[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 6924]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02565]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2016-16]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Sky-Futures
USA, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before February 29, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0641
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Ngo,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 28, 2016.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2014-0641.
    Petitioner: Sky-Futures USA, Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 45.27 (a), 61.113(a) and (b),
91.7(a), 91.105, 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1),
91.409(a)(1) and (a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is requesting relief
to launch its small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) from a moving
vessel such as a boat for the commercial purpose of aerial data
collection of motor vessels and sailing vessels over open waters.

[FR Doc. 2016-02565 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4678-4687]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1937]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 86

[AMS-FRL-9623-8]

Nonconformance Penalties for On-Highway Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to make nonconformance penalties
(NCPs) available to manufacturers of heavy heavy-duty diesel engines in
model years 2012 and 2013 for emissions of oxides of nitrogen
(NOX). In general, the availability of NCPs allows a
manufacturer of heavy-duty engines (HDEs) whose engines fail to conform
to specified applicable emission standards, but do not exceed a
designated upper limit, to be issued a certificate of conformity upon
payment of a monetary penalty to the United States Government. The
upper limit associated with these NCPs is 0.50 grams of NOX
per horsepower-hour.

DATES: This rule is effective January 31, 2012. We will accept comments
on this interim final rule until April 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-1000, by one
of the following methods: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-
line instructions for submitting comments.
    Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Fax: EPA:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: EPA: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460.
    Hand Delivery: EPA: EPA Docket Center, (Air Docket), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Room: 3334, Mail Code: 2822T, Washington, DC. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-1000. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section on ``Public
Participation'' for additional instructions on submitting written
comments.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be
publicly available only in hard copy in the docket. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the following locations:
    EPA: EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chuck Moulis, U.S. EPA, National
Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    This action affects you if you produce or import new heavy heavy-
duty diesel engines which are intended for use in highway vehicles such
as trucks and buses or heavy-duty highway vehicles. The table below
gives some examples of entities that may be affected by these
regulations. But because these are only examples, you should carefully
examine the regulations in 40 CFR part 86. If you have questions, call
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 NAICS
           Category               \a\        Examples of potentially
                                 Codes          regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.....................    336112  Engine and truck manufacturers.
                                 336120
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

Table of Contents

I. Statutory Authority and Regulatory Background
    A. Statutory Authority
    B. Background Regarding Nonconformance Penalty Rules
    C. 2007 and 2010 NOX Standards
II. Justification for This Interim Final Rule
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
IV. Nonconformance Penalties for 2012 and Later Heavy-Duty Engines
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles
    A. NCP Eligibility: Emission Standards for Which NCPs Are Being
Established in This Interim Final Rule
    B. NCP Eligibility: Emission Standards for Which We Are Not
Establishing NCPs in This Interim Final Rule
V. Penalty Rates
    A. Parameters
VI. Economic Impact
VII. Environmental Impact
VIII. Public Participation
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments)
    G. Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks''
    H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Statutory Authority and Regulatory Background

A. Statutory Authority

    Section 206(g) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 7525(g),
allows EPA to promulgate regulations permitting manufacturers of heavy-
duty engines (HDEs) or heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs) to receive a
certificate of conformity for HDEs or HDVs that exceed a federal
emissions standard, but do not exceed an upper limit associated with
that standard, if the manufacturer pays a nonconformance penalty (NCP)
established by rulemaking. Congress adopted section 206(g) in the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1977 as a response to a concern with requiring
technology-forcing emissions standards for heavy-duty engines. The
concern was if strict technology-forcing standards were promulgated,
then some manufacturers might be unable to comply initially and would
be forced out of the marketplace. NCPs were intended to remedy this
concern. The nonconforming manufacturers would have a temporary
alternative that would permit them to sell their engines or vehicles by
payment of a penalty. At the same time, conforming manufacturers would
not suffer a competitive disadvantage compared to nonconforming
manufacturers, because the NCPs would be based, in part, on money saved
by the nonconforming manufacturer.
    Under section 206(g)(1), NCPs may be offered for HDVs or HDEs. The
penalty may vary by pollutant and by class or category of vehicle or
engine. Section 206(g)(3) requires that NCPs:
     Account for the degree of emission nonconformity;
     Increase periodically to provide incentive for
nonconforming manufacturers to achieve the emission standards; and
     Remove the competitive disadvantage to conforming
manufacturers.
    Section 206(g) authorizes EPA to require testing of production
vehicles or engines in order to determine the emission level upon which
the penalty is based. If the emission level of a vehicle or engine
exceeds an upper limit of nonconformity established by EPA through
regulation, the vehicle or engine would not qualify for an NCP under
section 206(g) and no certificate of conformity could be issued to the
manufacturer. If the emission level is below the upper limit but above
the standard, that emission level becomes the ``compliance level,''
which is also the benchmark for warranty and recall liability. The
manufacturer who elects to pay the NCP is liable for vehicles or
engines that exceed the compliance level in use. The manufacturer does
not have in-use warranty or recall liability for emissions levels above
the standard but below the compliance level.

B. Background Regarding Nonconformance Penalty Rules

    Since the promulgation of the first NCP rule in 1985, subsequent
NCP rules generally have been described as continuing ``phases'' of the
initial NCP rule. The first NCP rule (Phase I), sometimes referred to
as the ``generic'' NCP rule, established three basic criteria for
determining the eligibility of emission standards for nonconformance
penalties in any given model year (50 FR 35374, August 30, 1985). As
described in section IV.A.(1) of this Interim Final Rule, we have
determined that these criteria have been met for one manufacturer. (For
regulatory language, see 40 CFR 86.1103-87.) The first criterion is
that the emission standard in question must become more difficult to
meet. This can occur in two ways, either by the emission standard
itself becoming more stringent, or due to its interaction with another
emission standard that has become more stringent. Second, substantial
work must be required in order to meet the emission standard. EPA
considers ``substantial work'' to mean the application of technology
not previously used in that vehicle or engine class/subclass, or a
significant modification of existing technology, in order to bring that
vehicle/engine into compliance. EPA does not consider minor
modifications or calibration changes to be classified as substantial
work. Third, EPA must find that a manufacturer is likely to be
noncomplying for technological reasons (referred to in earlier rules as
a ``technological laggard''). Prior NCP rules have considered such a
technological laggard to be a manufacturer who cannot meet a particular
emission standard due to technological (not economic) difficulties and
who, in the absence of NCPs, might be forced from the marketplace. As
described in section IV.A.(1) of this Interim Final Rule, we have
determined that this criterion has been met for one manufacturer. This
manufacturer notified us late in 2011 that it would not have enough
emission credits for its model year 2012 heavy heavy-duty engines.
    The criteria and methodologies established in the 1985 NCP rule
have since been used to determine eligibility and to establish NCPs for
a number of heavy-duty emission standards. Phases II, III, IV, V, and
VI published in the period from 1985 to 2002, established NCPs that, in
combination, cover the full range of heavy-duty--from heavy light-duty
trucks (6,000-8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) to the largest diesel
truck and urban bus engines. NCPs have been established for
hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and particulate matter (PM). The most recent NCP rule
(67 FR 51464, August 8, 2002) established NCPs for the 2004 and later
model year NOX standard for heavy-duty diesel engines
(HDDEs). The NCP rulemaking phases are summarized in greater detail in
the Interim and Proposed Technical Support Document for this
rulemaking.

C. 2007 and 2010 NOX Standards

    The 0.20 g/hp-hr NOX standard that applies for current
and future heavy-duty engines was adopted January 18, 2001 (66 FR
5001), and first applied in the 2007 model year. However, because of
phase-in provisions adopted in that

rule and use of emission credits generated by manufacturers for early
compliance, manufacturers have been able to continue to produce engines
with NOX emissions greater than 0.20 g/hp-hr. The phase-in
provisions ended after model year 2009 so that the 0.20 g/hp-hr
NOX standard was fully phased-in for model year 2010.
Equally important, the cap applicable to Family Emission Limits (FELs)
\1\ for credit using engine families was lowered to 0.50 g/hp-hr
beginning in model year 2010. Because of these changes that occurred in
model year 2010, the 0.20 g/hp-hr NOX emission standard is
often referred to as the 2010 NOX emission standard, even
though it applied to engines as early as model year 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FELs are emission levels specified by the manufacturer that
serve as the applicable emission standard for engines participating
in the emission averaging program. The FEL cap is the highest FEL to
which a manufacturer may certify an engine using emission credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While some manufacturers retain NOX emission credits
that currently allow them to produce engines with NOX
emissions as high as 0.50 g/hp-hr, we expect that one of these
manufacturers could exhaust its supply of heavy heavy-duty engine
NOX credits as early as this year.

II. Justification for This Interim Final Rule

    EPA is taking this action as an interim final rule without prior
proposal and public comment because EPA finds for good cause under
section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
551 et seq. that notice-and-comment are impracticable, unnecessary or
contrary to the public interest in this instance. Section 307(d) of the
CAA states that in the case of any rule to which section 307(d)
applies, notice of proposed rulemaking must be published in the Federal
Register (CAA Sec.  307(d)(3)). The promulgation or revision of
regulations under section 206 of the CAA is generally subject to
section 307(d). However, section 307(d) does not apply to any rule
referred to in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of section 553(b) of the APA.
    In reaching this determination, EPA considered several factors: (1)
Taking interim final action avoids the possibility of an engine
manufacturer from being unable to certify a complete product line of
engines for model year 2012 and/or 2013; (2) the Agency is only
amending limited provisions in existing NCP regulations in 40 CFR part
86; (3) the rule's duration is limited (see, e.g., Small Refiner Lead
Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506 (D.C. Cir. 1983)); and (4)
there is no risk to the public interest in allowing manufacturers to
certify using NCPs before the point at which EPA could make them
available through a full notice-and-comment rulemaking.
    EPA is promulgating NCPs for heavy heavy-duty diesel engines in
this Interim Final Rule because we have concluded that there is a
significant likelihood that they will be needed during the 2012 model
year. One manufacturer is currently using NOX credits to
certify all of its heavy heavy-duty diesel engines at nearly 0.50 g/hp-
hr. Based on its current credit balance and projected sales for this
service class, we do not expect this manufacturer to have sufficient
credits to cover its entire model year 2012 production. Since we have
not certified any of this manufacturer's model year 2012 heavy heavy-
duty diesel engines without the need for emission credits, we believe
it is possible that it may need NCPs during this model year. We have
concluded that the very earliest we could make NCPs available through a
full notice-and-comment rulemaking, would be late in model year 2012,
which would likely be after the manufacturer's credit supply has been
depleted. Thus, making NCPs available through this Interim Final Rule
is the only way to ensure that the manufacturer's depletion of its
NOX credits will not force it to cease production of heavy
heavy-duty engines this year.
    The second reason for invoking the good cause exemption is that EPA
is establishing NCPs based on the existing regulatory provisions in 40
CFR part 86, subpart L, and is only adding new penalty parameters to
reflect the costs of compliance specific to the 2010 NOX
standard. In this Interim Final Rule, EPA is not revisiting the
regulatory provisions that specify how to calculate penalties from the
penalty parameters, how to determine a compliance level, or how to
report to EPA. Since these provisions have been established through
notice-and-comment rulemaking several times before, interested parties
have had opportunity to comment on them. Thus, it is unnecessary to
provide an additional opportunity to comment prior to issuing this
interim final rule.
    Third, at most, this interim final rule will address only heavy
heavy-duty engines in model years 2012 and 2013, and by its own terms
is applicable for less than two calendar years. It is thus limited in
duration. EPA is publishing a parallel notice of proposed rulemaking
simultaneously with this rule and EPA intends to take appropriate final
action on that rule as soon as possible. With due consideration to
comments, the interim NCPs being established in this IFR will cease to
be applicable once the follow up Final Rule is effective.
    Finally, it is important to note that NCPs are set at a level that
is intended to ensure that manufacturers only use them when there is no
other path to certification. Thus, should EPA be incorrect in its
projection that NCPs will be needed during model year 2012, the fact
that they will be available on an interim basis will have no practical
significance because manufacturers will not use them.
    For the reasons explained above, EPA finds that this constitutes
good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Nonetheless, EPA is providing
until April 4, 2012 for submission of public comments following this
action. EPA will consider all written comments submitted in the
allotted time period in the context of the accompanying notice of
proposed rulemaking.
    Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
chapter 5, generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier
than 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register. APA
section 553(d) excepts from this provision any action that grants or
recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction. Since today's action
can be considered to either effectively grant an exemption from meeting
the current applicable NOX emission standard or relieve a
restriction that would otherwise prevent a manufacturer from
certifying, EPA is making this action effective immediately upon
publication.

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    EPA is also simultaneously publishing a parallel Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) addressing NCPs for heavy-duty engines. Among other
things, that NPRM seeks comment on NCPs for model year 2012 and later
heavy heavy-duty diesel engines, as well as for medium heavy-duty
diesel engines. The NCPs in the Final Rule for that NPRM will
eventually supersede the NCPs being promulgated in this Interim Final
Rule, especially for model year 2013 and later. For example, should the
follow-up Final Rule be published by September 14, 2012, it would
likely have an effective date of November 13, 2012. Should that Final
Rule establish different NCPs for heavy heavy-duty engines, those new
NCPs would be available for any engines produced on or after November
13, 2012, instead of the interim NCPs being finalized today.
    Note that Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-1000 is being used for both
the Interim Final Rule and the parallel NPRM.

IV. Nonconformance Penalties for 2012 and Later Heavy-Duty Engines and
Heavy-Duty Vehicles

A. NCP Eligibility: Emission Standards for Which NCPs Are Being
Established in This Interim Final Rule

(1) Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel NOX Standard
    As discussed in section I.B., EPA must determine that three
criteria are met in order to determine that an NCP should be
established in any given model year. For the 2010 NOX
standard, we believe these criteria have been met for heavy heavy-duty
diesel engines, and it is therefore appropriate to establish NCPs for
this standard for the current model year and later.
    The first criterion requires that the emission standard in question
must become more difficult to meet. This is the case with the 2010
NOX standard. The previous emission standard for this
category is a combined NMHC + NOX standard of 2.4 g[sol]hp-
hr, or optionally a 2.5 g[sol]hp-hr NMHC + NOX with a limit
of 0.5 g[sol]hp-hr NMHC.\2\ The 2010 (i.e., current) standards are 0.20
g[sol]hp-hr for NOX and 0.14 g[sol]hp-hr for NMHC. When
promulgated, the Agency concluded that the 0.20 g[sol]hp-hr
NOX standard was a technology forcing standard. Second, all
heavy heavy-duty diesel engines currently certified to the 0.20
g[sol]hp-hr standard without using credits are using new aftertreatment
systems to meet this standard.\3\ It is therefore logical to conclude
the standard is more difficult to meet and that substantial work was
required to meet the emission standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NMHC stands for non-methane hydrocarbons, which is a measure
of total hydrocarbons with the methane emissions subtracted out. For
typical on-highway diesel fueled heavy-duty engines, methane
emissions are on the order of 10 percent of the total hydrocarbon
emissions.
    \3\ For this notice, EPA describes those manufacturers that have
achieved the 0.20 g[sol]hp-hr emission standard as ``conforming'',
``compliant'' or ``complying'' manufacturers, and those that have
not as the ``nonconforming'', ``noncompliant'' or ``noncomplying''
manufacturers. However, it is important to clarify that
manufacturers certifying above the 0.20 g[sol]hp-hr NOX
emission standard using emission credits are in compliance with
regulations as long as they have enough emission credits to offset
their total NOX emissions above the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, EPA is promulgating NCPs for heavy heavy-duty diesel engines
because we have concluded that there is a significant likelihood that
they will be needed by an engine manufacturer that has not yet met the
requirements for technological reasons. One manufacturer is currently
using NOX credits to certify all of its heavy heavy-duty
diesel engines at nearly the FEL cap level of 0.50 g[sol]hp-hr. Based
on its current credit balance and projected sales for this service
class, we do not expect this manufacturer to have sufficient credits to
cover its entire model year 2012 production. This manufacturer intends
to use a different technology to meet the NOX standard but
has not yet submitted an application for the 2012 model year with
NOX emissions at or below the 0.20 g[sol]hp-hr standard.
Since it has not yet submitted an application for certification for any
model year 2012 heavy heavy-duty diesel engines that would not require
emission credits, we believe it is a reasonable possibility that this
manufacturer may not be able to comply for technological reasons with
respect to the 2010 NOX standards for heavy heavy-duty
diesel engines in the 2012 and 2013 model years. This manufacturer
notified us late in 2011 that it would not have enough emission credits
for its model year 2012 heavy heavy-duty engines.

B. NCP Eligibility: Emission Standards for Which We Are Not
Establishing NCPs in This Interim Final Rule

    This section identifies the emission standards for which we are not
establishing NCPs in this Interim Final Rule. Note that EPA is issuing
a parallel Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing and/or
seeking comment on NCPs for certain other emission standards.
(1) Light and Medium Heavy-Duty Diesel NOX Standards
    EPA believes that the first two NCP criteria have been met for the
2010 NOX standard for light and medium heavy-duty diesel
engines. However, we have not determined that any manufacturer of light
or medium heavy-duty diesel engines will be unable to certify to the
2010 NOX standard for the 2012 and 2013 model years. We
believe that any manufacturer unable to achieve 0.20 g[sol]hp-hr will
have sufficient NOX emission credits to continue certifying
light heavy-duty and medium heavy-duty engines through the 2013 model
year. (See the parallel NPRM.)
(2) Heavy-Duty Gasoline Engine Standards
    In a final rule published on January 18, 2001 (66 FR 5001), EPA
established more stringent emission standards for all heavy-duty
gasoline (or ``Otto-cycle'') vehicles and engines. These standards took
two forms: A chassis-based set of standards for complete vehicles under
14,000 pounds GVWR (the chassis-based program), and an engine-based set
of standards for all other Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines (the engine-
based program). Each of the two programs has an associated averaging,
banking, and trading (ABT) program. The new standards generally took
effect starting with the 2008 model year, and all manufacturers are in
compliance with them.
(3) Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine NMHC, CO, and PM Standards
    EPA adopted new NMHC and PM for model year 2007 and later heavy-
duty engines in the same rule that set the 2010 NOX emission
standard (66 FR 5001, January 18, 2001). The CO standard was not
changed. We are not considering NCPs for any of these other standards
because all manufacturers are already fully compliant with them.
(4) Heavy-Duty CO2 Standards
    In a final rule published on September 15, 2011 (76 FR 57106), EPA
established new CO2 emission standards for all heavy-duty
vehicles and engines. We are not considering NCPs for any of these
standards at this time because we currently do not have a basis to
conclude that a technological laggard is likely to develop.
    We are adding a new regulatory provision related to these
CO2 emission standards. The provision prohibits generating
CO2 emission credits from engines paying NCPs for
NOX. Given the general tradeoff between CO2 and
NOX emissions, we were concerned that a manufacturer capable
of meeting the 0.20 g/hp-hr NOX emission standard could
choose to pay an NCP in order to generate CO2 credits by
recalibrating its engines for higher NOX emissions and lower
CO2. There are two reasons this would be inappropriate.
First, emission credits are supposed to provide an incentive for a
manufacturer to go beyond what is normally required to meet emission
standards. However, allowing manufacturers to generate CO2
credits while paying NCPs would actually create an incentive for
manufacturers to do less than is required to meet the emission
standards. Equally important, NCPs have always been intended for
manufacturers that cannot meet an emission standard for technological
reasons rather than manufacturers choosing not to comply.

V. Penalty Rates

    This rulemaking is the most recent in a series of NCP rulemakings.
These are referred to as Phases and are referenced below.\4\ The
discussions of penalty rates

in those rulemakings are incorporated by reference. This section
briefly reviews the penalty rate formula originally promulgated in the
Phase I rule (currently found at 40 CFR 86.1113-87) and discusses how
EPA arrived at the penalty rates in this Interim Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The previous NCP rules include: The Phase VI rulemaking (67
FR 51464, August 8, 2002), Phase IV rulemaking (58 FR 68532,
December 28, 1993), Phase III rulemaking (55 FR 46622, November 5,
1990), the Phase II rulemaking (50 FR 53454, December 31, 1985) as
well as the Phase I rulemaking (50 FR 35374, August 30, 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The penalty rates being established in this rule rely on the
existing NCP regulatory structure. Thus, the only changes being made to
the regulations are updates to the cost parameters to reflect the
compliance costs for the 2010 standards, setting of the upper limit,
and clarifying in Sec.  86.1104-91 that EPA may set the upper limit at
a level below the previous standard if we determine that the lower
level is achievable by all engines.
    Because these penalties are being adopted in an Interim Final Rule,
we are limiting their applicability to model years 2012 and 2013. Prior
to model year 2014, we will promulgate a Final Rule addressing NCPs
following notice and comment. Note that we may promulgate the Final
Rule as soon as later this calendar year, and as applicable, it would
supersede the provisions of this Interim Final Rule after it becomes
effective.
    The NCP rates being adopted in this IFR are specified for model
year 2012. As required by the Clean Air Act, the existing regulations
include a formula that increases the penalty rates with each new model
year. We will apply this annual adjustment formula to the NCPs by
setting the 2012 model year as year number one. Traditionally, NCPs are
available the first year of the new emission standard and that becomes
year one for purposes of the annual escalator. However, EPA believes
the 2012 model year is the correct year for the first year of the
escalator calculation even though the NOX emission standard
began in 2010.

A. Parameters

    As in the previous NCP rules, we are specifying the NCP formula for
each standard using the following parameters: COC50,
COC90, MC50, F, and UL. The NCP formula is the
same as that promulgated in the Phase I rule. As was done in previous
NCP rules, costs consider additional manufacturer costs and additional
owner costs, but do not consider certification costs because both
complying and noncomplying manufacturers must incur certification
costs. COC50 is an estimate of the industry-wide average
incremental cost per engine (references to engines are intended to
include vehicles as well) associated with meeting the standard for
which an NCP is offered, compared with meeting the upper limit.
COC90 is an estimate of the 90th percentile incremental cost
per-engine associated with meeting the standard for which an NCP is
offered, compared with meeting the associated upper limit.
Conceptually, COC50 represents costs for a typical or
average manufacturer, while COC90 represents costs for the
manufacturers with the highest compliance costs.
    MC50 is an estimate of the industry-wide average
marginal cost of compliance per unit of reduced pollutant associated
with the least cost effective emission control technology installed to
meet the new standard. MC50 is measured in dollars per g/hp-
hr for heavy-duty engines. F is a factor used to derive
MC90, the 90th percentile marginal cost of compliance with
the NCP standard for engines in the NCP category. MC90
defines the slope of the penalty rate curve near the standard and is
equal to MC50 multiplied by F. UL is the upper limit above
which no engine may be certified.
    The derivation of the cost parameters is described in a support
document entitled ``Interim and Proposed Technical Support Document:
Nonconformance Penalties for 2012 and later Highway Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engines,'' which is available in the public docket for this rulemaking.
All costs are presented in 2011 dollars.
(1) Upper Limit
    We are revising the regulations in Sec.  86.1104-91 to clarify that
EPA may set (during rulemaking) the upper limit at a level below the
previous standard if we determine that the lower level is achievable by
all engines. As described below, we are also establishing the upper
limit for this NCP rule at 0.50 g/hp-hr. These are the only regulatory
changes being made with respect to the upper limit.
    The upper limit is the emission level established by regulation
above which NCPs are not available and a heavy duty engine cannot be
certified or introduced into commerce. CAA section 206(g)(2) refers to
the upper limit as a percentage above the emission standard, set by
regulation, that corresponds to an emission level EPA determines to be
``practicable.'' The upper limit is an important aspect of the NCP
regulations not only because it establishes an emission level above
which no engine may be certified, but it is also a critical component
of the cost analysis used to develop the penalty rates. The regulations
specify that the relevant costs for determining the COC50
and the COC90 factors are the difference between an engine
at the upper limit and one that meets the applicable standards (see 40
CFR 86.1113-87).
    The regulatory approach adopted under the prior NCP rules sets the
default Upper Limit (UL) at the prior emission standard when a prior
emission standard exists and is then changed to become more stringent.
EPA concluded that the upper limit should be reasonably achievable by
all manufacturers with vehicles in the relevant class. It should be
within reach of all manufacturers of HDEs or HDVs that are currently
allowed so that they can, if they choose, pay NCPs and continue to sell
their engines and vehicles while finishing their development of fully
complying engines. A manufacturer of a previously certified engine or
vehicle should not be forced to immediately remove an HDE or HDV from
the market when an emission standard becomes more stringent. The prior
emissions standard generally meets these goals because manufactures
have already certified their vehicles to that standard.
    In the past, EPA has rejected suggestions that the upper limit
should be more stringent than the prior emission standard because it
would be very difficult to identify a limit that could be met by all
manufacturers. For this rule, however, all manufacturers are currently
certifying all of their engines at or below the 0.50 g[sol]hp-hr FEL
cap. Thus, since NCPs were not intended to allow manufacturers to
increase emissions, we are setting the upper limit for this NCP rule at
0.50 g[sol]hp-hr NOX. This will conform to the purpose of
NCPs, which is to allow manufacturers to continue selling engines they
are producing, but not to allow backsliding.
(2) Cost Parameter Values
    The regulations being adopted specify that the values in Table 1
(in 2011 dollars) be used in the NCP formula for the 2012 and later
model year NOX standard of 0.20 g[sol]hp-hr for diesel heavy
heavy-duty engines. The basis is summarized here. The complete
derivation of these parameters is described in the Interim Technical
Support Document for this rulemaking.
    We also considered other methodologies for estimating the
incremental compliance costs between the upper limit and the standard.
We rejected these alternatives because we are not confident that we
could estimate the costs with sufficient accuracy or describe our basis
without revealing confidential business information. Moreover, we have
no reason to believe

that these alternative methodologies would have been better with
respect to the statutory requirement to remove the competitive
disadvantage of the complying manufacturers.
(a) General Methodology
    Based on our review of the various hypothetical baseline engine
designs, we selected a straightforward ``baseline engine'' technology
package with associated costs that were determinable within a
reasonably high degree of certainty. This approach best limited the
sensitivity of the penalty rate versus small variations in any of the
``baseline engine'' technology package elements. This cost stability
mitigated the hypothetical nature of the ``baseline engine'' technology
package, which, in turn, led to a penalty rate that we believe is
reasonable. As is described in the TSD, we believe estimating costs by
this approach is the least speculative method to determine compliance
costs.
    We selected a baseline engine technology package that would employ
the same basic emission controls used to meet the 2007 NOX
and PM emission standards (e.g. cooled exhaust gas recirculation),
optimized turbo-charging, optimized fuel injection, diesel particulate
filters), plus liquid urea based Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
NOX emissions control technology with an appropriately sized
tank for the diesel exhaust fluid (DEF). Further details are provided
in this rule's TSD. While EPA selected the baseline engine (or upper
limit engine) to be a fully optimized, SCR-equipped engine that
complies with all other emission standards and requirements, the NCPs
may be used for engines using other technologies.
    This approach differs slightly from that used in previous NCP
rules, where EPA based the NCPs directly on an average of actual
compliance costs for all manufacturers. This was appropriate in those
prior rules because each of the manufacturers had actually produced
engines at the upper limit (which was usually the previous emission
standard). It was relatively straightforward for them to provide us
with a confidential engineering analysis of the costs they actually
incurred: The real costs of additional hardware and fluids and the
differences in performance characteristics. We have always sought full
understanding of the manufacturers' inputs, and for previous NCP rules
it was also reasonable for EPA to conclude that the manufacturers'
input accurately reflected the manufacturers' actual costs because the
costs were derived directly from actual in-production engine
information. In the case of this NCP rule, however, compliant
manufacturers have not designed and optimized in-production engines for
the U.S. market at 0.50 g[sol]hp-hr NOX (the upper limit).
Thus, a compliance cost estimate based directly on actual experience
for in-production engines was not available for this NCP rule.
    Instead of averaging actual costs (because none were available),
the NCP penalty formulas for this rule are based primarily on EPA's
estimate of the cost difference between an engine emitting at the upper
limit (the ``baseline engine'') and one emitting at the standard (the
``compliant engine''). We requested cost of compliance information from
several engine manufacturers and used that information to inform our
own analysis of compliance costs, as described in the Interim and
Proposed Technical Support Document. The engine manufacturers we
contacted approached this cost analysis in the same way we did. That
is, the scenarios we and the manufacturers considered were all based
upon hypothetical baseline engine designs that were intended to meet
the 0.50 g[sol]hp-hr NOX upper limit.
    It is worth noting that each of the five engine manufacturers we
contacted considered hypothetical baseline engines with different
technology packages. Two complying manufacturers based their compliance
costs on a baseline engine equipped with similar (but not identical)
hardware as EPA; another on an SCR-equipped engine without exhaust gas
recirculation, and a fourth on its estimation of the non-complying
engines produced by a competitor. All four manufacturers meeting the
0.20 g[sol]hp-hr NOX standard compared the costs for their
hypothetical baseline engines to the costs for their actual compliant
engines. The one non-SCR manufacturer we contacted (that has not yet
certified any engines with NOX emissions at 0.20 g[sol]hp-
hr) provided its projections of what it will spend to bring its current
2011 engine into compliance without the use of emission credits.
(b) Calculated Values
    The most significant of the NCP parameters is the 90th percentile
costs of compliance, COC90, which defines the penalty for
engines emitting at the upper limit. The value of COC50 only
matters when EPA estimates that marginal compliance costs change as the
compliance level approaches the standard. In such cases,
COC50 defines that point on the curve at which the slope
changes. We estimated COC90 and COC50 by assuming
the baseline engine would have been an SCR equipped engine with
NOX emissions at 0.50 g/hp-hr and that it looked very
similar to an engine with NOX emissions at 0.20 g/hp-hr.
However, the higher NOX emissions of the baseline engine
would allow the use of less expensive hardware and would require less
consumption of liquid urea (also known as diesel emission fluid or
``DEF'').
    We estimated the marginal costs of compliance as being equal to the
total incremental costs of compliance divided by 0.30 g/hp-hr (the
difference between the upper limit and the standard). This assumes that
the cost to reduce emissions from 0.30 g/hp-hr to 0.20 g/hp-hr is not
significantly different from the cost to reduce emissions from 0.50 g/
hp-hr to 0.40 g/hp-hr. This results in a penalty curve that is a
straight line, which in turn makes our estimate of the average cost of
compliance irrelevant to the calculation of the penalty. In other
words, the COC50 point lies directly between zero cost at
0.20 g/hp-hr and COC90 at the Upper Limit of 0.50 g/hp-hr
NOX. The penalty paid for engines at the upper limit would
be equal to EPA's estimate of the highest marginal cost paid by a
complying manufacturer for the same emission range.

               Table 1--Interim NCP Calculation Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Parameter                 Heavy heavy-duty diesel engines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COC50..............................  $1,561.
COC90..............................  $1,919.
MC50...............................  $5,203 per gram per horsepower-
                                      hour.
F..................................  1.23.
UL.................................  0.50 g/hp-hr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Resulting Penalties
    The calculation parameters listed in Table 1 are used to calculate
the penalty rate. These parameters are used in the penalty rate
formulas which are defined in the existing NCP regulations (See 40 CFR
86.1113(a)(1) and (2)). Using the parameters in Table 1, and the
equations in the existing NCP regulations, we have plotted penalty
rates versus compliance levels in Figure 1 below. This penalty curve is
for the first year of use of the NCPs (i.e., the annual adjustment
factors specified in the existing NCP regulations have been set equal
to one).

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31JA12.020

    The Clean Air Act NCP provisions require that the penalty be set at
such a level that it removes any competitive disadvantage a complying
manufacturer by requiring non-complying manufacturers to pay NCPs. Our
methodology for developing the NCP is detailed in the Interim and
Proposed Technical Support Document. Our technology approach includes
relatively minor hardware upgrades, calibration changes, and increased
use of DEF. For the reasons described in the Interim and Proposed
Technical Support Document, we believe that the NCPs being established
in this rulemaking will remove any competitive disadvantage that
complying manufacturers may face.

VI. Economic Impact

    Because the use of NCPs is optional, manufacturers have the
flexibility and will likely choose whether or not to use NCPs based on
their ability to comply with emissions standards. If no manufacturer
elects to use NCPs, these manufacturers and the users of their products
will not incur any additional costs related to NCPs. NCPs remedy the
potential problem of having a manufacturer forced out of the
marketplace due to that manufacturer's inability to conform to new,
strict emission standards in a timely manner. Without NCPs, a
manufacturer which has difficulty certifying HDEs in conformance with
emission standards or whose engines fail a Selective Enforcement Audit
(SEA) has only two alternatives: fix the nonconforming engines, perhaps
at a prohibitive cost, or prevent their introduction into commerce. The
availability of NCPs provides manufacturers with a third alternative:
continue production and introduce into commerce upon payment of a
penalty an engine that exceeds the standard until an emission
conformance technique is developed. Therefore, NCPs represent a
regulatory mechanism that allows affected manufacturers to have
increased flexibility. A decision to use NCPs may be a manufacturer's
only way to continue to introduce its products into commerce.

VII. Environmental Impact

    When evaluating the environmental impact of this rule, one must
keep in mind that, under the Act, NCPs are a consequence of enacting
new, more stringent emissions requirements for heavy duty engines.
Emission standards are set at a level that most, but not necessarily
all, manufacturers can achieve by the model year in which the standard
becomes effective. Following International Harvester v. Ruckelshaus,
478 F. 2d 615 (DC Cir. 1973), Congress realized the dilemma that
technology-forcing standards could potentially cause, and allowed
manufacturers of heavy-duty engines to certify nonconforming vehicles/
engines upon the payment of an NCP, under certain terms and conditions.
This mechanism was intended to allow manufacturer(s) who cannot meet
technology-forcing standards immediately to continue to manufacture
nonconforming engines while they tackle the technological problems
associated with meeting new emission standard(s). Thus, as part of the
statutory structure to force technological improvements without driving
manufacturers or individual engine models out of the market, NCPs
provide a flexibility that fosters long-term emissions improvement
through the setting of lower emission standards at an earlier date than
could otherwise be feasible. Because NCPs are designed to increase with
time, manufacturers using NCPs are likely to reduce emission levels to
meet the standard as quickly as possible, which minimizes the
environmental impact.
    As is always the case with NCPs, the potential exists for there to
be more extensive use of NCPs beyond what may be expected to be used by
the manufacturer that we believe will need them. For example, depending
upon the penalty rate and other factors, some otherwise fully compliant
manufacturers could elect to pay the NCP in order to reconfigure their
0.20 g/hp-hr NOX compliant engines to emit up to 0.50 g/hp-
hr so that they can re-optimize engine hardware and vehicle operating
costs. This potential action is not without R&D and other financial
costs to the manufacturer and thus is not a decision which would be

taken lightly, given the short-term nature of the NCPs allowed for in
this interim final rule. Furthermore, we believe that any such impacts
would be short-term and self-limiting in nature because the NCP annual
adjustment factor, established via prior NCP rules, increases the
levels of the penalties over time and based on the extent of the use of
NCPs by all manufacturers. In other words the NCP program is structured
such that the incentives to produce engines that meet the standard
increase year-by-year and increase upon NCP use. The practical impact
of this adjustment factor is that the NCPs will rapidly become an
undesirable option for all manufacturers that may elect to use them.
However, while we expect their use to be limited, we have no way of
predicting at this time how many manufacturers will make use of the
NCPs, or how many engine families would be subject to the NCP program.
Because of these uncertainties we are unable to accurately quantify the
potential impact the NCPs might have on emission inventories, although,
as stated above, any impacts are expected to be short-term and self-
limiting in nature.

VIII. Public Participation

    We are opening a formal comment period by publishing this document.
We will accept comments for the period indicated under DATES above. If
you have an interest in the program described in this document, we
encourage you to comment on any aspect of this rulemaking.
    Your comments will be most useful if you include appropriate and
detailed supporting rationale, data, and analysis. If you disagree with
parts of the interim program, we encourage you to suggest and analyze
alternate approaches to meeting the goals described in this Interim
Final Rule. You should send all comments, except those containing
proprietary information, to our Air Docket (see ADDRESSES) before the
end of the comment period.
    If you submit proprietary information for our consideration, you
should clearly separate it from other comments by labeling it
``Confidential Business Information.'' You should also send it directly
to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
instead of the public docket. This will help ensure that no one
inadvertently places proprietary information in the docket. We will
disclose information covered by a claim of confidentiality only through
the application of procedures described in 40 CFR part 2. If you do not
identify information as confidential when we receive it, we may make it
available to the public without notifying you.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
It only updates the penalty amounts to correspond to the current
emission standards. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has previously approved the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR part 86, subpart L under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0132. The OMB control numbers
for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

(1) Overview
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of these rules on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by SBA regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
(2) Summary of Potentially Affected Small Entities
    After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
    When these emission standards were established, the final
rulemaking (66 FR 5001, January 18, 2001) noted that we were not aware
of ``any manufacturers of heavy-duty engines that meet SBA's definition
of a small business.'' Based on an updated assessment, EPA has
identified a total of about 14 manufacturers that produce diesel cycle
heavy-duty motor vehicle engines. Of these, none of these are small
businesses that are producing engines with NOX emissions
above 0.20 g/hp-hr. Based on this, we are certifying that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
(3) Conclusions
    I therefore certify that this Interim Final Rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
The agency has determined that this action does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for the
private sector in any one year. Because the use of NCPs is optional,
manufacturers have the flexibility and will likely choose whether or
not to use NCPs based on their ability to comply with emissions
standards. The availability of NCPs provides manufacturers with a third
alternative: To continue production and introduce into commerce upon
payment of a penalty an engine that exceeds the standard until an
emission conformance technique is developed. Therefore, NCPs represent
a regulatory mechanism that allows affected manufacturers to have
increased flexibility. Thus, this action is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This action is also
not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA because it
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in

the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. These rules will apply to
manufacturers of on-highway engines and not to State or local
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)

    This IFR does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule will
be implemented at the Federal level and impose compliance costs only on
engine manufacturers who elect to use the NCP regulatory flexibility to
comply with emissions standards. Tribal governments would be affected
only to the extent they purchase and use engines and vehicles to which
an NCP has been applied. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks''

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62FR19885, April 23, 1997) applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials, specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the EPA decides not to
use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is
not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations. The overall
environmental impacts of this action are expected to be small and of
limited duration. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that trucks
using NCP engines will be more likely to operate near any minority or
low-income populations than other trucks.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes
a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must
be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated
previously in Section II above, EPA has made such a good cause finding,
including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of
January 31, 2012. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

    Statutory authority for the vehicle controls in these rules is
found in CAA section 206(g), of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7525(g).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: January 20, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency is amending 40 CFR chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES
AND ENGINES

0
1. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart L--[Amended]

0
2. Section 86.1104-91 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1104-91  Determination of upper limits.

    EPA shall set a separate upper limit for each phase of NCPs and for
each service class.
    (a) The provisions of this section specify a default approach for
determining the upper limit values.
    (1) The default upper limit applicable to a pollutant emission
standard for a subclass of heavy-duty engines or heavy-duty vehicles
for which an NCP is established in accordance with Sec.  86.1103-87,
shall be the previous pollutant emission standard for that subclass.
    (2) If a manufacturer participates in any of the emissions
averaging, trading, or banking programs, and carries over certification
of an engine family from the prior model year, the upper limit for that
engine family shall be the family emission limit of the prior model
year, unless the family emission limit is less than the upper limit
determined in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (b) If no previous standard existed for the pollutant under
paragraph (a) of this section, the upper limit will be developed by EPA
during rulemaking.
    (c) EPA may set the upper limit during rulemaking at a level below
the default level specified in paragraph (a) of this section if we
determine that a lower level is achievable by all engines.

0
3. Section 86.1105-87 is amended by revising paragraph (e) and adding
paragraph (j) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (e) The values of COC50, COC90, and MC50 in paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section are expressed in December 1984 dollars. The values of
COC50, COC90, and MC50 in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section are
expressed in December 1989 dollars. The values of COC50, COC90, and
MC50 in paragraph (f) of this section are expressed in December 1991
dollars. The values of COC50, COC90, and MC50 in paragraphs (g) and (h)
of this section are expressed in December 1994 dollars. The values of
COC50, COC90, and MC50 in paragraph (i) of this section are expressed
in December 2001 dollars. The values of COC50, COC90, and MC50 in
paragraph (j) of this section are expressed in December 2011 dollars.
These values shall be adjusted for inflation to dollars as of January
of the calendar year preceding the model year in which the NCP is first
available by using the change in the overall Consumer Price Index, and
rounded to the nearest whole dollar in accordance with ASTM E29-67
(reapproved 1980), Standard Recommended Practice for Indicating Which
Places of Figures are to be Considered Significant in Specified
Limiting Values. This method was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
This document is available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, and is also
available for inspection as part of Docket A-91-06, located at the U.S.
EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Room 3334, EPA West Building, Washington, DC 20004, (202)
202-1744or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202) 741-6030, or go to:  http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. These materials are incorporated as they exist
on the date of the approval and a notice of any change in these
materials will be published in the Federal Register.
* * * * *
    (j) Effective in the 2012 and 2013 model years, NCPs will be
available for the following emission standard:
    (1) Diesel heavy-duty engine oxides of nitrogen standard of 0.20
grams per brake horsepower-hour in Sec.  86.007-11(a)(1)(i).
    (i) [Reserved].
    (ii) For heavy heavy-duty diesel engines:
    (A) The following values shall be used to calculate an NCP in
accordance with Sec.  86.1113-87(a):
    (1) COC50: $1,561.
    (2) COC90: $1,919.
    (3) MC50: $5,203 per gram per brake horsepower-hour NOX.
    (4) F: 1.23.
    (5) UL: 0.50 grams per brake horsepower-hour NOX.
    (B) The following factor shall be used to calculate the engineering
and development component of the NCP for the standard set forth in
Sec.  86.007-11(a)(1)(i) in accordance with Sec.  86.1113-87(h): 0.004.
    (2) Manufacturers may not generate emission credits for any
pollutant from engines for which the manufacturer pays an NCP.
    (3) The penalty shall be adjusted annually as specified in Sec.
86.1113-87 with 2012 as the first year. Note that this means
AAF2012 is equal to 1.

[FR Doc. 2012-1937 Filed 1-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 88)]
[Notices]
[Page 21673-21674]
[DOCID:fr08my09-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1881-054]

PPL Holtwood, LLC; Notice of Application for Amendment of License
and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

May 1, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Renewed amendment of license to increase the
installed capacity.
    b. Project No.: 1881-054.
    c. Date Filed: April 9, 2009.
    d. Applicant: PPL Holtwood, LLC (PPL).
    e. Name of Project: Holtwood Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Susquehanna River, in
Lancaster and York Counties, Pennsylvania.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Dennis J. Murphy, Vice President & Chief
Operating Officer, PPL Holtwood, LLC, Two North Ninth Street (GENPL6),
Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Linda Stewart, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: June 1, 2009.
    Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov)
under the ``e-filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    All documents (original and eight copies) filed by paper should be
sent to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number
(P-1881-054) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Background: On December 20, 2007, and supplemented on January 4,
February 20, June 19, July 7, August 27, and October 3, 2008, PPL filed
an application to amend its license for the Holtwood Project (sub
docket P-1881-050). By letter filed December 8, 2008, PPL withdrew its
license amendment application. The withdrawal became effective 15 days
later, on December 23, 2008.
    In its application, PPL proposed to: (1) Construct a new powerhouse
and install new turbines that would increase the total installed
capacity of the project from 107.2 megawatts (MW) to 195.5 MW; (2)
construct a new skimmer wall and larger forebay; (3) reconfigure the
existing fish lift, reroute the discharge of Unit 1 in the existing
powerhouse, and excavate in the project tailrace and Piney Channel to
improve migratory fish passage; (4) provide minimum flows and conduct
studies of the effectiveness of the modified fish passage facilities
and flow releases; (5) improve existing and construct new recreational
facilities; and (6) establish protocols to ensure protection of special
status plants, wildlife, and cultural resources during construction.
    Because of the substantial costs associated with the proposed
modifications, PPL also requested in its license amendment application
a 16-year extension of the current license term through August 31,
2030.
    l. Description of Request: In its renewed application for amendment
of license, PPL requests that the Commission incorporate by reference
the record fully developed in the proceeding for the previously
withdrawn license amendment application (sub docket P-1881-050).
    m. Since Commission staff recently completed the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Holtwood Project No.
1881-050, we believe the environmental record is complete and are not
seeking new recommendations, terms and conditions, or fishway
prescriptions for the renewed license amendment application. The
fishway prescription previously filed by the U.S. Department of the
Interior (Interior), as well as the recommendations previously filed by
Interior and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission were analyzed in
the FEIS and will remain as part of the renewed amendment application
proceeding.
    n. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    o. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    p. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    q. Any entity who intervened in the prior license amendment
proceeding (sub docket P-1881-050) need not intervene again.
    r. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    s. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file

comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be
presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must
also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-10699 Filed 5-7-09; 8:45 am]