Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 224 / Monday, November 20, 2000 / Notices 69769

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.

11 Decision Document for California Nonroad

Engine Regulations Amendments, Dockets A–2000–

05 to 08, entry V–B, .p. 28.

issues affecting EPA’s previous

authorization determination.11

In its request letter, 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.

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.

Our 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, we 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

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. 00–29501 Filed 11–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[AMS–FRL–6903–4]

California State Nonroad Engine and

Vehicle Pollution Control Standards;

Opportunity for Public Hearing and

Request for Public Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public

hearing and request for public comment.

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 to CARB’s

original SORE Regulations in July 1995.

EPA has made the requested

confirmation for many of the

amendments in the CARB request and

published this determination in an

earlier FR notice. EPA also determined

that other amendments in this CARB

request were not within the scope of the

prior authorization because these

amendments are brand new standards.

For this reason, EPA is announcing the

opportunity for a public hearing on

these specific amendments.

DATES: EPA has tentatively scheduled a

public hearing for December 8, 2000,

commencing at 9:30 am. Any person

who wishes to testify on the record at

the hearing must notify EPA in writing

by December 1, 2000 that he or she will

attend the hearing to present oral

testimony regarding EPA’s

determination. If EPA receives one or

more requests to testify, this hearing

will be held. If EPA does not receive any

requests to testify, this hearing will be

canceled. Anyone who plans to attend

the hearing should contact Robert Doyle

by telephone or E-Mail (number and

address below) to determine if this

hearing will be held. Regardless of

whether or not a hearing is held, any

party may submit written comments

regarding EPA’s determination by or

before December 22, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Parties wishing to present

oral testimony at the public hearing

should provide written notice to John

Guy, Acting Manager, Engine

Compliance Programs Group, (6403J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460. If EPA receives

a request for a public hearing, EPA will

hold the public hearing in the first floor

conference room at 501 3rd Street, NW.,

Washington, DC. Parties wishing to send

written comments should provide them

to Mr. Guy at the above address. EPA

will make available for public

inspection at the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center written

comments received from interested

parties, in addition to any testimony

given at the public hearing. The Air

Docket is open during working hours

from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at EPA, Air

69770 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 224 / Monday, November 20, 2000 / Notices

1, 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.

5See FR 36969, 36983 (July 20, 1994).

6Setion 209(e)(1) of the Act has been

implemented, See 40 CFR Pt. 85, Subpart Q

85.1602, 85.1603.

7To be consistent, the California certification

procedures need not be identical to the Federal

certification procedures. California procedures

would be inconsistent, however, if manufacturers

would be unable to meet both the state and the

Federal requirement with the same test vehicle in

the course of the same test. See, e.g., 43 Fed. Reg.

32182 (July 25, 1978).

8See, e.g., Motor and Equipment Manufacturers

Association, Inc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095, 1111–14

(D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 952 (1980)

(MEMA I); 43 Fed. Reg. 25729 (June 14, 1978).

While inconsistency with section 202(a) includes

technological feasibility, lead time, and cost, these

aspects are typically relevant only with regard to

standards. The aspect of consistency with 202(a)

which is of primary applicability to enforcement

procedures (especially test procedures) is test

procedure consistency.

9See 43 FR 36679, 36680 (August 18, 1978).

10 Decision Document for California Nonroad

Engine Regulations Amendments, Dockets A–2000–

05 to 08, entry V–B, p.28.

11 60 FR 37440 (July 20, 1995). The CARB small

engine emission regulations were then called the

Docket (6102), Room M–1500,

Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. The reference

number for this docket is A–2000–09.

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 (U.S. mail),

501 3rd Street NW, Washington, DC

20001 (courier mail). Telephone: (202)

564–9258, Fax:(202) 565–2057, 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

‘‘Regulations.’’ 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 website:

(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. 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.

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).1, 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.

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

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.5 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 from

state regulation.6 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, 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.7

With regard to enforcement

procedures accompanying standards,

EPA must grant the requested

authorization unless it finds that these

procedures may cause the California

standards, in the aggregate, to be less

protective of public health and welfare

than the applicable Federal standards

promulgated pursuant to section 213(a),

or unless the Federal and California

certification test procedures are

inconsistent.8

Once California has received an

authorization for its standards and

enforcement procedures for a certain

group or class of nonroad equipment

engines or vehicles, it may adopt other

conditions precedent to the initial retail

sale, titling or registration of these

engines or vehicles without the

necessity of receiving an additional

authorization.9

If California acts to amend a

previously authorized standard or

accompanying enforcement procedure,

the amendment 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, and raises no new issues

affecting EPA’s previous authorization

determination.10

(B) The SORE Amendments Request

EPA granted California authorization

for its SORE Rule by decision of the

Administrator dated July 5, 1995.11 The

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 224 / Monday, November 20, 2000 / Notices 69771

Utility, Lawn and Garden Engine (ULGE)

regulations. The new amendments, among other

things, renamed the ULGE regulations as the SORE

regulations.

12CARB Notice of Public Hearing with attached

Staff Report, Docket A–2000–09, entry II-B–2, p. 2.

13Letter from CARB to EPA requesting within the

scope confirmation for amendments to SORE Rule,

dated October 4, 1999, Docket A–2000–09, entry IIB–1, p.3.

14 Decision Document for California Nonroad

Engine Regulations Amendments, Dockets A–2000–

05 to 08, entry V–B.

SORE Rule, which applies to all

gasoline, diesel, and other fueled utility

and lawn and garden equipment engines

25 horsepower and under, with certain

exceptions 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. By letter dated

October 4, 1999, CARB notified EPA

that it had adopted numerous

amendments to its SORE Regulations

which were first approved at a public

hearing on March 26, 1998. These

amendments are the product of CARB’s

continuing reviews of industry efforts to

comply with the requirements of the

CARB nonroad program. The Board

directed the CARB staff to review the

industry progress in developing the

technology required to comply with the

Tier 2 standards, and to consider issues

raised by the industry in this process.

The staff recommended to the Board

that the SORE regulations ‘‘be modified

to reflect the realities of the small

engine market and the technological

capabilities of the industry.’’ 12 These

recommended amendments which

CARB adopted consequently reduce

compliance burdens on manufacturers

while also ‘‘preserving most of the

emission reductions—including most

reductions in excess of comparable

federal program—that U.S.E.P.A.

previously authorized.’’ 13

In its request letter, CARB asked EPA

to confirm the CARB determination that

the amendments to the SORE

regulations set forth in its request

package are within the scope of the

209(e) authorization of the original

authorization granted by EPA for the

SORE Rule in July 1995. EPA has made

such a determination for most of the

regulation amendments included in the

CARB request.14 EPA also has

determined, on the other hand, that one

set of regulation amendments in this

request cannot be considered within the

scope of the previous authorization

because these particular amendments

set brand new, more stringent standards

and therefore properly should be

reviewed as a new authorization

request. These amendments set useful

life standards for covered engines

(where before there were none).

Accordingly, EPA announces this

opportunity for a public hearing on

these new standards.

III. Procedures for Public Participation

Any party desiring to make an oral

statement on the record should file ten

(10) copies of its proposed testimony

and other relevant material with John

Guy Doyle at the address listed above no

later than December 20, 2000. In

addition, the party should submit 25

copies, if feasible, of the planned

statement to the presiding officer at the

time of the hearing.

In recognition that a public hearing is

designed to give interested parties an

opportunity to participate in this

proceeding, there are no adverse parties

as such. Statements by participants will

not be subject to cross-examination by

other participants without special

approval by the presiding officer. The

presiding officer is authorized to strike

from the record statements that he or

she deems irrelevant or repetitious and

to impose reasonable time limits on the

duration of the statement of any

participant.

If a hearing is held, the Agency will

make a verbatim record of the

proceedings. Interested parties may

arrange with the reporter at the hearing

to obtain a copy of the transcript at their

own expense. Regardless of whether a

public hearing is held, EPA will keep

the record open until December 22,

2000. Upon expiration of the comment

period, the Administrator will render a

decision on CARB’s request based on

the record of the public hearing, if any,

relevant written submissions, and other

information that she deems pertinent.

All information will be available for

inspection at EPA Air Docket, in Docket

No. A–2000–09.

Persons with comments containing

proprietary information must

distinguish such information from other

comments to the greatest possible extent

and label it as ‘‘Confidential Business

Information’’ (CBI). If a person making

comments wants EPA to base its

decision in part on a submission labeled

CBI, then a nonconfidential version of

the document that summarizes the key

data or information should be submitted

for the public docket. To ensure that

proprietary information is not

inadvertently placed in the docket,

submissions containing such

information should be sent directly to

the contact person listed above and not

to the public docket. Information

covered by a claim of confidentiality

will be disclosed by EPA only to the

extent allowed and by the procedures

set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. If no claim

of confidentiality accompanies the

submission when EPA receives it, EPA

will make it available to the public

without further notice to the person

making comments.

Dated: November 9, 2000.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 00–29502 Filed 11–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL 6904–4]

Science Advisory Board; Notification

of Public Advisory Committee Meeting

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, Public Law 92–463,

notice is hereby given that The Research

Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC)

of the US EPA Science Advisory Board

(SAB), will meet on December 12 and

13, 2000 at the One Washington Circle

Hotel located at One Washington Circle,

NW, Washington, D.C. The meeting will

begin by 8:30 a.m. and adjourn no later

than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard time on

both days. The meeting is open to the

public, however, seating is limited and

available on a first come basis.

Purpose of the Meeting—The purpose

of the meeting is to discuss the FY 2002

Agency Budget Process and Schedule as

a prelude to the Committee’s formal

review of the Science and Technology

(S&T) portion of that budget in

February. The Committee will be briefed

on the Agency’s Science Plan and

Inventory, and it will consider how to

conduct the second phase of its review

of the implementation of EPA’s Peer

Review Process. The Committee will

also spend part of the meeting planning

its activities for the next year.

For Further Information—Any

member of the public wishing further

information concerning this meeting or

wishing to submit brief oral comments

(10 minutes or less) must contact Dr.

John ‘‘Jack’’ R. Fowle III, Designated

Federal Officer, Science Advisory Board

(1400A), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone

(202) 564–4547; FAX (202) 501–0323; or

via e-mail at fowle.jack@epa.gov.

Requests for oral comments must be in

writing (e-mail, fax or mail) and

received by Dr. Fowle no later than

noon Eastern Standard Time on

December 7, 2000.