California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Large Spark-Ignition (LSI) Engines; New Emission Standards and In-Use Fleet Requirements; Notice of Decision, 20388-20392 [2012-8112]
Download as PDF
20388
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Notices
and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
Respondents/Affected Entities:
Owners or operators of combustion
units burning hazardous waste, States.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
208.
Frequency of Response: Initially,
occasionally, semiannually, and
annually.
Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:
142,447 Hours.
Estimated Total Annual Cost:
$19,665,792, includes $100,059 for
annualized capital cost and $3,951,790
for operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs.
Changes in the Estimates: There is a
decrease of 57,450 hours in the total
estimated burden currently identified in
the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR
Burdens. This burden decrease is due to
a decrease in the number of estimated
hazardous waste combustors affected by
this ICR since the last renewal.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012–8055 Filed 4–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–9655–9]
California State Nonroad Engine
Pollution Control Standards; Large
Spark-Ignition (LSI) Engines; New
Emission Standards and In-Use Fleet
Requirements; Notice of Decision
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Decision.
AGENCY:
EPA is granting the California
Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) request
for authorization of California’s
emission standards and certification and
test procedures for large spark-ignition
nonroad engines and in-use fleet
average emission requirements for largeand medium-sized fleets. California’s
LSI in-use fleet requirements are
applicable to fleets comprised of four or
more pieces of equipment powered by
LSI engines, including forklifts,
industrial tow tractors, sweepers/
scrubbers, and airport ground support
equipment.
DATES: Petitions for review must be filed
by June 4, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0830. All
documents relied upon in making this
decision, including those submitted to
EPA by CARB, are contained in the
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Apr 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
public docket. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA
Headquarters Library, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, located at 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
to the public on all federal government
working days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m.; generally, it is open Monday
through Friday, excluding holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room
is (202) 566–1744. The Air and
Radiation Docket and Information
Center’s Web site is https://www.epa.gov/
oar/docket.html. The electronic mail
(email) address for the Air and
Radiation Docket is: a-and-r-Docket@
epa.gov, the telephone number is (202)
566–1742, and the fax number is (202)
566–9744. 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 https://www.
regulations.gov. After opening the www.
regulations.gov Web site, enter EPA–
HQ–OAR–2011–0830 in the ‘‘Enter
Keyword or ID’’ fill-in box to view
documents in the record. 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.
EPA’s Office of Transportation and
Air Quality (‘‘OTAQ’’) maintains a Web
page that contains general information
on its review of California waiver
requests. Included on that page are links
to prior waiver Federal Register notices,
some of which are cited in today’s
notice; the page can be accessed at
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristien G. Knapp, Attorney-Advisor,
Compliance Division, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue (6405J), NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Telephone:
(202) 343–9949. Fax: (202) 343–2800.
Email: knapp.kristien@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
with LSI engines.1 The LSI regulations
are designed to reduce emissions of
hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) from forklifts and other
industrial equipment powered by LSI
engines. CARB approved the LSI
regulations at a public hearing on May
25, 2006 (by Resolution 06–11).2 After
making modifications to the regulation
available on December 1, 2006, and
February 1, 2007 for supplemental
public comment, CARB’s Executive
Officer formally adopted the LSI
regulations in Executive Order R–07–
001 on March 2, 2007.3 The LSI
regulations are codified at title 13,
California Code of Regulations, sections
2775 through 2775.2.4
Underpinning CARB’s LSI regulations
is a set of emission standards for new
off-road LSI engines beginning in 2007.
The emission standards include:
adoption of EPA’s 2007 and later model
year emission standards for the same
engines, more stringent standards for
the 2010 and later model years, optional
certification standards, and more
rigorous certification and test
procedures. The LSI regulations also
apply to operators of large- and
medium-sized fleets of forklifts,
sweepers/scrubbers, airport ground
support equipment (GSE), and
industrial tow tractors with engine
displacements of greater than one liter.
These fleets must meet a fleet average
in-use emission standard.
A. California’s LSI Regulations
B. Clean Air Act Nonroad Engine and
Vehicle Authorizations
Section 209(e)(1) of the Act
permanently preempts any State, or
political subdivision thereof, from
adopting or attempting to enforce any
standard or other requirement relating
to the control of emissions for new
nonroad engines or vehicles. States are
also preempted from adopting and
enforcing standards and other
requirements related to the control of
emissions from non-new nonroad
engines or vehicles. Section 209(e)(2)
requires the Administrator, after notice
and opportunity for public hearing, to
authorize California to enforce such
standards and other requirements,
unless EPA makes one of three findings.
In addition, other states with attainment
plans may adopt and enforce such
regulations if the standards, and
By letter dated December 10, 2008,
CARB submitted to EPA its request
pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean
Air Act (‘‘CAA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), regarding
its regulation of emissions from new offroad large spark-ignition (LSI) engines
and its in-use fleet requirements for
forklifts and other industrial equipment
1 California Air Resources Board (‘‘CARB’’),
‘‘Request for Authorization,’’ December 10, 2008,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0830–0001.
2 CARB Enclosure 1, ‘‘Resolution 06–11,’’ EPA–
HQ–OAR–2011–0830–0002.
3 CARB Enclosure 2, ‘‘Executive Order R–07–
001,’’ EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0830–0003.
4 CARB Enclosure 3, ‘‘Final Regulation Order,’’
EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0830–0004.
I. Background
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Notices
implementation and enforcement
procedures, are identical to California’s
standards. On July 20, 1994, EPA
promulgated a rule that sets forth,
among other things, regulations
providing the criteria, as found in
section 209(e)(2), which EPA must
consider before granting any California
authorization request for new nonroad
engine or vehicle emission standards.5
EPA later revised these regulations in
1997.6 As stated in the preamble to the
1994 rule, EPA has historically
interpreted the section 209(e)(2)(iii)
‘‘consistency’’ inquiry to require, at
minimum, that California standards and
enforcement procedures 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 section 209(b) motor vehicle
waivers).7
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. To be consistent
with section 209(e)(1), California’s
nonroad standards and enforcement
procedures must not attempt to regulate
engine categories that are permanently
preempted from state regulation. To
determine consistency with section
209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews
nonroad authorization requests under
the same ‘‘consistency’’ criteria that are
applied to motor vehicle waiver
requests. Pursuant to section
209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator shall not
grant California a motor vehicle waiver
if she finds that California ‘‘standards
and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with
section 202(a)’’ of the Act. Previous
5 59
FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).
62 FR 67733 (December 30, 1997). The
applicable regulations, now in 40 CFR part 1074,
subpart B, § 1074.105, provide:
(a) The Administrator will grant the authorization
if California determines that its standards will be,
in the aggregate, at least as protective of public
health and welfare as otherwise applicable federal
standards.
(b) The authorization will not be granted if the
Administrator finds that any of the following are
true:
(1) California’s determination is arbitrary and
capricious.
(2) California does not need such standards to
meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.
(3) The California standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures are not consistent with
section 209 of the Act.
(c) In considering any request from California to
authorize the state to adopt or enforce standards or
other requirements relating to the control of
emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines
smaller than 50 horsepower, the Administrator will
give appropriate consideration to safety factors
(including the potential increased risk of burn or
fire) associated with compliance with the California
standard.
7 See 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
6 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Apr 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
decisions granting waivers and
authorizations have noted that state
standards and enforcement procedures
are inconsistent with section 202(a) if:
(1) there is inadequate lead time to
permit the development of the necessary
technology giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance
within that time, or (2) the federal and
state testing procedures impose
inconsistent certification requirements.
C. Burden of Proof
In Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v.
EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
(‘‘MEMA I’’), the U.S. Court of Appeals
stated that the Administrator’s role in a
section 209 proceeding is to:
consider all evidence that passes the
threshold test of materiality and * * *
thereafter assess such material evidence
against a standard of proof to determine
whether the parties favoring a denial of the
waiver have shown that the factual
circumstances exist in which Congress
intended a denial of the waiver.8
The court in MEMA I considered the
standards of proof under section 209 for
the two findings related to granting a
waiver for an ‘‘accompanying
enforcement procedure’’ (as opposed to
the standards themselves): (1)
Protectiveness in the aggregate and (2)
consistency with section 202(a)
findings. The court instructed that ‘‘the
standard of proof must take account of
the nature of the risk of error involved
in any given decision, and it therefore
varies with the finding involved. We
need not decide how this standard
operates in every waiver decision.’’ 9
The court upheld the Administrator’s
position that, to deny a waiver, there
must be ‘‘clear and compelling
evidence’’ to show that proposed
procedures undermine the
protectiveness of California’s
standards.10 The court noted that this
standard of proof also accords with the
congressional intent to provide
California with the broadest possible
discretion in setting regulations it finds
protective of the public health and
welfare.11
With respect to the consistency
finding, the court did not articulate a
standard of proof applicable to all
proceedings, but found that the
opponents of the waiver were unable to
meet their burden of proof even if the
standard were a mere preponderance of
the evidence. Although MEMA I did not
explicitly consider the standards of
proof under section 209 concerning a
waiver request for ‘‘standards,’’ as
compared to accompanying enforcement
procedures, there is nothing in the
opinion to suggest that the court’s
analysis would not apply with equal
force to such determinations. EPA’s past
waiver decisions have consistently
made clear that: ‘‘[E]ven in the two areas
concededly reserved for Federal
judgment by this legislation—the
existence of ‘compelling and
extraordinary’ conditions and whether
the standards are technologically
feasible—Congress intended that the
standards of EPA review of the State
decision to be a narrow one.’’ 12
Opponents of the waiver bear the
burden of showing that the criteria for
a denial of California’s waiver request
have been met. As found in MEMA I,
this obligation rests firmly with
opponents of the waiver in a section 209
proceeding:
[t]he language of the statute and its legislative
history indicate that California’s regulations,
and California’s determinations that they
must comply with the statute, when
presented to the Administrator are presumed
to satisfy the waiver requirements and that
the burden of proving otherwise is on
whoever attacks them. California must
present its regulations and findings at the
hearing and thereafter the parties opposing
the waiver request bear the burden of
persuading the Administrator that the waiver
request should be denied.13
The Administrator’s burden, on the
other hand, is to make a reasonable
evaluation of the information in the
record in coming to the waiver decision.
As the court in MEMA I stated: ‘‘here,
too, if the Administrator ignores
evidence demonstrating that the waiver
should not be granted, or if he seeks to
overcome that evidence with
unsupported assumptions of his own,
he runs the risk of having his waiver
decision set aside as ‘arbitrary and
capricious.’ ’’ 14 Therefore, the
Administrator’s burden is to act
‘‘reasonably.’’ 15
D. EPA’s Administrative Process in
Consideration of California’s LSI
Regulations
Upon review of CARB’s request, EPA
offered an opportunity for a public
hearing, and requested written comment
on issues relevant to a full section
209(e) authorization analysis, by
publication of a Federal Register notice
on October 31, 2011.16 Specifically, we
requested comment on: (a) Whether
CARB’s determination that its
12 See,
8 MEMA
I, 627 F.2d at 1122.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20389
e.g., 40 FR 21102–103 (May 28, 1975).
I, 627 F.2d at 1121.
14 Id. at 1126.
15 Id.
16 76 FR 67184 (October 31, 2011).
13 MEMA
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
20390
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Notices
standards, in the aggregate, are at least
as protective of public health and
welfare as applicable federal standards
is arbitrary and capricious, (b) whether
California needs such standards to meet
compelling and extraordinary
conditions, and (c) whether California’s
standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures are consistent
with section 209 of the Act.
In response to EPA’s October 31, 2011
Federal Register notice, EPA received
one public comment, from Airlines for
America (‘‘A4A’’). A4A comments that
California’s LSI regulations as
applicable to airport ground support
equipment is preempted by the Federal
Aviation Act and the Airline
Deregulation Act.
II. Discussion
A. California’s Protectiveness
Determination
Section 209(e)(2)(i) of the Act
instructs that EPA cannot grant an
authorization if the agency finds that
California was arbitrary and capricious
in its determination that its standards
are, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare
as applicable federal standards. CARB’s
Board made a protectiveness
determination in Resolution 06–11,
finding that California’s LSI regulations
will not cause the California emission
standards, in the aggregate, to be less
protective of public health and welfare
than applicable federal standards.17
CARB presents that California’s LSI
program is at least as stringent as the
federal LSI program ‘‘because for 2010
and later model-year LSI engines,
California’s standard for HC+NOX at 0.8
g/kW-hr is more stringent than
applicable federal standard at 2.0 g/kWhr and California’s other LSI engine
standards are equivalent to federal
standards for these model years.’’ 18
CARB contends that its protectiveness
determination, based on the stringency
of its program as compared to the
federal program, ‘‘clearly is not arbitrary
and capricious.’’ 19
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
17 ‘‘BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board
hereby determines, pursuant to section 209(e)(2) of
the federal Clean Air Act that the emission
standards and other requirements related to the
control of emissions adopted as part of these
regulations are, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as
applicable federal standards, that California needs
the adopted standards to meet compelling and
extraordinary conditions, and that the adopted
standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are consistent with the provisions in
section 209.’’ CARB, Resolution 06–11, EPA–HQ–
OAR–2011–0830–0003.
18 CARB, Request for Authorization at 19.
19 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Apr 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
EPA did not receive any comments
challenging California’s protectiveness
determination. Therefore, based on the
record before us, EPA finds that
opponents of the authorization have not
shown that California was arbitrary and
capricious in its determination that its
standards are, in the aggregate, at least
as protective of public health and
welfare as applicable federal standards.
B. Need for California Standards To
Meet Compelling and Extraordinary
Conditions
Section 209(e)(2)(ii) of the Act
instructs that EPA cannot grant an
authorization if the agency finds that
California ‘‘does not need such
California standards to meet compelling
and extraordinary conditions * * *.’’
This criterion restricts EPA’s inquiry to
whether California needs its own mobile
source pollution program to meet
compelling and extraordinary
conditions, and not whether any given
standards are necessary to meet such
conditions.20 As discussed above, for
over forty years CARB has repeatedly
demonstrated the need for its mobile
source emissions program to address
compelling and extraordinary
conditions in California. In its
Resolution 06–11, CARB affirmed its
longstanding position that California
continues to need its own motor vehicle
and engine program to meet its serious
air pollution problems. Likewise, EPA
has consistently recognized that
California continues to have the same
‘‘geographical and climatic conditions
that, when combined with the large
numbers and high concentrations of
automobiles, create serious pollution
problems.’’ 21 Furthermore, no
commenter has presented any argument
or evidence to suggest that California no
longer needs a separate mobile source
emissions program to address
compelling and extraordinary
conditions in California. Therefore, EPA
has determined that we cannot deny
California an authorization for its LSI
regulations under section 209(e)(2)(ii).
C. Consistency With Section 209 of the
Clean Air Act
Section 209(e)(2)(iii) of the Act
instructs that EPA cannot grant an
authorization if California’s standards
and enforcement procedures are not
consistent with section 209. As
described above, EPA has historically
evaluated this criterion for consistency
20 See 74 FR 32744, 32761 (July 8, 2009); 49 FR
18887, 18889–18890 (May 3, 1984).
21 49 FR 18887, 18890 (May 3, 1984); see also 76
FR 34693 (June 14, 2011), 74 FR 32744, 32763 (July
8, 2009), and 73 FR 52042 (September 8, 2008).
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
with sections 209(a), 209(e)(1), and
209(b)(1)(C).
1. Consistency With Section 209(a)
To be consistent with section 209(a)
of the Clean Air Act, California’s LSI
regulations must not apply to new
motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
engines. California’s LSI regulations
expressly apply only to off-road vehicles
and do not apply to engines used in
motor vehicles as defined by section
216(2) of the Clean Air Act.22 No
commenter presented otherwise.
Therefore, EPA cannot deny California’s
request on the basis that California’s LSI
regulations are not consistent with
section 209(a).
2. Consistency With Section 209(e)(1)
To be consistent with section
209(e)(1) of the Clean Air Act,
California’s LSI regulations must not
affect new farming or construction
vehicles or engines that are below 175
horsepower, or new locomotives or their
engines. CARB presents that the Board
‘‘ensured consistency with section
209(e)(1) by specifically excluding new
off-road engines under 175 horsepower
primarily used in farm and construction
vehicles and equipment from the
definition of off-road LSI engines.’’ 23
No commenter presented otherwise.
Therefore, EPA cannot deny California’s
request on the basis that California’s LSI
regulations are not consistent with
section 209(e)(1).
3. Consistency With Section 209(b)(1)(C)
The requirement that California’s
standards be consistent with section
209(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act
effectively requires consistency with
section 202(a) of the Act. California
standards are inconsistent with section
202(a) of the Act if there is inadequate
lead-time to permit the development of
technology necessary to meet those
requirements, giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance
within that timeframe. California’s
accompanying enforcement procedures
would also be inconsistent with section
202(a) if federal and California test
procedures conflicted. The scope of
EPA’s review of whether California’s
action is consistent with section 202(a)
is narrow. The determination is limited
to whether those opposed to the
authorization or waiver have met their
burden of establishing that California’s
standards are technologically infeasible,
or that California’s test procedures
22 CARB,
Request for Authorization at 20.
23 Id.
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Notices
impose requirements inconsistent with
the federal test procedures.24
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
a. Technological Feasibility
Congress has stated that the
consistency requirement of section
202(a) relates to technological
feasibility.25 Section 202(a)(2) states, in
part, that any regulation promulgated
under its authority ‘‘shall take effect
after such period as the Administrator
finds necessary to permit the
development and application of the
requisite technology, giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance
within such period.’’ Section 202(a)
thus requires the Administrator to first
determine whether adequate technology
already exists; or if it does not, whether
there is adequate time to develop and
apply the technology before the
standards go into effect. The latter
scenario also requires the Administrator
to decide whether the cost of developing
and applying the technology within that
time is feasible. Previous EPA waivers
are in accord with this position.26 For
example, a previous EPA waiver
decision considered California’s
standards and enforcement procedures
to be consistent with section 202(a)
because adequate technology existed as
well as adequate lead-time to implement
that technology.27 Subsequently,
Congress has stated that, generally,
EPA’s construction of the waiver
provision has been consistent with
congressional intent.28
CARB presents that the technology
required to comply with its LSI
regulations is currently available, and
that it has provided sufficient lead-time,
giving consideration to cost of
compliance.29 CARB points to EPA’s
own analysis in the federal rule for
these same engines, but also separately
concluded that fleet owners will be able
to absorb or pass compliance costs to
their customers. CARB’s LSI fleet
requirements progressively increase in
stringency from year-to-year, and allow
a variety of compliance options,
including combinations of retrofits that
have already been verified, loweremission purchases, and zero emission
purchases. Capital costs of these options
range from $30 to $5,000, and may be
exceeded by resultant lowered fuel use
and lessened maintenance. CARB also
24 MEMA
25 H.R.
I, 627, F.2d at 1126.
Rep. No. 95–294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301
(1977).
26 See, e.g., 49 FR 1887, 1895 (May 3, 1984); 43
FR 32182, 32183 (July 25, 1978); 41 FR 44209,
44213 (October 7, 1976).
27 41 FR 44209 (October 7, 1976).
28 H.R. Rep. No. 95–294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301
(1977).
29 CARB, Request for Authorization at 24–28.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Apr 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
points out that fleet requirements apply
selectively, provide several exemptions,
and that compliance extensions may be
granted.
EPA did not receive any comments
suggesting that CARB’s standards and
test procedures are technologically
infeasible. Consequently, based on the
record, EPA cannot deny California’s
authorization based on technological
infeasibility.
b. Consistency of Certification
Procedures
California’s standards and
accompanying enforcement procedures
would also be inconsistent with section
202(a) if the California test procedures
were to impose certification
requirements inconsistent with the
federal certification requirements. Such
inconsistency means that manufacturers
would be unable to meet both the
California and federal testing
requirements using the same test vehicle
or engine.30 CARB presents that the LSI
fleet requirements raise no issue
regarding test procedure consistency
because there are no analogous federal
test procedures for LSI retrofit
technologies.31 CARB also points out
that its retrofit verification program is a
voluntary program available to retrofit
device manufacturers, and not directly
required of fleet owners.
EPA received no comments suggesting
that CARB’s LSI regulations pose any
test procedure consistency problem.
Therefore, based on the record, EPA
cannot find that CARB’s testing
procedures are inconsistent with section
202(a). Consequently, EPA cannot deny
CARB’s request based on this criterion.
D. Other Issues
Airlines for America (‘‘A4A’’) has
provided comments opposing EPA’s
grant of authorization for California’s
LSI regulations. The reasons A4A
provides in its comments are outside the
scope of EPA’s scope of review of
California authorization requests under
section 209(e)(2). A4A claims that
California’s LSI rules are preempted by
the Federal Aviation Act and the Airline
Deregulation Act. As EPA has stated on
numerous occasions, EPA’s review of
California regulations under section 209
is not a broad review of the
reasonableness of the regulations or its
compatibility with all other laws.
Sections 209(b) and 209(e) of the Clean
Air Act limit our authority to deny
California requests for waivers and
authorizations to the three criteria listed
therein. As a result, EPA has
30 See,
e.g., 43 FR 32182 (July 25, 1978).
Request for Authorization at 28.
31 CARB,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20391
consistently refrained from denying
California’s requests for waivers and
authorizations based on any other
criteria.32 In instances where the U.S.
Court of Appeals has reviewed EPA
decisions declining to deny waiver
requests based on criteria not found in
section 209(b), the Court has upheld and
agreed with EPA’s determination.33
A4A’s comment raises issues of federal
preemption that are not included within
the criteria listed under sections 209(b)
and 209(e).34 Therefore, in considering
whether to grant authorization for
California’s LSI regulations under
section 209(e), EPA cannot deny
California’s request for authorization
based on the issues raised by A4A.
E. Authorization Determination for
California’s LSI Regulations
After a review of the information
submitted by CARB and A4A, EPA finds
that those opposing California’s request
have not met the burden of
demonstrating that authorization for
California’s LSI regulations should be
denied based on any of the statutory
criteria of section 209(e)(2). For this
reason, EPA finds that an authorization
for California’s LSI regulations should
be granted.
III. Decision
The Administrator has delegated the
authority to grant California section
209(e) authorizations to the Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation.
After evaluating California’s LSI
regulations, CARB’s submissions, and
the public comments from A4A, EPA is
granting an authorization to California
for its LSI regulations.
My decision will affect not only
persons in California, but also entities
outside the State who must comply with
California’s requirements. For this
reason, I determine and find that this is
a final action of national applicability
for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the
Act. Pursuant to 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 June 4, 2012. Judicial
review of this final action may not be
obtained in subsequent enforcement
proceedings, pursuant to section
307(b)(2) of the Act.
32 See,
e.g., 74 FR 32744, 32783 (July 8, 2009).
Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Ass’n
v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, 462–63, 466–67 (D.C. Cir.
1998), Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Ass’n
v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095, 1111, 1114–20 (D.C. Cir.
1979).
34 A4A may raise these issues in a direct
challenge to California’s regulations in other
forums, but these issues are not relevant to EPA’s
limited review under section 209.
33 See
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
20392
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 4, 2012 / Notices
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
As with past authorization and waiver
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.
Further, the Congressional Review
Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does
not apply because this action is not a
rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Dated: March 29, 2012.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2012–8112 Filed 4–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0230; FRL–9343–7]
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel;
Notice of Public Meeting
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
There will be a 4-day meeting
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory
Panel (FIFRA SAP) to consider and
review Problem Formulation for the
Reassessment of Ecological Risks from
the Use of Atrazine.
DATES: The meeting will be held on June
12–14, 2012, from 9 a.m. to
approximately 5:30 p.m. and on June 15,
2012, from 9 a.m. to approximately
12:30 p.m.
Comments. The Agency encourages
that written comments be submitted by
May 29, 2012, and requests for oral
comments be submitted by June 5, 2012.
However, written comments and
requests to make oral comments may be
submitted until the date of the meeting,
but anyone submitting written
comments after May 29, 2012, should
contact the Designated Federal Official
(DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. For additional
instructions, see Unit I.C. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Apr 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
Nominations. Nominations of
candidates to serve as ad hoc members
of FIFRA SAP for this meeting should
be provided on or before April 18, 2012.
Webcast. This meeting may be
webcast. Please refer to the FIFRA SAP’s
Web site, https://www.epa.gov/scipoly/
sap for information on how to access the
webcast. Please note that the webcast is
a supplementary public process
provided only for convenience. If
difficulties arise resulting in webcasting
outages, the meeting will continue as
planned.
Special accommodations. For
information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, and to
request accommodation of a disability,
please contact the DFO listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least
10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA
as much time as possible to process
your request.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Conference Center, Lobby Level, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.
Comments. Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0230, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001.
• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket
Facility’s normal hours of operation
(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is
(703) 305–5805.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–
0230. If your comments contain any
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected, please contact
the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special
instructions before submitting your
comments. EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the docket without change and may be
made available on-line at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through regulations.gov or
email. The 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 email comment directly
to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your email address will
be automatically captured and included
as part of the comment that is placed in
the 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
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the docket index available
at https://www.regulations.gov. 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,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either in the
electronic docket at https://
www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S–
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket
Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is (703) 305–5805.
Nominations, requests to present oral
comments, and requests for special
accommodations. Submit nominations
to serve as ad hoc members of FIFRA
SAP, requests for special seating
accommodations, or requests to present
oral comments to the DFO listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sharlene R. Matten, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy (7201M),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(202) 564–0130; fax number: (202) 564–
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20388-20392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8112]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-9655-9]
California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards;
Large Spark-Ignition (LSI) Engines; New Emission Standards and In-Use
Fleet Requirements; Notice of Decision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is granting the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's)
request for authorization of California's emission standards and
certification and test procedures for large spark-ignition nonroad
engines and in-use fleet average emission requirements for large- and
medium-sized fleets. California's LSI in-use fleet requirements are
applicable to fleets comprised of four or more pieces of equipment
powered by LSI engines, including forklifts, industrial tow tractors,
sweepers/scrubbers, and airport ground support equipment.
DATES: Petitions for review must be filed by June 4, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0830. All documents relied upon in making this
decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, are contained in
the public docket. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, located at 1301 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open to the public on all
federal government working days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; generally,
it is open Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744. The Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center's Web site is https://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. The electronic mail (email) address for the Air and
Radiation Docket is: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, the telephone number is
(202) 566-1742, and the fax number is (202) 566-9744. 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 https://www.regulations.gov. After opening the
www.regulations.gov Web site, enter EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0830 in the ``Enter
Keyword or ID'' fill-in box to view documents in the record. 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.
EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (``OTAQ'') maintains
a Web page that contains general information on its review of
California waiver requests. Included on that page are links to prior
waiver Federal Register notices, some of which are cited in today's
notice; the page can be accessed at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristien G. Knapp, Attorney-Advisor,
Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue (6405J), NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 343-9949. Fax: (202) 343-2800.
Email: knapp.kristien@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. California's LSI Regulations
By letter dated December 10, 2008, CARB submitted to EPA its
request pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act (``CAA'' or
``the Act''), regarding its regulation of emissions from new off-road
large spark-ignition (LSI) engines and its in-use fleet requirements
for forklifts and other industrial equipment with LSI engines.\1\ The
LSI regulations are designed to reduce emissions of hydrocarbons (HC)
and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from forklifts and other
industrial equipment powered by LSI engines. CARB approved the LSI
regulations at a public hearing on May 25, 2006 (by Resolution 06-
11).\2\ After making modifications to the regulation available on
December 1, 2006, and February 1, 2007 for supplemental public comment,
CARB's Executive Officer formally adopted the LSI regulations in
Executive Order R-07-001 on March 2, 2007.\3\ The LSI regulations are
codified at title 13, California Code of Regulations, sections 2775
through 2775.2.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ California Air Resources Board (``CARB''), ``Request for
Authorization,'' December 10, 2008, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0830-0001.
\2\ CARB Enclosure 1, ``Resolution 06-11,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0830-0002.
\3\ CARB Enclosure 2, ``Executive Order R-07-001,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0830-0003.
\4\ CARB Enclosure 3, ``Final Regulation Order,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0830-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Underpinning CARB's LSI regulations is a set of emission standards
for new off-road LSI engines beginning in 2007. The emission standards
include: adoption of EPA's 2007 and later model year emission standards
for the same engines, more stringent standards for the 2010 and later
model years, optional certification standards, and more rigorous
certification and test procedures. The LSI regulations also apply to
operators of large- and medium-sized fleets of forklifts, sweepers/
scrubbers, airport ground support equipment (GSE), and industrial tow
tractors with engine displacements of greater than one liter. These
fleets must meet a fleet average in-use emission standard.
B. Clean Air Act Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Authorizations
Section 209(e)(1) of the Act permanently preempts any State, or
political subdivision thereof, from adopting or attempting to enforce
any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions
for new nonroad engines or vehicles. States are also preempted from
adopting and enforcing standards and other requirements related to the
control of emissions from non-new nonroad engines or vehicles. Section
209(e)(2) requires the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for
public hearing, to authorize California to enforce such standards and
other requirements, unless EPA makes one of three findings. In
addition, other states with attainment plans may adopt and enforce such
regulations if the standards, and
[[Page 20389]]
implementation and enforcement procedures, are identical to
California's standards. On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a rule that
sets forth, among other things, regulations providing the criteria, as
found in section 209(e)(2), which EPA must consider before granting any
California authorization request for new nonroad engine or vehicle
emission standards.\5\ EPA later revised these regulations in 1997.\6\
As stated in the preamble to the 1994 rule, EPA has historically
interpreted the section 209(e)(2)(iii) ``consistency'' inquiry to
require, at minimum, that California standards and enforcement
procedures 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 section 209(b) motor vehicle waivers).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).
\6\ See 62 FR 67733 (December 30, 1997). The applicable
regulations, now in 40 CFR part 1074, subpart B, Sec. 1074.105,
provide:
(a) The Administrator will grant the authorization if California
determines that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as otherwise applicable
federal standards.
(b) The authorization will not be granted if the Administrator
finds that any of the following are true:
(1) California's determination is arbitrary and capricious.
(2) California does not need such standards to meet compelling
and extraordinary conditions.
(3) The California standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 209 of the Act.
(c) In considering any request from California to authorize the
state to adopt or enforce standards or other requirements relating
to the control of emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines
smaller than 50 horsepower, the Administrator will give appropriate
consideration to safety factors (including the potential increased
risk of burn or fire) associated with compliance with the California
standard.
\7\ See 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. To be consistent with section
209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures
must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are permanently
preempted from state regulation. To determine consistency with section
209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests
under the same ``consistency'' criteria that are applied to motor
vehicle waiver requests. Pursuant to section 209(b)(1)(C), the
Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if she
finds that California ``standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)'' of the Act.
Previous decisions granting waivers and authorizations have noted that
state standards and enforcement procedures are inconsistent with
section 202(a) if: (1) there is inadequate lead time to permit the
development of the necessary technology giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance within that time, or (2) the
federal and state testing procedures impose inconsistent certification
requirements.
C. Burden of Proof
In Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir.
1979) (``MEMA I''), the U.S. Court of Appeals stated that the
Administrator's role in a section 209 proceeding is to:
consider all evidence that passes the threshold test of materiality
and * * * thereafter assess such material evidence against a
standard of proof to determine whether the parties favoring a denial
of the waiver have shown that the factual circumstances exist in
which Congress intended a denial of the waiver.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1122.
The court in MEMA I considered the standards of proof under section 209
for the two findings related to granting a waiver for an ``accompanying
enforcement procedure'' (as opposed to the standards themselves): (1)
Protectiveness in the aggregate and (2) consistency with section 202(a)
findings. The court instructed that ``the standard of proof must take
account of the nature of the risk of error involved in any given
decision, and it therefore varies with the finding involved. We need
not decide how this standard operates in every waiver decision.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The court upheld the Administrator's position that, to deny a
waiver, there must be ``clear and compelling evidence'' to show that
proposed procedures undermine the protectiveness of California's
standards.\10\ The court noted that this standard of proof also accords
with the congressional intent to provide California with the broadest
possible discretion in setting regulations it finds protective of the
public health and welfare.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id.
\11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the consistency finding, the court did not
articulate a standard of proof applicable to all proceedings, but found
that the opponents of the waiver were unable to meet their burden of
proof even if the standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence.
Although MEMA I did not explicitly consider the standards of proof
under section 209 concerning a waiver request for ``standards,'' as
compared to accompanying enforcement procedures, there is nothing in
the opinion to suggest that the court's analysis would not apply with
equal force to such determinations. EPA's past waiver decisions have
consistently made clear that: ``[E]ven in the two areas concededly
reserved for Federal judgment by this legislation--the existence of
`compelling and extraordinary' conditions and whether the standards are
technologically feasible--Congress intended that the standards of EPA
review of the State decision to be a narrow one.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., 40 FR 21102-103 (May 28, 1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents of the waiver bear the burden of showing that the
criteria for a denial of California's waiver request have been met. As
found in MEMA I, this obligation rests firmly with opponents of the
waiver in a section 209 proceeding:
[t]he language of the statute and its legislative history indicate
that California's regulations, and California's determinations that
they must comply with the statute, when presented to the
Administrator are presumed to satisfy the waiver requirements and
that the burden of proving otherwise is on whoever attacks them.
California must present its regulations and findings at the hearing
and thereafter the parties opposing the waiver request bear the
burden of persuading the Administrator that the waiver request
should be denied.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1121.
The Administrator's burden, on the other hand, is to make a reasonable
evaluation of the information in the record in coming to the waiver
decision. As the court in MEMA I stated: ``here, too, if the
Administrator ignores evidence demonstrating that the waiver should not
be granted, or if he seeks to overcome that evidence with unsupported
assumptions of his own, he runs the risk of having his waiver decision
set aside as `arbitrary and capricious.' '' \14\ Therefore, the
Administrator's burden is to act ``reasonably.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Id. at 1126.
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. EPA's Administrative Process in Consideration of California's LSI
Regulations
Upon review of CARB's request, EPA offered an opportunity for a
public hearing, and requested written comment on issues relevant to a
full section 209(e) authorization analysis, by publication of a Federal
Register notice on October 31, 2011.\16\ Specifically, we requested
comment on: (a) Whether CARB's determination that its
[[Page 20390]]
standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public
health and welfare as applicable federal standards is arbitrary and
capricious, (b) whether California needs such standards to meet
compelling and extraordinary conditions, and (c) whether California's
standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with
section 209 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 76 FR 67184 (October 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to EPA's October 31, 2011 Federal Register notice, EPA
received one public comment, from Airlines for America (``A4A''). A4A
comments that California's LSI regulations as applicable to airport
ground support equipment is preempted by the Federal Aviation Act and
the Airline Deregulation Act.
II. Discussion
A. California's Protectiveness Determination
Section 209(e)(2)(i) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an
authorization if the agency finds that California was arbitrary and
capricious in its determination that its standards are, in the
aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable federal standards. CARB's Board made a protectiveness
determination in Resolution 06-11, finding that California's LSI
regulations will not cause the California emission standards, in the
aggregate, to be less protective of public health and welfare than
applicable federal standards.\17\ CARB presents that California's LSI
program is at least as stringent as the federal LSI program ``because
for 2010 and later model-year LSI engines, California's standard for
HC+NOX at 0.8 g/kW-hr is more stringent than applicable
federal standard at 2.0 g/kW-hr and California's other LSI engine
standards are equivalent to federal standards for these model years.''
\18\ CARB contends that its protectiveness determination, based on the
stringency of its program as compared to the federal program, ``clearly
is not arbitrary and capricious.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby determines,
pursuant to section 209(e)(2) of the federal Clean Air Act that the
emission standards and other requirements related to the control of
emissions adopted as part of these regulations are, in the
aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable federal standards, that California needs the adopted
standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and that
the adopted standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are
consistent with the provisions in section 209.'' CARB, Resolution
06-11, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0830-0003.
\18\ CARB, Request for Authorization at 19.
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA did not receive any comments challenging California's
protectiveness determination. Therefore, based on the record before us,
EPA finds that opponents of the authorization have not shown that
California was arbitrary and capricious in its determination that its
standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public
health and welfare as applicable federal standards.
B. Need for California Standards To Meet Compelling and Extraordinary
Conditions
Section 209(e)(2)(ii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an
authorization if the agency finds that California ``does not need such
California standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions *
* *.'' This criterion restricts EPA's inquiry to whether California
needs its own mobile source pollution program to meet compelling and
extraordinary conditions, and not whether any given standards are
necessary to meet such conditions.\20\ As discussed above, for over
forty years CARB has repeatedly demonstrated the need for its mobile
source emissions program to address compelling and extraordinary
conditions in California. In its Resolution 06-11, CARB affirmed its
longstanding position that California continues to need its own motor
vehicle and engine program to meet its serious air pollution problems.
Likewise, EPA has consistently recognized that California continues to
have the same ``geographical and climatic conditions that, when
combined with the large numbers and high concentrations of automobiles,
create serious pollution problems.'' \21\ Furthermore, no commenter has
presented any argument or evidence to suggest that California no longer
needs a separate mobile source emissions program to address compelling
and extraordinary conditions in California. Therefore, EPA has
determined that we cannot deny California an authorization for its LSI
regulations under section 209(e)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See 74 FR 32744, 32761 (July 8, 2009); 49 FR 18887, 18889-
18890 (May 3, 1984).
\21\ 49 FR 18887, 18890 (May 3, 1984); see also 76 FR 34693
(June 14, 2011), 74 FR 32744, 32763 (July 8, 2009), and 73 FR 52042
(September 8, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Consistency With Section 209 of the Clean Air Act
Section 209(e)(2)(iii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant
an authorization if California's standards and enforcement procedures
are not consistent with section 209. As described above, EPA has
historically evaluated this criterion for consistency with sections
209(a), 209(e)(1), and 209(b)(1)(C).
1. Consistency With Section 209(a)
To be consistent with section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act,
California's LSI regulations must not apply to new motor vehicles or
new motor vehicle engines. California's LSI regulations expressly apply
only to off-road vehicles and do not apply to engines used in motor
vehicles as defined by section 216(2) of the Clean Air Act.\22\ No
commenter presented otherwise. Therefore, EPA cannot deny California's
request on the basis that California's LSI regulations are not
consistent with section 209(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ CARB, Request for Authorization at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Consistency With Section 209(e)(1)
To be consistent with section 209(e)(1) of the Clean Air Act,
California's LSI regulations must not affect new farming or
construction vehicles or engines that are below 175 horsepower, or new
locomotives or their engines. CARB presents that the Board ``ensured
consistency with section 209(e)(1) by specifically excluding new off-
road engines under 175 horsepower primarily used in farm and
construction vehicles and equipment from the definition of off-road LSI
engines.'' \23\ No commenter presented otherwise. Therefore, EPA cannot
deny California's request on the basis that California's LSI
regulations are not consistent with section 209(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Consistency With Section 209(b)(1)(C)
The requirement that California's standards be consistent with
section 209(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act effectively requires
consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. California standards are
inconsistent with section 202(a) of the Act if there is inadequate
lead-time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet
those requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of
compliance within that timeframe. California's accompanying enforcement
procedures would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if federal
and California test procedures conflicted. The scope of EPA's review of
whether California's action is consistent with section 202(a) is
narrow. The determination is limited to whether those opposed to the
authorization or waiver have met their burden of establishing that
California's standards are technologically infeasible, or that
California's test procedures
[[Page 20391]]
impose requirements inconsistent with the federal test procedures.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ MEMA I, 627, F.2d at 1126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Technological Feasibility
Congress has stated that the consistency requirement of section
202(a) relates to technological feasibility.\25\ Section 202(a)(2)
states, in part, that any regulation promulgated under its authority
``shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds
necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance
within such period.'' Section 202(a) thus requires the Administrator to
first determine whether adequate technology already exists; or if it
does not, whether there is adequate time to develop and apply the
technology before the standards go into effect. The latter scenario
also requires the Administrator to decide whether the cost of
developing and applying the technology within that time is feasible.
Previous EPA waivers are in accord with this position.\26\ For example,
a previous EPA waiver decision considered California's standards and
enforcement procedures to be consistent with section 202(a) because
adequate technology existed as well as adequate lead-time to implement
that technology.\27\ Subsequently, Congress has stated that, generally,
EPA's construction of the waiver provision has been consistent with
congressional intent.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301 (1977).
\26\ See, e.g., 49 FR 1887, 1895 (May 3, 1984); 43 FR 32182,
32183 (July 25, 1978); 41 FR 44209, 44213 (October 7, 1976).
\27\ 41 FR 44209 (October 7, 1976).
\28\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB presents that the technology required to comply with its LSI
regulations is currently available, and that it has provided sufficient
lead-time, giving consideration to cost of compliance.\29\ CARB points
to EPA's own analysis in the federal rule for these same engines, but
also separately concluded that fleet owners will be able to absorb or
pass compliance costs to their customers. CARB's LSI fleet requirements
progressively increase in stringency from year-to-year, and allow a
variety of compliance options, including combinations of retrofits that
have already been verified, lower-emission purchases, and zero emission
purchases. Capital costs of these options range from $30 to $5,000, and
may be exceeded by resultant lowered fuel use and lessened maintenance.
CARB also points out that fleet requirements apply selectively, provide
several exemptions, and that compliance extensions may be granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ CARB, Request for Authorization at 24-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA did not receive any comments suggesting that CARB's standards
and test procedures are technologically infeasible. Consequently, based
on the record, EPA cannot deny California's authorization based on
technological infeasibility.
b. Consistency of Certification Procedures
California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures
would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if the California test
procedures were to impose certification requirements inconsistent with
the federal certification requirements. Such inconsistency means that
manufacturers would be unable to meet both the California and federal
testing requirements using the same test vehicle or engine.\30\ CARB
presents that the LSI fleet requirements raise no issue regarding test
procedure consistency because there are no analogous federal test
procedures for LSI retrofit technologies.\31\ CARB also points out that
its retrofit verification program is a voluntary program available to
retrofit device manufacturers, and not directly required of fleet
owners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See, e.g., 43 FR 32182 (July 25, 1978).
\31\ CARB, Request for Authorization at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA received no comments suggesting that CARB's LSI regulations
pose any test procedure consistency problem. Therefore, based on the
record, EPA cannot find that CARB's testing procedures are inconsistent
with section 202(a). Consequently, EPA cannot deny CARB's request based
on this criterion.
D. Other Issues
Airlines for America (``A4A'') has provided comments opposing EPA's
grant of authorization for California's LSI regulations. The reasons
A4A provides in its comments are outside the scope of EPA's scope of
review of California authorization requests under section 209(e)(2).
A4A claims that California's LSI rules are preempted by the Federal
Aviation Act and the Airline Deregulation Act. As EPA has stated on
numerous occasions, EPA's review of California regulations under
section 209 is not a broad review of the reasonableness of the
regulations or its compatibility with all other laws. Sections 209(b)
and 209(e) of the Clean Air Act limit our authority to deny California
requests for waivers and authorizations to the three criteria listed
therein. As a result, EPA has consistently refrained from denying
California's requests for waivers and authorizations based on any other
criteria.\32\ In instances where the U.S. Court of Appeals has reviewed
EPA decisions declining to deny waiver requests based on criteria not
found in section 209(b), the Court has upheld and agreed with EPA's
determination.\33\ A4A's comment raises issues of federal preemption
that are not included within the criteria listed under sections 209(b)
and 209(e).\34\ Therefore, in considering whether to grant
authorization for California's LSI regulations under section 209(e),
EPA cannot deny California's request for authorization based on the
issues raised by A4A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See, e.g., 74 FR 32744, 32783 (July 8, 2009).
\33\ See Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Ass'n v. Nichols, 142
F.3d 449, 462-63, 466-67 (D.C. Cir. 1998), Motor and Equipment
Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095, 1111, 1114-20 (D.C. Cir.
1979).
\34\ A4A may raise these issues in a direct challenge to
California's regulations in other forums, but these issues are not
relevant to EPA's limited review under section 209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Authorization Determination for California's LSI Regulations
After a review of the information submitted by CARB and A4A, EPA
finds that those opposing California's request have not met the burden
of demonstrating that authorization for California's LSI regulations
should be denied based on any of the statutory criteria of section
209(e)(2). For this reason, EPA finds that an authorization for
California's LSI regulations should be granted.
III. Decision
The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California
section 209(e) authorizations to the Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation. After evaluating California's LSI regulations, CARB's
submissions, and the public comments from A4A, EPA is granting an
authorization to California for its LSI regulations.
My decision will affect not only persons in California, but also
entities outside the State who must comply with California's
requirements. For this reason, I determine and find that this is a
final action of national applicability for purposes of section
307(b)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to 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 June 4, 2012. Judicial review of this final
action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings,
pursuant to section 307(b)(2) of the Act.
[[Page 20392]]
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
As with past authorization and waiver 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.
Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of
5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Dated: March 29, 2012.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2012-8112 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P