Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines: Technical Amendments to Evaporative Emissions Regulations, Dynamometer Regulations, and Vehicle Labeling, 72917-72930 [05-23714]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 235 (Thursday, December 8, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72917-72930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23714]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 86

[OAR-2004-0011; FRL 8004-7]
RIN 2060-AM32


Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor 
Vehicle Engines: Technical Amendments to Evaporative Emissions 
Regulations, Dynamometer Regulations, and Vehicle Labeling

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to make changes to certain 
provisions of the evaporative and refueling emission regulations for 
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks and heavy-duty vehicles up to 
14,000

[[Page 72918]]

pounds GVWR, the four-wheel drive dynamometer test provisions, and the 
vehicle labeling regulations. The evaporative changes are intended to: 
reduce manufacturers' certification evaporative/refueling test burden; 
clarify existing evaporative/refueling requirements; and better 
harmonize federal evaporative/refueling test procedures with California 
evaporative/refueling test procedures. The dynamometer changes are 
intended to amend outdated regulations to now include four-wheel drive 
provisions. The labeling changes are intended to amend regulations to 
remove outdated information. Today's action does not change the 
stringency of these existing programs.

DATES: Today's action will be effective on February 6, 2006, without 
further notice unless we receive adverse comment by January 9, 2006, or 
a request for a public hearing by December 23, 2005. If we receive 
adverse comment on one or more distinct amendments, paragraphs, or 
sections of this rulemaking, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register indicating which provisions are being withdrawn due to 
adverse comment.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2004-
0011, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: https://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred 
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Fax: (202) 566-1741.
     Mail: Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0011, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0011, Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation 
Docket, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 
20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal 
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0011. 
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change and may be made available online at http:/
/www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-
mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the federal regulations.gov Web sites are 
``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 
at https://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 
copy at the Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 
fax number for the Air Docket and Reading Room for OAR-2004-0011 is 
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Sohacki, Certification and 
Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2000 
Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4851; fax 
number: (734) 214-4053; e-mail address: sohacki.lynn@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is publishing this rule without a prior 
proposal because we view this action as noncontroversial and anticipate 
no adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of 
today's Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate 
document that will serve as the proposal to adopt the provisions in 
this Direct Final Rule if adverse comments are filed. We may address 
all adverse comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed 
rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any 
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Any distinct 
amendment, paragraph, or section of today's rulemaking for which we do 
not receive adverse comment will become effective on the date set out 
above, notwithstanding any adverse comment on any other distinct 
amendment, paragraph, or section of today's rule.

Access to Rulemaking Documents Through the Internet

    Today's action is available electronically on the date of 
publication from EPA's Federal Register Internet Web site listed below. 
Electronic copies of this preamble, regulatory language, and other 
documents associated with today's final rule are available from the EPA 
Office of Transportation and Air Quality Web site, listed below, 
shortly after the rule is signed by the Administrator. These services 
are free of charge, except any cost that you already incur for 
connecting to the Internet.
    EPA Federal Register Web site: https://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/
epa-air/ (either select a desired date or use the Search feature).
    EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality Web site: https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/ (look in What's New or under specific rulemaking 
topic).
    Please note that due to differences between the software used to 
develop the documents and the software into which the documents may be 
downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc., may occur.
    Regulated Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action 
are those that manufacture and sell motor vehicles in the United 
States. The table below gives some examples of entities that may have 
to comply with the regulations. However, since these are only examples, 
you should carefully examine these and other existing regulations in 40 
CFR part 86. If you have any questions, please call the person listed 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

[[Page 72919]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 NAICS      SIC         Examples of
           Category              codes     codes   potentially regulated
                                  \a\       \b\           entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.....................   336111,      3711  Automobile and Light
                                336112,             Duty Motor Vehicle
                                 336120             Manufacturing Heavy
                                                    Duty Truck
                                                    Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\b\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

Table of Contents

I. Overview
    Background
II. List of Changes To Test Procedures
    A. Evaporative Test Procedure
    B. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) and Spitback Test 
Procedure
    C. Four-Wheel Drive Dynamometer Regulations
    D. Vehicle Labeling
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act
IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Overview

    Today's action pertains to the Evaporative Emissions Test Procedure 
(58 FR 16002, March 24, 1992) and the Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery 
Procedure (59 FR 16262, April 6, 1994) for light-duty vehicles, light 
duty trucks, and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles up to 14,000 GVWR; the 
dynamometer test provisions (40 CFR 86.135-90, 40 CFR 86.159-00, 40 CFR 
86.160-00); and the Vehicle Labeling requirements (40 CFR 86.098-35, 40 
CFR 86.1807-01). Today's action includes minor revisions to the 
evaporative test procedures, which are intended to reduce testing 
burden associated with conducting evaporative test procedures without 
affecting the level of stringency. Today's action includes minor 
revisions to clarify evaporative emissions testing regulations; to 
harmonize EPA and California evaporative requirements; to allow use of 
a four-wheel drive dynamometer; and to no longer require out-dated 
information on vehicle labels. Although we provide some context in the 
following discussions, a full discussion of the evaporative test 
procedures is outside the scope of this direct final rule. Readers are 
advised to consult the documents associated with these rulemakings to 
obtain the details of these rules.
    The remainder of this document is divided into the following 
sections: Section II provides a detailed description of today's action. 
Sections III through IV describe the Statutory and Executive Order 
Reviews and Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority.

Background

1. The 1996 Model Year and Later Enhanced Evaporative Test Procedure
    The enhanced evaporative emission test procedure for 1996 model 
year and later passenger cars, light-duty trucks and heavy-duty 
vehicles measures emissions from fuel evaporation during simulated 
overnight parking experiences (diurnal emissions), during vehicle 
operations (running loss emissions), and immediately following a drive 
(hot soak emissions).
    The enhanced evaporative test procedure includes a sequence of 
three basic elements: (1) An initial loading of the evaporative 
canister with fuel vapor; (2) a period of driving to provide an 
opportunity to purge the canister; and (3) a simulation of repeated hot 
days of parking. By following this sequence and sampling evaporative 
emissions during hot soak, running loss and parking simulation, the 
test ensures that the vehicle can quickly regain canister storage 
capacity during driving and provides further assurance that vehicles 
will effectively control evaporative emissions for most in-use events. 
The enhanced evaporative test procedure also includes a test procedure 
to measure fuel spillage during refueling, called spitback. The 1996 
and later model year enhanced evaporative test procedures follow.
    a. Three-Day Diurnal-plus-Hot-Soak Test Sequence. Each of the 
three-day diurnal plus hot-soak (three-diurnal) test elements 
corresponds to an aspect of in-use vehicle operation in ozone-prone 
summertime conditions. The exhaust emission test following vehicle 
preconditioning corresponds to vehicle operation while vapors from a 
loaded evaporative canister are purged into the engine, as might occur 
during driving after a prolonged period of parking. The running loss 
test element corresponds to sustained vehicle operation on a hot day. 
The hot soak element corresponds to the emission-prone period 
immediately following engine shut-off. The diurnal heat builds 
correspond to successive days of parking in hot weather and also serve 
to control fuel system permeation emissions, called resting losses.
    The purpose of the running loss test is to measure evaporative 
emissions during vehicle operation to assure that vehicles can control 
fuel vapors generated in use. In order to perform the running loss 
test, auto manufacturers must separately develop a fuel temperature 
profile for the running loss test. The fuel temperature profile is used 
as a target during the running loss test to duplicate the heating of 
the vehicle's fuel tank during onroad driving in representative summer 
conditions. Each fuel temperature profile is generated by obtaining a 
fuel temperature versus time trace as the vehicle is driven over the 
prescribed running loss driving cycle, during sunny, summertime 
conditions, e.g. at 95 [deg]F ambient temperature, on the road. During 
the running loss test, thermocouples are placed inside the fuel tank to 
measure and monitor the fuel temperature.
    b. Two-Day Diurnal-plus-Hot-Soak Test Sequence. The two-day 
diurnal-plus-hot-soak (two-diurnal) test sequence is a supplemental 
evaporative test procedure, consisting of vehicle preconditioning, 
canister preconditioning, FTP exhaust test, hot soak at 68-86 [deg]F, 
and two diurnal heat builds. The two-diurnal test sequence is similar 
to the three-diurnal but excludes the running loss test. Instead, 
without the running loss portion of the test procedure, the two diurnal 
heat builds after the exhaust emission test verify that the evaporative 
canister is sufficiently purged during the exhaust emission test, which 
simulates short trips (58 FR 16003, March 23, 1993). ``Eliminating a 
diurnal heat build, initially loading the evaporative canister only to 
breakthrough, measuring a moderate temperature hot soak, and increasing 
the standard from 2 to 2.5 grams all contribute significantly to making 
the [two-diurnal test] procedure effective in its limited objective of

[[Page 72920]]

ensuring proper purge without requiring additional design 
modifications'' (58 FR 16001, March 24, 1993). The three-diurnal test 
sequence does not test for canister purge as effectively as the two-
diurnal test sequence due to the addition of the running loss test, 
which occurs between the FTP exhaust test and diurnal heat builds. 
Since exhaust emissions are not measured during running loss, it cannot 
be determined if canister purging occurred only during the FTP exhaust 
cycle (58 FR 16001, March 24, 1993).
    c. Spitback Test Procedure. The spitback test procedure assures 
that vehicles' fuel fill necks are adequately designed to accommodate 
in-use fuel fill rates, so as to limit fuel spillage when refueling a 
vehicle.
2. The 1998 and Later Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) Test 
Procedure
    A separate evaporative test procedure, the Onboard Refueling Vapor 
Recovery (ORVR) test procedure, was developed to measure refueling 
emissions from vehicles. On January 24, 1994, EPA adopted onboard 
vehicle refueling requirements for passenger cars and light-duty trucks 
(59 FR 16262, April 6, 1994). EPA also adopted similar ORVR 
requirements for complete heavy-duty vehicles less than 10,000 lbs. 
GVWR (65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000). The main purpose of the ORVR test 
is to limit hydrocarbon vapors released during refueling events. The 
ORVR test procedure also accounts for spitback emissions in the overall 
emission measurements, reducing the necessity for a separate spitback 
test procedure (59 FR 16262, April 6, 1994).
3. Evaporative Test Procedures Similarities
    The enhanced evaporative test procedure is important for measuring 
evaporative emissions from vehicles under numerous drive and park 
conditions, and the ORVR test is important for measuring refueling 
emissions from vehicles. In some cases, similar parameters are tested 
by these test procedures. The two-diurnal and three-diurnal test 
sequences both test canister capacity, permeation control, and canister 
purge capacity. The three-diurnal test sequence also tests hot drive 
vapor generation (running loss) and high temperature vapor generation. 
The ORVR test procedure tests canister capacity and canister purge 
capacity, in addition to refueling vapor generation and fill pipe 
losses. The two-diurnal test procedure takes approximately four days; 
the three-diurnal takes five days; the spitback takes one day; and the 
ORVR takes three days. Thus, performing all four test procedures 
requires a minimum of 12 days since the spitback test is often waived. 
EPA believes it is appropriate to streamline the evaporative test 
procedure to reduce testing burden and to reduce overlapping procedures 
without affecting the level of stringency.
    EPA, California Air Resources Board (ARB), and the automobile 
industry have collaborated since 1996 to identify portions of these 
test procedures that can be streamlined and/or harmonized, and the 
discussions culminated in EPA Guidance Letter CCD-02-20, December 31, 
2002, available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/
dearmfr/dearmfr.htm. The Guidance Letter clarified portions of 
evaporative emission test procedure and also suggested minor 
modifications to the test procedure which could be made via a direct 
rulemaking. Today's action codifies the suggested modifications and 
finalizes the clarifications to the evaporative and refueling test 
procedures. Today's action does not affect the stringency of the 
current requirements.
4. Dynamometer Test Provisions
    The current dynamometer test procedures (86.139-90, 86.159-00, and 
86.160-00) date from a time when four-wheel drive dynamometers were not 
widely available for measurement of exhaust emissions and fuel economy. 
Changes in technology for modern four-wheel and all-wheel drive 
vehicles have heightened the need for testing these vehicles on a four-
wheel drive dynamometer. It is no longer easy to configure certain 
four-wheel or all-wheel drive certification vehicles for testing on a 
two-wheel drive dynamometer. The need for four-wheel drive dynamometer 
tests also includes hybrid vehicles with sophisticated regenerative 
braking systems that cannot receive a representative test on a two-
wheel drive dynamometer.
5. Vehicle Labeling
    86.1807-01 contains the labeling requirements for vehicles, which 
include light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger 
vehicles, and heavy-duty vehicles which are chassis certified. 86.098-
35 previously applied to vehicle and engine labeling, but since the 
2001 model year apply only to heavy-duty engine labeling. The labels' 
basic content requirements date from a time when vehicles were designed 
with manually adjustable tune-up settings, including idle speed(s), 
ignition timing, air-fuel mixture, injection timing, and valve lash, 
and did not use an exhaust catalyst. Modern vehicles and engines are 
electronically controlled, making a listing of tune-up specifications 
unnecessary. As well, leaded fuel was still widely available in the 
U.S. at the time of the label requirements. The labels have not been 
updated since the introduction of catalyst technology almost 30 years 
ago.

II. List of Changes to Test Procedures

    Today's action describes minor modifications and clarifications 
made to the evaporative test procedures, dynamometer regulations, and 
vehicle labeling requirements. Explanation and, where appropriate, 
EPA's interpretation of the resulting regulatory language is provided.

A. Evaporative Test Procedures

1. Provide Opportunity To Waive the Two-Day Evaporative Test for 
Certification Tests Under Certain Conditions
    a. Current Procedure. The current two-diurnal enhanced evaporative 
test procedure is part of the overall enhanced evaporative emission 
test procedure (58 FR 16001, March 24, 1993). Currently, manufacturers 
are expected to complete three-diurnal, two-diurnal, and ORVR tests on 
certification vehicles.
    b. Today's Action. Today's action provides manufacturers with an 
option which will allow a waiver from the two-day diurnal-plus-hot-soak 
evaporative emission certification test. Manufacturers must still 
perform three-diurnal and ORVR tests for certification vehicles and 
perform the two-diurnal and ORVR test on vehicles for the In-Use 
Verification Program (40 CFR 1845-01, 1845-04). EPA may perform at its 
discretion confirmatory two-diurnal evaporative emission testing on 
certification test vehicles which are certified using this option, even 
though the manufacturer may not have performed a two-diurnal test 
during the certification process.
    Manufacturers may use the waiver based on good engineering 
judgement that the canister will be adequately purged during the FTP 
exhaust test and comply with the two-diurnal emission standard. 
Manufacturers will need to provide a statement in the certification 
application stating: ``Based on the manufacturer's engineering 
evaluation of appropriate evaporative emission testing, all vehicles in 
[a specific evaporative/refueling family] will comply with the 
applicable two-day evaporative emission standard.''

[[Page 72921]]

    EPA may request data from the manufacturers demonstrating that the 
purge flow rate calibration on the two-diurnal tests adequately purges 
the canister to comply with the evaporative emission standard for the 
supplemental two-day test in lieu of actual two-day evaporative test 
data. Such information may include, but is not limited to, canister 
type, canister volume, canister working capacity, fuel tank volume, 
fuel tank geometry, the type of fuel delivery system (return, 
returnless, variable flow fuel pump, etc.), a description of the input 
parameters and software strategy used to control the evaporative 
canister purge, the nominal purge flow volume (in bed volumes) when 
vehicles are driven over the 2-day (FTP) driving cycle, the nominal 
purge flow volume (in bed volumes) when vehicles are driven over the 3-
diurnal (FTP + running loss) driving cycle, and other supporting 
information as necessary. This information will address EPA's concerns 
about vehicles sufficiently purging the canister, as expressed in 58 FR 
16009-11, March 24, 1993. As well, this information will be useful in 
selecting EPA in-class testing vehicles and be helpful for determining 
potential evaporative defeat devices.
    This testing waiver option will only be available to current 
technology gasoline-fueled and ethanol-fueled vehicles which use 
conventional evaporative emission control systems, e.g. vehicles 
equipped with conventional fuel tank materials, liquid seal ORVR 
systems, and carbon canister(s). Currently all light-duty and heavy-
duty up to 14,000 GVWR vehicles certified in the U.S. use an integrated 
evaporative/refueling emission control system. For this reason, EPA 
does not expect the waiver to be used for non-integrated evaporative/
refueling emission control system. If non-integrated systems become 
more common and in-use data can demonstrate with confidence that the 
vast majority of such vehicles are in compliance with evaporative 
emission standards, then testing waivers may be used for non-integrated 
systems as well in the future.
    c. Reason for Action. EPA believes that there will be very little 
risk of noncompliance for several reasons.
    Manufacturers will continue to be responsible for meeting the two-
day diurnal-plus-hot-soak emission standards even if they waive the 
two-diurnal certification test procedure. In addition, vehicles must 
still meet the three-diurnal and ORVR test requirements which provide 
data to EPA on many aspects of the two-diurnal test procedure since the 
three-diurnal test procedure is similar to the two-diurnal test 
procedure, except for canister purge. However canister purge assurance 
is an inherent part of the ORVR test procedure. Thus the combination of 
three-diurnal and ORVR certification data assure adequate canister 
purge.
    EPA believes that compliance with the two-diurnal standards is 
further assured because EPA may perform at its discretion confirmatory 
two-diurnal evaporative emission testing on certification test vehicles 
which are certified using this option. In addition to EPA's 
confirmatory testing, a vehicle randomly selected from each evaporative 
family will be tested using the two-diurnal evaporative test procedure 
under the In-Use Verification Program, as required in provisions 40 CFR 
86.1845-01(a)(5)(ii) and 86.1845-04(a)(5)(ii). If data shows 
noncompliance, EPA will not normally grant subsequent waivers for the 
applicable evaporative family. The In-Use vehicle recall program also 
conducts two-diurnal evaporative testing as an additional compliance 
check.
    This provision reduces testing burden by reducing overlapping 
requirements of the two-diurnal, three-diurnal and ORVR test 
procedures. In addition, performing all three tests is time consuming, 
taking a minimum of 12 days to complete if there are no voids. The 
evaporative test procedures are very complex and detailed, with 
specified times for completing each section and, when voids occur, they 
result in additional time to complete the tests.
2. Allow Opportunities for Alternative Methods for the Running Loss 
Test Procedure
    a. Current Procedure. The purpose of the running loss test is to 
measure evaporative emissions during vehicle operation to assure that 
vehicles can control fuel vapors generated in use, in urban driving and 
low-speed or idle conditions. The current regulations require the 
installation of two temperature sensors (thermocouples) in the fuel 
tank to provide an average liquid fuel temperature. This average fuel 
temperature is used to control the fuel tank temperature profile (FTTP) 
during the running loss drive portion of the three-day test. This 
current method can be invasive to a vehicle's fuel system and requires 
thermocouples to be accurately positioned in the fuel tank.
    b. Today's Action. Today's action amends the regulations to allow 
manufacturers the option for using an alternative running loss test 
procedure. Prior EPA approval is needed for this option. This provision 
also allows EPA to conduct certification and in-use testing for a 
specific vehicle using the alternative method for the running loss test 
procedure.
    In order to obtain EPA approval of an alternative method for the 
running loss test procedure, manufacturers will be required to provide 
EPA with data that demonstrates that the alternative method is equal to 
or more stringent than the current method. Data should include, but is 
not limited to, multiple tests comparing running loss, hot soak, and 
diurnal emissions using the current test procedure and the alternative 
test procedure. The test vehicles used to provide comparison are 
expected to cover the types of technology for the population of 
vehicles approved to use the alternative method, including, but not 
limited to, in-tank fuel return and fuel tank parameters, such as tank 
material, insulation, size, geometry, and location. If a vehicle fails 
the running loss portion of the three-diurnal test procedure, the 
manufacturer normally would not be allowed to treat the failure as an 
invalid test or request a retest using the standard running loss 
procedure outlined in 40 CFR 86.134-96.
    c. Reasons for Action. Today's action allows an alternative method 
for the running loss test procedure for several reasons.
    The allowance of an alternative method addresses specific concerns 
related to controlling the fuel tank temperature profile (FTTP) during 
the running loss portion of the three-diurnal test. Thermocouple 
installment is especially difficult (and often invasive) to perform for 
in-use running loss and three-day tests on customer-owned vehicles. To 
perform in-use tests, the fuel tank often needs to be removed and/or a 
hole is made in the fuel tank, resulting in having to replace the fuel 
tank on the customer-owned vehicle, which can jeopardize the integrity 
of the fuel system and the ability of a capable system to demonstrate 
compliance. If thermocouples are not properly placed in the fuel tank, 
they can cause the vehicle to fail the running loss test and, 
consequently, test results are subject to variability.
    EPA is not aware of an alternative method at this time, nor any 
alternative methods of controlling the in-tank fuel temperature. We 
encourage the automotive industry to work together to develop a 
technically accurate method of measuring and controlling in-tank fuel 
temperatures.

[[Page 72922]]

3. Revise EPA Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determination Calibration 
Procedure
    a. Current Procedure. The Sealed Housing for Evaporative 
Determination (SHED) calibration procedure (retention check) is 
designed to determine that the SHED enclosure does not have leaks that 
could result in falsely low hydrocarbon readings during the vehicle 
evaporative testing sequences. The current calibration requirements, 
outlined in 40 CFR 86.117-96 (c)(1)(vii), which include evaporative 
SHED retention checks, were designed for vehicles meeting Tier 1 
evaporative emission standards. This regulation requires the injection 
of two to six grams of methanol and/or propane with a five-minute 
minimum mixing time for enclosure recovery measurements and a 24-hour 
time period for retention checks. These calibration requirements were 
not designed for the more stringent Tier 2 evaporative emission 
standards.
    b. Today's Action. Today's action revises the current SHED 
calibration procedure to an injection of 0.5 to 6 grams for vehicles 
meeting three-diurnal standards equal to or above 2.0 grams/test. This 
provision also revises the SHED calibration procedure to specify the 
injection of 0.5 to 1.0 gram methane and/or propane for a maximum 
injection of 1.0 grams for vehicles meeting three-diurnal standards 
below 2.0 grams/test. Both revisions utilize the five-minute minimum 
mixing time and 96[deg]F.
    c. Reason for Action. EPA believes this action will ensure that 
manufacturer and EPA evaporative SHEDs are properly calibrated in 
accordance with testing to more stringent evaporative emission 
standards for Tier 2 vehicles. It will also harmonize the EPA SHED 
injection amounts with those of California ARB.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ California Air Resources Board's SHED calibration procedure 
for propane injections, for the five minute retention and 24 hour 
recovery, is outlined in the California Evaporative Emission 
Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Motor 
Vehicles, adopted August 5, 1999. California's propane injection 
procedure for LEV-II evaporative vehicles and partial zero emissions 
vehicles (PZEVs) requires 0.5 to 1.0 grams to be injected with a 
five minute maximum mixing time, cycling the ambient temperature up 
to 105[deg]F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Harmonize EPA and California Evaporative Test Data
    a. Current Procedure. Current provisions allow EPA to accept 
California evaporative data based on 40 CFR 86.1811-04(e)(6) for Tier 2 
vehicles. However, current regulations do not specifically allow EPA to 
accept California evaporative data for heavy-duty vehicles and non-Tier 
2 vehicles even when the combination of the data, the California test 
procedures, and the California emission standards are as or more 
stringent than EPA's requirements.
    b. Today's Action. Today's action allows the submission of 
California evaporative data for heavy-duty vehicles and non-Tier 2 
vehicles, which may be submitted in lieu of Federal test data for 50 
state evaporative/refueling families and for ``carry across'' data from 
a California evaporative/refueling family to a federal family. EPA 
requests that manufacturers notify EPA of their intention to use 
California test data to demonstrate compliance with applicable federal 
evaporative emission standards and include a statement in their 
certification application that based on good engineering judgement the 
vehicles in an evaporative/refueling family will comply with the 
applicable federal evaporative standards if tested using California 
test conditions and procedures. EPA may request comparative test data 
on a case-by-base basis which clearly demonstrates that a vehicle 
meeting the California evaporative standard will also meet the 
appropriate federal evaporative emission standard.
5. Provide the Option for Using Alternative Canister Loading Methods 
for the Federal Test Procedure
    a. Current Procedure. The current methods for canister loading for 
the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) are described in provisions 40 CFR 
86.132-96(h), (j)(1), and (j)(2). During the canister loading, the 
canister remains in place, but in situations where the canister is 
inaccessible, the canister may be removed for loading with special care 
not to damage any components or the integrity of the fuel system. The 
canister is then loaded with a butane-nitrogen mixture.
    b. Today's Action. Today's action allows manufacturers the option 
of using alternative canister loading methods that are equivalent or 
more stringent than the applicable canister loading method. Prior 
approval by EPA is required in order to use alternative methods to 
preload the canister(s) during the exhaust and evaporative test 
sequences. Manufacturers must provide data to EPA to prove that 
alternative methods maintain the current stringency required through 
the canister loading procedure. This information includes, but is not 
limited to, location of canister vent hose and whether the canister is 
routed to a dummy canister or vented during testing. EPA may also use 
the manufacturer-specified, EPA-approved alternative canister loading 
method to conduct confirmatory testing and in-use testing or the 
appropriate method outlined in 40 CFR 86.132-96(h), 86.132-96(j)(1), or 
86.132-96(j)(2).
    c. Reasons for Action. EPA recognizes that the use of the current 
methods for canister loading during the FTP can jeopardize the 
integrity of the evaporative emission control system and, therefore, 
the ability of a capable system to demonstrate compliance with lower 
evaporative emission standards. In cases where the canister is 
inaccessible, the current canister loading procedure can be quite 
burdensome and difficult to perform, especially on In-Use Verification 
Program vehicles.
6. In-Use Verification Program Evaporative Emissions Testing 
Requirements
    EPA is clarifying EPA's position regarding the evaporative emission 
testing requirements for the current In-Use Verification Program (IUVP) 
(40 CFR 86.1845-01, 86.1845-04). The current provisions imply, but do 
not specify, that all evaporative tests for all fuel types should be 
performed, including the two-day diurnal-plus-hot-soak, three-day 
diurnal-plus-hot-soak, and running loss tests.
    As discussed in the preamble to the CAP 2000 Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking text (63 FR 39672, July 23, 1998), EPA did not anticipate 
that more than one evaporative test would be required for IUVP 
vehicles.
    The clarifications for IUVP state that for gasoline- and ethanol-
fueled in-use vehicles, running loss and three-day diurnal-plus-hot-
soak evaporative emissions tests are not required to be performed. 
However, while these tests do not have to be performed, gasoline- and 
ethanol-fueled IUVP vehicles are still required to comply with the 
applicable standards for the three-diurnal and running loss test 
procedures. The two-diurnal test procedure must continue to be 
conducted on gasoline- and ethanol-fueled IUVP vehicles. Note that for 
compressed natural gas (CNG) and propane (LPG) fueled (also known as 
gaseous-fueled) vehicles, a three-day diurnal-plus-hot-soak test is 
required for IUVP testing. However, for gaseous-fueled vehicles the 
three-diurnal test procedure neither includes a running loss test nor 
thermocouples placed in the fuel tank, and therefore is not intrusive 
for IUVP testing of these vehicles. In addition, the two-day test 
procedure is not applicable to gaseous-fueled vehicles, 40 CFR 86.130-
96(a)(2).

[[Page 72923]]

7. CFR Correction for Paragraph 86.1810-01 (m)
    Paragraph 86.1810-01 (m) was inadvertently omitted from the July, 
2002, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This paragraph is necessary as 
it relates to other modifications and clarification in today's action. 
Paragraph (m) refers to waivers referenced in today's action.
    Today's action resubmits paragraph 86.1810-01 (m) to the CFR, as 
worded in the original CAP 2000 rule (64 FR 23939, May 4, 1999).

B. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) and Spitback Test Procedure

1. Option To Not Disconnect Hoses During ORVR
    a. Current Procedure. Currently, 40 CFR 86.152-98(b), 40 CFR 
86.153-98(d), and 40 CFR 86.153-98(e)(2) require the canister to be 
disconnected for integrated and non-integrated systems when draining 
and refueling the fuel tank to the 10 percent level prior to the 
initial soak, which precedes the actual refueling and measurement 
portion of the refueling test. The canister is also required to be 
disconnected when initially filling the fuel tank to 95 percent of 
nominal tank capacity in the preconditioning portion of the ORVR test 
for non-integrated systems.
    b. Today's Action. Today's action provides manufacturers the option 
of not disconnecting the evaporative hoses during the ORVR 
preconditioning step. The manufacturer shall specify whether or not the 
canister should be disconnected, and EPA will use the manufacturer 
specified procedure when performing EPA confirmatory testing.
    c. Reasons for Action. The option to not disconnect the ORVR hose 
is a more stringent test procedure than disconnecting the hose because 
the hose, while in place, will direct all refueling vapors to the 
canister during the preconditioning portion of the ORVR test, adding an 
additional load to the canister. The primary reason manufacturers may 
use this option is to minimize the chance of the test procedure causing 
vapor leaks in the evaporative system, minimize the chance of damage 
that may result from disconnecting the hose, and reduce test 
variability. If the canister hoses are not re-connected properly, the 
test procedure could result in vapor leaks in the system, leading to 
variability in the test data.
2. CFR Correction for Paragraph 86.1810-01(1)
    Paragraph 86.1810-01(1) was inadvertently omitted from the July 
2002 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
    Today's action resubmits paragraph 86.1810-01 (l) to the CFR, as 
worded in the Heavy-Duty ORVR Final Rule (65 FR 59970, October 6, 
2000).

C. Four-Wheel Drive Dynamometer Provisions

a. Current Procedure
    The current dynamometer test procedures only apply to the use of a 
two-wheel drive dynamometer and do not include provisions for utilizing 
a four-wheel drive dynamometer.
b. Today's Action
    Today's action revises three sections of 40 CFR Subpart B, all of 
which have identical wording describing how to test four-wheel drive 
vehicles on a chassis dynamometer. The three sections which EPA will 
modify, 86.135-90, 86.159-00, and 86.160-00, all date from a time when 
four-wheel drive dynamometers were not widely available for measurement 
of exhaust emissions and fuel economy. EPA has not ruled out future 
changes in its emission and fuel economy compliance programs, 
especially as EPA strives to ensure that a dynamometer test for a given 
vehicle is as representative as possible of the vehicle's actual road 
experience.
    EPA plans to issue a guidance letter prepared by the Certification 
and Compliance Division announcing in further detail how it will use 
the four-wheel drive dynamometer in its compliance programs. However, 
guidance letters are written to clarify EPA policy, and it is not 
possible to issue a guidance letter on usage of the four-wheel drive 
dynamometer until the language in the CFR is revised. In the absence of 
that, EPA has developed the following proposals for the use of four-
wheel drive dynamometers in emission and fuel economy compliance 
programs. The term four-wheel drive vehicle is also meant to include 
all-wheel drive vehicles.
    The regulatory changes described below will give EPA and 
manufacturers the regulatory authority to test four-wheel drive and 
all-wheel drive vehicles on four-wheel drive dynamometers. These 
changes do not impose new stringency in EPA's certification and 
compliance programs.
    Manufacturers may conduct certification testing for four-wheel 
drive vehicles on either a four-wheel drive or two-wheel drive mode of 
dynamometer operation. EPA will conduct confirmatory testing on 
certification and fuel economy test vehicles in the same dynamometer 
mode of operation, two-wheel drive or four-wheel drive, which the 
manufacturer used for their vehicle testing.
    Manufacturers will normally conduct In-Use Verification Program 
testing on a four-wheel drive dynamometer for vehicles which were 
certified in a four-wheel drive test mode. Four-wheel drive vehicles 
which were certified in a two-wheel drive mode may be tested in either 
a four-wheel drive or a two-wheel drive mode of operation. Prior 
approval by EPA is required to test four-wheel drive vehicles, which 
were certified on a four-wheel drive test mode, on a two-wheel drive 
dynamometer for the In-Use Verification Program.
    EPA conducts in-use surveillance testing on randomly procured 
vehicles that are not screened with the same rigor that would be used 
for recall confirmatory class vehicles. EPA may conduct surveillance 
in-use testing of all-wheel drive vehicles on the four-wheel drive 
dynamometer as necessary to avoid modifications to the owner's vehicle, 
regardless of how the vehicles were certified.
    If an all-wheel drive vehicle class certified in a two-wheel drive 
configuration must undergo in-use confirmatory testing, EPA will 
discuss with the manufacturer options to determine the most practical 
and appropriate way to conduct the testing. EPA will make the final 
determination as to whether the vehicles will be tested in the all-
wheel drive mode for confirmatory testing.
    EPA may conduct defeat device testing in the four-wheel drive mode 
of operation using four-wheel drive certification and fuel economy 
vehicles that were tested by the manufacturer on a two-wheel drive 
dynamometer, and confirmatory tested on a two-wheel drive dynamometer 
at EPA.
c. Reason for Action
    Changes in technology for modern four-wheel and all-wheel drive 
vehicles have heightened the need for testing these vehicles on a four-
wheel drive dynamometer. It is no longer easy to configure certain 
four-wheel or all-wheel drive certification vehicles for testing on a 
two-wheel drive dynamometer. The need for four-wheel drive dynamometer 
tests also includes hybrid vehicles with sophisticated regenerative 
braking systems that cannot receive a representative test on a two-
wheel drive dynamometer.
    EPA is also aware of a small but increasing number of in-use 
vehicles which cannot be modified for testing on

[[Page 72924]]

a two-wheel drive dynamometer without intrusive modification to the 
drive line and/or modifications to the vehicle's electronic control 
systems. Additionally, there are many more four-wheel and all-wheel 
drive vehicles in the market place today compared to the time when 
EPA's policy for testing four-wheel drive vehicles was first drafted. 
Although four-wheel drive dynamometers have been installed at many test 
facilities worldwide, EPA realizes that individual manufacturers may 
have limited experience in compliance testing on these dynamometers, in 
particular for the most sophisticated new all-wheel drive vehicles. EPA 
understands that users of four-wheel drive dynamometers are, in some 
cases, still learning how well four-wheel drive dynamometers can 
simulate actual road operation. EPA and manufacturers will both benefit 
as more data are collected and examined.

D. Vehicle Labeling

a. Current Procedure
    40 CFR 86.1807-01 contains the labeling requirements for vehicles, 
which include light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, medium-duty 
passenger vehicles, and heavy-duty vehicles which are chassis 
certified. 40 CFR 86.098-35 previously applied to vehicle and engine 
labeling, but since the 2001 model year apply only to heavy-duty engine 
labeling.
b. Today's Action
    Today's action revises the vehicle labeling requirements described 
in sections 40 CFR 86.1807-01, Vehicle labeling, and 40 CFR 86.098-35, 
Labeling, for no longer requiring out-dated information to be included 
on the label.
    The Certification and Compliance Division expects to issue a 
guidance letter after these regulatory changes are completed in order 
to show an example of an approved label which reflects the new 
flexibility in label design. Initially, vehicle manufacturers who wish 
to take advantage of these labeling changes must have their new label 
designs approved by their EPA vehicle or engine certification 
representative.
c. Reason for Action
    These changes to the regulations allow more flexibility in label 
content and design, specifically for the objective of improving the 
labels' clarity and usefulness. This action is desired since the 
labels' basic content requirements have not been updated since the 
introduction of catalyst technology almost 30 years ago. Several of the 
requirements in the labeling sections are no longer necessary or useful 
for modern vehicles with electronic emission controls. Since modern 
vehicles and engines are electronically controlled, a listing of tune-
up specifications is no longer necessary. Additionally, the requirement 
for a hose routing diagram dates from pre-electronic controlled 
vehicles and serves no purpose for modern vehicles and engines. In the 
unlikely event that vacuum actuated controls are present on modern 
vehicles, their function and location and routing of hoses are fully 
described in the vehicle service manual.
    By making these changes to the regulations, it is also EPA's 
expectation that the label designs may be slightly more generic, 
leading to a reduced number of label types which are required at the 
time the vehicle or engine is produced, leading to fewer labeling 
errors. Additionally, by requiring only the necessary information on 
the label for modern vehicles and engines, it is expected that the size 
of the label, or the number of them for manufacturers which currently 
use more than one label to meet the present labeling requirements, may 
be reduced.
    When Tier 2 regulations were implemented, a new vehicle class, 
medium-duty passenger vehicles, was added. Thus it is necessary to 
update the regulations so as to clarify that the regulations apply to 
light-duty vehicle, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger 
vehicles and heavy duty vehicles.
    Accepting alternative labels will permit use of revised formats for 
heavy-duty engines which are easier to read, while still displaying the 
important elements of the ``Important Engine Information'' label. In 
addition, updating the regulations explicitly adds the heavy-duty class 
of vehicles that are certified to the chassis standards to this part of 
the labeling requirement section, making it consistent with the 
requirements for light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks in 86.1807-
01(c)(1).
    EPA has no need for the SAE J1892 bar code to be printed on the 
Vehicle Emission Control Information (VECI) label. By removing this 
requirement, EPA will also be harmonizing the label information to be 
consistent with those of California Air Resources Board. In a letter 
dated June 26, 2002, the California Air Resources Board issued Mail-Out 
MSO 2002-06 waived the requirement to print the SAE bar code 
on the labels for 2003 model year and newer vehicles and engines.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and 
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this action 
as it does not involve the collection of information as defined 
therein.
    Today's action may reduce testing and reporting burden by allowing 
the option for waivers and/or alternative test procedures. The current 
average annual reporting burden is listed as 542,118 hours and 
$10,889,000 for 153 respondents by the Office of Management and Budget 
for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles. If a manufacturer does not 
implement any of today's actions, the reporting burden will not change. 
Otherwise, the burden may be reduced by implementing today's actions 
but will vary depending upon the options and/or alternative methods 
chosen. For instance, utilizing the option to waive the two-diurnal 
diurnal-plus-hot-soak will reduce testing burden by approximately 48 
hours and $5,000 per vehicle. Since no alternative procedures for the 
running loss test or canister loading have been

[[Page 72925]]

approved at this time, the burden reduction cannot be quantified, but 
they will, in the future, result in decreases in hours and costs. The 
other options described in today's action cannot be quantified but 
would not result in any additional burden.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) 
a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 
county, town, school district or special district with a population of 
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 
and 604. Thus, an agency may conclude that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive 
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    Today's rule revises certain provisions of the Evaporative 
Emissions Compliance Procedure (58 FR 16002, March 24, 1993) and the 
Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Procedure (58 FR 16262, April 6, 
1994), such that regulated entities will find it less burdensome to 
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the evaporative 
emissions and ORVR test requirements. More specifically, today's action 
makes minor revisions to clarify regulations and reduces burdens for 
manufacturers without reducing stringency. In addition, today's rule 
revises the dynamometer test provisions (40 CFR 86.135-90, 40 CFR 
86.159-00, 40 CFR 86.160-00) and the Vehicle Labeling requirements (40 
CFR 86.098-35, 40 CFR 86.1807-01), such that regulated entities will 
find it less burdensome to test four-wheel drive vehicles and vehicle 
labels will reflect current information rather than out-dated 
information. We have therefore concluded that today's final rule will 
relieve regulatory burden for all small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal 
governments, and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more for 
any single year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written 
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative that is 
not the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative if we provide an explanation in the final rule of why such 
an alternative was adopted.
    Before we establish any regulatory requirement that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, we must develop a small government plan pursuant to 
section 203 of the UMRA. Such a plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, and enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of our regulatory proposals with significant federal 
intergovernmental mandates. The plan must also provide for informing, 
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the 
regulatory requirements.
    Today's action contains no federal mandates for state, local, or 
tribal governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the 
UMRA. The rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these 
governmental entities. Nothing in the rule will significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments.
    We have determined that today's action does not contain a federal 
mandate that may result in estimated expenditures of more than $100 
million to the private sector in any single year. This action has the 
net effect of revising certain provisions of the Evaporative Emissions 
rule, Dynamometer regulations, and Labeling regulations. Therefore, the 
requirements of the UMRA do not apply to this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the states,'' on the relationship between the national 
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Under section 
6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by state and local governments, or we consult with state 
and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed 
regulation. We also may not issue a regulation that

[[Page 72926]]

has federalism implications and that preempts state law, unless the 
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    Section 4 of the Executive Order contains additional requirements 
for rules that preempt state or local law, even if those rules do not 
have federalism implications (i.e., the rules will not have substantial 
direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National 
Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government). Those 
requirements include providing all affected state and local officials 
notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the 
development of the regulation. If the preemption is not based on 
express or implied statutory authority, we also must consult, to the 
extent practicable, with appropriate state and local officials 
regarding the conflict between state law and federally protected 
interests within the Agency's area of regulatory responsibility.
    Today's action does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship 
between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Today's action revises certain 
provisions of earlier rules that adopted national standards to control 
vehicle evaporative emissions, dynamometer test provisions, and 
labeling requirements. The requirements of the rule will be enforced by 
the Federal Government at the national level. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to today's action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Today's 
action does not uniquely affect the communities of American Indian 
tribal governments since the motor vehicle requirements for private 
businesses in today's action will have national applicability. 
Furthermore, today's action does not impose any direct compliance costs 
on these communities and no circumstances specific to such communities 
exist that will cause an impact on these communities beyond those 
discussed in the other sections of today's document. Thus, Executive 
Order 13175 does not apply to today's action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, section 5-501 of the Executive Order directs us to 
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule 
on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to 
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by us.
    Today's action is not subject to the Executive Order because it is 
not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by 
Executive Order 12866. Furthermore, today's action does not concern an 
environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Today's action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), section 12(d) of Public Law 104-113, directs us to 
use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory activities unless 
it would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards 
bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards. Today's action references technical 
standards adopted by us through previous rulemakings. No new technical 
standards are established in today's rule. The standards referenced in 
today's action involve the measurement of vehicle evaporative 
emissions,