[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52446-52448]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22651]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL_9985-54-OLEM]

The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Advisory Board:
Request for Nominations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Request for nominations.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites
nominations of qualified candidates for possible consideration for a
three-year appointment on the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest
System Advisory Board (the ``Board'').
    Pursuant to the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment
Act (the ``e-Manifest Act'' or the ``Act''), EPA has established the
Board to provide practical and independent

advice, consultation, and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on
the activities, functions, policies and regulations associated with the
Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest (e-Manifest) System. In accordance,
with the e-Manifest Act, the EPA Administrator or designee will serve
as Chair of the Board. This notice solicits nominations for possible
consideration for candidates to potentially serve in the following
positions on the Board: An expert in information technology (IT); An
industry representative member with experience in using or representing
users of the manifest system; and a state representative member
responsible for processing manifests.

DATES: Nominations should be received on or before November 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Nominations should be submitted via email to Fred Jenkins,
the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) of the e-Manifest Advisory at
[email protected], and identified with ``BOARD NOMINATION'' in the
subject line of the email.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Jenkins, Designated Federal
Officer (DFO), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, (MC: 5303P), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 30, 2018, EPA established a national
system for tracking hazardous waste shipments electronically. This
system, known as ``e-Manifest,'' is modernizing the nation's cradle-to-
grave hazardous waste tracking process while saving valuable time,
resources, and dollars for industry and states.
    EPA established the e-Manifest system according to the Hazardous
Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, enacted into law on
October 5, 2012. The ``e-Manifest Act'' authorizes the EPA to implement
a national electronic manifest system and requires that the costs of
developing and operating the new e-Manifest system be recovered from
user fees charged to those who use hazardous waste manifests to track
off-site shipments of their wastes.
    This system enables users of the uniform hazardous waste manifest
forms (EPA Form 8700-22 and Continuation Sheet 8700-22A) to have the
option to more efficiently track their hazardous waste shipments
electronically, in lieu of the paper manifest, from the point of
generation, during transportation, and to the point of receipt by an
off-site facility that is permitted to treat, store, or dispose of the
hazardous waste. Electronic manifests obtained from the national system
will augment or replace the paper forms that are currently used for
this purpose, and that result in substantial paperwork costs and other
inefficiencies. Congress intended that EPA develop a system that, among
other things, meets the needs of the user community and decreases the
administrative burden associated with the traditional paper-based
manifest system on the user community. The EPA estimates e-Manifest
will ultimately reduce the burden associated with preparing shipping
manifests between 300,000 and 700,000 hours, saving state and industry
users, on average, an annualized $65 million per year over the first
six years of system operation, and more than $90 million once
electronic manifests have been widely adopted. The system also serves
as a national reporting hub and database for all manifests and shipment
data. To ensure that these goals are met, the Act directs EPA to
establish a Board to assess the effectiveness of the electronic
manifest system and make recommendations to the Administrator for
improving the system.
    In addition, the e-Manifest Act directs EPA to develop a system
that attracts sufficient user participation and service revenues to
ensure the viability of the system. As a result, the Act provides EPA
broad discretion to establish reasonable user fees, as the
Administrator determines are necessary, to pay costs incurred in
developing, operating, maintaining, and upgrading the system, including
any costs incurred in collecting and processing data from any paper
manifest submitted to the system. In January 2018, EPA published its
final methodology for setting user fees based on the costs of
processing manifests and, in June 2018, the Agency released its user
fees effective for the period between June 30, 2018, and September 30,
2019.
    e-Manifest aligns with the Agency's E-Enterprise business strategy.
E-Enterprise for the Environment is a transformative 21st century
strategy--jointly governed by states and EPA--for modernizing
government agencies' delivery of environmental protection. Under this
strategy, the Agency will streamline its business processes and systems
to reduce reporting burden on states and regulated facilities, and
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory programs for
EPA, states, and tribes.
    EPA has established the Board in accordance with the provisions of
the e-Manifest Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5
U.S.C. App.2. The Board is in the public interest and supports EPA in
performing its duties and responsibilities. Pursuant to the e-Manifest
Act the Board is comprised of nine members, of which one member is the
Administrator (or a designee), who serves as Chairperson of the Board,
and eight members are individuals appointed by the EPA Administrator:
     At least two of whom have expertise in information
technology (IT);
     At least three of whom have experience in using, or
represent users of, the manifest system to track the transportation of
hazardous waste under federal and state manifest programs; and;
     At least three state representatives responsible for
processing those manifests.

The Board will meet publicly at least annually to provide
recommendations on matters related to the operational activities,
functions, policies, and/or regulations of the EPA under the e-Manifest
Act.
    Member Nominations: Pursuant to the e-Manifest Act, the Board
assists the Agency in evaluating the effectiveness of the e-Manifest IT
system and associated user fees; identifying key issues associated with
the system, including the need (and timing) for user fee adjustments;
recommending system enhancements; and providing independent advice on
matters and policies related to the e-Manifest program. The e-Manifest
Board provides recommendations on matters related to the operational
activities, functions, policies, and regulations of the EPA under the
e-Manifest Act, including proposing actions to encourage the use of the
electronic (paperless) system, and actions related to the E-Enterprise
strategy that intersect with e-Manifest. These intersections may
include issues such as business-to-business communications, performance
standards for mobile devices, and Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule
(CROMERR) compliant e-signatures. Any interested person and/or
organization may nominate qualified individuals for membership. EPA
values and welcomes diversity. To obtain nominations of diverse
candidates, the Agency encourages nominations of women and men of all
racial and ethnic groups. All nominations will be considered; however,
applicants need to be aware of the representation from specific sectors
required by the e-Manifest Act. Further, state and industry nominees
should have a comprehensive knowledge of hazardous

waste generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal
under RCRA Subtitle C at the federal, state, and local levels.
    Nominees who represent states should have comprehensive knowledge
of state programs that used manifest data prior to the initiation of
the federal electronic manifest, such as in-state programs and/or in-
state tracking systems/databases. Nominees who represent industry
should have strong knowledge of existing industry systems/devices/
approaches and business operations to provide valuable input on e-
Manifest integration into current industry data systems. IT nominees
should have core competencies and experience in large-scale systems and
application development and integration, deployment and maintenance,
user help desk and support, and expertise relevant to support the
complexity of an electronic manifest system. Examples of this expertise
may include but are not limited to: Expertise with web-based and mobile
technologies, particularly that support large-scale operations for
geographically diverse users; expertise in IT security, including
perspective on federal IT security requirements; expertise in
electronic signature and user management approaches; expertise with
scalable hosting solutions such as cloud-based hosting; and expertise
in user experience. Existing knowledge of, or willingness to gain an
understanding of, EPA shared services and enterprise architecture is a
plus. Another plus for any nominee is experience in setting and/or
managing fee-based systems in general.
    Additional criteria used to evaluate nominees will include:
     Excellent interpersonal, oral and written communication
skills;
     Demonstrated experience developing group recommendations;
     Willingness to commit time to the Board and demonstrated
ability to work constructively on committees;
     Absence of financial conflicts of interest;
     Impartiality (including the appearance of a lack of
impartiality); and
     Background and experiences that would help contribute to
the diversity of perspectives on the Board, e.g., geographic, economic,
social, cultural, educational backgrounds, professional affiliations
and other considerations.
    Nominations must include a resume, which provides the nominee's
background, experience and educational qualifications, as well as a
brief statement (one page or less) describing the nominee's interest in
serving on the Board and addressing the other criteria previously
described. Nominees are encouraged to provide any additional
information that they believe would be useful for consideration, such
as: availability to participate as a member of the Board; how the
nominee's background, skills and experience would contribute to the
diversity of the Board; and any concerns the nominee has regarding
membership. Nominees should provide their name, occupation, position,
current business address, email, and telephone number in the
application.
    Moreover, in accordance with the EPA Administrator's Directive
issued on October 31, 2017, please describe any involvement you have
with the Agency through EPA grant funded projects which you (nominee/
applicant) are currently serving as the principal investigator (PI) or
co-investigator (COI). The Agency recognizes that different variables
may factor into this criterion and as a result will evaluate each
situation on a case by case basis.
    In addition to a statement regarding grant funded projects, the
nominee/applicant should include previous employment and/or current
contracting sources with the Agency. To help the Agency in evaluating
the effectiveness of its outreach efforts, also tell us how you learned
of this opportunity in your statement of interest (cover letter).
    Interested candidates may self-nominate. The Agency will
acknowledge receipt of nominations. Persons selected for membership
will receive compensation for travel and a nominal daily compensation
(if appropriate) while attending meetings. Additionally, candidates
selected to serve as Information Technology (IT) ``Expert'' Members
will be designated as Special Government Employees (SGEs) or
consultants. Candidates designated as SGEs will be required to fill out
the ``Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Environmental
Protection Agency Special Government Employees'' (EPA Form 3310-48).
This confidential form provides information to EPA ethics officials to
determine whether there is a conflict between the SGE's public duties
and their private interests, including an appearance of a loss of
impartiality as defined by federal laws and regulations. One example of
a potential conflict of interest may be for IT professional(s) serving
in an organization that is awarded any related e-Manifest system
development contract(s).

    Dated: October 4, 2018.
Barnes Johnson,
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Office of Land
and Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2018-22651 Filed 10-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65366-65369]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26181]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0753, FRL-9918-86-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alaska:
Nonattainment New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Alaska State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Conservation
(ADEC) on December 11, 2009, November 29, 2010, December 10, 2012,
January 28, 2013, July 1, 2014, and October 24, 2014. These revisions
update the State of Alaska's adoption by reference of the Federal
preconstruction permitting regulations for large industrial (major
source) facilities located in designated nonattainment areas, referred
to as the Nonattainment New Source Review (major NNSR) program. The
major NNSR program is designed to ensure that major stationary sources
of air pollution are constructed or modified in a manner that is
consistent with attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 4, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2014-0753, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Mail: Donna Deneen, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics (AWT-150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Donna Deneen,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-150. Such deliveries are only
accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2014-0753. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other

contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Deneen at telephone number:
(206) 553-6706, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA,
Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Purpose of Proposed Major NNSR Action
II. Background for the Proposed Major NNSR Action
III. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4
IV. Alaska's Revisions to Major NNSR
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Purpose of Proposed Major NNSR Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Alaska SIP related
to major NNSR submitted by ADEC on December 11, 2009, November 29,
2010, December 10, 2012, January 28, 2013, July 1, 2014, and October
24, 2014.\1\ Alaska's major NNSR program essentially adopts by
reference the Federal preconstruction permitting regulations for major
sources in nonattainment areas at 40 CFR 51.165 (Permit Requirements).
The key changes in Alaska's SIP revisions are the update of the
adoption by reference citation dates in 18 AAC 50.040(i) to the Federal
rules in 40 CFR 51.165, and the updated definition of ``regulated NSR
pollutant'' in 18 AAC 50.040(i)(1)(B) to reflect the current Federal
definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' for nonattainment areas at 40
CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii). These and other related revisions addressed
in this action are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This submittal also withdrew a September 24, 2014, submittal
determined to contain an error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a previous action relating to the revisions submitted on
December 11, 2009, November 29, 2010, December 10, 2012, and January
28, 2013, the EPA deferred action on the portions of those submittals
relating to major NNSR. (September 19, 2014; 79 FR 56268). In this
proposal we are taking action on the deferred portions of those
submittals. In this action we are also addressing the major NNSR
portion of revisions submitted on July 1, 2014 and October 24, 2014.
Where there are multiple amendments to the same provision, we have
limited our review to only the most recently submitted amendment to any
particular provision. We intend to address the remaining portions of
the SIP submittals that are not related to major NNSR, and that we have
not yet acted on, in one or more separate actions.

II. Background for the Proposed Major NNSR Action

    On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter
to add new standards for fine particles, using PM2.5 as the
indicator. Previously, the EPA used PM10 (inhalable
particles smaller than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter) as the
indicator for the particulate matter NAAQS. The EPA established health-
based (primary) annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5,
setting an annual standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\) and a 24-hour standard at a level of 65 [micro]g/m\3\
(62 FR 38652). At the time the 1997 primary standards were established,
the EPA also established welfare-based (secondary) standards identical
to the primary standards. The secondary standards are designed to
protect against major environmental effects of PM2.5, such
as visibility impairment and materials damage. The State of Alaska had
no areas violating the annual or 24-hour 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at
the time the standards were promulgated.
    On October 17, 2006, the EPA revised the primary and secondary
PM2.5 NAAQS (71 FR 61236). In that rulemaking, the EPA
lowered the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ and
retained the existing annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [micro]g/
m\3\. In 2009, as a result of the change in the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS from 65 [micro]g/m\3\ to 35 [micro]g/m\3\, the
EPA designated Fairbanks, Alaska as nonattainment based on 2006-2008
monitoring data (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009). The Fairbanks
PM2.5 nonattainment area covers the expanded part of
Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) and is currently the only
nonattainment area in the State of Alaska.
    On May 16, 2008, the EPA finalized a rule to implement the
PM2.5 NAAQS, including changes to the New Source Review
(NSR) program (2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule, 73 FR 28321). The 2008
NSR PM2.5 Rule revised the NSR program requirements to
establish a framework for implementing preconstruction permit review
for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment and nonattainment
areas. The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule also established the
following NSR requirements to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS: (1)
Required NSR permits to address directly emitted PM2.5 and
precursor pollutants; (2) established significant emission rates for
direct PM2.5 and precursor pollutants, including sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX); (3)
established PM2.5 emission offsets for nonattainment areas;
and (4) required states to account for gases that condense to form
particles in PM2.5 emission limits. Alaska's regulations,
submitted to the EPA on December 11, 2009, November 29, 2010, December
10, 2012, January 28, 2013, July 1, 2014, and October 24, 2014, were
revised to address the requirements of the 2008 NSR PM2.5
rule, as well as to provide general updates that apply to all the
NAAQS.

III. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4

    On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA \2\
issued a decision that remanded the EPA's 2007 and 2008 rules
implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Relevant here, the 2008
NSR PM2.5 Rule promulgated NSR requirements for
implementation of PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas and
attainment/unclassifiable areas. The Court found that the EPA erred in
implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS in these rules solely pursuant
to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1, part D, title I
of the CAA, rather than pursuant to the additional implementation
provisions specific to particulate matter nonattainment areas in
subpart 4. The Court ordered the EPA to ``repromulgate these rules
pursuant to

Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.'' Id. at 437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 2, 2014, the EPA published a final rulemaking,
Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for
Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997
Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, that begins to address the
remand (79 FR 31566). The final rule classified all existing
PM2.5 nonattainment areas as ``Moderate'' nonattainment
areas and set a deadline of December 31, 2014, for states to submit any
SIP submissions, including major NNSR SIPs, that may be necessary to
satisfy the requirements of subpart 4, part D, title I of the CAA, with
respect to PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
    In a separate rulemaking process, the EPA is evaluating the
requirements of subpart 4 as they pertain to nonattainment NSR for
PM2.5 emissions. In particular, subpart 4 includes section
189(e) of the CAA, which requires the control of major stationary
sources of PM10 precursors ``except where the Administrator
determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to
PM10 levels which exceed the standard in the area.'' Under
the Court's decision in NRDC, section 189(e) of the CAA also applies to
PM2.5.
    Alaska submitted SIP revisions to two definitions in Alaska's major
NNSR program. In 18 AAC 50.040(i)(1), Alaska revised the definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant'' by adopting by reference the Federal
definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' at 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii), which includes precursors to both ozone and
PM2.5 in nonattainment areas. With respect to
PM2.5, the adopted by reference definition of ``regulated
NSR pollutant'' identifies sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides as
regulated PM2.5 precursors while volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and ammonia are not regulated PM2.5 precursors in
PM2.5 nonattainment areas in the State. In addition, in 18
AAC 50.040(i)(1), Alaska adopted by reference the Federal definition of
``significant'' at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x), which includes significant
emission rates for direct PM2.5 and for sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxides as PM2.5 precursors. These revisions,
although consistent with the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule developed
in accordance with subpart 1 of the CAA, may not contain the elements
necessary to satisfy the CAA requirements when evaluated under the
subpart 4 statutory requirements. In particular, Alaska's submission
does not include regulation of VOCs and ammonia as PM2.5
precursors, nor does it include a demonstration consistent with section
189(e) showing that major sources of those precursor pollutants would
not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels exceeding the
standard in the area. For these reasons, the EPA cannot conclude at
this time that this part of Alaska's major NNSR submission satisfies
all of the requirements of subpart 4 as they pertain to
PM2.5 major NNSR permitting.
    Although the revisions to Alaska's major NNSR rule may not contain
all of the necessary elements to satisfy the CAA requirements when
evaluated under the subpart 4 provisions, the revisions themselves
represent a strengthening of Alaska's currently-approved major NNSR SIP
which does not address PM2.5 at all. As a result of the June
2, 2014, final rule, the State will have until December 31, 2014, to
make any additional submission necessary to address the requirements of
subpart 4, including addressing the PM2.5 precursors VOCs
and ammonia. For these reasons, the EPA is proposing to approve the
major NNSR revisions at 18 AAC 50.040(i), without listing as a
deficiency at this time the absence of either the regulation or
evaluation of VOCs and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors.

IV. Alaska's Revisions to Major NNSR

    Table 1 below summarizes the revisions submitted by the State
related to major NNSR and addressed in this action, including the
submittal date, the State effective date, and the title and section of
18 AAC 50 related to the major NNSR program. Where there are multiple
amendments to the same provision, the EPA limited its review to the
most recently submitted amendment to that particular provision.

                                          Table 1--Alaska SIP Revisions to Major NNSR Addressed in This Action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     State         Major NNSR-related provisions of 18 AAC 50.040       Major NNSR-related provisions of 18 AAC 50.990
       Date of submittal        effective date                   revised or amended                                   revised or amended
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/11/2009....................       7/25/2008  (i), (i)(7), (i)(8), (i)(9), (i)(10)...............
11/29/2010....................       12/9/2010  (i)................................................
12/10/2012....................       9/14/2012  (i), (i)(1)(B).....................................
1/28/2013.....................        1/4/2013  (i)(1)(A), (i)(1)(B), (i)(1)(B)(ii)................
7/1/2014......................       10/6/2013  (i), (i)(1)(B), (i)(2), (i)(4), (i)(5), (i)(6).....  (40).
10/24/2014....................       11/9/2014  (i), (i)(1)(B), (i)(2), (i)(4), (i)(5), (i)(6).....  (92).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alaska's major NNSR program is comprised of 18 AAC 50.311
(Nonattainment Area Major Stationary Source Permits), which was
previously approved on August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45378) and has not been
revised since, and 18 AAC 50.040 (Federal Standards Adopted by
Reference), paragraph (i), relating to 40 CFR 51.165 (Permit
Requirements). Definitions for specific terms referenced by these
provisions are found in 18 AAC 50.990 (Definitions). To ensure that its
regulations are consistent with the EPA requirements, Alaska generally
updates annually its adoption by reference citations to the Federal
major NNSR regulations at 40 CFR 51.165 (Permit Requirements) in 18 AAC
50.040(i).\3\ Because of this practice, the revisions submitted by the
State and listed in Table 1 are primarily updates to make the State's
regulations consistent with updates to the Federal regulations. Other
revisions are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In some instances 18 AAC 50.040(i) does not directly adopt
by reference the Federal provisions, but instead references
provisions in AS 46.14.990 or 18 AAC 50.990, which, in turn,
reference the Federal provisions in 40 CFR 51.165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the State's December 11, 2009, submittal, exceptions were added
to the major NNSR regulations at 18 AAC 50.040(i)(10), relating to the
adoption by reference of ``Actuals PALs,'' in 40 CFR 51.165(f). Under
18 AAC 50.040(i)(10)(A), mass balance calculations, as authorized under
40 CFR 52.165(f)(12)(ii)(A), are also acceptable for activities
emitting sulfur dioxide from the combustion of fuel to the extent
otherwise available for activities using coatings or solvents. This
includes the requirement that the emission unit is assumed to emit all
of the sulfur in the fuel as sulfur dioxide. Under 18 AAC
50.040(i)(10)(B), the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR
52.21(f)(12)(iii) are applied to owners or operators using mass balance
calculations to monitor plantwide

applicability limitation (PAL) pollutant emissions from activities
emitting sulfur dioxide from the combustion of fuel. These provisions
are approvable because they are an appropriate method of determining
compliance with a PAL for the narrow activity added by ADEC's
regulations.
    In the State's July 1, 2014 submittal, Alaska repealed provisions
in 18 AAC 50.040(i), paragraphs (7), (8) and (9), that related to clean
units and pollution control projects. The comparable Federal provisions
were initially vacated by a court and then repealed by the EPA. Repeal
of these provisions as a matter of state law does not affect the SIP
because the EPA had not previously approved these provisions into the
SIP and because they are no longer elements of the Federal major NNSR
program.
    Alaska submitted revisions to two definitions in 18 AAC 50.990
related to major NNSR. On October 24, 2014, the State revised 18 AAC
50.040(i)(1) to adopt by reference the Federal definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant'' at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii) and also
repealed the definition ``regulated NSR pollutant'' in 18 AAC
50.990(92) because the State has now adopted the Federal definition in
18 AAC 50.040(i). With these revisions, the State's definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant'' at 18 AAC 50.040(i)(1) is consistent with
the current Federal definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' for major
NNSR and is approvable.
    On July 1, 2014, Alaska revised its major NNSR regulations at 18
AAC 50.040(i)(1)(B)(2) to reference the definition of ``fugitive
emissions'' in 18 AAC 50.990(40). In turn, 18 AAC 50.990(40) was
revised to adopt by reference the Federal definition of ``fugitive
emissions'' at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(20).\4\ The definition of ``fugitive
emissions'' referenced in 18 AAC 50.990(40) is consistent with the
Federal definition of ``fugitive emissions'' for major NNSR and is
approvable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The definition of ``fugitive emissions'' in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(20) is identical to the definition of ``fugitive
emissions'' in 51.165(a)(1)(ix).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that in the State's October 24, 2014 submittal, technical
corrections were made to the revisions in 18 AAC 50.040(i)(2), (4), (5)
and (6) that were submitted on July 1, 2014. The effect of these
corrections is that the State has submitted its repeal of 18 AAC
50.040(i)(4) and no changes were made to the adoption by reference of
Federal provisions at 18 AAC 50.040(i)(2), (5) and (6). The repealed
provision at 18 AAC 50.040(i)(4) adopted by reference an exemption for
fugitive emissions in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(4) that duplicates an exemption
contained in the State's definition of ``major stationary source'' and
its repeal is therefore approvable.
    In summary, revisions to Alaska's major NNSR regulations in 18 AAC
50.040(i) are approvable because the submitted revisions bring the
State's major NNSR program up to date with current Federal requirements
and, as explained above, represent a strengthening of Alaska's
currently-approved major NNSR program.

V. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA and consistent with the
discussion above, the EPA proposes to approve the Alaska SIP revisions
submitted on December 11, 2009, November 29, 2010, December 10, 2012,
January 28, 2013, July 1, 2014, and October 24, 2014 that update the
adoption by reference of the Federal major NNSR program and revise the
definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant.'' The EPA has made the
preliminary determination that these SIP revisions are approvable
because they are consistent with the CAA and the current EPA
requirements regarding major NNSR. The EPA intends to address the
remaining portions of the SIP submittals that are not related to major
NNSR, and have not yet been addressed, in one or more separate actions.

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 Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves the state's law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by the state's law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 it does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in
any other area where the 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: October 27, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-26181 Filed 11-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4618-4623]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1853]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0011]

NHTSA Activities Under the United Nations World Forum for the
Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations 1998 Global Agreement

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

ACTION: Notice of activities under the 1998 Global Agreement and
request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is publishing this notice to inform the public of the
scheduled upcoming meetings under the World Forum for the Harmonization
of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and its Working Parties of Experts for
calendar year 2012. This notice will provide the public with the most
recent status of activities under the Program of Work of the 1998
Global Agreement and requests comments on various aspects of these
activities. Publication of this information is in accordance with
NHTSA's Statement of Policy regarding Agency Policy Goals and Public
Participation in the Implementation of the 1998 Global Agreement on
Global Technical Regulations.

DATES: Written comments may be submitted to this agency within 30 days
of publication of this notice.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket No. NHTSA-
2012-0011 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Telephone: 1-(800) 647-
5527.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this proposed collection of information. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://Docketlnfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ezana Wondimneh, Chief,
International Policy and Harmonization Division (NVS-133), National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. WP.29 and Its Working Parties of Experts
    1. WP.29
    2. Working Parties of Experts
II. List of Provisional Meetings of WP.29 and Its Working Parties of
Experts
III. Status of Activities Under the Program of Work of the 1998
Global Agreement
    A. Status of Established GTRs under the 1998 Global Agreement
    1. Pedestrian Safety
    2. Head Restraints
    3. Door Locks and Door Retention Components
    4. Safety Glazing
    5. Motorcycle Controls and Displays
    B. New Proposals for the Development of GTRs
    1. Quiet Vehicles
    2. Electric Vehicles
    C. Status of GTRs Under Development
    1. Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicles
    2. Light Vehicle Tires
    3. Pole Side Impact Protection
    D. Items Under Exchange of Information
    1. Harmonized Side Impact Dummies
    2. Enforcement Working Group
    E. Compendium of Candidate GTRs
IV. Request for Comments

I. Background

    On August 23, 2000, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (65 FR
51236) a statement of policy regarding the Agency's policy goals and
public participation in the implementation of the 1998 Global
Agreement, indicating that each calendar year the Agency would provide
a list of scheduled meetings of the World Forum for the Harmonization
of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and the Working Parties of Experts, as
well as meetings of the Executive Committee of the 1998 Global
Agreement (AC.3).\1\ Further, in that policy statement, the Agency
stated that it would keep the public informed about the Agreement's
Program of Work (i.e., subjects designated for Global Technical
Regulation (GTR) development), as well as maintain a list of candidate
GTRs that have been formally proposed by a contracting party and
referred to a working party of experts, including those draft GTRs
already developed and referred by a Working Party of Experts to AC.3
for establishment under the Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This statement of policy is codified in Appendix C of Part
553 of Title 49 of the CFR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In keeping with this policy, NHTSA has notified the public about
the status of activities under the 1998 Global Agreement and sought
comments on

various issues and proposals through a series of Federal Register
notices published beginning July 2000.\2\ This notice provides an
update of the Agency's activities under the 1998 Global Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The relevant Federal Register notices include: 65 FR 44565,
66 FR 4893, 68 FR 5333, 69 FR 60460, 71 FR 59582, 73 FR 7803, 73 FR
8743, 73 FR 31914, and 73 FR 5520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. WP.29 and Its Working Parties of Experts

1. WP.29
    WP.29 was established on June 6, 1952 as the Working Party on the
Construction of Vehicles, a subsidiary body of the Inland Transport
Committee (ITC) of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE). In March 2000, WP.29 became the ``World Forum for
Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29).'' The objective of the
WP.29 is to initiate and pursue actions aimed at the worldwide
harmonization or development of technical regulations for vehicles.\3\
Providing uniform conditions for periodical technical inspections and
strengthening economic relations worldwide, these regulations are aimed
at:

    \3\ For general information about WP.29, see the document,
``World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29)--How
It Works, How to Join It,'' available at http://www.unece.org/index.php?id=2077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Improving vehicle safety;
--Protecting the environment;
--Promoting energy efficiency and
--Increasing anti-theft performance.

WP.29 currently administers three UNECE Agreements:
    1. UNECE 1958 Agreement concerning the Adoption of Uniform
Technical Prescriptions for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which
can be Fitted and/or be Used on Wheeled Vehicles and the Conditions for
Reciprocal Recognition of Approvals Granted on the Basis of these
Prescriptions;
    2. UNECE 1998 Agreement concerning the Establishing of Global
Technical Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which
can be Fitted and/or be Used on Wheeled Vehicles;
    3. UNECE 1997 Agreement concerning the Adoption of Uniform
Conditions for Periodical Technical Inspections of Wheeled Vehicles and
the Reciprocal Recognition of such Inspections.
    Four committees coordinate the activities of WP.29:

AC.1--Administrative Committee for 1958 Agreement
AC.2--Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work
AC.3--Executive Committee for 1998 Agreement
AC.4--Administrative Committee for 1997 Agreement

    AC.1, AC.3 and AC.4 are the Administrative/Executive Committees for
the Agreements administered by WP.29, constituting all Contracting
Parties of the respective Agreements.
    The coordination of work of the World Forum is managed by a
Steering Committee (AC.2) comprising the Chairperson and Secretariat of
WP.29, the Chairpersons of the Executive Committees of the 1958, 1997
and 1998 Agreements administered by WP.29, the representatives of the
European Community, Japan and the United States of America, and the
Chairpersons of WP.29's subsidiary bodies (GRs or Working Parties). The
duties of AC.2 are to develop and recommend to WP.29 a Program of Work,
to review the reports and recommendations of WP.29's subsidiary bodies,
to identify items that require action by WP.29 and the time frame for
their consideration, and to provide recommendations to WP.29.
2. Working Parties of Experts
    The permanent subsidiary bodies of WP.29, also known as GRs (Groups
of Rapporteurs), assist the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle
Regulations in researching, analyzing and developing requirements for
technical regulations in the areas of their expertise. There are six
subsidiary bodies:
    Working Party on Lighting and Light-Signaling (GRE);
    Working Party on Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF);
    Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP);
    Working Party on General Safety Provisions (GRSG);
    Working Party on Pollution and Energy (GRPE);
    Working Party on Noise (GRB).
    Each subsidiary body consists of people whose expertise is relevant
to the area covered by the body. All the proposals to WP.29 for new
regulations or amendments to existing UNECE regulations are referred by
the World Forum to its subsidiary bodies for preparation of technical
recommendations. In view of the significance of the role of these
subsidiary bodies, these have been given permanent status under UNECE
and have been renamed as ``Working Parties.'' More specifically, the
working parties and their areas of expertise are outlined below.

Active Safety of Vehicles and Their Parts (Crash Avoidance)

Working Party on Lighting and Light-Signaling (GRE)
Working Party on Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF)
    The regulations in this area seek to improve the behavior, handling
and equipment of vehicles so as to decrease the likelihood of a road
crash. Some of the regulations seek to increase the ability of drivers
to detect and avoid hazardous circumstances. Others seek to increase
the ability of drivers to maintain control of their vehicles. Specific
examples of current regulations include ones applying to lighting and
light-signaling devices, braking and running gear, including steering,
tires and rollover stability. This area of technology is rapidly
changing. The advent of advanced technologies (e.g., electronic,
computer and communication) is providing opportunities for seeking new
remedies that can help drivers avoid crashes.

Passive Safety (Crashworthiness)

Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP)
    The regulations in this area seek to minimize the risk and severity
of injury for the occupants of a vehicle and/or other road users in the
event of a crash. Extensive use is made of crash statistics to identify
safety problems for which a regulation or amendment to an existing
regulation is needed and define a proper cost/benefit approach when
improving performance requirements in this area. This is important,
given the overall impact of new requirements on vehicle construction,
design and cost. Specific examples of current regulations include ones
addressing the ability of the vehicle structure to manage crash energy
and resist intrusion into the passenger compartment, occupant restraint
and protection systems for children and adults, seat structure,
glazing, door latches and door retention, pedestrian protection and for
motorcycles and the quality of the protective helmet for the rider.
This area of technology also is changing rapidly and becoming more
complex. Examples include advanced protection devices that adjust their
performance in response to the circumstances of individual crashes. In
addition, changes in the vehicle population are raising issues of
vehicle compatibility and aggressivity.

General Safety Considerations

Working Party on General Safety Provisions (GRSG)
    The regulations in this area address vehicle and component features
which are not directly linked to the above-mentioned subject areas. For
example, windshield wipers and washers, controls and displays and
glazing are grouped under this heading. Further, theft prevention and
the considerations of public transport vehicles for which special
expertise is needed in establishing their performance requirements are
covered in this category.

Environmental Considerations

Working Party on Pollution and Energy (GRPE)
Working Party on Noise (GRB)
    In general, the regulations in this area address questions of the
pollution of the environment, noise disturbances and conservation of
energy (fuel consumption).

Special Technical Considerations

Informal Working Groups (IWGs)
    In some cases, a specific problem needs to be solved urgently or
needs to be addressed by persons having a special expertise. In such
situations, a special informal working group may be entrusted with the
analysis of the problem and invited to prepare a proposal for a
regulation. Although such cases have traditionally been kept to a
minimum, the rapid development of complex new technologies is
increasing the necessity for using this special approach.

II. List of Meetings of WP.29 and Its Working Parties of Experts

    The following list shows the scheduled meetings of WP.29 and its
subsidiary Working Parties of Experts for vehicle safety for calendar
year 2012. In addition to these meetings, Working Parties of Experts
may schedule, if necessary, IWG sessions outside their regular schedule
in order to address technical matters specific to GTRs under
consideration. The formation and timing of these groups are recommended
by the sponsor and chair of the group and are approved by WP.29 and
AC.3. The schedule and place of meetings are made available to
interested parties in proposals and periodic reports which are posted
on the Web site of WP.29, which can be found at: http://www.unece.org/trans/main/welcwp29.html.

                                    2012 Provisional Schedule of Meetings of WP.29 and Its Working Parties of Experts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 17-20........................  Working Party on Pollution and Energy (GRPE) (63rd session).
February 07-09.......................  Working Party on Noise (GRB) (55th session).
    20-24............................  Working Party on Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF) (72nd session).
March 12.............................  Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (AC.2) (108th session).
    13-16............................  World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) (156th session).
    26-29............................  Working Party on Lighting and Light-Signaling (GRE) (67th session).
April 16-20..........................  Working Party on General Safety Provisions (GRSG) (102nd session).
May 21-25............................  Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) (51st session).
June 05-08...........................  Working Party on Pollution and Energy (GRPE) (64th session).
    25...............................  Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (AC.2) (109th session).
    26-29............................  World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) (157th session).
September 03-05......................  Working Party on Noise (GRB) (56th session).
October 02-05........................  Working Party on General Safety Provisions (GRSG) (103rd session).
    16-18............................  Working Party on Lighting and Light-Signaling (GRE) (68th session).
November 12..........................  Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (AC.2) (110th session).
    13-16............................  World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) (158th session).
December 11-14.......................  Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) (52nd session).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Status of Activities Under the Program of Work of the 1998 Global
Agreement

    The current Program of Work of the 1998 Global Agreement is listed
in the table below. Note that the items listed are for those related to
vehicle safety only.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Chair of informal working
  Working party of experts          Subject         Sponsoring  contracting party              group
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP.29.......................  Exchange of          USA...........................  USA.
                               Information
                               Enforcement
                               Working Group.
GRRF........................  GTR on Tires for     France........................  UK.
                               Light Vehicles.
GRSP........................  Amend.1 to GTR No.   USA...........................  N/A.
                               1 (Door locks).
                              Phase 2 of GTR No.   Japan.........................  UK.
                               7 (Head
                               Restraints).
                              Phase 2 of GTR No.   Japan/Germany.................  Germany/Japan.
                               9 (Pedestrian
                               Safety).
                              GTR on Hydrogen      USA/Germany/Japan.............  USA/Japan.
                               Vehicles--Safety
                               Sub-Group.
                              GTR on Pole Side     Australia.....................  Australia.
                               Impact.
                              Exchange of          USA...........................  USA.
                               Information on
                               Harmonized side
                               impact dummies.
                              Electric Vehicles    USA/Japan/EC..................  USA/Japan.
                               Safety GTR.
GRB.........................  GTR on Quiet Road    USA/Japan.....................  TBD.
                               Transport Vehicles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Status of Established GTRs Under the 1998 Global Agreement

 Pedestrian Safety
    At the November 2008 session, WP.29 voted to establish \4\ GTR 9
\5\ on Pedestrian Safety. Implementation of the GTR by the contracting
parties would improve pedestrian safety by requiring vehicle hoods and
bumpers to absorb energy more efficiently in a 40 kilometer per hour
(km/h) vehicle-to-pedestrian crash. Crashes at speeds up to that
threshold account for more than 75 percent of crashes in which
pedestrians are injured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Under the 1998 Global Agreement, GTRs are established by
consensus vote of the Agreement's contracting parties present and
voting.
    \5\ While the 1998 Global Agreement obligates contracting
parties that vote in favor of establishing a GTR to begin their
domestic rulemaking process, it leaves the ultimate decision of
whether they adopt the GTR to the parties themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GTR contains two sets of performance criteria applying to: (a)
The hood; and (b) the front bumper. Unique test procedures address
adult and child head and adult leg impact protection for each of the
two crash scenarios. At the time GTR 9 was adopted, a legform impactor
developed by TRL (Transport Research Laboratory, UK) was used to
evaluate front bumper impact performance. However, WP.29 agreed to
consider the future use of a newer legform impactor called Flex-PLI
(Flexible Pedestrian Legform Impactor), which may be more biofidelic.
At the May 2011 session of GRSP, NHTSA reported research results that
raised concerns about the readiness of the Flex-PLI device. As a
result, at its June 2011 session, WP.29 agreed to form a new IWG under
the sponsorship of Germany and Japan to further refine the Flex-PLI
device.
    Due to this planned activity, NHTSA is reevaluating how it will
proceed.
 Head Restraints
    The GTR for head restraints (GTR 7) was established by WP.29 at its
March 2008 Session. At that time, the GTR's dynamic test procedure,
which is designed to evaluate whiplash injury protection, allowed the
use of two optional test dummies (the Hybrid III and BioRID II). A full
system whiplash evaluation test that incorporates the combined
performance of the seat and head restraint uses the BioRID II dummy,
which was not then available.
    Therefore, in November 2009, WP.29 initiated a second phase of
development for the GTR by forming a new IWG tasked with the
development of a fully developed BioRID II test tool, including test
procedures, injury criteria and associated corridors. If this work is
completed by the end of 2012, WP.29 plans to vote on amending GTR 7 at
its June 2013 session. As a result of this ongoing activity, NHTSA has
decided to delay rulemaking to amend the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) to incorporate the GTR until the GTR is updated to
reflect the phase two work currently underway.
 Door Locks
    At its November 2004 session, WP.29 established the GTR for door
locks and door retention components (GTR 1). On December 15, 2004,
NHTSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) closely based on
GTR 1 (69 FR 75020). Subsequently, the United States published two
Final Rules on February 06, 2007 (72 FR 5385) and February 19, 2010 (75
FR 7370) incorporating the requirements of the GTR into the FMVSS.
Through these rulemaking actions, the agency made minor changes to
clarify the regulatory text. Furthermore, as the GTR was incorporated
into ECE Regulation 11 under the 1958 Agreement, additional
clarifications were recommended.
    Consequently, WP.29 is planning to combine all of the outstanding
proposed amendments into a single proposal for consideration at its
March 2012 session. No further action by United States is required.
 Safety Glazing
    At its March 2008 session, WP.29 established the GTR for safety
glazing for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (GTR 6). The GTR
includes harmonized requirements and tests for the mechanical
properties, optical qualities and environmental resistance of glazing.
    NHTSA is currently in the process of preparing an NPRM to propose
the adoption of the Safety Glazing GTR into the FMVSS.
 Motorcycle Controls and Displays
    At its November 2011 session, WP.29 established by consensus vote
the GTR for Motorcycle Controls and Displays. The effort is sponsored
and chaired by Italy and aims to standardize current widely used
motorcycle controls and display symbols. Standardizing these could help
prevent the introduction of new unique identifying symbols, which may
lead to rider confusion. The draft GTR includes 22 symbols. Of these,
17 are already included in the FMVSS. Some of these include the passing
beam, manual choke, turn signal, horn, driving beam, transmission
neutral, electric starter, fuel tank shutoff valve on/off, hazard
warning, engine coolant temp, lighting switch control, position lamp
and battery charging. The remaining five are not included in current
U.S. standards and include front fog lamp, rear fog lamp, parking lamp,
ABS and emissions failure warning.
    Locational and operational requirements for controls are also
addressed in the GTR. They include the front wheel brake control, rear
wheel foot brake control, rear wheel hand brake control, clutch, foot
selected manual gear shift control and hand selected manual gear shift
control.
    The GTR provisions for controls are consistent with the current
FMVSS, but also allow several alternative requirements to accommodate
existing requirements in other contracting parties' jurisdictions. The
GTR also allows contracting parties to continue the use of unique text
as an alternative to symbols or in combination with symbols as is
currently permitted in the FMVSS.

B. New Proposals for the Development of GTRs

 Quiet Vehicles
    In 2009, NHTSA published a report on the incident rates of crashes
involving hybrid-electric vehicles and pedestrians under different
scenarios.\6\ The U.S. study, using crash data collected from several
states, compared vehicle to pedestrian crash rates for hybrid electric-
vehicles and vehicles with internal combustion engines (ICE). In the
study, the agency found that there is an increased rate of pedestrian
crashes for hybrid electric vehicles versus similarly sized ICE
vehicles. In 2010, the agency published a second report that found that
the overall sound levels for the hybrid-electric vehicles tested were
lower at low speeds than for the peer ICE vehicles tested.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Research on Quieter Cars and the Safety of Blind
Pedestrians, A Report to Congress'' prepared by National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
October 2009. This report can be found at http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crash%20Avoidance/Technical%20Publications/2010/RptToCongress091709.pdf.
    \7\ Garay-Vega, Lisandra; Hastings, Aaron; Pollard, John K.;
Zuschlag, Michael; and Stearns, Mary D., Quieter Cars and the Safety
of Blind Pedestrians: Phase I, John A. Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center, DOT HS 811 304 April 2010, available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crash%20Avoidance/Technical%20Publications/2010/811304rev.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and
Tourism (MLIT), after studying the feasibility of alert sounds for
electric and hybrid-electric vehicles, issued guidelines for pedestrian
alert sounds in 2010. MLIT concluded that pedestrian alert sounds

should be required only on hybrid-electric vehicles that can run
exclusively on an electric motor, electric vehicles and fuel-cell
vehicles. MLIT guidelines require that electric and hybrid-electric
vehicles generate a pedestrian alert sound whenever the vehicle is
moving forward at any speed less than 20 km/h and when the vehicle is
operating in reverse. The guidelines do not require vehicles to produce
an alert sound when the vehicle is operating, but stopped, such as at a
traffic light. Also, manufacturers are allowed to equip the vehicle
with a switch to deactivate the alert sound temporarily.
    WP.29 also determined that vehicles propelled in whole or in part
by electric means, present a danger to pedestrians and consequently
adopted guidelines covering alert sounds for electric and hybrid
vehicles that are closely based on the Japanese guidelines at its March
2011 meeting. The guidelines were published as an annex to the UNECE
Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3).
    Considering the international interest and work in this new area of
safety, the United States proposed working on a new GTR, with Japan as
co-sponsor, to develop harmonized pedestrian alert sound requirements
for electric and hybrid-electric vehicles under the 1998 Global
Agreement.\8\ WP.29 is now working to develop a GTR that will consider
international safety concerns and leverage expertise and research from
around the world. Meetings of the working group are planned to take
place regularly with periodic reporting to WP.29 until the expected
establishment date for the new GTR in November 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The agency is taking this initiative in part because the
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act requires the agency to issue a
standard specifying performance requirements for an alert sound that
enables visually-impaired and other pedestrians to reasonably detect
EVs and HVs operating below their cross-over speed. First, the alert
sound must be sufficient to allow a pedestrian to reasonably detect
a nearby EV or HV operating at constant speed, accelerating,
decelerating and operating in any other scenarios that NHTSA deems
appropriate. Second, it must reflect the agency's determination of
the minimum sound level emitted by a motor vehicle that is necessary
to allow visually-impaired and other pedestrians to reasonably
detect a nearby EV or HV operating below the cross-over speed.
Third, it must reflect the agency's determination of the performance
requirements necessary to ensure that each vehicle's alert sound is
recognizable to pedestrians as that of a motor vehicle in operation.
In addition, the Act prohibits equipping a vehicle with means for
deactivating the alert sound.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Electric Vehicles
    At the November 2011 session of WP.29, NHTSA, Japan and the
European Commission proposed a road map for the establishment of a GTR
for electric vehicles, which was endorsed by WP.29. A new IWG is
expected to be formed in early 2012 to begin work to develop the GTR,
which would apply to all types of hybrid and pure electric vehicles,
their batteries, and other associated high risk components. To the
extent possible, the GTR will include performance-based requirements
and testing protocols designed to allow for innovation, while ensuring
that the unique safety risks posed by electric vehicles are mitigated.
The GTR will address the safety of high voltage electrical components,
including lithium-ion and other types of batteries, their performance
during normal use, after a crash event, and while recharging at a
residence or other charging station.

C. Status of GTRs Under Development

 Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicles
    In June 2007, WP.29 adopted an Action Plan prepared by the co-
sponsors (United States, Germany and Japan) to develop a GTR for
compressed gaseous and liquefied hydrogen fuel vehicles.\9\ Soon after,
WP.29 formed an IWG to develop a GTR for these types of vehicles with
the aim of attaining levels of safety equivalent to those for
conventional gasoline-powered vehicles. The GTR is intended to cover
the safety of hydrogen fuel containers, hydrogen fuel lines and their
related components, as well as the safety of high-voltage components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The GTR Action Plan (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2007/4 I) and GTR
proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/I 7) can be found at http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/gen2007.html and
http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29glob
proposal.html, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IWG is nearing completion of its work, but has a number of
issues outstanding. These include:
    (1) Electrical Shock Barrier: The IWG is considering allowing the
use of physical barriers (such as enclosures and insulation) as an
optional method for manufacturers to use to prevent electrical shock to
persons during vehicle use or after a crash event. NHTSA will make a
decision pending the completion and analysis of the research results.
    (2) Duration of the Localized Fire Test: This requirement in the
GTR specifies the duration of a localized flame test that the hydrogen
container must survive. Although the IWG has been targeting a duration
of five minutes for this test, NHTSA has proposed that the duration be
extended to 10 minutes because research data from Japan have shown that
under certain circumstances, localized fires of the types hydrogen
vehicles may experience in the real world can last as long as 10
minutes. The IWG will study the issue further before deciding on the
ultimate duration time.
    (3) Hydrogen Container Material Compatibility: The research for
this critical item has not yet been completed and is expected to
continue. Therefore, the IWG has agreed to recommend that the
contracting parties continue to use their current regulations and
standards, if any, until suitable harmonized provisions can be
developed in a possible second phase of the GTR.
    The draft GTR is scheduled to be completed and presented to WP.29
for a possible vote to establish it by December 2012.
 Light Vehicle Tires
    The IWG for developing a GTR for light vehicle tires began its work
in September 2006. This activity is sponsored by France and chaired by
the UK. The GTR would apply to radial passenger and light truck tires
designed to be used on vehicles with a gross mass of 10,000 pounds or
less. The provisions would include five mandatory performance and
labeling requirements (tire sidewall markings, tire dimensions, high
speed performance, low pressure and endurance performance, and wet grip
performance).
    In addition, there would be two optional modules, with one
containing a tire strength test and bead unseating resistance test, and
the second containing a tire rolling sound emission test. During the
course of the development of the GTR, it became apparent that the
requirements for light truck tires would require more time to develop.
It was therefore decided by WP.29 to split the work of the GTR into two
phases. The first phase will cover passenger car tires only, and the
second will address the light truck tires.
    The first phase of the GTR is near completion with only the wet
grip test remaining to be developed. WP.29 expects that the GTR will be
ready for consideration and a vote to establish by the end of 2012.
 Pole Side Impact
    WP.29 formed an IWG to develop a GTR for pole side impact
protection in June 2010 under the sponsorship and chairmanship of
Australia and held its first meeting in November 2010. The first tasks
of the IWG included confirming the safety need for the GTR
notwithstanding the increasing prevalence of the electronic stability
control systems in the vehicle fleet and assessing potential candidate
crash test procedures for the GTR. The GTR would

contain pole side impact test procedures and corresponding side impact
test dummies representing a 50th percentile adult male and a 5th
percentile adult female.
    Australia has since proposed that the GTR be drafted with a 50th
percentile adult male dummy requirement and a placeholder for 5th
percentile adult female dummy in a first phase since it appears that
the WorldSID dummies would be finalized on different timelines with the
50th percentile dummy development expected to be completed well ahead
of the smaller one. This would allow contracting parties to obtain
benefits of the 50th percentile adult male without having to wait for
the 5th percentile adult female to be finalized.
    NHTSA is concerned that a GTR, which included requirements for a
WorldSID 50th percentile adult, but not a smaller adult dummy such as
the SID-IIs, would not provide protection to smaller adults or
children. This is because the agency has found that including the
smaller 5th percentile dummy is not only important to protecting
smaller adults, but is also effective in ensuring airbags and sensors
designed for side impact protection work effectively for impact
occurring at any point across vehicle full door widths. The IWG is
still in the early stages of its work and is expected to meet regularly
with periodic reporting to WP.29.

D. Exchange of Information

 Harmonized Side Impact Dummies
    This activity is sponsored and chaired by the United States. The
IWG working on addressing this issue generally meets in conjunction
with the Pole Side Impact GTR IWG meetings as it is tasked with
supporting the GTR by developing the WorldSID dummies. Please refer to
the discussion in the ``Status of GTRs under development'' section
above.
 Enforcement Working Group
    At the June 2011 session of WP.29, NHTSA proposed that WP.29
consider forming a new working group that would meet to facilitate the
regular exchange of nonproprietary or otherwise non privileged
information on enforcement related activities from around the world to
help governments identify and manage incidences of automotive non-
compliance or defects more quickly. The participants of WP.29 welcomed
the proposal and agreed to hold the first meeting during the November
session of WP.29. The new working group includes only governmental
representatives to facilitate the open flow of information between the
vehicle safety enforcement arms of the various contracting parties.

E. Compendium of Candidate GTRs

    Article 5 of the 1998 Global Agreement provides for the creation of
a compendium of candidate technical regulations submitted by the
Contracting Parties. To date, NHTSA has submitted several Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for inclusion in this Compendium.
These FMVSS have all been listed in the Compendium after an affirmative
vote of the Executive Committee of the 1998 Global Agreement.
    The FMVSS listed in the Compendium include:
 FMVSS 202a: Head Restraints
 FMVSS 108: Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment
 FMVSS 135: Passenger Car Brake Systems
 FMVSS 139: New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles
 FMVSS 205: Glazing Materials
 FMVSS 213: Child Restraint Systems
 US EPA and the DOT programs for Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse
Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
    Additionally, the Compendium contains Japan's submission for its
technical standard for fuel leakage entitled ``Regulations for road
vehicles in Japan regarding hydrogen and fuel-cell vehicles.''

IV. Request for Comments

    NHTSA invites public comments on the various activities outlined in
this notice. The agency plans to issue new proposed rules based on each
GTR as they are established by WP.29 and will consider additional
detailed comments at that time. In the event that the public's comments
provide new information and data that leads the agency to adopt final
rules that significantly differ from the GTRs upon which they were
initially proposed, NHTSA will consider seeking amendments to those
GTRs in an effort to maintain harmonization.

    Issued on: January 20, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-1853 Filed 1-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


From:	"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
To:	Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Mancini, Dominic J."
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Cc:	Bridgid Curry/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Marta Montoro/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,
Joseph-J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott Jenkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,
Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date:	01/22/2010 10:36 PM

Subject:	RE: Updated version of the NO2 final notice

Lydia, does EPA want to retain "economically significant" designation in

Section VIII?  As strange as it seems to say this about a NAAQS, I don't

believe this rule meets the definition.

h

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 10:33 PM

To: King, Heidi R.; Mancini, Dominic J.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Subject: Fw: Updated version of the NO2 final notice

Here's the track changes version.

(See attached file: NO2 primary NAAQS-final (1-22-2010 track

changes).doc.docx)