Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Notices 73459 

widgets that each focus on a specific 

type of alternative fuel vehicle 

(biodiesel, compressed natural gas, E85, 

and electric drive). 

Finally, DOE launched the Alternative 

Fueling Station Locator widget on the 

AFDC in August 2012. The full tool 

allows users to obtain addresses, maps, 

and driving directions for charging and 

alternative fueling stations near a 

particular address. The widget version 

allows users to embed a specific section 

of the locator map on their Web site, so 

that they can highlight a particular 

geographic area or a particular fuel. 

Working with outside partners to 

modify and distribute both these tools 

and their accompanying widgets will 

expose this information to a larger pool 

of users and help consumers find it on 

Web sites that they already frequent. 

II. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments in 

response to this RFI under the timeline 

provided in the DATES section above. 

Comments submitted to the Department 

through the eRulemaking Portal or by 

email should be provided in 

WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or 

text file format. Those responding 

should avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption, 

and wherever possible, comments 

should include the electronic signature 

of the author. Comments submitted to 

the Department by mail or hand 

delivery/courier should include one 

signed original paper copy. No 

telefacsimiles will be accepted. 

The Department encourages interested 

parties to contact DOE if they would 

like to meet in person to discuss their 

comments. The Department’s policy 

governing ex parte communications is 

posted on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site at: http:// 

www.gc.energy.gov/1309.htm. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery two well-marked copies: 

one copy of the document marked 

confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person that would result 

from public disclosure; (6) when such 

information might lose its confidential 

character due to the passage of time; and 

(7) why disclosure of the information 

would be contrary to the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Information 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this request for 

information, DOE is particularly 

interested in receiving comments and 

views of interested parties concerning 

the availability of DOE’s transportationoriented electronic tools, as well as the 

potential to partner with Internet 

information providers, as set forth 

below. 

(1) Current Electronic Tools and Content 

DOE would like to expand the reach 

of its current electronic tools designed 

to reduce petroleum use in 

transportation. The Vehicle Cost 

Calculator and the Alternative Fueling 

Station Locator on the AFDC, as well as 

the Find-A-Car tool and Gas Saving Tips 

on FuelEconomy.gov, are all currently 

available in ‘‘widget’’ form. Are the full 

tools currently available useful? Are the 

widget versions of these tools useful? 

Are there other existing tools on the 

AFDC or FuelEconomy.gov that your 

company would like available as 

widgets? Would your company embed 

the current widgets on its Web site? 

Why or why not? Are there other types 

of content on the AFDC and 

FuelEconomy.gov sites besides the 

current electronic tools that Web site 

operators would like to use? 

(2) Interest in Partnering on Electronic 

Tool Customization 

While any independent Web site can 

use the tools in widget form, DOE is 

interested in partnering with major Web 

sites that provide information on 

vehicles to consumers and fleet 

managers to offer customized versions 

of these widgets. Ideal candidates are 

entities whose users, stakeholders, or 

members look to them for information 

about vehicle purchases. The primary 

objective of the effort is to pair the 

capabilities of interested entities with 

DOE’s electronic tools to provide 

additional value to partner Web sites, 

and in turn, more value and education 

about transportation options to end 

users. DOE seeks to identify entities 

with whom to collaborate on this effort. 

Note that DOE is not offering funding 

related to this request. What companies 

would be interested in such a 

collaboration? What services do they 

currently offer to users and how would 

these widgets complement those 

services? What is the membership or 

user base of these existing Web sites? 

What types of customization would 

these Web sites want for the widgets 

described previously? 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

19, 2012. 

Patrick B. Davis, 

Program Manager, Vehicle Technologies 

Program, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29759 Filed 12–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9759–4] 

California State Motor Vehicle 

Pollution Control Standards; Notice of 

Waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption; 

California’s 2010 Model Year HeavyDuty Vehicle and Engine On-Board 

Diagnostic Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of decision. 

SUMMARY: EPA has granted the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

its request to confirm that its 

amendments to California’s heavy-duty 

vehicle and engine on-board diagnostic 

(HD OBD) requirements that relax the 

standards for 2010–2012 model years 

(MYs) are within the scope of a previous 

waiver of preemption of the Clean Air 

Act (Act). The amendments to the HD 

OBD requirements for MY 2013 and 

later are granted a new waiver of 

preemption. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0816. All 

documents relied upon in making this 

decision, including those submitted to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

73460 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Notices 

1The CARB Board approved the OBD 

amendments by Resolution 09–37 on May 28, 2009 

and the California Office of Administrative Law 

approved the regulations on May 18, 2010. 

2See, e.g., 71 FR 44027 at 44028 (August 3, 

2006)(‘‘EPA believed it possible that CARB’s 

amendments do in fact raise ‘new issues’ as they 

impose new more stringent standards * * *’’). 

EPA by CARB, are contained in the 

public docket. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through 

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 

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

oar/docket.html. The electronic mail 

(email) address for the Air and 

Radiation Docket is: a-and-rDocket@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 

www.regulations.gov Web site, enter 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0816 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 

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 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Dickinson, Compliance Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Ariel Rios Building (6405J), 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 343–9256. 

EMail Address: 

Dickinson.David@EPA.GOV. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I confirm 

that the amendments to California’s HD 

OBD requirements that relax the 

requirements for the 2010–2012 MYs are 

within the scope of a previous waiver of 

Clean Air Act preemption. I am also 

granting a new waiver of Clean Air Act 

preemption for the amendments to 

California’s HD OBD requirements that 

create more stringent requirements for 

MYs 2013 and later pursuant to section 

209(b) of the Act.1

Section 209(b) of the Act provides 

that, if certain criteria are met, the 

Administrator shall waive preemption 

for California to enforce new motor 

vehicle emissions standards and 

accompanying enforcement procedures. 

The criteria include consideration of 

whether California arbitrarily and 

capriciously determined that its 

standards are, in the aggregate, at least 

as protective of public health and 

welfare as the applicable Federal 

standards, whether California needs 

State standards to meet compelling and 

extraordinary conditions, and whether 

the standards are consistent with 

section 202(a) of the Act. 

If California acts to amend a 

previously waived standard or 

accompanying enforcement procedure, 

the amendment may be considered 

within the scope of the previously 

granted waiver, provided that it doesn’t 

undermine California’s determination 

that its standards, in the aggregate, are 

at least as protective of public health 

and welfare as the applicable Federal 

standards, does not affect its 

consistency with section 202(a) of the 

Act, and raises no new issues affecting 

EPA’s previous waiver decisions. 

In its request letter to EPA, CARB 

asked EPA to confirm that the HD OBD 

amendments that relax the requirements 

for the 2010–2012 MYs are within the 

scope of an earlier waiver. CARB stated 

that these amendments will not cause 

the California standards, in the 

aggregate, to be less protective of public 

health and welfare than the applicable 

Federal standards. EPA received no 

information during this proceeding that 

questioned whether CARB’s HD OBD 

requirements are less protective than 

applicable Federal standards. Therefore, 

I cannot find that CARB’s HD OBD 

regulations would cause the California 

motor vehicle emissions standards, in 

the aggregate, to be less protective of 

public health and welfare than 

applicable Federal standards. 

CARB stated in its request letters that 

the amendments do not raise any 

concerns of technological infeasibility, 

inadequate lead-time or imposition of 

any inconsistent certification 

requirements. Because EPA has not 

received any adverse public comment, 

or any other relevant information on 

this issue, I cannot find that CARB’s HD 

OBD regulations, as noted, would cause 

the California motor vehicle emission 

standards to be inconsistent with 

section 202(a). 

EPA has received no comments on 

whether the amendments to California’s 

HD OBD regulations that relax the 

requirements for the 2010–2012 MYs 

raise any new issues. Therefore, I find 

that these particular amendments do not 

raise any new issues. 

Given the above, EPA can confirm 

that the amendments that relax the 

requirements for the 2010–2012 MYs are 

within the scope of the previous waiver 

of preemption. 

In its request letter to EPA, CARB also 

asked EPA to confirm that the HD OBD 

amendments for MYs 2013 and later are 

within the scope of an earlier waiver. 

EPA cannot confirm that the 

amendments to California’s HD OBD 

requirements that create new, more 

stringent standards for 2013 and later 

model year engines, and the new 

enforcement procedures are within the 

scope of the previous waiver of 

preemption. EPA has stated in prior 

waiver and authorization 

determinations that increases in the 

stringency of standards are ‘‘new 

issues’’ for which full waiver or 

authorization is required.2 Because the 

amendments for MY 2013 and later 

increase the stringency of the standards, 

they are not within the scope of the 

previous waiver, and must be evaluated 

under the standards for a full waiver of 

preemption. 

In its request letter to EPA, CARB 

asked EPA, in the alternative, to grant a 

full waiver of preemption for the 

amendments that create new, more 

stringent requirements for 2013 and 

later MYs, and the accompanying 

enforcement procedures. Therefore, EPA 

has applied the traditional, full waiver 

analysis to these particular 

amendments. 

CARB stated in its request that the HD 

OBD regulations, as amended, are at 

least as protective of public health and 

safety as the comparable Federal 

standards. EPA has not received any 

information suggesting that the new 

standards are any less protective of 

public health and safety as the 

comparable Federal standards. 

Therefore, I cannot find that CARB 

acted arbitrarily and capriciously in 

determining that its OBD regulations 

would not cause the California motor 

vehicle emission standards, in the 

aggregate, to be less protective of public 

health and welfare than applicable 

Federal standards. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Notices 73461 

CARB has repeatedly demonstrated 

the existence of compelling and 

extraordinary conditions in California. 

EPA has not received any adverse 

comments to suggest that California no 

longer suffers from compelling and 

extraordinary conditions. Because EPA 

has not received adverse public 

comment, or any other relevant 

information, challenging the need for 

CARB’s own motor vehicle pollution 

control program based on lack of 

compelling and extraordinary 

conditions for the purposes of this 

waiver request, I cannot deny the waiver 

based on a lack of compelling and 

extraordinary conditions. 

CARB stated in its request letter that 

the amendments and accompanying 

enforcement procedures do not raise 

any concerns of technological 

infeasibility, inadequate lead time or 

impose any inconsistent certification 

requirements. Because EPA has not 

received adverse public comment, or 

any other relevant information regarding 

the consistency of California’s HD OBD 

amendments with section 202(a) of the 

Clean Air Act, I cannot find that CARB’s 

HD OBD regulations, as noted, would 

cause the California motor vehicle 

emissions standards to be inconsistent 

with section 202(a). 

Therefore, as to the amendments that 

create new, more stringent requirements 

for the 2013 and later MYs, and the new 

enforcement procedures, there is 

insufficient basis to deny a full waiver 

of preemption under the criteria set 

forth in section 209(b) of the Act. 

A full explanation of EPA’s decision 

is contained in a Decision Document 

which may be obtained as explained 

above. 

The Administrator has delegated the 

authority to grant California section 

209(b) waivers of preemption to the 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation. After evaluating California’s 

HD OBD amendments and CARB’s 

submissions, EPA is taking the 

following actions. First, EPA is 

confirming that the amendments that 

relax the HD OBD requirements for 

2010–2012 MYs are within the scope of 

the previous waiver of preemption. 

Second, EPA is granting a new waiver 

of preemption for the amendments to 

the HD OBD regulations that create new, 

more stringent requirements for MY 

2013 and later, along with the 

accompanying enforcement procedures. 

My decision will affect not only 

persons in California but also the 

manufacturers outside the State who 

must comply with California’s 

requirements in order to produce heavyduty vehicles and engines for sale in 

California. For this reason, I hereby 

determine and find that this is a final 

action of national applicability for the 

purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the Act. 

Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 

judicial review of this final action may 

be sought only in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review 

must be filed by February 8, 2013. 

Judicial review of this action may not be 

obtained in subsequent enforcement 

proceedings, pursuant to section 

307(b)(2) of the Act. 

As with past 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 the purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 

Dated: November 29, 2012. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and 

Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29792 Filed 12–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[MB Docket Nos. 09–182 and 07–294; DA 

12–1946] 

Commission Seeks Comment on 

Broadcast Ownership Report 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice; solicitation of 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This document solicits 

comment on data contained in the 

Media Bureau’s recently released report 

on the ownership of commercial 

broadcast stations, which provides 

detailed information by race, ethnicity, 

and gender concerning ownership of 

commercial television, radio, Class A 

television, and low-power television 

stations. 

DATES: Comments may be filed on or 

before December 26, 2012, and reply 

comments may be filed on or before 

January 4, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hillary DeNigro, Industry Analysis 

Division, Media Bureau, FCC, (202) 

418–2330. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Public 

Notice in MB Docket Nos. 09–182, 07– 

294, DA 12–1946, released December 3, 

2012. The complete text of the 

document is available for inspection 

and copying during normal business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 

12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, 

and may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, BCPI, 

Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20054. Customers may 

contact BCPI, Inc. at their Web site 

http://www.bcpi.com or call 1–800– 

378–3160. 

Synopsis of the Public Notice 

1. The Public Notice offers an 

opportunity for additional comment on 

data contained in the Media Bureau’s 

recently released report on the 

ownership of commercial broadcast 

stations (‘‘Ownership Report’’). The 

Ownership Report provides detailed 

information by race, ethnicity, and 

gender concerning ownership of 

commercial television, radio, Class A 

television, and low-power television 

stations. 

2. As the Commission has long 

recognized, minorities and women own 

broadcast stations in disproportionately 

small numbers. This fact has been well 

established in our media ownership 

docket, including in the 2009 biennial 

ownership data detailed in the NPRM 

prior to the release of the final 

Ownership Report. The recently 

released Ownership Report confirms 

that minority and female ownership 

numbers remain low and provides more 

detailed ownership figures. These data 

are part of the record and have been 

considered in our current quadrennial 

review and, along with additional data 

gathered in subsequent biennial filings, 

will be considered in our succeeding 

quadrennial reviews. 

3. The Ownership Report represents 

the latest step in the Commission’s 

ongoing efforts to collect and publicly 

release minority and female ownership 

data. As explained in the NPRM, the 

Commission has sought actively in 

recent years to improve its collection 

and analysis of broadcast ownership 

information. These initiatives include 

improvements to the reliability and 

utility of the data reported in FCC Form 

323. Although refinements to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with