[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 177 (Thursday, September 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 51713]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19952]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No.-2021-0006]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Airlines
for America, Cargo Airline Association, National Air Carrier
Association, and Regional Airline Association

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation 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 nor 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 October 6, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2021-0706
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, 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 20590-0001, 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 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alphonso Pendergrass,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Timothy R. Adams,
Acting Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2021-0706.
    Petitioner: Airlines for America, Cargo Airline Association,
National Air Carrier Association, and Regional Airline Association.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  121.803(c)(3), and Appendix A
to Part 121, paragraph 2.
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioners request limited
relief for their passenger and cargo airline members and similarly
situated air carriers to exempt temporarily passenger-carrying airlines
from having to include the required quantity of ammonia inhalants in
required First Aid Kits (FAKs) during periods of temporary supply
shortages beyond operator control.

[FR Doc. 2021-19952 Filed 9-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14115-14116]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5983]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Meeting on Transport
Airplane and Engine Issues

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting of the FAA's Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee

(ARAC) to discuss transport airplane and engine (TAE) issues.

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 13, 2011, starting
at 9 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time. Arrange for oral presentations by
March 30, 2011.

ADDRESSES: FAA--Northwest Mountain Region, Transport Standards Staff
conference room, 1601 Lind Ave., SW., Renton, WA 98057.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ralen Gao, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-
209, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone
(202) 267-3168, Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. app. III), notice is
given of an ARAC meeting to be held April 13, 2011.
    The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
     Opening Remarks, Review Agenda and Minutes.
     FAA Report.
     Executive Committee Report.
     Transport Canada Report.
     Avionics Harmonization Working Group Report.
     Materials Flammability Working Group Report.
     Action Item Review.
    Attendance is open to the public, but will be limited to the
availability of meeting room space. Please confirm your attendance with
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no
later than March 30, 2011. Please provide the following information:
Full legal name, country of citizenship, and name of your industry
association, or applicable affiliation. If you are attending as a
public citizen, please indicate so.
    For persons participating by telephone, please contact Ralen Gao by
email or phone for the teleconference call-in number and passcode.
Anyone calling from outside the Renton, WA, metropolitan area will be
responsible for paying long-distance charges.
    The public must make arrangements by March 30, 2011, to present
oral statements at the meeting. Written statements may be presented to
the ARAC at any time by providing 25 copies to the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section or by providing copies at the
meeting. Copies of the documents to be presented to ARAC may be made
available by contacting the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    If you need assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for
the meeting or meeting documents, please contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Sign and oral
interpretation, as well as a listening device, can be made available if
requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 10, 2011.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-5983 Filed 3-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 58399]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23865]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3422-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Georgia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Georgia (FEMA-3422-EM), dated September 1, 2019, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 9, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective September 7, 2019.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-23865 Filed 10-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 167 (Friday, August 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52368-52371]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21416]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary of Transportation

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0169]

Notice of Lithium Battery Safety Public Meeting and Request for
Information

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of lithium battery safety public meeting and request for
information.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation, including the Federal
Aviation Administration's (FAA) Office of Hazardous Materials Safety
and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's
(PHMSA) Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, announce a

public meeting seeking input on risk mitigation strategies to enhance
the safe transport of lithium batteries by air. The meeting will
include a discussion on pertinent safety recommendations of the
International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) International
Multidisciplinary Lithium Battery Transport Group. The Department also
invites comments and supporting data to be posted to the docket.
Information presented at the public meeting or submitted to the docket
will be used to help inform the Department as it prepares to
participate in relevant ICAO Panel meetings this fall, including the
ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP) meeting, currently scheduled for
October 19-30, 2015. As is customary, another public meeting will be
held prior to the upcoming ICAO DGP meeting.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on September 18, 2015, from 1:00
p.m. until 5:00 p.m. Written comments also may be submitted to docket
no. DOT-OST-2015-0169 at www.regulations.gov.
    Meeting Information: The public meeting will be held at the U.S.
Department of Transportation Headquarters, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. The Department requests that attendees pre-
register for this meeting by completing the form at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/RZWHJMR. Failure to pre-register may delay your
access to the DOT Headquarters building. If participants are attending
in person, arrive early to allow time for security checks necessary to
obtain access to the building. Conference call-in and ``live meeting''
capability will be provided for the meeting. Conference call connection
information will be provided to those who register and indicate that
they will participate via conference call. An agenda will be posted to
the docket prior to the meeting.
    We are committed to providing equal access to this meeting for all
participants. If you need alternative formats or other reasonable
accommodations, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with your request by close of business on September 10,
2015.
    A panel of representatives from the FAA and PHMSA will be present.
The meeting is intended to be informal, non-adversarial, and to
facilitate the public comment process. No individual will be subject to
questioning by any other participant. Government representatives on the
panel may ask questions to clarify statements. Unless otherwise stated,
any statement made during the meetings by a panel member should not be
construed as an official position of the U.S. government. The meeting
will be open to all persons, subject to the capacity of the meeting
room and phone lines available for those participating via conference
call. Every effort will be made to accommodate all persons wishing to
attend. We will try to accommodate all speakers, subject to time
constraints.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Dockets Management System; U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To U.S. Department of Transportation,
Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Instructions: Include
the agency name and docket number DOT-OST-2015-0169 for this Notice at
the beginning of your comment. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided. If sent by mail, comments must be
submitted in duplicate. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of
receipt of their comments must include a self-addressed stamped
postcard.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any
written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by
the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: You may view the public docket through the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations office
at the above address (See ADDRESSES).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions for FAA regarding the
meeting can be directed to Janet McLaughlin, Director, Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety, ADG-2, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
9432; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Questions regarding the
meeting for PHMSA can be directed to Shane Kelley, Assistant
International Standards Coordinator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, PHH-10, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC
20590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The transportation by air of lithium cells and batteries to, from,
or within the United States, and on U.S. registered aircraft operating
anywhere in the world is subject to the U.S. Hazardous Materials
Regulations (U.S. HMR).\1\ The U.S. HMR authorize the use of the ICAO
Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air
(ICAO TI) subject to certain conditions and limitations provided all or
part of the transportation is by air.\2\ Representatives from the FAA
and PHMSA participate in meetings of the ICAO DGP--the international
body responsible for the ICAO TI. In consultation with the DOT, FAA,
and other relevant government agencies, PHMSA works to periodically
harmonize the provisions of the U.S. HMR with international regulatory
approaches, including the ICAO TI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR parts 171-180.
    \2\ Lithium batteries are regulated as Class 9 miscellaneous
hazardous materials per the ICAO TI and the U.S. HMR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Safety Issue

    The transportation of lithium batteries by air continues to raise
significant safety concerns. Lithium batteries are known to be highly
flammable and capable of self-ignition. Ignition of lithium batteries
can be caused by a short circuit, overcharge, exposure to extreme
temperatures, mishandling, or a defect. Once a battery is induced into
such a state, either by internal failure or by external means such as
heating or physical damage, the battery can generate sufficient heat to
cause adjacent batteries to go into thermal runaway.
    Testing conducted by the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
(FAA Tech Center) has shown that heat and flames generated from thermal
runaway in a single package can spread to adjacent packages. According
to the International Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industries
Association (ICCAIA), Boeing, and other aircraft manufacturers, once an
event like this occurs, the fire suppression capabilities of an
aircraft may be exceeded,

potentially leading to a catastrophic loss of the aircraft because of a
fire that cannot be contained.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A copy of the working paper submitted to the ICAO DGP
Working Group Meeting held from April 27-May 1, 2015 is available at
http://www.icao.int/safety/DangerousGoods/DGPWG15/DGPWG.15.WP.004.5.en.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA Tech Center research and findings, available at http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov, support the ICCAIA's and aircraft manufacturers'
assessments. A fundamental concern highlighted by the FAA Tech Center's
research is that the cargo compartment fire protection standards were
not designed to address the unique hazards associated with the
transport of lithium batteries. Specific safety concerns include:
     The potential for propagation of thermal runaway between
cells or batteries in a package and between adjacent packages of
batteries;
     The potential for uncontrolled lithium battery fires to
overwhelm the capability of existing aircraft cargo fire protection
systems, leading to a catastrophic failure of the airframe; and
     The potential for venting of combustible gases from
lithium ion cells in thermal runaway, which could collect in an
enclosed environment and cause an explosion even in the presence of a
suppression agent.

DGP Multidisciplinary Working Group on Lithium Batteries

    In 2014, the ICAO DGP recognized that finding solutions to increase
the safety of lithium battery transportation would require a
multidisciplinary approach involving a wide range of experts, including
those from the fields of dangerous goods (hazardous materials),
aircraft operations, airworthiness, and battery manufacturing. This
layered approach involves battery design, packaging standards, quantity
limits, container capabilities, and fire suppression systems that can
establish conditions in which lithium batteries may be transported
without posing an unacceptable risk.
    To that end, in 2014, the ICAO Air Navigation Bureau organized two
International Multidisciplinary Lithium Battery Transport Coordination
Meetings. The first was held from February 4-6, 2014, in Atlantic City,
NJ, and the second was held from September 9-11, 2014, in Cologne,
Germany. Discussions during the first meeting focused primarily on
lithium metal batteries and the report from the first meeting,
including recommendations, can be found at: http://www.icao.int/safety/DangerousGoods/DGP/ICAO.LB.COORDINATION.Meeting.Report.pdf.
    The second multidisciplinary working group meeting continued the
work from the February 2014 meeting and developed fourteen
recommendations related to enhancing the safety of air transportation
of lithium batteries. These recommendations were forwarded by the
multidisciplinary group to the ICAO Dangerous Goods, Flight Operations,
and Airworthiness Panels for consideration. The report from the second
meeting, including all of the recommendations, can be found at: http://www.icao.int/safety/DangerousGoods/Second%20International%20Multidisciplinary%20Lithium%20Bat/ICAO.LB.COORDINATION.2ndMeeting.Report.pdf.
    In April 2015, the ICAO DGP reviewed the recommendations of the
multidisciplinary working group and prioritized the following efforts:
(1) Developing a performance-based provision to limit the probability
of propagation of thermal runaway between cells; (2) limiting lithium-
ion cells to a 30% state of charge during transport as an interim means
to reduce the probability of propagation of thermal runaway between
cells; and (3) developing a performance-based packaging standard.
    On July 28, 2015, a third multidisciplinary working group meeting
was convened to facilitate a focused discussion on the prioritized
recommendations and develop options for addressing the recommendations
for consideration by the ICAO DGP during the October 2015 meeting
regarding (1) performance-based packaging standards; (2) system safety
assessments for cargo aircraft; and (3) short term/interim actions that
may be necessary.

Recommendations for Consideration by the ICAO DGP in October 2015

    As a result of the July 2015 meeting of the multidisciplinary
group, draft performance criteria were discussed to improve the air
transportation of lithium batteries. In addition, the working group
considered a recommendation that would require operators to perform
safety risk assessments in order to establish whether they can manage
the risk associated with the transport of lithium batteries as cargo on
passenger or all cargo aircraft. With respect to the performance
criteria, the group favored an approach that would provide layers of
mitigation options to meet the performance criteria. The determination
of how to meet the performance criteria could be tailored to individual
circumstances and informed by a rigorous safety assessment. Finally the
group discussed additional measures that could be taken while a
performance standard is being developed.
    The draft performance criteria are based on the principle that the
hazardous effects associated with thermal runaway must remain within
the package. The criteria specify that no hazardous quantities of flame
and no hazardous fragments can exit the package. The surface
temperature of the package also must be limited to prevent thermal
runaway from spreading to adjacent packages and igniting adjacent
packing material. Specific test methods remain to be developed.
    The group recommended the following draft performance criteria, to
be met at either the package level or the battery/cell level:
     No hazardous amount of flame would be allowed outside of
the package.
     The external surface temperature of the package would not
exceed the amount that would ignite packaging material or cause
batteries or cells in adjacent packages to go into thermal runaway.
     No hazardous fragments would be able to exit the package
and the package would need to maintain its structural integrity.
     The quantity of flammable vapor would need to be less than
the amount of gas, that when mixed in air and ignited could cause a
pressure rise in a [2.8 m3 compartment] volume that could dislodge the
aircraft cargo compartment liners [3.44 kPa-6.89 kPa (.5 psi-1 psi)].
    In addition to these criteria, the working group also considered
whether performance criteria were necessary to address the risk
associated with an external fire potentially compromising a package;
however, there was no consensus reached on whether this should be part
of a performance standard. The group recognized that the development of
the means for compliance with the performance criteria could be done by
either an ICAO working group or an external standards development
organization.
    Additionally, the group recommended that operators perform a safety
risk assessment in order to establish if they could manage safely the
risks associated with the transport of lithium batteries as cargo on
passenger or all-cargo aircraft. In order to perform a safety risk
assessment, information on the types and quantities of lithium
batteries and cells being transported would need to be considered. The
very limited capabilities of the fire protection system

in a lithium battery fire event also would need to be considered. The
group also recommended that guidance on how to conduct and evaluate a
safety risk assessment be developed for operators. Guidance on safety
risk assessments for operators and oversight by regulators also is
expected to be addressed at the fall meeting of the ICAO Operations
Panel (Annex 6).
    Finally, the group was asked to consider additional interim
measures that could reduce risk in air transport, including measures
such as forbidding the carriage of lithium ion batteries as cargo on
passenger aircraft, eliminating the exceptions for certain small
batteries in Section II of the ICAO TI lithium battery packing
instructions, and reducing the state of charge of the battery in
transport. There was no consensus reached by the group on these
additional measures and no new recommendations were developed; however,
it is expected these topics may be discussed further within the
relevant ICAO Panels this fall.

Request for Public Input

    The DOT, FAA, and PHMSA request input from all industry
stakeholders and interested individuals on strategies to enhance the
safe transport of lithium batteries aboard passenger and cargo aircraft
by air, to include the foregoing options which are now under
consideration by the ICAO DGP, as well as the ICAO Operations and
Airworthiness Panels. To the extent that any of these options are
ultimately adopted as new standards or revisions to the ICAO TI,
consistent with 49 U.S.C. 5120, the Department may consider adopting
the standards or revised ICAO TI through a rulemaking action.
Therefore, the Department requests input at the upcoming public
meeting, as well as submissions to the docket on risk mitigation
strategies, information, and data to help further inform our work in
this area as we prepare to participate in the fall 2015 ICAO Panel
meetings regarding these subjects.
    Specifically, the Department invites comment and recommendations,
as well as any relevant supporting data, in the following areas:
     The draft performance criteria recommended by the third
multidisciplinary group and how the criteria might be met at the
packaging level or at the battery level to address the aviation fire
hazards that have been identified.
     The recommendation that operators be required to perform a
safety risk assessment in order to ensure management of the risks
associated with the transport of lithium batteries as cargo on
passenger or all-cargo aircraft to an acceptable level of safety.
     Additional measures which the group did not reach full
consensus on, including:
    [cir] Consideration of the effects of an external fire as an
element of the performance criteria to protect against the risks of a
fire not initiated by a battery within a package.
    [cir] Forbidding the carriage of lithium ion batteries as cargo on
passenger aircraft, as an interim measure.
    [cir] Eliminating the exceptions for certain small batteries in
Section II of the ICAO TI lithium battery packing instructions or
alternative means to identify the types and quantities of lithium
batteries or cells being transported in order to effectively inform a
safety risk assessment.
    [cir] Reducing the state of charge of the battery in transport.
     Qualitative and quantitative information on the potential
impacts of implementing the above recommendations and/or additional
measures, such as:
    [cir] Determination of the current level of exposure to these fire
hazards--Data or information on the volumes of batteries currently
transported on passenger aircraft or those utilizing the provisions of
section II of the ICAO TI.
    [cir] Establishment of the current baseline--Data or information
regarding the effectiveness of the current requirements, evolution in
the market, voluntary safety actions, and emerging safety risks.
    [cir] Potential benefits--Data or information providing estimates
of potential safety benefits related to the recommendations and
additional measures under consideration by ICAO, as well as
alternatives that provide comparable or greater safety benefits.
    [cir] Potential costs--Data or information providing estimates of
potential costs associated with the recommendations and additional
measures under consideration by ICAO.
    [cir] Studies or analysis on the effectiveness of the
recommendations and additional measures--Any studies that address how
lithium batteries in differing packaging types or at varying charge
states behave in aviation fire scenarios.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 24, 2015.
Kathryn B. Thomson,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-21416 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: December 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 243)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 75403-75411]
[DOCID:fr20de05-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 86

[FRL-8005-4]
RIN 2060-AJ77

Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor
Vehicle Engines; Modification of Federal On-Board Diagnostic
Regulations for: Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty Trucks, Medium Duty
Passenger Vehicles, Complete Heavy Duty Vehicles and Engines Intended
for Use in Heavy Duty Vehicles Weighing 14,000 Pounds GVWR or Less

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing certain requirements associated with the
Federal on-board diagnostic (OBD) system regulations. On June 17, 2003,
EPA published both a direct final rule and a concurrent notice of
proposed rulemaking (68 FR 35972 and 68 FR 35830 respectively) to amend
and revise certain provisions of the Federal OBD regulations. EPA
published the direct final rule believing that no adverse comments
would be received. However, due to the receipt of an adverse comment,
EPA published a partial withdrawal notice on August 14, 2003 (68 FR
48561) withdrawing two specific regulatory amendments included in the
direct final rule. The direct final rule, absent those two withdrawn
provisions, became effective on August 18, 2003.
    The purpose of this action is to finalize the portion of the direct
final rule that was withdrawn with the revisions suggested by the
commenters and to clarify several smaller issues that were raised by
industry during the comment period.

DATES: This final rule takes effect on February 21, 2006.

ADDRESSES: All comments and materials relevant to today's action are
contained in Public Docket No. OAR-2003-0080 (old legacy docket is A-
2002-20) at EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air
Docket) at the following address: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Public
Reading Room, Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460. Dockets may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on government holidays. You
can reach the Air Docket by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> and by
facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may be charged a reasonable fee for
photocopying docket materials, as provided in 40 CFR Part 2.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arvon Mitcham, U.S. EPA, National
Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, Certification and Compliance
Division, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor MI 48105; telephone (734) 214-
4522, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Regulated Entities: Entities potentially regulated by this action
are those which manufacture new motor vehicles and engines.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                      Examples of regulated entities    NAICS codes a    SIC codes b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................................  New motor vehicle and engine      33611, 336112,           3711
                                                 manufacturers.                           336120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code.
b Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) System Code.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities EPA is now aware could potentially
be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the
table could also be regulated. To determine whether your product is
regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in Sec.  86.005-17, Sec.  86.1806-04 and Sec.
86.1806-05 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
product, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Table of Contents

I. Electronic Availability
II. Introduction and Background
III. Requirements of the Final Rule
    A. Use of SAE J1939 Communication Protocol Beyond Model Year
2007
    B. Applicable Phase-Ins for OBD System Monitoring Requirements
for Federal Vehicles Certifying by Demonstrating Compliance With
California OBD II
    C. OBD System Design and Applicable Malfunction Thresholds for
Federal Vehicles Certifying by Demonstrating Compliance With
California OBD II
IV. Other Issues Raised by Industry During the Comment Period
    A. Production Vehicle Testing
    B. Enforcement
    C. Referencing the Final Version of CARB?s OBD II Regulations in
Title 13 California Code of Regulations Sec.  1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2)
V. Cost Effectiveness
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and 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 & Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Electronic Availability

    Today's action is available electronically on the day of
publication from EPA?s Federal Register Internet Web site listed below.
Electronic copies of this preamble, regulatory language, and other
documents associated with today's final rule are available from the EPA
Office of Transportation and Air Quality Web site listed below shortly
after the rule is signed by the Administrator. This service is free of
charge, except any cost that you already incur for connecting to the
Internet.
    EPA Federal Register Web Site: http://www. epa.gov/ docs/fedrgstr/

epa-air/.
    OTAQ's Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/url-fr.htm.

(Either select a desired date or use the Search feature.)

II. Introduction and Background

    On February 19, 1993, pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section
202(m), 42 U.S.C. 7521(m), EPA published a final rulemaking (58 FR
9468) requiring manufacturers of light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and light-
duty trucks (LDTs) to install on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems on such
vehicles beginning with the 1994 model year. The regulations
promulgated in that final rulemaking require manufacturers to install
OBD systems which monitor emission control components for any
malfunction or deterioration causing exceedance of certain emission
thresholds, and alert the vehicle operator to the need for repair. That
rulemaking also requires that, when a malfunction occurs, diagnostic
information must be stored in the vehicle's computer to assist the
technician in diagnosis and repair.
    Additionally, this original OBD regulation provided an allowance
for manufacturers to satisfy federal OBD requirements through the 1998
model year by installing OBD systems satisfying the OBD II requirements
promulgated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) pertaining to
those model years. On December 22, 1998 (63 FR 70681), EPA revised the
federal OBD regulations such that the allowance of compliance with the

California OBD II regulations (excluding anti-tampering provisions)
extended indefinitely, rather than applying only through the 1998 model
year. In addition, EPA updated the allowed version to the most recently
published version, at that time, CARB Mail-Out 97-24 (December
9, 1997).
    On June 17, 2003, EPA published both a direct final rule and a
concurrent notice of proposed rulemaking (68 FR 35972 and 68 FR 35830
respectively) to amend and revise certain provisions of the federal OBD
regulations. Among other several minor revisions, this action also
updated the allowed version of the California OBD II regulations; and
updated the incorporation by reference of standardized practices
developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to incorporate
recently published versions. This action also incorporated by reference
a new standardized protocol developed by the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO 15765-4.3) and established a future date,
model year 2008, by which this protocol would be the only acceptable
protocol.
    EPA received comments from the Engine Manufacturers Association
(EMA) and Cummins that the direct final rule did not continue to allow
the use of the heavy-duty communication protocol, SAE J1939, as
currently allowed under the Federal OBD and CARB OBD II requirements,
beyond the 2007 model year for vehicles that are not optionally
certified to CARB's 1968.2 OBD II requirements. EMA commented that the
direct final rule required that 2008 and later model year heavy-duty
engines and vehicles under 14,000 lbs. GVWR that are certified to the
Federal OBD technical monitoring requirements must use the ISO 15765-
4.3 communication protocol. EMA and Cummins commented that this is not
consistent with CARB's requirements for medium duty vehicles (between
8500 and 14,000 lbs. GVWR), nor is it consistent with the existing
communication protocols developed for the unique operational
characteristics of heavy-duty vehicles. As a result, EPA withdrew the
portion of the direct final rule establishing the requirement that by
model year 2008, ISO 15765-4.3 would be the only acceptable protocol.
This final action addresses the comments of EMA and Cummins and
finalizes revised regulations incorporating those comments.
    In addition, EPA received comments from the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (``the Alliance'') and the Association of International
Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) requesting clarification of certain
aspects of the direct final rule. The Alliance and AIAM requested that
their comments not be considered ``adverse'' unless their understanding
of EPA's intent was incorrect. The Alliance and AIAM specifically
expressed interest that EPA clarify that the new OBD requirements, as
applied to Tier 2 vehicles, would be phased-in on the same schedule as
CARB's LEV II program. As explained below, EPA believes it appropriate
to clarify not only this phase-in requirement but also to clarify what
malfunction thresholds apply when comparing LEV II and Tier 2 programs.
The Alliance and AIAM also sought clarification from EPA as to whether
production testing for OBD would be required and whether EPA was
adopting CARB's new enforcement specific provisions relating to OBD.
Because EPA is further clarifying its intent and does not disagree with
commenters' understanding, EPA did not consider these comments adverse.
Finally, the Alliance and AIAM requested that EPA reference the final
version of CARB's OBD II regulations contained in Title 13 California
Code of Regulations 1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2)), as modified, approved and
filed on April 21, 2003. At the time, EPA referenced the latest version
of the CARB OBD II regulations contained in CARB Mail-Out MSCD
02-11 (October 7, 2002) to allow manufacturer OBD
certification according to the optional compliance provisions in
paragraph (j) of the Federal OBD Regulations. This final action will
address those comments as well.

III. Requirements of the Final Rule

A. Use of SAE J1939 Communication Protocol Beyond Model Year 2007

    In the June 17, 2003 Direct Final Rule, EPA incorporated by
reference a new, optional standardized communication protocol, ISO
15765-4.3:2001, December 14, 2001, ``Road Vehicles-Diagnostics on
Controller Area Network (CAN)--Part 4: Requirements for emission-
related systems'' at 500 kilobytes per second (kbps) baud rate, that
can be used by manufacturers to design OBD systems. The standardized
communication protocols provide a uniform language structure that
facilitates compatibility between OBD II equipped vehicles and OBD II-
related equipment. Manufacturers of light-duty vehicles and trucks are
planning to implement this new protocol on vehicles, and some have done
so as early as the 2003 MY, in addition to the existing communication
protocols: SAE J1939, SAE J1850, ISO 9141, and ISO 14230-4.
    In addition, EPA also included a provision that, commencing in the
2008 model year, would have required manufacturers to use this new
communication protocol, ISO 15765-4.3 (500 kbps baud rate) for vehicles
and engines below 14,000 lbs. The currently allowed communication
protocols (SAE J1939, SAE J1850, ISO 9141, and ISO 14230-4) would have
been eliminated for vehicles and engines below 14,000 lbs. Therefore,
with the 2008 model year, the other, currently-accepted protocols: SAE
J1939, SAE J1850, ISO 9141-2 and ISO 14230-4, would no longer be
accepted for all vehicles and engines below 14,000 lbs. and all
manufacturers of vehicles and engines below 14,000 lbs. would have been
required to implement OBD systems using only ISO 15765-4.3 (500 kbps
baud rate).
    The Direct Final Rule did not distinguish between medium-duty
vehicles (at or above 8500 and 14000 pounds GVWR) and light-duty
vehicles and trucks (below 8500 pounds). While no one objected to this
provision as it applied to light-duty vehicles and trucks, EMA and
Cummins commented that this provision would unintentionally eliminate
the use of SAE J1939 for vehicles and engines between 8500 and 14000
pounds GVWR. EPA believes that it is reasonable to allow medium-duty
engine and vehicle manufacturers between 8500 and 14000 pounds GVWR to
continue to use communication protocol SAE J1939 beyond the 2008 model
year along with the new protocol.
    Therefore, EPA is finalizing a provision requiring that the only
allowable protocols will be ISO 15765-4.3 (500 kbps baud rate) for
vehicles 8500 pounds GVWR and below and either SAE J1939 or ISO 15765-
4.3 (500 kbps baud rate) for vehicles 8500 to 14000 pounds GVWR
beginning with the 2008 MY. Accordingly, with the 2008 model year, the
other currently-accepted protocols SAE J1850, ISO 9141-2 and ISO 14230-
4, would no longer be accepted.

B. Applicable Phase-Ins for OBD System Monitoring Requirements for
Federal Vehicles Certifying by Demonstrating Compliance With California
OBD II

    EPA received comment from the Alliance and AIAM regarding the
certification of federal Tier 2 vehicles to California OBD II
regulations that reference California LEV II standards. CARB's
regulations phase-in additional OBD requirements to coincide with the
phase-in of LEV II vehicles. Beginning

in the 2004 model year, CARB phases in new OBD II requirements to
coincide with the LEV II requirements at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent
over four model years. The new OBD II requirements are for:
NOX conversion capability (Title 13 CCR 1968.2 (e)(1.2.2)),
secondary air monitoring (Title 13 CCR 1968.2 (e)(5.2.3)), continuous
oxygen sensor monitoring (Title 13 CCR 1968.2 (e)(7.3.1)(B)(ii) and
(e)(7.3.2)(B)(ii)), cold start emission reduction strategy monitoring
(Title 13 CCR 1968.2 (e)(11.1.1)), crankshaft and camshaft alignment
for variable valve timing (VVT)- and timing belt/chain-equipped
vehicles (Title 13 CCR 1968.2 (e)(16.1.2)), and MIL illumination for
comprehensive component malfunctions on SULEV II applications only if
they cause emissions increase equal to or greater than 25% (Title 13
CCR 1968.2 (e)(16.4.2)(A)).
    These provisions create some confusion for vehicles that are
certifying to Federal emission requirements during those four years but
using the option of meeting federal OBD requirements by demonstrating
compliance with California's OBDII regulations. Since EPA's regulations
do not reference California's LEV II regulations, the provisions of
California's OBD II regulations that distinguish LEV II vehicles do not
directly correspond to federal regulations; in particular, EPA's Tier 2
regulations.
    The Alliance and AIAM commented that EPA's Direct Final Rule was
not clear on how OBD requirements that apply only to LEV II vehicles
would be applied to vehicles certified to EPA's Tier 2 emissions
standards. The Alliance and AIAM further commented that it has been
EPA's policy in the past to require the same OBD requirements for a
specific model vehicle produced for sale outside of California as those
that apply in that model year for that model vehicle in California. The
Alliance and AIAM asked EPA to confirm their position on this policy
and to issue guidance as appropriate to verify EPA's position.
    EPA's Tier 2 standards follow a phase-in that is similar to the
phase-in of LEV II controls in California. Tier 2 standards begin for
all vehicles in the 2004 model year but have a phase-in of final Tier 2
vehicle emission standards of 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent in the 2004,
2005 2006 and 2007 model years, respectively, and a corresponding
phase-out for interim non-Tier 2 vehicle emission standards of 75, 50,
25, and 0% over those four model years. This allows the phase-in of the
new California OBD II requirements to be phased-in to the federal fleet
in generally the same time frame as the California fleet, using the
phase-in of the final Tier 2 standards as a general surrogate to the
phase-in of LEV II standards, recognizing that there is likely to be
considerable correspondence between vehicles certified to LEV II
standards in California to vehicles certified to final Tier 2 standards
federally.
    EPA agrees with the comments made by the Alliance and AIAM that we
reiterate our intentions to maintain the current policy that allows
OEMs to phase-in CARB's new OBD II monitoring requirements on the same
schedule for vehicles sold outside of California (for those vehicles
certified by EPA to the ``50 State'' or ``49 State'' standards).
Therefore, the phase-in of CARB's LEV II OBD II requirements for the
monitors outlined above generally should meet the same phase-in and be
phased in with the Federal Tier 2 final emission standards at 25, 50,
75, and 100 percent as specified in EPA's Tier 2 regulation over four
model years and shall apply to vehicles sold outside of California. EPA
recognizes that there may not be exact correspondence between the
levels of LEV II vehicles sold in California and the levels of
corresponding vehicles sold federally, and thus is not requiring exact
correspondence to the phase-in levels for final Tier 2 standards, but
EPA is expecting relatively similar levels during the phase-in years.

C. OBD System Design and Applicable Malfunction Thresholds for Federal
Vehicles Certifying by Demonstrating Compliance With California OBD II

    In reviewing the comments from the Alliance/AIAM discussed above,
EPA realized that it may not be clear in some cases what the applicable
OBD malfunction threshold is for Federal vehicles certifying to Federal
OBD requirements by showing compliance with CARB OBD II regulations.
Traditionally, OEMs certifying to EPA emissions standards but
optionally complying with CARB OBD II requirements would use the
applicable CARB OBD II malfunction thresholds (i.e., 1.75 times the
applicable standard) as a multiplier for the applicable EPA emission
thresholds. Although this optional compliance allowed manufacturers to
certify a CARB OBD II system on a federal vehicle, the applicable EPA
emission standards must be applied, in lieu of the California emission
standards, when certifying a Federal vehicle or engine. This was
possible in the past without further clarification because the
relationship of the malfunction thresholds to the underlying standards
under the OBD II regulations was not tied to the type of California
vehicle (e.g. TLEV, LEV, ULEV, etc) being certified. However, because
the revised California OBD II standards have different multiples based
on the type of California LEV II vehicle being certified, and because
LEV II emission bins are not identical to the emission bins for the
federal Tier 2 program,\1\ EPA needs to clarify the manner in which the
thresholds in California's OBDII requirements should be incorporated
into the federal requirements. Therefore, EPA is adding regulatory
language to clarify this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ There is one instance where an EPA Tier 2 bin does not have
a corresponding CARB LEV II emissions category, (bin 4), and two
other instances concerning OBD where the EPA and CARB emission
standards for individual criteria pollutants are not identical: The
NOx standard for Tier 2 Bin 3 and the CO standards for Tier 2 Bin 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is clarifying that vehicles certified to Federal Tier II
emissions standards but complying with Federal OBD by showing
compliance with CARB OBD II regulations are subject to all OBD
monitoring requirements applicable to LEV II applications (subject to
the phase-in discussed above), but shall use Tier 2 emissions standards
for the purposes of determining malfunction thresholds as described
below. CARB has similar provisions in their OBD II regulations
contained in Title 13 CCR 1968.2 (c)(20), and (e)(18.1.3) but these
provisions only relate to vehicles and engines certified for use in
California (i.e., California-only or 50-state vehicles and engines).
    Where the Federal standards correspond directly to California
standards, this operation is simple, as the manufacture would simply
use the thresholds in the OBD II regulations that correspond to the
California LEV II vehicle type (e.g. ULEV, SULEV) matching the Federal
bin to which the federal vehicle is certified. As noted above, there is
one instance where an EPA Tier 2 bin does not have a corresponding CARB
LEV II Program emissions category and the emission standards serving as
the basis for calculating the malfunction thresholds are not identical.
Tier 2 Bin 4 NMOG standard of 0.07 g/mi, and NOX standard of
0.04 g/mi and CO standard of 2.1 g/mi, has no corresponding CARB LEV II
Program' emissions category. This Tier 2 bin falls between the CARB LEV
II Program LEV II emissions category ( 0.09 g/mi NMOG, NOX
standard of 0.07 g/mi and CO standard of 2.1 g/mi) and the ULEV II
emissions category (0.055 g/mi NMOG, 0.07 g/mi NOX, 2.1 g/mi
CO). Using the NMOG

criteria pollutant as an example, the table below highlights this
dilemma (all numbers in grams per mile):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Tier 2 Full                                  California LEV
                                   Useful Life                                  II Full Useful   California LEV
    Federal Tier 2 bin number         NMOG       Federal  OBD    CARB  OBD II      Life NMOG      II emissions
                                    emission    NMOG threshold  NMOG threshold     emission         category
                                    standards                                      standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5...............................         0.09          0.1575          0.1575            0.09   LEV II.
4...............................         0.07          0.1225   ..............  ..............  ................
3...............................         0.055         0.09625         0.09625           0.055  ULEVII.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we are clarifying in this final rule the method and the
appropriate malfunction threshold values for a vehicle or engine
certified to Tier 2 Bin 4 but optionally complying with CARB OBD II
which is to use the Tier 2 Bin 4 emission standards and the CARB ULEV
II multiplicative factors for all pollutants except NOX,
(e.g., 1.75 times the standard for NMOG, CO and PM catalyst monitoring,
1.5 times the standard for all other monitors except comprehensive
components) and the SULEV II multiplicative emission factors for
NOX (e.g. for LDVs, 3.5 times the NOX emission
standard for model years 2005 and 2006 and 2.5 times the NOX
emission standard for model year 2007 and beyond for catalyst
monitoring; 2.5 times the emission standard for all other
NOX monitors except comprehensive components) to determine
the appropriate OBD malfunction threshold.
    In addition, there are two instances where the EPA Tier 2 and CARB
LEV II emission standards for individual criteria pollutants are not
identical: The NOX standard for Tier 2 Bin 3, which is 0.03
g/mi, compared the 0.07 g/mi standard for ULEVs, and the CO standard
for Tier 2 Bin 2, which is 2.1 g/mile, compared to 1.0 g/mile for
SULEVs.
    To resolve these issues, vehicles certified to Tier 2, Bin 3
emissions standards shall utilize the Tier 2 Bin 3 NOX
emission standards and the CARB SULEV II multiplicative factors to
determine the appropriate OBD malfunction threshold. Vehicles certified
to Tier 2, Bin 2 emissions standards shall utilize the Tier 2 Bin 2 CO
emission standards and the CARB SULEV II multiplicative factors to
determine the appropriate OBD malfunction threshold. For vehicles
certified to federal bin 7 and higher, manufacturers must use the
multipliers for Cal LEV II vehicles and the federal standards to
determine their thresholds.

IV. Other Issues Raised by Industry During the Comment Period

A. Production Vehicle Testing

    The Alliance and AIAM commented that the CARB OBDII regulations
require manufacturers to conduct production vehicle testing. The
Alliance and AIAM requested that EPA clarify that production vehicle
testing would not be required on federal vehicles certified to the CARB
OBDII regulations. As an alternative, vehicle manufacturers said they
would provide EPA copies of the final production vehicle evaluation
reports that are provided to CARB as part of their certification
process.
    EPA agrees with the Alliance and AIAM comments that federal OBD
regulations do not explicitly require manufacturers to conduct
production vehicle testing. However, manufacturers who intend to meet
the Federal OBD requirements by meeting the CARB OBDII requirements may
be required to submit the same information that is submitted to CARB in
order for EPA to make its own determinations of compliance. As a
result, although EPA will not require the manufacturers to conduct
production vehicle testing, the EPA may use the reports from the
production vehicle testing program to assess in-use compliance. This is
consistent with EPA policy to use all available information from the
field to assess in-use compliance, of which the manufacturers are
aware.

B. Enforcement

    The Alliance and AIAM requested that EPA clarify that the new
enforcement provisions finalized in the CARB OBDII regulations (section
1968.5) are not being adopted by EPA and that EPA will continue to
conduct independent evaluations before determining enforcement actions.
    EPA agrees with the Alliance and AIAM that our Direct Final Rule
did not adopt the enforcement provisions enacted by CARB. EPA has no
current intent to adopt such provisions. We will continue to conduct
our own independent assessments and evaluations of manufacturer
compliance before pursuing enforcement actions. However, EPA will
continue to use all available information, including, but not limited
to, any information collected by CARB in making our compliance and
enforcement determinations.

C. Referencing the Final Version of CARB's OBD II Regulations in Title
13 California Code of Regulations 1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2)

    The Alliance and AIAM requested that EPA reference the final
version of CARB's OBD II regulations contained in Title 13 California
Code of Regulations 1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2) under paragraph (j) of the
Federal OBD regulations allowing optional compliance with CARB OBD II
requirements. The final version of CARB's OBD II Regulations Title 13
California Code of Regulations 1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2) was approved by
the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and filed with the
California Secretary of State on April 23, 2003.
    The EPA agrees with this recommendation and will reference CARB?s
OBD II Regulations Title 13 California Code of Regulations 1968.2 (13
CCR 1968.2) (April 23, 2003) in paragraph (j) of the Federal OBD
regulations in this regulatory action.

V. Cost Effectiveness

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to clarify existing provisions of
EPA's OBD regulations. As a result, there are no cost effectiveness
issues for this action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency is required to determine whether this regulatory action would be
``significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as any
regulatory action 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, we have determined
that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Today's action does not impose any new information collection
burden. The modifications noted above do not change the information
collection requirements submitted to and approved by OMB in association
with the OBD final rulemakings (58 FR 9468, February 19, 1993; and 59
FR 38372, July 28, 1994 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. However, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection
requirements contained in the existing regulations (64 FR 23906) under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0104, EPA ICR number 0783.47.
A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Requests (ICR) may be
obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis of any proposed 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 today's final rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) Those businesses
meeting the definition provided by the Small Business Administration
(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.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Today's
action provides clarification and correct reference information and
does not add new regulatory burden on small entities. Periodically EPA
must update its regulations to incorporate by reference any new
applicable communication protocols (including those set forth by the
SAE and the ISO) to be used by the OBD system. EPA had unnecessarily
deleted the allowance of a certain SAE protocol for 2007 and later
model year heavy-duty vehicles in a previous rulemaking and by today's
final rule that protocol is placed back into the regulation.
    Second, the phase-in of the new OBD II regulations in California is
tied to a phase in of their new emission standards called LEV II (the
second round of low-emission vehicle standards) that commence in the
2004 model year. EPA's Tier 2 emission standards (that also commences
in 2004) are phased in with a similar schedule as LEV II and therefore,
based on manufacturers' request, we are clarifying that those
manufacturers that choose to optionally certify their federal vehicles
to CARB's OBD II regulations may do so based on the same phase-in of
OBD II as allowed within California. However, because in a very few
instances the emission standard levels of LEV II and Tier 2 do not
completely match, we are also clarifying within the regulations what
emission malfunction thresholds and emission levels apply to federal
vehicles certified as meeting the OBD II regulations.
    We are also adding reference to the final CARB ``Mail-out'' number
for CARB's OBD II regulation as finalized. In addition, we have added
clarification of whether EPA was adopting some of CARB's ancillary OBD
II regulations such as the testing requirements on production vehicles
and CARB's unique in-use testing and enforcement requirements. By
today's action we are clarifying that EPA did not adopt such
requirements by the direct final rule and is not otherwise doing so.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments, and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more for
any single year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative that is
not the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if we provide an explanation in the final rule of why such
an alternative was adopted.
    Before we establish any regulatory requirement that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, we must develop a small government plan pursuant to
section 203 of the UMRA. Such a plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, and enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and

timely input in the development of our regulatory proposals with
significant federal intergovernmental mandates. The plan must also
provide for informing, educating, and advising small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    This rule contains no federal mandates for state, local, or tribal
governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The
rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these governmental
entities. Nor does this rule have any Federal mandates that may result
in the expenditures of $100 million or more in any year by the private
sector as also defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA.
Nothing in the rule will significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires us 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''.
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or we consult
with state and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts state law, unless the Agency
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    Section 4 of the Executive Order contains additional requirements
for rules that preempt state or local law, even if those rules do not
have federalism implications (i.e., the rules 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). Those
requirements include providing all affected state and local officials
notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the
development of the regulation. If the preemption is not based on
express or implied statutory authority, we also must consult, to the
extent practicable, with appropriate state and local officials
regarding the conflict between state law and federally protected
interests within the agency's area of regulatory responsibility.
    This rule 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. This rule updates provisions of an
earlier rule that adopted national standards relating to OBD systems
and the ability of manufacturers to demonstrate Federal compliance
based on demonstration of compliance with California OBD II
regulations. The requirements of the rule will be enforced by the
Federal government at the national level. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Today's
rule would not uniquely affect the communities of American Indian
tribal governments since the motor vehicle fuel and other related
requirements for private businesses in today's rule have national
applicability. Furthermore, today's rule does not impose any direct
compliance costs on these communities and no circumstances specific to
such communities exist that will cause an impact on these communities
beyond those discussed in the other sections of today's document.
    This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities
of Indian tribal governments. As noted above, this rule will be
implemented at the Federal level and imposes compliance obligations and
options on private industry. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, 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 we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, section 5-501 of the Executive Order directs us to
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 us.
    EPA interprets E.O. 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 final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045
because it is based on technology performance and not on health or
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), section 12(d) of Public Law 104-113, directs us to
use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory activities unless
it 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) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
    This final rule references technical standards adopted by us
through previous rulemakings. Specifically, this rule references
technical standards developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) and the International

Standards Organization (ISO) related to the design and function of On-
Board Diagnostic (OBD) systems on motor vehicles and engines below
14,000 pounds gross vehice weight rating, for which today's action
applies. No new technical standards are established in today's rule.

Statutory and Legal Authority

    Statutory authority for today's final rule comes from the Clean Air
Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., in particular, section 202(m) of the Act
(42 U.S.C. 7521(m)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86

    Environmental Protection, Incorporation by reference,
Administrative practice and procedure, Motor vehicle pollution, On-
board diagnostics.

    Dated: November 29, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 86 of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended 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.

0
2. Section 86.005-17 is amended by adding paragraph (h)(3) and revising
paragraph (j) to read as follows:
* * * * *

Sec.  86.005-17  On-board diagnostics.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (3) Beginning with the 2008 model year and beyond, ISO 15765-
4.3:2001 ``Road Vehicles-Diagnostics on Controller Area Network (CAN)--
Part 4: Requirements for emission-related systems'', (December 14,
2001) shall be the only acceptable protocol used for standardized on-
board to off-board communications for vehicles below 8500 pounds. For
vehicles 8500 to 14000 pounds ISO 15765-4.3 or the SAE J1939 series of
standards (SAE J1939-11, J1939-13, J1939-21, J1939-31, J1939-71, J1939-
73, J1939-81). All other standardized on-board to off-board
communications protocols: SAE J1850 ``Class B Data Communication
Network Interface,'' (Revised, May 2001) in (h)(1)(i), ISO 9141-2
``Road vehicles--Diagnostic systems--Part 2: CARB requirements for
interchange of digital information,'' (February 1, 1994) in (h)(2)(i),
and ISO 14230-4 ``Road vehicles--Diagnostic systems--KWP 2000
requirements for Emission-related systems'', (June 1, 2000) in
paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section will at that time no longer be
accepted.
* * * * *
    (j) California OBDII compliance option. For heavy-duty engines
weighing 14,000 pounds GVWR or less, demonstration of compliance with
California OBD II requirements (Title 13 California Code of Regulations
Sec.  1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2)), as modified, approved and filed on April
21, 2003, shall satisfy the requirements of this section, except that
compliance with 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(4.2.2)(C), pertaining to 0.02 inch
evaporative leak detection, and 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to
tampering protection, are not required to satisfy the requirements of
this section. Also, the deficiency provisions of 13 CCR 1968.2(i) do
not apply. The deficiency provisions of paragraph (i) of this section
and the evaporative leak detection requirement of paragraph (b)(4) of
this section apply to manufacturers selecting this paragraph for
demonstrating compliance. In addition, demonstration of compliance with
13 CCR 1968.2(e)(16.2.1)(C), to the extent it applies to the
verification of proper alignment between the camshaft and crankshaft,
applies only to vehicles equipped with variable valve timing.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 86.1806-04 is amended by revising paragraph (j) and adding
paragraph (l) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1806-04  On-board diagnostics.

* * * * *
    (j) California OBDII compliance option. For heavy-duty engines
weighing 14,000 pounds GVWR or less, demonstration of compliance with
California OBD II requirements (Title 13 California Code of Regulations
Sec.  1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2)), as modified, approved and filed on April
21, 2003, shall satisfy the requirements of this section, except that
compliance with 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(4.2.2)(C), pertaining to 0.02 inch
evaporative leak detection, and 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to
tampering protection, are not required to satisfy the requirements of
this section. Also, the deficiency provisions of 13 CCR 1968.2(i) do
not apply. The deficiency provisions of paragraph (i) of this section
and the evaporative leak detection requirement of paragraph (b)(4) of
this section apply to manufacturers selecting this paragraph for
demonstrating compliance. In addition, demonstration of compliance with
13 CCR 1968.2(e)(16.2.1)(C), to the extent it applies to the
verification of proper alignment between the camshaft and crankshaft,
applies only to vehicles equipped with variable valve timing.
* * * * *
    (l) Thresholds for California OBD II Compliance Option. For the
purposes of complying with the provisions set forth above in paragraph
(j), vehicles certified to Tier 2 standards shall utilize
multiplicative factors from the California vehicle type (i.e. LEV II,
ULEV II) corresponding to the Tier 2 to which the vehicles are
certified. Vehicles certified to Tier 2, Bin 4 emissions standards
shall utilize the Tier 2 Bin 4 emission standards and the CARB ULEV II
multiplicative factors to determine the appropriate OBD malfunction
threshold for all pollutants except NOX, for which they
shall utilize that CARB SULEV II multiplicative factors. Vehicles
certified to Tier 2, Bin 3 emissions standards shall utilize the Tier 2
Bin 3 emission standards and the CARB ULEV II multiplicative factors to
determine the appropriate OBD malfunction threshold for all pollutants
except NOX, for which they shall utilize that CARB SULEV II
multiplicative factors. Vehicles certified to Tier 2, Bin 2 emissions
standards shall utilize the Tier 2 Bin 2 emission standards and the
CARB SULEV II multiplicative factors to determine the appropriate OBD
malfunction threshold. Vehicles certified to Tier 2 Bin 7 or higher
shall utilize the CARB LEV II multiplicative factors to determine the
appropriate OBD malfunction threshold.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 86.1806-05 is amended by adding paragraphs (h)(3) and (m)
and revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1806-05  On-board diagnostics.

* * * * *
     (h) * * *
    (3) Beginning with the 2008 model year and beyond, ISO 15765-4.3:
2001 ``Road Vehicles-Diagnostics on Controller Area Network (CAN)--Part
4: Requirements for emission-related systems'', (December 14, 2001)
shall be the only acceptable protocol used for standardized on-board to
off-board communications for vehicles below 8500 pounds. For vehicles
8500 to 14000 pounds ISO 15765-4.3 or the SAE J1939 series of standards
(SAE J1939-11, J1939-13, J1939-21, J1939-31, J1939-71, J1939-73, J1939-
81). All other standardized on-board to off-board communications
protocols: SAE J1850 ``Class B Data Communication Network Interface,''
(Revised, May 2001) in paragraph (h)(1)(i), ISO 9141-2 ``Road
vehicles--Diagnostic systems--Part 2: CARB requirements for interchange
of digital information,'' (February 1, 1994)

in (h)(2)(i), and ISO 14230-4 ``Road vehicles--Diagnostic systems--KWP
2000 requirements for Emission-related systems'', (June 1, 2000) in
paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section will at that time no longer be
accepted
* * * * *
    (j) California OBDII compliance option. For heavy-duty engines
weighing 14,000 pounds GVWR or less, demonstration of compliance with
California OBD II requirements (Title 13 California Code of Regulations
1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2)), as modified, approved and filed on April 21,
2003, shall satisfy the requirements of this section, except that
compliance with 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(4.2.2)(C), pertaining to 0.02 inch
evaporative leak detection, and 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to
tampering protection, are not required to satisfy the requirements of
this section. Also, the deficiency provisions of 13 CCR 1968.2(i) do
not apply. The deficiency provisions of paragraph (i) of this section
and the evaporative leak detection requirement of paragraph (b)(4) of
this section apply to manufacturers selecting this paragraph for
demonstrating compliance. In addition, demonstration of compliance with
13 CCR 1968.2(e)(16.2.1)(C), to the extent it applies to the
verification of proper alignment between the camshaft and crankshaft,
applies only to vehicles equipped with variable valve timing.
* * * * *
    (m) Thresholds for California OBD II Compliance Option. For the
purposes of complying with the provisions set forth above in paragraph
(j), vehicles certified to Tier 2 standards shall utilize
multiplicative factors from the California vehicle type (i.e. LEV II,
ULEV II) corresponding to the Tier 2 to which the vehicles are
certified. Vehicles certified to Tier 2, Bin 4 emissions standards
shall utilize the Tier 2 Bin 4 emission standards and the CARB ULEV II
multiplicative factors to determine the appropriate OBD malfunction
threshold for all pollutants except NOX, for which they
shall utilize that CARB SULEV II multiplicative factors. Vehicles
certified to Tier 2, Bin 3 emissions standards shall utilize the Tier 2
Bin 3 emission standards and the CARB ULEV II multiplicative factors to
determine the appropriate OBD malfunction threshold for all pollutants
except NOX, for which they shall utilize that CARB SULEV II
multiplicative factors. Vehicles certified to Tier 2, Bin 2 emissions
standards shall utilize the Tier 2 Bin 2 emission standards and the
CARB SULEV II multiplicative factors to determine the appropriate OBD
malfunction threshold. Vehicles certified to Tier 2 Bin 7 or higher
shall utilize the CARB LEV II multiplicative factors to determine the
appropriate OBD malfunction threshold.

[FR Doc. 05-23669 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P