[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 122-128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-103]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 86 and 88
[AMS-FRL-5347-3]
RIN 2060-AF87
Requirements for Determining Assigned Deterioration Factors for
Alternative Fuel Vehicles, Amendments to Labelling Requirements for
Inherently Low-Emission Vehicles, and Related Provisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule (DFRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rulemaking promulgates actions to clarify and streamline
existing regulations for certifiers and purchasers of clean-fuel and/or
alternative fuel vehicles. This rule reduces the regulatory burden for
industry, and it is highly accommodating to their concerns. To
temporarily reduce the certification burden of the emerging industry of
aftermarket conversions of alternative fuel vehicles, EPA will take
action in this rule that will provide flexibility in the regulations
for the determination of assigned deterioration factors for alternative
fuel vehicles.
To encourage the production of Inherently Low-Emission Vehicles
(ILEVs), this rule also promulgates an amendment to allow additional
options for external ILEV label dimensions. Also in this rule, EPA will
amend two California Pilot Program (CPP) requirements: the method for
determining a manufacturer's clean-fuel vehicle (CFV) sales quota and
the method for administering CPP credits. This amendment to the method
of administering credits will reduce a manufacturer's reporting
requirements by a factor of four. Finally, this rule includes several
additional technical amendments to the regulations issued under Clean
Fuel Fleet Program and California Pilot Program final rules.
DATES: This rule is effective March 4, 1996 unless notice is received
by February 2, 1996 that adverse or critical comments will be submitted
on a specific element of this rule. EPA will publish a timely document
in the Federal Register withdrawing that portion of the rule for which
adverse comments were received.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments in response
to this rule (in duplicate if possible) to Public Docket Nos. A-92-30
and A-92-14 for alternative fuel vehicle provisions, Public Docket No.
A-92-30 for ILEV and Clean Fuel Fleet Program provisions, and Public
Docket No. A-92-69 for California Pilot Program provisions, at: Air
Docket Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Attention: Docket
Nos. A-92-30, A-92-14, or A-92-69, First Floor, Waterside Mall, Room M-
1500, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. A copy of the comments
should also be sent to Mr. Bryan Manning (SRPB-12), U.S. EPA,
Regulation Development and Support Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann
Arbor, MI 48105.
Materials relevant to this rule have been placed in Docket Nos. A-
92-30 and A-92-14 or A-92-69 by EPA. The docket is located at the above
address and may be inspected from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on weekdays. EPA
may charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials.
A copy of this action is available through the Technology Transfer
Network Bulletin Board System (TTNBBS) under OMS, Rulemaking and
Reporting, Alternative Fuels, Clean Fuel Fleets. 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.
[[Page 123]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bryan Manning (SRPB-12), U.S. EPA,
Regulation Development and Support Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann
Arbor, MI 48105, Telephone: (313) 741-7832; FAX: 313-741-7816.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because EPA considers this action to be
noncontroversial, we are finalizing it without prior proposal. The
action will become effective March 4, 1996 unless adverse comments are
received by February 2, 1996. If EPA receives adverse comments, only
the affected portions of the direct final rule will be withdrawn and
all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final
rule based on the proposed rule (please see proposed rule entitled,
``Sales Volume Limit Provisions for Small-Volume Manufacturers
Certification of Clean-Fuel and Conventional Vehicle Conversions and
Related Provisions,'' published simultaneously in the ``Proposed
Rules'' section of this Federal Register).
I. Description of Action
The alternative fuel vehicle industry is likely to expand
considerably over the next several years in response to Clean Air Act
(CAA), the Energy Policy Act, and other alternative fuel fleet and
vehicle programs at the state and local levels. Nevertheless, EPA
believes alternative fuel vehicles will still have limited sales in
comparison to conventional vehicles. Thus, due to this potential
inequity in sales, EPA believes it may be difficult for aftermarket
converters of alternative fuel vehicles to recover their certification
cost over the next several years. Since EPA encourages the production
of certified alternative fuel vehicles for air quality purposes, EPA
believes it will be wise to temporarily reduce the certification burden
for aftermarket converters of alternate fuel vehicles as described
below.
A. Flexibility in Certification Procedure for Determining Deterioration
Factors
As is shown in 40 CFR 86.094-14, the Small-Volume Manufacturers
(SVM) Certification Program exempts entities seeking a Certificate of
Conformity with total annual vehicle/engine sales less than 10,000 from
EPA's full certification program. Specifically, the SVM provisions
relieve such entities from some elements otherwise required to
demonstrate the durability of emissions over the life of the vehicle.
Instead of accumulating mileage on actual prototype vehicles, the SVM
program in some cases permits the use of EPA-assigned values for
emission deterioration. This can be of significant economic benefit to
entities manufacturing or converting relatively few vehicles. The
standard protocol EPA uses to assign deterioration factors is described
in EPA Advisory Circular No. 51-C.
Currently, small volume manufacturers with aggregated sales of less
than 301 vehicles per year or without durability data may use assigned
deterioration factors of the 70th percentile deterioration factors from
industry-wide data based on previously completed durability data
vehicles. In addition, manufacturers with aggregated sales from 301 to
9,999 may calculate and use assigned deterioration factors, but these
assigned deterioration factors must be no less than either the 70th
percentile or the average of all the manufacturer's deterioration
factor data (whichever is less). (See 40 CFR 86.094-14(c)(7)(i)(C)).
However, since alternative fuel vehicles are an emerging industry,
manufacturers of these vehicles and EPA currently have an extremely
limited database from which to calculate assigned deterioration
factors. According to current EPA regulations, many small-volume
manufacturers of alternative fuel vehicles would be required to
determine deterioration factors by conducting full useful-life tests
since there is an insufficient database of previously-certified
vehicles on which to base deterioration factors.
To enable certifiers of alternative fuel vehicles to avoid the
burden of full certification testing for the economic reasons discussed
above and to support the development of alternative fuel vehicle
technology, EPA believes it is wise to provide flexibility in the
regulations for the determination of assigned deterioration factors for
alternative fuel vehicles. Thus, EPA will permit manufacturers to use
assigned deterioration factors that the Administrator determines by
alternative methods if no deterioration factor data (either the
manufacturer's or industry-wide deterioration factor data) are
available, as detailed in section 86.094-14(a)(2) of the regulations
associated with today's rule. Following promulgation of this provision,
EPA expects to issue guidance describing the specific alternative
methods used in determining assigned deterioration factors for gaseous-
fueled vehicles through model year 2000.1
\1\ The assigned deterioration factors for gaseous-fueled
vehicles and the specific methods used to determine these factors
are expected to be specified in a ``Dear Manufacturer'' letter
(advisory letter) that would be available in docket A-92-14 and A-
92-30 and on TTNBBS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Amendments to the Required Dimensions of Inherently Low-Emission
Vehicle (ILEV) Exterior Labels
In the regulations for the Clean Fuel Fleet (CFF) Credit Program
final rule, EPA specified size and shape requirements for ILEV exterior
identification labels. The manufacturer or dealer of an ILEV is
required to attach one label on the rear of the vehicle and one on each
of two sides of the vehicle if requested by a qualifying fleet
purchaser. In February 1995, Ford commented 2 that the required
dimensions for the rear ILEV labels are inappropriate for certain
vehicle models since their vehicle body design makes the placement of
such labels on these vehicles difficult or impossible. Ford also stated
that safety requirements for lighting and bumpers affect the vehicle
body design; in addition, for natural gas vehicles, a separate label is
required on the lower right rear of the vehicle by the National Fire
Protection Association Safety Standard 52. In April 1995 Ford suggested
a much smaller alternative ILEV label design for such vehicle models,
which American Automobile Manufacturer's Association (AAMA) agreed to
in May 1995.3 Ford also suggested that the problem of reduced
space on the rear of passenger cars also exists for the side of
vehicles since fleet advertisements often take up much of the space
available on the side of the vehicle.
\2\ Ford Motor Company, Comments on Reconsideration of ILEV
Labelling Requirements, letter from Kelly M. Brown to Margo T. Oge
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 2, 1995.
\3\ Ford Motor Company, ``ILEV Labels'', Facsimile from Sarah
Rudy to Bryan Manning of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
April 21, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As indicated in the preamble for the Clean Fuel Fleet Credit
Program final rule, EPA intends for ILEVs to be specially and clearly
identified since properly labeled ILEVs may be exempt from
transportation control measure (TCM) requirements, including high-
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane restrictions. EPA expected ILEVs to look
much like conventional vehicles, and thus, the Agency intended for
ILEVs to have special labels to clearly indicate to law enforcement
officers, as well as the general public, that these vehicles are not
violating TCM ordinances.
EPA believes that the distinctive design and shape of AAMA's
suggested ILEV label would be consistent with EPA's intent to have
ILEVs clearly identified by law enforcement officials, as well as the
general public. At the time the CFF Credits/ILEV rule was finalized,
EPA was unaware of any vehicle models that would have a conflict with
the ILEV
[[Page 124]]
labeling requirements. Since EPA encourages the production of ILEVs for
air quality purposes, EPA will amend the ILEV label regulations in a
manner similar to that suggested by AAMA in order to provide additional
flexibility for ILEV manufacturers, thus reducing some of the
certification burden. To meet industry's vehicle body space concerns
while maintaining a label that is clearly identifiable, EPA will
provide new optional ILEV labels of smaller dimensions. Specifically,
for the sides and rear of an ILEV, EPA will provide an optional ILEV
label of smaller dimensions than the existing primary ILEV label and in
the distinctive shape of a truncated circle, as specified in
88.312(a)(1) of the regulations in today's rule.
For the rear of an ILEV, existing regulations provide an option to
choose a smaller rectangular label, if the larger primary (side)
rectangular label cannot be attached to the rear of an ILEV. Today's
rule will provide two optional rear labels which could be chosen if
neither of the primary labels described above and in section
88.312(a)(1) of the regulations cannot be attached to the rear of an
ILEV. One of these rear label options is the existing smaller
rectangular label (see section 88.312(c)(2)(ii)(A) of the regulations
in today's rule), and the other option is a smaller version of the
truncated circular label described above, as detailed in section
88.312(c)(2)(ii)(B) of the regulations associated with today's rule.
C. Method for Determining Each Manufacturer's CFV Sales Requirement
Under the Federal California Pilot Program
The California Pilot Program requires that California sales figures
from two model years earlier be used to calculate required CFV sales
shares (see California Pilot Test Program (CPP) final rule, 59 FR
50066, September 30, 1994). In the proposal for the rulemaking (58 FR
34727, June 29, 1993), 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. No
comments were received from manufacturers. EPA decided to use model
year (MY) sales data from two years prior rather than from the previous
model year to provide manufacturers with more time to plan their CFV
production.
However, after the CPP rule was finalized, the AAMA notified EPA of
their view that basing the calculation on data from two years prior is
not practical.4 According to AAMA, this is because the production
volumes would not be established early enough to allow auto
manufacturers sufficient planning time to comply with the CFV sales
requirements in the California Pilot Program. AAMA suggested that at
least a three-year lead time is needed for the completion of the annual
production reports, EPA calculation of the manufacturer total sales,
and subsequent certification strategy or sales planning by the
manufacturers. More specifically, AAMA suggested that a manufacturer's
share of CFV sales be the average of two consecutive years based on
data from model years three and four years earlier than the model year
in question. AAMA believes a two-year average would help level out any
fluctuations in the market.
\4\ American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA),
Recommendation on Determination of Manufacturer Quotas for the
California Pilot Test Program, Letter from Marcel L. Halberstadt to
Tad Wysor of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 17,
1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has considered these comments and agrees that using data from
the model year two years prior to the year in question does not provide
manufacturers enough time to adequately plan their production, since
production for the model year in question could be well underway before
sales data is available for production planning. (Production under a
certificate may begin on January 2 of the calendar year prior to the
model year of the certificate and may continue through December 31 of
the certification model year.)
Thus, EPA will require that the average California sales figures
from three and four model years earlier than the current model year be
used by each manufacturer to calculate their required CFV sales share.
For example, for the 1997 model year, the average of sales figures from
1993 and 1994 model years would be used to calculate the CFV sales
share. This change will have no impact on the overall number of CFVs
sold in California; the allocation of those vehicles among
manufacturers may change slightly. This change will also reduce the
regulatory burden for manufacturers, and EPA believes it is highly
accommodating to manufacturers considering that manufacturers did not
comment on the method proposed.
D. Reporting Requirements for the Credit Program of the California
Pilot Test Program
In the information collection request 5 for the Credit Program
for California Pilot Test Program Final Rule (57 FR 60038, December 17,
1992), EPA had requested quarterly reporting of credit use and balance
statements to administer the credit program. However, EPA has
reevaluated this request and does not believe quarterly reporting is a
necessary requirement for administering the CPP credit program. The
Agency does not expect the volume or frequency of credit transactions
to be substantial enough so as to require such frequent monitoring. EPA
now believes that annual reports from the manufacturers of credit use
and balances will be sufficient for EPA to adequately administer and
enforce the CPP credit program and verify the proper use of traded CPP
credits. Thus, EPA will require annual reporting of credit use and
balances for the CPP credit program. (See section 88.205-94 (d)(1) and
(d)(3)(iii) of the regulations associated with today's rule for further
detail.) This change will reduce the manufacturer reporting burden by a
factor of four, and thus, EPA believes it is highly accommodating to
manufacturers.
\5\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile
Sources, Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request--
California Pilot Test Program: Vehicle Credit Program, May 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Technical Amendments to CFV Emission Standards Rulemaking and CFF
and CPP Credit Program Rulemakings
1. Redesignation of Paragraph Specifying Methane Analyzer Method Within
Description of Exhaust Analytical System
In the regulations for the Clean-Fuel Vehicle Emission Standards
final rulemaking (59 FR 50042, September 30, 1994), the specifications
for the measurement of methane from heavy-duty exhaust samples,
paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of section 86.1311-94 (``Exhaust gas analytical
system; CVS bag sample''), were incorrectly designated as a sub-
paragraph of paragraph (b)(2), which contains the specifications for
the measurement of carbon monoxide from heavy-duty exhaust samples.
Thus, in today's action, EPA will redesignate paragraph (b)(2)(iii) as
paragraph (b)(3) in section 86.1311-94.
2. Clarification of Applicable Test Procedures for CFV Exhaust
Standards for Light-duty Vehicles and Light-duty Trucks
In paragraph (k) of section 88.104-94 of the regulations for the
Clean-Fuel Vehicle Standards final rulemaking, EPA specifies that CFV
tailpipe emission standards for light-duty vehicles and light-duty
trucks shall
[[Page 125]]
comply with the following requirement: ``* * * standards in this
paragraph shall be administered and enforced in accordance with the
California Regulatory Requirements * * *.'' However, in paragraph (l)
of section 88.104-94 EPA incorrectly specified that CFV standards for
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks shall be ``* * * tested in
accordance with test procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 86 * * *.''
(In this same paragraph, EPA correctly specified that NMOG emissions
are to be measured in accordance with the California Regulatory
Requirements which were incorporated by reference in paragraph (k) of
the same section.) Thus, EPA wishes to clarify that all CFV standards
set forth in section 88.104-94 for light-duty vehicles and light-duty
trucks shall be administered and enforced in accordance with California
requirements by deleting paragraph (l) of section 88.104-94.
3. Corrections to Specifications for Emission Standards for Inherently
Low-Emission Vehicle (ILEV)
In the regulations for the Clean-Fuel Vehicle final rulemaking, EPA
specified in paragraph (c) of section 88.311-93 that exhaust emissions
for ILEVs in light-duty vehicle and light-duty truck classes ``* * *
shall be measured in accordance with the test procedures specified in
Sec. 88.104(l).'' As mentioned above in section I.E.2., EPA is deleting
paragraph (l) in section 88.104-94. Thus, EPA today wishes to clarify
that exhaust emissions for ILEVs in light-duty vehicle and light-duty
truck classes shall be measured in accordance with test procedures
specified in section 88.104-94(k) (California Regulatory Requirements).
Thus, section 88.311-93(c) will be amended accordingly.
For heavy-duty ILEVs, EPA incorrectly specified in section 88.311-
93(d) that exhaust emissions ``* * * shall be measured in accordance
with the test procedures specified in Sec. 88.105(d).'' However,
paragraph (d) specifies only the exhaust standards but not the exhaust
test procedures for heavy-duty ILEVs. The exhaust emission test
procedures for ILEVs are specified in Sec. 88.105(e). Thus, EPA today
revises this section to require that the exhaust emissions for heavy-
duty ILEVs be measured in accordance with the test procedures specified
in Sec. 88.105(e).
Further, in paragraph (d) of section 88.311-93, the requirements
that heavy-duty (HD) ILEVs ``* * * have exhaust emissions with combined
non-methane hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen * * * which do not
exceed the exhaust emission standards * * * in Sec. 88.105'' may be
misleading. Not only are HD ILEVs required to meet exhaust emission
standards in section 88.105(d) for combined non-methane hydrocarbon and
oxides of nitrogen emissions, but HD ILEVs are also required to meet
exhaust emission standards in section 88.105(d) for carbon monoxide,
particulate matter, and formaldehyde emissions. Thus, EPA wishes to
clarify that HD ILEVs shall have exhaust emissions which do not exceed
any of the exhaust emission standards specified in section 88.105(d).
4. Correction to Clean Fuel Fleet Credit Table Applying When a Fleet
Purchases More Clean-Fuel Vehicles Than Required
Due to an editorial error, in Table C94-1.1 of the regulations for
the Clean Fuel Fleet Credit Program final rule (58 FR 11888, March 1,
1993) and the CFV Emission Standards final rule, the two vehicle-
equivalent credits for ULEVs in the two heavy light-duty truck (HLDT)
classes greater than 3,750 pounds ALVW were incorrectly specified as
1.29 and 1.47 respectively. For Table C94-1.1, EPA today corrects these
values to 1.26 and 1.56, respectively.
Within this same table, EPA incorrectly specified in the last
column heading for HLDTs greater than 5750 ALVW pounds that the ALVW
parameter was ``K5750'' pounds. The ``K'' prefix added to 5750 pounds
is an editorial error and may be misleading. EPA today changes the
column heading to ``LDT >6000 GVWR, >5750 ALVW''.
5. Correction to Early Credits Requirements for Heavy Light-Duty Trucks
in the CPP
In the regulations for the Credit Program for the CPP final rule,
EPA incorrectly excluded heavy LDTs that meet CFV standards from being
eligible for early credits during model years 1996 and 1997. (For the
CPP, a manufacturer's share of required CFV annual sales for model
years 1996 and 1997 is based on LDVs and light LDTs sales only;
however, a manufacturer's share of required CFV annual sales beginning
in 1998 is also based on heavy LDTs sales.) In the final rule, EPA
allowed early credits for LDVs and all LDTs up to the beginning of CPP
sales requirements in 1996. To provide heavy LDT manufacturers with a
similar opportunity to earn early credits, EPA had intended to allow
manufacturers to earn early credits for heavy LDTs up to the beginning
of their sales requirements in 1998. Thus, to rectify this
inconsistency for heavy LDTs in the CPP, EPA wishes to clarify that
heavy LDTs certified to CFV standards shall be eligible for early
credits up to model year 1998. Today's action changes section 88.205(g)
of the regulations accordingly.
II. Environmental and Economic Impacts
The nature of today's provisions for the determination of assigned
deterioration factors for alternative fuel vehicles are such that no
impact on air quality should result. If and when an entity (converter
or original equipment manufacturer) certifies an alternative fuel
vehicle, these actions will not seriously compromise EPA's confidence
that certified emission levels are being met in use. While some loss of
control could theoretically occur if the reduced durability
demonstration were in serious error, the Agency does not believe that
this is likely to be common and in any event the numbers of vehicles
involved is not large in comparison to conventional vehicle production.
In addition, these provisions should significantly reduce the cost of
certifying an alternative fuel engine family, thus encouraging the
development of such vehicles.
For the relaxed ILEV labelling requirements, EPA believes that if
the smaller but distinctive ILEV labels are used on an ILEV, they will
still be able to be clearly identified by law enforcement officials.
EPA expects that these changes will help encourage manufacturers to
develop and produce ILEVs, which will in turn have a positive
environmental impact relative to conventional vehicles.
With these changes to the CPP, EPA will ease the certification
burden for manufacturers with no effect on air quality. This result
will occur because the same number of vehicles will be sold under the
CPP industry-wide; only the relative allocations among manufacturers
might change.
In today's rule, EPA will reduce the regulatory burden on industry
without effecting air quality. EPA believes this rule is highly
accommodating to industry's concerns.
III. Public Participation
EPA believes the provisions of today's action are non-controversial
and will make the affected provisions less burdensome and more
effective. Nonetheless, if public comments are to be submitted, the
Agency requests wherever applicable, full supporting data and detailed
analysis should be submitted to allow EPA to make maximum use of the
comments. Commenters should provide specific suggestions for any
changes to any
[[Page 126]]
aspect of the regulations that they believe need to be modified or
improved. All comments should be directed to EPA Air Docket, Docket No.
A-92-30 and A-92-14 for the certification flexibility provisions and
Docket No. A-92-69 for the CPP provisions (See ADDRESSES). The official
comment period will last for 30 days following publication of this
direct final rule.
Commenters desiring to submit proprietary information for
consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other
comments to the greatest possible extent, and clearly label it
``Confidential Business Information.'' Submissions containing such
proprietary information should be sent directly to the contact person
listed above, and not to the public docket, to ensure that proprietary
information is not inadvertently placed in the docket.
Information covered by such a claim of confidentiality will be
disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the
submission when it is received by EPA, it may be made available to the
public without further notice to the commenter.
IV. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this action is granted by Sections 202,
203, 206, 207, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 249, and 301(a) of
the Clean Air Act.
V. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (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.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, EPA believes that
this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' within the
meaning of the Executive Order. Today's action provides greater
flexibility in the certification process for manufacturers of alternate
fuel vehicles, thus eliminating some of the certification burden. ILEV
labelling requirements have been relaxed, reducing some of the
certification burden. Today's action also reduces the certification
burden for manufactures required to produce CFVs under the CPP, by
providing more flexibility in CFV production planning and credit
reporting.
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.6 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.
\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's action will provide regulatory flexibility to converters of
alternative fuel vehicles in the determination of assigned
deterioration factors. EPA has evaluated the effects of today's
regulations and the Administrator of EPA certifies that there will not
be an adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities; in
fact, most small converters of alternative fuel vehicles will
experience an economic benefit. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis has not been performed for this rule.
VII. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a written statement to accompany any rule where the
estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector will be $100 million or more in any one year. Under
section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule and that
is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that
may be significantly and uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA estimates that the costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, from this rule will be less than
$100 million. EPA has determined that this rule will reduce the
regulatory burden imposed on certifiers of clean-fuel and/or
alternative fuel vehicles (especially converters of such vehicles). EPA
has determined that an unfunded mandates statement therefore is
unnecessary.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Today's rule does not add any mandatory information collection
requirements for certifiers of alternative fuel vehicles or any other
entity, and EPA has not prepared an Information Collection Request
document for this rule.
The information collection requirements of the Credit Program for
California Pilot Test Program have been amended to reflect today's
relaxation of the credit reporting requirements. These amended
requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., and have been assigned OMB control number 2060-0229. A
copy of the Information Collection Request document (ICR No. 1590) may
be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136); 401 M St. S.W.;
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
Send comments regarding this collection of information to the
Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2136); 401 M. St., S.W.; Washington, DC 20460; and
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any
correspondence.
[[Page 127]]
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 86
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 88
Environmental protection, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 27, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 86 and 88 of title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
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
1. 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)).
2. Section 86.094-14 of subpart A is amended by redesignating
paragraph (a) as paragraph (a)(1) and adding paragraph (a)(2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 86.094-14 Small-volume manufacturers certification procedures.
(a)(1) * * *
(2) To satisfy the durability data requirements of the small-volume
manufacturers certification procedures, manufacturers of vehicles (or
engines) as described in paragraph (b) of this section may use assigned
deterioration factors that the Administrator determines by methods
described in paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of this section. However, if no
deterioration factor data (either the manufacturer's or industry-wide
deterioration factor data) are available from previously completed
durability data vehicles or engines used for certification,
manufacturers of vehicles (or engines) as described in paragraph (b) of
this section or with new technology not previously certified may use
assigned deterioration factors that the Administrator determines by
alternative methods, based on good engineering judgement. The factors
that the Administrator determines by alternative methods will be
published in an advisory letter or advisory circular.
* * * * *
Sec. 86.1311-94 [Amended]
3. Section 86.1311-94 of subpart N is amended by redesignating
paragraph (b)(2)(iii) as paragraph (b)(3) preceding figure N94-1.
PART 88--CLEAN-FUEL VEHICLES
4. 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).
5. In Sec. 88.104-94, paragraph (l), which precedes the tables to
the section, is removed.
5a. A center heading is added immediately preceding the tables to
the section to read as follows:
Tables to Sec. 88.104-94
6. Section 88.204-94 of subpart B is amended by revising the
introductory text of paragraph (c)(2) and paragraph (c)(2)(ii) to read
as follows:
Sec. 88.204-94 Sales requirements for the California Pilot Test
Program.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JA96.003
Where:
RMS=a manufacturer's required sales in a given model year.
MS=the average of a manufacturer's total LDV and light LDT sales in
California three and four model years earlier than year in question
(for MY 1996 and 1997 RMS calculations).
=the average of a manufacturer's total LDV and LDT sales in
California three and four model years earlier than year in question
(for MY 1998 and later RMS calculations).
TS=the average of total LDV and light LDT sales in California of all
manufacturers three and four 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.
=the average of total LDV and LDT sales in California of all
manufacturers three and four 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) * * *
(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, the manufacturer will use sales from two model years prior
to the year in question. In the fourth year, the manufacturer will use
sales from three years prior to the year in question. In the fifth year
and subsequent years, the manufacturer will use average sales from
three and four years prior to the year in question.
* * * * *
7. Section 88.205-94 of subpart B is amended by revising paragraphs
(d)(1), (d)(3)(iii), and (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 88.205-94 California Pilot Test Program Credits Program.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) During certification, the manufacturer shall calculate the
projected credits, if any, based on required sales projections.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Maintain the records required under this subpart.
* * * * *
(g) Early credits. Beginning in model year 1992 appropriate
credits, as determined from the given credit table, will be given for
the sale of vehicles certified to the clean-fuel vehicle standards for
TLEVs, LEVs, ULEVs, and ZEVs, where appropriate. For LDVs and light
LDTs (<6000 lbs GVWR), early credits can be earned from model year 1992
to the beginning of the Pilot Program sales requirements in 1996. For
heavy LDTs (>6000 lbs GVWR), early credits can be earned from model
years 1992 through 1997. The actual calculation of early credits shall
not begin until model year 1996.
8. 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. 88.104-94(k).
[[Page 128]]
An ILEV must be able to operate on only one fuel, or must be certified
as an ILEV on all fuels on which it can operate. 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 which do not exceed the exhaust emission standards in grams
per brake horsepower-hour listed in Sec. 88.105-94(d). Exhaust
emissions shall be measured in accordance with the test procedures
specified in Sec. 88.105-94(e). An ILEV must be able to operate on only
one fuel, or must be certified as an ILEV on all fuels on which it can
operate. 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.
* * * * *
9. Section 88.312-93 of subpart C is amended by revising paragraphs
(a)(1) and (c)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 88.312-93 Inherently Low-Emission Vehicle Labeling.
* * * * *
(a) Label design. (1) Label design shall consist of either of the
following specifications:
(i) The label shall consist of a white rectangular background,
approximately 12 inches (30 centimeters) high by 18 inches (45
centimeters) wide, with ``CLEAN AIR VEHICLE'' printed in contrasting
block capital letters at least 4.3 inches (10.6 centimeters) tall and
1.8 inches (4.4 centimeters) wide with a stroke width not less than 0.5
inches (1.3 centimeters). In addition, the words ``INHERENTLY LOW-
EMISSION VEHICLE'' must be present in lettering no smaller than 1 inch
(2.5 centimeters) high. Nothing shall be added to the label which
impairs readability. Labels shall include a serialized identification
number; or
(ii) The label shall consist of a white truncated-circular
background, approximately 10 inches (25 centimeters) in diameter by 7
inches (17.5 centimeters) in height. The bottom edge of the truncated-
circular background shall be approximately 2 inches (5 centimeters)
from the center. The acronym ``ILEV'' shall be printed on the label in
contrasting block capital letters at least 2 inches (5 centimeters)
tall and 1.5 inches (3.8 centimeters) wide with a stroke width not less
than 0.4 inches (1.0 centimeter). In addition, the words ``CLEAN AIR
VEHICLE'' must be present in lettering no smaller than 0.8 inches (2.0
centimeters) high. Nothing shall be added to the label which impairs
readability. Labels shall include a serialized identification number.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) In the case that an ILEV label of the proportions specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section cannot be attached to the rear of the
ILEV, the manufacturer or the manufacturer's agent shall attach to the
rear of the vehicle an ILEV label of either of the following
proportions:
(A) The label shall consist of a white rectangular background,
approximately 4 inches (10 centimeters) high by 24 inches (60
centimeters) wide, with ``CLEAN AIR VEHICLE'' printed in contrasting
block capital letters at least 2.8 inches (7 centimeters) tall and 1.3
inches (3.3 centimeters) wide with a stroke width not less than 0.3
inches (0.8 centimeter). In addition, the words ``INHERENTLY LOW-
EMISSION VEHICLE'' must be present in lettering no smaller than 0.6
inches (1.5 centimeters) high. Nothing shall be added to the label
which impairs readability. Labels shall include a serialized
identification number; or
(B) The label shall consist of a white truncated-circular
background, approximately 5 inches (12.5 centimeters) in diameter by
3.5 inches (8.8 centimeters) in height. The bottom edge of the
truncated-circular background shall be approximately 1 inch (2.5
centimeters) from the center. The acronym ``ILEV'' shall be printed on
the label in contrasting block capital letters at least 1 inch (2.5
centimeters) tall and 0.8 inches (2.0 centimeters) wide with a stroke
width not less than 0.3 inches (0.8 centimeters). In addition, the
words ``CLEAN AIR VEHICLE'' must be present in lettering no smaller
than 0.4 inches (1.0 centimeter) high. Nothing shall be added to the
label which impairs readability. Labels shall include a serialized
identification number.
* * * * *
10. Table C94-1.1 to subpart C of part 88 is revised 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 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............................ 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-103 Filed 1-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P