[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-22132]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 30, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Parts 9, 86, and 88




Emission Standards for Clean-Fuel Vehicles and Engines, Requirements 
for Clean-Fuel Vehicle Conversions, and California Pilot Test Program; 
Final Rule
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 86 and 88

[AMS-FRL-5002-7]

 
Emission Standards for Clean-Fuel Vehicles and Engines, 
Requirements for Clean-Fuel Vehicle Conversions, and California Pilot 
Test Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments require the establishment of 
two clean-fuel vehicle programs: a Clean Fuel Fleet Program and a 
California Pilot Test Program. Under the Clean Fuel Fleet Program, a 
percentage of new vehicles acquired by certain fleet owners located in 
covered areas will be required to meet clean-fuel fleet vehicle 
emission standards. Fleet owners can comply with this requirement by 
purchasing new clean-fuel fleet vehicles, by converting conventional 
vehicles to clean-fuel fleet vehicles, or by acquiring ``credits'' 
pursuant to a credits program. Affected states are required to revise 
their State Implementation Plans to implement the fleet program, 
including provisions to implement a credit program and exempt clean-
fuel fleet vehicles from certain transportation control measures. 
Regulations have already been promulgated for the credit program and 
transportation control measures exemptions. Also, definitions of terms 
used with the Clean Fuel Fleet program have recently been finalized. 
The other Clean Air Act clean-fuel vehicle program is the California 
Pilot Test program. This program requires manufacturers to sell light-
duty clean-fuel vehicles in the state of California. EPA has 
established a credit program for the California Pilot Test Program in a 
separate rulemaking.
    This action promulgates the statutory requirements that have not 
been implemented to date. These include the emission standards for 
light-duty and heavy-duty clean-fuel vehicles, regulations for the 
conversion of conventional vehicles to clean-fuel fleet vehicles, 
manufacturer California clean-fuel vehicles sales requirements under 
the California Pilot Test Program, and a state opt-in program for the 
California Pilot Test Program. The part of the conversion provisions 
addressing the sales volume limit beyond which special small-volume 
manufacturer provisions will not apply, will not become effective 
sooner than 60 days after publication and then only if no adverse 
comment is received within 30 days of publication. If adverse comment 
is received within 30 days of publication, EPA will withdraw this part 
of the rule pending a full notice and comment process on this topic.

DATES: This regulation is effective October 31, 1994, except that 40 
CFR 88.306-94(b)(3) will become effective on November 29, 1994, unless 
notice is received on or before October 31, 1994, that adverse or 
critical comments will be submitted. EPA will publish a timely document 
in the Federal Register if the effective date is delayed for this 
reason. The effective date may also be delayed if the information 
collection requirements contained in this section have not been 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget. In that case, EPA will 
publish a timely document in the Federal Register delaying the 
effective date. The incorporation by reference of certain publications 
listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register as of October 31, 1994, except as specified elsewhere in this 
DATES section. Sections 40 CFR 88.104-94 (b) and (d), 88.201-94 through 
88.206-94, and 88.306-94(b) (1), (2), and (4) are not effective until 
the Office of Management and Budget approves the information collection 
requirements contained in them. EPA will publish a document in the 
Federal Register once the information collection requirements are 
approved.

ADDRESSES: Comments on 40 CFR 88.306-94(b)(3) may be submitted to 
Docket No. A-92-30 at the following address. Materials relevant to this 
proposal have been placed in Docket Nos. A-92-30 (Clean Fuel Fleet 
Program) and A-92-69 (California Pilot Test Program) by EPA. The docket 
is located at: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Room M-
1500, Waterside Mall, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. These dockets may be inspected 
between 8:30 a.m. and noon, and between 1:30 and 3:30 p.m. on weekdays. 
EPA may charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials. In 
addition, copies of the Summary and Analysis of Comments document, 
which develops certain issues relevant to this final rulemaking, may be 
obtained by request from the contact person below. This document 
contains the Agency's response to the public comments received in 
regard to the two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
    Electronic copies of the preamble, regulations, Regulatory Impact 
Analysis, Regulatory Support Document for heavy-duty clean-fuel 
vehicles, and the Summary and Analysis of Comments for this rulemaking 
are available on the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network Bulletin Board System (TTNBBS). 
Instructions for accessing TTNBBS and downloading the above rulemaking 
files are described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION in section I.A.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bryan Manning, U.S. EPA (SRPB-12), 
Regulatory Development and Support Division, 2565 Plymouth Rd, Ann 
Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone (313) 741-7832.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Accessing Electronic Copies of Rulemaking Documents through the 
Technology Transfer Network Bulletin Board System (TTNBBS)

    TTNBBS can be accessed using a dial-in telephone line (919-541-
5742) and a 1200, 2400, 9600, or 14,400 bps modem. The parity of the 
modem should be set to N or none, the data bits to 8, and the stop bits 
to 1. When first signing on to the bulletin board, the user will be 
required to answer some basic informational questions to register into 
the system. After registering, proceed through the following options 
from a series of menus:

OMS;
Rulemaking and Reporting;
Alternative Fuels/Fleets;
Clean Fuel Fleets or California Pilot Program.

    A list of ``.ZIP'' files will be displayed, all of which relate to 
the Clean Fuel Fleet or California Pilot Program rulemakings. The above 
five documents for the Emission Standards for Clean-Fuel Vehicles and 
Engines, Requirements for Clean-Fuel Vehicle Conversions, and 
California Pilot Test Program rulemaking will be listed in the form of 
``.ZIP'' files and are identified by the following titles:

``CFF-PRE.ZIP'' (Preamble)
``CFF-REG.ZIP'' (Regulations)
``CFF-COM.ZIP'' (Summary and Analysis of Comments)
``CFF-RIA.ZIP'' (Regulatory Impact Analysis)
``CFF-RSD.ZIP'' (Regulatory Support Document for heavy-duty CFVs)

    To download these files, type the instructions below and transfer 
according to the appropriate software on your computer: ownload, 

rotocol, xamine, ew, ist, elp or to exit: D filename.ZIP The user needs to choose a file transfer protocol appropriate for the user's computer from the options listed on the terminal. The user's computer is then ready to receive the file by invoking the user's resident file transfer software. Programs and instructions for de- archiving compressed files can be found under ystems Utilities from the top menu, under rchivers/de-archivers. TTNBBS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week except Monday morning from 8-12 EST, when the system is down for maintenance and backup. For help in accessing the system, call the systems operator at 919-541-5384 in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, during normal business hours EST. B. Background The Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 (Public Law 101-549) added part C to Title II of the CAA entitled, ``Clean Fuel Vehicles''. Under part C, states are to establish clean fuel fleet programs (collectively called the Clean Fuel Fleet (or CFF) program) in certain nonattainment areas and EPA is to establish a clean-fuel vehicle (CFV) pilot program in the State of California (the California Pilot Test program or Pilot program). The purpose of the Clean Fuel Fleet Program is to introduce light- and heavy-duty CFVs in specified ``covered areas'' with air quality problems. CAA section 246(a)(2) defines a ``covered area'' for purposes of the fleet program as an area having a 1980 population of 250,000 or more that is also (1) a serious, severe, or extreme ozone nonattainment area (based on 1987-1989 data), or (2) a carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area with a CO design value at or above 16.0 parts per million (based on 1988-1989 data). Currently, there are 22 such areas in 19 states (Table 1). Table 1.--States and Areas Affected by the Clean-Fuel Fleet Program ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Affected area State(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Atlanta........................................ Georgia. 2. Baltimore...................................... Maryland. 3. Baton Rouge.................................... Louisiana. 4. Beaumont-Port Arthur........................... Texas. 5. Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (Eastern Massachusetts, New Massachusetts). Hampshire. 6. Chicago-Gary-Lake County....................... Illinois, Indiana. 7. Denver-Boulder................................. Colorado. 8. El Paso........................................ Texas. 9. Greater Connecticut............................ Connecticut. 10. Houston-Galveston-Brazoria.................... Texas. 11. Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin............. California. 12. Milwaukee-Racine.............................. Wisconsin. 13. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island...... Connecticut, New Jersey, New York. 14. Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton............... Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. 15. Providence (All Rhode Island)................. Rhode Island. 16. Sacramento Metro.............................. California. 17. San Diego..................................... California. 18. San Joaquin Valley............................ California. 19. Southeast Desert Modified AQMA................ California. 20. Springfield (Western Massachusetts)........... Massachusetts. 21. Ventura County................................ California. 22. Washington (District of Columbia)............. Maryland, Virginia, District of Columbia. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ These states are required to revise their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to ensure that ``covered fleet'' owners will include, through purchase or lease, a minimum percentage of CFVs among the new vehicles they purchase for their fleets. (A ``covered fleet'' is defined in CAA section 241 as a fleet of ten or more motor vehicles which are owned or operated, leased, or otherwise controlled by a single person.) Both private business and government (federal, state, and local) fleets are subject to the statute. However, certain fleets and vehicles are exempt from the regulations, including fleets with vehicles that cannot be fueled at a central location, vehicles that are normally garaged at a personal residence, or vehicles that belong to vehicle classes without applicable CFV standards. (See the Definitions Rule: 58 FR 64679, December 9, 1993). In their SIP revisions, states must include provisions to require that CFVs used in the clean fuel fleet program operate on fuels on which they comply with the CFV standards. Covered fleet operaters can also meet the requirements by converting conventional vehicles to CFVs, or by obtaining credits. CAA section 246(a)(3) requires that all states containing all or part of an ozone and/or CO nonattainment area described above that is reclassified in the future as a serious, severe, or extreme ozone nonattainment area, or has a CO design value at or above 16.0 parts per million, must prepare revised SIPs implementing the CFF program within one year of reclassification. Three vehicle classes are included in the CFF program: light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and light-duty trucks (LDTs) up to 8,500 lbs GVWR,\1\ and heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs) between 8,500 lbs and 26,000 lbs GVWR.\2\ To qualify as a CFV, a vehicle must meet one of three sets of increasingly stringent standards. These are referred to as low-emission vehicle (LEV) standards, ultra low-emission vehicle (ULEV) standards, and zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) standards. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Gross Vehicle Weight Rating. \2\HDVs over 26,000 lbs GVWR are not included in the mandatory program. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAA section 242(a) requires EPA to promulgate CFV emission standards for purposes of compliance with the CFF program and the Pilot program (LEV standards). In addition, section 246(f)(4) requires EPA to promulgate emission standards for purposes of the CFF program credit program (ULEV and ZEV standards). Under section 249(d)(3), the CFF credit program standards will also apply to the Pilot credit program. Therefore, vehicles that meet ULEV or ZEV standards are eligible for vehicle purchase credits under the CFF program and for manufacturers' credits under the Pilot program. The CAA Amendments of 1990 require EPA to promulgate a Pilot program for the sale of CFVs in the State of California. Whereas the CFF program will be run by individual states, the Pilot program is a federal program that will be administered in California. Manufacturers with motor vehicle sales in California are required to sell a minimum number of light-duty CFVs (CFVs up to 8,500 lbs. GVWR) in California on an annual basis. Manufacturers may meet their share of required sales by selling the required number of CFVs or by using earned credits or credits they have acquired from other manufacturers. (EPA established the credits program in a previous rulemaking (57 FR 60038; December 17, 1992)). To earn credits, a manufacturer may sell more CFVs than required or sell CFVs which meet stricter exhaust emission standards. Except for heavy LDTs, for model years 1996 through 2001, the compliance standards for the Pilot program are known as the TLEV standards and credits are available for LEV, ULEV and ZEV purchases. Beginning in 2001, the compliance vehicle shifts to the LEV standards, and credits are only available for ULEV and ZEV purchases. This provision commences in the 1998 model year for heavy LDTs. The CAA also directs EPA to establish a voluntary opt in program for states that want to adopt the Pilot program. States which contain all or part of any ozone nonattainment areas classified under subpart D of Title II as serious, severe, or extreme are eligible to participate. To do so, states are to revise their state implementation plans (SIPs) to include incentives for the sale and use of CFVs as well as the production and distribution of clean alternative fuels. States may not establish CFV sales or production mandates, however. The remainder of today's action covers light- and heavy-duty CFV exhaust emission standards, requirements for vehicle conversions to CFVs, and the Pilot program, as well as regulatory impacts of the CFF and Pilot programs. In addition, EPA has included several technical amendments and clarifications related to the Definitions rule (58 FR 64679) and the rulemaking for the CFF credits program and transportation control measure exemptions (58 FR 11888; March 1, 1993). II. Description of Action A. Clean-Fuel Vehicle Emission Standards CAA section 242 requires EPA to promulgate regulations setting emission standards and other requirements for CFVs. For LDVs and LDTs, EPA is required to adopt the standards set forth in sections 242 and 243 unless it finds that the standards of the California Air Resources Board LEV program are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as the federal standards that would apply to CFVs. EPA cannot make such a finding at this time so today's regulations adopt the standards set forth in the CAA. 1. Light-Duty Vehicle and Light-Duty Truck Clean-Fuel Vehicle Standards a. Requirements of the CAA. Clean Air Act section 241(7) defines a CFV as a vehicle that meets the emission standards applicable under part C of Title II of the CAA. As discussed later in this preamble, CFVs will satisfy the requirements of both the Pilot program and the CFF program. The CFV emission standards for LDVs and LDTs are set forth in sections 242 and 243. (Standards for heavy-duty CFVs under section 245 of the Act are discussed in II.A.2 below.) Any LDV, LDT, or HDV that can operate on only one fuel and that meets these standards will be classified as a CFV regardless of the fuel that is used to meet the CFV standards. However, a CFV in the CFF program must operate on clean alternative fuels, as defined in section 241(2) of the Act, when operating in the covered area. Subsections 243(a) through (d) specify LDV and LDT exhaust emission standards (50K and 100K miles)\3\ for the following pollutants: non- methane organic gas (NMOG), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), diesel particulate matter (PM) (only for the 100,000 mile point), and formaldehyde (HCHO). These standards are prescribed in two phases for LDVs and light LDTs (up to 5,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight (LVW) and 6,000 pounds GVWR). Phase I applies only to the Pilot program and takes effect with the 1996 model year (MY), the first year of required sales under the Pilot program. These statutory Phase I standards are numerically identical to those which define the California Transitional Low Emission Vehicle (TLEV).\4\ The Phase I standards apply to the Pilot program in MYs 1996 through 2001. Phase II standards are identical to those which define the California Low Emission Vehicle (LEV).\5\ The Phase II standards apply to the CFF program in MY 1998 and to the Pilot program beginning in MY 2001. Only one set of exhaust emission standards applies to heavy LDTs (above 6,000 lbs. GVWR). These standards take effect in MY 1998 and apply to both the CFF and the Pilot program. Table 2 contains the TLEV and LEV standards for LDV and LDT CFVs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\The intermediate useful life for LDV and LDTs is 50,000 (50K) miles. The full useful life for such vehicles is 100,000 (100K) miles. \4\The California TLEV standards are effective in model years 1994 through 1996. \5\The California LEV standards are effective in model years 1997 through 2003. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAA part C section 241 specifies that definitions contained in part A, section 216, shall apply to the CFV programs. The heavy LDT subcategories (i.e., above 6,000 lbs. GVWR) shown in Table 2 are based on test weight. CAA section 216(8) defines ``test weight'', or ``TW'', as the sum of the curb weight and the GVWR divided by two: TW = (Curb weight + GVWR)/2 = ALVW This definition was established in 40 CFR 86.129-94 by the federal Tier 1 rulemaking (56 FR 25724; June 5, 1991) and is referred to as ``adjusted loaded vehicle weight'', or ``ALVW''. The Agency chose to use ALVW, as opposed to TW, to minimize confusion with the term ``equivalent test weight'', which is used interchangeably with ``test weight'' throughout current EPA motor vehicle regulations and test procedures. Therefore, ``test weight'' defined in CAA section 216(8) is referred to as ALVW in this Final Rule, which is consistent with its definition established in the Tier 1 regulations. Table 2.-- Phase I and II LDV and LDT Clean Fuel Vehicle Emission Standards ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pollutant (grams/mile) Standards (Effective Dates) -------------------------------------------- NMOG CO NOX HCHO PM\1\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ All LDVs; LDTs 3750 lbs LVW; 6000 lbs GVWR: Phase I (1996 MY): 50,000 miles........... 0.125 3.4 0.4 0.015 ... 100,000 miles.......... 0.156 4.2 0.6 0.018 0.08 Phase II (1998 MY for CFFP; 2001 MY for Pilot program): 50,000 miles........... 0.075 3.4 0.2 0.015 ... 100,000 miles.......... 0.090 4.2 0.3 0.018 0.08 LDTs >3750 and K5750 lbs LVW; 6000 lbs GVWR: Phase I (1996 MY): 50,000 miles........... 0.160 4.4 0.7 0.018 ... 100,000 miles.......... 0.200 5.5 0.9 0.023 0.08 Phase II (1998 MY for CFFP; 2001 MY for Pilot program): 50,000 miles........... 0.100 4.4 0.4 0.018 ... 100,000 miles.......... 0.130 5.5 0.5 0.023 0.08 LDTs >6000 lbs GVWR (1998 MY): 3750 lbs ALVW: 50,000 miles........... 0.125 3.4 \2\0.4 0.015 ... 120,000 miles.......... 0.180 5.0 0.6 0.022 0.08 3750< LDTs 65750 lbs ALVW: 50,000 miles........... 0.160 4.4 \2\0.7 0.018 ... 120,000 miles.......... 0.230 6.4 1.0 0.027 0.10 5750< LDTs 8500 lbs ALVW:\3\ 50,000 miles........... 0.195 5.0 \2\1.1 0.022 ... 120,000 miles.......... 0.280 7.3 1.5 0.032 0.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\Applicable to diesel-fueled vehicles only. \2\Standards not applicable to diesel-fueled vehicles. \3\Option of certifying HDEs in vehicles up to 10,000 lbs GVWR using the LDT standards. CAA section 242(c) lists the useful life and in-use testing limitations for purposes of determining in-use compliance with the standards in section 243. The useful life for CFVs is the same as adopted in EPA's regulations for 1994 and later model year LDVs and LDTs, commonly called Tier 1 standards (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991). For LDVs and LDTs, the standards in section 243 are established at the intermediate useful life of five years or 50,000 miles (5/50,000), whichever occurs first, and a full useful life of 10 years or 100,000 miles (10/100,000), whichever occurs first (see Table 2). With respect to in-use testing, however, section 242(c) provides that such testing for these vehicle classes would not be done beyond seven years or 75,000 miles, whichever occurs first. The analogous intermediate and full useful life levels for heavy LDTs are 5/50,000 and 11/120,000, respectively (see Table 2). Similarly, section 242(c) provides that the in-use testing for these vehicles would not be done beyond seven years or 90,000 miles, whichever occurs first. While the standards described above apply to single fuel CFVs, subsection 243(d) also establishes different CFV NMOG standards for dual and flexible fuel LDVs and LDTs.\6\ These vehicles are to be certified to two sets of NMOG standards (Table 3). One set contains the same NMOG levels that apply to single fuel CFVs; dual and flexible fuel vehicles must meet this standard when operating on the clean alternative fuel on which they are certified (section 243(d)(2)). The second set of NMOG standards applies to flexible and dual fuel vehicles when operated on conventional fuel for which they are certified (section 243(d)(3)).\7\ This second set of standards is, in effect, equivalent to the next less stringent set of standards for the applicable vehicle category and model year. For example, the Phase I NMOG standard for flexible or dual fuel CFVs using conventional fuel is equivalent to the Tier I non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) emissions standard.\8\ The Phase II NMOG standard for flexible or dual fuel CFVs using conventional fuel is equivalent to the Phase I standard for single fuel CFVs. The NMOG standards for flexible and dual fuel vehicles are listed in Table 3. Flexible or dual fuel vehicles must comply with all other CFV exhaust standards shown in Table 2 and with all other applicable requirements of Title II. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\Dual fuel vehicle is defined as any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine engineered and designed to be operated on two different fuels, but not on a mixture of the fuels. The term ``bi- fuel'' is often used for this type of design. Flexible fuel vehicle is defined as any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine engineered and designed to be operated on any mixture of two or more different fuels. The term ``variable-fuel'' is often used for this type of design. These definitions are contained in section Sec. 88.102-94 of the regulatory text. \7\CAA section 241 requires that dual and flexible fuel vehicles are to operate on the fuels on which they are certified. As discussed in the CFF credit program and TCM exemptions rulemaking (58 FR 11888, March 1, 1993), dual and flexible fuel vehicles shall operate only on the clean alternative fuel on which they are certified to the CFV standards when operating in a covered area, as provided in section 246(a)(2). \8\NMOG and NMHC emissions are essentially equivalent when the fuel combusted is conventional gasoline. Table 3.--NMOG Standards for Flexible- and Dual-Fueled Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Standard\1\ (g/mi) Vehicle subclass ------------------------- 50,000mi 100,000mi ------------------------------------------------------------------------ LDVs, LDTs (6000 lbs GVWR): Beginning MY 1996 for Pilot program: LDTs (0-3,750 lbs. LVW), LDTs............. 0.125/0.25 0.156/0.31 LDTs (3,751-5,750 lbs. LVW)............... 0.160/0.32 0.200/0.40 Beginning MY 1998 for CFFP; MY 2001 for Pilot program: LDTs (0-3,750 lbs. LVW), LDVs............. 0.075/0.125 0.090/0.156 LDTs (3,751-5,750 lbs. LVW)............... 0.100/0.160 0.130/0.200 LDTs (>6,000 lbs GVWR): Beginning MY 1998: LDTs (0-3,750 lbs. ALVW).................. 0.125/0.25 0.180/0.36 LDTs (3,751-5,750 lbs. ALVW).............. 0.160/0.32 0.230/0.46 LDTs (>5,750 lbs. ALVW)................... 0.195/0.39 0.280/0.56 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\The standards are presented for flexible- and dual-fueled CFVs when operating on clean alternative fuel and conventional fuel in the format ``x/y'' where x represents the NMOG standard when the vehicle is operated on a clean alternative fuel and y represents the NMOG standard when the vehicle is operated on a conventional fuel. CAA section 246(f)(4) directs EPA to establish additional CFV standards for ULEVs and ZEVs (discussed earlier). These standards, shown in Table 4, should be more stringent than the CFV standards in section 243. Vehicles meeting these more stringent standards are eligible to earn credits which may be used toward compliance under the CFF program or the Pilot program, as specified in sections 246(f) and 249(d)(3), respectively. The Act requires EPA to set these more stringent standards for LDVs and LDTs so that they conform ``as closely as possible'' to the ULEV and ZEV standards established by California for vehicles in the same class. The California ULEV and ZEV standards are described below in section A.1.b. in this preamble. Table 4.--LDV and LDT Clean Fuel Vehicle ULEV Emission Standards ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pollutant (grams/mile) Vehicle category -------------------------------------------------------- NMOG CO NOX HCHO PM\1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LDVs & LDTs 3750 lbs LVW; 6000 lbs GVWR 50,000 miles....................................... 0.040 1.7 0.2 0.008 0.08 100,000 miles...................................... 0.055 2.1 0.3 .011 0.04 LDTs >3750 and 5750 lbs LVW; 6000 lbs GVWR: 50,000 miles....................................... 0.050 2.2 0.4 0.009 0.08 100,000 miles...................................... 0.070 2.8 0.5 0.013 0.04 LDTs >6000 lbs GVWR (1998 MY): 3750 lbs ALVW: 50,000 miles....................................... 0.075 1.7 0.2 0.008 120,000 miles...................................... 0.107 2.5 \2\0.3 0.012 0.04 3750< LDTs 5750 lbs ALVW: 50,000 miles....................................... 0.100 2.2 0.4 0.009 120,000 miles...................................... 0.143 3.2 \2\0.5 0.013 0.05 5750< LDTs 8500 lbs ALVW:\3\ 50,000 miles....................................... 0.117 2.5 0.6 0.011 120,000 miles...................................... 0.167 3.7 \2\0.8 0.016 0.06 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Applies to diesel vehicles only. \2\Does not apply to diesel vehicles. \3\Option of certifying HDEs in vehicles up to 10,000 lbs GVWR using the LDT standards. CAA section 242(b) states that CFVs up to 8,500 lbs. GVWR ``shall comply with all motor vehicle requirements of this title (i.e., on- board diagnostics, evaporative emissions, etc.) which are applicable to conventional gasoline-fueled vehicles of the same category and model year, except as provided in section 244 with respect to administration and enforcement, and except to the extent that any such requirement is in conflict with the provisions of'' part C. These include, but are not limited to, standards for cold temperature CO exhaust emissions (cold CO), on-board diagnostics (OBD), evaporative emission controls (evap), and onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR). Previous requirements such as crankcase controls and vehicle labeling also apply. CAA section 243(e) directs EPA to apply the standards of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) LEV program in lieu of the standards otherwise applicable to CFVs under sections 242 and 243 if the CARB standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as the federal standards that apply to CFVs. Section 243(e)(1) addresses the replacement of CAA standards if CARB promulgates a single set of standards while section 243(e)(2) addresses the replacement if CARB promulgates multiple sets of standards. CARB's LEV program contains multiple sets of standards to which vehicles can certify (i.e., LEV, ULEV, and ZEV); therefore, section 243(e)(2) is the appropriate language for consideration and is provided below: Section 243(e)(2): If the State of California promulgates regulations establishing and implementing several different sets of standards applicable in California pursuant to a waiver approved under section 209 to any category of vehicles referred to in subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this section and each of such sets of California standards is, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as the otherwise applicable standards set forth in section 242 and subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this section, such standards shall be treated as `qualifying California standards' for purposes of this paragraph. Where more than one set of qualifying standards are established and administered by the State of California, the least stringent set of qualifying California standards shall apply to the clean-fuel vehicles concerned in lieu of the standards otherwise applicable to such vehicles under section 242 and this section. EPA believes that the required comparison between the federal and CARB standards is not limited to the CFV exhaust emission standards of sections 242 and 243 but must also include the other Title II standards referred to in CAA section 242 (i.e., OBD, evap, etc.) and any California counterparts. Thus, EPA is required to compare the standards in CAA sections 242(b) and 243 with the CARB standards to determine whether the CARB standards should replace the federal standards. As is discussed below in Section II.c., EPA cannot at this time make the determination that each set of CARB standards is, in the aggregate, at least as protective as the federal standards that apply to CFVs. Therefore, this final rule promulgates the emission standards and requirements for CFVs found in sections 242 and 243 of the CAA. EPA's reasoning to support this conclusion is included in Section II.c. Finally, CAA section 244 provides requirements regarding the administration and enforcement of CFV exhaust emission standards. In the event that numerical emission standards for CFVs up to 8,500 lbs. GVWR are the same under the federal and California LEV program, EPA is to administer and enforce those standards in the same manner and with the same flexibility as CARB does under the California LEV program. This requires utilizing the same interpretations and policy judgments including, but not limited to, requirements regarding certification, production-line testing, and in-use compliance. The application of California's administration and enforcement practices does not depend on whether EPA replaces federal requirements with California requirements under section 243(e). If the Administrator determines that adopting California's administration and enforcement approaches would not meet the criteria for a waiver under section 209, then federal administration and enforcement procedures and interpretations would apply. b. CARB's Low-Emission Vehicle Standards. Pursuant to CAA section 209, the State of California applied to EPA for a waiver on October 4, 1991 for its ``Low-Emission Vehicle and Clean Fuels Regulations''. EPA granted the waiver on January 7, 1993 (58 FR 4166, January 13, 1993). (Although states are generally preempted by CAA section 209 from adopting their own motor vehicle standards, California may adopt its own standards provided that EPA waivers the preemption provision of section 209.) California's regulations establish four new levels of vehicle emission standards, termed ``vehicle emission categories'', for LDVs, LDTs, and medium-duty trucks (MDTs).\9\ These new standards are effective with 1994 model year vehicles.\10\ The California emission categories are, in order of increasing stringency: TLEV (Transitional Low Emission Vehicle); LEV (Low Emission Vehicle); ULEV (Ultra Low Emission Vehicle); and ZEV (Zero Emission Vehicle). The TLEV exhaust emission standards for NMOG, CO, NOX, PM, and HCHO are identical to the federal Phase I CFV standards described above. The LEV exhaust emission standards are identical to the federal Phase II CFV standards. The California ULEV and ZEV standards are the same as the federal ULEV and ZEV categories, established for purposes of the CFF and Pilot program credit programs. CARB defines a ZEV as: \9\The medium-duty truck class is a vehicle class unique to CARB and includes trucks between 6,000 and 14,000 lbs GVWR. \10\See CARB's Proposed Regulations for Low-Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels, Staff Report, available in EPA Air Docket A-91-23. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * any vehicle which is certified * * * to produce zero emissions of any criteria pollutants under any and all possible operational modes and conditions. A ZEV may be equipped with a fuel fired heater provided that the fuel fired heater cannot be operated at ambient temperatures above 40 degrees Fahrenheit and the heater is demonstrated to have zero evaporative emissions under any and all possible operational modes and conditions.\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\California Code of Regualtions, Title 13, Definitions Section, Paragraph 15. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CARB is allowing the use of intermediate in-use compliance standards that are intended to facilitate compliance by vehicle manufacturers. These in-use standards are numerically half way between the certification standards of the new emission category and the old emission category (e.g., half way between TLEV and LEV standards). These intermediate standards will be effective through MY 1995 for TLEVs and through MY 1998 for LEVs and ULEVs. c. Comparison of CAA and CARB Requirements. As discussed above, CAA section 243(e) provides that CARB's standards shall replace the federal CFV and other motor vehicle standards if the CARB standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as the CAA standards. While EPA believes that Congress preferred that the statutory standards be replaced with the CARB standards, EPA cannot at this time make the determination that CARB standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective as the federal standards. Therefore, as mentioned earlier, EPA is at this time establishing federal standards that will apply to CFVs in the CFF and Pilot program. As stated in the proposal, EPA believes that section 243(e)(2) requires a separate comparison of federal Phase I and Phase II standards to CARB standards. For the least stringent set of federal CFV standards (the Phase I standards), the appropriate comparison is to the least stringent set of California CFV standards (the TLEV standards). Similarly, the appropriate comparison for the federal Phase II standards is with the California LEV standards. The Phase I standards will apply to the Pilot program in the 1996 MY. The phase II standards will apply to the CFF program in the 1998 MY, and to the Pilot program in the 2001 MY. Therefore, the federal Phase I standards will not apply to any federal CFV program after MY 2001. For this reason, EPA considers the California LEV standards to be the least stringent set of qualifying California standards after MY 2001, and currently intends to apply the California LEV standard to the CFF and Pilot programs at that time if replacement of the federal Phase II standards is warranted under section 243(e)(2). EPA requested comment in the proposal on this interpretation of the CAA and no adverse comments were received. EPA must also compare CARB standards to the following federal requirements that apply to CFVs to assess whether ``each of such sets of California standards is, in the aggregate, at least as protective'' as the federal standards: cold CO emissions, evaporative emissions, onboard refueling vapor recovery, on-board diagnostics, total hydrocarbons, and non-methane hydrocarbon standards. These standards are compared individually below. i. Cold CO emissions. The currently waived California program does not have a cold CO standard which corresponds to the federal cold CO standard. It is not yet possible for EPA to consider CARB's cold CO standards in its comparison of the respective mobile source programs since California has not yet requested nor received a waiver. In vehicles using liquid fuel, the difficult process of vaporizing cold liquid fuel for combustion contributes significantly to cold start emissions. Gasoline vehicles are most susceptible to this phenomenon in cold conditions. On July 17, 1992, EPA promulgated a cold CO standard (57 FR 31888, 40 CFR 86.201) in order to control CO emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles when operating in cold temperatures.\12\ These regulations became effective for MY 1994. Although these regulations cover only gasoline-fueled vehicles, CAA section 242(b) extends the regulations to all CFVs regardless of fuel type by requiring that CFVs meet all federal requirements of Title II of the CAA that apply to gasoline vehicles of the same category and model year. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\CAA Section 202(j) contains provisions for cold CO requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On January 14, 1993, CARB approved a cold CO standard which became effective in September 1993. CARB's regulations include gasoline- fueled, LPG, and alcohol-fueled vehicles, but do not cover other fuels. EPA is not able at this time to consider the CARB cold CO regulations because CARB has not requested nor received a waiver of federal preemption for its cold CO requirements. ii. Evaporative emissions. The currently waived CARB evaporative emission standards and test procedures are not comparable to the recently promulgated federal evaporative emission standards and test procedures. Current federal regulations for evaporative emissions testing are effective through MY 1995, after which new federal regulations will be phased in. California has two sets of new evaporative emissions regulations: one set will be implemented only for 10 percent of California's MY 1995 vehicles and the second set, which CARB is in the process of finalizing at this time, will be phased in beginning in MY 1996. Indications are that CARB will seek a waiver for their 1996 evaporative emission regulations once they are finalized. EPA cannot yet consider CARB's revised evaporative emission regulations applicable to the 1995 and later model years because CARB has not yet received a waiver for them. iii. Refueling emissions. Based on the currently waived California program, EPA cannot at this time conclude that CARB's refueling emission control regulations are as stringent as the federal onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) standards. The currently waived California Program does not have a mobile source component which addresses refueling emissions. Federal Title II standards for ORVR will be required on certain vehicles beginning in MY 1998 (59 FR 16262; April 6, 1994).\13\ CARB, which currently requires the use of Stage II vapor recovery equipment at most service stations in California, has held two workshops to discuss the proper application of refueling control (November 2, 1993 and March 15, 1994). CARB considered three options: adopting the federal ORVR regulations,; adopting a California- specific ORVR rule, test, or standard; or maintaining that California's current motor vehicle control program is, in the aggregate, at least as protective as the federal program notwithstanding the lack of ORVR controls. In a recent CARB mailout (94-27) dated May 27, 1994, ARB staff announced their proposal to allow the certification of ORVR- equipped vehicles for sale in California. However, the ARB staff did not address the equipped vehicles for sale in California. However, the ARB staff did not address the specific issue of whether ARB will require ORVR controls for certification. California's final determination regarding ORVR control must ultimately be approved by the Air Resources Board. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\The phase-in schedule requires that ORVR standards apply to 40 percent of each manufacturer's LDV sales volume in MY 1998, 80 percent in 1999, and 100 percent in MY 2000. The same phase-in schedule applies to LDTs up to 8,500 lbs. GVWR but will not begin until MY 2001 for LDTs up to 6,000 lbs. GVWR and in MY 2004 for LDTs between 6,001 and 8,500 lbs. GVWR. The requirements do not apply to vehicles above 8,500 lbs. GVWR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA is likely to consider California's lack of an ORVR aspect of its program in the next section 209 waiver proceeding for CARB regulations applicable to model years 1998 and later. EPA will likely decide in that context whether California's motor vehicle program absent ORVR is at least as protective of California as the federal program. iv. Volatile organic compound emissions. EPA and California use different approaches to regulate emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from vehicles. Therefore, EPA believes it is useful to compare California VOC emission standards to the analogous federal standards on a fuel-by-fuel basis, as presented below. For gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles, EPA concludes that the CARB VOC emission standards are individually at least as stringent as the federal standards. However, EPA cannot make this comparison for gaseous and alcohol fuels at this time because CARB has not yet finalized RAFs (reactivity adjustment factors) for these fuels. v. Fuel-by-fuel comparison. As stated above, EPA and CARB use different approaches to establish VOC emission standards. Traditionally, federal organic emissions controls have been based on total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions where mass of THC emissions is measured by a flame ionization detector (FID), implicitly assuming that all hydrocarbon emissions behave similarly with respect to ozone reactivity and FID response. This approach is not used for methanol- fueled vehicles because emissions from these vehicles consist primarily of methanol and formaldehyde, and a FID will only detect about 70 to 80 percent of the methanol and very little of the formaldehyde. For methanol-fueled vehicles, the methanol and formaldehyde emissions are sampled separately and measured chromatographically while other emissions are measured by a FID. The oxygen mass is factored out of the methanol and formaldehyde emissions resulting in ``equivalent hydrocarbon emissions'', which are then summed with the other FID- measured hydrocarbons to yield organic material (or total) hydrocarbon equivalent (OMHCE or THCE) mass. A third approach involves separately measuring methane and subtracting it from the THC to result in a non- methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) mass. For methanol-fueled vehicles, NMHC is equivalent to OMNMHCE (organic material non-methane hydrocarbon equivalent) or NMHCE (non-methane hydrocarbon equivalent). The CAA has established THC and NMHC exhaust emission standards for conventional light-duty gasoline and diesel vehicles (0.41 g/mile for THC and 0.25 g/mile for NMHC). EPA has also established OMHCE and OMNMHCE standards for methanol-fueled vehicles (0.41 and 0.25 g/mile, respectively), an NMHC standard for CNG-fueled vehicles (0.25 g/mile), and THC and NMHC standards for LPG-fueled vehicles identical to the gasoline THC and NMHC standards.\14\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\EPA Gaseous Fuels Rule: ``Standards for Emissions from Natural Gas-Fueled, and Liquified Petroleum Gas-Fueled Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines and Certification Procedures for Aftermarket Conversion Hardware.'' (Published in the Federal Register on September 21, 1994). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CARB measures VOC emissions as non-methane organic gases (NMOG). Under this approach, the mass of each organic compound except methane is measured and adjusted according to its ozone-forming reactivity relative to gasoline emissions. The sum of these adjusted masses is the amount of NMOG emitted from the vehicle. An alternative CARB NMOG method involves measuring the total mass of organic emissions and multiplying this mass by a single RAF for the particular fuel used. A RAF is equivalent to the ratio of the ozone-forming potential of emissions from a given fuel and the ozone-forming potential of conventional gasoline emissions. CARB determines a RAF for each fuel. Therefore, the relative stringency of the CARB and EPA standards for organic emissions should be compared for each fuel individually. Gasoline and Diesel Fuel For gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles, NMHC and NMOG standards are equivalent since CARB has established a RAF of 1.0 for these fuels. In addition, since the methane fraction of the THC emissions from these vehicles is very low,\15\ and since CARB's TLEV and LEV NMOG standards (.125 and .075 g/mile, respectively) are well below the federal THC standard (0.41 g/mile), vehicles designed to meet the CARB NMOG standard will not exceed the federal THC standard. Thus, for gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles, the CARB NMOG standards are at least as stringent as the federal THC and NMHC standards. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, ``Specifications for S.A.I. Runs,'' Memorandum from Chris Lindhjem, Penny Carey, and Joe Somers to the Record, April 24, 1992. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CNG Fuel The equivalency of CARB's NMOG standard with the federal NMHC standards cannot be strictly determined at this point for natural gas vehicles since CARB has not finalized a RAF for natural gas. Indications are that CARB may enact a CNG RAF between 0.5 and 0.6. If CARB adopts a RAF of 0.5 or more, then EPA expects that the CARB TLEV NMOG standard of 0.125 grams/mile (representing the least stringent set of CARB standards) will be at least as stringent as the 0.25 grams/mile federal NMHC standard. A RAF of 0.3 or more would make the CARB LEV NMOG standard of 0.075 grams/mile equivalent to the federal NMHC standard. CNG vehicles being certified as CFVs for use in the CFF and Pilot program will not be subject to the federal THC standard, therefore, a comparison of the relative stringency between the federal THC and the CARB NMOG standard is not appropriate. In the Pilot program NPRM (58 FR 34727, June 29, 1993), EPA requested comment on the appropriateness of applying a THC standard to natural gas CFVs even though a THC standard is not applied to other natural gas vehicles. EPA believes that requiring CNG vehicles to meet the federal THC standard would exclude CNG vehicles from participating in the CFF and Pilot programs. CNG vehicles do produce high methane emissions; however, these emissions have a very low ozone reactivity and are therefore not a significant contributor to ozone formation, which is a primary objective of both programs.\16\ In addition, CNG vehicles typically produce lower NMHC emissions than gasoline-fueled vehicles. Therefore, although a THC standard would strictly limit the amount of methane emissions a CNG vehicle could emit, this result would be contrary to the ozone- reduction goals of the programs when methane reactivity and lower NMHC emissions of CNG vehicles relative to gasoline-fueled vehicles are considered. A further consideration in deciding whether to apply a THC standard to CNG CFVs was the Agency's desire to maintain consistency with its Gaseous Fuels rule whenever possible; that rule also does not apply THC standards to CNG vehicles. Commenters were not supportive of CNG vehicles, including CFVs, being subject to a THC standard. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\See CAA sections 246, 247, and 248. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LPG Fuel CARB has not finalized a RAF for LPG fuel. Therefore, EPA cannot at this time strictly compare the CARB NMOG standard to the federal NMHC standard for LPG vehicles. However, as with CNG, if CARB adopts a RAF of at least 0.5, EPA expects that the CARB TLEV and LEV NMOG standard will be individually at least as stringent as the federal NMHC standard. Alcohol Fuels CARB has finalized a RAF of 0.41 for M85 vehicles and EPA's analysis indicates that the CARB NMOG standard is individually as protective as the federal NMHC equivalent standard for M85 fuel. However, CARB has not established a RAF for E85 and M100 fuel. EPA thus cannot determine at this time whether the CARB NMOG standards are individually as protective of public health and welfare as the federal NMHC equivalent standards for all alcohol-fueled vehicles. Regarding THC, methane emissions from alcohol-fueled vehicles, as with gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles, are generally low enough that vehicles meeting the CARB NMOG standards would also comply with the federal THC standards. Therefore, EPA concludes that the CARB NMOG standards are individually at least as stringent as the federal THC standard. vi. Onboard diagnostics. The currently waived California onboard diagnostic I (OBD I) regulation is not comparable to the recently promulgated federal OBD regulation ( 58 FR 9468, February 19, 1993). The recently promulgated federal OBD regulation is comparable to the recently revised California OBD II regulation. In fact, EPA has decided that vehicles demonstrating compliance with CARB onboard diagnostic (OBD) regulations will be deemed to satisfy federal OBD requirements through the 1998 model year. However, EPA cannot properly consider California's OBD II regulations under section 243(e) of the CAA because California has not yet received a waiver of federal preemption for them. Thus, in subsequent model years after 1998, vehicle OBD systems must comply with the federal OBD requirements. vii. Summary. While the basic CFV exhaust standards are identical to CARB standards, EPA is not able to find that each set of currently waived CARB standards are as protective as the federal standards. By comparison to the federal program established for CFVs today pursuant to section 242 and 243, the California program lacks comparable components for at least the federal cold CO standards, recently promulgated evaporative emission standards and on-board diagnostics, as well as mobile source control for vehicle refueling vapor recovery. Since EPA cannot at this time make the required determination under section 243(e)(2), EPA is promulgating federal standards and requirements in this final rule that will apply to CFVs. The CAA exhaust standards will apply to clean fuel vehicles, and will be administered and enforced according to CARB practices under CAA section 244, which is discussed later under ``Administration and Enforcement''. Pursuant to section 242(b), federal requirements for cold CO, evaporative emissions, refueling emissions, OBD (onboard diagnostics), NMHC, and, with certain exceptions, THC will also apply to CFVs. As proposed, EPA is waiving testing requirements for the cold CO standards for gaseous-fueled, diesel-fueled and electric CFVs when manufacturers demonstrate compliance with the cold CO standard through engineering analysis or test data.\17\ EPA does not expect problematic cold temperature CO emissions from gaseous-fueled CFVs since they do not generally use fuel enrichment strategies to aid with cold starts. Because of efficient combustion in diesel-fueled vehicles and the minimal emissions inherent with electric vehicles, EPA does not expect problematic cold CO emissions from these vehicles either. Also as discussed above, EPA will not require CNG vehicles to meet the THC standard due to the conflict with provisions of part C of the Act and other factors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\This provision is similar to the requirements for Otto-cycle vehicles which must show compliance with a PM standard in the Tier 1 rulemaking (56 FR 25730). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the NPRM, EPA had anticipated that the regulatory processes underway would allow EPA to conclude at the time of this final rule that each set of California standards is, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as the otherwise applicable standards set forth in section 242 and 243. The Agency still believes that such a conclusion may be possible in the future. EPA will continue to monitor developments on these issues and, if changing circumstances warrant, EPA intends to revisit this rule and propose replacing the federal CFV standards with CARB standards under section 243(e)(2). In such a situation, the Agency will supplement the record and provide an opportunity for comment as appropriate. d. Credit Generating Standards. As mentioned previously, the CAA requires EPA to establish standards for Ultra-Low Emission Vehicles (ULEVs) and Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) which are more stringent than the standards that otherwise apply to CFVs. Section 246(f)(4) of the CAA states that, ``[t]he standards established by the Administrator under this paragraph for vehicles under 8,500 lbs. GVWR or greater shall conform as closely as possible to standards which are established by the State of California for ULEV and ZEV vehicles in the same class''. As proposed, EPA is promulgating the ULEV and ZEV standards established by CARB in the California LEV program as the federal ULEV and ZEV standards. Section 249(d)(3) specifies that these and other requirements established for purposes of the credit program for the Clean Fuel Fleet program shall also apply for purposes of issuing credits in the Pilot Program. A ZEV (e.g., an electric vehicle) is defined as a vehicle that complies with the applicable ZEV standards (40 CFR 88.101). Like CARB, EPA will determine compliance with the ZEV standard through engineering analysis rather than by testing. As per section 244 of the CAA, the federal ZEV standards will be administered and enforced in accordance with applicable CARB procedures for LDVs and LDTs. Consistent with the CARB, EPA is establishing ZEV standards which require zero emissions of the following pollutants: NMOG, NOx, CO, particulates, and HCHO. (Emissions from non-fuel sources, like tires, seats, paint, etc., will likely exist as they do for conventional vehicles and other CFVs.) Compliance with this requirement may be assessed through engineering analysis. This analysis will include a description and analysis of all primary or auxiliary equipment and engines which concludes that no emissions of the stated pollutants is possible. The engineering analysis will determine that the vehicle fuel system(s) does not contain either carbon or nitrogen compounds (including air) which, when burned, form the above regulated exhaust emissions. Such criteria will also assure that evaporative emissions will not occur. Emission testing will not be necessary. When applicable, compliance testing on ZEVs may be performed according to the testing requirements of CFR Part 86 and 88 (Federal Test Procedure) at EPA's discretion. As with other CFVs, ZEVs will be subject to the standards of part 88 which will be administered per CARB's procedures for LDVs and LDTs and which are incorporated by reference. Like CARB, EPA will consider a vehicle with an auxiliary heater to be a ZEV if the heater will not operate at ambient temperatures above 40 degrees Fahrenheit and the heater's power and/or fuel source does not have any evaporative emissions in use. Commenters responding to this issue supported this definition, on which EPA requrested comment in the NPRM. This auxiliary heater will not be subject to the cold CO standard (contained in 40 CFR Part 86.201-94) because the cold CO regulations do not require the testing of heaters. In addition, CARB has provided a specific exemption for ZEVs from the CARB cold CO requirements (whether or not the vehicle is equipped with an auxiliary heater); thus EPA's action on this issue is consistent with CARB's approach. EPA may reconsider subjecting ZEV auxiliary heaters to the federal cold CO requirement through regulation if circumstances warrant in the future. Any vehicle with additional power system(s) or auxiliary engine(s) that might produce regulated pollutants (e.g., a hybrid vehicle or electric vehicle with an auxiliary power source to run other vehicle systems) will be subject to the standards of 40 CFR Part 88 (administered per CARB procedures, which are incorporated by reference) or future applicable regulations and might not qualify as a ZEV. One respondent requested that EPA establish ZEV exhaust emission standards above zero such that hybrid electric vehicles may qualify as ZEVs. EPA has not promulgated a test procedure for such vehicles and therefore standards have not been established. e. Administration and Enforcement Per California Practice. As proposed in the NPRM, EPA will administer and enforce the numerical CFV exhaust emission standards in the same manner as does the state of California. Section 244 of the Act directs EPA to administer and enforce the numerical CFV emission standards in the same manner as CARB does for vehicles less than 8,500 lbs. GVWR. Specifically, section 244 states that when the applicable CAA and CARB numerical standards are the same, Such standards shall be administered and enforced by the Administrator (1) in the same manner and with the same flexibility as the State of California administers and enforces corresponding standards * * *; and (2) subject to the same requirements, and utilizing the same interpretations and policy judgments, as are applicable in the case of such CARB standards, including, but not limited to, requirements regarding certification, production-line testing, and in-use compliance. The application of California administration and enforcement procedures does not depend on whether EPA has replaced federal CFV standards with California standards under section 243(e). Section 246(f)(4) provides that the credit generating standards are to be administered and enforced in the same manner as the other CFV standards. Therefore, EPA will administer and enforce the ULEV and ZEV standards in the same manner as does CARB. Section 244 states that EPA shall use California administration and enforcement procedures unless EPA determines that doing so will not meet the criteria for a waiver of preemption under section 209. EPA believes that the application of current California procedures would meet the criteria for a section 209 waiver. However, in a letter dated February 17, 1994, CARB requested that EPA waive preemption under section 209 for certain proposed amendments to California certification test procedures. EPA is currently analyzing this waiver request to determine whether these test procedure amendments meet the criteria for a waiver under section 209. For example, EPA must determine if the California enforcement procedures, as amended, are consistent with section 202(a) of the Act. Until it has completed its analysis of the waiver request, EPA cannot present a determination that the amended California regulation, and thus California administration and enforcement, do not meet the criteria for a waiver under section 209. Given that section 244 directs EPA to adopt California's procedures unless it makes such a determination, EPA believes that it is required to adopt today California's administration and enforcement procedures. EPA believes this adoption is in accordance with the plain language of section 244. If EPA later determines that the California enforcement procedures do not meet the section 209 waiver criteria, it will propose to amend its regulation regarding enforcement of CFVs according to California procedures. California procedures currently require certification testing of gasoline vehicles either on California reformulated gasoline or on the current federal gasoline test fuel called ``indolene.'' EPA believes that adopting this requirement as a part of adopting California administration and enforcement procedures will allow manufacturers to certify vehicles both for California as well as the other 49 states. In most cases, EPA believes that vehicle designs likely to be certified on California reformulated gasoline to the CFV standards will be capable of being certified to those standards on indolene as well with no technological changes. It is possible that some manufacturers may wish to certify vehicles on a gasoline formulation different from either California reformulated gasoline or indolene. For example, a manufacturer may wish to certify and market a CFV engine family for use by fleet operators only in areas where federal reformulated gasoline requirements apply, but where California reformulated gasoline is unavailable or expensive. A CFV engine family certified only on California reformulated gasoline would not be an attractive option to fleet operators in areas covered by federal reformulated gasoline requirements because the vehicles in that family will not have been demonstrated to comply with the CFV standards on federal reformulated gasoline. If certifying that family to the CFV standards on indolene would require additional emission control development effort over the California-fuel version, but certifying on a federal reformulated fuel would not, the manufacturer might prefer to certify on a fuel representative of federal reformulated gasoline. Thus, such a manufacturer might choose to market a line of CFVs which could use the local fuel (reformulated gasoline) instead of only marketing California-fuel versions. In this kind of situation, then, allowing manufacturers the option of certifying to the CFV standards on other gasoline formulations might provide fleets covered by the CFF program with an additional vehicle choice, one which may help them comply in a cost-effective manner with the requirement that they operate their CFVs in covered areas only on fuels on which the vehicles comply with the CFV standards. While the California procedures adopted here do not appear to permit certification on gasoline different from California reformulated gasoline or indolene, EPA is considering whether it has the authority to propose and promulgate a provision which would permit manufacturers to request certification on a different gasoline formulation. Particularly if interest is shown in such a provision on the part of fleets, vehicle manufacturers, fuel producers, states, or other interested parties, EPA may issue a proposed rule to permit certification on any gasoline formulation. With respect to the NMOG standard, CAA sections 241(3) and 241(4) provide definitions for NMOG and base gasoline to be used in determining reactivity adjustments for alternative fuels. Section 241(4) further provides that EPA is to modify these definitions and the method used for determining reactivity adjustment factors to conform to the definitions and method used by CARB, provided CARB's definitions are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as the CAA definitions. CARB's definition of NMOG, contained in the ``definitions'' section of its LEV program regulations, is identical to the CAA definition. The CAA section 241(4) specifications for ``base gasoline'' for the most part fall within the specification ranges for CARB's ``baseline'', i.e., ``conventional'', gasoline used by CARB in establishing the RAF for methanol-fueled vehicles.\18\ Thus, EPA concludes that CARB's regulatory definition of ``conventional gasoline'' is at least as protective as the CAA definition of base gasoline for determining RAFs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 1988 and Subsequent Model Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-duty Vehicles, Appendix VIII. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To ensure that the administration and enforcement of the CFV exhaust emission standards is undertaken in conformance with section 244, EPA incorporates by reference CARB's test procedures and other regulatory provisions regarding administration and enforcement. (The California Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Clean Fuel Fleet and California Pilot Programs, April 1, 1994, have been incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 88.104-94(k)(2).) Any vehicle certified by CARB in California to the same CFV exhaust emission standards promulgated today will be considered to satisfy the requirements for certification to the federal CFV exhaust standards although the vehicle must meet all other Title II requirements as well as qualify as a CFV. For federal standards which are not currently identical to CARB requirements (e.g., cold CO emissions, evaporative emissions, THC, NMHC), the existing federal administration and enforcement provisions, including the applicable test procedures, will apply. Provisions established in the Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fees rule (57 FR 30044, July 7, 1992) give EPA the authority to recover all reasonable costs associated with enforcement and compliance activities performed by EPA. CFVs certified for use in the Pilot program may be subject to California-only fees if a manufacturer only intends to sell the CFV in California. However, other CFVs certified under the same process may be subject to fees applicable for a federal certificate. This would be the case if such CFVs were sold outside of California (e.g., CFVs used in the CFF program outside California). As EPA proposed in the NPRM, vehicles certified as CFVs are to be labeled according to CARB's revised motor vehicle emission control label specifications.\19\ These revised labeling requirements include labeling vehicles to designate that they meet LEV, ULEV or ZEV standards. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\Contained in California's proposed LEV program, California Code of Regulations, Title 13, section 1965. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Heavy-Duty Clean-Fuel Vehicle Standards Today's rule requires that engines intended for use in clean-fuel vehicles greater than 8,500 and up to 26,000 pounds GVWR meet a combined non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) plus NOX emissions standard of 3.8 grams per brake horsepower hour (g/Bhp-hr). This new standard applies to all light and medium heavy-duty engines which are to be certified for inclusion in the Clean Fuel Fleet program, independent of fuel type. (Also, this standard applies to heavy heavy- duty engines participating in the Clean Fuel Fleet program for the purpose of generating credits.) Thus, it applies to vehicles operating on gasoline, diesel, alcohols, gaseous fuels, electricity, and other fuels. Section 246(f)(4) of the CAA requires that credit-generating standards be promulgated for heavy-duty clean-fuel vehicles, including standards for heavy-duty ULEVs and ZEVs. The CAA requires these standards to be ``comparable'', which EPA interprets to mean comparable to the credit-generating standards established for light-duty vehicles. a. The Heavy-Duty Clean Fuel Vehicle Low-Emission Vehicle NMHC+NOX Standard. Section 245 of the CAA sets forth the statutory framework governing establishment of the heavy-duty clean-fuel vehicle standards. Section 245(a) sets a combined NMHC+NOX standard of 3.15 g/Bhp-hr for engines intended for use in heavy-duty clean-fuel vehicles, reflecting a 50 percent reduction from the current combined HC and NOX standards for heavy-duty diesel engines (HDDE). Section 245(b) permits EPA to set a less stringent standard or standards if EPA determines that the statutory level of 3.15 g/Bhp-hr is infeasible for clean diesel-fueled engines. Under this provision, EPA must make a determination as to the feasibility of this standard for clean diesel- fueled engine technology, taking into account ``durability, costs, lead time, safety, and other relevant factors.'' If the Administrator determines that the standard is not feasible for clean diesel-fueled engines, EPA may set a less stringent standard so long as it is at least a 30 percent reduction from the combined NMHC plus NOX standards for model year 1994 heavy-duty engines. A 30 percent reduction would be equivalent to a NMHC plus NOX standard of 4.41 g/Bhp-hr. EPA determines today that a combined NMHC+NOX emission standard of 3.15 g/Bhp-hr is infeasible for clean diesel-fueled engines, for the reasons discussed below. Under Section 245(b)(1), EPA has the authority to establish a less stringent standard. The only statutory criteria for setting the less stringent standard is the requirement that the standard require at least a 30 percent reduction from the combined NMHC+NOX standards for the 1994 model year heavy-duty engines. Because the same standard that will apply to diesel-fueled vehicles will also apply to vehicles run on other fuels (including gasoline), EPA has looked at feasibility for both diesel- and nondiesel-fueled vehicles. Based on these considerations, EPA has decided to set the standard at 3.8 g/Bhp-hr. (i) Establishing the NMHC+NOX Standard. In determining whether the 3.15 g/Bhp-hr NMHC+NOX standard is feasible for clean diesel- fueled heavy-duty engines, EPA believes that the CAA does not require a determination that the standard is feasible for every diesel engine family, but rather that it is feasible for at least enough diesel engine families such that fleet operators have enough choice to meet their requirements under the Clean Fuel Fleet Program. The clean-fuel vehicle standard is not a mandatory national standard for all heavy- duty vehicles manufactured, but instead applies to vehicles that fleet owners in certain areas must buy as a certain percentage of their vehicle purchases beginning in model year 1998. In the NPRM, EPA proposed a level of 3.5 g/Bhp-hr NMHC+NOX based on concerns about technology, cost, leadtime, and durability for diesel engines as prescribed in section 245 (b) of the CAA. Based on the comments submitted to EPA and further analysis by the Agency, EPA believes that achieving HDDE emission levels below about 3.5 g/Bhp-hr NMHC+NOX would be technically difficult and costly to manufacturers and would not be achievable for an adequate number of light and medium heavy-duty diesel engine families by 1998. In their comments, engine manufacturers argued that the 3.15 g/Bhp-hr level, as well as the proposed 3.5 g/Bhp-hr level, would not be technologically and economically feasible for diesel-fueled engines. The Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (NGVC) argued that the 3.15 g/Bhp-hr level would be feasible for diesel-fueled engines, based largely on a final report by Acurex under contract with CARB, entitled ``Technical Feasibility Reducing NOX and Particulate Emissions from Heavy-Duty Engines.''\20\ As the analysis summarized below demonstrates, EPA agrees in part with each set of comments, but reaches a conclusion different from both. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\Acurex Environmental Project Under Contract with California Air Resources Board, Final Report, ``Technical Feasibility of Reducing NOX and Particulate Emissions From Heavy-Duty Engines,'' Acurex Environmental Project 8450, Contract No. A132-085, April 30, 1993 (found in the docket for this rulemaking). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a part of its assessment of the potential HDDE emission control technology, EPA studied the Acurex report in depth. Like the Regulatory Support Document associated with this rule,\21\ this report concludes that to achieve a NOX-emission level of 2.5 g/Bhp-hr by 2000 (NOX levels needed to meet a 3.15 g/Bhp-hr NMHC+NOX standard),\22\ diesel-fueled engines would need to be equipped with advanced catalytic trap or EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) technologies. In addition, the 2.5 g/Bhp-hr level would also require the use of a combination of some or all of the following emission control approaches for diesel-fueled engines: very high pressure fuel injection, variable geometry turbocharging, air-to-air aftercooling, optimized combustion, electronic unit injections with minimized sac volumes, optimized fuel injection nozzles, rate shaping, exhaust gas recirculation and sophisticated electronic control of all engine systems. Most of the devices described in the Acurex report are in relatively early stages of development and would require extensive changes in heavy-duty diesel-powered engines compared to today's designs. Acurex projects that achieving this level would be possible, but it would result in a 5 percent fuel economy penalty and a doubling of the engine price of a 1994 diesel-fueled engine. Based on reasons discussed throughout this section, EPA is very doubtful that this standard could be met in a cost-effective manner in time for the production of an adequate number of 1998 model year engine families. However, Acurex has projected that a 3.0 g/Bhp-hr NOX-emission level (approximately equivalent to a 3.5 g/Bhp-hr NMHC+NOX level) is achievable for diesel-fueled engines by 1999 with the addition of EGR and oxidation catalyst technology without major new costs or fuel economy penalties. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, ``Regulatory Support Document: Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Fleets,'' June 1994 (found in the docket for this rulemaking). \22\Current certification data indicate that generally all diesel engine families have HC certification levels less than 0.5 g/ Bhp-hr, so most reductions would have to be achieved in NOX emissions. Thus, achieving a 3.15 g/Bhp-hr NMHC+NOX standard would essentially require NOX-certification levels on the order of 2.5 to 2.7 g/Bhp-hr. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, the NGVC argued that no technological breakthroughs are required to meet the 3.15 standard since each one of these technologies is already in use in one or more commercial diesel engine families to meet the 1994 and 1998 standards. They also state that all that would be required to meet the 3.15 standard would be the addition of EGR and possibly a particulate trap. Although it is true that some versions of the necessary technologies are in use today, EPA believes, as stated above, that the additional development effort needed to reach very low emission levels would be very costly and would likely limit or eliminate the availability of heavy-duty diesel engines for the program. Furthermore, a review of the 1993 HDE federal certification results clarifies the magnitude of the developmental task for manufacturers to achieve extremely low- emission levels, especially for diesels. The data, which represents engines tested on federal certification fuel, indicates that no current gasoline or diesel HDE family meets or is close to the 3.15 g/Bhp-hr standard on federal certification fuel (for diesel and gasoline engines NMHC and HC are roughly equivalent). Of the 9 gasoline HDE families certified in 1993, three are within one g/Bhp- hr of the standard (see Figure 1). Based on the aftertreatment control technology used by and available for gasoline engines, EPA believes that 3.15 g/Bhp-hr level would be within reach for a number of these families. For diesel engines, however, the 1993 heavy-duty engine federal certification results presented in Figure 1 indicate that achieving the 3.15 g/Bhp-hr standard on federal diesel fuel would be extremely problematic for the majority of engine families by 1998. However, five of the 37 diesel engine families certified in 1993 are within one g/Bhp-hr of the 3.5 g/Bhp-hr NMHC+NOX level (equivalent to NOX-certification level of 3.0 g/Bhp-hr), indicating that a standard in this range would more likely be achieved by a variety of diesel engines on federal certification fuel than would the 3.15 level. Only one of 37 diesel engine families certified in 1993 is within one g/Bhp-hr of the 3.15 level; most have combined HC and NOX certification levels of 5.5 g/Bhp-hr or less. BILLING CODE 6560-50-P TR30SE94.000 BILLING CODE 6560-50-C There are two existing sets of regulations that will drive heavy- duty engine technology towards low NMHC+NOX levels: the federal 1998 4.0 g/Bhp-hr NOX standard, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) LEV standard for diesel engines and incomplete medium-duty vehicles of 3.5 g/Bhp-hr NMHC+NOX. EPA received many comments in Docket A-91-28 stating that the 4.0 g/Bhp-hr NOX standard for all 1998 and later HDEs, which is one g/Bhp-hr lower than the existing standard, is feasible for diesel engines. Development of the technology necessary to comply with the 4.0 g/Bhp-hr NOX standard will make it more likely that a significant number of light and medium diesel HDE families will be able to reach emission levels slightly below 4.0 g/ Bhp-hr NOX on federal diesel fuel in the future, but it is unlikely that this federal standard will force the development of technologies needed to achieve a 3.15 g/Bhp-hr NMHC+NOX standard on such fuel (i.e., NOX levels of 3.0 g/Bhp-hr or less) since there is no federal requirement to reach lower levels. CARB's 3.5 g/Bhp-hr NMHC+NOx standard is the only other impetus driving technology to achieve emission levels significantly below the 4.0 g/Bhp-hr NOx standard. Engine manufacturers have stated that the CARB 1998 3.5 g/Bhp-hr NMHC+NOx standard for incomplete medium-duty vehicles and diesel engines is feasible, and EPA agrees with CARB's expectation that manufacturers will market a range of LEV diesel HDEs in California which will meet the California standard. However, as with the federal 4.0 g/Bhp-hr NOx standard, it is unlikely the current California standard will prompt the additional technology development needed to reach a 3.15 g/Bhp-hr NMHC+NOx level since there is no requirement to reach levels below 3.5 g/Bhp-hr NMHC+NOx. This is especially true for engines intended for vehicles between 14,000 and 26,000 pounds GVWR, which are covered by the Clean Fuel Fleet Program but not the current CARB LEV program. EPA believes it is appropriate to look at the demand that will be created for heavy-duty CFVs as a relevant factor when determining whether a particular combined NMHC+NOx standard for diesel-fueled vehicles is technologically feasible under section 245(b)(1). For the reasons discussed above, EPA believes that achieving a level of 3.15 g/ Bhp-hr NMHC+NOx for even a small selection of HDDEs by 1998 will be a very difficult task. Manufacturers will need to invest significantly in research and accelerated technology development, and any engines which reach production would be more costly (in terms of both engine price increase and fuel economy penalty, as discussed above), especially based on the relatively small demand that will be created by the Clean Fuel Fleet Program. In the absence of mandated production, EPA believes that a technological effort of this magnitude is likely to be undertaken by engine manufacturers only under circumstances of a certain, substantial market. The CFF program contains no authority for a production mandate. Thus, the size and certainty of the market is central to whether diesel engines will be developed to meet the requirements of heavy-duty fleets covered by the fleet program. However, only a small number of vehicles will be needed by fleets for their fleet program purchase requirements. For example, during each year of the fleet program EPA estimates that a maximum of only about 2 percent (10,000) of total nationwide new heavy- duty diesel vehicles will be purchased by fleet operators to meet the Clean Fuel Fleet Program requirements.\23\ This projected market decreases by about 25 percent if California opts out of the Clean Fuel Fleet Program; other potential opt outs by additional states may reduce the market to under one percent of nationwide heavy-duty diesel engine sales (or under about 5000 vehicles). By comparison, based on the implementation schedule of CARB's LEV program, the annual market (30,000) for vehicles required to meet CARB's LEV standard for diesel engines and incomplete medium duty-vehicles of 3.5 g/Bhp-hr NMHC+NOx is approximately three to six times as large as the potential federal clean diesel-fueled market.\24\ CARB's program incorporates a phased-in percentage sales mandate for this larger number of vehicles. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, ``Estimated Number of Fleet Vehicles Affected by the Clean Fuel Fleet Program,'' Memorandum from Sheri Dunatchik to Docket A- 91-25, June 11, 1991. \24\Heavy-duty vehicle population projections for the California LEV program are based on the following: (1) light heavy-duty production reports submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for model year 1991 and (2) New Truck Registrations by Manufacturer and State data from the ``AAMA Facts and Figures 1993'' (page 27) that shows California truck sales to be 10 percent of nationwide truck sales. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA is concerned that a market of the size represented by the CFF program will not be seen as sufficient for engine manufacturers to justify the major voluntary technological development efforts necessary to reach a 3.15 g/Bhp-hr standard. Even if some manufacturers do launch such an effort, the likely higher cost and possible fuel economy penalty may make it much more difficult for diesel engine producers to compete for sales with gasoline or alternative fueled engine options which may be available. Since developing and producing vehicles for the fleet program is, by statute, voluntary, the Agency believes that it is very possible that, with a very low emission standard, no diesels will be produced for the clean fuel fleet program. The Act is clear in its intention that EPA may design the fleet program such that clean diesel vehicles can participate. EPA thus concludes that a standard of 3.15 g/ Bhp-hr is not feasible for heavy-duty diesel-fueled CFVs taking into account costs, lead time, durability, and other relevant factors, and should not be promulgated at this time. EPA reserves the right to reconsider through rulemaking the 3.15 g/ Bhp-hr NMHC+NOx standard at a later time if diesel NOx control technology and the HD clean-fuel engine market develop to a point which would make this level feasible for heavy-duty diesel-fueled CFVs. Such a reconsideration may be prompted by developments in the ongoing CARB HD LEV program now under consideration. ii. NMHC+NOx LEV standard. EPA is adopting an approach for the heavy-duty clean fuel vehicle engine standard that is very similar to the proposed approach. The intent of this approach is to implement a challenging standard in a way that harmonizes as completely as possible the federal standard with CARB's NMHC+NOx LEV standard for diesel engines and incomplete medium-duty vehicles. The Agency believes that the effect of this harmonization is to make the overall national market for clean HDDs significantly larger than it would be with either program alone and will thus assure that clean diesels will in fact be produced by 1998 for the clean fuel fleet program. To meet these objectives, EPA is promulgating a combined NMHC+NOx clean-fuel engine emission standard of 3.8 g/Bhp-hr for heavy-duty engines certified on federal diesel certification fuel. Manufacturers may also certify heavy-duty engines to a standard of 3.5 g/Bhp-hr on California diesel certification fuel, which for a given engine is approximately equal in stringency to the 3.8 g/Bhp-hr standard using federal diesel certification fuel, as described below. The level of stringency represented by these standards should be achievable for at least several diesel engines with fairly straightforward technological improvements and without a serious fuel economy penalty. EPA intends for this approach to assure that the same engines that are developed and produced for the California LEV program will also be acceptable to fulfill the requirements of the Clean Fuel Fleet Program. These vehicles and engines would, as specified by section 242(b) of the Act, also be required to meet all other applicable emission standards and requirements of 40 CFR Part 86 (such as standards for CO, particulates, smoke and evaporative emissions, as applicable). As discussed in the NPRM, EPA recognizes that differences between California and federal certification and in-use diesel fuels may cause a difference in emission rates. CARB limits the aromatics content of the test fuel to a maximum of ten percent, while federal test fuel may contain as much as 35 percent aromatics. There is evidence to suggest that the use of federal test fuel can result in higher NMHC+NOX emissions than the use of CARB fuel in the same engine. Apparently, this occurs because the higher aromatic content of the fuel reduces its cetane rating and thus combustion is slightly less enhanced. Data reported in the NPRM for a 1991 prototype DDC Series 60 heavy heavy- duty engine showed this difference to be in the range of 0.3 g/Bhp-hr offset.\25\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\``Effects of Fuel Aromatics, Cetane Number, and Cetane Improver on Emissions from a 1991 Prototype Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine,'' T. Ullman, R. Mason, and D. Montalvo, Southwest Research Institute, SAE Paper 902171., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, ``Effect of Test Fuel Differences on NMHC+NOX Emissions,'' Memorandum from Michael Samulski to the docket of this rulemaking, February 23, 1993. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition to the analysis of the 1991 prototype heavy-duty diesel engine referenced in the NPRM, EPA has used a similar analysis to examine diesel fuel effects based on data presented in a study performed on a 1993 prototype Navistar Diesel DTA 466 medium heavy-duty engine.\26\ As had been done in the earlier analysis, EPA compared federal and California diesel fuels on the basis of aromatic percent and cetane number. EPA used the specified aromatic levels of 10 percent for California test fuel and 35 percent for federal test fuel and natural cetane numbers of 50 and 46 for typical California and federal certification fuels, respectively.\27\ An API gravity number typical of both test fuels of 36 degrees was used. The following regression equations were developed in the study conducted on the 1993 engine for total hydrocarbon (THC) and NOX: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\Diesel Fuel Property Effects on Exhaust Emissions from a Heavy Duty Diesel Engine that Meets the 1994 Emissions Requirements, ``C. McCarthy, Amoco Oil Co., W. Slodowske, E. Sienicke, and R. Jass, Navistar International Transportation Corp., SAE Paper 922267. \27\The cetane numbers used in the EPA analysis on the 1993 heavy-duty engine were based on the following: (1) ``Development of the First CARB certified California Alternative Diesel Fuel'', M. Nikanjam, SAE Paper 930728, (2) Section 2282, Title 13, California Code of Regulations procedure for certifying diesel fuel formulations resulting in equivalent emissions reductions and (3) Cummins Engine Company and Caterpiller diesel fuel formulations for federal diesel fuel. These cetane numbers are natural cetane numbers (without cetane improver). THC [g/Bhp-hr] = 0.819 - 0.01942 * (Natural Cetane) + 0.01159 * (API) NOX [g/Bhp-hr] = 6.593 + 0.01183 * (SFC Aromatics %) - 0.02497 * (Natural Cetane) - 0.02365 (API) Substituting the values selected above for percent aromatics and cetane numbers into these equations, the Agency calculated a THC + NOX offset of about 9.7 percent. Applying this percent offset to the 3.5 g/Bhp-hr standard for CARB diesel fuel, the Agency analysis calculated that the offset would be about 0.34 g/Bhp-hr THC + NOX. (This analysis assumed that the offset would apply equally whether THC or NMHC was being considered; the Agency has no data to indicate that the small methane emissions component in diesel emissions would affect the relative behavior of the engine on the two fuels). Thus, the Agency concludes that diesel engines certified to a 3.5 g/Bhp-hr level on California diesel fuel would for typical engines, result in emissions of approximately 3.8 g/Bhp-hr for the same engines operated on federal diesel fuel, confirming the estimate made in the NPRM. In their comments engine manufacturers quoted the same data that EPA has used for the 1991 and 1993 prototype diesel engines, but used different assumptions for the cetane number for in-use diesel fuel. Also, the industry analysis did not adjust the offset proportionally to account for the much lower emissions of CFVs as compared to the current engine which generated the test data. In their comments, they concluded that the offset between federal certification fuel and California certification fuel may be more in the range of 0.55-0.66 g/Bhp-hr. EPA has examined the assumptions used in the industry analysis and concluded that the EPA analysis is a more appropriate approach for determining the expected emissions offset. While this conclusion is based on data from a single engine, the 1993 engine is of the appropriate size (medium heavy-duty) from which to draw a conclusion for this program and the study was done on a meaningful array of diesel test fuels. It is likely that if similar data were collected on other engines, somewhat different values for the CARB/federal fuel offset might be observed. Until such a time when additional data becomes available, EPA will assume that offsets for other heavy-duty diesel engines would range on either side of the 0.34 g/bhp-hr level EPA has developed for the 1993 engine. Thus, the Agency believes that its analysis reasonably accounts for potential fuel variability and that the 0.34 g/Bhp-hr value represents a reasonable estimate for the average emissions offset between federal certification fuel and California certification fuel. If a reduction catalyst is used as a means to reduce NOX levels, concerns over fuel variability diminish significantly. The CARB/federal fuel offset would tend to be less because the reduction catalyst would reduce emissions proportionally for both fuels. While the use of reduction catalysts may not be universal, EPA expects that some light/medium heavy-duty engine families will use reduction catalyst technology to meet the NOX target level. Additional data and analysis supporting the above conclusion of the offset between federal and California diesel fuel can be found in the Summary and Analysis of Comments document for this rulemaking. Based on its analysis of the emissions offset above, EPA has set the emission standard for HDD CFVs certified on federal diesel fuel at 3.8 g/Bhp-hr NMHC + NOX. This standard is consistent with EPA's intent that the heavy-duty clean-fuel vehicle standards be of as close to equivalent stringency as possible to the CARB LEV standard for similar vehicles to assure the production of an adequate number of diesel engine models for the clean fuel fleet program. Further, because the Agency is reasonably confident that in-use emissions of a engine certified at 3.5 g/Bhp-hr on California fuel will emit in the range of 3.8 g/Bhp-hr on federal fuel, EPA will grant a federal certificate of conformity to a manufacturer which demonstrates compliance with the 3.5 g/Bhp-hr standard on California certification fuel. While it is possible that individual engines certified on California fuel may experience a slightly different offset when operated on federal diesel fuel (e.g., when a cetane number is much different between the fuels), EPA believes that this will be the exception and that in-use performance on federal diesel fuel will average about 3.8 g/Bhp-hr. The use of federal fuel in engines certified on California fuel is consistent in this case with the fuel use provisions of sections 246(b) and 241(2), since EPA has concluded that such engines indeed comply with the clean fuel vehicle requirements on federal diesel fuel. As another way of harmonizing the CARB LEV program and the CFF program to ensure a sufficient number of HDDEs will be available by 1998 for the fleet program, EPA will only test engine families which were certified to CFV standards on California diesel fuel on diesel fuel meeting California specifications during any Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA) testing or in-use recall enforcement testing. The Agency believes that if manufacturers of HD CFVs certified on California fuel perceive that their engines may be subject to later EPA testing on federal diesel fuel, then they may desire to perform additional testing of these engines on federal certification diesel fuel for the purpose of assuring themselves of in-use compliance on federal diesel fuel. This approach to SEA and in-use recall testing should assure manufacturers that they will not need to perform any additional testing at certification beyond that required for California certification. Fuel meeting California diesel test fuel specifications is an acceptable test fuel under the FTP because it meets the federal fuel specifications. This policy of the Agency using fuel meeting California diesel test fuel specifications for SEA and recall testing applies only to CFVs. If the Agency becomes aware of changed circumstances which indicate that this policy is inappropriate, the Agency reserves the right to discontinue this policy. For gasoline-fueled HD CFVs, EPA is aware of no evidence to suggest any significant difference in emissions between such vehicles operating on federal and California certification gasolines; thus the technical basis for separate standards which exists for diesels does not apply for gasoline engines. Commenters did not respond to the issue of the appropriateness of a single standard for all HDEs. However, EPA believes that in general, a single standard for all fuels provides equity among manufacturers of different types of engines for this program. Also, section 245 of the Act seems to indicate that Congress intended for there to be a single heavy-duty CFV standard. Therefore, as for diesel engines, EPA today also promulgates a standard of 3.8 g/ Bhp-hr for gasoline clean-fuel vehicle engines certified on federal gasoline test fuel. As with diesel engines, gasoline engines demonstrating compliance with the California 3.5 g/Bhp-hr standard on California gasoline certification fuel will be eligible for a federal certificate. Given the arguments above, as well as the fact that manufacturers have more than three years before the purchase requirements for clean- fuel fleet vehicles begin, EPA believes that several heavy-duty diesel engine families will achieve a standard of 3.8 g/Bhp-hr NMHC + NOX on federal certification fuel or 3.5 g/Bhp-hr NMHC + NOX on California certification fuel by the 1998 model year. Also, EPA believes that most gasoline-fueled HDE families can meet a standard of either 3.8 g/Bhp-hr on federal certification fuel or 3.5 g/Bhp-hr on California fuel by the 1998 model year. These clean fuel vehicle standards will apply to HDEs used in clean-fuel fleet vehicles of 8,501 to 26,000 lbs. GVWR to meet the purchase requirements of the fleet program. b. Heavy-Duty ULEV and ZEV Standards. As previously discussed, section 246(f)(4) of the CAA requires EPA to promulgate emission standards for ULEVs and ZEVs, for the purpose of determining fleet program credits. The provision states that the standards: * * * shall be more stringent than those otherwise applicable to clean-fuel vehicles under this part* * * . The standards* * *for [light-duty] vehicles* * *shall conform as closely as possible to standards which are established by the State of California for ULEV and ZEV vehicles in the same class. For vehicles of 8,500 lbs. GVWR or more, the Administrator shall promulgate comparable standards for purposes of this subsection. EPA interprets this comparability criteria to mean that ULEV and ZEV standards for heavy-duty engines should require approximately the same percentage of emission reduction compared to heavy-duty CFV LEV standards as light-duty CFV ULEV and ZEV standards require compared to light-duty CFV LEV standards. Under this provision, EPA must determine the appropriate level for the heavy-duty ULEV and ZEV standards. EPA proposed this interpretation and did not receive any comments objecting to it. EPA also believes it is appropriate to take California's ULEV and ZEV standards into consideration and attempt to harmonize the federal and California standards where possible. As mentioned above in the section pertaining to the feasibility of the HD CFV LEV standard, EPA believes such harmonization is valuable because it helps create a single larger market for heavy-duty ULEVs and ZEVs rather than two smaller markets. A single larger market makes it more economical for manufacturers to produce heavy-duty ULEVS and ZEVs, which makes it more likely that manufacturers will choose to produce vehicles that can participate in the federal program. (The federal program does not have a sales mandate for manufacturers, so their participation is voluntary and controlled, in part, by market demand for their products.) EPA also believes it has authority to consider harmonization of federal heavy-duty ULEV and ZEV standards and California incomplete medium-duty vehicle and diesel engine ULEV and ZEV standards in setting the federal standards.\28\ As explained above, EPA interprets ``comparable standards'' to mean that heavy-duty CFV ULEV and ZEV standards must be comparable to light-duty CFV ULEV and ZEV standards. Since the Act requires EPA to establish federal light-duty ULEV and ZEV standards that conform as closely as possible to California's light- duty ULEV and ZEV standards, harmonization of the federal heavy-duty ULEV and ZEV standards and California incomplete medium-duty vehicle and diesel engine ULEV and ZEV standards could be part of the comparability determination. In addition, the direction of section 246(h) to set ``comparable standards'' gives EPA some discretion in establishing standards. EPA believes it is appropriate to consider California's standards in exercising this discretion. EPA believes that, since the federal HD ULEV and ZEV standards are voluntary credit- generating standards, their intended purpose is primarily to provide compliance flexibility for manufacturers and fleet operators. The Agency's goal then, in selecting these standards, is to provide the maximum flexibility allowable under section P246(f)(4) of the Act, while ensuring that there will be no negative impacts on the environment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \28\Beginning with the 1995 model year, CARB's medium-duty vehicles include vehicles with a GVWR of 14,000 pounds or less. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- i. Ultra low-emission vehicle standards. EPA is adopting standards for heavy-duty ULEVs NMHC+NOX, CO, particulate, and formaldehyde emissions as specified below in Table 5. These standards are the same as those that were proposed, except the formaldehyde standard, which is lower than originally proposed. In the opening statement at the public hearing for the proposal and in a memorandum that was placed in the docket and distributed at the public hearing,\29\ EPA informed the public that the proposed standard for formaldehyde was a typographical error and requested comment on the change of the heavy-duty ULEV standard to the level specified in Table 5. EPA did not receive any comments objecting to this level for the formaldehyde ULEV standard. The final heavy-duty ULEV standards require reductions in emissions that are comparable to the respective emission reductions required of light-duty ULEVs, and are consistent with the respective requirements of the California LEV program. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, ``Request for Comment on Revised Formaldehyde Standard for Heavy-Duty ULEVs for the Clean Fuel Fleet NPRM,'' July 12, 1993, Memorandum from Bryan J. Manning through Tad Wysor to docket A-92-30 (Document Number III-A-03). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As proposed, EPA is setting a combined NMHC + NOX HD CFV ULEV standard that is approximately a 30 percent reduction from the HD CFV LEV standard. The comparable light-duty CFV ULEV standards require reductions from light-duty CFV LEV standards of 38 to 50 percent of NMOG emissions and 45 to 50 percent for NOX emissions. Even though EPA has separate NMOG and NOX standards for light-duty CFV ULEVs, the Agency does not believe it is required to establish such separate standards for heavy-duty CFV ULEVs. Rather, EPA believes it is appropriate to have a combined NMHC + NOX heavy-duty CFV ULEV standard because heavy-duty CFV LEV standards have a combined NMHC + NOX standard rather than separate NMOG and NOX standards (as do light-duty CFV LEVs and ULEVs). Furthermore, a combined NMHC + NOX standard is consistent with the California incomplete medium- duty vehicle and diesel engine ULEV standard. EPA proposed this interpretation and did not receive any comments objecting to a combined NMHC + NOX standard for HDEs. EPA also is setting specific emission standards for CO and particulates that require a reduction in emissions from the heavy-duty CFV LEV standards of 50 to 54 percent and 50 percent, respectively, as proposed. (For both CO and particulates, heavy-duty CFV LEVs must meet the same standards as do conventional heavy-duty vehicles. Thus, for these standards, the reductions in emissions for heavy-duty CFV ULEV standards are the same whether they are compared to conventional or CFV LEV heavy-duty standards.) The comparable light-duty CFV ULEV standards require reductions in CO and particulate emissions of 50 percent each from light-duty CFV LEV standards. These federal heavy-duty ULEV standards are identical to California's incomplete medium-duty vehicle and diesel engine ULEV standards. Finally, EPA is also setting a specific heavy-duty ULEV standard for formaldehyde. The comparable light-duty CFV ULEV standard requires a reduction in emissions ranging from 39 to 52 percent from light-duty CFV LEV standards. Though formaldehyde is not regulated for heavy-duty CFV LEVs, formaldehyde is regulated in the light-duty CFV ULEV standards. EPA believes that heavy-duty vehicles that emit formaldehyde are likely to participate in the CFV ULEV program. Because emissions of formaldehyde are of significant concern to EPA and to Congress, as evidenced by the inclusion of formaldehyde standards for light-duty CFV LEVs and the inclusion of formaldehyde as a hazardous air pollutant, EPA believes it is appropriate to include standards for formaldehyde emissions in the heavy-duty CFV ULEV program. EPA has the authority to regulate formaldehyde emissions not only under section 246(f)(4), but also under CAA sections 202(a) and 301(a). Also, the CARB LEV program includes a formaldehyde ULEV standard for diesel engines and incomplete medium-duty vehicles. Therefore, it is consistent with the CARB LEV program to set a formaldehyde standard for federal HD ULEVs. The standard promulgated today is identical to CARB's incomplete medium- duty vehicle and diesel engine ULEV formaldehyde standard. Table 5.--Emission Standards for Model Year 1998 and Later Heavy-Duty Vehicles ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NMHC + Particulate Vehicle type THC (g/ NOX (g/ NOX (g/ CO (g/Bhp- 1 (g/Bhp- OMHCE (g/ HCHO (g/ Bhp-hr) Bhp-hr) Bhp-hr) hr) hr) Bhp-hr) Bhp-hr) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conventional Gasoline <= 14,000 GVWR............................ 1.1 4.0 ......... 14.4 ........... 1.1 ......... Conventional Gasoline >= 14,000 GVWR............................ 1.9 4.0 ......... 37.1 ........... 1.9 ......... Conventional Diesel.............. 1.3 4.0 ......... 15.5 0.10 1.3 ......... LEV Certified on Federal Fuel.... (2) (2) 3.8 (2) (2) (2) ......... LEV Certified on California Fuel. (2) (2) 3.5 (2) (2) (2) ......... ULEV............................. (2) (2) 2.5 7.2 0.05 (2) 0.025 ILEV............................. (2) (2) 2.5 14.4 0.10 (2) 0.050 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (\1\) Standards for particulate matter (PM) apply only to diesel-fueled vehicles. (\2\) HD CFVs must meet conventional vehicle standards for THC, NOX, CO, PM, and OMHCE. Based on the Acurex report, Regulatory Support Document, and comments received from the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, EPA believes that alternative fuel vehicle technology will be available to meet these standards by 1998, and that gasoline and diesel engines may also be able to achieve these ULEV levels by that time or shortly thereafter. In any event, covered fleet operators are never required to purchase ULEVs to meet the requirements of the fleet program. ii. Zero-emission vehicle standards. Zero-emission vehicles (e.g. electric vehicles) are vehicles which have no emissions of the pollutants of concern. Therefore, as proposed, EPA today establishes heavy-duty ZEV standards of zero for NMHC + NOX, CO, particulates, and formaldehyde. (Emissions from non-fuel sources (e.g. tires, seats, paint, etc.) will likely exist as they do for conventional vehicles and other CFVs.) These final heavy-duty ZEV standards each require a 100 percent reduction in emissions from the heavy-duty LEV standards, which for each pollutant is comparable to the respective emission reductions required of light-duty CFV ZEVs. Furthermore, these federal ZEV standards are identical to California's incomplete medium-duty vehicle and diesel engine ZEV standards. Compliance with the ZEV standards may be assessed through engineering analysis, which shall include a description and analysis of all primary or auxiliary equipment and engines which concludes that no emissions of the stated pollutants is possible. The engineering analysis must determine that the vehicle fuel system(s) does not contain either carbon or nitrogen compounds (including air) which, when burned, form the above regulated exhaust emissions. Such criteria will also assure that evaporative emissions will not occur. Given these criteria there is no need to perform emission testing because the above pollutants cannot be emitted from the vehicle. However, compliance for ZEVs may be assessed through testing by performing the tests required by Parts 86 and 88 (Federal Test Procedure) when applicable. Any vehicle with additional power system(s) or auxiliary engine(s) that might produce regulated pollutants (e.g. hybrid vehicle or an electric vehicle with an auxiliary power source to run other vehicle systems) will be subject to the testing requirements of Part 86 or Part 88 or future applicable regulations and might not qualify as a ZEV. A ZEV with a heater will be considered a ZEV as long as the heater will not operate at an ambient temperature above 40 deg.F and the heater's power/fuel source does not have evaporative emissions in use. c. Other Issues--i. Flexible- and Dual-Fuel HDEs. EPA is not promulgating a set of emission standards for flexible- and dual-fuel heavy-duty vehicles. (Flexible- and dual-fuel vehicles are also commonly referred to as variable- and bi-fuel vehicles, respectively.) Section 243(d) of the Act prescribes emission standards for flexible- and dual-fueled light-duty vehicle and light-duty trucks. EPA is establishing these standards today (see II.A.1.a). The directive of section 243(g) that ``nothing in this section shall apply to heavy-duty engines'' makes it clear that section 243(d) does not require EPA to establish flexible- and dual-fueled standards for heavy-duty engines. Even if EPA has authority to promulgate such standards (a question which we do not answer here), EPA does not think it is appropriate to exercise that authority at this time. As Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition suggested in their comments, it is possible that similar standards could be implemented for HDEs in the same manner as prescribed in the statute for light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. However, as described in the proposal, separate NMHC standards are not necessary for flexible- or dual-fuel HDEs since similar behavior of NMHC (or the equivalent (NMHCE)) would be expected for all fuel types. In addition, as discussed above, heavy-duty vehicles operated on conventional gasoline and diesel fuel will be able to comply with the CFV standards by 1998, and thus, there is not a compelling technical reason to have slightly higher standards for the vehicle when it is operated on clean alternative fuel. For all these reasons, EPA is not adopting separate standards for flexible- or dual-fuel HDEs. Section 241(2) defines clean alternative fuel for flexible- or dual-fuel vehicles and engines as the fuel(s) on which such vehicles are certified to the CFV standards. EPA concludes from this statutory language that engines certified on California gasoline or diesel fuel only will need to operate exclusively on that fuel in covered nonattainment areas. (For single-fuel vehicles and engines, section 241(2) requires operation in covered areas on the fuel(s) on which they ``comply'' with the CFV standards. As discussed above, EPA has determined that single-fuel HDEs certified on California gasoline or diesel fuel comply with the HD CFV standard on federal fuels.) ii. Optional LDT Certification. For a number of years, manufacturers have had the option of certifying their HDEs used in vehicles between 8501 and 10,000 lbs. GVWR using the LDT emission standards and provisions. This provision is found in 40 CFR 86.085- 1(b). EPA finds no reason why the treatment of CFVs should be different than conventional vehicles in this regard, and thus for consistency EPA will also make this option available for clean-fuel HDEs. iii. Heavy-duty test procedures. While this action establishes NMHC + NOx standards for heavy-duty vehicles and engines, EPA regulations historically have not included test procedures for the measurement of methane separate from other hydrocarbons, and thus the calculation of NMHC emissions would not have been possible. Prior to today's regulations the heavy-duty test procedures only measured the total amount of hydrocarbons (including methane), but did not separately measure the amount of any individual hydrocarbons such as methane. Therefore, EPA is promulgating additional test procedures for the separate measurement of methane and calculation methods for NMHC emissions, as discussed below. Test procedures for measurement of total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions will be unchanged, and EPA will continue the current practice of using a flame ionization detector (FID) for THC measurement. The test procedures call for the separate measurement of methane using gas chromatography\30\ as specified in the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J1151. This is consistent with both the previously established EPA procedure for light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks (40 CFR 86.111-94 and 40 CFR 86.140-94), and the California procedure for methane measurement. This approach does not permit continuous methane measurement of exhaust samples and will require that a bag sample be collected for all classes of vehicles and engines. (The SAE Recommended Practice J1151 is incorporated by reference in sections 86.111-94(b)(3)(vii) and 86.1311-94(b)(2)(iii) of the regulatory text and is available in EPA Air Docket A-92-30.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \30\Gas Chromatography--A separation technique in which a sample of the gaseous state is carried by a flowing gas (carrier gas) through a tube (column) containing stationary material. The stationary material performs the separation by means of its differential affinity for the components of the sample. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under the approach for measuring NMHC, THC will first be measured using the FID. Then, methane will be measured using gas chromatography. This methane measurement will then be multiplied by a ``FID response factor.'' This response factor is necessary because the FID responds differently to methane than it does to other hydrocarbons. In order to find what portion of the FID's THC reading is attributable to methane, the tester must know the relationship between the FID response to other hydrocarbons and to methane. Such a ``FID response factor'' is calculated by noting the response of the FID, calibrated for typical HCs, to a known quantity of methane. For example, if a sample known to be 10.0 grams of methane gives a FID reading of 11.0 grams, then the FID response factor is 11.0/10.0 or 1.10. The mass of NMHC is then the difference between the THC (as measured by the FID) and the methane (as measured by gas chromatography), multiplied by the FID response factor. For natural gas vehicles (NGVs), the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition and the American Gas Association suggested that the EPA adopt the CARB method of direct measurement of NMHC by gas chromatography. This issue was also raised in response to the Gaseous Fuels Rule NPRM (proposed in November, 1992), and EPA has addressed all concerns related to the measurement of NMHC emissions for NGVs in the subsequent Gaseous Fuels FRM. The NMHC measurement method promulgated in this section is the same as the method established in the Gaseous Fuels FRM. If the NMHC measurement procedure for NGVs is revisited and changed in the future, then any revised method will apply to clean-fuel vehicle testing as well. In order to provide manufacturers with additional flexibility, EPA proposes to make the measurement of methane (and subsequent calculations) optional. Manufacturers would be allowed to measure and report THC emissions for compliance with the NMHC standards. Since THC emissions are the sum of the methane and NMHC emissions, they will be higher than the NMHC emissions alone; thus, if the THC emissions are lower than the standard, the NMHC will also be below the standard. While this option in effect increases the stringency of the standard, some manufacturers may find that the savings associated with using a simpler test procedure justify certifying under this option. This is especially true for diesels, where the methane fraction of THC emissions is small. iv. Averaging, trading, and banking. The Agency has previously established an extensive credit exchange program for NOX and PM emissions from heavy-duty engines\31\. Under this program, a manufacturer can take emissions credits for producing vehicles that are below the applicable standards, and then use those credits either on its own engines within the same averaging set or to sell to other manufacturers for use in families in the same averaging set which do not meet the applicable standards (trading). These emission credits can be used in the year generated or retained for later use (banking). Fleet average emissions are unchanged by this program. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \31\``Certification Programs for Banking and Trading of Oxides of Nitrogen and Particulate Emission Credits for Heavy-Duty Engines;'' Final Rule, 55 FR 30584, July 26, 1990. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It would be inappropriate for a manufacturer to receive certification emission credits for vehicles certified under part 88 (i.e., CFV LEVs, ULEVs and ZEVs) for participation in the fleet program. The CFV standards are mandatory for covered fleet vehicle purchases; to also allow manufacturer credits for certification of the same vehicles would result in less emission reduction than is contemplated in the Act. Thus, CFVs certified under part 88 for use in the fleet program for either compliance or credit purposes shall be excluded from the manufacturers' credit exchange program. By contrast, single-fuel engines that are certified under part 86 may not participate in the fleet program even if their emissions meet CFV standards. Therefore, such engines may generate manufacturer certification credits. However, dual- and flexible-fuel vehicles certified under part 86 may only be able to generate certification emission credits based on the least stringent standard to which the vehicle is certified since the manufacturer has no control of the fuel used by the vehicle owner. In order to allow a distinction between engines which are eligible for the fleet program and those that are not, EPA requires manufacturers to have different engine lables. Those engines labeled under Part 88 must include on the label an indication that this engine is intended to be part of a clean-fuel vehicle program, and as such, they will be excluded from the manufacturers' credit exchange programs. Those engines labeled under Part 86 only will not include any indication on the label that the engine meets any of the emissions requirements of Part 88, and as such, they will be excluded from all clean-fuel vehicle programs and may be included in a manufacturers' credit exchange programs. EPA will allow manufacturers to divide a clean-fueled engine family into two engine families, one labeled under Part 88 (the Part which regulates clean-fuel fleet vehicles) and one labeled under Part 86 (the Part which regulates conventional vehicles) only. The Agency believes that this approach will prevent ``double counting'' of emissions benefits, but will still provide the manufacturers flexibility in determining the most cost effective means of complying with the requirements of Part 86. Furthermore, EPA has decided not to pursue the proposed Credit Exchange Programs for Manufacturers of Heavy-Duty Clean-Fuel Fleet Vehicles. The programs appeared to be administratively burdensome with minimal economic and emission benefit, and there was no support expressed in the comments for these programs. v. Labeling. Section 86.095-35 of Part 86 requires that all heavy- duty vehicles and engines certified by EPA have a permanently affixed label indicating that this vehicle or engine meets all of the applicable requirements of Part 86. All heavy-duty LEVs, ULEVs, and ZEVs will be required to meet additional labeling requirements so the purchaser (e.g. fleet operator) knows the vehicle is a CFV and ``double counting'' of emissions benefits by the purchasers or manufacturers of CFVs is prevented as discussed above in the Averaging, Banking, and Trading section. Those clean-fuel vehicles and engines that are regulated under both Part 86 and Part 88 (e.g., gasoline-fueled vehicles, methanol-fueled vehicles) shall meet the standard labeling requirements of Part 86 with the addition of a statement that this vehicle or engine meets the applicable heavy-duty LEV, ULEV, or ZEV standards. However, certain clean-fuel vehicles (for instance electric vehicles) are regulated under Part 88 but have not yet been regulated under Part 86. For these clean-fuel vehicles not yet regulated under Part 86, the manufacturer shall affix a permanent label that indicates that the vehicle or engine meets the requirements of Part 88 for heavy- duty LEVs, ULEVs, or ZEVs, as applicable, but does not necessarily meet the requirements of Part 86. The reason for this requirement is to inform the consumer that the vehicle may be used by a fleet operator towards meeting the purchase requirements of the Clean Fuel Fleet program, but the vehicle is not eligible to be used in the averaging, trading, and banking program in Part 86. B. Conversions to Clean-Fuel Vehicles CAA section 247 states that fleet owners may meet clean-fuel fleet vehicle purchase requirements through the conversion of existing or new gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicles to clean-fuel vehicles. A converted CFV will thus be considered a new vehicle for the purposes of the Clean Fuel Fleet program, and so it will be eligible to meet CFF purchase requirements and to earn credits and TCM exemptions. For this purpose, a clean-fuel fleet vehicle (or engine) is one which meets the applicable CFV emission standards and other requirements as prescribed in CAA sections 242 through 245. 1. EPA's General Regulatory Approach for Conversions of Vehicles EPA today codifies the exemption from tampering liability for conversion of gasoline or diesel-fueled vehicles to clean fuel vehicles if the converted vehicles comply with the applicable clean fuel vehicle standards and the conversions are performed in compliance with EPA's conversion regulations being promulgated today. Section 247(e) states that such conversions shall not be considered as violations of the tampering prohibition in Section 203(a)(3). Since conversions involve changes to vehicles/engines that have previously been certified as meeting applicable emission standards, conversions are typically subject to the tampering prohibitions of CAA section 203(a)(3), which prohibit tampering with emission control devices. The initial guidelines established by EPA regarding the enforcement of tampering prohibitions are contained in the two documents entitled ``Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum No. 1A'', dated June 25, 1974, and ``Fact Sheet: Conversion of Vehicles and Engines to Operate on Natural Gas or Propane'', dated November 1, 1991. In the 1990 amendments to the CAA, section 203 was amended to limit the scope of the tampering provisions of section 203(a)(3). As amended, an exemption to the tampering provisions of section 203(a)(3) is provided where a conventional vehicle is converted ``* * * for use of a clean alternative fuel and if such vehicle continues to comply with section 202 standards when operating on the alternative fuel * * * and if in the case of a clean alternative fuel vehicle (as defined by the Administrator), the device or element is replaced upon completion of the conversion procedure and such action results in proper functioning of the device or element when the motor vehicle operates on a conventional fuel.'' In addition to the general exemption for clean fuel conversion from the tampering prohibitions, section 247(d) creates a special exemption for conversions performed pursuant to EPA's regulations issued under section 247. Thus, if a conversion is performed in compliance with the regulations issued today, the conversion will not violate the tampering prohibition of section 203(a)(3). For any conversions that are not performed in compliance with today's regulations (e.g., installation of a not-certified conversion configuration), liability for tampering will be determined based on section 203(a). Issues related to the conversion of vehicles to alternative fuel use are addressed in the NPRM and FRM on gaseous-fueled emission standards, (FRM: published in the Federal Register on September 21, 1994), hereafter referred to as the Gaseous Fuels Rule. The conversion provisions in the Gaseous Fuels Rule apply to all conversions regardless of fuel type and hence form the basis for the certification procedures established in today's rule for vehicles converted to CFVs except where superseded by the requirements of today's rule. The Gaseous Fuels Rule provides that a vehicle conversion will not be considered tampering if the vehicle has been converted to a configuration which has been certified by EPA as meeting applicable emission standards. For vehicles converted to use fuels for which no standards exist, the provisions of Memorandum 1A apply, and EPA will not consider a modification to a certified emission control configuration to be tampering if the emissions from the vehicle are not increased as a result of the modification. Consistent with the Gaseous Fuels Rule, today's rule provides that in order to be considered clean fuel vehicles, conversion configurations of vehicles/engines must include all of the hardware necessary to allow a vehicle to operate on a fuel other than the fuel for which the vehicle or engine was originally manufactured. 2. Requirements for Clean Fuel Fleet Vehicle Conversions Section 247(b) of the CAA directs EPA to promulgate regulations governing conversions of conventional vehicles to CFVs that ``* * * will ensure that a converted vehicle will comply with the standards applicable under this part to clean-fuel vehicles.'' While the conversion provisions in the Gaseous Fuels Rule will require that emissions from converted vehicles meet the applicable emission standards whenever manufacturers certify conversion configurations, those provisions are not intended to fulfill all of the requirements of section 247 of the CAA. Therefore, in addition to the general guidelines for converted vehicles discussed in the section above and in the Gaseous Fuels rule, today's rule establishes that certification must be obtained from EPA before a converted vehicle can be sold to the public as a clean fuel fleet vehicle. The following sections describe the regulations which are promulgated by today's rule to satisfy the requirement of section 243(b). a. Responsible parties: certification, warranty and liability provisions for CFV vehicles. EPA in today's rule holds that the certifier of the conversion configuration is liable as a manufacturer for purposes of sections 206 and 207 and related enforcement provisions. Imposing such liability on the certifier is an outgrowth and systhesis of the two options presented in the proposal. Following is a discussion of the significant advantages and disadvantages inherent in each of the proposed options, a response to pertinent pubic comments, and the final approach being promulgated today. Section 247(c) states that ``any person who converts conventional vehicles to clean-fuel vehicles * * * shall be considered a manufacturer for purposes of sections 206 and 207 and related enforcement provisions.'' To implement this requirement EPA considered two options in the NPRM regarding the definition of the ``person who converts.'' Under the first proposed option, the person(s) who installs a conversion configuration on a vehicle in order to convert the vehicle into a CFV would be liable as a manufacturer under section 247(c). Thus, a person installing a conversion kit would be required to obtain a federal certificate of conformity for that conversion configuration. Under the second proposed option, both the conversion kit manufacturer and the installer of the kit would be liable as manufacturers under 247(c). In the second option, the kit manufacturer and the installer would both have responsibilities in demonstrating that a vehicle converted to a CFV complies with the CFV standards and with EPA's regulations promulgated under section 247(b). A significant advantage inherent in the first option is that liability is easily assigned and enforcement is less complicated if a single entity is held accountable for warranting each vehicle's emissions performance and is subject to production line testing requirements. The existence of such a sole liable party may also make it easier for purchasers of converted vehicles to seek redress for emissions performance failures under warranty provisions. However, EPA believes that the installer may not be the appropriate party on which to focus all liability. Commenters indicated that the kit manufacturer is in the best position to perform the required certification testing. In addition, EPA believes that the first proposed option would result in a larger number of certifiers, and multiple certificates for the same conversion configuration. This would complicate enforcement and warranty actions by increasing the number or parties against whom such actions would need to be taken. Commenters also noted the need for strong warranty and recall provisions in order to increase public confidence in the performance of converted vehicles. EPA believes that the existence of a large number of certifier-installers, many of whom may be relatively small businesses with limited financial resources\32\ will adversely affect the confidence of purchasers of converted vehicles in their ability to pursue warranty claims. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \32\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, ``A Preliminary Assessment of the Gaseous Fuels Aftermarket Conversions Industry, EPA Contract 68-C1-0059, September 28, 1992. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The second option offers the advantage of allowing EPA to hold kit manufacturers legally responsible for some or all of the certification, production line testing, in-use testing, warranty, and recall requirements. EPA believes it will be more practical to focus enforcement efforts on kit manufacturers than on installers, given the large number of installers in relation to the number of kit manufacturers. This option would also allow EPA to distribute the responsibility for certification, and warranty and recall between a kit manufacturer and installers in a manner consistent with their abilities and level of involvement in the conversion process. Public comment was generally in support of adopting this option and favored holding conversion kit manufacturers responsible for in-use emission performance of kit hardware except where performance failures result from poor installation. A significant disadvantage in this approach is that, though EPA could bring an action against either the kit manufacturer or the installer for any violation of the Act, as both would be jointly and severally liable, factual disputes between the parties regarding the actual cause of the emission failure could become a complicating factor during an enforcement action. This could lead to lengthy proceedings between the involved parties which in turn may delay resolution of emission problems and/or the compensation to vehicle owners for in-use performance problems covered under vehicle warranty. The definition of the ``person who converts'' for the purposes of section 247(c) that will be promulgated by today's rule is as follows. Any entity (kit manufacturer, installer, or other) may apply for a certification for a conversion configuration and receive a federal certificate of conformity. This certifier will be considered the ``person who converts'' under section 247(c) and will assume all responsibility as the manufacturer under sections 206 and 207. If the conversion is performed by an entity other than the certifier, the certifier must provide the installer with instructions for proper installation, and the installer must follow these instructions. While the certifier is responsible as the manufacturer, if the installer installs improper equipment or performs a faulty installation, EPA may hold the installer responsible as well under the tampering provisions of the Act. Under this approach a single party, the certifier, will be responsible for warranting the vehicle's emissions performance, and liability can easily be assigned for enforcement and warranty purposes as under the first option considered in the NPRM. In addition, this approach avoids the disadvantages inherent in the first option by providing industry with the flexibility to determine which business entity is in the best position to provide EPA with the data necessary for certification and to assume responsibilities as the manufacturer. Based on public comment EPA anticipates that in most cases the kit manufacturer will be the certifying party. Since the certifier will assume liability for in-use vehicle performance failures that result from faulty installations, EPA expects that the certifier will develop oversight programs to insure that installations are performed properly and will enter into indemnification agreements with installers. Kit manufacturers would be wholly within their rights to require such indemnification agreements before allowing installers to install their kit. Thus, the result of holding the certifier solely responsible is consistent with the intent of the second option and with public comment in that it provides that the responsibility for certification, and warranty and recall will be distributed equitably among all those responsible for the completion of the final vehicle. Given that under the second option, kit manufacturers would have been liable for any violation (although EPA would have attempted to enforce against the party it believed was responsible), this approach does not substantially increase manufacturers' liability. In addition, enforcement actions by EPA will be simplified and the resolution of warranty claims by vehicle owners will be expedited. EPA believes that this approach best satisfies the need expressed in public comment to provide strict standards of liability in order to instill consumer confidence in the emissions performance of converted vehicles. The Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition and the American Gas Association encouraged EPA to establish CFV conversion requirements that are consistent with requirements for all other conversions. Holding the converter solely responsible is also consistent with the approach taken in the Gaseous Fuels Final Rule. As proposed, the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) will remain responsible for the equipment that was on the vehicle before it was converted unless the conversion caused the failure of the OEM equipment to function in its role in meeting emission standards. EPA believes that this is necessary because the proper performance of the conversion configuration relies on the OEM's underlying emissions control systems. Also, EPA interprets section 247(c) of the CAA to direct that the certifier of a CFV conversion will not be required to warrant any vehicle for parts or operation existing in the vehicle prior to conversion and not affected by the conversion. Public comment was mixed on the issue of OEM liability, with some commenters agreeing with EPA's proposed approach and others stating that the OEM should not be held responsible for post-conversion failures of OEM equipment due to concerns over the potential impact that converted parts may have on the performance or durability of the original parts. EPA recognizes this concern, and will evaluate in-use enforcement actions that involve an OEM versus converter liability decision on a case by case basis. One indicator that might be used by EPA to determine that the OEM was liable for an emission failure of a converted vehicle will be an emission-related recall action against unconverted OEM vehicles of the same model. The CAA does not specify how the useful life period of converted vehicles should be measured for the purposes of in-use liability. EPA requested comment on this issue, and all of the public comment received suggested that the liability of the converter should not extend beyond the original useful life of the vehicle. Given that the emissions performance of the conversion configuration depends on the underlying emissions control systems of the OEM, EPA agrees with this approach. Thus, the regulations promulgated by today's rule provide that the liability of both the OEM and converter for in-use emission performance will extend to the end of the original vehicle/engine's useful life. This definition of useful life creates the potential concern that fleet operations will satisfy Clean Fuel Fleet Program (CFFP) purchase requirements through the conversion of vehicles that have little mileage remaining in their useful life. If this occurs to a significant degree, CFFP purchase requirements could be met without achieving the emissions reductions anticipated from the CFFP. However, EPA does not expect fleet operators to satisfy their CFFP purchase requirements in this way because of the financial disincentives involved with converting such high mileage vehicles and maintaining them beyond their useful life solely for the purpose of meeting CFFP purchase requirements. b. Certification requirements. Dedicated, dual, or flexible fuel conversions of light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles/engines may qualify as CFVs. CFV conversions must meet the CFV emission standards (LEV, ULEV, or ZEV) prescribed in 40 CFR Part 88 (as described in the previous section on light-duty and heavy-duty standards) and must also meet the applicable emission standards and provisions of Part 86 which apply to all vehicles to the extent they are not superseded by the requirements of Part 88. In addition, the conversion must comply with the requirements of the regulations being promulgated today to qualify as a CFV. A separate certification is required for each conversion configuration to be used with a given model year vehicle/engine for each certifier desiring to perform such a conversion. The conversion configuration certification will also be eligible for carryover to future model years only if the OEM vehicle/engine is also certified under carryover provisions and no changes occurred in the conversion configuration. A dual-fuel or flexible fuel conversion must be certified according to the general requirements for dual-fuel/flexible fuel vehicles discussed in section A.1.a above. It should be noted that a certificate issued for a given model year expires on December 31st of that calendar year, after which time a conversion under that certificate may no longer be performed. A conversion for a given model year may be introduced for sale prior to January 1st of that year, but in no case may a conversion be introduced prior to January 1st of the preceding year. i. Small-volume manufacturers certification program--volume limits. Consistent with the Gaseous Fuels Rule, today's rule establishes that a conversion configuration may be certified according to the Small-Volume Manufacturers Certification Program (55 FR 7178, February 28, 1990) and that certifiers of conversion configurations will be treated the same as small volume manufacturers for this purpose. In the Gaseous Fuels NPRM and in the proposal for this rule, EPA proposed that all certifiers of conversion configurations be permitted to use the Small- Volume Manufacturers Certification Program, regardless of the annual volume of conversions. Public comment on the gaseous fuels NPRM\33\ was received that suggested that the production volume limits that currently define a small volume vehicle manufacturer under 40 CFR 86.092-14 should also apply to parties seeking to certify a conversion configuration. The Agency agrees with this comment and believes that given the anticipated increase in demand for conversions in response to a variety of federal and state programs, it is reasonable to believe that existing or future manufacturers may produce more than 10,000 converted vehicles annually at some point in the future. (No current company produces this number of conversions). EPA does not believe it would be equitable for certifiers with sales or production of more than 10,000 converted vehicles to take advantage of the Small Volume Manufacturer's Certification Program when that program is not available to manufacturers of more than 10,000 new vehicles. EPA believes it would be inappropriate to provide relief designed for small volume manufacturers to entities that sell or produce more than 10,000 converted vehicles annually. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \33\Materials relevant to the Gaseous Fuels NPRM have been placed in the public docket, No. A-92-14. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thus, consistent with the approach taken in the Gaseous Fuels Rule, EPA believes that the volume limits that currently apply to manufacturers seeking to certify under the provisions for small volume manufacturers should also apply to parties seeking to certify under the CFF program. Small-volume aftermarket conversion certifiers will also have the option of using the EPA full certification program prescribed in 40 CFR 86.094-23. Aftermarket conversion certifiers with annual sales or production volume of more than 10,000 converted vehicles should be required to use the EPA full certification program. While the sales volume limit in the Small-Volume Manufacturers Certification Program applies to sales for a particular model year, conversion companies may certify conversion configurations based on engine families from older model years. To accommodate this, the 10,000 vehicle limit will apply to the aggregate total of all vehicles converted within a calendar year by a given aftermarket conversion certifier at all of its installation facilities without regard to the model year of the original vehicles upon which the configurations are based. All vehicle conversions within a calendar year will be considered when determining whether the 10,000 vehicle limit is exceeded including those converted under the CFF program, the Gaseous Fuels Rule, and Memorandum 1A. Apart from this difference, all provisions related to the sales volume limit under the Small-Volume Manufacturers Certification Program would apply (40 CFR Part 86, as promulgated by 55 FR 7178, February 28, 1990). In this rulemaking, EPA did not propose to set a sales or production volume limit for manufacturers wishing to certify according to the Small Volume Manufacturers Certification Program (the ``volume limit''), nor did EPA receive any comments in this rulemaking suggesting that such a volume limit should be used. In this circumstance, EPA believes it should not finalize a volume limit without first providing the public an opportunity to comment on such a limit. Therefore, the portion of today's rule that limits the use of the Small-Volume Manufacturers Certification program to those certifiers with an annual sales or production volume of 10,000 or fewer converted vehicles, shall be effective on November 29, 1994, unless the information collection requirements contained in this section have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In that case, EPA will publish a timely document in the Federal Register delaying the effective date. If, on or before October 31, 1994. EPA does not receive notification that someone wishes to file an adverse or negative comment on the volume limit portion of the rule, then the volume limit portion of the rule will become final and effective without further EPA action. On the other hand, if, on or before October 31, 1994, EPA receives notification that someone wishes to file adverse or negative comment on the volume limit portion of the rule, EPA will withdraw the volume limit portion of the rule. EPA will then repropose the volume limit and go through full notice-and-comment procedures before adopting the volume limit. If EPA were to withdraw this portion of the rule, all certifiers would be able to certify according to the Small-Volume Manufacturers Certification Program until and unless EPA issued a final rule that established a different requirement. ii. Small-volume manufacturers certification program--durability testing. Under the Small-Volume Manufacturer's Certification Program, a certifier will be required to demonstrate durability unless the certifier is specifically authorized to use another certifier's durability data and deterioration factors. If deterioration factors are not available, certifiers will be required to use assigned deterioration factors from the Small-Volume Manufacturer's Certification Program. Current regulations require that assigned deterioration factors be determined based on the seventieth percentile of industry-wide gasoline-fueled vehicle deterioration factors. Since the emission deterioration characteristics of vehicles operating on other fuels may be different, EPA may in the future consider through rulemaking the use of deterioration factors based on data from vehicles using different fuels when developing deterioration factors for such vehicles. The Small-Volume Manufacturers Program requires manufacturers to provide full low mileage emission data which show compliance with new vehicle emission standards, but requires complete durability testing only for vehicles with unproven technology. Certification through use of the small-volume certification program reduces the burden of durability testing for small volume manufacturers while providing reasonable assurance of emission compliance. Public comment was received that to further reduce the burden on small volume manufacturers, EPA should accept as proven technology under the Small- Volume Manufacturers Program any aftermarket conversion technology that has been durability tested and certified under CARB's bench testing rules\34\ or has been durability tested using on-road mileage accumulation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \34\Sections 2030 and 2031 of Title 13, California Code of Regulations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As specified in 40 CFR 86.092-2, EPA will accept bench or road test data that has been demonstrated to be equal or more severe than certification mileage accumulation requirements to satisfy the requirements for proven technology under the Small-Volume Manufacturers Program. Thus, durability test data collected to satisfy CARB's bench testing rules or by on-road mileage accumulation could be submitted to EPA for review under the Small-Volume Manufacturers Program. EPA reserves the right to evaluate the adequacy of such data, and acceptance by CARB will not constitute automatic acceptance by EPA. It should be noted that EPA requires in-use data to demonstrate that bench and on-road durability testing is equal or more severe than certification mileage accumulation requirements. For example, actual temperature trace data collected during vehicle operation must be used to demonstrate that the temperature experienced during bench aging testing is at least as severe. It should also be noted that EPA will only permit the use of provisions in the Small-Volume Certification Program to demonstrate the durability of technology that is currently used in automotive applications. For technology that has not previously been used in automotive applications in certified vehicles the full mileage accumulation durability requirements will be required. iii. Other provisions. EPA is also establishing other requirements with which certifiers must comply. For vehicles converted under today's regulations, the certifier must list each installer which produces CFV conversions on the certification application for that CFV conversion. A revised list must be submitted as new installers are authorized to produce the conversion configuration. Because the certifier will be treated as the manufacturer for purposes of sections 206 and 207 and related enforcement provisions, EPA anticipates that certifiers will enter into legally binding agreements with installers to ensure that installers are exercising due care in performing the installation and meeting other obligations under today's regulations. In cases where installations of conversion configurations are performed by parties other than the certifier, EPA envisions that the certifier will enter into legally binding agreements with said installers. To facilitate EPA enforcement actions each installer must be listed on the certificate filed with EPA at the time of certification for each conversion configuration, and the certifier must submit a revised list to EPA when new installers are added. The certifier is responsible for compliance with any applicable production line testing requirements (e.g., Selective Enforcement Auditing in federal certification) regarding the availability of vehicles and emissions testing facilities at the certifier's facilities and at those of the certifier's installers. Identification of a converted CFV as a LEV, ULEV, or ZEV will be based on the information provided to EPA at the time of the certification of the conversion configuration. To aid in their identification, a converted CFV must be labeled as such on the engine labels. Consistent with other EPA certification programs, records are required to be maintained of the tests performed to support the certification application, and these records must be made available to EPA enforcement personnel upon request. Certifiers must maintain records of each vehicle converted including the make of the vehicle, vehicle identification number, serial number of the conversion kit, date and location of the conversion, and the results of the post- installation emission test discussed in the following section. c. Conversion installation quality test. i. Background. The CFV emission standards are considerably more stringent than conventional standards, and converted vehicles certified as CFV's will be eligible to earn marketable purchase and emission credits and to receive TCM exemptions as CFVs in the Clean Fuel Fleet program (LEVs, ULEVs, ZEVs or ILEVs). In the NPRM EPA requested comment on whether additional requirements are necessary to ensure compliance with the CFV standards given that the conversion industry historically has consisted of a large number of relatively small businesses that have not previously faced specific emissions performance requirements. Specifically, EPA requested comment on whether it would be useful to require a post- installation test for converted vehicles to assess the quality of the conversion installation from an emissions perspective. Such a test is required by the California Air Resources Board in its regulation of alternative fuel retrofit systems.\35\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \35\Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Sections 2030 and 2031. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of those commenting on this subject, all expressed concern regarding reports of poor emissions performance of some converted vehicles presently in use and stated that EPA should promulgate strict standards to instill consumer confidence in the emissions performance of CFVs. There was support for the EPA concept of a post-installation test requirement to help identify poor installations or defective conversion kit hardware that would otherwise result in high emissions. ii. Summary of today's action. EPA believes that the certification program and warranty and liability provisions promulgated by today's notice address many of the concerns noted in the public comments and will provide a fair degree of confidence that the in-use emissions performance of CFVs will remain within the applicable standards. EPA believes that these provisions, coupled with production line and in-use testing programs, will adequately ensure that installations by larger conversion manufacturers that produce or sell more than 10,000 converted vehicles per year will be performed properly and that the emissions performance of these vehicles will meet expectations. However, EPA believes that it is uncertain whether smaller conversion manufacturers will have the resources and experience to institute the necessary quality control measures. Therefore, to provide greater assurance that conversion hardware is installed properly, EPA will require that each vehicle converted by a manufacturer that sells or produces less than 10,000 converted vehicles per year undergo a post- installation test to assess the quality of the installation from an emissions perspective before it may be sold as a CFV or is eligible for special benefits available under the CFF program.\36\ For vehicles that fail the post-installation test, the certifier will be required to take such remedial actions as are necessary to ensure compliance, and to retest each vehicle before it is sold as a CFV. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \36\These special benefits include potential eligiblity for a purchase credit in the fleet program and exemptions from some transportation control measures (TCMs). Converted vehicles could also potentially qualify as Inherently Low-Emissions Vehicles (ILEVs) under the program promulgated in March 1, 1993 (58 FR 11888), and receive expanded TCM exemptions. Finally, converted vehicles could generate mass emission credits for trading under state programs developed as part of the Federal Economic Incentives Program under the Clean Air Act (58 FR 11110, February 23, 1993). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another point that supports the need for a post-installation test for small-volume conversion manufacturers is the anticipated difficulty in conducting production line emissions testing at small manufacturers' facilities. In such cases, small production volumes will make the necessary statistical sampling difficult to achieve, and such manufacturers will not generally have on-site test equipment capable of running FTP testing. Due to these difficulties, EPA will not be able to rely on production line testing of small manufacturers to the same degree as it will for larger volume manufacturers. Requiring post- installation testing of small-volume manufacturers helps to compensate for this limitation. EPA proposed to allow manufacturers that convert fewer than 300 vehicles per year special exemptions from the post-installation test requirements when access to inspection and maintenance test facilities is not available in the area where the production facility for converted vehicles is located.\37\ EPA believes that it is unlikely that manufacturers will be located in areas without access to such facilities. However, inspection and maintenance testing is not available for heavy duty vehicles in all areas, and the alternate two- speed idle post-installation test may represent a significant burden for small manufacturers. Therefore, in cases where inspection and maintenance testing is not available, manufacturers which sell or produce fewer than 300 vehicles in a calendar year may request an exemption from EPA from the post-installation test requirement. Included in the request for exemption must be the estimated number of vehicles and engines that the manufacturer will convert in the calendar year, a description of any emissions related quality control procedures used, and sufficient information to demonstrate that the post- installation testing requirement represents a severe financial hardship. Within 120 days of receipt of the application for exemption, the Administrator will notify the applicant either that an exemption has been granted, or that sufficient cause for an exemption has not been demonstrated and that all of the manufacturer's vehicles are subject to the post-installation testing requirement. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \37\The sugeested guidelines for the post installation test were placed in Section II-A of the public docket. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If granted, an exemption from the post installation testing requirement would apply only to the manufacturer's vehicles which have the conversion installations performed outside of a nonattainment area with an inspection and maintenance testing program that has a test for CO emissions. A small manufacturer that is exempted from the post- installation test requirement could sell untested converted vehicles otherwise certified as CFVs. These vehicles could be used by covered fleet owners in compliance with CFFV purchase requirements, would be eligible for temporal TCM exemptions, would be eligible to participate in the CFF purchase credit program, and could qualify as ILEVs. EPA considered allowing the post-installation test to be alternately conducted by the purchaser to provide additional flexibility for those manufacturers who may not have access to inspection and maintenance test facilities. Upon further evaluation of this option, EPA believes that it is unworkable given that it would create a situation where the requirements for producing a certified vehicle would not be complete until after the manufacturer transferred the title of the converted vehicle to the ultimate purchaser. To be eligible as a CFV, each vehicle emission control information label\38\ must state that it is a clean fuel vehicle (indicating that a post- installation test was performed as required). The transfer of the vehicle title before all of the criteria for certification of the converted vehicles are met would raise doubts as to the validity of such a label given that a vehicle purchaser could fail to perform the required test. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \38\See 40 CFR 86.085-35 regarding additional labeling requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Public comment largely supported the use of a CO emissions test such as that discussed in the NPRM for the post-installation emission evaluation. Commenters agreed that the approach proposed by EPA would be useful in uncovering gross installation errors and would provide an additional level of assurance that CFV emission standards will be met in-use. EPA believes that the simple requirements of such a CO emissions test will fulfill the goal of uncovering gross installation errors without imposing a significant burden on small-volume manufacturers.\39\ It should be noted that this test is intended as a screening mechanism only and may not be as discriminating of emissions levels as tests performed for inspection and maintenance purposes or a full Federal Test Procedure. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \39\ibid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two options will be available to satisfy the post-installation test requirement. Under both options, a separate test would be required for dual-fuel vehicles for each fuel on which the converted vehicle is capable of operating. Under the first option, a CO emissions test could be performed using the same equipment, procedure, and pass/fail criteria as that used under the inspection and maintenance testing program in the area where the testing is conducted. This test could be performed at an official inspection and maintenance facility, by the manufacturer, or by the manufacturer's contractor. If pass/fail criteria specific to the converted vehicle's operation on alternative fuel are not available the pass/fail criteria applicable to the vehicle's operation on gasoline prior to conversion will be used. In cases where inspection and maintenance testing procedures are not available the second post-installation testing option described below must be used. The second post-installation testing option may also be used in areas where inspection and maintenance facilities are available at the manufacturer's discretion. In the NPRM EPA discussed adopting a single-speed idle test per 40 CFR 85.2212 as an alternative to the inspection and maintenance testing facilities procedure described above. Since the publication of the NPRM, EPA has further evaluated the capabilities and limitations of potential post-installation test procedures and has determined that measuring CO emissions on an existing two-speed idle test\40\ would provide greater assurance of properly identifying gross installation errors while limiting the potential of false failures as compared to a single-step idle test. EPA believes that the minor change from a single-speed to a two-speed idle test will not add significantly to the cost and difficulty of post-installation testing.\41\ The California Air Resources Board's regulation of alternative fuel retrofit systems also requires that a two-speed idle test be performed as part of a post-installation vehicle evaluation.\42\ For these reasons, EPA is adopting the two-speed idle test of CO emissions as the required post- installation test when an inspection and maintenance test procedure is not available. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \40\The two-speed idle test (40 CFR 85.2215, ``EPA 91'') is described in the Short Test Emission Regulations Final Rule, 58 FR 58405-58407. \41\The two-speed idle test requires a tachometer and a special multiple emission measurement computer software algorithm that are not required for the single-speed idle test. However, many emissions testing facilities will already have access to such equipment and EPA believes the cost to those who may need to acquire the additional equipment to be less than $300. \42\Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Sections 2030 and 2031. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A two-speed idle test is required to be performed on the certification vehicle during certification testing to establish reference values (at idle and 2500 rpm) against which post-installation test results may be compared. EPA considered requiring that each vehicle's post-installation test CO emissions measurement be below the reference value established at the time of certification plus 20 percent of the reference value. The comment received from the public on the post-installation test pass/fail criteria indicated that the CO emissions of some CFVs may be so low as to make the use of a cut point at this level impractical given the measurement accuracy of the test. One commenter suggested an alternative cut point of the CO certification reference value plus 0.4 percent CO by volume. This cutpoint is very similar to the 0.5 percent CO standard promulgated for the certification short test (CST) two-speed idle procedure for gasoline-fueled vehicles (58 FR 58382-58440, November 1, 1993). The choice of the CST standard was based on a review of data collected from inspection and maintenance facilities that employ a two- speed idle test which indicate that production line gasoline powered vehicles from non-pattern failure engine families could easily meet a 0.5 percent CO standard.\43\ Since the CO emissions of CFVs can be expected to be no greater than, and in many cases are expected to be less than, those from vehicles meeting Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards, EPA believes that properly manufactured CFVs can also easily meet a 0.5 percent CO standard and will therefore not have difficulty in meeting a standard of 0.4 percent plus the certification reference value (the sum of which will likely total more than 0.5 percent in most instances). Based on the above discussion, EPA agrees that a cut point of the CO certification reference value plus 0.4 percent CO by volume provides reasonable assurance that gross installation errors will be discovered while sufficiently limiting the probability of false test failures, and therefore will adopt this pass/fail criteria for the two-speed idle post-installation test. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \43\Sierra Research Inc., ``Analytical Support for Selection of Certification Short Test Standards'', Report No. SR93-03-0, EPA Air Docket #A-91-21, item IV-A-01, March 4, 1993. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. The California Pilot Test Program The Pilot program will be federally administered in the State of California and will require vehicle manufacturers to sell a minimum number of clean-fuel LDVs and LDTs in California starting in MY 1996. Unlike the CFF program, the Pilot program's requirements do not include HDVs. The CAA gives EPA several responsibilities with regard to the Pilot program. EPA has already implemented a credit program for vehicle manufacturers (57 FR 60038, December 17, 1992; 40 CFR 88.304-94) and today's action covers vehicle sales requirements and state opt-in provisions. The light-duty vehicle and truck CFV emission standards applicable to vehicles under both the Pilot and CFF program are discussed above under section A.1.a. 1. Sales Requirements a. CAA Requirements. Section 249(c) of the CAA requires EPA to promulgate regulations requiring that ``[c]lean fuel vehicles shall be produced, sold, and distributed (in accordance with normal business practices and applicable franchise agreements) to ultimate purchasers in California (including owners of covered fleets . . .) in numbers that meet or exceed'' 150,000 in MYs 1996 through 1998 and 300,000 in MYs 1999 and later. However, the CAA does not direct EPA on how to distribute these sales requirements among vehicle manufacturers. Section 249(d) allows EPA to make available credits for use in the ``fulfillment of [a] manufacturer's share of the requirements'' of the Pilot program. As mentioned earlier, EPA has established a credit program that allows manufacturers to use credits to meet the sales requirements of the Pilot program. b. CARB requirements. CARB's Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program will require the sale of vehicles meeting more stringent exhaust emission levels by establishment of (1) a decreasing fleet average NMOG emission requirement (for manufacturers of vehicles up to 6,000 lbs GVWR) and (2) through direct sales percentage requirements (for manufacturers of vehicles from 6,000 to 14,000 lbs GVWR). (Note: The Pilot program and the California LEV program will overlap only for those vehicles up to 8,500 lbs GVWR, as the Pilot program does not cover vehicles beyond this GVWR.) The CARB program will require each manufacturer of vehicles up to 6,000 lbs GVWR to sell LEVs in each of two LVW subclasses (3750 and 3750-5750 lbs LVW) . Each manufacturer will need to sell a sufficient number of LEVs such that the manufacturer's California fleet average NMOG exhaust emission value is less than or equal to a fleet average NMOG exhaust emission requirement for the corresponding model year, vehicle type, and LVW subclass. In addition to meeting the fleet average NMOG requirement, each manufacturer must also sell a required minimum percentage of ZEVs starting in the 1998 MY. Also beginning with MY 1998, CARB requires that manufacturers of medium-duty vehicles (i.e., trucks from 6,001 to 14,000 lbs GVWR) certify enough such vehicles to CARB's emission standards such that the manufacturer's fleet consists of a minimum percentage of ULEVs. The projected sales of vehicles in California resulting from the CARB LEV program are likely to far exceed the sales of CFVs under the Pilot program. Based on the projected sales of only LDVs and LDTs under 3,750 LVW in 1996 and 1999, sales under the CARB LEV program are expected to reach about 200 and 400 percent of the Pilot program CFV sales requirements, respectively. Unless and until EPA adopts California standards for CFVs, CARB LEVs which do not meet federal CFV requirements could not be counted in the Pilot program (although vehicles meeting CFV requirements will likely meet the exhaust emission requirements of the CARB LEV program). c. California Pilot Program sales requirements--i. ``Sales'' definition. CAA Section 249(c)(1) requires that ``[c]lean fuel vehicles be produced, sold, and distributed to ultimate purchasers in California''. EPA is today establishing this requirement as applying at the first point of sale from the manufacturer to the dealer or ultimate owner. Until such time as EPA formally changes its interpretation of section 249(c), manufacturers covered by the Pilot program may not use sales of converted vehicles to meet the sales requirements of the Pilot program. Similarly, manufacturers of conversions are not subject to the sales requirements. As was stated in the NPRM for this rule, nothing in section 249(c)(1) requires that conversions be part of the CFV sales requirements. Furthermore, section 247 sets forth requirements applicable to conversions and states that conversions to CFVs that meet those requirements may be used to satisfy the purchase requirements of the federal CFF program; however, there is no mention of the Pilot program. In light of the evolving regulatory framework affecting conversions, culminating with today's provisions for CFV conversions, EPA is reconsidering whether it is appropriate for manufacturers of CFV conversions to participate in the Pilot program. This reconsideration is largely due to the fact that manufacturers of CFV conversions under today's rule will be treated like vehicle manufacturers for purposes of compliance with EPA emission regulations. EPA may propose by regulation in the future to include manufacturers of conversions in the Pilot program. EPA will solicit public comment on this issue at that time. ii. Manufacturer sales distribution. Although CAA section 249 clearly indicates that vehicle manufacturers are responsible for meeting sales requirements, it does not cover how the sales requirements are to be allocated among manufacturers. Sales under the California LEV Program are likely to far exceed the sales requirements set forth in the Pilot program and, since the vehicles for the two programs will be identical or at least very similar, the Pilot program requirements will likely be easily satisfied. As a result, any method for allocating sales requirements among manufacturers will have little impact. Two options for determining a manufacturer's individual sales allocation were presented in the NPRM. In both options, an equation was used to calculate a manufacturer's share of required CFV sales based on the share of that manufacturer's vehicle sales in the State of California during the previous model year. Under Option 1, EPA would be responsible for calculating the individual sales responsibilities; in the second option, manufacturers would perform the computation. The primary concern of those commenters who responded was that only California vehicle sales be considered since the Pilot program was to be implemented in California. The proposed regulations were written based on the second option and it is this option that is finalized today. A manufacturer's share of the total CFV sales requirement in any given year (150,000 CFVs annually for 1996-1997; 300,000 CFVs annually thereafter) will be based on the ratio of the manufacturer's sales to all sales in California according to the following equation: RMS = (MS/TS) x TCPPS where: RMS = a manufacturer's required sales in a given model year. MS = a manufacturer's total LDV and light LDT sales in California two model years earlier than year in question (for MY 1996 and 1997 RMS calculations). = a manufacturer's total LDV and light LDT sales in California two model years earlier than year in question (for MY 1998 and later RMS calculations). TS = total LDV and light LDT sales in California of all manufacturers two model years earlier than the year in question (for MY 1996 and 1997 RMS calculations). Sales of manufacturers which meet the criteria of (d) of this paragraph will not be included. = total LDV and light LDT sales in California of all manufacturers two model years earlier than the year in question (for MY 1998 and later RMS calculations). Sales of manufacturers which meet the criteria of (d) of this paragraph will not be included. TCPPS = Pilot program CFV sales requirement for the year in question (either 150,000 or 300,000). Each manufacturer will use this equation to determine its individual CFV sales requirement. The two factors, MS and TS, will be based on vehicle sales two MYs from the year in question (e.g, for MY 1996, a manufacturer will use sales data from MY 1994). In the NPRM, EPA requested comment as to whether a manufacturer's share of required CFV sales should be calculated based on sales in the previous model year or sales two model years prior. Commenters did not address this issue. EPA believes that using MY sales data that is two years prior, as opposed to only one year, is not likely to reflect the most recent market changes and will also allow new manufacturers a two year delay before they are factored into the equation; however, it will provide manufacturers with sufficient time for planning their CFV production and will also require less administration and oversight on the part of both EPA and manufacturers. EPA believes that the CFV sales distribution that will result among manufacturers will be fair and equitable in light of these advantages. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the requirement that California sales figures from two model years earlier be used by manufacturers to calculate required CFV sales shares. Since heavy LDT standards under the Pilot program are not effective until MY 1998, a manufacturer's share of required sales for MYs 1996 and 1997 will be based on LDV and light LDT sales only. All LDV and LDT sales will be used once the CFV standards for heavy LDTs are in effect beginning with MY 1998. iii. Exemptions for small volume manufacturers. EPA proposed that, for the Pilot program, small volume manufacturers of clean-fuel LDVs and LDTs would not have to fulfill a calculated share of the required CFV sales requirements until the 2001 MY. EPA is finalizing this requirement today. However, in 2001 and subsequent model years, no further distinction will be made between small volume manufacturers and larger manufacturers for purposes of the Pilot program. As defined in the CARB LEV program, a small volume manufacturer has average annual vehicle sales less than or equal to 3,000 vehicles based on the consecutive three-year period 1989-1991. If a small volume manufacturer exceeds this average level, they are then subject to the LEV program fleet average NMOG requirements applicable to larger manufacturers beginning four model years after the last of the consecutive three model years. Larger manufacturers with average sales that fall below the 3,000 unit threshold over any consecutive three- year period qualify as small volume manufacturers beginning with the following model year. Due to the many parallels between the Pilot program and the CARB LEV program, EPA continues to believe it is logical that the ``small volume manufacturer'' definition under the Pilot program should be as similar as possible to the definition under the CARB LEV program. Several commenters also supported consistency between the two programs. Therefore, for purposes of the Pilot program, EPA is defining ``small volume manufacturer'' as one whose average annual LDV and LDT sales in California are less than or equal to 3,000 units during a consecutive three-year period beginning no earlier than 1993. (This accommodates new manufacturers who may have less than three consecutive years of sales but which do not exceed the 3,000 threshold.) And, like CARB, EPA is also granting leadtime to small volume manufacturers who exceed the average annual level. A manufacturer who qualifies as a small volume manufacturer for the first year of the Pilot program (i.e., in model year 1996) will not have to fulfill a CFV sales requirement until model year 2001. As proposed in the NPRM and finalized here today, beginning with model year 2001, all manufacturers, regardless of average annual sales, will have to calculate and fulfill their CFV sales share based on the formula above. This five-year delay is intended to encourage the viability of small volume manufacturers whose limited capital and resources do not allow them to comply as easily. It is also intended to provide consistency with the CARB LEV program and minimize adminstrative burden. iv. Sales reporting and enforcement of requirements. In order for EPA to administer and enforce the sales requirements of the Pilot Program, manufacturers will have to report their California vehicles sales to EPA. Currently, there is a requirement for manufacturers to submit sales data to EPA in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 40 CFR 86.085-37); however, the reporting requirements do not distinguish between California vehicle sales and sales throughout the U.S. Such a distinction is necessary for purposes of the Pilot Program. Therefore, EPA will require that manufacturers, in addition to complying with the requirements of 40 CFR 86.085-37, report the number of vehicles sold only in California. If a manufacturer fails to meet its required sales volume, EPA believes that it has the authority to penalize the manufacturer to the full extent allowed for such an infraction under CAA section 205(a). In accordance with this section, a $25,000 penalty will be levied on a manufacturer in the event of a failure to meet the prescribed sales requirements for certified Pilot Program vehicles. 2. State Opt-In Program CAA section 249(f) requires that EPA promulgate regulations which will (1) allow states other than California to encourage the sale of CFVs in their state which are sold in California under the Pilot program and (2) allow such states to use incentives to promote the sale and use of CFVs and clean alternative fuels. States opting into the program may voluntarily decide to implement a clean fuel vehicle incentive program as described in this Final Rule. Any state that contains all or part of any ozone nonattainment area that is classified under subpart D of Title I as serious, severe, or extreme can choose to submit a revision of their applicable state implementation plan (SIP) under part D of Title I and section 110. A state's SIP shall include incentives for the sale and use of CFVs and for the production and distribution of clean alternative fuels such as those that are required to be produced, sold, and distributed in the State of California. These SIP provisions shall come into effect at least one year after the state has notified vehicle manufacturers and fuel suppliers of the plan provisions. As mentioned above, section 249(f) directs EPA to establish the voluntary opt-in program under which states may use incentives to promote the sale and use of CFVs and clean alternative fuels. Examples of incentives listed in section 249(f) include higher registration fees for non-CFVs, financial incentives, exemptions from high occupancy vehicle or trip reduction requirements, and parking preferences. Today's rule establishes these incentives for use by states under a section 249(f) opt-in provision. States may develop additional incentives, as well, subject to EPA approval via the SIP approval process. Section 249(f) prohibits a state opting into the program from including sales or production mandates for CFVs or clean alternative fuels in its SIP revision opting into the Pilot program. In addition, the SIP revision must provide that vehicle manufacturers and fuel suppliers will not be penalized or subject to sanctions for failing to produce or sell CFVs or clean alternative fuels. D. Technical Amendments to CFF Definitions and Other Clarifications 1. Explanatory Language in the Preamble of the Final Rulemaking for Clean Fuel Fleet Definitions and General Provisions Is Clarified in Four Areas, as Described Below a. The role of fleet payment methods in establishing whether fleet vehicles are centrally fueled. In the description of ``contract fueling'' as it pertains to the definition of ``centrally fueled'' (section III(3)(a) of the Definitions final rule preamble, 58 FR 64679, December 9, 1993), EPA indicated that the nature of the method of payment used by a fleet operator for fuel purchases might be useful for determining whether the fueling arrangement constituted ``central fueling.'' In its description, EPA stated that ``retail credit cards'' would not represent central fueling arrangements while ``commercial fleet credit cards'' would represent such arrangements. Since the time of the final rule, parties representing fleet leasing companies and independent fuel marketers informed the Agency that the emerging business in broad national fleet fueling cards requires further clarification of this issue. These parties have indicated that the use of such cards, which generally include a wide network of fuel providers nationwide and an administrative system for monitoring fuel purchases, do not necessarily indicate that fueling is occurring at a central facility or set of facilities. Similarly, the use of retail credit cards does not prove that fueling is not occurring in a centralized way. EPA believes there is value in these observations, and the Agency will no longer recommend that states look to the payment method as a key indicator of the presence or absence of central fueling. Instead, EPA recommends that states look at the actual refueling patterns used by fleet operators. When an individual fleet's fueling is limited to a single location or a prescribed and identified set of locations within the operational range of the vehicles, EPA believes this situation represents central fueling, regardless of the method of payment for the fuel. As the implementation of state fleet programs evolves, EPA may consider further clarification of this issue, by rule or by guidance. b. Clarification of the determination of whether a fleet is ``capable of being centrally fueled''. In the preamble of the Definitions final rulemaking, EPA described a preferred technique for determining fleets capability of being centrally fueled, based on the number of miles from trips that could be centrally fueled. Because of an editorial oversight, portions of section III(4)(a)(i) and (4)(c) of the Definitions final rule preamble may be misleading (58 FR 64679, December 9, 1993). EPA wishes to clarify that the number of miles from trips that could be centrally fueled should be tabulated only from those trips that do not require the fleet vehicle to travel outside of its operational range (i.e., the distance a vehicle is able to travel on a round trip with a single refueling). This clarification makes the method of calculation consistent with the stated intent of the overall determination procedure. c. Correction to reference in the definition of ``owned or operated, leased, or otherwise controlled by such person''. The definition of ``owned or operated, leased, or otherwise controlled by such person'' in Sec. 88.302-94 of the Definitions final rule regulations may be misleading (58 FR 64679, December 9, 1993). Paragraph (2) within this definition refers to the definition of ``control'' as being in paragraph (c) of Sec. 88.302-94; however, the definition of ``control'' is not designated as paragraph (c). Thus, EPA wishes to clarify that in the definition of ``owned or operated, leased, or otherwise controlled by such person'' it intended to refer to the definition of ``control'' in Sec. 88.302-94. d. Correction to the instructions for the promulgation of Sec. 88.308-94 of the regulations, entitled ``Programmatic requirements for clean-fuel fleet vehicles''. Because of an editorial error, the definition of ``multi-state nonattainment areas'' (Sec. 88.308-94) in the Definitions final rule regulation (58 FR 64679, December 9, 1993) was described as an amendment to a previously promulgated section instead of a new definition to be promulgated in a new section of part 88. Thus, EPA wishes to clarify that it intended to add a new Sec. 88.308-94 to 40 CFR part 88. 2. Harmonization of ILEV Exhaust Standards and Test Procedures With the CFV Provisions In EPA's final rule on ``Clean Fuel Fleet Credit Programs, Transportation Control Measure Exemptions, and Related Provisions'' (58 FR 11888, March 1, 1993), Inherently Low-Emission Vehicle (ILEV) emission standards and test procedures were established. The exhaust emission standards were published in tables C93-6, C93-6.1, and C93- 6.2. With the finalizing of exhaust emission standards and test procedures in today's rule, the earlier treatment of ILEV standards and test procedures for exhaust emissions are now obsolete. Technical revisions of the ILEV regulations are included in today's rule. These changes have the effect of focusing ILEV exhaust requirements on those of other CFVs, while the special ILEV evaporative emissions standard and test procedure remains unchanged. E. Display of OMB Control Numbers EPA is also amending the table of currently approved information collection request (ICR) control numbers issued by OMB for various regulations. This amendment updates the table to accurately display those information requirements contained in this final rule which have already been approved. This display of the OMB control number and the subsequent codification in the Code of Federal Regulations satisfies the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320. The ICR was previously subject to public notice and comment prior to OMB approval. As a result, EPA finds that there is ``good cause'' under section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) to amend this table without prior notice and comment. Due to the technical nature of the table, further notice and comment would be necessary. For the same reasons, EPA finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). F. Regulatory Impacts The economic and environmental impacts of this rulemaking are only from the provisions pertaining to the Clean Fuel Fleet Program since the impacts of the California Pilot Program will most likely be superseded by the projected effect of the CARB LEV program and other federal requirements and should not create additional economic or environmental impact. EPA has prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that evaluates the program costs, potential program benefits, and cost effectiveness of the Clean Fuel Fleet Program. As described in the proposal, included here is a summary of the results of those analyses. The program costs and potential benefits related to light-duty vehicles and trucks are evaluated separately from those of heavy-duty vehicles (above 8,500 lbs GVWR) because the CFV standards and the technology used to meet them are very different for the light-duty and heavy-duty classes. 1. Program Costs a. Light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. As described in the proposal, to estimate the potential costs of clean-fuel LDVs and LDTs, EPA has developed two scenarios representing different assumptions about the future use of nonconventional fuels. Scenario I assumes no major changes from conditions that exist today. Scenario II assumes the emergence of some driving force that would encourage or require OEMs to offer more non-petroleum fuel/vehicle combinations. Using the above scenarios, the incremental acquisition and operating costs, coupled with estimates of the number of CFVs operating, can be used to estimate an overall cost of the fleet program for LDVs and LDTs. The incremental acquisition cost is the amount a fleet owner must pay for a CFV above the cost of a comparable conventional vehicle, and different incremental costs are associated with each vehicle/fuel type. As in the proposal, EPA estimates an incremental acquisition cost of $170 for vehicles fueled with reformulated gasoline, $300 for alcohol-fueled vehicles, $2,000 for gaseous-fueled vehicles, and $3,300 for electric vehicles. Another fleet program cost is incurred in the operation of clean- fuel vehicles. Estimated operating costs, for all of the vehicle/fuel combinations, are based solely on fuel costs, since no additional maintenance is expected for CFVs above their conventional counterparts. As in the proposal, compared to conventional gasoline equivalent cost of $1.31 in the year 2000, the projected gasoline equivalents for the same year are as follows: $1.36 for reformulated gasoline, $1.12 for alcohol fuels, $1.09 for CNG, $0.62 for LPG, and $1.12 for electricity. Thus, all fuels except for reformulated gasoline represent a cost savings when compared to the estimated price of conventional gasoline in the year 2000. The incremental costs for new CFV acquisitions and their operation were summed for each future year between 1998 and 2010 to yield an estimated total annual cost of the fleet program for LDVs and LDTs. The present value costs under Scenario I for the years 1998 through 2010 is almost $709 million in 1998 dollars. Under Scenario II, the present value of the potential costs in years 1998 through 2010 is estimated at $673 million in 1998 dollars. (In contrast to the proposal, the discount rate used in this analysis is 7 percent instead of 10 percent as recommended by EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation.)\44\ Projected annual costs for each of the years from 1998 to 2010 are presented in the RIA. This analysis does not take into account infrastructure costs. EPA has examined the sensitivity of the projected incremental acquisition and operating costs results in the RIA to other reasonable estimates of future acquisition and operating costs and concluded that the impact on the cost effectiveness is not major. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \44\EPA Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, ``OMB Presentation and Discussion on OMB Circular A-94 Regarding Discount Rates and Benefit-Cost Analysis,'' Memorandum from Brett Snyder to Addressees, March 23, 1993. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- b. Heavy-duty vhicles. As described in the draft RIA for the proposal, incremental acquisition costs were estimated for conventional gasoline and diesel HDVs expected to be capable of meeting CFV standards through the use of technological changes rather than the use of clean fuels themselves. However, possible manufacturing process changes or slightly higher component costs may be incurred when adapting these technologies to HDEs. The analysis projects that these changes could increase the variable production cost of heavy-duty gasoline engines by $50.00 and heavy-duty diesel engines by about $100.00. Factoring in a 29 percent overhead and profit mark-up would bring the estimated increase in manufacturing costs to $65 and $129 per engine for gasoline and diesel engines respectively. In addition to this increased manufacturing/component cost per engine, consumers will also have to pay for the amortized cost of research and development and engine certification, as well as retail price mark-up. Manufacturers are expected to recover the development costs over the first five years of engine sales. Thus, using a more conservative range of projected costs than in the proposal, the total incremental acquisition cost is estimated at $246 more per gasoline engine and $477 more per diesel engine for the first five years of the program as compared with engines used in conventional heavy-duty vehicles. During the remaining years of the program, the total incremental acquisition cost is estimated at $178 more per gasoline engine and $338 more per diesel engine. Gasoline- and diesel-fuel HDVs meeting CFV standards are not expected to have added fuel or maintenance costs compared to conventional HDVs. However, EPA expects that approximately 10 percent of all fleet HDVs will need to be operated on reformulated gasoline in an area where reformulated gasoline is not routinely supplied. Thus, as in the proposal, an incremental fuel cost of five cents per gallon is applied to approximately 10 percent of all fleet HDVs. The incremental costs for new CFV acquisitions and operations were summed for each year from 1998 to 2010 to yield an estimated total annual cost of the fleet program for HDVs. As described in the proposal, three scenarios were developed based on differing assumptions about vehicle mix and about costs of alternative-fuel vehicles compared to conventional HDVs. The first scenario, Scenario A, assumes conventional-fuel vehicles will be purchased for the fleet program, while the second, Scenario B, assumes 20 percent of CFVs will be nonconventional-fuel vehicles. The third scenario, Scenario C, assumes 30 percent of CFVs are nonconventional-fuel vehicles. Thus, for the first twelve years of the program 1998 present value cost is estimated to be $67 million for Scenario A, $99 million for Scenario B, and $30 million for Scenario C (using a discount rate of 7 percent).\45\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \45\As in proposal, Scenario C assumes that purchases of nonconventional-fuel vehicles are driven by a hypothetical combined acquisition and operating cost that is below the cost of conventional HDVs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Program Benefits As with the draft RIA for the proposal, the final RIA presents an analysis of the expected emission benefits of the Clean Fuel Fleet Program. These benefits were estimated by comparing the total emissions from covered fleet vehicles to the emissions which the same number of conventional vehicles would produce in the absence of a fleet program. As in the economic analysis, the emission benefits of LDVs and LDTs were studied separately from HDVs, and the results of both are summarized below. The same scenarios used in the economic analysis (i.e., assuming different degrees of participation by non-petroleum fueled vehicles) were used in the benefits analysis. Along with vapor emission reductions, reductions in NMOG, NOX, and CO combustion emissions from LDVs and LDTs, and reductions in NMHC, NOX, and CO combustion emissions from HDVs, are discussed below. a. Light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. To estimate the environmental benefits of the fleet program, emission inventories were generated for two cases. In the base case, the number of covered fleet LDVs and LDTs estimated to be operating in each year were all assumed to be conventional vehicles. The base case emission inventories were calculated by computing lifetime emission factors for conventional (Tier 1) vehicles using the MOBILE5a emission factor model (instead of the specialized analysis using vehicle standards developed for the proposal). Similarly, emission inventories for the covered fleet vehicles were calculated using lifetime emission factors for LEVs from MOBILE5a. The difference between the two inventories yields the emission benifit of the program in terms of NMOG and NOX reductions. The final analyis results in 1998 present value benefits of the light-duty NMOG and NOX reductions realized for the years 1998 through 2010 (using a discount rate of 7 percent) are approximately 11,720 tons and 12,119 tons, respectively. As in the proposal, since LEVs will not generally achieve CO emission reductions, potential CO inventories were determined using the number of light-duty ULEVs and ZEVs. The 1998 present value benefit of the annual CO reductions is projected to range between 93,694 tons and 120,885 tons. In addition to combustion emission benefits, the fleet program will also realize benefits from vapor emission reductions resulting from use of CNG, LPG, and electric vehicles. Some of these benefits will be achieved by inherently low-emission vehicles (ILEVS); however, a calculation of the amount of vapor reduction attributable to ILEVs was not attempted because the purchase of these vehicles is voluntary and their numbers are very uncertain. As in the proposal, vapor emission benefits of the fleet program were determined by multiplying the number of in-use CFVs projected to be operating on CNG, LPG, and electricity, by the average annual vehicle miles traveled for each class, and by the projected vapor emission reduction (grams/mile/vehicle) expected for each vehicle class. These vapor emission reductions were based on MOBILE5a evaporative emission factors in today's rule instead of MOBILE5.0 evaporative emission factors as were used in the proposal. Even though the new analysis results in lower annual emission reductions, the vapor emission benefits reported in today's rule are higher level than those in the proposal due to the use of the 7 percent discount rate. The 1998 present value benefits of the light-duty vapor emission reduction realized from the 1998 through 2000 are approximately 4,654 tons under Scenario I and 6,982 tons under Scenario II. Thus, summing the benefits, the 1998 present value benefits of NMOG and CO emission reduction achieved by the light-duty portion of the fleet program for the years 1998 through 2010 are projected to range from 16,400 to 18,700 tons and 93,700 to 121,000 tons respectively. The NOX emission reduction is estimated to be approximately 12,100 tons. b. Heavy-duty vehicles. As in the proposal and similar to the analysis conducted for light-duty fleet vehicles, the emission benefits of heavy-duty clean-fuel fleet vehicles have been estimated by comparing total emissions from a base case to the emissions from a scenario using clean-fuel fleet vehicles. (Unlike LDVs and LDTs, EPA has not incorporated clean-fuel HDVs into MOBILE5a, and thus, HDVs were modelled in the same way as in the proposal.) The clean-fuel fleet vehicle scenario assumes that all covered fleet HDVs operate at the LEV emission level, and is used to generate emission inventories of NMHC and NOX. CO benefits expected to be realized at the ULEV level are also summarized below (heavy-duty ZEVs are not likely to be a viable option to fleet owners at the time the fleet program begins and thus no CO benefits are expected from vehicles other than heavy-duty ULEVs). Annual emission inventories of NMHC and NOX were generated by multiplying the number of in-use heavy-duty vehicles by the number of vehicle miles traveled and multiplying the result by the appropriate difference in emission factors. The 1998 present value benefits of the heavy-duty NMHC and NOX emission reduction realized from the 1998 through 2010 are approximately 4,100 tons and 16,400 tons, respectively. The emission benefits are lower than the benefits reported in the proposal because the combined NMHC+NOX standard was changed from the proposed 3.5 g/Bhp-hr to 3.8 g/Bhp-hr in today's final rule (See section (II)(A)(2) above). In determining CO benefits, there is no reduction in the CO emission standard for heavy-duty vehicles meeting the minimum clean- fuel fleet vehicle (LEV) requirements, but gasoline ULEVs will achieve a benefit. Those vehicles operating at the ULEV level, will include a 50 percent reduction in CO emissions from their conventional or LEV counterparts. Diesel heavy-duty vehicles are not expected to generate incremental CO benefits since they currently emit below the heavy-duty ULEV standard for CO. The present value of the CO emission benefits are projected to range from 15,500 to 27,000 tons/year. Using a discount rate of 7 percent in today's rule instead of the proposed 10 percent rate, results in higher CO emission benefits than were projected in the proposal. Vapor emission benefits were projected for the replacement of gasoline-fueled HDVs by gaseous-fueled HDVs. For the years 1998 through 2010 the program yields 1998 present value vapor emission benefits of 2,700 to 4,500 tons. As with LDVs and LDTs, these vapor emission reductions were based on MOBILE5a evaporative emission factors in today's rule instead of MOBILE5.0 evaporative emission factors as were used in the proposal, and thus, the vapor emission reductions used in today's rule for HDVs are at a higher level than those emission reductions used in the proposal. (Also, using a discount rate of 7 percent instead of the proposed 10 percent rate contrubuted to the higher levels of vapor emission reductions.) Thus, summing the benefits together, the 1998 present values of NMHC and CO emission reduction achieved by the heavy-duty portion of the fleet program for the years 1998 through 2010 are projected to range from 4,100 to 8,600 tons and to 15,500 to 27,000 tons respectively. The NOX emission reduction is estimated to be approximately 16,400 tons. 3. Cost Effectiveness As described in the proposal, for both light-duty and heavy-duty portions of the fleet program, the overall cost effectiveness was determined by dividing the total 1998 present value costs of the first 12 years of the program by the associated discounted 12-year benefits. The overall cost effectiveness for LDVs is estimated to range between $4,400 and $5,800 per ton of all pollutants. The analysis suggests that the fleet program will provide a greater reduction in emissions per dollar spent if more light-duty vehicles operate on alternative fuels. The overall estimated heavy-duty cost effectiveness ranges from $580 per ton to $3,300 per ton. 4. Additional Program Impacts The increased use of clean alternative fuels due to the fleet program may well result in the displacement of some of the use of conventional fuels. As in the proposal, EPA projects for the first twelve years of the Clean Fuel Fleet Program 3.2 to 6.4 billion gallons of petroleum-based fuel could be conserved. In addition to the conservation of petroleum resources, the fleet program may provide a number of non-quantifiable impacts, as well. The program will potentially furnish incentives for the development of clean-fuel vehicle technology, stimulate the vehicle conversion industry, support the wider distribution of alternative fuels and related infrastructure, and encourage the public to purchase and use clean-fuel vehicles. III. Public Participation As in past rulemaking actions, EPA strongly encouraged full public participation in arriving at final decisions. On July 15, 1993 a public hearing was held for any person to present testimony in response to the proposal, and written comments on this proposal were accepted for a period of sixty days after the hearing (September 15, 1993). EPA has fully considered all of the comments and has modified the proposal to reflect many of the suggestions received. EPA's complete assessment of the comments received can be found in the summary and analysis of comments document for this rulemaking, which has been placed in Docket No. A-92-30 and A-92-69. IV. Statutory Authority The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247(a), 247(b), 249, and 301(a) of the CAA. V. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 [58 Federal Register 51,735 (October 4, 1993)], the Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The order defines ``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; (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. This rulemaking, covering emission standards for clean-fuel vehicles and engines, CFV conversion requirements, and the California Pilot Program, is considered an ``economically significant regulatory action'' under this definition, since the Clean Fuel Fleet Program and California Pilot Program together will cost more than $100 million annually in at least some years of its implementation. In addition, this rule is significant in that it represents the first motor vehicle emission control program which focus exclusively on fleets, raising a range of unprecedented issues. Finally, the rule is significant in that it parallels in many ways the alternative fuel fleet program required in the Energy Policy Act, which the Department of Energy is implementing; the areas of overlap between the two programs add to the significance of the rule. For these reasons, an RIA has been prepared, and is available in the docket for this rulemaking. This final rulemaking was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review as required by Executive Order 12866. Any written comments from OMB and any EPA response to OMB comments are in the public docket for this rulemaking. VI. Compliance With Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 requires federal agencies to examine the effects of federal regulations and to identify significant adverse impacts on a substantial number of small entities. Because the RFA does not provide concrete definitions of ``small entity'', ``significant impact'', or ``substantial number'', EPA has established guidelines setting the standards to be used in evaluating impacts on small businesses.\46\ Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires EPA to prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis when the Agency determines that there is a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \46\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum to Assistant Administrators, ``Compliance With the Regulatory Flexibility Act'', EPA Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, 1984. In addition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Memorandum to Assistant Administrators, ``Agency's Revised Guidelines for Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility Act'', EPA Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, 1992. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Concerns regarding the potential impact of this regulation on small businesses are related to vehicle conversions. There could be a significant impact on small converters if they were distant from inspection and maintenance testing facilities. Difficulty in using such test facilities to comply with the post-installation emission test requirement could represent a significant economic burden to small manufacturers if they were compelled to rely solely on the alternative two-step idle post-installation test. (See section II.B.2.c. for a discussion of the post-installation testing requirements). However, EPA has no information to indicate that converters which may face such a situation currently exist or will exist in the future. Generally, EPA expects that such a situation would not occur or would occur very infrequently since there are significant economic and logistical advantages associated with locating a vehicle conversion facility within or close to an urban area. In any event, the rule provides for converters of 300 or fewer vehicles per year to request an exemption from the post-installation test if a severe economic hardship can be demonstrated. EPA has evaluated the effects of this regulation and the Administrator of EPA certifies that there will not be an adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not conducted. VII. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this rule pertaining to the California Pilot Program and the post-installation test for converted vehicles have been submitted to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Request document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1694) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, EPA/OPPE/ORME, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460 (Mail Code 2136) or by calling (202) 260-2740. These requirements are not effective until OMB approves them and a technical amendment to that effect is published in the Federal Register. This collection of information has an estimated reporting burden averaging 1.4 hours per response and an estimated annual recordkeeping burden averaging 67 hours per respondent. However, the hours spent annually on information collection activities by a given manufacturer depends upon manufacturer-specific variables, such as the number of engine families, production changes, emissions defects, and so on. This estimate includes time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch; EPA/OPPE/ORME; 401 M Street SW, (Mail Code 2136); Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: EPA Desk Officer''. All other information collection requirements in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and have been assigned control number 2060-0104. VIII. Consultation With DOE and DOT As per section 250(d) of the Clean Air Act, this rulemaking has coordinated with the Department of Energy and the Department of Transportation. Also, pursuant to section 247(e) of the Act that states ``* * * The Secretary of Transportation shall, if necessary, promulgate rules under applicable motor vehicle laws regarding the safety of vehicles converted from existing and new vehicles to clean-fuel vehicles,'' this rulemaking has been coordinated with the Department of Transportation regarding the safety of vehicles converted to CFVs. Interagency review documents are contained in section II-F and IV-H of this rulemaking's docket. IX. Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, EPA hereby finds that these regulations are of national applicability. Accordingly, judicial review of this action is available only by filing a petition for review of the United States Court of Appeals for the District Of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of publication. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements which are the subject of today's notice may not be challenged later in the judicial proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 9 Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 86 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 88 Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 14, 1994. Carol M. Browner, Administrator. For reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 9, 86 and 88 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows: PART 9--[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et. seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1334, 1345(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971- 1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g- 1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et. seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601- 9657, 11023, 11048. 2. Section 9.1 is amended in the table by adding in numerical order new entries under the center heading ``Control of Air Pollution from New and In-Use Motor Vehicles and New and In-Use Motor Vehicle Engines: Certification and Test Procedures'' and by adding a new center heading, ``Clean-Fuel Vehicles'', and new entries under it to read as follows: Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act. * * * * * 40 CFR citations OMB control No. ***** Control of Air Pollution from New and In-Use Motor Vehicles and New and In-Use Motor Vehicle Engines: Certification and Test Procedures ***** Sec. 86.111-94 2060-0104 ***** Sec. 86.1311-94 2060-0104 ***** Clean-Fuel Vehicles Sec. 88.104-94 (a), 2060-0104 (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) Sec. 88.105-94 2060-0104 Sec. 88.305-94 2060-0104 Sec. 88.306-94(a), 2060-0104 (b) introductory text ***** PART 86--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM NEW AND IN-USE MOTOR VEHICLES AND NEW AND IN-USE MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES: CERTIFICATION AND TEST PROCEDURES 3. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 215, 216, 217, and 301(a), Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7549, 7550, 7552, and 7601(a)). 3a. Section 86.1 is amended by adding a new entry to the end of the table in paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: Sec. 86.1 Reference materials. * * * * * (b) * * * (2) * * * ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 40 CFR part 86 Document No. and name reference ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ***** SAE Recommended Practice J1151, December 1991, 86.111-94; 86.1311-94. Methane Measurement Using Gas Chromatography, 1994 SAE Handbook--SAE International Cooperative Engineering Program, Volume 1: Materials, Fuels, Emissions, and Noise; Section 13 and page 170 (13.170). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Section 86.085-37 of subpart A is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) introductory text to read as follows: Sec. 86.085-37 Production vehicles and engines. * * * * * (b)(1) Any manufacturer of light-duty vehicles or light-duty trucks obtaining certification under this part shall notify the Administrator, on a yearly basis, of the number of vehicles domestically produced for sale in the United States and the number of vehicles produced and imported for sale in the United States during the preceding year. Such information shall also include the number of vehicles produced for sale pursuant to 40 CFR 88.204-94(b). A manufacturer may elect to provide this information every 60 days instead of yearly by combining it with the notification required under Sec. 86.079-36. The notification must be submitted 30 days after the close of the reporting period. The vehicle production information required shall be submitted as follows: * * * * * 5. Section 86.094-15 of subpart A is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: Sec. 86.094-15 NOX and particulate averaging, trading, and banking for heavy-duty engines. (a)(1) Heavy-duty engines eligible for NOX and particulate averaging, trading and banking programs are described in the applicable emission standards sections in this subpart. All heavy-duty engine families which include any engines labeled for use in clean-fuel vehicles as specified in 40 CFR part 88 are not eligible for these programs. Participation in these programs is voluntary. * * * * * 6. Section 86.094-24 of subpart A is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(3)(iii) and revising paragraph (a)(4) introductory text to read as follows: Sec. 86.094-24 Test vehicles and engines. (a) * * * (3) * * * (iii) Engines identical in all of the respects listed in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3)(i) of this section may be further divided into different engine families if some of the engines are expected to be sold as clean-fuel vehicles under 40 CFR Part 88, and if the manufacturer chooses to certify the engines to both the clean-fuel vehicle standards of 40 CFR part 88 and the general standards of this part 86. One engine family shall include engines that are intended for general use. For this engine family, only the provisions of this part 86 shall apply. The second engine family shall include all engines that are intended to be used in clean-fuel vehicles. For this engine family, the provisions of both this part 86 and 40 CFR Part 88 shall apply. The manufacturer may submit one set of data to certify both engine families. (4) Where engines are of a type which cannot be divided into engine families based upon the criteria listed in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section, the Administrator will establish families for those engines based upon those features most related to their emission characteristics. Engines that are eligible to be included in the same engine family based on the criteria in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3)(i) of this section may be further divided into different engine families if the manufacturer determines that they may be expected to have different emission characteristics, or if the manufacturer chooses to certify the engines to both the clean-fuel vehicle standards of 40 CFR Part 88 and the general standards of this part 86 as described in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section. The determination of the emission characteristics will be based upon a consideration of the following features of each engine: * * * * * 7. Section 86.111-94 of subpart B is amended by adding a new paragraph (b)(3)(vii) to read as follows: Sec. 86.111-94 Exhaust gas analytical system. * * * * * (b) * * * (3) * * * (vii) Using a methane analyzer consisting of a gas chromatograph combined with a FID, the measurement of methane shall be done in accordance with the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE) Recommended Practice J1151, ``Methane Measurement Using Gas Chromatography,'' December 1991, 1994 SAE Handbook--SAE International Cooperative Engineering Program, Volume 1: Materials, Fuels, Emissions, and Noise; Section 13 and page 170 (13.170), which is incorporated by reference. (A) This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. (B) Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA, OAR, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. Copies of this material may be obtained from Society of Automotive Engineers International, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-001. * * * * * 8. Section 86.1311-94 of subpart N is amended by adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(iii) preceding figure N94-1 to read as follows: Sec. 86.1311-94 Exhaust gas analytical system; CVS bag sample. * * * * * (b) * * * (2) * * * (iii) Using a methane analyzer consisting of a gas chromatograph combined with a FID, the measurement of methane shall be done in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J1151, ``Methane Measurement Using Gas Chromatography''. (Incorporated by reference pursuant to Sec. 86.1(b)(2)). * * * * * PART 88--CLEAN-FUEL VEHICLES 9. The authority citation for part 88 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7410, 7418, 7581, 7582, 7583, 7584, 7586, 7588, 7589, and 7601(a). 10. Sections 88.101-94 and 88.102-94 in subpart A are redesignated as Secs. 88.102-94 and 88.103-94, respectively, and a new Sec. 88.101- 94 is added to read as follows: Sec. 88.101-94 General applicability. The clean-fuel vehicle standards and provisions of this subpart are applicable to vehicles used in subpart B of this part (the Clean Fuel Fleet Program) and subpart C of this part (the California Pilot Test Program). 1. Newly designated Sec. 88.102-94 of subpart A is amended by revising the the introductory text and adding the following definitions in alphabetical order to read as follows: Sec. 88.102-94 Definitions. Any terms defined in 40 CFR part 86 and not defined in this part shall have the meaning given them in 40 CFR part 86, subpart A. Adjusted Loaded Vehicle Weight is defined as the numerical average of the vehicle curb weight and the GVWR. Dual Fuel Vehicle (or Engine) means any motor vehicle (or motor vehicle engine) engineered and designed to be operated on two different fuels, but not on a mixture of the fuels. Flexible Fuel Vehicle (or Engine) means any motor vehicle (or motor vehicle engine) engineered and designed to be operated on any mixture of two or more different fuels. * * * * * Non-methane Hydrocarbon Equivalent means the sum of the carbon mass emissions of non-oxygenated non-methane hydrocarbons plus the carbon mass emissions of alcohols, aldehydes, or other organic compounds which are separately measured in accordance with the applicable test procedures of 40 CFR part 86, expressed as gasoline-fueled vehicle non- methane hydrocarbons. In the case of exhaust emissions, the hydrogen- to-carbon ratio of the equivalent hydrocarbon is 1.85:1. In the case of diurnal and hot soak emissions, the hydrogen-to-carbon ratios of the equivalent hydrocarbons are 2.33:1 and 2.2:1 respectively. * * * * * 12. Newly designated Sec. 88.103-94 of subpart A is amended by adding the following abbreviations in alphabetical order to read as follows: Sec. 88.103-94 Abbreviations. * * * * * ALVW--Adjusted Loaded Vehicle Weight . * * * * * HC--Hydrocarbon. * * * * * HDV--Heavy-Duty Vehicle. LDT--Light-Duty Truck. LDV--Light-Duty Vehicle. NMHC--Non-Methane Hydrocarbon. NMHCE--Non-Methane Hydrocarbon Equivalent. * * * * * 13. A new Sec. 88.104-94 is added to subpart A to read as follows: Sec. 88.104-94 Clean-fuel vehicle tailpipe emission standards for light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. (a) A light-duty vehicle or light-duty truck will be considered as a TLEV, LEV, ULEV, or ZEV if it meets the applicable requirements of this section. (b) Light-duty vehicles certified to the exhaust emission standards for TLEVs, LEVs, and ULEVs in Tables A104-1 and A104-2 shall be considered as meeting the requirements of this section for that particular vehicle emission category for model years 1994-2000 for the California Pilot Program. (c) Light-duty vehicles certified to the exhaust emission standards for LEVs and ULEVs in Tables A104-1 and A104-2 shall be considered as meeting the requirements of this section for that particular vehicle emission category for model years 2001 and later for the California Pilot Program, and for model years 1998 and later for the Clean Fuel Fleet Program. (d) Light light-duty trucks certified to the exhaust emission standards for a specific weight category for TLEVs, LEVs, and ULEVs in Tables A104-3 and A104-4 shall be considered as meeting the requirements of this section for that particular vehicle emission category. For model years 1994-2000 for the California Pilot Program. (e) Light Light-duty trucks certified to the exhaust emission standards for a specific weight category for LEVs and ULEVs in Tables A104-3 and A104-4 shall be considered as meeting the requirements of this section for that particular vehicle emission category. For model years 2001 and later for the California Pilot Program, and for model years 1998 and later for the Clean Fuel Fleet Program. (f) Heavy light-duty trucks certified to the exhaust emission standards for a specific weight category of LEVs and ULEVs in Tables A104-5 and A104-6 for model years 1998 and later shall be considered as meeting the requirements of this section for that particular vehicle emission category. (g) A light-duty vehicle or light-duty truck shall be certified as a ZEV if it is determined by engineering analysis that the vehicle satisfies the following conditions: (1) The vehicle fuel system(s) must not contain either carbon or nitrogen compounds (including air) which, when burned, form any of the pollutants listed in Table A104-1 as exhaust emissions. (2) All primary and auxiliary equipment and engines must have no emissions of any of the pollutants listed in Table A104-1. (3) The vehicle fuel system(s) and any auxiliary engine(s) must have no evaporative emissions in use. (4) Any auxiliary heater must not operate at ambient temperatures above 40 degrees Fahrenheit. (h) NMOG standards for flexible- and dual-fueled vehicles when operating on clean alternative fuel--(1) Light-duty vehicles, and light light-duty trucks. Flexible- and dual-fueled LDVs and light LDTs of 1996 model year and later shall meet all standards in Table A104-7 for vehicles of the applicable model year, loaded vehicle weight, and vehicle emission category. (2) Light-duty trucks above 6,000 lbs GVWR. Flexible- and dual- fueled LDTs above 6,000 lbs. GVWR of 1998 model year and later shall meet all standards in Table A104-8 for vehicles of the applicable test weight and vehicle emission category. (i) NMOG standards for flexible- and dual-fueled vehicles when operating on conventional fuel--(1) Light-duty vehicles, and light light-duty trucks. Flexible- and dual-fueled LDVs and light LDTs of 1996 model year and later shall meet all standards in Table A104-9 for vehicles of the applicable model year, loaded vehicle weight, and vehicle emission category. (2) Light-duty trucks above 6,000 lbs GVWR. Flexible- and dual- fueled LDTs of 1998 model year and later shall meet all standards in Table A104-10 for vehicles of the applicable test weight and vehicle emission category. (j) Other standards for flexible- and dual-fueled vehicles. When operating on clean alternative fuel, flexible- and dual- fueled light- duty vehicles and light light-duty trucks must also meet the appropriate standards for carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, formaldehyde, and particulate matter as designated in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section as well as all other applicable standards and requirements. When operating on conventional fuel, flexible- and dual-fueled vehicles must also meet all other applicable standards and requirements in 40 CFR part 86. (k) Motor vehicles subject to standards and requirements of this section shall also comply with all applicable standards and requirements of 40 CFR part 86, except that any exhaust emission standards in 40 CFR part 86 pertaining to pollutants for which standards are established in this section shall not apply. For converted vehicles, the applicable standards and requirements of 40 CFR part 86 and this part 88 shall apply based on the model year in which the conversion is performed, regardless of the model year in which the base vehicle was originally manufactured prior to conversion. (1) Gaseous-fueled, diesel-fueled, and electric clean-fuel vehicles are waived from cold CO test requirements of subpart C of this part if compliance is demonstrated by engineering analysis or test data. (2) The standards in this section shall be administered and enforced in accordance with the California Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Clean Fuel Fleet and California Pilot Programs, April 1, 1994, which are incorporated by reference. (i) This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. (ii) Copies may be inspected at U.S. EPA, OAR, 401 M Street, Southwest, Washington, DC 20460, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. Copies of these materials may be obtained from Barclay's Law Publishers, 400 Oyster Point Boulevard, P.O. Box 3066, South San Francisco, CA 94080, phone (415) 244-6611. (l) The standards set forth in this section other than those for NMOG emissions refer to the exhaust emitted while the vehicle is being tested in accordance with the applicable test procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N. NMOG emissions are to be measured in accordance with the California Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Clean Fuel Fleet and California Pilot Program, April 1, 1994, incorporated by reference pursuant to paragraph (k)(2) of this section. Table A104-1.--Intermediate Useful Life Standards (g/mi) for Light-Duty Vehicles for HCs, CO, NOX, HCHO, and PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vehicle emission category NMOG CO NOX HCHO PM1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TLEV.............................. 0.125 3.4 0.4 0.015 ........... LEV............................... \2\.075 \2\3.4 .2 \2\.015 ........... ULEV.............................. .040 1.7 \2\.2 .008 ........... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Applies to diesel vehicles only. \2\Applies to ILEVs. Table A104-2.--Full Useful Life Standards (g/mi) for Light-Duty Vehicles for HCs, CO, NOX, HCHO, and PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vehicle emission category NMOG CO NOX HCHO PM1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TLEV.............................. 0.156 4.2 0.6 0.018 0.08 LEV............................... \2\0.090 \2\4.2 .3 \2\.018 \2\.08 ULEV.............................. .055 2.1 \2\.3 .011 .04 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Applies to diesel vehicles only. \2\Applies to ILEVs. Table A104-3.--Intermediate Useful Life Standards (g/mi) for Light Light-Duty Trucks for HCs, CO, NOX, HCHO, and PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LVW (lbs) Vehicle emission category NMOG CO NOX HCHO PM1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0-3750......... TLEV.......................... .125 3.4 .4 .015 ........... LEV........................... \2\.075 \2\3.4 .2 \2\.015 ........... ULEV.......................... .040 1.7 \2\.2 .008 ........... 3751-5750...... TLEV.......................... 0.160 4.4 .7 .018 ........... LEV........................... \2\.100 \2\4.4 .4 \2\.018 ........... ULEV.......................... .050 2.2 \2\.4 .009 ........... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Applies to diesel vehicles only. \2\Applies to ILEVs. Table A104-4.--Full Useful Life Standards (g/mi) for Light Light-Duty Trucks for HCs, CO, NOX, HCHO, and PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LVW (lbs) Vehicle emission category NMOG CO NOX HCHO PM\1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0-3750......... TLEV.......................... 0.156 4.2 0.6 0.018 0.08 LEV........................... \2\0.090 \2\4.2 0.3 \2\.018 \2\.08 ULEV.......................... .055 2.1 \2\.3 .011 .04 3751-5750...... TLEV.......................... .200 5.5 .9 .023 .08 LEV........................... \2\.130 \2\5.5 .5 \2\.023 \2\.08 ULEV.......................... .070 2.8 \2\.5 .013 .04 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Applies to diesel vehicles only. \2\Applies to ILEVs. Table A104-5.--Intermediate Useful Life Standards (g/mi) for Heavy Light-Duty Trucks for HCs, CO, NOX, HCHO, and PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALVW (lbs) Vehicle emission category NMOG CO NOX\2\ HCHO PM\1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0-3750......... LEV........................... \3\0.125 \3\3.4 0.4 \3\0.015 ULEV.......................... .075 1.7 \3\.2 .008 3751-5750...... LEV........................... \3\.160 \3\4.4 .7 \3\.018 ULEV.......................... .100 2.2 \3\.4 .009 5751-.......... LEV........................... \3\.195 \3\5.0 1.1 \3\.022 ULEV.......................... .117 2.5 \3\.6 .011 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Applies to diesel vehicles only. \2\Does not apply to diesel vehicles. \3\Applies to ILEVs. Table A104-6.--Full Useful Life Standards (g/mi) for Heavy Light-Duty Trucks for HCs, CO, NOX, HCHO, and PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALVW (lbs) Vehicle emission category NMOG CO NOX HCHO PM\1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0-3750......... LEV........................... \2\0.180 \2\5.0 0.6 \2\0.022 \2\0.08 ULEV.......................... .107 2.5 \2\.3 .012 .04 3751-5750...... LEV........................... \2\.230 \2\6.4 1.0 \2\.027 \2\.10 ULEV.......................... .143 3.2 \2\.5 .013 .05 5751-.......... LEV........................... \2\.280 \2\7.3 1.5 \2\.032 \2\.12 ULEV.......................... .167 3.7 \2\.8 .016 .06 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\Applies to diesel vehicles only. \2\Applies to ILEVs. Table A104-7.--NMOG Standards (g/mi) for Flexible- and Dual-Fueled Vehicles When Operating on Clean Alternative Fuel for Light Light-Duty Trucks and Light-Duty Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 50,000 mile 100,000 Vehicle type NMOG mile NMOG standard standard ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MY 1996 and later: LDTs (0-3,750 lbs. LVW) and LDVs.......... 0.125 0.156 LDTs (3,751-5,750 lbs. LVW)............... .160 .200 Beginning MY 2001: LDTs (0-3,750 lbs. LVW) and LDVs.......... .075 .090 LDTs (3,751-5,750 lbs. LVW)............... .100 .130 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table A104-8.--NMOG Standards (g/mi) for Flexible- and Dual-Fueled Vehicles When Operating on Clean Alternative Fuel for Heavy Light-Duty Trucks ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 50,000 mile 120,000 Vehicle type NMOG mile NMOG standard standard ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Beginning MY 1998: LDTs (0-3,750 lbs. ALVW).................. 0.125 0.180 LDTs (3,751-5,750 lbs. ALVW).............. .160 .230 LDTs (5,751-8,500 lbs. ALVW).............. .195 .280 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table A104-9.--NMOG Standards (g/mi) for Flexible- and Dual-Fueled Vehicles When Operating on Conventional Fuel for Light Light-Duty Trucks and Light-Duty Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 50,000 mile 100,000 Vehicle type NMOG mile NMOG standard standard ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Beginning MY 1996: LDTs (0-3,750 lbs. LVW) and LDVs.......... 0.25 0.31 LDTs (3,751-5,750 lbs. LVW)............... .32 .40 Beginning MY 2001: LDTs (0-3,750 lbs. LVW) and LDVs.......... .125 .156 LDTs (3,751-5,750 lbs. LVW)............... .160 .200 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table A104-10.--NMOG Standards (g/mi) for Flexible- and Dual-Fueled Vehicles When Operating on Conventional Fuel for Light Light-Duty Trucks ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 50,000 mile 120,000 Vehicle type NMOG mile NMOG standard standard ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Beginning MY 1998: LDTs (0-3,750 lbs. ALVW).................. 0.25 0.36 LDTs (3,751-5,750 lbs. ALVW).............. .32 .46 LDTs (5,751-8,500 lbs. ALVW).............. .39 .56 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. A new Sec. 88.105-94 is added to subpart A to read as follows: Sec. 88.105-94 Clean-fuel fleet emission standards for heavy-duty engines. (a) Exhaust emissions from engines used in heavy-duty low emission vehicles shall meet one of the following standards: (1) Combined emissions of oxides of nitrogen and nonmethane hydrocarbons (or nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent) shall not exceed 3.8 grams per brake horsepower-hour. (2) Combined emissions of oxides of nitrogen and nonmethane hydrocarbons (or nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent) shall not exceed 3.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour when tested (certified) on fuel meeting the specifications of California certification fuel. (b) Exhaust emissions from engines used in heavy-duty low emission vehicles shall meet conventional vehicle standards set forth in Part 86 for total hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, particulate, and organic material hydrocarbon equivalent. (c) Exhaust emissions from engines used in ultra-low emission heavy-duty vehicles shall meet each of the following standards: (1) The combined emissions of oxides of nitrogen and nonmethane hydrocarbons (or nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent) shall not exceed 2.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour. (2) Carbon monoxide emissions shall not exceed 7.2 grams per brake horsepower-hour. (3) Particulate emissions shall not exceed 0.05 grams per brake horsepower-hour. (4) Formaldehyde emissions shall not exceed 0.025 grams per brake horsepower-hour. (d) Exhaust emissions from engines used in inherently-low emission heavy-duty vehicles shall meet each of the following standards: (1) The combined emissions of oxides of nitrogen and nonmethane hydrocarbons (or nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent) shall not exceed 2.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour. (2) Carbon monoxide emissions shall not exceed 14.4 grams per brake horsepower-hour. (3) Particulate emissions shall not exceed 0.10 grams per brake horsepower-hour. (4) Formaldehyde emissions shall not exceed 0.05 grams per brake horsepower-hour. (e) The standards set forth in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this section refer to the exhaust emitted while the vehicle is being tested in accordance with the applicable test procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N. (f)(1) A heavy-duty zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) has a standard of zero emissions for nonmethane hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and particulates. (2) A heavy-duty vehicle shall be certified as a ZEV if it is determined by engineering analysis that the vehicle satisfies the following conditions: (i) The vehicle fuel system(s) must not contain either carbon or nitrogen compounds (including air) which, when burned, form nonmethane hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, or particulates as exhaust emissions. (ii) All primary and auxiliary equipment and engines must have no emissions of nonmethane hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and particulates. (iii) The vehicle fuel system(s) and any auxiliary engine(s) must have no evaporative emissions. (iv) Any auxiliary heater must not operate at ambient temperatures above 40 degrees Fahrenheit. (g) All heavy-duty engines used in low emission, ultra-low emission, or zero emission vehicles shall also comply with all applicable standards and requirements of 40 CFR part 86, except that any exhaust emission standards in 40 CFR part 86 pertaining to pollutants for which standards are established in this section shall not apply. 15. Section 88.201-94 of subpart B is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: Sec. 88.201-94 Scope. * * * * * (a) State Implementation Plan revisions for the State of California and other states pursuant to compliance with section 249 of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. * * * * * 16. A new Sec. 88.204-94 is added to subpart B to read as follows: Sec. 88.204-94 Sales requirements for the California Pilot Test Program. (a) The total annual required minimum sales volume of new clean fuel vehicles in California for this program shall correspond to Table B204. (b) (1) When manufacturers of vehicles subject to the regulations of this section file a report pursuant to 40 CFR 86.085-37(b), such report shall include the following information: the number of light- duty vehicles and light-duty trucks sold only in California, and the number of clean-fuel vehicles sold for the Pilot program beginning with model year 1996. (2) For model years 1996 and 1997, manufacturers may exclude heavy light-duty trucks from the reporting required by this section. (c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each vehicle manufacturer must sell clean-fuel vehicles in California in an amount equal to the required annual sales volume calculated in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. (2) The required annual clean fuel vehicle sales volume for a given manufacturer is expressed in the following equation rounded to the nearest whole number. TR30SE94.001 Where: RMS=a manufacturer's required sales in a given model year. MS=a manufacturer's total LDV and light LDT sales in California two model years earlier than year in question (for MY 1996 and 1997 RMS calculations). =a manufacturer's total LDV and LDT sales in California two model years earlier than year in question (for MY 1998 and later RMS calculations). TS=total LDV and light LDT sales in California of all manufacturers two model years earlier than the year in question (for MY 1996 and 1997 RMS calculations). Sales of manufacturers which meet the criteria of (d) of this paragraph will not be included. =total LDV and LDT sales in California of all manufacturers two model years earlier than the year in question (for MY 1998 and later RMS calculations). Sales of manufacturers which meet the criteria of (d) of this paragraph will not be included. TCPPS=Pilot program annual CFV sales requirement (either 150,000 or 300,000) for the model year in question. (i) A manufacturer's share of required annual sales for model years 1996 and 1997 will be based on LDV and light LDT sales only. Once the heavy LDT standards are effective beginning with model year 1998, a manufacturer's required sales share will be based on all LDV and LDT sales. (ii) A manufacturer certifying for the first time in California shall calculate annual required sales share based on projected California sales for the model year in question. In the second year, the manufacturer shall use actual sales from the previous year. In the third year and subsequent years, the manufacturer will use sales from two model years prior to the year in question. (d) (1) Small volume manufacturer is defined in the Pilot program as one whose average annual LDV and LDT sales in California are less than or equal to 3,000 units during a consecutive three-year period beginning no earlier than model year 1993. (i) A manufacturer with less than three consecutive years of sales in California shall use a single year of sales or, if available, the average of two years of sales in California to determine whether they fall at or below the threshold of 3,000 units. (ii) A manufacturer certifying for the first time in California shall be considered a small volume manufacturer if their projected California sales level is at or below 3,000 units for a given year. Once the manufacturer has actual sales data for one year, this actual sales data shall be used to determine whether the manufacturer qualifies as a small volume manufacturer. (iii) A manufacturer which does not qualify as a small volume manufacturer in model year 1996 but whose average annual LDV and LDT sales fall to or below the 3,000 unit threshold between 1996 and 2001 shall be treated as a small volume manufacturer and shall be subject to requirements for small volume manufacturers as specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section beginning with the next model year. (2) A manufacturer which qualifies as a small volume manufacturer prior to model year 2001 is not required to comply with the sales requirements of this section until model year 2001. Table B204.--Pilot Program Vehicle Sales Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Required Model years Vehicle types annual sales ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1996 and 1997................. LDTs (< 6000 GVWR and 5750 LVW); and LDVs. 1998.......................... All Applicable Vehicle Types. 150,000 1999+......................... All Applicable Vehicle Types. 300,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17. A new Sec. 88.206-94 is added to subpart B to read as follows. Sec. 88.206-94 State Opt-in for the California Pilot Test Program. (a) A state may opt into the Pilot program if it contains all or part of an ozone nonattainment area classified as serious, severe, or extreme under subpart D of Title I. (b) A state may opt into the program by submitting SIP revisions that meet the requirements of this section. (c) For a state that chooses to opt in, SIP provisions can not take effect until one year after the state has provided notice to of such provisions to motor vehicle manufacturers and fuel suppliers. (d) A state that chooses to opt into the program can not require a sales or production mandate for CFVs or clean alternative fuels. States may not subject fuel or vehicle suppliers to penalties or sanctions for failing to produce or sell CFVs or clean alternative fuels. (e) (1) A state's SIP may include incentives for the sale or use in such state of CFVs required in California by the Clean Fuel Fleet Program, and the use of clean alternative fuels required to be made available in California by the California Pilot Program. (2) Incentives may include: (i) A registration fee on non-CFVs of at least 1 percent of the total cost of the vehicle. These fees shall be used to: (A) Provide financial incentives to purchasers of CFVs and vehicle dealers who sell high volumes or high percentages of CFVs. (B) Defray administrative costs of the incentive program. (ii) Exemptions for CFVs from high occupancy vehicle or trip reduction requirements. (iii) Preferences for CFVs in the use of existing parking places. 18. The tables to subpart B of part 88 are revised to read as follows: Tables to Subpart B of Part 88 Table B-1.--Credit Table for Phase I Vehicle Equivalents for Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks Table B-1.1.--Credit Generation: Selling More Clean-Fuel Vehicles Than Required [Phase I: Effective Through 2000 Model-Year] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LDT 6000 gvwr LDT >6000 gvwr LDT >6000 gvwr LDT >6000 Vehicle emission category eq>6000 gvwr3750 lvw 3750 >3750 alvw 5750 eq>3750 lvw thn-eq>5750 lvw alvw thn-eq>5750 alvw alvw ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TLEV....................... 1.00 1.28 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) LEV........................ 1.40 1.76 1.00 1.28 1.56 ULEV....................... 1.68 2.16 1.40 1.76 2.18 ZEV........................ 2.00 2.56 2.00 2.56 3.12 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table B-1.2.--Credit Generation: Selling More Stringent Clean Fuel Vehicles ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LDV & LDT 6000 eq>6000 gvwr LDT >6000 gvwr LDT >6000 gvwr LDT 3750 lvw 3750 >3750 alvw 6000 gvwr eq>3750 lvw thn-eq>5750 lvw alvw thn-eq>5750 >5750 alvw alvw ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TLEV....................... 0.00 0.00 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) LEV........................ .40 .48 0.00 0.00 0.00 ULEV....................... .68 .88 .40 .48 .62 ZEV........................ 1.00 1.28 1.00 1.28 1.56 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table B-1.3.--Credit Needed in Lieu of Selling Clean-Fuel Vehicle ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LDV & LDT 6000 eq>6000 gvwr >3750 LDT >6000 gvwr LDT >6000 gvwr LDT >6000 Vehicle emission category gvwr 5750 3750 >3750 alvw 5750 eq>3750 lvw lvw alvw thn-eq>5750 alvw alvw ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TLEV........................ 1.00 1.28 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) LEV......................... ............... .................. 1.00 1.28 1.56 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ There is no TLEV category for this vehicle class. Table B-2.--Credit Table for Phase II: Vehicle Equivalents for Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks Table B-2.1.--Credit Generation: Selling More Clean-Fuel Vehicles Than Required [Phase II: effective 2001 and subsequent model-years] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LDV & LDT 6000 eq>6000 gvwr LDT >6000 gvwr LDT >6000 gvwr LDT >6000 Vehicle emission category gvwr 3750 lvw 3750 >3750 alvw 5750 eq>3750 lvw thn-eq>5750 lvw alvw thn-eq>5750 alvw alvw ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEV............................ 1.00 1.26 0.71 0.91 1.11 ULEV........................... 1.20 1.54 1.00 1.26 1.56 ZEV............................ 1.43 1.83 1.43 1.83 2.23 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table B-2.2.--Credit Generation: Selling More Stringent Clean-Fuel Vehicles ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LDV & LDT 6000 eq>6000 gvwr LDT >6000 gvwr LDT >6000 gvwr LDT >6000 Vehicle emission category gvwr 3750 lvw 3750 >3750 alvw 5750 eq>3750 lvw thn-eq>5750 lvw alvw thn-eq>5750 alvw alvw ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEV............................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ULEV........................... .20 .28 .29 .34 .45 ZEV............................ .43 .57 .71 .91 1.11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table B-2.3.--Credit Needed in Lieu of Selling Clean-Fuel Vehicles ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LDV & LDT 6000 eq>6000 gvwr LDT >6000 gvwr LDT >6000 gvwr LDT >6000 Vehicle emissioncategory gvwr 3750 lvw 3750 >3750 alvw 5750 eq>3750 lvw thn-eq>5750 lvw alvw thn-eq>5750 alvw alvw ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEV............................ 1.00 1.26 0.71 0.91 1.11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19. Section 88.302-94 of subpart C is amended by adding two new definitions in alphabetical order and revising a third definition to read as follows: Sec. 88.302-94 Definitions. * * * * * Clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket conversion certifier means the business or entity that obtains a certificate of conformity with the clean-fuel vehicle standards and requirements for a vehicle/engine conversion configuration pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR part 86 and this part 88. * * * * * Conversion configuration means any combination of vehicle/engine conversion hardware and a base vehicle of a specific engine family. * * * * * Owned or operated, leased or otherwise controlled by such person means either of the following: (1) Such person holds the beneficial title to such vehicle; or (2) Such person uses the vehicle for transportation purposes pursuant to a contract or similar arrangement, the term of such contract or similar arrangement is for a period of 120 days or more, and such person has control over the vehicle pursuant to the definition of control of this section. * * * * * 20. A new Sec. 88.305-94 is added to subpart C to read as follows: Sec. 88.305-94 Clean-fuel fleet vehicle labeling requirements for heavy-duty vehicles. (a) All clean-fuel heavy-duty engines and vehicles used as LEVs, ULEVs, and ZEVs that are also regulated under 40 CFR part 86 shall comply with the labeling requirements of 40 CFR 86.095-35 (or later applicable sections), and shall also include an unconditional statement on the label indicating that the engine or vehicle is a LEV, ULEV, or ZEV, and meets all of the applicable requirements of this part 88. (b) All heavy-duty clean-fuel fleet vehicles not regulated under 40 CFR part 86 shall have a permanent legible label affixed to the engine or vehicle in a readily visible location, which contains the following information: (1) The label heading: vehicle emissions classification information (e.g., ``This is a Low Emission Vehicle''); (2) Full corporate name and trademark of the manufacturer; (3) A statement that this engine or vehicle meets all applicable requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency clean-fuel fleet vehicle program, as described in this part 88, but not necessarily those requirements found in 40 CFR part 86. 21. A new Sec. 88.306-94 is added to subpart C to read as follows: Sec. 88.306-94 Requirements for a converted vehicle to qualify as a clean-fuel fleet vehicle. (a) For purposes of meeting the requirements of section 246 of the Clean Air Act or the SIP revisions, conversions of engines or vehicles which satisfy the requirements of this section shall be treated as a purchase of a clean-fuel vehicle under subpart C of this part. (b) The engine or vehicle must be converted using a conversion configuration which has been certified according to the provisions of 40 CFR part 86 using applicable emission standards and other provisions from part 88 for clean-fuel engines and vehicles. The following requirements will also apply: (1) If the installation of the certified conversion configuration is performed by an entity other than aftermarket conversion certifier, the aftermarket conversion certifier shall submit a list of such installers to the Administrator. Additional installers must be added to this list and the revised list submitted to the Administrator within 5 working days from the time they are authorized to perform conversion installations by the clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket conversion certifier. (2) If the installation of the certified conversion configuration is performed by an entity other than the certificate holder, the certificate holder shall provide instructions for installation of the aftermarket conversion system to installers listed on the certificate, and ensure that the systems are properly installed. (3) For the purpose of determining whether certification under the Small-Volume Manufacturers Certification Program pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 86.094-14 is permitted, the 10,000 sales volume limit in 40 CFR 86.094-14(b)(1) shall apply to the aggregate total of all vehicles sold by a given clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket conversion certifier at all of its installation facilities without regard to the model year of the original vehicles upon which the conversion configurations are based. All vehicle sales will be included in calculating the clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket conversion certifier's aggregate total, including vehicle conversions performed under the requirements of this part 88, and all other vehicle conversions. Vehicle conversions not covered by this part 88 will be counted if they occur within the model year for which certification is sought. (4) Clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket conversion certifiers that are subject to the post-installation emissions testing requirements in paragraph (c) of this section and who will satisfy these requirements by using the two speed idle test procedure detailed in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section must conduct the following testing at the time of certification in order to generate the required certification CO emissions reference values. The certification CO emissions reference values generated must be submitted to the Administrator at the time of application for certification. (i) For dual and flexible fuel vehicles, certification reference values must be generated for each certification test fuel required for exhaust emissions testing pursuant to 40 CFR 86.113 or 40 CFR 86.1313. (ii) For light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks the test fuels used during the emissions testing required by paragraph (b)(3) of this section must comply with the fuel specifications for exhaust emissions testing found in 40 CFR 86.113. For heavy-duty engines the test fuels used during the emissions testing required by paragraph (b)(3) of this section must comply with the fuel specifications for exhaust emissions testing found in 40 CFR 86.1313. (iii) Single, consecutive idle mode and high-speed mode segments of the two speed idle test must be conducted pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 85.2215 and as modified by the provisions of paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(D) of this section and this paragraph to determine the required certification CO emission reference values. (A) The certification CO emission reference value for the idle mode of the test will be the simple average of all emissions measurements taken during an idle mode of 90 seconds duration pursuant to the requirements in 40 CFR 85.2215(a). (B) The certification CO emission reference value for the high- speed mode of the test will be the simple average of all emissions measurements taken during a high-speed mode of 180 seconds duration pursuant to the requirements in 40 CFR 85.2215(a). (c) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, each converted vehicle manufactured by a clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket conversion certifier with aggregate sales of less than 10,000 converted vehicles within a given calendar year must satisfy the post- installation emissions testing requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section. If a vehicle fails to satisfy the emissions testing requirements such vehicle may not be considered a clean- fuel vehicle until such noncompliance is rectified and compliance is demonstrated. (1) A clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket conversion certifier with estimated sales of 300 or fewer engines and vehicles in a calendar year and which sells or converts vehicles outside of a non-attainment area (as classified under subpart D of Title I) which has an inspection and maintenance program that includes a test of carbon monoxide emissions may submit a request to the Administrator for an exemption from the post-installation emission test requirements of paragraph (c) of this section. If granted, such an exemption would apply to converted vehicles that have the conversion installation performed outside of a nonattainment area which has an inspection and maintenance program that includes a test of carbon monoxide emissions. (i) The request for exemption submitted to the Administrator must include the following: (A) The estimated number of engines and vehicles that will be converted in the calendar year. (B) Sufficient information to demonstrate that complying with the post-installation emission test requirement represents a severe financial hardship. (C) A description of any emission related quality control procedures used. (ii) Within 120 days of receipt of the application for exemption, the Administrator will notify the applicant either that an exemption is granted or that sufficient cause for an exemption has not been demonstrated and that all of the clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket conversion certifier's vehicles are subject to the post-installation test requirement of paragraph (c)(2) of this section. (iii) If the clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket conversion certifier granted an exemption originally estimates that 300 or fewer conversions would be performed in the calendar year, and then later revises the estimate to more than 300 for the year, the certifier shall inform the Administrator of such revision. A post-installation emissions test for each conversion performed after the estimate is revised is required pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section. The estimated number of conversions from such a clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket conversion certifier must be greater than 300 in the following calendar year. (2) A clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket conversion certifier with aggregate sales less than 10,000 converted vehicles within a given calendar year shall conduct post-installation emissions testing using either of the following test methods: (i) The carbon monoxide (CO) emissions of the converted vehicle must be determined in the manner in which CO emissions are determined according to the inspection and maintenance requirements applicable in the area in which the vehicle is converted or is expected to be operated. (A) For dual-fuel vehicles, a separate test is required for each fuel on which the vehicle is capable of operating. For flexible fuel vehicles, a single test is required on a fuel that falls within the range of fuel mixtures for which the vehicle was designed. The test fuel(s) used must be commercially available. (B) A converted vehicle shall be considered to meet the requirements of this paragraph if the vehicle's measured exhaust CO concentration(s) is lower than the cutpoint(s) used to determine CO pass/fail under the inspection and maintenance program in the area in which the conversion is expected to be operated. (1) If CO pass/fail criteria are not available for a vehicle fuel type then pass/fail criteria specific to gasoline use are to be used for vehicles of that fuel type. (2) [Reserved]. (ii) The carbon monoxide (CO) emissions of the converted vehicle must be determined in the manner specified in the two speed idle test- EPA 91 found in 40 CFR 85.2215. All provisions in the two speed idle test must be observed except as detailed in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(D) of this section. (A) For dual and flexible fuel vehicles, a separate test is required for each certification test fuel required for exhaust emissions testing pursuant to 40 CFR 86.113 or 40 CFR 86.1313. (B) For light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks the test fuels used during the emissions testing required by paragraph (c)(4) of this section must comply with the fuel specifications for exhaust emissions testing found in 40 CFR 86.113. For heavy-duty engines the test fuels used during the emissions testing required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section must comply with the fuel specifications for exhaust emissions testing found in 40 CFR 86.1313. (C) A converted vehicle shall be considered to meet the requirements of this paragraph if the following criteria are satisfied: (1) The vehicle's measured idle mode exhaust CO concentration(s) must be lower than the sum of 0.4 percent CO plus the idle mode certification CO emissions reference value as determined according to the requirements of paragraph (b)(3) of this section. (2) The vehicle's measured high-speed mode exhaust CO concentration(s) must be lower than the sum of 0.4 percent CO plus the high-speed certification CO emissions reference value as determined according to the requirements of paragraph (b)(3) of this section. (D) For the purposes of the post-installation emissions testing required by paragraph (c) of this section, the following adjustments to the two speed idle test-EPA 91 in 40 CFR 85.2215 are necessary. (1) Testing of hydrocarbon emissions and equipment associated solely with hydrocarbon emissions testing is not required. (2) The CO emissions pass/fail criteria in 40 CFR 85.2215(a)(2), (c)(1)(ii)(A), (c)(2)(ii)(A)(1), (c)(2)(iii)(A)(1), and (d)(3)(i) are to be replaced with the pass/fail criteria detailed in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(C) of this section. All HC pass/fail criteria in 40 CFR 85.2215 do not apply. (3) The void test criteria in 40 CFR 85.2215(a)(3) and (b)(2)(iv) associated with maintaining the measured concentration of CO plus CO2 above six percent does not apply. However, the Administrator may reconsider requiring that the void test criteria in 40 CFR 85.2215(a)(3) and (b)(2)(iv) be applied, and may issue an advisory memorandum to this effect in the future. (4) The ambient temperature levels encountered by the vehicle during testing must comply with the specifications in 40 CFR 86.130 or 40 CFR 86.1330. (d) The clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket conversion certifier shall be considered a manufacturer for purposes of Clean Air Act sections 206 and 207 and related enforcement provisions, and must accept liability for in-use performance of all the vehicles produced under the certificate of conformity as outlined in 40 CFR part 85. (1) The useful life period for the purposes of determining the in- use liability of the clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket conversion certifier shall be the original useful life of the vehicle prior to conversion. (2) [Reserved]. (e) Tampering. (1) The conversion from an engine or vehicle capable of operating on gasoline or diesel fuel only to a clean-fuel engine or vehicle shall not be considered a violation of the tampering provisions of Clean Air Act section 203(a)(3), if such conversion is done pursuant to a conversion configuration certificate by the aftermarket conversion certifier or by an installer listed on the certificate. (2) In order to comply with the provisions of this subpart, an aftermarket conversion installer must: (i) Install a certified aftermarket conversion system for which the installer is listed by the certifier; and (ii) Perform such installation according to instructions provided by the aftermarket conversion certifier. (f) Data collection. The clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket conversion certifier is responsible for maintaining records of each engine and vehicle converted for use in the Clean Fuel Fleets program for a period of 5 years. The records are to include the engine or vehicle make, engine or vehicle model, engine or vehicle model year, and engine or vehicle identification number of converted engines and vehicles; the certification number of the conversion configuration; the brand names and part numbers of the parts included in the conversion configuration; the date of the conversion and the facility at which the conversion was performed; and the results of post-installation emissions testing if required pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. 22. A new Sec. 88.308-94 is added to subpart C to read as follows: Sec. 88.308-94 Programmatic requirements for clean-fuel fleet vehicles. Multi-State nonattainment areas. The states comprising a multi- State nonattainment area shall, to the greatest extent possible, promulgate consistent clean-fuel fleet vehicle programs. 23. Section 88.311-93 of subpart C is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: Sec. 88.311-93 Emissions standards for Inherently Low-Emission Vehicles. * * * * * (c) Light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. ILEVs in LDV and LDT classes shall have exhaust emissions which do not exceed the LEV exhaust emission standards for NMOG, CO, HCHO, and PM and the ULEV exhaust emission standards for NOX listed in Tables A104-1 through A104-6 for light-duty CFVs. Exhaust emissions shall be measured in accordance with the test procedures specified in Sec. 88.104(l). An ILEV must be able to operate on only one fuel, or must be certified as an ILEV on all fuels it can operate on. These vehicles shall also comply with all requirements of 40 CFR part 86 which are applicable to conventional gasoline-fueled, methanol-fueled, diesel-fueled, natural gas-fueled or liquified petroleum gas-fueled LDVs/LDTs of the same vehicle class and model year. (d) Heavy-duty vehicles. ILEVs in the HDV class shall have exhaust emissions with combined non-methane hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen exhaust emissions which do not exceed the exhaust emission standards in grams per brake horsepower-hour listed in Sec. 88.105. Exhaust emissions shall be measured in accordance with the test procedures specified in Sec. 88.105(d). An ILEV must be able to operate on only one fuel, or must be certified as an ILEV on all fuels it can operate on. These vehicles shall also comply with all requirements of 40 CFR part 86 which are applicable in the case of conventional gasoline- fueled, methanol-fueled, diesel-fueled, natural gas-fueled or liquified petroleum gas-fueled HDVs, of the same weight class and model year. * * * * * 24. The tables to subpart C of part 88 are amended by removing tables C93-6, C93-6.1, and C93-6.2, and by revising tables C94-1, C94- 1.1, C94-1.2, C94-1.3, C94-2, C94-2.1, C94-2.2, C94-2.3, C94-3, C94- 3.1, C94-3.2, and C94-3.3 to read as follows: Tables to Subpart C of Part 88 Table C94-1.--Fleet Credit Table Based on Reduction in NMOG. Vehicle Equivalents for Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks Table C94-1.1.--Credit Generation: Purchasing More Clean-Fuel Vehicles Than Required by the Mandate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LDV, LDT 6000 LDT6000 LDT >6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 NMOG GVWR, 3750 LVW 3750 >3750 ALVW 3750 LVW 5750 ALVW thn-eq>5750 >K5750 ALVW LVW ALVW ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEV......................... 1.00 1.26 0.71 0.91 1.11 ULEV........................ 1.20 1.54 1.00 1.29 1.47 ZEV......................... 1.43 1.83 1.43 1.83 2.23 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table C94-1.2.--Credit Generation: Purchasing a ULEV or ZEV To Meet the Mandate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LDV, LDT 6000 eq>6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 NMOG GVWR, 3750 LVW 3750 >3750 ALVW, 5750 eq>3750 LVW thn-eq>5750 LVW ALVW thn-eq>5750 ALVW ALVW ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEV........................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ULEV.......................... 0.20 0.29 0.29 0.34 0.45 ZEV........................... 0.43 0.57 0.71 0.91 1.11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table C94-1.3.--Credit Needed in Lieu of Purchasing a LEV To Meet the Mandate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LDV, LDT 6000 eq>6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 GVWR, NMOG GVWR, 3750 LVW 3750 >3750 ALVW 5750 eq>3750 LVW thn-eq>5750 LVW ALVW thn-eq>5750 ALVW ALVW ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEV........................ 1.00 1.26 0.71 0.91 1.11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table C94-2.--Fleet Credit Table Based on Reduction in NMOG+NOx. Vehicle Equivalents for Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks Table C94-2.1.--Credit Generation: Purchasing More Clean-Fuel Vehicles Than Required by the Mandate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LDV, LDT 6000 eq>6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 NMOG+NOX GVWR, 3750 LVW 3750 >3750 ALVW 5750 eq>3750 LVW thn-eq>5750 LVW ALVW thn-eq>5750 ALVW ALVW ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEV............................ 1.00 1.39 0.33 0.43 0.52 ULEV........................... 1.09 1.52 1.00 1.39 2.06 ZEV............................ 1.73 2.72 1.73 2.72 3.97 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table C94-2.2.--Credit Generation: Purchasing a ULEV or ZEV To Meet the Mandate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LDV, LDT 6000 eq>6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 NMOG+NOX GVWR, 3750 LVW 3750 >3750 ALVW 5750 eq>3750 LVW thn-eq>5750 LVW ALVW thn-eq>5750 ALVW ALVW ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEV............................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ULEV........................... 0.09 0.13 0.67 0.96 1.54 ZEV............................ 0.73 1.34 1.40 2.29 3.45 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table C94-2.3.--Credit Needed in Lieu of Purchasing a LEV To Meet the Mandate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LDV, LDT 6000 eq>6000 GVWR, eq>6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 NMOG+NOX GVWR, 3750 LVW 3750 >3750 ALVW 5750 eq>3750 LVW thn-eq>5750 LVW ALVW thn-eq>5750 ALVW ALVW ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEV............................ 1.00 1.39 0.33 0.43 0.52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table C94-3.--Fleet Credit Table Based on Reduction in Carbon Monoxide. Vehicle Equivalents for Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks Table C94-3.1.--Credit Generation: Purchasing More Clean-Fuel Vehicles Than Required by the Mandate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LDV, LDT 6000 eq>6000 GVWR, eq>6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 CO GVWR, 3750 LVW 3750 >3750 ALVW 5750 eq>3750 LVW thn-eq>5750 LVW ALVW thn-eq>5750 ALVW ALVW ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEV............................ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ULEV........................... 2.00 2.29 2.00 2.29 2.47 ZEV............................ 3.00 3.59 3.00 3.59 3.94 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table C94-3.2.--Credit Generation: Purchasing a ULEV or ZEV To Meet the Mandate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LDV, LDT 6000 eq>6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 CO GVWR, 3750 LVW 3750 >3750 ALVW 5750 eq>3750 LVW thn-eq>5750 LVW ALVW thn-eq>5750 ALVW ALVW ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEV............................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ULEV........................... 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ZEV............................ 2.00 2.29 2.00 2.29 2.47 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table C94-3.3.--Credit Needed in Lieu of Purchasing a LEV To Meet The Mandate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LDV, LDT 6000 eq>6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 GVWR, LDT >6000 CO GVWR, 3750 LVW 3750 >3750 ALVW 5750 eq>3750 LVW thn-eq>5750 LVW ALVW thn-eq>5750 ALVW ALVW ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEV............................ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * [FR Doc. 94-22132 Filed 9-29-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P