Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 224 / Monday, November 20, 2000 / Notices 69763

electronically and posted on the worldwide web.

Comment date: November 22, 2000, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraphs

E. Any person desiring to be heard or

to protest such filing should file a

motion to intervene or protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426, in accordance with Rules 211

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 385.214). All such motions or

protests should be filed on or before the

comment date. Protests will be

considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of these filings are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection. This filing may also be

viewed on the Internet at http://

www.ferc.fed.us/ online/rims.htm (call

202–208–2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–29549 Filed 11–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Project No. 1162 002

Kacie Lake Hydro, Inc., Notice of

Surrender of Preliminary Permit

November 8, 2000.

Take notice that Kacie Lake Hydro,

Inc., permittee for the proposed Kacie

Lake Hydroelectric Project, has

requested that its preliminary permit be

terminated. The permit was issued on

March 23, 1999, and would have

expired on February 28, 2002. The

project would have been located on an

unnamed stream, near the city of

Unalaska, Alaska.

The permittee filed the request on

October 3, 2000, and the preliminary

permit for Project No. 11620 shall

remain in effect through the thirtieth

day after issuance of this notice unless

that day is Saturday, Sunday, or holiday

as described in 18 CFR 385.2007, in

which case the permit shall remain in

effect through the first business day

following that day. New applications

involving this project site, to the extent

provided for under 18 CFR Part 4, may

be filed on the next business day.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–29588 Filed 11–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

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, EMail: Doyle.Robert@EPA.GOV.

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

69764 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 224 / Monday, November 20, 2000 / Notices

1The 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).

2 51 FR 12391 (April 10, 1986).

3See, 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.

4This 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).

5EPA 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.

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:

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

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

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.

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) heavyduty 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 224 / Monday, November 20, 2000 / Notices 69765

6Letter 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.

7See, respectively, 40 CFR § 90.908 (1998) and 40

CFR § 89.908 (1998).

8Letter 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.

9Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for

Proposed Rulemaking, Docket A–2000–07, Entry II–

D–2, p. 4.

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

(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.

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

(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

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

69766 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 224 / Monday, November 20, 2000 / Notices

10Letter 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.

11CARB 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).

12EPA 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).

13Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for

Proposed Rulemaking, Docket A–2000–08, Entry II–

D–2, p. 3, and Attachment A (Industry petition).

14Letter 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.

under section 209(e)(2) of the Federal

Clean Air Act.’’ 10

(D) CARB Snowthrower & Ice Auger

Optional HC and NOX 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 NOX 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.

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

NOX 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

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 NOX 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 NOX standards, continue to be, in

the aggregate, more protective of public

health and welfare than the applicable

Federal regulations.

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 224 / Monday, November 20, 2000 / Notices 69767

1These amendments, among other things,

renamed the regulations from the Utility, Lawn and

Garden Engine Regulations (ULGE Rule) to the

Small Off-Road Engine Regulations (SORE Rule).

2 60 FR 37440 (July 20, 1995). The CARB small

engine emission regulations were then called the

Utility, Lawn and Garden Engine (ULGE)

regulations. The new amendments, among other

things, renamed the ULGE regulations as the SORE

regulations

3Letter from Micahel P. Kenney, Executive

Officer, CARB, to Carol M. Browner, Administrator,

EPA, dated October 4, 1999, Docket A–2000–09,

entry II–B–1.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[AMS–FRL–6903–3]

California State Nonroad Engine and

Vehicle Pollution Control Standards;

Notice of Within the Scope

Determinations for Amendments to

California’s Small Off-Road Engine

Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice Regarding Within the

Scope Determinations.

SUMMARY: The California Air Resources

Board (CARB), by letter dated October 4,

1999, requested that EPA confirm

CARB’s finding that amendments to its

Small Off-Road Engine (SORE)

Regulations are within-the-scope of a

prior authorization under section 209(e)

of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C.

7543(b), granted by EPA for CARB’s

original SORE Regulations in July 1995.

EPA in this notice has made the

requested confirmation for many of the

amendments in the CARB request. EPA

has also determined that other

amendments in this CARB request were

not within the scope of the prior

authorization because these

amendments are new standards, and

will announce the opportunity for a

public hearing on these specific

amendments.

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 in this notice

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. The Docket for

this matter is Docket A–2000–09. 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 Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20460.

Telephone: (202) 564–9258, FAX: (202)

565–2057, E-Mail:

Doyle.Robert@EPA.GOV.

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/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.

II. Amendments to the SORE

Regulations

We have determined that certain

amendments to the CARB SORE 1

Regulations are within the scope of a

prior authorization under section 209(e)

of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C.

7543(b), granted by EPA to CARB’s

original SORE Regulations by decision

of the Administrator dated July 5, 1995.2

The SORE regulations apply to all

gasoline, diesel, and other fueled utility

and lawn and garden equipment engines

25 horsepower and under, with certain

exceptions. Under the original

authorization, the SORE regulations

established two ‘‘tiers’’ of exhaust

emission standards for these engines

(Tier 1 from 1995 through 1998 model

years, and Tier 2 for model year 1999

and beyond), as well as numerous other

requirements. The amendments to the

regulations, outlined in CARB’s request

letter,3 and fully described CARB’s

submissions, accomplish the following:

• The descriptive terms ‘‘handheld’’

and nonhandheld’’ have been dropped

in favor of describing covered engines

by engine displacement categories. The

former handheld engines are now called

‘‘less than or equal to 65 cubic

centimeters (cc),’’ or ‘‘0–65cc,’’ and the

former nonhandheld engines are now

called ‘‘greater than 65 cc.’’ CARB stated

that the former categories were picked

to ensure that multi-positional

equipment supported solely by the

operator could use the lighter (but

dirtier) handheld engines, which are

usually two-stroke engines. Because of

manufacturer difficulty with the engine

definitions, CARB chose engine

displacement to define category choices.

• CARB has changed both the

previously authorized Tier 2 standards

and the authorized implementation

dates for those standards. For the 0–

65cc engines, CARB extended the Tier

1 standards for one more year, through

model year 1999, so Tier 2 standards do

not begin for these engines until the

model year 2000. CARB also changed

the Tier 2 standards, by relaxing the CO

and PM standards, and changing the

format of the HC and NOX standards to

allow manufacturers more flexibility.

For the Over 65 cc engines, CARB

extended the Tier i standards two

additional years, through calendar year

2001 for most engines in this category.

The extension is longer in some special

cases: through 2002 for engines equal to

or greater than 225cc and horizontal