federal register

54851

Tuesday

October 22, 1996

Part II

Environmental

Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 86

Motor Vehicle Emissions Federal Test

Procedure Revisions; Final Regulations
54852 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 86

[FRL–5558–3]

RIN 2060–AE27

Final Regulations for Revisions to the

Federal Test Procedure for Emissions

From Motor Vehicles

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rulemaking (FRM).

SUMMARY: This rulemaking revises the

tailpipe emission portions of the Federal

Test Procedure (FTP) for light-duty

vehicles (LDVs) and light-duty trucks

(LDTs). The primary new element of the

rulemaking is a Supplemental Federal

Test Procedure (SFTP) designed to

address shortcomings with the current

FTP in the representation of aggressive

(high speed and/or high acceleration)

driving behavior, rapid speed

fluctuations, driving behavior following

startup, and use of air conditioning. An

element of the rulemaking that also

affects the preexisting ‘‘conventional’’

FTP is a new set of requirements

designed to more accurately reflect real

road forces on the test dynamometer.

The Agency is also finalizing new

emissions standards for the new control

areas with a specified phase-in period

for these standards. These regulations

are expected to reduce emissions from

LDVs and LDTs by two percent for nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC), 11

percent for carbon monoxide (CO), and

nine percent for oxides of nitrogen

(NOX).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule becomes

effective on December 23, 1996, except

for §§ 86.000–7,86.000–8, 86.000–9,

86.001–9, 86.004–9, 86.000–21, 86.001–

21, 86.000–23, 86.001–23, 86.000–24,

86.001–24, 86.000–25, 86.001–25,

86.000–26, 86.001–26, 86.000–28,

86.001–28, 86.004–28, 86.108–00,

86.129–00, 86.159–00, 86.160–00,

86.161–00, 86.162–00, 86.162–03, and

86.163–03 which contain information

collection requirements that have not

been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). EPA

will publish a document in the Federal

Register announcing the effective date

of those sections. The incorporation by

reference of certain publications listed

in the regulations is approved by the

Director of the Federal Register as of

December 23, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this

final rulemaking have been placed in

Docket No. A–92–64. The docket is

located at the Air Docket Section, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Room M–1500, Waterside

Mall, Washington, DC 20460 (phone

202/260–7548; Fax 202/260–4400), and

may be inspected weekdays between

8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. A reasonable fee

may be charged by EPA for copying

docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

German, Vehicle Programs and

Compliance Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions

Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann

Arbor, Michigan, 48105. Telephone

(313) 668–4214.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action are those which manufacture and

sell motor vehicles in the United States.

Regulated categories and entities

include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry ........ New motor vehicle manufacturers.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

product is regulated by this action, you

should carefully examine the

applicability criteria in § 86.094–1 of

title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular product, consult the

person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Electronic Availability

The Preamble, Regulations, Response

to Comments, and Regulatory Impact

Analysis (RIA) are available

electronically from the EPA Internet site

and via dial-up modem on the

Technology Transfer Network (TTN),

which is an electronic bulletin board

system (BBS) operated by EPA’s Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

Both services are free of charge, except

for your existing cost of Internet

connectivity or the cost of the phone

call to TTN. Users are able to access and

download files on their first call using

a personal computer per the following

information. The official Federal

Register version is made available on

the day of publication on the primary

Internet sites listed below. The EPA

Office of Mobile Sources also publishes

these notices on the secondary Internet

sites listed below and on TTN.

Internet:

World Wide Web:

http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/

EPA–AIR/

or http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/

Gopher:

gopher.epa.gov Follow menus: Rules:

EnviroSubset:Air

or gopher.epa.gov Follow menus:

Offices:Air:OMS

FTP:

ftp.epa.gov Directory: pub/gopher/

fedrgstr/EPA–AIR/

or ftp.epa.gov Directory: pub/gopher/

OMS/

TTN BBS:

919–541–5742 (1,200–14,400 bps, no

parity, eight data bits, one stop bit)

Off-line: Mondays from 8:00–12:00

Noon ET

Voice helpline: 919–541–5384

A user who has not called TTN

previously will first be required to

answer some basic informational

questions for registration purposes.

After completing the registration

process, proceed through the following

menu choices from the Top Menu to

access information on this rulemaking.

<T> GATEWAY TO TTN TECHNICAL

AREAS (Bulletin Boards)

<M> OMS—Mobile Sources Information

<K> Rulemaking & Reporting

<1≥ Light Duty

<1> File area #1 FTP Review

At this point, the system will list all

available files in the chosen category in

reverse chronological order with brief

descriptions. To download a file, select

a transfer protocol that is supported by

the terminal software on your own

computer, then set your own software to

receive the file using that same protocol.

If unfamiliar with handling

compressed (i.e. ZIP’ed) files, go to the

TTN top menu, System Utilities

(Command: 1) for information and the

necessary program to download in order

to unZIP the files of interest after

downloading to your computer. After

getting the files you want onto your

computer, you can quit the TTN BBS

with the <G>oodbye command.

Please note that due to differences

between the software used to develop

the document and the software into

which the document may be

downloaded, changes in format, page

length, etc. may occur.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. Description of the Action

III. Statutory Authority

IV. Public Participation
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54853

1 60 FR 7404

A. Legal Requirements

B. SFTP—General

C. Aggressive Driving Cycle (USO6)

Requirements

D. Intermediate Soak

E. Air Conditioning

F. Final Standards and Leadtime

G. Technical and Enforcement Issues

H. Regulatory Impact Statement

I. Cost and Benefit Estimates

V. Economic, Environmental, and CostBenefit Impacts

A. Environmental Impact

B. Economic Impact

C. Cost-Effectiveness

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

B. Unfunded Mandates Act

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

E. Submission to Congress and the General

Accounting Office

VII. Judicial Review

I. Introduction

Automobiles are among the largest

producers of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon

monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen

(NOX), all of which have documented

adverse impacts on public health. This

final rule revises the test procedures

used to measure emissions of CO, NOX,

HC, and particulate matter (PM) from

MY2000 and later light-duty vehicles

(LDVs) and light-duty trucks (LDTs). It

does this by adding supplemental

testing segments to cover driving

conditions not represented in the

current procedure, referred to as the

‘‘Federal Test Procedure’’ or ‘‘FTP.’’

These supplemental procedures were

prompted by section 206(h) of the Clean

Air Act (CAA, or ‘‘The Act’’), as

amended in 1990, which reads,

‘‘Within 18 months after the enactment of

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the

Administrator shall review and revise as

necessary the regulations under subsection

(a) and (b) of this section regarding the

testing of motor vehicles and motor vehicle

engines to insure that vehicles are tested

under circumstances which reflect the actual

current driving conditions under which

motor vehicles are used, including

conditions related to fuel, temperature,

acceleration, and altitude.’’

EPA’s FTP Review project team found

that existing information was clearly

inadequate for evaluating the need for

revisions to the FTP. Consequently, a

number of new data gathering and

analytical efforts were undertaken. EPA

resources were greatly supplemented by

cooperative investments from other

sources, including the American

Automobile Manufacturers Association

(AAMA), the Association of

International Automobile Manufacturers

(AIAM), and the California Air

Resources Board (CARB). These studies

provided EPA with unprecedented data

on which to base its comparative review

of the FTP.

The Agency published a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on this

topic on February 7, 1995.1 The

preamble to that proposed rule contains

substantial information relevant to the

matters discussed throughout this

Notice. The reader is referred to that

document for additional background

information and discussion of various

issues.

In the NPRM, the Agency proposed

several additions and revisions to the

tailpipe emission portions of the FTP.

The primary new element was a

Supplemental Federal Test Procedure

(SFTP) designed to address

shortcomings with the current FTP. The

SFTP consisted of three elements: (1) A

new test cycle, US06, designed to

address representation of aggressive

(high speed and/or high acceleration)

driving behavior and rapid speed

fluctuations, (2) testing of emissions

during actual air conditioning

operation, and (3) testing of emissions

after intermediate-duration periods

where the engine is turned off. Another

new cycle, SC01, was developed to

represent start driving behavior and

rapid speed fluctuations and was

proposed to be run after a 60 minute

soak with full air conditioning

simulation.

A composite method was proposed to

weigh results from each of the new

control areas with bag 1 of the FTP.

With this composite approach, nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC) and CO

SFTP standards were set at the FTP

standard level, while NOX SFTP

standards were set 15 percent above the

FTP standard level. The SFTP standards

were proposed to be phased in at 40

percent of a manufacturers fleet for

MY1998, 80 percent for MY1999, and

100 percent for MY2000, with a

provision that small volume

manufacturers did not have to comply

until MY2000. A new set of

requirements designed to more

accurately reflect real road forces on the

test dynamometer was also proposed.

A public hearing was held on April 19

and 20, 1995, in Ann Arbor, Michigan,

at which the Agency took comment on

the NPRM. The comment period

initially remained open until May 22,

1995, but was extended to July 19, 1995

when it became apparent that additional

time was needed to gather and analyze

data. Additional comments, data, and

analyses were received after the close of

the comment period, which the Agency

has considered in this final rule because

the information helped the Agency

develop appropriate test procedures,

cost estimates, and leadtime.

As a result of the comments and

significant new data submitted, the

Agency reanalyzed the proposed

emission standards when developing

the Final Rule. The proposed US06

standards in the NPRM were largely

based upon available test data on

vehicles designed to meet Tier 0

emission standards. Subsequently, the

vehicle manufacturers conducted testing

on 32 Tier 1 vehicles over the FTP and

US06 cycles and submitted this data to

EPA (this data set is commonly referred

to as the ‘‘US06 phase II’’ test program).

Manufacturers provided the EPA and

the docket with this new data in their

comments. The US06 design targets in

the Final Rule are based in part on this

new data set, as it is much more

representative of vehicles meeting the

‘‘Tier 1’’ emissions standards than the

data available for the NPRM. Similarly,

the air conditioning requirements

proposed in the NPRM were based upon

vehicles tested with low mileage

catalysts, which are less appropriate for

directly setting useful life emission

standards. The vehicle manufacturers

conducted three additional air

conditioning test programs subsequent

to the NPRM. The first, commonly

referred to as ‘‘ACR2’’ (for phase 2 of

testing at General Motor’s AC-Rochester

environmental chamber), was

erroneously conducted with

inappropriate humidity levels. The

manufacturers retested six vehicles from

ACR2 in another test program, referred

to as ‘‘ACR3,’’ which also included

testing on two air conditioning

simulations. Finally, four vehicles from

ACR3 were retested at Chrysler’s

environmental chamber, both for

correlation purposes and to evaluate a

third air conditioning simulation. This

data is referred to as ‘‘ACC3.’’

These regulations extend emission

control comparable to that for the FTP

across in-use driving behavior and

conditions that significantly impact inuse emissions. Additional control is not

required because the main focus of this

rule is to update and correct the test

procedure and to control previously

unregulated areas to the level of

stringency of the existing requirements.

Proper incorporation of the full range of

in-use driving conditions and behavior

will allow EPA to assess feasible

increases in stringency when evaluating

future standards.

The next two sections of this

preamble provide a description of this

final rule action and the consideration

of public comment. The final sections of

the preamble describe the economic and

environmental impact, and cost
54854 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

2Light-duty trucks are divided into two classes

based on weight, each of which is further

subdivided into two classes, also based on weight.

Light light-duty trucks (LLDT) are those with a

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) up to 6000 lbs.

A light-duty truck 1 (LDT1) falls in this GVWR

range and has a loaded vehicle weight (LVW) of no

more than 3750 lbs; a light-duty truck (LDT2) falls

in the same GVWR range but has an LVW greater

than 3750 lbs. Heavy light-duty trucks (HLDT) are

those with a GVWR greater than 6000 lbs but not

greater than 8500 lbs, which are broken into lightduty trucks 3 (LDT3), those with an adjusted loaded

vehicle weight (ALVW) up to 5750 lbs, and lightduty trucks 4 (LDT4), which are those with a ALVW

greater than 5750 lbs. See 40 CFR 86.094–2 for

definitions of LDT categories and vehicle weight

terms.

3 505 refers to the driving cycle that consists of

the first 505 seconds (seconds 1 to 505) of the EPA

Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule, 866 refers

to last 866 seconds (seconds 505 to 1372) of the

EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule. SCO3

refers to the driving cycle run during air

conditioning operation test requirement.

4LA4 is the name commonly given to the Urban

Dynamometer Driving Schedule.

effectiveness, of the rule and address

certain administrative requirements.

II. Description of the Action

Today’s action deals primarily with

four areas of driving behavior that are

not adequately represented in the

current test procedure: aggressive

driving behavior (such as high

acceleration rates and high speeds);

rapid speed fluctuations (microtransient

driving behavior); start driving behavior;

and actual air conditioner (A/C)

operation. The Agency is finalizing new

requirements for these areas. These

requirements shall be included in a

supplemental federal test procedure

(SFTP) that will be required in addition

to the existing FTP requirements.

Adjustments are included to

accommodate certain vehicle types,

transmission types, and performance

categories where the additions are not

representative of in-use driving.

These additions to the tailpipe

emission portions of the FTP apply to

all LDVs and LDTs certifying with

gasoline and LDVs and LDT1s certifying

with diesel motor fuel 2. These additions

do not apply to vehicles certifying with

alternative fuels, although they do apply

to flexible fuel vehicles and dual fuel

vehicles. The changes apply to testing

conducted during certification,

Selective Enforcement Audits (SEA),

and in-use enforcement (recall). The

standards apply for full useful life under

section 202 of the Clean Air Act. The

warranty provisions under section 207

of the Clean Air Act also apply to this

rulemaking. However, EPA is not

requiring that the standards

promulgated today be met at high

altitude.

The requirements of this rule are

phased-in, applying to 40 percent of

each manufacturer’s separate

production (or at the manufacturer’s

option, combined production) of LDVs

and light LDTs (LDT1s and LDT2s) for

MY2000, 80 percent in MY2001, and

100 percent in MY2002. The

requirements apply to 40 percent of

each manufacturer’s production of

heavy LDTs (LDT3s and LDT4s) in

MY2002, 80 percent in MY2003, and

100 percent in MY2004. Small volume

manufacturers would not have to

comply until MY2002 for LDVs and

light LDTs, and MY2004 for heavy

LDTs. All of the rule’s requirements

would apply during this phase-in

period. The Agency recognizes that this

phase-in schedule could create an

additional burden for auto

manufacturers if the National Low

Emission Vehicle (National LEV)

Program goes into effect as proposed

with a MY2001 implementation

nationwide (60 FR 53734, October 10,

1995). The Agency intends to address

this issue by proposing language in an

upcoming National LEV rulemaking

that, contingent upon a National LEV

program that is ‘‘in effect,’’ would

harmonize the above phase-in schedule

with the MY2001 nationwide

implementation of National LEV. EPA

expects such action would also

harmonize with CARB’s planned SFTP

requirements for LEVs.

The new SFTP addresses various

conditions under which vehicles are

actually driven and used that are not in

the FTP. The SFTP includes two new

single-bag emission test driving cycles:

(1) the US06, to represent aggressive and

microtransient driving, and (2) the

SC03, to represent driving immediately

following vehicle startup and

microtransient driving.

The US06 is run with the vehicle in

the hot stabilized condition; that is,

with the vehicle fully warmed up such

that the engine and catalytic converter

have reached typical operating

temperatures. The SC03 follows a 10-

minute soak and is run with vehicle air

conditioning (A/C) in operation or with

proper simulation of air conditioning

operation. The cycles of the SFTP can

be run as a sequence to save on

preconditioning and setup time;

however, separate runs of the cycles are

permissible with the appropriate soak or

preconditioning steps appended.

High-volume exhaust flow for heavier

vehicles run on the US06 will dictate

the use on some vehicles of a larger

capacity constant volume sampler (CVS)

than is needed for current FTP testing.

The A/C simulation is not required for

this test cycle. Appropriate shift

schedules for manual transmission

vehicles are to be determined by the

manufacturer and submitted to EPA for

approval.

Hot stabilized condition is achieved

by including several preconditioning

options as part of the formal procedure

immediately prior to the US06 Cycle. If

the vehicle has undergone a soak of 2

hours or less, the preconditioning may

be a 505 Cycle, the 866 Cycle, the

highway cycle, a US06, or the SC03.3

Following longer soaks, the final

preconditioning cycle is an LA4.4 For

manufacturers who have concerns about

fuel effects on adaptive memory

systems, the rule allows manufacturers

and, upon manufacturer request,

requires EPA to run the vehicle over the

US06 Cycle on the certification test fuel

before entering the formal test

procedure.

The rule includes adjustments to the

US06 test cycle for low-performance

LDVs and LDTs. These adjustments

reflect the actual operation of low

performance vehicles in use and are

designed to minimize problems with

high engine and catalyst temperatures.

The adjustments are applied

dynamically by the dynamometer for

any vehicle after it has been at wide

open throttle for 8 seconds (only the

lowest performance vehicles

constituting a small portion of the fleet

remain at WOT for 8 seconds over any

part of the US06 cycle). Load

adjustments will be made only during

the five most aggressive portions of the

US06 Cycle. In addition, for US06 Cycle

testing of Heavy Light-Duty Trucks

(HLDTs), the truck is to be ballasted to

curb weight plus 300 lbs with the

dynamometer inertia weight determined

from this same basis, while FTP testing

remains at Adjusted Loaded Vehicle

Weight.

The required elements for the SC03

include the preconditioning, soak

period, test cycle, and air conditioning

requirements. Prior to the 10-minute

soak period, the vehicle is to be

preconditioned to allow engine and

catalyst temperatures to stabilize at

typical warmed-up operating

temperatures. The Agency believes that

running the vehicle over EPA’s Urban

Dynamometer Driving Schedule (LA4) is

adequate to achieve engine and catalyst

stabilization regardless of the time

period for which the vehicle was not

operational prior to preconditioning.

However, in the event the vehicle was

shut off for less than two hours prior to

preconditioning, any of a 505, 866, or

SC03 cycle is adequate for

preconditioning the vehicle.

Immediately following the

preconditioning cycle, the vehicle’s
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54855

5 During the development of these simulations,

the AC1 and AC2 methods were informally referred

to as the Nissan-II and Toyota simulations,

respectively. The Agency has chosen to apply

formal names to these procedures for regulatory

purposes.

engine is turned off for a 10-minute soak

period with cooling fans directed at the

vehicle. The vehicle may be removed

from the dynamometer, provided the

vehicle is not subjected to

unrepresentative cooling of the engine

or catalyst. Following the soak period,

the vehicle will be run over the SC03

cycle using a full environmental

chamber, with vehicle A/C on, for

proper representation of start driving,

microtransient driving, and air

conditioning operation.

Procedures in a standard test cell that

simulate actual air conditioning effects

will be allowed as a option to using full

environmental chambers. The Agency is

allowing these conditions as a costeffective surrogate for testing in a fully

controlled environmental chamber set to

simulate ozone-exceedance conditions

of ambient temperature, humidity, solar

load, and pavement temperature. For

MY2000 through MY2002, either the

AC1 simulation or the AC2 simulation

may be used, as discussed in section

IV.E.2.5 Starting with MY2003, only

simulations that can demonstrate

correlation with the use of a full

environmental chamber will be allowed.

The use of a fully controlled

environmental chamber is permitted at

any time.

Manufacturers who choose to use an

air conditioning simulation beginning

with MY2003 must submit a description

of the simulation procedure, data

supporting the correlation between the

simulation and the full environmental

chamber, and any vehicle specific

parameters to EPA in advance. In

general, EPA will conditionally approve

any procedure, provided that the

procedure can be run by EPA for SEA

and in-use enforcement testing and

available data, including past

correlation testing, does not indicate a

correlation problem. EPA may require

the manufacturer to demonstrate

emission correlation between the

simulation and the full environmental

chamber on up to five vehicles per

model year (one for small volume

manufacturers). The vehicles will be

selected by EPA and two additional

vehicles may be selected by EPA to

demonstrate emission correlation for

every vehicle that fails the correlation

criteria.

If a vehicle is selected for correlation

demonstration, the demonstration is

accepted if any of the following steps

are met:

1: The NOX emissions from the first

simulation test are at least 85 percent of the

NOX emissions from the first test in a full

environmental chamber and the fuel

consumed is at least 95 percent of the fuel

consumed in the full environmental

chamber. These allowances are due to the

inherent test to test emission variability,

which is particularly large for NOX emissions

(see section IV.E.2 and the Response to

Comments for further discussion).

2: Either the simulation test or the full

environmental chamber test is rerun, at the

manufacturers option, and, using the

replacement test, the NOX emissions from the

simulation are at least 85 percent of the NOX

emissions from the full environmental

chamber and the fuel consumed is at least 95

percent of the fuel consumed in the full

environmental chamber.

3: Either the simulation test or the full

environmental chamber test, whichever was

not rerun in step 2 above, is rerun and the

average of the two simulation tests are at

least 85 percent of the average of the two full

environmental tests for NOX and at least 95

percent of the fuel consumed in the full

environmental chamber.

If a spot check is failed, the

Adminstrator will allow up to 60 days

for the manufacturer to supply

additional data. If that data prove to the

satisfaction of the Administrator that the

simulation produces results that

correlate sufficiently with the

environmental test chamber, the

Administrator may allow the continued

use of the simulation.

If a correlation is not passed, no

further air conditioning testing will be

accepted with the simulation until the

manufacturer submits an engineering

evaluation of the cause of the improper

simulation and the extent of the

vehicles affected. This evaluation is

subject to review and approval by EPA.

For vehicles determined to be

represented by an improper simulation,

the manufacturer will be given an

opportunity to demonstrate that the

simulation can be corrected. While there

are no direct penalties for failing a

correlation demonstration, all future

emission testing on the affected

vehicles, including SEA and in-use

enforcement, will be conducted using

the corrected simulation or a full

environmental chamber.

The results from each manufacturers

correlation demonstrations will also be

tracked over time. The manufacturer is

expected to target the simulation to at

least 100 percent of the emissions from

the full environmental chamber. If, over

time, the emissions from the

simulations are found to be statistically

lower than the full environmental

chamber, further use of simulations by

that manufacturer will not be allowed

until the causes of the offset are

identified and corrected.

With the exception of changes

prompted by use of new dynamometers

and a change in the wording of driving

instructions on following the speed

trace, there are no changes in the final

rule to the driving cycle of the

preexisting conventional FTP. Similarly,

EPA is retaining unchanged the method

of calculating compliance with the

existing FTP.

EPA is finalizing a ‘‘composite’’

compliance calculation for NMHC+NOX

that weighs results from the

conventional FTP with results from the

SFTP. In the composite SFTP

calculation, emissions from the FTP are

weighted at 35 percent, emissions from

the SC03 at 37 percent, and US06

emissions at 28 percent. If an engine

family or vehicle configuration is not

available with air conditioning, the air

conditioning test is not run and

emissions from the FTP are weighted at

72 percent and US06 emissions at 28

percent (note that the air conditioning

test is required for any vehicle available

with air conditioning, even if the

installation rate is projected to be less

than 33 percent). For gasoline vehicles,

the standards for the SFTP composite

NMHC+NOX emissions are the same as

the combined NMHC and NOX

standards applicable under the

conventional FTP.

Unlike NMHC+NOX, a composite CO

standard was not set based upon the

weighted average of the individual CO

standards over the various cycles. Due

to the additional allowance in the US06

CO standard for commanded

enrichment, discussed below, the final

rule sets separate CO standards for the

US06 and SC03 testing cycles. A

composite CO standard is allowed, at

the manufacturers’ option, which is set

at the level of the CO standard

applicable under the conventional FTP.

Standards for light-duty diesel

vehicles and light-duty diesel trucks in

the LDT1 category are different than

those for gasoline-powered vehicles in

those categories. The supplemental FTP

for diesel LDVs and LDT1s does not

include the SC03 cycle, because

sufficient test data was not available at

this time to create an appropriate air

conditioning standard for these diesel

vehicles. In addition, the NMHC+NOX

standard is higher for diesel LDVs and

LDT1s because of the inherently higher

NOX emissions associated with diesel

engines. This is similar to EPA’s

treatment of conventional FTP Tier I

standards for diesel LDVs and LDT1s,

which are less stringent for NOX

emissions. Diesel LDVs and LDT1s will

have to comply with the same US06
54856 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

standards (or optional composite

standards) for CO as gasoline-fueled

LDVs and LDT1s. The composite SFTP

NMHC+NOX and CO standards will be

weighted at 72 percent for the

conventional FTP cycle and 28 percent

for the US06 cycle. At this time, due to

the absence of relevant test data on

which to base a decision, no

supplemental standards are being

promulgated for light-duty diesel truck

classes LDT2, LDT3 and LDT4, and no

supplemental standards or test

procedures are being promulgated for

diesel particulate emissions.

TABLE 1.—COMPOSITE NMHC+NOX EMISSIONS STANDARDS

Type GVWR LVW ALVW

Intermediate useful

life standards

NMHC+NOX

(g/mi)

Full useful life

standards

NMHC+NOX

(g/mi)

LDV ....................................................................... All All All 0.65 0.91

LDV-diesel ............................................................ All All All 1.48 2.07

LDT1 ..................................................................... 0–6000 0–3750 All 0.65 0.91

LDT1-diesel ........................................................... 0–6000 0–3750 All 1.48 2.07

LDT2 ..................................................................... 0–6000 3751–5750 All 1.02 1.37

LDT3 ..................................................................... >6000 All 3751–5750 1.02 1.44

LDT4 ..................................................................... >6000 All >5750 1.49 2.09

TABLE 2.—CO EMISSION STANDARDS

Type GVWR LVW ALVW

Intermediate useful life standards

(g/mi)

Full useful life standards

(g/mi)

A/C US06 Composite

(option) A/C US06 Composite(option)

LDV .............................. All All All 3.0 9.0 3.4 3.7 11.1 4.2

LDV-dies ...................... All All All NA 9.0 3.4 NA 11.1 4.2

LDT1 ............................ 0–6000 0–3750 All 3.0 9.0 3.4 3.7 11.1 4.2

LDT1-dies .................... 0–6000 0–3750 All NA 9.0 3.4 NA 11.1 4.2

LDT2 ............................ 0–6000 3751–5750 All 3.9 11.6 4.4 4.9 14.6 5.5

LDT3 ............................ >6000 All 3751–5750 3.9 11.6 4.4 5.6 16.9 6.4

LDT4 ............................ >6000 All >5750 4.4 13.2 5.0 6.4 19.3 7.3

The CO standards for the US06 cycle

have been set at levels that allow

limited amounts of commanded

enrichment, i.e., the air/fuel ratio is

deliberately set richer than necessary for

complete combustion of the fuel.

Commanded enrichment is needed to

reduce the peak engine and catalyst

temperatures experienced under very

high engine loads, which are generated

during certain short periods of high

acceleration on the US06 cycle. If the

standards for the US06 cycle did not

allow for any commanded enrichment,

there could be a danger of excessive

heat that can cause severe damage to the

engine or catalyst. However,

commanded enrichment also causes a

sharp increase in the amount of CO

emitted during the enrichment period.

The CO increase is directly proportional

to the amount of additional fuel. To

ensure that excessive amounts of

enrichments and, hence, excessive CO

emissions, do not occur during

commanded enrichment, this Final Rule

includes a minimum air/fuel ratio

requirement. The air to fuel ratio shall

not be richer at any time than the

leanest air to fuel mixture required to

obtain maximum torque at a given speed

and load, termed the lean best torque,

plus a tolerance of 6 percent of the lean

best torque fuel consumption.

Manufacturers may request additional

enrichment, based upon the need to

protect the engine or emissions control

hardware.

As indicated above, 35 percent of the

new composite SFTP standards for

NMHC+NOX are comprised of the

standards from the conventional FTP.

Currently, those conventional FTP

standards are the Tier 1 standards

promulgated under CAA sections 202

(g) and (h). However, for vehicles

certified under any future National Low

Emission Vehicle (National LEV)

Program, the appropriate levels for the

conventional FTP portion of the

composite SFTP emissions standards

will be the ‘‘on cycle’’ National LEV

standards appropriate for such vehicles.

As the composite approach is not

mandated for CO, this adjustment

would have no impact on the standalone CO standards for US06 and air

conditioning, although a similar

adjustment would apply if a

manufacturer opted to use the

composite CO standard. The formula for

the new SFTP composite for

NMHC+NOX would be:

New SFTP standard = Old SFTP

standard—[0.35 * (Tier 1 FTP standard—New

FTP standard)], where all standard references

are based upon NMHC+NOX and the result

is rounded to the nearest two decimal places.

The new US06 cycle requires

significantly higher power absorption

capacity, due to the higher power

requirements of this aggressive driving

cycle. Dynamometer improvements are

needed to properly conduct this test.

The dynamometer improvements also

allow better representation of actual

road load forces on all test cycles. Thus,

each test cycle, including the

conventional FTP, is to be run on a

system providing accurate replication of

real road load forces at the interface

between drive tires and the

dynamometer over the full speed range.

While EPA intends to use a 48-inch

single-roll dynamometer with electronic

control of power absorption to meet

these requirements for both the new

SFTP and current FTP testing, any

system will be allowed that yields

equivalent or superior test results. The

appropriate dynamometer load to match

actual road load shall be determined for

each vehicle. The EPA shall conduct

confirmatory testing using a 48-inch

single-roll dynamometer and

manufacturers’ test results must

correlate with the EPA test results.

Dynamometers simulate vehicle

weight with inertia forces. Currently,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54857

this simulation of vehicle weight is

capped at 5500 pounds equivalent test

weight (ETW) due to dynamometer

limitations. The existing 5500 ETW cap

is removed concurrently with phase-in

of the new dynamometer requirements.

The current 10 percent increase in

dynamometer load to simulate the

average nationwide, year-around air

conditioning effects during FTP testing

is deleted, as this effect cannot be

accurately duplicated on the improved

dynamometer simulation and it did a

poor job of estimating actual average air

conditioning loads. The emissions

impacts of air conditioning are being

addressed in this Final Rule.

Adjustments to the dynamometer load

for fuel economy purposes will be

addressed as part of subsequent

rulemaking on test procedure

adjustments.

The improved road load simulation

and the removal of the 5500 ETW cap

for all test cycles are implemented

concurrently with the SFTP

requirements. Thus, any engine family

that is included in the SFTP phase-in

must also comply with the improved

road load simulation and the removal of

the 5500 ETW cap, although use of the

pre-existing dynamometer requirements

is allowed for Part 600 fuel economy

testing for phase-in years 2000 and

2001. In addition, the improved road

load simulation and the removal of the

5500 ETW cap apply to engine families

not covered by the SFTP standard

(alternative fuel vehicles and diesel

LDT2s, LDT3s, and LDT4s), effective

MY2002 for LDVs and LLDTs and

MY2004 for HLDTs. Manufacturers may

elect to use improved road load

simulations on engine families prior to

their inclusion in the SFTP phase-in, at

their option.

Regulatory language regarding throttle

and pedal movement while the vehicle

is driven on the dynamometer is also

revised. The current requirement to

drive with ‘‘minimum’’ accelerator

pedal movement is replaced with a

requirement to drive the vehicle with

appropriate accelerator pedal movement

necessary to achieve the speed versus

time relationship prescribed by the

driving schedule. Both smoothing of

speed variations and excessive

accelerator pedal perturbations are to be

avoided.

Note that this rule does not address

heavy-duty engines or test requirements

with respect to fuel and ambient

temperature conditions. These aspects

of the FTP were explicitly excluded

from consideration in this rule, as

discussed in the proposed rule and its

support documents. The Agency did not

receive any comments on these issues.

III. Statutory Authority

The promulgation of these regulations

is authorized by sections 202, 206, 208,

and 301 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or

the Act) as amended by the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C.

7521, 7525, 7542, and 7601). Section

206(h) of the Act requires EPA to

‘‘review and revise as necessary * * *

the testing of motor vehicles and motor

vehicle engines to insure that vehicles

are tested under circumstances which

reflect the actual current driving

conditions under which motor vehicles

are used, including conditions relating

to fuel, temperature, acceleration, and

altitude.’’ Congress mandated that EPA

exercise its authority under section

206(a) of the Act, giving broad authority

to determine appropriate test

procedures, consistent with the broad

direction of section 206(h), to determine

appropriate changes to reflect real world

conditions.

Although the text of the statute and

the legislative history do not provide

explicit criteria or intent for this review,

EPA believes the primary concern of

Congress is having test procedures for

motor vehicles and motor vehicle

engines reflect in-use conditions in

order to obtain better in-use emission

control. This flows from the basic

purpose of test procedures—to measure

compliance with the emission

standards—and from standards

designed to obtain in-use emission

reductions. Therefore, EPA made this

the primary concern and objective.

IV. Public Participation

A number of interested parties

commented on EPA’s February 7, 1995

NPRM. The comments include written

submittals to the rulemaking docket and

those presented at the April 19 and 20,

1995 public hearing held in Ann Arbor,

Michigan. The Agency has fully

considered these comments in

developing today’s final rule.

The following section presents a brief

synopsis of the comments received on

the NPRM and the EPA responses to

those comments. A separate and more

detailed Response to Comments has

been prepared and is available in the

public docket and electronically (as

described in SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION) for review. The interested

reader is referred to that document for

a more complete discussion of the

comments and EPA’s response,

including some of the comments which,

though evaluated in the Response to

Comments, are not presented here.

Issues that are discussed only in the

Response to Comments include:

—Adjustments for LDTs over 6000 lbs GVWR

and for low performance vehicles

—General Criteria for setting US06 standards

—Determination of LDT2/LDT3/LDT4 and

full-useful life standards

—Two-second timer requirement on high

performance vehicles

—Equivalent test weight for electric

dynamometers

—Road-load determination

—Dynamometer coefficient adjustments for

ambient temperature

—Equivalent test weight cap

—Defeat device policy

—US06 shift schedules for manual

transmission vehicles

A. Legal Requirements

1. Impact on Stringency of Tier 1

Emission Standard and Consistency

with Section 202(b)(1)(C)

Summary of Proposal. In the

Proposal, EPA noted that the proposed

regulations were authorized by sections

202, 206, 208, and 301 of the Act,

including section 206(h), which requires

EPA to:

‘‘* * * review and revise as necessary the

regulations under subsection (a) and (b) of

this section regarding the testing of motor

vehicles and motor vehicle engines to insure

that vehicles are tested under circumstances

which reflect the actual current driving

conditions under which motor vehicles are

used, including conditions relating to fuel,

temperature, acceleration, and altitude.’’

The Support Document to the

Proposal noted that section 206(h) is

silent on the impact that test procedure

changes should have on emission

standards, and does not limit or restrict

EPA’s authority to establish emission

standards. The Support Document also

noted that the proposed emission

standards for the supplemental portion

of the FTP do not violate section

202(b)(1)(C)’s prohibition on

modification of the numerical emission

standards specified in 202 (g) and (h)

(i.e. the Tier 1 exhaust standards) prior

to MY2004, as the standards proposed

were new standards that were in

addition to, not alternative to, the

existing Tier 1 standards.

Finally, the Support Document noted

that section 202(b)(1)(C) restricts EPA’s

ability to relax the Tier 1 numerical

emission standards in order to account

for changes in test procedure. EPA has

dual requirements to revise the test

procedures used to measure compliance

with Tier 1 and to not revise the Tier 1

numerical standards prior to MY2004.

Summary of Comments. AAMA/

AIAM argued that the EPA’s proposal

would effectively increase the

stringency of the existing emission

standards and that the 1990

amendments to the CAA do not give the

EPA such authority. It is their
54858 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

contention that the authority granted

under section 202(a) of the act is

expressly limited by 202 (b) and (g).

They also reasoned that the Agency may

propose an SFTP and supplemental

standards that may require recalibration

or adjustments, but cannot require such

standards or procedures which require

the installation of additional equipment

or substantial alterations to existing

vehicles.

AAMA/AIAM claimed that the

authority granted in section 206(h) must

be consistent with other provisions in

the Act, i.e., EPA may not increase the

stringency of the Tier I standards.

AAMA/AIAM averred that section

206(h) did not provide the Agency with

any new authority to revise the emission

standards either directly or indirectly

through revisions to the FTP. They also

presented a related argument that

section 206(h) does not provide the

agency additional discretion to revise

the Tier I standards. While not

specifying how the Agency should

revise the test procedures, the AAMA/

AIAM suggested that Congress expected

the Agency to exercise its 206(a)

authority, as directed in 206(h) within

the limits of 202(a) and 202(b)(1)(C).

Two other commenters, Volvo and

Manufacturers of Emission Controls

Association (MECA), also stated that the

revised test procedures should not

effectively increase the stringency of the

current Tier 1 standards or future

standards.

By contrast, both National Resources

Defense Council (NRDC) and Northeast

States for Co-ordinated Air Use

Management (NESCAUM) quoted

section 206(h) and interpreted the

section as indicating that Congress was

concerned with a large gap between the

real world emissions and emissions

measured during the existing test

procedure. NRDC and NESCAUM

believe that Congress wanted the EPA to

revise the test procedure to be

representative of actual driving

conditions. The comments note that

Congress explicitly prohibit EPA from

revising the Tier 1 standards prior to

2004.

The comments stated, in the context

of EPA’s supplemental standards, that

Congress did not indicate that the EPA

was to develop any new emission

standards. Both commenters went on to

cite section 202(b)(1)(c) as evidence that

Congress ‘‘unequivocally prohibited

EPA from modifying those numerical

standards.’’

Both NRDC and NESCAUM expressed

their dismay that the EPA was

proposing supplemental procedures

while leaving essentially unchanged the

current FTP. Both commenters also

believed that the emission standards

associated with the supplemental tests

were more lenient than existing

standards for the FTP, and thus, the

EPA’s proposal was inconsistent with

Congressional intent.

Response to Comments. EPA reaffirms

that its actions under section 206(h) and

202(a) to strengthen the test procedure

and adopt related standards are not

prohibited by section 202(b)(1)(C). EPA

disagrees with the comments of AAMA/

AIAM regarding their claims that

section 202(b)(1)(C) limits EPA actions

under section 206(h). On the contrary,

the requirements of section 206(h) and

202(b)(1)(C) are separate requirements

that create two different duties for EPA.

EPA’s actions under section 206(h),

strengthening the test procedure, are not

prohibited by section 202(b)(1)(C).

The provisions of section 206(h) and

sections 202(g) and (b)(1)(C) are

designed to address two different

concerns of Congress. The legislative

history shows that Congress’ intent in

adding section 206(h) was for EPA to

increase the scope of the test to make it

more representative, as well as to

increase the overall in-use emissions

control resulting from the test.

Congress added section 202(b)(1)(C) to

keep the new Tier 1 ‘‘numerical

emission standards’’ stable. However,

Congress specifically restricted the

language of section 202(b)(1)(C) to refer

only to ‘‘numerical emission standards.’’

Thus, it is clear on the face of the statute

that the language of section 202(b)(1)(C)

does not apply to revisions of the test

procedure. Congress could have

included language that prevented EPA

from revising its regulations in any way

to make the Tier 1 standards more

stringent. Congress also could have

limited the scope of section 206(h) by

stating that any actions revising the test

procedure would have to be

accompanied by a revision of the

numerical emission standards to

account for changes in the stringency of

the standards resulting from such test

revisions.

Congress made absolutely clear that

EPA was to revise its test procedure to

make it more representative and EPA

was not to revise the numerical Tier 1

exhaust standards prior to MY2004. It is

AAMA/AIAM who wish to avoid the

clear intent of Congress by requesting

that EPA either not revise its test

procedures as Congress required or that

EPA revise the Tier 1 standards prior to

MY2004, which Congress clearly forbid.

Regarding AAMA/AIAM’s claim that

section 206(h) is limited to test revisions

that require only ‘‘minimal’’ changes to

vehicles (‘‘minimal changes’’ could

include recalibration of existing

emission control equipment, but could

not require installation of additional

equipment or substantial alteration of

existing vehicles), absolutely nothing in

section 206 or 202 indicates any such

limitation on EPA’s authority under

section 206.

Finally, EPA has not failed to

recognize that there is an

interconnection between numerical

emission standards and the procedures

that test for compliance with such

standards. EPA is merely noting that the

prohibitions in section 202(b)(1)(C) are

directed specifically towards the former,

not the latter, and that section 206(h)’s

mandate specifically requires that EPA

revise the latter to ensure that the test

for compliance with such standards,

including the Tier 1 standards, are

consistent with the actual conditions

under which the vehicles are used.

Regarding the comments of NRDC and

NESCAUM, EPA agrees that Congress

specifically intended that the Tier 1

standards not be revised prior to 2004.

Moreover, EPA agrees that Congress was

worried about the gap between

emissions as measured by the FTP and

real world emissions and that Congress

intended EPA to revise the test

procedure to eliminate that gap.

However, EPA does not agree that

Congress intended to prevent EPA from

promulgating supplemental standards in

order to effectuate the requirements of

section 206(h). Congress provided no

prohibition on EPA promulgating

supplemental standards under section

202(a). In fact, EPA has clear authority

to promulgate such standards and was

given broad authority by Congress to

revise appropriate regulations under

section 206(h). Moreover, section

202(b)(1)(C) merely prevents EPA from

changing the specific standards of

sections 202 (g) and (h). It does not

prevent EPA from promulgating

supplementary standards relevant to

procedures that were not in existence

and emissions that were not regulated

prior to the promulgation of these

regulations. The standards promulgated

today are in addition to, not instead of,

Tier 1 standards. In the long term EPA

believes it makes sense to consolidate

all the test requirements into a revised

FTP because replacing the FTP would

simplify the test procedure.

Nevertheless, to avoid jeopardizing

work on more stringent emission

standards and to avoid delaying

implementation of this rule, EPA

believes it is better to incorporate

consolidation of the FTP with future

consideration of tighter federal

standards.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54859

2. High altitude

Summary of Proposal. The Agency

did not propose to supplement by

further regulation the altitude testing

flexibility in current law. EPA stated

that it believed any emission controls

required for aggressive driving would

also be effective during high altitude

driving. However, the EPA reaffirmed

its authority to perform vehicle testing

at any altitude.

Summary of Comments. AAMA/

AIAM, Ford and Suzuki comments were

against high altitude testing on the

SFTP. They noted that EPA did not

consider the issue of high altitude

compliance in the NPRM and that EPA

had no basis or technical support for

requiring an SFTP standard at all

altitudes. They also commented that

significant redesign to all vehicles

would be necessary to comply at high

altitude. AAMA/AIAM also argued that

the clause in section 206(h) only

requires EPA to review and revise the

test procedures ‘‘as necessary’’ and does

not require that the new requirements

apply at all altitudes. Finally, AAMA/

AIAM commented that the Agency had

not complied with section 202(a) (1) and

(2), given the absence of data for high

altitude.

Response to Comments. The Agency

acknowledges comments that EPA did

not have any data on the SFTP

requirements at high altitude. The EPA

reviewed the data submitted by AAMA/

AIAM and member companies on

vehicles tested at high altitude. The data

clearly show the dramatic impact high

altitude has on wide-open throttle

(WOT) time during the aggressive

driving cycle. As discussed in the

context of the CO standard, EPA has

concluded that control of WOT

emissions should be limited to 2 to 4

seconds due to the durability impact of

elevated engine and catalyst

temperatures. Testing at high altitude

would go well beyond the level of WOT

control which EPA feels is appropriate.

In addition, the lower performance

levels at high altitude may affect driving

behavior. As the Agency does not have

any data on driving behavior at highaltitude, it is not known whether or not

the US06 cycle is representative of highaltitude driving.

For all elements of the SFTP, the

emission control attained by compliance

at low altitude would also be achieved

at high altitudes. Given that low-altitude

emission control will also be effective at

high altitude and the lack of data on

driving behavior and emissions at high

altitude, the EPA will not extend the

SFTP requirements to high altitude

testing at this time.

3. Motor Vehicle Information and Cost

Savings Act

Summary of Proposal. The EPA did

not explicitly discuss fuel economy

impacts in the NPRM.

Summary of Comments. AAMA/

AIAM commented that the EPA did not

address the issue of fuel economy

decreases in the proposal. The

comments requested that EPA issue fuel

economy test procedure adjustments as

soon as possible and to work with

NHTSA to assure similar adjustments

for light-duty trucks. AAMA/AIAM

argued that the Motor Vehicle and

Information Cost Savings Act required

the EPA to give adjustments for

measuring fuel economy whenever it

modified the test procedures for

measuring fuel economy.

AAMA/AIAM also commented on the

timing of the test procedure

adjustments. Citing the Preamble to the

CAFE adjustment rule published as 50

Fed. Reg. 27183 (1985), they stated that

the EPA must make test procedure

adjustments at the same time that it

promulgates the final regulations on the

FTP changes. AAMA/AIAM concluded

that, to comply with its legal

obligations, the EPA should do the

following: delay finalizing proposed

rule until fuel economy test procedure

adjustments are developed, issue a

notice of proposed rulemaking on the

final test procedures with sufficient

information so the EPA and industry

can carry out a comprehensive test

program, and issue final changes to the

test procedures at the same time as the

fuel economy test procedure

adjustments.

Response to Comments. EPA agrees

that, to the extent changes in the portion

of FTP also used to measure fuel

economy have an effect on the fuel

economy test that is run in conjunction

with the FTP, then EPA must issue

adjustment factors to ensure

comparability with the fuel economy

test procedures used in 1975. EPA will

promulgate any adjustments to the fuel

economy calculations through notice

and comment rulemaking. EPA will

address the substantive issues raised by

AAMA in that rulemaking.

Regarding the timing of promulgation

of the FTP revisions and the rulemaking

for CAFE calculation adjustments, EPA

disagrees with AAMA/AIAM’s

suggestion that EPA should delay

promulgating final regulations revising

the FTP until it makes a final

determination regarding CAFE

calculations. EPA was required by

Congress to promulgate its FTP

revisions by March 15, 1992. These

regulations are well overdue. EPA is

under court order to promulgate these

regulations by August 15, 1996.

Therefore, EPA cannot fail to

promulgate these regulations by that

date.

Nor does EPA believe that either the

Motor Vehicle and Information Cost

Savings Act or EPA’s rules require that

EPA delay its FTP revisions until the

rulemaking regarding CAFE calculations

is complete. The preamble language in

the 1985 rulemaking cited by AAMA/

AIAM expresses EPA’s intentions, the

actual rules do not require the result

sought by AAMA/AIAM. In any case,

this preamble language cannot control

the timing of rulemaking that is

mandated by more recent statutory

obligations. Moreover, given the

changes that have occurred as a result

of comment on the proposal to revise

the FTP, the calculations and

procedures necessary to begin a

rulemaking to determine CAFE

adjustments resulting from today’s rule

could not easily have been initiated

until its final regulations were relatively

certain. EPA does, however, recognize

the manufacturers’ need for sufficient

leadtime once the Agency makes a final

determination of CAFE calculation

adjustments, if any. Thus, for only Part

600 fuel economy testing for phase-in

years 2000 and 2001, the manufacturers

may use the pre-existing dynamometer

requirements for their entire fleet.

EPA notes that these final regulations

delay implementation of the FTP

revisions until MY2000. EPA also notes

that the July 1, 1985 rulemaking cited by

AAMA/AIAM instituted retroactive

changes to the CAFE calculations for all

manufacturers.

B. SFTP—General

1. Margin for Variability (Headroom)

Summary of Proposal. To account for

various sources of vehicle and test

variability, vehicles are designed to

meet emissions targets below the

standard. The NPRM proposed a

composite standard that would preserve

the FTP cold start/hot stabilized driving

mix, such that the current FTP

compliance headroom would be

implicitly preserved. The proposal

stated that if data were submitted to

help establish appropriate in-use

margins, EPA would reevaluate this

compliance structure.

Summary of Comments. No comments

were received that disagreed with the

NPRM proposal to use the same

headroom factor for off-cycle standards

as has been used historically for the
54860 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

6 ‘‘Compliance Margin/Headroom, Compliance

Standards vs. In-Use Emissions,’’ Attachment V to

a letter from Gerald A. Esper, AAMA, and Gregory

J. Dana, AIAM, to U.S. EPA, January 30, 1995.

Available in the public docket for review.

FTP.6 AAMA/AIAM presented

substantial amounts of in-use data on

FTP emissions that support an historical

headroom factor of two. The data also

indicate that hot, stabilized emissions

from bags two and three of the FTP are

more variable than bag one.

Mercedes-Benz commented that if the

EPA were to promulgate SFTP standards

for diesel vehicles, that they be dieselonly NMHC+NOx standards with

sufficient headroom. They did not

elaborate as to what they considered

sufficient headroom.

Response to Comments. Headroom is

necessary to account for variability in

emissions due to normal production

tolerances, variation between prototype

and production parts, test-to-test

variability, and variability in lab

correlation. Not only does historical

data indicate that manufacturers

currently use a headroom factor of two

for the FTP, but the new cycles being

promulgated are hot, stabilized tests

and, thus, may share the higher

variability of the bag two and bag three

emissions from the FTP. Based upon

these factors, EPA concurs with AAMA/

AIAM’s assessment that a headroom

factor of two is appropriate for the

SFTP.

In examining the most recent diesel

LDV certification data, it became

apparent that the historical headroom

factor of two for gasoline vehicles did

not apply to diesel LDV for NOx. For the

diesel LDV’s, the Tier 1 NOx standard is

1.0 g/mi. Certification emission data

indicates that diesel LDV’s NOx

emissions average 0.82 g/mi This results

in a headroom factor of 1.22. Therefore,

a headroom factor of 1.22 will be used

for setting SFTP standards for diesel

LDVs and LDT1s.

2. NMHC+NOx Standards

Summary of Proposal. The NPRM

proposed separate NOx and NMHC

standards for the supplemental test

requirements. The NPRM stated that the

Agency was also considering the

alternative of establishing a single

standard for NMHC+NOx, instead of

separate standards, and invited

comment on the cost and emission

impacts of this alternative.

Summary of Comments. CARB

supported setting a combined

NMHC+NOx standard for high speed/

acceleration compliance on US06,

stating that they had committed to

proposing the setting of an NMHC+NOx

standard for US06 in response to an

October 1994 proposal by the

automotive industry. However, CARB

does not believe it would be appropriate

to employ an NMHC+NOx standard for

air conditioning standards. CARB

recommended setting separate standards

for NMHC, CO, and NOx emissions for

A/C-on operation, because the range of

engine loads encountered with the A/C

on is similar to the standard FTP and

the evidence suggests that little or no

increment to current NMHC or CO

standards is necessary for A/C-on

operation.

AAMA/AIAM recommended the use

of NMHC+NOx standards for all of the

supplemental test requirements. All of

AAMA/AIAM’s standard analyses were

presented in terms of NMHC+NOx.

AAMA/AIAM also stated as a general

rule that there are tradeoffs in catalyst

efficiency between NMHC/CO and NOx.

NRDC stated that a combined

NMHC+NOX standard would be in

direct contradiction of the

Congressionally established standards,

which set separate limits for specific

pollutants, and for the same reasons that

EPA can’t relax the standards, it can’t

combine them.

Response to Comments. EPA’s

analyses of the second-by-second

emission data from the US06 testing

program clearly indicate that catalyst

conversion efficiency is very sensitive to

air/fuel ratio. Air/fuel shifts less than 1

percent lean of stoichiometry can cause

dramatic reductions in NOX conversion

efficiency. While NMHC conversion

efficiency is not as sensitive to short air/

fuel shifts as NOX conversion efficiency,

consistent operation about 1 percent

rich of stoichiometry can cause dramatic

reductions in NMHC conversion

efficiency. Thus, there is only a very

narrow range of air/fuel ratio in which

the catalyst will convert both NMHC

and NOX at the levels required to meet

the individual design targets in this rule

for NMHC and NOX.

Unfortunately, the oxygen sensors

which are used as the basis for air/fuel

control are not 100 percent accurate and

normal variation occurs in production.

Thus, some production vehicles will

run slightly richer than designed and

some slightly leaner due to the normal

variation. This is not a major problem

for compliance with the current FTP

emission standards, as about 70 percent

of the NMHC emissions over the entire

cycle are generated during the cold start,

as well as about 30 percent of the NOX

emissions, and cold start emissions are

largely unaffected by minor changes in

air/fuel ratio. However, the variation in

air/fuel ratio is a much larger problem

for both the US06 and air conditioning

requirements in this rule, as they are

conducted in hot, stabilized conditions.

An NMHC+NOX standard minimizes

the risk of failing the supplemental

requirements in this rulemaking simply

due to production variation in oxygen

sensor output. In addition, the

NMHC+NOX standard should have no

negative impact on overall in-use ozone

precursor emissions, as any substantial

increase in either NMHC or NOX must

be offset by a decrease in the other to

avoid failing the standards. As there

should be no negative emission impact

and it allows the manufacturers

increased flexibility in meeting the

standards, the Agency is adopting

NMHC+NOX standards in the Final

Rule.

Adoption of NMHC+NOX standards is

consistent with AAMA/AIAM’s

comments about the tradeoffs between

NMHC/CO and NOX and their

recommendations to use NMHC+NOX

standards. It is also consistent with

CARB’s position on US06 standards. It

is not consistent with CARB’s position

on air conditioning standards. While

EPA understands CARB’s reasons for

not using NMHC+NOX standards for air

conditioning, EPA believes they are less

important than giving flexibility to

account for production variation in air/

fuel ratio. In addition, CARB’s position

would make any composite of US06 and

air conditioning standards impossible,

which is inconsistent with EPA’s

position on composite standards (see

below).

Regarding the comments of NRDC

against a combined NMHC+NOX

standard, NRDC’s comments were based

upon the same legal basis as their

argument that EPA can’t relax the

standards by setting emission levels

different from the Tier 1 standards. As

discussed in section I.A., EPA does not

agree that Congress intended to prevent

EPA from promulgating supplemental

standards in order to effectuate the

requirements of section 206(h). Section

202(b)(1)(C) merely prevents EPA from

changing the specific standards of

sections 202 (g) and (h). It does not

prevent EPA from promulgating

supplementary standards relevant to

procedures that were not in existence

and emissions that were not regulated

prior to the promulgation of these

regulations. As the standards

promulgated today are in addition to,

not instead of, Tier 1 standards, there is

no prohibition against a combined

NMHC+NOX standard.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54861

C. Aggressive Driving Cycle (US06)

Requirements

1. Use of US06 Cycle for Aggressive

Driving Standard

Summary of Proposal. The EPA

proposed the US06 driving cycle and

corresponding emission standards for

the control of emissions resulting from

aggressive driving. The US06 driving

cycle was originally developed with

extensive coordination with CARB and

the vehicle manufacturers. The US06

driving cycle is ten minutes in duration

and has a maximum speed of 80.3 mph.

Summary of Comments. NESCAUM

and MECA indicated general support for

the US06 cycle to account for the

aggressive driving behavior of today’s

drivers. NESCAUM did, however,

express concern that the data EPA used

may not be representative of regionalscale driving, which they felt was more

heavily influenced by high speed

driving and hard, high-speed

acceleration.

AAMA/AIAM and Specialty

Equipment Manufacturers Association

(SEMA) raised a number of concerns

about the US06 cycle. AAMA/AIAM

stated that the US06 is a very poor

compliance cycle for significant NOX

reductions, because EPA designed a

cycle concentrating on controlling

enrichment. AAMA/AIAM also stated

that the EPA incorrectly claimed US06

represents driving done by all vehicles,

claiming that it represents only the

single vehicle that generated the cycle,

that most vehicle classes aren’t

represented, and that the cycle is clearly

not representative for those vehicles that

cannot follow it.

SEMA also commented that the US06

cycle contains non-representative

conditions. Specifically, SEMA noted

concern that maximum speed on US06

was 15 mph over the legal speed limit,

which only represents infrequent and

illegal activity. They also felt that EPA

incorrectly implied that the fraction of

vehicle time spent outside the envelope

of the LA4 speed and accelerations (13

percent) was only the higher speed and

accelerations. SEMA also had comments

regarding their power statistics that are

addressed in the Response to Comments

document.

Response to Comments. EPA is

finalizing the US06 driving cycle as

proposed. The agency believes that, as

a control cycle, the US06 adequately

represents the range of in-use operation

and provides for the necessary emission

control of such operation.

In developing the US06, the EPA

sought to create a cycle that was

comprised of segments of in-use driving

and would control emissions under

driving conditions not represented by

the FTP. The US06 cycle is made up of

portions of EPA’s inventory cycle

(REP05) and the California Air

Resources cycle ARB02, and is

representative of driving behavior

outside of the traditional FTP for most

vehicles. EPA agrees that the US06

cycle, unadjusted, is not appropriate for

all vehicles classes; EPA therefore

proposed and is finalizing cycle

adjustments for certain cases, as

summarized in the Summary of

Proposal, above, and discussed in the

Response to Comments.

The Agency disagrees with AAMA/

AIAM’s comment that a cycle segment

can only represent the vehicle that

generated the segment in use. The

underlying cycle generation

methodology used by the EPA selected

representative segments of actual in-use

driving data from a very large database

to match the distribution of in-use

speeds and accelerations. Thus, the

segments were selected as the best

representation of the entire data set.

The EPA also disagrees with AAMA/

AIAM’s comment that the US06 is a

poor NOx control cycle. The US06 cycle

was not designed for control of

enrichment but, rather, to control

emissions during high load and high

speed operation. It should also be noted

that the relationship between US06 and

REP05 emissions, with and without

enrichment, is more stable for NOx than

for either NMHC or CO. This indicates

that US06 does a good job of correlating

with the NOx emission levels on REP05,

the high speed/acceleration emission

inventory cycle.

EPA disagrees with SEMA’s

characterization that EPA included

outliers in the in-use driving behavior

database. First, the raw driving behavior

data went through a quality control

process to remove any suspect data

before inclusion into the final database.

Second, the Baltimore/Spokane

database contains nearly 7 million

seconds of driving behavior data, and

thus one-tenth of one percent represents

nearly 7000 seconds of real in-use

driving behavior. As with any dataset,

the data will be distributed across a

range of values. It is not appropriate to

assume that data in the tails of the

distribution should be treated as

outliers, especially when working with

a dataset as large as the in-use driving

behavior dataset.

The Agency believes that it is

appropriate to include speeds above 65

mph, since EPA believes it was

Congress’ intent for EPA to characterize

actual current driving conditions,

without constraining the

characterization to behavior within the

legal speed limits.

2. US06 CO Standards and Durability

Impact Considerations

Summary of Proposal. The implicit

US06 CO standard proposed by EPA in

the NPRM for Tier I LDV and LDT1

vehicles was 3.4 g/mi. Due to the

extremely high CO emissions emitted

during commanded enrichment, the 3.4

g/mi CO standard proposed in the

NPRM would have completely

eliminated commanded enrichment

over the US06 cycle. Comments were

specifically requested on the need to

allow some commanded enrichment

events during the US06 cycle to avoid

elevated catalyst temperature levels

from in-use operation that would lead to

catalyst deterioration.

Summary of Comments. AAMA/

AIAM had a number of comments on

the potential impacts of the proposed

rules on catalyst durability. They

commented that, first, EPA’s proposed

standards seek to eliminate all

enrichment without regard for impact

on durability. Second, EPA glossed over

the impact of completely eliminating

commanded enrichment on increasing

catalyst temperature, since in-use

catalyst temperatures can easily exceed

those experienced over the US06 cycle

if in-use WOT events are preceded by

higher loads or the WOT events occur

at higher speeds. Third, catalyst

deterioration is not on-off; a long period

of time at 850 °C can produce the same

deterioration as a short period of time at

900 °C. Fourth, the catalyst temperature

data used in the analyses were from Tier

0 vehicles without close-coupled

catalysts. Fifth, if it is true, as EPA

stated, that extended WOT in-use

driving situations will be infrequent and

not of much consequence on catalyst

temperature, then the same can be said

about the need to control emissions

during these situations. CO emissions

from WOT events over 2 seconds have

an extremely small impact on fleetaverage CO emissions and air quality.

Finally, all vehicles should be allowed

to use enrichment after two seconds of

WOT. A two second limit will keep NOx

increases down and the increase in

catalyst temperature to manageable

limits for Tier I vehicles.

A number of comments from

individual manufacturers and from

SEMA echoed AAMA/AIAM’s catalyst

durability concerns. Honda stated that

the maximum catalyst temperature they

could tolerate was 900 °C and that the

CO standard would need to be less

stringent to protect catalysts from

overheating on US06. SEMA stated that

EPA’s imposition of a timer and/or
54862 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

7Memorandum from Robert H. Cross, Assistant

Chief, Mobile Source Division, CARB, to Margo

Oge, Director, Office of Mobile Sources, EPA,

‘‘Reference No. TF–96–008’’, April 10, 1996.

Available from EPA Air Docket A–92–64.

8A discussion on the development of the US06

can be found in the ‘‘Final Technical Report on

Aggressive Driving Behavior for the Revised Federal

Test Procedure Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,’’

available in the public docket.

elimination of commanded enrichment

will further aggravate the tendency for

vehicles, particularly high performance

vehicles, to experience excess catalyst

and engine/component temperatures.

Both GM and Suzuki stated that

extended stoichiometric control results

in excess temperature in warm-up

catalysts.

Ford stated that, if longer WOT times

are dictated, then the CO standard

should be raised commensurately to

allow commanded enrichment to cool

the catalysts.

MECA did not support concerns about

catalyst durability, stating that catalyst

formations exist which are capable of

withstanding temperatures in excess of

900 °C.

CARB, in an April 10, 1996 memo 7,

stated that they were revising their

position on the control of commanded

enrichment and now supported

allowing limited amounts of

commanded enrichment. CARB

recommended establishing a US06 CO

standard, without a WOT enrichment

delay criterion, based on both

stoichiometric non-WOT operation and

four seconds of WOT enrichment delay

on lower performance vehicles.

Response to Comments. EPA shares

the concerns expressed by most

commenters about impacts of

stoichiometric control during WOT on

catalyst deterioration. EPA and CARB

spent considerable time evaluating three

approaches to limit the duration of

WOT stoichiometric control to periods

that would not be likely to cause

catalyst deterioration (i.e. 2–4 seconds,

based upon EPA analyses and

manufacturer comments):

1. Dynamically adjust the load during the

test whenever a vehicle had stayed at WOT

for two seconds, so that the vehicle can

continue to follow the trace without having

to stay at WOT.

2. Raise the CO standard and extend the

two-second timer criteria for highperformance vehicles in the NPRM to all

vehicles.

3. Raise the CO standard to a level that

would allow enrichment on most vehicles

after, at most, two seconds of WOT operation

and no more than four seconds of operation

on any vehicle.

Despite the small loss of CO control

on higher performance vehicles, EPA

has concluded that Option 3, raising the

CO standard without a two-second

design criteria, is the most appropriate

choice. Option 3 avoids the potential

NOX increase associated with the

frequent load reductions that would

occur during testing for Option 1, as

well as the complexity of having a

secondary timer criteria and some

increased potential for catalyst

degradation for Option 2. The approach

in Option 3 is also consistent with that

recommended by CARB. In addition, the

CO loss associated with WOT operation

on high performance vehicles is small,

as about two-thirds of enrichment CO is

generated at part-throttle in use, plus

most WOT operation occurs on lower

performance vehicles.

In setting the level of the CO standard

for the US06 cycle, EPA’s primary

criteria was to select a CO standard that

most vehicles could meet while

eliminating enrichment for no more

than two seconds at WOT. However,

setting the CO standard at a high enough

level to allow low performance vehicles

to meet it while eliminating

commanded enrichment for only two

seconds would allow higher

performance vehicles to use enrichment

at part throttle. To prevent this and to

reflect the much higher proportion of

time low performance vehicles spend at

WOT in use, a secondary criteria was

added to allow the CO standard to be set

at a level that would require low

performance vehicles to use

stoichiometric control at WOT for up to

four seconds.

Based upon these criteria, total CO

emissions over the US06 cycle were

calculated from a combination of the

production and stoichiometric

calibration data. The data showed that

a CO design target of 4.5 g/mi meets the

primary criteria that most vehicles meet

the standard with no more than two

seconds of stoichiometric control at

WOT and, with the allowance of

dynamic load adjustments for the lowest

performance vehicles, would allow all

vehicles to meet the standard with no

more than four seconds of

stoichiometric control at WOT.

Using the ‘‘times two’’ headroom

previously determined to be appropriate

for off-cycle standards, the result is a

50,000 mile US06 CO standard of 9.0 g/

mi for LDV and LDT1 vehicles. While

this almost triples the CO standard

proposed in the NPRM, the impact on

in-use CO emissions is proportionally

far less. This is because the US06 cycle

only represents 28 percent of all in-use

operation and, even within this

window, overstates the amount of

extended WOT operation compared to

in-use operation. (This overstatement is

intentional in order to insure control

over the range of high load acceleration

events which are associated with the

extended WOT operation.) 8 Most

enrichment CO emissions are generated

during part-throttle and most in-use

WOT throttle operation does not last

more than two seconds in duration.

Thus, even at 9.0 g/mi, about 80 percent

of CO from commanded enrichment will

be controlled.

EPA believes that US06 is the

preferable method for establishing

control of emissions from non-LA4

driving behavior. The US06 covers the

range of non-LA4 driving, while

targeting severe, high emission events.

Because the driving modes generating

the highest emissions differed widely

across vehicles, it is very important to

include a variety of high load events

representing actual aggressive driving

behavior. In addition, the US06 cycle

achieves the objectives of both EPA and

CARB, thus eliminating issues or costs

associated with the respective agencies

having two different control. An

important CARB objective is to make

sure outer bounds of in-use aggressive

driving is represented and controlled;

this is achieved with the inclusion of

the ARB02 high-speed microtrip. A

second, ARB02 high-speed microtrip

was rejected due to an extended, highspeed acceleration which might result

in excessive catalyst temperatures in

vehicles which are controlling

commanded enrichment. Thus, the

US06 provides for control of shortduration commanded enrichment events

associated with aggressive driving. As

discussed in the feasibility section

which follows, the duration of

commanded enrichment control needs

to be limited due to catalyst temperature

concerns. EPA’s analysis of catalyst

temperature data from the

manufacturer’s test program concluded

that the ARB02 high-speed microtrip

used in US06 provides for a reasonable

duration of control.

The amount of CO control inherent in

the CO standard is illustrated by the

average CO emissions generated on

US06 by the Tier 1 vehicles in the US06

phase II test program. LDV and LDT1

vehicles averaged 17.6 g/mi with

production calibrations. Compared to

this baseline level, raising the CO design

target from the implicit level of 1.7 g/

mi in the NPRM to the Final Rule level

of 4.5 g/mi reduces the CO benefit on

the US06 cycle from 15.9 g/mi to 13.1

g/mi, a reduction of only 18 percent.

The in-use emission impact will be less

yet, as the US06 cycle overstates the

amount of WOT operation. While it may
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54863

seem as if raising the standard from 3.4

to 9.0 g/mi should have a major impact

on the stringency of the standard, given

the severity of the US06 cycle and the

extremely high baseline emission levels,

analyses support that a standard of 9.0

g/mi will still achieve the large majority

of the potential CO emission benefits.

The CO standard needs to be at this

level because of the extreme sensitivity

of CO emissions to commanded

enrichment. Each second of commanded

enrichment generates 2–4 grams of CO,

enough to add about 0.3–0.5 g/mi to the

overall weighted US06 test results.

Thus, raising the standard from 3.4 to

9.0 g/mi, which raises the design target

level from 1.7 to 4.5 g/mi, is an

allowance of only about 6–10 seconds of

enrichment on a cycle which over

represents extended WOT operation.

The CO standards on US06 have been

deliberately set at this level to allow

limited amounts of commanded

enrichment, which is needed to ensure

excessive engine and catalyst

temperatures do not occur. As CO

emissions are directly proportional to

the amount of extra fuel, this Final Rule

includes a minimum air/fuel ratio

requirement to ensure that excessive

amounts of enrichment and, hence, CO

emissions, do not occur during

commanded enrichment. The air/fuel

ratio shall not be richer than the lean

best torque, plus a tolerance of six

percent of the lean best torque fuel

consumption. The six percent tolerance

is included to allow for normal variance

in production torque characteristics, as

well as the impact of engine deposits on

knock in use.

The CO standards for truck classes

and for full-useful life standards are

calculated based upon the ratio of the

FTP CO standards. The full list of the

CO standards was presented in the

‘‘Description of the Action’’ section.

3. Performance Impacts of US06 CO

Standards

Summary of Comments. In their

comments AAMA/AIAM stated that

they felt EPA’s proposed standards

sought to eliminate all enrichment

without regard for impact on

performance and in doing so EPA

glossed over the impact of completely

eliminating commanded enrichment on

reducing engine power. AAMA/AIAM

argued that EPA must either factor the

lost value of performance to consumers

or factor in engine or drive train

modifications into it’s analysis of

emissions and fuel economy. AAMA/

AIAM also stated that EPA did not use

proper statistical techniques to

distinguish variability from consistent

trends in the WOT time analysis used to

claim minimal effects on performance,

and AAMA/AIAM alternatively

proposed that a two second limit on

WOT control would keep the loss of

power to manageable limits for Tier I

vehicles.

Both GM and Suzuki stated that

extended stoichiometric control at WOT

would result in elimination of small

displacement engines.

SEMA expressed their belief that

stoichiometric control at WOT would

create a safety concern for low-powered

vehicles, as they could be

underpowered and thus less safe when

merging onto highways or climbing

hills. SEMA also stated that the use of

timers on high performance vehicles

will cause an in-use safety problem

when enrichment is invoked and extra

power is suddenly introduced.

Response to Comments. EPA believes

the revisions to the CO standards render

the comments on performance impact

moot, for all practical purposes. With

the 9.0 g/mi CO standard, higher

performance vehicles will be able to use

enrichment immediately at WOT, most

vehicles will need to delay enrichment

for no more than two seconds, and no

vehicle should need to delay

enrichment for more than four seconds.

As the manufacturers stated in their

comments that a two second limit on

WOT control will keep the loss of power

to manageable limits for Tier 1 vehicles

and proposed a method for such control

that would inherently require a three to

four second timer, there should not be

a significant performance impact even

on the lower performance vehicles that

would need a short period of WOT

enrichment control.

EPA disagrees with SEMA’s

statements about potential safety

concerns on low-powered vehicles and

the use of timers on high-performance

vehicles. Even if enrichment were

eliminated for extended periods of time,

the performance reduction would be

very small (3–5 percent) compared to

the range of performance levels that

already exist in the vehicle fleet (which

differ by a factor of 2–3). Similar logic

applies to the use of timers on high

performance vehicles. The introduction

of enrichment after a period of

stoichiometric operation causes an

increase in the power output of the

engine of no more than five percent.

This impact is quite small compared to

the engine output increase as the engine

increases in RPM from second to second

and to the sudden increase in power

delivered by a turbocharger, which can

be in the range of a 50 percent power

boost.

4. US06 NMHC+NOX Standard

Summary of Proposal. The NPRM

proposed to hold US06 NOX emissions

to overall FTP emission levels and

NMHC emissions to FTP bag 2 emission

levels. For Tier I LDV and LDT1

vehicles, the FTP NOX standard is 0.4 g/

mi. While no standards exist for FTP

bag 2 emissions, the average FTP bag 2

emissions for Tier I LDV and LDT1

vehicles would correspond to an NMHC

standard of roughly 0.05 g/mi. Thus, the

NPRM implicitly proposed an US06

NMHC+NOX standard of about 0.45 g/

mi for LDV and LDT1 vehicles.

Summary of Comments. AAMA/

AIAM submitted a proposal to set US06

standards by averaging all the Tier I

LDV and LDT1 US06 stoichiometric test

results, multiplied by a factor of two to

provide necessary headroom. Based

upon this methodology, they proposed

US06 standards of 1.1 g/mi

NMHC+NOX. AAMA/AIAM also stated

that this emission level, with

appropriate load adjustments, should be

feasible with only recalibration for most

vehicles.

AAMA/AIAM also submitted a

number of comments questioning the

data analysis done by EPA to develop

proposed NOX standards, and stated

that recalibration alone would be

insufficient to meet EPA’s proposed

standards and larger catalysts would be

required.

Ford also commented that EPA’s

proposed standards could not be met

with only calibration changes and stated

that catalyst systems would have to be

redesigned, including catalyst volume,

precious metal loading, and catalyst

placement. Ford also expressed concern

that increasing EGR flow to reduce NOX

over the US06 cycle could have negative

impacts on driveability, HC emissions,

and fuel economy.

Response to Comments. Comments

and new data provided by AAMA/

AIAM convinced EPA to revise the

US06 standards based on new data for

Tier 1 vehicles.

EPA expended considerable effort

examining the impact of a wide variety

of factors on US06 NMHC+NOX

emissions, including vehicle and engine

size, vehicle weight, performance,

catalyst loadings and size, exhaust flow,

and eight different air/fuel parameters.

The only factor identified with a

consistent, significant impact on US06

emissions was the bias of the air/fuel

ratio (i.e., whether the vehicle exhibited

significant lean or rich bias during US06

operation). Of the 29 LDV, LDT1, and

LDT2 Tier 1 vehicles tested over the

US06 cycle, 14 were identified as

having no significant air/fuel bias. Ten
54864 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

vehicles were identified with a lean-bias

to their air/fuel calibration or with a

shift in the air/fuel calibration from the

production to stoichiometric calibration;

these vehicles generated NOX emissions

two to four times higher than the

unbiased vehicles. The remaining five

vehicles with a rich bias all had

significant increases in NMHC and CO

emissions, with erratic NOX impacts

(i.e. some had relatively low NOX

emissions, but two had high NOX

emissions).

The 14 vehicles with unbiased air/

fuel calibrations covered a wide range of

manufacturers, size, weight,

performance, and catalyst loadings and

size. Substantial work on identifying

additional factors causing differences in

emissions and catalyst conversion

efficiency between these 14 vehicles

again failed to reveal any other

significant influences. Given the lack of

additional factors identified and the

reasonable representation of the whole

fleet by the vehicles having unbiased

air/fuel calibrations, EPA established

Tier 1 US06 NMHC+NOX design targets

based on the simple average of the

vehicles identified as having unbiased

air/fuel calibrations. The intermediate

useful life NMHC+NOX design target

was calculated to be 0.29 g/mi for LDVs

and LDT1s.

The Agency believes that the great

majority of vehicles can meet the design

target level simply with better attention

to proper air/fuel calibration. This

conclusion is supported by the

following factors:

1. Each vehicle identified as having a leanbias or an erratic stoichiometric calibration

had NMHC+NOX levels over twice the design

target. The Agency believes that better air/

fuel calibration will reduce the emissions

from all of the vehicles with lean-bias and

erratic calibrations to the level of the vehicles

with good calibrations.

2. The conclusion from the preceding

paragraph is supported by the emissions from

the LDT1 and LDT2 trucks. All five of the

LDT1s tested had unbiased air/fuel control;

four of the five meet the design level even

with the unoptimized stoichiometric

calibrations used for the test program. For the

LDT2s, four of the six vehicles tested had

unbiased air/fuel control; all four of these

vehicles plus one vehicle with a rich air/fuel

bias meet or come very close to meeting the

design target with the unoptimized

stoichiometric calibration used for the test

program. While the stoichiometric emissions

were higher on the sixth vehicle, with the

production calibration this vehicle produced

NMHC+NOX emissions right at the design

target level. Thus, it appears likely that all six

of the LDT2s can meet the design target level

with little, if any, modification. As these

trucks constitute an extremely broad range of

weight, performance, and engine size, the

Agency believes that LDVs would be able to

duplicate the emission performance of the

trucks, given similar air/fuel calibration

strategies.

3. The US06 NOX design target is about 75

percent above the current NOX emission level

from hot, stabilized driving over the FTP

driving cycles. As engine-out NOX emissions

are also about 75 percent higher on the US06

compared to the FTP, the US06 design target

can be met by maintaining the same NOX

conversion efficiency on US06 as the vehicle

achieves during hot, stabilized FTP

operation. Analyses conducted by EPA

indicate that equivalent NOX conversion

efficiency is a reasonable assumption.

While NMHC+NOX standards were

not promulgated for US06 separately, a

US06 standard level of 0.58 g/mi for

LDVs and LDT1s (the 0.29 g/mi design

target multiplied by the headroom factor

of two) was used in the calculation of

the NMHC+NOX composite standards

presented in the ‘‘Description of the

Action’’ section, above. Further

description of how the composite

standards were calculated can be found

in the ‘‘Composite Standard’’ section,

below.

D. Intermediate Soak

Summary of Proposal. The Agency

proposed to control tailpipe emissions

following soaks of intermediate duration

(between 10 minutes and 3 hours) by

requiring that emissions on the SC01

cycle following a 60 minute soak not be

greater than emissions over Bag 3 of the

FTP. The NPRM also stated that the

decision to finalize the intermediate

soak requirement would be contingent

on the cost effectiveness of the

requirement for vehicles complying

with LEV and lower standards. The

Agency surmised that increased thermal

insulation around the catalytic

substrate(s) would be used to meet this

requirement.

Summary of Comments. All

comments received from auto

manufacturers and manufacturer

organizations, including AAMA/AIAM,

GM, Honda, and Land Rover, objected to

the intermediate soak requirement on

the basis of the cost not justifying the

benefits. These arguments were centered

on four major points: (1) The emissions

benefit would be significantly reduced

as more advanced cold start

technologies are implemented to

comply with lower emission standards,

(2) the cost of implementing EPA’s

primary control strategy, catalyst

insulation, would be prohibitive from

an exhaust system packaging

standpoint, (3) the use of catalyst

insulation would increase the thermal

severity of the catalyst environment,

bringing greater risk of catalyst

deterioration over the life of the vehicle,

and (4) the test facility implications of

adding an intermediate soak procedure

would be significant.

Comments that supported the

inclusion of the intermediate soak

requirement were submitted by the

NESCAUM, the National Renewable

Energy Laboratory (NREL), and the

MECA. NESCAUM and MECA

supported the intermediate soak

requirement in the context of making

the test procedure representative of inuse driving per the intent of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990. NREL

recommended that the intermediate

soak period be extended to at least 2

hours to provide an improved

representation of in-use soak periods,

with waivers available for catalyst

technology that is demonstrated to

remain at high temperature during such

soaks. Comments supplied by NREL and

MECA also provided information on

technology under development that

would mitigate intermediate soak

emissions.

Response to Comments. Controlling

intermediate soak emissions would

require hardware changes to keep the

catalyst warm longer or to heat it up

faster. Possible techniques include

catalyst insulation and catalyst

preheaters, but any technique will likely

result in significant redesign and

retooling investments. For example, the

most inexpensive technique, as

discussed in the NPRM, is likely to be

catalyst insulation. Even this option

would require redesign of the catalyst

can, possibly including new can

material, and development of a thicker,

insulated, catalyst mounting material.

The overall size of the catalyst would

increase due to the insulating material,

possibly to the point at which it would

not fit into current space, which would

require redesign of the vehicle floorpan.

Finally, the catalyst insulation would

increase internal catalyst temperatures,

potentially leading to higher catalyst

deterioration.

In the analysis conducted by EPA in

support of the NPRM, all of the redesign

problems were considered manageable

and cost effective for Tier 1 vehicles,

provided that the high up-front redesign

and tooling costs could be amortized

over at least five years of production.

This differs from US06 and air

conditioning control, which can be

predominantly accomplished without

hardware changes and high retooling

costs. Because of the hardware

investment to meet intermediate soak

requirements and the high potential for

intermediate soak requirements to be in

effect on Tier 1 vehicles for only a

couple of years before being replaced by

National LEV or Tier 2 requirements, it

would likely be a waste of
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54865

manufacturers’ resources to establish

intermediate soak requirements only for

Tier 1 vehicles. Thus, one of EPA’s

criteria in promulgating intermediate

soak requirements was whether or not

they would continue to be cost effective

for LEV-like vehicles.

Unfortunately, the feasibility of

intermediate soak requirements on Tier

2 or NLEVs is much less certain. While

catalyst temperature data indicate that

the increased catalyst temperature

caused by catalyst insulation is not

likely to be a problem for Tier 1

vehicles, Tier 2 or NLEVs are likely to

move catalysts closer to the engine,

increasing the temperature concerns

with catalyst insulation. EPA does not

have sufficient information on the

impact of catalyst insulation on the

durability of Tier 2 or NLEVs catalysts,

including their higher baseline

temperatures and improved catalyst

formulations, to quantify the extent of

this concern.

Moving the catalysts closer to the

engine will also reduce catalyst light-off

time, potentially reducing intermediate

soak emissions even without

intermediate soak standards. Using new

emission data provided by AAMA/

AIAM and CARB in their comments on

vehicles certified to emission standards

lower than Tier 1, EPA assessed the

potential emission benefits of the

intermediate soak requirement on Tier 2

or NLEVs. This data indicated that the

benefit on LEV vehicles would be about

60 percent of that on Tier 1 vehicles, or

about 0.04 g/mi NMHC+NOX. Under the

Agency’s ‘‘best-case’’ cost scenario, this

would result in a cost per ton of

NMHC+NOX reduced of approximately

$3100. Taking into account some

uncertainties about the need to revise

floorpans on some vehicles, possible

reduced benefit of insulation, and

possibly requiring insulation on

multiple catalysts, the upper bound

estimate is approximately $13,000 per

ton NMHC+NOX reduced. These

estimates include an estimate of the

NOX increase resulting from A/C

operation over soaks based on data from

a LEV prototype vehicle.

Although the analysis of the LEV soak

data indicates that there would continue

to be some emissions benefits from

controlling soak emissions, these data

also indicate that intermediate soak

emissions are being reduced as a result

of the technology to be used for

complying with Tier 2 or LEV

standards, which target cold start

emission reductions. The Agency

believes that adding a 1 to 2 hour soak

would add little value to the FTP for the

purpose of controlling emissions. As a

result of the reduced benefit on LEV-like

vehicles and uncertainties regarding

cost and feasibility of control discussed

above, the Agency has decided not to

finalize the intermediate soak

requirement at this time.

However, because this action is based

on emission levels from a small sample

of prototype vehicles as well as current

technological restrictions, the Agency is

not ruling out the possibility of

promulgating this requirement at a later

time. Intermediate soak emissions will

continue to contribute somewhat to the

in-use inventory even as LEV and ULEV

technologies penetrate the in-use fleet.

The Agency will monitor the

performance of production LEV and

ULEV vehicles over intermediate soaks

to verify the conclusions from the

prototype analysis. At the same time,

the Agency will encourage the

development of technologies that will

allow for the control of intermediate

soak emissions in a manner that is cost

effective and not detrimental to the

emission control system.

E. Air Conditioning

1. Test Cycle

Summary of the Proposal. The

proposed SFTP included an air

conditioning simulation to be performed

during the hot stabilized 866 cycle and

the start control cycle (SC01). The

standards implicitly assumed that

emissions over the SC01 cycle could be

held to the same level as emissions over

the 505 cycle used for Bag 3 of the FTP.

Comments were specifically solicited

on the possibility of substituting the 505

component of the LA4 (The LA4

consists of a 505 cycle followed by an

866 cycle) for SC01 and on whether full

air conditioning simulation should be

added to the US06 cycle. The Agency

also stated that it believes it may be

appropriate to return to the issue of cold

start testing with air conditioning

operation with respect to future

technologies and future test procedures

and emission standards; comments were

also solicited on this issue.

Summary of Comments. NESCAUM,

MECA, and CARB all supported the

need to account for air conditioning

load over the cycles proposed.

NESCAUM and CARB also supported

testing with actual air conditioning load

over cold start conditions (bag 1 of the

FTP). MECA and CARB stated that air

conditioning load should also be

accounted for during aggressive diving

(US06).

AAMA/AIAM stated that EPA has not

demonstrated the feasibility of its

proposed standards for operation over

the SC01 cycle. They were especially

critical of EPA’s conclusion that the

difference in emissions between SC01

and the 505 were due to microtransient

emission response, which could be

controlled with sequential multi-point

fuel injection and better calibrations.

AAMA/AIAM stated that the data did

not justify using SC01 and

recommended that the air conditioning

test procedure consist of the hot LA4

without a soak. AAMA/AIAM also

stated that cold start emissions related

to air conditioning operation are already

addressed through the FTP and can only

be improved by increasing the overall

stringency of the current Tier 1

standards.

Suzuki stated that the SC01 cycle is

too aggressive in general and too severe

for small engines. They recommended

that EPA consider a unique schedule or

cycle adjustment for small engines, due

to the disproportional load that air

conditioning places on small engines.

Response to the Comments. As

discussed in the NPRM, EPA recognized

that the proposed SC01 cycle needed

revisions to better reflect the in-use

speed/acceleration distribution; the

revised cycle is known as SC03. The

final A/C test requirement will consist

of a 10 minute soak and the SC03 cycle.

Except for the revisions to SC01, EPA

did not find the arguments presented by

the commenters sufficient to make

additional modifications.

EPA is concerned about emissions

from microtransient driving behavior.

Many vehicles’ emissions are sensitive

to driving behavior, and data indicate

that small speed variations actually

occur about 50 percent more frequently

than on the LA–4 driving cycle. On the

other hand, there is some merit to

AAMA/AIAM’s arguments that factors

other than microtransients likely impact

the difference in emissions seen on the

SC01 versus the 505 driving cycles.

Thus, the standards have been adjusted

for the difference in emissions between

the new cycle and the 505.

As indicated in the NPRM, an error

was made in the generation of the SC01

cycle. Proper matching of the in-use

driving distribution yielded a revised

cycle, called SC03. Overall, the positive

kinetic energy (PKE) from accelerations

on the SC03 cycle is about halfway

between the PKE of the 505 and the

SC01 cycles. EPA calculated the likely

difference in emissions between the 505

and SC03 to be 48 percent of the

difference in emissions observed

between SC01 and the 505.

The adjustments made in SC03

address Suzuki’s comment that the

SC01 was too aggressive in general,

although EPA disagrees that SC01 is too

severe for small engines. While it is true

that air conditioning places a
54866 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

disproportional load on small engines,

this is merely a reflection of what

actually occurs in use. In addition, the

total mass flow through a small engine

is still lower than occurs with larger

engines and vehicles; thus, small

engines should be able to comply with

the standards.

The 866 cycle was dropped in the

final rule because inclusion of the 866

cycle would greatly over-represent low

speed, low acceleration driving.

Emission reductions achieved on the

866 with air conditioning operation may

not result in equivalent in-use emission

reductions. As the SC03 cycle was

specifically developed to match the

speed and acceleration distribution of

in-use driving, less the high speed and

acceleration driving represented by

US06, the SC03 offers far more

assurance that emission reduction on

the cycle will proportionally reduce inuse emissions.

While EPA agrees in principal with

comments from MECA and CARB that

air conditioning load should be

included in aggressive driving (US06),

EPA believes that, in practical terms,

adding air conditioning load to the

US06 cycle would be largely

meaningless. The US06 cycle already

pushes virtually all vehicles into WOT;

inclusion of air conditioning load would

simply expand the amount of time spent

at WOT and increase the overall engineout NOX emissions proportionally to the

extra load. This increase would wind up

being incorporated into higher emission

levels, without any real impact on the

control of emissions during air

conditioning operation. EPA also agrees in principal with

comments from NESCAUM and CARB

that air conditioning operation during

cold starts should be accounted for.

Unfortunately, as AAMA/AIAM points

out in their comments, the primary way

to control the addition to emissions

during cold starts would be to shorten

catalyst light-off time. The Agency

believes that requiring control of air

conditioning-related emissions on a

cold start test is inappropriate at this

time because of the lead time and cost

necessary to implement new catalyst

technology. The Agency intends to

revisit this issue as part of the Tier 2

standards, when the air conditioning

impact can be assessed as part of the

standard setting process.

2. Air Conditioning Simulation

Summary of the Proposal. As an

alternative to using a full environmental

chamber for air conditioning testing, the

Agency proposed a simulation

procedure that could be conducted in a

standard test cell. The proposed

simulation included a 95°F ± 5°F test

cell ambient temperature, front-end

supplemental fan cooling, driver’s

window down, and vehicle climate

controls settings of maximum A/C,

interior air recirculation, high interior

fan, and coldest temperature. Testing in

a full environmental chamber was

proposed to also be permitted, at the

manufacturer’s option. Comments were also requested on two

other simulations, bench testing and a

dynamometer simulation approach

proposed by the vehicle manufacturers,

dubbed ‘‘Nissan-II.’’

Summary of the Comments.

NESCAUM stated that EPA should rely

on the actual operation of the air

conditioner with an environmental

simulation. They also expressly

requested that EPA not lower the

maximum ambient temperature. Horiba

also opposed using the dynamometer to

simulate the air conditioning load,

stating that it would affect the

driveability of the vehicle on the

dynamometer differently from highway

driving. Horiba suggested that the air

conditioning be turned on for the test,

with the windows open and an auxiliary

heat source if necessary. CARB advocated the use of full

environmental chambers for air

conditioning testing, stating that its

incremental cost would be less than $3

per test and requesting that EPA also do

a cost-effectiveness analysis of using full

environmental chambers. CARB was

willing to consider options for a ‘‘shortcut procedure if sufficient correlation

with environmental chamber data can

be demonstrated.’’

AAMA/AIAM stated that correlation

of the proposed simulation with the full

environmental chamber results was

poor and that EPA’s analysis of the

correlation was misleading. AAMA/

AIAM also noted cost concerns with

performing the simulation, since

facilities must be capable of handling

the increased cell temperature,

humidity, and air flow. Honda stated that a full

environmental chamber would not be

cost effective, considering the cost of the

technology needed to comply with the

air conditioning requirement. They

strongly recommended that EPA not

only address air conditioning

simulation technology, but also consider

facility cost and feasibility so that all

manufacturers could conduct SFTP tests

without an additional heavy burden. Response to the Comments. As

neither CARB nor vehicle manufacturers

supported the air conditioning

simulation as proposed, much work has

been done since the NPRM developing

other air conditioning simulations.

None of the simulations, at this

relatively early stage of development,

have yet demonstrated sufficient

correlation to be used as a permanent

substitute for full environmental

chambers. However, there is a strong

probability that further development

could yield an effective air conditioning

simulation.

Meanwhile, EPA has spent

considerable effort evaluating the cost of

using full environmental chambers, as

well as the incremental savings

associated with an air conditioning

simulation. While EPA estimates that

using full environmental chambers for

all air conditioning testing would cost a

little more than estimated by CARB,

$3.05 per vehicle, the cost is still low

enough to support CARB’s conclusion

that using full environmental chambers

is cost-effective. However, a workable

simulation would allow a significant

cost reduction to manufacturers and

consumers, which would be worthwhile

so long as it did not significantly impact

the air quality benefits.

The long range solution reached by

EPA is to mandate the use of full

environmental chambers, with an

option for using a simulation if

correlation can be demonstrated. To

encourage proper development and use

of simulations, ‘‘acceptance criteria’’

have been developed. Before a

simulation procedure may be used by a

manufacturer, the manufacturers must

agree to perform spot check verifications

to demonstrate that the simulation

procedure satisfactorily correlates with

the full environmental chamber for each

engine/vehicle combination covered.

This consists of verifying the correlation

for up to five vehicles per manufacturer

(one for small volume manufacturers) of

EPA’s choice at the time of certification.

Five vehicles per manufacturer are

specified to allow EPA flexibility in

targeting new A/C simulations and

manufacturers with poor track records;

in other cases EPA will likely specify

only two vehicles per manufacturer.

Due to the large variability in emissions

from test to test and lab to lab and EPA’s

desire to avoid improperly failing good

simulations, the simulation tailpipe

NOX emissions must be at least 85

percent of the full environmental

chamber NOX emissions. The fuel

consumption, (a good surrogate for

overall load on the engine) in the

simulation must be at least 95 percent

of the fuel consumption in the full

environmental chamber. Retests and

reapplication of these thresholds are

also allowed, as described in the

‘‘Description of the Action.’’ If an

engine/vehicle fails, the manufacturer

must remedy the air conditioning load

imposed during the simulation or use
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54867

9 During the development of these simulations,

the AC1 and AC2 methods were referred to as the

Nissan-II and Toyota simulations, respectively. See

§ 86.162–00 of today’s final regulations for details

of these simulations.

full environmental chambers for future

testing. Data must also be supplied

establishing how many other engine/

vehicle combinations are similar to the

failing configuration. Any future data

generated on these engine/vehicle

combinations, including in-use

enforcement testing, must use the

corrected procedure. If any vehicle fails

to meet the tailpipe emission standards

due to a corrected air conditioning load,

all applicable vehicles are subject to an

emissions recall; however, there would

be no recall liability associated with the

air conditioning load correction itself.

For every engine/vehicle combination

which fails this demonstration, EPA

may require the manufacturer to verify

the correlation between the simulation

and the full environmental chamber for

an additional two vehicles of EPA’s

choice.

The results from each manufacturers

correlation demonstrations will also be

tracked over time. The manufacturer is

expected to target the simulation to at

least 100 percent of the emissions from

the full environmental chamber. If, over

time, the emissions from the

simulations are found to be statistically

lower than the full environmental

chamber, further use of simulations by

that manufacturer will not be allowed

until the causes of the offset are

identified and corrected.

While these acceptance and

verification procedures should

encourage development of accurate air

conditioning simulations in the long

run, applying them immediately would

create a leadtime problem. No

simulations have been developed yet

that can meet the criteria and building

full environmental chambers is time

consuming and expensive. To avoid

significant delays in implementing the

air conditioning requirements and to

allow additional time to develop

simulations, EPA is allowing the use of

the AC1 or the AC2 simulations used in

the ACR3 and ACC3 testing programs

without verification during the threeyear phase-in period.9 Starting with

MY2003, any simulation procedure will

be subject to the quality audit

verification test program discussed

above. Testing in a full environmental

chamber will be acceptable at any time.

The long term requirement for any

simulation to correlate with actual air

conditioning operation in a full

environmental chamber should satisfy

the concerns expressed by NESCAUM

and CARB. The requirement to correlate

with a full environmental chamber also

addresses Horiba’s opposition to using

the dynamometer due to inappropriate

driveability impacts, as a procedure

could not pass the correlation criteria if

this effect were to occur.

3. Air Conditioning Standards

Summary of the Proposal. The NPRM

proposed that vehicles maintain existing

NMHC and CO emission levels with the

air conditioning turned on. The NPRM

concluded that 25 percent of the NOX

increase with the air conditioning

engaged was likely to be unavoidable

without increasing the stringency of the

current NOX standard, but proposed

controlling the other 75 percent. In the

proposed composite standard, the

allowable 25 percent NOX emission

increase was calculated to be equivalent

to an adjustment factor of 1.15 applied

to the FTP NOX standard. The NPRM

specifically requested comments on the

feasibility of the proposed levels of

control and the technology implications

of controlling emissions to this level.

Summary of the Comments. NRDC

opposed the 15 percent ‘‘relaxing’’ of

NOX standards, stating that any revised

standard requires a reduction in

emissions.

CARB was generally supportive, but

commented that there was no data on

vehicles that were optimized for

emissions with A/C on.

AAMA/AIAM commented that the

proposed standards were not based on

available test data or ‘‘sound

engineering analysis.’’ Specifically, they

stated that EPA performed no technical

feasibility analysis for an A/C NOX

standard. They argued that their

analyses indicated that 74 percent of the

NOX increase was due to an increase in

engine-out emissions that was an

inherent function of the additional load

placed on the engine by the air

conditioner. AAMA/AIAM did

acknowledge that it may be possible to

inexpensively eliminate much or most

of the loss in NOX conversion efficiency

which occurred with the air conditioner

on, which their analyses indicate was 26

percent of the total NOX increase.

AAMA/AIAM also claimed that EPA

did not adequately explain the CO

increase with A/C on and that, in

assessing NOX conversion efficiencies,

EPA ignored NMHC and CO levels.

They also argued that EPA’s approach of

turning the air conditioning compressor

off for brief periods of time at high load

points actually produces very little

emission improvement, as EPA did not

add back in any additional compressor

operation during other parts of the cycle

and ignored the impacts of this

additional cycling on compressor

durability or efficiency. They claimed

that EPA did not assess the feasibility of

reducing engine-out NOX emissions.

Response to the Comments. There is

some validity to AAMA/AIAM’s

criticisms that EPA did not adequately

explain the CO increases with the air

conditioning on, ignored NMHC and CO

levels when assessing NOX emissions,

did not add back in additional

compressor operation to compensate for

turning off the compressor at high load

points, and did not adequately assess

the feasibility of reducing engine-out

NOX emissions. In addition, subsequent

to the publication of the NPRM, EPA

learned that the vehicles used in the

NPRM to set standards were tested with

low mileage catalysts. Consequently,

EPA and the manufacturers agreed to

conduct a new test program.

Unfortunately, examination of the

available data indicates that directly

setting tailpipe air conditioning

standards has some significant

problems:

1. The ACR1 data was tested with lowmileage catalysts,

2. Only four LDVs were tested in the

ACR3/ACC3 test programs, three of which

were Fords,

3. One of the four LDVs was identified in

the US06 analysis as having a lean air/fuel

bias and generating high NOX emissions

under higher loads,

4. Another of the four LDVs had extremely

high variability in tailpipe emissions from

test to test, indicating an erratic emission

control system.

Fortunately, it is reasonable to assume

that catalyst conversion efficiency

should not be significantly impacted by

air conditioning operation. AAMA/

AIAM comments that air conditioning

emission increases due to loss in

catalyst conversion efficiency can be

relatively easily controlled support this

assumption. This equivalency in

conversion efficiency means that air

conditioning design targets can be set by

calculating the engine-out ratio of

emissions with the air conditioning on

to air conditioning off and applying this

ratio to baseline tailpipe emissions with

the air conditioning off.

Baseline hot, stabilized tailpipe

emissions exist from 22 LDVs and

LDT1s in the US06 test program. As

these vehicles were chosen as a

representative cross-section of the new

vehicle fleet, they provide excellent

baseline tailpipe emissions. The second

step in the process is to assess what

portion of the observed engine-out

emission increase is unavoidable and

what portion could be reduced with

appropriate emission control. As this

analysis can be done on engine-out

emissions, EPA was able to assess the
54868 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

performance of 12 cars and trucks in the

ACR1 and ACR3/ACC3 test programs, a

much larger and much more

representative data set than the four cars

(two of which have suspect emission

controls) available to set tailpipe

emission standards directly.

Air conditioning operation increases

the overall, average load on the engine

by about 25 percent. However, this

increase in load has a disproportionate

impact on NOX formation, as very little

NOX is formed at low engine loads and

the amount of EGR that can be tolerated

decreases as engine speeds and loads

increase beyond a relatively low level.

As discussed more fully in the RTC,

EPA has concluded that the load

imposed by current air conditioning

systems results in an unavoidable 50

percent increase in engine-out NOX

emissions. This NOX increase is

inherent to the additional load placed

upon the engine and how this increased

load impacts the peak combustion

temperature in the engine. The

conclusion of an inherent 50 percent

engine-out NOX increase is supported

by the average NOX increase on the Ford

vehicles of 53 percent, as the Ford

vehicles had closed-loop electronic EGR

systems and the EGR flow rates were

more carefully calibrated throughout the

entire speed/load range than the other

vehicles (engine-out NOX on non-Ford

vehicles in the test programs increased

by an average of 67 percent with the air

conditioning on). The only way to

further reduce the emission increase is

to reduce overall emissions, such as

with improved catalyst formulations, or

by reducing the load placed on the

engine by the air conditioning system.

In the case of NMHC, EPA’s analyses

indicate that the best conclusion is still

that reached in the NPRM, that HC

emissions should not be affected by air

conditioning operation.

In the NPRM, EPA attributed the

increase in CO emissions with the air

conditioning on to increased periods of

brief commanded enrichment and

proposed that CO emissions not

increase with the air conditioner on.

This assumption was challenged by the

manufacturers in their comments,

stating that CO emissions should be

proportional to the overall load. While

EPA continues to believe that the

additional load imposed by the air

conditioner triggers brief periods of

commanded enrichment that will not

occur once vehicles have been

recalibrated to comply with the high

speed and acceleration requirements,

EPA also acknowledges that the mass

flow through the engine is likely to have

some impact on engine-out CO

emissions. As engine-out CO emissions

in both the ACR1 and ACR3 programs

increased only moderately, the average

increase in engine-out CO emissions

from the ACR1 and ACR3 test programs

(i.e. 22 percent) has been incorporated

into the air conditioning CO standards.

TABLE 3.— LDV/LDT1 DESIGN TARGETS FOR AIR CONDITIONING OVER

SC03

NMHC CO NOX

SC03 baseline (A/C

off) ............ 0.05 1.22 0.188

Allowable increase (in

percentages) ........ 0 22 50

A/C on design target 0.05 1.5 0.282

Similar to US06 standards, air

conditioning standards are set by

applying a multiplicative headroom

factor of two to the LDV/LDT1 design

target and by ratioing the FTP standards

for other truck classes and for full useful

life to the FTP 50,000 mile standards for

LDV/LDT1. A table incorporating these

calculations was presented in the

‘‘Description of the Action’’ section.

F. Final Standards and Leadtime

1. Composite Standards

Summary of Proposal. EPA proposed,

in the NPRM, to retain compliance with

the existing FTP and to add to this a

‘‘composite’’ compliance calculation to

bring together elements of the

conventional FTP with results from the

SFTP. Cold start emissions from bag 1

of the FTP were included in the

composite to allow manufacturers to

maintain existing tradeoffs between cold

start and hot, stabilized emission

control and to implicitly maintain the

existing ‘‘headroom’’ used by

manufacturers to comply with FTP

emission standards. The proposed SFTP

standards were the result of

appropriately weighing and summing

the results from bag 1 of the FTP and the

new US06, air conditioning, and

intermediate soak requirements. For

total hydrocarbon (THC), non-methane

hydrocarbons (NMHC), organic material

hydrocarbon equivalents (OMHCE),

organic material non-methane

hydrocarbon equivalents (OMNMHCE),

and CO, the proposed standards worked

out to be the same as the standards

applicable under the conventional FTP.

For NOX, a multiplicative adjustment

factor of 1.15 was applied to the

conventional FTP standard to account

for the emission response of vehicles to

the new A/C test conditions.

Comments were also specifically

requested on three other basic

approaches; (1) stand-alone standards

for each control area, (2) combine the

non-FTP areas of control into a single

standard, and (3) replace the current

FTP with an entirely new FTP that

reflects, as accurately as possible, actual

driving behavior. The NPRM stated that

if data were submitted that could help

establish appropriate in-use compliance

margins when establishing emission

standards, EPA would reevaluate the

most appropriate compliance structure

and, if appropriate, may select one of

these alternatives in the final rule.

Summary of Comments. AAMA/

AIAM supported the concept of a

composite standard encompassing all

modes of in-use driving, providing that

they were based on cost-effective, standalone standards for each component of

the composite. They also expressed

their belief that the NPRM composite

proposal did not satisfy this criteria, for

three reasons: (1) EPA apparently

attempted to carry over the current

numerical Tier 1 standards to its new

composite SFTP standards, (2) EPA

desired to develop an approach to

setting the composite standards which

could be automatically carried over to

future FTP standards, and (3) EPA

desired to avoid the need to develop

headroom estimates for certain SFTP

components. AAMA/AIAM also stated

that an appropriate headroom factor has

been developed by industry, making the

third point moot.

AAMA/AIAM also presented their

own recommendation for a composite

standard. They agreed with EPA’s

proposal that cold-start emissions and

warmed-up emissions with the A/C

system on should be included. They

also agreed that cold-start driving with

the A/C system should not be included

in the SFTP, as it would not have any

impact on cold-start calibrations.

However, they recommended that

warmed-up emissions with the A/C

system off also be included to produce

a composite standard that reflects as

closely as possible overall average inuse emissions and that the US06 test

results be converted to their REP05

equivalent before applying the 28

percent weighting factor. In summary,

AAMA/AIAM recommended that the air

conditioning results be weighed at 33

percent, FTP emissions at 39 percent,

and US06 emissions be converted to

REP05 equivalent emission levels and

weighed at 28 percent.

NESCAUM did not object to the

concept of composite standards, but

they did object to the use of bag weights

and standard adjustments to reflect the

proposed level of achievable emission
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54869

control in the NPRM. Instead,

NESCAUM urged EPA to adopt an

overall scheme that best represents realworld driving, and to use any resultant

weightings for all pollutants. NRDC also

supported the same overall scheme as

NESCAUM and specifically opposed the

15 percent ‘‘relaxing’’ of the NOX

standards in the NPRM. NRDC stated

that any revision to the standard

requires a reduction in emissions.

CARB commented that the composite

standards, overall, were fair and

reasonable. However, they did ask for

flexibility to allow CARB to go to stand

alone standards if it is of equal or

greater stringency.

Response to Comments. The EPA

adopted a modified version of AAMA/

AIAM’s recommended composite

methodology in the Final Rule for

NMHC+NOX emissions. The composite

NMHC+NOX standard is simply the

weighted average of the FTP, air

conditioning, and US06 standards,

weighted at 35 percent, 37 percent, and

28 percent, respectively. For CO, a

composite standard is optional with the

composite CO standard is set equal to

the FTP CO standard.

The specific composite scheme

proposed by EPA in the NPRM was

selected, in part, because it allowed for

the existing headroom in the FTP

standards to be implicitly continued for

the SFTP requirements. As discussed in

a previous section, data submitted by

AAMA/AIAM has allowed EPA to

quantify the FTP headroom. This

removes the primary barrier from

consideration of other composite

schemes, as discussed in the NPRM.

EPA did not agree with the

manufacturers recommendation to

convert US06 emissions to REP05

equivalent emission levels before

weighing them in the composite

calculation. Incorporating US06

emissions directly into the level of the

standard is mathematically identical,

simpler, and skips a step that could

introduce inaccuracies. The other

revision EPA made to the manufacturers

proposal was to incorporate revised

analyses of the portion of time air

conditioner compressor operation

occurred during typical ozone

exceedance days. This was calculated to

be 52 percent of total vehicle operation

during typical ozone exceedance days,

which have an average ambient

temperature maximum of 92°F and an

average relative humidity of 43 percent.

As US06 constitutes 28 percent of

overall miles traveled, this means that

the air conditioning results should be

weighed at 37 percent of the total (or 52

percent of the 72 percent of miles

traveled left after subtracting US06). The

weight for the FTP emission results is

the remainder, or 35 percent.

FTP emissions are included in the

NMHC+NOX composite calculation to

allow flexibility to obtain emission

reductions at the lowest possible cost.

Adding the FTP and setting a single

standard to be met as a weighted

average of all the emission requirements

allows manufacturers to simultaneously

optimize hardware and calibration

across the entire set of emission

requirements. This allows

manufacturers to find tradeoffs that

lower the cost of compliance without

impacting the overall emission benefits.

The composite NMHC+NOX standard

is simply the weighted average of the

FTP, air conditioning, and US06

standards, weighted at 35 percent, 37

percent, and 28 percent, respectively.

For LDV/LDT1 vehicles with an FTP

NMHC+NOX standard of 0.65 g/mi, air

conditioning of 0.67 g/mi, and US06 of

0.58 g/mi, the weighted average is 0.64

g/mi. Given the similarity to the FTP

NMHC+NOX standard of 0.65 g/mi for

LDV/LDT1, EPA has chosen to set the

composite level at the FTP NMHC+NOX

level. This level implicitly requires that,

compared with hot stabilized FTP

emissions, the emission impacts of the

SFTP test cycles and air conditioning

operation may not exceed the

incremental emissions from the cold

start. For diesel LDVs and LDT1s there

are no air conditioning requirements,

thus the composite NMHC+NOX

standard is the average of the FTP and

US06 standards, weighted at 72 percent

and 28 percent. For diesel LDVs and

LDT1s with a FTP NMHC+NOX

standard of 1.25 g/mi and US06 of 2.1

g/mi, the weighted average is 1.48 g/mi.

Directly compositing the different

emission standards was not deemed to

be appropriate for CO emissions, for two

reasons. First, unlike the NMHC+NOX

standards for air conditioning and US06

which were carefully chosen to reflect

the maximum feasible emission benefits

with existing technology, some

additional allowance was made in the

CO standards to minimize problems

with catalyst temperatures. In addition,

due to the dominance of commanded

enrichment on the US06 CO emission

levels, both the headroom factor of two

and the method of determining full

useful life and LDT2/LDT3/LDT4 CO

emission standards may prove to be

overstated. Thus, it may be possible for

a manufacturer to stack up these

allowances in one area in order to

increase CO emissions in another area,

without any offsetting in-use CO

reductions in a different area. Second,

as CO emissions are heavily influenced

by commanded enrichment and the CO

standards were set with some allowance

to avoid temperature problems, the

individual CO standards for A/C and

US06 operation should be easily met by

all vehicles simply by eliminating

commanded enrichment. Thus, there are

no significant cost tradeoffs that can be

made to reduce CO emissions in one

area and raise them in another.

One way to mitigate the potential for

inappropriate introduction of

enrichment with a composite CO

standard is to make the composite CO

standard more stringent. While EPA

does not feel it is appropriate to require

the use of a more stringent composite

CO standard, the Final Rule does allow

it as an option. Consistent with the

NMHC+NOX standard, the composite

CO standard is set equal to the FTP CO

standard. Such a level ensures that any

enrichment allowed during air

conditioning operation or US06 by the

composite standard would be offset by

real in-use CO emission reductions in

other driving conditions.

As the SFTP composite standards are

set equal to the FTP standard levels,

LDT2, LDT3, LDT4, and full useful life

standards are also equal to the FTP

standards. For the individual US06 and

air conditioning CO standards, LDT2,

LDT3, LDT4, and full useful life

standards are set as the ratio of the FTP

standards to the FTP half-life standards

for LDV/LDT1. All the resultant

emission standards were presented in

the ‘‘Description of the Action’’ section.

An exception must be made for

engines or vehicle configurations that

are not available with air conditioning.

For such vehicles, no weight should be

assigned to air conditioning emissions.

To maintain consistency with tradeoffs

between US06 emissions and other

operating modes, the US06 weight for

vehicles without air conditioning

should remain at 28 percent. This

implicitly requires that the FTP weight

for vehicles not available with air

conditioning be reset at 72 percent.

Both NESCAUM and NRDC urged

EPA to adopt an overall scheme that

best represents real-world driving and to

use any resultant weightings for all

pollutants. This is essentially the same

as their legal arguments that EPA should

revise the existing FTP and apply the

new procedures to the Tier 1 standards.

NESCAUM’s and NRDC’s comments in

this area were discussed and responded

to in a previous section and are not

duplicated here. In addition, while

NESCAUM did not object to the concept

of composite standards, they did object

to the use of bag weights and standard

adjustments to reflect the proposed level

of achievable emission control in the

NPRM. The composite method adopted
54870 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

for the Final Rule is closer to

NESCAUM’s suggested methodology

than the composite scheme in the

NPRM.

2. Proportional Standards

Summary of Proposal. The NPRM

proposed that changes in the achievable

levels of control over the SFTP tests

would track changes in the underlying

FTP standards and, thus, adoption of

the central proposal would have the

effect of automatically reducing the

composite standards in step with any

mandatory future declines in the FTP

standards.

Summary of Comments. AAMA/

AIAM stated there is no technical or

legal basis for EPA’s proposal that future

SFTP and FTP standards (e.g. Tier 2) be

linked.

AAMA/AIAM also stated that, while

temperatures with two-seconds of WOT

stoichiometric control on US06 are

manageable for Tier 1 vehicles, the twosecond timer may need to be

reevaluated for reduced standards (i.e.

Tier 2 or LEV).

CARB stated that the standards

proposed by EPA were reasonable,

although for LEV-like vehicles the

proposal to hold NMHC to FTP bag 2

levels may be too stringent and the

proposal to hold NOX to composite FTP

levels may be too lenient.

Response to Comments. Based upon

the technical analyses conducted to set

standards for the final rule, there is

substantial evidence that SFTP NOX

emissions should be roughly

proportional to FTP NOX emissions.

However, the case for NMHC is not as

strong. Roughly 70 percent of NMHC

emissions occur during the cold start;

thus, hot, stabilized NMHC emissions

have relatively little impact on overall

FTP NMHC emissions. On the other

hand, hot, stabilized NMHC emissions

are relatively small compared to hot,

stabilized NOX emissions. Thus,

proportional standards may be viable for

an NMHC+NOX standard.

Proportional standards do not work

well for CO. CO emissions on the US06

cycle are dominated by brief periods of

commanded enrichment, which the

standard allows for engine and catalyst

cooling. The need for these periods of

commanded enrichment will not change

just because the FTP CO standard

changes, nor will the impact of

commanded enrichment on the amount

of CO generated. Thus, a change in FTP

CO emissions will only have a minor

impact on SFTP CO emissions.

Despite the strong correlation between

FTP and SFTP NOX emissions, the

Agency has decided to drop the

proportional standard provision from

the Final Rule for the following reasons:

1. The finding of strong correlation

between FTP and SFTP NOX emissions is

based upon the use of current technology. It

is quite possible that technologies may be

developed in the future in response to the

SFTP requirements that could have a

different impact on SFTP NOX emissions

than on FTP NOX emissions (for example, a

more efficient air conditioning system).

2. SFTP CO standards would have to be

addressed separately.

3. CARB is currently making their own

assessment of appropriate standards for LEVs

and their standards will likely be used for the

National LEV program, if it is put into place.

The standards that will be finalized by CARB

are currently uncertain and the level chosen

by CARB may have an impact on future

development of SFTP technology and

calibration strategies.

4. Certain technical issues, such as impacts

of emission variability, may need to be

revisited as the standards become more

stringent.

Based on these considerations, the

Agency believes that the issue of SFTP

standards in the context of future lower

FTP standards should be revisited as

part of setting Tier 2 emissions

standards.

3. Leadtime and Phase-In

Summary of Proposal. The NPRM

proposed that the US06 and air

conditioning requirements apply to 40

percent of each manufacturer’s

combined production of LDVs and LDTs

for MY1998, 80 percent in MY1999, and

100 percent in MY2000. Small volume

manufacturers would not have to

comply until MY2000. The intermediate

(i.e. 60 minute) soak requirement would

be required for all vehicles starting with

MY2001, including small volume.

Comments were specifically requested

(1) on the impact of this phase-in

schedule when considered with other

programs and (2) providing suggestions

for other schedules which will

coordinate programs more effectively.

The improved road load simulation

(including the electric dynamometer),

removal of the 5500 ETW test weight

cap, and the new criteria for allowable

speed variation for FTP compliance

determination were proposed to be

implemented 100 percent in MY1998.

Summary of Comments. AAMA/

AIAM proposed a six-year phase-in

period to comply with the SFTP

requirements. LDV/LDT1/LDT2 classes

were proposed to start with MY2000.

(AAMA/AIAM subsequently sent EPA a

letter revising the recommended start

date to MY2001 in response to the delay

in the court deadline for the final rule).

AAMA/AIAM stated an additional two

year delay for the LDT3/LDT4 classes is

needed because: (1) Little data has been

gathered on the heavier LDTs over US06

or with A/C operation and, given their

high weight, design as working trucks,

and testing at half payload, they may

not behave as expected over the new

cycles; (2) these vehicles have

significantly longer product life cycles

than lighter vehicles and, thus, there are

fewer opportunities to re-engineer these

vehicles; and (3) this type of delay has

been applied in the past.

AAMA/AIAM also stated that EPA’s

proposed phase-in schedule did not

consider the need to build new facilities

and to increase testing capacity. AAMA/

AIAM emphasized that the speed of the

phase-in significantly affects the total

amount of engineering and testing

resources needed at any one time, as

requiring a vehicle to be redesigned to

meet the standards before it was due for

redesign for other purposes imposes

significant additional costs.

Consequently, AAMA/AIAM believes

that a more aggressive schedule than the

one they proposed would impose

unnecessary costs, including the waste

of valuable human resources, for little or

no environmental gain.

Rolls-Royce commented that the

removal of the 5500 ETW cap would

pose unique hardships for their

company. In order to accommodate

leadtime for dynamometer replacement

and to conduct new testing over the

US06, Rolls-Royce requested that EPA

change the ETW cap removal

implementation for small volume

manufacturers to coincide with the

small volume phase-in for the other

SFTP revisions.

Other comments are summarized in

the Response to Comments (available in

public docket for review).

Response to Comments. Revisions in

the standards and test procedures, based

on comments and data provided in

response to the NPRM, have resulted in

revisions to the proposed leadtime and

phase-in. For LDVs and LDTs under

6000 lbs GVWR, EPA will require that

40 percent of each manufacturers fleet

comply with the SFTP requirements for

MY2000, 80 percent for MY2001, and

100 percent for MY2002. The phase-in

for LDTs over 6000 lbs GVWR (LDT3

and LDT4) in the final rule follows the

same phase-in rate, but is delayed for

two years. As proposed in the NPRM,

small volume manufacturers do not

have to comply with the requirements

until the last year of the phase-in, or

MY2002 (MY2004 for small volume

manufacturers of HLDTs).

In recognition of the comments from

Rolls Royce on the leadtime for removal

of the ETW cap, the final rule clarifies

that MY2002 implementation for small
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54871

volume manufacturers applies to all the

new requirements, including electric

dynamometers and removal of the ETW

cap.

It should be noted that all vehicles

under 6000 lbs GVWR are subject to the

same phase-in schedule. Thus, LDVs

and LDTs under 6000 lbs GVWR can be

combined into a single group for

determining compliance with the yearly

phase in requirements. It should also be

noted that, consistent with earlier

phase-in efforts, the phase-in must be

verified with actual production figures.

For a more specific analysis of the

comments and rationale for the

revisions from the proposed phase-in,

please see the Response to Comments.

(available in the Public Docket for

review; see ADDRESSES).

4. Diesel and Alternative Fueled

Vehicles

Summary of Proposal. The NPRM

stated that because very little emission

data currently exists on the emission

impacts of fuels other than gasoline over

the SFTP, EPA considered exempting

alternative and/or diesel fuel vehicles

from the SFTP requirements. However,

the Agency decided that such vehicles

would be able to comply with SFTP

requirements and requested any

information and data related to applying

the NPRM requirements to alternative

and diesel fuel vehicles.

Summary of Comments. AAMA/

AIAM stated that the driving surveys

used by EPA were based solely on

gasoline vehicles and did not include

any alternative or diesel fuel vehicles.

Therefore, AAMA/AIAM argued that the

Agency could not conclude whether

alternative and diesel fuel vehicles were

operated in the same manner as gasoline

vehicles, and thus, whether the SFTP is

appropriate for these types of vehicles.

AAMA/AIAM also stated that EPA

did not assess the environmental impact

of alternative and diesel fuel vehicles

off-cycle emissions. They also pointed

out that EPA had no US06 or air

conditioning emission data for

alternative-fueled vehicles and had not

provided an engineering assessment of

how alternative fuel vehicles could meet

the proposed standards. AAMA/AIAM

concluded that alternative and diesel

fuel vehicles should be exempt from the

SFTP, and not doing so could

potentially eliminate both vehicle types

from the U.S. market.

In their comments, Mercedes-Benz

stated that based on data they provided

to EPA, diesel fuel vehicles could not

meet the gasoline-generated SFTP

standards. They argued that diesel fuel

vehicles should either be exempt from

the SFTP or that the EPA should

develop an appropriate diesel-only

NMHC+NOx standard with sufficient

headroom.

Response to Comments. a. General.

EPA acknowledges that neither

alternative or diesel fuel vehicles were

included in the driving surveys. The

primary goal of the driving survey was

to gather data on in-use driving

characteristics on a large, representative

sample of vehicles and drivers. To meet

these objectives, EPA’s contractor

recruited vehicles from centralized

Inspection and Maintenance (I&M)

stations. Both alternative and diesel

fueled vehicles were excluded in the

I&M programs, and thus, were not

eligible for the survey. However, the

EPA feels that under the conditions that

the surveys were conducted (i.e., no

altitude or extreme temperature

variations), there is no reason to believe

that alternative or diesel fuel vehicles

would be operated in a manner different

from gasoline vehicles. EPA has

received no information to indicate that

alternative or diesel fueled vehicles are

driven in a manner that would suggest

different cycles. Therefore, EPA believes

that the SFTP driving cycles are

appropriate for these types of vehicles.

EPA believes that SFTP requirements

should apply to alternative- and dieselfueled vehicles. The Agency interprets

section 206(h) of the Act to require the

inclusion of all types of light-duty

vehicles in the SFTP, regardless of fuel

type. In addition, the EPA has always

required diesel fuel vehicles to comply

with the same or similar requirements

as gasoline vehicles and does not

generally believe that diesel or

alternative fueled vehicles should be

exempted from rules that apply to

gasoline-powered vehicles and trucks.

However, EPA agrees with comments

from AAMA/AIAM that without any offcycle emission data for alternative fuel

vehicles, it is impossible to determine

feasibility of these vehicles meeting the

proposed SFTP standards. In addition,

the promulgation of standards for

alternative fuel vehicles could

potentially hinder the expansion of

alternative fuel vehicles in the U.S.

market. EPA believes that alternative

fuel vehicles are, on average, inherently

cleaner than most gasoline and diesel

vehicles and encourages the continued

development of alternative fuel

vehicles. Therefore, alternative fuel

vehicles will be exempt from the initial

SFTP requirements. EPA plans to

evaluate and test these vehicles as part

of its Tier 2 study, and if EPA finds

standards to be appropriate, EPA will

promulgate such standards at that time.

In regards to diesel fueled vehicles,

EPA’s data are limited to LDVs. These

data limitations are due to the very

small number of diesel vehicles in

production; vehicles are difficult to

procure and testing facilities are not

equipped to readily test these very low

volume vehicles. The EPA does not

have any data on light-duty diesel

trucks, and therefore, the EPA will

exempt light-duty diesel truck classes

LDT2, LDT3, and LDT4 from the initial

SFTP requirements. As discussed

below, diesel LDT1s will be required to

meet the same requirements as diesel

LDVs. The EPA believes such treatment

is appropriate as it is consistent with

Tier 1 standards and there are no

technological reasons to consider LDT1s

separately. Further, the absence of data

for LDT1s is because no manufacturer is

currently producing a diesel LDT1. The

EPA plans to evaluate and test lightduty diesel trucks in the exempted

classes as part of its Tier 2 study, and

if EPA finds diesel standards to be

appropriate, EPA will promulgate such

standards at that time.

b. Standards for Diesel LDVs and

LDT1s. In their comments, Mercedes

supplied EPA with US06 and airconditioning emission data for two

diesel passenger cars. After publishing

the NPRM, a 1.9L diesel Volkswagen

Passat was tested at EPA to collect US06

emission data. Although EPA has some

limited SFTP emission data for diesel

fuel light-duty vehicles, there are some

concerns over the Agency’s ability to

promulgate standards based on this

data. EPA has US06 cycle emission data

for all three models, but only has airconditioning data for the two Mercedes

models, and that data is over the LA4

cycle (i.e., bags 1 and 2 of the FTP)

rather than the SC03 cycle. EPA feels

that there is no way to relate the LA4

data to the SC03 cycle for these

emissions without being arbitrary. In

addition, without any data for the

Volkswagen (which constitutes a third

of the available models, and the only

low-cost diesel-equipped vehicle) there

is no way for the Agency to know

whether all of the available diesel fuel

LDV’s could meet any standards for air

conditioning. Therefore, diesel fuel

light-duty vehicles will be exempt from

the SFTP air-conditioning requirements.

As stated above, EPA will evaluate and

test these vehicles as part of its Tier 2

study, and if it’s determined necessary,

appropriate standards will be

promulgated.

The US06 emission data for the diesel

LDV’s indicate that NMHC and CO

levels are well below gasoline vehicle

levels. The EPA believes that diesel

LDV’s should have no trouble meeting

the SFTP CO standards for gasoline

vehicles. Diesel NOX levels, however,
54872 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

are 3–4 times higher than the gasoline

vehicle levels. Diesel engines produce

higher levels of NOX emissions than

gasoline engines because diesels have

much higher combustion temperatures.

Diesel engines typically have more

difficulty in controlling NOX emissions

than gasoline engines because they have

fewer control strategies available and

the ones that are available have not been

as effective as those available for

gasoline engines. The primary NOX

control strategies for gasoline engines

are reduced spark timing, EGR, and

three-way catalysts. Three-way

catalysts, which are capable of reducing

NOX emissions, are not yet available for

diesels. Since diesels use compression

rather than spark to ignite the air-fuel

mixture, there is no spark timing to

reduce. That leaves reducing the fuel

injection timing and EGR as the main

diesel NOX control strategies. Of these

two control strategies, EGR is the most

effective.

In their comments, Mercedes stated

that their electronically controlled EGR

system operates under a broad range of

engine load conditions, including areas

outside of the FTP, and that their EGR

calibrations are optimized for all

operation, including high speed and

load operation. This is a result of the

fact that the German government

requires vehicles sold in Germany to

meet emission requirements over high

speed and load conditions. However,

even optimized, their use of EGR is

limited during high speed and load

operation because of increased

particulate matter (PM) formation. Thus,

there is a sensitive PM/NOX tradeoff

under high speed and load operation.

EPA has no additional technical

information to refute Mercedes claims

that they have optimized the amount of

EGR that can be used during high speed

and load conditions. Based on the

extremely low emission results of

Mercedes and Volkswagen gasolinepowered vehicles over the US06 cycle,

and the fact that German manufacturers

have had incentive and time to develop

high speed and load operation emission

control strategies, EPA sees no reason to

doubt that Mercedes vehicles have been

optimized for the lowest NOX levels

possible over the US06 cycle at this

time. Therefore, the EPA believes it is

not currently feasible for LDV diesels to

meet the SFTP NMHC+NOX standard

for gasoline vehicles. Thus, there will be

a separate and unique NMHC+NOX

standard for diesel LDV’s.

Based on the Mercedes’ comments,

EPA feels that it is only technically

feasible for diesel-fueled LDV’s to meet

a NMHC+NOX standard that is designed

to be a capping standard. That is, EPA

feels that at this time, diesel LDV’s are

unable to reduce NOX emissions

resulting from high speed and load

operation because of technological

limitations. Therefore, the standard will

be set such that it caps the amount of

NOX emissions diesel LDV’s will be

allowed to emit over high speed and

load operation.

The methodology chosen by the

Agency for developing the US06

NMHC+NOX standard for gasoline

vehicles is to add the average NMHC

level with the average NOX level for

well-calibrated vehicles and multiply

the result by a certification headroom

factor. However, because the diesel

standard is intended to be a capping

standard, the EPA must insure that all

three LDV models can meet the

standard. The Volkswagen Passat had an

average US06 NOX emission level of

1.70 g/mi, which exceeds the average of

all three vehicles of 1.42 g/mi.

Therefore, EPA believes that it is

appropriate to use the Volkswagen NOX

emissions of 1.70 g/mi NMHC emissions

for diesel vehicles are inherently very

low, and thus, are not a limiting factor

in complying with emission standards.

The average NMHC emission level of

0.007 g/mi will be added to the NOX

emission level of 1.70 with the sum

multiplied by the diesel headroom

factor of 1.22 to yield a US06 standard

level of 2.1 g/mi. While NMHC+NOX

standards were not promulgated for

US06 separately, this US06 standard

level of 2.1 g/mi for diesel LDVs/LDT1s

is used in the calculation of

NMHC+NOX composite standard. The

diesel LDV/LDT1 composite

NMHC+NOX standard is equal to a

US06 standard level of 2.1 g/mi

weighted at 28 percent added with the

conventional FTP diesel standard of

1.25 g/mi (NOX=1.0, NMHC=0.25)

weighted at 72 percent, yielding a

numerical value of 1.48 g/mi. (see

section IV.F.1. Composite Standards).

G. Technical and Enforcement Issues

1. Improved Dynamometers for FTP

Compliance Testing

Summary of Proposal. The NPRM

stated that each of the test cycles is to

be run on a system providing accurate

replication of real road load forces at the

interface between drive tires and the

dynamometer over the full speed range.

Furthermore, the new US06 cycle

requires significantly higher power

absorption capacity, due to the higher

power requirements of this aggressive

driving cycle. The NPRM proposed the

use of a large-diameter single roll

dynamometer with electronic control of

power absorption to meet these

requirements for both the new SFTP and

current FTP testing, but any system

would be allowed that yields equivalent

or superior test results. This new

requirement was proposed to take effect

for MY1998.

Summary of Comments. AAMA/

AIAM supported the changeover to

single-roll electric dynamometers for

certification and compliance testing

purposes. However, they presented a

number of arguments in support of their

contention that the proposed

implementation date of 1998 for all FTP

and SFTP testing is infeasible. Their

primary concern was that vehicle

modifications would be required to

maintain compliance with the current

Tier 1 emission and U.S. fuel economy

standards. This concern was based upon

the average results of the ‘‘EPA/Industry

Dynamometer Comparison Study—Nine

Vehicle Fleet’’ and AAMA/AIAM’s

contention that EPA performed no

testing or engineering analyses to

demonstrate that compliance with the

applicable standards is feasible. AAMA/

AIAM also emphasized the difficulty in

installing enough new electric

dynamometers to support testing of the

entire fleet in MY1998.

Response to Comments. Improved

dynamometers are an essential part of

US06 testing. Thus, the electric

dynamometers must be phased in no

later than the US06 phase-in. EPA

proposed a faster implementation of the

improved dynamometers for FTP testing

purposes primarily because it would

mitigate the problem of having to

maintain two different sets of

dynamometers simultaneously. While

EPA does not agree with comments that

it is not feasible to implement the

dynamometers early, EPA does agree

that this would increase the difficulty in

installing enough new dynamometers to

support testing of the entire fleet and

ensure that modifications to the vehicle

are not needed in the first model year.

Thus, phase-in of the improved

dynamometers has been changed in the

final rule to coincide with the US06

phase in, beginning in MY2000.

2. Microtransient Driving Control

Summary of Proposal. The EPA

proposed to remove language specifying

‘‘minimum throttle movement’’ when

conducting emission tests and replace it

with ‘‘appropriate throttle movement.’’

The NPRM also proposed a specification

of allowable speed variation,

DPWRSUM (for ‘‘delta power sum,’’ or

the sum of the positive power changes),

which also would apply to both SFTP

and FTP testing. EPA specifically asked

for comments on the proper method for
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54873

setting the lower DPWRSUM threshold

for a valid test.

Summary of Comments. AAMA/

AIAM provided an analysis of test data

which concluded that the DPWRSUM

measure was technically flawed.

Further, it was AAMA/AIAM’s

contention that DPWRSUM criteria may

impact fuel economy and the ability to

comply with Tier 1 emission standards,

and thus, that EPA must make fuel

economy and emission adjustments.

AAMA/AIAM also stated EPA had

failed to establish an environmental

need for DPWRSUM or perform a cost

effectiveness analysis. AAMA/AIAM

concluded by recommending that EPA

drop the DPWRSUM criteria.

In a May 2, 1996 meeting requested by

AAMA/AIAM, additional data was

presented by Chrysler (available in the

public docket for review. See

ADDRESSES). Chrysler concluded from

the data that DPWRSUM does not

identify tests with inappropriate throttle

movement. AAMA/AIAM also

submitted a suggested revision to the

EPA’s proposed regulatory language

change regarding minimal throttle

movement.

CARB stated it was inappropriate to

use the DPWRSUM value associated

with the nominal driving trace as the

upper threshold value. CARB

recommended the upper DPWRSUM

threshold be significantly greater than

nominal driving trace value and that the

nominal trace value should be at the

mid-point of the allowable range. CARB

supported the proposed regulatory

language change regarding minimal

throttle movement.

Response to Comments. The EPA will

not finalize the DPWRSUM criteria for

several reasons. First, EPA has not been

able to establish appropriate threshold

values. More importantly, based on

EPA’s review of test data provided by

Chrysler, DPWRSUM does not appear to

adequately identify large differences in

throttle variation. However, EPA

believes it is desirable to have a

quantifiable speed- or throttle-based

measure to ensure that vehicles are

driven in an appropriate manner, thus,

it is EPA’s intent to revisit this issue as

part of the Tier 2 Study mandated by

202(I) of The Act.

Both CARB and AAMA/AIAM’s

comments on the proposed language

change regarding throttle and pedal

movement recognize the need to change

‘‘minimum’’ to ‘‘appropriate.’’ EPA

recognizes the manufacturers’ concern

that excessive throttle variation should

be avoided and the Agency will, in part,

incorporate AAMA/AIAM’s suggested

language into the final regulatory

language. However, the EPA believes it

is equally important that appropriate

throttle movement should exclude

behavior which smooths the minor

speed variations found in the driving

cycles. Thus, the revised regulatory

language specifies that the vehicle shall

be driven with appropriate accelerator

pedal movement necessary to achieve

the speed versus time relationship

prescribed by the driving schedule and

that both smoothing of speed variations

and excessive accelerator pedal

perturbations are to be avoided.

3. Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA)

Requirements

Summary of Proposal. Section III of

the February 7, 1995 NPRM stated that

the proposed SFTP would apply to

testing conducted during certification,

Selective Enforcement Audits (SEA),

and in-use enforcement (recall).

Summary of Comments. American

Honda Motor Company, Inc. (Honda)

commented that the NPRM ‘‘did not

clearly indicate whether the SEA test

must be carried out according to the

Supplemental FTP (SFTP).’’ In addition,

Honda commented that such a

requirement would cause ‘‘significant

hardship and expense’’ and requested

that EPA allow an [unspecified]

alternative procedure.

Response to Comments. The

compliance provisions in the NPRM

were proposed as the best means of

ensuring that vehicles are adequately

designed and sufficiently durable to

meet the applicable standards not only

in prototype certification but in actual

use.

In response to Honda’s comments

concerning the costs associated with the

laboratory facilities required to conduct

the SFTP, EPA assumes that

manufacturers will have such laboratory

capabilities in place (either in-house or

through contract) to conduct design and

certification testing. As EPA does not

require that the testing of vehicles

selected for SEA be at the location at

which the vehicles were produced,

selected vehicles could be shipped to

any adequate in-house or contract

laboratory. With these facts in mind,

EPA believes that the incremental cost

of conducting the infrequent SEA tests

which EPA might require is not

significant.

4. A/C Horsepower Adjustment for FTP

Testing

Summary of Proposal. The current

FTP adds load as a percentage (10

percent) of the base dynamometer

power absorption curve to simulate air

conditioning load. As the current 10

percent load increase will be difficult, if

not impossible, to duplicate on a large,

single roll dynamometer and it is not

representative of real A/C loads, the

NPRM proposed to drop the 10 percent

air conditioning load factor for the

existing FTP.

Summary of Comments. AAMA/

AIAM recommended elimination of the

current A/C dynamometer power

absorption unit (PAU) increase of 10

percent for City and Highway emissions

testing, based upon the lack of a defined

methodology for A/C adjustment on

single-roll dynamometers during the

FTP and actual testing with the A/C unit

operational as part of the SFTP. AAMA/

AIAM expressed the necessity to

include the impact of elimination of the

10 percent load adjustment in the

overall determination of test procedure

adjustments. AAMA/AIAM also stated

that, if EPA were to retain the current

load adjustment for A/C with the

electric dynamometer over the current

FTP, that the adjustment would need to

be lower than 10 percent to reflect the

higher DPA values on the electric

dynamometer caused by lower tire

rolling losses.

Response to Comments. EPA agrees

with all of AAMA/AIAM’s comments.

While it would be desirable to

implement a proper representation of

average annual air conditioning load for

use in FTP and fuel economy testing,

development of such a factor was not

presented in the NPRM. EPA intends to

address the issue of proper A/C factors

for FTP and fuel economy testing as part

of a subsequent rulemaking addressing

test procedure adjustments issues. Until

then, the 10 percent dynamometer

increase for air conditioning simulation

is deleted, as proposed in the NPRM.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy

(CAFE) adjustments for the temporary

deletion of the 10 percent dynamometer

load adjustment will also be considered

in the subsequent rulemaking on test

procedure adjustments.

H. Regulatory Impact Analysis

Summary of Proposal. In the NPRM

the EPA summarized it’s Regulatory

Impact Analysis (RIA) which considered

the environmental and economic

impact, consumer impact, and the cost

effectiveness of the proposed

requirements. The Agency’s analysis

demonstrated the efficacy of the

proposed requirements as part of the

Federal program to reduce ozone

through the reduction of ozone

precursors from motor vehicles.

Summary of Comments. The EPA

received extensive comments as part of

the joint AAMA/AIAM submission. The

comments presented separate analyses

on each of the three proposed control

areas and commented on all aspects of
54874 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

the RIA. New vehicle emissions data

were presented in calculating AAMA/

AIAM’s estimate of the potential

emission benefits. AAMA/AIAM also

provided detailed facility and testing

costs, as well as vehicle hardware costs

to comply with the proposed

requirements.

In their comments AAMA/AIAM

raised questions regarding the need for

additional control of CO and NOX given

the projections for compliance with

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for CO and the granting of

NOX waivers by many non-attainment

areas. AAMA/AIAM also argued that the

EPA’s cost effectiveness analysis was

flawed by the inclusion of benefits

received in the northeast States

comprising the Ozone Transport Region

(OTR), NAAQS attainment areas, and

NOX waiver areas.

In their cost effectiveness analysis,

AAMA/AIAM concluded that none of

the requirements, as proposed, were

acceptable on the basis of dollars per

ton of pollutant reduced. However,

AAMA/AIAM also concluded that if the

Agency were to incorporate AAMA/

AIAM’s standards and procedure

revisions for the aggressive driving

control (US06) then they believed that

such a requirement would be cost

effective, although in this case AAMA/

AIAM did not have to provide actual

cost effective estimates.

Response to Comments. EPA

incorporated much of the new vehicle

emission data into revised benefit

estimates. The EPA also incorporated

AAMA/AIAM’s data on testing and

facilities costs, although the Agency

does not believe that all of AAMA/

AIAM’s assumptions were appropriate

(see the RIA for a full discussion of the

EPA’s methodology).

The Agency believes that today’s

revisions to the FTP are necessary for

non-attainment areas to meet and

maintain the NAAQS. The Agency

rejects AAMA/AIAM’s argument that

attainment areas and non-attainment

areas with NOX waivers should be

excluded from the benefits calculations.

Effective NOX control must consider the

issue of NOX transport from upwind

areas outside of the non-attainment

areas as well as motor vehicle migration

patterns on both a micro (commuting)

and macro level (interstate travel and

change in vehicle ownership), and thus,

the EPA believes the inclusion of

attainment areas is appropriate for a

federal mobile source program. EPA also

believes that the petition for a NOX

waiver is itself insufficient evidence

that a non-attainment area should be

excluded from the benefits calculation.

The second phase of the two-phase NOX

waiver process requires the

consideration of the NOX waiver’s

impact on a regional scale, unlike phase

I which gave preliminary waivers based

only on the local area impact. Again,

EPA believes today’s rule is a necessary

part of NOX control strategy which

recognizes the regional dimension of the

NOX problem.

Today’s final rule will be a

requirement for all vehicles sold in the

United States excluding California, and

as such, the EPA will include the OTR

in the benefits calculation. EPA

disagrees with AAMA/AIAM’s

assumption that the OTR should be

excluded. The existence of National

LEV does not change EPA’s authority

over the OTR. Today’s rule is applicable

to all vehicles in the OTR.

The final rule contains significant

revisions in terms of the standards and

stringency ordinally proposed. In light

of these revisions and the additional

data brought forward by AAMA/AIAM,

the Agency has revised its cost

effectiveness estimates. EPA believes

the aggressive driving control and air

conditioning requirements will provide

emission reductions in a cost effective

manner. As previously discussed, the

Agency will not finalize the proposed

intermediate soak requirement. This

decision is based on the uncertainties

regarding the costs and feasibility of

controlling intermediate soak emissions,

as well as the reduced benefits from

controlling these emissions at lower

emission standards such as those levels

found in California’s LEV standards.

I. Cost and Benefit Estimates

Summary of Proposal. In its RIA, EPA

evaluated the economic and

environmental impacts of the revisions

to the FTP. The economic impacts

(costs) imposed on the equipment

manufacturers included hardware for

improved emission control and

associated development and redesign

costs, improved engine control

calibrations, increased costs associated

with the certification process including

durability data vehicle testing and

reporting, and facility costs.

The environmental impact (benefits)

of the SFTP was evaluated by estimating

the emission reductions associated with

the proposed federal test procedure

revisions by determining the expected

lifetime emission reductions per vehicle

sold after implementation of the

proposed regulations nationally.

Summary of Comments. AAMA/

AIAM commented that the EPA

underestimated the cost for the

individual requirements and

overestimated the benefits of the testing

changes and new standards. AAMA/

AIAM felt that the EPA failed to

consider the technological impact of the

new requirements, and their comments

went on to cite three examples where

they felt the EPA did not properly

account for all costs: the cost of vehicle

redesign for complying with the

intermediate soak requirement, engine

and exhaust system changes need for

complying with the air conditioning

requirement, and the impact of the 48

inch dynamometer requirement.

It was AAMA/AIAM’s contention

that, in calculating emission benefits,

the EPA included areas of the country

which are already in compliance with

NAAQS or areas where NOX waivers are

being granted. EPA also used worst case

conditions in calculating the benefits

from the air conditioning requirement,

both of which led to an overestimation

of emission benefits.

Based on AAMA/AIAM’s cost and

benefits calculations, elements of EPA’s

proposal were far in excess of the range

of the cost effectiveness of recent rules.

The comments suggest the appropriate

range was $1600 to $5000 per ton for

VOC and NOX control. The comments

claim that EPA has violated its costeffectiveness policies as a result.

Response to Comments. In the revised

RIA, the EPA is responding to many of

the cost and benefit comments made by

the manufacturers. In many cases the

Agency has accepted AAMA/AIAM

numbers for facilities and testing (for a

more detailed explanation of the revised

cost-effectiveness, see the RIA section of

the Response to Comments). Based on

comments and EPA re-analysis, the

intermediate soak component of the

SFTP has been removed from and

several other requirements are revised

in the final rule. For reasons discussed

in detail in the RTC, the EPA has not

agreed with and incorporated all of the

comments of AAMA/AIAM. For

example, the EPA continues to consider

the SFTP as a national rule with all

areas including NOX waiver, OTR, and

attainment areas used in the analysis.

Based on the revised RIA, the EPA

continues to believe that the SFTP and

its components (A/C and Aggressive

Driving) to be cost-effective and

consistent with EPA policy, with a costeffectiveness conservatively estimated at

$1,000–$2,000 per ton. This costeffectiveness is well within the range

cited by AAMA/AIAM in its comments

as being cost effective. Furthermore, the

EPA believes that the range is broader

than the $1,600–$5,000 range cited by

AAMA/AIAM as being potentially cost

effective and should extend to $6,100,

which was the cost-effectiveness of the

Tier 1 rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54875

V. Environmental and Economic

Impacts

EPA has done extensive testing and

modeling to evaluate the expected

reductions in NMHC, CO, and NOX

emissions associated with this rule. EPA

has also quantified the costs and

calculated the cost-effectiveness

involved in achieving the estimated

benefits. These analyses, described in

the final RIA, are summarized below.

The EPA has received many

comments on the SFTP related to costs,

benefits and cost effectiveness. The EPA

has studied these comments and

incorporated many of them into the cost

and benefit calculations. For a more

detailed discussion of the comments

and the EPA’s response to those

comments please see the Response to

Comments document for the SFTP

rulemaking.

A. Environmental Impact

Several test programs were conducted

to evaluate actual in-use driving

patterns and various test cycles were

developed in an effort to determine the

emissions of typical vehicles under such

driving conditions. Baseline emissions

for this analysis are taken from the

extensive test programs conducted by

the Agency and the original equipment

manufacturers in support of the FTP

Review Project. The weighted averages

of the emission results of these test

vehicles over the various test

procedures developed constitute the

baseline emissions used in this analysis.

The emission reductions used in this

analysis were calculated by subtracting

the achievable level of control for each

control area from the baseline test

vehicle emissions. These test vehicle

reductions were then weight averaged in

an attempt to simulate the reductions

associated with the actual in-use vehicle

fleet mix. It should be noted that these

test results were derived for a properly

operating vehicle with a 50,000 mile

catalyst and do not include any

allowance for the higher emission levels

that typically occur in use due to

additional deterioration beyond 50,000

miles and malfunctions. Thus, the

emission benefits calculated here are

likely to be significantly understated.

The baseline NMHC, CO, and NOX

emission levels projected by EPA’s

MOBILE5 model with the added offcycle emissions for the light-duty fleet

are 0.99 g/mi for NMHC, 13.29 g/mi for

CO, and 1.34 g/mi for NOX. The

corresponding projected reductions for

vehicles designed to meet the new SFTP

are 0.024 g/mi for NMHC, 1.472 g/mi for

CO, and 0.125 g/mi for NOX (in 2020

with virtually full fleet turnover).

In terms of NMHC, CO and NOX

reductions, EPA estimates that

implementation of the SFTP will result

in emission reductions from light-duty

vehicles and light-duty trucks of 236

tons per summer day for NMHC, 14,739

tons per summer day for CO, and 1,249

tons per summer day for NOX, in

calendar year 2020. This represents

reductions of 2.4 percent in NMHC, 11.1

percent in CO, and 9.3 percent in NOX

in annual motor vehicle emission

inventory.

B. Economic Impact

The EPA has revised its cost

assumptions and calculations from the

original NPRM RIA based on

manufacturer comments and further

Agency analysis. These changes are

described in detail in the Final RIA and

the Response to Comments for this rule

and are summarized below.

The proposed additions to emission

test procedures will impose several

costs on the original equipment

manufacturers. These costs include

added hardware and associated tooling

costs for improved emission control,

development and redesign costs,

improved engine control calibrations,

increased facilities costs, and increased

costs associated with the certification

process, including durability data

vehicle testing and reporting. These

costs are analyzed under a stand alone

approach to test procedures and

emission standards. No attempt has

been made to quantify cost reductions

associated with the flexibilities allowed

by the composite standard adopted in

this final rule. Thus, the cost estimates

are almost certainly overstated. The

EPA’s analysis assumes that each

federally certified engine family has

roughly a 5 year lifetime, and that there

is a 10 year lifetime for facility upgrades

and an annual sales figure of 15 million

vehicles outside the State of California.

Spreadsheet calculations of all costs

associated with the proposed test

procedure changes can be found in

Appendix D of the RIA for this rule.

EPA incorporated many of the

manufacturers comments, including the

number of tests performed for the SFTP

at 162,000 and facility upgrading and

construction costs. The manufacturers

also submitted comments showing

hardware and redesign costs totaling

$143 per vehicle. These comments

lacked any discussion or breakdown on

the source of the costs. As these

estimates included substantial costs

associated with increased engine and

catalyst temperatures, which the CO

standard change in the Final Rule

alleviates, and there was little or no

detail to justify the estimates, the EPA

did not incorporate these estimates into

its analysis. The hardware costs were

calculated using information gathered

from an outside contractor and analysis

done within the Agency.

Because of the simulation alternative

for the A/C cycle, EPA has used two

scenarios for analyzing costs of the

SFTP. The simulation scenario assumes

that the manufacturers will perform the

A/C test cycle together with the FTP and

USO6 cycles in an exhaust emission cell

with some correlation testing done in a

full environmental cell. The full

environmental cell scenario (FEC)

assumes that the manufacturers will

perform all of their A/C testing in a full

environmental cell and FTP/USO6

testing in an exhaust emission cell.

The recalibration, redesign, DDV

testing, and mechanical integrity testing

costs for the SFTP are $2.75 per vehicle

for the simulation scenario and $4.07

per vehicle for the FEC scenario. The

increased certification costs are $0.31

per vehicle for the simulation scenario

and $0.78 per vehicle for the FEC

scenario. The increased costs related to

facilities are $4.01 per vehicle for the

simulation scenario and $5.26 per

vehicle for the FEC scenario. The

hardware and associated tooling costs

are $6.18 per vehicle for both the

simulation and FEC scenarios.

Adding the above estimated costs

results in an estimated annual cost of

$13.26 per vehicle for the simulation

and $16.30 for the FEC. The total annual

cost (based on 15 million vehicles) is

$198.9 million for the simulation and

$244.5 million for the FEC. The per

vehicle cost difference between the two

scenarios is $3.04.

It should be noted that these costs do

not include any savings from the

flexibilities allowed by the composite

NMHC+NOX standard, as discussed

above. In addition, potential fuel

economy benefits to the consumer from

control of commanded enrichment have

also not been incorporated. The NPRM

estimated the lifetime fuel economy

savings to be $16.56. No fuel

consumption benefit was claimed in the

NPRM because the Agency assumed this

benefit would be roughly negated by the

value consumers would place on the

small performance loss associated with

elimination of commanded enrichment.

However, in the Final Rule, the

performance loss has been largely

eliminated by raising the CO standard

(see discussion in RTC on US06 CO

standard setting) to allow commanded

enrichment most of the time at WOT.

Although the Final Rule would still

control part-throttle commanded

enrichment, this has no impact on the

performance of the vehicle. As the Final
54876 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Rule is estimated to still control about

80 percent of the CO benefit from

commanded enrichment, it would be

reasonable to conclude that the

consumer would save about $13.45

($16.56 times 80 percent) in fuel over

the vehicle lifetime. As this cost

reduction is no longer offset by a loss in

vehicle performance, the Agency is

being extremely conservative by not

incorporating the potential fuel cost

savings into the overall cost estimates.

C. Cost Effectiveness

Comparing benefits and costs yields

an estimated overall cost-effectiveness

of this action. The cost effectiveness

estimate represents the expected cost

per ton of pollutant reduced. For the air

conditioning simulation scenario those

costs designated ‘‘Common Costs’’ in

this analysis, which refers to costs for

engine control recalibration, exhaust

emission test facilities, and certification,

are allocated equally to each control

area and each pollutant emission. For

both the Simulation and FEC scenarios

those costs associated with the US06

cycle have been allocated equally to the

three pollutant emissions. Since the

requirements associated with A/C are

targeted for NOX control, all costs

associated with A/C have been allocated

to NOX, for both the Simulation and

FEC scenarios. The following is a table

that summarizes the cost per ton for

each pollutant by test area for both the

simulation and FEC scenarios:

TABLE 4.—COST EFFECTIVENESS

ESTIMATES NATIONAL ANALYSIS

[$/ton]

Control area NMHC CO NOX

USO6:

Simulation ...... 457 7.3 150

FEC ................ 522 8.3 172

A/C:

Simulation ...... NA NA 2050

FEC ................ NA NA 2574

Total:

Simulation ...... 457 7.3 959

FEC ................ 522 8.3 1194

As stated above, the emission benefits

in these cost effectiveness calculations

are likely to be understated because they

do not consider the impact of in-use

vehicles with malfunctions and higher

deterioration on the off-cycle emission

inventory. In addition, the costs are

likely to be greatly overstated, as they

do not include any savings from the

flexibilities allowed by the composite

NMHC+NOX standard or from fuel

consumption reductions, as discussed

above. Considering both the potential

understatement of the emission benefits

and the overstatement of the costs, the

cost-effectiveness estimates are

extremely conservative.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735), the Agency must determine

whether the regulatory action is

‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

OMB review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Order defines

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one

that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy

of $100 million or more or adversely affect

in a material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,

the environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the President’s

priorities, or the principles set forth in the

Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ because of annual impacts on

the economy that are likely to exceed

$100 million. As such, this action was

submitted to OMB for review. Changes

made in response to OMB suggestions or

recommendations will be documented

in the public record.

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995

(signed into law on March 22, 1995)

requires that the Agency prepare a

budgetary impact statement before

promulgating a rule that includes a

Federal mandate that may result in

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year. The budgetary impact

statement must include: (i)

Identification of the Federal law under

which the rule is promulgated; (ii) a

qualitative and quantitative assessment

of anticipated costs and benefits of the

Federal mandate and an analysis of the

extent to which such costs to State,

local, and tribal governments may be

paid with Federal financial assistance;

(iii) if feasible, estimates of the future

compliance costs and any

disproportionate budgetary effects of the

mandate; (iv) if feasible, estimates of the

effect on the national economy; and (v)

a description of the Agency’s prior

consultation with elected

representatives of State, local and tribal

governments and a summary and

evaluation of the comments and

concerns presented. Section 203

provides that if any small governments

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule, the Agency must

establish a plan for obtaining input from

and informing, educating, and advising

any such potentially affected small

governments.

Under section 205 of the UMRA, the

Agency must identify and consider a

reasonable number of regulatory

alternatives before promulgating a rule

for which a budgetary impact statement

must be prepared. The Agency must

select from those alternatives the least

costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative, for State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector, that achieves the objectives of

the rule, unless the Agency explains

why this alternative is not selected or

unless the selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

Because this direct final rule is

estimated to result in the expenditure by

State, local, and tribal governments in

aggregate, or the private sector of over

$100 million per year, EPA has prepared

a RIA in compliance with the UMRA.

EPA summarizes that supplement as

follows.

The Revised FTP final rule is

promulgated under sections 202, 206,

208 and 301 of the Clean Air Act and

its Amendments (CAA and CAAA

respectively). Specifically, section

206(h) of the CAAA states that: ‘‘Within

18 months after the enactment of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the

Administrator shall review and revise as

necessary the regulations under

subsection (a) and (b) of this section

regarding the testing of motor vehicles

and motor vehicle engines to insure that

vehicles are tested under circumstances

which reflect the actual current driving

conditions under which motor vehicles

are used, including conditions related to

fuel, temperature, acceleration, and

altitude.’’

Through an Agency review the EPA

has found that revisions to the Federal

Test Procedures in the form of

Supplemental Federal Test Procedures

are necessary under 206(h) stated above.

The analysis in the RIA developed for

this rulemaking evaluated qualitatively

and quantitatively the benefits and costs

of the SFTP, as required by the UMRA.

Total expenditures resulting from the

direct final rule are estimated at: $200–

$245 million per year starting in the

vehicle MY2000. The Revised FTP is a

national rule that supplements the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54877

existing FTP. The SFTP will have a cost

impact on the manufacturers and will

not require expenditures of State, local

and tribal governments.

There are important benefits from

reductions of NMHC, CO, and NOX

emissions which have significant

adverse impacts on human health and

welfare and on the environment. The

SFTP is expected to reduce emissions

from LDVs and LDTs by two percent for

NMHC, eleven percent for CO, and ten

percent for NOX.

The SFTP is a national rule that does

not have any disproportionate budgetary

effects on any particular region of the

nation, any State, local, or tribal

government, or urban or rural or other

type of community.

Prior to issuing this rule, the EPA

provided numerous opportunities, e.g.,

through public hearings and the public

comment period, for consultation with

interested parties, including State, local

and tribal governments. The EPA

evaluated the comments and concerns

expressed, and the final rule reflects

those comments and concerns.

The Agency considered several

regulatory options in the development

of the rule. The option selected in the

final rule is the most cost-effective

alternative currently available for

achieving the objectives of sections 202,

206, 208, and 301.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this final 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. An Information Collection

Request document has been prepared by

EPA (ICR No. 2060–0104) and a copy

may be obtained from Sandy Farmer,

Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M

St., SW (Mail Code 2136), Washington,

DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260–2740.

The information collection burden

associated with this rule (testing, record

keeping and reporting requirements) is

estimated to average 566 hours annually

for a typical manufacturer. However, the

hours spent annually on information

collection activities by a given

manufacturer depends upon

manufacturer-specific variables, such as

the number of engine families,

production changes, emissions defects,

and so forth. The burden estimate

includes such things as reviewing

instructions, searching existing data

sources, setting up and maintaining

equipment, performing emission testing,

gathering and maintaining data,

performing analyses, and reviewing and

submitting information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency’s need

for this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through

the use of automated collection

techniques. Send comments on the ICR

to the Director, OPPE Regulatory

Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2136); 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460; and to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,

NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.’’

Include the ICR number in any

correspondence.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The EPA has determined that it is not

necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with

this final rule. This rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small businesses.

This final rulemaking relates to

requirements applicable only to

manufacturers of motor vehicles, a

group which does not contain a

substantial number of small entities. See

60 FR 52734, 52769; 1996 World Motor

Vehicle Data, AAMA, pp. 282–285.

E. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

VII. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b) of the Act, EPA

hereby finds that these regulations are of

national applicability. Accordingly,

judicial review of this action is available

only by filing of a petition for review in

the United States Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit within

60 days of publication. Under section

307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements

which are the subject of this document

may not be challenged later in judicial

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce

these requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86

Environmental Protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Incorporation by references, Labeling,

Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: August 15, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40 chapter I part 86 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 86—CONTROL OF AIR

POLLUTION FROM NEW AND IN-USE

MOTOR VEHICLES AND NEW AND INUSE MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES:

CERTIFICATION AND TEST

PROCEDURES

1. The authority citation for part 86

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 202, 203, 205, 206, 207,

208, 215, 216, 217, and 301(a), Clean Air Act,

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7523,

7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7549, 7550, 7552,

and 7601(a)).

2. Section 86.1 is amended by revising

the entries for ASTM E29–67 and ASTM

E29–90 in the table in paragraph (b)(1),

to read as follows:

§ 86.1 Reference materials.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

Document number

and name

40 CFR part 86

reference

ASTM E29–67 (Reapproved 1980),

Standard Recommended Practice

for Indicating Which

Places of Figures

Are To Be Considered Significant in

Specified Limiting

Values..

86.1105–87

ASTM E29–90,

Standard Practice

for Using Significant

Digits in Test Data

to Determine Conformance with

Specifications..

86.000–26; 86.000–

28; 86.001–28;

86.609–84;

86.609–96;

86.1009–84;

86.1009–96;

86.1442

* * * * * * * * * *

* * * * *

Subpart A—[Amended]

3. A new § 86.000–2 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:
54878 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

§ 86.000–2 Definitions.

The definitions of § 86.098–2

continue to apply to 1998 and later

model year vehicles. The definitions

listed in this section apply beginning

with the 2000 model year.

AC1 means a test procedure as

described in § 86.162–00 which

simulates testing with air conditioning

operating in an environmental test cell

by adding the air conditioning

compressor load to the normal

dynamometer forces.

AC2 means a test procedure as

described in § 86.162–00 which

simulates testing with air conditioning

operating in an environmental test cell

by adding a heat load to the passenger

compartment.

Alternative fuels means any fuel other

than gasoline and diesel fuels, such as

methanol, ethanol, and gaseous fuels.

866 Cycle means the test cycle that

consists of the last 866 seconds (seconds

505 to 1372) of the EPA Urban

Dynamometer Driving Schedule,

described in § 86.115–00 and listed in

appendix I, paragraph (a), of this part.

Environmental test cell means a test

cell capable of wind-speed, solar

thermal load, ambient temperature, and

humidity control or simulation which

meets the requirements of § 86.161–00

for running emission tests with the air

conditioning operating.

Federal Test Procedure, or FTP means

the test procedure as described in

§ 86.130–00 (a) through (d) and (f)

which is designed to measure urban

driving tail pipe exhaust emissions and

evaporative emissions over the Urban

Dynamometer Driving Schedule as

described in appendix I to this part.

505 Cycle means the test cycle that

consists of the first 505 seconds

(seconds 1 to 505) of the EPA Urban

Dynamometer Driving Schedule,

described in § 86.115–00 and listed in

appendix I, paragraph (a), of this part.

SC03 means the test cycle, described

in § 86.160–00 and listed in appendix I,

paragraph (h), of this part, which is

designed to represent driving

immediately following startup.

Supplemental FTP, or SFTP means

the additional test procedures designed

to measure emissions during aggressive

and microtransient driving, as described

in § 86.159–00 over the US06 cycle, and

also the test procedure designed to

measure urban driving emissions while

the vehicle’s air conditioning system is

operating, as described in § 86.160–00

over the SC03 cycle.

US06 means the test cycle, described

in § 86.159–00 and listed in appendix I,

paragraph (g), of this part, which is

designed to evaluate emissions during

aggressive and microtransient driving.

4. A new § 86.000–3 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.000–3 Abbreviations.

The abbreviations in § 86.098–3

continue to apply to 1998 and later

model year vehicles. The abbreviations

in this section apply beginning with the

2000 model year:

A/C—Air conditioning

FTP—Federal Test Procedure

SFTP—Supplemental Federal Test Procedure

WOT—Wide Open Throttle

5. A new § 86.000–7 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.000–7 Maintenance of records;

submittal of information; right of entry.

Section 86.000–7 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.091–7, § 86.094–7 or § 86.096–7.

Where a paragraph in § 86.091–7,

§ 86.094–7 or § 86.096–7 is identical and

applicable to § 86.000–7, this may be

indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.091–7.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–7.’’ or

‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.096–

7.’’

(a) introductory text through (a)(2)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.091–7.

(a)(3) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–7.

(b) through (c)(2) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.091–7.

(c)(3) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–7.

(c)(4) through (d)(1)(v) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.091–7.

(d)(1)(vi) through (d)(2)(iv) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.094–7.

(d)(3) through (g) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.091–7.

(h)(1) The manufacturer (or contractor

for the manufacturer, if applicable) of

any model year 2000 through 2002 lightduty vehicle or light light-duty truck or

model year 2002 through 2004 heavy

light-duty truck that is certified shall

establish, maintain, and retain the

following adequately organized and

indexed records for each such vehicle:

(i) EPA engine family;

(ii) Vehicle identification number;

(iii) Model year and production date;

(iv) Shipment date;

(v) Purchaser; and

(vi) Purchase contract.

(h)(2) through (h)(5) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–7.

(h)(6) Voiding a certificate. (i) EPA

may void ab initio a certificate for a

vehicle certified to Tier 1 certification

standards or to the respective

evaporative and/or refueling test

procedure and accompanying

evaporative and/or refueling standards

as set forth or otherwise referenced in

§§ 86.000–8, 86.000–9, or 86.098–10 for

which the manufacturer fails to retain

the records required in this section or to

provide such information to the

Administrator upon request.

(h)(6)(ii) through (h)(7)(vi) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.096–7.

(h)(7)(vii) EPA evaporative/refueling

family.

6. A new § 86.000–8 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.000–8 Emission standards for 2000

and later model year light-duty vehicles.

Section 86.000–8 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.096–8 or § 86.099–8. Where a

paragraph in § 86.096–8 or § 86.099–8 is

identical and applicable to § 86.000–8,

this may be indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.096–8.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.099–8.’’

(a)(1) introductory text through

(a)(1)(ii)(B) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.096–8.

(a)(1)(iii) through (b)(4) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.099–8.

(b)(5) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.096–8.

(b)(6) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.099–8.

(c) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.096–8.

(d) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.099–8.

(e) SFTP Standards. (1) Exhaust

emissions from 2000 and later model

year light-duty vehicles shall meet the

additional SFTP standards of Table

A00–2 (defined by useful life, fuel type,

and test type) according to the

implementation schedule in Table

A00–1. The standards set forth in Table

A00–2 refer to exhaust emissions

emitted over the Supplemental Federal

Test Procedure (SFTP) as set forth in

subpart B of this part and collected and

calculated in accordance with those

procedures. Compliance with these

standards are an additional requirement

to the required compliance with Tier 1

standards as defined in §§ 86.096–8

(a)(1) introductory text through

(a)(1)(ii)(B) and 86.099–8 (a)(1)(iii)

through (a)(3):

TABLE A00–1.—IMPLEMENTATION

SCHEDULE FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES FOR (NMHC+NOX) AND CO

Model year Percentage

2000 .......................................... 40

2001 .......................................... 80

2002 .......................................... 100
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54879

TABLE A00–2.—USEFUL LIFE STANDARDS (G/MI) FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES FOR (NMHC+NOX) AND CO

Useful life Fuel type NMHC+NOX

composite

CO

A/C test US06 test Composite

option

Intermediate ....................................................................................... Gasoline ........... 0.65 3.0 9.0 3.4

Diesel ............... 1.48 NA 9.0 3.4

Full ..................................................................................................... Gasoline ........... 0.91 3.7 11.1 4.2

Diesel ............... 2.07 NA 11.1 4.2

(i) A minimum of the percentage

shown in Table A00–1 of a

manufacturer’s sales of the applicable

model year’s light-duty vehicles shall

not exceed the applicable SFTP

standards in Table A00–2 when tested

under the procedures in subpart B of

this part indicated for 2000 and later

model year light-duty vehicles.

(ii) Optionally, a minimum of the

percentage shown in Table A00–1 of a

manufacturer’s combined sales of the

applicable model year’s light-duty

vehicles and light light-duty trucks shall

not exceed the applicable SFTP

standards. Under this option, the lightduty vehicles shall not exceed the

applicable SFTP standards in Table

A00–2, and the light light-duty trucks

shall not exceed the applicable SFTP

standards in Table A00–4 of § 86.000–9.

(iii) Sales percentages for the

purposes of determining compliance

with this paragraph (e)(1) shall be based

on total actual U.S. sales of light-duty

vehicles of the applicable model year by

a manufacturer to a dealer, distributor,

fleet operator, broker, or any other entity

which comprises the point of first sale.

If the option of paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of

this section is taken, such sales

percentages shall be based on the total

actual combined U.S. sales of light-duty

vehicles and light light-duty trucks of

the applicable model year by a

manufacturer to a dealer, distributor,

fleet operator, broker, or any other entity

which comprises the point of first sale.

(iv) The manufacturer may petition

the Administrator to allow actual

volume produced for U.S. sale to be

used in lieu of actual U.S. sales for

purposes of determining compliance

with the implementation schedule sales

percentages of Table A00–1. Such

petition shall be submitted within 30

days of the end of the model year to the

Vehicle Programs and Compliance

Division. For the petition to be granted,

the manufacturer must establish to the

satisfaction of the Administrator that

actual production volume is

functionally equivalent to actual sales

volume.

(2) These SFTP standards do not

apply to vehicles certified on alternative

fuels, but the standards do apply to the

gasoline and diesel fuel operation of

flexible fuel vehicles and dual fuel

vehicles.

(3) These SFTP standards do not

apply to vehicles tested at high altitude.

(4) The air to fuel ratio shall not be

richer at any time than the leanest air to

fuel mixture required to obtain

maximum torque (lean best torque), plus

a tolerance of six (6) percent. The

Administrator may approve a

manufacturer’s request for additional

enrichment if it can be shown that

additional enrichment is needed to

protect the engine or emissions control

hardware.

(5) The requirement to use a single

roll dynamometer (or a dynamometer

which produces equivalent results),

discussed in §§ 86.108–00, 86.118–00,

and 86.129–00, applies to all SFTP and

FTP test elements as set forth in subpart

B of this part for families which are

designated as SFTP compliant under the

implementation schedule in Table

A00–1.

(6) Small volume manufacturers, as

defined in § 86.094–14(b)(1) and (2), are

exempt from the requirements of this

paragraph (e) until model year 2002,

when 100 percent compliance with the

standards of this paragraph (e) is

required. This exemption does not

apply to small volume engine families

as defined in § 86.094–14(b)(5).

(7) The manufacturer must state at the

time of Application for Certification,

based on projected U.S. sales or

projected production for U.S. sale,

which families will be used to attain the

required implementation schedule sales

percentages for certification purposes.

(8) A manufacturer cannot use one set

of engine families to meet its

intermediate useful life standards and

another to meet its full useful life

standards. The same families which are

used to meet the intermediate useful life

standards will be required without

deviation to meet the corresponding full

useful life standards.

(9) Compliance with composite

standards shall be demonstrated using

the calculations set forth in § 86.164–00.

(f) [Reserved]

(g) through (k) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.096–8.

7. A new § 86.000–9 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.000–9 Emission standards for 2000

and later model year light-duty trucks.

Section 86.000–9 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.097–9 or § 86.099–9. Where a

paragraph in § 86.097–9 or § 86.099–9 is

identical and applicable to § 86.000–9,

this may be indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.097–9.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.099–9.’’

(a)(1) introductory text through

(a)(1)(iii) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.097–9.

(a)(1)(iv) through (b)(4) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.099–9.

(b)(5) [Reserved]

(c) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.097–9.

(d) [Reserved]

(e) SFTP Standards. (1) Light lightduty trucks. (i) Exhaust emissions from

2000 and later model year light lightduty trucks shall meet the additional

SFTP standards of Table A00–4 (defined

by useful life, fuel type, truck type,

loaded vehicle weight (LVW), and test

type) according to the implementation

schedule in Table A00–3. The standards

set forth in Table A00–4 refer to exhaust

emissions emitted over the

Supplemental Federal Test Procedure

(SFTP) as set forth in subpart B of this

part and collected and calculated in

accordance with those procedures.

Compliance with these standards are an

additional requirement to the required

compliance with Tier 1 standards as

defined in §§ 86.097–9(a)(1)

introductory text through (a)(1)(iii) and

86.099–9(a)(1)(iv) through (a)(3):

TABLE A00–3.—IMPLEMENTATION

SCHEDULE FOR LIGHT LIGHT-DUTY

TRUCKS FOR (NMHC+NOX) AND

CO

Model year Percentage

2000 .......................................... 40

2001 .......................................... 80
54880 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE A00–3.—IMPLEMENTATION

SCHEDULE FOR LIGHT LIGHT-DUTY

TRUCKS FOR (NMHC+NOX) AND

CO—Continued

Model year Percentage

2002 .......................................... 100

TABLE A00–4.—USEFUL LIFE STANDARDS (G/MI) FOR LIGHT LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS FOR (NMHC+NOX) AND CO

Useful life Fuel type Truck type LVW (lbs) NMHC+NOX

Composite

CO

A/C test US06 test Composite

option

Intermediate .............. Gasoline .................... LDT1 ......................... 0–3750 0.65 3.0 9.0 3.4

LDT2 ......................... 3751–5750 1.02 3.9 11.6 4.4

Diesel ........................ LDT1 ......................... 0–3750 1.48 NA 9.0 3.4

LDT2 ......................... 3751–5750 NA NA NA NA

Full ............................ Gasoline .................... LDT1 ......................... 0–3750 0.91 3.7 11.1 4.2

LDT2 ......................... 3751–5750 1.37 4.9 14.6 5.5

Diesel ........................ LDT1 ......................... 0–3750 2.07 NA 11.1 4.2

LDT2 ......................... 3751–5750 NA NA NA NA

(A) A minimum of the percentage

shown in Table A00–3 of a

manufacturer’s sales of the applicable

model year’s light light-duty trucks shall

not exceed the applicable SFTP

standards in Table A00–4 when tested

under the procedures in subpart B of

this part indicated for 2000 and later

model year light light-duty trucks.

(B) Optionally, a minimum of the

percentage shown in Table A00–3 of a

manufacturer’s combined sales of the

applicable model year’s light-duty

vehicles and light light-duty trucks shall

not exceed the applicable SFTP

standards. Under this option, the lightduty vehicles shall not exceed the

applicable SFTP standards in Table

A00–2 of § 86.000–8, and the light lightduty trucks shall not exceed the

applicable SFTP standards in Table

A00–4.

(C) Sales percentages for the purposes

of determining compliance with

paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of this section

shall be based on total actual U.S. sales

of light light-duty trucks of the

applicable model year by a

manufacturer to a dealer, distributor,

fleet operator, broker, or any other entity

which comprises the point of first sale.

If the option of § 86.097–9(a)(1)(i)(B) is

taken, such sales percentages shall be

based on the total actual combined U.S.

sales of light-duty vehicles and light

light-duty trucks of the applicable

model year by a manufacturer to a

dealer, distributor, fleet operator,

broker, or any other entity which

comprises the point of first sale.

(D) The manufacturer may petition

the Administrator to allow actual

volume produced for U.S. sale to be

used in lieu of actual U.S. sales for

purposes of determining compliance

with the implementation schedule sales

percentages of Table A000–3. Such

petition shall be submitted within 30

days of the end of the model year to the

Vehicle Programs and Compliance

Division. For the petition to be granted,

the manufacturer must establish to the

satisfaction of the Administrator that

actual production volume is

functionally equivalent to actual sales

volume.

(ii) These SFTP standards do not

apply to light light-duty trucks certified

on alternative fuels, but the standards

do apply to the gasoline and diesel fuel

operation of flexible fuel vehicles and

dual fuel vehicles.

(iii) These SFTP standards do not

apply to light light-duty trucks tested at

high altitude.

(iv) The air to fuel ratio shall not be

richer at any time than the leanest air to

fuel mixture required to obtain

maximum torque (lean best torque), plus

a tolerance of six (6) percent. The

Administrator may approve a

manufacturer’s request for additional

enrichment if it can be shown that

additional enrichment is needed to

protect the engine or emissions control

hardware.

(v) The requirement to use a single

roll dynamometer (or a dynamometer

which produces equivalent results),

discussed in §§ 86.108–00, 86.118–00,

and 86.129–00, applies to all SFTP and

FTP test elements as set forth in subpart

B of this part for engine families which

are designated as SFTP compliant under

the implementation schedule in Table

A00–3.

(vi) Small volume manufacturers, as

defined in § 86.094–14(b) (1) and (2), are

exempt from the requirements of this

paragraph (e) until model year 2002,

when 100 percent compliance with the

standards of this paragraph (e) is

required. This exemption does not

apply to small volume engine families

as defined in § 86.094–14(b)(5).

(vii) The manufacturer must state at

the time of Application for Certification,

based on projected U.S. sales or

projected production for U.S. sale,

which engine families will be used to

attain the required implementation

schedule sales percentages for

certification purposes.

(viii) A manufacturer cannot use one

set of engine families to meet its

intermediate useful life standards and

another to meet its full useful life

standards. The same engine families

which are used to meet the intermediate

useful life standards will be required

without deviation to meet the

corresponding full useful life standards.

(ix) Compliance with composite

standards shall be demonstrated using

the calculations set forth in § 86.164–00.

(2) Heavy light-duty trucks. (i)

Exhaust emissions from 2002 and later

model year heavy light-duty trucks shall

meet the SFTP standards of Table A00–

6 (defined by useful life, fuel type, truck

type, adjusted loaded vehicle weight

(ALVW), and test type) according to the

implementation schedule in Table A00–

5. The standards set forth in Table A00–

6 refer to exhaust emissions emitted

over the Supplemental Federal Test

Procedure (SFTP) as set forth in subpart

B of this part and collected and

calculated in accordance with those
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54881

procedures. Compliance with these

standards are an additional requirement

to the required compliance with Tier 1

standards as defined in §§ 86.097–

9(a)(1) introductory text through

(a)(1)(iii) and 86.099–9(a)(1)(iv) through

(a)(3):

TABLE A00–5.—IMPLEMENTATION

SCHEDULE FOR HEAVY LIGHT-DUTY

TRUCKS FOR (NMHC+NOX) AND

CO

Model year Percentage

2002 ........................................ 40

2003 ........................................ 80

TABLE A00–5.—IMPLEMENTATION

SCHEDULE FOR HEAVY LIGHT-DUTY

TRUCKS FOR (NMHC+NOX) AND

CO—Continued

Model year Percentage

2004 ........................................ 100

TABLE A00–6.—USEFUL LIFE STANDARDS (G/MI) FOR HEAVY LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS FOR (NMHC+NOX) AND CO

Useful life Fuel type Truck type ALVW (lbs) NMHC+NOX

composite

CO

A/C test US06 test Composite

option

Intermediate .............. Gasoline .................... LDT3 ......................... 3751–5750 1.02 3.9 11.6 4.4

LDT4 ......................... >5750 1.49 4.4 13.2 5.0

Diesel ........................ LDT3 ......................... 3751–5750 NA NA NA NA

LDT4 ......................... >5750 NA NA NA NA

Full ............................ Gasoline .................... LDT3 ......................... 3751–5750 1.44 5.6 16.9 6.4

LDT4 ......................... >5750 2.09 6.4 19.3 7.3

Diesel ........................ LDT3 ......................... 3751–5750 NA NA NA NA

LDT4 ......................... >5750 NA NA NA NA

(A) A minimum of the percentage

shown in Table A00–5 of a

manufacturer’s sales of the applicable

model year’s heavy light-duty trucks

shall not exceed the applicable SFTP

standards in Table A00–6 when tested

under the procedures in subpart B of

this part indicated for 2002 and later

model year heavy light-duty trucks.

(B) Sales percentages for the purposes

of determining compliance with

paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(A) of this section

shall be based on total actual U.S. sales

of heavy light-duty trucks of the

applicable model year by a

manufacturer to a dealer, distributor,

fleet operator, broker, or any other entity

which comprises the point of first sale.

(C) The manufacturer may petition the

Administrator to allow actual volume

produced for U.S. sale to be used in lieu

of actual U.S. sales for purposes of

determining compliance with the

implementation schedule sales

percentages of Table A00–5. Such

petition shall be submitted within 30

days of the end of the model year to the

Vehicle Programs and Compliance

Division. For the petition to be granted,

the manufacturer must establish to the

satisfaction of the Administrator that

actual production volume is

functionally equivalent to actual sales

volume.

(ii) These SFTP standards do not

apply to heavy light-duty trucks

certified on alternative fuels, but the

standards do apply to the gasoline fuel

operation of flexible fuel vehicles and

dual fuel vehicles.

(iii) These SFTP standards do not

apply to heavy light-duty trucks tested

at high altitude.

(iv) The air to fuel ratio shall not be

richer at any time than the leanest air to

fuel mixture required to obtain

maximum torque (lean best torque), plus

a tolerance of six (6) percent. The

Administrator may approve a

manufacturer’s request for additional

enrichment if it can be shown that

additional enrichment is needed to

protect the engine of emissions control

hardware.

(v) The requirement to use a single

roll dynamometer (or a dynamometer

which produces equivalent results),

discussed in §§ 86.108–00, 86.118–00,

and 86.129–00, applies to all SFTP and

FTP test elements for families which are

designated as SFTP compliant under the

implementation schedule in Table A00–

5.

(vi) Small volume manufacturers, as

defined in § 86.094–14(b) (1) and (2), are

exempt from the requirements of

paragraph (e) of this section until model

year 2004, when 100 percent

compliance with the standards of this

paragraph (e) is required. This

exemption does not apply to small

volume engine families as defined in

§ 86.094–14(b)(5).

(vii) The manufacturer must state at

the time of Application for Certification,

based on projected U.S. sales or

projected production for U.S. sale,

which families will be used to attain the

required implementation schedule sales

percentages for certification purposes.

(viii) A manufacturer cannot use one

set of engine families to meet its

intermediate useful life standards and

another to meet its full useful life

standards. The same families which are

used to meet the intermediate useful life

standards will be required without

deviation to meet the corresponding full

useful life standard.

(ix) The NOX averaging program is not

applicable for determining compliance

with the standards of Table A00–6.

(x) Compliance with composite

standards shall be demonstrated using

the calculations set forth in § 86.164–00.

(f) [Reserved]

(g) through (k) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.097–9.

8. A new § 86.000–16 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.000–16 Prohibition of defeat devices.

Section 86.000–16 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.094–16. Where a paragraph in

§ 86.094–16 is identical and applicable

to § 86.000–16, this may be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–16.’’

(a) through (d) introductory text

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.094–

16.

(d)(1) The manufacturer must show to

the satisfaction of the Administrator that

the vehicle design does not incorporate

strategies that unnecessarily reduce

emission control effectiveness exhibited

during the Federal or Supplemental

Federal emissions test procedures (FTP

or SFTP) when the vehicle is operated

under conditions which may reasonably

be expected to be encountered in

normal operation and use.

(d)(2) through (d)(2)(ii) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.094–16.

9. A new § 86.000–21 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:
54882 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

§ 86.000–21 Application for certification.

Section 86.000–21 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.094–21, § 86.096–21 or § 86.098–21.

Where a paragraph in § 86.094–21,

§ 86.096–21 or § 86.098–21 is identical

and applicable to § 86.000–21, this may

be indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–21.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.096–21.’’ or

‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.098–

21.’’

(a) through (b)(1)(i)(B) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–21.

(b)(1)(i)(C) The manufacturer must

submit a Statement of Compliance in

the application for certification which

attests to the fact that they have assured

themselves that the engine family is

designed to comply with the

intermediate temperature cold testing

criteria of subpart C of this part, and

does not unnecessarily reduce emission

control effectiveness of vehicles

operating at high altitude or other

conditions not experienced within the

US06 (aggressive driving) and SC03 (air

conditioning) test cycles.

(b)(1)(i)(C)(1) through (b)(1)(ii)(C)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.094–

21.

(b)(2) Projected U.S. sales data

sufficient to enable the Administrator to

select a test fleet representative of the

vehicles (or engines) for which

certification is requested, and data

sufficient to determine projected

compliance with the standards

implementation schedules of §§ 86.000–

8 and 86.000–9. Volume projected to be

produced for U.S. sale may be used in

lieu of projected U.S. sales.

(b)(3) A description of the test

equipment and fuel proposed to be

used.

(b)(4)(i) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.098–21.

(b)(4)(ii) through (b)(5)(iv) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.094–21.

(b)(5)(v) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.098–21.

(b)(6) through (b)(8) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–21.

(b)(9) through (b)(10)(iii) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.098–21.

(c) through (j) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–21.

(k) and (l) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.096–21.

10. A new § 86.000–23 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.000–23 Required data.

Section 86.000–23 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.095–23 or § 86.098–23. Where a

paragraph in § 86.095–23 or § 86.098–23

is identical and applicable to § 86.000–

23, this may be indicated by specifying

the corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.095–23.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–23.’’

(a) through (b)(1)(ii) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.095–23.

(b)(2) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.098–23.

(b)(3) through (b)(4)(ii) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.095–23.

(b)(4)(iii) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.098–23.

(c) through (e)(1) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.095–23.

(e)(2) through (e)(3) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–23.

(f) through (k) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.095–23.

(l) Additionally, manufacturers

certifying vehicles shall submit for each

model year 2000 through 2002 lightduty vehicle and light light-duty truck

engine family and each model year 2002

through 2004 heavy light-duty truck

engine family the information listed in

paragraphs (l) (1) and (2) of this section.

(1) Application for certification. In the

application for certification, the

manufacturer shall submit the projected

sales volume of engine families

certifying to the respective standards.

Volume projected to be produced for

U.S. sale may be used in lieu of

projected U.S. sales.

(2) End-of-year reports for each engine

family.

(i) These end-of-year reports shall be

submitted within 90 days of the end of

the model year to: Director, Vehicle

Programs and Compliance Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC,

20460.

(ii) These reports shall indicate the

model year, engine family, and the

actual U.S. sales volume. The

manufacturer may petition the

Administrator to allow volume

produced for U.S. sale to be used in lieu

of U.S. sales. Such petition shall be

submitted within 30 days of the end of

the model year to the Manufacturers

Operations Division. For the petition to

be granted, the manufacturer must

establish to the satisfaction of the

Administrator that production volume

is functionally equivalent to sales

volume.

(iii) The U.S. sales volume for end-ofyear reports shall be based on the

location of the point of sale to a dealer,

distributor, fleet operator, broker, or any

other entity which comprises the point

of first sale.

(iv) Failure by a manufacturer to

submit the end-of-year report within the

specified time may result in

certificate(s) for the engine family(ies)

certified to Tier 1 certification standards

being voided ab initio plus any

applicable civil penalties for failure to

submit the required information to the

Agency.

(v) These reports shall include the

information required under § 86.000–

7(h)(1). The information shall be

organized in such a way as to allow the

Administrator to determine compliance

with the SFTP standards

implementation schedules of §§ 86.000–

8 and 86.000–9.

(m) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.098–23.

11. A new § 86.000–24 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.000–24 Test vehicles and engines.

Section 86.000–24 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.096–24 or § 86.098–24. Where a

paragraph in § 86.096–24 or § 86.098–24

is identical and applicable to § 86.000–

24, this may be indicated by specifying

the corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.096–24.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–24.’’

(a) introductory text through (a)(4)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.096–

24.

(a)(5) through (a)(7) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–24.

(a)(8) through (b)(1) introductory text

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.096–

24.

(b)(1)(i) Vehicles are chosen to be

operated and tested for emission data

based upon engine family groupings.

Within each engine family, one test

vehicle is selected. If air conditioning is

projected to be available on any vehicles

within the engine family, the

Administrator will limit selections to

engine codes which have air

conditioning available and will require

that any vehicle selected under this

section has air conditioning installed

and operational. The Administrator

selects as the test vehicle the vehicle

with the heaviest equivalent test weight

(including options) within the family

which meets the air conditioning

eligibility requirement discussed earlier

in this section. If more than one vehicle

meets this criterion, then within that

vehicle grouping, the Administrator

selects, in the order listed, the highest

road-load power, largest displacement,

the transmission with the highest

numerical final gear ratio (including

overdrive), the highest numerical axle

ratio offered in that engine family, and

the maximum fuel flow calibration.

(ii) The Administrator selects one

additional test vehicle from within each

engine family. The additional vehicle
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54883

selected is the vehicle expected to

exhibit the highest emissions of those

vehicles remaining in the engine family.

The selected vehicle will include an air

conditioning engine code unless the

Administrator chooses a worst vehicle

configuration that is not available with

air conditioning. If all vehicles within

the engine family are similar, the

Administrator may waive the

requirements of this paragraph.

(b)(1)(iii) through (b)(1)(vi) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.096–24.

(b)(1)(vii)(A) through (b)(1)(viii)(A)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.098–

24.

(b)(1)(viii)(B) through (e)(2)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.096–

24.

(f) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.098–24.

(g)(1) through (g)(2) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.096–24.

(g)(3) Except for air conditioning,

where it is expected that 33 percent or

less of a carline, within an enginesystem combination, will be equipped

with an item (whether that item is

standard equipment or an option) that

can reasonably be expected to influence

emissions, that item may not be

installed on any emission data vehicle

or durability data vehicle of that carline

within that engine-system combination,

unless that item is standard equipment

on that vehicle or specifically required

by the Administrator.

(4) Air conditioning must be installed

and operational on any emission data

vehicle of any vehicle configuration that

is projected to be available with air

conditioning regardless of the rate of

installation of air conditioning within

the carline. Section 86.096–24(g) (1) and

(2) and paragraph (g)(3) of this section

will be used to determine whether the

weight of the air conditioner will be

included in equivalent test weight

calculations for emission testing.

(h) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.096–24.

12. A new § 86.000–25 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.000–25 Maintenance.

Section 86.000–25 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.094–25 or § 86.098–25. Where a

paragraph in § 86.094–25 or § 86.098–25

is identical and applicable to § 86.000–

25, this may be indicated by specifying

the corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–25.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–25.’’

(a)(1) Applicability. This section

applies to light-duty vehicles, light-duty

trucks, and heavy-duty engines.

(a)(2) Maintenance performed on

vehicles, engines, subsystems, or

components used to determine exhaust,

evaporative or refueling emission

deterioration factors is classified as

either emission-related or non-emissionrelated and each of these can be

classified as either scheduled or

unscheduled. Further, some emissionrelated maintenance is also classified as

critical emission-related maintenance.

(b) introductory text through

(b)(3)(vi)(D) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.094–25.

(b)(3)(vi)(E) through (b)(3)(vi)(J)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.098–

25.

(b)(3)(vii) through (b)(6)(i)(E)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.094–

25.

(b)(6)(i)(F) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.098–25.

(b)(6)(i)(G) through (H) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–25.

(i) When air conditioning SFTP

exhaust emission tests are required, the

manufacturer must document that the

vehicle’s air conditioning system is

operating properly and that system

parameters are within operating design

specifications prior to test. Required air

conditioning system maintenance is

performed as unscheduled maintenance

and does not require the Administrator’s

approval.

13. A new § 86.000–26 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.000–26 Mileage and service

accumulation; emission measurements.

Section 86.000–26 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.094–26, § 86.095–26, § 86.096–26 or

§ 86.098–26. Where a paragraph in

§ 86.094–26, § 86.095–26, § 86.096–26 or

§ 86.098–26 is identical and applicable

to § 86.000–26, this may be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–26.’’ or

‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.095–

26.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.096–26.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–26.’’

(a)(1) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–26.

(a)(2) The standard method of wholevehicle service accumulation for

durability data vehicles and for

emission data vehicles shall be mileage

accumulation using the Durability

Driving Schedule as specified in

appendix IV to this part. A modified

procedure may also be used if approved

in advance by the Administrator. Except

with the advance approval of the

Administrator, all vehicles will

accumulate mileage at a measured curb

weight which is within 100 pounds of

the estimated curb weight. If the loaded

vehicle weight is within 100 pounds of

being included in the next higher inertia

weight class as specified in § 86.129, the

manufacturer may elect to conduct the

respective emission tests at higher

loaded vehicle weight.

(3) Emission data vehicles. Unless

otherwise provided for in § 86.000–

23(a), emission-data vehicles shall be

operated and tested as described in

paragraph (a)(3)(i)(A) of this section;

§ 86.094–26(a)(3)(i)(B) and (D),

§ 86.098–26(a)(3)(i)(C) and (a)(3)(ii)(C),

and § 86.094–26(a)(3)(ii) (A), (B) and

(D).

(i) Otto-cycle. (A) The manufacturer

shall determine, for each engine family,

the mileage at which the engine-system

combination is stabilized for emissiondata testing. The manufacturer shall

maintain, and provide to the

Administrator if requested, a record of

the rationale used in making this

determination. The manufacturer may

elect to accumulate 4,000 miles on each

test vehicle within an engine family

without making a determination. The

manufacturer must accumulate a

minimum of 2,000 miles (3,219

kilometers) on each test vehicle within

an engine family. All test vehicle

mileage must be accurately determined,

recorded, and reported to the

Administrator. Any vehicle used to

represent emission-data vehicle

selections under § 86.000–24(b)(1) shall

be equipped with an engine and

emission control system that has

accumulated the mileage the

manufacturer chose to accumulate on

the test vehicle. Fuel economy data

generated from certification vehicles

selected in accordance with § 86.000–

24(b)(1) with engine-system

combinations that have accumulated

more than 10,000 kilometers (6,200

miles) shall be factored in accordance

with 40 CFR 600.006–87(c). Complete

exhaust (FTP and SFTP tests),

evaporative and refueling (if required)

emission tests shall be conducted for

each emission-data vehicle selection

under § 86.000–24(b)(1). The

Administrator may determine under

§ 86.000–24(f) that no testing is

required.

(a)(3)(i)(B) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.094–26.

(a)(3)(i)(C) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.098–26.

(a)(3)(i)(D) through

(a)(3)(ii)(B)[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–26.

(a)(3)(ii)(C) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.098–26.

(a)(3)(ii)(D) through

(a)(4)(i)(B)(4)[Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.094–26.
54884 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(a)(4)(i)(C) Complete exhaust emission

tests shall be made at nominal test point

mileage intervals that the manufacturer

determines. Unless the Administrator

approves a manufacturer’s request to

develop specific deterioration factors for

aggressive driving (US06) and air

conditioning (SC03) test cycle results,

tail pipe exhaust emission deterioration

factors are determined from only FTP

test cycle data. At a minimum, two

complete exhaust emission tests shall be

made. The first test shall be made at a

distance not greater than 6,250 miles.

The last shall be made at the mileage

accumulation endpoint determined in

§ 86.094–26 (a)(4)(i) (A) or (B),

whichever is applicable.

(a)(4)(i)(D) through (a)(6)(ii)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.094–

26.

(a)(6)(iii) The results of all emission

tests shall be rounded to the number of

places to the right of the decimal point

indicated by expressing the applicable

emission standard of this subpart to one

additional significant figure, in

accordance with the Rounding-Off

Method specified in ASTM E29–90,

Standard Practice for Using Significant

Digits in Test Data to Determine

Conformance with Specifications

(incorporated by reference; see § 86.1).

(a)(7) through (a)(9)(i) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–26.

(a)(9)(ii) The test procedures in

§§ 86.106 through 86.149 and § 86.158

will be followed by the Administrator.

The Administrator may test the vehicles

at each test point. Maintenance may be

performed by the manufacturer under

such conditions as the Administrator

may prescribe.

(a)(9)(iii) through (b)(2) introductory

text [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–26.

(b)(2)(i) This paragraph (b)(2)(i)

applies to service accumulation

conducted under the Standard SelfApproval Durability Program of

§ 86.094–13(f). The manufacturer

determines the form and extent of this

service accumulation, consistent with

good engineering practice, and describes

it in the application for certification.

Service accumulation under the

Standard Self-Approval Durability

Program is conducted on vehicles,

engines, subsystems, or components

selected by the manufacturer under

§ 86.000–24(c)(2)(i).

(ii) This paragraph (b)(2)(ii) applies to

service accumulation conducted under

the Alternative Service Accumulation

Durability Program of § 86.094–13(e).

The service accumulation method is

developed by the manufacturer to be

consistent with good engineering

practice and to accurately predict the

deterioration of the vehicle’s emissions

in actual use over its full useful life. The

method is subject to advance approval

by the Administrator and to verification

by an in-use verification program

conducted by the manufacturer under

§ 86.094–13(e)(5).

(b)(2)(iii) through (b)(4)(i)(C)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.094–

26.

(b)(4)(i)(D) through (b)(4)(ii)(D)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.095–

26.

(b)(4)(iii) [Reserved].

(b)(4)(iv) through (c)(3) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.094–26.

(c)(4) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.096–26.

(d) introductory text through (d)(2)(i)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.094–

26.

(d)(2)(ii) The results of all emission

tests shall be recorded and reported to

the Administrator. These test results

shall be rounded, in accordance with

the Rounding-Off Method specified in

ASTM E29–90, Standard Practice for

Using Significant Digits in Test Data to

Determine Conformance with

Specifications (incorporated by

reference; see § 86.1), to the number of

decimal places contained in the

applicable emission standard expressed

to one additional significant figure.

(d)(3) through (d)(6) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–26.

14. A new § 86.000–28 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.000–28 Compliance with emission

standards.

Section 86.000–28 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.094–28 or § 86.098–28. Where a

paragraph in § 86.094–28 or § 86.098–28

is identical and applicable to § 86.000–

28, this may be indicated by specifying

the corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–28.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–28.’’

(a)(1) This paragraph (a) applies to

light duty vehicles.

(2) Each exhaust, evaporative and

refueling emission standard (and family

particulate emission limits, as

appropriate) of § 86.000–8 applies to the

emissions of vehicles for the appropriate

useful life as defined in §§ 86.000–2 and

86.000–8.

(a)(3) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–28.

(a)(4) Introductory text [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–28.

(a)(4)(i) Separate emission

deterioration factors for each regulated

exhaust constituent shall be determined

from the FTP exhaust emission results

of the durability-data vehicle(s) for each

engine-system combination. Unless the

Administrator approves a

manufacturer’s request to develop

specific deterioration factors for US06

and air conditioning (SC03) test results,

applicable FTP deterioration factors will

also be used to estimate intermediate

and full useful life emissions for all

SFTP regulated emission levels.

Separate evaporative and/or refueling

emission deterioration factors shall be

determined for each evaporative/

refueling emission family-emission

control system combination from the

testing conducted by the manufacturer

(gasoline-fueled and methanol-fueled

vehicles only). Separate refueling

emission deterioration factors shall be

determined for each evaporative/

refueling emission family-emission

control system combination from the

testing conducted by the manufacturer

(petroleum-fueled diesel cycle vehicles

not certified under the provisions of

§ 86.098–28(g) only).

(a)(4)(i)(A) through (a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(i)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.094–

28.

(a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(ii) These interpolated

values shall be carried out to a

minimum of four places to the right of

the decimal point before dividing one

by the other to determine the

deterioration factor. The results shall be

rounded to three places to the right of

the decimal point in accordance with

the Rounding-Off Method specified in

ASTM E29–90, Standard Practice for

Using Significant Digits in Test Data to

Determine Conformance with

Specifications (incorporated by

reference; see § 86.1).

(a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(iii) through

(a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(iv) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–28.

(a)(4)(i)(C) through (a)(4)(i)(D)(2)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.098–

28.

(a)(4)(ii)(A)(1) The official exhaust

emission test results for each applicable

exhaust emission standard for each

emission data vehicle at the selected test

point shall be multiplied by the

appropriate deterioration factor:

Provided, that if a deterioration factor as

computed in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(ii)

of this section is less than one, that

deterioration factor shall be one for the

purposes of this paragraph. For the

SFTP composite standard of

(NMHC+NOX), the measured results of

NMHC and NOX must each be

multiplied by their corresponding

deterioration factors before the

composite (NMHC+NOX) standard is

calculated.

(2) The calculation specified in

paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A)(1) of this section

may be modified with advance approval
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54885

of the Administrator for engine-system

combinations which are certified under

the Alternative Service Accumulation

Durability Program specified in

§ 86.094–13(e).

(a)(4)(ii)(B) through (a)(4)(ii)(C)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.098–

28.

(a)(4)(iii) The emissions to compare

with the standard (or the family

particulate emission limit, as

appropriate) shall be the adjusted

emissions of § 86.098–28 (a)(4)(ii)(B)

and (C) and paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A) of

this section 211a for each emission-data

vehicle. For the SFTP composite

(NMHC+NOX) results, the individual

deterioration factors must be applied to

the applicable NMHC and NOX test

results prior to calculating the adjusted

composite (NMHC+NOX) level that is

compared with the standard. The

additional composite calculations that

are required by the SFTP are discussed

in § 86.164–00 (Supplemental federal

test procedure calculations). Before any

emission value is compared with the

standard (or the family particulate

emission limit, as appropriate), it shall

be rounded to two significant figures in

accordance with the Rounding-Off

Method specified in ASTM E29–90,

Standard Practice for Using Significant

Digits in Test Data to Determine

Conformance with Specifications

(incorporated by reference; see § 86.1).

The rounded emission values may not

exceed the standard (or the family

particulate emission limit, as

appropriate).

(a)(4)(iv) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–28.

(a)(4)(v) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.098–28.

(a)(5) through (a)(6) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–28.

(a)(7) introductory text [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–28.

(a)(7)(i) Separate deterioration factors

shall be determined from the exhaust

emission results of the durability data

vehicles for each emission standard

applicable under § 86.000–8, for each

engine family group. Unless the

Administrator approves a

manufacturer’s request to develop

specific deterioration factors for US06

and air conditioning (SC03) test results,

applicable deterioration factors

determined from FTP exhaust emission

results will also be used to estimate

intermediate and full useful life

emissions for all SFTP regulated

emission levels. The evaporative and/or

refueling emission deterioration factors

for each evaporative/refueling family

will be determined and applied in

accordance with § 86.098–28(a)(4)

introductory text, (a)(4)(i)(C) and (D),

(a)(4)(ii)(B) and (C), and (a)(4)(v) and

§ 86.094–28(a)(4)(i)(A) through

(a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(i), (a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(iii) and

(iv), and (a)(4)(iv) and paragraphs (a)(4)

(i) introductory, (a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(ii),

(a)(4)(ii)(A), and (a)(4)(iii) of this

section.

(a)(7)(ii) through (b)(4)(i) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.094–28.

(b)(4)(ii) Separate exhaust emission

deterioration factors for each regulated

exhaust constituent, determined from

tests of vehicles, engines, subsystems, or

components conducted by the

manufacturer, shall be supplied for each

standard and for each engine-system

combination. Unless the Administrator

approves a manufacturer’s request to

develop specific deterioration factors for

US06 and air conditioning (SC03) test

results, applicable deterioration factors

determined from FTP exhaust emission

results will also be used to estimate

intermediate and full useful life

emissions for all SFTP regulated

emission levels.

(iii) The official exhaust emission

results for each applicable exhaust

emission standard for each emission

data vehicle at the selected test point

shall be adjusted by multiplication by

the appropriate deterioration factor.

However, if the deterioration factor

supplied by the manufacturer is less

than one, it shall be one for the

purposes of this paragraph (b)(4)(iii).

(iv) The emissions to compare with

the standard(s) (or the family particulate

emission limit, as appropriate) shall be

the adjusted emissions of paragraph

(b)(4)(iii) of this section for each

emission-data vehicle. For the SFTP

composite (NMHC+NOX) results, the

individual deterioration factors must be

applied to the applicable NMHC and

NOX test results prior to calculating the

adjusted composite (NMHC+NOX) level

that is compared with the standard. The

additional composite calculations that

are required by the SFTP are discussed

in § 86.164–00 (Supplemental federal

test procedure calculations). Before any

emission value is compared with the

standard, it shall be rounded to two

significant figures in accordance with

the Rounding-Off Method specified in

ASTM E29–90, Standard Practice for

Using Significant Digits in Test Data to

Determine Conformance with

Specifications (incorporated by

reference; see § 86.1).

(5)(i) Paragraphs (b)(5)(i) (A) and (B)

of this section apply only to

manufacturers electing to participate in

the particulate averaging program.

(A) If a manufacturer chooses to

change the level of any family

particulate emission limit(s),

compliance with the new limit(s) must

be based upon existing certification

data.

(B) The production-weighted average

of the family particulate emission limits

of all applicable engine families,

rounded to two significant figures in

accordance with the Rounding-Off

Method specified in ASTM E29–90,

Standard Practice for Using Significant

Digits in Test Data to Determine

Conformance with Specifications

(incorporated by reference; see § 86.1),

must comply with the particulate

standards in § 86.099–9 (a)(1)(iv) or

(d)(1)(iv), or the composite particulate

standard as defined in § 86.094–2, as

appropriate, at the end of the product

year.

(ii) Paragraphs (b)(5)(ii) (A) and (B) of

this section apply only to manufacturers

electing to participate in the NOX

averaging program.

(A) If a manufacturer chooses to

change the level of any family NOX

emission limit(s), compliance with the

new limit(s) must be based upon

existing certification data.

(B) The production-weighted average

of the family FTP NOX emission limits

of all applicable engine families,

rounded to two significant figures in

accordance with the Rounding-Off

Method specified in ASTM E29–90,

Standard Practice for Using Significant

Digits in Test Data to Determine

Conformance with Specifications

(incorporated by reference; see § 86.1),

must comply with the NOX standards of

§ 86.099–9(a)(1)(iii) (A) or (B), or the

composite NOX standard as defined in

§ 86.094–2, at the end of the product

year.

(b)(6) [Reserved]

(b)(7)(i) through (b)(7)(iii) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.094–28.

(b)(7)(iv) The emission value for each

evaporative emission data vehicle to

compare with the standards shall be the

adjusted emission value of § 86.094–28

(b)(7)(iii) rounded to two significant

figures in accordance with the

Rounding-Off Method specified in

ASTM E29–90, Standard Practice for

Using Significant Digits in Test Data to

Determine Conformance with

Specifications (incorporated by

reference; see § 86.1).

(b)(8) through (c)(4)(iii)(B)(3)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.094–

28.

(c)(4)(iv) The emission values for each

emission data engine to compare with

the standards (or family emission limits,

as appropriate) shall be the adjusted

emission values of § 86.094–28

(c)(4)(iii), rounded to the same number

of significant figures as contained in the

applicable standard in accordance with

the Rounding-Off Method specified in
54886 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

ASTM E29–90, Standard Practice for

Using Significant Digits in Test Data to

Determine Conformance with

Specifications (incorporated by

reference; see § 86.1).

(c)(5) through (d)(4) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–28.

(d)(5) The emission level to compare

with the standard shall be the adjusted

emission level of § 86.094–28 (d)(4).

Before any emission value is compared

with the standard it shall be rounded to

two significant figures, in accordance

with the Rounding-Off Method specified

in ASTM E29–90, Standard Practice for

Using Significant Digits in Test Data to

Determine Conformance with

Specifications (incorporated by

reference; see § 86.1). The rounded

emission values may not exceed the

standard.

(6) Every test vehicle of an

evaporative emission family must

comply with the evaporative emission

standard, as determined in paragraph

(d)(5) of this section, before any vehicle

in that family may be certified.

(e) through (h) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–28.

15. Section 86.001–2 is amended by

revising the introductory text to read as

follows:

§ 86.001–2 Definitions.

The definitions of § 86.000–2

continue to apply to 2000 and later

model year vehicles. The definitions

listed in this section apply beginning

with the 2001 model year.

* * * * *

16. Section 86.001–9 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 86.001–9 Emission standards for 2001

and later model year light-duty trucks

Section 86.001–9 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.097–9, § 86.099–9 or § 86.000–9.

Where a paragraph in § 86.097–9,

§ 86.099–9 or § 86.000–9 is identical and

applicable to § 86.001–9, this may be

indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.097–9.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.099–9.’’ or

‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.000–

9.’’

(a)(1) introductory text through

(a)(1)(iii) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.097–9.

(a)(1)(iv) through (b)(4) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.099–9.

(b)(5) [Reserved]

(b)(6) Vehicles certified to the

refueling standards set forth in

paragraph (d) of this section are not

required to demonstrate compliance

with the fuel dispensing spitback

standards contained in § 86.096–9

(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(iii): Provided, that

they meet the requirements of § 86.001–

28(f).

(c) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.097–9.

(d) Refueling emissions from 2001

and later model year gasoline-fueled

and methanol-fueled Otto-cycle and

petroleum-fueled and methanol-fueled

diesel-cycle light duty trucks of 6,000

pounds or less GVWR shall not exceed

the following standards. The standards

apply equally to certification and in-use

vehicles.

(1) Standards—(i) Hydrocarbons (for

gasoline-fueled Otto-cycle and

petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle vehicles).

0.20 gram per gallon (0.053 gram per

liter) of fuel dispensed.

(ii) Total Hydrocarbon Equivalent (for

methanol-fueled vehicles). 0.20 gram

per gallon (0.053 gram per liter) of fuel

dispensed.

(iii) Hydrocarbons (for liquefied

petroleum gas-fueled vehicles). 0.15

gram per gallon (0.04 gram per liter) of

fuel dispensed.

(iv) Refueling receptacle (for natural

gas-fueled vehicles). Refueling

receptacles on natural gas-fueled

vehicles shall comply with the

receptacle provisions of the ANSI/AGA

NGV1–1994 standard (as incorporated

by reference in § 86.1).

(2)(i) The standards set forth in

paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this

section refer to a sample of refueling

emissions collected under the

conditions as set forth in subpart B of

this part and measured in accordance

with those procedures.

(ii) For vehicles powered by

petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle engines,

the provisions set forth in paragraph

(d)(1)(i) of this section may be waived:

Provided, that the manufacturer

complies with the provisions of

§ 86.001–28(f).

(3) A minimum of the percentage

shown in Table A01–09 of a

manufacturer’s sales of the applicable

model year’s gasoline- and methanolfueled Otto-cycle and petroleum-fueled

and methanol-fueled diesel-cycle lightduty trucks of 6,000 pounds or less

GVWR shall be tested under the

procedures in subpart B of this part

indicated for 2001 and later model

years, and shall not exceed the

standards described in paragraph (d)(1)

of this section. Vehicles certified in

accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of

this section, as determined by the

provisions of § 86.001–28(g), shall not

be counted in the calculation of the

percentage of compliance:

TABLE A01–09.—IMPLEMENTATION

SCHEDULE FOR LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK

REFUELING EMISSION TESTING

Model year Sales percentage

2001 .......................................... 40

2002 .......................................... 80

2003 and subsequent ............... 100

(e) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.000–9.

(f) [Reserved]

(g) through (k) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.097–9.

17. Section 86.001–21 is revised to

read as follows:

§ 86.001–21 Application for certification.

Section 86.001–21 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.094–21 or § 86.096–21. Where a

paragraph in § 86.094–21 or § 86.096–21

is identical and applicable to § 86.001–

21, this may be indicated by specifying

the corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–21.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.096–21.’’

(a) through (b)(1)(i)(B) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–21.

(b)(1)(i)(C) The manufacturer must

submit a Statement of Compliance in

the application for certification which

attests to the fact that they have assured

themselves that the engine family is

designed to comply with the

intermediate temperature cold testing

criteria of subpart C of this part, and

does not unnecessarily reduce emission

control effectiveness of vehicles

operating at high altitude or other

conditions not experienced within the

US06 (aggressive driving) and SC03 (air

conditioning) test cycles.

(b)(1)(i)(C)(1) through (b)(1)(ii)(C)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.094–

21.

(b)(2) Projected U.S. sales data

sufficient to enable the Administrator to

select a test fleet representative of the

vehicles (or engines) for which

certification is requested, and data

sufficient to determine projected

compliance with the standards

implementation schedules of § 86.000–8

and 86.000–9. Volume projected to be

produced for U.S. sale may be used in

lieu of projected U.S. sales.

(b)(3) A description of the test

equipment and fuel proposed to be

used.

(b)(4)(i) For light-duty vehicles and

light-duty trucks, a description of the

test procedures to be used to establish

the evaporative emission and/or

refueling emission deterioration factors,

as appropriate, required to be
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54887

determined and supplied in § 86.001–

23(b)(2).

(b)(4)(ii) through (b)(5)(iv) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.094–21.

(b)(5)(v) For light-duty vehicles and

applicable light-duty trucks with nonintegrated refueling emission control

systems, the number of continuous

UDDS cycles, determined from the fuel

economy on the UDDS applicable to the

test vehicle of that evaporative/refueling

emission family-emission control

system combination, required to use a

volume of fuel equal to 85% of fuel tank

volume.

(b)(6) through (b)(8) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–21.

(b)(9) For each light-duty vehicle,

light-duty truck, evaporative/refueling

emission family or heavy-duty vehicle

evaporative emission family, a

description of any unique procedures

required to perform evaporative and/or

refueling emission tests, as applicable,

(including canister working capacity,

canister bed volume, and fuel

temperature profile for the running loss

test) for all vehicles in that evaporative

and/or evaporative/refueling emission

family, and a description of the method

used to develop those unique

procedures.

(10) For each light-duty vehicle or

applicable light-duty truck evaporative/

refueling emission family, or each

heavy-duty vehicle evaporative

emission family:

(i) Canister working capacity,

according to the procedures specified in

§ 86.132–96(h)(1)(iv);

(ii) Canister bed volume; and

(iii) Fuel temperature profile for the

running loss test, according to the

procedures specified in § 86.129–94(d).

(c) through (j) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–21.

(k) and (l) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.096–21.

18. Section 86.001–23 is revised to

read as follows:

§ 86.001–23 Required data.

Section 86.001–23 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.095–23, § 86.098–23 or § 86.000–23.

Where a paragraph in § 86.095–23,

§ 86.098–23 or § 86.000–23 is identical

and applicable to § 86.001–23, this may

be indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.095–23.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–23.’’ or

‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.000–

23.’’

(a) through (b)(1)(ii) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.095–23.

(b)(2) For light-duty vehicles and

light-duty trucks, the manufacturer shall

submit evaporative emission and/or

refueling emission deterioration factors

for each evaporative/refueling emission

family-emission control system

combination and all test data that are

derived from testing described under

§ 86.001–21(b)(4)(i) designed and

conducted in accordance with good

engineering practice to assure that the

vehicles covered by a certificate issued

under § 86.001–30 will meet the

evaporative and/or refueling emission

standards in § 86.099–8 or § 86.001–9,

as appropriate, for the useful life of the

vehicle.

(b)(3) through (b)(4)(ii) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.095–23.

(b)(4)(iii) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.098–23.

(c) through (e)(1) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.095–23.

(e)(2) For evaporative and refueling

emission durability, or light-duty truck

or heavy-duty engine exhaust emission

durability, a statement of compliance

with paragraph (b)(2) of this section or

§ 86.095–23(b)(1)(ii), (b)(3) or (b)(4)(i)

and (ii) or § 86.098–23(b)(4)(iii), as

applicable.

(3) For certification of vehicles with

non-integrated refueling systems, a

statement that the drivedown used to

purge the refueling canister was the

same as described in the manufacturer’s

application for certification.

Furthermore, a description of the

procedures used to determine the

number of equivalent UDDS miles

required to purge the refueling canisters,

as determined by the provisions of

§ 86.001–21(b)(5)(v) and subpart B of

this part. Furthermore, a written

statement to the Administrator that all

data, analyses, test procedures,

evaluations and other documents, on

which the above statement is based, are

available to the Administrator upon

request.

(f) through (k) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.095–23.

(l) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.000–23.

(m) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.098–23.

19. Section 86.001–24 is revised to

read as follows:

§ 86.001–24 Test vehicles and engines.

Section 86.001–24 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.096–24, § 86.098–24 or § 86.000–24.

Where a paragraph in § 86.096–24,

§ 86.098–24 or § 86.000–9 is identical

and applicable to § 86.001–24, this may

be indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.096–24.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–24.’’ or

‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.000–

24.’’

(a) through (a)(4) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.096–24.

(a)(5) through (a)(7) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–24.

(a)(8) through (b)(1) introductory text

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.096–

24.

(b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(ii) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.000–24.

(b)(1)(iii) through (b)(1)(vi) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.096–24.

(b)(1)(vii)(A) through (b)(1)(viii)(A)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.098–

24.

(b)(1)(viii)(B) through (e)(2)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.096–

24.

(f) Carryover and carryacross of

durability and emission data. In lieu of

testing an emission-data or durability

vehicle (or engine) selected under

§ 86.096–24(b)(1) introductory text,

(b)(1)(iii) through (b)(1)(vi) and

§ 86.000–24(b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(ii)

and § 86.098–24(b)(1)(vii)(A) through

(b)(1)(viii)(A) or § 86.096–24(c), and

submitting data therefor, a manufacturer

may, with the prior written approval of

the Administrator, submit exhaust

emission data, evaporative emission

data and/or refueling emission data, as

applicable, on a similar vehicle (or

engine) for which certification has been

obtained or for which all applicable data

required under § 86.001–23 has

previously been submitted.

(g)(1) through (g)(2) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.096–24.

(g)(3) through (g)(4) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86–000–24.

(h) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.096–24.

20. Section 86.001–25 is revised to

read as follows:

§ 86.001–25 Maintenance.

Section 86.001–25 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.094–25 or § 86.098–25. Where a

paragraph in § 86.094–25 or § 86.098–25

is identical and applicable to § 86.001–

25, this may be indicated by specifying

the corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–25.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–25.’’

(a)(1) Applicability. This section

applies to light-duty vehicles, light-duty

trucks, and heavy-duty engines.

(2) Maintenance performed on

vehicles, engines, subsystems, or

components used to determine exhaust,

evaporative or refueling emission

deterioration factors, as appropriate, is

classified as either emission-related or

non-emission-related and each of these

can be classified as either scheduled or
54888 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

unscheduled. Further, some emissionrelated maintenance is also classified as

critical emission-related maintenance.

(b) introductory text through

(b)(3)(vi)(D) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.094–25.

(b)(3)(vi)(E) through (b)(3)(vi)(J)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.098–

25.

(b)(3)(vii) through (b)(6)(i)(E)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.094–

25.

(b)(6)(i)(F) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.098–25.

(b)(6)(i)(G) through (H) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–25.

(i) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.000–25.

21. Section 86.001–26 is revised to

read as follows:

§ 86.001–26 Mileage and service

accumulation; emission measurements.

Section 86.001–26 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.094–26, § 86.095–26, § 86.096–26,

§ 86.098–26 or § 86.000–26. Where a

paragraph in § 86.094–26, § 86.095–26,

§ 86.096–26, § 86.098–26 or § 86.000–26

is identical and applicable to § 86.001–

26, this may be indicated by specifying

the corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–26.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.095–26.’’ or

‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.096–

26.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.098–26.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.000–26.’’

(a)(1) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–26.

(a)(2) through (a)(3)(i)(A) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.000–26.

(a)(3)(i)(B) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.094–26.

(a)(3)(i)(C) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.098–26.

(a)(3)(i)(D) through (a)(3)(ii)(B)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.094–

26.

(a)(3)(ii)(C) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.098–26.

(a)(3)(ii)(D) through (a)(4)(i)(B)(4)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.094–

26.

(a)(4)(i)(C) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.000–26.

(a)(4)(i)(D) through (a)(6)(ii)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.094–

26.

(a)(6)(iii) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.000–26.

(a)(7) through (a)(9)(i) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–26.

(a)(9)(ii) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.000–26.

(a)(9)(iii) through (b)(2) introductory

text [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–26.

(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(ii) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.000–26.

(b)(2)(iii) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–26.

(b)(2)(iv) Service or mileage

accumulation which may be part of the

test procedures used by the

manufacturer to establish evaporative

and/or refueling emission deterioration

factors.

(b)(3) through (b)(4)(i)(B) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.094–26.

(b)(4)(i)(C) Exhaust, evaporative and/

or refueling emission tests for emissiondata vehicle(s) selected for testing under

§ 86.096–24(b)(1)(ii), (iii) or (iv)(A) or

§ 86.098–24(b)(1)(vii) shall be

conducted at the mileage (2,000 mile

minimum) at which the engine-system

combination is stabilized for emission

testing or at 6,436 kilometer (4,000 mile)

test point under low-altitude conditions.

(b)(4)(i)(D) through (b)(4)(ii)(B)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.095–

26.

(b)(4)(ii)(C) Exhaust, evaporative and/

or refueling emission tests for emission

data vehicle(s) selected for testing under

§ 86.094–24(b)(1)(ii), (iii), and (iv) shall

be conducted at the mileage (2,000 mile

minimum) at which the engine-system

combination is stabilized for emission

testing or at the 6,436 kilometer (4,000

mile) test point under low-altitude

conditions.

(b)(4)(ii)(D) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.095–26.

(b)(4)(iii) [Reserved]

(b)(4)(iv) through (c)(3) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.094–26.

(c)(4) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.096–26.

(d) through (d)(2)(i) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–26.

(d)(2)(ii) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.000–26.

(d)(3) through (d)(6) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–26.

22. Section 86.001–28 is revised to

read as follows:

§ 86.001–28 Compliance with emission

standards.

Section 86.001–28 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.094–28, § 86.098–28 or § 86.000–28.

Where a paragraph in § 86.094–28,

§ 86.098–28 or § 86.000–28 is identical

and applicable to § 86.001–28, this may

be indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–28.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–28.’’ or

‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.000–

28.’’

(a)(1) through (a)(2) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.000–28.

(a)(3) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–28.

(a)(4) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.098–28.

(a)(4)(i) introductory text [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.000–28.

(a)(4)(i)(A) through (a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(i)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.094–

28.

(a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(ii) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.000–28.

(a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(iii) through

(a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(iv) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–28.

(a)(4)(i)(C) through (a)(4)(i)(D)(2)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.098–

28.

(a)(4)(ii)(A)(1) through (a)(4)(ii)(A)(2)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.000–

28.

(a)(4)(ii)(B) through (a)(4)(ii)(C)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.098–

28.

(a)(4)(iii) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.000–28.

(a)(4)(iv) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–28.

(a)(4)(v) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.098–28.

(a)(5) through (a)(6) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–28.

(a)(7) introductory text [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–28.

(a)(7)(i) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.000–28.

(a)(7)(ii) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–28.

(b)(1) This paragraph (b) applies to

light-duty trucks.

(2) Each exhaust, evaporative and

refueling emission standard (and family

emission limits, as appropriate) of

§ 86.001–9 applies to the emissions of

vehicles for the appropriate useful life

as defined in §§ 86.098–2 and 86.001–9.

(b)(3) through (b)(4)(i) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–28.

(b)(4)(ii) through (b)(6) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.000–28.

(b)(7)(i) This paragraph (b)(7)

describes the procedure for determining

compliance of a new vehicle with

evaporative emission standards. The

procedure described here shall be used

for all vehicles in applicable model

years.

(ii) The manufacturer shall determine,

based on testing described in § 86.001–

21(b)(4)(i)(A), and supply an

evaporative emission deterioration

factor for each evaporative/refueling

emission family-emission control

system combination. The factor shall be

calculated by subtracting the emission

level at the selected test point from the

emission level at the useful life point.

(iii) The official evaporative emission

test results for each evaporative/

refueling emission-data vehicle at the

selected test point shall be adjusted by

the addition of the appropriate
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54889

deterioration factor. However, if the

deterioration factor supplied by the

manufacturer is less than zero, it shall

be zero for the purposes of this

paragraph (b)(7)(iii).

(iv) The evaporative emission value

for each emission-data vehicle to

compare with the standards shall be the

adjusted emission value of paragraph

(b)(7)(iii) of this section rounded to two

significant figures in accordance with

the Rounding-Off Method specified in

ASTM E29–90, Standard Practice for

Using Significant Digits in Test Data to

Determine Conformance with

Specifications (incorporated by

reference; see § 86.1).

(8)(i) This paragraph (b)(8) describes

the procedure for determining

compliance of a new vehicle with

refueling emission standards. The

procedure described here shall be used

for all applicable vehicles in the

applicable model years.

(ii) The manufacturer shall determine,

based on testing described in § 86.001–

21(b)(4)(i)(B), and supply a refueling

emission deterioration factor for each

evaporative/refueling emission familyemission control system combination.

The factor shall be calculated by

subtracting the emission level at the

selected test point from the emission

level at the useful life point.

(iii) The official refueling emission

test results for each evaporative/

refueling emission-data vehicle at the

selected test point shall be adjusted by

the addition of the appropriate

deterioration factor. However, if the

deterioration factor supplied by the

manufacturer is less than zero, it shall

be zero for the purposes of this

paragraph (b)(8)(iii).

(iv) The emission value for each

evaporative emission-data vehicle to

compare with the standards shall be the

adjusted emission value of paragraph

(b)(8)(iii) of this section rounded to two

significant figures in accordance with

the Rounding-Off Method specified in

ASTM E29–90, Standard Practice for

Using Significant Digits in Test Data to

Determine Conformance with

Specifications (incorporated by

reference; see § 86.1).

(9) Every test vehicle of an engine

family must comply with all applicable

standards (and family emission limits,

as appropriate), as determined in

§ 86.000–28(b)(4)(iv) and paragraphs

(b)(7)(iv) and (b)(8)(iv) of this section,

before any vehicle in that family will be

certified.

(c) Introductory text through

(c)(4)(iii)(B)(3) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.094–28.

(c)(4)(iv) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.000–28.

(c)(5) through (d)(4) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–28.

(d)(5) through (d)(6) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.000–28.

(e) [Reserved]

(f) Fuel dispensing spitback testing

waiver. (1) Vehicles certified to the

refueling emission standards set forth in

§ 86.098–8, 86.099–8 and 86.001–9 are

not required to demonstrate compliance

with the fuel dispensing spitback

standards contained in these sections:

Provided, that—

(i) The manufacturer certifies that the

vehicle inherently meets the Dispensing

Spitback Standard as part of compliance

with the refueling emission standard.

(ii) This certification is provided in

writing and applies to the full useful life

of the vehicle.

(2) EPA retains the authority to

require testing to enforce compliance

and to prevent non-compliance with the

Fuel Dispensing Spitback Standard.

(g) Inherently low refueling emission

testing waiver. (1) Vehicles using fuels/

fuel systems inherently low in refueling

emissions are not required to conduct

testing to demonstrate compliance with

the refueling emission standards set

forth in §§ 86.098–8, 86.099–8 or

86.001–9: Provided, that—

(i) This provision is only available for

petroleum diesel fuel. It is only

available if the Reid Vapor Pressure of

in-use diesel fuel is equal to or less than

1 psi (7 Kpa) and for diesel vehicles

whose fuel tank temperatures do not

exceed 130 °F (54 °C); and

(ii) To certify using this provision the

manufacturer must attest to the

following evaluation: ‘‘Due to the low

vapor pressure of diesel fuel and the

vehicle tank temperatures, hydrocarbon

vapor concentrations are low and the

vehicle meets the 0.20 grams/gallon

refueling emission standard without a

control system.’’

(2) The certification required in

paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section must

be provided in writing and must apply

for the full useful life of the vehicle.

(3) EPA reserves the authority to

require testing to enforce compliance

and to prevent noncompliance with the

refueling emission standard.

(4) Vehicles certified to the refueling

emission standard under this provision

shall not be counted in the sales

percentage compliance determinations

for the 2001, 2002 and subsequent

model years.

(h) Fixed liquid level gauge waiver.

Liquefied petroleum gas-fueled vehicles

which contain fixed liquid level gauges

or other gauges or valves which can be

opened to release fuel or fuel vapor

during refueling, and which are being

tested for refueling emissions, are not

required to be tested with such gauges

or valves open, as outlined in § 86.157–

98(d)(2), provided the manufacturer can

demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the

Administrator, that such gauges or

valves would not be opened during

refueling in-use due to inaccessibility or

other design features that would prevent

or make it very unlikely that such

gauges or valves could be opened.

23. Section 86.004–9 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 86.004–9 Emission standards for 2004

and later model year light-duty trucks.

Section 86.004–9 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.097–9, § 86.099–9, § 86.000–9 or

§ 86.001–9. Where a paragraph in

§ 86.097–9, § 86.099–9, § 86.000–9 or

§ 86.001–9 is identical and applicable to

§ 86.004–9, this may be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.097–9.’’ or

‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.099–

9.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.000–9.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.001–9.’’

(a)(1) introductory text through

(a)(1)(iii) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.097–9.

(a)(1)(iv) through (b)(4) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.099–9.

(b)(5) [Reserved]

(b)(6) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.001–9.

(c) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.097–9.

(d) Refueling emissions from 2004

and later model year gasoline-fueled

and methanol-fueled Otto-cycle and

petroleum-fueled and methanol-fueled

diesel-cycle light-duty trucks shall not

exceed the following standards. The

standards apply equally to certification

and in-use vehicles.

(d)(1) through (d)(2)(ii) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.001–9.

(d)(2)(iii) Heavy-duty vehicles

certified as light-duty trucks under the

provisions of § 86.085–1 shall comply

with the provisions of § 86.001–9

(d)(1)(i) and (ii).

(3)(i) All light-duty trucks of a GVWR

equal to 6,000 pounds or less (100%)

must meet the refueling emission

standard.

(ii) A minimum of the percentage

shown in Table A04–09 of a

manufacturer’s sales of the applicable

model year’s gasoline- and methanolfueled Otto-cycle and petroleum-fueled

and methanol-fueled diesel-cycle lightduty trucks of 6,001 to 8,500 pounds

GVWR shall be tested under the

procedures in subpart B of this part

indicated for 2004 and later model

years, and shall not exceed the
54890 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

standards described in § 86.001–9 (d)(1).

Vehicles certified in accordance with

§ 86.001–9 (d)(2)(ii), as determined by

the provisions of § 86.001–28(g), shall

not be counted in the calculation of the

percentage of compliance:

TABLE A04–09.—IMPLEMENTATION

SCHEDULE FOR LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK

REFUELING EMISSION TESTING

Model year Sales percentage

2004 .......................................... 40

2005 .......................................... 80

2006 and subsequent ............... 100

(e) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.000–9.

(f) [Reserved]

(g) through (k) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.097–9.

24. Section 86.004–28 is revised to

read as follows:

§ 86.004–28 Compliance with emission

standards.

Section 86.004–28 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.094–28, § 86.098–28, § 86.000–28 or

§ 86.001–28. Where a paragraph in

§ 86.094–28, § 86.098–28, § 86.000–28 or

§ 86.001–28 is identical and applicable

to § 86.004–28, this may be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–28.’’ or

‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.098–

28.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.000–28.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.001–28.’’

(a)(1) through (a)(2) [Reserved. For

guidance see § 86.000–28.

(a)(3) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–28.

(a)(4) introductory text [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–28.

(a)(4)(i) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.000–28.

(a)(4)(i)(A) through (a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(i)

[Reserved. For guidance see § 86.094–

28.

(a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(ii) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.000–28.

(a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(iii) through

(a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(iv) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–28.

(a)(4)(i)(C) through (a)(4)(i)(D)(2)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.098–

28.

(a)(4)(ii)(A)(1) through (a)(4)(ii)(A)(2)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.000–

28.

(a)(4)(ii)(B) through (a)(4)(ii)(C)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.098–

28.

(a)(4)(iii) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.000–28.

(a)(4)(iv) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–28.

(a)(4)(v) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.098–28.

(a)(5) through (a)(6) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–28.

(a)(7) introductory text [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–28.

(a)(7)(i) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.000–28.

(a)(7)(ii) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–28.

(b)(1) This paragraph (b) applies to

light-duty trucks.

(2) Each exhaust, evaporative and

refueling emission standard (and family

emission limits, as appropriate) of

§ 86.004–9 applies to the emissions of

vehicles for the appropriate useful life

as defined in §§ 86.098–2 and 86.004–9.

(b)(3) through (b)(4)(i) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–28.

(b)(4)(ii) through (b)(6) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.000–28.

(b)(7)(i) through (b)(9) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.001–28.

(c) introductory text through

(c)(4)(iii)(B)(3) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.094–28.

(c)(4)(iv) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.000–28.

(c)(5) through (d)(4) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–28.

(d)(5) through (d)(6) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.000–28.

(e) [Reserved]

(f) through (g)(3) through [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.001–28.

(g)(4) Vehicles certified to the

refueling emission standard under this

provision shall not be counted in the

sales percentage compliance

determinations for the 2004, 2005 and

subsequent model years.

(h) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.001–28.

Subpart B—[Amended]

25. Section 86.101 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2)

and adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as

follows:

§ 86.101 General applicability.

(a) * * *

(2) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(4) For fuel economy testing according

to part 600 of this chapter, in the model

years of 2000 and 2001 only,

manufacturers have the option to use

the dynamometer provisions of

§ 86.108–00(b)(1) and § 86.129–00 (a),

(b), and (c) instead of the provisions of

§ 86.108–00(b)(2) and § 86.129–00 (a),

(e), and (f).

* * * * *

26. A new § 86.106–00 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.106–00 Equipment required;

overview.

Section 86.106–00 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.106–96. Where a paragraph in

§ 86.106–96 is identical and applicable

to § 86.106–00, this may be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.106–96.’’

(a) introductory text through (a)(2)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.106–

96.

(a)(3) Fuel, analytical gas, and driving

schedule specifications. Fuel

specifications for exhaust and

evaporative emissions testing and for

mileage accumulation for petroleumfueled and methanol-fueled vehicles are

specified in § 86.113. Analytical gases

are specified in § 86.114. The EPA

Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule

(UDDS), US06, and SC03 driving

schedules, for use in exhaust emission

tests, and the New York City Cycle

(NYCC), for use with the UDDS in

running loss tests, are specified in

§§ 86.115, 86.130, 86.159, 86.160, and

appendix I to this part.

(b) [Reserved]

27. A new § 86.108–00 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.108–00 Dynamometer.

(a) The dynamometer shall simulate

the road load force and inertia specified

for the vehicle being tested, and shall

determine the distance traveled during

each phase of the test procedure.

(b) Two types of dynamometer roll

configurations are currently approved

by the Administrator:

(1) A small twin-roll dynamometer

that has a nominal roll diameter of 8.65

inches and a nominal roll spacing of 17

inches; and

(2)(i) An electric dynamometer that

has a single roll with a nominal

diameter of 48 inches (1.20 to 1.25

meters).

(ii)(A) The dynamometer must be

capable of dynamically controlling

inertia load during the US06 test cycle

as a function of a vehicle throttle

position signal if a manufacturer desires

using the following test option. Any

time the duration of throttle operation

greater than or equal to 85% of wide

open throttle (WOT) is greater than or

equal to eight seconds, the test inertia

load may be adjusted during any of five

EPA specified acceleration events by an

amount of load that will eliminate

additional throttle operation greater

than or equal to 85% of WOT.

(B)(1) The specific US06 schedule

accelerations time periods where inertia

load adjustments may be applied are:

(i) 49 through 69 seconds;
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54891

(ii) 83 through 97 seconds;

(iii) 135 through 165 seconds;

(iv) 315 through 335 seconds; and

(v) 568 through 583 seconds.

(2) During these five time intervals

when inertia load adjustment is

occurring, inertia load adjustment is

discontinued when throttle operation is

less than 85% of WOT or at the end of

the specified time interval.

(C) Each type of generic application

for implementing this concept must

receive the Administrator’s approval

before a manufacturer may use these

inertia adjustments for official US06

schedule certification tests.

(c) Other dynamometer configurations

may be used for testing if it can be

demonstrated that the simulated road

load power and inertia are equivalent,

and if approved in advance by the

Administrator.

(d) An electric dynamometer meeting

the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of

this section, or a dynamometer

approved as equivalent under paragraph

(c) of this section, must be used for all

types of emission testing in the

following situations.

(1)(i) Gasoline vehicles which are part

of an engine family which is designated

to meet the phase-in of SFTP

compliance required under the

implementation schedule of Table A00–

1 of § 86.000–08, or Table A00–3, or

Table A00–5 of § 86.000–09.

(ii) Diesel LDVs and LDT1s which are

part of an engine family which is

designated to meet the phase-in of SFTP

compliance required under the

implementation schedule of Table A00–

1 of § 86.000–08, or Table A00–3, or

Table A00–5 of § 86.000–09.

(2) Starting with the 2002 model year,

any light-duty vehicle or light light-duty

truck which uses any regulated fuel.

(3) Starting with the 2004 model year,

any heavy light-duty truck which uses

any regulated fuel.

28. A new § 86.115–00 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.115–00 EPA dynamometer driving

schedules.

Section 86.115–00 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.115–78. Where a paragraph in

§ 86.115–78 is identical and applicable

to § 86.115–00, this may be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.115–78.’’

(a) The driving schedules for the EPA

Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule,

US06, SC03, and the EPA New York

City Cycles are contained in appendix I

of this part. The driving schedules are

defined by a smooth trace drawn

through the specified speed vs. time

relationships. They each consist of a

distinct non-repetitive series of idle,

acceleration, cruise, and deceleration

modes of various time sequences and

rates.

(b) The driver should attempt to

follow the target schedule as closely as

possible (refer to § 86.128–00 for

additional cycle driving instructions).

The speed tolerance at any given time

for these schedules, or for a driver’s aid

chart approved by the Administrator,

are as follows:

(b)(1) through (c) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.115–78.

29. A new § 86.118–00 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.118–00 Dynamometer calibrations.

(a) The dynamometer shall be

calibrated at least once each month or

performance verified at least once each

week and then calibrated as required.

(b) For large single roll electric

dynamometers or equivalent

dynamometer configurations, the

dynamometer adjustment settings for

each vehicle’s emission test sequence

shall be verified by comparing the force

imposed during dynamometer operation

with actual road load force.

30. A new § 86.127–00 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.127–00 Test procedures; overview.

Applicability. The procedures

described in this and subsequent

sections are used to determine the

conformity of vehicles with the

standards set forth in subpart A of this

part for light-duty vehicles and lightduty trucks. Except where noted, the

procedures of paragraphs (a) through (b)

of this section, § 86.127–96 (c) and (d),

and the contents of §§ 86.135–94,

86.136–90, 86.137–96, 86.140–94,

86.142–90, and 86.144–94 are

applicable for determining emission

results for vehicle exhaust emission

systems designed to comply with the

FTP emission standards, or the FTP

emission element required for

determining compliance with composite

SFTP standards. Paragraphs (f) and (g)

of this section discuss the additional

test elements of aggressive driving

(US06) and air conditioning (SC03) that

comprise the exhaust emission

components of the SFTP. Section

86.127–96(e) discusses fuel spitback

emissions and paragraphs (h) and (i) of

this section are applicable to all vehicle

emission test procedures. Section

86.127–00 includes text that specifies

requirements that differ from § 86.127–

96. Where a paragraph in § 86.127–96 is

identical and applicable to § 86.127–00,

this may be indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.127–96.’’

(a) The overall test consists of

prescribed sequences of fueling,

parking, and operating test conditions.

Vehicles are tested for any or all of the

following emissions:

(1) Gaseous exhaust THC, CO, NOx,

CO2 (for petroleum-fueled and gaseousfueled vehicles), plus CH3OH and

HCHO for methanol-fueled vehicles,

plus CH4 (for vehicles subject to the

NMHC and NMHCE standards).

(2) Particulates.

(3) Evaporative HC (for gasolinefueled, methanol-fueled and gaseousfueled vehicles) and CH3OH (for

methanol-fueled vehicles). The

evaporative testing portion of the

procedure occurs after the exhaust

emission test; however, exhaust

emissions need not be sampled to

complete a test for evaporative

emissions.

(4) Fuel spitback (this test is not

required for gaseous-fueled vehicles).

(b) The FTP Otto-cycle exhaust

emission test is designed to determine

gaseous THC, CO, CO2, CH4, NOx, and

particulate mass emissions from

gasoline-fueled, methanol-fueled and

gaseous-fueled Otto-cycle vehicles as

well as methanol and formaldehyde

from methanol-fueled Otto-cycle

vehicles, while simulating an average

trip in an urban area of 11 miles (18

kilometers). The test consists of engine

start-ups and vehicle operation on a

chassis dynamometer through a

specified driving schedule (see

paragraph (a), EPA Urban Dynamometer

Driving Schedule, of Appendix I to this

part). A proportional part of the diluted

exhaust is collected continuously for

subsequent analysis, using a constant

volume (variable dilution) sampler or

critical flow venturi sampler.

(c) through (e) ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.127–96.’’

(f) The element of the SFTP for

exhaust emissions related to aggressive

driving (US06) is designed to determine

gaseous THC, NMHC, CO, CO2, CH4,

and NOx emissions from gasoline-fueled

or diesel-fueled vehicles (see § 86.158–

00 Supplemental test procedures;

overview, and § 86.159–00 Exhaust

emission test procedures for US06

emissions). The test cycle simulates

urban driving speeds and accelerations

that are not represented by the FTP

Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule

simulated trips discussed in paragraph

(b) of this section. The test consists of

vehicle operation on a chassis

dynamometer through a specified

driving cycle (see paragraph (g), US06

Dynamometer Driving Schedule, of

Appendix I to this part). A proportional
54892 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

part of the diluted exhaust is collected

continuously for subsequent analysis,

using a constant volume (variable

dilution) sampler or critical flow venturi

sampler.

(g)(1) The element of the SFTP related

to the increased exhaust emissions

caused by air conditioning operation

(SC03) is designed to determine gaseous

THC, NMHC, CO, CO2, CH4, and NOX

emissions from gasoline-fueled or diesel

fueled vehicles related to air

conditioning use (see § 86.158–00

Supplemental federal test procedures;

overview and § 86.160–00 Exhaust

emission test procedure for SC03

emissions). The test cycle simulates

urban driving behavior with the air

conditioner operating. The test consists

of engine startups and vehicle operation

on a chassis dynamometer through

specified driving cycles (see paragraph

(h), SC03 Dynamometer Driving

Schedule, of Appendix I to this part). A

proportional part of the diluted exhaust

is collected continuously for subsequent

analysis, using a constant volume

(variable dilution) sampler or critical

flow venturi sampler. The testing

sequence includes an approved

preconditioning cycle, a 10 minute soak

with the engine turned off, and the SC03

cycle with measured exhaust emissions.

(2) The SC03 air conditioning test is

conducted with the air conditioner

operating at specified settings and the

ambient test conditions of:

(i) Air temperature of 95°F;

(ii) 100 grains of water/pound of dry

air (approximately 40 percent relative

humidity);

(iii) Simulated solar heat intensity of

850 W/m 2 (see § 86.161–00(d)); and

(iv) air flow directed at the vehicle

that will provide representative air

conditioner system condenser cooling at

all vehicle speeds (see § 86.161–00(e)).

(3) Manufacturers have the option of

simulating air conditioning operation

during testing at other ambient test

conditions provided they can

demonstrate that the vehicle tail pipe

exhaust emissions are representative of

the emissions that would result from the

SC03 cycle test procedure and the

ambient conditions of paragraph (g)(2)

of this section. The Administrator has

approved two optional air conditioning

test simulation procedures AC1 and

AC2 (see § 86.162–00) for only the

model years of 2000 through 2002. If a

manufacturer desires to conduct

simulation SC03 testing for model year

2003 and beyond, the simulation test

procedure must be approved in advance

by the Administrator (see §§ 86.162–00

and 86.163–00).

(h) Except in cases of component

malfunction or failure, all emission

control systems installed on or

incorporated in a new motor vehicle

shall be functioning during all

procedures in this subpart. Maintenance

to correct component malfunction or

failure shall be authorized in

accordance with § 86.090–25.

(i) Background concentrations are

measured for all species for which

emissions measurements are made. For

exhaust testing, this requires sampling

and analysis of the dilution air. For

evaporative testing, this requires

measuring initial concentrations. (When

testing methanol-fueled vehicles,

manufacturers may choose not to

measure background concentrations of

methanol and/or formaldehyde, and

then assume that the concentrations are

zero during calculations.)

31. A new § 86.128–00 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.128–00 Transmissions.

Section 86.128–00 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.128–79. Where a paragraph in

§ 86.128–79 is identical and applicable

to § 86.128–00, this may be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.128–79.’’

(a) through (c) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.128–79.

(d) The vehicle shall be driven with

appropriate accelerator pedal movement

necessary to achieve the speed versus

time relationship prescribed by the

driving schedule. Both smoothing of

speed variations and excessive

accelerator pedal perturbations are to be

avoided.

(e) through (h) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.128–79.

32. A new § 86.129–00 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.129–00 Road load power test weight

and inertia weight class determination.

Applicability. Section 86.129–94 (a)

applies to all vehicle testing. Section

86.129–80 (b) and (c) are applicable to

vehicles from engine families which are

not required to meet SFTP

requirements, although a manufacturer

may elect to use the requirements in

paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section

instead of § 86.129–80 (b) and (c) on any

vehicle. Section 86.129–94(d) which

discusses fuel temperature profile, is

applicable to evaporative emission

running loss testing. Paragraphs (e) and

(f) of this section are applicable to

vehicles from engine families required

to comply with SFTP requirements.

Section 86.129–00 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.129–80 or § 86.129–94. Where a

paragraph in § 86.129–80 or § 86.129–94

is identical and applicable to § 86.129–

00, this may be indicated by specifying

the corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.129–80.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.129–94.’’

(a) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.129–94.

(b) through (c) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.129–80.

(d) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.129–94.

(e)(1) For each test vehicle from an

engine family required to comply with

SFTP requirements, the manufacturer

shall supply representative road load

forces for the vehicle at speeds between

15 km/hr (9.3 mph) and 115 km/hr (71.5

mph). The road load force shall

represent vehicle operation on a smooth

level road, during calm winds, with no

precipitation, at an ambient temperature

of 20 °C (68 °F), and atmospheric

pressure of 98.21 kPa. Road load force

for low speed may be extrapolated.

Manufacturers may, at their option, use

road load forces meeting the objectives

of paragraph (f) of this section for any

vehicle.

(2) The dynamometer’s power

absorption shall be set for each vehicle’s

emission test sequence such that the

force imposed during dynamometer

operation matches actual road load force

at all speeds.

(3) The 10 percent adjustment in road

load power for air conditioning

discussed in § 86.129–80(b)(3), is not

applicable when road load forces are

determined for dynamometer testing

using paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this

section.

(f)(1) Required test dynamometer

inertia weight class selections for the

test elements of FTP, US06, and SC03

are determined by the test vehicles test

weight basis and corresponding

equivalent weight as listed in the

tabular information of § 86.129–94(a).

With the exception of the fuel economy

test weight information in footnote 4 to

the table in § 86.129–94(a), none of the

other footnotes to the tabular listing

apply to emission tests utilizing an

approved single roll dynamometer or

equivalent dynamometer configuration.

All light-duty vehicles and light lightduty trucks are to be tested at the inertia

weight class corresponding to their

equivalent test weight.

(i) For light-duty vehicles and light

light-duty trucks, test weight basis is

loaded vehicle weight, which is the

vehicle weight plus 300 pounds.

(ii) For heavy light-duty trucks, the

definition of test weight basis varies

depending on the SFTP test element

being tested.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54893

(A) For the aggressive driving cycle

(US06), the test weight basis is the

vehicle curb weight plus 300 pounds.

(B) For the FTP and the air

conditioning (SC03) element of the

SFTP, the test weight is the average of

the curb weight plus GVWR.

(2) Dynamic inertia load adjustments

may be made to the test inertia weight

during specific US06 acceleration

events when wide open throttle

operation is equal to or greater than

eight (8) seconds (see § 86.108–00). The

dynamic inertia weight adjustment

procedure must be approved in advance

of conducting official US06 testing. The

Administrator will perform

confirmatory US06 testing using the

same dynamometer inertia adjustment

procedures as the manufacturer if:

(i) The manufacturer submits a

request to the Administrator; and

(ii) The manufacturer provides the

dynamometer hardware and/or software

necessary for these adjustments to the

Administrator.

33. A new § 86.130–00 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.130–00 Test sequence; general

requirements.

Applicability. Section 86.130–96 (a)

through (d) is applicable to vehicles

tested for the FTP test. Paragraph (e) of

this section is applicable to vehicles

tested for the SFTP supplemental tests

of air conditioning (SC03) and

aggressive driving (US06). Paragraph (f)

of this section is applicable to all

emission testing. Section 86.130–00

includes text that specifies requirements

that differ from § 86.130–96. Where a

paragraph in § 86.130–96 is identical

and applicable to § 86.130–00, this may

be indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.130–96.’’

(a) through (d) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.130–96.

(e) The supplemental tests for exhaust

emissions related to aggressive driving

(US06) and air conditioning (SC03) use

are conducted as stand-alone tests as

described in §§ 86.158–00, 86.159–00,

and 86.160–00. These tests may be

performed in any sequence that

maintains the appropriate

preconditioning requirements for these

tests as specified in § 86.132–00.

(f) If tests are invalidated after

collection of emission data from

previous test segments, the test may be

repeated to collect only those data

points needed to complete emission

measurements. Compliance with

emission standards may be determined

by combining emission measurements

from different test runs. If any emission

measurements are repeated, the new

measurements supersede previous

values.

34. A new § 86.131–00 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.131–00 Vehicle preparation.

Section 86.131–00 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.131–96. Where a paragraph in

§ 86.131–96 is identical and applicable

to § 86.131–00, this may be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.131–96.’’

(a) through (e) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.131–96.

(f) For vehicles to be tested for

aggressive driving emissions (US06),

provide a throttle position sensing

signal that is compatible with the test

dynamometer. This signal provides the

input information that controls

dynamometer dynamic inertia weight

adjustments (see §§ 86.108–00(b)(2)(ii)

and 86.129–00(f)(2)). If a manufacturer

chooses not to implement dynamic

inertia adjustments for a portion or all

of their product line, this requirement is

not applicable.

35. A new § 86.132–00 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.132–00 Vehicle preconditioning.

Applicability. Section 86.132–96 (a)

through (c)(1) and (d) through (m) and

paragraph (c)(2) of this section are

applicable to FTP and evaporative

emission testing. Paragraphs (n) and (o)

of this section are applicable to vehicles

tested for the SFTP supplemental tests

of aggressive driving (US06) and air

conditioning (SC03). Section 86.132–00

includes text that specifies requirements

that differ from § 86.132–96. Where a

paragraph in § 86.132–96 is identical

and applicable to § 86.132–00, this may

be indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.132–96.’’

(a) through (c)(1) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.132–96.

(c)(2)(i) Once a test vehicle has

completed the refueling and vehicle

soak steps specified in § 86.132–96 (b)

and (c)(1), these steps may be omitted in

subsequent testing with the same

vehicle and the same fuel specifications,

provided the vehicle remains under

laboratory ambient temperature

conditions for at least 6 hours before

starting the next test. In such cases, each

subsequent test shall begin with the

preconditioning drive specified in

§ 86.132–96(c)(1). The test vehicle may

not be used to set dynamometer

horsepower.

(ii) The SFTP test elements of

aggressive driving (US06) and air

conditioning (SC03) can be run

immediately or up to 72 hours after the

official FTP and/or evaporative test

sequence without refueling provided the

vehicle has remained under laboratory

ambient temperature conditions. If the

time interval exceeds 72 hours or the

vehicle leaves the ambient temperature

conditions of the laboratory, the

manufacturer must repeat the refueling

operation.

(d) through (m) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.132–96.

(n) Aggressive Driving Test (US06)

Preconditioning. (1) If the US06 test

follows the exhaust emission FTP or

evaporative testing, the refueling step

may be deleted and the vehicle may be

preconditioned using the fuel remaining

in the tank (see paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of

this section). The test vehicle may be

pushed or driven onto the test

dynamometer. Acceptable cycles for

preconditioning are as follows:

(i) If the soak period since the last

exhaust test element is less than or

equal to two hours, preconditioning

may consist of a 505, 866, highway,

US06, or SC03 test cycles.

(ii) If the soak period since the last

exhaust test element is greater than two

hours, preconditioning consists of one

full Urban Dynamometer Driving Cycle.

Manufacturers, at their option, may

elect to use the preconditioning in

paragraph (n)(1)(i) of this section when

the soak period exceeds two hours.

(iii) If a manufacturer has concerns

about fuel effects on adaptive memory

systems, a manufacturer may

precondition a test vehicle on test fuel

and the US06 cycle. Upon request from

a manufacturer, the administrator will

also perform the preconditioning with

the US06 cycle.

(iv) The preconditioning cycles for the

US06 test schedule are conducted at the

same ambient test conditions as the

certification US06 test.

(2) Following the preconditioning

specified in paragraphs (n)(1)(i), (ii), and

(iii) of this section, the test vehicle is

returned to idle for one to two minutes

before the start of the official US06 test

cycle.

(o) Air Conditioning Test (SC03)

Preconditioning. (1) If the SC03 test

follows the exhaust emission FTP or

evaporative testing, the refueling step

may be deleted and the vehicle may be

preconditioned using the fuel remaining

in the tank (see paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of

this section). The test vehicle may be

pushed or driven onto the test

dynamometer. Acceptable cycles for

preconditioning are as follows:
54894 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(i) If the soak period since the last

exhaust test element is less than or

equal to two hours, preconditioning

may consist of a 505, 866, or SC03 test

cycles.

(ii) If the soak period since the last

exhaust test element is greater than two

hours, preconditioning consists of one

full Urban Dynamometer Driving Cycle.

Manufacturers, at their option, may

elect to use the preconditioning in

paragraph (o)(1)(i) of this section when

the soak period exceeds two hours.

(2) Following the preconditioning

specified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) and (ii)

of this section, the test vehicle is turned

off, the vehicle cooling fan(s) is turned

off, and the vehicle is allowed to soak

for 10 minutes prior to the start of the

official SC03 test cycle.

(3) The preconditioning cycles for the

SC03 air conditioning test and the 10

minute soak are conducted at the same

ambient test conditions as the SC03

certification air conditioning test.

36. A new § 86.135–00 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.135–00 Dynamometer procedure.

Section 86.135–00 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.135–90 and § 86.135–94. Where a

paragraph in § 86.135–90 or § 86.135–94

is identical and applicable to § 86.135–

00, this may be indicated by specifying

the corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.135–90.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.135–94.’’

(a) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.135–94.

(b) through (c) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.135–90.

(d) Practice runs over the prescribed

driving schedule may be performed at

test point, provided an emission sample

is not taken, for the purpose of finding

the appropriate throttle action to

maintain the proper speed-time

relationship, or to permit sampling

system adjustment. Both smoothing of

speed variations and excessive

accelerator pedal perturbations are to be

avoided. When using two-roll

dynamometers a truer speed-time trace

may be obtained by minimizing the

rocking of the vehicle in the rolls; the

rocking of the vehicle changes the tire

rolling radius on each roll. This rocking

may be minimized by restraining the

vehicle horizontally (or nearly so) by

using a cable and winch.

(e) through (i) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.135–90.

37. A new § 86.158–00 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.158–00 Supplemental Federal Test

Procedures; overview.

The procedures described in

§§ 86.158–00, 86.159–00, 86.160–00,

and 86.166–00 discuss the aggressive

driving (US06) and air conditioning

(SC03) elements of the Supplemental

Federal Test Procedures (SFTP). These

test procedures consist of two separable

test elements: A sequence of vehicle

operation that tests exhaust emissions

with a driving schedule (US06) that

tests exhaust emissions under high

speeds and accelerations (aggressive

driving); and a sequence of vehicle

operation that tests exhaust emissions

with a driving schedule (SC03) which

includes the impacts of actual air

conditioning operation. These test

procedures (and the associated

standards set forth in subpart A of this

part) are applicable to light-duty

vehicles and light-duty trucks.

(a) Vehicles are tested for the exhaust

emissions of THC, CO, NOX, CH4, and

CO2. For diesel-cycle vehicles, THC is

sampled and analyzed continuously

according to the provisions of § 86.110.

(b) Each test procedure follows the

vehicle preconditioning specified in

§ 86.132–00.

(c) US06 Test Cycle. The test

procedure for emissions on the US06

driving schedule (see § 86.159–00) is

designed to determine gaseous exhaust

emissions from light-duty vehicles and

light-duty trucks while simulating high

speed and acceleration on a chassis

dynamometer (aggressive driving). The

full test consists of preconditioning the

engine to a hot stabilized condition, as

specified in § 86.132–00, and an engine

idle period of 1 to 2 minutes, after

which the vehicle is accelerated into the

US06 cycle. A proportional part of the

diluted exhaust is collected

continuously for subsequent analysis,

using a constant volume (variable

dilution) sampler or critical flow venturi

sampler.

(d) SC03 Test Cycle. The test

procedure for determining exhaust

emissions with the air conditioner

operating (see § 86.160–00) is designed

to determine gaseous exhaust emissions

from light-duty vehicles and light-duty

trucks while simulating an urban trip

during ambient conditions of 95 °F, 100

grains of water/pound of dry air

(approximately 40 percent relative

humidity), and a solar heat load

intensity of 850 W/m2. The full test

consists of vehicle preconditioning (see

§ 86.132–00 paragraphs (o) (1) and (2)),

an engine key-off 10 minute soak, an

engine start, and operation over the

SC03 cycle. A proportional part of the

diluted exhaust is collected

continuously during the engine start

and the SC03 driving cycle for

subsequent analysis, using a constant

volume (variable dilution) sampler or

critical flow venturi sampler.

(e) The emission results from the

aggressive driving test (§ 86.159–00), air

conditioning test (§ 86.160–00), and a

FTP test (§ 86.130–00 (a) through (d)

and (f)) (conducted on a large single roll

or equivalent dynamometer) are

analyzed according to the calculation

methodology in § 86.164–00 and

compared to the applicable SFTP

emission standards in subpart A of this

part (§§ 86.108–00 and 86.109–00).

(f) These test procedures may be run

in any sequence that maintains the

applicable preconditioning elements

specified in § 86.132–00.

38. A new § 86.159–00 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.159–00 Exhaust emission test

procedures for US06 emissions.

(a) Overview. The dynamometer

operation consists of a single, 600

second test on the US06 driving

schedule, as described in Appendix I,

paragraph (g), of this part. The vehicle

is preconditioned in accordance with

§ 86.132–00, to bring it to a warmed-up

stabilized condition. This

preconditioning is followed by a 1 to 2

minute idle period that proceeds

directly into the US06 driving schedule

during which continuous proportional

samples of gaseous emissions are

collected for analysis. If engine stalling

should occur during cycle operation,

follow the provisions of § 86.136–90

(engine starting and restarting). For

gasoline-fueled Otto-cycle vehicles, the

composite samples collected in bags are

analyzed for THC, CO, CO2, CH4, and

NOX. For petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle

vehicles, THC is sampled and analyzed

continuously according to the

provisions of § 86.110. Parallel bag

samples of dilution air are analyzed for

THC, CO, CO2, CH4, and NOX.

(b) Dynamometer activities. (1) All

official US06 tests shall be run on a

large single roll electric dynamometer,

or an approved equivalent dynamometer

configuration, that satisfies the

requirements of § 86.108–00.

(2) Position (vehicle can be driven)

the test vehicle on the dynamometer

and restrain.

(3) Required US06 schedule test

dynamometer inertia weight class

selections are determined by the test

vehicles test weight basis and

corresponding equivalent weight as

listed in the tabular information of

§ 86.129–.94(a) and discussed in

§ 86.129–00 (e) and (f).

(4) Set the dynamometer test inertia

weight and roadload horsepower
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54895

requirements for the test vehicle (see

§ 86.129–00 (e) and (f). The

dynamometer’s horsepower adjustment

settings shall be set to match the force

imposed during dynamometer operation

with actual road load force at all speeds.

(5) The vehicle speed as measured

from the dynamometer rolls shall be

used. A speed vs. time recording, as

evidence of dynamometer test validity,

shall be supplied on request of the

Administrator.

(6) The drive wheel tires may be

inflated up to a gauge pressure of 45 psi

(310 kPa), or the manufacturer’s

recommended pressure if higher than 45

psi, in order to prevent tire damage. The

drive wheel tire pressure shall be

reported with the test results.

(7) The driving distance, as measured

by counting the number of

dynamometer roll or shaft revolutions,

shall be determined for the test.

(8) Four-wheel drive vehicles will be

tested in a two-wheel drive mode of

operation. Full-time four-wheel drive

vehicles will have one set of drive

wheels temporarily disengaged by the

vehicle manufacturer. Four-wheel drive

vehicles which can be manually shifted

to a two-wheel mode will be tested in

the normal on-highway two-wheel drive

mode of operation.

(9) During dynamometer operation, a

fixed speed cooling fan with a

maximum discharge velocity of 15,000

cfm will be positioned so as to direct

cooling air to the vehicle in an

appropriate manner with the engine

compartment cover open. In the case of

vehicles with front engine

compartments, the fan shall be

positioned within 24 inches (61

centimeters) of the vehicle. In the case

of vehicles with rear engine

compartments (or if special designs

make the above impractical), the cooling

fan(s) shall be placed in a position to

provide sufficient air to maintain

vehicle cooling. The Administrator may

approve modified cooling

configurations or additional cooling if

necessary to satisfactorily perform the

test. In approving requests for additional

or modified cooling, the Administrator

will consider such items as actual road

cooling data and whether such

additional cooling is needed to provide

a representative test.

(c) The flow capacity of the CVS shall

be large enough to virtually eliminate

water condensation in the system.

(d) Practice runs over the prescribed

driving schedule may be performed at

test point, provided an emission sample

is not taken, for the purpose of finding

the appropriate throttle action to

maintain the proper speed-time

relationship, or to permit sampling

system adjustment.

(e) Perform the test bench sampling

sequence outlined in § 86.140–94 prior

to or in conjunction with each series of

exhaust emission measurements.

(f) Test activities. (1) The US06

consists of a single test which is directly

preceded by a vehicle preconditioning

in accordance with § 86.132–00.

Following the vehicle preconditioning,

the vehicle is idled for not less than one

minute and not more than two minutes.

The equivalent dynamometer mileage of

the test is 8.0 miles (1.29 km).

(2) The following steps shall be taken

for each test:

(i) Immediately after completion of

the preconditioning, idle the vehicle.

The idle period is not to be less than

one minute or not greater than two

minutes.

(ii) With the sample selector valves in

the ‘‘standby’’ position, connect

evacuated sample collection bags to the

dilute exhaust and dilution air sample

collection systems.

(iii) Start the CVS (if not already on),

the sample pumps, the temperature

recorder, the vehicle cooling fan, and

the heated THC analysis recorder

(diesel-cycle only). The heat exchanger

of the constant volume sampler, if used,

petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle THC

analyzer continuous sample line should

be preheated to their respective

operating temperatures before the test

begins.

(iv) Adjust the sample flow rates to

the desired flow rate and set the gas

flow measuring devices to zero.

(A) For gaseous bag samples (except

THC samples), the minimum flow rate

is 0.17 cfm (0.08 liters/sec).

(B) For THC samples, the minimum

FID (or HFID in the case of diesel-cycle

vehicles) flow rate is 0.066 cfm (0.031

liters/sec).

(C) CFV sample flow rate is fixed by

the venturi design.

(v) Attach the exhaust tube to the

vehicle tailpipe(s).

(vi) Start the gas flow measuring

device, position the sample selector

valves to direct the sample flow into the

exhaust sample bag, the dilution air

sample bag, turn on the petroleumfueled diesel-cycle THC analyzer system

integrator, mark the recorder chart, and

record both gas meter or flow

measurement instrument readings, (if

applicable).

(vii) Place vehicle in gear after starting

the gas flow measuring device, but prior

to the first acceleration. Begin the first

acceleration 5 seconds after starting the

measuring device.

(viii) Operate the vehicle according to

the US06 driving schedule, as described

in appendix I, paragraph (g), of this part.

Manual transmission vehicles shall be

shifted according to the manufacturer

recommended shift schedule, subject to

review and approval by the

Administrator. For further guidance on

transmissions see § 86.128–00.

(ix) Turn the engine off 2 seconds

after the end of the last deceleration.

(x) Five seconds after the engine stops

running, simultaneously turn off gas

flow measuring device No. 1 (and the

petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon

integrator No. 1 and mark the

petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon

recorder chart if applicable) and

position the sample selector valves to

the ‘‘standby’’ position. Record the

measured roll or shaft revolutions and

the No. 1 gas meter reading or flow

measurement instrument.

(xi) As soon as possible, transfer the

exhaust and dilution air bag samples to

the analytical system and process the

samples according to § 86.140–94

obtaining a stabilized reading of the bag

exhaust sample on all analyzers within

20 minutes of the end of the sample

collection phase of the test.

(xii) Immediately after the end of the

sample period, turn off the cooling fan,

close the engine compartment cover,

disconnect the exhaust tube from the

vehicle tailpipe(s), and drive the vehicle

from dynamometer.

(xiii) The CVS or CFV may be turned

off, if desired.

39. A new § 86.160–00 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.160–00 Exhaust emission test

procedure for SC03 emissions.

(a) Overview. The dynamometer

operation consists of a single, 594

second test on the SCO3 driving

schedule, as described in appendix I,

paragraph (h), of this part. The vehicle

is preconditioned, in accordance with

§ 86.132–00 of this subpart, to bring the

vehicle to a warmed-up stabilized

condition. This preconditioning is

followed by a 10 minute vehicle soak

(engine off) that proceeds directly into

the SC03 driving schedule, during

which continuous proportional samples

of gaseous emissions are collected for

analysis. The entire test, including the

preconditioning driving, vehicle soak,

and SC03 official test cycle, is either

conducted in an environmental test

facility or under test conditions that

simulates testing in an environmental

test cell (see § 86.162–00 (a) for a

discussion of simulation procedure

approvals). The environmental test

facility must be capable of providing the

following nominal ambient test

conditions of: 95 °F air temperature, 100

grains of water/pound of dry air
54896 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(approximately 40 percent relative

humidity), a solar heat load intensity of

850 W/m2, and vehicle cooling air flow

proportional to vehicle speed. Section

86.161–00 discusses the minimum

facility requirements and corresponding

control tolerances for air conditioning

ambient test conditions. The vehicle’s

air conditioner is operated or

appropriately simulated for the duration

of the test procedure (except for the

vehicle 10 minute soak), including the

preconditioning. For gasoline-fueled

Otto-cycle vehicles, the composite

samples collected in bags are analyzed

for THC, CO, CO2, CH4, and NOX. For

petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle vehicles,

THC is sampled and analyzed

continuously according to the

provisions of § 86.110. Parallel bag

samples of dilution air are analyzed for

THC, CO, CO2, CH4, and NOX.

(b) Dynamometer activities. (1) All

official air conditioning tests shall be

run on a large single roll electric

dynamometer or an equivalent

dynamometer configuration that

satisfies the requirements of

§ 86.108–00.

(2) Position (vehicle can be driven)

the test vehicle on the dynamometer

and restrain.

(3) Required SC03 schedule test

dynamometer inertia weight class

selections are determined by the test

vehicles test weight basis and

corresponding equivalent weight as

listed in the tabular information of

§ 86.129–00(a) and discussed in

§ 86.129–00 (e) and (f).

(4) Set the dynamometer test inertia

weight and roadload horsepower

requirements for the test vehicle (see

§ 86.129–00 (e) and (f)). The

dynamometer’s horsepower adjustment

settings shall be set such that the force

imposed during dynamometer operation

matches actual road load force at all

speeds.

(5) The vehicle speed as measured

from the dynamometer rolls shall be

used. A speed vs. time recording, as

evidence of dynamometer test validity,

shall be supplied at request of the

Administrator.

(6) The drive wheel tires may be

inflated up to a gauge pressure of 45 psi

(310 kPa), or the manufacturer’s

recommended pressure if higher than 45

psi, in order to prevent tire damage. The

drive wheel tire pressure shall be

reported with the test results.

(7) The driving distance, as measured

by counting the number of

dynamometer roll or shaft revolutions,

shall be determined for the test.

(8) Four-wheel drive vehicles will be

tested in a two-wheel drive mode of

operation. Full-time four-wheel drive

vehicles will have one set of drive

wheels temporarily disengaged by the

vehicle manufacturer. Four-wheel drive

vehicles which can be manually shifted

to a two-wheel mode will be tested in

the normal on-highway two-wheel drive

mode of operation.

(c) Vehicle and test activities for

testing in a full environmental cell. The

SFTP air conditioning test in an

environmental test cell is composed of

the following sequence of activities.

Alternative procedures which

appropriately simulate full

environmental cell testing may be

approved under the provisions of

§§ 86.162–00(a) and 86.163–00.

(1) Drain and fill the vehicle’s fuel

tank to 40 percent capacity with test

fuel. If a vehicle has gone through the

drain and fuel sequence less than 72

hours previously and has remained

under laboratory ambient temperature

conditions, this drain and fill operation

can be omitted (see

§ 86.132–00(c)(2)(ii)).

(2)(i) Position the variable speed

cooling fan in front of the test vehicle

with the vehicle’s hood down. This air

flow should provide representative

cooling at the front of the test vehicle

(air conditioning condenser and engine)

during the SC03 driving schedule. See

§ 86.161–00(e) for a discussion of

cooling fan specifications.

(ii) In the case of vehicles with rear

engine compartments (or if this front

location provides inadequate engine

cooling), an additional cooling fan shall

be placed in a position to provide

sufficient air to maintain vehicle

cooling. The fan capacity shall normally

not exceed 5300 cfm (2.50 m3/s). If,

however, it can be demonstrated that

during road operation the vehicle

receives additional cooling, and that

such additional cooling is needed to

provide a representative test, the fan

capacity may be increased or additional

fans used if approved in advance by the

Administrator.

(3) Close all vehicle windows.

(4) Connect the emission test

sampling system to the vehicle’s

exhaust tail pipe(s).

(5)(i) Set the environmental test cell

ambient test conditions to the

conditions defined in § 86.161–00.

(ii) Turn on the solar heating system.

(iii) All vehicle test phases of

preconditioning, soak, and the official

SC03 test cycle are to be performed in

this set of ambient test conditions.

(6) Set the air conditioning system

controls as follows:

(i) A/C mode setting at Maximum.

(ii) Airflow setting at Recirculate, if so

equipped.

(iii) Fan setting at Highest setting.

(iv) A/C Temperature setting at full

cool (for automatic systems set at 72 °F).

(v) Air conditioning controls should

be placed in the ‘‘on’’ position prior to

vehicle starting so that the air

conditioning system is active whenever

the engine is running.

(7) Start the vehicle (with air

conditioning system on) and conduct a

preconditioning cycle as discussed in

§ 86.132–00(o)(1).

(i) If engine stalling should occur

during any air conditioning test cycle

operation, follow the provisions of

§ 86.136–90 (Engine starting and

restarting).

(ii) For manual transmission vehicles,

the vehicle shall be shifted according

the provisions of § 86.128–00.

(8) Following the preconditioning

cycle, the test vehicle (and consequently

the air conditioning system) and cooling

fan(s) are turned off and the vehicle is

allowed to soak in the ambient

conditions of paragraph (c)(5) of this

section for 10 ± 1 minutes.

(9) Start engine (with air conditioning

system also running). Fifteen seconds

after the engine starts, place vehicle in

gear.

(10) Twenty seconds after the engine

starts, begin the initial vehicle

acceleration of the driving schedule.

(11) Operate the vehicle according to

the SC03 driving schedule, as described

in appendix I, paragraph (h), of this

part.

(12) Turn the engine off 2 seconds

after the end of the last deceleration.

(d) Exhaust Emission Measurement

Activities. The following activities are

performed, when applicable, in order to

meet the timing of the vehicle test and

environmental facility activities.

(1) Perform the test bench sampling

calibration sequence outlined in

§ 86.140–94 prior to or in conjunction

with each series of exhaust emission

measurements.

(2) With the sample selector valves in

the ‘‘standby’’ position, connect

evacuated sample collection bags to the

dilute exhaust and dilution air sample

collection systems.

(3) Start the CVS (if not already on),

the sample pumps, the temperature

recorder, the vehicle cooling fan, and

the heated THC analysis recorder

(diesel-cycle only). The heat exchanger

of the constant volume sampler, if used,

petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle THC

analyzer continuous sample line should

be preheated to their respective

operating temperatures before the test

begins.

(4) Adjust the sample flow rates to the

desired flow rate and set the gas flow

measuring devices to zero.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54897

(i) For gaseous bag samples (except

THC samples), the minimum flow rate

is 0.17 cfm (0.08 liters/sec).

(ii) For THC samples, the minimum

FID (or HFID in the case of diesel-cycle

vehicles) flow rate is 0.066 cfm (0.031

1/sec).

(iii) CFV sample flow rate is fixed by

the venturi design.

(5) Attach the exhaust tube to the

vehicle tailpipe(s).

(6) Start the gas flow measuring

device, position the sample selector

valves to direct the sample flow into the

exhaust sample bag, the dilution air

sample bag, turn on the petroleumfueled diesel-cycle THC analyzer system

integrator, mark the recorder chart, and

record both gas meter or flow

measurement instrument readings, if

applicable.

(7) Start the engine (with air

conditioning system also running).

Fifteen seconds after the engine starts,

place vehicle in gear.

(8) Twenty seconds after the engine

starts, begin the initial vehicle

acceleration of the driving schedule.

(9) Operate the vehicle according to

the SC03 driving schedule.

(10) Turn the engine off 2 seconds

after the end of the last deceleration.

(11) Five seconds after the engine

stops running, simultaneously turn off

gas flow measuring device No. 1 (and

the petroleum-fueled diesel

hydrocarbon integrator No. 1 and mark

the petroleum-fueled diesel

hydrocarbon recorder chart if

applicable) and position the sample

selector valves to the ‘‘standby’’

position. Record the measured roll or

shaft revolutions and the No. 1 gas

meter reading or flow measurement

instrument).

(12) As soon as possible, transfer the

exhaust and dilution air bag samples to

the analytical system and process the

samples according to § 86.140 obtaining

a stabilized reading of the bag exhaust

sample on all analyzers within 20

minutes of the end of the sample

collection phase of the test.

(13) Immediately after the end of the

sample period, turn off the cooling fan,

close the engine compartment cover,

disconnect the exhaust tube from the

vehicle tailpipe(s), and drive the vehicle

from dynamometer.

(14) The CVS or CFV may be turned

off, if desired.

(e) NOX humidity correction.

Calculated NOX exhaust emissions from

air conditioning tests conducted in an

environmental test cell at a nominal 100

grains of water/pound of dry air are to

be corrected for humidity to 100 grains

of water/pound of dry air (see the

relationship of § 86.164–00(d)).

40. A new § 86.161–00 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.161–00 Air conditioning

environmental test facility ambient

requirements.

The goal of an air conditioning test

facility is to simulate the impact of an

ambient heat load on the power

requirements of the vehicle’s air

conditioning compressor while

operating on a specific driving cycle.

The environmental facility control

elements that are discussed are ambient

air temperature and humidity,

minimum test cell size, solar heating,

and vehicle frontal air flow.

(a) Ambient air temperature. (1)

Ambient air temperature is controlled,

within the test cell, during all phases of

the air conditioning test sequence to 95

± 2 °F on average and 95 ± 5 °F as an

instantaneous measurement.

(2) Air temperature is recorded

continuously at a minimum of 30

second intervals. Records of cell air

temperatures and values of average test

temperatures are maintained by the

manufacturer for all certification related

programs.

(b) Ambient humidity. (1) Ambient

humidity is controlled, within the test

cell, during all phases of the air

conditioning test sequence to an average

of 100 ± grains of water/pound of dry

air.

(2) Humidity is recorded continuously

at a minimum of 30 second intervals.

Records of cell humidity and values of

average test humidity are maintained by

the manufacturer for all certification

related programs.

(c) Minimum test cell size. (1) The

recommended minimum environmental

exhaust emission test cell size is width

20 feet, length 40 feet, and height 10

feet.

(2) Test cells with smaller size

dimensions may be approved by the

Administrator if it can be shown that all

of the ambient test condition

performance requirements are satisfied.

(d) Solar heat loading. (1)(i)

Acceptable types of radiant energy

emitters that may be used for simulating

solar heat load are:

(A) Metal halide;

(B) Quartz halogen with dichroic

mirrors; and

(C) Sodium iodide.

(ii) The Administrator will approve

other types of radiant energy emitters if

the manufacturer can show they satisfy

the requirements of this section.

(2) The height of the minimal cell size

will dictate the type of radiant energy

source that will satisfy the spectral

distribution and uniformity definitions

of this section.

(3) Radiant energy specifications. (i)

Simulated solar radiant energy intensity

is determined as an average of the two

points measured at:

(A) Centerline of the test vehicle at

the base of the windshield.

(B) Centerline of the vehicle at the

base of the rear window (truck and van

location defined as bottom of vertical

window or where an optional window

would be located).

(ii) The radiant energy intensity set

point is 850 ±45 watts/square meter.

(iii) The definition of an acceptable

spectral distribution is contained in the

following table:

DEFINITION OF THE SPECTRAL

DISTRIBUTION

Band width

(nanometers)

Percent of total

spectrum

Lower limit

(percent)

Upper limit

(percent)

<320 ...................... 0 0

320–400 ................ 0 7

400–780 ................ 45 55

>780 ...................... 35 53

Note: Filter the UV region between 280 and

320 wave lengths.

(iv) The angle of incidence of radiant

energy is defined as 90 degrees from the

test cell floor.

(v) The requirements for measuring

the uniformity of radiant energy are:

(A) The radiant energy uniformity

tolerance is ±15 percent of the radiant

energy intensity set point of 850 watts/

square meter.

(B) The uniformity of radiant energy

intensity is measured at each point of a

0.5 meter grid over the entire footprint

of the test vehicle at the elevation of one

meter including the footprint edges.

(C) Radiant energy uniformity must be

checked at least every 500 hours of

emitter usage or every six months

depending on which covers the shorter

time period; and every time major

changes in the solar simulation

hardware occur.

(vi) The radiant energy intensity

measurement instrument specifications

(minimum) are:

(A) Sensitivity of 9 microvolts per

watt/square meter;

(B) Response time of 1 second;

(C) Linearity of ±0.5 percent; and

(D) Cosine of ±1 percent from

normalization 0–70 degree zenith angle.

(e) Vehicle frontal air flow. The

Administrator will approve frontal air

flow based on ‘‘blower in box’’

technology as an acceptable simulation

of environmental air flow cooling for the

air conditioning compressor and engine,

provided the following requirements are

satisfied.
54898 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(1) The minimum air flow nozzle

discharge area must be equal or exceed

the vehicle frontal inlet area. Optimum

discharge area is 18 square feet (4.25 x

4.25), however, other sizes can be used.

(2) Air flow volumes must be

proportional to vehicle speed. With the

above optimum discharge size, the fan

volume would vary from 0 cubic feet/

minute (cfm) at 0 mph to approximately

95,000 cfm at 60 mph. If this fan is also

the only source of cell air circulation or

if fan operational mechanics make the 0

mph air flow requirement impractical,

air flow of 2 mph or less will be allowed

at 0 mph vehicle speed.

(3) The fan air flow velocity vector

perpendicular to the axial flow velocity

vector shall be less than 10 percent of

the mean velocity measured at fan

speeds corresponding to vehicle speeds

of 20 and 40 mph.

(4)(i) Fan axial air flow velocity is

measured two feet from nozzle outlet at

each point of a one foot grid over the

entire discharge area.

(ii) The uniformity of axial flow

tolerance is 20 percent of the fan speeds

corresponding to vehicle speeds of 20

and 40 mph.

(5) The instrument used to verify the

air velocity must have an accuracy of 2

percent of the measured air flow speed.

(6) The fan discharge nozzle must be

located 2 to 3 feet from the vehicle and

0 to 6 inches above the test cell floor

during air conditioning testing. This

applies to non-wind tunnel

environmental test cells only.

(7) The design specifications

discussed in paragraphs (e)(1) through

(e)(5) of this section must be verified by

the manufacturer prior to conducting

certification air conditioning tests.

41. A new § 86.162–00 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.162–00 Approval of alternative air

conditioning test simulations and

descriptions of AC1 and AC2.

The alternative air conditioning test

procedures AC1 and AC2 are approved

by the Administrator for all light-duty

vehicles and light-duty trucks only for

the model years of 2000, 2001, and

2002. To obtain Administrator approval

of other simulation test procedures a

manufacturer must satisfy the

requirements of paragraph (a) of this

section and meet the requirements of

§ 86.163–00. Air conditioning tests AC1

and AC2 are simulations of the

environmental test cell air conditioning

test discussed in § 86.160–00. AC1

simulates, in standard test cell ambient

conditions and with the air conditioning

off, the exhaust emission results of air

conditioning operation in an

environmental test cell by adding

additional power requirements to

roadload dynamometer requirements.

AC2 simulates, in standard test cell

ambient conditions and with the air

conditioning controls in the heat

position, the exhaust emission results of

air conditioning operation in an

environmental test cell by adding a heat

load to the passenger compartment. The

only differences between the test

activities described in § 86.160–00 and

those for AC1 and AC2 occur as the

result of how the effect of the

environmental cell ambient test

conditions, defined in § 86.160–

00(c)(5)(i), are simulated in a standard

test cell nominal ambient conditions of

76 °F and 50 grains of water/pound of

dry air. Paragraph (a) of this section

discusses the procedure by which a

manufacturer can obtain Administrator

approval of other air conditioning test

simulation procedures. Paragraph (b) of

this section describes the AC1 test

procedure and paragraph (c) of this

section describes the AC2 test

procedure.

(a) Upon petition from a manufacturer

or upon the Agency’s own initiative, the

Administrator will approve a simulation

of the environmental cell for air

conditioning test (SC03) described in

§ 86.160–00 providing that the

procedure can be run by the

Administrator for SEA and in-use

enforcement testing and providing that

the criteria of paragraphs (a)(1)(2), and

(3) of this section are satisfied.

(1) In deciding whether approvals will

be granted, the Administrator may

consider data showing how well the

simulation matches environmental cell

test data for the range of vehicles to be

covered by the simulation including

items such as the tailpipe emissions, air

conditioning compressor load, and fuel

economy.

(2) The Administrator has approved

test procedures AC1 and AC2 for only

the model years of 2000, 2001, and

2002.

(3) Excluding the AC1 and AC2

procedures described in paragraphs (b)

and (c) of this section for model years

2000, 2001, and 2002, for any

simulation approved under paragraph

(a) of this section, the manufacturer

must agree to be subject to an ongoing

yearly correlation spot check as

described in § 86.163–00.

(4) Once a simulation is approved and

used by a manufacturer for testing for a

given vehicle, EPA agrees to use the

simulation test procedure for all official

testing conducted on that vehicle by the

Agency for certification, SEA, and recall

purposes, excluding spot check testing

and vehicles which fail the spot check

criteria as described in § 86.163–00.

(5) EPA will moniter the aggregate

results of spot check testing and full

environmental test cells. If EPA

determines, based on such aggregate

results, that any simulation (other than

the AC1 and AC2 procedures described

in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section

for the 2000, 2001, and 2002 model

years) is producing test results

consistantly below those from a full

environmental test cell, EPA may

review its approval of the simulation.

(b) AC1 test procedure. (1) Section

86.160–00(a) is applicable to the AC1

test procedure except for the discussion

of the environmental test requirements.

The AC1 test procedure simulates the

effect of air conditioning operation in

the environmental cell test conditions

by adding the measured horsepower of

the air conditioning system compressor,

converted to an equivalent roadload

component, to the normal dynamometer

roadload horsepower.

(2) Section 86.160–00(b) is applicable

to the AC1 test procedure except that

the dynamometer horsepower settings

procedure of § 86.160–00(b)(4) is

expanded to include a horsepower

increase adjustment.

(i) The following describes one

acceptable method of obtaining the

required compressor horsepower and

the corresponding roadload equivalent

horsepower adjustment. Air compressor

horsepower is measured during a SC03

air conditioning test cycle while

operating in an environmental test cell

as described in § 86.160–00.

(A) Install an air conditioning (A/C)

compressor with a strain-gauged input

shaft that measures shaft torque in foot

pounds. Other measurement techniques

that produce data that can be shown

will estimate A/C compressor

horsepower are also acceptable.

(B) Obtain the engine crankshaft to A/

C compressor pulley diameter (D) ratio

(ACPR) as:

ACPR=D(crankshaft pulley)/D(A/C

pulley)

(C) Record the following parameters,

as a function of accumulated time (t), at

least once per second from second 0 to

second 600 while driving the SC03

cycle with the air conditioning system

operating.

(1) Engine revolutions/minute

(ERPMt).

(2) Compressor input torque in foot

pounds (CTt).

(D) For each second of data recorded

from paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) of this

section, calculate compressor

horsepower (CHPt) as:

CHPt=(CTt)(ERPMt)(ACPR)/5252

(E) For each second of accumulated

time and the data of paragraph (b)(2)(i)
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54899

(B) and (D) of this section, determine a

value of air conditioning compressor

roadload force (ACRFt) that is

equivalent to the air conditioning

compressor force on the engine as:

ACRFt=(CHPt)(375)/Vt.

where:

Vt equals vehicle SC03 cycle speed in

miles per hour for each accumulated second

of time, and 375 is a units constant to convert

(ACRFt) to foot pounds of force.

(F) Values of (ACRFt) at each second

of time are added to the corresponding

roadload dynamometer force

requirements of § 86.129–00(e) to obtain

an approximation of the force generated

by the vehicle engine during a SC03 test

in an environmental test cell.

(ii) The method by which the values

of (ACRFt) additional dynamometer load

is applied by the dynamometer to the

vehicle tire surface will vary with

dynamometer design and its force

simulation capabilities. If the

dynamometer has grade simulation

capabilities, increasing load by

simulating varying grades is one

acceptable method of applying (ACRFt)

values.

(iii) For those calculated values of

(ACRFt) which exceed the force capacity

of the dynamometer being used for

simulation test, replace the calculated

values with the maximum road force

capacity of the dynamometer. The

Administrator would normally not

expect (ACRFt) values to exceed

dynamometer capability for time

periods of more than a second.

(iv) Values of (ACRFt) for application

to AC1 testing should be an average of

at least two runs unless the

manufacturer can demonstrate to the

Administrator that one run repeatability

is acceptable.

(v) Values of (ACRFt) for application

to AC1 testing are to be obtained for

each vehicle and engine family

combination. If only one vehicle

configuration is selected to represent an

engine family, the selected

configuration is the vehicle expected to

produce the highest air conditioning

load requirements. A manufacturer may

petition the Administrator to reduce the

number of (ACRFt) test vehicles for their

product line, if they can show that the

highest air conditioning loads are

covered with a lesser number than one

per family.

(vi) Test results, calculations, and

dynamometer setting values associated

with making these roadload

determinations are to be retained by the

manufacturer as part of their

certification records.

(3) Perform the SC03 air conditioning

test sequence as described in § 86.160–

00(c) with the following exceptions:

(i) The variable speed cooling fan of

§ 86.160–00(c)(2)(ii) is replaced with the

fixed speed cooling fan requirements of

§ 86.159–00(b).

(ii) The position of vehicle windows

is optional.

(iii) The nominal ambient air test

conditions of § 86.160–00(b)(5)(i) (A)

and (B) are replaced with 76 °F and 50

grains of water/pound of dry air and the

solar heat load of § 86.160–00(b)(5)(i)(C)

is omitted.

(iv) The air conditioning system is not

operated during the SC03 test cycle.

Operation of the air conditioning during

preconditioning test cycles is optional.

(4) Section 86.160–00(d) is applicable

to the AC1 test procedure.

(5) NOX humidity correction.

Calculated NOX exhaust emissions from

air conditioning tests conducted in a

standard test cell at a nominal 50 grains

of water/pound of dry air are corrected

for humidity to 75 grains of water/

pound of dry air (see the relationship of

§ 86.144–94(c)(7)(iv)(B)).

(c) AC2 test procedure. (1) section

86.160–00(a) is applicable the AC2 test

procedure except for the discussion of

the environmental test requirements.

The AC2 test procedure simulates the

effect of air conditioning operation in

the environmental cell test conditions

by adding heat from the vehicle’s

heating system to the interior of the

passenger compartment.

(2) Section 86.160–00(b) is applicable

to the AC2 test procedure.

(3) Section 86.160–00(c) is applicable

except for the following:

(i) Section 86.160–00(c)(3) is

applicable except the drivers side front

window is left open and all the others

are closed.

(ii) The nominal ambient air test

conditions of § 86.160–00(b)(5)(i) (A)

and (B) are replaced with 76 °F and 50

grains of water/pound of dry air and the

solar heat load of § 86.160–00(b)(5)(i)(C)

is omitted.

(iii) The control position instruction

of § 86.160–00(c)(6)(iv) is replaced with

set the A/C temperature control to the

highest warm position (maximum for

automatic systems).

(4) Section 86.160–00(d) is applicable

to the AC2 test procedure.

(5) NOX humidity correction.

Calculated NOX exhaust emissions from

air conditioning tests conducted in a

standard test cell at a nominal 50 grains

of water/pound of dry air are corrected

for humidity to 75 grains of water/

pound of dry air (see the relationship of

§ 86.144–94(c)(7)(iv)(B)).

42. A new § 86.162–03 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.162–03 Approval of alternative air

conditioning test simulations.

(a) Upon petition from a manufacturer

or upon the Agency’s own initiative, the

Administrator will approve a simulation

of the environmental cell for air

conditioning test (SC03) described in

§ 86.160–00 providing that the

procedure can be run by the

Administrator for SEA and in-use

enforcement testing and providing that

the following criteria are met:

(1) In deciding whether approvals will

be granted, the Administrator will

consider data showing how well the

simulation matches environmental cell

test data for the range of vehicles to be

covered by the simulation including

items such as the tailpipe emissions, air

conditioning compressor load, and fuel

economy.

(2) For any simulation approved

under paragraph (a) of this section, the

manufacturer must agree to be subject to

an ongoing yearly correlation spot check

as described in § 86.163–00.

(3) Once a simulation is approved and

used by a manufacturer for testing for a

given vehicle, EPA agrees to use the

simulation test procedure for all official

testing conducted on that vehicle by the

Agency for certification, SEA, and recall

purposes, excluding spot check testing

and vehicles which fail the spot check

criteria as described in § 86.163–00.

(4) EPA will moniter the aggregate

results of spot check testing and full

environmental test cells. If EPA

determines, based on such aggregate

results, that any simulation is producing

test results consistantly below those

from a full environmental test cell, EPA

may review its approval of the

simulation.

43. A new § 86.163–00 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.163–00 Spot check correlation

procedures for vehicles tested using a

simulation of the environmental test cell for

air conditioning emission testing.

This section is applicable for vehicles

which are tested using a simulation of

the environmental test cell approved

under the provisions of § 86.162–00(a).

(a) The Administrator may select up

to five emission data vehicles (one

emission data vehicle for small volume

manufacturers), including vehicles

submitted for running change approval,

each model year for any manufacturer

undergoing the spot checking

procedures of this section.

(b) Testing conducted under this

section (including testing performed in

an environmental test cell) will be
54900 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

considered as official data as described

in § 86.091–29 and used in determining

compliance with the standards. Such

testing must comply with all applicable

emission standards of subpart A of this

part. Retests for the purpose of emission

compliance will be allowed using the

procedures described in § 86.091–29.

(c) Spot check procedures. (1) Subject

to the limitations of paragraphs (a) and

(d)(2)(iii) of this section, the

Administrator may require that one or

more of the test vehicles which use a

simulation rather than actual testing in

an environmental test cell for air

conditioning emission testing be

submitted at a place the Administrator

will designate for air conditioning

emission testing in an environmental

test cell as described in § 86.160–00.

The Administrator may order this

testing to be conducted at a

manufacturer facility. All manufacturers

which use a simulation instead of

environmental cell testing must have

access to an environment test cell

meeting the requirements of § 86.161–00

to perform this testing.

(2) An air conditioning emission test

will be performed as described in

§ 86.162–00 in a full environmental test

cell.

(i) The results of the original

simulation test and the full

environmental test cell required in

paragraph (c)(1) of this section are

compared. In order to pass the spot

check, the test results must pass both

the following two criteria:

(A) The NOX emission results of the

simulation test must be at least 85% of

the NOX emission results of the

environmental chamber test.

(B) The fuel consumption of the

simulation test must be at least 95% of

the fuel consumption of the

environmental chamber test.

(ii) If either of two criteria of

paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section were

not met, a retest is allowed. The

manufacturer may elect to conduct

either a retest of the simulation

procedure or the environmental

chamber testing. In order to pass the

spot check, the test results must pass

both the following two criteria using the

retest test result.

(A) The NOX emission results of the

simulation test must be at least 85% of

the NOX emission results of the

environmental chamber test.

(B) The fuel consumption of the

simulation test must be at least 95% of

the fuel consumption of the

environmental chamber test.

(iii) If either of the two criteria of

paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section were

not met, a second retest is allowed. The

procedure not selected for the first retest

must be used for the second retest,

yielding two test results for each

procedure. In order to pass the spot

check, the test results must pass both

the following two criteria using the

average test result for each procedure:

(A) The NOX emission results of the

simulation test must be at least 85% of

the NOX emission results of the

environmental chamber test.

(B) The fuel consumption of the

simulation test must be at least 95% of

the fuel consumption of the

environmental chamber test.

(iv) If the spot check criteria have not

passed after any of the initial test, the

first retest, or the second retest the spot

check is considered failed.

(d) Consequences of failing a spot

check. (1) If the emission results of the

testing using the environmental test

chamber passes all the applicable

standards, those test results may be used

to obtain a certificate of conformity.

(2) The Administrator will allow up to

60 days for the manufacturer to supply

additional data addressing the

correlation of the simulation with a full

environmental test cell.

(i) If that data prove to the satisfaction

of the Administrator that the simulation

produces results that correlate

sufficiently with the environmental test

chamber, the Administrator may allow

the continued use of the simulation.

(ii) Otherwise, the Administrator will

determine that the simulation fails to

meet adequate correlation levels with

full environmental testing. As a

consequence of this finding, all future

air conditioning emission testing on the

population of vehicles represented by

the failing-spot-check test vehicle

(which may include past model year

configurations) will be conducted using

an environment chamber or a different

(or corrected) approved simulation

procedure.

(iii) For each vehicle that fails a spot

check, the Administrator may select up

to two additional vehicles to test for the

spot check that do not count against the

five vehicle limit of paragraph (a) of this

section.

(e) EPA will monitor the aggregate

results of spot check testing and full

environmental test cells. If EPA

determines, based on such aggregate

results, that any simulation (other than

the AC1 and AC2 procedures described

in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section

for the 2000, 2001, and 2002 model

years) is producing test results

consistently below those from a full

environmental test cell, EPA may

review its approval of the simulation.

44. A new § 86.164–00 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.164–00 Supplemental federal test

procedure calculations.

(a) The provisions of § 86.144–94 (b)

and (c) are applicable to this section

except that the NOX humidity correction

factor of § 86.144–94(c)(7)(iv) must be

modified when adjusting SC03

environmental test cell NOX results to

100 grains of water (see paragraph (d) of

this section). These provisions provide

the procedures for calculating mass

emission results of each regulated

exhaust pollutant for the test schedules

of FTP, US06, and SC03.

(b) The provisions of § 86.144–94(a)

are applicable to this section. These

provisions provide the procedures for

determining the weighted mass

emissions for the FTP test schedule

(Ywm).

(c)(1) When the test vehicle is

equipped with air conditioning, the

final reported test results for the SFTP

composite (NMHC+NOX) and optional

composite CO standards shall be

computed by the following formulas.

(i) YWSFTP=0.35(YFTP)+0.37(YSC03)

0.28(YUS06)

Where:

(A) YWSFTP=Mass emissions per mile for a

particular pollutant weighted in terms of the

contributions from the FTP, SC03, and US06

schedules. Values of YWSFTP are obtained for

each of the exhaust emissions of NMHC,

NOX, and CO.

(B) YFTP=Weighted mass emissions per

mile (Ywm) based on the measured driving

distance of the FTP test schedule.

(C) YSC03=Calculated mass emissions per

mile based on the measured driving distance

of the SC03 test schedule.

(D) YUS06=Calculated mass emissions per

mile based on the measured driving distance

of the US06 test schedule.

(ii) Composite

(NMHC+NOX)=YWSFTP(NMHC)

+YWSFTP(NOX)

Where:

(A) YWSFTP(NMHC)=results of paragraph

(c)(1)(i) of this section for NMHC.

(B) YWSFTP(NOX)=results of paragraph

(c)(1)(i) of this section for NOX.

(2) When the test vehicle is not

equipped with air conditioning, the

relationship of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this

section is:

(i) YWSFTP=0.72(YFTP)+0.28(YUS06)

Where:

(A) YWSFTP=Mass emissions per mile for a

particular pollutant weighted in terms of the

contributions from the FTP and US06

schedules. Values of YWSFTP are obtained for

each of the exhaust emissions of NMHC,

NOX, and CO.

(B) YFTP=Weighted mass emissions per

mile (Ywm) based on the measured driving

distance of the FTP test schedule.

(C) YUS06=Calculated mass emissions per

mile based on the measured driving distance

of the US06 test schedule.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54901

(ii) Composite

(NMHC+NOX)=YWSFTP(NMHC)

+YWSFTP(NOX)

Where:

(A) YWSFTP(NMHC)=results of paragraph

(c)(2)(i) of this section for NMHC.

(B) YWSFTP(NOX)=results of paragraph

(c)(2)(i) of this section for NOX.

(d) The NOX humidity correction

factor for adjusting NOX test results to

the environmental test cell air

conditioning ambient condition of 100

grains of water/pound of dry air is:

KH (100)=0.8825/[1–0.0047(H–75)]

Where:

H=measured test humidity in grains of

water/pound of dry air.

45. Appendix I to Part 86 is amended

by adding paragraphs (g) and (h), to read

as follows:

Appendix I to Part 86—Urban

Dynamometer Schedules

* * * * *

(g) EPA US06 Driving Schedule for LightDuty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks.

EPA US06 DRIVING SCHEDULE

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

0 .................................................... 0.0

1 .................................................... 0.0

2 .................................................... 0.0

3 .................................................... 0.0

4 .................................................... 0.0

5 .................................................... 0.0

6 .................................................... 0.2

7 .................................................... 0.7

8 .................................................... 1.1

9 .................................................... 1.7

10 .................................................. 6.0

11 .................................................. 13.9

12 .................................................. 20.5

13 .................................................. 25.7

14 .................................................. 25.0

15 .................................................. 28.4

16 .................................................. 32.3

17 .................................................. 34.6

18 .................................................. 36.5

19 .................................................. 38.4

20 .................................................. 39.9

21 .................................................. 42.2

22 .................................................. 43.8

23 .................................................. 44.2

24 .................................................. 43.4

25 .................................................. 42.6

26 .................................................. 40.3

27 .................................................. 39.2

28 .................................................. 38.4

29 .................................................. 38.4

30 .................................................. 39.2

31 .................................................. 38.8

32 .................................................. 38.8

33 .................................................. 36.5

34 .................................................. 32.3

35 .................................................. 27.6

36 .................................................. 22.3

37 .................................................. 17.3

38 .................................................. 11.5

EPA US06 DRIVING SCHEDULE—

Continued

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

39 .................................................. 5.8

40 .................................................. 1.2

41 .................................................. 0.0

42 .................................................. 0.0

43 .................................................. 0.0

44 .................................................. 0.0

45 .................................................. 0.0

46 .................................................. 0.0

47 .................................................. 0.0

48 .................................................. 0.0

49 .................................................. 0.8

50 .................................................. 9.2

51 .................................................. 14.9

52 .................................................. 18.2

53 .................................................. 22.2

54 .................................................. 27.2

55 .................................................. 31.4

56 .................................................. 33.8

57 .................................................. 37.2

58 .................................................. 40.8

59 .................................................. 44.0

60 .................................................. 46.3

61 .................................................. 47.6

62 .................................................. 49.5

63 .................................................. 51.2

64 .................................................. 53.0

65 .................................................. 54.4

66 .................................................. 55.6

67 .................................................. 56.4

68 .................................................. 56.1

69 .................................................. 56.2

70 .................................................. 55.8

71 .................................................. 55.1

72 .................................................. 54.4

73 .................................................. 54.2

74 .................................................. 54.4

75 .................................................. 54.2

76 .................................................. 53.5

77 .................................................. 52.3

78 .................................................. 52.0

79 .................................................. 51.9

80 .................................................. 51.8

81 .................................................. 51.9

82 .................................................. 52.0

83 .................................................. 52.5

84 .................................................. 53.4

85 .................................................. 54.9

86 .................................................. 56.8

87 .................................................. 58.8

88 .................................................. 60.6

89 .................................................. 62.3

90 .................................................. 64.2

91 .................................................. 66.2

92 .................................................. 67.8

93 .................................................. 69.4

94 .................................................. 70.4

95 .................................................. 70.6

96 .................................................. 70.7

97 .................................................. 70.3

98 .................................................. 68.2

99 .................................................. 66.5

100 ................................................ 64.9

101 ................................................ 63.7

102 ................................................ 62.5

103 ................................................ 61.0

104 ................................................ 59.3

105 ................................................ 57.7

106 ................................................ 56.0

107 ................................................ 54.5

EPA US06 DRIVING SCHEDULE—

Continued

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

108 ................................................ 52.8

109 ................................................ 51.2

110 ................................................ 49.5

111 ................................................ 48.0

112 ................................................ 46.3

113 ................................................ 44.0

114 ................................................ 41.1

115 ................................................ 38.8

116 ................................................ 37.7

117 ................................................ 36.6

118 ................................................ 35.3

119 ................................................ 30.0

120 ................................................ 24.4

121 ................................................ 19.8

122 ................................................ 15.5

123 ................................................ 10.8

124 ................................................ 6.3

125 ................................................ 3.2

126 ................................................ 2.1

127 ................................................ 1.2

128 ................................................ 0.0

129 ................................................ 0.0

130 ................................................ 0.0

131 ................................................ 0.0

132 ................................................ 0.0

133 ................................................ 0.0

134 ................................................ 0.0

135 ................................................ 0.0

136 ................................................ 2.7

137 ................................................ 9.2

138 ................................................ 16.1

139 ................................................ 22.7

140 ................................................ 29.2

141 ................................................ 34.2

142 ................................................ 38.8

143 ................................................ 43.0

144 ................................................ 45.3

145 ................................................ 46.8

146 ................................................ 48.0

147 ................................................ 49.5

148 ................................................ 50.3

149 ................................................ 51.5

150 ................................................ 52.2

151 ................................................ 52.6

152 ................................................ 53.0

153 ................................................ 53.8

154 ................................................ 53.8

155 ................................................ 53.8

156 ................................................ 54.6

157 ................................................ 56.3

158 ................................................ 56.9

159 ................................................ 58.1

160 ................................................ 58.4

161 ................................................ 59.6

162 ................................................ 59.9

163 ................................................ 60.2

164 ................................................ 60.5

165 ................................................ 59.7

166 ................................................ 58.3

167 ................................................ 58.1

168 ................................................ 57.8

169 ................................................ 57.3

170 ................................................ 57.5

171 ................................................ 56.6

172 ................................................ 57.0

173 ................................................ 56.6

174 ................................................ 56.5

175 ................................................ 56.2

176 ................................................ 56.4
54902 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

EPA US06 DRIVING SCHEDULE—

Continued

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

177 ................................................ 56.6

178 ................................................ 56.4

179 ................................................ 56.1

180 ................................................ 56.0

181 ................................................ 55.9

182 ................................................ 54.8

183 ................................................ 54.2

184 ................................................ 54.6

185 ................................................ 52.2

186 ................................................ 54.7

187 ................................................ 55.7

188 ................................................ 57.0

189 ................................................ 58.0

190 ................................................ 58.1

191 ................................................ 59.4

192 ................................................ 59.9

193 ................................................ 61.0

194 ................................................ 61.4

195 ................................................ 61.9

196 ................................................ 62.5

197 ................................................ 62.5

198 ................................................ 62.7

199 ................................................ 62.2

200 ................................................ 62.5

201 ................................................ 63.1

202 ................................................ 62.7

203 ................................................ 62.8

204 ................................................ 63.0

205 ................................................ 64.1

206 ................................................ 63.9

207 ................................................ 64.1

208 ................................................ 64.3

209 ................................................ 64.5

210 ................................................ 64.9

211 ................................................ 65.3

212 ................................................ 66.0

213 ................................................ 66.0

214 ................................................ 66.4

215 ................................................ 64.1

216 ................................................ 63.6

217 ................................................ 63.9

218 ................................................ 64.1

219 ................................................ 63.7

220 ................................................ 64.3

221 ................................................ 64.2

222 ................................................ 63.9

223 ................................................ 64.2

224 ................................................ 63.4

225 ................................................ 64.0

226 ................................................ 63.9

227 ................................................ 64.0

228 ................................................ 63.8

229 ................................................ 64.0

230 ................................................ 63.3

231 ................................................ 63.4

232 ................................................ 63.9

233 ................................................ 64.0

234 ................................................ 64.3

235 ................................................ 64.8

236 ................................................ 65.1

237 ................................................ 64.0

238 ................................................ 64.2

239 ................................................ 63.1

240 ................................................ 63.7

241 ................................................ 63.1

242 ................................................ 63.7

243 ................................................ 63.5

244 ................................................ 63.0

245 ................................................ 63.1

EPA US06 DRIVING SCHEDULE—

Continued

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

246 ................................................ 63.0

247 ................................................ 63.3

248 ................................................ 63.4

249 ................................................ 63.3

250 ................................................ 62.5

251 ................................................ 62.5

252 ................................................ 62.9

253 ................................................ 62.8

254 ................................................ 62.2

255 ................................................ 62.4

256 ................................................ 62.3

257 ................................................ 62.3

258 ................................................ 62.4

259 ................................................ 62.1

260 ................................................ 62.5

261 ................................................ 62.8

262 ................................................ 62.3

263 ................................................ 62.3

264 ................................................ 62.4

265 ................................................ 61.9

266 ................................................ 62.8

267 ................................................ 62.8

268 ................................................ 62.3

269 ................................................ 62.8

270 ................................................ 62.4

271 ................................................ 62.1

272 ................................................ 61.9

273 ................................................ 61.8

274 ................................................ 62.1

275 ................................................ 62.1

276 ................................................ 62.1

277 ................................................ 62.0

278 ................................................ 62.4

279 ................................................ 62.2

280 ................................................ 62.2

281 ................................................ 62.4

282 ................................................ 62.7

283 ................................................ 62.6

284 ................................................ 63.7

285 ................................................ 64.3

286 ................................................ 64.8

287 ................................................ 65.1

288 ................................................ 65.9

289 ................................................ 66.1

290 ................................................ 67.0

291 ................................................ 67.2

292 ................................................ 67.5

293 ................................................ 68.3

294 ................................................ 68.3

295 ................................................ 68.8

296 ................................................ 69.1

297 ................................................ 69.4

298 ................................................ 71.7

299 ................................................ 72.1

300 ................................................ 74.9

301 ................................................ 72.6

302 ................................................ 72.2

303 ................................................ 72.2

304 ................................................ 72.0

305 ................................................ 72.5

306 ................................................ 72.8

307 ................................................ 72.7

308 ................................................ 71.8

309 ................................................ 71.4

310 ................................................ 71.1

311 ................................................ 71.1

312 ................................................ 70.9

313 ................................................ 71.0

314 ................................................ 71.0

EPA US06 DRIVING SCHEDULE—

Continued

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

315 ................................................ 71.2

316 ................................................ 72.1

317 ................................................ 72.6

318 ................................................ 73.6

319 ................................................ 74.8

320 ................................................ 75.7

321 ................................................ 77.3

322 ................................................ 78.4

323 ................................................ 79.3

324 ................................................ 78.2

325 ................................................ 76.0

326 ................................................ 75.6

327 ................................................ 76.4

328 ................................................ 77.6

329 ................................................ 78.0

330 ................................................ 79.1

331 ................................................ 79.5

332 ................................................ 79.9

333 ................................................ 79.9

334 ................................................ 80.3

335 ................................................ 80.3

336 ................................................ 79.5

337 ................................................ 79.5

338 ................................................ 79.1

339 ................................................ 78.7

340 ................................................ 77.6

341 ................................................ 76.5

342 ................................................ 74.3

343 ................................................ 72.6

344 ................................................ 70.8

345 ................................................ 67.6

346 ................................................ 66.4

347 ................................................ 66.7

348 ................................................ 66.1

349 ................................................ 65.9

350 ................................................ 66.2

351 ................................................ 66.1

352 ................................................ 67.1

353 ................................................ 67.4

354 ................................................ 68.3

355 ................................................ 68.3

356 ................................................ 68.7

357 ................................................ 68.2

358 ................................................ 68.1

359 ................................................ 68.0

360 ................................................ 67.1

361 ................................................ 66.4

362 ................................................ 66.1

363 ................................................ 65.7

364 ................................................ 66.0

365 ................................................ 66.4

366 ................................................ 66.0

367 ................................................ 66.3

368 ................................................ 67.0

369 ................................................ 67.5

370 ................................................ 67.9

371 ................................................ 68.1

372 ................................................ 68.5

373 ................................................ 68.9

374 ................................................ 68.6

375 ................................................ 69.4

376 ................................................ 69.4

377 ................................................ 69.4

378 ................................................ 70.0

379 ................................................ 70.4

380 ................................................ 70.6

381 ................................................ 70.9

382 ................................................ 70.3

383 ................................................ 70.6
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54903

EPA US06 DRIVING SCHEDULE—

Continued

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

384 ................................................ 70.3

385 ................................................ 69.7

386 ................................................ 69.9

387 ................................................ 70.1

388 ................................................ 69.6

389 ................................................ 69.3

390 ................................................ 69.9

391 ................................................ 69.7

392 ................................................ 69.5

393 ................................................ 69.9

394 ................................................ 70.2

395 ................................................ 70.2

396 ................................................ 70.2

397 ................................................ 71.0

398 ................................................ 70.8

399 ................................................ 70.9

400 ................................................ 70.7

401 ................................................ 70.9

402 ................................................ 71.2

403 ................................................ 71.3

404 ................................................ 70.8

405 ................................................ 71.2

406 ................................................ 71.7

407 ................................................ 71.9

408 ................................................ 72.6

409 ................................................ 72.3

410 ................................................ 72.3

411 ................................................ 72.1

412 ................................................ 72.0

413 ................................................ 71.9

414 ................................................ 72.6

415 ................................................ 72.8

416 ................................................ 73.2

417 ................................................ 72.1

418 ................................................ 71.5

419 ................................................ 70.9

420 ................................................ 70.4

421 ................................................ 70.5

422 ................................................ 70.9

423 ................................................ 70.2

424 ................................................ 71.0

425 ................................................ 70.2

426 ................................................ 70.3

427 ................................................ 69.1

428 ................................................ 68.8

429 ................................................ 68.2

430 ................................................ 68.3

431 ................................................ 68.2

432 ................................................ 67.7

433 ................................................ 67.3

434 ................................................ 67.5

435 ................................................ 67.6

436 ................................................ 67.6

437 ................................................ 67.2

438 ................................................ 67.0

439 ................................................ 66.3

440 ................................................ 66.6

441 ................................................ 66.2

442 ................................................ 66.4

443 ................................................ 65.9

444 ................................................ 66.1

445 ................................................ 65.5

446 ................................................ 62.2

447 ................................................ 62.2

448 ................................................ 61.4

449 ................................................ 61.1

450 ................................................ 61.4

451 ................................................ 61.1

452 ................................................ 61.4

EPA US06 DRIVING SCHEDULE—

Continued

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

453 ................................................ 61.4

454 ................................................ 61.8

455 ................................................ 61.8

456 ................................................ 61.8

457 ................................................ 61.8

458 ................................................ 62.2

459 ................................................ 61.8

460 ................................................ 62.2

461 ................................................ 62.6

462 ................................................ 62.2

463 ................................................ 62.6

464 ................................................ 62.2

465 ................................................ 62.6

466 ................................................ 62.6

467 ................................................ 63.0

468 ................................................ 62.6

469 ................................................ 62.2

470 ................................................ 61.1

471 ................................................ 59.5

472 ................................................ 58.8

473 ................................................ 56.8

474 ................................................ 55.7

475 ................................................ 54.1

476 ................................................ 51.5

477 ................................................ 49.2

478 ................................................ 48.8

479 ................................................ 47.6

480 ................................................ 44.9

481 ................................................ 41.5

482 ................................................ 37.2

483 ................................................ 34.6

484 ................................................ 33.0

485 ................................................ 29.2

486 ................................................ 22.3

487 ................................................ 17.7

488 ................................................ 17.3

489 ................................................ 14.0

490 ................................................ 10.0

491 ................................................ 6.0

492 ................................................ 2.0

493 ................................................ 0.0

494 ................................................ 0.0

495 ................................................ 0.0

496 ................................................ 0.0

497 ................................................ 0.0

498 ................................................ 0.0

499 ................................................ 0.0

500 ................................................ 0.0

501 ................................................ 0.2

502 ................................................ 4.4

503 ................................................ 10.1

504 ................................................ 15.6

505 ................................................ 20.8

506 ................................................ 25.1

507 ................................................ 27.7

508 ................................................ 28.2

509 ................................................ 26.8

510 ................................................ 24.8

511 ................................................ 22.4

512 ................................................ 17.1

513 ................................................ 11.3

514 ................................................ 6.9

515 ................................................ 7.5

516 ................................................ 11.1

517 ................................................ 15.4

518 ................................................ 19.9

519 ................................................ 24.2

520 ................................................ 27.1

521 ................................................ 28.5

EPA US06 DRIVING SCHEDULE—

Continued

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

522 ................................................ 28.2

523 ................................................ 25.6

524 ................................................ 21.7

525 ................................................ 17.3

526 ................................................ 12.1

527 ................................................ 7.5

528 ................................................ 5.8

529 ................................................ 2.4

530 ................................................ 1.2

531 ................................................ 1.9

532 ................................................ 6.7

533 ................................................ 11.8

534 ................................................ 16.8

535 ................................................ 21.7

536 ................................................ 25.9

537 ................................................ 27.7

538 ................................................ 28.0

539 ................................................ 27.1

540 ................................................ 24.4

541 ................................................ 20.2

542 ................................................ 15.2

543 ................................................ 9.3

544 ................................................ 5.0

545 ................................................ 2.9

546 ................................................ 2.4

547 ................................................ 8.4

548 ................................................ 13.5

549 ................................................ 17.8

550 ................................................ 22.2

551 ................................................ 26.2

552 ................................................ 30.0

553 ................................................ 29.8

554 ................................................ 26.0

555 ................................................ 21.3

556 ................................................ 16.2

557 ................................................ 11.4

558 ................................................ 6.6

559 ................................................ 2.6

560 ................................................ 0.0

561 ................................................ 0.0

562 ................................................ 0.0

563 ................................................ 0.0

564 ................................................ 0.0

565 ................................................ 0.0

566 ................................................ 0.0

567 ................................................ 0.0

568 ................................................ 0.3

569 ................................................ 6.4

570 ................................................ 12.7

571 ................................................ 19.2

572 ................................................ 23.8

573 ................................................ 28.2

574 ................................................ 34.9

575 ................................................ 37.5

576 ................................................ 40.3

577 ................................................ 45.0

578 ................................................ 49.9

579 ................................................ 51.6

580 ................................................ 51.2

581 ................................................ 50.6

582 ................................................ 49.9

583 ................................................ 47.8

584 ................................................ 44.6

585 ................................................ 41.2

586 ................................................ 37.8

587 ................................................ 33.4

588 ................................................ 28.0

589 ................................................ 23.7

590 ................................................ 18.8
54904 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

EPA US06 DRIVING SCHEDULE—

Continued

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

591 ................................................ 12.9

592 ................................................ 6.2

593 ................................................ 2.2

594 ................................................ 0.0

595 ................................................ 0.0

596 ................................................ 0.0

597 ................................................ 0.0

598 ................................................ 0.0

599 ................................................ 0.0

600 ................................................ 0.0

(h) EPA SC03 Driving Schedule for LightDuty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks.

EPA SC03 DRIVING SCHEDULE

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

0 .................................................... 0.0

1 .................................................... 0.0

2 .................................................... 0.0

3 .................................................... 0.0

4 .................................................... 0.0

5 .................................................... 0.0

6 .................................................... 0.0

7 .................................................... 0.0

8 .................................................... 0.0

9 .................................................... 0.0

10 .................................................. 0.0

11 .................................................. 0.0

12 .................................................. 0.0

13 .................................................. 0.0

14 .................................................. 0.0

15 .................................................. 0.0

16 .................................................. 0.0

17 .................................................. 0.0

18 .................................................. 0.0

19 .................................................. 0.9

20 .................................................. 3.0

21 .................................................. 2.9

22 .................................................. 3.3

23 .................................................. 3.5

24 .................................................. 2.2

25 .................................................. 1.4

26 .................................................. 0.0

27 .................................................. 0.0

28 .................................................. 0.0

29 .................................................. 0.0

30 .................................................. 0.0

31 .................................................. 0.0

32 .................................................. 0.0

33 .................................................. 0.4

34 .................................................. 3.3

35 .................................................. 6.0

36 .................................................. 8.0

37 .................................................. 8.7

38 .................................................. 10.0

39 .................................................. 12.4

40 .................................................. 13.8

41 .................................................. 14.7

42 .................................................. 14.8

43 .................................................. 16.6

44 .................................................. 18.3

45 .................................................. 19.0

46 .................................................. 19.2

47 .................................................. 19.3

EPA SC03 DRIVING SCHEDULE—

Continued

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

48 .................................................. 19.7

49 .................................................. 20.5

50 .................................................. 21.0

51 .................................................. 21.2

52 .................................................. 21.6

53 .................................................. 22.2

54 .................................................. 23.8

55 .................................................. 24.6

56 .................................................. 24.3

57 .................................................. 23.3

58 .................................................. 22.7

59 .................................................. 21.4

60 .................................................. 20.4

61 .................................................. 19.5

62 .................................................. 17.9

63 .................................................. 15.6

64 .................................................. 11.7

65 .................................................. 7.8

66 .................................................. 7.2

67 .................................................. 9.3

68 .................................................. 12.9

69 .................................................. 15.8

70 .................................................. 16.2

71 .................................................. 16.9

72 .................................................. 18.3

73 .................................................. 20.3

74 .................................................. 21.6

75 .................................................. 22.4

76 .................................................. 23.0

77 .................................................. 22.8

78 .................................................. 22.1

79 .................................................. 21.2

80 .................................................. 19.5

81 .................................................. 17.1

82 .................................................. 14.1

83 .................................................. 10.5

84 .................................................. 7.6

85 .................................................. 7.5

86 .................................................. 10.0

87 .................................................. 13.1

88 .................................................. 14.1

89 .................................................. 16.4

90 .................................................. 19.6

91 .................................................. 22.4

92 .................................................. 24.7

93 .................................................. 26.1

94 .................................................. 25.8

95 .................................................. 26.6

96 .................................................. 27.8

97 .................................................. 28.5

98 .................................................. 28.9

99 .................................................. 29.3

100 ................................................ 29.5

101 ................................................ 29.4

102 ................................................ 29.4

103 ................................................ 29.8

104 ................................................ 30.3

105 ................................................ 30.6

106 ................................................ 30.5

107 ................................................ 30.5

108 ................................................ 30.1

109 ................................................ 29.3

110 ................................................ 28.4

111 ................................................ 27.6

112 ................................................ 26.8

113 ................................................ 25.5

114 ................................................ 23.7

115 ................................................ 21.7

116 ................................................ 19.3

EPA SC03 DRIVING SCHEDULE—

Continued

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

117 ................................................ 16.7

118 ................................................ 14.4

119 ................................................ 11.5

120 ................................................ 7.9

121 ................................................ 6.6

122 ................................................ 9.4

123 ................................................ 12.4

124 ................................................ 14.8

125 ................................................ 16.1

126 ................................................ 19.3

127 ................................................ 22.6

128 ................................................ 25.5

129 ................................................ 26.4

130 ................................................ 26.7

131 ................................................ 27.8

132 ................................................ 29.4

133 ................................................ 31.1

134 ................................................ 32.5

135 ................................................ 33.6

136 ................................................ 34.6

137 ................................................ 35.4

138 ................................................ 36.1

139 ................................................ 37.0

140 ................................................ 37.7

141 ................................................ 38.1

142 ................................................ 38.3

143 ................................................ 38.1

144 ................................................ 37.8

145 ................................................ 36.6

146 ................................................ 34.8

147 ................................................ 33.2

148 ................................................ 32.4

149 ................................................ 32.3

150 ................................................ 32.3

151 ................................................ 32.4

152 ................................................ 32.4

153 ................................................ 32.4

154 ................................................ 32.5

155 ................................................ 33.3

156 ................................................ 34.4

157 ................................................ 35.5

158 ................................................ 36.6

159 ................................................ 37.4

160 ................................................ 38.0

161 ................................................ 38.4

162 ................................................ 38.5

163 ................................................ 38.6

164 ................................................ 38.4

165 ................................................ 38.2

166 ................................................ 37.5

167 ................................................ 36.9

168 ................................................ 36.3

169 ................................................ 34.8

170 ................................................ 33.0

171 ................................................ 31.4

172 ................................................ 30.7

173 ................................................ 30.3

174 ................................................ 30.0

175 ................................................ 29.3

176 ................................................ 27.4

177 ................................................ 25.1

178 ................................................ 21.8

179 ................................................ 17.2

180 ................................................ 12.5

181 ................................................ 8.1

182 ................................................ 4.5

183 ................................................ 2.0

184 ................................................ 1.0

185 ................................................ 0.6
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 54905

EPA SC03 DRIVING SCHEDULE—

Continued

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

186 ................................................ 0.0

187 ................................................ 0.0

188 ................................................ 0.0

189 ................................................ 0.0

190 ................................................ 0.0

191 ................................................ 0.0

192 ................................................ 0.0

193 ................................................ 0.0

194 ................................................ 0.0

195 ................................................ 0.0

196 ................................................ 0.0

197 ................................................ 0.0

198 ................................................ 0.0

199 ................................................ 0.0

200 ................................................ 0.0

201 ................................................ 0.0

202 ................................................ 0.0

203 ................................................ 0.0

204 ................................................ 0.0

205 ................................................ 1.0

206 ................................................ 0.5

207 ................................................ 2.6

208 ................................................ 7.7

209 ................................................ 12.3

210 ................................................ 15.8

211 ................................................ 17.3

212 ................................................ 19.4

213 ................................................ 23.3

214 ................................................ 27.2

215 ................................................ 31.0

216 ................................................ 33.6

217 ................................................ 34.2

218 ................................................ 35.8

219 ................................................ 37.3

220 ................................................ 38.3

221 ................................................ 39.2

222 ................................................ 40.1

223 ................................................ 40.9

224 ................................................ 41.0

225 ................................................ 40.4

226 ................................................ 39.7

227 ................................................ 39.1

228 ................................................ 38.1

229 ................................................ 36.7

230 ................................................ 35.9

231 ................................................ 35.9

232 ................................................ 35.7

233 ................................................ 34.9

234 ................................................ 33.9

235 ................................................ 32.6

236 ................................................ 31.9

237 ................................................ 31.1

238 ................................................ 30.6

239 ................................................ 30.3

240 ................................................ 30.1

241 ................................................ 29.9

242 ................................................ 29.8

243 ................................................ 29.8

244 ................................................ 29.8

245 ................................................ 29.8

246 ................................................ 29.7

247 ................................................ 29.7

248 ................................................ 29.6

249 ................................................ 28.4

250 ................................................ 25.8

251 ................................................ 22.8

252 ................................................ 19.0

253 ................................................ 14.0

254 ................................................ 8.6

EPA SC03 DRIVING SCHEDULE—

Continued

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

255 ................................................ 4.1

256 ................................................ 1.3

257 ................................................ 0.0

258 ................................................ 0.0

259 ................................................ 0.0

260 ................................................ 0.0

261 ................................................ 0.0

262 ................................................ 0.0

263 ................................................ 0.0

264 ................................................ 0.0

265 ................................................ 0.0

266 ................................................ 0.0

267 ................................................ 0.0

268 ................................................ 0.0

269 ................................................ 0.0

270 ................................................ 0.0

271 ................................................ 0.0

272 ................................................ 0.0

273 ................................................ 0.0

274 ................................................ 0.0

275 ................................................ 0.0

276 ................................................ 0.0

277 ................................................ 0.0

278 ................................................ 0.0

279 ................................................ 0.0

280 ................................................ 0.0

281 ................................................ 0.1

282 ................................................ 4.5

283 ................................................ 9.1

284 ................................................ 13.6

285 ................................................ 18.2

286 ................................................ 22.6

287 ................................................ 26.2

288 ................................................ 29.3

289 ................................................ 32.1

290 ................................................ 34.5

291 ................................................ 36.8

292 ................................................ 38.4

293 ................................................ 40.0

294 ................................................ 41.2

295 ................................................ 41.9

296 ................................................ 42.2

297 ................................................ 42.7

298 ................................................ 43.0

299 ................................................ 43.3

300 ................................................ 43.5

301 ................................................ 43.7

302 ................................................ 44.3

303 ................................................ 45.4

304 ................................................ 45.9

305 ................................................ 46.8

306 ................................................ 47.6

307 ................................................ 48.2

308 ................................................ 48.6

309 ................................................ 48.7

310 ................................................ 48.6

311 ................................................ 49.0

312 ................................................ 49.8

313 ................................................ 50.5

314 ................................................ 51.2

315 ................................................ 52.1

316 ................................................ 52.7

317 ................................................ 53.4

318 ................................................ 52.4

319 ................................................ 54.5

320 ................................................ 54.8

321 ................................................ 54.8

322 ................................................ 54.7

323 ................................................ 54.3

EPA SC03 DRIVING SCHEDULE—

Continued

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

324 ................................................ 54.0

325 ................................................ 53.8

326 ................................................ 53.5

327 ................................................ 53.3

328 ................................................ 52.9

329 ................................................ 52.6

330 ................................................ 52.0

331 ................................................ 51.6

332 ................................................ 51.0

333 ................................................ 50.3

334 ................................................ 49.3

335 ................................................ 48.1

336 ................................................ 46.5

337 ................................................ 43.6

338 ................................................ 40.7

339 ................................................ 37.2

340 ................................................ 34.4

341 ................................................ 31.4

342 ................................................ 28.6

343 ................................................ 24.2

344 ................................................ 18.1

345 ................................................ 12.3

346 ................................................ 8.1

347 ................................................ 4.8

348 ................................................ 2.6

349 ................................................ 2.1

350 ................................................ 0.0

351 ................................................ 0.0

352 ................................................ 0.0

353 ................................................ 0.0

354 ................................................ 0.0

355 ................................................ 0.0

356 ................................................ 0.0

357 ................................................ 0.0

358 ................................................ 0.0

359 ................................................ 0.0

360 ................................................ 0.0

361 ................................................ 0.0

362 ................................................ 0.0

363 ................................................ 0.0

364 ................................................ 0.0

365 ................................................ 0.0

366 ................................................ 0.0

367 ................................................ 0.0

368 ................................................ 0.0

369 ................................................ 0.0

370 ................................................ 0.0

371 ................................................ 4.3

372 ................................................ 9.1

373 ................................................ 13.2

374 ................................................ 16.3

375 ................................................ 19.1

376 ................................................ 20.9

377 ................................................ 22.7

378 ................................................ 24.8

379 ................................................ 26.9

380 ................................................ 28.8

381 ................................................ 30.0

382 ................................................ 30.4

383 ................................................ 30.6

384 ................................................ 30.9

385 ................................................ 31.1

386 ................................................ 30.8

387 ................................................ 31.1

388 ................................................ 31.5

389 ................................................ 32.4

390 ................................................ 33.1

391 ................................................ 33.3

392 ................................................ 33.4
54906 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

EPA SC03 DRIVING SCHEDULE—

Continued

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

393 ................................................ 33.7

394 ................................................ 34.1

395 ................................................ 34.7

396 ................................................ 35.0

397 ................................................ 35.4

398 ................................................ 35.8

399 ................................................ 36.0

400 ................................................ 36.2

401 ................................................ 36.3

402 ................................................ 36.4

403 ................................................ 36.5

404 ................................................ 36.9

405 ................................................ 37.2

406 ................................................ 37.3

407 ................................................ 37.8

408 ................................................ 38.2

409 ................................................ 38.6

410 ................................................ 38.8

411 ................................................ 38.6

412 ................................................ 38.9

413 ................................................ 39.0

414 ................................................ 38.8

415 ................................................ 38.6

416 ................................................ 38.1

417 ................................................ 37.6

418 ................................................ 37.6

419 ................................................ 37.3

420 ................................................ 37.0

421 ................................................ 36.6

422 ................................................ 36.2

423 ................................................ 36.0

424 ................................................ 36.0

425 ................................................ 35.5

426 ................................................ 34.5

427 ................................................ 33.0

428 ................................................ 31.0

429 ................................................ 27.5

430 ................................................ 22.6

431 ................................................ 20.0

432 ................................................ 19.0

433 ................................................ 19.4

434 ................................................ 19.2

435 ................................................ 20.6

436 ................................................ 22.9

437 ................................................ 24.6

438 ................................................ 25.5

439 ................................................ 26.9

440 ................................................ 27.3

441 ................................................ 28.2

442 ................................................ 29.6

443 ................................................ 30.2

444 ................................................ 30.7

445 ................................................ 31.3

446 ................................................ 31.7

447 ................................................ 32.2

448 ................................................ 32.5

449 ................................................ 33.0

450 ................................................ 33.2

451 ................................................ 33.3

452 ................................................ 33.1

453 ................................................ 32.7

454 ................................................ 32.3

455 ................................................ 31.9

456 ................................................ 31.5

457 ................................................ 31.2

458 ................................................ 30.8

459 ................................................ 30.5

460 ................................................ 30.2

461 ................................................ 29.9

EPA SC03 DRIVING SCHEDULE—

Continued

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

462 ................................................ 30.2

463 ................................................ 30.6

464 ................................................ 30.9

465 ................................................ 31.2

466 ................................................ 31.8

467 ................................................ 32.4

468 ................................................ 32.5

469 ................................................ 32.3

470 ................................................ 32.3

471 ................................................ 32.8

472 ................................................ 32.9

473 ................................................ 32.8

474 ................................................ 32.8

475 ................................................ 33.3

476 ................................................ 33.4

477 ................................................ 32.9

478 ................................................ 32.9

479 ................................................ 32.8

480 ................................................ 32.9

481 ................................................ 32.8

482 ................................................ 32.8

483 ................................................ 32.4

484 ................................................ 31.6

485 ................................................ 30.6

486 ................................................ 30.3

487 ................................................ 30.3

488 ................................................ 29.8

489 ................................................ 29.3

490 ................................................ 28.9

491 ................................................ 28.8

492 ................................................ 29.3

493 ................................................ 30.0

494 ................................................ 30.2

495 ................................................ 30.4

496 ................................................ 30.7

497 ................................................ 30.8

498 ................................................ 29.8

499 ................................................ 28.7

500 ................................................ 28.9

501 ................................................ 29.2

502 ................................................ 29.4

503 ................................................ 28.6

504 ................................................ 27.0

505 ................................................ 27.2

506 ................................................ 26.6

507 ................................................ 23.2

508 ................................................ 21.2

509 ................................................ 21.2

510 ................................................ 20.8

511 ................................................ 17.9

512 ................................................ 13.2

513 ................................................ 9.5

514 ................................................ 6.4

515 ................................................ 4.1

516 ................................................ 2.5

517 ................................................ 0.0

518 ................................................ 0.0

519 ................................................ 0.0

520 ................................................ 0.0

521 ................................................ 0.0

522 ................................................ 0.0

523 ................................................ 0.0

524 ................................................ 0.0

525 ................................................ 0.0

526 ................................................ 0.0

527 ................................................ 0.0

528 ................................................ 0.0

529 ................................................ 0.0

530 ................................................ 0.0

EPA SC03 DRIVING SCHEDULE—

Continued

[Speed versus Time Sequence]

Time (sec) Speed

(mph)

531 ................................................ 0.0

532 ................................................ 0.0

533 ................................................ 0.0

534 ................................................ 0.0

535 ................................................ 0.0

536 ................................................ 0.0

537 ................................................ 0.6

538 ................................................ 3.3

539 ................................................ 5.9

540 ................................................ 8.9

541 ................................................ 10.2

542 ................................................ 10.4

543 ................................................ 9.9

544 ................................................ 9.9

545 ................................................ 10.5

546 ................................................ 11.3

547 ................................................ 12.4

548 ................................................ 12.8

549 ................................................ 14.0

550 ................................................ 14.6

551 ................................................ 15.5

552 ................................................ 17.0

553 ................................................ 17.5

554 ................................................ 18.1

555 ................................................ 18.4

556 ................................................ 18.5

557 ................................................ 18.2

558 ................................................ 18.5

559 ................................................ 18.3

560 ................................................ 18.2

561 ................................................ 17.9

562 ................................................ 17.7

563 ................................................ 17.7

564 ................................................ 17.3

565 ................................................ 17.4

566 ................................................ 16.8

567 ................................................ 17.5

568 ................................................ 17.7

569 ................................................ 17.5

570 ................................................ 17.6

571 ................................................ 17.3

572 ................................................ 17.4

573 ................................................ 17.6

574 ................................................ 17.6

575 ................................................ 17.9

576 ................................................ 18.0

577 ................................................ 17.8

578 ................................................ 17.7

579 ................................................ 17.5

580 ................................................ 17.7

581 ................................................ 17.7

582 ................................................ 18.1

583 ................................................ 18.4

584 ................................................ 19.2

585 ................................................ 18.9

586 ................................................ 18.0

587 ................................................ 15.6

588 ................................................ 13.3

589 ................................................ 10.0

590 ................................................ 7.7

591 ................................................ 5.8

592 ................................................ 3.7

593 ................................................ 2.4

594 ................................................ 0.0

[FR Doc. 96–24485 Filed 10–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P