is seeking 

comments in addition to those already 

submitted. 

The comments were submitted by the 

Afton Corporation (Afton, formerly 

Ethyl Corporation) and jointly by the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

(Alliance and the Association of 

International Automobile Manufacturers 

(AIAM). 

Afton comments (May 17): 

• Based on recent events pointing to 

an emission component failure allegedly 

caused by one of Afton’s products and 

Afton’s investigation of emission-related 

component defect reports from recent 

model years, Afton questions whether 

an exclusive focus on thermal aging of 

the catalytic converter and oxygen 

sensor provides an adequate means to 

ensure proper vehicle operation in the 

field. 

• EPA has failed to propose test 

methods and procedures for assessing 

the durability of emission control 

system components as required under 

Section 206 of the CAA as ordered by 

the Court in Ethyl Corp. v. EPA. EPA has 

clearly recognized that certification 

requires ‘‘testing of emission system 

component durability’’. CAP 2000 

regulations require manufacturers to 

provide a description of the procedures 

used to establish durability and exhaust 

* * * deterioration factors; indicating 

that component durability is a necessary 

part of certification. 

• EPA’s component durability 

requirements of good engineering 

judgment allow EPA and manufacturers 

to agree on the methods and procedures 

for testing component durability on a 

case-by-case basis is in violation of CAA 

Section 206(d), thus falling on the 

Court’s ‘‘forbidden side of the line’’. 

• EPA has instead proposed that 

manufacturers continue to develop test 

methods and procedures for component 

durability on a case-by-case basis, 

without rulemaking. 

• EPA should focus on emission 

control components as a system, rather 

than as individual components. How 

the system performs as a whole in the 

field cannot be captured by thermal 

aging of the catalytic converter. 

• Evidence that components are 

failing in use is found in the defect 

reports submitted by manufacturers, 

showing that millions of vehicles are 

affected by defects, but very few are 

recalled. 

• Component durability must include 

insurance (1) the durability of each 

component, (2) the durability of the 

entire emission control system operated 

in an integrated manner and (3) any 

deterioration in an otherwise durable 

system of components will not cause 

emissions to exceed the useful life 

standards. 

• A catalyst cannot be ‘‘overaged’’ to 

mimic component defects when such 

defect would cause an emission failure, 

because this would preclude 

certification. 

• EPA provided no factual basis in 

the docket supporting its presumption 

that all components will be durable. 

Defect reports submitted by 

manufacturers indicate otherwise. 

• Congress intended certification to 

include assurance of component 

durability. By limiting the warranty 

period Congress was recognizing that 

other elements of the regulatory 

program would protect the consumer, 

citing H.R. Rep. No. 101–490 at 308 

(1990). 

Alliance/AIAM comments (June 17): 

• CAA provisions are clear that 

Congress’ concern was the ability of 

vehicles to comply with standards over 

useful life. Durability NPRM complies 

with this by implementing SRC as a 

baseline stringency for demonstrating 

emission control system durability, 

similar to how the AMA had done prior 

to CAP 2000. System durability is a 

function of the durability of its 

components. 

• Nothing in CAA purports to require 

separate durability tests for each and 

every component of a system. 

• Contrary to Afton contention, 

component durability has never been 

done as a separate analysis of each 

individual component, nor does the law 

require it to be handled in such a 

manner. 

• No need to establish separate 

procedures since the SRC provides 

requisite stringency level for 

components as well as system as a 

whole. 

• Court did not cite 86.1823(e) in its 

opinion. 

• 1823(e) goes beyond CAA testing 

requirements in requiring manufacturers 

to make a qualitative evaluation of 

component durability. 

• Afton’s use of defect reports as 

evidence of widespread ineffectiveness 

of component durability is flagrant 

misinterpretation of the reports. These 

reports summarize manufacturing 

problems, installation of incorrect 

components, or components not 

functioning as intended. No amount of 

durability testing on design intent 

systems would uncover such issues. The 

defect reporting threshold of 25 known 

occurrences is not necessarily indicative 

of systematic problem, exceedance of 

standards or even an emissions increase. 

• Best way to address impact of fuel 

additives on component durability is 

through the regulations under CAA 211 

for fuel additives 

• EPA regulations have never 

imposed requirements that 

manufacturers conduct tests to evaluate 

component durability. 

• Component-by-component 

durability testing not feasible for 

certification. 

Afton Response comments (Aug 5): 

• Agrees with industry claim that 

SRC sets the threshold stringency for 

emission control system as a whole and 

supports that EPA clarify this. 

• Disagrees that EPA has never 

imposed a test requirement for 

component durability. Prior to RDP, 

AMA useful life driving was the test. 

With RDP, the requirement was for mfrs. 

to demonstrate full-life durability for all 

emission related components. CAP 2000 

clearly contains a requirement for 

component durability testing. 

• Agree with mfr that durability of a 

system is a function of the durability of 

its components and confirms concerns 

about merit of relying exclusively on 

thermal aging of cat and O2 sensor. Not 

clear how bench aging cat is sufficient 

to assess the many other components of 

a system. 

IV. What are the differences between 

component durability and emissions 

deterioration? 

For the purpose of emission 

certification, EPA evaluates component 

durability to determine whether 

emission control system components are 

designed to operate properly for the full 

useful life in actual use. More 

specifically, component durability is a 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS4
2846 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

8 69 FR 17532 (April 2, 2004). 

demonstration that the emission control 

components will not break and will 

continue to operate as described in the 

Application for Certification during the 

minimum maintenance interval 

prescribed in 40 CFR 86.1834–01. The 

factors that can effect emissions control 

components fall into three general 

categories: In-use exposure, design flaws 

and production factors. In-use exposure 

is the expected normal wear and tear 

resulting from exposure to the elements 

and the vehicle’s operating 

environment. Design flaws result in the 

unintentional failure of a component as 

a result of a poor design. Production 

factors consist of manufacturing 

problems and installation problems 

(e.g., installation of incorrect parts or 

improper installation of correct parts on 

the assembly line). The assurance 

needed at the time of emission 

certification is that the components are 

designed to operate properly for the full 

useful life in actual use. The 

certification process, because it occurs 

pre-production, cannot predict 

problems that may occur during the 

manufacturing or installation of 

emission components. EPA has other 

mechanisms in place (such as defect 

reporting and other in-use programs) 

which help to identify and correct 

manufacturing or installation problems. 

The component durability process is 

designed to provide EPA with adequate 

information to make the required preproduction certification decision. 

In contrast to component durability, 

EPA’s emission deterioration 

procedures, finalized in a separate 

action are designed to provide a 

quantitative prediction of how the 

emissions of a vehicle will deteriorate 

over time. The deterioration factor (DF) 

is a measure of the deterioration. 

Successful completion of the emission 

deterioration combined with adequate 

demonstration of component durability 

informs EPA that vehicles are likely to 

comply with emission standards for 

their useful life. Although some of the 

emission components may not actually 

be installed on the vehicle during the 

required emissions deterioration testing 

during a bench aging procedure (which 

ages only the catalytic converter and 

oxygen sensor), the results of this 

procedure (e.g. the deterioration factors) 

are applied to an entire vehicle, 

including any and all emission control 

components and systems that will be 

used. 

V. Statutory Authority 

Section 206(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

states that the Administrator shall test, 

or require to be tested in such a manner 

as he deems appropriate, any new motor 

vehicle or new motor vehicle engine 

submitted by a manufacturer to 

determine whether such vehicle or 

engine conforms with the emission 

standard regulations. 42 U.S.C. 

7521(a)(1). Section 206(d) states that the 

Administrator shall by regulation 

establish methods and procedures for 

making tests under this section. 42 

U.S.C. 7525(d). If such a vehicle 

conforms with the regulations 

prescribing establishing emissions 

standards, the Administrator shall issue 

a certificate of conformity. 42 U.S.C. 

7525(a). The statute also requires that 

the vehicle conform to the standard for 

its useful life. 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1). 

VI. How has EPA evaluated component 

durability in the past in deciding to 

issue a certificate under CAA section 

206? 

Issuance of a certificate of conformity 

is based on EPA determining whether 

the vehicle or group of vehicles will 

conform to the applicable emissions 

standards over the applicable useful life 

period. EPA has traditionally evaluated 

two forms of durability in making this 

pre-production determination—

emissions deterioration and component 

durability. For many years EPA relied 

on the whole vehicle mileage 

accumulation process, used to evaluate 

emissions deterioration, to also evaluate 

component durability. When EPA later 

allowed a manufacturer to accelerate 

aging of a vehicle under RDP, EPA 

required submission of reliability data 

showing that all emission related 

components were designed to operate 

properly for the useful life of the 

vehicles in actual use. See 40 CFR 

86.094–13(e)(7)(ii). Under CAP 2000, 

EPA required the manufacturer to 

determine, using good engineering 

judgement, that all emission-related 

components are designed to operate 

properly for the full useful life of the 

vehicle in actual use. While the 

manufacturer did not need to submit the 

underlying engineering evaluation with 

its certification application, EPA 

reserved the right to evaluate the basis 

underlying this engineering 

determination. 40 CFR 86.1823–01(e), 

86.1824–01(d), 86.1825–01(e), 86.1826–

01(c). 

EPA continues to believe that the 

durability demonstration for purposes of 

certification should consist of two 

elements: emission deterioration and 

component durability.8 Therefore, EPA 

will evaluate component durability at 

the certification stage as part of ensuring 

that a new motor vehicle will meet the 

emissions standards for its useful life. 

VII. Is EPA required to use testing to 

evaluate component durability? 

Section 206(a)(1) clearly requires that 

EPA either conduct or require 

manufacturers to conduct testing as part 

of the certification process. At the same 

time, this section does not preclude EPA 

from also relying on information other 

than that derived from testing. This 

provision provides significant discretion 

to EPA to determine the appropriate mix 

of information from required testing and 

information from other sources for use 

in determining whether a vehicle or 

group of vehicles will be expected to 

comply with the emissions standards for 

their useful lives. 

In this case, EPA is clearly requiring 

a significant amount of emissions 

durability testing to be performed for 

purposes of certification. The required 

testing is focused on obtaining 

information useful to determine 

emissions deterioration. EPA believes 

that the kind of emissions durability 

testing required by EPA will provide 

information that is highly useful in 

determining how the emissions 

performance of the emissions control 

system can be expected to deteriorate 

over the useful life of the vehicle. The 

issue in this proposal concerns whether 

additional or different durability testing 

should also be required to obtain 

information to evaluate component 

durability, or whether it is appropriate 

to require manufacturers to develop 

information concerning component 

durability in a manner other than 

requiring testing of component 

durability. EPA believes that CAA 

section 206(a)(1), which limits required 

testing to testing ‘‘in such manner as 

[the Administrator] deems appropriate,’’

provides discretion in these 

circumstances on whether and how EPA 

requires testing to obtain information to 

evaluate component durability as part of 

the certification process. 42 U.S.C. 

7521(a)(1). 

EPA recognizes that there are various 

ways that information can be obtained 

on component durability for purposes of 

pre-production certification. One 

method that EPA has used in the past 

involves requiring whole vehicle 

mileage accumulation to test component 

durability, as was done under the AMA 

program. However whole vehicle 

mileage accumulation provides only a 

limited kind of information on 

component durability, basically a 

simple pass-fail test that is not very 

probative of component durability. 

Another method that EPA has used in 

the past involves requiring the 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 2847 

manufacturer to conduct an engineering 

analysis to evaluate component 

durability for the entire emissions 

control system. This allows the 

evaluation of a wide variety of different 

types of information, including 

information ranging from real world inuse experience to performance 

information on a supplier’s products 

and the supplier’s quality control 

practices and can include computer 

modeling of design performance. Actual 

physical testing of a product or system 

may make up only a small part and 

perhaps no part at all of the information 

used to perform such an engineering 

evaluation. EPA believes that in many 

ways that kind of engineering 

evaluation, tailored to the parts and 

systems at issue, can provide a more indepth and comprehensive evaluation 

and result in a better real world 

prediction of in-use durability than a 

simple pass-fail type of test using whole 

vehicle mileage accumulation on a preproduction prototype vehicle. 

Given the potential benefit for in-use 

emissions control in using such an 

engineering evaluation approach, EPA 

believes it is reasonable and within the 

discretion provided by section 206(a)(1) 

to consider an option requiring a 

manufacturer to conduct such an 

engineering evaluation of component 

durability, and not require the 

manufacturer to perform a specified test 

for component durability. This 

engineering evaluation would then be 

combined with the results of testing 

performed to evaluate emissions 

deterioration, as well as any other 

relevant information, in making the 

conformity determination required for 

issuance of a certificate. Under this 

engineering evaluation option, EPA 

would not specify a test procedure 

under section 206(d) for component 

durability, as EPA is not requiring 

component durability testing. EPA 

believes the requirement of section 

206(d) only applies where EPA requires 

testing to be conducted under section 

206(a)(1), as it does for evaluation of 

emissions deterioration. 

EPA is also considering requiring 

manufacturers to conduct a limited 

amount of whole vehicle aging to test 

component durability. Both options are 

discussed in more detail below. 

VIII. What options are being considered 

by EPA? 

EPA is today proposing three options 

to address component durability. Based 

upon further comments received, EPA 

intends to finalize one of these options. 

A. Retain the Good Engineering 

Judgement Determination on 

Component Durability 

In this option, EPA would retain the 

approach taken in the component 

durability regulations contained in the 

original CAP 2000 regulations (40 CFR 

86.1823–01(e), 86.1824–01(d), 86.1825–

01(e), and 86.1826–01(c)). Under CAP 

2000, EPA required the manufacturer to 

determine, using good engineering 

judgement, that all emission-related 

components are designed to operate 

properly for the full useful life of the 

vehicle in actual use. While the 

manufacturer did not need to submit the 

underlying engineering evaluation with 

its certification application, EPA 

reserved the right to evaluate the basis 

underlying this engineering 

determination (40 CFR 86.1844(g)(1)). 

EPA’s experience indicates that the 

basis for past determinations of 

component durability good engineering 

judgement came from a wide variety of 

sources. In some cases, the 

determination has been based on 

accelerated customer fleet vehicles or 

other durability mileage data, 

component bench testing, engineering 

analysis data, computer modeling data, 

purchase agreements, component 

specifications, or other information. 

However, it was never based on testing 

alone. Even though the basis for the 

good engineering judgement may 

include reliance on a limited amount of 

testing, in general, the preponderance of 

the data is derived from sources other 

than testing. 

EPA’s requirement to make the good 

engineering judgement determination 

does not constitute a requirement to do 

testing. Under this option, EPA would 

not specify what information 

manufacturers must rely on as a basis 

for making the good engineering 

judgement determination. Even though 

some of the information may be a result 

of some testing, EPA does not consider 

this a requirement to conduct testing, 

since testing is not required as a basis 

for the good engineering judgement 

statement and typically is, at most, a 

limited part of the engineering 

determination. Because testing is not 

required, EPA is not required to 

‘‘establish methods and procedures for 

making tests by regulation,’’ and section 

206(d) does not apply. 42 U.S.C. 

7525(d). 

B. Good Engineering Judgement 

Determination Combined With Whole 

Vehicle Testing for Worst-Case Vehicle 

Configuration 

This option would require 

manufacturers to continue to make the 

good engineering judgement 

determination, as discussed above in 

option A, but would also require 

manufacturers to conduct a limited 

amount of whole vehicle aging. This 

option would include the requirement 

to perform full useful life mileage 

accumulation, using either the EPA 

Standard Road Cycle (included in final 

rulemaking issued concurrently with 

this SNPRM), or a modified or 

alternative cycle approved by EPA. In 

this option EPA would allow any whole 

mileage accumulation cycle which EPA 

has approved for emission deterioration 

to be used for demonstrating component 

durability. 

The vehicle’s OBD system is designed 

to monitor most emission control 

components and report faults by 

illuminating malfunction indicator light 

(MIL). Consequently, EPA is proposing 

that the OBD light will be used to detect 

emission control component failures 

during mileage accumulation. The 

manufacturer must record any OBD MIL 

illumination during the course of the 

mileage accumulation and also record 

readiness codes and active fault codes 

on the OBD system proceeding and 

following each FTP test conducted. As 

a further demonstration of component 

durability, EPA is proposing that the 

vehicle demonstrate compliance with 

all applicable FTP standards following 

mileage accumulation. 

The same vehicle used for the 

component durability demonstration 

could also be used for emission 

deterioration purposes for either 

exhaust or evaporative emissions. Under 

this option, manufacturers would 

choose a vehicle expected to be ‘‘worst 

case’’ for emission component 

durability. Manufacturers would be 

allowed to apply the component 

durability demonstration from that 

vehicle to other vehicles across other 

test groups having components similar 

enough that the vehicle tested would be 

reasonably considered worst case 

(known as ‘‘carry across’’). EPA would 

also permit manufacturers to ‘‘carry 

over’’ a component durability 

demonstration from a previous model 

year to subsequent model years, when 

appropriate. Although EPA does not 

view it as essential, some limited wholevehicle testing in addition to good 

engineering judgement determination 

would provide a limited amount of 

additional component durability 

information using the entire vehicle 

emission control system operated in an 

integrated manner. This information 

would enhance the data received from 

the good engineering requirements that 

already come from a wide variety of 

sources. EPA would continue to 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS4
2848 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

9Manufacturers divide their motor vehicles into 

groups called ‘‘durability groups’’ which include 

vehicles which are likely to exhibit similar exhaust 

emission deterioration over their useful lives, based 

on those characteristics of current-technology 

vehicles that most significantly affect the 

deterioration of emission control over time. 

Durability groups are based on engine type, fuel 

type, fuel system, catalyst construction, type of 

precious metals used in the catalyst, and relative 

engine/catalyst size and loading rates. 

10An example of a new type of component or 

technology would be a manufacturer switching 

from vacuum-based EGR to electronic EGR. 

augment its evaluation of component 

durability with an assessment of the 

information from the defect reports, 

IUVP data, recall data, etc. 

We are limiting the whole-vehicle 

testing to a ‘‘worst case’’ configuration 

rather than requiring it for all durability 

groups 9 to limit the additional 

durability test burden to manufacturers, 

recognizing that EPA believes the whole 

vehicle aging provides only a limited 

benefit on top of that obtained from 

good engineering judgement 

determinations. One of the benefits of 

allowing bench-aging in evaluating 

emissions deterioration is that emission 

deterioration testing can be done much 

quicker than with whole-vehicle testing. 

Whole vehicle testing can take up to 

four months to complete, whereas bench 

aging can be completed within several 

weeks. The CAP 2000 rulemaking and 

the emissions deterioration regulations 

issues separately from this notice, 

provide highly valuable information on 

emission deterioration in a manner that 

minimizes the testing burden on 

manufacturers. Requiring whole-vehicle 

testing for all durability groups would 

effectively defeat this aspect of CAP 

2000 for many manufacturers, since 

those manufacturers that use bench 

aging would also be required to perform 

whole-vehicle testing, dramatically 

increasing their testing burden and it 

would provide only limited additional 

benefit in evaluating component 

durability. 

Because most of the emission control 

technologies and components used by 

manufacturers are very similar in design 

and function among their different 

vehicle models, we are confident that 

whole-vehicle test data from a ‘‘worst 

case’’ component durability vehicle in 

conjunction with the information from 

the manufacturer’s good engineering 

assessment will be sufficient for EPA to 

make a determination as to whether a 

manufacturer’s durability plan is 

acceptable. Since the emission control 

components are similar in design and 

function, one of the most significant 

differences between vehicle models is 

the location of the components on the 

vehicle. The worst case vehicle may 

likely be the vehicle that has 

‘‘packaging’’ constraints where some 

components have to be located on the 

vehicle in placements that may make 

them more susceptible to damage, wear, 

or failure. 

C. Good Engineering Judgement 

Determination Combined With Whole 

Vehicle Testing for Vehicle 

Configurations With New Types of 

Components or Technology 

This option would be identical to 

option B above except that instead of 

testing the ‘‘worst case’’ vehicle, the 

manufacturer would only test a vehicle 

when a new type of component or a new 

technology was being introduced. A 

new type of component or technology 

would be defined as a component or 

technology that has not been previously 

used in production by that 

manufacturer. 10 A manufacturer would 

have to get approval from EPA before 

determining whether a component 

would be considered new. New 

components or technologies not yet 

used on production vehicles but that 

have been used on prototype or 

development vehicles would be subject 

to the whole-vehicle mileage 

accumulation and testing. 

Requiring whole-vehicle testing for 

new types of technology would limit the 

testing to the vehicles where typically 

less is known about component 

durability. The information provided 

from the good engineering assessment 

would be used generally to assess 

component durability and this option 

would require additional information on 

component durability from wholevehicle testing for technologies or 

components that are new to a 

manufacturer, where they typically have 

less data or information to evaluate 

component durability. 

IX. Request for Comments 

EPA requests comments on each of 

these proposed options, in terms of their 

technical and legal merits. In particular, 

comments are requested on the 

following topics: 

• The burden of Options B and C on 

regulated entities, including supporting 

data for those conclusions, where 

possible. 

• The extent to which Options B and 

C provide any additional environmental 

benefit over Option A. 

• Whether whole-vehicle mileage 

accumulation and related emissions 

testing provides an adequate 

demonstration of component durability, 

and what other options exist for 

demonstrating component durability 

prior to certification. 

• Any comment which augment those 

already submitted to the Docket for this 

rulemaking. 

• Whether the options are consistent 

with section 206 of the CAA. 

X. What are the environmental and 

economic impacts? 

A. Environmental Impacts 

No quantifiable environmental 

impacts are anticipated by this proposed 

rule. Having appropriate procedures to 

address component durability in the 

certification process helps to ensure that 

the benefits already claimed in the 

regulations promulgating those 

standards are more likely to be realized. 

However, even absent this proposal, 

there are other requirements in place 

which help to ensure that manufacturers 

make durable emissions components: 

customer satisfaction, In-Use 

Verification Program (IUVP), and, EPA 

recall authority among others. 

B. Economic Impacts 

Under option A, there would be no 

economic impact. Manufacturers would 

be allowed to continue using their good 

engineering judgment to determine 

component durability. For options B 

and C there would be some economic 

impact. Some manufacturers use wholevehicle testing exclusively. For those 

manufacturers, there would be no need 

to perform any additional whole-vehicle 

testing for component durability 

purposes. Other manufacturers use a 

combination of whole-vehicle testing 

and bench testing. These manufacturers 

could choose to test their ‘‘worst case’’

vehicle or any new type of emission 

control components or technologies as 

part of their already existing wholevehicle test program. Thus, there would 

be no additional testing costs for them. 

For those manufacturers who perform 

bench testing exclusively, there would 

be some economic impact. For option B, 

we would only require a manufacturer 

to perform whole-vehicle testing for the 

‘‘worst case’’ vehicle configuration. 

Therefore, our cost estimate for option 

B is based on testing a single vehicle. 

We believe this same logic would apply 

for option C where a manufacturer is 

only required to perform whole-vehicle 

testing for new types of emission control 

components or technologies. We feel 

that for option C, a manufacturer would 

only be required to test a single vehicle 

as well. Our estimate of total annual 

cost of whole-vehicle testing for 

component durability is based on a 

single vehicle tested over the Standard 

Road Cycle for a useful life of 120,000 

miles with periodic FTP emission tests. 

We estimated two FTP tests for the 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 2849 

11These numbers were derived from the CAP 

2000 rulemaking and can be found in the Support 

Document on the EPA Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq. We choose to use the more 

conservative 1999 dollar estimates, since the 

Producer Price Index (PPI) for 2004 actually 

decreased from the 1999 index value. The index 

used can be found on the U.S. Department of Labor 

Web site at http://www.data.bls.gov. Series Id: 

PCU336110336110. 

minimum estimate and six FTP tests for 

the maximum estimate with costs 

ranging from $800 to $1,200 per FTP 

test. We did not include any 

Supplemental Federal Test Procedure 

(SFTP) tests. 

Table X. B–1 presents the total annual 

cost for industry to perform wholevehicle testing on a ‘‘worst case’’ vehicle 

or a vehicle equipped with a new type 

of emission control component or 

technology. We did not include any 

small volume manufacturers in our 

estimate. For a more conservative 

estimate, we included all manufacturers 

regardless of whether they currently 

perform whole-vehicle testing for 

emission deterioration. The estimated 

annual cost for industry to perform 

whole-vehicle testing would range from 

$3,750,600 to $5,401,200. 

TABLE X.—B–1.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL

COST TO INDUSTRY FOR WHOLE-VEHICLE TESTING

Minimum cost Maximum cost 

$3,750,600 $5,401,200 

As can be seen in Table X. B–2, the 

estimated annual cost per manufacturer 

to perform whole-vehicle testing on a 

‘‘worst case’’ vehicle or a vehicle 

equipped with a new type of emission 

control component or technology would 

range from $178,600 to $257,200.11

TABLE X.—B–2.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL

COST PER MANUFACTURER FOR

WHOLE-VEHICLE TESTING

Minimum cost Maximum cost 

$178,600 $257,200 

EPA has requested comment on the 

potential burden associated with the 

options it considered to require a 

minimum amount of whole-vehicle 

mileage accumulation. (See Sec. IV. 

above). 

XI. What are the opportunities for 

public participation? 

A. Copies of This Proposal and Other 

Related Information 

1. Docket 

EPA has established an official public 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. OAR–2002–0079. The official 

public docket consists of the documents 

specifically referenced in this action, 

any public comments received, and 

other information related to this action. 

Although a part of the official docket, 

the public docket does not include 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. The official public 

docket is the collection of materials that 

is available for public viewing by 

referencing Docket No. OAR–2002–0079 

at the EPA Air Docket Section, (see 

ADDRESSES section above). You may 

submit comments electronically, by 

mail, or through hand delivery/courier 

as described below. To ensure proper 

receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate 

docket identification number in the 

subject line on the first page of your 

comment. Please ensure that your 

comments are submitted within the 

specified comment period. Comments 

received after the close of the comment 

period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not 

required to consider these late 

comments. If you wish to submit CBI or 

information that is otherwise protected 

by statute, please follow the instructions 

in Section V.B.3 Do not use EPA 

Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or 

information protected by statute. 

2. Electronic Access 

You may access this Federal Register 

document electronically through the 

EPA Internet under the ‘‘Federal 

Register’’ listings at http:// 

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic 

version of the public docket is available 

through EPA’s electronic public docket 

and comment system, EPA Dockets. You 

may use EPA Dockets at http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or 

view public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. Once in the 

system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in the 

appropriate docket identification 

number. 

Certain types of information will not 

be placed in the EPA Dockets. 

Information claimed as CBI and other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute, which is not 

included in the official public docket, 

will not be available for public viewing 

in EPA’s electronic public docket. EPA’s 

policy is that copyrighted material will 

not be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket but will be available only in 

printed, paper form in the official public 

docket. To the extent feasible, publicly 

available docket materials will be made 

available in EPA’s electronic public 

docket. When a document is selected 

from the index list in EPA Dockets, the 

system will identify whether the 

document is available for viewing in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

Although not all docket materials may 

be available electronically, you may still 

access any of the publicly available 

docket materials through the docket 

facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA 

intends to work towards providing 

electronic access to all of the publicly 

available docket materials through 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

For public commenters, it is 

important to note that EPA’s policy is 

that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing in EPA’s electronic public 

docket as EPA receives them and 

without change, unless the comment 

contains copyrighted material, CBI, or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. When EPA 

identifies a comment containing 

copyrighted material, EPA will provide 

a reference to that material in the 

version of the comment that is placed in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. The 

entire printed comment, including the 

copyrighted material, will be available 

in the public docket. 

Public comments submitted on 

computer disks that are mailed or 

delivered to the docket will be 

transferred to EPA’s electronic public 

docket. Public comments that are 

mailed or delivered to the Docket will 

be scanned and placed in EPA’s 

electronic public docket. Where 

practical, physical objects will be 

photographed, and the photograph will 

be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket along with a brief description 

written by the docket staff. 

B. Submitting Comments on This 

Proposal 

You may submit comments 

electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or 

through hand delivery/courier. To 

ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify 

the appropriate docket identification 

number in the subject line on the first 

page of your comment. Please ensure 

that your comments are submitted 

within the specified comment period. 

Comments received after the close of the 

comment period will be marked ‘‘late.’’


cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS4
2850 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

EPA is not required to consider these 

late comments. 

1. Electronically 

If you submit an electronic comment, 

EPA recommends that you include your 

name, mailing address, and an e-mail 

address or other contact information in 

the body of your comment. Also include 

this contact information on the outside 

of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and 

in any cover letter accompanying the 

disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you 

can be identified as the submitter of the 

comment and allows EPA to contact you 

in case EPA cannot read your comment 

due to technical difficulties or needs 

further information on the substance of 

your comment. EPA’s policy is that EPA 

will not edit your comment, and any 

identifying or contact information 

provided in the body of a comment will 

be included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the official public docket, 

and made available in EPA’s electronic 

public docket. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

a. EPA Dockets 

Your use of EPA’s electronic public 

docket to submit comments to EPA 

electronically is EPA’s preferred method 

for receiving comments. Go directly to 

EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/ 

edocket, and follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To access EPA’s electronic public 

docket from the EPA Internet Home 

Page, select ‘‘Information Sources,’’

‘‘Dockets,’’ and ‘‘EPA Dockets.’’ Once in 

the system, select ‘‘Quick Search,’’ and 

then key in Docket ID No. OAR–2002–

0079. The system is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, which means EPA will 

not know your identity, e-mail address, 

or other contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

b. E-mail 

Comments may be sent by electronic 

mail to hormes.linda@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID No. OAR–2002–

0079. In contrast to EPA’s electronic 

public docket, EPA’s e-mail system is 

not an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system. If 

you send an e-mail comment directly to 

the Docket without going through EPA’s 

electronic public docket, EPA’s e-mail 

system automatically captures your email address. E-mail addresses that are 

automatically captured by EPA’s e-mail 

system are included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the official 

public docket, and made available in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

c. Disk or CD ROM 

You may submit comments on a disk 

or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing 

address identified in section I.C.2. 

These electronic submissions will be 

accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file 

format. Avoid the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption. 

2. By Mail 

Send your comments to: Air Docket, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, 

Attention Docket ID No. OAR–2002–

0079. 

3. By Hand Delivery or Courier 

Deliver your comments to: EPA 

Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, 

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC., Attention 

Docket ID No. OAR–2002–0079. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. 

4. By Facsimile 

Fax your comments to: (202) 566–

1741, Attention Docket ID. No. OAR–

2002–0079. 

5. Submitting Comments With 

Proprietary Information 

Commenters who wish to submit 

proprietary information for 

consideration should clearly separate 

such information from other comments 

by (1) labeling proprietary information 

‘‘Confidential Business Information’’

and (2) sending proprietary information 

directly to the contact person listed (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and 

not to the public docket. This helps 

insure that proprietary information is 

not inadvertently placed in the docket. 

If a commenter wants EPA to use a 

submission labeled as confidential 

business information as part of the basis 

for the final rule, then a nonconfidential version of the document, 

which summarizes the key data or 

information, should be sent to the 

docket. 

Information covered by a claim of 

confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA 

only to the extent allowed and by the 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. 

If no claim of confidentiality 

accompanies the submission when it is 

received by EPA, the submission may be 

made available to the public without 

notifying the commenters. 

C. Public Hearing 

Anyone wishing to present testimony 

about this proposal at the public hearing 

(see DATES) should notify the general 

contact person (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than five 

days prior to the day of the hearing. The 

contact person should be given an 

estimate of the time required for the 

presentation of testimony and 

notification of any need for audio/visual 

equipment. Testimony will be 

scheduled on a first come, first serve 

basis. A sign-up sheet will be available 

at the registration table the morning of 

the hearing for scheduling those who 

have not notified the contact earlier. 

This testimony will be scheduled on a 

first come, first serve basis to follow the 

previously scheduled testimony. 

EPA requests that approximately 50 

copies of the statement or material to be 

presented be brought to the hearing for 

distribution to the audience. In 

addition, EPA would find it helpful to 

receive an advanced copy of any 

statement or material to be presented at 

the hearing at least one week before the 

scheduled hearing date. This is to give 

EPA staff adequate time to review such 

material before the hearing. Such 

advanced copies should be submitted to 

the contact person listed. 

The official records of the hearing will 

be kept open for 30 days following the 

hearing to allow submission of rebuttal 

and supplementary testimony. All such 

submissions should be directed to the 

Air Docket Section, Docket No. OAR–

2002–0079 (see ADDRESSES). The 

hearing will be conducted informally, 

and technical rules of evidence will not 

apply. A written transcript of the 

hearing will be placed in the above 

docket for review. Anyone desiring to 

purchase a copy of the transcript should 

make individual arrangements with the 

court reporter recording the 

proceedings. 

XII. What Are the Administrative 

Requirements for This Proposed Rule? 

A. E.O. 12866: Regulatory Planning and 

Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735 October 4, 1993), EPA must 

determine whether the regulatory action 

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) review and the requirements of 

this Executive Order. The Order defines 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one 

that is likely to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, Local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 2851 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 and is therefore 

not subject to OMB review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Today’s action proposes three 

different options under consideration 

for component durability testing. If 

option A is finalized, this action would 

not impose any new information 

collection burden. However, if options B 

or C were finalized, new information 

collection requirements would be 

imposed. The information collection 

requirements for options B or C in this 

proposed rule have been submitted for 

approval to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

The Information Collection Request 

(ICR) document prepared by EPA has 

been assigned EPA ICR number 783.49. 

The information being collected is to 

be used by EPA to ensure that new lightduty vehicles and light-duty trucks 

comply with applicable emissions 

standards through certification 

requirements including whole-vehicle 

testing for emission component 

durability assurance. 

The annual public reporting and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection 

of information is estimated to average 88 

hours per response, with collection 

required annually. The estimated 

number of respondents is 21. The total 

annual cost of the program is estimated 

to be $3,750,600 per year and includes 

no annualized capital costs, $101,640 in 

operating and maintenance costs, at a 

total of 1,848 hours per year. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, EPA 

has established a public docket for this 

rule, which includes this ICR, under 

Docket ID number. Submit any 

comments related to the ICR for this 

proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See 

‘‘Addresses’’ section at the beginning of 

this notice for where to submit 

comments to EPA. Send comments to 

OMB at the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 

days after January 17, 2006, a comment 

to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it by February 16, 

2006. The final rule will respond to any 

OMB or public comments on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

that manufactures automobiles as 

defined by NAIC code 336111. Based on 

Small Business Administration size 

standards, a small business for this 

NAIC code is defined as a manufacturer 

having less than 1000 employees; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The requirements are only 

applicable to manufacturers of motor 

vehicles, a group which does not 

contain a substantial number of small 

entities. Out of a total of approximately 

80 automotive manufacturers subject to 

today’s proposal, EPA estimates that 

approximately 15–20 of these could be 

classified as small entities based on SBA 

size standards. EPA’s CAP 2000 

compliance regulations include 

numerous regulatory relief provisions 

for such small entities. Those provisions 

remain in effect and are not impacted by 

today’s proposal. Thus, we have 

determined that small entities will not 

experience any economic impact as a 

result of this proposal. We continue to 

be interested in the potential impacts of 

the proposed rule on small entities and 

welcome comments on issues related to 

such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory action on state, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and proposed 

rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by state, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any one year. Before 

promulgation an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most 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 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS4
2852 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

plan. The plan must provide for 

notifying potentially affected small 

governments, enabling officials of 

affected small governments to have 

meaningful and timely input in the 

development of our regulatory proposals 

with significant federal 

intergovernmental mandates. The plan 

must also provide for informing, 

educating, and advising small 

governments on compliance with the 

regulatory requirements. 

EPA believes this proposed rule 

contains no federal mandates for state, 

local, or tribal governments. Nor does 

this rule have federal mandates that may 

result in the expenditures of $100 

million or more in any year by the 

private sector as defined by the 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA. 

Nothing in the proposed rule would 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’

This proposed rule will impose no 

direct compliance costs on states. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (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 proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175. 

The requirements proposed by this 

action impact private sector businesses, 

particularly the automotive and engine 

manufacturing industries. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Children’s 

Health Protection 

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be economically 

significant as defined under E.O. 12866, 

and (2) concerns an environmental 

health or safety risk that EPA has reason 

to believe may have a disproportionate 

effect on children. If the regulatory 

action meets both criteria, the Agency 

must evaluate the environmental health 

or safety effects of the planned rule on 

children, and explain why the planned 

regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by the 

Agency. 

EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying 

only to those regulatory actions that are 

based on health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5–

501 of the Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This final rule 

is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it 

is based on technology performance and 

not on health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs the 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, 

business practices, etc.) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA 

requires EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the 

Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

This proposed rule does not involve 

consideration of any new technical 

standards. The durability test 

procedures that EPA is proposing are 

unique and have not been previously 

published in the public domain. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Motor vehicle 

pollution, Confidential business 

information, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 29, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, part 86 of title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

Draft Regulatory Language for Option A 

PART 86—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 

FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY 

VEHICLES AND ENGINES 

1. The authority citation for part 86 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart S—General Compliance 

Provisions for Control of Air Pollution 

From New and In-use Light-duty 

Vehicles, Light-duty Trucks, and 

Complete Otto-cycle Heavy-duty 

Vehicles 

2. Amend § 86.1823–08 to revise 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1823–08 Durability demonstration 

procedures for exhaust emissions. 

* * * * * 

(g) Emission component durability. 

The manufacturer shall use good 

engineering judgment to determine that 

all emission-related components are 

designed to operate properly for the full 

useful life of the vehicles in actual use. 

* * * * * 

3. Amend § 86.1824–08 to revise 

paragraph (h) to read as follows: 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 2853 

§ 86.1824–08 Durability demonstration 

procedures for evaporative emissions. 

* * * * * 

(h) Emission component durability. 

The manufacturer shall use good 

engineering judgment to determine that 

all evaporative emission-related 

components are designed to operate 

properly for the full useful life of the 

vehicles in actual use. 

* * * * * 

4. Amend § 86.1825–08 to revise 

paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1825–08 Durability demonstration 

procedures for refueling emissions. 

* * * * * 

(h) Emission component durability. 

The manufacturer shall use good 

engineering judgment to determine that 

all emission-related components are 

designed to operate properly for the full 

useful life of the vehicles in actual use. 

* * * * * 

5. Amend § 86.1826–01 to revise 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1826–01 Assigned deterioration 

factors for small volume manufacturers and 

small volume test groups. 

* * * * * 

(c) Emission component durability. 

The manufacturer shall use good 

engineering judgment to determine that 

all emission-related components are 

designed to operate properly for the full 

useful life of the vehicles in actual use. 

Draft Regulatory Language for Option B 

6. Amend § 86.1823–08 to revise 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1823–08 Durability demonstration 

procedures for exhaust emissions. 

* * * * * 

(g) Emission component durability. 

Manufacturers must determine that all 

exhaust emission-related components 

are designed to operate properly for the 

full useful life of the vehicles in actual 

use. The manufacturer must 

demonstrate emission component 

durability using the following 

procedures. 

(1) The manufacturer must determine 

using good engineering judgement the 

vehicle (or vehicles) that are worst case 

for component durability. In making 

this determination the manufacturer 

must evaluate their entire product line. 

For the vehicles that will be 

represented, the manufacturer must 

consider at a minimum all the following 

information: 

(i) The past in-use history of 

component durability for the emission 

related parts; 

(ii) The effect of the vehicle 

environment (temperature, flow rate, 

exhaust constituents, vibration, 

exposure to elements etc.) on the 

durability of the part; 

(iii) How sensitive in-use emission 

compliance is to the potential failure of 

a particular part; and 

(iv) If the design of the part is new 

(without proven in-use component 

durability and emission compliance). 

(2) For the vehicle (or vehicles) 

identified as worst case in paragraph 

(g)(1) of this section, the manufacturer 

must conduct full useful life mileage 

accumulation on a whole vehicle with 

all emission control hardware installed 

and operating. The mileage 

accumulation procedure used must 

meet the requirements of either 

paragraph (c) or paragraph (e) (1) of this 

section. The mileage accumulation must 

be conducted either on the road or on 

a vehicle dynamometer; it may not be 

conducted on an engine dynamometer 

for this purpose. 

(3) The manufacturer must conduct at 

least one FTP test following completion 

of full useful life mileage accumulation. 

Up to three FTP tests may be conducted. 

If more than one test is conducted the 

emission results are averaged. Prior to 

conducting the testing the manufacturer 

must assure that all OBD readiness 

codes are set (completed). Up to 100 

miles of off-cycle mileage accumulation 

may be conducted to achieve the 

completion of all OBD monitoring. 

(4) The manufacturer must record any 

OBD illumination during the course of 

the mileage accumulation and must 

record readiness codes and active fault 

codes on the OBD system preceding and 

following each test conducted under the 

provisions of paragraph (g)(3) of this 

section. 

(5) If the OBD light becomes 

illuminated during the course of 

mileage accumulation, the manufacturer 

must investigate the cause of the OBD 

illumination and record the active fault 

code that caused illumination of the 

light. 

(6) To demonstrate acceptable 

component durability: 

(i) The test results (or the average of 

multiple test results) must comply with 

all applicable emission standards; and 

(ii) The OBD system must not set any 

valid active fault codes that pertain to 

emission related parts or systems during 

the course of mileage accumulation, 

including before and after testing. 

* * * * * 

7. Amend § 86.1824–08 to revise 

paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1824–08 Durability demonstration 

procedures for evaporative emissions. 

* * * * * 

(h) Emission component durability. 

Manufacturers must determine that all 

evaporative emission-related 

components are designed to operate 

properly for the full useful life of the 

vehicles in actual use. The manufacturer 

must demonstrate emission component 

durability using the following 

procedures. 

(1) The manufacturer must determine 

using good engineering judgement the 

vehicle (or vehicles) that are worst case 

for component durability. In making 

this determination the manufacturer 

must evaluate their entire product line. 

For the vehicles that will be 

represented, the manufacturer must 

consider at a minimum all the following 

information: 

(i) The past in-use history of 

component durability for the emission 

related parts; 

(ii) The effect of the vehicle 

environment (temperature, flow rate, 

exhaust constituents, vibration, 

exposure to elements etc.) on the 

durability of the part; 

(iii) How sensitive in-use emission 

compliance is to the potential failure of 

a particular part; and 

(iv) If the design of the part is new 

(without proven in-use component 

durability and emission compliance). 

(2) For the vehicle (or vehicles) 

identified as worst case in paragraph 

(g)(1) of this section, the manufacturer 

must conduct full useful life mileage 

accumulation on a whole vehicle with 

all emission control hardware installed 

and operating. The mileage 

accumulation procedure used must 

meet the requirements of either 

paragraph (c) or paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section. The mileage accumulation must 

be conducted either on the road or on 

a vehicle dynamometer; it may not be 

conducted on an engine dynamometer 

for this purpose. 

(3) The manufacturer must conduct at 

least one evaporative 2-day test 

following completion of full useful life 

mileage accumulation. Up to three tests 

may be conducted. If more than one test 

is conducted the emission results are 

averaged. Prior to conducting the testing 

the manufacturer must assure that all 

OBD readiness codes are set 

(completed). Up to 100 miles of offcycle mileage accumulation may be 

conducted to achieve the completion of 

all OBD monitoring. 

(4) The manufacturer must record any 

OBD illumination during the course of 

the mileage accumulation and must 

record readiness codes and active fault 

codes on the OBD system preceding and 

following each test conducted under the 

provisions of paragraph (g)(3) of this 

section. 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS4
2854 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

(5) If the OBD light becomes 

illuminated during the course of 

mileage accumulation, the manufacturer 

must investigate the cause of the OBD 

illumination and record the active fault 

code that caused illumination of the 

light. 

(6) To demonstrate acceptable 

component durability: 

(i) The test results (or the average of 

multiple test results) must comply with 

all applicable emission standards; and 

(ii) The OBD system must not set any 

valid active fault codes that pertain to 

emission related parts or systems during 

the course of mileage accumulation, 

including before and after testing. 

* * * * * 

8. Amend § 86.1825–08 to revise 

paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1825–08 Durability demonstration 

procedures for refueling emissions. 

* * * * * 

(h) Emission component durability. 

Manufacturers must determine that all 

refueling emission-related components 

are designed to operate properly for the 

full useful life of the vehicles in actual 

use. The manufacturer must 

demonstrate component durability 

using the following procedures. 

(1) The manufacturer must determine 

using good engineering judgement the 

vehicle (or vehicles) that are worst case 

for refueling component durability. In 

making this determination the 

manufacturer must evaluate their entire 

product line. For the vehicles that will 

be represented, the manufacturer must 

consider at a minimum all the following 

information: 

(i) The past in-use history of 

component durability for the emission 

related parts; 

(ii) The effect of the vehicle 

environment (temperature, flow rate, 

exhaust constituents, vibration, 

exposure to elements etc.) on the 

durability of the part; 

(iii) How sensitive in-use emission 

compliance is to the potential failure of 

a particular part; and 

(iv) If the design of the part is new 

(without proven in-use component 

durability and emission compliance). 

(2) For the vehicle (or vehicles) 

identified as worst case in paragraph 

(g)(1)of this section, the manufacturer 

must conduct full useful life mileage 

accumulation on a whole vehicle with 

all emission control hardware installed 

and operating. The mileage 

accumulation procedure used must 

meet the requirements of either 

paragraph (c) or paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section. The mileage accumulation must 

be conducted either on the road or on 

a vehicle dynamometer; it may not be 

conducted on an engine dynamometer 

for this purpose. 

(3) The manufacturer must conduct at 

least one refueling test following 

completion of full useful life mileage 

accumulation. Up to three tests may be 

conducted. If more than one test is 

conducted the emission results are 

averaged. Prior to conducting the testing 

the manufacturer must assure that all 

OBD readiness codes are set 

(completed). Up to 100 miles of offcycle mileage accumulation may be 

conducted to achieve the completion of 

all OBD monitoring. 

(4) The manufacturer must record any 

OBD illumination during the course of 

the mileage accumulation and must 

record readiness codes and active fault 

codes on the OBD system preceding and 

following each test conducted under the 

provisions of paragraph (g)(3) of this 

section. 

(5) If the OBD light becomes 

illuminated during the course of 

mileage accumulation, the manufacturer 

must investigate the cause of the OBD 

illumination and record the active fault 

code that caused illumination of the 

light. 

(6) To demonstrate acceptable 

component durability: 

(i) The test results (or the average of 

multiple test results) must comply with 

all applicable emission standards; and 

(ii) The OBD system must not set any 

valid active fault codes that pertain to 

emission related parts or systems during 

the course of mileage accumulation, 

including before and after testing. 

* * * * * 

Draft Regulatory Language for Option C 

9. Amend § 86.1823–08 to revise 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1823–08 Durability demonstration 

procedures for exhaust emissions. 

* * * * * 

(g) Emission component durability. 

Manufacturers must determine that all 

exhaust emission-related components 

are designed to operate properly for the 

full useful life of the vehicles in actual 

use. The manufacturer must 

demonstrate emission component 

durability using the following 

procedures. 

(1) The manufacturer must determine 

using good engineering judgement the 

vehicle (or vehicles) that use a new 

component or technology for 

component durability. In making this 

determination the manufacturer must 

evaluate their entire product line. For 

the vehicles that will be represented, the 

manufacturer must consider at a 

minimum all the following information: 

(i) If the design of the part is new 

(without proven in-use component 

durability and emission compliance); 

(ii) The effect of the vehicle 

environment (temperature, flow rate, 

exhaust constituents, vibration, 

exposure to elements etc.) on the 

durability of the part; and 

(iii) How sensitive in-use emission 

compliance is to the potential failure of 

a particular part. 

(2) For the vehicle (or vehicles) 

identified as worst case in paragraph 

(g)(1)of this section, the manufacturer 

must conduct full useful life mileage 

accumulation on a whole vehicle with 

all emission control hardware installed 

and operating. The mileage 

accumulation procedure used must 

meet the requirements of either 

paragraph (c) or paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section. The mileage accumulation must 

be conducted either on the road or on 

a vehicle dynamometer; it may not be 

conducted on an engine dynamometer 

for this purpose. 

(3) The manufacturer must conduct at 

least one FTP test following completion 

of full useful life mileage accumulation. 

Up to three FTP tests may be conducted. 

If more than one test is conducted the 

emission results are averaged. Prior to 

conducting the testing the manufacturer 

must assure that all OBD readiness 

codes are set (completed). Up to 100 

miles of off-cycle mileage accumulation 

may be conducted to achieve the 

completion of all OBD monitoring. 

(4) The manufacturer must record any 

OBD illumination during the course of 

the mileage accumulation and must 

record readiness codes and active fault 

codes on the OBD system preceding and 

following each test conducted under the 

provisions of paragraph (g)(3) of this 

section. 

(5) If the OBD light becomes 

illuminated during the course of 

mileage accumulation, the manufacturer 

must investigate the cause of the OBD 

illumination and record the active fault 

code that caused illumination of the 

light. 

(6) To demonstrate acceptable 

component durability: 

(i) The test results (or the average of 

multiple test results) must comply with 

all applicable emission standards; and 

(ii) The OBD system must not set any 

valid active fault codes that pertain to 

emission related parts or systems during 

the course of mileage accumulation, 

including before and after testing. 

* * * * * 

10. Amend § 86.1824–08 to revise 

paragraph (h) to read as follows: 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 2855 

§ 86.1824–08 Durability demonstration 

procedures for evaporative emissions. 

* * * * * 

(h) Emission component durability. 

Manufacturers must determine that all 

evaporative emission-related 

components are designed to operate 

properly for the full useful life of the 

vehicles in actual use. The manufacturer 

must demonstrate emission component 

durability using the following 

procedures. 

(1) The manufacturer must determine 

using good engineering judgement the 

vehicle (or vehicles) that use a new 

component or technology for 

component durability. In making this 

determination the manufacturer must 

evaluate their entire product line. For 

the vehicles that will be represented, the 

manufacturer must consider at a 

minimum all the following information: 

(i) If the design of the part is new 

(without proven in-use component 

durability and emission compliance); 

(ii) The effect of the vehicle 

environment (temperature, flow rate, 

exhaust constituents, vibration, 

exposure to elements etc.) on the 

durability of the part; and 

(iii) How sensitive in-use emission 

compliance is to the potential failure of 

a particular part. 

(2) For the vehicle (or vehicles) 

identified as worst case in paragraph 

(g)(1) of this section, the manufacturer 

must conduct full useful life mileage 

accumulation on a whole vehicle with 

all emission control hardware installed 

and operating. The mileage 

accumulation procedure used must 

meet the requirements of either 

paragraph (c) or paragraph (e) (1) of this 

section. The mileage accumulation must 

be conducted either on the road or on 

a vehicle dynamometer; it may not be 

conducted on an engine dynamometer 

for this purpose. 

(3) The manufacturer must conduct at 

least one evaporative 2-day test 

following completion of full useful life 

mileage accumulation. Up to three tests 

may be conducted. If more than one test 

is conducted the emission results are 

averaged. Prior to conducting the testing 

the manufacturer must assure that all 

OBD readiness codes are set 

(completed). Up to 100 miles of offcycle mileage accumulation may be 

conducted to achieve the completion of 

all OBD monitoring. 

(4) The manufacturer must record any 

OBD illumination during the course of 

the mileage accumulation and must 

record readiness codes and active fault 

codes on the OBD system preceding and 

following each test conducted under the 

provisions of paragraph (g)(3) of this 

section. 

(5) If the OBD light becomes 

illuminated during the course of 

mileage accumulation, the manufacturer 

must investigate the cause of the OBD 

illumination and record the active fault 

code that caused illumination of the 

light. 

(6) To demonstrate acceptable 

component durability: 

(i) The test results (or the average of 

multiple test results) must comply with 

all applicable emission standards; and 

(ii) The OBD system must not set any 

valid active fault codes that pertain to 

emission related parts or systems during 

the course of mileage accumulation, 

including before and after testing. 

* * * * * 

11. Amend § 86.1825–08 to revise 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1825–08 Durability demonstration 

procedures for refueling emissions. 

* * * * * 

(e) Emission component durability. 

Manufacturers must determine that all 

refueling emission-related components 

are designed to operate properly for the 

full useful life of the vehicles in actual 

use. The manufacturer must 

demonstrate component durability 

using the following procedures. 

(1) The manufacturer must determine 

using good engineering judgement the 

vehicle (or vehicles) that use a new 

component or technology for 

component durability. In making this 

determination the manufacturer must 

evaluate their entire product line. For 

the vehicles that will be represented, the 

manufacturer must consider at a 

minimum all the following information: 

(i) If the design of the part is new 

(without proven in-use component 

durability and emission compliance); 

(ii) The effect of the vehicle 

environment (temperature, flow rate, 

exhaust constituents, vibration, 

exposure to elements etc.) on the 

durability of the part; and 

(iii) How sensitive in-use emission 

compliance is to the potential failure of 

a particular part. 

(2) For the vehicle (or vehicles) 

identified as worst case in paragraph 

(g)(1)of this section, the manufacturer 

must conduct full useful life mileage 

accumulation on a whole vehicle with 

all emission control hardware installed 

and operating. The mileage 

accumulation procedure used must 

meet the requirements of either 

paragraph (c) or paragraph (e) (1) of this 

section. The mileage accumulation must 

be conducted either on the road or on 

a vehicle dynamometer; it may not be 

conducted on an engine dynamometer 

for this purpose. 

(3) The manufacturer must conduct at 

least one refueling test following 

completion of full useful life mileage 

accumulation. Up to three tests may be 

conducted. If more than one test is 

conducted the emission results are 

averaged. Prior to conducting the testing 

the manufacturer must assure that all 

OBD readiness codes are set 

(completed). Up to 100 miles of offcycle mileage accumulation may be 

conducted to achieve the completion of 

all OBD monitoring. 

(4) The manufacturer must record any 

OBD illumination during the course of 

the mileage accumulation and must 

record readiness codes and active fault 

codes on the OBD system preceding and 

following each test conducted under the 

provisions of paragraph (g)(3) of this 

section. 

(5) If the OBD light becomes 

illuminated during the course of 

mileage accumulation, the manufacturer 

must investigate the cause of the OBD 

illumination and record the active fault 

code that caused illumination of the 

light. 

(6) To demonstrate acceptable 

component durability: 

(i) The test results (or the average of 

multiple test results) must comply with 

all applicable emission standards; and 

(ii) The OBD system must not set any 

valid active fault codes that pertain to 

emission related parts or systems during 

the course of mileage accumulation, 

including before and after testing. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 06–73 Filed 1–13–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS4