Component Durability Procedures for New Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty Trucks and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, 2843-2855 [06-73]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2843-2855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-73]



Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 2843]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 86

[FRL-8019-1]
RIN 2060-AN01


Component Durability Procedures for New Light-Duty Vehicles, 
Light-Duty Trucks and Heavy-Duty Vehicles

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: On April 2, 2004 (69 FR 17531), EPA issued a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to propose procedures to be used by 
manufacturers of light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks and heavy-duty 
vehicles to demonstrate, for purposes of emission certification, that 
new motor vehicles will comply with EPA emissions standards throughout 
their useful lives. The NPRM proposed emissions certification 
durability procedures to be used by manufacturers to demonstrate the 
expected rate of deterioration of the emission levels of their 
vehicles. The Agency received several comments concerning the component 
durability portion of the durability process. Options for addressing 
component durability were not discussed in the April 2004 proposal, and 
EPA believes it is appropriate to address component durability in a 
supplemental proposal. Therefore, EPA is issuing this action to request 
comments on three options for addressing component durability during 
the vehicle emissions certification process.

DATES: Written comments on this SNPRM must be submitted on or before 
February 16, 2006. A public hearing will be held on February 1, 2006. 
Requests to present oral testimony must be received on or before 
January 27, 2006. If EPA receives no requests to present oral testimony 
by this date, the hearing will be canceled.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments may be submitted by mail to: Air Docket, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0079. 
Comments may also be submitted electronically, by facsimile, or through 
hand delivery/courier. For more information submitting comments and on 
the comment procedure and public hearings, follow the detailed 
instructions as provided in Section XI, ``Public Participation'' 
section. We must receive them by the date indicated under DATES above. 
Paper copies of written comments (in duplicate if possible) should also 
be sent to the general contact person listed below.
    Docket: EPA's Air Docket makes materials related to this rulemaking 
available for review in Public Docket No. A-2002-0079 at the following 
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Air Docket (6102), 
Room M-1500 (on the ground floor in Waterside Mall), 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20460 between 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except on government holidays. You can reach the Air Docket by 
telephone at (202) 260-7548, and by facsimile (202) 260-4400. We may 
charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials, as provided in 40 
CFR part 2.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Pugliese, U.S. EPA, National 
Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 
48105; Telephone (734) 214-4288; FAX: (734) 214-4053; e-mail: 
pugliese.holly@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Why is this Action being taken?
II. History of EPA's Component Durability Requirements
III. What comments has EPA received on component durability?
IV. What are the differences between component durability and 
emissions durability?
V. Statutory Authority
VI. How has EPA evaluated component durability in the past in 
deciding to issue a certificate?
VII. Is EPA required to use testing to evaluate component 
durability?
VIII. What options are being considered by EPA?
IX. Request for Comments
X. What are the environmental and economic impacts?
XI. What are the opportunities for public participation?
    A. Copies of This Proposal and Other Related Information
    B. Submitting Comments on This Proposal
    C. Public Hearing
XII. What are the Administrative Requirements for this Proposed 
Rule?
    A. EO 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

I. Why is this Action being taken?

    The demonstration of light-duty vehicle emission durability for 
purposes of certification consists of two elements: Emission 
deterioration and component durability. On April 2, 2004, EPA published 
an NPRM that proposed durability procedures to be used by manufacturers 
to demonstrate the expected rate of deterioration of the emission 
levels of their vehicles. The proposal did not make any changes to 
component durability procedures. It carried over the component 
durability requirements from the updated certification regulations for 
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks published in 1999 known as 
``CAP 2000'' (Compliance Assurance Program). EPA received several 
comments on the NPRM pertaining to component durability.
    Because of the complex nature of the comments, we determined that 
the issue of component durability warranted further consideration and 
discussion. EPA intends to proceed with finalization of the emission 
deterioration procedures discussed in the NPRM, but will consider 
issues regarding component durability in this supplemental proposal.

II. History of EPA's Component Durability Requirements

A. Pre-1994 Component Durability

    Prior to 1994, EPA's regulations (ref. 40 CFR part 86) specified 
the method to demonstrate a vehicle's emission durability. The method 
used a whole vehicle mileage accumulation cycle, commonly referred to 
as the Approved Mileage Accumulation (AMA) cycle.\1\ It required 
manufacturers to accumulate mileage on a pre-production vehicle, known 
as a durability data vehicle (DDV), by driving it over the prescribed 
AMA driving cycle for the full useful life mileage.\2\ This was to 
simulate the real-world aging of the vehicle's emissions control 
systems and components over the useful life. The AMA whole vehicle 
mileage accumulation was used to develop evidence to demonstrate both 
component durability and emission deterioration. Component durability 
is a demonstration that all emission-related components are designed to 
operate properly for the full useful life of the vehicles in actual 
use. Successful

[[Page 2844]]

completion of the required whole vehicle useful life mileage 
accumulation without the need to replace or adjust those components 
(beyond that allowed by regulation) provided evidence that those 
components could be considered durable and would operate properly for 
the full useful life. Separate or additional evidence of component 
durability was not developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ref. 40 CFR Part 86 Appendix IV.
    \2\ Useful life is the period of use (mileage) or time during 
which an emission standard applies to light-duty vehicles and light-
duty trucks. For most light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, the 
useful life requirement is 120,000 miles or 10 years, which ever 
comes first (86.1805-01 and 86.1805-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Revised Durability Program (RDP) and Component Durability

    EPA's first separate component durability demonstration 
requirements came with the promulgation of the revised durability 
program (RDP) \3\. Under these provisions (which took effect in 1994), 
manufacturers were given options for demonstrating emission 
deterioration. One option allowed rapid bench-aging techniques instead 
of mileage accumulation on a whole vehicle to conduct emission 
deterioration evaluation. In the preamble to the proposed RDP rule, EPA 
stated that ``accumulation of mileage by the DDVs provides valuable 
information on the physical durability of individual emission-related 
components, because these components are exercised during the operation 
of the DDV.'' [57 FR 18545, April 30, 1992.] EPA went on to propose 
conditions under which it would issue a certificate of conformity for 
manufacturers using the rapid aging techniques. One of these conditions 
was that ``the manufacturer provides data that shows to the 
satisfaction of the Administrator that all emission-related components 
are designed to properly operate for the useful life of the vehicles in 
actual use (or such minimum intervals, as specified in allowable 
scheduled maintenance regulations).'' ``[Id. at 18548]'' EPA adopted 
this condition in its final RDP rule. The regulations required that 
manufacturers using the rapid aging option were required to ``provide 
reliability data that shows to the Administrator's satisfaction that 
all emission-related components are designed to operate properly for 
the durability useful life of the vehicles in actual use (or such 
shorter intervals as permitted in section Sec.  86.094-25).'' [40 CFR 
86.094-13(e)(7)(ii)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Ref. 59 FR 36368 (July 18, 1994), 62 FR 11082 (March 11, 
1997), 62 FR 11138 (March 11, 1997) and 62 FR 44872 (August 22, 
1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When implementing the RDP regulations, EPA issued a guidance letter 
which provided further instructions to manufacturers on the process to 
obtain EPA approval to use alternate durability processes.\4\ The 
guidance addressed component durability by stating that ``[F]or each 
ASADP [Alternate Service Accumulation Durability Process, also known as 
``RDP''] engine family, the manufacturer should submit a plan to 
demonstrate component durability for that engine family. Sources of 
data for component durability are defect reports, bench testing of 
components, and other similar data.'' In meeting these requirements, 
many manufacturers demonstrated to us their own extensive validation 
process to ensure the durability of the components used in production 
vehicles.\5\ It was clear that the scope of this validation work far 
exceeded in rigorousness the durability demonstration requirement of 
running a single pre-production prototype vehicle on a driving cycle 
for the full useful life mileage. Thus, the manufacturer component 
validation processes added significant assurance of component 
durability, and in fact is the primary source of such assurance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CD-94-13 July 24, 1994.
    \5\ Emission related parts and systems are evaluated for 
durability by manufacturers during the vehicle and emission control 
system development process. Evaluations can take several forms 
including mileage accumulation, engineering evaluations, validation 
testing, and computer simulations. Manufacturers use these processes 
to develop performance and design specifications that are supplied 
to part vendors and/or used during their own manufacturing 
processes. During production of these parts, manufacturers evaluate 
random samples of parts to assure compliance with design 
specifications. The supplier who designs the emission components for 
the vehicle manufacturer perform extensive product validation 
testing to ensure that the component design is durable before it is 
ever used on the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. CAP 2000 Regulations and Component Durability

    The CAP 2000 rulemaking (applicable beginning with the 2001 model 
year), was a comprehensive update to the entire light-duty vehicle 
certification process. A major part of this involved the manufacturer's 
required demonstration of emission durability. The Agency eliminated 
the use of the AMA cycle as the default mileage accumulation cycle. In 
CAP 2000, the Agency replaced the AMA-based durability program with a 
durability process similar to the optional Revised Durability Program 
(RDP). Each manufacturer, except small manufacturers, was required to 
develop an emission durability process which would accurately predict 
in-use deterioration of the vehicles they produce. The manufacturer had 
the flexibility to design an efficient program that met that objective.
    The manufacturer's plan was then reviewed by EPA for approval. Many 
manufacturers continued using the processes previously approved under 
the RDP program. Approval from the Agency for purposes of CAP 2000 
required a demonstration that the emission deterioration process was 
designed to generate emission deterioration factors (DFs) 
representative of in-use deterioration. This demonstration was more 
than simply matching average in-use deterioration with DFs. 
Manufacturers needed to demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that their 
durability process would result in the same or more emissions 
deterioration than is reflected by the in-use data for a significant 
majority of their vehicles. If, in the course of EPA's review, we found 
that certain aspects of a manufacturer's plan were inadequate, we would 
make recommendations to the manufacturer as to how to improve their 
plan and the manufacturer would make the appropriate modifications. 
Upon the conclusion of our extensive review, we would approve the plan.
    EPA also adopted a component durability provision applicable to all 
vehicles that required manufacturers to ``use good engineering judgment 
to determine that all emission-related components are designed to 
operate properly for the full useful life of the vehicles in actual 
use.'' \6\ While the manufacturer did not need to submit the underlying 
engineering evaluation with its certification application, EPA reserved 
the right to evaluate the basis underlying this engineering 
determination. 40 CFR 86.1823-01(e), 86.1824-01(d), 86.1825-01(e), 
86.1826-01(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Ref. 40 CFR 18.1823-01(e) and EPA Guidance Letter No. CD-94-
13, ``Alternative Durability Guidance for MY94 through MY98'', dated 
July 29, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This component durability requirement was based on our experience 
under RDP, in which we obtained significant information about 
manufacturers' internal component validation processes. In general, 
information from defect reports, in-use testing, and in-use on-board 
diagnostics (OBD) data indicated that problems usually occurred at the 
production stage or later.\7\ EPA was confident that

[[Page 2845]]

manufacturers would continue using their component validation processes 
and other component-related information for component durability as a 
basis to develop the good engineering judgement that was required. The 
CAP 2000 regulations include a provision allowing EPA to review and 
evaluate the basis for a manufacturer's engineering judgment decision, 
when appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) systems regulations (40 CFR 
86.1808-01) require the on-board computer to monitor most emission 
control components and illuminate a dashboard light when the 
components fail or operate improperly. The defect reporting 
regulations (40 CFR 86.1903) require manufacturers to report 
occurrences of a significant number of defective emission control 
components to the Agency. The recall provisions (40 CFR 85 Subpart 
S) allow EPA to order recalls when properly maintained and used 
vehicles fail to comply with the applicable regulations promulgated 
under section 202 of the Clean Air Act. All of these are important 
means for identifying and repairing or replacing failed emission 
components in use. However, they also serve the important function 
of alerting manufacturers and the Agency of potential design or 
manufacturing problems that need to be addressed and resolved so 
that they are prevented in future model years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What comments has EPA received on component durability?

    Comments related to component durability were submitted to the EPA 
Docket A-2002-0079 during the comment period for the proposed emissions 
deterioration rule being finalized in a separate action today. These 
comments are summarized below. In today's SNPRM, EPA is seeking 
comments in addition to those already submitted.
    The comments were submitted by the Afton Corporation (Afton, 
formerly Ethyl Corporation) and jointly by the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers (Alliance and the Association of International Automobile 
Manufacturers (AIAM).
    Afton comments (May 17):
     Based on recent events pointing to an emission component 
failure allegedly caused by one of Afton's products and Afton's 
investigation of emission-related component defect reports from recent 
model years, Afton questions whether an exclusive focus on thermal 
aging of the catalytic converter and oxygen sensor provides an adequate 
means to ensure proper vehicle operation in the field.
     EPA has failed to propose test methods and procedures for 
assessing the durability of emission control system components as 
required under Section 206 of the CAA as ordered by the Court in Ethyl 
Corp. v. EPA. EPA has clearly recognized that certification requires 
``testing of emission system component durability''. CAP 2000 
regulations require manufacturers to provide a description of the 
procedures used to establish durability and exhaust * * * deterioration 
factors; indicating that component durability is a necessary part of 
certification.
     EPA's component durability requirements of good 
engineering judgment allow EPA and manufacturers to agree on the 
methods and procedures for testing component durability on a case-by-
case basis is in violation of CAA Section 206(d), thus falling on the 
Court's ``forbidden side of the line''.
     EPA has instead proposed that manufacturers continue to 
develop test methods and procedures for component durability on a case-
by-case basis, without rulemaking.
     EPA should focus on emission control components as a 
system, rather than as individual components. How the system performs 
as a whole in the field cannot be captured by thermal aging of the 
catalytic converter.
     Evidence that components are failing in use is found in 
the defect reports submitted by manufacturers, showing that millions of 
vehicles are affected by defects, but very few are recalled.
     Component durability must include insurance (1) the 
durability of each component, (2) the durability of the entire emission 
control system operated in an integrated manner and (3) any 
deterioration in an otherwise durable system of components will not 
cause emissions to exceed the useful life standards.
     A catalyst cannot be ``overaged'' to mimic component 
defects when such defect would cause an emission failure, because this 
would preclude certification.
     EPA provided no factual basis in the docket supporting its 
presumption that all components will be durable. Defect reports 
submitted by manufacturers indicate otherwise.
     Congress intended certification to include assurance of 
component durability. By limiting the warranty period Congress was 
recognizing that other elements of the regulatory program would protect 
the consumer, citing H.R. Rep. No. 101-490 at 308 (1990).
    Alliance/AIAM comments (June 17):
     CAA provisions are clear that Congress' concern was the 
ability of vehicles to comply with standards over useful life. 
Durability NPRM complies with this by implementing SRC as a baseline 
stringency for demonstrating emission control system durability, 
similar to how the AMA had done prior to CAP 2000. System durability is 
a function of the durability of its components.
     Nothing in CAA purports to require separate durability 
tests for each and every component of a system.
     Contrary to Afton contention, component durability has 
never been done as a separate analysis of each individual component, 
nor does the law require it to be handled in such a manner.
     No need to establish separate procedures since the SRC 
provides requisite stringency level for components as well as system as 
a whole.
     Court did not cite 86.1823(e) in its opinion.
     1823(e) goes beyond CAA testing requirements in requiring 
manufacturers to make a qualitative evaluation of component durability.
     Afton's use of defect reports as evidence of widespread 
ineffectiveness of component durability is flagrant misinterpretation 
of the reports. These reports summarize manufacturing problems, 
installation of incorrect components, or components not functioning as 
intended. No amount of durability testing on design intent systems 
would uncover such issues. The defect reporting threshold of 25 known 
occurrences is not necessarily indicative of systematic problem, 
exceedance of standards or even an emissions increase.
     Best way to address impact of fuel additives on component 
durability is through the regulations under CAA 211 for fuel additives
     EPA regulations have never imposed requirements that 
manufacturers conduct tests to evaluate component durability.
     Component-by-component durability testing not feasible for 
certification.
    Afton Response comments (Aug 5):
     Agrees with industry claim that SRC sets the threshold 
stringency for emission control system as a whole and supports that EPA 
clarify this.
     Disagrees that EPA has never imposed a test requirement 
for component durability. Prior to RDP, AMA useful life driving was the 
test. With RDP, the requirement was for mfrs. to demonstrate full-life 
durability for all emission related components. CAP 2000 clearly 
contains a requirement for component durability testing.
     Agree with mfr that durability of a system is a function 
of the durability of its components and confirms concerns about merit 
of relying exclusively on thermal aging of cat and O2 
sensor. Not clear how bench aging cat is sufficient to assess the many 
other components of a system.

IV. What are the differences between component durability and emissions 
deterioration?

    For the purpose of emission certification, EPA evaluates component 
durability to determine whether emission control system components are 
designed to operate properly for the full useful life in actual use. 
More specifically, component durability is a

[[Page 2846]]

demonstration that the emission control components will not break and 
will continue to operate as described in the Application for 
Certification during the minimum maintenance interval prescribed in 40 
CFR 86.1834-01. The factors that can effect emissions control 
components fall into three general categories: In-use exposure, design 
flaws and production factors. In-use exposure is the expected normal 
wear and tear resulting from exposure to the elements and the vehicle's 
operating environment. Design flaws result in the unintentional failure 
of a component as a result of a poor design. Production factors consist 
of manufacturing problems and installation problems (e.g., installation 
of incorrect parts or improper installation of correct parts on the 
assembly line). The assurance needed at the time of emission 
certification is that the components are designed to operate properly 
for the full useful life in actual use. The certification process, 
because it occurs pre-production, cannot predict problems that may 
occur during the manufacturing or installation of emission components. 
EPA has other mechanisms in place (such as defect reporting and other 
in-use programs) which help to identify and correct manufacturing or 
installation problems. The component durability process is designed to 
provide EPA with adequate information to make the required pre-
production certification decision.
    In contrast to component durability, EPA's emission deterioration 
procedures, finalized in a separate action are designed to provide a 
quantitative prediction of how the emissions of a vehicle will 
deteriorate over time. The deterioration factor (DF) is a measure of 
the deterioration. Successful completion of the emission deterioration 
combined with adequate demonstration of component durability informs 
EPA that vehicles are likely to comply with emission standards for 
their useful life. Although some of the emission components may not 
actually be installed on the vehicle during the required emissions 
deterioration testing during a bench aging procedure (which ages only 
the catalytic converter and oxygen sensor), the results of this 
procedure (e.g. the deterioration factors) are applied to an entire 
vehicle, including any and all emission control components and systems 
that will be used.

V. Statutory Authority

    Section 206(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act states that the 
Administrator shall test, or require to be tested in such a 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 the emission standard regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1). 
Section 206(d) states that the Administrator shall by regulation 
establish methods and procedures for making tests under this section. 
42 U.S.C. 7525(d). If such a vehicle conforms with the regulations 
prescribing establishing emissions standards, the Administrator shall 
issue a certificate of conformity. 42 U.S.C. 7525(a). The statute also 
requires that the vehicle conform to the standard for its useful life. 
42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1).

VI. How has EPA evaluated component durability in the past in deciding 
to issue a certificate under CAA section 206?

    Issuance of a certificate of conformity is based on EPA determining 
whether the vehicle or group of vehicles will conform to the applicable 
emissions standards over the applicable useful life period. EPA has 
traditionally evaluated two forms of durability in making this pre-
production determination--emissions deterioration and component 
durability. For many years EPA relied on the whole vehicle mileage 
accumulation process, used to evaluate emissions deterioration, to also 
evaluate component durability. When EPA later allowed a manufacturer to 
accelerate aging of a vehicle under RDP, EPA required submission of 
reliability data showing that all emission related components were 
designed to operate properly for the useful life of the vehicles in 
actual use. See 40 CFR 86.094-13(e)(7)(ii). Under CAP 2000, EPA 
required the manufacturer to determine, using good engineering 
judgement, that all emission-related components are designed to operate 
properly for the full useful life of the vehicle in actual use. While 
the manufacturer did not need to submit the underlying engineering 
evaluation with its certification application, EPA reserved the right 
to evaluate the basis underlying this engineering determination. 40 CFR 
86.1823-01(e), 86.1824-01(d), 86.1825-01(e), 86.1826-01(c).
    EPA continues to believe that the durability demonstration for 
purposes of certification should consist of two elements: emission 
deterioration and component durability.\8\ Therefore, EPA will evaluate 
component durability at the certification stage as part of ensuring 
that a new motor vehicle will meet the emissions standards for its 
useful life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 69 FR 17532 (April 2, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Is EPA required to use testing to evaluate component durability?

    Section 206(a)(1) clearly requires that EPA either conduct or 
require manufacturers to conduct testing as part of the certification 
process. At the same time, this section does not preclude EPA from also 
relying on information other than that derived from testing. This 
provision provides significant discretion to EPA to determine the 
appropriate mix of information from required testing and information 
from other sources for use in determining whether a vehicle or group of 
vehicles will be expected to comply with the emissions standards for 
their useful lives.
    In this case, EPA is clearly requiring a significant amount of 
emissions durability testing to be performed for purposes of 
certification. The required testing is focused on obtaining information 
useful to determine emissions deterioration. EPA believes that the kind 
of emissions durability testing required by EPA will provide 
information that is highly useful in determining how the emissions 
performance of the emissions control system can be expected to 
deteriorate over the useful life of the vehicle. The issue in this 
proposal concerns whether additional or different durability testing 
should also be required to obtain information to evaluate component 
durability, or whether it is appropriate to require manufacturers to 
develop information concerning component durability in a manner other 
than requiring testing of component durability. EPA believes that CAA 
section 206(a)(1), which limits required testing to testing ``in such 
manner as [the Administrator] deems appropriate,'' provides discretion 
in these circumstances on whether and how EPA requires testing to 
obtain information to evaluate component durability as part of the 
certification process. 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1).
    EPA recognizes that there are various ways that information can be 
obtained on component durability for purposes of pre-production 
certification. One method that EPA has used in the past involves 
requiring whole vehicle mileage accumulation to test component 
durability, as was done under the AMA program. However whole vehicle 
mileage accumulation provides only a limited kind of information on 
component durability, basically a simple pass-fail test that is not 
very probative of component durability. Another method that EPA has 
used in the past involves requiring the

[[Page 2847]]

manufacturer to conduct an engineering analysis to evaluate component 
durability for the entire emissions control system. This allows the 
evaluation of a wide variety of different types of information, 
including information ranging from real world in-use experience to 
performance information on a supplier's products and the supplier's 
quality control practices and can include computer modeling of design 
performance. Actual physical testing of a product or system may make up 
only a small part and perhaps no part at all of the information used to 
perform such an engineering evaluation. EPA believes that in many ways 
that kind of engineering evaluation, tailored to the parts and systems 
at issue, can provide a more in-depth and comprehensive evaluation and 
result in a better real world prediction of in-use durability than a 
simple pass-fail type of test using whole vehicle mileage accumulation 
on a pre-production prototype vehicle.
    Given the potential benefit for in-use emissions control in using 
such an engineering evaluation approach, EPA believes it is reasonable 
and within the discretion provided by section 206(a)(1) to consider an 
option requiring a manufacturer to conduct such an engineering 
evaluation of component durability, and not require the manufacturer to 
perform a specified test for component durability. This engineering 
evaluation would then be combined with the results of testing performed 
to evaluate emissions deterioration, as well as any other relevant 
information, in making the conformity determination required for 
issuance of a certificate. Under this engineering evaluation option, 
EPA would not specify a test procedure under section 206(d) for 
component durability, as EPA is not requiring component durability 
testing. EPA believes the requirement of section 206(d) only applies 
where EPA requires testing to be conducted under section 206(a)(1), as 
it does for evaluation of emissions deterioration.
    EPA is also considering requiring manufacturers to conduct a 
limited amount of whole vehicle aging to test component durability. 
Both options are discussed in more detail below.

VIII. What options are being considered by EPA?

    EPA is today proposing three options to address component 
durability. Based upon further comments received, EPA intends to 
finalize one of these options.

A. Retain the Good Engineering Judgement Determination on Component 
Durability

    In this option, EPA would retain the approach taken in the 
component durability regulations contained in the original CAP 2000 
regulations (40 CFR 86.1823-01(e), 86.1824-01(d), 86.1825-01(e), and 
86.1826-01(c)). Under CAP 2000, EPA required the manufacturer to 
determine, using good engineering judgement, that all emission-related 
components are designed to operate properly for the full useful life of 
the vehicle in actual use. While the manufacturer did not need to 
submit the underlying engineering evaluation with its certification 
application, EPA reserved the right to evaluate the basis underlying 
this engineering determination (40 CFR 86.1844(g)(1)).
    EPA's experience indicates that the basis for past determinations 
of component durability good engineering judgement came from a wide 
variety of sources. In some cases, the determination has been based on 
accelerated customer fleet vehicles or other durability mileage data, 
component bench testing, engineering analysis data, computer modeling 
data, purchase agreements, component specifications, or other 
information. However, it was never based on testing alone. Even though 
the basis for the good engineering judgement may include reliance on a 
limited amount of testing, in general, the preponderance of the data is 
derived from sources other than testing.
    EPA's requirement to make the good engineering judgement 
determination does not constitute a requirement to do testing. Under 
this option, EPA would not specify what information manufacturers must 
rely on as a basis for making the good engineering judgement 
determination. Even though some of the information may be a result of 
some testing, EPA does not consider this a requirement to conduct 
testing, since testing is not required as a basis for the good 
engineering judgement statement and typically is, at most, a limited 
part of the engineering determination. Because testing is not required, 
EPA is not required to ``establish methods and procedures for making 
tests by regulation,'' and section 206(d) does not apply. 42 U.S.C. 
7525(d).

B. Good Engineering Judgement Determination Combined With Whole Vehicle 
Testing for Worst-Case Vehicle Configuration

    This option would require manufacturers to continue to make the 
good engineering judgement determination, as discussed above in option 
A, but would also require manufacturers to conduct a limited amount of 
whole vehicle aging. This option would include the requirement to 
perform full useful life mileage accumulation, using either the EPA 
Standard Road Cycle (included in final rulemaking issued concurrently 
with this SNPRM), or a modified or alternative cycle approved by EPA. 
In this option EPA would allow any whole mileage accumulation cycle 
which EPA has approved for emission deterioration to be used for 
demonstrating component durability.
    The vehicle's OBD system is designed to monitor most emission 
control components and report faults by illuminating malfunction 
indicator light (MIL). Consequently, EPA is proposing that the OBD 
light will be used to detect emission control component failures during 
mileage accumulation. The manufacturer must record any OBD MIL 
illumination during the course of the mileage accumulation and also 
record readiness codes and active fault codes on the OBD system 
proceeding and following each FTP test conducted. As a further 
demonstration of component durability, EPA is proposing that the 
vehicle demonstrate compliance with all applicable FTP standards 
following mileage accumulation.
    The same vehicle used for the component durability demonstration 
could also be used for emission deterioration purposes for either 
exhaust or evaporative emissions. Under this option, manufacturers 
would choose a vehicle expected to be ``worst case'' for emission 
component durability. Manufacturers would be allowed to apply the 
component durability demonstration from that vehicle to other vehicles 
across other test groups having components similar enough that the 
vehicle tested would be reasonably considered worst case (known as 
``carry across''). EPA would also permit manufacturers to ``carry 
over'' a component durability demonstration from a previous model year 
to subsequent model years, when appropriate. Although EPA does not view 
it as essential, some limited whole-vehicle testing in addition to good 
engineering judgement determination would provide a limited amount of 
additional component durability information using the entire vehicle 
emission control system operated in an integrated manner. This 
information would enhance the data received from the good engineering 
requirements that already come from a wide variety of sources. EPA 
would continue to

[[Page 2848]]

augment its evaluation of component durability with an assessment of 
the information from the defect reports, IUVP data, recall data, etc.
    We are limiting the whole-vehicle testing to a ``worst case'' 
configuration rather than requiring it for all durability groups \9\ to 
limit the additional durability test burden to manufacturers, 
recognizing that EPA believes the whole vehicle aging provides only a 
limited benefit on top of that obtained from good engineering judgement 
determinations. One of the benefits of allowing bench-aging in 
evaluating emissions deterioration is that emission deterioration 
testing can be done much quicker than with whole-vehicle testing. Whole 
vehicle testing can take up to four months to complete, whereas bench 
aging can be completed within several weeks. The CAP 2000 rulemaking 
and the emissions deterioration regulations issues separately from this 
notice, provide highly valuable information on emission deterioration 
in a manner that minimizes the testing burden on manufacturers. 
Requiring whole-vehicle testing for all durability groups would 
effectively defeat this aspect of CAP 2000 for many manufacturers, 
since those manufacturers that use bench aging would also be required 
to perform whole-vehicle testing, dramatically increasing their testing 
burden and it would provide only limited additional benefit in 
evaluating component durability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Manufacturers divide their motor vehicles into groups called 
``durability groups'' which include vehicles which are likely to 
exhibit similar exhaust emission deterioration over their useful 
lives, based on those characteristics of current-technology vehicles 
that most significantly affect the deterioration of emission control 
over time. Durability groups are based on engine type, fuel type, 
fuel system, catalyst construction, type of precious metals used in 
the catalyst, and relative engine/catalyst size and loading rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because most of the emission control technologies and components 
used by manufacturers are very similar in design and function among 
their different vehicle models, we are confident that whole-vehicle 
test data from a ``worst case'' component durability vehicle in 
conjunction with the information from the manufacturer's good 
engineering assessment will be sufficient for EPA to make a 
determination as to whether a manufacturer's durability plan is 
acceptable. Since the emission control components are similar in design 
and function, one of the most significant differences between vehicle 
models is the location of the components on the vehicle. The worst case 
vehicle may likely be the vehicle that has ``packaging'' constraints 
where some components have to be located on the vehicle in placements 
that may make them more susceptible to damage, wear, or failure.

C. Good Engineering Judgement Determination Combined With Whole Vehicle 
Testing for Vehicle Configurations With New Types of Components or 
Technology

    This option would be identical to option B above except that 
instead of testing the ``worst case'' vehicle, the manufacturer would 
only test a vehicle when a new type of component or a new technology 
was being introduced. A new type of component or technology would be 
defined as a component or technology that has not been previously used 
in production by that manufacturer. \10\ A manufacturer would have to 
get approval from EPA before determining whether a component would be 
considered new. New components or technologies not yet used on 
production vehicles but that have been used on prototype or development 
vehicles would be subject to the whole-vehicle mileage accumulation and 
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ An example of a new type of component or technology would 
be a manufacturer switching from vacuum-based EGR to electronic EGR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requiring whole-vehicle testing for new types of technology would 
limit the testing to the vehicles where typically less is known about 
component durability. The information provided from the good 
engineering assessment would be used generally to assess component 
durability and this option would require additional information on 
component durability from whole-vehicle testing for technologies or 
components that are new to a manufacturer, where they typically have 
less data or information to evaluate component durability.

IX. Request for Comments

    EPA requests comments on each of these proposed options, in terms 
of their technical and legal merits. In particular, comments are 
requested on the following topics:
     The burden of Options B and C on regulated entities, 
including supporting data for those conclusions, where possible.
     The extent to which Options B and C provide any additional 
environmental benefit over Option A.
     Whether whole-vehicle mileage accumulation and related 
emissions testing provides an adequate demonstration of component 
durability, and what other options exist for demonstrating component 
durability prior to certification.
     Any comment which augment those already submitted to the 
Docket for this rulemaking.
     Whether the options are consistent with section 206 of the 
CAA.

X. What are the environmental and economic impacts?

A. Environmental Impacts

    No quantifiable environmental impacts are anticipated by this 
proposed rule. Having appropriate procedures to address component 
durability in the certification process helps to ensure that the 
benefits already claimed in the regulations promulgating those 
standards are more likely to be realized. However, even absent this 
proposal, there are other requirements in place which help to ensure 
that manufacturers make durable emissions components: customer 
satisfaction, In-Use Verification Program (IUVP), and, EPA recall 
authority among others.

B. Economic Impacts

    Under option A, there would be no economic impact. Manufacturers 
would be allowed to continue using their good engineering judgment to 
determine component durability. For options B and C there would be some 
economic impact. Some manufacturers use whole-vehicle testing 
exclusively. For those manufacturers, there would be no need to perform 
any additional whole-vehicle testing for component durability purposes. 
Other manufacturers use a combination of whole-vehicle testing and 
bench testing. These manufacturers could choose to test their ``worst 
case'' vehicle or any new type of emission control components or 
technologies as part of their already existing whole-vehicle test 
program. Thus, there would be no additional testing costs for them.
    For those manufacturers who perform bench testing exclusively, 
there would be some economic impact. For option B, we would only 
require a manufacturer to perform whole-vehicle testing for the ``worst 
case'' vehicle configuration. Therefore, our cost estimate for option B 
is based on testing a single vehicle. We believe this same logic would 
apply for option C where a manufacturer is only required to perform 
whole-vehicle testing for new types of emission control components or 
technologies. We feel that for option C, a manufacturer would only be 
required to test a single vehicle as well. Our estimate of total annual 
cost of whole-vehicle testing for component durability is based on a 
single vehicle tested over the Standard Road Cycle for a useful life of 
120,000 miles with periodic FTP emission tests. We estimated two FTP 
tests for the

[[Page 2849]]

minimum estimate and six FTP tests for the maximum estimate with costs 
ranging from $800 to $1,200 per FTP test. We did not include any 
Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) tests.
    Table X. B-1 presents the total annual cost for industry to perform 
whole-vehicle testing on a ``worst case'' vehicle or a vehicle equipped 
with a new type of emission control component or technology. We did not 
include any small volume manufacturers in our estimate. For a more 
conservative estimate, we included all manufacturers regardless of 
whether they currently perform whole-vehicle testing for emission 
deterioration. The estimated annual cost for industry to perform whole-
vehicle testing would range from $3,750,600 to $5,401,200.

   Table X.--B-1.--Estimated Annual Cost to Industry for Whole-Vehicle
                                 Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Minimum cost                         Maximum cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               $3,750,600                           $5,401,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen in Table X. B-2, the estimated annual cost per 
manufacturer to perform whole-vehicle testing on a ``worst case'' 
vehicle or a vehicle equipped with a new type of emission control 
component or technology would range from $178,600 to $257,200.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ These numbers were derived from the CAP 2000 rulemaking and 
can be found in the Support Document on the EPA Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/otaq. We choose to use the more conservative 1999 dollar 
estimates, since the Producer Price Index (PPI) for 2004 actually 
decreased from the 1999 index value. The index used can be found on 
the U.S. Department of Labor Web site at https://www.data.bls.gov. 
Series Id: PCU336110336110.

Table X.--B-2.--Estimated Annual Cost Per Manufacturer for Whole-Vehicle
                                 Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Minimum cost                         Maximum cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 $178,600                             $257,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has requested comment on the potential burden associated with 
the options it considered to require a minimum amount of whole-vehicle 
mileage accumulation. (See Sec. IV. above).

XI. What are the opportunities for public participation?

A. Copies of This Proposal and Other Related Information

1. Docket
    EPA has established an official public docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0079. The official public docket consists of the 
documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments 
received, and other information related to this action. Although a part 
of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of 
materials that is available for public viewing by referencing Docket 
No. OAR-2002-0079 at the EPA Air Docket Section, (see ADDRESSES section 
above). You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through 
hand delivery/courier as described below. To ensure proper receipt by 
EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the 
subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your 
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments 
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' 
EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to 
submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, 
please follow the instructions in Section V.B.3 Do not use EPA Dockets 
or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
2. Electronic Access
    You may access this Federal Register document electronically 
through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at 
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public 
docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment 
system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at https://www.epa.gov/
edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of 
the contents of the official public docket, and to access those 
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once 
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket 
identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. 
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public 
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic 
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be 
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in 
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent 
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in 
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the 
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the 
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. 
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you 
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through 
the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards 
providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket 
materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment 
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that 
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's 
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the 
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.

B. Submitting Comments on This Proposal

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or 
through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 
identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject 
line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your 
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments 
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.''

[[Page 2850]]

EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
1. Electronically
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other 
contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this 
contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, 
and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures 
that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows 
EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of 
your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and 
any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a 
comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public 
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment.
a. EPA Dockets
    Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to 
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go 
directly to EPA Dockets at https://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic 
public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select ``Information 
Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, select 
``Quick Search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0079. The 
system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know 
your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment.
b. E-mail
    Comments may be sent by electronic mail to hormes.linda@epa.gov, 
Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0079. In contrast to EPA's electronic 
public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an ``anonymous access'' 
system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without 
going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system 
automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are 
automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made 
available in EPA's electronic public docket.
c. Disk or CD ROM
    You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the 
mailing address identified in section I.C.2. These electronic 
submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid 
the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
2. By Mail
    Send your comments to: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, 
Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0079.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier
    Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, 
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC., Attention 
Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0079. Such deliveries are only accepted during 
the Docket's normal hours of operation from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
4. By Facsimile
    Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, Attention Docket ID. No. OAR-
2002-0079.
5. Submitting Comments With Proprietary Information
    Commenters who wish to submit proprietary information for 
consideration should clearly separate such information from other 
comments by (1) labeling proprietary information ``Confidential 
Business Information'' and (2) sending proprietary information directly 
to the contact person listed (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and 
not to the public docket. This helps insure that proprietary 
information is not inadvertently placed in the docket. If a commenter 
wants EPA to use a submission labeled as confidential business 
information as part of the basis for the final rule, then a non-
confidential version of the document, which summarizes the key data or 
information, should be sent to the docket.
    Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed 
by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 
CFR Part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission 
when it is received by EPA, the submission may be made available to the 
public without notifying the commenters.

C. Public Hearing

    Anyone wishing to present testimony about this proposal at the 
public hearing (see DATES) should notify the general contact person 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than five days prior to 
the day of the hearing. The contact person should be given an estimate 
of the time required for the presentation of testimony and notification 
of any need for audio/visual equipment. Testimony will be scheduled on 
a first come, first serve basis. A sign-up sheet will be available at 
the registration table the morning of the hearing for scheduling those 
who have not notified the contact earlier. This testimony will be 
scheduled on a first come, first serve basis to follow the previously 
scheduled testimony.
    EPA requests that approximately 50 copies of the statement or 
material to be presented be brought to the hearing for distribution to 
the audience. In addition, EPA would find it helpful to receive an 
advanced copy of any statement or material to be presented at the 
hearing at least one week before the scheduled hearing date. This is to 
give EPA staff adequate time to review such material before the 
hearing. Such advanced copies should be submitted to the contact person 
listed.
    The official records of the hearing will be kept open for 30 days 
following the hearing to allow submission of rebuttal and supplementary 
testimony. All such submissions should be directed to the Air Docket 
Section, Docket No. OAR-2002-0079 (see ADDRESSES). The hearing will be 
conducted informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. A 
written transcript of the hearing will be placed in the above docket 
for review. Anyone desiring to purchase a copy of the transcript should 
make individual arrangements with the court reporter recording the 
proceedings.

XII. What Are the Administrative Requirements for This Proposed Rule?

A. E.O. 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 October 4, 1993), EPA must 
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of this Executive Order. The Order defines a 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, Local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;

[[Page 2851]]

    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Today's action proposes three different options under consideration 
for component durability testing. If option A is finalized, this action 
would not impose any new information collection burden. However, if 
options B or C were finalized, new information collection requirements 
would be imposed. The information collection requirements for options B 
or C in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) 
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 783.49.
    The information being collected is to be used by EPA to ensure that 
new light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks comply with applicable 
emissions standards through certification requirements including whole-
vehicle testing for emission component durability assurance.
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection of information is estimated to average 88 hours per 
response, with collection required annually. The estimated number of 
respondents is 21. The total annual cost of the program is estimated to 
be $3,750,600 per year and includes no annualized capital costs, 
$101,640 in operating and maintenance costs, at a total of 1,848 hours 
per year.
    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.
    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 rule, which 
includes this ICR, under Docket ID number. Submit any comments related 
to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See ``Addresses'' 
section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to 
EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is 
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days 
after January 17, 2006, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its 
full effect if OMB receives it by February 16, 2006. The final rule 
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that 
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small gov