Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 223 / Monday, November 21, 2005 / Notices 70075 

raise new issues affecting EPA’s 

previous waiver determinations? (3) If 

EPA were to consider CARB’s requests 

as a new waiver request, then provide 

comment on (a) whether California’s 

determination that its standards are at 

least as protective of public health and 

welfare as applicable federal standards 

is arbitrary and capricious, (b) whether 

California needs separate standards to 

meet compelling and extraordinary 

conditions, and (c) whether California’s 

standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures are consistent 

with section 202(a) of the Act. 

II. Procedures for Public Participation 

If a public hearing is held, any party 

desiring to make an oral statement on 

the record should file ten (10) copies of 

its proposed testimony and other 

relevant material with David Dickinson 

at the address listed above no later than 

December 23, 2005. In addition, the 

party should submit 25 copies, if 

feasible, of the planned statement to the 

presiding officer at the time of the 

hearing. 

In recognition that a public hearing is 

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 January 25, 2006. 

Upon expiration of the comment period, 

the Administrator will render a decision 

on CARB’s request based on the record 

of the public hearing, if any, relevant 

written submissions, and other 

information that he deems pertinent. 

Persons with comments containing 

proprietary information must 

distinguish such information from other 

comments to the greatest possible extent 

and label it as ‘‘Confidential Business 

Information’’ (CBI). If a person making 

comments wants EPA to base its 

decision in part on a submission labeled 

CBI, then a nonconfidential version of 

the document that summarizes the key 

data or information should be submitted 

for the public docket. To ensure that 

proprietary information is not 

inadvertently placed in the 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 by 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: November 3, 2005. 

Elizabeth Craig, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, for Air and 

Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 05–22996 Filed 11–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[AMS–FRL–7994–9] 

California State Nonroad Engine and 

Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; 

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 an Airborne Toxic Control 

Measure (ATCM) establishing in-use 

performance standards for transport 

refrigeration units (TRU) and TRU 

generator sets that will be phased-in 

commencing on December 31, 2008. By 

letter dated March 28, 2005, CARB 

requested that EPA grant California 

authorization for such standards under 

section 209(e)(2) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7543(b) (EPA 

frequently calls such authorizations 

‘‘waivers of preemption’’). This notice 

announces that EPA has tentatively 

scheduled a public hearing concerning 

California’s request and that EPA is 

accepting written comment on the 

request. 

DATES: EPA has tentatively scheduled a 

public hearing concerning CARB’s 

request on January 3, 2006 beginning at 

10 a.m. EPA will hold a hearing only if 

a party notifies EPA by December 16, 

2005, expressing its interest in 

presenting oral testimony. By December 

21, 2005, any person who plans to 

attend the hearing should call Robert M. 

Doyle at (202) 343–9258 to learn if a 

hearing will be held. 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 by February 6, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: EPA will make available for 

public inspection at the Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center written comments received from 

interested parties, in addition to any 

testimony given at the public hearing. 

The official public docket is the 

collection of materials that is available 

for public viewing at the Air and 

Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket 

Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 

B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 

Center Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air and 

Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1743. The 

reference number for this docket is 

OAR–2005–0123. Parties wishing to 

present oral testimony at the public 

hearing should provide written notice to 

Robert M. Doyle at the address noted 

below. If EPA receives a request for a 

public hearing, EPA will hold the public 

hearing at 1310 L St., NW., Washington, 

DC 20005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert M. Doyle, Compliance and 

Innovative Strategies Division (6405J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: 

(202) 343–9258, Fax: (202) 343–2804, email address: Doyle.Robert@EPA.GOV. 

EPA will make available an electronic 

copy of this Notice on the Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality’s 

(OTAQ’s) homepage (http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/). Users can find this 

document by accessing the OTAQ 

homepage and looking at the path 

entitled ‘‘Regulations.’’ This service is 

free of charge, except any cost you 

already incur for Internet connectivity. 

Users can also get the official Federal 

Register version of the Notice on the 

day of publication on the primary Web 

site: (http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/ 

EPA-AIR/). 

Please note that due to differences 

between the software used to develop 

the documents and the software into 

which the documents may be 

downloaded, changes in format, page 

length, etc., may occur. Parties wishing 

to present oral testimony at the public 

hearing should provide written notice to 

Robert M. Doyle at: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

70076 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 223 / Monday, November 21, 2005 / Notices 

1Section 209(e)(1) of the Act provides: 

No State or any political subdivision thereof shall 

adopt or attempt to enforce any standard or other 

requirement relating to the control of emissions 

from either of the following new nonroad engines 

or nonroad vehicles subject to regulation under this 

Act—(A) New engines which are used in 

construction equipment or vehicles or used in farm 

equipment or vehicles and which are smaller than 

175 horsepower. (B) New locomotives or new 

engines used in locomotives. Subsection (b) shall 

not apply for purposes of this paragraph. 

2See 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994), and regulations 

set forth therein, 40 CFR part 85, subpart Q, 

§§ 85.1601–85.1606. 

3As discussed above, states are permanently 

preempted from adopting or enforcing standards 

relating to the control of emissions from new 

engines listed in section 209(e)(1). 

4See 40 CFR part 85, subpart Q, § 85.1605. 

5See 59 FR 36969, 36983 (July 20, 1994). 

6Section 209(e)(1) of the Act has been 

implemented, see 40 CFR part 85, subpart Q 

§§ 85.1602, 85.1603. 

7To be consistent, the California certification 

procedures need not be identical to the Federal 

certification procedures. California procedures 

would be inconsistent, however, if manufacturers 

would be unable to meet both the state and the 

Federal requirement with the same test vehicle in 

the course of the same test. See e.g., 43 FR 32182 

(July 25, 1978). 

Ave., NW., (6405J), Washington, DC 

20460. Telephone: (202) 343–9258. 

Docket: An electronic version of the 

public docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system. You may use EPA dockets at 

http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit 

or view public comments, access the 

index listing of the contents of the 

official public docket, and to access 

those documents in the public docket 

that are available electronically. 

Although a part of the official docket, 

the public docket, the public docket 

does not include Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Once in the edocket system, select 

‘‘search,’’ then key in the appropriate 

docket ID number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

(A) Background and Discussion 

Section 209(e)(1) of the Act addresses 

the permanent preemption of 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.1

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

Administrator to grant California 

authorization to enforce state 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 

regulation that sets forth, among other 

things, the criteria, as found in section 

209(e)(2), by which EPA must consider 

any California authorization requests for 

new nonroad engines or vehicle 

emission standards (section 209(e) 

rules).2

Section 209(e)(2) requires the 

Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for public hearing, to 

authorize California to enforce 

standards and other requirements 

relating to emissions control of new 

engines not listed under section 

209(e)(1).3 The section 209(e) rule and 

its codified regulations 4 formally set 

forth the criteria, located in section 

209(e)(2) of the Act, by which EPA must 

grant California authorization to enforce 

its new nonroad emission standards and 

they are as follows: 

(a) The Administrator shall grant the 

authorization if California determines 

that its standards will be, in the 

aggregate, at least as protective of public 

health and welfare as applicable Federal 

standards. 

(b) The authorization shall not be 

granted if the Administrator finds that: 

(1) The determination of California is 

arbitrary and capricious; 

(2) California does not need such 

California standards to meet compelling 

and extraordinary conditions; or 

(3) California standards and 

accompanying enforcement procedures 

are not consistent with section 209. 

As stated in the preamble to the 

section 209(e) rule, EPA has interpreted 

the requirement ‘‘California standards 

and accompanying enforcement 

procedures are not consistent with 

section 209’’ to mean that California 

standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures must 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 motor vehicle waivers.5 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. Secondly, 

California’s nonroad standards and 

enforcement procedures must be 

consistent with section 209(e)(1), which 

identifies the categories permanently 

preempted from state regulation.6

California’s nonroad standards and 

enforcement procedures would be 

considered inconsistent with section 

209 if they applied to the categories of 

engines or vehicles identified and 

preempted from State regulation in 

section 209(e)(1). 

Finally, because California’s nonroad 

standards and enforcement procedures 

must be consistent with section 

209(b)(1)(C), EPA reviews nonroad 

authorization requests under the same 

‘‘consistency’’ criteria that are applied 

to motor vehicle waiver requests. Under 

section 209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator 

shall not grant California a motor 

vehicle waiver if he finds that California 

‘‘standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures are not 

consistent with section 202(a)’’ of the 

Act. As previous decisions granting 

waivers of Federal preemption for motor 

vehicles have explained, State standards 

are inconsistent with section 202(a) if 

there is inadequate lead time to permit 

the development of the necessary 

technology giving appropriate 

consideration to the cost of compliance 

within that time period or if the Federal 

and State test procedures impose 

inconsistent certification procedures.7

CARB’s March 28, 2005 letter to the 

Administrator notified EPA that it had 

adopted an Airborne Toxic Control 

Measure (ATCM) on February 26, 2004 

establishing in-use performance 

standards for TRUs and TRU generator 

sets. This regulation can be found at 

title 13, California Code of Regulations 

(CCR), division 3, section 2477. 

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 February 6, 2006. 

Upon expiration of the comment period, 

the Administrator will render a decision 

on CARB’s request based on the record 

of the public hearing(s), if any, relevant 

written submissions, and other 

information that he deems pertinent. All 

information will be available for 

inspection at EPA Air Docket. (OAR–

2005–0123). 

Persons with comments containing 

proprietary information must 

distinguish such information from other 

comments to the greatest possible extent 

and label it as ‘‘Confidential Business 

Information’’ (CBI). If a person making 

comments wants EPA to base its 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 223 / Monday, November 21, 2005 / Notices 70077 

decision in part on a submission labeled 

CBI, then a nonconfidential version of 

the document that summarizes the key 

data or information should be submitted 

for the public docket. To ensure that 

proprietary information is not 

inadvertently placed in the 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 by 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: November 3, 2005. 

Elizabeth Craig, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air 

and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 05–22995 Filed 11–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Public Information Collection(s) 

Requirement Submitted to OMB for 

Emergency Review and Approval 

November 16, 2005. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork burden 

invites the general public and other 

Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collection(s), as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An 

agency may not conduct or sponsor a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid 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 control number. 

Comments are requested concerning (a) 

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; 

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; and (d) 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. 

DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) comments should be 

submitted on or before December 21, 

2005. If you anticipate that you will be 

submitting comments, but find it 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this notice, you should 

advise the contacts listed below as soon 

as possible. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to 

Kristy L. LaLonde, Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10234 

NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 

395–3087, or via fax at 202–395–5167 or 

via Internet at 

Kristy_L._LaLonde@omb.eop.gov, and 

Judith B. Herman, Federal 

Communications Commission, Room 1–

C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20554. You may submit your 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

comments by e-mail or U.S. postal mail. 

To submit your comments by e-mail, 

send them to: PRA@fcc.gov. To submit 

your comments by U.S. mail, mark it to 

the attention of Judith B. Herman, 

Federal Communications Commission, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room 1–C804, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information about the 

information collection(s), send an e-mail 

to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Judith B. 

Herman at 202–418–0214. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission has requested emergency 

OMB processing review of this new 

information collection with an OMB 

approval by November 18, 2005. 

OMB Control Number: 3060–1004. 

Title: Revision of the Commission’s 

Rules to Ensure Compatibility with 

Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling 

Systems. 

Form No.: N/A. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit, not-for-profit institutions, and 

state, local and tribal government. 

Number of Respondents: 50 

respondents; 213 responses. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 5–200 

hours. 

Frequency of Response: Quarterly, 

semi-annual and one-time reporting 

requirements, third party disclosure 

requirement, and recordkeeping 

requirement. 

Total Annual Burden: 1,202 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: N/A. 

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A. 

Needs and Uses: The Commission is 

seeking emergency OMB processing of 

this information collection by November 

18, 2005. We have revised this 

information collection because on 

October 21, 2005, the Commission 

released an order (FCC 05–181) finding 

that certain Tier III carriers did not 

sufficiently support their requests for 

waiver of the E911 rules, but providing 

the carriers with additional time, until 

July 21, 2006, to augment the record to 

show a clear path to full compliance 

with the E911 requirements. The 

Commission also imposed conditions 

and required Tier III carriers to file 

separate status reports by November 21, 

2005, and commencing February 1, 

2006, additional status reports on a 

quarterly basis, for a two-year period. 

In addition, on October 28, 2005 (FCC 

05–182) and on November 3, 2005 (FCC 

05–188), in response to requests for 

relief submitted by certain Tier III 

carriers, the Commission released orders 

that granted, in part, limited extensions 

of the December 31, 2005 requirement, 

subject to conditions, and required Tier 

III carriers to file status reports on a 

quarterly basis, for a two-year period 

beginning on February 1, 2006. Further, 

FCC 05–188 required one Tier III carrier, 

in addition to the quarterly reporting 

requirements, to submit a compliance 

plan by November 3, 2006. 

The Commission will use the 

information submitted by Tier III 

carriers subject to reporting 

requirements to ensure that they comply 

with the Commission’s E911 

requirements and the terms of the 

underlying orders addressing their 

requests for waiver relief. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–23098 Filed 11–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Public Meeting of the President’s 

Council on Bioethics on December 8–

9, 2005 

AGENCY: The President’s Council on 

Bioethics, HHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The President’s Council on 

Bioethics (Edmund D. Pellegrino, MD, 

Chairman) will hold its twenty-second 

meeting, at which, among other things, 

it will discuss ethical issues relating to 

children. Subjects discussed at past 

Council meetings (though not on the 

agenda for the present one) include: 

Cloning, assisted reproduction, 

reproductive genetics, IVF, ICSI, PGD, 

sex selection, inheritable genetic 

modification, patentability of human 

organisms, neuroscience, aging