Environmental Protection Agency: Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Tuesday,
January 17, 2006
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 86
Emission Durability Procedures and
Component Durability Procedures for
New Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty
Trucks and Heavy-Duty Vehicles; Final
Rule and Proposed Rule
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:58 Jan 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\17JAR2.SGM 17JAR2
2810 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Customization of the Standard Road

AGENCY Cycle
I. Background 2. Customization of the standard bench
A. Overview of certification process, CAP procedures
40 CFR Part 86 2000 history 3. Replication by outside parties
[FRL–8019–2] B. Durability demonstration process D. Using In-Use Verification Program
history (IUVP) data to improve durability
RIN 2060–AK76 1. Durability demonstration methods used predictions
prior to the CAP 2000 regulations E. Evaporative and refueling durability
Emission Durability Procedures for 2. Emission durability procedures under F. Effective date and carryover of existing
New Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty CAP 2000 durability data
Trucks and Heavy-Duty Vehicles C. Ethyl petition to reconsider CAP 2000 G. Miscellaneous regulatory amendments
rules and corrections
AGENCY: Environmental Protection D. Judicial review of the CAP 2000 rules IV. What are the economic and
Agency. E. Applicability of the NPRM preamble environmental impacts?
ACTION: Final Rule. discussion A. Economic impacts
F. Supplemental notice regarding 1. Comparison to CAP 2000 economic
SUMMARY: This final rulemaking component durability impacts
contains procedures to be used by II. Summary and Analysis of Comments 2. Economic impact of today’s final rule
manufacturers of light-duty vehicles, A. The Durability Objective B. Environmental impacts
light-duty trucks, and some heavy-duty B. Evaluation of the certification durability V. What are the Statutory and Executive
vehicles to demonstrate, for purposes of procedures based on in-use emissions Order Reviews for this Rule?
emission certification, that new motor data A. Executive Order 128866: Regulatory
C. Standard whole vehicle durability Planning and Review
vehicles will comply with EPA emission procedure B. Paperwork Reduction Act
standards throughout their useful lives. 1. Standard Road Cycle (SRC) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Today’s action defines procedures to be 2. Vehicle ballasting on SRC mileage D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
used by manufacturers to demonstrate accumulation E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
the expected rate of deterioration of the 3. Calculating the DF from mileage F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
emission levels of their vehicles. accumulation of 75% of full useful life and Coordination with Indian Tribal
DATES: This rule is effective February mileage Governments
4. Testing required for DF calculation G. Executive Order 13045: Children’s
16, 2006. The information collection
5. Use of an engine dynamometer to Health Protection
requirements of this rule have been recreate the aging on the SRC H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that
approved by OMB and are effective D. Standard Bench Aging Procedure Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
February 16, 2006. E. Catalyst time-at-temperature data Distribution, or Use
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a measurement I. National Technology Transfer
docket for this action under Docket ID F. Customized/Alternative durability Advancement Act
No. OAR–2002–0079. All documents in procedures J. Congressional Review Act
the docket are listed in the EDOCKET 1. Equivalency factors and alternative road
cycles I. Background
index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.
2. Bench durability aging A. Overview of certification process,
Although listed in the index, some 3. Approval of customized/alternative
information is not publicly available, durability procedures
CAP 2000 history
i.e., CBI or other information whose 4. Experimentally determining a Before a manufacturer may introduce
disclosure is restricted by statute. customized R-factor a new motor vehicle into commerce, the
Certain other material, such as 5. Alternative bench aging cycle content manufacturer must obtain an EPA
copyrighted material, is not placed on G. Component Durability certificate of conformity indicating
the Internet and will be publicly H. Minor modifications to approved compliance with all applicable emission
available only in hard copy form. durability procedures
I. Required notification to EPA that an
standards over the vehicle’s useful life
Publicly available docket materials are period. The useful life for cars and light
approved durability procedure will be
available either electronically in used for a particular durability group trucks is currently 100,000 miles or 10
EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Air J. Public Availability of the equivalency years, whichever occurs first; for heavy
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room factor and supporting data light trucks, medium duty passenger
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., K. Carryover vehicles (MDPV) and complete heavy
Washington, DC. The Public Reading L. Evaporative Durability Procedures duty vehicles the useful life period is
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 M. Starting model year for the rule 120,000 miles or 11 years, whichever
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding N. Special provisions for new occurs first. [Section 202(d) of the Clean
legal holidays. The telephone number manufacturers
O. Delete incorrect reference to
Air Act and 40 CFR 86.1805–04]
for the Public Reading Room is (202) To receive a certificate, the
intermediate useful life standards for the
566–1744. evaporative and refueling durability manufacturer submits an application to
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: objective EPA containing various information
General Contact: Linda Hormes, Vehicle III. What is EPA promulgating today? specified in the regulations, including
Programs and Compliance Division, A. Standard whole vehicle exhaust emissions test data. EPA reviews the
U.S. EPA, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, durability procedure submitted information as well as any
Michigan 48105, telephone (734) 214– B. Standard bench aging exhaust durability other relevant information, and issues a
4502, E-mail: hormes.linda@epa.gov. procedure Certificate upon a determination that
1. The Standard Bench Cycle (SBC)
Technical Contact: Linc Wehrly, the manufacturer has demonstrated that

2. The Bench Aging Time (BAT)
Vehicle Programs and Compliance calculation
its new motor vehicle will meet the
Division, U.S. EPA, 2000 Traverwood, 3. The effective reference temperature for requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act)
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, telephone: the SBC and the regulations. [40 CFR 86.1848–
(734) 214–4286, E-mail: C. Customization of the standard 01] A certificate of conformity is
wehrly.linc@epa.gov. procedures effective for only one model year;
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 2811
therefore, new vehicle certification must emissions deterioration for the purpose design vehicles. In addition,
occur annually. of certification. manufacturers have long identified the
EPA’s regulations detail the process Over the years, EPA has promulgated durability process based on mileage
motor vehicle manufacturers must regulations prescribing several different accumulation using the AMA cycle as
follow to obtain EPA emissions emissions durability demonstration very costly and requiring extensive lead
certification. In 2000, EPA issued a methods to fulfill EPA’s need to time for completion. As a result, EPA
comprehensive update to the determine compliance with emission came to believe that the AMA had
certification regulations for light-duty standards over the vehicle’s full useful become outdated 7.
vehicles and light-duty trucks.1 These life. The following is a short summary The AMA cycle was developed before
certification regulations are known as of this prior regulatory history, to put vehicles were equipped with catalytic
‘‘CAP [Compliance Assurance Program] today’s final rule in context. converters. It contains a substantial
2000’’.2 They include detailed portion of low speed driving, designed
B. Durability Demonstration Process
procedures on the selection of vehicles to address concerns about engine
History
for testing and testing procedure, deposits. While engine deposits were a
specifications on the information that 1. Durability Demonstration Methods major source of emissions deterioration
must be submitted to EPA, and other Used Prior to the CAP 2000 Regulations in pre-catalyst vehicles, the advent of
requirements pertaining to reporting Prior to CAP 2000, EPA’s regulations catalytic converters, better fuel control,
and testing. (ref. 40 CFR Part 86) specified the and the use of unleaded fuel shifted the
Issuance of a certificate is based on a method to demonstrate a vehicle’s causes of deterioration from low speed
determination by EPA that the vehicles emission durability. The method used a driving to driving modes which include
at issue will conform with the whole vehicle mileage accumulation higher speed/load regimes that cause
applicable emissions standards. elevated catalyst temperatures. The
cycle, commonly referred to as the
Compliance with the emissions AMA driving cycle does not adequately
Approved Mileage Accumulation
standards requires that the vehicles focus on these higher catalyst
(AMA) cycle. It required manufacturers
meet the standards for the specified temperature driving modes. It also
to accumulate mileage on a pre-
useful life period. A determination of contains numerous driving modes
production vehicle, known as a
compliance, therefore, must be based on which do not significantly contribute to
durability data vehicle (DDV), by
an evaluation of both the performance of deterioration. This makes the process
driving it over the prescribed AMA
the vehicles’ emissions control system longer but adds little benefit in
driving cycle for the full useful life
when new, as well as performance over predicting emission deterioration.
mileage.5 This was to simulate the real-
the entire time period of the vehicles’ In response to these concerns, EPA
useful life.3 world aging of the vehicle’s emissions
began a voluntary emission durability
The process of predicting how and to control systems over the useful life.
The DDV was tested in a laboratory program in the 1994 model year for
what degree a vehicle’s emission levels light-duty vehicles. This program
will change over its useful life period for emissions at periodic intervals
during AMA mileage accumulation, and allowed manufacturers to develop their
[emissions deterioration] as well as the own procedures to evaluate durability
robustness of the vehicle’s emission- a linear regression of the test data was
performed to calculate a multiplicative and deterioration subject to prior
related components [component Agency approval.8 EPA’s approval
durability] is known as an emission deterioration factor (DF) for each
exhaust constituent. Then, low mileage criteria required the manufacturer to
durability demonstration.4 Today’s final demonstrate that the durability
rule specifies the methods that vehicles more representative of those
intended to go into production (referred procedures would cover a significant
manufacturers must use to determine majority of in-use vehicle’s emission
to as ‘‘emission data vehicles,’’ or EDVs)
were emission-tested. The emission deterioration.9 One additional condition
1 Separate certification regulations exist for
results from these tests were multiplied for approval was that the manufacturer
heavy-duty highway vehicles and engines, which
refer to the light-duty certification procedures. by the DFs 6 to project the emissions conduct or fund an in-use test program
Today’s final rule will apply to those subsets for levels at full useful life (referred to as to evaluate the effectiveness of its
heavy-duty vehicles which use the same predictions. The initial program was
certification procedures as light-duty trucks. for the ‘‘certification levels’’). The
convenience, the term ‘‘vehicle’’ or ‘‘motor vehicle’’ certification levels had to be at or below referred to as revised durability program
will be used in this preamble to mean those light- the applicable emission standards in 7 Reference: 63 FR 39653, 39659 (July 23, 1998)
duty and heavy-duty motor vehicles subject to these
regulations.
order to obtain a certificate of (CAP 2000 NPRM).
2 63 FR 39654 (July 23, 1998). conformity. 8 EPA approved three types of emission durability
3 Since a certificate must be issued before the new EPA was concerned about the ability programs under these procedures: whole vehicle,
vehicles may be introduced into commerce, the of any fixed cycle—including the AMA full mileage, whole vehicle, accelerated mileage;
emissions testing and other relevant data and cycle—to produce emission durability and bench aging procedures which involved
information used to support an application for a thermal aging of the catalyst-plus-oxygen-sensor
certificate are usually developed on pre-production
data that accurately predicted in-use system.
prototypes. deterioration for all vehicles. EPA had 9 Reference EPA Guidance Letter No. CD–94–13,
4 The durability demonstration program consists particular concerns that the AMA did ‘‘Alternative Durability Guidance for MY94 through
of two elements: emission deterioration and not represent current driving patterns MY98’’, dated July 29, 1994. This letter explained
component durability. Emission deterioration that as-received, un-screened in-use data should be
and did not appropriately age current compared to vehicles run on the alternative
prediction is a process of predicting to what degree
emissions will increase during the vehicles useful durability program (ASADP). A ‘‘significant
5 At the time this durability procedure was
life. The deterioration factor (DF) is a measure of majority’’ of the in-use data should be covered by
deterioration. Component durability is a effective, the useful life mileage for light-duty the durability program. We defined the acceptance
demonstration that the emission control vehicles was 100,000 miles. Refer to 40 CFR ceriteria in that letter as follows: ‘‘EPA does not
components will not break and will continue to 86.1805–04 for current useful life mileage values. require ASADPs to meet a specific minimum
operate as described in the Application for 6 A multiplicative DF is calculated by performing severity level (or confidence level) because different
Certification during the minimum maintenance a least-squares regression of the emission versus methods may be used to estimate the degree of
interval proscribed in 40 CFR 1834–01. The mileage data for each exhaust emission constituent severity. * * * However, an ASADP would be
component durability demonstration is conducted and dividing the emission level at full useful life acceptable to EPA if EPA believes that it were
by the manufacturer using good engineering (historically, 100,000 miles) by the emission level designed to match the in-use deterioration of 90–
judgement. at the 4,000 mile point. 95 percent of vehicles in the engine family.’’
I (RDP I). It was an interim program deterioration with DFs. Manufacturers dynamometer bench.14 During the
scheduled to expire after the 1995 needed to demonstrate to EPA’s bench aging process important engine/
model year and was intended to serve satisfaction that their durability process catalyst parameters are controlled to
as a bridge to an anticipated complete would result in the same or more assure proper aging. Usually, elevated
revision to the durability process. The deterioration than is reflected by the in- catalyst temperatures are maintained
provisions of RDP I were extended in a use data for a significant majority of while fuel is controlled to include lean,
series of regulatory actions.10 their vehicles. Manufacturers were rich, and stoichiometric control.
Ultimately, the Agency instituted a required to provide evidence that their Through a series of tests, manufacturers
comprehensive revision to the durability process resulted in predicted determine the amount of time needed to
durability process as part of the CAP emission deterioration that were equal bench-age a catalyst so it is aged to the
2000 rulemaking. to or more severe than the deterioration equivalent of 100,000 miles. In some
For evaporative and refueling rates experienced by a significant cases the manufacturer developed the
emissions deterioration, EPA allowed majority (approximately 90%) of
manufacturers to develop their own amount of aging time using catalyst
candidate in-use vehicles.13 temperature data measured on a road
process to either bench age components Furthermore, this demonstration was
or do whole vehicle aging, also subject cycle. In other cases, the manufacturer
required to cover the breadth of the developed the aging time through a trial
to Agency review and approval. The vehicles covered by the durability
evaporative and refueling deterioration and error process. Typical bench aging
procedure. periods are 100–300 hours, although
factor is required to be additive.11
This evaluation concerning coverage these can vary from manufacturer to
2. Emission Durability Procedures of a significant majority of the in-use manufacturer. Sources of deterioration
Under CAP 2000 data was usually made independently other than thermal aging can be
The CAP 2000 rulemaking was a on several potential worst-case vehicles accounted for by aging the catalyst for
comprehensive update to the entire which bound the envelope of vehicles an additional amount of time.
light-duty vehicle certification process. covered by the durability procedure.
The CAP 2000 regulations allow
One part of this involved the Manufacturers typically demonstrated
that emission deterioration predicted by manufacturers to choose from three
manufacturer’s required demonstration different methods to demonstrate
of emission durability. The Agency their durability program would cover
approximately 90 percent of the in-use emissions durability. Manufacturers
eliminated the requirement for the use
population using one (or more) of the could calculate additive DFs,
of AMA for new durability
following sources of data: in-use multiplicative DFs, or test EDVs with
demonstrations. In CAP 2000, the
emission tests, in-use driving aged hardware 15 installed on them.
Agency replaced the AMA-based
durability program with a durability characteristics, or in-use catalyst Regardless of whether manufacturers
process similar to the optional RDP–I temperature measurements. At that time used whole vehicle or bench aging
program. Each manufacturer, except EPA had not developed a specific durability procedures, CAP 2000 also
small volume manufacturers, was required method to make this required the manufacturer to later
required to develop an emission demonstration. collect emission data on candidate in-
durability process which would Two major types of durability use vehicles selected under the
accurately predict the in-use processes emerged from the CAP 2000 provisions of the in-use verification
deterioration of the vehicles they experience: whole vehicle and bench program (IUVP).16 Among other uses of
produce. The manufacturer had the aging processes. the data, the IUVP data must be used by
flexibility to design an efficient program the manufacturer to check on and
that met that objective. The whole vehicle aging procedures
improve its durability program. The
The manufacturer’s plan was then involve driving vehicles on a track or
dynamometer on an aggressive driving data also is available to assist the
reviewed by EPA for approval.12 Agency to target vehicle testing for its
Approval from the Agency required a cycle of the manufacturer’s design. In
general, the speed, acceleration rates, recall program. The Agency may
demonstration that the durability intercede 17 when the in-use data
process was designed to generate DFs and/or vehicle load are significantly
representative of in-use deterioration. increased compared to the AMA cycle
14 An engine dynamometer bench generally
This demonstration was more than or normal in-use driving patterns. The
consists of an engine dynanometer, a ‘‘slave’’
simply matching the average in-use vehicle can be driven either for full engine, and required controllers and sensors to
useful-life mileage, or, for a higher stress achieve the desired operation of the engine on the
10 Ref. 59 FR 36368 (July 19, 1994), 62 FR 11082 cycle, the vehicle can be driven for a dynanometer.
15 Under this alternative, emission components
(March 11, 1997) 62 FR 11138 (March 11, 1997) and reduced number of miles (e.g., 1 mile on
62 FR 44872 (August 22, 1997). aged to the equivalent of full useful life would be
11 An additive DF is calculated by performing a
the high speed cycle equals 2 miles in installed on EDVs. The test data from the EDV
least-squares regression of the emission versus
use). In either case, the vehicle is tested would then serve to establish the certification level
mileage data for each exhaust emission constituent periodically and a DF is calculated. and show compliance with the full useful life
and subtracting the 4,000-mile emission level from emission standards.
The bench aging procedures involve 16 Reference: 40 CFR 86.1845–01 and 40 CFR
the full useful life emission level (historically,
100,000 miles). The DF is then used with emission the removal of critical emission 86.1845–04.
data from the emission data vehicle to demonstrate components, such as the catalyst and 17 The Agency may withdraw approval for a
compliance with the standards for the purpose of oxygen sensor, and the accelerated aging durability process if the Administrator determines,
certification. The sum of the emissions from the based on IUVP or other data, that the durability
EDV plus the additive DF is referred to as the
of those components on an engine
process does not accurately predict emission levels
certification level and must be less than or equal to or compliance with the standards. [Ref. 40 CFR
the emission standard to receive a certificate of 13 Candidate in-use vehicles are vehicles selected 86.1923–01(h)]. In addition, where the average in-
conformity. under the provisions of the in-use verification use verification data for a test group (or several test
12 The CAP 2000 regulations ‘‘grand-fathered’’ program (IUVP). This includes mileage restrictions, groups) exceeds 1.3 times the applicable emission
procedures which had been already approved under procurement requirements, and screening standard and at least 50% of the test vehicles fail
the RDP provisions. Consequently, these grand requirements designed to eliminate only tampered, the standard in use, manufacturers are required to
fathered procedures were not approved again under mis-used or unsafe vehicles. [reference: 40 CFR supply additional ‘‘recall quality’’ in-use data. [Ref.
the CAP 2000 provisions. [63 FR.39661] 86.1845–01 and 40 CFR 86.1845.04] 40 CFR 86.1846–01].
indicate the durability process itself failed to establish any test proposed durability regulation, which
underestimates in-use emission levels. procedures at all in the regulation, retained the ‘‘good engineering
The CAP 2000 regulations did not vaguely articulated or not. EPA’s judgment’’ language for component
change the previous procedures used to regulation provided only for the durability.19 Today’s final rule includes
obtain DFs for evaporative/refueling manufacturer to develop its own test only procedures for the emission
families. procedure and submit it for later EPA deterioration portion of the durability
C. Ethyl Petition To Reconsider the CAP approval. This was inconsistent with process, because our understanding was
2000 Rules the scope of section 206(d), [Ethyl at that component durability was not at
1149–50.] issue. However, Afton’s comments are
On August 17, 1999, Ethyl The Court also said that ‘‘nothing in significant enough, that we believe it is
Corporation petitioned EPA to our opinion requires that EPA use only appropriate to take the opportunity for
reconsider the CAP 2000 regulations. a ‘one-size-fits-all’ test method. All that further comment on component
EPA requested public comment on the is required is that it establish its durability regulations. We believe it is
petition, 64 FR 60401 (November 5, procedures, no matter how variegated, appropriate, given the need for notice
1999 and 64 FR 70665 (December 17, ‘by regulation.’ ’’ [Ethyl at 1150.] and comment for all interested parties,
1999), and received comments from Since the issue before the Court was that we treat component durability in a
various interested parties. After the legality of EPA’s adoption of the separate action. Therefore, in addition
consideration of the petition and of all CAP 2000 durability provisions, EPA to today’s final rule, EPA is also today
comments, EPA denied the petition for believes the court’s vacature of ‘‘the publishing a separate Supplemental
reconsideration. 66 FR 45777 (August CAP 2000 program’’ is limited to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
30, 2001). vacating the CAP 2000 durability requesting comments on a proposal
Ethyl Corporation also petitioned the provisions. which addresses component durability.
Agency to reconsider the final rule The Court also remanded the case to Today’s final rule has not revised the
entitled ‘‘Emissions Control, Air EPA with instructions to establish test regulatory language for component
Pollution From 2004 and Later Model methods and procedures by regulation. durability.
Year Heavy-Duty Highway Engines and Today’s final rule is the result of the
Vehicles; Light-Duty On-Board II. Summary and Analysis of Comments
court’s decision, and is limited to
Diagnostics Requirements, Revision; emission durability procedures. EPA received comments from the
Final Rule,’’ 65 FR 59896–59978 automotive makers Ford, Volkswagen
(referred to here as the ‘‘Heavy Duty E. Applicability of the NPRM Preamble and Cummins, two automotive trade
Rule’’). After consideration of the Discussion associations on behalf of their member
petition and all of the comments, EPA Unless otherwise indicated below, the automotive companies, the Afton
denied the petition for reconsideration. discussion presented in the preamble to Chemical Corporation (formerly know
66 FR 45777 (August 30, 2001). the notice of proposed rulemaking as the Ethyl Corporation), and one
published at 69 FR 17532 is applicable comment from a private citizen.
D. Judicial Review of the CAP 2000 The comments have been grouped
Rules to this final rule.
together by subject matter. The
Ethyl Corporation petitioned for F. Supplemental Notice Regarding following discussion presents the
review of the CAP 2000 rulemaking, Component Durability summary of EPA’s proposal, of the
claiming among other things that the The Agency received a comment from comments received on that proposal,
CAP 2000 durability provisions were Afton Chemical Corporation (‘‘Afton,’’ and EPA’s response to those comments.
unlawful as EPA had not promulgated formerly known as Ethyl suggesting that A. The Durability Objective
methods and procedures for making EPA did not address the component
tests by regulation as required by § 206. Summary of proposed rule. The
durability portion of the emission
[Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 306 F.3d 1144 (DC proposed rules included a provision
durability process and should establish
Cir. Oct. 22, 2002).] that defined the durability objective [Ref
a procedure for determining component
In an opinion issued on October 22, 40 CFR 86.1823–08(a)] as follows: ‘‘The
durability. After the Court decision
2002, the Court found that the CAP 2000 durability program must predict an
which remanded EPA to write new
regulations did not satisfy the expected in-use emission deterioration
regulations regarding emissions
requirements of section 206(d) of the rate and emission level that effectively
durability, EPA discussed with the represents a significant majority
CAA to establish methods and Petitioner and automotive
procedures for making tests through (approximately 90 percent) of the
manufacturers the ramifications of that distribution of emission levels and
regulation. decision. To aid in these discussions,
The Court recognized that there was deterioration in actual use over the full
EPA provided a draft ‘‘mark-up’’ version and intermediate useful life of candidate
an important distinction between an of the CAP 2000 regulations, showing
EPA regulation that established general in-use vehicles 20 of each vehicle design
via stricken text exactly which which uses the durability program.’’
or vaguely articulated test procedures, regulations we believed had been
with more specific details provided in a Summary of Comments. The Alliance
vacated.18 We did not strike out the and AIAM commented that the phrase
later proceeding, and a regulation which
regulatory language regarding ‘‘approximately 90 percent’’ could
failed to establish any test procedures at
component durability. At that time,
all and only adopted procedures for the
neither the petitioner nor the 19 Ref. 69 FR 17533 ‘‘EPA is not proposing to
later development of tests. The former
automotive manufacturers spoke out in change the existing regulations for determining
situation would receive deferential emission-related component durability’’.
opposition to this. We did not propose
judicial review under the applicable 20 Candidate in-use vehicles are vehicles selected
new procedures for component
case law. The latter case, however, under provisions of the in-use verification program
durability and proceeded with the (IUVP). This includes mileage restrictions,
would fail to meet the requirements of
procurement requirements, and screening
section 206(d). The Court held that the 18 A copy of the strike-out version of CAP 2000 requirements designed to eliminate only tampered,
CAP 2000 regulations fell into this latter language is included in the Docket to this mis-used or unsafe vehicles. [Reference: 40 CFR
group, and were improper because EPA regulation. 86.1845–01 and 40 CFR 86.1845–04]
effectively increase the stringency of the manufacturer must still demonstrate the emission levels projected at
standards by ignoring whether vehicles that a customized/alternative durability certification.
are passing the standards in-use and procedure is expected to effectively The Alliance and AIAM also
focusing on the probability distribution represent a significant majority of the suggested that ‘‘If the IUVP data show
that in-use emissions exceed the distribution of emission deterioration in that a manufacturer meets emissions
emission levels projected at actual use to obtain EPA approval to use standards in use (because, for example,
certification. This represents a the procedure for certification. EPA and the manufacturer certified with a
substantial and unnecessary departure the manufacturers will still review IUVP sufficient compliance margin, known as
from the CAP 2000 rules. Instead, the data and/or other data to determine if ‘‘headroom’’), then the Agency should
rules should be in line with the the durability objective was achieved in not be concerned and should not make
‘‘significant majority’’ goal espoused in use and whether it is appropriate to decisions based on the accuracy of the
CAP 2000 and the RDP guidance letter continue to use that durability process certification emission deterioration seen
(CD–94–13, July 29, 1994). for future certification requests. EPA in isolation.’’
In response to a request by EPA to will consider a variety of different In response to a request by EPA to
clarify their comments, the Alliance evidence and/or analyses that the clarify their comments, the Alliance
stated that they were concerned that the durability objective has been or is stated that the new provision could be
proposed provision in the regulations expected to be achieved. However, a interpreted to require changes in their
themselves which defined ‘‘significant demonstration that approximately 90 durability programs even when a
majority’’ to mean ‘‘approximately 90 percent of the distribution of in-use significant majority of candidate in-use
percent’’ could be interpreted to emission deterioration or emission vehicles comply with emission
establish an inflexible percentage levels is effectively represented by the standards. They believed that the
criterion and eliminate EPA’s discretion durability procedure will continue to be proposed rule could, therefore,
to consider other factors when a satisfactory showing for this purpose. effectively tighten the applicable
evaluating the effectiveness of a emission standards.
The following section discusses how
manufacturer’s durability program taken Ford commented that: (1) The
the durability objective will be used to
as a whole. proposal effectively increases the
evaluate certification durability stringency of the standards. (2) The
Response to Comments. The purpose
procedures based on in-use emission focus of this criteria appear to change
of the durability program is to provide
data. from the strawman which compared the
EPA with reasonable assurance that
vehicles covered by a certificate of B. Evaluation of the Certification IUVP emission results to the standard
conformity will, in actual use, comply Durability Procedures Based on In-Use and the highest certification level of all
with the applicable emission standards Emissions Data certification and running change tests.
over their full useful life. As discussed (3) Applying the 90 percent criteria
Summary of Proposal. Manufacturers [significant majority] criteria to IUVP
in the proposal, production variability
must use information gathered from the data (‘‘as received vehicles’’) rather than
or other reasons can lead to differences
IUVP, as well as other sources of in-use ‘‘properly maintained and used’’
in actual emission levels among
vehicles of the same nominal design. emissions data, to periodically review vehicles [the quality of data used to
In the CAP 2000 rulemaking, EPA whether the durability procedure it order recalls] further increase the
required that a durability program employs achieves the durability stringency. (4) The proposed
adequately predict emission objective. EPA may require a requirement forces change and cost
deterioration for a significant majority of manufacturer to perform an analysis to increases to methods where 100% of the
candidate in-use vehicles. In the CAP evaluate its durability procedure. EPA IUVP data meet applicable standards.
2000 program, EPA had typically may withdraw approval of a durability (5) Reviewing the rate of deterioration is
considered ‘‘significant majority’’ to procedure, or require modifications to inconsistent with the use of certifying
mean approximately 90 percent the procedure, if the Agency determines with aged components (rather than
coverage of the distribution of in-use that the durability objective is not being calculating a deterioration factor).
deterioration. This concept was achieved by the durability procedure. The Alliance and AIAM also
discussed in the preamble to the CAP [Ref. 86.1823–08 (i) and (j)] commented Review of durability
2000 rule 21; however, EPA had not set Summary of Comments. The Alliance processes should only be required when
a strict numerical criteria in the CAP and AIAM stated that they had concerns the in-use confirmatory test criteria are
2000 regulations. that a number of variables could affect triggered.
It was not the EPA’s intention to IUVP emission data (including in-use Response to Comments. EPA did not
establish in this rule a single rigid fuel characteristics, mal-maintenance, propose, nor are we finalizing, any
method or an inflexible numerical testing variability, small sample size, changes to the IUVP testing program
criteria to evaluate the durability random recruitment and as-received promulgated in the CAP 2000
objective. EPA understands the testing (rather than testing properly rulemaking. As discussed in the
Alliance’s concerns that the proposed maintained and used vehicles)) and that proposal, EPA does not believe these
language might lend itself to a more these variables could affect the accuracy provisions were vacated by the Court’s
rigid interpretation that may limit EPA of decisions made using IUVP data. decision and they remain effective
discretion and/or impose unintended They stated that these concerns ‘‘were without any further action required by
burdens on manufacturers. already addressed in the CAP 2000 the Agency.
Consequently, EPA has removed the rulemaking in an appropriate fashion’’. The provisions for using IUVP
parenthetical phrase ‘‘approximately 90 To illustrate their concern, the emissions data and/or other information
percent’’ from the finalized durability Alliance and AIAM provided this to evaluate a durability procedure and
objective language in the regulations. example: All in-use vehicles can be well for the Administrator to reject the use of
By making this change we are not below the applicable standards, but the a durability procedure based on such an
relaxing the requirement. The durability procedure could be deemed evaluation were also contained in the
deficient under the proposed rule CAP 2000 rules. The CAP 2000 rule
21 Ref. CAP 2000 NPRM preamble 63 FR 39661. merely because in-use emissions exceed established the requirement to reject a
durability procedure when ‘‘the Agency to assure an effective and the higher emission vehicles would
durability process has not been shown certification program. It would be be tested at high mileage. This situation
to effectively predict emission levels or reckless for the Agency to allow the would lead to a exaggeratedly high
compliance with the standards in use on continued use of a unmodified calculated deterioration rate. This, in
candidate vehicles’’ using this data. durability process for future turn, could lead to the false
This requirement is practically certification once it has been shown to determination that the durability
equivalent to the ‘‘not achieving the be ineffective in actual use for similar process does not meet the durability
durability objective’’ language in the vehicles. objective. Comparing individual in-use
proposal. As long as in-use vehicle data We disagree with the suggestion that emission levels to the certification
is below the standards, the durability review of the durability procedures levels or the applicable emission
procedure would be considered should only occur when the in use standards will result in more accurate
acceptable, even if the in-use emissions confirmatory program (IUCP) triggers 22 evaluations of the in-use data and is
exceed the emission levels projected at are activated. The confirmatory test recommended for that reason.
certification. However, if it was found criteria are considered to be a screening It is better to make overall decisions
that the in-use emissions were criteria that identifies the very worst about the effectiveness of a durability
significantly higher than the projected cases only for automatic procedure using the largest possible
certification levels, we may decide to reconsideration. EPA expects that there data set of comparable vehicles.
review the durability procedure to will be cases where the durability Consequently, EPA recommends
determine why the in-use emission procedures are not working performing analyses on a broad group of
results are so far off from the projected satisfactorily for a particular test group comparable vehicles rather than on
certification results in order to improve that are not identified by these criteria. single test groups or other small data
the procedure being used. Furthermore, reviewing in-use data in sets. Comparable vehicles complying
We disagree with the comment that large groups allows the Agency to with different standards may be
the comparison of IUVP emission data determine if there is an underlying combined into the same analysis if the
to the durability objective in the trend that a durability process is not emission levels are standardized by the
proposal is a new requirement (not satisfactorily achieving the durability ratio of the emission standards.
contained in the CAP 2000 rules) that objective. In those cases, EPA is We agree with the Alliance and AIAM
increases the stringency of the naturally and justifiably concerned that the Agency should not make
standards. As discussed in the last about the accuracy of the durability decisions based on the accuracy of the
paragraph, the basis for the evaluation process. These reviews conducted on a certification emission deterioration seen
of a durability program in CAP 2000 case-by-case basis are necessary for the in isolation. Compliance margin should
was ‘‘candidate in-use vehicle’’ which Agency to assure an effective also be considered in the analysis.
are defined to be vehicles eligible for certification program. The proposed and finalized rules
selection by the IUVP program. Clearly, EPA has retained the proposed discuss ‘‘effectively representing a
comparing actual IUVP emission data to provision to eliminate unrepresentative significant majority’’ (emphasis added).
the durability objective is precisely in-use data when making this The word ‘‘effectively’’ in this context is
what was intended by this requirement. determination. intended to allow the use of compliance
Consequently, this requirement is not EPA has not established a single margin (also called ‘‘headroom’’) to
new and therefore does not increase required method to perform an analysis expand the predictive coverage of a
stringency of the standards. Ford is to evaluate the effectiveness of the durability program. As stated
confusing the ‘‘well maintained and durability process using in-use emission previously, the purpose of the durability
used’’ quality of data requirement that data. The Agency will consider all program is to provide EPA with
applies to ordered recalls with the information and analyses presented by reasonable assurance that vehicles
process of evaluating the effectiveness the manufacturer submitted within the covered by a certificate of conformity
of a durability process for certification. 60-day period specified in the will, in actual use, comply with the
As discussed in the CAP 2000 rule, EPA regulations before reaching a final applicable emission standards over their
does not intend to order recalls of decision to withdraw approval for a full useful life.
vehicles using unscreened IUVP data. durability procedure. Although there is This purpose may be accomplished by
EPA did not propose, nor are we no specified procedure for this employing a durability process that
finalizing, any provision that would evaluation, there are several directly predicts emission levels that
change the process of ordering recalls of observations which are applicable to represent a significant majority of the
non-complying vehicles by using this process. distribution of emission levels in actual
unscreened IUVP data. Calculating deterioration rates only use. Alternatively, the durability
We continue to believe it is necessary from in-use emission results conducted process may under-predict emission
to re-evaluate a manufacturer’s at various vehicle mileage points on levels, but when coupled with the
durability process using actual in-use randomly procured vehicles within a compliance margin, a significant
emission, data such as IUVP data, when test group can be misleading. It is well majority of the vehicles comply with the
that information becomes available. It is known that individual vehicle emission standards in actual use.
only through such review that we can be configurations within a test group or Providing that the same amount of
assured that the predictions made at the durability group will have different compliance margin is used in future
time of certification are actually valid in levels of absolute emissions. Since the certification requests, it is reasonable to
use. When that data indicate that the IUVP uses random procurement, it is conclude that such a durability process
durability process does not achieve the possible that the lower emission when coupled with this level of
durability objective in actual use, then vehicles would be tested at low mileage compliance margin effectively
the Agency may decide to withdraw represents a significant majority of the
22 Mean In-Use Verification Program (IUVP)
approval for the durability procedure or distribution of emission levels in actual
emissions for a test group exceed threshold of 1.3
require modification to the procedure times the certification emission standard and at use.
for future certification purposes. Again, least 50% of test vehicles for that test group fail for For example: if after removing
such remedial action is necessary for the the same pollutant. unrepresentative data only 70 percent of
the emission data was less than or equal C. Standard Whole Vehicle Durability The amount of ballasting for mileage
to the predicted value (the certification Procedure accumulation should not be confused
level determined at certification time), with the vehicle weight basis for
1. Standard Road Cycle (SRC)
then one could conclude that the conducting emission testing. EPA did
predictive accuracy of the durability Summary of Proposal. The standard not propose, nor are we finalizing, any
process was approximately 70% which whole vehicle durability procedure change to the weight basis for emission
would not constitute a ‘‘significant consists of mileage accumulation on a testing, including testing that may be
majority’’. If, however, when durability vehicle following the performed on the DDV to calculate a
compliance margin is taken into standard road cycle (SRC). The SRC was deterioration factor (DF).
account, 95% of the vehicles comply defined in the proposal in Appendix V Although EPA continues to believe it
with the applicable emission standards, of part 86. is necessary to ballast most trucks to
it could be safely concluded that a Summary of Comments. The Alliance ALVW to assure that the durability
significant majority of vehicles are and AIAM commented that the objective is achieved, this requirement
effectively represented by the durability proposed standard road cycle is may to too severe for some light light-
procedure. Such an analysis would be effective at meeting the Agency’s intent. duty trucks.23 These lighter trucks are
performed separately for each Response to Comments. Having much more frequently used only for
applicable emission constituent and received no adverse comments on the passenger transportation and more
associated emission standard. proposal, EPA is finalizing the SRC as rarely used to transport significant
Based on the preceding description of proposed. payloads. Consequently, EPA is
how the ‘‘effectively represent’’ criteria changing this provision in the final rule
2. Vehicle Ballasting on SRC Mileage to require ballasting during mileage
may be implemented, we disagree with
Accumulation accumulation to a minimum of the
the Alliance, AIAM, and Ford that the
proposed requirements will result in the Summary of Proposal. The proposed loaded vehicle weight to apply to both
Agency withdrawing approving for a rules required that during mileage light-duty vehicles and light light-duty
durability process when all the IUVP accumulation ‘‘the durability data trucks. We are retaining the provision to
data is complying with the applicable vehicle (DDV) must be ballasted to a ballast all other vehicles to a minimum
standards. minimum of the loaded vehicle weight of the ALVW.
Lastly, we do not see an for light-duty vehicles and a minimum 3. Calculating the DF From Mileage
inconsistency, as a comment suggests, of the ALVW for all other vehicles’’ [Ref Accumulation of 75% of Full Useful
in comparing IUVP emission data to the 86.1823–08(c)(1)(iii)]. Life Mileage
durability objective when the Summary of Comments. The Alliance
manufacturer elects to certify using aged and AIAM suggested that EPA should Summary of Proposal. The
components rather than calculate a harmonize the vehicle weight description of the proposed standard
deterioration factor. EPA is allowing requirements for truck DDVs with the whole-vehicle durability procedure
flexibility in the method for the current emission testing requirements contained a provision [Ref. 86.1823–
manufacturer to conduct this analysis. for emission data vehicles (EDV). 08(c)(2)] that would require mileage
EPA does not require (nor do we Response to Comments. The proposal accumulation of at least 75% of the full
recommend, as discussed above) required heavier payload for truck useful life mileage. If the mileage
comparing certification DFs to DFs mileage accumulation because trucks accumulation was less than 100% of the
calculated from IUVP data. EPA’s are designed to carry loads in addition useful life mileage this provision would
preferred method for the analysis to transporting the occupants of the require the DF to be based on the upper
involves comparing IUVP emission vehicle. In our review of manufacturer 80 percent statistical confidence limit
results to certification levels and vehicle design and durability processes, calculated from the emission data.
standards; all of this data is available to we found that trucks have special Summary of Comments. The Alliance
manufacturers electing to certify with design and durability requirements and AIAM commented that projecting a
aged components rather than calculating acknowledging their load carrying full-useful life DF from data generated
a certification DF. capability. We also believe that trucks over 75% percent of the useful life is
carry loads in actual use some fraction sufficient without adding the proposed
In summary, the Agency is retaining
of the time. 80% confidence factor. The proposed
the proposed requirement to require
requirement is more stringent than the
manufacturers to evaluate the durability The standard whole vehicle durability
original CAP 2000 and Tier 1
procedures using in-use emission data program is designed to achieve the
requirement for projecting DFs.
generated on candidate vehicles (such durability objective. The durability
Projected full useful life emissions
as IUVP data) and the authority for EPA objective requires the durability
should use mean values rather than
to withdraw approval of the durability program to represent a significant
80% statistical point.
procedure if the durability objective was majority of the distribution of emission
Response to Comments. We disagree.
not achieved in actual use on levels and deterioration experienced in
EPA promulgated the provision to allow
comparable vehicles. The Agency did actual use on those vehicles. To reach
reduced (75% rather than 100% useful
not propose, nor are we finalizing, a this goal of significant majority
life) mileage accumulation in the CAP
specific required method to evaluate coverage, EPA believes that it is
2000 and Tier 1 rules to address the
certification durability procedures based necessary to address heavier vehicle
concern of the excessive time necessary
on in-use emissions data. However, a loads that occur in trucks some fraction
to complete full mileage accumulation
demonstration that approximately 90 of the time. The adjusted loaded vehicle
with the AMA cycle. The excessive time
percent of the distribution of in-use weight (ALVW) loading requirement

concern has been addressed in the
emission results (considering each requires ballasting with half the payload
proposal by the SRC which is a
emission constituent separately) comply rather than 300 pounds (the loaded
with the applicable standard will be a vehicle weight which is applicable to 23 Light light-duty trucks are trucks that are rated
satisfactory showing that the durability light duty vehicle mileage accumulation through 6000 pounds GVWR. This includes truck
objective has been achieved. in the proposal). classes LDT1 and LDT2.
substantially faster 24 cycle than the then it must conduct at least one FTP dynamometer as an option for whole
AMA cycle. For that reason, EPA had emission test at each of five different vehicle aging.
considered eliminating the provision to mileage points selected using good Response to Comments. EPA agrees
allow less than full useful life mileage engineering judgement. The required with Cummins that it is possible to
accumulation altogether. Although the testing must include testing at 5,000 replicate the aging that occurs on the
provision has been rarely used in the miles and the highest mileage point run SRC by installing a complete engine and
past, EPA thought it would be during mileage accumulation. emission control system on an engine
worthwhile to retain it in the standard Additional testing may be conducted. dynamometer and appropriately
whole-vehicle durability procedure [Ref. 40 CFR 86.1823–08(c)(3)] controlling the engine load and other
providing that the reduced mileage Summary of Comments. parameters during service
accumulation did not adversely affect Manufacturers should be allowed to accumulation. Although, this option
the quality of the projected DF. choose the number of tests for DF was not prohibited in the proposal, EPA
It is a basic statistical principle to testing on the SRC, rather than the decided to clarify the language and
apply a confidence factor when Agency mandating the use of five (or specifically allow service accumulation
performing projections from a limited more) tests at different mileage points as on a engine dynamometer as an option
data set. The confidence factor proposed. method to conduct aging following the
addresses the added uncertainty Response to Comments. The reason SRC.
inherent in not generating actual data for specifying a minimum number and
for the last 25% of the mileage D. Standard Bench Aging Procedure
distribution of test points to be used in
accumulation. The one-sided 80 percent calculating a deterioration factor is to Summary of Proposal. The standard
limit is a loose requirement; it is not assure a minimum level of confidence bench aging procedure requires
uncommon in projections to apply a in the result of the calculation. It is installation of the catalyst-plus-oxygen-
confidence factor of 90% or higher. possible that the same level of sensor system on a catalyst aging bench.
Running less than the full useful life confidence could be achieved with Aging on the bench is conducted by
mileage accumulation is voluntary. multiple tests conducted at a fewer following the standard bench cycle
The need for this confidence factor is number of discrete mileage points. (SBC) for the period of time calculated
heightened now that Tier 2 has Since the intention of this from the bench aging time (BAT)
extended useful life to a maximum of requirement was to provide a minimum equation. The BAT equation requires, as
150K miles. The idea of allowing the level of confidence in the DF, another input, catalyst time-at-temperature data
150,000 mile useful life as an option in plan that results in at least as much measured on the SRC. This procedure
Tier 2 [and thereby avoiding compliance confidence would equally achieve this was not applicable to diesel vehicles.
with the intermediate useful life goal. To allow greater flexibility in Summary of Comments. The Alliance
standards] is predicated on the deterioration testing plans, we are and AIAM commented that they believe
assumption that the added emission adding a provision in the final rule that that the standard bench cycle
data between 120,000 and 150,000 miles would allow other testing plans incorporates appropriate elements to
would improve our statistical providing the manufacturer determines, provide an effective procedure to bench
confidence that the vehicles comply using good engineering judgement, that age exhaust emission hardware.
with full useful life standards. If we the alternative plan would result in Volkswagen commented that the
now (as suggested in this comment) equivalent or superior DF confidence proposed prohibition of bench aging
allow manufacturers to project emission interval. procedure for use on diesel vehicles is
compliance without considering inappropriate. The Agency should allow
To justify such an alternative testing
statistical confidence when only 75% of manufacturers the opportunity to
plan, the manufacturer would need to
useful life mileage is run, then 150,000 propose an appropriate bench aging
document that the alternative testing
durability could be demonstrated by procedure for diesel vehicles which
intervals result in a DF confidence
running only 112,500 miles. Running 75 EPA would approve on a case-by-case
interval equal to or better than the
percent of the 150,000 miles [112,500 basis.
confidence interval using the testing
miles] is actually less breadth of data Cummins acknowledged that there is
plan specified in the regulations [one
than the normal 120,000 miles and not an effective established procedure
test at 5,000 miles, one test at full useful
reduces our compliance confidence currently available for bench aging of
life mileage, and three equally spaced
rather than enhancing it. diesel vehicles. However, they
tests between 5,000 miles and the full
Consequently, for the reasons
useful life mileage]. encouraged the Agency to provide some
discussed above, EPA is adopting its
mechanism in the final rule that could
proposal to require the use of the upper 5. Use of an Engine Dynamometer To allow approval of a bench aging
80 percent one-sided statistical Recreate the Aging on the SRC procedure for diesels on a case-by-case
confidence limit when less than full
Summary of Proposal. The proposal basis at a later time without the need for
mileage accumulation is conducted
did not specifically address what type of further rulemaking.
using the standard whole-vehicle
dynamometer could be used for mileage Response to Comments. Volkswagen’s
durability procedure.
accumulation on the SRC. The proposed and Cummins suggestion that EPA
4. Testing Required for DF Calculation regulation simply specified use of a allow a manufacturer to propose a
Summary of Proposal. If a mileage accumulation dynamometer. bench aging durability procedure
manufacturer elects to calculate a DF, Summary of Comments. Cummins applicable to diesel vehicles without the
commented that vehicle mileage Agency promulgating any description of
24 The fastest allowable AMA cycle (with a top accumulation on the SRC could be the framework of the bench aging
speed of 70 MPH) has an average speed of 30.72 effectively duplicated on an engine durability procedure for diesel vehicles
MPH while the SRC has an average speed of 46.26 dynamometer by aging the complete in the regulations do not fulfill the
MPH. The time necessary to complete 120,000
miles on the SRC [2594 run-hours] is less than time
engine and emission control system in Court’s mandate. Nor does it fulfill the
necessary on the AMA to complete 75% of the an appropriate manner. They suggested Clean Air Act requirement to establish
miles [90,000 miles take 2930 run-hours]. that EPA allow the use of an engine methods and procedures for making
tests through regulation [Ref. CAA amount of aging has actually occurred Customized/Alternative Road Cycles.
section 206 (d)]. on the aging bench, it is important to The Agency proposed that a customized
None of the comments take issue with carefully specify where to measure the or alternative road cycle could be used
EPA’s conclusion that the proposed temperature. Temperatures can vary by for certification if approved by the
bench aging procedures cannot be over 100 °C between various locations Administrator. The approval criteria
effectively used for diesel-fueled in a catalyst. In developing the BAT require that the manufacturer
vehicles. The proposed bench aging equation, EPA developed the equation demonstrate that whole vehicle mileage
procedures are designed to age the based on measuring the maximum accumulation on the alternative/
vehicle’s catalyst-oxygen-sensor system temperature in the catalyst. EPA has customized road cycle is expected to
as well as to replicate the total aging been receiving catalyst temperature data achieve the durability objective in
that occurs in use. Diesel vehicles to not from manufacturers for many years actual use for the full range of vehicles
employ catalyst technology as the which was measured at the hottest point to be covered by the procedure.
principle emission control strategy, in the catalyst to support carryover The equivalency factor. The
consequently the proposed bench aging requests or to evaluate durability manufacturer must calculate an
procedure will not be effective for procedure approvals under RDP–I or equivalency factor that equates the
diesels. The comments did not suggest CAP 2000. Typically, manufacturers alternative or customized road cycle to
a bench aging procedure that was have selected measure along the central the SRC run for full useful life mileage.
effective for diesel vehicles. In fact, axis of the catalyst about one inch back The equivalency factor is used to
Cummins acknowledged that there is of the front face. This history indicates determine how much in-use data the
not an effective established procedure to the Agency that determination of the manufacturer must present in the
currently available for bench aging of hottest location in the catalyst is analysis that the durability objective is
diesel vehicles. practical. expected to be achieved. The
Consequently, EPA is retaining the equivalency factor would also be made
In Appendix VIII, EPA proposes that
proposed exclusion of diesel-fueled available to outside parties for their use
the measurement of catalyst temperature
vehicles from employing the bench to recreate aging conducted by the
may be either at the highest temperature
aging procedures finalized in these manufacturer during certification. For
location or another location (providing
regulations. At a later date, EPA may example, if the equivalency factor is
the temperature is adjusted by a linear
choose to propose regulations providing 90% then the durability aging
transform to represent the temperature
bench aging procedures applicable to conducted by the manufacturer can be
measured at the hottest catalyst
diesel-fueled vehicles. In the meantime, replicated by running the SRC for 90%
location). To address the practicality of
diesel-fueled vehicles must use the of the useful life mileage or by bench
actual measurement, EPA has modified
whole vehicle exhaust durability aging using the SBC for the time
the regulation language to correspond to
provisions. calculated from the BAT equation using
the appendix.
E. Catalyst Time-at-Temperature Data The temperature measured in a time-at-temperature data run on the SRC
Measurement catalyst also can change quickly over based on 90% of the useful life mileage.
Summary of Proposal. EPA proposed time during the SBC. When EPA was Customized/Alternative Bench Aging
that catalyst temperature must be developing the standard bench cycle we Durability Procedures. The Agency
measured at the highest temperature used time-at-temperature data recorded proposed that a customized or
location in the hottest catalyst on the at a one hertz rate. The temperature alternative bench aging procedure could
DDV. Catalyst temperature must be measured in adjacent seconds be used for certification if approved by
measured at a rate of one hertz (one frequently is different in these data sets. the Administrator. The proposal
measurement per second). Consequently, EPA concluded that one discussed seven types of customization
Summary of Comments. The Alliance hertz was the minimum acceptable allowable for the bench aging
and AIAM commented that the frequency rate acceptable for this procedures and presented the criteria
measurement rate of catalyst purpose. Faster measurement would be for their approval to the Agency.
temperature of 1 hertz should be acceptable, because it would allow for Specifically the Agency could approve
changed to allow manufacturers to more accurate measurement of the the following customization to the
determine the appropriate rate. EPA changing catalyst temperature. To allow standard bench aging durability
should not dictate the location of faster measurement, EPA has changed procedure:
catalyst temperature measurements. the regulation from the proposal to • Use a different lower-control
Determining the worst-case location is specify that one hertz is a minimum temperature on the SBC providing the
not practical. frequency. BAT equation was used to calculate the
Response to Comments. Both of these appropriate aging time.
F. Customized/Alternative Durability • Use an customized R-factor in
measurement procedures only apply to Procedures
the standard bench procedure and its EPA’s BAT equation providing that it is
elements. Manufacturers may use other Summary of Proposal. Several of the determined experimentally using the
procedures if using a customized/ comments received to the proposal manufacturer’s actual catalyst design.
alternative process that does not use the discuss provisions that apply to • Use an customized A-factor in
EPA standard BAT equation, the different aspects of the customized/ EPA’s BAT equation, to ensure that the
standard aging bench design (as alternative durability procedures. As modified durability process will achieve
discussed in Appendix VIII) or EPA’s background for the discussion of these the durability objective.
standard method to experimentally general comments, the following • Conduct bench aging using fuel
determine a customized R-factor for the paragraphs summarize the provisions with additional compounds that may
BAT equation (as discussed in that were proposed for customized/ lead to catalyst poisoning, such as
Appendix IX). alternative road cycles, calculation and phosphorus, sulfur or lead, rather than
Because the measured temperature is use the equivalency factor, and the standard fuel.
the basis for calculating aging time or customized/alternative bench aging • Use an approved customized/
determining that the appropriate durability procedures. alternative road cycle (rather than the
SRC) to develop catalyst temperature the Court’s mandate in Ethyl Corp. v. 1999) and New Mexico v. EPA, 114 F.3d
histograms for use in the BAT equation. EPA. The Court stated ‘‘nothing in our 290 (DC Cir. 1997). Agencies are entitled
• Use a different bench cycle than the opinion requires that EPA use only a to broad deference in picking the
SBC with prior EPA approval. ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ test method. All that suitable level of detail to specify in the
• Use a different method than the is required is that it establish its regulations.)
standard BAT equation to calculate procedures, no matter how variegated, For the above reasons, EPA is
bench aging time with prior EPA ‘‘by regulation.’’ That is what we have finalizing the provision to allow
approval. done in this rulemaking. alternative road cycles approved by the
1. Equivalency Factors and Alternative We have established procedures that Administrator as proposed.
Road Cycles define the SRC as the standard whole-
2. Bench Durability Aging
vehicle durability process. We have also
Summary of Comments. The Alliance described procedures to use a Summary of Comments. Afton
and AIAM commented that it is pivotal customized/alternative road cycle that is expresses concern that whether and
that manufacturers be able to customize tied to a comparison of that cycle to the how new systems perform in the field
the standardized durability procedures. SRC and a demonstration that the cycle can directly impact operation of the
They support the equivalency factor achieves the durability objective. In catalyst in ways that may not be
approach because it provides the means particular, the customized road cycle is captured by thermal aging. They
for third parties to use the SRC to the SRC run for a different distance. The specifically cite the lack of aging of
effectively replicate the aging effects actual distance run on a customized certain engine and fuel system
produced by any manufacturer’s road cycle is the basis of the components. They expressed concern
durability protocols without requiring equivalency factor which EPA does not that the analysis presented in EPA’s
manufacturers to disclose proprietary believe is confidential business draft technical support document (TSD)
engineering data and analysis. The information (CBI). The Agency plans to for the CAP 2000 proposal, which
equivalency factor, as proposed, also provide the equivalency factors to any shows little engine-out deterioration,
allows these customized/alternative interested party and post a listing on its may be dated. Their concern is based on
procedures to be linked to the standard Web site for public use. the fact that the analysis does not
procedures. They do not object to the In the case of alternative cycles include vehicles using certain new
publication of the equivalency factors, (cycles which use a different speed- technology devices and strategies which
themselves, but they comment that versus-time trace than the SRC), we may, at some future time, begin to
release of the underlying proprietary have also proposed (and are finalizing) appear in production but which are not
information is not required and is durability procedures using those used in general production vehicles at
contrary to the Freedom of Information cycles. We have proposed procedures this time.
Act requirements. that specify the amount and type of data The Alliance and AIAM commented
Afton (formerly known as Ethyl) necessary for approval of such a cycle. that the bench aging procedures
commented that EPA must use We have proposed procedures that incorporate appropriate elements to
appropriate rulemaking procedures specify the approval method used by the provide an effective method to bench
which meet the requirements of section Agency for approving the cycle. We age exhaust emission hardware.
307(d) of the CAA to adopt alternative have proposed procedures (the Response to Comments. We do not
road cycles rather than using the equivalency factor) to equate a share Afton’s concern that the proposed
equivalency factor and the approval customized cycle to the SRC. We have bench aging procedures may not be
process discussed in the proposal. They determined that the equivalency factor sufficiently accurate for certification
acknowledge that the equivalency factor may be publically released. purposes. The bench aging procedures
may provide a constructive means to Furthermore, we have determined that if are designed to effectively replicate the
attempt to balance the competing an outside party ran a vehicle on the aging that occurs during in-use
objectives of maintaining the secrecy of SRC for the distance specified by the operation.
individualized certification test equivalency factor, the resulting As discussed in the preamble to the
procedures, on the one hand, and deterioration would be equivalent to the proposed rule, the bench aging
disclosing to the public the test manufacturer’s durability showing using procedures are required to be adjusted
procedures on which the government the customized road cycle. We have also to duplicate the full emission
relies to issue certification decisions, on proposed procedures that specify how deterioration that occurs in-use by
the other. However, they state that the to use the customized road cycle for thermally aging the catalyst. This may
equivalency factor does not alter the calculating deterioration factors and/or result in over-aging the catalyst to
Agency’s obligation to promulgate conducting aged component testing. account for emission deterioration that
alternative test procedures by regulation Lastly, we have proposed procedures for occurs from other sources. The amount
and include underlying data upon determining compliance using this data. of over-aging may be large or small. The
which the alternative test procedure is In summary, in addition to the SRC, proposed BAT equation includes a term
based. Consequently they believe that we have proposed and are finalizing, (the A-factor) which is used for this
the proposed provision to allow the many details on the durability purpose. EPA has set the initial value of
Agency to approve alternative road procedure for the use of customized A as 1.1 based on the low expected
cycles does not meet the CAA road cycles. We believe we have clearly engine-out deterioration identified in
requirements nor does it comply with articulated a durability procedure (i.e., the TSD. However, if for any cause
the Court’s mandate in Ethyl Corp. v. the SRC) by regulation fulfilling the (including unexpected emission control
EPA. mandate of the Court. We have also deterioration of components not aged on
Response to Comments. We disagree used our discretion in electing to the aging bench, or based on the future
with Afton’s comments that the describe most, but not all details, of the technology that Afton mentions in their
proposed regulations, which allow the alternative road cycle durability process comments), the bench aging durability
Agency to approve alternative road in the regulations. (See American does not achieve the durability
cycles, do not meet the CAA Trucking Associations v. Department of objective, EPA has proposed a
requirements and do not comply with Transportation, 166 F.3d 374 (DC Cir. requirement that manufacturers change
the A factor to ensure that the durability review and approval by the Agency is for review. Although, the Agency
goal is appropriately achieved by the still warranted. expects that most of the durability
bench aging process. Furthermore, EPA The proposal only requires an initial processes that were approved prior to
has proposed requirements that the approval of the customized/alternative the court’s vacature of the CAP 2000
manufacturer must periodically review durability process. Once a process is rules will meet the requirements of this
their durability process to assure that approved, the manufacturer must rule, we find no compelling case to
the durability object is achieved in determine, using good engineering make any blanket determination.
actual use. To facilitate this review, EPA judgement, whether to apply the Reviewing each durability process
requires manufacturers to provide IUVP procedure to future durability groups. according to the new requirements on
emission data that must be used in this The proposal does contain provisions its own merits is an appropriate course
evaluation process. Lastly, EPA can to require less in-use data for EPA of action for the Agency. Therefore, EPA
require the manufacturer to change their approval when the customized/ is retaining and finalizing the proposed
durability process if the Administrator alternative cycle is shown to be requirement that all customized/
determines that the durability goal is significantly more severe than the SRC. alternative durability procedures must
not being achieved in actual use. We expect that approval of more severe be approved under the new rules
Consequently, any risk that the bench cycles than the SRC to be granted, but (including all procedures used before
aging process may not achieve the the question still remains whether the the vacature of the CAP 2000 rules).
durability goal is controlled by this customized/alternative cycle is severe
enough to achieve the durability 4. Experimentally Determining a
feedback process using IUVP emission Customized R-Factor
data. objective in use for the vehicles
For the above reasons, EPA is involved. Consequently, approval of a Summary of the Proposal. EPA
finalizing the standard bench aging more severe customized/alternative proposed that a manufacturer may
durability procedures as proposed. cycle is not automatic. determine an customized R-factor for
In the proposal, the amount of in-use use in the BAT equation. This would
3. Approval of Customized/Alternative emission data required for approval is allow the BAT equation to be
Durability Procedures varied depending whether the cycle is customized to better predict the
more or less severe than or required amount of bench aging
Summary of Comments. The Alliance
approximately equivalent to the SRC. necessary for a particular catalyst
and AIAM made a series of comments
The amount of data required reflects the design. EPA proposed a standard
to ‘‘eliminate unnecessary and excessive
data necessary for the Agency to reach experimental method for determining a
administrative burden’’. Specifically
a valid conclusion to approve a cycle. customized R-factor in Appendix IX to
they suggested:
As previously discussed, more severe the rule. EPA also proposed that other
Manufacturers should be allowed to cycles are rewarded in the approval experimental techniques may be used if
self-approve a customized/alternative process by a reduction in the amount of approved by the Administrator. To
durability road cycle if they can show required data. obtain approval the manufacturer must
it is more severe than the SRC. The proposal requires approval of an demonstrate that the calculated bench
Manufacturers should not be required alternative bench aging cycle because aging results in the same (or larger)
to submit data from 20 in-use vehicles the distribution of air/fuel ratios and amount of emission deterioration as the
to obtain approval, rather the temperature is important to assure that associated approved road cycle.
manufacturer should review in-use data adequate aging occurs. As discussed in Summary of Comments. The Alliance
as it becomes available. the preamble to the proposed rule, a and AIAM commented that EPA’s
The proposal requires the approval of manufacturer must develop a new R standard method for experimentally
a customized bench aging cycle even factor if they change the bench aging determining a R-factor [in Appendix IX]
when the aging time is determined cycle. Our standard R-factor applies is overly restrictive and significantly
using the BAT equation. They suggest only to the standard bench cycle (SBC). increases the stringency of determining
that this additional approval step is The determination of a customized R- an R-factor.
unnecessary and unjustified. factor is necessary because the same Ford commented that the approval
EPA should eliminate all temperature exposure will result in a procedure for using alternative
requirements for pre-approval and re- different amount of emission techniques to experimentally determine
authorization of existing durability deterioration if the bench aging cycle is the R-factor for the BAT equation
protocols absent in-use data which does changed. The use of the standard BAT should be based on accomplishing the
not meet the existing requirements. equation [with a different R-factor] durability objective rather than a
Response to Comments. We disagree provides no added assurance that the comparison to the associated road cycle
that the approval requirements of the bench aging cycle will effectively (the criteria in the proposal).
proposal are either unnecessary or replicate the emission deterioration that Ford suggested an alternative
excessively burdensome. EPA must occurs on the associated road cycle as standardized method to experimentally
determine to its satisfaction that a suggested in the comment. determine the R-factor that they felt
potential customized/alternative Consequently, EPA is finalizing the would be more accurate and easier to
durability process is expected to achieve requirement to obtain Agency approval implement. Their proposal (a detailed
the durability goal in use. Most of the for alternative bench cycles. description is in the docket) suggested
durability procedures approved prior to The proposed requirements are that emissions rather than catalyst
the vacature of CAP 2000 rules were different than the CAP 2000 efficiency be measured and that the
significantly changed based on the requirements, although the durability emission deterioration projected from a
Agency’s review and comment during objective has not changed. Pertinent least-squares regression of the emission
the Agency’s initial review. Although facts may have changed since the versus time data be calculated directly
we now expect that most manufacturers approval (under the CAP 2000 rules) of from the experimental data rather than
have the skill necessary to design an a particular durability procedure the two step process proposed by EPA.
appropriate customized/alternative including production designs and the Response to Comments. EPA agrees
process, we still believe that an initial existence of more in-use data available that the standard method for
experimentally determining an R-factor not have the necessary in-use emission for components, or for all the
supplied by Ford in their comments data to demonstrate that durability components operating together as an
would be appropriate to use for that objective is being achieved. For these integrated system.
purpose. We also anticipate that it reasons, we continue to believe that the In response to this comment, the
would be easier to generate the emission proposed requirement is a less Alliance and AIAM stated that there is
data required in Ford’s alternative burdensome and equally effective no need to implement additional
procedure than the conversion requirement as Ford’s proposal. In ‘‘component’’ durability test methods
efficiency required in the proposed today’s final regulation text we have and procedures because the SRC re-
standard R-Factor determination clarified that the road cycle used for establishes the requisite threshold level
procedure. Also this alternative comparison may be either the SRC or an of stringency for the components as well
approach eliminates one step compared approved customized/alternative cycle. as the system as a whole. They also
to the proposed process. For those Otherwise, we have finalized the claim that the Court did not impose any
reasons, we have modified the alternative R-factor methodology obligation on EPA to establish a whole
Appendix in the final rule to allow this approval criteria as proposed. new regime of component durability
procedure. tests.
It should also be noted that other 5. Alternative Bench Aging Cycle Response to Comments. While EPA
techniques, beyond the standard Content believes that Afton has raised an
procedure outlined in Appendix IX to Summary of Proposal. EPA did not important issue, the NPRM did not
part 86, may be used as allowed in 40 propose any limitations on the content contemplate any revisions to the
CFR 1823–08(e)(2)(iii). Ford of an alternative bench aging cycle. EPA component durability regulations.
recommended that we take a step back did propose that to obtain approval for Therefore, EPA believes that before
from the proposed approval criteria such an alternative bench cycle the taking any final action on component
which require ‘‘that the calculated manufacturer must demonstrate that durability, it is appropriate to open this
bench aging time results in the same (or bench aging with the new bench cycle issue to further comment. Therefore,
larger) amount of emission deterioration provides the same or larger amount of concurrent with today’s final rule, EPA
as the associated approved road cycle.’’ emission deterioration as the associated is publishing a Supplemental Notice of
They recommended that we require road cycle. Rulemaking (SNPRM) that addresses
instead that the manufacturer should Summary of Comments. The Alliance component durability. The SNPRM will
demonstrate that the use of the R-factor suggested that we clarify which seek comment on several options that
would achieve the durability objective. provisions (in the proposed section EPA is considering for addressing
One concern was that the proposed text 86.1823–08(e)(2)) pertain to component durability during the vehicle
seemed to require the existence of a manufacturers bench cycle and which emissions certification process. After a
customized/alternative road cycle provisions pertain to the EPA standard formal comment period, EPA will
because this would be the only cycle bench cycle. consider any further comments received
that was ‘‘approved’’, the SRC could be Response to Comments. EPA did not and issue a final rule.
used without a specific Agency propose, nor are we finalizing, any
limitations on the content of an H. Minor Modifications to Approved
approval.
alternative bench aging cycle. The Durability Procedures
It was not our intention to require that
a manufacturer have an approved alternative cycle may (among other Summary of Proposal. The proposal
customized/alternative road cycle to differences) be of different length, have contained a provision [ref. 86.1823 h)
determine an R-factor by an alternative a different proportion of Air/Fuel ratios, (1)] that allowed a manufacturer to
method (rather than the standard different temperatures, different modify an approved durability
method in Appendix IX to Part 86). amounts of secondary air injection, and/ procedure by increasing or decreasing
Manufacturer may also use an or use no secondary air injection at all. the number of miles run on an approved
alternative method to calculate an R- However, whatever the content, the road cycle to represent full or
Factor when using the SRC as the manufacturer must demonstrate that the intermediate useful life emissions
associated road cycle to measure alternative bench aging cycle works deterioration or by changing the A-
catalyst time-at-temperature data effectively by reproducing (or Factor in the BAT equation for a bench
necessary to calculate aging time. It is alternatively overstating) the aging that aging, using good engineering judgment,
our intention however, that a occurs on the associated road cycle to ensure that the modified procedure
manufacturer must generate catalyst which was used to measure the time-at- will achieve the durability objective.
time-at-temperature data on either the temperature data used to calculate the Summary of Comments. The Alliance
SRC or an approved customized/ aging time on the aging bench. and AIAM commented that EPA should
alternative road cycle. Furthermore, that restore the CAP 2000 provision that
an alternative method will only be G. Component Durability allowed manufacturers to make minor
approved if it results in the same (or Summary of Proposal. The proposal modifications (using good engineering
more) aging as that associated cycle. retains the CAP 2000 requirement that judgement) to an approved durability
We believe that the approval criteria manufacturers use good engineering procedure without the need to obtain a
suggested by Ford (achieving the judgement to determine that all exhaust- new approval from EPA.
durability objective) will be functionally related components are designed to Response to Comments. The proposal
the same as the proposed criteria to operate properly for the useful life of the listed only certain changes that the
replicate the aging seen on the vehicles in actual use. manufacturer could make to an
associated road cycle but potentially Summary of Comments. Afton argued approved durability procedure using
less burdensome. For an alternative that EPA did not meet the requirements good engineering judgement without
bench cycle to be approved the of the Act or the Court’s mandate in obtaining approval by the
manufacturer must demonstrate that it Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, by not proposing Administrator. Those changes were
achieves the durability objective. test methods or procedures for assessing increasing or decreasing the number of
However, in the case where a the durability of emission control miles run on an approved road cycle or
manufacturer is using the SRC, it may system components, either separately changing the A-Factor in the BAT
equation. At that time, these were the Agency the necessary information about The Alliance and AIAM also
only changes that the Agency the manufacturers durability commented that EPA should not require
envisioned that could be applied to the demonstration plans early enough in the extensive engineering reports justifying
standard EPA durability procedures certification process to be useful to the equivalency factors unless there is in-
without considering the changes to Agency. In particular, if the Agency use or other data suggesting that the
constitute a customization of the wished to question the manufacturers manufacturer’s cycle does not achieve
standard procedures that would require judgement to apply a durability the durability objective.
Agency approval. We also proposed that procedure to a particular durability They also commented that
these same changes could be made to group, it would be more efficient to manufacturers should only be required
customized/alternative durability raise this issue earlier in the to supply equivalency factors for
procedures without requiring Agency certification process. Consequently, the processes that are used in the future
approval. Agency suggested that the notification (after the effective date of the proposed
We agree that allowing some level of occurs in the annual preview meeting rules).
minor adjustments or changes to an which is typically scheduled before a Afton commented that the Court’s
approved customized/alternative manufacturer begins certification mandate Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, applies to
manufacturer durability process would activity for a model year. all certification decisions made since
also be appropriate if the changes were As discussed in the current good the effective date of the mandate.
limited in scope and made using good engineering judgement provisions [ref. Specifically, they disagreed with the
engineering judgement to assure that the 40 CFR 86.1851–01 which is not being Alliance and AIAM comment that
modified durability procedures would modified in today’s final action] the equivalency factor need only be
achieve the durability objective. We Administrator may reject a supplied for new durability procedures
believe that the level of adjustments manufacturers decision, even after approved under the proposed rules and
allowed under CAP 2000 continue to be certification is granted, if it is not based need not be reported for existing
appropriate in the new durability on good engineering judgement. durability processes that were used after
regulations. In the vacated CAP 2000 Consequently, EPA agrees that the vacature of the CAP 2000 rules as
durability regulations we stated: (1) notification at the time of the well as aging processes that were
Such modifications will be limited to Application for Certification would approved by EPA prior to the vacature.
incorporating additional data into the provide the opportunity for sufficient Response to Comments. EPA
original algorithms of the approved oversight for the Agency. The risk to the continues to believe that the
durability process and (2) if a
manufacturer is that any questions equivalency factor is not confidential
manufacturer wishes to change the
regarding the good engineering decision business information and may be
algorithms used to determine the aging
basis of the manufacturers decision to released to the public. EPA renews its
characteristics of the durability process,
apply a durability procedure to a certain intention to post the equivalency factors
these changes will be considered a new
durability group will come late in the on the Agency’s Web site for public use.
durability process and will require
process (or even after certification was We are not making any other
advance approval by the Administrator.
granted). The good engineering determinations (beyond the equivalency
Therefore, we have modified the final
judgement provisions in the current rule factor) regarding whether other
regulation language to include a
provide sufficient tools for the Agency information submitted by a
provision for manufacturers to make
to address these concerns in that time manufacturer is or is not confidential
these minor changes, using good
period. We still suggest that the best business information. These decisions
engineering judgement, without
time for the notification is at the to release other information will be
obtaining new approval from the
preview meeting to avoid last minute made on a case-by-case basis using the
Agency.
questions in the certification process. existing regulations [Ref. 40 CFR part 2].
I. Required Notification to EPA That an Nevertheless, we are changing the final We agree with Afton that the Court’s
Approved Durability Procedure Will Be regulation language to require the mandate applies to all certification
Used for a Particular Durability Group notification prior to or concurrently decisions made after the effective date
Summary of Proposal. The with the Application for Certification. of the mandate. However, once the
manufacturer must notify the J. Public Availability of the Equivalency Court’s mandate became effective, EPA
Administrator of its determination to Factor and Supporting Data ceased requiring durability showings as
use an approved (or modified) a prerequisite to issuing a certificate of
durability procedure on particular test Summary of Proposal. EPA proposed conformity. The basis for granting
groups and durability groups prior to methods to calculate the equivalency certification after the vacature of the
emission data vehicle testing for the factor. EPA also stated the opinion in CAP 2000 rule was EPA reliance on a
affected test groups (notification at an the proposal that the equivalency factor statement made by the manufacturer
annual preview meeting scheduled was not confidential business using good engineering judgement that
before the manufacturer begins information (CBI) and it may be released the vehicles in question will comply
certification activities for the model year to the public. EPA also announced its with the applicable standards for their
is preferred). plan to post the equivalency factors on full useful life. This statement was
Summary of Comments. The Alliance the Agency’s Web site. typically placed in the Application for
and AIAM commented that the timing Summary of Comments. The Alliance Certification and has not generally been
of the notification (prior to emission agreed with the proposal that the viewed by manufacturers as confidential
data vehicle testing) is too early in the equivalency factor is not confidential business information. There are no
certification process. They suggested and may be released to the public. approved durability procedures between
that notification in the Application for However, they stated that manufacturers the effective date of the Court’s mandate
Certification should be sufficient and is should not be compelled to disclose to and the effective date and model year of
preferable to them. the public any of their underlying data today’s final rules. Consequently, there
Response to Comments. The purpose or other proprietary information used to are no equivalency factors nor any
of this requirement is to provide the develop their durability process. supporting data that can be made
available by the manufacturers that SRC or another approved road cycle or that the durability objective is not
apply to certification during that period. a (2) bench aging demonstration using achieved, EPA believes it is appropriate
procedures contained in the regulations to require modifications to the
K. Carryover
or (3) a combination of whole vehicle durability procedure in the same
Summary of Proposal. EPA did not and bench procedures. method used for exhaust emission
propose any changes to the carryover Summary of Comments. The Alliance deterioration. It would not be acceptable
provisions in the current regulations and AIAM commented that the Court’s to continue to use an evaporative
(ref. 40 CFR 86.1839–01). These ruling dealt exclusively with tailpipe durability process that was
provisions allow manufacturers to use emissions and did not compel EPA to demonstrated to not achieve the
durability data that was previously revisit evaporative durability. durability objective; EPA relies on the
generated and used to support They also commented that separate accuracy of this data to make
certification provided that the data durability demonstration for each appropriate decisions to grant
‘‘represent a worst case or equivalent evaporative family should be allowed certification. Consequently, we are
rate of deterioration’’. via carryover using good engineering finalizing these provisions as proposed
EPA proposed that the manufacturer judgment. with the acknowledgment that a
may not, however, continue to use CAP They also commented that EPA’s right sufficient body of data must exist to
2000 durability processes to generate to revoke use of evaporative durability make this determination with
new data starting with the effective date based on IUVP is not in keeping with appropriate confidence.
of the new regulations. When the CAP 2000, which said that EPA would
proposed rule becomes effective, use the data primarily for modeling M. Starting Model Year for the Rule
manufacturers must use durability purposes. They are concerned that the Summary of Proposal. EPA proposed
procedures that have been approved sample size is too small and would force that the rules would apply to 2006
under the new rules to generate new manufacturers to ensure that IUVP model year vehicles certified after the
durability demonstrations. evaporative emission test vehicles effective date of the regulations.
Summary of Comments. The Alliance match the emission level of certification Summary of Comments. The Alliance
and AIAM commented that, in addition test vehicles. Non-fuel related emissions and AIAM commented that the
to allowing carry over of existing can not be represented in the proposed effective date of 2006 model
durability data prior to CAP 2000 certification durability process. year (MY) should be changed to 2008
vacature, manufacturers should also be Response to Comments. We disagree MY, or later if final rule published after
allowed to use existing durability data that the Court’s decision regarding August 2004. They stated that
employed after vacature from previously durability was limited to exhaust manufacturers are already doing
approved processes conforming with emission deterioration. Consequently, durability testing on 2006 models, and
good engineering judgment. we proposed (and are finalizing) developmental work is already
They also suggested that exhaust, evaporative, and refueling underway for early introduction 2007
manufacturers should be allowed to durability procedures. models.
carry over aging data generated after the As discussed previously, the Volkswagen commented that the
vacature of the CAP 2000 rules carryover procedures of the current effective date of 2006 MY is
providing that these data were compiled regulations (ref. 40 CFR 86.1839–01) are unworkable, but they do not propose an
using aged component processes not changed on the proposal. These alternative date.
approved by EPA prior to the vacature. provisions allow manufacturers to use Ford commented that the effective
Lastly, they commented that durability data that was previously date for the regulation should be
manufacturers should be allowed to generated and used to support changed to 2009 MY if component
continue to use aging processes certification provided that the data durability issues are addressed in a
approved by EPA prior to the vacature ‘‘represent a worst case or equivalent single rulemaking and 2008 MY if the
to age components on future data fleet rate of deterioration’’. Consequently, emission deterioration provisions are
vehicles. existing evaporative durability data and finalized separately.
Response to Comments. EPA did not results may be carried-over providing The Alliance and AIAM suggest that
propose any change to the carryover they meet these requirements. we add a provision allowing early opt-
provisions. After the effective date of We agree that the IUVP sample size in at the manufacturer’s discretion.
the new regulations, if a manufacturer (one test per test group) is too small to Response to Comments. We agree that
can meet these requirements, it may use make this decision on an individual test 2006 is no longer possible given the
existing durability data (i.e., DFs or aged group basis. However, EPA intends to current timing for publication of the
hardware). This would apply to any review in-use evaporative data and final rule. Because publication of the
data that exists prior to the effective evaluate the effectiveness of the FRM has taken longer than expected,
date of the today’s regulation which is durability process to achieve the and manufacturers are now certifying
compiled using a durability procedure durability objective when a reasonable 2006 model year vehicles and already
that was approved prior to the vacature amount of data does exist for this performing durability testing for 2007
of the CAP 2000 rules. All new data purpose. This expanded data set could models, we are delaying the
generated after the effective date of include data from another source or it implementation of the rule to become
today’s rulemaking must meet all the may consist of data combined from effective beginning with the 2008 MY.
applicable requirements including the several related test groups or from
several years of IUVP data. If the N. Special Provisions for New
requirement that it was generated using
expanded data set indicates a problem, Manufacturers
an approved durability procedure.
EPA believes it is appropriate to invoke Summary of Proposal. EPA did not

L. Evaporative Durability Procedures this provision to re-evaluate the propose any special procedures for new
Summary of Proposal. The proposal manufacturer’s evaporative durability manufacturers to obtain approval of a
contained provisions for conducting procedure. Furthermore, if the Agency customized/alternative durability
evaporative durability using either a (1) ultimately concludes that there is procedure. However, the standard
whole vehicle demonstration using the sufficient data and that the data indicate procedures may be employed by these
manufacturers without generating any forward-looking in nature. Revealing representative of commercially available
in-use emission data. Also, the Agency these plans publicly would compromise gasoline (with a provision that extra
did not change the special certification the competitive automotive market. poisoning may be added, such as
procedures that apply to small volume However, by informing the public of phosphorus, sulfur or lead).
manufacturers (ref. 40 CFR 86.1838–01). what sort of information is exchanged in EPA is retaining the CAP 2000
Summary of Comments. The Alliance these meetings, we believe we have options of determining emission
and AIAM commented that new provided the public with enough compliance levels by either (1)
manufacturers should not have to rely assurance that no ‘‘deals’’ are being calculating deterioration factors (DF)
on IUVP data for feedback purposes made. and applying the DF to the emission
since they supply little or no IUVP data. data vehicle (EDV) emission results or
They suggested that the rule should III. What Is EPA Promulgating Today? (2) testing the EDV with emission
have clear provisions for new Today’s final rule includes two well- control components aged using the SRC
manufacturers. defined test methods for determining and installed prior to testing. If DF’s are
Response to Comments. New the exhaust emissions durability of to be calculated, emission testing would
manufacturers may use the standard vehicles from which manufacturers may be conducted at periodic intervals
durability procedures without choose: the standard whole vehicle during milage accumulation.
submitting in-use data or obtaining EPA aging process and the standard bench
approval. We believe that these standard aging process. It also includes well- B. Standard Bench Aging Exhaust
procedures provide a reasonable method defined criteria allowing EPA to Durability Procedure
for new manufacturers to supply the approve customization of or alternatives Bench aging is a different way to
required durability data without the to these test methods, based upon a achieve the same emission deterioration
need to compile in-use emission data. demonstration to EPA of the level of as whole-vehicle aging using a road
However, if a new manufacturer did stringency needed to meet the durability cycle. EPA is promulgating a standard
wish to obtain approval for a objective, and the level of stringency bench aging procedure that uses a bench
customized/alternative durability road demonstrated for the SCR and the aging time (BAT) equation and the
cycle, EPA would accept appropriate customization or alternative. standard bench cycle (SBC) to
data from another manufacturer’s reproduce emission deterioration from a
A. Standard Whole Vehicle Exhaust
comparable in-use vehicles to road cycle. EPA’s standard bench
Durability Procedure
demonstrate the effectiveness of their procedure specifies that the SRC be
durability procedures to achieve the EPA is promulgating a standard road used to generate the catalyst
durability objective. cycle (SRC) which is targeted to temperature histogram needed to
effectively cover a significant majority determine bench aging time. Because
O. Delete Incorrect Reference to of the distribution of exhaust emission the standard bench aging procedure
Intermediate Useful Life Standards for deterioration rates that occur on relies on increasing catalyst thermal
the Evaporative and Refueling candidate in-use vehicles. The SRC is aging to account for all sources of
Durability Objective fuel-neutral. It applies to all vehicles, emission deterioration, this procedure is
Response to Comment. We made the regardless of fuel used. The SRC not applicable to diesel fueled vehicles
appropriate correction in the final consists of seven laps of 3.7 miles each. or vehicles which do not use a catalyst
regulations. The average speed on the SRC is 46.3 as the principal after-treatment emission
mph, the maximum cruise speed is 75 control device.
P. Comments From a Private Citizen mph, and the acceleration rates range The standard bench aging durability
Summary of Comments. One citizen from light to hard accelerations. Most procedure has been designed to
submitted comments that touched upon accelerations are moderate and there are reproduce the exhaust emission
various topics, many of which were not no wide-open-throttle accelerations. The deterioration that occurs on the
germain to the proposed rule. In general, SRC contains 24 fuel-cut decelerations. standard whole vehicle durability
the consumer believed that the proposal The deceleration rates range from coast- procedure. The standard bench aging
was ‘‘too friendly’’ to manufacturers. down (no brake force applied) to procedure is as follows:
The commenter requested that the moderate. a. Catalyst temperature data is
public should always be invited to all EPA is promulgating a standard whole measured at a minimum rate of one
meetings EPA has with manufacturers to vehicle durability procedure which hertz (one measurement per second)
assure that no ‘‘secret dealings’’ are consists of running a vehicle (the during at least two replicates of the
taking place. durability data vehicle (DDV)) on the standard road cycle (SRC). The
EPA response. Some of the comments SRC for the full useful life mileage of temperature results are tabulated into a
touched on issues that have been the vehicle. We are also finalizing rules histogram with temperature bins of no
addressed elsewhere in this section. We that manufacturers may terminate larger than 25 °C.
disagree that the proposal was ‘‘too mileage accumulation at 75% of full b. The effective reference temperature
friendly’’ to manufacturers. Emissions useful life and project DFs based upon of the standard bench cycle (SBC),
durability requirements impose a the upper 80% statistical confidence described below, is determined for the
significant burden on manufacturers, limit. catalyst system and the aging bench
and the provisions to allow for The weight of the vehicle during SRC which is to be used for the bench aging.
alternatives does not lessen the mileage accumulation is proposed to be c. The bench aging time is calculated
responsibility placed upon the loaded vehicle weight (curb plus using the bench aging time (BAT)
manufacturers to perform the required 300 pounds) for light-duty vehicles and equation, described below, using the
emission durability demonstration. We light light-duty trucks. The weight basis effective reference temperature of the
also disagree that all meetings with for SRC mileage accumulation is the SBC and the catalyst temperature
manufacturers should be open to the adjusted loaded vehicle weight ((curb + histogram measured on the SRC.
public. The discussions at these gross vehicle weight)/2) for all other d. The exhaust system (including the
meetings center around individual vehicles covered by this rule. The fuel catalyst and oxygen sensors) is installed
manufacturers’ business plans and are used on the SRC is proposed to be on the aging bench. The aging bench
follows the SBC for the amount of time C. Customization of the Standard alternative cycle when evaluating the
calculated from the BAT equation. Procedures cycle for approval.
e. Catalyst temperatures and A/F 1. Customization of the Standard Road Once the durability process is
ratios are measured during the bench Cycle approved, the manufacturer must
aging process to assure that the proper determine, using good engineering
EPA has established criteria to obtain judgement, whether to apply the
amount of aging has actually occurred. approval for a customized/alternative durability procedure to a particular test
Aging on the bench is extended if the road cycle that require the manufacturer group. The manufacturer may make
aging targets are not properly achieved. to demonstrate that the objective of the modifications to an approved
1. The Standard Bench Cycle (SBC) durability program will be achieved for customized/alternative road cycle and
the breadth of the vehicles which are apply them to a test group to ensure that
EPA is promulgating a standard bench covered by the cycle. Approval of a the modified process will effectively
cycle (SBC) which contains a mix of customized/alternative road cycle achieve the durability objective for
rich, lean and stoichiometric A/F ratios requires a thorough analysis of whether future candidate in-use vehicles. The
designed to achieve appropriate the cycle will achieve the durability manufacturer would be required to
emission deterioration on the aging program objective using in-use identify such changes in its certification
bench when operated for the period of emissions data, including a application and explain the basis for the
time calculated from the BAT equation. demonstration of the relative stringency changes. Manufacturers must use good
of the SRC and the manufacturer’s engineering judgement in making these
The standard bench cycle consists of program.
a 60-second cycle which is defined decisions. Significant, major, or
To make the initial demonstration
based on the A/F ratio of the engine fundamental changes to a customized/
necessary for the Agency to approve a
(which is part of the aging bench) and alternative cycle would be considered
customized/alternative cycle, EPA is
the amount of secondary air injection new cycles and would require advance
requiring that the manufacturer supply
approval by EPA.
(shop air which is added to the exhaust high mileage in-use emission data on
stream in front of the first catalyst). applicable candidate in-use vehicles. 2. Customization of Standard Bench
The vehicles would be randomly Procedures
2. The Bench-Aging Time (BAT) procured from actual customer use,
Calculation The manufacturers are allowed,
generally with an age of 4 to 5 years and
subject to Agency approval, a limited
EPA is promulgating a bench aging with a minimum of approximately
degree of customization of the standard
time (BAT) equation to calculate the 50,000 miles. They would cover the
bench procedures. However, in all cases
breadth of the vehicles that the
appropriate length of time to age a EPA is requiring that alternative bench
manufacturer intends to certify using
catalyst system on an aging bench to aging procedures be based upon
the customized/alternative cycle.
yield equivalent emission deterioration Vehicles would be procured and FTP measured vehicle performance (such as
as running a vehicle on the associated tested as received under the provisions catalyst temperature) on an approved
road cycle. The standard bench aging of the IUVP program (ref: 40 CFR road cycle.
durability procedure uses catalyst 86.1845–04). Manufacturers could use Specifically EPA is allowing
temperatures measured on the SRC to previously generated in-use data from customization of any or all of the
calculate the bench aging time necessary the CAP 2000 high mileage IUVP following parameters when the
to reproduce the thermal exposure seen program or the fourth-year-of-service accompanying conditions for approval
on the SRC. As discussed in the NPRM RDP ‘‘reality check’’ in-use program as are met:
preamble, the BAT equation is based on well as other sources of in-use a. The lower control temperature on
the Arrehenius equation which relates emissions data for this purpose. EPA the SBC may be modified without prior
chemical reaction rates with will also consider additional emissions EPA approval provided that the high
temperature. data or analyses that the manufacturer control temperature is set 90 °C (± 10 °C)
may choose to provide, including data above the lower control temperature and
3. The Effective Reference Temperature an approved BAT equation is used to
from vehicles which have been screened
for the SBC for proper maintenance and use. calculate bench aging time.
The amount of in-use emission data b. The R-factor used in EPA’s BAT
The BAT equation uses a single
required for this analysis is based on equation may be determined
temperature value called the effective
whether the customized/alternative experimentally using EPA’s standard
reference temperature to represent the procedures (specified in the appendix to
cycle is more or less severe than the
entire temperature-history experienced the regulations) without prior EPA
SRC. In most cases, EPA will accept a
during the SBC on the catalyst aging approval. Other experimental
minimum of 20 candidate in-use
bench. The effective reference techniques to calculate the R-factor
vehicles. There is less risk of
temperature will be calculated using underestimating actual in-use emission require advance EPA approval. To
catalyst temperature histogram data levels when the customized/alternative obtain approval, the manufacturer must
measured in the catalyst on the aging cycle is more severe than the SRC. demonstrate that the calculated bench
bench following the SBC. The BAT However, if the customized/alternative aging time results in the same (or larger)
equation would then be used to cycle is significantly more severe than amount of emission deterioration as the
calculate the effective reference the SRC, EPA may accept less data. associated road cycle.
temperature by iterative changes to the Conversely, if the customized/ c. The A-factor used in EPA’s BAT
reference temperature (Tr) until the alternative cycle is significantly less equation may be modified, using good
calculated aging time equaled the actual severe than the SRC, EPA may require engineering judgement without prior
time representing in the catalyst more data up to a maximum of 30 EPA approval, to ensure that the
temperature histogram. The resulting vehicles. modified durability process will achieve
temperature is the effective reference EPA will also consider the the durability objective (discussed
temperature for the SBC. equivalency factor of the customized/ previously).
d. Bench-aging may be conducted To reproduce the deterioration If the manufacturer was using the
using fuel with additional poisons (such generated by a customized/alternative standard road cycle or standard bench
as phosphorus, sulfur and lead) without road cycle, standard bench procedure, cycle, EPA will require the
prior EPA approval. Using fuel with or alternative bench procedure, an manufacturer to adjust the durability
additional poisons is worst case for outside party may run a vehicle using process so it would achieve the
emissions deterioration. Normally a the SRC for the number of miles durability objective. The Agency will
manufacturer using fuel with additional indicated by the equivalency factor. allow two options in this situation: (1)
poisons will either calculate a new R- Similarly, an outside party will be Increasing future DFs by the average
factor or A-factor to assure that the able to perform bench aging using the percent-difference between certification
durability objective is properly SBC. The aging time may be calculated levels and IUVP data, or (2) increasing
achieved. using the BAT equation and measured the whole vehicle miles driven or
e. An approved alternative road cycle catalyst temperature on the SRC (with catalyst aging time by the average
or customized SRC may be used to full-useful-life-mileage adjusted by the percent-difference between certification
develop catalyst temperature histograms equivalency factor). levels and IUVP data. Additionally the
for use in the BAT equation without D. Using IUVP Data To Improve manufacturer may obtain approval for a
additional EPA approval beyond the Durability Predictions new alternative durability process that
original approval necessary to use the has been demonstrated to meet the
Manufacturers are required to review durability objective. If the data set used
road cycle for mileage accumulation.
their durability program and prepare an in the analysis contains less than 20
f. A different bench cycle may be used analysis for EPA evaluation when: (1)
during bench aging with prior EPA pieces of data, the Administrator may
The IUVP emission levels exceed the reduce the degree of adjustment
approval. To obtain approval the applicable certification emission
manufacturer must demonstrate that required to account for uncertainty in
standard 50% or more of the test
bench aging with the new bench cycle the data.
vehicles and (2) the average emission
provides the same (or larger) amount of level is at least 1.3 times the applicable E. Evaporative and Refueling Durability
emission deterioration as the associated emission standard. These criteria would
road cycle. EPA is finalizing provisions that
be evaluated independently for all require manufacturers determine the
g. A different method to calculate applicable FTP emission constituents.
bench aging time may be used with evaporative/refueling deterioration
Each constituent should be considered
prior EPA approval. To obtain approval using either whole vehicle durability or
separately in this analysis.
the manufacturer must demonstrate that bench aging methods or a combination
The Agency may, from time to time,
bench aging for the time calculated by require manufacturers to analyze of the two methods.
the alternative method results in the available IUVP data, or other Whole Vehicle Evaporative/Refueling
same (or larger) amount of emission information, when it indicates that the Durability. Manufacturers may conduct
deterioration as the associated road durability objective is not being evaporative and/or refueling durability
cycle. achieved for some portion of the fleet of program by running the DDV on the
vehicles covered by a durability SRC or an approved alternative road
3. Reproducibility by Outside Parties cycle and conducting the applicable test
procedure. This provision would apply
EPA is finalizing the provision that an whether or not the screening criteria are at each testing point. Manufacturers
alternative road cycle must be designed exceeded. may combine exhaust and evaporative/
to achieve the durability objective. As As in the CAP 2000 program, EPA refueling whole vehicle durability
part of this evaluation, EPA is requiring may withdraw approval of a durability demonstrations.
that all alternative road cycles are program or require its modification if it Bench-Aging Evaporative/Refueling
equated to the SRC by means of an determines that the program does not Durability. Manufacturers may use
equivalency factor that determines the meet the objectives for a durability bench procedures designed, using good
amount of SRC-driving that results in program. The Agency will give the engineering judgement, to evaluate the
the same emission deterioration as the manufacturer a preliminary notice at following potential causes of
alternative cycle. EPA is requiring that least 60 days prior to rendering a final evaporative emission deterioration and
every alternative bench aging procedure decision to withdraw approval for or achieve the durability objective:
be based upon measured vehicle require modifications to a durability (1) Cycling of canister loading due to
performance on an approved road cycle. procedure. During this period the diurnal and refueling events,
Lastly, EPA is requiring that any manufacturer may submit technical (2) Use of various commercially
alternative bench cycle be designed to discussion, statistical analyses, available fuels, including the Tier 2
result in the same levels of emission additional data, or other information requirement to include alcohol fuel;
deterioration as the road cycle upon that is relevant to the decision. This (3) Vibration of components;
which it was based. may include an analysis to determine (4) Deterioration of hoses, etc. due to
An important element of the whether factors other than the durability environmental conditions; and
regulation is that, regardless of whether program, such as part defects, are the (5) Deterioration of fuel cap due to
a manufacturer uses the EPA standard source of the problem. The wear.
procedures or customized procedures, Administrator will consider all Manufacturers will determine
any interested party will be able to use information submitted by the deadline evaporative and refueling DFs using
the equivalency factor to reproduce the before reaching a final decision. A final good engineering judgement without the
amount of emission deterioration decision to withdraw approval or need for prior EPA approval.
produced by any manufacturer’s require modification to a durability

customized/alternative durability procedure would apply to future F. Compliance Date and Carryover of
process used during vehicle applications for certification and to the Existing Durability Data
certification. Any alternative road or portion of the manufacturer’s product Manufacturers must meet the
bench procedure is equated to a given line (or the entire product line) that the requirements of today’s action
number of miles on the SRC. Administrator determines to be affected. beginning with the 2008 model year.
EPA is not making any changes to the regulations as a comparison benchmark. minimal.25 The costs involved with
carryover provisions in the current In those regulations, EPA estimated that either of these processes (equipment
regulations (ref. 40 CFR 86.1839–01). there would be an average annual net costs, vehicle costs, testing costs, labor
These provisions allow manufacturers savings to the automotive industry of costs, etc.) are fairly fixed.
to use durability data that was about $55 million. The analysis Manufacturers using one of the
previously generated and used to performed to reach that conclusion was prescribed methods will not be required
support certification provided that the part of the record for the CAP 2000 to make major changes to or add any
data ‘‘represent a worst case or regulation, and was not contested. new equipment, test any additional
equivalent rate of deterioration’’. In today’s final rulemaking, one of our vehicles with any additional frequency,
Beginning in the 2008 model year, if a goals was to retain those savings. In the or to increase the amount of labor. We
manufacturer can meet these CAP 2000 cost analysis, about half of expect that manufacturers who, under
requirements, it may use existing the total estimated annual savings was the old CAP 2000 regulations, used a
durability data (i.e., DFs or aged attributed to the durability component bench-aging (or whole-vehicle) process
hardware) to support certification. of the regulations. The elements of CAP will continue to use a bench-aging (or
The manufacturer may not, however, 2000 durability which provided the whole-vehicle) process—the only
continue to use CAP 2000 durability most significant savings are: difference is that now that process is
processes to generate new data starting a. Reduced number of durability data codified.
with the 2008 model year. When the vehicles (DDVs). The creation of the The final regulations also include the
proposed rule becomes effective in the ‘‘durability group’’ under CAP 2000 option for manufacturers to use
2008 model year, manufacturers must allowed manufacturers to significantly customized or alternative procedures,
use durability procedures that have reduce the number of required with EPA approval. The approval
been approved under the new rules to durability demonstrations. The savings requires the manufacturer to submit an
generate new durability demonstrations. that are claimed in the CAP 2000 rule analysis of about 20 in-use emission
resulting from the ‘‘durability group’’ tests. Most manufacturers will be able to
G. Miscellaneous Regulatory provision come from requiring
Amendments and Corrections utilize in-use data and analyses that
physically fewer DDVs, fewer durability they have previously collected from
1. With the addition of the new tests, and less reporting (e.g. instead of other sources (such as the CAP 2000 in-
durability regulations (sections having to report 912 durability tests, use verification data). Some
86.1823–08, 86.1824–08, and 86.1825– there would only be 620 tests). The manufacturers may need to augment
08), the regulatory references in a ‘‘durability group’’ concept was not part this data by running a few additional
number of other sections of subpart S of of the Ethyl v. EPA litigation, nor was tests, but this would be a small, one-
part 86 have been updated accordingly. it mentioned in the Court’s opinion on time cost. EPA estimates that this small
2. Section 1864 of subpart S is being this case. Thus EPA is not modifying the added cost is more than offset by the
moved to section 1801. This section ‘‘durability group’’ regulations in fact that once approved, manufacturers
describes the applicability of subpart S today’s final rule. will be able to use their durability
to heavy-duty vehicles, and is more In fact, it is possible that today’s final
programs without the need to make any
appropriately located in the rule could actually slightly reduce some
changes to those programs.
Applicability section of the regulations. costs to the industry, in that
As discussed above, EPA is issuing a
3. An outdated address in section manufacturers using one of the EPA-
separate Supplemental Notice of
1817–05 has been corrected. prescribed durability processes (either
Proposed Rulemaking which addresses
4. A typographical error in section whole-vehicle or bench) would no
component durability. Any costs
1830–01(c) has been corrected. longer have to provide a description of
5. Two corrections are being made to associated with that proposal will be
their durability process (which was
section 86.1806–05, on-board addressed in that notice.
required under CAP 2000, and would
diagnostics. First, in a previous continue to be required for B. Environmental Impacts
regulatory action, this section was manufacturers using customized In the CAP 2000 rule, no quantifiable
amended to add provisions for diesel procedures under today’s final rule). environmental benefits were projected.
vehicles and HDVs and MDPVs. In b. Reduced burden-hours per DDV. In
Intangible benefits were possible due to
doing this, an inadvertent error was addition to fewer DDVs, in the CAP
the In-Use Verification Program (IUVP)
made in paragraph (a)(3). The provision 2000 rulemaking, EPA also slightly
element of the CAP 2000 rule—
allowing compliance with 86.004–17, in reduced the estimated number of
manufacturers would be able to use the
lieu of 1806–05, should be limited to burden-hours required per DDV. As
in-use data from this program to identify
apply only to MDPVs and HDVs. The above, this element was not affected by
and fix in-use compliance problems and
language has been revised accordingly. the Court mandate, and is not impacted
to make improvements upon their
Second, in the original CAP 2000 by today’s final rule.
certification durability processes. This
regulation, there is an incorrect
2. Economic Impact of Today’s Rule intangible benefit is not changed in
reference to section 86.094–17(e) and (f).
Today’s final rule prescribes two today’s final rule—the in-use
The correct reference is 1806–05(e) and
methods for determining the emission verification program is not affected by
(f).
deterioration of vehicles over their the Court mandate, and no changes to
IV. What Are the Economic and useful life periods—the whole-vehicle this program are being proposed. EPA is
Environmental Impacts? procedure or the bench-aging procedure. modifying an existing CAP 2000
Details of how to perform these provision whereby manufacturers
A. Economic Impacts
utilize the IUVP data to assess the
procedures are prescribed in the

1. Comparison to CAP 2000 Economic proposed regulations. Because these ability of the durability program to
Impacts procedures are similar in nature to those 25 Added burden will be in the form of the one-
In considering the economic and approved by EPA under the CAP 2000 time reprogramming of automated driving or bench-
environmental impacts of today’s regulations, the added burden for aging devices with the new driving/aging cycle, and
proposal, we used the CAP 2000 manufacturers utilizing them will be other minor equipment adjustments.
predict in-use compliance. The Division; U.S. Environmental Protection 80 automotive manufacturers subject to
modification includes more explicit Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania today’s proposal, EPA estimates that
instructions as to what the manufacturer Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by approximately 15–20 of these could be
is required to assess and when calling (202) 566–1672. classified as small entities based on SBA
corrective action is required (see section Burden means the total time, effort, or size standards. EPA’s CAP 2000
III C.). This proposed provision will financial resources expended by persons compliance regulations include
have the effect of improving the to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose numerous regulatory relief provisions
predictive qualities of the durability or provide information to or for a for such small entities. Those provisions
process, but again, with intangible Federal agency. This includes the time remain in effect and are not impacted by
environmental benefits. needed to review instructions; develop, today’s final rule.
acquire, install, and utilize technology
VI. What Are the Statutory and and systems for the purposes of D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Executive Order Reviews for This collecting, validating, and verifying Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Proposed Rule? information, processing and Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory maintaining information, and disclosing Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Planning and Review and providing information; adjust the Federal agencies to assess the effects of
existing ways to comply with any their regulatory action on state, local,
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR previously applicable instructions and and tribal governments and the private
51735 October 4, 1993), EPA must requirements; train personnel to be able sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
determine whether the regulatory action to respond to a collection of EPA generally must prepare a written
is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to information; search data sources; statement, including a cost-benefit
Office of Management and Budget complete and review the collection of analysis, for proposed and proposed
(OMB) review and the requirements of information; and transmit or otherwise rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
this Executive Order. The Order defines disclose the information. result in expenditures by state, local,
a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one An Agency may not conduct or and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
that is likely to result in a rule that may: sponsor, and a person is not required to or by the private sector, of $100 million
(1) Have an annual effect on the respond to a collection of information or more in any one year. Before
economy of $100 million or more or unless it displays a currently valid OMB promulgation an EPA rule for which a
adversely affect in a material way the control number. The OMB control written statement is needed, section 205
economy, a sector of the economy, numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
productivity, competition, jobs, the in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter identify and consider a reasonable
environment, public health or safety, or 15. number of regulatory alternatives and
State, Local, or Tribal governments or adopt the least costly, most cost-
communities; C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
effective or least burdensome alternative
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or EPA has determined that it is not that achieves the objectives of the rule.
otherwise interfere with an action taken necessary to prepare a regulatory The provisions of section 205 do not
or planned by another agency; flexibility analysis in connection with apply when they are inconsistent with
(3) Materially alter the budgetary this final rule. applicable law. Moreover, section 205
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, For purposes of assessing the impacts allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
or loan programs, or the rights and of today’s rule on small entities, small than the least costly, most cost-effective
obligations of recipients thereof; or entity is defined as: (1) A small business or least burdensome alternative if the
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues as defined by the Small Business Administrator publishes with the
arising out of legal mandates, the Administrations’ regulations at 13 CFR proposed rule an explanation why that
President’s priorities, or the principles 121.201; (2) a small governmental alternative was not adopted.
set forth in the Executive Order. jurisdiction that is a government of a Before we establish any regulatory
Pursuant to the terms of Executive city, county, town, school district or requirement that may significantly or
Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA special district with a population of less uniquely affect small governments,
that it considers this a ‘‘significant than 50,000; and (3) a small including tribal governments, we must
regulatory action’’ within the meaning organization that is any not-for-profit develop, under section 203 of the
of the Executive Order. OMB has enterprise which is independently UMRA, a small government agency
waived review of this action. owned and operated and is not plan. The plan must provide for
dominant in its field. notifying potentially affected small
B. Paperwork Reduction Act After considering the economic governments, enabling officials of
This action does not impose any new impacts of today’s final rule on small affected small governments to have
information collection burden under the entities, EPA has concluded that this meaningful and timely input in the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction action will not have a significant development of our regulatory proposals
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. However, the economic impact on a substantial with significant federal
Office of Management and Budget number of small entities. A small intergovernmental mandates. The plan
(OMB) has previously approved the business that manufacturers must also provide for informing,
information collection requirements automobiles has a NAIC code of 336111. educating, and advising small
contained in the existing regulations (64 Based on Small Business governments on compliance with the
FR 23906) under the provisions of the Administration size standards, a small regulatory requirements.
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. business for this NAIC code is defined EPA believes this final rule contains
3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB as a manufacturer having less than 1000 no Federal mandates for state, local, or
control number 2060–0104, EPA ICR employees. The requirements are only tribal governments. Nor does this rule
number 0783.44. A copy of the OMB applicable to manufacturers of motor have federal mandates that may result in
approved Information Collection vehicles, a group which does not the expenditures of $100 million or
Requests (ICR) may be obtained from contain a substantial number of small more in any year by the private sector
Susan Auby, Collection Strategies entities. Out of a total of approximately as defined by the provisions of Title II
of the UMRA. Nothing in the final rule (1) Is determined to be economically that before a rule may take effect, the
would significantly or uniquely affect significant as defined under E.O. 13045 agency promulgating the rule must
small governments. and (2) concerns an environmental submit a rule report, which includes a
health or safety risk that EPA has reason copy of the rule, to Congress and the
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
to believe may have a disproportionate comptroller General of the United
Executive Order 13132, entitled effect on children. If the regulatory States. We will submit a report
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, action meets both criteria, the Agency containing this rule and other required
1999), requires EPA to develop an must evaluate the environmental health information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
accountable process to ensure or safety effects of the planned rule on House of Representatives, and the
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State children, and explain why the planned Comptroller General of the United
and local officials in the development of regulation is preferable to other States prior to publication of the rule in
regulatory policies that have federalism potentially effective and reasonably the Federal Register. A major rule
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have feasible alternatives considered by the cannot take effect until 60 days after it
federalism implications’’ is defined in Agency. is published in the Federal Register.
the Executive Order to include EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct only to those regulatory actions that are defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
effects on the States, on the relationship based on health or safety risks, such that
between the national government and the analysis required under section 5– List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86
the States, or on the distribution of 501 of the Order has the potential to Environmental protection, Air
power and responsibilities among the influence the regulation. This final rule pollution control, Motor vehicle
various levels of government.’’ is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it pollution, Confidential business
This final rule will impose no direct is based on technology performance and information, Reporting and
compliance costs on states. Thus, not on health or safety risks. recordkeeping requirements.
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Dated: December 29, 2005.
to this rule.
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Stephen Johnson,
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation Distribution, or Use Administrator.
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
This rule is not subject to Executive ■ For the reasons set forth in the
Governments
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning preamble, The Environmental
Executive Order 13175, entitled Regulations That Significantly Affect Protection Agency title 40, chapter I of
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 the Code of Federal Regulations is
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is amended as follows:
67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA not a significant regulatory action under
to develop an accountable process to Executive Order 12866. PART 86—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY
tribal officials in the development of I. National Technology Transfer VEHICLES AND ENGINES
regulatory policies that have tribal Advancement Act
■ 1. The authority citation for part 86
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal Section 12(d) of the National
continues to read as follows:
implications’’ is defined in the Technology Transfer and Advancement
Executive Order to include regulations Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs the
one or more Indian tribes, on the EPA to use voluntary consensus Subpart S—General Compliance
relationship between the Federal standards (VCS) in its regulatory Provisions for Control of Air Pollution
government and the Indian tribes, or on activities unless to do so would be From New and In-Use Light-Duty
the distribution of power and inconsistent with applicable law or Vehicles, Light-Duty Trucks, and
responsibilities between the Federal otherwise impractical. Voluntary Complete Otto-Cycle Heavy-Duty
government and Indian tribes.’’ consensus standards are technical Vehicles
This final rule does not have tribal standards (e.g., materials specifications, ■ 2. Amend § 86.1803–01 by adding a
implications. It will not have substantial test methods, sampling procedures, new definition in alphabetical order, to
direct effects on tribal governments, on business practices, etc.) that are read as follows:
the relationship between the Federal developed or adopted by voluntary
government and Indian tribes, or on the consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA § 86.1803–01 Definitions.
distribution of power and requires EPA to provide Congress, * * * * *
responsibilities between the Federal through OMB, explanations when the Secondary air injection means a
government and Indian tribes, as Agency decides not to use available and system whereby air (not ingested by the
specified in Executive Order 13175. The applicable voluntary consensus engine) is introduced into the exhaust
requirements of this action impact standards. system in front of a catalyst.
private sector businesses, particularly This final rule does not involve
* * * * *
the automotive and engine consideration of any new technical
■ 3. Amend § 86.1804–01 by adding
manufacturing industries. Thus, standards. The durability test
Executive Order 13175 does not apply procedures that EPA is adopting are new acronyms in alphabetical order, to
to this rule. unique and have not been previously read as follows:
published in the public domain. § 86.1804–01 Acronyms and abbreviations.
G. Executive Order 13045: Children’s
Health Protection J. Congressional Review Act * * * * *

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of The Congressional Review Act, 5 A/F—Air/Fuel
Children from Environmental Health U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended by the * * * * *
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, Small Business Regulatory Enforcement BAT—Bench-Aging Time
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides * * * * *
SBC—Standard Bench Cycle dynamometer. Alternatively, the entire the principle after-treatment emission
* * * * * engine and emission control system may control device. This procedure requires
SRC—Standard Road Cycle be aged on an engine dynamometer installation of the catalyst-plus-oxygen-
* * * * * using methods that will replicate the sensor system on a catalyst aging bench.
aging that occurs on the road for that Aging on the bench is conducted by
■ 4. Amend § 86.1817–05 by revising
vehicle following the SRC. following the standard bench cycle
paragraph (i)(3)(i) to read as follows: (ii) The fuel used for mileage (SBC) for the period of time calculated
§ 86.1817–05 Complete heavy-duty vehicle accumulation must comply with the from the bench aging time (BAT)
averaging, trading, and banking program. mileage accumulation fuel provisions of equation. The BAT equation requires, as
* * * * * § 86.113 for the applicable fuel type input, catalyst time-at-temperature data
(i) * * * (e.g., gasoline or diesel fuel). measured on the SRC.
(iii) The DDV must be ballasted to a (1) Standard bench cycle (SBC).
(3) * * *
(i) These reports shall be submitted minimum of the loaded vehicle weight Standard catalyst bench aging is
within 90 days of the end of the model for light-duty vehicles and light light- conducted following the SBC
year to: Director, Certification and duty trucks and a minimum of the (i) The SBC must be run for the period
Compliance Division, U.S. ALVW for all other vehicles. of time calculated from the BAT
(iv) The mileage accumulation equation.
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
dynamometer must be setup as follows: (ii) The SBC is described in Appendix
Code 6405J, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., (A) The simulated test weight will be
NW., 20460. VII to Part 86.
the equivalent test weight specified in (2) Catalyst time-at-temperature data
* * * * * § 86.129 using a weight basis of the (i) Catalyst temperature must be
■ 5. Add a new § 86.1823–08 subpart S loaded vehicle weight for light-duty measured during at least two full cycles
to read as follows: vehicles and ALVW for all other of the SRC.
vehicles. (ii) Catalyst temperature must be
§ 86.1823–08 Durability demonstration (B) The road force simulation will be
procedures for exhaust emissions. measured at the highest temperature
determined according to the provisions location in the hottest catalyst on the
This section applies to all 2008 and of § 86.129. DDV. Alternatively, the temperature
later model year vehicles which meet (C) The manufacturer will control the may be measured at another location
the applicability provisions of vehicle, engine, and/or dynamometer as providing that it is adjusted to represent
§ 86.1801. Optionally, a manufacturer appropriate to follow the SRC using the temperature measured at the hottest
may elect to use this section for earlier good engineering judgement. location using good engineering
model year vehicles which meet the (2) Mileage accumulation must be judgement.
applicability provisions of § 86.1801. conducted for at least 75% of the (iii) Catalyst temperature must be
Eligible small volume manufacturers or applicable full useful life mileage period measured at a minimum rate of one
small volume test groups may specified in § 86.1805. If the mileage hertz (one measurement per second).
optionally meet the requirements of accumulation is less than 100% of the (iv) The measured catalyst
§§ 86.1838–01 and 86.1826–01 in lieu of full useful life mileage, then the DF temperature results must be tabulated
the requirements of this section. A calculated according to the procedures into a histogram with temperature bins
separate durability demonstration is of paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section of no larger than 25° C.
required for each durability group. must be based upon a line projected to (3) Bench-aging time. Bench aging
(a) Durability program objective. The the full-useful life mileage using the time is calculated using the bench aging
durability program must predict an upper 80 percent statistical confidence time (BAT) equation as follows:
expected in-use emission deterioration limit calculated from the emission data.
rate and emission level that effectively te for a temperature bin = th e((R/Tr)¥(R/Tv))
(3) If a manufacturer elects to
Total te = Sum of te over all the
represents a significant majority of the calculate a DF pursuant to paragraph
temperature bins
distribution of emission levels and (f)(1) of this section, then it must
Bench-Aging Time = A (Total te )
deterioration in actual use over the full conduct at least one FTP emission test
and intermediate useful life of candidate at each of five different mileage points Where:
in-use vehicles of each vehicle design selected using good engineering A = 1.1 This value adjusts the catalyst
which uses the durability program. judgement. Additional testing may be aging time to account for deterioration
(b) Required durability conducted by the manufacturer using from sources other than thermal aging
demonstration. Manufacturers must good engineering judgement. The of the catalyst.
conduct a durability demonstration for required testing must include testing at R = Catalyst thermal reactivity
each durability group using a procedure 5,000 miles and at the highest mileage coefficient. For the SBC, R=17500 for
specified in either paragraph (c), (d), or point run during mileage accumulation Tier 2 vehicles and R=18500 for all
(e) of this section. (e.g. the full useful life mileage). other vehicles.
(c) Standard whole-vehicle durability Different testing plans may be used th = The time (in hours) measured
procedure. This procedure consists of providing that the manufacturer within the prescribed temperature bin
conducting mileage accumulation and determines, using good engineering of the vehicle’s catalyst temperature
periodic testing on the durability data judgement, that the alternative plan histogram adjusted to a full useful life
vehicle, selected under the provisions of would result in an equivalent or basis e.g., if the histogram represented
§ 86.1822 described as follows: superior level of confidence in the 400 miles, and full useful life was
(1) Mileage accumulation must be accuracy of the DF calculation 100,000 miles; all histogram time
conducted using the standard road cycle compared to the testing plan specified entries would be multiplied by 250
(SRC). The SRC is described in in this paragraph. (100000/400).
Appendix V of this part. (d) Standard bench-aging durability Total te = The equivalent time (in hours)
(i) Mileage accumulation on the SRC procedure. This procedure is not to age the catalyst at the temperature
may be conducted on a track or on a applicable to diesel fueled vehicles or of Tr on the catalyst aging bench using
chassis mileage accumulation vehicles which do not use a catalyst as the catalyst aging cycle to produce the
same amount of deterioration constituents, and exhaust temperature all the following information and
experienced by the catalyst due to to the face of the catalyst. perform all the following analyses:
thermal deactivation over the (i) A manufacturer may use the (A) The manufacturer must supply in-
vehicle’s full useful life. criteria and equipment discussed in use FTP emission data on past model
te for a bin = The equivalent time (in Appendix VIII to part 86 to develop its year vehicles which are applicable to
hours) to age the catalyst at the catalyst aging bench without prior the vehicle designs it intends to cover
temperature of Tr on the catalyst aging Agency approval. The manufacturer with the customized/alternative cycle.
bench using the catalyst aging cycle to may use another design that results in (1) The amount of in-use emission
produce the same amount of equivalent or superior results with data required to demonstrate the
deterioration experienced by the advance Agency approval. effectiveness of a customized/alternative
catalyst due to thermal deactivation at (ii) All bench aging equipment and cycle in meeting the durability objective
the temperature bin of Tv over the procedures must record appropriate is based on whether the customized/
vehicle’s full useful life. information (such as measured A/F alternative cycle is more or less severe
Tr = The effective reference temperature ratios and time-at-temperature in the than the SRC. In most cases, EPA will
(in °K) of the catalyst on the catalyst catalyst) to assure that sufficient aging accept a minimum of 20 candidate in-
bench run on the bench aging cycle. has actually occurred. use vehicles tested as-received on the
The effective temperature is the (6) Required Testing. If a FTP cycle. If the customized/alternative
constant temperature that would manufacturer is electing to calculate a cycle is significantly more severe than
result in the same amount of aging as DF (as discussed in paragraph (f)(1) of the SRC, EPA may accept less data.
the various temperatures experienced this section), then it must conduct at Conversely, if the customized/
during the bench aging cycle. least two FTP emissions tests on the alternative cycle is significantly less
Tv = The mid-point temperature (in °K) DDV before bench aging of emission severe than the SRC, EPA may require
of the temperature bin of the vehicle control hardware and at least two FTP more data, up to a maximum of 30
on-road catalyst temperature emission tests on the DDV after the vehicles.
bench-aged emission hardware is re- (2) This data set must consist of
histogram.
installed. Additional testing may be randomly procured vehicles from actual
(4) Effective reference temperature on conducted by the manufacturer using customer use. The vehicles selected for
the SBC. The effective reference good engineering judgement. procurement must cover the breadth of
temperature of the standard bench cycle (e) Additional durability procedures— the vehicles that the manufacturer
(SBC) is determined for the actual (1) Whole vehicle durability procedures. intends to certify using the customized/
catalyst system design and actual aging A manufacturer may use either a alternative cycle. Vehicles should be
bench which will be used using the customized SRC or an alternative road procured and FTP tested in as-received
following procedures: cycle for the required durability condition under the guidelines of the
(i) Measure time-at-temperature data demonstration, with prior EPA high mileage IUVP program (ref: 40 CFR
in the catalyst system on the catalyst approval. 86.1845–04).
aging bench following the SBC. (i) Customized SRC. A customized (3) Manufacturers may use previously
(A) Catalyst temperature must be SRC is the SRC run for a different generated in-use data from the CAP
measured at the highest temperature number of miles and/or using a different 2000 IUVP or the RDP ‘‘reality check’’
location of the hottest catalyst in the mileage accumulation fuel with higher in-use program as well as other sources
system. Alternatively, the temperature levels of certain compounds that may of in-use emissions data for approval
may be measured at another location lead to catalyst poisoning, such as under this section.
providing that it is adjusted to represent phosphorus, sulfur and lead, than (4) Manufacturers must remove
the temperature measured at the hottest specified in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this unrepresentative data from the data set
location using good engineering section. using good engineering judgement. The
judgement. (ii) Alternative Road Cycle. An manufacturer must provide EPA with
(B) Catalyst temperature must be alternative cycle is a whole vehicle the data removed from the analysis and
measured at a minimum rate of one mileage accumulation cycle that uses a a justification for the removal of that
hertz (one measurement per second) different speed-versus-time trace than data.
during at least 20 minutes of bench the SRC, conducted for either the full (5) Manufacturers may supply
aging. useful life mileage or for less than full additional in-use data.
(C) The measured catalyst useful life mileage. An alternative road (B) The manufacturer must submit an
temperature results must be tabulated cycle may also include the use of fuel analysis which includes a comparison
into a histogram with temperature bins with higher levels of certain compounds of the relative stringency of the
of no larger than 10° C. that may lead to catalyst poisoning, customized/alternative cycle to the SRC
(ii) The BAT equation must be used such as phosphorus, sulfur and lead, and a calculated equivalency factor for
to calculate the effective reference than specified in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of the cycle.
temperature by iterative changes to the this section. (1) The equivalency factor may be
reference temperature (Tr) until the (iii) Approval Criteria. The determined by an evaluation of the SRC
calculated aging time equals the actual manufacturer must obtain approval from and the customized/alternative cycle
time represented in the catalyst EPA prior to using a customized/ using catalyst time-at-temperature data
temperature histogram. The resulting alternative road cycle. EPA may approve from both cycles and the BAT equation
temperature is the effective reference a customized/alternative cycle when the to calculate the required bench aging
temperature on the SBC for that catalyst manufacturer demonstrates that the time of each cycle. The equivalency
system and aging bench. cycle is expected to achieve the factor is the ratio of the aging time on
(5) Catalyst Aging Bench. The durability program objective of the SRC divided by the aging time on
manufacturer must design, using good paragraph (a) of this section for the the alternative cycle.
engineering judgement, a catalyst aging breadth of vehicles using the (2) If emissions data is available from
bench that follows the SBC and delivers customized/alternative cycle. To obtain the SRC, as well as time-at-temperature
the appropriate exhaust flow, exhaust approval the manufacturer must submit data, then that emissions information
may be included in the evaluation of the EPA approval, to ensure that the life) test point are excluded from the
relative stringency of the two cycles and modified durability process will achieve intermediate useful life deterioration
the development of the equivalency the durability objective of paragraph (a) factor calculation.
factor. of this section. (E) A procedure may be employed to
(3) A separate equivalency factor may (iv) Bench aging may be conducted identify and remove from the DF
be determined for each test group, or using fuel with additional compounds calculation those test results determined
test groups may be combined together that may lead to catalyst poisoning, to be statistical outliers providing that
(using good engineering judgement) to such as phosphorus, sulfur or lead, the outlier procedure is consistently
calculate a single equivalency factor. without prior EPA approval. A applied to all vehicles and data points
(C) The manufacturer must submit an manufacturer using fuel with these and is approved in advance by the
analysis which evaluates whether the additional compounds may either Administrator.
durability objective will be achieved for calculate a new R-factor or A-factor to (ii) The deterioration factor must be
the vehicle designs which will be assure that the durability objective of based on a linear regression, or another
certified using the customized/ paragraph (a) of this section is properly regression technique approved in
alternative cycle. The analysis must achieved regardless of the use of worst- advance by the Administrator. The
address of the following elements: case fuel, in which case the approval deterioration must be a multiplicative or
(1) How the durability objective has criteria for those changes would apply. additive factor. Separate factors will be
been achieved using the data submitted (v) An approved customized/ calculated for each regulated emission
in paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(A) of this section. alternative road cycle may be used to constituent and for the full and
(2) How the durability objective will develop catalyst temperature histograms intermediate useful life periods as
be achieved for the vehicle designs for use in the BAT equation without applicable. Separate DF’s are calculated
which will be covered by the additional EPA approval beyond the for each durability group except as
customized/alternative cycle. This original approval necessary to use that provided in § 86.1839.
analysis should consider the emissions cycle for mileage accumulation. (A) A multiplicative DF will be
deterioration impact of the design (vi) A different bench cycle than the calculated by taking the ratio of the full
differences between the vehicles SBC may be used during bench aging or intermediate useful life mileage level,
included in the data set required in with prior EPA approval. To obtain as appropriate (rounded to four decimal
(e)(1)(iii)(A) of this section and the approval the manufacturer must places), divided by the stabilized
vehicle designs that the manufacturer demonstrate that bench aging for the mileage (reference § 86.1831–01(c), e.g.,
intends to certify using the customized/ appropriate time on the new bench 4000-mile) level (rounded to four
alternative cycle. cycle provides the same or larger decimal places) from the regression
(2) Bench-aging durability procedures. amount of emission deterioration as the analysis. The result must be rounded to
A manufacturer may use a customized associated road cycle. three-decimal places of accuracy. The
or alternative bench aging durability (vii) A different method to calculate rounding required in this paragraph
procedure for a required durability bench aging time may be used with must be conducted in accordance with
demonstration, if approved as described prior EPA approval. To obtain approval § 86.1837. Calculated DF values of less
in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (vii) of the manufacturer must demonstrate that than one must be changed to one for the
this section. A customized/alternative bench aging for the time calculated by purposes of this paragraph.
bench aging procedure must use vehicle the alternative method results in the (B) An additive DF will be calculated
performance data (such as catalyst same or larger amount of emission to be the difference between the full or
temperature) measured on an approved deterioration as the associated road intermediate useful life mileage level (as
road cycle as part of the algorithm to cycle. appropriate) minus the stabilized
calculate bench aging time. The (f) Use of deterioration program to mileage (reference § 86.1831–01(c), e.g.
manufacturer must obtain approval from determine compliance with the 4000-mile) level from the regression
the Agency prior to using a customized standard. A manufacturer may select analysis. The full useful life regressed
bench durability procedure. from two methods for using the results emission value, the stabilized mileage
(i) The lower control temperature on of the deterioration program to regressed emission value, and the DF
the SBC may be modified without prior determine compliance with the result must be rounded to the same
EPA approval provided that the high applicable emission standards. Either a precision and using the same
control temperature is set 90 °C above deterioration factor (DF) is calculated procedures as the raw emission results
the lower control temperature and an and applied to the emission data vehicle according to the provisions of
approved BAT equation is used to (EDV) emission results or aged § 86.1837–01. Calculated DF values of
calculate bench aging time. components are installed on the EDV less than zero must be changed to zero
(ii) The R-factor used in EPA’s BAT prior to emission testing. for the purposes of this paragraph.
equation may be determined (1) Deterioration factors. (iii) The DF calculated by these
experimentally using EPA’s standard (i) Deterioration factors are calculated procedures will be used for determining
procedures (specified in Appendix IX of using all FTP emission test data full and intermediate useful life
this part) without prior EPA approval. generated during the durability testing compliance with FTP exhaust emission
Other experimental techniques to program except as noted: standards, SFTP exhaust emission
calculate the R-factor require advance (A) Multiple tests at a given mileage standards, and cold CO emission
EPA approval. To obtain approval, the point are averaged together unless the standards. At the manufacturer’s option
manufacturer must demonstrate that the same number of tests are conducted at and using procedures approved by the
calculated bench aging time results in each mileage point. Administrator, a separate DF may be
the same (or larger) amount of emission (B) Before and after maintenance test calculated exclusively using cold CO
deterioration as the associated road results are averaged together. test data to determine compliance with
cycle. (C) Zero-mile test results are excluded cold CO emission standards. Also at the
(iii) The A-factor used in EPA’s BAT from the calculation. manufacturer’s option and using
equation may be modified, using good (D) Total hydrocarbon (THC) test procedures approved by the
engineering judgement without prior points beyond the 50,000-mile (useful Administrator, a separate DF may be
calculated exclusively using US06 and/ concurrently with, its submission of the paragraph (i)(2) of this section if EPA is
or air conditioning (SC03) test data to Application for Certification for the concerned that the manufacturer’s
determine compliance with the SFTP affected test groups (notification at an durability procedure may not achieve
emission standards. annual preview meeting scheduled the durability objective of paragraph (a)
(2) Installation of aged components before the manufacturer begins of this section.
on emission data vehicles. For full and certification activities for the model year (j) If, based on the analysis required
intermediate useful life compliance is preferred). in paragraph (i) of this section and/or
determination, the manufacturer may (3) Prior to certification, the any other information, EPA determines
elect to install aged components on an Administrator may reject the that the durability procedure does not
EDV prior to emission testing rather manufacturer’s determination in achieve the durability objective of
than applying a deterioration factor. paragraph (h) of this section to apply an paragraph (a) of this section, EPA may
Different sets of components may be approved or modified durability withdraw approval to use the durability
aged for full and intermediate useful life procedure for a durability group or test procedure or condition approval on
periods. Components must be aged group if: modifications to the durability
using an approved durability procedure (i) It is not made using good procedure. Such withdrawal or
that complies with paragraph (b) of this engineering judgment, conditional approval will apply to
section. The list of components to be (ii) It fails to properly consider data future applications for certification and
aged and subsequently installed on the collected under the provisions of to the portion of the manufacturer’s
EDV must selected using good §§ 86.1845–04, 86.1846–01, and product line (or the entire product line)
engineering judgement. 86.1847–01 or other information, or that the Administrator determines to be
(g) Emission component durability. (iii) The Administrator determines affected. Prior to such a withdrawal the
[Reserved] For guidance see 40 CFR that the durability procedure has not Administrator will give the
86.1823–01(e). been shown to achieve the objective of manufacturer a preliminary notice at
(h) Application of the durability paragraph (a) of this section for least 60 days prior to the final decision.
procedure to future durability groups. particular test groups which the During this period, the manufacturer
The manufacturer may apply a manufacturer plans to cover with the may submit technical discussion,
durability procedure approved under durability procedure. statistical analyses, additional data, or
paragraphs (c), (d) or (e) of this section (i) Evaluation of the certification other information which is relevant to
to a durability group, including durability procedures based on in-use the decision. The Administrator will
durability groups in future model years, emissions data. consider all information submitted by
if the durability process will achieve the (1) Manufacturers must use the the deadline before reaching a final
objective of paragraph (a) of this section information gathered from the IUVP, as decision.
for that durability group. The well as other sources of in-use (k) If EPA withdraws approval, under
manufacturer must use good emissions data, to periodically review the provisions of paragraph (j) of this
engineering judgment in determining whether the durability procedure it section, for a durability procedure
the applicability of an approved employs achieves the objective specified approved under the provisions of
durability procedure to a durability in paragraph (a) of this section. paragraphs (c) and/or (d) of this section,
group. (2) Required analysis of a the following procedures apply:
(1) Modifications to a durability manufacturer’s approved durability (1) The manufacturer must select one
procedure. procedures. of the following options for future
(i) Standard durability procedures. (i) In addition to any periodic reviews applications for certification for the
The manufacturer may modify a under paragraph (i)(1) of this section, a applicable portion of the manufacturers
standard durability procedure (allowed manufacturer must conduct a review of product-line affect by the Agency’s
in paragraphs (c) or (d) of this section) whether the durability procedure it decision:
by increasing or decreasing the number employs achieves the durability (i) Increase future DFs calculated
of miles run on the SRC to represent full objective specified in paragraph (a) of using the applicable durability process
or intermediate useful life emissions this section when the criteria for by the average percent-difference
deterioration or by changing the A- additional testing specified in § 86.1846 between certification levels and IUVP
Factor in the BAT equation for a bench (b) are activated. data; or
aging, using good engineering judgment, (ii) These criteria are evaluated (ii) Increase the miles driven on the
to ensure that the modified procedure independently for all applicable FTP SRC or the aging time calculated by the
will achieve the objective of paragraph emission constituents. BAT equation by the average percent-
(a) of this section for that durability (iii) This analysis must be performed difference between certification levels
group. for each test group certified by the and IUVP data, or
(ii) Customized/Alternative durability manufacturer. (iii) The manufacturer may obtain
procedures. The manufacturer may (iv) These procedures apply to the approval for a new customized
modify an alternative/customized EPA standard durability procedures durability process, as allowed in
durability procedure approved under discussed in paragraphs (c) and (d) of paragraph (e) of this section, that has
the provisions of paragraph (e) of this this section as well as durability been demonstrated to meet the
section, using good engineering procedures approved under paragraph durability objective.
judgment, for the purposes of ensuring (e) of this section, including (2) If EPA’s decision to withdraw
that the modified procedure will modifications under paragraph (h) of approval under the provisions of
achieve the objective of paragraph (a) of this section. paragraph (j) of this section is based on
this section for that durability group. (v) The analysis must be submitted to fewer than 20 tests, the Administrator
(2) The manufacturer must notify the EPA no later than 60 days after the may require a smaller adjustment than
Administrator of its determination to submission of the IUVP data report specified in paragraph (k)(1)(i) or (ii) of
use an approved (or modified) specified in § 86.1847(f). this section.
durability procedure on particular test (3) EPA may require a manufacturer to (l) Any manufacturer may request a
groups and durability groups prior to, or perform an analysis as described in hearing on the Administrator’s
withdrawal of approval in paragraphs (j) statistical confidence limit calculated metallic fuel and evaporative system
or (k) of this section. The request must from the emission data. components to the mileage
be in writing and must include a (3) The manufacturer must conduct at accumulation fuel constituents.
statement specifying the manufacturer’s least one evaporative emission test at (2) For flexible-fueled, dual-fueled,
objections to the Administrator’s each of the five different mileage points multi-fueled, ethanol-fueled and
determinations, and data in support of selected using good engineering methanol-fueled vehicles certified to
such objection. If, after review of the judgement. The required testing must meet the evaporative emission standards
request and supporting data, the include testing at 5,000 miles and at the set forth in § 86.1811–04(e)(1), any
Administrator finds that the request highest mileage point run during mileage accumulation method must
raises a substantial factual issue, she/he mileage accumulation (e.g. the full employ fuel for the entire mileage
must provide the manufacturer a useful life mileage). Additional testing accumulation period which the vehicle
hearing in accordance with § 86.1853– may be conducted by the manufacturer is designed to use and which the
01 with respect to such issue. using good engineering judgement. The Administrator determines will have the
■ 6. Add § 86.1824–08 to subpart S to manufacturer may select to run either greatest impact upon the permeability of
read as follows: the 2-day and/or 3-day evaporative test evaporative and fuel system
at each test point using good components. The manufacturer must
§ 86.1824–08 Durability demonstration engineering judgement. also provide information acceptable to
procedures for evaporative emissions. (d) Bench aging evaporative durability the Administrator to indicate that the
This section applies to gasoline-, procedures. Manufacturers may use mileage accumulation method is of
methanol-, liquefied petroleum gas-, and bench procedures designed, using good sufficient design, duration and severity
natural gas-fueled 2008 and later model engineering judgement, to evaluate the to stabilize the permeability of all non-
year vehicles which meet the emission deterioration of evaporative metallic fuel and evaporative system
applicability provisions of § 86.1801. control systems. Manufacturers may components to mileage accumulation
Optionally, a manufacturer may elect to base the bench procedure on an fuel constituents.
use this section for earlier model year evaluation the following potential (3) A manufacturer may use other
gasoline-, methanol-, liquefied causes of evaporative emission methods, based upon good engineering
petroleum gas-, and natural gas-fueled deterioration: judgment, to meet the requirements of
vehicles which meet the applicability (1) Cycling of canister loading due to paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section,
provisions of § 86.1801. Eligible small diurnal and refueling events, as applicable. These methods must be
volume manufacturers or small volume (2) Use of various commercially approved in advance by the
test groups may optionally meet the available fuels, including the Tier 2 Administrator and meet the objectives
requirements of §§ 86.1838–01 and requirement to include alcohol fuel; of paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this
86.1826–01 in lieu of the requirements (3) Vibration of components; section, as applicable: to provide
of this section. A separate durability (4) Deterioration of hoses, etc. due to assurance that the permeability of all
demonstration is required for each environmental conditions; and non-metallic fuel and evaporative
evaporative/refueling family. (5) Deterioration of fuel cap due to system components will not lead to
(a) Durability program objective. The wear. evaporative emission standard
durability program must predict an (e) Combined whole-vehicle and exceedance under sustained exposure to
expected in-use emission deterioration bench-aging programs. Manufacturers commercially available alcohol-
rate and emission level that effectively may combine the results of whole containing fuels for the useful life of the
represents a significant majority of the vehicle aging and bench aging vehicle.
distribution of emission levels and procedures using good engineering (g) Calculation of a deterioration
deterioration in actual use over the full judgement. factor. The manufacturer must calculate
useful life of candidate in-use vehicles (f) Fuel requirements. a deterioration factor which is applied
(1) For gasoline fueled vehicles to the evaporative emission results of
of each vehicle design which uses the
certified to meet the evaporative the emission data vehicles. The
durability program.
(b) Required durability emission standards set forth in deterioration factor must be based on a
demonstration. Manufacturers must § 86.1811–04(e)(1), any mileage linear regression, or an other regression
conduct a durability demonstration accumulation method for evaporative technique approved in advance by the
which satisfies the provisions of either emissions must employ gasoline fuel for Administrator. The DF will be
paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of this section. the entire mileage accumulation period calculated to be the difference between
(c) Whole vehicle evaporative which contains ethanol in, at least, the the full life mileage evaporative level
durability demonstration. highest concentration permissible in minus the stabilized mileage (e.g.,
(1) Mileage accumulation must be gasoline under federal law and that is 4000¥mile) evaporative level from the
conducted using the SRC or any road commercially available in any state in regression analysis. The full useful life
cycle approved under the provisions of the United States. Unless otherwise regressed emission value, the stabilized
§ 86.1823(e)(1). approved by the Administrator, the mileage regressed emission value, and
(2) Mileage accumulation must be manufacturer must determine the the DF result must be rounded to the
conducted for either: appropriate ethanol concentration by same precision and using the same
(i) The applicable full useful life selecting the highest legal concentration procedures as the raw emission results
mileage period specified in § 86.1805, or commercially available during the according to the provisions of
(ii) At least 75 percent of the full calendar year before the one in which § 86.1837–01. Calculated DF values of
useful life mileage. In which case, the the manufacturer begins its mileage less than zero must be changed to zero
manufacturer must calculate a df accumulation. The manufacturer must for the purposes of this paragraph.
calculated according to the procedures also provide information acceptable to (h) Emission component durability.
of paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section, the Administrator to indicate that the [Reserved] For guidance see 40 CFR
except that the DF must be based upon mileage accumulation method is of 86.1824–01(d).
a line projected to the full-useful life sufficient design, duration and severity (i) If EPA determines based on IUVP
mileage using the upper 80 percent to stabilize the permeability of all non- data or other information that the
durability procedure does not achieve (a) Durability program objective. The (5) Deterioration of fuel cap due to
the durability objective of paragraph (a) durability program must predict an wear.
of this section, EPA may withdraw expected in-use emission deterioration (e) Combined whole-vehicle and
approval to use the durability procedure rate and emission level that effectively bench-aging programs. Manufacturers
or condition approval on modifications represents a significant majority of the may combine the results of whole
to the durability procedure. Such distribution of emission levels and vehicle aging and bench aging
withdrawal or conditional approval will deterioration in actual use over the full procedures using good engineering
apply to future applications for useful life of candidate in-use vehicles judgement.
certification and to the portion of the of each vehicle design which uses the (f) [Reserved]
manufacturer’s product line (or the durability program. (g) Calculation of a deterioration
entire product line) that the (b) Required durability factor. The manufacturer must calculate
Administrator determines to be affected. demonstration. Manufacturers must a deterioration factor which is applied
Prior to such a withdrawal the conduct a durability demonstration to the evaporative emission results of
Administrator will give the which satisfies the provisions of either the emission data vehicles. The
manufacturer a preliminary notice at paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of this section. deterioration factor must be based on a
least 60 days prior to the final decision. (c) Whole vehicle refueling durability linear regression, or an other regression
During this period, the manufacturer demonstration. The following technique approved in advance by the
may submit technical discussion, procedures must be used when Administrator. The DF will be
statistical analyses, additional data, or conducting a whole vehicle durability calculated to be the difference between
other information which is relevant to demonstration: the full life mileage evaporative level
the decision. The Administrator will minus the stabilized mileage (e.g., 4000-
(1) Mileage accumulation must be
consider all information submitted by mile) evaporative level from the
conducted using the SRC or a road cycle
the deadline before reaching a final regression analysis. The full useful life
approved under the provisions of
decision. regressed emission value, the stabilized
§ 86.1823(e)(1).
mileage regressed emission value, and
(j) Any manufacturer may request a (2) Mileage accumulation must be
the DF result must be rounded to the
hearing on the Administrator’s conducted for either: same precision and using the same
withdrawal of approval in paragraph (i) (i) The applicable full useful life procedures as the raw emission results
of this section. The request must be in mileage period specified in § 86.1805, or according to the provisions of
writing and must include a statement (ii) At least 75 percent of the full § 86.1837–01. Calculated DF values of
specifying the manufacturer’s objections useful life mileage. In which case, the less than zero must be changed to zero
to the Administrator’s determinations, manufacturer must calculate a df for the purposes of this paragraph.
and data in support of such objection. calculated according to the procedures (h) Emission component durability.
If, after review of the request and of paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section, [Reserved] For guidance see 40 CFR
supporting data, the Administrator finds except that the DF must be based upon 86.1845–01 (e).
that the request raises a substantial a line projected to the full-useful life (i) If EPA determines based on IUVP
factual issue, she/he must provide the mileage using the upper 80 percent data or other information that the
manufacturer a hearing in accordance statistical confidence limit calculated durability procedure does not achieve
with § 86.1853–01 with respect to such from the emission data. the durability objective of paragraph (a)
issue. (3) The manufacturer must conduct at of this section, EPA may withdraw
■ 7. Add a new § 86.1825–08 to Subpart least one refueling emission test at each approval to use the durability procedure
S to read as follows: of the five different mileage points or condition approval on modifications
selected using good engineering to the durability procedure. Such
§ 86.1825–08 Durability demonstration judgement. The required testing must withdrawal or conditional approval will
procedures for refueling emissions. include testing at 5,000 miles and at the apply to future applications for
This section applies to 2008 and later highest mileage point run during certification and to the portion of the
model year light-duty vehicles, light- mileage accumulation (e.g. the full manufacturer’s product line (or the
duty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles useful life mileage). Additional testing entire product line) that the
which are certified under light-duty may be conducted by the manufacturer Administrator determines to be affected.
rules as allowed under the provisions of using good engineering judgement. Prior to such a withdrawal the
§ 86.1801–01(c)(1) which are subject to (d) Bench aging refueling durability Administrator will give the
refueling loss emission compliance. procedures. Manufacturers may use manufacturer a preliminary notice at
Optionally, a manufacturer may elect to bench procedures designed, using good least 60 days prior to the final decision.
use this section for earlier model year engineering judgement, to evaluate the During this period, the manufacturer
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, emission deterioration of evaporative/ may submit technical discussion,
and heavy-duty vehicles which are refueling control systems. statistical analyses, additional data, or
certified under light-duty rules as Manufacturers may base the bench other information which is relevant to
allowed under the provisions of procedure on an evaluation the the decision. The Administrator will
§ 86.1801–01(c)(1) which are subject to following potential causes of consider all information submitted by
refueling loss emission compliance. evaporative/refueling emission the deadline before reaching a final
Refer to the provisions of §§ 86.1811, deterioration: decision.
86.1812, 86.1813, 86.1814, and 86.1815 (1) Cycling of canister loading due to (j) Any manufacturer may request a
to determine applicability of the diurnal and refueling events; hearing on the Administrator’s
refueling standards to different classes (2) Use of various commercially withdrawal of approval in paragraph (i)
of vehicles for various model years. available fuels, including the Tier 2 of this section. The request must be in
Diesel fuel vehicles may qualify for an requirement to include alcohol fuel; writing and must include a statement
exemption to the requirements of this (3) Vibration of components; specifying the manufacturer’s objections
section under the provisions of (4) Deterioration of hoses, etc. due to to the Administrator’s determinations,
§ 86.1810. environmental conditions; and and data in support of such objection.
If, after review of the request and must be reported in accordance with the as a method of determining certification
supporting data, the Administrator finds procedures for reporting other exhaust levels (projected emission levels at full
that the request raises a substantial emission data required under this or intermediate useful life) using bench
factual issue, she/he must provide the subpart. aging procedures under the provisions
manufacturer a hearing in accordance * * * * * of § 86.1823.
with § 86.1853–01 with respect to such ■ 10. Amend § 86.1830–01 by revising ■ 11. Amend § 86.1831–01 by revising
issue. paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(1), (c)(2), paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) to read as
■ 8. Amend § 86.1826–01 by revising (c)(3) and (c)(4) to read as follows: follows:
paragraphs (a) and (b)(3)(iv) to read as
follows: § 86.1830–01 Acceptance of vehicles for § 86.1831–01 Mileage accumulation
emission testing. requirements for test vehicles.
§ 86.1826–01 Assigned deterioration (a) Durability Data Vehicles. (1) The
factors for small volume manufacturers and
* * * * *
(b) Special provisions for durability manufacturer must accumulate mileage
small volume test groups. on DDV’s using the procedures in
data vehicles. (1) For DDV’s, the mileage
(a) Applicability. This program is an § 86.1823.
at all test points shall be within 250
option available to small volume (b) * * *
miles of the scheduled mileage point as
manufacturers certified under the small (1) The standard method of mileage
required under § 86.1823–08(c)(3).
volume manufacturer provisions of accumulation for emission data vehicles
Manufacturers may exceed the 250 mile
§ 86.1838–01(b)(1) and small volume and running change vehicles is mileage
upper limit if there are logistical reasons
test groups certified under the small accumulation using either the Standard
for the deviation and the manufacturer
volume test group provisions of Road Cycle specified in Appendix V to
determines that the deviation will not
§ 86.1838–01(b)(2). Manufacturers may this part or the Durability Driving
affect the representativeness of the
elect to use these procedures in lieu of Schedule specified in Appendix IV to
durability demonstration.
the requirements of §§ 86.1823, 86.1824, this part.
(2) For DDV’s aged using the standard
and 86.1825 of this subpart. * * * * *
(b) * * * or a customized/alternative whole-
(3) * * * vehicle cycle, all emission-related ■ 12. Amend § 86.1838–01 by revising
(iv) The manufacturer must develop hardware and software must be installed paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
either deterioration factors or aged and operational during all mileage
accumulation after the 5000-mile test § 86.1838–01 Small volume manufacturers
components to use on EDV testing by certification procedures.
generating durability data in accordance point.
* * * * *
with §§ 86.1823, 86.1824, and/or * * * * *
(c) * * *
86.1825 on a minimum of 25 percent of (c) Special provisions for emission (1) Durability demonstration. Use the
the manufacturer’s projected sales data vehicles. (1) All EDV’s shall have provisions of § 86.1826–01 rather than
(based on durability groups) that is at least the minimum number of miles the requirements of §§ 86.1823, 86.1824,
equipped with unproven emission accumulated to achieve stabilized and/or 86.1825.
control systems. emission results according to the
provisions of § 86.1831–01(c). * * * * *
* * * * *
(2) Within a durability group, the ■ 13. Amend § 86.1839–01 by revising
manufacturer may alter any emission paragraph (b) to read as follows:
paragraphs (a)(3) and (d)(1) to read as
follows: data vehicle (or other vehicles such as § 86.1839–01 Carryover of certification
current or previous model year emission data.
§ 86.1829–01 Durability and emission data vehicles, running change vehicles,
testing requirements; waivers. * * * * *
fuel economy data vehicles, and (b) In lieu of using newly aged
(a) * * * development vehicles) in lieu of
(3) The DDV shall be tested and hardware on an EDV as allowed under
building a new test vehicle providing the provisions of § 86.1823–08(f)(2), a
accumulate service mileage according to that the modification will not impact
the provisions of §§ 86.1831–01, manufacturer may use similar hardware
the representativeness of the vehicle’s aged for an EDV previously submitted,
86.1823, 86.1824 and 86.1825. Small test results. Manufacturers shall use
volume manufacturers and small provided that the manufacturer
good engineering judgment in making determines that the previously aged
volume test groups may optionally meet such determinations. Development
the requirements of § 86.1838–01. hardware represents a worst case or
vehicles which were used to develop equivalent rate of deterioration for all
* * * * * the calibration selected for emission applicable emission constituents for
(d)(1) Beginning in the 2004 model data testing may not be used as the EDV durability demonstration.
year, the exhaust emissions must be for that configuration. Vehicles from ■ 14. Amend § 86.1841–01 by revising
measured from all LDV/T exhaust outside the durability group may be paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and
emission data vehicles tested in altered with advance approval of the (a)(2) and removing and reserving
accordance with the federal Highway Administrator. paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Fuel Economy Test (HWFET; 40 CFR (3) Components used to reconfigure
part 600, subpart B). The oxides of EDV’s under the provisions of paragraph § 86.1841–01 Compliance with emission
nitrogen emissions measured during (c)(2) of this section must be standards for the purpose of certification.
such tests must represent the full useful appropriately aged if necessary to (a) * * *
life emissions in accordance with achieve representative emission results. (1) If the durability demonstration
§ 86.1823–08(f) and subsequent model Manufacturers must determine the need procedure used by the manufacturer
year provisions. Those results are then for component aging and the type and under the provisions of §§ 86.1823,
rounded and compared with the amount of aging required using good 86.1824, or 86.1825 requires a DF to be
applicable emission standard in engineering judgment. calculated, the DF shall be applied to
§ 86.1811–04. All data obtained from the (4) Bench-aged hardware may be the official test results determined in
testing required under this paragraph (d) installed on an EDV for emission testing § 86.1835–01(c) for each regulated
emission constituent and for full and (3) [Reserved] (ii) The equivalency factor required to
intermediate useful life, as appropriate, * * * * * be calculated in § 1823–06(e)(iii)(B),
using the following procedures: when applicable.
* * * * * * * * * *
(2) If the durability demonstration paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:
procedure used by the manufacturer ■ 16. Add Appendices V, VII, VIII, and
§ 86.1844–01 Information requirements:
under the provisions of §§ 86.1823, Application for certification and submittal of IX to part 86 to read as follows:
86.1824, or 86.1825, as applicable, information upon request. Appendix V to Part 86—The Standard Road
requires testing of the EDV with aged * * * * * Cycle (SRC)
emission components, the official 1. The standard road cycle (SRC) is a
(d) * * *
results of that testing determined under mileage accumulation cycle that may be used
the provisions of § 86.1835–01(c) shall (4) Durability information.
for any vehicle which is covered by the
be rounded to the same level of (i) A description of the durability applicability provisions of § 86.1801. The
precision as the standard for each method used to establish useful life vehicle may be run on a track or on a mileage
regulated constituent at full and durability, including exhaust and accumulation dynamometer.
intermediate useful life, as appropriate. evaporative/refueling emission 2. The cycle consists of 7 laps of a 3.7 mile
This rounded emission value is the deterioration factors as required in course. The length of the lap may be changed
certification level for that emission §§ 86.1823, 86.1824 and 86.1825 when to accommodate the length of the service-
constituent at that useful life mileage. applicable. accumulation track.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SRC

Typical
Lap Description accel rate
(MPH/s)
1 ............... (start engine) Idle 10 sec .................................................................................................................................................. 0

1 ............... Mod accel to 30 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
1 ............... Cruise at 30 MPH for 1⁄4 lap ............................................................................................................................................. 0
1 ............... Mod. decel to 20 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5
1 ............... Mod accel to 30 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
1 ............... Mod. decel to stop ............................................................................................................................................................ ¥5
1 ............... Idle 5 sec ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0
1 ............... Mod accel to 35 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
1 ............... Mod. decel to 25 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5
1 ............... Mod accel to 35 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
1 ............... Mod. decel to stop ............................................................................................................................................................ ¥5
2 ............... Idle 10 sec ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0

2 ............... Mod accel to 40 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
2 ............... Mod. decel to 30 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5
2 ............... Mod accel to 40 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
2 ............... Mod. decel to stop ............................................................................................................................................................ ¥5
2 ............... Idle 5 sec ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0
2 ............... Mod accel to 45 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
2 ............... Mod. decel to 35 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5
2 ............... Mod accel to 45 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
2 ............... Cruise at 45 MPH for 1⁄4, lap ....................................................................................................................................... 0
2 ............... Mod. decel to stop ............................................................................................................................................................ ¥5
3 ............... Idle 10 sec ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0

3 ............... Hard accel to 55 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
3 ............... Mod. decel to 45 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5
3 ............... Mod accel to 55 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
3 ............... Mod. decel to 45 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5
3 ............... Mod accel to 60 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
3 ............... Mod. decel to 50 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5
3 ............... Mod. accel to 60 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
3 ............... Mod. decel to stop ............................................................................................................................................................ ¥4
4 ............... Idle 10 sec ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0

4 ............... Hard accel to 80 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
4 ............... Coastdown to 70 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥1
4 ............... Cruise at 70 MPH for 1⁄2 Lap ............................................................................................................................................ 0
4 ............... Mod. decel to 50 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥3
DESCRIPTION OF THE SRC—Continued

Typical
Lap Description accel rate
(MPH/s)
4 ............... Mod accel to 65 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

4 ............... Mod. decel to 50 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥3
5 ............... Mod accel to 75 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

5 ............... Mod. decel to 50 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥3
5 ............... Lt. accel to 70 MPH .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
5 ............... Mod. decel 50 MPH .......................................................................................................................................................... ¥3
6 ............... Mod accel to 70 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

6 ............... Coastdown to 60 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥1
6 ............... Mod. decel to 50 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥4
6 ............... Mod. accel to 65 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
6 ............... Mod. decel to stop ............................................................................................................................................................ ¥4
7 ............... Idle 45 sec ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0

7 ............... Hard accel to 55 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
7 ............... Mod. decel to 40 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5
7 ............... Mod. accel to 55 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
7 ............... Mod. decel to 40 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5
7 ............... Mod. accel to 50 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
7 ............... Mod. decel to 40 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥5
7 ............... Mod. accel to 50 MPH ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
7 ............... Mod. decel to stop ............................................................................................................................................................ ¥5
The standard road cycle is

represented graphically in the following
figure:
* * * * * conduct aging for the required period of time. 2. Control the catalyst temperature at
The SBC is defined based on the catalyst stoichiometric operation (01 to 40 seconds on
Appendix VII to Part 86—Standard Bench temperature, engine air/fuel (A/F) ratio, and the cycle) to a minimum of 800 °C (± 10 °C)
Cycle (SBC) the amount of secondary air injection which by selecting the appropriate Engine speed,
1. The standard bench aging durability is added in front of the first catalyst. load, and spark timing for the engine. Control
procedures [Ref. § 86.1823–08(d)] consist of Catalyst Temperature Control the maximum catalyst temperature that
aging a catalyst-oxygen-sensor system on an occurs during the cycle to 890 °C (± 10 °C)
1. Catalyst temperature shall be measured
aging bench which follows the standard by selecting the appropriate A/F ratio of the
in the catalyst bed at the location where the
bench cycle (SBC) described in this highest temperature occurs in the hottest engine during the ‘‘rich’’ phase described in
appendix. catalyst. Alternatively, the feed gas the table below.
2. The SBC requires use of an aging bench temperature may be measured and converted 3. If a low control temperature other than
with an engine as the source of feed gas for to catalyst bed temperature using a linear 800 °C is utilized, the high control
the catalyst. transform calculated from correlation data temperature shall be 90 °C higher than the
3. The SBC is a 60-second cycle which is collected on the catalyst design and aging
repeated as necessary on the aging bench to bench to be used in the aging process. low control temperature.
STANDARD BENCH CYCLE (SBC)

Time Secondary air
Engine air/fuel ratio
(seconds) injection
01–40 ................ 14.7 (stoichiometric, with load, spark timing, and engine speed controlled to achieve a minimum catalyst None
temperature of 800 °C).
41–45 ................ ‘‘Rich’’ (A/F ratio selected to achieve a maximum catalyst temperature over the entire cycle of 890 °C, or None
90° higher than low control temperature).
46–55 ................ ‘‘Rich’’ (A/F ratio selected to achieve a maximum catalyst temperature over the entire cycle of 890 °C, or 3% (± 0.1%)
90° higher than low control temperature).
56—60 ............... 14.7 (stoichiometric, same load, spark timing, and engine speed as used in the 01–40 sec period of the 3% (± 0.1%)
cycle).
ER17JA06.066</GPH>
Appendix VIII to Part 86—Aging Bench b. For exhaust systems that contain 7. Setup
Equipment and Procedures multiple in-line catalysts, the entire catalyst a. The engine speed, load, and spark timing
This appendix provides specifications for system including all catalysts, all oxygen are selected to achieve a catalyst bed
standard aging bench equipment and aging sensors and the associated exhaust piping temperature of 800 °C (± 10 °C) at steady-state
procedures which may be used to conduct will be installed as a unit for aging. stoichiometric operation.
bench aging durability under the provisions Alternatively, each individual catalyst may b. The air injection system is set to provide
of § 86.1823–08. be separately aged for the appropriate period the necessary air flow to produce 3.0%
of time. oxygen (± 0.1%) in the steady-state
1. Aging Bench Configuration stoichiometric exhaust stream just in front of
4. Temperature Measurement the first catalyst. A typical reading at the
The aging bench must provide the
appropriate exhaust flow rate, temperature, Catalyst temperature shall be measured upstream A/F measurement point (required
air-fuel ratio, exhaust constituents and using a thermocouple placed in the catalyst in paragraph 5) is lambda 1.16 (which is
secondary air injection at the inlet face of the bed at the location where the highest approximately 3% oxygen).
catalyst. temperature occurs in the hottest catalyst c. With the air injection on, set the ‘‘Rich’’
a. The EPA standard aging bench consists (typically this occurs approximately one-inch A/F ratio to produce a catalyst bed
of an engine, engine controller, and engine behind the front face of the first catalyst at temperature of 890 °C (± 10 °C). A typical A/
dynamometer. Other configurations may be its longitudinal axis). Alternatively, the feed F value for this step is lambda 0.94
acceptable (e.g. whole vehicle on a gas temperature just before the catalyst inlet (approximately 2% CO).
dynamometer, or a burner that provides the face may be measured and converted to 8. Aging Cycle
correct exhaust conditions), as long as the catalyst bed temperature using a linear
The standard bench aging procedures use
catalyst inlet conditions and control features transform calculated from correlation data
the standard bench cycle (SBC) which is
specified in this appendix are met. collected on the catalyst design and aging
described in Appendix VII to Part 86. The
b. A single aging bench may have the bench to be used in the aging process. The
SBC is repeated until the amount of aging
exhaust flow split into several streams catalyst temperature must be stored digitally calculated from the bench aging time (BAT)
providing that each exhaust stream meets the at the speed of 1 hertz (one measurement per equation [ref. § 86.1823–08 (d)(3)] is
requirements of this appendix. If the bench second). achieved.
has more than one exhaust stream, multiple 5. Air/Fuel Measurement
catalyst systems may be aged simultaneously. 9. Quality Assurance
Provisions must be made for the a. The temperatures and A/F ratio
2. Fuel and Oil measurement of the air/fuel (A/F) ratio (such information that is required to be measured
The fuel used by the engine shall comply as a wide-range oxygen sensor) as close as in paragraphs (4) and (5) shall be reviewed
with the mileage accumulation fuel possible to the catalyst inlet and outlet periodically (at least every 50 hours) during
provisions of § 86.113 for the applicable fuel flanges. The information from these sensors aging. Necessary adjustments shall be made
type (e.g., gasoline or diesel fuel). The oil must be stored digitally at the speed of 1 to assure that the SBC is being appropriately
used in the engine shall be representative of hertz (one measurement per second). followed throughout the aging process.
commercial oils and selected using good 6. Exhaust Flow Balance
b. After the aging has been completed, the
engineering judgement. catalyst time-at-temperature collected during
Provisions must be made to assure that the the aging process shall be tabulated into a
3. Exhaust System Installation proper amount of exhaust (measured in histogram with temperature bins of no larger
a. The entire catalyst(s)-plus-oxygen- grams/second at stoichiometry, with a than 10 °C. The BAT equation and the
sensor(s) system, together with all exhaust tolerance of ±5 grams/second) flows through calculated effective reference temperature for
piping which connects these components, each catalyst system that is being aged on the the aging cycle [ref. § 86.1823–08(d)] will be
[the ‘‘catalyst system’’] will be installed on bench. The proper flow rate is determined used to determine if the appropriate amount
the bench. For engines with multiple exhaust based upon the exhaust flow that would of thermal aging of the catalyst has in fact
streams (such as some V6 and V8 engines), occur in the original vehicle’s engine at the occurred. Bench aging will be extended if the
each bank of the exhaust system will be steady state engine speed and load selected thermal effect of the calculated aging time is
ER17JA06.067</GPH>
installed separately on the bench. for the bench aging in paragraph (7). not at least 95% of the target thermal aging.
10. Startup and Shutdown 1. Using the applicable bench cycle and data. For the data set to be useful for this
Care should be taken to assure that the aging bench hardware, age several catalysts purpose the data should have an
maximum catalyst temperature for rapid (minimum of 3 of the same catalyst design) approximately common intercept between 0
deterioration (e.g., 1050 °C) does not occur at different control temperatures between the and 4000 miles. See the following graph for
during startup or shutdown. Special low normal operating temperature and the an example.
temperature startup and shutdown damage limit temperature. Measure
4. Calculate the slope of the best-fit line for
procedures may be used to alleviate this emissions (or catalyst inefficiency (1-catalyst
efficiency)) for each constituent. Assure that each aging temperature.
concern. 5. Plot the natural log (ln) of the slope of
the final testing yields data between one- and
Appendix IX to Part 86—Experimentally two-times the standard. each best-fit line (determined in step 4) along
Determining the R-Factor for Bench Aging 2. Estimate the value of R and calculate the the vertical axis, versus the inverse of aging
Durability Procedures effective reference temperature (Tr) for the temperature (1/(aging temperature, deg K))
The R-Factor is the catalyst thermal bench aging cycle for each control along the horizontal axis, Calculate the least-
reactivity coefficient used in the bench aging temperature according to the procedure squared best-fit lines through the data. The
time (BAT) equation [Ref. § 86.1826– described in § 86.1826–08(d)(4). slope of the line is the R-factor. See the
08(d)(3)]. Manufacturers may determine the 3. Plot emissions (or catalyst inefficiency) following graph for an example.
value of R experimentally using the following versus aging time for each catalyst. Calculate
procedures. the least-squared best-fit line through the
6. Compare the R-factor to the initial value then repeat Steps 2–6 to derive a new R- 7. Compare the R-factor determined
that was used in Step 2. If the calculated R- factor. Repeat this process until the separately for each constituent. Use the
factor differs from the initial value by more calculated R-factor is within 5% of the lowest R-factor (worst case) for the BAT
than 5%, choose a new R-factor that is initially assumed R-factor. equation.
between the initial and calculated values,
ER17JA06.068</GPH>
[FR Doc. 06–74 Filed 1–13–06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ER17JA06.069</GPH>

Environmental Protection Agency: Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Protection Agency: Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tuesday,

January 17, 2006

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Customization of the Standard Road

Technical Contact: Linc Wehrly, the manufacturer has demonstrated that

percent of the distribution of in-use weight (ALVW) loading requirement

EPA believes it is appropriate to invoke Summary of Proposal. EPA did not

produced by any manufacturer’s require modification to a durability

procedures are prescribed in the

Health Protection J. Congressional Review Act * * * * *

DESCRIPTION OF THE SRC

1 ............... (start engine) Idle 10 sec .................................................................................................................................................. 0

2 ............... Idle 10 sec ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0

3 ............... Idle 10 sec ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0

4 ............... Idle 10 sec ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0

DESCRIPTION OF THE SRC—Continued

4 ............... Mod accel to 65 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

5 ............... Mod accel to 75 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

6 ............... Mod accel to 70 MPH ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

7 ............... Idle 45 sec ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0

The standard road cycle is

STANDARD BENCH CYCLE (SBC)

[FR Doc. 06–74 Filed 1–13–06; 8:45 am]

You might also like