Opinion ID: 426343
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard for Certification

Text: 26 The vehicle manufacturers challenge the standards adopted by EPA to determine whether a part may be certified. First, the vehicle manufacturers claim that the regulations fail to require, as a prerequisite to certification, that a part be durable enough to ensure continued compliance with emission standards. Second, they contend that the proper standard should be that a part not cause any increase in emissions rather than the standard set forth in the regulations--that a part not cause a vehicle to exceed the applicable emission standards. We reject both of these claims. 27 MVMA's claim that the regulations fail to establish any durability criteria as a prerequisite to certification is incorrect. The regulations explicitly provide: Before a part may be certified ... evidence must exist to demonstrate that the part will not cause a vehicle to exceed emission standards during the full interval for which the part is to be certified. 40 C.F.R. Sec. 85.2114(d) (1982). The regulations contain specific durability criteria for ten of the thirteen parts for which emission critical parameters are established and permit the use of reasonable engineering analyses or testing to demonstrate durability of the other parts. See id. Secs. 85.2114(d)(2) and (3). These durability criteria are an important element of the certification program. They ensure that a part will meet certification standards, not only at the time of installation, but for an extended period of time after that. As EPA explained in its statement accompanying the final rule: 28 The Agency believes that it is imperative that only durable parts be certified. Otherwise it would be possible for properly certified parts to deteriorate in use so as to cause a vehicle to exceed emission standards and perhaps cause the failure of other components. If this were to happen, vehicle manufacturers could incur unwarranted ... emission warranty expenses. 29 45 Fed.Reg. 78,452 (1980). The regulations properly reflect this concern. 30 MVMA's claim that EPA's emission standard for certification is unlawful is also without merit. Initially, EPA proposed a no-increase standard for certification. See 44 Fed.Reg. 46,688-89 (1979). Under that standard a part manufacturer would have to certify that the part would not cause any increase in a vehicle's emissions. The final rule rejected the no-increase approach and required instead that the part not cause a vehicle to exceed applicable emission standards. See 40 C.F.R. Sec. 85.2113(i) (1982) (emission critical parameters are those which will not cause the vehicle to exceed applicable emission standards with such parts installed); id. Sec. 85.2114(b)(2) (under the FTP standard for certification, parts will not cause the vehicle to fail to meet any applicable Federal emission requirements....). MVMA contends that the no-increase standard is required by the Act. We disagree and find that EPA's final version of the certification standard is consistent with the language of the statute and the legislative history of the certification provision. 31 The standard for certification is the one clear directive Congress provided when it gave EPA broad discretion to promulgate certification regulations. Section 207(a)(2) provides: the manufacturer or rebuilder of such part may certify that use of such part will not result in a failure of the vehicle or engine to comply with emission standards promulgated under [section 202]. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7541(a)(2) (emphasis added). EPA's standard is consistent with this language, if not required by it. The statute says nothing about prohibiting certified parts from causing any increase in emissions; its only concern is that a vehicle comply with emission standards. 32 We recognize that the language of a statute may not support an agency's interpretation where the statutory context or legislative history indicates that Congress intended a different result. The legislative history in this instance, however, supports EPA's interpretation of the Act. MVMA does not cite any language supporting a no-increase standard of certification. Instead it points only to statements in the Senate Committee and Conference Committee reports indicating that aftermarket parts must meet the performance standards of the original equipment. See SEN.REP. NO. 127, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 81 (1977); H.R. REP. NO. 564, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 167 (1977) (conference committee report), reprinted in 1977 U.S. CODE CONG. & AD.NEWS 1548. But those standards are met if a part does not cause a vehicle to exceed the Act's emission standards. The same committee reports, upon which MVMA relies, support EPA's interpretation of the Act. According to the report of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which accompanied the 1977 Amendments, [t]he independent manufacturer of parts is authorized to certify to the customer that the part will not 'result in a failure of the vehicle or engine to comply with emission standards.'  SEN.REP. NO. 127, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 82, U.S. CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 1977, p. 1160 (1977). Similarly, the conference committee report expressly adopted the language providing that certified parts not ... result in a failure of an engine to comply with emission standards. H.R. REP. NO. 564, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 168 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S. CODE CONG. & AD.NEWS 1549. 33 MVMA also contends that EPA's standard will result in higher emissions, thereby causing vehicles to fail emission tests more frequently--a result which is contrary to the purposes of the Clean Air Act. Although no single part would cause a vehicle to fail a short test under EPA's standard, MVMA argues that several certified parts, each of which causes only some increase in emissions, together might result in such a failure. Because of this so-called stacking problem, the vehicle manufacturers are concerned that their warranty liability will be triggered when a vehicle fails a short test because of the use of several aftermarket parts where no single part manufacturer would be responsible directly for the emissions failure. In that case, no part manufacturer could be identified to reimburse the vehicle manufacturer. 34 Under the certification program approved by EPA, however, such a result is entirely speculative. The emission critical parameters adopted by EPA for individual parts are those which should establish that a part is equivalent to the OE [original equipment] part from an emissions standpoint. 45 Fed.Reg. 78,452 (1980). MVMA's speculative assertion is insufficient to justify straying from the clear command of the statutory language and legislative history.