5586 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Notices 

1 30 FERC ¶ 61,143 (1982). 

new powerhouse, containing one 1.2- 

megawatt Kaplan turbine with a 

hydraulic capacity of 1,000 cfs and a 

generator, discharging flows into the 

Snake River; (5) a gated overflow 

spillway to pass flood flows around the 

powerhouse; (6) a 3,000-foot-long, 15- 

kilovolt transmission line extending to a 

distribution line owned by Rocky 

Mountain Power; (7) a switchyard; and 

(8) appurtenant facilities. Flow 

diversions for the project would take 

into account minimum flow 

requirements for the bypassed reach of 

the Snake River. The estimated annual 

generation of the project would be 7.5 

gigawatt-hours. 

Applicant Contact: Mr. Alan D. 

Kelsch, Chairman, Idaho Irrigation 

District, 496 E. 14th Street, Idaho Falls, 

Idaho 83404; phone: (208) 522–2356. 

FERC Contact: Dianne Rodman; 

phone: (202) 502–6077. 

Deadline for filing comments, motions 

to intervene, competing applications 

(without notices of intent), or notices of 

intent to file competing applications: 60 

days from the issuance of this notice. 

Competing applications and notices of 

intent must meet the requirements of 18 

CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to 

intervene, notices of intent, and 

competing applications may be filed 

electronically via the Internet. See 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

efiling.asp. Commenters can submit 

brief comments up to 6,000 characters, 

without prior registration, using the 

eComment system at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

ecomment.asp. You must include your 

name and contact information at the end 

of your comments. For assistance, 

please contact FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll 

free at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY, 

(202) 502–8659. Although the 

Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filing, documents may also be 

paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an 

original and seven copies to: Kimberly 

D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

More information about this project, 

including a copy of the application, can 

be viewed or printed on the ‘‘eLibrary’’ 

link of Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number 

(P–13886–000) in the docket number 

field to access the document. For 

assistance, contact FERC Online 

Support. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2143 Filed 1–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP11–61–000] 

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline 

Company; Notice of Request Under 

Blanket Authorization 

January 24, 2011. 

Take notice that on January 19, 2011, 

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline 

Company (Williston Basin), 1250 West 

Century Avenue, Bismarck, North 

Dakota 58503, pursuant to its blanket 

certificate issued in Docket Nos. CP82– 

487–000, et al.,1 filed an application in 

accordance to sections 157.210 and 

157.213(b) of the Commission’s 

Regulations under the Natural Gas Act 

(NGA) as amended, for the construction 

and operation of new natural gas storage 

and transmission facilities located in 

Fallon County, Montana (Baker Storage 

Enhancement Project), all as more fully 

set forth in the application, which is on 

file with the Commission and open to 

public inspection. 

In order to accommodate requests for 

increased firm storage and 

transportation services, Williston Basin 

proposes to drill three additional storage 

wells, one observation well, and 

associated storage field pipelines and 

measurement facilities at its Baker 

Storage Reservoir. Williston Basin also 

adds two natural gas-fueled units, rated 

at 2,370 hp each, at the Monarch 

Compressor Station; and one natural 

gas-fueled unit, rated at 1,680 hp, at the 

Sandstone Creek Compressor Station. 

The proposed facilities will enhance the 

deliverability of the Baker Storage 

Reservoir by 35,000 Mcf/day and 

provide 7,000 Mcf/day of incremental 

transportation transfer capacity. The 

cost of the proposed facilities is 

approximately $12,355,000. Williston 

Basin proposes the facilities to be 

completed and placed into service by 

November 1, 2011. 

Any questions concerning this 

application may be directed to Keith A. 

Tiggelaar, Director of Regulatory Affairs, 

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline 

Company, 1250 West Century Avenue, 

Bismarck, North Dakota 58503, (701) 

530–1560, or e-mail at 

keith.tiggelaar@wbip.com. 

This filing is available for review at 

the Commission or may be viewed on 

the Commission’s Web site at http:// 

www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. 

Enter the docket number excluding the 

last three digits in the docket number 

filed to access the document. For 

assistance, please contact FERC Online 

Support at FERC 

OnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call toll-free 

at (866) 206–3676, or, for TTY, contact 

(202) 502–8659. Comments, protests and 

interventions may be filed electronically 

via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. The 

Commission strongly encourages 

intervenors to file electronically. 

Any person or the Commission’s staff 

may, within 60 days after issuance of 

the instant notice by the Commission, 

file pursuant to Rule 214 of the 

Commission’s Procedural Rules (18 CFR 

385.214) a motion to intervene or notice 

of intervention and pursuant to Section 

157.205 of the regulations under the 

NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the 

request. If no protest is filed within the 

time allowed therefore, the proposed 

activity shall be deemed to be 

authorized effective the day after the 

time allowed for filing a protest. If a 

protest is filed and not withdrawn 

within 30 days after the allowed time 

for filing a protest, the instant request 

shall be treated as an application for 

authorization pursuant to section 7 of 

the NGA. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2147 Filed 1–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9260–5] 

California State Motor Vehicle and 

Nonroad Engine Pollution Control 

Standards; Mobile Cargo Handling 

Equipment Regulation at Ports and 

Intermodal Rail Yards; Opportunity for 

Public Hearing and Comment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public 

hearing and comment. 

SUMMARY: The California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) has notified EPA that it 

has adopted regulations for mobile cargo 

handling equipment at ports and 

intermodal rail yards (Mobile Cargo 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Notices 5587 

Handling Equipment). CARB’s Mobile 

Cargo Handling Equipment 

requirements are designed to use best 

available control technologies to reduce 

public exposure to emissions of diesel 

particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. 

The requirements apply to any 

motorized vehicle used to handle cargo, 

including yard trucks, top handlers, side 

handlers, rubber-tired gantry cranes, 

forklifts, dozers, and loaders. By letter 

dated January 29, 2007, CARB has 

requested that EPA confirm that certain 

requirements are within-the-scope of 

previously granted EPA waivers and 

authorizations under the Clean Air Act, 

and grant a new full authorization 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act for other 

requirements that are applicable to 

nonroad engines. This notice announces 

that EPA has tentatively scheduled a 

public hearing to consider California’s 

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment 

request and that EPA is now accepting 

written comment on the request. 

DATES: EPA has tentatively scheduled a 

public hearing concerning CARB’s 

request on Thursday, February 17, 2011, 

at 1 p.m. EPA will hold a hearing only 

if any party notifies EPA by February 7, 

2011, expressing its interest in 

presenting oral testimony. By February 

11, 2011, any person who plans to 

attend the hearing may call David 

Alexander at (202) 343–9540, to learn if 

a hearing will be held or may check the 

following webpage for an update: http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm. 

Parties wishing to present oral 

testimony at the public hearing should 

provide written notice to David 

Alexander at the e-mail address noted 

below. If EPA receives a request for a 

public hearing, that hearing will be held 

in Room 1332A of the Ariel Rios North 

Building, which is located at 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. 

If EPA does not receive a request for 

a public hearing, then EPA will not hold 

a hearing, and instead consider CARB’s 

request based on written submissions to 

the docket. Any party may submit 

written comments until March 17, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0862, by one of the 

following methods: 

• On-Line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the OnLine Instructions for Submitting 

Comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0862, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of two copies. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

On-Line Instructions for Submitting 

Comments: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0862. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

we receive will be included in the 

public docket without change and may 

be made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will automatically be captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

EPA will make available for public 

inspection materials submitted by 

CARB, written comments received from 

any interested parties, and any 

testimony given at the public hearing. 

Materials relevant to this proceeding are 

contained in the Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, 

maintained in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0862. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov 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 

work 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 Web site is http://www.epa.gov/ 

oar/docket.html. The electronic mail (email) address for the Air and Radiation 

Docket is: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov. After opening the 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site, 

enter EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0862, 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 also maintains a webpage 

that contains general information on its 

review of California waiver requests. 

Included on that page are links to prior 

waiver and authorization Federal 

Register notices; the page can be 

accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

cafr.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Alexander, Compliance and 

Innovative Strategies Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue (6405J), NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: 

(202) 343–9540. Fax: (202) 343–2800. Email: alexander.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. California’s Mobile Cargo Handling 

Requirements for Equipment at Ports 

and Intermodal Rail Yards 

In a letter dated January 29, 2007, 

CARB submitted to EPA its request 

pursuant to section 209 of the Clean Air 

Act (‘‘CAA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), regarding its 

regulations for Mobile Cargo Handling 

Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail 

Yards (‘‘Mobile Cargo Handling 

Equipment’’ or ‘‘CHE’’). CARB’s Mobile 

Cargo Handling Equipment regulations 

were adopted at CARB’s December 8, 

2005 public hearing (by Resolution 05– 

62) and were subsequently modified 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
5588 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Notices 

1See S.Rep. No. 90–403 at 632 (1967). 

2Clean Air Act (CAA) section 209(b)(1)(A). 

3CAA section 209(b)(1)(B). 

4CAA section 209(b)(1)(C). 

5See, e.g., 74 FR 32767 (July 8, 2009); see also 

Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association v. 

EPA (MEMA I), 627 F.2d 1095, 1126 (D.C.Cir. 1979). 6See 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994). 

after making the regulation available for 

supplemental public comment by 

CARB’s Executive Officer in Executive 

Order R–06–007 on June 2, 2006. The 

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment 

regulations are codified at title 12, 

California Code of Regulations section 

2479. 

CARB’s Mobile Cargo Handling 

Equipment regulations establish best 

available control technology (BACT) 

requirements that affect the sellers, 

renters, lessors, owners, and operators 

of mobile cargo handling equipment 

that are used at California’s ports or 

intermodal rail yards. For newly 

purchased, leased, or rented equipment, 

certified on-road engines would be 

required if available for the specific 

equipment type and application. 

Otherwise, the highest level certified 

off-road engine would be required, 

along with installation of the highest 

level verified diesel emission control 

strategy (VDECS) within one year of 

purchase, lease, or rent, or within six 

months of becoming available, if after a 

year. The regulations require in-use yard 

trucks to meet BACT performance 

standards primarily through accelerated 

turnover of older yard trucks to those 

equipped with cleaner, on-road engines 

(2007 model year or later). Owners or 

operators who have installed VDECS 

prior to the end of 2006, or who are 

already using certified on-road engines, 

are given additional time to comply. In 

addition, compliance is phased in for 

owners or operators who have more 

than three yard trucks in their fleet. 

Equipment other than yard trucks 

(non-yard trucks) would also be 

required to meet BACT, constituting 

replacement by cleaner on-road or offroad engines and/or the use of retrofits. 

When retrofits are used, replacement 

with Tier 4 off-road engines or 

installation of a Level 3 VDECS (which 

achieves an eighty-five percent 

reduction of emissions of diesel 

particulate matter) is required for some 

equipment. The Mobile Cargo Handling 

Equipment regulations also include 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for owners and operators 

of mobile cargo handling equipment. 

II. Clean Air Act New Motor Vehicle 

and Engine Waivers of Preemption 

Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act 

preempts states and local governments 

from setting emission standards for new 

motor vehicles and engines; it provides: 

No State or any political subdivision 

thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any 

standard relating to the control of emissions 

from new motor vehicles or new motor 

vehicle engines subject to this part. No state 

shall require certification, inspection or any 

other approval relating to the control of 

emissions from any new motor vehicle or 

new motor vehicle engine as condition 

precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if 

any), or registration of such motor vehicle, 

motor vehicle engine, or equipment. 

Through operation of section 209(b) of 

the Act, California is able to seek and 

receive a waiver of section 209(a)’s 

preemption. If certain criteria are met, 

section 209(b)(1) of the Act requires the 

Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for public hearing, to waive 

application of the prohibitions of 

section 209(a). Section 209(b)(1) only 

allows a waiver to be granted for any 

State that had adopted standards (other 

than crankcase emission standards) for 

the control of emissions from new motor 

vehicles or new motor vehicle engines 

prior to March 30, 1966, if the State 

determines that its standards will be, in 

the aggregate, at least as protective of 

public health and welfare as applicable 

Federal standards (i.e., if such State 

makes a ‘‘protectiveness 

determination’’). Because California was 

the only state to have adopted standards 

prior to 1966, it is the only state that is 

qualified to seek and receive a waiver.1

The Administrator must grant a waiver 

unless she finds that: (A) California’s 

above-noted ‘‘protectiveness 

determination’’ is arbitrary and 

capricious; 2 (B) California does not 

need such State standards to meet 

compelling and extraordinary 

conditions; 3 or (C) California’s 

standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures are not 

consistent with section 202(a) of the 

Act.4 EPA has previously stated that 

consistency with section 202(a) requires 

that California’s standards must be 

technologically feasible within the lead 

time provided, giving due consideration 

of costs, and that California and 

applicable Federal test procedures be 

consistent.5

III. Clean Air Act Nonroad Engine and 

Vehicle Authorizations 

Section 209(e)(1) of the Act 

permanently preempts any State, or 

political subdivision thereof, from 

adopting or attempting to enforce any 

standard or other requirement relating 

to the control of emissions for certain 

new nonroad engines or vehicles. 

Section 209(e)(2) requires the 

Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for public hearing, to 

authorize California to enforce 

standards and other requirements 

relating to the control of emissions from 

new engines not listed under section 

209(e)(1), if certain criteria are met. EPA 

has promulgated regulations 

implementing these provisions at 40 

CFR part 1074. These regulations set 

forth the criteria that EPA must consider 

before granting California authorization 

to enforce its new nonroad emission 

standards. Title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, part 1074.105 

provides: 

(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. 

(c) In considering any request from 

California to authorize the state 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 stated in the preamble to the 

section 209(e) rule, EPA has historically 

interpreted the section 209(e)(2)(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).6

In order to be consistent with section 

209(a), California’s nonroad standards 

and enforcement procedures must not 

apply to new motor vehicles or new 

motor vehicle engines. To be consistent 

with 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 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 section 

209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator shall not 

grant California a motor vehicle waiver 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Notices 5589 

if she finds that California ‘‘standards 

and accompanying enforcement 

procedures are not consistent with 

section 202(a)’’ of the Act. Previous 

decisions granting waivers and 

authorizations have noted that state 

standards and enforcement procedures 

are inconsistent with 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. 

IV. Within-the-Scope Determinations 

If California amends regulations that 

were previously granted a waiver of 

preemption or authorization, EPA can 

confirm that the amended regulations 

are within-the-scope of the previously 

granted waiver or authorization. Such 

within-the-scope amendments are 

permissible without a full waiver review 

if three conditions are met. First, the 

amended regulations must not 

undermine California’s determination 

that its standards, in the aggregate, are 

as protective of public health and 

welfare as applicable federal standards. 

Second, the amended regulations must 

not affect consistency with section 

202(a) of the Act. Third, the amended 

regulations must not raise any ‘‘new 

issues’’ affecting EPA’s prior waivers or 

authorizations. 

V. EPA’s Request for Public Comment 

When EPA receives a new waiver or 

authorization request from CARB, EPA 

traditionally publishes a notice of 

opportunity for public hearing and 

comment, and then publishes a decision 

in the Federal Register following the 

conclusion of the comment period. In 

contrast, when EPA receives a request 

from CARB for a within-the-scope 

confirmation, EPA may publish a 

decision in the Federal Register and 

concurrently invite public comment if 

an interested party is opposed to EPA’s 

decision. 

Because CARB’s request regarding its 

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment 

regulations includes both within-thescope confirmation requests and a 

request for a full authorization, EPA is 

inviting comment on several issues. 

First, we request comment on which 

criteria we should apply to the various 

provisions included within CARB’s 

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment 

regulations. More specifically, we are 

requesting comment on whether any of 

the particular regulatory provisions 

included in CARB’s request should be 

considered as within-the-scope of 

previous EPA waivers or authorizations, 

and which particular regulatory 

provisions should be so considered, or 

whether EPA should consider all of the 

regulatory provisions as requiring a full 

waiver or authorization. Next, we seek 

comment on application of the 

appropriate criteria. To the extent that a 

commenter believes a regulatory 

provision is within-the-scope, they 

should also comment on how EPA 

should apply its within-the-scope 

criteria; alternatively, should a 

commenter believe that a particular 

regulatory provision requires a full 

waiver or authorization, we request 

comment on whether California has met 

the criteria for receipt of a full waiver 

or authorization. 

Within the context of a within-thescope analysis, EPA invites comment on 

whether California’s Mobile Cargo 

Handling Equipment requirements: (1) 

Undermine California’s previous 

determination that its standards, in the 

aggregate, are at least as protective of 

public health and welfare as comparable 

Federal standards, (2) affect the 

consistency of California’s requirements 

with section 202(a) of the Act, and (3) 

raise any other new issues affecting 

EPA’s previous waiver or authorization 

determinations. 

As stated above, EPA is also 

requesting comment on issues relevant 

to a full waiver and authorization 

analyses, in the event that EPA 

determines that any of California’s 

standards should not be considered 

within-the-scope of CARB’s previous 

waivers and authorizations, and instead 

require a full waiver or authorization 

analysis. Specifically, we request 

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. 

VI. Procedures for Public Participation 

If a hearing is held, the Agency will 

make a verbatim record of the 

proceedings. Interested parties may 

arrange with the reporter at the hearing 

to obtain a copy of the transcript at their 

own expense. Regardless of whether a 

public hearing is held, EPA will keep 

the record open until March 17, 2011. 

Upon expiration of the comment period, 

the Administrator will render a decision 

on CARB’s request based on the record 

from the public hearing, if any, all 

relevant written submissions, and other 

information that she deems pertinent. 

All information will be available for 

inspection at the EPA Air Docket No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0862. 

Persons with comments containing 

proprietary information must 

distinguish such information from other 

comments to the greatest extent possible 

and label it as ‘‘Confidential Business 

Information’’ (CBI). If a person making 

comments wants EPA to base its 

decision on a submission labeled as CBI, 

then a non-confidential version of the 

document that summarizes the key data 

or information should be submitted to 

the public docket. To ensure that 

proprietary information is not 

inadvertently placed in the public 

docket, submissions containing such 

information should be sent directly to 

the contact person listed above and not 

to the public docket. Information 

covered by a claim of confidentiality 

will be disclosed by EPA only to the 

extent allowed, and according to the 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. 

If no claim of confidentiality 

accompanies the submission when EPA 

receives it, EPA will make it available 

to the public without further notice to 

the person making comments. 

Dated: January 25, 2011. 

Margo T. Oge, 

Director, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Office of Air and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2082 Filed 1–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Public Availability of Federal Election 

Commission, Procurement Division FY 

2010 Service Contract Inventory 

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of public availability of 

FY 2010 Service Contract Inventories. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 

743 of Division C of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 

111–117), FEC PROCUREMENT 

DIVISION is publishing this notice to 

advise the public of the availability of 

the FY 2010 Service Contract inventory. 

This inventory provides information on 

service contract actions over $25,000 

that were made in FY 2010. The 

information is organized by function to 

show how contracted resources are 

distributed throughout the agency. The 

inventory has been developed in 

accordance with guidance issued on 

November 5, 2010 by the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Office of 

Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). 

OFPP’s guidance is available at http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES