SERA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
2008 Progress Report
Vehicle and Engine
Compliance Activities
9 \
'
-------
2008 Progress Report
Vehicle and Engine
Compliance Activities
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-420-R-10-022
August 2010
www.epa.gov/otaq
-------
Contents
I. Introduction 1
II. Scope of EPA's Vehicle, Engine, Equipment, and Fuel Compliance
Programs 2
III. Certification and Compliance Data 3
A. Regulatory Implementation 3
B. Certification 4
1. Cars and Light-Duty Trucks 5
2. Highway Motorcycles 9
3. Heavy-Duty Highway and Nonroad Engines 11
4. Alternative Fuel Conversions 18
C. Confirmatory Testing 19
1. Cars and Light-Duty Trucks 19
2. Heavy-Duty Highway and Nonroad Engines 21
D. Fuel Economy 22
E. Production Line Testing 23
F. In-Use Compliance Testing 24
1. Cars and Light-Duty Trucks 24
a. EPA-Conducted In-Use Surveillance Testing 24
b. Manufacturer-Conducted In-Use Verification Program 25
2. Heavy-Duty Highway and Nonroad Engines 26
a. EPA-Conducted Testing 26
b. Manufacturer-Conducted Testing 27
G. Defect and Recall Reporting 28
1. Cars and Light-Duty Trucks 28
a. Defect Reporting 28
b. Recall Reporting 30
2. Heavy-Duty Highway Engines 33
a. Defect Reporting 34
b. Recall Reporting 36
H. Regulatory Flexibilities 37
1. Averaging, Banking, and Trading 37
a. Cars and Light-Duty Trucks 37
b. Heavy-Duty Highway and Nonroad Engines 39
2. Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers 41
I. Exemptions 43
J. Conclusion 43
IV. Key to Acronyms 44
-------
Vehicle and Engine Compliance Activities
List of Tables
Table 1. Number of Certificates of Conformity by Model Year 4
Table 2. Production of Heavy-Duty and Nonroad Engines by Manufacturing Location 17
Table 3. Alternative Fuel Conversions 18
Table 4. Confirmatory Test Failures Requiring Vehicle Calibration Change, 2008 20
Table 5. Confirmatory Testing, MY 2008 21
Table 6. In-Use Surveillance Testing of Cars and Light-Duty Trucks, 2008 24
Table?. IUVP Testing Schedule by Vehicle Model Year 25
Table 8. Example of IUVP Testing Process for a MY 2008 Vehicle 25
Table 9. In-Use Verification Program Results 25
Table 10. Snapshot of Heavy-Duty Highway and Nonroad Engine Manufacturer-Run In-Use
Emission Testing Programs 27
Table 11. Number of Car and Light-Duty Truck Defect and Recall Reports by Category, 2008 28
Table 12. Number of Heavy-Duty Highway Engine Defect and Recall Reports by Category, 2008 34
Table 13. Availability of TPEM Allowances per Power Category 42
Table 14. TPEM Availability: Years for Early Allowances 42
IV
-------
Vehicle and Engine Compliance Activities
List of Figures
Figure 1. Number of Manufacturers and MY 2008 Engine Families by Industry Sector 5
Figure 2. Certified Car and Light-Duty Truck Test Groups by Manufacturer, MY 2008 6
Figure 3. Number of Cars and Light-Duty Trucks Produced for Sale in the United States
by Manufacturer, MY 2008 6
Figure 4. Number of Cars and Light-Duty Trucks Produced for Sale in the United States
by Country of Origin, MY 2008 7
Figure 5. Alternative Fuel Car and Light-Duty Truck Test Groups by Manufacturer, MY 2008 8
Figure 6. Number of Cars and Light-Duty Trucks Produced for Sale in the United States by Fuel Type, MY 2008. .8
Figure 7. Number of Engine Families by Highway Motorcycle Manufacturer, MY 2008 9
Figure 8. Number of Engine Families by Highway Motorcycle Class, MY 2008 9
Figure 9. Number of Highway Motorcycle Engine Families by Manufacturer Country of Origin, MY 2008 10
Figure 10. Number of Recreational Vehicle Engine Families by Manufacturer Country of Origin, MY 2008
(Excludes Snowmobiles) 10
Figure 11. Number of Engine Families by Diesel Truck and Bus Engine Manufacturer, MY 2008 11
Figure 12. Number of Engine Families by Gasoline Truck and Bus Engine Manufacturer, MY 2008 12
Figure 13. Number of Engine Families by Agricultural and Construction Engine Manufacturer, MY 2008 12
Figure 14. Number of Engine Families by Diesel Boat and Ship Engine Manufacturer, MY 2008 13
Figure 15. Number of Engine Families by Locomotive and Locomotive Remanufacturing Kit Manufacturer, MY 2008. .13
Figure 16. Number of Engine Families by Lawn and Garden Engine Manufacturer, MY 2008 14
Figure 17. Number of Engine Families by Gasoline Boat and Personal Watercraft Engine Manufacturer, MY 2008... 14
Figure 18. Number of Engine Families by Gasoline Forklift, Generator, and Compressor Engine Manufacturer,
MY 2008 15
Figure 19. Number of Engine Families by Off-Road Motorcycle Manufacturer, MY 2008 15
Figure 20. Number of Engine Families by All-Terrain/Utility Vehicle Manufacturer, MY 2008 16
Figure 21. Number of Engine Families by Snowmobile Manufacturer, MY 2008 16
Figure 22. Confirmatory Testing Passes and Failures by Test Cycle, MY 2007 and MY 2008 19
Figure 23. Confirmatory Testing FTP Failures by Pollutant, MY 2007 and MY 2008 20
Figure 24. Average C02 Emissions and MPG by Manufacturer Car Fleet, MY 2007 and MY 2008 22
Figure 25. Average C02 Emissions and MPG by Manufacturer Light-Duty Truck Fleet, MY 2007 and MY 2008 .. .23
Figure 26. Percentage of Cars and Light-Duty Trucks by Defect Category, 2008 29
Figure 27. Number of Car and Light-Duty Truck Defect Reports and Affected Car and Light-Duty Trucks by
Manufacturer, 2008 29
Figure 28. Number of Defect Reports Submitted by Vehicle Model Year as of 2008 30
Figure 29. Percentage of Cars and Trucks by Recall Category, 2008 31
Figure 30. Number of Car and Light-Duty Trucks Recalled by Manufacturer, 2008 31
Figure 31. Historical Car and Light-Duty Truck Recall Volumes by Calendar Year 32
Figure 32. Number of Recall Reports for Car and Light-Duty Trucks Submitted by Model Year as of 2008 33
Figure 33. Percentage of Heavy-Duty Highway Engines by Defect Problem Category, 2008 35
Figure 34. Number of Heavy-Duty Highway Engines Affected by Recall Problem Category, 2008 36
Figure 35. Car and Light-Duty Truck Test Groups by Emission Certification Bin, MY 2008 37
Figure 36. Tier 2 Bin 5 Certification Levels and Compliance Margins for NOX by Manufacturer, MY 2008 37
Figure 37. Tier 2 Bin 5 Certification Levels and Compliance Margins for NMOG by Manufacturer, MY 2008.. .38
Figure 38. Tier 2 Bin 5 Certification Levels and Compliance Margins for CO by Manufacturer, MY 2008 38
Figure 39. Compliance Margin for Lawn and Garden Engines by Class for Manufacturers
Not Participating in ABT 40
Figure 40. Compliance Margin for Lawn and Garden Engines by Class for Manufacturers Participating
in ABT 40
Figure 41. HC + NOX Compliance Margin by Gasoline Boat and Personal Watercraft Engine Manufacturer, MY 2008. .41
Figure 42. Number of Vehicle and Engine Exemptions by Exemption Category, 2008 43
-------
I. Introduction
Welcome to the second compliance progress report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ). In 2008, OTAQ issued its first
compliance report, the "2007 Progress Report on Vehicle and Engine Compliance Activities"
(2007 Compliance Report). The purpose of these reports is to present a convenient reference
for the environmental data we collect from manufacturers and generate from our test programs
with respect to mobile sources, or moving sources of air pollution. These sources include vehicles,
engines, and other motorized (including handheld) equipment that produce exhaust and evaporative
emissions. It is our job to regulate these sources of air pollution and make sure that they comply with
emissions and fuel economy requirements.
This report updates and builds upon the data and information presented in the first report. Specifi-
cally, this report includes model year (MY) 2008 certification data as well as information and test
results produced during calendar year 2008, and in some cases it features comparisons of the 2007
and 2008 data.
In this report, we have chosen to focus on data and avoid the repetition of basic descriptive infor-
mation that has not changed since the previous report was issued. We recommend that readers
who are unfamiliar with EPA's mobile source emission control programs refer to the first report for
background information, including descriptions of vehicle and engine categories regulated by EPA;
descriptions of fuels regulated by EPA; details on the contribution of major pollution sources
including engines, vehicles, and equipmentto national air quality; an overview of EPA's engine and
vehicle compliance programs; and an overview of regulatory flexibilities contained in EPA's vehicle
and engine programs.
In future reports, we expect to update these analyses as well as provide new information as pro-
grams evolve and new data become available.
-------
Scope of EPA's Vehicle, Engine, Equipment,
and Fuel Compliance Programs
EPA's authority comes from a variety of statutes enacted by Congress. For details, see Table 1 of the
2007 Compliance Report.
Compliance programs play an essential role in achieving the benefits of EPA regulations. OTAQ's
compliance programs are vast in scope and comprehensive in coverage to ensure that vehicle
and engine manufacturers and fuel refiners and producers comply with the regulations. The 2007
Compliance Report includes a list of mobile source regulatory implementation dates for emission
standards proposed or established in 2004 and later years. For a comprehensive list of EPA mobile
source emission standards, refer to EPA's Emission Standards Reference Guide.
In addition to regulating vehicles and engines, EPA regulates all motor vehicle fuels, including gaso-
line, diesel, and renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. EPA provides a comprehensive list of
ongoing fuel regulations on its website. For more information on gasoline specifically, see EPA's Fuel
Trends Report: Gasoline 1995-2005. OTAQ also provides additional data on its website.
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
As shown in Table 4 of the 2007 Compliance Report, EPA has a variety of tools to employ for any
given sector for compliance oversight purposes. These tools allow EPA to test vehicles and engines
before they are produced, while they are in production, and after they are in use. EPA works with gov-
ernment partners to decide on annual compliance and investigation priorities. Control of mobile source
emissions remains a critical component of the Agency's efforts to maintain or improve the nation's
air quality. The figures in Section III of the 2007 Compliance Report provide an overview of emission
catergories, which can help put vehicle emissions in context with other sources of air pollution.
A. Regulatory Implementation
For cars and light-duty trucks, EPA continued implementing Tier 2 standards that began phasing in
with MY 2004. While cars and small pickup trucks reached full phase-in with MY 2007, heavy-duty
pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) were still phasing in to the more stringent standards.
The phase-in period ended at the end of MY 2008, with 100 percent of cars and light-duty trucks
required to meet the Tier 2 standards beginning with MY 2009. EPA also began implementing the
Mobile Source Air Toxic (MSAT) regulations, which established a new cold-temperature (20 degrees
Fahrenheit) emission standard of 0.3 grams per mile for non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHCs).
Though this standard does not officially begin phasing in until MY 2010 for cars and light-duty
trucks, it was optional for MY 2008.
In addition to the Tier 2 and MSAT programs, EPA began implementing new aging procedures,
which are used to predict the emissions of vehicles at their full useful life (emissions expected to be
released during a vehicle's lifetime of 120,000 miles). Manufacturers are required to request EPA
approval annually to use their own, proprietary durability aging procedures or to notify EPA that they
have opted to use EPA's Standard Road Cycle and/or Standard Bench Cycle (SRC/SBC). Manufacturers
of diesel vehicles/engines are not allowed to use bench aging procedures and, therefore, can only
use either their own road cycle (with EPA approval) or the EPA SRC. For the first year of implementa-
tion, only two manufacturers chose to use the EPA SRC/SBC, and one diesel vehicle manufacturer
chose to use the EPA SRC. All the other manufacturers chose to use their proprietary durability
aging procedures. Manufacturers that choose to use their own durability aging procedures are also
required to provide EPA with an equivalency factor. The equivalency factor enables comparison
between the proprietary cycle and the published EPA SRC/SBC cycles. This allows a third party who
relies on the EPA SRC/SBC to replicate the aging performed by a manufacturer using a proprietary
cycle. EPA publishes these equivalency factors annually and posts them online.
MY 2008 was also the first year for EPA's new fuel economy labeling rule, which was finalized in
December 2006. As a result of this rule, all fuel economy estimates are now based on five test meth-
ods (instead of two) reflecting actual driving conditions that can affect fuel economy, such as high
speed, aggressive driving, use of air conditioning, and cold-temperature operation. To aid consumers
shopping for new cars, EPA redesigned the fuel economy window sticker posted on all new cars and
light trucks to clearly reflect this new information.
3
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
EPA continued implementing programs for the heavy-duty highway and nonroad engine sectors as
well. Specifically, EPA began certification of the Tier 4 emission standards for nonroad construction
and agricultural engines. The Tier 4 standards began phasing in with MY 2008 for nonroad engines
with a rated power up to 56 kilowatts (75 horsepower). EPA also began working with engine manu-
facturers to prepare for the certification of the more stringent emission standards for heavy-duty
highway engines that take effect in MY 2010.
B. Certification
For MY 2008, the overall number of certificates of conformity EPA issued remained relatively con-
stant compared to MY 2007, as shown in Table 1. In both years, EPA issued more than 3,600 certifi-
cates for engines, equipment, and vehicles, covering more than a dozen different industry sectors.
The number of certificates issued for the MY 2008 ranged from 1,063 for lawn and garden equip-
ment (small-spark ignition) engines to five for heavy-duty engines certified for use only in California.
Table 1. Number of Certificates of Conformity by Model Year
Category
Lawn and Garden Equipment
Agriculture and Construction Equipment
Cars and Light-Duty Trucks
Motorcycles
All-Terrain Vehicles
Diesel Boats and Ships
Gasoline Boats and Personal Watercraft
Nonroad Motorcycles
Locomotives
Trucks and Buses (Diesel)
Trucks and Buses (Gasoline)
Snowmobiles
Forklifts, Generators, and Compressors
Oceangoing Vessels per International Maritime Organization Requirements
Independent Commercial Importers Cars and Light-Duty Trucks
Truck and Bus Engine Evaporative
Truck and Bus Engine (California)
Total
2007
1,084
676
518*
418
309
117
112
106
60
58
38
37
34
31
22
19
2
3,641
2008
1,063
618
512
485
304
137
118
71
76
75
30
37
59
17
10
25
5
3,642
* Originally reported as 427 in the 2007 Compliance Report. This previous calculation was based on the number of test
groups alone, not certificates.
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
In addition to its mobile source certification work, OTAQ assists EPA's Office of Air Quality Plan-
ning and Standards (OAQPS) with certification of stationary engines. Stationary engines are used
either in a fixed application or in a portable (or transportable) application, where the engine resides
at a single site for at least one year. A given engine may be certified as a mobile engine, stationary
engine, or both. Of the 618 certificates of conformity for the agricultural and construction sector, 86
were for mobile-stationary engines and five were for stationary-only engines. Of the 59 certificates
of conformity issued for engines in the forklift, generator, and compressor category, nine were for
mobile-stationary engines and one was for a stationary-only engine family.
Certificates of conformity are issued on a test-group basis (for cars and light-duty trucks) or on an
engine-family (for all other sectors) basis. A test group or engine family is a group of engines or
vehicles having similar design and emission characteristics and can cover multiple models. However,
different versions within a given model may be included in different test groups or engine families.
For example, one General Motors test group covers both the Chevrolet HHR and Cobalt models. At
the same time, different versions of the HHR are certified in three test groups, and different versions
of the Cobalt are certified in three other test groups. Figure 1 shows the number of manufacturers
and test groups/engine families by industry sector.
200- -1200
Manufacturers
Engine Family/Test Group
1000
L
600 ^
-400 s
-200
Lawn Highway All/Utility Trucks Locomotives Forklifts,
and Garden Motorcycles Terrain Vehicles and Buses Gas Generators,
and Compressors
Agriculture CarsandTrucks Diesel Boats, Ships, Gasoline Boats Off-Road Snowmobiles
and and Ocean-Going and Personal Motorcycles
Construction Vessels Watercraft
Industry Sector
Figure 1. Number of Manufacturers and Engine Families by Industry Sector, MY 2008
1. Cars and Light-Duty Trucks
As shown in Table 1, EPA issued more than BOO certificates to manufacturers of cars and light-duty
trucks in MY 2008, reflecting essentially no change relative to 2007. Figure 2 shows the number of
certified test groups of MY 2008 cars and light-duty trucks by manufacturer.
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
Figure 3 presents the number of MY 2008 cars and light-duty trucks produced for sale in the United
States by manufacturer. A comparison of Figures 2 and 3 shows that the number of certified test
groups does not necessarily reflect the number of vehicles produced. Thus, manufacturers with the
most certified test groups do not necessarily produce the most vehicles.
70.
60'
50'
40
30
20-
10-
I Truck
I Car
MM
in
General Ford Chrysler Toyota Hyundai/ Nissan Honda Volkswagen/ BMW Mercedes-Benz Mazda Others
Motors Kia Audi
Manufacturer
Figure 2. Certified Car and Light-Duty Truck Test Groups by Manufacturer, MY 2008
3,500,000 -
3,000,000
2,500,000
-
1,000,000
500,000 -
3,140,732
2,211,500
1,788,304
1,657,204
1,512,921
1,023,415
I Truck
I Car
1672,479 ^^^^H
I 3g2 287,330 276,881 ^
General Toyota Ford Chrysler Honda Nissan Hyundai/ BMW Mercedes-Benz Mazda Volkswagen/ All
Motors Kia Audi Others
Manufacturer
Figure 3. Number of Cars and Light-Duty Trucks
Produced for Sale in the United States by Manufacturer, MY 2008
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
Figure 4 shows the country of origin of all MY 2008 vehicles produced for sale in the United States.
The country of origin for a vehicle is the country where a manufacturer's headquarters are located,
not necessarily where the vehicles are manufactured. For example, Toyota's corporate headquarters
are in Japan, so all of Toyota's MY 2008 vehicles produced for sale in the United States are counted
in the Japan column, even though some Toyota vehicles are built in the United States.
a 3-
oo
§
i 2-
i-
6,565,741
Sweden,
UK,1%
Italy, <1%
5,384,543
USA, 47%
Japan, 39%
991,903
698,677
USA
Japan
Germany Korea
Country of Origin
124,353
Sweden
70,439
UK
5,275
Italy
Figure 4. Number of Cars and Light-Duty Trucks
Produced for Sale in the United States by Country of Origin, MY 2008
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
While the vast majority of certified cars and light-duty trucks operate on conventional gasoline, EPA
also certifies cars and light-duty trucks that operate on diesel or alternative fuels. Figure 5 presents
the number of MY 2008 test groups for diesel and alternative fuel vehicles by manufacturer. All MY
2008 ethanol vehicles are flex-fuel vehicles, which are capable of operating on gasoline, ESS (85
percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline), or an intermediate blend.
4-
I Flex-Fuel (Ethanol)
I Diesel
Compressed Natural Gas
a.
1 3
0
General Motors Ford
I I I
Chrylser Mercedes-Benz Volkswagen/ Nissan
Audi
Honda
Manufacturer
Figure 5. Alternative Fuel Car and Light-Duty Truck Test Groups by Manufacturer, MY 2008
For comparison, Figure 6 shows the production of MY 2008 vehicles by fuel type. About 8 percent of
these vehicles were flex-fuel vehicles. Following gasoline and ethanol, diesel is the next most prevalent
fuel, but it still represents only about one-tenth of 1 percent of car and light-duty truck production.
Compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles make up an even smaller fraction of MY 2008 vehicle production.
Diesel
18,011
(0.13%)
Figure 6. Number of Cars and Light-Duty Trucks
Produced for Sale in the United States by Fuel Type, MY 2008
8
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
2. Highway Motorcycles
For MY 2008, EPA issued 485 certificates of conformity based on applications submitted by
115 highway motorcycle manufacturers. Figure 7 shows the breakdown of engine families by
manufacturer. Figure 8 presents the number of engine families by highway motorcycle class
(including scooters with seats), which is based on engine displacement.
300-
40-
35 -
I 30
TO
|| 25
"5»
E
LJJ
"o 20
II
Yamaha Suzuki Piaggio Honda Kawasaki Triumph CagivaUSA Ducati Others
Manufacturer
Figure 7. Number of Engine Families by Highway Motorcycle Manufacturer, MY 2008
2008 Highway Motor Class Certification Distribution (Total: 410)
250'
200-
100-
50-
la(<50cc) lb(50-169cc) II (170-279cc) lll(>279cc)
Highway Motorcycle Class (Engine Displacement in Cubic Centimeters)
Figure 8. Number of Engine Families by Highway Motorcycle Class, MY 2008
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
Highway motorcycles and recreational vehicles sold in the United States are manufactured world-
wide. Figure 9 shows the manufacturing location, as indicated by the manufacturer in the application
for certification, of highway motorcycles sold under a MY 2008 certificate of conformity. Similarly,
Figure 10 shows the manufacturing location of recreational vehicles (excluding snowmobiles) sold
under a MY 2008 certificate of conformity.
160-
140-
120-
100-
141
40-
72
China Japan United Italy Taiwan South Germany United Austria India Thailand Uruguay Canada Russia Slovenia Spain
States Korea Kingdom
Manufacturer Country
Figure 9. Number of Highway Motorcycle Engine Families
by Manufacturer Country of Origin, MY 2008
200-
180-
160-
140-
120-
100-
80-
60-
40-
20-
0-
187
China
United
States
,
Japan
Taiwan
Canada
4
Italy
3
Austria
3
Vietnam
2
Brazil
2
Korea
Manufacturer Country
Figure 10. Number of Recreational Vehicle Engine Families
by Manufacturer Country of Origin, MY 2008 (Excludes Snowmobiles)
10
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
3. Heavy-Duty Highway and Nonroad Engines
While emission regulations for cars, light-duty trucks, and motorcycles call for chassis-certification,
the regulations for the heavy-duty highway (truck and bus) and nonroad sectors generally
apply to engines.
In MY 2008, EPA issued 2,635 certificates of conformity with emission standards to manufacturers
of heavy-duty highway and nonroad engines. This reflects a decrease of approximately 2 percent
compared to the 2007 model year. All sectors with the exception of snowmobiles changedsome
upward and some downwardfrom 2007 to 2008.
Figures 11 through 21 show the number of certified MY 2008 engine families per manufacturer in
each sector. Note that the number of engine families certified does not necessarily correlate with
the number of engines produced. Thus, manufacturers with the most certified engine families do not
necessarily produce the most engines.
25-
20-
J
1 15
o>
=
"CT
=
LJJ
s
a 10
III
0-
Cummins Detroit Diesel Isuzu Motors Hino Motors General Motors WestportFuel
Corporation Systems
International Truck Caterpillar Volvo Powertrain Mitsubishi Fuso Truck Navistar
and Engine Corporation North America and Bus Corporation
Figure 11. Number of Engine Families by Diesel
Truck and Bus Engine Manufacturer, MY 2008
11
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
14-
10-
4-
Baytech
Corporation
Clean Fuel USA
General
Motors
American BAF
Alternative Fuels Technologies
Bi-Phase
Technologies
IMPCO
Technologies
Manufacturer
Figure 12. Number of Engine Families by Gasoline
Truck and Bus Engine Manufacturer, MY 2008
70-
60-
50-
40-
1 30
20-
^\ . rS- ^ fb £>. ^ \pS vA (& . ^ V' (& vA
^
.^
^^
.,^
**//
I>
^
*"0ther" represents 45 manufacturers that produced 59 engine families.
Figure 13. Number of Engine Families by Agricultural
and Construction Engine Manufacturer, MY 2008
12
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
30'
25'
.2 20-
15'
J!
Illlllllllll
^'^ J*s
.$> *'
Manufacturer
*"0ther" represents eight manufacturers that produced one engine family each.
Figure 14. Number of Engine Families by Diesel Boat and Ship Engine Manufacturer, MY 2008
20
18-
16-
14-
Illii
General
Electric
Electro Advanced EcoTrans Motive National Hatch and
Motive Global Power Railway Kirk
Diesel Environmental
Manufacturer
CSX
Kansas City RJCorman
Southern
Figure 15. Number of Engine Families by Locomotive
and Locomotive Remanufacturing Kit Manufacturer, MY 2008
13
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
500
100-
90-
80-
1 70-
S 50-
1
| 40-
30-
410
20-
10-
0
s^V
. vS* o r>
JS>
f ^
..^
Illllllll
Sv 0^ iS" tA
/>*
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
lllll.M.
IMPCO Bucks Engines
NGVI
Nissan
EDI
Wisconsin
Motors
TEDOM Westerbeke
Zenith Power KEM Equipment TeleflexGFI
Products Control
Systems
Econtrols Linde Material John Deere
Handling
Manufacturer
Toyota
Figure 18. Number of Engine Families by Gasoline Forklift,
Generator, and Compressor Engine Manufacturer, MY 2008
.3! 20
Honda
Yamaha
Hensim
United Motors
Others
Manufacturer
Figure 19. Number of Engine Families by Off-Road Motorcycle Manufacturer, MY 2008
15 -
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
200-
30-
.3! 20-
Yamaha Arctic
Polaris Honda Tomoto Bombardier Others
Manufacturer
Figure 20. Number of Engine Families by All-Terrain/Utility Vehicle Manufacturer, MY 2008
Polaris
Arctic
Yamaha
HJ Roberts Associates
Manufacturer
Figure 21. Number of Engine Families by Snowmobile Manufacturer, MY 2008
16
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
Heavy-duty and nonroad engines sold in the United States are manufactured worldwide. Table 2
shows the manufacturing location (as indicated by the manufacturer in the application for certifica-
tion) of heavy-duty highway and nonroad engine categories sold under a MY 2008 certificate of
conformity. Engines produced in more than one country were aggregated under "multiple countries."
The percentages in Table 2 indicate the portion of U.S.-directed production that occurred in any
given country. This reflects the diversity of the supply base of engines for the various heavy-duty
highway and nonroad engine sectors. For example, while 50 percent of engines in the agriculture
and construction category came from Japan, 83 percent of engines used in trucks and buses were
manufactured in the United States.
Country
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
China
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Italy
Japan
Korea
Mexico
The Netherlands
Sweden
Taiwan
Thailand
United Kingdom
United States
Multiple Countries1
Production of Heavy-Duty and Nonroad Engines by Manufacturing Location
Industry (% of projected sales volume)
Agriculture
and
Construction
Engines
20
5
3
50
13
3
6
Truck and
Bus Engines
2
<1
<1
5
83
9
Diesel Boat
and Ship
Engines
1
1
3
8
5
4
1
6
7
3
53
8
Lawn and
Garden
Engines
<1
43
<1
<1
<1
3
<1
<1
<1
42
10
Gasoline
Boat and
Personal
Watercraft
Engines
7
29
1
<1
37
1
25
Gas Forklift,
Generator,
and
Compressor
Engines
13
<1
<1
2
5
<1
57
22
Snow-
mobiles
42
<1
13
44
1 "Multiple Countries" represents engines that are produced in more than one country (for example, some practices of the manufacturing process
could be completed in different locations).
17
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
4. Alternative Fuel Conversions
Some alternative fuel vehicles were originally designed and certified to operate on gasoline or diesel
fuel but were subsequently converted to operate on alternative fuels, such as alcohol, CNG, or liqui-
fied natural gas. Alternative fuel converters are responsible for obtaining a certificate of conformity
and ensuring that their converted vehicles remain in compliance with all applicable EPA regulations.
For MY 2008, the alternative fuel converters estimated total sales of 3,410 converted light-duty
vehicles. Table 3 summarizes the number of certificates issued for car and light-duty truck conver-
sions by manufacturer.
Table 3 Alternative Fuel Conversions
Fuel
Total Certificates Issued
for MY 2008
Manufacturer
Cars and Light-Duty Trucks
E85 (Flex-Fuel)
Dual Fuel (LPG/Gasoline)
Dual Fuel (CNG/Gasoline)
Natural Gas
LPG
1
1
5
5
9
Flex Fuel USA
IMPCO Technologies
IMPCO Technologies
BAF Technologies
Natural Drive
IMPCO Technologies
Roush Industries
Yellow Checker Star
Heavy-Duty Highway and Nonroad Engines
No conversions for MY 2008
18
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
C. Confirmatory Testing
Confirmatory testing typically occurs after a manufacturer has submitted an application for certifica-
tion. EPA uses both random and targeted methods to select vehicles, after which either EPA or the
manufacturer may conduct the testing. Confirmatory tests serve to validate the manufacturer's initial
emission test results.
1. Cars and Light-Duty Trucks
Figure 22 shows the results of EPA's car and light-duty truck confirmatory test program for
MY 2007 and MY 2008. The graph shows the number and percent of passes and failures over
the Federal Test Procedure (FTP), highway cycle, US06 cycle, and evaporative emissions test. For
both model years, the FTP test had the highest rate of failure, followed by the US06 test. Both the
evaporative and highway tests had relatively low rates of failure. The total number of tests conducted
during each test cycle differs because FTP and highway tests are required for both emissions and fuel
economy purposes, whereas US06 and evaporative emissions testing are required for emissions only.
The number of evaporative tests performed by EPA is low compared to the number of exhaust tests
because manufacturers usually have far fewer evaporative control system families than exhaust test
groups.
350
300
250
13 200-
E
150
H
E
FTP
53
(18%)
50-
Highway
2(1%)
US06
14(11%)
6 (5%)
Evap
Fails
I Passes
2 (7%)
3 (8%)
2007 2008
2007 2008 2007 2008
2007 2008
Figure 22. Confirmatory Testing Passes and Failures by Test Cycle, MY 2007 and MY 2008
19
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
Figure 23 shows FTP failures by pollutant for MY 2007 and MY 2008. The greatest numbers of fail-
ures in both model years were for failing the non-methane organic gas (NMOG) emission standard,
followed by the nitrogen oxides (NOX) and carbon monoxide (CO) emission standards. Failures refer
to any failed confirmatory tests, regardless of whether it was an initial test or a retest. The different
scenarios following a failure are discussed below.
100%.
90%.
ICO
NOX
I NMOG
ffi
£
30%
20%
2007 FTP failures
2008FTPfailures
Figure 23. Confirmatory Testing FTP Failures by Pollutant, MY 2007 and MY 2008
When a vehicle fails a confirmatory test, the manufacturer is allowed one retest to confirm or refute the
failure. In many cases, the vehicle will pass on retest. In that case, the retest is deemed the official certifi-
cation test, and the emission results from the retest stand as the official emission levels for that vehicle. In
other cases, the confirmatory test failure is traced to problems that render the test vehicle unrepresentative
of production vehicles. In those situations, the manufacturer corrects the problem in the test vehicle and
retests. In still other cases, failures during the confirmatory test reflect actual engineering problems. These
types of failures usually result in manufacturer action to change the calibration of all production vehicles
and to update its certification application. Such calibration changes result in a tangible decrease in the
emissions of all vehicles subsequently produced under that particular test group. Table 4 lists the confirma-
tory test failures in 2008 that required some type of calibration change to the vehicle.
Tab'e Vehicle Cafibraton Chang" "oof"9
Manufacturer
Land Rover
Chrysler
Koenigsegg*
Test Group
8LRXT03.2001
8CRXK05.7TX1
8KGGV04.71HA
Models
LR2
Dodge Ram 1500, Dodge
Ram 2500
Koenigsegg CCX
Emission Failed
NMOG
CO, NOX
NMOG
* This is a small manufacturer covered by the "other" category in Figure 2.
20
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
2. Heavy-Duty Highway and Nonroad Engines
As with EPA's car and light-duty truck confirmatory test program, EPA's confirmatory test program for
nonroad construction, agricultural, and lawn and garden engines also produced failures that required
follow-up action by manufacturers. EPA issued seven test orders for agricultural and construction
engine families and 10 test orders for lawn and garden engine families, as shown in Table 5. While
all construction and agricultural engines passed confirmatory testing, fewer than half of the lawn and
garden engine families passed and more than 20 percent of the families failed. Manufacturers of the
remaining lawn and garden engine families ordered for confirmatory testing chose either not to apply
for a certificate of conformity or to cancel U.S. production. The engine was not tested in either situ-
ation, and certificates of conformity were not issued. As a result, engines from these engine families
cannot be legally imported and sold in the United States. Confirmatory testing was not conducted for
any MY 2008 heavy-duty highway engines.
Table 5. Confirmatory Testing, MY 2008
Manufacturer
Engine Family
Result
Agriculture and Construction
Caterpillar
Cummins
CNH Engine Corporation
Doosan Infracore Company
Isuzu Motors
Liebherr Machines Bulle
Mercedes-Benz
7CPXL07.2ESL*
7CEXL066.1AAJ*
7NHXL06.7DCA*
7DWXL11.0UJA*
7SZXL07.8HXA*
7LHAL10.5LPA*
7DDXL7.20RJA*
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Lawn and Garden
Chongqing Lifan Power
Jiangmen Ways Outdoor Power
Equipment
Jiangmen Qipai Motorcycle
Power Train
Wuxi World Best
Yiwu Tiger Generating Equip. Company
Yongkang Xigguang
Zhejiang High Tech
Zhejiang Taizhou Wangye Power
Company
8CLGS.19668F
8JWYS.3892G3
8JMQS.19668F
8PITS.270A02
8WWBS.1961KG
8YWTS.1961TG
8YKXS.125F52
8ZHHS.1711GA
8ZHTS.1961GA
Pass
Did not ship engine
U.S. production cancelled
Did not apply for
MY 2008 certificate
Failed HC+NOX
Did not ship engine
U.S. production cancelled
Pass
Pass
Pass
Failed HC+NOX
These are carry-over engine families. A carry-over engine family is defined
changed from the previous model year(s) and that therefore, can use carry
certification.
as an engine family that has not
-over test data to support its
21
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
D. Fuel Economy
EPA performs tests for both emissions and fuel economy validation purposes. Figures 24 and 25
present the average fuel economy as well as the corresponding carbon dioxide (C02) emission values
of each manufacturer's car and light-duty truck fleet. As the figure shows, fuel economy and C02
are inversely related; the more fuel a vehicle burns in any given distance, the higher the C02 value
and the lower the miles per gallon (MPG) rating. The C02 average was determined using the sales-
weighted highway and city fuel economy numbers as measured in the laboratory and used for Corpo-
rate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) purposes. Fuel economy label values (the values that are shown
on the window stickers of new cars and trucks) are different than the values in Figure 24, as they
include an adjustment factor to reflect differences between real-world and laboratory driving condi-
tions. The unadjusted averages presented below therefore reflect lower C02 and higher MPG levels
than would be expected in real-world driving conditions.
C02 is a major greenhouse gas (GHG) and contributor to climate change. On May 7, 2010, EPA and
the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published
a final rule to regulate vehicle C02 and other GHG emissions for the first time in history. The national
program will dramatically reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks
sold in the United States. The combined EPA and NHTSA standards apply to cars, light-duty trucks,
and medium-duty vehicles covering MY 2012 through 2016. These vehicles will be required to meet
an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of C02 per mile in MY 2016, equivalent
to 35.5 MPG, if the automobile industry were to meet this C02 level solely through fuel economy
improvements.
As it moves into regulating GHG emissions, EPA will provide GHG compliance data in future reports.
500 - -17.7
2008 Cars
2007 Cars
400 - - 22.2
:: Hill iiiMu
Mercedes-Benz BMW General Volkswagen/ Mitsubishi Nissan Honda
Motors Audi
Land Rover/ Porsche Chrysler Subaru Ford Suzuki Hyundai/ Toyota
Jaguar Kia
Manufacturer
Figure 24. Average C02 Emissions and MPG by Manufacturer
Car Fleet, MY 2007 and MY 2008
22
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
500.
.17.7
400
300-
200
2008 Trucks
12007 Trucks
-22.2
-29.6
44.3
Porsche
Mercedes-Benz
General
Motors
Land Rover/ Volkswagen/
Jaguar Audi
Nissan
Ford
Chrysler BMW
Manufacturer
Suzuki Mitsubishi
Toyota
Honda
Hyundai/
Kia
Subaru
Figure 25. Average C02 Emissions and MPG by Manufacturer
Light-Duty Truck Fleet, MY 2007 and MY 2008
In general, manufacturers had lower C02 results for MY 2008 than for MY 2007, although General
Motors and Volkswagen had higher values for their cars, and Suzuki had a higher value for its trucks.
Land Rover/Jaguar and Mercedes-Benz were included with Ford and Chrysler, respectively, for MY
2007 but reported separately for MY 2008.
E. Production Line Testing
Production line testing (PIT) requires manufacturers to routinely test engines as they leave the
assembly line to demonstrate that production engines control emissions at least as well as the
prototype engines tested for certification. PIT is currently used for certain nonroad sectors. To help
facilitate the reporting of these data and improve the quality of data received, EPA began providing
standardized templates for PIT. In the future, EPA will monitor and present data from these reports,
follow up on discrepancies, and take necessary enforcement action for noncompliance.
23
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
F. In-Use Compliance Testing
1. Cars and Light-Duty Trucks
a. EPA-Conducted In-Use Surveillance Testing
EPA has an in-use vehicle surveillance program at its laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, to assess
the emissions of vehicles a few years after they enter the fleet. EPA typically recruits 2- or 3-year-old
vehicles from vehicle owners in southeast Michigan based on random selection, EPA certification
data, manufacturer In-Use Verification data (described in the next section), and public complaints
and inquiries. Vehicles are categorized by test group. Table 6 shows the vehicle carline, manufacturer,
and model year that were subject to EPA surveillance testing in 2008.
In 2008, only the Volkswagen/Audi test group, which covered the Golf and Jetta carlines, exhibited
failures that required further investigation by EPA.
Table 6. In-Use Surveillance Testing of Cars and Light-Duty Trucks, 2008
Model Year
2005
2006
Manufacturer
Chrysler
Ford
General Motors
Honda
Hyundai
Mazda
Mercedes-Benz
Volkswagen/Audi
BMW
Chrysler
Daewoo
Ford
General Motors
Honda
Hyundai
Kia
Mazda
Mercedes-Benz
Mitsubishi
Nissan
Rover Group
Subaru
Toyota
Volkswagen/Audi
Volvo
Carlines (Engine Size in Liters)
Dodge Magnum (3.5)
Escape (2.3)
Uplander(3.8)
Odyssey (3.5)
XG350 (3.5)
6 Sport Wagon (3.0)
CLK500(5.0)
Diesel Golf/Jetta/Beetle (1.9), Jetta (2.5)
Mini Cooper (1.6)
300 C (5.7), Dodge Dakota (3.7), Dodge Ram
1500 (4.7), Jeep Wrangler 4.0), Pacifica (3.5),
PT Cruiser (2.4), Town & Country (3.8)
Suzuki Reno/Forenza (2.0)
Explorer (4.0), F150 (4.2), Focus (2.0),
Fusion (2.3), Mustang (4.6), Ranger (3.0)
Chevrolet HHR (2.4), Chevrolet Impala (5.3),
Pontiac G6 (3.9), Saturn VUE (2.2),
Chevrolet Trailblazer (4.2)
Civic (1.8), Civic Hybrid (1.3)
Azera (3.8)
Optima (2.7), Spectra (2.0)
MX-5 (2.0)
C230(2.5)
Eclipse (3.8), Lancer (2.0)
lnfinitiG35(3.5), Sentra(1.8)
LR3 (4.0)
Tribeca (3.0)
Lexus RX400h (3.3), Matrix (1.8),
Prius (1.5), Scion TC (2.4)
Audi Passat (2.0), Toureg (3.2)
S60 (2.5)
24
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
b. Manufacturer-Conducted In-Use Verification Program
In addition to its own surveillance testing, EPA relies on the manufacturer-run In-Use Verification Pro-
gram (IUVP) to monitor the performance of vehicles during their useful life. IUVP tests are required at
low mileage (between 10,000 and 50,000 miles) and high mileage (more than 50,000 miles). Table 7
shows the calendar year during which a vehicle manufactured during a particular model year will be
tested as part of IUVP. The manufacturer must complete low-mileage IUVP testing one year after the
end of production and high-mileage IUVP testing five years after the end of production.
Table 7 IUVP Testina Schedule bv Vehicle Model Year
Low Mileage
High Mileage
Calendar Year
2005
MY 04
MY 00
2006
MY 05
MY 01
2007
MY 06
MY 02
2008
MY 07
MY 03
2009
MY 08
MY 04
Table 8 shows how the IUVP testing process is followed for a MY 2008 vehicle.
Table 8. Example of IUVP Testing Process for a MY 2008 Vehicle
2007
01
02
03
04
2008
01
02
Production Period
03
04
2009
01
02
Low-Mileage Testing
03
04
2010-2011
01
02
03
04
2012
01
02
03 | 04
2013
01
02 | 03
High-Mileage Testing 1
04
- = Testing is due for completion on or before this date.
Table 9 shows the cumulative number of vehicles tested and their corresponding failure rates by
vehicle model year for all IUVP testing conducted as of December 31, 2008.
Model
Year
FTP
Vehicles
Tested
Percent
Fail
US06
Vehicles
Tested
Percent
Fail
2-Day Evaporative
Vehicles
Tested
Percent
Fail
Onboard
Re-Fueling Vapor
Recovery
Vehicles
Tested
Percent
Fail
High-Mileage Testing
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
478
1,146
1,121
1,183
657
6.4
4.2
5.2
4.1
3.7
0
18
95
253
426
0.0
5.6
3.3
2.0
0.9
43
104
108
121
90
0.0
3.9
3.8
5.0
3.3
22
78
75
101
84
10
6.6
9.1
7.9
4.8
Low-Mileage Testing
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
668
650
645
673
100
4.8
4.6
3.9
4.0
2.0
620
587
562
555
97
1.5
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.0
167
154
150
135
20
5.4
5.8
2.0
1.5
0.0
150
145
152
141
19
7.3
6.2
5.3
3.6
5.3
25
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
Since the 2007 Compliance Report was issued, EPA has made the following changes:
High-Mileage Testing
MY 2000-2002: "Vehicles Tested" and "Percent Fail" have changed due to updates/correc-
tions in the underlying data and removal of void tests (test whose results are deemed invalid
because some of the test procedures or processes did not meet the regulatory specifications)
from the calculations.
MY 2003: These numbers were updated to reflect completed testing for this model year.
MY 2004: The numbers reported here represent the 61 percent of MY 2004 vehicles tested to
date. High-mileage testing for MY 2004 will be completed five years from the end of MY 2004
production or in August 2010.
Low-Mileage Testing
MY 2004-2006: "Vehicles Tested" and "Percent Fail" have changed due to updates/correc-
tions in the underlying data and removal of void tests from the calculations.
MY 2007: These numbers were updated to reflect completed testing for this model year.
MY 2008: The numbers reported here represent approximately 30 percent of MY 2008
vehicles.
Test data for MY 2005 high-mileage and MY 2009 low-mileage vehicles are not included, because
manufacturers were beginning to test these vehicles as this report was being compiled.
Overall, the test results from this program show that the in-use fleet continues to perform well. If
either the high- or low-mileage testing program were to reveal problems, EPA would work with the
manufacturer to fix them, either though voluntary manufacturer action or, if necessary, through an
ordered emissions recall.
2. Heavy-Duty Highway and Nonroad Engines
a. EPA-Conducted Testing
In late 2007, OTAQ started a testing program to characterize in-use emissions from heavy-duty diesel
trucks and engines to investigate how the emissions change over time. OTAQ obtained well-main-
tained in-use trucks for testing with Portable Emissions Measurement Systems and laboratory dyna-
mometers. The resulting data are used to: 1) evaluate the way the industry generates deterioration
factors for certification purposes and 2) compare emission data generated as the trucks are driven in
real-life situations versus data generated in a laboratory. Because all laboratory testing is conducted
in accordance with EPA certification requirements, the resulting data may be used later as the basis
for compliance actions. EPA focused testing on Class 8 line-haul trucks and engines using the engine
dynamometer certification test cycle. EPA is currently evaluating the results of this ongoing testing.
26
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
b. Manufacturer-Conducted Testing
EPA regulations require some engine manufacturers to conduct in-use emission testing under EPA's
direction. Criteria for selection by EPA include compliance margins (the difference between actual
emission levels and the Family Emission Limit [EEL] or standard), previous testing history, technol-
ogy, and use of emission credits. EPA may also select an engine family if there is reason to believe a
problem may exist with the engine family or the manufacturer.
As shown in Table 10, the in-use emission testing requirement currently applies to manufacturers of
engines to be used in heavy-duty highway and nonroad engines including trucks, buses, gasoline
boats, personal watercraft, gasoline forklifts, generators, compressors, and locomotives (including
manufactured locomotives). Manufacturers conduct tests after some amount of in-use activity, so
results for 2008 test orders have not yet been reported.
Table 10. Snapshot of Heavy-Duty Highway and Nonroad Engine
Manufacturer-Run In-Use Emission Testing Programs
Engine
Category
Heavy-Duty
Highway
Trucks and
Buses
Gasoline
Boats and
Personal
Watercraft
Gas Forklift,
Genera-
tor, and
Compressor
Engines
Locomotives
Program
in Place
Since...
2005
1998
2007
2007
Selection
Requirement
Up to 2 5% of
each manufac-
turer's engine
families
1 engine
family and/or
1 remanufac-
tured family per
manufacturer
EPA Must
Approve
Testing Plan/
Engine
Selection
No
No
Yes
Yes
Sample Size
per Engine
Family
Varies
Generally, no
fewer than 4
engines
Generally 2 or
4, depending
on the size
of the engine
family
Generally, 2
locomotives
Age of
Engines to
Be Tested
Any age,
provided
vehicle has
not exceeded
useful life
50% to 75%
of useful life
At least 50%
of useful life
50% to 75%
of useful life
Activity in 2008
7 test orders were
issued for 11 MY
2008 engine families
No test orders were
issued in 2008
No test orders were
issued in 2008
7 test orders were
issued for 10
MY 2008 engine
families or
remanufacturing kits
27
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
G. Defect and Recall Reporting
1. Cars and Light-Duty Trucks
Table 11 describes the emission defect and voluntary emission recall report categories for cars and
light-duty trucks for 2008. These reports, which can include multiple model years of a given vehicle,
covered defects affecting more than 19 million cars, light-duty trucks, and SUVs and recalls affecting
more than 3 million cars, light-duty trucks, and SUVs.
Table 11. Number of Car and Light-Duty Truck Defect and Recall Reports
Defect/Recall Report Category
Onboard Diagnostic (OBD) System
Computer-Related (Other Than OBD)
Fuel Delivery Component
Electrical, Mechanical, and Cooling Systems
Evaporative Emissions System
Fuel Tank Component
Ignition Component
Monitoring/Measuring Sensor/System
Intake/Exhaust Manifold
Catalyst Component/System
Crankcase Ventilation Component/System
Exhaust System
Oxygen Sensor
Driveability Problem
Other
EGR System
Vehicle Emission Control Information Label
Hybrid Vehicle Component/System
Total
Defect Reports
32
25
24
22
18
15
15
14
12
9
7
7
7
2
1
1
0
0
211
Recall Reports
10
14
8
5
1
7
1
4
1
1
3
1
0
0
1
0
2
1
60
a. Defect Reporting
Manufacturers are required to report emission-related defects to EPA. An emission-related defect is a
defect in design, materials, or workmanship in a device, system, or assembly, as described in the
approved application for certification, and affects emission-related parameters listed in regulations.
EPA regulations establish minimum numbers of confirmed defects that trigger defect information
reporting requirements. Currently, manufacturers are required to notify EPA when they identify any
emission-related defects in 25 or more vehicles of the same model year.
28
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
Figure 26 shows the percentage of vehicles affected for various defect categories for all the cars and
light-duty trucks covered by defect reports in 2008. Figure 27 shows the number of defect reports
and number of vehicles affected by manufacturer.
Evaporative Emissions
System, 20%
Fuel Deliver/Component,
4%
Fuel Tank Components
Computer-Related
(Other Than OBD),
Monitoring/Measuring
Sensor/System, 7%
lectrical. Mechanical, and
Cooling Systems, 8%
Crankcase Ventilation
Component Systems, 12%
OBD System, 1
Other, 12%
Figure 26. Percentage of Cars and Light-Duty Trucks by Defect Category, 2008
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
_o;
1 3,000,000
>
s
£ 2,500,000
^
o
fc 2,000,000
J2
£
3
z 1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
-
-
_
-
754,594
453,475
314404 440,204 455,800
328,810 _
191 470 11107 18,580 39,343 ^ |
Roush Bentley Mercedes- Subaru BMW Toyota/
(1) (4) Benz (14) (7) Lexus
(8) (3)
Mitsubishi Smart Land Rover Jaguar Porsche Kia
(1) (2) (11) (14) (51) (11)
3,834,548
3,711,578
3,483,450
2,799,914
1,407,510
1,267,166
993,798
943 156
892,495 '
||
INI
Hyundai General Mazda Chrysler Honda/
(9) cMotOK/ (12) (48) Acura
SAAB/lsuzu/ m}
Suzuki { '
(16)
Volvo Volkswagen/ Nissan/lnfiniti Ford
(8) Audi (12) (1S)
(32)
Manufacturer (Number of Defect Reports)
Figure 27. Number of Defect Reports and Affected Car and Light-Duty Trucks
by Manufacturer, 2008
29
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
Figure 28 shows the number of defect reports submitted by vehicle model year. Manufacturers are
required to report defects up to five years after the end of production. As a result, the information
for MY 2006 through MY 2008 continues to be updated because manufacturers are still actively
discovering, investigating, and reporting issues.
600.
500
400.
I
300
200-
100-
2000
2002
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Model Year
* Orange color indicates that report defects are still being collected for these years.
Figure 28. Number of Defect Reports Submitted by Vehicle Model Year as of 2008
b. Recall Reporting
A recall may be needed when a defect is identified that causes noncompliance with emission stan-
dards. Manufacturers usually conduct voluntary recalls, but EPA can also mandate recalls. Even if a
recall is wholly or partially motivated because of safety concerns, if it involves an emission-related
defect, the manufacturer is required to provide a voluntary emissions recall report to EPA (safety-
related, emissions recall). Alternatively, EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to order a
manufacturer to recall and repair vehicles not in compliance (ordered recall).
Figure 29 depicts some key types of defects that were corrected by voluntary recalls in 2008. The
figure shows the percentage of vehicles recalled in 2008 for each of the problem categories. These
categories were established internally by EPA primarily for tracking purposes and may be used to
identify potential, industry-wide problems with a particular component or technology.
30
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
Computer-Related
(Other Than OBD),
Other, 4.11%
OBD System, 3.32%
Electrical, Mechanical,
and Cooling Systems, 6.78%
Monitoring/Measuring
Sensor/System, 11.08%
Fuel Tank
Component,
;haust System, 0.03%
Intake/Exhaust Manifold,
'__ Hybrid Vehicle
Component/System, 0.25%
Emissions Label, 0.34%
Ignition Component, 0.40%
Catalyst Component/
System, 0.53%
Evap Emissions System, 1.01%
Crankcase Ventilation
Component/System, 1.49%
Figure 29. Percentage of Cars and and Light-Duty Trucks by Recall Category, 2008
In 2008, there were 60 recall reports covering more than 3 million cars and light-duty trucks. Of
these reports, 48 were for emission-related problems, covering more than 2.5 million cars and light-
duty trucks (79 percent). The other 12 reports were for safety-related emission recalls (20 percent),
covering almost 700,000 vehicles (21 percent).
Figure 30 shows the number of affected cars and light-duty trucks recalled by manufacturers in
2008. Note that there is no clear correlation between the number of defect reports, the number
of recalls, and the number of cars and light-duty trucks recalled. A manufacturer could have many
defects that are not significant enough to warrant a recall. Conversely, manufacturers could have a
few major defects that result in recalls that affect large portions of their product line.
1,005,411
1,000,000
800,000
g 600,000
I
E
=
400,000
200,000
30 191
Honda/
Acura
(1)
Roush
(1)
735,946
529
257,996
221,735
147,593
711 2,053 3,832 5,573 7,220 10,502 11,084 14,637 27^00 29,099 33^12 |
499
Jaguar Aston Mazda Mercedes- Toyota/ Chrysler Nissan/ Ford Volvo
(1) Martin (1) Benz Lexus (5) Infiniti (3) (8)
(1) (2) (1) (5)
Subaru Porsche Hyundai Land Rover BMW Kia General Volkswagen/
(1) (1) (1) (1) (5) (1) Motors/ Audi
SAAB/lsuzu/ (4)
Suzuki
(9)
Manufacturer (Number of Vehicle Defect Reports)
Figure 30. Number of Cars and Light-Duty Trucks Recalled by Manufacturer, 2008
31
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
Figure 31 provides a historical perspective on emission-related recall volumes for cars and light-duty
trucks from 1971, shortly after the 1970 the Clean Air Act was enacted and when EPA was estab-
lished, to 2008. In this figure, the volumes for the three types of recalls (e.g., voluntary, influenced,
and ordered) are shown. Note that a calendar year total can include multiple model years.
8,000,000
7,000,000 -
6,000,000
5,000,000 -
4,000,000 -
3,000,000
2,000,000
1 000 000 -
-III
!
1
^H
h ,
MM
1
1
i
1
i
!
Ordered
Influenced
Voluntary
III.
.1,
MM
Figure 31. Historical Car and Light-Duty Truck Recall Volumes by Calendar Year
32
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
Figure 32 shows the number of recall reports submitted by vehicle model year. Since emission stan-
dards are linked to a vehicle's useful life period (e.g., 10 years/120,000 miles), manufacturers may
recall vehicles throughout that useful life to remedy defects. In addition, it is possible, but rare, that
a large, serious recall could extend beyond the useful life period (e.g., a safety recall that also affects
emission control or emission-related components). Therefore, in contrast to Figure 28 for defect
reports, each model year data set in Figure 32 should be viewed as dynamic, as manufacturers
may continue to discover, investigate, and remedy defects via recall.
120
40-
20.
2000 2001
2002 2003 2004 2005
2006 2007
2008
Figure 32. Number of Recall Reports for Cars and Light-Duty Trucks
Submitted by Vehicle Model Year as of 2008
2. Heavy-Duty Highway Engines
This section includes defect and recall information for heavy-duty highway engines only.
While manufacturers of nonroad engines are required to submit defect and recall reports, EPA was
not able to process the reports for this 2008 Compliance Report, given other priority work.
33
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
a. Defect Reporting
Table 12 describes the emissions defect and voluntary emissions recall report categories for heavy-
duty highway engines for 2008. Manufacturers must submit a defect report when a defect is found in
25 or more engines.
Table 12. Number of Heavy-Duty Highway Engine Defect and Recall Reports
Defect/Recall Report Category
Fuel Delivery Component
Computer-Related (Other Than OBD)
Emissions Label
Electrical, Mechanical, and Cooling Systems
Exhaust Gas Recirculation System
Diesel Oxidation Catalyst
Exhaust System
Ignition Component
OBD System
Active Diesel Particulate Filter
Catalyst System (Non-Diesel Engine)
Crankcase Ventilation Component/System
Turbocharger/Supercharger
Total
Defect Reports
8
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
27
Recall Reports
2
3
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
12
34
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
In 2008, heavy-duty highway engine manufacturers submitted 27 defect reports, potentially affect-
ing nearly 2 million engines. Figure 33 shows that almost 65 percent of all affected engines fell into
the "Electrical, Mechanical, and Cooling Systems" category.
Fuel Delivery Component,
Computer- Related
(Other Than OBD),
Emissions Label,
Active Diesel Paniculate Filter (DPF), 11%
Electrical, Mechanical,
and Cooling Systems, 65%
Figure 33. Percentage of Truck and Bus Engines by Defect Problem Category, 2008
35
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
b. Recall Reporting
As shown in Table 12, heavy-duty highway engine manufacturers conducted 12 voluntary recalls in
2008. A recall can affect any number of engines; therefore, the frequency of recalls under a par-
ticular problem category does not necessarily correlate with the number of engines affected by a
particular defect or problem category. For example, in 2008, three of the 12 recalls were related to
the category "Computer-Related (Other Than OBD)." However, defects in the "Electrical, Mechanical,
and Cooling Systems" category accounted for 95 percent of the recalled vehicles (1.18 million engines
out of 1.28 million affected engines). See Figure 34 for further details.
All Other Catergories 0
Computer-Related I
(OtherThan OBD) |
Fuel Delivery Component 115,257
'
Ignition Component
36,095
Electrical, Mechanical,
and Cooling Systems
200,000
600,000
800,000
Figure 34. Number of Heavy-Duty Highway Engines Affected by Recall Problem Category, 2008
36
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
H. Regulatory Flexibilities
1, Averaging, Banking, and Trading (ABT)
a. Cars and Light-Duty Trucks
The Tier 2 standards are the current set of emission standards that apply to cars and light-duty
trucks, regardless of fuel type. Within the program, manufacturers have a choice of emission bins to
which they can certify. Lower bin numbers reflect more stringent emission standards. Manufacturers
must meet Bin 5 on average each year. Figure 36 shows the percentage of test groups by emission
certification bin for MY 2008. For MY 2008, 94 percent of test groups were certified to Bin 5 or bet-
ter, and 6 percent to the higher emission Bins 6 through 10.
Bin 1,6,7,9; <1
Bin 10,
Bin 2,2%
Bin 3,3%
Figure 35. Car and Light-Duty Truck Test Groups by Emission Certification Bin, MY 2008
Figures 36 through 38 present the average certification levels along with the standards for Tier 2 Bin
5 for each major manufacturer.
E
2
X
O
OO7 "
0.06-
4;
0.05-
0.04-
i 4
% s:
:
k 4
% 5
k. 4
% 5
0.03 J_
i 4
% 5
k -
:% 6:
Cor
L 4
% 6;
pliance Ma
*
i 4
% 6;
gin
i J
% 6
L 4
5% 6<
i 4
% 6<
i '
% 55
1
L
%
'
0.02-
0.01 -
Ford Honda/ Mercedes- Volkswagen/ General Hyundai/ Toyota Chrysler Subaru Nissan BMW Others
Acura Benz Audi Motors Kia
Manufacturer
Figure 36. Tier 2 Bin 5 Certification Levels and Compliance Margins for NOX
by Manufacturer, MY 2008
- 37 -
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
0.10-
NMOG Standard = 0.09 Grams per Mile
47% 50% 50% 54% 55% 58% 61% 63% 66% 67% 68% 55%
Compliance Margin
=E 0.06
0.02.
Volkswagen/ Chrysler General Ford Subaru Nissan BMW Mercedes- Honda Hyundai/ Toyota Others
Audi Motors Benz Kia
Manufacturer
Figure 37. Tier 2 Bin 5 Certification Levels and Compliance Margins for NMOG
by Manufacturer, MY 2008
CO Standard = 4.2 Gramsper Mile
4.5-
4.0-
3.5-
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5-
1.0-
0.5-
0.0-
Chrysler General Volkswagen/ Ford Subaru Mercedes- Hyundai/ Nissan Honda BMW Toyota Others
Motors Audi Benz Kia
Manufacturer
Figure 38. Tier 2 Bin 5 Certification Levels and Compliance Margins for CO
by Manufacturer, MY 2008
s
o
Compliance Margin
90% 92% 93% 78%
38
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
b. Heavy-Duty Highway and Nonroad Engines
ABT provisions in many EPA regulations allow manufacturers to certify engine families in their prod-
uct line at levels above the emission standard, provided that these emission "deficits" are offset by
positive credits from engine families they certify below the standard. This flexibility to meet overall
emission standards by ABT credits facilitates earlier introduction of clean technology into the mar-
ket than would otherwise be feasible. ABT has proven to be a successful tool in multiple sectors,
including nonroad diesel, marine diesel, heavy-duty highway diesel and gasoline, lawn and garden,
recreational boats and personal watercraft, snowmobile, and locomotive engines. Participation in
the voluntary ABT programs varies in both the number of participants and the pollutants for which
credits are generated or used.
Figures 39 and 40 show the compliance margins for lawn and garden engines (broken down by
engine class and pollutant) that do and do not participate in ABT programs. Compliance margin is
defined as the percent difference between the standard and the reported certification levels. A
compliance margin of 10 percent means that the certification levels are 10 percent lower than the
applicable emission standard. Compliance margin is one of the criteria used by EPA for selecting
engine families for confirmatory and in-use compliance testing.
Lawn and garden engines are divided into classes that have different numerical standards. Class I
and II engines are used in non-handheld equipment (such as lawn mowers), and classes III, IV, and V
engines are used in handheld equipment (such as leaf blowers). For families not participating in ABT,
the percentage represents the margin of compliance to the emission standard. For families partici-
pating in ABT, the percentage represents the margin of compliance to the FEL. Manufacturers that
participate in ABT select the FEL, which becomes the emission standard they are held to for all cer-
tification and compliance activities. By setting the FEL, manufacturers determine for themselves the
margin of compliance they are willing to accept. Moreover, they are promising that any engine in that
engine family selected for emissions testing will have emissions below the FEL, demonstrating their
confidence that the chosen FEL allows for emission differences due to production variability. Because
of this, the ABT manufacturers are usually more comfortable naming an FEL closer to the certification
level (with a smaller compliance margin). An FEL can be either above or below the standard (subject
to limits).
39
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
100%-
co
HC + NOx
40%
o 20%
Ih
I-A I-B II III IV
Engine Class
Figure 39. Compliance Margin for Lawn and Garden Engines
by Class for Manufacturers Not Participating in ABT
ioo%-
co
HC + NOx
20%
khkb
I-A I-B II
Engine Class
Figure 40. Compliance Margin for Lawn and Garden Engines
by Class for Manufacturers Participating in ABT
40
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
In the gasoline boat and personal watercraft industry, not all manufacturers participate in the ABT
program, but all are required to declare a PEL. Figure 42 illustrates the gasoline boat and personal
watercraft industry margin of compliance by manufacturer (average margin for all of a manufacturer's
engine families).
ioo%-
20%
Illllll.
Sword Suzhou Briggs& Zhejiang Yamaha Honda BRP Tohatsu Suzuki Fenghua Mercury Surfango Kawasaki
Marine Parsun Stratton Shunfeng Marine
Engine Class
Figure 41. HC + NOX Compliance Margin by Gasoline Boat and
Personal Watercraft Engine Manufacturer, MY 2008
2. Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers
The voluntary Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers (TPEM) allows equipment manu-
facturers to continue using engines that comply with the previous set of emission standards ("non-
compliant engines") for up to seven years after the new regulations first apply. The program was
designed to allow equipment manufacturers time to redesign their products to accommodate new
engines as designs are changed to meet new emission standards. Engine manufacturers may only sell
noncompliant engines in the United States if the equipment manufacturer assures the engine manu-
facturer in writing that the engines will be used under TPEM (equipment manufacturers have prime
responsibility for the manufacture and assembly of equipment that incorporates engines produced by
engine manufacturers. In some cases, this is the same corporate entity). Both engine manufacturers
and equipment manufacturers must report their TPEM activities to EPA.
A new TPEM program began in 2008 as the new emission regulations for nonroad construction and
agricultural equipment (also known as the Tier 4 regulations) became effective. The Tier 4 TPEM
provides a wider array of options for manufacturers and has stricter reporting requirements than the
original TPEM, established in 1999.
41
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
As in the first TPEM, the Tier 4 program is only available for up to seven years per power category.
However, whereas in the first program the beginning and end dates were set by regulation, Tier 4
TPEM allows manufacturers to choose between two options. Table 13 shows the timeframes for each
option. If Option 1 is selected, the availability of the provisions will start in the first year of the
interim Tier 4 standards. If Option 2 is selected, the availability of the provisions will start in the
first year of the final Tier 4 standards. Note that the determination of when this seven-year period
begins is specific to each individual power category, as shown in the Table 13.
Table 13. Availability of TPEM Allowances per Power Category
Power Category
kW<19(25hp)
19 560 (780 hp)
Option 1
2008-2014
2008-2014
2012-2018
2011-2017
2011-2017
Option 2
2012-2018
2014-2020
2014-2020
2015-2021
For most power categories, there is a gap between the end of the first TPEM and the beginning of
the Tier 4 TPEM. Equipment manufacturers may use a limited number of noncompliant engines dur-
ing that time and discount them from their total Tier 4 allowances. Table 14 shows the year(s) when
this "pull-ahead" provision is available.
Table 14. TPEM Availability: Years for Early Allowances
Power Category
kW<19(25hp)
19 560 (750 hp)
Calendar Year
2007
2006-2011
2011
2011
2010-2011
2010
2008-2010
2009-2010
In 2008, 21 equipment manufacturers notified EPA of their intent to participate in the first TPEM
under the categories for which the program is still available, Tier 4 TPEM, or both. EPA received eight
reports from engine and equipment manufacturers in 2008 and was reviewing them at the time this
report was being developed.
42
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
I. Exemptions
Vehicles and engines imported into the United States may be eligible for an exemption from comply-
ing with federal emission requirements. For example, vehicles belonging to military personnel or
nonresidents may be eligible for exemption. Vehicles that are being imported for testing or display
may also be exempt. Depending on the type of exemption, importers must request written EPA ap-
proval prior to importation of the vehicle or engine. Of the 1,309 exemptions issued in 2008, the vast
majority were for cars and light-duty trucks, with only 40 being issued for heavy-duty highway and
nonroad engines or equipment. EPA processes a variety of exemptions each year and works with the
Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection to ensure that proper approv-
als have been issued before vehicles and engines can enter the United States. Figure 43 summarizes
the exemptions that EPA issued in calendar year 2008. EPA also provides more detailed information
on imports and exemptions on its website.
700 - MA
664
600-
500-
Total Exemptions:
1,309
E 400-
.S 300-
E
200-
100-
M M M _ 48
26
^H ^H ^H ^H ^H
0-
Grey Market* Forfeiture! Repair or Display Testing Nonres Military
Alteration
Exemption Category
*Grey Market: Grey Market vehicles are new or used motor vehicles and motorcycles originally manufactured for foreign countries that
do not comply with EPA and Department ofTransportation (DOT) federal regulations and are imported by an Independent Commercial Importer (ICI)
to be modified, tested, and certified to EPA and DOT federal regulations.
tForfeiture: These are vehicles from foreign countries that do not comply with EPA and DOT federal regulations, are seized by
government enforcement agencies (federal or state) for illegal activities, and then are used by those government agencies for enforcement purposes.
Figure 42. Number of Vehicle and Engine Exemptions by Exemption Category, 2008
J. Conclusion
Compliance data for cars and light-duty trucks show good levels of manufacturer reporting
and consistent levels of compliance with respect to passing/failing tests and defects/recalls, as in
the past. These trends indicate that EPA oversight is still effective and therefore necessary. For the
heavy-duty highway and nonroad engine sectors, EPA began to see broader compliance testing in
2008 and some initial reporting under new regulatory flexibilities. EPA will assess compliance trends
for these sectors as manufacturer reporting becomes more complete in the future.
43
-------
Certification and Compliance Data
IV. Key to Acronyms
ABT averaging, banking, and trading
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel
Economy
CNG compressed natural gas
CO carbon monoxide
C02 carbon dioxide
DPF diesel particulate filters
E85 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent
gasoline
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
FEL family emission limit
FTP Federal Test Procedure
GHG greenhouse gas
HC hydrocarbon
IUVP In-Use Verification Program
LPG liquefied petroleum gas
MPG miles per gallon
MY model year
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
NMHC non-methane hydrocarbon
NMOG non-methane organic gases
NOX nitrogen oxides
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
OBD onboard diagnostics
OTAQ Office of Transportation and
Air Quality
PIT production line testing
SRC/SBC EPA Standard Road Cycle and/or
Standard Bench Cycle
SUV sport utility vehicle
TPEM Transition Program for Equipment
Manufacturers
44
------- |