Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Mot

[Federal Register: February 23, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 37)] [Rules and
Regulations]
[Page 6944-6949]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (NO<INF>X) standard
for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines (HDDEs), the 1996 and later model year
NO<INF>X 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 HeavyDuty 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 technologyforcing 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: COC<INF>50, COC<INF>90,
MC<INF>50, and F. The NCP formula is the same as that promulgated in the
Phase I rule.
COC<INF>50 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. COC<INF>50 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
COC<INF>50, and none will be allowed in this document because both
complying and noncomplying manufacturers must incur certification costs.
COC<INF>90 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. COC<INF>90 is
based on a near worst case technology, as nearly as EPA can identify it.
COC<INF>90, like COC<INF>50, includes both manufacturer and owner costs,
but not certification costs. MC<INF>50 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. MC<INF>50 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 MC<INF>90, the 90th percentile marginal cost of
compliance with the NCP standard for engines in the NCP category. MC<INF>90
is defined as being the slope of the penalty rate curve near the standard
and is equal to MC<INF>50 multiplied by F. For this rulemaking, as was the
case in the previous NCP rules, EPA has determined that no reasonable
estimate of MC<INF>90 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) NO<INF>X
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 NO<INF>X
     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 dieselfueled 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 NO<INF>X Standard for LDT4 EPA recognizes that the new
     NO<INF>X 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 NO<INF>X
     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 NO<INF>X Standard for LDT3 b. 1996
Urban Bus PM Standard
c. 1998 HDDE NO<INF>X 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 (NO<INF>X), 1996 and Later Model Year Urban Bus
Particulate Matter (PM), and 1998 and Later Model Year HDDE Oxides of
Nitrogen (NO<INF>X) 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 COC<INF>50, COC<INF>90, and MC<INF>50 in paragraphs
     (a) and (b) of this section are expressed in December 1984 dollars.
     The values of COC<INF>50, COC<INF>90, and MC<INF>50 in paragraphs (c)
     and (d) of this section are expressed in December 1989 dollars. The
     values of COC<INF>50, COC<INF>90, and MC<INF>50 in paragraph (f) of
     this section are expressed in December 1991 dollars. The values of
     COC<INF>50, COC<INF>90, and MC<INF>50 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) COC<INF>50: $441.
     (B) COC<INF>90: $1,471.
     (C) MC<INF>50: $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