+(,121/,1(

Citation: 53 Fed. Reg. 7021 1988

Provided by:
University of Michigan Law Library

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline

Tue Mar 28 16:52:39 2017

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license
agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from

uncorrected OCR text.
 Federal Register J Vol. 53, No. 43
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[AMS-FRL-3337-5J
California State Motor Vehicle
Pollution Control Standards; Waiver of
Federal Preemption; Decision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTIOw. Notice of waiver of Federal
preemption.
SUMMARY: EPA is granting California a
waiver of Federal preemption pursuant
to section 2091b) of the'Clean Air Act to
adopt and enforce amendments to its
emission standards and test procedures
for the certification of 1988 and later
model year heavy-duty diesel-powered
engines and vehicles. California
amended its exhaust emissions
standards and test procedures to more
closely align them with the
corresponding Federal standards and
procedures. Specifically, California
established new particulate matter 1PM)
and oxides of nitrogen [NOJ standards
and incorporated in significant part the
Federal transient cycle test procedures.
California also established a 0:10 grams
per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr)
PM standard for engines used in urban
buses for the 191-1993 model years. PM
averaging will be permitted for 1991-
1995 model year heavy-duty diesel
engines, excluding urban buses. Federal
smoke opacity standards and test
procedures were incorporated.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the above
standards, procedures, and other
amendments. the decision document
containing an explanation of the
Administrator's determination and the
record of those documents used in
arriving at this decision, are available
for public inspection during normal
working hours (8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) at
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Central Docket Section (Docket
EN--86-18), Room 4, South Conference
Center, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Copies of the decision
document can be obtained from EPA's
Manufacturers Operations Division by
contacting Leila Holmes Cook, as noted
below.
DATES: Any objections to the findings in
this notice must be filed by April 4, 1988.
Otherwise, at the publication of this 30-
day period, these findings will become
final. Upon receipt of any timely
objection, EPA will consider scheduling
a public hearing in a subsequent Federal
Register Notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Leila Holmes Cook, Attorney/Advisor,
Manufacturers Operations Division
/ Friday, March 4, 1988 1 Notices
(EN-340.-F), U:S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC
20460. Telephone: 1202) 382-24B5.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. I have
decided to grant California a waiver of
Federal preemption pursuant to section
209(b) of the Clean Air Act, as amended
(Act), 42 U.S.C. 75431b), for its
amendments which provide for the
certification of heavy-duty diesel-
powered engines and vehicles. The
amendments adopted by the California
Air Resources Board fCARB) are to its
heavy-duty diesel-powered exhaust
emissions 'standards and test procedures
and more closely align the California
standards and procedures with the
correspondig Federal requirements {see
50 FR 10606 March'15, 1985).
Section.209(b) of the Act provides
that, if certain criteria are met, the
Administrator shall-waive Federal
preemption for California to enforce
new motor vehicle emission standards
and accompanying enforcement
procedures. The criteria include
consideration of whether California
arbitrarily and capriciously determined
that its standards are, in the aggregate,
at least as protective of public health
and welfare as the applicable Federal
standards; whether California needs the
State standards to meet compelling and
extraordinary conditions; and whether
California's amendments are consistent
with section 202[a) of the Act.
As previous decisions granting
waivers of'Federal preemption have
explained, State standards are not
consistent with section 202(a) if there is
inadequate lead time to permit the
development of the necessary
technology, given the'cost of compliance
within the time period, or if the Federal
and State test procedures impose
inconsistent certification requirements.
CARB determined that these amended
standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures do not cause
California's emission standards, in the
aggregate, to be less protective of public
health and welfare than applicable
Federal standards. No manufacturers
presented evidence that California
arbitrarily and capriciously reached this
determination. Since California's
standards and procedures conform in
significant part with, or are more
stringent than the Federal standards and
procedures, I cannot find California's
determination to be arbitrary and
capricious.
CARB has continually demonstrated
the existence of compelling and
extraordinary conditions justifying the
need for its own motor vehicle pollution
control program, which includes the
subject standards and procedures. No
7021
information has been submitted to
demonstrate that California no longer
has a compelling and extraordinary
need for its own program. Therefore, I
agree that California continues to have
compelling and extraordinary conditions
which require its own program, and,
thus, I-cannot deny the waiver on the
basis of the lack of compelling and
extraordinary conditions.
CARB has submitted information that
the reqfirements of its emissions
standards and test procedures are
technologically feasible and present no
inconsistency with Federal certification
requirements and are, therefore,
consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.
No party submitted data ,or other
information to EPA suggesting that the
standards are not technologically
feasible within -theavailable lead time,
considering costs. SinceCalifornia's
amendments generally incorporate the
Federal transient cycle test procedures,
California's amendments do not present
any issues regarding inconsistent
certification procedures. Thus, Icannot
find that California's amendments will
be inconsistent with section 202(a- of
the Act. Accordingly, I hereby grant the
waiver requested by California.
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 motor
vehicles for sale in California. For this
reason, I hereby determine and -findthat
this is a final action of national
applicability.
This action is not a rule as defined by
section 1(a) of Executive Order 12291, 46
FR 13193 (February 19, 1981). Therefore,
it is exempt from review by the Office of
Management and Budget as required for
rules and regulations by Executive
Order 12291. Nor-is a Regulatory Impact
Analysis being prepared under
Executive Order 12291 for this waiver
determination, since it is not a rule.
Finally, this action is not a rule as
defined by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. Therefore, EPA
has not prepared -a supporting regulatory
flexibility analysis addressing the
impact of this action on small business
entities.
Daled:7February 26, 1988.
Don R.Clay,
Acting Assistant AdministratorforAirand
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 88-4735 Filed 3-,3-88; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50--M
7022 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 1988 / Notices
7022Fet
[AMS-FRL-3337-6]
California State Motor Vehicle
Pollution Control Standards; Waiver of
Federal Preemption; Decision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of waiver of Federal
preemption.
SUMMARY: EPA is granting California a
waiver of Federal preemption pursuant
to section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act to
adopt and enforce amendments to its
emission standards and test procedures
for the certification of 1987 and later
model year heavy-duty gasoline-
powered engines and vehicles.
California amended its exhaust
emissions standards and test procedures
to more closely align them with the
corresponding Federal standards and
procedures. California also extended the
useful-life period for emissions
compliance, engine durability and recall
to the Federal full-life distance of
110,000 miles.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the above
standards, procedures, and other
amendments, the decision document
containing an explanation of the
Administrator's determination and the
record of those documents used in
arriving at this decision are available for
public inspection during normal working
hours (8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Central Docket Section (Docket En-86-
18), Room 4, South Conference Center,
401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC.
20460. Copies of the decision document
can be obtained from EPA's
Manufacturers Operations Division by
contacting Joan S. Baxter, as noted
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joan S. Baxter, Attorney/Advisor,
Manufacturers Operations Division
(EN-340F), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC
20460. Telephone: (202) 382-2522.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I have
decided to grant California a waiver of
Federal preemption pursuant to section
209(b) of the Clean Air Act, as amended
(Act), 42 U.S.C. 7543(b), for its
amendments which provide for the
certification of heavy-duty gasoline-
powered vehicles and engines. The
amendments adopted by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) are to its
Heavy-duty Gasoline-powered Exhaust
Emissions Standards and Test
Procedures and include minor
amendments to its Tune-Up Label:
Specifications and -Emission Related
Defect Reporting Procedures. The
definition of the useful-life period for
V N 4
emissions compliance, engine durability-
and recall have also been extended to
the Federal full-life distance of 110,000
miles. The amendments tend to align
California's standards and procedrues
more closely with the corresponding
Federal requirements.
Section 209(b) of the Acts provides
that, if certain criteria are met, the
Administrator shall waive Federal
preemption for California to enforce
new motor vehicle emission standards
and accompanying enforcement
procedures. The criteria include
consideration of whether California
arbitrarily and capriciously determined
that its standards are, in the aggregate,
at least as protective of public health
and welfare as the applicable Federal
standards; whether California needs the
State standards to meet compelling and
extraordinary conditions; and whether
California's amendments are consistent
with section 202(a) of the Act.
CARB determined that these amended
standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures do not cause
California's standards, in the aggregate,
to be less protective of public health and
welfare than the applicable Federal
standards. No manufacturers presented
evidence that California arbitrarily and
capriciously reached this determination.
Since California's standards and
procedures conform in significant part
with the Federal standards and
procedures, I cannot find California's
determination to be arbitrary and
capricious.
CARB has continually demonstrated
the existence of compelling and
extraordinary conditions justifying the
need for its own motor vehicle pollution
control program, which includes the
subject standards and procedures. No
information has been submitted to
demonstrate that California no longer
has a compelling and extraordinary
need for its own program. Therefore, I
agree that California continues to have
compelling and extraordinary conditions
which require its own program, and,
thus, I cannot deny the waiver on the
basis of the lack of compelling and
extraordinary conditions.
CARB has submitted information that
the requirements of its emissions
standards and test procedures are
technologically feasible and present no
inconsistency with Federal certification
requirements and are, therefore,
consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.
No commenter submitted data or other
information to satisfy its burden of
persuading EPA that the standards are
not technologically feasible within the
available lead time, considering costs. In
addition, since California's certification
procedures now parallel the Federal
certification procedures, California's
amendments do not present any issues
regarding inconsistent certification
procedures. Thus, I cannot find that
California's amendments will be
inconsistent with section 202(a) of the
Act. Accordingly, I hereby grant the
waiver requested by California.
Mydecision 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 motor
vehicles for sale in California. For this
reason, I hereby determine and find that
this is a final action of national
applicability.
This action is not a rule as defined by
section 1(a) of Executive Order 12291, 46
FR 13193 (February 19, 1981). Therefore,
it is exempt from review by the Office of
Management and Budget as required for
rules and regulations by Executive
Order 12291. Nor is a Regulatory Impact
Analysis being prepared under
Executive Order 12291 for this waiver
determination, since it is not a rule.
Finally, 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.
Dated: February 26, 1988.
Don R. Clay,
Acting Assistant A dministratorfor Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 88-4736 Filed 3-3-88; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
[ER-FRL-3337-2]
Environmental Impact Statements and
Regulations; Availability of EPA
Comments
Availability of EPA comments
prepared February 15, 1988 through
February 19, 1988 pursuant to the
Environmental Review Process (ERP),
under section 309 of the Clean Air Act
and section 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act as amended.
Requests for copies of EPA comments
can be directed to the Office of Federal
Activities at (202) 382-5075/76.
An explanation of the ratings assigned
to draft environmental impact
statements (EISs) was published in FR
dated April 24, 1987 (52 FR 13749).
Draft EISs
ERP No. D-AFS-K61090-CA, Rating
EC2, Gallatin Marina (Formerly Eagle
Lake Marina) Future Development
Policy, Implementation, 404 Permit,