1
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
9
and
86
RIN
#
A2060
Emission
Durability
Procedures
for
New
Light­
Duty
Vehicles,

Light­
Duty
Trucks
and
Heavy­
Duty
Vehicles
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
ACTION:
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
SUMMARY:
This
proposed
rulemaking
contains
procedures
to
be
used
by
manufacturers
of
light­
duty
vehicles,
light­
duty
trucks,
and
some
heavy­
duty
vehicles
to
demonstrate,
for
purposes
of
emission
certification,
that
new
motor
vehicles
will
comply
with
EPA
emission
standards
throughout
their
useful
lives.
Today's
action
proposes
procedures
to
be
used
by
manufacturers
to
demonstrate
the
expected
rate
of
deterioration
of
the
emission
levels
of
their
vehicles.

DATES:
Written
comments
on
this
NPRM
must
be
submitted
on
or
before
[
insert
date
30
days
after
Public
Hearing
date].

A
public
hearing
will
be
held
on
[
insert
date
15
days
after
publication
in
the
Federal
Register].
Requests
to
present
oral
testimony
must
be
received
on
or
before
[
Insert
date
5
2
days
prior
to
the
date
of
the
public
hearing].
If
EPA
receives
no
requests
to
present
oral
testimony
by
this
date,

the
hearing
will
be
canceled.

ADDRESSES:
Comments:
Comments
may
be
submitted
by
mail
to:

Air
Docket,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Mailcode:

6102T,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC,
20460,

Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2002­
0079.
Comments
may
also
be
submitted
electronically,
by
facsimile,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
For
more
information
submitting
comments
and
on
the
comment
procedure
and
public
hearings,
follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
Section
V,
"
Public
Participation"
section.
We
must
receive
them
by
the
date
indicated
under
DATES
above.
Paper
copies
of
written
comments
(
in
duplicate
if
possible)
should
also
be
sent
to
the
general
contact
person
listed
below.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:

General
Contact:
Linda
Hormes,
Vehicle
Programs
and
Compliance
Division,
US
EPA,
2000
Traverwood,
Ann
Arbor
Michigan
48105,
telephone
(
734)
214­
4502,
E­
mail:

hormes.
linda@
epa.
gov.

Technical
Contact:
Eldert
Bontekoe,
Vehicle
Programs
and
Compliance
Division,
US
EPA,
2000
Traverwood,
Ann
Arbor,

Michigan,
48105,
telephone:
(
734)
214­
4442,
E­
mail:

bontekoe.
eldert@
epa.
gov.
3
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
Background
A.
Overview
of
certification
process,
CAP
2000
history
B.
Durability
demonstration
process
history
1.
Durability
demonstration
methods
used
prior
to
the
CAP
2000
regulations
2.
Emission
durability
procedures
under
CAP
2000
C.
Ethyl
petition
to
reconsider
CAP
2000
rules
D.
Judicial
review
of
the
CAP
2000
rules
II.
How
did
EPA
develop
the
proposed
durability
procedures?

A.
What
is
the
purpose
of
the
durability
program?

B.
What
are
the
factors
that
affect
exhaust
emission
deterioration?

C.
The
strawman
durability
procedures
1.
The
whole­
vehicle
aging
procedures
2.
The
bench
aging
procedures
3.
Allowable
customization
of
the
bench
aging
procedures
D.
Development
of
today's
proposal
from
the
strawman
durability
procedures
1.
The
durability
objective
2.
Cycle
severity
for
the
SRC
(
Comments
1
and
2)

3.
Alternative
and
customized
cycles
(
Comment
3)

4.
The
standard
bench
cycle
(
Comment
4)

5.
Bench
aging
time
(
Comment
5)
4
6.
Bench
aging
specifications
(
Comment
6)

7.
Adjusting
durability
procedures
based
on
IUVP
data
(
Comments
7
and
8)

8.
Reproducibility
by
outside
parties
(
Comment
9)

9.
Confidentiality
of
emissions
test
results
submitted
under
the
durability
program
E.
Diesel
Vehicle
Exhaust
Deterioration
F.
Evaporative
and
refueling
durability
procedures
III.
What
is
EPA
proposing
today?

A.
Standard
whole
vehicle
exhaust
durability
procedure
B.
Standard
bench
aging
exhaust
durability
procedure
1.
The
Standard
Bench
Cycle
(
SBC)

2.
The
Bench
Aging
Time
(
BAT)
calculation
3.
The
effective
reference
temperature
for
the
SBC
C.
Customization
of
the
standard
procedures
1.
Customization
of
the
Standard
Road
Cycle
2.
Customization
of
the
standard
bench
procedures
3.
Replication
by
outside
parties
D.
Using
In­
Use
Verification
Program
(
IUVP)
data
to
improve
durability
predictions
E.
Evaporative
and
refueling
durability
F.
Effective
date
and
carryover
of
existing
5
durability
data
1.
Effective
Date
2.
Carrying­
over
durability
data
G.
Miscellaneous
regulatory
amendments
and
corrections
IV.
What
are
the
economic
and
environmental
impacts?

A.
Economic
impacts
1.
Comparison
to
CAP
2000
economic
impacts
2.
Economic
impact
of
today's
proposal
B.
Environmental
impacts
V.
What
are
the
opportunities
for
public
participation?

A.
Copies
of
This
Proposal
and
Other
Related
Information
B.
Submitting
Comments
on
This
Proposal
C.
Areas
where
EPA
specifically
requests
public
comment
D.
Public
hearing
VI.
What
are
the
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
for
this
Proposed
Rule?

A.
Executive
Order
128866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
E.
Executive
Order
13132
(
Federalism)

F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
6
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Children's
Health
Protection
H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
I.
Background
B.
Overview
of
certification
process,
CAP
2000
history
Before
a
manufacturer
may
introduce
a
new
motor
vehicle
into
commerce,
the
manufacturer
must
obtain
an
EPA
certificate
of
conformity
indicating
compliance
with
all
applicable
emission
standards
over
the
vehicle's
useful
life
period.
The
useful
life
for
cars
and
light
trucks
is
currently
100,000
miles
or
10
years,
whichever
occurs
first;

for
heavy
light
trucks,
medium
duty
passenger
vehicles
(
MDPV)
and
complete
heavy
duty
vehicles
the
useful
life
period
is
120,000
miles
or
11
years,
whichever
occurs
first.

[
Section
202(
d)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
40
CFR
86.1805­
04]

To
receive
a
certificate,
the
manufacturer
submits
an
application
to
EPA
containing
various
information
specified
in
the
regulations,
including
emissions
test
data.
EPA
reviews
the
submitted
information
as
well
as
any
other
relevant
information,
and
issues
a
Certificate
upon
a
determination
that
the
manufacturer
has
demonstrated
that
its
new
motor
vehicle
will
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
Act)
and
the
regulations.
[
40
CFR
86.1848­
01]
1
Separate
certification
regulations
exist
for
heavy­
duty
highway
vehicles
and
engines,
which
refer
to
the
light­
duty
certification
procedures.
Today's
proposal
will
apply
to
those
subsets
of
heavy­
duty
vehicles
which
use
the
same
certification
procedures
as
light­
duty
trucks.
For
convenience,
the
term
"
vehicle"
or
"
motor
vehicle"
will
be
used
in
this
preamble
to
mean
those
light­
duty
and
heavy­
duty
motor
vehicles
subject
to
the
proposed
regulations.

2
63
FR
39654
(
July
23,
1998).

7
A
certificate
of
conformity
is
effective
for
only
one
model
year,
therefore,
new
vehicle
certification
must
occur
annually.

EPA's
regulations
detail
the
process
motor
vehicle
manufacturers
must
follow
to
obtain
EPA
emissions
certification.
In
2000,
EPA
issued
a
comprehensive
update
to
the
certification
regulations
for
light­
duty
vehicles
and
light­
duty
trucks1.
These
certification
regulations
are
known
as
"
CAP
2000"
(
Compliance
Assurance
Program)
2.
They
include
detailed
procedures
on
the
selection
of
vehicles
for
testing
and
testing
procedure,
specifications
on
the
information
that
must
be
submitted
to
EPA,
and
other
requirements
pertaining
to
reporting
and
testing.

Issuance
of
a
certificate
is
based
on
a
determination
by
EPA
that
the
vehicles
at
issue
will
conform
with
the
applicable
emissions
standards.
Compliance
with
the
emissions
standards
requires
that
the
vehicles
meet
the
standards
for
the
specified
useful
life
period.
A
determination
of
compliance,
therefore,
must
be
based
on
an
evaluation
of
both
the
performance
of
the
vehicles'

emissions
control
system
when
new,
as
well
as
performance
3
Since
a
certificate
must
be
issued
before
the
new
vehicles
may
be
introduced
into
commerce,
the
emissions
testing
and
other
relevant
data
and
information
used
to
support
an
application
for
a
certificate
are
usually
developed
on
pre­
production
prototypes.

4
The
durability
demonstration
program
consists
of
two
elements:
emission
deterioration
and
component
durability.
Emission
deterioration
prediction
is
a
process
of
predicting
to
what
degree
emissions
will
increase
during
the
vehicles
useful
life.
The
deterioration
factor
(
DF)
is
a
measure
of
the
deterioration.
Component
durability
is
a
demonstration
that
the
emission
control
components
will
not
break
and
will
continue
to
operate
as
described
in
the
Application
for
Certification
during
the
minimum
maintenance
interval
proscribed
in
40
CFR
1834­
01.
The
component
durability
demonstration
is
conducted
by
the
manufacturer
using
good
engineering
judgement.

8
over
the
entire
time
period
of
the
vehicles'
useful
life.
3
The
process
of
predicting
how
and
to
what
degree
a
vehicle's
emission
levels
will
change
over
its
useful
life
period
[
emissions
deterioration]
as
well
as
the
robustness
of
the
vehicle's
emission­
related
components
[
component
durability]
is
known
as
an
emission
durability
demonstration4.
Today's
action
specifies
the
methods
that
manufacturers
must
use
to
determine
emissions
deterioration
for
the
purpose
of
certification.
EPA
is
not
proposing
to
change
the
existing
regulations
for
determining
emissionsrelated
component
durability.

Over
the
years,
EPA
has
promulgated
regulations
prescribing
several
different
emissions
durability
demonstration
methods
to
fulfill
EPA's
need
to
determine
compliance
with
emission
standards
over
the
vehicle's
full
useful
life.
The
following
is
a
short
summary
of
this
prior
regulatory
history,
to
put
today's
proposal
in
context.

B.
Durability
demonstration
process
history
3.
Durability
demonstration
methods
used
prior
to
the
CAP
5
At
the
time
this
durability
procedure
was
effective,
the
useful
life
mileage
for
light­
duty
vehicles
was
100,000
miles.
Refer
to
40
CFR
86.1805­
04
for
current
useful
life
mileage
values.

6
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
emission
level
at
full
useful
life
(
historically,
100,000
miles)
by
the
emission
level
at
the
4,000
mile
point.

9
2000
regulations
Prior
to
CAP
2000,
EPA's
regulations
(
ref.
40
CFR
Part
86)
specified
the
method
to
demonstrate
a
vehicle's
emission
durability.
The
method
used
a
whole
vehicle
mileage
accumulation
cycle,
commonly
referred
to
as
the
Approved
Mileage
Accumulation
(
AMA)
cycle.
It
required
manufacturers
to
accumulate
mileage
on
a
pre­
production
vehicle,
known
as
a
durability
data
vehicle
(
DDV),
by
driving
it
over
the
prescribed
AMA
driving
cycle
for
the
full
useful
life
mileage5.
This
was
to
simulate
the
real­
world
aging
of
the
vehicle's
emissions
control
systems
over
the
useful
life.

The
DDV
was
tested
in
a
laboratory
for
emissions
at
periodic
intervals
during
AMA
mileage
accumulation,
and
a
linear
regression
of
the
test
data
was
performed
to
calculate
a
multiplicative
deterioration
factor
(
DF)
for
each
exhaust
constituent.
Then,
low
mileage
vehicles
more
representative
of
those
intended
to
go
into
production
(
referred
to
as
"
emission
data
vehicles,"
or
EDVs)
were
emission­
tested.
The
emission
results
from
these
tests
were
multiplied
by
the
DFs6
to
project
the
emissions
levels
at
full
useful
life
(
referred
to
as
the
"
certification
7
Reference:
63
FR
39653,
39659
(
July
23,
1998)
(
CAP
2000
NPRM).

10
levels").
The
certification
levels
had
to
be
at
or
below
the
applicable
emission
standards
in
order
to
obtain
a
certificate
of
conformity.

EPA
was
concerned
about
the
ability
of
any
fixed
cycle
­
including
the
AMA
cycle
­
to
produce
emission
durability
data
that
accurately
predicted
in­
use
deterioration
for
all
vehicles.
EPA
had
particular
concerns
that
the
AMA
did
not
represent
current
driving
patterns
and
did
not
appropriately
age
current
design
vehicles.
In
addition,
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.
As
a
result,

EPA
came
to
believe
that
the
AMA
had
become
outdated7.

The
AMA
cycle
was
developed
before
vehicles
were
equipped
with
catalytic
converters.
It
contains
a
substantial
portion
of
low
speed
driving,
designed
to
address
concerns
about
engine
deposits.
While
engine
deposits
were
a
major
source
of
emissions
deterioration
in
pre­
catalyst
vehicles,
the
advent
of
catalytic
converters,

better
fuel
control,
and
the
use
of
unleaded
fuel
shifted
the
causes
of
deterioration
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
8
EPA
approved
three
types
of
emission
durability
programs
under
these
procedures:
whole
vehicle,
full
mileage;
whole
vehicle,
accelerated
mileage;
and
bench
aging
procedures
which
involved
thermal
aging
of
the
catalyst­
plus­
oxygen­
sensor
system.

9
Reference
EPA
Guidance
Letter
No.
CD­
94­
13,
"
Alternative
Durability
Guidance
for
MY94
through
MY98",
dated
July
29,1994.
This
letter
explained
that
as­
received,
un­
screened
in­
use
data
should
be
compared
to
vehicles
run
on
the
alternative
durability
program
(
ASADP).
A
"
significant
majority"
of
the
in­
use
data
should
be
covered
by
the
durability
program.
We
defined
the
acceptance
criteria
in
that
letter
as
follows:
"
EPA
does
not
require
ASADPs
to
meet
a
specific
minimum
severity
level
(
or
confidence
level)
because
different
methods
may
be
used
to
estimate
the
degree
of
severity.
...
However,
an
ASADP
would
be
acceptable
to
EPA
if
EPA
believes
that
it
were
designed
to
match
the
in­
use
deterioration
of
90­
95
percent
of
vehicles
in
the
engine
family."

11
temperature
driving
modes.
It
also
contains
numerous
driving
modes
which
do
not
significantly
contribute
to
deterioration.
This
makes
the
process
longer
but
adds
little
benefit
in
predicting
emission
deterioration.

In
response
to
these
concerns,
EPA
began
a
voluntary
emission
durability
program
in
the
1994
model
year
for
light­
duty
vehicles.
This
program
allowed
manufacturers
to
develop
their
own
procedures
to
evaluate
durability
and
deterioration
subject
to
prior
Agency
approval8.
EPA's
approval
criteria
required
the
manufacturer
to
demonstrate
that
the
durability
procedures
would
cover
a
significant
majority
of
in­
use
vehicle's
emission
deterioration9.
One
additional
condition
for
approval
was
that
the
manufacturer
conduct
or
fund
an
in­
use
test
program
to
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
its
predictions.
The
initial
program
was
referred
to
as
revised
durability
program
I
(
RDP
I).
It
was
an
interim
program
scheduled
to
expire
after
the
1995
model
year
and
was
intended
to
serve
as
a
bridge
to
an
anticipated
10
Ref.
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).

11
An
additive
DF
is
calculated
by
performing
a
least­
squares
regression
of
the
emission
versus
mileage
data
for
each
exhaust
emission
constituent
and
subtracting
the
4,000­
mile
emission
level
from
the
full
useful
life
emission
level
(
historically,
100,000
miles).
The
DF
is
then
used
with
emission
data
from
the
emission
data
vehicle
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
standards
for
the
purpose
of
certification.
The
sum
of
the
emissions
from
the
EDV
plus
the
additive
DF
is
referred
to
as
the
certification
level
and
must
be
less
than
or
equal
to
the
emission
standard
to
receive
a
certificate
of
conformity.

12
complete
revision
to
the
durability
process.
The
provisions
of
RDP
I
were
extended
in
a
series
of
regulatory
actions10.

Ultimately,
the
Agency
instituted
a
comprehensive
revision
to
the
durability
process
as
part
of
the
CAP
2000
rulemaking.

For
evaporative
and
refueling
emissions
deterioration,

EPA
allowed
manufacturers
to
develop
their
own
process
to
either
bench
age
components
or
do
whole
vehicle
aging,
also
subject
to
Agency
review
and
approval.
The
evaporative
and
refueling
deterioration
factor
is
required
to
be
additive.
11
4.
Emission
Durability
Procedures
under
CAP
2000
The
CAP
2000
rulemaking
was
a
comprehensive
update
to
the
entire
light­
duty
vehicle
certification
process.
One
part
of
this
involved
the
manufacturer's
required
demonstration
of
emission
durability.
The
Agency
eliminated
the
use
of
AMA
for
new
durability
demonstrations.
In
CAP
2000,
the
Agency
replaced
the
AMA­
based
durability
program
with
a
durability
process
similar
to
the
optional
RDP­
I
program.
Each
manufacturer,
except
small
volume
manufacturers,
was
required
to
develop
an
emission
12
The
CAP
2000
regulations
"
grand­
fathered"
procedures
which
had
been
already
approved
under
the
RDP
provisions.
Consequently,
these
grand
fathered
procedures
were
not
approved
again
under
the
CAP
2000
provisions.
[
63
FR.
39661]

13
Candidate
in­
use
vehicles
are
vehicles
selected
under
the
provisions
of
the
in­
use
verification
program
(
IUVP).
This
includes
mileage
restrictions,
procurement
requirements,
and
screening
requirements
designed
to
eliminate
only
tampered,
mis­
used
or
unsafe
vehicles.
[
Reference:
40
CFR
86.1845­
01
and
40
CFR
86.1845­
04]

13
durability
process
which
would
accurately
predict
the
in­
use
deterioration
of
the
vehicles
they
produce.
The
manufacturer
had
the
flexibility
to
design
an
efficient
program
that
met
that
objective.

The
manufacturer's
plan
was
then
reviewed
by
EPA
for
approval12.
Approval
from
the
Agency
required
a
demonstration
that
the
durability
process
was
designed
to
generate
DFs
representative
of
in­
use
deterioration.
This
demonstration
was
more
than
simply
matching
the
average
inuse
deterioration
with
DFs.
Manufacturers
needed
to
demonstrate
to
EPA's
satisfaction
that
their
durability
process
would
result
in
the
same
or
more
deterioration
than
is
reflected
by
the
in­
use
data
for
a
significant
majority
of
their
vehicles.
Manufacturers
were
required
to
provide
evidence
that
their
durability
process
resulted
in
predicted
emission
deterioration
that
were
equal
to
or
more
severe
than
the
deterioration
rates
experienced
by
a
significant
majority
(
approximately
90%)
of
candidate
in­
use
vehicles13.

Furthermore,
this
demonstration
was
required
to
cover
the
breadth
of
the
vehicles
covered
by
the
durability
procedure.

This
evaluation
concerning
coverage
of
a
significant
14
majority
of
the
in­
use
data
was
usually
made
independently
on
several
potential
worst­
case
vehicles
which
bound
the
envelope
of
vehicles
covered
by
the
durability
procedure.

Manufacturers
typically
demonstrated
that
emission
deterioration
predicted
by
their
durability
program
would
cover
approximately
90
percent
of
the
in­
use
population
using
one
(
or
more)
of
the
following
sources
of
data:
in­
use
emission
tests,
in­
use
driving
characteristics,
or
in­
use
catalyst
temperature
measurements.
At
that
time
EPA
had
not
developed
a
specific
required
method
to
make
this
demonstration.

Two
major
types
of
durability
processes
emerged
from
the
CAP
2000
experience:
whole
vehicle
and
bench
aging
processes.

The
whole
vehicle
aging
procedures
involve
driving
vehicles
on
a
track
or
dynamometer
on
an
aggressive
driving
cycle
of
the
manufacturer's
design.
In
general,
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
usefullife
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.

The
bench
aging
procedures
involve
the
removal
of
critical
emission
components,
such
as
the
catalyst
and
14
An
engine
dynamometer
bench
generally
consists
of
an
engine
dynamometer,
a
"
slave"
engine,
and
required
controllers
and
sensors
to
achieve
the
desired
operation
of
the
engine
on
the
dynamometer.

15
Under
this
alternative,
emission
components
aged
to
the
equivalent
of
full
useful
life
would
be
installed
on
EDVs.
The
test
data
from
the
EDV
would
then
serve
to
establish
the
certification
level
and
show
compliance
with
the
full
useful
life
emission
standards.

15
oxygen
sensor,
and
the
accelerated
aging
of
those
components
on
an
engine
dynamometer
bench.
14
During
the
bench
aging
process
important
engine/
catalyst
parameters
are
controlled
to
assure
proper
aging.
Usually,
elevated
catalyst
temperatures
are
maintained
while
fuel
is
controlled
to
include
lean,
rich,
and
stoichiometric
control.
Through
a
series
of
tests,
manufacturers
determine
the
amount
of
time
needed
to
bench­
age
a
catalyst
so
it
is
aged
to
the
equivalent
of
100,000
miles.
In
some
cases
the
manufacturer
developed
the
amount
of
aging
time
using
catalyst
temperature
data
measured
on
a
road
cycle.
In
other
cases,

the
manufacturer
developed
the
aging
time
through
a
trial
and
error
process.
Typical
bench
aging
periods
are
100­
300
hours,
although
these
can
vary
from
manufacturer
to
manufacturer.
Sources
of
deterioration
other
than
thermal
aging
can
be
accounted
for
by
aging
the
catalyst
for
an
additional
amount
of
time.

The
CAP
2000
regulations
allow
manufacturers
to
choose
from
three
different
methods
to
demonstrate
emissions
durability.
Manufacturers
could
calculate
additive
DFs,

multiplicative
DFs,
or
test
EDVs
with
aged
hardware15
16
Reference:
40
CFR
86.1845­
01
and
40
CFR
86.1845­
04.

17
The
Agency
may
withdraw
approval
for
a
durability
process
if
the
Administrator
determines,
based
on
IUVP
or
other
data,
that
the
durability
process
does
not
accurately
predict
emission
levels
or
compliance
with
the
standards.
[
Ref.
40
CFR
86.1923­
01
(
h)].
In
addition,
where
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,
manufacturers
are
required
to
supply
additional
"
recall
quality"
in­
use
data.
[
Ref.
40
CFR
86.1846­
01]

16
installed
on
them.

Regardless
of
whether
manufacturers
used
whole
vehicle
or
bench
aging
durability
procedures,
CAP
2000
also
required
the
manufacturer
to
later
collect
emission
data
on
candidate
in­
use
vehicles
selected
under
the
provisions
of
the
in­
use
verification
program
(
IUVP)
16.
Among
other
uses
of
the
data,
the
IUVP
data
must
be
used
by
the
manufacturer
to
check
on
and
improve
its
durability
program.
The
data
also
is
available
to
assist
the
Agency
to
target
vehicle
testing
for
its
recall
program.
The
Agency
may
intercede17
when
the
in­
use
data
indicate
the
durability
process
underestimates
in­
use
emission
levels.

The
CAP
2000
regulations
did
not
change
the
previous
procedures
used
to
obtain
DFs
for
evaporative/
refueling
families.

C.
Ethyl
petition
to
reconsider
the
CAP
2000
rules.

On
August
17,
1999,
Ethyl
Corporation
petitioned
EPA
to
reconsider
the
CAP
2000
regulations.
EPA
requested
public
comment
on
the
petition,
64
FR
60,401
(
November
5,
1999
and
64
Fed.
Reg.
70,665
(
December
17,
1999),
and
received
17
comments
from
various
interested
parties.
After
consideration
of
the
petition
and
of
all
comments,
EPA
denied
the
petition
for
reconsideration.
66
FR
45,777
(
August
30,
2001).

Ethyl
Corporation
also
petitioned
the
Agency
to
reconsider
the
final
rule
entitled
"
Emissions
Control,
Air
Pollution
From
2004
and
Later
Model
Year
Heavy­
Duty
Highway
Engines
and
Vehicles;
Light­
Duty
On­
Board
Diagnostics
Requirements,
Revision;
Final
Rule,"
65
FR
59896­
59978
(
referred
to
here
as
the
"
Heavy
Duty
Rule").
After
consideration
of
the
petition
and
all
of
the
comments,
EPA
denied
the
petition
for
reconsideration.
66
FR
45,777
(
August
30,
2001).

D.
Judicial
review
of
the
CAP
2000
rules.

Ethyl
Corporation
petitioned
for
review
of
the
CAP
2000
rulemaking,
claiming
among
other
things
that
the
CAP
2000
durability
provisions
were
unlawful
as
EPA
had
not
promulgated
methods
and
procedures
for
making
tests
by
regulation
as
required
by
§
206.
[
Ethyl
Corp.
v.
EPA,
306
F.
3d
1144
(
D.
C.
Cir.
Oct.
22,
2002).]

In
an
opinion
issued
on
October
22,
2002,
the
Court
found
that
the
CAP
2000
regulations
did
not
satisfy
the
requirements
of
Section
206(
d)
of
the
CAA
to
establish
methods
and
procedures
for
making
tests
through
regulation.

The
Court
recognized
that
there
was
an
important
distinction
between
an
EPA
regulation
that
established
18
general
or
vaguely
articulated
test
procedures,
with
more
specific
details
provided
in
a
later
proceeding,
and
a
regulation
which
failed
to
establish
any
test
procedures
at
all
and
only
adopted
procedures
for
the
later
development
of
tests.
The
former
situation
would
receive
deferential
judicial
review
under
the
applicable
case
law.
The
latter
case,
however,
would
fail
to
meet
the
requirements
of
section
206(
d).
The
Court
held
that
the
CAP
2000
regulations
fell
into
this
latter
group,
and
were
improper
because
EPA
itself
failed
to
establish
any
test
procedures
at
all
in
the
regulation,
vaguely
articulated
or
not.
EPA's
regulation
provided
only
for
the
manufacturer
to
develop
its
own
test
procedure
and
submit
it
for
later
EPA
approval.

This
was
inconsistent
with
the
scope
of
section
206(
d),

[
Ethyl
at
1149­
50.]

The
Court
also
said
that
"
nothing
in
our
opinion
requires
that
EPA
use
only
a
'
one­
size­
fits­
all'
test
method.
All
that
is
required
is
that
it
establish
its
procedures,
no
matter
how
variegated,
'
by
regulation.'"

[
Ethyl
at
1150.]

The
Court's
decision
stated
that
"
CAP
2000,
rather
than
constituting
an
EPA
establishment
'
by
regulation'
of
'
methods
and
procedures
for
making
tests,'
as
required
by
section
206(
d),
is
instead
a
promulgation
of
criteria
for
the
later
establishment
of
such
methods
and
procedures
by
private
negotiation
between
the
EPA
and
each
regulated
auto
19
maker.
So
it
is
'
not
in
accordance
with
law.'"
The
Court
vacated
"
the
CAP
2000
program"
and
remanded
the
case
to
the
EPA
with
instructions
to
establish
test
methods
and
procedures
by
regulation.
[
Id.]

Since
the
issue
before
the
Court
was
the
legality
of
EPA's
adoption
of
the
CAP
2000
durability
provisions,
the
court's
vacature
of
"
the
CAP
2000
program"
is
limited
to
vacating
the
CAP
2000
durability
provisions.

The
Court
also
remanded
the
case
to
EPA
with
instructions
to
establish
test
methods
and
procedures
by
regulation.
Today's
proposal
is
the
result
of
the
court's
decision,
and
is
limited
to
emission
durability
procedures.

II.
How
did
EPA
develop
the
proposed
durability
procedures?

The
process
and
data
used
to
develop
the
proposed
durability
procedures
is
discussed
below.
Additional
data
and
analysis
used
by
EPA
in
the
regulation
development
process
are
contained
in
the
Agency's
Draft
Technical
Support
Document
(
TSD).

A.
What
is
the
purpose
of
the
durability
program?

EPA
issues
certificates
of
conformity
based
on
testing
and
other
information
submitted
by
manufacturers
which
verifies
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
standards
over
the
vehicles'
useful
life.
The
durability
program
is
the
tool
used
to
adjust
low
mileage
test
results
from
emission
data
vehicles
(
EDV's)
to
predict
emission
results
18
Ref.
40
CFR
86.1823­
01(
b)(
1).
The
term
"
candidate
in­
use
vehicles"
means
vehicles
which
would
meet
the
selection
criteria
of
the
in­
use
verification
program
(
IUVP)).

19
Ref.
63
FR
39660
(
July
23,
1998).

20
at
full
useful
life
mileage.

The
purpose
of
the
durability
program
is
to
provide
EPA
with
reasonable
assurance
that
vehicles
covered
by
a
certificate
of
conformity
will,
in
actual
use,
comply
with
the
applicable
emission
standards
over
their
useful
life.

We
believe
that
the
durability
process
used
to
support
an
application
for
certification
should
cover
a
significant
majority
of
in­
use
vehicles
that
will
be
covered
by
that
certificate.
In
the
CAP
2000
rulemaking,
EPA
established
the
requirement
that
manufacturers
demonstrate
the
"
adequacy
of
[
their]
durability
processes
to
effectively
predict
emission
compliance
for
candidate
in­
use
vehicles
.18"
This
objective
remains
in
today's
proposal.

Production
variability
or
other
reasons
can
lead
to
differences
in
actual
emission
levels
among
vehicles
of
the
same
nominal
design.
In
the
CAP
2000
rulemaking,
EPA
required
that
a
durability
program
adequately
predict
emission
deterioration
for
a
significant
majority
of
in­
use
vehicles.
This
was
typically
approximately
90
percent
coverage
of
the
distribution19.
In
today's
proposal
we
are
taking
the
same
approach,
such
that
a
durability
program
is
expected
to
effectively
predict
a
"
significant
majority",

meaning
coverage
of
approximately
90
percent
of
the
20
A
durability
group
is
the
basic
classification
unit
of
a
manufacturer's
product
line
as
defined
in
§
86.1822­
01
21
distribution
of
in­
use
emission
levels
and
deterioration.

In
summary,
the
objective
of
the
durability
program
is
to
effectively
predict
in­
use
emission
deterioration
rates
and
emission
levels
by
covering
the
significant
majority,

meaning
approximately
90
percent,
of
the
distribution
of
emission
deterioration
of
candidate
in­
use
vehicles
of
each
vehicle
design
which
uses
the
durability
program.

A
durability
group20
can
include
several
different
vehicle
designs
which
may
have
different
emission
levels
and
deterioration
rates.
In
the
CAP
2000
rulemaking,
EPA
required
that
the
durability
data
vehicle
(
DDV)
be
the
vehicle
with
the
highest
expected
emission
deterioration
of
the
vehicles
within
the
durability
group
[
ref.
86.1820­
01].

(
We
are
not
proposing
to
change
the
DDV
selection
criteria
in
this
rulemaking.)

The
durability
program
is
used
to
calculate
certification
levels
either
by
applying
DFs
to
EDV
lowmileage
test
data
or
by
testing
EDVs
with
aged
emission
control
hardware
installed.
EPA
issues
a
certificate
when
the
certification
levels
of
the
EDV
comply
with
the
emission
standards.
Manufacturers
normally
design
with
an
additional
compliance
margin
between
the
standard
and
the
certification
level,
to
address
various
uncertainties.
Especially
for
EDVs
with
certification
levels
at
or
just
under
the
21
Engine­
out
emissions
are
the
engine's
emissions
before
they
are
treated
by
the
catalytic
converter
or
other
after­
treatment
emission
control
devices.

22
Issues
related
to
emissions
deterioration
for
diesel­
fueled
vehicles
are
discussed
in
section
II
E.

23
The
technical
support
document
for
CAP
2000
proposal
can
be
viewed
in
docket
number
A­
96­
50.
The
data
that
supports
stable
engineout
emissions
is
contained
in
Appendix
I
of
that
document.

22
standards,
we
believe
it
is
important
to
have
some
level
of
assurance
that
those
levels
are
indeed
predicting
the
full
useful
life
emission
levels
of
the
significant
majority
of
in­
use
vehicles
covered
by
the
certificate.

B.
What
are
the
factors
that
affect
exhaust
emission
deterioration?

The
first
step
in
developing
an
exhaust
durability
program
is
identifying
the
significant
sources
of
emission
deterioration.
Emission
levels
will
increase
over
mileage
if
either
(
1)
the
engine­
out
emissions21
of
the
engine
increase
or
(
2)
the
effectiveness
of
the
exhaust
aftertreatment
devices
decreases.

For
all
current­
design
light­
and
heavy­
duty
vehicles
(
excluding
diesel­
fueled
vehicles)
the
catalytic
converter
is
the
only
exhaust
after­
treatment
device
in
use22.
EPA
presented
evidence
in
its
draft
technical
support
document
for
the
CAP
2000
proposal23
that
engine­
out
emissions
exhibit
no
significant
deterioration
for
these
current
technology
vehicles.
This
conclusion
is
also
supported
by
an
24
Reference:
"
In­
Use
Emissions
with
Today's
Closed­
Loop
Systems"
by
H.
Haskew
and
T.
Liberty
of
General
Motors,
SAE
No.
910339.

23
Society
of
Automotive
Engineers
(
SAE)
paper24.

Consequently,
the
Agency
believes
that
engine­
out
emission
increase
is
not
a
significant
source
of
emission
deterioration.
Whatever
minor
level
of
deterioration
may
occur
as
a
result
of
engine­
out
emission
increases,
it
can
be
represented
by
an
additional
amount
of
catalyst
aging.

The
major
source
of
emission
deterioration
in
current
technology
vehicles
today
is
the
loss
of
catalyst
efficiency.
The
two
major
sources
of
this
efficiency
loss
are
accumulated
thermal
exposure
and
poisoning.
Minor
sources
of
deterioration
include
coating
of
the
catalyst
substrate
with
fuel
impurities,
and
physical
deterioration
of
the
catalysts
such
as
the
loss
of
catalytic
material.

Loss
of
effective
fuel
control
due
to
deterioration
of
the
oxygen
sensor
can
also
lead
to
lower
catalyst
efficiency
as
the
vehicle
ages
and,
therefore,
to
increased
emission
deterioration.

The
sources
of
catalyst
poisoning
are
compounds
contained
in
the
fuel
and
in
the
lubricating
oil
(
chiefly
lead
(
Pb),
phosphorus
(
P),
and
sulfur
(
S)).
EPA
has
made
significant
strides
to
reduce
poisons
in
fuels
by
fuel
regulation,
including
regulations
that
have
eliminated
lead
and
significantly
reduced
sulfur
levels
in
automobile
fuels.

The
Alliance
of
Automobile
Manufacturers
(
the
"
Alliance")
25
Reference:
40
CFR
86.113­
04
(
a)
(
3)
or
40
CFR
86.113­
94
(
a)
(
2)

24
has
conducted
periodic
surveys
of
fuel
used
across
the
United
States
which
have
documented
the
extent
of
these
reductions.
Manufacturers
generally
use
representative
commercially­
available
fuel
for
testing
and
mileage
accumulation
on
durability
data
vehicles.
They
are
required
to
do
so25
for
mileage
accumulation
on
EDVs.
Lubrication
oils
have
also
improved
over
the
years.
While
EPA
does
not
regulate
the
oils,
the
American
Petroleum
Institute
(
API)

together
with
the
International
Lubrication
and
Standardization
and
Approval
Committee
(
ILSAC)
have
developed
voluntary
oil
certification
levels
and
evaluation
procedures.
Only
oils
with
the
best
certification
levels
are
allowed
to
use
the
API
"
star­
burst"
certification
mark
in
packaging
and
advertisement.
Over
the
years,
API
and
ILSAC
have
established
lower
levels
of
phosphorous
with
new
levels
of
oil
certification.
Today
the
most
advanced
oils
are
designated
as
GF3.
Market
forces
have
proven
sufficient
to
encourage
manufacturers
to
market
oils
that
meet
the
latest
API/
ILSAC
requirements.
Today,
almost
all
of
oil
used
in
automobile
applications
meet
the
GF3
oil
specifications.
The
advances
in
oil
and
fuel
formulation
have
reduced
poisoning
of
the
catalyst
but
have
not
eliminated
it.

Exposure
to
high
temperatures
leads
to
three
major
26
References:
"
Thermal
Effect
on
Three­
Way
Catalyst
Deactivation
and
Improvement"
by
K.
Ihara,
K.
Ohkubo,
and
Y.
Niura
of
Mazda,
SAE
No.
871192
and
"
High
Temperature
Deactivation
of
Three­
Way
Catalyst"
by
L.
Carol,
N.
Newman,
and
G.
Mann
of
General
Motors,
SAE
No.
892040.

27
References:
"
Effect
of
High
Temperatures
on
Three­
Way
Automobile
Catalysts"
by
R.
H.
Hammerle
and
C.
H.
Wu
of
Ford,
SAE
No.
840549;
"
Thermal
Effect
on
Three­
Way
Catalyst
Deactivation
and
Improvement"
by
K.
Ihara,
K.
Ohkubo,
and
Y.
Niura
of
Mazda,
SAE
No.
871192,
and
"
Thermal
Deterioration
Mechanism
of
Pt/
Rh
Three­
Way
Catalysts"
by
S.
Matsunaga,
K.
Yokota,
D.
Hyodo,
T.
Suzuki,
and
H.
Sobukawa
of
Toyota,
SAE
No.
982706.

25
deterioration
mechanisms
in
catalysts.
First,
high
temperatures
cause
the
coalescence
of
active
material,

called
sintering.
Sintering
reduces
the
surface
area
available
to
perform
catalytic
reactions.
This
then
reduces
the
effectiveness
of
the
catalyst.
Second,
loss
of
washcoat
surface
area
is
also
accelerated
at
high
temperatures.

The
loss
of
wash­
coat
surface
area
is
an
indirect
cause
of
active
material
sintering.
Finally,
high
temperatures
can
promote
chemical
reaction
of
one
type
of
active
material
with
another
type
of
active
material
(
such
as
the
formation
of
Pt
Pd
alloy)
and
with
other
compounds
in
the
catalyst
(
such
as
the
formation
of
Pt
Ni
alloy).
In
their
new
chemical
state
the
active
material
is
less
effective
at
reducing
emissions.
It
has
been
widely
reported
in
the
technical
literature
that
the
effects
of
high
catalyst
temperature
are
cumulative
and
generally
increase
exponentially
with
increased
temperature26.

It
is
also
reported
in
the
technical
literature
that
the
air/
fuel
(
A/
F)
ratio
in
the
catalyst
can
affect
the
rate
of
thermal
deterioration27.
The
same
temperature
exposure
28
Reference:
"
Operational
Criteria
Affecting
the
design
of
Thermally
Stable
Single­
Bed
Three­
Way
Catalysts"
by
B.
Cooper
and
T.
Truex
of
Johnson
Matthey,
SAE
No.
850128.

26
experienced
during
lean
catalyst
A/
F
ratio
causes
significantly
more
deterioration
than
at
rich
or
stoichiometric
operation.

Three­
way
catalysts
are
only
simultaneously
effective
at
oxidizing
hydrocarbons
(
HC)
and
carbon
monoxide
(
CO)
and
reducing
oxides
of
nitrogen
(
NOx)
in
a
very
narrow
window
of
catalyst
A/
F
ratio
near
stoichiometry28.
To
maintain
the
A/
F
ratio
control
needed
to
assure
high
catalyst
efficiency,

all
modern
gasoline
vehicles
use
feed­
back
fuel
control.

The
feed­
back
control
system
uses
an
oxygen
sensor
located
just
in
front
of
the
first
catalyst
to
monitor
whether
the
instantaneous
A/
F
ratio
is
rich
or
lean
and
a
computer
engine
controller
to
adjust
the
fuel
system
(
in
the
opposite
direction)
to
move
towards
stoichiometry.
Although
the
A/
F
ratio
may
be
sightly
rich
or
lean
at
any
given
second,
on
a
time­
averaged
basis
the
feed­
back
fuel
system
is
able
to
control
the
fuel
to
very
near
stoichiometric
levels.
The
oxygen
sensor
is
the
critical
part
of
this
system
and
is
subject
to
the
same
sources
of
deterioration
as
the
catalyst
­
thermal
exposure,
poisoning,
physical
deterioration,
and
coating.

Physical
deterioration
of
the
catalyst
or
oxygen
sensor
such
as
cracking
or
loss
of
the
catalyst
substrate,
are
rare
events
that
typically
occur
because
of
a
faulty
design.
27
These
concerns
are
addressed
by
the
component
durability
feature
of
the
durability
program.
Under
the
component
durability
provisions,
manufacturers
are
responsible
to
demonstrate
using
good
engineering
judgement
that
all
emission
related
components
are
durable
in
the
operating
environment
they
will
experience
throughout
the
vehicle's
useful
life.

Coating
of
the
catalyst
substrate
or
the
oxygen
sensor
generally
occurs
due
to
contaminants
in
the
fuel.
These
contaminants
are
not
part
of
the
fuel
formulation,
but
occur
by
accident
due
to
mishandling
of
fuel
in
the
distribution
process.
Coating
caused
by
contaminants
in
the
fuel
is
beyond
the
scope
of
the
durability
program.
On­
the­
other
hand,
coating
of
the
oxygen
sensor
may
also
occur
due
to
installation
of
the
oxygen
sensor
with
an
improper
antiseize
compound
that
contains
material
that
coats
the
oxygen
sensor
in
actual
use.
Coating
of
the
oxygen
senor
in
this
case
should
be
addressed
during
the
component
durability
portion
of
the
durability
process.

C.
The
strawman
durability
procedures
In
preparing
this
proposal,
EPA
initially
developed
"
strawman"
durability
procedures.
The
strawman
durability
procedures
contained
both
whole­
vehicle
and
bench
aging
procedures.
A
copy
of
the
strawman
durability
procedure
is
contained
in
the
TSD.
The
following
discussion
summarizes
the
strawman
durability
procedures
and
the
development
28
rationale
for
those
procedures.

The
strawman
proposal
was
used
to
solicit
feedback
from
key
stakeholders.
Today's
proposal
is
based
on
the
strawman
durability
procedures
with
adjustment
reflecting
our
response
to
the
comments
we
received
from
vehicle
manufacturers,
emission
control
equipment
manufacturers,
and
Ethyl
Corporation.

1.
The
whole­
vehicle
aging
procedure
Sources
of
emission
deterioration
on
a
road
cycle
Whole­
vehicle
aging
consists
of
running
the
entire
vehicle
on
a
track
or
engine
dynamometer.
The
vehicle
is
driven
on
a
road
cycle
which
usually
consists
of
a
speedversus
time
trace
with
specified
acceleration
rates,
fuel
properties,
and
vehicle
load.
Vehicles
aged
using
wholevehicle
aging
procedures
experience:
(
1)
catalyst
thermal
deterioration
due
to
the
heat
generated
in
the
catalyst
during
vehicle
operation,
(
2)
poisoning
of
the
catalyst
due
to
the
consumption
of
fuel
and
lubrication
oil,
(
3)

degradation
of
the
accuracy
of
fuel
control,
and
(
4)

engineout
emission
deterioration.
Of
these
four
sources
of
deterioration,
catalyst
temperature
exposure
is
the
predominant
source
and
the
easiest
to
control.

Consequently,
once
a
road
cycle
has
been
established
that
has
a
reasonable
amount
of
poisoning,
fuel
control
deterioration
(
typically
from
the
oxygen
sensor),
and
engine­
out
emissions
deterioration,
catalyst
temperature
29
exposure
can
be
used
to
adjust
the
severity
of
the
driving
cycle
to
meet
the
desired
objective.

Poisoning
is
basically
a
function
of
number
of
miles
run
and
the
type
and
amount
of
the
fuel
and
lubricating
oil
which
is
consumed.
Engine­
out
emission
deterioration
is
largely
a
function
of
miles
run,
but
as
discussed
previously,
engine­
out
emission
deterioration
is
thought
to
be
near
zero.
If
the
road
cycle
incorporates
the
full
number
of
useful
life
miles
and
the
fuel
and
oil
used
are
representative
of
in­
use,
poisoning
and
engine­
out
deterioration
should
be
appropriately
accounted
for.

As
previously
discussed,
oxygen
sensor
deterioration
is
a
function
of
thermal
exposure,
poisoning,
physical
deterioration
and
coating.
As
discussed
above,
coating
and
physical
deterioration
are
rare
and
more
properly
addressed
by
the
component
durability
provisions
than
the
emission
deterioration
procedures
that
are
the
subject
of
this
proposal.
Poisoning
is
caused
from
ingested
oil
and
compounds
in
the
fuel
burned
in
the
engine,
the
same
sources
of
poisons
experienced
by
catalysts.
Addressing
the
poisoning
issues
for
catalysts
will
address
the
same
poisoning
concerns
for
oxygen
sensors
because
the
sensors
are
in
the
same
exhaust
stream
as
the
catalyst
and
will
experience
the
same
poisons
as
the
catalyst.
The
remaining
source
of
deterioration
of
oxygen
sensors
is
thermal
exposure.
Since
oxygen
sensors
are
installed
near
the
30
catalyst
in
the
exhaust
stream
they
experience
the
same
heat
transfer
effect
from
the
hot
exhaust
stream
as
the
catalyst.

Consequently,
appropriate
control
of
catalyst
temperature
during
the
road
cycle
will
lead
to
appropriate
oxygen
sensor
deterioration.

Higher
catalyst
temperatures
occur
at
higher
engine
speed
and
engine
load.
Engine
speed
and
load
are
higher
when
vehicle
speed,
acceleration
rates,
and
vehicle
loading
are
higher.
Consequently
the
speed
and
acceleration
distribution
of
a
road
cycle
will
determine
the
amount
of
catalyst
temperature
and
oxygen
sensor
deterioration.

Developing
a
standard
road
(
SRC)
cycle
to
achieve
the
durability
objective
An
appropriate
road
cycle
is
one
that
meets
the
severity
objective
for
the
mileage
accumulation
cycle.
As
discussed
previously,
the
objective
of
EPA's
proposed
durability
program
is
to
effectively
cover
a
significant
majority
(
approximately
90
percent)
of
the
distribution
of
in­
use
emission
deterioration
of
candidate
in­
use
vehicles
across
the
entire
fleet
of
vehicles
covered
by
the
durability
program.
In
developing
a
standard
road
cycle
applicable
to
all
manufacturers,
the
objective
encompasses
the
entire
fleet
of
vehicles.

Once
the
test
vehicle
is
selected
and
the
vehicle
load
and
fuel
specifications
are
fixed,
the
only
variable
remaining
that
can
influence
the
severity
of
a
road
cycle
is
31
the
speed­
versus­
time
distribution
of
the
cycle.
Simply
matching
the
speed
and
acceleration
distribution
of
typical
or
average
in­
use
driving
is
not
appropriate,
because
our
objective
is
ninety
percent
coverage
of
the
in­
use
emission
deterioration.
Average
in­
use
driving
speeds
and
accelerations
represent
only
fifty
percent
coverage.

Matching
the
driving
speed
and
acceleration
of
the
ninetieth
percentile
driver
would
not
automatically
accomplish
that
objective
by
itself,
because
there
are
additional
variables
in
actual
driving
that
influence
the
work
performed
by
the
engine
and,
consequently,
the
rate
of
emission
deterioration.
In­
use
driving
includes
operating
the
vehicle
on
various
road
surfaces
(
such
as
gravel
and
rough
roads),
over
various
road
grades
(
up
or
down
hills),
in
various
weather
conditions
(
cold,
hot,
raining,
snowing,
and
winds),
and
with
various
accessories
in
operation
(
such
as
air
conditioning,
defroster,
and
headlights).
Directionally,

all
of
these
additional
variables
result
in
additional
engine
work,
and
consequently
lead
to
higher
catalyst
temperatures
and
more
emission
deterioration
than
operating
the
vehicle
at
the
same
speed­
versus­
time
trace
on
a
smooth,

level
track
or
on
a
dynamometer.

Strawman
road
cycle
EPA
developed
a
strawman
version
of
a
standard
road
cycle
based
the
data
available
at
that
time.
EPA
reviewed
speeds
and
acceleration
rates
that
are
typically
encountered
29
Reference:
"
Federal
Test
Procedure
Review
Project:
Preliminary
Technical
Report"
,
EPA
publication
no.
420­
R­
33­
007.

30
Several
approved
manufacturer
road
cycles
are
discussed
in
the
TSD.

32
in­
use29
and
extrapolated
what
speeds
and
acceleration
might
be
typical
for
the
ninetieth­
percentile
driver.
As
discussed
previously,
EPA
believed
that
the
appropriate
speed
and
accelerations
should
be
higher
than
the
ninetiethpercentile
driver
due
to
additional
variables
seen
in
actual
driving
that
affect
deterioration.
EPA
also
reviewed
the
speeds
and
acceleration
rates
used
by
manufacturers'
road
cycles
previously
approved
by
EPA
under
the
CAP
2000
regulations
(
or
approved
under
the
RDP
process
and
subsequently
grand­
fathered
into
the
CAP
2000
program)
30.

To
be
approved
under
CAP
2000
or
the
RDP
program,
as
applicable,
the
manufacturers
provided
information
that
EPA
believed
showed
that
these
cycles
covered
the
significant
majority,
approximately
90
percent,
of
the
distribution
of
emission
deterioration
rates
seen
in­
use
on
their
vehicles.

This
would
cover
deterioration
from
in­
use
speeds,

accelerations,
other
driving
conditions,
vehicle
load,
fuel,

and
the
like.
EPA
developed
speeds
and
acceleration
rates
for
the
strawman
standard
road
cycle
in
the
high
range
of
severity
compared
to
the
manufacturer­
specific
cycles,

because
the
standard
EPA
cycle
was
to
cover
the
entire
fleet
of
vehicles
while
the
individual
manufacturer's
cycle
was
targeted
to
only
cover
the
breadth
of
their
specific
product
31
Assuming
a
22
hour
workday,
it
would
take
89
days
to
drive
the
full
useful
life
miles
and
14
days
to
perform
the
needed
emission
tests,
for
a
total
of
103
days.

33
line.
Consequently,
the
strawman
standard
road
cycle
was
conservative
and
targeted
at
a
higher
degree
of
severity
than
most
manufacturer
cycles.

The
road
cycle
developed
for
the
strawman
durability
procedures
is
described
in
the
technical
support
document
for
this
rule.

At
the
time
the
strawman
road
cycle
was
being
developed
EPA
did
not
have
any
catalyst
time­
at­
temperature
data
measured
on
this
cycle.
This
data
became
available
as
part
of
the
comments
received
on
the
durability
strawman
proposal.
As
we
will
discuss
in
section
II.
D.,
we
ultimately
revised
the
strawman
road
cycle
to
better
achieve
our
durability
target
based
on
this
catalyst
time­

attemperature
data.
That
revised
cycle
became
the
standard
road
cycle
that
we
are
proposing
today.

Early
termination
of
mileage
accumulation
One
concern
with
performing
mileage
accumulation
on
a
whole
vehicle
over
its
full
useful
life
period
is
the
amount
of
time
it
takes.
In
the
strawman
road
cycle,
running
a
vehicle
for
100,000
miles
was
estimated
to
take
about
103
days31.
For
Tier
2
vehicles
with
full
useful
life
periods
of
120,000
or
150,000
miles
the
time
would
be
even
higher
(
120
and
147
days,
respectively).

The
strawman
whole­
vehicle
procedure
contained
a
32
The
80%
statistical
confidence
limit
means
that
80%
of
the
time
the
real
deterioration
rate
would
be
lower
than
the
extrapolated
value.

34
provision
allowing
manufacturers
to
terminate
mileage
accumulation
early
at
a
minimum
of
75%
of
full
useful
life,

and
to
project
the
full
useful
life
deterioration
factors
using
the
upper
80%
statistical
confidence
limit.
This
provision
is
similar
to
one
contained
in
the
RPD
I
regulations
with
the
added
limitation
of
using
the
upper
80th%
confidence
limit.
[
Ref.
§
40
CFR
86.094­
26
(
a)(
4)(
i)(
B)]
It
allows
manufacturers
to
reduce
the
time
and
money
associated
with
full
useful
life
mileage
accumulation.
At
the
same
time,
it
protects
the
integrity
of
the
deterioration
factor
by
requiring
that
a
higher
than
average
(
upper
80%
statistical
confidence
limit32)
DF
be
projected.

Customization
of
strawman
road
cycle
We
did
not
include
provisions
allowing
customization
of
the
strawman
road
cycle,
other
than
to
allow
for
early
termination,
as
discussed
above.
Before
considering
customization,
EPA
needed
more
information,
including
data,

on
whether
or
not
the
strawman
road
cycle
would
achieve
the
durability
objective
discussed
in
II
B.
1
below.
In
the
strawman
proposal,
we
requested
manufacturers
to
provide
catalyst
time­
at­
temperature
data
on
the
road
cycle
and
the
manufacturer's
approved
CAP
2000
durability
cycle.
We
did
receive
some
comparative
catalyst
data
and
other
comments
on
35
the
strawman
proposal,
discussed
below,
which
led
us
to
conclude
that
it
would
be
appropriate
to
propose
approval
criteria
allowing
customization
of
the
standard
road
cycle
or
alternative
road
cycles.

2.
The
bench
aging
procedures
Background
Bench
aging
procedures
generally
involve
removing
critical
emission
components,
such
as
the
catalyst
and
oxygen
sensor,
from
the
DDV
and
aging
those
components
in
an
accelerated
manner
on
an
aging
bench.
The
aged
components
are
then
either
reinstalled
on
the
DDV
and
emission
tests
are
conducted
to
calculate
a
DF,
or
the
EDV
is
tested
with
aged
components
which
are
directly
installed
on
the
test
vehicle.
In
the
latter
case,
the
results
of
EDV
testing
are
used
to
represent
the
certification
levels
without
the
need
to
calculate
a
DF.
The
objective
of
the
bench
aging
procedure
is
to
produce
the
desired
target
level
of
deterioration
in
a
much
shorter
period
of
time
than
running
a
vehicle
on
a
road
cycle.
If
the
bench
aging
is
properly
conducted
then
it
will
yield
equivalent
results
to
wholevehicle
aging.

Sources
of
emission
deterioration
on
the
aging
bench
As
previously
discussed,
catalyst
thermal
exposure
is
the
predominant
source
of
emission
deterioration.

Temperature
exposure
of
the
catalyst
can
be
more
conveniently
controlled
on
an
aging
bench
than
other
sources
36
of
deterioration.
On
the
catalyst
aging
bench,
other
sources
of
deterioration
can
be
accounted
for
by
increasing
the
amount
of
thermal
aging
of
the
catalyst.

Degradation
of
the
fuel
control
systems
is
one
additional
source
of
deterioration.
It
can
lead
to
reduced
efficiency
of
the
catalyst
and,
therefore,
to
increased
emission
deterioration.
In
the
modern
feed­
back
fuel
system
the
oxygen
sensor
is
the
critical
emission
control
component.
The
oxygen
sensor
deteriorates
due
to
accumulated
thermal
exposure
as
well
as
other
reasons.
As
with
the
catalyst,
thermal
aging
of
the
oxygen
sensor
can
be
used
to
represent
all
the
sources
of
deterioration
of
the
oxygen
sensor.

Using
the
bench
procedures
to
replicate
the
emission
deterioration
seen
on
the
road
cycle
In
summary,
a
bench
aging
procedure
can
use
thermal
aging
of
the
catalyst­
plus­
oxygen­
sensor
[
the
"
catalyst
system"]
as
a
surrogate
for
whole­
vehicle
aging.
By
selecting
the
proper
temperatures,
amount
of
aging
time,
and
mix
of
A/
F
ratios,
the
bench
aging
procedure
can
be
designed
to
match
the
rate
of
deterioration
predicted
by
a
wholevehicle
aging
cycle,
and
meet
the
in­
use
emission
performance
design
objectives
expected
of
the
durability
program.

The
effects
of
temperature
exposure
on
the
catalyst
are
cumulative
and
increase
exponentially
with
the
temperature.
33
Reference:
General
Chemistry,
by
D.
Ebbing
and
M.
Wrighton,
published
in
1990
by
Houghton
Mifflin
Co.,
Boston.

37
Consequently,
it
is
possible
to
replace
a
long
period
of
catalyst
exposure
at
a
certain
temperature
with
a
shorter
period
of
time
at
a
higher
temperature.
By
applying
this
principle
over
the
entire
range
of
catalyst
temperature
exposure,
it
is
possible
to
represent
the
entire
lifetime
of
catalyst
temperature
exposure
as
a
much
shorter
period
of
time
at
a
single
elevated
reference
temperature.

Determining
the
aging
time
on
the
bench
In
1889,
the
Swedish
scientist
Svent
Arrehenius
developed
a
theoretical
formula,
which
came
to
be
known
as
the
Arrehenius
equation,
which
relates
chemical
reaction
rates
with
temperature.
The
Arrehenius
equation
is
widely
cited
in
chemical
technical
literature
and
it
is
noted
that
"
most
chemical
reactions
closely
follow"
33
the
equation.

For
our
strawman
procedure,
we
developed
a
version
of
the
Arrehenius
equation,
called
the
Bench
Aging
Time
(
BAT)

equation.
The
BAT
equation
compares
the
deterioration
rates
that
occur
at
two
different
temperatures.
The
BAT
equation
allows
us
to
convert
a
given
amount
of
aging
time
at
one
temperature
to
a
lesser
time
at
a
higher
temperature
while
maintaining
the
same
degree
of
emission
deterioration.

Since
the
implementation
of
the
RDP
I
regulations,

beginning
in
the
1993
model
year,
EPA
has
been
evaluating
the
applicability
of
the
BAT
equation
to
durability
34
Ref.
Advisory
Circular
No.
17­
F
(
November
16,
1982)

35
The
70
mph
AMA
is
the
original
AMA
promulgated
in
Appendix
IV
to
Part
86
in
1977.
It
has
a
high
speed
on
lap
11
of
70
mph.
By
policy,
EPA
had
allowed
manufacturers
to
use
lower
speeds
(
as
low
as
55
mph)
on
lap
11
of
the
AMA
in
response
to
the
55
mph
National
Speed
Limit
which
was
enacted
after
promulgation
of
the
AMA
cycle
in
the
appendix.

38
demonstrations
and
experimenting
with
different
coefficients
for
the
equation.
EPA
also
has
been
approving
manufacturerdesigned
durability
procedures
under
the
RDP
I
and
CAP
2000
procedures.
As
part
of
the
approval
process,
EPA
required
catalyst
temperature
histograms34
of
both
the
manufacturer's
procedures
and
the
70­
mph
AMA35.
EPA
used
this
data
to
compare
the
severity
of
the
AMA
and
the
manufacturer's
cycles.
In
general,
we
found
that
the
BAT
equation
predicted
a
similar
ratio
of
severity
(
the
manufacturer's
cycle
divided
by
the
AMA)
for
different
manufacturers.

Also,
EPA
noted
that
some
manufacturers
were
also
basing
their
bench
cycle
aging
time
calculations
on
similar
principles
as
the
Arrehenius
equation
and
that
they
had
developed
coefficients
similar
to
the
ones
we
were
using
with
the
BAT
equation.
The
BAT
equation
that
EPA
developed
for
the
strawman
durability
process
is
discussed
in
the
Technical
Support
Document
for
this
rule.

To
use
the
BAT
equation
to
select
the
bench
aging
time
for
a
given
temperature,
it
is
necessary
to
start
with
a
known
distribution
of
time­
at­
temperatures
for
the
catalyst.

The
strawman
version
of
the
standard
road
cycle
was
designed
to
replicate
the
appropriate
level
of
aging
and
it
36
The
catalyst
thermal
reactivity
is
the
"
R­
Factor"
in
EPA's
proposed
BAT
equation
to
calculate
the
bench
aging
time.
It
is
a
measure,
determined
experimentally,
of
how
sensitive
the
catalyst
is
to
high
temperature
exposure.
The
BAT
equation
is
discussed
in
more
detail
in
section
III
of
the
preamble.

39
specifically
targeted
catalyst
temperature
as
a
method
to
accomplish
the
aging.
Consequently,
the
distribution
of
catalyst
time
at
temperature
data
on
the
standard
road
cycle
is
an
appropriate
target
for
a
standard
bench
aging
procedure.
Therefore,
the
strawman
durability
program
used
catalyst
temperature
histograms
run
on
the
standard
road
cycle
on
the
DDV
configuration
as
input
to
the
BAT
equation
to
determine
the
bench
aging
time
and
temperature.

The
BAT
equation
and
the
Arrehenius
equation
upon
which
it
is
based
assume
that
deterioration
is
determined
strictly
based
on
time­
at­
temperature.
However,
as
discussed
previously,
the
A/
F
ratio
in
the
catalyst
can
significantly
affect
the
rate
of
deterioration
that
occurs
for
the
same
temperature
exposure.
Catalyst
deterioration
is
highest
when
the
A/
F
ratio
of
the
catalyst
is
lean.

One
approach
to
address
the
effect
of
A/
F
ratio
on
aging
is
to
separate
the
aging
time
into
the
three
A/
F
ratio
regimes;
rich,
stoichiometry,
and
lean;
and
consider
each
sub­
set
separately.
Another
approach
would
be
to
control
the
proportion
of
rich/
stoichmetric/
lean
operation
during
bench
aging
and
use
a
composite
value
of
the
catalyst
thermal
reactivity
coefficient36
(
R­
value)
based
on
that
distribution
in
the
BAT
equation.
Since
EPA
developed
the
37
The
RAT
A
cycle
is
referenced
in
"
Application
of
Accelerated
Rapid
Aging
Test
(
RAT)
schedules
with
Poisons"
by
D.
Ball,
A
Mohammed,
and
W.
Schmidt
of
Delphi,
SAE
No.
972846;
"
A
Survey
of
Automotive
Catalyst
Technologies
using
Rapid
Aging
Test
Schedules
which
Incorporate
Engine
Oil
Derived
Poisons"
by
D.
Ball,
and
C.
Kirby
of
Delphi,
SAE
No.
973050;
and
"
The
Effects
of
Oil
Derived
Poisons
on
Three­
Way
Catalyst
Performance"
by
D.
Lafyatis,
R.
Petrow,
and
C.
Bennet
of
Johnson
40
R­
value
using
this
composite
approach,
this
is
the
option
we
chose
for
the
strawman
durability
program.

Another
variable
that
effects
deterioration
is
poisoning.
Little
poisoning
occurs
on
the
bench
cycle
because
the
duration
of
the
test
is
short
(
typically
100
to
300
hours).
Consequently,
only
a
limited
amount
of
fuel
is
used
and
little
lubrication
oil
is
consumed
by
the
engine.

Nevertheless,
although
the
effect
is
small,
it
is
important
to
specify
the
fuel
used.
The
strawman
procedure
specified
the
fuel
as
normal
mileage
accumulation
fuel,
which
is
representative
of
commercially
available
fuel.
The
strawman
procedures
did
not
discuss
specifications
for
the
oil
to
be
used
on
the
bench
engine.
Today's
proposal
requires
that
the
oil
used
in
the
bench
engine
is
to
be
selected
using
good
engineering
judgement.

Controlling
the
A/
F
ratio
on
the
bench
[
the
strawman
bench
cycle]

For
the
BAT
equation
to
work
properly,
it
is
necessary
to
have
an
appropriate
and
fixed
mix
of
A/
F
ratios
experienced
in
the
catalyst.
This
pre­
determined
mix
of
A/
F
ratios
in
the
catalyst
on
the
aging
bench
is
called
the
"
bench
cycle".
The
technical
literature37
discusses
one
Matthey,
SAE
No.
2002­
01­
1093.

38
The
TSD
presents
a
study
of
rich/
stoichiometry/
lean
A/
F
percentages
provided
by
a
manufacturer
on
one
of
their
vehicles.

41
bench
cycle,
called
RAT
A,
that
has
been
used
to
age
catalysts
on
an
aging
bench.
This
bench
cycle
is
also
used
by
several
manufacturers
in
their
own
procedures
to
conduct
bench
aging.

The
proportion
of
rich/
stoichiometric/
lean
A/
F
ratios
on
the
RAT
A
cycle
follows
the
general
trend
of
A/
F
ratios
seen
in
the
catalyst
in
use38.
The
RAT
A
cycle
has
mostly
stoichiometric
A/
F
ratios
with
a
small
amount
of
lean
and
an
even
smaller
amount
of
rich
operation.
The
bench
cycle
does
not
need
to
exactly
replicate
what
happens
in
use,
in
fact
the
RAT
A
cycle
does
not
replicate
typical
in­
use
A/
F
ratios.
The
BAT
equation,
with
the
proper
coefficients,

will
adjust
aging
time
on
that
bench
cycle
to
assure
that
the
correct
amount
of
aging
occurs.
EPA
developed
the
proposed
BAT
coefficients
using
catalyst
time­
at­
temperature
data
measured
on
the
RAT
A
cycle.
The
purpose
of
the
bench
cycle
is
to
establish
a
fixed
cycle
of
A/
F
ratios
on
the
bench
to
eliminate
A/
F
ratio
as
an
uncontrolled
variable.
By
developing
a
fixed
bench
cycle,
the
reference
temperature
of
the
cycle
and
catalyst
time­
at­
temperature
data
are
the
remaining
independent
variables
to
determine
aging
time
on
the
bench.
The
bench
cycle
established
in
the
strawman
durability
program
is
a
slightly
modified
version
of
this
42
RAT
A
cycle
where
the
time
at
rich
and
lean
operation
was
rounded
to
an
even
number
of
seconds.

The
strawman
durability
program
bench
cycle
consists
of
a
60­
second
cycle
which
is
defined
as
follows
based
on
the
A/
F
ratio
of
the
engine
(
which
is
part
of
the
aging
bench)

and
the
rate
of
secondary
air
injection
(
shop
air
which
is
added
to
the
exhaust
stream
in
front
of
the
first
catalyst):

01
to
40
secs
14.7
A/
F,
no
secondary
air
injection
41
to
45
secs
13.0
A/
F
ratio,
no
secondary
air
injection
46
to
55
secs
13.0
A/
F
ratio,
4%
secondary
air
injection
56
to
60
secs
14.7
A/
F
ratio,
4%
secondary
air
injection
Strawman
bench
aging
procedures
and
equipment
The
BAT
equation
uses
a
specific
reference
temperature
to
perform
the
bench
aging
time
calculation.
Because
the
catalyst
temperature
varies
during
the
bench
cycle,
the
strawman
durability
program
included
experimental
procedures
to
determine
the
effective
reference
temperature
for
the
bench
cycle.
The
effective
temperature
was
calculated
using
the
BAT
equation
and
catalyst
temperature
histogram
data
measured
on
the
aging
bench
following
the
bench
cycle.

The
BAT
equation
is
used
to
calculate
the
effective
reference
temperature
by
trial­
and­
error
changes
to
the
43
reference
temperature
(
T
r)
until
the
calculated
aging
time
equals
the
actual
time
represented
in
the
catalyst
temperature
histogram.

As
previously
discussed,
the
BAT
equation
is
used
to
take
the
time­
at­
temperature
data
measured
during
an
approved
road
cycle
and
determine
the
amount
of
time
to
age
a
catalyst
system
following
the
bench
cycle
on
the
aging
bench
that
is
necessary
to
recreate
the
deterioration
effect
of
the
road
cycle's
catalyst
temperature
exposure.
The
effects
of
A/
F
ratio
on
the
severity
of
temperature
exposure
are
addressed
by
the
bench
cycle's
use
of
an
appropriate
mix
of
A/
F
ratios
on
the
bench.

There
are
additional
sources
of
deterioration
that
occur
on
the
road
cycle
that
are
not
directly
replicated
on
the
bench.
Engine­
out
deterioration
is
one
source,
but
as
previously
discussed,
engine­
out
deterioration
is
near
zero.

Of
more
significance,
a
road
cycle
accounts
for
more
poisoning
than
the
bench
aging
cycle.
To
account
for
the
additional
poisoning
seen
on
the
road
cycle,
and
any
engineout
deterioration
that
may
exist,
the
aging
time
on
the
bench
is
increased
to
replace
these
shortfalls
with
additional
thermal
aging.
In
the
strawman
durability
bench
procedures
we
addressed
the
potential
shortfall
by
the
use
of
an
"
A­
factor"
in
the
BAT
equation.
The
A­
factor
increases
the
amount
of
thermal
aging
to
account
for
all
sources
of
non­
thermal
deterioration.
The
strawman
44
procedure
specified
an
A­
factor
of
1.1,
which
increases
aging
time
by
10
percent.
We
believe
that
there
is
very
little
deterioration
left
unaccounted
by
the
BAT
equation,

Consequently,
we
selected
an
A­
factor
value
of
1.1
(
a
10%

adjustment).

The
strawman
durability
procedures
contain
a
description
of
equipment
for
an
aging
bench.
Briefly,
this
includes
a
slave
engine
mounted
to
an
engine
dynamometer
with
an
engine
controller
and
provisions
for
secondary
air
injection.
This
bench
aging
configuration
has
been
used
by
several
manufacturers
to
conduct
bench
aging.
It
was
also
the
method
of
aging
that
was
used
with
the
RAT
A
bench
aging
cycle
which
serves
as
the
basis
of
the
bench
aging
cycle
developed
for
the
strawman.

The
strawman
bench
aging
procedures
are
discussed
in
more
detail
in
the
TSD.
Briefly,
the
bench
aging
procedures
begin
by
measuring
catalyst
time­
at­
temperature
data
on
the
standard
road
cycle
for
at
least
100
miles.
The
data
collected
on
the
road
is
proportionally
increased
to
represent
the
full
useful
life
of
the
vehicle.
The
time­

attemperature
data
and
the
effective
temperature
of
the
bench
cycle
(
determined
experimentally
using
a
procedure
being
proposed
today)
are
entered
into
the
BAT
equation
to
calculate
how
long
to
age
the
catalyst
system
on
the
bench.

The
catalyst­
plus­
oxygen­
sensor
system
is
installed
on
the
aging
bench.
An
engine
controller
controls
the
A/
F
ratio,
45
speed,
and
spark
timing
of
the
engine
and
adds
secondary
air
in
front
of
the
first
catalyst
according
to
the
bench
cycle.

The
bench
cycle
is
repeated
as
necessary
to
conduct
aging
for
the
amount
of
time
calculated
from
the
BAT
equation.

Using
this
method,
the
bench
aging
procedures
can
reproduce
the
emission
deterioration
seen
on
any
road
cycle.

3.
Allowable
customization
of
the
bench
aging
procedures
The
strawman
bench
procedure
allowed
the
following
bench
aging
variables
to
be
customized
by
individual
manufacturers
in
order
to
better
achieve
the
durability
program
objective.

a.
The
control
temperature
of
EPA's
rapid
aging
bench
cycle.
The
BAT
equation
can
be
used
to
determine
the
appropriate
aging
time
for
any
reasonable
temperature
experienced
on
the
bench
cycle
and
still
provide
equivalent
aging
to
the
strawman
bench
aging
procedure.
Choosing
a
higher
temperature
will
shorten
the
aging
time,
while
a
lower
temperature
will
lengthen
the
time.
Because
the
relationship
between
deterioration
and
aging
temperature
is
exponential,
a
small
change
in
temperature
will
lead
to
a
dramatic
change
in
aging
time.
For
example,
changing
the
effective
bench
temperature
from
800
to
850

C
will
cut
the
aging
time
by
more
than
50
percent.
However,
care
needs
to
be
taken
so
that
the
maximum
temperature
seen
on
the
bench
46
does
not
exceed
the
temperature
limit
that
leads
to
catalyst
damage,
generally
in
the
range
of
1000
to
1050

C.
EPA
selected
800

C
as
approximately
the
lowest
reasonable
control
temperature
which
results
in
a
relatively
short
aging
time
for
many
applications
and
which
should
keep
the
catalyst
below
the
damage
limit.
Manufacturers
would
be
allowed
to
use
800

C
without
prior
approval.
Selection
of
another
value
for
the
control
temperature
on
the
bench
cycle
would
allow
manufacturers
to
complete
the
aging
in
a
shorter
period
of
time,
but
would
have
no
effect
on
the
amount
of
deterioration
produced
by
the
bench
aging
when
calculating
aging
time
with
the
BAT
equation.

b.
The
R­
factor.
The
R­
factor
represents
the
catalyst
sensitivity
to
temperature
exposure.
The
catalyst
design
will
affect
the
R­
factor.
In
Appendix
IX
to
the
proposed
regulations,
we
discuss
how
an
R­
factor
may
be
determined
for
a
catalyst.
The
R­
factors
developed
by
EPA
are
based
on
experience
with
historical
catalysts.
An
appropriately
calculated
R­
factor
(
determined
using
the
procedures
of
Appendix
IX
on
the
specific
catalyst
in
question)
will
improve
the
accuracy
of
bench
aging
to
meet
the
ninety
percent
deterioration
objective.

c.
The
A­
factor.
The
A­
factor
represents
how
much
extra
catalyst
thermal
aging
is
necessary
to
reflect
the
additional
catalyst
deterioration
experienced
in
use,
from
causes
other
than
thermal
exposure.
Manufacturers
can
39
A
full
text
of
the
comments
(
to
the
extent
that
they
are
releasable
and
not
claimed
as
CBI)
is
contained
in
the
TSD.

47
determine
an
appropriate
A­
factor
based
on
IUVP
or
other
inuse
data.
The
use
of
a
more
appropriate
A­
factor
will
improve
the
accuracy
of
bench
aging.

d.
Use
fuel
with
additional
poisons
Catalyst
poisoning
is
a
real­
world
source
of
catalyst
deterioration.

The
strawman
bench
aging
procedures
replace
some
the
deterioration
due
to
poisoning
with
additional
thermal
aging
of
the
catalyst,
reflected
by
the
A­
factor.
Changing
the
bench
aging
to
include
more
poisoning
deactivation,
e.
g.
by
using
fuel
with
lead,
sulfur
or
phosphorus,
would
reduce
the
A
factor.

D.
Development
of
today's
proposal
from
the
strawman
durability
procedures.

EPA
provided
the
strawman
durability
procedures
to
many
interested
parties
and
received
comments
from
a
number
of
them.
EPA
also
met
individually
with
many
automobile
manufacturers
and
other
parties.
EPA
refined
and
changed
elements
of
the
strawman
durability
procedures
based
on
comments
that
we
received
from
stakeholders
on
the
strawman
procedures
and
our
improved
understanding
of
how
to
accomplish
our
original
objectives
for
the
durability
program.
The
principal
comments39
that
we
received
were:

1)
The
strawman
standard
road
cycle
is
too
severe.
48
It
does
not
match
in­
use
distributions
of
speed
and
acceleration
rates.

2)
The
road
cycle
does
not
have
enough
fuel
cuts
to
match
in­
use
driving
experience.

3)
Manufacturers
should
be
allowed
to
use
their
own
durability
procedures.

4)
The
strawman
bench
aging
cycle
has
a
temperature
spike
occurring
at
a
lean
catalyst
A/
F
ratio,
which
is
not
representative
of
in­
use
driving.

5)
The
BAT
equation
generates
results
that
very
nearly
equal
General
Motors'
own
internal
calculations.

6)
The
strawman
bench
aging
cycle
should
have
a
defined
high
temperature
value
rather
than
defining
the
A/
F
ratio
and
secondary
air
injection
rates
7)
A
defined
approach
of
when
and
how
to
use
IUVP
data
to
adjust
durability
procedures
is
not
appropriate.

8)
If
the
IUVP
data
shows
that
a
manufacturer
meets
emission
standards
in
use
(
because,
for
example,
the
manufacturer
certified
with
a
sufficient
compliance
margin,

known
as
"
headroom"),
the
Agency
should
not
be
concerned
and
should
not
make
decisions
based
on
the
accuracy
of
the
certification
emission
deterioration
projection
seen
in
isolation.

9)
The
public
should
be
provided
with
sufficient
information
to
duplicate
the
deterioration
results
of
any
manufacturer­
specific
procedures
that
are
CBI.
49
10)
The
Agency
should
mandate
the
public
release
of
all
information
provided
by
manufacturers
(
required
or
voluntarily
submitted)
to
obtain
approval
for
an
alternative
cycle.

1.
The
durability
objective
EPA
continues
to
believe
that
the
objective
established
for
the
strawman
durability
program
is
appropriate.
It
is
the
same
objective
that
EPA
had
stated
in
the
CAP
2000
rulemaking
for
durability
procedures.
EPA
received
no
adverse
comments
on
the
durability
objective
when
it
was
presented
as
part
of
the
strawman
durability
discussion.

EPA
is
proposing
that
the
objective
of
the
durability
program
is
to
predict
an
expected
in­
use
emission
deterioration
rate
and
emission
level
that
effectively
represents
a
significant
majority
(
approximately
90
percent)

of
the
distribution
of
emission
levels
and
deterioration
in
actual
use
over
the
full
and
intermediate
useful
life
of
candidate
in­
use
vehicles
of
each
vehicle
design
which
uses
the
durability
program.
A
significant
majority
means
approximately
90%
of
the
distribution.

2.
Cycle
Severity
for
the
SRC
(
Comments
1
and
2)

Several
manufacturers
commented
that
the
strawman
road
cycle
was
too
severe,
i.
e.,
that
the
strawman
road
cycle
produced
more
emission
deterioration
than
necessary
to
meet
the
durability
objective
of
90
percent
effective
coverage.

Several
manufacturers
supplied
data
that
compared
the
40
In­
use
emissions
information
supplied
by
manufacturers
is
contained
in
the
technical
support
document
and
docket
to
the
CAP
2000
rule
50
thermal
severity
of
their
cycle,
or
a
publically
available
cycle,
to
the
strawman
road
cycle.
The
manufacturer
cycles
used
in
this
comparison,
with
one
exception,
have
been
approved
under
the
CAP
2000
durability
regulations.
During
that
approval
process,
the
manufacturers
provided
information40
that
EPA
believed
showed
that
the
cycles
effectively
covered
approximately
90
percent
of
the
in­
use
distribution
of
emission
deterioration
for
their
vehicles.

The
in­
use
data
supplied
by
those
manufacturers
as
part
of
the
RDP
I
[
IUVP
in­
use
data
is
not
yet
available]
process
over
several
years
have
demonstrated
good
compliance
with
emission
standards
in
use.
For
the
durability
programs
used
in
the
analysis
discussed
later
in
this
section,
all
the
inuse
data
demonstrated
at
least
90
percent
compliance
with
the
standards.
Furthermore,
the
DFs
used
during
certification
were,
for
the
most
part,
significantly
larger
than
average
deterioration
represented
by
the
in­
use
data.

We
also
evaluated
several
of
these
durability
processes
using
the
available
RDP
in­
use
emission
data
and,
although
the
amount
of
data
does
not
meet
our
minimum
data
requirement
of
20
test
vehicles,
we
have
concluded
that
these
processes
appear
to
meet
the
approval
criteria
and
durability
objective
being
proposed
today.
Based
on
these
screening
criteria,
we
believe
that
these
durability
41
EPA
has
pursued
remedies
whenever
a
manufacturer's
in­
use
data
demonstrates
that
the
objective
of
the
durability
process
was
not
achieved
in
actual
use.

42
Refer
to
the
TSD
for
a
full
presentation
of
the
comparative
severity
between
the
strawman
road
cycle
and
various
manufacturer
cycles.

51
processes
generally
meet
the
durability
objective
which
is
being
proposed
today41.

Therefore,
we
would
expect
that
EPA's
standard
road
cycle,
if
properly
targeted
to
achieve
the
durability
objective,
should
result
in
similar
catalyst
temperature
exposure
as
the
manufacturers
cycles.
The
fact
that
the
strawman
road
cycle
proved
more
severe
than
the
manufacturers'
cycles
indicated
it
was
also
more
severe
than
necessary
to
meet
EPA's
durability
objective.

The
relative
severity
data
supplied42
in
the
manufacturers'
comments
showed
that
the
strawman
road
cycle
was
about
50
percent
more
severe
than
the
average
manufacturer
road
cycle.
That
is,
the
amount
of
deterioration
from
the
strawman
road
cycle
was
approximately
50
percent
more
than
that
of
the
average
manufacturer's
road
cycle.
The
data
ranged
from
approximately
equal
severity,

to
the
strawman
being
about
twice
as
severe
as
the
manufacturer's
cycle.
The
results
depended
on
the
type
of
vehicle
that
was
used
to
make
the
comparison
and
the
cycle
to
which
it
was
compared.

This
catalyst
time­
at­
temperature
data
was
not
available
when
the
strawman
road
cycle
was
being
developed.
52
Prior
to
the
availability
of
this
data
our
estimate
of
how
closely
the
strawman
road
cycle
achieved
the
durability
objective
was
based
mainly
on
driving
characteristics
and
extrapolated
expected
effects
on
catalyst
temperature.

Based
on
this
new
data,
EPA
now
believes
that
the
strawman
road
cycle
is
too
severe
compared
to
the
stated
objective
for
the
durability
program.
The
Standard
Road
Cycle
(
SRC)

that
EPA
is
proposing
today
has
been
modified
from
the
strawman
version
to
reduce
its
severity
and
to
more
accurately
achieve
EPA's
durability
objective
for
the
entire
fleet
of
vehicles.

Since
the
objective
of
the
durability
program
is
to
effectively
cover
a
significant
majority
of
emission
deterioration,
we
did
not
attempt
to
match
average
in­
use
speed
or
acceleration
rate
distributions.
Matching
average
in­
use
driving
experience
on
the
SRC
would
lead
to
cycle
that
only
covered
50
percent
of
the
distribution
of
in­
use
emission
deterioration.
Consequently,
EPA
rejected
the
suggestion
that
the
SRC
merely
match
the
in­
use
distributions
of
speed
and
acceleration
rates.
The
speeds
and
acceleration
rates
of
the
SRC
are
generally
somewhat
higher
than
average
in­
use
data
to
fulfill
our
target
of
effectively
covering
90
percent
of
the
population's
in­
use
emission
levels.

To
develop
the
SRC
that
EPA
is
proposing,
EPA
reviewed
those
manufacturer
cycles
which
used
a
speed­
versus­
time
43
Refer
to
the
TSD
for
a
description
of
Toyota's
U02
and
9­
Lap
cycles
and
Ford's
HSC
cycle.
The
GM
road
cycle
was
not
included
in
the
analysis
because
it
does
not
involve
mileage
accumulation
based
on
a
speed­
versus­
time
trace.

53
trace
run
for
the
vehicle's
full
useful
life
to
see
how
they
developed
their
road
cycle
to
reach
an
appropriate
target
level
of
severity.
We
reviewed
speed
and
acceleration
rates
used
on
the
Ford
HSC
and
Toyota's
U02
and
9­
Lap
cycles43.

Each
of
these
cycles
contained
a
high­
speed
driving
mode
which
accounted
for
over
one­
third
of
the
driving
time;

speeds
in
the
high­
speed
mode
varied
between
60
and
75
mph.

The
balance
of
the
cycle
time
was
spent
in
four
lower
speed
laps
which
consisted
of
30,
40,
50,
and
55
mph
for
the
U02
and
9­
Lap
cycle
and
35,
45,
55,
and
45
mph
[
again]
for
the
HSC
cycle.

EPA
received
catalyst
temperature
histogram
data
from
General
Motors
(
GM)
which
showed
that
the
strawman
road
cycle
produced
three
temperature
peaks
with
little
time
at
temperatures
between
these
peaks.
This
contrasted
with
GM's
own
cycle
which
resulted
in
a
more
filled­
out
distribution
resembling
a
typical
skewed­
normal
distribution.
GM
commented
that
the
strawman's
unrealistic
tri­
modal
temperature
distribution
was
caused
by
the
use
of
a
few
discrete­
speed
laps
rather
than
a
richer
mixture
of
driving
speeds
and
loads
that
occur
in
normal
driving.
EPA
agrees
with
GM's
observation
that
a
more
filled­
out
distribution
of
catalyst
temperatures
is
a
desirable
outcome
of
a
road
cycle
because
it
more
closely
matches
a
normal
in­
use
distribution
44
For
most
current
technology
vehicles
the
engine
controller
stops
fueling
the
engine
when
the
vehicle
is
stopping
or
experiencing
a
significant
deceleration.
These
events
are
referred
to
as
fuel
cuts.

54
of
catalyst
temperatures.

Toyota
commented
that
the
strawman
does
not
contain
enough
fuel
cuts44.
Toyota
notes
that
fuel
cuts
lead
to
lean
catalyst
A/
F
ratios
which
in
turn
lead
to
more
deterioration
than
the
same
temperature
exposure
at
stoichiometric
operation.
EPA
agrees
with
Toyota
that
a
inclusion
of
a
realistic
number
of
fuel
cuts
in
the
SRC
is
desirable
for
the
reasons
discussed
above.

Toyota
recently
re­
designed
their
9­
Lap
cycle
to
more
closely
match
in­
use
levels
of
fuel­
cuts.
They
call
their
new
cycle
the
U02
cycle.
To
add
more
fuel
cuts
to
their
9­

Lap
cycle,
Toyota
added
three
to
five
speed
"
dips"
(
of
5
to
15
mph)
to
each
of
the
constant­
speed
laps
in
their
cycle.

The
U02
also
added
an
over­
acceleration,
coast­
down
event
to
each
of
their
higher­
speed
modes,
such
as
could
occur
when
merging
on
to
a
limited­
access
highway.
This
event
causes
high
temperature
exposure
to
occur
at
a
lean
A/
F
in
the
catalyst.

Ford
suggested
that
EPA
use
a
cycle
they
recently
developed
called
MOD1.
The
MOD1
cycle
was
based
on
EPA's
strawman
road
cycle
but
Ford
reduced
the
maximum
cruise
speed
to
80
mph
and
reduced
the
high­
speed
acceleration
rates
to
3
or
4
mph/
second.
Based
on
relative
severity
data
supplied
by
Honda,
the
MOD1
cycle
is
about
one­
third
less
45
The
manufacturer
supplied
data
showed
a
range
of
relative
thermal
severity
(
manufacturer/
strawman)
from
105%
to
45%,
5
of
the
11
data
points
were
in
the
range
of
65%
to
60%.
The
TSD
contains
the
data
and
has
an
expanded
discussion
of
our
review
of
the
data.

55
severe
than
the
strawman
cycle.
The
MOD1
cycle
was
slightly
higher
than
midway
in
severity
between
the
HSC
and
U02
cycles,
less
severe
than
Ford's
HSC
cycle,
and
more
severe
than
Toyota's
U02
cycle.
Based
on
this
data,
the
MOD1
cycle
sits
among
the
manufacturer's
approved
cycles
which
have
been
demonstrated
to
effectively
meet
the
90
percent
durability
target.
Consequently,
the
MOD1
cycle
seems
to
be
a
well­
measured
step
in
the
right
direction
for
overall
severity.
However,
it
did
not
address
Toyota's
comments
that
more
fuel
cuts
were
needed,
nor
GM's
comments
that
a
richer
mix
of
speed
distribution
was
desirable.

Although
there
is
a
fair
amount
of
variability
in
the
manufacturers'
relative
severity
data,
about
half
of
the
severity
data
lie
within
a
close
band45.
That
band
of
severity
included
the
MOD1
cycle.
Consequently,
because
our
target
for
the
standard
bench
cycle
is
the
same
target
(
effective
coverage
of
90
percent)
as
the
manufacturers'

programs,
it
is
appropriate
to
target
near
this
consensus
level
of
severity.

EPA
used
all
this
information
to
develop
the
standard
road
cycle
(
SRC)
proposed
today.
The
SRC
is
targeted
to
effectively
cover
90
percent
of
the
distribution
of
emission
deterioration
rates
that
occur
on
candidate
vehicles
in
use,

across
the
entire
fleet.
The
speeds
and
acceleration
rates
56
on
the
SRC
are
reduced
from
the
strawman
proposal.
The
average
speed
has
been
lowered
from
51.3
to
46.3
mph,
the
maximum
cruise
speed
was
lowered
from
85
to
75
mph,
and
the
acceleration
rates
for
higher
speed
operation
were
lowered
from
5
to
3
mph/
second.

The
SRC
also
includes
more
fuel­
cuts
and
a
broader
range
of
speed
operation
than
seen
on
the
strawman
cycle
to
more
closely
match
in­
use
experience.
The
number
of
fuelcut
events
were
increased
from
14
to
24
events
during
the
seven
laps
(
25.9
miles)
of
the
cycle.
The
duration
of
each
fuel­
cut
was
also
increased
by
employing
slower
rates
of
deceleration
(
deceleration
rates
varied
between
5
and
8
mph/
s
in
the
strawman
cycle
and
from
1
to
5
mph/
s
in
the
SRC).
To
expand
the
speed­
diversity
of
the
road
cycle,
the
number
of
different
cruise
speeds
was
increased
from
6
speeds
in
the
strawman
cycle
to
11
speeds
in
the
SRC.

3.
Alternative
and
customized
cycles
(
Comment
3)

Manufacturers
suggested
that
they
should
be
allowed
to
use
their
own
durability
procedures.

Background
The
CAP
2000
durability
procedures
required
manufacturers
to
develop
their
own
durability
process
subject
to
EPA
approval.
In
the
CAP
2000
rulemaking
EPA
established
an
objective
for
the
durability
process
to
"
predict
the
deterioration
of
a
significant
majority
of
in­
46
Ref.
63
FR
39661
(
July
23,
1998).

57
use
vehicles46".
In
addition
to
being
effective
at
predicting
emission
deterioration
rates
and
compliance
of
candidate
in­
use
vehicles,
these
processes
also
reduced
manufacturers'
compliance
costs
by
using
methods
that
were
already
part
of
their
development
process.

Although
EPA
is
proposing
standard
whole­
vehicle
and
bench­
aging
durability
procedures,
EPA
is
aware
that
the
standard
procedures
may
not
achieve
the
durability
objective,
discussed
in
section
II.
D.
1.,
for
all
manufacturers
or
for
certain
vehicle
models.
Because
EPA's
standard
procedures
are
targeted
to
achieve
the
objective
for
the
overall
fleet
of
vehicles,
they
may
over­
or
underachieve
the
durability
objective
for
some
particular
manufacturers
or
vehicles.
For
example,
certain
vehicles
may
have
more
available
power
than
the
vehicles
EPA
considered
when
designing
the
standard
procedures.
Such
vehicles
may
be
operated
more
aggressively
in
use
than
on
the
SRC.
Similarly,
vehicles
which
have
less
power
may
be
operated
less
aggressively
than
on
the
SRC.
When
the
standard
procedures
fail
to
achieve
the
durability
objective,
EPA
believes
that
it
is
appropriate
to
allow
an
alternative
process
when
it
is
necessary
to
achieve
that
objective.

In
addition,
where
the
manufacturer
durability
procedure
results
in
approximately
equivalent
levels
of
58
emission
deterioration
to
those
of
the
SRC
being
proposed
today,
the
use
of
those
procedures
may
represent
a
significant
time
and/
or
cost
savings
to
the
manufacturer
because
they
may
already
be
conducted
as
part
of
the
manufacturer's
development
process.
If
a
manufacturer
can
demonstrate
that
their
alternative
process
is
essentially
equivalent
to
EPA's
proposed
standard
road
cycle,
use
of
that
process
would
have
no
effect
on
the
emission
compliance
determination
made
during
certification.

For
these
reasons,
EPA
is
proposing
that
manufacturers
may
customize
the
standard
EPA
whole
vehicle
and
certain
aspects
of
bench
aging
durability
processes.
The
proposed
customization
provisions
include
the
ability
to
use
either
a
"
customized
SRC"
(
the
SRC
cycle
run
for
a
different
number
of
miles)
or
an
alternative
road
cycle.
EPA
believes
that
these
options
will
effectively
address
some
manufacturers'

desire
to
use
the
manufacturer­
specific
procedures
in
the
future
durability
program.

Customization
of
the
SRC
includes
running
the
SRC
for
a
shorter
or
longer
period
of
time
than
specified
and/
or
changing
the
fuel
to
include
poisons
such
as
lead
or
phosphorus
combined
with
running
the
SRC
for
a
shorter
period
of
time.
Alternatives
to
the
SRC
involve
road
cycles
that
employ
time/
speed
traces
different
than
the
SRC.

EPA
is
proposing
approval
criteria
for
these
customized/
alternative
procedures.
Any
existing
durability
59
procedures
approved
under
CAP
2000
would
have
to
be
reevaluated
and
approved
under
the
requirements
of
the
proposed
regulations.

Customized/
Alternative
Road
Cycles
To
obtain
approval
of
a
customized/
alternative
road
cycle
the
manufacturer
must
demonstrate
that
the
durability
program
will
likely
achieve
the
durability
objective.
As
previously
discussed,
the
proposed
objective
of
the
durability
program
is
to
predict
an
expected
in­
use
emission
deterioration
rate
and
emission
level
that
effectively
represents
a
significant
majority
(
approximately
90
percent)

of
the
distribution
of
emission
levels
and
deterioration
in
actual
use
over
the
full
and
intermediate
useful
life
of
candidate
in­
use
vehicles
of
each
vehicle
design
which
uses
the
durability
program.

To
make
the
initial
demonstration
necessary
for
the
Agency
to
approve
a
customized/
alternative
cycle,
EPA
is
proposing
that
the
manufacturer
supply
high
mileage
in­
use
emission
data
on
applicable
candidate
in­
use
vehicles.
The
vehicles
would
be
randomly
procured
from
actual
customer
use,
generally
with
an
age
of
4
to
5
years
and
with
a
minimum
of
approximately
50,000
miles.
They
would
cover
the
breadth
of
the
vehicles
that
the
manufacturer
intends
to
certify
using
the
customized/
alternative
cycle.
Vehicles
would
be
procured
and
FTP
tested
as
received
under
the
provisions
of
the
IUVP
program
(
ref:
40
CFR
86.1845­
04).
60
Manufacturers
could
use
previously
generated
in­
use
data
from
the
CAP
2000
high
mileage
IUVP
program
or
the
fourthyear
of­
service
RDP
"
reality
check"
in­
use
program
as
well
as
other
sources
of
in­
use
emissions
data
for
this
purpose.

EPA
will
also
consider
additional
emissions
data
or
analyses
that
the
manufacturer
may
choose
to
provide,
including
data
from
vehicles
which
have
been
screened
for
proper
maintenance
and
use.

Because
historical
in­
use
data
would
be
used
to
approve
the
manufacturer's
durability
process
for
current
and
future
vehicles,
it
is
necessary
to
limit
that
data
to
those
that
are
applicable
to
the
vehicle
designs
the
manufacturer
intends
to
cover
with
the
durability
process.
Manufacturers
must
remove
from
the
sample
the
following
types
of
unrepresentative
data:
(
1)
data
which
was
collected
on
an
engine/
emission
control
system
which
is
not
comparable
to
the
current
production
designs,
(
2)
data
collected
on
a
vehicle
design
which
has
been
recalled
due
to
a
defective
emission
related
part
(
unless
the
recall
repair
was
performed
on
the
test
vehicle),
or
(
3)
data
from
vehicles
that
have
been
operated
in
an
abnormal
fashion
that
has
impaired
the
effectiveness
of
the
emission
control
system.

In
addition,
manufacturers
may
also
replace
data
from
previously
tested
vehicles
under
the
following
conditions:

(
1)
for
in­
use
vehicles
which
have
been
primarily
operated
on
high
sulfur
fuel
(
fuel
with
more
than
80
ppm
sulfur),
if
61
EPA
has
approved
sulfur­
removal
preconditioning
the
manufacturer
may
replace
the
as­
received
testing
with
a
second
test
conducted
after
sulfur­
removal
preconditioning
has
been
performed,
and
(
2)
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
EPA
may
approve
replacing
the
as­
received
testing
performed
on
a
vehicle
which
displays
a
MIL
light
that
affects
emission
results
with
a
second
test
performed
after
restorative
maintenance
has
been
performed.
EPA
would
consider
other
exclusions
or
replacements
of
data
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.

The
amount
of
in­
use
emission
data
required
is
based
on
whether
the
customized/
alternative
cycle
is
more
or
less
severe
than
the
SRC.
In
most
cases,
EPA
will
accept
a
minimum
of
20
candidate
in­
use
vehicles.
There
is
less
risk
of
underestimating
actual
in­
use
emission
levels
when
the
customized/
alternative
cycle
is
more
severe
than
the
SRC.

EPA
is
reasonably
confident
that
the
SRC
will
achieve
the
durability
objective
for
the
general
population
of
vehicles.

Consequently,
if
the
customized/
alternative
cycle
is
significantly
more
severe
than
the
SRC,
EPA
may
accept
less
data.
Conversely,
if
the
customized/
alternative
cycle
is
significantly
less
severe
than
the
SRC,
EPA
may
require
more
data
up
to
a
maximum
of
30
vehicles.
EPA
encourages
the
manufacturer
to
submit
more
data
than
these
minimum
levels.

The
relative
stringency
of
the
customized/
alternative
cycle
compared
to
the
SRC
must
also
be
demonstrated.
This
could
be
accomplished
by
an
evaluation
of
the
two
cycles
62
using
catalyst
time­
at­
temperature
data
from
both
cycles
and
using
the
BAT
equation
to
calculate
the
required
bench
aging
time
of
each
cycle.
For
example,
if
the
BAT
equation
calculates
that
200
hours
of
aging
on
the
SBC
would
be
necessary
to
reproduce
the
thermal
exposure
of
full
useful
life
mileage
on
the
SRC
and
170
hours
of
aging
to
reproduce
the
thermal
exposure
on
the
customized
SRC
or
alternative
cycle,
the
manufacturer's
cycle
would
be
85%
as
severe
as
the
SRC
(
MFR/
SRC
x
100%
=
(
170/
200)
x
100%=
85%).
This
value
(
85%)
is
the
equivalency
factor.
The
85%
equivalency
factor
means
that
running
a
vehicle
on
the
SRC
for
85%
of
the
required
mileage
would
result
in
the
same
emission
deterioration
as
conducting
full
mileage
on
the
alternative/
customized
cycle.

If
emissions
data
is
available
from
the
SRC,
as
well
as
catalyst
time­
at­
temperature
data,
then
that
emissions
information
should
be
included
in
the
evaluation
of
the
relative
stringency
of
the
two
cycles
and
the
development
of
the
equivalency
factor.
For
example,
if
the
manufacturer
has
calculated
DFs
using
both
cycles
then
these
values
may
be
compared
directly.
If
the
manufacturer
cycle
generates
an
additive
DF
for
CO
of
0.25
using
the
SRC
and
0.20
using
the
manufacturer
cycle,
the
manufacturers
cycle
would
be
80%

as
severe
as
the
SRC
(
Mfr/
SRC
x
100%
=
(.
20/.
25)
x
100%
=

80%).
The
equivalency
factor
is
the
highest
value
calculated
for
the
FTP
emission
constituents.
In
this
63
example,
assuming
that
the
CO
value
is
the
highest
of
HC,

CO,
and
NOx
emission
constituents,
then
the
equivalency
factor
is
80%.

This
analysis
would
demonstrate
the
relative
stringency
between
the
customized
SRC
or
alternative
cycle
and
the
SRC.

It
would
also
demonstrate
the
level
of
stringency
of
the
SRC
and
the
effectiveness
of
the
SRC
in
meeting
the
durability
objective.
In
many
cases,
especially
before
experience
is
gained
in
using
the
SRC
to
develop
emissions
data
or
certification
levels,
the
same
analysis
will
be
used
for
demonstrating
the
relative
stringency
of
the
SRC
noted
above
and
developing
the
equivalency
factor.

In
summary,
approval
of
a
customized/
alternative
road
cycle
requires
an
analysis
of
whether
the
cycle
will
achieve
the
durability
program
objective
using
in­
use
emissions
data
and
an
evaluation
of
the
relative
stringency
of
the
SRC
and
the
manufacturer's
program.

Once
the
customized/
alternative
durability
process
is
approved,
EPA
is
proposing
that
for
each
test
group
the
manufacturer
must
determine,
using
good
engineering
judgement,
whether
to
apply
the
durability
procedure
to
that
particular
test
group.
Manufacturers
should
only
apply
a
durability
process
to
a
test
group
when
they
determine
that
the
durability
objective
will
be
achieved
for
that
test
group
in
actual
use
on
candidate
in­
use
vehicles.

Furthermore,
EPA
is
proposing
that
the
manufacturer
may
64
make
modifications
to
an
approved
customized/
alternative
road
cycle
and
apply
them
to
a
test
group,
to
ensure
that
the
modified
cycle
will
effectively
achieve
the
durability
objective
for
future
candidate
in­
use
vehicles.
The
manufacturer
would
be
required
to
identify
such
modifications
in
its
certification
application
and
explain
the
basis
for
them.
Manufacturers
must
use
good
engineering
judgement
in
making
these
decisions.
Significant,
major,
or
fundamental
changes
to
a
customized/
alternative
cycle
would
be
considered
new
cycles
and
would
require
advance
approval
by
EPA.

EPA
considered
a
more
objective
criteria
for
approval
which
would
have
required
manufacturers
to
demonstrate
that
the
customized/
alternative
road
cycle
resulted
in
(
1)
a
specified
percent
of
the
in­
use
emission
results
that
were
less
than
or
equal
to
the
certification
levels,
and
(
2)
at
least
90
percent
of
the
in­
use
emission
data
passing
the
applicable
emission
standards.
However,
EPA
is
not
proposing
such
criteria
because
of
concerns
that
the
restrictions
of
such
objective
criteria
are
not
needed
to
determine
whether
an
alternative/
customized
cycle
would
meet
the
durability
objective,
and
given
the
wide
variety
of
circumstances
and
relevant
data
that
might
be
employed
in
making
a
decision,

it
could
lead
to
disapproval
of
a
cycle
that
would
achieve
the
durability
objective.
65
Alternative
Bench
Procedures
EPA
believes
that
every
bench
aging
procedure
should
be
based
upon
measured
vehicle
performance
on
either
the
SRC
or
an
EPA­
approved
road
cycle.
It
is
through
the
connection
to
the
road
cycle
that
EPA
is
assured
that
the
alternative
bench
procedures
will
result
in
emission
deterioration
that
achieves
our
durability
objective.
The
BAT
equation
will
calculate
how
much
aging
time
is
necessary
on
the
bench
to
result
in
the
same
amount
of
emission
deterioration
experienced
on
the
road
cycle.
As
previously
discussed,

manufacturers
must
demonstrate
that
all
customized/
alternative
road
cycles
meet
the
durability
objective
prior
to
Agency
approval.

EPA
believes
that
customizing
certain
aspects
of
the
standard
bench
aging
procedure
is
appropriate
if
the
modified
procedure
continues
to
produce
the
same
amount
of
emission
deterioration
as
the
SRC
or
approved
road
cycle.

Specifically,
EPA
believes
that
customization
of
the
following
aspects
are
appropriate
for
the
reasons
discussed
below.

a.
Increasing
the
control
temperature
will
reduce
the
time
necessary
to
age
the
catalyst
system
on
the
bench,
but
it
will
not
affect
the
severity
of
the
aging
because
the
BAT
equation
assures
that
the
thermal
aging
seen
on
the
road
cycle
is
reproduced
on
the
bench
regardless
of
the
effective
temperature
of
the
bench
cycle.
66
b.
EPA
believes
that
an
experimentally­
determined
Rfactor
using
the
actual
catalyst
to
be
produced
is
expected
to
be
more
accurate
than
using
the
standard
R­
factor
specified
by
EPA
which
was
developed
to
apply
to
the
industry
as
a
whole.
EPA
is
proposing
a
standard
experimental
procedure
which
manufacturers
can
use
to
develop
a
R­
factor
that
specifically
applies
their
products.

EPA
believes
that
a
R­
factor
developed
using
this
standard
process
will
be
more
accurate
than
the
standard
R­
factor
because
its
development
is
based
on
data
generated
on
the
catalyst
in
question.
The
procedures
for
experimentally
developing
a
R­
factor
are
presented
in
Appendix
IX
of
the
proposed
regulation.

EPA
will
also
consider
the
use
of
alternative
methods
to
determine
the
R­
factor.
To
have
an
alternative
method
approved
by
EPA,
the
manufacturer
must
demonstrate
that
the
R­
factor
determined
by
this
alternative
process
results
in
the
same
(
or
more)
emission
deterioration
than
the
applicable
approved
road
cycle.

One
method
to
make
this
demonstration
is
to
determine
FTP
emission
levels
from
a
sufficient
number
of
vehicles
to
meet
the
80%
statistical
confidence
criteria
(
discussed
below)
which
have
completed
whole
vehicle
aging
on
the
applicable
road
cycle.
These
vehicles
must
represent
the
breadth
of
the
vehicles
to
be
covered
by
this
alternative
method.
These
results
are
compared
with
results
from
the
67
same
(
or
a
similar)
vehicle
which
was
tested
with
a
catalyst
system
aged
on
the
bench
for
the
amount
of
time
calculated
from
the
BAT
equation
using
the
experimentally
determined
Rfactor
To
be
approved,
the
emission
results
from
the
vehicle
with
the
bench­
aged
catalyst
system
should
be
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
emission
results
for
the
vehicle
aged
on
the
road
cycle
with
a
minimum
of
80%

statistical
confidence.

c.
The
A­
factor
used
in
the
BAT
equation
is
designed
to
account
for
sources
of
deterioration
other
than
thermal
aging
of
the
catalyst
that
occur
in
actual
use
but
are
not
represented
by
the
bench
aging
process.
Determining
the
Afactor
by
actual
in­
use
data
is
generally
superior
to
the
standard
A­
factor
of
1.1.

d.
Conducting
bench
aging
using
fuel
with
additional
poisons
is
worst
case,
consequently
it
is
appropriate
to
do
so
without
further
evaluation
by
EPA.
EPA
expects
when
a
manufacturer
uses
fuel
with
additional
poisons
during
bench
aging,
they
would
also
adjust
the
bench
aging
time
by
either
calculating
a
new
R­
factor
or
a
new
A­
factor.
In
that
case,

the
approval
procedures
applicable
to
changing
those
factors
would
also
apply.

e.
Generally,
the
SRC
is
used
for
generating
the
catalyst
aging
temperature
histogram
data
used
in
the
BAT.

Using
another
road
cycle
is
appropriate
if
the
cycle
has
been
approved
as
discussed
above.
The
approval
process
68
assures
that
the
alternative
road
cycle
is
expected
to
achieve
the
durability
objective.
Consequently,
using
an
approved
cycle
to
generate
catalyst
temperature
histogram
data
is
appropriate
without
further
evaluation
by
EPA.

f.
EPA's
standard
bench
cycle
was
developed
to
include
an
appropriate
amount
of
rich,
lean,
and
stoichiometric
A/
F
operation
on
the
bench
for
the
typical
vehicle.
However,
some
vehicles
have
a
fuel
control
strategy
that
controls
fuel
within
a
narrower
band
than
typically
occurs.
In
those
cases,
use
of
the
SBC
may
over­
or
underpredict
actual
emission
deterioration
in
use.
It
is
also
possible
that
the
SBC
may
result
in
a
proper
prediction
of
in­
use
emission
deterioration,
but
a
manufacturer
may
wish
to
use
another
bench
cycle
for
reasons
of
cost
and/
or
time
savings,
because
that
cycle
is
performed
as
part
of
the
manufacturer's
development
process.

If
the
manufacturer
can
demonstrate
that
bench
aging
following
an
alternative
bench
cycle
results
in
the
same
(
or
more)
emission
deterioration
than
the
SRC
or
an
approved
road
cycle
(
whichever
cycle
is
applicable),
then
the
use
of
the
alternative
bench
cycle
will
maintain
or
improve
the
ability
to
achieve
the
durability
objective.
In
these
cases,

it
is
appropriate
to
allow
the
use
of
a
different
bench
cycle
because
the
alternative
bench
cycle
will
accurately
reproduce
the
emission
deterioration
seen
on
a
road
cycle
which
meets
the
durability
objective.
If
a
manufacturer
69
uses
a
different
bench
cycle,
they
must
also
experimentally
determine
a
R­
factor
for
the
BAT
equation.
The
manufacturer
may
use
EPA's
experimental
process
or
another
approved
method
to
determine
an
R­
factor.
[
See
paragraph
b.,
above,

for
approval
criteria
to
determine
a
customized
R­
factor]

g.
There
may
be
some
vehicles
for
which
the
BAT
equation
does
not
calculate
appropriate
aging
times
on
the
bench,
although
EPA
is
not
aware
of
such
vehicles
at
this
time.
In
those
cases,
it
would
be
appropriate
to
allow
a
manufacturer
to
use
an
alternative
to
the
BAT
equation
provided
it
can
demonstrate
that
bench
aging
time
calculated
by
this
alternative
process
results
in
the
same
(
or
more)

emission
deterioration
than
the
road
cycle
upon
which
it
is
based.

This
demonstration
can
be
made
by
determining
FTP
emission
levels
from
a
sufficient
number
of
vehicles
to
meet
the
80%
statistical
confidence
criteria
(
discussed
below)

which
have
completed
whole
vehicle
aging
on
the
applicable
road
cycle.
These
vehicles
must
represent
the
breadth
of
the
vehicles
to
be
covered
by
the
alternative
cycle.
The
results
are
compared
with
results
from
the
same
(
or
a
similar)
vehicle
which
was
tested
with
a
catalyst
system
aged
on
the
bench
for
the
amount
of
time
calculated
from
the
alternative
BAT
equation.
To
be
approved,
the
emission
results
from
the
vehicle
with
the
bench­
aged
catalyst
system
should
be
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
emission
results
for
70
the
vehicle
aged
on
the
road
cycle
with
a
minimum
of
80%

statistical
confidence.

4.
The
standard
bench
cycle
(
Comment
4)

The
standard
bench
cycle
(
SBC)
consists
of
a
plot
of
catalyst
temperature
and
A/
F
ratio
versus
time
which
is
followed
during
bench
aging.
As
discussed
previously,
the
catalyst
temperature
and
A/
F
ratio
in
the
catalyst
are
the
most
important
variables
that
affect
the
thermal
aging
rate
of
the
catalyst.
EPA
is
using
its
strawman
bench
aging
cycle
as
the
SBC
in
today's
proposal.
As
discussed
above,

the
SBC
was
developed
based
on
methods
reported
in
the
literature
which
were
also
used
effectively
by
automobile
and
catalyst
manufacturers
in
the
past.

We
received
comments
that
the
SBC
may
not
represent
the
mixture
of
A/
F
ratios
seen
on
certain
vehicles
during
in­
use
operation.
Furthermore,
there
was
concern
that
lean
catalyst
A/
F
ratios
occur
during
the
higher
catalyst
temperatures
experienced
on
the
SBC.
EPA
agrees
that
the
use
of
certain
fuel
control
technologies,
such
as
A/
F
ratio
sensors
rather
than
traditional
oxygen
sensors
to
control
fuel
metering
and
the
use
of
algorithms
to
predict
A/
F
ratio
so
that
less
switching
between
rich
and
lean
A/
F
ratios
is
required
for
effective
fuel
control,
could
lead
to
less
variation
in
A/
F
ratios
in
use.
Such
vehicles
may
see
less
time
at
lean
A/
F
ratios
in
the
catalyst.
Consequently,
those
vehicles
may
be
over­
aged
using
the
SBC.
To
address
this
71
concern,
EPA
is
proposing
to
allow
manufacturers
to
use
a
different
bench
cycle
and/
or
bench
aging
time
equation
than
the
standard
procedure,
subject
to
EPA
approval,
as
discussed
above.

5.
Bench
aging
time
(
Comment
5)

EPA
received
a
comment
that
the
bench
aging
time
(
BAT)

equation
used
in
the
strawman
produced
results
nearly
equal
to
those
produced
by
General
Motors'
internal
calculation.

EPA
also
received
confidential
information
from
a
manufacturer
that
the
BAT
equation
resulted
in
nearly
equal
results
as
their
confidential
procedures.
Based
on
this
positive
input,
EPA
has
not
changed
the
BAT
equation
for
today's
proposal
from
the
equation
used
in
the
strawman
durability
procedures.

6.
Bench
Aging
Specifications
(
Comment
6)

In
the
strawman
durability
procedures,
EPA
defined
the
high
temperature
seen
on
the
bench
cycle
indirectly
by
specifying
the
A/
F
ratio
and
the
amount
of
secondary
air
injection.
General
Motors
(
GM)
commented
that
it
would
be
better
to
define
high
temperature
directly
because
the
high
temperature
has
a
significant
impact
on
the
aging
that
occurs
on
the
aging
bench.
We
agree
that
directly
controlling
the
high
temperature
spike
is
a
better
procedure.

Based
on
data
from
GM,
the
high
temperature
is
usually
72
about
90

C
higher
than
the
lower
control
temperature.
We
believe
that
there
will
be
a
similar
temperature
change
on
the
SBC
because
it
was
developed
from
the
RAT
A
cycle
which
GM
used
to
generate
this
temperature
data.
Based
on
this
data,
EPA
is
proposing
that
the
high
temperature
control
point
be
90

C
(
±
10

C)
higher
than
the
low
temperature
control
point.
In
the
SBC
the
lower
control
temperature
is
proposed
to
be
800

C
(
±
10

C)
and
the
higher
temperature
to
be
890

C
(
±
10

C).
The
specification
for
the
A/
F
ratio
is
now
defined
as
"
rich"
with
the
exact
A/
F
ratio
to
be
selected
to
achieve
the
desired
high
temperature
of
890

C.

We
also
changed
the
secondary
air
injection
rate
from
4%
to
3%
to
match
the
RAT
A
cycle
which
was
the
basis
of
the
strawman
proposal.
The
higher
rate
of
air
injection
prompted
concerns
about
the
ability
to
deliver
that
much
air
homogeneously
across
the
exhaust
flow.
The
original
purpose
of
the
secondary
air
injections
was
to
assure
a
lean
catalyst
A/
F
ratio
(
how
lean
was
not
the
issue)
and
to
determine
the
amount
of
temperature
rise
that
occurred
in
the
exhaust
stream.
Now
that
we
are
specifying
the
temperature
rise
of
the
exhaust
stream
directly,
it
is
not
necessary
to
require
a
particularity
high
rate
of
air
injection.
Consequently
we
harmonized
the
amount
of
secondary
air
injection
with
the
established
RAT
A
procedure.

7.
Adjusting
durability
procedures
based
on
IUVP
data
73
(
Comments
7
and
8)

Manufacturers
commented
that
a
defined
approach
of
when
and
how
to
use
IUVP
data
to
adjust
durability
procedures
is
not
appropriate.
Furthermore
they
commented
that
EPA
should
not
be
concerned
whether
the
durability
process
accurately
predicts
in­
use
emission
deterioration
if
the
manufacturer
is
complying
with
the
standards
in
use.

The
CAP
2000
regulations
specified
that
the
in­
use
data
collected
under
the
in­
use
verification
program
(
IUVP)

testing
provisions
would
be
used
to
determine
if
the
manufacturer's
durability
process
was
adequately
predicting
in­
use
emission
levels
(
ref.
86.1823­
01((
g),
and
(
h)).
EPA
continues
to
believe
it
is
very
important
to
compare
actual
in­
use
emission
levels
to
the
emission
levels
predicted
at
the
time
of
certification
and
that
this
in­
use
information
should
be
used
to
improve
the
durability
process
used
to
make
those
predictions.

In
the
strawman
procedures,
EPA
proposed
calculating
a
least­
squares
best­
fit
in­
use
DF
for
each
durability
group
using
the
emission
data
from
the
IUVP.
EPA
suggested
in
the
strawman
process
that
its
proposed
durability
regulation
should
contain
a
requirement
that
the
manufacturer
correct
its
durability
prediction
if
the
certification
DF
developed
by
the
process
for
a
specific
durability
group
was
significantly
different
from
the
in­
use
DF,
or
if
there
was
a
statistically
significant
general
offset
trend
shown.
The
74
strawman
proposal
did
not
fully
develop
the
procedures
to
be
used
to
conduct
this
analysis.
These
offsets
were
to
be
corrected
by
either
mathematically
adjusting
the
DFs
by
at
least
half
the
difference
or
increasing
the
number
of
miles/
hours
run
during
durability
mileage
accumulation/
catalyst
aging.

The
automotive
industry
commented
that
it
would
be
very
difficult
to
determine
statistical
significance,
given
the
limited
amount
of
in­
use
verification
data,
and
that
this
provision
could
place
an
unnecessary
burden
on
those
manufacturers
who
were
over­
predicting,
rather
than
underpredicting
emission
deterioration.
They
also
commented
that
as
long
as
the
in­
use
data
was
indicating
that
their
vehicles
were
meeting
the
emission
standards
in
use,
that
it
should
not
be
a
concern
to
the
Agency
if
the
rate
of
deterioration
calculated
at
the
time
of
certification
does
not
match
that
of
in­
use
vehicles.
They
recommended
that
EPA
retain
the
CAP
2000
regulations
whereby
the
in­
use
verification
data
must
be
taken
into
consideration
when
deciding
if
the
durability
process
is
adequately
predicting
emission
deterioration.

EPA
agrees
that
the
approach
taken
in
the
CAP
2000
rulemaking
is
appropriate,
because
it
provides
a
reasoned
framework
for
when
to
require
analysis
and
review
by
manufacturers,
and
provides
the
needed
discretion
for
deciding
when
approval
for
a
program
should
be
withdrawn
or
47
Ref.
63
FR
39663
75
modifications
required.
EPA
still
has
the
same
concerns
about
durability
accuracy
expressed
during
the
CAP
2000
rulemaking:
"
An
accurate
durability
process
facilitates
a
more
meaningful
certification
process
which
identifies
noncompliance
before
the
vehicles
are
produced
and
avoids
excess
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."
47
It
is
the
Agency's
expectation
when
it
issues
an
approval
that
a
durability
program
will
achieve
the
durability
objective
in
use.
EPA
expects
manufacturers
to
use
the
results
of
the
IUVP
testing
to
improve
their
durability
projections
when
necessary
to
better
achieve
the
durability
objective.

As
in
the
CAP
2000
program,
EPA
is
proposing
to
require
manufacturers
to
conduct
an
analysis
of
their
durability
program
if
certain
objective
criteria
discussed
below
are
met.
In
addition
EPA
may
require
such
an
analysis
on
a
case
by
case
basis
even
if
the
criteria
are
not
met.
EPA
also
reserves
the
authority
to
withdraw
approval
of
a
durability
program
or
require
its
modification
if
it
determines
that
the
manufacturer's
program
does
not
meet
the
objectives
for
a
durability
program.

The
Agency
is
proposing
to
continue
the
requirement
established
in
the
CAP
2000
rule
for
the
manufacturer
to
76
reevaluate
the
validity
of
a
durability
process
in
achieving
the
durability
objective
by
performing
an
analysis
when
the
average
IUVP
data
exceeds
1.3
times
the
applicable
emission
standard
and
at
least
50%
of
the
test
vehicles
fail
the
standard
in
use
(
evaluated
independently
for
all
applicable
emission
constituents).
These
proposed
analysis
trigger
criteria
are
intentionally
loose
enough
to
require
an
analysis
only
in
cases
where
it
is
highly
likely
that
durability
programs
that
were
failing
to
meet
the
durability
objective.
The
Agency
is
also
proposing
that
it
may,
at
its
discretion,
require
manufacturers
to
analyze
available
IUVP
data,
or
other
information,
when
it
appears
that
the
durability
objective
is
not
being
achieved
for
some
portion
of
the
fleet
of
vehicles
covered
by
a
durability
procedure
regardless
of
whether
the
analysis
trigger
criteria
have
been
met.

As
part
of
the
analysis,
the
manufacturer
should
address
the
applicability
of
the
data
to
current
vehicle
designs
and
to
the
current
durability
procedures
used
by
the
manufacturer.
Manufacturers
may
remove
from
the
sample
the
following
types
of
unrepresentative
data:
(
1)
data
which
was
collected
on
an
engine/
emission
control
system
which
is
not
comparable
to
the
current
production
designs,
(
2)
data
collected
on
a
vehicle
design
which
has
been
recalled
(
voluntarily
or
otherwise)
due
to
a
defective
emission
related
part
(
unless
the
recall
repair
was
performed
on
the
77
test
vehicle),
or
(
3)
data
from
vehicles
that
have
been
operated
in
an
abnormal
fashion
that
has
impaired
the
effectiveness
of
the
emission
control
system.
In
addition,

manufacturers
may
also
replace
data
from
previously
tested
vehicles
under
the
following
conditions:
(
1)
for
in­
use
vehicles
which
have
been
primarily
operated
on
high
sulfur
fuel
(
fuel
with
more
than
80
ppm
sulfur),
if
EPA
has
approved
sulfur­
removal
preconditioning
the
manufacturer
may
replace
the
as­
received
testing
with
a
second
test
conducted
after
sulfur­
removal
preconditioning
has
been
performed,
and
(
2)
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
EPA
may
approve
replacing
the
as­
received
testing
performed
on
a
vehicle
which
displays
a
MIL
light
that
affects
emission
results
with
a
second
test
performed
after
restorative
maintenance
has
been
performed.

EPA
would
consider
other
exclusions
or
replacements
of
data
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
The
manufacturer
may
also
provide
additional
in­
use
data
with
the
analysis.

As
in
the
CAP
2000
program,
EPA
is
proposing
that
it
may
withdraw
approval
of
a
durability
program
or
require
its
modification
if
it
determines
that
the
program
does
not
meet
the
objectives
for
a
durability
program.
In
those
cases,
the
Agency
is
proposing
to
give
the
manufacturer
a
preliminary
notice
at
least
60
days
prior
to
rendering
a
final
decision
to
withdraw
approval
for
or
require
modifications
to
a
durability
procedure.
EPA
may
extend
the
60­
day
period
upon
request
by
a
manufacturer
when
it
is
necessary
to
complete
a
78
thorough
analysis.
During
this
period
the
manufacturer
may
submit
technical
discussion,
statistical
analyses,

additional
data,
or
other
information
that
is
relevant
to
the
decision.
This
may
include
an
analysis
to
determine
whether
factors
other
than
the
durability
program,
such
as
part
defects,
are
the
source
of
the
problem.
The
Administrator
will
consider
all
information
submitted
by
the
deadline
before
reaching
a
final
decision.
A
final
decision
to
withdraw
approval
or
require
modification
to
a
durability
procedure
would
apply
to
future
applications
for
certification
and
to
the
portion
of
the
manufacturer's
product
line
(
or
the
entire
product
line)
that
the
Administrator
determines
to
be
affected.

These
proposed
requirements
would
apply
to
the
EPA
standard
road
and
bench
durability
procedures
as
well
as
customized/
alternative
durability
procedures.

If
the
manufacturer
was
using
the
standard
road
cycle
or
standard
bench
cycle,
EPA
would
require
the
manufacturer
to
adjust
the
durability
process
so
it
would
achieve
the
durability
objective.
The
Agency
is
proposing
two
options
in
this
situation:
(
1)
increasing
future
DFs
by
the
average
percent­
difference
between
certification
levels
and
IUVP
data,
or
(
2)
increasing
the
whole
vehicle
miles
driven
or
catalyst
aging
time
by
the
average
percent­
difference
between
certification
levels
and
IUVP
data.
Additionally
the
manufacturer
may
obtain
approval
for
a
new
alternative
79
durability
process
that
has
been
demonstrated
to
meet
the
durability
objective.
If
the
data
set
used
in
the
analysis
contains
less
than
20
pieces
of
data,
the
Administrator
may
reduce
the
degree
of
adjustment
required
to
account
for
uncertainty
in
the
data.

If
EPA
determines
that
the
SRC
or
the
standard
durability
bench
procedures
generally
do
not
meet
the
durability
objective
for
a
large
number
of
manufacturers,

EPA
will
adjust
the
standard
procedures
by
rulemaking.

As
with
the
criteria
for
original
approval
of
an
alternative
durability
program,
EPA
considered
a
more
stringent
objective
criteria
for
using
IUVP
data
to
evaluate
durability
procedures
which
would
have
required
manufacturers
to
demonstrate
that
the
durability
procure
resulted
in
(
1)
in­
use
emission
results
that
are
at
least
a
specified
percent
less
than
or
equal
to
the
certification
levels,
and
(
2)
at
least
90
percent
of
the
in­
use
emission
data
that
pass
the
applicable
emission
standards.
EPA
is
not
proposing
such
criteria
for
the
reasons
described
above
regarding
approval
criteria.

8.
Reproducibility
by
outside
parties
(
Comment
9)

We
received
comments
supporting
the
goal
that
the
public
should
be
provided
sufficient
information
to
duplicate
the
deterioration
results
of
any
manufacturerspecified
procedures
that
are
CBI.

In
some
cases,
manufacturers
have
claimed
that
certain
48
Refer
to
section
II
D
2
for
a
discussion
of
how
to
calculate
the
equivalency
factor.

80
aspects
of
their
manufacturer­
specific
durability
procedures
are
confidential
business
information
(
CBI).
As
discussed
above,
the
approval
process
for
all
alternative
cycles
includes
a
determination
of
the
relative
severity
of
the
alternative
cycles
compared
to
the
SRC
by
means
of
the
calculation
of
an
equivalency
factor48.

EPA
believes
that
a
manufacturer's
equivalency
factor
should
not
be
considered
confidential
business
information.

The
equivalency
factor
is
developed
using
EPA­
prescribed
methods
so
there
is
no
manufacturer
practice
to
be
protected.
The
factor
relates
to
how
much
driving
on
the
SRC
is
required
to
meet
the
durability
objective.
The
SRC
is
a
publically
available
cycle
developed
by
EPA.
Furthermore,

knowing
that
a
certain
amount
of
driving
on
the
SRC
produces
the
same
amount
of
in­
use
emission
deterioration
as
on
the
manufacturer
cycle
would
not
reveal
any
potentially
confidential
aspects
of
the
manufacturers
in­
house
durability
procedures.
For
example,
there
would
be
many
different
road
cycles
that
would
result
in
the
same
equivalency
factor
to
the
SRC.
EPA
invites
comment
on
whether
the
equivalency
factor
should
be
eligible
for
CBI
treatment,
including
any
justification
for
treating
it
as
confidential.
In
the
absence
of
a
compelling
justification
to
treat
this
equivalency
factor
as
CBI,
EPA
intends
to
81
determine
that
a
manufacturer's
equivalency
factor
would
not
be
considered
CBI.
Furthermore,
EPA
intends
to
publish
a
list
of
manufacturers
which
have
obtained
approval
to
use
alternative
cycles
together
with
a
manufacturer's
equivalency
factor
for
each
test
group
which
uses
those
cycles.

The
equivalency
factor
will
provide
the
public
with
sufficient
information
to
duplicate
the
amount
of
deterioration
produced
by
a
manufacturer­
specific
procedure.

Even
if
a
manufacturer
asserts
that
their
cycle
is
CBI,
the
public
will
have
a
pre­
determined
amount
of
mileage
accumulation
on
the
SRC
that
will
result
in
an
equivalent
amount
of
emission
deterioration.
Consequently,
any
interested
party
could
run
the
SRC
for
the
appropriate
number
of
miles
and
get
the
same
results
that
the
manufacturer
developed
during
certification.

To
reproduce
the
deterioration
generated
by
a
manufacturer
which
certified
using
a
customized
road
cycle,

standard
bench
procedure,
or
alternative
bench
procedure,
an
outside
party
may
run
a
vehicle
using
the
SRC
for
the
number
of
miles
indicated
by
the
equivalency
factor.

Similarly,
an
outside
party
will
be
able
to
perform
bench
aging
using
the
SBC.
The
aging
time
may
be
calculated
using
the
BAT
equation
and
measured
catalyst
temperature
on
the
SRC
(
with
full­
useful­
life­
mileage
adjusted
by
the
equivalency
factor).
82
9.
Confidentiality
of
emission
test
results
submitted
under
the
durability
program.

Under
the
durability
regulations,
a
variety
of
provisions
require
manufacturers
to
submit
to
EPA
the
results
of
emissions
testing.
For
example,
emissions
test
results
are
submitted
as
part
of
the
approval
process
for
alternative
driving
cycles.
They
may
also
be
submitted
subsequent
to
approval
as
part
of
an
analysis
of
whether
an
alternative
durability
program
continues
to
meet
the
objective
of
the
durability
program.
The
results
of
emissions
testing
are
also
submitted
to
EPA
as
part
of
the
IUVP
and
confirmatory
testing
programs.
Emissions
test
results
would
be
submitted
to
EPA
under
40
CFR
86.1823(
e)(
1)(
A),
86.1847(
b)(
1),
and
(
f)(
1).
Emissions
test
results
may
also
be
submitted
to
EPA
under
other
provisions
of
the
durability
regulation.

EPA
believes
that
the
results
of
this
emissions
testing
would
be
emissions
data
as
defined
by
40
CFR
2.301.

Emissions
data
are
not
eligible
for
confidential
treatment.

40
CFR
2.301(
e).
EPA
invites
comment
on
why
these
data
should
be
eligible
for
CBI
treatment.
In
the
absence
of
a
compelling
justification
received
during
the
comment
period,

EPA
intends
to
release
emissions
test
results
submitted
to
EPA
as
noted
above.
EPA
is
not
attempting
at
this
time
to
decide
what
other
data,
if
any,
would
be
emissions
data
under
40
CFR
2.301.
83
E.
Diesel
Vehicle
Exhaust
Deterioration
EPA
expects
that
diesel­
fueled
vehicles
will
be
largely
driven
in
the
same
fashion
as
gasoline­
fueled
vehicles.
The
SRC
was
developed
to
include
sufficient
amount
of
high
catalyst
temperature
to
age
the
catalyst
on
an
Otto
cycle
engine.
However,
the
same
operation
that
causes
high
temperatures
in
catalysts
also
causes
high
engine
load
and
high
in­
cylinder
temperatures
which
increase
engine
wear
in
diesel
vehicles
and
lead
to
emission
deterioration.
The
SRC
also
contains
a
reasonable
amount
of
slower
speed
operation
and
coast­
downs
followed
by
deep
accelerations
which
increase
lubricating
oil
consumption,
fuel
injection
deterioration,
and
increase
particulate
formation.
For
these
reasons,
the
SRC
is
considered
to
be
fuel­
neutral,

that
is,
appropriate
for
any
motor
vehicle,
regardless
of
the
fuel
used.
Thus,
the
SRC
may
be
used
to
evaluate
exhaust
emission
deterioration
of
vehicles
using
any
fuel.

Furthermore,
the
provisions
to
customize
the
SRC
or
develop
an
alterative
road
cycle
would
for
the
same
reason
apply
equally
to
vehicles,
regardless
of
the
fuel
used.

The
same
is
not
true
for
bench
aging
procedures,

however.
The
bench
procedures
are
only
applicable
to
vehicles
which
use
a
catalyst
as
the
principal
exhaust
emission
control
strategy.
The
proposed
bench
procedures
accelerate
the
normal
vehicle
aging
process
by
increasing
the
thermal
aging
of
the
catalyst.
This
strategy
will
not
84
work
acceptably
for
vehicles
that
do
not
have
a
catalyst,

rely
significantly
less
on
the
catalyst
to
provide
emission
reduction,
or
use
after­
treatment
devices
that
are
significantly
different
from
catalysts
used
on
gasolinefueled
vehicles,
e.
g.
NOx
adsorbers
or
catalyzed
particulate
filters.
For
that
reason
the
bench
procedures
proposed
today
are
not
applicable
to
diesel
vehicles.

As
of
the
date
of
this
proposal,
EPA
is
not
aware
of
any
effective
bench
aging
process
for
diesel
vehicles.
At
a
later
date,
EPA
may
choose
to
propose
regulations
providing
bench
aging
procedures
applicable
to
diesel­
fueled
vehicles.

In
the
meantime,
diesel­
fueled
vehicles
must
use
the
proposed
whole
vehicle
exhaust
durability
provisions.

F.
Evaporative
and
refueling
durability
procedures
The
CAP
2000
regulations
for
evaporative
and
refueling
emission
deterioration
procedures
are
similar
to
the
exhaust
durability
regulations,
in
that
manufacturers
had
to
propose
a
durability
process
for
EPA
approval.
Our
proposal
incorporates
procedures
for
determining
evaporative
and
refueling
emission
deterioration
levels.

The
proposed
objective
for
the
evaporative
and
refueling
deterioration
programs
is
the
same
one
proposed
for
exhaust
durability:
to
predict
the
expected
evaporative
and
refueling
emission
deterioration
of
candidate
in­
use
vehicles
over
their
full
useful
life,
covering
a
significant
majority
of
deterioration.
[
Ref
40
CFR
86.1824­
01
for
85
evaporative
emissions
and
40
CFR
86.1825­
01
for
refueling
emissions].

Unlike
durability
procedures
to
determine
exhaust
emission
deterioration,
EPA
has
never
specified
a
standard
procedure
to
determine
evaporative
emission
deterioration.

Instead,
manufacturers
were
required
to
report
to
EPA
evaporative
deterioration
factors
that
were
"
designed
and
conducted
in
accordance
with
good
engineering
practice".[
ref.
86.091­
23(
b)(
2)]

Since
evaporative
and
refueling
emissions
are
controlled
by
a
similar
vapor
control
system,
the
deterioration
rates
for
evaporative
and
refueling
emissions
are
generally
determined
using
the
same
methods.
Most
vehicles
use
integrated
refueling
systems
where
a
single
charcoal
canister
handles
both
evaporative
and
refueling
emission
control.

The
factors
affecting
deterioration
of
evaporative
control
systems
are
different
from
those
of
exhaust
emission
systems.
Evaporative
and
refueling
emissions
are
controlled
primarily
by
an
activated­
carbon
canister.
The
canister
stores
the
hydrocarbon
(
HC)
fumes
coming
from
the
vehicle's
fuel
tank
and
fuel
system.
While
the
engine
is
running,
the
HC
is
purged
from
the
canister
and
ingested
by
the
engine.

Other
components
which
control
evaporative
emissions
include
fuel
hoses
and
lines
and
the
gas
tank
cap.

To
predict
evaporative
emissions
deterioration,
it
is
49
Refer
to
"
Fuel
Permeation
Rates
of
Elastomers
after
Changing
Fuel"
by
R.
Stevens
and
R.
Fuller
of
Dupont
Dow,
SAE
No.
970307
86
necessary
to
assess
the
useful­
life
performance
of
these
vapor
control
components.
Sources
of
potential
deterioration
are
deactivation
of
the
carbon
in
the
canister,
loss
of
carbon
from
the
canister,
degradation
of
hoses
and
lines
due
to
environmental
conditions
(
such
as
temperature
extremes
and
exposure
to
ozone,
ultraviolet
light,
and
vibration),
and
fuel
cap
deterioration
due
to
wear.

Vehicle
operating
events
that
may
lead
to
deterioration
of
the
vapor
control
system
include,
(
1)
cycling
of
canister
loading
due
to
diurnal
and
refueling
events,
(
2)
vibration
of
components,
(
3)
deterioration
of
hoses
due
to
environmental
conditions,
and
(
4)
deterioration
of
fuel
cap
due
to
wear.

In
addition,
hosing
used
in
fuel
lines
are
subject
to
"
permeation"
­
fuel
vapors
which
seep
out
of
microscopic
pores
in
the
material.
Emissions
due
to
permeation
through
the
hoses
generally
stabilize
after
about
a
month
of
use
and
hence
do
not
generally
affect
the
long­
term
deterioration
of
the
evaporative
system.
49
Beginning
with
the
2004
model
year,
EPA's
"
Tier
2"
regulations
include
new,
more
stringent
evaporative
emission
standards.
Concern
about
the
permeability
effect
of
alcohol
fuels
on
hoses
and
other
evaporative
components
led
EPA
to
require
that
manufacturers
50
Numerous
SAE
papers
examine
the
permeability
of
fuel
and
evaporative
system
materials
as
well
as
the
influence
of
alcohols
on
permeability.
See,
for
example
SAE
Paper
Nos
910104,
920163,
930992,
970307,
970309,
930992,
and
981360.

51
Based
on
7
to
10
years
of
use
the
number
of
lifetime
diurnals
would
range
from
2000
to
3500
events.

87
account
for
this
effect
in
developing
their
evaporative
durability
processes
[
ref.
86.1824­
01(
a)(
iii),
(
iv)
and
(
v)]
50.

Most
of
the
potential
causes
of
vapor
control
system
deterioration
are
based
on
time
rather
than
miles
driven.

Canister
loading
is
caused
mainly
by
diurnal
events,
the
heating/
cooling
cycle
that
occurs
over
a
24­
hour
day.
For
that
reason,
it
is
difficult
to
compress
a
full
lifetime
of
diurnal
events
into
a
reasonable
period
of
time
on
a
whole
vehicle.

It
is
also
desirable
for
cost
reasons
to
combine
a
whole
vehicle
based
evaporative/
refueling
deterioration
evaluation
with
the
whole
vehicle
exhaust
durability
program
to
save
the
expense
of
running
two
separate
programs.
For
exhaust
deterioration
the
important
parameter
is
miles
traveled
following
the
SRC,
for
vapor
control
deterioration
canister
loading
and
purge
events
are
more
important.
The
whole
vehicle
exhaust
durability
program
is
generally
completed
in
about
100
days.
During
that
time,
the
vehicle
would
experience
about
100
diurnals
(
one
per
day),
which
is
much
less
than
experienced
during
the
vehicle's
full
useful
life.
51
A
vehicle
aged
on
the
SRC
would
experience
52
Refer
to
the
TSD
for
a
study
of
DFs
for
evaporative
emissions.
Most
DFs
were
zero,
the
70­
percentile
DF
was
5%
of
the
standard.

88
approximately
the
correct
number
of
refueling
events.
While
this
shortfall
in
diurnal
events
could
theoretically
affect
projections
of
deterioration,
in
actuality,
the
overall
vapor
control
deterioration
is
so
small
that
it
does
not
significantly
impact
the
deterioration
rate
calculation.

Manufacturers
have
stated
that
evaporative
emissions
over
the
life
of
a
vehicle
do
not
generally
increase.
An
EPA
study
of
evaporative
and
refueling
certification
deterioration
factors
for
the
2002
and
2003
model
years
shows
that
these
DFs
are
zero
or
close
to
zero
for
many
vehicles.
52
When
there
are
evaporative
or
refueling
failures
in
use,
these
failures
can
generally
be
attributed
to
failed
parts
or
improper
design
rather
than
gradual
increases
in
emissions
due
to
deterioration.

EPA
is
proposing
that
manufacturers
may
determine
their
evaporative/
refueling
deterioration
by
adding
evaporative
and
refueling
tests
to
the
SRC
or
an
approved
whole
vehicle
exhaust
durability
program.
EPA
is
making
this
proposal
knowing
that
the
road
cycle
will
not
include
a
full
lifetime
of
diurnal
events.
In
making
this
decision,
EPA
is
relying
on
the
fact
that
the
deterioration
rates
of
current­
design
evaporative
system
is
very
small
and
a
more
comprehensive
procedure
would
not
significantly
improve
the
accuracy
of
predicting
deterioration,
but
could
significantly
increase
89
costs.

EPA
is
also
proposing
that
the
evaporative/
refueling
deterioration
may
also
be
measured
using
a
bench
procedure.

EPA
is
proposing
that
manufacturers
evaluate
the
effects
of
certain
sources
of
deterioration
in
the
bench
procedure.

The
manufacturer
should
establish
a
evaporative/
refueling
durability
program
that
effectively
covers
a
significant
majority
(
approximately
90
percent)
of
in­
use
emission
deterioration.
A
manufacturer
may
determine
certification
levels
using
a
bench
procedure
when
it
determines
(
using
good
engineering
judgement)
that
the
bench
procedure
is
more
accurate
than
the
SRC
to
achieve
the
durability
objective.

While
the
manufacturer
does
not
need
to
submit
their
bench
durability
procedures
for
approval,
EPA
may
review
any
certification
level
submitted
during
certification
for
its
appropriateness.
EPA
is
not
promulgating
specific
methods
to
perform
these
evaluations.
The
emission
deterioration
sources
that
are
proposed
to
be
evaluated
in
the
bench
durability
procedure
are:

1.
Cycling
of
canister
loading
due
to
diurnal
and
refueling
events
2.
Use
of
various
commercially
available
fuels,
including
the
Tier
2
requirement
to
include
alcohol
fuel
3.
Vibration
of
components
4.
Deterioration
of
hoses,
etc.
due
to
environmental
conditions
90
5.
Deterioration
of
fuel
cap
due
to
wear.

Finally,
EPA
is
proposing
that
it
will
allow
manufacturers
to
determine
evaporative
and
refueling
DF's
based
on
good
engineering
judgement
without
prior
EPA
approval.

III.
What
is
EPA
proposing
today?

Today's
proposal
includes
two
well­
defined
test
methods
for
determining
the
exhaust
emissions
durability
of
vehicles
from
which
manufacturers
may
choose:
the
standard
whole
vehicle
aging
process
and
the
standard
bench
aging
process.

It
also
includes
well­
defined
criteria
allowing
EPA
to
approve
customization
of
or
alternatives
to
these
test
methods,
based
upon
a
demonstration
to
EPA
of
the
level
of
stringency
needed
to
meet
the
durability
objective,
and
the
level
of
stringency
demonstrated
for
the
SCR
and
the
customization
or
alternative.
The
rationale
for
how
the
proposals
in
this
section
were
developed
is
discussed
in
more
detail
in
Section
II.
above
A.
Standard
whole
vehicle
exhaust
durability
procedure
EPA
is
proposing
a
standard
road
cycle
(
SRC)
which
is
targeted
to
effectively
cover
a
significant
majority
of
the
distribution
of
exhaust
emission
deterioration
rates
that
occur
on
candidate
in­
use
vehicles.
The
SRC
is
fuelneutral
It
applies
to
all
vehicles,
regardless
of
fuel
used.
The
SRC
consists
of
seven
laps
of
3.7
miles
each.

The
average
speed
on
the
SRC
is
46.3
mph,
the
maximum
cruise
91
speed
is
75
mph,
and
the
acceleration
rates
range
from
light
to
hard
accelerations.
Most
accelerations
are
moderate
and
there
are
no
wide­
open­
throttle
accelerations.
The
SRC
contains
24
fuel­
cut
decelerations.
The
deceleration
rates
range
from
coast­
down
(
no
brake
force
applied)
to
moderate.

EPA
is
proposing
a
standard
whole
vehicle
durability
procedure
which
consists
of
running
a
vehicle
(
the
durability
data
vehicle
(
DDV))
on
the
SRC
for
the
full
useful
life
mileage
of
the
vehicle.
We
are
also
proposing
that
manufacturers
may
terminate
mileage
accumulation
at
75%

of
full
useful
life
and
project
DFs
based
upon
the
upper
80%

statistical
confidence
limit.

The
weight
of
the
vehicle
during
SRC
mileage
accumulation
is
proposed
to
be
the
loaded
vehicle
weight
(
curb
plus
300
pounds)
for
light­
duty
vehicles
and
adjusted
loaded
vehicle
weight
((
curb
+
gross
vehicle
weight)/
2)
for
all
other
vehicles
covered
by
this
rule.
The
fuel
used
on
the
SRC
is
proposed
to
be
representative
of
commercially
available
gasoline
(
with
a
provision
that
extra
poisoning
may
be
added,
such
as
phosphorus,
sulfur
or
lead).

EPA
is
proposing
to
retain
the
CAP
2000
options
of
determining
emission
compliance
levels
by
either
(
1)

calculating
deterioration
factors
(
DF)
and
applying
the
DF
to
the
emission
data
vehicle
(
EDV)
emission
results
or
(
2)

testing
the
EDV
with
emission
control
components
aged
using
the
SRC
and
installed
prior
to
testing.
If
DF's
are
to
be
92
calculated,
emission
testing
would
be
conducted
at
periodic
intervals
during
milage
accumulation.
A
minimum
of
one
test
at
each
of
five
different
mileage
points
(
total
of
five
tests)
are
proposed.

B.
Standard
bench
aging
exhaust
durability
procedure
Bench
aging
is
a
different
way
to
achieve
the
same
emission
deterioration
as
whole­
vehicle
aging
using
a
road
cycle.
EPA
is
proposing
a
standard
bench
aging
procedure
that
uses
the
BAT
equation
and
the
standard
bench
cycle
(
SBC)
to
reproduce
emission
deterioration
from
a
road
cycle.

EPA's
proposed
standard
bench
procedure
specifies
that
the
SRC
be
used
to
generate
the
catalyst
temperature
histogram
needed
to
determine
bench
aging
time.
Because
the
proposed
standard
bench
aging
procedure
relies
on
increasing
catalyst
thermal
aging
to
account
for
all
sources
of
emission
deterioration,
this
procedure
is
not
applicable
to
diesel
fueled
vehicles
or
vehicles
which
do
not
use
a
catalyst
as
the
principal
after­
treatment
emission
control
device.

The
standard
bench
aging
durability
procedure
has
been
designed
to
reproduce
the
exhaust
emission
deterioration
that
occurs
on
the
standard
whole
vehicle
durability
procedure.
The
standard
bench
aging
procedure
is
as
follows:

a.
Catalyst
temperature
data
is
measured
at
the
rate
of
one
hertz
(
one
measurement
per
second)
during
at
least
two
replicates
of
the
standard
road
cycle
(
SRC).
The
93
temperature
results
are
tabulated
into
a
histogram
with
temperature
bins
of
no
larger
than
25

C.

b.
The
effective
reference
temperature
of
the
standard
bench
cycle
(
SBC),
described
below,
is
determined
for
the
catalyst
system
and
the
aging
bench
which
is
to
be
used
for
the
bench
aging.

c.
The
bench
aging
time
is
calculated
using
the
bench
aging
time
(
BAT)
equation,
described
below,
using
the
effective
reference
temperature
of
the
SBC
and
the
catalyst
temperature
histogram
measured
on
the
SRC.

d.
The
exhaust
system
(
including
the
catalyst
and
oxygen
sensors)
is
installed
on
the
aging
bench.
The
aging
bench
follows
the
SBC
for
the
amount
of
time
calculated
from
the
BAT
equation.

e.
Catalyst
temperatures
and
A/
F
ratios
are
measured
during
the
bench
aging
process
to
assure
that
the
proper
amount
of
aging
has
actually
occurred.
Aging
on
the
bench
is
extended
if
the
aging
targets
are
not
properly
achieved.

1.
The
Standard
Bench
Cycle
(
SBC)

EPA
is
proposing
a
standard
bench
cycle
(
SBC)
which
contains
a
mix
of
rich,
lean
and
stoichiometric
A/
F
ratios
designed
to
achieve
appropriate
emission
deterioration
on
the
aging
bench
when
operated
for
the
period
of
time
calculated
from
the
BAT
equation.

The
standard
bench
cycle
consists
of
a
60­
second
cycle
53
A
typical
value
of
the
"
rich"
A/
F
ratio
is
approximately
13.5
54
The
highest
temperature
generally
occurs
close
to
the
55­
second
point
in
the
cycle
94
which
is
defined
as
follows
based
on
the
A/
F
ratio
of
the
engine
(
which
is
part
of
the
aging
bench)
and
the
amount
of
secondary
air
injection
(
shop
air
which
is
added
to
the
exhaust
stream
in
front
of
the
first
catalyst):

01
to
40
secs
14.7
A/
F,
no
secondary
air
injection
41
to
45
secs
Rich
A/
F
ratio,
no
secondary
air
injection
46
to
55
secs
Rich
A/
F
ratio,
3%
(
±
0.1%)
secondary
air
injection
56
to
60
secs
14.7
A/
F
ratio,
3%
(
±
0.1%)
secondary
air
injection
The
catalyst
temperature
(
called
the
low
control
temperature)
is
controlled
during
the
period
of
stoichiometric
operation
(
Seconds
1
to
40
of
the
cycle)
to
be
800

C
(
±
10

C).
The
A/
F
ratio
during
the
"
rich"
phase
of
operation
is
selected53
to
achieve
a
maximum
catalyst
temperature54
(
called
the
high
control
temperature)
over
the
cycle
of
890

C
(
±
10

C).
If
an
alternative
low
control
temperature
is
utilized
(
as
allowed
in
the
customization
options,
discussed
below),
the
high
control
temperature
is
90

C
(
±
10

C)
higher
than
the
low
control
temperature.

2.
The
Bench
Aging
Time
(
BAT)
calculation
EPA
is
proposing
a
bench
aging
time
(
BAT)
equation
to
95
calculate
the
appropriate
length
of
time
to
age
a
catalyst
system
on
an
aging
bench
to
yield
equivalent
emission
deterioration
as
running
a
vehicle
on
an
approved
road
cycle.
The
standard
bench
aging
durability
procedure
uses
catalyst
temperatures
measured
on
the
SRC
to
calculate
the
bench
aging
time
necessary
to
reproduce
the
thermal
exposure
seen
on
the
SRC.
As
discussed
in
Section
II,
the
BAT
equation
is
based
on
the
Arrehenius
equation
which
relates
chemical
reaction
rates
with
temperature.
EPA
is
proposing
the
following
BAT
equation:

t
e
for
a
temperature
bin
=
t
h
e((
R/
Tr)
­
(
R/
Tv))

Total
t
e
=
Sum
of
t
e
over
all
the
temperature
bins
Bench
Aging
Time
=
A
(
Total
t
e
)

Where:

A
=
1.1
or
a
value
determined
by
the
manufacturer
using
inuse
data
and
good
engineering
judgement
to
adjust
the
catalyst
aging
to
include
deterioration
that
may
come
from
sources
other
than
thermal
aging
of
the
catalyst
R
=
Catalyst
thermal
reactivity
coefficient.
For
the
SBC,

R=
17500
for
Tier
2
vehicles
and
R=
18500
for
all
other
vehicles.
For
cycles
other
than
the
SBC,
the
R
factor
must
be
determined
experimentally
using
good
engineering
judgement.
The
manufacturer
may
also
determine
the
R­
factor
experimentally
for
the
SBC.

t
h
=
The
time
(
in
hours)
measured
within
the
prescribed
temperature
bin
of
the
vehicle's
temperature
histogram
96
adjusted
to
be
on
a
full
useful
life
basis
(
if
the
histogram
represented
400
miles,
and
full
useful
life
was
100,000
miles;
all
histogram
time
entries
would
be
multiplied
by
250
(
100000/
400))

Total
t
e
=
The
equivalent
time
(
in
hours)
to
age
the
catalyst
at
the
temperature
of
T
r
on
the
catalyst
aging
bench
using
the
catalyst
aging
cycle
to
produce
the
same
amount
of
deterioration
experienced
by
the
catalyst
due
to
thermal
deactivation
over
the
vehicle's
full
useful
life.

t
e
for
a
bin
=
The
equivalent
time
(
in
hours)
to
age
the
catalyst
at
the
temperature
of
T
r
on
the
catalyst
aging
bench
using
the
catalyst
aging
cycle
to
produce
the
same
amount
of
deterioration
experienced
by
the
catalyst
due
to
thermal
deactivation
at
the
temperature
bin
of
T
v
over
the
vehicle's
full
useful
life.

T
r
=
The
effective
reference
temperature
(
in

K)
of
the
catalyst
on
the
catalyst
bench
T
v
=
The
mid­
point
temperature
(
in

K)
of
the
temperature
bin
of
the
vehicle
on­
road
catalyst
temperature
histogram
3.
The
effective
reference
temperature
for
the
SBC
The
BAT
equation
uses
a
single
temperature
value
called
97
the
effective
reference
temperature
to
represent
the
entire
temperature­
history
experienced
during
the
SBC
on
the
catalyst
aging
bench.
EPA
is
proposing
to
calculate
the
effective
reference
temperature
using
catalyst
temperature
histogram
data
measured
in
the
catalyst
on
the
aging
bench
following
the
SBC.
The
BAT
equation
would
then
be
used
to
calculate
the
effective
reference
temperature
by
iterative
changes
to
the
reference
temperature
(
T
r)
until
the
calculated
aging
time
equaled
the
actual
time
representing
in
the
catalyst
temperature
histogram.
The
resulting
temperature
is
the
effective
reference
temperature
for
the
SBC.

C.
Customization
of
the
standard
procedures.

1.
Customization
of
the
standard
road
cycle
EPA
is
proposing
that
to
obtain
approval
for
a
customized/
alternative
road
cycle
the
manufacturer
would
demonstrate
that
the
objective
of
the
durability
program
will
be
achieved
for
the
breadth
of
the
vehicles
which
are
covered
by
the
cycle.
Approval
of
a
customized/
alternative
road
cycle
requires
a
thorough
analysis
of
whether
the
cycle
will
achieve
the
durability
program
objective
using
in­
use
emissions
data,
including
a
demonstration
of
the
relative
stringency
of
the
SRC
and
the
manufacturer's
program.

To
make
the
initial
demonstration
necessary
for
the
Agency
to
approve
a
customized/
alternative
cycle,
EPA
is
proposing
that
the
manufacturer
supply
high
mileage
in­
use
98
emission
data
on
applicable
candidate
in­
use
vehicles.
The
vehicles
would
be
randomly
procured
from
actual
customer
use,
generally
with
an
age
of
4
to
5
years
and
with
a
minimum
of
approximately
50,000
miles.
They
would
cover
the
breadth
of
the
vehicles
that
the
manufacturer
intends
to
certify
using
the
customized/
alternative
cycle.
Vehicles
would
be
procured
and
FTP
tested
as
received
under
the
provisions
of
the
IUVP
program
(
ref:
40
CFR
86.1845­
04).

Manufacturers
could
use
previously
generated
in­
use
data
from
the
CAP
2000
high
mileage
IUVP
program
or
the
fourthyear
of­
service
RDP
"
reality
check"
in­
use
program
as
well
as
other
sources
of
in­
use
emissions
data
for
this
purpose.

EPA
will
also
consider
additional
emissions
data
or
analyses
that
the
manufacturer
may
choose
to
provide,
including
data
from
vehicles
which
have
been
screened
for
proper
maintenance
and
use.

The
amount
of
in­
use
emission
data
required
for
this
analysis
is
based
on
whether
the
customized/
alternative
cycle
is
more
or
less
severe
than
the
SRC.
In
most
cases,

EPA
will
accept
a
minimum
of
20
candidate
in­
use
vehicles.

There
is
less
risk
of
underestimating
actual
in­
use
emission
levels
when
the
customized/
alternative
cycle
is
more
severe
than
the
SRC.
However,
if
the
customized/
alternative
cycle
is
significantly
more
severe
than
the
SRC,
EPA
may
accept
less
data.
Conversely,
if
the
customized/
alternative
cycle
is
significantly
less
severe
than
the
SRC,
EPA
may
require
99
more
data
up
to
a
maximum
of
30
vehicles.

EPA
will
also
consider
the
equivalency
factor
of
the
customized/
alternative
cycle
(
discussed
in
section
III.
C.
3)

when
evaluating
the
cycle
for
approval.

Once
the
durability
process
is
approved,
EPA
is
proposing
that
for
each
test
group
the
manufacturer
must
determine,
using
good
engineering
judgement,
whether
to
apply
the
durability
procedure
to
that
particular
test
group.
Furthermore,
EPA
is
proposing
that
the
manufacturer
may
make
modifications
to
an
approved
customized/
alternative
road
cycle
and
apply
them
to
a
test
group
to
ensure
that
the
modified
process
will
effectively
achieve
the
durability
objective
for
future
candidate
in­
use
vehicles.
The
manufacturer
would
be
required
to
identify
such
changes
in
its
certification
application
and
explain
the
basis
for
the
changes.
Manufacturers
must
use
good
engineering
judgement
in
making
these
decisions.
Significant,
major,
or
fundamental
changes
to
a
customized/
alternative
cycle
would
be
considered
new
cycles
and
would
require
advance
approval
by
EPA.

2.
Customization
of
standard
bench
procedures
EPA
is
also
proposing
to
allow,
subject
to
Agency
approval,
a
limited
degree
of
manufacturer
customization
of
the
standard
bench
procedures.
However,
in
all
cases
EPA
is
proposing
that
alternative
bench
aging
procedures
be
based
100
upon
measured
vehicle
performance
(
such
as
catalyst
temperature)
on
an
approved
road
cycle.

Specifically
EPA
is
proposing
to
allow
customization
of
any
or
all
of
the
following
parameters
when
the
accompanying
conditions
for
approval
are
met:

a.
The
lower
control
temperature
on
the
SBC
may
be
modified
without
prior
EPA
approval
provided
that
the
high
control
temperature
is
set
90

C
(
±
10

C)
above
the
lower
control
temperature
and
an
approved
BAT
equation
is
used
to
calculate
bench
aging
time.

b.
The
R­
factor
used
in
EPA's
BAT
equation
may
be
determined
experimentally
using
EPA's
standard
procedures
(
specified
in
the
appendix
to
the
regulations)
without
prior
EPA
approval.
Other
experimental
techniques
to
calculate
the
R­
factor
require
advance
EPA
approval.
To
obtain
approval,
the
manufacturer
must
demonstrate
that
the
calculated
bench
aging
time
results
in
the
same
(
or
larger)

amount
of
emission
deterioration
as
the
associated
approved
road
cycle.

c.
The
A­
factor
used
in
EPA's
BAT
equation
may
be
modified,
using
good
engineering
judgement
without
prior
EPA
approval,
to
ensure
that
the
modified
durability
process
will
effectively
predict
(
or
overstate)
emission
deterioration
of
a
significant
majority
(
approximately
90%)

of
future
candidate
in­
use
vehicles.

d.
Bench
aging
may
be
conducted
using
fuel
with
101
additional
poisons
(
such
as
phosphorus,
sulfur
and
lead)

without
prior
EPA
approval.
Using
fuel
with
additional
poisons
is
worst
case
for
emissions
deterioration.
Normally
a
manufacturer
using
fuel
with
additional
poisons
will
either
calculate
a
new
R­
factor
or
A­
factor
to
assure
that
the
durability
objective
(
effective
coverage
of
90
percent
of
in­
use
emission
deterioration)
is
not
overstated
by
the
worst­
case
fuel
usage.

e.
An
approved
alternative
road
cycle
or
customized
SRC
may
be
used
to
develop
catalyst
temperature
histograms
for
use
in
the
BAT
equation
without
additional
EPA
approval
beyond
the
original
approval
necessary
to
use
the
road
cycle
for
mileage
accumulation.

f.
A
different
bench
cycle
may
be
used
during
bench
aging
with
prior
EPA
approval.
To
obtain
approval
the
manufacturer
must
demonstrate
that
bench
aging
with
the
new
bench
cycle
provides
the
same
(
or
larger)
amount
of
emission
deterioration
as
the
associated
approved
road
cycle.

g.
A
different
method
to
calculate
bench
aging
time
may
be
used
with
prior
EPA
approval.
To
obtain
approval
the
manufacturer
must
demonstrate
that
bench
aging
for
the
time
calculated
by
the
alternative
method
results
in
the
same
(
or
larger)
amount
of
emission
deterioration
as
the
associated
approved
road
cycle.

3.
Reproducibility
by
outside
parties
As
discussed
in
the
preceding
sections,
EPA
is
102
proposing
that
an
alternative
road
cycle
must
be
designed
to
achieve
the
durability
objective
proposed
in
this
rule
(
effectively
predicts
a
significant
majority
of
the
distribution
of
in­
use
emission
deterioration
on
candidate
in­
use
vehicles).
As
part
of
this
evaluation,
EPA
is
requiring
in
this
proposal
that
all
alternative
road
cycles
are
equated
to
the
SRC
by
means
of
an
equivalency
factor
that
determines
the
amount
of
SRC­
driving
that
results
in
the
same
emission
deterioration
as
the
alternative
cycle.

EPA
is
requiring
in
this
proposal
that
every
alternative
bench
aging
procedure
be
based
upon
measured
vehicle
performance
on
a
road
cycle.
Lastly,
EPA
is
proposing
to
require
that
any
alternative
bench
cycle
be
designed
to
result
in
the
same
levels
of
emission
deterioration
as
the
road
cycle
upon
which
it
was
based.

An
important
element
of
the
proposal
is
that,

regardless
of
whether
a
manufacturer
use
the
EPA
standard
procedures
or
customized
procedures,
any
interested
party
will
be
able
to
use
the
equivalency
factor
to
reproduce
the
amount
of
emission
deterioration
produced
by
any
manufacturer's
customized/
alternative
durability
process
used
during
vehicle
certification.
In
the
proposal,
any
alternative
road
or
bench
procedure
is
equated
to
a
given
number
of
miles
on
the
SRC.

To
reproduce
the
deterioration
generated
by
a
customized/
alternative
road
cycle,
standard
bench
procedure,
103
or
alternative
bench
procedure,
an
outside
party
may
run
a
vehicle
using
the
SRC
for
the
number
of
miles
indicated
by
the
equivalency
factor.

Similarly,
an
outside
party
will
be
able
to
perform
bench
aging
using
the
SBC.
The
aging
time
may
be
calculated
using
the
BAT
equation
and
measured
catalyst
temperature
on
the
SRC
(
with
full­
useful­
life­
mileage
adjusted
by
the
equivalency
factor).

D.
Using
IUVP
data
to
improve
durability
predictions
EPA
is
proposing
to
require
a
manufacturer
to
review
its
durability
program
and
prepare
an
analysis
for
EPA
evaluation
when:
(
1)
the
IUVP
emission
levels
exceed
the
applicable
certification
emission
standard
50%
or
more
of
the
test
vehicles
and
(
2)
the
average
emission
level
is
at
least
1.3
times
the
applicable
emission
standard.
These
criteria
would
be
evaluated
independently
for
all
applicable
FTP
emission
constituents.
Each
constituent
should
be
considered
separately
in
this
analysis.

The
Agency
is
also
proposing
that
it
may,
from
time
to
time,
require
manufacturers
to
analyze
available
IUVP
data,

or
other
information,
when
it
indicates
that
the
durability
objective
is
not
being
achieved
for
some
portion
of
the
fleet
of
vehicles
covered
by
a
durability
procedure.
This
provision
would
apply
whether
or
not
the
screening
criteria
are
exceeded.

As
in
the
CAP
2000
program,
EPA
is
proposing
that
it
104
may
withdraw
approval
of
a
durability
program
or
require
its
modification
if
it
determines
that
the
program
does
not
meet
the
objectives
for
a
durability
program.
The
Agency
is
proposing
to
give
the
manufacturer
a
preliminary
notice
at
least
60
days
prior
to
rendering
a
final
decision
to
withdraw
approval
for
or
require
modifications
to
a
durability
procedure.
During
this
period
the
manufacturer
may
submit
technical
discussion,
statistical
analyses,

additional
data,
or
other
information
that
is
relevant
to
the
decision.
This
may
include
an
analysis
to
determine
whether
factors
other
than
the
durability
program,
such
as
part
defects,
are
the
source
of
the
problem.
The
Administrator
will
consider
all
information
submitted
by
the
deadline
before
reaching
a
final
decision.
A
final
decision
to
withdraw
approval
or
require
modification
to
a
durability
procedure
would
apply
to
future
applications
for
certification
and
to
the
portion
of
the
manufacturers
product
line
(
or
the
entire
product
line)
that
the
Administrator
determines
to
be
affected.

If
the
manufacturer
was
using
the
standard
road
cycle
or
standard
bench
cycle,
EPA
would
require
the
manufacturer
to
adjust
the
durability
process
so
it
would
achieve
the
durability
objective.
The
Agency
is
proposing
two
options
in
this
situation:
(
1)
increasing
future
DFs
by
the
average
percent­
difference
between
certification
levels
and
IUVP
data,
or
(
2)
increasing
the
whole
vehicle
miles
driven
or
105
catalyst
aging
time
by
the
average
percent­
difference
between
certification
levels
and
IUVP
data.
Additionally
the
manufacturer
may
obtain
approval
for
a
new
alternative
durability
process
that
has
been
demonstrated
to
meet
the
durability
objective.
If
the
data
set
used
in
the
analysis
contains
less
than
20
pieces
of
data,
the
Administrator
may
reduce
the
degree
of
adjustment
required
to
account
for
uncertainty
in
the
data.

E.
Evaporative
and
refueling
durability
For
reasons
described
in
section
II.
above,
EPA
is
proposing
that
manufacturers
determine
the
evaporative/
refueling
deterioration
using
either
whole
vehicle
durability
or
bench
aging
methods
or
a
combination
of
the
two
methods.

Whole
Vehicle
Evaporative/
Refueling
Durability
EPA
is
proposing
that
manufacturers
may
conduct
evaporative
and/
or
refueling
durability
program
by
running
the
DDV
on
the
SRC
or
an
approved
alternative
road
cycle
and
conducting
the
applicable
test
at
each
testing
point.

Manufacturers
may
combine
exhaust
and
evaporative/
refueling
whole
vehicle
durability
demonstrations.

Bench
Aging
Evaporative/
Refueling
Durability
EPA
is
proposing
that
manufacturers
may
use
bench
procedures
designed,
using
good
engineering
judgement,
to
evaluate
the
following
potential
causes
of
evaporative
emission
deterioration
and
achieve
the
durability
objective:
106
(
1)
Cycling
of
canister
loading
due
to
diurnal
and
refueling
events,

(
2)
Use
of
various
commercially
available
fuels,

including
the
Tier
2
requirement
to
include
alcohol
fuel;

(
3)
Vibration
of
components;

(
4)
Deterioration
of
hoses,
etc.
due
to
environmental
conditions;
and
(
5)
Deterioration
of
fuel
cap
due
to
wear.

EPA
is
also
proposing
that
it
will
allow
manufacturers
to
determine
evaporative
and
refueling
DF's
based
on
good
engineering
judgement
without
prior
EPA
approval.

F.
Effective
date
and
carryover
of
existing
durability
data
1.
Effective
date
Today's
action
is
proposed
to
become
effective
with
the
2006
model
year.
Because
this
is
a
Court­
ordered
action,
we
believe
that
the
rule
should
take
effect
in
the
shortest
amount
of
time
possible
that
provides
manufacturers
with
enough
lead
time
to
comply
with
the
new
regulations.
We
considered
proposing
a
2005
model
year
effective
date,
but
we
anticipate
that
the
final
rule
will
not
be
promulgated
until
March,
2004.
By
that
time,
many,
if
not
all
manufacturers
will
have
completed
the
durability
demonstration
phase
of
their
certification
process
for
the
2005
model
year
(
which
traditionally
is
launched
in
Fall
of
the
previous
calendar
year).
Thus,
a
2005
model
year
107
effective
date
would
not
provide
manufacturers
with
enough
lead
time
to
complete
their
durability
demonstrations.

Therefore,
we
are
proposing
the
2006
model
year
effective
date
which
we
believe
provides
adequate
lead
time
for
manufacturers
to
comply
with
today's
proposed
regulations.

2.
Carrying­
over
durability
data
EPA
is
not
proposing
any
changes
to
the
carryover
provisions
in
the
current
regulations
(
ref.
40
CFR
86.1839­

01).
These
provisions
allow
manufacturers
to
use
durability
data
that
was
previously
generated
and
used
to
support
certification
provided
that
the
data
"
represent
a
worst
case
or
equivalent
rate
of
deterioration".
After
the
2005
model
year,
if
a
manufacturer
can
meet
these
requirements,
it
may
use
existing
durability
data
(
i.
e.,
DFs
or
aged
hardware)

that
were
approved
prior
to
the
vacature
of
the
CAP
2000
regulations.
Approved
carry­
over
durability
data
may
be
used
to
support
certification
under
the
proposed
rules.

EPA
is
proposing
that
the
manufacturer
may
not,

however,
continue
to
use
CAP
2000
durability
processes
to
generate
new
data
starting
with
the
2006
model
year.
When
the
proposed
rule
becomes
effective
in
the
2006
model
year,

manufacturers
must
use
durability
procedures
that
have
been
approved
under
the
new
rules
to
generate
new
durability
demonstrations.

G.
Miscellaneous
regulatory
amendments
and
corrections
1.
With
the
addition
of
the
new
durability
regulations
108
(
sections
86.1823­
06,
86.1824­
06,
and
86.1825­
06),
the
regulatory
references
in
a
number
of
other
sections
of
Subpart
S
of
Part
86
have
been
updated
accordingly.

2.
Section
1864
of
Subpart
S
is
being
moved
to
section
1801.
This
section
describes
the
applicability
of
Subpart
S
to
heavy­
duty
vehicles,
and
is
more
appropriately
located
in
the
Applicability
section
of
the
regulations.

3.
An
outdated
address
in
section
1817­
05
has
been
corrected.

4.
A
typographical
error
in
section
1830­
01(
c)
has
been
corrected.

5.
Section
86.1824­
07
was
originally
promulgated
to
add
the
applicability
to
2007
model
year
and
later
MDPVs
and
HDVs.
To
improve
readability,
this
applicability
has
been
incorporated
into
86.1824­
06,
and
the
original
section
is
reserved.

6.
Two
corrections
are
being
made
to
Section
86.1806­
05,

on­
board
diagnostics.
First,
in
a
previous
regulatory
action,
this
section
was
amended
to
add
provisions
for
diesel
vehicles
and
HDVs
and
MDPVs.
In
doing
this,
an
inadvertent
error
was
made
in
paragraph
(
a)(
3).
The
provision
allowing
compliance
with
86.004­
17,
in
lieu
of
1806­
05,
should
be
limited
to
apply
only
to
MDPVs
and
HDVs.

The
language
has
been
revised
accordingly.
Second,
in
the
original
CAP
2000
regulation,
there
is
an
incorrect
109
reference
to
section
86.094­
17(
e)
and
(
f).
The
correct
reference
is
1806­
05(
e)
and
(
f).

IV.
What
are
the
economic
and
environmental
impacts?

A.
Economic
impacts
1.
Comparison
to
CAP
2000
economic
impacts.

In
considering
the
economic
and
environmental
impacts
of
today's
proposal,
we
used
the
CAP
2000
regulations
as
a
comparison
benchmark.
In
those
regulations,
EPA
estimated
that
there
would
be
an
average
annual
net
savings
to
the
automotive
industry
of
about
$
55
million.
The
analysis
performed
to
reach
that
conclusion
was
part
of
the
record
for
the
CAP
2000
regulation,
and
was
not
contested.

As
we
drafted
today's
proposal,
one
of
our
goals
was
to
retain
those
savings.
In
the
CAP
2000
cost
analysis,
about
half
of
the
total
estimated
annual
savings
was
attributed
to
the
durability
component
of
the
regulations.
The
elements
of
CAP
2000
durability
which
provided
the
most
significant
savings
are:

a.
Reduced
number
of
durability
data
vehicles
(
DDVs).

The
creation
of
the
"
durability
group"
under
CAP
2000
allowed
manufacturers
to
significantly
reduce
the
number
of
required
durability
demonstrations.
The
savings
that
are
claimed
in
the
CAP
2000
rule
resulting
from
the
"
durability
group"
provision
come
from
requiring
physically
fewer
DDVs,

fewer
durability
tests,
and
less
reporting
(
e.
g.
instead
of
having
to
report
912
durability
tests,
there
would
only
be
110
620
tests).
The
"
durability
group"
concept
was
not
part
of
the
Ethyl
v.
EPA
litigation,
nor
was
it
mentioned
in
the
Court's
opinion
on
this
case.
Thus
EPA
is
not
modifying
the
"
durability
group"
regulations
in
today's
proposal.

In
fact,
it
is
possible
that
today's
proposal
could
actually
slightly
reduce
some
costs
to
the
industry,
in
that
manufacturers
using
one
of
the
EPA­
prescribed
durability
processes
(
either
whole­
vehicle
or
bench)
would
no
longer
have
to
provide
a
description
of
their
durability
process
(
which
was
required
under
CAP
2000,
and
would
continue
to
be
required
for
manufacturers
using
customized
procedures
under
today's
proposal).

b.
Reduced
burden­
hours
per
DDV.
In
addition
to
fewer
DDVs,
EPA
also
slightly
reduced
the
estimated
number
of
burden­
hours
required
per
DDV.
As
above,
this
element
was
not
affected
by
the
Court
mandate,
and
is
not
impacted
by
today's
proposal.

2.
Economic
impact
of
today's
rule
Today's
proposal
prescribes
two
methods
for
determining
the
emission
deterioration
of
vehicles
over
their
useful
life
periods
­
the
whole­
vehicle
procedure
or
the
benchaging
procedure.
Details
of
how
to
perform
these
procedures
are
prescribed
in
the
proposed
regulations.
Because
these
procedures
are
similar
in
nature
to
those
approved
by
EPA
under
the
CAP
2000
regulations,
the
added
burden
for
55
Added
burden
will
be
in
the
form
of
the
one­
time
reprogramming
of
automated
driving
or
bench­
aging
devices
with
the
new
driving/
aging
cycle,
and
other
minor
equipment
adjustments.

111
manufacturers
utilizing
them
will
be
minimal.
55
The
costs
involved
with
either
of
these
processes
(
equipment
costs,

vehicle
costs,
testing
costs,
labor
costs,
etc.)
are
fairly
fixed.
Manufacturers
using
one
of
the
prescribed
methods
will
not
be
required
to
make
major
changes
to
or
add
any
new
equipment,
test
any
additional
vehicles
with
any
additional
frequency,
or
to
increase
the
amount
of
labor.
We
expect
that
manufacturers
who,
under
the
old
CAP
2000
regulations,

used
a
bench
aging
(
or
whole­
vehicle)
process
will
continue
to
use
a
bench
aging
(
or
whole­
vehicle)
process
­
the
only
difference
is
that
now
that
process
is
codified.

Our
proposed
regulations
also
include
the
option
for
manufacturers
to
use
customized
or
alternative
procedures,

with
EPA
approval.
The
approval
requires
the
manufacturer
to
submit
an
analysis
of
about
20
in­
use
emission
tests.
Most
manufacturers
will
be
able
to
utilize
in­
use
data
and
analyses
that
they
have
previously
collected
from
other
sources
(
such
as
the
CAP
2000
in­
use
verification
data).

Some
manufacturers
may
need
to
augment
this
data
by
running
a
few
additional
tests,
but
this
would
be
a
small,
one­
time
cost.
EPA
estimates
that
this
small
added
cost
is
more
than
offset
by
fact
that
once
approved,
manufacturers
will
be
able
to
use
their
existing
durability
programs
without
the
need
to
make
any
changes
to
those
programs.
112
B.
Environmental
impacts
In
the
CAP
2000
rule,
no
quantifiable
environmental
benefits
were
projected.
Intangible
benefits
were
possible
due
to
the
In­
Use
Verification
Program
(
IUVP)
element
of
the
CAP
2000
rule
­
manufacturers
would
be
able
to
use
the
inuse
data
from
this
program
to
identify
and
fix
in­
use
compliance
problems
and
to
make
improvements
upon
their
certification
durability
processes.
This
intangible
benefit
is
not
changed
in
today's
proposal
­
the
in­
use
verification
program
is
not
affected
by
the
Court
mandate,
and
no
changes
to
this
program
are
being
proposed.
EPA
is
proposing
to
modify
an
existing
CAP
2000
provision
whereby
manufacturers
utilize
the
IUVP
data
to
assess
the
ability
of
the
durability
program
to
predict
in­
use
compliance.
The
modification
includes
more
explicit
instructions
as
to
what
the
manufacturer
is
required
to
assess
and
when
corrective
action
is
required
(
see
section
III
C.).
This
proposed
provision
will
have
the
effect
of
improving
the
predictive
qualities
of
the
durability
process,
but
again,
with
intangible
environmental
benefits.

V.
What
are
the
opportunities
for
public
participation?

A.
Copies
of
this
proposal
and
other
related
information.

1.
Docket
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2002­
0079.
The
official
113
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
by
referencing
Docket
No.
OAR­

2002­
0079
at
the
EPA
Air
Docket
Section,(
see
"
ADDRESSES"

section
above).
You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier
as
described
below.

To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.

Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
"
late."
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.
If
you
wish
to
submit
CBI
or
information
that
is
otherwise
protected
by
statute,
please
follow
the
instructions
in
Section
V.
B.
3
Do
not
use
EPA
Dockets
or
email
to
submit
CBI
or
information
protected
by
statute.

2.
Electronic
Access
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
"
Federal
Register"
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.

An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
114
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,

EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.

Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
the
EPA
Dockets.
Information
claimed
as
CBI
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed,
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
To
the
extent
feasible,
publicly
available
docket
materials
will
be
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
When
a
document
is
selected
from
the
index
list
in
EPA
Dockets,
the
system
will
identify
whether
the
document
is
available
for
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.

Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
EPA
intends
to
work
towards
providing
electronic
access
to
all
of
the
publicly
available
115
docket
materials
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.

For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
in
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.

Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
Docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,

physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.

B.
Submitting
Comments
on
This
Proposal
You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
by
facsimile,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
116
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
"
late."
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.

1.
Electronically
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
e­
mail
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit,
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
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.

a.
EPA
Dockets
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
117
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
To
access
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
from
the
EPA
Internet
Home
Page,

select
"
Information
Sources,"
"
Dockets,"
and
"
EPA
Dockets."

Once
in
the
system,
select
"
Quick
Search,"
and
then
key
in
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2002­
0079
The
system
is
an
"
anonymous
access"
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,

e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.

b.
E­
mail.
Comments
may
be
sent
by
electronic
mail
to
hormes.
linda@
epa.
gov,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2002­
0079.

In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
is
not
an
"
anonymous
access"
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
Docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.

c.
Disk
or
CD
ROM.

You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
mailing
address
identified
in
section
I.
C.
2.

These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
WordPerfect
118
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.

2.
By
Mail
Send
your
comments
to:
Air
Docket,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Mailcode:
6102T,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,

NW,
Washington,
DC,
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.

OAR­
2002­
0079.

3.
By
Hand
Delivery
or
Courier
Deliver
your
comments
to:
EPA
Docket
Center,
(
EPA/
DC)

EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,

DC.,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2002­
0079.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket's
normal
hours
of
operation
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.

4.
By
Facsimile
Fax
your
comments
to:
(
202)
566­
1741,
Attention
Docket
ID.
No.
OAR­
2002­
0079.

5.
Submitting
comments
with
proprietary
information
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
helps
insure
that
proprietary
119
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.

C.
Areas
where
EPA
specifically
requests
public
comment
As
discussed
in
the
previous
section,
the
public
is
invited
to
comment
on
any
aspect
of
this
proposed
rule.
The
following
are
areas
where
EPA
is
specifically
requesting
comments:

8.
Whether
the
"
equivalency
factor"
is
properly
classified
by
EPA
as
not
CBI.

9.
What
data
provided
by
a
manufacturer
to
obtain
approval
for
an
alternative
cycle
should
or
should
not
be
classified
as
CBI.

10.
The
appropriateness
of
the
proposed
durability
objective
(
effective
coverage
of
approximately
90
percent
of
the
distribution
of
emission
deterioration
rate
on
in­
use
candidate
vehicles).
EPA
would
120
appreciate
any
data
showing
the
degree
of
coverage
for
durability
programs
approved
under
CAP
2000.

11.
Whether
the
Standard
Road
Cycle
(
SRC)
achieves
EPA's
durability
objective.
EPA
would
appreciate
any
emission
and/
or
catalyst
temperature
data
that
demonstrates
how
the
SRC
compares
to
other
cycles.

12.
EPA
is
interested
in
receiving
any
catalyst
temperature
or
emission
data
that
exists
on
the
SRC
or
other
mileage
accumulation
road
cycles.

13.
The
appropriateness
of
the
Standard
Bench
Cycle
(
SBC).

EPA
would
appreciate
any
catalyst
temperature
data
and
percent
break­
down
of
rich­
lean­
stoichiometric
A/
F
ratios
that
support
the
comments.

14.
The
appropriateness
of
the
Bench
Aging
Time
(
BAT)

equation
(
and
its
coefficients)
for
a
manufacturers
product
line.
EPA
would
appreciate
catalyst
temperature
data
paired
with
calculated
aging
times
that
support
the
comments.

15.
The
appropriateness
of
the
customization
options
and
the
approval
process
proposed.

16.
The
ability
of
outside
parties
to
use
the
equivalency
factor
to
replicate
the
durability
rates
used
by
manufacturers
during
certification.

17.
The
appropriateness
of
the
IUVP
data
feedback
provision
of
the
proposal
to
accomplish
the
Agency's
objective
to
assure
accurate
durability
processes.
EPA
would
121
appreciate
any
analysis
of
in­
use
data
under
the
proposed
procedures
that
supports
the
comments.

D.
Public
Hearing
Anyone
wishing
to
present
testimony
about
this
proposal
at
the
public
hearing
(
see
"
DATES")
should
notify
the
general
contact
person
(
see
"
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT")
no
later
than
five
days
prior
to
the
day
of
the
hearing.
The
contact
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
122
for
30
days
following
the
hearing
to
allow
submission
of
rebuttal
and
supplementary
testimony.
All
such
submissions
should
be
directed
to
the
Air
Docket
Section,
Docket
No.

OAR­
2002­
0079
(
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
canceled.

VI.
What
are
the
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
for
this
Proposed
Rule?

A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735
October
4,

1993),
EPA
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
"
significant"
and
therefore
subject
to
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
review
and
the
requirements
of
this
Executive
Order.
The
Order
defines
a
"
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
123
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.

Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
OMB
has
notified
EPA
that
it
considers
this
a
"
significant
regulatory
action"
within
the
meaning
of
the
Executive
Order.
EPA
has
submitted
this
action
to
OMB
for
review.

Changes
made
in
response
to
OMB
suggestions
or
recommendations
will
be
documented
in
the
public
record.

B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
This
action
does
not
impose
any
new
information
collection
burden
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
However,
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
has
previously
approved
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
the
existing
regulations
(
64
FR
23906)
under
the
provisions
of
124
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
and
has
assigned
OMB
control
number
2060­
0104,
EPA
ICR
number
0783.44.
A
copy
of
the
OMB
approved
Information
Collection
Requests
(
ICR)
may
be
obtained
from
Susan
Auby,
Collection
Strategies
Division;
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822T);
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460
or
by
calling
(
202)
566­
1672.

Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,

or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,

validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.

An
Agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
9
and
48
CFR
Chapter
15.
125
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.

For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
rule
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
a
small
business
that
manufacturers
automobiles
as
defined
by
NAIC
code
336111.
Based
on
Small
Business
Administration
size
standards,
a
small
business
for
this
NAIC
code
is
defined
as
a
manufacturer
having
less
than
1000
employees;
(
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
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
The
requirements
are
only
applicable
to
manufacturers
of
motor
vehicles,
a
group
which
does
not
contain
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Out
126
of
a
total
of
approximately
80
automotive
manufacturers
subject
to
today's
proposal,
EPA
estimates
that
approximately
15­
20
of
these
could
be
classified
as
small
entities
based
on
SBA
size
standards.
EPA's
CAP
2000
compliance
regulations
include
numerous
regulatory
relief
provisions
for
such
small
entities.
Those
provisions
remain
in
effect
and
are
not
impacted
by
today's
proposal.
Thus,

we
have
determined
that
small
entities
will
not
experience
any
economic
impact
as
a
result
of
this
proposal.
We
continue
to
be
interested
in
the
potential
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities
and
welcome
comments
on
issues
related
to
such
impacts.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Pub.
L.
104­
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
action
on
state,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.

Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
proposed
rules
with
"
Federal
mandates"
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
state,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
promulgation
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
127
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
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
proposed
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.

Before
we
establish
any
regulatory
requirement
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,

including
tribal
governments,
we
must
develop,
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA,
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
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.

EPA
believes
this
proposed
rule
contains
no
federal
mandates
for
state,
local,
or
tribal
governments.
Nor
does
this
rule
have
federal
mandates
that
may
result
in
the
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
year
by
the
private
sector
as
defined
by
the
provisions
of
Title
II
of
the
UMRA.
Nothing
in
the
proposed
rule
would
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
128
E.
Executive
Order
13132
(
Federalism)

Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
"
Federalism"
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
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."

This
proposed
rule
will
impose
no
direct
compliance
costs
on
states.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
State
and
local
governments,
EPA
specifically
solicits
comment
on
this
proposed
rule
from
State
and
local
officials.

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
129
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications."
"
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications"
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
"
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
the
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes."

This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications.

It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.

The
requirements
proposed
by
this
action
impact
private
sector
businesses,
particularly
the
automotive
and
engine
manufacturing
industries.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Children's
Health
Protection
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
E.
O.
12866,

and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
130
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,

the
Agency
must
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
the
Agency.

EPA
believes
this
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
Executive
Order
because
it
is
not
an
economically
significant
regulatory
action
as
defined
by
E.
O.
12866.

H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
This
rule
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),
Pub.
L.
104­
113,
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272),
directs
the
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
(
VCS)
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,

sampling
procedures,
business
practices,
etc.)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standard
bodies.
131
The
NTTAA
requires
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,

explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.

This
proposed
rule
does
not
involve
consideration
of
any
new
technical
standards.
The
durability
test
procedures
that
EPA
is
proposing
are
unique
and
have
not
been
previously
published
in
the
public
domain.

List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Part
9
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

40
CFR
Part
86
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Motor
vehicle
pollution,
Confidential
business
information,

Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:
[
insert
signature
date]

Michael
O.
Leavitt
132
For
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
title
40,
chapter
I
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
proposed
to
be
amended
as
follows:

Part
86­­
Control
of
emissions
from
new
and
in­
use
highway
vehicles
and
engines
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
86
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401­
7671q.

Subpart
S­­
General
compliance
provisions
for
control
of
Air
Pollution
from
new
and
in­
use
light­
duty
vehicles,

lightduty
trucks,
and
complete
otto­
cycle
heavy­
duty
vehicles
2.
Amend
§
86.1801­
01
to
add
a
new
paragraph
(
i)
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.1801­
01
Applicability.

*
*
*
*
*

(
i)
Optional
chassis
certification
for
diesel
vehicles.

(
1)
A
manufacturer
may
optionally
certify
2007
and
later
model
year
heavy­
duty
diesel
vehicles
under
14,000
pounds
GVWR
to
the
standards
specified
in
§
86.1816­
08.
Such
vehicles
must
meet
all
requirements
of
Subpart
S
that
are
applicable
to
Otto­
cycle
vehicles,
except
for
evaporative,

refueling,
and
OBD
requirements.

(
2)
Diesel
vehicles
optionally
certified
under
this
section
are
subject
to
the
OBD
requirements
of
§
86.005­
17.
133
(
3)
Diesel
vehicles
optionally
certified
under
this
section
may
be
tested
using
the
test
fuels,
sampling
systems,
or
analytical
systems
specified
for
diesel
engines
in
Subpart
N
of
this
part.

(
4)
Diesel
vehicles
optionally
certified
under
this
section
may
not
be
included
in
any
averaging,
banking,
or
trading
program.

(
5)
The
provisions
of
§
86.004­
40
apply
to
the
engines
in
vehicles
certified
under
this
section.

(
6)
Diesel
vehicles
may
be
certified
under
this
section
to
the
standards
applicable
to
model
year
2008
prior
to
model
year
2008.

(
7)
Diesel
vehicles
optionally
certified
under
this
section
in
model
years
2007,
2008,
or
2009
shall
be
included
in
phase­
in
calculations
specified
in
§
86.007­
11(
g).

3.
Amend
§
86.1803­
01
by
adding
a
new
definition
in
alphabetical
order,
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.1803­
01
Definitions.

*
*
*
*
*

Secondary
air
injection
means
an
system
whereby
air
(
not
ingested
by
the
engine)
is
introduced
into
the
exhaust
system
in
front
of
a
catalyst.

*
*
*
*
*

4.
Amend
§
86.1804­
01
by
adding
new
acronyms
in
134
alphabetical
order,
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.1804­
01
Acronyms
and
abbreviations.

*
*
*
*
*

A/
F
­
Air/
Fuel
*
*
*
*
*

BAT
­
Bench
Aging
Time
*
*
*
*
*

SBC
­
Standard
Bench
Cycle
*
*
*
*
*

SRC
­
Standard
Road
Cycle
*
*
*
*
*

5.
Amend
§
86.1817­
05
by
revising
paragraph
(
i)(
3)(
i)
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.1817­
05
Complete
heavy­
duty
vehicle
averaging,
trading,

and
banking
program.

*
*
*
*
*

(
i)*
*
*

(
3)*
*
*

(
i)
These
reports
shall
be
submitted
within
90
days
of
the
end
of
the
model
year
to:
Director,
Certification
and
Compliance
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,

Mail
Code
6405J,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.
NW
20460.

*
*
*
*
*

6.
Add
a
new
§
86.1823­
06
subpart
S
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.1823­
06
Durability
demonstration
procedures
for
exhaust
135
emissions.

This
section
applies
to
all
vehicles
which
meet
the
applicability
provisions
of
§
86.1801.
Eligible
small
volume
manufacturers
or
small
volume
test
groups
may
optionally
meet
the
requirements
of
§
§
86.1838­
01
and
86.1826­
01
in
lieu
of
the
requirements
of
this
section.
A
separate
durability
demonstration
is
required
for
each
durability
group.

(
a)
Durability
program
objective.
The
durability
program
must
predict
an
expected
in­
use
emission
deterioration
rate
and
emission
level
that
effectively
represents
a
significant
majority
(
approximately
90
percent)

of
the
distribution
of
emission
levels
and
deterioration
in
actual
use
over
the
full
and
intermediate
useful
life
of
candidate
in­
use
vehicles
of
each
vehicle
design
which
uses
the
durability
program.

(
b)
Required
durability
demonstration.
Manufacturers
must
conduct
a
durability
demonstration
for
each
durability
group
using
a
procedure
specified
in
either
paragraph
(
c),

(
d),
or
(
e)
of
this
section.

(
c)
Standard
whole­
vehicle
durability
procedure.
This
procedure
consists
of
conducting
mileage
accumulation
and
periodic
testing
on
the
durability
data
vehicle,
selected
under
the
provisions
of
§
86.1822
as
described
below:

(
1)
Mileage
accumulation
must
be
conducted
using
the
standard
road
cycle
(
SRC).
The
SRC
is
described
in
Appendix
V
of
this
part.
136
(
i)
Mileage
accumulation
on
the
SRC
may
be
conducted
on
a
track
or
on
a
mileage
accumulation
dynamometer.

(
ii)
The
fuel
used
for
mileage
accumulation
must
comply
with
the
mileage
accumulation
fuel
provisions
of
§
86.113
for
the
applicable
fuel
type
(
e.
g.,
gasoline
or
diesel
fuel).

(
iii)
The
DDV
must
be
ballasted
to
a
minimum
of
the
loaded
vehicle
weight
for
light­
duty
vehicles
and
a
minimum
of
the
ALVW
for
all
other
vehicles.

(
iv)
The
mileage
accumulation
dynamometer
must
be
setup
as
follows:

(
A)
The
simulated
test
weight
will
be
the
equivalent
test
weight
specified
in
§
86.129
using
a
weight
basis
of
the
loaded
vehicle
weight
for
light­
duty
vehicles
and
ALVW
for
all
other
vehicles.

(
B)
The
road
force
simulation
will
be
determined
according
to
the
provisions
of
§
86.129.

(
C)
The
manufacturer
will
control
the
vehicle,
engine,

and/
or
dynamometer
as
appropriate
to
follow
the
SRC
using
good
engineering
judgement.

(
2)
Mileage
accumulation
must
be
conducted
for
at
least
75%
of
the
applicable
full
useful
life
mileage
period
specified
in
§
86.1805.
If
the
mileage
accumulation
is
less
than
100%
of
the
full
useful
life
mileage,
then
the
DF
calculated
according
to
the
procedures
of
paragraph
(
f)(
1)(
ii)
of
this
section
must
be
based
upon
a
line
projected
to
the
full­
useful
life
mileage
using
the
upper
80
137
percent
statistical
confidence
limit
calculated
from
the
emission
data.

(
3)
If
a
manufacturer
elects
to
calculate
a
DF
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
f)(
1)
of
this
section,
then
it
must
conduct
at
least
one
FTP
emission
test
at
each
of
five
different
mileage
points
selected
using
good
engineering
judgement.

Additional
testing
may
be
conducted
by
the
manufacturer
using
good
engineering
judgement.
The
required
testing
must
include
testing
at
5,000
miles
and
at
the
highest
mileage
point
run
during
mileage
accumulation
(
e.
g.
the
full
useful
life
mileage).

(
d)
Standard
bench­
aging
durability
procedure.
This
procedure
is
not
applicable
to
diesel
fueled
vehicles
or
vehicles
which
do
not
use
a
catalyst
as
the
principle
aftertreatment
emission
control
device.
This
procedure
requires
installation
of
the
catalyst­
plus­
oxygen­
sensor
system
on
a
catalyst
aging
bench.
Aging
on
the
bench
is
conducted
by
following
the
standard
bench
cycle
(
SBC)
for
the
period
of
time
calculated
from
the
bench
aging
time
(
BAT)
equation.

The
BAT
equation
requires,
as
input,
catalyst
time­

attemperature
data
measured
on
the
SRC.

(
1)
Standard
bench
cycle
(
SBC).
Standard
catalyst
bench
aging
is
conducted
following
the
SBC
(
i)
The
SBC
must
be
run
for
the
period
of
time
calculated
from
the
BAT
equation.

(
ii)
The
SBC
is
described
in
Appendix
VII
to
Part
86.
138
(
2)
Catalyst
time­
at­
temperature
data
(
i)
Catalyst
temperature
must
be
measured
during
at
least
two
full
cycles
of
the
SRC.

(
ii)
Catalyst
temperature
must
be
measured
at
the
highest
temperature
location
in
the
hottest
catalyst
on
the
DDV.

(
iii)
Catalyst
temperature
must
be
measured
at
the
rate
of
one
hertz
(
one
measurement
per
second).

(
iv)
The
measured
catalyst
temperature
results
must
be
tabulated
into
a
histogram
with
temperature
bins
of
no
larger
than
25

C.

(
3)
Bench
aging
time.
Bench
aging
time
is
calculated
using
the
bench
aging
time
(
BAT)
equation
as
follows:

t
e
for
a
temperature
bin
=
t
h
e((
R/
Tr)
­
(
R/
Tv))

Total
t
e
=
Sum
of
t
e
over
all
the
temperature
bins
Bench
Aging
Time
=
A
(
Total
t
e
)

Where:

A
=
1.1
This
value
adjusts
the
catalyst
aging
time
to
account
for
deterioration
from
sources
other
than
thermal
aging
of
the
catalyst.

R
=
Catalyst
thermal
reactivity
coefficient.
For
the
SBC,

R=
17500
for
Tier
2
vehicles
and
R=
18500
for
all
other
vehicles.
139
t
h
=
The
time
(
in
hours)
measured
within
the
prescribed
temperature
bin
of
the
vehicle's
catalyst
temperature
histogram
adjusted
to
a
full
useful
life
basis
E.
g.,
if
the
histogram
represented
400
miles,
and
full
useful
life
was
100,000
miles;
all
histogram
time
entries
would
be
multiplied
by
250
(
100000/
400).

Total
t
e
=
The
equivalent
time
(
in
hours)
to
age
the
catalyst
at
the
temperature
of
T
r
on
the
catalyst
aging
bench
using
the
catalyst
aging
cycle
to
produce
the
same
amount
of
deterioration
experienced
by
the
catalyst
due
to
thermal
deactivation
over
the
vehicle's
full
useful
life.

t
e
for
a
bin
=
The
equivalent
time
(
in
hours)
to
age
the
catalyst
at
the
temperature
of
T
r
on
the
catalyst
aging
bench
using
the
catalyst
aging
cycle
to
produce
the
same
amount
of
deterioration
experienced
by
the
catalyst
due
to
thermal
deactivation
at
the
temperature
bin
of
T
v
over
the
vehicle's
full
useful
life.

T
r
=
The
effective
reference
temperature
(
in

K)
of
the
catalyst
on
the
catalyst
bench.

T
v
=
The
mid­
point
temperature
(
in

K)
of
the
temperature
bin
of
the
vehicle
on­
road
catalyst
temperature
histogram.
140
(
4)
Effective
reference
temperature
on
the
SBC.
The
effective
reference
temperature
of
the
standard
bench
cycle
(
SBC)
is
determined
for
the
actual
catalyst
system
design
and
actual
aging
bench
which
will
be
used
using
the
following
procedures:

(
i)
Measure
time­
at­
temperature
data
in
the
catalyst
system
on
the
catalyst
aging
bench
following
the
SBC.

(
A)
Catalyst
temperature
must
be
measured
at
the
highest
temperature
location
of
the
hottest
catalyst
in
the
system.

(
B)
Catalyst
temperature
must
be
measured
at
the
rate
of
one
hertz
(
one
measurement
per
second)
during
at
least
20
minutes
of
bench
aging.

(
C)
The
measured
catalyst
temperature
results
must
be
tabulated
into
a
histogram
with
temperature
bins
of
no
larger
than
10

C.

(
ii)
The
BAT
equation
must
be
used
to
calculate
the
effective
reference
temperature
by
iterative
changes
to
the
reference
temperature
(
T
r)
until
the
calculated
aging
time
equals
the
actual
time
represented
in
the
catalyst
temperature
histogram.
The
resulting
temperature
is
the
effective
reference
temperature
on
the
SBC
for
that
catalyst
system
and
aging
bench.

(
5)
Catalyst
Aging
Bench.
The
manufacturer
must
design,
using
good
engineering
judgement,
a
catalyst
aging
bench
that
follows
the
SBC
and
delivers
the
appropriate
141
exhaust
flow,
exhaust
constituents,
and
exhaust
temperature
to
the
face
of
the
catalyst.

(
i)
A
manufacturer
may
use
the
criteria
and
equipment
discussed
in
Appendix
VIII
to
part
86
to
develop
its
catalyst
aging
bench
without
prior
Agency
approval.
The
manufacturer
may
use
another
design
that
results
in
equivalent
or
superior
results
with
advance
Agency
approval.

(
ii)
All
bench
aging
equipment
and
procedures
must
record
appropriate
information
(
such
as
measured
A/
F
ratios
and
time­
at­
temperature
in
the
catalyst)
to
assure
that
sufficient
aging
has
actually
occurred.

(
6)
Required
Testing.
If
a
manufacturer
is
electing
to
calculate
a
DF
(
as
discussed
in
paragraph
(
f)
(
1)
of
this
section),
then
it
must
conduct
at
least
two
FTP
emissions
tests
on
the
DDV
before
bench
aging
of
emission
control
hardware
and
at
least
two
FTP
emission
tests
on
the
DDV
after
the
bench­
aged
emission
hardware
is
re­
installed.

Additional
testing
may
be
conducted
by
the
manufacturer
using
good
engineering
judgement.

(
e)
Additional
durability
procedures.

(
1)
Whole
vehicle
durability
procedures.
A
manufacturer
may
use
either
a
customized
SRC
or
an
alternative
road
cycle
for
the
required
durability
demonstration,
with
prior
EPA
approval.

(
i)
Customized
SRC.
A
customized
SRC
is
the
SRC
run
for
a
different
number
of
miles
and/
or
using
a
different
142
mileage
accumulation
fuel
with
higher
levels
of
certain
compounds
that
may
lead
to
catalyst
poisoning,
such
as
phosphorus,
sulfur
and
lead,
than
specified
in
paragraph
(
c)(
1)(
ii)
of
this
section.

(
ii)
Alternative
Road
Cycle.
An
alternative
cycle
is
a
whole
vehicle
mileage
accumulation
cycle
that
uses
a
different
speed­
versus­
time
trace
than
the
SRC,
conducted
for
either
the
full
useful
life
mileage
or
for
less
than
full
useful
life
mileage.
An
alternative
road
cycle
may
also
include
the
use
of
fuel
with
higher
levels
of
certain
compounds
that
may
lead
to
catalyst
poisoning,
such
as
phosphorus,
sulfur
and
lead,
than
specified
in
paragraph
(
c)(
1)(
ii)
of
this
section.

(
iii)
Approval
Criteria.
The
manufacturer
must
obtain
approval
from
EPA
prior
to
using
a
customized/
alternative
road
cycle.
EPA
may
approve
a
customized/
alternative
cycle
when
the
manufacturer
demonstrates
that
the
cycle
is
expected
to
achieve
the
durability
program
objective
of
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
for
the
breadth
of
vehicles
using
the
customized/
alternative
cycle.
To
obtain
approval
the
manufacturer
must
submit
all
the
following
information
and
perform
all
the
following
analyses:

(
A)
The
manufacturer
must
supply
in­
use
FTP
emission
data
on
past
model
year
vehicles
which
are
applicable
to
the
vehicle
designs
it
intends
to
cover
with
the
customized/
alternative
cycle.
143
(
1)
The
amount
of
in­
use
emission
data
required
to
demonstrate
the
effectiveness
of
a
customized/
alternative
cycle
in
meeting
the
durability
objective
is
based
on
whether
the
customized/
alternative
cycle
is
more
or
less
severe
than
the
SRC.
In
most
cases,
EPA
will
accept
a
minimum
of
20
candidate
in­
use
vehicles
tested
as­
received
on
the
FTP
cycle.
If
the
customized/
alternative
cycle
is
significantly
more
severe
than
the
SRC,
EPA
may
accept
less
data.
Conversely,
if
the
customized/
alternative
cycle
is
significantly
less
severe
than
the
SRC,
EPA
may
require
more
data,
up
to
a
maximum
of
30
vehicles.

(
2)
This
data
set
must
consist
of
randomly
procured
vehicles
from
actual
customer
use.
The
vehicles
selected
for
procurement
will
cover
the
breadth
of
the
vehicles
that
the
manufacturer
intends
to
certify
using
the
customized/
alternative
cycle.
Vehicles
should
be
procured
and
FTP
tested
in
as­
received
condition
under
the
guidelines
of
the
high
mileage
IUVP
program
(
ref:
40
CFR
86.1845­
04).

(
3)
Manufacturers
may
use
previously
generated
in­
use
data
from
the
CAP
2000
IUVP
or
the
RDP
"
reality
check"

inuse
program
as
well
as
other
sources
of
in­
use
emissions
data
for
approval
under
this
section.

(
4)
Manufacturers
must
remove
unrepresentative
data
from
the
data
set
using
good
engineering
judgement.
The
manufacturer
must
provide
EPA
with
the
data
removed
from
the
analysis
and
a
justification
for
the
removal
of
that
data.
144
(
5)
Manufacturers
may
supply
additional
in­
use
data.

(
B)
The
manufacturer
must
submit
an
analysis
which
includes
a
comparison
of
the
relative
stringency
of
the
customized/
alternative
cycle
to
the
SRC
and
a
calculated
equivalency
factor
for
the
cycle.

(
1)
The
equivalency
factor
may
be
determined
by
an
evaluation
of
the
SRC
and
the
customized/
alternative
cycle
using
catalyst
time­
at­
temperature
data
from
both
cycles
and
the
BAT
equation
to
calculate
the
required
bench
aging
time
of
each
cycle.
The
equivalency
factor
is
the
ratio
of
the
aging
time
on
the
alternative
cycle
divided
by
the
aging
time
on
the
SRC.

(
2)
If
emissions
data
is
available
from
the
SRC,
as
well
as
time­
at­
temperature
data,
then
that
emissions
information
may
be
included
in
the
evaluation
of
the
relative
stringency
of
the
two
cycles
and
the
development
of
the
equivalency
factor.

(
3)
A
separate
equivalency
factor
may
be
determined
for
each
test
group,
or
test
groups
may
be
combined
together
(
using
good
engineering
judgement)
to
calculate
a
single
equivalency
factor.

(
C)
The
manufacturer
must
submit
an
analysis
which
evaluates
whether
the
durability
objective
will
be
achieved
for
the
vehicle
designs
which
will
be
certified
using
the
customized/
alternative
cycle.
The
analysis
must
address
of
the
following
elements:
145
(
1)
How
the
durability
objective
has
been
achieved
using
the
data
submitted
in
paragraph
(
e)(
1)(
iii)(
A)
of
this
section.

(
2)
How
the
durability
objective
will
be
achieved
for
the
vehicle
designs
which
will
be
covered
by
the
customized/
alternative
cycle.
This
analysis
should
consider
the
emissions
deterioration
impact
of
the
design
differences
between
the
vehicles
included
in
the
data
set
required
in
(
e)(
1)(
iii)(
A)
of
this
section
and
the
vehicle
designs
that
the
manufacturer
intends
to
certify
using
the
customized/
alternative
cycle.

(
2)
Bench­
aging
durability
procedures.
A
manufacturer
may
use
a
customized
or
alternative
bench
aging
durability
procedure
for
a
required
durability
demonstration,
if
approved
as
described
in
paragraphs
(
e)(
2)(
i)
through
(
vii)

of
this
sectiion.
A
customized/
alternative
bench
aging
procedure
must
use
vehicle
performance
data
(
such
as
catalyst
temperature)
measured
on
an
approved
road
cycle
as
part
of
the
algorithm
to
calculate
bench
aging
time.
The
manufacturer
must
obtain
approval
from
the
Agency
prior
to
using
a
customized
bench
durability
procedure.

(
i)
The
lower
control
temperature
on
the
SBC
may
be
modified
without
prior
EPA
approval
provided
that
the
high
control
temperature
is
set
90

C
above
the
lower
control
temperature
and
an
approved
BAT
equation
is
used
to
calculate
bench
aging
time.
146
(
ii)
The
R­
factor
used
in
EPA's
BAT
equation
may
be
determined
experimentally
using
EPA's
standard
procedures
(
specified
in
Appendix
IX
of
this
part)
without
prior
EPA
approval.
Other
experimental
techniques
to
calculate
the
Rfactor
require
advance
EPA
approval.
To
obtain
approval,
the
manufacturer
must
demonstrate
that
the
calculated
bench
aging
time
results
in
the
same
(
or
larger)
amount
of
emission
deterioration
as
the
associated
approved
road
cycle.

(
iii)
The
A­
factor
used
in
EPA's
BAT
equation
may
be
modified,
using
good
engineering
judgement
without
prior
EPA
approval,
to
ensure
that
the
modified
durability
process
will
achieve
the
durability
objective
of
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section.

(
iv)
Bench
aging
may
be
conducted
using
fuel
with
additional
compounds
that
may
lead
to
catalyst
poisoning,

such
as
phosphorus,
sulfur
or
lead,
without
prior
EPA
approval.
A
manufacturer
using
fuel
with
these
additional
compounds
may
either
calculate
a
new
R­
factor
or
A­
factor
to
assure
that
the
durability
objective
of
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
is
properly
achieved
regardless
of
the
use
of
worst­
case
fuel
usage,
in
which
case
the
approval
criteria
for
those
changes
would
apply.

(
v)
An
approved
customized/
alternative
road
cycle
may
be
used
to
develop
catalyst
temperature
histograms
for
use
in
the
BAT
equation
without
additional
EPA
approval
beyond
147
the
original
approval
necessary
to
use
that
cycle
for
mileage
accumulation.

(
vi)
A
different
bench
cycle
than
the
SBC
may
be
used
during
bench
aging
with
prior
EPA
approval.
To
obtain
approval
the
manufacturer
must
demonstrate
that
bench
aging
with
the
new
bench
cycle
provides
the
same
or
larger
amount
of
emission
deterioration
as
the
associated
approved
road
cycle.

(
vii)
A
different
method
to
calculate
bench
aging
time
may
be
used
with
prior
EPA
approval.
To
obtain
approval
the
manufacturer
must
demonstrate
that
bench
aging
for
the
time
calculated
by
the
alternative
method
results
in
the
same
or
larger
amount
of
emission
deterioration
as
the
associated
approved
road
cycle.

(
f)
Use
of
deterioration
program
to
determine
compliance
with
the
standard.
A
manufacturer
may
select
from
two
methods
for
using
the
results
of
the
deterioration
program
to
determine
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
standards.
Either
a
deterioration
factor
(
DF)
is
calculated
and
applied
to
the
emission
data
vehicle
(
EDV)
emission
results
or
aged
components
are
installed
on
the
EDV
prior
to
emission
testing.

(
1)
Deterioration
factors.

(
i)
Deterioration
factors
are
calculated
using
all
FTP
emission
test
data
generated
during
the
durability
testing
program
except
as
noted:
148
(
A)
Multiple
tests
at
a
given
mileage
point
are
averaged
together
unless
the
same
number
of
tests
are
conducted
at
each
mileage
point.

(
B)
Before
and
after
maintenance
test
results
are
averaged
together.

(
C)
Zero­
mile
test
results
are
excluded
from
the
calculation.

(
D)
Total
hydrocarbon
(
THC)
test
points
beyond
the
50,000­
mile
(
useful
life)
test
point
are
excluded
from
the
intermediate
useful
life
deterioration
factor
calculation.

(
E)
A
procedure
may
be
employed
to
identify
and
remove
from
the
DF
calculation
those
test
results
determined
to
be
statistical
outliers
providing
that
the
outlier
procedure
is
consistently
applied
to
all
vehicles
and
data
points
and
is
approved
in
advance
by
the
Administrator.

(
ii)
The
deterioration
factor
must
be
based
on
a
linear
regression,
or
another
regression
technique
approved
in
advance
by
the
Administrator.
The
deterioration
must
be
a
multiplicative
or
additive
factor.
Separate
factors
will
be
calculated
for
each
regulated
emission
constituent
and
for
the
full
and
intermediate
useful
life
periods
as
applicable.

Separate
DF's
are
calculated
for
each
durability
group
except
as
provided
in
§
86.1839.

(
A)
A
multiplicative
DF
will
be
calculated
by
taking
the
ratio
of
the
full
or
intermediate
useful
life
mileage
level,
as
appropriate
(
rounded
to
four
decimal
places),
149
divided
by
the
stabilized
mileage
(
reference
§
86.1831­
01(
c),

e.
g.,
4000­
mile)
level
(
rounded
to
four
decimal
places)
from
the
regression
analysis.
The
result
must
be
rounded
to
three­
decimal
places
of
accuracy.
The
rounding
required
in
this
paragraph
must
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
§
86.1837.
Calculated
DF
values
of
less
than
one
must
be
changed
to
one
for
the
purposes
of
this
paragraph.

(
B)
An
additive
DF
will
be
calculated
to
be
the
difference
between
the
full
or
intermediate
useful
life
mileage
level
(
as
appropriate)
minus
the
stabilized
mileage
(
reference
§
86.1831­
01(
c),
e.
g.
4000­
mile)
level
from
the
regression
analysis.
The
full
useful
life
regressed
emission
value,
the
stabilized
mileage
regressed
emission
value,
and
the
DF
result
must
be
rounded
to
the
same
precision
and
using
the
same
procedures
as
the
raw
emission
results
according
to
the
provisions
of
§
86.1837­
01.
Calculated
DF
values
of
less
than
zero
must
be
changed
to
zero
for
the
purposes
of
this
paragraph.

(
iii)
The
DF
calculated
by
these
procedures
will
be
used
for
determining
full
and
intermediate
useful
life
compliance
with
FTP
exhaust
emission
standards,
SFTP
exhaust
emission
standards,
and
cold
CO
emission
standards.
At
the
manufacturer's
option
and
using
procedures
approved
by
the
Administrator,
a
separate
DF
may
be
calculated
exclusively
using
cold
CO
test
data
to
determine
compliance
with
cold
CO
emission
standards.
Also
at
the
manufacturer's
option
and
150
using
procedures
approved
by
the
Administrator,
a
separate
DF
may
be
calculated
exclusively
using
US06
and/
or
air
conditioning
(
SC03)
test
data
to
determine
compliance
with
the
SFTP
emission
standards.

(
2)
Installation
of
aged
components
on
emission
data
vehicles.
For
full
and
intermediate
useful
life
compliance
determination,
the
manufacturer
may
elect
to
install
aged
components
on
an
EDV
prior
to
emission
testing
rather
than
applying
a
deterioration
factor.
Different
sets
of
components
may
be
aged
for
full
and
intermediate
useful
life
periods.
Components
must
be
aged
using
an
approved
durability
procedure
that
complies
with
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.
The
list
of
components
to
be
aged
and
subsequently
installed
on
the
EDV
must
selected
using
good
engineering
judgement.

(
g)
Emission
component
durability.
The
manufacturer
must
use
good
engineering
judgment
to
determine
that
all
exhaust
emission­
related
components
are
designed
to
operate
properly
for
the
full
useful
life
of
the
vehicles
in
actual
use.

(
h)
Application
of
the
durability
procedure
to
future
durability
groups.
The
manufacturer
may
apply
a
durability
procedure
to
a
durability
group,
including
durability
groups
in
future
model
years,
if
the
durability
process
approved
under
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section
will
achieve
the
objective
of
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
for
that
151
durability
group.
The
manufacturer
must
use
good
engineering
judgment
in
determining
the
applicability
of
an
approved
durability
procedure
to
a
durability
group.

(
1)
The
manufacturer
may
modify
an
approved
durability
procedure
by
increasing
or
decreasing
the
number
of
miles
run
on
an
approved
road
cycle
to
represent
full
or
intermediate
useful
life
emissions
deterioration
or
by
changing
the
A­
Factor
in
the
BAT
equation
for
a
bench
aging,

using
good
engineering
judgment,
to
ensure
that
the
modified
procedure
will
achieve
the
objective
of
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
for
that
durability
group.

(
2)
The
manufacturer
must
notify
the
Administrator
of
its
determination
to
use
an
approved
(
or
modified)

durability
procedure
on
particular
test
groups
and
durability
groups
prior
to
emission
data
vehicle
testing
for
the
affected
test
groups
(
notification
at
an
annual
preview
meeting
scheduled
before
the
manufacturer
begins
certification
activities
for
the
model
year
is
preferred).

(
3)
Prior
to
certification,
the
Administrator
may
reject
the
manufacturer's
determination
in
paragraph
(
h)
of
this
section
to
apply
an
approved
or
modified
durability
procedure
for
a
durability
group
or
test
group
if:

(
i)
it
is
not
made
using
good
engineering
judgment,

(
ii)
it
fails
to
properly
consider
data
collected
under
the
provisions
of
§
§
86.1845­
04,
86.1846­
01,
and
86.1847­
01
or
other
information,
or
152
(
iii)
the
Administrator
determines
that
the
durability
procedure
has
not
been
shown
to
achieve
the
objective
of
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
for
particular
test
groups
which
the
manufacturer
plans
to
cover
with
the
durability
procedure.

(
i)
Evaluation
of
the
certification
durability
procedures
based
on
in­
use
emissions
data.

(
1)
Manufacturers
must
use
the
information
gathered
from
the
IUVP,
as
well
as
other
sources
of
in­
use
emissions
data,
to
periodically
review
whether
the
durability
procedure
it
employs
achieves
the
objective
specified
in
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section.

(
2)
Required
analysis
of
a
manufacturer's
approved
durability
procedures.

(
i)
In
addition
to
any
periodic
reviews
under
paragraph
(
i)(
1)
of
this
section,
a
manufacturer
must
conduct
a
review
of
whether
the
durability
procedure
it
employs
achieves
the
durability
objective
specified
in
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section
when
the
criteria
for
additional
testing
specified
in
§
86.1846
(
b)
are
activated.

(
ii)
These
criteria
are
evaluated
independently
for
all
applicable
FTP
emission
constituents.

(
iii)
This
analysis
must
be
performed
for
each
test
group
certified
by
the
manufacturer.

(
iv)
These
procedures
apply
to
the
EPA
standard
durability
procedures
discussed
in
paragraphs
(
c)
and
(
d)
of
153
this
section
as
well
as
durability
procedures
approved
under
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section,
including
modifications
under
paragraph
(
h)
of
this
section.

(
v)
The
analysis
must
be
submitted
to
EPA
no
later
than
60
days
after
the
submission
of
the
IUVP
data
report
specified
in
§
86.1847
(
f).

(
3)
EPA
may
require
a
manufacturer
to
perform
an
analysis
as
described
in
paragraph
(
i)
(
2)
of
this
section
if
EPA
is
concerned
that
the
manufacturer's
durability
procedure
may
not
achieve
the
durability
objective
of
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section.

(
j)
If,
based
on
the
analysis
required
in
paragraph
(
i)

of
this
section
and/
or
any
other
information,
EPA
determines
that
the
durability
procedure
does
not
achieve
the
durability
objective
of
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section,
EPA
may
withdraw
approval
to
use
the
durability
procedure
or
condition
approval
on
modifications
to
the
durability
procedure.
Such
withdrawal
or
conditional
approval
will
apply
to
future
applications
for
certification
and
to
the
portion
of
the
manufacturer's
product
line
(
or
the
entire
product
line)
that
the
Administrator
determines
to
be
affected.
Prior
to
such
a
withdrawal
the
Administrator
will
give
the
manufacturer
a
preliminary
notice
at
least
60
days
prior
to
the
final
decision.
During
this
period,
the
manufacturer
may
submit
technical
discussion,
statistical
analyses,
additional
data,
or
other
information
which
is
154
relevant
to
the
decision.
The
Administrator
will
consider
all
information
submitted
by
the
deadline
before
reaching
a
final
decision.

(
k)
If
EPA
withdraws
approval,
under
the
provisions
of
paragraph
(
j)
of
this
section,
for
a
durability
procedure
approved
under
the
provisions
of
paragraphs
(
c)
and/
or
(
d)

of
this
section,
the
following
procedures
apply:

(
1)
The
manufacturer
must
select
one
of
the
following
options
for
future
applications
for
certification
for
the
applicable
portion
of
the
manufacturers
product­
line
affect
by
the
Agency's
decision:

(
i)
Increase
future
DFs
calculated
using
the
applicable
durability
process
by
the
average
percent­
difference
between
certification
levels
and
IUVP
data;
or
(
ii)
Increase
the
miles
driven
on
the
SRC
or
the
aging
time
calculated
by
the
BAT
equation
by
the
average
percentdifference
between
certification
levels
and
IUVP
data,
or
(
iii)
The
manufacturer
may
obtain
approval
for
a
new
customized
durability
process,
as
allowed
in
paragraph
(
e)

of
this
section,
that
has
been
demonstrated
to
meet
the
durability
objective.

(
2)
If
EPA's
decision
to
withdraw
approval
under
the
provisions
of
paragraph
(
j)
of
this
section
is
based
on
fewer
than
20
tests,
the
Administrator
may
require
a
smaller
adjustment
than
specified
in
paragraph
(
k)(
1)(
i)
or
(
ii)
of
this
section.
155
(
l)
Any
manufacturer
may
request
a
hearing
on
the
Administrator's
withdrawal
of
approval
in
paragraphs
(
j)
or
(
k)
of
this
section.
The
request
must
be
in
writing
and
must
include
a
statement
specifying
the
manufacturer's
objections
to
the
Administrator's
determinations,
and
data
in
support
of
such
objection.
If,
after
review
of
the
request
and
supporting
data,
the
Administrator
finds
that
the
request
raises
a
substantial
factual
issue,
she/
he
must
provide
the
manufacturer
a
hearing
in
accordance
with
§
86.1853­
01
with
respect
to
such
issue.

7.
A
new
§
86.1824­
06
is
added
to
subpart
S
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.1824­
06
Durability
demonstration
procedures
for
evaporative
emissions.

This
section
applies
to
gasoline­,
methanol­,
liquefied
petroleum
gas­,
and
natural
gas­
fueled
vehicles
which
meet
the
applicability
provisions
of
§
86.1801.
Eligible
small
volume
manufacturers
or
small
volume
test
groups
may
optionally
meet
the
requirements
of
§
§
86.1838­
01
and
86.1826­
01
in
lieu
of
the
requirements
of
this
section.
A
separate
durability
demonstration
is
required
for
each
evaporative/
refueling
family.

(
a)
Durability
program
objective.
The
durability
program
must
predict
an
expected
in­
use
emission
deterioration
rate
and
emission
level
that
effectively
156
represents
a
significant
majority
(
approximately
90
percent)

of
the
distribution
of
emission
levels
and
deterioration
in
actual
use
over
the
full
and
intermediate
useful
life
of
candidate
in­
use
vehicles
of
each
vehicle
design
which
uses
the
durability
program.

(
b)
Required
durability
demonstration.
Manufacturers
must
conduct
a
durability
demonstration
which
satisfies
the
provisions
of
either
paragraph
(
c),
(
d),
or
(
e)
of
this
section.

(
c)
Whole
vehicle
evaporative
durability
demonstration.

(
1)
Mileage
accumulation
must
be
conducted
using
the
SRC
or
any
road
cycle
approved
under
the
provisions
of
§
86.1823(
e)(
1).

(
2)
Mileage
accumulation
must
be
conducted
for
either:

(
i)
The
applicable
full
useful
life
mileage
period
specified
in
§
86.1805,
or
(
ii)
At
least
75
percent
of
the
full
useful
life
mileage.
In
which
case,
the
manufacturer
must
calculate
a
df
calculated
according
to
the
procedures
of
paragraph
(
f)(
1)(
ii)
of
this
section,
except
that
the
DF
must
be
based
upon
a
line
projected
to
the
full­
useful
life
mileage
using
the
upper
80
percent
statistical
confidence
limit
calculated
from
the
emission
data.

(
3)
The
manufacturer
must
conduct
at
least
one
evaporative
emission
test
at
each
of
the
five
different
mileage
points
selected
using
good
engineering
judgement.
157
The
required
testing
must
include
testing
at
5,000
miles
and
at
the
highest
mileage
point
run
during
mileage
accumulation
(
e.
g.
the
full
useful
life
mileage).
Additional
testing
may
be
conducted
by
the
manufacturer
using
good
engineering
judgement.
The
manufacturer
may
select
to
run
either
the
2­

day
and/
or
3­
day
evaporative
test
at
each
test
point
using
good
engineering
judgement.

(
d)
Bench
aging
evaporative
durability
procedures.

Manufacturers
may
use
bench
procedures
designed,
using
good
engineering
judgement,
to
evaluate
the
emission
deterioration
of
evaporative
control
systems.
Manufacturers
may
base
the
bench
procedure
on
an
evaluation
the
following
potential
causes
of
evaporative
emission
deterioration:

(
1)
Cycling
of
canister
loading
due
to
diurnal
and
refueling
events,

(
2)
Use
of
various
commercially
available
fuels,

including
the
Tier
2
requirement
to
include
alcohol
fuel;

(
3)
Vibration
of
components;

(
4)
Deterioration
of
hoses,
etc.
due
to
environmental
conditions;
and
(
5)
Deterioration
of
fuel
cap
due
to
wear.

(
e)
Combined
whole­
vehicle
and
bench­
aging
programs.

Manufacturers
may
combine
the
results
of
whole
vehicle
aging
and
bench
aging
procedures
using
good
engineering
judgement.

(
f)
Fuel
requirements.

(
1)
For
gasoline
fueled
vehicles
certified
to
meet
the
158
evaporative
emission
standards
set
forth
in
§
86.1811­
04(
e)(
1),
any
mileage
accumulation
method
for
evaporative
emissions
must
employ
gasoline
fuel
for
the
entire
mileage
accumulation
period
which
contains
ethanol
in,
at
least,
the
highest
concentration
permissible
in
gasoline
under
federal
law
and
that
is
commercially
available
in
any
state
in
the
United
States.
Unless
otherwise
approved
by
the
Administrator,
the
manufacturer
must
determine
the
appropriate
ethanol
concentration
by
selecting
the
highest
legal
concentration
commercially
available
during
the
calendar
year
before
the
one
in
which
the
manufacturer
begins
its
mileage
accumulation.
The
manufacturer
must
also
provide
information
acceptable
to
the
Administrator
to
indicate
that
the
mileage
accumulation
method
is
of
sufficient
design,
duration
and
severity
to
stabilize
the
permeability
of
all
non­
metallic
fuel
and
evaporative
system
components
to
the
mileage
accumulation
fuel
constituents.

(
2)
For
flexible­
fueled,
dual­
fueled,
multi­
fueled,

ethanol­
fueled
and
methanol­
fueled
vehicles
certified
to
meet
the
evaporative
emission
standards
set
forth
in
§
86.1811­
04(
e)(
1),
any
mileage
accumulation
method
must
employ
fuel
for
the
entire
mileage
accumulation
period
which
the
vehicle
is
designed
to
use
and
which
the
Administrator
determines
will
have
the
greatest
impact
upon
the
permeability
of
evaporative
and
fuel
system
components.
The
159
manufacturer
must
also
provide
information
acceptable
to
the
Administrator
to
indicate
that
the
mileage
accumulation
method
is
of
sufficient
design,
duration
and
severity
to
stabilize
the
permeability
of
all
non­
metallic
fuel
and
evaporative
system
components
to
mileage
accumulation
fuel
constituents.

(
3)
A
manufacturer
may
use
other
methods,
based
upon
good
engineering
judgment,
to
meet
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
f)
(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section,
as
applicable.

These
methods
must
be
approved
in
advance
by
the
Administrator
and
meet
the
objectives
of
paragraphs
(
f)
(
1)

and
(
2)
of
this
section,
as
applicable:
to
provide
assurance
that
the
permeability
of
all
non­
metallic
fuel
and
evaporative
system
components
will
not
lead
to
evaporative
emission
standard
exceedance
under
sustained
exposure
to
commercially
available
alcohol­
containing
fuels
for
the
useful
life
of
the
vehicle.

(
g)
Calculation
of
a
deterioration
factor.
The
manufacturer
must
calculate
a
deterioration
factor
which
is
applied
to
the
evaporative
emission
results
of
the
emission
data
vehicles.
The
deterioration
factor
must
be
based
on
a
linear
regression,
or
an
other
regression
technique
approved
in
advance
by
the
Administrator.
The
DF
will
be
calculated
to
be
the
difference
between
the
full
life
mileage
evaporative
level
minus
the
stabilized
mileage
(
e.
g.,

4000­
mile)
evaporative
level
from
the
regression
analysis.
160
The
full
useful
life
regressed
emission
value,
the
stabilized
mileage
regressed
emission
value,
and
the
DF
result
must
be
rounded
to
the
same
precision
and
using
the
same
procedures
as
the
raw
emission
results
according
to
the
provisions
of
§
86.1837­
01.
Calculated
DF
values
of
less
than
zero
must
be
changed
to
zero
for
the
purposes
of
this
paragraph.

(
h)
Emission
component
durability.
The
manufacturer
must
use
good
engineering
judgment
to
determine
that
all
evaporative
emission­
related
components
are
designed
to
operate
properly
for
the
full
useful
life
of
the
vehicles
in
actual
use.

(
i)
If
EPA
determines
based
on
IUVP
data
or
other
information
that
the
durability
procedure
does
not
achieve
the
durability
objective
of
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section,

EPA
may
withdraw
approval
to
use
the
durability
procedure
or
condition
approval
on
modifications
to
the
durability
procedure.
Such
withdrawal
or
conditional
approval
will
apply
to
future
applications
for
certification
and
to
the
portion
of
the
manufacturer's
product
line
(
or
the
entire
product
line)
that
the
Administrator
determines
to
be
affected.
Prior
to
such
a
withdrawal
the
Administrator
will
give
the
manufacturer
a
preliminary
notice
at
least
60
days
prior
to
the
final
decision.
During
this
period,
the
manufacturer
may
submit
technical
discussion,
statistical
analyses,
additional
data,
or
other
information
which
is
161
relevant
to
the
decision.
The
Administrator
will
consider
all
information
submitted
by
the
deadline
before
reaching
a
final
decision.

(
j)
Any
manufacturer
may
request
a
hearing
on
the
Administrator's
withdrawal
of
approval
in
paragraph
(
i)
of
this
section.
The
request
must
be
in
writing
and
must
include
a
statement
specifying
the
manufacturer's
objections
to
the
Administrator's
determinations,
and
data
in
support
of
such
objection.
If,
after
review
of
the
request
and
supporting
data,
the
Administrator
finds
that
the
request
raises
a
substantial
factual
issue,
she/
he
must
provide
the
manufacturer
a
hearing
in
accordance
with
§
86.1853­
01
with
respect
to
such
issue.

8.
Remove
§
86.1824­
07.

§
86.1824­
07
[
Removed]

9.
Add
a
new
§
86.1825­
06
to
Subpart
S
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.1825­
06
Durability
demonstration
procedures
for
refueling
emissions.

This
section
applies
to
light­
duty
vehicles,
light­
duty
trucks,
and
heavy­
duty
vehicles
which
are
certified
under
light­
duty
rules
as
allowed
under
the
provisions
of
§
86.1801­
01(
c)(
1)
which
are
subject
to
refueling
loss
emission
compliance.
Refer
to
the
provisions
of
§
§
86.1811,

86.1812,
86.1813,
86.1814,
and
86.1815
to
determine
162
applicability
of
the
refueling
standards
to
different
classes
of
vehicles
for
various
model
years.
Diesel
fuel
vehicles
may
qualify
for
an
exemption
to
the
requirements
of
this
section
under
the
provisions
of
§
86.1810.

(
a)
Durability
program
objective.
The
durability
program
must
predict
an
expected
in­
use
emission
deterioration
rate
and
emission
level
that
effectively
represents
a
significant
majority
(
approximately
90
percent)

of
the
distribution
of
emission
levels
and
deterioration
in
actual
use
over
the
full
and
intermediate
useful
life
of
candidate
in­
use
vehicles
of
each
vehicle
design
which
uses
the
durability
program.

(
b)
Required
durability
demonstration.
Manufacturers
must
conduct
a
durability
demonstration
which
satisfies
the
provisions
of
either
paragraph
(
c),
(
d),
or
(
e)
of
this
section.

(
c)
Whole
vehicle
refueling
durability
demonstration.

The
following
procedures
must
be
used
when
conducting
a
whole
vehicle
durability
demonstration:

(
1)
Mileage
accumulation
must
be
conducted
using
the
SRC
or
a
road
cycle
approved
under
the
provisions
of
§
86.1823(
e)(
1).

(
2)
Mileage
accumulation
must
be
conducted
for
either:

(
i)
The
applicable
full
useful
life
mileage
period
specified
in
§
86.1805,
or
(
ii)
At
least
75
percent
of
the
full
useful
life
163
mileage.
In
which
case,
the
manufacturer
must
calculate
a
df
calculated
according
to
the
procedures
of
paragraph
(
f)

(
1)
(
ii)
of
this
section,
except
that
the
DF
must
be
based
upon
a
line
projected
to
the
full­
useful
life
mileage
using
the
upper
80
percent
statistical
confidence
limit
calculated
from
the
emission
data.

(
3)
The
manufacturer
must
conduct
at
least
one
refueling
emission
test
at
each
of
the
five
different
mileage
points
selected
using
good
engineering
judgement.

The
required
testing
must
include
testing
at
5,000
miles
and
at
the
highest
mileage
point
run
during
mileage
accumulation
(
e.
g.
the
full
useful
life
mileage).
Additional
testing
may
be
conducted
by
the
manufacturer
using
good
engineering
judgement.

(
d)
Bench
aging
refueling
durability
procedures.

Manufacturers
may
use
bench
procedures
designed,
using
good
engineering
judgement,
to
evaluate
the
emission
deterioration
of
evaporative/
refueling
control
systems.

Manufacturers
may
base
the
bench
procedure
on
an
evaluation
the
following
potential
causes
of
evaporative/
refueling
emission
deterioration:

(
1)
Cycling
of
canister
loading
due
to
diurnal
and
refueling
events;

(
2)
Use
of
various
commercially
available
fuels,

including
the
Tier
2
requirement
to
include
alcohol
fuel;

(
3)
Vibration
of
components;
164
(
4)
Deterioration
of
hoses,
etc.
due
to
environmental
conditions;
and
(
5)
Deterioration
of
fuel
cap
due
to
wear.

(
f)
[
Reserved]

(
g)
Calculation
of
a
deterioration
factor.
The
manufacturer
must
calculate
a
deterioration
factor
which
is
applied
to
the
evaporative
emission
results
of
the
emission
data
vehicles.
The
deterioration
factor
must
be
based
on
a
linear
regression,
or
an
other
regression
technique
approved
in
advance
by
the
Administrator.
The
DF
will
be
calculated
to
be
the
difference
between
the
full
life
mileage
evaporative
level
minus
the
stabilized
mileage
(
e.
g.,

4000­
mile)
evaporative
level
from
the
regression
analysis.

The
full
useful
life
regressed
emission
value,
the
stabilized
mileage
regressed
emission
value,
and
the
DF
result
must
be
rounded
to
the
same
precision
and
using
the
same
procedures
as
the
raw
emission
results
according
to
the
provisions
of
§
86.1837­
01.
Calculated
DF
values
of
less
than
zero
must
be
changed
to
zero
for
the
purposes
of
this
paragraph.

(
h)
Emission
component
durability.
The
manufacturer
must
use
good
engineering
judgment
to
determine
that
all
refueling
emission­
related
components
are
designed
to
operate
properly
for
the
full
useful
life
of
the
vehicles
in
actual
use.

(
i)
If
EPA
determines
based
on
IUVP
data
or
other
165
information
that
the
durability
procedure
does
not
achieve
the
durability
objective
of
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section,

EPA
may
withdraw
approval
to
use
the
durability
procedure
or
condition
approval
on
modifications
to
the
durability
procedure.
Such
withdrawal
or
conditional
approval
will
apply
to
future
applications
for
certification
and
to
the
portion
of
the
manufacturer's
product
line
(
or
the
entire
product
line)
that
the
Administrator
determines
to
be
affected.
Prior
to
such
a
withdrawal
the
Administrator
will
give
the
manufacturer
a
preliminary
notice
at
least
60
days
prior
to
the
final
decision.
During
this
period,
the
manufacturer
may
submit
technical
discussion,
statistical
analyses,
additional
data,
or
other
information
which
is
relevant
to
the
decision.
The
Administrator
will
consider
all
information
submitted
by
the
deadline
before
reaching
a
final
decision.

(
j)
Any
manufacturer
may
request
a
hearing
on
the
Administrator's
withdrawal
of
approval
in
paragraph
(
i)
of
this
section.
The
request
must
be
in
writing
and
must
include
a
statement
specifying
the
manufacturer's
objections
to
the
Administrator's
determinations,
and
data
in
support
of
such
objection.
If,
after
review
of
the
request
and
supporting
data,
the
Administrator
finds
that
the
request
raises
a
substantial
factual
issue,
she/
he
must
provide
the
manufacturer
a
hearing
in
accordance
with
§
86.1853­
01
with
respect
to
such
issue.
166
10.
Amend
§
86.1826­
01
by
revising
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)(
3)(
iv)
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.1826­
01
Assigned
deterioration
factors
for
small
volume
manufacturers
and
small
volume
test
groups.

(
a)
Applicability.
This
program
is
an
option
available
to
small
volume
manufacturers
certified
under
the
small
volume
manufacturer
provisions
of
§
86.1838­
01(
b)(
1)
and
small
volume
test
groups
certified
under
the
small
volume
test
group
provisions
of
§
86.1838­
01(
b)(
2).
Manufacturers
may
elect
to
use
these
procedures
in
lieu
of
the
requirements
of
§
§
86.1823,
86.1824,
and
86.1825
of
this
subpart.

*
*
*
*
*

(
b)
*
*
*

(
3)
*
*
*

(
iv)
The
manufacturer
must
develop
either
deterioration
factors
or
aged
components
to
use
on
EDV
testing
by
generating
durability
data
in
accordance
with
§
§
86.1823,

86.1824,
and/
or
86.1825
on
a
minimum
of
25
percent
of
the
manufacturer's
projected
sales
(
based
on
durability
groups)

that
is
equipped
with
unproven
emission
control
systems.

11.
Amend
§
86.1829­
01
by
revising
paragraphs
(
a)(
3)
and
(
d)(
1)
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.1829­
01
Durability
and
emission
testing
requirements;
167
waivers.

(
a)
*
*
*

(
3)
The
DDV
shall
be
tested
and
accumulate
service
mileage
according
to
the
provisions
of
§
§
86.1831­
01,

86.1823,
86.1824
and
86.1825.
Small
volume
manufacturers
and
small
volume
test
groups
may
optionally
meet
the
requirements
of
§
86.1838­
01.

*
*
*
*
*

(
d)(
1)
Beginning
in
the
2004
model
year,
the
exhaust
emissions
must
be
measured
from
all
LDV/
T
exhaust
emission
data
vehicles
tested
in
accordance
with
the
federal
Highway
Fuel
Economy
Test
(
HWFET;
40
CFR
part
600,
subpart
B).
The
oxides
of
nitrogen
emissions
measured
during
such
tests
must
represent
the
full
useful
life
emissions
in
accordance
with
§
86.1823­
06(
f)
and
subsequent
model
year
provisions.
Those
results
are
then
rounded
and
compared
with
the
applicable
emission
standard
in
§
86.1811­
04.
All
data
obtained
from
the
testing
required
under
this
paragraph
(
d)
must
be
reported
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
for
reporting
other
exhaust
emission
data
required
under
this
subpart.

*
*
*
*
*

12.
Amend
§
86.1830­
01
by
revising
paragraph
(
b)(
1),
(
b)(
2),

(
c)(
1),
(
c)(
2),
(
c)(
3)
and
(
c)(
4)
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.1830­
01
Acceptance
of
vehicles
for
emission
testing.

*
*
*
*
*

(
b)
Special
provisions
for
durability
data
vehicles.
168
(
1)
For
DDV's,
the
mileage
at
all
test
points
shall
be
within
250
miles
of
the
scheduled
mileage
point
as
required
under
§
86.1823­
06(
c)(
3).
Manufacturers
may
exceed
the
250
mile
upper
limit
if
there
are
logistical
reasons
for
the
deviation
and
the
manufacturer
determines
that
the
deviation
will
not
affect
the
representativeness
of
the
durability
demonstration.

(
2)
For
DDV's
aged
using
the
standard
or
a
customized/
alternative
whole­
vehicle
cycle,
all
emission­
related
hardware
and
software
must
be
installed
and
operational
during
all
mileage
accumulation
after
the
5000­
mile
test
point.

*
*
*
*
*

(
c)
Special
provisions
for
emission
data
vehicles.
(
1)

All
EDV's
shall
have
at
least
the
minimum
number
of
miles
accumulated
to
achieve
stabilized
emission
results
according
to
the
provisions
of
§
86.1831­
01(
c).

(
2)
Within
a
durability
group,
the
manufacturer
may
alter
any
emission
data
vehicle
(
or
other
vehicles
such
as
current
or
previous
model
year
emission
data
vehicles,

running
change
vehicles,
fuel
economy
data
vehicles,
and
development
vehicles)
in
lieu
of
building
a
new
test
vehicle
providing
that
the
modification
will
not
impact
the
representativeness
of
the
vehicle's
test
results.

Manufacturers
shall
use
good
engineering
judgment
in
making
such
determinations.
Development
vehicles
which
were
used
to
169
develop
the
calibration
selected
for
emission
data
testing
may
not
be
used
as
the
EDV
for
that
configuration.
Vehicles
from
outside
the
durability
group
may
be
altered
with
advance
approval
of
the
Administrator.

(
3)
Components
used
to
reconfigure
EDV's
under
the
provisions
of
paragraph
(
c)(
2)
of
this
section
must
be
appropriately
aged
if
necessary
to
achieve
representative
emission
results.
Manufacturers
must
determine
the
need
for
component
aging
and
the
type
and
amount
of
aging
required
using
good
engineering
judgment.

(
4)
Bench­
aged
hardware
may
be
installed
on
an
EDV
for
emission
testing
as
a
method
of
determining
certification
levels
(
projected
emission
levels
at
full
or
intermediate
useful
life)
using
bench
aging
procedures
under
the
provisions
of
§
86.1823.

13.
Amend
§
86.1831­
01
by
revising
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
b)(
1)
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.1831­
01
Mileage
accumulation
requirements
for
test
vehicles.

(
a)
Durability
Data
Vehicles.
(
1)
The
manufacturer
must
accumulate
mileage
on
DDV's
using
the
procedures
in
§
86.1823.

*
*
*

(
b)
*
*
*

(
1)
The
standard
method
of
mileage
accumulation
for
170
emission
data
vehicles
and
running
change
vehicles
is
mileage
accumulation
using
either
the
Standard
Road
Cycle
specified
in
Appendix
V
to
this
part
or
the
Durability
Driving
Schedule
specified
in
Appendix
IV
to
this
part.

*
*
*
*
*

14.
Amend
§
86.1838­
01
by
revising
paragraph
(
c)(
1)
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.1838­
01
Small
volume
manufacturers
certification
procedures.

*
*
*
*
*

(
c)(
1)
Durability
demonstration.
Use
the
provisions
of
§
86.1826­
01
rather
than
the
requirements
of
§
§
86.1823,

86.1824,
and/
or
86.1825.

*
*
*
*
*

15.
Amend
§
86.1839­
01
by
revising
paragraph
(
b)
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.1839­
01
Carryover
of
certification
data.

*
*
*
*
*

(
b)
In
lieu
of
using
newly
aged
hardware
on
an
EDV
as
allowed
under
the
provisions
of
§
86.1823­
06(
f)(
2),
a
manufacturer
may
use
similar
hardware
aged
for
an
EDV
previously
submitted,
provided
that
the
manufacturer
determines
that
the
previously
aged
hardware
represents
a
worst
case
or
equivalent
rate
of
deterioration
for
all
171
applicable
emission
constituents
for
durability
demonstration.

16.
Amend
§
86.1841­
01
by
revising
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
a)(
2)
and
removing
and
reserving
paragraph
(
a)(
3)
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.1841­
01
Compliance
with
emission
standards
for
the
purpose
of
certification.

(
a)
*
*
*

(
1)
If
the
durability
demonstration
procedure
used
by
the
manufacturer
under
the
provisions
of
§
§
86.1823,
86.1824,

or
86.1825
requires
a
DF
to
be
calculated,
the
DF
shall
be
applied
to
the
official
test
results
determined
in
§
86.1835­
01(
c)
for
each
regulated
emission
constituent
and
for
full
and
intermediate
useful
life,
as
appropriate,
using
the
following
procedures:

*
*
*
*
*

(
2)
If
the
durability
demonstration
procedure
used
by
the
manufacturer
under
the
provisions
of
§
§
86.1823,
86.1824,

or
86.1825,
as
applicable,
requires
testing
of
the
EDV
with
aged
emission
components,
the
official
results
of
that
testing
determined
under
the
provisions
of
§
86.1835­
01(
c)

shall
be
rounded
to
the
same
level
of
precision
as
the
standard
for
each
regulated
constituent
at
full
and
intermediate
useful
life,
as
appropriate.
This
rounded
emission
value
is
the
certification
level
for
that
emission
172
constituent
at
that
useful
life
mileage.

(
3)
[
Reserved]

*
*
*
*
*

17.
Amend
§
86.1844­
01
by
revising
paragraph
(
d)(
4)
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.1844­
01
Information
requirements:
Application
for
certification
and
submittal
of
information
upon
request.

*
*
*
*
*

(
d)
*
*
*

(
4)
Durability
information.

(
i)
A
description
of
the
durability
method
used
to
establish
useful
life
durability,
including
exhaust
and
evaporative/
refueling
emission
deterioration
factors
as
required
in
§
§
86.1823,
86.1824
and
86.1825
when
applicable.

(
ii)
The
equivalency
factor
required
to
be
calculated
in
§
1823­
06(
e)(
iii)(
B),
when
applicable.

*
*
*
*
*

18.
Remove
and
reserve
§
86.1863­
07.

§
86.1863­
07
[
Reserved.]

19.
Add
Appendices
V,
VII,
VIII,
and
IX
to
Part
86
to
read
as
follows:
173
Appendix
V
to
Part
86
­
The
Standard
Road
Cycle
(
SRC)

1.
The
standard
road
cycle
(
SRC)
is
a
mileage
accumulation
cycle
that
may
be
used
for
any
vehicle
which
is
covered
by
the
applicability
provisions
of
§
86.1801.
The
vehicle
may
be
run
on
a
track
or
on
a
mileage
accumulation
dynamometer.

2.
The
cycle
consists
of
7
laps
of
a
3.7
mile
course.
The
length
of
the
lap
may
be
changed
to
accommodate
the
length
of
the
service­
accumulation
track.

Description
of
the
SRC
Typical
Accel
Lap
Description
Rate
(
MPH/
s)

1
(
start
engine)
Idle
10
sec
0
1
Mod
accel
to
30
MPH
4
1
Cruise
at
30
MPH
for
1/
4
lap
0
1
Mod.
decel
to
20
MPH
­
5
1
Mod
accel
to
30
MPH
4
1
Cruise
at
30
MPH
for
1/
4
lap
0
1
Mod.
decel
to
stop
­
5
1
Idle
5
sec
0
1
Mod
accel
to
35
MPH
4
1
Cruise
at
35
MPH
for
1/
4
lap
0
1
Mod.
decel
to
25
MPH
­
5
1
Mod
accel
to
35
MPH
4
1
Cruise
at
35
MPH
for
1/
4
lap
0
1
Mod.
decel
to
stop
­
5
2
Idle
10
sec
0
2
Mod
accel
to
40
MPH
3
2
Cruise
at
40
MPH
for
1/
4
lap
0
2
Mod.
decel
to
30
MPH
­
5
2
Mod
accel
to
40
MPH
3
2
Cruise
at
40
MPH
for
1/
4
lap
0
174
2
Mod.
decel
to
stop
­
5
2
Idle
5
sec
0
2
Mod
accel
to
45
MPH
3
2
Cruise
at
45
MPH
for
1/
4
lap
0
2
Mod.
decel
to
35
MPH
­
5
2
Mod
accel
to
45
MPH
3
2
Cruise
at
45
MPH
for
1/
4
lap
0
2
Mod.
decel
to
stop
­
5
3
Idle
10
sec
0
3
Hard
accel
to
55
MPH
4
3
Cruise
at
55
MPH
for
1/
4
lap
0
3
Mod.
decel
to
45
MPH
­
5
3
Mod
accel
to
55
MPH
2
3
Cruise
at
55
MPH
for
1/
4
lap
0
3
Mod.
decel
to
45
MPH
­
5
3
Mod
accel
to
60
MPH
2
3
Cruise
at
60
MPH
for
1/
4
lap
0
3
Mod.
decel
to
50
MPH
­
5
3
Mod.
accel
to
60
MPH
2
3
Cruise
at
60
MPH
for
1/
4
lap
0
3
Mod.
decel
to
stop
­
4
4
Idle
10
sec
0
4
Hard
accel
to
80
MPH
3
4
Coastdown
to
70
MPH
­
1
4
Cruise
at
70
MPH
for
½
Lap
0
4
Mod.
decel
to
50
MPH
­
3
4
Mod
accel
to
65
MPH
2
4
Cruise
at
65
MPH
for
½
lap
0
4
Mod.
decel
to
50
MPH
­
3
5
Mod
accel
to
75
MPH
1
5
Cruise
at
75
MPH
for
½
lap
0
5
Mod.
decel
to
50
MPH
­
3
5
Lt.
accel
to
70
MPH
1
5
Cruise
at
70
MPH
for
½
lap
0
5
Mod.
decel
50
MPH
­
3
6
Mod
accel
to
70
MPH
2
6
Coastdown
to
60
MPH
­
1
6
Cruise
at
60
MPH
for
½
lap
0
6
Mod.
decel
to
50
MPH
­
4
6
Mod.
accel
to
65
MPH
1
6
Cruise
at
65
MPH
for
½
lap
0
6
Mod.
decel
to
stop
­
4
175
7
Idle
45
sec
0
7
Hard
accel
to
55
MPH
4
7
Cruise
at
55
MPH
for
1/
4
lap
0
7
Mod.
decel
to
40
MPH
­
5
7
Mod
accel
to
55
MPH
2
7
Cruise
at
55
MPH
for
1/
4
lap
0
7
Mod.
decel
to
40
MPH
­
5
7
Mod
accel
to
50
MPH
2
7
Cruise
at
50
MPH
for
1/
4
lap
0
7
Mod.
decel
to
40
MPH
­
5
7
Mod.
accel
to
50
MPH
2
7
Cruise
at
50
MPH
for
1/
4
lap
0
7
Mod.
decel
to
stop
­
5
176
Standard
Road
Cycle
(
SRC
)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Laps
(
3.7
miles)
Speed
(
mph)
The
standard
road
cycle
is
represented
graphically
in
the
following
figure:
177
*
*
*
*
*

Appendix
VII
to
Part
86
­
Standard
Bench
Cycle
(
SBC)

1.
The
standard
bench
aging
durability
procedures
[
Ref.

§
86.1823­
06
(
d)]
consist
of
aging
a
catalyst­
oxygen­
sensor
system
on
an
aging
bench
which
follows
the
standard
bench
cycle
(
SBC)
described
in
this
appendix.

2.
The
SBC
requires
use
of
an
aging
bench
with
an
engine
as
the
source
of
feed
gas
for
the
catalyst.

3.
The
SBC
is
a
60­
second
cycle
which
is
repeated
as
necessary
on
the
aging
bench
to
conduct
aging
for
the
required
period
of
time.
The
SBC
is
defined
based
on
the
catalyst
temperature,
engine
air/
fuel
(
A/
F)
ratio,
and
the
amount
of
secondary
air
injection
which
is
added
in
front
of
the
first
catalyst.

Catalyst
Temperature
Control
1.
Catalyst
temperature
shall
be
measured
in
the
catalyst
bed
at
the
location
where
the
highest
temperature
occurs
in
the
hottest
catalyst.
Alternatively,
the
feed
gas
temperature
may
be
measured
and
converted
to
catalyst
bed
temperature
using
a
linear
transform
calculated
from
correlation
data
collected
on
the
catalyst
design
and
aging
bench
to
be
used
in
the
aging
process.

2.
Control
the
catalyst
temperature
at
stoichiometric
operation
(
01
to
40
seconds
on
the
cycle)
to
a
minimum
of
800

C
(
±
10

C)
by
selecting
the
appropriate
Engine
speed,

load,
and
spark
timing
for
the
engine.
Control
the
maximum
178
catalyst
temperature
that
occurs
during
the
cycle
to
890

C
(
±
10

C)
by
selecting
the
appropriate
A/
F
ratio
of
the
engine
during
the
"
rich"
phase
described
in
the
table
below.

3.
If
a
low
control
temperature
other
than
800

C
is
utilized,
the
high
control
temperature
shall
be
90

C
higher
than
the
low
control
temperature.

Standard
Bench
Cycle
(
SBC)

Time
(
seconds)
Engine
Air/
Fuel
Ratio
Secondary
Air
Injection
01
­
40
14.7
(
stoichiometric,
with
load,
spark
timing,
and
engine
speed
controlled
to
achieve
a
minimum
catalyst
temperature
of
800

C
)
None
41
­
45
"
Rich"
(
A/
F
ratio
selected
to
achieve
a
maximum
catalyst
temperature
over
the
entire
cycle
of
890

C,
or
90

higher
than
low
control
temperature)
None
46
­
55
"
Rich"
(
A/
F
ratio
selected
to
achieve
a
maximum
catalyst
temperature
over
the
entire
cycle
of
890

C,
or
90

higher
than
low
control
temperature)
3%
(
±
0.1%)

56
­
60
14.7
(
stoichiometric,
same
load,
spark
timing,
and
engine
speed
as
used
in
the
01­
40
sec
period
of
the
cycle)
3%
(
±
0.1%)
179
Standard
Bench
Cycle
0
1
2
3
4
0
20
40
60
Time
(
sec)
Air
Inject
(%)

Air/
Fuel
Ratio
Secondary
Air
Air/
Fuel
Ratio
Rich
Stoich
Control
catalyst
temperature
to
800
deg
C
180
Appendix
VIII
to
Part
86
­­
Aging
bench
Equipment
and
Procedures
This
appendix
provides
specifications
for
standard
aging
bench
equipment
and
aging
procedures
which
may
be
used
to
conduct
bench
aging
durability
under
the
provisions
of
§
86.1823­
06.

2.
Aging
Bench
Configuration
The
aging
bench
must
provide
the
appropriate
exhaust
flow
rate,
temperature,
air­
fuel
ratio,
exhaust
constituents
and
secondary
air
injection
at
the
inlet
face
of
the
catalyst.

a.
The
EPA
standard
aging
bench
consists
of
an
engine,

engine
controller,
and
engine
dynamometer.
Other
configurations
may
be
acceptable
(
e.
g.
whole
vehicle
on
a
dynamometer,
or
a
burner
that
provides
the
correct
exhaust
conditions),
as
long
as
the
catalyst
inlet
conditions
and
control
features
specified
in
this
appendix
are
met.

b.
A
single
aging
bench
may
have
the
exhaust
flow
split
into
several
streams
providing
that
each
exhaust
stream
meets
the
requirements
of
this
appendix.
If
the
bench
has
more
than
one
exhaust
stream,
multiple
catalyst
systems
may
be
aged
simultaneously.
181
2.
Fuel
and
Oil
The
fuel
used
by
the
engine
shall
comply
with
the
mileage
accumulation
fuel
provisions
of
§
86.113
for
the
applicable
fuel
type
(
e.
g.,
gasoline
or
diesel
fuel).
The
oil
used
in
the
engine
shall
be
representative
of
commercial
oils
and
selected
using
good
engineering
judgement.

3.
Exhaust
System
Installation
a.
The
entire
catalyst(
s)­
plus­
oxygen­
senor(
s)
system,

together
with
all
exhaust
piping
which
connects
these
components,
[
the
"
catalyst
system"]
will
be
installed
on
the
bench.
For
engines
with
multiple
exhaust
streams
(
such
as
some
V6
and
V8
engines),
each
bank
of
the
exhaust
system
will
be
installed
separately
on
the
bench.

b.
For
exhaust
systems
that
contain
multiple
in­
line
catalysts,
the
entire
catalyst
system
including
all
catalysts,
all
oxygen
sensors
and
the
associated
exhaust
piping
will
be
installed
as
a
unit
for
aging.

Alternatively,
each
individual
catalyst
may
be
separately
aged
for
the
appropriate
period
of
time.

4.
Temperature
Measurement
Catalyst
temperature
shall
be
measured
using
a
thermocouple
placed
in
the
catalyst
bed
at
the
location
where
the
highest
temperature
occurs
in
the
hottest
catalyst
(
typically
this
occurs
approximately
one­
inch
behind
the
front
face
of
the
first
catalyst
at
its
longitudinal
axis).

Alternatively,
the
feed
gas
temperature
just
before
the
182
catalyst
inlet
face
may
be
measured
and
converted
to
catalyst
bed
temperature
using
a
linear
transform
calculated
from
correlation
data
collected
on
the
catalyst
design
and
aging
bench
to
be
used
in
the
aging
process.
The
catalyst
temperature
must
be
stored
digitally
at
the
speed
of
1
hertz
(
one
measurement
per
second).

5.
Air/
Fuel
Measurement
Provisions
must
be
made
for
the
measurement
of
the
air/
fuel
(
A/
F)
ratio
(
such
as
a
wide­
range
oxygen
sensor)
as
close
as
possible
to
the
catalyst
inlet
and
outlet
flanges.

The
information
from
these
sensors
must
be
stored
digitally
at
the
speed
of
1
hertz
(
one
measurement
per
second).

6.
Exhaust
flow
balance
Provisions
must
be
made
to
assure
that
the
proper
amount
of
exhaust
(
measured
in
grams/
second
at
stoichiometry,
with
a
tolerance
of
±
5
grams/
second)
flows
through
each
catalyst
system
that
is
being
aged
on
the
bench.
The
proper
flow
rate
is
determined
based
upon
the
exhaust
flow
that
would
occur
in
the
original
vehicle's
engine
at
the
steady
state
engine
speed
and
load
selected
for
the
bench
aging
in
paragraph
(
7).

7.
Setup
a.
The
engine
speed,
load,
and
spark
timing
are
selected
to
achieve
a
catalyst
bed
temperature
of
800

C
(
±
10

C)
at
steady­
state
stoichiometric
operation.

b.
The
air
injection
system
is
set
to
provide
the
183
necessary
air
flow
to
produce
3.0
%
oxygen
(
±
0.1%)
in
the
steady­
state
stoichiometric
exhaust
stream
just
in
front
of
the
first
catalyst.
A
typical
reading
at
the
upstream
A/
F
measurement
point
(
required
in
paragraph
5)
is
lambda
1.16
(
which
is
approximately
3%
oxygen).

c.
With
the
air
injection
on,
set
the
"
Rich"
A/
F
ratio
to
produce
a
catalyst
bed
temperature
of
890

C
(
±
10

C).
A
typical
A/
F
value
for
this
step
is
lambda
0.94
(
approximately
2%
CO).

8.
Aging
Cycle
The
standard
bench
aging
procedures
use
the
standard
bench
cycle
(
SBC)
which
is
described
in
Attachment
VII
to
Part
86.
The
SBC
is
repeated
until
the
amount
of
aging
calculated
from
the
bench
aging
time
(
BAT)
equation
[
ref.

§
86.1823­
06
(
d)(
3)].

9.
Quality
Assurance
a.
The
temperatures
and
A/
F
ratio
information
that
is
required
to
be
measured
in
paragraphs
(
4)
and
(
5)
shall
be
reviewed
periodically
(
at
least
every
50
hours)
during
aging.
Necessary
adjustments
shall
be
made
to
assure
that
the
SBC
is
being
appropriately
followed
throughout
the
aging
process.

b.
After
the
aging
has
been
completed,
the
catalyst
timeat
temperature
collected
during
the
aging
process
shall
be
tabulated
into
a
histogram
with
temperature
bins
of
no
larger
than
10
C.
The
BAT
equation
and
the
calculated
184
effective
reference
temperature
for
the
aging
cycle
[
ref.

§
86.1823­
06(
d)]
will
be
used
to
determine
if
the
appropriate
amount
of
thermal
aging
of
the
catalyst
has
in
fact
occurred.
Bench
aging
will
be
extended
if
the
thermal
effect
of
the
calculated
aging
time
is
not
at
least
95%
of
the
target
thermal
aging.

10.
Startup
and
shutdown
Care
should
be
taken
to
assure
that
the
maximum
catalyst
temperature
for
rapid
deterioration
(
e.
g.,
1050

C)

does
not
occur
during
startup
or
shutdown.
Special
low
temperature
startup
and
shutdown
procedures
may
be
used
to
alleviate
this
concern.
185
Appendix
IX
to
Part
86
­­
Experimentally
Determining
the
RFactor
for
Bench
Aging
Durability
Procedures
The
R­
Factor
is
the
catalyst
thermal
reactivity
coefficient
used
in
the
bench
aging
time
(
BAT)
equation
[
Ref.
§
86.1826­
06(
d)(
3)].
Manufacturers
may
determine
the
value
of
R
experimentally
using
the
following
procedures.

1.
Using
the
applicable
bench
cycle
and
aging
bench
hardware,
age
several
catalysts
(
of
the
same
catalyst
design)
at
different
control
temperatures
and
measure
catalyst
efficiency
periodically
for
each
constituent.

2.
Estimate
the
value
of
R
and
calculate
the
effective
reference
temperature
(
Tr)
for
the
bench
aging
cycle
for
each
control
temperature
according
to
the
procedure
described
in
§
86.1826­
06(
d)(
4).

3.
On
the
same
set
of
axes,
plot
the
percent
of
catalyst
conversion
efficiency
along
the
vertical
axis,

versus
hours
of
aging
time
on
the
horizontal
axis
for
each
of
the
catalysts.
Draw
a
logarithmic
best­
fit
line
through
the
data
for
each
aging
temperature,
as
shown
below.
186
Catalyst
Aging
20
0
Aging
Time
(
hours)
Conversion
(%)

Temp
A
Temp
B
Temp
C
Temp
D
Temp
E
4.
On
the
plot
of
aging
time
versus
conversion
efficiency,
draw
horizontal
lines
at
several
different
values
of
constant
conversion
efficiency.
Where
the
horizontal
line
intercepts
each
of
the
constant
temperature
aging
curves,
read
the
corresponding
aging
time
on
the
horizontal
axis.
The
graph
below
shows
an
example
of
a
horizontal
line
drawn
for
one
value
of
constant
conversion
efficiency.
187
Catalyst
Aging
20
0
Aging
Time
(
hours)
Conv
ersion
(%)

Temp
A
Temp
B
Temp
C
Temp
D
Temp
E
­
0.2
­
0.2
Ef
f
iciency
X
Ef
f
iciency
Y
Ef
f
iciency
Z
Determining
the
R­
Factor
Ln
(
aging
hours)

1/(
aging
temp)

5.
Plot
the
natural
log
(
ln)
of
the
aging
time
in
hours
along
the
vertical
axis,
versus
the
inverse
of
aging
temperature
(
1/(
aging
temperature,
deg
K))
along
the
horizontal
axis,
for
several
constant­
catalyst­
efficiencies
for
each
constituent.
Fit
least­
squared
best­
fit
lines
through
the
constant­
efficiency
data.
The
slope
of
the
line
is
the
R­
factor.
Use
the
smallest
R­
factor
(
worst
case).

See
the
graph
below
for
an
example.
188
6.
Compare
the
R­
factor
to
the
initial
value
that
was
used
in
Step
2.
If
the
calculated
R­
factor
differs
from
the
initial
value
by
more
than
5%,
choose
a
new
R­
factor
that
is
between
the
initial
and
calculated
values,
then
repeat
Steps
2­
6
to
derive
a
new
R­
factor.
Repeat
this
process
until
the
calculated
R­
factor
is
within
5%
of
the
initially
assumed
Rfactor
