Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Notices 77515 

1California Air Resources Board (‘‘CARB’’), 

‘‘Request for Authorization,’’ August 2, 2010, EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0548–0001. 

2CARB Attachment #4, ‘‘Resolution 07–57,’’ 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0548–0006. 

3CARB Attachment #6, ‘‘Executive Order R–08– 

013,’’ EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0548–0008. 

4CARB Attachment #8, ‘‘Final Regulation Order 

for title 13, CCR section 2299.3,’’ EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0548–0010; CARB Attachment #9, ‘‘Final 

Regulation Order for title 17, CCR section 93118.3,’’ 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0548–0011. 

5The following vessels are exempt from the AtBerth Regulation: Ocean going vessel voyages 

consisting of continuous and expeditious 

navigation (i.e., traversing Regulated California 

Waters without entering California internal 

estuarine waters or calling at a port); vessels owned 

or operated by local, state, Federal, or foreign 

governments in government non-commercial 

services; steamships; auxiliary engines using 

natural gas; and fleets composed solely of container 

or refrigerated cargo vessels making fewer than 

twenty-five visits to the same California port in a 

calendar year or fleets composed solely of passenger 

Continued 

20202–2700. Telephone: (202) 245–7532 

or by email: Marlene.Spencer@ed.gov. 

If you use a TDD, call the Federal 

Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–(800) 

877–8339. 

VIII. Other Information 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document 

and a copy of the application package in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) by 

contacting the Grants and Contracts 

Services Team, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 

20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7363. If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll 

free, at 1–(800) 877–8339. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this 

site, you can view this document, as 

well as all other documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, 

you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, 

which is available free at this site. You 

may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at http://www.federalregister.

gov. Specifically through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: December 8, 2011. 

Alexa Posny, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31966 Filed 12–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9503–4] 

California State Nonroad Engine 

Pollution Control Standards; OceanGoing Vessels At-Berth in California 

Ports; Notice of Decision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of decision. 

SUMMARY: EPA has granted the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

its request for an authorization to adopt 

and enforce regulations for its airborne 

toxic control measures for auxiliary 

diesel engines operated on ocean-going 

vessels at-berth in California ports (‘‘AtBerth Regulation’’). The At-Berth 

Regulation is designed to reduce 

emissions of oxides of nitrogen and 

particulate matter from auxiliary diesel 

engines on container vessels, passenger 

vessels and refrigerated cargo vessels 

while they are docked at specified 

California ports. 

DATES: Petitions for review must be filed 

by February 13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0548. All 

documents relied upon in making this 

decision, including those submitted to 

EPA by CARB, and public comments, 

are contained in the public docket. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://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 http:// 

www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. The 

electronic mail (email) address for the 

Air and Radiation Docket is: a-and-rDocket@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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov. After opening the 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site, 

enter EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0548 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 

http:// 

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 At-Berth Regulation 

By letter dated August 2, 2010, CARB 

submitted to EPA its request pursuant to 

section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act 

(‘‘CAA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), regarding its 

regulations to enforce its airborne toxic 

control measures (ATCM) for auxiliary 

diesel engines operated on ocean-going 

vessels at-berth in California ports (‘‘AtBerth Regulation’’).1 The At-Berth 

Regulation is designed to significantly 

reduce emissions of diesel particulate 

matter (PM), which is a CARB-identified 

toxic air contaminant, oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX), and carbon dioxide (CO2), a 

greenhouse gas. These reductions will 

assist California in meeting Federal and 

state ambient air quality standards for 

the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley 

air basins for ozone and fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5). CARB approved the AtBerth Regulation at a public hearing on 

December 6, 2007 (by Resolution 07– 

57).2 After making modifications to the 

regulation available on August 22, 2008 

for supplemental public comment, 

CARB’s Executive Officer formally 

adopted the At-Berth Regulation in 

Executive Order R–08–013 on October 

16, 2008.3 The At-Berth Regulation is 

codified in title 13, California Code of 

Regulations, section 2299.3, and title 17, 

California Code of Regulations, section 

93118.3.4

CARB’s At-Berth Regulation contains 

requirements that apply, with limited 

exceptions,5 to any person who owns, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
77516 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Notices 

vessels making fewer than five visits to the same 

California port in a calendar year. Exemptions also 

exist for emergency events and hotelling required 

by a Federal agency. Title 17, California Code of 

Regulations (CCR), section 93118.3(b)(3), CARB 

Attachment #9, ‘‘Final Regulation Order for title 17, 

CCR section 93118.3,’’ EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0548– 

0011. 

6The At-Berth Regulation applies to vessels 

docked at six California ports: the Port of Hueneme, 

the Port of Los Angeles, the Port of Long Beach, the 

Port of Oakland, the Port of San Diego, and the Port 

of San Francisco. 

7 ‘‘Fleet’’ means ‘‘all container, passenger, and 

refrigerated cargo vessels, visiting a specific 

California port, which are owned and operated by, 

or otherwise under the direct control, of the same 

Person * * * For purposes of this section, a person 

shall be deemed to have separate fleets for each 

California port visited and each fleet is composed 

of one type of vessel.’’ Title 17, CCR section 

93118.3(c)(16). See also CARB, ‘‘Authorization 

Support Document,’’ EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0548– 

0002. 

8 ‘‘Shore power’’ is defined as ‘‘electrical power 

being provided by either the local utility or by 

distributed generation.’’ CARB Attachment 9, 

‘‘Final Regulation Order for title 17, CCR section 

93118.3,’’ EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0548–0011. 

9CARB, ‘‘Authorization Support Document,’’ 

August 2, 2010, EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0548–0002 

(hereinafter ‘‘CARB Support Document’’. 

10The 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. 

11See 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994). 

operates, charters, rents or leases any 

container vessel, passenger vessel, or 

refrigerated cargo vessel that visits any 

of six specified California ports.6 It also 

contains requirements that affect any 

person who owns or operates those 

ports or terminals located at them. 

The At-Berth Regulation requires 

fleets of container vessels, passenger 

vessels and refrigerated cargo vessels to 

either: (1) Limit the amount of time they 

operate their auxiliary diesel engines by 

connecting to shore power for most of 

a vessel’s stay at port (‘‘Shore Power 

Option’’); or (2) achieve equivalent 

emission reductions by employing other 

emission control techniques 

(‘‘Equivalent Emission Reduction 

Option’’).7 Fleet operators who elect the 

Shore Power Option are required to 

obtain the power that would otherwise 

be provided by a vessel’s auxiliary 

engines by connecting to shore power 

for a percentage of the fleet’s annual 

port visits.8 The required percentage of 

shore power connected port visits 

increases over the life of the regulation. 

Specifically, fifty percent of a fleet’s 

total visits must be connected to shore 

power by 2014, followed by seventy 

percent by 2017, and eighty percent by 

2020. Additionally, if a vessel is 

equipped to connect to shore power and 

it visits a berth equipped to provide 

compatible power, the vessel must use 

the shore power provided. 

Fleet operators who elect the 

Equivalent Emission Reduction Option 

must reduce their fleet’s auxiliary 

engine emissions by specific amounts 

below the fleet’s baseline emissions by 

specific dates.9 This option requires that 

a fleet achieve a ten percent reduction 

from the fleet’s baseline emissions by 

2010, a twenty-five percent reduction by 

2012, a fifty percent reduction by 2014, 

a seventy percent reduction by 2017, 

and an eighty percent reduction by 

2020. Emission reductions can be 

achieved by: (1) Using grid-based shore 

power; (2) using distributed generation 

equipment to provide power to the 

vessel; (3) using alternative emission 

controls onboard a vessel or at the berth; 

or (4) using a combination of these 

techniques. Fleets that achieve 

reductions of emissions of oxides of 

nitrogen or particulate matter in excess 

of the prescribed reductions receive 

fleet emission credits that can be used 

to comply with emission reduction 

requirements in subsequent years. 

The At-Berth Regulation also requires 

operators of terminals that received 

more than fifty vessel visits in 2008 to 

submit terminal plans identifying how 

the terminals will be upgraded to 

accommodate vessels under the two 

compliance options, including a 

schedule for implementing the needed 

infrastructure improvements. Terminal 

operators are required to submit plan 

updates at a frequency dependent upon 

the compliance option selected by the 

vessel fleet owner or operator and the 

terminals. The At-Berth Regulation also 

includes associated enforcement 

requirements, such as reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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 certain 

new nonroad engines or vehicles. 

Section 209(e)(2) of the Act requires the 

Administrator to grant California 

authorization to enforce its own 

standards for new nonroad engines or 

vehicles that are not listed under section 

209(e)(1), subject to certain restrictions. 

On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a 

rule that sets forth, among other things, 

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. 

On October 8, 2008, the regulations 

promulgated in that rule were moved to 

40 CFR part 1074, and modified 

slightly.10 As stated in the preamble to 

the section 209(e) 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).11

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 (DC Cir. 1979) 

(‘‘MEMA I’’), the U.S. Court of Appeals 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Notices 77517 

12 MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1122. 

13 Id. 

14 Id. 

15 Id. 

16See, e.g., 40 FR 21102–103 (May 28, 1975). 

17 MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1121. 

18 Id. at 1126. 

19 Id. 

20 76 FR 38155 (June 29, 2011). 

21 ‘‘BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board 

hereby determines, pursuant to section 209(e)(2) of 

the Federal Clean Air Act, the requirements in the 

adopted regulation, to the extent they are 

determined to be emission standards or 

requirements related to the control of emissions, 

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 requirements, standards, and 

accompanying provisions are consistent with the 

provisions in section 209.’’ CARB, Resolution 07– 

57, EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0549–0007. 

22CARB Support Document at 7; see Engine Mfrs. 

Assoc. v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075, 1089–1090 (DCCir 

1996). 

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.12

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.’’ 13

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.14 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.15

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.’’ 16

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.17

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.’ ’’ 18 Therefore, the 

Administrator’s burden is to act 

‘‘reasonably.’’ 19

D. EPA’s Administrative Process in 

Consideration of California’s At-Berth 

Regulation 

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 June 29, 2011.20 Specifically, we 

requested comment on: (a) Whether 

CARB’s determination that its 

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 June 29, 2011 

Federal Register notice, EPA received 

one public comment. The comment is 

from the Pacific Merchant Shipping 

Association (‘‘PMSA’’). PMSA makes 

four general comments. First, PMSA 

comments that California’s At-Berth 

Regulation is arbitrary and capricious 

under section 209 of the Clean Air Act. 

Second, PMSA comments that the AtBerth Regulation does not adequately 

address significant economic impact 

issues and assess fleet composition. 

Third, PMSA comments that CARB 

lacks statutory authority to pursue its 

At-Berth Regulation as an in-use 

operation regulation that requires 

retrofits. Fourth, PMSA comments that 

the California At-Berth Regulation is 

preempted under section 209(e)(2) of 

the Clean Air 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 07–57, 

finding that California’s At-Berth 

Regulation will not cause the California 

emission standards, in the aggregate, to 

be less protective of public health and 

welfare than applicable Federal 

standards.21 CARB highlights that EPA 

is authorized to regulate new nonroad 

engines, and only California may adopt 

emission standards and other emissionrelated requirements for in-use nonroad 

engines.22 Accordingly, CARB points 

out that EPA has not adopted any 

emission standards or other 

requirements applicable to in-use 

nonroad engines, including auxiliary 

diesel engines operated on ocean-going 

vessels. CARB concludes that ‘‘no 

question exists that the At-Berth 

Regulation is at least as protective of 

public health and welfare as applicable 

federal standards.’’ 

EPA did not receive any comments 

directly challenging California’s 

protectiveness determination, but did 

receive one comment from PMSA, who 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
77518 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Notices 

23 MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1121. 

24PMSA’s ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ comment is 

also addressed below in section III.D. 

25See 74 FR 32744, 32761 (July 8, 2009); 49 FR 

18887, 18889–18890 (May 3, 1984). 

26 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). 

27PMSA did comment that the possibility that 

other states may adopt California’s At-Berth 

Regulation ‘‘raises the issue that CARB has not 

demonstrated that this regulation is necessary ‘to 

meet compelling and extraordinary conditions’ 

under section 209(e)(2)(A)(ii), of the Act.’’ However, 

after raising the issue, PMSA did not offer any 

argument or evidence to support its conclusion. 

California clearly provided a demonstration in its 

request for authorization that it needs its standards 

to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions. 

presents that California’s At-Berth 

Regulation is, more generally, arbitrary 

and capricious. PMSA’s ‘‘arbitrary and 

capricious’’ comment is not concerned 

with California’s protectiveness 

determination (i.e., the stringency of the 

standards, or the health and welfare 

effects of the regulation); what PMSA is 

concerned about is that the regulation 

should be more closely tailored to the 

emissions it seeks to reduce. PMSA 

complains that California regulates only 

some types of vessels and not others. 

EPA’s review of California’s 

protectiveness determination, however, 

is limited under section 209(e)(2)(i). The 

Agency’s review is highly deferential to 

California’s policy judgment as 

expressed in its final regulation. The 

Clean Air Act does not leave room for 

EPA to second-guess the wisdom of 

California’s policy. EPA is charged with 

determining whether California made its 

protectiveness determination arbitrarily 

and capriciously; conversely, EPA is not 

tasked with conducting a more 

searching ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ 

review of California’s regulation. 

Furthermore, the issues PMSA raises 

when it opines that California’s At-Berth 

Regulation is ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ 

are not the type of issues that EPA 

traditionally considers as part of its 

evaluation of California’s protectiveness 

determination. When evaluating 

California’s protectiveness 

determination, EPA traditionally 

compares the stringency of the 

California and Federal standards at 

issue in a given waiver or authorization 

request. That comparison is undertaken 

within the broader context of the 

previously waived California program, 

which relies upon protectiveness 

determinations that EPA previously 

found were not arbitrary and capricious. 

EPA refrains from conducting a more 

detailed examination of the California 

rulemaking more generally. Such an 

undertaking would seemingly go 

beyond the review that Congress 

intended.23 Considering PMSA’s 

comments within the context of EPA’s 

traditional protectiveness provides no 

additional opportunity to question 

California’s protectiveness 

determination because PMSA provides 

no indication that California’s standards 

are less stringent than comparable 

Federal standards. Additionally, even if 

we were to take into account PMSA’s 

‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ concerns 

when reviewing California’s 

protectiveness determination, PMSA’s 

concerns to do not present sufficient 

evidence to meet its burden of proof. 

PMSA does not present any factual 

evidence or analysis of any health and 

welfare effects they expect to be caused 

by California’s regulation. Such 

evidence and analysis would be 

necessary to show that California’s 

standards are less protective of health 

and welfare. Thus, in this comment 

PMSA does not meet its burden to show 

that California’s protectiveness 

determination was arbitrary and 

capricious.24

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.25 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 07–57, 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.’’ 26 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.27 Therefore, 

EPA has determined that we cannot 

deny California a waiver for its At-Berth 

Regulation 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 

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 AtBerth Regulation must not apply to new 

motor vehicles or new motor vehicle 

engines. California’s At-Berth 

Regulation apply to auxiliary diesel 

engines, which are nonroad engines, not 

on-highway motor vehicles or engines. 

CARB further clarifies that because 

auxiliary diesel engines are regulated as 

nonroad engines, they fall within the 

regulatory definition of nonroad engine, 

and are, thus, consistent with section 

209(a). No commenter presented 

otherwise; therefore, EPA cannot deny 

California’s request on the basis that 

California’s At-Berth Regulation is 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 At-Berth Regulation must 

not affect new farming or construction 

vehicles or engines that are below 175 

horsepower, or new locomotives or their 

engines. CARB again clarifies that its AtBerth Regulation applies to in-use 

auxiliary diesel engines operated on 

ocean-going vessels while at-berth in a 

California port. Such engines are not 

used in locomotives and are not 

primarily used in farm and construction 

equipment vehicles. No commenter 

presented otherwise; therefore, EPA 

cannot deny California’s request on the 

basis that California’s At-Berth 

Regulation is 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Notices 77519 

28 MEMA I, 627, F.2d at 1126. 

29H.R. Rep. No. 95–294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301 

(1977). 

30See, e.g., 49 FR 1887, 1895 (May 3, 1984); 43 

FR 32182, 32183 (July 25, 1978); 41 FR 44209, 

44213 (October 7, 1976). 

31 41 FR 44209 (October 7, 1976). 

32H.R. Rep. No. 95–294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301 

(1977). 

33CARB Support Document at 9–11. 

34CARB Support Document at 11; see also CARB, 

Technical Support Document, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0548–0006. 

35 Id. 

36 Id. 

37CARB, ‘‘Final Statement of Reasons for 

Rulemaking Including Summary of Comments and 

Agency Responses,’’ EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0548– 

0010, pp. 70–71 (hereinafter ‘‘CARB FSOR’’). 

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 

impose requirements inconsistent with 

the Federal test procedures.28

a. Technological Feasibility 

Congress has stated that the 

consistency requirement of section 

202(a) relates to technological 

feasibility.29 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.30 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.31 Subsequently, 

Congress has stated that, generally, 

EPA’s construction of the waiver 

provision has been consistent with 

congressional intent.32

CARB presents that the technology 

required to comply with both the Shore 

Power Option and the Equivalent 

Emission Reduction Option is currently 

available, and that it has provided 

sufficient lead-time.33 For the Shore 

Power Option, which CARB expects to 

be the choice of most vessel operators, 

CARB asserts that technology is proven 

and currently in use at several 

terminals. The technology needed to 

comply with the Shore Power Option is 

grid-based shore power, in which vessel 

operators shut off vessel auxiliary 

engines and switch to shore based 

electricity to power a berthed vessel. 

CARB acknowledges that while some 

terminals already have implemented 

shore power capacity, others have not; 

nevertheless, all twenty-eight terminals 

subject to the At-Berth Regulation have 

already submitted compliance plans to 

install grid-based shore power at their 

terminals. Also, although the 

installation may take between two and 

three years to complete, CARB has 

provided six years of lead-time. CARB 

also notes that vessels have an 

additional flexibility, because fleets may 

route ships to certain ports to comply. 

For the Equivalent Emission Reduction 

Option, CARB asserts that there are a 

variety of emission control technologies 

that currently exist and are already in 

use, including distributed electrical 

generation technologies, such as 

compressed natural gas generators that 

are equipped with best available control 

technology. CARB explains that the AtBerth Regulation allows vessel operators 

to combine technologies and shore 

power to meet their emission reduction 

requirements, and that the compliance 

levels require increasing reductions over 

the course of ten years. CARB believes 

that its compliance flexibilities and 

phased-in timelines establish that there 

is sufficient lead-time. 

CARB also considered the cost of 

compliance in its rulemaking record, 

and asserts that ‘‘ports, terminal 

operators, and fleet owners and 

operators will largely be able to pass on 

their compliance costs for both 

compliance options [] to their customers 

without incurring significant economic 

disruption or impact on business 

competitiveness.’’ 34 CARB presents that 

costs incurred by terminal operators 

will be passed along to vessel fleet 

operators, who will pass them along to 

their customers. CARB expects the cost 

of its At-Berth Regulation on a typical 

terminal operator to be about $11 

million over the course of the 2009– 

2020 compliance schedule. CARB also 

expects that costs will be passed on to 

customers, at different rates depending 

on the category of vessel and each 

vessel’s particular use. Compliance with 

the Shore Power Option will also 

include the added cost of the grid-based 

electricity. CARB presents that 

container ships will not see a net 

increase because lower fuel costs will 

offset the increased electricity costs; 

passenger vessels and refrigerated cargo 

vessels, on the other hand, may see an 

increase in energy cost that can be 

passed along to customers through 

‘‘negligible increases in cargo costs.’’ 35

Based on its presentation of 

technological feasibility and cost of 

compliance, CARB concludes ‘‘the AtBerth Regulation is feasible within the 

time provided for compliance, giving 

appropriate consideration of costs.’’ 36

EPA did not receive any comments 

suggesting that CARB’s standards and 

test procedures are technologically 

infeasible. EPA did receive comments— 

from PMSA—suggesting that CARB did 

not adequately address the cost of 

compliance. PMSA asserts that 

California’s At-Berth Regulation did not 

adequately address the significant 

economic impact issues or appropriately 

assess fleet composition. PMSA therein 

presents several challenges to the costeffectiveness of the At-Berth Regulation. 

First, PMSA suggests that CARB did not 

consider actual baseline emissions of 

vessels at-berth. Second, PMSA suggests 

that there is tremendous variability of 

compliance costs associated with the 

At-Berth Regulation, so terminal 

operators and ocean-carriers who find 

themselves on the high end of the cost 

spectrum due to their port authority and 

municipal utility will face higher 

compliance costs. Third, PMSA asserts 

that CARB failed to identify ports as 

direct contributors in its assignment of 

costs. PMSA presented each of these 

comments in the California rulemaking, 

and CARB responded to each in its 

Final Statement of Reasons for 

Rulemaking (‘‘FSOR’’). With regard to 

PMSA’s first point, CARB answered that 

it did not count voluntary emission 

reductions because they are not required 

by law, and that it did not count 

reductions from its low sulfur fuel 

requirements so as not to double-count 

those reductions.37 With respect to 

PMSA’s second point on costeffectiveness, CARB agrees with PMSA 

that compliance costs are variable, and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
77520 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Notices 

38CARB FSOR at 69–70. 

39CARB FSOR at 70. 40See, e.g., 43 FR 32182 (July 25, 1978). 

41CARB FSOR at 87. 

42CARB FSOR at 19. 

answers that the At-Berth Regulation 

presents compliance options that treat 

terminal operators and ports fairly, and 

that the market—not CARB—will 

determine who bears the various costs 

of compliance.38 With respect to 

PMSA’s third point on identification of 

ports as direct contributors, CARB 

concurred that ports will incur costs 

due to the regulation, and explained 

that it allocated costs to vessel fleet 

operators, terminals, and utilities 

because vessel fleet operators are the 

entities who are responsible for costs 

associated with compliance.39 CARB 

assigned the cost of port improvements 

to the terminals on its assumption that 

ports would make the improvements 

and pass the costs of the improvements 

along to the terminals. 

EPA’s own review with regard to cost 

of compliance occurs within the context 

of its review of whether California’s AtBerth Regulation is consistent with 

section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. As 

described above, EPA’s review here is 

narrow. That is, section 202(a) 

consistency calls for a limited review of 

technological feasibility, including 

analysis of the cost of new technology, 

if technology does not currently exist. 

Section 202(a) does not allow EPA to 

conduct a more searching review of 

whether the costs are outweighed by the 

overall benefits of the California 

regulations. In this case, no party has 

objected to CARB’s demonstration that 

technologies are in existence and are 

being used in actual operation. EPA’s 

traditional review of costs considers 

whether the cost of compliance per 

engine would render the regulation cost 

prohibitive and thus infeasible, not 

whether California’s regulation is costeffective. Here, CARB acknowledges and 

understands that there are significant 

costs associated with compliance, but 

CARB expects those costs to eventually 

be passed on to the consumer, without 

significant effect. PMSA’s comments do 

not challenge the feasibility of the 

regulation. PMSA instead challenges 

overall cost-effectiveness of the 

regulation, how costs are allocated, and 

the variability of costs. These issues are 

more appropriately considered by CARB 

in its rulemaking, and not here in EPA’s 

limited section 209(e) authorization 

review. More importantly for this 

proceeding, PMSA has not presented 

that the compliance costs are such that 

compliance with the At-Berth 

Regulation would be infeasible or 

unreasonable. To the contrary, CARB 

has presented that the costs of the 

regulation are not prohibitive. CARB has 

found that cost of the At-Berth 

Regulation is reasonable, cost-effective, 

and capable of being absorbed by the 

regulated industry and passed on to 

consumers, with minimal overall 

economic impact. 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.40

CARB presents that its At-Berth 

Regulation does not pose any 

inconsistency as between California and 

Federal test procedures. First, CARB 

asserts that its At-Berth Regulation does 

not adopt or create any new test 

procedures. Second, CARB asserts that 

although its At-Berth Regulation 

incorporates by reference a number of 

standards and test procedures, it does 

not require any additional certification 

requirement beyond those already 

required for new engines, at the Federal 

and state levels. Third, CARB asserts 

that its At-Berth Regulation does not 

conflict with existing Federal and state 

diesel emission control verification 

testing. 

EPA received no comments suggesting 

that CARB’s At-Berth Regulation poses 

a 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 

PMSA presents three general 

comments in opposition to California’s 

At-Berth Regulation that are outside the 

scope of EPA’s scope of review of 

California authorization requests under 

section 209(e)(2). 

First, PMSA asserts that California’s 

regulation is arbitrary and capricious 

under section 209 of the Clean Air Act. 

To that end, PMSA asserts that 

California’s At-Berth Regulation is 

discriminatory in its application to 

types of vessels without regard to the 

frequency with which those vessels visit 

California ports, and in its advantage 

towards vessels already equipped with 

shore power connections. PMSA first 

presented these comments to CARB in 

its rulemaking, and CARB answered 

these comments directly. CARB 

disagreed that the At-Berth Regulation is 

discriminatory, arbitrary and 

capricious.41 CARB further stated that it 

intends to develop regulations to reduce 

at-berth emissions from all ship 

categories, but in this first regulation it 

has targeted emissions from three ship 

categories. 

In response to these comments from 

PMSA, EPA again notes its limited 

review of California’s request under 

section 209, which only includes the 

three criteria listed in section 209(e)(2) 

for California’s At-Berth Regulation. 

PMSA’s comment here goes to the 

overall reasonableness of the At-Berth 

Regulation, and not specifically towards 

any of the section 209(e)(2) criteria. As 

such, it is outside the scope of EPA’s 

authorization evaluation. Additionally, 

we note that these are issues that PMSA 

already raised in the California 

rulemaking, which CARB considered 

and responded to with reasoned 

analysis. 

Second, PMSA asserts that California 

lacks statutory authority to pursue its 

At-Berth Regulation as an ‘‘In-Use 

Operations’’ regulation that requires 

retrofits. PMSA’s point here is that the 

Equivalent Emissions Reduction Option 

would require retrofits or modifications 

that could affect the stability, structural 

integrity, and general safety of a ship. 

PMSA believes that such requirements 

can result in impacts that are under the 

purview of the U.S. Coast Guard, and 

the respective classification societies as 

designated by a ship’s flag state. PMSA 

made this same comment in the 

California rulemaking, and CARB 

responded.42 CARB first answered that 

the At-Berth Regulation does not require 

vessels to retrofit or perform 

modifications to ships and engines 

because the regulation is not 

prescriptive but allows flexibility 

between its two compliance options. 

Then, CARB pointed out that its AtBerth Regulation, section (b)(2), 

expressly states: 

Nothing in this section shall be construed 

to amend, repeal, modify, or change in any 

way any applicable U.S. Coast Guard 

requirements. Any person subject to this 

section shall be responsible for ensuring 

compliance with both U.S. Coast Guard 

regulations and requirements of this section, 

including but not limited to, obtaining any 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Notices 77521 

43At-Berth Regulation section (b)(2), section 

93118.3(b)(2), title 17, chapter 1, subchapter 7.5, 

California Code of Regulations, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0548–0012. 

44CARB FSOR at 20. 

45See, e.g., 74 FR 32744, 32783 (July 8, 2009). 

46See Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Ass’n 

v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, 462–63, 466–67 (DC 

Cir.1998), Motor and Equipment Manufacturers 

Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095, 1111, 1114–20 (DC 

Cir. 1979). 

47PMSA 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). 

necessary approvals, exemptions, or orders 

from the U.S. Coast Guard.43

CARB also points out that many vessels 

already use shore power while docked, 

presumably in compliance with U.S. 

Coast Guard regulations. 

As above, PMSA’s comment here is 

again outside the scope of EPA’s section 

209(e)(2) evaluation of California’s 

authorization request. EPA does not 

review the general appropriateness of 

California’s regulations; nor does EPA’s 

review permit analysis of whether 

California’s regulations conflict with 

areas of Federal law under the purview 

of other agencies. This PMSA comment 

does not make any attempt to show that 

California’s regulations are in conflict 

with any of the criteria in section 

209(e)(2). It therefore cannot be the basis 

for any denial of California’s request for 

authorization under section 209(e)(2). 

Third, PMSA comments that 

California’s At-Berth Regulation’s 

‘‘retrofit requirements’’ are preempted 

under section 209(e) of the Clean Air 

Act. This is another issue that PMSA 

first presented to CARB during the 

California rulemaking. At that time, 

CARB disagreed.44 CARB again pointed 

out that its At-Berth Regulation does not 

require vessel operators to retrofit or 

modify their engines. CARB further 

pointed out that despite section 209(e)’s 

preemption, section 209(e)(2) allows 

California to seek authorization to adopt 

and enforce its nonroad engine 

regulations, which it intended to do and 

has now done. 

PMSA’s comments compare this 

situation to the one addressed by the 

Supreme Court in United States v. 

Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000). However, in 

this case, unlike in the case of Locke, 

the statute in question, the Clean Air 

Act, explicitly permits California to 

promulgate its own standards applicable 

to emissions from marine vessels as long 

as EPA does not make any of the 

findings required under section 

209(e)(2) to deny authorization. 

Also, as part of this third general 

comment, PMSA raises two additional 

issues. First, PMSA raises the issue that 

EPA’s authorization would allow other 

states to adopt the At-Berth Regulation, 

and that it is difficult to envision how 

other states would do so. PMSA is 

correct that other states may adopt and 

enforce California standards, if such 

states meet the requirements of section 

209(e)(2)(B) of the Act. While PMSA 

notes that there may be difficulties with 

other states’ adoption of the At-Berth 

Regulation—and PMSA has not made it 

clear that there would be—PMSA makes 

no attempt to explain how this difficulty 

in any way effects California’s ability to 

receive authorization under section 

209(e)(2)(A). Second, PMSA presents its 

opposition to California’s At-Berth 

Regulation on the basis that ocean-going 

vessel emissions are an issue of broad 

concern and should be addressed 

internationally through the International 

Maritime Organization. This comment 

relates to the broad policy 

considerations affecting California’s 

regulation of vessels, but it does not 

address any of the criteria in section 

209(e)(2). It is therefore not within the 

scope of EPA’s review under that 

section. 

As EPA has stated on numerous 

occasions, sections 209(b) and 209(e) of 

the Clean Air Act limits 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 based on any other 

criteria.45 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.46

None of the above-described issues 

PMSA raises is among—or fits within 

the confines of—the criteria listed under 

sections 209(e).47 Therefore, in 

considering California’s At-Berth 

Regulation, EPA cannot deny 

California’s request for authorization 

based on these comments. 

E. Authorization Determination for 

California’s At-Berth Regulation 

After a review of the information 

submitted by CARB and PMSA, EPA 

finds that those opposing California’s 

request have not met the burden of 

demonstrating that authorization for 

California’s At-Berth Regulation should 

be denied based on any of the three 

statutory criteria of section 209(e)(2). 

For this reason, EPA finds that an 

authorization for California’s At-Berth 

Regulation 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 At-Berth 

Regulation, CARB’s submissions, and 

the public comments from PMSA, EPA 

is granting an authorization to California 

for its At-Berth Regulation. 

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 February 13, 2012. 

Judicial review of this final action may 

not be obtained in subsequent 

enforcement proceedings, pursuant to 

section 307(b)(2) of the Act. 

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: November 28, 2011. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and 

Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31909 Filed 12–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9503–5] 

California State Nonroad Engine 

Pollution Control Standards; 

Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; 

Notice of Decision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Decision. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES