39654 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 86

[FRL–6126–9]

RIN 2060–AH06

Control of Air Pollution From New

Motor Vehicles; Compliance Programs

for New Light-Duty Vehicles and LightDuty Trucks

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise

the emissions compliance procedures

for light-duty vehicles and light-duty

trucks. The Environmental Protection

Agency (referred to hereafter as ‘‘EPA’’

or ‘‘the Agency’’) is proposing a new

compliance assurance program (referred

to as ‘‘CAP 2000’’). CAP 2000 would

simplify and streamline the current

procedures for pre-production

certification of new motor vehicles.

Under this proposal, the certification

program would provide the same

environmental benefits as the current

procedures while significantly reducing

the certification cost for manufacturers,

and would give manufacturers more

control of production timing. EPA is

also proposing that manufacturers test

in-use motor vehicles to monitor

compliance with emission standards.

Manufacturers would test samples of inuse vehicles when they are

approximately one and four years old.

These test data would be used to

improve the certification process to

predict in-use compliance and to

determine the need for further action by

the Agency or the manufacturer to

address any in-use compliance

problems. EPA proposes that CAP 2000

be implemented beginning with model

year (MY) 2001 vehicles. Manufacturers

would be allowed to voluntarily opt-in

to the CAP 2000 procedures beginning

with the 2000 model year. EPA

estimates that overall, manufacturers

would save about $55 million dollars a

year as a result of today’s proposal.

DATES: Written comments on this NPRM

must be submitted on or before

September 8, 1998. A public hearing

will be held on August 10, 1998.

Requests to present oral testimony must

be received on or before August 3, 1998.

If EPA receives no requests to present

oral testimony by this date, the hearing

will be cancelled.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted (in duplicate, if possible,)

to: EPA Air & Radiation Docket, Attn

Docket # A–96–50, Room M–1500 (Mail

Code 6102), 401 M. Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Materials

relevant to this rulemaking are

contained in Docket No. A–96–50 and

may be viewed in room M–1500

between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday. The telephone

number is (202) 260–7548 and the

facsimile number is (202)260–4400. A

reasonable fee may be charged by EPA

for copying docket material.

The public hearing will be held at the

Holiday Inn North Campus, Ann Arbor,

MI. The hearing will begin at 10:00 a.m.

and continue until all testimony has

been presented.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Hormes, Vehicle Programs and

Compliance Division, US EPA, 2000

Traverwood, Ann Arbor Michigan

48105, telephone (734) 214–4502, Email: hormes.linda@epa.gov.

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 the 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 § 86.1801–01 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.

Obtaining Copies of the Regulatory

Language

Hard copies (paper) and electronic

copies (on 3.5’’ diskettes) of the

proposed regulatory language may be

obtained free of charge by visiting,

writing, or calling the contact person in

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section at US Environmental Protection

Agency’s National Vehicle and Fuels

Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood,

Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Please direct all

requests to Linda Hormes, telephone

(734) 214–4502. E-mail requests may be

sent to hormes.linda@epa.gov.

Electronic copies of the proposed

regulatory language are also available

through EPA’s web page. See

‘‘Electronic Availability’’ below for

access instructions.

Electronic Availability

The preamble and regulatory language

are available electronically from both

the EPA internet Web site and the Office

of Mobile Source’s Web site. This

service is free of charge, except for any

cost you already incur for internet

connectivity. An electronic version of

the Preamble will be made available on

the day of publication on the EPA Web

site listed below:

http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA–

AIR/

(either select desired date or use

‘‘Search’’ feature) The EPA Office of

Mobile Sources will also publish the

preamble and regulatory language on its

Web site listed below:

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

(look in ‘‘What’s New’’ or under the

specific rulemaking topic)

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 and Background

A. Overview of Current Compliance

Programs for Light-duty Vehicles and

Light-duty Trucks

B. Background of Proposal

C. Cap 2000 Summary

D. Legal Authority

II. Requirements of the Proposed Rule and

Discussion of Rationale

A. Durability Groups

B. Durability Demonstration

C. Emission Data and Emission

Compliance Demonstration

D. Scope of a Certificate of Conformity

E. EPA and Manufacturer Confirmatory

Certification Testing

F. Fuel Economy

G. Small Volume Provisions

H. Information Requirements

I. In-Use Testing

J. Fees

K. Reorganization of Compliance

Regulations

L. Harmonization With California Air

Resources Board Compliance Procedures

M. Implementation

N. Incentives to Encourage Better In-use

Emission Performance

O. Good Engineering Judgment and

Decision Making under the Regulations

P. Optional Applicability for Heavy-Duty

Engines

III. Cost Effectiveness

IV. Public Participation

A. Comments and the Public Docket
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39655

B. Public Hearing

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Unfunded Mandates Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Executive Order 13045

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Introduction and Background

A. Overview of Current Compliance

Programs for Light-Duty Vehicles and

Light-Duty Trucks

Three programs are currently in place

to ensure that light-duty vehicles and

light-duty trucks comply with mandated

emission standards: certification,

assembly line testing (known as

Selective Enforcement Audits or SEAs)

and recall. EPA also oversees the testing

and calculation processes for fuel

economy programs that include

labeling, gas guzzler tax, and Corporate

Average Fuel Economy (CAFE). The

following discussion briefly summarizes

the current programs.

1. Certification

Under the Clean Air Act (Section

203(a)(1)), a motor vehicle manufacturer

must obtain a certificate of conformity

indicating compliance with emission

standards prior to selling new cars in

the United States. Issuance of a

certificate is based on a showing that the

new motor vehicles have been designed

to meet emission standards for their

useful lives. A manufacturer submits

information to EPA, including test data

demonstrating that its new motor

vehicles will comply with the

applicable emission standards. After

reviewing this information for

completeness and compliance with the

standards, EPA issues a certificate of

conformity. This must occur prior to the

sale of the new motor vehicles,

necessitating the use of pre-production

vehicles to demonstrate compliance. A

new certificate must be obtained each

model year.

Since it is a pre-production program,

manufacturers must use predictive tools

to demonstrate that a vehicle will

conform to the applicable emission

standards. The certification program

accomplishes this by assessing the

emissions control deterioration

characteristics of the vehicle

(‘‘durability’’) and applying this

assessment to emissions data from low

mileage, production-intent vehicles, that

is, vehicles assembled as closely as

possible to those which are planned to

be produced. This is done specifically

for each ‘‘engine family’’ which is a

group of vehicles that have engines and

emission control systems with similar

operational and emission

characteristics, as defined in

regulations. A separate certificate of

conformity must be obtained for each

engine family. Within each engine

family, the manufacturer must

determine the emission deterioration

factors (DFs) by using either bench aging

techniques or by operating prototype

vehicles for the useful life mileage and

testing at periodic intervals. The

manufacturer must then test a number

of production-intent vehicles with

stabilized mileages (usually 4,000 miles)

for each engine family. These low

mileage test vehicles are called

emission-data vehicles (EDVs). The test

results from the emission-data vehicles

are adjusted by the DFs to project useful

life emission levels (called ‘‘certification

levels’’). The useful lives of motor

vehicles for emission compliance

purposes are defined in Section 202(d)

of the Clean Air Act and are

implemented through the regulations.

(For example, for light-duty vehicles

covered by this proposal, full useful life

is 100,000 miles or 10 years.) If the

certification levels are below the

applicable standard and the

manufacturer has demonstrated that the

vehicle meets all emission

requirements, a Certificate of

Conformity can be issued.

2. Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA)

Section 206(b) of the Clean Air Act

authorizes EPA to conduct testing of

new motor vehicles or engines at the

time they are produced to determine

whether they comply with the

applicable emission standards. This

testing may be conducted by the Agency

or, under conditions specified by the

Agency, by the manufacturer. If the

Agency determines based on this testing

that the vehicles or engines do not

comply with those regulations, the

Agency may suspend or revoke the

applicable certificate.

The SEA program accomplishes two

goals. First, it provides the Agency with

an early opportunity to evaluate the

emissions performance of actual

production vehicles for which

certificates have been issued. In the case

of classes of vehicles which are found

to be high emitters, this allows EPA to

obtain repair of vehicles already in

owners’ hands and to ensure that

vehicles subsequently produced comply

with applicable requirements. Second,

EPA’s ability to test new vehicles and to

revoke or suspend the certificate

encourages manufacturers to conduct

their own testing of new vehicles. This

allows manufacturers to identify and

correct high emitting classes of vehicles

early in their production life, providing

an opportunity to prevent excessive

emissions during the life of the vehicles.

3. Recall

Section 207(c) of the Clean Air Act

provides that if the Administrator

determines that a class or category of

vehicles or engines, although properly

maintained and used, does not conform

with the applicable regulations when in

actual use throughout its useful life, the

manufacturer is required to submit a

plan to remedy the non-conformity at

the manufacturer’s expense. This

remedy is available to the owners of all

vehicles of the relevant class regardless

of the age or mileage of the vehicles.

EPA tests in-use vehicles under the

current recall program and uses the

resultant data to evaluate the emission

performance of vehicles in actual use.

As the evaluation is based on vehicles

which have experienced real life

operation by actual owners over a

number of years, it provides the Agency

and the industry with a particularly

accurate picture of the emission

performance of properly maintained and

used vehicles. In appropriate cases EPA

requires manufacturers to repair noncomplying classes. In many cases a

manufacturer will voluntarily recall

vehicles if problems are discovered

through EPA’s test program.

The recall program accomplishes its

emission reduction goals not only

through the repair of non-conforming

vehicles classes, but also through the

deterrent effect created by the

substantial expense to manufacturers

associated with conducting a recall. The

potential expense associated with

vehicles which demonstrate inadequate

in-use emissions durability encourages

manufacturers to design and build

vehicles which are durable in actual

use, thus addressing the real world

emissions of the motor vehicle fleet.

4. Fuel Economy

EPA shares responsibilities with three

other Federal agencies in the conduct of

three fuel economy programs. The three

programs are as follows:

a. Corporate Average Fuel Economy

(CAFE) Standards. Manufacturers of

passenger cars and light-duty trucks

must meet fleet average fuel economy

standards for the vehicles sold in the

United States. Penalties are assessed to

manufacturers that do not meet the

standards. (Penalties established by law

(49 CFR 578.6(h)) are currently $5.50

per vehicle sold for each 0.1 mpg the

manufacturer’s CAFE is under the

standard.) Congress and the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) of the Department of

Transportation set the CAFE standards.

NHTSA assesses any penalties

associated with CAFE noncompliance.
39656 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

EPA is responsible for establishing test

procedures, collecting data, and

confirming manufacturers’ averages.

b. Fuel Economy Labels and the Gas

Mileage Guide. All new passenger cars

and light-duty trucks sold in the United

States are required at the time of sale to

have a window label attached showing

the vehicle’s estimated fuel economy.

EPA, in conjunction with the

Department of Energy (DOE), specifies

the label design. EPA establishes the

testing and calculation procedures, and

approves the fuel economy values

placed on the labels. At the beginning

of each model year (usually in

September), EPA compiles all available

label values into a fuel economy listing

which is given to DOE. DOE, in turn,

publishes the information in the Gas

Mileage Guide which is available at all

new car dealerships.

c. Gas Guzzler Tax. The Energy Tax

Act of 1978 established a tax schedule

for passenger cars that do not achieve

certain fuel economy standards. EPA

establishes the testing and calculation

procedures and reports the fuel

economy values to the Internal Revenue

Service for tax collection purposes.

In addition to the above established

programs, EPA retains the most

extensive and complete database in the

U.S. on the fuel economy performance

of vehicles sold in this country. Using

this database, EPA publishes a report

that analyzes fuel economy trends

related to fleet fuel efficiency going back

to the 1975 model year. NHTSA also

uses this database to publish its annual

report to Congress on fuel economy

performance.

B. Background of Proposal

Beginning in the late 1970’s, EPA

began to streamline various aspects of

the light-duty vehicle (LDV) and lightduty truck (LDT) compliance programs.

In particular, the certification program

has undergone changes leading to

reduced testing and reporting burdens,

and EPA has also allowed

manufacturers to make many of the

initial decisions in the certification

process, such as selection of vehicles for

testing. Because EPA designed adequate

safeguards in the review process,

preserved all its discretion in the final

certification decision, retained a strong

in-use recall program, and pursued civil

fines against manufacturers who

violated the streamlined certification

process, these streamlining efforts have

not reduced the effectiveness of the

standards. Stabilized emission

standards during the 1980’s also

minimized both Agency and

manufacturer burdens, as well as

decreased the likelihood of in-use

noncompliance. However, following the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,

new standards and test procedures have

once again increased Agency and

manufacturer compliance burdens, as

well as the risk of more in-use

noncompliance with these new

standards.

EPA believes that it is now

appropriate to redesign the LDV and

LDT compliance programs to provide

greater assurance of in-use compliance

and to reduce overall compliance

program burdens for both EPA and

manufacturers. EPA believes that overall

burdens can be reduced by redesigning

the program around current industry

practices and technology rather than

retaining the procedures designed for

the industry and products of the 1970’s.

More importantly, EPA believes that a

compliance program design that

integrates improved pre-production

compliance procedures with a new

emphasis on checking real in-use

performance would result in lower inuse emissions, the ultimate goal of the

federal motor vehicle compliance

program.

In May of 1995, EPA met with

manufacturers to discuss ways to

improve the mobile source programs for

light-duty vehicles and light-duty

trucks. Manufacturers expressed

concern about the burdens imposed by

EPA compliance programs, particularly

the certification program. At the same

time, EPA expressed a desire to focus on

improving in-use emission performance.

EPA agreed to investigate the possibility

of reducing certification burdens if some

of the savings would be redirected

toward the goal of improving the

emission control performance of in-use

vehicles.

EPA proceeded with creating options

for a redesigned LDV and LDT

compliance process. In September,

1995, EPA staff met with their

counterparts in the California Air

Resources Board (California ARB) to

discuss some ideas for redesigning

aspects of their respective vehicle

compliance programs that would ease

some of the administrative burdens to

both the agencies and industry while

improving in-use emission performance.

Subsequently, EPA and California

ARB met with manufacturers to discuss

ways to revise the current mobile source

compliance programs for light-duty

vehicles and light-duty trucks. All

parties generally agreed that in-use

emissions performance could be

improved by shifting the focus of

compliance assessments towards in-use

testing, while potentially reducing

overall compliance demonstration

burdens. In February of 1996, EPA,

California ARB, and 18 vehicle

manufacturers acknowledged these

goals by signing a statement of

Principles for Compliance Program

Regulatory and Emissions Improvement.

These principles of understanding are

the guiding principles for this proposal.

Specifically the principles of

understanding state:

* * * the Signatories commit to

working together to achieve effective

regulatory streamlining of LDV

compliance programs, including

reduction of process time and test

complexity, with the goal of more

optimal application of the resources

spent by both government and industry

to better focus on in-use compliance

with emission standards. Among the

alternatives would be consideration of

more optimal allocation between

prototype certification and assembly

line audit testing in preference for inuse performance evaluation and

compliance testing. EPA will also seek

to design incentives into the compliance

program mix which reward

manufacturers who do not have an inuse compliance problem by requiring

less compliance testing burdens on

them. Overall, the primary guiding

principle will be to encourage lower inuse emissions.

An additional factor leading to today’s

proposal was EPA’s involvement in an

advisory committee on mobile source

needs, established under the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5

U.S.C. Appendix § 1 et seq.) In July

1995, a Mobile Source Technical

Review Subcommittee was convened,

and in December 1995, the

Subcommittee formed a Compliance

Reinvention Working Group whose

specific charge was to provide to the

Mobile Source Subcommittee

recommendations for re-engineering the

current light-duty vehicle and light-duty

truck compliance programs. Members of

the working group included EPA,

California ARB, and vehicle

manufacturers. Consistent with the

goals of the working group,

recommendations were made to the

Subcommittee on the design of a new

compliance program that would achieve

the following:

—Redirect manufacturer and Agency efforts

toward in-use compliance,

—Give manufacturers more control of

certification timing, and

—Maintain the integrity of the compliance

and fuel economy programs.

On October 9, 1996, the working

group presented the final results of their

discussions to the Mobile Source
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39657

1Memorandum from Jane Armstrong and Kelly

M. Brown, Co-Chairpersons to Mr. Michael P.

Walsh, et al. dated October 3, 1996 entitled

‘‘Findings and Recommendations, Compliance

Working Group’’ is placed in the Docket for this

proposal.

2 Important areas of non-FTP in-use data available

for study include OBD repair statistics and I/M test

results.

Technical Review Subcommittee.1 The

working group report discussed many of

the detailed issues involved in

reengineering the vehicle compliance

process. EPA, California ARB, and the

industry agreed on a number of these

details, although some differences still

remained. These differences are

discussed in the various preamble

sections which follow.

In keeping with the statement of

principles, EPA’s CAP 2000 proposal

simplifies and streamlines considerably

the pre-production certification process

and requires a more extensive

confirmation by each manufacturer that

vehicles are actually meeting emission

standards in use. The current EPA recall

program is left intact in the proposal,

but would be enhanced by the in-use

testing performed by manufacturers.

C. CAP 2000 Summary

EPA considered a broad range of

options in developing today’s proposal.

EPA considered a ‘‘self-certification’’

option which would entail virtually no

pre-production EPA oversight. Several

factors became apparent that ruled out

a pure self-certification approach:

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

requires that the Administrator

affirmatively evaluate compliance and

issue certificates of conformity based on

test data as specified by the Administrator.

—A reasonable amount of information

submitted to EPA by the manufacturer is

necessary to establish a description of what

is covered under the certificate of

conformity, and is necessary for the

Agency to effectively perform in-use

compliance and enforcement actions.

—The Agency believes that certification by

the Agency is critical in pollution

prevention, because it provides the first

(and only, in the case of many small

volume manufacturers) screen of vehicle

emission performance. Recall and SEA,

while powerful design incentives for

industry, do not capture all problems, and

recalls occur after environmental damage

has occurred.

The proposal being made today would

streamline the certification program

structure to retain EPA’s confidence in

pre-production compliance

determinations while reducing costs for

manufacturers. EPA proposes to

streamline certification testing and

information requirements for

manufacturers, while allowing EPA to

more effectively and efficiently audit

vehicle designs for compliance.

Manufacturers would be allowed more

flexibilities in certification testing and

timing. To verify the compliance

predictions made for certification,

today’s proposal would also require

manufacturers to conduct testing of inuse vehicles and to report the results to

EPA. This would result in the

generation of significant amounts of inuse FTP data that are currently not

available, providing more information

for the Agency’s recall program and for

studies of in-use vehicle emission

control performance in general.2

Moreover, EPA believes that the

proposed CAP 2000 program would

result in overall cost savings for the

industry (estimated at about $55 million

dollars per year) while improving in-use

emissions compliance.

The key features of the compliance

program under CAP 2000 are listed

below. Section II will more fully

describe the proposed changes along

with the rationale for making the

changes.

1. Streamlining the Certification

Program

Streamlining the Certification

program involves three elements:

reductions in testing requirements,

reductions in paperwork and reporting

requirements, and allowing additional

flexibilities in the timing of reporting

and confirmatory testing requirements.

These elements would be accomplished

by making the following changes:

a. Eliminate the current groups based

on engine families and replace them

with broader groups. (See Section II. A.

and C. below.) ‘‘Durability groups’’

would be created to select the vehicles

that would demonstrate similar

deterioration characteristics. These are

broader coverage groups than the

current engine families and would

result in about a 75% decrease in the

number of durability demonstrations

now required. ‘‘Test Groups’’ would be

created to determine compliance levels

and define the coverage of each

certificate of conformity. Test groups are

slightly broader than current engine

families, but today’s proposal would

require only one test vehicle per test

group rather than the current two

vehicles per engine family. This would

result in about a 50% decrease in

emission-data test vehicles.

b. Expand options for durability

demonstrations and for test vehicle

usage. (See Section II. B. below.)

Today’s proposal would eliminate the

current ‘‘AMA’’ durability mileage

accumulation in favor of manufacturerdeveloped durability cycles approved

by EPA. EPA also proposes to allow the

use of aged components to determine

compliance rather than establishing

deterioration factors. Today’s proposal

would also allow more use of

development vehicles for certification

testing.

c. Allow issuance of conditional

certificates of conformity before final

EPA confirmatory testing is done. (See

Section II. E. below). Under CAP 2000,

manufacturers could opt to produce and

sell vehicles under a conditional

certificate of conformity if the required

manufacturer testing is completed but

confirmatory testing scheduled to be

performed at EPA is not yet complete.

If the confirmatory test at EPA fails, the

manufacturer would have to suspend

sales and recall affected vehicles. This

option would give manufacturers more

control on production timing, while

assuring final compliance. It is unlikely

that manufacturers would take this

option if there is a chance the vehicle

would fail the test at EPA.

d. Allow more confirmatory testing at

manufacturers’ laboratories while

retaining a random audit sample at EPA.

(See Section II. E. below.) This would

reduce test vehicle shipping costs for

manufacturers, improve manufacturers’

certification timing control, and reduce

EPA laboratory compliance testing

burdens. EPA would not relinquish its

right to confirmatory test any vehicle at

EPA.

e. Reduce overall reporting burdens

and delay submission deadlines for

more detailed information. (See Section

II. H. below.) Today’s proposal would

revamp the certification reporting

requirements to reduce recordkeeping

and reporting efforts. It is being

estimated that the total burden-hours

associated with information record

keeping and reporting will be reduced

from 938,600 to 428,583 hours (54%).

EPA also proposes to divide the

Application for Certification into two

parts. Part 1 would include information

deemed essential for pre-production

purposes and would be required before

a certificate is issued. Part 2 would

consist of more detailed vehicle

descriptions which is primarily needed

for in-use compliance purposes and

therefore would not have to be

submitted until after certification. This

change would more evenly distribute

over time the workload for

manufacturers and EPA.

f. Allow the use of fuel economy

labels before completion of confirmatory

testing at EPA (see Section II. F. below.)

Similar to the proposal to allow

conditional certification before EPA

confirmatory testing is complete, this
39658 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

3As part of the current alternative durability

program, manufacturers develop their own program

for estimating emission deterioration. Most

manufacturers have demonstrated no engine-out

emission deterioration and have developed

programs which focus on thermal aging of the

catalyst.

proposal would allow manufacturers to

calculate and use fuel economy label

values before EPA confirmation.

Manufacturers would be required to

issue new labels if the recalculated

labels based on EPA confirmation

changed by a certain threshold. The

manufacturer would also be liable for

any gas guzzler tax increases as a result

of the recalculation. This proposed

change would give manufacturers better

control of production timing.

2. Post-Production Testing

This rulemaking would shift the

balance of EPA’s compliance efforts

from pre-production certification to

improvements in in-use emissions. (See

Section II. I. below.) EPA is proposing

to require manufacturers to perform

testing on in-use vehicles. If certain

defined levels of potential

noncompliance were identified, the

manufacturer would be required to

conduct or fund additional confirmatory

testing to aid in making recall

determinations. The purpose of this

testing is two-fold: First, the in-use data

would be used to verify manufacturers’

compliance and durability predictions

used in the certification process.

Modifications in predictive tools used

by manufacturers would have a direct

bearing on the durability and calibration

of future designs. Second, the

information would be used to provide

better targeting for EPA’s recall

compliance program.

EPA is proposing that manufacturers

test two segments of their in-use fleets

per model year. The first fleet would be

tested at low mileage (minimum of

10,000 miles, but less than one year

after the end of production). This lowmileage fleet would provide early

warning of potential problems or

failures that should be remedied before

more pollution is produced during the

fleet’s useful life. The second (high

mileage) fleet would consist of vehicles

at least four years old and with a

minimum of 50,000 miles accumulated.

The size of the low and high mileage

fleets would be dictated by sales

categories. Small volume manufacturers

(and small volume test groups) would

have little or no testing, depending on

sales limits.

3. Small Volume Sales Considerations

EPA is proposing several special

provisions for small volume

manufacturers and for large volume

manufacturers with small volume test

groups. These provisions are discussed

in detail in Section II. G. below.

D. Legal Authority

Sections 203, 206, 207, 208 and 217

of the Clean Air Act provide EPA with

the authority to revise the current

emissions compliance procedures as

described in this proposal. In particular,

EPA’s authority to make the major

revisions found in CAP 2000 is based

largely on sections 206 and 208(a) of the

Act. Section 206 provides EPA with the

authority to test, or require to be tested

in such manner as the Agency deems

appropriate, any new motor vehicle to

determine whether the vehicle conforms

with applicable emissions standards.

EPA accordingly has the broad authority

to streamline the current certification

process to improve the efficiency of the

process. Section 208(a) further requires

manufacturers to establish and maintain

records, to conduct tests, and to submit

information that EPA may reasonably

require to determine whether a

manufacturer is in compliance with

Title II of the Act and it implementing

regulations, or to otherwise carry out the

provisions of Title II. This includes

information needed by EPA to make

certification decisions, to determine

whether vehicles built and sold are

covered by the certificate, and to ensure

that defeat devices are not used. Section

208(a) also provides EPA with the

authority to require post-production

testing of vehicles by manufacturers to

provide a means of monitoring the

emissions performance of vehicles

driven under real-world conditions.

Such testing serves as a check on the

accuracy of the certification procedures

and on the levels of in-use compliance

with applicable emissions standards.

II. Requirements of the Proposed Rule

and Discussion of Rationale

A. Durability Groups

1. New Durability Groups for Exhaust

Emissions

Currently, vehicle grouping for the

purpose of certification is accomplished

though the application of the ‘‘engine

family’’ and ‘‘emission control system’’

definitions in the regulations. Today’s

proposal drops the definitions of

‘‘engine family’’ and ‘‘emission control

system’’ and establishes a new

definition for ‘‘durability group.’’

The purpose of durability groups is to

combine vehicles which are likely to

exhibit similar exhaust emission

deterioration over their useful lives,

based on the characteristics of currenttechnology vehicles that most

significantly affect the deterioration of

emission control over time. Under the

proposal, durability groups would be

based on engine type, fuel type, fuel

system, catalyst construction, type of

precious metals used in the catalyst, and

relative engine/catalyst size and loading

rates.

The engine family concept was

originally developed as a way to

combine vehicles of similar emission

deterioration rates. At that time (in the

early 1970’s), the use of catalytic

converters was less prevalent, and most

emission reductions occurred though

modifications to the engine operating

characteristics. For these vehicles, all

emission deterioration was due to

increases in emissions coming directly

out of the engine (called ‘‘engine-out’’

emissions). Consequently, the definition

of engine family focused on enginebased parameters. Since that time, there

have been many advances in exhaust

emission control technology which have

made the engine family concept less

useful for the purposes of grouping

vehicles together on the basis of

emission deterioration.

In today’s vehicles, most emission

control is accomplished through

catalytic conversion of the exhaust

while the engine is controlled to operate

within carefully controlled air/fuel

ratios to ensure optimum catalyst

efficiency. Most manufacturers have

demonstrated that essentially no engineout deterioration is experienced in their

current product.3 However, the mating

of the catalyst with the engine is

extremely important. Appropriate sizing

of the catalyst to the engine is critical to

achieve an appropriate catalyst

residence time (the time the exhaust

gases remain in the catalyst) so that the

catalytic reaction has time to be

completed. Adequate levels of precious

metal loading and appropriate

dispersion are necessary to provide the

active sites necessary for conversion and

to achieve the desired conversion rates.

Also, the catalyst must be placed in a

thermal environment that allows it to

quickly come to operating temperature

but does not expose it to damaging

amounts of high temperature during inuse driving.

The durability groups proposed in

today’s action take into account the

changes in emission control technology

by shifting the focus away from engine

parameters to the basic catalyst

formulation and the matching of the

catalyst to the engine. EPA estimates

that based on the current vehicle

product offering, the proposal would
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39659

4This alternative was proposed to the FACA

panel by the manufacturers’ task group and is

included in the Docket.

5A multiplicative DF is calculated by performing

a least-squares regression of the emission versus

mileage data for each exhaust emission constituent

and dividing the 100,000-mile emission level by the

4,000-mile emission level. The DF is then used with

other test vehicles to determine compliance with

the standards. The product of the emissions

multiplied by the DF (referred to as the certification

level) must be less than or equal to the emission

standard to receive a certificate of conformity.

6See 57 FR 18545 NPRM (April 30, 1992) on RDP

1.

result in a reduction in the number of

required durability demonstrations by

as much as 75 percent. This translates

into a substantial savings to

manufacturers. Broadening the grouping

criteria for durability demonstrations,

by itself, may add some variability in

emissions as compared to the current

engine family definition; however, the

Agency believes that the proposed

broader durability groups coupled with

worst case durability vehicle selections

(discussed below) and in-use

verification program (also discussed

below) would comprise a more accurate

and effective emission control program

than the current procedures and result

in significant environmental benefits.

Three provisions of the proposal

allow manufacturers flexibility in

assigning durability groups. First,

manufacturers may use different criteria

than relative engine/catalyst size and

loading rates provided that the criteria

result in at least as many groups and do

not group together dissimilar vehicles.

However, the other five criteria (engine

type, fuel type, fuel system, catalyst

construction, and type of precious

metals used in the catalyst) must be

followed. Second, manufacturers may

further divide durability groups to meet

their needs without advance Agency

approval provided that vehicles with

dissimilar emission deterioration or

durability are not combined. Lastly, the

Agency would consider requests to

combine groups based on (1) substantial

evidence that all the vehicles in the

larger group have the same degree of

emission deterioration, (2) evidence of

equivalent component durability over

the vehicles’ useful lives, and (3)

evidence that the combined groups

would result in sufficient in-use

verification data to assure clear liability

under the Agency’s recall authority.

The Agency considered several

related alternatives which would have

allowed manufacturers to establish their

own groups within broad guidelines

(such as groupings based on engine

type, fuel type and fuel system).4 The

Agency believes that durability groups

should contain only similar designs,

particularly the catalyst design. In the

Agency’s opinion, catalyst design

should be grouped separately for

durability because deterioration of

catalysts is a chief source of emissions

deterioration for most vehicle designs in

production today. Combining dissimilar

catalyst designs into the same group

may make it infeasible to accurately

predict the expected worst case vehicle

configuration for deterioration within

that group. For instance, it may be hard

to evaluate which is expected to be

worse case for deterioration: a turbo

charged vehicle with an aggressive axle

and transmission gearing and heavier

test weight but normal catalyst

parameters versus a vehicle with more

standard axle, transmission and weight

parameters but equipped with a catalyst

of different precious metal content on a

different substrate with a different

catalyst sizing/loading scheme.

Allowing groups to contain such

dissimilar vehicles would undermine

the ability to accurately represent the

entire group with a single durability

demonstration and may lead to

noncompliance in use. Consequently,

the Agency rejected this alternative in

favor of the proposal it is making today.

2. Evaporative/Refueling Family

Definition Retained

Today’s proposal does not change the

certification grouping concept of

evaporative/refueling family in the

current regulations (40 CFR 86.000–24).

The Agency believes that the current

provisions for evaporative/refueling

families are adequate for grouping

vehicles and that the current procedures

focus on the appropriate technology.

Separate certificates of conformity

would be issued for each evaporate/

refueling family within a test group. The

Agency does, however, invite comments

to improve the provisions for grouping

vehicles into evaporative/refueling

families.

B. Durability Demonstration

The Clean Air Act (CAA) prohibits

manufacturers of new motor vehicles

from selling or introducing new motor

vehicles into commerce unless the

vehicles are covered by a certificate of

conformity. EPA is charged with the

responsibility of issuing certificates of

conformity based on testing which

verifies compliance with the

appropriate emission standards over the

vehicles’ useful life. This necessitates a

prediction of the durability or rate of

deterioration of the vehicle’s useful life

emission levels before actual production

begins.

The process of demonstrating

emission durability for the purpose of

certification begins well in advance of

production. For light-duty vehicles,

EPA’s current standard durability

process requires manufacturers to

accumulate mileage on a pre-production

vehicle over a prescribed driving cycle

for 100,000 miles to simulate

deterioration over the useful life. These

vehicles are termed durability data

vehicles (DDVs); the mileage

accumulation cycle, specified in 40 CFR

Part 86, is commonly referred to as the

AMA cycle.

In this process, emission data are

generated at periodic intervals during

AMA mileage accumulation and a linear

regression of the data is performed to

calculate a multiplicative deterioration

factor (DF) 5 for each exhaust

constituent. In the current durability

program, low mileage vehicles (referred

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

are tested with calibrations that the

manufacturer intends to produce. The

emissions from these tests are

multiplied by the DFs to calculate the

projected emissions levels (referred to as

the ‘‘certification levels’’) at 100,000

miles. The certification levels must be at

or below the applicable emission

standards in order to obtain a certificate

of conformity.

Beginning with the 1994 model year,

EPA durability regulations for light-duty

trucks (LDTs) have permitted

manufacturers to use their own

methods, based on good engineering

judgment, to determine DFs subject to

review by EPA. Although EPA had

concerns initially regarding the

accuracy of the DFs generated by this

method,6 the manufacturers improved

their processes after discussions

between EPA and industry. The Agency

now believes that the light-duty truck

DFs generated by manufacturers using

their own methods are at least as

representative as those based on AMA

mileage accumulation.

Manufacturers have long identified

the durability process based on mileage

accumulation using the AMA cycle as

very costly and requiring extensive lead

time for completion. EPA has been

concerned about the ability of any fixed

cycle—including the AMA cycle—to

accurately predict in-use deterioration

for all vehicles. In fact, EPA has

particular concerns that the AMA does

not represent the driving patterns of

today and does not appropriately age

current design vehicles. As a result, EPA

believes that the AMA may have

become outdated.

The AMA cycle, which was

developed before vehicles were

equipped with catalytic converters,

contains a substantial portion of low
39660 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

7 59 FR 36368 (July 18, 1994), 62 FR 11082

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

and 62 FR 44872 (August 22, 1997).

8The process of using previously generated

emission or durability data in a subsequent model

year is referred to as carryover.

9Refer to the Agency’s July 29, 1994 guidance

letter ‘‘Alternative Durability Guidance for MY 94

through MY 98’’, reference number: CD–94–13.

10Manufacturers have typically shown that their

durability programs cover ninety percent or higher

of the distribution of deterioration rates

experienced by vehicles in actual use.

speed driving to address concerns about

engine deposits (which were a major

source of deterioration in pre-catalyst

vehicles). However, since the advent of

catalytic converters, better fuel control,

and the use of unleaded fuel, causes of

deterioration have shifted from low

speed driving to driving modes which

include higher speed/load regimes that

cause elevated catalyst temperatures.

The AMA driving cycle does not

adequately focus on these higher

catalyst temperature driving modes and

contains numerous driving modes

which do not significantly contribute to

deterioration but do make the process

longer with little added benefit.

In response to these concerns, EPA

began a voluntary program in the 1994

model year for light-duty vehicles

which allows manufacturers to develop

and use their own procedures to

evaluate durability and deterioration

(subject to prior Agency approval),

provided that the manufacturer conduct

or fund an in-use ‘‘reality check’’ test

program to evaluate the effectiveness of

its predictions. The initial program,

referred to as revised durability program

I (RDP I), was an interim program

scheduled to expire after the 1995

model year and was intended to serve

as a bridge to an anticipated complete

revision to the durability process (RDP

II). The provisions of RDP I have since

been extended in a series of regulatory

actions.7 The Agency has decided to

address the revisions it was considering

in RDP II as part of the comprehensive

redesigned certification process which it

is proposing today.

Due to Agency concerns about the

adequacy of the AMA as a durability

mileage accumulation cycle, the Agency

is now proposing to eliminate the use of

AMA for new durability demonstrations

starting with the 2001 model year. The

Agency is proposing to allow

manufacturers to use previously

generated DFs from the Standard AMA

Durability Program, the Standard Selfapproval Durability Program for lightduty trucks, or the Alternative Service

Accumulation Durability Program for a

period of three years, provided that

manufacturers agree to collect the

required in-use verification test data

required by the proposed CAP 2000

rule.8

The Agency is proposing to replace

the AMA-based durability program with

a manufacturer-designed durability

process similar to the current optional

RDP-I program. In today’s proposal,

each manufacturer (except small volume

manufacturers and test groups which

have special provisions discussed

below) would be required to design a

durability process which would match

the in-use deterioration of the vehicles

they produce.

As part of this process, manufacturers

would also be required to collect

emission data on ‘‘candidate’’ in-use

vehicles selected under the provisions

of the in-use verification program

described in section II. I. below. The inuse data would be used by the

manufacturer to improve the predictive

quality of its durability program and by

the Agency to target vehicle testing for

its recall program. If a significant

number of the in-use vehicles exhibit

deterioration significantly higher than

predicted at the time of certification, or

exceed emission standards,

manufacturers may be required to make

changes to their durability processes

and/or run further in-use testing to

generate recall quality data. The in-use

verification testing program and its

consequences are discussed in more

detail in section II. I. below.

The Agency believes that allowing

manufacturers to develop their own

durability programs would improve the

predictive quality of the durability

process. Manufacturers would be able to

tailor their vehicle aging procedures to

the unique driving and usage patterns of

their customers, and thus account for

the effect that these patterns have on

emission deterioration and emission

control system designs.

The proposed program gives the

manufacturer the responsibility to

develop a durability plan that matches

in-use performance on ‘‘candidate’’

vehicles (vehicles which would meet

the selection criteria of the in-use

verification program) and the flexibility

to design an efficient program that can

meet that goal. The Agency expects that

manufacturers will act in good faith to

design their programs. The Agency’s

advance approval requirements for these

procedures and the in-use verification

requirements should assure well

designed programs are implemented by

manufacturers. The Agency believes

that the in-use verification data would

provide feedback information to

manufacturers which can be used to

further refine their durability processes.

The in-use verification data would also

serve as a tool for targeting Agency

recall investigations or would trigger

changes to the manufacturer’s durability

processes if the goals are not met. In

summary, the Agency believes that

under the proposed CAP 2000 program,

the level of emission noncompliance in

use would be reduced, thus improving

the overall ambient air quality.

In addition to the benefits to the

environment, the proposed flexibilities

in the durability program design and

implementation would result in

significant time and money savings for

manufacturers. The proposal would

eliminate the need for a separate EPA

durability program and would allow

manufacturers to use durability

techniques that they are currently using

for their internal development

processes. The durability procedures are

discussed in more detail in the

following section.

The RDP I procedures (which have

been used as the basis for today’s

proposal) have been in place for several

years, and the history of this program

supports the Agency’s views on the

effectiveness and cost reduction likely

under the proposed CAP 2000 program.

Manufacturers participating in the RDP

I program have reported a significant

savings in the time necessary to

complete certification. Although EPA

has received only a limited amount of

completed in-use data from the RDP–1

program (since some of the data are

gathered from four-year-old vehicles),

the data received show an improved

level of deterioration prediction and

lower in-use emissions. At the same

time, no issues of noncompliance in use

have been indicated so far in the

program.

1. Approval of Durability Programs

The Agency has a responsibility to

assure that a manufacturer’s durability

program is accurate before it is used in

the certification process. EPA has been

approving manufacturer alternative

durability programs under RDP-I for

several years and has provided guidance

to assist manufacturers in the approval

process 9. To receive approval under

RDP I, manufacturers are required to

show that their durability processes are

designed to cover a significant majority

of deterioration rates experienced by

vehicles in actual use.10 The

requirement that the procedure cover a

significant majority of the deterioration

experienced by vehicles in use, rather

than the entire population, is not

intended to relax the goal of the

program but is to allow for the

uncertainty inherent in any sampling

plan. Two major types of durability

processes have emerged from the RDP I
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39661

11An engine dynamometer bench consists of an

engine dynamometer, a ‘‘slave’’ engine, and

required controllers and senors to achieve the

desired operation of the engine on the

dynamometer.

12To obtain approval to use this process,

manufacturers supply evidence that these

assumptions are valid for their vehicles. Minor

additional sources of deterioration may be

accounted for by over-aging the catalyst to account

for these sources.

13Reference EPA’s guidance letter CD–94–13

dated July 29, 1994.

experience: whole vehicle mileage

accumulation cycles and bench aging

procedures.

The whole vehicle aging concept

involves driving vehicles on a track or

dynamometer on an aggressive driving

cycle of the manufacturer’s design.

Typically, the speed, acceleration rates,

and/or vehicle load are significantly

increased compared to the AMA cycle

or normal in-use driving patterns. The

vehicle can be driven either for full

useful-life mileage, or, for a higher stress

cycle, the vehicle can be driven for a

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

the high speed cycle equals 2 miles in

use). In either case, the vehicle is tested

periodically and a DF is calculated. By

choosing the profile of the cycle

carefully, manufacturers have been able

to meet or exceed the in-use

deterioration goals of the program

(based on the limited in-use verification

data receive to date) while taking

significantly less time to complete the

durability process. Such a program

could take a quarter to half the time to

complete as the AMA cycle with the

attendant cost savings.

The bench aging procedures involve

the removal of critical emission

components (such as the catalyst and

oxygen sensor) and the accelerated

aging of those components on an engine

dynamometer bench.11 During the aging

process important engine/catalyst

parameters are controlled to assure

proper aging. Typically, elevated

catalyst temperatures are maintained

while fuel is controlled to include lean

and rich spikes and stoichiometric

control. This process assumes that (1)

most emission deterioration on lightduty vehicles and trucks is due to

catalyst deterioration and (2) that

catalyst deterioration is largely due to

high thermal exposure during typical

fuel control (including lean and rich

spikes).12 Through a series of tests,

manufacturers determine the amount of

time needed to bench-age a catalyst the

equivalent of 100,000 miles. Typical

bench aging periods are 100–200 hours.

Other sources of deterioration can be

accounted for by aging the catalyst for

an additional amount of time. Even with

the setup time of the engine test bench,

the cost savings of such bench aging

procedures are very significant.

While the cost savings of these

procedures are very significant, the

Agency believes that the programs are

also more effective than the current

AMA program at predicting the

deterioration that occurs in actual use.

Based on past experience,

manufacturers’ alternative durability

programs should improve the

effectiveness of EPA’s vehicle

compliance programs. To obtain

approval from the Agency,

manufacturers would be required to

demonstrate that their durability

processes were designed to generate DFs

representative of in-use DFs. This

demonstration would be more than

simply matching the average in-use DFs;

manufacturers would need to

demonstrate to EPA’s satisfaction that

their durability processes would result

in the same or more deterioration than

is reflected by the in-use data for a

significant majority of their vehicles.

This approval process is the same as

that already established for RDP–I. EPA

believes it continues to be appropriate

because it limits the Agency’s risk of

allowing a manufacturer durability

process that would not work in use and

ultimately would require costly recalls.

Furthermore, the manufacturer designed

durability procedures which meet the

approval requirements have been

demonstrated as achievable during

RDP–I and have been accomplished for

significantly less cost than the current

AMA mileage accumulation program.

Consequently, the Agency is proposing

that manufacturers target their

durability processes to cover a

significant majority (typically 90

percent or more of the distribution) of

the deterioration rates experienced in

actual use on ‘‘candidate’’ vehicles (the

same requirement established during

RDP–I).

While the Agency believes its

decisions reached under the RDP–I

approval process have been correct, the

process currently used by EPA for

reaching those decisions has, of

necessity, sometimes been detailed and

time consuming, given the very new and

untested nature of the RDP–I program.

Nevertheless, during the approval

process, the Agency has influenced

manufacturers to make improvements to

their aging procedures and identified

and corrected some manufacturer

mistakes. Clearly, the Agency’s

involvement in the development and

approval of these process has benefitted

the outcome and its effect on clean air.

In redesigning this process, the Agency

proposes to retain the beforecertification point of control for the

approval, but wants to streamline the

steps and make the process more

predictable for manufacturers.

To obtain approval for a durability

process, EPA is proposing to require

that manufacturers provide data

showing that the aging procedures

would predict the deterioration of the

significant majority of in-use vehicles

over the breadth of their product line

which would ultimately be covered by

this procedure. The approval

procedures used in RDP–I may be used

to satisfy these requirements.13 The

Agency is proposing to allow

manufacturers to determine the

applicability of approved durability

processes to future product offerings

providing that the manufacturers use

good engineering judgment in reaching

those determinations. Also, the Agency

is proposing to allow manufacturers to

make some modifications to approved

durability processes if those

modifications will improve the ability to

predict in-use emission levels on

candidate vehicles or if they produce a

more severe aging process. Such

modifications will be limited to

incorporating additional data into the

original algorithms of the approved

durability process. If a manufacturer

wishes to change the algorithms used to

determine the aging characteristics of

the durability process, these changes

will be considered a new durability

process and will require advance

approval by the Administrator.

The Agency believes that the

decisions made under RDP–I to approve

manufacturer durability processes are

equally applicable to today’s proposal.

Consequently, the Agency would

approve the continued use of any

alternate durability process approved

under RDP–I in the proposed CAP 2000

program. Manufacturers would not be

required to obtain a new approval to use

a previously approved RDP–I durability

procedure under the rules proposed

today.

The Agency is not proposing any

changes to the current procedures used

to obtain DFs for evaporative/refueling

families. Because these procedures

currently allow manufacturers to design

their own durability demonstration

program using bench testing or other

methods, the Agency sees no need to

propose any change. Manufacturers

would continue to develop DFs for

evaporative/refueling families and

systems using good engineering

judgement. A small amount of

evaporative/refueling data would be

collected during the in-use verification
39662 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

14See 40 CFR 86.000–24.

15Manufacturers proposed in the FACA process

that current engine family definitions and DDV

selection procedures be retained. Durability data

would be generated on the worst case selection of

the current ‘‘average vehicle’’ DDV selections. See

Memorandum from Jane Armstrong and Kelly M.

Brown, Co-Chairpersons to Mr. Michael P. Walsh,

et. al. dated October 3, 1996 entitled ‘‘Findings and

Recommendations, Compliance Working Group’’ in

the docket for this proposal.

test program. Manufacturers are

expected to use these data to improve

their processes.

2. Approval for Using Aged Components

on EDVs to Develop Certification Levels

During the discussions with the

automotive industry throughout the

FACA process, manufacturers suggested

an alternative method to demonstrate

compliance with useful life standards

for the purposes of certification. In this

alternative, emission components aged

to the equivalent of full useful life

would be installed on EDVs, the test

data from which would then serve to

show compliance with the full useful

life emission standards. Some

manufacturers indicated that they

currently use aged components on

development vehicles to calibrate their

vehicles and have found that this

process was as effective and more cost

efficient than applying DFs to EDVs.

The components are aged via the bench

aging process discussed above and are

installed directly on the EDVs. The

emissions from the EDV tested with the

aged components represent those

equivalent to a 100,000 mile vehicle.

Furthermore, the use of aged

components would save manufacturers

the cost of building and accumulating

stabilizing mileage on a separate DDV to

calculate a DF. It may also save some of

the costs of mileage accumulation to

stabilize EDV emissions since the

catalyst would be aged separately from

the vehicle.

If this durability option were selected,

the manufacturer must develop a

specific aging plan (for example, 850

degrees C, 200 hours, on aging protocol

‘‘A’’) which would apply to all members

of the durability group. Each EDV must

have its catalyst and oxygen sensor

(plus any other component that is part

of the manufacturer’s bench aging plan)

removed and aged using the aging plan

for the group. The EDV must be brokenin, or stabilized (using good engineering

judgment) by accumulating an

appropriate amount of miles, generally

around 4000 miles. The aged

components must then be re-installed,

and the EDV then tested for emissions.

The results of the emission tests with

the aged components would be treated

as certification levels (equivalent to

emission levels with DFs applied) and

directly used to determine compliance

with the standards.

Aged components would be allowed

to be used on more than one vehicle as

follows. If several EDVs have identical

catalysts and identical oxygen sensors, a

single set of aged components may be

shared between vehicles. If both the

specific aging plan and the aged

components are identical in a

subsequent model year, the same aged

components may be used on those EDVs

for the subsequent model year. Because

of the synergistic effects between

components aged together, the aged

components must be keep together as a

single aged system and may not be

mixed with other aged components.

The Agency agrees with

manufacturers that the use of aged

components on EDVs could be an

effective durability and emission

compliance option because this process

uses the same aging techniques as those

used to calculate DFs in the normal

durability program. Furthermore, the

effect of using aged components directly

on an EDV is equivalent to applying a

DF to an EDV which is calculated from

those same aged components. The direct

use of aged components also saves the

expense of conducting a test (or several

tests) to calculate a DF. Based on these

facts, the Agency is proposing to allow

the use of aged components on EDVs as

an alternative to calculating and

applying a DF. This change would

reduce the cost of the certification

program to the regulated industry and

provide the flexibility to use existing inhouse procedures for Federal

compliance procedures.

3. Selection of the Durability Data

Vehicle (DDV) Configuration

The Agency is proposing that the

configuration with the highest expected

level of in-use deterioration be selected

as the durability data vehicle (DDV)

configuration. This contrasts with the

current procedure which requires the

DDV selection to be based on

parameters of the highest selling

configuration, and requires testing to be

conducted at the highest sales-weighted

weight.14 These selection criteria were

adequate when using the much

narrower classification of engine family/

emission control system but are not

appropriate for the larger durability

groups being proposed today.

After selecting durability groups

based on parameters that contribute to

emissions deterioration in use, the size

of the groups would increase for most

manufacturers. Due to the larger size of

the groups, the Agency believes that the

new durability groups may, in some

cases, exhibit more variability in

emission deterioration than the current

engine family/emission control systems.

Selecting the DDV configuration based

on sales levels (as is currently done)

may overlook configurations which

have higher rates of deterioration and

may ultimately lead to vehicles

exceeding emission standards in use. In

contrast, selecting the expected worst

case configuration would lead to the

highest deterioration rate for the

vehicles within the durability group.

Requiring the entire durability group to

be represented by the worst case vehicle

from that group would provide adequate

assurance that deterioration is not

understated for the whole group.

Moreover, it would accomplish this goal

for the lowest possible cost in test

vehicles.

If a manufacturer had a concern that

a particular configuration exhibited

much worse deterioration than other

vehicles within the defined durability

group and that applying a deterioration

factor based on that vehicle would

overstate the deterioration experienced

in actual use, the manufacturer may use

the flexibilities in the proposal to

realign the configurations within a

group without increasing the total

number of groups. Manufacturers may

also subdivide groups to meet their

needs.

The Agency considered retaining the

current engine family definitions and

DDV selection procedures and selecting

a single configuration from these

selections.15 However, even selecting

the worst case DDV selection from

among the sales-weighted

configurations resulted in too much risk

that a vehicle design not tested as part

of the durability process would be

certified as compliant with the

standards when in fact it severely

deteriorated in use. Under both the

Agency’s proposal and this alternative,

one DDV would be required per

durability group. However, when

coupled with the grouping proposal

suggested by AAMA/AIAM in the FACA

process, the larger number of durability

groups would require more testing. The

Agency accordingly concluded that this

alternative involved more risk of

noncompliance and additional cost.

Consequently, the Agency rejected this

option in favor of the proposal made

today.

4. Durability and Emission Data

Carryover

‘‘Carryover’’ is a concept that allows

the use of data generated in a previous

model year to be used in a subsequent

model year in lieu of additional testing.

The current regulations (see 40 CFR
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39663

16EPA’s current policy regarding carryover and

discussion of the application of the ‘‘equivalent or

superior durability performance’’ concept is

contained in OMS Advisory Circular 17F (A/C 17F),

dated November 16, 1982 and amended on January

21, 1988.

17See EPA’s guidance letter CD–94–13, Subject:

Alternative Durability Guidance for MY94 through

MY98, dated July 29, 1994.

18This is the same criteria that the Agency is

proposing for requiring manufacturer-funded in-use

confirmatory testing as discussed in section II. I.

below.

19Refer to 40 CFR 86.001–28 (a)(4)(i)(B)(1) for the

current criteria for line crossing.

86.098–24 (f)) give the Agency the

discretion to allow carryover of

durability and emission data. The

Agency’s current policy allows

durability carryover when, among other

requirements, the current DDV is judged

as having equivalent or superior

durability performance.16 For carryover

involving alternate durability processes

approved under RDP I, the Agency has

established that carryover of the DF and

the in-use verification data would be

considered separately.17

The Agency is proposing to allow

carryover of durability and emission

data when the manufacturer determines,

using good engineering judgment, that

the new configuration is capable of

equivalent or superior emission or

durability performance. The proposal

allows the Administrator to request

catalyst temperature data prior to

certification for durability data

carryover decisions. The Agency

expects the manufacturer to generate

these data for their internal review in

the circumstances currently identified

in EPA Advisory Circular 17F (using the

procedures discussed in that document

or using good engineering judgment) as

part of their good engineering judgment

to carry over the data.

EPA is proposing not to allow in-use

verification data to be carried over. This

is discussed separately in section II. I

below.

5. In-Use Verification Feedback

Analysis

The proposed requirement that the

manufacturer-designed durability

process accurately predict in-use

emission performance is a crucial part

of CAP 2000. A durability process that

understates in-use emission levels could

lead to noncompliance in use. Although

noncompliance, once detected, could be

addressed by a recall, the best situation

is to prevent noncompliance from the

beginning. An accurate durability

process facilitates a more meaningful

certification process which identifies

noncompliance before the vehicles are

produced and avoids excessive in-use

emissions. The in-use verification

program is a tool which can be used by

the Agency and the manufacturers to

improve the durability process and

avoid excessive emissions in use and

costly recalls.

It is the Agency’s expectation that

manufacturers would use the results of

the in-use verification testing to

continuously improve their durability

projections to better cover the majority

of emission performance in use. EPA

acknowledges that, in isolated cases, a

particular test group’s in-use

verification data may exceed the

standards or be significantly higher than

predicted due to the variability inherent

in any sampling plan. In these cases,

EPA expects manufacturers to analyze

the possible causes of the apparent

failure to predict in-use emissions and

to assure themselves and the Agency

that their processes remain valid and are

an acceptable predictor of in-use

emission levels for the test group in

question.

It is the Agency’s responsibility to

become involved when the in-use

verification seems to indicate a problem

with a manufacturer’s durability

process. The Agency is proposing a

program where it would formally

intercede when the in-use data indicate

a significant level of noncompliance in

use or when the durability process

significantly underestimates in-use

emission levels. The Agency is also

proposing that the Administrator may,

from time to time, require

manufacturers to analyze certain in-use

data and draw conclusions regarding the

validity of the manufacturer’s durability

process in addition to the formal

requirements discussed below.

In particular, a formal response

concerning the validity of the

manufacturer’s durability process would

be required when the average in-use

verification data for a test group (or

several test groups) exceeds 1.3 times

the applicable emission standard and at

least 50% of the test vehicles fail the

standard in use.18 In those situations,

the Agency is proposing to require the

manufacturer to perform an analysis of

both the relevant in-use verification data

and the ability of the manufacturer’s

durability plan to adequately predict inuse emission levels and/or compliance

with the standard. If the manufacturer

concludes that an improvement of its

durability protocol (or other procedure)

is warranted, these changes should be

discussed as part of the analysis. EPA is

proposing to allow manufacturers sixty

days to complete that report.

EPA may also withdraw its approval

to use a durability procedure for future

certification if the Agency determines

that the procedure does not accurately

predict in-use emission levels. This

could occur for example, if the test

group data showed significant

noncompliance with emission standards

that did not exceed the 1.3 times the

standard threshold. It is not the

intention of this provision to require

changes to a manufacturer’s durability

procedure which is inaccurate if the

inaccuracy does not threaten the ability

of the durability process to predict

compliance with emission standards on

the vehicles which it covers. An

inaccurate procedure which overestimates the amount of deterioration

experienced by in-use vehicles would

not require a change to the durability

process. Prior to reaching a final

decision, the Agency would invite the

manufacturer to perform an analysis of

the relevant in-use verification data and

address the ability of its durability

process to adequately predict in-use

emission levels and to provide other

relevant data. EPA is proposing to allow

manufacturers sixty days to complete

that report.

Under the proposal, EPA would

review the information submitted by the

manufacturer or proceed on its own

initiative if the report is not submitted

within sixty days. If the Agency

concludes that the durability process

does not adequately predict in-use

emission levels or compliance with the

standards in use, the Agency may

revoke its approval for the applicable

manufacturer’s durability process for

the portion of the fleet not yet certified

that the Agency determines to be

affected. In this case, the manufacturer

would be required to develop a revised

durability process. The revised

durability process may consist of an

adjustment factor applied to the current

durability process to reflect the shortfall

in predicting in-use emission

performance. Alternatively, an entirely

new durability process may be

submitted for Agency approval.

6. Line Crossing

In the current regulations, emission

levels from durability vehicles must

comply with all applicable emission

standards. When durability vehicle test

data for any constituent exceeds the

standards, this is referred to as ‘‘line

crossing’’.19 The concept of line crossing

is only valid as long as the durability

demonstration is limited to cover

vehicles meeting a single set of emission

standards. Today’s proposal, as

discussed earlier, defines a durability

group such that it may encompass

several test groups, each of which may
39664 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

20Two factors affect emission levels: the design

of the engine, and the emission control devices,

such as catalytic conversion and exhaust gas

recirculation. Over time, emissions out of the

tailpipe will increase primarily due to deterioration

of the emission control devices. The engine design

does not change over time and does not

significantly affect emission deterioration rates, but

it does significantly affect the level of emissions.

Therefore it is important to determine both the

emission deterioration rate, which is primarily

caused by the emission control system

deterioration, and the emission levels attributable to

each engine group.

have different emission standards. This

results in the likelihood that a single

durability vehicle demonstration may

cover several levels of emission

standards. It would not be appropriate

to expect a single durability vehicle to

comply with multiple levels of emission

standards. Consequently, the Agency is

not proposing any line crossing criteria

for durability data vehicles.

However, the manufacturer is

responsible to assure that the DDV is

adequately representative of the

production vehicles which it is

designed to represent and EPA thus

expects the DDV emission levels to

represent those of the specific test group

it belongs to. If the DDV should fail to

comply with the standards applicable to

its associated test group, EPA would

question whether the DDV is adequately

representative of production and would

likely require submission of the basis for

the manufacturer’s good engineering

judgement that the DDV remains

representative of production when it

fails the applicable standards.

C. Emission Data and Emission

Compliance Demonstration

1. Test Groups

EPA is proposing that compliance

with the emission standards be

demonstrated for each ‘‘test group.’’ The

durability groups discussed in section

II. A. above are determined based on

parameters expected to affect emissions

deterioration. However, within a

durability group, which could include a

wide variety of vehicles and trucks, the

emission levels can be quite different.

This is due to technical parameters

which, while not affecting engine

durability and emission deterioration,

are directly related to the level of

emissions produced by that engine.

Therefore, the test groups as proposed

would consist of subdivisions within

durability groups which have similar

emission levels.20

EPA is proposing that test groups

have the following common elements:

applicable emission standards, engine

displacement (within a tolerance of 15

percent or 50 cubic inches of

displacement (CID)), number of

cylinders, and arrangement of cylinders

(e.g., in-line or V-shaped). Emission

standards are a test group parameter

because of the Agency’s need to

maintain separate compliance

treatment. The engine displacement and

number of cylinders were chosen as test

group parameters because they

determine the size of the cylinders,

which affects emission formation. The

arrangement of the cylinders affects the

engine cooling characteristics, which in

turn affect the level of emissions. EPA

is proposing a number of provisions

which allow manufacturers to further

divide test groups to meet their needs

without advance Agency approval. The

Agency is also proposing to consider

requests to combine test groups.

Emission data grouping for EPA’s

current compliance program is based on

the engine family. As part of the engine

family definition, vehicles are divided

into groups based on basic engine

(number of cylinders, arrangement of

cylinders, and other parameters) and

displacement (within 15 percent or 50

CID) and other parameters. As discussed

in section II.A. above, the Agency

believes that these parameters are not a

significant source of emission

deterioration. However, the Agency

believes that some of these parameters

are expected to significantly influence

the level of emissions. In today’s

proposal for test groups, EPA has

retained those parameters from the

engine family definition which it

believes most directly affect emission

levels. Other, more easily quantified

variables that can affect emissions (such

as EGR rates, vehicle weight, axle ratios,

gear ratios, N/V ratios, transmission

characteristics, and engine calibrations)

can be used by manufacturers to select

the ‘‘worst case’’ emission data vehicle

within a test group, described below.

The test group definition would be

used to group vehicles within a

durability group for emission data

vehicle selection and certificate

coverage purposes. As discussed in

section II. I., test groups would also be

used for recruiting vehicles for in-use

verification testing.

2. Selection of Emission Data Vehicles

The Agency’s goal is to design an

emission compliance program that

would cover the diversity of

configurations within a test group with

the fewest number of EDVs possible.

Because test groups separate vehicles

according to engine characteristics

which cause different fundamental

emission levels, the Agency believes it

is possible to evaluate the expected

emission levels of the vehicles within a

test group by using sound engineering

principles. It is then possible to select

a single test vehicle which is the worst

case vehicle for exhaust emissions by

selecting the vehicle configuration

which is expected to be closest to the

standard for any emission constituent or

emission test procedure. The Agency

believes that this worst case vehicle

selection would adequately represent all

the vehicle configurations within the

test group. Consequently, the Agency is

proposing that manufacturers test one

EDV in each test group within a

durability group. The EDV configuration

would be the configuration expected to

generate the worst case exhaust

emissions within the test group.

One EDV per durability group would

be required to demonstrate compliance

with cold CO requirements. The Agency

is proposing that manufacturers select

the worst case EDV within each

durability group to be tested for cold CO

compliance.

In the current certification program,

two EDVs are selected within each

engine family. One selection is defined

in the regulations (and is intended to

result in the selection of the vehicle

most likely to fail HC or CO emissions).

The other EDV is selected by the

manufacturer to be the ‘‘worst case’’ of

the remaining vehicles. From both the

manufacturer and Agency perspectives,

worst case selection by manufacturers

has worked well. There have been very

few instances where EPA has disagreed

with a manufacturer’s worst case

selection, and the manufacturers have

been able to make worst case selections

with a minimum amount of Agency

involvement.

If the worst case selection is well

made, a second EDV selection (as

required by the current regulations)

becomes redundant. In fact, EPA

currently has a provision to waive the

additional EDV selection if the two

vehicles selected are essentially

equivalent.

3. Use of Development Vehicles for

EDVs

Currently, the regulations require that

a unique vehicle be built to represent

the EDV. This requirement was

established to assure representativeness

of the test results of the EDV. EPA

established requirements that the

vehicle have appropriate maintenance

and sufficient representative mileage

accumulation to stabilize emissions.

Manufacturers typically run a second

fleet of similar vehicles called

‘‘development vehicles’’ which they use

to develop the production calibrations.

These vehicles may have representative

mileage accumulation and appropriate

maintenance histories. The Agency is
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39665

21The DF may be additive or multiplicative.

proposing that manufacturers may

optionally use vehicles originally built

to be development vehicles as EDVs for

official certification testing. To be

eligible, the manufacturer must provide

a written statement that the mileage

accumulation and maintenance are

appropriate and representative.

Furthermore, the manufacturer must

provide a written statement that the

development vehicle in question was

not the vehicle used to develop the

calibration to be tested on the EDV.

The Agency believes that

development vehicles can be

representative vehicles which would

generate accurate emission levels. The

portability of the calibration from one

prototype vehicle to another would be

assured by the restriction that a

development vehicle which was used to

develop the calibration used on the EDV

may not be used as the EDV itself. The

EDV calibration must be demonstrated

to be in compliance with the standards

on a different vehicle than original

development vehicle. The use of

development vehicles rather than

specially built EDVs save manufacturers

the cost of building a separate vehicle,

vehicle depreciation, and mileage

accumulation on a separate test vehicle.

4. Accept Statements of Compliance for

Certification Short Tests

The certification short test was

developed to assure that vehicles

complying with the FTP exhaust

emission standards could be accurately

tested at State Inspection and

Maintenance (I/M) test facilities without

the need for special test procedures. The

purpose of the certification short test is

also to assure that manufacturers design

their vehicles to comply with

Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) tests used

throughout the country and to account

for the variation in test fuels and

waiting times that vehicle owners might

encounter.

The Agency is proposing to accept a

statement of compliance to satisfy the

certification short test compliance

requirements (see 40 CFR 86.094–8 and

–9). The certification short test has been

fully implemented as of the 1996 model

year. EPA’s review of the CST data

submitted by manufacturers thus far has

indicated that test results are

significantly beneath the standards,

with values typically near zero. There

have been no instances of test vehicles

failing the standards.

Under this proposal, a manufacturer

could submit a compliance statement

that the manufacturer has determined

that all the vehicles covered by the

statement will meet the applicable CST

emission standards. This statement

must be supported by test data (which

may be historical data on similar

vehicles) retained by the manufacturer

and must be based on the

manufacturer’s good engineering

judgment. The compliance statement

approach would save the cost of

conducting actual tests on both EDVs

and development vehicles each year.

Such a statement would directly

address the goals of the short test and

would apply to all vehicles that the

manufacturer builds, not just vehicles

which are tested as part of the

certification program.

5. Exhaust Tests To Be Conducted

The Agency is proposing to require

the same type of testing as is currently

performed on EDVs. Each EDV would be

tested for all FTP exhaust constituents

plus supplemental FTP testing and fuel

economy testing. As discussed above,

the Agency is proposing that a statement

of compliance would be accepted for

compliance with certification short test

requirements. One vehicle per

durability group (the worst case EDV)

would be tested for cold CO

compliance. All vehicles (tested or not)

must also comply with all OBD

requirements. EDVs designed to comply

with Federal OBD requirements are

liable for OBD compliance testing to

assure that the OBD system operates

properly.

6. Determination of Compliance

The Agency is proposing two methods

for determining compliance with

standards based on the method of

durability demonstration selected by the

manufacturer.

If a manufacturer were to calculate a

DF,21 the DF would be applied to the

results of the EDV testing and the result

would be rounded to the same

numerical precision as the standard.

This sum or product (depending on

whether an additive DF were added to

the raw emission results or a

multiplicative DF was multiplied by the

raw emission results) is called the

certification level. The certification

level must be less than or equal to the

emission standard in order to be in

compliance. Each constituent and

standard would be considered

separately, and any exceedance of the

standards would constitute

noncompliance. All EDVs within a test

group would have to comply with all

their applicable standards (among other

requirements) in order to obtain a

Certificate of Conformity.

If a manufacturer were to choose the

option to base its durability program

upon testing EDVs with aged

components installed, the results of the

emission tests would be considered the

certification level (no adjustment is

required). As required of manufacturers

using DFs, the certification level would

have to be less than or equal to the

emission standard in order to be in

compliance. Each constituent and

standard would be considered

separately, and any exceedance of the

standards would constitute

noncompliance. All EDVs within a test

group would have to comply with all

the applicable standards (among other

requirements) in order to obtain a

certificate of conformity for that test

group.

7. Evaporative/Refueling Emission

Testing

The Agency is proposing to retain the

current evaporative/refueling testing

requirements. One vehicle in each

evaporative/refueling family (the worst

case EDV with worst case evaporative

and fuel tank hardware installed) would

be tested for compliance with the

evaporative and refueling requirements

subject to the phase-in requirements of

the applicable model year.

D. Scope of a Certificate of Conformity

The Agency is proposing that

certificates of conformity (certificates)

be issued for each test group within a

durability group. Separate certificates

would be issued for each evaporative/

refueling family within a test group.

Under this proposal, each certificate

would be issued for a manageably-sized

group of vehicles and for a single set of

standards. As discussed in section II. H.,

a separate application for certification is

required for each durability group.

Consequently, several test groups (and

therefore several certificates of

conformity) may be covered with a

single application.

The Agency considered issuing

certificates with broader coverage. In

particular, the Agency considered the

manufacturers’ proposal to issue

certificates based upon fuel used and

standards met. Because manufacturers

typically certify their product line in a

piece-meal fashion, a broad certificate

group such as this would require

frequent revisions. Also, the complexity

of the certificate language would be

significantly increased to provide

adequate description of all the vehicles

covered by such a broad certificate. In

balance, the Agency decided that it

would be better to issue more

certificates covering fewer vehicles than

to issue fewer broad-coverage

certificates requiring frequent revisions.
39666 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

E. EPA and Manufacturer Confirmatory

Certification Testing

In the current program, the

manufacturer performs both emission

and fuel economy tests at its own

facility and submits the results of that

testing to the Agency for review. The

Agency has the authority to require

another test to be conducted (called a

confirmatory test) at a place designated

by the Administrator. Currently, the

Agency performs confirmatory tests on

approximately 30 percent of the entire

EDV test fleet, the majority of which are

conducted at the Agency’s test facility.

If EPA chooses to conduct a

confirmatory test, the results of the

Agency’s test become official data,

otherwise the manufacturers’ data

become official results. As discussed

earlier, the official results (adjusted by

the deterioration factor, if applicable)

must comply with the standards to

receive a Certificate of Conformity.

In the beginning of EPA’s certification

program in the 1970’s, all certification

vehicles (both EDVs and DDVs) had to

be tested at an EPA facility. Once the

procedures and equipment used for

emission measurement improved as the

state of the art of emission measurement

grew, Agency test results became similar

to manufacturer results in most cases. In

a progression of changes, the Agency

eventually created a confirmatory test

program which targeted vehicles which

were likely to fail emission standards,

contained new technology or presented

special concerns, were leaders in their

class for fuel economy, or which

exhibited higher than expected fuel

economy. These vehicles reflected the

Agency’s concern about accurate

emission compliance and fuel economy

determinations.

The Agency also established a

correlation program involving two

elements: (1) round-robin correlation

testing of a single vehicle among a series

of laboratories, and (2) paired data

analysis where vehicles were randomly

selected for confirmatory testing at the

EPA laboratory. These correlation

programs were necessary to assure that

the test results conducted at

manufacturers’ laboratories which were

not confirmatory tested by the Agency

were representative of the results which

would have been obtained if the vehicle

had been tested at EPA’s laboratory.

In all these programs, the

manufacturer ran a single test at its

facility and submitted the result to the

Agency. A test vehicle selected for EPA

confirmatory testing would be shipped

to EPA for testing at the Agency’s test

facilities.

Confirmatory testing entails several

costs for the manufacturer and the

Agency. In addition to the expense

borne by the Agency for conducting

tests, the manufacturer bears additional

costs for confirmatory testing at EPA.

First, the manufacturer must ship the

vehicle (as well as usually transport a

technical representative from the

company) to EPA’s laboratory. For

importers, this can represent a

significant cost. Also, the test vehicle is

not available to the manufacturer for

other purposes while the vehicle is in

EPA’s custody. The second, and most

important cost for manufacturers, is the

cost in time for the testing to be

completed. Altogether, the time needed

to transport and test vehicles at EPA can

cause a significant delay in

manufacturer schedules.

The reasons for confirmatory testing

discussed above may be grouped into

four categories: (1) tests run to address

statistical outliers (e.g., higher than

expected fuel economy); (2) vehicles

which represent an area of concern

which could be addressed by running a

second test at any laboratory (such as

potential fuel economy leaders and

proximity to gas guzzler cut points); (3)

correlation concerns about the accuracy

of the manufacturer’s laboratory (which

need to be addressed by testing at

another laboratory); and (4)

discretionary tests run by the Agency to

assure compliance and adequate

oversight. Retests of the confirmatory

test are conducted when the percentage

difference between the original fuel

economy test and the confirmatory test

is 3 percent or higher or if the results

of a test failed the standard.

As part of the discussions with

manufacturers during the FACA

process, manufacturers suggested that

they could perform a number of the

confirmatory tests at their own facilities.

Ultimately, manufacturers suggested

running a manufacturer confirmatory

program targeting the first two

categories listed above. On balance, the

manufacturers determined that the costs

of running these additional tests at their

facility were more than offset by the

savings in time and money by not

shipping the vehicle to EPA’s test

facility.

Based on past experience, the Agency

believes that manufacturers are capable

of running accurate tests at their own

facilities. A good correlation program,

including a sufficient level of random

confirmatory testing at the Agency’s

facility, should assure that accurate

testing continues at manufacturers’

laboratories. Higher than expected fuel

economy test results or the accuracy of

emission and fuel economy test results

near the standard would be addressed

through the proposed manufacturer

confirmatory test program which

requires another test be conducted.

The Agency will maintain its

authority to randomly select vehicles to

assure proper correlation and to

selectively target vehicles for other areas

of concern (such as use of new

technology). The Agency is proposing

that the test results from the original

manufacturer’s test be submitted to the

Agency before any manufacturer

confirmatory testing is conducted. The

Agency would then indicate to the

manufacturer any random or other

confirmatory testing which is required.

In some cases, the Agency expects that

it would be able to identify the vehicles

that it wishes to confirmatory test before

actual test data are submitted. Vehicle

configurations selected for confirmatory

testing by the Agency would not be

tested under the manufacturer

confirmatory test program discussed

below. Such vehicles, selected by the

Agency for confirmatory testing, would

have that testing conducted at a

laboratory of the Agency’s choice.

The Agency is proposing to require

confirmatory testing at the

manufacturer’s facility when any one of

the following five conditions exist: (1)

the vehicle version had previously

failed a standard; (2) the test exhibits

high certification levels (currently set at

90 percent of the standard); (3) the fuel

economy value of the test is higher than

expected; (4) the fuel economy value is

close to a Gas Guzzler Tax threshold

value (currently set at +.3 or ¥.2 mpg

from a gas guzzler cut point); and (5) the

fuel economy value is at a level which

creates a potential vehicle class fuel

economy leader based on EPA-provided

cut points each year. EPA intends to

reduce its confirmatory testing to

exclude vehicles selected for those

reasons.

The Agency also proposes that

manufacturers conduct retests whenever

the manufacturer’s original fuel

economy test result and the

manufacturer’s confirmatory result fail

to correlate satisfactorily. The criteria

for satisfactory correlation is proposed

to be the 3 percent difference currently

used in EPA’s confirmatory test

program. At the manufacturer’s option,

the manufacturer may use a lower (e.g.

2 percent) criteria, provided that it is

consistently applied to all of the

manufacturer’s testing. Ultimately, a

second retest (total of three confirmatory

tests) would be required if the retest of

the fuel economy fails to satisfactorily

correlate with either the initial

confirmatory test or the manufacturer’s

original test. In lieu of conducting
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39667

retests the manufacturer may accept the

lowest fuel economy data for the

purpose of calculating the fuel economy

values. This retesting procedure would

assure that representative fuel economy

data are generated during the

manufacturer-funded confirmatory test

program. These retest procedures are the

same procedures that the Agency has

been employing on EPA retests. Based

on this experience, these procedures

have been satisfactory at safeguarding

the integrity of the fuel economy values

at a reasonable cost in terms of

additional tests conducted.

The confirmatory tests run by the

manufacturer would constitute official

tests and would be used in certification

compliance determinations and fuel

economy calculations.

EPA is proposing to issue a

conditional certificate of conformity for

a test group, upon manufacturer request

and Agency approval, when the

confirmatory test selected by the

Administrator for testing at the EPA

facility has not yet been completed. To

be eligible, the manufacturer must attest

that any pending confirmatory test

would ultimately comply with the

standards when actually conducted.

The condition for certification is the

same as that for the current ‘‘alternate

procedure’’ running change provisions

(see 40 CFR 86.082–34). If the

Administrator determines that the

confirmatory test results in

noncompliance with any standard, then

upon notification of this determination,

the manufacturer would immediately

suspend production of all vehicles

covered by this certificate (or such

fraction of the vehicles covered by the

certificate that the Administrator

determines to be affected); the certificate

of conformity would be suspended upon

such notification (pending a hearing).

Furthermore, the manufacturer would

have to agree as a condition of this

certificate to recall all vehicles which

the Administrator determines to be in

noncompliance with the applicable

standards, and to cause such

noncompliance to be remedied at no

expense to the owner.

As discussed previously, confirmatory

testing can add significant time to the

certification process. This is especially

true for foreign manufacturers which

must ship vehicles to the EPA’s

laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The

proposal made today should mitigate

the manufacturers’ timing concerns

without requiring EPA to waive any

selected vehicles from confirmatory

testing. EPA believes the risk of noncomplying vehicles entering the market

is minimal under this proposal because

the delay between certification and

confirmatory testing would be very

short. Moreover, any failing vehicles

produced would likely still be under

manufacturer control or at dealerships,

thus making recall easier.

F. Fuel Economy

1. Conditional Fuel Economy Values

Pending Confirmatory Testing

As explained in the previous section,

confirmatory testing represents a time

and cost burden to the manufacturers. In

response to this concern, the Agency

has proposed a manufacturer

confirmatory testing requirement

explained in section II. E. that would

reduce the need for Agency

confirmatory testing. The Agency is also

proposing provisions whereby the

manufacturer could obtain a conditional

Certificate of Conformity to allow

production of vehicles to begin before

confirmatory testing at the Agency’s

facility is completed. For the same

reasons, the Agency believes that the

use of conditional fuel economy labels

would address the manufacturer’s

concerns surrounding the time involved

to perform confirmatory tests, without

undermining the accuracy of the fuel

economy program.

The Agency is proposing to allow

manufacturers to calculate and use fuel

economy labels prior to the completion

of confirmatory testing selected by the

Administrator, provided that several

conditions are met. Once the

confirmatory testing is completed, the

manufacturer must recalculate all the

affected fuel economy label values. The

recalculated label values must be used

for labeling on future production under

either of the following circumstances:

(1) If the newly calculated label value

is at least 0.5 mpg lower than the

original value, the manufacturer must

use the recalculated label value and

annual fuel cost on the labels placed on

all future vehicles produced 15 days, or

more, after the completion of the

confirmatory test.

(2) If the newly calculated label value

is at least 0.1 mpg lower than the

original value, the manufacturer must

use the recalculated label value to

determine Gas Guzzler Tax liability. The

tax paid to the IRS must reflect the

recalculated value for all vehicles

produced. The gas guzzler tax statement

required under the current provisions of

40 CFR 600.307–95 (f) to be placed on

the fuel economy label shall reflect the

recalculated values on all future

vehicles produced 15 days, or more,

after the completion of the confirmatory

test.

All confirmatory test results must be

used in CAFE calculations.

As discussed previously, confirmatory

testing conducted at EPA test facilities

could represent a significant delay. This

is especially true for foreign

manufacturers which must ship vehicles

for testing. The proposal made today

mitigates the timing concerns of the

manufacturer while still allowing the

Agency the authority to conduct

confirmatory testing on any vehicle it

selects for testing.

The proposal is modeled on the

recalculation/relabeling provisions in

the current regulations to address the

impact of running changes (see 40 CFR

600.314–86). In the current provisions,

EPA has acknowledged that there is an

inherent variability in fuel economy

testing. Consequently, manufacturers

should not be liable for small changes

in the recalculated fuel economy which

round to different label values. The

current running change/relabeling

provisions established a difference of

1.0 mpg as the threshold for relabeling.

The Agency believes that a 1.0 mpg

threshold is too broad a criteria to use

for confirmatory testing. The 1.0 mpg

threshold was originally established to

account for test-to-test variability plus

fuel economy differences due to design

changes. The 1.0 mpg threshold was

also established to allow manufacturers

to perform minor design changes

without requiring new fuel economy

labels.

In today’s proposal, the Agency chose

0.5 mpg as the relabeling threshold to

account for typical test variability while

still holding manufacturers liable for

actual overstated fuel economy. Fuel

economy label results are rounded to a

whole mile per gallon. The 0.5 mpg is

half of the precision of the final label

results, a threshold which the Agency

believes is a fair compromise between

test variability and fuel economy

accuracy.

The Gas Guzzler Tax is a program

where fuel economy differences of 0.1

mpg may cause different rates of tax

liability. The Agency is therefore

proposing that gas guzzler

determinations must be held to that

same higher standard. The Agency set

the limit at 0.1 mpg because test results

are rounded to 0.1 mpg and the gas

guzzler tax brackets are based on a tenth

of a mpg precision.

2. Directly Submitting CAFE to DOT

The Energy Policy and Conservation

Act (PL 94–163 as amended, 89 Stat.

871) establishes requirements that EPA

shall prescribe a method to calculate

fuel economy and average fuel economy

(CAFE) by regulation. EPA is also

required to ‘‘report any measurements of

fuel economy and any calculations of
39668 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

22EPA guidance letter CD–95–08(LDV), dated

May 12, 1995 entitled ‘‘Analytical [sic] Derived

Fuel Economy (ADFE)’’

23 40 CFR 600.006–89(e). 24Ref. 40 CFR 86.094–14.

average fuel economy to the Secretary’’

of the Department of Transportation

(DOT). In meeting the requirements of

the statute, EPA established regulations

that establish the procedures to be used

in calculating CAFE values and require

that manufacturers perform these

calculations and submit a report to EPA

detailing the calculation, the fuel

economy tests used, and actual CAFE

value calculated. After a review of the

information, EPA transmits that report

to the Secretary of DOT, who is

ultimately responsible for administering

the manufacturer’s compliance with the

CAFE standards.

Based on EPA’s experience with

reviewing CAFE submissions, most

manufacturers submit accurate and

complete data. EPA’s review of the data

rarely results in significant

discrepancies, and delays the transfer of

the CAFE reports to DOT until EPA

review is completed. The Agency is

proposing to require manufacturers to

submit CAFE results concurrently to the

Department of Transportation as well as

to EPA, which would enable DOT to

begin its administration of CAFE

compliance in a more timely manner.

EPA would continue to review the

manufacturers’ CAFE submissions to

determine that proper calculation

procedures are followed, and would

notify DOT of its findings.

3. Fuel Economy Testing Rates

It is anticipated that additional testing

may be required to meet the CAFE

testing requirements because of reduced

testing of EDVs. EPA believes that the

additional amount of testing would be

small. Also, the manufacturer has the

ability to choose which configurations

to test to meet the 90 percent sales

coverage requirements (see 40 CFR

600.010–86). The Agency has recently

expanded its policy 22 allowing the use

of analytically derived fuel economy

(ADFE) 23 values to include up to 20

percent of the manufacturers’ total fuel

economy fleet. The Agency believes that

through careful selection of the vehicle

configurations to be tested and use of

ADFE values, the amount of additional

testing required for fuel economy

purposes would be small.

The Agency considered raising the

amount of ADFE allowed from the

recently established level of 20 percent

but felt that such a change might

undermine the accuracy of the fuel

economy program. The Agency does

invite public comment on the

appropriate level of ADFE testing and

analyses of the potential impact on fuel

economy accuracy.

G. Small Volume Provisions

Current regulations allow for more

abbreviated certification procedures for

manufacturers with model year sales of

less than 10,000, and for engine families

totaling less than 10,000 sales for any

manufacturer.24 EPA is proposing to

amend the criteria for the small volume

manufacturer provisions to model year

U.S. sales of less than 15,000 (including

light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks,

and heavy-duty engines). Similarly, EPA

is proposing to allow any manufacturer

to apply small volume certification

procedures for any test groups, provided

that the combined U.S. sales are below

15,000 units per model year.

All abbreviated certification

procedures in the current regulations

would be available to the redefined

small volume manufacturers and test

groups (below 15,000 sales). (However,

under this proposal, manufacturers

would certify based on test groups

rather than engine families.) Also, any

certification options provided under

CAP 2000 for large volume

manufacturers would be available to

small volume manufacturers (e.g.,

bench-aged components for durability,

etc.).

EPA is proposing to require in-use

verification testing for manufacturers of

greater than 5,000 sales for any model

year, and for test groups using small

volume provisions that have greater

than 5,000 U.S. sales per model year.

For manufacturers and test groups in

these categories, the manufacturer

would have to test at least two vehicles

after four years of use and at least

50,000 miles of service. These vehicles

may be procured from customers or may

be vehicles under the control of the

manufacturer as long as the service

accumulation and maintenance of the

vehicles are shown to be typical of

customer usage. The vehicles selected

for this testing would be at least one

from the highest sales small volume test

group, and one from the next highest

sales small volume test group. If there

is only one test group, then the

manufacturer must test at least two

vehicles from the test group. EPA could

waive the 50,000 mile minimum if the

manufacturer shows, using owner

survey data, that the average mileage

accumulated after 4 years for a given

test group is less than 50,000 miles. The

manufacturer must submit an in-use

testing plan to EPA prior to EPA

issuance of a Certificate of Conformity

for the subject vehicles.

H. Information Requirements

1. Background

Current regulations require

manufacturers to submit an Application

for Certification (Application) for each

engine family that describes the vehicles

the manufacturer intends to produce.

After reviewing the application to

determine compliance with all

applicable requirements and emission

standards, EPA then issues a certificate

of conformity under § 206 of the Act.

Such a certificate is required by the

CAA before a vehicle may be offered for

sale in the U.S.

When EPA’s vehicle certification

program began in 1968, EPA required

manufacturers to submit a large amount

of detailed information. This was

because EPA lacked a historical

perspective of what vehicle parameters

could impact emissions compliance.

EPA would carefully review all of this

information prior to certification. By the

1980’s, EPA had gained enough

experience to feel comfortable that such

an extensive review was no longer

necessary. Consequently, the review

was scaled back to more of an audit

function, that is, a spot check of the

Application information. At the same

time, EPA also permitted manufacturers

to retain some information, rather than

submit it with the Application. In

today’s proposal EPA believes that it

may further decrease the amount of

Application information without

compromising its ability to make good

certification compliance determinations.

In addition to submitting the

application prior to certification,

manufacturers are currently required to

notify EPA of any changes throughout

the model year to vehicles already

certified (running changes). This

notification must be submitted with

each running change, and must describe

any changes (e.g. deletions, insertions,

additions) to the original application

pages. Frequently the updated

information is not critical for

certification compliance determinations,

but is needed for future in-use

compliance efforts. The paperwork

burden associated with the reporting of

running changes is, in the Agency’s

opinion, another good candidate for

streamlining. EPA is therefore proposing

to allow manufacturers to submit

running change information closer to

the time when it is actually needed by

the Agency.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39669

25See EPA cost analysis.

2. Overview of New Information

Requirements

EPA estimates that this proposal will

reduce the record keeping and reporting

requirements of EPA’s light-duty vehicle

compliance program between 13% and

57%.25 To accomplish this, the

application would only contain

information that is routinely needed by

the Agency, some of which is needed to

make initial certification decisions and

some which is needed to conduct EPA’s

various post-certification compliance

programs. Therefore, it is being

proposed that information be submitted

to the Agency at two different times;

Part 1 of the Application would be

submitted prior to certification and Part

2 would be submitted by January first of

the applicable model year (e.g. a model

year 2001 Part 2 Application would be

due by 1/1/2001). Any updates to the

Part 1 would also be due by January first

of the model year.

A final, end-of-model-year

Application update would be due by

January first of the following model year

(e.g. the final Application update for

model year 2001 would be due by 1/1/

2002). This would include any updates

to Part 1 and Part 2 of the Application

necessary to reflect any running changes

which occurred since January first of the

model year. Information not previously

submitted that might be needed by the

Agency from time to time would be

required to be submitted upon request.

Part 2 and any updates to Part 1 of

any test group certified fewer than 30

days prior to January first of the

applicable model year would need to be

submitted within 90 days of the

effective date on the corresponding

certificate of conformity (e.g. if a test

group was certified on December fifth,

Part 2 would be due by March fifth). A

manufacturer may request the Agency to

grant, for extenuating circumstances, an

extension of the end-of-model-year

submission beyond the normal due date

of January first of the following model

year.

A goal of today’s proposal is to

streamline the information reporting

requirements to the greatest degree

possible while still retaining access to

information necessary to run the

certification and in-use programs.

Therefore, the information proposed to

be submitted is of critical importance to

the Agency. This makes it incumbent

upon the manufacturer to submit all

required information by the proposed

due dates, including any Agency

requests for additional information not

required to be submitted to the Agency

with either the Part 1 or Part 2

Application. A manufacturer delinquent

in reporting or failing to provide

complete and accurate information may

be subject to such penalties as: requiring

the manufacturer to submit all

information for all test groups prior to

being granted any certificates of

conformity for subsequent model years

(this would include Part 1, Part 2 and

any additional information as deemed

necessary by the Agency); voiding ab

initio the applicable certificate of

conformity; and formal enforcement

action, including civil penalties.

EPA would determine when the

manufacturer subject to an information

penalty would again be allowed to

submit only the Part 1 Application to

receive a certificate. EPA has already

implemented a similar approach in the

current certification program, whereby

the ‘‘Abbreviated Certification’’ process

can be denied to a manufacturer that

cannot handle the additional

responsibility. EPA believes that

continuing this approach for failure to

submit information would provide a

simple, yet effective means of

encouraging manufacturers to comply

with the information reporting

requirements.

3. Detailed Descriptions of Application

Requirements

a. The Part 1 Application. EPA is

proposing that the Part 1 Application be

much abbreviated from that currently

required. EPA believes that many of the

more detailed, lengthier items included

with the current Application such as

technical descriptions of emission

control components, part numbers, and

calibration specifications are not

normally necessary to make a

certification decision. By eliminating

these items from Part 1, and requiring

only information essential for

certification, the information which

must be submitted to the Agency would

be much shorter and easier for

manufacturers to compile.

Another voluntary mechanism is

currently in place which serves the

purpose of providing EPA with

certification information—the

manufacturer preview meeting. Most

manufacturers have been providing EPA

with a pre-certification overview of their

upcoming model year plans. These

annual certification preview meetings

provide EPA with a manufacturer’s

certification and production schedules,

durability and emission test plans,

special test procedures, carry-over

requests, new vehicles or technology,

and compliance plans for new standards

or test procedures. Manufacturers

prepare very informative materials that

often provide a greater understanding of

their product line in a shorter time than

would be possible from reviewing a

current Application. These meetings

help EPA expedite the certification

process by enabling EPA to anticipate

compliance issues before they might

cause unanticipated delays. Because

these previews necessarily take place far

in advance of certification, the

information provided must be

considered as tentative, and not a

substitute for the Application. Hence,

EPA does not feel it appropriate to

require manufacturers to conduct

preview meetings. However, EPA

strongly encourages manufacturers to

continue the practice under CAP 2000,

as a means to expedite the certification

process.

EPA is proposing that one

Application be submitted for each

durability group. Part 1 consists of

general information about the

manufacturer and the entire product

line, durability group descriptions,

evaporative/refueling family

descriptions, OBD information and

information specific to each test group.

General information is information

which is applicable to all durability

and/or test groups and which only has

to be submitted once per model year.

Such information will typically consist

of communications information about

manufacturer representatives authorized

to communicate with EPA,

manufacturer phase-in compliance

plans (if any), descriptions of

evaporative/refueling families, OBD

information and statements of

compliance.

For durability group and evaporative/

refueling family descriptions, the

manufacturer would be required to

provide a description of how each

group/family was determined and the

type of process used to establish

component durability and deterioration

factors. Because of the broad definitions

for durability groups, EPA anticipates

that durability groups would most likely

consist of more than one test group and

that test groups might be certified at

different times throughout the model

year. Similarly, evaporative/refueling

families would cut across test groups.

Therefore, EPA is proposing that the

durability information would only need

to be submitted with the first test group

to be submitted to the Agency and

would not need to be resubmitted for

subsequent test groups within that

durability group or evaporative/

refueling group.

Specific test group information is

proposed to consist of the associated

evaporative/refueling family (or

families), a list of all auxiliary emission
39670 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

control devices (AECDs) that reduce the

effectiveness of the emission control

system including descriptions and

justifications, a summary of all vehicles

to be produced within the test group,

OBD information, test vehicle selections

and descriptions (including any use of

carry-over or carry-across test data),

official certification emission test

results, and a letter requesting a

certificate.

The request for a certificate would be

required to be signed by a corporate

principle representative. This request

would notify the Agency that a test

group is ready to be certified and must

state that all testing and other actions

required under the regulations were

performed and that all required

information has been submitted to EPA.

The request must also include the

required statements of compliance.

The proposed product line summary

would include descriptions of all

vehicle configurations to be produced

within each test group which would

allow an in-use vehicle to be identified

and tested for emissions purposes. This

would include items such as model

name, sales area, engine displacement,

tire size and make, engine codes,

transmission, and basic test parameters

(such as test weight and road load force

information). Ranges for the tires and

test parameters may be submitted with

the initial Part 1 Application, although

the actual values would need to be

submitted with Part 2 Application. EPA

will issue guidance establishing a

suggested format.

This proposal would not change

current OBD information requirements.

The Part 1 Application must include for

each diagnostic system: a description of

the functional operation characteristics

of the diagnostic system, the method of

detecting malfunctions for each

emission-related powertrain component,

and a description of any deficienciesincluding resolution plans and

schedules. A test group certified to

California OBD 2 regulations would be

required to comply with California ARB

information requirements. EPA may

consider abbreviating the OBD

information requirements at such time

in the future when it gains confidence

that manufacturers are designing OBD

systems that are fully compliant with all

applicable regulations.

b. The Part 2 Application. The

information that is proposed to be

included in the Part 2 Application is

information which is primarily needed

by EPA for post-certification compliance

purposes. Part 2 would be due on

January first of the applicable model

year (e.g. the deadline for model year

2000 would be 1/1/2000). Historically,

most certification activity and

production startups are completed by

this time.

Part 2 is proposed to include part

numbers of each emission related

component for each engine code, certain

calibration specifications, owners

manuals, service manuals and technical

service bulletins. All of this information

will continue to be necessary for the

Agency to perform its in-use activities

such as identifying mis-builds (noncertified vehicle configurations),

evaluating manufacturer defect reports,

and conducting in-use recall testing

programs. This information is not

needed with the Part 1 Application

since EPA’s in-use activities do not

begin until customer-owned vehicles

have begun to accumulate in-use

mileage. A description of what would be

required with the Part 2, as well as

explanations for why EPA needs this

information, follows.

EPA is proposing that calibration

summary information be submitted for

each engine code such as fuel pump

flow rate, EGR valve flow rate, tune up

specifications, and oxygen sensor

output. EPA would issue via separate

guidance a suggested format to ease the

submittal and review of this calibration

summary information.

Owners manuals, service manuals

and technical service bulletins would

need to be submitted to the Agency as

soon as they become available but no

later than the Part 2 due date.

Manufacturers are required per 40

CFR 85, Subpart T to submit an

Emission Defect Information Report

(defect report) any time that an emission

related defect exists in 25 or more

vehicles of the same model year. The

defect regulations point to devices,

systems or assembly ‘‘described in the

approved Application for Certification’’.

Because the proposed Application is

much abbreviated, the Agency fully

intends to consider any information

submitted or required to be submitted in

Parts 1 and 2 as constituting being

‘‘described in the Approved Application

for Certification.’’ for the purposes of

85.1902(b). This includes, but is not

limited to part numbers, service

manuals and other descriptive

information provided by a manufacturer

to comply with the proposed

certification requirements.

The Agency also uses the information

in Part 1 and Part 2 (including owners

manuals, service manuals, and technical

service bulletins), to target specific

vehicle classes to test in use, to procure

customer vehicles, to reset the vehicles

to manufacturer specifications before

testing, and to determine the cause of an

emission exceedance when in-use

vehicles fail to comply with the

emission standards. EPA also uses this

information to determine if all the

vehicles in the durability or test group

can be expected to have the same

problem or if the problem might exist in

several durability or test groups.

c. Running Changes. As was

mentioned previously, changes are often

made to vehicle production plans

throughout the model year.

Manufacturers are currently required to

submit all updated Application pages

with each running change notification.

Manufacturers currently have the option

to either request EPA approval of

changes in advance of implementing the

change, or to concurrently notify EPA

and make the change, with the caveat

that EPA may not approve the change.

This second option is commonly

referred to as the ‘‘alternate procedure

running change’’ and is located at 40

CFR 86.082–34. Under CAP 2000, EPA

is proposing to adopt only the alternate

procedure running change.

Manufacturers would continue to be

required to notify the Agency of all

running changes concurrently with

implementation of each change, but

would not be required to submit any

updated application pages until January

first of the applicable model year. This

was suggested during discussions of the

Compliance Work Group of the Mobile

Sources Technical Advisory Subcommittee (part of the FACA CAA

Advisory Committee). EPA is proposing

this suggestion since the information

which is typically effected by a running

change would now be submitted with

the Part 2 Application, after

implementation of most running

changes. A final, end of the model year

Application update would also need to

be submitted. The manufacturer may

opt to submit only the updated pages,

rather than resubmit a complete

Application. No changes are being

proposed to the Agency’s current

process for reporting field fixes.

Each running change notification is

proposed to include a detailed

description of the change, the reason for

the change, the portion of the product

line that is affected by the change, and

the effect the change would have on

emissions (both on and off the FTP and

SFTP driving schedules), including, as

appropriate, any test data that

demonstrates compliance with

applicable emission standards. This

information would modify the

description of the vehicles covered by

the certificate of conformity with

respect to vehicles manufactured after

the date of the running change. It is also

being proposed that a running change

summary log be submitted for each test
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39671

group showing all changes that have

been incorporated since certification.

EPA believes the revised running

change proposal should provide

significant savings to manufacturers and

the Agency.

While manufacturers are encouraged

to notify EPA of any mistakes made in

the application or running change

notice, a manufacturer may not update

its application to correct a misbuild

situation with respect to vehicles

already introduced into commerce.

4. Information to be Submitted Upon

Request

As has been mentioned above, much

of the information which must currently

be submitted in the Application is only

rarely needed by EPA. Thus EPA

believes it is appropriate to collect some

information on an ‘‘as needed’’ basis.

This includes many of the more detailed

items, such as detailed calibration

information and the basis used by

manufacturers to make certain

decisions. EPA is proposing to require

that any ‘‘as needed’’ information

requested by EPA be submitted within

15 working days. EPA is aware that

some manufacturers have indicated that

they, as a precautionary measure,

maintain virtually all information which

EPA may request. However, EPA is not

proposing to require manufacturers to

keep special compilations of

information designated for EPA use

alone. EPA believes that the information

it would be requesting would be the

type that manufacturers would keep on

hand for other reasons, and which could

be retrieved within 15 working days.

Further, such ‘‘as-needed’’ information

would not have to be submitted in any

EPA-prescribed format.

5. Electronic Submission of the

Application

EPA currently utilizes an electronic

computer database, referred to as

Certification and Fuel Economy

Information System (CFEIS), which

contains vehicle descriptions and

certification emission test results

submitted by the manufacturer.

Although CFEIS is designed around the

current certification program, it is

expected that CFEIS would be

redesigned in accordance with the final

CAP 2000 program. EPA believes that

CFEIS would continue to play an

important role under CAP 2000, as

many of the items within the proposed

Application are already being submitted

into the CFEIS database. Any required

Application information which has been

completely and accurately submitted

into CFEIS would not have to be resubmitted separately in hard copy.

EPA would continue to encourage,

but would not require manufacturers to

submit the Application electronically.

EPA believes electronic submissions

would provide even greater savings for

both manufacturers and EPA by

simplifying the process of updating,

storing and disseminating information.

Confidential information could be

submitted in hard copy or in a separate

electronic file to help ensure its

confidentiality. EPA encourages any

manufacturer wishing to submit an

electronic version of their Application

to do so, with the only condition being

that the format be compatible with EPA

software. EPA would work with any

manufacturer to help develop

procedures for submitting electronic

information.

I. In-Use Testing

1. Overview

One of the major goals of the program

being proposed today is the redirection

of industry and Agency resources from

pre-production certification to focus on

improved in-use emissions

performance. Accordingly, the

regulations proposed today would

require manufacturers, under the

authority of section 208(a) of the Act, to

provide EPA with emission test data on

a specified number of in-use vehicles,

procured and tested at the

manufacturer’s expense (either via a

contract test facility or by the

manufacturer’s own laboratory). The

proposed program consists of two basic

categories of manufacturer-funded inuse testing: (1) in-use verification testing

of vehicles representing virtually all of

the test groups produced by each

manufacturer in each model year and,

(2) in-use confirmatory testing

consisting of additional, more rigorous,

testing of test groups or subsets of these

test groups (limited to transmission

types) which, in the in-use verification

testing, demonstrated potentially high

emissions.

2. In-Use Verification Testing

This element of the proposed

program, identified as the ‘‘In-Use

Verification Program’’ (IUVP) is based

upon EPA’s ‘‘in-use reality check

‘‘currently required in the alternate

service accumulation durability

regulations at 40 CFR 86.094.13 (RDP 1),

and would replace that program. The

purpose of the IUVP is to provide the

Agency and the industry with emission

data feedback from vehicles driven

under real-world conditions. The data

generated from the IUVP would be used

to assess and improve the effectiveness

of the manufacturer’s certification

durability and emission demonstration

processes. In addition, the IUVP data

would be used to determine the need for

further manufacturer funded in-use

testing (In-Use Confirmatory Testing)

which could be used by the Agency in

determining non-conformity under

Section 207(c) of the Act.

The basic elements of the proposed

IUVP are low mileage (10,000 mile

minimum vehicle mileage,

approximately one year of operation)

and high mileage (50,000 mile

minimum mileage and approximately

four years of operation) emission testing

of in-use vehicles. These mileage and

age test points were selected to provide

feedback to the Agency and the industry

on the emission performance of vehicles

at both an early point in their operating

life (to allow early identification of any

problems which occur in production or

early in the life of the vehicle to

minimize the emission impact of the

defect or deficient design), and at a

point well into the vehicle’s statutorilydefined useful life (to identify and

correct any problems which occur only

after extended in-use operation) but not

at such a high mileage that high

emitting vehicles would not be

identified until the end of their useful

life. The total number of vehicles a

particular manufacturer would be

required to test for the IUVP under the

requirements of this proposal would be

dependent upon the number of test

groups in the manufacturer’s product

line and the number of sales within

those groups. The sample sizes required

for the low and high mileage test

programs and test group sales volumes

are intended to reflect the increased

potential for emission contribution by

high production test groups, the

increased likelihood of problems

occurring as vehicles reach higher

mileage, and the desire of the Agency to

minimize the resources required to

conduct the program.

Additionally, EPA is proposing that a

manufacturer may increase the required

sample size specified for a specific IUVP

test group sample with prior EPA

approval prior to the initiation of the

additional testing. The Agency believes

that prior approval of an increase in

sample size is needed to prevent the

unrestrained addition of vehicles which

could mask or dilute potential emission

problems. EPA seeks comment on the

proposal for sample size flexibility and

the associated process.

EPA is proposing that the vehicles

tested in the IUVP be procured

following the vehicle selection and

procurement protocols described in the

proposed regulations. The procedures

and protocols being proposed are
39672 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

intended to meet the Agency’s goals of

testing vehicles in the In-Use

Verification Program which have

experienced typical real-world use and

maintenance while screening out only

those vehicles which are tampered,

unsafe to test, or are in such a condition

that restoration to a condition suitable

for testing would be too costly. To

preclude underestimating the emissions

of the in-use fleet through possible

climate related bias (the Agency

believes vehicles operated primarily in

warm weather areas may be subject to

less harsh durability conditions than

those operated in cold weather), EPA is

proposing that a certain number of

vehicles in each sample be procured

from above 40 degrees N. latitude (about

the northern half of the United States).

EPA is also proposing to require that

manufacturers perform an analysis to

determine if their certification

durability processes are still capable of

accurately predicting in-use

performance, should the IUVP data from

a test group sample at either the low or

high mileage test point exceed certain

criteria. This aspect of today’s proposal

is discussed in more detail in section

II.B.

A full description of the requirements

of the In-Use Verification Program is

found in § 86.1841–01 of today’s

proposed regulations.

In addition to the various elements of

the IUVP proposal described above, EPA

is also requesting comment on several

other elements set forth in proposed

regulation and described below.

a. Small Volume Manufacturers and

Small Volume Sales. EPA believes

manufacturers with very small U.S.

sales volumes may have difficulty

procuring in-use vehicles for the

proposed in-use testing. First, the small

population of vehicles makes

procurement difficult. Second, many of

the small volume vehicles comprise a

specialty, high-end market, and owners

may be disinclined to participate,

regardless of the incentives provided to

encourage participation. Larger

manufacturers with test groups of small

actual U.S. sales volumes may

encounter similar difficulties. Therefore,

EPA is proposing to decrease and, in

some cases, eliminate the requirement

to perform the in-use testing being

proposed for those manufacturers

meeting the prescribed sales criteria. A

cap on the total number of vehicles

allowed to be considered under small

volume provisions (15,000 units) has

been proposed for large volume

manufacturers to prevent the

circumvention of the in-use testing

requirements by the purposeful creation

of small test groups. The proposal for

decreased testing by small volume

manufacturers or for small volume test

groups of larger manufacturers (two

vehicles tested at the high mileage test

point only, and permitting the test

vehicles to be manufacturer-owned

vehicles) at certain sales volumes

(5001–15,000)reflects EPA’s belief that

in-use feedback is critical even in the

case of smaller volume sales. At the

same time, the proposal addresses the

potential difficulties which could be

associated with procuring such vehicles

from private owners. Tables 1 and 2 in

the proposed regulations set forth the

number of vehicles to be tested for each

test group as a function of the number

of vehicles sold within each group.

b. Alternative Fueled Vehicles.

Vehicles certified to alternative fuel

standards (for example, methanol or

compressed natural gas) would be

subject to the proposed in-use

verification regulations. However, based

on current production numbers, these

vehicles would likely fall under the

‘‘small volume’’ considerations, and

thus would be exempted from in-use

testing. These vehicles would be subject

to the program requirements applicable

to higher sales groups if their sales

volume were to increase above the low

volume limits.

c. Carryover of In-use Data. Today’s

proposal would not allow

manufacturers to carry over (that is, reuse) in-use verification test data from

one model year to the next. The purpose

of the IUVP is to collect real-world data

on actual in-use cars. Allowing

manufacturers to represent current or

future model years in-use performance

with data from previous model years

fails to satisfy this purpose. First, EPA

believes vehicles are almost never

identical in terms of design, materials,

and component suppliers from one

model year to the next; even within a

model year manufacturers frequently

perform running changes, allowable

under both the current and proposed

regulations, that may have an

undetermined impact on in-use

performance. Second, driving patterns

and climatic and fuel conditions that

may impact in-use deterioration may

fluctuate from year to year or change

over time. By allowing manufacturers to

carry over previous model year in-use

data, the effects of any such trends or

fluctuations would not be measured; the

carried-over in-use data would merely

provide a ‘‘snapshot’’ of the conditions

of a single year rather than the desired

‘‘real-time picture’’ of in-use conditions

over a number of years. In its cost

analysis, EPA has accounted for the cost

to manufacturers of running the IUVP

every model year, with no allowance for

in-use test data carryover. As shown in

this analysis, the cost for the IUVP

would be offset by the savings gained in

the certification program, in which

carryover of durability and emission

data is allowed.

d. Required In-Use Verification

Testing. Vehicles are required to meet

the applicable emission standards when

in actual use. As of model year 2000,

emission standards will exist for

tailpipe emissions as measured by the

‘‘Federal Test Procedure’’ (FTP) at low

and high altitudes, supplemental FTP

(SFTP), cold CO, evaporative/refueling

emissions and onboard diagnostics.

Because EPA believes the supplemental

FTP is an integral part of the FTP, EPA

is proposing that the FTP and

supplemental FTP be performed for

each in-use vehicle tested. To lessen

manufacturers’ test facility burden for

in-use SFTP testing (which may require

the use of an environmental test

chamber), the Agency is proposing that

only the US06 high speed cycle be

performed for the in-use verification

program. Manufacturers would

determine the composite in-use SFTP

emission level by combining the in-use

US06 and in-use FTP test levels with

the test level from the pre-production

certification air conditioning test

(without deterioration factors applied).

In addition to the FTP/SFTP exhaust

emission testing, EPA proposes that the

evaporative/refueling emissions

procedure be performed on the basis of

the vehicle’s evaporative/refueling

family, rather than the vehicle’s test

group. EPA is proposing that a

manufacturer perform a single in-use

evaporative test and on-board refueling

loss test per evaporative/refueling

family at both the low and high mileage

test points. There are currently ongoing

evaporative test streamlining efforts

between EPA, California ARB and

industry which are separate from

today’s proposal. EPA intends to adopt

the resulting procedure for the in-use

evaporative testing once it becomes

available.

Because the cold CO standard is a

50,000 mile standard and the minimum

mileage requirement associated with the

IUVP high mileage testing requirement

(50,000 miles) would likely result in inuse vehicles with mileage beyond this

compliance liability limit, EPA is

proposing not to require manufacturers

to conduct a cold CO test for purposes

of the IUVP. Instead, the Agency would

continue to perform in-use evaluations

of cold CO performance as part of its

routine in-house in-use compliance

program.

Because EPA’s emission standards

currently apply at high altitude as well
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39673

26Clean Air Act section 206(b); 40 CFR Part 86,

Subpart G.

as low altitude, EPA is proposing that

one vehicle per test group be tested

under high altitude conditions for FTP.

EPA is proposing to require this testing

only at the high mileage test point in

order to minimize the expense and

facility constraints, if any, associated

with this testing.

e. In-Use Test Facility Correlation.

Traditionally, EPA has verified the

ability of manufacturers’ test facilities to

provide precise, accurate, and

reproducible results by comparing

certification test data generated at EPA’s

Ann Arbor, Michigan facility to the data

generated at the manufacturers’

facilities. Additionally, most, if not all,

manufacturers have participated in

voluntary ‘‘round-robin’’ correlation

testing programs whereby a single

vehicle is tested at a number of

facilities, thus checking the correlation

of many laboratories. EPA has never

specified regulations requiring a level of

correlation; rather, the regulations in 40

CFR Subpart B specify the accuracy and

precision of the test equipment and

procedures to be used in emission

testing which, if adhered to, should

result in an acceptable level of

correlation. The same correlation

procedures would apply to the IUVP. As

EPA’s existing approach to correlation

has worked well for the past 20 years,

EPA is planning to apply the same basic

approach for this program.

3. Impact of IUVP on Other EPA Mobile

Source Programs

The IUVP program is not designed to

replace EPA’s existing compliance

programs. Rather, it is designed to

improve the effectiveness of the existing

programs by vastly increasing the

quantity of in-use emission data

available while decreasing the resources

directed toward pre-production

certification. Nevertheless, the

generation of IUVP data would, to a

greater or lesser extent, impact each of

EPA’s existing compliance programs as

discussed below.

a. Recall Program: Today’s proposal

does not change the Agency’s current

recall program regulations. However,

the data made available by the proposed

IUVP would enhance the recall program

by enabling EPA to better focus Agency

testing on potential recall candidates.

b. Emission Factors: The IUVP data

would supplement the Agency’s

emissions factor program’s database of

in-use vehicle emission performance

used for assessing current and

projecting future mobile source impacts

on air quality.

c. Certification: IUVP data would

provide a real-world picture of the

effects of time and mileage on emission

performance, which can be compared to

the durability demonstration required to

be made at the time of certification. The

data would also be used to determine if

improvements to manufacturers’

durability processes are needed, as

discussed in section II. B.

d. Selective enforcement audits (SEA):

The Agency has the statutory and

regulatory authority to test new

production line vehicles to determine if

the vehicles produced by a

manufacturer conform with the

regulations with respect to which the

certificate of conformity was issued.26

The IUVP proposed today has an

element requiring all but the smallest

volume manufacturers to test in-use

vehicles in the first year of service at

low mileage (10,000 miles or less). It is

anticipated that this low mileage in-use

testing element of IUVP would to a large

degree replace the need for assembly

line testing. However, because many

small volume manufacturers would not

be performing in-use verification

testing, the Agency believes that SEA

regulations should be retained as a

discretionary alternative compliance

tool. Also, should the low mileage IUVP

test data from the large volume

manufacturers or other data sources

indicate a chronic low mileage problem

such as consistently high emissions or

On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) problems,

the Agency may choose to perform an

SEA to ensure compliance.

4. Manufacturer Funded In-Use

Confirmatory Testing

Today’s proposal also includes

regulations which would create a

manufacturer funded in-use

confirmatory testing program. This

program would require manufacturers to

conduct additional testing of a test

group when the IUVP data for the test

group exceeds a specified trigger level.

Additionally, EPA is proposing that the

Agency could require testing of a

transmission-type subset of a test group

if emissions shown by the entire test

group sample meet the specified

triggering criteria.

The proposed criteria that would

trigger confirmatory testing are based

upon the emission standards to which

the test group was originally certified.

The proposed criteria (a mean of 1.3

times the standard with a 50 percent or

greater failure rate for the test group

sample at either the low or high mileage

test point) was derived after considering

the purpose of the confirmatory testing

(generation of test data to determine the

need for a remedy of classes which do

not conform with the applicable

standards under the provisions of

207(c)); the fact that the IUVP data is

based on vehicles essentially

unscreened for maintenance and use

history, thereby necessitating some

allowance for possible maintenance and

use effects; the trigger point (1.5 times

the standard) of the OBD systems which

would be present at the time this

proposed regulation would go into

effect; and the desire (again recognizing

the nature of the test vehicle

procurement criteria) that manufacturer

funded confirmatory testing not be

required based on poor performance by

only a small percentage of the test group

sample. The results of the high altitude

and evaporative/refueling emission

testing, because they would be limited

to one vehicle per test group or

evaporative/refueling family

respectively, would not trigger

manufacturer-funded confirmatory

testing. They would instead being used

as a means of focusing Agency and

industry attention on in-use problems

that warrant additional attention in

EPA’s recall program and/or by the

manufacturer.

The Agency intends to periodically

review and, if necessary, revise these

criteria, and intends to do so after it has

gathered sufficient information to

support any revisions.

It is the Agency’s expectation that the

data generated in the proposed

manufacturer funded in-use

confirmatory test program would be

based on vehicle samples and on test

practices and procedures upon which a

non-conformity determination under

Section 207(c) of the Act may be based.

EPA believes that manufacturers would

consider it to be in their best interest to

design test programs which both the

Agency and the manufacturer are

confident accurately reflect the emission

performance of properly maintained and

used vehicles within their useful life.

The Agency expects that manufacturers

would act responsibly and voluntarily

to correct emission problems identified

in either the IUVP or manufacturer

funded in-use confirmatory program;

nonetheless, it is the Agency’s intent

that the data generated in such

confirmatory programs be of sufficient

quality that the affected manufacturer

has confidence in the emission results

shown and that the Agency can utilize

the data, if the test group’s emission

performance warrants, to determine

whether a substantial number of the

vehicles in a class do not conform with

applicable standards when properly

maintained and used.

The Agency believes that it would be

beneficial to both the Agency and
39674 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

27The fees charged for heavy-duty vehicles,

heavy-duty engines, and motorcycles remain the

same because they are not affected by the

compliance procedures being proposed today. Any

changes to these fees will be addressed in separate

rulemakings.

industry if, prior to initiation of a

manufacturer-funded in-use

confirmatory test program conducted

under these regulations, the Agency and

the relevant manufacturer agree, to the

extent possible, upon the vehicle

procurement, maintenance and testing

procedures (not otherwise specified by

regulation) which would be used by the

manufacturer in conducting the

confirmatory testing. The Agency would

encourage the establishment of such

‘‘up-front’’ agreements as EPA believes

that it would decrease the likelihood of

post-testing disagreements pertaining to

the validity of the testing, thus

facilitating the expeditious resolution of

any action indicated by the test data. In

cases where the Agency and a

manufacturer reach agreement prior to a

program on the practices to be used in

the confirmatory test program, the

Agency will not contest the use of those

practices subsequent to the program.

A full description of the proposed inuse compliance program requirements is

found in §§ 86.1841–01 through

86.1843–01 of the proposed regulations.

EPA requests comment on any provision

within these proposed regulations.

J. Fees

Background

EPA has been collecting fees to

recover Agency costs for its motor

vehicle compliance activities since the

1993 model year. The final rule

promulgating fee regulations was

published in the Federal Register on

July 7, 1992. The regulations are

contained in 40 CFR Part 86, Subpart J.

Today’s proposal impacts only lightduty vehicles and light-duty trucks.27

The fee regulations are proposed to be

modified as described below.

Collection on test group basis

The current fee program assesses fees

on the basis of ‘‘certification request

type’’. Because certificates of conformity

are currently issued for each engine

family/emission control system

combination, this has been the basic

unit for fee collection. Because today’s

proposal eliminates the unit of engine

family/emission control system

combination as the certification basis for

light-duty vehicles and light-duty

trucks, a new base unit upon which to

assess fees is needed.

To retain consistency with the current

fee assessment procedure, EPA is

proposing to continue collecting a fee

on a per-certificate basis. Because the

test group would be the unit receiving

a certificate, a fee would be collected for

each test group to be certified. In the

1996 model year EPA issued 400

certificates, with a separate fee collected

for each engine system combination. For

CAP 2000, EPA estimates that there will

be approximately 320 test groups per

year, resulting in 20% fewer fee

submissions.

Fee Cost Analysis

EPA established the current fee

provisions in a rule issued in 1992, 57

FR 30055 (July 7, 1992). That rule was

based in large part on a 1991 cost

analysis that the agency prepared. Since

that time there have been several

changes in the costs of the Motor

Vehicle and Engine Compliance

Program, such as increases due to

inflation and additional costs related to

performing tests using procedures not in

effect in 1991, including supplemental

FTP, enhanced evaporative and onboard

vapor recovery. EPA recognizes that the

1991 cost analysis is in need of

updating, but the best time to do a

comprehensive reevaluation would be

after the implementation of the CAP

2000 changes and the test procedure

changes noted above. This would allow

a more accurate and complete analysis

of the combined effects of the changes

since 1991. The revisions to the fee

provisions proposed today are therefore

based solely on the revisions proposed

for CAP 2000, using the 1991 cost

analysis as a starting point.

This approach is reasonable for

various reasons. The types and the

amount of work the Agency performs for

certification and fuel economy

compliance is not anticipated to change

much as a result of today’s proposal.

The individual elements contained in

the original 1991 fee cost analysis

continue to be applicable. The EPA

costs for confirmatory testing,

certification compliance, fuel economy

compliance, and in-use compliance are

still appropriate as a starting point,

pending any future update. A few

exceptions which will change the EPA

costs under this rule are a lower EPA

certification confirmatory testing rate,

lower EPA resources in administering

the pre-production certification

program, and a new element of EPA

resources in administering the in-use

verification testing program.

EPA’s resources for SEA are

anticipated to be very low, because, as

stated in section I.3. above EPA will

instead utilize the low-mileage in-use

verification testing performed by

manufacturers to provide an early

indication of the ability of production

vehicles to comply with the emission

standards.

The current fee analysis includes a

cost of $1,947,600 for confirmatory

certification tests performed by EPA.

EPA plans to reduce its confirmatory

testing by 50 percent, which translates

to a total dollar reduction of $973,800.

The new EPA efforts for administering

the manufacturer-run in-use verification

test program will consist of creating and

maintaining a new database, making

administrative decisions as required by

the proposed regulations, performing

analyses of the data, and overseeing any

corrective actions resulting from the

outcome of the analyses. Because of the

broad scope of the in-use verification

program (proposed to be performed for

every test group for all but the smallest

manufacturers), EPA plans to redirect

part of existing staff currently working

on SEA, confirmatory testing, and

certification activities to the new EPA

activities related to this rule, namely

administering the manufacturer-run inuse verification test program. EPA

estimates that the additional EPA

personnel cost of administering the new

in-use program will be offset by the

savings from SEA, certification, and

confirmatory testing programs.

However, EPA is anticipating a net

reduction in EPA laboratory costs as a

result of the 50 percent reduction in

confirmatory tests. As a result, the total

EPA costs are proposed to be reduced by

$973,800.

The proposed new fee schedule has

been calculated by using the original

$9.4 million costs of baseline

expenditure and reducing it by $973,800

to account for the reduced amount of

confirmatory testing under CAP 2000.

The figures from the fee cost study were

adjusted accordingly in two places. The

Table 1 figures were adjusted to reflect

the reduced confirmatory testing

amount. The Table S–2 figures were

adjusted to reflect the reduced number

of the certification requests, based on

the 20% fewer test groups than engine

family/emission control system

combinations. The fee schedule for

LDVs and LDTs is proposed to be

revised as follows:

Federal signed: $27,211

California only signed: $ 8,956

Fed only unsigned: $ 2,738

Cal only unsigned: $ 2,738

While these fees are for the most part

numerically higher than those currently

assessed for each engine family/control

system combination, each manufacturer

would have 20% fewer payments; thus

no payment increase in the aggregate

should occur. The aggregate fees
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39675

collected would be $973,800 less than

the current fee program. EPA is

proposing to retain the waiver provision

in the current fee regulations when the

fee exceeds 1% of the aggregate

projected US sales of vehicles covered

by the certificate (40 CFR 86.908–93).

As with the current fee program, the

proposed new fee includes all EPA costs

for evaporative/refueling certification

and fuel economy compliance activities.

This practice reduces burden on both

EPA and manufacturers by limiting the

complexity of the fee schedule and

combining like costs under the test

group category.

K. Reorganization of Compliance

Regulations

1. Overview.

The proposed regulatory language in

today’s action is located in a new

Subpart S of Part 86. An outline of

regulations in Subpart S is located at the

beginning of the proposed regulatory

language. Previously, most of the

emissions compliance regulations were

contained in Subpart A, including

emission standards and compliance

procedures for light-duty vehicles, lightduty trucks, heavy-duty vehicles and

heavy-duty engines. The numbering

system used in this subpart has become

more difficult to use as new language

has been added and old language

revised.

The Agency considered completely

re-writing and re-numbering Subpart A.

This would entail renumbering every

section and paragraph, as well as

renumbering the hundreds of crossreferences to Subpart A, both within

this and other Subpart in Part 86 as well

as other Parts of the CFR. The new

language resulting from today’s proposal

would need to be inserted, and any

cross-references to the new language

would have to be changed.

The Agency decided to create a new

Subpart for today’s proposal for the

following reasons:

1. The compliance regulations

proposed today are significantly

different than those contained in

Subpart A.

2. The federal government initiative to

streamline regulations can be honored

by phasing out those portions of Subpart

A as the applicable model years expire,

eventually leaving only applicable

regulations.

3. Compliance procedures and

emission standards for heavy duty

vehicles and engines (which are

significantly different from those of

light-duty vehicles) would be selfcontained in Subpart A.

4. The Agency would be spared the

time-consuming process of identifying

and changing every cross reference in

Subpart A.

Some of the Subpart A language has

been directly imported into Subpart S

without modification, while some has

been modified for clarity and

conciseness, without changing the

original intent.

A new reference in Subpart A directs

the reader to subpart S for regulations

dealing with model year 2001 and later

light-duty vehicles and light-duty

trucks.

2. Organization of Emission Standards

In addition to the overall

reorganization of the compliance

regulations, EPA is proposing a major

reorganization to the emission standards

in an effort to make them easier to read

and use. It should be emphasized that

no new emission standards for new

light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks

are being proposed today. In a few

instances, errors have been corrected.

Emission standards in the current

Subpart A regulations are roughly

divided into four sections: light-duty

vehicles, light-duty trucks, diesel heavy

duty engines and gasoline heavy duty

engines. With the increasing complexity

of light-duty emission standards

(brought about by phase-ins, alternate

fuel provisions, and the expansion of

light-duty truck standards into four

classes), this organization has become

admittedly cumbersome and difficult to

use. Today’s proposal isolates the lightduty emission standards from the heavy

duty by placing them in a separate

subpart S. It also addresses each of the

four classes of light-duty trucks

individually so that the reader can see

in one section what numerical standard

applies to a particular truck class, rather

than try to interpret a tabular

presentation containing multiple class

standards. The following discussion

details the applicability and

organization of the emission standards

in today’s proposal.

Applicability: The emission standards

included in Subpart S are applicable

only to light-duty vehicles and lightduty trucks for model year 2001 and

beyond. Standards for heavy duty

engines remain in Subpart A of part 86.

Standards for model years prior to 2001

remain effective in Subpart A. This is

necessary for both compliance purposes

(some MY 2001 light-duty trucks classes

would still have to comply with

emission standards which have

commenced, but not completed phasein) and for enforcement purposes. Once

these regulations are no longer

necessary for those purposes, they

would be removed. Eventually, Subpart

A would contain language applicable

only to heavy duty engines.

Organization: The emission standards

are organized into six sections. The first

contains general provisions applicable

to all light-duty vehicles and light-duty

trucks. The other five sections contain

the specific emission standards for lightduty vehicles and the four classes of

light-duty trucks.

The general provisions include items

like prohibition of crankcase emissions,

prohibition of toxics and unsafe

conditions, vapor venting prohibition,

and altitude requirements. The general

standards section also contains the

implementation schedules for those

emission standards which, as of the

2001 model year, have been

promulgated but have not yet been fully

implemented. This includes the

Supplemental FTP standards and the

Onboard Refueling emission standards.

The reader of those implementation

tables is referred to the specific

emission standards sections to obtain

the numerical standards which will be

applicable. So doing eliminates the

current problem of proliferation of

sections due to phased-in emission

standards. In the future, as new

standards are promulgated, they will be

assigned a section number with the

appropriate model year suffix (e.g. 04 or

05). Finally, the general emission

standards section contains those

elements of emission standards which

are common to all classes of light-duty

vehicles and light-duty trucks, such as

refueling receptacle requirements,

determination of sales percentages to

meet phase-in requirements, high

altitude provisions, etc. This has been

done to eliminate some of the

redundancy prevalent in the current

emission standards regulations.

The decision to split light-duty truck

emission standards into four separate

sections was made to facilitate use by

the reader. Because some of the

emission standards (such as CST and

Cold CO) are the same in all four truck

classes, this results in some redundant

language. However, the SFTP standards

and Tier 1 tailpipe standards are not the

same within the truck classes. As a

result, the redundancies seemed to be a

small price to pay in return for easy-toread emission standards. Another

feature of the specific emission

standards sections is the standardization

of location. In all five sections,

paragraph (a) contains the Tier 1

tailpipe standards, paragraph (b)

contains the SFTP standards, and so on.

If a standard does not apply to a certain

class, the section is held as ‘‘reserved’’.

EPA intends to continue to continue
39676 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

28EPA Advisory Circular 17F, ‘‘General Criteria

for the Carryover and Carry-across of Certification

Data and the Carryover of Fuel Economy Data for

Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks’’ dated

November 16, 1982.

this standardization in any future

emission standards regulations.

3. Corrections and Changes

The language prohibiting crankcase

emissions has been modified to prohibit

crankcase emissions from all light-duty

vehicles, rather than from Otto-cycle

and methanol-fueled diesel light-duty

vehicles. This is being done to

standardize light-duty vehicle

regulations with those for light-duty

trucks, which currently prohibit

crankcase emissions from all light-duty

trucks, regardless of fuel or duty cycle.

CAA section 206(f) establishes the

requirement that all vehicles meet the

requirements of section 202 of the Act

regardless of the altitude at which they

are sold. In promulgating the regulations

for this requirement, EPA included high

altitude exemption provisions for those

vehicles and trucks meeting specific

design limitation criteria (see 40 CFR

86.094–8(h) and (i). EPA has reviewed

the last five years of certification

activity which shows that no

manufacturer requested the use of high

altitude exemptions, indicating that the

design limitation elements needed to

qualify for the exemption no longer

exist. Therefore, EPA is proposing to

eliminate the high altitude exemption

provisions.

In the current regulations, 40 CFR

86.094–16(a) specifically prohibits

gasoline-fueled LTDs and LDVs from

being equipped with defeat devices.

This regulation was promulgated as part

of the cold CO emission standards (57

FR 31900), which are applicable only to

gasoline-fueled vehicles; hence the

regulation excluded all but gasoline

from the defeat device prohibition.

However, the Agency believes that

defeat devices should be prohibited

regardless of the fuel consumed,

consistent with longstanding EPA

policy as outlined in EPA Advisory

Circular 24 ‘‘Prohibition of use of

Emission Control Defeat Devices.’’

Therefore, EPA is proposing to

incorporate its defeat device policy into

regulatory language which applies to all

types of fuels rather than just to

gasoline. This language is found in

section 86.1809–01 in the proposed

regulation.

L. Harmonization With California Air

Resources Board Compliance

Procedures

The Agency worked closely with

California ARB as it developed today’s

CAP 2000 procedures. Currently, EPA

and California ARB have procedures for

certification which, while similar in

nature, have a few fundamental

differences which add to the

manufacturers’ testing, paperwork and

reporting burdens. When California

ARB, EPA, and automotive

manufacturers signed the statement of

principles for redesigning the

compliance program, it was understood

that the two agencies would work

together to reduce these burdens, by

harmonizing the certification

procedures to the fullest extent possible.

In today’s proposal, virtually all features

have been coordinated with those of

California ARB, including the durability

and emission data vehicle selection

procedures; the concepts of test groups

and durability groups; low and high

mileage in-use verification testing;

confirmatory in-use testing; and

paperwork and information collection.

California ARB has also indicated to

EPA that it intends to issue separate

regulations based on the final outcome

of today’s proposed regulations that can

be implemented at the same time as the

EPA regulations.

M. Implementation

EPA is proposing that CAP 2000 be

implemented in the 2001 model year

(MY) for light-duty vehicles and lightduty trucks. EPA is proposing to give

manufacturers the option of

participating in the CAP 2000 program

one year early (2000 MY) with all or

some of their product offering, provided

that the program is adopted in its

entirety. Thus, early opt-in must include

all provisions of CAP 2000. In MY 2001,

all manufacturers would be required to

comply with CAP 2000 regulations.

EPA considered providing a phase-in

period; however, the Agency believes

that concurrent administration of two

certification programs would present an

unacceptable burden to EPA and

manufacturers. For example, it would

entail two sets of applications, computer

data, confirmatory testing procedures,

and certificates of confirmatory for each

program. In addition, the grouping

procedures of CAP 2000 were designed

to cover the manufacturer’s entire

product lines. Applying these

procedures to a portion of a

manufacturer’s product line would

result in little savings and could result

in more cost for manufacturers than the

current program, in some

circumstances.

In spite of the logistical concerns with

administering two different programs,

EPA believes that the proposed early

opt-in provision is beneficial overall.

Early opt-in would allow manufacturers

to take earlier advantage of the time and

cost savings from the reduced testing

requirements, less paper work, and

broader certification groups of CAP

2000. EPA also anticipates that the rate

of early opt-in participation would be

small and would most likely occur

when the savings outweigh any

administrative difficulties. The overall

reduction in pre-certification activities

would offset the cost and

implementation requirements needed

for CAP 2000. Finally, the Agency

believes that early opt-in of CAP 2000

is beneficial because it would push

forward by one year the in-use feedback,

thus enabling manufacturers to identify

and fix any problems one year sooner.

Special consideration was given to

implementing the proposed durability

procedures. The Agency believes the

proposed new durability process, while

improving upon the current procedures,

requires some lead time to implement.

Therefore, the Agency is proposing to

allow manufacturers to continue using

durability data they may have already

generated using either the AMA

procedure or the manufacturerdetermined light-duty truck procedures

for model years 2001 through 2003. The

Agency is also proposing to accept the

procedures approved under the current

RDP–1 provisions for use in CAP 2000

without further Agency approval.

The Agency is proposing that

manufacturers wishing to carry over

AMA, alternate service accumulation

durability or light-duty truck durability

data to the 2001 through 2003 model

years be responsible for determining

that their new durability groups are

eligible to utilize that data using good

engineering judgement. The Agency

believes that sufficient documentation

exists to assist the manufacturers in

reaching accurate decisions.28 The

Agency can make specific eligibility

rulings if requested by a manufacturer,

and would review such determinations

when making decisions on an

application for certification.

The MY 2001 implementation date

takes into consideration the time needed

for manufacturers to plan, implement,

contract, and/or build facilities needed

for performing in-use testing and

meeting other provisions required by

CAP 2000. EPA is aware of a concern

expressed by some manufacturers

associated with the cost to

manufacturers in creating additional

space or facilities for in-use testing. The

Agency believes that the associated cost

savings arising from the proposed

reductions in pre-production testing

would offset the costs added by the inuse testing requirements. For

manufacturers with laboratories in the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39677

United States, the emission data and

durability testing saved by the reduced

certification requirements under CAP

2000 should provide the necessary test

capacity to conduct the required in-use

testing. For manufacturers without

laboratories in the United States, the

money saved from the reduced

certification testing in their laboratories

should be sufficient to fund their in-use

testing at a contractor facility in the

United States. To accommodate the

special test facility requirements of the

evaporative/refueling procedures, EPA

is proposing not to require in-use testing

for those procedures until the 2004 MY.

The Agency is proposing to allow

manufacturers to forgo the low-mileage

in-use testing requirement for three

model years to allow additional time for

test facility preparation.

N. Incentives to Encourage Better In-Use

Emission Performance

Consideration of incentives to

encourage better in-use emission control

performance was a feature of the

aforementioned Statement of Principles

signed by EPA, California ARB, and

manufacturers. The Agency believes

that encouraging good in-use emissions

performance can serve to improve air

quality in the long run. To be effective,

any incentives offered should motivate

manufacturers to produce vehicles

which are cleaner and more durable

than they would have otherwise been

built.

The current recall program actually

acts as an incentive program because

manufacturers would rather invest in

assuring that vehicles meet standards in

use rather than risk future testing and

possibly an expensive recall. The in-use

testing proposed for CAP 2000 will

serve to bolster this incentive. Recall is

effective because of the large cost and

public image risk of recall. However, the

recall program is a negative incentive, in

that no rewards are given for good

performance. The Agency would like to

propose positive incentives for both

good performance (e.g., consistent in

use compliance at high mileage in the

as-received condition) and exemplary

performance (consistent in use

performance at high mileage that is

significantly below the standards). This

is a significant challenge because

rewards will have to be of such value as

to offset the manufacturers’ costs of

changing vehicle designs or

manufacturing practices. The Agency

does not currently have the information

necessary to assess the levels of reward

needed to offset these costs, or what

these costs might be. Therefore, the

Agency requests specific information

from manufacturers on what incentives

would motivate them to achieve various

levels of improvements to in-use

emission control performance.

The Agency would also like comment

on an incentive program concept that

involves at least two levels of in-use

achievement. The first level would be

that of good, solid in-use compliance.

The second level would be that of

exemplary in-use performance. Each of

these levels would carry rewards that

would be of increasing benefit for

manufacturers. The benefits would

involve more cost savings and flexibility

in certification and information

requirements submittal, as well as

potential reductions in the in-use testing

requirements for exemplary

performance. The Agency believes it

would be able to offer these benefits

without significant increased risk of

noncompliance in cases where the

manufacturer has a proven track record

of solid compliance or exemplary

performance. The more confidence the

Agency has in a manufacturer’s likely

performance, the more oversight EPA

could forego without significant added

risk.

An example of Level 1 incentives

could be criteria such as passing results

for all CAP 2000 high mileage in-use

testing for two consecutive model years,

or, alternatively, an average high

mileage compliance level of no more

than 75% of the standards for two

consecutive model years. Added to

either of these could be a record of two

consecutive model years of no emission

related recalls, either ordered or

voluntary (for any reason), and of no

significant violations of the prohibited

acts found in section 203 of the Clean

Air Act. These criteria would represent

a convincing case that the manufacturer

would likely continue such

performance. Therefore, the Agency

would be willing to forego a significant

amount of oversight for that

manufacturer, as long as this record of

compliance is achieved. Some types of

rewards, for example, could be wider

flexibility in choosing durability groups

(within the technical constraints of good

engineering judgement), a lower

confirmatory test random rate by EPA,

or the virtual elimination of certification

audits.

The Level 2 incentives would be for

manufacturers exhibiting exemplary

emissions performance. In making this

determination, the Agency could

consider the same criteria as for level 1,

but with a stronger demonstration of inuse compliance (such as 2-year average

high mileage compliance of 50% of the

standard, as proposed to 75% of the

standard). The Agency also believes that

it would be appropriate to consider inuse data and information obtained apart

from the in-use verification and recall

programs, such as OBD data, I/M data or

other credible in-use information

sources. EPA would expect that

manufacturers wishing to be considered

‘‘exemplary’’ would provide such

information to EPA. The rewards for

such exemplary performance might be:

all level 1 rewards, plus the elimination

of low mileage in-use testing, reductions

in high mileage in-use testing, and

public recognition for the manufacturer

by the Agency.

Although the specific procedures for

the above concept have not been

developed, it is intended that the

criteria be evaluated for each model

year. That is, the most recently available

in-use data would be evaluated prior to

awarding the benefits for the upcoming

model year. The Agency would like

comments on other procedural problems

that would have to be solved, as well as

on the criteria and rewards.

Many of the rewards in the above

example do not require regulatory

change or the addition of regulatory

authority. Nevertheless, the Agency

would like comments on this concept,

and any other ideas for incentives.

Today’s proposal contains regulatory

language that will allow the Agency to

waive or modify certain other regulatory

requirements to allow the structuring of

an incentive program. The Agency

would use this authority along with

other discretionary actions to design

incentive programs. To retain program

flexibility, and to allow time to learn

what level of in-use performance to

expect once the program is underway,

the Agency is not proposing specific

performance criteria or rewards at this

time. Rather, the Agency would prefer

to establish the regulatory basis in this

rulemaking and establish specific

incentive packages by guidance.

O. Good Engineering Judgment and

Decision Making Under the Regulations

The regulations proposed today

require that many different decisions be

made leading up to and following the

certification of a group of vehicles. In

each case, the regulations specify the

criteria that apply to these decisions.

For example, the vehicles within a

manufacturer’s product line must be

divided into durability groups with

vehicles exhibiting similar emissions

deterioration throughout their useful life

(§ 86.1816–01); within each durability

group the vehicle configuration

expected to generate the highest level of

exhaust emission deterioration must be

selected (§ 86.1818–01); an approved

durability program must be applied to

those durability groups, including those
39678 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

in future model years, whose

deterioration is accurately predicted by

the durability program (§ 86.1819–01);

emissions data vehicles from a test

group must be selected based on the

vehicle configuration which is expected

to exhibit the worst in-use emissions

(§ 86.1824–01); the vehicle or engine

parameters which would be subject to

adjustment must be determined, based

on various specified criteria (§ 86.1829–

01); and so on.

Unless otherwise specified in the

regulations, the manufacturers would

initially make all of these decisions.

This allows manufacturers to most

efficiently structure their programs to

apply for certification, and allows EPA

to reserve its resources for appropriate

review and auditing of decisions made

by the manufacturer. EPA reserves the

authority in all cases to reject the

decision made by the manufacturer if

the regulatory criteria are not properly

applied. In general, issuance of a

certificate of conformity by EPA would

reflect EPA’s decision to accept for

purposes of that certification the

decisions made by the manufacturer.

However, if EPA later determines that

incorrect or misleading statements were

made by a manufacturer, EPA may void

a certificate ab initio. EPA reserves the

right not to issue a certificate where a

manufacturer’s decision is not

consistent with the regulations.

This process has been employed

under the current regulations for many

years for various regulatory

requirements. For example,

manufacturers routinely divide their

product line into engine families, using

the criteria specified in the regulations.

Prior approval by the Administrator is

not required; however, EPA may reject

this determination and not issue a

certificate if the Administrator

determines that the regulatory criteria

were not properly applied. Today’s

proposal takes this approach and

extends it throughout the regulations.

EPA is also proposing an explicit

requirement that manufacturers exercise

good engineering judgment in making

the decisions required under the

regulations. This would ensure that

manufacturers routinely review and

update their internal decision making

processes, so that the best available data

and information are brought to play in

making the decisions called for under

the regulations. Failure to apply good

engineering judgment may result in EPA

overruling the manufacturer’s decision.

As long as manufacturers do not

deliberately overlook information, use

incorrect information, or make decisions

without using a rational decision

process, EPA is limiting the

consequences of making incorrect good

engineering judgments to future

corresponding decisions. Also, the

Agency is proposing that such overruled

decisions be applied as soon as

practicable. In the case of some

durability decisions, a practical

implementation for a new decision may

require notice of a whole model year.

For example, if a durability problem

regarding selection of the appropriate

durability calibration reaches a final

Agency decision to require a change in

the manufacturer’s decision process in

December of 2002 calendar year, the

2003 model year vehicles will already

be certified and could not be affected by

this decision. Also, the 2004 model year

durability vehicles may have completed

the durability process by that time, in

which case it would not be practical to

apply this decision until the 2005 model

year.

The Agency is proposing harsher

remedies for intentional and deliberate

acts or decisions made without a

rational basis. Intentional disregard for

good engineering judgment could result

in voiding certificates ab initio, with

provisions for an administrative

hearing, in addition to any civil or

criminal enforcement actions which

may result.

P. Optional Applicability for Heavy

Duty Engines

EPA is proposing to modify the option

available to manufacturers of heavyduty engines to certify heavy-duty

vehicles up to 10,000 pounds GVWR as

light-duty trucks, in accordance with

the light-duty standards and procedures.

The modification consists of raising the

weight limit to 14,000 pounds GVWR.

EPA believes this change is appropriate

because (a) it is strictly optional; (b) it

is environmentally beneficial, because

any engines utilizing it will be subject

to the more stringent light-duty truck

emission standards; (c) it provides more

flexibility to manufacturers of heavyduty engines, in that they may

incorporate more engines into their

light-duty program, potentially

eliminating the need to run two separate

compliance programs; and (d) the

14,000 pound weight limit is common

to that of California’s mandatory

Medium Duty Vehicle program, thus

enabling more harmonization.

III. Cost Effectiveness

The Agency estimates that

manufacturers should realize a total

annual savings of about $55 million as

a direct result of today’s proposal. These

figures include savings gained from

streamlined certification activities, such

as fewer durability and emission data

demonstrations, and accounts for the

new costs incurred by the proposed inuse verification testing requirements. A

detailed discussion and table of costs/

savings are contained in the Support

Document to this proposed regulation

and are filed in the Docket.

The Agency is not claiming any

environmental benefits for this proposal

because no new emission standards are

being proposed. The anticipated

outcome of the proposed requirements

should, however, result in some benefits

because of improvements to durability

demonstration requirements, and

because of the potential to identify and

improve upon vehicle emission

performance based on the in-use

verification test results.

IV. Public Participation

A. Comments and the Public Docket

EPA welcomes comments on all

aspects of this proposed rulemaking.

Commenters are especially encouraged

to give suggestions for changing any

aspects of the proposal. All comments,

with the exception of proprietary

information should be addressed to the

EPA Air Docket Section, Docket No. A–

96–50 (see ADDRESSES).

Commenters who wish to submit

proprietary information for

consideration should clearly separate

such information from other comments

by (1) labeling proprietary information

‘‘Confidential Business Information’’

and (2) sending proprietary information

directly to the contact person listed (see

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and

not to the public docket. This would

help insure that proprietary information

is not inadvertently placed in the

docket. If a commenter wants EPA to

use a submission labeled as confidential

business information as part of the basis

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

which summarizes the key data or

information, should be sent to the

docket.

Information covered by a claim of

confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA

only to the extent allowed and by the

procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.

If no claim of confidentiality

accompanies the submission when it is

received by EPA, the submission may be

made available to the public without

notifying the commenters.

B. Public Hearing

Anyone wishing to present testimony

about this proposal at the public hearing

(see DATES) should notify the contact

person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT) no later than five days prior to

the day of the hearing. The contact
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39679

person should be given an estimate of

the time required for the presentation of

testimony and notification of any need

for audio/visual equipment. Testimony

will be scheduled on a first come, first

serve basis. A sign-up sheet will be

available at the registration table the

morning of the hearing for scheduling

those who have not notified the contact

earlier. This testimony will be

scheduled on a first come, first serve

basis to follow the previously scheduled

testimony.

EPA requests that approximately 50

copies of the statement or material to be

presented be brought to the hearing for

distribution to the audience. In

addition, EPA would find it helpful to

receive an advanced copy of any

statement or material to be presented at

the hearing at least one week before the

scheduled hearing date. This is to give

EPA staff adequate time to review such

material before the hearing. Such

advanced copies should be submitted to

the contact person listed.

The official records of the hearing will

be kept open for 30 days following the

hearing to allow submission of rebuttal

and supplementary testimony. All such

submittals should be directed to the Air

Docket Section, Docket No. A–96–32

(see ADDRESSES). The hearing will be

conducted informally, and technical

rules of evidence will not apply. A

written transcript of the hearing will be

placed in the above docket for review.

Anyone desiring to purchase a copy of

the transcript should make individual

arrangements with the court reporter

recording the proceedings.

If no one indicates to EPA that they

wish to present oral testimony by the

date given, the public hearing will be

cancelled.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), 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 ‘‘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.

It has been determined that this rule

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of the Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to

OMB review.

B. Unfunded Mandates Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (signed

into law on March 22, 1995) requires

that EPA 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 aggregate, or

by the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any one year. Section 203 of the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

requires EPA to establish a plan for

obtaining input from and informing,

educating and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely affected by the rule.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act, EPA must identify and

consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule for which a

budgetary impact statement must be

prepared. EPA must select from those

alternatives the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule, unless EPA explains why

this alternative is not selected or the

selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

Because this proposed rule is

expected to result in the expenditure by

state, local and tribal governments or

private sector of less than $100 million

in any one year, EPA has not prepared

a budgetary impact statement or

specifically addressed selection of the

least costly, most cost-effective or least

burdensome alternative. Because small

governments will not be significantly or

uniquely affected by this rule, EPA is

not required to develop a plan with

regard to small governments.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

proposed rule would not have a

significant adverse impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because it relates to requirements

applicable only to manufacturers of

motor vehicles, a group which does not

contain a substantial number of small

entities. See 1996 World Motor Vehicle

Data, AAMA, pp. 282–285.

Therefore, I certify that this action

will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

D. Executive Order 13045

This proposed rule is not subject to

E.O. 13045, entitled Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks (62FR19885,

April 23, 1997), because it does not

involve decisions on environmental

health risks or safety risks that may

disproportionately affect children.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction

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

Information Collection Request (ICR)

document has been prepared by EPA

(ICR No. 1872.01) and a copy may be

obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at

OPPE Regulatory Information Division;

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(2137); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington

D.C. 20460, by email at

farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling

(202)260–2740. A copy may also be

downloaded off the internet at http://

www.epa.gov.icr.

The information collection burden

associated with this rule (testing, record

keeping and reporting requirements) is

estimated to total 700,154 hours

annually for the manufacturers of lightduty vehicles and light-duty trucks. The

hours spent annually on information

collection activities by a given

manufacturer depends upon

manufacturer-specific variables, such as

the number of test groups and durability

groups, production changes, emissions

defects, and so forth.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the
39680 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15.

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 to the Director, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2136); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC

20460; and to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,

N.W., Washington, DC 20503, marked

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.’’

Include the ICR number in any

correspondence.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: July 15, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–19403 Filed 7–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U