50414 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 

9See 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994). 

As stated in the preamble to the 1994 

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).9

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 

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. 

If California amends regulations that 

were previously granted an 

authorization, EPA can confirm that the 

amended regulations are within the 

scope of the previously granted 

authorization. Such within-the-scope 

amendments are permissible without a 

full authorization 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 authorizations. 

III. EPA’s Request for Comments 

EPA invites public comment on 

CARB’s entire request, including but not 

limited to the following issues. 

A. 2008 Within-the-Scope or New 

Authorization 

First, we request comment on whether 

CARB’s 2008 Amendments, summarized 

in CARB’s November 2012 letter, each 

individually assessed, should be 

considered under the within-the-scope 

analysis or whether they should be 

considered under the full authorization 

criteria. Specifically, we request 

comment on whether California’s 2008 

Amendments (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 

209 of the Act, and (3) raise any other 

‘‘new issue’’ affecting EPA’s previous 

waiver or authorization determinations. 

In determining whether amendments 

can be viewed as within-the-scope of 

previous waivers, EPA does not evaluate 

how ‘‘significant’’ the changes to the 

regulations are, or whether cost or 

emission benefit projections have 

changed, but rather EPA evaluates 

whether CARB has either made minor 

technical amendments to previously 

waived regulations or whether the 

amendments can reasonably be viewed 

as modifying the regulations in order to 

provide manufacturers with additional 

compliance flexibilities or otherwise 

reduce the overall stringency of the 

requirements. 

Should any party believe that the 

2008 Amendments for which California 

requested within-the-scope 

authorization do not merit consideration 

as within-the-scope of the previous 

Marine SI authorization, EPA also 

requests comment on whether those 

amendments meet the criteria for full 

authorization. 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. 

EPA similarly requests comment on 

whether the amendments for which 

CARB requested full authorization meet 

the criteria set forth above for making a 

new authorization determination. 

IV. 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 October 18, 2013. 

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–2013–0024. 

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: August 9, 2013. 

Christopher Grundler, 

Director, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality. 

[FR Doc. 2013–20153 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK 

[Public Notice: 2013–0040] 

Application for Final Commitment for a 

Long-Term Loan or Financial 

Guarantee in Excess of $100 million: 

AP086942XX 

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the 

United States. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This Notice is to inform the 

public, in accordance with Section 

3(c)(10) of the Charter of the ExportImport Bank of the United States (‘‘ExIm Bank’’), that Ex-Im Bank has received 

an application for final commitment for 

a long-term loan or financial guarantee 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 160 / Monday, August 19, 2013 / Notices 50415 

in excess of $100 million (as calculated 

in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of 

the Charter). Comments received within 

the comment period specified below 

will be presented to the Ex-Im Bank 

Board of Directors prior to final action 

on this transaction. 

Reference: AP086942XX. 

Purpose and Use: 

Brief description of the purpose of the 

transaction: 

To support the export of U.S.- 

manufactured equipment for an oil 

refinery to be built in Turkey. 

Brief non-proprietary description of 

the anticipated use of the items being 

exported: 

Construction of a new crude oil 

refinery in Turkey. 

To the extent that Ex-Im Bank is 

reasonably aware, the item(s) being 

exported may be used to produce 

exports or provide services in 

competition with the exportation of 

goods or provision of services by a 

United States industry. 

Parties: 

Principal Supplier: Foster Wheeler. 

Obligor: STAR Rafineri A.S ̧. 

Guarantor(s): N/A. 

Description of Items Being Exported: 

The items being exported are coker 

heaters, furnaces, flare, and various 

other components. 

Information on Decision: Information 

on the final decision for this transaction 

will be available in the ‘‘Summary 

Minutes of Meetings of Board of 

Directors’’ on http://exim.gov/

newsandevents/boardmeetings/board/. 

Confidential Information: Please note 

that this notice does not include 

confidential or proprietary business 

information; information which, if 

disclosed, would violate the Trade 

Secrets Act; or information which 

would jeopardize jobs in the United 

States by supplying information that 

competitors could use to compete with 

companies in the United States. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 13, 2013 to be 

assured of consideration before final 

consideration of the transaction by the 

Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted through Regulations.gov at 

WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV. To submit 

a comment, enter EIB–2013–0040 under 

the heading ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID’’ and 

select Search. Follow the instructions 

provided at the Submit a Comment 

screen. Please include your name, 

company name (if any) and EIB–2013– 

0040 on any attached document. 

Cristopolis A. Dieguez, 

Program Specialist, Office of the General 

Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2013–20122 Filed 8–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6690–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[WC Docket No. 06–122; DA 13–1700] 

Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks 

Comment on Proposed Sample 

Reseller Certification Language for 

FCC Form 499–A Instructions 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission’s 

Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) 

seeks comment on a proposal filed by a 

group of 8 industry participants 

(available at http://appsint.fcc.gov/ecfs/ 

document/view?id=7520933957) 

regarding revisions to sample reseller 

certification language and 

accompanying sections of the FCC Form 

499–A instructions. In the 2012 

Wholesaler-Reseller Clarification Order, 

(FCC 12–134), the Commission directed 

the Bureau to revise the sample 

language to reflect the clarifications 

provided in that order, and allowed 

contributors to rely on existing sample 

language through December 31, 2013. 

The Bureau seeks comment on whether 

it should include the industry 

participants’ proposed revisions in the 

2014 FCC Form 499–A instructions. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

September 6, 2013 and reply comments 

are due on September 13, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 06–122; 

DA 13–1700, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carol Pomponio, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or TTY: (202) 

418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Wireline Competition 

Bureau’s Public Notice in WC Docket 

No. 06–122; DA 13–1700, released 

August 2, 2013. The complete text of 

this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The document 

may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 

12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 

378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile 

(202) 863–2898, or via the Internet at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.fcc.gov. 

Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 

of the Commission’s rules, interested 

parties may file comments on or before 

September 6, 2013 and reply comments 

on or before September 13, 2013. All 

pleadings are to reference WC Docket 

06–122. Comments may be filed using 

the Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 

copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES