```

[Federal Register: July 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 143)]
[Notices]               
[Page 43975-43979]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27jy10-86]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9180-4]

 
California State Motor Vehicle and Nonroad Engine Pollution 
Control Standards; Truck Idling Requirements; Opportunity for Public 
Hearing and Request for Public 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 requirements to reduce idling emissions from new 
and in-use trucks beginning in 2008. CARB's 2008 Truck Idling 
Requirements apply to new California certified 2008 and subsequent 
model year heavy-duty diesel engines in heavy-duty diesel vehicles with 
a gross vehicle weight rating over 14,000 pounds, and to in-use diesel-
fueled commercial vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings over 
10,000 pounds that are equipped with sleeper berths. This notice 
announces that EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing to 
consider California's 2008 Truck Idling Requirements request and that 
EPA is accepting written comment on the request.

DATES: EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing concerning CARB's

[[Page 43976]]

request on August 31, 2010 at 10 a.m. EPA will hold a hearing only if 
any party notifies EPA by August 17, 2010, expressing its interest in 
presenting oral testimony. By August 24, 2010, any person who plans to 
attend the hearing may call Kristien Knapp at (202) 343-9949 to learn 
if a hearing will be held or may check the following Web page 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 Kristien Knapp at the e-mail address 
noted below. If EPA receives a request for a public hearing, that 
hearing will be held at 1310 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
    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 October 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0317, by one of the following methods:
     On-Line at http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the On-Line 
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-
2010-0317, 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-2010-0317. EPA's policy is that all 
comments received 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-2010-0317. 
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 (e-mail) 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-2010-0317 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 Web 
page that contains general information on its review of California 
waiver requests. Included on that page are links to several of the 
prior waiver Federal Register notices which are cited throughout 
today's notice; the page can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristien Knapp, Compliance and 
Innovative Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue (6405J), NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: 
(202) 343-9949. Fax: (202) 343-2800. E-mail: knapp.kristien@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. California's 2008 Truck Idling Requirements

    By letter dated May 9, 2008, CARB informed EPA that it had adopted 
its 2008 Truck Idling Requirements, and requested that EPA confirm that 
certain provisions of the requirements are not preempted by sections 
209(a) of the Clean Air Act (Act); certain provisions are conditions 
precedent pursuant to section 209(a) of the Act; \1\ certain provisions 
are within-the-scope of previous waivers and authorizations issued 
pursuant to sections 209(b) and 209(e) of the Act, respectively; and at 
least one provision requires and merits a full authorization pursuant 
to section 209(e) of the Act.\2\ CARB's 2008 Truck Idling Requirements 
became effective California State law on November 15, 2006, amending 
title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR) sections 1956.8, 2404, 
2424, 2425, and 2485.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA can confirm that a California requirement is a condition 
precedent to sale, titling, or registration, if: (1) The 
requirements do not constitute new or different standards or 
accompanying enforcement procedures, and (2) the requirements do not 
affect the basis for the previous waiver decision.
    \2\ California Air Resources Board (CARB) Letter to EPA 
regarding, ``Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions From New and 
In-Use Trucks, Beginning in 2008; Request for Confirmation That 
Certain Requirements are not Subject to Preemption Under Clean Air 
Act Section 209(a) or Fall Within the Scope of Previously Granted 
Waivers and Authorizations, and Request for New Authorization Under 
Section 209(e)(2),'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0317-0001.
    \3\ See California Air Resources Board (CARB), ``Final 
Regulation Order,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0317-0011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's 2008 Truck Idling Requirements consist of three elements:

[[Page 43977]]

(1) ``New engine requirements'' that require new California-certified 
2008 and subsequent model year on-road diesel engines in vehicles with 
a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 pounds (i.e., 
heavy-duty diesel vehicles or ``HDDV''s) be equipped with a system that 
automatically shuts down the engine after five minutes of continuous 
idling; (2) ``Sleeper truck requirements'' that require the operator of 
a sleeper truck to manually shut down the engine after five minutes of 
continuous idling; and (3) ``Alternative technology requirements'' that 
establish in-use performance standards for HDDV operators who use 
alternative technologies to supply power for truck cab or sleeper berth 
climate control and/or other on-board accessories that otherwise would 
have been generated by the continuous idling of the truck's main 
engine.\4\ CARB requests, first, that EPA confirm that its new engine 
requirements are not preempted by section 209(a) of the Act, or that 
they are other conditions precedent required prior to the initial sale 
of new heavy-duty diesel engines. Alternatively, CARB requests that if 
EPA concludes that the new engine requirements are preempted by section 
209(a) of the Act, then EPA confirm that the requirements are within-
the-scope of EPA's previously-issued waiver for 2007 and later model 
year heavy-duty diesel engines. Second, CARB requests that EPA confirm 
that its sleeper truck requirements are purely operational controls, 
which are not preempted by section 209(a) of the Act. Third, CARB 
requests the following determinations from EPA with respect to its 
alternative technology requirements: (1) A within-the-scope 
confirmation for its requirement that an alternative power supply (APS) 
may only be operated if that engine has been certified to meet either 
applicable California off-road or Federal nonroad emission standards 
and test procedures for its fuel type and power category; \5\ (2) a 
full authorization for its requirement that a driver may not operate a 
diesel-fueled APS engine on a vehicle with a primary engine certified 
to the 2007 and subsequent model year standards unless the APS is 
certified to meet the applicable California or Federal standard and 
meets one of three additional requirements; \6\ and (3) a determination 
that its requirements pertaining to fuel-fired heaters, batteries, fuel 
cells, and power inverter/chargers for on-shore power are not preempted 
by section 209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See California Air Resources Board (CARB), ``Waiver and 
Authorization Action Support Document,'' pp. 1-13, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0317-0002.
    \5\ CARB believes this requirement is within-the-scope of the 
previous authorization for new nonroad engine standards because that 
authorization already allows enforcement of California's requirement 
that any new APS engine acquired since the 2000 model year is 
required to meet the California or Federal nonroad engine emission 
standards. (See 75 FR 8056 (February 23, 2010).)
    \6\ The additional requirements are one of the following: (a) 
Exhaust routed into the truck's exhaust system and PM trap; (b) a 
level 3 verified PM control strategy; or (c) use of other procedures 
to demonstrate an equivalent level of emissions compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\7\ The 
Administrator must grant a waiver unless she finds that: (A) 
California's above-noted ``protectiveness determination'' is arbitrary 
and capricious; \8\ (B) California does not need such State standards 
to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; \9\ or (C) 
California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not 
consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.\10\ 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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See S.Rep. No. 90-403 at 632 (1967).
    \8\ CAA section 209(b)(1)(A).
    \9\ CAA section 209(b)(1)(B).
    \10\ CAA section 209(b)(1)(C).
    \11\ See, e.g., 74 FR 32767 (July 8, 2009); see also Motor and 
Equipment Manufacturers Association v. EPA (MEMA I), 627 F.2d 1095, 
1126 (DC Cir. 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second sentence of section 209(a) of the Act prevents States 
from requiring, ``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.'' However, once EPA has granted California a 
waiver of section 209(a)'s preemption for emission standards and/or 
accompanying enforcement procedures, California may then require other 
such conditions precedent.\12\ EPA can confirm that a California 
requirement is a condition precedent to sale, titling, or registration, 
if: (1) The requirements do not constitute new or different standards 
or accompanying enforcement procedures, and (2) the requirements do not 
affect the basis for the previous waiver decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Once California receives a waiver for standards for a 
certain class of motor vehicles, it need only meet the waiver 
criteria of section 209(b) for regulations pertaining to those 
vehicles when it adopts new or different standards or accompanying 
enforcement procedures. Otherwise, California may adopt any other 
condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling, or 
registration of those vehicles without the necessity of receiving a 
further waiver of Federal preemption.'' 43 FR 36680 (August 18, 
1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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) of the 
Act requires the Administrator to grant California authorization to 
enforce its own standards for new nonroad engines or vehicles which are 
not listed under section 209(e)(1), subject to certain restrictions. On 
July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a rule that sets forth, among other 
things, the criteria, as found in section 209(e)(2), which EPA must 
consider before granting any

[[Page 43978]]

California authorization request for new nonroad engine or vehicle 
emission standards. On October 8, 2008, the regulations promulgated in 
that rule were moved to 40 CFR Part 1074, and modified slightly.\13\ 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).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The applicable regulations, now in 40 CFR part 1074, 
subpart B, Sec.  1074.105, provide:
    (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.
    \14\ See 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

IV. Within-the-Scope Determinations

    If California amends regulations that were previously granted a 
waiver of preemption, EPA can confirm that the amended regulations are 
within-the-scope of the previously granted waiver. 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.

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 in the Federal Register. Then, after the comment period has 
closed and EPA has evaluated CARB's request in light of the 
administrative record, EPA publishes a notice of decision in the 
Federal Register. In contrast, when EPA receives a request from CARB 
that EPA confirm that CARB amendments are within-the-scope of previous 
waivers and/or authorizations, EPA typically publishes a notice of its 
decision in the Federal Register and concurrently invites public 
comment if an interested party is opposed to EPA's decision. Because 
CARB's request for its 2008 Truck Idling Requirements includes at least 
one requirement that CARB believes require a new full authorization, 
EPA invites public comment on the entire request, including but not 
limited to the following issues.
    First, should EPA consider CARB's new engine requirements as non-
preempted operational controls, or as conditions precedent? In the 
alternative, if CARB's new engine requirements should be treated as 
standards relating to the control of emissions or accompanying 
enforcement procedures, should they be subject to and do they meet the 
criteria for EPA to confirm that they are within-the-scope of EPA's 
waiver for new heavy-duty diesel engines for 2007 and subsequent model 
years? To the extent the new engine requirements should be treated as 
standards relating to the control of emissions or accompanying 
enforcement procedures and require a full waiver from EPA, do the 
requirements meet the full waiver criteria?
    Second, are CARB's sleeper truck requirements properly considered 
an operational control and thus not preempted by section 209 of the 
Act? To the extent that CARB's sleeper truck requirements should be 
treated as standards relating to the control of emissions from new 
motor vehicles or engines or accompanying enforcement procedures and 
require a full waiver from EPA, do the requirements meet the criteria 
for a full waiver?
    Third, with respect to CARB's alternative technology requirements, 
EPA presents the following specific questions: (1) Does CARB's 
requirement that an APS using an internal combustion engine be 
certified to meet either California off-road or Federal nonroad 
emission standards and test procedures meet the requirements for 
finding that it is within-the-scope of the authorization EPA issued for 
new nonroad engine standards, thus not requiring a full authorization?; 
\15\ (2) If not, does CARB's requirement that an APS using an internal 
combustion engine be certified to meet either California off-road or 
Federal nonroad emission standards and test procedures meet the 
requirements for a full authorization?; (3) Does CARB's requirement 
that a diesel-fueled APS engine be certified to the California or 
Federal 2007 and subsequent model year standards and meet one of three 
other listed requirements \16\ meet the criteria for a full 
authorization?; and (4) Are CARB's requirements pertaining to fuel-
fired heaters, batteries, fuel cells, power inverter/chargers for on-
shore power, and truck electrification preempted under section 209 of 
the Clean Air Act, and if so, do they meet the requirements for waiver 
under section 209(b) or authorization under section 209(e)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 75 FR 8056 (February 23, 2010).
    \16\ The additional requirements are one of the following: (a) 
Exhaust routed into the truck's exhaust system and PM trap; (b) a 
level 3 verified PM control strategy; or (c) use of other procedures 
to demonstrate an equivalent level of emissions compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As called out by these specific questions, EPA is seeking threshold 
input on whether to treat various elements of CARB's 2008 Truck Idling 
Requirements as conditions precedent, within-the-scope of previous 
waivers and authorizations, not preempted by section 209, or in need of 
a full waiver or authorization. After determining which analysis to 
conduct, EPA will likely review the requirements

[[Page 43979]]

according to its traditional criteria, and therefore, seeks substantive 
comment on whether the various elements of CARB's 2008 Truck Idling 
Requirements meet the applicable criteria for confirmation as 
conditions precedent,\17\ within-the-scope,\18\ non-preemption,\19\ and 
full waiver \20\ or authorization.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EPA has previously stated that, ``Once California receives 
a waiver for standards for a certain class of motor vehicles, it 
need only meet the waiver criteria of section 209(b) for regulations 
pertaining to those vehicles when it adopts new or different 
standards or accompanying enforcement procedures. Otherwise, 
California may adopt any other condition precedent to the initial 
retail sale, titling, or registration of those vehicles without the 
necessity of receiving a further waiver of Federal preemption.'' 43 
FR 36680 (August 18, 1978).
    \18\ As stated in Section IV above, EPA's inquiry for within-
the-scope confirmations requires that: (1) 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; (2) the amended regulations must not 
affect consistency with section 202(a) of the Act; and (3) the 
amended regulations must not raise any ``new issues'' affecting 
EPA's prior waivers.
    \19\ A requirement is not preempted if it is not a ``standard 
relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or any 
new motor vehicle engines subject to [Title II of the Clean Air 
Act],'' or ``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.'' CAA Sec.  209(a).
    \20\ As stated in Section II above, the Administrator must grant 
a waiver unless she finds that: (A) California's ``protectiveness 
determination'' is arbitrary and capricious; (B) California does not 
need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary 
conditions; or (C) California's standards and accompanying 
enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the 
Act. EPA has previously stated that ``consistency with section 
202(a) requires that California's standards must be technologically 
feasible within the lead time provided, given due consideration of 
costs, and that California and applicable Federal test procedures be 
consistent.
    \21\ As stated in Section III above, the Administrator must 
grant an authorization unless she finds that: (A) California's 
``protectiveness determination'' is arbitrary and capricious; (B) 
California does not need such standards to meet compelling and 
extraordinary conditions; or (C) California's standards and 
accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 
209 of the Act. EPA has clarified through rulemaking that 
consistency with section 209 requires, 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). See 40 CFR 1074.105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Procedures for Public Participation

    In recognition that public hearings are designed to give interested 
parties an opportunity to participate in this proceeding, there are no 
adverse parties as such. Statements by participants will not be subject 
to cross-examination by other participants without special approval by 
the presiding officer. The presiding officer is authorized to strike 
from the record statements that he or she deems irrelevant or 
repetitious and to impose reasonable time limits on the duration of the 
statement of any participant.
    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 1, 2010. 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-2010-0317.
    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: July 20, 2010.
Margo Tsirigotis Oge,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and 
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2010-18362 Filed 7-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```