Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 38767

1EPA has included in this notice a brief summary

of the aftermarket conversion requirements and the

Clean-Fuel Fleet program. Readers may consult

EPA’s current certification regulations in 40 CFR

Parts 86 and EPA’s clean fuel vehicle regulations in

40 CFR part 88, as well as the following notices of

final rulemaking: Emissions Standards for Clean

Fuel Vehicles and Engines (59 FR 50042, September

30, 1994) and Standards for Emissions from Natural

Gas-fueled and Liquefied Petroleum Gas-fueled

Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines, and

Certification Procedures for Aftermarket

Conversions (59 FR 48471, September 21, 1994), for

additional background information.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 86

[AMS–FRL–6124–1]

Optional Certification Streamlining

Procedures for Light-Duty Vehicles,

Light-Duty Trucks, and Heavy-Duty

Engines for Original Equipment

Manufacturers and for Aftermarket

Conversion Manufacturers; Notice of

Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In today’s action, EPA is

proposing to amend the current

regulatory provisions regarding the

certification of light-duty vehicles, lightduty trucks, and heavy-duty engines

that meet the Clean-Fuel Vehicle (CFV)

requirements. This proposed action

would serve to ease the burden of

certification for manufacturers of CFVs.

EPA is also proposing to revise the

definition for dedicated fuel systems to

include CFVs with limited ability to

operate on a conventional fuel, and is

also proposing to amend current

regulations to allow manufacturers of

CFVs to group certain engine families

together for certification purposes. In

addition, EPA is proposing an

exemption, for MY 1999, 2000 and

2001, from certification fees for

dedicated gaseous-fueled vehicles and

engines that certify to EPA’s Tier 1

standards as well as for all vehicles and

engines that certify to EPA’s CFV, LowEmission Vehicle (LEV), Ultra Low

Emission Vehicle (ULEV), Inherently

Low Emission Vehicle (ILEV), or Zero

Emission Vehicle (ZEV) emission

standards.

DATES: Any party who wishes to submit

comments must do so by August 19,

1998 unless a hearing is requested. Any

person can request EPA to hold a public

hearing on this action, but such request

must be received by August 19, 1998. If

a hearing is requested, it will take place

on September 18, 1998, and interested

parties will have an additional 30 days

after the hearing (until October 19,

1998) to submit comments on any

information presented at the hearing.

Because no hearing will occur, absent a

request for one, interested parties

should contact Clifford D. Tyree at the

number listed below after August 19,

1998 to determine whether a hearing

will take place.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted (in duplicate if possible)

to: Air Docket Section (6102), Attention:

Docket No. A–97–27, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460,

or hand-delivered to the Air Docket at

the above address, in Room M–1500,

Waterside Mall. A copy of written

comments should also be submitted to

Clifford D. Tyree at the address below.

Materials relevant to this notice of

proposed rule are contained in Docket

No. A–97–27, located at the Air Docket,

401 M Street SW, Washington, DC

20460, and may be reviewed in Room

M–1500 from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m.

on business days. As provided in 40

CFR Part 2, EPA may charge a

reasonable fee for photocopying docket

materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Clifford Tyree, Project Manager, U.S.

EPA, National Vehicle and Fuel

Emission Laboratory, Vehicle Programs

and Compliance Division, 2565

Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105–

2425. Telephone: (734) 214–4310; FAX

734–214–4869. E-Mail,

tyree.clifford@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

notice of proposed rulemaking are

Original Equipment Manufacturers

(OEMs) of Light-Duty Vehicles, LightDuty Trucks (LDTs), and Heavy-Duty

Engine (HDEs) manufacturers. In

addition, aftermarket convertors of

LDVs, LDTs, and HDEs will also be

regulated. Entities include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Auto industry of lightduty vehicles, lightduty trucks, and

heavy-duty engines.

Original Equipment

Manufacturers

(OEMs) and

Aftermarket Converters.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this proposed action. This

table lists the types of entities that EPA

is now aware could potentially be

regulated by this proposed action. Other

types of entities not listed in the table

could also be regulated. If you have

questions regarding the applicability of

this proposed action to a particular

product, consult the person listed in the

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

Obtaining Electronic Copies of the

Regulatory Documents

The preamble, regulatory and other

related documents are also available

electronically from the EPA Internet

Web site. This service is free of charge,

except for any cost you already incur for

internet connectivity. An electronic

version is made available on the day of

publication on the primary Web site

listed below. The EPA Office of Mobile

Sources also publishes Federal Register

notices and related documents on

secondary Web site listed below.

1. http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/

EPA-AIR/(either select desired date or

use Search feature.)

2. http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/

cff.htm

Please note that due to differences

between the software used to develop

the document and the software into

which the document may be

downloaded, changes in format, page

length, etc. may occur.

I. Background 1

EPA’s emissions standards and

requirements for clean-fuel vehicles

(CFVs) are contained in 40 CFR Part 88.

These regulations include several sets of

exhaust emissions standards for cleanfuel vehicles (CFVs): Transitional LowEmission Vehicle (TLEV) standards,

Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) standards,

Inherently Low-Emission Vehicle

(ILEV), Ultra Low-Emission Vehicle

(ULEV) standards, and Zero-Emission

Vehicle (ZEV) standards. The

regulations also apply all standards and

requirements in 40 CFR Part 86 to CFVs,

except the Part 86 exhaust emissions

standards for those pollutants for which

Part 88 establishes standards. The CFV

standards apply to all CFVs, including

those that operate on gaseous-fuels like

compressed natural gas (CNG) and

liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

Section 246 of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1990 (‘‘CAA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’),

requires states to adopt in their State

Implementation Plans (SIP) a Clean-fuel

Fleet Program (CFFP) for certain ozone

and carbon monoxide nonattainment

areas. The states’ CFFPs must require

that fleet operators with central fueling

capability shall include a certain

percentage of CFVs that meet LEV

emissions standards in their vehicle

purchases each year, and shall operate

such vehicles on clean alternative-
38768 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

2A clean alternative fuel is defined as a fuel used

in a vehicle that meets the CFV standards when

operating on such fuel. See CAA Section 241(2).

3 40 CFR 88.304–98, Direct Final Rule, 63 FR

20103, April 23, 1998.

4 40 CFR 88.102–94.

5 40 CFR 86.090–2.

6 40 CFR 86.082–2, A light-duty vehicle (LDV)

means a passenger car or passenger car derivative

capable of seating 12 passengers or less.

7 40 CFR 86.094–2, A light light-duty ( LLDT)

means any light-duty truck rated through 6,000 lbs.

GVWR.

8Formaldehyde (HCHO) exhaust emission

standards apply to any fuel used to meet CFV

standards, including gasoline.

9The CFFP requires fleet operators to operate

their CFVs on clean alternative fuels only when in

the covered nonattainment area. Therefore, for dualfuel CFVs, fleet operators may use either the clean

alternative fuel or the conventional fuel outside the

covered nonattainment area.

fuels.2 EPA is aware that fleet operators

subject to CFFP requirements are

concerned about sufficient availability

of CFVs to meet such requirements. For

the 1997 model year, one light-duty

vehicle, two light-duty trucks, and five

heavy-duty vehicle engine families have

been certified to federal CFV standards.

The EPA’s Office of Mobile Sources

recently adopted a one-year delay in

implementation of state CFFPs, due to

concerns about sufficient CFV

availability to meet fleet operator

requirements.3

In today’s action, EPA is proposing to

amend certain provisions intended to

encourage and facilitate the certification

of CFVs by reducing the costs of

certifying in three specific areas. These

provisions are described in detail below.

II. Today’s Proposal

A. Definition of Dedicated Vehicle

Current EPA regulations define a

‘‘dual-fuel vehicle’’ as a motor vehicle,

or engine, engineered and designed to

be operated on two different fuels, but

not on a mixture of fuels.4 A ‘‘dedicated

vehicle’’ is defined as a vehicle or

engine engineered and designed to be

operated using a single fuel.5

There are specific requirements that

apply to dual-fuel light-duty vehicles

(LDVs) 6 and light light-duty trucks

(LLDT) 7 certifying to the CFV emissions

standards. A dual-fuel vehicle must

comply with the applicable set of

standards for each fuel on which it can

operate. To qualify as CFVs for purposes

of state CFFPs, dual-fuel vehicles must

meet LEV (or more stringent) emissions

standards on the clean alternative fuel

and the TLEV non-methane organic gas

(NMOG) emission standard on the

conventional fuel.8 On the conventional

fuel, the vehicle must meet Tier 1,

NMOG and HCHO emission standards

and also comply with all other motor

vehicle emissions control requirements

contained in 40 CFR Part 86 (such as the

cold temperature carbon monoxide

standard (Cold CO), onboard diagnostic

requirement (OBD), and certification

short test (CST) requirements) that

apply to comparable conventional

gasoline vehicles.

For vehicles with a dedicated fuel

system to be a feasible option for fleets,

many fleet operators will need the

flexibility to operate on conventional

fuel in emergency situations, when

central fueling is impossible. If the fleet

operator is subject to the CFFP, and is

operating in a nonattainment area

covered by the CFFP, he must operate

the vehicle on a fuel on which the

vehicle meets the CFV emissions

standards to comply with the CFFP

requirements. If the vehicle is certified

to the LEV emissions standards on both

fuels, the fleet operator would have the

option of using the conventional fuel in

the covered nonattainment area.

However, if the vehicle is certified to

the LEV standards only on CNG or LPG,

that option would not be available.

In light of the limited gaseous-fuel

fueling stations in the nonattainment

areas covered by a CFFP, fleet operators

are concerned that the safety of vehicle

operators and occupants could be at risk

during inclement weather.9 In addition,

unforeseen traffic delays (or other

unforeseen delays) may cause fleet

vehicles to be stranded, resulting in

higher costs for and reduced efficiency

of the fleet. For these reasons, EPA has

determined that it would be reasonable

and appropriate to revise the definition

of a dedicated vehicle to allow

operation up to a limited mileage on a

conventional fuel.

As described above, fleet operators

subject to the CFFP must operate their

CFV’s on a ‘‘clean alternative fuel,’’ as

defined in CAA Section 241(2). To

ensure that CFVs that operate on

gaseous fuels are a feasible option for

fleet operators covered by the CFFP,

EPA would certify as dedicated CFVs

vehicles meeting the CFV dual-fuel

standards with limited ability to operate

on a conventional fuel, as described

above. EPA’s issuance of such

certificates is authorized by the

Agency’s authority to adopt de minimis

exemptions to statutory requirements,

and is consistent with Congressional

intent.

Section 246(b) of the CAA requires

state CFFPs to provide that covered fleet

operators must operate their clean-fuel

vehicles on clean alternative fuels when

operating in the covered nonattainment

area. Clean alternative fuel, in turn, is

defined as a fuel used in a CFV that

meets applicable emissions standards

and requirements when operating on

such fuel. See § 241(2). Courts have

recognized EPA’s authority to provide

exemptions from CAA requirements

when the burdens of regulation yield a

gain of trivial or no value. Alabama

Power v. Costle, 636 F.2d.323 (D.C. Cir.

1979). EPA believes that prohibiting

gaseous-fueled vehicles capable of

limited operation on gasoline from

qualifying as CFVs would unnecessarily

increase the burden of compliance with

state CFFPs, and would not result in any

emissions benefits.

Allowing limited operation of such

vehicles on gasoline in emergency

situations would not result in any

adverse emissions impacts. If a gaseousfueled fleet vehicle is stranded within

the nonattainment area due to lack of

fuel, and cannot operate on gasoline,

even for a limited number of miles,

without violating the CFFP

requirements, another vehicle would

have to be dispatched to ‘‘rescue’’ the

stranded vehicle and its occupants. The

second vehicle may not be a CFV,

especially if it is not owned by the

covered fleet (e.g., if a tow truck was

required to retrieve the stranded

vehicle). This ‘‘rescue operation’’ will

therefore result in emissions likely to be

equivalent to, and perhaps in excess of,

the incremental additional emissions

resulting from the limited operation of

the gaseous-fueled CFV on gasoline.

In general, EPA expects that CFVs

meeting the revised definition of

dedicated vehicle would meet the Tier

1 emission standards when operating on

conventional fuel. EPA expects that

Original Equipment Manufacturers

(OEMs) will produce vehicles that meet

the revised definition of dedicated

vehicle and have limited ability to

operate on a conventional fuel by

limiting the conventional fuel use

function of dual-fuel vehicles (or

engines) previously certified to Tier 1

emissions standards on conventional

fuel. Aftermarket conversion companies

are likely to convert vehicles (or

engines) previously certified to Tier 1

standards on a conventional fuel to

operate on a gaseous fuel at least LEV

emissions levels. If these vehicles are

equipped with an emergency reserve

tank with limited capacity for the

conventional fuel, EPA expects that the

vehicles’ emissions on conventional fuel

during emergency operation will be

similar to the emissions of the vehicle

prior to conversion (i.e., Tier 1

emissions levels). Therefore, EPA

believes it would be appropriate for

state CFFPs to allow fleet operators to

purchase dedicated gaseous-fueled

vehicles that have limited ability to

operate on gasoline, and to operate for
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 38769

10Reference NHTSA’s rules found at 49 CFR Part

555.

11 40 CFR 86.096–24.

12 40 CFR 86.094–24(e)(2).

13See EPA Advisory Circular 17F, page 9, which

can be found in the docket for this rulemaking

action.

limited mileage on gasoline in

emergency situations in the covered

nonattainment area.

EPA regulations define the term

‘‘centrally fueled’’ as meaning a fleet, or

that part of a fleet, consisting of vehicles

that are fueled 100 percent of the time

at a location that is owned, operated, or

controlled by the covered fleet operator,

or is under contract with the covered

fleet operator. See 40 CFR 88.302–94.

The proposed de minimis exemption for

limited operation on conventional fuel

described above would not affect this

definition of ‘‘centrally fueled’’, because

the de minimis exemption would allow

only limited operation in emergency

circumstances. A fleet operator would

still need to determine whether, in

normal circumstances, its covered fleet

vehicles are centrally fueled 100 percent

of the time.

EPA considered two modifications to

the definition of dedicated vehicle to

allow limited operation on conventional

fuel. EPA considered proposing to

modify the definition of a dedicated

fueled vehicle to allow vehicles to be

equipped with a fuel tank that would

allow a range of operation of 50 statute

miles. This would require the

replacement of the existing gasoline

tank with a tank of approximately twogallon capacity. However, the act of

removing an existing fuel tank that has

met the crash tests and other testing

required by the National Highway

Transportation Safety Administration

(NHTSA) 10 could require another set of

vehicle crash tests with any vehicle

using a ‘‘new’’ fuel tank system, and the

cost of conducting another set of vehicle

crash tests may deter manufacturers

from modifying vehicles in this manner.

An alternative modification EPA

considered proposing is retention of the

existing fuel tank and use of a timer to

restrict fuel usage. The timer could

allow a maximum of one hour of

operation on gasoline followed by a

period of time the vehicle could not

operate on gasoline. Manufacturers

would be required to program these

time periods into one of the vehicle’s

computers. The choice of one hour of

operation is roughly equivalent to the

50-mile range criterion, based on the

combined fuel economy values and an

assumed vehicle average speed of 50

miles-per-hour.

To provide maximum flexibility to

manufacturers and fleet operators, EPA

is proposing to amend definition of a

dedicated vehicle to allow both of these

approaches: clean fuel vehicles

equipped with a timer that limits

operation on gasoline to one hour at a

time, and clean fuel vehicles equipped

with a fuel tank with fuel capacity of no

more than 50 miles of operation on

gasoline, will be included in the

definition of a dedicated vehicle.

Because the use of conventional fuel is

intended for emergency use only, and

the operation on conventional fuel is

expected to be an exception, no

emission or fuel economy testing would

be required on these vehicles with

conventional fuel.

The proposed revision to the

definition of dedicated fuel systems

would apply only to light-duty vehicles

and light-duty trucks, because EPA has

not adopted heavy-duty flexible and

dual fueled Clean-Fuel vehicle

standards. See 59 FR 50050 (September

30, 1994).

B. Engine Family Criteria and Assigned

Deterioration Factors

Manufacturers and aftermarket

converters have expressed concerns to

EPA regarding the overall burden of

complying with EPA’s certification

regulations for vehicles converted to

operate on a clean alternative fuel for

the purpose of meeting EPA’s CFV

emissions standards. The burdens

identified relate to the cost of certifying

each engine family and the narrowness

of the criteria under which exhaust

emission control systems are classified

into engine families.11

Because of the diversity in marketing

requirements, a number of engine

families, with limited sales, would be

created under current regulations to

meet consumer needs. Currently EPA

provides for relief from full useful life

deterioration factor (DF) requirement for

engine families with a combined total

sales of no more than 10,000 vehicles or

engines.12 In today’s action EPA is

proposing to adopt similar provisions,

applicable thru MY 2001, for vehicles

and engines certified to EPA’s CFV

emissions standards.

The costs identified by the OEM and

aftermarket conversion manufacturers

were the actual costs associated with

certifying each engine family. Costs

attributed to certifying each engine

family are development costs, testing

costs, and certification fees. Various

aftermarket conversion entities have

estimated the costs of generating DFs to

be in excess of $1 million for each

engine family. While EPA does not have

data to corroborate these cost estimates,

the Agency believes that the cost of

generating DFs is significant, but

expects it is well below $1 million per

engine family. EPA’s current regulations

for small volume engine family

certification allow manufacturers to use

assigned DFs generated by EPA. See 40

CFR 86.096–24(e)(2) Manufacturers may

also use Dfs they have generated using

good engineering judgment. See 40 CFR

86.094–14(c)(7)(i)(C)(2)(i). In today’s

action, EPA is proposing to amend the

regulations that clarify these options are

also available for CFV small-volume

engine families. In September, 1995,

EPA issued a guidance letter to

manufacturers containing assigned DFs

for gaseous fueled vehicles. In general,

EPA expects that manufacturer’s use of

these assigned DFs for gaseous fueled

CFVs would qualify as DFs generated

using good engineering judgment under

the regulatory provision adopted today.

EPA is proposing to amend the

provisions that allow grouping of

certain CFV engine families into an

engine family class. The criteria for such

grouping is described below. EPA

expects that this proposed action would

serve to encourage production of CFVs

for fleet operators to purchase and use

to meet state CFFP purchase

requirements by reducing the amount of

testing needed for certification of CFVs.

This would allow manufacturers to

introduce a greater number of CFV

models desired by fleet owners without

incurring additional testing costs.

Fleet vehicles must be able to perform

a wide variety of duties, such as meterreading tasks, service repair, making

deliveries, transporting passengers, etc.

Therefore, for a manufacturer or

aftermarket converter to be competitive

in the clean fuel vehicle fleet market,

multiple engine families need to be

certified for different needs.

Currently, vehicle grouping for the

purpose of certification is accomplished

though the application of the ‘‘engine

family’’ and ‘‘emission control system’’

definitions in the regulations. Today’s

proposal would establish a new

definition for grouping engine families:

engine family class. An engine family

class would be defined as engines

sharing the following common

characteristics: (1) Meeting LEV, ILEV,

ULEV, or ZEV emission standards in 40

CFR Part 88, (2) same car line name, (3)

all engines have engine displacements

within a range of 0.8L 13 less than the

displacement of the engine used for

certification testing, (4) same catalyst

construction, (5) same type of precious

metals used in the catalyst, and (6) same
38770 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

relative engine/catalyst size and loading

rates.

EPA is proposing to amend the

criteria for engine family classes to

reduce the certification burden for CFVs

and to combine vehicles which are

likely to exhibit similar exhaust

emission deterioration over their useful

lives, based on the characteristics of

current-technology vehicles that most

significantly affect the deterioration of

emission control over time. Each engine

family class would be certified using

separate emission compliance data and

a separate certificate of conformity

would be required for each engine

family class.

The engine family concept was

originally developed as a way to

combine vehicles of similar emission

deterioration rates. At that time (in the

early 1970’s), the use of catalytic

converters was less prevalent and most

emission reductions occurred though

modifications to the engine operating

characteristics. For these vehicles, all

emission deterioration was due to

increases in emissions coming directly

out of the engine (called ‘‘engine-out’’

emissions). Consequently, the definition

of engine family focused on enginebased parameters. Since that time, there

have been many advances in exhaust

emission control technology which have

made the engine family concept less

useful for the purposes of grouping

vehicles together on the basis of

emission deterioration.

In today’s vehicles, most emission

control is accomplished through

catalytic conversion of the exhaust

while the engine is controlled to operate

within carefully controlled air/fuel

ratios to ensure optimum catalyst

efficiency. While manufacturers have

demonstrated that essentially no engineout deterioration is experienced in their

current product, the mating of the

catalyst with the engine is extremely

important. Appropriate sizing of the

catalyst to the engine is critical to

achieve an appropriate catalyst

residence time (the time the exhaust

gases remain in the catalyst) so that the

catalytic reaction has time to be

completed. Adequate levels of precious

metal loading and appropriate

dispersion are necessary to provide the

active sites for conversion and achieve

the desired conversion rates. Also, the

catalyst must be placed in a temperature

environment that allows it to quickly

come to operating temperature but does

not expose it to damaging amounts of

high temperature during in-use driving.

The proposed engine family class

definition takes into account the

changes in emission control technology

by shifting the focus away from engine

parameters to the ability of the overall

engine and emission control system to

meet LEV, or better, standards. This

single requirement of focusing on a

more stringent emission standard would

require the matching of the catalyst to

the engine. The Agency believes that the

proposed engine family class definition

would comprise an effective emission

control program and result in significant

environmental benefits by giving

manufacturers additional incentives to

produce and market a broader range of

vehicles and engines that meet the CFV

standards.

EPA is proposing to provide this

newly created engine family class

criteria through model year 2001, by

which time EPA expects that

manufacturers would have had several

years to assess the market requirements

and should be able to more accurately

predict which vehicle models, out of

approximately 400 engine families

currently certified, fleet owners need

and consumers favor. Manufacturers

would then know which engine families

to focus certification testing on, rather

than certifying a variety of engine

families. EPA currently intends to

propose new certification procedures for

all light-duty vehicles and light-duty

trucks for application in model year

2000. If these expected actions are

delayed, the applicability of the

definition proposed in this notice could

be extended in a subsequent rule.

EPA notes that the proposed

requirement that all engines in an

engine family class have the same type

of catalyst precious metal loading would

apply only to OEMs. EPA is aware that

catalysts are built to the OEM’s

specifications, and that the actual

amount and ratio of precious metals in

the catalyst is often considered

confidential business information that

cannot be obtained by an aftermarket

converter who purchases a vehicle

manufactured by an OEM to convert it

to operate on a clean alternative fuel.

EPA believes that the remaining criteria

for grouping engines into an engine

family class are sufficient to ensure that

vehicles and engines converted to

operate on a clean alternative fuel have

similar emissions characteristics and

that it would be appropriate to group

such vehicles and engines together.

Because manufacturers can only group

vehicles that are in the same car line,

and have similar engine displacements,

catalyst construction, etc., it is unlikely

that vehicles or engines that share those

common characteristics will have

different catalyst precious metal

loadings. In the event that EPA has

reason to believe that, in spite of

meeting the other criteria, an

aftermarket converter is attempting to

group engines with different precious

metal loadings, EPA is proposing to

reserve the right to limit engine family

groupings by aftermarket conversion

companies if the Agency has reason to

believe that the proposed engine family

grouping would result in an engine

family class containing engine families

that are so dissimilar that such grouping

is not appropriate. Since the Agency’s

belief could be based on information

that is protected by confidential

business practices, EPA could not

necessarily disclose this information to

the aftermarket conversion company.

Based on a review of engine families

from previous model years, the Agency

does not believe this scenario is likely

to occur but has decided to propose

such a provision due to the theoretical

possibility of the scenario occurring in

the future.

C. Fees

Today’s action proposes to amend the

current fee schedule in 40 CFR Part 86,

Subpart J by proposing exemptions from

certification fee requirements. The

exemption (through MY 2001) is

proposed for vehicles and engines using

certified to LEV, ULEV, ILEV, or ZEV,

emission standards in 40 CFR Part 88

under the small-volume certification

procedures in 40 CFR 86.094–14. In

addition, a fee exemption is provided

through MY 2001 for dedicated gaseous

fuel systems meeting Tier 1 emission

standards.

The Act authorizes EPA to promulgate

(and from time to time revise)

regulations establishing fees to recover

all reasonable costs to the Agency

associated with (1) certification of new

vehicles or engines under section 206(a)

or under part C of Title II of the Act, (2)

compliance monitoring and testing

under section 206(b) or part C, and (3)

in-use compliance monitoring and

testing under section 207(c) of part C.

Section 217 of the Act requires such fees

to be consistent with the Independent

Offices Appropriation Act (IOAA), 37

U.S.C. 9701 et seq., and requires that the

Agency’s fee schedule be based on such

factors as the Administrator finds

appropriate, equitable, and

nondiscriminatory (including the

number of vehicles or engines produced

under a certificate).

Pursuant to its authority under

section 217, EPA established a fee

schedule to recover costs associated

with the activities described above. This

fee schedule currently applies to lightduty vehicles, light-duty trucks, heavyduty vehicles, heavy-duty engines, and

motorcycles, regardless of the emissions

standards to which such vehicles are
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 38771

14As of May 30, 1997.

certified. Current EPA regulations

provide for a partial fee waiver for

certification requests where the full fee

exceeds one percent of the aggregate

projected retail sales price of vehicles

that the certificate would cover. If EPA

grants a waiver, the applicable fee

would be equivalent to one percent of

the aggregate projected retail sales price

of the vehicles or engines covered by the

certification request.

The first exemption proposed today is

for vehicle technologies certifying to

LEV, ULEV, ILEV, or ZEV emissions

standards in 40 CFR 88.104–94 and

88.105–94. This proposed exemption is

consistent with Section 217 of the CAA,

and with the IOAA. Section 217

requires EPA’s fee schedule to be based

on factors that the Administrator finds

are ‘‘appropriate and equitable and

nondiscriminatory.’’ Section 217 also

requires EPA’s fee regulations to be

consistent with the IOAA. The IOAA

states that ’’* * * [I]t is the sense of

Congress that each service or thing of

value provided by an agency * * * is to

be self-sustaining to the extent

possible.’’ In addition, the IOAA

authorizes agency heads to adopt

regulations establishing a fee for such

‘‘services or things of value’’ provided

by the agency. Such fees must be fair,

and must be based on the following

factors: (1) Cost to the government, (2)

value of the service or thing to the

recipient, (3) public policy or interest

serviced, and (4) other relevant facts.

The proposed exemption from

certification fees for vehicles and

engines certified as LEVs, ILEVs,

ULEVs, and ZEVs emission standards is

consistent with the IOAA. The IOAA

does not require agencies to be

completely self-sustaining, but only ‘‘to

the extent possible.’’ In establishing

fees, it is appropriate for EPA to weigh

its broad purpose under the CAA of

protecting the nation’s air quality

against the sense of Congress that

agencies should be self-sustaining to the

extent possible. See Aeronautical Radio

v. Federal Communications

Commission, 335 F.2d. 304 (7th Cir.,

1964). While EPA recognizes that the

Agency would incur costs in issuing

certificates for such vehicles, and in

assuring compliance with the applicable

emissions standards, the proposed fee

exemption is consistent with

Congressional intent to encourage the

development and production of cleanfuel vehicles for state clean-fuel fleet

programs, and with the broader longterm goal of encouraging the penetration

of clean-fuel vehicles in the national

vehicle market. These are valid public

policy interests that may be considered

as a factor in setting fees under the

IOAA in a manner that furthers such

interests.

The proposed fee exemption for Tier

1 alternative fuel vehicles is also

consistent with Section 217 of the CAA

and with the IOAA. As described above,

the IOAA does not require agencies to

be completely self-sustaining, but only

to ‘‘the fullest extent possible,’’ and it is

appropriate for EPA to weigh its broad

purpose under the CAA of protecting air

quality against the sense of Congress

that agencies should be self-sustaining

to the extent possible. While EPA

recognizes that the Agency would incur

costs in issuing certificates for such

vehicles and in assuring compliance

with the applicable emissions

standards, the proposed fee exemption

is consistent with EPA’s broad purpose

of protecting air quality. Although these

vehicles would be certified to Tier 1

emissions standards, rather than to the

more stringent CFV emissions

standards, all fuel systems for a gaseousfuel would have lower evaporative

emissions than gasoline fueled vehicles

because these fuel systems are ‘‘closed’’

fuel systems under pressure. These

closed fuel systems are the only fuel

systems thus far that have been able to

demonstrated compliance with the

lower evaporative emission standards

required for ILEV evaporative emission

compliance. Even though the operating

fuel system on these vehicles and

engines will have a fuel system that is

similar to systems meeting ILEV

evaporative standards, these vehicles

could also have an emergency supply of

conventional fuel and still qualify as

dedicated vehicles if EPA finalized the

proposed revisions to the definition of

dedicated vehicle discussed in section

C. 1. above. Lower evaporative

emissions can still be expected from

such vehicles because they will carry

lower volumes of conventional fuel than

do dedicated conventional fuel vehicles.

In addition, there will be lower

refueling losses because the conventual

fuel is an emergency only fuel supply

and will be replenished infrequently.

Therefore, it would be appropriate and

consistent with EPA’s broad purpose of

reducing emissions that result in air

pollution problems for the Agency to

waive certification fees for gaseousfueled Tier 1 vehicles as a means to

encourage manufacturers to produce

such vehicles. Moreover, EPA expects

that some CFVs purchased by fleet

operators towards compliance with

requirements of CFFPs will be gaseousfueled CFVs, and encouraging

production of gaseous-fueled Tier 1

vehicles would assist those fleet

operators that choose gaseous-fueled

CFVs by promoting and supporting the

gaseous fuel fueling infrastructure.

The current fee structure is based on

recovering EPA’s cost for each engine

family. Current regulations rules do

allow for partial waiver of the full fee.

This waiver requires the manufacturer

to pay 1 percent of the retail value of the

vehicle up to a full fee. The net result

is for any engine family with expected

annual sales of approximately 100 units,

the manufacturers would be required to

pay the full certification fee. For

aftermarket conversions, however, the

one percent of the retail value criterion

is based on the sales price of the

converted vehicle, and does not reflect

the cost of procuring the pre-conversion

vehicle or engine. The conversion

process may add $5,000 to the vehicle’s

pre-conversion cost. The retail value of

the converted vehicle may be anywhere

from $10,000 for a LDV to $20,000 for

a pickup truck. The fee the aftermarket

conversion manufacturer pays is based

on the total retail value of the vehicle,

not just the value added. Therefore, if

the retail value of the converted vehicle

is $25,000 the fee under the current

waiver provision would be 1 percent of

$25,000, or $250. If the convertor

expects to sell at least 100 converted

vehicles, it would have to pay the full

certification fee of $23,741.00 .

For the 1997 model year 14 EPA

certified 12 engine families to LEV,

ILEV, ULEV, and ZEV emission

standards; three LDV’s, four LDT’s, and

five HDE’s. The total fees paid to EPA

for these 12 engine families amount to

less than $250,000. Since few gaseousfueled engine families have been

certified to Tier 1 emissions standards,

EPA does not expect the cost of the fee

waiver proposed for Tier 1 gaseousfueled vehicles and engines would be

significant. The cost of the proposed

fees exemptions would not be passed on

to other manufacturers.

In today’s action, EPA is proposing a

fee exemption for any engine family

certified to Federal LEV, ILEV, ULEV, or

ZEV emissions standards in 40 CFR Part

88. The proposed fee exemption,

applicable through MY 2001, would be

expected to result in a greater number

of engine families and vehicles available

for fleet operators to purchase and use

to comply with the requirements of

Clean-Fuel Fleet Programs. In addition,

today’s proposal is intended to reduce

the overall burden of certifying cleanfuel vehicles and to provide additional

incentive to both OEM and aftermarket

converters to certify vehicles and

engines that meet the CFV emission

standards.
38772 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

This proposed exemption would

apply through MY 2001 because EPA

expects that such incentive will not be

needed after MY 2001 as the production

and sales of CFVs by that time should

be at a level such that the amount of fees

paid to EPA can easily be amortized

over the total sales. EPA would apply

this exemption in an equitable,

nondiscriminatory manner—any

manufacturer of a small volume engine

family certified to LEV, ULEV, ILEV, or

ZEV emissions standards under 40 CFR

Part 88 would be eligible to receive an

exemption.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency

must determine whether this proposed

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and

therefore subject to Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) review

and, the requirements of the Executive

Order. The order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect, in a material way, the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, EPA has determined that

this proposed action is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ within the meaning

of the Executive Order, and is therefore

not subject to OMB review. Today’s

action proposes to amend current

regulations to streamline the

certification process for manufacturers

of Clean Fuel vehicles and dual fuel

gaseous fueled vehicles and engines.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule of any rule subject to notice and

comment rulemaking requirements

unless the agency certifies that the rule

will not have significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

business, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This proposed rule would

not have significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because today’s proposed action would

not impose any new requirements on

small entities. In fact, this proposal

would reduce the costs of certification

for all entities, including small entities,

that manufacturers of CFVs, as well as

reducing costs for all entities that

convert conventional vehicles to

vehicles that operate on gaseous and

other fuels, including small entities that

perform such actions. Therefore, I

certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘UMRA’’) signed into law on March 22,

1995, EPA must prepare a written

statement to accompany any rule where

the estimated costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

to the private sector, will be $100

million or more in any one year. Under

section 205, for any rule subject to

section 202, EPA must select the most

cost-effective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objective of

the rule and that is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

and uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that this

proposed rule does not trigger the

requirements of UMRA. The proposed

rule does not include a Federal mandate

that may result in estimated annual

costs to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more,

and it does not propose regulatory

requirements that may significantly or

uniquely affect small governments.

Therefore, this proposed rule does not

trigger the requirements of UMRA.

D. Reporting and Recordkeeping

Requirement

Today’s proposal does not impose any

new information collection burden. The

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has previously approved the

information collection requirements

under the provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

And has assigned OMB control number

2060–0104 (EPA ICR No. 0783).

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instruction; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search for data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

Copies of the ICR document(s) may be

obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division; EPA;

401 M St., SW. (mail code 2137);

Washington, DC 20460 or by calling

(202) 260–2740. Include the ICR and/or

OMB number in any correspondence.

E. Environmental and Economic

Impacts

This proposal will have no adverse

effects on air quality, since all current

emissions standards and requirements

would continue to apply to vehicles and

engines affected by today’s action. EPA

believes that this proposed action would

encourage manufacturers to develop and

market vehicles and engines with

innovative, new emissions control

technology, ultimately resulting in

broader market penetration of CFVs and

clean alternative fuels.

By proposing to waive certification

fees for qualifying vehicles, this

proposed action would reduce the

regulatory burden on industry without

adversely affecting air quality.

F. Protection of Children From

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks

This proposed rule is not subject to

E.O. 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it does not

involve decisions on environmental

health risks or safety risks that

disproportionately affect

G. Public Participation

1. Comments and the Public Docket

EPA welcomes comments on all

aspects of this proposed rulemaking. All

comments, with the exception of

proprietary information should be

addressed to the EPA Air Docket

Section, Docket No. A–97–27 (see

ADDRESSES).

Commenters who wish to submit

proprietary information for
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 38773

consideration should clearly separate

such information from other comments

by (1) labeling proprietary information

‘‘Confidential business Information’’

and (2) sending proprietary information

directly to the contact person listed (see

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and

not to the public docket. This would

help insure that proprietary information

is not inadvertently placed in the

docket. If a commenter wants EPA to

use a submission labeled as confidential

business information as part of the basis

for the notice of proposed rulemaking,

then a non-confidential version of the

document, which summarizes the key

data or information, should be sent to

the docket.

Information covered by a claim of

confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA

only to the extent allowed and by the

procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.

If no claim of confidentiality

accompanies the submission when it is

received by EPA, the submission may be

made available to the public without

notifying the commenters.

2. Public Hearing

Any person can request EPA to hold

a public hearing on this proposed

action, but such request must be

received by August 19, 1998. Because

no hearing will occur, absent a request

for one, interested parties should

contact Clifford D. Tyree at the number

listed below after August 19, 1998 to

determine whether a hearing will take

place.

IV. Statutory Authority

Authority for the actions set forth in

this notice of proposed rulemaking is

granted to the EPA by sections 202, 203,

206, 207, 217, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245,

246, 247, and 301(a) of the Clean Air

Act as amended (15 U.S.C. 2001, 2002,

2003, 2005, 2006, 2013; 42 U.S.C. 7521,

7522, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7549,

7550, and 7601(a)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: July 8, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be

amended as follows:

PART 86—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 86

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

2. Section 86.090–2 of Subpart A is

amended by revising the definition of

‘‘Dedicated vehicle (or engine)’’ to read

as follows:

§ 86.090–2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Dedicated vehicle (or engine) means,

any motor vehicle (or motor vehicle

engine) engineered and designed to be

operated using a single fuel. Flexible

fuel vehicles and multi-fuel vehicles are

not dedicated fuel vehicles. Through

model year 2001, motor vehicles (or

motor vehicle engines) capable of

operating on a second fuel through use

of one of the options listed in

paragraphs (1) and (2) of this definition

are dedicated vehicles (or engines):

(1) Vehicles or engines certified to

Tier 1, LEV, ULEV, ILEV, or ZEV that

are capable of operation on a

conventional fuel for a maximum of one

hour during a three-hour period.

(2) Vehicles or engines certified to

Tier 1, LEV, ULEV, ILEV, or ZEV that

are capable of operation on a

conventional fuel no more than 50 miles

on a conventional fuel limited either by

fuel tank capacity or tamper-proof

electronic software.

* * * * *

3. Section 86.096–24 of Subpart A is

amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)

introductory text and adding new

paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(5), (e)(1), (i), and (j)

to read as follows:

§ 86.096–24 Test vehicles and engines.

(a) * * *

(2) To be classed in the same engine

family, engines must be identical in all

the respects listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)

through (x) of this section or, at the

manufacturers option, as allowed in

paragraphs (i) and (j) of this section.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(4) Light-duty vehicles and light-duty

trucks applying for a certificate of

conformity with Clean-Fuel vehicle

emissions standards in 40 CFR part 88.

This paragraph (c)(4) applies to engines,

systems, or components used to

establish exhaust emission deterioration

factors for light-duty vehicle and lightduty truck small volume engine families

certified to LEV, ILEV, ULEV, or ZEV

emissions standards in 40 CFR part 88.

(i) For light duty vehicles, the

Administrator shall select the vehicles,

engines, systems, or components to be

used to determine exhaust emission

deterioration factors for each engine

family or engine family class control

system combination using the criteria in

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, or,

alternatively, by selecting the vehicle

with the largest projected sales volume

in the engine family or engine family

class.

(ii) For light duty trucks, the

manufacturer shall select the vehicles,

engines, systems, or components to be

used to determine exhaust emission

deterioration factors for each engine

family or engine family class control

system combination using the criteria in

paragraph (c)(2) of this section, or

alternatively, by selecting the vehicle

with the largest projected sales volume

in the engine family or engine family

class.

(iii) For light duty vehicles, service

accumulation procedures must comply

with one of the following:

(A) 40 CFR 86.094–26 (a); or

(B) 40 CFR 86.094–14 (c)(7)(i)(C).

(iv) For light duty trucks, service

accumulation procedures must comply

with one of the following:

(A) 40 CFR 86.094–26 (b) and (d); or

(B) 40 CFR 86.094–14 (c)(7)(i)(C).

(5) Heavy-duty engines applying for a

certificate of conformity with Clean-fuel

vehicle emissions standards in 40 CFR

part 88. This paragraph (c)(5) applies to

engines, systems, or components used to

establish exhaust emission deterioration

factors for small volume heavy-duty

engine families certified to LEV, ILEV,

ULEV, or ZEV emissions standards in 40

CFR part 88.

(i) The manufacturer shall select the

vehicles, engines, systems, or

components to be used to determine

exhaust emission deterioration factors

for each engine family or engine family

class control system combination using

the criteria in paragraph (c)(3) of this

section, or alternatively, by selecting the

engine with the largest projected sales

volume in the engine family or engine

family class.

(ii) Service accumulation procedures

must comply with one of the following:

(A) 40 CFR 86.094–26(c) and (d);

(B) 40 CFR 86.094–14 (c)(7)(i)(C); or

(C) The engine must be operated at

maximum power and maximum fuel

rate for 500 engine hours. Three tests,

equally spaced, shall be used to

extrapolate deterioration factors.

* * * * *

(e)(1) Any manufacturer may request

to certify engine families, with

combined total U.S. sales of vehicles

and engines fewer than 10,000 units, for

the model years 1999 through 2001, to

the clean-fuel vehicle standards

prescribed in 40 CFR 88.104–94 and
38774 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

88.105–94, under the provisions of

§ 86.094–14, in addition to the vehicles

certified under paragraph (e)(2) of this

section.

* * * * *

(i) For light duty vehicles and light

duty trucks, small volume engine

families certified to LEV, ULEV, ILEV,

or ZEV emissions standards in 40 CFR

part 88 may be grouped into an engine

family class, provided that:

(1) For original equipment

manufacturers, the following criteria are

met:

(i) Vehicles are all certified to the

same emissions standards prescribed in

40 CFR 88.104–94.

(ii) The maximum range of engine

displacement is less than or equal to 0.8

liters of the largest displacement in the

class.

(iii) Same type of catalyst (e.g., beads

or monolith).

(iv) Same precious metal composition

of the catalyst by the type of principle

active material(s) used (e.g., platinum

based oxidation catalyst, palladium

based oxidation catalyst, platinum and

rhodium three-way catalyst, palladium

and rhodium three-way catalyst).

(v) The ratios of [(catalysts volume/

displacement) × (catalyst loading rate)]

of all catalysts is within 25 percent or

0.2 g/liter of each other.

(2) For aftermarket conversions, the

following criteria are met:

(i) Vehicles are all certified to the

same emissions standards prescribed in

40 CFR 88.104–94.

(ii) The maximum range of engine

displacement is less than or equal to 0.8

liters of the largest displacement in the

class.

(iii) Same type of catalyst (e.g., beads

or monolith).

(iv) All carlines or engine models

were included on the certificate for the

pre-conversion configuration.

(3) Vehicles certifying to more than

one set of emission standards specified

in this paragraph (i) may be grouped

into a single engine family class, as

provided in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2)

of this section. For example, a

manufacturer may certify a vehicle to

both ULEV and ILEV standards, or to

both ZEV and ILEV standards.

(j) For heavy duty engines, small

volume engine families certified to LEV,

ULEV, or ZEV emissions standards in 40

CFR 88.105–94 may be grouped into an

engine family class, provided that:

(1) For original equipment

manufacturers, the following criteria are

met:

(i) The engines meet the requirements

of paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) through (a)(2)(x)

of this section.

(ii) The maximum range of engine

displacement is less than or equal to 0.8

liters of the largest displacement in the

class.

(iii) Same type of catalyst (e.g., beads

or monolith).

(iv) Same precious metal composition

of the catalyst by the type of principle

active material(s) used (e.g., platinum

based oxidation catalyst, palladium

based oxidation catalyst, platinum and

rhodium three-way catalyst, palladium

and rhodium three-way catalyst).

(v) The ratio of [(catalysts volume/

displacement)] × [catalyst loading rate]

of all combinations is within 25% or .2

g/liter.

(2) For aftermarket conversions, the

following criteria are met:

(i) The maximum range of engine

displacement is less than or equal to 0.8

liters of the largest displacement in the

class.

(ii) Same type of catalyst (e.g., beads

or monolith).

(iii) All carlines or engine models

were included on the certificate for the

pre-conversion configuration.

4. Section 86.099–2 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.099–2 Definitions.

The definitions of § 86.098–2

continue to apply to 1998 and later

model year vehicles. The definitions

listed in this section apply beginning

with the 1999 model year.

Engine Family Class means:

(1) A grouping of vehicles or engine

families that meets the following

criteria:

(i) Dedicated vehicles or engines that

meet LEV, ILEV, ULEV, or ZEV

emission standards in 40 CFR 88.104–94

or 88.105–94.

(ii) The maximum range of engine

displacement is not more than 0.8L of

the largest displacement tested in the

class.

(iii) Same type of catalyst.

(iv) Same principle active precious

metal.

(v) The ratios of [(catalysts volume/

displacement) × (catalyst loading rate)]

of all catalysts is within 25 percent or

0.2 g/liter of each other.

(vi) For aftermarket conversions, all

carlines or engine models were included

on the certificate for the pre-conversion

configuration.

(2) This definition is applicable for

model years 1999 through 2001.

5. Section 86.908–93 of Subpart J is

amended by adding paragraph (d) to

read as follows:

§ 86.908–93 Waivers and refunds.

* * * * *

(d)(1) For model years 1999 through

2001, the required fees under this

subpart shall be waived for any lightduty vehicle, light-duty truck, or heavyduty engine family that meets the

following requirements:

(i) Is a dedicated vehicle or engine;

(ii) Is seeking certification to LEV,

ILEV, ULEV, or ZEV emissions

standards in 40 CFR part 88; and

(iii) Meets the small volume sales

requirements of § 86.094–14(b) or

§ 86.094–24(e).

(2) If the manufacturer does not

receive a certificate of conformity with

the LEV, ILEV, ULEV, or ZEV emissions

standards in 40 CFR part 88, the fee

requirements of this section will apply.

Before any certificate can be issued, the

applicable fee must be paid.

[FR Doc. 98–18860 Filed 7–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 69

[CC Docket No. 98–77; FCC 98–101]

Access Charge Reform for Incumbent

Local Exchange Carriers Subject to

Rate-of-Return Regulation

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: By this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission

commences a proceeding to reform

access charge rules applicable to

incumbent local exchange carriers

(LECs) subject to rate-of-return

regulation. The NPRM seeks comment

on proposals to establish a transition to

access charges that more closely reflect

economic costs, with a goal of making

our system of interstate access charges

compatible with a competitive

paradigm. Specifically, the Commission

seeks comment on proposals to revise

the switched access rate structure for

rate-of-return LECs. The Commission

also solicits comments on some

additional issues relating to the

regulation of interstate access services of

rate-of-return LECs.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

August 17, 1998, and reply comments

are due on or before September 17,

1998. Written comments and reply

comments by the public on the

proposed information collections are

due August 17 and September 17, 1998,

respectively.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Secretary, Room 222, 1919

M Street N.W., Washington, DC 20554.

In addition to filing comments with the