Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 72917 

paying the tax and interest due on the 

excess distribution. A shareholder that 

makes the deemed dividend election 

after the due date of the return 

(determined without regard to 

extensions) for the election year must 

pay additional interest, pursuant to 

section 6601, on the amount of 

underpayment of tax for that year. 

(ii) Attachment to Form 8621. The 

shareholder must attach a schedule to 

Form 8621 that demonstrates the 

calculation of the shareholder’s pro rata 

share of the post-1986 earnings and 

profits of the PFIC that is treated as 

distributed to the shareholder on the 

termination date pursuant to this 

paragraph (c). If the shareholder is 

claiming an exclusion from its pro rata 

share of the post-1986 earnings and 

profits for an amount previously 

included in its income or the income of 

another U.S. person, the shareholder 

must include the following information: 

(A) The name, address, and taxpayer 

identification number of each U.S. 

person that previously included an 

amount in income, the amount 

previously included in income by each 

such U.S. person, the provision of law 

pursuant to which the amount was 

previously included in income, and the 

taxable year or years of inclusion of 

each amount. 

(B) A description of the transaction 

pursuant to which the shareholder 

acquired, directly or indirectly, the 

stock of the PFIC from another U.S. 

person, and the provision of law 

pursuant to which the shareholder’s 

holding period includes the period the 

other U.S. person held the CFC stock. 

(6) Adjustments to basis. A 

shareholder that makes the deemed 

dividend election increases its adjusted 

basis of the stock of the PFIC owned 

directly by the shareholder by the 

amount of the deemed dividend. If the 

shareholder makes the deemed dividend 

election with respect to a PFIC of which 

it is an indirect shareholder, the 

shareholder’s adjusted basis of the stock 

or other property owned directly by the 

shareholder, through which ownership 

of the PFIC is attributed to the 

shareholder, is increased by the amount 

of the deemed dividend. In addition, 

solely for purposes of determining the 

subsequent treatment under the Code 

and regulations of a shareholder of the 

stock of the PFIC, the adjusted basis of 

the direct owner of the stock of the PFIC 

is increased by the amount of the 

deemed dividend. 

(7) Treatment of holding period. If the 

shareholder of a foreign corporation has 

made a deemed dividend election, then, 

for purposes of applying sections 1291 

through 1298 to such shareholder after 

the deemed dividend, the shareholder’s 

holding period of the stock of the 

foreign corporation begins on the day 

following the termination date. For 

other purposes of the Code and 

regulations, this holding period rule 

does not apply. 

(8) Coordination with section 959(e). 

For purposes of section 959(e), the 

entire deemed dividend is treated as 

having been included in gross income 

under section 1248(a). 

(d) Termination date. For purposes of 

this section, the termination date is the 

last day of the last taxable year of the 

foreign corporation during which it 

qualified as a PFIC under section 

1297(a). 

(e) Late purging elections requiring 

special consent. [Reserved]. For further 

guidance, see § 1.1298–3T(e). 

(f) Effective date. This section applies 

for taxable years of shareholders 

beginning on or after December 8, 2005. 

However, taxpayers may apply the rules 

of this section to a taxable year 

beginning prior to December 8, 2005, 

provided the statute of limitations on 

the assessment of tax has not expired. 

PART 602—OMB CONTROL NUMBERS 

UNDER THE PAPERWORK 

REDUCTION ACT 

■ Par. 6. The authority citation for part 

602 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. 

■ Par. 7. In § 602.101, paragraph (b) is 

amended by adding an entry in 

numerical order to the table as follows: 

§ 602.101 OMB Control numbers. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

CFR part or section where 

identified and described 

Current OMB 

control No. 

* * * * * 

1.1298–3 ............................... 1545–1507 

* * * * * 

Approved: November 21, 2005. 

Mark E. Matthews, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

Eric Solomon, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 

Treasury. 

[FR Doc. 05–23629 Filed 12–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 346 

Department of Defense Education 

Activity (DoDEA) 

AGENCY: Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document removes 32 

CFR Part 346, ‘‘DoD Education 

Activity’’. This part has served the 

purpose for which it was intended and 

is no longer needed. A copy of DoD 

Directive 1342.20, ‘‘Department of 

Defense Education Activity (DoDEA),’’

is available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/ 

directives/. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective 

November 28, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.M. 

Bynum 703–696–4970. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 346 

Education, Military personnel, 

Organization and functions 

(Government agencies). 

PART 346—[REMOVED] 

■ For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 131, 32 

CFR Part 346 is removed. 

Dated: December 2, 2005. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 05–23768 Filed 12–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 86 

[OAR–2004–0011; FRL 8004–7] 

RIN 2060–AM32 

Control of Air Pollution From New 

Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle 

Engines: Technical Amendments to 

Evaporative Emissions Regulations, 

Dynamometer Regulations, and 

Vehicle Labeling 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to make changes to certain 

provisions of the evaporative and 

refueling emission regulations for lightduty vehicles, light-duty trucks and 

heavy-duty vehicles up to 14,000 

72918 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

pounds GVWR, the four-wheel drive 

dynamometer test provisions, and the 

vehicle labeling regulations. The 

evaporative changes are intended to: 

reduce manufacturers’ certification 

evaporative/refueling test burden; 

clarify existing evaporative/refueling 

requirements; and better harmonize 

federal evaporative/refueling test 

procedures with California evaporative/ 

refueling test procedures. The 

dynamometer changes are intended to 

amend outdated regulations to now 

include four-wheel drive provisions. 

The labeling changes are intended to 

amend regulations to remove outdated 

information. Today’s action does not 

change the stringency of these existing 

programs. 

DATES: Today’s action will be effective 

on February 6, 2006, without further 

notice unless we receive adverse 

comment by January 9, 2006, or a 

request for a public hearing by 

December 23, 2005. If we receive 

adverse comment on one or more 

distinct amendments, paragraphs, or 

sections of this rulemaking, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register indicating which 

provisions are being withdrawn due to 

adverse comment. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. OAR–2004–

0011, by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Docket ID No. OAR–2004–

0011, Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: Docket ID No. OAR–

2004–0011, Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Air and Radiation Docket, Mailcode: 

6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. OAR–2004–0011. EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made 

available online at http://www.epa.gov/ 

edocket, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA 

EDOCKET and the federal 

regulations.gov Web sites are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the EDOCKET index at 

http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

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

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the fax number for 

the Air Docket and Reading Room for 

OAR–2004–0011 is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lynn Sohacki, Certification and 

Compliance Division, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, 2000 

Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; 

telephone number: (734) 214–4851; fax 

number: (734) 214–4053; e-mail address: 

sohacki.lynn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is 

publishing this rule without a prior 

proposal because we view this action as 

noncontroversial and anticipate no 

adverse comment. However, in the 

‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of today’s 

Federal Register publication, we are 

publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to adopt the 

provisions in this Direct Final Rule if 

adverse comments are filed. We may 

address all adverse comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. We will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. Any distinct 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

today’s rulemaking for which we do not 

receive adverse comment will become 

effective on the date set out above, 

notwithstanding any adverse comment 

on any other distinct amendment, 

paragraph, or section of today’s rule. 

Access to Rulemaking Documents 

Through the Internet 

Today’s action is available 

electronically on the date of publication 

from EPA’s Federal Register Internet 

Web site listed below. Electronic copies 

of this preamble, regulatory language, 

and other documents associated with 

today’s final rule are available from the 

EPA Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality Web site, listed below, shortly 

after the rule is signed by the 

Administrator. These services are free of 

charge, except any cost that you already 

incur for connecting to the Internet. 

EPA Federal Register Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/epaair/ (either select a desired date or use 

the Search feature). 

EPA Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ 

otaq/ (look in What’s New or under 

specific rulemaking topic). 

Please note that due to differences 

between the software used to develop 

the documents and the software into 

which the documents may be 

downloaded, changes in format, page 

length, etc., may occur. 

Regulated Entities: Entities potentially 

affected by this action are those that 

manufacture and sell motor vehicles in 

the United States. The table below gives 

some examples of entities that may have 

to comply with the regulations. 

However, since these are only examples, 

you should carefully examine these and 

other existing regulations in 40 CFR part 

86. If you have any questions, please 

call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section above. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 72919 

Category NAICS 

codes a

SIC 

codes b Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry ................................................... 336111, 

336112, 

336120 

3711 Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing. 

a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

bStandard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code. 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview 

Background 

II. List of Changes To Test Procedures 

A. Evaporative Test Procedure 

B. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery 

(ORVR) and Spitback Test Procedure 

C. Four-Wheel Drive Dynamometer 

Regulations 

D. Vehicle Labeling 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Congressional Review Act 

IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority 

I. Overview 

Today’s action pertains to the 

Evaporative Emissions Test Procedure 

(58 FR 16002, March 24, 1992) and the 

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery 

Procedure (59 FR 16262, April 6, 1994) 

for light-duty vehicles, light duty trucks, 

and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles up to 

14,000 GVWR; the dynamometer test 

provisions (40 CFR 86.135–90, 40 CFR 

86.159–00, 40 CFR 86.160–00); and the 

Vehicle Labeling requirements (40 CFR 

86.098–35, 40 CFR 86.1807–01). Today’s 

action includes minor revisions to the 

evaporative test procedures, which are 

intended to reduce testing burden 

associated with conducting evaporative 

test procedures without affecting the 

level of stringency. Today’s action 

includes minor revisions to clarify 

evaporative emissions testing 

regulations; to harmonize EPA and 

California evaporative requirements; to 

allow use of a four-wheel drive 

dynamometer; and to no longer require 

out-dated information on vehicle labels. 

Although we provide some context in 

the following discussions, a full 

discussion of the evaporative test 

procedures is outside the scope of this 

direct final rule. Readers are advised to 

consult the documents associated with 

these rulemakings to obtain the details 

of these rules. 

The remainder of this document is 

divided into the following sections: 

Section II provides a detailed 

description of today’s action. Sections 

III through IV describe the Statutory and 

Executive Order Reviews and Statutory 

Provisions and Legal Authority. 

Background 

1. The 1996 Model Year and Later 

Enhanced Evaporative Test Procedure 

The enhanced evaporative emission 

test procedure for 1996 model year and 

later passenger cars, light-duty trucks 

and heavy-duty vehicles measures 

emissions from fuel evaporation during 

simulated overnight parking 

experiences (diurnal emissions), during 

vehicle operations (running loss 

emissions), and immediately following a 

drive (hot soak emissions). 

The enhanced evaporative test 

procedure includes a sequence of three 

basic elements: (1) An initial loading of 

the evaporative canister with fuel vapor; 

(2) a period of driving to provide an 

opportunity to purge the canister; and 

(3) a simulation of repeated hot days of 

parking. By following this sequence and 

sampling evaporative emissions during 

hot soak, running loss and parking 

simulation, the test ensures that the 

vehicle can quickly regain canister 

storage capacity during driving and 

provides further assurance that vehicles 

will effectively control evaporative 

emissions for most in-use events. The 

enhanced evaporative test procedure 

also includes a test procedure to 

measure fuel spillage during refueling, 

called spitback. The 1996 and later 

model year enhanced evaporative test 

procedures follow. 

a. Three-Day Diurnal-plus-Hot-Soak 

Test Sequence. Each of the three-day 

diurnal plus hot-soak (three-diurnal) 

test elements corresponds to an aspect 

of in-use vehicle operation in ozoneprone summertime conditions. The 

exhaust emission test following vehicle 

preconditioning corresponds to vehicle 

operation while vapors from a loaded 

evaporative canister are purged into the 

engine, as might occur during driving 

after a prolonged period of parking. The 

running loss test element corresponds to 

sustained vehicle operation on a hot 

day. The hot soak element corresponds 

to the emission-prone period 

immediately following engine shut-off. 

The diurnal heat builds correspond to 

successive days of parking in hot 

weather and also serve to control fuel 

system permeation emissions, called 

resting losses. 

The purpose of the running loss test 

is to measure evaporative emissions 

during vehicle operation to assure that 

vehicles can control fuel vapors 

generated in use. In order to perform the 

running loss test, auto manufacturers 

must separately develop a fuel 

temperature profile for the running loss 

test. The fuel temperature profile is used 

as a target during the running loss test 

to duplicate the heating of the vehicle’s 

fuel tank during onroad driving in 

representative summer conditions. Each 

fuel temperature profile is generated by 

obtaining a fuel temperature versus time 

trace as the vehicle is driven over the 

prescribed running loss driving cycle, 

during sunny, summertime conditions, 

e.g. at 95 °F ambient temperature, on the 

road. During the running loss test, 

thermocouples are placed inside the 

fuel tank to measure and monitor the 

fuel temperature. 

b. Two-Day Diurnal-plus-Hot-Soak 

Test Sequence. The two-day diurnalplus-hot-soak (two-diurnal) test 

sequence is a supplemental evaporative 

test procedure, consisting of vehicle 

preconditioning, canister 

preconditioning, FTP exhaust test, hot 

soak at 68–86 °F, and two diurnal heat 

builds. The two-diurnal test sequence is 

similar to the three-diurnal but excludes 

the running loss test. Instead, without 

the running loss portion of the test 

procedure, the two diurnal heat builds 

after the exhaust emission test verify 

that the evaporative canister is 

sufficiently purged during the exhaust 

emission test, which simulates short 

trips (58 FR 16003, March 23, 1993). 

‘‘Eliminating a diurnal heat build, 

initially loading the evaporative canister 

only to breakthrough, measuring a 

moderate temperature hot soak, and 

increasing the standard from 2 to 2.5 

grams all contribute significantly to 

making the [two-diurnal test] procedure 

effective in its limited objective of 

72920 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

ensuring proper purge without requiring 

additional design modifications’’ (58 FR 

16001, March 24, 1993). The threediurnal test sequence does not test for 

canister purge as effectively as the twodiurnal test sequence due to the 

addition of the running loss test, which 

occurs between the FTP exhaust test 

and diurnal heat builds. Since exhaust 

emissions are not measured during 

running loss, it cannot be determined if 

canister purging occurred only during 

the FTP exhaust cycle (58 FR 16001, 

March 24, 1993). 

c. Spitback Test Procedure. The 

spitback test procedure assures that 

vehicles’ fuel fill necks are adequately 

designed to accommodate in-use fuel fill 

rates, so as to limit fuel spillage when 

refueling a vehicle. 

2. The 1998 and Later Onboard 

Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) Test 

Procedure 

A separate evaporative test procedure, 

the Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery 

(ORVR) test procedure, was developed 

to measure refueling emissions from 

vehicles. On January 24, 1994, EPA 

adopted onboard vehicle refueling 

requirements for passenger cars and 

light-duty trucks (59 FR 16262, April 6, 

1994). EPA also adopted similar ORVR 

requirements for complete heavy-duty 

vehicles less than 10,000 lbs. GVWR (65 

FR 59896, October 6, 2000). The main 

purpose of the ORVR test is to limit 

hydrocarbon vapors released during 

refueling events. The ORVR test 

procedure also accounts for spitback 

emissions in the overall emission 

measurements, reducing the necessity 

for a separate spitback test procedure 

(59 FR 16262, April 6, 1994). 

3. Evaporative Test Procedures 

Similarities 

The enhanced evaporative test 

procedure is important for measuring 

evaporative emissions from vehicles 

under numerous drive and park 

conditions, and the ORVR test is 

important for measuring refueling 

emissions from vehicles. In some cases, 

similar parameters are tested by these 

test procedures. The two-diurnal and 

three-diurnal test sequences both test 

canister capacity, permeation control, 

and canister purge capacity. The threediurnal test sequence also tests hot drive 

vapor generation (running loss) and 

high temperature vapor generation. The 

ORVR test procedure tests canister 

capacity and canister purge capacity, in 

addition to refueling vapor generation 

and fill pipe losses. The two-diurnal test 

procedure takes approximately four 

days; the three-diurnal takes five days; 

the spitback takes one day; and the 

ORVR takes three days. Thus, 

performing all four test procedures 

requires a minimum of 12 days since the 

spitback test is often waived. EPA 

believes it is appropriate to streamline 

the evaporative test procedure to reduce 

testing burden and to reduce 

overlapping procedures without 

affecting the level of stringency. 

EPA, California Air Resources Board 

(ARB), and the automobile industry 

have collaborated since 1996 to identify 

portions of these test procedures that 

can be streamlined and/or harmonized, 

and the discussions culminated in EPA 

Guidance Letter CCD–02–20, December 

31, 2002, available on the Internet at 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/ 

dearmfr.htm. The Guidance Letter 

clarified portions of evaporative 

emission test procedure and also 

suggested minor modifications to the 

test procedure which could be made via 

a direct rulemaking. Today’s action 

codifies the suggested modifications and 

finalizes the clarifications to the 

evaporative and refueling test 

procedures. Today’s action does not 

affect the stringency of the current 

requirements. 

4. Dynamometer Test Provisions 

The current dynamometer test 

procedures (86.139–90, 86.159–00, and 

86.160–00) date from a time when fourwheel drive dynamometers were not 

widely available for measurement of 

exhaust emissions and fuel economy. 

Changes in technology for modern fourwheel and all-wheel drive vehicles have 

heightened the need for testing these 

vehicles on a four-wheel drive 

dynamometer. It is no longer easy to 

configure certain four-wheel or allwheel drive certification vehicles for 

testing on a two-wheel drive 

dynamometer. The need for four-wheel 

drive dynamometer tests also includes 

hybrid vehicles with sophisticated 

regenerative braking systems that cannot 

receive a representative test on a twowheel drive dynamometer. 

5. Vehicle Labeling 

86.1807–01 contains the labeling 

requirements for vehicles, which 

include light-duty vehicles, light-duty 

trucks, medium-duty passenger 

vehicles, and heavy-duty vehicles 

which are chassis certified. 86.098–35 

previously applied to vehicle and 

engine labeling, but since the 2001 

model year apply only to heavy-duty 

engine labeling. The labels’ basic 

content requirements date from a time 

when vehicles were designed with 

manually adjustable tune-up settings, 

including idle speed(s), ignition timing, 

air-fuel mixture, injection timing, and 

valve lash, and did not use an exhaust 

catalyst. Modern vehicles and engines 

are electronically controlled, making a 

listing of tune-up specifications 

unnecessary. As well, leaded fuel was 

still widely available in the U.S. at the 

time of the label requirements. The 

labels have not been updated since the 

introduction of catalyst technology 

almost 30 years ago. 

II. List of Changes to Test Procedures 

Today’s action describes minor 

modifications and clarifications made to 

the evaporative test procedures, 

dynamometer regulations, and vehicle 

labeling requirements. Explanation and, 

where appropriate, EPA’s interpretation 

of the resulting regulatory language is 

provided. 

A. Evaporative Test Procedures 

1. Provide Opportunity To Waive the 

Two-Day Evaporative Test for 

Certification Tests Under Certain 

Conditions 

a. Current Procedure. The current 

two-diurnal enhanced evaporative test 

procedure is part of the overall 

enhanced evaporative emission test 

procedure (58 FR 16001, March 24, 

1993). Currently, manufacturers are 

expected to complete three-diurnal, 

two-diurnal, and ORVR tests on 

certification vehicles. 

b. Today’s Action. Today’s action 

provides manufacturers with an option 

which will allow a waiver from the twoday diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative 

emission certification test. 

Manufacturers must still perform threediurnal and ORVR tests for certification 

vehicles and perform the two-diurnal 

and ORVR test on vehicles for the InUse Verification Program (40 CFR 1845–

01, 1845–04). EPA may perform at its 

discretion confirmatory two-diurnal 

evaporative emission testing on 

certification test vehicles which are 

certified using this option, even though 

the manufacturer may not have 

performed a two-diurnal test during the 

certification process. 

Manufacturers may use the waiver 

based on good engineering judgement 

that the canister will be adequately 

purged during the FTP exhaust test and 

comply with the two-diurnal emission 

standard. Manufacturers will need to 

provide a statement in the certification 

application stating: ‘‘Based on the 

manufacturer’s engineering evaluation 

of appropriate evaporative emission 

testing, all vehicles in [a specific 

evaporative/refueling family] will 

comply with the applicable two-day 

evaporative emission standard.’’

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 72921 

EPA may request data from the 

manufacturers demonstrating that the 

purge flow rate calibration on the twodiurnal tests adequately purges the 

canister to comply with the evaporative 

emission standard for the supplemental 

two-day test in lieu of actual two-day 

evaporative test data. Such information 

may include, but is not limited to, 

canister type, canister volume, canister 

working capacity, fuel tank volume, fuel 

tank geometry, the type of fuel delivery 

system (return, returnless, variable flow 

fuel pump, etc.), a description of the 

input parameters and software strategy 

used to control the evaporative canister 

purge, the nominal purge flow volume 

(in bed volumes) when vehicles are 

driven over the 2-day (FTP) driving 

cycle, the nominal purge flow volume 

(in bed volumes) when vehicles are 

driven over the 3-diurnal (FTP + 

running loss) driving cycle, and other 

supporting information as necessary. 

This information will address EPA’s 

concerns about vehicles sufficiently 

purging the canister, as expressed in 58 

FR 16009–11, March 24, 1993. As well, 

this information will be useful in 

selecting EPA in-class testing vehicles 

and be helpful for determining potential 

evaporative defeat devices. 

This testing waiver option will only 

be available to current technology 

gasoline-fueled and ethanol-fueled 

vehicles which use conventional 

evaporative emission control systems, 

e.g. vehicles equipped with 

conventional fuel tank materials, liquid 

seal ORVR systems, and carbon 

canister(s). Currently all light-duty and 

heavy-duty up to 14,000 GVWR vehicles 

certified in the U.S. use an integrated 

evaporative/refueling emission control 

system. For this reason, EPA does not 

expect the waiver to be used for nonintegrated evaporative/refueling 

emission control system. If nonintegrated systems become more 

common and in-use data can 

demonstrate with confidence that the 

vast majority of such vehicles are in 

compliance with evaporative emission 

standards, then testing waivers may be 

used for non-integrated systems as well 

in the future. 

c. Reason for Action. EPA believes 

that there will be very little risk of 

noncompliance for several reasons. 

Manufacturers will continue to be 

responsible for meeting the two-day 

diurnal-plus-hot-soak emission 

standards even if they waive the twodiurnal certification test procedure. In 

addition, vehicles must still meet the 

three-diurnal and ORVR test 

requirements which provide data to 

EPA on many aspects of the two-diurnal 

test procedure since the three-diurnal 

test procedure is similar to the twodiurnal test procedure, except for 

canister purge. However canister purge 

assurance is an inherent part of the 

ORVR test procedure. Thus the 

combination of three-diurnal and ORVR 

certification data assure adequate 

canister purge. 

EPA believes that compliance with 

the two-diurnal standards is further 

assured because EPA may perform at its 

discretion confirmatory two-diurnal 

evaporative emission testing on 

certification test vehicles which are 

certified using this option. In addition 

to EPA’s confirmatory testing, a vehicle 

randomly selected from each 

evaporative family will be tested using 

the two-diurnal evaporative test 

procedure under the In-Use Verification 

Program, as required in provisions 40 

CFR 86.1845–01(a)(5)(ii) and 86.1845–

04(a)(5)(ii). If data shows 

noncompliance, EPA will not normally 

grant subsequent waivers for the 

applicable evaporative family. The InUse vehicle recall program also 

conducts two-diurnal evaporative 

testing as an additional compliance 

check. 

This provision reduces testing burden 

by reducing overlapping requirements 

of the two-diurnal, three-diurnal and 

ORVR test procedures. In addition, 

performing all three tests is time 

consuming, taking a minimum of 12 

days to complete if there are no voids. 

The evaporative test procedures are very 

complex and detailed, with specified 

times for completing each section and, 

when voids occur, they result in 

additional time to complete the tests. 

2. Allow Opportunities for Alternative 

Methods for the Running Loss Test 

Procedure 

a. Current Procedure. The purpose of 

the running loss test is to measure 

evaporative emissions during vehicle 

operation to assure that vehicles can 

control fuel vapors generated in use, in 

urban driving and low-speed or idle 

conditions. The current regulations 

require the installation of two 

temperature sensors (thermocouples) in 

the fuel tank to provide an average 

liquid fuel temperature. This average 

fuel temperature is used to control the 

fuel tank temperature profile (FTTP) 

during the running loss drive portion of 

the three-day test. This current method 

can be invasive to a vehicle’s fuel 

system and requires thermocouples to 

be accurately positioned in the fuel 

tank. 

b. Today’s Action. Today’s action 

amends the regulations to allow 

manufacturers the option for using an 

alternative running loss test procedure. 

Prior EPA approval is needed for this 

option. This provision also allows EPA 

to conduct certification and in-use 

testing for a specific vehicle using the 

alternative method for the running loss 

test procedure. 

In order to obtain EPA approval of an 

alternative method for the running loss 

test procedure, manufacturers will be 

required to provide EPA with data that 

demonstrates that the alternative 

method is equal to or more stringent 

than the current method. Data should 

include, but is not limited to, multiple 

tests comparing running loss, hot soak, 

and diurnal emissions using the current 

test procedure and the alternative test 

procedure. The test vehicles used to 

provide comparison are expected to 

cover the types of technology for the 

population of vehicles approved to use 

the alternative method, including, but 

not limited to, in-tank fuel return and 

fuel tank parameters, such as tank 

material, insulation, size, geometry, and 

location. If a vehicle fails the running 

loss portion of the three-diurnal test 

procedure, the manufacturer normally 

would not be allowed to treat the failure 

as an invalid test or request a retest 

using the standard running loss 

procedure outlined in 40 CFR 86.134–

96. 

c. Reasons for Action. Today’s action 

allows an alternative method for the 

running loss test procedure for several 

reasons. 

The allowance of an alternative 

method addresses specific concerns 

related to controlling the fuel tank 

temperature profile (FTTP) during the 

running loss portion of the three-diurnal 

test. Thermocouple installment is 

especially difficult (and often invasive) 

to perform for in-use running loss and 

three-day tests on customer-owned 

vehicles. To perform in-use tests, the 

fuel tank often needs to be removed 

and/or a hole is made in the fuel tank, 

resulting in having to replace the fuel 

tank on the customer-owned vehicle, 

which can jeopardize the integrity of the 

fuel system and the ability of a capable 

system to demonstrate compliance. If 

thermocouples are not properly placed 

in the fuel tank, they can cause the 

vehicle to fail the running loss test and, 

consequently, test results are subject to 

variability. 

EPA is not aware of an alternative 

method at this time, nor any alternative 

methods of controlling the in-tank fuel 

temperature. We encourage the 

automotive industry to work together to 

develop a technically accurate method 

of measuring and controlling in-tank 

fuel temperatures. 

72922 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

1California Air Resources Board’s SHED 

calibration procedure for propane injections, for the 

five minute retention and 24 hour recovery, is 

outlined in the California Evaporative Emission 

Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and 

Subsequent Model Motor Vehicles, adopted August 

5, 1999. California’s propane injection procedure 

for LEV–II evaporative vehicles and partial zero 

emissions vehicles (PZEVs) requires 0.5 to 1.0 

grams to be injected with a five minute maximum 

mixing time, cycling the ambient temperature up to 

105°F. 

3. Revise EPA Sealed Housing for 

Evaporative Determination Calibration 

Procedure 

a. Current Procedure. The Sealed 

Housing for Evaporative Determination 

(SHED) calibration procedure (retention 

check) is designed to determine that the 

SHED enclosure does not have leaks 

that could result in falsely low 

hydrocarbon readings during the vehicle 

evaporative testing sequences. The 

current calibration requirements, 

outlined in 40 CFR 86.117–96 (c)(1)(vii), 

which include evaporative SHED 

retention checks, were designed for 

vehicles meeting Tier 1 evaporative 

emission standards. This regulation 

requires the injection of two to six 

grams of methanol and/or propane with 

a five-minute minimum mixing time for 

enclosure recovery measurements and a 

24-hour time period for retention 

checks. These calibration requirements 

were not designed for the more stringent 

Tier 2 evaporative emission standards. 

b. Today’s Action. Today’s action 

revises the current SHED calibration 

procedure to an injection of 0.5 to 6 

grams for vehicles meeting three-diurnal 

standards equal to or above 2.0 grams/ 

test. This provision also revises the 

SHED calibration procedure to specify 

the injection of 0.5 to 1.0 gram methane 

and/or propane for a maximum 

injection of 1.0 grams for vehicles 

meeting three-diurnal standards below 

2.0 grams/test. Both revisions utilize the 

five-minute minimum mixing time and 

96°F. 

c. Reason for Action. EPA believes 

this action will ensure that 

manufacturer and EPA evaporative 

SHEDs are properly calibrated in 

accordance with testing to more 

stringent evaporative emission 

standards for Tier 2 vehicles. It will also 

harmonize the EPA SHED injection 

amounts with those of California ARB.1

4. Harmonize EPA and California 

Evaporative Test Data 

a. Current Procedure. Current 

provisions allow EPA to accept 

California evaporative data based on 40 

CFR 86.1811–04(e)(6) for Tier 2 

vehicles. However, current regulations 

do not specifically allow EPA to accept 

California evaporative data for heavyduty vehicles and non-Tier 2 vehicles 

even when the combination of the data, 

the California test procedures, and the 

California emission standards are as or 

more stringent than EPA’s requirements. 

b. Today’s Action. Today’s action 

allows the submission of California 

evaporative data for heavy-duty vehicles 

and non-Tier 2 vehicles, which may be 

submitted in lieu of Federal test data for 

50 state evaporative/refueling families 

and for ‘‘carry across’’ data from a 

California evaporative/refueling family 

to a federal family. EPA requests that 

manufacturers notify EPA of their 

intention to use California test data to 

demonstrate compliance with 

applicable federal evaporative emission 

standards and include a statement in 

their certification application that based 

on good engineering judgement the 

vehicles in an evaporative/refueling 

family will comply with the applicable 

federal evaporative standards if tested 

using California test conditions and 

procedures. EPA may request 

comparative test data on a case-by-base 

basis which clearly demonstrates that a 

vehicle meeting the California 

evaporative standard will also meet the 

appropriate federal evaporative 

emission standard. 

5. Provide the Option for Using 

Alternative Canister Loading Methods 

for the Federal Test Procedure 

a. Current Procedure. The current 

methods for canister loading for the 

Federal Test Procedure (FTP) are 

described in provisions 40 CFR 86.132–

96(h), (j)(1), and (j)(2). During the 

canister loading, the canister remains in 

place, but in situations where the 

canister is inaccessible, the canister may 

be removed for loading with special care 

not to damage any components or the 

integrity of the fuel system. The canister 

is then loaded with a butane-nitrogen 

mixture. 

b. Today’s Action. Today’s action 

allows manufacturers the option of 

using alternative canister loading 

methods that are equivalent or more 

stringent than the applicable canister 

loading method. Prior approval by EPA 

is required in order to use alternative 

methods to preload the canister(s) 

during the exhaust and evaporative test 

sequences. Manufacturers must provide 

data to EPA to prove that alternative 

methods maintain the current 

stringency required through the canister 

loading procedure. This information 

includes, but is not limited to, location 

of canister vent hose and whether the 

canister is routed to a dummy canister 

or vented during testing. EPA may also 

use the manufacturer-specified, EPAapproved alternative canister loading 

method to conduct confirmatory testing 

and in-use testing or the appropriate 

method outlined in 40 CFR 86.132–

96(h), 86.132–96(j)(1), or 86.132–

96(j)(2). 

c. Reasons for Action. EPA recognizes 

that the use of the current methods for 

canister loading during the FTP can 

jeopardize the integrity of the 

evaporative emission control system 

and, therefore, the ability of a capable 

system to demonstrate compliance with 

lower evaporative emission standards. 

In cases where the canister is 

inaccessible, the current canister 

loading procedure can be quite 

burdensome and difficult to perform, 

especially on In-Use Verification 

Program vehicles. 

6. In-Use Verification Program 

Evaporative Emissions Testing 

Requirements 

EPA is clarifying EPA’s position 

regarding the evaporative emission 

testing requirements for the current InUse Verification Program (IUVP) (40 

CFR 86.1845–01, 86.1845–04). The 

current provisions imply, but do not 

specify, that all evaporative tests for all 

fuel types should be performed, 

including the two-day diurnal-plus-hotsoak, three-day diurnal-plus-hot-soak, 

and running loss tests. 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

CAP 2000 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking text (63 FR 39672, July 23, 

1998), EPA did not anticipate that more 

than one evaporative test would be 

required for IUVP vehicles. 

The clarifications for IUVP state that 

for gasoline- and ethanol-fueled in-use 

vehicles, running loss and three-day 

diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative 

emissions tests are not required to be 

performed. However, while these tests 

do not have to be performed, gasolineand ethanol-fueled IUVP vehicles are 

still required to comply with the 

applicable standards for the threediurnal and running loss test 

procedures. The two-diurnal test 

procedure must continue to be 

conducted on gasoline- and ethanolfueled IUVP vehicles. Note that for 

compressed natural gas (CNG) and 

propane (LPG) fueled (also known as 

gaseous-fueled) vehicles, a three-day 

diurnal-plus-hot-soak test is required for 

IUVP testing. However, for gaseousfueled vehicles the three-diurnal test 

procedure neither includes a running 

loss test nor thermocouples placed in 

the fuel tank, and therefore is not 

intrusive for IUVP testing of these 

vehicles. In addition, the two-day test 

procedure is not applicable to gaseousfueled vehicles, 40 CFR 86.130–96(a)(2). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 72923 

7. CFR Correction for Paragraph 

86.1810–01 (m) 

Paragraph 86.1810–01 (m) was 

inadvertently omitted from the July, 

2002, Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR). This paragraph is necessary as it 

relates to other modifications and 

clarification in today’s action. Paragraph 

(m) refers to waivers referenced in 

today’s action. 

Today’s action resubmits paragraph 

86.1810–01 (m) to the CFR, as worded 

in the original CAP 2000 rule (64 FR 

23939, May 4, 1999). 

B. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery 

(ORVR) and Spitback Test Procedure 

1. Option To Not Disconnect Hoses 

During ORVR 

a. Current Procedure. Currently, 40 

CFR 86.152–98(b), 40 CFR 86.153–98(d), 

and 40 CFR 86.153–98(e)(2) require the 

canister to be disconnected for 

integrated and non-integrated systems 

when draining and refueling the fuel 

tank to the 10 percent level prior to the 

initial soak, which precedes the actual 

refueling and measurement portion of 

the refueling test. The canister is also 

required to be disconnected when 

initially filling the fuel tank to 95 

percent of nominal tank capacity in the 

preconditioning portion of the ORVR 

test for non-integrated systems. 

b. Today’s Action. Today’s action 

provides manufacturers the option of 

not disconnecting the evaporative hoses 

during the ORVR preconditioning step. 

The manufacturer shall specify whether 

or not the canister should be 

disconnected, and EPA will use the 

manufacturer specified procedure when 

performing EPA confirmatory testing. 

c. Reasons for Action. The option to 

not disconnect the ORVR hose is a more 

stringent test procedure than 

disconnecting the hose because the 

hose, while in place, will direct all 

refueling vapors to the canister during 

the preconditioning portion of the 

ORVR test, adding an additional load to 

the canister. The primary reason 

manufacturers may use this option is to 

minimize the chance of the test 

procedure causing vapor leaks in the 

evaporative system, minimize the 

chance of damage that may result from 

disconnecting the hose, and reduce test 

variability. If the canister hoses are not 

re-connected properly, the test 

procedure could result in vapor leaks in 

the system, leading to variability in the 

test data. 

2. CFR Correction for Paragraph 

86.1810–01(1) 

Paragraph 86.1810–01(1) was 

inadvertently omitted from the July 

2002 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 

Today’s action resubmits paragraph 

86.1810–01 (l) to the CFR, as worded in 

the Heavy-Duty ORVR Final Rule (65 FR 

59970, October 6, 2000). 

C. Four-Wheel Drive Dynamometer 

Provisions 

a. Current Procedure 

The current dynamometer test 

procedures only apply to the use of a 

two-wheel drive dynamometer and do 

not include provisions for utilizing a 

four-wheel drive dynamometer. 

b. Today’s Action 

Today’s action revises three sections 

of 40 CFR Subpart B, all of which have 

identical wording describing how to test 

four-wheel drive vehicles on a chassis 

dynamometer. The three sections which 

EPA will modify, 86.135–90, 86.159–00, 

and 86.160–00, all date from a time 

when four-wheel drive dynamometers 

were not widely available for 

measurement of exhaust emissions and 

fuel economy. EPA has not ruled out 

future changes in its emission and fuel 

economy compliance programs, 

especially as EPA strives to ensure that 

a dynamometer test for a given vehicle 

is as representative as possible of the 

vehicle’s actual road experience. 

EPA plans to issue a guidance letter 

prepared by the Certification and 

Compliance Division announcing in 

further detail how it will use the fourwheel drive dynamometer in its 

compliance programs. However, 

guidance letters are written to clarify 

EPA policy, and it is not possible to 

issue a guidance letter on usage of the 

four-wheel drive dynamometer until the 

language in the CFR is revised. In the 

absence of that, EPA has developed the 

following proposals for the use of fourwheel drive dynamometers in emission 

and fuel economy compliance programs. 

The term four-wheel drive vehicle is 

also meant to include all-wheel drive 

vehicles. 

The regulatory changes described 

below will give EPA and manufacturers 

the regulatory authority to test fourwheel drive and all-wheel drive 

vehicles on four-wheel drive 

dynamometers. These changes do not 

impose new stringency in EPA’s 

certification and compliance programs. 

Manufacturers may conduct 

certification testing for four-wheel drive 

vehicles on either a four-wheel drive or 

two-wheel drive mode of dynamometer 

operation. EPA will conduct 

confirmatory testing on certification and 

fuel economy test vehicles in the same 

dynamometer mode of operation, twowheel drive or four-wheel drive, which 

the manufacturer used for their vehicle 

testing. 

Manufacturers will normally conduct 

In-Use Verification Program testing on a 

four-wheel drive dynamometer for 

vehicles which were certified in a fourwheel drive test mode. Four-wheel drive 

vehicles which were certified in a twowheel drive mode may be tested in 

either a four-wheel drive or a two-wheel 

drive mode of operation. Prior approval 

by EPA is required to test four-wheel 

drive vehicles, which were certified on 

a four-wheel drive test mode, on a twowheel drive dynamometer for the In-Use 

Verification Program. 

EPA conducts in-use surveillance 

testing on randomly procured vehicles 

that are not screened with the same 

rigor that would be used for recall 

confirmatory class vehicles. EPA may 

conduct surveillance in-use testing of 

all-wheel drive vehicles on the fourwheel drive dynamometer as necessary 

to avoid modifications to the owner’s 

vehicle, regardless of how the vehicles 

were certified. 

If an all-wheel drive vehicle class 

certified in a two-wheel drive 

configuration must undergo in-use 

confirmatory testing, EPA will discuss 

with the manufacturer options to 

determine the most practical and 

appropriate way to conduct the testing. 

EPA will make the final determination 

as to whether the vehicles will be tested 

in the all-wheel drive mode for 

confirmatory testing. 

EPA may conduct defeat device 

testing in the four-wheel drive mode of 

operation using four-wheel drive 

certification and fuel economy vehicles 

that were tested by the manufacturer on 

a two-wheel drive dynamometer, and 

confirmatory tested on a two-wheel 

drive dynamometer at EPA. 

c. Reason for Action 

Changes in technology for modern 

four-wheel and all-wheel drive vehicles 

have heightened the need for testing 

these vehicles on a four-wheel drive 

dynamometer. It is no longer easy to 

configure certain four-wheel or allwheel drive certification vehicles for 

testing on a two-wheel drive 

dynamometer. The need for four-wheel 

drive dynamometer tests also includes 

hybrid vehicles with sophisticated 

regenerative braking systems that cannot 

receive a representative test on a twowheel drive dynamometer. 

EPA is also aware of a small but 

increasing number of in-use vehicles 

which cannot be modified for testing on 

72924 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

a two-wheel drive dynamometer 

without intrusive modification to the 

drive line and/or modifications to the 

vehicle’s electronic control systems. 

Additionally, there are many more fourwheel and all-wheel drive vehicles in 

the market place today compared to the 

time when EPA’s policy for testing fourwheel drive vehicles was first drafted. 

Although four-wheel drive 

dynamometers have been installed at 

many test facilities worldwide, EPA 

realizes that individual manufacturers 

may have limited experience in 

compliance testing on these 

dynamometers, in particular for the 

most sophisticated new all-wheel drive 

vehicles. EPA understands that users of 

four-wheel drive dynamometers are, in 

some cases, still learning how well fourwheel drive dynamometers can simulate 

actual road operation. EPA and 

manufacturers will both benefit as more 

data are collected and examined. 

D. Vehicle Labeling 

a. Current Procedure 

40 CFR 86.1807–01 contains the 

labeling requirements for vehicles, 

which include light-duty vehicles, lightduty trucks, medium-duty passenger 

vehicles, and heavy-duty vehicles 

which are chassis certified. 40 CFR 

86.098–35 previously applied to vehicle 

and engine labeling, but since the 2001 

model year apply only to heavy-duty 

engine labeling. 

b. Today’s Action 

Today’s action revises the vehicle 

labeling requirements described in 

sections 40 CFR 86.1807–01, Vehicle 

labeling, and 40 CFR 86.098–35, 

Labeling, for no longer requiring outdated information to be included on the 

label. 

The Certification and Compliance 

Division expects to issue a guidance 

letter after these regulatory changes are 

completed in order to show an example 

of an approved label which reflects the 

new flexibility in label design. Initially, 

vehicle manufacturers who wish to take 

advantage of these labeling changes 

must have their new label designs 

approved by their EPA vehicle or engine 

certification representative. 

c. Reason for Action 

These changes to the regulations 

allow more flexibility in label content 

and design, specifically for the objective 

of improving the labels’ clarity and 

usefulness. This action is desired since 

the labels’ basic content requirements 

have not been updated since the 

introduction of catalyst technology 

almost 30 years ago. Several of the 

requirements in the labeling sections are 

no longer necessary or useful for 

modern vehicles with electronic 

emission controls. Since modern 

vehicles and engines are electronically 

controlled, a listing of tune-up 

specifications is no longer necessary. 

Additionally, the requirement for a hose 

routing diagram dates from preelectronic controlled vehicles and 

serves no purpose for modern vehicles 

and engines. In the unlikely event that 

vacuum actuated controls are present on 

modern vehicles, their function and 

location and routing of hoses are fully 

described in the vehicle service manual. 

By making these changes to the 

regulations, it is also EPA’s expectation 

that the label designs may be slightly 

more generic, leading to a reduced 

number of label types which are 

required at the time the vehicle or 

engine is produced, leading to fewer 

labeling errors. Additionally, by 

requiring only the necessary 

information on the label for modern 

vehicles and engines, it is expected that 

the size of the label, or the number of 

them for manufacturers which currently 

use more than one label to meet the 

present labeling requirements, may be 

reduced. 

When Tier 2 regulations were 

implemented, a new vehicle class, 

medium-duty passenger vehicles, was 

added. Thus it is necessary to update 

the regulations so as to clarify that the 

regulations apply to light-duty vehicle, 

light-duty trucks, and medium-duty 

passenger vehicles and heavy duty 

vehicles. 

Accepting alternative labels will 

permit use of revised formats for heavyduty engines which are easier to read, 

while still displaying the important 

elements of the ‘‘Important Engine 

Information’’ label. In addition, 

updating the regulations explicitly adds 

the heavy-duty class of vehicles that are 

certified to the chassis standards to this 

part of the labeling requirement section, 

making it consistent with the 

requirements for light-duty vehicles and 

light-duty trucks in 86.1807–01(c)(1). 

EPA has no need for the SAE J1892 

bar code to be printed on the Vehicle 

Emission Control Information (VECI) 

label. By removing this requirement, 

EPA will also be harmonizing the label 

information to be consistent with those 

of California Air Resources Board. In a 

letter dated June 26, 2002, the California 

Air Resources Board issued Mail-Out 

#MSO 2002–06 waived the requirement 

to print the SAE bar code on the labels 

for 2003 model year and newer vehicles 

and engines. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency is 

required to determine whether this 

regulatory action would be ‘‘significant’’

and therefore subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) and the requirements of the 

Executive Order. The order defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as any 

regulatory action that is likely to result 

in a rule that may: 

• 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; 

• Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

• Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or, 

• Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, we have determined that 

this final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and 

implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 

1320, do not apply to this action as it 

does not involve the collection of 

information as defined therein. 

Today’s action may reduce testing and 

reporting burden by allowing the option 

for waivers and/or alternative test 

procedures. The current average annual 

reporting burden is listed as 542,118 

hours and $10,889,000 for 153 

respondents by the Office of 

Management and Budget for light-duty 

and heavy-duty vehicles. If a 

manufacturer does not implement any 

of today’s actions, the reporting burden 

will not change. Otherwise, the burden 

may be reduced by implementing 

today’s actions but will vary depending 

upon the options and/or alternative 

methods chosen. For instance, utilizing 

the option to waive the two-diurnal 

diurnal-plus-hot-soak will reduce 

testing burden by approximately 48 

hours and $5,000 per vehicle. Since no 

alternative procedures for the running 

loss test or canister loading have been 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 72925 

approved at this time, the burden 

reduction cannot be quantified, but they 

will, in the future, result in decreases in 

hours and costs. The other options 

described in today’s action cannot be 

quantified but would not result in any 

additional burden. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

EPA has determined that it is not 

necessary to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis in connection with 

this final rule. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s final rule on small 

entities, EPA has concluded that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. In determining 

whether a rule has a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, the impact of 

concern is any significant adverse 

economic impact on small entities, 

since the primary purpose of the 

regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities.’’ 5 

U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency 

may conclude that a rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, or 

otherwise has a positive economic effect 

on all of the small entities subject to the 

rule. 

Today’s rule revises certain 

provisions of the Evaporative Emissions 

Compliance Procedure (58 FR 16002, 

March 24, 1993) and the Onboard 

Refueling Vapor Recovery Procedure (58 

FR 16262, April 6, 1994), such that 

regulated entities will find it less 

burdensome to demonstrate compliance 

with the requirements of the evaporative 

emissions and ORVR test requirements. 

More specifically, today’s action makes 

minor revisions to clarify regulations 

and reduces burdens for manufacturers 

without reducing stringency. In 

addition, today’s rule revises the 

dynamometer test provisions (40 CFR 

86.135–90, 40 CFR 86.159–00, 40 CFR 

86.160–00) and the Vehicle Labeling 

requirements (40 CFR 86.098–35, 40 

CFR 86.1807–01), such that regulated 

entities will find it less burdensome to 

test four-wheel drive vehicles and 

vehicle labels will reflect current 

information rather than out-dated 

information. We have therefore 

concluded that today’s final rule will 

relieve regulatory burden for all small 

entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on state, local, 

and tribal governments, and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

we generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘federal mandates’’ that may result 

in expenditures to state, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

for any single year. Before promulgating 

a rule for which a written statement is 

needed, section 205 of the UMRA 

generally requires us to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The 

provisions of section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows us to adopt an alternative that is 

not the least costly, most cost-effective, 

or least burdensome alternative if we 

provide an explanation in the final rule 

of why such an alternative was adopted. 

Before we establish any regulatory 

requirement that may significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, 

including tribal governments, we must 

develop a small government plan 

pursuant to section 203 of the UMRA. 

Such a plan must provide for notifying 

potentially affected small governments, 

and enabling officials of affected small 

governments to have meaningful and 

timely input in the development of our 

regulatory proposals with significant 

federal intergovernmental mandates. 

The plan must also provide for 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

Today’s action contains no federal 

mandates for state, local, or tribal 

governments as defined by the 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The 

rule imposes no enforceable duties on 

any of these governmental entities. 

Nothing in the rule will significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

We have determined that today’s 

action does not contain a federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

expenditures of more than $100 million 

to the private sector in any single year. 

This action has the net effect of revising 

certain provisions of the Evaporative 

Emissions rule, Dynamometer 

regulations, and Labeling regulations. 

Therefore, the requirements of the 

UMRA do not apply to this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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

1999), requires us to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by state 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the states,’’ on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Under section 6 of 

Executive Order 13132, we may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

Government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by state and local 

governments, or we consult with state 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation. 

We also may not issue a regulation that 

72926 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

has federalism implications and that 

preempts state law, unless the Agency 

consults with state and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation. 

Section 4 of the Executive Order 

contains additional requirements for 

rules that preempt state or local law, 

even if those rules do not have 

federalism implications (i.e., the rules 

will not have substantial direct effects 

on the states, on the relationship 

between the National Government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government). Those 

requirements include providing all 

affected state and local officials notice 

and an opportunity for appropriate 

participation in the development of the 

regulation. If the preemption is not 

based on express or implied statutory 

authority, we also must consult, to the 

extent practicable, with appropriate 

state and local officials regarding the 

conflict between state law and federally 

protected interests within the Agency’s 

area of regulatory responsibility. 

Today’s action does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the 

National Government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Today’s action 

revises certain provisions of earlier rules 

that adopted national standards to 

control vehicle evaporative emissions, 

dynamometer test provisions, and 

labeling requirements. The requirements 

of the rule will be enforced by the 

Federal Government at the national 

level. Thus, the requirements of section 

6 of the Executive Order do not apply 

to today’s action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. Today’s action 

does not uniquely affect the 

communities of American Indian tribal 

governments since the motor vehicle 

requirements for private businesses in 

today’s action will have national 

applicability. Furthermore, today’s 

action does not impose any direct 

compliance costs on these communities 

and no circumstances specific to such 

communities exist that will cause an 

impact on these communities beyond 

those discussed in the other sections of 

today’s document. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to today’s 

action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that 

(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

we have reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

section 5–501 of the Executive Order 

directs us to evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by us. 

Today’s action is not subject to the 

Executive Order because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action as defined by Executive Order 

12866. Furthermore, today’s action does 

not concern an environmental health or 

safety risk that we have reason to 

believe may have a disproportionate 

effect on children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Today’s action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), section 12(d) of 

Public Law 104–113, directs us to use 

voluntary consensus standards in our 

regulatory activities unless it would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 

us to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when we decide not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. Today’s action 

references technical standards adopted 

by us through previous rulemakings. No 

new technical standards are established 

in today’s rule. The standards 

referenced in today’s action involve the 

measurement of vehicle evaporative 

emissions, the allowance for four-wheel 

dynamometer test capabilities in 

certification and in-use testing, and 

labeling requirements revisions. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to Congress and the 

comptroller General of the United 

States. We will submit a report 

containing today’s action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Today’s 

action will be effective February 6, 

2006. 

IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal 

Authority 

Statutory authority for today’s final 

rule is found in the Clean Air Act, 42 

U.S.C. 7401 et seq., in particular, 

sections 202 and 206 of the Act, 42 

U.S.C. 7521. Today’s action is being 

promulgated under the administrative 

and procedural provisions of Clean Air 

Act section 307(d), 42 U.S.C. 7607(d). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Motor vehicle pollution. 

Dated: November 29, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 86—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 

FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY 

VEHICLES AND ENGINES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 86 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 72927 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 86.005–10 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.005–10 Emission Standards for 2005 

and later model year Otto-cycle heavy-duty 

engines and vehicles. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(5) For certification purposes, where 

the applicable California evaporative 

emission standard is as stringent or 

more stringent than the applicable 

federal evaporative emission standard, 

the Administrator may accept California 

certification test data indicating 

compliance with the California standard 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

appropriate federal certification 

evaporative emission standard. The 

Administrator may require the 

manufacturer to provide comparative 

test data which clearly demonstrates 

that a vehicle meeting the California 

evaporative standard (when tested 

under California test conditions/test 

procedures) will also meet the 

appropriate federal evaporative 

emission standard when tested under 

federal test conditions/test procedures 

described in this Part 86. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 86.098–35 is amended by 

adding paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 86.098–35 Labeling. 

* * * * * 

(j) The Administrator may approve in 

advance other label content and formats 

provided the alternative label contains 

information consistent with this section. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

■ 4. Section 86.117–96 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(1)(vii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.117–96 Evaporative emission 

enclosure calibrations. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vii) For evaporative emission 

enclosures which will be used to 

measure evaporative emissions from 

vehicles meeting evaporative standards 

equal to or above 2.0 grams, inject into 

the enclosure 0.5 to 6 grams of pure 

methanol at a temperature of at least 

150°F (65°C) and/or 0.5 to 6 grams of 

pure propane at lab ambient 

temperatures. For evaporative emission 

enclosures which will be used to 

measure evaporative emissions from 

vehicles meeting evaporative standards 

below 2.0 grams, inject into the 

enclosure 0.5 to 1.0 grams of pure 

methanol at a temperature of at least 

150°F (65°C) and/or 0.5 to 1.0 grams of 

pure propane at lab ambient 

temperature. The injected quantity may 

be measured by volume flow or by mass 

measurement. The method used to 

measure the quantity of methanol and 

propane shall have an accuracy of ±0.2 

percent of measured value (less accurate 

methods may be used with the advance 

approval of the Administrator). 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 86.132–96 is amended by 

adding paragraph (n) to read as follows: 

§ 86.132–96 Vehicle preconditioning. 

* * * * * 

(n) With prior approval of the 

Administrator, manufacturers may use 

an alternative canister loading method 

in lieu of the applicable canister loading 

method described in the provisions of 

paragraphs (h), (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this 

section, provided the alternative method 

is shown to be equivalent or result in a 

more fully loaded canister (a canister 

that has adsorbed an equal or greater 

amount of hydrocarbon vapors) than the 

applicable canister loading method 

required by the provisions of paragraphs 

(h), (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this section. 

Additionally, the Administrator may 

conduct confirmatory certification 

testing and in-use testing using the 

alternative canister loading method 

used by the manufacturer to test 

applicable certification and/or in-use 

vehicles or the appropriate method 

outlined in the provisions of paragraphs 

(h), (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this section. 

■ 6. Section 86.134–96 is amended by 

adding paragraph (g)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.134–96 Running loss test. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(3) With prior approval of the 

Administrator, manufacturers may use 

an alternative running loss test 

procedure, provided the alternative test 

procedure is shown to yield equivalent 

or superior emission results (in terms of 

quality control, accuracy and 

repeatability) for the running loss, hot 

soak and diurnal portions of the three 

diurnal-plus-hot-soak test sequence. 

Additionally, the Administrator may 

conduct certification and in-use testing 

using the test procedures outlined in 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section, 

paragraph (g)(2) of this section or the 

alternative running loss test procedure 

as approved for a specific vehicle. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 86.135–90 is amended by 

revising paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 86.135–90 Dynamometer procedure. 

* * * * * 

(i) Four-wheel drive and all-wheel 

drive vehicles may be tested either in a 

four-wheel drive or a two-wheel drive 

mode of operation. In order to test in the 

two-wheel drive mode, four-wheel drive 

and all-wheel drive vehicles may have 

one set of drive wheels disengaged; 

four-wheel and all-wheel drive vehicles 

which can be shifted to a two-wheel 

mode by the driver may be tested in a 

two-wheel drive mode of operation. 

■ 8. Section 86.152–98 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 86.152–98 Vehicle preparation; refueling 

test. 

* * * * * 

(b) Optionally, provide valving or 

other means to allow the venting of the 

refueling vapor line to the atmosphere 

rather than to the refueling emissions 

canister(s) when allowed by this test 

procedure. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 86.153–98 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d) introductory text 

and (e)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 86.153–98 Vehicle and canister 

preconditioning; refueling test. 

* * * * * 

(d) Canister purging: non-integrated 

systems. Within one hour of completion 

of canister loading to breakthrough, the 

fuel tank(s) shall be further filled to 95 

percent of nominal tank capacity 

determined to the nearest one-tenth of a 

U.S. gallon (0.38 liter) with the fuel 

specified in § 86.113–94. During this 

fueling operation, the refueling 

emissions canister(s) shall be 

disconnected, unless the manufacturer 

specifies that the canister(s) should not 

be disconnected. Following completion 

of refueling, the refueling emissions 

canister(s) shall be reconnected, if the 

canister was disconnected during 

refueling. Special care shall be taken 

during this step to avoid damage to the 

components and the integrity of the fuel 

system. Vehicle driving to purge the 

refueling canister(s) shall be performed 

using either the chassis dynamometer 

procedure or the test track procedure, as 

described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) 

of this section. The Administrator may 

choose to shorten the vehicle driving for 

a partial refueling test as described in 

paragraph (d)(3) of this section. For 

vehicles equipped with dual fuel tanks, 

the required volume of fuel shall be 

driven out of one tank, the second tank 

shall be selected as the fuel source, and 

the required volume of fuel shall be 

driven out of the second tank. 

* * * * * 

72928 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(e) * * * 

(2) For all other refueling emission 

tests. Within 10 minutes of completion 

of refueling emissions canister 

stabilization (see paragraph (c) or (d) of 

this section), the refueling emissions 

canister(s) shall be disconnected, unless 

the manufacturer specifies that the 

refueling canister(s) should not be 

disconnected. Within 60 minutes of 

completion of refueling emissions 

canister stabilization (see paragraph (c) 

or (d) of this section), the vehicle fuel 

tank(s) shall be drained, the fuel tank(s) 

fueled to 10 percent of nominal tank 

capacity determined to the nearest onetenth of a U.S. gallon (0.38 liter) with 

the specified fuel, and the vehicle 

parked (without starting the engine) and 

soaked at 80±3°F (27±1.7°C) for a 

minimum of 6 hours and a maximum of 

24 hours. 

■ 10. Section 86.159–00 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(8) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.159–00 Exhaust emission test 

procedures for US06 emissions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(8) Four-wheel drive and all-wheel 

drive vehicles may be tested either in a 

four-wheel drive or a two-wheel drive 

mode of operation. In order to test in the 

two-wheel drive mode, four-wheel drive 

and all-wheel drive vehicles may have 

one set of drive wheels disengaged; 

four-wheel and all-wheel drive vehicles 

which can be shifted to a two-wheel 

mode by the driver may be tested in a 

two-wheel drive mode of operation. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 86.160–00 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(8) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.160–00 Exhaust emission test 

procedure for SC03 emissions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(8) Four-wheel drive and all-wheel 

drive vehicles may be tested either in a 

four-wheel drive or a two-wheel drive 

mode of operation. In order to test in the 

two-wheel drive mode, four-wheel drive 

and all-wheel drive vehicles may have 

one set of drive wheels disengaged; 

four-wheel and all-wheel drive vehicles 

which can be shifted to a two-wheel 

mode by the driver may be tested in a 

two-wheel drive mode of operation. 

* * * * * 

Subpart M—[Amended] 

■ 12. Section 86.1232–96 is amended by 

adding paragraph (n) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1232–96 Vehicle preconditioning. 

* * * * * 

(n) With prior approval of the 

Administrator, manufacturers may use 

an alternative canister loading method 

in lieu of the applicable canister loading 

method described in the provisions of 

§ 86.1232–96(h), § 86.1232–96 (j)(1) and 

§ 86.1232–96 (j)(2), provided the 

alternative method is shown to be 

equivalent or result in a more fully 

loaded canister (a canister that has 

adsorbed an equal or greater amount of 

hydrocarbon vapors) than the applicable 

canister loading method required by the 

provisions of paragraphs (h), (j)(1), and 

(j)(2) of this section. Additionally, the 

Administrator may conduct 

confirmatory certification testing and inuse testing using the alternative canister 

loading method used by the 

manufacturer to test applicable 

certification and/or in-use vehicles or 

one of the methods outlined in the 

provisions of paragraphs (h), (j)(1), and 

(j)(2) of this section. 

■ 13. Section 86.1234–96 is amended by 

adding paragraph (g)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1234–96 Running loss test. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(3) With prior approval of the 

Administrator, manufacturers may use 

an alternative running loss test 

procedure, provided the alternative test 

procedure is shown to yield equivalent 

or superior emission results (in terms of 

quality control, accuracy and 

repeatability) for the running loss, hot 

soak and diurnal portions of the three 

diurnal-plus-hot-soak test sequence. 

Additionally, the Administrator may 

conduct certification and in-use testing 

using the test procedures outlined in 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section, 

paragraph (g)(2) of this section or the 

alternative running loss test procedure 

as approved for a specific vehicle. 

* * * * * 

Subpart S—[Amended] 

■ 14. Section 86.1807–01 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. by removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(3)(iv). 

■ b. by revising (a)(3)(v). 

■ c. by removing and reserving 

(a)(3)(vii). 

■ d. by revising paragraph (c)(1) 

introductory text. 

■ e. by adding paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(C) 

and (D). 

■ f. by removing and reserving 

paragraphs (c)(1)(iii), (c)(2), and (c)(3). 

■ g. by revising paragraphs (f) and (g). 

§ 86.1807–01 Vehicle labeling. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iv) [Reserved] 

(v) An unconditional statement of 

compliance with the appropriate model 

year U.S. EPA regulations which apply 

to light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, 

medium-duty passenger vehicles, or 

complete heavy-duty vehicles; 

* * * * * 

(vii) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) The manufacturer of any lightduty vehicle, light-duty truck, mediumduty passenger vehicle, or heavy-duty 

vehicle subject to the emission 

standards of this subpart shall, in 

addition and subsequent to setting forth 

those statements on the label required 

by the Department of Transportation 

(DOT) pursuant to 49 CFR 567.4 set 

forth on the DOT label or on an 

additional label located in proximity to 

the DOT label and affixed as described 

in 49 CFR 567.4(b), the following 

information in the English language, 

lettered in block letters and numbers not 

less than three thirty-seconds of an inch 

high, of a color that contrasts with the 

background of the label: 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) For medium-duty passenger 

vehicles, the statement: ‘‘This Vehicle 

Conforms to U.S. EPA Regulations 

Applicable to XXX-fueled 20XX Model 

Year New Medium-Duty Passenger 

Vehicles.’’

(D) For heavy-duty vehicles, the 

statement: ‘‘This Vehicle Conforms to 

U.S. EPA Regulations Applicable to 

XXX-fueled 20XX Model Year ChassisCertified New Heavy-Duty Vehicles.’’

(iii) [Reserved] 

(2) [Reserved] 

(3) [Reserved] 

(f) All light-duty vehicles, light-duty 

trucks, medium-duty passenger 

vehicles, and complete heavy-duty 

vehicles shall comply with SAE 

Recommended Practices J1877 

‘‘Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded 

Vehicle Identification Number Label,’’

(July 1994). SAE J1877 is incorporated 

by reference (see § 86.1). 

(g) The Administrator may approve in 

advance other label content and formats 

provided the alternative label contains 

information consistent with this section. 

■ 15. Section 86.1810–01 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. by adding paragraph (j)(4); 

■ b. by revising paragraph (l)(1) 

introductory text; 

■ c. by removing paragraphs (l)(2)(i), 

(l)(2)(ii), the second paragraph 

designated as (l)(2), and (l)(3); and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 72929 

■ d. by adding paragraph (m). 

§ 86.1810–01 General standards; increase 

in emissions; unsafe conditions; waivers. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(4) For certification purposes, where 

the applicable California evaporative 

emission standard is as stringent or 

more stringent than the applicable 

federal evaporative emission standard, 

the Administrator may accept California 

certification test data indicating 

compliance with the California standard 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

appropriate federal certification 

evaporative emission standard. The 

Administrator may require the 

manufacturer to provide comparative 

test data which clearly demonstrates 

that a vehicle meeting the California 

evaporative standard (when tested 

under California test conditions/test 

procedures) will also meet the 

appropriate federal evaporative 

emission standard when tested under 

federal test conditions/test procedures 

described in this Part 86. 

* * * * * 

(l) Fuel dispensing spitback testing 

waiver. (1) Vehicles certified to the 

refueling emission standards set forth in 

§ 86.1811–04(e), § 86.1812–01(e), 

§ 86.1813–01(e), § 86.1816–05(e) are not 

required to demonstrate compliance 

with the fuel dispensing spitback 

standard contained in that section 

provided that: 

(i) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(m) Inherently low refueling emission 

testing waiver. (1) Vehicles using fuels/ 

fuel systems inherently low in refueling 

emissions are not required to conduct 

testing to demonstrate compliance with 

the refueling emission standards set 

forth in § 86.1811–04(e), § 86.1812–

01(e), § 86.1813–01(e) and § 86.1816–

05(e) provided that: 

(i) This provision is only available for 

petroleum diesel fuel. It is only 

available if the Reid Vapor Pressure of 

in-use diesel fuel is equal to or less than 

1 psi (7 kPa) and for diesel vehicles 

whose fuel tank temperatures do not 

exceed 130 deg. F (54 deg. C); and 

(ii) To certify using this provision the 

manufacturer must attest to the 

following evaluation: ‘‘Due to the low 

vapor pressure of diesel fuel and the 

vehicle tank temperatures, hydrocarbon 

vapor concentrations are low and the 

vehicle meets the 0.20 grams/gallon 

refueling emission standard without a 

control system.’’

(2) The certification required in 

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

be provided in writing and must apply 

for the full useful life of the vehicle. 

(3) EPA reserves the authority to 

require testing to enforce compliance 

and to prevent noncompliance with the 

refueling emission standard. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Section 86.1829–01 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b)(2)(iii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1829–01 Durability and emission 

testing requirements; waivers. 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) Optional waiver of two-diurnal 

evaporative certification test for 

gasoline- and ethanol-fueled vehicles. In 

lieu of testing gasoline-fueled and 

ethanol-fueled vehicles for the 

supplemental two-diurnal test sequence 

according to the provisions of 

paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of this 

section, a manufacturer may optionally 

provide a statement of compliance in its 

application for certification that, based 

on the manufacturer’s good engineering 

judgement, all light-duty vehicles, lightduty trucks and complete heavy-duty 

vehicles in the applicable evaporative/ 

refueling emission family comply with 

the evaporative emission standard for 

the supplemental two-diurnal test 

sequence. 

(A) The option to provide a statement 

of compliance in lieu of 2-diurnal 

evaporative certification test data 

outlined in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this 

section is limited to vehicles with 

conventional evaporative emission 

control systems (as determined by the 

Administrator). This option may be 

used for vehicles in evaporative/ 

refueling families which are certified to 

the applicable two-diurnal, threediurnal, running loss, and refueling 

emission standards. EPA may perform 

confirmatory 2-diurnal evaporative 

emission testing on certification test 

vehicles which are certified using this 

option (even though the manufacturer 

may not have performed a 2-diurnal 

evaporative test during the certification 

process). If data shows noncompliance, 

noncompliance will be addressed 

through 86.1851. As well, if data shows 

noncompliance, EPA may not normally 

allow for subsequent waivers for the 

applicable evaporative family. 

(B) Manufacturers shall supply 

information if requested by EPA in 

support of the statement of compliance 

outlined in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this 

section. This information shall include 

evaporative calibration information for 

the emission-data test vehicle and for 

other vehicles in the evaporative/ 

refueling family, including, but not 

limited to, canister type, canister 

volume, canister working capacity, fuel 

tank volume, fuel tank geometry, the 

type of fuel delivery system (return, 

returnless, variable flow fuel pump, 

etc.), a description of the input 

parameters and software strategy used to 

control the evaporative canister purge, 

the nominal purge flow volume (in bed 

volumes) when vehicles are driven over 

the 2-diurnal (FTP) driving cycle, the 

nominal purge flow volume (in bed 

volumes) when vehicles are driven over 

the 3-diurnal (FTP + running loss) 

driving cycle, and other supporting 

information as necessary to demonstrate 

that the purge flow rate calibration on 

the 2-diurnal test sequence is adequate 

to comply with the evaporative 

emission standard for the supplemental 

two-diurnal test sequence. 

* * * * * 

■ 17. Section 86.1845–01 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(5)(ii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1845–01 Manufacturer in-use 

verification testing requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) For non-gaseous fueled vehicles, 

one test vehicle of each evaporative/ 

refueling family shall be tested in 

accordance with the supplemental 2- 

diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative 

emission and refueling emission 

procedures described in subpart B of 

this part, when such test vehicle is 

tested for compliance with applicable 

evaporative emission and refueling 

standards under this subpart. For 

gaseous fueled vehicles, one test vehicle 

of each evaporative/refueling family 

shall be tested in accordance with the 3- 

diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative 

emission and refueling emission 

procedures described in subpart B of 

this part, when such test vehicle is 

tested for compliance with applicable 

evaporative emission and refueling 

standards under this subpart. The test 

vehicles tested to fulfill the evaporative/ 

refueling testing requirement of this 

paragraph (c)(5)(ii) will be counted 

when determining compliance with the 

minimum number of vehicles as 

specified in Table S01–06 and Table 

S01–07 in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section for testing under paragraph 

(c)(5)(i) of this section only if the 

vehicle is also tested for exhaust 

emissions under the requirements of 

paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Section 86.1845–04 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(5)(ii) and (c)(5)(ii) 

to read as follows: 

72930 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 235 / Thursday, December 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 86.1845–04 Manufacturer in-use 

verification testing requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) For non-gaseous fueled vehicles, 

one test vehicle of each evaporative/ 

refueling family shall be tested in 

accordance with the supplemental 2- 

diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative 

emission and refueling emission 

procedures described in subpart B of 

this part, when such test vehicle is 

tested for compliance with applicable 

evaporative emission and refueling 

standards under this subpart. For 

gaseous fueled vehicles, one test vehicle 

of each evaporative/refueling family 

shall be tested in accordance with the 3- 

diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative 

emission and refueling emission 

procedures described in subpart B of 

this part, when such test vehicle is 

tested for compliance with applicable 

evaporative emission and refueling 

standards under this subpart. The test 

vehicles tested to fulfill the evaporative/ 

refueling testing requirement of this 

paragraph (b)(5)(ii) will be counted 

when determining compliance with the 

minimum number of vehicles as 

specified in Table S04–06 and Table 

S04–07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section for testing under paragraph 

(b)(5)(i) of this section only if the 

vehicle is also tested for exhaust 

emissions under the requirements of 

paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) For non-gaseous fueled vehicles, 

one test vehicle of each evaporative/ 

refueling family shall be tested in 

accordance with the supplemental 2- 

diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative 

emission procedures described in 

subpart B of this part, when such test 

vehicle is tested for compliance with 

applicable evaporative emission and 

refueling standards under this subpart. 

For gaseous fueled vehicles, one test 

vehicle of each evaporative/refueling 

family shall be tested in accordance 

with the 3-diurnal-plus-hot-soak 

evaporative emission procedures 

described in subpart B of this part, 

when such test vehicle is tested for 

compliance with applicable evaporative 

emission and refueling standards under 

this subpart. The test vehicles tested to 

fulfill the evaporative/refueling testing 

requirement of this paragraph (b)(5)(ii) 

will be counted when determining 

compliance with the minimum number 

of vehicles as specified in Table S04–06 

and table S04–07 in paragraph (b)(3) of 

this section for testing under paragraph 

(b)(5)(i) of this section only if the 

vehicle is also tested for exhaust 

emissions under the requirements of 

paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–23714 Filed 12–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Research and Special Programs 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 173 

Shippers—General Requirements for 

Shipments and Packagings 

CFR Correction 

In Title 49 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, parts 100 to 185, revised as 

of October 1, 2004, on page 591, 

§ 173.315 is corrected by adding 

paragraph (i)(8) to read as follows: 

§ 173.315 Compressed gases in cargo 

tanks and portable tanks. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(8) Each pressure relief valve outlet 

must be provided with a protective 

device to prevent the entrance and 

accumulation of dirt and water. This 

device must not impede flow through 

the valve. Pressure relief devices must 

be designed to prevent the entry of 

foreign matter, the leakage of liquid and 

the development of any dangerous 

excess pressure. 

[FR Doc. 05–55517 Filed 12–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Transportation Security Administration 

49 CFR Part 1540 

RIN 1652–ZA09 

Prohibited Items; Allowing Small 

Scissors and Small Tools 

AGENCY: Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA), DHS. 

ACTION: Interpretive rule. 

SUMMARY: To enable transportation 

security officers to concentrate on more 

effectively confronting the threat of 

concealed explosives being taken into 

the cabin of an aircraft, the 

Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) is removing certain low threat, 

high volume, and easily identified items 

from the prohibited items list. This 

document amends the TSA interpretive 

rule that provides guidance to the 

public on the types of items that TSA 

considers to be weapons, explosives, 

and incendiaries, and which are 

therefore prohibited in airport sterile 

areas, in the cabins of aircraft, or in 

passengers’ checked baggage. This 

document removes small scissors and 

certain small tools from the prohibited 

items list and adds them to the 

permitted items list. 

DATES: Effective December 22, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Randol, Security Operations, 

Transportation Security Administration, 

601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 

22202–4220; telephone (571) 227–1796. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Documents 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by—

(1) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html; or 

(2) Visiting TSA’s Law and Policy 

Web page at http://www.tsa.gov and 

accessing the link for ‘‘Law and Policy’’

at the top of the page. 

In addition, copies are available by 

writing or calling the individual in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. Make sure to identify the docket 

number of this rulemaking. 

Statutory and Regulatory Background 

TSA is responsible for security in all 

modes of transportation, including 

aviation. See 49 U.S.C. 114(d). TSA 

restricts what passengers may carry into 

the sterile areas of airports and into the 

cabins of air carrier aircraft. Under 

TSA’s regulation for acceptance and 

screening of individuals and accessible 

property, 49 CFR 1540.111, an 

individual (other than a law 

enforcement or other authorized 

individual) may not have a weapon, 

explosive, or incendiary, on or about the 

individual’s person or accessible 

property—

• When performance has begun of the 

inspection of the individual’s person or 

accessible property before entering a 

sterile area, or before boarding an 

aircraft for which screening is 

conducted under § 1544.201 or 

§ 1546.201 of this chapter; 

• When the individual is entering or 

in a sterile area; or 

• When the individual is attempting 

to board or onboard an aircraft for 

which screening is conducted under 

§ 1544.201 or § 1546.201 of this chapter. 

On February 14, 2003, TSA published 

an interpretive rule that provided 

guidance to the public on the types of