Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0353-0004
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-10-01T04:00Z

Supporting Statement

for

Information Collection Request

Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Economy Compliance;

Light Duty Vehicles, Light Duty Trucks, and Highway Motorcycles

EPA ICR 0783.54

OMB Control Number 2060-0104

Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

Office of Air and Radiation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Part A SUBMISSION

Section 1: Identification Of The Information Collection

1(a) Title And Number Of The Information Collection

Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Economy Compliance; Light Duty Vehicles,
Light Duty Trucks, and Highway Motorcycles, EPA ICR number 0783.54, OMB
control number 2060-0104.

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

Beginning with the 1968 model year, the Federal Government has regulated
air pollution emitted by motor vehicles. While light vehicles (passenger
cars and light trucks) were the first to be regulated, other classes
(e.g., motorcycles and recreational vehicles) have subsequently been
included. The first (and continuing) phase of regulation consisted of
prototype certification: manufacturers demonstrate that a particular
design meets applicable requirements and they received a
“certificate” (license) allowing that design to be sold; EPA
performs “confirmatory” tests on some of the vehicles as part of
this certification program. Subsequent program developments addressed
compliance with emissions requirements after the vehicles are sold;
vehicles failing to meet requirements in-use are potentially subject to
recall and repair by the manufacturer. During these three and a half
decades of emission control, considerable progress has been made in
reducing vehicular air pollution. A new passenger car today will emit
much less than one tenth the exhaust pollution of its uncontrolled
predecessor.

During the 1973 oil embargo, there was a need for improved automotive
fuel economy information. EPA was able to fulfill part of this need
using information collected during its emission testing program. (To
determine the mass of pollution emitted, the quantity and composition of
a vehicle’s exhaust must be determined. Using that information, the
quantity of fuel consumed can be calculated.) This limited information
was expanded by adding a “highway” driving schedule and by
implementing a voluntary program whereby vehicle manufacturers tested
and submitted information on a more complete spectrum of their product
line. (Because the emission certification program emphasized “worst
case” vehicles, it might not accurately reflect a manufacturer’s
entire product line, hence the need for additional information.)
Congress subsequently enacted legislation mandating fuel economy
labeling, establishing average fuel economy standards, and imposing
“gas guzzler” taxes. Those activities all rely on information
generated under EPA’s emission compliance and fuel economy programs.

At the request of OMB, in November, 2006, this ICR was organized into
five Information Collections (ICs): 1) Light Duty Vehicles (LDVs) and
Light Duty Trucks (LDTs) Emissions, 2) Fuel Economy (FE) , 3)
Manufacturers’ In-Use Vehicle Program (IUVP), 4) Highway Motorcycles
(HMCs) , and 5) Defect Reports and Voluntary Emissions Recall Reports
(DR/VERR).  The inclusion of these elements in one ICR is historic, and
keeping them together provides some continuity. Moreover, these programs
not only share many test procedures, they also rely on the same kinds of
information and are administered by the same EPA staff. The IC
organization should provide more transparency in accounting for burdens
of a large and complex program. 

 

This ICR covers the application (and supporting test results) submitted
by these categories of vehicle manufacturers prior to production as well
as various reports and information during and after production,
including the IUVP, and the DR/VERR system that covers both HMCs and
LDVs. In addition, LDV manufacturers are required to submit FE reports
for vehicles covered under the Energy Conservation and Policy Act.
EPA’s processing of this information is conducted by the Compliance
and Innovative Strategies Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Office of Air and Radiation, USEPA.

Information collected consists of descriptions of motor vehicles (with
emphasis on emission control systems), test results, defect and recall
reports, and (for LDVs and HMCs) sales information. These data are
reviewed to verify that the necessary tests have been performed, the
manufacturer’s product line meets emission standards, and the LDV fuel
economy reports are accurate. LDV fuel economy information is used by
EPA as well as the Internal Revenue Service (“gas guzzler” taxes),
the Department of Energy (Fuel Economy Guides) and the Department of
Transportation (Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards). 

All reporting covered by this ICR can now done electronically via
EPA’s web-based vehicle and engine certification system, Verify, with
the following exceptions: 1) implementation of new fuel economy label
data reporting is still underway, 2) Independent Commercial Importers
(covered in OMB 2060-0095) and Alternative Fuels Converters are
scheduled to be included in Verify later this year, with mandatory use
to be phased in for model year 2010, and 3) the DR/VERR system is
currently separate and not computerized or standardized. Manufacturers
also have the option of submitting some information outside of Verify,
where it is convenient to do so, working with their EPA certification
representatives. Subject to confidentiality claims, this information is
made available to interested parties upon request. Fuel economy ratings
and emission test information is available on the internet.

Approximately 160 passenger car, light truck, and motorcycle
manufacturers (including 35 light duty, 5 alternative fuels vehicle
converters, and 120 motorcycle manufacturers) currently submit
applications each year to certify their products. The light-duty
emissions and FE compliance programs, along with the HMC program, the
IUVP, and the DR/VERR program, will impose a cost of about $57.8 million
annually on the regulated industries: $38.1 in labor costs, $14.4
million in operation and maintenance costs, and $5.3 million in capital
and startup costs.  

Additional details on the coverage of this ICR are given in Section
2(b), below. 

Section 2: Need For And Use of the Collection 

2(a) Need/Authority For The Collection

Under Title II of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.), EPA is
charged with issuing certificates of conformity for motor vehicle
designs that comply with applicable emission standards. A manufacturer
must have a certificate before vehicles may be legally introduced into
commerce in the US. Similar provisions in the Energy Policy Conservation
Act (codified as Title III of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) require fuel economy ratings to be
determined and vehicles to be labeled. To ensure compliance with these
statutes, EPA reviews product information and manufacturer test results;
EPA also tests some vehicles to confirm manufacturer results.
Information is also shared with other agencies: the Internal Revenue
Service for “gas guzzler” taxes and the Department of Transportation
for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements.

EPA’s emission compliance and fuel economy programs are statutorily
mandated; the Agency does not have discretion to cease these functions.
Under Section 206(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7525) “... The
Administrator shall test ... any new motor vehicle ... submitted by a
manufacturer ... If such vehicle ... conforms … the Administrator
shall issue a certificate of conformity.” EPA uses the information
supplied by the manufacturer to verify that the proper test vehicles
have been selected and that the necessary testing has been performed to
assure that each vehicle design complies with emission standards. This
information is also used by various state and local governments in
running their vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) programs.
Similarly, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires that “...
Average fuel economy … shall be calculated by the EPA Administrator
...”; 15 U.S.C. 2003. Automobile manufacturers are required to affix
fuel economy labels “as determined in accordance with rules of the EPA
Administrator”; 15 U.S.C. 2006. While EPA has delegated a substantial
portion of the process of calculating fuel economy labels to the
manufacturers, the test results upon which such labels are based are
subject to EPA confirmatory testing. Such confirmation testing assures
that results from different manufacturers can be accurately used for
comparison.

The compliance program for HMCs operates in a largely similar fashion
except that fuel economy requirements do not apply to motorcycles. 

Relevant portions of the above statutes can be found in Appendix I. The
regulations dealing with LDV/LDT and HMC emission control can be found
in 40 CFR Parts 85 and 86. EPA’s LDV fuel economy provisions are found
in 40 CFR Part 600. The regulations are not attached to this statement
due to their length and technical nature. 

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The discussion in this section outlines the major features of the
programs covered by this ICR as well as summarizing some of the recent
historical and ongoing developments that have a bearing on the
information burden. 

Emissions Program For Light Duty Vehicles and Trucks 

Motor vehicle manufacturers must submit an application for emission
certification prior to production. The application describes the major
aspects of the proposed product line, technical details of the emission
control systems, and the results of tests to indicate compliance with
emissions limitations. The application and supporting test results are
reviewed and, if appropriate, a certificate of conformity is issued. EPA
will conduct a limited number of confirmatory tests at its laboratory to
verify the manufacturer’s results and insure that EPA and manufacturer
laboratory tests are properly correlated. The testing regime was
significantly reorganized in the Supplementary Federal Test Procedure
rulemaking in 1996 (61 FR 54851). Another major change occurred with the
CAP2000 program (85 FR 23905, May 4, 1999). Costs associated with these
and all other testing requirements are treated as ongoing capital costs
in the current ICR rather than as one-time startup costs.  

 

Under the CAP2000 program, an initial step in the certification process
is to divide a manufacturer’s product line into groups of vehicle
designs that are expected to have similar emission control
characteristics; the top level of such groups is the “durability
group” of vehicles expected to have similar deterioration over their
useful lives. This rulemaking redirected EPA and manufacturer effort
toward in-use compliance and gave manufacturers more control over
pre-production certification, with savings in paperwork burden that were
reflected in ICR 0783.38.  Deterioration factors are established for
each group, which are then used to adjust results from low mileage test
vehicles to predict useful-life emission levels. A deterioration factor
is established either by testing (including bench testing and artificial
aging) or by “carrying over” a factor from a previously certified
similar group. 

Light duty vehicles (passenger cars) and light duty trucks are divided
into durability groups based on a number of fundamental characteristics,
including combustion cycle (diesel, spark ignited, number of strokes per
cycle, etc.), engine type (piston, rotary, air/water cooling media),
fuel (gasoline, methanol, flexible, etc.), and catalyst loading per unit
engine displacement. (The actual classification process is somewhat more
complicated; see 40 CFR 86.1820.) Each durability group may be further
divided (depending on the particular manufacturer’s product line) into
“test groups”. Test groups include vehicles which will be certified
to a single emission standard, have the same number and arrangement of
cylinders, and fall within a limited range (slightly less than one
liter) of displacement. (Test groups are defined in 40 CFR 86.1827.) 

Light duty vehicles and trucks also must be certified to meet applicable
evaporative emissions and refueling emission requirements.
Evaporative/refueling families are designated for this purpose, and
these families may overlap emissions test groups; each test group and
evaporative/refueling combination receives a separate certificate of
conformity. 

When a new model year vehicle is sufficiently similar to the previous
year’s model that the “durability group”, “test group”, or
“test group/evaporative family” descriptions do not need to be
changed, a certification application, or parts thereof such as
durability test results, can be “carried over” from the previous
application. The burden of preparing the application in such cases will
be less because previous test results can be used, and the vehicle will
be less likely to be selected for confirmatory testing. If the model has
changed such that its durability characteristics, test group
designations, or evaporative emissions characteristics change, then new
supporting application information will be required. Likewise, there are
provisions for the “carry-across” of emissions data from similar
vehicles between test groups. Similarly, when manufacturers make minor
changes that affect the durability, test group, or evaporative emissions
characteristics for an already certified engine model, a “running
change” for that change must be submitted and a new certificate issued
if the effect on emissions is substantial. The paperwork burden for such
running changes is usually quite small. These three provisions
significantly reduce testing and reporting burdens. 

Information gathered for purposes of certification is also used by EPA
in the fuel economy program (15 U.S.C. 2000, et seq.) as well as EPA’s
in-use testing program. For example, when a particular vehicle type is
discovered to exceed emission standards, the manufacturer’s
application may be reviewed to determine the cause of the failure.
(Typically, part specifications in the application are much more
detailed than those in the service literature.) EPA’s motor vehicle
emission in-use testing program is covered by and discussed with more
detail in OMB Control No. 2060-0086. 

Manufacturers’ In-Use Vehicle Program

Another aspect of the emphasis on in-use compliance from the CAP2000
program is the  IUVP. Beginning with model year 2001, manufacturers are
required to recruit and test “as is” high-mileage (generally over
50,000 miles) LDV/LDTs for compliance with emissions requirements. This
requirement was extended to “medium duty passenger vehicles” (MDPVs)
in the final Tier 2 regulations in February, 2000, and to all other
complete Otto-cycle heavy duty vehicles up to 14,000 GVWR (gross vehicle
weight rating) in regulations finalized in October, 2000. The window for
these tests is between four and five years from the end of production of
the test group. Likewise, beginning with model year 2004, low-mileage
vehicles (over 10,000 miles) must be recruited and tested within one
year of the end of production. The burden of the IUVP was considered in
the Regulatory Support Document for the CAP2000 program and were
incorporated into the 0783 ICR series. This estimate is updated in the
current ICR based on counts of IUVP test results submitted. 

In addition to the low- and high-mileage in-use testing requirements,
the IUVP program requires manufacturer confirmatory testing, in cases
where the specified thresholds of failures occur in the in-use testing. 
The burden of such rare instances is included in this ICR.   

Fuel Economy for Light Duty Vehicles

Some of the product information used to verify emission compliance is
also used, in conjunction with additional tests and projected sales, to
establish fuel economy ratings. Based on test results, EPA calculates a
fuel economy number for each vehicle model. EPA then computes an average
fuel economy for each manufacturer that is weighted by the number of
units of each of its vehicle models in that year.  This “harmonic
mean” calculation is statutory (49 U.S.C. 32904). Separate numbers are
calculated for passenger cars and for light duty trucks up to 8500
pounds GVWR. These are the numbers used, after certain adjustments, by
the Department of Transportation to determine each manufacturer’s
compliance with the CAFE program.  In a separate program, the fuel
economy ratings, used to comply with EPA’s labeling requirements for
new vehicles (40 CFR Part 600, Subpart D), are listed by model type.
These ratings are computed as the sales weighted harmonic mean of the
“base levels” within each model type, which in turn are calculated
as the sales weighted harmonic mean of the
configurations/subconfigurations within each base level.  This procedure
is intended to ensure that the most representative fuel economy values
are posted on new vehicles, which are sold by the manufacturer’s model
designation rather than categories that correspond to the test groups
that are used for generating fuel economy data as a part of the
certification process. 

Since the last renewal, EPA completed a rulemaking to revise EPA’s
method of calculating the label fuel economy values for new vehicles.
This “five-cycle” methodology is optional for model years 2008 to
2010, and mandatory thereafter. The costs of the program through 2010
were added to the FE IC baseline in ICR 0783.51; the remaining costs are
included in this renewal. This renewal also includes an adjustment for
EPA’s burdens related to inclusion of MDPVs in the Department of
Transportation’s CAFE program starting in model year 2011. 

Fees for Light Duty Vehicles and Trucks

The last renewal included the reporting burden for the light duty
portion of the certification fees program. This burden was consolidated
into OMB 2060-0545 on December 22, 2006. In this way, on-road and
off-road fees can now be considered in the same information collection
request. Consequently, this ICR no longer covers certification fees for
motorcycles or light-duty vehicles, and has been adjusted accordingly. 

  

Highway Motorcycles

Federal standards for HMCs have been in effect since the 1978 model
year. On January 15, 2004, EPA finalized the first revision to these
standards, as well as including for the first time engines with
displacements of less than 50cc and adding new standards that will
require the use of low permeability fuel tanks and fuel hoses. These
provisions began going into effect with the 2006 or later model years
(small volume manufacturers have an extended schedule and in some cases
different standards). There are several other special provisions to
reduce the regulatory burden on small manufacturers. The Paperwork
Reduction Act burdens for the highway motorcycle program were last
adjusted in ICR 0783.47. These burdens are updated in the present ICR. 

The program for regulating emissions from HMCs is similar in outline to
that for light duty vehicles: manufacturers group vehicles/engines into
engine families, conduct emissions tests (using the same federal test
procedure as for light duty vehicles, with minor modifications) to
demonstrate compliance with exhaust emissions standards, calculate
durability factors for useful-life compliance, and submit an application
for certification along with an application fee. EPA issues a
certificate after approving the application. At present, EPA does no
confirmatory testing of HMCs. Carry-over and carry-across are
extensively used. Manufacturers are potentially subject to EPA in-use
compliance tests, although EPA does not currently conduct such tests. 

Defect Reports and Voluntary Emissions Recall Reports

A reporting component of the light duty and highway motorcycle programs
requires filing of defect reports, voluntary emissions recall reports,
and voluntary recall quarterly  reports by manufacturers for in-use
vehicles. The information burden of this DR/VERR program was included in
the ICR 0282 series (OMB 2060-0048) until 0282.12, when the highway,
light-duty vehicle portion was split off and designated ICR 1916.01 (OMB
2060-0425). In September, 2003, ICR 1916 was consolidated into the
present ICR 0783. Despite initial steps to computerize this reporting in
calendar 2005, the filing of these reports is still done in a variety of
ways by manufacturers using no unified format. 

Recreational Vehicles

On November 8, 2002, EPA published final rules on the control of
emissions from 2006 and later model year recreational vehicles
(off-highway motorcycles, snowmobiles, and all-terrain vehicles) as well
as a number of other off-road engine categories. The recreational
vehicle burdens were incorporated in this ICR in 0783.43 and 0783.44.
The burden for recreational vehicles was subsequently shifted to ICR
1695.08 (OMB number 2060-0338), and are no longer reflected in this
collection.  

Investigation into Possible Noncompliance of Motor Vehicles

The LDV/LDT and HMC emissions compliance programs include
pre-production, production, and in-use components. Motor vehicles are
evaluated as prototypes prior to production, and those designs that meet
applicable criteria are certified for introduction into commerce. EPA
also has discretion to conduct selective enforcement testing of assembly
line vehicles. This was an important LDV/LDT enforcement tool for EPA
prior to CAP2000, but since then it has been replaced by the IUVP: no
selective enforcement tests have been performed since. While EPA retains
the statutory authority to conduct assembly line tests and under
exceptional circumstances might use it, no burden is assigned to this
activity in the current or this ICR. Finally, in addition to the
manufacturer IUVP and voluntary recalls, EPA conducts its own in-use
compliance testing program. That program is covered separately in ICR
222.08 (OMB Control No. 2060-0086). 

CFEIS and Verify

Electronic submission by manufactures to the Certification and Fuel
Economy Information System (CFEIS) began to be implemented for LDV/LDTs
after CAP2000. In 2003, manufacturers who meet the qualifying criteria
were permitted to self-generate a certificate of conformity under the
CFEIS ACGM (Automatic Certificate Generation by Manufacturers) system.
At that time the system was also expanded to include certification
submittals for some of the heavier vehicles coming into the program
(heavy duty chassis certified engines, medium duty passenger vehicles).
The Verify system currently under development will replace CFEIS and
integrate it with other compliance databases (heavy duty, nonroad,
motorcycle). Implementation of pilot system databases began in 2005 with
the highway motorcycle and recreational vehicle reporting system. A
feature of the new database is the updating of the manufacturer
submission process via an easy-to-use web interface. The savings from
this, along with other features, including improved coordination with
California’s certification process and improved manufacturer capacity
to self-correct submissions, are not included in the prior baseline or
reflected this ICR, as the Verify system is still in the early
implementation phases or too recent to have yet provided an accurate
basis for estimating changes in burden. For this reason, the reporting
burden estimates associated purely with submitting information to EPA in
this ICR are considered to be conservative. Initial feedback from the
highway motorcycle and recreational vehicle (the first programs in
Verify) manufacturers questioned for this ICR has been positive. 

Section 3: Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 

3(a) Nonduplication

Efforts have been made to eliminate duplication in this information
collection. The fuel economy and emission compliance programs have long
been highly integrated; the same information serves two purposes.
Furthermore, as mentioned above, EPA is implementing the Verify system,
under which the manufacturer submission process occurs within a Central
Data Exchange (CDX) environment that should further help minimize
duplication in submissions. 

Because of its specialized nature and the fact that product plans and
emission performance information must be submitted to EPA prior to the
start of production, this information is not available from any source
other than the manufacturer.

 

3(b) Public Notice Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

EPA solicited public comment by means of a Federal Register Notice
published on May 20, 2008, 73 Federal Register 29133. No comments were
received. 

 

3(c) Consultations

In preparing this ICR submission, EPA queried and consulted with the
following individuals working in the regulated industries:

	Name				Firm					Telephone

	Donald B. Seaton		General Motors			(248) 685-6526

	Camil Banciu			Ford					(313) 390-8623

	Eric Barnes			Honda Motorcycle			(310) 783-3364

	Matt Varni			Kawasaki Motors Corp, USA	(949) 770-0400 

These individuals have experience with the reporting  aspects of EPA’s
current programs. Comments received have been reflected in the burden
estimates discussed below. EPA wishes to thank them and their colleagues
for their assistance in preparing this report.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

As required by the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7525(a)), emission and fuel
economy information is submitted on a yearly basis coinciding with the
manufacturer’s “model year.” EPA allows applicants to define their
own “model year”, within limits, thus granting some flexibility in
this regard. Major product changes typically occur at the start of a
model year. For these reasons, a collection frequency longer than a
model year is not possible. However, when a vehicle design is “carried
over” to a subsequent model year, the amount of new information
required is substantially reduced.  Other information collections listed
in Appendix II are conducted according to schedules that were determined
in rulemakings that included paperwork burden analyses as mandated by
the Paperwork Reduction Act.

3(e) General Guidelines

Manufacturers are required to keep some records for periods longer than
three years. This requirement stems from the statutory requirement that
manufacturers warrant some items for periods longer than 3 years.
Manufacturers must also recall vehicle classes failing to meet emission
standards during their useful life, typically five to eleven years
depending on vehicle type. In order to satisfy these obligations,
manufacturers must retain product information, with particular emphasis
on the emission control systems. This information is vital in assuring
that repairs and replacement parts properly function during the life of
the warranty and that emissions limitations are met during the full
useful lives. EPA believes that this recordkeeping requirement does not
impose an unreasonable burden given the warranty and recall obligations.
In fact, manufacturers would probably retain this information to support
their normal business of supplying replacement parts.

This information collection activity complies with the remaining
guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5.

3(f) Confidentiality

Information submitted by manufacturers is held as confidential until the
specific vehicle to which it pertains is available for purchase. After
vehicles are available, most information associated with the
manufacturer/importer’s application is available to the public. Under
section 208 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7542(c)) all information, other
than trade secret processes or methods, must be publicly available.
Proprietary information is granted confidentiality in accordance with
the Freedom of Information Act, EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 2, and
class determinations issued by EPA’s Office of General Counsel.

3(g) Sensitive Questions

No sensitive questions are asked in this information collection. This
collection complies with the Privacy Act and OMB Circular A-108.

Section 4: Respondents and Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes

The respondents are involved in the industries shown in the following
table:

Category	NAICS Codes A	Examples of Potentially Regulated Entities

Industry	336111

336112 	Motor vehicle manufacturers.

Industry	335312

336312

336322

336399

454312

485310	Alternative fuel vehicle converters

Industry	811111

811112

811198

541514

423110

424990

441120	Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Vehicle Components 

Industry	336991	Motorcycle and motorcycle parts manufacturers

Industry	441222	Motorcycle, boat, and other motor vehicle dealers

A North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

 

4(b) Information Requested

(i) Data items

Manufacturers of light duty vehicles and highway motorcycles are
required to submit descriptions of their planned product line, including
detailed descriptions of the emission control system, test data, and
demonstrations of compliance with other requirements, such as methods
for determining deterioration factors for durability and (for cars and
light trucks) requirements pertaining to computerized on-board devices
(OBD). This information is organized into various groups with similar
emission or (for cars and light trucks) fuel economy characteristics.
Manufacturers supply test data to verify that their products will comply
with the emission standards; test data is also used to establish fuel
economy ratings. They are also required to notify EPA of in-use defects
experienced by their vehicles and reports of voluntary recalls. Light
duty vehicle manufacturers also participate in the IUVP program to
report the results of tests on in-use vehicles. Other major data items
include submission of technical service bulletins; copies of warranties;
Tier 2 averaging, banking, and trading calculations; and ORVR (On Road
Vapor Recovery) safety reports. Given the diversity of vehicles produced
and the complicated nature of the regulations, in certain instances
manufacturers may also find it advantageous to request variances from
standard EPA procedures.

A list of detailed information requirements and their corresponding
regulation citations appears in Appendix II.

(ii) Respondent Activities

The emission and fuel economy compliance programs are, of necessity,
quite complex given the diversity of products available. These programs
have evolved over the past three decades to balance testing and
reporting burdens against the risk of unnecessary air pollution and
inaccurate fuel economy information. While there is no “typical”
respondent, all manufacturers must describe their product and supply
test data and other information to verify compliance. The biggest burden
in this ICR comes from the cost of test facilities and the costs and
labor hours of running tests to generate the data that must be reported
to EPA. EPA will conduct a limited number of LDV “confirmatory
tests” to monitor manufacturer results. This requires test light duty
vehicles be shipped to EPA’s laboratory. As yet there is no similar
program for confirmatory testing of motorcycles. Manufacturers must also
retain records. These tasks are repeated for each model year, although
typically previous data and information can be “carried over” when
no significant changes have occurred. If, during the course of a model
year a product change is made (a “running change”), EPA must be
notified. Under some circumstances additional test data may be required.

Manufacturers must also submit reports concerning defects that are
discovered and voluntary recalls that are conducted; they may also be
requested to review various aspects of in-use testing that EPA may elect
to conduct. Manufacturers are also required to conduct their own in-use
testing; this is the Manufacturers’ In-Use Vehicle Program (IUVP).

Section 5: The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

Agency Activities

A significant portion of EPA’s emission and fuel economy compliance
activity is spent reviewing applications to verify that the correct
vehicle tests have been conducted and necessary information submitted.
Running change submissions must also be selectively reviewed for
possible emissions impacts and manufacturers’ evaluations thereof. A
part of this process involves determining if “carry over” of data
from a previous model year or “carry-across” data from testing of
similar vehicles and engines is appropriate or if new testing will be
required. EPA will also select a number of tests for confirmation at
EPA’s own laboratory.  EPA maintains the relevant reporting systems
and records and analyzes relevant data for regulatory and oversight
purposes.

EPA prepares an annual reports of emission test results, reviews annual
fuel economy reports submitted by the manufacturers, and assists in
production of reports such as the annual Fuel Economy Guide, the Green
Vehicle Guide, and the Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy
Trends Report. These and other reports, data and information are now
widely available through EPA’s OTAQ and CISD websites.  

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

All routine information (test results, vehicle descriptions, and all
aspects of certification applications) is electronically transmitted
directly from the manufacturers through the Verify system.  DR/VERR
submissions are not yet computerized. Certification applications by
Independent Commercial Importers are not currently computerized but are
scheduled to become so in calendar 2008, with mandatory Verify
submission of basic information starting with model year 2010. (ICI
burden is covered in OMB 2060-0095.) 

All information received by EPA is subject to review. Data submitted
electronically is in some cases automatically screened; for example,
light-duty test results that are close to emission standards are flagged
for review in more detail. Descriptions of the proposed product line are
checked to verify that the appropriate vehicles have been tested. (The
emission and fuel economy programs rely on a combination of “worst
case” and representative data to accomplish their goals.) Except for
projected sales and a very limited amount of proprietary product
information (such as catalyst formulations and projected sales), all
information is available to the public as soon as the vehicle is offered
for sale. Emission and fuel economy data is available on the internet;
other information is available upon request under the Freedom of
Information Act.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

EPA has special procedures for small-volume LDV/LDT manufacturer
certifications; i.e., those whose total sales are less than 10,000 units
per year. These special procedures allow the small-volume manufacturer
to submit a simplified application for certification with respect to
durability demonstrations. These manufacturers also have reduced testing
and reporting requirements under the IUVP. Further, by the very nature
of their size, small volume manufacturers typically have very limited
product lines. This characteristic both reduces the amount of
information which must be submitted and also simplifies the process of
selecting the correct test vehicle(s). There are also several special
provisions to reduce the regulatory burden on small highway motorcycle
manufacturers: in addition to hardship exemptions and program delays,
manufacturers with sales less than 3000 per year and 500 employees may
use broader definitions of engine categories, and those with less than
10,000 units per year have reduced certification submission requirements
(no test results reported) and reduced durability showings. 

5(d) Collection Schedule

Information must be submitted for each “model year” that a
manufacturer intends to build (or import) vehicles. Submission is by
test group or engine family. A “model year” is usually about one
calendar year long; it typically begins prior to January 1st of the
calendar year. If a product is unchanged between model years, much of
the information can be “carried over.” The collection frequency and
burden are determined to a large extent by the manufacturer’s
marketing and production plans. However, as required by law, some
submission is required for each model year’s production. Other
information collections listed in Appendix II are conducted according to
schedules that were determined in rulemakings. 

Section 6: Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden 

The burden estimates below separately consider five ICs covered by this
ICR: LDV/LDT emissions, LDV/LDT fuel economy, Manufacturer’s IUVP, the
HMC program, and the DR/VERR system, all described above in  section
2(b). 

In agreement with the requested disaggregation of this ICR into five
ICs, each engine family’s activities under one of the five ICs is
counted as a “response”. As explained in support of that action,
this is by far the most logical and tractable unit of activity for
burden accounting.

Within the LDV/LDT Emissions, Fuel Economy, IUVP, and HMC programs, the
estimation of respondent burden hours and respondent costs essentially
breaks down as testing costs, which constitute the majority of
Operations and Maintenance; testing facilities costs, which constitute
the majority of Startup and Capital; the labor hours to conduct the
tests; and additional costs and hours associated with other reporting
and recordkeeping burdens. In addition, some features are specific to
particular programs (notably, procurement for IUVP, confirmatory testing
burdens on manufacturers for LDV/LDTs and permeation testing for HMCs).
The DR/VERR program is entirely reporting and recordkeeping, but
includes both LDV/LDTs and HMCs. 

The labor hours associated with conducting tests in this ICR have been
updated to reflect information developed for the Labeling Rule (71 FR
77871; December 27, 2006) cost study and reflected in ICR 0783.51. These
estimates were also slightly modified to reflect preliminary efforts for
a possible greenhouse gasses regulatory proposal. These updates affect
not only the LDV/LDT program but also the HMC and IUVP programs. In
addition, this ICR incorporates a minor correction in the labor hours
associated with conducting evaporative testing of LDV/LDTs.  Aside from
these and some other minor adjustments, the changes in this ICR reflect
changes in the estimated numbers of mandatory tests performed, due to
estimates of the number of engine families certified and tested, rather
than changes in regulation. The number of tests have been updated to
reflect computer query results for model year 2007.  

The largest burden is from the LDV/LDT Emissions IC and from the Fuel
Economy IC that was separated from it into a separate IC.  The basic
outline of these burden estimates dates back to the CAP2000 cost study
and the ICR that incorporated it (ICR 0783.38). The present burden
estimate continues the process of updating based on a renewed
examination of the burdens, consultations with industry, and
consultations with program administrators within EPA. The only
significant program change affecting the Emissions IC since the last
renewal is the cold hydrocarbon testing program; burden of that program
was added to the baseline in ICR 0783.52 and is included in this
renewal. 

It is worth emphasizing again in this renewal that the separation of
Fuel Economy and Emissions is somewhat arbitrary and results in some
counting difficulties, because the same city (FTP) and highway emissions
tests can be used for both purposes in some circumstances. This will
also be true for USO6, SCO3 and Cold CO tests for the five-cycle fuel
economy labeling calculations required beginning model year 2011 and
optional now. In other cases, it is possible for either a highway or
city test to be used only for emissions purposes, or only for fuel
economy purposes. In general, the programs covered in this ICR are
structured to allow the maximum use of test data without duplicate
effort, through, for example, the following: carryover; carry across;
evaporative, permeation, and durability groups that cross-cut engine
families; various forms of acceptable data substitution; and
analytically derived fuel economy values. This results in some very
difficult queries of the database, but it also means that the combined
testing burden for the Emissions and Fuel Economy ICs should be
accurate. 

The regulatory program and the automotive industry have evolved together
now for more than three decades, and the highway motorcycle industry
almost as long. It is no longer possible to determine what these
industries would look like without the reporting and recordkeeping
mandated by the Clean Air Act but with the rest of the Act and the
regulations promulgated thereunder still in force. Manufacturers
consulted respond with widely varying estimates of what their burdens of
complying with the Act would be in the absence of EPA testing and
reporting oversight. 

Whereas manufacturers develop their products within the context of
compliance with all the requirements of the Clean Air Act, we understand
the Paperwork Reduction Act to be centrally concerned with reporting and
recordkeeping burdens. Thus, we start with the burden of submitting
information to EPA and keeping copies of that information. From there we
go on to consider the costs of developing the information that has to be
reported. Consequently, this ICR has traditionally included the burden
of conducting tests that have to be reported to support EPA’s
oversight of compliance with the Clean Air Act. We take the cost of
conducting the tests to include the capital costs of building the
facilities to run the tests and the associated operations and
maintenance costs, such as mileage accumulation for durability
determinations, and labor costs. 

Estimated Respondent Burden Hours:

Respondent Burden Hours

Program/Activity	Engine Families/Year	Burden/

Response

(hours)	Total

(hours)

LDV/LDT Emissions	463	781.9	362,033

LDV/LDT Fuel Economy	427	524.0	184,127

IUVP	271	322.0	87,273

Highway Motorcycles	418	18.7	7,814

Defect, Recall Reports	383	10.5	4,012

TOTAL

 	645,259

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

Estimating labor costs

The estimated cost for labor in the last renewal was based on the 
Federal pay grades (with a 24% benefits and overhead adjustment)
performing tasks similar to those performed by management, technical,
and secretarial labor in the automotive industry conducting compliance
activities. This averaged to $55.82 per hour for the light duty
emissions and fuel economy programs. This average closely tracks the BLS
rates for engineering managers mechanical engineers, and secretaries
multiplied by 1.6; consequently, the labor costs in this ICR have been
updated from the May 2005 BLS National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates
(http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_336100.htm). With a 160% overhead
multiplier, these are $81.38, $49.71, and $33.57, respectively. The
resulting overall average for the Emissions IC becomes $59.07 per hour. 
Use of these rates represent a small reduction in the rates previously
used for the Cold Hydrocarbon burden adjustment (ICR 0783.52).

Information technology specialists for analysis and coding and label
redesign are priced at $100 per hour.  These are considered one-time
startup costs and are not included in the labor burden. 

We have estimated labor costs for these three categories for each labor
item. Applied to the total of 645,259 hours, the annual respondent labor
burden is $38,051,450. 

(ii) Estimating Operations and Maintenance Costs

O&M Costs: 

Program/Activity	Number

of Engine Families	Burden/

Response

($)	Total

($)

LDV/LDT Emissions:	463	$12,807	$5,929,702

LDV/LDT Fuel Economy	427	$15,521	$3,356,293

IUVP	271	$17,890	$4,848,147

Highway Motorcycles	418	$544	$227,262

Defect, Recall Reports	383	$9	$3,331

TOTAL

	$14,364,735

Operations and Maintenance costs are very largely those associated with
running tests; there are also small cost elements associated with other
reporting and recordkeeping activities. O&M costs in this ICR are
therefore highly dependent on the fluctuations in the size of the
industries and do not reflect new program changes. 

O&M test costs here follow the cost study for the Labeling Rule and have
been updated to reflect the most recent information on the numbers of
light-duty emissions and fuel economy tests run for model year 2007.
They also reflect an increase in the number of highway motorcycle engine
families being certified. A change in the O&M costs comes from inclusion
of testing estimates for model years 2011 and after that were fully
considered in the cost study for the Label Rule and accompanying ICR but
which were not added to the baseline at that time as they were outside
the three-year time horizon for the ICR. These adjustments also rectify
an error in the baseline O&M cost item due to an error in the breakout
of 0783.47 into five separate ICs. 

The O&M cost estimates for the Label Rule affected the Fuel Economy IC
and are here used to update the IUVP, Emissions, and HMC ICs. The number
of highway tests in the FE IC has also been updated to reflect the
inclusion of MDPVs in NHTSA’s CAFE program beginning in model year
2011 (71 FR 17566, April 6, 2006). 

(ii) Estimating Capital Costs

Annualized Capital and Startup Costs: 

Program/Activity	Number

Engine Families/Year	Total

($)

LDV/LDT Emissions:	463	$2,256,127

LDV/LDT Fuel Economy 	427	$918,639

IUVP	271	$2,107,260

Highway Motorcycles	418	$66,324

Defect, Recall Reports	383	$0

TOTAL

$5,348,350

To perform the required testing, a combination of “environmental,”
standard, and evaporative emissions test cells are required. (A portion
of the testing must be done at cold and warm temperatures to verify that
emissions controls remain effective.) The cost estimates for these
facilities have been updated to reflect the results of the cost study
and ICR for the Labeling Rule: Environmental test cells are now priced
at $9 million for a facility that can conduct SCO3 tests, and $10
million for Cold CO facilities, having capacities of 300 tests per year;
standard cells remain $4 million with a capacity of 750 tests per year.
A significant change in this ICR is made for evaporative emissions
testing capital costs based on new information from EPA’s testing
laboratory: from $600,000 with a capacity of 1,000 to $300,000 with a
capacity of 90 tests per year. Some other test capital costs are
variations on the estimates for these facilities. 

These capital costs have long been treated as ongoing costs rather than
start-up costs in the 0783 series. In effect, this allows a capital cost
to be attributed on a per-test basis. Because of the wide variety of
circumstances among manufacturers (land availability, capital assets,
lending terms, labor shifts) and the continuing changes in the numbers
of vehicles and engines being certified from year to year, this is the
best method of counting facilities capital costs and one which allows
continuity of treatment from one collection request to another.  This
also has the result, as with O&M costs, that collection requests can
reflect changes in the information burden due to market forces in the
industry that are much too complicated to model. The changes in this
estimate from the last renewal reflect re-estimations and changes in the
industry, not program changes by EPA. 

The annualized depreciated costs of these facilities using the standard
assumptions of 7% interest yearly over ten years is $4,600.520. This is
regarded as a permanent capital cost item; that is, we regard the
capital stock as being continuously depreciated and replaced.

 (iii)  Estimating Start-up Costs

Some capital costs in this ICR are one-time costs, unlike our treatment
of facilities capital costs. These should be taken off the books after
ten years. This ICR in the Fuel Economy IC significantly includes
startup costs beginning in December, 2006, associated with the Labeling
Rule amounting to $747,830 annually. 

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden

The emission and fuel economy compliance programs are primarily
administered by EPA’s Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division
and Laboratory Operations Division.  Approximately 47.5 full time
employee equivalents are directly involved in the combined emission and
fuel economy light-duty, motorcycle, and other, secondary programs;
their cost is approximately $5.9 million, including benefits but not
overhead.  EPA also participates in a program whereby the agency
contracts with an organization that provides qualified persons to
perform duties for the agency that are not performed by EPA employees. 
The cost associated with these persons who work directly on these
programs is approximately $0.23 million, excluding overhead.   Overhead
percentage for the entire division is approximately 16.9%, yielding an
estimated total agency labor cost of $7.17 million. The total
non-capital costs for the light-duty and motorcycle programs, including
direct and indirect labor, operations and maintenance, and overhead, is
estimated as $11.14 million for FY 2007. 

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

From the above discussion the following total burden and cost estimates
can be calculated. (Due to the diverse nature of the motor vehicle
industry, there is no typical or average respondent. Respondents can be
large manufacturers with many products such as General Motors; they can
also be small importers of a few specialized motorcycles per year.)

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

(i)  Respondent Tally

RESPONDENTS	160	

BURDEN HOURS	645,259

LABOR COST	$38.1 million

OPERATING COST	14.4 million 

CAPITALIZED COST	$5.3 million

(ii)  Agency Tally

EMPLOYEES	47.5

CONTRACT LABOR COST	$0.27 million

COST	$11.1  million

6(f) Reasons for change in burden

The change in burden is due to the changes in cost methodology and
coverage outlined above in 6(a) combined with new counts of the numbers
of test groups and tests performed. EPA has not made any program changes
(other than approved rulemakings) since the previous ICR renewal. The
effect of these changes can be summarized as follows:

Labor hours:  The current inventory authorizes 647,815 hours annually.
This renewal requests 645,259 hours. This change is the result of many
corrections, with a moderate increase in light-duty emissions hours and
smaller increases in the fuel economy, motorcycle, and defect-reporting
programs offset by a moderate decrease in IUVP hours reflecting
efficiencies in that program due to the completion of EPA audits of
manufacturer IUVP procedures and the maturing of the program, which was
a startup at the time of the last renewal. 

Labor costs:  As stated above, this request uses BLS labor costs with a
160% multiplier, which allows for the effects of inflation while
maintaining consistency with the previous estimate based on comparable
costs for EPA labor. In addition, the labor cost estimate reflects
changes in the number of vehicles being certified and the consequent
reports being submitted in connection with certification and
post-certification requirements.  

Capital and O&M costs: The current baseline authorizes $12,110,243; the
present estimate requests $19,713,085.  As discussed above, this change
reflects multiple changes both in the capital cost estimate and the O&M
burden, among which those having the most impact are the following:
first, the inclusion of $983,550 in out-year (Model Year 2011 and after)
capital and O&M costs associated with testing under the Labeling Rule;
second, addition of $1,086,382 to the Fuel Economy IC due to adjustments
for inclusion of highway tests for CAFE MDPVs and adjustments to all
prep costs; and increases of $1.9 million and $3.6 million in the
emissions and IUVP programs, respectively, due to better information on
costs and O&M for performing all tests based on estimates developed for
the Labeling Rule and on the capital cost of conducting evaporative
emissions tests for the emissions and IUVP programs,  as well as due to
adjusted testing levels reflecting Model Year 2007 query results; and
sixth, an increase of only $30,000 in the HMC program, where an
adjustment lowering the cost of conducting a highway motorcycle FTP test
from the light duty level to $1,302 per test offsets a substantial
increase in the number of engine families being certified.  

6(g) Burden Statement

The table in Section 6(e) presents the total estimated burden for the
motorcycle and light-duty emission and fuel economy compliance programs,
the IUVP program, and DR/VERR program; approximately 645,259 hours per
year. Annual operating and capitalized costs are approximately $14.4
million and $5.3 million respectively. Because the universe of vehicle
manufacturers is quite diverse, there is no “typical” respondent.
However, the burden estimates for the various individual activities in
section 6(a) can be used to estimate the burden for a particular
respondent. These estimates include time to review applicable
regulations and guidance documents, generate and gather the necessary
information, and submit documents.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to
review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9
and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0353, which is available for online viewing at  
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , or in
person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center is (202) 566-1742.  An electronic version of the
public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be
used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system,
select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. 
Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW,
Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include
the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0353 and OMB Control Number
2060-0104 in any correspondence.  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 

Appendix I

Legal Authority & Regulatory Citations 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act

15 U.S.C. 2003. Calculation of average fuel economy

(a) Method of calculation.

“(1) Average fuel economy for purposes of section 2002 (a) and (c) of
this title shall be calculated by the EPA Administrator...”

(d) Testing and calculation procedures.

“(1) Fuel economy for any model type shall be measured, and average
fuel economy of a manufacturer shall be calculated in accordance with
testing calculation procedures established by EPA Administrator, by
rule...”

15 U.S.C. 2005. Information and reports

(c) Tests, reports, etc. that may be required of manufacturers.

“(1) Every manufacturer shall establish and maintain such records,
make such reports, conduct such tests, and provide such items and
information as the Secretary or EPA Administrator may, by rule,
reasonably require to enable the Secretary or the EPA Administrator to
carry out their duties under this subchapter and under any rules
prescribed pursuant to this subchapter...”

15 U.S.C. 2006. Labeling

(a) Label required on automobile; contents.

“(1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2), each manufacturer
shall cause to be affixed, and each dealer shall cause to be maintained,
on each automobile manufactured in any model year after 1976, in a
prominent place, a label ...”

“(3) The form and content of the labels required under paragraphs (1)
and (2), and the manner in which such labels shall be affixed, shall be
prescribed by the EPA Administrator by rule...”

Clean Air Act

42 U.S.C. 7525. Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Engine Compliance
Testing and Certification 

(a) Testing and issuance of certificate of conformity.

“(1) The Administrator shall test, or require to be tested in such
manner as he deems appropriate, any new motor vehicle or new motor
vehicle engine submitted by a manufacturer to determine whether such
vehicle or engine conforms with regulations prescribed under section
7521 of this title. If such vehicle or engine conforms to such
regulations, the Administrator shall issue a certificate of conformity
upon such terms, and for such period (not in excess of one year) as he
may prescribe...”

45 U.S.C. 7542. Records and Reports 

(a) Manufacturers’ responsibility.

“Every manufacturer shall establish and maintain such records, make
such reports, and provide such information as the Administrator may
reasonably require to enable him to determine whether such manufacturer
has acted or is acting in compliance with this part and the regulations
thereunder and shall, upon request of an officer or employee duly
designated by the Administrator, permit such officer or employee at
reasonable times to have access to and copy such records.”

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

40 CFR Part 85: Control of air pollution from mobile sources.

40 CFR Part 86: Control of air pollution from new and in-use highway
vehicles and engines. 

40 CFR Part 600: Fuel economy of motor vehicles

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Appendix II

Data Items List

 

40 CFR citation	Description

Part 85: Control of Air Pollution from Mobile Sources

Subpart P: Importation of Motor Vehicles and Engines (Sections 85.1501
– 85.1515)

[Note: All these import provisions are covered by ICR 10.09, (OMB
Control No. 2060-0095) renewed through 2007]

Subpart R:  Exclusions and Exemptions

85.1705	Reporting requirement. Application for testing exemption, motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine.

85.1706	Reporting requirement. Application pre-certification exemption,
motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine.

85.1708	Reporting requirement. Application for national security
exemption, motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine.

85.1710	Recordkeeping requirement. Create and maintain adequate records
accessible to EPA at reasonable times, per memorandum of exemption. 	

85.1712	Reporting requirement. Application for confidential treatment of
submitted information, applications for exemptions/exclusions.

Subpart S:  Recall Regulations

85.1802	Reporting requirement. Remedial plan required, nonconforming
motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine class.

85.1803	Reporting requirement. Remedial plan contents and requirements.

85.1806	Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Remedial plan progress
reports, owner notifications.

85.1808	Reporting requirement. Claims of confidential information.

Subpart T:  Emission Defect Reporting

85.1903	Reporting requirement. Emission defect reports, motor vehicles
and motor vehicle engines.

85.1904	Reporting requirement. Voluntary emission recall reports, motor
vehicle and motor vehicle engines.

85.1905	Reporting requirement. Request to use alternate report format.

85.1906	Recordkeeping requirement. Defect reports.

85.1908	Reporting requirement. Disclaimer of production warranty
applicability.

85.1909	Reporting requirement. Request for confidential treatment of
information.

Subpart V:  Emissions Control System Performance Warranty Regulations

[Note: the Voluntary Aftermarket Part Certification Program is covered
by ICR 116.07. 

However, the rest of the Subpart is not covered in that ICR, in spite of
that ICR’s title. The following sections are covered by this ICR: ]

85.2110	Reporting requirement. Submission of owner’s manuals and
warranty statements. 

85.2123	Reporting requirement. Claims of confidentiality. 

Subpart W:  Emission Control System Performance Warranty Short Tests

85.2208	Reporting requirement. Application for alternative short test
procedure.

Subpart Y:  Fees [Supersedes Part 86, Subpart J for certification
requests after May 11, 2004]

[Note: Only non-LDV/LDT portions of  Subpart Y were formerly covered by
OMB Control Number 2060-0545. LDV/LDT portions, formerly covered by this
ICR, were added to 2060-0545 prior to this renewal with OMB approval.] 

Part 86:  Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Highway Vehicles and
Engines

[Note: Applicable provisions are frequently repeated or incorporated
several times for differing 

model years. For example, 86.091-7, 86.094-7 and 86.096-7, and 86.000-7
are cumulative, parallel provisions. Some such provisions, such as those
for initial certification, that are deemed no longer applicable are
excluded from this list.]

 

Subpart A: General Provisions

86.000-7, 86.091-7, 86.094-7, 86.096-7

	

	Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.  Detailed records on all
vehicles used in certification applications other than routine emissions
tests must be kept for 6 or 8 years. Copies of instructions must be
submitted to EPA. Averaging banking and trading records. Reporting of
sales volumes. Covers through 2002 model vehicles. 

Subpart B:  Test Procedures

86.107	Reporting requirement. Gas chromatograph records required for
evaporative emission test.

86.113	Reporting requirement. Availability and use of alternate fuels
in-use.

86.129	Recordkeeping requirement. Fuel temperature profile
determination.

86.142	Recordkeeping requirement. Exhaust emission test.

86.155	Recordkeeping requirement. Refueling test.

86.162	Reporting requirement. Request for alternate air conditioning
test simulations.

86.163	Reporting requirement. Substantiation of alternate air
conditioning test simulation correlation.

Subpart E: New Motorcycles, General Provisions

86.412	Reporting requirement. Submission of maintenance instructions and
other documents that relate to emissions.

86.414	Reporting requirement. Submission of vehicle identification
numbers, description of numbering system.

86.415	Reporting requirement. Submission of annual production reports.

86.416	Reporting requirement. Application for certification.

86.421	Reporting requirement. Election to test additional vehicles.

86.423	Reporting requirement. Submission of optional test data.

86.427	Reporting requirement. Emission testing.

86.428	Reporting requirement. Request for additional scheduled
maintenance.

86.429	Reporting requirement. Request for unscheduled test vehicle
maintenance.

86.431	Reporting requirement. Submission of all test data required.

86.432	Reporting requirement. Election to use optional method to
determine deterioration factor using outliers.

86.434	Reporting requirement. Request for retest of confirmatory test.

86.435	Reporting requirement. Election of additional service
accumulation.

86.437	Reporting requirement. Certification of compliance.

86.438	Reporting requirement. Amendments to the application.

86.439	Reporting requirement. Amendments to the application; alternate
method.

86.440	Recordkeeping requirement. Maintenance of certification vehicle
data for six years, one year for test data. 

86.445	Reporting requirement. Application for hardship exemption.

86-446	Reporting requirement. Application for extension of deadlines for
small-volume manufacturers.

86.449	Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Averaging, banking and
trading. 

Subpart F: New Motorcycles, Emissions Regulations

86.513	Reporting requirement. Availability of alternate fuels.

86.542	Recordkeeping requirement. Motorcycle certification testing.

Subpart G: Selective Enforcement Auditing

86.603	Reporting requirement. Assembly line data

86.604	Reporting requirement. Request for reconsideration on use of EPA
data.

86.605	Recordkeeping requirement. Vehicle production data.

86.607	Reporting requirement. Request for alternate procedures,
description of production changes.

86.609	Reporting requirement. Submission of test results and supporting
information.

86.612	Reporting requirement. Nonconformance, corrective action.

86.615	Reporting requirement. Request for confidential treatment of
information submitted.

Subpart H:  General Provisions for In-Use Emissions

86.709	Reporting requirement. Request to use alternate production
figures.

Subpart J: Certification Fees  [applicable to applications before
7/12/2004, including some still active under import provisions of 40 CFR
85.1509]

[Note: now covered by OMB 2060-0545] 

Subpart K: Selective Enforcement Auditing of Light-Duty Trucks

86.1003	Reporting requirement. Assembly line data

86.1004	Reporting requirement. Request for reconsideration on use of EPA
data.

86.1005	Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Maintenance and
submission of vehicle production data.

86.1007	Reporting requirement. Request for alternate selection method.

86.1009	Reporting requirement. Submission of test results and supporting
information.

86.1012	Reporting requirement. Nonconformance, corrective action.

86.1015	Reporting requirement. Request for confidential treatment of
submitted information.

Subpart L:  Nonperformance Penalties for Light-Duty Trucks

86.1106	Recordkeeping requirement. Production compliance audit
information, recordkeeping.

86.1107	Reporting requirement. Request for reconsideration on use of EPA
data.

86.1108	Recordkeeping requirement. Nonconformance penalty testing.

86.1110	Reporting requirement. Request for alternate test procedures.

86.1113	Reporting requirement. Nonconformance penalty calculation.

86.1114	Reporting requirement. Nonconformance, corrective action.

Subpart O: Short Test Procedures for LDVs, LDTs. 

86.1427	Reporting requirement. Request for alternate short test
procedure.

86.1442	Reporting requirement. Short test reports.

Subpart P: Idle Test Procedures for LDTs

86.1542	Reporting requirement. Idle test reports.

Subpart R: General NLEV Provisions

86.1705	Reporting requirement. Manufacturer’s election of NLEV
program.

86.1707	Reporting requirement. Manufacturer’s decision to opt-out of
NLEV program.

86.1712	Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Production reports,
maintenance of records.

86.1721	Reporting requirement. Identification and production
information, NLEV vehicles.

86.1723	Reporting requirement. Emission data, NLEV vehicles.

86.1734	Reporting requirement. Notification of production vehicle
changes.

Subpart S: General Tier 2 Provisions

86.1805	Reporting requirement. Petition for alternative useful life
definition.

86.1806	Reporting requirement. Request for alternative on board
diagnostic system requirements.

86.1809	Reporting requirement. Submission of detailed calibration
information.

86.1811	Reporting requirement. Election of alternate standards and
phase-in requirements.

86.1817	Reporting requirement. Election of emission limits, submission
of annual report.

86.1823	Reporting requirement. Description of durability demonstration
program.

86.1826	Reporting requirement. Election of assigned deterioration
factors.

86.1829	Reporting requirement. Request for waivers, data substitution.

86.1839	Reporting requirement. Substantiation of data substitution.

86.1840	Reporting requirement. Request for special test procedures.

86.1842	Reporting requirement. Notification of running changes.

86.1843	Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Application for
certification and general information requirements.

86.1844	Reporting requirement. Product description, test data
requirements.

86.1845	Reporting requirement. In-use testing verification requirements.

86.1846	Reporting requirement. Submit confirmatory testing plan when
such testing is required. 

86.1847	Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, in-use and
confirmatory testing.

86.1862	Reporting requirement. NOx averaging recordkeeping requirements.

Part 600

Subpart A: General Fuel Economy Provisions

600.005	Recordkeeping requirement. Fuel economy data vehicles.

600.006	Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Fuel economy data
vehicles.

600.007	Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Fuel economy data,
imported vehicles.

600.010	Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Minimum fuel economy. 

Subpart B: Fuel Economy Test Procedures

600.113	Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Fuel analysis.

Subpart C: Calculating Fuel Economy Values

600.206	Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Fuel economy data, dual
fuel vehicles.

600.207	Reporting requirement. Model type fuel economy calculations.

600.209	Reporting requirement. Fuel economy label calculations.

Subpart D: Fuel Economy Labeling

600.305	Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Fuel economy label.

600.306	Reporting requirement. Fuel economy label information.

600.307	Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Fuel economy label
information.

600.310	Reporting requirement. High altitude fuel economy label,
manufacturer request.

600.311	Reporting requirement. Range of fuel economy.

600.312	Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Fuel economy label
calculations.

600.313	Reporting requirement. Fuel economy information.

600.314	Reporting requirement. Correction of fuel economy labels.

Subpart F: Procedures for Determining Manufacturer’s Average Fuel
Economy

600.507	Reporting requirement. Revised fuel economy data.

600.509	Reporting requirement. Voluntary fuel economy data.

600.510	Reporting requirement. Calculation of average fuel economy,
adjustments.

600.512	Reporting requirement. Model year report.

 PAGE   

 PAGE   19