Notice2023-23261
California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth; Notice of Decision
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 20, 2023
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") is granting the California Air Resources Board's ("CARB") request for authorization of amendments to its Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth regulation ("At-Berth Regulation"). CARB's At-Berth Regulation specifies auxiliary engine emission reduction requirements applicable to container, refrigerated, cargo, cruise, roll on-roll off (ro-ro), and tanker vessels (also emission reduction requirements to tanker vessel auxiliary boilers) while docked or "berthed" at specified marine terminals and ports in California. This decision is issued under the authority of the Clean Air Act ("CAA" or "Act").
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72461-72476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23261]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-012; FRL 10787-03-OAR]
California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards;
Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth; Notice of Decision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') is granting the
California Air Resources Board's (``CARB'') request for authorization
of
[[Page 72462]]
amendments to its Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth regulation (``At-Berth
Regulation''). CARB's At-Berth Regulation specifies auxiliary engine
emission reduction requirements applicable to container, refrigerated,
cargo, cruise, roll on-roll off (ro-ro), and tanker vessels (also
emission reduction requirements to tanker vessel auxiliary boilers)
while docked or ``berthed'' at specified marine terminals and ports in
California. This decision is issued under the authority of the Clean
Air Act (``CAA'' or ``Act'').
DATES: Petitions for review must be filed by December 19, 2023.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0152. All documents relied upon in making this
decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, are contained in
the public docket. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, located at 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open to the public on all
federal government working days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; generally,
it is open Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744. The Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center's website is <a href="http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html">http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html</a>. The electronic mail (email) address for the Air and
Radiation Docket is: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#13723e727d773e613e577c70787667537663723d747c65"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e4f034f404a035c036a414d454b5a6e4b5e4f00494158">[email protected]</span></a>, the telephone number is
(202) 566-1742, and the fax number is (202) 566-9744. An electronic
version of the public docket is available through the federal
government's electronic public docket and comment system. You may
access EPA dockets at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. After opening the
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> website, enter EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0152 in the ``Enter
Keyword or ID'' fill-in box to view documents in the record. 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.
EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (``OTAQ'') maintains
a web page that contains general information on its review of
California waiver and authorization requests. Included on that page are
links to prior waiver Federal Register notices, some of which are cited
in today's notice; the page can be accessed at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/vehicle-emissions-california-waivers-and-authorizations">https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/vehicle-emissions-california-waivers-and-authorizations</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dickinson, Attorney-Advisor,
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b4d0ddd7dfdddac7dbda9ad0d5c2ddd0f4d1c4d59ad3dbc2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="75111c161e1c1b061a1b5b1114031c11351005145b121a03">[email protected]</span></a>. Telephone: 202-343-9256.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
CARB adopted the initial At-Berth Regulation, the Airborne Toxic
Control Measure for Auxiliary Diesel Engines Operated on Ocean-Going
Vessels At-Berth in a California Port (2007 At-Berth Regulation), on
October 16, 2008, and EPA granted California an authorization for that
regulation in 2011.\1\ The 2007 At-Berth Regulation applied only to
fleets of container, refrigerated cargo, and cruise vessels visiting
six California ports. The 2007 At-Berth Regulation required affected
vessels to reduce emissions at berth by either plugging into shore
power or using an equally effective compliance strategy (such as a
capture and control system). Specifically, the 2007 At-Berth Regulation
required fleets of container and refrigerated cargo vessels making 25
or more visits or cruise vessels making 5 or more visits to any of the
six identified ports to limit the operations and emissions of auxiliary
diesel engines while docked, reducing nitrogen oxide (NO<INF>X</INF>)
and diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions at berth.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 76 FR 77515 (Dec. 13, 2011).
\2\ CARB defines an ``auxiliary engine'' as ``an engine on an
ocean-going vessel designed primarily to provide power for uses
other than propulsion, except that all diesel-electric engines shall
be considered ``auxiliary engines'' for purpose of this regulation.
'' Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 17, section 93130.2(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 27, 2022, CARB submitted a new authorization request
to EPA for its amendments to the 2007 At-Berth Regulation the CARB
Board adopted on August 27, 2020 (2020 At-Berth Amendments).\3\ The
2020 At-Berth Amendments are designed to build upon the 2007 At-Berth
Regulation by extending auxiliary engine emissions reductions
requirements to additional categories of ocean-going vessels (OGVs),
specifically roll on-roll off (ro-ro) and tanker vessels. The 2020 At-
Berth Amendments also added emission reductions requirements for tanker
vessel auxiliary boilers and expanded the applicability of the
regulation to additional regulated terminals and ports within
California.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CARB At-Berth Authorization Request, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0152-
0031.
\4\ A regulated California marine terminal is any terminal in
California that receives 20 or more visits from container, reefer,
cruise, ro-ro, or tanker vessels per calendar year the year
emissions control requirements begin. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 17,
section 93.130.10(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2020 At-Berth Amendments establish, among other provisions, in-
use emissions-related requirements that apply beginning January 1,
2023, with limited exceptions, to any person who owns, operates,
charters, or leases any United States or foreign-flag OGV that visits a
California port, terminal, or berth; any person who owns, operates, or
leases a port, terminal, or berth located where OGVs visit; or any
person who owns, operates, or leases a CARB approved emissions control
strategy (CAECS) for OGV auxiliary engines or tanker auxiliary
boilers.\5\ The 2020 At-Berth Amendments establish emission controls
that phase in during three separate periods. The requirements are
applicable to container, reefer, and cruise vessels on January 1, 2023,
all ro-ro vessels and tankers visiting the ports of Los Angeles or Long
Beach on January 1, 2025, and tankers visiting all ports other than Los
Angeles and Long Beach on January 2, 2027.\6\ Compliance with the 2020
At-Berth Amendments must be achieved through the use of a CARB Approved
Emission Control Strategy (CAECS).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Compliance with the 2020 At-Berth Amendments must be
achieved through the use of a CAECS that meets the minimum
requirements of section 93130.5(d) of the Amendments. The strategy
may include the use of shore power but may also include alternative
CAECS such as barge or land-based capture and control technologies
not controlled by the vessel or terminal operator. The owners of
such alternative technologies are subject to CARB's regulations.
\6\ CARB states that the tanker implementation dates are
staggered due to fewer infrastructure upgrade challenges expected at
the ports subject to a 2025 compliance date. CARB At-Berth
Authorization Request at 8.
\7\ A summary of CARB's At-Berth Regulation can be found at
CARB's At-Berth Authorization Request at 6 to 18. CARB's At-Berth
Authorization Request noted that the no ocean going vessel at berth
or at anchor in California waters may emit visible emissions of any
air pollutant for a period or periods aggregating three minutes in
any hour of operation on the vessel that doesn't meet either of 2
different measurements. CARB also noted that ``The opacity
requirements constitute in-use controls, or characteristics or
measures that limit the use of nonroad engines and accordingly do
not require EPA authorization action. CARB also addressed comments
during its rulemaking, similar to comments EPA received during the
authorization proceeding, that the opacity requirements are emission
standards and that imposing such standards at anchorage infringes on
Internation Maritime Organization and international engine standards
to which the United States is a party. CARB noted in part that the
opacity requirements are part of its general opacity standards under
California's Health and Safety Code section 41701. See CARB FSOR at
208-209. Because CARB did not seek EPA approval or authorization of
the opacity requirement EPA is not taking any action or position
with regard to the requirement or its enforceability. EPA's decision
to not act on CARB's opacity requirement only pertains to
California's regulation and does not relate to EPA's regulatory
authority to regulate opacity. In the event CARB submits the
requirement along with its At-Berth regulation to EPA as part of a
state implementation plan (SIP) revision request then it may be
proper to evaluate its enforceability at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 72463]]
II. Principles Governing This Review
A. Clean Air Act Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Authorizations
CAA section 209(e)(1) prohibits states and local governments from
adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or requirement relating
to the control of emissions from certain new nonroad vehicles or
engines.\8\ The CAA also preempts states from adopting and enforcing
standards and other requirements related to the control of emissions
from all other nonroad engines or vehicles.\9\ CAA section
209(e)(2)(A), however, requires the Administrator, after notice and
opportunity for public hearing, to authorize California to adopt and
enforce standards and other requirements relating to the control of
emissions from such vehicles or engines not preempted by CAA section
209(e)(1) if California determines that California standards will be,
in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare
as applicable Federal standards. However, EPA shall not grant such
authorization if it finds that (1) the protectiveness determination of
California is arbitrary and capricious; (2) California does not need
such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or (3)
California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not
consistent with CAA section 209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ CAA section 209(e)(1) prohibits states or any political
subdivision from adopting or enforcing any standard or other
requirement relating to the control of emissions from new engines
which are used in construction equipment or vehicles or used in farm
equipment or vehicles, and which are smaller than 175 horsepower, or
new locomotives or new engines used in locomotives. See 40 CFR
1074.10(a).
\9\ See CAA section 209(e)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7543(e). See 40 CFR
1074(b). Therefore, states and localities are categorically
prohibited from regulating the control of emissions from new nonroad
vehicles and engines set forth in section 209(e)(1) of the CAA, but
``all other'' nonroad vehicles and engines (including non-new
engines and vehicles otherwise noted in 209(e)(1) and all other new
and non-new nonroad engines and vehicles) are preempted unless and
until preemption is waived. See EPA's nonroad preemption rulemakings
at 59 FR 36969 (1994) and revised in 1997 (62 FR 67733). EPA notes
that Appendix A to 40 CFR part 1074, subpart A sets out EPA's
interpretation of what types of state nonroad engine use and
operation provisions are not preempted by section 209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a rule (``the 1994 rule'') that
sets forth, among other things, regulations providing the criteria, as
found in CAA section 209(e)(2), which EPA must consider before granting
any California authorization request for new nonroad engine or vehicle
emission standards.\10\ EPA revised these regulations in 1997.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).
\11\ 63 FR 18978 (April 16, 1998). These regulations were later
recodified to 40 CFR part 1074, 73 FR 59397 (October 8, 2008).
Similar to the language in CAA section 209(e)(2)(A), 40 CFR 1074.105
provides the criteria for EPA's consideration of authorization
requests:
(a) The Administrator will grant the authorization if California
determines that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as otherwise applicable
federal standards.
(b) The authorization will not be granted if the Administrator
finds that any of the following are true:
(1) California's determination is arbitrary and capricious.
(2) California does not need such standards to meet compelling
and extraordinary conditions.
(3) The California standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 209 of the Act (42 U.S.C.
7543).
(c) In considering any request to authorize California to adopt
or enforce standards or other requirements relating to the control
of emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines smaller than 50
horsepower, the Administrator will give appropriate consideration to
safety factors (including the potential increased risk of burn or
fire) associated with compliance with the California standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained below, EPA has interpreted and implemented the first
two authorization criteria at section 209(e)(2)(A)(i) and
209(e)(2)(A)(ii) in the same manner as the corresponding first two
waiver criteria at section 209(b)(1)(A) and 209(b)(1)(B) (applicable to
on-road motor vehicles). Because of the unique language in section
209(e)(2)(A)(iii) (the third authorization criteria), EPA has provided
additional information as to the interpretation and implementation of
that criterion. As stated in the preamble to the 1994 rule, EPA has
historically interpreted the CAA section 209(e)(2)(A)(iii) ``consistent
with section 209'' inquiry to require that California standards and
enforcement procedures be consistent with CAA sections 209(a),
209(e)(1), and 209(b)(1)(C) (as EPA has interpreted that subsection in
the context of CAA section 209(b) motor vehicle waivers).\12\ In order
to be consistent with CAA section 209(a), California's nonroad
standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with CAA
section 209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement
procedures must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are
permanently preempted from state regulation. To determine consistency
with CAA section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad
authorization requests under the same ``consistency'' criteria that are
applied to motor vehicle waiver requests. Pursuant to CAA section
209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator shall not grant California a motor
vehicle waiver if he finds that California ``standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)'' of the
CAA. Previous decisions granting waivers and authorizations have noted
that state standards and enforcement procedures are inconsistent with
CAA section 202(a) if: (1) there is inadequate lead time to permit the
development of the necessary technology giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance within that time, or (2) the
Federal and state testing procedures impose inconsistent certification
requirements.\13\ When considering whether to grant authorizations for
accompanying enforcement procedures tied to standards (such as record
keeping and labeling requirements) for which an authorization has
already been granted, EPA has evaluated (1) whether the enforcement
procedures are so lax that they threaten the validity of California's
determination that its standards are as protective of public health and
welfare as applicable Federal standards, and (2) whether the Federal
and California enforcement procedures are consistent.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 59 FR at 36982-83.
\13\ Id. See also 78 FR 58090, 58092 (Sept. 20, 2013).
\14\ See Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association v.
Environmental Protection Agency (MEMA I), 627 F.2d 1095, 1112 (D.C.
Cir. 1979). California certification test procedures need not be
identical to the Federal test procedures to be ``consistent.''
California procedures would be inconsistent, however, if
manufacturers would be unable to meet both the state and Federal
test requirements with the same test vehicle in the course of the
same test. See, e.g., 43 FR 32182, (July 25, 1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the similar language of sections 209(b) and
209(e)(2)(A), EPA has reviewed California's requests for authorization
of nonroad vehicle or engine standards under section 209(e)(2)(A) using
the same principles that it has historically applied in reviewing
requests for waivers of preemption for new motor vehicle or new motor
vehicle engine standards under section 209(b).\15\ These principles
include, among other things, that EPA should limit its inquiry to the
three specific authorization criteria identified
[[Page 72464]]
in section 209(e)(2)(A),\16\ and that EPA should give substantial
deference to the policy judgments California has made in adopting its
regulations. In previous waiver decisions, EPA has stated that Congress
intended EPA's review of California's decision-making be narrow. EPA
has rejected arguments that are not specified in the statute as grounds
for denying a waiver:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Engine Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075,
1087 (D.C. Cir. 1996): ``. . . EPA was within the bounds of
permissible construction in analogizing Sec. 209(e) on nonroad
sources to Sec. 209(a) on motor vehicles.''
\16\ 59 FR at 36983, note 12.
The law makes it clear that the waiver requests cannot be denied
unless the specific findings designated in the statute can properly
be made. The issue of whether a proposed California requirement is
likely to result in only marginal improvement in California air
quality not commensurate with its costs or is otherwise an arguably
unwise exercise of regulatory power is not legally pertinent to my
decision under section 209, so long as the California requirement is
consistent with section 202(a) and is more stringent than applicable
Federal requirements in the sense that it may result in some further
reduction in air pollution in California.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``Waiver of Application of Clean Air Act to California
State Standards,'' 36 FR 17458 (Aug. 31, 1971). Note that the more
stringent standard expressed here, in 1971, was superseded by the
1977 amendments to section 209, which established that California
must determine that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal
standards. In the 1990 amendments to section 209, Congress
established section 209(e) and similar language in section
209(e)(1)(i) pertaining to California's nonroad emission standards
which California must determine to be, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal
standards.
This principle of narrow EPA review has been upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.\18\ Thus, EPA's
consideration of all the evidence submitted concerning an authorization
decision is circumscribed by its relevance to those questions that may
be considered under section 209(e)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See, e.g., MEMA I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Deference to California
In previous waiver and authorization decisions, EPA has recognized
that the intent of Congress in creating a limited review based on
specifically listed criteria was to ensure that the Federal government
did not second-guess state policy choices. As the Agency explained in a
prior waiver decision: ``It is worth noting . . . I would feel
constrained to approve a California approach to the problem which I
might also feel unable to adopt at the federal level in my own capacity
as a regulator . . . Since a balancing of risks and costs against the
potential benefits from reduced emissions is a central policy decision
for any regulatory agency under the statutory scheme outlined above, I
believe I am required to give very substantial deference to
California's judgments on this score.'' \19\ Similarly, EPA has stated
that the text, structure, and history of the California waiver
provision clearly indicate both a Congressional intent and appropriate
EPA practice of leaving the decision on ``ambiguous and controversial
matters of public policy'' to California's judgment.\20\ This
interpretation is supported by relevant discussion in the House
Committee Report for the 1977 Amendments to the CAA. Congress had the
opportunity through the 1977 Amendments to restrict the preexisting
waiver provision but elected instead to expand California's flexibility
to adopt a complete program of motor vehicle emission controls. The
report explains that the amendment is intended to ratify and strengthen
the preexisting California waiver provision and to affirm the
underlying intent of that provision, that is, to afford California the
broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the
health of its citizens and the public welfare.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See, ``California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control
Standards; Waiver of Federal Preemption,'' 40 FR 23102, 23103 (May
28, 1975).
\20\ Id. at 23103-04.
\21\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d 1095 1110 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ((citing H.R.
Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301-02 (1977)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Burden and Standard of Proof
In MEMA I the Court stated that the Administrator's role in a CAA
section 209 proceeding is to ``consider all evidence that passes the
threshold test of materiality and . . . thereafter assess such material
evidence against a standard of proof to determine whether the parties
favoring a denial of the waiver have shown that the factual
circumstances exist in which Congress intended a denial of the
waiver.'' \22\ The Court in MEMA I considered the standard of proof
under CAA section 209 for the two findings related to granting a waiver
for an ``accompanying enforcement procedure'' (as opposed to the
standards themselves): (1) protectiveness in the aggregate and (2)
consistency with section 202(a) findings. The Court instructed that
``the standard of proof must take account of the nature of the risk of
error involved in any given decision, and it therefore varies with the
finding involved. We need not decide how this standard operates in
every waiver decision.'' \23\ The Court upheld the Administrator's
position that, to deny a waiver, there must be `clear and compelling
evidence' to show that proposed procedures undermine the protectiveness
of California's standards.\24\ The Court noted that this standard of
proof also accords with the Congressional intent to provide California
with the broadest possible discretion in setting regulations it finds
protective of the public health and welfare.\25\ With respect to the
consistency finding, the Court did not articulate a standard of proof
applicable to all proceedings but found that the opponents of the
waiver were unable to meet their burden of proof even if the standard
were a mere preponderance of the evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1122.
\23\ Id.
\24\ Id.
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although MEMA I did not explicitly consider the standard of proof
under CAA section 209 concerning a waiver request for ``standards,'' as
compared to accompanying enforcement procedures, there is nothing in
the opinion to suggest that the Court's analysis would not apply with
equal force to such determinations. EPA's past waiver decisions have
consistently made clear that: ``[E]ven in the two areas concededly
reserved for Federal judgment by this legislation--the existence of
`compelling and extraordinary' conditions and whether the standards are
technologically feasible--Congress intended that the standards of EPA
review of the State decision to be a narrow one.'' \26\ Opponents of
the waiver or authorization bear the burden of showing that the
criteria for a denial of California's waiver or authorization request
have been met. As found in MEMA I, this obligation rests firmly with
opponents of the waiver or authorization in a CAA section 209
proceeding:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 80 FR 76468, 76471 (December 9, 2015).
The language of the statute and its legislative history indicate
that California's regulations, and California's determinations that
they comply with the statute, when presented to the Administrator
are presumed to satisfy the waiver requirements and that the burden
of proving otherwise is on whoever attacks them. California must
present its regulations and findings at the hearing and thereafter
the parties opposing the waiver request bear the burden of
persuading the Administrator that the waiver request should be
denied.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1121.
The Administrator's burden, on the other hand, is to make a
reasonable evaluation of the information in the record in coming to the
waiver or authorization decision. As the Court in MEMA I stated:
``here, too, if the Administrator ignores evidence demonstrating that
the waiver should
[[Page 72465]]
not be granted, or if he seeks to overcome that evidence with
unsupported assumptions of his own, he runs the risk of having his
waiver decision set aside as `arbitrary and capricious.' '' \28\
Therefore, the Administrator's burden is to act ``reasonably.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id. at 1126.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. EPA's Administrative Process in Consideration of California's
Request
On March 17, 2023, EPA issued a notice for comment regarding CARB's
authorization request for the 2020 At-Berth Amendments.\30\ The notice
requested the public provide EPA with comment on issues relevant to
EPA's consideration of the request along with an opportunity to request
a public hearing. EPA did not receive a request for a public hearing.
Consequently, EPA did not hold a public hearing. The written comment
period remained open until May 1, 2023.\31\ EPA's decision in this
notice only pertains to the authorization request related to the 2020
At-Berth Amendments.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See ``California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control
Standards; Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth and Commercial Harbor Craft;
Requests for Authorization; Opportunity for Public Hearing and
Comment'' 88 FR 16439 (March 17, 2023).
\31\ EPA's March 17, 2023, Federal Register notice also included
notice of an opportunity for public hearing and written comment on a
separate authorization request from California regarding amendments
to its Commercial Harbor Craft (CHC) regulation. EPA did receive a
request for public hearing for the CHC authorization request and
announced a hearing date and extended comment period associated with
that request, see 88 FR 25636, April 27, 2023. EPA's actions
regarding the CHC authorization request did not affect EPA's
consideration of CARB's 2020 At-Berth Amendments request and EPA did
not extend the written comment period for the At-Berth request.
\32\ EPA's March 17, 2023, notice indicated that EPA will
separately and independently evaluate the 2020 At-Berth Amendments
and the 2022 CHC amendments and will issue separate final decisions
for each. 88 FR at 16442, note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA requested comment on the 2020 At-Berth Amendments, and whether
they meet the criteria for a full authorization. Specifically, EPA
requested public comment on: (a) whether CARB's determination that its
standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public
health and welfare as applicable federal standards is arbitrary and
capricious, (b) whether California needs such standards to meet
compelling and extraordinary conditions, and (c) whether California's
standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with
section 209 of the Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA received comment from several parties that opposed EPA granting
an authorization to CARB for the 2020 At-Berth Amendments.\34\ EPA also
received comment from several parties that supported EPA granting an
authorization to CARB for the 2020 At-Berth Amendments.\35\ EPA will
address these comments below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA), EPA-HQ-OAR-
0152-0062; Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), EPA-HQ-OAR-
2023-0152-0022; Maersk, EPA-HQ-OAR-0152-0021; and, Pasha Hawaii
Holdings (Pasha Hawaii), EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0152-0054.
\35\ EPA received one comment submitted jointly (Earthjustice),
EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0152-0041, that included: BREATHE Southern
California, California Environmental Voters, California Nurses for
Environmental Health and Justice, Center for Biological Diversity,
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Central
Valley Air Quality Coalition, Climate Solutions, Coalition for Clean
Air, Earthjustice, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice,
Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, Little Manila
Rising, Natural Resources Defense Council, Ocean Conservancy,
Pacific environment, Regional Asthma Management and Prevention, San
Pedro & Peninsula Homeowners Coalition, Sierra Club, Sunflower
Alliance, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the
West Long Beach Association. These same commenters submitted an
additional comment after the close of the comment period
(Earthjustice Additional Comment), EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0152-0063. EPA
also received comment from the American Lung Association (ALA), EPA-
HQ-OAR-2023-0152-0001, and the West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air
and Safe Jobs, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0152-0046 and the Ocean Conservancy,
and other individual comments found at EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion
Our analysis of the 2020 At-Berth Amendments in the context of the
three authorization criteria is set forth below.
A. First Authorization Criterion
CAA section 209(e)(2)(A)(i) of the CAA instructs that EPA cannot
grant an authorization if the Agency finds that California was
arbitrary and capricious in its determination that its standards will
be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and
welfare as applicable Federal standards.
CARB states that as with standards for new on-road motor vehicles
and engines, California evaluates the protectiveness of its nonroad
standards ``in the aggregate,'' assessing whether the State's
standards, as a whole regulatory program (a whole nonroad emissions
program), are at least as protective as EPA's standards.\36\ CARB notes
that this protectiveness assessment also takes place against the
backdrop of prior nonroad authorizations granted for which California
determined, and EPA affirmed, that California's existing nonroad
emissions program is at least as protective as EPA's.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ CARB At-Berth Authorization Request at 21.
\37\ Id. EPA notes that its recently granted nonroad
authorization confirmed the approach of determining whether CARB's
nonroad amendments undermine California's previous determination
that its standards and accompanying enforcement procedures, in the
aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare
as applicable federal standards. 88 FR 24411, 24414 (April 20,
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In adopting the 2020 At-Berth Amendments, CARB's Board approved
Resolution 20-22, in which it expressly declared, ``the Board hereby
determines that the regulations adopted herein will not cause
California's off-road engine emission standards, in the aggregate, to
be less protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal
standards.'' \38\ CARB further stated that there is no basis for EPA to
find the Board's determination is arbitrary and capricious since EPA is
not authorized to regulate ``in-use'' nonroad engines under the CAA and
is thus precluded from developing any comparable requirements for this
category of sources.\39\ CARB noted that the 2020 At-Berth Amendments
are projected to achieve 3.5 tons per day (tpd) of NO<INF>X</INF> in
the South Coast (and 7.1 tpd statewide) in 2037 and is one of the
control measures committed to in California's 2022 State SIP Strategy
to help the South Coast reach attainment with the 2037 ozone standard.
In addition, CARB noted that its 2020 At-Berth Amendments are projected
to achieve cumulative total reductions from 2021 to 2032 of 17,500 tons
of NOx, 370 tons of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 870 tons of ROG; and 356,000
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ CARB, Resolution 20-22 (quoted in CARB At-Berth
Authorization Request at 22).
\39\ CARB At-Berth Authorization Request at 22, citing CAA
section 213 (EPA's authority to set nonroad emission standards for
new nonroad engines and vehicles) and Engine Manufacturers
Association v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir 1996) (EMA).
\40\ CARB At-Berth Authorization Request at 3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No evidence was submitted to support an argument that the
stringency of CARB's At-Berth Regulation is numerically less stringent
than the applicable EPA standard (in this case EPA does not have the
authority to regulate in-use OGVs under its regulatory authority set
forth in section 213 of the CAA, therefore there are no applicable
federal standards to compare with CARB's standards). Therefore, we
cannot find that California's 2020 At-Berth Amendments undermine
California's previous determination that its nonroad standards and
accompanying enforcement procedures, in the aggregate, are at least as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards
or that CARB's protectiveness determination submitted as part of its
authorization request is arbitrary and capricious.
[[Page 72466]]
Thus, we cannot deny CARB's request for authorization of its Amendments
based on this criterion.
One commenter asserted that California's justification for its
protectiveness finding must fail because ``CARB purports that EPA need
not look at the proposed regulation to determine `protectiveness',
rather that California must merely be at least as protective as the
federal standards.'' \41\ This commenter asserted that Congress could
not have meant that CARB can adopt any regulations it proposes without
some review by EPA and that EPA must delve into the regulation CARB is
currently submitting rather than a general statement that CARB views
its program as a whole more protective than applicable federal
standards. This commenter also asserted that CARB ``confuses'' the
issue by ``creating a sub-categorization'' of nonroad engines of ``in-
use'' engines and that there is no such distinction in the CAA and is
contrary to the intent of the CAA.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Maersk at 4-5 (note, this commenter did not number the
pages in their comment).
\42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that its historical practice, followed here, is to
examine the specific standards that CARB has submitted for
authorization and to compare the stringency of such standards to the
relevant federal standards. If CARB's standards are more stringent than
the relevant federal standards, then the first authorization criterion
is satisfied. In addition, in the event that it appears that a specific
California standard may be less stringent than an applicable federal
standard, then EPA will evaluate whether California's standards as a
whole are `in the aggregate'' as protective of public health and
welfare as applicable federal standards for nonroad vehicles and
engines.\43\ In that circumstance, even if the standards in question
are less stringent than the relevant federal standards, so long as
California's nonroad standards, in the aggregate, are more stringent
than the federal standards, the first authorization criteria is
satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ EPA also evaluates the first authorization criterion by
assessing the numerical stringency of CARB's standard compared to
applicable Federal standards. Section 209(b)(2) supports this
approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this instance there are no EPA standards that apply to OGVs that
are no longer new.\44\ CARB's At-Berth Regulation applies to OGVs that
are not in a ``new'' status but rather OGVs that are non-new or ``in-
use'' as CARB applies this concept. CARB is not creating this concept
of ``in-use'' nor is it inconsistent with the CAA. EPA notes that this
commenter also does not account for the language in section 209(e) and
related case law. For example, based on the Court decision in EMA, EPA
implemented regulations for section 209(e) of the CAA that clarify that
states and localities may not regulate (are preempted from regulating)
the emissions on in-use nonroad engines and vehicles but that
California may seek an authorization to enforce such regulations.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ CAA section 216 defines ``new'', in part, as ``the
equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to the
ultimate purchaser.''
\45\ The genesis of the dispute of the scope of implied
preemption in section 209(e)(2) originated from EPA's final 1994
rule that limited preemption to ``new'' nonroad sources and did not
cover ``non-new'' or in-use sources. See EMA at 1082 (citing EPA's
rule at 59 FR 3699, 36971-73 (1994)). The EMA Court explained that
EPA has sole authority over the classes of new nonroad sources
defined in section 209(e)(1). In addition, EPA and California have
joint authority over all other new nonroad sources. Id. at 1090. The
Court then examined whether all states have independent authority to
regulate non-new sources or whether California has sole authority
over such sources (with other states permitted to opt into
California regulations). The Court held that the implied preemption
of section 209(e)(2) extends beyond emission standards for new
nonroad sources and includes non-new sources. Id. at 1094. EPA's
regulations that implement the holding in EMA are at 40 CFR
1074.10(b) and Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also received comment that suggested CARB's projected emission
reductions associated with the control of emissions from tankers were
inaccurate.\46\ This commenter noted what it believed to be a
discrepancy between, on the one hand, CARB's rulemaking record where
emission reduction estimates were based on capture and control
technologies (not shore power) in order to control boiler emissions
from tankers, and on the other, more recent statements from CARB
indicating a belief shore power may provide a viable alternative. The
commenter noted that CARB is incorrectly representing an overstated
reduction in tanker emissions that was based on capture on control
technology.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ WSPA at 6-7. As noted below, the commenter failed to
adequately allege that this comment is related to any of the three
authorization criteria. Therefore this comment is not an adequate
basis for denying the authorization. Nonetheless, EPA has in its
discretion addressed this comment in relation to the first and
second authorization criteria.
\47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, EPA's scope of review of CARB's authorization
request is narrow and is limited to the criteria in section
209(e)(2)(A). While EPA appreciates this commenter's concern for the
accuracy in the emission reduction estimates, neither this commenter
nor any other has submitted information, data, or arguments as to why
claimed inaccuracies would render CARB's standards, whether alone or in
the aggregate, to be less protective than applicable federal standards.
Any emission reductions from California's regulation of in-use nonroad
vehicles or engines, including those from tankers, would support a
finding that the State's standards are as protective as the federal,
and this would be true whether the State's standards are considered in
the aggregate or individually.
EPA notes that this comment was not tied to any of the three
authorization criteria. To the extent the commenter may also believe
that potential inaccuracies indicate a lack of a need for the 2020 At-
Berth Amendments under the second authorization criterion, for the
reasons noted further below, California continues to experience
compelling and extraordinary conditions, and thus California has
demonstrated a need for its nonroad emission program (include the At-
Berth Regulations) regardless of the actual or precise emission
reductions from the control of emissions from tankers.
Accordingly, for the reasons noted above, EPA cannot find that
CARB's protectiveness finding is arbitrary and capricious, nor can we
deny CARB's request for authorization of its 2020 At-Berth Amendments
based on this criterion.
B. Second Authorization Criterion
Under section 209(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, EPA must grant an
authorization for California nonroad vehicle and engines standards and
accompanying enforcement procedures unless EPA finds that California
``does not need such State standards to meet compelling and
extraordinary conditions.'' EPA has traditionally interpreted this
provision, consistent with its interpretation of similar language in
section 209(b)(1)(B), as requiring consideration of whether conditions
in California justify the need for a separate nonroad vehicle and
engine program to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and not
whether any given standard or set of standards is necessary to meet
such conditions.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See e.g., 82 FR 6525 (January 19, 2017); 78 FR 58090
(September 20, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has not disturbed this reading of section 209(b)(1)(B),
and 209(e)(2)(A)(ii), as calling for EPA review of conditions in
California rather than the standards being considered for waiver or
authorization. With two exceptions, EPA has consistently interpreted
this provision as requiring the Agency to consider whether California
needs a separate motor vehicle emission program (or nonroad program)
rather than the specific
[[Page 72467]]
standards in the request at issue to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions. Congress intended to allow California to address its
extraordinary environmental conditions and foster its role as a
laboratory for motor vehicle emissions control. The Agency's
longstanding practice therefore has been to evaluate CARB's requests
with the broadest possible discretion to allow California to select the
means it determines best to protect the health and welfare of its
citizens in recognition of both the harsh reality of California's air
pollution and the importance of California's ability to serve as a
pioneer and a laboratory for the nation in setting new motor vehicle
emission standards and developing control technology.\49\ EPA notes
that ``the statute does not provide for any probing substantive review
of the California standards by federal officials.'' \50\ As a general
matter, EPA has applied the traditional interpretation in the same way
for all air pollutants, criteria and GHG pollutants alike.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 403, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 33 (1967)
(The waiver of preemption is for California's ``unique problems and
pioneering efforts.''); 113 Cong. Rec. 30950, 32478 (``[T]he State
will act as a testing agent for various types of controls and the
country as a whole will be the beneficiary of this research.'')
(Statement of Sen. Murphy).
\50\ Ford Motor v. EPA, 606 F.2d 1293, 1300 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
\51\ 74 FR at 32763; 76 FR 34693; 79 FR 46256; 81 FR 95982; 88
FR 20688.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a departure from its long-standing interpretation, EPA has on
two separate instances limited its interpretation of this provision to
California motor vehicle standards that are designed to address local
or regional air pollution problems.\52\ In both instances EPA
determined that the traditional interpretation was not appropriate for
standards designed to address a global air pollution problem and its
effects and that it was appropriate to address such standards
separately from the remainder of the program (what became known as the
``alternative interpretation'').\53\ However, shortly after both
instances, EPA explained that the reinterpretation of the second waiver
prong in this manner is flawed and the alternative interpretation is
inappropriate, finding that the traditional interpretation--in which
EPA reviews the need for California's motor vehicle program as a
whole--is the best interpretation.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 73 FR 12156 (March 8, 2008); 84 FR 51310 (September 27,
2019).
\53\ In SAFE 1, EPA withdrew a portion of the waiver it had
previously granted for California's Advanced Clean Cars (ACC)
program--specifically, the waiver for California's zero emission
vehicle (ZEV) mandate and the GHG emission standards within
California's ACC program. EPA based its action, in part, on its
determination that California did not need these emission standards
to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, within the meaning
of section 209(b)(1)(B) of the CAA. That determination was in turn
based on EPA's adoption of a new, GHG-pollutant specific
interpretation of section 209(b)(1)(B). In any event, EPA expressly
stated that its new interpretation of section 209(b)(1)(B) only
applied to waiver requests for GHG emission reducing standards, SAFE
1 at 51341, n. 263. Therefore, even if EPA still maintained the SAFE
1 interpretation (which EPA does not agree with for the reasons
explained in the SAFE 1 Reconsideration Decision (87 FR 14332 (March
14, 2022)), EPA's traditional interpretation would still apply to
this nonroad authorization request given all of the standards at
issue are, in whole or in part, related to the reduction of criteria
pollutant emissions. CARB notes that in addition to the cumulative
tons of NO<INF>X</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> between 2021 and 2032,
the 2020 At-Berth Amendments are also projected to reduce 356,000
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) (CARB At-Berth
Authorization Request at 4-5). Therefore, to the extent the
alternative interpretation of the second authorization criteria were
to apply (i.e., an assessment of the need for individual standards),
EPA agrees with CARB that the OGV regulation will assist California
in the substantial challenges in facing national and state ambient
air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. (CARB At-
Berth Authorization Request at 25-26).
\54\ 74 FR 32744 (July 8, 2009); SAFE 1 Reconsideration Decision
at 14333-34, 14352-55, 14358-62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB noted that California, particularly in the South Coast and San
Joaquin Valley Air Basins, ``continues to experience some of the worst
air quality in the nation, and the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley
Air Basins, in particular, continue to be in extreme non-attainment
with national ambient air quality standards for ozone and serious non-
attainment with national ambient air quality standards for particulate
matter.'' \55\ CARB identified OGVs regulated by the At-Berth
Regulation as significant sources of harmful air pollutants, and the
need for CARB to achieve reductions of NO<INF>X</INF> and PM to attain
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and
PM.\56\ In addition, the CARB Board noted the public health and air
quality benefits beyond those achieved by the 2007 At-Berth Regulation
and the benefits that would accrue to coastal and port communities.\57\
EPA received comment that noted the April 2023 American Lung Associated
Report which ranks cities and counties based on ozone and particle
pollution, states that sixteen of the 25 most ozone-polluted regions in
the nation are located in California.\58\ This commenter noted that
many of the most-polluted regions in California, and indeed the nation,
house major ports and are home to millions who are most susceptible to
developing illnesses from breathing unhealthy levels of air pollution,
including children, the elderly, and people with underlying health
conditions.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ CARB At-Berth Authorization Request at 23.
\56\ Id. at 24-28.
\57\ See CARB Board Resolution 20-22. (``WHEREAS, the Regulation
is designed to achieve added public health and air quality benefits
that result from emissions reductions of oxides of nitrogen
(NO<INF>X</INF>), particulate matter 2.5 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>),
reactive organic gas (ROG), GHG emissions, black carbon, diesel
particulate matter (DPM) and other toxic air contaminants, beyond
those realized by the 2007 At-Berth ATCM; . . . The Regulated
California Waters, which include California ports and independent
marine terminals, feature meteorological, wind, and atmospheric
conditions peculiar to the local waters of California, and such
conditions make it likely that emissions of DPM, PM<INF>2.5,</INF>
ROG, and NO<INF>X</INF> occurring within these waters and ports are
transported to coastal communities and adversely affect human health
and welfare and the environment in such communities, thereby calling
for special precautions to reduce these emissions; The emissions
from diesel auxiliary engines used on ocean-going vessels and
boilers used on tanker vessels with steam driven boilers while at
berth contribute to regional air quality problems and to potential
risk of cancer and non-cancer health effects for residents living in
communities near California's major ports and independent marine
terminals; Upon implementation, the Regulation approved herein would
reduce emissions of DPM, ROG, GHG and NO<INF>X</INF> from diesel
auxiliary engines used on ocean-going vessels and PM<INF>2.5</INF>,
ROG, and NO<INF>X</INF> from boilers on tanker vessels with steam
driven pumps while at berth and will reduce emissions of carbon
dioxide, a GHG . . .'').
\58\ Earth Justice at 2.
\59\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also received comment that questioned whether CARB had
adequately demonstrated the need for the At-Berth Regulations based on
CARB's basis, in part, that the regulations were needed to address
NAAQS issues in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, and
that CARB does not explain how the regulations are needed in other
parts of the state.\60\ This commenter also suggested that California
relied on past findings and the regulation of motor vehicles (as
opposed to nonroad engines and vehicles) as the basis for the need for
its standards. This commenter also argued that because section
209(e)(2)(B)(i) allows other states to adopt and enforce California's
emission standards, EPA has a greater duty to examine the California
regulations, including the need for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Maersk at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on a review of the authorization record, the opponents have
not demonstrated that California no longer has a need for its nonroad
emission program, including its At-Berth regulations. California
continues to experience some of the worst air quality in the country
(measured by the NAAQS status of number of areas within California) and
its port and coastal communities continue to experience serious public
health and welfare impacts. In addition to the Port of Long
[[Page 72468]]
Beach and the Port of Los Angeles covered by the 2007 At-Berth
Regulation, the 2020 At- Berth Amendments include the ports of Oakland,
San Francisco, San Diego, Richmond, Stockton, Rodeo Area Marine Oil
Terminals, and Hueneme with their own NAAQS attainment challenges as
well as local public health impacts associated with port
activities.\61\ The record here, as presented by CARB, is plainly based
on the compelling and extraordinary conditions in California generally
as opposed to discrete regions and the corresponding need for CARB's
nonroad emission program.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See Ocean Conservancy, Earth-Justice, and American Lung
Association. EPA also notes that the climate changes impacts in
California (including those on local public health and welfare), and
the connection to and purpose of CARB's OGV At-Berth regulation and
reductions of CO2e emissions.
\62\ The commenter provided no legal rationale for interpreting
the statute to require that ``compelling and extraordinary
conditions'' exist in every part, or even in a predominance of
geographic areas within California. In addition, California is
responsible, in part, for developing State Implementation Plan (SIP)
measures to address nonattainment and maintenance and EPA sees no
basis to deny an authorization for regulations designed at the state
level at a number of ports and that address emission sources that
create both local and regional air quality problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrary to comments received, CARB's submission and EPA's
evaluation of the second authorization criterion at section
209(e)(2)(A)(ii) is not based on CARB's findings associated with the
need for California's motor vehicle emission program under section
209(b)(1)(B). CARB's Board Resolution and its authorization request
plainly sets forth its basis to demonstrate the need for its nonroad
emission program to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions under
the second authorization criterion. Further, EPA does not evaluate the
record before it under section 209(e)(2)(A), including whether there is
a need for ``such standards'' to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions in California, based on the ability or possibility of other
States to adopt California standards.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ EPA has on several occasions noted, responding to
assertions that California's standards must be evaluated in the
context of actions that have been or could be taken by states
adopting California standards, that the plain text of section 209 as
well as the legislative history of the section limit EPA's
consideration of the California standards to the state of California
and do not extend to other states. See e.g., 78 FR 2112, 2132
(January 9, 2013). Similarly, ``[t]he law makes it clear that the
waiver requests cannot be denied unless the specific findings
designated in the statute can properly be made. The issue of whether
a proposed California requirement is likely to result in only
marginal improvement in air quality not commensurate with its cost
or is otherwise an arguably unwise exercise of regulatory power is
not legally pertinent to my decision under section 209, so long as
the California requirement is consistent with section 202(a) and is
more stringent than applicable Federal requirements in the sense
that it may result in some further reduction in air pollution in
California. The law makes it clear that the waiver requests cannot
be denied unless the specific findings designated in the statute can
properly be made. The issue of whether a proposed California
requirement is likely to result in only marginal improvement in air
quality not commensurate with its cost or is otherwise an arguably
unwise exercise of regulatory power is not legally pertinent to my
decision under section 209, so long as the California requirement is
consistent with section 202(a) and is more stringent than applicable
Federal requirements in the sense that it may result in some further
reduction in air pollution in California.'' (emphasis added), 78 FR
at 2115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB has repeatedly demonstrated the need for its nonroad engines
and vehicles emissions program to address compelling and extraordinary
conditions throughout the state of California, including in its
nonattainment areas as well as in local and port communities affected
by the 2020 At-Berth Amendments. The opponents of the waiver have not
adequately demonstrated that that California does not need its nonroad
emissions program to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.
Therefore, I determine that I cannot deny the authorization requests
under section 209(e)(2)(A)(ii).
C. Third Waiver Criterion
Section 209(e)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot
grant an authorization if California's standards and enforcement
procedures are not consistent with ``this section.'' The 1994 rule sets
forth, among other things, regulations providing the criteria, as found
in section 209(e)(2)(A), which EPA must consider before granting any
California authorization request for new nonroad engine or vehicle
emission standards.\64\ EPA has historically interpreted the section
209(e)(2)(A)(iii) ``consistency'' inquiry to require, at minimum, that
California standards and enforcement procedures 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 section 209(b) motor
vehicle waivers).\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See 40 CFR part 1074.
\65\ 59 FR at 36982-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Consistency With CAA Section 209(a)
To be consistent with CAA section 209(a), California's 2020 At-
Berth Amendments must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor
vehicle engines. This is the case. California's 2020 At-Berth
Amendments expressly apply only to nonroad engines and do not apply to
motor vehicles or engines used in motor vehicles as defined by CAA
section 216(2).\66\ We did not receive any comments on California's
consistency with CAA section 209(a). Therefore, EPA cannot deny
California's request on the basis that California's 2020 At-Berth
Amendments are not consistent with CAA section 209(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ The regulated engines are not ``self-propelled vehicles
designed for transporting persons or property on a street or
highway.'' CAA section 216(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Consistency With CAA Section 209(e)(1)
To be consistent with CAA section 209(e)(1), California's 2020 At-
Berth Amendments must not affect new farm or construction equipment or
vehicles that are below 175 horsepower, or new locomotives or new
engines used in locomotives. CARB notes that its 2020 At-Berth
Amendments do not affect such permanently preempted vehicles or
engines. EPA did not receive any comments regarding California's
consistency with section 209(e)(1). Therefore, EPA cannot deny
California's request on the basis that California's 2020 At-Berth
Amendments are not consistent with section 209(e)(1).
3. Consistency With CAA Section 209(b)(1)(C)
a. Historical Context
The requirement that California's standards be consistent with CAA
section 209(b)(1)(C) effectively requires consistency with section
202(a). EPA has interpreted consistency with section 202(a) using a
two-pronged test: (1) whether there is sufficient lead time to permit
the development of technology necessary to meet the standards and other
requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of
compliance in the time frame provided, and (2) whether the California
and Federal test procedures are sufficiently compatible to permit
manufacturers to meet both the state and Federal test requirements with
one test vehicle or engine.\67\ We often refer to the first element by
the shorthand of technological feasibility (or technological
infeasibility). The scope of EPA's review of whether California's
action is consistent with CAA section 202(a) is narrow. The
determination is limited to whether those opposed to the authorization
have met their burden of establishing that California's standards are
technologically infeasible, or that California's test procedures impose
requirements inconsistent with the Federal test procedures.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See 61 FR 53371, 53372 (Oct. 11, 1996).
\68\ MEMA I, 627, F.2d at 1126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 72469]]
Under section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA must grant California's waiver (and
authorization) request unless the Agency finds that California
standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are ``not
consistent'' with section 202(a) of the Act. Section 202(a)(1) grants
EPA authority to regulate motor vehicle emissions generally and the
accompanying section 202(a)(2) specifies that those standards are to
``take effect after such period as the Administrator finds necessary to
permit the development and application of the requisite technology,
giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such
period.'' Thus, no specific lead time requirement applies to standards
promulgated under section 202(a)(1).
EPA has long limited its evaluation of whether California's
standards are consistent with section 202(a) to determining if: (1)
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 whether (2) California and
Federal test procedures are incompatible so that a single vehicle could
not be subjected to both tests. EPA has also explained that ``the
import of section 209(b) is not that California and Federal standards
be identical, but that the Administrator not grant a waiver of Federal
preemption where compliance with the California standards is not
technologically feasible within available lead time.'' Further, EPA's
review is limited to the record on feasibility of the technology.
Therefore, EPA's review is narrow and does not extend to, for example,
whether the regulations under review are the most effective, whether
the technology incentivized by California's regulations are the best
policy choice, or whether better choices should be evaluated. The
Administrator has thus long explained that ``questions concerning the
effectiveness of the available technology are also within the category
outside my permissible scope of inquiry,'' under section 209(b)(1)(C).
California's accompanying enforcement procedures would also be
inconsistent with section 202(a) if the Federal and California test
procedures conflicted, i.e., if manufacturers would be unable to meet
both the California and Federal test requirements with the same test
vehicle.
In determining whether there is inadequate lead time to permit the
development of technology, EPA considers whether adequate technology is
presently available or already in existence and in use. If technology
is not presently available, EPA will consider whether California has
provided adequate lead time for the development and application of
necessary technology prior to the effective date of the standards for
which a waiver is being sought.
Additionally, the D.C. Circuit has held that ``[i]n the waiver
context, section 202(a) relates in relevant part to technological
feasibility and to federal certification requirements. The
technological feasibility component of section 202(a) obligates
California to allow sufficient lead time to permit manufacturers to
develop and apply the necessary technology. The federal certification
component ensures that the Federal and California test procedures do
not impose inconsistent certification requirements. Neither the Court
nor the agency has ever interpreted compliance with section 202(a) to
require more.'' \69\ Regarding the technology costs portion of the
technology feasibility analysis, when cost is at issue EPA evaluates
the cost of developing and implementing control technology in the
actual time provided by the applicable California regulations. The D.C.
Circuit has stated that compliance cost ``relates to the timing of a
particular emission control regulation.'' \70\ The Court, in MEMA I,
opined that section 202's cost of compliance concern, juxtaposed as it
is with the requirement that the Administrator provide the requisite
lead time to allow technological developments, refers to the economic
costs of motor vehicle emission standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures. See S. Rep. No. 192, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 5-8 (1965); H.R.
Rep. No. 728 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 23 (1967), reprinted in U.S. Code
Cong. & Admin. News 1967, p. 1938. It relates to the timing of a
particular emission control regulation rather than to its social
implications.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Motor Equipment Manufacturers Association v. Nicols (MEMA
III) 143 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir 1998).
\70\ MEMA I at 1119.
\71\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the burden of proof under the third prong, EPA has
previously stated that its inquiry is limited to evaluating whether
those opposed to the waiver have met their burden of showing either:
(1) that California's standards are technologically infeasible,
including whether they do not provide for adequate lead time giving due
consideration to costs, or (2) that California's test procedures impose
requirements inconsistent with the Federal test procedure.
b. CARB's At-Berth Authorization Request Discussion of Section
209(b)(1)(C)
CARB noted at the outset of its technological feasibility and lead
time discussion that the 2020 At-Berth Amendments present ``no issues
regarding technical feasibility based on the existing technologies in
place, the work already underway to expand emissions control
technologies to new vessel types, and the compliance flexibilities that
are built into the Regulation.'' \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ CARB At-Berth Authorization Request at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of its discussion of several compliance options or
pathways, CARB noted that shore power itself continues to be
technologically feasible. For example, CARB noted that grid-supplied
shore power is a technically feasible control technology that is
currently being widely used in California to reduce emissions from
container, refrigerated cargo, and cruise vessels for compliance with
the 2007 At-Berth Regulation.\73\ In addition, with regard to newly
regulated vessels (ro-ros and tankers), CARB stated that shore power is
in use for ro-ro vessels in Northern Europe and there is one instance
of a tanker terminal using shore power for a limited group of tanker
vessels in California at the Port of Long Beach.\74\ Finally, with
regard to shore power, CARB noted that some degree of retrofitting of
certain vessels to use the technology is needed but that technology
presently exists.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Id. citing CARB's Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) at p,
III-10-13.
\74\ Id. Citing the ISOR at III-14-15 and III-18-19.
\75\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another technology that CARB found to be effective for compliance
and technically feasible is capture and control.\76\ CARB identified
capture and control technologies that would not require retrofits to
vessels or terminals (if using a barge-based system) as well as land-
based capture and control systems that may require some modifications
to the terminals, and stated the possible need for modification was
factored into compliance timelines.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Id. CARB noted that the first capture and control system
for vessels under the At-Berth program was granted a CARB Executive
Order in 2015, and, like shore power, the technology is currently in
use by container vessels for compliance with the 2007 Regulation.
\77\ Id. at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB noted that operators of these vessel fleets have already
installed shore power infrastructure has already been installed on a
large majority of contain, reefer, and cruise vessel fleets subject to
the 2007 At-Berth Regulation. As such,
[[Page 72470]]
CARB expressed that newly regulated ports or terminals (under the 2020
At-Berth Amendments) receiving container, reefer, or cruise vessels are
not expected to be subject to control requirements beyond what is
already covered under the existing regulation and that has been
demonstrated to be feasible. ``Because of the widespread investment in
shore power for compliance with the 2007 At Berth Regulation, the
majority of container, reefer, and cruise vessel fleets calling
California are expected to continue using shore power to comply with
the new Regulation.'' CARB also noted that the plans submitted to CARB
by those regulated ports and terminals receiving regulated container,
reefer, and cruise vessels further support this finding.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Id. CARB also noted that in addition to the availability
and feasibility of shore power there is existing ``barge-capture and
control technology'' for use on container vehicles, that such CAECS
type technology can be used for any container vessel visiting a
regulated California terminal, and that therefore there should be no
question that regulated container, reefer, and cruise vessels will
be able to comply with the 2020 At-Berth Amendments by the initial
compliance date of January 1, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to ro-ro and tanker vessels, which were not regulated
under the 2007 At-Berth Regulation, CARB noted that both shore power
and capture and control technologies are technically feasible for
controlling emissions from these vessel types and are already in use at
some locations. ``Ro-ro vessels typically have similar power needs at
berth as container and reefer vessels and, as such, are expected to be
able to utilize shore power equipment or a capture and control system
(barge- or land-based) that is similar in design and capacity to those
currently used by container and reefer vessels.'' Some modifications
may be necessary to ensure the technology can serve the emissions
reduction needs of a ro-ro vessel, but technology manufacturers have
advised CARB staff that those adjustments can be readily made within
the regulatory timeframes provided for ro-ro vessel compliance.'' \79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Id. at 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tanker vessels, generally have greater power loads at berth than
container, reefer, and ro-ro vessels. CARB noted that shore power and/
or capture and control systems are also anticipated to be the primary
methods for reducing emissions from tankers at berth. For example, CARB
noted that shore power is already in use at one tanker terminal at the
Port of Long Beach (Pier T) and capture and control systems are being
considered by both technology manufacturers and tanker industry members
as a potential solution for compliance with the At Berth
Regulation.\80\ CARB acknowledged that ``Some additional modifications
to the existing capture and control system may be necessary for use on
tanker vessels due to their larger power loads needed at berth and
safety concerns resulting from the flammable cargos often transported
by tanker vessels. These modifications include, but are not limited to,
putting spuds on capture and control barges that allow them to anchor a
safe distance away from the vessel (providing easy break-away
capabilities in the event of an emergency situation) or developing
land-based units with centralized treatment systems with additional
piping and cranes at the dock designed to safely carry hot exhaust away
from the vessel for after-treatment.'' \81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Id.
\81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to CARB's own technology assessments, CARB noted its
discussions with technology manufacturers who expressed confidence in
their ability to adapt existing capture and control technologies for
safe use on tanker vessels. CARB also noted the first demonstration
project to develop a capture and control system for tankers underway
that is expected to reach completion by the end of 2023, well ahead of
the first tanker vessel compliance dates (January 2025).\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Id. at 32-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB also noted that it had reviewed planning documents of ports
and terminals that host ro-ro and tanker vessels and found that those
plans generally align with the assumptions made in support of the 2020
At-Berth Amendment, with ``the majority of ro-ro and tanker terminal
plans indicating that regulated entities intend to use shore power or
capture and control technologies to comply with the At Berth
Regulation.'' \83\ CARB noted that the At-Berth Amendments were tuned
to provide ``a staggered implementation schedule to reduce the burden
on emissions control technology providers and contractors that
specialize in wharf improvements, as bringing all tanker terminals and
ro-ro terminals in at the same time could stress the ability of the
existing equipment manufacturers to design, build, and deploy their
systems, and could result in backorders and delays.'' \84\ The 2020 At-
Berth Amendments require previously regulated ocean-going vessels to
now comply at the newly regulated ports and terminals by January 1,
2023. The 2020 At-Berth Amendments require also require all ro-ro
vessels visiting all regulated ports and terminals (including those
ports and terminals covered by CARB's original regulation as well and
ports and terminals newly regulated by the new At-Berth amendments to
comply by January 1, 2025; for tankers that visit the ports of Los
Angeles or Long Beach by January 1, 2025, and for all other ports and
terminals by January 1, 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Id. at 33.
\84\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB concluded that ``there should be no question that sufficient
pathways exist for regulated ro-ro and tanker vessels to comply with
the Regulation's requirements by the required implementation dates
given that the technology to comply . . . exists, given that the
Regulation provides several years of lead time for equipment adaption,
permitting, and adaptation; . . .'' \85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to CARB's assessments and expectations highlighted
above, CARB noted a number of flexibilities built into the At-Berth
regulations to accommodate varying project timelines in the event of
delays. Examples of such flexibilities include providing each regulated
vessel fleet and terminal with a limited number of exemptions each year
and an option to remediate emissions if equipment or construction
delays occur.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Id. See also CARB's FAQ at <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/TTD21-272%20At%20Berth%20FAQs.pdf">https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/TTD21-272%20At%20Berth%20FAQs.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another compliance pathway available to vessel operators, terminal
operators, CAECS operators, as well as port operators is a
``remediation fund'' that under certain circumstances allows regulated
entities to reach compliance by monetary payments. The fund supports
projects that reduce equivalent emissions in the same port communities
impacted by the uncontrolled emissions.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Id. at 16-17. According to CARB, this compliance pathway is
available under circumstances where equipment repairs or
maintenance, delays in connecting a control strategy, and certain
other circumstances are identified, and a terminal plan is submitted
to and approved by CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB also noted an additional compliance pathway under an
``Innovative Concepts Compliance Option'' added at the request of the
tanker industry. This allows a terminal needing extra time to design,
certify, and build an emissions control system to reduce equivalent
emissions at their terminal from a different unregulated emissions
source.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Id. at 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turning to the question of costs, including the economic cost of
developing and implementing requisite
[[Page 72471]]
technology to meet the 2020 At-Berth Amendments, the At-Berth
Authorization Request included CARB's assessment of costs and savings
for regulated entities associated with every element of the
Regulation.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ EPA notes that its review of the authorization record, as
it relates to cost, is more limited than what CARB laid out in the
authorization request and mirrors that the Court in MEMA I
explained. In MEMA I, the Court addressed the cost of compliance
issue at some length in reviewing a waiver decision. According to
the Court: Section 202's cost of compliance concern, juxtaposed as
it is with the requirement that the Administrator provide the
requisite lead time to allow technological developments, refers to
the economic costs of motor vehicle emission standards and
accompanying enforcement procedures to the regulated entities
themselves (not including indirect costs on society). Such costs
relate to the timing of a particular emission control regulation
rather than to its social implications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB noted that ``A key element in considering the cost of
compliance is to estimate the costs passed on by ports to terminal
operators, by terminal operators to the vessel fleet operators, and by
vessel fleet operators to their customers and consumers.'' \90\ CARB
noted that the costs to directly regulated parties will vary
considerably depending on the compliance pathway(s) selected (i.e.,
shore power or a capture and control system) and may include one-time
equipment capital and installation costs and recurring costs for
maintenance, labor, air pollution control services (rental of capture
and control barge-based systems), fuel, electricity, and administrative
costs, depending on the emission control strategy used for compliance.
CARB noted that it broke the estimated costs down for regulated
entities per year as part of the Standardized Regulatory Impact
Assessment (SRIA) completed during the rulemaking process.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Id. at 35.
\91\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB stated that direct costs to comply will largely be borne by
ports, terminal operators, and fleet owners and operators, though the
industry may choose to pass on costs to consumers without incurring
significant economic disruption or impact on business competitiveness.
Therefore, CARB subsequently estimated these indirect costs to
consumers by calculating cost ratios in metrics of increased cost per
20-foot equivalent unit (TEU) of cargo for container and reefer
vessels, increased cost per cruise vessel passenger, increased cost per
automobile imported into or exported from California, and increased
cost per gallon of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and other crude
products produced in California.\92\ CARB stated these calculations
further support its conclusion, pointing to the historical deference
EPA provides to California's policy judgments, including judgments on
costs, that the 2020 At-Berth Amendments are feasible within the lead
time provided and giving appropriate consideration of costs.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Id. These costs translate into an approximate increase in
the per unit cost of: Container/Reefer: $1.14 per Twenty-foot
Equivalent Unit (TEU); [middot] Cruise: $4.65 per passenger;
[middot] Ro-ro: $7.66 per automobile; and Tanker: <$0.01 per gallon
of finished product.
\93\ Id. at 35-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining element of the consistency with section 202(a)
requirement is whether the At-Berth regulations raises issues regarding
the incompatibility of California and federal test procedures. CARB
noted that in fact, it does not adopt or create any new test
procedures. ``The regulation incorporates by reference a number of
standards and test methods, . . ., to allow operators to submit engine
test data already measured pursuant to federal regulations and the
international treaty, respectively. There is no requirement for engine
manufacturers or fleet owners to certify engines beyond federal and
state certification testing for new engines. Additionally, there are no
conflicts between federal and California test procedures for
verification testing for diesel emission control strategies in that
there is no comparable mandatory federal program.'' \94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Comments Received
As noted in the ``Other Issues'' section below, EPA received
comment that recommended that the Agency not act upon CARB's
authorization request until a state appeals court in California ruled
on an appeal from a lower Superior Court of California decision filed
on March 1, 2023.\95\ EPA addresses the issue of whether it is
necessary or appropriate to delay its authorization decision pending a
court decision in the ``Other Issues'' section. However, the underlying
superior court decision issued on January 18, 2023, is informative as
it relates to the technological feasibility of the 2020 At-Berth
Amendments.\96\ The Superior Court's judgment includes an analysis of
the regulation's feasibility and safety and whether CARB violated its
own statutory duties by failing to demonstrate substantial evidence of
feasibility and safety.\97\ The Court noted that CARB may properly rely
on ``reasonably foreseeable technological advances'' and noted the
multiple compliance options to meet the emission reduction requirements
and that, while other options are available, shore power and capture
and control technologies will result in the necessary reductions.\98\
The Court also addressed a number of arguments from WSPA (the state
court petitioner) that are similar to the comments that WSPA submitted
to the record of EPA's authorization review. For example, the Court
rejected WSPA's argument that CARB erred in its determination that
shore power is feasible for diesel-electric tankers, finding sufficient
record support for concluding shore power is among the feasible
strategies for reducing auxiliary engine emissions from tanker vessels.
Likewise, the Court noted CARB's regulatory accommodation of power
boilers that are not configured to run on electricity.\99\ With regard
to lead time, the Court upheld CARB's demonstration that the timing of
the regulation is feasible,\100\ noting CARB's record evidence
including statements from two technology providers that capture and
control technologies could be commercially available sufficiently in
advance of the 2025 and 2027 compliance dates.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ WSPA at 7.
\96\ Western States Petroleum Association v California Air
Resources Board, (WSPA v CARB), issued by the Superior Court of
California County of Los Angeles on January 18, 2023, judgment filed
on March 1, 2023, Case No. 20STCP03138.
\97\ Id. at 6 of 22.
\98\ Id. 8, 9 of 22. The Court explained that CARB has
demonstrated that both shore power and capture and control
technology are ``available.''
\99\ Id. at 9, 10 of 22. If a tanker uses shore power in lieu of
its auxiliary engine, the At-Berth regulation does not require the
tanker to curb emissions from its boiler.
\100\ Id. at 11. ``That is, Petitioner argues the total
development time required for the technology--together with the time
needed for construction of the necessary supporting complex
infrastructure at tanker terminals--``could range'' from 10 to 15
years after adoption of the Regulation.''
\101\ Id. EPA is not aware of any information from the
commenters in EPA's record for the authorization request to refute
these technology assessments and projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes it appropriate to address a threshold lead time issue
raised by a commenter at the outset.\102\ This commenter raised two
separate arguments regarding lead time and pertaining to EPA's review
of CARB's regulation, suggesting that two years must be provided from
the date of EPA's authorization decision and the first date of
regulatory implementation by CARB. First, the commenter stated that
section 209(e)(2)(A) provides that EPA shall ``authorize California to
adopt and enforce standards.'' Second, the commenter stated that
section 209(e)(2)(B)(ii) also requires that ``California and such state
adopt such standards at least 2 years before commencement of the period
for which
[[Page 72472]]
the standards take effect.'' \103\ EPA notes that the preamble to its
regulation that implements section 209(e), as well as its waiver and
authorization practice, clarifies that the two-year lead time
requirement in section 209(e)(2)(B)(ii), which on its face applies to
states adopting California's nonroad emission standards, does not apply
to California.\104\ EPA also notes that CARB is able to adopt its
regulations before an EPA authorization and California enforcement may
begin when EPA issues the authorization. Further, lead time is measured
by the date of adoption of applicable emission standards in California,
and not by any subsequent action by EPA.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ PMSA at 5-6.
\103\ Id.
\104\ The nonroad authorization criteria are plainly spelled out
in section 209(e)(2)(A) where only California is noted. Section
(e)(2)(B), begins with ``Any State other than California . . .'' and
there is no indication that 209(e)(2)(B) imposes requirements on
California. EPA's regulations that implement section 209(e) spells
out the criteria for granting authorizations in 40 CFR 1074.105
(which mirrors the language in section 209(e2)(A) of the CAA, and
EPA separately spells out the requirements for other states to adopt
California's standards in 40 CFR 1074.110 (which mirrors the
language in 209(e)(2)(B)). Further, the requirement in section
209(e)(2)(A)(iii) (consistent with section 209) has, consistent with
the 1994 rule, been interpreted as requiring consistency with CAA
sections 209(a), 209(e)(1), and 209(b)(1)(C). EPA has stated that
consistency with section 209(b)(1)(C) means that EPA will interpret
the criterion the same way EPA has interpreted this criterion in
prior motor vehicle waiver decisions, i.e., by determining whether
there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of
technology necessary to meet these requirements, giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance within that time frame. EPA
is not reopening the interpretations provided in the 1994 rulemaking
in this authorization decision. 59 FR 36969, 36982-36983 (July 20,
1994).
\105\ 88 FR 24411, 24415 (April 20, 2023). See also 59 FR 36969,
36981-36982 (EPA addressed the issue of whether CARB may adopt a
regulation before it has received an authorization and EPA
determined CARB may do so), EPA is not reopening the position taken
in the 1994 rulemaking in this authorization decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that CARB issued an ``Enforcement Notice'' on March
30,2023, that pertains to how CARB plans to implement the OGV
regulation including reporting and other requirements in calendar year
2023 and once EPA issues its authorization.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/At%20Berth%20Enforcement%20Notice%20-%20March%2030%202023.pdf">https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/At%20Berth%20Enforcement%20Notice%20-%20March%2030%202023.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the implementation timeline for the 2020 At-Berth
Amendments, in addition to the two-year lead time issue addressed
above, EPA received comment that stated that insufficient lead time
exists to develop and modify technologies, permit, and construct needed
infrastructure.\107\ CARB noted during its rulemaking that the
construction of emission control systems for vessels, especially for
tankers and ro-ro vessels, may require years to complete but may vary
substantially from project to project.\108\ CARB identified recent
advancements in technology, as well as statements by technology
providers regarding anticipated further advancements, in support of its
conclusion that technology should reasonably be available to meet to
compliance obligation timelines. CARB also noted the alternative
compliance strategy of the ``Innovate Concept Compliance Option'' and
the remediation fund for construction projects as providing additional
pathways to compliance if situations arise in which technological
challenges are a barrier.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ WSPA at 5.
\108\ CARB FSOR at 57-58. CARB noted that it considered several
projects and found that even construction that involved substantial
new infrastructure at tanker terminals would require only five to
seven years to complete.
\109\ Id. at 58.See also CARB's ISOR at III-19-22, and WSPA v
CARB explained above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA received comments regarding the Remediation Fund that was
created by the 2020 At-Berth Amendments.\110\ One commenter noted broad
industry support for the Remediation Fund conceptually but observed
that CARB had not yet implemented the provision.\111\ Another commenter
stated that the use of the Remediation Fund does not obviate the need
for timelines adequate to permit the development of requisite
technology. Further, this commenter noted that if the Remediation Fund
were sufficient to demonstrate technological feasibility for purposes
of an EPA authorization, the logical extension would be that the Clean
Air Act authorizes the creation of a carbon tax as an emission
standard. In response, EPA notes that CARB derives its regulatory
authority to control the emissions from OGVs not from section 202 but
from its own police power and state law authorities. Further, to the
extent EPA's waiver and authorization criteria include consideration of
whether CARB's standards are consistent with section 202(a), this has
only led EPA to consider whether CARB's standards are technologically
feasible, within the lead time provided and considering costs.\112\ EPA
understands the concerns expressed by the commenter that technological
feasibility should be assessed against technologies that will be
available within the lead time provided as opposed to demonstrating
compliance (and feasibility) through the use of a remediation fund. As
noted above, EPA believes that CARB had identified the necessary
technologies that can be used to meet the regulatory obligations in the
lead time provided. EPA concludes that, regardless of the remediation
fund, CARB's standards are technologically feasible. While the third
authorization criterion is satisfied without the fund, the fund is an
additional compliance flexibility which regulated entities may in their
discretion use to comply with the 2020 At-Berth Amendments.\113\ The
opponents of the authorization have not demonstrated that the fund
requires regulated entities to incur excessive costs or that the fund
otherwise does not provide a reasonable, additional pathway toward
compliance.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Maersk at 10; PMSA at 17-18.
\111\ Maersk at 10, this commenter also noted that CARB was
restricting the fund inappropriately and noted other concerns.
\112\ See 88 FR 20688 (April 6, 2023).
\113\ EPA does not conduct a policy review of how CARB chooses
to enforce its standards, but EPA does assess the costs of the
standards and the compliance pathways provided to the regulated
parties. See Engine Manufacturers Association v South Coast Air
Quality District, 541 U.S. 246 (2004). This distinction of standards
on the one hand and the methods of standards enforcement on the
other is significant. As noted, EPA only reviews the methods or
enforcement procedures in terms of the three authorization criteria.
Additional questions regarding the propriety of the State's measures
is outside the scope of EPA's authorization review under section
209(e).
\114\ EPA's expectation is that CARB will reasonably implement
the program, but EPA's role is not generally one of oversight of
CARB's standards once EPA has finalized its adjudicatory decision
and issued an authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA received several comments regarding the feasibility of the 2020
At-Berth Amendments as applied to tankers and ro-ros.\115\ Commenters
noted that there are no international design and safety standards for
shore power, including issues pertaining to the ability of tankers to
use shore power and the lack of a standard voltage for ro-ro vessels.
With regard to tankers, commenters noted that there are currently no
feasible alternatives to shore power and no practical pathways without
shore power and that innovative concepts are not developed at this
time. Commenters also noted that there no CARB approved emission
control systems (CAECS) at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ PMSA at 7-17, Maersk, WSPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB addressed the concerns raised by the commenters during its
rulemaking for the 2020 At-Berth Amendments. With regard to shore power
for tankers, CARB acknowledged that while there is only one example of
shore power for a tanker vessel and that not every tanker and tanker
berth in California would be able to use shore power in the same way,
the one example (T121) does demonstrate that shore power is a feasible
strategy for reducing auxiliary engine emissions from tanker
vessels.\116\ In addition, and
[[Page 72473]]
as noted previously, the regulation provides allowances for boiler
emissions and the tanker only needs to reduce auxiliary engine
emissions.\117\ CARB also addressed the viability of capture and
control systems for tankers during its rulemaking and within its
authorization request.\118\ Both within CARB's authorization request
and its rulemaking documents it was acknowledged that the 2020 At-Berth
Amendments were technology forcing and may require a number of
compliance pathways. CARB also noted the incentive funding available
for emissions reduction technologies.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ CARB FSOR at 259.
\117\ Id. See also CARB ISOR at III-18-19 and WSPA v CARB at 11-
12.
\118\ CARB ISOR at III-19-22. CARB assumed land-based capture
and control systems that would be more complex than the existing
system in demonstration at the Port of Los Angeles. As noted
previously, CARB conducted conversations with both the tanker
industry and capture and control manufacturers. ``A land-based
capture and control system for tanker vessels would likely consist
of a large, centralized exhaust gas treatment system on-shore, with
ducting on the wharf connecting to a positioning boom located on the
berth or nearby platform constructed to house the positioning boom.
Existing capture and control systems would also need to be scaled up
from the existing systems in order to handle the higher exhaust flow
from tanker vessels, as tanker vessels have a higher combined power
demand for both auxiliary engines and boilers at berth when compared
to other all other vessel categories except cruise vessels.''
\119\ CARB FSOR at 342.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to safety-related issues that could be created by
complying with the 2020 At-Berth Amendments, CARB noted that ``Through
regular conversations with the tanker industry, staff is aware of many
of the claims raised by these comments regarding land-based emissions
capture systems, especially concerning the lack of space, structural
stability, fire/explosion safety, and electrical safety of these
systems. CARB agrees that any emission control system needs to be safe,
and therefore must address identified safety concerns. Staff does not
believe that technical issues, such as static discharge, are
unsurmountable. Tanker vessels already have strategies in place to
introduce inert gas into tanks during the offloading process.
Furthermore, capture systems are substantially decoupled from a tanker
vessel, directing the exhaust gas from engines and boilers taken from a
vessel's stack onto a barge- or land-based system for treatment.''
\120\ CARB also responded to the concerns expressed by one commenter
regarding the inability of steamships to turn off their boilers due to
thermal dynamics which require marine propulsion engines to stay hot as
well as the inability of some steamships which have been retrofitted to
run on liquified natural gas (LNG) to turn off their generators as this
would result the inability to control tank pressure.\121\ CARB has
indicated that LNG ships can receive approval to operate under the 2020
At Berth Requirements as a CARB Approved Emissions Control System
(``CAECS'') upon submission of adequate testing data demonstrating
compliance with the 2020 At-Berth Amendments. Also, additional
technological improvements and developments may occur for capture and
control technologies for these LNG steamships. Finally, in the event
that such LNG vessels are demonstrating efforts toward capture and
control technologies but are faced with development and supply issues
they can be eligible for the remediation fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ Id.
\121\ Pasha Hawaii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB also addressed the feasibility of capture and control systems.
``Capture and control systems have already been used on many other OGV
categories, and in other industries. Many of the hurdles identified by
the tanker industry are already known and understood by developers who
believe they can be addressed. Although it is true there has not yet
been a capture and control system tested and approved for tanker
vessels, due to the lack of any emissions control requirements until
the approval of this Regulation, technology providers have informed
CARB that alternate control technology, as proven on other vessel
categories, can be adapted to tanker vessels.'' \122\ CARB also
explained the rationale behind CARB's assumption that tanker vessels
will utilize land-based capture and control systems in staff's analyses
was largely due to a lack of collective interest expressed by the
tanker industry in regards to the development of shore power for tanker
vessels. According to CARB, ``capture and control systems can also
treat boiler emissions. This provides an advantage for controlling
tanker emissions, as shore power cannot reduce boiler emissions because
boilers on OGVs are, in general, not electric powered. Retrofitting to
electric boilers would be impractical, requiring large auxiliary
engines, and replacement electric boilers. This is unlikely to
successfully accomplish because of space and operational constraints
with vessels designs that are generally not flexible enough to undergo
such a redesign and would add substantial costs on top of the costs
already considered. The additional time allowed for implementation of
tanker vessel control requirements (2025 and 2027) will also provide
the opportunity for the development, construction and deployment of
safe land-based control systems to use on tanker vessels, in addition
to developing and deploying safety protocols and establishing
operational requirements. However, that does not preclude a tanker
vessel from selecting other options for compliance, including a barge-
based capture and control system, where feasible.'' \123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ CARB noted that ``Technology providers have used capture
and control technology for regulatory compliance on container
vessels and have used it on bulk and ro-ro vessels. CARB believes
that the technology to control emissions on tanker vessels is
similar in many aspects to the systems currently in existence and
can be reasonably adapted to tankers given the time provided to the
tanker industry. There are no restrictions in the Regulation that
would prevent tanker vessels from utilizing other forms of emissions
control technologies, including shore power or barge-based capture
and control systems.'' CARB ISOR at Chapter III-19 through 22.
\123\ See FSOR at 548.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB noted that the Innovative Concept compliance option described
in section 93130.17 provides flexibility by allowing vessels or
terminal operators additional time to identify opportunities for
implementing a compliance strategy that reduces vessel emissions while
at berth. Approved Innovative Concept projects are valid for up to 5
years and can be renewed for another compliance period of up to 5 years
as long as the qualifications in the Regulation are maintained (see
section 93130.17(a)(7)). Innovative Concept project applicants can
apply for renewal indefinitely as long as the project continues to meet
the qualifications listed in the Regulation. ``As such, the Innovative
Concept pathway can be utilized as a terminal's main pathway to
compliance or as a bridge to reduce emissions while longer term project
installations are taking place.'' \124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ See FSOR at 547-549; ISOR at III-16; CEQA Responses,
Master Response 4 at 17-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, CARB noted that the localized health benefits achieved by
the 2020 At-Berth Amendments cannot wait for an international body to
set a shore power standard, and that this circumstance also existed in
2007 time period when shore power was first applied to other vessels
with a positive resolution before such standards were set. CARB noted
its expectation that vessel operators and terminals will work together
to utilize shore power systems that work best for all parties while the
international shore power standard is being established. If not, CARB
noted the flexibilities provided within the regulation.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ See CARB FSOR at 78-79, 99-100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 72474]]
d. California's 2020 At-Berth Regulations Are Consistent With Section
202(a)
As explained above, EPA has historically applied a consistency test
under section 202(a) that calls for the Administrator to first review
whether adequate technology already exists, and if it does not, whether
there is adequate time to develop and apply the technology before the
standards go into effect. After a review of the record, information,
and comments received in this proceeding, EPA has determined that the
opponents of the authorization request for CARB's regulations have not
demonstrated that these regulations are inconsistent with section
202(a). As noted above, CARB's authorization request indicated that
control technology either presently exists or is in use, that the
previously regulated OGV types are reasonably projected to comply at
the newly regulated ports and terminal, and that several years remain
until the 2027 compliance date for the new regulated terminals. For new
vessel categories, the opponents of the authorization request have not
carried their burden of demonstrating that there is insufficient lead
time for regulated ro-ro and tanker vessels to meet their compliance
dates. CARB has identified a number of existing technologies that can
be used to comply with the regulations and has noted that the
Regulation provides ample lead time for equipment adaptation,
permitting, and installation. Therefore, because CARB has identified a
number of existing technologies and a reasonable projection of the
development and modification of technologies within the lead time
provided, and because opponents of the authorization have not
demonstrated why such projections are unreasonable, the opponents of
the authorization have not met their burden of proof to demonstrate
technological infeasibility. Independent of EPA's assessment of CARB's
identification of technologies and reasonable technology projections,
CARB has also demonstrated a number of technology-based alternative
compliance pathways in order to demonstrate the feasibility of the 2020
At-Berth Amendments and opponents have not demonstrated why such
pathways are unreasonable given the amount of lead time. As noted
above, the findings of the California State Superior Court in WSPA v.
CARB adds further support to EPA's assessment of feasibility.
In addition, the Regulation provides flexibilities to account for
unanticipated delays. These include a limited number of exemptions for
regulated vessel fleets and terminals, and an option to remediate
emissions if equipment or construction delays occur. These exemptions
as well as the remediation fund are also available if there are delays
with the operation of CAECS or physical or operational constraints that
have been identified in port and terminal compliance plans and under
certain conditions.
Flexibility also exists in the Innovative Concepts Compliance
Option that allows regulated entities to reduce emissions from other
sources in and around the port if it achieves equal emissions benefits
as reducing emissions from vessels at berth.
The opponents of the authorization have not demonstrated why the
regulatory compliance options, considered either separately or
together, render the At-Berth Regulation infeasible or inconsistent
with section 202(a).
Therefore, based on the record before us, EPA cannot find that the
opponents of the 2020 At-Berth Amendments authorization have met their
requisite burden of proof to demonstrate that such requirements are
inconsistent with section 202(a). Thus, EPA cannot deny CARB's 2020 At-
Berth Amendments authorization request on this basis and therefore I
cannot deny the authorization request based on the third authorization
criterion.
IV. Other Issues
EPA has long construed section 209 as limiting the Agency's
authority to deny California's requests for waivers and authorizations
to their respective three listed criteria under section 209(b) and
section 209(e)(2)(A). This narrow review approach is supported by
decades of waiver and authorization practice and judicial precedent. In
MEMA I, the D.C. Circuit held that the Agency's inquiry under section
209(b) is ``modest in scope.'' \126\ The D.C. Circuit further noted
that ``there is no such thing as a `general duty' on an administrative
agency to make decisions based on factors other than those Congress
expressly or impliedly intended the agency to consider.\127\ In MEMA
II, the D.C. Circuit again rejected an argument that EPA must consider
a factor outside the 209(b) statutory criteria concluding that doing so
would restrict California's ability to ``exercise broad discretion.''
\128\ EPA's duty, in the authorization context, is thus to grant
California's authorization request unless one of the three listed
criteria is met. ``[S]ection 209(b) sets forth the only waiver
standards with which California must comply . . . If EPA concludes that
California's standards pass this test, it is obligated to approve
California's waiver application.'' \129\ EPA has therefore consistently
declined to consider factors outside the three statutory criteria
listed in section 209(b) and 209(e)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ MEMA I at 1105.
\127\ Id. at 1116.
\128\ MEMA II at 453.
\129\ Id. at 463.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA received comment that the 2020 At-Berth Amendments improperly
make entities other than OGV's, such as ports and terminals,
responsible for any emission standards violations, even if this ``third
party'' does not exercise control over the regulated OGVs.\130\ This
commenter argued that the Clean Air Act, including section 202(a) and
209, does not authorize EPA to impose penalties on third parties (EPA
assumes the commenter means this to mean that the compliance path of
the remediation fund is a ``penalty''). Alternatively, this commenter
stated that by making a facility directly liable for emissions from
third-party nonroad vehicles, ``CARB is inappropriately instituting an
indirect source rule framework.'' \131\ As such, this commenter claimed
that CARB's regulations exceed the authority granted by sections 202(a)
and 209 of the Clean Air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ PMSA at 3.CARB's regulations impose requirements both on
terminal operators and ports that are designed to ensure emission
reductions associated with OGVs at berth at their locations. As
specified in 93130.09, operators of terminals that received 20 or
more visits must ensure that the terminals are equipped with a CAECS
that will enable vessels to comply with the At-Berth regulation
while at berth and if the terminal operator in unable to do so it
may use a terminal incident event, pay into the remediation fund, or
use an approved Innovative Concept to comply (if the vessel informs
the terminal that the regulation will be complied with by onboard
technologies than the terminal operator has no further
responsibility. Similarly, ports that receive 20 or more visits must
meet 93130.13 requirements. This includes providing any equipment or
infrastructure to comply that is outside the terminal operators or
vessel operators' contractual ability to provide. If the terminal
operator and/or vessel operator elects to use CARB-approved
emissions control equipment that does not need port assistance, then
the port has no additional responsibility.
\131\ Id, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB addressed this issue in its own rulemaking.\132\ CARB noted
PMSA's comment and its belief that while there is a role for enhanced
marine terminal and port responsibility, such responsibility should be
limited only to circumstances within the control of the port or marine
terminal and should avoid the hallmarks of an Indirect Source
Regulation. CARB also noted PMSA's comment that ``An indirect source
rule is a regulation which assigns a liability and responsibility to a
facility to reduce indirect mobile source
[[Page 72475]]
emissions which that facility does not control, when the mobile source
can be directly regulated to reduce emissions through a traditional
emissions standard, engine standard, or other in-use standard. We are
concerned that many of these hallmarks are present in the proposed
control measure when they were successfully avoided in the current
regulation.'' \133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ CARB FSOR at 130-131.
\133\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB responded to these comments and noted it developed the At-
Berth regulation under CARB's authorities for regulating air toxics,
criteria pollutants, and GHG emissions. CARB noted that ``The purpose
of the Regulation is to achieve emissions reductions from each vessel
visit. The compliance obligations under the Regulation involve
minimizing emissions from each vessel visit through various potential
actions specific to that vessel visit, and reporting information needed
to substantiate the required actions for that visit. Unlike an indirect
source rule, the Regulation does not ``cap'' emissions at an entire
facility or otherwise seek to reduce emissions below a certain
facility-wide level. While the Regulation does regulate ports and
terminals, it does so only because regulating those entities has proven
essential to ensuring each vessel visit is able to use an approved
emission-reducing control technology.'' \134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ CARB At-Berth Authorization Request at 3. FSOR at 93.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA first notes that it only received an authorization request from
CARB pursuant to section 209(e) of the CAA. CARB sought no approval of
the 2020 At-Berth Amendments under any other provision of the CAA,
including as an ISR. EPA is therefore evaluating CARB's request solely
within the confines of section 209. As noted above, EPA is confined to
the authorization criteria in section 209(e)(2)(A). Therefore, EPA
cannot deny CARB's request based on an argument that such standards are
not subject to section 209. EPA notes that CARB has set a ``standard''
such as numerical emission levels or acceptable emission-control
technologies for specific ocean-going vessels. The difference between
such standards, that are preempted under section 209(e) as directed to
reducing emissions from nonroad engines and vehicles, and how such
standards are enforced is immaterial as to the threshold question as to
whether such standards are subject to section 209.\135\ Therefore, to
the extent that the At-Berth regulations are properly considered
standards relating to the control of emissions from nonroad engines and
vehicles and preempted under section 209(e) of the CAA (and EPA
believes they are so preempted), CARB's policy choice of how it chooses
to enforce such standards is not subject to EPA review other than
whether such enforcement procedures meet the criteria of section
209(e).\136\ In addition, the scope and type of enforcement procedures
that CARB implements is subject to its state law authority. As such,
sections 202 and 209 of the CAA do not create or constrain California's
regulatory authority under its police power. The requirement that
CARB's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures be consistent
with section 202(a) only pertains to whether such requirements are
technologically feasible, within the lead time given and considering
costs and whether the California test procedures are inconsistent with
federal test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ See Engine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air
Quality Management District, 541 U.S. 246 (2004). See also National
Association of Home Builders v. San Joaquin Valley, 627 F.3d 730,
736 (9th Cir. 2010) (``We agree with NAHB's premise that under
section 209(e)(2) the existence of ``standards'' or ``other
requirements'' is a question separate from how the standards or
requirements are enforced. As we shall explain, however, NAHB's
claim of preemption does not follow from its premise. Even if Rule
9510 establishes standards or requirements, those requirements do
not relate to the control of emissions from construction equipment.
In so holding, we think it crucial that the District adopted Rule
9510 under the Act's `indirect source review program' ''). Rule 9510
was subsequently approved by EPA as a California SIP revision (86 FR
33542 (March 21, 2018)). In this instance CARB did not adopt the OGV
At-Berth regulations under a claim of indirect source authority and
the emissions being addressed are those from the mobile sources
directly. Therefore, EPA is evaluating CARB's 2020 At-Berth
Amendments under section 209 of the CAA.
\136\ Section 209(e)(2)(A)(iii) provides, for example, that
``California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are
not consistent with this section.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, EPA notes that to the extent the requirements are not
mobile source standards or not associated compliance or enforcement
mechanisms to ensure the at-berth requirements are met, then such
standards or mechanisms would not be considered preempted by section
209(e)(1) of the CAA and thus would not require an authorization by EPA
before CARB enforce such standards. EPA does not consider the at-berth
requirements, as they apply to terminals and ports, to be an indirect
source review rule or some other type of rule under the Clean Air Act
other than a mobile source requirement, but to the extent they are of a
non-mobile source type then EPA notes that such rules are not subject
to EPA's approval unless they are submitted as part of a SIP
request.\137\ Further, EPA notes that section 116 of the Clean Air Act
sets forth, among other exceptions, that unless otherwise preempted by
section 209 nothing precludes a State from adopting or enforcing any
standard or limitation respecting emissions of air pollutants.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ To the extent that there is any other finding regarding
the applicability of section 110 of the CAA or any other provision
related to ISR, and that CARB's At-Berth Regulations are not
``standards and other requirements relating to control of emissions
from such vehicles or engines'' (as found in the preemption
provision in section 209(e)(2)(A) of the CAA) then there is no
affirmative requirement that the regulation be submitted to EPA for
approval.
\138\ 42 U.S.C. 7416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, EPA received comment concerning the legality of the
At-Berth tanker requirements due to a legal challenge the commenter
brought in California state court and that the commenter continues to
pursue.\139\ This commenter recommended that EPA not act on CARB's
authorization request pending the court's decision. EPA notes that its
statutory duty under section 209 of the Clean Air Act is to confine its
review to the criteria set forth for a waiver under section 209(b) or
an authorization under section 209(e).\140\ To the extent the
commenter, as a petitioner in state court, is raising legal challenges
to CARB's regulations that do not pertain to the section 209 criteria
then the commenter is free to do so while EPA's administrative process
is on-going and even after EPA's reaches its final authorization
decision.\141\ Regardless, EPA's issuance of an authorization under the
terms of section 209(e) merely allows California to no longer be
subject to the preemption provision, and in so doing effectively
removes that barrier to the State's enforcement of its regulations upon
EPA's issuance of the authorization. EPA's authorization does not
preclude a court from otherwise finding its own violations of law or
preventing CARB's enforcement of its regulations. Therefore, EPA
believes it is not necessary to wait for a state's court action on the
At-Berth Regulation or to deny or delay an authorization on this basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ WSPA at 7, citing Western States Petroleum Ass'n v.
California Air Resources Bd, filed March 16, 2023.
\140\ See MEMA I, MEMA II.
\141\ For example, WSPA raises a number of issues under
California state law (e.g. CEQA) that do not pertain to the Clean
Air Act section 209(e) criteria and EPA takes no position regarding
such issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Decision
After evaluating CARB's amendments to its At-Berth regulations
described above, EPA is granting CARB's
[[Page 72476]]
authorization request for its 2020 At-Berth Amendments. Based on CARB's
submissions, relevant adverse comment, and other comments in the
record, EPA is granting an authorization under section 209(e)(2)(A) of
the CAA for CARB's 2020 At-Berth Amendments. The opponents of the
authorization request have not met their burden of proof to demonstrate
or to adequately support an EPA finding that CARB and its 2020 At-Berth
Amendments fail to meet the three authorization criteria in section
202(e)(2)(A)(i)-(iii) of the CAA.
A. Judicial Review
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs judicial review of final
actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for
review must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit: (i) when the agency action consists of
``nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions
taken, by the Administrator,'' or (ii) when such action is locally or
regionally applicable, but ``such action is based on a determination of
nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the
Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a
determination.'' For locally or regionally applicable final actions,
the CAA reserves to the EPA complete discretion whether to invoke the
exception in (ii).
To the extent a court finds this final action to be locally or
regionally applicable, the Administrator is exercising the complete
discretion afforded to him under the CAA to make and publish a finding
that this action is based on a determination of ``nationwide scope or
effect'' within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1) for several
reasons.\142\ This final action grants an authorization for amendments
to California's At-Berth Regulations that were previously authorized by
EPA. As such, this final action will affect any person who owns,
operates, charters, or leases any United States or foreign-flag OGV
that visits a California port, terminal, or berth; any person who owns,
operates, or leases a port, terminal, or berth located where OGVs
visit, or any person who owns, operates, or leases a CARB approved
CAECS for OGV auxiliary engines or tanker auxiliary boilers.
Furthermore, the At-Berth Regulations, and the amendments to those
regulations that are the subject of today's action, the 2020 At-Berth
Amendments, are part of California's nonroad emissions program that,
together with its on-highway emissions program, are regulatory programs
that EPA may waive under CAA section 209. As required by statute, in
evaluating the authorization criteria in this action, EPA considers not
only the 2020 At-Berth Amendments in isolation, but in the context of
the entire California nonroad emission program. See CAA section
209(e)(2)(A) (requiring that the protectiveness finding be made for
California's standards ``in the aggregate''). Moreover, EPA generally
applies a consistent statutory interpretation and analytical framework
in evaluating and deciding various authorization and waiver requests
under CAA section 209. EPA also relies on the extensive body of D.C.
Circuit case law developed by that Court since 1979 as it has reviewed
and decided judicial challenges to these actions. As such, judicial
review of any challenge to this action in the D.C. Circuit will
centralize review of national issues in that Court and advance other
Congressional principles underlying this CAA provision of avoiding
piecemeal litigation, furthering judicial economy, and eliminating the
risk of inconsistent judgments. For these reasons, the Administrator is
exercising the complete discretion afforded to him by the CAA and
hereby finds that this final action is based on a determination of
nationwide scope or effect for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1) and is
hereby publishing that finding in the Federal Register. Under section
307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must
be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by June 20, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ In deciding whether to invoke the exception by making and
publishing a finding that this final action is based on a
determination of nationwide scope or effect, the Administrator has
also taken into account a number of policy considerations, including
his judgment balancing the benefit of obtaining the D.C. Circuit's
authoritative centralized review versus allowing development of the
issue in other contexts and the best use of Agency resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
As with past authorization and waiver decisions, this action is not
a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt
from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for
rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.
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.
Further, 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).
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-23261 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 20, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.