Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 20159

provides for the implementation and

enforcement of those limits.

In the final rules section of the

Federal Register, the EPA is approving

the state’s submittal as a direct final rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

action and anticipates no relevant

adverse comments. A detailed rationale

for the approval is set forth in the direct

final rule. If no relevant adverse

comments are received in response to

this proposed rule, no further activity is

contemplated and the direct final rule

will become effective. If the EPA

receives relevant adverse comments, the

direct final rule will be withdrawn and

all public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this document. Any parties

interested in commenting on this

document should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by May 26,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Wayne Kaiser, Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Planning and

Development Branch, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551–7603.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the direct final

rule which is located in the rules

section of the Federal Register.

Dated: April 9, 1998.

Dennis Grams, P.E.,

Regional Administrator, Region VII.

[FR Doc. 98–10856 Filed 4–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[IA 051–1051b; FRL–6002–7]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities and

Pollutants; Iowa; Control of Landfill

Gas Emissions From Existing

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve

the Iowa state 111(d) plan for

controlling landfill gas emissions from

existing municipal solid waste (MSW)

landfills. The plan was submitted to

fulfill the requirements of the Clean Air

Act. The state plan establishes emission

limits for existing MSW landfills, and

provides for the implementation and

enforcement of those limits.

In the final rules section of the

Federal Register, the EPA is approving

the state’s submittal as a direct final rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

action and anticipates no adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for the

approval is set forth in the direct final

rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to this proposed

rule, no further activity is contemplated

and the direct final rule will become

effective. If the EPA receives adverse

comments, the direct final rule will be

withdrawn and all public comments

received will be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this document. Any parties interested in

commenting on this document should

do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by May 26,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Wayne Kaiser, Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Planning and

Development Branch, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551–7603.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the direct final

rule which is located in the rules

section of the Federal Register.

Dated: April 9, 1998.

Dennis Grams, P.E.,

Regional Administrator, Region VII.

[FR Doc. 98–10854 Filed 4–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 88

[FRL–5994–6]

RIN 2060–AH56

Clean Fuel Fleet Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;

delay of implementation date.

SUMMARY: The provisions of subpart C of

Title II of the Clean Air Act require

states with certain ozone and carbon

monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas to

revise their State Implementation Plans

(SIP) to incorporate a Clean Fuel Fleet

Program. Under this program, specified

percentages of new vehicles acquired by

covered fleet operators in certain ozone

and CO nonattainment areas must meet

EPA’s clean-fuel vehicle (CFV)

emissions standards. In this action, EPA

proposes to delay by one model year,

the requirement that a covered area’s

State Implementation Plan implement a

Clean Fuel Fleet Program (CFFP) fleet

operator purchase requirement. As a

result, EPA would approve a CFFP SIP

revision which provides that covered

fleet operators must include a certain

percentage of CFVs in their fleet vehicle

purchases each year beginning with

model year 1999. This proposal is

intended to ensure successful

implementation of the CFFP, and to

ensure that an adequate supply of

appropriate vehicles is available for fleet

operators to purchase and use once the

program is underway, so that

compliance with the mandatory

purchase requirements will be possible

and economically feasible for covered

fleet operators.

DATES: Written comments on this

proposal must be received no later than

May 26, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may

submit written comments in response to

this rule (in duplicate if possible) to

Public Docket No. A–97–53. It is

requested that a duplicate copy may be

submitted to Sally Newstead at the

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below. The docket is

located at the Air Docket, Room M–1500

(6102), Waterside Mall SW, Washington,

DC 20460. The docket may be inspected

between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on

weekdays, excluding holidays. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying docket material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sally Newstead, Office of Mobile

Sources, National Vehicle and Fuel

Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth

Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105.

Telephone (734) 668–4474.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this action

is provided by sections 246 and 301 of

the Clean Air Act.

Background

In the Rules and Regulations section

of this Federal Register, EPA is

adopting this provision as a direct final

rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

action and anticipates no adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for this

action is set forth in the direct final rule.

If no adverse comments are received in

response to this proposed rule, no
20160 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

1States with covered nonattainment areas may

opt out of the CFFP with an adequate substitute

program. See CAA Section 182(c)(4)(B). Eleven

states have opted out of the CFFP pursuant to this

provision. Areas reclassified for ozone, that have a

1980 population of at least 250,000, must also

submit a SIP revision with a CFFP within one year

of such reclassification. See CAA Section 246(a)(3).

2A ‘‘model year’’ for purposes of fleet operators’’

compliance with CFFP purchase requirements, and

as used in this notice, is not the same as ‘‘model

year’’ as defined for purposes of motor vehicle

production. The definition of ‘‘model year’’ for the

CFFP means September 1 of the preceding year

through August 31 of the named year. Therefore,

model year 1998 for the CFFP runs from September

1, 1997 through August 31, 1998. See 40 CFR

88.302–94.

3The Phase II CFV exhaust emissions standards

are found in CAA Section 243(a)(2) and 243(b)(2),

and include standards for non-methane organic

gases (NMOG), CO, oxides of nitrogen (NOX),

particulate matter (PM), and formaldehyde that are

identical to California’s Low Emission Vehicle

(LEV) exhaust emissions standards.

4See A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990, Volume 1 at 903.

further activity is contemplated in

relation to this rule. If EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

The Clean Air Act, as amended in

1990 (‘‘CAA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), requires

certain states to adopt and submit to

EPA a State Implementation Plan (SIP)

containing a CFFP for nonattainment

areas with 1980 populations greater

than 250,000 that are classified as

Serious or worse for ozone, or with a

design value of at least 16.0 ppm for

carbon monoxide (CO). The

nonattainment areas currently covered

by the requirement to adopt and submit

a CFFP are Atlanta, Washington DC

metropolitan area, Chicago-Gary-Lake

Counties, Milwaukee-Racine, Baton

Rouge, and Denver-Boulder.1

Section 246 of the CAA provides that

a states’ SIP submission must require

fleet operators with 10 or more vehicles

that are centrally fueled or capable of

being centrally fueled, to include a

specified percentage of clean-fuel

vehicles (CFVs) in their new vehicle

purchases each year. In addition, states

CFFP SIP submissions must comply

with other specifications in Section 246,

including the requirement that covered

fleet operators must operate their CFVs

in covered nonattainment areas on a

clean alternative fuel, defined as a fuel

on which the vehicle meets EPA’s CFV

standards when using such fuel. EPA

promulgated emissions standards for

CFVs in September 1994. See 40 CFR

Part 88. EPA estimates that demand for

CFVs by covered fleets in model year 2

1998 would be approximately 47,000

light duty vehicles and 12,000 heavy

duty vehicles.

Start Date for CFFP Purchase

Requirement

Section 246(c) of the CAA provides

that the specified percentage of new

light duty vehicle purchases by covered

fleet operators that must be CFVs in a

given model year shall be 30% in model

year 1998, 50% in model year 1999, and

70% in model year 2000 and later years,

if certain categories of new vehicles

(light duty trucks (LDTs) below 6000 lbs

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and

light duty vehicles (LDVs)) certified to

the Phase II CFV exhaust emissions

standards are offered for sale in

California.3 In March 1993, EPA stated

its expectation that the vehicles

specified in Section 246(c) would be

offered for sale in California by model

year 1997, and therefore states’ SIP

submissions should provide for

implementation of the CFFP purchase

requirement beginning in model year

1998. EPA also stated its intent to delay

this implementation date if it later

determined that the requisite vehicles

would not be offered for sale in

California in model year 1997. See 58

FR 11888 (March 1, 1993).

EPA cannot mandate that vehicle

manufacturers produce CFVs for fleets

to purchase to meet the CFFP

requirements—Congress intended that

the creation of a market for CFVs would

provide an incentive for vehicle

manufacturers to produce and sell such

vehicles outside California, ultimately

resulting in broader market penetration.

The specification in section 246 (c) that

certain vehicles meeting CFV exhaust

emissions standards must be available

for sale in California for implementation

of the CFFP purchase requirement to

begin in model year 1998 was intended

to provide a minimum level of

reasonable assurance that complying

vehicle technology was available and

being produced.4 Without some such

evidence of vehicle availability, fleet

operators cannot realistically be

expected to comply with the CFFP

purchase requirements. However,

Section 246 is not clear on the issue of

how many of the vehicles specified in

Section 246(c) must be offered for sale

in California before triggering

implementation of the CFFP purchase

requirements.

EPA is proposing to delay the start

date that the SIP must contain for

implementation of the CFFP purchase

requirements from model year 1998 to

model year 1999, and would approve

state SIP submissions with CFFPs that

start in model year 1999. EPA has

received information from various

stakeholders, including states, covered

fleet operators, and vehicle

manufacturers on this issue, and has

concluded that a delay until model year

1999 will result in a successful, effective

fleet program that advances the

penetration of CFVs and clean

alternative fuels into the national

market, and is consistent with the

provisions of Section 246(c) and with

Congress’ intent in adopting the CFFP

provisions of the Act.

The legislative history of the 1990

amendments to the CAA indicates that,

in adopting the CFFP, Congress made a

clear choice between two alternatives:

requiring auto manufacturers to produce

and sell CFVs, or creating a market for

CFVs and for clean alternative fuels by

requiring fleet operators to purchase

such vehicles and operate on such fuels.

In choosing the latter option, Congress

attempted to minimize the burden on

fleet operators by requiring some

evidence of vehicle availability in

California as a precondition to

implementation of the purchase

requirement before model year 2001.

However, the Act does not provide a

clear indication of Congressional intent

regarding the number of vehicles in

each weight category specified in

Section 246(c) that must be offered for

sale in California to trigger the fleet

operators’ purchase requirement.

Because the CAA is silent on this

particular issue, and in the absence of

a clear indication of Congressional

intent, it is appropriate for EPA to

reasonably exercise its discretion in a

way that furthers the goals of the CFFP

provisions, and determine whether a

sufficient number of requisite vehicle

models are offered for sale in California

to require that other states SIPs

implement the CFFP in MY1998.

Auto manufacturers have certified a

number of vehicle models to the LEV

standards in California on California

reformulated gasoline, and EPA expects

these vehicles could be certified as

federal CFVs. However, because of the

Act’s requirement that fleet operators

operate CFVs on clean alternative fuels,

as defined in Section 241(b), fleet

operators who purchase such CFVs to

meet CFFP purchase requirements may

have to operate these vehicles on

California reformulated gasoline, which

is generally not available outside

California. EPA cannot conclude at this

time that federal reformulated gasoline

or federal conventional gasoline qualify

as clean alternative fuels for CFVs

certified to LEV standards on California

reformulated gasoline, due to potential

emissions differences resulting from

differences in fuel composition between
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 20161

California reformulated gasoline and

federal fuels. EPA expects that

manufacturers could certify LEVs that

have been certified to California LEV

standards on California reformulated

gasoline as federal CFVs on federal

fuels—if manufacturers did so, fleet

operators could purchase such vehicles

to meet CFFP purchase requirements,

and operate them on federal fuels in

covered nonattainment areas without

violating the fuel use requirement of the

CFFP. Certain new light duty trucks

(LDTs) below 6000 pounds GVWR and

new light duty vehicles (LDVs) certified

to LEV exhaust emissions standards are

currently being offered for sale in

California. However, only a limited

number of LDTs below 6000 lbs. GVWR

were certified to California’s LEV

standards and offered for sale in

California in MY1997 as indicated in

the following chart.

LIST OF CERTIFIED CA LEVS OFFERED FOR SALE IN CALIFORNIA IN MY97

[As of April 1997]

Manufacturer Certification number Models Type Standard Fuel

Ford ....................... FORD–LDV–97–01–00 ..................... Escort, Escort Wagon ....................... LDV LEV CA RFG.

FORD–LDV–97–38–00 ..................... Sable, Sable Wagon, Taurus, Taurus

Wagon.

LDV LEV CA RFG.

General Motors ...... GM–LDT–97–29–00 .......................... Astro AWD (C&P)* Passenger .......... LDT LEV CA RFG.

GM–LDT–97–40–00 .......................... Safari AWD (P), Astro AWD (C&P) .. LDT LEV CA RFG.

Honda .................... HONDA–LDV–97–19–00 ................... Civic, del Sol ..................................... LDV LEV CA RFG.

HONDA–LDV–97–20–00 ................... Civic ................................................... LDV LEV CA RFG.

HONDA–LDV–97–21–00 ................... Civic, del Sol ..................................... LDV LEV CA RFG.

HONDA–LDV–97–22–00 ................... Civic ................................................... LDV LEV CA RFG.

Nissan .................... NISSN–LDV–97–06–00 ..................... Sentra/200SX .................................... LDV LEV CA RFG.

Suzuki .................... SUZUK–LDV–97–05–00 ................... Metro ................................................. LDV LEV CA RFG.

SUZUK–LDV–97–06–00 ................... Metro, Swift ....................................... LDV LEV CA RFG.

Toyota .................... TOYOT–LDV–97–11–00 ................... Camry ................................................ LDV LEV CA RFG.

TOYOT–LDV–97–12–00 ................... Camry ................................................ LDV LEV CA RFG.

*P=Passenger, C=Cargo.

In order to meet the MY98 purchase requirements, fleet operators must have placed vehicle orders in April, 1997;

however, the supply of federally certified CFVs at this time was limited. Based on the limited numbers of light duty

vehicles and trucks offered for sale in California in MY1997, and particularly the limited number of LDTs <6000

pounds GVWR, EPA believes that a short delay of the required implementation date of the CFFP for one model year

is reasonable to avoid the potential for serious disruption of the initial implementation of this program from an inadequate

supply of vehicles. Given the list of current federally certified CFVs, the available choices for passenger cars, pickup trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles is limited to the following:

LIST OF CERTIFIED CFVS OFFERED FOR SALE IN MY97

[As of April 30, 1997]

Manufacturer Certification number Models Type Standard Fuel

IMPCO Tech .......... IMPCO–LDCNGT–97–01 .................. Sierra C Pickup ................................. LDT LEV CNG.

Chrysler ................. CHRYSLER–LDCLT–97–01–00 ........ Caravan(2WD), Voyager(2WD) ......... LDCLT ILEV + ULEV CNG.

CHRYS–ZEV–97–01 ......................... Caravan(2WD), Voyager(2WD) ......... LDT ZEV Electricity.

Ford ....................... FORD–LDCNGV–97–01 ................... Crown Victoria ................................... LDV ILEV + ULEV CNG.

FORD–LDCNGT–97–01 .................... F250(2WD) ........................................ LDT ILEV + ULEV CNG.

FORD–LDCNGT–97–02 .................... E250(2WD), E350(2WD) ................... LDT ILEV + ULEV CNG.

General Motors ...... GM–ZEV–97–01 ................................ EV1 .................................................... LDV ILEV + ZEV Electricity.

GN–ZEV–LDT–97–01 ....................... S10 Pickup ........................................ LDT ILEV + ZEV Electricity.

Honda .................... HN–ZEV–97–01 ................................ EV Plus .............................................. LDV ILEV + ZEV Electricity.

Manufacturer Certification number Models Standard Fuel

Cummins .................. CUMMINS–NGE(MHDD)–97–18 ................................................... B5.9–195G ................ LEV CNG.

CUMMINS–NGE(MHDD)–97–19 ................................................... B5.9–195F ................. LEV CNG.

CUMMINS–NGE(MHDD)–97–22 ................................................... C8.3–250G ................ LEV CNG.

CUMMINS–NGE(MHDE)–97–01 .................................................... B5.9–195G ................ ULEV CNG

Detroit Diesel ............ DDC–NGE(LHDDE)–97–01 ........................................................... Series 30G ................ LEV CNG.

SIP Revisions

In light of this proposal, states with adopted CFFP SIPs would revise their SIPs to provide for a model year

1999 start date for the CFFP purchase requirements. Fleet operators could still earn credits for early purchase of CFVs

that meet all applicable requirements, including the requirement that fleet operators operate their CFVs on clean alternative

fuels when in the covered nonattainment area. The EPA believes this proposed delay would provide states and fleet
20162 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

owners the necessary flexibility in those areas that are unable to meet the CFF purchase requirements cited in the

CAA.

Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency

must determine whether the 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 budget impact

of entitlement, 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

proposed action is not a significant

regulatory action and therefore not

subject to OMB review. Approvals of

SIP submittals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. This

proposed action simply revises

regulations governing the requirements

states’ CFFP SIP submissions must

meet. It serves to delay states’ required

implementation of CFFP purchase

requirements. Therefore, it has been

determined that this proposal does not

constitute a ‘‘major’’ regulation.

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping

Requirement

There are no information

requirements in this proposed rule

which require the approval of the Office

of Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

proposed rule would not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This is based

on the fact that this proposed action

would not impose any new

requirements, but simply would delay

the applicable start date of the CFFP

purchase requirements that must be

included in certain state’s SIPs,

pursuant to the CAA. Thus, the impact

created by the proposed action would

not increase the preexisting burden of

the existing rules which this proposal

seeks to amend. Therefore, this

proposed action would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

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 budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

where the estimated costs to State, local,

or tribal governments, or to the private

sector, will be $100 million or more.

Under section 205, EPA must select the

most cost-effective and least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objective of the rule and is

consistent with statutory requirements.

Section 203 requires EPA to establish a

plan for informing and advising any

small governments that may be

significantly impacted by the rule. To

the extent that the rules being proposed

in this action would impose any

mandate at all as defined in section 101

of the Unfunded Mandates Act upon the

state, local, or tribal governments, or the

private sector, as explained above, this

proposal is not estimated to impose

costs in excess of $100 million. EPA has

determined that today’s proposed action

would simply delay the purchase

requirements under state CFFPs and

would not impose additional costs or

regulatory burdens. In fact, the one-year

delay of implementation of the purchase

requirements is expected to reduce costs

of compliance and ease regulatory

burdens.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 88

Environmental protection, Labeling,

Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 3, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–10152 Filed 4–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 654

[I.D.041698G]

RIN 0648–AK48

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Stone

Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico;

Amendment 6

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability of an

amendment to a fishery management

plan; request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council (Council) has submitted

Amendment 6 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Stone Crab

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) for

review, approval, and implementation

by NMFS. Amendment 6 would extend,

for up to 4 years, the existing temporary

moratorium on the Federal registration

of stone crab vessels. Written comments

are requested from the public.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before June 22, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be mailed

to the Southeast Regional Office, NMFS,

9721 Executive Center Drive N., St.

Petersburg, FL 33702.

Requests for copies of Amendment 6,

which includes a regulatory impact

review and an environmental

assessment, should be sent to the Gulf

of Mexico Fishery Management Council,

3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite

1000, Tampa, FL 33619–2266; Phone:

813–228–2815; Fax: 813-225–7015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael E. Justen, 813–570–5305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery