Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Notices 14543 

Relations or Ms. Julie J. Johnson, 

Assistant Director, Advisory Committee 

or Student Financial Assistance, Capitol 

Place, 80 F Street, NW., Suite 413, 

Washington, DC 20202–7582, (202) 219–

2099. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Advisory Committee on Student 

Financial Assistance is established 

under Section 491 of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965 as amended by 

Public Law 100–50 (20 U.S.C. 1098). 

The Advisory Committee serves as an 

independent source of advice and 

counsel to the Congress and the 

Secretary of Education on student 

financial aid policy. Since its inception, 

the congressional mandate requires the 

Advisory Committee to conduct 

objective, nonpartisan, and independent 

analyses on important aspects of the 

student assistance programs under Title 

IV of the Higher Education Act, and to 

make recommendations that will result 

in the maintenance of access to 

postsecondary education for low- and 

middle-income students. In addition, 

Congress expanded the Advisory 

Committee’s mission in the Higher 

Education Amendments of 1998 to 

include several important areas: access, 

Title IV modernization, distance 

education, and early information and 

needs assessment. Specifically, the 

Advisory Committee is to review, 

monitor and evaluate the Department of 

Education’s progress in these areas and 

report recommended improvements to 

Congress and the Secretary. 

The Advisory Committee has 

scheduled the hearing on Friday, April 

13 in Portland, Oregon to conduct 

activities related to its congressionally 

requested study to make textbooks more 

affordable (Textbook Study). This oneyear study, which was requested by the 

U.S. House of Representative Committee 

on Education and Labor (formerly 

Education and the Workforce), will 

investigate further the problem of rising 

textbook prices; determine the impact of 

rising textbook prices on students’

ability to afford a postsecondary 

education; and make recommendations 

to Congress, the Secretary, and other 

stakeholders on what can be done to 

make textbooks more affordable for 

students. Over the course of the study, 

the Committee will conduct three field 

hearings that will include testimony 

from stakeholders around the country 

who are currently working to make 

textbooks more affordable for students. 

The proposed agenda includes expert 

testimony and discussions by prominent 

higher education community leaders, 

state representatives, and institutions 

that will share what they are doing to 

make textbooks more affordable for 

students. The Advisory Committee will 

also conduct a public comment and 

discussion session. 

The Advisory Committee invites the 

public to submit written comments on 

the Textbook Study to the following email address: ACSFA@ed.gov. 

Information regarding the Textbook 

Study will also be available on the 

Advisory Committee’s Web site, http:// 

www.ed.gov/ACSFA. To be included in 

the hearing materials, we must receive 

your comments on or before Thursday, 

April 5, 2007; additional comments 

should be provided to the Committee no 

later than May 7, 2007. 

Space for the hearing is limited and 

you are encouraged to register early if 

you plan to attend. You may register by 

sending an e-mail to the following 

address: ACSFA@ed.gov or 

Tracy.Deanna.Jones@ed.gov. Please 

include your name, title, affiliation, 

complete address (including Internet 

and e-mail address, if available), and 

telephone and fax numbers. If you are 

unable to register electronically, you 

may fax your registration information to 

the Advisory Committee staff office at 

(202) 219–3032. You may also contact 

the Advisory Committee staff directly at 

(202) 219–2099. The registration 

deadline is Friday, April 6, 2007. 

Records are kept for Advisory 

Committee proceedings, and are 

available for inspection at the Office of 

the Advisory Committee on Student 

Financial Assistance, Capitol Place, 80 F 

Street, NW.,—Suite 413, Washington, 

DC from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Information regarding the 

Advisory Committee is available on the 

Committee’s Web site, http:// 

www.ed.gov/ACSFA. 

Dated: March 22, 2007. 

Dr. William J. Goggin, 

Executive Director, Advisory Committee on 

Student Financial Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 07–1490 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4001–01–M 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Notice of Intent To Prepare a 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for Surplus Plutonium 

Disposition at the Savannah River Site 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) intends to prepare a 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (SEIS) to evaluate the 

potential environmental impacts of 

plutonium disposition capabilities that 

would be constructed and operated at 

the Savannah River Site (SRS) near 

Aiken, South Carolina. DOE completed 

the Surplus Plutonium Disposition 

(SPD) EIS (DOE/EIS–0283) in November 

1999, and on January 11, 2000, 

published a Record of Decision (ROD) in 

the Federal Register (65 FR 1608). DOE 

decided to dispose of approximately 17 

metric tons of plutonium surplus to the 

nation’s defense needs using an 

immobilization process and up to 33 

metric tons by using the surplus 

plutonium as feedstock in the 

fabrication of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel 

to be irradiated in commercial reactors. 

DOE selected the SRS as the site for all 

surplus plutonium disposition facilities. 

Subsequently, DOE cancelled the 

immobilization portion of its 

disposition strategy due to budgetary 

constraints (ROD, 67 FR 19432, April 

19, 2002). The selection of the SRS as 

the location for disposition facilities for 

up to 50 metric tons of surplus 

plutonium remains unchanged. Site 

preparation for the MOX Fuel 

Fabrication Facility at the SRS began in 

November 2005. 

The 2002 decision left DOE with 

about 13 metric tons of surplus 

plutonium that does not have a defined 

path to disposition (about 4 metric tons 

of the 17 metric tons originally 

considered for immobilization has been 

designated for programmatic use). DOE 

has been investigating alternative 

disposition technologies and will now 

prepare an SEIS for Surplus Plutonium 

Disposition at the SRS (DOE/EIS–0283–

S2) to evaluate the potential 

environmental impacts of those 

alternatives. DOE’s preferred alternative 

is to construct and operate a vitrification 

facility within an existing building at 

the SRS. This facility would immobilize 

plutonium within a lanthanide 

borosilicate glass inside stainless steel 

cans. The cans then would be placed 

within larger canisters to be filled with 

vitrified high-level radioactive waste in 

the Defense Waste Processing Facility 

(DWPF) at the SRS. The canisters would 

be suitable for disposal in a geologic 

repository. DOE also would prepare 

some of the surplus plutonium for 

disposal by processing it in the HCanyon at the SRS, then sending it to 

the high-level waste tanks and DWPF. 

DOE seeks to take this action to reduce 

the threat of nuclear weapons 

proliferation worldwide by disposing of 

surplus plutonium in the United States 

in a safe and environmentally sound 

manner. The preferred vitrification 

technology, along with processing in HCanyon, would fulfill this need for 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
14544 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Notices 

1Under that standard, the surplus weaponsusable plutonium should be made as inaccessible 

and unattractive for weapons use as the much larger 

and growing quantity of plutonium that exists in 

spent nuclear fuel from commercial power reactors. 

disposition of surplus plutonium 

materials that are not planned for 

disposition via fabrication into MOX 

fuel. 

DATES: DOE invites Federal agencies, 

state and local governments, Native 

American tribes, industry, other 

organizations, and members of the 

public to submit comments to assist in 

identifying environmental issues and in 

determining the appropriate scope of 

the SEIS. The public scoping period 

starts with the publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register and will 

continue until May 29, 2007. Comments 

received after this date will be 

considered to the extent practicable. 

Also, DOE requests Federal, State, and 

local agencies that desire to be 

designated as cooperating agencies on 

the SEIS to contact the NEPA Document 

Manager at the addresses listed under 

ADDRESSES by the end of the scoping 

period. DOE will hold two public 

scoping meetings: 

• April 17, 2007 (5:30 p.m.–10 p.m.) 

at Newberry Hall, 117 Newberry Street, 

SW., Aiken, SC. 

• April 19, 2007 (5:30 p.m.–10 p.m.) 

at the Columbia Marriott Hotel, 1200 

Hampton Street, Columbia, SC. 

DOE officials will be available to 

answer questions about plutonium 

disposition and the proposed 

alternatives at both locations beginning 

at 5:30 p.m. DOE will provide a brief 

presentation on the SEIS, then, 

beginning about 6:30 p.m., accept public 

comments on the scope of the SEIS. 

ADDRESSES: Comments or questions 

regarding the scoping process, requests 

to be placed on the SEIS distribution 

list, and comments on the scope of the 

SEIS should be addressed to Mr. 

Andrew R. Grainger, NEPA Document 

Manager, Savannah River Operations 

Office, P.O. Box B, Aiken, SC 29802; 

toll-free telephone 1–800–881–7292; fax 

803–952–7065; or e-mail 

drew.grainger@srs.gov. 

For general information concerning 

the DOE NEPA process, contact: Carol 

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 

Policy and Compliance (GC–20), U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0103; telephone 

202–586–4600, or leave a message at 1–

800–472–2756; fax 202–586–7031; or 

send an e-mail to askNEPA@eh.doe.gov. 

This NOI will be available on the 

Internet at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

After the end of the Cold War, the 

United States declared 50 metric tons of 

plutonium surplus to the defense needs 

of the nation. At that time, plutonium 

materials were in various forms and 

various stages of the material 

manufacturing and weapons fabrication 

processes and were located at several 

weapons complex sites that DOE had 

operated in the preceding decades. DOE 

began the process of placing these 

materials in safe, stable configurations 

for storage until disposition strategies 

could be developed and implemented. 

In the Storage and Disposition of 

Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials 

Programmatic EIS (Storage and 

Disposition PEIS, DOE/EIS–0229, 

December 1996), DOE evaluated six 

candidate sites for siting plutonium 

disposition facilities and three 

categories of disposition technologies 

that would convert surplus plutonium 

into a form that would meet the Spent 

Fuel Standard.1 The three categories 

were: Deep Borehole Category (two 

options); Immobilization Category (three 

options: vitrification, ceramic 

immobilization, electrometallurgical 

treatment); and Reactor Category (four 

options). DOE also analyzed a No 

Action Alternative. DOE selected a dualpath strategy for disposition involving 

immobilization of surplus plutonium in 

glass or ceramic material for disposal in 

a geologic repository, and burning other 

surplus plutonium as MOX fuel in 

existing domestic commercial reactor(s) 

with subsequent disposal of the spent 

fuel in a geologic repository (ROD, 62 

FR 3014, January 21, 1997). DOE also 

decided that an immobilization facility 

would be located at Hanford in 

Washington or at the SRS. 

In November 1999, DOE issued the 

Surplus Plutonium Disposition EIS. The 

SPD EIS tiered from the Storage and 

Disposition PEIS and included an 

analysis of alternative technologies and 

sites to implement the dual-path 

plutonium disposition strategy. In 

January 2000, DOE decided to construct 

and operate a MOX Fuel Fabrication 

Facility at the SRS to use up to 33 

metric tons of surplus plutonium to 

fabricate MOX fuel and to construct and 

operate a new immobilization facility at 

the SRS (referred to as the Plutonium 

Immobilization Plant) using the ceramic 

can-in-canister technology allowing for 

the immobilization of approximately 17 

metric tons of surplus plutonium (ROD, 

65 FR 1608, January 11, 2000). Using 

this technology, DOE would immobilize 

plutonium in a ceramic form, seal it in 

cans, and place the cans in canisters 

filled with borosilicate glass containing 

intensely radioactive high-level waste at 

the existing DWPF. DOE stated that the 

can-in-canister approach would 

complement existing site missions, take 

advantage of existing infrastructure and 

staff expertise, and enable DOE to use 

an existing facility, DWPF. 

In 2002, DOE cancelled the 

immobilization portion of the 

plutonium disposition strategy (ROD, 67 

FR 19432, April 19, 2002). The selection 

of the SRS as the location for 

disposition facilities for up to 50 metric 

tons of surplus plutonium remains 

unchanged. In November 2005, DOE 

began site preparation at SRS for the 

MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility. 

For purposes of this NEPA analysis, 

DOE will assume that the surplus 

plutonium to be disposed of will 

include some of the plutonium already 

stored at the SRS and some that DOE 

could move to the SRS from other sites 

(e.g., Hanford in Washington, Los 

Alamos National Laboratory in New 

Mexico, and Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory in California). DOE 

previously evaluated the transfer and 

storage of surplus plutonium from other 

sites in the Storage and Disposition PEIS 

and the SPD EIS. In addition, DOE will 

analyze the potential environmental 

impacts of these proposed shipments to, 

and subsequent storage in, the K-Area at 

the SRS in a supplement analysis 

(pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.314(c)). Upon 

completion of the supplement analysis, 

DOE will determine whether to issue an 

Amended ROD or conduct additional 

NEPA review, as appropriate. As 

explained in a prior ROD, ‘‘in addition 

to achieving the ultimate goal of 

permanent disposition of surplus 

plutonium materials, DOE 

independently needs to improve the 

configuration of the storage system for 

these materials, pending disposition’’

(67 FR 19433, April 19, 2002). 

In addition to completing appropriate 

environmental reviews in compliance 

with NEPA, prior to shipping surplus 

weapons-usable plutonium to the SRS 

that would have been disposed of in the 

Plutonium Immobilization Plant, DOE 

must comply with Section 3155, 

Disposition of Defense Plutonium at the 

Savannah River Site, of Public Law 107–

107, National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2002. Section 3155(d) of 

this law requires that DOE prepare a 

plan that identifies a disposition path 

for such surplus plutonium. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

DOE’s purpose and need for 

proposing this immobilization process 

has not changed since the SPD EIS was 

prepared. DOE needs to reduce the 

threat of nuclear weapons proliferation 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Notices 14545 

worldwide by disposing of surplus 

plutonium in the United States in a safe 

and environmentally sound manner. As 

stated in the ROD for the SPD EIS, DOE 

needs to ensure that plutonium 

produced for nuclear weapons and 

declared surplus to national security 

needs, now and in the future, is never 

again used for nuclear weapons. In 

addition, because of the cancellation of 

the immobilization portion of the 

disposition strategy in 2002, DOE is 

responsible for approximately 13 metric 

tons of declared surplus plutonium that 

does not have a defined disposition 

path. This situation needs to be 

addressed in light of DOE’s ongoing 

responsibility to ensure the safe 

disposition of surplus plutonium. 

Potential Range of Alternatives 

In September 2005, DOE approved the 

Mission Need for a Plutonium 

Disposition Project at the SRS to address 

up to approximately 13 metric tons of 

surplus plutonium without an identified 

disposition path. The Mission Need is 

the first step in DOE’s project 

management process, in accordance 

with DOE Order 413.3A, Program and 

Project Management for the Acquisition 

of Capital Assets. 

DOE completed a technical review of 

alternative technologies in May 2006, 

which identified four potentially viable 

alternatives for completing the 

disposition of surplus plutonium. Three 

of these four alternatives will be 

evaluated in the SEIS. 

• A glass can-in-canister approach 

installed in K-Area at the SRS. 

Plutonium would be vitrified within 

small cans, which would be placed in 

a rack inside a DWPF canister and 

surrounded with vitrified high-level 

waste. This alternative is similar to one 

evaluated in the SPD EIS, except that 

the capability would be installed in an 

existing rather than a new facility. Also, 

the currently proposed facility would be 

designed to immobilize approximately 

13 metric tons of surplus plutonium 

rather than 17 metric tons as evaluated 

in the SPD EIS. (This is DOE’s Preferred 

Alternative.) 

• A ceramic can-in-canister approach 

installed in K-Area at the SRS. 

Plutonium would be incorporated in a 

ceramic material and placed in small 

cans, which would be placed in a rack 

inside a DWPF canister and surrounded 

with vitrified high-level waste. This 

alternative is similar to that initially 

selected by DOE following analysis in 

the SPD EIS. As with the glass can-incanister approach, the two primary 

differences are that the SEIS will 

evaluate installing the capability in an 

existing rather than a new facility, and 

the SEIS will assume the disposition of 

approximately 13 metric tons of surplus 

plutonium, rather than 17 metric tons. 

• Disposition using the MOX Fuel 

Fabrication Facility. This alternative 

would rely on facilities to be 

constructed at the SRS for disposition 

by using the surplus plutonium as 

feedstock in the fabrication of MOX fuel 

to be irradiated in commercial reactors. 

DOE anticipates that less than a third of 

the 13 metric tons of surplus plutonium 

that are the subject of this SEIS would 

meet the specifications for use as MOX 

Fuel Fabrication Facility feedstock. 

Under each of the three alternatives, 

DOE would process some surplus 

plutonium for disposal using the HCanyon. Plutonium materials would be 

dissolved, and the resulting plutoniumbearing solutions would be sent to the 

SRS liquid radioactive waste tanks then 

to DWPF for vitrification. DOE is 

evaluating the continued use of HCanyon for uranium processing in a 

separate NEPA document—a 

supplement analysis scheduled for 

completion in 2007. Decisions regarding 

future operations of H-Canyon have a 

bearing on the availability of the facility 

to process surplus plutonium (i.e., 

processing for plutonium disposition 

would occur while H-Canyon is 

operating primarily for uranium 

processing). 

The SEIS also will evaluate a No 

Action alternative of continued storage 

of the surplus plutonium. 

DOE has determined that the fourth 

alternative identified in the May 2006 

technical review is not reasonable, and 

thus, it will not be evaluated in detail 

in the SEIS. This alternative involved 

disposing of the entire 13 metric tons of 

surplus plutonium through H-Canyon 

and DWPF. Disposing of the entire 13 

metric tons of surplus plutonium by 

using the H-Canyon facilities would 

result in extending operation of those 

facilities many years beyond the 

estimated 2019 date for completion of 

its currently approved mission of 

preparing spent nuclear fuel and highlyenriched uranium materials for 

disposition, and would also extend the 

planned operation of DWPF and the 

high-level waste system. Furthermore, 

implementation of this alternative 

would require security upgrades to 

make H-Canyon a Category I nuclear 

facility, which is inconsistent with the 

Department’s plans to enhance security 

and reduce costs throughout the 

complex by reducing the number of 

such facilities. The additional cost of 

these security upgrades and extended 

operations are estimated to be several 

billion dollars. 

Invitation to Comment 

DOE invites Federal agencies, state 

and local governments, Native 

American tribes, industry, other 

organizations, and members of the 

public to provide comments on the 

proposed scope, alternatives, and 

environmental issues to be analyzed in 

the Supplemental EIS for Surplus 

Plutonium Disposition at the SRS. DOE 

will consider all such comments and 

other relevant information in defining 

the scope and analyses for the SEIS. 

Comments should be submitted as 

described under DATES and ADDRESSES

above. 

Potential Environmental Issues for 

Analysis 

DOE has tentatively identified the 

following environmental issues for 

analysis in the Supplemental EIS for 

Surplus Plutonium Disposition at the 

SRS. The list is presented to facilitate 

comment on the scope of the SEIS and 

is not intended to be comprehensive nor 

to predetermine the alternatives to be 

analyzed or their potential impacts. 

• Impacts to the general population 

and workers from radiological and 

nonradiological releases. 

• Worker health and safety, including 

impacts from the use of chemicals. 

• Long-term health and 

environmental impacts. 

• Impacts of emissions on air and 

water quality. 

• Impacts on ecological systems and 

threatened and endangered species. 

• Impacts from waste management 

activities. 

• Impacts from the transportation of 

radioactive materials and waste. 

• Impacts of postulated accidents and 

from terrorist actions and sabotage. 

• Potential disproportionately high 

and adverse effects on low-income and 

minority populations (environmental 

justice). 

• Short-term and long-term land use 

impacts. 

NEPA Process 

Following the scoping period 

announced in this Notice of Intent, and 

after consideration of comments 

received during scoping, DOE will 

prepare a Draft SEIS for Surplus 

Plutonium Disposition at the SRS. DOE 

will announce the availability of the 

Draft SEIS in the Federal Register and 

local media outlets. DOE plans to issue 

the Draft SEIS by January 2008. 

Comments received on the Draft SEIS 

will be considered and addressed in the 

Final SEIS, which DOE anticipates 

issuing by July 2008. DOE will issue a 

ROD no sooner than 30 days after 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
14546 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Notices 

1Section 209(e)(1) of the Act provides: 

No State or any political subdivision thereof shall 

adopt or attempt to enforce any standard or other 

requirement relating to the control of emissions 

from either of the following new nonroad engines 

or nonroad vehicles subject to regulation under this 

Act—

(A) New engines which are used in construction 

equipment or vehicles or used in farm equipment 

or vehicles and which are smaller than 175 

horsepower. 

(B) New locomotives or new engines used in 

locomotives. Subsection (b) shall not apply for 

purposes of this paragraph. 

2See 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994), and regulations 

set forth therein, 40 CFR part 85, Subpart Q, 

§§ 85.1601–85.1606. 

3As discussed above, states are permanently 

preempted from adopting or enforcing standards 

relating to the control of emissions from new 

engines listed in section 209(e)(1). 

4See 40 CFR part 85, Subpart Q, § 85.1605. 

publication by the Environmental 

Protection Agency of a Notice of 

Availability of the Final SEIS. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 21, 

2007. 

Eric J. Fygi, 

Acting General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. E7–5591 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[AMS–FRL–8292–8] 

California State Nonroad Engine and 

Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; 

Authorization of Marine Outboard, 

Personal Watercraft and Tier One 

Inboard/Sterndrive Engine Standards, 

Notice of Decision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Decision for 

Authorization of California Marine 

Outboard, Personal Watercraft and Tier 

One Inboard/Sterndrive Engine 

Emission Standards. 

SUMMARY: EPA today, pursuant to 

section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act (Act), 

42 U.S.C. 7543(e), is granting California 

its requests for authorization of its 

Marine Spark-Ignition Engines 

regulations for outboard and personal 

watercraft engines in their entirety, and 

for the first tier of regulations affecting 

inboard and sterndrive engines. EPA is 

deferring an authorization decision on 

the second tier of inboard and 

sterndrive standards pending the 

completion of testing currently 

underway to evaluate the technological 

feasibility of both the California inboard 

and sterndrive standards and Federal 

inboard and sterndrive standards which 

are expected to be proposed regulations 

in 2007. 

ADDRESSES: The Agency’s Decision 

Document, containing an explanation of 

the Assistant Administrator’s decision, 

as well as all documents relied upon in 

making that decision, including those 

submitted to EPA by California, are 

available for public inspection in EPA 

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center (Air Docket). 

Materials relevant to this decision are 

contained in Docket OAR–2004–0403 at 

the following location: EPA Air Docket, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA 

Docket Center Public Reading Room is 

open from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday 

through Friday, except on government 

holidays. The Air Docket telephone 

number is (202) 566–1742, and the 

facsimile number is (202) 566–1741. 

You may be charged a reasonable fee for 

photocopying docket materials, as 

provided in 40 CFR part 2. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert M. Doyle, Attorney-Advisor, 

Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, (6403J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 

(U.S. mail), 1310 L Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20005 (courier mail). 

Telephone: (202) 343–9258, Fax: (202) 

343–2804, E-Mail: doyle.robert@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Electronic Copies of 

Documents 

EPA makes available an electronic 

copy of this Notice on the Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) 

homepage (http://www.epa.gov/OTAQ). 

Users can find this document by 

accessing the OTAQ homepage and 

looking at the path entitled ‘‘Federal 

Register Notices’’. This service is free of 

charge, except any cost you already 

incur for Internet connectivity. Users 

can also get the official Federal Register 

version of the Notice on the day of 

publication on the primary Web site: 

(http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPAAIR/) Please note that due to differences 

between the software used to develop 

the documents and the software into 

which the documents may be 

downloaded, changes in format, page 

length, etc., may occur. 

Additionally, an electronic version of 

the public docket is available through 

the Federal government’s electronic 

public docket and comment system. 

You may access EPA dockets at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. After opening the 

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

select ‘‘Environmental Protection 

Agency’’ from the pull-down Agency 

list, then scroll to Docket ID EPA–HQ–

OAR–2004–0403 to view documents in 

the record of this Marine Authorization 

Request docket. 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. 

II. Background 

(A) Nonroad Authorizations 

Section 209(e)(1) of the Act addresses 

the permanent preemption of any State, 

or political subdivision thereof, from 

adopting or attempting to enforce any 

standard or other requirement relating 

to the control of emissions for certain 

new nonroad engines or vehicles.1

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

Administrator to grant California 

authorization to enforce state standards 

for new nonroad engines or vehicles 

which are not listed under section 

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

On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a 

regulation that sets forth, among other 

things, the criteria, as found in section 

209(e)(2), by which EPA must consider 

any California authorization requests for 

new nonroad engines or vehicle 

emission standards (section 209(e) 

rules).2

Section 209(e)(2) requires the 

Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for public hearing, to 

authorize California to enforce 

standards and other requirements 

relating to emissions control of new 

engines not listed under section 

209(e)(1).3 The section 209(e) rule and 

its codified regulations 4 formally set 

forth the criteria, located in section 

209(e)(2) of the Act, by which EPA must 

grant California authorization to enforce 

its new nonroad emission standards: 

40 CFR part 85, Subpart Q, § 85.1605 

provides: 

(a) The Administrator shall grant the 

authorization if California determines that its 

standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as 

protective of public health and welfare as 

applicable Federal standards. 

(b) The authorization shall not be granted 

if the Administrator finds that: 

(1) The determination of California is 

arbitrary and capricious; 

(2) California does not need such California 

standards to meet compelling and 

extraordinary conditions; or 

(3) California standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures are not consistent 

with section 209. 

As stated in the preamble to the 

section 209(e) rule, EPA has interpreted 

the requirement that EPA cannot find 

‘‘California standards and 

accompanying enforcement procedures 

are not consistent with section 209’’ to 

mean that California standards and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES