Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
Motor
Vehicle
Emission
and
Fuel
Economy
Compliance;
Light
Duty
Vehicles,
Light
Duty
Trucks,
and
Highway
Motorcycles
EPA
ICR
0783.47
May,
2005
Certification
and
Compliance
Division
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
2
Part
A
SUBMISSION
Section
1:
Identification
Of
The
Information
Collection
1(
a)
Title
And
Number
Of
The
Information
Collection
Motor
Vehicle
Emission
and
Fuel
Economy
Compliance;
Light
Duty
Vehicles,
Light
Duty
Trucks,
and
Highway
Motorcycles
(
Renewal),
EPA
ICR
number
0783.47,
OMB
control
number
2060­
0104.

1(
b)
Short
Characterization/
Abstract
Beginning
with
the
1968
model
year,
the
Federal
Government
has
regulated
air
pollution
emitted
by
motor
vehicles.
While
light
vehicles
(
passenger
cars
and
light
trucks)
were
the
first
to
be
regulated,
other
classes
(
e.
g.,
motorcycles
and
recreational
vehicles)
have
subsequently
been
included.
The
first
(
and
continuing)
phase
of
regulation
consisted
of
prototype
certification:
manufacturers
demonstrate
that
a
particular
design
meets
applicable
requirements
and
they
received
a
"
certificate"
(
license)
allowing
that
design
to
be
sold;
EPA
performs
"
confirmatory"
tests
on
some
of
the
vehicles
as
part
of
this
certification
program.
Subsequent
program
developments
addressed
compliance
with
emissions
requirements
after
the
vehicles
are
sold;
vehicles
failing
to
meet
requirements
in­
use
are
subject
to
recall
and
repair
by
the
manufacturer.
During
these
three
and
a
half
decades
of
emission
control,
considerable
progress
has
been
made
in
reducing
vehicular
air
pollution.
A
new
passenger
car
today
will
emit
much
less
than
one
tenth
the
exhaust
pollution
of
its
uncontrolled
predecessor.

During
the
1973
oil
embargo,
there
was
a
need
for
improved
automotive
fuel
economy
information.
EPA
was
able
to
fulfill
part
of
this
need
using
information
collected
during
its
emission
testing
program.
(
To
determine
the
mass
of
pollution
emitted,
the
quantity
and
composition
of
a
vehicle's
exhaust
must
be
determined.
Using
that
information,
the
quantity
of
fuel
consumed
can
be
calculated.)
This
limited
information
was
expanded
by
adding
a
"
highway"
driving
schedule
and
by
implementing
a
voluntary
program
whereby
vehicle
manufacturers
tested
and
submitted
information
on
a
more
complete
spectrum
of
their
product
line.
(
Because
the
emission
certification
program
emphasized
"
worst
case"
vehicles,
it
might
not
accurately
reflect
a
manufacturer's
entire
product
line,
hence
the
need
for
additional
information.)
Congress
subsequently
enacted
legislation
mandating
fuel
economy
labeling,
establishing
average
fuel
economy
standards,
and
imposing
"
gas
guzzler"
taxes.
Those
activities
all
rely
on
information
generated
under
EPA's
emission
compliance
and
fuel
economy
programs.

This
ICR
covers
EPA's
combined
light
duty
vehicle
and
light
duty
truck
(
LDV/
LDT)
emission
compliance
program
and
the
fuel
economy
program
for
light
duty
vehicles
(
LDVs).
Not
only
do
these
programs
share
a
common
test
procedure,
they
also
rely,
in
large
part,
on
the
same
information
and
are
administered
by
the
same
staff.
Developing
separate
estimates
would
not
be
practicable
due
to
this
integration.
This
ICR
also
covers
the
information
burden
for
emissions
compliance
certification
for
highway
motorcycles
3
(
HMCs).

This
ICR
covers
the
application
(
and
supporting
test
results)
submitted
by
these
categories
of
vehicle
manufacturers
prior
to
production
as
well
as
various
reports
and
information
during
and
after
production,
including
the
manufacturer's
In­
Use
Verification
Program
(
IUVP),
and
the
Defect
Report/
Voluntary
Emissions
Recall
Report
(
DR/
VERR)
system
that
covers
both
HMCs
and
LDVs.
In
addition,
LDV
manufacturers
are
required
to
submit
fuel
economy
reports
for
vehicles
covered
under
the
Energy
Conservation
and
Policy
Act.
EPA's
processing
of
this
information
is
conducted
by
the
Certification
and
Compliance
Division,
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality,
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation.

Information
collected
under
this
ICR
consists
of
descriptions
of
motor
vehicles
(
with
emphasis
on
emission
control
systems),
test
results,
defect
and
recall
reports,
and
(
for
LDVs)
sales
information.
These
data
are
reviewed
to
verify
that
the
necessary
tests
have
been
performed,
the
manufacturer's
product
line
meets
emission
standards,
and
the
fuel
economy
reports
are
accurate.
LDV
information
is
used
by
EPA
as
well
as
the
Internal
Revenue
Service
("
gas
guzzler"
taxes),
Department
of
Energy
(
Fuel
Economy
Guides)
and
the
Department
of
Transportation
(
Corporate
Average
Fuel
Economy
standards).
Most
application
and
in­
use
materials,
including
test
results,
are
typically
submitted
in
electronic
format
for
inclusion
in
EPA's
computer
databases.
Additional
descriptive
information
can
be
submitted
on
optical
disc
(
smaller
manufacturers
may
use
paper
submissions).
Subject
to
confidentiality
claims,
this
information
is
made
available
to
interested
parties
upon
request.
Fuel
economy
ratings
and
emission
test
information
is
available
on
the
internet.

Approximately
139
passenger
car,
light
truck,
and
motorcycle
manufacturers
(
including
independent
commercial
importers
and
alternative
fuels
vehicle
converters)
will
submit
applications
each
year
to
certify
their
products.
The
motor
vehicle
emission
and
fuel
economy
compliance
programs,
along
with
the
HMC
program,
the
IUVP,
and
the
DR/
VERR
program,
will
impose
a
cost
of
about
$
47.46
million
annually
on
the
regulated
industries:
$
36.12
million
in
labor
costs,
$
3.06
million
in
operation
and
maintenance
costs,
and
$
8.28
million
in
continuing
capital
costs.

Additional
details
on
the
coverage
of
this
ICR
are
given
in
Section
2(
b),
below.

Section
2:
Need
For
And
Use
of
the
Collection
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
For
The
Collection
Under
Title
II
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
42
U.
S.
C.
7521
et
seq.),
EPA
is
charged
with
issuing
certificates
of
conformity
for
motor
vehicle
designs
that
comply
with
applicable
emission
standards.
A
manufacturer
must
have
a
certificate
before
vehicles
may
be
legally
introduced
into
commerce.
Similar
provisions
in
the
Energy
Policy
Conservation
Act
(
codified
as
Title
III
of
the
Motor
Vehicle
Information
and
Cost
Savings
Act,
15
U.
S.
C.
2001
et
seq.)
require
fuel
economy
ratings
to
be
determined
and
vehicles
to
be
labeled.
To
ensure
compliance
with
these
statutes,
EPA
reviews
product
information
and
manufacturer
test
results;
EPA
also
tests
some
vehicles
to
confirm
manufacturer
results.
Information
is
4
also
shared
with
other
agencies:
the
Internal
Revenue
Service
for
"
gas
guzzler"
taxes
and
the
Department
of
Transportation
for
Corporate
Average
Fuel
Economy
(
CAFE)
requirements.

EPA's
emission
compliance
and
fuel
economy
programs
are
statutorily
mandated;
the
Agency
does
not
have
discretion
to
cease
these
functions.
Under
Section
206(
a)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
42
U.
S.
C.
7525)
"...
The
Administrator
shall
test
...
any
new
motor
vehicle
...
submitted
by
a
manufacturer
...
If
such
vehicle
...
conforms
 
the
Administrator
shall
issue
a
certificate
of
conformity."
EPA
uses
the
information
supplied
by
the
manufacturer
to
verify
that
the
proper
test
vehicles
have
been
selected
and
that
the
necessary
testing
has
been
performed
to
assure
that
each
vehicle
design
complies
with
emission
standards.
This
information
is
also
used
by
various
state
and
local
governments
in
running
their
vehicle
Inspection
and
Maintenance
(
I/
M)
programs.
Similarly,
the
Energy
Policy
and
Conservation
Act
requires
that
"...
Average
fuel
economy
 
shall
be
calculated
by
the
EPA
Administrator
...";
15
U.
S.
C.
2003.
Automobile
manufacturers
are
required
to
affix
fuel
economy
labels
"
as
determined
in
accordance
with
rules
of
the
EPA
Administrator";
15
U.
S.
C.
2006.
While
EPA
has
delegated
a
substantial
portion
of
the
process
of
calculating
fuel
economy
labels
to
the
manufacturers,
the
test
results
upon
which
such
labels
are
based
are
subject
to
EPA
confirmatory
testing.
Such
confirmation
testing
assures
that
results
from
different
manufacturers
can
be
accurately
used
for
comparison.

The
compliance
program
for
HMCs
operates
in
a
largely
similar
fashion
except
that
fuel
economy
requirements
do
not
apply
to
motorcycles.

Relevant
portions
of
the
above
statutes
can
be
found
in
Appendix
I.
The
regulations
dealing
with
LDV/
LDT
and
HMC
emission
control
can
be
found
in
40
CFR
Parts
85
and
86.
EPA's
LDV
fuel
economy
provisions
are
found
in
40
CFR
Part
600.
The
regulations
are
not
attached
to
this
statement
due
to
their
length
and
technical
nature.

2(
b)
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
The
discussion
in
this
section
outlines
the
major
features
of
the
programs
covered
by
this
ICR
as
well
as
summarizing
some
of
the
recent
historical
and
ongoing
developments
that
have
a
bearing
on
the
information
burden.

Emissions
Program
For
Light
Duty
Vehicles
and
Trucks
Motor
vehicle
manufacturers
must
submit
an
application
for
emission
certification
prior
to
production.
The
application
describes
the
major
aspects
of
the
proposed
product
line,
technical
details
of
the
emission
control
systems,
and
the
results
of
tests
to
indicate
compliance
with
emissions
limitations.
The
application
and
supporting
test
results
are
reviewed
and,
if
appropriate,
a
certificate
of
conformity
is
issued.
EPA
will
conduct
a
limited
number
of
confirmatory
tests
at
its
laboratory
to
verify
the
manufacturer's
results
and
insure
that
EPA
and
manufacturer
laboratory
tests
are
properly
correlated.
The
testing
regime
was
significantly
reorganized
in
the
Supplementary
Federal
Test
Procedure
rulemaking
in
1996
(
see
61
FR
54851).
Another
major
change
occurred
with
the
CAP2000
5
program
(
see
85
FR
23905,
May
4,
1999).
Costs
associated
with
these
and
all
other
testing
requirements
are
treated
as
ongoing
capital
costs
in
the
current
ICR
rather
than
as
one­
time
startup
costs.

Under
the
CAP2000
program,
an
initial
step
in
the
certification
process
is
to
divide
a
manufacturer's
product
line
into
groups
of
vehicle
designs
that
are
expected
to
have
similar
emission
control
characteristics;
the
top
level
of
such
groups
is
the
"
durability
group"
of
vehicles
expected
to
have
similar
deterioration
over
their
useful
lives.
This
redirected
EPA
and
manufacturer
effort
toward
in­
use
compliance
and
gave
manufacturers
more
control
over
pre­
production
certification,
with
savings
in
paperwork
burden
that
were
reflected
in
ICR
0783.38.
Deterioration
factors
are
established
for
each
group,
which
are
then
used
to
adjust
results
from
low
mileage
test
vehicles
to
predict
useful­
life
emission
levels.
A
deterioration
factor
is
established
either
by
testing
(
including
bench
testing
and
artificial
aging)
or
by
"
carrying
over"
a
factor
from
a
previously
certified
similar
group.

Light
duty
vehicles
(
passenger
cars)
and
light
duty
trucks
are
divided
into
durability
groups
based
on
a
number
of
fundamental
characteristics,
including
combustion
cycle
(
diesel,
spark
ignited,
number
of
strokes
per
cycle,
etc.),
engine
type
(
piston,
rotary,
air/
water
cooling
media),
fuel
(
gasoline,
methanol,
flexible,
etc.),
and
catalyst
loading
per
unit
engine
displacement.
(
The
actual
classification
process
is
somewhat
more
complicated;
see
40
CFR
86.1820.)
Each
durability
group
may
be
further
divided
(
depending
on
the
particular
manufacturer's
product
line)
into
"
test
groups."
Test
groups
include
vehicles
which
will
be
certified
to
a
single
emission
standard,
have
the
same
number
and
arrangement
of
cylinders,
and
fall
within
a
limited
range
(
slightly
less
than
one
liter)
of
displacement.
(
Test
groups
are
defined
in
40
CFR
86.1827.)

Light
duty
vehicles
and
trucks
also
must
be
certified
to
meet
applicable
evaporative
emissions
and
refueling
emission
requirements.
Test
groups
for
these
vehicles
may
therefore
be
further
divided
into
evaporative/
refueling
families
for
this
purpose;
in
this
case,
each
test
group
and
evaporative/
refueling
combination
will
receive
a
separate
certificate
of
conformity.

When
a
new
model
year
vehicle
is
sufficiently
similar
to
the
previous
year's
model
that
the
"
durability
group",
"
test
group",
or
"
test
group/
evaporative
family"
descriptions
do
not
need
to
be
changed,
a
certification
application
can
be
"
carried
over"
from
the
previous
application.
The
burden
of
preparing
the
application
in
such
cases
will
be
less
because
previous
test
results
can
be
used,
and
the
vehicle
will
be
less
likely
to
be
selected
for
confirmatory
testing.
If
the
model
has
changed
such
that
its
durability
characteristics,
test
group
designations,
or
evaporative
emissions
characteristics
change,
then
new
supporting
application
information
will
be
required.
Similarly,
when
manufacturers
make
minor
changes
that
affect
the
durability,
test
group,
or
evaporative
emissions
characteristics
for
an
already
certified
engine
model,
a
"
running
change"
for
that
change
must
be
submitted
and
a
new
certificate
issued
if
the
effect
on
emissions
is
substantial.
The
paperwork
burden
for
such
running
changes
is
usually
quite
small.
6
Information
gathered
for
purposes
of
certification
is
also
used
by
EPA
in
the
fuel
economy
program
(
15
U.
S.
C.
2000,
et
seq.)
as
well
as
EPA
in­
use
compliance
testing.
For
example,
when
a
particular
vehicle
type
is
discovered
to
exceed
emission
standards,
the
manufacturer's
application
may
be
reviewed
to
determine
the
cause
of
the
failure.
(
Typically,
part
specifications
in
the
application
are
much
more
detailed
than
those
in
the
service
literature.)
EPA's
motor
vehicle
emission
in­
use
compliance
program
is
covered
by
and
discussed
with
more
detail
in
ICR
0222.07
(
OMB
Control
No.
2060­
0086).

In­
Use
Verification
Program
Another
aspect
of
the
emphasis
on
in­
use
compliance
from
the
CAP2000
program
is
the
IUVP.
Beginning
with
model
year
2001,
manufacturers
are
required
to
recruit
and
test
"
as
is"
high­
mileage
(
generally
over
50,000
miles)
LDV/
LDTs
for
compliance
with
emissions
requirements.
This
requirement
was
extended
to
"
medium
duty
passenger
vehicles"
in
the
final
Tier
2
regulations
in
February,
2000,
and
to
all
other
complete
Otto
cycle
heavy
duty
vehicles
up
to
14,000
GVWR
(
gross
vehicle
weight
rating)
in
regulations
finalized
in
October,
2000.
The
window
for
these
tests
is
between
four
and
five
years
from
the
end
of
production
of
the
test
group.
Likewise,
beginning
with
model
year
2004,
low­
mileage
vehicles
(
over
10,000
miles)
are
to
be
recruited
and
tested
within
one
year
of
the
end
of
production.
Consequently,
the
first
MY
2000
(
for
optional
early
participants)
and
2001
high­
mileage
test
results
are
beginning
to
come
in
now
(
early
calendar
year
2005),
as
well
as
some
of
the
MY2004
low­
mileage
results.
The
burden
of
the
IUVP
was
considered
in
the
Regulatory
Support
Document
for
the
CAP2000
program
and
were
incorporated
into
the
0783
ICR
series.
This
estimate
is
updated
in
the
current
ICR.

In
addition
to
the
low­
and
high­
mileage
in­
use
testing
requirements,
the
IUVP
program
requires
manufacturer
confirmatory
testing,
in
cases
where
the
specified
thresholds
of
failures
occur
in
the
in­
use
testing.
It
is
likewise
early
to
estimate
the
burden
of
this
additional
testing
based
on
reported
data,
but
the
early
EPA
assumption
has
been
that
manufacturers
will
be
able
to
avoid
triggering
this
requirement
through
additional
testing.

Fuel
Economy
for
Light
Duty
Vehicles
Some
of
the
product
information
used
to
verify
emission
compliance
is
also
used,
in
conjunction
with
additional
tests
and
projected
sales,
to
establish
fuel
economy
ratings.
Based
on
test
results,
EPA
calculates
a
fuel
economy
number
for
each
vehicle
model.
EPA
then
computes
an
average
fuel
economy
for
each
manufacturer
that
is
weighted
by
the
number
of
units
of
each
of
its
vehicle
models
in
that
year.
This
"
harmonic
mean"
calculation
is
statutory
(
49
U.
S.
C.
32904).
Separate
numbers
are
calculated
for
passenger
cars
and
for
light
duty
trucks
up
to
8500
pounds
GVWR.
These
are
the
numbers
used,
after
certain
adjustments,
by
the
Department
of
Transportation
to
determine
each
manufacturer's
compliance
with
the
CAFE
program.
In
a
separate
program,
the
fuel
economy
ratings,
used
to
comply
with
the
labeling
requirements
for
new
vehicles
(
40
CFR
Part
600,
Subpart
D),
are
listed
by
model
type.
These
ratings
are
computed
as
the
sales
weighted
harmonic
mean
of
the
"
base
levels"
within
each
model
type,
which
in
turn
are
calculated
as
the
sales
weighted
harmonic
mean
of
the
configurations/
subconfigurations
within
each
base
level.
7
This
procedure
is
intended
to
ensure
that
the
most
representative
fuel
economy
values
are
posted
on
new
vehicles,
which
are
sold
by
the
manufacturer's
model
designation
rather
than
categories
that
correspond
to
the
test
groups
that
are
used
for
generating
fuel
economy
data
as
a
part
of
the
certification
process.

Fees
for
Light
Duty
Vehicles
and
Trucks
Part
of
the
application
process
includes
payment
of
fees
to
EPA
for
administering
the
certification
program.
The
fees
program
was
recently
updated
to
include
applications
for
a
number
of
categories
of
recently­
regulated
engines
and
vehicles;
the
paperwork
burden
associated
with
those
fees
is
now
covered
by
OMB
Control
Number
2060­
0545
(
ICR
2080.02).
Examples
include
several
categories
of
marine,
off­
road
spark­
ignition
and
combustion­
ignition,
locomotive,
and
recreational
vehicle
engines.
As
these
other
engine
and
vehicle
programs
are
sufficiently
distinct
not
to
be
consolidated
into
this
ICR,
we
have
decided
to
keep
the
fees
ICR
for
those
engines
separate
for
the
time
being.
ICR
0783.47
will
continue
to
cover
fees
for
passenger
cars,
light
duty
trucks,
and
highway
motorcycles.
Work
is
underway
as
of
early
2005
to
allow
for
credit
card
and
EFT
(
electronic
funds
transfer)
payments
to
be
made
online.
It
is
anticipated
that
this
will
represent
a
considerable
convenience
for
manufacturers
able
to
take
advantage
of
it.
However,
no
change
in
the
paperwork
burden
is
being
made
at
this
time
pending
successful
implementation
of
this
improvement.

Chassis­
Certified
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
In
regulations
finalized
on
October
6,
2000
(
65
FR
59896),
all
complete
gasoline
heavy
duty
trucks
up
to
14,000
GVWR
were
made
subject
to
chassis
testing
(
excluding
the
supplemental
federal
test
procedures)
for
certification
and
EPA
confirmatory
testing,
as
well
as
being
placed
under
the
general
requirements
of
the
CAP2000
program.
The
requirements
generally
go
into
effect
with
model
year
2005,
with
some
variations
due
to
phase­
in
options.
Because
the
Certification
and
Compliance
Division
will
be
administering
this
program
along
with
the
light
duty
vehicle
and
trucks
and
medium
duty
passenger
vehicle
programs,
it
is
appropriate
to
include
this
portion
of
the
overall
heavy
duty
vehicle
program
in
this
ICR
rather
than
in
the
heavy­
duty
ICR
1684.
The
inclusion
is
reflected
in
a
modest
projected
increase
in
the
number
of
engine
families
covered.

Highway
Motorcycles
Federal
standards
for
HMCs
have
been
in
effect
since
the
1978
model
year.
On
January
15,
2004,
EPA
finalized
the
first
revision
to
these
standards,
as
well
as
including
for
the
first
time
engines
with
displacements
of
less
than
50cc
and
adding
new
standards
that
will
require
the
use
of
low
permeability
fuel
tanks
and
fuel
hoses.
These
provisions
begin
going
into
effect
with
the
2006
or
later
model
years
(
small
volume
manufacturers
have
an
extended
schedule
and
in
some
cases
different
standards).
There
are
several
other
special
provisions
to
reduce
the
regulatory
burden
on
small
manufacturers.
The
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
burdens
for
the
highway
motorcycle
program
were
adjusted
in
ICR
0783.43
and
0783.46.
These
burdens
are
updated
in
the
present
ICR.
8
The
program
for
regulating
emissions
from
HMCs
is
similar
in
outline
to
that
for
light
duty
vehicles:
manufacturers
group
vehicles/
engines
into
engine
families,
conduct
emissions
tests
(
using
the
same
federal
test
procedure
as
for
light
duty
vehicles,
with
minor
modifications)
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
exhaust
emissions
standards,
calculate
durability
factors
for
useful­
life
compliance,
and
submit
an
application
for
certification
along
with
an
application
fee.
EPA
issues
a
certificate,
possibly
after
confirmatory
testing.
Manufacturers
are
potentially
subject
to
selective
enforcement
testing
or
EPA
in­
use
compliance
tests;
although
EPA
does
not
currently
conduct
such
tests,
an
EPA
in­
use
compliance
program
similar
to
that
for
LDV/
LDTs
is
under
discussion.

Defect
Reports
and
Voluntary
Emissions
Recall
Reports
A
reporting
component
of
the
light
duty
and
highway
motorcycle
programs
requires
filing
of
defect
reports,
voluntary
emissions
recall
reports,
and
voluntary
recall
quarterly
reports
by
manufacturers
for
in­
use
vehicles.
The
information
burden
of
this
DR/
VERR
program
was
included
in
the
ICR
0282
series
(
OMB
2060­
0048)
until
0282.12,
when
the
highway,
light­
duty
vehicle
portion
was
split
off
and
designated
ICR
1916.01
(
OMB
2060­
0048).
In
September,
2003,
ICR
1916
was
consolidated
into
the
present
ICR
0783.
For
ease
in
tracking
the
burden
of
this
light­
duty
program
in
this
and
future
ICRs,
the
calculation
has
been
disaggregated
from
the
overall
burden
calculations
and
updated
to
reflect
current
response
numbers,
respondents,
and
labor
costs.
Beginning
with
calendar
2005,
the
filing
of
these
reports
is
being
computerized
so
that
manufacturers
can
file
their
reports
electronically.
In
the
near
term,
we
anticipate
that
the
initial
startup
and
familiarization
burdens
of
implementing
this
system
for
respondents
will
be
offset
by
the
gains
in
efficiency.
After
the
new
system
has
some
operating
experience,
we
will
be
able
to
reflect
any
net
changes
in
the
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden.

Recreational
Vehicles
On
November
8,
2002,
EPA
published
final
rules
on
the
control
of
emissions
from
2006
and
later
model
year
recreational
vehicles
(
off­
highway
motorcycles,
snowmobiles,
and
allterrain
vehicles)
as
well
as
a
number
of
other
off­
road
engine
categories.
The
recreational
vehicle
burdens
were
incorporated
in
this
ICR
in
0783.43
and
0783.44.
The
burden
for
recreational
vehicles
was
subsequently
shifted
to
ICR
1695.08
(
OMB
number
2060­
0338)
and
the
burden
in
0783
is
adjusted
here
accordingly.

Investigation
into
Possible
Noncompliance
of
Motor
Vehicles
The
LDV/
LDT
and
HMC
emissions
compliance
programs
include
pre­
production,
production,
and
in­
use
components.
Motor
vehicles
are
evaluated
as
prototypes
prior
to
production,
and
those
designs
that
meet
applicable
criteria
are
certified
for
introduction
into
commerce.
EPA
also
has
discretion
to
conduct
selective
enforcement
testing
of
assembly
line
vehicles.
This
was
an
important
enforcement
tool
for
EPA
prior
to
CAP2000,
but
since
then
it
has
been
replaced
by
the
IUVP:
no
selective
enforcement
tests
have
been
performed
since.
While
EPA
retains
the
statutory
authority
to
conduct
assembly
line
tests
and
under
exceptional
circumstances
might
use
it,
no
burden
is
assigned
to
this
activity
in
9
the
current
or
this
ICR.
Finally,
in
addition
to
the
manufacturer
IUVP
and
voluntary
recalls,
EPA
conducts
its
own
in­
use
compliance
testing
program.
That
program
is
covered
separately
in
ICR
0222.07
(
OMB
Control
No.
2060­
0086).

CFEIS
and
VERIFY
Electronic
submission
by
manufactures
to
the
Certification
and
Fuel
Economy
Information
System
(
CFEIS)
began
to
be
implemented
for
LDV/
LDTs
after
CAP2000.
In
2003,
manufacturers
who
meet
the
qualifying
criteria
were
permitted
to
self­
generate
a
certificate
of
conformity
under
the
CFEIS
ACGM
(
Automatic
Certificate
Generation
by
Manufacturers)
system.
At
that
time
the
system
was
also
expanded
to
include
certification
submittals
for
some
of
the
heavier
vehicles
coming
into
the
program
(
heavy
duty
chassis
certified
engines,
medium
duty
passenger
vehicles).
The
VERIFY
system
currently
under
development
will
replace
CFEIS
and
integrate
it
with
other
compliance
databases
(
heavy
duty,
nonroad,
motorcycle).
Implementation
of
pilot
system
databases
began
in
2005
with
the
highway
motorcycle
and
recreational
vehicle
reporting
system.
A
feature
of
the
new
database
is
the
updating
of
the
manufacturer
submission
process
via
an
easy­
to­
use
web
interface.
This,
along
with
other
features,
including
improved
coordination
with
California's
certification
process
and
improved
manufacturer
capacity
to
self­
correct
submissions,
is
expected
to
result
in
savings
both
to
EPA
and
manufacturers
after
an
initial
development
and
familiarization
period;
the
current
ICR
does
not
yet
incorporate
these
expected
savings.

Section
3:
Nonduplication,
Consultations,
and
Other
Collection
Criteria
3(
a)
Nonduplication
Efforts
have
been
made
to
eliminate
duplication
in
this
information
collection.
The
fuel
economy
and
emission
compliance
programs
have
been
highly
integrated;
the
same
information
serves
two
purposes.
Furthermore,
as
mentioned
above,
EPA
is
moving
toward
the
VERIFY
system,
under
which
the
manufacturer
submission
process
will
occur
within
a
Central
Data
Exchange
(
CDX)
environment
that
should
further
help
minimize
duplication
in
submissions.

Because
of
its
specialized
nature
and
the
fact
that
product
plans
and
emission
performance
information
must
be
submitted
to
EPA
prior
to
the
start
of
production,
this
information
is
not
available
from
any
source
other
than
the
manufacturer.

3(
b)
Public
Notice
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
EPA
solicited
public
comment
by
means
of
a
Federal
Register
Notice
published
on
August
13,
2004,
69
FR
50189;
a
copy
can
be
found
in
Appendix
III.
10
3(
c)
Consultations
In
preparing
the
previous
ICR
submission,
EPA
consulted
with
the
following
individuals
working
in
the
regulated
industry:

Individual
Firm
Telephone
Randy
Harvey
General
Motors
(
248)
685­
6976
Mike
Fuhrer
Ford
(
313)
323­
0403
Jerry
Steffy
Harley
Davidson
(
414)
465­
6101
These
individuals
have
experience
with
various
aspects
of
EPA's
current
programs.
Their
comments
have
been
reflected
in
the
burden
estimates
discussed
below.
EPA
wishes
to
thank
them
and
their
colleagues
for
their
assistance
in
preparing
this
report.

3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
As
required
by
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
42
USC
7525(
a)),
emission
and
fuel
economy
information
is
submitted
on
a
yearly
basis
coinciding
with
the
manufacturer's
"
model
year."
EPA
allows
applicants
to
define
their
own
"
model
year",
thus
granting
some
flexibility
in
this
regard.
Major
product
changes
typically
occur
at
the
start
of
a
model
year.
For
these
reasons,
a
collection
frequency
longer
than
a
model
year
is
not
possible.
However,
when
a
vehicle
design
is
"
carried
over"
to
a
subsequent
model
year,
the
amount
of
new
information
required
is
substantially
reduced.
Other
information
collections
listed
in
Appendix
II
are
conducted
according
to
schedules
that
were
determined
in
rulemakings
and
included
paperwork
burden
analyses
as
mandated
by
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines
Manufacturers
are
required
to
keep
some
records
for
periods
longer
than
three
years.
This
requirement
stems
from
the
statutory
requirement
that
manufacturers
warrant
some
items
for
periods
longer
than
3
years.
Manufacturers
must
also
recall
vehicle
classes
failing
to
meet
emission
standards
during
their
useful
life,
typically
5
to
11
years
depending
on
vehicle
type.
In
order
to
satisfy
these
obligations,
manufacturers
must
retain
product
information,
with
particular
emphasis
on
the
emission
control
systems.
This
information
is
vital
in
assuring
that
repairs
and
replacement
parts
properly
function
during
the
life
of
the
warranty
and
that
emissions
limitations
are
met
during
the
full
useful
lives.
EPA
believes
that
this
recordkeeping
requirement
does
not
impose
an
unreasonable
burden
given
the
warranty
and
recall
obligations.
In
fact,
manufacturers
would
probably
retain
this
information
to
support
their
normal
business
of
supplying
replacement
parts.

This
information
collection
activity
complies
with
the
remaining
guidelines
in
5
CFR
1320.5.
11
3(
f)
Confidentiality
Information
submitted
by
manufacturers
is
held
as
confidential
until
the
specific
vehicle
to
which
it
pertains
is
available
for
purchase.
After
vehicles
are
available,
most
information
associated
with
the
manufacturer/
importer's
application
is
available
to
the
public.
Under
section
208
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
42
USC
7542(
c))
all
information,
other
than
trade
secret
processes
or
methods,
must
be
publicly
available.
Proprietary
information
is
granted
confidentiality
in
accordance
with
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act,
EPA
regulations
at
40
CFR
Part
2,
and
class
determinations
issued
by
EPA's
Office
of
General
Counsel.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
No
sensitive
questions
are
asked
in
this
information
collection.
This
collection
complies
with
the
Privacy
Act
and
OMB
Circular
A­
108.

Section
4:
Respondents
and
Information
Requested
4(
a)
Respondents/
NAICS
Codes
The
respondents
are
involved
in
the
industries
shown
in
the
following
table:

Respondent
Category
NAICS
Code
Automotive
and
light
duty
motor
vehicle
manufacturers
33611
Motorcycle
and
motorcycle
parts
manufacturers
336991
Motorcycle,
boat,
and
other
motor
vehicle
dealers
441222
Independent
commercial
importers
of
vehicles
and
parts
421110
4(
b)
Information
Requested
(
i)
Data
items
Manufacturers
are
required
to
submit
descriptions
of
their
planned
product
line,
including
detailed
descriptions
of
the
emission
control
system,
test
data,
and
demonstrations
of
compliance
with
other
requirements,
such
as
methods
for
determining
deterioration
factors
for
durability
and
requirements
pertaining
to
computerized
on­
board
devices
(
OBD).
This
information
is
organized
into
various
groups
with
similar
emission
or
fuel
economy
characteristics.
Manufacturers
supply
test
data
to
verify
that
their
products
will
comply
with
the
emission
standards;
test
data
is
also
used
to
establish
fuel
economy
ratings.
They
are
also
required
to
notify
EPA
of
in­
use
defects
experienced
by
their
vehicles
and
reports
of
voluntary
recalls.
Other
major
data
items
include
submission
of
technical
service
bulletins;
copies
of
warranties;
Tier
2
averaging,
banking,
and
trading
calculations;
ORVR
(
On
Road
Vapor
Recovery)
safety
reports,
and
fee
filing
forms
for
certification
applications.
Given
the
diversity
of
vehicles
produced
and
the
complicated
nature
of
the
regulations,
in
certain
instances
manufacturers
may
also
find
it
advantageous
to
request
variances
from
standard
EPA
procedures.
12
A
list
of
detailed
information
requirements
and
their
corresponding
regulation
citations
appears
in
Appendix
II.

(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
The
emission
and
fuel
economy
compliance
programs
are,
of
necessity,
quite
complex
given
the
diversity
of
products
available.
These
programs
have
evolved
over
the
past
three
decades
to
balance
testing
and
reporting
burdens
against
the
risk
of
unnecessary
air
pollution
and
inaccurate
fuel
economy
information.
While
there
is
no
"
typical"
respondent,
all
manufacturers
must
describe
their
product
and
supply
test
data
and
other
information
to
verify
compliance.
EPA
will
conduct
a
limited
number
of
"
confirmatory
tests"
to
monitor
manufacturer
results.
This
requires
test
vehicles
be
shipped
to
EPA's
laboratory.
Manufacturers
must
also
retain
records.
These
tasks
are
repeated
for
each
model
year,
although
typically
previous
data
and
information
can
be
"
carried
over"
when
no
significant
changes
have
occurred.
If,
during
the
course
of
a
model
year
a
product
change
is
made
(
a
"
running
change"),
EPA
must
be
notified.
Under
some
circumstances
additional
test
data
may
be
required.

During
production
various
reports
must
be
submitted,
and,
after
a
given
model
year
production
has
ended,
a
final
report
must
also
be
submitted.
Manufacturers
must
also
submit
reports
concerning
defects
that
are
discovered
and
voluntary
recalls
that
are
conducted;
they
may
also
be
requested
to
review
various
aspects
of
in­
use
testing
that
EPA
may
elect
to
conduct.
Manufacturers
are
also
required
to
conduct
their
own
in­
use
testing;
this
is
the
In­
Use
Verification
Program
(
IUVP).

Section
5:
The
Information
Collected
 
Agency
Activities,
Collection
Methodology,
and
Information
Management
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
A
significant
portion
of
EPA's
emission
and
fuel
economy
compliance
activity
is
spent
reviewing
applications
to
verify
that
the
correct
vehicle
tests
have
been
conducted
and
necessary
information
submitted.
Running
change
submissions
must
also
be
reviewed
for
possible
emissions
impacts
and
manufacturers'
evaluations
thereof.
A
part
of
this
process
involves
determining
if
"
carry
over"
of
data
from
a
previous
model
year
is
appropriate
or
if
new
testing
will
be
required.
EPA
will
also
select
a
number
of
tests
for
confirmation
at
EPA's
own
laboratory.

EPA
prepares
an
annual
report
of
emission
test
results
and
reviews
annual
fuel
economy
reports
submitted
by
the
manufacturers.

5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
EPA
currently
makes
extensive
use
of
computers
in
collecting
information
from
vehicle
manufacturers.
Essentially
all
routine
information
(
test
results
and
vehicle
descriptions)
is
electronically
transmitted
directly
from
the
manufacturers
through
the
CFEIS
system
and
13
the
VERIFY
system
under
development.
Remaining
information,
including
diagrams
and
narrative
descriptions,
is
submitted
on
optical
disc.
(
Some
smaller
motorcycle
manufacturers
rely
on
paper
submissions.)
As
discussed
above,
highway
motorcycle,
DR/
VERR,
and
fees
submissions
are
all
likewise
either
already
computerized
or
in
the
process
of
becoming
so.

All
information
received
by
EPA
is
subject
to
review.
Data
submitted
electronically
is
automatically
screened;
test
results
that
are
close
to
emission
standards
are
reviewed
in
more
detail.
Narrative
descriptions
of
the
proposed
product
line
are
checked
to
verify
that
the
appropriate
vehicles
have
been
tested.
(
The
emission
and
fuel
economy
programs
rely
on
a
combination
of
"
worst
case"
and
representative
data
to
accomplish
their
goals.)
Except
for
projected
sales
and
a
very
limited
amount
of
proprietary
product
information
(
typically
catalyst
formulations),
all
information
is
available
to
the
public
as
soon
as
the
vehicle
is
offered
for
sale.
Emission
and
fuel
economy
data
is
available
on
the
internet;
other
information
is
available
upon
request
under
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act.

5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
EPA
has
special
procedures
for
small­
volume
LDV/
LDT
manufacturer
certifications;
i.
e.,
those
whose
total
sales
are
less
than
10,000
units
per
year.
These
special
procedures
allow
the
small­
volume
manufacturer
to
submit
a
simplified
application
for
certification
with
respect
to
durability
demonstrations.
These
manufacturers
also
have
reduced
testing
and
reporting
requirements
under
the
IUVP.
Further,
by
the
very
nature
of
their
size,
small
volume
manufacturers
typically
have
very
limited
product
lines.
This
characteristic
both
reduces
the
amount
of
information
which
must
be
submitted
and
also
simplifies
the
process
of
selecting
the
correct
test
vehicle(
s).
Another
provision
for
small
manufacturers
is
the
reduced
certification
fees
available
for
manufacturers
and
importers
of
vehicles,
who
may
pay
one
percent
of
the
expected
retail
sales
value
of
the
vehicles
if
that
is
less
than
the
normal
fee.
There
are
also
several
special
provisions
to
reduce
the
regulatory
burden
on
small
highway
motorcycle
manufacturers:
in
addition
to
hardship
exemptions
and
program
delays,
manufacturers
with
sales
less
than
3000
per
year
and
500
employees
may
use
broader
definitions
of
engine
categories,
and
those
with
less
than
10,000
units
per
year
have
reduced
certification
submission
requirements
(
no
test
results
reported)
and
reduced
durability
showings.

5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
Information
must
be
submitted
for
each
"
model
year"
that
a
manufacturer
intends
to
build
(
or
import)
vehicles.
A
"
model
year"
is
usually
about
one
calendar
year
long;
it
typically
begins
prior
to
January
1st
of
the
calendar
year.
If
a
product
is
unchanged
between
model
years,
much
of
the
information
can
be
"
carried
over."
The
collection
frequency
and
burden
are
determined
to
a
large
extent
by
the
manufacturer's
marketing
and
product
plans.
However,
as
required
by
law,
some
submission
is
required
for
each
model
year's
production.
Other
information
collections
listed
in
Appendix
II
are
conducted
according
to
schedules
that
were
determined
in
rulemakings.
14
Section
6:
Estimating
the
Burden
and
Cost
of
the
Collection
6(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
The
burden
estimates
below
separately
consider
four
programs
covered
by
this
ICR:
The
LDV/
LDT
emissions
and
fuel
economy
compliance
programs,
The
IUVP,
the
HMC
program,
and
the
DR/
VERR
system,
all
described
above
in
section
2(
b).
This
organization
is
motivated
by
the
history
of
the
addition
of
these
programs
to
this
ICR
and
of
their
implementation,
as
discussed
above,
with
the
expectation
that
separate
treatment
will
allow
for
greater
continuity
and
accountability
in
the
calculation
of
the
burdens
for
each.

Within
the
LDV/
LDT,
IUVP,
and
HMC
programs,
the
estimation
of
respondent
burden
is
essentially
broken
down
into
three
parts:
testing
burden,
reporting
burden,
and
recordkeeping
burden,
with
some
features
specific
to
particular
programs
included
therein
(
notably,
procurement
for
IUVP
and
confirmatory
testing
burdens
on
manufacturers
for
LDV/
LDT).
The
DR/
VERR
program
is
entirely
reporting
and
recordkeeping,
but
includes
both
LDV/
LDTs
and
HMCs.

The
HMC
reporting
burden
is
based
on
ICR
0783.43
and
0783.46,
updated
with
the
latest
figures
on
numbers
of
applicants
and
tests
performed;
see
below.
The
DR/
VERR
is
likewise
an
updated
version
of
ICR
1016.01.
Recreational
vehicles
are
now
covered
by
ICR
to
ICR
1695.08.

By
far
the
largest
burden
is
from
the
LDV/
LDT
emissions
and
fuel
economy
compliance
program.
The
basic
outline
of
this
burden
estimate
dates
back
to
the
CAP2000
cost
study
and
the
ICR
that
incorporated
it
(
ICR
0783.38).
The
present
burden
estimate
continues
the
process
of
updating
based
on
a
renewed
examination
of
the
burdens,
consultations
with
industry,
and
consultations
with
program
administrators
within
EPA.

The
principal
changes
in
the
approach
to
burden
calculation
from
the
previous
ICR
are
the
following:

First,
the
important
IUVP
program
is
broken
out
and
considered
separately.

Second,
testing
burdens
for
LDV/
LDT
and
IUVP
are
based
on
a
very
careful
analysis
of
the
actual
number
of
unique
tests
conducted,
regardless
of
how
many
times
the
test
results
have
been
reported,
rather
than
assumptions
about
the
average
number
of
test
vehicles
per
test
group
or
the
percentage
of
test
results
that
are
carried
over
from
prior
years.
This
analysis
is
based
on
a
rigorous
screening
of
several
databases,
from
hand
counts
to
computer
queries,
an
analysis
that
has
confirmed
many
economies
in
the
program
whereby
one
test
frequently
serves
several
purposes.
In
addition
to
carry­
overs,
for
example,
"
city"
and
"
highway"
emissions
tests
can
sometimes
be
used
to
produce
useable
fuel
economy
data,
and
fuel
economy
tests
can
sometimes
be
used
for
emissions
purposes.
(
One
result
of
this
fact
is
that
the
total
testing
burden
of
the
fuel
economy
and
emissions
programs
together
is
accurate
because
the
costs
and
hours
per
test
are
the
same
for
both.)
The
burdens
reported
below
are
based
on
this
analysis
for
the
base
year
of
model
year
2004,
15
with
minor
adjustments
for
anticipated
applications
for
heavy
duty
chassis
certified
engines
and
for
increased
applications
by
foreign
manufacturers
of
highway
motorcycles.
Third,
a
more
detailed
accounting
of
every
type
of
test
conducted
(
for
example,
ORVR
tests,
Cold
CO
tests,
SFTP
tests,
Certification
Short
Tests,
and
others)
has
been
undertaken,
again
based
on
an
accurate
count
of
the
actual
unique
tests
reported.
The
capital
costs
of
these
tests
are
those
specified
in
previous
ICRs
(
with
minor
modifications
for
various
test
species):
$
8
million
for
an
environmental
facility
that
can
carry
out
300
tests
per
year,
and
$
4
millions
for
a
normal
test
facility
that
can
conduct
750
tests
per
year.
ORVR
facilities
cost
$
600,000
and
can
conduct
1000
tests
per
year.
These
capital
costs
are
treated,
as
they
have
been
in
the
past,
as
continuing
capital
expenses
rather
than
one­
time
startup
costs.

Fourth,
the
prior
ICR
included
operations
and
maintenance
costs
for
mileage
accumulation
of
test
vehicles
totaling
four
million
miles
at
$
0.30
per
mile.
The
present
ICR
includes
mileage
accumulation
expenses
for
the
relevant
durability
demonstrations
(
there
are
several
variations
available,
not
all
of
which
require
mileage
accumulation)
using
a
more
complicated
and
realistic
formula
from
the
CAP2000
cost
study.
Our
current
information
indicates
that
this
is
a
more
realistic
method
for
estimating
durability
demonstration
burdens.
This
has
resulted
in
an
increase
in
the
total
O&
M
burden
for
this
ICR.

Fifth,
the
prior
ICR
used
a
figure
of
$
100
per
hour
for
labor
costs,
including
overhead.
The
current
ICR
is
based
on
the
Federal
pay
grades
(
with
a
24%
benefits
and
overhead
adjustment)
performing
tasks
similar
to
those
performed
by
management,
technical,
and
secretarial
labor
in
the
automotive
industry
conducting
compliance
activities.
We
also
concluded
that
these
are
better
estimators
of
management,
technical,
and
secretarial
costs
than
the
corresponding
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
figures:
we
use
$
83.80,
$
38.50,
and
$
28.58
compared
to
current
BLS
figures
of
$
72.46,
$
48.36,
and
$
19.22,
respectively.

Sixth,
in
EPA's
review
of
the
programs
covered
by
this
ICR,
an
attempt
has
been
made,
where
feasible,
to
re­
examine
individually
many
of
the
cost
items
that
are
reported
within
aggregated
categories.
Examples
include
costs
borne
by
manufacturers
for
those
vehicles
chosen
for
confirmatory
testing
at
EPA's
laboratory,
including
shipping
and
preparation
costs,
and
separate
consideration
of
several
reporting
programs,
including
submission
of
warranty
copies,
technical
service
bulletins,
fee
filing
forms,
ORVR
safety
reports,
and
CFEIS
updates.

For
HMCs,
this
ICR
continues
the
assumption
in
ICR
0783.42
onward
that
one
fifth
of
all
engine
family
certifications
are
new
or
retest
applications
and
the
remainder
carryovers.
Another
important
issue
is
the
impact
of
expanding
the
program
to
include
motorcycles
with
less
than
50
cc
displacements,
which
were
formerly
unregulated.
The
regulatory
impact
analysis
for
that
rulemaking,
the
preamble
to
the
rule,
and
the
subsequent
ICRs
all
assumed
that
the
number
of
certification
applications
for
such
engines
would
be
quite
low;
the
market
for
these
small
motorcycles
has
been
limited
in
the
United
States
and
only
three
manufacturers
and
four
models
are
mentioned.
Although
the
earliest
requirements
for
these
engines
do
not
begin
until
the
2006
model
year,
early
indications
are
that
a
larger
number
of
domestic,
and,
in
particular,
foreign
manufactures
are
interested
in
trying
the
U.
S.
market.
The
picture
is
further
complicated
by
availability
of
expanded
engine
family
16
groupings
and
possible
delays
in
the
permeation
standards
for
small
manufacturers;
many
potential
small
motorcycle
importers
may
qualify.
Similarly,
small
motorcycle
tank
permeation
standards
potentially
benefit
from
banking
permeation
credits
from
larger
classes
of
motorcycles.
All
in
all,
we
thought
it
prudent
to
increase
the
estimated
number
of
less
than
50
cc
engine
families
to
35,
and
these
have
been
added
to
the
total.
This
and
some
other
adjustments
to
the
estimate
for
the
motorcycle
program
has
resulted
in
a
modest
increase
in
the
estimated
hours
and
costs
for
this
program.

As
emphasized
in
the
draft
ICR,
the
regulatory
program
and
the
automotive
industry
have
evolved
together
now
for
more
than
three
decades,
and
the
highway
motorcycle
industry
almost
as
long.
It
is
no
longer
possible
to
determine
what
these
industries
would
look
like
without
the
reporting
and
recordkeeping
mandated
by
the
Clean
Air
Act
but
with
the
rest
of
the
Act
and
the
regulations
promulgated
thereunder
still
in
force.
Manufacturers
consulted
respond
with
widely
varying
estimates
of
what
their
burdens
of
complying
with
the
Act
would
be
in
the
absence
of
EPA
testing
and
reporting
oversight.

Whereas
manufacturers
develop
their
products
within
the
context
of
compliance
with
all
the
requirements
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
we
understand
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
to
be
centrally
concerned
with
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burdens.
Thus,
we
start
with
the
burden
of
submitting
information
to
EPA
and
keeping
copies
of
that
information.
From
there
we
go
on
to
consider
the
costs
of
developing
the
information
that
has
to
be
reported.
Consequently,
this
ICR
has
traditionally
included
the
burden
of
conducting
tests
that
have
to
be
reported
to
support
EPA's
oversight
of
compliance
with
the
Clean
Air
Act.
We
take
the
cost
of
conducting
the
tests
to
include
the
capital
costs
of
building
the
facilities
to
run
the
tests
and
the
associated
operations
and
maintenance
costs,
such
as
mileage
accumulation
for
durability
determinations,
and
labor
costs.

Estimated
Respondent
Burden
Hours:

Respondent
Burden
Hours
Program/
Activity
Number
/
Year
Burden/
Activity
(
hours)
Total
(
hours)

LDV/
LDT:
­­
Fuel
Economy
tests
1908.0
28.0
53,424
­­
Emissions
tests
1640.0
24.8
40,634
­­
Evap/
ORVR
tests
326.0
14.0
4,564
­­
ICIs&
Alt
Fuels
tests
111.5
25.8
2,875
­­
Durability
&
OBD
demos
116.0
28.0
3,248
­­
Cert
Confirmatory
burdens
798.0
2.3
1,863
­­
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
6,656.0
62.5
416,298
IUVP
3356.6
34.3
114,999
Highway
Motorcycles
1000.0
5.5
5,482
Defect,
Recall
Reports
378.0
10.0
3,790
TOTAL
16,290
647,176
17
6(
b)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
(
i)
Estimating
labor
costs
The
estimated
cost
for
labor
is
based
on
the
Federal
pay
grades
(
with
a
24%
benefits
and
overhead
adjustment)
performing
tasks
similar
to
those
performed
by
management,
technical,
and
secretarial
labor
in
the
automotive
industry
conducting
compliance
activities.
We
determined
that
these
are
better
estimators
of
management,
technical,
and
secretarial
costs
than
the
corresponding
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
figures:
we
use
$
83.80,
$
38.50,
and
$
28.58
compared
to
current
BLS
figures
of
$
72.46,
$
48.36,
and
$
19.22,
respectively.
We
have
estimated
labor
costs
between
these
three
categories
for
each
labor
item.
The
overall
labor
cost
per
hour
under
this
methodology
comes
to
$
55.82.
Applied
to
the
total
of
647,176
hours,
the
annual
respondent
labor
burden
is
$
36,124,648.

(
ii)
Estimating
Capital
and
Operations
and
Maintenance
Costs
O&
M
Costs:

Program/
Activity
Number
Activities/
Year
Burden/
Activity
($)
Total
($)

LDV/
LDT:
­­
Durability
&
OBD
demos
116.0
$
19,828
$
2,299,990
­­
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
6656.0
$
3
$
20,434
IUVP
3356.6
$
157
$
526,197
Highway
Motorcycles
1000.0
$
212
$
212,132
Defect,
Recall
Reports
378.0
$
4
$
1,440
TOTAL
$
3,060,193
Operating
costs
historically
have
included
the
costs
of
mileage
accumulation
associated
with
durability
demonstrations.
The
other
major
components
are
the
cost
of
manufacturer
recruitment
of
vehicles
for
tests
under
the
IUVP
and
costs
associated
with
motorcycle
durability
and
permeation
testing.
The
LDV/
LDT
durability
calculation
used
here
is
based
on
that
developed
for
the
CAP2000
cost
estimate.
It
is
assumed
that
25
percent
of
demonstrations
are
via
full
mileage
accelerated
procedures
and
75
percent
through
combinations
of
bench
aging,
aged
components
on
emissions
data
vehicles,
and
deterioration
factors
calculated
from
emissions
data
vehicles.
(
Small
manufacturers
can
use
assigned
deterioration
factors
without
the
demonstration.)
The
largest
component
is
the
cost
of
mileage
accumulation
for
the
full
mileage
option.
Durability
demonstrations
assume
average
vehicles
valued
at
$
25,000
of
which
typically
75%
is
recovered
after
the
test,
with
50%
or
25%
of
the
vehicles
subject
to
reconfiguration
for
the
test.
The
durability
demonstration
calculation
also
includes
the
operational
cost
of
bench
aging
of
the
engines
that
use
this
method.
The
IUVP
recruitment
cost
is
based
on
the
high
estimate
from
the
CAP2000
cost
study.
The
motorcycle
estimate
is
based
on
ICR
0783.46.
18
Non­
depreciated
Capital
Costs:

Program/
Activity
Number
Activities/
Year
Total
($)

LDV/
LDT:
­­
Fuel
Economy
tests
1908.0
$
10,176,000
­­
Emissions
tests
1640.0
$
20,459,333
­­
Evap/
ORVR
tests
326.0
$
6,451,600
­­
ICIs&
Alt
Fuels
tests
111.5
$
972,859
­­
Durability
&
OBD
demos
116.0
$
0
­­
Cert
Confirmatory
burdens
798.0
$
0
­­
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
6656.0
$
0
­­
Fuel
Economy
tests
3356.6
$
19,702,115
Highway
Motorcycles
1000.0
$
361,001
Defect,
Recall
Reports
378.0
$
0
TOTAL
$
58,122,908
To
perform
the
required
testing,
a
combination
of
"
environmental"
and
standard
test
cells
are
required.
(
A
portion
of
the
testing
must
be
done
at
cold
and
warm
temperatures
to
verify
that
emissions
controls
remain
effective.)
Environmental
test
cells
cost
$
8
million
each
and
have
a
capacity
of
300
tests
per
year;
standard
cells
cost
$
4
million
with
a
capacity
of
750
tests
per
year.
ORVR
facilities
cost
$
600,000
and
have
a
capacity
of
1000
tests
per
year.
Other
tests
are
variations
on
the
demands
for
these
facilities.

The
annualized
depreciated
costs
of
these
facilities
using
the
standard
assumptions
of
7%
interest
yearly
over
ten
years
is
$
8,275,394.
This
is
regarded
as
a
permanent
capital
cost
item;
that
is,
we
regard
the
capital
stock
as
being
continuously
depreciated
and
replaced.

(
iii)
Start­
up
Costs
Capital
costs
are
considered
to
be
ongoing
costs
rather
than
start­
up
costs.
Other
startup
costs
included
in
previous
renewals
also
projected
the
baseline
costs
for
outyears
which
are
continued
here.

6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
The
emission
and
fuel
economy
compliance
programs
are
administered
by
EPA's
Certification
and
Compliance
Division
and
Laboratory
Operations
Division.
Approximately
26
full
time
employee
equivalents
are
directly
involved
in
the
emission
and
fuel
economy
programs;
their
cost
is
approximately
$
2.9
million,
including
benefits
but
not
overhead.
EPA
also
participates
in
a
program
whereby
the
agency
contracts
with
an
organization
that
provides
qualified
persons
to
perform
duties
for
the
agency
that
are
not
performed
by
EPA
employees.
The
cost
associated
with
these
persons
that
work
directly
on
emission
and
fuel
economy
programs
for
the
two
divisions
is
approximately
$
0.5
million,
not
including
overhead.
Overhead
percentage
for
the
entire
division
is
approximately
45,
yielding
an
estimated
total
agency
cost
of
$
4.9
million.
19
6(
d)
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
From
the
above
discussion
the
following
total
burden
and
cost
estimates
can
be
calculated.
(
Due
to
the
diverse
nature
of
the
motor
vehicle
industry,
there
is
no
typical
or
average
respondent.
Respondents
can
be
large
manufacturers
with
many
products
such
as
General
Motors;
they
can
also
be
small
importers
of
a
few
specialized
motorcycles
per
year.)

6(
e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Cost
(
i)
Respondent
Tally
RESPONDENTS
139
BURDEN
HOURS
647,176
LABOR
COST
$
36.1
million
OPERATING
COST
$
3.1
million
CAPITALIZED
COST
$
8.3
million
(
ii)
Agency
Tally
EMPLOYEES
26
CONTRACT
LABOR
COST
$
0.5
million
COST
$
4.9
million
6(
f)
Reasons
for
change
in
burden
The
change
in
burden
is
due
to
the
changes
in
methodology
and
coverage
outlined
above
in
6(
a)
combined
with
new
counts
of
the
numbers
of
respondents,
test
groups,
and
tests
performed.
EPA
has
not
made
any
program
changes
(
other
than
approved
rulemakings)
since
the
previous
ICR
renewal.
The
effect
of
these
changes
can
be
summarized
as
follows:

Labor
hours:
The
draft
version
of
this
ICR
as
placed
in
the
public
docket
in
connection
with
the
Federal
Register
notice
(
Appendix
III)
estimated
542,000
labor
hours,
including
28,112
associated
with
recreational
vehicles
no
longer
covered
in
this
ICR.
The
present
estimate
of
647,176
hours
represents
a
19.4
percent
increase.
This
is
primarily
due
to
an
increase
in
the
number
of
light
duty
test
groups
from
300
to
416
along
with
a
more
detailed
analysis
of
the
labor
burdens
associated
with
a
more
comprehensive
accounting
of
tests
and
reports.

Labor
costs:
The
draft
version
multiplied
542,118
labor
hours
by
$
100
hours
to
arrive
at
$
54.2
million
dollars
in
total
labor
costs.
The
final
version
uses
labor
costs
believed
to
be
more
in
line
with
industry
labor
and
overhead;
under
this
methodology
labor
costs
averaging
$
55.82
are
applied
to
647,176
hours
for
a
total
of
$
36.1
million.

O&
M
costs:
The
draft
ICR
included
operations
and
maintenance
costs
for
mileage
accumulation
under
the
durability
demonstration
requirements
for
certification.
The
final
version
increases
the
durability
O&
M
costs
from
$
1.2
million
to
$
2.3
million
by
resorting
20
to
a
more
comprehensive
costing
formula
used
in
the
CAP2000
cost
estimate.
The
remainder
of
the
total
$
3.1
million
is
primarily
from
O&
M
costs
for
highway
motorcycle
certification
testing
updated
from
ICR
0783.46
and
from
recruitment
of
vehicles
for
the
IUVP.

Capital
costs:
The
same
assumptions
about
capital
costs
are
used
in
the
final
ICR
as
in
the
draft
and
prior
versions.
The
decrease
in
capital
costs
from
$
9.7
million
to
$
8.3
million
is
the
result
of
movement
of
the
recreational
vehicle
program
to
another
ICR
and
changes
in
the
counts
of
tests
performed
in
the
LDV/
LDT,
IUVP,
and
HMC
programs.

6(
g)
Burden
Statement
The
table
in
Section
6(
e)
presents
the
total
estimated
burden
for
the
motorcycle
and
lightduty
emission
and
fuel
economy
compliance
programs,
the
IUVP
program,
and
DR/
VERR
program;
approximately
647,176
hours
per
year.
Annual
operating
and
capitalized
costs
are
approximately
$
3.1
million
and
$
8.3
million
respectively.
Because
the
universe
of
vehicle
manufacturers
is
quite
diverse,
there
is
no
"
typical"
respondent.
However,
the
burden
estimates
for
the
various
individual
activities
in
section
6(
a)
can
be
used
to
estimate
the
burden
for
a
particular
respondent.
These
estimates
include
time
to
review
applicable
regulations
and
guidance
documents,
generate
and
gather
the
necessary
information,
and
submit
documents.

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.

To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2004­
0092,
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
is
(
202)
566­
1742.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
to
submit
or
view
public
21
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
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
docket
ID
number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Office
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
No.
(
OAR­
2004­
0092)
and
OMB
control
number
(
2060­
0104)
in
any
correspondence.
22
Appendix
I
Legal
Authority
&
Regulatory
Citations
Energy
Policy
and
Conservation
Act
15
U.
S.
C.
2003.
Calculation
of
average
fuel
economy
(
a)
Method
of
calculation.

"(
1)
Average
fuel
economy
for
purposes
of
section
2002
(
a)
and
(
c)
of
this
title
shall
be
calculated
by
the
EPA
Administrator..."

(
d)
Testing
and
calculation
procedures.

"(
1)
Fuel
economy
for
any
model
type
shall
be
measured,
and
average
fuel
economy
of
a
manufacturer
shall
be
calculated
in
accordance
with
testing
calculation
procedures
established
by
EPA
Administrator,
by
rule..."

15
U.
S.
C.
2005.
Information
and
reports
(
c)
Tests,
reports,
etc.
that
may
be
required
of
manufacturers.

"(
1)
Every
manufacturer
shall
establish
and
maintain
such
records,
make
such
reports,
conduct
such
tests,
and
provide
such
items
and
information
as
the
Secretary
or
EPA
Administrator
may,
by
rule,
reasonably
require
to
enable
the
Secretary
or
the
EPA
Administrator
to
carry
out
their
duties
under
this
subchapter
and
under
any
rules
prescribed
pursuant
to
this
subchapter..."

15
U.
S.
C.
2006.
Labeling
(
a)
Label
required
on
automobile;
contents.

"(
1)
Except
as
otherwise
provided
in
paragraph
(
2),
each
manufacturer
shall
cause
to
be
affixed,
and
each
dealer
shall
cause
to
be
maintained,
on
each
automobile
manufactured
in
any
model
year
after
1976,
in
a
prominent
place,
a
label
..."

"(
3)
The
form
and
content
of
the
labels
required
under
paragraphs
(
1)
and
(
2),
and
the
manner
in
which
such
labels
shall
be
affixed,
shall
be
prescribed
by
the
EPA
Administrator
by
rule..."

Clean
Air
Act
42
U.
S.
C.
7525.
Motor
Vehicle
and
Motor
Vehicle
Engine
Compliance
Testing
and
Certification
23
(
a)
Testing
and
issuance
of
certificate
of
conformity.

"(
1)
The
Administrator
shall
test,
or
require
to
be
tested
in
such
manner
as
he
deems
appropriate,
any
new
motor
vehicle
or
new
motor
vehicle
engine
submitted
by
a
manufacturer
to
determine
whether
such
vehicle
or
engine
conforms
with
regulations
prescribed
under
section
7521
of
this
title.
If
such
vehicle
or
engine
conforms
to
such
regulations,
the
Administrator
shall
issue
a
certificate
of
conformity
upon
such
terms,
and
for
such
period
(
not
in
excess
of
one
year)
as
he
may
prescribe..."

45
U.
S.
C.
7542.
Records
and
Reports
(
a)
Manufacturers'
responsibility.

"
Every
manufacturer
shall
establish
and
maintain
such
records,
make
such
reports,
and
provide
such
information
as
the
Administrator
may
reasonably
require
to
enable
him
to
determine
whether
such
manufacturer
has
acted
or
is
acting
in
compliance
with
this
part
and
the
regulations
thereunder
and
shall,
upon
request
of
an
officer
or
employee
duly
designated
by
the
Administrator,
permit
such
officer
or
employee
at
reasonable
times
to
have
access
to
and
copy
such
records."

CODE
OF
FEDERAL
REGULATIONS
40
CFR
Part
85:
Control
of
air
pollution
from
mobile
sources.

40
CFR
Part
86:
Control
of
air
pollution
from
new
and
in­
use
highway
vehicles
and
engines.

40
CFR
Part
600:
Fuel
economy
of
motor
vehicles
24
Appendix
II
Data
Items
List
40
CFR
citation
Description
Part
85:
Control
of
Air
Pollution
from
Mobile
Sources
Subpart
P:
Importation
of
Motor
Vehicles
and
Engines
(
Sections
85.1501
 
85.1515)

[
Note:
All
these
import
provisions
are
covered
by
ICR
10.09,
(
OMB
Control
No.
2060­
0095)
renewed
through
2007]

Subpart
R:
Exclusions
and
Exemptions
85.1705
Reporting
requirement.
Application
for
testing
exemption,
motor
vehicle
or
motor
vehicle
engine.

85.1706
Reporting
requirement.
Application
pre­
certification
exemption,
motor
vehicle
or
motor
vehicle
engine.

85.1708
Reporting
requirement.
Application
for
national
security
exemption,
motor
vehicle
or
motor
vehicle
engine.

85.1710
Recordkeeping
requirement.
Create
and
maintain
adequate
records
accessible
to
EPA
at
reasonable
times,
per
memorandum
of
exemption.

85.1712
Reporting
requirement.
Application
for
confidential
treatment
of
submitted
information,
applications
for
exemptions/
exclusions.

Subpart
S:
Recall
Regulations
85.1802
Reporting
requirement.
Remedial
plan
required,
nonconforming
motor
vehicle
or
motor
vehicle
engine
class.

85.1803
Reporting
requirement.
Remedial
plan
contents
and
requirements.

85.1806
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirement.
Remedial
plan
progress
reports,
owner
notifications.

85.1808
Reporting
requirement.
Claims
of
confidential
information.

Subpart
T:
Emission
Defect
Reporting
85.1903
Reporting
requirement.
Emission
defect
reports,
motor
vehicles
25
and
motor
vehicle
engines.

85.1904
Reporting
requirement.
Voluntary
emission
recall
reports,
motor
vehicle
and
motor
vehicle
engines.

85.1905
Reporting
requirement.
Request
to
use
alternate
report
format.

85.1906
Recordkeeping
requirement.
Defect
reports.

85.1908
Reporting
requirement.
Disclaimer
of
production
warranty
applicability.

85.1909
Reporting
requirement.
Request
for
confidential
treatment
of
information.

Subpart
V:
Emissions
Control
System
Performance
Warranty
Regulations
[
Note:
the
Voluntary
Aftermarket
Part
Certification
Program
is
covered
by
ICR
116.07.
However,
the
rest
of
the
Subpart
is
Not
covered
in
that
ICR,
in
spite
of
that
ICR's
title.
The
following
sections
were
erroneously
excluded
from
the
list
in
the
draft
ICR:
]

85.2110
Reporting
requirement.
Submission
of
owner's
manuals
and
warranty
statements.

85.2123
Reporting
requirement.
Claims
of
confidentiality.

Subpart
W:
Emission
Control
System
Performance
Warranty
Short
Tests
85.2208
Reporting
requirement.
Application
for
alternative
short
test
procedure.

Subpart
Y:
Fees
[
Supersedes
Part
86,
Subpart
J
for
certification
requests
after
May
11,
2004]

[
Note:
Non­
LDV/
LDT
portions
of
Subpart
Y,
are
covered
by
ICR
2080.02,
OMB
Control
Number
2060­
0545]

85.2406
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirement.
Submission
of
statement
that
reduced
fee
is
appropriate;
request
for
revision;
submission
of
model
year
reduced
fee
payment
report.
Three
year
retention
of
basis
for
reduced
fee.

85.2407
Reporting
requirement.
Requests
for
fee
refunds.

85.2408
Reporting
requirement.
Applicant,
product
identification,
fee
category.
26
Part
86:
Control
of
Emissions
from
New
and
In­
Use
Highway
Vehicles
and
Engines
[
Note:
Draft
ICR
omits
Subpart
A,
General
Provisions.
Most
active
provisions
are
now
in
Subpart
S.
However,
Subpart
A
still
has
important
applicable
provisions
on
retention
of
records:]

[
Note:
Applicable
provisions
are
frequently
repeated
or
incorporated
several
times
for
differing
model
years.
For
example,
86.091­
7,
094­
7
and
096­
7,
and
86.000­
7
are
cumulative,
parallel
provisions.
Some
such
provisions,
such
as
those
for
initial
certification,
that
are
deemed
no
longer
applicable
are
excluded
from
this
list.]

86.000­
7,
86.091­
7,
86.094­
7,
86.096­
7
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
requirements.
Detailed
records
on
all
vehicles
used
in
certification
applications
other
than
routine
emissions
tests
must
be
kept
for
6
or
8
years.
Copies
of
instructions
must
be
submitted
to
EPA.
Averaging
banking
and
trading
records.
Reporting
of
sales
volumes.
Covers
through
2002
model
vehicles.

Subpart
B:
Test
Procedures
86.107
Reporting
requirement.
Gas
chromatograph
records
required
for
evaporative
emission
test.

86.113
Reporting
requirement.
Availability
and
use
of
alternate
fuels
inuse

86.129
Recordkeeping
requirement.
Fuel
temperature
profile
determination.

86.142
Recordkeeping
requirement.
Exhaust
emission
test.

86.155
Recordkeeping
requirement.
Refueling
test.

86.162
Reporting
requirement.
Request
for
alternate
air
conditioning
test
simulations.

86.163
Reporting
requirement.
Substantiation
of
alternate
air
conditioning
test
simulation
correlation.

Subpart
E:
New
Motorcycles,
General
Provisions
86.412
Reporting
requirement.
Submission
of
maintenance
instructions
and
other
documents
that
relate
to
emissions.

86.414
Reporting
requirement.
Submission
of
vehicle
identification
numbers,
description
of
numbering
system.
27
86.415
Reporting
requirement.
Submission
of
annual
production
reports.

86.416
Reporting
requirement.
Application
for
certification.

86.421
Reporting
requirement.
Election
to
test
additional
vehicles.

86.423
Reporting
requirement.
Submission
of
optional
test
data.

86.427
Reporting
requirement.
Emission
testing.
86.428
Reporting
requirement.
Request
for
additional
scheduled
maintenance.

86.429
Reporting
requirement.
Request
for
unscheduled
test
vehicle
maintenance.

86.431
Reporting
requirement.
Submission
of
all
test
data
required.

86.432
Reporting
requirement.
Election
to
use
optional
method
to
determine
deterioration
factor
using
outliers.

86.434
Reporting
requirement.
Request
for
retest
of
confirmatory
test.

86.435
Reporting
requirement.
Election
of
additional
service
accumulation.

86.437
Reporting
requirement.
Certification
of
compliance.

86.438
Reporting
requirement.
Amendments
to
the
application.

86.439
Reporting
requirement.
Amendments
to
the
application;
alternate
method.

86.440
Recordkeeping
requirement.
Maintenance
of
certification
vehicle
data
for
six
years,
one
year
for
test
data.

86.445
Reporting
requirement.
Application
for
hardship
exemption.

86­
446
Reporting
requirement.
Application
for
extension
of
deadlines
for
small­
volume
manufacturers.

86.449
Recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements.
Averaging,
banking
and
trading.
28
Subpart
F:
New
Motorcycles,
Emissions
Regulations
86.513
Reporting
requirement.
Availability
of
alternate
fuels.

86.542
Recordkeeping
requirement.
Motorcycle
certification
testing.

Subpart
G:
Selective
Enforcement
Auditing
86.603
Reporting
requirement.
Assembly
line
data
86.604
Reporting
requirement.
Request
for
reconsideration
on
use
of
EPA
data.
86.605
Recordkeeping
requirement.
Vehicle
production
data.

86.607
Reporting
requirement.
Request
for
alternate
procedures,
description
of
production
changes.
86.609
Reporting
requirement.
Submission
of
test
results
and
supporting
information.

86.612
Reporting
requirement.
Nonconformance,
corrective
action.

86.615
Reporting
requirement.
Request
for
confidential
treatment
of
information
submitted.

Subpart
H:
General
Provisions
for
In­
Use
Emissions
86.709
Reporting
requirement.
Request
to
use
alternate
production
figures.

Subpart
J:
Certification
Fees
[
applicable
to
applications
before
7/
12/
2004,
including
some
still
active
under
import
provisions
of
40
CFR
85.1509]

86.908
Reporting
requirement.
Request
for
fee
waiver/
refund
86.909
Reporting
requirement.
Applicant,
product
identification,
fee
category.

Subpart
K:
Selective
Enforcement
Auditing
of
Light­
Duty
Trucks
86.1003
Reporting
requirement.
Assembly
line
data
86.1004
Reporting
requirement.
Request
for
reconsideration
on
use
of
EPA
data.

86.1005
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirement.
Maintenance
and
submission
of
vehicle
production
data.
29
86.1007
Reporting
requirement.
Request
for
alternate
selection
method.

86.1009
Reporting
requirement.
Submission
of
test
results
and
supporting
information.

86.1012
Reporting
requirement.
Nonconformance,
corrective
action.

86.1015
Reporting
requirement.
Request
for
confidential
treatment
of
submitted
information.

Subpart
L:
Nonperformance
Penalties
for
Light­
Duty
Trucks
86.1106
Recordkeeping
requirement.
Production
compliance
audit
information,
recordkeeping.

86.1107
Reporting
requirement.
Request
for
reconsideration
on
use
of
EPA
data.
86.1108
Recordkeeping
requirement.
Nonconformance
penalty
testing.

86.1110
Reporting
requirement.
Request
for
alternate
test
procedures.

86.1113
Reporting
requirement.
Nonconformance
penalty
calculation.
86.1114
Reporting
requirement.
Nonconformance,
corrective
action.

Subpart
O:
Short
Test
Procedures
for
LDVs,
LDTs.

86.1427
Reporting
requirement.
Request
for
alternate
short
test
procedure.

86.1442
Reporting
requirement.
Short
test
reports.

Subpart
P:
Idle
Test
Procedures
for
LDTs
86.1542
Reporting
requirement.
Idle
test
reports.

Subpart
R:
General
NLEV
Provisions
86.1705
Reporting
requirement.
Manufacturer's
election
of
NLEV
program.

86.1707
Reporting
requirement.
Manufacturer's
decision
to
opt­
out
of
NLEV
program.

86.1712
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirement.
Production
reports,
maintenance
of
records.
30
86.1721
Reporting
requirement.
Identification
and
production
information,
NLEV
vehicles.

86.1723
Reporting
requirement.
Emission
data,
NLEV
vehicles.

86.1734
Reporting
requirement.
Notification
of
production
vehicle
changes.

Subpart
S:
General
Tier
2
Provisions
86.1805
Reporting
requirement.
Petition
for
alternative
useful
life
definition.

86.1806
Reporting
requirement.
Request
for
alternative
on
board
diagnostic
system
requirements.

86.1809
Reporting
requirement.
Submission
of
detailed
calibration
information.
86.1811
Reporting
requirement.
Election
of
alternate
standards
and
phasein
requirements.

86.1817
Reporting
requirement.
Election
of
emission
limits,
submission
of
annual
report.

86.1823
Reporting
requirement.
Description
of
durability
demonstration
program.

86.1826
Reporting
requirement.
Election
of
assigned
deterioration
factors.

86.1829
Reporting
requirement.
Request
for
waivers,
data
substitution.

86.1839
Reporting
requirement.
Substantiation
of
data
substitution.

86.1840
Reporting
requirement.
Request
for
special
test
procedures.

86.1842
Reporting
requirement.
Notification
of
running
changes.

86.1843
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirement.
Application
for
certification
and
general
information
requirements.

86.1844
Reporting
requirement.
Product
description,
test
data
requirements.

86.1845
Reporting
requirement.
In­
use
testing
verification
requirements.

86.1846
Reporting
requirement.
Submit
confirmatory
testing
plan
when
such
testing
is
required.
31
86.1847
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
in­
use
and
confirmatory
testing.

86.1862
Reporting
requirement.
NOx
averaging
recordkeeping
requirements.

Part
600
Subpart
A:
General
Fuel
Economy
Provisions
600.005
Recordkeeping
requirement.
Fuel
economy
data
vehicles.

600.006
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirement.
Fuel
economy
data
vehicles.

600.007
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirement.
Fuel
economy
data,
imported
vehicles.
600.010
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirement.
Minimum
fuel
economy.

Subpart
B:
Fuel
Economy
Test
Procedures
600.113
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirement.
Fuel
analysis.
Subpart
C:
Calculating
Fuel
Economy
Values
600.206
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirement.
Fuel
economy
data,
dual
fuel
vehicles.

600.207
Reporting
requirement.
Model
type
fuel
economy
calculations.

600.209
Reporting
requirement.
Fuel
economy
label
calculations.

Subpart
D:
Fuel
Economy
Labeling
600.305
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirement.
Fuel
economy
label.

600.306
Reporting
requirement.
Fuel
economy
label
information.

600.307
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirement.
Fuel
economy
label
information.

600.310
Reporting
requirement.
High
altitude
fuel
economy
label,
manufacturer
request.

600.311
Reporting
requirement.
Range
of
fuel
economy.
32
600.312
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirement.
Fuel
economy
label
calculations.

600.313
Reporting
requirement.
Fuel
economy
information.

600.314
Reporting
requirement.
Correction
of
fuel
economy
labels.

Subpart
F:
Procedures
for
Determining
Manufacturer's
Average
Fuel
Economy
600.507
Reporting
requirement.
Revised
fuel
economy
data.

600.509
Reporting
requirement.
Voluntary
fuel
economy
data.

600.510
Reporting
requirement.
Calculation
of
average
fuel
economy,
adjustments.

600.512
Reporting
requirement.
Model
year
report.
