31536 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Notices 

room 5025, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), 

Washington, DC 20202–2800. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7393 or by email: 

robert.groenendaal@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 8, 2012, we published a 

notice in the Federal Register (77 FR 

47375) inviting applications for new 

awards for FY 2012 under the AT AFP. 

The notice indicated that the absolute 

and competitive preference priorities in 

the notice would only apply to the FY 

2012 grant competition because 

authorization for this program and its 

funding was provided for a single year 

in the FY 2012 appropriations act. 

However, in FY 2013, this authorization 

and funding was retained in the 

Consolidated and Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2013 (Pub. L. 113– 

006). 

In FY 2012, we received 15 

applications for AT AFP grants and 

made three grant awards with the funds 

available. Given the quality of the 

applications that did not receive 

funding and the limited funding 

available for new awards in FY 2013, we 

intend to select grantees in FY 2013 

from the existing slate of applicants. 

Program Authority: Consolidated and 

Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 

(Pub. L. 113–006). 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) by 

contacting the Grants and Contracts 

Services Team, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 

20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call 

the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: May 21, 2013. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Delegated the authority to perform the 

functions and the duties of the Assistant 

Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12495 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9816–8] 

California State Nonroad Engine 

Pollution Control Standards; In-Use 

Heavy Duty Vehicles (as Applicable to 

Yard Trucks and Two-Engine 

Sweepers); Notice of Decision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of decision. 

SUMMARY: EPA is granting the California 

Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) request 

for authorization of California’s 

emission standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures for in-use 

nonroad yard trucks and auxiliary 

engines used in two-engine sweepers as 

found within CARB’s ‘‘Regulation to 

Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate 

Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other 

Criteria Pollutants from In-Use HeavyDuty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles’’ (Truck 

and Bus Regulation). The yard truck and 

auxiliary engine regulation that EPA is 

authorizing represents only a subset of 

provisions within the broader Truck and 

Bus Regulation. The California Truck 

and Bus Regulation establishes 

requirements for and principally applies 

to ‘‘non-new’’ on-road motor vehicles 

which are not the subject of this 

decision (such regulations are not 

preempted under the Clean Air Act). 

However, the Truck and Bus Regulation 

also applies to some engines that are 

subject to preemption, including any 

nonroad engines used to power yard 

trucks (which are principally used in 

nonroad agricultural operations) and the 

auxiliary engines used to power the 

broom or vacuum functions on twoengine sweepers. EPA’s authorization in 

this Notice of Decision applies only to 

the yard truck and auxiliary engine 

provisions in the Truck and Bus 

Regulation. 

DATES: Petitions for review must be filed 

by July 23, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0335. All 

documents relied upon in making this 

decision, including those submitted to 

EPA by CARB, are contained in the 

public docket. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through 

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–2012–0335 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, Attorney-Advisor, 

Compliance Division, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue (6405J), NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: 

(202) 343–9256. Fax: (202) 343–2800. 

Email: Dickinson.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. California’s Regulation 

By letter dated March 2, 2012, CARB 

submitted to EPA its authorization 

request (CARB Authorization Request) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Notices 31537 

1CARB Authorization Request at EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0335–0001. 

2CARB Resolution 08–43 at EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0335–0021. 

3CARB Final Regulation Order at EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0335–0005. 

4CARB Resolution 10–44 at EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0335–0019. 

5States are expressly preempted from adopting or 

attempting to enforce any standard or other 

requirement relating to the control of emissions 

from new nonroad engines which are used in 

construction equipment or vehicles or used in farm 

equipment or vehicles and which are smaller than 

175 horsepower. Such express preemption under 

section 209(e)(1) of the Act also applies to new 

locomotives or new engines used in locomotives. 

6 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994). 

7See 62 FR 67733 (December 30, 1997) and 40 

CFR 1074.105. 

8See 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994). 

9 MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1122. 

10 Id. 

11 Id. 

12 Id. 

pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean 

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

its regulation of emissions from yard 

trucks and two-engine sweepers (Yard 

Trucks Regulation).1 The Yard Trucks 

Regulation, contained within CARB’s 

Truck and Bus Regulation, was 

approved by the CARB Board at a public 

hearing on December 11, 2008 (by 

Resolution 08–43),2 and formally 

adopted on October 19, 2009. The Truck 

and Bus Regulation is codified at title 

13, California Code of Regulations, 

section 2025.3 The CARB Board 

subsequently amended the regulation on 

September 19, 2011 (by Resolution 10– 

44),4 which was approved by the 

California Office of Administrative Law 

on December 14, 2011. 

With exceptions applicable to certain 

agricultural vehicles, including 

agricultural yard trucks, and auxiliary 

engines in two-engine sweepers, all 

agricultural vehicles and the auxiliary 

engines in two-engine sweepers must 

comply with general in-use emission 

requirements depending upon the gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and 

model year of the vehicle. The amended 

regulation does not require that these 

vehicles be equipped with particulate 

matter (PM) filters but does require 

them to be upgraded to 2010 or later 

model year engines based upon a model 

year/GVWR compliance schedule. 

Additional compliance flexibilities are 

provided for heavier, heavy-duty 

vehicles and for smaller fleets. In 

addition, the Yard Trucks Regulation 

includes a number of other compliance 

flexibilities (e.g. early compliance 

credits, exemptions for NOX-exempt 

areas, etc). Special provisions apply to 

low-mileage agricultural vehicles, 

including agricultural yard trucks with 

nonroad engines and special provisions 

also apply to auxiliary engines used in 

two-engine sweepers. 

B. 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.5 For 

all other nonroad engines (including 

‘‘non-new’’ nonroad engines), States are 

preempted from adopting and enforcing 

standards and other requirements 

relating to the control of emissions, 

except that section 209(e)(2) of the Act 

requires EPA, after notice and 

opportunity for public hearing, to 

authorize California to adopt and 

enforce such regulations unless EPA 

makes one of three specifically 

enumerated findings. In addition, other 

states with air quality attainment plans, 

approved under part D of Title I of the 

Act, may adopt and enforce such 

regulations if the standards, and 

implementation and enforcement, are 

identical to California’s standards. 

On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a 

rule that sets forth, among other things, 

regulations providing the criteria, as 

found in section 209(e)(2), which EPA 

must consider before granting any 

California authorization request for 

nonroad engine or vehicle emission 

standards.6 EPA revised these 

regulations in 1997.7 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).8

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. 

C. Burden of Proof 

In Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v. 

EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 (DC Cir. 1979) 

(‘‘MEMA I’’), the U.S. Court of Appeals 

stated that the Administrator’s role in a 

section 209 proceeding is to: 

consider all evidence that passes the 

threshold test of materiality and . . . 

thereafter assess such material evidence 

against a standard of proof to determine 

whether the parties favoring a denial of the 

waiver have shown that the factual 

circumstances exist in which Congress 

intended a denial of the waiver.9

The court in MEMA I considered the 

standards of proof under section 209 for 

the two findings related to granting a 

waiver for an ‘‘accompanying 

enforcement procedure’’ (as opposed to 

the standards themselves): (1) 

Protectiveness in the aggregate and (2) 

consistency with section 202(a) 

findings. The court instructed that ‘‘the 

standard of proof must take account of 

the nature of the risk of error involved 

in any given decision, and it therefore 

varies with the finding involved. We 

need not decide how this standard 

operates in every waiver decision.’’ 10

The court upheld the Administrator’s 

position that, to deny a waiver, there 

must be ‘‘clear and compelling 

evidence’’ to show that proposed 

procedures undermine the 

protectiveness of California’s 

standards.11 The court noted that this 

standard of proof also accords with the 

congressional intent to provide 

California with the broadest possible 

discretion in setting regulations it finds 

protective of the public health and 

welfare.12

With respect to the consistency 

finding, the court did not articulate a 

standard of proof applicable to all 

proceedings, but found that the 

opponents of the waiver were unable to 

meet their burden of proof even if the 

standard were a mere preponderance of 

the evidence. Although MEMA I did not 

explicitly consider the standards of 

proof under section 209 concerning a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

31538 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Notices 

13See, e.g., 40 FR 21102–103 (May 28, 1975). 

14 MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1121. 

15 Id. at 1126. 

16 Id. 

17 77 FR 50502 (August 21, 2012). 

18CARB Resolution 08–43; see also CARB 

Resolution 10–44. 

19CARB Authorization Request at 9. 

20See 74 FR 32744, 32761 (July 8, 2009); 49 FR 

18887, 18889–18890 (May 3, 1984). 

21CARB Resolution 08–43 and CARB Resolution 

10–44. 

22 49 FR 18887, 18890 (May 3, 1984); see also 76 

FR 34693 (June 14, 2011), 74 FR 32744, 32763 (July 

8, 2009), and 73 FR 52042 (September 8, 2008). 

waiver request for ‘‘standards,’’ as 

compared to accompanying enforcement 

procedures, there is nothing in the 

opinion to suggest that the court’s 

analysis would not apply with equal 

force to such determinations. EPA’s past 

waiver decisions have consistently 

made clear that: ‘‘[E]ven in the two areas 

concededly reserved for Federal 

judgment by this legislation—the 

existence of ‘compelling and 

extraordinary’ conditions and whether 

the standards are technologically 

feasible—Congress intended that the 

standards of EPA review of the State 

decision to be a narrow one.’’ 13

Opponents of the waiver bear the 

burden of showing that the criteria for 

a denial of California’s waiver request 

have been met. As found in MEMA I, 

this obligation rests firmly with 

opponents of the waiver in a section 209 

proceeding: 

[t]he language of the statute and its legislative 

history indicate that California’s regulations, 

and California’s determinations that they 

must comply with the statute, when 

presented to the Administrator are presumed 

to satisfy the waiver requirements and that 

the burden of proving otherwise is on 

whoever attacks them. California must 

present its regulations and findings at the 

hearing and thereafter the parties opposing 

the waiver request bear the burden of 

persuading the Administrator that the waiver 

request should be denied.14

The Administrator’s burden, on the 

other hand, is to make a reasonable 

evaluation of the information in the 

record in coming to the waiver decision. 

As the court in MEMA I stated: ‘‘here, 

too, if the Administrator ignores 

evidence demonstrating that the waiver 

should not be granted, or if he seeks to 

overcome that evidence with 

unsupported assumptions of his own, 

he runs the risk of having his waiver 

decision set aside as ‘arbitrary and 

capricious.’ ’’ 15 Therefore, the 

Administrator’s burden is to act 

‘‘reasonably.’’ 16

D. EPA’s Administrative Process in 

Consideration of California’s Yard 

Trucks Regulation 

Upon receipt of CARB’s request, EPA 

offered an opportunity for a public 

hearing, and requested written comment 

on issues relevant to a full section 

209(e) authorization analysis, by 

publication of a Federal Register notice 

on August 21, 2012.17 Specifically, we 

requested 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 received no comments or 

testimony in response to EPA’s August 

21, 2012 Federal Register notice. EPA 

offered an opportunity for public 

hearing, related to CARB’s authorization 

request, on September 20, 2012. No one 

notified EPA stating a desire to testify at 

the public hearing and therefore no 

hearing was held. The written comment 

period closed on October 22, 2012. 

II. Discussion 

A. California’s Protectiveness 

Determination 

Section 209(e)(2)(i) of the Act 

instructs that EPA cannot grant an 

authorization if the agency finds that 

California was arbitrary and capricious 

in its determination that its standards 

are, in the aggregate, at least as 

protective of public health and welfare 

as applicable federal standards. CARB’s 

Board made a protectiveness 

determination in Resolution 08–43, 

finding that its amendments will not 

cause its nonroad engine emission 

standards, in the aggregate, to be less 

protective of public health and welfare 

than applicable federal standards.18

CARB presents that there is no basis for 

EPA to find that the Board’s 

determination is arbitrary and 

capricious since California is the only 

governmental jurisdiction in the nation 

entrusted with authority to adopt its 

own emission compliance requirements 

for in-use nonroad vehicles and engines. 

CARB envisions that nonroad yard truck 

fleets (and two-engine sweepers) will 

comply with the emission compliance 

requirements by modernizing their 

fleets through purchasing newer 

vehicles and engines and installing 

retrofit PM filters that will achieve 

emission reductions equal to or greater 

than the reductions that can be achieved 

under federal new engine emission 

standards.19

EPA did not receive any comments 

challenging California’s protectiveness 

determination. Therefore, based on the 

record before us, EPA finds that 

opponents of the authorization have not 

shown that California was arbitrary and 

capricious in its determination that its 

standards are, in the aggregate, at least 

as protective of public health and 

welfare as applicable federal standards. 

B. Need for California Standards To 

Meet Compelling and Extraordinary 

Conditions 

Section 209(e)(2)(ii) of the Act 

instructs that EPA cannot grant an 

authorization if the agency finds that 

California ‘‘does not need such 

California standards to meet compelling 

and extraordinary conditions. . . .’’ 

This criterion restricts EPA’s inquiry to 

whether California needs its own mobile 

source pollution program to meet 

compelling and extraordinary 

conditions, and not whether any given 

standards are necessary to meet such 

conditions.20 As discussed above, for 

more than 40 years CARB has 

repeatedly demonstrated the need for its 

mobile source emissions program to 

address compelling and extraordinary 

conditions in California. In its 

Resolution 08–43, CARB affirmed its 

longstanding position that California 

continues to need its own motor vehicle 

and engine program to meet its serious 

air pollution problems.21 Likewise, EPA 

has consistently recognized that 

California continues to have the same 

‘‘geographical and climatic conditions 

that, when combined with the large 

numbers and high concentrations of 

automobiles, create serious pollution 

problems.’’ 22 Furthermore, no 

commenter has presented any argument 

or evidence to suggest that California no 

longer needs a separate mobile source 

emissions program to address 

compelling and extraordinary 

conditions in California. Therefore, EPA 

has determined that we cannot deny 

California an authorization for its Yard 

Trucks Regulation under section 

209(e)(2)(ii). 

C. Consistency With Section 209 of the 

Clean Air Act 

Section 209(e)(2)(iii) of the Act 

instructs that EPA cannot grant an 

authorization if California’s standards 

and enforcement procedures are not 

consistent with section 209. As 

described above, EPA has historically 

evaluated this criterion for consistency 

with sections 209(a), 209(e)(1), and 

209(b)(1)(C). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Notices 31539 

23CARB Authorization Request at 11–13. 

24 Id. 

25 MEMA I, 627, F.2d at 1126. 

26H.R. Rep. No. 95–294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301 

(1977). 

27See, e.g., 49 FR 1887, 1895 (May 3, 1984); 43 

FR 32182, 32183 (July 25, 1978); 41 FR 44209, 

44213 (October 7, 1976). 

28 41 FR 44209 (October 7, 1976). 

29H.R. Rep. No. 95–294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301 

(1977). 

30CARB Authorization Request at 13–18. 

31See, e.g., 43 FR 32182 (July 25, 1978). 

32CARB Authorization Request at 18, See 49 CFR 

parts 89 and 1039 and title 13, CCR, sections 2400 

through 2427 and 2700 et seq. 

1. Consistency With Section 209(a) 

To be consistent with section 209(a) 

of the Clean Air Act, California’s Yard 

Trucks Regulation must not apply to 

new motor vehicles or new motor 

vehicle engines. California’s Yard 

Trucks Regulation expressly applies 

only to in-use off-road yard trucks and 

auxiliary engines in two-engine 

sweepers and does not apply to new 

engines used in motor vehicles as 

defined by section 216(2) of the Clean 

Air Act.23 No commenter presented 

otherwise. Based on the evidence in the 

record, EPA cannot deny California’s 

request on the basis that California’s 

Yard Trucks Regulation is not consistent 

with section 209(a). 

2. Consistency With Section 209(e)(1) 

To be consistent with section 

209(e)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 

California’s Yard Trucks Regulation 

must not affect new farming or 

construction vehicles or engines that are 

below 175 horsepower (hp), or new 

locomotives or their engines. CARB 

presents that the regulation specifically 

does not apply to locomotives and it 

further does not apply to new farm and 

construction equipment with engines 

less than 175 horsepower hp.24 In 

addition, CARB notes that its regulation 

does not immediately attempt to 

regulate new farm and construction 

equipment and that under any 

compliance pathway a fleet is not 

required to take any action on a vehicle 

less than 7 years old. CARB maintains 

that its in-use regulations are consistent 

with the definition of new in EPA’s 

section 209(e) rule. No commenter 

presented otherwise. Based on the 

evidence in the record, EPA cannot 

deny California’s request on the basis 

that California’s Yard Trucks Regulation 

is not consistent with section 209(e)(1). 

3. Consistency With Section 209(b)(1)(C) 

The requirement that California’s 

standards be consistent with section 

209(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act 

effectively requires consistency with 

section 202(a) of the Act. California 

standards are inconsistent with section 

202(a) of the Act if there is inadequate 

lead-time to permit the development of 

technology necessary to meet those 

requirements, giving appropriate 

consideration to the cost of compliance 

within that timeframe. California’s 

accompanying enforcement procedures 

would also be inconsistent with section 

202(a) if federal and California test 

procedures conflicted such that the 

same engine could not meet both the 

federal requirements and the California 

requirements. The scope of EPA’s 

review of whether California’s action is 

consistent with section 202(a) is narrow. 

The determination is limited to whether 

those opposed to the authorization or 

waiver have met their burden of 

establishing that California’s standards 

are technologically infeasible, or that 

California’s test procedures impose 

requirements inconsistent with the 

federal test procedures.25

a. Technological Feasibility 

Congress has stated that the 

consistency requirement of section 

202(a) relates to technological 

feasibility.26 Section 202(a)(2) states, in 

part, that any regulation promulgated 

under its authority ‘‘shall take effect 

after such period as the Administrator 

finds necessary to permit the 

development and application of the 

requisite technology, giving appropriate 

consideration to the cost of compliance 

within such period.’’ Section 202(a) 

thus requires the Administrator to first 

determine whether adequate technology 

already exists; or if it does not, whether 

there is adequate time to develop and 

apply the technology before the 

standards go into effect. The latter 

scenario also requires the Administrator 

to decide whether the cost of developing 

and applying the technology within that 

time is feasible. Previous EPA waivers 

are in accord with this position.27 For 

example, a previous EPA waiver 

decision considered California’s 

standards and enforcement procedures 

to be consistent with section 202(a) 

because adequate technology existed as 

well as adequate lead-time to implement 

that technology.28 Subsequently, 

Congress has stated that, generally, 

EPA’s construction of the waiver 

provision has been consistent with 

congressional intent.29

CARB presents that the technology 

required to comply with its Yard Trucks 

Regulation is currently available, and 

that it has provided sufficient lead-time, 

giving consideration to cost of 

compliance.30 CARB points to EPA’s 

own analysis in the federal rule for 

these same engines, but also separately 

concluded that fleet owners will be able 

to absorb or pass compliance costs to 

their customers. 

EPA did not receive any comments 

suggesting that CARB’s standards and 

test procedures are technologically 

infeasible. Based on the evidence in the 

record, EPA cannot deny California’s 

authorization based on technological 

infeasibility. 

b. Consistency of Certification 

Procedures 

California’s standards and 

accompanying enforcement procedures 

would also be inconsistent with section 

202(a) if the California test procedures 

were to impose certification 

requirements inconsistent with the 

federal certification requirements. Such 

inconsistency means that manufacturers 

would be unable to meet both the 

California and federal testing 

requirements using the same test vehicle 

or engine.31 CARB presents that the 

Yard Trucks Regulation raises no issue 

regarding test procedure consistency 

because there are no additional test 

procedures for engine manufacturers or 

fleet owners to meet beyond federal and 

state certification testing for new 

engines.32 CARB also points out that its 

retrofit verification program is a 

voluntary program available to retrofit 

device manufacturers, and not directly 

required of fleet owners. 

EPA received no comments suggesting 

that CARB’s Yard Trucks Regulation 

pose any test procedure consistency 

problem. Based on the evidence in the 

record, EPA cannot find that CARB’s 

testing procedures are inconsistent with 

section 202(a). Consequently, EPA 

cannot deny CARB’s request based on 

this criterion. 

D. Authorization Determination for 

California’s Yard Trucks Regulation 

After a review of the information 

submitted by CARB and the record for 

this authorization request, EPA finds 

that no basis exists to demonstrate that 

authorization for California’s Yard 

Trucks Regulation should be denied 

based on any of the statutory criteria of 

section 209(e)(2). For this reason, EPA 

finds that an authorization for 

California’s Yard Trucks Regulation 

should be granted. 

III. Decision 

The Administrator has delegated the 

authority to grant California section 

209(e) authorizations to the Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation. 

After evaluating California’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

31540 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Notices 

Authorization Request, and the public 

record for this matter, EPA is granting 

an authorization to California for its 

Yard Trucks Regulation. 

My decision will affect not only 

persons in California, but also entities 

outside the State who must comply with 

California’s requirements. For this 

reason, I determine and find that this is 

a final action of national applicability 

for 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 July 23, 2013. Judicial 

review of this final action may not be 

obtained in subsequent enforcement 

proceedings, pursuant to section 

307(b)(2) of the Act. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

As with past authorization and waiver 

decisions, this action is not a rule as 

defined by Executive Order 12866. 

Therefore, it is exempt from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget as 

required for rules and regulations by 

Executive Order 12866. 

In addition, this action is not a rule 

as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has 

not prepared a supporting regulatory 

flexibility analysis addressing the 

impact of this action on small business 

entities. 

Further, the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does 

not apply because this action is not a 

rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 

Dated: May 16, 2013. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and 

Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12505 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–9009–3] 

Environmental Impacts Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information (202) 

564–7146 or http://www.epa.gov/ 

compliance/nepa/. 

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact 

Statements Filed 05/13/2013 through 

05/17/2013 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. 

Notice 

Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act 

requires that EPA make public its 

comments on EISs issued by other 

Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters 

on EISs are available at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/ 

eisdata.html. 

EIS No. 20130131, Draft EIS, FHWA, 

UT, West Davis Corridor, Comment 

Period Ends: 08/23/2013, Contact: 

Paul Ziman 801–955–3525. 

EIS No. 20130132, Final EIS, USFWS, 

AK, Shadura Natural Gas 

Development Project within Kenai 

National Wildlife Refuge, Review 

Period Ends: 06/24/2013, Contact: 

Peter Wikoff 907–786–3837. 

EIS No. 20130133, Draft EIS, BLM, CO, 

Dominguez-Escalante National 

Conservation Area Draft Resource 

Management Plan, Comment Period 

Ends: 08/15/2013, Contact: Samantha 

Staley 970–244–3188. 

EIS No. 20130134, Draft EIS, FERC, CA, 

Drum-Spaulding Hydroelectric Project 

and Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project 

for Hydropower License, Comment 

Period Ends: 07/23/2013, Contact: 

Alan Mitchnick 202–502–6074. 

EIS No. 20130135, Revised Final EIS, 

USACE, LA, Morganza to the Gulf of 

Mexico, Hurricane and Storm Damage 

Risk Reduction System Project, 

Review Period Ends: 06/24/2013, 

Contact: Nathan Dayan 504–862– 

2530. 

EIS No. 20130136, Draft EIS, USACE, 

NV, Truckee Meadows Flood Control 

Project, Comment Period Ends: 07/08/ 

2013, Contact: Tyler Stalker 916–557– 

5100. 

EIS No. 20130137, Draft EIS, USFS, WY, 

Mackey Road Relocation, Medicine 

Bow-Routt National Forests and 

Thunder Basin National Grassland, 

Comment Period Ends: 07/09/2013, 

Contact: Amy Ormseth 307–358– 

4690. 

Dated: May 21, 2013. 

Cliff Rader, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12458 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Information Collection Being 

Submitted for Review and Approval to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork burden and as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3502– 

3520), the Federal Communications 

Commission invites the general public 

and other Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collection(s). 

Comments are requested concerning: 

whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimates; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; ways to minimize 

the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; and ways to 

further reduce the information 

collection burden on small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

The FCC may not conduct or sponsor 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. No person shall be subject to 

any penalty for failing to comply with 

a collection of information subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that 

does not display a valid OMB control 

number. 

DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) comments should be 

submitted on or before June 24, 2013. If 

you anticipate that you will be 

submitting PRA comments, but find it 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this notice, you should 

advise the FCC contact listed below as 

soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your PRA comments 

to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), via fax 

at 202–395–5167 or via Internet at 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov and 

to Judith B. Herman, Federal 

Communications Commission, via the 

Internet at Judith-b.herman@fcc.gov. 

Also, please submit your PRA 

comments by email send them to: 

PRA@fcc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Judith B. Herman, Office of Managing 

Director, FCC, at 202–418–0214. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–1030. 

Title: Service Rules for Advanced 

Wireless Services (AWS) in the 1.7 GHz 

and 2.1 GHz Bands. 

Form No.: N/A. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES