[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 141 (Thursday, July 23, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39654-39680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19403]



[[Page 39653]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 86



Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles; Compliance Programs 
for New Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 39654]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 86

[FRL-6126-9]
RIN 2060-AH06


Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles; Compliance 
Programs for New Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise the emissions compliance 
procedures for light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. The 
Environmental Protection Agency (referred to hereafter as ``EPA'' or 
``the Agency'') is proposing a new compliance assurance program 
(referred to as ``CAP 2000''). CAP 2000 would simplify and streamline 
the current procedures for pre-production certification of new motor 
vehicles. Under this proposal, the certification program would provide 
the same environmental benefits as the current procedures while 
significantly reducing the certification cost for manufacturers, and 
would give manufacturers more control of production timing. EPA is also 
proposing that manufacturers test in-use motor vehicles to monitor 
compliance with emission standards. Manufacturers would test samples of 
in-use vehicles when they are approximately one and four years old. 
These test data would be used to improve the certification process to 
predict in-use compliance and to determine the need for further action 
by the Agency or the manufacturer to address any in-use compliance 
problems. EPA proposes that CAP 2000 be implemented beginning with 
model year (MY) 2001 vehicles. Manufacturers would be allowed to 
voluntarily opt-in to the CAP 2000 procedures beginning with the 2000 
model year. EPA estimates that overall, manufacturers would save about 
$55 million dollars a year as a result of today's proposal.

DATES: Written comments on this NPRM must be submitted on or before 
September 8, 1998. A public hearing will be held on August 10, 1998. 
Requests to present oral testimony must be received on or before August 
3, 1998. If EPA receives no requests to present oral testimony by this 
date, the hearing will be cancelled.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if 
possible,) to: EPA Air & Radiation Docket, Attn Docket # A-96-50, Room 
M-1500 (Mail Code 6102), 401 M. Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in Docket No. A-96-
50 and may be viewed in room M-1500 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday. The telephone number is (202) 260-7548 and the 
facsimile number is (202)260-4400. A reasonable fee may be charged by 
EPA for copying docket material.
    The public hearing will be held at the Holiday Inn North Campus, 
Ann Arbor, MI. The hearing will begin at 10:00 a.m. and continue until 
all testimony has been presented.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Hormes, Vehicle Programs and 
Compliance Division, US EPA, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor Michigan 48105, 
telephone (734) 214-4502, E-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are those which 
manufacture and sell motor vehicles in the United States. Regulated 
categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Examples of regulated   
                 Category                             entities          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................................  New motor vehicle           
                                             manufacturers.             
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities the EPA is now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your product is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 
the applicability criteria in Sec. 86.1801-01 of title 40 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular product, consult the 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Obtaining Copies of the Regulatory Language

    Hard copies (paper) and electronic copies (on 3.5'' diskettes) of 
the proposed regulatory language may be obtained free of charge by 
visiting, writing, or calling the contact person in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section at US Environmental Protection Agency's 
National Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann 
Arbor, MI 48105. Please direct all requests to Linda Hormes, telephone 
(734) 214-4502. E-mail requests may be sent to [email protected].
    Electronic copies of the proposed regulatory language are also 
available through EPA's web page. See ``Electronic Availability'' below 
for access instructions.

Electronic Availability

    The preamble and regulatory language are available electronically 
from both the EPA internet Web site and the Office of Mobile Source's 
Web site. This service is free of charge, except for any cost you 
already incur for internet connectivity. An electronic version of the 
Preamble will be made available on the day of publication on the EPA 
Web site listed below:

http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/

    (either select desired date or use ``Search'' feature) The EPA 
Office of Mobile Sources will also publish the preamble and regulatory 
language on its Web site listed below:

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

(look in ``What's New'' or under the specific rulemaking topic)
    Please note that due to differences between the software used to 
develop the document and the software into which the document may be 
downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc. may occur.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Background
    A. Overview of Current Compliance Programs for Light-duty 
Vehicles and Light-duty Trucks
    B. Background of Proposal
    C. Cap 2000 Summary
    D. Legal Authority
II. Requirements of the Proposed Rule and Discussion of Rationale
    A. Durability Groups
    B. Durability Demonstration
    C. Emission Data and Emission Compliance Demonstration
    D. Scope of a Certificate of Conformity
    E. EPA and Manufacturer Confirmatory Certification Testing
    F. Fuel Economy
    G. Small Volume Provisions
    H. Information Requirements
    I. In-Use Testing
    J. Fees
    K. Reorganization of Compliance Regulations
    L. Harmonization With California Air Resources Board Compliance 
Procedures
    M. Implementation
    N. Incentives to Encourage Better In-use Emission Performance
    O. Good Engineering Judgment and Decision Making under the 
Regulations
    P. Optional Applicability for Heavy-Duty Engines
III. Cost Effectiveness
IV. Public Participation
    A. Comments and the Public Docket

[[Page 39655]]

    B. Public Hearing
V. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Unfunded Mandates Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Executive Order 13045
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Introduction and Background

A. Overview of Current Compliance Programs for Light-Duty Vehicles and 
Light-Duty Trucks

    Three programs are currently in place to ensure that light-duty 
vehicles and light-duty trucks comply with mandated emission standards: 
certification, assembly line testing (known as Selective Enforcement 
Audits or SEAs) and recall. EPA also oversees the testing and 
calculation processes for fuel economy programs that include labeling, 
gas guzzler tax, and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE). The 
following discussion briefly summarizes the current programs.
1. Certification
    Under the Clean Air Act (Section 203(a)(1)), a motor vehicle 
manufacturer must obtain a certificate of conformity indicating 
compliance with emission standards prior to selling new cars in the 
United States. Issuance of a certificate is based on a showing that the 
new motor vehicles have been designed to meet emission standards for 
their useful lives. A manufacturer submits information to EPA, 
including test data demonstrating that its new motor vehicles will 
comply with the applicable emission standards. After reviewing this 
information for completeness and compliance with the standards, EPA 
issues a certificate of conformity. This must occur prior to the sale 
of the new motor vehicles, necessitating the use of pre-production 
vehicles to demonstrate compliance. A new certificate must be obtained 
each model year.
    Since it is a pre-production program, manufacturers must use 
predictive tools to demonstrate that a vehicle will conform to the 
applicable emission standards. The certification program accomplishes 
this by assessing the emissions control deterioration characteristics 
of the vehicle (``durability'') and applying this assessment to 
emissions data from low mileage, production-intent vehicles, that is, 
vehicles assembled as closely as possible to those which are planned to 
be produced. This is done specifically for each ``engine family'' which 
is a group of vehicles that have engines and emission control systems 
with similar operational and emission characteristics, as defined in 
regulations. A separate certificate of conformity must be obtained for 
each engine family. Within each engine family, the manufacturer must 
determine the emission deterioration factors (DFs) by using either 
bench aging techniques or by operating prototype vehicles for the 
useful life mileage and testing at periodic intervals. The manufacturer 
must then test a number of production-intent vehicles with stabilized 
mileages (usually 4,000 miles) for each engine family. These low 
mileage test vehicles are called emission-data vehicles (EDVs). The 
test results from the emission-data vehicles are adjusted by the DFs to 
project useful life emission levels (called ``certification levels''). 
The useful lives of motor vehicles for emission compliance purposes are 
defined in Section 202(d) of the Clean Air Act and are implemented 
through the regulations. (For example, for light-duty vehicles covered 
by this proposal, full useful life is 100,000 miles or 10 years.) If 
the certification levels are below the applicable standard and the 
manufacturer has demonstrated that the vehicle meets all emission 
requirements, a Certificate of Conformity can be issued.
2. Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA)
    Section 206(b) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to conduct 
testing of new motor vehicles or engines at the time they are produced 
to determine whether they comply with the applicable emission 
standards. This testing may be conducted by the Agency or, under 
conditions specified by the Agency, by the manufacturer. If the Agency 
determines based on this testing that the vehicles or engines do not 
comply with those regulations, the Agency may suspend or revoke the 
applicable certificate.
    The SEA program accomplishes two goals. First, it provides the 
Agency with an early opportunity to evaluate the emissions performance 
of actual production vehicles for which certificates have been issued. 
In the case of classes of vehicles which are found to be high emitters, 
this allows EPA to obtain repair of vehicles already in owners' hands 
and to ensure that vehicles subsequently produced comply with 
applicable requirements. Second, EPA's ability to test new vehicles and 
to revoke or suspend the certificate encourages manufacturers to 
conduct their own testing of new vehicles. This allows manufacturers to 
identify and correct high emitting classes of vehicles early in their 
production life, providing an opportunity to prevent excessive 
emissions during the life of the vehicles.
3. Recall
    Section 207(c) of the Clean Air Act provides that if the 
Administrator determines that a class or category of vehicles or 
engines, although properly maintained and used, does not conform with 
the applicable regulations when in actual use throughout its useful 
life, the manufacturer is required to submit a plan to remedy the non-
conformity at the manufacturer's expense. This remedy is available to 
the owners of all vehicles of the relevant class regardless of the age 
or mileage of the vehicles.
    EPA tests in-use vehicles under the current recall program and uses 
the resultant data to evaluate the emission performance of vehicles in 
actual use. As the evaluation is based on vehicles which have 
experienced real life operation by actual owners over a number of 
years, it provides the Agency and the industry with a particularly 
accurate picture of the emission performance of properly maintained and 
used vehicles. In appropriate cases EPA requires manufacturers to 
repair non-complying classes. In many cases a manufacturer will 
voluntarily recall vehicles if problems are discovered through EPA's 
test program.
    The recall program accomplishes its emission reduction goals not 
only through the repair of non-conforming vehicles classes, but also 
through the deterrent effect created by the substantial expense to 
manufacturers associated with conducting a recall. The potential 
expense associated with vehicles which demonstrate inadequate in-use 
emissions durability encourages manufacturers to design and build 
vehicles which are durable in actual use, thus addressing the real 
world emissions of the motor vehicle fleet.
4. Fuel Economy
    EPA shares responsibilities with three other Federal agencies in 
the conduct of three fuel economy programs. The three programs are as 
follows:
    a. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. Manufacturers 
of passenger cars and light-duty trucks must meet fleet average fuel 
economy standards for the vehicles sold in the United States. Penalties 
are assessed to manufacturers that do not meet the standards. 
(Penalties established by law (49 CFR 578.6(h)) are currently $5.50 per 
vehicle sold for each 0.1 mpg the manufacturer's CAFE is under the 
standard.) Congress and the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) of the Department of Transportation set the CAFE 
standards. NHTSA assesses any penalties associated with CAFE 
noncompliance.

[[Page 39656]]

EPA is responsible for establishing test procedures, collecting data, 
and confirming manufacturers' averages.
    b. Fuel Economy Labels and the Gas Mileage Guide. All new passenger 
cars and light-duty trucks sold in the United States are required at 
the time of sale to have a window label attached showing the vehicle's 
estimated fuel economy. EPA, in conjunction with the Department of 
Energy (DOE), specifies the label design. EPA establishes the testing 
and calculation procedures, and approves the fuel economy values placed 
on the labels. At the beginning of each model year (usually in 
September), EPA compiles all available label values into a fuel economy 
listing which is given to DOE. DOE, in turn, publishes the information 
in the Gas Mileage Guide which is available at all new car dealerships.
    c. Gas Guzzler Tax. The Energy Tax Act of 1978 established a tax 
schedule for passenger cars that do not achieve certain fuel economy 
standards. EPA establishes the testing and calculation procedures and 
reports the fuel economy values to the Internal Revenue Service for tax 
collection purposes.
    In addition to the above established programs, EPA retains the most 
extensive and complete database in the U.S. on the fuel economy 
performance of vehicles sold in this country. Using this database, EPA 
publishes a report that analyzes fuel economy trends related to fleet 
fuel efficiency going back to the 1975 model year. NHTSA also uses this 
database to publish its annual report to Congress on fuel economy 
performance.

B. Background of Proposal

    Beginning in the late 1970's, EPA began to streamline various 
aspects of the light-duty vehicle (LDV) and light-duty truck (LDT) 
compliance programs. In particular, the certification program has 
undergone changes leading to reduced testing and reporting burdens, and 
EPA has also allowed manufacturers to make many of the initial 
decisions in the certification process, such as selection of vehicles 
for testing. Because EPA designed adequate safeguards in the review 
process, preserved all its discretion in the final certification 
decision, retained a strong in-use recall program, and pursued civil 
fines against manufacturers who violated the streamlined certification 
process, these streamlining efforts have not reduced the effectiveness 
of the standards. Stabilized emission standards during the 1980's also 
minimized both Agency and manufacturer burdens, as well as decreased 
the likelihood of in-use noncompliance. However, following the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990, new standards and test procedures have once 
again increased Agency and manufacturer compliance burdens, as well as 
the risk of more in-use noncompliance with these new standards.
    EPA believes that it is now appropriate to redesign the LDV and LDT 
compliance programs to provide greater assurance of in-use compliance 
and to reduce overall compliance program burdens for both EPA and 
manufacturers. EPA believes that overall burdens can be reduced by 
redesigning the program around current industry practices and 
technology rather than retaining the procedures designed for the 
industry and products of the 1970's. More importantly, EPA believes 
that a compliance program design that integrates improved pre-
production compliance procedures with a new emphasis on checking real 
in-use performance would result in lower in-use emissions, the ultimate 
goal of the federal motor vehicle compliance program.
    In May of 1995, EPA met with manufacturers to discuss ways to 
improve the mobile source programs for light-duty vehicles and light-
duty trucks. Manufacturers expressed concern about the burdens imposed 
by EPA compliance programs, particularly the certification program. At 
the same time, EPA expressed a desire to focus on improving in-use 
emission performance. EPA agreed to investigate the possibility of 
reducing certification burdens if some of the savings would be 
redirected toward the goal of improving the emission control 
performance of in-use vehicles.
    EPA proceeded with creating options for a redesigned LDV and LDT 
compliance process. In September, 1995, EPA staff met with their 
counterparts in the California Air Resources Board (California ARB) to 
discuss some ideas for redesigning aspects of their respective vehicle 
compliance programs that would ease some of the administrative burdens 
to both the agencies and industry while improving in-use emission 
performance.
    Subsequently, EPA and California ARB met with manufacturers to 
discuss ways to revise the current mobile source compliance programs 
for light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. All parties generally 
agreed that in-use emissions performance could be improved by shifting 
the focus of compliance assessments towards in-use testing, while 
potentially reducing overall compliance demonstration burdens. In 
February of 1996, EPA, California ARB, and 18 vehicle manufacturers 
acknowledged these goals by signing a statement of Principles for 
Compliance Program Regulatory and Emissions Improvement. These 
principles of understanding are the guiding principles for this 
proposal. Specifically the principles of understanding state:
    * * * the Signatories commit to working together to achieve 
effective regulatory streamlining of LDV compliance programs, including 
reduction of process time and test complexity, with the goal of more 
optimal application of the resources spent by both government and 
industry to better focus on in-use compliance with emission standards. 
Among the alternatives would be consideration of more optimal 
allocation between prototype certification and assembly line audit 
testing in preference for in-use performance evaluation and compliance 
testing. EPA will also seek to design incentives into the compliance 
program mix which reward manufacturers who do not have an in-use 
compliance problem by requiring less compliance testing burdens on 
them. Overall, the primary guiding principle will be to encourage lower 
in-use emissions.
    An additional factor leading to today's proposal was EPA's 
involvement in an advisory committee on mobile source needs, 
established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. 
Appendix Sec. 1 et seq.) In July 1995, a Mobile Source Technical Review 
Subcommittee was convened, and in December 1995, the Subcommittee 
formed a Compliance Reinvention Working Group whose specific charge was 
to provide to the Mobile Source Subcommittee recommendations for re-
engineering the current light-duty vehicle and light-duty truck 
compliance programs. Members of the working group included EPA, 
California ARB, and vehicle manufacturers. Consistent with the goals of 
the working group, recommendations were made to the Subcommittee on the 
design of a new compliance program that would achieve the following:

--Redirect manufacturer and Agency efforts toward in-use compliance,
--Give manufacturers more control of certification timing, and
--Maintain the integrity of the compliance and fuel economy 
programs.

    On October 9, 1996, the working group presented the final results 
of their discussions to the Mobile Source

[[Page 39657]]

Technical Review Subcommittee.1 The working group report 
discussed many of the detailed issues involved in reengineering the 
vehicle compliance process. EPA, California ARB, and the industry 
agreed on a number of these details, although some differences still 
remained. These differences are discussed in the various preamble 
sections which follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Memorandum from Jane Armstrong and Kelly M. Brown, Co-
Chairpersons to Mr. Michael P. Walsh, et al. dated October 3, 1996 
entitled ``Findings and Recommendations, Compliance Working Group'' 
is placed in the Docket for this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In keeping with the statement of principles, EPA's CAP 2000 
proposal simplifies and streamlines considerably the pre-production 
certification process and requires a more extensive confirmation by 
each manufacturer that vehicles are actually meeting emission standards 
in use. The current EPA recall program is left intact in the proposal, 
but would be enhanced by the in-use testing performed by manufacturers.

C. CAP 2000  Summary

    EPA considered a broad range of options in developing today's 
proposal. EPA considered a ``self-certification'' option which would 
entail virtually no pre-production EPA oversight. Several factors 
became apparent that ruled out a pure self-certification approach:

--Section 206(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires that the 
Administrator affirmatively evaluate compliance and issue 
certificates of conformity based on test data as specified by the 
Administrator.
--A reasonable amount of information submitted to EPA by the 
manufacturer is necessary to establish a description of what is 
covered under the certificate of conformity, and is necessary for 
the Agency to effectively perform in-use compliance and enforcement 
actions.
--The Agency believes that certification by the Agency is critical 
in pollution prevention, because it provides the first (and only, in 
the case of many small volume manufacturers) screen of vehicle 
emission performance. Recall and SEA, while powerful design 
incentives for industry, do not capture all problems, and recalls 
occur after environmental damage has occurred.

    The proposal being made today would streamline the certification 
program structure to retain EPA's confidence in pre-production 
compliance determinations while reducing costs for manufacturers. EPA 
proposes to streamline certification testing and information 
requirements for manufacturers, while allowing EPA to more effectively 
and efficiently audit vehicle designs for compliance. Manufacturers 
would be allowed more flexibilities in certification testing and 
timing. To verify the compliance predictions made for certification, 
today's proposal would also require manufacturers to conduct testing of 
in-use vehicles and to report the results to EPA. This would result in 
the generation of significant amounts of in-use FTP data that are 
currently not available, providing more information for the Agency's 
recall program and for studies of in-use vehicle emission control 
performance in general.2 Moreover, EPA believes that the 
proposed CAP 2000 program would result in overall cost savings for the 
industry (estimated at about $55 million dollars per year) while 
improving in-use emissions compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Important areas of non-FTP in-use data available for study 
include OBD repair statistics and I/M test results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The key features of the compliance program under CAP 2000 are 
listed below. Section II will more fully describe the proposed changes 
along with the rationale for making the changes.
1. Streamlining the Certification Program
    Streamlining the Certification program involves three elements: 
reductions in testing requirements, reductions in paperwork and 
reporting requirements, and allowing additional flexibilities in the 
timing of reporting and confirmatory testing requirements. These 
elements would be accomplished by making the following changes:
    a. Eliminate the current groups based on engine families and 
replace them with broader groups. (See Section II. A. and C. below.) 
``Durability groups'' would be created to select the vehicles that 
would demonstrate similar deterioration characteristics. These are 
broader coverage groups than the current engine families and would 
result in about a 75% decrease in the number of durability 
demonstrations now required. ``Test Groups'' would be created to 
determine compliance levels and define the coverage of each certificate 
of conformity. Test groups are slightly broader than current engine 
families, but today's proposal would require only one test vehicle per 
test group rather than the current two vehicles per engine family. This 
would result in about a 50% decrease in emission-data test vehicles.
    b. Expand options for durability demonstrations and for test 
vehicle usage. (See Section II. B. below.) Today's proposal would 
eliminate the current ``AMA'' durability mileage accumulation in favor 
of manufacturer-developed durability cycles approved by EPA. EPA also 
proposes to allow the use of aged components to determine compliance 
rather than establishing deterioration factors. Today's proposal would 
also allow more use of development vehicles for certification testing.
    c. Allow issuance of conditional certificates of conformity before 
final EPA confirmatory testing is done. (See Section II. E. below). 
Under CAP 2000, manufacturers could opt to produce and sell vehicles 
under a conditional certificate of conformity if the required 
manufacturer testing is completed but confirmatory testing scheduled to 
be performed at EPA is not yet complete. If the confirmatory test at 
EPA fails, the manufacturer would have to suspend sales and recall 
affected vehicles. This option would give manufacturers more control on 
production timing, while assuring final compliance. It is unlikely that 
manufacturers would take this option if there is a chance the vehicle 
would fail the test at EPA.
    d. Allow more confirmatory testing at manufacturers' laboratories 
while retaining a random audit sample at EPA. (See Section II. E. 
below.) This would reduce test vehicle shipping costs for 
manufacturers, improve manufacturers' certification timing control, and 
reduce EPA laboratory compliance testing burdens. EPA would not 
relinquish its right to confirmatory test any vehicle at EPA.
    e. Reduce overall reporting burdens and delay submission deadlines 
for more detailed information. (See Section II. H. below.) Today's 
proposal would revamp the certification reporting requirements to 
reduce recordkeeping and reporting efforts. It is being estimated that 
the total burden-hours associated with information record keeping and 
reporting will be reduced from 938,600 to 428,583 hours (54%). EPA also 
proposes to divide the Application for Certification into two parts. 
Part 1 would include information deemed essential for pre-production 
purposes and would be required before a certificate is issued. Part 2 
would consist of more detailed vehicle descriptions which is primarily 
needed for in-use compliance purposes and therefore would not have to 
be submitted until after certification. This change would more evenly 
distribute over time the workload for manufacturers and EPA.
    f. Allow the use of fuel economy labels before completion of 
confirmatory testing at EPA (see Section II. F. below.) Similar to the 
proposal to allow conditional certification before EPA confirmatory 
testing is complete, this

[[Page 39658]]

proposal would allow manufacturers to calculate and use fuel economy 
label values before EPA confirmation. Manufacturers would be required 
to issue new labels if the recalculated labels based on EPA 
confirmation changed by a certain threshold. The manufacturer would 
also be liable for any gas guzzler tax increases as a result of the 
recalculation. This proposed change would give manufacturers better 
control of production timing.
2. Post-Production Testing
    This rulemaking would shift the balance of EPA's compliance efforts 
from pre-production certification to improvements in in-use emissions. 
(See Section II. I. below.) EPA is proposing to require manufacturers 
to perform testing on in-use vehicles. If certain defined levels of 
potential noncompliance were identified, the manufacturer would be 
required to conduct or fund additional confirmatory testing to aid in 
making recall determinations. The purpose of this testing is two-fold: 
First, the in-use data would be used to verify manufacturers' 
compliance and durability predictions used in the certification 
process. Modifications in predictive tools used by manufacturers would 
have a direct bearing on the durability and calibration of future 
designs. Second, the information would be used to provide better 
targeting for EPA's recall compliance program.
    EPA is proposing that manufacturers test two segments of their in-
use fleets per model year. The first fleet would be tested at low 
mileage (minimum of 10,000 miles, but less than one year after the end 
of production). This low-mileage fleet would provide early warning of 
potential problems or failures that should be remedied before more 
pollution is produced during the fleet's useful life. The second (high 
mileage) fleet would consist of vehicles at least four years old and 
with a minimum of 50,000 miles accumulated. The size of the low and 
high mileage fleets would be dictated by sales categories. Small volume 
manufacturers (and small volume test groups) would have little or no 
testing, depending on sales limits.
3. Small Volume Sales Considerations
    EPA is proposing several special provisions for small volume 
manufacturers and for large volume manufacturers with small volume test 
groups. These provisions are discussed in detail in Section II. G. 
below.

D. Legal Authority

    Sections 203, 206, 207, 208 and 217 of the Clean Air Act provide 
EPA with the authority to revise the current emissions compliance 
procedures as described in this proposal. In particular, EPA's 
authority to make the major revisions found in CAP 2000 is based 
largely on sections 206 and 208(a) of the Act. Section 206 provides EPA 
with the authority to test, or require to be tested in such manner as 
the Agency deems appropriate, any new motor vehicle to determine 
whether the vehicle conforms with applicable emissions standards. EPA 
accordingly has the broad authority to streamline the current 
certification process to improve the efficiency of the process. Section 
208(a) further requires manufacturers to establish and maintain 
records, to conduct tests, and to submit information that EPA may 
reasonably require to determine whether a manufacturer is in compliance 
with Title II of the Act and it implementing regulations, or to 
otherwise carry out the provisions of Title II. This includes 
information needed by EPA to make certification decisions, to determine 
whether vehicles built and sold are covered by the certificate, and to 
ensure that defeat devices are not used. Section 208(a) also provides 
EPA with the authority to require post-production testing of vehicles 
by manufacturers to provide a means of monitoring the emissions 
performance of vehicles driven under real-world conditions. Such 
testing serves as a check on the accuracy of the certification 
procedures and on the levels of in-use compliance with applicable 
emissions standards.

II. Requirements of the Proposed Rule and Discussion of Rationale

A. Durability Groups

1. New Durability Groups for Exhaust Emissions
    Currently, vehicle grouping for the purpose of certification is 
accomplished though the application of the ``engine family'' and 
``emission control system'' definitions in the regulations. Today's 
proposal drops the definitions of ``engine family'' and ``emission 
control system'' and establishes a new definition for ``durability 
group.''
    The purpose of durability groups is to combine vehicles which are 
likely to exhibit similar exhaust emission deterioration over their 
useful lives, based on the characteristics of current-technology 
vehicles that most significantly affect the deterioration of emission 
control over time. Under the proposal, durability groups would be based 
on engine type, fuel type, fuel system, catalyst construction, type of 
precious metals used in the catalyst, and relative engine/catalyst size 
and loading rates.
    The engine family concept was originally developed as a way to 
combine vehicles of similar emission deterioration rates. At that time 
(in the early 1970's), the use of catalytic converters was less 
prevalent, and most emission reductions occurred though modifications 
to the engine operating characteristics. For these vehicles, all 
emission deterioration was due to increases in emissions coming 
directly out of the engine (called ``engine-out'' emissions). 
Consequently, the definition of engine family focused on engine-based 
parameters. Since that time, there have been many advances in exhaust 
emission control technology which have made the engine family concept 
less useful for the purposes of grouping vehicles together on the basis 
of emission deterioration.
    In today's vehicles, most emission control is accomplished through 
catalytic conversion of the exhaust while the engine is controlled to 
operate within carefully controlled air/fuel ratios to ensure optimum 
catalyst efficiency. Most manufacturers have demonstrated that 
essentially no engine-out deterioration is experienced in their current 
product.3 However, the mating of the catalyst with the 
engine is extremely important. Appropriate sizing of the catalyst to 
the engine is critical to achieve an appropriate catalyst residence 
time (the time the exhaust gases remain in the catalyst) so that the 
catalytic reaction has time to be completed. Adequate levels of 
precious metal loading and appropriate dispersion are necessary to 
provide the active sites necessary for conversion and to achieve the 
desired conversion rates. Also, the catalyst must be placed in a 
thermal environment that allows it to quickly come to operating 
temperature but does not expose it to damaging amounts of high 
temperature during in-use driving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As part of the current alternative durability program, 
manufacturers develop their own program for estimating emission 
deterioration. Most manufacturers have demonstrated no engine-out 
emission deterioration and have developed programs which focus on 
thermal aging of the catalyst.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The durability groups proposed in today's action take into account 
the changes in emission control technology by shifting the focus away 
from engine parameters to the basic catalyst formulation and the 
matching of the catalyst to the engine. EPA estimates that based on the 
current vehicle product offering, the proposal would

[[Page 39659]]

result in a reduction in the number of required durability 
demonstrations by as much as 75 percent. This translates into a 
substantial savings to manufacturers. Broadening the grouping criteria 
for durability demonstrations, by itself, may add some variability in 
emissions as compared to the current engine family definition; however, 
the Agency believes that the proposed broader durability groups coupled 
with worst case durability vehicle selections (discussed below) and in-
use verification program (also discussed below) would comprise a more 
accurate and effective emission control program than the current 
procedures and result in significant environmental benefits.
    Three provisions of the proposal allow manufacturers flexibility in 
assigning durability groups. First, manufacturers may use different 
criteria than relative engine/catalyst size and loading rates provided 
that the criteria result in at least as many groups and do not group 
together dissimilar vehicles. However, the other five criteria (engine 
type, fuel type, fuel system, catalyst construction, and type of 
precious metals used in the catalyst) must be followed. Second, 
manufacturers may further divide durability groups to meet their needs 
without advance Agency approval provided that vehicles with dissimilar 
emission deterioration or durability are not combined. Lastly, the 
Agency would consider requests to combine groups based on (1) 
substantial evidence that all the vehicles in the larger group have the 
same degree of emission deterioration, (2) evidence of equivalent 
component durability over the vehicles' useful lives, and (3) evidence 
that the combined groups would result in sufficient in-use verification 
data to assure clear liability under the Agency's recall authority.
    The Agency considered several related alternatives which would have 
allowed manufacturers to establish their own groups within broad 
guidelines (such as groupings based on engine type, fuel type and fuel 
system).4 The Agency believes that durability groups should 
contain only similar designs, particularly the catalyst design. In the 
Agency's opinion, catalyst design should be grouped separately for 
durability because deterioration of catalysts is a chief source of 
emissions deterioration for most vehicle designs in production today. 
Combining dissimilar catalyst designs into the same group may make it 
infeasible to accurately predict the expected worst case vehicle 
configuration for deterioration within that group. For instance, it may 
be hard to evaluate which is expected to be worse case for 
deterioration: a turbo charged vehicle with an aggressive axle and 
transmission gearing and heavier test weight but normal catalyst 
parameters versus a vehicle with more standard axle, transmission and 
weight parameters but equipped with a catalyst of different precious 
metal content on a different substrate with a different catalyst 
sizing/loading scheme. Allowing groups to contain such dissimilar 
vehicles would undermine the ability to accurately represent the entire 
group with a single durability demonstration and may lead to 
noncompliance in use. Consequently, the Agency rejected this 
alternative in favor of the proposal it is making today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This alternative was proposed to the FACA panel by the 
manufacturers' task group and is included in the Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Evaporative/Refueling Family Definition Retained
    Today's proposal does not change the certification grouping concept 
of evaporative/refueling family in the current regulations (40 CFR 
86.000-24). The Agency believes that the current provisions for 
evaporative/refueling families are adequate for grouping vehicles and 
that the current procedures focus on the appropriate technology. 
Separate certificates of conformity would be issued for each evaporate/
refueling family within a test group. The Agency does, however, invite 
comments to improve the provisions for grouping vehicles into 
evaporative/refueling families.

B. Durability Demonstration

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) prohibits manufacturers of new motor 
vehicles from selling or introducing new motor vehicles into commerce 
unless the vehicles are covered by a certificate of conformity. EPA is 
charged with the responsibility of issuing certificates of conformity 
based on testing which verifies compliance with the appropriate 
emission standards over the vehicles' useful life. This necessitates a 
prediction of the durability or rate of deterioration of the vehicle's 
useful life emission levels before actual production begins.
    The process of demonstrating emission durability for the purpose of 
certification begins well in advance of production. For light-duty 
vehicles, EPA's current standard durability process requires 
manufacturers to accumulate mileage on a pre-production vehicle over a 
prescribed driving cycle for 100,000 miles to simulate deterioration 
over the useful life. These vehicles are termed durability data 
vehicles (DDVs); the mileage accumulation cycle, specified in 40 CFR 
Part 86, is commonly referred to as the AMA cycle.
    In this process, emission data are generated at periodic intervals 
during AMA mileage accumulation and a linear regression of the data is 
performed to calculate a multiplicative deterioration factor (DF) 
5 for each exhaust constituent. In the current durability 
program, low mileage vehicles (referred to as ``emission data 
vehicles,'' or EDVs) are tested with calibrations that the manufacturer 
intends to produce. The emissions from these tests are multiplied by 
the DFs to calculate the projected emissions levels (referred to as the 
``certification levels'') at 100,000 miles. The certification levels 
must be at or below the applicable emission standards in order to 
obtain a certificate of conformity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A multiplicative DF is calculated by performing a least-
squares regression of the emission versus mileage data for each 
exhaust emission constituent and dividing the 100,000-mile emission 
level by the 4,000-mile emission level. The DF is then used with 
other test vehicles to determine compliance with the standards. The 
product of the emissions multiplied by the DF (referred to as the 
certification level) must be less than or equal to the emission 
standard to receive a certificate of conformity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning with the 1994 model year, EPA durability regulations for 
light-duty trucks (LDTs) have permitted manufacturers to use their own 
methods, based on good engineering judgment, to determine DFs subject 
to review by EPA. Although EPA had concerns initially regarding the 
accuracy of the DFs generated by this method,6 the 
manufacturers improved their processes after discussions between EPA 
and industry. The Agency now believes that the light-duty truck DFs 
generated by manufacturers using their own methods are at least as 
representative as those based on AMA mileage accumulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 57 FR 18545 NPRM (April 30, 1992) on RDP 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturers have long identified the durability process based on 
mileage accumulation using the AMA cycle as very costly and requiring 
extensive lead time for completion. EPA has been concerned about the 
ability of any fixed cycle--including the AMA cycle--to accurately 
predict in-use deterioration for all vehicles. In fact, EPA has 
particular concerns that the AMA does not represent the driving 
patterns of today and does not appropriately age current design 
vehicles. As a result, EPA believes that the AMA may have become 
outdated.
    The AMA cycle, which was developed before vehicles were equipped 
with catalytic converters, contains a substantial portion of low

[[Page 39660]]

speed driving to address concerns about engine deposits (which were a 
major source of deterioration in pre-catalyst vehicles). However, since 
the advent of catalytic converters, better fuel control, and the use of 
unleaded fuel, causes of deterioration have shifted from low speed 
driving to driving modes which include higher speed/load regimes that 
cause elevated catalyst temperatures. The AMA driving cycle does not 
adequately focus on these higher catalyst temperature driving modes and 
contains numerous driving modes which do not significantly contribute 
to deterioration but do make the process longer with little added 
benefit.
    In response to these concerns, EPA began a voluntary program in the 
1994 model year for light-duty vehicles which allows manufacturers to 
develop and use their own procedures to evaluate durability and 
deterioration (subject to prior Agency approval), provided that the 
manufacturer conduct or fund an in-use ``reality check'' test program 
to evaluate the effectiveness of its predictions. The initial program, 
referred to as revised durability program I (RDP I), was an interim 
program scheduled to expire after the 1995 model year and was intended 
to serve as a bridge to an anticipated complete revision to the 
durability process (RDP II). The provisions of RDP I have since been 
extended in a series of regulatory actions.7 The Agency has 
decided to address the revisions it was considering in RDP II as part 
of the comprehensive redesigned certification process which it is 
proposing today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 59 FR 36368 (July 18, 1994), 62 FR 11082 (March 11, 1997), 
62 FR 11138 (March 11, 1997) and 62 FR 44872 (August 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to Agency concerns about the adequacy of the AMA as a 
durability mileage accumulation cycle, the Agency is now proposing to 
eliminate the use of AMA for new durability demonstrations starting 
with the 2001 model year. The Agency is proposing to allow 
manufacturers to use previously generated DFs from the Standard AMA 
Durability Program, the Standard Self-approval Durability Program for 
light-duty trucks, or the Alternative Service Accumulation Durability 
Program for a period of three years, provided that manufacturers agree 
to collect the required in-use verification test data required by the 
proposed CAP 2000 rule.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The process of using previously generated emission or 
durability data in a subsequent model year is referred to as 
carryover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency is proposing to replace the AMA-based durability program 
with a manufacturer-designed durability process similar to the current 
optional RDP-I program. In today's proposal, each manufacturer (except 
small volume manufacturers and test groups which have special 
provisions discussed below) would be required to design a durability 
process which would match the in-use deterioration of the vehicles they 
produce.
    As part of this process, manufacturers would also be required to 
collect emission data on ``candidate'' in-use vehicles selected under 
the provisions of the in-use verification program described in section 
II. I. below. The in-use data would be used by the manufacturer to 
improve the predictive quality of its durability program and by the 
Agency to target vehicle testing for its recall program. If a 
significant number of the in-use vehicles exhibit deterioration 
significantly higher than predicted at the time of certification, or 
exceed emission standards, manufacturers may be required to make 
changes to their durability processes and/or run further in-use testing 
to generate recall quality data. The in-use verification testing 
program and its consequences are discussed in more detail in section 
II. I. below.
    The Agency believes that allowing manufacturers to develop their 
own durability programs would improve the predictive quality of the 
durability process. Manufacturers would be able to tailor their vehicle 
aging procedures to the unique driving and usage patterns of their 
customers, and thus account for the effect that these patterns have on 
emission deterioration and emission control system designs.
    The proposed program gives the manufacturer the responsibility to 
develop a durability plan that matches in-use performance on 
``candidate'' vehicles (vehicles which would meet the selection 
criteria of the in-use verification program) and the flexibility to 
design an efficient program that can meet that goal. The Agency expects 
that manufacturers will act in good faith to design their programs. The 
Agency's advance approval requirements for these procedures and the in-
use verification requirements should assure well designed programs are 
implemented by manufacturers. The Agency believes that the in-use 
verification data would provide feedback information to manufacturers 
which can be used to further refine their durability processes. The in-
use verification data would also serve as a tool for targeting Agency 
recall investigations or would trigger changes to the manufacturer's 
durability processes if the goals are not met. In summary, the Agency 
believes that under the proposed CAP 2000 program, the level of 
emission noncompliance in use would be reduced, thus improving the 
overall ambient air quality.
    In addition to the benefits to the environment, the proposed 
flexibilities in the durability program design and implementation would 
result in significant time and money savings for manufacturers. The 
proposal would eliminate the need for a separate EPA durability program 
and would allow manufacturers to use durability techniques that they 
are currently using for their internal development processes. The 
durability procedures are discussed in more detail in the following 
section.
    The RDP I procedures (which have been used as the basis for today's 
proposal) have been in place for several years, and the history of this 
program supports the Agency's views on the effectiveness and cost 
reduction likely under the proposed CAP 2000 program. Manufacturers 
participating in the RDP I program have reported a significant savings 
in the time necessary to complete certification. Although EPA has 
received only a limited amount of completed in-use data from the RDP-1 
program (since some of the data are gathered from four-year-old 
vehicles), the data received show an improved level of deterioration 
prediction and lower in-use emissions. At the same time, no issues of 
noncompliance in use have been indicated so far in the program.
1. Approval of Durability Programs
    The Agency has a responsibility to assure that a manufacturer's 
durability program is accurate before it is used in the certification 
process. EPA has been approving manufacturer alternative durability 
programs under RDP-I for several years and has provided guidance to 
assist manufacturers in the approval process 9. To receive 
approval under RDP I, manufacturers are required to show that their 
durability processes are designed to cover a significant majority of 
deterioration rates experienced by vehicles in actual use.10 
The requirement that the procedure cover a significant majority of the 
deterioration experienced by vehicles in use, rather than the entire 
population, is not intended to relax the goal of the program but is to 
allow for the uncertainty inherent in any sampling plan. Two major 
types of durability processes have emerged from the RDP I

[[Page 39661]]

experience: whole vehicle mileage accumulation cycles and bench aging 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Refer to the Agency's July 29, 1994 guidance letter 
``Alternative Durability Guidance for MY 94 through MY 98'', 
reference number: CD-94-13.
    \10\ Manufacturers have typically shown that their durability 
programs cover ninety percent or higher of the distribution of 
deterioration rates experienced by vehicles in actual use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The whole vehicle aging concept involves driving vehicles on a 
track or dynamometer on an aggressive driving cycle of the 
manufacturer's design. Typically, the speed, acceleration rates, and/or 
vehicle load are significantly increased compared to the AMA cycle or 
normal in-use driving patterns. The vehicle can be driven either for 
full useful-life mileage, or, for a higher stress cycle, the vehicle 
can be driven for a reduced number of miles (e.g., 1 mile on the high 
speed cycle equals 2 miles in use). In either case, the vehicle is 
tested periodically and a DF is calculated. By choosing the profile of 
the cycle carefully, manufacturers have been able to meet or exceed the 
in-use deterioration goals of the program (based on the limited in-use 
verification data receive to date) while taking significantly less time 
to complete the durability process. Such a program could take a quarter 
to half the time to complete as the AMA cycle with the attendant cost 
savings.
    The bench aging procedures involve the removal of critical emission 
components (such as the catalyst and oxygen sensor) and the accelerated 
aging of those components on an engine dynamometer bench.11 
During the aging process important engine/catalyst parameters are 
controlled to assure proper aging. Typically, elevated catalyst 
temperatures are maintained while fuel is controlled to include lean 
and rich spikes and stoichiometric control. This process assumes that 
(1) most emission deterioration on light-duty vehicles and trucks is 
due to catalyst deterioration and (2) that catalyst deterioration is 
largely due to high thermal exposure during typical fuel control 
(including lean and rich spikes).12 Through a series of 
tests, manufacturers determine the amount of time needed to bench-age a 
catalyst the equivalent of 100,000 miles. Typical bench aging periods 
are 100-200 hours. Other sources of deterioration can be accounted for 
by aging the catalyst for an additional amount of time. Even with the 
setup time of the engine test bench, the cost savings of such bench 
aging procedures are very significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ An engine dynamometer bench consists of an engine 
dynamometer, a ``slave'' engine, and required controllers and senors 
to achieve the desired operation of the engine on the dynamometer.
    \12\ To obtain approval to use this process, manufacturers 
supply evidence that these assumptions are valid for their vehicles. 
Minor additional sources of deterioration may be accounted for by 
over-aging the catalyst to account for these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the cost savings of these procedures are very significant, 
the Agency believes that the programs are also more effective than the 
current AMA program at predicting the deterioration that occurs in 
actual use. Based on past experience, manufacturers' alternative 
durability programs should improve the effectiveness of EPA's vehicle 
compliance programs. To obtain approval from the Agency, manufacturers 
would be required to demonstrate that their durability processes were 
designed to generate DFs representative of in-use DFs. This 
demonstration would be more than simply matching the average in-use 
DFs; manufacturers would need to demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that 
their durability processes would result in the same or more 
deterioration than is reflected by the in-use data for a significant 
majority of their vehicles. This approval process is the same as that 
already established for RDP-I. EPA believes it continues to be 
appropriate because it limits the Agency's risk of allowing a 
manufacturer durability process that would not work in use and 
ultimately would require costly recalls. Furthermore, the manufacturer 
designed durability procedures which meet the approval requirements 
have been demonstrated as achievable during RDP-I and have been 
accomplished for significantly less cost than the current AMA mileage 
accumulation program. Consequently, the Agency is proposing that 
manufacturers target their durability processes to cover a significant 
majority (typically 90 percent or more of the distribution) of the 
deterioration rates experienced in actual use on ``candidate'' vehicles 
(the same requirement established during RDP-I).
    While the Agency believes its decisions reached under the RDP-I 
approval process have been correct, the process currently used by EPA 
for reaching those decisions has, of necessity, sometimes been detailed 
and time consuming, given the very new and untested nature of the RDP-I 
program. Nevertheless, during the approval process, the Agency has 
influenced manufacturers to make improvements to their aging procedures 
and identified and corrected some manufacturer mistakes. Clearly, the 
Agency's involvement in the development and approval of these process 
has benefitted the outcome and its effect on clean air. In redesigning 
this process, the Agency proposes to retain the before-certification 
point of control for the approval, but wants to streamline the steps 
and make the process more predictable for manufacturers.
    To obtain approval for a durability process, EPA is proposing to 
require that manufacturers provide data showing that the aging 
procedures would predict the deterioration of the significant majority 
of in-use vehicles over the breadth of their product line which would 
ultimately be covered by this procedure. The approval procedures used 
in RDP-I may be used to satisfy these requirements.13 The 
Agency is proposing to allow manufacturers to determine the 
applicability of approved durability processes to future product 
offerings providing that the manufacturers use good engineering 
judgment in reaching those determinations. Also, the Agency is 
proposing to allow manufacturers to make some modifications to approved 
durability processes if those modifications will improve the ability to 
predict in-use emission levels on candidate vehicles or if they produce 
a more severe aging process. Such modifications will be limited to 
incorporating additional data into the original algorithms of the 
approved durability process. If a manufacturer wishes to change the 
algorithms used to determine the aging characteristics of the 
durability process, these changes will be considered a new durability 
process and will require advance approval by the Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Reference EPA's guidance letter CD-94-13 dated July 29, 
1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency believes that the decisions made under RDP-I to approve 
manufacturer durability processes are equally applicable to today's 
proposal. Consequently, the Agency would approve the continued use of 
any alternate durability process approved under RDP-I in the proposed 
CAP 2000 program. Manufacturers would not be required to obtain a new 
approval to use a previously approved RDP-I durability procedure under 
the rules proposed today.
    The Agency is not proposing any changes to the current procedures 
used to obtain DFs for evaporative/refueling families. Because these 
procedures currently allow manufacturers to design their own durability 
demonstration program using bench testing or other methods, the Agency 
sees no need to propose any change. Manufacturers would continue to 
develop DFs for evaporative/refueling families and systems using good 
engineering judgement. A small amount of evaporative/refueling data 
would be collected during the in-use verification

[[Page 39662]]

test program. Manufacturers are expected to use these data to improve 
their processes.
2. Approval for Using Aged Components on EDVs to Develop Certification 
Levels
    During the discussions with the automotive industry throughout the 
FACA process, manufacturers suggested an alternative method to 
demonstrate compliance with useful life standards for the purposes of 
certification. In this alternative, emission components aged to the 
equivalent of full useful life would be installed on EDVs, the test 
data from which would then serve to show compliance with the full 
useful life emission standards. Some manufacturers indicated that they 
currently use aged components on development vehicles to calibrate 
their vehicles and have found that this process was as effective and 
more cost efficient than applying DFs to EDVs. The components are aged 
via the bench aging process discussed above and are installed directly 
on the EDVs. The emissions from the EDV tested with the aged components 
represent those equivalent to a 100,000 mile vehicle. Furthermore, the 
use of aged components would save manufacturers the cost of building 
and accumulating stabilizing mileage on a separate DDV to calculate a 
DF. It may also save some of the costs of mileage accumulation to 
stabilize EDV emissions since the catalyst would be aged separately 
from the vehicle.
    If this durability option were selected, the manufacturer must 
develop a specific aging plan (for example, 850 degrees C, 200 hours, 
on aging protocol ``A'') which would apply to all members of the 
durability group. Each EDV must have its catalyst and oxygen sensor 
(plus any other component that is part of the manufacturer's bench 
aging plan) removed and aged using the aging plan for the group. The 
EDV must be broken-in, or stabilized (using good engineering judgment) 
by accumulating an appropriate amount of miles, generally around 4000 
miles. The aged components must then be re-installed, and the EDV then 
tested for emissions. The results of the emission tests with the aged 
components would be treated as certification levels (equivalent to 
emission levels with DFs applied) and directly used to determine 
compliance with the standards.
    Aged components would be allowed to be used on more than one 
vehicle as follows. If several EDVs have identical catalysts and 
identical oxygen sensors, a single set of aged components may be shared 
between vehicles. If both the specific aging plan and the aged 
components are identical in a subsequent model year, the same aged 
components may be used on those EDVs for the subsequent model year. 
Because of the synergistic effects between components aged together, 
the aged components must be keep together as a single aged system and 
may not be mixed with other aged components.
    The Agency agrees with manufacturers that the use of aged 
components on EDVs could be an effective durability and emission 
compliance option because this process uses the same aging techniques 
as those used to calculate DFs in the normal durability program. 
Furthermore, the effect of using aged components directly on an EDV is 
equivalent to applying a DF to an EDV which is calculated from those 
same aged components. The direct use of aged components also saves the 
expense of conducting a test (or several tests) to calculate a DF. 
Based on these facts, the Agency is proposing to allow the use of aged 
components on EDVs as an alternative to calculating and applying a DF. 
This change would reduce the cost of the certification program to the 
regulated industry and provide the flexibility to use existing in-house 
procedures for Federal compliance procedures.
    3. Selection of the Durability Data Vehicle (DDV) Configuration
    The Agency is proposing that the configuration with the highest 
expected level of in-use deterioration be selected as the durability 
data vehicle (DDV) configuration. This contrasts with the current 
procedure which requires the DDV selection to be based on parameters of 
the highest selling configuration, and requires testing to be conducted 
at the highest sales-weighted weight.14 These selection 
criteria were adequate when using the much narrower classification of 
engine family/emission control system but are not appropriate for the 
larger durability groups being proposed today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 40 CFR 86.000-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After selecting durability groups based on parameters that 
contribute to emissions deterioration in use, the size of the groups 
would increase for most manufacturers. Due to the larger size of the 
groups, the Agency believes that the new durability groups may, in some 
cases, exhibit more variability in emission deterioration than the 
current engine family/emission control systems. Selecting the DDV 
configuration based on sales levels (as is currently done) may overlook 
configurations which have higher rates of deterioration and may 
ultimately lead to vehicles exceeding emission standards in use. In 
contrast, selecting the expected worst case configuration would lead to 
the highest deterioration rate for the vehicles within the durability 
group. Requiring the entire durability group to be represented by the 
worst case vehicle from that group would provide adequate assurance 
that deterioration is not understated for the whole group. Moreover, it 
would accomplish this goal for the lowest possible cost in test 
vehicles.
    If a manufacturer had a concern that a particular configuration 
exhibited much worse deterioration than other vehicles within the 
defined durability group and that applying a deterioration factor based 
on that vehicle would overstate the deterioration experienced in actual 
use, the manufacturer may use the flexibilities in the proposal to 
realign the configurations within a group without increasing the total 
number of groups. Manufacturers may also subdivide groups to meet their 
needs.
    The Agency considered retaining the current engine family 
definitions and DDV selection procedures and selecting a single 
configuration from these selections.15 However, even 
selecting the worst case DDV selection from among the sales-weighted 
configurations resulted in too much risk that a vehicle design not 
tested as part of the durability process would be certified as 
compliant with the standards when in fact it severely deteriorated in 
use. Under both the Agency's proposal and this alternative, one DDV 
would be required per durability group. However, when coupled with the 
grouping proposal suggested by AAMA/AIAM in the FACA process, the 
larger number of durability groups would require more testing. The 
Agency accordingly concluded that this alternative involved more risk 
of noncompliance and additional cost. Consequently, the Agency rejected 
this option in favor of the proposal made today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Manufacturers proposed in the FACA process that current 
engine family definitions and DDV selection procedures be retained. 
Durability data would be generated on the worst case selection of 
the current ``average vehicle'' DDV selections. See Memorandum from 
Jane Armstrong and Kelly M. Brown, Co-Chairpersons to Mr. Michael P. 
Walsh, et. al. dated October 3, 1996 entitled ``Findings and 
Recommendations, Compliance Working Group'' in the docket for this 
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Durability and Emission Data Carryover
    ``Carryover'' is a concept that allows the use of data generated in 
a previous model year to be used in a subsequent model year in lieu of 
additional testing. The current regulations (see 40 CFR

[[Page 39663]]

86.098-24 (f)) give the Agency the discretion to allow carryover of 
durability and emission data. The Agency's current policy allows 
durability carryover when, among other requirements, the current DDV is 
judged as having equivalent or superior durability 
performance.16 For carryover involving alternate durability 
processes approved under RDP I, the Agency has established that 
carryover of the DF and the in-use verification data would be 
considered separately.17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA's current policy regarding carryover and discussion of 
the application of the ``equivalent or superior durability 
performance'' concept is contained in OMS Advisory Circular 17F (A/C 
17F), dated November 16, 1982 and amended on January 21, 1988.
    \17\ See EPA's guidance letter CD-94-13, Subject: Alternative 
Durability Guidance for MY94 through MY98, dated July 29, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency is proposing to allow carryover of durability and 
emission data when the manufacturer determines, using good engineering 
judgment, that the new configuration is capable of equivalent or 
superior emission or durability performance. The proposal allows the 
Administrator to request catalyst temperature data prior to 
certification for durability data carryover decisions. The Agency 
expects the manufacturer to generate these data for their internal 
review in the circumstances currently identified in EPA Advisory 
Circular 17F (using the procedures discussed in that document or using 
good engineering judgment) as part of their good engineering judgment 
to carry over the data.
    EPA is proposing not to allow in-use verification data to be 
carried over. This is discussed separately in section II. I below.
5. In-Use Verification Feedback Analysis
    The proposed requirement that the manufacturer-designed durability 
process accurately predict in-use emission performance is a crucial 
part of CAP 2000. A durability process that understates in-use emission 
levels could lead to noncompliance in use. Although noncompliance, once 
detected, could be addressed by a recall, the best situation is to 
prevent noncompliance from the beginning. An accurate durability 
process facilitates a more meaningful certification process which 
identifies noncompliance before the vehicles are produced and avoids 
excessive in-use emissions. The in-use verification program is a tool 
which can be used by the Agency and the manufacturers to improve the 
durability process and avoid excessive emissions in use and costly 
recalls.
    It is the Agency's expectation that manufacturers would use the 
results of the in-use verification testing to continuously improve 
their durability projections to better cover the majority of emission 
performance in use. EPA acknowledges that, in isolated cases, a 
particular test group's in-use verification data may exceed the 
standards or be significantly higher than predicted due to the 
variability inherent in any sampling plan. In these cases, EPA expects 
manufacturers to analyze the possible causes of the apparent failure to 
predict in-use emissions and to assure themselves and the Agency that 
their processes remain valid and are an acceptable predictor of in-use 
emission levels for the test group in question.
    It is the Agency's responsibility to become involved when the in-
use verification seems to indicate a problem with a manufacturer's 
durability process. The Agency is proposing a program where it would 
formally intercede when the in-use data indicate a significant level of 
noncompliance in use or when the durability process significantly 
underestimates in-use emission levels. The Agency is also proposing 
that the Administrator may, from time to time, require manufacturers to 
analyze certain in-use data and draw conclusions regarding the validity 
of the manufacturer's durability process in addition to the formal 
requirements discussed below.
    In particular, a formal response concerning the validity of the 
manufacturer's durability process would be required when the average 
in-use verification data for a test group (or several test groups) 
exceeds 1.3 times the applicable emission standard and at least 50% of 
the test vehicles fail the standard in use.18 In those 
situations, the Agency is proposing to require the manufacturer to 
perform an analysis of both the relevant in-use verification data and 
the ability of the manufacturer's durability plan to adequately predict 
in-use emission levels and/or compliance with the standard. If the 
manufacturer concludes that an improvement of its durability protocol 
(or other procedure) is warranted, these changes should be discussed as 
part of the analysis. EPA is proposing to allow manufacturers sixty 
days to complete that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ This is the same criteria that the Agency is proposing for 
requiring manufacturer-funded in-use confirmatory testing as 
discussed in section II. I. below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA may also withdraw its approval to use a durability procedure 
for future certification if the Agency determines that the procedure 
does not accurately predict in-use emission levels. This could occur 
for example, if the test group data showed significant noncompliance 
with emission standards that did not exceed the 1.3 times the standard 
threshold. It is not the intention of this provision to require changes 
to a manufacturer's durability procedure which is inaccurate if the 
inaccuracy does not threaten the ability of the durability process to 
predict compliance with emission standards on the vehicles which it 
covers. An inaccurate procedure which over-estimates the amount of 
deterioration experienced by in-use vehicles would not require a change 
to the durability process. Prior to reaching a final decision, the 
Agency would invite the manufacturer to perform an analysis of the 
relevant in-use verification data and address the ability of its 
durability process to adequately predict in-use emission levels and to 
provide other relevant data. EPA is proposing to allow manufacturers 
sixty days to complete that report.
    Under the proposal, EPA would review the information submitted by 
the manufacturer or proceed on its own initiative if the report is not 
submitted within sixty days. If the Agency concludes that the 
durability process does not adequately predict in-use emission levels 
or compliance with the standards in use, the Agency may revoke its 
approval for the applicable manufacturer's durability process for the 
portion of the fleet not yet certified that the Agency determines to be 
affected. In this case, the manufacturer would be required to develop a 
revised durability process. The revised durability process may consist 
of an adjustment factor applied to the current durability process to 
reflect the shortfall in predicting in-use emission performance. 
Alternatively, an entirely new durability process may be submitted for 
Agency approval.
6. Line Crossing
    In the current regulations, emission levels from durability 
vehicles must comply with all applicable emission standards. When 
durability vehicle test data for any constituent exceeds the standards, 
this is referred to as ``line crossing''.19 The concept of 
line crossing is only valid as long as the durability demonstration is 
limited to cover vehicles meeting a single set of emission standards. 
Today's proposal, as discussed earlier, defines a durability group such 
that it may encompass several test groups, each of which may

[[Page 39664]]

have different emission standards. This results in the likelihood that 
a single durability vehicle demonstration may cover several levels of 
emission standards. It would not be appropriate to expect a single 
durability vehicle to comply with multiple levels of emission 
standards. Consequently, the Agency is not proposing any line crossing 
criteria for durability data vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Refer to 40 CFR 86.001-28 (a)(4)(i)(B)(1) for the current 
criteria for line crossing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the manufacturer is responsible to assure that the DDV is 
adequately representative of the production vehicles which it is 
designed to represent and EPA thus expects the DDV emission levels to 
represent those of the specific test group it belongs to. If the DDV 
should fail to comply with the standards applicable to its associated 
test group, EPA would question whether the DDV is adequately 
representative of production and would likely require submission of the 
basis for the manufacturer's good engineering judgement that the DDV 
remains representative of production when it fails the applicable 
standards.

C. Emission Data and Emission Compliance Demonstration

1. Test Groups
    EPA is proposing that compliance with the emission standards be 
demonstrated for each ``test group.'' The durability groups discussed 
in section II. A. above are determined based on parameters expected to 
affect emissions deterioration. However, within a durability group, 
which could include a wide variety of vehicles and trucks, the emission 
levels can be quite different. This is due to technical parameters 
which, while not affecting engine durability and emission 
deterioration, are directly related to the level of emissions produced 
by that engine. Therefore, the test groups as proposed would consist of 
subdivisions within durability groups which have similar emission 
levels.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Two factors affect emission levels: the design of the 
engine, and the emission control devices, such as catalytic 
conversion and exhaust gas recirculation. Over time, emissions out 
of the tailpipe will increase primarily due to deterioration of the 
emission control devices. The engine design does not change over 
time and does not significantly affect emission deterioration rates, 
but it does significantly affect the level of emissions. Therefore 
it is important to determine both the emission deterioration rate, 
which is primarily caused by the emission control system 
deterioration, and the emission levels attributable to each engine 
group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing that test groups have the following common 
elements: applicable emission standards, engine displacement (within a 
tolerance of 15 percent or 50 cubic inches of displacement (CID)), 
number of cylinders, and arrangement of cylinders (e.g., in-line or V-
shaped). Emission standards are a test group parameter because of the 
Agency's need to maintain separate compliance treatment. The engine 
displacement and number of cylinders were chosen as test group 
parameters because they determine the size of the cylinders, which 
affects emission formation. The arrangement of the cylinders affects 
the engine cooling characteristics, which in turn affect the level of 
emissions. EPA is proposing a number of provisions which allow 
manufacturers to further divide test groups to meet their needs without 
advance Agency approval. The Agency is also proposing to consider 
requests to combine test groups.
    Emission data grouping for EPA's current compliance program is 
based on the engine family. As part of the engine family definition, 
vehicles are divided into groups based on basic engine (number of 
cylinders, arrangement of cylinders, and other parameters) and 
displacement (within 15 percent or 50 CID) and other parameters. As 
discussed in section II.A. above, the Agency believes that these 
parameters are not a significant source of emission deterioration. 
However, the Agency believes that some of these parameters are expected 
to significantly influence the level of emissions. In today's proposal 
for test groups, EPA has retained those parameters from the engine 
family definition which it believes most directly affect emission 
levels. Other, more easily quantified variables that can affect 
emissions (such as EGR rates, vehicle weight, axle ratios, gear ratios, 
N/V ratios, transmission characteristics, and engine calibrations) can 
be used by manufacturers to select the ``worst case'' emission data 
vehicle within a test group, described below.
    The test group definition would be used to group vehicles within a 
durability group for emission data vehicle selection and certificate 
coverage purposes. As discussed in section II. I., test groups would 
also be used for recruiting vehicles for in-use verification testing.
2. Selection of Emission Data Vehicles
    The Agency's goal is to design an emission compliance program that 
would cover the diversity of configurations within a test group with 
the fewest number of EDVs possible. Because test groups separate 
vehicles according to engine characteristics which cause different 
fundamental emission levels, the Agency believes it is possible to 
evaluate the expected emission levels of the vehicles within a test 
group by using sound engineering principles. It is then possible to 
select a single test vehicle which is the worst case vehicle for 
exhaust emissions by selecting the vehicle configuration which is 
expected to be closest to the standard for any emission constituent or 
emission test procedure. The Agency believes that this worst case 
vehicle selection would adequately represent all the vehicle 
configurations within the test group. Consequently, the Agency is 
proposing that manufacturers test one EDV in each test group within a 
durability group. The EDV configuration would be the configuration 
expected to generate the worst case exhaust emissions within the test 
group.
    One EDV per durability group would be required to demonstrate 
compliance with cold CO requirements. The Agency is proposing that 
manufacturers select the worst case EDV within each durability group to 
be tested for cold CO compliance.
    In the current certification program, two EDVs are selected within 
each engine family. One selection is defined in the regulations (and is 
intended to result in the selection of the vehicle most likely to fail 
HC or CO emissions). The other EDV is selected by the manufacturer to 
be the ``worst case'' of the remaining vehicles. From both the 
manufacturer and Agency perspectives, worst case selection by 
manufacturers has worked well. There have been very few instances where 
EPA has disagreed with a manufacturer's worst case selection, and the 
manufacturers have been able to make worst case selections with a 
minimum amount of Agency involvement.
    If the worst case selection is well made, a second EDV selection 
(as required by the current regulations) becomes redundant. In fact, 
EPA currently has a provision to waive the additional EDV selection if 
the two vehicles selected are essentially equivalent.
3. Use of Development Vehicles for EDVs
    Currently, the regulations require that a unique vehicle be built 
to represent the EDV. This requirement was established to assure 
representativeness of the test results of the EDV. EPA established 
requirements that the vehicle have appropriate maintenance and 
sufficient representative mileage accumulation to stabilize emissions. 
Manufacturers typically run a second fleet of similar vehicles called 
``development vehicles'' which they use to develop the production 
calibrations. These vehicles may have representative mileage 
accumulation and appropriate maintenance histories. The Agency is

[[Page 39665]]

proposing that manufacturers may optionally use vehicles originally 
built to be development vehicles as EDVs for official certification 
testing. To be eligible, the manufacturer must provide a written 
statement that the mileage accumulation and maintenance are appropriate 
and representative. Furthermore, the manufacturer must provide a 
written statement that the development vehicle in question was not the 
vehicle used to develop the calibration to be tested on the EDV.
    The Agency believes that development vehicles can be representative 
vehicles which would generate accurate emission levels. The portability 
of the calibration from one prototype vehicle to another would be 
assured by the restriction that a development vehicle which was used to 
develop the calibration used on the EDV may not be used as the EDV 
itself. The EDV calibration must be demonstrated to be in compliance 
with the standards on a different vehicle than original development 
vehicle. The use of development vehicles rather than specially built 
EDVs save manufacturers the cost of building a separate vehicle, 
vehicle depreciation, and mileage accumulation on a separate test 
vehicle.
4. Accept Statements of Compliance for Certification Short Tests
    The certification short test was developed to assure that vehicles 
complying with the FTP exhaust emission standards could be accurately 
tested at State Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) test facilities 
without the need for special test procedures. The purpose of the 
certification short test is also to assure that manufacturers design 
their vehicles to comply with Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) tests used 
throughout the country and to account for the variation in test fuels 
and waiting times that vehicle owners might encounter.
    The Agency is proposing to accept a statement of compliance to 
satisfy the certification short test compliance requirements (see 40 
CFR 86.094-8 and -9). The certification short test has been fully 
implemented as of the 1996 model year. EPA's review of the CST data 
submitted by manufacturers thus far has indicated that test results are 
significantly beneath the standards, with values typically near zero. 
There have been no instances of test vehicles failing the standards.
    Under this proposal, a manufacturer could submit a compliance 
statement that the manufacturer has determined that all the vehicles 
covered by the statement will meet the applicable CST emission 
standards. This statement must be supported by test data (which may be 
historical data on similar vehicles) retained by the manufacturer and 
must be based on the manufacturer's good engineering judgment. The 
compliance statement approach would save the cost of conducting actual 
tests on both EDVs and development vehicles each year.
    Such a statement would directly address the goals of the short test 
and would apply to all vehicles that the manufacturer builds, not just 
vehicles which are tested as part of the certification program.
5. Exhaust Tests To Be Conducted
    The Agency is proposing to require the same type of testing as is 
currently performed on EDVs. Each EDV would be tested for all FTP 
exhaust constituents plus supplemental FTP testing and fuel economy 
testing. As discussed above, the Agency is proposing that a statement 
of compliance would be accepted for compliance with certification short 
test requirements. One vehicle per durability group (the worst case 
EDV) would be tested for cold CO compliance. All vehicles (tested or 
not) must also comply with all OBD requirements. EDVs designed to 
comply with Federal OBD requirements are liable for OBD compliance 
testing to assure that the OBD system operates properly.
6. Determination of Compliance
    The Agency is proposing two methods for determining compliance with 
standards based on the method of durability demonstration selected by 
the manufacturer.
    If a manufacturer were to calculate a DF,21 the DF would 
be applied to the results of the EDV testing and the result would be 
rounded to the same numerical precision as the standard. This sum or 
product (depending on whether an additive DF were added to the raw 
emission results or a multiplicative DF was multiplied by the raw 
emission results) is called the certification level. The certification 
level must be less than or equal to the emission standard in order to 
be in compliance. Each constituent and standard would be considered 
separately, and any exceedance of the standards would constitute 
noncompliance. All EDVs within a test group would have to comply with 
all their applicable standards (among other requirements) in order to 
obtain a Certificate of Conformity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The DF may be additive or multiplicative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a manufacturer were to choose the option to base its durability 
program upon testing EDVs with aged components installed, the results 
of the emission tests would be considered the certification level (no 
adjustment is required). As required of manufacturers using DFs, the 
certification level would have to be less than or equal to the emission 
standard in order to be in compliance. Each constituent and standard 
would be considered separately, and any exceedance of the standards 
would constitute noncompliance. All EDVs within a test group would have 
to comply with all the applicable standards (among other requirements) 
in order to obtain a certificate of conformity for that test group.
7. Evaporative/Refueling Emission Testing
    The Agency is proposing to retain the current evaporative/refueling 
testing requirements. One vehicle in each evaporative/refueling family 
(the worst case EDV with worst case evaporative and fuel tank hardware 
installed) would be tested for compliance with the evaporative and 
refueling requirements subject to the phase-in requirements of the 
applicable model year.

D. Scope of a Certificate of Conformity

    The Agency is proposing that certificates of conformity 
(certificates) be issued for each test group within a durability group. 
Separate certificates would be issued for each evaporative/refueling 
family within a test group. Under this proposal, each certificate would 
be issued for a manageably-sized group of vehicles and for a single set 
of standards. As discussed in section II. H., a separate application 
for certification is required for each durability group. Consequently, 
several test groups (and therefore several certificates of conformity) 
may be covered with a single application.
    The Agency considered issuing certificates with broader coverage. 
In particular, the Agency considered the manufacturers' proposal to 
issue certificates based upon fuel used and standards met. Because 
manufacturers typically certify their product line in a piece-meal 
fashion, a broad certificate group such as this would require frequent 
revisions. Also, the complexity of the certificate language would be 
significantly increased to provide adequate description of all the 
vehicles covered by such a broad certificate. In balance, the Agency 
decided that it would be better to issue more certificates covering 
fewer vehicles than to issue fewer broad-coverage certificates 
requiring frequent revisions.

[[Page 39666]]

E. EPA and Manufacturer Confirmatory Certification Testing

    In the current program, the manufacturer performs both emission and 
fuel economy tests at its own facility and submits the results of that 
testing to the Agency for review. The Agency has the authority to 
require another test to be conducted (called a confirmatory test) at a 
place designated by the Administrator. Currently, the Agency performs 
confirmatory tests on approximately 30 percent of the entire EDV test 
fleet, the majority of which are conducted at the Agency's test 
facility. If EPA chooses to conduct a confirmatory test, the results of 
the Agency's test become official data, otherwise the manufacturers' 
data become official results. As discussed earlier, the official 
results (adjusted by the deterioration factor, if applicable) must 
comply with the standards to receive a Certificate of Conformity.
    In the beginning of EPA's certification program in the 1970's, all 
certification vehicles (both EDVs and DDVs) had to be tested at an EPA 
facility. Once the procedures and equipment used for emission 
measurement improved as the state of the art of emission measurement 
grew, Agency test results became similar to manufacturer results in 
most cases. In a progression of changes, the Agency eventually created 
a confirmatory test program which targeted vehicles which were likely 
to fail emission standards, contained new technology or presented 
special concerns, were leaders in their class for fuel economy, or 
which exhibited higher than expected fuel economy. These vehicles 
reflected the Agency's concern about accurate emission compliance and 
fuel economy determinations.
    The Agency also established a correlation program involving two 
elements: (1) round-robin correlation testing of a single vehicle among 
a series of laboratories, and (2) paired data analysis where vehicles 
were randomly selected for confirmatory testing at the EPA laboratory. 
These correlation programs were necessary to assure that the test 
results conducted at manufacturers' laboratories which were not 
confirmatory tested by the Agency were representative of the results 
which would have been obtained if the vehicle had been tested at EPA's 
laboratory.
    In all these programs, the manufacturer ran a single test at its 
facility and submitted the result to the Agency. A test vehicle 
selected for EPA confirmatory testing would be shipped to EPA for 
testing at the Agency's test facilities.
    Confirmatory testing entails several costs for the manufacturer and 
the Agency. In addition to the expense borne by the Agency for 
conducting tests, the manufacturer bears additional costs for 
confirmatory testing at EPA. First, the manufacturer must ship the 
vehicle (as well as usually transport a technical representative from 
the company) to EPA's laboratory. For importers, this can represent a 
significant cost. Also, the test vehicle is not available to the 
manufacturer for other purposes while the vehicle is in EPA's custody. 
The second, and most important cost for manufacturers, is the cost in 
time for the testing to be completed. Altogether, the time needed to 
transport and test vehicles at EPA can cause a significant delay in 
manufacturer schedules.
    The reasons for confirmatory testing discussed above may be grouped 
into four categories: (1) tests run to address statistical outliers 
(e.g., higher than expected fuel economy); (2) vehicles which represent 
an area of concern which could be addressed by running a second test at 
any laboratory (such as potential fuel economy leaders and proximity to 
gas guzzler cut points); (3) correlation concerns about the accuracy of 
the manufacturer's laboratory (which need to be addressed by testing at 
another laboratory); and (4) discretionary tests run by the Agency to 
assure compliance and adequate oversight. Retests of the confirmatory 
test are conducted when the percentage difference between the original 
fuel economy test and the confirmatory test is 3 percent or higher or 
if the results of a test failed the standard.
    As part of the discussions with manufacturers during the FACA 
process, manufacturers suggested that they could perform a number of 
the confirmatory tests at their own facilities. Ultimately, 
manufacturers suggested running a manufacturer confirmatory program 
targeting the first two categories listed above. On balance, the 
manufacturers determined that the costs of running these additional 
tests at their facility were more than offset by the savings in time 
and money by not shipping the vehicle to EPA's test facility.
    Based on past experience, the Agency believes that manufacturers 
are capable of running accurate tests at their own facilities. A good 
correlation program, including a sufficient level of random 
confirmatory testing at the Agency's facility, should assure that 
accurate testing continues at manufacturers' laboratories. Higher than 
expected fuel economy test results or the accuracy of emission and fuel 
economy test results near the standard would be addressed through the 
proposed manufacturer confirmatory test program which requires another 
test be conducted.
    The Agency will maintain its authority to randomly select vehicles 
to assure proper correlation and to selectively target vehicles for 
other areas of concern (such as use of new technology). The Agency is 
proposing that the test results from the original manufacturer's test 
be submitted to the Agency before any manufacturer confirmatory testing 
is conducted. The Agency would then indicate to the manufacturer any 
random or other confirmatory testing which is required. In some cases, 
the Agency expects that it would be able to identify the vehicles that 
it wishes to confirmatory test before actual test data are submitted. 
Vehicle configurations selected for confirmatory testing by the Agency 
would not be tested under the manufacturer confirmatory test program 
discussed below. Such vehicles, selected by the Agency for confirmatory 
testing, would have that testing conducted at a laboratory of the 
Agency's choice.
    The Agency is proposing to require confirmatory testing at the 
manufacturer's facility when any one of the following five conditions 
exist: (1) the vehicle version had previously failed a standard; (2) 
the test exhibits high certification levels (currently set at 90 
percent of the standard); (3) the fuel economy value of the test is 
higher than expected; (4) the fuel economy value is close to a Gas 
Guzzler Tax threshold value (currently set at +.3 or -.2 mpg from a gas 
guzzler cut point); and (5) the fuel economy value is at a level which 
creates a potential vehicle class fuel economy leader based on EPA-
provided cut points each year. EPA intends to reduce its confirmatory 
testing to exclude vehicles selected for those reasons.
    The Agency also proposes that manufacturers conduct retests 
whenever the manufacturer's original fuel economy test result and the 
manufacturer's confirmatory result fail to correlate satisfactorily. 
The criteria for satisfactory correlation is proposed to be the 3 
percent difference currently used in EPA's confirmatory test program. 
At the manufacturer's option, the manufacturer may use a lower (e.g. 2 
percent) criteria, provided that it is consistently applied to all of 
the manufacturer's testing. Ultimately, a second retest (total of three 
confirmatory tests) would be required if the retest of the fuel economy 
fails to satisfactorily correlate with either the initial confirmatory 
test or the manufacturer's original test. In lieu of conducting

[[Page 39667]]

retests the manufacturer may accept the lowest fuel economy data for 
the purpose of calculating the fuel economy values. This retesting 
procedure would assure that representative fuel economy data are 
generated during the manufacturer-funded confirmatory test program. 
These retest procedures are the same procedures that the Agency has 
been employing on EPA retests. Based on this experience, these 
procedures have been satisfactory at safeguarding the integrity of the 
fuel economy values at a reasonable cost in terms of additional tests 
conducted.
    The confirmatory tests run by the manufacturer would constitute 
official tests and would be used in certification compliance 
determinations and fuel economy calculations.
    EPA is proposing to issue a conditional certificate of conformity 
for a test group, upon manufacturer request and Agency approval, when 
the confirmatory test selected by the Administrator for testing at the 
EPA facility has not yet been completed. To be eligible, the 
manufacturer must attest that any pending confirmatory test would 
ultimately comply with the standards when actually conducted.
    The condition for certification is the same as that for the current 
``alternate procedure'' running change provisions (see 40 CFR 86.082-
34). If the Administrator determines that the confirmatory test results 
in noncompliance with any standard, then upon notification of this 
determination, the manufacturer would immediately suspend production of 
all vehicles covered by this certificate (or such fraction of the 
vehicles covered by the certificate that the Administrator determines 
to be affected); the certificate of conformity would be suspended upon 
such notification (pending a hearing). Furthermore, the manufacturer 
would have to agree as a condition of this certificate to recall all 
vehicles which the Administrator determines to be in noncompliance with 
the applicable standards, and to cause such noncompliance to be 
remedied at no expense to the owner.
    As discussed previously, confirmatory testing can add significant 
time to the certification process. This is especially true for foreign 
manufacturers which must ship vehicles to the EPA's laboratory in Ann 
Arbor, Michigan. The proposal made today should mitigate the 
manufacturers' timing concerns without requiring EPA to waive any 
selected vehicles from confirmatory testing. EPA believes the risk of 
non-complying vehicles entering the market is minimal under this 
proposal because the delay between certification and confirmatory 
testing would be very short. Moreover, any failing vehicles produced 
would likely still be under manufacturer control or at dealerships, 
thus making recall easier.

F. Fuel Economy

1. Conditional Fuel Economy Values Pending Confirmatory Testing
    As explained in the previous section, confirmatory testing 
represents a time and cost burden to the manufacturers. In response to 
this concern, the Agency has proposed a manufacturer confirmatory 
testing requirement explained in section II. E. that would reduce the 
need for Agency confirmatory testing. The Agency is also proposing 
provisions whereby the manufacturer could obtain a conditional 
Certificate of Conformity to allow production of vehicles to begin 
before confirmatory testing at the Agency's facility is completed. For 
the same reasons, the Agency believes that the use of conditional fuel 
economy labels would address the manufacturer's concerns surrounding 
the time involved to perform confirmatory tests, without undermining 
the accuracy of the fuel economy program.
    The Agency is proposing to allow manufacturers to calculate and use 
fuel economy labels prior to the completion of confirmatory testing 
selected by the Administrator, provided that several conditions are 
met. Once the confirmatory testing is completed, the manufacturer must 
recalculate all the affected fuel economy label values. The 
recalculated label values must be used for labeling on future 
production under either of the following circumstances:
    (1) If the newly calculated label value is at least 0.5 mpg lower 
than the original value, the manufacturer must use the recalculated 
label value and annual fuel cost on the labels placed on all future 
vehicles produced 15 days, or more, after the completion of the 
confirmatory test.
    (2) If the newly calculated label value is at least 0.1 mpg lower 
than the original value, the manufacturer must use the recalculated 
label value to determine Gas Guzzler Tax liability. The tax paid to the 
IRS must reflect the recalculated value for all vehicles produced. The 
gas guzzler tax statement required under the current provisions of 40 
CFR 600.307-95 (f) to be placed on the fuel economy label shall reflect 
the recalculated values on all future vehicles produced 15 days, or 
more, after the completion of the confirmatory test.
    All confirmatory test results must be used in CAFE calculations.
    As discussed previously, confirmatory testing conducted at EPA test 
facilities could represent a significant delay. This is especially true 
for foreign manufacturers which must ship vehicles for testing. The 
proposal made today mitigates the timing concerns of the manufacturer 
while still allowing the Agency the authority to conduct confirmatory 
testing on any vehicle it selects for testing.
    The proposal is modeled on the recalculation/relabeling provisions 
in the current regulations to address the impact of running changes 
(see 40 CFR 600.314-86). In the current provisions, EPA has 
acknowledged that there is an inherent variability in fuel economy 
testing. Consequently, manufacturers should not be liable for small 
changes in the recalculated fuel economy which round to different label 
values. The current running change/relabeling provisions established a 
difference of 1.0 mpg as the threshold for relabeling.
    The Agency believes that a 1.0 mpg threshold is too broad a 
criteria to use for confirmatory testing. The 1.0 mpg threshold was 
originally established to account for test-to-test variability plus 
fuel economy differences due to design changes. The 1.0 mpg threshold 
was also established to allow manufacturers to perform minor design 
changes without requiring new fuel economy labels.
    In today's proposal, the Agency chose 0.5 mpg as the relabeling 
threshold to account for typical test variability while still holding 
manufacturers liable for actual overstated fuel economy. Fuel economy 
label results are rounded to a whole mile per gallon. The 0.5 mpg is 
half of the precision of the final label results, a threshold which the 
Agency believes is a fair compromise between test variability and fuel 
economy accuracy.
    The Gas Guzzler Tax is a program where fuel economy differences of 
0.1 mpg may cause different rates of tax liability. The Agency is 
therefore proposing that gas guzzler determinations must be held to 
that same higher standard. The Agency set the limit at 0.1 mpg because 
test results are rounded to 0.1 mpg and the gas guzzler tax brackets 
are based on a tenth of a mpg precision.
2. Directly Submitting CAFE to DOT
    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (PL 94-163 as amended, 89 
Stat. 871) establishes requirements that EPA shall prescribe a method 
to calculate fuel economy and average fuel economy (CAFE) by 
regulation. EPA is also required to ``report any measurements of fuel 
economy and any calculations of

[[Page 39668]]

average fuel economy to the Secretary'' of the Department of 
Transportation (DOT). In meeting the requirements of the statute, EPA 
established regulations that establish the procedures to be used in 
calculating CAFE values and require that manufacturers perform these 
calculations and submit a report to EPA detailing the calculation, the 
fuel economy tests used, and actual CAFE value calculated. After a 
review of the information, EPA transmits that report to the Secretary 
of DOT, who is ultimately responsible for administering the 
manufacturer's compliance with the CAFE standards.
    Based on EPA's experience with reviewing CAFE submissions, most 
manufacturers submit accurate and complete data. EPA's review of the 
data rarely results in significant discrepancies, and delays the 
transfer of the CAFE reports to DOT until EPA review is completed. The 
Agency is proposing to require manufacturers to submit CAFE results 
concurrently to the Department of Transportation as well as to EPA, 
which would enable DOT to begin its administration of CAFE compliance 
in a more timely manner. EPA would continue to review the 
manufacturers' CAFE submissions to determine that proper calculation 
procedures are followed, and would notify DOT of its findings.
3. Fuel Economy Testing Rates
    It is anticipated that additional testing may be required to meet 
the CAFE testing requirements because of reduced testing of EDVs. EPA 
believes that the additional amount of testing would be small. Also, 
the manufacturer has the ability to choose which configurations to test 
to meet the 90 percent sales coverage requirements (see 40 CFR 600.010-
86). The Agency has recently expanded its policy 22 allowing 
the use of analytically derived fuel economy (ADFE) 23 
values to include up to 20 percent of the manufacturers' total fuel 
economy fleet. The Agency believes that through careful selection of 
the vehicle configurations to be tested and use of ADFE values, the 
amount of additional testing required for fuel economy purposes would 
be small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ EPA guidance letter CD-95-08(LDV), dated May 12, 1995 
entitled ``Analytical [sic] Derived Fuel Economy (ADFE)''
    \23\ 40 CFR 600.006-89(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency considered raising the amount of ADFE allowed from the 
recently established level of 20 percent but felt that such a change 
might undermine the accuracy of the fuel economy program. The Agency 
does invite public comment on the appropriate level of ADFE testing and 
analyses of the potential impact on fuel economy accuracy.

G. Small Volume Provisions

    Current regulations allow for more abbreviated certification 
procedures for manufacturers with model year sales of less than 10,000, 
and for engine families totaling less than 10,000 sales for any 
manufacturer.24 EPA is proposing to amend the criteria for 
the small volume manufacturer provisions to model year U.S. sales of 
less than 15,000 (including light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and 
heavy-duty engines). Similarly, EPA is proposing to allow any 
manufacturer to apply small volume certification procedures for any 
test groups, provided that the combined U.S. sales are below 15,000 
units per model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Ref. 40 CFR 86.094-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All abbreviated certification procedures in the current regulations 
would be available to the redefined small volume manufacturers and test 
groups (below 15,000 sales). (However, under this proposal, 
manufacturers would certify based on test groups rather than engine 
families.) Also, any certification options provided under CAP 2000 for 
large volume manufacturers would be available to small volume 
manufacturers (e.g., bench-aged components for durability, etc.).
    EPA is proposing to require in-use verification testing for 
manufacturers of greater than 5,000 sales for any model year, and for 
test groups using small volume provisions that have greater than 5,000 
U.S. sales per model year. For manufacturers and test groups in these 
categories, the manufacturer would have to test at least two vehicles 
after four years of use and at least 50,000 miles of service. These 
vehicles may be procured from customers or may be vehicles under the 
control of the manufacturer as long as the service accumulation and 
maintenance of the vehicles are shown to be typical of customer usage. 
The vehicles selected for this testing would be at least one from the 
highest sales small volume test group, and one from the next highest 
sales small volume test group. If there is only one test group, then 
the manufacturer must test at least two vehicles from the test group. 
EPA could waive the 50,000 mile minimum if the manufacturer shows, 
using owner survey data, that the average mileage accumulated after 4 
years for a given test group is less than 50,000 miles. The 
manufacturer must submit an in-use testing plan to EPA prior to EPA 
issuance of a Certificate of Conformity for the subject vehicles.

H. Information Requirements

1. Background
    Current regulations require manufacturers to submit an Application 
for Certification (Application) for each engine family that describes 
the vehicles the manufacturer intends to produce. After reviewing the 
application to determine compliance with all applicable requirements 
and emission standards, EPA then issues a certificate of conformity 
under Sec. 206 of the Act. Such a certificate is required by the CAA 
before a vehicle may be offered for sale in the U.S.
    When EPA's vehicle certification program began in 1968, EPA 
required manufacturers to submit a large amount of detailed 
information. This was because EPA lacked a historical perspective of 
what vehicle parameters could impact emissions compliance. EPA would 
carefully review all of this information prior to certification. By the 
1980's, EPA had gained enough experience to feel comfortable that such 
an extensive review was no longer necessary. Consequently, the review 
was scaled back to more of an audit function, that is, a spot check of 
the Application information. At the same time, EPA also permitted 
manufacturers to retain some information, rather than submit it with 
the Application. In today's proposal EPA believes that it may further 
decrease the amount of Application information without compromising its 
ability to make good certification compliance determinations.
    In addition to submitting the application prior to certification, 
manufacturers are currently required to notify EPA of any changes 
throughout the model year to vehicles already certified (running 
changes). This notification must be submitted with each running change, 
and must describe any changes (e.g. deletions, insertions, additions) 
to the original application pages. Frequently the updated information 
is not critical for certification compliance determinations, but is 
needed for future in-use compliance efforts. The paperwork burden 
associated with the reporting of running changes is, in the Agency's 
opinion, another good candidate for streamlining. EPA is therefore 
proposing to allow manufacturers to submit running change information 
closer to the time when it is actually needed by the Agency.

[[Page 39669]]

2. Overview of New Information Requirements
    EPA estimates that this proposal will reduce the record keeping and 
reporting requirements of EPA's light-duty vehicle compliance program 
between 13% and 57%.25 To accomplish this, the application 
would only contain information that is routinely needed by the Agency, 
some of which is needed to make initial certification decisions and 
some which is needed to conduct EPA's various post-certification 
compliance programs. Therefore, it is being proposed that information 
be submitted to the Agency at two different times; Part 1 of the 
Application would be submitted prior to certification and Part 2 would 
be submitted by January first of the applicable model year (e.g. a 
model year 2001 Part 2 Application would be due by 1/1/2001). Any 
updates to the Part 1 would also be due by January first of the model 
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See EPA cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A final, end-of-model-year Application update would be due by 
January first of the following model year (e.g. the final Application 
update for model year 2001 would be due by 1/1/2002). This would 
include any updates to Part 1 and Part 2 of the Application necessary 
to reflect any running changes which occurred since January first of 
the model year. Information not previously submitted that might be 
needed by the Agency from time to time would be required to be 
submitted upon request.
    Part 2 and any updates to Part 1 of any test group certified fewer 
than 30 days prior to January first of the applicable model year would 
need to be submitted within 90 days of the effective date on the 
corresponding certificate of conformity (e.g. if a test group was 
certified on December fifth, Part 2 would be due by March fifth). A 
manufacturer may request the Agency to grant, for extenuating 
circumstances, an extension of the end-of-model-year submission beyond 
the normal due date of January first of the following model year.
    A goal of today's proposal is to streamline the information 
reporting requirements to the greatest degree possible while still 
retaining access to information necessary to run the certification and 
in-use programs. Therefore, the information proposed to be submitted is 
of critical importance to the Agency. This makes it incumbent upon the 
manufacturer to submit all required information by the proposed due 
dates, including any Agency requests for additional information not 
required to be submitted to the Agency with either the Part 1 or Part 2 
Application. A manufacturer delinquent in reporting or failing to 
provide complete and accurate information may be subject to such 
penalties as: requiring the manufacturer to submit all information for 
all test groups prior to being granted any certificates of conformity 
for subsequent model years (this would include Part 1, Part 2 and any 
additional information as deemed necessary by the Agency); voiding ab 
initio the applicable certificate of conformity; and formal enforcement 
action, including civil penalties.
    EPA would determine when the manufacturer subject to an information 
penalty would again be allowed to submit only the Part 1 Application to 
receive a certificate. EPA has already implemented a similar approach 
in the current certification program, whereby the ``Abbreviated 
Certification'' process can be denied to a manufacturer that cannot 
handle the additional responsibility. EPA believes that continuing this 
approach for failure to submit information would provide a simple, yet 
effective means of encouraging manufacturers to comply with the 
information reporting requirements.
3. Detailed Descriptions of Application Requirements
    a. The Part 1 Application. EPA is proposing that the Part 1 
Application be much abbreviated from that currently required. EPA 
believes that many of the more detailed, lengthier items included with 
the current Application such as technical descriptions of emission 
control components, part numbers, and calibration specifications are 
not normally necessary to make a certification decision. By eliminating 
these items from Part 1, and requiring only information essential for 
certification, the information which must be submitted to the Agency 
would be much shorter and easier for manufacturers to compile.
    Another voluntary mechanism is currently in place which serves the 
purpose of providing EPA with certification information--the 
manufacturer preview meeting. Most manufacturers have been providing 
EPA with a pre-certification overview of their upcoming model year 
plans. These annual certification preview meetings provide EPA with a 
manufacturer's certification and production schedules, durability and 
emission test plans, special test procedures, carry-over requests, new 
vehicles or technology, and compliance plans for new standards or test 
procedures. Manufacturers prepare very informative materials that often 
provide a greater understanding of their product line in a shorter time 
than would be possible from reviewing a current Application. These 
meetings help EPA expedite the certification process by enabling EPA to 
anticipate compliance issues before they might cause unanticipated 
delays. Because these previews necessarily take place far in advance of 
certification, the information provided must be considered as 
tentative, and not a substitute for the Application. Hence, EPA does 
not feel it appropriate to require manufacturers to conduct preview 
meetings. However, EPA strongly encourages manufacturers to continue 
the practice under CAP 2000, as a means to expedite the certification 
process.
    EPA is proposing that one Application be submitted for each 
durability group. Part 1 consists of general information about the 
manufacturer and the entire product line, durability group 
descriptions, evaporative/refueling family descriptions, OBD 
information and information specific to each test group.
    General information is information which is applicable to all 
durability and/or test groups and which only has to be submitted once 
per model year. Such information will typically consist of 
communications information about manufacturer representatives 
authorized to communicate with EPA, manufacturer phase-in compliance 
plans (if any), descriptions of evaporative/refueling families, OBD 
information and statements of compliance.
    For durability group and evaporative/refueling family descriptions, 
the manufacturer would be required to provide a description of how each 
group/family was determined and the type of process used to establish 
component durability and deterioration factors. Because of the broad 
definitions for durability groups, EPA anticipates that durability 
groups would most likely consist of more than one test group and that 
test groups might be certified at different times throughout the model 
year. Similarly, evaporative/refueling families would cut across test 
groups. Therefore, EPA is proposing that the durability information 
would only need to be submitted with the first test group to be 
submitted to the Agency and would not need to be resubmitted for 
subsequent test groups within that durability group or evaporative/
refueling group.
    Specific test group information is proposed to consist of the 
associated evaporative/refueling family (or families), a list of all 
auxiliary emission

[[Page 39670]]

control devices (AECDs) that reduce the effectiveness of the emission 
control system including descriptions and justifications, a summary of 
all vehicles to be produced within the test group, OBD information, 
test vehicle selections and descriptions (including any use of carry-
over or carry-across test data), official certification emission test 
results, and a letter requesting a certificate.
    The request for a certificate would be required to be signed by a 
corporate principle representative. This request would notify the 
Agency that a test group is ready to be certified and must state that 
all testing and other actions required under the regulations were 
performed and that all required information has been submitted to EPA. 
The request must also include the required statements of compliance.
    The proposed product line summary would include descriptions of all 
vehicle configurations to be produced within each test group which 
would allow an in-use vehicle to be identified and tested for emissions 
purposes. This would include items such as model name, sales area, 
engine displacement, tire size and make, engine codes, transmission, 
and basic test parameters (such as test weight and road load force 
information). Ranges for the tires and test parameters may be submitted 
with the initial Part 1 Application, although the actual values would 
need to be submitted with Part 2 Application. EPA will issue guidance 
establishing a suggested format.
    This proposal would not change current OBD information 
requirements. The Part 1 Application must include for each diagnostic 
system: a description of the functional operation characteristics of 
the diagnostic system, the method of detecting malfunctions for each 
emission-related powertrain component, and a description of any 
deficiencies-including resolution plans and schedules. A test group 
certified to California OBD 2 regulations would be required to comply 
with California ARB information requirements. EPA may consider 
abbreviating the OBD information requirements at such time in the 
future when it gains confidence that manufacturers are designing OBD 
systems that are fully compliant with all applicable regulations.
    b. The Part 2 Application. The information that is proposed to be 
included in the Part 2 Application is information which is primarily 
needed by EPA for post-certification compliance purposes. Part 2 would 
be due on January first of the applicable model year (e.g. the deadline 
for model year 2000 would be 1/1/2000). Historically, most 
certification activity and production startups are completed by this 
time.
    Part 2 is proposed to include part numbers of each emission related 
component for each engine code, certain calibration specifications, 
owners manuals, service manuals and technical service bulletins. All of 
this information will continue to be necessary for the Agency to 
perform its in-use activities such as identifying mis-builds (non-
certified vehicle configurations), evaluating manufacturer defect 
reports, and conducting in-use recall testing programs. This 
information is not needed with the Part 1 Application since EPA's in-
use activities do not begin until customer-owned vehicles have begun to 
accumulate in-use mileage. A description of what would be required with 
the Part 2, as well as explanations for why EPA needs this information, 
follows.
    EPA is proposing that calibration summary information be submitted 
for each engine code such as fuel pump flow rate, EGR valve flow rate, 
tune up specifications, and oxygen sensor output. EPA would issue via 
separate guidance a suggested format to ease the submittal and review 
of this calibration summary information.
    Owners manuals, service manuals and technical service bulletins 
would need to be submitted to the Agency as soon as they become 
available but no later than the Part 2 due date.
    Manufacturers are required per 40 CFR 85, Subpart T to submit an 
Emission Defect Information Report (defect report) any time that an 
emission related defect exists in 25 or more vehicles of the same model 
year. The defect regulations point to devices, systems or assembly 
``described in the approved Application for Certification''. Because 
the proposed Application is much abbreviated, the Agency fully intends 
to consider any information submitted or required to be submitted in 
Parts 1 and 2 as constituting being ``described in the Approved 
Application for Certification.'' for the purposes of 85.1902(b). This 
includes, but is not limited to part numbers, service manuals and other 
descriptive information provided by a manufacturer to comply with the 
proposed certification requirements.
    The Agency also uses the information in Part 1 and Part 2 
(including owners manuals, service manuals, and technical service 
bulletins), to target specific vehicle classes to test in use, to 
procure customer vehicles, to reset the vehicles to manufacturer 
specifications before testing, and to determine the cause of an 
emission exceedance when in-use vehicles fail to comply with the 
emission standards. EPA also uses this information to determine if all 
the vehicles in the durability or test group can be expected to have 
the same problem or if the problem might exist in several durability or 
test groups.
    c. Running Changes. As was mentioned previously, changes are often 
made to vehicle production plans throughout the model year. 
Manufacturers are currently required to submit all updated Application 
pages with each running change notification. Manufacturers currently 
have the option to either request EPA approval of changes in advance of 
implementing the change, or to concurrently notify EPA and make the 
change, with the caveat that EPA may not approve the change. This 
second option is commonly referred to as the ``alternate procedure 
running change'' and is located at 40 CFR 86.082-34. Under CAP 2000, 
EPA is proposing to adopt only the alternate procedure running change. 
Manufacturers would continue to be required to notify the Agency of all 
running changes concurrently with implementation of each change, but 
would not be required to submit any updated application pages until 
January first of the applicable model year. This was suggested during 
discussions of the Compliance Work Group of the Mobile Sources 
Technical Advisory Sub-committee (part of the FACA CAA Advisory 
Committee). EPA is proposing this suggestion since the information 
which is typically effected by a running change would now be submitted 
with the Part 2 Application, after implementation of most running 
changes. A final, end of the model year Application update would also 
need to be submitted. The manufacturer may opt to submit only the 
updated pages, rather than resubmit a complete Application. No changes 
are being proposed to the Agency's current process for reporting field 
fixes.
    Each running change notification is proposed to include a detailed 
description of the change, the reason for the change, the portion of 
the product line that is affected by the change, and the effect the 
change would have on emissions (both on and off the FTP and SFTP 
driving schedules), including, as appropriate, any test data that 
demonstrates compliance with applicable emission standards. This 
information would modify the description of the vehicles covered by the 
certificate of conformity with respect to vehicles manufactured after 
the date of the running change. It is also being proposed that a 
running change summary log be submitted for each test

[[Page 39671]]

group showing all changes that have been incorporated since 
certification. EPA believes the revised running change proposal should 
provide significant savings to manufacturers and the Agency.
    While manufacturers are encouraged to notify EPA of any mistakes 
made in the application or running change notice, a manufacturer may 
not update its application to correct a misbuild situation with respect 
to vehicles already introduced into commerce.
4. Information to be Submitted Upon Request
    As has been mentioned above, much of the information which must 
currently be submitted in the Application is only rarely needed by EPA. 
Thus EPA believes it is appropriate to collect some information on an 
``as needed'' basis. This includes many of the more detailed items, 
such as detailed calibration information and the basis used by 
manufacturers to make certain decisions. EPA is proposing to require 
that any ``as needed'' information requested by EPA be submitted within 
15 working days. EPA is aware that some manufacturers have indicated 
that they, as a precautionary measure, maintain virtually all 
information which EPA may request. However, EPA is not proposing to 
require manufacturers to keep special compilations of information 
designated for EPA use alone. EPA believes that the information it 
would be requesting would be the type that manufacturers would keep on 
hand for other reasons, and which could be retrieved within 15 working 
days. Further, such ``as-needed'' information would not have to be 
submitted in any EPA-prescribed format.
5. Electronic Submission of the Application
    EPA currently utilizes an electronic computer database, referred to 
as Certification and Fuel Economy Information System (CFEIS), which 
contains vehicle descriptions and certification emission test results 
submitted by the manufacturer. Although CFEIS is designed around the 
current certification program, it is expected that CFEIS would be 
redesigned in accordance with the final CAP 2000 program. EPA believes 
that CFEIS would continue to play an important role under CAP 2000, as 
many of the items within the proposed Application are already being 
submitted into the CFEIS database. Any required Application information 
which has been completely and accurately submitted into CFEIS would not 
have to be re-submitted separately in hard copy.
    EPA would continue to encourage, but would not require 
manufacturers to submit the Application electronically. EPA believes 
electronic submissions would provide even greater savings for both 
manufacturers and EPA by simplifying the process of updating, storing 
and disseminating information. Confidential information could be 
submitted in hard copy or in a separate electronic file to help ensure 
its confidentiality. EPA encourages any manufacturer wishing to submit 
an electronic version of their Application to do so, with the only 
condition being that the format be compatible with EPA software. EPA 
would work with any manufacturer to help develop procedures for 
submitting electronic information.

I. In-Use Testing

1. Overview
    One of the major goals of the program being proposed today is the 
redirection of industry and Agency resources from pre-production 
certification to focus on improved in-use emissions performance. 
Accordingly, the regulations proposed today would require 
manufacturers, under the authority of section 208(a) of the Act, to 
provide EPA with emission test data on a specified number of in-use 
vehicles, procured and tested at the manufacturer's expense (either via 
a contract test facility or by the manufacturer's own laboratory). The 
proposed program consists of two basic categories of manufacturer-
funded in-use testing: (1) in-use verification testing of vehicles 
representing virtually all of the test groups produced by each 
manufacturer in each model year and, (2) in-use confirmatory testing 
consisting of additional, more rigorous, testing of test groups or 
subsets of these test groups (limited to transmission types) which, in 
the in-use verification testing, demonstrated potentially high 
emissions.
2. In-Use Verification Testing
    This element of the proposed program, identified as the ``In-Use 
Verification Program'' (IUVP) is based upon EPA's ``in-use reality 
check ``currently required in the alternate service accumulation 
durability regulations at 40 CFR 86.094.13 (RDP 1), and would replace 
that program. The purpose of the IUVP is to provide the Agency and the 
industry with emission data feedback from vehicles driven under real-
world conditions. The data generated from the IUVP would be used to 
assess and improve the effectiveness of the manufacturer's 
certification durability and emission demonstration processes. In 
addition, the IUVP data would be used to determine the need for further 
manufacturer funded in-use testing (In-Use Confirmatory Testing) which 
could be used by the Agency in determining non-conformity under Section 
207(c) of the Act.
    The basic elements of the proposed IUVP are low mileage (10,000 
mile minimum vehicle mileage, approximately one year of operation) and 
high mileage (50,000 mile minimum mileage and approximately four years 
of operation) emission testing of in-use vehicles. These mileage and 
age test points were selected to provide feedback to the Agency and the 
industry on the emission performance of vehicles at both an early point 
in their operating life (to allow early identification of any problems 
which occur in production or early in the life of the vehicle to 
minimize the emission impact of the defect or deficient design), and at 
a point well into the vehicle's statutorily-defined useful life (to 
identify and correct any problems which occur only after extended in-
use operation) but not at such a high mileage that high emitting 
vehicles would not be identified until the end of their useful life. 
The total number of vehicles a particular manufacturer would be 
required to test for the IUVP under the requirements of this proposal 
would be dependent upon the number of test groups in the manufacturer's 
product line and the number of sales within those groups. The sample 
sizes required for the low and high mileage test programs and test 
group sales volumes are intended to reflect the increased potential for 
emission contribution by high production test groups, the increased 
likelihood of problems occurring as vehicles reach higher mileage, and 
the desire of the Agency to minimize the resources required to conduct 
the program.
    Additionally, EPA is proposing that a manufacturer may increase the 
required sample size specified for a specific IUVP test group sample 
with prior EPA approval prior to the initiation of the additional 
testing. The Agency believes that prior approval of an increase in 
sample size is needed to prevent the unrestrained addition of vehicles 
which could mask or dilute potential emission problems. EPA seeks 
comment on the proposal for sample size flexibility and the associated 
process.
    EPA is proposing that the vehicles tested in the IUVP be procured 
following the vehicle selection and procurement protocols described in 
the proposed regulations. The procedures and protocols being proposed 
are

[[Page 39672]]

intended to meet the Agency's goals of testing vehicles in the In-Use 
Verification Program which have experienced typical real-world use and 
maintenance while screening out only those vehicles which are tampered, 
unsafe to test, or are in such a condition that restoration to a 
condition suitable for testing would be too costly. To preclude 
underestimating the emissions of the in-use fleet through possible 
climate related bias (the Agency believes vehicles operated primarily 
in warm weather areas may be subject to less harsh durability 
conditions than those operated in cold weather), EPA is proposing that 
a certain number of vehicles in each sample be procured from above 40 
degrees N. latitude (about the northern half of the United States).
    EPA is also proposing to require that manufacturers perform an 
analysis to determine if their certification durability processes are 
still capable of accurately predicting in-use performance, should the 
IUVP data from a test group sample at either the low or high mileage 
test point exceed certain criteria. This aspect of today's proposal is 
discussed in more detail in section II.B.
    A full description of the requirements of the In-Use Verification 
Program is found in Sec. 86.1841-01 of today's proposed regulations.
    In addition to the various elements of the IUVP proposal described 
above, EPA is also requesting comment on several other elements set 
forth in proposed regulation and described below.
    a. Small Volume Manufacturers and Small Volume Sales. EPA believes 
manufacturers with very small U.S. sales volumes may have difficulty 
procuring in-use vehicles for the proposed in-use testing. First, the 
small population of vehicles makes procurement difficult. Second, many 
of the small volume vehicles comprise a specialty, high-end market, and 
owners may be disinclined to participate, regardless of the incentives 
provided to encourage participation. Larger manufacturers with test 
groups of small actual U.S. sales volumes may encounter similar 
difficulties. Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease and, in some 
cases, eliminate the requirement to perform the in-use testing being 
proposed for those manufacturers meeting the prescribed sales criteria. 
A cap on the total number of vehicles allowed to be considered under 
small volume provisions (15,000 units) has been proposed for large 
volume manufacturers to prevent the circumvention of the in-use testing 
requirements by the purposeful creation of small test groups. The 
proposal for decreased testing by small volume manufacturers or for 
small volume test groups of larger manufacturers (two vehicles tested 
at the high mileage test point only, and permitting the test vehicles 
to be manufacturer-owned vehicles) at certain sales volumes (5001-
15,000)reflects EPA's belief that in-use feedback is critical even in 
the case of smaller volume sales. At the same time, the proposal 
addresses the potential difficulties which could be associated with 
procuring such vehicles from private owners. Tables 1 and 2 in the 
proposed regulations set forth the number of vehicles to be tested for 
each test group as a function of the number of vehicles sold within 
each group.
    b. Alternative Fueled Vehicles. Vehicles certified to alternative 
fuel standards (for example, methanol or compressed natural gas) would 
be subject to the proposed in-use verification regulations. However, 
based on current production numbers, these vehicles would likely fall 
under the ``small volume'' considerations, and thus would be exempted 
from in-use testing. These vehicles would be subject to the program 
requirements applicable to higher sales groups if their sales volume 
were to increase above the low volume limits.
    c. Carryover of In-use Data. Today's proposal would not allow 
manufacturers to carry over (that is, re-use) in-use verification test 
data from one model year to the next. The purpose of the IUVP is to 
collect real-world data on actual in-use cars. Allowing manufacturers 
to represent current or future model years in-use performance with data 
from previous model years fails to satisfy this purpose. First, EPA 
believes vehicles are almost never identical in terms of design, 
materials, and component suppliers from one model year to the next; 
even within a model year manufacturers frequently perform running 
changes, allowable under both the current and proposed regulations, 
that may have an undetermined impact on in-use performance. Second, 
driving patterns and climatic and fuel conditions that may impact in-
use deterioration may fluctuate from year to year or change over time. 
By allowing manufacturers to carry over previous model year in-use 
data, the effects of any such trends or fluctuations would not be 
measured; the carried-over in-use data would merely provide a 
``snapshot'' of the conditions of a single year rather than the desired 
``real-time picture'' of in-use conditions over a number of years. In 
its cost analysis, EPA has accounted for the cost to manufacturers of 
running the IUVP every model year, with no allowance for in-use test 
data carryover. As shown in this analysis, the cost for the IUVP would 
be offset by the savings gained in the certification program, in which 
carryover of durability and emission data is allowed.
    d. Required In-Use Verification Testing. Vehicles are required to 
meet the applicable emission standards when in actual use. As of model 
year 2000, emission standards will exist for tailpipe emissions as 
measured by the ``Federal Test Procedure'' (FTP) at low and high 
altitudes, supplemental FTP (SFTP), cold CO, evaporative/refueling 
emissions and onboard diagnostics. Because EPA believes the 
supplemental FTP is an integral part of the FTP, EPA is proposing that 
the FTP and supplemental FTP be performed for each in-use vehicle 
tested. To lessen manufacturers' test facility burden for in-use SFTP 
testing (which may require the use of an environmental test chamber), 
the Agency is proposing that only the US06 high speed cycle be 
performed for the in-use verification program. Manufacturers would 
determine the composite in-use SFTP emission level by combining the in-
use US06 and in-use FTP test levels with the test level from the pre-
production certification air conditioning test (without deterioration 
factors applied).
    In addition to the FTP/SFTP exhaust emission testing, EPA proposes 
that the evaporative/refueling emissions procedure be performed on the 
basis of the vehicle's evaporative/refueling family, rather than the 
vehicle's test group. EPA is proposing that a manufacturer perform a 
single in-use evaporative test and on-board refueling loss test per 
evaporative/refueling family at both the low and high mileage test 
points. There are currently ongoing evaporative test streamlining 
efforts between EPA, California ARB and industry which are separate 
from today's proposal. EPA intends to adopt the resulting procedure for 
the in-use evaporative testing once it becomes available.
    Because the cold CO standard is a 50,000 mile standard and the 
minimum mileage requirement associated with the IUVP high mileage 
testing requirement (50,000 miles) would likely result in in-use 
vehicles with mileage beyond this compliance liability limit, EPA is 
proposing not to require manufacturers to conduct a cold CO test for 
purposes of the IUVP. Instead, the Agency would continue to perform in-
use evaluations of cold CO performance as part of its routine in-house 
in-use compliance program.
    Because EPA's emission standards currently apply at high altitude 
as well

[[Page 39673]]

as low altitude, EPA is proposing that one vehicle per test group be 
tested under high altitude conditions for FTP. EPA is proposing to 
require this testing only at the high mileage test point in order to 
minimize the expense and facility constraints, if any, associated with 
this testing.
    e. In-Use Test Facility Correlation. Traditionally, EPA has 
verified the ability of manufacturers' test facilities to provide 
precise, accurate, and reproducible results by comparing certification 
test data generated at EPA's Ann Arbor, Michigan facility to the data 
generated at the manufacturers' facilities. Additionally, most, if not 
all, manufacturers have participated in voluntary ``round-robin'' 
correlation testing programs whereby a single vehicle is tested at a 
number of facilities, thus checking the correlation of many 
laboratories. EPA has never specified regulations requiring a level of 
correlation; rather, the regulations in 40 CFR Subpart B specify the 
accuracy and precision of the test equipment and procedures to be used 
in emission testing which, if adhered to, should result in an 
acceptable level of correlation. The same correlation procedures would 
apply to the IUVP. As EPA's existing approach to correlation has worked 
well for the past 20 years, EPA is planning to apply the same basic 
approach for this program.
3. Impact of IUVP on Other EPA Mobile Source Programs
    The IUVP program is not designed to replace EPA's existing 
compliance programs. Rather, it is designed to improve the 
effectiveness of the existing programs by vastly increasing the 
quantity of in-use emission data available while decreasing the 
resources directed toward pre-production certification. Nevertheless, 
the generation of IUVP data would, to a greater or lesser extent, 
impact each of EPA's existing compliance programs as discussed below.
    a. Recall Program: Today's proposal does not change the Agency's 
current recall program regulations. However, the data made available by 
the proposed IUVP would enhance the recall program by enabling EPA to 
better focus Agency testing on potential recall candidates.
    b. Emission Factors: The IUVP data would supplement the Agency's 
emissions factor program's database of in-use vehicle emission 
performance used for assessing current and projecting future mobile 
source impacts on air quality.
    c. Certification: IUVP data would provide a real-world picture of 
the effects of time and mileage on emission performance, which can be 
compared to the durability demonstration required to be made at the 
time of certification. The data would also be used to determine if 
improvements to manufacturers' durability processes are needed, as 
discussed in section II. B.
    d. Selective enforcement audits (SEA): The Agency has the statutory 
and regulatory authority to test new production line vehicles to 
determine if the vehicles produced by a manufacturer conform with the 
regulations with respect to which the certificate of conformity was 
issued.26 The IUVP proposed today has an element requiring 
all but the smallest volume manufacturers to test in-use vehicles in 
the first year of service at low mileage (10,000 miles or less). It is 
anticipated that this low mileage in-use testing element of IUVP would 
to a large degree replace the need for assembly line testing. However, 
because many small volume manufacturers would not be performing in-use 
verification testing, the Agency believes that SEA regulations should 
be retained as a discretionary alternative compliance tool. Also, 
should the low mileage IUVP test data from the large volume 
manufacturers or other data sources indicate a chronic low mileage 
problem such as consistently high emissions or On-Board Diagnostic 
(OBD) problems, the Agency may choose to perform an SEA to ensure 
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Clean Air Act section 206(b); 40 CFR Part 86, Subpart G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Manufacturer Funded In-Use Confirmatory Testing
    Today's proposal also includes regulations which would create a 
manufacturer funded in-use confirmatory testing program. This program 
would require manufacturers to conduct additional testing of a test 
group when the IUVP data for the test group exceeds a specified trigger 
level. Additionally, EPA is proposing that the Agency could require 
testing of a transmission-type subset of a test group if emissions 
shown by the entire test group sample meet the specified triggering 
criteria.
    The proposed criteria that would trigger confirmatory testing are 
based upon the emission standards to which the test group was 
originally certified. The proposed criteria (a mean of 1.3 times the 
standard with a 50 percent or greater failure rate for the test group 
sample at either the low or high mileage test point) was derived after 
considering the purpose of the confirmatory testing (generation of test 
data to determine the need for a remedy of classes which do not conform 
with the applicable standards under the provisions of 207(c)); the fact 
that the IUVP data is based on vehicles essentially unscreened for 
maintenance and use history, thereby necessitating some allowance for 
possible maintenance and use effects; the trigger point (1.5 times the 
standard) of the OBD systems which would be present at the time this 
proposed regulation would go into effect; and the desire (again 
recognizing the nature of the test vehicle procurement criteria) that 
manufacturer funded confirmatory testing not be required based on poor 
performance by only a small percentage of the test group sample. The 
results of the high altitude and evaporative/refueling emission 
testing, because they would be limited to one vehicle per test group or 
evaporative/refueling family respectively, would not trigger 
manufacturer-funded confirmatory testing. They would instead being used 
as a means of focusing Agency and industry attention on in-use problems 
that warrant additional attention in EPA's recall program and/or by the 
manufacturer.
    The Agency intends to periodically review and, if necessary, revise 
these criteria, and intends to do so after it has gathered sufficient 
information to support any revisions.
    It is the Agency's expectation that the data generated in the 
proposed manufacturer funded in-use confirmatory test program would be 
based on vehicle samples and on test practices and procedures upon 
which a non-conformity determination under Section 207(c) of the Act 
may be based. EPA believes that manufacturers would consider it to be 
in their best interest to design test programs which both the Agency 
and the manufacturer are confident accurately reflect the emission 
performance of properly maintained and used vehicles within their 
useful life. The Agency expects that manufacturers would act 
responsibly and voluntarily to correct emission problems identified in 
either the IUVP or manufacturer funded in-use confirmatory program; 
nonetheless, it is the Agency's intent that the data generated in such 
confirmatory programs be of sufficient quality that the affected 
manufacturer has confidence in the emission results shown and that the 
Agency can utilize the data, if the test group's emission performance 
warrants, to determine whether a substantial number of the vehicles in 
a class do not conform with applicable standards when properly 
maintained and used.
    The Agency believes that it would be beneficial to both the Agency 
and

[[Page 39674]]

industry if, prior to initiation of a manufacturer-funded in-use 
confirmatory test program conducted under these regulations, the Agency 
and the relevant manufacturer agree, to the extent possible, upon the 
vehicle procurement, maintenance and testing procedures (not otherwise 
specified by regulation) which would be used by the manufacturer in 
conducting the confirmatory testing. The Agency would encourage the 
establishment of such ``up-front'' agreements as EPA believes that it 
would decrease the likelihood of post-testing disagreements pertaining 
to the validity of the testing, thus facilitating the expeditious 
resolution of any action indicated by the test data. In cases where the 
Agency and a manufacturer reach agreement prior to a program on the 
practices to be used in the confirmatory test program, the Agency will 
not contest the use of those practices subsequent to the program.
    A full description of the proposed in-use compliance program 
requirements is found in Secs. 86.1841-01 through 86.1843-01 of the 
proposed regulations. EPA requests comment on any provision within 
these proposed regulations.

J. Fees

Background
    EPA has been collecting fees to recover Agency costs for its motor 
vehicle compliance activities since the 1993 model year. The final rule 
promulgating fee regulations was published in the Federal Register on 
July 7, 1992. The regulations are contained in 40 CFR Part 86, Subpart 
J. Today's proposal impacts only light-duty vehicles and light-duty 
trucks.27 The fee regulations are proposed to be modified as 
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The fees charged for heavy-duty vehicles, heavy-duty 
engines, and motorcycles remain the same because they are not 
affected by the compliance procedures being proposed today. Any 
changes to these fees will be addressed in separate rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Collection on test group basis
    The current fee program assesses fees on the basis of 
``certification request type''. Because certificates of conformity are 
currently issued for each engine family/emission control system 
combination, this has been the basic unit for fee collection. Because 
today's proposal eliminates the unit of engine family/emission control 
system combination as the certification basis for light-duty vehicles 
and light-duty trucks, a new base unit upon which to assess fees is 
needed.
    To retain consistency with the current fee assessment procedure, 
EPA is proposing to continue collecting a fee on a per-certificate 
basis. Because the test group would be the unit receiving a 
certificate, a fee would be collected for each test group to be 
certified. In the 1996 model year EPA issued 400 certificates, with a 
separate fee collected for each engine system combination. For CAP 
2000, EPA estimates that there will be approximately 320 test groups 
per year, resulting in 20% fewer fee submissions.
Fee Cost Analysis
    EPA established the current fee provisions in a rule issued in 
1992, 57 FR 30055 (July 7, 1992). That rule was based in large part on 
a 1991 cost analysis that the agency prepared. Since that time there 
have been several changes in the costs of the Motor Vehicle and Engine 
Compliance Program, such as increases due to inflation and additional 
costs related to performing tests using procedures not in effect in 
1991, including supplemental FTP, enhanced evaporative and onboard 
vapor recovery. EPA recognizes that the 1991 cost analysis is in need 
of updating, but the best time to do a comprehensive reevaluation would 
be after the implementation of the CAP 2000 changes and the test 
procedure changes noted above. This would allow a more accurate and 
complete analysis of the combined effects of the changes since 1991. 
The revisions to the fee provisions proposed today are therefore based 
solely on the revisions proposed for CAP 2000, using the 1991 cost 
analysis as a starting point.
    This approach is reasonable for various reasons. The types and the 
amount of work the Agency performs for certification and fuel economy 
compliance is not anticipated to change much as a result of today's 
proposal. The individual elements contained in the original 1991 fee 
cost analysis continue to be applicable. The EPA costs for confirmatory 
testing, certification compliance, fuel economy compliance, and in-use 
compliance are still appropriate as a starting point, pending any 
future update. A few exceptions which will change the EPA costs under 
this rule are a lower EPA certification confirmatory testing rate, 
lower EPA resources in administering the pre-production certification 
program, and a new element of EPA resources in administering the in-use 
verification testing program.
    EPA's resources for SEA are anticipated to be very low, because, as 
stated in section I.3. above EPA will instead utilize the low-mileage 
in-use verification testing performed by manufacturers to provide an 
early indication of the ability of production vehicles to comply with 
the emission standards.
    The current fee analysis includes a cost of $1,947,600 for 
confirmatory certification tests performed by EPA. EPA plans to reduce 
its confirmatory testing by 50 percent, which translates to a total 
dollar reduction of $973,800. The new EPA efforts for administering the 
manufacturer-run in-use verification test program will consist of 
creating and maintaining a new database, making administrative 
decisions as required by the proposed regulations, performing analyses 
of the data, and overseeing any corrective actions resulting from the 
outcome of the analyses. Because of the broad scope of the in-use 
verification program (proposed to be performed for every test group for 
all but the smallest manufacturers), EPA plans to redirect part of 
existing staff currently working on SEA, confirmatory testing, and 
certification activities to the new EPA activities related to this 
rule, namely administering the manufacturer-run in-use verification 
test program. EPA estimates that the additional EPA personnel cost of 
administering the new in-use program will be offset by the savings from 
SEA, certification, and confirmatory testing programs. However, EPA is 
anticipating a net reduction in EPA laboratory costs as a result of the 
50 percent reduction in confirmatory tests. As a result, the total EPA 
costs are proposed to be reduced by $973,800.
    The proposed new fee schedule has been calculated by using the 
original $9.4 million costs of baseline expenditure and reducing it by 
$973,800 to account for the reduced amount of confirmatory testing 
under CAP 2000. The figures from the fee cost study were adjusted 
accordingly in two places. The Table 1 figures were adjusted to reflect 
the reduced confirmatory testing amount. The Table S-2 figures were 
adjusted to reflect the reduced number of the certification requests, 
based on the 20% fewer test groups than engine family/emission control 
system combinations. The fee schedule for LDVs and LDTs is proposed to 
be revised as follows:

Federal signed: $27,211
California only signed: $ 8,956
Fed only unsigned: $ 2,738
Cal only unsigned: $ 2,738

While these fees are for the most part numerically higher than those 
currently assessed for each engine family/control system combination, 
each manufacturer would have 20% fewer payments; thus no payment 
increase in the aggregate should occur. The aggregate fees

[[Page 39675]]

collected would be $973,800 less than the current fee program. EPA is 
proposing to retain the waiver provision in the current fee regulations 
when the fee exceeds 1% of the aggregate projected US sales of vehicles 
covered by the certificate (40 CFR 86.908-93).
    As with the current fee program, the proposed new fee includes all 
EPA costs for evaporative/refueling certification and fuel economy 
compliance activities. This practice reduces burden on both EPA and 
manufacturers by limiting the complexity of the fee schedule and 
combining like costs under the test group category.

K. Reorganization of Compliance Regulations

1. Overview.
    The proposed regulatory language in today's action is located in a 
new Subpart S of Part 86. An outline of regulations in Subpart S is 
located at the beginning of the proposed regulatory language. 
Previously, most of the emissions compliance regulations were contained 
in Subpart A, including emission standards and compliance procedures 
for light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, heavy-duty vehicles and 
heavy-duty engines. The numbering system used in this subpart has 
become more difficult to use as new language has been added and old 
language revised.
    The Agency considered completely re-writing and re-numbering 
Subpart A. This would entail renumbering every section and paragraph, 
as well as renumbering the hundreds of cross-references to Subpart A, 
both within this and other Subpart in Part 86 as well as other Parts of 
the CFR. The new language resulting from today's proposal would need to 
be inserted, and any cross-references to the new language would have to 
be changed.
    The Agency decided to create a new Subpart for today's proposal for 
the following reasons:
    1. The compliance regulations proposed today are significantly 
different than those contained in Subpart A.
    2. The federal government initiative to streamline regulations can 
be honored by phasing out those portions of Subpart A as the applicable 
model years expire, eventually leaving only applicable regulations.
    3. Compliance procedures and emission standards for heavy duty 
vehicles and engines (which are significantly different from those of 
light-duty vehicles) would be self-contained in Subpart A.
    4. The Agency would be spared the time-consuming process of 
identifying and changing every cross reference in Subpart A.
    Some of the Subpart A language has been directly imported into 
Subpart S without modification, while some has been modified for 
clarity and conciseness, without changing the original intent.
    A new reference in Subpart A directs the reader to subpart S for 
regulations dealing with model year 2001 and later light-duty vehicles 
and light-duty trucks.
2. Organization of Emission Standards
    In addition to the overall reorganization of the compliance 
regulations, EPA is proposing a major reorganization to the emission 
standards in an effort to make them easier to read and use. It should 
be emphasized that no new emission standards for new light-duty 
vehicles and light-duty trucks are being proposed today. In a few 
instances, errors have been corrected.
    Emission standards in the current Subpart A regulations are roughly 
divided into four sections: light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, 
diesel heavy duty engines and gasoline heavy duty engines. With the 
increasing complexity of light-duty emission standards (brought about 
by phase-ins, alternate fuel provisions, and the expansion of light-
duty truck standards into four classes), this organization has become 
admittedly cumbersome and difficult to use. Today's proposal isolates 
the light-duty emission standards from the heavy duty by placing them 
in a separate subpart S. It also addresses each of the four classes of 
light-duty trucks individually so that the reader can see in one 
section what numerical standard applies to a particular truck class, 
rather than try to interpret a tabular presentation containing multiple 
class standards. The following discussion details the applicability and 
organization of the emission standards in today's proposal.
    Applicability: The emission standards included in Subpart S are 
applicable only to light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks for model 
year 2001 and beyond. Standards for heavy duty engines remain in 
Subpart A of part 86. Standards for model years prior to 2001 remain 
effective in Subpart A. This is necessary for both compliance purposes 
(some MY 2001 light-duty trucks classes would still have to comply with 
emission standards which have commenced, but not completed phase-in) 
and for enforcement purposes. Once these regulations are no longer 
necessary for those purposes, they would be removed. Eventually, 
Subpart A would contain language applicable only to heavy duty engines.
    Organization: The emission standards are organized into six 
sections. The first contains general provisions applicable to all 
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. The other five sections 
contain the specific emission standards for light-duty vehicles and the 
four classes of light-duty trucks.
    The general provisions include items like prohibition of crankcase 
emissions, prohibition of toxics and unsafe conditions, vapor venting 
prohibition, and altitude requirements. The general standards section 
also contains the implementation schedules for those emission standards 
which, as of the 2001 model year, have been promulgated but have not 
yet been fully implemented. This includes the Supplemental FTP 
standards and the Onboard Refueling emission standards. The reader of 
those implementation tables is referred to the specific emission 
standards sections to obtain the numerical standards which will be 
applicable. So doing eliminates the current problem of proliferation of 
sections due to phased-in emission standards. In the future, as new 
standards are promulgated, they will be assigned a section number with 
the appropriate model year suffix (e.g. 04 or 05). Finally, the general 
emission standards section contains those elements of emission 
standards which are common to all classes of light-duty vehicles and 
light-duty trucks, such as refueling receptacle requirements, 
determination of sales percentages to meet phase-in requirements, high 
altitude provisions, etc. This has been done to eliminate some of the 
redundancy prevalent in the current emission standards regulations.
    The decision to split light-duty truck emission standards into four 
separate sections was made to facilitate use by the reader. Because 
some of the emission standards (such as CST and Cold CO) are the same 
in all four truck classes, this results in some redundant language. 
However, the SFTP standards and Tier 1 tailpipe standards are not the 
same within the truck classes. As a result, the redundancies seemed to 
be a small price to pay in return for easy-to-read emission standards. 
Another feature of the specific emission standards sections is the 
standardization of location. In all five sections, paragraph (a) 
contains the Tier 1 tailpipe standards, paragraph (b) contains the SFTP 
standards, and so on. If a standard does not apply to a certain class, 
the section is held as ``reserved''. EPA intends to continue to 
continue

[[Page 39676]]

this standardization in any future emission standards regulations.
3. Corrections and Changes
    The language prohibiting crankcase emissions has been modified to 
prohibit crankcase emissions from all light-duty vehicles, rather than 
from Otto-cycle and methanol-fueled diesel light-duty vehicles. This is 
being done to standardize light-duty vehicle regulations with those for 
light-duty trucks, which currently prohibit crankcase emissions from 
all light-duty trucks, regardless of fuel or duty cycle.
    CAA section 206(f) establishes the requirement that all vehicles 
meet the requirements of section 202 of the Act regardless of the 
altitude at which they are sold. In promulgating the regulations for 
this requirement, EPA included high altitude exemption provisions for 
those vehicles and trucks meeting specific design limitation criteria 
(see 40 CFR 86.094-8(h) and (i). EPA has reviewed the last five years 
of certification activity which shows that no manufacturer requested 
the use of high altitude exemptions, indicating that the design 
limitation elements needed to qualify for the exemption no longer 
exist. Therefore, EPA is proposing to eliminate the high altitude 
exemption provisions.
    In the current regulations, 40 CFR 86.094-16(a) specifically 
prohibits gasoline-fueled LTDs and LDVs from being equipped with defeat 
devices. This regulation was promulgated as part of the cold CO 
emission standards (57 FR 31900), which are applicable only to 
gasoline-fueled vehicles; hence the regulation excluded all but 
gasoline from the defeat device prohibition. However, the Agency 
believes that defeat devices should be prohibited regardless of the 
fuel consumed, consistent with longstanding EPA policy as outlined in 
EPA Advisory Circular 24 ``Prohibition of use of Emission Control 
Defeat Devices.'' Therefore, EPA is proposing to incorporate its defeat 
device policy into regulatory language which applies to all types of 
fuels rather than just to gasoline. This language is found in section 
86.1809-01 in the proposed regulation.

L. Harmonization With California Air Resources Board Compliance 
Procedures

    The Agency worked closely with California ARB as it developed 
today's CAP 2000 procedures. Currently, EPA and California ARB have 
procedures for certification which, while similar in nature, have a few 
fundamental differences which add to the manufacturers' testing, 
paperwork and reporting burdens. When California ARB, EPA, and 
automotive manufacturers signed the statement of principles for 
redesigning the compliance program, it was understood that the two 
agencies would work together to reduce these burdens, by harmonizing 
the certification procedures to the fullest extent possible. In today's 
proposal, virtually all features have been coordinated with those of 
California ARB, including the durability and emission data vehicle 
selection procedures; the concepts of test groups and durability 
groups; low and high mileage in-use verification testing; confirmatory 
in-use testing; and paperwork and information collection. California 
ARB has also indicated to EPA that it intends to issue separate 
regulations based on the final outcome of today's proposed regulations 
that can be implemented at the same time as the EPA regulations.

M. Implementation

    EPA is proposing that CAP 2000 be implemented in the 2001 model 
year (MY) for light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. EPA is 
proposing to give manufacturers the option of participating in the CAP 
2000 program one year early (2000 MY) with all or some of their product 
offering, provided that the program is adopted in its entirety. Thus, 
early opt-in must include all provisions of CAP 2000. In MY 2001, all 
manufacturers would be required to comply with CAP 2000 regulations.
    EPA considered providing a phase-in period; however, the Agency 
believes that concurrent administration of two certification programs 
would present an unacceptable burden to EPA and manufacturers. For 
example, it would entail two sets of applications, computer data, 
confirmatory testing procedures, and certificates of confirmatory for 
each program. In addition, the grouping procedures of CAP 2000 were 
designed to cover the manufacturer's entire product lines. Applying 
these procedures to a portion of a manufacturer's product line would 
result in little savings and could result in more cost for 
manufacturers than the current program, in some circumstances.
    In spite of the logistical concerns with administering two 
different programs, EPA believes that the proposed early opt-in 
provision is beneficial overall. Early opt-in would allow manufacturers 
to take earlier advantage of the time and cost savings from the reduced 
testing requirements, less paper work, and broader certification groups 
of CAP 2000. EPA also anticipates that the rate of early opt-in 
participation would be small and would most likely occur when the 
savings outweigh any administrative difficulties. The overall reduction 
in pre-certification activities would offset the cost and 
implementation requirements needed for CAP 2000. Finally, the Agency 
believes that early opt-in of CAP 2000 is beneficial because it would 
push forward by one year the in-use feedback, thus enabling 
manufacturers to identify and fix any problems one year sooner.
    Special consideration was given to implementing the proposed 
durability procedures. The Agency believes the proposed new durability 
process, while improving upon the current procedures, requires some 
lead time to implement. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to allow 
manufacturers to continue using durability data they may have already 
generated using either the AMA procedure or the manufacturer-determined 
light-duty truck procedures for model years 2001 through 2003. The 
Agency is also proposing to accept the procedures approved under the 
current RDP-1 provisions for use in CAP 2000 without further Agency 
approval.
    The Agency is proposing that manufacturers wishing to carry over 
AMA, alternate service accumulation durability or light-duty truck 
durability data to the 2001 through 2003 model years be responsible for 
determining that their new durability groups are eligible to utilize 
that data using good engineering judgement. The Agency believes that 
sufficient documentation exists to assist the manufacturers in reaching 
accurate decisions.28 The Agency can make specific 
eligibility rulings if requested by a manufacturer, and would review 
such determinations when making decisions on an application for 
certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ EPA Advisory Circular 17F, ``General Criteria for the 
Carryover and Carry-across of Certification Data and the Carryover 
of Fuel Economy Data for Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks'' 
dated November 16, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MY 2001 implementation date takes into consideration the time 
needed for manufacturers to plan, implement, contract, and/or build 
facilities needed for performing in-use testing and meeting other 
provisions required by CAP 2000. EPA is aware of a concern expressed by 
some manufacturers associated with the cost to manufacturers in 
creating additional space or facilities for in-use testing. The Agency 
believes that the associated cost savings arising from the proposed 
reductions in pre-production testing would offset the costs added by 
the in-use testing requirements. For manufacturers with laboratories in 
the

[[Page 39677]]

United States, the emission data and durability testing saved by the 
reduced certification requirements under CAP 2000 should provide the 
necessary test capacity to conduct the required in-use testing. For 
manufacturers without laboratories in the United States, the money 
saved from the reduced certification testing in their laboratories 
should be sufficient to fund their in-use testing at a contractor 
facility in the United States. To accommodate the special test facility 
requirements of the evaporative/refueling procedures, EPA is proposing 
not to require in-use testing for those procedures until the 2004 MY.
    The Agency is proposing to allow manufacturers to forgo the low-
mileage in-use testing requirement for three model years to allow 
additional time for test facility preparation.

N. Incentives to Encourage Better In-Use Emission Performance

    Consideration of incentives to encourage better in-use emission 
control performance was a feature of the aforementioned Statement of 
Principles signed by EPA, California ARB, and manufacturers. The Agency 
believes that encouraging good in-use emissions performance can serve 
to improve air quality in the long run. To be effective, any incentives 
offered should motivate manufacturers to produce vehicles which are 
cleaner and more durable than they would have otherwise been built.
    The current recall program actually acts as an incentive program 
because manufacturers would rather invest in assuring that vehicles 
meet standards in use rather than risk future testing and possibly an 
expensive recall. The in-use testing proposed for CAP 2000 will serve 
to bolster this incentive. Recall is effective because of the large 
cost and public image risk of recall. However, the recall program is a 
negative incentive, in that no rewards are given for good performance. 
The Agency would like to propose positive incentives for both good 
performance (e.g., consistent in use compliance at high mileage in the 
as-received condition) and exemplary performance (consistent in use 
performance at high mileage that is significantly below the standards). 
This is a significant challenge because rewards will have to be of such 
value as to offset the manufacturers' costs of changing vehicle designs 
or manufacturing practices. The Agency does not currently have the 
information necessary to assess the levels of reward needed to offset 
these costs, or what these costs might be. Therefore, the Agency 
requests specific information from manufacturers on what incentives 
would motivate them to achieve various levels of improvements to in-use 
emission control performance.
    The Agency would also like comment on an incentive program concept 
that involves at least two levels of in-use achievement. The first 
level would be that of good, solid in-use compliance. The second level 
would be that of exemplary in-use performance. Each of these levels 
would carry rewards that would be of increasing benefit for 
manufacturers. The benefits would involve more cost savings and 
flexibility in certification and information requirements submittal, as 
well as potential reductions in the in-use testing requirements for 
exemplary performance. The Agency believes it would be able to offer 
these benefits without significant increased risk of noncompliance in 
cases where the manufacturer has a proven track record of solid 
compliance or exemplary performance. The more confidence the Agency has 
in a manufacturer's likely performance, the more oversight EPA could 
forego without significant added risk.
    An example of Level 1 incentives could be criteria such as passing 
results for all CAP 2000 high mileage in-use testing for two 
consecutive model years, or, alternatively, an average high mileage 
compliance level of no more than 75% of the standards for two 
consecutive model years. Added to either of these could be a record of 
two consecutive model years of no emission related recalls, either 
ordered or voluntary (for any reason), and of no significant violations 
of the prohibited acts found in section 203 of the Clean Air Act. These 
criteria would represent a convincing case that the manufacturer would 
likely continue such performance. Therefore, the Agency would be 
willing to forego a significant amount of oversight for that 
manufacturer, as long as this record of compliance is achieved. Some 
types of rewards, for example, could be wider flexibility in choosing 
durability groups (within the technical constraints of good engineering 
judgement), a lower confirmatory test random rate by EPA, or the 
virtual elimination of certification audits.
    The Level 2 incentives would be for manufacturers exhibiting 
exemplary emissions performance. In making this determination, the 
Agency could consider the same criteria as for level 1, but with a 
stronger demonstration of in-use compliance (such as 2-year average 
high mileage compliance of 50% of the standard, as proposed to 75% of 
the standard). The Agency also believes that it would be appropriate to 
consider in-use data and information obtained apart from the in-use 
verification and recall programs, such as OBD data, I/M data or other 
credible in-use information sources. EPA would expect that 
manufacturers wishing to be considered ``exemplary'' would provide such 
information to EPA. The rewards for such exemplary performance might 
be: all level 1 rewards, plus the elimination of low mileage in-use 
testing, reductions in high mileage in-use testing, and public 
recognition for the manufacturer by the Agency.
    Although the specific procedures for the above concept have not 
been developed, it is intended that the criteria be evaluated for each 
model year. That is, the most recently available in-use data would be 
evaluated prior to awarding the benefits for the upcoming model year. 
The Agency would like comments on other procedural problems that would 
have to be solved, as well as on the criteria and rewards.
    Many of the rewards in the above example do not require regulatory 
change or the addition of regulatory authority. Nevertheless, the 
Agency would like comments on this concept, and any other ideas for 
incentives. Today's proposal contains regulatory language that will 
allow the Agency to waive or modify certain other regulatory 
requirements to allow the structuring of an incentive program. The 
Agency would use this authority along with other discretionary actions 
to design incentive programs. To retain program flexibility, and to 
allow time to learn what level of in-use performance to expect once the 
program is underway, the Agency is not proposing specific performance 
criteria or rewards at this time. Rather, the Agency would prefer to 
establish the regulatory basis in this rulemaking and establish 
specific incentive packages by guidance.

O. Good Engineering Judgment and Decision Making Under the Regulations

    The regulations proposed today require that many different 
decisions be made leading up to and following the certification of a 
group of vehicles. In each case, the regulations specify the criteria 
that apply to these decisions. For example, the vehicles within a 
manufacturer's product line must be divided into durability groups with 
vehicles exhibiting similar emissions deterioration throughout their 
useful life (Sec. 86.1816-01); within each durability group the vehicle 
configuration expected to generate the highest level of exhaust 
emission deterioration must be selected (Sec. 86.1818-01); an approved 
durability program must be applied to those durability groups, 
including those

[[Page 39678]]

in future model years, whose deterioration is accurately predicted by 
the durability program (Sec. 86.1819-01); emissions data vehicles from 
a test group must be selected based on the vehicle configuration which 
is expected to exhibit the worst in-use emissions (Sec. 86.1824-01); 
the vehicle or engine parameters which would be subject to adjustment 
must be determined, based on various specified criteria (Sec. 86.1829-
01); and so on.
    Unless otherwise specified in the regulations, the manufacturers 
would initially make all of these decisions. This allows manufacturers 
to most efficiently structure their programs to apply for 
certification, and allows EPA to reserve its resources for appropriate 
review and auditing of decisions made by the manufacturer. EPA reserves 
the authority in all cases to reject the decision made by the 
manufacturer if the regulatory criteria are not properly applied. In 
general, issuance of a certificate of conformity by EPA would reflect 
EPA's decision to accept for purposes of that certification the 
decisions made by the manufacturer. However, if EPA later determines 
that incorrect or misleading statements were made by a manufacturer, 
EPA may void a certificate ab initio. EPA reserves the right not to 
issue a certificate where a manufacturer's decision is not consistent 
with the regulations.
    This process has been employed under the current regulations for 
many years for various regulatory requirements. For example, 
manufacturers routinely divide their product line into engine families, 
using the criteria specified in the regulations. Prior approval by the 
Administrator is not required; however, EPA may reject this 
determination and not issue a certificate if the Administrator 
determines that the regulatory criteria were not properly applied. 
Today's proposal takes this approach and extends it throughout the 
regulations.
    EPA is also proposing an explicit requirement that manufacturers 
exercise good engineering judgment in making the decisions required 
under the regulations. This would ensure that manufacturers routinely 
review and update their internal decision making processes, so that the 
best available data and information are brought to play in making the 
decisions called for under the regulations. Failure to apply good 
engineering judgment may result in EPA overruling the manufacturer's 
decision. As long as manufacturers do not deliberately overlook 
information, use incorrect information, or make decisions without using 
a rational decision process, EPA is limiting the consequences of making 
incorrect good engineering judgments to future corresponding decisions. 
Also, the Agency is proposing that such overruled decisions be applied 
as soon as practicable. In the case of some durability decisions, a 
practical implementation for a new decision may require notice of a 
whole model year. For example, if a durability problem regarding 
selection of the appropriate durability calibration reaches a final 
Agency decision to require a change in the manufacturer's decision 
process in December of 2002 calendar year, the 2003 model year vehicles 
will already be certified and could not be affected by this decision. 
Also, the 2004 model year durability vehicles may have completed the 
durability process by that time, in which case it would not be 
practical to apply this decision until the 2005 model year.
    The Agency is proposing harsher remedies for intentional and 
deliberate acts or decisions made without a rational basis. Intentional 
disregard for good engineering judgment could result in voiding 
certificates ab initio, with provisions for an administrative hearing, 
in addition to any civil or criminal enforcement actions which may 
result.

P. Optional Applicability for Heavy Duty Engines

    EPA is proposing to modify the option available to manufacturers of 
heavy-duty engines to certify heavy-duty vehicles up to 10,000 pounds 
GVWR as light-duty trucks, in accordance with the light-duty standards 
and procedures. The modification consists of raising the weight limit 
to 14,000 pounds GVWR. EPA believes this change is appropriate because 
(a) it is strictly optional; (b) it is environmentally beneficial, 
because any engines utilizing it will be subject to the more stringent 
light-duty truck emission standards; (c) it provides more flexibility 
to manufacturers of heavy-duty engines, in that they may incorporate 
more engines into their light-duty program, potentially eliminating the 
need to run two separate compliance programs; and (d) the 14,000 pound 
weight limit is common to that of California's mandatory Medium Duty 
Vehicle program, thus enabling more harmonization.

III. Cost Effectiveness

    The Agency estimates that manufacturers should realize a total 
annual savings of about $55 million as a direct result of today's 
proposal. These figures include savings gained from streamlined 
certification activities, such as fewer durability and emission data 
demonstrations, and accounts for the new costs incurred by the proposed 
in-use verification testing requirements. A detailed discussion and 
table of costs/savings are contained in the Support Document to this 
proposed regulation and are filed in the Docket.
    The Agency is not claiming any environmental benefits for this 
proposal because no new emission standards are being proposed. The 
anticipated outcome of the proposed requirements should, however, 
result in some benefits because of improvements to durability 
demonstration requirements, and because of the potential to identify 
and improve upon vehicle emission performance based on the in-use 
verification test results.

IV. Public Participation

A. Comments and the Public Docket

    EPA welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposed rulemaking. 
Commenters are especially encouraged to give suggestions for changing 
any aspects of the proposal. All comments, with the exception of 
proprietary information should be addressed to the EPA Air Docket 
Section, Docket No. A-96-50 (see ADDRESSES).
    Commenters who wish to submit proprietary information for 
consideration should clearly separate such information from other 
comments by (1) labeling proprietary information ``Confidential 
Business Information'' and (2) sending proprietary information directly 
to the contact person listed (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and 
not to the public docket. This would help insure that proprietary 
information is not inadvertently placed in the docket. If a commenter 
wants EPA to use a submission labeled as confidential business 
information as part of the basis for the final rule, then a non-
confidential version of the document, which summarizes the key data or 
information, should be sent to the docket.
    Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed 
by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 
CFR Part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission 
when it is received by EPA, the submission may be made available to the 
public without notifying the commenters.

B. Public Hearing

    Anyone wishing to present testimony about this proposal at the 
public hearing (see DATES) should notify the contact person (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than five days prior to the day 
of the hearing. The contact

[[Page 39679]]

person should be given an estimate of the time required for the 
presentation of testimony and notification of any need for audio/visual 
equipment. Testimony will be scheduled on a first come, first serve 
basis. A sign-up sheet will be available at the registration table the 
morning of the hearing for scheduling those who have not notified the 
contact earlier. This testimony will be scheduled on a first come, 
first serve basis to follow the previously scheduled testimony.
    EPA requests that approximately 50 copies of the statement or 
material to be presented be brought to the hearing for distribution to 
the audience. In addition, EPA would find it helpful to receive an 
advanced copy of any statement or material to be presented at the 
hearing at least one week before the scheduled hearing date. This is to 
give EPA staff adequate time to review such material before the 
hearing. Such advanced copies should be submitted to the contact person 
listed.
    The official records of the hearing will be kept open for 30 days 
following the hearing to allow submission of rebuttal and supplementary 
testimony. All such submittals should be directed to the Air Docket 
Section, Docket No. A-96-32 (see ADDRESSES). The hearing will be 
conducted informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. A 
written transcript of the hearing will be placed in the above docket 
for review. Anyone desiring to purchase a copy of the transcript should 
make individual arrangements with the court reporter recording the 
proceedings.
    If no one indicates to EPA that they wish to present oral testimony 
by the date given, the public hearing will be cancelled.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or,
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of the Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Unfunded Mandates Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (signed 
into law on March 22, 1995) requires that EPA prepare a budgetary 
impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a federal 
mandate that may result in expenditure by state, local and tribal 
governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or 
more in any one year. Section 203 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
requires EPA to establish a plan for obtaining input from and 
informing, educating and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
    Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, EPA must identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must be 
prepared. EPA must select from those alternatives the least costly, 
most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the 
objectives of the rule, unless EPA explains why this alternative is not 
selected or the selection of this alternative is inconsistent with law.
    Because this proposed rule is expected to result in the expenditure 
by state, local and tribal governments or private sector of less than 
$100 million in any one year, EPA has not prepared a budgetary impact 
statement or specifically addressed selection of the least costly, most 
cost-effective or least burdensome alternative. Because small 
governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by this 
rule, EPA is not required to develop a plan with regard to small 
governments.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that 
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. 
This proposed rule would not have a significant adverse impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because it relates to requirements 
applicable only to manufacturers of motor vehicles, a group which does 
not contain a substantial number of small entities. See 1996 World 
Motor Vehicle Data, AAMA, pp. 282-285.
    Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Executive Order 13045

    This proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 
(62FR19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not involve decisions on 
environmental health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately 
affect children.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA 
(ICR No. 1872.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail 
at OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (2137); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington D.C. 20460, by email at 
[email protected], or by calling (202)260-2740. A copy may also be 
downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov.icr.
    The information collection burden associated with this rule 
(testing, record keeping and reporting requirements) is estimated to 
total 700,154 hours annually for the manufacturers of light-duty 
vehicles and light-duty trucks. The hours spent annually on information 
collection activities by a given manufacturer depends upon 
manufacturer-specific variables, such as the number of test groups and 
durability groups, production changes, emissions defects, and so forth.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the

[[Page 39680]]

existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and 
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of 
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of 
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
    Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques to the Director, OPPE Regulatory 
Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136); 401 
M St., S.W.; Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., 
N.W., Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' 
Include the ICR number in any correspondence.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Confidential business information, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 15, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-19403 Filed 7-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U