issue-1996-01-03•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-01-03
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-01-03
issue-1996-01-03Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-01-03Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-51 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Employee Stock Ownership Plans; Extension of Comment Period
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-51]
[[Page 233]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Defense
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
48 CFR Part 31
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Employee Stock Ownership Plans;
Extension of Comment Period; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 234]]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Part 31
[FAR Case 92-024]
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Employee Stock Ownership Plans;
Extension of Comment Period
AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Extension of comment period for proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 7, 1995, at 60 FR 56216, a proposed rule
concerning Employee Stock Ownership Plans was published in the Federal
Register. This notice advises the public that the public comment period
on this rule is being extended from January 8, 1996, to January 31,
1996.
DATES: Comments: The public comment period is extended through January
31, 1996.
ADDRESSES: All interested parties should submit written comments to:
General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VRS), 18th and F Sts.
NW., Room 4035, ATTN: Ms. Beverly Fayson, Washington, DC 20405. Please
cite FAR Case 92-024 in all correspondence.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Olson at (202) 501-3221. For general information, contact
the FAR Secretariat, Room 4037, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405,
(202) 501-4755. Please cite FAR Case 92-024.
Dated: December 27, 1995.
Ralph Destefano,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Acquisition Policy.
[FR Doc. 96-51 Filed 1-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-47 Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Savannah, GA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 136-139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-47]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD07-95-062]
RIN 2115-AA97
Safety/Security Zone Regulations; Savannah, GA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish five safety/security
zones and two safety zones to protect life, property, and the
environment in the Savannah River and Wassaw Sound in preparation for,
and during the 1996 Olympic Sailing Competition.
The anticipated concentration of spectator and participant vessels
associated with these races pose safety and security concerns for the
well-being of the Olympic participants and spectators. The proposed
regulations are intended to provide security for the Olympic
participants and to promote safe navigation on the waters in the
vicinity of the Olympic activities, as detailed in the following text,
by controlling the traffic entering, exiting and traveling within these
waters, and are necessary to minimize the problems associated with
crowded conditions in the area during the Olympic event.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 4, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Captain of the Port Savannah,
P.O. Box 8191, Marine Safety Office, Savannah, Georgia, 31412-8191. The
comments will be available for inspection and copying at 222 W.
Oglethorpe Avenue, Suite 402, Savannah, Georgia between 9 a.m. and 3
p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. Comments may also
be hand delivered to this address. A copy of the draft environmental
assessment is available from CEU Miami, 909 S.E. 1st Ave., Miami,
Florida 33131. The draft environmental assessment is available for
inspection and copying at Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Savannah,
222 W. Oglethorpe Avenue, Suite 402, Savannah, Georgia between 9 a.m.
and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LT J. A. Simmerman, Marine Safety Office, Savannah at (912) 652-4353,
between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard encourages interested
persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written views,
data, or arguments. Persons submitting comments should include their
names, addresses, identify the notice (CGD07-95-062) and the specific
section of this proposal to which their comments apply, and give
reasons for each comment. The Coast Guard will consider all comments
received during the comment period. The regulations may be changed in
view of the comments received. All comments received before the
expiration of the comment period will be considered before final action
is taken on this proposal.
No public hearing is planned, but one may be held if the written
requests for a hearing are received, and it is determined that the
opportunity to make oral presentations will add to the rulemaking
process.
Drafting Information
The drafters of this document are LT J.A. Simmerman, Project
Officer for the Captain of the Port, Savannah, Georgia, and LTJG J.
Diaz, Project Attorney, Seventh Coast Guard District Legal Office.
Discussion of Proposed Regulations
Approximately 1,000 to 5,000 spectator vessels are expected to
arrive and participate in the festivities of the 1996 Olympic sailing
competition. The anticipated concentration of spectator and participant
vessels associated with these races poses safety and security concerns
for the well-being of the Olympic participants and spectators, which is
addressed in these proposed regulations.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish five safety/security zones
and two safety zones to provide for the safety and security of the
Olympic participants and spectators. These regulations are intended to
promote safe navigation on the waters in the vicinity of Olympic
activities, as detailed in the following text, by controlling the
traffic entering,
[[Page 137]]
exiting and traveling within these waters.
There will be Coast Guard and State Law Enforcement patrol vessels
on scene to enforce the zones and monitor traffic. No persons or
vessels will be allowed to enter or operate within these zones, except
as may be authorized by the Captain of the Port. These regulations
would be issued pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1231, 50 U.S.C. 191, as set out
in the authority citation of all of Part 165. The effective dates of
these regulations would be from July 2, 1996 until August 5, 1996.
Five safety/security zones would be established in the following
areas: (1) Savannah River (Olympic Village area), all the waters around
the Marriott Hotel Olympic Village; (2) Wilmington River and Turners
Creek area (Olympic Marina area); (3) Wilmington River and Wassaw
Sound, moving safety/security zones placed 75 yards around all Olympic
Athlete shuttle vessels, with athletes onboard, while transiting in the
Wilmington River and Wassaw Sound area; (4) Bull River and/or Tybee
Cut; the entrance and exit of Tybee Cut will be closed during foul/
heavy weather to allow for athlete shuttles to transit the area; (5)
and the Atlantic Ocean and Wassaw Sound offshore racing areas, which
includes the area from Myrtle Island until the Wilmington River and the
area from Wilmington Island until the junction of the Half Moon and
Bull Rivers.
The proposed regulations for the offshore racing areas (as defined
in proposed new section 165.T07-062(a)(5)) will be enforced for that
portion of the race venue which is located within the navigable waters
of the United States to minimize navigational dangers and to ensure the
safety of vessels in the area of the Olympic venue. Non-obligatory
guidelines are included for that portion of the venue which falls
outside the navigable waters of the United States. Entry into this
safety/security zone will be prohibited without permission of the
Captain of the Port.
The Coast Guard also proposes to establish a moving safety zone for
the vessel which will carry the Olympic torch to the Savannah
waterfront, prior to the commencement of the 1996 Olympic Games. The
zone will commence in the Savannah River in the vicinity of Coast Guard
Station Tybee and continue west up river to the Highway 17 bridge. The
safety zone is needed for the protection of the vessel carrying the
Olympic torch. The zone will restrict vessel operations in the safety
zone.
Finally, the Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone for a
fireworks display in connection with Olympic festivities, on the
Savannah River in the vicinity of Rousakis Plaza. The safety zone is
needed to protect vessels, facilities, and personnel from safety
hazards associated with the storage, preparation, and launching of
fireworks. The zone will restrict vessel operations in the safety zone.
All safety/security and safety zones will contain protective and
mitigating measures to minimize potential impacts on Protected and/or
Endangered Species: Florida Manatee, Sea Turtles and Bottlenose
Dolphin.
All vessels which fail to comply with these regulations while
operating within the regulated areas during the regulatory periods are
subject to the penalties in 33 U.S.C. 1232.
Federalism
This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has
been determined that the proposed rulemaking does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
Environmental Assessment
This proposal has been included in the draft environmental
assessment prepared to cover all of the Olympic activities. A
preliminary finding of no significant environmental impact has been
made based on the draft environmental assessment. A copy of the draft
environmental assessment is available where stated in the ADDRESSES
section.
Regulatory Evaluation
These proposed regulations are not a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and do not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that order. It has been exempted from review by the Office of
Management and Budget under that order. It is not significant under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation
(DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979), The Coast Guard expects the
economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full
Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies
and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
Since the impact of this proposal is expected to be minimal, the
Coast Guard certifies that, if adopted, it will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
Proposed Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, Subpart C of Part 165 of Title
33, Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 165--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g),
6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. A new Sec. 165.T07-062 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T07-062 Safety/security zones: Savannah River, Wilmington
River and Turners Creek, Bull River, and Wassaw Sound, GA.
(a) Safety/security zones. The following areas are safety/security
zones:
(1) Marriott Hotel/Olympic Village. In the vicinity of the Marriott
Hotel, in position 32 deg.04'45'' N, 081 deg.05'52'' W, with the
following boundaries:
West Boundaries
32 deg.04'56'' N, 081 deg.05'05'' W; to
32 deg.04'50'' N, 081 deg.05'08'' W
East Boundaries
32 deg.04'50'' N, 081 deg.04'33'' W; to
32 deg.04'40'' N, 081 deg.04'34'' W
This zone includes all waters within the above noted area in the
Savannah River from the shore to shore. This zone will be extended 500
yards to the west, and 500 yards to the east, from the Marriott Hotel
for opening and closing ceremonies and for award ceremonies.
Datum: NAD 83
(2) Olympic Marina; Wilmington River and Turners Creek. The safety/
security zone begins in the Wilmington River at position:
32 deg.00'45'' N, 081 deg.00'24'' W; then south to 31 deg.59'53'' N,
081 deg.00'11'' W; then northeast to 31 deg.00'29'' N, 080 deg.59'17''
W
The zone extends approximately 300 yards towards the center of the
Wilmington River from it's eastern bank. Included is a portion of
Turners Creek extending east from its entrance at the Wilmington River.
Datum: NAD 83
(3) Wilmington River and Wassaw Sound. A moving safety/security
zone will be established in all waters within a 75 yard radius around
all Olympic
[[Page 138]]
Athlete shuttle vessels transporting Olympic athletes, and transiting
to and from the Olympic Marine (Sheraton Hotel) and the Day Marina
(Beach Hammock) via either Tybee Cut or the Wilmington River.
Datum: NAD 83
(4)(i) Bull River. This safety/security zone closes the Southern
entrance to the Bull River at:
31 deg.57'24'' N, 080 deg.56'41'' W; east to 31 deg.57'24'' N,
080 deg.55'53'' W
(ii) Bull River (Adverse weather alternative). This safety/security
zone closes Tybee Cut:
31 deg.57'53'' N, 080 deg.56'29'' W; southwest to 31 deg.57'05'' N,
080 deg.59'06'' W
This zone includes all of Tybee Cut within the closed area.
Datum: NAD 83
(5) Atlantic Ocean and Wassaw Sound. (i) The following area is a
safety/security zone: From Olympic Security Zone Daybeacon ``BR'' in
position:
31 deg.57'32'' N, 080 deg.56'31'' W; east to Olympic Security Zone
Daybeacon ``A'' in position:
31 deg.58'00'' N, 080 deg.50'48'' W; southeast to Olympic Security Zone
Daybeacon ``AA'' in position:
31 deg.57'45'' N, 080 deg.50'08'' W; southeast to Olympic Security Zone
Light ``B'' in approximate position:
31 deg.57'27'' N, 080 deg.49'21'' W; south to Olympic Security Zone
Lighted Buoy ``C'' in approximate position:
31 deg.56'21'' N, 080 deg.48'48'' W; southwest to Olympic Security Zone
Lighted Buoy ``CC'' in approximate position:
31 deg.55'34'' N, 080 deg.49'11'' W; southwest to Olympic Security Zone
Lighted Buoy ``D'' in approximate position:
31 deg.54'45'' N, 080 deg.49'34'' W; southwest to Olympic Security Zone
Lighted Buoy ``DD'' in approximate position:
31 deg.53'58'' N, 080 deg.49'55'' W; southwest to Olympic Security Zone
Lighted Buoy ``E'' in approximate position:
31 deg.53'09'' N, 080 deg.50'19'' W; west to Olympic Security Zone
Lighted Buoy ``F'' in approximate position:
31 deg.52'45'' N, 080 deg.52'00'' W; northwest to Olympic Security Zone
Daybeacon ``G'' in position:
31 deg.53'06'' N, 080 deg.52'30'' W; northwest to Olympic Security Zone
Light ``H'' in approximate position:
31 deg.53'36'' N, 080 deg.53'15'' W; northwest to Olympic Security Zone
Lighted Buoy ``I'' in approximate position:
31 deg.54'32'' N, 080 deg.54'27'' W; northwest to Olympic Security Zone
Lighted Buoy ``J'' in approximate position:
31 deg.54'48'' N, 080 deg.54'55'' W; west to Olympic Security Zone
Lighted Buoy ``K'' in approximate position:
31 deg.55'02'' N, 080 deg.56'20'' W; then a curved line following the
outer edge of Race Course Circle A to Cabbage Patch Island Daybeacon
``20'' in position:
31 deg.56'11'' N, 080 deg.58'14'' W
(ii) In Wassaw Sound from the southern tip of Wilmington Island at
the junction of the Half Moon and Bull Rivers at position:
31 deg.57'56'' N, 080 deg.56'25'' W; southeast to 31 deg.57'33'' N,
080 deg.55'55'' W
Datum: NAD 83
(b) Definitions--Captain of the Port means the Captain of the Port
designated by the Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. The Captain
of the Port has the authority to control the movement of all vessels
operating in the regulated areas and may suspend the races at any time
it is deemed necessary for the protection of life and property.
Note: The Captain of the Port may be contacted during the
regulatory periods on VHF/FM Channel 16 (156.8 MHZ) or Channel 22
(157.1 MHZ) by calling ``Coast Guard Captain of the Port'' or
``Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Savannah''.
Competition Vessels means any vessel approved and designated by
Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games (ACOG) for participation in
sanctioned racing.
Official Vessels means all U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Coast Guard
Auxiliary, state and local law enforcement vessels, and civilian
vessels designated by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port.
Participant means any competition vessel or vessel directly
supporting competition that is registered with ACOG while in
performance of its official function relative to a given race.
Unaffiliated vessels means all vessels that are not registered with
ACOG or designated as an Official Vessel by the Coast Guard Captain of
the Port are unaffiliated vessels.
(c) Effective dates.
(1) Marriott Hotel/Olympic Village. The safety/security zone will
become effective at 8 a.m. EDT July 2, 1996, and terminates at 12:30
p.m. EDT August 5, 1996.
(2) Olympic Marina; Wilmington River and Turners Creek. This
safety/security zone becomes effective at 8 a.m. EDT July 2, 1996, and
terminates at 12:30 p.m. EDT August 5, 1996.
(3) Wilmington River and Wassaw Sound. These safety/security zones
will become effective at 8 a.m. EDT July 2, 1996, and terminates at
7:30 p.m. EDT August 2, 1996.
(4) Bull River. This safety/security zone will be effective between
9 a.m. and 7 p.m. EDT daily from July 2, 1996 through August 2, 1996.
(5) Atlantic Ocean and Wassaw Sound. The following regulations are
in effect between the hours of 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. commencing July 19,
1996 to August 2, 1996, each race date on those waters within the
Olympic offshore race venue which fall within the navigable waters of
the United States, i.e., those waters within three nautical miles of
the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured. This section
will not be in effect on those race dates when the races are postponed
or canceled. Announcement to that effect will be made by Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.
(i) Unaffiliated vessels shall remain outside the course perimeter,
as marked by the ACOG vessels and Official Vessels.
(ii) All vessels shall follow the instructions of any Coast Guard,
Coast Guard Auxiliary or state law enforcement vessels.
Note: The regulations specified in paragraph (5) apply only
within the navigable waters of the United States. In all waters
within the Olympic Offshore race venue which fall outside the
navigable waters of the United States, during the specified dates
and times, the following non-obligatory guidelines apply:
(A) All unaffiliated vessels should remain clear of the race venue
and avoid interfering with any participant, ACOG or Official Vessel.
Interference with race activities may constitute a safety hazard
warranting cancellation or termination of all or part of the race
activities by the Captain of the Port.
(B) Any unauthorized entry within the race course perimeter, as
marked by ACOG and Official Vessels, by unaffiliated vessels
constitutes a risk to the safety of marine traffic. Such entry will
constitute a factor to be considered in determining whether a person
has operated a vessel in a negligent manner in violation of 46 U.S.C.
2302.
(d) Environmental Protection Measures. In all waters within these
safety/security zones, mariners shall take the protective and
mitigating action described to below to minimize potential impacts on
the listed endangered and/or protected species. In addition, detailed
conditions will be included in the Coast Guard Permit authorizing the
1996 Olympic Yachting Events.
(1) The Florida Manatee or Sea Cow is a Federally Endangered
species occurring in Georgia and South Carolina waters in the summer
months.
(i) Mariners shall watch for manatees and use slow speeds in
shallow waters.
(ii) Mariners shall observe all manatee speed zones and caution
areas.
(iii) If mariners see or their vessel hits a manatee, mariners
shall immediately
[[Page 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 Sec. 165.T07-077 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 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 deg. 02'.10 N, 80 deg. 54'.16
W in the vicinity of Coast Guard Station Tybee and ending at an
approximate position 32 deg.05'.13 N, 81 deg.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 Sec. 165.T07-078 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 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 deg. 04' .55 N, 81 deg. 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
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-45 Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace Model BAC 1-11 200 and 400 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 131-133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-45]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 131]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 94-NM-164-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace Model BAC 1-11 200
and 400 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the supersedure of an existing
airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all British Aerospace Model
BAC 1-11 200 and 400 series airplanes, that currently requires visual
inspections to detect cracks in the flight deck canopy area, and
repair, if necessary. This action would reduce the inspection threshold
and repetitive inspection interval, and would identify specific
structural members to be inspected. This action also would require eddy
current inspections to detect cracks of the top sill members at station
82.5, and replacement of cracked parts with new parts, or repair of the
top sill members. This proposal is prompted by reports of additional
cracking found in the structural members in the flight deck canopy area
of the affected airplanes. The actions specified by the proposed AD are
intended to ensure that cracking in the flight deck canopy area is
detected and corrected in a timely manner; such cracking could result
in reduced structural integrity of the cockpit frame and the adjacent
fuselage structure.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 94-NM-164-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from British Aerospace, Airbus Limited, P.O. Box 77, Bristol
BS99 7AR, England. This information may be examined at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2797; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 94-NM-164-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 94-NM-164-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
On January 7, 1991, the FAA issued AD 91-02-12, amendment 39-6861
(56 FR 1569, January 16, 1991), which is applicable to all British
Aerospace Model BAC 1-11 200 and 400 series airplanes. That AD requires
repetitive visual inspections to detect cracks in the flight deck
canopy area, and repair, if necessary. That action was prompted by
several reports of cracks in various structural members in the flight
deck canopy area. The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent
reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
Since the issuance of that AD, additional reports have been
received indicating that cracking was found in the structural members
in the flight deck canopy area on Model BAC 1-11 series airplanes. In a
number of these cases, complete failure of the top sill joint strap,
doubler, and angle has occurred. Cracking also has been found in the
fuselage frame at station 160.5 (left-hand only). This cracking was
found on airplanes that had accumulated between 28,000 and 78,000 total
landings. The cause of the cracking has been attributed primarily to
fatigue. Such cracking, if not detected and corrected in a timely
manner, could result in reduced structural integrity of the cockpit
frame and the adjacent fuselage structure.
British Aerospace has issued Alert Service Bulletin 53-A-PM5994,
Issue 3, dated April 8, 1993, which describes procedures for the
following:
1. Repetitive detailed visual inspections to detect cracks of the
top sill joint strap at station 82.5;
2. Repetitive detailed visual inspections to detect cracks of the
frame at station 113 in the flight deck canopy area;
3. Repetitive non-destructive testing (NDT) inspections using eddy
current techniques to detect cracks of the top sill joint strap, angle,
and doubler at station 82.5;
4. Repetitive detailed visual inspections to detect cracks of the
frame at station 160.5 (left-hand only) between stringers 13 and 15;
and
5. Replacement of any cracked part with a new part, or repair in
accordance with the Structural Repair Manual.
[[Page 132]]
This alert service bulletin recommends a reduced inspection
threshold from that specified in earlier issues of the alert service
bulletin, since inspection results have indicated that cracks can occur
before the previous threshold had been reached. In addition, the alert
service bulletin recommends reduced intervals (specified in numbers of
landings) for accomplishment of the repetitive inspections, and also
includes flight hour limits for those intervals since resonance in the
canopy area may have contributed to the cracking.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness
authority for the United Kingdom, classified this alert service
bulletin as mandatory in order to assure the continued airworthiness of
these airplanes in the United Kingdom.
This airplane model is manufactured in the United Kingdom and is
type certificated for operation in the United States under the
provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant
to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept the FAA
informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the
findings of the CAA, reviewed all available information, and determined
that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are
certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered
in the United States, the proposed AD would supersede AD 91-02-12 to
continue to require repetitive visual inspections to detect cracks in
the flight deck canopy area, and repair, if necessary. However, it
would reduce the inspection threshold and repetitive inspection
interval, and would identify specific structural members to be
inspected. This proposed AD also would require repetitive eddy current
inspections to detect cracks of the top sill members at station 82.5,
and replacement of cracked parts with new parts, or repair of the top
sill members. Certain repairs would be required to be accomplished in
accordance with the Structural Repair Manual or in accordance with a
method approved by the FAA. Other actions would be required to be
accomplished in accordance with the alert service bulletin described
previously.
There are approximately 31 Model BAC 1-11-200 and -400 series
airplanes of U.S. registry that would be affected by this proposed AD.
The actions that are currently required by AD 91-02-12 take
approximately 18 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost
impact on U.S. operators of the actions currently required is estimated
to be $33,480, or $1,080 per airplane.
The new actions that are proposed in this AD action would take
approximately 19 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost
impact on U.S. operators of the proposed requirements of this AD is
estimated to be $35,340, or $1,140 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed
requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish
those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-6861 (56 FR
1569, January 16, 1991), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), to read as follows:
British Aerospace Airbus Limited (Formerly British Aerospace
Commercial Aircraft Limited, British Aerospace Aircraft Group):
Docket 94-NM-164-AD.
Supersedes AD 91-02-12, Amendment 39-6861.
Applicability: All Model BAC 1-11 200 and 400 series airplanes,
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (e) of this AD to request approval from the
FAA. This approval may address either no action, if the current
configuration eliminates the unsafe condition, or different actions
necessary to address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such
a request should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any airplane from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent reduced structural integrity of the cockpit frame and
the adjacent fuselage structure, accomplish the following:
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 30,000 total landings, or
within 6 months after February 25, 1991 (the effective date of AD
91-02-12, amendment 39-6861), whichever occurs later; and thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 5,000 landings: Perform a visual
inspection to detect cracks of the flight deck canopy area, in
accordance with British Aerospace Alert Service Bulletin 53-A-
PM5994, Issue 2, dated June 5, 1990; or Issue 3, dated April 8,
1993. Pay particular attention to the top sill joint strap, the top
sill intercostal, the frame at Station 113, and the top sill boom
and web. Repeat this inspection until the inspections required by
paragraph (c) of this AD are accomplished. After the effective date
of this AD, the inspection shall be accomplished only in accordance
with Issue 3 of the alert service bulletin.
(b) If any crack is found during the inspection required by
paragraph (a) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Standardization
Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
[[Page 133]]
Following accomplishment of the repair, repeat the inspection required
by paragraph (a) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed
5,000 landings until the inspections required by paragraph (c) of
this AD are accomplished.
(c) Perform a detailed visual inspection to detect cracks of the
top sill joint strap at station 82.5, of the frame at station 113,
and of the frame at station 160.5 (left-hand side only) between
stringers 13 and 15; and an eddy current inspection to detect cracks
of the top sill members at station 82.5. Perform these inspections
in accordance with British Aerospace Airbus Limited Alert Service
Bulletin 53-A-PM5994, Issue 3, dated April 8, 1993, at the time
specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
Accomplishment of these inspections terminates the repetitive
inspection requirement of paragraph (a) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes operating at a maximum cabin differential
pressure not exceeding 7.5 pounds per square inch (psi): Perform the
inspections at the later of the times specified in paragraphs
(c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat these
inspections at intervals not to exceed 5,000 landings or 7,500 hours
time-in-service, whichever occurs first.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total landings since
date of entry into service; or
(ii) Within 1,200 landings or 12 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) For airplanes operating at a maximum cabin differential
pressure greater than 7.5 psi, but not exceeding 8.2 psi, including
those airplanes having incorporated British Aerospace Airbus Limited
Modification PM3187: Perform the inspections at the later of the
times specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) of this AD.
Thereafter, repeat these inspections at intervals not to exceed
3,500 landings or 5,250 hours time-in-service, whichever occurs
first.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 14,000 total landings since
date of entry into service; or
(ii) Within 800 landings or 12 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later.
Note 2: British Aerospace Airbus Limited Modification PM3187
increases the cabin differential pressure from the normal 7.5 psi to
8.2 psi. If Modification PM3187 has been incorporated on the
airplane, that airplane is considered to be subject to the
requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this AD.
(d) If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (c) of this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish the
requirements of paragraph (d)(1), (d)(2), or (d)(3), as applicable.
(1) For cracking of the joint strap, doubler, or angle at the
sill joint at station 82.5: Replace the cracked part with a new part
in accordance with British Aerospace Airbus Limited Alert Service
Bulletin 53-A-PM5994, Issue 3, dated April 8, 1993.
(2) For cracking of the frame at station 113: Repair in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Standardization
Branch, ANM-113.
(3) For cracking of the frame at station 160.5: Repair in
accordance with the Structural Repair Manual, as specified in
British Aerospace Airbus Limited Alert Service Bulletin 53-A-PM5994,
Issue 3, dated April 8, 1993.
(e) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send
it to the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(f) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished. Issued in Renton,
Washington, on December 27, 1995.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-45 Filed 1-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-44 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, -15, -30, -40, and KC-10A (Military) Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 134-136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-44]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-177-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, -15,
-30, -40, and KC-10A (Military) Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
[[Page 135]]
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model
DC-10-10, -15, -30, -40, and KC-10A (military) series airplanes. This
proposal would require modification of the AC generator control units.
This proposal is prompted by reports of loss of electrical power from
two generators and an engine that flamed out due to an overfrequency
condition of a generator. The actions specified by the proposed AD are
intended to prevent an overfrequency condition of a generator, which
could lead to the loss of all electrical power of the airplane.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-177-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications
Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). This information may
be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Natalie Phan-Tran, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712; telephone (310) 627-5343; fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-177-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-177-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The FAA has received reports of loss of electrical power from two
generators and an engine that flamed out on Model DC-10 series
airplanes, which resulted in multiple malfunctions of the electrical
system. Investigation revealed that the cause of the loss of electrical
power was attributed to an overfrequency condition in one of the three
generators, which resulted from certain failure modes of the constant
speed drive (CSD). Since all three generators are in parallel, the
overfrequency condition of one generator increased the speed of the
other two generators, which led to failure of the generator fans. If
the generator fans fail, all electrical power from the generators could
be lost; this situation could lead to loss of all electrical power of
the airplane.
The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin DC10-24-111 RO1, Revision 1, dated August 14, 1995, which
describes procedures for modification of the AC generator control units
(GCU). This modification adds a circuit that will provide overfrequency
protection. The circuit will isolate an overspeeding generator before
there is a perceptible power interruption on the other buses.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would require modification of the AC GCU's. The actions
would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the service
bulletin described previously.
There are approximately 419 Model DC-10-10, -15, -30, -40, and KC-
10A (military) series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide
fleet. The FAA estimates that 276 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 5 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost
approximately $2,896 per generator control unit; there are 4 units per
airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,279,984, or $11,884 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
[[Page 136]]
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES -
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended] -
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
McDonnell Douglas: Docket 95-NM-177-AD. -
Applicability: Model DC-10-10, -15, -30, -40, and KC-10A
(military) series airplanes, as listed in McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin DC10-24-111 RO1, Revision 1, dated August 14, 1995;
certificated in any category.
-Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (b) of this AD to request approval from the
FAA. This approval may address either no action, if the current
configuration eliminates the unsafe condition; or different actions
necessary to address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such
a request should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any airplane from the applicability of this AD.
-Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously. -
To prevent an overfrequency condition of the generator, which
could result in loss of all electrical power of the airplane,
accomplish the following: -
(a) Within 2 years after the effective date of this AD, modify
the AC generator control units (GCU) in accordance with McDonnell
Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-24-111 RO1, Revision 1, dated August
14, 1995. -
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
-Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO. -
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 27, 1995.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-44 Filed 1-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-43 Airworthiness Directives; Dornier Model 328-100 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 133-134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-43]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-136-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Dornier Model 328-100 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Dornier Model 328-100
series airplanes. This proposal would require installation of a
reinforcement doubler on the rudder skin. This proposal is prompted by
the results of a design review of this airplane model that revealed
inadequate structural strength of the attachment fitting of the rudder
damper and of the adjacent structure. The actions specified by the
proposed AD are intended to prevent failure of the attachment structure
of the rudder damper in the event of aerodynamic gust loads, as the
result of inadequate structural strength of the subject structure.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-136-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH, P.O. Box 1103, D-82230 Wessling,
Germany. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Lium, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-1112; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-136-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-136-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
[[Page 134]]
Discussion
The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority
for Germany, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may
exist on certain Dornier Model 328-100 series airplanes. The LBA
advises that the results of the manufacturer's design review of this
airplane model have revealed that the structural strength of the
attachment fitting of the rudder damper and of the adjacent structure
is inadequate to withstand the ground gust specifications required by
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) part 25 (14 CFR 25). This condition,
if not corrected, could result in failure of the attachment structure
of the rudder damper in the event of aerodynamic gust loads, which
could contribute to reduced controllability of the airplane.
Dornier has issued Service Bulletin SB-328-27-063, Revision 1,
dated January 26, 1995, which describes procedures for installation of
a reinforcement doubler on the rudder skin. The reinforcement doubler
will improve the structural integrity of the attachment fitting of the
rudder damper and of the adjacent structure. The LBA classified this
service bulletin as mandatory and issued German airworthiness directive
94-352 in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these
airplanes in Germany.
This airplane model is manufactured in Germany and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LBA has kept the FAA informed of
the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the
LBA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action
is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for
operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, the
proposed AD would require installation of a reinforcement doubler on
the rudder skin. The actions would be required to be accomplished in
accordance with the service bulletin described previously.
The FAA estimates that 12 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 2 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would be
supplied by the manufacturer at no cost to operators. Based on these
figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $1,440, or $120 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Dornier: Docket 95-NM-136-AD.
Applicability: Model 328-100 series airplanes, serial numbers
3005 through 3024 inclusive; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (b) of this AD to request approval from the
FAA. This approval may address either no action, if the current
configuration eliminates the unsafe condition; or different actions
necessary to address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such
a request should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any airplane from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent failure of the attachment structure of the rudder
damper in the event of aerodynamic gust loads, accomplish the
following:
(a) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, install
a reinforcement doubler on the rudder skin in accordance with
Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-27-063, Revision 1, dated January
26, 1995.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 27, 1995.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-43 Filed 1-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4 Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standard, Model Year 1998
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 145-155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 146]]
automobiles prior to enactment of this section. (Section 330, P.L 104-
50)
Since CAFE standards must be set no later than eighteen months
before the model year in question, the agency must adopt the MY 1998
standard during FY 1996.
The possibility of setting light truck CAFE standards for a multi-
year period raises complex issues, many of which were addressed by the
comments on the ANPRM. Faced with a statutory deadline of approximately
April 1, 1996, for promulgating a standard for MY 1998, the agency has
decided to defer rulemaking for MY's 1999-2006. In this notice, the
agency is therefore proposing a standard only for MY 1998.
II. Overview of Proposal
This notice proposes to establish an average fuel economy standard
for light trucks of 20.7 mpg for MY 1998. The agency's proposal is
based on information derived from a variety of sources. One major
source is the submissions received in response to the April 6, 1994,
ANPRM, which are available in Docket No. 94-20-No.1. The agency's
decision is, of course, constrained by the provisions of P.L. 104-50
noted above.
As a part of proposing a standard, this notice discusses a variety
of issues which are being considered by the agency, all of which are
relevant to the statutory criteria in Chapter 329. In providing a
comment on a particular matter, commenters are requested to provide all
relevant factual information to support conclusions or opinions,
including but not limited to statistical and cost data, and the source
of such information.
III. Manufacturer Capabilities for MY 1998
In evaluating manufacturers' fuel economy capabilities for MY 1998,
the agency has analyzed manufacturers' current projections and
underlying product plans and has considered what, if any, additional
actions the manufacturers could take to improve their fuel economy. A
more detailed discussion of these issues is contained in the agency's
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA), which has been placed in
the docket for this notice. Some of the information included in the
PRIA, including the details of manufacturers' future product plans, has
been determined by the agency to be confidential business information
whose release could cause competitive harm. The public version of the
PRIA omits the confidential information.
A. Manufacturer Projections
1. General Motors
In an August 1994 submission General Motors projected CAFE within a
range of 21.1 to 21.9 mpg for the 1998 model year. GM submitted a
revised estimate on May 31, 1995, indicating that certain technological
improvements and other changes it had anticipated could not be
implemented in the time period outlined in its first submission. The
May 31, 1995, submission projected a range of 20.6 to 21.3 mpg. This
compares to a projection of 19.8 mpg for MY 1995 from GM's mid-model
year report of July 31, 1995.
2. Ford
Ford projected in August 1994 that it could achieve a CAFE level
within a range of 20.4 to 21.0 mpg for MY 1998. This compares to a July
1995 mid-model year report projection of 20.6 mpg for MY 1995.
3. Chrysler
Chrysler projected in August 1994 that it could achieve a CAFE
level of 21.0 mpg for MY 1998. This compares to a mid-model year report
projection of 20.1 mpg for MY 1995. Chrysler submitted a revised
estimate for MY 1998 of 20.1 mpg on September 18, 1995, which was
received (13 months after the end of the comment period) too late to be
considered for this NPRM. However, the agency will consider these new
data prior to taking final action on the MY 1998 Standard.
4. Other Manufacturers
Most of the other light truck manufacturers exceed the CAFE levels
of the large domestic manufacturers. The exceptions are the Rover
Group, which projected 16.3 mpg for the 1995 model year in July 1995,
and Volkswagen, a manufacturer of passenger vans, which projected 18.6
mpg for the 1995 model year in July 1995. Mercedes-Benz plans to enter
the light truck market with a sport utility vehicle whose CAFE level is
unknown.
Nissan, Toyota and the Rover Group submitted comments in response
to NHTSA's April 6, 1994 notice.
Nissan's submission did not contain any projections for specific
model years. Its 1995 mid-model year report indicated a 1995 CAFE level
of 22.5 mpg. The Rover Group's submission also did not contain any
projections for the 1998 model year. The Rover Group indicated in its
August 1994 submission that it could not attain significant
improvements in fuel economy until MY 2002 or later. Toyota's August
1994 submission projected a 1998 MY CAFE of 22.4-23.0 mpg. This
compares to a July 1995 mid-model year report projection of 21.2 mpg
for MY 1995.
B. Possible Additional Actions Affecting MY 1998 CAFE
1. Further Technological Changes
NHTSA has considered whether manufacturers can use further
technological changes to improve their CAFE beyond their August 1994
projections for MY 1998. The ability to improve CAFE by further
technological changes to product plans is dependent on the availability
of fuel efficiency enhancing technologies that manufacturers are able
to apply within the available time.
The agency's PRIA discusses the fuel efficiency enhancing
technologies which are expected to be available during the MY 1998 time
period. A significant potential constraint on the increased use of
these technologies for MY 1998 is the limited leadtime. NHTSA
recognizes that the leadtime necessary to implement significant
improvements in engines, transmissions, aerodynamics and rolling
resistance is typically at least three years. Also, as the agency
discussed in establishing its final rule for MYs 1996-97, once a new
design is established and tested as feasible for production, the
leadtime necessary to design tools and establish quantity production is
typically 30 to 36 months. Some potential major changes may take even
longer. Further, light trucks have a long model life, i.e., 8-10 years
or more. If a manufacturer must make a major model change ahead of its
normal schedule, this change may have a significant, unprogrammed
financial impact.
Given the leadtime constraints, the agency does not believe that
manufacturers can achieve a significant improvement in these projected
CAFE levels for MY 1998 by additional technological actions.
2. Product Restrictions
As an alternative to technological improvements, manufacturers
could improve their CAFE by restricting their product offerings, e.g.,
limiting or deleting production of particular larger light truck models
and larger displacement engines. Such product restrictions, if made
necessary by selection of a CAFE standard that is above manufacturers'
capabilities, could result in adverse effects on vehicle sales, or
industry-wide employment, if consumers elected to retain older vehicles
longer than usual or purchase the product of a competitor that was not
similarly constrained. If consumers
[[Page 147]]
chose instead to purchase vehicles over 8,500 pounds GVWR, which are
not subject to CAFE standards, this shift would have the additional
effect of defeating the energy-saving aims of the CAFE program. The
agency's preliminary analysis of manufacturer capabilities indicates
that 20.7 mpg is an appropriate level for the least capable
manufacturer with a significant market share.
Application of a standard that would require product restrictions
could have a substantial economic impact. In its most recent previous
light truck CAFE rulemaking, the agency estimated the loss of
production associated with sufficient product restrictions to raise the
CAFE of the least capable manufacturer by 0.5 mpg. This analysis,
contained in the final rule establishing MY 1996-97 light truck CAFE
standards published in the Federal Register on April 6, 1994 (59 FR
16312), indicated that product restrictions could result in significant
losses in production. This loss of production would cause hardship in
the automobile industry and result in the loss of jobs and other
economic effects. In addition to the adverse impacts on the automotive
industry, the analysis concluded that a wide range of businesses could
be seriously affected to the extent that they could not obtain the
light trucks they need for business use. Also, such product
restrictions could unduly limit consumer choice.
Given these considerations, which the agency believes are equally
applicable to MY 1998, NHTSA tentatively concludes that product
restrictions should not be considered as part of manufacturers'
capabilities to improve MY 1998 CAFE.
C. Manufacturer-Specific CAFE Capabilities
Of the manufacturers producing light trucks for sale in the U.S. in
MY 1995, only two were projecting a CAFE lower than the large major
domestic manufacturers: the Rover Group and Volkswagen. The Rover Group
imports a small number of luxury 4WD utility vehicles and Volkswagen
imports a small number of passenger vans. Because none of these fleets
have a significant share of the U.S. market, and because the agency
must set standards on an ``industry-wide'' basis, the discussion in
this section will be limited to the capabilities of the three large
domestic light truck manufacturers: Chrysler, Ford, and GM. Each of
these manufacturers has at least 20 percent of the light truck market,
which NHTSA considers a representation of ``industry-wide'' effects.
1. Chrysler
Chrysler's projected CAFE level is 21.0 mpg for MY 1998. In its
submission, Chrysler discussed uncertainties associated with specific
technologies and risks in forecasting future CAFE capabilities. It did
not, however, quantify the fleet-wide effect of these risks and
uncertainties except in the case of Federally mandated emissions and
safety requirements.
Chrysler calculated a weight increase for each of the new safety
and emissions requirements that will become effective during MY 1998
and derived a fuel economy effect for each of them. The agency accepts
these figures except as discussed below.
The agency does not agree with any weight penalty for Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 214 for MY 1998 because compliance with
the newly issued standard (60 FR 38749; July 28, 1995) should not add
additional weight and the final rule will not apply until MY 1999.
Similarly, the agency also will not consider any weight penalty for
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 206, as compliance with
the requirements of recent amendments (60 FR 50124; September 28, 1995)
should not add additional weight. The agency also will not consider
projected penalties for safety rulemakings for which it has not issued
a proposal, namely enhanced frontal impact (FMVSS 208) and side glazing
ejection protection (FMVSS 205), since these standards, if amended, are
unlikely to apply to MY 1998. However, if Chrysler plans to improve,
voluntarily, the safety of its vehicles in these areas, NHTSA will
consider the specific improvements and their CAFE effects.
Chrysler also projected a fuel economy effect for Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) emissions test changes that will penalize fuel economy
performance as measured in the laboratory. These test procedure changes
include the effect of testing California cars with California Phase II
fuel and the conversion to the 48--inch electric dynamometer.
The California Phase II fuel has a lower energy content than the
reference fuel used for fuel economy testing for vehicles not meeting
the California requirements. EPA intends to apply a correction to
account for this energy loss, but Chrysler believes that the correction
accounts for only half of the penalty, leaving a 2 to 3 percent net
loss. EPA, however, has advised NHTSA that manufacturers may still run
the fuel economy test using the present Indolene fuel, so there is no
need for a manufacturer to count a fuel economy penalty for fuel
changes. Chrysler also estimates the change to the 48 inch dynamometer
will produce fuel economy losses of 3 to 6 percent, although this is
preliminary. EPA has indicated that its proposed test procedure
revisions, including the 48-inch electric dynamometer, are unlikely to
be in effect for MY 1998.
Eliminating Chrysler's provision for weight effects attributed to
FMVSS 214, FMVSS 208 enhanced frontal impact, FMVSS 205, FMVSS 206, FTP
revision, and the use of the 48-inch dynamometer leaves Chrysler's
projected MY 1998 CAFE of 21.0 mpg unchanged. Without consideration of
Chrysler's revised submission of September 18, 1995, the agency
tentatively concludes that Chrysler's fuel economy capability for MY
1998 is 21.0 mpg.
2. Ford
In its submission in response to the ANPRM, Ford projected a MY
1998 CAFE of 21.0 mpg and presented information in support of its
contention that a combination of risks and opportunities applicable to
MY 1998 result in CAFE of only 20.4 mpg.
Ford quantified a number of risks and minor opportunities,
allocating much of the total risk to safety and emissions requirement
effects. Ford also noted that there may be additional unquantified
risks.
The safety portion of the risk is described in Ford's comment as
due to additional weight to meet the proposed dynamic side impact test
in FMVSS 214. As discussed above, this standard will not take effect in
MY 1998. In regard to emissions, NHTSA requested that EPA review the
emissions risk contained in Ford's proposal. EPA's response was that it
is unlikely that the electric 48-inch dynamometer and its other
proposed test procedure revisions will apply to 1998 model year
vehicles. Based on these supporting comments, NHTSA removes the 48-inch
dynamometer and FMVSS 214 risks.
The net of technological (non-regulatory) risks and opportunities
for MY 1998 is also outlined in Ford's submission. NHTSA believes that
these are reasonable corrections to the Ford nominal projections
because there is an acknowledged risk that technologies will not always
achieve their expected benefit and that, in combination with other
technologies, the total gain does not equal the sum of the individual
improvements taken alone.
Using the net of technological risks and opportunities and
discarding the
[[Page 148]]
claimed emissions and safety penalties leads NHTSA to estimate the MY
1998 Ford fleet CAFE capability to be 20.9 mpg.
3. General Motors
In its revised response to the ANPRM, General Motors projected a MY
1998 CAFE of 21.3 mpg along with a ``higher confidence'' estimate of
20.6 mpg. This represents a reduction of its prior estimate, submitted
in August of 1994, of a projected 1998 MY CAFE of 21.1 to 21.9 mpg. GM
attributed the change in its projection to the unavailability of
technical improvements and other changes it had previously believed
would be implemented by MY 1998.
GM provided a general discussion of the uncertainties about
actually meeting the projected 21.3 mpg level. These uncertainties
included the possibility of falling fuel prices causing consumer
resistance to the purchase of the more fuel efficient models, an
increased demand for higher performance, and the availability of fuel
efficient technologies in competition with emission and alternative
fuels mandates. In assessing the risks of each projected technology, GM
accumulated certain estimated risks for MY 1998. These adjustments
include possible detrimental mix shifts and under performance or delays
of various new technologies. GM stated that it used a ``probabilistic
approach'' to develop the risks that result in its ``higher
confidence'' CAFE projection of 20.6 mpg for MY 1998. GM has not
revealed the details of this analysis to the agency. Nonetheless, the
agency agrees that there are risks to the introduction of new models
and technologies on schedule and the achievement of the full potential
of new technologies. NHTSA believes that the GM risk estimate, much of
which is attributable to further mix shifts and the possible
underachievement of technical improvements in earlier years, is
excessive by at least 0.1 mpg. Thus, the agency tentatively concludes
that GM's baseline capability for MY 1998 is 20.7 mpg.
GM also pointed out in its May 31, 1995, submission that its model
mix puts it at a disadvantage relative to other manufacturers for CAFE
performance. GM included a computation that showed that if GM produced
the same model mix in MY 1994 as Ford did, its CAFE would be 1.16 mpg
higher. (Ford's fleet most nearly matches GM's in array of models
offered.) The agency was able to replicate this value using its own
databases from manufacturers' fuel economy reports.
Thus, the baseline ``higher confidence'' GM fleet projection of
20.6 mpg may be increased by discarding 0.1 mpg of the risk used by GM
to establish the differential between its higher confidence estimate of
20.6 mpg and its lower confidence estimate of 21.3 mpg. As noted above,
the agency believes that this risk, set by GM as 0.7 mpg, is overstated
by 0.1 mpg and fails to account for control over mix shifts and the
complete development of technical improvements. Adding this 0.1 mpg to
the higher confidence estimate of 20.6 mpg yields a CAFE capability of
20.7 mpg for General Motors for MY 1998.
In summary, the agency tentatively concludes that the CAFE
capability of the three domestic manufacturers for MY 1998 is as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer MY 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysler..................................................... 21.0
Ford......................................................... 20.9
GM........................................................... 20.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are, of course, uncertainties, as well as new information in
late-filed comments, which may require these projections to be
adjusted. NHTSA notes that variations may occur in the light truck mix
in response to consumer demand, fuel prices and fuel availability.
Also, as noted elsewhere, application of fuel saving technologies and
other improvements involving substantial redesign may not be possible
for the 1998 model year due to leadtime considerations.
IV. Other Federal Standards
In determining the maximum feasible fuel economy level, the agency
must take into consideration the potential effects of other Federal
standards. The following section discusses other government
regulations, both in process and recently completed, that may have an
impact on manufacturers' fuel economy capability for MY 1998.
A. Safety Standards
NHTSA has adopted several safety standards that have been analyzed
for their potential impact on light truck fuel economy capabilities for
MY 1998. They are discussed below.
FMVSS 208 (Automatic Restraints)
On March 26, 1991, NHTSA published (56 FR 12472) a final rule
requiring automatic restraints on trucks with a Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500
pounds or less. These requirements phase in at the following rate for
each manufacturer: 20 percent of light trucks manufactured from
September 1, 1994 to August 31, 1995; 50 percent of light trucks
manufactured from September 1, 1995 to August 31, 1996; 90 percent of
light trucks manufactured from September 1, 1996 to August 31, 1997;
and all light trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1997.
Although light truck manufacturers may comply with the automatic
restraint requirements by using automatic belts, ``passive interiors,''
or air bags, NHTSA expects that essentially all light truck
manufacturers will comply by using air bags.
To encourage the use of more innovative automatic restraint systems
(primarily air bags) in light trucks, during the first four years of
the phase-in (i.e., through MY 1998) manufacturers may count each light
truck equipped with such a restraint system for the driver's position,
and a manual safety belt for the right-front passenger's position, as a
vehicle complying with the automatic restraint requirements. Beginning
with MY 1999, however, all light trucks are required to provide
automatic restraints for both the driver and right-front passenger
positions.
Title II of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (P.L. 102-240) required NHTSA to amend its automatic restraint
requirements to mandate that 80 percent of MY 1998 light trucks be
equipped with both driver and passenger-side air bags, and that all MY
1999 light trucks be equipped with driver and passenger-side air bags.
On September 2, 1993, NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal
Register (58 FR 46551) to implement this requirement.
In the 1991 Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for the light truck
automatic restraint rulemaking, NHTSA estimated weight increases per
vehicle of 35.7 pounds for the combination of driver and right-front
passenger air bags (including ``secondary weight''--i.e., weight added
for supporting structure, etc.). Fuel economy would be reduced by about
0.12 mpg.
The manufacturers' estimates of the average weight effect of
mandatory air bags were generally consistent with the agency's estimate
of 35.7 pounds. The weight effects of FMVSS 208 are included in the
manufacturers' fuel economy projections, so there is no need for NHTSA
to adjust their projections to consider the impact of this standard. In
addition, because NHTSA expects manufacturers to rely on driver- and
passenger-side air bags to meet the requirement that 90 percent of MY
1997 light trucks be equipped with some form of passive restraint, the
incremental effect of going from 90 percent passive restraints to 100
percent automatic restraints (and at least 80
[[Page 149]]
percent airbags) in MY 1998 is very small. This incremental increase in
air bag usage should reduce MY 1998 fuel economy capabilities by only
about 0.012 mpg.
FMVSS 208 (Safety Belt Comfort and Fit)
On August 3, 1994, NHTSA published a final rule (59 FR 39472)
requiring that lap/shoulder belts installed for adjustable seats in
vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less either be integrated with
the seat or be equipped with a means of adjustability to improve the
fit and increase the comfort of the belt for a variety of different-
sized occupants. The effective date for the rule is September 1, 1997
(or, essentially, MY 1998). This rule was issued in response to an
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act requirement that NHTSA
address the matter of improved design for safety belts.
The agency believes that adjustable upper anchorages and seat-
frame-mounted anchorages are the most likely compliance measures.
Integrated seats (in which a belt design is incorporated into the seat)
are another compliance option, but high costs are expected to delay
their widespread use. NHTSA expects that this rule will result in an
average weight increase of about one pound per vehicle. This translates
into a fuel economy loss of less than 0.004 mpg.
FMVSS 214 (Side Impact Protection)
On July 28, 1995 NHTSA issued a final rule (60 FR 38749) extending
dynamic testing requirements for side impact protection to light
trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses with a GVWR of 6,000
pounds or less manufactured after September 1, 1998. The test will
require a light truck to provide occupant protection in a side-impact
crash test.
The new side impact rule incorporates the moving deformable barrier
used in the passenger car requirements of FMVSS 214, with no change in
height or weight.
NHTSA has concluded that the extension of the passenger car dynamic
side impact requirements to light trucks will not result in weight
increases to the average vehicle, and certainly will not cause any
weight increases in MY 1998. Accordingly, the agency does not believe
that there is a CAFE penalty imposed by the new requirements of
Standard 214.
FMVSS 216 (Roof Crush Resistance)
FMVSS 216 is intended to reduce deaths and injuries due to the
crushing of the roof into the passenger compartment in rollover
crashes. The standard establishes strength requirements for the forward
portion of the roof to increase the resistance of the roof to intrusion
and crush.
NHTSA is researching the area of improved roof crush strength.
Chrysler mentioned the possibility of upgraded requirements in this
area. Ford also noted that ``[r]esearch is also being conducted which
could result in more stringent roof crush for rollover protection.''
Because NHTSA has not issued a proposal in this area, no CAFE effect is
assumed for MY 1998.
FMVSS 201 (Interior Head Impact Protection)
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
required that NHTSA initiate and complete rulemaking to address
``improved head impact protection from interior components of passenger
cars (i.e., roof rails, pillars, and front headers).'' On August 18,
1995, NHTSA issued a final rule amending FMVSS 201 (58 FR 7506) to
require passenger cars and light trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or
less to provide protection when an occupant's head hits upper interior
components (such as A-pillars and side rails) during a crash. The
estimated weight effects for trucks from changes to this standard would
be 6-9 pounds per vehicle. A weight increase of 9 pounds per light
truck would translate into a fuel economy penalty of about 0.03 mpg.
However, as the amendments call for phase-in beginning with MY 1999
vehicles, the FMVSS 201 amendments will have no impact on MY 1998 CAFE.
Anti-Lock Brakes
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
required that NHTSA initiate rulemaking to ``consider the need for any
additional brake performance standards for passenger cars, including
antilock brake standards.'' On January 4, 1994, NHTSA issued an ANPRM
(see 59 FR 281) to request information on the desirability of requiring
that passenger cars and light trucks be equipped with anti-lock brake
systems (ABS). For MY 1993, 52 percent of domestic and imported light
trucks were equipped with 2-wheel ABS and 31 percent were equipped with
4-wheel ABS.
In the Preliminary Economic Assessment accompanying the ABS ANPRM,
NHTSA estimated that 4-wheel ABS would add 13 pounds to the weight of a
non-ABS vehicle. A rear-wheel-only ABS was estimated to add 7.2 pounds.
These estimates do not include any consideration of secondary weight.
If all light trucks were equipped with 4-wheel anti-lock brakes, the
fleet average increase in weight relative to MY 1993 installation rates
would be about nine pounds. This would reduce the average CAFE level by
about 0.03 mpg.
Manufacturers are voluntarily increasing the installation of ABS on
light trucks in response to consumer demand. In their responses to the
ANPRM, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler all included CAFE weight
penalties for equipping varying proportions of their fleets with anti-
lock brakes. As the agency does not wish to impede voluntary adoption
of safety improvements, it will accept the manufacturers' projected
penalties rather than apply a single reduction in setting MY 1998 light
truck CAFE.
FMVSS 206 (Door Locks and Door Retention Components)
On September 5, 1995 (60 FR 50124), NHTSA issued a final rule to
extend the existing side door requirements of FMVSS 206 to the back
doors of passenger cars, as well as multi-purpose vehicles with gross
vehicle weight ratings below 8,500 pounds. This includes sport utility
vehicles and passenger vans. The purpose of the amendment is to reduce
the likelihood of occupants being ejected through rear hatches,
tailgates, and other rear doors of these vehicles in crashes. This
standard becomes effective on September 1, 1997.
NHTSA also is considering a general upgrade in the stringency of
FMVSS 206 to reduce door openings and associated ejections. In August
1988, NHTSA published an ANPRM describing alternative measures to
reduce ejection and, on July 12, 1995, NHTSA published a Federal
Register notice (60 FR 35889) announcing a public meeting on a
potential upgrade of FMVSS 206. NHTSA has conducted studies of crash-
involved vehicles where door latch failures may have occurred. NHTSA
also has conducted tests to determine the strength of latches on
various vehicles. However, at this point, NHTSA has not issued a
specific proposal to amend the standard.
For MY 1998 CAFE, NHTSA is assuming no measurable CAFE impact for
upgrading latch strength in response to the agency's final rule. Agency
comparisons of complying and non-complying latches showed no
significant weight differences. Also, no specific proposal has been
issued on a more general upgrade of FMVSS 206; thus, any potential
weight or CAFE impacts would be purely speculative.
[[Page 150]]
FMVSS 205 (Glazing Materials)
NHTSA published two ANPRMs in 1988 announcing that the agency was
considering proposing requirements for passenger vehicles to reduce the
risk of ejections in side impact crashes. One notice (53 FR 31712,
August 19, 1988) dealt with passenger cars. The other (53 FR 71716,
August 19, 1988) dealt with light trucks. The agency reported that a
significant number of fatalities and serious injuries involved partial
or complete ejection of occupants through doors and side windows.
In addition, a Rulemaking Plan entitled ``Planning Document for
Rollover Prevention and Injury Mitigation'' was published for public
comment on September 29, 1992 (57 FR 44721). This document included a
section concerning ejection mitigation using glazing. It noted that the
agency was considering rulemaking to reduce ejections through side
window glazing.
Because NHTSA has not issued a proposal in this area, no CAFE
effect is assumed for MY 1998.
FMVSS 301 (Fuel System Integrity)
On April 12, 1995, NHTSA published an advance request for comment
(60 FR 18566) on upgrading FMVSS 301 in a 3-phased approach. In the
notice, the agency stated its desire to reduce the number of fire-
related casualties to occupants of passenger cars and light trucks.
This is another area where NHTSA has not issued a specific proposal
to upgrade the existing standard. Therefore, no estimate can be made of
possible impacts on MY 1998 light truck fuel economy capabilities.
Bumpers
Toyota's response to the ANPRM indicated a possible fuel economy
loss due to upgraded bumpers in response to a bill introduced in
Congress in 1994. NHTSA has not proposed any upgrading of the bumper
standard (nor has this bill passed) and has therefore not included any
effect for this item in determining manufacturers' light truck fuel
economy capabilities.
B. Voluntarily-Installed Safety Equipment
In their comments on the ANPRM, a number of light truck
manufacturers indicated they would be installing some safety equipment
that is not required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
Daytime Running Lights
On January 11, 1993, NHTSA published a final rule (58 FR 3500)
facilitating the introduction of daytime running lights (DRLs) as items
of optional motor vehicle lighting equipment. The rule was designed to
ensure that auto manufacturers may offer DRLs in all 50 states, and to
adopt specifications so that DRLs do not reduce the current level of
highway safety.
In its ANPRM response, General Motors indicated that it would begin
the voluntary phase-in of DRLs in MY 1995. The company said the weight
increase would be about one pound. EPA has decided to conduct fuel
economy and emissions testing with the DRL system deactivated until
further information is available on the actual safety benefits of the
system. GM stated, ``Since the DRLs will not be energized during fuel
economy testing and since the additional weight of the system is
negligible, GM's truck CAFE will not be significantly impacted.
However, if the policy for fuel economy testing is changed a CAFE
penalty would occur.''
Other Voluntarily-Installed Safety Equipment
The effect of other voluntarily-installed safety equipment (i.e.,
traction control, and built-in child restraints) on fuel economy is
estimated to be negligible for MY 1998. Any impact for each company is
included in the manufacturers' estimates of fuel economy capability.
Conclusions
The great majority of light truck safety standards that have been
promulgated in recent years will be in full effect before MY 1998. New
safety standards known to be going into effect during MY 1998 (or for
which NHTSA has issued an NPRM) will have a negligible impact on light
truck manufacturers' fuel economy capabilities. The anticipated
reduction in MY 1998 CAFE capability attributable to these standards is
less than 0.02 mpg, with 0.012 mpg attributed to mandatory air bags
(FMVSS 208), 0.004 mpg attributed to improved belt fit (FMVSS 208), and
no fuel economy penalty for dynamic side impact (FMVSS 214) or the
application of FMVSS 206 to rear doors.
Based on manufacturer responses to the ANPRM, the post-1997 CAFE
effect of voluntarily-installed safety equipment will be negligible.
Typical safety equipment that light truck manufacturers are voluntarily
installing on some models today (such as greater-than-required use of
air bags, anti-lock brakes, built-in child restraints, and traction
control) will be in widespread use before MY 1998. Thus, there will be
little impact from additional voluntary installations of such equipment
in the post-1997 period.
C. Environmental Requirements
Revised Federal Exhaust Emissions Standards
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 impose more stringent exhaust
emissions standards on light trucks. Under the Clean Air Act
Amendments, new standards (so-called ``Tier I'' standards) for trucks
apply to all MY 1996 and later trucks with GVWRs up to 6,000 pounds.
All light trucks over 6,000 pounds GVWR must meet the new standards in
MY 1997 and later.
In its response to the ANPRM, General Motors stated that, ``* * *
initial indications are that there will be some lost opportunities to
improve fuel economy when redesigning our powertrains in 1996 MY to
comply with these standards.''
Chrysler stated, ``The combination of calibrating to the tighter
emission standards and the increase in weight due to the additional
hardware necessary to meet standards will have a negative effect on
fuel economy.'' This loss appears to be included in Chrysler's MY 1998
baseline fuel economy. Ford did not specifically address Tier I
emission requirements in its ANPRM response.
NHTSA believes that compliance with the Tier 1 requirements does
not impose any significant CAFE penalty. In addition, because these
standards are in full effect before MY 1998, they should cause no
additional loss in MY 1998 light truck fuel economy capabilities.
Evaporative Emission Standards and Onboard Vapor Recovery
The Clean Air Act Amendments also required EPA to promulgate
regulations covering evaporative emissions (1) during operation (so-
called ``running losses'') and (2) over two or more days of non-use.
These revised regulations begin taking effect in MY 1996, applying to
20 percent of vehicles in that model year, increasing to 40 percent in
MY 1997, 90 percent in MY 1998, and 100 percent for MY 1999 and
subsequent model years. Onboard vapor recovery requirements begin
taking effect in MY 2001.
In its ANPRM response, General Motors said that the weight gains
associated with meeting both of these requirements are small and the
corresponding truck CAFE impact would be negligible. Ford did not
specifically address either item in its response. Chrysler's response
contains estimates for fuel economy loss in meeting these requirements.
NHTSA asked EPA to review the manufacturers' comments on the
possible fuel economy effects of
[[Page 151]]
upcoming and potential light truck emission regulations. In its
response, EPA addressed a number of emission regulations.
With regard to enhanced evaporative and onboard refueling vapor
recovery requirements, EPA indicated that new evaporative procedures
and on-board vapor recovery standards are likely to require larger
canisters to comply. The larger canisters add an estimated 2 pounds for
enhanced evaporative requirements and somewhat less than 10 pounds for
on-board vapor recovery systems. EPA also indicated that different test
procedures governing canisters in tests for emissions and fuel economy
will negate any potential fuel economy loss involving onboard
canisters. NHTSA estimates that EPA's projection of about a 12-pound
weight increase for enhanced evaporative and onboard refueling vapor
recovery requirements would translate into a fuel economy loss of about
0.04 mpg. However, only the evaporative requirements would affect MY
1998 fuel economy levels; their impact would be less than 0.01 mpg.
Potential Revisions to the Federal Test Procedure
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments require EPA to review (and revise
as necessary) the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) to ensure that vehicles
are tested under circumstances reflecting actual driving conditions.
EPA published an NPRM on the FTP on February 7, 1995.
In its ANPRM response, General Motors stated, ``It is likely that
the FTP might change during the period considered in [NHTSA's light
truck fuel economy] ANPRM. If changes are enacted that impact fuel
economy testing, CAFE would be impacted unless EPA fully compensates
for any CAFE penalty.''
Ford stated that the use of the electric 48-inch dynamometer may
significantly decrease measured fuel economy. In Ford's view, the
proposed FTP revisions would have a negative impact on fuel economy.
Chrysler stated that additional hardware may be needed to meet the
new standards, thus increasing weight and negatively impacting fuel
economy testing if the requirements result in additional vehicle weight
or higher applied engine loads. Chrysler claimed fuel economy losses of
3-6 percent have been measured using the electric dynamometer.
Chrysler claimed a substantial fuel economy loss for potential test
procedure changes including losses of 0.6-1.2 mpg in MY 1998.
In EPA's response to NHTSA with regard to revised FTP requirements,
EPA stated:
Revised FTP standards are not likely to reduce the fuel economy
during fuel economy testing. The additional off-cycle tests required
will likely have lower fuel economy; however, only the FTP would be
used for fuel economy purposes.
NHTSA believes that the possible higher speed/higher acceleration and
air conditioning tests will not have a significant effect on MY 1998
light truck CAFE capabilities. As EPA indicates that it is unlikely
that its proposed test procedure revisions, including the use of 48-
inch dynamometers, will apply to 1998 model year vehicles, NHTSA is not
making any correction for their use in determining the MY 1998 light
truck fuel economy standards.
California Requirements
In 1991, the California Air Resources Board approved Low-Emission
Vehicle (LEV) and Clean Fuels regulations. These regulations establish
stringent emissions standards for four new classes of low-emission
vehicles and require auto manufacturers to meet an annual, increasingly
stringent, fleet-average standard for non-methane organic gas (NMOG)
emissions. In addition, California ``Phase II'' reformulated gasoline
is required to be available at the pump by January 1, 1996. The Phase
II fuel has a number of different characteristics from the Indolene
fuel currently used for fuel economy testing. EPA indicates that the
energy content (BTUs/gallon) of California Phase II fuel is about 2-3
percent lower than Indolene. Lower energy content results in lower
measured fuel economy, in miles per gallon.
In its response to NHTSA's fuel economy ANPRM, Ford indicated that
compliance with California's NMOG standards would result in fuel
economy penalties relative to a MY 1997 baseline. With regard to the
California emissions standards, General Motors stated that if an
electrically heated catalyst (EHC) is used to meet the LEV/ULEV
requirement, it would cause at least a 3 percent fuel economy loss in
these vehicles. Nissan claimed a 2.1 percent fuel economy penalty for
``Emissions (LEV).'' Chrysler did not claim that the California LEV
emissions control requirements would have any impact in MY 1998.
The impacts of the California emissions standards are somewhat
uncertain. The fuel economy losses claimed by Ford and Chrysler are
specifically outlined in their submissions. However, because
essentially all of their impacts occur in the post-1998 period, NHTSA
has not included these adjustments in determining these companies' fuel
economy capabilities. In addition, the claims made by GM and Nissan for
California-standards-induced fuel economy losses in their ANPRM
responses were not specific enough for the agency to make any
adjustment to their fuel economy projections.
Chrysler also raised an issue about the impacts of California
reformulated gasoline on fuel economy. The company stated that the fuel
economy values for vehicles tested using California Phase II gasoline
will be 4-6% lower than if tested using Indolene but that existing EPA
fuel economy test procedures do not adequately address this deficit.
The result, according to Chrysler, is a 2-3% decrease in fuel economy.
Chrysler contends that since no action is currently being taken by EPA
to correct the adjustment procedure, the fuel economy penalty must be
taken into account by NHTSA in setting future standards.
NHTSA does not agree with Chrysler that the agency must make an
adjustment for California Phase II fuel in setting future light truck
fuel economy standards. EPA has addressed this issue through allowing
the use of Indolene for fuel economy testing.
Section 177
States may voluntarily adopt the more stringent California
emissions standards under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990. None of the manufacturers providing submissions provided any
specific data outlining fuel economy losses for other states adopting
the California LEV program. As in the case of California emissions
standards, because the impacts of the Section 177 emissions standards
are uncertain and the fuel economy impacts for MY 1998 are negligible,
NHTSA has not made any adjustment for the impact of Section 177
standards.
B. Other Light Truck Fuel Economy Studies
In 1992, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a report
jointly commissioned by the Federal Highway Administration and NHTSA
entitled Automotive Fuel Economy--How Far Should We Go? This report
included a discussion of ``technically achievable'' fuel economy levels
for light trucks for MYs 1996, 2001, and 2006. Additionally, the
Department of Energy published a report in January 1994 prepared by its
contractor, Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. (EEA) entitled
Domestic Manufacturers' Light
[[Page 152]]
Truck Fuel Economy Potential to 2005 (Docket No. 94-20-NO1-003).
Both the NAS and the EEA studies have limitations in providing
guidance for setting CAFE standards. The NAS study does not completely
replicate the new light truck fleet in that its model fleet does not
include large vans and utility vehicles. Its use of expensive fuel
saving technologies may go beyond what the market will accept; and at
the same time, it may not fully recognize the growing demand for more
power, accessories, and weight in light trucks. The NAS study also
treats the entire light truck fleet together, rather than analyzing
individual companies as the agency must in setting standards. It should
be noted that the Academy itself stated that its ``technically
achievable'' fuel economy estimates should not ``be taken as its
recommendation on future fuel economy standards.'' A detailed
discussion of the Academy's estimates is contained in the agency's
Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation which has been placed in the docket.
The EEA study is more useful in that it discusses the prospects of
the domestic manufacturers individually. However, the EEA study has
limited application to setting a 1998 MY CAFE standard as it envisions
CAFE improvement derived from design and technical improvements that
would be difficult to implement by the 1998 model year.
The Department of Transportation Appropriations Act for FY 1995,
directed the Department to conduct a study of the unique capabilities,
uses, and utility requirements of light trucks to determine if such
requirements would result in design constraints that would limit fuel
economy improvements. That study is underway and should be completed in
time to be considered prior to taking final action for MY 1998.
V. The Need of the United States to Conserve Energy
The United States imported 15 percent of its oil needs in 1955. The
import share reached 36.8 percent in 1975, the year the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (EPCA) was passed, and rose to 46.4 percent in
1977. Although the share declined to below 30 percent in the mid-
1980's, lately the United States has again become increasingly
dependent on imported oil. Over 40 percent of the country's petroleum
needs have been imported in every year since 1988, reaching 44.3
percent in 1990 and an estimated 48.2 percent in 1994.
Similarly, the percentage of oil imported from OPEC sources, which
peaked at 70 percent in 1977, and declined to a low of 36 percent in
1985, has since risen to the point where OPEC supplies about half of
the nation's imported oil. Imports from OPEC reached 53.6 percent of
imports in 1991 and accounted for 47 percent of 1994 imports.
The average cost of crude oil imports jumped from $4.08 per barrel
in 1973 to $12.52 in 1974 as a result of the oil embargo against
selected countries, including the United States, by Arab members of
OPEC. Additional increases in the cost of oil occurred in 1979-80, due
to unrest in Iran (which eliminated a substantial portion of that
country's oil output), and in 1980-81, when the outbreak of the Iran-
Iraq war reduced supply from the area. In 1981, the United States
adopted a policy of reliance on market forces and decontrolled the
price of oil. Since 1981, prices generally have fallen. In 1990,
petroleum prices were affected by the conflict in the Persian Gulf, and
prices for crude oil and petroleum rose and fell in response to Middle
East events. In 1994, the average refiner acquisition cost of imported
crude oil was $15.51 per barrel, 6 percent below the average 1993
level. The cost of domestic crude oil in 1994 was $15.68, four percent
less than the 1993 average.
The current energy situation and emerging trends point to the
continued importance of oil conservation. The United States now imports
a higher percentage of its oil needs than it did during 1975, the year
EPCA was passed, and the percentage of its oil supplied by OPEC is
similar to that of 1975. Oil continues to account for over 40 percent
of all energy used in the United States, and 97 percent of the energy
consumed in the transportation sector. Despite legislation designed to
spur the use of alternatve fuels, gasoline will likely remain the
predominant fuel in the transportation sector. Sales of alternative-
fueled vehicles are forecast to account for only 3.0 percent of light-
duty vehicle sales in 2000. Domestic oil production has declined
steadily since reaching a peak of 10.6 million barrels per day in 1985
to 9.1 million barrels per day in 1991. Domestic crude oil production
is expected to drop by 170,000 barrels per day (2.6 percent) in 1995
and an additional 220,000 barrels per day (3.4 percent) in 1996. While
the United States is currently the world's second largest oil producer,
it contains only about three percent of the world's known oil reserves.
Persian Gulf countries contain 63 percent of known world reserves, and
former communist countries contain 9 percent.
Long-term projections of petroleum prices, supply, and demand are
now influenced by a wide range of uncertainties associated with
sweeping economic and political changes in the former U.S.S.R. and in
Eastern Europe, environmental issues, the role of Middle East countries
in determining the world's future oil supplies and prices, and future
energy demands in populous developing countries. The Department of
Energy projects that oil prices will be between $14 and $22 (1994
dollars) per barrel in the year 2000, and will rise to between $15 and
$30 per barrel by 2010. DOE projects a continuing decline in domestic
oil production to between 3.58 and 6.20 million barrels per day in
2010, with imports rising to between 48 percent and 78 percent of total
use. Two-thirds of the projected increase in total petroleum
consumption in the United States during the next 20 years will be in
the transportation sector. This is in spite of the fact that DOE's
projections assume that significant improvements in vehicle fuel
efficiency will take place as motor gasoline prices rise.
The level of petroleum imports is only one aspect of the total
energy conservation picture. Under the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act and the National Environmental Protection Act, for example,
national security, energy independence, resource conservation, and
environmental protection must all be considered.
The increase in market share of light trucks points to the
importance of fuel economy for this class of vehicle. Light trucks are
less fuel efficient and, on average, are driven more miles over their
lifetime than passenger automobiles. In 1991, over half of the energy
in the transportation sector was used by light-duty vehicles
(automobiles and light trucks). Light trucks have steadily increased
their share of petroleum use in the transportation sector. Between 1976
and 1994, the market share for passenger cars decreased from 78 percent
to 60 percent of total light-duty vehicle sales, while market share for
light trucks rose from 22 percent to 40 percent.
Light trucks meeting the standard proposed by this notice would be
more fuel-efficient than the average vehicle in the current light truck
fleet in service, thus making a positive contribution to petroleum
conservation.
VI. Determining the Maximum Feasible Average Fuel Economy Level
As discussed above, section 32902(a) requires that light truck fuel
economy standards be set at the maximum feasible average fuel economy
level. In
[[Page 153]]
making this determination, the agency must consider the four factors of
section 32902(f): 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. In
addition, for this rulemaking, the agency is constrained by the
provision of P.L. 104-50 which states that the agency may not set a
standard that ``differs from standards promulgated for such automobiles
prior to [November 15, 1995].''
A. Interpretation of ``Feasible''
Based on definitions and judicial interpretations of similar
language in other statutes, the agency has in the past interpreted
``feasible'' to refer to whether something is capable of being done.
The agency has thus concluded in the past that a standard set at the
maximum feasible average fuel economy level must: (1) Be capable of
being done and (2) be at the highest level that is capable of being
done, taking account of what manufacturers are able to do in light of
technological feasibility, economic practicability, how other Federal
motor vehicle standards affect average fuel economy, and the need of
the nation to conserve energy.
B. Industry-wide Considerations
The statute does not expressly state whether the concept of
feasibility is to be determined on a manufacturer-by-manufacturer basis
or on an industry-wide basis. Legislative history may be used as an
indication of congressional intent in resolving ambiguities in
statutory language. The agency believes that the reports on the 1975
Act provide guidance on the meaning of ``maximum feasible average fuel
economy level.''
The Conference Report on the 1975 Act (S. Rep. No. 94-516, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 154-55 (1975)) states:
Such determination [of maximum feasible average fuel economy level]
should take industry-wide considerations into account. For example,
a determination of maximum feasible average fuel economy should not
be keyed to the single manufacturer which might have the most
difficulty achieving a given level of average fuel economy. Rather,
the Secretary must weigh the benefits to the nation of a higher
average fuel economy standard against the difficulties of individual
manufacturers. Such difficulties, however, should be given
appropriate weight in setting the standard in light of the small
number of domestic manufacturers that currently exist and the
possible implications for the national economy and for reduced
competition association [sic] with a severe strain on any
manufacturer. * * *
It is clear from the Conference Report that Congress did not intend
that standards simply be set at the level of the least capable
manufacturer. Rather, NHTSA must take industry-wide considerations into
account in determining the maximum feasible average fuel economy level.
NHTSA has traditionally set light truck standards at a level that
can be achieved by manufacturers whose vehicles constitute a
substantial share of the market. The agency did set the MY 1982 light
truck fuel economy standards at a level which it recognized might be
above the maximum feasible fuel economy capability of Chrysler, based
on the conclusion that the energy benefits associated with the higher
standard would outweigh the harm to Chrysler. 45 FR 20871, 20876, March
31, 1980. However, as the agency noted in deciding not to set the MYs
1983-85 light truck standards above Ford's level of capability,
Chrysler had only 10-15 percent of the light truck domestic sales,
while Ford had about 35 percent. 45 FR 81593, 81599, December 11, 1980.
For MY 1998, NHTSA estimates that Chrysler, Ford, and GM each have more
than 20 percent of the light truck market. NHTSA deems this percentage
significantly large so as to represent ``industry wide'' effects. Thus,
the agency does not plan to set the MY 1998 standard above the
``maximum feasible'' level of any of these manufacturers.
C. Petroleum Consumption
The precise magnitude of energy savings associated with alternative
light truck fuel economy standards is difficult to ascertain. The
potential savings associated with a MY 1998 standard above 20.7 mpg
would be highly uncertain. Depending on the level of the standard, one
or more of the three large domestic manufacturers could likely meet the
level of the standard only by restricting the sales of its large light
trucks (given the short leadtime before MY 1998 begins). If this
occurred, consumers might tend to keep their older, less fuel-efficient
light trucks in service longer. Also, consumers might purchase still
larger trucks that are not subject to CAFE standards.
D. The Proposed MY 1998 Standard
Several manufacturers provided general recommendations for the MY
1998 standard in their responses to the ANPRM. Chrysler did not suggest
a fuel economy standard for the year, but did state that the standards
should be set at levels that can be achieved under any set of likely
scenarios of economic practicability. As noted previously, Chrysler
submitted a revised analysis of its CAFE capability too late to be
included in this NPRM. However, the agency will fully analyze
Chrysler's late submission prior to reaching a final decision for MY
1998. Ford did not suggest any specific CAFE standard for future years,
but cautioned against setting high standards. In its May 31, 1995,
update, GM stated that NHTSA did not give adequate consideration to the
risks of product introduction delays and technology shortfalls in
evaluating a manufacturer's product plans for establishing fuel economy
standards. GM noted that this lack of consideration is particularly
harmful to the manufacturer that is determined to be the ``least
capable'' for standards setting. GM also discussed how manufacturers'
forecasts of CAFE decline as the actual production date approaches,
i.e., the forecast in response to the NPRM is often lower than the
forecast in response to the ANPRM for a given model year.
In response to the latter GM comment, NHTSA always bases the final
rule on an assessment of the latest manufacturers' forecasts. Earlier
projections are of interest for the changes that have occurred in the
manufacturers' product plans, but they are not determinative when later
information is available.
In regard to the GM argument on NHTSA's consideration of
manufacturers' risks and product timing problems, which are addressed
in detail in the agency's Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation (PRIA), the
NHTSA estimates of each manufacturer's capability have been close to
the manufacturer's own estimates for MY's 1990 through 1995, except for
GM for MY 1995. Also, Ford and Chrysler have each achieved CAFE
performance similar to their estimates, except in the case of
Chrysler's mid-model year report values for MYs 1994 and 1995. (This
discrepancy may be due to higher than expected sales of the new
Chrysler standard pickup which is one of the least fuel-efficient
models in the Chrysler fleet.) On average over these six model years,
Chrysler has overestimated its final CAFE by 0.2 mpg; Ford's range of
estimates averaged from 0.1 mpg too high to 0.4 mpg below the final
value; and GM's range of estimates averaged from 0.1 to 0.3 mpg above
the final value.
GM also notes that import manufacturers are not constrained, as
yet, by the standards because of their model mix that is dominated by
small trucks. Because of this, the import manufacturers do not have to
employ expensive technologies to meet the standards, and they are able
to produce fleets that have a larger share of their vehicles with 4WD.
An alternative to this situation is to set class standards
[[Page 154]]
that, for instance, might require different levels of fuel economy
performance for specific vehicle types or weight subclasses. While such
a system might be feasible were CAFE standards adopted with long lead
times, as considered in the ANPRM, it is not feasible in the short lead
time available for MY 1998.
Based on its analysis described above and on manufacturers'
projections, NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the major domestic
manufacturers can achieve the light truck fuel economy levels listed in
the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate
market
share CAFE (mpg)
Manufacturer (percent, MY 1998
based on MY
1994)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM............................................ 33 20.7
Ford.......................................... 30 20.9
Chrysler...................................... 24 21.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As indicated above, most light truck manufacturers other than GM,
Ford and Chrysler are expected to achieve CAFE levels above those
companies. Only two or three light truck manufacturers, Range Rover,
Volkswagen, and possibly Mercedes-Benz, are expected to have fuel
economy levels lower than the major domestic manufacturers. Since these
companies have extremely small market shares, NHTSA believes that
setting a standard based on their capabilities would be inconsistent
with a determination of maximum feasibility that takes industry-wide
considerations into account, as required by statute.
As the above table demonstrates, NHTSA has tentatively concluded
that GM is the least capable manufacturer with a substantial share of
sales for MY 1998. NHTSA has also tentatively concluded that 20.7 mpg
is the maximum feasible standard for MY 1998. For the reasons discussed
below, the agency believes this level would balance the potential
petroleum savings associated with a higher standard against the
difficulties of manufacturers facing a potentially higher standard.
The agency believes that a 20.7 mpg light truck CAFE standard for
MY 1998 would make a positive contribution to petroleum conservation by
promoting continued production of fuel efficient vehicles. Moreover, it
would encourage GM, which has a large market share, to achieve its
projected CAFE level.
The agency believes that a 20.7 mpg standard would not unduly
restrict consumer choice or have adverse economic impacts on the large
domestic manufacturers. The current product plans submitted by Ford, GM
and Chrysler indicate that they expect to achieve a MY 1998 CAFE level
at or above 20.7 mpg. Therefore, they will not have to make any changes
in their product plans to achieve the level of the standard.
NHTSA believes that a higher standard than 20.7 mpg for MY 1998
could result in serious economic difficulties for GM. Product
restrictions could be required to achieve a CAFE higher than 20.7 mpg.
Given leadtime constraints, NHTSA believes that the first potential
fuel-efficiency actions that GM or any other manufacturer would
consider in response to a higher standard would consist of marketing
actions. For the reasons discussed in other notices, however, the
agency does not believe that marketing actions can be relied upon to
significantly improve a manufacturer's CAFE. See, e.g., MY 1993-94
light truck CAFE final rule (56 FR 13775, April 4, 1991). If such
marketing actions were unsuccessful in whole or in part, GM would
likely have to engage in product restrictions to achieve the level of a
higher CAFE standard. Such product restrictions could result in adverse
economic consequences for GM, its employees and the economy as a whole
and limit consumer choice, especially with regard to the load-carrying
needs of light truck purchasers.
As indicated above, while NHTSA has tentatively concluded that GM
is the least capable manufacturer with a substantial share of sales,
the agency believes that GM's capability is not significantly below
that of Ford or Chrysler. These three companies combined will sell over
85 percent of all new light trucks sold in the U.S. in MY 1998.
Therefore, even if the agency were to set a standard above GM's
capability, the standard could not be much above 20.7 mpg and still
remain within the capability of the overwhelming majority of the
industry.
NHTSA believes that a 20.7 mpg standard would balance the
potentially serious adverse economic consequences for GM that could
result from a higher standard with the potential for continued
petroleum savings. The agency has tentatively concluded, in view of the
statutory requirement to consider specified factors, that the
relatively small and uncertain energy savings associated with setting a
standard above GM's capability would not justify the potential harm to
that company and the economy as a whole.
A number of organizations and individuals have requested that NHTSA
evaluate the safety effects of its CAFE decisions. An analysis of the
extent to which significantly higher light truck CAFE standards could
affect safety is more complex than for passenger car standards, since
purchasers would have many more options for substitution (e.g.,
different kinds of light trucks, trucks with a high enough GVWR that
they are not subject to CAFE standards, etc.) The agency notes that
since light trucks are generally significantly larger and heavier than
passenger cars, the safety effects of a particular weight change, if
they exist, would likely be smaller than for cars.
The available evidence indicates that a MY 1998 standard of 20.7
mpg would not have any impact on safety. NHTSA notes that, in setting
the light truck CAFE standards for recent model years, the agency has
not included in its analyses of manufacturer capabilities any product
plan actions that would significantly affect the weight, size or cost
of the vehicles the manufacturers planned to offer. The agency also
notes that the levels of the light truck CAFE standards have not varied
significantly for more than a decade. The light truck CAFE standards
for MY 1987-89 and MY 1994 were set at 20.5 mpg, and, as far back as MY
1984, the standard was 20.0 mpg.
NHTSA therefore believes that the size and weight of current and
planned light trucks are not significantly different from what would
have occurred in the absence of CAFE standards. Moreover, as discussed
above, Ford, GM and Chrysler do not need to change their product plans
to meet or exceed the level of the proposed MY 1998 light truck CAFE
standard. Thus, a 20.7 mpg light truck CAFE standard for MY 1998 would
not lead to significant changes in light truck size or weight, or
shifts toward less safe vehicles. The agency, therefore, has
tentatively concluded that it would not likely have any impact on
safety.
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under
section 32919 of Chapter 329 of Title 49, (49 U.S.C. 32919), whenever a
Federal motor vehicle fuel economy standard is in effect, a state may
not adopt or maintain separate fuel economy standards applicable to
vehicles covered by the Federal standard. Under section 32919(b) of
Chapter 329 of Title 49 (49 U.S.C. 32919(b)), a state may not require
fuel economy labels on vehicles covered by section 32908 of Chapter 329
of Title 49 (49 U.S.C. 32908) which are not identical to the Federal
standard. Section 32919 does not apply to vehicles procured for the
State's use. Section 32909 of Chapter 329 of Title 49 (49 U.S.C. 32909)
sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing,
amending or revoking
[[Page 155]]
Federal average fuel economy standards. That section does not require
submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
VII. Impact Analyses
A. Economic Impacts
The agency has considered the economic implications of the proposed
standard and determined that the proposal is significant within the
meaning of Executive Order 12866 and significant within the meaning of
the Department's regulatory procedures. The agency's detailed analysis
of the economic effects is set forth in a Preliminary Regulatory
Evaluation (PRE), copies of which are available from the Docket
Section. The contents of that analysis are generally described above.
B. Impacts on Small Entities
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the agency has
considered the impact this rulemaking would have on small entities. I
certify that this action would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required for this action. Few, if any,
light truck manufacturers subject to the proposed rule would be
classified as a ``small business'' under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act.
C. Impact of Federalism
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the proposed rule would not have sufficient Federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
D. Department of Energy Review
In accordance with section 32902(i) of Chapter 329 of Title 49, the
agency submitted this proposal to the Department of Energy (DOE) for
review. The Department has concurred in the level proposed for MY 1998.
VIII. Comments
NHTSA is providing a comment period, ending on March 4, 1996 for
interested parties to present data and views on the issues raised in
this notice and the accompanying PRE, as well as any other issues
commenters believe are relevant to this proceeding. It is requested but
not required that 10 copies be submitted.
Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available for inspection in the docket. NHTSA will continue to
file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket after
the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 533
Energy conservation, Motor vehicles.
PART 533--[AMENDED]
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 533 would be amended
as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 533 would be amended to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32902; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50
2. Section 533.5(a) would be amended by revising Table IV to read
as follows:
Sec. 533.5 Requirements.
* * * * *
Table IV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996........................................................ 20.7
1997........................................................ 20.7
1998........................................................ 20.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Issued on: December 26, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-4 Filed 1-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-104 Sales Volume Limit Provisions for Small-Volume Manufacturers Certification of Clean-Fuel and Conventional Vehicle Conversions and Related Provisions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 139-145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-104]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 140]]
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 EPA-assigned 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
[[Page 141]]
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.
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 142]]
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
[[Page 143]]
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.
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 144]]
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:
Sec. 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:
Sec. 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
Secs. 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 Secs. 85.504,
85.505 and 85.506; and
* * * * *
4. A new Sec. 85.506 is added to subpart F, to read as follows:
Sec. 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:
Sec. 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
Small-Volume 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.
[[Page 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 clean-fuel 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
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.