Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0046-0003
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Control of Emissions From NewNonroad Diesel Engines: Amendmentsto the Nonroad Engine Definition
Posted Date: 2003-04-11T04:00Z

17741
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
70
/
Friday,
April
11,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Subpart
XX
 
West
Virginia

2.
An
undesignated
center
heading
and
sections
62.12155,
62.12156,
and
62.12157
are
added
to
subpart
XX,
to
read
as
follows:

Emissions
From
Existing
Commercial
Industrial
Solid
Waste
Incinerators
(
CISWI)
Units
 
Section
111(
d)/
129
Plans
§
62.12155
Identification
of
plan.
Section
111(
d)/
129
CISWI
plan
submitted
on
November
29,
2001,
amended
September
25,
2002,
and
January
22,
2003.

§
62.12156
Identification
of
sources.
The
plan
applies
to
the
Dupont
CISWI
unit
located
in
Wood
County,
West
Virginia.

§
62.12157
Effective
date.
The
effective
date
of
the
plan
is
June
10,
2003.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
8829
Filed
4
 
10
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
89
[
AMS
 
FRL
 
7482
 
1]

Control
of
Emissions
From
New
Nonroad
Diesel
Engines:
Amendments
to
the
Nonroad
Engine
Definition
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Direct
final
rule.

SUMMARY:
EPA
is
issuing
a
direct
final
rule
revising
the
definition
of
nonroad
engines
to
include
all
diesel­
powered
engines
used
in
agricultural
operations
in
the
State
of
California
that
are
certified
by
the
engine
maker
to
meet
the
applicable
nonroad
emission
standards.
Our
rule
will
consider
such
engines
as
nonroad
engines
without
regard
to
whether
these
engines
are
portable
or
transportable
or
how
long
these
engines
remain
in
one
fixed
location
at
a
farm.
DATES:
This
direct
final
rule
is
effective
on
May
14,
2003,
without
further
notice,
unless
we
receive
adverse
comments
by
May
12,
2003,
or
receive
a
request
for
a
public
hearing
by
April
28,
2003.
Should
we
receive
any
adverse
comments
on
this
direct
final
rule,
we
will
publish
a
timely
withdrawal
in
the
Federal
Register
informing
the
public
that
this
rule
will
not
take
effect.
ADDRESSES:
Comments:
All
comments
and
materials
relevant
to
today's
action
should
be
submitted
to
Public
Docket
No.
OAR
 
2003
 
0046
at
the
following
address:
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
Air
and
Radiation
Docket,
Mail
Code
6102T,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
Docket:
Materials
relevant
to
this
rulemaking
are
contained
in
Public
Docket
Number
OAR
 
2003
 
0046
at
the
following
address:
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
Public
Reading
Room,
Room
B102,
EPA
West
Building,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
except
on
government
holidays.
You
can
reach
the
Reading
Room
by
telephone
at
(
202)
566
 
1742,
and
by
facsimile
at
(
202)
566
 
1741.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566
 
1742.
You
may
be
charged
a
reasonable
fee
for
photocopying
docket
materials,
as
provided
in
40
CFR
part
2.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Robert
Larson,
U.
S.
EPA,
National
Vehicle
and
Fuel
Emissions
Laboratory,
Transportation
and
Regional
Programs
Division,
2000
Traverwood
Drive,
Ann
Arbor,
MI
48105;
telephone
(
734)
214
 
4277,
fax
(
734)
214
 
4956,
e­
mail
larson.
robert@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
General
Information
A.
Regulated
Entities
Entities
potentially
impacted
by
this
change
in
regulation
are
farming
interests
in
the
State
of
California
and
those
interests
that
manufacture
or
put
into
commerce
new,
compressionignition
nonroad
engines,
including:

Category
NAICS
codes
Examples
of
potentially
regulated
entities
Manufacturing
................................................................................
333618
Manufacturers
of
new
nonroad
diesel
engines.
Agriculture,
Forestry,
Fishing,
Hunting
..........................................
111XXX
Farms
with
crop
production.
Agriculture,
Forestry,
Fishing,
Hunting
..........................................
112XXX
Farms
with
animal
production.
Manufacturing
................................................................................
333111
Farm
machinery
and
equipment.

B.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
This
Document?

1.
Docket.
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Air
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2003
 
0046.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Air
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
(
EPA/
DC)
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Public
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566
 
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566
 
1742.
2.
Electronic
Access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
Federal
Register
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search''
and
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.
EPA
is
publishing
this
rule
without
a
prior
proposal.
However,
if
we
receive
adverse
comment
on
this
rulemaking,
we
will
publish
a
timely
withdrawal
in
the
Federal
Register
indicating
that
this
rule
is
being
withdrawn
due
to
adverse
comment.
In
the
``
Proposed
Rules''
section
of
today's
Federal
Register
publication,
we
are
publishing
a
separate
document
that
will
serve
as
the
proposal
to
adopt
the
provisions
in
this
Direct
Final
Rule
if
adverse
comments
are
filed.
This
rule
will
be
effective
on
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
12:
59
Apr
10,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
11APR1.
SGM
11APR1
17742
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
70
/
Friday,
April
11,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
1
In
this
preamble,
references
to
diesel­
powered
engines
or
diesel
engines
denotes
engines
operating
over
what
is
commonly
referred
to
as
the
diesel
engine
cycle,
also
known
as
the
compression
ignition
cycle.
It
is
not
limited
to
engines
running
on
diesel
fuel.
For
example,
engines
fueled
with
diesel
fuel,
compressed
natural
gas
(
CNG),
or
other
fuel,
may
be
diesel­
powered
engines.
2
California
state
law
presently
exempts
these
engines
from
all
New
Source
Review
and
Title
V
permitting
requirements
as
well
as
any
local
operating
permit
requirements.
As
a
result
of
this
exemption,
EPA
recently
proposed
to
find
that
the
California
State
Implementation
Plan
is
substantially
inadequate.
68
FR
7327
(
February
13,
2003)
3
Some
pieces
of
stationary
agricultural
equipment
use
engines
that
are
certified
to
nonroad
engine
standards,
or
that
are
identical
to
certified
engines.
Internal
combustion
engines
can
be
manufactured
for
many
uses,
and
some
engines
manufactured
to
meet
the
nonroad
engine
standards
may
end
up
in
stationary
equipment.
Farmers
may
choose
to
purchase
such
equipment.
May
14,
2003,
without
further
notice
unless
we
receive
adverse
comment
by
May
12,
2003,
or
receive
a
request
for
a
public
hearing
by
April
28,
2003.
We
may
address
all
adverse
comments
in
a
subsequent
final
rule
based
on
the
proposed
rule.
We
will
not
institute
a
second
comment
period.

II.
Summary
of
Rule
The
change
to
the
definition
of
nonroad
engine
is
intended
to
encourage
agricultural
operations
in
the
State
of
California
to
reduce
emission
from
their
existing
stationary
dieselpowered
1
engines
by
replacing
them
with
engines
certified
to
the
emission
standards
for
nonroad
engines,
thereby
greatly
reducing
NOX
emissions
from
these
engines.
The
rule
does
not
require
the
replacement
of
existing
engines
with
certified
engines.
However,
as
explained
below,
EPA
believes
that
owners
of
engines
will
choose
to
replace
them
voluntarily.
The
Clean
Air
Act
divides
internal
combustion
engines
into
three
categories:
Stationary
internal
combustion
engines,
engines
used
in
highway
motor
vehicles,
and
nonroad
engines.
The
last
category
includes
virtually
all
mobile
engines
that
are
not
used
in
motor
vehicles.
Nonroad
engines
are
considered
mobile
sources
under
the
Act
and
are
regulated
by
EPA
under
section
213
of
the
Act.
However,
the
boundaries
between
these
three
categories
of
engines
is
not
well
delineated
in
the
Act,
so
EPA
promulgated
a
rule
defining
``
nonroad
engine,''
exercising
its
authority
to
clarify
these
boundaries
(
59
FR
31306,
June
17,
1994).
See
40
CFR
89.2.
The
current
definition
of
nonroad
engine
requires
that
the
engine
meet
one
of
several
criteria
primarily
based
on
how
it
is
used.
For
example,
the
engine
is
defined
as
a
nonroad
engine
if
it
is
used
to
propel
a
piece
of
mobile
equipment
such
as
a
bulldozer
or
farm
tractor
or
if
it
is
used
in
equipment
that
is
propelled
while
performing
its
function
such
as
a
lawn
mower.
In
addition,
the
engine
is
considered
a
nonroad
engine
if
it
is
used
in
a
piece
of
equipment
that
is
portable
or
transportable.
Such
equipment
could
include
a
pump
mounted
on
a
trailer
or
on
a
set
of
skids
for
the
purpose
of
moving
the
equipment
from
one
location
to
another
for
operation
in
multiple
locations.
However,
such
an
engine
would
not
be
considered
a
nonroad
engine
if
the
engine
or
the
equipment
in
which
it
is
located
is
actually
used
in
one
fixed
location
for
more
than
12
consecutive
months.
If
an
engine
is
located
in
one
place
and
operated
more
than
12
consecutive
months
or
otherwise
does
not
meet
the
definition
of
nonroad
engine
(
for
example,
if
it
is
permanently
attached
to
one
location),
the
engine
is
not
considered
a
nonroad
engine
and
is
not
subject
to
EPA's
emission
standards
for
nonroad
engines.
Instead,
it
is
generally
considered
stationary
and
is
subject
to
regulation
under
Titles
I
and
V
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
In
the
case
of
agricultural
pump
engines
used
in
the
State
of
California,
EPA
estimates
that
approximately
half
of
these
fall
under
the
definition
of
nonroad
engines
due
to
their
portability
while
the
rest
are
considered
stationary.
Other
than
portability,
both
sets
of
engines
perform
basically
the
same
set
of
functions
and
operate
similarly.
Thus,
a
farming
operation
could
have
engines
of
the
same
horsepower
and
even
the
same
manufacturer
performing
the
same
basic
function
of
powering
a
pump,
but
one
would
be
considered
a
mobile
source
nonroad
engine
subject
to
the
requirements
established
under
Title
II
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
while
its
counterpart
is
treated
as
stationary
and
subject
to
the
provisions
of
Titles
I
and
V
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
In
California,
stationary
agricultural
pump
engines
have
historically
not
been
required
to
reduce
their
emission
levels.
2
In
contrast,
nonroad
engines
have
emission
standards
in
place
which
have
substantially
improved
their
emission
performance.
Thus,
using
the
example
case
from
the
previous
paragraph,
an
agricultural
operation
could
have
two
pump
engines
identical
in
function
except
the
one
considered
a
nonroad
engine
could
have
significantly
better
emission
performance
than
its
counterpart
stationary
pump
engine.
Clearly,
from
an
emission
performance
standpoint,
it
would
be
preferable
to
have
both
engines
meeting
the
lower
emission
levels
of
the
nonroad
engine.
Due
to
the
substantial
number
of
agricultural
pump
engines
in
use
in
California,
particularly
concentrated
in
the
major
agricultural
areas
such
as
the
San
Joaquin
Valley,
and
due
to
the
fact
that
the
portion
of
these
engines
installed
in
stationary
pumps
have
not
been
previously
controlled
(
except
perhaps
by
voluntary
action
of
the
owner
3),
we
believe
it
would
be
environmentally
beneficial
to
encourage
agricultural
operations
to
replace
relatively
high
emitting
stationary
pump
engines
with
engines
meeting
the
nonroad
emission
standards.
The
State
of
California
has
in
fact
acted
since
1999
to
reduce
the
emissions
from
these
stationary
engines
by
replacing
these
stationary
engines
through
its
Carl
Moyer
program
which
has
provided
funding
for
the
purchase
of
new
engines
certified
to
meet
the
emission
standards
applicable
to
new
nonroad
engines.
EPA
is
changing
the
definition
of
nonroad
engine
to
include
diesel
engines
used
in
agricultural
operations
in
the
State
of
California
that
are
certified
by
the
engine
manufacturer
to
meet
the
nonroad
emission
standards
for
that
engine,
where
the
engine
is
part
of
an
engine
family
that
contains
engines
that
otherwise
meet
the
definition
of
nonroad
engine.
Such
engines
will
no
longer
be
stationary
internal
combustion
engines.
Thus,
farmers
would
not
include
the
emissions
from
such
nonroad
engines
when
they
determine
whether
their
agricultural
operation
is
a
major
source
for
purposes
of
Title
V
permitting
or
other
requirements.
We
believe
that
this
change
will
encourage
the
use
of
engines
certified
to
nonroad
standards,
which
will
result
in
a
reduction
in
emissions
from
uncontrolled
levels.
We
believe
that
farmers
will
prefer
to
obtain
new
engines
regulated
as
nonroad
engines,
rather
than
to
continue
using
engines
that
will
be
regulated
under
stationary
source
permitting
requirements
including
Title
V
and
New
Source
Review
(
NSR).
Regulations
promulgated
under
Title
II
focus
primarily
on
compliance
by
manufacturers
rather
than
users,
whereas
Title
V
and
NSR
focuses
compliance
requirements
on
users.
Of
course,
replacing
current
engines
with
new
nonroad
engines
comes
at
some
cost.
However,
the
State
of
California
through
its
Carl
Moyer
program
has
been
providing
funds
to
help
farmers
replace
existing
engines
with
newer
cleaner
engines.
Additionally,
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
through
programs
administered
by
its
Natural
Resources
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
12:
59
Apr
10,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
11APR1.
SGM
11APR1
17743
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
70
/
Friday,
April
11,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
4
Federal
Register
63551
(
October
15,
2002)
Conservation
Services
(
NCRS)
anticipates
making
some
funding
available
under
the
Environmental
Quality
Incentives
Program
(
EQIP)
to
the
extent
practicable
for
replacement
of
existing
agricultural
engines
with
engines
meeting
the
requirements
of
our
nonroad
regulations.

What
Is
EPA
Doing?
We
are
revising
the
definition
of
nonroad
engines
to
include
certain
diesel
engines
that
are
used
in
agricultural
operations
in
California
that
would
otherwise
not
meet
the
current
definition
of
nonroad
engine.
As
a
result,
a
diesel
engine
used
in
agricultural
operations
in
California
that
does
not
meet
the
current
definition,
e.
g.
because
it
is
used
in
a
stationary
application,
would
still
be
considered
a
nonroad
engine
if
it
is
part
of
an
engine
family
certified
by
the
engine
maker
to
the
applicable
nonroad
engines
standards,
and
at
least
some
of
the
engines
in
that
engine
family
meet
the
current
definition
of
nonroad
engine.
Internal
combustion
engines
are
often
manufactured
for
use
in
many
different
applications.
Engines
that
are
part
of
an
engine
family
that
has
been
certified
by
EPA
to
meet
applicable
nonroad
engine
standards
may
get
used
in
either
portable
or
stationary
applications.
Under
the
current
definition,
only
the
engines
used
in
mobile
applications
meet
the
definition
of
nonroad
engine
and
those
used
in
stationary
applications
do
not.
Under
this
revision,
an
engine
in
that
certified
engine
family
that
is
used
in
agricultural
operations
in
California
would
continue
to
meet
the
definition
of
nonroad
irrespective
of
its
use
as
long
as
some
engines
in
the
engine
family
are
used
in
portable
applications.
This
rule
change
does
not
require
farmers
in
California
to
replace
existing
engines
with
new
engines
certified
to
the
nonroad
standards.
However,
for
farmers
who
have
already
made
this
replacement
or
who
do
so
in
the
future,
their
engines
will
be
treated
by
EPA
as
nonroad
engines,
subject
to
the
mobile
source
requirements
established
under
Title
II
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
rather
than
as
stationary
engines
subject
to
the
stationary
source
requirements
of
Title
I
and
V
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
Those
engines
that
are
not
replaced
will
continue
to
be
regarded
as
stationary
sources
subject
to
those
requirements.

Why
Is
EPA
Making
This
Change?
As
discussed
below,
EPA
believes
that
allowing
diesel
agricultural
engines
in
California
to
be
classified
as
nonroad
engines
if
they
are
certified
to
those
standards
will
result
in
more
emission
reductions
than
would
otherwise
occur
if
such
engines
remained
subject
to
the
stationary
source
requirements
and
that
these
reductions
will
occur
more
quickly
than
if
these
engines
continue
to
be
regulated
as
stationary
sources.
Engines
used
in
stationary
applications
on
farms
in
California
have
previously
not
been
regulated
under
the
stationary
source
requirements
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
including
Title
V
requirements.
Effective
November
14,
2002,
such
engines
became
subject
to
the
Title
V
permit
program
pursuant
to
EPA's
regulations
at
40
CFR
part
71.4
Title
V,
however,
does
not
require
subject
sources
to
reduce
emissions
from
the
source's
operation.
The
main
goal
of
Title
V
is
to
improve
a
source's
compliance
with
all
Clean
Air
Act
requirements
to
which
it
is
subject.
New
Source
Review
requirements
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
requires
emission
controls
be
evaluated
and
possibly
installed
for
new
major
sources
or
existing
major
sources
which
perform
a
significant
modification.
While
New
Source
Review
and
other
requirements
under
Title
I
or
Title
V
(
e.
g.,
Reasonably
Available
Control
Technology
requirements
for
major
sources
of
NOX
required
under
Title
I)
may
lead
to
emission
reduction
for
some
engines
in
the
future,
it
is
unclear
to
what
extent
agricultural
engines
in
California
would
be
required
to
reduce
emissions
as
a
result
of
such
requirements.
Finally,
even
assuming
potential
future
emission
controls
for
some
of
these
engines
that
could
result
from
stationary
source
requirements,
it
is
not
expected
that
such
controls
would
result
in
greater
total
emission
reductions
compared
to
what
would
result
from
using
engines
meeting
the
applicable
nonroad
emission
standards.
In
contrast,
regulations
for
diesel
nonroad
engines
establish
federal
emission
standards
for
these
engines
and
a
pre­
production
certification
procedure
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
standards,
and
include
various
other
compliance
and
enforcement
measures.
These
standards
require
substantial
control
of
emissions
and
are
generally
designed
to
``
achieve
the
greatest
degree
of
emission
reduction
achievable
through
the
application
of
[
available]
technology
*
*
*,
giving
appropriate
consideration
to
*
*
*
cost
*
*
*
noise,
energy
and
safety
factors.''
See
Clean
Air
Act
section
213(
a)(
3).
These
regulations
have
been
in
effect
beginning
with
the
1996
model
year.
The
so
called
``
Tier
2''
version
of
these
regulations
is
currently
being
phased
in
and
will
result
in
a
further
improvement
in
emission
performance.
More
stringent
``
Tier
3''
standards
will
be
phased
in
beginning
with
the
2006
model
year.
Additionally,
EPA
is
developing
another
set
of
more
stringent
nonroad
emission
standards
which
we
anticipate
will
very
substantially
improve
the
emission
performance
of
new
nonroad
engines
in
the
future.
This
sequence
of
increasingly
more
stringent
emission
regulations
for
these
new
nonroad
diesel
engines
will
assure
that
the
nonroad
requirements
result
in
the
maximum
feasible
emission
controls
we
can
anticipate
for
at
least
the
next
decade
or
so.
If
engines
meeting
these
nonroad
standards
are
extensively
used
in
agricultural
applications,
maximum
feasible
emission
reductions
should
result.
This
regulatory
amendment
is
intended
to
encourage
the
widespread
use
of
such
nonroad
engines
for
all
agricultural
pump
applications
in
the
State
of
California.

What
Is
Current
Emission
Performance
of
These
Stationary
Engines?
We
estimate
that
approximately
3,700
stationary
diesel
engines
are
used
in
agricultural
applications
in
California,
primarily
for
powering
irrigation
pumps
such
as
those
used
for
crop
irrigation
and
for
tending
livestock.
Some
of
these
are
quite
old,
dating
as
far
back
as
1960.
However,
between
1999
and
2001
approximately
1,500
engines
were
replaced
through
a
state
financed
program
known
as
the
Carl
Moyer
program.
Under
the
Carl
Moyer
program,
existing
stationary
diesel
engines
were
replaced
with
new
engines
of
similar
power
and
performance
that
were
also
certified
to
meet
the
nonroad
emission
standards.
It
is
estimated
that
this
program
reduced
oxides
of
nitrogen
(
NOX)
emissions
statewide
in
California
by
over
1,750
tons
per
year.
The
remaining
approximately
2,200
stationary
engines
are
estimated
to
have
average
emission
levels
approximately
8.76
g/
bhp­
hr,
which
is
about
twice
as
much
as
the
emissions
of
a
nonroad
engine
manufactured
to
current
(
i.
e.,
Tier
2)
nonroad
standards
(
4.8
to
4.9
g/
hphr
NOX
+
HMHC
for
engines
between
100
 
750
hr).
Current
nonroad
standards
also
require
emissions
of
particulate
matter
(
PM)
to
be
approximately
40
percent
lower
than
Tier
1
levels.

What
Is
the
Impact
of
These
Stationary
Source
Emissions
on
Air
Quality?
Currently,
agricultural
stationary
source
diesel
engines
represent
one
of
the
most
significant
sources
of
NOX
emissions
from
agricultural
activities
in
California.
Particularly
in
major
farming
areas
such
as
the
San
Joaquin
Valley,
NOX
emissions
from
stationary
diesel
engines
represent
approximately
5%
of
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
12:
59
Apr
10,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
11APR1.
SGM
11APR1
17744
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
70
/
Friday,
April
11,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
5
LAER
is
defined
as
the
most
stringent
emission
limitation
derived
from
either
of
the
following:
(
1)
The
most
stringent
emission
limitation
contained
in
the
total
NOX
emissions
inventory,
thus
contributing
to
the
ozone
and
PM
 
10
non­
attainment
status
of
the
area.
These
engines
also
emit
particulate
matter
directly.
Thus,
replacing
these
relatively
dirty
stationary
diesel
engines
with
much
cleaner
currently
available
diesel
engines
will
help
air
quality
immediately.
The
anticipated
future
standards
which
are
expected
to
further
reduce
emissions
from
nonroad
engines
will
also
mean
that
new
agricultural
engines
in
California
should
have
even
better
emission
performance
in
the
future,
providing
more
emission
benefits
as
farmers
replace
their
engines
in
later
years.

What
Would
Happen
if
This
Change
Were
not
Made?
Under
Title
V,
farms
need
to
assess
their
inventories
of
emissions.
If
the
total
of
these
emissions
exceeds
a
certain
level
(
called
the
major
source
threshold),
they
would
be
subject
to
the
permitting
requirements
of
Titles
I
and
V
of
the
CAA.
One
of
these
permitting
requirements
is
the
NSR
program.
NSR
requires
major
stationary
sources
that
desire
to
construct
for
the
first
time
or
to
modify
their
facility
to
get
a
NSR
permit
(
also
called
a
preconstruction
permit)
and
meet
emission
control
requirements.
The
other
permitting
requirement
is
EPA's
operating
permits
program.
This
requires
major
stationary
sources
to
get
an
operating
permit,
but
does
not
require
emission
control.
Thus,
farm
engines
classified
as
stationary
sources
and
operated
on
a
farm
which
has
collective
emissions
great
enough
to
trigger
the
major
source
threshold
would
be
subject
to
both
these
permitting
programs.
Under
today's
action,
stationary
farm
engines
that
meet
the
nonroad
certification
requirement
would
not
be
subject
to
these
two
permitting
programs.
They
also
would
not
be
subject
to
other
potential
state
or
local
requirements
directed
specifically
at
stationary
sources
(
e.
g.,
NOX
RACT
programs
under
Title
I),
but
could
be
subject
to
other
state
or
local
requirements
directed
at
nonroad
engines
(
e.
g.,
state
nonroad
engine
emission
standards
or
use
restrictions).

What
Do
We
Expect
Will
Happen
as
a
Result
of
This
Change?
As
noted
above,
stationary
engines
in
agricultural
applications
have
in
the
past
not
been
required
to
control
their
emissions
under
either
federal
regulations
or
under
any
State
of
California
regulation
or
program
aimed
at
improving
air
quality.
In
most
cases,
diesel
engines
represent
the
predominant
source
of
NOX
emissions
on
the
farm.
Even
after
taking
into
account
the
engines
that
were
already
replaced
under
the
Carl
Moyer
program,
we
estimate
that
around
2,200
uncontrolled
stationary
diesel
agricultural
engines
remain
in
use
in
California.
We
estimate
that
replacing
these
over
the
next
two
years
with
engines
meeting
the
existing
Tier
2
and
Tier
3
nonroad
emission
standards
would
result
in
a
reduction
of
up
to
4,400
tons
of
NOX
annually
from
agricultural
operations.
Particularly
in
areas
with
intensive
levels
of
farming,
such
reductions
would
be
significant.
We
estimate
replacing
the
current
stationary
diesel
engines
with
new
nonroad
engines
would
reduce
NOX
emission
for
all
current
agricultural
diesel
engines,
both
stationary
and
nonroad,
by
about
20
percent.
It
would
also
represent
a
significant
reduction
in
direct
PM
emissions
from
such
engines.
This
regulatory
change
will
specify
that
stationary
diesel
engines
used
in
agricultural
applications
in
California
be
treated
as
nonroad
sources
if
they
otherwise
meet
the
applicable
nonroad
emission
requirements
and
are
part
of
an
engine
family
that
includes
engines
that
otherwise
meet
the
nonroad
engine
definition.
As
a
voluntary
program,
not
all
farming
operations
may
choose
to
switch
their
stationary
diesel
engines
to
compliant
nonroad
engines.
However,
under
Title
V,
agricultural
operations
have
to
inventory
their
sources
of
stationary
emissions
and
estimate
the
combined
level
of
annual
emissions
from
these
sources.
For
ozone
nonattainment
areas,
operations
which
exceed
an
annual
air
emissions
threshold
for
a
pollutant
(
50
tons
per
year
for
areas
designated
as
having
``
serious''
air
pollution,
25
tons
per
year
for
areas
designated
as
having
``
severe''
air
pollution
and
10
tons
per
year
for
areas
designated
as
having
``
extreme''
air
pollution)
are
designated
as
``
major''
sources
of
air
pollution
and
have
to
annually
report
these
emissions.
For
PM
 
10
nonattainment
areas,
the
thresholds
are
100
tons
for
operations
in
moderate
nonattainment
areas
and
70
tons
for
areas
in
serious
nonattainment.
Additionally,
operations
designated
as
``
major''
stationary
sources
must
meet
the
NSR
and
NOX
RACT
requirements
discussed
below.
For
a
significant
number
of
agricultural
operations,
switching
from
their
existing
stationary
source
diesel
engines
to
new
nonroad
certified
engines
will
remove
these
engines
from
the
stationary
source
category,
reducing
farms'
stationary
source
emissions
enough
so
that
they
will
no
longer
be
considered
major
sources
of
NOX
emissions,
thus
avoiding
the
obligations
noted
above.
For
those
remaining
agricultural
operations
which
would
still
exceed
the
``
major''
source
threshold
even
after
switching
to
nonroad
certified
engines,
these
operations
may
choose
to
make
this
switch
anyway
as
this
will
reduce
some
of
the
reporting
and
other
procedural
obligations
under
any
potential
future
stationary
source
control
programs.
Finally,
we
anticipate
that
some
of
the
cost
of
the
new
engines
may
be
subsidized
by
the
USDA,
consistent
with
eligibility
requirements
under
the
EQIP
or
perhaps
via
continued
funding
under
the
State
of
California's
Carl
Moyer
program.
For
these
reasons,
we
believe
that
it
is
likely
that
all
agricultural
pump
engines
currently
used
in
operations
which
would
otherwise
exceed
the
threshold
for
major
source
designation
and
subject
to
regulation
under
Title
V
will
be
converted
to
new
nonroad
certified
engines.
In
addition,
as
this
regulation
will
encourage
the
manufacture
of
agricultural
equipment
containing
engines
meeting
the
nonroad
engine
standards,
it
is
also
likely
that
this
approach
will
result
in
greater
use
of
lower­
emitting
agricultural
engines
even
in
locations
that
do
not
exceed
major
source
thresholds.
As
noted
above,
this
is
a
voluntary
program
so
the
agricultural
operation
has
the
opportunity
to
choose
to
take
advantage
of
this
regulation
change
or
not.
No
adverse
impact
on
agricultural
operations
is
anticipated
under
this
rule.
While
this
rule
would
exclude
a
set
of
sources
in
California
from
certain
provisions
of
Title
I
and
V,
we
would
expect
a
lesser
degree
of
emission
control
from
these
engines
if
this
regulation
change
were
not
being
adopted.
The
State
or
localities
may
choose
not
to
require
controls
for
many
engines,
particularly
those
that
are
not
located
in
major
sources.
Those
engines
not
on
farms
designated
``
major''
sources
may
not
be
controlled,
and
it
is
not
clear
that
even
engines
that
are
controlled
would
be
controlled
to
the
same
level
of
emissions
as
nonroad
certified
engines.
Since
the
nonroad
rules
are
generally
aimed
at
achieving
the
greatest
emission
control
available,
it
would
be
unlikely
stationary
source
controls
would
result
in
any
greater
control.
NSR
requirements,
which
apply
only
to
new
or
modified
sources,
would
require
Lowest
Achievable
Emissions
Rate
(
LAER)
5
in
nonattainment
areas
or
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
12:
59
Apr
10,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
11APR1.
SGM
11APR1
17745
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
70
/
Friday,
April
11,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
the
implementation
plan
of
any
State
for
such
class
or
category
of
source;
or
(
2)
the
most
stringent
emission
limitation
achieved
in
practice
by
such
class
or
category
of
source.
CAA
Section
171(
3)
6
The
BACT
requirement
is
defined
as:
``
An
emissions
limitation
(
including
a
visible
emission
standard)
based
on
the
maximum
degree
of
reduction
for
each
pollutant
subject
to
regulation
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
which
would
be
emitted
from
any
proposed
major
stationary
source
or
major
modification
which
the
Administrator,
on
a
caseby
case
basis,
taking
into
account
energy,
environmental,
and
economic
impacts
and
other
costs,
determines
is
achievable
for
such
source
or
modification
through
application
of
production
processes
or
available
methods,
systems,
and
techniques,
including
fuel
cleaning
or
treatment
or
innovative
fuel
combustion
techniques
for
control
of
such
pollutant.
In
no
event
shall
application
of
best
available
control
technology
result
in
emissions
of
any
pollutant
which
would
exceed
the
emissions
allowed
by
any
applicable
standard
under
40
CFR
parts
60
and
61.
If
the
Administrator
determines
that
technological
or
economic
limitations
on
the
application
of
measurement
methodology
to
a
particular
emissions
unit
would
make
the
imposition
of
an
emissions
standard
infeasible,
a
design,
equipment,
work
practice,
operational
standard,
or
combination
thereof,
may
be
prescribed
instead
to
satisfy
the
requirement
for
the
application
of
best
available
control
technology.
Such
standard
shall,
to
the
degree
possible,
set
forth
the
emissions
reduction
achievable
by
implementation
of
such
design,
equipment,
work
practice
or
operation,
and
shall
provide
for
compliance
by
means
which
achieve
equivalent
results.''
40
CFR
52.21(
b)(
12)
7
There
are
similar
RACM
requirements
in
PM
 
10
nonattainment
areas.
8
The
use
of
targeted
rules
of
limited
scope,
especially
in
the
context
of
a
voluntary
program,
is
similar
to
other
projects
in
which
EPA
has
engaged.
Best
Achievable
Control
Technology
(
BACT)
6
in
attainment
areas.
For
internal
combustion
engines
similar
to
the
diesel
agricultural
engines
affected
by
this
rule,
no
single
industry­
wide
technology
has
been
generally
determined
to
be
LAER
or
BACT,
but
some
recent
local
decisions
regarding
LAER
and
BACT
in
California
indicate
that
diesel
engines
have
not
generally
had
to
meet
NOX
emission
standards
more
stringent
than
current
Title
II
standards.
In
addition,
the
Clean
Air
Act
requires
Reasonably
Available
Control
Technology
(
RACT)
for
major
NOX
stationary
sources
in
most
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
7
We
have
defined
RACT
as
the
lowest
emission
limitation
that
a
particular
source
is
capable
of
meeting
by
the
application
of
control
technology
that
is
reasonably
available
considering
technological
and
economic
feasibility.
44
FR
53762
(
September
17,
1979).
RACT
may
require
technology
that
has
been
applied
to
similar,
but
not
necessarily
identical,
source
categories.
57
FR
55620
(
November
25,
1992).
There
has
been
no
source
category­
wide
RACT
determination
for
these
engines,
but
we
believe
it
is
unlikely
that
RACT
requirements
for
these
engines
would
be
more
stringent,
and
in
some
cases
they
may
be
less
stringent,
than
the
applicable
nonroad
engine
standards.
Finally,
any
emission
reductions
under
the
stationary
source
provisions
would
likely
occur
later
than
anticipated
via
this
rule
change.
While
NSR
and
other
Title
I
requirements
may
at
some
point
in
the
near
future
begin
to
be
applied
to
agricultural
sources,
implementation
of
such
requirements
would
have
to
allow
for
the
lead
time
needed
to
take
regulatory
and/
or
legislative
action
to
promulgate
such
regulations
and
the
lead
time
needed
to
implement
such
regulations.
There
are
some
restrictions
on
state
and
local
ability
to
regulate
nonroad
engines.
See
Clean
Air
Act
section
209(
e).
States
and
local
jurisdictions
may
not
promulgate
their
own
emission
standards
for
nonroad
engines.
However,
the
State
of
California
may
promulgate
and
enforce
standards
for
all
nonroad
agricultural
engines,
except
new
engines
under
175
horsepower,
if
the
state
receives
authorization
from
EPA
to
do
so.
Though
California
must
make
certain
showings
to
receive
this
authorization,
the
Clean
Air
Act
provides
considerable
deference
to
California
to
promulgate
its
own
standards.
Even
for
engines
below
175
horsepower,
California
can
receive
authorization
to
promulgate
standards
for
such
engines
if
they
are
not
standards
affecting
new
(
i.
e.,
``
showroom
new'')
engines.
In
addition,
states
and
localities
may
promulgate
use
restrictions
for
such
engines,
such
as
time­
of­
use
restrictions
and
fuel
restrictions.
These
requirements,
as
well
as
the
state
standards
discussed
in
the
paragraph
above,
may
be
enacted
by
state
and
local
entities
to
help
areas
meet
the
attainment
requirements
under
the
Act
by
achieving
even
greater
NOX
and
PM
reductions.

Why
Are
Only
Agricultural
Engines
in
the
State
of
California
Covered
by
This
Rule
Change?
This
rule
represents
a
small
deviation
from
the
general
manner
in
which
EPA
has
delineated
the
boundary
between
nonroad
engines
and
stationary
internal
combustion
engines.
EPA
has
in
the
past
based
the
definition
on
whether
the
engine
will
be
used
in
a
mobile
or
stationary
manner,
not
on
other
characteristics
such
as
engine
size
or
the
type
of
work,
or
industrial
category
of
work,
in
which
the
engine
was
engaged.
EPA
believes
that
the
particular
circumstances
of
these
California
agricultural
engines
make
it
appropriate
for
EPA
to
use
a
somewhat
different
approach
in
this
targeted
rule.
8
First,
the
engines
being
reclassified
in
this
rule
are
doing
work
that
is
indistinguishable
from
work
done
by
engines
already
classified
as
nonroad
engines
 
in
fact,
as
noted
above
agricultural
operations
often
have
a
combination
of
nonroad
and
stationary
engines
performing
the
same
function,
such
as
pumping
water
for
crop
irrigation
or
livestock
watering.
Moreover,
the
certified
engines
that
would
be
defined
as
nonroad
engines
by
this
regulatory
change
are
engines
that
are
part
of
engine
families
that
have
been
certified
for
use
and
are
used
in
other
mobile
applications.
Therefore,
many
of
the
certified
engines
affected
by
this
rule
are
in
fact
indistinguishable
from
other
certified
nonroad
engines.
More
importantly,
the
unique
circumstances
in
California
make
this
revision
appropriate
for
these
engines.
As
noted
above,
unlike
other
stationary
sources
that
are
already
subject
to
stationary
source
emission
controls,
farm
engines
have
not
historically
been
subject
to
stationary
source
emission
control
regulations.
The
approach
we
use
in
this
rule
basically
allows
a
farm
to
voluntarily
reduce
emissions
from
its
engines
in
a
manner
that
will
result
in
definite
emission
reductions
that
are
likely
greater
and
more
rapid
than
would
be
achieved
under
the
previous
approach.
This
rule
will
thus
not
disturb
existing
regulatory
programs
in
a
way
that
a
broader
rule
would.
This
revision
is
particularly
appropriate
for
California.
California
is
uniquely
positioned
as
the
only
state
that
may
promulgate
its
own
standards
for
nonroad
engines
under
section
209(
b).
Other
states
may
only
promulgate
standards
identical
to
any
California
chooses
to
adopt.
Since
California
is
in
a
unique
position
to
continue
promulgating
standards
regulating
these
engines
as
nonroad
engines,
it
can
implement
effective
emission
control
programs
for
these
engines.
Also,
given
the
particular
air
quality
concerns
and
the
need
for
reductions
of
NOX
in
California
as
well
as
the
opportunity
to
significantly
reduce
emissions
from
agricultural
pump
engines
(
the
opportunity
benefitted
by
the
potential
funding
through
the
Carl
Moyer
program
and
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture),
farms
in
California
are
uniquely
situated
to
take
advantage
of
this
regulatory
provision.
This
rule
is
in
many
ways
an
extension
of
the
policy
behind
California's
existing
Carl
Moyer
program
to
provide
new
certified
engines
to
these
farmers.
That
program
provided
funding
for
farmers
that
purchased
engines
meeting
nonroad
standards,
whereas
this
revision
provides
regulatory
changes
that
encourage
the
use
of
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
12:
59
Apr
10,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
11APR1.
SGM
11APR1
17746
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
70
/
Friday,
April
11,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
certified
engines.
EPA
believes
that
this
action
is
similar
in
many
ways
to
programs
EPA
has
implemented
and
continues
to
consider,
under
which
EPA
offers
flexibility
in
its
regulations,
etc.,
in
site­
specific
situations
to
encourage
companies,
communities,
and
other
project
sponsors
to
develop
``
cleaner,
cheaper
and
smarter''
alternatives
to
the
current
system.
See
62
FR
19872
(
April
23,
1997),
for
example.
It
is
not
clear
that
this
approach
would
be
appropriate
in
other
circumstances,
given
the
different
historical
and
environmental
contexts
and
different
types
of
engines
used.
Moreover,
there
is
the
potential
that
a
broader
use
of
this
approach
could
possibly
lead
to
exploitation
of
mobile
source
certification
as
a
way
to
avoid
stationary
source
controls,
or
might
otherwise
disrupt
the
proper
functioning
of
the
federal,
state
and
local
programs
to
control
stationary
source
emissions.
Given
the
potentially
significant
reductions
that
this
program
will
facilitate,
the
general
lack
of
reductions
previously
required
under
the
existing
regulatory
approach,
the
voluntary
nature
of
this
approach,
available
funding
and
the
limited
scope
of
this
approach,
EPA
believes
that
this
rule
is
appropriate
and
justified.

What
Are
the
Statutory
Provisions
Underlying
This
Rule
Change?
The
Clean
Air
Act's
statutory
provisions
are
relatively
ambiguous
regarding
the
specific
boundaries
between
nonroad
engines
and
stationary
internal
combustion
engines.
Section
216(
10)
states
that
a
nonroad
engine
is
``
an
internal
combustion
engine
*
*
*
that
is
not
used
in
a
motor
vehicle
or
a
vehicle
used
solely
for
competition,
or
that
is
not
subject
to
standards
promulgated
under
section
111
or
section
202.''
Section
111(
a)(
3)
states
that
``
stationary
source
means
any
building,
structure,
facility
or
installation
which
emits
or
may
emit
any
air
pollutant.
Nothing
in
Title
II
of
this
Act
relating
to
nonroad
engines
shall
be
construed
to
apply
to
stationary
internal
combustion
engines.''
EPA's
prior
rulemaking
that
clarified
the
delineation
between
nonroad
and
stationary
engine
focused
on
the
use
and
application
of
the
engine,
and
did
so
on
an
engine
by
engine
basis.
This
targeted
revision
also
focuses
on
the
application
and
use
of
engines,
but
in
a
broader
manner.
Under
this
approach,
EPA
looks
at
the
engine
family
as
a
group,
not
engine
by
engine.
Where
the
engine
family
contains
engines
that
are,
under
the
previous
definition,
nonroad
engines,
EPA
will
allow
other
specific
engines
that
are
essentially
identical
to
be
considered
nonroad
engines.
We
believe
this
approach
is
reasonable
in
these
circumstances
for
the
reasons
delineated
above.

III.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
the
Agency
is
required
to
determine
whether
this
regulatory
action
would
be
``
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
order
defines
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
any
regulatory
action
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
 
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
state,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
 
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
 
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or,
 
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
we
have
determined
that
this
final
rule
is
not
a
``
significant
regulatory
action.''

B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1980,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.,
and
implementing
regulations,
5
CFR
part
1320,
do
not
apply
to
this
action
as
it
does
not
involve
the
collection
of
information
as
defined
therein.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
EPA
has
determined
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
in
connection
with
this
final
rule.
EPA
has
also
determined
that
this
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
in
particular
because
this
rule
change
does
not
mandate
that
farms
replace
any
existing
engine.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104
 
4,
establishes
requirements
for
federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
state,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
we
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
state,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
any
single
year.
Before
promulgating
a
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
us
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
us
to
adopt
an
alternative
that
is
not
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
we
provide
an
explanation
in
the
final
rule
of
why
such
an
alternative
was
adopted.
Before
we
establish
any
regulatory
requirement
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
we
must
develop
a
small
government
plan
pursuant
to
section
203
of
the
UMRA.
Such
a
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
and
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
our
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
federal
intergovernmental
mandates.
The
plan
must
also
provide
for
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
This
rule
contains
no
federal
mandates
for
state,
local,
or
tribal
governments
as
defined
by
the
provisions
of
Title
II
of
the
UMRA.
The
rule
imposes
no
enforceable
duties
on
any
of
these
governmental
entities.
Nothing
in
the
rule
will
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
We
have
determined
that
this
rule
does
not
contain
a
federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
estimated
expenditures
of
more
than
$
100
million
to
the
private
sector
in
any
single
year.
This
action
has
the
net
effect
of
revising
certain
provisions
of
the
Tier
2
rule.
Therefore,
the
requirements
of
the
UMRA
do
not
apply
to
this
action.

E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
us
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
state
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
12:
59
Apr
10,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
11APR1.
SGM
11APR1
17747
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
70
/
Friday,
April
11,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
states,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
states,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.
Under
section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132,
we
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
state
and
local
governments,
or
we
consults
with
state
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
We
also
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications
and
that
preempts
state
law,
unless
the
Agency
consults
with
state
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
Section
4
of
the
Executive
Order
contains
additional
requirements
for
rules
that
preempt
state
or
local
law,
even
if
those
rules
do
not
have
federalism
implications
(
i.
e.,
the
rules
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
states,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
states,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government).
Those
requirements
include
providing
all
affected
state
and
local
officials
notice
and
an
opportunity
for
appropriate
participation
in
the
development
of
the
regulation.
If
the
preemption
is
not
based
on
express
or
implied
statutory
authority,
we
also
must
consult,
to
the
extent
practicable,
with
appropriate
state
and
local
officials
regarding
the
conflict
between
state
law
and
federally
protected
interests
within
the
Agency's
area
of
regulatory
responsibility.
This
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
states,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
states,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
This
rule
revises
certain
provisions
of
earlier
rules
that
adopted
national
standards
to
control
emissions
from
nonroad
diesel
engines.
The
requirements
of
the
rule
will
be
enforced
by
the
federal
government
at
the
national
level.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
6
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.

F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(
59
FR
22951,
November
6,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
This
final
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
Today's
rule
does
not
uniquely
affect
the
communities
of
American
Indian
tribal
governments.
Furthermore,
today's
rule
does
not
impose
any
direct
compliance
costs
on
these
communities
and
no
circumstances
specific
to
such
communities
exist
that
will
cause
an
impact
on
these
communities
beyond
those
discussed
in
the
other
sections
of
today's
document.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045,
``
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks''
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that
(
1)
is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
we
have
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
section
5
 
501
of
the
Executive
Order
directs
us
to
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
us.
This
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
Executive
Order
because
it
is
not
an
economically
significant
regulatory
action
as
defined
by
Executive
Order
12866.
Furthermore,
this
rule
does
not
concern
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
we
have
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.

H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
This
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
NTTAA),
section
12(
d)
of
Public
Law
104
 
113,
directs
us
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
our
regulatory
activities
unless
it
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
us
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
we
decide
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
No
new
technical
standards
are
established
in
today's
rule.

J.
Congressional
Review
Act
The
Congressional
Review
Act,
5
U.
S.
C.
801
et
seq.,
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996,
generally
provides
that
before
a
rule
may
take
effect,
the
agency
promulgating
the
rule
must
submit
a
rule
report,
which
includes
a
copy
of
the
rule,
to
Congress
and
the
comptroller
General
of
the
United
States.
We
will
submit
a
report
containing
this
rule
and
other
required
information
to
the
U.
S.
Senate,
the
U.
S.
House
of
Representatives,
and
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States
prior
to
publication
of
the
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
A
major
rule
cannot
take
effect
until
60
days
after
it
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
action
is
not
a
``
major
rule''
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
804(
2).
This
rule
will
be
effective
May
27,
2003.

IV.
Statutory
Provisions
and
Legal
Authority
Statutory
authority
for
today's
final
rule
is
found
in
the
Clean
Air
Act,
42
U.
S.
C.
7401
et
seq.,
in
particular,
section
213
of
the
Act,
42
U.
S.
C.
7547.
This
rule
is
being
promulgated
under
the
administrative
and
procedural
provisions
of
Clean
Air
Act
section
307(
d),
42
U.
S.
C.
7607(
d).
This
rule
will
affect
not
only
persons
in
California
but
also
the
manufacturers
outside
the
State
who
manufacture
engines
and
equipment
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
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
12:
59
Apr
10,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
11APR1.
SGM
11APR1
17748
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
70
/
Friday,
April
11,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
89
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Motor
vehicle
pollution.

Dated:
April
7,
2003.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.


For
the
reasons
set
forth
in
the
preamble
chapter
I,
title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
amended
as
follows

PART
89
 
CONTROL
OF
EMISSIONS
FROM
NEW
AND
IN­
USE
NONROAD
COMPRESSION
 
IGNITION
ENGINES

1.
The
authority
for
part
89
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7521,
7522,
7523,
7524,
7527,
7541,
7542,
7543,
7545,
7547,
7549,
7550
and
7601(
a).

Subpart
A
 
[
Amended]


2.
Section
89.2
is
amended
by
adding
paragraph
(
1)(
iv)
to
the
definition
for
``
nonroad
engine''
to
read
as
follows:

§
89.2
Definitions.

*
*
*
*
*
Nonroad
engine
means:
(
1)
*
*
*
(
iv)
That
is
a
compression­
ignition
engine
included
in
an
engine
family
certified
to
meet
applicable
nonroad
emission
requirements
of
this
part
if:
the
engine
is
used
in
agricultural
operations
in
the
growing
of
crops
or
raising
of
fowl
or
animals
in
the
State
of
California;
and
any
other
engines
in
the
certified
engine
family
otherwise
meet
the
definition
of
nonroad
engine.
*
*
*
*
*
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
8955
Filed
4
 
10
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
271
[
FRL
 
7478
 
5]

Tennessee:
Final
Authorization
of
State
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Program
Revision
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Immediate
final
rule.

SUMMARY:
Tennessee
has
applied
to
EPA
for
Final
authorization
of
the
changes
to
its
hazardous
waste
program
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA).
EPA
has
determined
that
these
changes
satisfy
all
requirements
needed
to
qualify
for
Final
authorization,
and
is
authorizing
the
State's
changes
through
this
immediate
final
action.
EPA
is
publishing
this
rule
to
authorize
the
changes
without
a
prior
proposal
because
we
believe
this
action
is
not
controversial
and
do
not
expect
comments
that
oppose
it.
Unless
we
get
written
comments
which
oppose
this
authorization
during
the
comment
period,
the
decision
to
authorize
Tennessee's
changes
to
their
hazardous
waste
program
will
take
effect.
If
we
get
comments
that
oppose
this
action,
we
will
publish
a
document
in
the
Federal
Register
withdrawing
this
rule
before
it
takes
effect
and
a
separate
document
in
the
proposed
rules
section
of
this
Federal
Register
will
serve
as
a
proposal
to
authorize
the
changes.
DATES:
This
Final
authorization
will
become
effective
on
June
10,
2003
unless
EPA
recieves
adverse
written
comment
by
May
12,
2003.
If
EPA
receives
such
comment,
it
will
publish
a
timely
withdrawal
of
this
immediate
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register
and
inform
the
public
that
this
authorization
will
not
take
effect.
ADDRESSES:
Send
written
comments
to
Narindar
M.
Kumar,
Chief,
RCRA
Programs
Branch,
Waste
Management
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
The
Sam
Nunn
Atlanta
Federal
Center,
61
Forsyth
Street,
SW.,
Atlanta,
Georgia
30303
 
3104;
(
404)
562
 
8440.
We
must
receive
your
comments
by
May
12,
2003.
You
can
view
and
copy
Tennessee's
application
from
8
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.
at
the
following
addresses:
Tennessee
Department
of
Environment
and
Conservation,
Division
of
Solid
Waste
Management,
5th
Floor,
L
&
C
Tower,
401
Church
Street,
Nashville,
Tennessee
37243
 
1535,
Phone
Number:
(
615)
532
 
0850;
and
EPA
Region,
Region
4,
Library,
61
Forsyth
Street,
SW.,
Atlanta,
Georgia
30303
 
3104;
(
404)
562
 
8190.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Gwendolyn
Gleaton,
RCRA
Services
Section,
RCRA
Programs
Branch,
Waste
Management
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
The
Sam
Nunn
Atlanta
Federal
Center,
61
Forsyth
Street,
SW.,
Atlanta,
Georgia
30303
 
3104;
(
404)
562
 
8500.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

A.
Why
are
Revisions
to
State
Programs
Necessary?
States
which
have
received
final
authorization
from
EPA
under
RCRA
section
3006(
b),
42
U.
S.
C.
6926(
b),
must
maintain
a
hazardous
waste
program
that
is
equivalent
to,
consistent
with,
and
no
less
stringent
than
the
Federal
program.
As
the
Federal
program
changes,
States
must
change
their
programs
and
ask
EPA
to
authorize
the
changes.
Changes
to
State
programs
may
be
necessary
when
Federal
or
State
statutory
or
regulatory
authority
is
modified
or
when
certain
other
changes
occur.
Most
commonly,
States
must
change
their
programs
because
of
changes
to
EPA's
regulations
in
40
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR)
parts
124,
260
through
266,
268,
270,
273
and
279.

B.
What
Decisions
Have
We
Made
in
This
Rule?
We
conclude
that
Tennessee's
application
to
revise
its
authorized
program
meets
all
of
the
statutory
and
regulatory
requirements
established
by
RCRA.
Therefore,
we
grant
Tennessee
Final
authorization
to
operate
its
hazardous
waste
program
with
the
changes
described
in
the
authorization
application.
Tennessee
has
responsibility
for
permitting
Treatment,
Storage,
and
Disposal
Facilities
(
TSDFs)
within
its
borders
(
except
in
Indian
Country)
and
for
carrying
out
the
aspects
of
the
RCRA
program
described
in
its
revised
program
application,
subject
to
the
limitations
of
the
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
of
1984
(
HSWA).
New
Federal
requirements
and
prohibitions
imposed
by
Federal
regulations
that
EPA
promulgates
under
the
authority
of
HSWA
take
effect
in
authorized
States
before
they
are
authorized
for
the
requirements.
Thus,
EPA
will
implement
those
requirements
and
prohibitions
in
Tennessee,
including
issuing
permits,
until
the
State
is
granted
authorization
to
do
so.

C.
What
Is
the
Effect
of
Today's
Authorization
Decision?
The
effect
of
this
decision
is
that
a
facility
in
Tennessee
subject
to
RCRA
will
now
have
to
comply
with
the
authorized
State
requirements
instead
of
the
equivalent
Federal
requirements
in
order
to
comply
with
RCRA.
Tennessee
has
enforcement
responsibilities
under
its
State
hazardous
waste
program
for
violations
of
such
program,
but
EPA
retains
its
authority
under
RCRA
sections
3007,
3008,
3013,
and
7003,
which
include,
among
others,
authority
to:
 
Do
inspections,
and
require
monitoring,
tests,
analyses
or
reports
 
Enforce
RCRA
requirements
and
suspend
or
revoke
permits
 
Take
enforcement
actions
regardless
of
whether
the
State
has
taken
its
own
actions
This
action
does
not
impose
additional
requirements
on
the
regulated
community
because
the
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
12:
59
Apr
10,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00022
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
11APR1.
SGM
11APR1