Extension of Temporary Exhaust Emission Test Procedure Option for
All Terrain Vehicles
[Federal Register: April 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 80)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20730-20735]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26ap07-11]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 1051
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0858; FRL-8305-8]
RIN 2060-A035
Extension of Temporary Exhaust Emission Test Procedure Option for
All Terrain Vehicles
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In a rule published November 8, 2002, EPA promulgated new
emission standards for recreational vehicles beginning in model year
2006. This included a newly regulated class of nonroad vehicles/engines
commonly referred to as all-terrain vehicles. In that rulemaking, a
temporary provision was included allowing manufacturers to test all-
terrain vehicles over a steady-state, engine-based, duty cycle for
exhaust emissions prior to the 2009 model year in lieu of the
transient, chassis-based, Federal Test Procedure which was effective
for 2006 and later model years. In this rulemaking we are taking direct
final action to extend the availability of this temporary provision for
in some cases up to an additional six model years. More specifically,
manufacturers would have to certify exhaust emission engine families
representing not less than 50 percent of their US-directed production
on the Federal Test Procedure in model year 2014 and 100 percent in
2015. Manufacturers with only one all terrain vehicle exhaust emission
engine family would not be required to use the Federal Test Procedure
until the 2015 model year. For those manufacturers who have not yet
done so, this will allow additional time to certify to the previously
promulgated Federal Test Procedure-based emission standards using
either contract facilities or by obtaining in-house capability.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on June 25, 2007, without
further notice, unless we receive adverse comments by May 29, 2007 or a
request for a public hearing by May 11, 2007. If EPA receives such
comments or such a request, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that
the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0858, by one of the following methods:
? http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
? E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov
? Fax: (202) 566-1741
? Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460. Please include two
copies.
? Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Room: 3334 Mail Code: 6102T, 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-
2006-0858. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other infonnation whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
[[Page 20731]]
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket
Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
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., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 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
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Samulski, Assessment and
Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-
4532; fax number: (734) 214-4050; email address:
samulski.michael@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Why is EPA Using a Direct Final Rule?
EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposal because we
view this action as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comment.
However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register
publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as
the proposal to adopt the provisions in this Direct Final Rule if
adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further
information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of
this document.
If EPA receives adverse comment or a request for public hearing, we
will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We would
address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule.
II. Does This Action Apply to Me?
This action will affect companies that manufacture and certify all-
terrain vehicles for sale in the United States.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS code \a\ potentially affected
entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................... 336999 Snowmobiles and all-
terrain vehicle
manufacturers.
Industry.......................... 421110 Independent
commercial
importers of
vehicles and parts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
To determine whether particular activities may be affected by this
action, you should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct
questions regarding the applicability of this action as noted in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
III. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
? Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
? Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
? Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
? Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
? If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
? Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
? Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
? Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
IV. Summary of Rule
The current exhaust emission standards for all-terrain vehicles
(ATVs) are based on the use of the chassis-based transient emission
test cycle used for Class I highway motorcycles. These emission
standards first took effect in the 2006 model year. As an option,
section 1051.145(b) of the regulations includes a temporary provision
which allows ATV manufacturers to certify their products for exhaust
emissions over a steady-state, engine-based, duty cycle. This option is
now in place for model years 2006-2008, inclusive. This option has
existed in California since 1997 and it is permanently available under
the California regulations. Until recently, for their California
certification most manufacturers have elected to use the optional
engine cycle. EPA included the optional test cycle in its rule because
it enabled the implementation of emission controls for ATVs several
years earlier than otherwise would have been possible if ATV
manufacturers had been required to certify their products on the
chassis-based FTP. For many manufacturers, additional lead time would
have been required to procure and install the necessary chassis
dynamometers and related emissions measurement equipment, train
technicians, and then to certify their products on this chassis cycle.
In this rulemaking, we are extending the availability of this option
for reasons described below.
The steady-state duty cycle, often referred to as J1088, has six
modes and was originally developed to represent the operation of small
utility engines. It only includes engine operation at idle and one
other speed. During the course of the original rulemaking, EPA
expressed its concern that the J1088 test cycle misses substantial
portions of typical ATV operation. EPA stated that it preferred using
the transient motorcycle FTP as the basis for the test procedures and
emission standards in a long-term ATV program. However, many
manufacturers expressed support for the long-term use of the optional
test procedure to certify their engines, as was allowed in California,
primarily due to costs associated with installing
[[Page 20732]]
chassis dynamometer facilities capable of meeting FTP requirements.
EPA recognized the manufacturers' interests regarding facility
costs associated with FTP testing for ATVs. During the rulemaking, EPA
discussed the possibility of developing a new test cycle specifically
for ATVs. EPA discussed its intent to work with all interested parties
to determine whether a new test cycle and accompanying standards would
be appropriate. By finalizing the temporary J1088 option, EPA provided
time to develop, and if appropriate, adopt and implement an alternative
to the FTP that meets the needs of the Agency, manufacturers, and other
parties. EPA indicated that it would consider extending the
availability of the J1088 option beyond the 2008 model year, if
necessary, to give more time to adopt changes to the ATV test cycle.
Soon after the final rule was published for the ATV emission
standards, EPA entered a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the
California Air Resources Board, the Motorcycle Industry Council, and
the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, regarding ATV test cycle
development and implementation with the goal of developing and
implementing a test cycle for ATVs that would be agreed to by all
participants. In response to the MOU, the manufacturers collected data
on ATV operating characteristics in the field (speed, load, etc.) in an
attempt to better inform the signatories to the MOU on the operating
characteristics of these vehicles. This data was provided to EPA in
November 2005 together with a manufacturer concept on a possible steady
state test cycle derived from this field data and some data comparing
emissions on this cycle to those on the FTP. This information is
available in the public docket for this rulemaking.
EPA very carefully considered the data and analyses provided by the
manufacturers with the core question being whether ATV operation is
fundamentally steady-state or transient in nature. Beyond this, EPA
fully considered the steady-state test cycle put forth by the
manufacturers. However, EPA is concerned that much of the possible
operating range of ATV engines was not covered in the test cycle
proposed by the manufacturers and that transient operation is not
represented at all. In an effort to at least partially resolve this
matter, EPA put forth the idea of adding Not-To-Exceed requirements to
the industry cycle such as required in other EPA rules where steady-
state testing is prescribed. However, EPA and the industry could not
agree on a concept or appropriate multipliers.
Thus, EPA believes it is time to close deliberations on a new
emissions test cycle, leaving in place the current provision that the
FTP and the emission standards promulgated in 2002 would take effect if
an alternative test cycle was not implemented. While many manufacturers
have already certified on the FTP, the manufacturers involved in the
MOU postponed investing in the chassis dynamometer testing facilities
needed for the FTP in the good faith hope that an engine dynamometer
based alternative cycle could be developed. Since this will not be the
case, it is appropriate to determine how much lead time is needed to
complete full transition to the FTP in an orderly manner. Time is not
now available to procure and implement the chassis dynamometer and meet
the emission standards called for by EPA's 2009 requirement.
EPA believes that a period of five additional model years is
appropriate before FTP-based testing should be mandated and that one
additional model year is needed to accommodate a phase-in and small
business interests. As mentioned in the summary above, exhaust emission
engine families representing at least 50 percent of US-directed
production would have to be certified on the FTP in the 2014 model year
with the remainder in 2015 model year. Manufacturers with only one
exhaust emission engine family in the 2014 model year would not be
required to comply until the 2015 model year.
To allow for the use of current emission sampling practices used
with the J1088 cycle, this action also extends the availability of raw
gas sampling. It will be available for use with the J1088 cycle as long
as the J1088 cycle can be used for ATV exhaust emission certification.
In determining how much lead time is needed EPA considered the
following factors. Time is needed to build chassis test facilities,
procure and install chassis dynamometers and related emission test
equipment, train personnel on use of this equipment, conduct the
development work needed to meet the emission standards, and ultimately
to certify. Generally speaking, the first two items would take
approximately 36 months to complete, the next two would take about 24
months, and the last step, certification, about 12 months. Thus,
products would be ready for the 2014 model year. The original rule
provided six years of lead time for the FTP requirement. It was
promulgated in late 2002 and absent a change in the test cycle would be
required for the 2009 model year (mid-late 2008). Thus five of the six
years have passed. During this timeframe large manufacturers would also
have to acquire the facilities and equipment to run the required
production line testing programs beginning in the 2014 model year.
It is worth noting that in the 2007 model year many small volume
manufacturers, almost exclusively from Asia, have certified using the
FTP. However, information available to EPA suggests that most of these
manufacturers avoided installing new equipment either by using time
available on co-located or nearby chassis dynamometers used for
motorcycle development or by contracting with one of a few contract
labs in the Asia. Generally, such options are not readily available to
the larger volume manufacturers who have not yet pursued chassis
dynamometer facilities for certification of their ATVs and who must
have production line testing capability as well.
EPA does not expect that this revision to the regulation will have
an adverse cost impact to the manufacturers beyond that envisioned in
the original rule. It will give manufacturers additional time to use
current practices while moving toward mandatory use of the FTP for ATV
emissions certification. We expect this extension will help to ensure
compliance costs are minimized and that the emission reductions
identified in the 2002 rule are achieved. Even the J1088 test cycle has
reduced emissions significantly by eliminating ATVs powered by high
emitting two-stroke engines as a new product offering. Adopting the FTP
will help to ensure robust emission control in ATVs using 4-stroke
engines by including consideration of transient operation and vehicle/
engine operation over a wider variety of conditions than that seen in
the J1088 cycle.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and 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 the Executive Order. This direct
final rule merely gives an extension of time in which a temporary
optional test duty cycle may be used. There are no costs associated
with this rule beyond those envisioned in the original rule.
[[Page 20733]]
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This direct final rule does not include any new collection
requirements, as it acts to extend the availability of an existing
temporary test procedure option. There are no new paperwork
requirements associated with this rule.
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
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this direct final rule.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that meet
the definition for business based on SBA size standards 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-far-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603
and 604. Thus, an agency may conclude that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
This direct final rule merely gives an extension of time in which a
temporary optional test duty cycle may be used. We have therefore
concluded that today's final rule will relieve regulatory burden for
all small entities and will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
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, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 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 EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why such
an alternative was adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
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. Nothing in the rule would significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. EPA has determined that this rule contains no
federal mandates that may result in expenditures of more than $100
million to the private sector in any single year. This direct final
rule merely gives an extension of time in which a temporary optional
test duty cycle may be used. The requirements of UMRA therefore do not
apply to this action.
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'' are 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, EPA 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 EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the regulation. EPA 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 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
[[Page 20734]]
authority, EPA 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 direct final rule merely gives
an extension of time in which a temporary optional test duty cycle may
be used.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, 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.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
This rule does not uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal
Governments. Further, no circumstances specific to such communities
exist that would cause an impact on these communities beyond those
discussed in the other sections of this rule. This direct final merely
gives an extension of time in which a temporary optional test duty
cycle may be used. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and 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 EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, Section 5-501 of the Order directs the Agency 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 the Agency.
This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This direct final gives an extension
of time in which a temporary optional test duty cycle may be used
beyond that time period prescribed in the original rule.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This
direct final rule merely gives an extension of time in which a
temporary optional test duty cycle may be used.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (such as 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
Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
This direct final rule does not involve technical standards. This
direct final rule merely gives an extension of time in which a
temporary optional test duty cycle may be used. Thus, we have
determined that the requirements of the NTTAA do not apply.
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 rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. This direct
final rule merely gives an extension of time in which a temporary
optional test duty cycle may be used before it expires.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended 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 Congress and the Comptroller General of the United
States. We 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 before publication of the
rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60
days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This direct final rule
is effective on June 25, 2007.
L. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this action comes from section 213 of
the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7547). This action is a
rulemaking subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act section 307(d).
See 42 U.S.C. 7607(d):
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 1051
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Exhaust emission
[[Page 20735]]
testing, Recreational vehicle, All-terrain vehicle.
Dated: April 19, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
? For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 1051--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM RECREATIONAL ENGINES AND VEHICLES
? 1. The authority citation for part 1051 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
? 2. Section 1051.145 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) introductory
text and (e)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 1051.145 What provisions apply only for a limited time?
* * * * *
(b) Optional emission standards for ATVs. To meet ATV standards for
model years before 2014, you may apply the exhaust emission standards
by model year in paragraph (b)(1) of this section while measuring
emissions using the engine-based test procedures in 40 CFR part 1065
instead of the chassis-based test procedures in 40 CFR part 86. In
model year 2014 you may apply this provision for exhaust emission
engine families representing up to 50 percent of your U.S.-directed
production. This provision is not available in the 2015 or later-model
years. If you certify only one ATV exhaust emission engine family in
the 2014 model year this provision is available for that family in the
2014 model year.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
* * * * *
(2) ATV. You may use the raw sampling procedures described in 40
CFR part 90 or 91 for ATVs certified using engine-based test procedures
as specified in Sec. 1051.615 before the 2015 model year. You may use
these raw sampling procedures for any ATVs certified using engine-based
test procedures as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 07-2069 Filed 4-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081105235355im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}