[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34693-34700]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14686]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9318-7]

California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards;
Within-the-Scope Determination for Amendments to California's Motor
Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Regulations; Notice of Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Within-the-Scope Determination.

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

SUMMARY: EPA confirms that amendments promulgated by the California Air
Resources Board (``CARB'') are within the scope of an existing waiver
of preemption issued by EPA for California's motor vehicle greenhouse
gas emissions program. EPA also finds, in the alternative, that
California's standards, as amended, meet the requirements for a new
waiver of preemption.

DATES: Petitions for review must be filed by August 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0653. All documents relied upon in making this
decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, and public
comments, are contained in the public docket. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket in
the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Room 3334, located at
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room
is open to the public on all Federal government working days from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; generally, it is open Monday through Friday,
excluding holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202)
566-1744. The Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center's Web
site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. The electronic mail (e-
mail) address for the Air and Radiation Docket is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>the telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>, 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 http://www.regulations.gov Web
site, enter EPA HQ-OAR-2010-0653 in the ``Enter Keyword or ID'' fill-in
box to view documents in the record of CARB's passenger vehicle GHG
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 (``OTAQ'') maintains
a Web page that contains many historical documents regarding
California's greenhouse gas waiver request, including those associated
with this within-the-scope confirmation request; the page is accessible
at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/ca-waiver.htm. OTAQ also maintains a
Web page that contains general information on its review of California
waiver requests. Included on that page are links to prior waiver
Federal Register notices, some of which are cited in today's notice;
the page can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristien G. Knapp, Attorney-Advisor,
Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, 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. Chronology

    On December 21, 2005, the California Air Resources Board (``CARB'')
submitted a request to EPA, seeking a waiver of preemption under
section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act for California's motor vehicle
greenhouse gas (``GHG'') regulations.\1\ EPA initially denied that
request, and published that denial in a Federal Register notice on
March 6, 2008.\2\ CARB subsequently submitted a request that EPA
reconsider that waiver denial on January 21, 2009. EPA took action on
that request for reconsideration by reopening its public process.\3\
The agency held a public hearing to hear oral testimony and received
thousands of written comments from a wide variety of interested
persons. EPA's decision on reconsideration--granting California's
waiver request--was issued on June 30, 2009, and published in the
Federal Register on July 8, 2009.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 72 FR 21260 (Apr. 30, 2007).
    \2\ 73 FR 12156 (March 6, 2008).
    \3\ 74 FR 7040 (February 12, 2009).
    \4\ 74 FR 32744 (July 8, 2009). The Chamber of Commerce of the
United States and the National Automobile Dealers Association
(``NADA'') sought review of EPA's July 8, 2009 waiver decision in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (No. 09-1237). On April 29, 2011, the Court dismissed the
petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. CARB's Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Amendments

    Since EPA's grant of a waiver of preemption for California's
greenhouse gas emission regulations, CARB has promulgated two sets of
amendments, which are at issue here. Both sets of amendments are
intended to ease manufacturer compliance burdens. CARB's Board adopted
the first set of amendments in September 2009. The September 2009
amendments, known as the ``Section 177 State `Pooling' Amendments,''
include provisions intended to streamline manufacturers' obligations
by: (1) Providing manufacturers with the option of pooling vehicle
sales across California and in states that have adopted California's
greenhouse gas standards starting with model years 2009 through
2011,\5\ and (2) revising certification requirements to accept data
from the Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (``CAFE'') program.\6\
CARB's Board adopted the second set of amendments in February 2010. The
February 2010 amendments are known as the ``2012-2016 Model Year
National Program Amendments''; they provide that compliance with EPA's
greenhouse gas standards will be deemed compliance with the California

standards during the 2012 through 2016 model years.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ California Code of Regulations, Title 13 1961.1(a)(1)(A)(i).
    \6\ California Code of Regulations, Title 13 1961(a)(1)(B).
    \7\ California Code of Regulations, Title 13
1961.1(a)(1)(A)(ii). The National Program and EPA's greenhouse gas
standards referred to in California's regulation can be found at 75
FR 25323 (May 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA's Review of California's Greenhouse Gas Within-the-Scope Request

    By letter dated June 28, 2010, CARB submitted a request to EPA
seeking confirmation that these two sets of amendments are within the
scope of the waiver of preemption issued by EPA under section 209(b) of
the Clean Air Act on June 30, 2009. EPA announced its receipt of
California's within-the-scope confirmation request in a Federal
Register notice on January 31, 2011.\8\ In that notice, EPA offered an
opportunity for public hearing and comment on CARB's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 76 FR 5368 (January 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although CARB's request regarding its ``Section 177 State `Pooling'
Amendments'' and its ``2012-2016 Model Year National Program
Amendments'' was submitted as a within-the-scope request, EPA invited
comment on several issues. Within the context of a within-the-scope
analysis, EPA invited comment on whether California's standards: (1)
Undermine California's previous determination that its standards, in
the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare
as comparable Federal standards; (2) affect the consistency of
California's requirements with section 202(a) of the Act; and (3) raise
any other new issues affecting EPA's previous waiver determinations.
EPA also requested comment on issues relevant to a full waiver
analysis, in the event that EPA determined that California's standards
should not be considered within the scope of CARB's previous waivers,
and should instead be subjected to a full waiver analysis.
Specifically, EPA sought comment on: (a) Whether CARB's determination
that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of
public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards is arbitrary
and capricious; (b) whether California needs 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.
    No party requested an opportunity for a hearing to present oral
testimony, and EPA received only three written comments. One of the
comments is not responsive or relevant to the issues EPA sought comment
on; a second comment requests that EPA vacate the underlying waiver;
and the third comment supports CARB's amendments, and encourages EPA to
confirm that the amendments are within the scope of CARB's greenhouse
gas waiver. The written comments are from a private citizen,\9\ the
National Automobile Dealers Association (``NADA''),\10\ and the
Association of Global Automakers (``Global Automakers''),
respectively.\11\ The private citizen's comment is not responsive to
the issues under EPA's consideration as described in EPA's January 31,
2011 Federal Register notice.\12\ NADA comments that California's
amendments effectively eliminate any need for California's greenhouse
gas standards, and therefore EPA should vacate the underlying waiver.
NADA did not offer any comment specifically on whether California's
amendments meet the within-the-scope criteria, and it did not
explicitly offer substantive comments on any of those criteria. NADA
did comment on whether California's regulations met the second
criterion of a full waiver, concerning whether California needs State
standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions. NADA also
requests that EPA delay taking action on CARB's within-the-scope
request until the litigation related to the underlying waiver has been
completed. Global Automakers comments that it ``unreservedly supports''
California's amendments, and encourages EPA to confirm that the
amendments are within the scope of the previously issued greenhouse gas
waiver.\13\ As noted below, Global Automakers offered specific comments
on all of the issues described for public comment in EPA's January 31,
2011 Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Comments of Joyce Dillard, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0653-0004 (March
17, 2011).
    \10\ Comments of NADA, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0653-0005 (March 17,
2011).
    \11\ Comments of the Association of Global Automakers (``Global
Automakers''), EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0653-0003 (March 17, 2011).
    \12\ This comment generally appears to express concern for
public health and welfare. Because this comment is not responsive to
the issues before EPA or to EPA's request for comments, EPA is not
responding to this comment.
    \13\ Comments of Global Automakers, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0653-003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. 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. Section
209(b)(1) requires 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,\14\ 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''). However, no waiver is
to be granted if EPA finds that: (A) California's above-noted
``protectiveness determination'' is arbitrary and capricious; \15\ (B)
California does not need such State standards to meet compelling and
extraordinary conditions; \16\ or (C) California's standards and
accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section
202(a) of the Act.\17\ Regarding consistency with section 202(a), EPA
reviews California's standards for technological feasibility and
evaluates testing and enforcement procedures to determine whether they
would be inconsistent with Federal test procedures (e.g., if
manufacturers would be unable to meet both California and Federal test
requirements using the same test vehicle).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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. See S.Rep. No. 90-403 at 632 (1967).
    \15\ CAA section 209(b)(1)(A).
    \16\ CAA section 209(b)(1)(B).
    \17\ CAA section 209(b)(1)(C).
    \18\ See, e.g., 74 FR at 32767 (July 8, 2009); see also MEMA I,
627 F.2d at 1126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. These conditions are discussed below.

E. Burden of Proof

    In Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 (DC Cir.
1979) (``MEMA I''), the U.S. Court of Appeals stated that the
Administrator's role in a section 209 proceeding is to:

consider all evidence that passes the threshold test of materiality
and * * *

thereafter assess such material evidence against a standard of proof
to determine whether the parties favoring a denial of the waiver
have shown that the factual circumstances exist in which Congress
intended a denial of the waiver.\19\

    \19\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1122.

    The court in MEMA I considered the standards of proof under section
209 for the two findings related to granting a waiver for an
``accompanying enforcement procedure'' (as opposed to the standards
themselves): (1) Protectiveness in the aggregate and (2) consistency
with section 202(a) findings. The court instructed that ``the standard
of proof must take account of the nature of the risk of error involved
in any given decision, and it therefore varies with the finding
involved. We need not decide how this standard operates in every waiver
decision.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The court upheld the Administrator's position that, to deny a
waiver, there must be ``clear and compelling evidence'' to show that
proposed procedures undermine the protectiveness of California's
standards.\21\ The court noted that this standard of proof also accords
with the congressional intent to provide California with the broadest
possible discretion in setting regulations it finds protective of the
public health and welfare.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the consistency finding, the court did not
articulate a standard of proof applicable to all proceedings, but found
that the opponents of the waiver were unable to meet their burden of
proof even if the standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence.
Although MEMA I did not explicitly consider the standards of proof
under section 209 concerning a waiver request for ``standards,'' as
compared to accompanying enforcement procedures, there is nothing in
the opinion to suggest that the court's analysis would not apply with
equal force to such determinations. EPA's past waiver decisions have
consistently made clear that: ``[E]ven in the two areas concededly
reserved for Federal judgment by this legislation--the existence of
`compelling and extraordinary' conditions and whether the standards are
technologically feasible--Congress intended that the standards of EPA
review of the State decision to be a narrow one.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, e.g., 40 FR 21102-103 (May 28, 1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Opponents of the waiver bear the burden of showing that the
criteria for a denial of California's waiver request have been met. As
found in MEMA I, this obligation rests firmly with opponents of the
waiver in a section 209 proceeding:

[t]he language of the statute and it's legislative history indicate
that California's regulations, and California's determinations that
they must comply with the statute, when presented to the
Administrator are presumed to satisfy the waiver requirements and
that the burden of proving otherwise is on whoever attacks them.
California must present its regulations and findings at the hearing
and thereafter the parties opposing the waiver request bear the
burden of persuading the Administrator that the waiver request
should be denied.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1121.

    The Administrator's burden, on the other hand, is to make a
reasonable evaluation of the information in the record in coming to the
waiver decision. As the court in MEMA I stated: ``here, too, if the
Administrator ignores evidence demonstrating that the waiver should not
be granted, or if he seeks to overcome that evidence with unsupported
assumptions of his own, he runs the risk of having his waiver decision
set aside as `arbitrary and capricious.' '' \25\ Therefore, the
Administrator's burden is to act ``reasonably.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id. at 1126.
    \26\ Id. at 1126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Within-the-Scope Analysis

    EPA sought comment on a range of issues, including those applicable
to a within-the-scope analysis as well as those applicable to a full
waiver analysis. Even though EPA sought comment on whether California's
amendments should be subjected to a full waiver analysis, no party
expressed the opinion that California's amendments require such an
analysis. Global Automakers, the only commenter to address this
threshold issue of which criteria to apply, stated the amendments at
issue qualify for a within-the-scope determination. Global Automakers
points out that California's greenhouse gas amendments do not increase
the stringency of any emission standard, or add any new pollutant or
other emission standard to California's existing greenhouse gas
regulations. Therefore, we have evaluated CARB's request by application
of our traditional within-the-scope analysis.
    EPA can confirm that amended regulations are within the scope of a
previously granted waiver of preemption if three conditions are met.
First, the amended regulations must not undermine California's
determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal
standards. Second, the amended regulations must not undermine our
previous determination with respect to consistency with section 202(a)
of the Act. Third, the amended regulations must not raise any new
issues affecting EPA's prior waiver determinations. CARB, in its
Resolution 09-53 (September 25, 2009),\27\ and Resolution 10-15
(February 25, 2010),\28\ expressly stated that its greenhouse gas
amendments meet each of these criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ CARB Resolution 09-53, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0653-0002.7
(September 24, 2009).
    \28\ CARB Resolution 10-15, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0653-0002.17
(February 25, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. California's Protectiveness Determination
    When granting a waiver of preemption for California's greenhouse
gas emission standards, EPA found that opponents of the waiver had not
met their burden to demonstrate that California's protectiveness
determination was arbitrary and capricious. The protectiveness
determination at issue in EPA's previous greenhouse gas waiver
proceeding was primarily based upon a comparison of California's
greenhouse gas emission standards to then non-existent Federal
greenhouse gas emission standards.\29\ In the July 30, 2009 decision,
EPA noted that ``[i]f federal greenhouse gas standards are promulgated
in the future, and if such standards bring this determination into
question, then EPA can revisit this decision at that time.'' We also
noted that ``EPA would then determine whether these changes are within-
the-scope of its prior waiver or if a new, full waiver determination
would need to be made, as would be required if California decided to
increase the stringency of its greenhouse gas standards.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See 74 FR 332744, 32749-32759. EPA also examined then
existing CAFE standards promulgated by the NHTSA. EPA found that
such standards are not ``applicable federal standards,'' and even if
they were considered as such, opponents of the waiver had not
demonstrated that CARB's protectiveness determination was arbitrary
and capricious. EPA also examined whether CARB's protectiveness
determination was arbitrary and capricious based on the real world
in-use effects of the GHG standards, and found that opponents of the
waiver had not met their burden of proof.
    \30\ 74 FR 32752-32753 (July 8, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California's greenhouse gas amendments, as described above, do not
increase the numerical stringency of its greenhouse gas emission
standards or change the California fleet average greenhouse gas
emission limits. In addition, although EPA has

subsequently promulgated its own emission limits for greenhouse gases,
those limits do not begin until the 2012 model year, in contrast to
CARB's standards, which began in the 2009 model year. As such, if EPA
were to undertake a comparison of California-to-Federal greenhouse gas
emission standards, that analysis would compare three years of existing
California standards against three years of non-existent Federal
standards. Thus, EPA agrees with CARB that California's greenhouse gas
amendments do not undermine California's previous protectiveness
determination with regard to the 2009 through 2011 model years.
    In its June 28, 2010 Letter requesting a within-the scope
determination, CARB points out that it made an additional finding that
its standards are in the aggregate at least as protective of public
health and welfare as comparable Federal greenhouse gas emission
standards, and that California's amendments do not undermine the
emission reductions from the previously waived California standards.
    The comment from Global Automakers states that California's
amendments do not cause California's greenhouse gas standards to be
less protective than the Federal standards. Global Automakers asserts
that the ``deem to comply'' prong of California's amendments render
emission benefits to be equally protective as between the California
and Federal programs.
    In its comments, NADA notes that CARB stated that the national
program ``will achieve equal or better GHG emission reduction benefits
from MY 2012-16 light-duty vehicles compared to those sold in
California and states that have adopted California's Pavley standards
as provided in Section 177 of the Clean Air Act.'' NADA believes that
CARB's statement leads to the conclusion that ``vacating the waiver * *
* likewise will result in no adverse environmental effects * * *.''
However, such a conclusion does not logically follow from the statement
CARB made. CARB's statement was in reference to the fact that the
national program affects vehicles in all 50 states, whereas the pre-
existing California program only affected vehicles in California and
section 177 states; it was not a statement with regard to the emission
reduction benefits of the California standards themselves in California
and the section 177 states. In reviewing the California standards
themselves, CARB found that the national program greenhouse gas
standards from 2012 to 2015 were slightly less stringent than
comparable California standards, and were equivalent to California
standards in 2016. CARB also found that emission reductions in
California and the section 177 states might be reduced slightly if
manufacturers meet California regulations by demonstrating compliance
with Federal standards, rather than meeting the pre-existing California
standards.\31\ NADA does not take issue with this finding. Thus, at the
very least, compliance with California's greenhouse gas standards under
the revised regulations will result in the same, if not more, emission
reductions than would occur in the absence of the California standards.
NADA provides no evidence that CARB's standards are less protective
than the applicable Federal standards. As such, NADA fails to present
any evidence or make any showing that the amendments undermine
California's previous determination that its standards, in the
aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable Federal standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ California Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Initial
Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking (January 7, 2010), at page 7,
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0653-0002.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After evaluating the materials submitted by CARB, as well as the
public comments from Global Automakers and NADA on this issue, EPA
confirms that California's greenhouse gas amendments do not undermine
California's previous determination that its standards, in the
aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable Federal standards.
2. 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.\32\ CARB states that the
amendments do not undermine our previous determination with respect to
consistency with section 202(a) because California's standards have
remained the same and the amendments were intended to provide
flexibility and reduce the costs of compliance with the
regulations.\33\ EPA received one public comment on this issue, from
Global Automakers. Global Automakers believes that California's
amendments ``do not cause California's requirements to be inconsistent
with Section 202(a) of the Act.'' \34\ Global Automakers further states
that harmonizing the California program with EPA's Federal program
renders California's regulations to be ``more consistent'' with the
Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See, e.g., 75 FR 8056 (February 23, 2010) and 70 FR 22034
(April 28, 2005).
    \33\ CARB, Request that Amendments to California's New Passenger
Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Regulations Be Found Within the Scope
of the Existing Waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0653-0002, (June 28, 2010), at page 4.
    \34\ Comments of Global Automakers, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0653-0003,
page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first prong of EPA's inquiry into consistency with section
202(a) of the Act depends upon technological feasibility. This requires
EPA to evaluate 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. Here, CARB has not
changed its overall California fleet average greenhouse gas emission
standards. The amendments at issue have been adopted to provide
additional means and flexibilities for manufacturers to comply with the
standards. These amendments do not require the development or
application of any additional technology beyond that already required
by California's original greenhouse gas emission standards. EPA
received no comments indicating that CARB's amendments present lead-
time or technology issues with respect to consistency under section
202(a) and knows of no other evidence to that effect. Consequently,
CARB's amendments do not affect our prior determination regarding
consistency with section 202(a), based on lead-time or technological
feasibility issues.
    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's greenhouse gas amendments are
designed to deem manufacturer compliance with EPA's greenhouse gas
emission standards as compliant with California's requirements. CARB
further points out that its amendments are intended to provide
flexibility and reduce compliance costs. Therefore, CARB asserts that
its amended regulations strengthen CARB's previous analysis that its
regulations are consistent with section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
EPA agrees with this analysis, and EPA received no comments that
dispute this analysis. Because CARB's regulations provide additional
flexibilities, which

reduce compliance costs and even make CARB compliance more flexible to
the extent that Federal compliance is deemed to comply with
California's requirements, CARB has made their compliance program,
including its test procedures, more compatible with the Federal
compliance program. Consequently, nothing in the amendments undermines
our prior determination concerning consistency of California's test
procedures with our own.
    For the reasons set forth above, EPA confirms that California's
greenhouse gas amendments do not undermine our prior determination
concerning consistency with section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
3. New Issues
    EPA has stated in the past that if California promulgates
amendments that raise new issues affecting previously granted waivers,
we would not confirm that those amendments are within the scope of
previous waivers.\35\ CARB states that it is not aware of any new
issues presented by its greenhouse gas amendments.\36\ Similarly,
Global Manufacturers state that the amendments do not raise any new
issues affecting the Administrator's previous waiver: ``[T]he
amendments merely provide manufacturers the increased compliance
flexibility of pooling their California and Section 177 State fleets,
and using compliance with the Federal program to show compliance with
the California program.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See, e.g., 75 FR 8056 (February 23, 2010), and 70 FR 22034
(April 28, 2005).
    \36\ CARB, Request that Amendments to California's New Passenger
Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Regulations Be Found Within the Scope
of the Existing Waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0653-0002, (June 28, 2010), at page 5.
    \37\ Comments of Global Automakers, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0653-0003,
page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comments from NADA do not specifically state that the
amendments create new issues, but the comments appear to suggest NADA's
belief that they do. NADA states that the provision that allows
compliance with Federal greenhouse gas regulations as an alternative
compliance option for compliance with California's greenhouse gas
regulations renders California's greenhouse gas standards redundant and
because of this ``CARB cannot claim that its rules any longer are
needed to meet compelling and extraordinary circumstances.'' This quote
is a reference to the requirement in Clean Air Act section 209(b)(1)(B)
that EPA shall not grant a waiver to California if it finds that
California ``does not need such State standards to meet compelling and
extraordinary conditions.''
    EPA does not believe that California's amendment allowing
compliance with federal greenhouse gas regulations as an option for
compliance with California's greenhouse gas regulations raises any new
issues regarding our prior determination concerning CAA section
209(b)(1)(B).
    In the underlying waiver decision, EPA found that ``the better
approach for analyzing the need for `such State standards' to meet
`compelling and extraordinary conditions' is to review California's
need for its program, as a whole, for the class or category of vehicles
being regulated, as opposed to its need for individual standards.''
\38\ EPA also reiterated its traditional understanding that ``the term
compelling and extraordinary conditions `do not refer to the levels of
pollution directly.' Instead, the term refers primarily to the factors
that tend to produce higher levels of pollution--`geographical and
climatic conditions (like thermal inversions) that, when combined with
large numbers and high concentrations of automobiles, create serious
air pollution problems.' '' \39\ EPA further found that CARB has
repeatedly demonstrated the need for its motor vehicle program to
address compelling and extraordinary conditions in California.'' \40\
In its initial greenhouse gas Waiver Request letter, CARB stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 74 FR at 32762.
    \39\ 74 FR at 32759.
    \40\ 74 FR at 32762-32763.

    California--the South Coast and San Joaquin Air basins in
particular--continues to experience some of the worst air quality in
the nation. California's ongoing need for dramatic emission
reductions generally and from passenger vehicles specifically is
abundantly clear from its recent adoption of state implementation
plans for the South Coast and other California air basins.\41\ The
unique geographical and climatic conditions, and the tremendous
growth in the vehicle population and use which moved Congress to
authorize California to establish separate vehicle standards in
1967, still exist today.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans; California--South Coast, 64 FR 1770, 1771
(January 12, 1999). See also 69 FR 23858, 23881-90 (April 30, 2004)
(designating 15 areas in California as nonattainment for the federal
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard).
    \42\ California Air Resources Board, EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0173-
0004.1, at page 16.

    NADA's comments do not indicate that, as a result of the
amendments, California no longer needs a separate motor vehicle
emissions program to address compelling and extraordinary conditions in
California, or provide any indication that EPA's prior determination on
this issue is undermined in any way. Therefore, its comments do not
show that California's amendments raise any new issues relevant to
EPA's initial waiver decision.
    Moreover, although NADA's comments reference the words of the
section 209(b)(1)(B), ``need * * * to meet compelling and extraordinary
circumstances'' criterion, they do not appear to be directed towards
the geographical or climatological conditions that are being referred
to by the words ``compelling and extraordinary circumstances.''
Instead, NADA's comments appear to be directed at the stringency of the
greenhouse gas standards. The stringency of California's standards is
at issue in section 209(b)(1)(A), where Congress addressed the
comparison of California standards to federal standards, but it is not
an issue under section 209(b)(1)(B). As noted in EPA's underlying
waiver decision, section 209(b)(1)(A) calls for a review of California
standards ``in the aggregate,'' and EPA can only deny a waiver if it
finds that California was arbitrary and capricious in its finding that
``its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of
public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards.'' EPA notes
that the language of section 209(b)(1)(A) clearly indicates Congress's
determination that EPA review the effect of stringency on the
protectiveness of California's standards ``in the aggregate,'' and that
EPA cannot deny a waiver on the grounds of protectiveness if California
standards are at least equally protective as Federal standards.
``Redundancy'' is not the criterion; it is whether California's
standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective as applicable
Federal standards. Furthermore, NADA does not address California's
standards ``in the aggregate'' and, as noted above, does not provide
any evidence to suggest, even with regard to California's greenhouse
gas standards, that California was arbitrary and capricious in its
finding that its standards are at least as protective as comparable
federal standards. The stringency issue raised by NADA is not relevant
under section 209(b)(1)(B), and it would be inconsistent with the
intent of Congress to deny a waiver or a within-the-scope determination
based on section 209(b)(1)(B) for reasons Congress clearly addressed
and clearly determined should not be the basis for a denial under
section 209(b)(1)(A). NADA's comments, therefore, do not raise any

new issues regarding our preexisting waiver for California greenhouse
gas emission standards.
    For these reasons, EPA confirms that California's greenhouse gas
amendments raise no new issues with respect to previously granted
waivers of preemption.
4. Within-the-Scope Confirmation
    For all the reasons set forth above, EPA can confirm that
California's amendments to its motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions
program are within the scope of existing waivers of preemption.

B. Full Waiver of Preemption Analysis

    In our January 31, 2011 Federal Register notice, EPA requested
comment on the within-the-scope criteria, and on issues relevant to a
full waiver analysis, in the event that EPA determined that
California's standards should not be considered within the scope of
CARB's previous waivers, and should instead be subjected to a full
waiver analysis. Specifically, EPA sought comment on: (a) Whether
CARB's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least
as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal
standards is arbitrary and capricious; (b) whether California needs
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. As discussed
above, EPA confirms that California's amendments meet the within-the-
scope criteria. Additionally, because we received comment that appears
to dispute this within-the-scope determination, we have applied our
traditional full waiver analysis to California's amendments in the
alternative to that determination. We have determined that those in
opposition to granting a waiver have not met their burden of showing
that California's regulations, as amended, do not meet the criteria for
a new waiver of preemption.
1. California's Protectiveness Determination
    Section 209(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires EPA to deny a waiver if
the Administrator finds that California was arbitrary and capricious in
its determination that its State standards will be, in the aggregate,
at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable
Federal standards. When evaluating California's protectiveness
determination, EPA compares the stringency of the California and
Federal standards at issue in a given waiver request. That comparison
is undertaken within the broader context of the previously waived
California program, which relies upon protectiveness determinations
that EPA previously found were not arbitrary and capricious.
    In our existing waiver for California's greenhouse gas standards,
we reviewed California's protectiveness determination:

    California made a protectiveness determination with regard to
its greenhouse gas regulations in Resolution 04-28, adopted by the
California Air Resources Board on September 23, 2004. Included in
that Resolution were several bases to support California's
protectiveness determination. Most generally, CARB made a broad
finding that observed and projected changes in California's climate
are likely to have a significant adverse impact on public health and
welfare in California, and that California is attempting to address
those impacts by regulating in a field for which there are no
comparable federal regulations. CARB also found that its greenhouse
gas standards will increase the health and welfare benefits from its
broader motor vehicle emissions program by directly reducing
upstream emissions of criteria pollutants from decreased fuel
consumption. Beyond that analysis of the new regulations' impact on
its broader program, CARB projected consumer response to the
greenhouse gas regulations. With respect to consumer shifts due to a
potential ``scrappage effect'' (the impact of increased vehicle
price on fleet age) and ``rebound effect'' (the impact of lower
operating costs on vehicle miles travelled), CARB found minor
impacts--but net reductions--on criteria pollutant emissions.
Further, even assuming larger shifts in consumer demand attributable
to the greenhouse gas emission standards, CARB found that the result
remains a net reduction in both greenhouse gas emissions and
criteria pollutant emissions. That is, CARB found that the addition
of its greenhouse gas emission standards to its larger motor vehicle
emissions program (LEV II), which generally aligns with the federal
motor vehicle emissions program (Tier II), renders the whole program
to be more protective of public health and welfare. CARB noted that
EPA has already determined that California was not arbitrary and
capricious in its determination that the pre-existing California
standards for light-duty vehicles and trucks, known as LEV II, is at
least as protective as comparable Federal standards, the Tier II
standards. Implicit in California's greenhouse gas protectiveness
determination, then, is that the inclusion of greenhouse gas
standards into California's existing motor vehicle emissions program
will not cause California's program to be less protective than the
federal program.\43\ (citations omitted)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 74 FR 32749-32750 (July 8, 2009).

    After reviewing California's protectiveness determination and the
evidence presented by opponents of the waiver, EPA was unable to find
that California was arbitrary and capricious in its making its
protectiveness determination. Against this backdrop, California made
new protectiveness determinations when amending its motor vehicle
greenhouse gas emissions program.
    In both of the CARB rulemakings for the amendments at issue here,
the CARB Board found that the amendments did not undermine the Board's
previous determination that the regulation's emission standards, other
emission related requirements, and associated enforcement procedures
are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and
welfare as applicable Federal standards.\44\ The CARB Board found that
no basis existed for it to find that its previous protectiveness
determination would be undermined by the amendments. With respect to
the 2009-2011 model years, the fleet average greenhouse gas emission
limits remain unchanged from the previously waived standards; moreover,
they remain the only greenhouse gas emission limits in existence for
those model years. Because of those factors, California maintains that
those standards are ``undisputedly more protective.'' \45\ With respect
to the 2012-2016 model years, in addition to making a new
protectiveness determination, CARB's Executive Officer made an
additional protectiveness determination after reviewing EPA's final
rule promulgating Federal greenhouse gas emission standards.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ California Air Resources Board, Resolution 09-53 (September
25, 2009) and Resolution 10-15 (February 25, 2010).
    \45\ CARB Request Letter at page 4.
    \46\ CARB Executive Order G-10-051 (June 28, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No commenter expressed an opinion or presented any evidence
suggesting that CARB was arbitrary and capricious in making its three
above-noted protectiveness findings. Therefore, based on the record
before me, I cannot find that California was arbitrary and capricious
in its findings that California's motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission
standards, as amended, are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of
public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards.
2. California's Need for State Standards To Meet Compelling and
Extraordinary Conditions
    Under section 209(b)(1)(B) of the Act, I cannot grant a waiver if I
find that California ``does not need such State standards to meet
compelling and extraordinary conditions.'' EPA has traditionally
interpreted this provision

as considering whether California needs a separate motor vehicle
emissions program to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions. In
EPA's greenhouse gas waiver decision issued on June 30, 2009, EPA
followed its traditional interpretation and was unable to identify any
change in circumstances or any evidence to suggest that the conditions
that California identified as giving rise to serious air quality
problems in California no longer exist. Therefore, EPA was unable to
deny the waiver request under section 209(b)(1)(B).
    EPA also reviewed California's greenhouse gas standards on the two
alternative grounds relied upon in the March 2006 decision to deny a
waiver. EPA reviewed California's greenhouse gas standards separately
from its program and found that it could not find that opponents of the
waiver had demonstrated that California did not need its greenhouse gas
emission standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or
that opponents of the waiver had demonstrated that the impacts of
climate change in California are not compelling and extraordinary.
While recognizing that EPA was not adopting these alternative
interpretations of section 209(b)(1)(B), EPA determined that it would
be unable to deny the waiver request under section 209(b)(1)(B) under
these alternative grounds.
    As discussed above in section II.A.3, CARB has repeatedly
demonstrated the need for its motor vehicle emissions program to
address compelling and extraordinary conditions in California.
Furthermore, no commenter has presented any argument or evidence to
suggest that California no longer needs a separate motor vehicle
emissions program to address compelling and extraordinary conditions in
California, or that EPA's prior determination on this issue is
undermined in any way. Therefore, I determine that I cannot deny
California a waiver for its motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission
standards, as amended, under section 209(b)(1)(B). Furthermore, no
commenter has presented any argument or evidence to suggest that EPA's
prior determinations regarding the alternative interpretations
discussed in the June 30, 2009 waiver decision are undermined in any
way.
3. Consistency With Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act
    Under section 209(b)(1)(C) of the Act, EPA must deny a California
waiver request if the Agency finds that California standards and
accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section
202(a) of the Act. The scope of EPA's review under this criterion is
narrow. EPA has stated on many occasions that the determination is
limited to whether those opposed to the waiver have met their burden of
establishing that California's standards are technologically
infeasible, or that California's test procedures impose requirements
inconsistent with Federal test procedures. Previous waivers of Federal
preemption have stated that California's standards are not consistent
with section 202(a) if there is inadequate lead time to permit the
development of technology necessary to meet those requirements, giving
appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time.
California's accompanying enforcement procedures would be inconsistent
with section 202(a) if the Federal and California test procedures
conflict, i.e., if manufacturers would be unable to meet both the
California and Federal test requirements with the same test vehicle.
    In the June 30, 2009 waiver decision, EPA found that industry
opponents had not met their burden of producing the evidence necessary
for EPA to find that California's greenhouse gas standards are not
consistent with section 202(a) of the Act. EPA determined that CARB
demonstrated a reasonable projection that compliance with California's
greenhouse gas standards was reasonable based on availability of
technologies in the lead-time provided and consideration of cost of
compliance. Therefore, EPA was unable to find that California's
greenhouse gas emission standards were not technologically feasible
within the available lead-time, giving appropriate consideration to the
cost of compliance.
    In its within-the-scope request, CARB states that its greenhouse
gas amendments ``do not undermine [its] previous discussions [regarding
consistency with section 202(a)] both because the California standards
have remained the same (i.e., covering the same vehicles for the same
model-years at the same stringency) and because the amendments were
intended to provide flexibility and reduce the costs of manufacturers'
compliance, thereby increasing the feasibility of meeting the
standards.'' \47\ CARB also asserts that its amendments may reduce
compliance costs. EPA received one public comment on this issue, from
Global Automakers. Global Automakers believes that California's
amendments ``do not cause California's requirements to be inconsistent
with Section 202(a) of the Act.'' \48\ Global Automakers further states
that harmonizing the California program with EPA's Federal program
renders California's regulations to be ``more consistent'' with the
Clean Air Act. No commenter expressed any disagreement with these
statements from CARB, and no commenter presented any evidence opposing
CARB's assertions regarding technological feasibility, lead-time, and
cost of compliance. Therefore, EPA is unable to find that California's
greenhouse gas emission standards, as amended, are not technologically
feasible within the available lead-time, giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ CARB Request at page 4.
    \48\ Comments of Global Automakers, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0653-0003,
page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Full Waiver of Preemption Determination
    After a review of the information submitted by CARB and other
parties to this proceeding, I find that those opposing California's
request have not met the burden of demonstrating that a waiver of
California's amended greenhouse gas regulations should be denied based
on any of the three statutory criteria of section 209(b)(1). For this
reason, I find that, in the alternative, even if California's revisions
to its greenhouse gas standards were not within-the-scope of the
earlier waiver, California's amended motor vehicle greenhouse gas
emission regulations would receive a full waiver.

C. Other Issues

    NADA requests that EPA not take action on this within-the-scope
request until after the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit has acted on NADA's petition for review of the underlying
waiver related to California's greenhouse gas emission standards. On
April 29, 2011, the Court of Appeals acted on NADA's petition for
review, dismissing it for want of jurisdiction. The request by NADA is
therefore moot.

III. Decision

    The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California a
section 209(b) waiver of preemption to the Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. This includes the authority to determine whether
amendments to its regulations are within the scope of a prior wavier.
CARB's June 28, 2010 letter seeks confirmation from EPA that CARB's
amendments to its new passenger motor vehicle greenhouse gas
regulations are within the scope of its

existing waiver of preemption. After evaluating CARB's amendments,
CARB's submissions, and the public comments, EPA confirms that
California's regulatory amendments meet the three criteria that EPA
uses to determine whether amendments by California are within the scope
of previous waivers. First, EPA agrees with CARB that the greenhouse
gas amendments do not undermine California's protectiveness
determination from its previously waived greenhouse gas request.
Second, EPA agrees with CARB that California's greenhouse gas
amendments do not undermine EPA's prior determination regarding
consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. Third, EPA agrees with CARB
that California's greenhouse gas amendments do not present any new
issues which would affect the previously issued waiver for California's
greenhouse gas regulations. Therefore, I confirm that CARB's greenhouse
gas amendments are within the scope of EPA's waiver of preemption for
California's greenhouse gas regulations.
    While EPA has confirmed that the amendments to California's
greenhouse gas regulations are within the scope of EPA's prior waiver,
we have also, in the alternative analyzed California's greenhouse gas
regulations, as amended, under the criteria for a full waiver. Based on
that analysis, we have determined that EPA could not deny a waiver of
preemption for California's regulations, as amended. California has
made a determination that its regulations as amended are at least as
protective as the Federal GHG standards, and those opposing the waiver
have not met the burden of demonstrating that any of the three
statutory criteria for a denial under section 209(b)(1) have been met.
Therefore, 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. I find that, even if California's revisions
to its greenhouse gas standards were not within-the-scope of its
earlier waiver, California's amended motor vehicle greenhouse gas
emission regulations would receive a full waiver. Consequently, even if
the amendments were not within the scope of the earlier waiver, I am,
in the alternative, granting California a full waiver of preemption for
its amended motor vehicle greenhouse gas regulations.
    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 vehicles 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
August 15, 2011. Judicial review of this final action may not be
obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings, pursuant to section
307(b)(2) of the Act.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    As with past authorization and waiver decisions, this action is not
a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt
from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for
rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.
    In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a
supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of
this action on small business entities.
    Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of
5 U.S.C. 804(3).

    Dated: June 8, 2011.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2011-14686 Filed 6-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 196)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57894-57896]
[DOCID:fr11oc07-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29330; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-199-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. This proposed AD
would require electrical bonding of the fill valves for the right and
left main fuel tanks, the fill valve and pipe assembly

for the center wing fuel tank, and the defuel shutoff valve. This
proposed AD results from a fuel system review conducted by the
manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent improper bonding of
the fill valves and defuel shutoff valve for the main fuel tanks and
center wing tank, which, in combination with a lightning strike, could
result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 26,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this proposed AD.
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow

the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
 and follow the instructions for sending your

comments electronically.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855
Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and
Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for the service
information identified in this proposed AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel S. Lee, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number ``FAA-2007-
29330; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-199-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the
proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We will

also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of
that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or
signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you
may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
, or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is located on the
ground level of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after the Docket Management System receives them.

Discussion

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule
included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,''
Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intend to adopt
airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to
address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in
combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD
are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
    We have received a report indicating that, during fuel tank design
review of Model 717-200 airplanes, Boeing found that the fill valves
and defuel shutoff valve of the right wing leading edge fuel tank were
not electrically bonded to the attaching structure mounting flanges.
Investigation revealed that the electrical bonding design requirement
was inadvertently omitted during production. Although no reports or
incidents have resulted from this condition, electrical bonds should be
installed to ensure that lightning-induced high amperage current levels
have the correct flow path to the wing fuel tank structure. Improper
bonding of the fill valves and defuel shutoff valve for the main fuel
tanks and center wing tank, if not corrected, in combination with a
lightning strike, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent
loss of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 717-28-0012, Revision 1,
dated June 7, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for
electrical bonding of the fill valves for the right and left main fuel
tanks, the fill valve and pipe assembly for the center wing fuel tank,
and the defuel shutoff valve. Accomplishing the actions specified in

the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe
condition.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes
of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD,
which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 134 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 104 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 4 work hours per
airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts
would cost about $9 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated
cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $34,216, or $329 per
airplane.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA-2007-29330; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-199-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November
26, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing
Service Bulletin 717-28-0012, Revision 1, dated June 7, 2006.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a fuel system review conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent improper bonding of
the fill valves and defuel shutoff valve for the main fuel tanks and
center wing tank, which, in combination with a lightning strike,
could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the
airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Electrical Bonding

    (f) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD,
accomplish the electrical bonding of the fill valves for the right
and left main fuel tanks, the fill valve and pipe assembly for the
center wing fuel tank, and the defuel shutoff valve, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 717-
28-0012, Revision 1, dated June 7, 2006.

Credit for Actions Done Using the Previous Service Information

    (g) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 717-28-0012, dated April 16,
2004, are considered acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding actions specified in paragraph (f) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 1, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-20051 Filed 10-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 194)]
[Notices]
[Page 62121]
[DOCID:fr07oc10-52]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13812-000]

Osprey IV, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing
Applications

September 30, 2010.
    On July 12, 2010, Osprey IV, LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the 1 Pond Dam
Project to be located at the 1 Pond Dam, on the Mousam River,
in York County, Maine. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) The existing 14-foot-
high, 245-foot-long 1 Pond Dam; (2) an existing 100-acre
impoundment with a normal water surface elevation of 279 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum; (3) a new 6-foot-diameter siphon intake; (4) a
new 6-foot-diameter, 706-foot-long buried concrete penstock; (5) a new
approximately 300-square-foot powerhouse containing two new turbines
and generators with a total installed capacity of 850 kilowatts; (6) a
new tailrace; (7) a new approximately 100-foot-long, 7.2 or 12.47-
kilovolt transmission line; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The project
would have an estimated annual generation of 5,500 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Hoon Won, 275 River Road, P.O. Box 202,
Woolwich, ME 04579;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Brandon Cherry,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and
seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13812) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25253 Filed 10-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67336-67337]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26386]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0649]

Discontinuation of Hazardous Inflight Weather Advisory Service
(HIWAS) in the Contiguous United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final decision.

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

SUMMARY: This action sets forth the final determination by the FAA to
discontinue the Hazardous Inflight Weather Advisory Service (HIWAS).

DATES: This action begins January 8, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jeff Black, Flight Service, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Hazardous Inflight Weather Advisory Service (HIWAS) is a continuous
broadcast of weather advisories over a limited nationwide network of
VORs that provide pilots with meteorological information relating to
hazardous weather. Since the early 1980s, the broadcast, available in
various locations of the contiguous United States (CONUS) allows pilots
to access hazardous weather information while inflight without going
through a Flight Service specialist.
    With the advent of the internet and other technology, the demand
for inflight services from Flight Service specialists has declined.
Staffing was 3,000+ specialists in more than 300 facilities during the
early 1980s and now consists of three hub facilities. In 2018, radio
contacts dropped to less than 900 per day from an average of 10,000
radio contacts per day.
    Demand for inflight services has diminished since the inception of
HIWAS while access has never been greater, which indicates that pilots
are migrating to other means of obtaining inflight weather advisories.
Multiple sources are available that provide access to weather and
aeronautical information to pilots in the cockpit, often presented in a
graphical format, making it easier to visualize what is going on along
the route of flight. Pilots are no longer limited to only contacting a
Flight Service specialist in order to adhere to 14 CFR 91.103, numerous
options are available to them to help maintain awareness of hazardous
weather advisories along their route of flight.
    On July 23, 2018, the FAA published a notice of proposal to
discontinue HIWAS in the CONUS.

Discussions of Comments

    The FAA received 27 comments on the proposed agency action. The
following summary identifies the issues raised from all the commenters
to our initial proposal but does not restate each comment received.
Thirteen (13) comments either supported the initiative or were neutral
towards the FAA's proposal. Three (3) comments did not apply as they
referred to HIWAS in Alaska, which does not exist. Of the remaining
comments, a number of them focused on technology and the inability of
pilots to obtain weather from alternate sources such as Electronic

Flight Bags (EFB), Flight Information Services-Broadcast (FIS-B), or
similar digital products. Commenters cited costs, aging aircraft, and
lack of infrastructure as reasons to retain the broadcast.
    FAA air traffic controllers (ATC) will continue to advise pilots of
hazardous weather that may affect operations within 150 nautical miles
of their sector or area of jurisdiction. Hazardous weather information
includes Airmen's Meteorological Information (AIRMET), Significant
Meteorological Information (SIGMET), Convective SIGMET (WST), Urgent
Pilot Reports (UUA), and Center Weather Advisories (CWA). ATC will also
direct pilots to contact a Flight Service Specialist through an air-to-
ground radio frequency if they need additional information.
    A number of commenters, including the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA), cited safety concerns with the removal of this
service because pilots may unexpectedly encounter hazardous weather and
have no other means to obtain the information. In addition, AOPA
surveys indicated that a small segment of pilots rely on HIWAS to
satisfy their need for adverse weather information while en route. The
FAA instituted FIS-B as a replacement for this legacy system that
provides a range of aeronautical information products and often in a
graphical format, which is not available via HIWAS. For pilots who
choose not to equip their aircraft with this new technology, as noted
earlier, a Flight Service Specialist is still available over a radio
outlet.
    A Safety Risk Management Panel was held on February 26, 2019 to
review this proposal and address the concerns raised by
stakeholders.\1\ The panel consisted of representatives throughout the
FAA and industry, including AOPA. The panel reviewed all comments noted
above and the participants were unanimous in their opinion that
removing the legacy service would not add any additional risk to the
National Airspace System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The SRMP was held after the close of the comment period to
address concerns raised by commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent that AOPA expressed concerns that FAA should update
its guidance material to address the discontinuance of HIWAS, the FAA
notes that all FAA documents, exams, and orders will be updated to
reflect this change. The FAA published articles and safety team emails
to inform pilots of this change and will issue Notices to Airmen
(NOTAMs) for every outlet where the service is to be discontinued prior
to removal from the charts and other publications.

Final Decision

    In accordance with the above, the FAA will discontinue the
Hazardous Inflight Weather Advisory Service in the contiguous United
States, effective January 8, 2020.
    As part of FAA efforts to modernize and streamline service
delivery, the agency will discontinue the Hazardous Inflight Weather
Advisory Service. The FAA will issue Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) and
conduct outreach to inform pilots that the service is no longer
available.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on: December 3, 2019.
Steven Villanueva,
Flight Service Director, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2019-26386 Filed 12-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Part B of the Supporting Statement

1.	Respondent Universe

	Respondents associated with this information collection are owners or
operators of existing aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities.
The North American Industrial Classification Codes (NAICS) associated
with this industry include the following:

336411 - Aircraft Manufacturing

336412 - Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing

336413 - Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing

336414 - Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing

336415 - Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion Units and
Propulsion Units Parts Manufacturing

336419 - Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary
Equipment Manufacturing

481111 - Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation

481112 - Scheduled Freight Air Transportation

481211 - Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transportation

481212 - Nonscheduled Chartered Freight Air Transportation

481219 - Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation

	The respondent universe was estimated to consist of approximately 1,000
aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities.  Several databases were
used to identify aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities.  These
databases include OECA’s ECHO and OTIS databases, the NEI database,
and the TRI database.  Each database was searched by NAICS or Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes to identify aerospace facilities.
The resulting list of facilities was examined for duplicates and known
closed facilities.  Input from the industry was also obtained.

	All of the survey recipients, regardless of actual or potential HAP
emissions, will be required to complete some portion of the electronic
survey.  Facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions, facilities
that have taken enforceable permit limits to restrict HAP emissions to
below major source thresholds, and facilities with the potential to emit
HAP emissions below major source thresholds will all be required to
complete the applicable sections of the survey.  Thus, the government
burden estimates in Table 7 are based on 1,000 survey responses.

2.	Response Rates

	Since the information will be requested pursuant to the authority of
CAA section 114, EPA expects that all respondents requested to submit
information will do so.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57175-57176]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22353]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3572-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

New York; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of New York (FEMA-3572-EM), dated September 2,
2021, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued September 2, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 2, 2021, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas
of the State of New York resulting from the remnants of Hurricane
Ida beginning on September 1, 2021, and continuing, are of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (``the Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such an emergency exists in the
State of New York.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), limited to direct federal assistance and reimbursement
for mass care including evacuation and shelter support.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are
hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lai Sun
Yee, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of New York have been designated
as adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    Bronx, Dutchess, Kings, Nassau, New York, Orange, Putnam,
Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk, Sullivan, Ulster, and
Westchester Counties for emergency protective measures (Category B),
limited to direct Federal assistance and reimbursement for mass care
including evacuation and shelter support.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-22353 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33258-33259]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13512]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67075; File No. SR-NYSE Arca-2012-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change To List and Trade Shares of the JPM XF Physical Copper Trust
Pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201

May 30, 2012.
    On April 2, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') 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 list and trade shares of JPM

XF Physical Copper Trust pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on April 20, 2012.\3\ The Commission received one comment letter
regarding the proposal.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66816 (April 16,
2012), 77 FR 23772 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letter from Vandenberg & Feliu, LLP, received May 9,
2012 (``Letter''). The Letter is available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2012-28/nysearca201228.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ 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 from the publication of notice of filing of this proposed rule
change is June 4, 2012. The Commission is extending the 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on this proposed rule change. In
particular, extension of time will ensure the Commission has sufficient
time to consider the Exchange's proposal in light of, among other
things, the Letter. The extension of time also will allow the
Commission sufficient time to consider any responses to the Letter.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ designates July 19, 2012, as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove, this proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13512 Filed 6-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P