California State Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Pollution Control
Standards; Decision of the Administrator
[Federal Register: December 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 241)]
[Notices]
[Page 75536-75538]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15de06-71]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-8257-2]
California State Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Pollution Control
Standards; Decision of the Administrator
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice regarding authorization of California small off-road
engine emission standards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA today, pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act
(Act), 42 U.S.C. 7543(e), is granting California its request for an
authorization of its small off-road engine emission standards for 2007
and subsequent model years (SORE). By letter dated April 11, 2005, the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) requested that EPA grant
California an authorization (sometimes referred to as a waiver of
federal preemption) for its SORE regulations which set forth amended
exhaust emission standards and new evaporative emission standards and
associated test procedures for Class I and Class II small off-road
engines for 2007 and subsequent model years.
ADDRESSES: The Agency's Decision Document, containing an explanation of
the Assistant Administrator's decision, as well as all documents relied
upon in making that decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB,
are available at EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
(Air Docket). Materials relevant to this decision are contained in
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0133. The docket is located at The Air
Docket, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,
and may be viewed between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.
The telephone is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA
for copying docket material.
Additionally, an electronic version of the public docket is
available through the Federal government's electronic public docket and
comment system. You may access EPA dockets at http://www.regulations.gov.
After opening the www.regulations.gov Web site, select ``Environmental
Protection Agency'' from the pull-down Agency list, then scroll to
``Keyword or ID'' and enter EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0133 to view documents in the
record of the SORE authorization request. Although a part of the official
docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dickinson, Compliance and
Innovative Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Ariel Rios Building (6405J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 343-09256. E-Mail Address:
Dickinson.David@EPA.GOV.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I have decided to grant California an
authorization pursuant to section 209(e) of the Act for the SORE
regulations.\1\ As explained in the Decision Document supporting
today's decision, I have decided to grant a full authorization for all
of the SORE regulation despite CARB's request that some portions be
considered within the scope of previous authorization determinations.
As also explained in the Decision Document, EPA received a series of
comments supporting CARB's request for an authorization and received
comments from one commenter that conditionally supported the
authorization and raised other concerns but did not represent that such
other concerns should be the basis for denying or delaying the
authorization. For the reasons set forth below and further discussed in
the Decision Document, EPA is granting CARB's request for authorization
for its SORE regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The CARB Board approved the SORE regulations by Resolution 03-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 209(e)(1) of the Act addresses the permanent preemption of
any State, or political subdivision thereof, from adopting or
attempting to enforce any standard or other requirement relating
[[Page 75537]]
to the control of emissions for certain new nonroad engines or
vehicles. Section 209(e)(2) of the Act requires the Administrator to
grant California authorization to enforce state standards for new
nonroad engines or vehicles which are not listed under section
209(e)(1), subject to certain restrictions. On July 20, 1994, EPA
promulgated a regulation that sets forth, among other things, the
criteria, as found in section 209(e)(2), by which EPA must consider any
California authorization requests for new nonroad engines or vehicle
emission standards. The regulations found at 40 CFR part 85, subpart Q,
Sec. 85.1605 provides:
(a) The Administrator shall grant the authorization if California
determines that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards.
(b) The authorization shall not be granted if the Administrator
finds that:
(1) The determination of California is arbitrary and capricious;
(2) California does not need such California standards to meet
compelling and extraordinary conditions; or
(3) California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures
are not consistent with section 209.
As stated in the preamble to the section 209(e) rule, EPA has
interpreted the requirement that ``California standards and
accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section
209'' to mean that California standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures must be consistent with section 209(a), section 209(e)(1),
and section 209(b)(1)(C), as EPA has interpreted that subsection in the
context of motor vehicle waivers.\2\ In order to be consistent with
section 209(a), California's nonroad standards and enforcement
procedures must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
engines. Secondly, California's nonroad standards and enforcement
procedures must be consistent with section 209(e)(1), which identifies
the categories permanently preempted from state regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 59 FR 36969, 36983 (July 20, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, because California's nonroad standards and enforcement
procedures must be consistent with section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA will
review nonroad authorization requests under the same ``consistency''
criteria that are applied to motor vehicle waiver requests. Under
section 209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator shall not grant California a
motor vehicle waiver if he finds that California ``standards and
accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section
202(a)'' of the Act. Previous decisions granting waivers of Federal
preemption for motor vehicles have stated that State standards are
inconsistent with section 202(a) if there is inadequate lead time to
permit the development of the necessary technology giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance within that time period or if
the Federal and State test procedures impose inconsistent certification
requirements.
Congress further directed EPA to ``give appropriate consideration
to safety factors (including the potential increased risk of burn or
fire) associated with compliance with the California standard'' when
considering any request from California to authorize the state to adopt
or enforce standards or other requirements relating to the control of
emission from new non-road spark-ignition engines smaller than 50
horsepower.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Fiscal Year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Act (Pub. L.
108-109 division G section 428).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB determined that its SORE standards do not cause California's
standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of public health and
welfare than the applicable Federal standards. No information has been
submitted to demonstrate that California's standards, in the aggregate,
to be less protective than the applicable Federal standards. Thus, EPA
cannot make a finding that CARB's determination that its SORE standards
are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and
welfare as applicable Federal standards to be arbitrary and capricious.
CARB has continually demonstrated the existence of compelling and
extraordinary conditions justifying the need for its nonroad pollution
control program, which includes the SORE regulations. No information
has been submitted to demonstrate that California no longer has a
compelling and extraordinary need for its own program. Therefore, I
agree that California continues to have compelling and extraordinary
conditions, thus I cannot deny the authorization on the basis of the
lack of compelling and extraordinary conditions.
CARB has determined that its SORE regulations are not inconsistent
with section 209(a)--they do not regulate new motor vehicles or new
motor vehicle engines. No information has been submitted opposing this
determination. Therefore, I agree that California's SORE regulations
are consistent with section 209(a).
CARB has determined that its SORE regulations are not inconsistent
with section 209(e)(1)--they do not regulate new engines which are used
in construction equipment or vehicles or used in farm equipment or
vehicles which are smaller than 175 horsepower. No information has been
submitted opposing this determination. As explained in the Decision
Document, pressure washers are included in CARB's SORE regulation and
are found not to be inconsistent with section 209(e)(1).
CARB has determined that its SORE regulations are not inconsistent
with section 209(b)(1)(C) as EPA has implemented that subsection in the
context of motor vehicles. CARB has determined that it has provided
adequate lead time to permit the development of the necessary
technology giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance
within that time period. Comment was received stating that ``phase-in
flexibility'' was required by equipment manufacturers in order to
successfully transition into model years where new emission standards
apply. As explained in the Decision Document EPA believes that
California has adequately addressed this concern. No information was
submitted to suggest that CARB's certification requirements, including
test procedures, are inconsistent with applicable federal certification
requirements. Therefore I cannot find that CARB's SORE regulations are
inconsistent with section 202(a).
As explained in the Decision Document, EPA has considered safety
factors, including the potential increased risk of burn or fire, both
in the context of satisfying the statutory criteria of section 209(e)
and in the context of the language in the 2004 Omnibus Appropriation
Act. In either context, EPA finds that issues of safety risks have been
adequately addressed by California and safety factors do not prevent
EPA from authorizing California's regulations.
EPA agrees with all CARB findings with regard to the provisions
listed. Additionally, no information was presented to EPA by any party
which would demonstrate that California did not meet the burden of
satisfying the statutory criteria of section 209(e).
For these reasons, EPA authorizes California to enforce the SORE
regulations.
My decision will affect not only persons in California but also the
manufacturers outside the State who must comply with California's
requirements in order to produce nonroad engines and vehicles for sale
in California. For this reason, I hereby
[[Page 75538]]
determine and find that this is a final action of national applicability.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final
action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be filed by
February 13, 2007. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, judicial review
of this final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement
proceedings.
As with past authorization decisions, this action is not a rule as
defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt from review
by the Office of Management and Budget as required for rules and
regulations by Executive Order 12866.
In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a
supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of
this action on small business entities.
Finally, the Administrator has delegated the authority to make
determinations regarding authorizations under section 209(e) of the Act
to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
Dated: December 11, 2006.
William L. Wehrum,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. E6-21378 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090510204218im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}