Air pollution control; new motor vehicles and engines: duty vehicles and trucks— production certification procedures; compliance assurance programs; reconsideration petition,

[Federal Register: November 5, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 214)]

[Proposed Rules]

[Page 60401-60402]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr05no99-25]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 86

[FRL-6470-7]

Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles; Compliance Programs for New Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice requesting comment on Ethyl Corporation petition for reconsideration.

SUMMARY: EPA requests comment on a petition submitted to EPA by the Ethyl Corporation (Ethyl). The petition requests reconsideration of the CAP 2000 final rule at 64 FR 23906 (May 4, 1999).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 20, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should submit written comments (in duplicate, if possible) to: EPA Air and Radiation Docket, Attention Docket No.A-96-50, room M-1500 (mail code 6102), 401 M St., SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The docket may be inspected at this location from 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. weekdays. The docket may also be reached by telephone at (202) 260-7548. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Hormes, Office of Mobile Sources, Vehicle Programs and Compliance Division, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Phone: (734) 214-4502. Email: lhormes@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 2, 1999, the Ethyl Corporation submitted a petition to EPA requesting reconsideration of the CAP 2000 final rule. Ethyl based its request for reconsideration on the argument that certain aspects of the CAP 2000 rule are inconsistent with the Clean Air Act (Act). In brief, Ethyl focused on the durability demonstration requirements of the regulation and stated that section 206(d) of the Act requires EPA to establish certification test procedures by regulation and that EPA can not avoid its rulemaking responsibilities under 307(d) by characterizing the certification process as an adjudicatory type

[[Page 60402]]

proceeding. Ethyl's petition also states that maintaining the secrecy of certification test procedures is not in the public interest. Ethyl also submitted comments during the CAP 2000 rulemaking; the preamble to the final rule discusses these, explains EPA's reasons for adopting the durability demonstration procedures contained in the rule, and why EPA believes these provisions are consistent with the Act.

Because of the potential impact the Agency's decision could have on the automotive industry and on other concerned parties, EPA is requesting comment on all the issues raised in Ethyl's petition for reconsideration. EPA also requests that commenters address any specific impacts the decision (whether approval or denial) would have on the commenter. EPA will consider all comments and publish its final decision in a separate Federal Register document.

The Ethyl petition and other related documents may be found in the docket listed above in the ADDRESSES section. An electronically scanned copy of Ethyl's petition can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oms/ld- hwy.htm#regs.

Dated: November 1, 1999. Margo T. Oge, Director, Office of Mobile Sources.

[FR Doc. 99-29076Filed11-4-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U