[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 15, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10727-10732]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03082]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0781; FRL-9959-27-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Removal of Gasoline Volatility
Requirements in the Cincinnati and Dayton Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) on December 19, 2016,
concerning the state's gasoline volatility standards in the Cincinnati
and Dayton areas. The revision removes the 7.8 pounds per square inch
(psi) low Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) fuel requirements for the two areas
as a component of the Ohio ozone SIP. The submittal also includes a
section 110(l) demonstration as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA)
that addresses emission impacts associated with the removal of the
program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2016-0781 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Mobile Source
Program Manager, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. What changes have been made to ohio's gasoline volatility
standards?
III. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
V. Impacts on the Boutique Fuels List
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Under section 211(c) of the CAA, EPA promulgated regulations on
March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868) that set maximum limits for the RVP of
gasoline sold during the regulatory control periods that were
established on a state-by-state basis in the final rule. The regulatory
control periods addressed the portion of the year when peak ozone
concentrations were expected; which is during the summertime. These
regulations constituted Phase I of a two phase nationwide program,
which was designed to reduce the volatility of commercial gasoline
during the high ozone season. Depending on the state and month,
gasoline RVP was not to exceed 10.5 psi, 9.5 psi, or 9.0 psi. Phase I
was applicable to calendar years 1989 through 1991. On June 11, 1990
(55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls as
Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements
established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on
the state, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment
designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS)). Phase II is applicable to 1992 and
subsequent years.
    The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section, 211(h), to
address fuel volatility. Section 211(h)(1) requires EPA to promulgate
regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense,
supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce
gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone
season. Section 211(h)(2) prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility
standard more

stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that the Agency
may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone
nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.
    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II
volatility regulations to make them consistent with section 211(h). The
modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline, beginning in
1992, with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for
ozone. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained
the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR
23658), which included the 7.8 psi ozone season limitation for certain
areas. Under such requirements, the state of Ohio was required to meet
a 9.0 psi RVP standard during the summer control period.
    On April 15, 2004, the EPA designated 5 counties in the Cincinnati,
Ohio area (Hamilton, Butler, Clinton, Warren and Clermont) and 4
counties in the Dayton, Ohio area (Clark, Greene, Miami, and
Montgomery) as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. As part of
Ohio's efforts to bring these areas into attainment of the ozone
standard, the state adopted and implemented a broad range of ozone
control measures for the areas including the implementation of a 7.8
psi RVP fuel program that was more stringent than the federal 9.0 psi
RVP requirement. The Ohio EPA originally submitted a SIP revision to
EPA on February 14, 2006 and October 6, 2006, for the purpose of
establishing a gasoline RVP limit of 7.8 psi for gasoline sold in the
Cincinnati and Dayton areas. The revision specifically applied to
Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren counties (Cincinnati area), and
Clark, Greene, Miami and Montgomery counties (Dayton area) in Ohio. EPA
approved Ohio's 7.8 psi RVP program on May 25, 2007 (72 FR 29269),
including the program's legal authority and administrative requirements
found in the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) rules 3745-72-1 to 8.

II. What changes have been made to the Ohio's gasoline volatility
standards?

    On December 19, 2016, the Ohio EPA submitted a SIP revision
requesting that EPA approve the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP fuel
requirements under OAC 3745-72-1 to 8 from the Ohio ozone SIP before
the beginning of the 2017 ozone control period.
    To support the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP fuel program requirements
from the SIP, the revision included amendments of OAC 3745-72-01
(Applicability), as effective on August 1, 2016; a summary of the Ohio-
specific analyses using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES)
model to quantify the emissions impact associated with removing the 7.8
psi RVP fuel program in Cincinnati and Dayton; and a section 110(l)
demonstration that includes offset emissions documentation.

III. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?

    EPA's primary consideration for determining the approvability of
Ohio's request is whether this requested action complies with section
110(l) of the CAA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAA section 193 is not relevant because Ohio's Low RVP
requirements in Cincinnati and Dayton were not included in the SIP
before the 1990 CAA amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(l) requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. EPA evaluates each section 110(l)
noninterference demonstration on a case-by-case basis considering the
circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as applying
to all NAAQS that are in effect, including those that have been
promulgated but for which EPA has not yet made designations. The degree
of the analysis focused on any particular NAAQS in a noninterference
demonstration varies depending on the nature of the emissions
associated with the proposed SIP revision.
    In the absence of an attainment demonstration, to demonstrate no
interference with any applicable NAAQS or requirement of the CAA under
section 110(l), EPA believes it is appropriate to allow states to
substitute equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for any change
to a SIP-approved program, as long as actual emissions in the air are
not increased. ``Equivalent'' emission reductions mean reductions which
are equal to or greater than those reductions achieved by the control
measure approved in the SIP. To show that compensating emission
reductions are equivalent, modeling or adequate justification must be
provided. The compensating, equivalent reductions must represent
actual, new emissions reductions achieved in a contemporaneous time
frame to the change of the existing SIP control measure, in order to
preserve the status quo level of emissions in the air. In addition to
being contemporaneous, the equivalent emissions reductions must also be
permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, and surplus to be approved into
the SIP.
    In its December 19, 2016 SIP revision, the Ohio EPA includes a
110(l) demonstration that uses equivalent emission reductions to
compensate for emission reduction losses resulting from the removal of
the SIP approved 7.8 psi RVP fuel requirements in the Cincinnati and
Dayton areas in Ohio. More specifically, the emission benefits
associated with the 7.8 psi RVP fuel requirements will be substituted
with equivalent or greater emissions reductions from facilities in the
Cincinnati and Dayton areas which have permanently shut down or which
have or will cease coal operations or convert from coal to natural gas
due to U.S. EPA's Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
regulations. These substitute emissions are quantifiable, permanent,
surplus (i.e., oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions reductions are due to permanent shutdowns or
are a co-benefit of the chosen compliance strategy for the Boiler MACT
regulations), enforceable and contemporaneous (i.e., occurring within
approximately one year before/after this demonstration and/or the
anticipated cessation of the low RVP fuel program).
    To determine the emissions impact of removing the 7.8 psi RVP
program requirements in both areas, Ohio EPA used the latest version of
EPA's MOVES model to conduct a series of emissions analysis. Ohio EPA's
analysis focused on VOC and NOX emissions because low RVP
requirements primarily affect VOC emissions and because VOCs and
NOX are precursors for ground-level ozone formation.
    Based on our review of the information provided, EPA finds that
Ohio EPA used reasonable methods and the appropriate model in
estimating the emissions effect of removing the 7.8 psi RVP fuel
requirements. Ohio EPA determined that in 2017 the emissions increase
resulting from removing the 7.8 psi RVP requirements would be 15.83
tons per year (tpy) of VOC and 16.33 tpy of NOX in the
Cincinnati area and 16.01 tpy of VOC and 13.93 tpy of NOX in
the Dayton area.
    In the Dayton area, a portion of the emission reductions from the
low RVP fuel requirements will be substituted with VOC emission
reductions from two facilities which permanently shut down in 2016:
Miami Valley Publishing Company (Facility ID<PHONE_NUMBER>), which
permanently shut down on March 29, 2016; and National Oilwell Varco
(Facility ID<PHONE_NUMBER>), which permanently shut down all sources

except for a soil vapor recovery system on June 30, 2016. Based on
actual conservative 2015 emissions from these facilities, Ohio EPA
determined that 3.51 tpy of VOC from the Miami Valley Publishing
Company facility (Facility ID<PHONE_NUMBER>) and 4.86 tpy of VOC from the
National Oilwell Varco facility (Facility ID<PHONE_NUMBER>) will be
permanently retired upon EPA's approval of this SIP revision. After
this direct substitution of VOCs, the amount of VOCs reductions needed
in the Dayton area is reduced from 16.01 tons to 7.64 tons of VOC. (See
Table 1)
    For the remaining reductions needed to substitute for the low RVP
requirements, Ohio EPA will be substituting NOX for VOC
emissions and using all-NOX reductions to offset the
remaining NOX and VOC emissions. EPA policy allows for
substitution between VOC and NOX emissions in its guidance
on reasonable further progress. This guidance recommends that states
assume, as an approximation, that equivalent percent changes in the
area's inventory for the respective pollutant yield an equivalent
change in ozone levels. For example, decreasing area NOX
emissions by 3 percent would have the same effect as decreasing area
VOC emissions by 3 percent. Stated another way, if an area has twice as
many tons of NOX emissions as VOC emissions, then 2 tons of
NOX emissions would be assumed to have the same effect on
ozone as 1 ton of VOC emissions. Following this approach, Ohio EPA used
a 1 VOC to 1.527 NOX conversion ratio for the counties
currently in the low RVP fuel program in the Cincinnati area and a 1
VOC to 1.021 NOX conversion ratio for the counties in the
Dayton area. The conversion ratios use the most recent inventories
available for both areas.
    Applying these factors, 40.50 tpy of NOX reductions will
need to be offset by equivalent or greater emission reductions in the
Cincinnati area and 21.72 tpy of NOX reductions will be
needed in the Dayton area. (See Table 1)

                    Table 1--Emissions To Be Replaced
                             [Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Cincinnati      Dayton area
                Emissions                   area  (tpy)        (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX to be replaced from removal of 7.8             16.33           13.93
 low RVP program........................
VOCs to be replaced from removal of 7.8            15.83           16.01
 low RVP program........................
VOCs replaced directly with facility                0.00           *8.37
 shutdowns..............................
Remaining VOCs to be replaced...........           15.83            7.64
VOC: NOX ratio..........................         1:1.527         1:1.021
VOC converted to NOX....................           24.17            7.79
    Total NOX emissions to be replaced..           40.50           21.72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* VOC emissions reductions from two facilities which permanently shut
  down in 2016: Miami Valley Publishing Company (Facility ID<PHONE_NUMBER>)
  and National Oilwell Varco (Facility ID<PHONE_NUMBER>).

    In the Cincinnati area, the 7.8 psi low RVP fuel requirements will
be substituted with emission reductions at the MillerCoors LLC facility
(Facility ID<PHONE_NUMBER>) resulting from the shutdown of coal/gas fired
boilers and installation of new natural gas fired boilers due to the
Boiler MACT regulations. The relevant emissions units are B001, B002,
B010 and B011. B001 and B002 coal/gas boilers were permanently shut
down on April 1, 2016. Federally-enforceable permits prior to the
shutdown include NOX emission limits for B001 and B002 of
1,375.9 tpy combined, based on rolling 12-month summations. These were
replaced with two new natural gas boilers, B010 and B011, which
commenced operation on January 20, 2016. Federally-enforceable permits
for the new boilers B010 and B011 include NOX emission
limits of 1.17 tons of NOX per month over a rolling 12-month
period for each boiler. The amount of reductions due to shutdowns/
conversion to natural gas was calculated as the difference between
historical actual emissions and projected emissions from the new gas
boilers. NOX emission reductions were 175.29 tpy using 5-
year historical averages (2011-2015), and 111.00 tpy using most recent
2015 actual data.
    As indicated above, 40.50 tpy of NOX reductions will
need to be offset by equivalent or greater emission reductions from the
MillerCoors facility. Therefore, Ohio EPA has determined that more than
adequate emission reductions from the shutdowns/conversions of B001,
B002, B010 and B011 at the MillerCoors facility are available to offset
the removal of the low RVP program in Cincinnati.
    In the Dayton area, the remaining emission reductions to be
replaced will be substituted with emission reductions at the Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base (Facility ID<PHONE_NUMBER>) facility resulting
from shutdowns and conversions from coal to natural gas due to
compliance with Boiler MACT regulations. The relevant emission units
are B606, B607, and B608. Coal boiler B606 was permanently shut down on
June 7, 2016. Coal boilers B607 and B608 will be converted to natural
gas by January 31, 2017 due to Boiler MACT. No changes are anticipated
for an existing natural gas boiler, B609, which is included in Ohio
EPA's analysis only because it is part of the emissions unit group and
has combined emission limitations with the converted units (B607 and
B608). Federally-enforceable permits prior to the shutdown/conversions
include NOX emission limits of 33.20 tpy from B609, and
350.32 tpy NOX from each B606, B607 and B608 with total
combined NOX emissions not to exceed 788 tons, as a rolling,
12-month summation from the coal-fired boilers identified as emission
units B309, B310, B311, B606, B607, and B608 combined (Note: B309, B310
and B311 underwent similar shutdown/conversions in 2015 with B311
shutdown and B309 and B310 converted to natural gas). Federally-
enforceable permits following the shutdown/conversions include
NOX emission limits of 120 tpy combined for B607, B608 and
B609.
    The amount of reductions due to shutdown/conversion to natural gas
was calculated as the difference between historical actual emissions
and projected emissions from the converted coal boilers. NOX
emission reductions were 64.97 tpy using 5-year historical averages
(2011-2015), and 46.27 tpy using most recent 2015 actual data.
    As indicated above, 21.72 tpy of NOX reductions remain
to be offset by equivalent or greater emissions reductions from the
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base facility. Therefore, Ohio EPA has
determined that more than adequate emission reductions from the

shutdown/conversions of B606, B607 and B608 at Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base are available to offset the removal of the low RVP program
in Dayton.
    These substitute emissions from both MillerCoors and Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base facilities are from permanent and enforceable
shutdowns and conversions to natural gas. It should be noted that a
facility which has notified Ohio EPA of a permanent shut down cannot
resume operations without being considered a new facility and being
subject to the new source review (NSR) requirements. Further, these
conversions to natural gas were undertaken as the facility's chosen
option to comply with Boiler MACT regulations. Conversion back to coal
would be impractical, if not impossible, as the facility would still be
required to comply with Boiler MACT regulations. In addition, the units
are no longer permitted to burn coal and should the facility desire to
burn coal again, the units would have to undergo NSR and these retired
credits would not be available to the facility (or any other facility)
for netting or offset purposes in the future.
    The Boiler MACT regulations established emission standards for
control of mercury, hydrogen chloride, particulate matter (as a
surrogate for non-mercury metals), and carbon monoxide (as a surrogate
for organic hazardous emissions) from coal-fired, biomass-fired, and
liquid-fired major source boilers based on the maximum achievable
control technology. The boiler MACT standards will also result in
NOX reductions as a co-benefit of the controls installed to
meet the standards. These facilities' operating permits include
NOX limits which reflect those co-benefits, and as such the
NOX reductions are surplus to what would otherwise be
required.
    These reductions are also surplus in that they were not previously
relied on for credit toward attainment or maintenance purposes. Ohio
EPA will ensure these reductions are permanently retired and cannot be
relied on for future CAA requirements. Ohio EPA maintains a database of
all reductions used for the purpose of CAA 110(l) demonstrations to
ensure they cannot be used again. These reductions will be entered into
and tracked within this database.
    As demonstrated above, Ohio EPA has calculated that more than
adequate surplus emission reductions are available to offset the
cessation of the low RVP fuel requirements in the Cincinnati and Dayton
areas. Based on Ohio EPA's calculations, the emissions increase in the
Cincinnati area due to cessation of the low RVP program is 16.33 tpy
NOX and 15.83 tpy VOC (equivalent to 40.50 tpy
NOX after VOC to NOX substitution). This amount
is more than offset by the 111.0 tpy NOX potentially
available from the MillerCoors facility. Likewise, the emissions
increase in the Dayton area due to cessation of the low RVP program is
13.93 tpy NOX and 16.01 tpy VOC. This amount is more than
offset by the 3.51 tpy of VOC from the Miami Valley Publishing Company
facility, 4.86 tpy of VOC from the National Oilwell Varco facility, and
46.27 tpy NOX (depending on the calculation method)
potentially available from the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
facility. (See Table 2)
    Ohio EPA is not permanently retiring all of the available emission
reductions but only those to offset removal of the 7.8 psi RVP fuel
requirements as outlined in this action. Upon approval of this SIP
revision, 3.51 tpy of VOC from the Miami Valley Publishing Company
facility, 4.86 tpy of VOC from the National Oilwell Varco facility,
40.50 tpy of NOX from the MillerCoors LLC facility and 21.72
tpy of NOX from the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base facility
will be permanently retired. Any use of additional reductions in excess
of those being retired under this action that may be used in the future
will be evaluated for the surplus criteria at the time of use, which
will include discounting what is retired under this action.

  Table 2--Summary of Available Offsets and NOX Emissions To Be Retired
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Cincinnati      Dayton area
                Emissions                   area (tpy)         (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX to be replaced from removal of 7.8             16.33           13.93
 low RVP program........................
VOCs to be replaced from removal of 7.8            15.83           16.01
 low RVP program........................
VOCs replaced directly with facility                0.00            8.37
 shutdowns..............................
Total NOX emissions to be replaced                 40.50           21.72
 (after conversion of remaining VOC to
 NOX)...................................
NOX offsets available from shutdowns/             111.00           46.27
 conversion to natural gas..............
Excess NOX credits (available offsets              70.50           24.55
 minus emissions to be replaced)........
VOC emissions to be retired.............            0.00            8.37
NOX emissions to be retired.............           40.50           21.72
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on an evaluation of Ohio EPA's 110(l) demonstration, EPA
believes that the removal of the 7.8 psi low RVP fuel program
requirements in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas do not interfere with
Ohio's ability to demonstrate compliance with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in
both areas. This is based on the use of permanent, enforceable,
contemporaneous, surplus emissions reductions achieved from facilities
in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas that have permanently shut down or
which have or will convert from coal to natural gas as previously
discussed.
    EPA also examined whether the removal of 7.8 psi low RVP fuel
program requirements in both areas will interfere with attainment of
other air quality standards. All the counties in the Dayton area are
designated attainment for all standards, including sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen dioxide. Cincinnati is designated attainment for all standards
other than ozone, sulfur dioxide and fine particulate matter
(PM2.5). Although NOX and VOCs also contribute to
the formation of particulate matter, the extent of the contribution
varies significantly by location or region within the U.S.\2\

However, as with ozone, any NOX and VOC emission increases
resulting from the removal of the low RVP fuel requirements are being
offset through the use of equivalent emission reductions as discussed
above. Based on Ohio EPA's 110(l) analysis, EPA has no reason to
believe that the removal of the low RVP fuel requirements in Cincinnati
and Dayton will cause the areas to become nonattainment for any of
these pollutants. In addition, EPA believes that removing the 7.8 psi
low RVP program requirements in Ohio will not interfere with the areas'
ability to meet any other CAA requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While VOC is one of the precursors for PM2.5
formation, a study (Journal of Environmental Engineering--Qualifying
the sources of ozone, fine particulate matter, and regional haze in
the Southeastern United States, June 24, 2009, available at: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-ofenvironmental-management)
indicates that in portions of the Midwest (including portions of
Ohio where low RVP fuel requirements have been implemented),
emissions of direct PM2.5 and the precursor sulfur
dioxide (S02) are more significant to ambient
PM2.5 concentrations than NOX and VOC.
Specifically, PM2.5 sensitivities to anthropogenic VOC
emissions are near zero for the entire region, including the
Cincinnati region. This study also indicated that the impact of
SO2 emissions, especially from electric generating units,
was most significant in the Cincinnati area due to SO2
emissions in the entire mid-west region (Wisconsin, Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan and Ohio). In fact, emissions from the mid-west
had the largest effect on PM2.5 sensitivities in the
Cincinnati region. For this reason, a similar impact is expected in
the Dayton area. The technical analysis provided by Ohio EPA has met
EPA's guidance and demonstrates anthropogenic VOCs are insignificant
to the formation of PM2.5 in these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above discussion and the state's section 110(l)
demonstration, EPA believes that removal of the 7.8 psi low RVP fuel
requirements would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any
of the NAAQS in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas and would not interfere
with any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and thus, are
approvable under CAA section 110(l).

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to approve the revision to the Ohio ozone SIP
submitted by the Ohio EPA on December 19, 2016, removing the 7.8 psi
RVP fuel requirements for gasoline distributed in the Cincinnati and
Dayton areas which include Montgomery, Miami, Greene, Clark, Hamilton,
Butler, Warren, and Clermont counties. We find that the revision meets
all applicable requirements and it would not interfere with reasonable
further progress or attainment of any of the NAAQS.

V. Impacts on the Boutique Fuels List

    Section 1541(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 required EPA in
consultation with the U.S. Department of Energy to determine the number
of fuels programs approved into all SIPs as of September 1, 2004 and to
publish a list of such fuels. On December 28, 2008 EPA published the
list of boutique fuels. (See 71 FR 78192.) EPA maintains the current
list of boutique fuels on its Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/state-fuels. The final list of boutique fuels was
based on a fuel type approach. CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(III)
requires that EPA remove a fuel from the published list if it is either
identical to a federal fuel or is removed from the SIP in which it is
approved. Under the adopted fuel type approach, EPA interpreted this
requirement to mean that a fuel would have to be removed from all SIPs
in which it was approved in order for it to be removed from the list.
(See 71 FR 78195.)

A. Removal of Gasoline Volatility Requirements in Cincinnati and Dayton

    The 7.8 psi RVP fuel program, which is approved into Ohio's SIP, is
a fuel type that is included in EPA's boutique fuel list, 71 FR 78198-
99; (https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/state-fuels) and the
specific counties in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas where the low RVP
gasoline is required are identified on EPA's Gasoline Reid Vapor
Pressure Web page (https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-reid-vapor-pressure). If the proposed removal of Ohio's gasoline
volatility requirements from the state's SIP is approved, EPA will
update the State Fuels and Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure Web pages on
the effective date of the removal. While the entry for Ohio will be
deleted from the list of boutique fuels, this deletion will not result
in an opening on the boutique fuels list because the 7.8 psi RVP fuel
type remains in other state SIPs.

B. Removal of Gasoline Volatility Standards Applicable in the Illinois
Portion the St. Louis, MO-IL Ozone Area

    On October 6, 2014 EPA published a direct final rule to remove
Illinois' 7.2 psi low RVP regulation from the state's SIP for its
portion of the St. Louis, MO-IL ozone area. (See 79 FR 60065.) The
removal became effective on December 5, 2014.
    The 7.2 psi RVP fuel type was included in the published list of
fuels. (See 71 FR 78199). Illinois was the only state with such a fuel
type in its approved SIP. When EPA removed the approved 7.2 psi RVP
fuel regulation from the Illinois SIP EPA was also obligated to remove
this fuel type from the list of boutique fuels because this fuel type
is no longer in any approved SIP.\3\ Removal of this fuel type from the
boutique fuels list has created room on the boutique fuels list. This
may allow for approval of a new fuel type into a SIP and for it to be
added to the list. However, the approval of a new fuel type into a SIP
would be subject to certain restrictions as described in the December
28, 2006 Federal Register notice that established the list of boutique
fuels. (See 71 FR 78193)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA has previously updated its State Fuels and Gasoline Reid
Vapor Pressure Web pages to reflect the removal of the 7.2 psi RVP
requirement from the Illinois SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal

governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 31, 2017.
Robert Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2017-03082 Filed 2-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 37669]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15257]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-474-000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC; Notice of Request
Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on June 7, 2012, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America LLC (Natural), 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove,
Illinois 60515, filed in Docket No. CP12-474-000, an application
pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) as amended, to abandon in
place two 1,040-horsepower (HP) compressor units at Natural's
Compressor Station No. 155 near Chico, Wise County, Texas, under
Natural's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-402-000,\1\ all
as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the
Commission and open to the public for inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 20 FERC ] 62,415 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Natural proposes to abandon two 1,040 HP compressor units (Units
No. 1 and 2) in place at its Compressor Station No. 155.\2\ Natural
states that it has not operated compressor Units No. 1 and 2 since 2008
and has held them in reserve since 1986. Natural also states that
compressor Units No. 1 and 2 are no longer needed for backup use, are
very difficult to start, require continual repair and replacement of
deteriorated parts, and are costly to test to assure continue
compliance with emissions standards. Natural further states that its
proposed abandonment of compressor Units No. 1 and 2 would have no
effect on Natural's system capacity or on any of Natural's existing
customers. Finally, Natural states that it would cost approximately
$10,800,000 to replace the two compressor units with new ones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 34 FPC 615 (1965).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Bruce
H. Newsome, Vice President, Regulatory Products and Services, Natural
Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC, 3250 Lacey Road, 7th Floor,
Downers Grove, Illinois 60515-7918, or via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be
viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or, for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments, protests and interventions may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
intervenors to file electronically.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Dated: June 15, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15257 Filed 6-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 178 (Friday, September 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63587-63589]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20015]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-3721]

Quality Management Maturity Program for Drug Manufacturing
Establishments; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of establishment of a public docket; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the establishment of a docket to solicit comments that will assist the
Agency in developing a Quality Management Maturity (QMM) program for
establishments manufacturing human drugs, including biological
products, regulated by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
(CDER).

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the notice by
December 14, 2023 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments may not be considered. Electronic comments must
be submitted on or before December 14, 2023. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of December 14, 2023. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery
service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2023-N-3721 for ``Quality Management Maturity Program for Drug
Manufacturing Establishments; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request
for Comments.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see
ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The

Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential
information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which
will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out,
will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management
Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made
publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet
and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this
information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as
``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR
10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about
FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September
18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Djamila Harouaka, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 4160, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-0224, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Drug manufacturers can achieve higher levels of QMM by successfully
integrating business and manufacturing operations with quality
practices and technological advancements to optimize manufacturing
process performance and product quality, enhance supply chain
reliability, and foster proactive continual improvement. CDER is
developing a voluntary program to promote QMM at drug manufacturing
establishments. The goals of this program are: (1) to foster a strong
quality culture mindset; (2) recognize establishments that have
advanced quality management practices and acknowledge establishments
that strive to continually improve those practices; (3) identify areas
where quality management practices can be enhanced and provide
suggestions for growth opportunities; and (4) minimize risks to product
availability to assure reliable market supply.
    The QMM assessment is designed to appraise an establishment's
quality culture mindset, behaviors, and commitment to adopting best
practices to effectively meet the needs of patients and consumers. QMM
assessments would not be used to evaluate compliance with current good
manufacturing practice (CGMP).
    QMM assessments would be conducted by trained assessors, who would
engage directly with establishments, either onsite or in a hybrid
(onsite/remote) environment, for 2 to 5 business days. The QMM
assessment will cover five practice areas: (1) management commitment to
quality; (2) business continuity; (3) advanced pharmaceutical quality
system; (4) technical excellence; and (5) employee engagement and
empowerment. Within each practice area, the assessors would explore key
elements to better understand an establishment's QMM. Examples of
elements covered under each practice area could include: management
review and resource management (management commitment to quality
practice area), supply planning and demand forecasting (business
continuity practice area), data governance and process optimization
(technical excellence practice area), effectiveness of the corrective
action and preventive action process (advanced pharmaceutical quality
system practice area), and rewards and recognition (employee engagement
practice area). Each establishment's responses, executed practices, and
behaviors would be assessed using a standardized assessment protocol
and an objective rubric, which is currently under development, to help
identify areas of strength and potential areas with opportunities for
improvement.
    At a November 2, 2022, meeting of the Pharmaceutical Science and
Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee, FDA sought to determine the
support of academic and industry experts for CDER's development of a
QMM program. By a vote of 9-0, the committee affirmed that CDER should
establish a QMM program to incentivize investments in mature quality
management practices . During deliberations, committee members advised
the Agency to continue to seek stakeholder input throughout the
program's development. Further information about the November 2022
Advisory Committee meeting, including event materials, is available on
FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/advisory-committee-calendar/november-2-3-2022-pharmaceutical-science-and-clinical-pharmacology-advisory-committee-meeting. For further
information about QMM, relevant research, and previously conducted
pilot programs, please see CDER's QMM web page at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/pharmaceutical-quality-resources/cder-quality-management-maturity. FDA has verified the website addresses, as of the date this
document publishes in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to
change over time.

II. Request for Comments

    FDA is opening a docket to solicit additional feedback from the
public on CDER's planned, voluntary QMM program. The public is invited
to provide detailed comments on all aspects described in this notice.
To facilitate this input, FDA has developed a list of questions. These
questions are not exhaustive, and FDA welcomes other pertinent
information the public would like to share on this topic. In all cases,
FDA encourages the public to provide the reasoning and specific basis
for any comments.
    1. If you are a manufacturer, please identify the types of drug(s)
produced in your establishment (e.g., active pharmaceutical
ingredients, innovator drugs, innovator biologics, generics,
biosimilars, or OTC monograph drugs). If you are not a manufacturer,
please specify whether you are a purchaser, payor, pharmacy, healthcare
provider, patient, regulator, supplier, distributor, contract service
provider, or other (please describe).
    2. What advantages do you anticipate that your sector (i.e., your
organization and others like yours) would gain from CDER's voluntary
QMM program?
    3. How would participation in a QMM program benefit you or your
specific organization?
    4. How would you use information from a QMM assessment if it were
provided to your organization? For example, if your organization acts
as a supplier or contract organization, would you consider sharing
information from a QMM assessment with a potential client? If your
organization enters into contracts with purchasers, would you consider
sharing information from a QMM assessment with a purchaser? If your
organization is a purchaser, would you consider requesting information
from a QMM assessment?
    5. What, if any, unintended consequences, roadblocks, or other
concerns do you anticipate with a voluntary QMM program? What barriers
to participation do you anticipate? Please explain. Which of these

unintended consequences might be unique to stakeholders like you? Why?
    6. FDA anticipates that each establishment would be provided with a
detailed report following their QMM assessment. What would you want
such a report to contain?
    7. With respect to the outcomes of a QMM assessment, what are your
thoughts about making outcomes public? Would your thoughts be different
if the outcomes were generally qualitative (e.g., descriptive
information) versus quantitative (e.g., a numerical rating)?
    8. What other feedback would you like the FDA to consider for a
voluntary QMM program?

III. References

    The following references are on display with the Dockets Management
Staff (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; these are not
available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov as these
references are copyright protected. Some may be available at the
website address, if listed. FDA has verified the website addresses, as
of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but
websites are subject to change over time.

1. Maguire, J., A. Fisher, D. Harouaka, N. Rakala, et al., 2023,
``Lessons from CDER's Quality Management Maturity Pilot Programs,''
The AAPS Journal, 25(14), January 10, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-022-00777-z.
2. Fellows, M., T. Friedli, Y. Li, J. Maguire, et al., 2022,
``Benchmarking the Quality Practices of Global Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing to Advance Supply Chain Resilience,'' The AAPS
Journal, 24(111), October 20, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-022-00761-7.

    Dated: September 12, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-20015 Filed 9-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 35449]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15651]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2019-26]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Leading
Edge Associates, Inc.

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before August 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0275
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 13, 2019.
Brandon Roberts,
Acting Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2019-0275.
    Petitioner: Leading Edge Associates, Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  91.7(a); 91.119(c);
91.121; 91.151(b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) & (2);
91.417(a) & (b); 137.19(c), (d), (e)(2)(ii), (e)(2)(iii) & (e)(2)(v);
137.31; 137.33; 137.41(c); 137.42.
    Description of Relief Sought: The proposed exemption, if granted,
would allow the petitioner to operate the PrecisionVision 35 unmanned
aircraft system (UAS), with a maximum takeoff gross weight of 79 pounds
(lbs.), during day and night operational times, beyond visual line of
sight and simultaneously operate two PrecisionVision UAS with one
operator. All proposed operations will be conducted over sparsely
populated areas, multiple UAS weighing over 55 lbs. but no more than
150 lbs., for aerial agricultural operations in remote operating
environments.

[FR Doc. 2019-15651 Filed 7-22-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11417-11418]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4736]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0162]
RIN 2127-AK43

Public Workshop and Hearing for Rear Visibility; Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard, Rearview Mirrors, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard, Low-Speed Vehicles; Phase-in Reporting Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking: Announcement of a public
technical workshop, a public hearing and re-opening of public comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: On December 7, 2010, NHTSA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking proposing to amend the agency's Federal motor vehicle safety
standard on rearview mirrors to improve the ability of a driver of a
vehicle to detect pedestrians in the area immediately behind the
vehicle and thereby minimize the likelihood of the vehicle striking a
pedestrian while the vehicle is moving backward. NHTSA is announcing
two separate public events relating to this proposal. The first event,
a public technical workshop, will be held on March 11, 2011, to discuss
technical issues relevant to the test procedure described in the
proposed rule. The second event, a public hearing, will be held on
March 23, 2011 to provide an opportunity for the public to present oral
testimony regarding the proposal. The dates, times, locations, and
framework for these public events are announced in this notice. In
order to facilitate the submission of written comments in connection
with these two events, the comment period for the proposed rule will be
reopened for a period of 45 days. In a separate document appearing in
today's edition of the Federal Register, the agency is correcting
various minor errors regarding metric conversions, section cross
references and other matters.

DATES: Workshop: NHTSA will hold the public technical workshop on March
11, 2011, beginning at 9 a.m. and continuing until 12 p.m., local time,
at the location indicated in the ADDRESSES section below.
    Public hearing: The public hearing will be held on March 23, 2011,
beginning at 9 a.m. and continuing until 3 p.m. at the location
indicated in the ADDRESSES section below. If you would like to present
oral testimony at either of these public events, please contact the
person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, at least 5
days before the meeting.
    Comments: The comment period for the proposed rule published
December 7, 2010, at 75 FR 76186 is reopened. Comments will be accepted
until April 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The March 11 public technical workshop will be held at the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle and Research
Test Center, 10820 State Route 347--Bldg. 60, East Liberty, Ohio 43319.
    The March 23 public hearing will be held in the media center at the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you would like to present oral
testimony at either of these public events, please contact Mr. Markus
Price at DOT by the date specified under DATES, at: Office of Crash
Avoidance, Visibility and Injury Prevention Division, NHTSA, 1200 New
Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone number: (202) 366-
0098; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(preferred method of registration).
    Please provide the following information: The event at which you
would like to speak; the time you wish to speak (morning or afternoon)
at the hearing; your name and affiliation and the number of the
individuals from your affiliation who are planning to attend; your
address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers; and any
accommodations you may need, such as a sign language interpreter.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed rule would expand the

required field of view for all passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, buses, and low-speed vehicles rated at 10,000
pounds or less, gross vehicle weight, as specified in the Cameron
Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 (75 FR 76186).
NHTSA's proposal would specify an area immediately behind each vehicle
and require that the driver must be able to see that area when the
vehicle's transmission is in reverse, thereby minimizing the likelihood
of a vehicle striking a pedestrian while performing a backing maneuver.
The agency is announcing two separate public events to obtain
additional public input related to this proposal. In a separate
document appearing elsewhere in today's edition of the Federal
Register, the agency is correcting various minor errors regarding
metric conversions, section cross references and other matters.
    The purpose of the first public event, a public technical workshop,
is to provide interested parties an opportunity to discuss technical
issues relevant to the test procedure. We are holding the workshop
after our preliminary evaluation of comments suggests that various test
procedure comments could be better presented using a ``hands-on''
approach. The workshop will be held in a lab environment. The agency
will provide a vehicle and various test equipment to aid parties in
demonstrating compliance testing concerns relevant to the proposed
rule.
    The purpose of the second meeting, a public hearing, is to provide
the public with an opportunity to present oral comments regarding
NHTSA's proposal. The agency wants to give the public this additional
opportunity to express their views on effective ways of meeting the
mandate in the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act.

Technical Workshop Procedures

    To ensure that all interested persons have the benefit of the
discussions at the workshop, we will arrange for a written transcript
of the workshop. It will be placed in the public docket for this
rulemaking. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcript
directly with the court reporter.
    Because the technical workshop will be located in a lab
environment, NHTSA requests that the number of those attending from
each affiliation be held to a minimum. For security purposes, photo
identification is required to enter NHTSA's vehicle research test
center.

Public Hearing Procedures

    Once NHTSA establishes how many people have registered to speak at
the public hearing, it will allocate an appropriate amount of time to
each participant, allowing time for necessary breaks. In addition, we
will reserve a block of time for anyone else in the audience who wants
to give testimony. For planning purposes, each speaker should
anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes, although we may need
to shorten that time if there is a large turnout. We will accommodate
your requested presentation time to the extent we can, consistent with
the other requests we receive. We request that you bring three copies
of your statement or other material so that it can be placed into the
docket.
    To accommodate as many speakers as possible, we prefer that
speakers not use technological aids (e.g., audio-visuals, computer
slideshows). However, if you plan to do so, you must notify the contact
person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above in advance
of the meeting and make advance arrangements with that person regarding
the use of any aids in order to facilitate set-up.
    NHTSA will conduct the public hearing informally; thus, technical
rules of evidence will not apply. Panel members may ask clarifying
questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to
presentations at that time. We will arrange for a written transcript of
the meeting. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcripts
directly with the court reporter.
    This meeting will be held in the media room at the Department of
Transportation West Building. Therefore, each participant must register
with building security personnel and be escorted to the meeting room by
the contact person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, or
someone delegated by him for this purpose. Please arrive at the
security desk sufficiently in advance of the expected time of your
presentation to allow for the time necessary to obtain security
clearance. The length of time will depend on the size of the audience
seeking to attend the meeting.

Public Comments

    Persons wishing to submit written comments related to the proposal
or either public event may do so on or before the new comment closing
date announced in this document. The agency will consider all comments
received before the close of business on the new comment closing date
announced in the DATES section of this preamble. The comments will be
available for examination in the docket at the above address both
before and after that date.
    To minimize the interval between the issuance of the final rule and
the original statutory deadline, the agency does not expect to be able
to consider any late comments. Rulemaking action may proceed at any
time after the comment due date. Any comments received after the
closing date and too late for consideration in regard to the action
will be treated as suggestions for future rulemaking.
    The NHTSA will continue to file relevant material as it becomes
available in the docket after the closing date. It is recommended that
interested persons continue to examine the docket for new material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the public docket should enclose, in the envelope with
their comments, a self-addressed stamped postcard. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

    Issued on: February 24, 2011.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-4736 Filed 2-28-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P