Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules 139

notify Olympic officials and call the

Georgia Department of Natural

Resources (from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., call

1–800–272–8363; after hours, call 1–

800–241–4113), or the South Carolina

Department of Natural Resources (1–

800–922–5431). Reports regarding

manatee sightings shall include: time of

sighting, location, date, number of

individual manatee, and a description of

manatee activity.

(2) Sea Turtles such as Loggerhead sea

turtle (Caretta caretta), Green sea turtle

(Chelonia mydas), Leatherback sea turtle

(Dermochelys coriacea), Hawksbill sea

turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) and

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys

kempi) are federally endangered species

and occur in the vicinity during the

period of the Olympic events. If a Sea

Turtle is sighted in or within 100 yards

of the Atlantic Ocean and Wassaw

Sound offshore racing areas, mariners

must take whatever steps are necessary

to avoid collision with the turtles,

including stopping the race immediately

if a sea turtle strays onto or dangerously

near the course.

(3) Bottlenose Dolphin (porpoise) are

protected under the Marine Mammal

Protection Act of 1972. These mammals

shall be observed only at a distance.

They must not be fed or harmed in any

way.

(e) Regulations. In accordance with

the general regulations in Section

165.33 of this part, entry into the zone

is subject to the following requirements:

(1) Entry into these safety/security

zones is prohibited unless authorized by

the Caption of the Port or his

representative.

(2) The representative of the Captain

of the Port is any Coast Guard

commissioned, warrant or petty officer

who has been designated by the Captain

of the Port, Savannah, GA, to act on his

behalf regardless of the support

platform.

(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter

or operate within the safety/security

zones shall contact the Captain of the

Port or his representative to obtain

permission to do so. Vessel operators

given permission to enter or operate in

the safety zones shall comply with all

directions given them by the Captain of

the Port or his representative.

(4) The Captain of the Port may be

contacted by telephone via the

Command Duty Officer at (912) 652–

4353. Vessels assisting in the

enforcement of the safety/security zones

may be contacted on VHF–FM channels

16 or 81, or vessel operators may

determine the restrictions in effect for

the safety/security zones by coming

alongside a vessel patrolling the

perimeter of the safety zone.

(5) The Captain of the Port will issue

a Marine Safety Information Broadcast

Notice to Mariners to notify the

maritime community of the safety/

security zones and restrictions imposed.

3. A new § 165.T07–077 is added to

read as follows:

§ 165.T07–077 Safety Zone: Savannah

River, Savannah, GA.

(a) Location. The following area is a

moving safety zone: All waters within a

200 yards radius around the vessel that

will carry the Olympic torch to the

Savannah waterfront. The zone will

commence on the Savannah River

approximate position of 32° 02′.10 N,

80° 54′.16 W in the vicinity of Coast

Guard Station Tybee and ending at an

approximate position 32°05′.13 N,

81°05′.47 West at the Highway 17

bridge.

(b) Effective dates. This section is

effective at 8 a.m. EDT and expires at 9

p.m. EDT on July 10, 1996, unless

sooner terminated by the Captain of the

Port, Savannah, GA.

(c) Regulations.

In accordance with the general

regulations in Section 165.23 of this

part, entry into the zone is subject to the

following requirements:

(1) This safety zone is closed to all

marine traffic, except as may be

permitted by the Captain of the Port or

his representative.

(2) The representative of the Captain

of the Port is any Coast Guard

commissioned, warrant or petty officer

who has been designated by the Captain

of the Port, Savannah, GA, to act on his

behalf regardless of the support

platform.

(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter

or operate within the safety zone shall

contact the Captain of the Port or his

representative to obtain permission to

do so. Vessel operators given permission

to enter or operate in the safety zone

shall comply with all directions given

them by the Captain of the Port or his

representative.

(4) The Captain of the Port may be

contacted by telephone via the

Command Duty Officer at (912) 652–

4353. Vessels assisting in the

enforcement of the safety zone may be

contacted on VHF–FM channels 16 or

81, or vessel operators may determine

the restrictions in effect for the safety

zone by coming alongside a vessel

patrolling the perimeter of the safety

zone.

(5) The Captain of the Port will issue

a Marine Safety Information Broadcast

Notice to Mariners to notify the

maritime community of the safety zone

and restrictions imposed.

4. A new § 165.T07–078 is added to

read as follows:

§ 165.T07–078 Safety Zone: Savannah

River, Savannah, GA.

(a) Location. The following area is a

safety zone: All waters within a 50 yards

radius around a fireworks barge in the

vicinity of Rousakis Plaza, Savannah

River, Savannah, GA at an approximate

position of 32° 04′ .55 N, 81° 05′ .27 W.

(b) Effective dates. This section is

effective at 10 p.m. EDT and expires at

11 p.m. EDT on July 4, 1996, unless

sooner terminated by the Captain of the

Port, Savannah, GA.

(c) Regulations.

In accordance with the general

regulations in Section 165.23 of this

part, entry into the zone is subject to the

following requirements:

(1) This safety zone is closed to all

marine traffic, except as may be

permitted by the Captain of the Port or

his representative.

(2) The representative of the Captain

of the Port is any Coast Guard

commissioned, warrant or petty officer

who has been designated by the Captain

of the Port, Savannah, GA, to act on his

behalf regardless of the support

platform.

(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter

or operate within the safety zone shall

contact the Captain of the Port or his

representative to obtain permission to

do so. Vessel operators given permission

to enter or operate in the safety zone

shall comply with all directions given

them by the Captain of the Port or his

representative.

(4) The Captain of the Port may be

contacted by telephone via the

Command Duty Officer at (912) 652–

4353. Vessels assisting in the

enforcement of the safety zone may be

contacted on VHF–FM channels 16 or

81, vessel operators may determine the

restrictions in effect for the safety zone

by coming alongside a vessel patrolling

the perimeter of the safety zone.

(5) The Captain of the Port will issue

a Marine Safety Information Broadcast

Notice to Mariners to notify the

maritime community of the safety zone

and restrictions imposed.

Dated: December 20, 1995.

Roger T. Rufe, Jr.,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,

Seventh Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 96–47 Filed 1–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M
140 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 85, 86, and 88

[AMS–FRL–5347–2]

RIN 2060–AF87

Sales Volume Limit Provisions for

Small-Volume Manufacturers

Certification of Clean-Fuel and

Conventional Vehicle Conversions and

Related Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: On September 21, 1994, EPA

published a final rule establishing

emission standards for natural gas- and

liquified petroleum gas-fueled vehicles

and engines (‘‘Gaseous Fuels Rule’’). On

September 30, 1994, EPA published the

final rule establishing emission

standards for clean-fuel vehicles (CFVs)

and engines and requirements for CFV

conversions (‘‘CFV Standards Rule’’).

Included in each rule were provisions

intended to extend the applicability of

the existing vehicle sales volume limit

under EPA’s Small-Volume

Manufacturers (SVM) certification

program (10,000 vehicles) to aftermarket

vehicle converters. In the case of the

Gaseous Fuels Rule, the existing 10,000-

vehicle volume limit was promulgated

for aftermarket conversions as a final

rule. In the case of the CFV Standards

Rule, the 10,000 vehicle limit was

presented as a direct final rule, to

become final only in the absence of

adverse comment.

Since adverse comments were

received within the allotted time, the

vehicle limit provision is not effective,

and EPA is removing this provision

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register.

In its place, this action proposes to

establish the basic 10,000 vehicle/

engine total annual sales eligibility limit

for vehicle converters seeking CFV

certification under the Small-Volume

Manufacturers provisions. In addition,

EPA proposes to implement a short-term

mechanism which would allow

converters of alternative fuel vehicles to

petition EPA for an increase in the

allowable volume limit when the nature

of their business operations are

substantially different than that of

original equipment manufacturers.

To encourage the production of

Inherently-Low Emission Vehicles

(ILEVs), this action also proposes to

allow additional options for external

ILEV label dimensions. In this action,

EPA is also proposing to amend two

California Pilot Program (CPP)

requirements: the method for

determining a manufacturer’s CFV sales

quota and the method for administering

CPP credits. Finally, this proposal

includes several additional technical

amendments to the regulations issued

under Clean Fuel Fleet Program and

California Pilot Program final rules (40

CFR part 86, subparts A and N, and 40

CFR part 88, subparts A, B, and C). In

the Final Rules section of this Federal

Register, EPA is finalizing these

technical amendments to the Clean Fuel

Fleet Program and California Pilot

Program as a direct final rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views these technical amendments as

noncontroversial and anticipates no

adverse comments. A detailed

description of these technical

amendments is set forth in the direct

final rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to that direct final

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to the technical amendments

in this proposed rule. If EPA receives

adverse comments, 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 this

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this

proposed rule.

This proposal would reduce the

regulatory burden for industry

(especially the aftermarket conversion

industry), and it is highly

accommodating to their concerns. In

addition, this proposal would clarify

and streamline existing regulations for

certifiers and purchasers of clean-fuel

and/or alternative fuel vehicles.

DATES: Comments on this proposal will

be accepted until February 2, 1996.

Additional information on the

procedure for submitting comments can

be found under ‘‘Public Participation’’

in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may

submit written comments in response to

this action (in duplicate if possible) to

Public Docket Nos. A–92–30 and A–92–

14 for conversion provisions and Public

Docket No. A–92–69 for CPP 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 action 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 8:00 a.m. to

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

a reasonable fee for copying docket

materials.

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:

I. Introduction

A. Accessing Electronic Copies of

Rulemaking Documents through the

Technology Transfer Network Bulletin

Board System (TTNBBS)

A copy of this action is available

through 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.

B. Background

1. The Small-Volume Manufacturers

(SVM) Certification Program.

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.

In the Gaseous Fuels (59 FR 48472)

and the CFV Standards (59 FR 50042)

rules, EPA intended to apply the SVM

program to aftermarket converters in the

same way the Agency has applied it to

manufacturers of complete ‘‘original

equipment’’ vehicles (OEMs), including

the sales volume limit of 10,000 annual

sales. Discussions of EPA’s perspective

on this regulatory provision were

presented in Section II, Part B of the

CFV Emission Standards Final Rule (See
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules 141

1 The assigned deterioration factors and the

abbreviated durability protocol are expected to be

specified in a ‘‘Dear Manufacturer’’ letter that

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

30 and on TTNBBS.

59 FR 50063–50064; September 30,

1994) and Section III.I. of the Gaseous

Fuels Final Rule (See 59 FR 48486;

September 21, 1994).

2. Comments and EPA Responses.

In response to the SVM program

volume limit provisions of the CFV

Standards Final Rule and the Gaseous

Fuels Final Rule, EPA received

comments from the Natural Gas Vehicle

Coalition (NGVC) objecting to an annual

sales volume limit of 10,000 vehicles

applying to converters seeking to certify

under the provisions for small volume

manufacturers. NGVC’s primary

comments were based on the concept

that, in general, the nature and the

economics of the conversion business is

fundamentally different than the nature

and economics of the OEM industry.

Specifically, NGVC stated that the sale

price of the respective products are very

different. The OEM sells a complete

vehicle, usually for well over $10,000.

By comparison, an aftermarket converter

begins with existing vehicles and adds

new fueling technology, using

equipment that typically costs around

$1500, according to NGVC. From an

economic perspective, this difference

means that an OEM producing a certain

number of vehicles will generally have

more ability to absorb certification costs

than a converter producing a similar

number of vehicles. This is because the

OEM could usually allocate part of the

certification cost to each vehicle with

less relative impact on the overall sale

price than can a converter selling only

the add-on equipment and installation.

NGVC requested the limit under the

SVM provisions be raised to 30,000 for

alternative fuel converters. This higher

limit, NGVC believes, would remove the

incentive for converters to limit sales to

10,000 or less in order to qualify for the

SVM program (i.e., 10,000 sales volume

limit is a detriment to the sales of

alternative fuel conversions). NGVC’s

suggested 30,000 volume limit is based

on their expectation that, within the

next few years, a typical conversion

system manufacturer will wish to offer

certified kits for between 15 and 30

engine families, and average sales are

likely to be 1,000 to 2,000 per engine

family. According to NGVC’s estimates

of certification costs, the added cost of

durability testing for engine families

certified under the basic (non-SVM)

program could double the total

development and certification costs.

NGVC believes that as sales of certified

kits grow beyond 30,000, sales of the

more popular engine families can be

expected to reach 4,000 to 5,000 per

engine family. At this level of sales,

NGVC believes that the per-vehicle cost

of full certification would become more

reasonable.

NGVC also expressed concerns about

other aspects of EPA’s full certification

program as they apply to conversions.

They commented that certification on

an engine family-by-family basis should

be replaced by a grouping of engine

families, since certification costs for

low-production families are high on a

per-vehicle basis. Second, NGVC

presented their view that durability

testing of conversion prototypes is

duplicative of the OEM durability

testing that would have already been

done on the base vehicle.

EPA has considered each of these

comments and proposes provisions in

today’s action which we believe

addresses each concern. In general, EPA

believes that there is and will continue

to be a useful role for certified

alternative fuel conversions in

environmental and energy policy in the

coming years. Further, EPA understands

NGVC’s argument that the economic

nature of the conversion business differs

substantially from that of the OEM

business and that certification costs,

whether under full certification or not,

will tend to be relatively more

burdensome for converters than for

OEMs. Thus, in many cases, EPA

believes that equity in terms of

economic burden for certification for

converters as compared to OEMs may

warrant different treatment under the

certification protocols for the two types

of business activity.

However, the justification provided

by NGVC for the specific sales volume

limit of 30,000 lacked sufficient data

and analysis to prove or disprove the

appropriateness of any specific sales

level. The cost of certification per

vehicle is a function of whether relief

from some certification protocols is

available and the number of vehicles

produced under a certificate. These

variable factors exist in the context of

the likely variety of business situations

of future converters, some of which will

be better able to recover additional costs

from their customers than others. All of

these factors will affect the level of sales

at which the certification burden for an

individual converter might become low

enough to approach that of a typical

OEM SVM. EPA is thus not prepared at

this time to propose a specific volume

limit for all converters beyond the

existing 10,000 unit limit.

Regarding the comments relating to

the burden of the broader certification

process, EPA is also proposing in

today’s action to reduce certification

burden for converters by providing

flexibility in the regulations for

determining deterioration factors. (See

section II.B. for further description of

this proposed action.) In addition, EPA

is acting administratively, independent

of this action, to provide additional

flexibility to gaseous-fueled converters

for determining their deterioration

factors. EPA recently assigned

deterioration factors for vehicles

converted to operate on gaseous fuels.1

Manufacturers may use mathematically

derived assigned deterioration factors or

generate their own deterioration factors

using an abbreviated durability protocol

(shortened-durability test of only 25,000

miles of operation). EPA believes that

these temporary measures would greatly

reduce the effort and expense required

by this emerging industry.

II. Description of Action

A. Sales Volume Limit Provisions

Today’s proposal is presented in two

parts. First, to be consistent with the

SVM provisions for OEM’s and

conventional conversions, EPA

proposes to establish the 10,000 vehicle/

engine sales volume limit for CFV

converters under the small volume

manufacturers provisions.

In addition, EPA proposes to make a

waiver process available to alternative

fuel vehicle converters which provides

the opportunity for a converter to

petition EPA to permit the use of SVM

certification provisions at annual sales

levels of 10,000 and above. This

provision would be available for

manufacturers converting vehicles/

engines which meet 40 CFR 85

requirements (conventional

conversions) and for those converting

vehicles which meet 40 CFR 88

requirements (CFV conversions).

Converters would need to demonstrate

the need for a higher limit based on, but

not limited to, data such as company

sales projections and cost analysis or

other information indicating that

certification costs on a per-vehicle basis

will be substantially greater than those

for an OEM vehicle manufacturer. An

analysis indicating why the specific

volume limit requested is appropriate

would also be necessary. In no case

could the limit for any manufacturer

exceed 30,000 total units. Converters

would have to apply for a new waiver

each model year.

EPA is proposing that this waiver

process be available for a period of 5

years, through model year (MY) 2000.

However, EPA also asks comment on

whether a longer time period is more
142 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules

appropriate, and if so, what period of

time and why.

EPA believes that having the petition

process end by a specific date is

necessary since the future conversion

market is uncertain. This provision is

most critical during the next several

years as the alternate fuel vehicle

conversion industry begins business in

earnest in response to CAA, Energy

Policy Act, and other alternative fuel

fleet and vehicle programs at the state

and local levels. With the anticipated

sales growth in the industry as a whole

and for the individual certifiers of

conversions, the ability to recover

certification costs increases over time.

Conversely, since the difference in

business activity and economics

between converters and OEMs will not

totally disappear with time, a longer

term petition process may provide

greater parity in certification cost

between converters and OEMs. In any

event, since certification costs tend to be

relatively more burdensome for

converters than for OEMs and EPA

believes in equity in terms of economic

burden for certification, the proposed

petition process would only apply to

aftermarket conversions and not

producers of complete OEM vehicles.

B. Technical Amendments to the Clean

Fuel Fleet Program and California Pilot

Program

The technical amendments to the

Clean Fuel Fleet Program and California

Pilot Program that EPA considers to be

noncontroversial will be finalized as a

direct final rule (entitled,

‘‘Requirements for Determining

Assigned Deterioration Factors for

Alternative Fuel Vehicles, Amendments

to Labelling Requirements for Inherently

Low-Emission Vehicles, and Related

Provisions’’) in the final rules section of

today’s Federal Register. These

technical amendments pertain to 40

CFR part 86, subparts A and N, and 40

CFR part 88, subparts A, B, and C. See

the information provided in the direct

final rule for a detailed description of

these technical amendments.

III. Environmental and Economic

Impacts

The nature of today’s proposed

approach to the sales volume limit for

the Small-Volume Manufacturers

certification program is such that no

impact on air quality should result.

Given that there are no converters

which have received a certificate as yet,

it appears unlikely that any such entity

will approach the 10,000 vehicle level

for a few years. If and when that does

occur, the result of a successful petition

by a converter to increase the SVM sales

volume limit will not seriously

compromise EPA’s confidence that

certified emission levels are being met

in use. The SVM provisions, while

providing some relief in the

requirements for durability

demonstration, still do require an

assessment of durability. 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.

Today’s proposed action may have a

substantial economic benefit for

converters. Depending on the sales

level, the result of a successful petition

by a converter to increase the SVM sales

volume limit and thus be exempt from

durability testing, could cut in half an

engine family’s development and

certification costs.

For the relaxed ILEV labelling

requirements, EPA believes that if the

smaller but distinctive ILEV labels are

used on an ILEV, they would still be

able to be clearly identified by law

enforcement officials. EPA expects that

these changes would help encourage

manufacturers to develop and produce

ILEVs, which would in turn have a

positive environmental impact relative

to conventional vehicles.

With these proposed changes to the

CPP program, EPA would ease the

certification burden for manufacturers

with no effect on air quality. This result

would 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 proposal, EPA would

reduce the regulatory burden on

industry without effecting air quality.

EPA believes this proposal is highly

accommodating to industry’s concerns.

IV. Public Participation

EPA desires full public participation

in arriving at its final decisions, and

therefore solicits comments on all

aspects of today’s proposal. Wherever

applicable, full supporting data and

detailed analysis should be submitted to

allow EPA to make maximum use of the

comments. Commenters are especially

encouraged to provide specific

suggestions for any changes to any

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

conversion 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 today’s proposal.

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.

V. 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.

VI. 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

proposal is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ within the meaning of the

Executive Order. This proposal provides

greater flexibility for converters seeking

to certify under the small volume
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules 143

2 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.

manufacturers provisions, thus

eliminating some of the certification

burden for nearly all converters. ILEV

labelling requirements have been

proposed to be relaxed, reducing some

of the certification burden for certifiers

of alternative fuel vehicles. Today’s

proposal 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.

VII. 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.2 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 proposal will allow many if

not all converters to certify their

conversions under the small volume

certification provisions. EPA has

evaluated the effects of today’s proposed

regulation and the Administrator of EPA

certifies that there would not be an

adverse impact on a substantial number

of small entities; in fact, most small

converters will experience an economic

benefit. Therefore, a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis has not been

performed for this rule.

VIII. 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 proposed or final rule

where the estimated costs to State, local,

or tribal governments, or to the private

sector will be $100 million or more 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 proposal would

be less than $100 million. EPA has

determined that this proposal would

reduce the regulatory burden imposed

on certifiers of clean-fuel and/or

alternative fuel vehicles (especially

converters of such vehicles). EPA has

determined that an unfunded mandates

statement therefore is unnecessary.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements for converters in this

proposed rule have been submitted for

approval to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) under the Paper

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

An Information Collection Request (ICR)

document has been prepared by EPA

(ICR No. 783.34) and a copy 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.

Today’s proposal does not add any

mandatory information collection

requirements for converters or any other

entity, but EPA has prepared an

Information Collection Request

document for this proposal since the

collection of information would be

needed for some converters to obtain or

retain the benefit of SVM certification

(collection of information required to

obtain or retain a benefit). (Under

section 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, the

Administrator has the general authority

‘‘... to prescribe such regulations as are

necessary to carry out his functions

under this Act.) For aftermarket

converters who choose to petition EPA

to be included under the SVM

provisions at a higher sales volume,

basic data on the projected sales, cost of

certification, and why the specific

volume limit requested is appropriate

would need to be included in the

petition to demonstrate economic

hardship of the current sales volume

limit. This ICR would be an amendment

to the base Certification Program ICR,

and the same confidentiality provisions

in the base Certification Program ICR

would apply to this ICR as well.

For this ICR, the projected annual

average cost and hour burden (reporting

and recordkeeping) for respondents

would be $4,800 and 80 hours,

respectively for the five year period

1996 through 2000 model year. For five

respondents at five hours per response,

the annual average reporting burden

would be 60 hours. This converter ICR

does not include capital and start-up

costs, operation and maintenance costs,

and purchases of services costs for the

following reasons: there is not any

testing burden associated with this ICR

and prior to certification the

respondents would have collected the

necessary information for their own

planning purposes. 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

instructions; 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 data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor , and a person is not required

to respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15.

Comments are requested on the

Agency’s need for this information, the

accuracy of the provided burden

estimates, and any suggested methods

for minimizing respondent burden,

including through the use of automated

collection techniques. Send comments

on the ICR 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. Since OMB is required

to make a decision concerning the ICR

between 30 and 60 days after Janaury 3,

1996, a comment to OMB is best assured

of having its full effect if OMB receives

it by February 2, 1996. The final rule

will respond to any OMB or public

comments on the information collection

requirements contained in this proposal.

The information collection

requirements of the Credit Program for
144 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 85

Environmental protection, Imports,

Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Research, Warranties.

40 CFR Part 86

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedures,

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, parts 85 and 88 of title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations are

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 85—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 85 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7507, 7521, 7522,

7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7547, 7601(a).

2. Section 85.501 of Subpart F is

revised to read as follows:

§ 85.501 General applicability.

Sections 85.501 through 85.506 are

applicable to aftermarket conversion

systems for which an enforcement

exemption is sought from the tampering

prohibitions contained in section 203 of

the Act.

3. Section 85.503 of subpart F is

amended by revising paragraphs (a) and

(b)(1) to read as follows:

§ 85.503 Conditions of exemption.

(a) As a condition of receiving an

enforcement exemption from the

tampering prohibitions contained in

section 203 of the Act, an aftermarket

conversion certifier must certify the

aftermarket conversion system, using

the applicable procedures in part 86 of

this chapter, and meeting the applicable

standards and requirements in

§§ 85.504, 85.505 and 85.506, and

accept liability for in-use performance

of the aftermarket conversion system as

outlined in this part.

(b) * * *

(1) Install a conversion which has

been certified as a new vehicle or

engine, using the applicable procedures

in part 86 of this chapter, and meeting

the applicable standards and

requirements in §§ 85.504, 85.505 and

85.506; and

* * * * *

4. A new § 85.506 is added to subpart

F, to read as follows:

§ 85.506 Sales volume limit for the

aftermarket conversion certifier under the

small-volume manufacturers certification

program.

(a) The optional small-volume

manufacturers certification procedures

as described in 40 CFR 86.092–14 apply

to aftermarket conversions assembled by

aftermarket conversion certifiers with

U.S. sales of fewer than 10,000 units. An

aftermarket conversion certifier with

sales greater than 10,000 per year may

petition the Administrator for

permission to use the small-volume

manufacturers certification procedures

for conversions certified on or before

December 31, 2000.

(1) The aftermarket conversion

certifier shall demonstrate to the

Administrator economic hardship of the

10,000 sales volume limit. At a

minimum, the aftermarket conversion

certifier shall provide to the

Administrator the following data:

company sales projections (by engine

family), cost analysis indicating that

certification costs on a per-vehicle basis

will be substantially greater than those

for an OEM vehicle manufacturer (i.e.,

incremental cost of full durability

testing per vehicle), and an analysis

indicating why the specific volume

limit requested is appropriate. The

Administrator may require additional

data as he may deem necessary to

demonstrate economic hardship of the

10,000 sales volume limit. The

aftermarket conversion certifier must

receive approval from the Administrator

on a case by case basis to waive the

10,000 sales volume limit, and the

certifier shall apply for a new waiver

each model year. In no case shall the

sales volume limit for any petitioner

exceed 30,000.

(2) For aftermarket conversions

certified after December 31, 2000, the

10,000 sales volume limit in 40 CFR

86.094–14(b)(1) shall apply.

(b) The sales volume limit provided in

paragraph (a) of this section shall apply

to the aggregate total of all vehicles sold

by a given aftermarket conversion

certifier at all of its installation facilities

without regard to the model year of the

original vehicles upon which the

conversions are based. All vehicle sales

will be included in calculating the

aftermarket conversion certifier’s

aggregate total, including vehicle

conversions performed under the

requirements of this part 85 and 40 CFR

part 88 (clean-fuel vehicle conversions),

and all other vehicle conversions.

Vehicle conversions not covered by this

part 85 will be counted if they occur

within the model year for which

certification is sought.

PART 88–CLEAN-FUEL VEHICLES

5. 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, 7601(a).

6. Section 88.306–94 of subpart C is

amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to

read as follows:

§ 88.306–94 Requirements for a converted

vehicle to qualify as a clean-fuel fleet

vehicle.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) For the purpose of determining

whether certification under the SmallVolume Manufacturers Certification

Program pursuant to the requirements of

40 CFR 86.092–14 is permitted for the

clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket

conversion certifier, the 10,000 sales

volume limit in 40 CFR 86.094–14(b)(1)

shall apply. A clean-fuel vehicle

aftermarket conversion certifier with

sales greater than 10,000 per year may

petition the Administrator for

permission to use the small-volume

certification procedures for conversions

certified on or before December 31,

2000.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules 145

(i) The clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket

conversion certifier shall demonstrate to

the Administrator economic hardship of

the 10,000 sales volume limit. At a

minimum, the clean-fuel vehicle

aftermarket conversion certifier shall

provide to the Administrator the

following data: company sales

projections (by engine family), cost

analysis indicating that certification

costs on a per-vehicle basis will be

substantially greater than those for an

OEM vehicle manufacturer (i.e.,

incremental cost of full durability

testing per vehicle), and an analysis

indicating why the specific volume

limit requested is appropriate. The

Administrator may require additional

data as he may deem necessary to

demonstrate economic hardship of the

10,000 sales volume limit. The cleanfuel vehicle aftermarket conversion

certifier must receive approval from the

Administrator on a case by case basis to

waive the 10,000 sales volume limit,

and the certifier shall apply for a new

waiver each model year. In no case shall

the sales volume limit for any petitioner

exceed 30,000.

(ii) For clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket

conversion configurations certified after

December 31, 2000, the 10,000 sales

volume limit in 40 CFR 86.094–14(b)(1)

shall apply.

(iii) The sales volume limit provided

in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii) of

this section shall apply to the aggregate

total of all vehicles sold by a given

clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket

conversion certifier at all of its

installation facilities without regard to

the model year of the original vehicles

upon which the conversion

configurations are based. All vehicle

sales will be included in calculating the

clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket

conversion certifier’s aggregate total,

including vehicle conversions

performed under the requirements of

this part 88, and all other vehicle

conversions. Vehicle conversions not

covered by this part 88 will be counted

if they occur within the model year for

which certification is sought.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–104 Filed 1–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 533

[Docket No. 94–20; Notice 2]

RIN 2127–AF16

Light Truck Average Fuel Economy

Standard, Model Year 1998

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

establish an average fuel economy

standard for light trucks manufactured

in model year (MY) 1998. The issuance

of a standard is required by statute. The

agency is proposing to set a combined

standard for all light trucks at 20.7 miles

per gallon (mpg) for MY 1998.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 20, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the

docket and notice number set forth

above and be submitted (preferably in

10 copies) to Docket Section, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street SW,

Washington, DC 20590. The Docket is

open 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday. Submission containing

information for which confidential

designation is requested should be

submitted (in three copies) to Chief

Counsel, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, Room 5219, 400

Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC

20590, and seven additional copies from

which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be

sent to the Docket section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Orron Kee, Office of Market Incentives,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW,

Washington, DC 20590 (202–366–0846).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In December 1975, during the

aftermath of the energy crisis created by

the oil embargo of 1973–74, Congress

enacted the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act. Congress included a

provision in that Act establishing an

automotive fuel economy regulatory

program. That provision added title V,

‘‘Improving Automotive Efficiency,’’ to

the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost

Saving Act. Title V has been amended

and recodified without substantive

change into Chapter 329 of Title 49 of

the United States Code. Chapter 329

provides for the establishment of

average fuel economy standards for cars

and light trucks.

Section 32902(a) of Chapter 329

requires the Secretary of Transportation

to issue light truck fuel economy

standards for each model year. Chapter

329 provides that the fuel economy

standards are to be set at the maximum

feasible average fuel economy level. In

determining the maximum feasible

average fuel economy level, the

Secretary is required under section

32902(f) to consider four criteria:

technological feasibility, economic

practicability, the effect of other motor

vehicle standards of the Government on

fuel economy, and the need of the

United States to conserve energy.

(Responsibility for the automotive fuel

economy program was delegated by the

Secretary of Transportation to the

Administrator of NHTSA (41 FR 25015,

June 22, 1976)). Such standards must be

established no later than 18 months

prior to the beginning of the model year

in question. Pursuant to this authority,

the agency has set Corporate Average

Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards

through MY 1997. The standard for MY

1997 is 20.7 mpg.

Following the establishment of the

light truck fuel economy standards

through 1997, the process of

establishing standards for model years

after MY 1997 began with the

publication of an Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the

Federal Register (59 FR 16324) on April

6, 1994. The ANPRM outlined the

agency’s intention to set standards for

some or all of model years 1998 to 2006.

The ANPRM solicited comments

through, among other things, nine

questions designed to assist the agency

in developing the proposed standards.

Comments were submitted by six

manufacturers: Ford, General Motors

(GM), Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, and the

Rover Group. Comments were also

submitted by the American Automobile

Manufacturers Association (AAMA), the

American Council for an Energy

Efficient Economy (ACEEE), the

Coalition for Vehicle Choice (CVC), the

Competitive Enterprise Institute, and

many other organizations and private

individuals.

On November 15, 1995, Congress

enacted the Department of

Transportation and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996,

P.L. 104–50. A provision in that Act

precludes the agency from using any

funds appropriated for that year to

prepare, propose, or promulgate any

regulations * * * prescribing corporate

average fuel economy standards for

automobiles * * * in any model year that

differs from standards promulgated for such