[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6944-6949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4040]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 86
[A-94-13; FRL-5425-8]
RIN 2060-AE07
Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor
Vehicle Engines; Nonconformance Penalties for 1996 Model Year Emission
Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule announces the availability of nonconformance
penalties (NCPs) for the Light-Duty Truck 3 (LDT3) particulate matter
(PM) standard taking effect in the 1996 model year. The availability of
these NCPs will allow manufacturers of LDT3 whose vehicles or engines
fail to conform with the 1996 PM standard, but do not exceed a
designated upper limit, to be issued a certificate of conformity upon
payment of a monetary penalty. The associated upper limit for the LDT3
PM standard will be the previous standard of 0.13 grams per mile (g/
mi).
A concurrent, but separate rulemaking addresses the availability of
NCPs for the 1998 and later model year oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
standard for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines (HDDEs), the 1996 and later
model year NOX standard for LDT3 and the 1996 urban bus PM
standard.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective March 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Public Docket: Copies of materials relevant to this
rulemaking proceeding are contained in Public Docket A-94-13 at the Air
Docket of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Room M1500, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, and are available for review in Room
M1500 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays. As
provided in 40 CFR Part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for copying
services.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gregory Orehowsky, Manufacturers
Operations Division (6405-J), US Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 233-9292.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Authority
Section 206(g) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 7525(g),
requires EPA to issue a certificate of conformity for HDEs or Heavy-
Duty Vehicles (HDVs) which exceed an applicable section 202(a)
emissions standard, but do not exceed an upper limit associated with
that standard, if the manufacturer pays an NCP established by
rulemaking. Congress adopted section 206(g) in the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 as a response to perceived problems with technology-
forcing heavy-duty emissions standards. (It should be noted, however,
that the existence of NCPs does not change the criteria under which the
standards have been and will be set under section 202.) Following
International Harvester v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615 (D.C. Cir. 1973),
Congress realized the dilemma that technology-forcing standards were
likely to cause. If strict standards were maintained, then some
manufacturers, ``technological laggards,'' might be unable to comply
initially and would be forced out of the marketplace. NCPs were
intended to remedy this potential problem. The laggards would have a
temporary alternative that would permit them to sell their engines or
vehicles by payment of a penalty. This penalty is based in part, on the
money saved from
[[Page 6945]]
the production of noncomplying engines, would protect conforming
manufacturers from the competitive disadvantage of making more costly
engines which comply with technology forcing standards.
Under section 206(g)(1) of the Clean Air Act, NCPs may be offered
for HDVs or HDEs. The penalty may vary by pollutant and by class or
category of vehicle or engine.
HDVs are defined by section 202(b)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act as
vehicles in excess of 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).
The light-duty truck (LDT) classification includes trucks that have a
GVWR of 8,500 lbs or less. Therefore, certain LDTs may be classified as
HDVs. Historically, LDTs between 6,001 and 8,500 pounds GVWR have been
considered Heavy Light Duty Trucks (HLDTs). Based on various new
requirements established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, HLDTs
have been further subdivided into groups by weight.
The HLDTs are divided at 5750 lbs Adjusted Loaded Vehicle Weight
(ALVW) which is the average of the curb weight and the GVWR. The HLDTs
that are up through 5750 lbs ALVW are called Light Duty Trucks 3
(LDT3). Those above 5750 lbs ALVW but less than or equal to 8500 lbs
GVWR are Light Duty Trucks 4, or LDT4. The LDT3 and LDT4 subclasses
make up the HLDT vehicle class. Since NCPs are only offered for heavy
duty vehicles or engines, this notice addresses only emission standards
for light duty trucks of the LDT3 and LDT4 categories.
Section 206(g)(3) of the Clean Air Act requires that NCPs:
(1) Account for the degree of emission nonconformity;
(2) Increase periodically to provide incentive for nonconforming
manufacturers to achieve the emission standards; and
(3) Remove the competitive disadvantage to conforming
manufacturers.
Section 206(g) authorizes EPA to require testing of production
vehicles or engines in order to determine the emission level on which
the penalty is based. If the emission level of a vehicle or engine
exceeds an upper limit of nonconformity established by EPA through
regulation, the vehicle or engine would not qualify for an NCP under
section 206(g) and no certificate of conformity could be issued to the
manufacturer. If the emission level is below the upper limit but above
the standard, that emission level becomes the ``compliance level,''
which is also the benchmark for warranty and recall liability; the
manufacturer who elects to pay the NCP is liable for vehicles or
engines that exceed the compliance level in-use, unless, for the case
of HLDTs, the compliance level is below the in-use standard. The
manufacturer does not have in-use warranty or recall liability for
emissions levels above the standard but below the compliance level.
II. Background
A. The Generic Nonconformance Penalty Rule
The generic NCP rule (Phase I) established three basic criteria for
determining the eligibility of emission standards for nonconformance
penalties in any given model year. See 40 CFR 86.1103-87. First, the
emission standard in question must become more difficult to meet. This
can occur in two ways, either by the emission standard itself becoming
more stringent, or due to its interaction with another emission
standard that has become more stringent.
Second, substantial work must be required to meet the emission
standard. EPA considers ``substantial work'' to mean the application of
technology not previously used in that vehicle or engine class/
subclass, or a significant modification of existing technology, to
bring that vehicle/engine into compliance. EPA does not consider minor
modifications or calibration changes to be classified as substantial
work.
Third, a technological laggard must be likely to develop. A
technological laggard is defined as a manufacturer who cannot meet a
particular emission standard due to technological (not economic)
difficulties and who, in the absence of NCPs, might be forced from the
marketplace. EPA will make the determination that a technological
laggard is likely to develop, based in large part on the above two
criteria. However, these criteria are not always sufficient to
determine the likelihood of the development of a technological laggard.
An emission standard may become more difficult to meet and substantial
work may be required for compliance, but if that work merely involves
transfer of well-developed technology from another vehicle class, it is
unlikely that a technological laggard would develop.
The above three criteria were used to determine eligibility for
NCPs in Phase II of the NCP rulemaking (50 FR 53454, December 31,
1985), in Phase III of the NCP rulemaking (55 FR 46622, November 5,
1990) concerning the 1991 model year HDE standards, and in Phase IV of
the NCP rulemaking (58 FR 68532, December 28, 1993) concerning HDVs and
HDEs subject to the 1994 and later model year emission standards for
particulate matter (PM).
As in the previous NCP rules, EPA is specifying values for the
following parameters in the NCP formula for each standard: COC50,
COC90, MC50, and F. The NCP formula is the same as that
promulgated in the Phase I rule.
COC50 is an estimate of the industry wide average incremental
cost per engine (references to engines are intended to include vehicles
as well) associated with meeting the standard for which an NCP is
offered, compared with meeting the upper limit. COC50 is based on
typical engine technology, as nearly as EPA can identify it. As in the
previous NCP rules, costs include additional manufacturer costs and
additional owner costs. The other NCP rules did not include
certification costs in the calculation of COC50, and none will be
allowed in this document because both complying and noncomplying
manufacturers must incur certification costs.
COC90 is EPA's best estimate of the 90th percentile
incremental cost per engine associated with meeting the standard for
which an NCP is offered, compared with meeting the associated upper
limit. COC90 is based on a near worst case technology, as nearly
as EPA can identify it. COC90, like COC50, includes both
manufacturer and owner costs, but not certification costs.
MC50 is an estimate of the industry wide average marginal cost
of compliance per unit of reduced pollutant associated with the least
cost effective emission control technology installed to meet the new
standard. MC50 is measured in dollars per g/BHP-hr for HDEs and in
dollars per gram per mile (g/mi) for LDTs.
F is a factor used to derive MC90, the 90th percentile
marginal cost of compliance with the NCP standard for engines in the
NCP category. MC90 is defined as being the slope of the penalty
rate curve near the standard and is equal to MC50 multiplied by F.
For this rulemaking, as was the case in the previous NCP rules, EPA has
determined that no reasonable estimate of MC90 can be made based
on existing marginal cost data and has thus set F at a presumptive
value of 1.2. This approach was generally supported by commentaries on
the past NCP rulemakings.
B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (59 FR 43074, August
22, 1994), EPA identified the Tier I Heavy Light
[[Page 6946]]
Duty Trucks (HLDT) standards becoming effective in 1996, the 1996 Urban
Bus PM standard of 0.05 g/bhp-hr, and the 1998 Heavy Duty Engine (HDE)
NOX standard of 4.0 g/bhp-hr as new standards for which it has
statutory authority for considering NCPs. EPA then applied the three
generic NCP criteria to each of those emission standards.
The Agency identified the 1996 LDT3 PM standard of 0.10 g/mi as
satisfying the required NCP criteria and, therefore, proposed to make
NCPs available for that standard. The Agency also proposed upper limits
for that standard and numerical values to be used in the calculation of
the NCP for the associated vehicles.
EPA did not propose NCPs for the other new standards because they
did not meet all three of the generic NCP criteria.
NCPs were not considered for the Tier 1 ``in-use'' standards since
NCPs are a mechanism to allow manufacturers to certify engine families,
not to assist manufacturers in complying with ``in-use'' standards.
C. Final Rule--Availability of NCPs
1. Standard for Which NCPs Will Be Offered
a. 1996 Tier 1 PM Standard for Diesel LDT3
EPA recognizes that the new PM standard of 0.10 g/mi at full useful
life represents an increase in stringency over the prior standard of
0.13 g/mi at full useful life for diesel-fueled LDT3, satisfying the
first eligibility criterion. Based on discussions with General Motors,
the only current manufacturer of diesel-fueled vehicles in this class,
EPA believes that the addition of catalytic converter technology to
these engines will probably not bring them into compliance with the new
standard. Significant work will be required for another technology,
such as a Variable Geometry Turbocharger, to be adapted for use on
these vehicles. This is especially true when considering the
interrelationship of the NOX and PM emissions of diesel-fueled
engines, as stated above. For these reasons, EPA believes that a
technological laggard may develop and is offering NCPs for diesel-
fueled LDT3 at the full useful life for the new PM standard. The
proposed penalty rates are discussed below.
2. Standards for Which NCPs Were Not Proposed
a. 1996 Tier 1 PM Standard for Non-Diesel Fueled LDT3
There is no previous PM standard for non-diesel fueled LDT3. Thus
the new PM standard of 0.10 g/mi at full useful life represents an
increase in stringency. However, non-diesel fueled vehicles emit very
low levels of particulate matter and will not require any additional
emission control technology to meet this standard. Thus, substantial
work is not required and there is not a likelihood that a technological
laggard will develop. Therefore, EPA did not propose NCPs for these
vehicles.
b. 1996 Tier 1 Non-Methane Hydrocarbon (NMHC) Standard for LDT3
Since there is no NMHC standard for earlier model year LDT3, the
new NMHC standard represents an increase in stringency over the THC
standard for previous model years, satisfying the first eligibility
criterion. EPA acknowledges that one manufacturer has indicated that it
may have difficulty complying with this standard. Based on the
manufacturer's planned strategy, however, EPA does not believe that
substantial work, as described above, will be necessary to meet the new
standard for either the intermediate useful-life level of 0.32 g/mi or
the full useful-life level of 0.46 g/mi, since it does not represent a
major modification of existing technology. EPA also does not believe
that a technological laggard is likely to develop, based on discussions
with vehicle manufacturers. For these reasons, EPA did not propose NCPs
for this standard.
c. 1996 Tier 1 CO Standard for LDT3
EPA recognizes that the new CO standard of 6.4 g/mi at full useful
life represents an increase in stringency over the prior standard of 10
g/mi at full useful life for LDT3, satisfying the first eligibility
criterion. Based on 1993 model year certification levels, only one
manufacturer is currently producing LDT3 vehicles which would not meet
the new standard at full useful life. Since this manufacturer does not
anticipate difficulty in meeting the new CO standards, EPA does not
believe that a technological laggard is likely to develop. The half
useful-life standard of 4.4 g/mi is considered by EPA and manufacturers
to be less difficult to meet than the full useful life standard. For
these reasons, EPA did not propose NCPs for these standards.
d. 1996 Tier 1 Non-Methane Hydrocarbon (NMHC) Standard for LDT4
There is no NMHC standard for earlier model year LDT4. Both EPA and
vehicle manufacturers believe that the NMHC standard represents an
increase in stringency over the THC standard for previous model year
LDT4, satisfying the first eligibility criterion. The same manufacturer
that expressed concern in meeting the NMHC standard for LDT3 has
similar concerns in meeting this standard and will use a similar
strategy to lower the emissions. For the same reasons stated in the
above discussion of the NMHC standard for LDT3, EPA did not propose
NCPs for the NMHC standard at either the intermediate or the full
useful life.
e. 1996 Tier 1 CO Standard for LDT4
EPA recognizes that the new CO standard of 7.3 g/mi at full useful
life represents an increase in stringency over the prior standard of 10
g/mi at full useful life for LDT4, satisfying the first eligibility
criterion. Based on discussions with current manufacturers of affected
vehicles, EPA believes that manufacturers will not have difficulty in
meeting the new standard. Since there are no 1993 model year LDT4 with
CO certification levels higher than the new standard at full useful
life, EPA does not believe that a technological laggard is likely to
develop. The half useful-life standard of 5.0 g/mi is generally
considered by EPA and manufacturers to be less difficult to meet than
the full useful life standard of 7.3 g/mi. For these reasons, EPA did
not propose NCPs for these standards.
f. 1996 Tier 1 NOX Standard for LDT4
EPA recognizes that the new NOX standard of 1.53 g/mi at full
useful life represents an increase in stringency over the prior
standard of 1.7 g/mi at full useful life for LDT4, satisfying the first
eligibility criterion. Based on discussions with current manufacturers
of affected vehicles, and based on the fact that there were no model
year 1993 LDT4 certified which would exceed the new standard at full
useful life, EPA believes that substantial work, as described above,
will not be required of manufacturers and that a technological laggard
is not likely to develop. The half useful-life standard for non-diesel
vehicles of 1.10 g/mi is generally considered by EPA and manufacturers
to be less difficult to meet than the full useful life standard. For
these reasons, EPA did not propose NCPs for the new LDT4 NOX
standards.
g. 1996 Tier 1 PM Standard for LDT4
EPA recognizes that the new PM standard of 0.12 g/mi at full useful
life represents an increase in stringency over the prior standard of
0.13 g/mi at full useful life for LDT4, satisfying the first
eligibility criterion. As in the case of non-diesel LDT3, no work
should be required to meet the new PM standard
[[Page 6947]]
for non-diesel LDT4. And based on discussions with the single, current
manufacturer of diesel-fueled LDT4 vehicles and on 1993 model year
certification levels, EPA does not believe that a technological laggard
is likely to develop or that substantial work, as described above, will
be required to meet the new PM standard. For these reasons, EPA did not
propose NCPs for the new LDT4 PM standard.
3. Standards Addressed in a Concurrent NCP Rulemaking
a. 1996 Tier 1 NOX Standard for LDT3
b. 1996 Urban Bus PM Standard
c. 1998 HDDE NOX Standard
EPA's analysis of the issues concerning NCPs for these standards
and EPA's response to comments received in this rulemaking on these
standards are contained in a Direct Final Rule published elsewhere in
this Federal Register notice. The Direct Final Rule approves NCPs for
the above, three standards.
III. Summary and Analysis of Comments
Written comments were received from five entities during the
comment period: General Motors Corporation, Detroit Diesel Corporation,
Engine Manufacturers' Association, Navistar, and Mack Truck.
A. Availability of Nonconformance Penalties and Penalty Rates
Heavy Light Duty Trucks 3 PM Standard
General Motors agrees with EPA's conclusion that NCPs are justified
for the new LDT3 PM standard. GM stated that the proposed penalty rates
were not reasonable for two reasons. First, GM stated ``the basic
technology determined to be necessary to achieve the emission
improvement required by the standard includes technology (oxidizing
catalyst) that is already being used to achieve the current PM
standard. Thus, the oxidizing catalyst costs included in the penalty
rate determinations needs to be removed and the penalty rates modified
to include only the other technology believed needed to achieve the
1996 PM standard.'' EPA agreed with this suggestion since GM is the
only manufacturer in this market segment. Since GM was not able to
specify what technology would be needed to meet the standard, the
penalty rates in this Final Rule reflect EPA's best determination of
the technology believed necessary for a manufacturer already using
catalyst technology, but still unable to attain the standard.
EPA believes that vehicles unable to achieve the standard with
catalyst technology will need to rely on variable geometry turbocharger
technology, improved oil control, and additional work in optimizing
engine calibrations.
Second, GM argues that since the new Tier 1 standard effectively
increases the test weight used in testing vehicles of this class, this
fact should be accounted for in determining the penalty rates and the
upper limit for the LDT3 PM NCP. While EPA believes the said effect to
be plausible, it is likely a relatively small effect. And, in the
absence of any manufacturer-supplied data in support of that claim,
this component was not considered in determining the NCPs for this
Final Rule.
IV. Penalty Rates
This rule is the most recent in a series of NCP rulemakings. The
discussion of penalty rates in the Phase IV rulemaking (58 FR 68532,
December 28, 1993), Phase III rulemaking (55 FR 46622, November 5,
1990), the Phase II rulemaking (50 FR 53454, December 31, 1985) as well
as the Phase I rulemaking (50 FR 35374, August 30, 1985) are
incorporated by reference.
The derivation of the 1996 Tier 1 LDT3 PM standard cost parameters
are described in a support document entitled ``Calculation of
Nonconformance Penalty Rates for 1996 and Later Model Year LDT3
Particulate Matter (PM), LDT3 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX), 1996 and
Later Model Year Urban Bus Particulate Matter (PM), and 1998 and Later
Model Year HDDE Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Standards,'' which is
available in the public docket for this rulemaking. The associated
upper limit of 0.13 g/mi PM, the previous PM standard, was determined
as per section 86.1104-91 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
V. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the 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.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action.''
This regulation will not have an annual effect on the economy in excess
of $100 million and will not cause a major increase in the price of
HDEs above those that would otherwise occur from compliance with the
emission standards themselves. This regulation is intended to assist
manufacturers that are having difficulty developing and marketing
vehicles which comply with the 1996 Tier 1 PM standard for LDT3.
Without this rule, a manufacturer experiencing difficulty in complying
with this new emission standard (after the use of credits) has only two
alternatives: fix the nonconforming engines for the associated model
years or not sell them at all. NCPs provide manufacturers with
additional time to bring their engines into conformity.
In addition, NCPs are calculated to deprive nonconforming
manufacturers of any cost savings and competitive advantages stemming
from marketing a nonconforming engine. Thus, NCPs will not have
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation or on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or
export markets.
VI. Economic Impact
Because the use of NCPs is optional, manufacturers have the
flexibility and will likely choose whether or not to use NCPs based on
their ability to comply with emissions standards. If a HDE manufacturer
elects not to use NCPs, the manufacturer and its customers will not
incur any additional costs related to NCPs.
NCPs remedy the potential problem of having a manufacturer forced
out of the marketplace due to that manufacturer's inability to conform
to new, strict emission standards in a timely manner. Without NCPs, a
manufacturer which has difficulty certifying HDEs in conformance with
emission standards or whose engines fail a SEA has only two
alternatives: fix the nonconforming engines, perhaps at a prohibitive
cost, or prevent their introduction into commerce. The availability of
NCPs provides manufacturers with a third alternative: continue
production and introduce into commerce upon payment
[[Page 6948]]
of a penalty for an engine that exceeds the standard until an emission
conformance technique is developed.
Therefore, NCPs represent a regulatory mechanism that allows
affected manufacturers to have increased flexibility. A decision to use
NCPs may be a manufacturer's only way to continue to introduce HDEs
into commerce. Hence, NCPs may be considered to have no adverse
economic impact.
VII. Environmental Impact
When evaluating the environmental impact of this rule, one must
keep in mind that, under the Clean Air Act, NCPs are a consequence of
enacting new, more stringent emissions requirements for heavy duty
engines. Emission standards are set at a level that most, but not
necessarily all, manufacturers can achieve by the model year in which
the standard becomes effective. Following International Harvester v.
Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615 (D.C. Cir. 1973), Congress realized the
dilemma that technology-forcing standards were likely to cause, and
allowed manufacturers of heavy-duty engines to certify nonconforming
vehicles/engines upon the payment of an NCP, under certain conditions.
This mechanism would allow a manufacturer(s) who cannot meet
technology-forcing standards immediately to continue to manufacture
these nonconforming engines while they tackle the technological
problems associated with meeting new emission standard(s). Thus, as
part of the statutory structure to force technological improvements
without driving manufacturers out of the market, NCPs provide
flexibility that fosters long-term emissions improvement through the
setting of lower emission standards at an earlier date than could
otherwise be possible. By design, NCPs encourage the technological
laggard that is using NCPs to reduce emission levels to the more
stringent standard as quickly as possible.
VIII. Compliance With Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
et seq., the Administrator is required to either perform a regulatory
flexibility analysis or certify that this regulation will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small business entities.
None of the affected manufacturers could be classified as small.
Moreover, as already discussed, the NCP program can be expected to
benefit manufacturers.
Some small entities do exist as manufacturers' contractors for the
testing of engines for Production Compliance Audits (PCAs). It is EPA's
practice to conduct PCA scheduling (namely, tests per day limitations)
in such a way as to consider the staff and manpower capabilities of
such contractors and avoid any problems. The result is that these
entities are not adversely affected. Thus, I certify that this rule
will not have any adverse economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
IX. Information Collection Requirements
This rule requires that manufacturers perform certain record
keeping and submit certain reports to EPA. The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., provides that reporting and
recordkeeping requirements be approved by OMB before they can be
enforced by EPA. The information collection requirements in this
proposed rule have been addressed in previous rulemaking and approved
by OMB (OMB control no. 2060-0132). However, any person wishing to
comment on these requirements is invited to do so. Comments on these
requirements should be submitted to Chief, Information Policy Branch,
Mail Code 2136, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460 and to Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 726 Jackson Place, NW,
Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''
X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternative and adopt
the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
official of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable
duties on any of these governmental entities or the private sector. In
addition, the UMRA excludes from the definition of ``Federal private
sector mandate'' duties that arise from participation in a voluntary
Federal program. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Gasoline, Motor vehicles, Labeling, Motor
vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 12, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 86, is
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, 206, 207, 208, 215, 216, 217, 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 86.1105-87 of subpart L is amended by revising paragraph
(e),
[[Page 6949]]
adding paragraph (g) and adding and reserving paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.1105-87 Emission standards for which nonconformance penalties
are available.
* * * * *
(e) The values of COC50, COC90, and MC50 in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are expressed in December 1984
dollars. The values of COC50, COC90, and MC50 in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section are expressed in December 1989
dollars. The values of COC50, COC90, and MC50 in
paragraph (f) of this section are expressed in December 1991 dollars.
The values of COC50, COC90, and MC50 in paragraphs (g)
and (h) of this section are expressed in December 1994 dollars. These
values shall be adjusted for inflation to dollars as of January of the
calendar year preceding the model year in which the NCP is first
available by using the change in the overall Consumer Price Index, and
rounded to the nearest whole dollar in accordance with ASTM E29-67
(reapproved 1980), Standard Recommended Practice for Indicating Which
Places of Figures are to be Considered Significant in Specified
Limiting Values. The method was approved by the director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This
document is available from ASTM, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103, and is also available for inspection as part of Docket A-91-06,
located at the Central Docket Section, EPA, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC or at the office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC. This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on
January 13, 1992. These materials are incorporated as they exist on the
date of the approval and a notice of any change in these materials will
be published in the Federal Register.
* * * * * *
(g) Effective in the 1996 model year, NCPs will be available for
the following emission standard:
(1) Light-duty truck 3 diesel-fueled vehicle at full useful life
(as defined in Sec. 86.094-2) particulate matter emission standard of
0.10 g/mi.
(i) The following values shall be used to calculate an NCP for the
standard set forth in Sec. 86.094-9(a)(1)(ii) in accordance with
Sec. 86.1113-87(a):
(A) COC50: $441.
(B) COC90: $1,471.
(C) MC50: $14,700 per gram per mile.
(D) F: 1.2.
(ii) The following factor shall be used to calculate the
engineering and development component of the NCP for the standard set
forth in Sec. 86.094-9(a)(1)(ii) in accordance with Sec. 86.1113-87(h):
0.093.
(2) [Reserved]
(h) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 96-4040 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
