[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 247 (Thursday, December 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 66800]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27994]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84868; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2018-049]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed
Rule Change To Adopt Complex Reserve Order Functionality

December 19, 2018.
    On November 8, 2018, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt Complex
Reserve Order functionality. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on November 27, 2018.\3\ The Commission
has received no comment letters regarding the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84642 (November 21,
2018), 83 FR 60911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is January 11, 2019. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates
February 25, 2019, as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2018-049).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27994 Filed 12-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 64906]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20360]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3442-000]

The City of Nashua; Notice of Authorization for Continued Project
Operation

    The license for the Mine Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 3442 was
issued for a period ending July 31, 2023.
    Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the
Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-
year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the terms and
conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the
project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other
applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived
the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b)
of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth
at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an
application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to
operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the
Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project
has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be
required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations
until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or
otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 3442 is issued to
The City of Nashua for a period effective August 1, 2023, through July
31, 2024, or until the issuance of a new license for the project or
other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of
a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before
July 31, 2024, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR
16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that The City of Nashua is authorized to continue
operation of Mine Falls Hydroelectric Project under the terms and
conditions of the prior license until the issuance of a new license for
the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first.

    Dated: September 14, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20360 Filed 9-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 61854]
[DOCID:fr26oc05-135]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52646; File No. SR-Amex-2005-068]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2
Thereto Relating to Amendments to Amex Rules 26 and 27

October 20, 2005.
    On June 17, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to: (i) Combine the Equities, Options and Special
Allocations Committees into a single Allocations Committee; (ii) change
the composition of the new Allocations Committee; and (iii) provide the
Performance Committee with sole authority to reallocate securities in
connection with specialist unit transfers resulting from business
transactions. On June 30, 2005, Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\3\ On August 19, 2005, Amex filed Amendment No. 2
to the proposed rule change.\4\ The proposed rule change, as amended,
was published for comment in the Federal Register on September 1,
2005.\5\ The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This
order approves the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange made a technical correction
to the proposed amendment to Amex Rule 26 and proposed to amend Amex
Rule 27 to reflect that, in the case of an equity security, the list
of qualified specialists shall consist of five specialists.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange proposed to amend Amex Rule
27 to clarify: (1) the composition of the Allocations Committee for
equities and other securities admitted for trading on the Exchange
except Exchange Traded Funds (``ETFs'') and options; and (2) that
the Allocations Committee may be chaired by the Chief Executive
Officer's designee.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52334 (August 25,
2005), 70 FR 52146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would combine the existing Equity, Options
and Special Allocations Committees into a single Allocations Committee
for equities, options and other listed securities. The proposal would
create a single Allocations Committee consisting of the Chief Executive
Officer (or his or her designee \6\), a representative of an upstairs
member firm and either: (i) Four (4) brokers for equities and other
securities admitted to trading on the Exchange except for Exchange
Traded Funds and options; (ii) two (2) brokers and two (2) Registered
Traders for ETFs; or (iii) two (2) brokers and two (2) Registered
Options Traders for options. The Chief Executive Officer (or his or her
designee) would chair the Allocations Committee and would not vote
except to make or break a tie. In the absence of the Chief Executive
Officer (or his or her designee), a Floor Governor or a Senior Floor
Official may chair the Allocation Committee. In addition, the Exchange
proposes to permit the Performance Committee to reallocate securities
in connection with specialist unit transfers resulting from business
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange represents that the designee of the Chief
Executive Officer would be an Exchange employee knowledgeable about
the securities business and capable of representing the views of the
Chief Executive Officer. Telephone conversation of October 12, 2005,
between Jeffery Burns, Associate General Counsel, Amex, and David
Michehl, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the requirements of section 6 of the Act,\7\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\8\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ which
requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system. The Commission
believes that, by combining the Equities, Options and Special
Allocations Committees into a single Allocations Committee and
streamlining the composition of the Allocations Committee, the proposed
rule change is designed to reduce potential inefficiencies in
connection with the securities allocation process. In addition, the
Commission believes that, by providing the Performance Committee with
the sole authority to reallocate securities in connection with
specialist unit transfers, the proposed rule change is designed to
streamline the reallocation process in these special circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2005-068), as amended,
is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5946 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: July 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 44948-44951]
[DOCID:fr30jy10-39]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9183-3]

California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards;
Within-the-Scope Determination for Amendments to California's Low
Emission Vehicle Program; Notice of Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of within-the-scope determination.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is confirming that technical amendments promulgated by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) are within-the-scope of existing
waivers of preemption for CARB's Low Emission Vehicle (LEV II) program.
These technical amendments were adopted by CARB in 2006, and include
amendments to California's evaporative emission test procedures,
onboard refueling vapor recovery and spitback test procedures, exhaust
emission test procedures, and vehicle emission control label
requirements. These amendments align each of California's test
procedures and label requirements with its federal counterpart, in an
effort to streamline and harmonize the California and federal programs.
California believes these amendments will reduce manufacturer testing
burdens and increase in-use compliance, without compromising the
stringency of its numerical LEV II emission standards.

DATES: Any objections to the findings in this notice regarding EPA's
determination, that California's amendments are within-the-scope of
previous waivers, must be filed by August 30, 2010. Upon receipt of a
timely objection, EPA will consider scheduling a public hearing to
reconsider these findings, which would be announced in a subsequent
Federal Register notice. Otherwise, these findings will become final on
September 28, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Any objections to the within-the-scope findings in this
Federal Register notice should be filed with Kristien Knapp at the
address noted below. All documents relied upon in making this decision,
including those submitted to EPA by CARB, are contained in the public
docket.
    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0238. 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 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<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center's Web site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/
docket.html. The electronic mail (e-mail) address for the Air and
Radiation Docket is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>the telephone number is
(202) 566-1742, and the fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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-2010-0238 in the ``Enter
Keyword or ID'' fill-in box to view documents in the record of CARB's
LEV II technical amendments within-the-scope waiver request. 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
webpage 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. CARB's 2006 Technical Amendments

    On April 30, 2007, CARB submitted a request to EPA for confirmation
that CARB's 2006 Technical Amendments to California's LEV II program
are within-the-scope of previously granted waivers of preemption.
CARB's 2006 Technical Amendments generally include amendments to its
evaporative emission test procedures, four-wheel drive dynamometer
provisions, and vehicle label requirements. Each of these general areas
amends previously promulgated--and waived--amendments to CARB's LEV II
program.
    CARB originally received a waiver of preemption for its LEV II
program from EPA on April 22, 2003.\1\ The LEV II program itself exists
as the result of a series of amendments to California's older LEV I
program. The LEV II program set stringent evaporative emission
standards and test procedures beginning with the 2004 model year.
California subsequently enacted two sets of ``follow-up'' amendments to
its LEV II program. The first set of follow-up amendments established
exhaust emission standards and test procedures for light-duty and
medium-duty gasoline-fueled vehicles. The following set of follow-up
amendments revised

vehicle labeling provisions and refueling emission standards and test
procedures. Both sets of follow-up amendments were determined by EPA to
be within-the-scope of previous waivers on April 28, 2005.\2\ CARB
presents that its 2006 Technical Amendments are within-the-scope of
EPA's LEV II waiver, and EPA's within-the-scope confirmation for
California's LEV II follow-up amendments.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 60 FR 19811 (April 22, 2003).
    \2\ 70 FR 22034 (April 28, 2005).
    \3\ 68 FR 77 (April 22, 2003), 70 FR 22034 (April 28, 2005). See
also 67 FR 162 (August 21, 2002) (EPA's waiver for California's
onboard refueling vapor recovery standards and procedures, which
pre-existed and were modified by CARB's second set of LEV II follow-
up amendments.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's 2006 Technical Amendments directly incorporate a direct
final rule issued by EPA on December 8, 2005,\4\ in order to streamline
California's exhaust, evaporative, and refueling test procedures to the
corresponding federal procedures. CARB considered and approved the 2006
Technical Amendments at a June 22, 2006 hearing by adopting Resolution
06-20; \5\ the technical amendments became effective California state
law on February 17, 2007, pending EPA's waiver review. CARB believes
its effort to harmonize its procedures with EPA's procedures in the
2006 Technical Amendments will reduce manufacturer testing burdens and
compliance requirements without compromising the stringency or efficacy
of its numerical emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 70 FR 72917 (December 8, 2005).
    \5\ CARB, ``Resolution 06-20,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0238-0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's 2006 Technical Amendments affect only evaporative emission
test procedures and not the underlying standards. Specifically, the
2006 Technical Amendments: (1) Authorize manufacturers to opt to
certify new vehicles to the Two-Day Diurnal plus Hot Soak (2D+HS) test
sequence on the basis of an engineering judgment; (2) clarify that when
a manufacturer has certified vehicles using an alternative running loss
test procedure, CARB may conduct certification confirmatory tests and
in-use compliance tests using either the specified procedures or that
manufacturer's approved alternative running loss test procedure; (3)
provide manufacturers an option to use an alternative canister
preconditioning method; (4) clarify that only one evaporative test
demonstration is required for all applicable fuel types of each
evaporative/refueling family; (5) modify the Onboard Refueling Vapor
Recovery (ORVR) requirements to make optional the disconnection of the
canister and fuel tank-vent hose assembly when the drain-and-ten-
percent-fill step of the refueling test sequence is performed; (6)
include several minor, non-substantive amendments to maintain federal
harmonization; (7) modify existing test procedures to allow a
manufacturer to perform certification emission tests of four-wheel
drive (4WD) vehicles on 4WD dynamometers; (8) eliminate the requirement
that manufacturers include certain outdated information on their
vehicle labels.\6\ These changes amend title 13, California Code of
Regulations (CCR), sections 1961, 1976, and 1978; \7\ these three
amended code sections incorporate by reference three contemporaneously
amended test procedure documents.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CARB, Waiver Support Document, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0238-0002 at
pp. 4-8.
    \7\ See CARB, ``Final Regulation Order,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0238-
0008.
    \8\ See CARB, Attachment 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0238-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clean Air Act 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 (this is known as
California's ``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.\9\ The
Administrator must grant a waiver unless she finds that: (A)
California's above-noted ``protectiveness determination'' is arbitrary
and capricious; \10\ (B) California does not need such State standards
to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; \11\ or (C)
California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not
consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.\12\ 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See S. Rep. No. 90-403 at 632 (1967).
    \10\ CAA section 209(b)(1)(A).
    \11\ CAA section 209(b)(1)(B).
    \12\ CAA section 209(b)(1)(C).
    \13\ See, e.g., 74 FR at 32767 (July 8, 2009); see also Motor
and Equipment Manufacturers Association v. EPA (MEMA I), 627 F.2d
1095, 1126 (DC Cir. 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

II. Discussion

    As stated above, EPA can confirm that amended regulations are
within-the-scope of a previously granted waiver if three conditions are
met. CARB, in its Resolution 06-20, expressly found that its 2006
Technical Amendments met each of these criteria.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ CARB, ``Resolution 06-20,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0238-0006, pp.
4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. California's Protectiveness Determination

    When granting a waiver for CARB's LEV II amendments, which
established the LEV II standards at the heart of the LEV II program,
EPA declined to find that California's protectiveness determination was
arbitrary and capricious.\15\ The protectiveness

determination at issue in the original LEV II proceeding was based upon
a comparison of California's LEV II emission standards, as amended by
the LEV II follow-up amendments, to federal Tier 2 standards. CARB
notes that its LEV II-to-Tier 2 comparison showed that LEV II standards
were more stringent than the applicable federal Tier 2 standards,
particularly taking into account CARB's more stringent NOX
standards for the 2007 through 2010 model years and CARB's more
stringent evaporative emission standards.\16\ CARB also notes that the
LEV II follow-up amendments increased the protectiveness of
California's LEV II program by ensuring that federal vehicles that are
cleaner than their California counterparts would be certified in
California.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 68 FR 19812 (April 22, 2003). See also EPA's LEV II Waiver
Decision Document at pp. 9-11 (``EPA did not receive any comments
stating that CARB's LEV II requirement are not, in the aggregate, as
stringent as applicable federal standards. Therefore, based on the
record before me, I cannot find that CARB's LEV II regulations, as
noted, would cause the California motor vehicle emission standards,
in the aggregate, to be less protective of public health and welfare
than applicable Federal standards.'') (citation omitted).
    \16\ CARB, ``Waiver Support Document,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0238-
0002 at 11.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's 2006 Technical Amendments do not increase or decrease the
stringency of the LEV II standards; they only affect test procedures
and label requirements, in an effort to harmonize California compliance
requirements with federal compliance requirements. We see no reason to
think that application of compliance requirements that mirror
federally-promulgated compliance requirements would undermine--rather
than reinforce--California's protectiveness determination.
    After reviewing the materials submitted by CARB, EPA can confirm
that the 2006 Technical Amendments do not undermine California's
previous determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal
standards.

B. Consistency With Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act

    EPA has stated in the past that California standards and
accompanying test procedures would be inconsistent with section 202(a)
of the Clean Air Act if: (1) There is inadequate lead time to permit
the development of technology necessary to meet those requirements,
giving appropriate consideration to cost of compliance within the lead
time provided, or (2) the federal and California test procedures impose
inconsistent certification requirements.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., 75 FR 8056 (February 23, 2010); 70 FR 22034
(April 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first prong of EPA's inquiry into consistency with section
202(a) of the Act depends upon technological feasibility. This requires
EPA to 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. CARB points out that in
the course of its rulemaking, no manufacturer raised any lead time
concerns.\19\ Additionally, CARB notes that these procedures have
already been promulgated and applied by EPA. Consequently, EPA cannot
identify any lead time issue posed by application of procedures that
are already used for federal compliance.\20\ We find that adequate
technology already exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ CARB, ``Waiver Support Document,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0238-
0002 at 12.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second prong of EPA's inquiry into consistency with section
202(a) of the Act depends on the compatibility of the federal and
California test procedures. CARB points out, again here, that its
technical amendments are designed to harmonize its test procedures with
federal test procedures.\21\ In fact, CARB found that without the
technical amendments, inconsistent test procedures would exist.\22\ EPA
agrees with this analysis; because identical test procedures cannot be
incompatible, we cannot find that California's test procedures are
inconsistent with our own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
    \22\ CARB, ``Resolution 06-20,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0238-0006 at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For those reasons, EPA can confirm that the 2006 Technical
Amendments are not inconsistent with section 202(a) of the Clean Air
Act.

C. New Issues

    EPA has stated that if CARB amendments raise ``new issues''
affecting previously granted waivers, we cannot confirm that those
amendments are within-the-scope of previous waivers.\23\ Here, CARB
determined that there are no new issues presented by CARB's 2006
Technical Amendments.\24\ CARB notes that in the course of its
rulemaking, it received only two public comments: One comment from a
manufacturer in support and one comment unrelated to the
rulemaking.\25\ After our own review of CARB's 2006 Technical
Amendments, EPA is similarly unable to identify any new issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, e.g., 75 FR 8056 (February 23, 2010); 70 FR 22034
(April 28, 2005).
    \24\ CARB, ``Waiver Support Document,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0238-
0002 at 13.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Decision

    CARB's April 30, 2007 letter seeks confirmation from EPA that
CARB's 2006 Technical Amendments to California's LEV II program are
within-the-scope of previous waivers of preemption that EPA has
granted. After evaluating the 2006 Technical Amendments, EPA confirms
that CARB meets the three criteria that EPA traditionally uses to
determine whether a present request from California is within-the-scope
of previous waivers. First, EPA agrees with CARB that the technical
amendments do not undermine California's protectiveness determination
from its previous LEV II waiver requests. Second, EPA agrees with CARB
that its 2006 Technical Amendments are not inconsistent with section
202(a) of the Act. Third, EPA agrees with CARB that its 2006 Technical
Amendments do not present any ``new issues,'' which would affect its
previous waivers. Therefore, EPA confirms that CARB's 2006 Technical
Amendments are within-the-scope of EPA's waivers of preemption for
California's LEV II program.
    The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California a
section 209(b) waiver of preemption to the Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. Having given consideration to all the material
submitted for this record, and other relevant information, I find that
I cannot make the determinations required for a denial of a waiver
pursuant to section 209(b) of the Act. EPA's analysis confirms CARB's
finding that these amendments meet the criteria for receiving a within-
the-scope determination; therefore, EPA finds that the 2006 Technical
Amendments are within-the-scope of previous waivers for California's
LEV II program.
    Because these amendments are within-the-scope of a previous waiver,
a public hearing to consider them is not necessary. However, if any
party asserts an objection to these findings by August 30, 2010, EPA
will consider holding a public hearing to provide interested parties an
opportunity to present oral testimony and written evidence to show that
there are issues to be addressed through a section 209(b) waiver
proceeding and that EPA should reconsider its findings. Otherwise,
these findings will become final on September 28, 2010.
    My decision will affect not only persons in California, but also
manufacturers outside the State who must comply with California's
requirements in order to produce engines for sale in California. 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 September 28, 2010. Judicial
review of this final action may not be obtained in subsequent
enforcement proceedings, pursuant to section 307(b)(2) of the Act.
    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: July 22, 2010.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2010-18791 Filed 7-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P