[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6944-6949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4040]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 86

[A-94-13; FRL-5425-8]
RIN 2060-AE07


Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor 
Vehicle Engines; Nonconformance Penalties for 1996 Model Year Emission 
Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule announces the availability of nonconformance 
penalties (NCPs) for the Light-Duty Truck 3 (LDT3) particulate matter 
(PM) standard taking effect in the 1996 model year. The availability of 
these NCPs will allow manufacturers of LDT3 whose vehicles or engines 
fail to conform with the 1996 PM standard, but do not exceed a 
designated upper limit, to be issued a certificate of conformity upon 
payment of a monetary penalty. The associated upper limit for the LDT3 
PM standard will be the previous standard of 0.13 grams per mile (g/
mi).
    A concurrent, but separate rulemaking addresses the availability of 
NCPs for the 1998 and later model year oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 
standard for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines (HDDEs), the 1996 and later 
model year NOX standard for LDT3 and the 1996 urban bus PM 
standard.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective March 25, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Public Docket: Copies of materials relevant to this 
rulemaking proceeding are contained in Public Docket A-94-13 at the Air 
Docket of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Room M1500, 401 M 
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, and are available for review in Room 
M1500 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays. As 
provided in 40 CFR Part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for copying 
services.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gregory Orehowsky, Manufacturers 
Operations Division (6405-J), US Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 233-9292.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory Authority

    Section 206(g) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 7525(g), 
requires EPA to issue a certificate of conformity for HDEs or Heavy-
Duty Vehicles (HDVs) which exceed an applicable section 202(a) 
emissions standard, but do not exceed an upper limit associated with 
that standard, if the manufacturer pays an NCP established by 
rulemaking. Congress adopted section 206(g) in the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1977 as a response to perceived problems with technology-
forcing heavy-duty emissions standards. (It should be noted, however, 
that the existence of NCPs does not change the criteria under which the 
standards have been and will be set under section 202.) Following 
International Harvester v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615 (D.C. Cir. 1973), 
Congress realized the dilemma that technology-forcing standards were 
likely to cause. If strict standards were maintained, then some 
manufacturers, ``technological laggards,'' might be unable to comply 
initially and would be forced out of the marketplace. NCPs were 
intended to remedy this potential problem. The laggards would have a 
temporary alternative that would permit them to sell their engines or 
vehicles by payment of a penalty. This penalty is based in part, on the 
money saved from 

[[Page 6945]]
the production of noncomplying engines, would protect conforming 
manufacturers from the competitive disadvantage of making more costly 
engines which comply with technology forcing standards.
    Under section 206(g)(1) of the Clean Air Act, NCPs may be offered 
for HDVs or HDEs. The penalty may vary by pollutant and by class or 
category of vehicle or engine.
    HDVs are defined by section 202(b)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act as 
vehicles in excess of 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). 
The light-duty truck (LDT) classification includes trucks that have a 
GVWR of 8,500 lbs or less. Therefore, certain LDTs may be classified as 
HDVs. Historically, LDTs between 6,001 and 8,500 pounds GVWR have been 
considered Heavy Light Duty Trucks (HLDTs). Based on various new 
requirements established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, HLDTs 
have been further subdivided into groups by weight.
    The HLDTs are divided at 5750 lbs Adjusted Loaded Vehicle Weight 
(ALVW) which is the average of the curb weight and the GVWR. The HLDTs 
that are up through 5750 lbs ALVW are called Light Duty Trucks 3 
(LDT3). Those above 5750 lbs ALVW but less than or equal to 8500 lbs 
GVWR are Light Duty Trucks 4, or LDT4. The LDT3 and LDT4 subclasses 
make up the HLDT vehicle class. Since NCPs are only offered for heavy 
duty vehicles or engines, this notice addresses only emission standards 
for light duty trucks of the LDT3 and LDT4 categories.
    Section 206(g)(3) of the Clean Air Act requires that NCPs:
    (1) Account for the degree of emission nonconformity;
    (2) Increase periodically to provide incentive for nonconforming 
manufacturers to achieve the emission standards; and
    (3) Remove the competitive disadvantage to conforming 
manufacturers.
    Section 206(g) authorizes EPA to require testing of production 
vehicles or engines in order to determine the emission level on which 
the penalty is based. If the emission level of a vehicle or engine 
exceeds an upper limit of nonconformity established by EPA through 
regulation, the vehicle or engine would not qualify for an NCP under 
section 206(g) and no certificate of conformity could be issued to the 
manufacturer. If the emission level is below the upper limit but above 
the standard, that emission level becomes the ``compliance level,'' 
which is also the benchmark for warranty and recall liability; the 
manufacturer who elects to pay the NCP is liable for vehicles or 
engines that exceed the compliance level in-use, unless, for the case 
of HLDTs, the compliance level is below the in-use standard. The 
manufacturer does not have in-use warranty or recall liability for 
emissions levels above the standard but below the compliance level.

II. Background

A. The Generic Nonconformance Penalty Rule

    The generic NCP rule (Phase I) established three basic criteria for 
determining the eligibility of emission standards for nonconformance 
penalties in any given model year. See 40 CFR 86.1103-87. First, the 
emission standard in question must become more difficult to meet. This 
can occur in two ways, either by the emission standard itself becoming 
more stringent, or due to its interaction with another emission 
standard that has become more stringent.
    Second, substantial work must be required to meet the emission 
standard. EPA considers ``substantial work'' to mean the application of 
technology not previously used in that vehicle or engine class/
subclass, or a significant modification of existing technology, to 
bring that vehicle/engine into compliance. EPA does not consider minor 
modifications or calibration changes to be classified as substantial 
work.
    Third, a technological laggard must be likely to develop. A 
technological laggard is defined as a manufacturer who cannot meet a 
particular emission standard due to technological (not economic) 
difficulties and who, in the absence of NCPs, might be forced from the 
marketplace. EPA will make the determination that a technological 
laggard is likely to develop, based in large part on the above two 
criteria. However, these criteria are not always sufficient to 
determine the likelihood of the development of a technological laggard. 
An emission standard may become more difficult to meet and substantial 
work may be required for compliance, but if that work merely involves 
transfer of well-developed technology from another vehicle class, it is 
unlikely that a technological laggard would develop.
    The above three criteria were used to determine eligibility for 
NCPs in Phase II of the NCP rulemaking (50 FR 53454, December 31, 
1985), in Phase III of the NCP rulemaking (55 FR 46622, November 5, 
1990) concerning the 1991 model year HDE standards, and in Phase IV of 
the NCP rulemaking (58 FR 68532, December 28, 1993) concerning HDVs and 
HDEs subject to the 1994 and later model year emission standards for 
particulate matter (PM).
    As in the previous NCP rules, EPA is specifying values for the 
following parameters in the NCP formula for each standard: COC50, 
COC90, MC50, and F. The NCP formula is the same as that 
promulgated in the Phase I rule.
    COC50 is an estimate of the industry wide average incremental 
cost per engine (references to engines are intended to include vehicles 
as well) associated with meeting the standard for which an NCP is 
offered, compared with meeting the upper limit. COC50 is based on 
typical engine technology, as nearly as EPA can identify it. As in the 
previous NCP rules, costs include additional manufacturer costs and 
additional owner costs. The other NCP rules did not include 
certification costs in the calculation of COC50, and none will be 
allowed in this document because both complying and noncomplying 
manufacturers must incur certification costs.
    COC90 is EPA's best estimate of the 90th percentile 
incremental cost per engine associated with meeting the standard for 
which an NCP is offered, compared with meeting the associated upper 
limit. COC90 is based on a near worst case technology, as nearly 
as EPA can identify it. COC90, like COC50, includes both 
manufacturer and owner costs, but not certification costs.
    MC50 is an estimate of the industry wide average marginal cost 
of compliance per unit of reduced pollutant associated with the least 
cost effective emission control technology installed to meet the new 
standard. MC50 is measured in dollars per g/BHP-hr for HDEs and in 
dollars per gram per mile (g/mi) for LDTs.
    F is a factor used to derive MC90, the 90th percentile 
marginal cost of compliance with the NCP standard for engines in the 
NCP category. MC90 is defined as being the slope of the penalty 
rate curve near the standard and is equal to MC50 multiplied by F. 
For this rulemaking, as was the case in the previous NCP rules, EPA has 
determined that no reasonable estimate of MC90 can be made based 
on existing marginal cost data and has thus set F at a presumptive 
value of 1.2. This approach was generally supported by commentaries on 
the past NCP rulemakings.

B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (59 FR 43074, August 
22, 1994), EPA identified the Tier I Heavy Light 

[[Page 6946]]
Duty Trucks (HLDT) standards becoming effective in 1996, the 1996 Urban 
Bus PM standard of 0.05 g/bhp-hr, and the 1998 Heavy Duty Engine (HDE) 
NOX standard of 4.0 g/bhp-hr as new standards for which it has 
statutory authority for considering NCPs. EPA then applied the three 
generic NCP criteria to each of those emission standards.
    The Agency identified the 1996 LDT3 PM standard of 0.10 g/mi as 
satisfying the required NCP criteria and, therefore, proposed to make 
NCPs available for that standard. The Agency also proposed upper limits 
for that standard and numerical values to be used in the calculation of 
the NCP for the associated vehicles.
    EPA did not propose NCPs for the other new standards because they 
did not meet all three of the generic NCP criteria.
    NCPs were not considered for the Tier 1 ``in-use'' standards since 
NCPs are a mechanism to allow manufacturers to certify engine families, 
not to assist manufacturers in complying with ``in-use'' standards.

C. Final Rule--Availability of NCPs

1. Standard for Which NCPs Will Be Offered
a. 1996 Tier 1 PM Standard for Diesel LDT3
    EPA recognizes that the new PM standard of 0.10 g/mi at full useful 
life represents an increase in stringency over the prior standard of 
0.13 g/mi at full useful life for diesel-fueled LDT3, satisfying the 
first eligibility criterion. Based on discussions with General Motors, 
the only current manufacturer of diesel-fueled vehicles in this class, 
EPA believes that the addition of catalytic converter technology to 
these engines will probably not bring them into compliance with the new 
standard. Significant work will be required for another technology, 
such as a Variable Geometry Turbocharger, to be adapted for use on 
these vehicles. This is especially true when considering the 
interrelationship of the NOX and PM emissions of diesel-fueled 
engines, as stated above. For these reasons, EPA believes that a 
technological laggard may develop and is offering NCPs for diesel-
fueled LDT3 at the full useful life for the new PM standard. The 
proposed penalty rates are discussed below.
2. Standards for Which NCPs Were Not Proposed
a. 1996 Tier 1 PM Standard for Non-Diesel Fueled LDT3
    There is no previous PM standard for non-diesel fueled LDT3. Thus 
the new PM standard of 0.10 g/mi at full useful life represents an 
increase in stringency. However, non-diesel fueled vehicles emit very 
low levels of particulate matter and will not require any additional 
emission control technology to meet this standard. Thus, substantial 
work is not required and there is not a likelihood that a technological 
laggard will develop. Therefore, EPA did not propose NCPs for these 
vehicles.
b. 1996 Tier 1 Non-Methane Hydrocarbon (NMHC) Standard for LDT3
    Since there is no NMHC standard for earlier model year LDT3, the 
new NMHC standard represents an increase in stringency over the THC 
standard for previous model years, satisfying the first eligibility 
criterion. EPA acknowledges that one manufacturer has indicated that it 
may have difficulty complying with this standard. Based on the 
manufacturer's planned strategy, however, EPA does not believe that 
substantial work, as described above, will be necessary to meet the new 
standard for either the intermediate useful-life level of 0.32 g/mi or 
the full useful-life level of 0.46 g/mi, since it does not represent a 
major modification of existing technology. EPA also does not believe 
that a technological laggard is likely to develop, based on discussions 
with vehicle manufacturers. For these reasons, EPA did not propose NCPs 
for this standard.
c. 1996 Tier 1 CO Standard for LDT3
    EPA recognizes that the new CO standard of 6.4 g/mi at full useful 
life represents an increase in stringency over the prior standard of 10 
g/mi at full useful life for LDT3, satisfying the first eligibility 
criterion. Based on 1993 model year certification levels, only one 
manufacturer is currently producing LDT3 vehicles which would not meet 
the new standard at full useful life. Since this manufacturer does not 
anticipate difficulty in meeting the new CO standards, EPA does not 
believe that a technological laggard is likely to develop. The half 
useful-life standard of 4.4 g/mi is considered by EPA and manufacturers 
to be less difficult to meet than the full useful life standard. For 
these reasons, EPA did not propose NCPs for these standards.
d. 1996 Tier 1 Non-Methane Hydrocarbon (NMHC) Standard for LDT4
    There is no NMHC standard for earlier model year LDT4. Both EPA and 
vehicle manufacturers believe that the NMHC standard represents an 
increase in stringency over the THC standard for previous model year 
LDT4, satisfying the first eligibility criterion. The same manufacturer 
that expressed concern in meeting the NMHC standard for LDT3 has 
similar concerns in meeting this standard and will use a similar 
strategy to lower the emissions. For the same reasons stated in the 
above discussion of the NMHC standard for LDT3, EPA did not propose 
NCPs for the NMHC standard at either the intermediate or the full 
useful life.
e. 1996 Tier 1 CO Standard for LDT4
    EPA recognizes that the new CO standard of 7.3 g/mi at full useful 
life represents an increase in stringency over the prior standard of 10 
g/mi at full useful life for LDT4, satisfying the first eligibility 
criterion. Based on discussions with current manufacturers of affected 
vehicles, EPA believes that manufacturers will not have difficulty in 
meeting the new standard. Since there are no 1993 model year LDT4 with 
CO certification levels higher than the new standard at full useful 
life, EPA does not believe that a technological laggard is likely to 
develop. The half useful-life standard of 5.0 g/mi is generally 
considered by EPA and manufacturers to be less difficult to meet than 
the full useful life standard of 7.3 g/mi. For these reasons, EPA did 
not propose NCPs for these standards.
f. 1996 Tier 1 NOX Standard for LDT4
    EPA recognizes that the new NOX standard of 1.53 g/mi at full 
useful life represents an increase in stringency over the prior 
standard of 1.7 g/mi at full useful life for LDT4, satisfying the first 
eligibility criterion. Based on discussions with current manufacturers 
of affected vehicles, and based on the fact that there were no model 
year 1993 LDT4 certified which would exceed the new standard at full 
useful life, EPA believes that substantial work, as described above, 
will not be required of manufacturers and that a technological laggard 
is not likely to develop. The half useful-life standard for non-diesel 
vehicles of 1.10 g/mi is generally considered by EPA and manufacturers 
to be less difficult to meet than the full useful life standard. For 
these reasons, EPA did not propose NCPs for the new LDT4 NOX 
standards.
g. 1996 Tier 1 PM Standard for LDT4
    EPA recognizes that the new PM standard of 0.12 g/mi at full useful 
life represents an increase in stringency over the prior standard of 
0.13 g/mi at full useful life for LDT4, satisfying the first 
eligibility criterion. As in the case of non-diesel LDT3, no work 
should be required to meet the new PM standard 

[[Page 6947]]
for non-diesel LDT4. And based on discussions with the single, current 
manufacturer of diesel-fueled LDT4 vehicles and on 1993 model year 
certification levels, EPA does not believe that a technological laggard 
is likely to develop or that substantial work, as described above, will 
be required to meet the new PM standard. For these reasons, EPA did not 
propose NCPs for the new LDT4 PM standard.
3. Standards Addressed in a Concurrent NCP Rulemaking
a. 1996 Tier 1 NOX Standard for LDT3
b. 1996 Urban Bus PM Standard
c. 1998 HDDE NOX Standard

    EPA's analysis of the issues concerning NCPs for these standards 
and EPA's response to comments received in this rulemaking on these 
standards are contained in a Direct Final Rule published elsewhere in 
this Federal Register notice. The Direct Final Rule approves NCPs for 
the above, three standards.

III. Summary and Analysis of Comments

    Written comments were received from five entities during the 
comment period: General Motors Corporation, Detroit Diesel Corporation, 
Engine Manufacturers' Association, Navistar, and Mack Truck.

A. Availability of Nonconformance Penalties and Penalty Rates

Heavy Light Duty Trucks 3 PM Standard
    General Motors agrees with EPA's conclusion that NCPs are justified 
for the new LDT3 PM standard. GM stated that the proposed penalty rates 
were not reasonable for two reasons. First, GM stated ``the basic 
technology determined to be necessary to achieve the emission 
improvement required by the standard includes technology (oxidizing 
catalyst) that is already being used to achieve the current PM 
standard. Thus, the oxidizing catalyst costs included in the penalty 
rate determinations needs to be removed and the penalty rates modified 
to include only the other technology believed needed to achieve the 
1996 PM standard.'' EPA agreed with this suggestion since GM is the 
only manufacturer in this market segment. Since GM was not able to 
specify what technology would be needed to meet the standard, the 
penalty rates in this Final Rule reflect EPA's best determination of 
the technology believed necessary for a manufacturer already using 
catalyst technology, but still unable to attain the standard.
    EPA believes that vehicles unable to achieve the standard with 
catalyst technology will need to rely on variable geometry turbocharger 
technology, improved oil control, and additional work in optimizing 
engine calibrations.
    Second, GM argues that since the new Tier 1 standard effectively 
increases the test weight used in testing vehicles of this class, this 
fact should be accounted for in determining the penalty rates and the 
upper limit for the LDT3 PM NCP. While EPA believes the said effect to 
be plausible, it is likely a relatively small effect. And, in the 
absence of any manufacturer-supplied data in support of that claim, 
this component was not considered in determining the NCPs for this 
Final Rule.

IV. Penalty Rates

    This rule is the most recent in a series of NCP rulemakings. The 
discussion of penalty rates in the Phase IV rulemaking (58 FR 68532, 
December 28, 1993), Phase III rulemaking (55 FR 46622, November 5, 
1990), the Phase II rulemaking (50 FR 53454, December 31, 1985) as well 
as the Phase I rulemaking (50 FR 35374, August 30, 1985) are 
incorporated by reference.
    The derivation of the 1996 Tier 1 LDT3 PM standard cost parameters 
are described in a support document entitled ``Calculation of 
Nonconformance Penalty Rates for 1996 and Later Model Year LDT3 
Particulate Matter (PM), LDT3 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX), 1996 and 
Later Model Year Urban Bus Particulate Matter (PM), and 1998 and Later 
Model Year HDDE Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Standards,'' which is 
available in the public docket for this rulemaking. The associated 
upper limit of 0.13 g/mi PM, the previous PM standard, was determined 
as per section 86.1104-91 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

V. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive 
Order. The order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that 
is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on 
the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material 
way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or 
tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency 
or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another 
agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising 
out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles 
set forth in the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action.'' 
This regulation will not have an annual effect on the economy in excess 
of $100 million and will not cause a major increase in the price of 
HDEs above those that would otherwise occur from compliance with the 
emission standards themselves. This regulation is intended to assist 
manufacturers that are having difficulty developing and marketing 
vehicles which comply with the 1996 Tier 1 PM standard for LDT3. 
Without this rule, a manufacturer experiencing difficulty in complying 
with this new emission standard (after the use of credits) has only two 
alternatives: fix the nonconforming engines for the associated model 
years or not sell them at all. NCPs provide manufacturers with 
additional time to bring their engines into conformity.
    In addition, NCPs are calculated to deprive nonconforming 
manufacturers of any cost savings and competitive advantages stemming 
from marketing a nonconforming engine. Thus, NCPs will not have 
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, 
productivity, innovation or on the ability of United States-based 
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or 
export markets.

VI. Economic Impact

    Because the use of NCPs is optional, manufacturers have the 
flexibility and will likely choose whether or not to use NCPs based on 
their ability to comply with emissions standards. If a HDE manufacturer 
elects not to use NCPs, the manufacturer and its customers will not 
incur any additional costs related to NCPs.
    NCPs remedy the potential problem of having a manufacturer forced 
out of the marketplace due to that manufacturer's inability to conform 
to new, strict emission standards in a timely manner. Without NCPs, a 
manufacturer which has difficulty certifying HDEs in conformance with 
emission standards or whose engines fail a SEA has only two 
alternatives: fix the nonconforming engines, perhaps at a prohibitive 
cost, or prevent their introduction into commerce. The availability of 
NCPs provides manufacturers with a third alternative: continue 
production and introduce into commerce upon payment 

[[Page 6948]]
of a penalty for an engine that exceeds the standard until an emission 
conformance technique is developed.
    Therefore, NCPs represent a regulatory mechanism that allows 
affected manufacturers to have increased flexibility. A decision to use 
NCPs may be a manufacturer's only way to continue to introduce HDEs 
into commerce. Hence, NCPs may be considered to have no adverse 
economic impact.

VII. Environmental Impact

    When evaluating the environmental impact of this rule, one must 
keep in mind that, under the Clean Air Act, NCPs are a consequence of 
enacting new, more stringent emissions requirements for heavy duty 
engines. Emission standards are set at a level that most, but not 
necessarily all, manufacturers can achieve by the model year in which 
the standard becomes effective. Following International Harvester v. 
Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615 (D.C. Cir. 1973), Congress realized the 
dilemma that technology-forcing standards were likely to cause, and 
allowed manufacturers of heavy-duty engines to certify nonconforming 
vehicles/engines upon the payment of an NCP, under certain conditions. 
This mechanism would allow a manufacturer(s) who cannot meet 
technology-forcing standards immediately to continue to manufacture 
these nonconforming engines while they tackle the technological 
problems associated with meeting new emission standard(s). Thus, as 
part of the statutory structure to force technological improvements 
without driving manufacturers out of the market, NCPs provide 
flexibility that fosters long-term emissions improvement through the 
setting of lower emission standards at an earlier date than could 
otherwise be possible. By design, NCPs encourage the technological 
laggard that is using NCPs to reduce emission levels to the more 
stringent standard as quickly as possible.

VIII. Compliance With Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, 
et seq., the Administrator is required to either perform a regulatory 
flexibility analysis or certify that this regulation will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small business entities. 
None of the affected manufacturers could be classified as small. 
Moreover, as already discussed, the NCP program can be expected to 
benefit manufacturers.
    Some small entities do exist as manufacturers' contractors for the 
testing of engines for Production Compliance Audits (PCAs). It is EPA's 
practice to conduct PCA scheduling (namely, tests per day limitations) 
in such a way as to consider the staff and manpower capabilities of 
such contractors and avoid any problems. The result is that these 
entities are not adversely affected. Thus, I certify that this rule 
will not have any adverse economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

IX. Information Collection Requirements

    This rule requires that manufacturers perform certain record 
keeping and submit certain reports to EPA. The Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., provides that reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements be approved by OMB before they can be 
enforced by EPA. The information collection requirements in this 
proposed rule have been addressed in previous rulemaking and approved 
by OMB (OMB control no. 2060-0132). However, any person wishing to 
comment on these requirements is invited to do so. Comments on these 
requirements should be submitted to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 
Mail Code 2136, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., S.W., 
Washington, DC 20460 and to Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 726 Jackson Place, NW, 
Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''

X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternative and adopt 
the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
official of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal 
governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable 
duties on any of these governmental entities or the private sector. In 
addition, the UMRA excludes from the definition of ``Federal private 
sector mandate'' duties that arise from participation in a voluntary 
Federal program. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Gasoline, Motor vehicles, Labeling, Motor 
vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 12, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 86, is 
amended as follows:

PART 86--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM NEW AND IN-USE MOTOR 
VEHICLES AND NEW AND IN-USE MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES: CERTIFICATION 
AND TEST PROCEDURES

    1. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 202, 203, 206, 207, 208, 215, 216, 217, 301(a), 
Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7524, 7525, 7541, 
7542, 7549, 7550, 7552, and 7601(a)).

    2. Section 86.1105-87 of subpart L is amended by revising paragraph 
(e), 

[[Page 6949]]
adding paragraph (g) and adding and reserving paragraph (h) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 86.1105-87  Emission standards for which nonconformance penalties 
are available.

* * * * *
    (e) The values of COC50, COC90, and MC50 in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are expressed in December 1984 
dollars. The values of COC50, COC90, and MC50 in 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section are expressed in December 1989 
dollars. The values of COC50, COC90, and MC50 in 
paragraph (f) of this section are expressed in December 1991 dollars. 
The values of COC50, COC90, and MC50 in paragraphs (g) 
and (h) of this section are expressed in December 1994 dollars. These 
values shall be adjusted for inflation to dollars as of January of the 
calendar year preceding the model year in which the NCP is first 
available by using the change in the overall Consumer Price Index, and 
rounded to the nearest whole dollar in accordance with ASTM E29-67 
(reapproved 1980), Standard Recommended Practice for Indicating Which 
Places of Figures are to be Considered Significant in Specified 
Limiting Values. The method was approved by the director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This 
document is available from ASTM, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 
19103, and is also available for inspection as part of Docket A-91-06, 
located at the Central Docket Section, EPA, 401 M Street, SW, 
Washington, DC or at the office of the Federal Register, 800 North 
Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC. This incorporation by 
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on 
January 13, 1992. These materials are incorporated as they exist on the 
date of the approval and a notice of any change in these materials will 
be published in the Federal Register.
* * * * * *
    (g) Effective in the 1996 model year, NCPs will be available for 
the following emission standard:
    (1) Light-duty truck 3 diesel-fueled vehicle at full useful life 
(as defined in Sec. 86.094-2) particulate matter emission standard of 
0.10 g/mi.
    (i) The following values shall be used to calculate an NCP for the 
standard set forth in Sec. 86.094-9(a)(1)(ii) in accordance with 
Sec. 86.1113-87(a):
    (A) COC50: $441.
    (B) COC90: $1,471.
    (C) MC50: $14,700 per gram per mile.
    (D) F: 1.2.
    (ii) The following factor shall be used to calculate the 
engineering and development component of the NCP for the standard set 
forth in Sec. 86.094-9(a)(1)(ii) in accordance with Sec. 86.1113-87(h): 
0.093.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (h) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 96-4040 Filed 2-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P