[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 235 (Thursday, December 8, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72917-72930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23714]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 86
[OAR-2004-0011; FRL 8004-7]
RIN 2060-AM32
Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor
Vehicle Engines: Technical Amendments to Evaporative Emissions
Regulations, Dynamometer Regulations, and Vehicle Labeling
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to make changes to certain
provisions of the evaporative and refueling emission regulations for
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks and heavy-duty vehicles up to
14,000
[[Page 72918]]
pounds GVWR, the four-wheel drive dynamometer test provisions, and the
vehicle labeling regulations. The evaporative changes are intended to:
reduce manufacturers' certification evaporative/refueling test burden;
clarify existing evaporative/refueling requirements; and better
harmonize federal evaporative/refueling test procedures with California
evaporative/refueling test procedures. The dynamometer changes are
intended to amend outdated regulations to now include four-wheel drive
provisions. The labeling changes are intended to amend regulations to
remove outdated information. Today's action does not change the
stringency of these existing programs.
DATES: Today's action will be effective on February 6, 2006, without
further notice unless we receive adverse comment by January 9, 2006, or
a request for a public hearing by December 23, 2005. If we receive
adverse comment on one or more distinct amendments, paragraphs, or
sections of this rulemaking, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register indicating which provisions are being withdrawn due to
adverse comment.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2004-
0011, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET,
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Fax: (202) 566-1741.
Mail: Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0011, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery: Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0011, Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation
Docket, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0011.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-
mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the federal regulations.gov Web sites are
``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
fax number for the Air Docket and Reading Room for OAR-2004-0011 is
(202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Sohacki, Certification and
Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2000
Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4851; fax
number: (734) 214-4053; e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is publishing this rule without a prior
proposal because we view this action as noncontroversial and anticipate
no adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of
today's Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposal to adopt the provisions in
this Direct Final Rule if adverse comments are filed. We may address
all adverse comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed
rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Any distinct
amendment, paragraph, or section of today's rulemaking for which we do
not receive adverse comment will become effective on the date set out
above, notwithstanding any adverse comment on any other distinct
amendment, paragraph, or section of today's rule.
Access to Rulemaking Documents Through the Internet
Today's action is available electronically on the date of
publication from EPA's Federal Register Internet Web site listed below.
Electronic copies of this preamble, regulatory language, and other
documents associated with today's final rule are available from the EPA
Office of Transportation and Air Quality Web site, listed below,
shortly after the rule is signed by the Administrator. These services
are free of charge, except any cost that you already incur for
connecting to the Internet.
EPA Federal Register Web site: http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/epa-air/ (either select a desired date or use the Search feature).
EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ (look in What's New or under specific rulemaking
topic).
Please note that due to differences between the software used to
develop the documents and the software into which the documents may be
downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc., may occur.
Regulated Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action
are those that manufacture and sell motor vehicles in the United
States. The table below gives some examples of entities that may have
to comply with the regulations. However, since these are only examples,
you should carefully examine these and other existing regulations in 40
CFR part 86. If you have any questions, please call the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
[[Page 72919]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS SIC Examples of
Category codes codes potentially regulated
\a\ \b\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................... 336111, 3711 Automobile and Light
336112, Duty Motor Vehicle
336120 Manufacturing Heavy
Duty Truck
Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\b\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.
Table of Contents
I. Overview
Background
II. List of Changes To Test Procedures
A. Evaporative Test Procedure
B. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) and Spitback Test
Procedure
C. Four-Wheel Drive Dynamometer Regulations
D. Vehicle Labeling
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
I. Overview
Today's action pertains to the Evaporative Emissions Test Procedure
(58 FR 16002, March 24, 1992) and the Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery
Procedure (59 FR 16262, April 6, 1994) for light-duty vehicles, light
duty trucks, and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles up to 14,000 GVWR; the
dynamometer test provisions (40 CFR 86.135-90, 40 CFR 86.159-00, 40 CFR
86.160-00); and the Vehicle Labeling requirements (40 CFR 86.098-35, 40
CFR 86.1807-01). Today's action includes minor revisions to the
evaporative test procedures, which are intended to reduce testing
burden associated with conducting evaporative test procedures without
affecting the level of stringency. Today's action includes minor
revisions to clarify evaporative emissions testing regulations; to
harmonize EPA and California evaporative requirements; to allow use of
a four-wheel drive dynamometer; and to no longer require out-dated
information on vehicle labels. Although we provide some context in the
following discussions, a full discussion of the evaporative test
procedures is outside the scope of this direct final rule. Readers are
advised to consult the documents associated with these rulemakings to
obtain the details of these rules.
The remainder of this document is divided into the following
sections: Section II provides a detailed description of today's action.
Sections III through IV describe the Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews and Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority.
Background
1. The 1996 Model Year and Later Enhanced Evaporative Test Procedure
The enhanced evaporative emission test procedure for 1996 model
year and later passenger cars, light-duty trucks and heavy-duty
vehicles measures emissions from fuel evaporation during simulated
overnight parking experiences (diurnal emissions), during vehicle
operations (running loss emissions), and immediately following a drive
(hot soak emissions).
The enhanced evaporative test procedure includes a sequence of
three basic elements: (1) An initial loading of the evaporative
canister with fuel vapor; (2) a period of driving to provide an
opportunity to purge the canister; and (3) a simulation of repeated hot
days of parking. By following this sequence and sampling evaporative
emissions during hot soak, running loss and parking simulation, the
test ensures that the vehicle can quickly regain canister storage
capacity during driving and provides further assurance that vehicles
will effectively control evaporative emissions for most in-use events.
The enhanced evaporative test procedure also includes a test procedure
to measure fuel spillage during refueling, called spitback. The 1996
and later model year enhanced evaporative test procedures follow.
a. Three-Day Diurnal-plus-Hot-Soak Test Sequence. Each of the
three-day diurnal plus hot-soak (three-diurnal) test elements
corresponds to an aspect of in-use vehicle operation in ozone-prone
summertime conditions. The exhaust emission test following vehicle
preconditioning corresponds to vehicle operation while vapors from a
loaded evaporative canister are purged into the engine, as might occur
during driving after a prolonged period of parking. The running loss
test element corresponds to sustained vehicle operation on a hot day.
The hot soak element corresponds to the emission-prone period
immediately following engine shut-off. The diurnal heat builds
correspond to successive days of parking in hot weather and also serve
to control fuel system permeation emissions, called resting losses.
The purpose of the running loss test is to measure evaporative
emissions during vehicle operation to assure that vehicles can control
fuel vapors generated in use. In order to perform the running loss
test, auto manufacturers must separately develop a fuel temperature
profile for the running loss test. The fuel temperature profile is used
as a target during the running loss test to duplicate the heating of
the vehicle's fuel tank during onroad driving in representative summer
conditions. Each fuel temperature profile is generated by obtaining a
fuel temperature versus time trace as the vehicle is driven over the
prescribed running loss driving cycle, during sunny, summertime
conditions, e.g. at 95 [deg]F ambient temperature, on the road. During
the running loss test, thermocouples are placed inside the fuel tank to
measure and monitor the fuel temperature.
b. Two-Day Diurnal-plus-Hot-Soak Test Sequence. The two-day
diurnal-plus-hot-soak (two-diurnal) test sequence is a supplemental
evaporative test procedure, consisting of vehicle preconditioning,
canister preconditioning, FTP exhaust test, hot soak at 68-86 [deg]F,
and two diurnal heat builds. The two-diurnal test sequence is similar
to the three-diurnal but excludes the running loss test. Instead,
without the running loss portion of the test procedure, the two diurnal
heat builds after the exhaust emission test verify that the evaporative
canister is sufficiently purged during the exhaust emission test, which
simulates short trips (58 FR 16003, March 23, 1993). ``Eliminating a
diurnal heat build, initially loading the evaporative canister only to
breakthrough, measuring a moderate temperature hot soak, and increasing
the standard from 2 to 2.5 grams all contribute significantly to making
the [two-diurnal test] procedure effective in its limited objective of
[[Page 72920]]
ensuring proper purge without requiring additional design
modifications'' (58 FR 16001, March 24, 1993). The three-diurnal test
sequence does not test for canister purge as effectively as the two-
diurnal test sequence due to the addition of the running loss test,
which occurs between the FTP exhaust test and diurnal heat builds.
Since exhaust emissions are not measured during running loss, it cannot
be determined if canister purging occurred only during the FTP exhaust
cycle (58 FR 16001, March 24, 1993).
c. Spitback Test Procedure. The spitback test procedure assures
that vehicles' fuel fill necks are adequately designed to accommodate
in-use fuel fill rates, so as to limit fuel spillage when refueling a
vehicle.
2. The 1998 and Later Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) Test
Procedure
A separate evaporative test procedure, the Onboard Refueling Vapor
Recovery (ORVR) test procedure, was developed to measure refueling
emissions from vehicles. On January 24, 1994, EPA adopted onboard
vehicle refueling requirements for passenger cars and light-duty trucks
(59 FR 16262, April 6, 1994). EPA also adopted similar ORVR
requirements for complete heavy-duty vehicles less than 10,000 lbs.
GVWR (65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000). The main purpose of the ORVR test
is to limit hydrocarbon vapors released during refueling events. The
ORVR test procedure also accounts for spitback emissions in the overall
emission measurements, reducing the necessity for a separate spitback
test procedure (59 FR 16262, April 6, 1994).
3. Evaporative Test Procedures Similarities
The enhanced evaporative test procedure is important for measuring
evaporative emissions from vehicles under numerous drive and park
conditions, and the ORVR test is important for measuring refueling
emissions from vehicles. In some cases, similar parameters are tested
by these test procedures. The two-diurnal and three-diurnal test
sequences both test canister capacity, permeation control, and canister
purge capacity. The three-diurnal test sequence also tests hot drive
vapor generation (running loss) and high temperature vapor generation.
The ORVR test procedure tests canister capacity and canister purge
capacity, in addition to refueling vapor generation and fill pipe
losses. The two-diurnal test procedure takes approximately four days;
the three-diurnal takes five days; the spitback takes one day; and the
ORVR takes three days. Thus, performing all four test procedures
requires a minimum of 12 days since the spitback test is often waived.
EPA believes it is appropriate to streamline the evaporative test
procedure to reduce testing burden and to reduce overlapping procedures
without affecting the level of stringency.
EPA, California Air Resources Board (ARB), and the automobile
industry have collaborated since 1996 to identify portions of these
test procedures that can be streamlined and/or harmonized, and the
discussions culminated in EPA Guidance Letter CCD-02-20, December 31,
2002, available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/dearmfr.htm. The Guidance Letter clarified portions of
evaporative emission test procedure and also suggested minor
modifications to the test procedure which could be made via a direct
rulemaking. Today's action codifies the suggested modifications and
finalizes the clarifications to the evaporative and refueling test
procedures. Today's action does not affect the stringency of the
current requirements.
4. Dynamometer Test Provisions
The current dynamometer test procedures (86.139-90, 86.159-00, and
86.160-00) date from a time when four-wheel drive dynamometers were not
widely available for measurement of exhaust emissions and fuel economy.
Changes in technology for modern four-wheel and all-wheel drive
vehicles have heightened the need for testing these vehicles on a four-
wheel drive dynamometer. It is no longer easy to configure certain
four-wheel or all-wheel drive certification vehicles for testing on a
two-wheel drive dynamometer. The need for four-wheel drive dynamometer
tests also includes hybrid vehicles with sophisticated regenerative
braking systems that cannot receive a representative test on a two-
wheel drive dynamometer.
5. Vehicle Labeling
86.1807-01 contains the labeling requirements for vehicles, which
include light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger
vehicles, and heavy-duty vehicles which are chassis certified. 86.098-
35 previously applied to vehicle and engine labeling, but since the
2001 model year apply only to heavy-duty engine labeling. The labels'
basic content requirements date from a time when vehicles were designed
with manually adjustable tune-up settings, including idle speed(s),
ignition timing, air-fuel mixture, injection timing, and valve lash,
and did not use an exhaust catalyst. Modern vehicles and engines are
electronically controlled, making a listing of tune-up specifications
unnecessary. As well, leaded fuel was still widely available in the
U.S. at the time of the label requirements. The labels have not been
updated since the introduction of catalyst technology almost 30 years
ago.
II. List of Changes to Test Procedures
Today's action describes minor modifications and clarifications
made to the evaporative test procedures, dynamometer regulations, and
vehicle labeling requirements. Explanation and, where appropriate,
EPA's interpretation of the resulting regulatory language is provided.
A. Evaporative Test Procedures
1. Provide Opportunity To Waive the Two-Day Evaporative Test for
Certification Tests Under Certain Conditions
a. Current Procedure. The current two-diurnal enhanced evaporative
test procedure is part of the overall enhanced evaporative emission
test procedure (58 FR 16001, March 24, 1993). Currently, manufacturers
are expected to complete three-diurnal, two-diurnal, and ORVR tests on
certification vehicles.
b. Today's Action. Today's action provides manufacturers with an
option which will allow a waiver from the two-day diurnal-plus-hot-soak
evaporative emission certification test. Manufacturers must still
perform three-diurnal and ORVR tests for certification vehicles and
perform the two-diurnal and ORVR test on vehicles for the In-Use
Verification Program (40 CFR 1845-01, 1845-04). EPA may perform at its
discretion confirmatory two-diurnal evaporative emission testing on
certification test vehicles which are certified using this option, even
though the manufacturer may not have performed a two-diurnal test
during the certification process.
Manufacturers may use the waiver based on good engineering
judgement that the canister will be adequately purged during the FTP
exhaust test and comply with the two-diurnal emission standard.
Manufacturers will need to provide a statement in the certification
application stating: ``Based on the manufacturer's engineering
evaluation of appropriate evaporative emission testing, all vehicles in
[a specific evaporative/refueling family] will comply with the
applicable two-day evaporative emission standard.''
[[Page 72921]]
EPA may request data from the manufacturers demonstrating that the
purge flow rate calibration on the two-diurnal tests adequately purges
the canister to comply with the evaporative emission standard for the
supplemental two-day test in lieu of actual two-day evaporative test
data. Such information may include, but is not limited to, canister
type, canister volume, canister working capacity, fuel tank volume,
fuel tank geometry, the type of fuel delivery system (return,
returnless, variable flow fuel pump, etc.), a description of the input
parameters and software strategy used to control the evaporative
canister purge, the nominal purge flow volume (in bed volumes) when
vehicles are driven over the 2-day (FTP) driving cycle, the nominal
purge flow volume (in bed volumes) when vehicles are driven over the 3-
diurnal (FTP + running loss) driving cycle, and other supporting
information as necessary. This information will address EPA's concerns
about vehicles sufficiently purging the canister, as expressed in 58 FR
16009-11, March 24, 1993. As well, this information will be useful in
selecting EPA in-class testing vehicles and be helpful for determining
potential evaporative defeat devices.
This testing waiver option will only be available to current
technology gasoline-fueled and ethanol-fueled vehicles which use
conventional evaporative emission control systems, e.g. vehicles
equipped with conventional fuel tank materials, liquid seal ORVR
systems, and carbon canister(s). Currently all light-duty and heavy-
duty up to 14,000 GVWR vehicles certified in the U.S. use an integrated
evaporative/refueling emission control system. For this reason, EPA
does not expect the waiver to be used for non-integrated evaporative/
refueling emission control system. If non-integrated systems become
more common and in-use data can demonstrate with confidence that the
vast majority of such vehicles are in compliance with evaporative
emission standards, then testing waivers may be used for non-integrated
systems as well in the future.
c. Reason for Action. EPA believes that there will be very little
risk of noncompliance for several reasons.
Manufacturers will continue to be responsible for meeting the two-
day diurnal-plus-hot-soak emission standards even if they waive the
two-diurnal certification test procedure. In addition, vehicles must
still meet the three-diurnal and ORVR test requirements which provide
data to EPA on many aspects of the two-diurnal test procedure since the
three-diurnal test procedure is similar to the two-diurnal test
procedure, except for canister purge. However canister purge assurance
is an inherent part of the ORVR test procedure. Thus the combination of
three-diurnal and ORVR certification data assure adequate canister
purge.
EPA believes that compliance with the two-diurnal standards is
further assured because EPA may perform at its discretion confirmatory
two-diurnal evaporative emission testing on certification test vehicles
which are certified using this option. In addition to EPA's
confirmatory testing, a vehicle randomly selected from each evaporative
family will be tested using the two-diurnal evaporative test procedure
under the In-Use Verification Program, as required in provisions 40 CFR
86.1845-01(a)(5)(ii) and 86.1845-04(a)(5)(ii). If data shows
noncompliance, EPA will not normally grant subsequent waivers for the
applicable evaporative family. The In-Use vehicle recall program also
conducts two-diurnal evaporative testing as an additional compliance
check.
This provision reduces testing burden by reducing overlapping
requirements of the two-diurnal, three-diurnal and ORVR test
procedures. In addition, performing all three tests is time consuming,
taking a minimum of 12 days to complete if there are no voids. The
evaporative test procedures are very complex and detailed, with
specified times for completing each section and, when voids occur, they
result in additional time to complete the tests.
2. Allow Opportunities for Alternative Methods for the Running Loss
Test Procedure
a. Current Procedure. The purpose of the running loss test is to
measure evaporative emissions during vehicle operation to assure that
vehicles can control fuel vapors generated in use, in urban driving and
low-speed or idle conditions. The current regulations require the
installation of two temperature sensors (thermocouples) in the fuel
tank to provide an average liquid fuel temperature. This average fuel
temperature is used to control the fuel tank temperature profile (FTTP)
during the running loss drive portion of the three-day test. This
current method can be invasive to a vehicle's fuel system and requires
thermocouples to be accurately positioned in the fuel tank.
b. Today's Action. Today's action amends the regulations to allow
manufacturers the option for using an alternative running loss test
procedure. Prior EPA approval is needed for this option. This provision
also allows EPA to conduct certification and in-use testing for a
specific vehicle using the alternative method for the running loss test
procedure.
In order to obtain EPA approval of an alternative method for the
running loss test procedure, manufacturers will be required to provide
EPA with data that demonstrates that the alternative method is equal to
or more stringent than the current method. Data should include, but is
not limited to, multiple tests comparing running loss, hot soak, and
diurnal emissions using the current test procedure and the alternative
test procedure. The test vehicles used to provide comparison are
expected to cover the types of technology for the population of
vehicles approved to use the alternative method, including, but not
limited to, in-tank fuel return and fuel tank parameters, such as tank
material, insulation, size, geometry, and location. If a vehicle fails
the running loss portion of the three-diurnal test procedure, the
manufacturer normally would not be allowed to treat the failure as an
invalid test or request a retest using the standard running loss
procedure outlined in 40 CFR 86.134-96.
c. Reasons for Action. Today's action allows an alternative method
for the running loss test procedure for several reasons.
The allowance of an alternative method addresses specific concerns
related to controlling the fuel tank temperature profile (FTTP) during
the running loss portion of the three-diurnal test. Thermocouple
installment is especially difficult (and often invasive) to perform for
in-use running loss and three-day tests on customer-owned vehicles. To
perform in-use tests, the fuel tank often needs to be removed and/or a
hole is made in the fuel tank, resulting in having to replace the fuel
tank on the customer-owned vehicle, which can jeopardize the integrity
of the fuel system and the ability of a capable system to demonstrate
compliance. If thermocouples are not properly placed in the fuel tank,
they can cause the vehicle to fail the running loss test and,
consequently, test results are subject to variability.
EPA is not aware of an alternative method at this time, nor any
alternative methods of controlling the in-tank fuel temperature. We
encourage the automotive industry to work together to develop a
technically accurate method of measuring and controlling in-tank fuel
temperatures.
[[Page 72922]]
3. Revise EPA Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determination Calibration
Procedure
a. Current Procedure. The Sealed Housing for Evaporative
Determination (SHED) calibration procedure (retention check) is
designed to determine that the SHED enclosure does not have leaks that
could result in falsely low hydrocarbon readings during the vehicle
evaporative testing sequences. The current calibration requirements,
outlined in 40 CFR 86.117-96 (c)(1)(vii), which include evaporative
SHED retention checks, were designed for vehicles meeting Tier 1
evaporative emission standards. This regulation requires the injection
of two to six grams of methanol and/or propane with a five-minute
minimum mixing time for enclosure recovery measurements and a 24-hour
time period for retention checks. These calibration requirements were
not designed for the more stringent Tier 2 evaporative emission
standards.
b. Today's Action. Today's action revises the current SHED
calibration procedure to an injection of 0.5 to 6 grams for vehicles
meeting three-diurnal standards equal to or above 2.0 grams/test. This
provision also revises the SHED calibration procedure to specify the
injection of 0.5 to 1.0 gram methane and/or propane for a maximum
injection of 1.0 grams for vehicles meeting three-diurnal standards
below 2.0 grams/test. Both revisions utilize the five-minute minimum
mixing time and 96[deg]F.
c. Reason for Action. EPA believes this action will ensure that
manufacturer and EPA evaporative SHEDs are properly calibrated in
accordance with testing to more stringent evaporative emission
standards for Tier 2 vehicles. It will also harmonize the EPA SHED
injection amounts with those of California ARB.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ California Air Resources Board's SHED calibration procedure
for propane injections, for the five minute retention and 24 hour
recovery, is outlined in the California Evaporative Emission
Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Motor
Vehicles, adopted August 5, 1999. California's propane injection
procedure for LEV-II evaporative vehicles and partial zero emissions
vehicles (PZEVs) requires 0.5 to 1.0 grams to be injected with a
five minute maximum mixing time, cycling the ambient temperature up
to 105[deg]F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Harmonize EPA and California Evaporative Test Data
a. Current Procedure. Current provisions allow EPA to accept
California evaporative data based on 40 CFR 86.1811-04(e)(6) for Tier 2
vehicles. However, current regulations do not specifically allow EPA to
accept California evaporative data for heavy-duty vehicles and non-Tier
2 vehicles even when the combination of the data, the California test
procedures, and the California emission standards are as or more
stringent than EPA's requirements.
b. Today's Action. Today's action allows the submission of
California evaporative data for heavy-duty vehicles and non-Tier 2
vehicles, which may be submitted in lieu of Federal test data for 50
state evaporative/refueling families and for ``carry across'' data from
a California evaporative/refueling family to a federal family. EPA
requests that manufacturers notify EPA of their intention to use
California test data to demonstrate compliance with applicable federal
evaporative emission standards and include a statement in their
certification application that based on good engineering judgement the
vehicles in an evaporative/refueling family will comply with the
applicable federal evaporative standards if tested using California
test conditions and procedures. EPA may request comparative test data
on a case-by-base basis which clearly demonstrates that a vehicle
meeting the California evaporative standard will also meet the
appropriate federal evaporative emission standard.
5. Provide the Option for Using Alternative Canister Loading Methods
for the Federal Test Procedure
a. Current Procedure. The current methods for canister loading for
the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) are described in provisions 40 CFR
86.132-96(h), (j)(1), and (j)(2). During the canister loading, the
canister remains in place, but in situations where the canister is
inaccessible, the canister may be removed for loading with special care
not to damage any components or the integrity of the fuel system. The
canister is then loaded with a butane-nitrogen mixture.
b. Today's Action. Today's action allows manufacturers the option
of using alternative canister loading methods that are equivalent or
more stringent than the applicable canister loading method. Prior
approval by EPA is required in order to use alternative methods to
preload the canister(s) during the exhaust and evaporative test
sequences. Manufacturers must provide data to EPA to prove that
alternative methods maintain the current stringency required through
the canister loading procedure. This information includes, but is not
limited to, location of canister vent hose and whether the canister is
routed to a dummy canister or vented during testing. EPA may also use
the manufacturer-specified, EPA-approved alternative canister loading
method to conduct confirmatory testing and in-use testing or the
appropriate method outlined in 40 CFR 86.132-96(h), 86.132-96(j)(1), or
86.132-96(j)(2).
c. Reasons for Action. EPA recognizes that the use of the current
methods for canister loading during the FTP can jeopardize the
integrity of the evaporative emission control system and, therefore,
the ability of a capable system to demonstrate compliance with lower
evaporative emission standards. In cases where the canister is
inaccessible, the current canister loading procedure can be quite
burdensome and difficult to perform, especially on In-Use Verification
Program vehicles.
6. In-Use Verification Program Evaporative Emissions Testing
Requirements
EPA is clarifying EPA's position regarding the evaporative emission
testing requirements for the current In-Use Verification Program (IUVP)
(40 CFR 86.1845-01, 86.1845-04). The current provisions imply, but do
not specify, that all evaporative tests for all fuel types should be
performed, including the two-day diurnal-plus-hot-soak, three-day
diurnal-plus-hot-soak, and running loss tests.
As discussed in the preamble to the CAP 2000 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking text (63 FR 39672, July 23, 1998), EPA did not anticipate
that more than one evaporative test would be required for IUVP
vehicles.
The clarifications for IUVP state that for gasoline- and ethanol-
fueled in-use vehicles, running loss and three-day diurnal-plus-hot-
soak evaporative emissions tests are not required to be performed.
However, while these tests do not have to be performed, gasoline- and
ethanol-fueled IUVP vehicles are still required to comply with the
applicable standards for the three-diurnal and running loss test
procedures. The two-diurnal test procedure must continue to be
conducted on gasoline- and ethanol-fueled IUVP vehicles. Note that for
compressed natural gas (CNG) and propane (LPG) fueled (also known as
gaseous-fueled) vehicles, a three-day diurnal-plus-hot-soak test is
required for IUVP testing. However, for gaseous-fueled vehicles the
three-diurnal test procedure neither includes a running loss test nor
thermocouples placed in the fuel tank, and therefore is not intrusive
for IUVP testing of these vehicles. In addition, the two-day test
procedure is not applicable to gaseous-fueled vehicles, 40 CFR 86.130-
96(a)(2).
[[Page 72923]]
7. CFR Correction for Paragraph 86.1810-01 (m)
Paragraph 86.1810-01 (m) was inadvertently omitted from the July,
2002, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This paragraph is necessary as
it relates to other modifications and clarification in today's action.
Paragraph (m) refers to waivers referenced in today's action.
Today's action resubmits paragraph 86.1810-01 (m) to the CFR, as
worded in the original CAP 2000 rule (64 FR 23939, May 4, 1999).
B. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) and Spitback Test Procedure
1. Option To Not Disconnect Hoses During ORVR
a. Current Procedure. Currently, 40 CFR 86.152-98(b), 40 CFR
86.153-98(d), and 40 CFR 86.153-98(e)(2) require the canister to be
disconnected for integrated and non-integrated systems when draining
and refueling the fuel tank to the 10 percent level prior to the
initial soak, which precedes the actual refueling and measurement
portion of the refueling test. The canister is also required to be
disconnected when initially filling the fuel tank to 95 percent of
nominal tank capacity in the preconditioning portion of the ORVR test
for non-integrated systems.
b. Today's Action. Today's action provides manufacturers the option
of not disconnecting the evaporative hoses during the ORVR
preconditioning step. The manufacturer shall specify whether or not the
canister should be disconnected, and EPA will use the manufacturer
specified procedure when performing EPA confirmatory testing.
c. Reasons for Action. The option to not disconnect the ORVR hose
is a more stringent test procedure than disconnecting the hose because
the hose, while in place, will direct all refueling vapors to the
canister during the preconditioning portion of the ORVR test, adding an
additional load to the canister. The primary reason manufacturers may
use this option is to minimize the chance of the test procedure causing
vapor leaks in the evaporative system, minimize the chance of damage
that may result from disconnecting the hose, and reduce test
variability. If the canister hoses are not re-connected properly, the
test procedure could result in vapor leaks in the system, leading to
variability in the test data.
2. CFR Correction for Paragraph 86.1810-01(1)
Paragraph 86.1810-01(1) was inadvertently omitted from the July
2002 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Today's action resubmits paragraph 86.1810-01 (l) to the CFR, as
worded in the Heavy-Duty ORVR Final Rule (65 FR 59970, October 6,
2000).
C. Four-Wheel Drive Dynamometer Provisions
a. Current Procedure
The current dynamometer test procedures only apply to the use of a
two-wheel drive dynamometer and do not include provisions for utilizing
a four-wheel drive dynamometer.
b. Today's Action
Today's action revises three sections of 40 CFR Subpart B, all of
which have identical wording describing how to test four-wheel drive
vehicles on a chassis dynamometer. The three sections which EPA will
modify, 86.135-90, 86.159-00, and 86.160-00, all date from a time when
four-wheel drive dynamometers were not widely available for measurement
of exhaust emissions and fuel economy. EPA has not ruled out future
changes in its emission and fuel economy compliance programs,
especially as EPA strives to ensure that a dynamometer test for a given
vehicle is as representative as possible of the vehicle's actual road
experience.
EPA plans to issue a guidance letter prepared by the Certification
and Compliance Division announcing in further detail how it will use
the four-wheel drive dynamometer in its compliance programs. However,
guidance letters are written to clarify EPA policy, and it is not
possible to issue a guidance letter on usage of the four-wheel drive
dynamometer until the language in the CFR is revised. In the absence of
that, EPA has developed the following proposals for the use of four-
wheel drive dynamometers in emission and fuel economy compliance
programs. The term four-wheel drive vehicle is also meant to include
all-wheel drive vehicles.
The regulatory changes described below will give EPA and
manufacturers the regulatory authority to test four-wheel drive and
all-wheel drive vehicles on four-wheel drive dynamometers. These
changes do not impose new stringency in EPA's certification and
compliance programs.
Manufacturers may conduct certification testing for four-wheel
drive vehicles on either a four-wheel drive or two-wheel drive mode of
dynamometer operation. EPA will conduct confirmatory testing on
certification and fuel economy test vehicles in the same dynamometer
mode of operation, two-wheel drive or four-wheel drive, which the
manufacturer used for their vehicle testing.
Manufacturers will normally conduct In-Use Verification Program
testing on a four-wheel drive dynamometer for vehicles which were
certified in a four-wheel drive test mode. Four-wheel drive vehicles
which were certified in a two-wheel drive mode may be tested in either
a four-wheel drive or a two-wheel drive mode of operation. Prior
approval by EPA is required to test four-wheel drive vehicles, which
were certified on a four-wheel drive test mode, on a two-wheel drive
dynamometer for the In-Use Verification Program.
EPA conducts in-use surveillance testing on randomly procured
vehicles that are not screened with the same rigor that would be used
for recall confirmatory class vehicles. EPA may conduct surveillance
in-use testing of all-wheel drive vehicles on the four-wheel drive
dynamometer as necessary to avoid modifications to the owner's vehicle,
regardless of how the vehicles were certified.
If an all-wheel drive vehicle class certified in a two-wheel drive
configuration must undergo in-use confirmatory testing, EPA will
discuss with the manufacturer options to determine the most practical
and appropriate way to conduct the testing. EPA will make the final
determination as to whether the vehicles will be tested in the all-
wheel drive mode for confirmatory testing.
EPA may conduct defeat device testing in the four-wheel drive mode
of operation using four-wheel drive certification and fuel economy
vehicles that were tested by the manufacturer on a two-wheel drive
dynamometer, and confirmatory tested on a two-wheel drive dynamometer
at EPA.
c. Reason for Action
Changes in technology for modern four-wheel and all-wheel drive
vehicles have heightened the need for testing these vehicles on a four-
wheel drive dynamometer. It is no longer easy to configure certain
four-wheel or all-wheel drive certification vehicles for testing on a
two-wheel drive dynamometer. The need for four-wheel drive dynamometer
tests also includes hybrid vehicles with sophisticated regenerative
braking systems that cannot receive a representative test on a two-
wheel drive dynamometer.
EPA is also aware of a small but increasing number of in-use
vehicles which cannot be modified for testing on
[[Page 72924]]
a two-wheel drive dynamometer without intrusive modification to the
drive line and/or modifications to the vehicle's electronic control
systems. Additionally, there are many more four-wheel and all-wheel
drive vehicles in the market place today compared to the time when
EPA's policy for testing four-wheel drive vehicles was first drafted.
Although four-wheel drive dynamometers have been installed at many test
facilities worldwide, EPA realizes that individual manufacturers may
have limited experience in compliance testing on these dynamometers, in
particular for the most sophisticated new all-wheel drive vehicles. EPA
understands that users of four-wheel drive dynamometers are, in some
cases, still learning how well four-wheel drive dynamometers can
simulate actual road operation. EPA and manufacturers will both benefit
as more data are collected and examined.
D. Vehicle Labeling
a. Current Procedure
40 CFR 86.1807-01 contains the labeling requirements for vehicles,
which include light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, medium-duty
passenger vehicles, and heavy-duty vehicles which are chassis
certified. 40 CFR 86.098-35 previously applied to vehicle and engine
labeling, but since the 2001 model year apply only to heavy-duty engine
labeling.
b. Today's Action
Today's action revises the vehicle labeling requirements described
in sections 40 CFR 86.1807-01, Vehicle labeling, and 40 CFR 86.098-35,
Labeling, for no longer requiring out-dated information to be included
on the label.
The Certification and Compliance Division expects to issue a
guidance letter after these regulatory changes are completed in order
to show an example of an approved label which reflects the new
flexibility in label design. Initially, vehicle manufacturers who wish
to take advantage of these labeling changes must have their new label
designs approved by their EPA vehicle or engine certification
representative.
c. Reason for Action
These changes to the regulations allow more flexibility in label
content and design, specifically for the objective of improving the
labels' clarity and usefulness. This action is desired since the
labels' basic content requirements have not been updated since the
introduction of catalyst technology almost 30 years ago. Several of the
requirements in the labeling sections are no longer necessary or useful
for modern vehicles with electronic emission controls. Since modern
vehicles and engines are electronically controlled, a listing of tune-
up specifications is no longer necessary. Additionally, the requirement
for a hose routing diagram dates from pre-electronic controlled
vehicles and serves no purpose for modern vehicles and engines. In the
unlikely event that vacuum actuated controls are present on modern
vehicles, their function and location and routing of hoses are fully
described in the vehicle service manual.
By making these changes to the regulations, it is also EPA's
expectation that the label designs may be slightly more generic,
leading to a reduced number of label types which are required at the
time the vehicle or engine is produced, leading to fewer labeling
errors. Additionally, by requiring only the necessary information on
the label for modern vehicles and engines, it is expected that the size
of the label, or the number of them for manufacturers which currently
use more than one label to meet the present labeling requirements, may
be reduced.
When Tier 2 regulations were implemented, a new vehicle class,
medium-duty passenger vehicles, was added. Thus it is necessary to
update the regulations so as to clarify that the regulations apply to
light-duty vehicle, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger
vehicles and heavy duty vehicles.
Accepting alternative labels will permit use of revised formats for
heavy-duty engines which are easier to read, while still displaying the
important elements of the ``Important Engine Information'' label. In
addition, updating the regulations explicitly adds the heavy-duty class
of vehicles that are certified to the chassis standards to this part of
the labeling requirement section, making it consistent with the
requirements for light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks in 86.1807-
01(c)(1).
EPA has no need for the SAE J1892 bar code to be printed on the
Vehicle Emission Control Information (VECI) label. By removing this
requirement, EPA will also be harmonizing the label information to be
consistent with those of California Air Resources Board. In a letter
dated June 26, 2002, the California Air Resources Board issued Mail-Out
MSO 2002-06 waived the requirement to print the SAE bar code
on the labels for 2003 model year and newer vehicles and engines.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency is required to determine whether this regulatory action would be
``significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as any
regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:
Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or,
Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, we have determined
that this final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action.''
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this action
as it does not involve the collection of information as defined
therein.
Today's action may reduce testing and reporting burden by allowing
the option for waivers and/or alternative test procedures. The current
average annual reporting burden is listed as 542,118 hours and
$10,889,000 for 153 respondents by the Office of Management and Budget
for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles. If a manufacturer does not
implement any of today's actions, the reporting burden will not change.
Otherwise, the burden may be reduced by implementing today's actions
but will vary depending upon the options and/or alternative methods
chosen. For instance, utilizing the option to waive the two-diurnal
diurnal-plus-hot-soak will reduce testing burden by approximately 48
hours and $5,000 per vehicle. Since no alternative procedures for the
running loss test or canister loading have been
[[Page 72925]]
approved at this time, the burden reduction cannot be quantified, but
they will, in the future, result in decreases in hours and costs. The
other options described in today's action cannot be quantified but
would not result in any additional burden.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2)
a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603
and 604. Thus, an agency may conclude that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
Today's rule revises certain provisions of the Evaporative
Emissions Compliance Procedure (58 FR 16002, March 24, 1993) and the
Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Procedure (58 FR 16262, April 6,
1994), such that regulated entities will find it less burdensome to
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the evaporative
emissions and ORVR test requirements. More specifically, today's action
makes minor revisions to clarify regulations and reduces burdens for
manufacturers without reducing stringency. In addition, today's rule
revises the dynamometer test provisions (40 CFR 86.135-90, 40 CFR
86.159-00, 40 CFR 86.160-00) and the Vehicle Labeling requirements (40
CFR 86.098-35, 40 CFR 86.1807-01), such that regulated entities will
find it less burdensome to test four-wheel drive vehicles and vehicle
labels will reflect current information rather than out-dated
information. We have therefore concluded that today's final rule will
relieve regulatory burden for all small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments, and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more for
any single year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative that is
not the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if we provide an explanation in the final rule of why such
an alternative was adopted.
Before we establish any regulatory requirement that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, we must develop a small government plan pursuant to
section 203 of the UMRA. Such a plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, and enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of our regulatory proposals with significant federal
intergovernmental mandates. The plan must also provide for informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
Today's action contains no federal mandates for state, local, or
tribal governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the
UMRA. The rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these
governmental entities. Nothing in the rule will significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
We have determined that today's action does not contain a federal
mandate that may result in estimated expenditures of more than $100
million to the private sector in any single year. This action has the
net effect of revising certain provisions of the Evaporative Emissions
rule, Dynamometer regulations, and Labeling regulations. Therefore, the
requirements of the UMRA do not apply to this action.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the states,'' on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Under section
6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by state and local governments, or we consult with state
and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed
regulation. We also may not issue a regulation that
[[Page 72926]]
has federalism implications and that preempts state law, unless the
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
Section 4 of the Executive Order contains additional requirements
for rules that preempt state or local law, even if those rules do not
have federalism implications (i.e., the rules will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National
Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government). Those
requirements include providing all affected state and local officials
notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the
development of the regulation. If the preemption is not based on
express or implied statutory authority, we also must consult, to the
extent practicable, with appropriate state and local officials
regarding the conflict between state law and federally protected
interests within the Agency's area of regulatory responsibility.
Today's action does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Today's action revises certain
provisions of earlier rules that adopted national standards to control
vehicle evaporative emissions, dynamometer test provisions, and
labeling requirements. The requirements of the rule will be enforced by
the Federal Government at the national level. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to today's action.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Today's
action does not uniquely affect the communities of American Indian
tribal governments since the motor vehicle requirements for private
businesses in today's action will have national applicability.
Furthermore, today's action does not impose any direct compliance costs
on these communities and no circumstances specific to such communities
exist that will cause an impact on these communities beyond those
discussed in the other sections of today's document. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to today's action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, section 5-501 of the Executive Order directs us to
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule
on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by us.
Today's action is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866. Furthermore, today's action does not concern an
environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
Today's action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), section 12(d) of Public Law 104-113, directs us to
use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory activities unless
it would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. Today's action references technical
standards adopted by us through previous rulemakings. No new technical
standards are established in today's rule. The standards referenced in
today's action involve the measurement of vehicle evaporative
emissions, the allowance for four-wheel dynamometer test capabilities
in certification and in-use testing, and labeling requirements
revisions.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to Congress and the comptroller General of the United
States. We will submit a report containing today's action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register.
This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Today's action will be effective February 6, 2006.
IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
Statutory authority for today's final rule is found in the Clean
Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., in particular, sections 202 and 206 of
the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7521. Today's action is being promulgated under the
administrative and procedural provisions of Clean Air Act section
307(d), 42 U.S.C. 7607(d).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Motor vehicle pollution.
Dated: November 29, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES
AND ENGINES
0
1. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
[[Page 72927]]
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
2. Section 86.005-10 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.005-10 Emission Standards for 2005 and later model year Otto-
cycle heavy-duty engines and vehicles.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(5) For certification purposes, where the applicable California
evaporative emission standard is as stringent or more stringent than
the applicable federal evaporative emission standard, the Administrator
may accept California certification test data indicating compliance
with the California standard to demonstrate compliance with the
appropriate federal certification evaporative emission standard. The
Administrator may require the manufacturer to provide comparative test
data which clearly demonstrates that a vehicle meeting the California
evaporative standard (when tested under California test conditions/test
procedures) will also meet the appropriate federal evaporative emission
standard when tested under federal test conditions/test procedures
described in this Part 86.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 86.098-35 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.098-35 Labeling.
* * * * *
(j) The Administrator may approve in advance other label content
and formats provided the alternative label contains information
consistent with this section.
Subpart B--[Amended]
0
4. Section 86.117-96 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1)(vii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.117-96 Evaporative emission enclosure calibrations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) For evaporative emission enclosures which will be used to
measure evaporative emissions from vehicles meeting evaporative
standards equal to or above 2.0 grams, inject into the enclosure 0.5 to
6 grams of pure methanol at a temperature of at least 150[deg]F
(65[deg]C) and/or 0.5 to 6 grams of pure propane at lab ambient
temperatures. For evaporative emission enclosures which will be used to
measure evaporative emissions from vehicles meeting evaporative
standards below 2.0 grams, inject into the enclosure 0.5 to 1.0 grams
of pure methanol at a temperature of at least 150[deg]F (65[deg]C) and/
or 0.5 to 1.0 grams of pure propane at lab ambient temperature. The
injected quantity may be measured by volume flow or by mass
measurement. The method used to measure the quantity of methanol and
propane shall have an accuracy of 0.2 percent of measured
value (less accurate methods may be used with the advance approval of
the Administrator).
* * * * *
0
5. Section 86.132-96 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.132-96 Vehicle preconditioning.
* * * * *
(n) With prior approval of the Administrator, manufacturers may use
an alternative canister loading method in lieu of the applicable
canister loading method described in the provisions of paragraphs (h),
(j)(1) and (j)(2) of this section, provided the alternative method is
shown to be equivalent or result in a more fully loaded canister (a
canister that has adsorbed an equal or greater amount of hydrocarbon
vapors) than the applicable canister loading method required by the
provisions of paragraphs (h), (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this section.
Additionally, the Administrator may conduct confirmatory certification
testing and in-use testing using the alternative canister loading
method used by the manufacturer to test applicable certification and/or
in-use vehicles or the appropriate method outlined in the provisions of
paragraphs (h), (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this section.
0
6. Section 86.134-96 is amended by adding paragraph (g)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.134-96 Running loss test.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(3) With prior approval of the Administrator, manufacturers may use
an alternative running loss test procedure, provided the alternative
test procedure is shown to yield equivalent or superior emission
results (in terms of quality control, accuracy and repeatability) for
the running loss, hot soak and diurnal portions of the three diurnal-
plus-hot-soak test sequence. Additionally, the Administrator may
conduct certification and in-use testing using the test procedures
outlined in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, paragraph (g)(2) of this
section or the alternative running loss test procedure as approved for
a specific vehicle.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 86.135-90 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.135-90 Dynamometer procedure.
* * * * *
(i) Four-wheel drive and all-wheel drive vehicles may be tested
either in a four-wheel drive or a two-wheel drive mode of operation. In
order to test in the two-wheel drive mode, four-wheel drive and all-
wheel drive vehicles may have one set of drive wheels disengaged; four-
wheel and all-wheel drive vehicles which can be shifted to a two-wheel
mode by the driver may be tested in a two-wheel drive mode of
operation.
0
8. Section 86.152-98 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.152-98 Vehicle preparation; refueling test.
* * * * *
(b) Optionally, provide valving or other means to allow the venting
of the refueling vapor line to the atmosphere rather than to the
refueling emissions canister(s) when allowed by this test procedure.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 86.153-98 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) introductory
text and (e)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.153-98 Vehicle and canister preconditioning; refueling test.
* * * * *
(d) Canister purging: non-integrated systems. Within one hour of
completion of canister loading to breakthrough, the fuel tank(s) shall
be further filled to 95 percent of nominal tank capacity determined to
the nearest one-tenth of a U.S. gallon (0.38 liter) with the fuel
specified in Sec. 86.113-94. During this fueling operation, the
refueling emissions canister(s) shall be disconnected, unless the
manufacturer specifies that the canister(s) should not be disconnected.
Following completion of refueling, the refueling emissions canister(s)
shall be reconnected, if the canister was disconnected during
refueling. Special care shall be taken during this step to avoid damage
to the components and the integrity of the fuel system. Vehicle driving
to purge the refueling canister(s) shall be performed using either the
chassis dynamometer procedure or the test track procedure, as described
in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section. The Administrator may
choose to shorten the vehicle driving for a partial refueling test as
described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section. For vehicles equipped
with dual fuel tanks, the required volume of fuel shall be driven out
of one tank, the second tank shall be selected as the fuel source, and
the required volume of fuel shall be driven out of the second tank.
* * * * *
[[Page 72928]]
(e) * * *
(2) For all other refueling emission tests. Within 10 minutes of
completion of refueling emissions canister stabilization (see paragraph
(c) or (d) of this section), the refueling emissions canister(s) shall
be disconnected, unless the manufacturer specifies that the refueling
canister(s) should not be disconnected. Within 60 minutes of completion
of refueling emissions canister stabilization (see paragraph (c) or (d)
of this section), the vehicle fuel tank(s) shall be drained, the fuel
tank(s) fueled to 10 percent of nominal tank capacity determined to the
nearest one-tenth of a U.S. gallon (0.38 liter) with the specified
fuel, and the vehicle parked (without starting the engine) and soaked
at 803[deg]F (271.7[deg]C) for a minimum of 6
hours and a maximum of 24 hours.
0
10. Section 86.159-00 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(8) to read
as follows:
Sec. 86.159-00 Exhaust emission test procedures for US06 emissions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(8) Four-wheel drive and all-wheel drive vehicles may be tested
either in a four-wheel drive or a two-wheel drive mode of operation. In
order to test in the two-wheel drive mode, four-wheel drive and all-
wheel drive vehicles may have one set of drive wheels disengaged; four-
wheel and all-wheel drive vehicles which can be shifted to a two-wheel
mode by the driver may be tested in a two-wheel drive mode of
operation.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 86.160-00 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(8) to read
as follows:
Sec. 86.160-00 Exhaust emission test procedure for SC03 emissions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(8) Four-wheel drive and all-wheel drive vehicles may be tested
either in a four-wheel drive or a two-wheel drive mode of operation. In
order to test in the two-wheel drive mode, four-wheel drive and all-
wheel drive vehicles may have one set of drive wheels disengaged; four-
wheel and all-wheel drive vehicles which can be shifted to a two-wheel
mode by the driver may be tested in a two-wheel drive mode of
operation.
* * * * *
Subpart M--[Amended]
0
12. Section 86.1232-96 is amended by adding paragraph (n) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.1232-96 Vehicle preconditioning.
* * * * *
(n) With prior approval of the Administrator, manufacturers may use
an alternative canister loading method in lieu of the applicable
canister loading method described in the provisions of Sec. 86.1232-
96(h), Sec. 86.1232-96 (j)(1) and Sec. 86.1232-96 (j)(2), provided
the alternative method is shown to be equivalent or result in a more
fully loaded canister (a canister that has adsorbed an equal or greater
amount of hydrocarbon vapors) than the applicable canister loading
method required by the provisions of paragraphs (h), (j)(1), and (j)(2)
of this section. Additionally, the Administrator may conduct
confirmatory certification testing and in-use testing using the
alternative canister loading method used by the manufacturer to test
applicable certification and/or in-use vehicles or one of the methods
outlined in the provisions of paragraphs (h), (j)(1), and (j)(2) of
this section.
0
13. Section 86.1234-96 is amended by adding paragraph (g)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.1234-96 Running loss test.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(3) With prior approval of the Administrator, manufacturers may use
an alternative running loss test procedure, provided the alternative
test procedure is shown to yield equivalent or superior emission
results (in terms of quality control, accuracy and repeatability) for
the running loss, hot soak and diurnal portions of the three diurnal-
plus-hot-soak test sequence. Additionally, the Administrator may
conduct certification and in-use testing using the test procedures
outlined in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, paragraph (g)(2) of this
section or the alternative running loss test procedure as approved for
a specific vehicle.
* * * * *
Subpart S--[Amended]
0
14. Section 86.1807-01 is amended as follows:
0
a. by removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(3)(iv).
0
b. by revising (a)(3)(v).
0
c. by removing and reserving (a)(3)(vii).
0
d. by revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory text.
0
e. by adding paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(C) and (D).
0
f. by removing and reserving paragraphs (c)(1)(iii), (c)(2), and
(c)(3).
0
g. by revising paragraphs (f) and (g).
Sec. 86.1807-01 Vehicle labeling.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) [Reserved]
(v) An unconditional statement of compliance with the appropriate
model year U.S. EPA regulations which apply to light-duty vehicles,
light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles, or complete heavy-
duty vehicles;
* * * * *
(vii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(c)(1) The manufacturer of any light-duty vehicle, light-duty
truck, medium-duty passenger vehicle, or heavy-duty vehicle subject to
the emission standards of this subpart shall, in addition and
subsequent to setting forth those statements on the label required by
the Department of Transportation (DOT) pursuant to 49 CFR 567.4 set
forth on the DOT label or on an additional label located in proximity
to the DOT label and affixed as described in 49 CFR 567.4(b), the
following information in the English language, lettered in block
letters and numbers not less than three thirty-seconds of an inch high,
of a color that contrasts with the background of the label:
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) For medium-duty passenger vehicles, the statement: ``This
Vehicle Conforms to U.S. EPA Regulations Applicable to XXX-fueled 20XX
Model Year New Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles.''
(D) For heavy-duty vehicles, the statement: ``This Vehicle Conforms
to U.S. EPA Regulations Applicable to XXX-fueled 20XX Model Year
Chassis-Certified New Heavy-Duty Vehicles.''
(iii) [Reserved]
(2) [Reserved]
(3) [Reserved]
(f) All light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, medium-duty
passenger vehicles, and complete heavy-duty vehicles shall comply with
SAE Recommended Practices J1877 ``Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded
Vehicle Identification Number Label,'' (July 1994). SAE J1877 is
incorporated by reference (see Sec. 86.1).
(g) The Administrator may approve in advance other label content
and formats provided the alternative label contains information
consistent with this section.
0
15. Section 86.1810-01 is amended as follows:
0
a. by adding paragraph (j)(4);
0
b. by revising paragraph (l)(1) introductory text;
0
c. by removing paragraphs (l)(2)(i), (l)(2)(ii), the second paragraph
designated as (l)(2), and (l)(3); and
[[Page 72929]]
0
d. by adding paragraph (m).
Sec. 86.1810-01 General standards; increase in emissions; unsafe
conditions; waivers.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(4) For certification purposes, where the applicable California
evaporative emission standard is as stringent or more stringent than
the applicable federal evaporative emission standard, the Administrator
may accept California certification test data indicating compliance
with the California standard to demonstrate compliance with the
appropriate federal certification evaporative emission standard. The
Administrator may require the manufacturer to provide comparative test
data which clearly demonstrates that a vehicle meeting the California
evaporative standard (when tested under California test conditions/test
procedures) will also meet the appropriate federal evaporative emission
standard when tested under federal test conditions/test procedures
described in this Part 86.
* * * * *
(l) Fuel dispensing spitback testing waiver. (1) Vehicles certified
to the refueling emission standards set forth in Sec. 86.1811-04(e),
Sec. 86.1812-01(e), Sec. 86.1813-01(e), Sec. 86.1816-05(e) are not
required to demonstrate compliance with the fuel dispensing spitback
standard contained in that section provided that:
(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(2) * * *
(m) Inherently low refueling emission testing waiver. (1) Vehicles
using fuels/fuel systems inherently low in refueling emissions are not
required to conduct testing to demonstrate compliance with the
refueling emission standards set forth in Sec. 86.1811-04(e), Sec.
86.1812-01(e), Sec. 86.1813-01(e) and Sec. 86.1816-05(e) provided
that:
(i) This provision is only available for petroleum diesel fuel. It
is only available if the Reid Vapor Pressure of in-use diesel fuel is
equal to or less than 1 psi (7 kPa) and for diesel vehicles whose fuel
tank temperatures do not exceed 130 deg. F (54 deg. C); and
(ii) To certify using this provision the manufacturer must attest
to the following evaluation: ``Due to the low vapor pressure of diesel
fuel and the vehicle tank temperatures, hydrocarbon vapor
concentrations are low and the vehicle meets the 0.20 grams/gallon
refueling emission standard without a control system.''
(2) The certification required in paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of this
section must be provided in writing and must apply for the full useful
life of the vehicle.
(3) EPA reserves the authority to require testing to enforce
compliance and to prevent noncompliance with the refueling emission
standard.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 86.1829-01 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(2)(iii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.1829-01 Durability and emission testing requirements;
waivers.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Optional waiver of two-diurnal evaporative certification test
for gasoline- and ethanol-fueled vehicles. In lieu of testing gasoline-
fueled and ethanol-fueled vehicles for the supplemental two-diurnal
test sequence according to the provisions of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and
(b)(2)(ii) of this section, a manufacturer may optionally provide a
statement of compliance in its application for certification that,
based on the manufacturer's good engineering judgement, all light-duty
vehicles, light-duty trucks and complete heavy-duty vehicles in the
applicable evaporative/refueling emission family comply with the
evaporative emission standard for the supplemental two-diurnal test
sequence.
(A) The option to provide a statement of compliance in lieu of 2-
diurnal evaporative certification test data outlined in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii) of this section is limited to vehicles with conventional
evaporative emission control systems (as determined by the
Administrator). This option may be used for vehicles in evaporative/
refueling families which are certified to the applicable two-diurnal,
three-diurnal, running loss, and refueling emission standards. EPA may
perform confirmatory 2-diurnal evaporative emission testing on
certification test vehicles which are certified using this option (even
though the manufacturer may not have performed a 2-diurnal evaporative
test during the certification process). If data shows noncompliance,
noncompliance will be addressed through 86.1851. As well, if data shows
noncompliance, EPA may not normally allow for subsequent waivers for
the applicable evaporative family.
(B) Manufacturers shall supply information if requested by EPA in
support of the statement of compliance outlined in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii) of this section. This information shall include evaporative
calibration information for the emission-data test vehicle and for
other vehicles in the evaporative/refueling family, including, but not
limited to, canister type, canister volume, canister working capacity,
fuel tank volume, fuel tank geometry, the type of fuel delivery system
(return, returnless, variable flow fuel pump, etc.), a description of
the input parameters and software strategy used to control the
evaporative canister purge, the nominal purge flow volume (in bed
volumes) when vehicles are driven over the 2-diurnal (FTP) driving
cycle, the nominal purge flow volume (in bed volumes) when vehicles are
driven over the 3-diurnal (FTP + running loss) driving cycle, and other
supporting information as necessary to demonstrate that the purge flow
rate calibration on the 2-diurnal test sequence is adequate to comply
with the evaporative emission standard for the supplemental two-diurnal
test sequence.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 86.1845-01 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(5)(ii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.1845-01 Manufacturer in-use verification testing
requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) For non-gaseous fueled vehicles, one test vehicle of each
evaporative/refueling family shall be tested in accordance with the
supplemental 2-diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative emission and refueling
emission procedures described in subpart B of this part, when such test
vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable evaporative emission
and refueling standards under this subpart. For gaseous fueled
vehicles, one test vehicle of each evaporative/refueling family shall
be tested in accordance with the 3-diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative
emission and refueling emission procedures described in subpart B of
this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with
applicable evaporative emission and refueling standards under this
subpart. The test vehicles tested to fulfill the evaporative/refueling
testing requirement of this paragraph (c)(5)(ii) will be counted when
determining compliance with the minimum number of vehicles as specified
in Table S01-06 and Table S01-07 in paragraph (c)(3) of this section
for testing under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section only if the
vehicle is also tested for exhaust emissions under the requirements of
paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
0
18. Section 86.1845-04 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(5)(ii) and
(c)(5)(ii) to read as follows:
[[Page 72930]]
Sec. 86.1845-04 Manufacturer in-use verification testing
requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) For non-gaseous fueled vehicles, one test vehicle of each
evaporative/refueling family shall be tested in accordance with the
supplemental 2-diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative emission and refueling
emission procedures described in subpart B of this part, when such test
vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable evaporative emission
and refueling standards under this subpart. For gaseous fueled
vehicles, one test vehicle of each evaporative/refueling family shall
be tested in accordance with the 3-diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative
emission and refueling emission procedures described in subpart B of
this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with
applicable evaporative emission and refueling standards under this
subpart. The test vehicles tested to fulfill the evaporative/refueling
testing requirement of this paragraph (b)(5)(ii) will be counted when
determining compliance with the minimum number of vehicles as specified
in Table S04-06 and Table S04-07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section
for testing under paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section only if the
vehicle is also tested for exhaust emissions under the requirements of
paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) For non-gaseous fueled vehicles, one test vehicle of each
evaporative/refueling family shall be tested in accordance with the
supplemental 2-diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative emission procedures
described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle is tested
for compliance with applicable evaporative emission and refueling
standards under this subpart. For gaseous fueled vehicles, one test
vehicle of each evaporative/refueling family shall be tested in
accordance with the 3-diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative emission
procedures described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle
is tested for compliance with applicable evaporative emission and
refueling standards under this subpart. The test vehicles tested to
fulfill the evaporative/refueling testing requirement of this paragraph
(b)(5)(ii) will be counted when determining compliance with the minimum
number of vehicles as specified in Table S04-06 and table S04-07 in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section for testing under paragraph (b)(5)(i)
of this section only if the vehicle is also tested for exhaust
emissions under the requirements of paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this
section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-23714 Filed 12-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P