Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2010 / Notices 43975 

business information (CBI), or other 

information whose public disclosure is 

restricted by statute. For further 

information about the electronic docket, 

go to http://www.regulations.gov. 

Title: Procedures for Implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

and Assessing the Environmental Effects 

Abroad of EPA Actions (Renewal). 

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2243.06, 

OMB Control No. 2020–0033. 

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to 

expire on August 31, 2010. Under OMB 

regulations, the Agency may continue to 

conduct or sponsor the collection of 

information while this submission is 

pending at OMB. An Agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information, unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s 

regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after 

appearing in the Federal Register when 

approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, 

are displayed either by publication in 

the Federal Register or by other 

appropriate means, such as on the 

related collection instrument or form, if 

applicable. The display of OMB control 

numbers in certain EPA regulations is 

consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. 

Abstract: The National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 

4321–4347 establishes the federal 

government’s national policy for 

protection of the environment. The 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Regulations (CEQ Regulations) at 40 

CFR parts 1500 through 1508 establish 

procedures implementing the national 

policy. The CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 

1505.1) require federal agencies to adopt 

and, as needed, revise their own 

implementing procedures to 

supplement the CEQ Regulations and to 

ensure their decision-making processes 

are consistent with NEPA. EPA 

accordingly laid out its ‘‘Procedures for 

Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act and Assessing 

the Environmental Effects Abroad of 

EPA Actions’’ at 40 CFR part 6. 

Those subject to the final NEPA rule 

include certain grant or permit 

applicants who must submit 

environmental information 

documentation to EPA for their 

proposed projects. The final NEPA 

regulations consolidate and standardize 

the environmental review process 

applicable to all EPA actions subject to 

NEPA, including those actions now 

specifically addressed in the regulations 

and other actions subject to NEPA but 

not specifically addressed in the 

regulations (e.g., certain grants awarded 

for special projects authorized by 

Congress through the Agency’s annual 

Appropriations Act). 

EPA is collecting information from 

certain applicants as part of the process 

of complying with either NEPA or 

Executive Order 12114 (‘‘Environmental 

Effects Abroad of Major Federal 

Actions’’). EPA’s NEPA regulations 

apply to the actions of EPA that are 

subject to NEPA in order to ensure that 

environmental information is available 

to the Agency’s decision-makers and the 

public before decisions are made and 

before actions are taken. 

When EPA conducts an 

environmental assessment pursuant to 

its Executive Order 12114 procedures, 

the Agency generally follows its NEPA 

procedures. Compliance with the 

procedures is the responsibility of EPA’s 

Responsible Officials, and for applicantproposed actions applicants may be 

required to provide environmental 

information to EPA as part of the 

environmental review process. For this 

Information Collection Request (ICR), 

applicant-proposed projects subject to 

either NEPA or Executive Order 12114 

(and that are not addressed in other EPA 

programs’ ICRs) are addressed through 

the NEPA process. 

Burden Statement: The annual public 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection of information is 

estimated to average 123 hours per 

response. Burden means the total time, 

effort, or financial resources expended 

by persons to generate, maintain, retain, 

or disclose or provide information to or 

for a Federal agency. This includes the 

time needed to review instructions; 

develop, acquire, install, and utilize 

technology and systems for the purposes 

of collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements which have subsequently 

changed; train personnel to be able to 

respond to a collection of information; 

search data sources; complete and 

review the collection of information; 

and transmit or otherwise disclose the 

information. 

Respondents/Affected Entities: 

Entities potentially affected by this 

action are certain grant or permit 

applicants who must submit 

environmental information 

documentation to EPA for their projects 

to comply with NEPA or Executive 

Order 12114, including Wastewater 

Treatment Construction Grants Program 

facilities, State and Tribal Assistance 

Grant recipients and new source 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permittees. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

312. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion. 

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 

38,472 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: 

$3,503,245, includes $7,638 annualized 

capital or O&M costs. 

Changes in the Estimates: There is a 

decrease of 9,675 hours in the total 

estimated burden currently identified in 

the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR 

Burdens. This decrease reflects the 

increasing the number of projects that 

are documented with a categorical 

exclusion (CE) rather than an 

environmental assessment (EA). Under 

the current ICR, approximately 60% of 

the annual 300 grant projects were 

documented with a CE, and 40% with 

an EA. However, we estimate that out of 

the 300 annual grant projects, 75% will 

be documented with a CE and 25% will 

be documented with an EA. 

Dated: July 21, 2010. 

John Moses, 

Director, Collection Strategies Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18367 Filed 7–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
43976 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2010 / Notices 

1EPA 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. 

2California 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. 

3See California Air Resources Board (CARB), 

‘‘Final Regulation Order,’’ EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0317–0011. 

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 OnLine Instructions for Submitting 

Comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

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 (email) address for the Air and Radiation 

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

telephone number is (202) 566–1742, 

and the fax number is (202) 566–9744. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through the Federal 

government’s electronic public docket 

and comment system. You may access 

EPA dockets at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. After opening the 

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

enter EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0317 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. Email: 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

CARB’s 2008 Truck Idling 

Requirements consist of three elements: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2010 / Notices 43977 

4See California Air Resources Board (CARB), 

‘‘Waiver and Authorization Action Support 

Document,’’ pp. 1–13, EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0317– 

0002. 

5CARB believes this requirement is within-thescope 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).) 

6The 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. 

7See S.Rep. No. 90–403 at 632 (1967). 

8CAA section 209(b)(1)(A). 

9CAA section 209(b)(1)(B). 

10CAA section 209(b)(1)(C). 

11See, 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). 

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). 

(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 heavyduty 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 withinthe-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. 

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

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. 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
43978 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2010 / Notices 

13The applicable regulations, now in 40 CFR part 

1074, subpart B, § 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. 

14See 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994). 

15 75 FR 8056 (February 23, 2010). 

16The 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. 

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

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-thescope 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 nonpreempted 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)? 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2010 / Notices 43979 

17EPA 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). 

18As 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. 

19A 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 § 209(a). 

20As 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. 

21As 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. 

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-thescope,18 non-preemption,19 and full 

waiver 20 or authorization.21

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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–R01–OW–2010–0318, FRL–9180–3] 

Massachusetts Marine Sanitation 

Device Standard—Notice of 

Determination 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Determination. 

SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection 

Agency—New England Region, has 

determined that adequate facilities for 

the safe and sanitary removal and 

treatment of sewage from all vessels are 

reasonably available for the coastal 

waters of Gloucester, Rockport, Essex, 

Ipswich, Rowley, Newbury, 

Newburyport, Salisbury, Amesbury, 

West Newbury, Merrimac, Groveland, 

North Andover, Haverhill, Methuen, 

and Lawrence, collectively termed the 

Upper North Shore for the purpose of 

this notice. 

ADDRESSES: Docket: All documents in 

the docket are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically in 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann 

Rodney, U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency—New England Region, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Oceans and 

Coastal Protection Unit, Five Post Office 

Square, Suite 100, OEP06–1, Boston, 

MA 02109–3912. Telephone: (617) 918– 

1538. Fax number: (617) 918–0538. Email address: rodney.ann@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

20, 2010, EPA published a notice that 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

had petitioned the Regional 

Administrator, Environmental 

Protection Agency, to determine that 

adequate facilities for the safe and 

sanitary removal and treatment of 

sewage from all vessels are reasonably 

available for the waters of the Upper 

North Shore. Four comments were 

received on this petition. The response 

to comments can be obtained utilizing 

the above contact information. 

The petition was filed pursuant to 

Section 312(f)(3) of Public Law 92–500, 

as amended by Public Laws 95–217 and 

100–4, for the purpose of declaring 

these waters a No Discharge Area 

(NDA). 

Section 312(f)(3) states: After the 

effective date of the initial standards 

and regulations promulgated under this 

section, if any State determines that the 

protection and enhancement of the 

quality of some or all of the waters 

within such State require greater 

environmental protection, such State 

may completely prohibit the discharge 

from all vessels of any sewage, whether 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES