122 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

part 71) amends the Class E airspace

area at Lovelock, NV. The development

of a GPS SIAP to RWY 1 has made this

action necessary. The intended effect of

this action is to provide adequate

airspace for aircraft executing the GPS

RWY 1 SIAP at Lovelock Derby Field,

NV.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation only involves an established

body of technical regulations for which

frequent and routine amendments are

necessary to keep them operationally

current. Therefore, this proposed

regulation—(1) is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies

and Procedures (44 FR 10034; February

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation

as the anticipated impact is so minimal.

Since this is a routine matter that will

only affect air traffic procedures and air

navigation, it is certified that this rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities under the criteria of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR

part 71 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated August 17, 1995, and effective

September 16, 1995, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AWP NV E5 Lovelock, NV [Revised]

Lovelock Derby Field, NV

(Lat. 40°03′59′′ N, long. 118°33′55′′ W)

Lovelock VORTAC

(Lat. 40°07′30′′ N, long. 118°34′40′′ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 4.3-mile

radius of Lovelock Derby Field and within

3.5 miles each side of 349° radial of the

Lovelock VORTAC, extending from the 4.3-

mile radius to the 10.4 miles north of the

Lovelock VORTAC. That airspace extending

upward from 1,200 feet above the surface

beginning at lat. 40°37′30′′ N, long.

118°36′34′′ W; to lat. 40°12′00′′ N, long.

118°55′04′′ W; to lat. 40°03′00′′ N, long

118°52′04′′ N; to lat. 40°22′19′′ N, long.

118°14′00′′ W; to lat. 40°32′00′′ N, long.

118°14′00′′ W; to lat. 40°23′00′′ N, long.

118°29′00′′ W; to lat. 40°27′00′′ N, long.

118°34′04′′ W, to the point of beginning and

that airspace beginning at lat. 40°05′00′′ N,

long. 118°28′29′′ W; to lat. 40°06′00′′ N, long.

118°23′04′′ W; to lat. 40°03′00′′ N, long.

118°22′04′′ W; to lat. 40°00°00′′ N, long.

118°31′44′′ W, thence via a 4.3-mile radius of

Lovelock Derby Field to the point of

beginning and that airspace bounded by a

line beginning at lat. 40°23′00′′ N, long.

118°29′00′′ W; to lat. 40°32′00′′ N, long.

118°14′00′′ W; to lat. 40°22′00′′ N, long.

118°14′00′′ W; to lat. 40°18′00′′ N, long.

118°23′00′′ W, thence to the point of

beginning.

* * * * *

Issued in Los Angeles, California, on

December 11, 1995.

Richard R. Lien,

Manager, Air Traffic Division, Western-Pacific

Region.

[FR Doc. 96–58 Filed 1–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 86 and 88

[AMS–FRL–5347–3]

RIN 2060–AF87

Requirements for Determining

Assigned Deterioration Factors for

Alternative Fuel Vehicles,

Amendments to Labelling

Requirements for Inherently LowEmission Vehicles, and Related

Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule (DFRM).

SUMMARY: This rulemaking promulgates

actions to clarify and streamline existing

regulations for certifiers and purchasers

of clean-fuel and/or alternative fuel

vehicles. This rule reduces the

regulatory burden for industry, and it is

highly accommodating to their

concerns. To temporarily reduce the

certification burden of the emerging

industry of aftermarket conversions of

alternative fuel vehicles, EPA will take

action in this rule that will provide

flexibility in the regulations for the

determination of assigned deterioration

factors for alternative fuel vehicles.

To encourage the production of

Inherently Low-Emission Vehicles

(ILEVs), this rule also promulgates an

amendment to allow additional options

for external ILEV label dimensions. Also

in this rule, EPA will amend two

California Pilot Program (CPP)

requirements: the method for

determining a manufacturer’s clean-fuel

vehicle (CFV) sales quota and the

method for administering CPP credits.

This amendment to the method of

administering credits will reduce a

manufacturer’s reporting requirements

by a factor of four. Finally, this rule

includes several additional technical

amendments to the regulations issued

under Clean Fuel Fleet Program and

California Pilot Program final rules.

DATES: This rule is effective March 4,

1996 unless notice is received by

February 2, 1996 that adverse or critical

comments will be submitted on a

specific element of this rule. EPA will

publish a timely document in the

Federal Register withdrawing that

portion of the rule for which adverse

comments were received.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may

submit written comments in response to

this rule (in duplicate if possible) to

Public Docket Nos. A–92–30 and A–92–

14 for alternative fuel vehicle

provisions, Public Docket No. A–92–30

for ILEV and Clean Fuel Fleet Program

provisions, and Public Docket No. A–

92–69 for California Pilot Program

provisions, at: Air Docket Section, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Attention: Docket Nos. A–92–30, A–92–

14, or A–92–69, First Floor, Waterside

Mall, Room M–1500, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. A copy of the

comments should also be sent to Mr.

Bryan Manning (SRPB–12), U.S. EPA,

Regulation Development and Support

Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann

Arbor, MI 48105.

Materials relevant to this rule have

been placed in Docket Nos. A–92–30

and A–92–14 or A–92–69 by EPA. The

docket is located at the above address

and may be inspected from 8 a.m. to

5:30 p.m. on weekdays. EPA may charge

a reasonable fee for copying docket

materials.

A copy of this action is available

through the Technology Transfer

Network Bulletin Board System

(TTNBBS) under OMS, Rulemaking and

Reporting, Alternative Fuels, Clean Fuel

Fleets. TTNBBS is available 24 hours a

day, 7 days a week except Monday

morning from 8–12 EST, when the

system is down for maintenance and

backup. For help in accessing the

system, call the systems operator at

919–541–5384 in Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina, during normal

business hours EST.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 123

1The assigned deterioration factors for gaseousfueled vehicles and the specific methods used to

determine these factors are expected to be specified

in a ‘‘Dear Manufacturer’’ letter (advisory letter) that

would be available in docket A–92–14 and A–92–

30 and on TTNBBS.

2Ford Motor Company, Comments on

Reconsideration of ILEV Labelling Requirements,

letter from Kelly M. Brown to Margo T. Oge of the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 2,

1995.

3Ford Motor Company, ‘‘ILEV Labels’’, Facsimile

from Sarah Rudy to Bryan Manning of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, April 21, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Bryan Manning (SRPB–12), U.S. EPA,

Regulation Development and Support

Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann

Arbor, MI 48105, Telephone: (313) 741–

7832; FAX: 313–741–7816.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because

EPA considers this action to be

noncontroversial, we are finalizing it

without prior proposal. The action will

become effective March 4, 1996 unless

adverse comments are received by

February 2, 1996. If EPA receives

adverse comments, only the affected

portions of the direct final rule will be

withdrawn and all public comments

received will be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule (please see proposed rule

entitled, ‘‘Sales Volume Limit

Provisions for Small-Volume

Manufacturers Certification of CleanFuel and Conventional Vehicle

Conversions and Related Provisions,’’

published simultaneously in the

‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of this

Federal Register).

I. Description of Action

The alternative fuel vehicle industry

is likely to expand considerably over the

next several years in response to Clean

Air Act (CAA), the Energy Policy Act,

and other alternative fuel fleet and

vehicle programs at the state and local

levels. Nevertheless, EPA believes

alternative fuel vehicles will still have

limited sales in comparison to

conventional vehicles. Thus, due to this

potential inequity in sales, EPA believes

it may be difficult for aftermarket

converters of alternative fuel vehicles to

recover their certification cost over the

next several years. Since EPA

encourages the production of certified

alternative fuel vehicles for air quality

purposes, EPA believes it will be wise

to temporarily reduce the certification

burden for aftermarket converters of

alternate fuel vehicles as described

below.

A. Flexibility in Certification Procedure

for Determining Deterioration Factors

As is shown in 40 CFR 86.094–14, the

Small-Volume Manufacturers (SVM)

Certification Program exempts entities

seeking a Certificate of Conformity with

total annual vehicle/engine sales less

than 10,000 from EPA’s full certification

program. Specifically, the SVM

provisions relieve such entities from

some elements otherwise required to

demonstrate the durability of emissions

over the life of the vehicle. Instead of

accumulating mileage on actual

prototype vehicles, the SVM program in

some cases permits the use of EPAassigned values for emission

deterioration. This can be of significant

economic benefit to entities

manufacturing or converting relatively

few vehicles. The standard protocol

EPA uses to assign deterioration factors

is described in EPA Advisory Circular

No. 51–C.

Currently, small volume

manufacturers with aggregated sales of

less than 301 vehicles per year or

without durability data may use

assigned deterioration factors of the

70th percentile deterioration factors

from industry-wide data based on

previously completed durability data

vehicles. In addition, manufacturers

with aggregated sales from 301 to 9,999

may calculate and use assigned

deterioration factors, but these assigned

deterioration factors must be no less

than either the 70th percentile or the

average of all the manufacturer’s

deterioration factor data (whichever is

less). (See 40 CFR 86.094–14(c)(7)(i)(C)).

However, since alternative fuel vehicles

are an emerging industry, manufacturers

of these vehicles and EPA currently

have an extremely limited database from

which to calculate assigned

deterioration factors. According to

current EPA regulations, many smallvolume manufacturers of alternative

fuel vehicles would be required to

determine deterioration factors by

conducting full useful-life tests since

there is an insufficient database of

previously-certified vehicles on which

to base deterioration factors.

To enable certifiers of alternative fuel

vehicles to avoid the burden of full

certification testing for the economic

reasons discussed above and to support

the development of alternative fuel

vehicle technology, EPA believes it is

wise to provide flexibility in the

regulations for the determination of

assigned deterioration factors for

alternative fuel vehicles. Thus, EPA will

permit manufacturers to use assigned

deterioration factors that the

Administrator determines by alternative

methods if no deterioration factor data

(either the manufacturer’s or industrywide deterioration factor data) are

available, as detailed in section 86.094–

14(a)(2) of the regulations associated

with today’s rule. Following

promulgation of this provision, EPA

expects to issue guidance describing the

specific alternative methods used in

determining assigned deterioration

factors for gaseous-fueled vehicles

through model year 2000.1

B. Amendments to the Required

Dimensions of Inherently Low-Emission

Vehicle (ILEV) Exterior Labels

In the regulations for the Clean Fuel

Fleet (CFF) Credit Program final rule,

EPA specified size and shape

requirements for ILEV exterior

identification labels. The manufacturer

or dealer of an ILEV is required to attach

one label on the rear of the vehicle and

one on each of two sides of the vehicle

if requested by a qualifying fleet

purchaser. In February 1995, Ford

commented 2 that the required

dimensions for the rear ILEV labels are

inappropriate for certain vehicle models

since their vehicle body design makes

the placement of such labels on these

vehicles difficult or impossible. Ford

also stated that safety requirements for

lighting and bumpers affect the vehicle

body design; in addition, for natural gas

vehicles, a separate label is required on

the lower right rear of the vehicle by the

National Fire Protection Association

Safety Standard 52. In April 1995 Ford

suggested a much smaller alternative

ILEV label design for such vehicle

models, which American Automobile

Manufacturer’s Association (AAMA)

agreed to in May 1995.3 Ford also

suggested that the problem of reduced

space on the rear of passenger cars also

exists for the side of vehicles since fleet

advertisements often take up much of

the space available on the side of the

vehicle.

As indicated in the preamble for the

Clean Fuel Fleet Credit Program final

rule, EPA intends for ILEVs to be

specially and clearly identified since

properly labeled ILEVs may be exempt

from transportation control measure

(TCM) requirements, including highoccupancy vehicle (HOV) lane

restrictions. EPA expected ILEVs to look

much like conventional vehicles, and

thus, the Agency intended for ILEVs to

have special labels to clearly indicate to

law enforcement officers, as well as the

general public, that these vehicles are

not violating TCM ordinances.

EPA believes that the distinctive

design and shape of AAMA’s suggested

ILEV label would be consistent with

EPA’s intent to have ILEVs clearly

identified by law enforcement officials,

as well as the general public. At the time

the CFF Credits/ILEV rule was finalized,

EPA was unaware of any vehicle models

that would have a conflict with the ILEV
124 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

4American Automobile Manufacturers

Association (AAMA), Recommendation on

Determination of Manufacturer Quotas for the

California Pilot Test Program, Letter from Marcel L.

Halberstadt to Tad Wysor of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, February 17, 1995.

5U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Mobile Sources, Supporting Statement for

Information Collection Request—California Pilot

Test Program: Vehicle Credit Program, May 1991.

labeling requirements. Since EPA

encourages the production of ILEVs for

air quality purposes, EPA will amend

the ILEV label regulations in a manner

similar to that suggested by AAMA in

order to provide additional flexibility

for ILEV manufacturers, thus reducing

some of the certification burden. To

meet industry’s vehicle body space

concerns while maintaining a label that

is clearly identifiable, EPA will provide

new optional ILEV labels of smaller

dimensions. Specifically, for the sides

and rear of an ILEV, EPA will provide

an optional ILEV label of smaller

dimensions than the existing primary

ILEV label and in the distinctive shape

of a truncated circle, as specified in

88.312(a)(1) of the regulations in today’s

rule.

For the rear of an ILEV, existing

regulations provide an option to choose

a smaller rectangular label, if the larger

primary (side) rectangular label cannot

be attached to the rear of an ILEV.

Today’s rule will provide two optional

rear labels which could be chosen if

neither of the primary labels described

above and in section 88.312(a)(1) of the

regulations cannot be attached to the

rear of an ILEV. One of these rear label

options is the existing smaller

rectangular label (see section

88.312(c)(2)(ii)(A) of the regulations in

today’s rule), and the other option is a

smaller version of the truncated circular

label described above, as detailed in

section 88.312(c)(2)(ii)(B) of the

regulations associated with today’s rule.

C. Method for Determining Each

Manufacturer’s CFV Sales Requirement

Under the Federal California Pilot

Program

The California Pilot Program requires

that California sales figures from two

model years earlier be used to calculate

required CFV sales shares (see

California Pilot Test Program (CPP) final

rule, 59 FR 50066, September 30, 1994).

In the proposal for the rulemaking (58

FR 34727, June 29, 1993), EPA

requested comment as to whether a

manufacturer’s share of required CFV

sales should be calculated based on

sales in the previous model year or sales

two model years prior. No comments

were received from manufacturers. EPA

decided to use model year (MY) sales

data from two years prior rather than

from the previous model year to provide

manufacturers with more time to plan

their CFV production.

However, after the CPP rule was

finalized, the AAMA notified EPA of

their view that basing the calculation on

data from two years prior is not

practical.4 According to AAMA, this is

because the production volumes would

not be established early enough to allow

auto manufacturers sufficient planning

time to comply with the CFV sales

requirements in the California Pilot

Program. AAMA suggested that at least

a three-year lead time is needed for the

completion of the annual production

reports, EPA calculation of the

manufacturer total sales, and

subsequent certification strategy or sales

planning by the manufacturers. More

specifically, AAMA suggested that a

manufacturer’s share of CFV sales be the

average of two consecutive years based

on data from model years three and four

years earlier than the model year in

question. AAMA believes a two-year

average would help level out any

fluctuations in the market.

EPA has considered these comments

and agrees that using data from the

model year two years prior to the year

in question does not provide

manufacturers enough time to

adequately plan their production, since

production for the model year in

question could be well underway before

sales data is available for production

planning. (Production under a

certificate may begin on January 2 of the

calendar year prior to the model year of

the certificate and may continue

through December 31 of the certification

model year.)

Thus, EPA will require that the

average California sales figures from

three and four model years earlier than

the current model year be used by each

manufacturer to calculate their required

CFV sales share. For example, for the

1997 model year, the average of sales

figures from 1993 and 1994 model years

would be used to calculate the CFV

sales share. This change will have no

impact on the overall number of CFVs

sold in California; the allocation of

those vehicles among manufacturers

may change slightly. This change will

also reduce the regulatory burden for

manufacturers, and EPA believes it is

highly accommodating to manufacturers

considering that manufacturers did not

comment on the method proposed.

D. Reporting Requirements for the

Credit Program of the California Pilot

Test Program

In the information collection request 5

for the Credit Program for California

Pilot Test Program Final Rule (57 FR

60038, December 17, 1992), EPA had

requested quarterly reporting of credit

use and balance statements to

administer the credit program. However,

EPA has reevaluated this request and

does not believe quarterly reporting is a

necessary requirement for administering

the CPP credit program. The Agency

does not expect the volume or frequency

of credit transactions to be substantial

enough so as to require such frequent

monitoring. EPA now believes that

annual reports from the manufacturers

of credit use and balances will be

sufficient for EPA to adequately

administer and enforce the CPP credit

program and verify the proper use of

traded CPP credits. Thus, EPA will

require annual reporting of credit use

and balances for the CPP credit

program. (See section 88.205–94 (d)(1)

and (d)(3)(iii) of the regulations

associated with today’s rule for further

detail.) This change will reduce the

manufacturer reporting burden by a

factor of four, and thus, EPA believes it

is highly accommodating to

manufacturers.

E. Technical Amendments to CFV

Emission Standards Rulemaking and

CFF and CPP Credit Program

Rulemakings

1. Redesignation of Paragraph

Specifying Methane Analyzer Method

Within Description of Exhaust

Analytical System

In the regulations for the Clean-Fuel

Vehicle Emission Standards final

rulemaking (59 FR 50042, September 30,

1994), the specifications for the

measurement of methane from heavyduty exhaust samples, paragraph

(b)(2)(iii) of section 86.1311–94

(‘‘Exhaust gas analytical system; CVS

bag sample’’), were incorrectly

designated as a sub-paragraph of

paragraph (b)(2), which contains the

specifications for the measurement of

carbon monoxide from heavy-duty

exhaust samples. Thus, in today’s

action, EPA will redesignate paragraph

(b)(2)(iii) as paragraph (b)(3) in section

86.1311–94.

2. Clarification of Applicable Test

Procedures for CFV Exhaust Standards

for Light-duty Vehicles and Light-duty

Trucks

In paragraph (k) of section 88.104–94

of the regulations for the Clean-Fuel

Vehicle Standards final rulemaking,

EPA specifies that CFV tailpipe

emission standards for light-duty

vehicles and light-duty trucks shall
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 125

comply with the following requirement:

‘‘* * * standards in this paragraph shall

be administered and enforced in

accordance with the California

Regulatory Requirements * * *.’’

However, in paragraph (l) of section

88.104–94 EPA incorrectly specified

that CFV standards for light-duty

vehicles and light-duty trucks shall be

‘‘* * * tested in accordance with test

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 86

* * *.’’ (In this same paragraph, EPA

correctly specified that NMOG

emissions are to be measured in

accordance with the California

Regulatory Requirements which were

incorporated by reference in paragraph

(k) of the same section.) Thus, EPA

wishes to clarify that all CFV standards

set forth in section 88.104–94 for lightduty vehicles and light-duty trucks shall

be administered and enforced in

accordance with California

requirements by deleting paragraph (l)

of section 88.104–94.

3. Corrections to Specifications for

Emission Standards for Inherently LowEmission Vehicle (ILEV)

In the regulations for the Clean-Fuel

Vehicle final rulemaking, EPA specified

in paragraph (c) of section 88.311–93

that exhaust emissions for ILEVs in

light-duty vehicle and light-duty truck

classes ‘‘* * * shall be measured in

accordance with the test procedures

specified in § 88.104(l).’’ As mentioned

above in section I.E.2., EPA is deleting

paragraph (l) in section 88.104–94.

Thus, EPA today wishes to clarify that

exhaust emissions for ILEVs in lightduty vehicle and light-duty truck classes

shall be measured in accordance with

test procedures specified in section

88.104–94(k) (California Regulatory

Requirements). Thus, section 88.311–

93(c) will be amended accordingly.

For heavy-duty ILEVs, EPA

incorrectly specified in section 88.311–

93(d) that exhaust emissions ‘‘* * *

shall be measured in accordance with

the test procedures specified in

§ 88.105(d).’’ However, paragraph (d)

specifies only the exhaust standards but

not the exhaust test procedures for

heavy-duty ILEVs. The exhaust

emission test procedures for ILEVs are

specified in § 88.105(e). Thus, EPA

today revises this section to require that

the exhaust emissions for heavy-duty

ILEVs be measured in accordance with

the test procedures specified in

§ 88.105(e).

Further, in paragraph (d) of section

88.311–93, the requirements that heavyduty (HD) ILEVs ‘‘* * * have exhaust

emissions with combined non-methane

hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen

* * * which do not exceed the exhaust

emission standards * * * in § 88.105’’

may be misleading. Not only are HD

ILEVs required to meet exhaust

emission standards in section 88.105(d)

for combined non-methane hydrocarbon

and oxides of nitrogen emissions, but

HD ILEVs are also required to meet

exhaust emission standards in section

88.105(d) for carbon monoxide,

particulate matter, and formaldehyde

emissions. Thus, EPA wishes to clarify

that HD ILEVs shall have exhaust

emissions which do not exceed any of

the exhaust emission standards

specified in section 88.105(d).

4. Correction to Clean Fuel Fleet Credit

Table Applying When a Fleet Purchases

More Clean-Fuel Vehicles Than

Required

Due to an editorial error, in Table

C94–1.1 of the regulations for the Clean

Fuel Fleet Credit Program final rule (58

FR 11888, March 1, 1993) and the CFV

Emission Standards final rule, the two

vehicle-equivalent credits for ULEVs in

the two heavy light-duty truck (HLDT)

classes greater than 3,750 pounds

ALVW were incorrectly specified as

1.29 and 1.47 respectively. For Table

C94–1.1, EPA today corrects these

values to 1.26 and 1.56, respectively.

Within this same table, EPA

incorrectly specified in the last column

heading for HLDTs greater than 5750

ALVW pounds that the ALVW

parameter was ‘‘K5750’’ pounds. The

‘‘K’’ prefix added to 5750 pounds is an

editorial error and may be misleading.

EPA today changes the column heading

to ‘‘LDT >6000 GVWR, >5750 ALVW’’.

5. Correction to Early Credits

Requirements for Heavy Light-Duty

Trucks in the CPP

In the regulations for the Credit

Program for the CPP final rule, EPA

incorrectly excluded heavy LDTs that

meet CFV standards from being eligible

for early credits during model years

1996 and 1997. (For the CPP, a

manufacturer’s share of required CFV

annual sales for model years 1996 and

1997 is based on LDVs and light LDTs

sales only; however, a manufacturer’s

share of required CFV annual sales

beginning in 1998 is also based on

heavy LDTs sales.) In the final rule, EPA

allowed early credits for LDVs and all

LDTs up to the beginning of CPP sales

requirements in 1996. To provide heavy

LDT manufacturers with a similar

opportunity to earn early credits, EPA

had intended to allow manufacturers to

earn early credits for heavy LDTs up to

the beginning of their sales

requirements in 1998. Thus, to rectify

this inconsistency for heavy LDTs in the

CPP, EPA wishes to clarify that heavy

LDTs certified to CFV standards shall be

eligible for early credits up to model

year 1998. Today’s action changes

section 88.205(g) of the regulations

accordingly.

II. Environmental and Economic

Impacts

The nature of today’s provisions for

the determination of assigned

deterioration factors for alternative fuel

vehicles are such that no impact on air

quality should result. If and when an

entity (converter or original equipment

manufacturer) certifies an alternative

fuel vehicle, these actions will not

seriously compromise EPA’s confidence

that certified emission levels are being

met in use. While some loss of control

could theoretically occur if the reduced

durability demonstration were in

serious error, the Agency does not

believe that this is likely to be common

and in any event the numbers of

vehicles involved is not large in

comparison to conventional vehicle

production. In addition, these

provisions should significantly reduce

the cost of certifying an alternative fuel

engine family, thus encouraging the

development of such vehicles.

For the relaxed ILEV labelling

requirements, EPA believes that if the

smaller but distinctive ILEV labels are

used on an ILEV, they will still be able

to be clearly identified by law

enforcement officials. EPA expects that

these changes will help encourage

manufacturers to develop and produce

ILEVs, which will in turn have a

positive environmental impact relative

to conventional vehicles.

With these changes to the CPP, EPA

will ease the certification burden for

manufacturers with no effect on air

quality. This result will occur because

the same number of vehicles will be

sold under the CPP industry-wide; only

the relative allocations among

manufacturers might change.

In today’s rule, EPA will reduce the

regulatory burden on industry without

effecting air quality. EPA believes this

rule is highly accommodating to

industry’s concerns.

III. Public Participation

EPA believes the provisions of today’s

action are non-controversial and will

make the affected provisions less

burdensome and more effective.

Nonetheless, if public comments are to

be submitted, the Agency requests

wherever applicable, full supporting

data and detailed analysis should be

submitted to allow EPA to make

maximum use of the comments.

Commenters should provide specific

suggestions for any changes to any
126 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Memorandum to Assistant Administrators,

‘‘Compliance With the Regulatory Flexibility Act’’,

EPA Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation,

1984. In addition, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Memorandum to Assistant Administrators,

‘‘Agency’s Revised Guidelines for Implementing the

Regulatory Flexibility Act’’, EPA Office of Policy,

Planning, and Evaluation, 1992.

aspect of the regulations that they

believe need to be modified or

improved. All comments should be

directed to EPA Air Docket, Docket No.

A–92–30 and A–92–14 for the

certification flexibility provisions and

Docket No. A–92–69 for the CPP

provisions (See ADDRESSES). The official

comment period will last for 30 days

following publication of this direct final

rule.

Commenters desiring to submit

proprietary information for

consideration should clearly distinguish

such information from other comments

to the greatest possible extent, and

clearly label it ‘‘Confidential Business

Information.’’ Submissions containing

such proprietary information should be

sent directly to the contact person listed

above, and not to the public docket, to

ensure that proprietary information is

not inadvertently placed in the docket.

Information covered by such a claim

of confidentiality will be disclosed by

EPA only to the extent allowed and by

the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part

2. If no claim of confidentiality

accompanies the submission when it is

received by EPA, it may be made

available to the public without further

notice to the commenter.

IV. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this action

is granted by Sections 202, 203, 206,

207, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247,

249, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act.

V. Administrative Designation and

Regulatory Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency

must determine whether this regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, EPA believes that this

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ within the meaning of the

Executive Order. Today’s action

provides greater flexibility in the

certification process for manufacturers

of alternate fuel vehicles, thus

eliminating some of the certification

burden. ILEV labelling requirements

have been relaxed, reducing some of the

certification burden. Today’s action also

reduces the certification burden for

manufactures required to produce CFVs

under the CPP, by providing more

flexibility in CFV production planning

and credit reporting.

VI. Compliance with Regulatory

Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

of 1980 requires federal agencies to

examine the effects of federal

regulations and to identify significant

adverse impacts on a substantial

number of small entities. Because the

RFA does not provide concrete

definitions of ‘‘small entity’’,

‘‘significant impact’’, or ‘‘substantial

number’’, EPA has established

guidelines setting the standards to be

used in evaluating impacts on small

businesses.6 Section 604 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act requires EPA

to prepare a Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis when the Agency determines

that there is a significant adverse impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

Today’s action will provide regulatory

flexibility to converters of alternative

fuel vehicles in the determination of

assigned deterioration factors. EPA has

evaluated the effects of today’s

regulations and the Administrator of

EPA certifies that there will not be an

adverse impact on a substantial number

of small entities; in fact, most small

converters of alternative fuel vehicles

will experience an economic benefit.

Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis has not been performed for this

rule.

VII. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a written statement to

accompany any rule where the

estimated costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector

will be $100 million or more in any one

year. Under section 205, EPA must

select the most cost-effective and least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objective of the rule and that is

consistent with statutory requirements.

Section 203 requires EPA to establish a

plan for informing and advising any

small governments that may be

significantly and uniquely impacted by

the rule.

EPA estimates that the costs to State,

local, or tribal governments, or the

private sector, from this rule will be less

than $100 million. EPA has determined

that this rule will reduce the regulatory

burden imposed on certifiers of cleanfuel and/or alternative fuel vehicles

(especially converters of such vehicles).

EPA has determined that an unfunded

mandates statement therefore is

unnecessary.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

Today’s rule does not add any

mandatory information collection

requirements for certifiers of alternative

fuel vehicles or any other entity, and

EPA has not prepared an Information

Collection Request document for this

rule.

The information collection

requirements of the Credit Program for

California Pilot Test Program have been

amended to reflect today’s relaxation of

the credit reporting requirements. These

amended requirements have been

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and have been

assigned OMB control number 2060–

0229. A copy of the Information

Collection Request document (ICR No.

1590) may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (2136); 401 M St. S.W.;

Washington, DC 20460 or by calling

(202) 260–2740.

Send comments regarding this

collection of information to the Director,

OPPE Regulatory Information Division;

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(2136); 401 M. St., S.W.; Washington,

DC 20460; and to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20503,

marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for

EPA.’’ Include the ICR number in any

correspondence.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 127

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 86

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

40 CFR Part 88

Environmental protection, Motor

vehicle pollution, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 27, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, part 86 and 88 of title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations are

amended as follows:

PART 86—CONTROL OF AIR

POLLUTION FROM NEW AND IN-USE

MOTOR VEHICLES AND NEW AND INUSE MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES:

CERTIFICATION AND TEST

PROCEDURES

1. The authority citation for part 86

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 202, 203, 205, 206, 207,

208, 215, 216, 217, and 301(a), Clean Air Act

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7524,

7525, 7541, 7542, 7549, 7550, 7552, and

7601(a)).

2. Section 86.094–14 of subpart A is

amended by redesignating paragraph (a)

as paragraph (a)(1) and adding

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

§ 86.094–14 Small-volume manufacturers

certification procedures.

(a)(1) * * *

(2) To satisfy the durability data

requirements of the small-volume

manufacturers certification procedures,

manufacturers of vehicles (or engines)

as described in paragraph (b) of this

section may use assigned deterioration

factors that the Administrator

determines by methods described in

paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of this section.

However, if no deterioration factor data

(either the manufacturer’s or industrywide deterioration factor data) are

available from previously completed

durability data vehicles or engines used

for certification, manufacturers of

vehicles (or engines) as described in

paragraph (b) of this section or with new

technology not previously certified may

use assigned deterioration factors that

the Administrator determines by

alternative methods, based on good

engineering judgement. The factors that

the Administrator determines by

alternative methods will be published in

an advisory letter or advisory circular.

* * * * *

§ 86.1311–94 [Amended]

3. Section 86.1311–94 of subpart N is

amended by redesignating paragraph

(b)(2)(iii) as paragraph (b)(3) preceding

figure N94–1.

PART 88—CLEAN-FUEL VEHICLES

4. The authority citation for Part 88

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7410, 7418, 7581,

7582, 7583, 7584, 7586, 7588, 7589, and

7601(a).

5. In § 88.104–94, paragraph (l), which

precedes the tables to the section, is

removed.

5a. A center heading is added

immediately preceding the tables to the

section to read as follows:

Tables to § 88.104–94

6. Section 88.204–94 of subpart B is

amended by revising the introductory

text of paragraph (c)(2) and paragraph

(c)(2)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 88.204–94 Sales requirements for the

California Pilot Test Program.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) The required annual clean fuel

vehicle sales volume for a given

manufacturer is expressed in the

following equation rounded to the

nearest whole number:

RMS MS

TS

= × TCPPS

Where:

RMS=a manufacturer’s required sales in a

given model year.

MS=the average of a manufacturer’s total

LDV and light LDT sales in California

three and four model years earlier than

year in question (for MY 1996 and 1997

RMS calculations).

=the average of a manufacturer’s total LDV

and LDT sales in California three and

four model years earlier than year in

question (for MY 1998 and later RMS

calculations).

TS=the average of total LDV and light LDT

sales in California of all manufacturers

three and four model years earlier than

the year in question (for MY 1996 and

1997 RMS calculations). Sales of

manufacturers which meet the criteria of

(d) of this paragraph will not be

included.

=the average of total LDV and LDT sales in

California of all manufacturers three and

four model years earlier than the year in

question (for MY 1998 and later RMS

calculations). Sales of manufacturers

which meet the criteria of (d) of this

paragraph will not be included.

TCPPS=Pilot program annual CFV sales

requirement (either 150,000 or 300,000)

for the model year in question.

(i) * * *

(ii) A manufacturer certifying for the

first time in California shall calculate

annual required sales share based on

projected California sales for the model

year in question. In the second year, the

manufacturer shall use actual sales from

the previous year. In the third year, the

manufacturer will use sales from two

model years prior to the year in

question. In the fourth year, the

manufacturer will use sales from three

years prior to the year in question. In

the fifth year and subsequent years, the

manufacturer will use average sales

from three and four years prior to the

year in question.

* * * * *

7. Section 88.205–94 of subpart B is

amended by revising paragraphs (d)(1),

(d)(3)(iii), and (g) to read as follows:

§ 88.205–94 California Pilot Test Program

Credits Program.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) During certification, the

manufacturer shall calculate the

projected credits, if any, based on

required sales projections.

* * * * *

(3) * * *

(iii) Maintain the records required

under this subpart.

* * * * *

(g) Early credits. Beginning in model

year 1992 appropriate credits, as

determined from the given credit table,

will be given for the sale of vehicles

certified to the clean-fuel vehicle

standards for TLEVs, LEVs, ULEVs, and

ZEVs, where appropriate. For LDVs and

light LDTs (<6000 lbs GVWR), early

credits can be earned from model year

1992 to the beginning of the Pilot

Program sales requirements in 1996. For

heavy LDTs (>6000 lbs GVWR), early

credits can be earned from model years

1992 through 1997. The actual

calculation of early credits shall not

begin until model year 1996.

8. Section 88.311–93 of subpart C is

amended by revising paragraphs (c) and

(d) to read as follows:

§ 88.311–93 Emissions standards for

Inherently Low-Emission Vehicles.

* * * * *

(c) Light-duty vehicles and light-duty

trucks. ILEVs in LDV and LDT classes

shall have exhaust emissions which do

not exceed the LEV exhaust emission

standards for NMOG, CO, HCHO, and

PM and the ULEV exhaust emission

standards for NOx listed in Tables

A104–1 through A104–6 for light-duty

CFVs. Exhaust emissions shall be

measured in accordance with the test

procedures specified in § 88.104–94(k).
128 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

An ILEV must be able to operate on only

one fuel, or must be certified as an ILEV

on all fuels on which it can operate.

These vehicles shall also comply with

all requirements of 40 CFR part 86

which are applicable to conventional

gasoline-fueled, methanol-fueled,

diesel-fueled, natural gas-fueled or

liquified petroleum gas-fueled LDVs/

LDTs of the same vehicle class and

model year.

(d) Heavy-duty vehicles. ILEVs in the

HDV class shall have exhaust emissions

which do not exceed the exhaust

emission standards in grams per brake

horsepower-hour listed in § 88.105–

94(d). Exhaust emissions shall be

measured in accordance with the test

procedures specified in § 88.105–94(e).

An ILEV must be able to operate on only

one fuel, or must be certified as an ILEV

on all fuels on which it can operate.

These vehicles shall also comply with

all requirements of 40 CFR part 86

which are applicable in the case of

conventional gasoline-fueled, methanolfueled, diesel-fueled, natural gas-fueled

or liquified petroleum gas-fueled HDVs

of the same weight class and model

year.

* * * * *

9. Section 88.312–93 of subpart C is

amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)

and (c)(2)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 88.312–93 Inherently Low-Emission

Vehicle Labeling.

* * * * *

(a) Label design. (1) Label design shall

consist of either of the following

specifications:

(i) The label shall consist of a white

rectangular background, approximately

12 inches (30 centimeters) high by 18

inches (45 centimeters) wide, with

‘‘CLEAN AIR VEHICLE’’ printed in

contrasting block capital letters at least

4.3 inches (10.6 centimeters) tall and 1.8

inches (4.4 centimeters) wide with a

stroke width not less than 0.5 inches

(1.3 centimeters). In addition, the words

‘‘INHERENTLY LOW-EMISSION

VEHICLE’’ must be present in lettering

no smaller than 1 inch (2.5 centimeters)

high. Nothing shall be added to the label

which impairs readability. Labels shall

include a serialized identification

number; or

(ii) The label shall consist of a white

truncated-circular background,

approximately 10 inches (25

centimeters) in diameter by 7 inches

(17.5 centimeters) in height. The bottom

edge of the truncated-circular

background shall be approximately 2

inches (5 centimeters) from the center.

The acronym ‘‘ILEV’’ shall be printed on

the label in contrasting block capital

letters at least 2 inches (5 centimeters)

tall and 1.5 inches (3.8 centimeters)

wide with a stroke width not less than

0.4 inches (1.0 centimeter). In addition,

the words ‘‘CLEAN AIR VEHICLE’’ must

be present in lettering no smaller than

0.8 inches (2.0 centimeters) high.

Nothing shall be added to the label

which impairs readability. Labels shall

include a serialized identification

number.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) In the case that an ILEV label of

the proportions specified in paragraph

(a)(1) of this section cannot be attached

to the rear of the ILEV, the manufacturer

or the manufacturer’s agent shall attach

to the rear of the vehicle an ILEV label

of either of the following proportions:

(A) The label shall consist of a white

rectangular background, approximately

4 inches (10 centimeters) high by 24

inches (60 centimeters) wide, with

‘‘CLEAN AIR VEHICLE’’ printed in

contrasting block capital letters at least

2.8 inches (7 centimeters) tall and 1.3

inches (3.3 centimeters) wide with a

stroke width not less than 0.3 inches

(0.8 centimeter). In addition, the words

‘‘INHERENTLY LOW-EMISSION

VEHICLE’’ must be present in lettering

no smaller than 0.6 inches (1.5

centimeters) high. Nothing shall be

added to the label which impairs

readability. Labels shall include a

serialized identification number; or

(B) The label shall consist of a white

truncated-circular background,

approximately 5 inches (12.5

centimeters) in diameter by 3.5 inches

(8.8 centimeters) in height. The bottom

edge of the truncated-circular

background shall be approximately 1

inch (2.5 centimeters) from the center.

The acronym ‘‘ILEV’’ shall be printed on

the label in contrasting block capital

letters at least 1 inch (2.5 centimeters)

tall and 0.8 inches (2.0 centimeters)

wide with a stroke width not less than

0.3 inches (0.8 centimeters). In addition,

the words ‘‘CLEAN AIR VEHICLE’’ must

be present in lettering no smaller than

0.4 inches (1.0 centimeter) high.

Nothing shall be added to the label

which impairs readability. Labels shall

include a serialized identification

number.

* * * * *

10. Table C94–1.1 to subpart C of part

88 is revised to read as follows:

Tables to Subpart C of Part 88

TABLE C94–1.—FLEET CREDIT TABLE BASED ON REDUCTION IN NMOG. VEHICLE EQUIVALENTS FOR LIGHT-DUTY

VEHICLES AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS

TABLE C94–1.1.—CREDIT GENERATION: PURCHASING MORE CLEAN-FUEL VEHICLES THAN REQUIRED BY THE MANDATE

NMOG

LDV, LDT

≤6000

GVWR,

≤3750 LVW

LDT ≤6000

GVWR,

>3750 LVW

≤5750 LVW

LDT >6000

GVWR,

≤3750

ALVW

LDT >6000

GVWR,

>3750

ALVW

≤5750

ALVW

LDT >6000

GVWR,

>5750

ALVW

LEV ........................................................................................................... 1.00 1.26 0.71 0.91 1.11

ULEV ........................................................................................................ 1.20 1.54 1.00 1.26 1.56

ZEV .......................................................................................................... 1.43 1.83 1.43 1.83 2.23

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–103 Filed 1–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P