[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 224 (Monday, November 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69763-69767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29500]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[AMS-FRL-6902-9]


California State Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Pollution Control 
Standards; Notice of Within the Scope Determinations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice Regarding Within the Scope Determinations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA today has determined that certain amendments to the 
California regulations for standards and test procedures for; utility 
and lawn and garden engines (ULGE Rule); heavy-duty non-road engines 
and vehicles (HDNR Rule); and nonroad recreational vehicles and engines 
(NRRV Rule), are within the scope of the previous authorizations of 
Federal preemption granted to California for its three nonroad rules 
pursuant to section 209(e) of the Act.

DATES: Any objections to the findings in this notice regarding EPA's 
determination that California's amendments to its regulations for test 
procedures for nonroad engines and vehicles are within the scope of 
previous authorizations must be filed by December 20, 2000. Otherwise, 
at the end of this 30-day period, these findings will become final. 
Upon receipt of any timely objection, EPA will consider scheduling a 
public hearing to reconsider these findings in a subsequent Federal 
Register notice.

ADDRESSES: Any objections to the within the scope findings described 
above should be filed with Robert Doyle at the address noted below. The 
Agency's decisions as well as all documents relied upon in reaching 
these decisions, including those submitted by the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB), are available for public inspection in the Air 
and Radiation Docket and Information Center during the working hours of 
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
Docket (6102), Room M-1500, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20460, Tel. (202) 260-7549. The Dockets included in 
these determinations are as follows: Docket A-2000-05--ULGE Rule--
Certification and Implementation Amendments; Docket A-2000-06--ULGE 
Rule and HDNR Rule--Military/Tactical Vehicles and Engines Exemptions 
Amendments; Docket A-2000-07--ULGE Rule--CO Standards Revisions 
Amendments; Docket A-2000-08--ULGE Rule--Snowthrowers & Ice Augers 
Certification Options Amendments; NRRV Rule--Speciality Vehicle CO 
Standards Revision Amendments.
    Copies of the Decision Document for these determinations can be 
obtained by contacting Robert Doyle as noted below, or can be accessed 
on the EPA Office of Mobile Sources Internet Home Page, also noted 
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Doyle, Attorney-Advisor, 
Certification and Compliance Division (6403J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania, NW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Telephone: (202) 564-9258, FAX:(202) 565-2057, E-Mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#13577c6a7f763d417c71766167535643523d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5713382e3b32790538353225231712071679101801">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Electronic Copies of Documents

    Electronic copies of this Notice and the accompanying Decision 
Document are available via the Internet on the Office of Transportation 
and Air Quality (OTAQ) Home Page (http://www.epa.gov/OTAQ. Users can 
find these documents by accessing the OTAQ Home Page and looking at the 
path entitled ``Chronological List of All OTAQ Regulations.'' This 
service is free of charge, except for any cost you already incur for 
Internet connectivity. The official Federal Register version of the 
Notice is made available on the day of publication on the primary Web 
site (http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/).
    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.

II. Within the Scope Determinations for Amendments to Previously 
Authorized Nonroad Standards and Procedures

    As noted above, CARB has requested that EPA confirm its 
determinations that the various amendments contained in its requests 
are within the scope of the authorizations previously granted by EPA 
for the various CARB nonroad rules. This within the scope determination 
concept originated in EPA's historical procedures for review of CARB 
onroad standards waiver requests. Early in the history of the

[[Page 69764]]

motor vehicle waiver program, CARB submitted to the Agency amendments 
to standards and regulations which had already received a waiver. 
Because these amendments did not fundamentally alter the standards 
which had received the waiver, EPA determined that the amendments did 
not have to be treated as a request for a new waiver, and therefore, 
EPA did not have to offer the opportunity for a public hearing before 
its review of the request (as section 209(b) requires for new waiver 
requests). Rather, EPA reviewed the amendments, found them to be 
covered by the previous waiver and issued a determination to that 
effect.\1\ Subsequently, EPA formulated a within the scope standard of 
review as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The first ``within the scope'' determination resulted from 
EPA placing a condition on the original waiver granted for 
California's Assembly Line Testing on August 31, 1971. EPA stated 
that the ``waiver shall not prohibit California from adopting 
modifications of the presently proposed assembly line test and 
associated numerical standards where such modifications are designed 
to improve correlation with certification standards and test 
procedures or where California determines that the objectives of the 
assembly line teat requirement can be satisfied at reduced cost to 
the consumer.'' In CARB's follow-up request, EPA determined that the 
condition it had placed on the earlier waiver had been satisfied and 
thus found California's amendments to ``exist within the meaning and 
intent of the (earlier) waiver.'' 37 Fed. Reg. 14831 (July 25, 
1972).

    If California acts to amend a previously waived standard or 
accompanying enforcement procedure, the change may be included 
within the scope of the previous waiver if it does not undermine 
California's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are 
as protective of public health and welfare as comparable federal 
standards, does not affect the consistency of California's 
requirement with section 202(a) of the (Act), and raises no new 
issues affecting the Administrator's previous waiver 
determination.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 51 FR 12391 (April 10, 1986).

    Although CARB has received authorizations for various sets of its 
nonroad standards on three separate occasions, the requests covered in 
this Notice are the first ones submitted by CARB for EPA to consider 
under a WIS approach. For these nonroad WIS requests, CARB has 
recommended that ``(f)or reasons of consistency and administrative 
efficiency, the U.S. EPA should similarly find that amendments to 
California nonroad regulations, for which authorizations have 
previously been granted, can be found to be within the scope of the 
existing authorizations. That is, if the criteria referenced in (the 
excerpt above) are satisfied as they relate to amendments of nonroad 
regulations, the Administrator should find the nonroad amendments to be 
within the scope of existing authorizations.'' CARB also noted that, 
for nonroad within the scope requests, the findings that CARB must 
make, and the analysis EPA must perform on these findings, is not 
significantly different than the CARB and EPA tasks in the nonroad 
authorization process.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., letter form James D. Boyd, Executive Officer, 
CARB, to Carol M. Browner, Administrator, EPA, dated March 27, 1996, 
Docket A-2000-05, Entry II-D-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding EPA's oversight role for nonroad WIS requests, EPA's 
regulations which implement section 209(e) do not specifically cover 
situations in which CARB requests approval for amendments to its 
authorized standards for nonroad engines. EPA has declared previously, 
however, that it would interpret section 209(b) (onroad waiver 
requests) and section 209(e) (nonroad authorization requests) similarly 
where the language is similar.\4\ EPA finds that the appropriate 
procedure for analysis and review of nonroad amendments WIS requests 
would be the same basic review and analysis and review used for onroad 
amendments WIS requests. Accordingly, EPA will use the within the scope 
criteria analysis currently used in the motor vehicle waiver program 
for application to requests from California regarding amendments to 
previously authorized nonroad standards and requirements. Specifically, 
if California acts to amend a previously authorized standard or 
accompanying enforcement procedure, the amendments may be considered 
within the scope of a previously granted authorization provided that it 
does not undermine California's determination that its standards in the 
aggregate are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable 
Federal standards, does not affect the consistency with section 209 of 
the Act,\5\ and raises no new issues affecting EPA's previous 
authorization determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This position was expressed in the Preamble to the 
publication of the final regulations implementing section 209(e) of 
the Act. See Air Pollution Control; Preemption of State Regulation 
for Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Standards, 59 Fed. Reg. 36969, 36982 
(July 20, 1994).
    \5\ EPA has interpreted the requirement regarding whether 
``California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are 
not consistent with section 209'' to mean that California standards 
and accompanying enforcement procedures must be consistent with 
section 209(a), section 209(e)(1), and section 209(b)(1)(C), as EPA 
has interpreted that subsection in the context of motor vehicle 
waivers. In Order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's 
nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new 
motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. Secondly, California's 
nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must be consistent with 
section 209(e)(1), which identifies the categories permanently 
preempted form state regulation. California's nonroad standards and 
enforcement procedures would be considered inconsistent with section 
209 if they applied to the categories of engines or vehicles 
identified and preempted from State regulation in section 209(e)(1). 
Finally, and most importantly in terms of application to nonroad 
within the scope requests such as these, because California's 
nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must be consistent with 
section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA will review nonroad authorization requests 
under the same ``consistency'' criteria that are applied to motor 
vehicle waiver requests. Under section 209(b)(1)(C), the 
Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if 
she finds that California ``standards and accompanying enforcement 
procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)'' of the Act. As 
previous decisions granting waivers of Federal preemption for motor 
vehicles have explained, State standards are inconsistent with 
section 202(a) if there is inadequate lead time to permit the 
development of the necessary technology giving appropriate 
consideration to the cost of compliance within that time period or 
if the Federal and State test procedures impose inconsistent 
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The California Requests

    I have determined that certain amendments to the California 
regulations for standards and test procedures for 1) utility and lawn 
and garden engines (ULGE Rule), 2) heavy-duty non-road engines and 
vehicles (HDNR Rule), and 3) nonroad recreational vehicles and engines 
(NRRV) Rule), are within the scope of the previous authorization of 
Federal preemption granted to California for its three nonroad rules 
pursuant to section 209(e) of the Act. These amendments, which are in 
four separate requests from California, and are described below, 
address various implementation and certification concerns that had 
arisen since California adopted these rules.

(A) CARB Nonroad Certification and Implementation Amendments

    By letter dated March 27, 1996, CARB notified EPA that it has 
adopted numerous amendments to its ULGE Rule which were first approved 
by CARB at a public hearing on July 28, 1994. These amendments 
specifically addressed some implementation and certification concerns 
and also served to align CARB's Rule with the EPA Small Nonroad Engine 
Rule and with the utility engine practices adopted by international 
standards organizations. Some of these amendments which pertained to 
petroleum-based certification fuels were adopted expeditiously, on 
August 29, 1994, at the request of manufacturers who wanted to certify 
their test engines with the alternative Phase II fuel for 1995 calendar 
year production. The remaining amendments in this package were adopted 
by CARB on May 26, 1995.
    These amendments, according to CARB, sprang from communications

[[Page 69765]]

between CARB staff and the regulated industries which identified areas 
in both the enforcement provisions and the test procedures that needed 
clarification. Additionally, CARB notes, the amendments serve to modify 
test procedures to better reflect industry practice and to be more 
consistent with Federal and international procedures.

    These amendments to the regulations accomplish the following:

--The definition of ``engine family'' was revised and new 
definitions were adopted for ``basic engine,'' ``engine model,'' and 
some related terms to provide manufacturers with greater flexibility 
in identifying engine families for certification testing.
--The regulations regarding emission control labels for these 
engines were revised to clarify who must attach the initial label 
and the supplemental label (which is required only if the initial 
label is obscured when installed in or on equipment), and the 
regulation requiring a fuel label on these engines was repealed 
because it was deemed unnecessary.
--The regulations regarding emission warranties were revised to make 
clear the warranty responsibility remains with the engine 
manufacturer even when the engine is labeled with the equipment 
manufacturer's name or trademark.
--The regulations regarding Assembly-Line Quality-Audit (ALQA) test 
procedures, which were originally based on the on-road program, were 
amended to better suit utility engine production practices, such as 
establishing new procedures for dealing with low-volume productions 
more typical to the utility engine production.
--The regulations regarding new engine compliance procedures, which 
allow CARB to perform emission testing on new engines at any point 
in the manufacturer's distribution process (including at retail 
stores), were based on the on-road program. The amendments to these 
regulations are designed to address properly the circumstances 
unique to utility engines.
--The regulations regarding manufacturer penalties were amended to 
clarify the specific liabilities of engine manufacturers and 
equipment manufacturers to be enjoined from the sale of noncomplying 
products. This will cover situations where an engine manufacturer 
sells an incomplete engine to an equipment manufacturer who uses 
inappropriate components in assembling the finished engine and thus 
produces a noncomplying engine.
--The regulations regarding test procedures generally serve to bring 
the California test procedures into closer conformity with the EPA 
Small Engine Rule test procedures, and also offer manufacturers some 
flexible options relative to alternative fueled engine 
certification, gasoline certification test fuels, and diesel-cycle 
engine family categorization. Finally, amendments were added 
regarding tamper resistance of adjustable engine parameters based on 
the corresponding regulations in the on-road program.

    CARB has requested that EPA ``confirm the ARB's determination that 
these amendments fall within the scope of the Clean Air Act section 
209(e)(2) authorization for the adoption of the Utility Regulations 
that was granted by (EPA) on July 5, 1995.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Letter from James D. Boyd, Executive Officer, CARB, to Carol 
M. Browner, Administrator, EPA, dated March 27, 1996, Docket A-2000-
05, Entry II-D-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) CARB Nonroad Military Tactical Vehicle Exemptions Amendments

    By letter dated October 7, 1996, CARB notified EPA that it has 
adopted amendments to its ULGE Rule and HDNR Rule which were first 
approved by CARB at a public hearing on December 14, 1995. CARB amended 
Title 13, California Code of Regulations, sections 2400 and 2420 to 
exempt engines used in off-road military tactical vehicles and 
equipment from the applicable standards and regulations contained in 
(respectively) the ULGE Rule and the HDNR Rule. CARB took this step to 
align the California regulations with the corresponding Federal 
regulations.
    Specifically, CARB exempted from the ULGE Rule and HDNR Rule any 
engines used in off-road military vehicles or equipment which have been 
exempted from EPA regulation under a ``national security exemption 
(NSE).'' Under the EPA rules applicable to small spark-ignition engines 
and large nonroad diesel engines, an NSE is available to a manufacturer 
of nonroad engines used in military applications.\7\ CARB also exempted 
from the ULGE Rule and HDNR Rule any nonroad military tactical vehicles 
or equipment which has received a Federal certificate of conformity 
under the EPA Small Engine Rule. CARB took this step to cover certain 
vehicles or equipment which may be commercially available with Federal 
certification, but fall within CARB's definition of ``military tactical 
vehicles or equipment.'' This step, CARB states, will further ensure 
that the military will not be required to create a separate California 
fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, respectively, 40 CFR Sec. 90.908 (1998) and 40 CFR 
Sec. 89.908 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB has requested that EPA ``confirm the ARB's determination that 
the adopted provisions fall within the scope of the * * * previous 
authorizations that have been granted for off-road vehicles and 
equipment under 209(e)(2) of the CAA.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Letter from Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer, CARB, to 
Carol M. Browner, Administrator, EPA, dated October 7, 1996, (``CARB 
request letter'') Docket A-2000-06, Entry II-D-1. This WIS request 
from CARB also asked EPA to confirm its determination that some 
amendments dealing with national security exemptions for on-road 
motor vehicles are within the scope of previous waivers granted 
under section 209(b). This particular request will be addressed in a 
forthcoming proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(C) CARB Nonroad Tier I Carbon Monoxide Standard Revision for Class 1 
and 2 Engines

    By letter dated October 9, 1996, CARB notified EPA that it has 
amended its regulations setting the Tier I carbon monoxide (CO) 
standard for class 1 and 2 nonroad engines, by revising the standard 
from 300 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g\bhp-hr) to 350 g\bhp-hr. 
This amendment was adopted by CARB in January 1996 after CARB received 
a July 1995 petition from the Briggs & Stratton Corporation (B&S) 
asking for this change. The company, a manufacturer of small engines 
used primarily in lawnmowers, requested that CARB relax its original CO 
standard because of technical difficulties in two of its largest engine 
models with in-use performance when the engines of these families were 
calibrated to comply with the 300 g\bhp-hr standard. B&S had indicated 
to CARB that, in fact, because of potential warranty claim liability 
and damage to its corporate reputation, the company would not certify 
these two models under the original standard. If this occurred, CARB 
noted that the low cost, high volume segment of the utility engine 
market would not be available to California buyers.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed 
Rulemaking, Docket A-2000-07, Entry II-D-2, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petition requested that the CARB standard for CO for the class 
1 and 2 engines be relaxed to 350 g\bhp-hr to be equivalent to the 
corresponding Federal standard of 350 g\bhp-hr. CARB admitted that this 
step would result in the CARB standard being less stringent than the 
Federal standard because CARB allows manufacturers to choose 
certification fuel which is differently formulated than the EPA-
required certification fuel. CARB found, nevertheless, that its ULGE 
regulations overall, even with the relaxation of the Tier One CO 
standard, continue to be, in the aggregate, more protective of public 
health and welfare that the applicable Federal regulations.
    CARB has requested that EPA ``confirm the ARB's determination that 
the adopted (CO standard) amendment falls within the scope of the 
previous authorization for utility engines granted

[[Page 69766]]

under section 209(e)(2) of the Federal Clean Air Act.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Letter from Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer, CARB, to 
Carol M. Browner, Administrator, EPA, dated October 9, 1996, (``CARB 
request letter'') Docket A-2000-07, Entry II-D-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(D) CARB Snowthrower & Ice Auger Optional HC and NO<INF>X</INF> 
Standards, and Specialty Vehicle CO Standard Revision

    By letter dated April 8, 1997, CARB notified EPA of two new sets of 
rule amendments. First, CARB stated that it has amended its ULGE 
regulations to provide manufacturers of engines used in snowthrowers 
and ice augers the option of not having to certify to the HC and 
NO<INF>X</INF> standards. Second, CARB stated that it amended the NRRV 
Rule to increase the carbon monoxide standard from 300 g/bhp-hr to 350 
g/bhp-hr for engines used in specialty vehicles \11\ that are under 25 
hp and manufactured after the effective date of the amendments through 
calendar year 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CARB defines ``specialty vehicles'' as ``any vehicle 
powered by an internal combustion engine having not less than three 
wheels in contact with the ground, having an unladen weight 
generally less than 2000 pounds, which is typically operated between 
10 and 35 miles per hour. * * * Speciality vehicles are mainly used 
off of highways and residential streets. Applications of such 
vehicles include, but are not limited to, carrying passengers, 
hauling light loads, grounds keeping and maintenance, resort or 
hotel areas, airports, etc.'' 13 CCR 2411(a)(19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the ULGE Rule as initially adopted by CARB in 1990, 
snowthrowers and ice augers were included in the Rule's coverage and 
thus were treated no differently than all other utility, lawn and 
garden equipment. In contrast, the EPA small engine rule, issued in 
1995, exempted wintertime equipment from HC and NO<INF>X</INF> 
standards. EPA noted that because snowthrowers and ice augers were 
clearly used only during the winter, it would not be reasonable to 
subject them to stringent control requirements aimed at addressing 
summertime ozone nonattainment problems.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA explained that ``on a national level, ozone 
nonattainment is primarily a seasonal problem that occurs during 
warm sunny weather. Regulating HC and emissions from products used 
exclusively in the winter, such as snowthrowers (and ice augers), 
will not advance the Agency's mission to correct this seasonal 
problem.'' 60 FR 34582, 34591 (July 3, 1995), 40 CFR 
90.103(a)(5)(1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March, 1996, the Tecumseh Products Company and the Toro Products 
Company, along with several servicing dealers, petitioned CARB to 
exempt snowthrowers and ice augers from HC and NO<INF>X</INF> 
standards. The industry petition noted that the emissions contribution 
from this type of winter-time equipment was very small, and that the 
requested change also would harmonize California and Federal treatment 
of this equipment.\13\ CARB granted this petition by adopting the 
requested changes. In its request letter to EPA, CARB acknowledged that 
because this step removes a mandatory standard for a class of utility 
equipment, it reduces the overall stringency of the CARB ULGE Rule. 
CARB found, nevertheless, that its ULGE regulations overall, even with 
the exemption of snowthrowers and ice augers from HC and NO<INF>X</INF> 
standards, continue to be, in the aggregate, more protective of public 
health and welfare than the applicable Federal regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed 
Rulemaking, Docket A-2000-08, Entry II-D-2, p. 3, and Attachment A 
(Industry petition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CARB NRRV Rule, as adopted in 1994, applies to various types of 
small nonroad vehicles including specialty vehicles under 25 hp. 
Because the engines used in the under 25 hp speciality vehicles were 
generally the same engines used in small utility equipment (Class 1 and 
2 engines), CARB adopted emission standards for these vehicles that 
paralleled the emission standards for the small engines covered by the 
ULGE Rule. As discussed above, in response to an industry petition, in 
January 1996 CARB amended its ULGE Rule setting the Tier I carbon 
monoxide (CO) standard for class 1 and 2 nonroad engines, by revising 
the standard from 300 g/bhp-hr to 350 g/bhp-hr. Because the under 25 hp 
specialty vehicles use the Class 1 and 2 small nonroad engines now 
under the relaxed CO standard in the ULGE Rule, CARB amended the NRRV 
Rule to correspond with the revised CO standard of 350 g/bhp-hr.
    CARB has requested that EPA ``confirm the ARB's determination that 
the adopted amendments fall within the scope of the previous 
authorizations that * * * EPA has granted under section 209(e)(2) of 
the CAA for utility engines and recreational vehicles (citations 
omitted).'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Letter from Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer, CARB, to 
Carol M. Browner, Administrator, EPA, dated April 8, 1997, (``CARB 
request letter'') Docket A-2000-08, Entry II-D-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the letters for these requests, CARB stated that the various 
amendments will not cause the California nonroad standards, in the 
aggregate, to be less protective of public health and welfare than the 
applicable Federal standards. Regarding consistency with section 209, 
CARB stated that the amendments (1) apply only to nonroad engines and 
vehicles and not to motor vehicles or engines, (2) apply only to those 
nonroad engines and vehicles which are not included in the preempted 
categories, and (3) do not raise any concerns of inadequate leadtime or 
technological feasibility or impose any inconsistent certification 
requirements (compared to the Federal requirements). Finally, CARB 
stated that the amendments raise no new issues affecting the prior EPA 
authorization determinations.
    EPA agrees with all CARB findings with regard to the provisions 
listed above. Thus, EPA finds that these amendments are within the 
scope of previous authorizations. A full explanation of EPA's decision 
is contained in a Decision Document which may be obtained from EPA as 
noted above.
    Because these amendments are within the scope of previous 
authorizations, a public hearing to consider them is not necessary. 
However, if any party asserts an objection to these findings by 
December 20, 2000, EPA will consider holding a public hearing to 
provide interested parties an opportunity to present testimony and 
evidence to show that there are issues to be addressed through a 
section 209(e) authorization determination and that EPA should 
reconsider its findings. Otherwise, these findings shall become final 
on December 20, 2000.
    My decision will affect not only persons in California but also the 
manufacturers outside the State who must comply with California's 
requirements in order to produce nonroad engines and vehicles for sale 
in California. For this reason, I hereby determine and find that this 
is a final action of national applicability.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final 
action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be filed by 
January 19, 2001. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, judicial review 
of this final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement 
proceedings.
    EPA's determination that these California regulations are within 
the scope of prior authorizations by EPA does not constitute a 
significant regulatory action under the terms of Executive Order 12866 
and this action is therefore not subject to Office of Management and 
Budget review.
    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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

[[Page 69767]]

Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule, 
for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
    Finally, the Administrator has delegated the authority to make 
determinations regarding authorizations under section 209(e) of the Act 
to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.

    Dated: November 9, 2000.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 00-29500 Filed 11-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>