[Federal Register: March 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 43)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11536-11538]
[DOCID:fr04mr08-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28433; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-052-AD;
Amendment 39-15403; AD 2008-05-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company 172, 182, and
206 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) 172, 182, and 206 series airplanes.
This AD requires you to remove the crew seats, modify the seat base/
back attach brackets, and reinstall the seats of the affected
airplanes. This AD results from reports of the seat base/back attach
bracket failing where it is welded to the seat base. We are issuing
this AD to prevent failure of the seat base/back attach brackets, which
could result in the seats collapsing backwards during flight with
consequent loss of control.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on April 8, 2008.
    On April 8, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD.

ADDRESSES: To get the service information identified in this AD,
contact Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706,
Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov. The docket number is FAA-2007-28433;
Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-052-AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Park, Aerospace Engineer, 1801
Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-
4123; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On July 12, 2007, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that
would apply to certain Cessna Models 172, 182, and 206 airplanes. This
proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on July 19, 2007 (72 FR 39584). The NPRM proposed to
remove the crew seats, modify the seat base/back attach brackets, and
reinstall the seats of the affected airplanes and seats 3 and 4 on 206
series airplanes.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and FAA's response to each comment:

Comment Issue No. 1: Number of Affected Airplanes

    Jack Buster with the Modification and Replacement Part Association
(MARPA) noted that the airworthiness concern sheet stated the proposed
AD action affected 2,770 airplanes and the actual proposed AD stated
the action affected 1,556 airplanes. He requests we clarify the number
of the affected airplanes.
    The FAA agrees that the numbers in the airworthiness concern sheet
and the proposed AD differ. There are 2,770 airplanes worldwide but
only 1,556 airplanes on the U.S. Registry. In the Cost of Compliance
section of the AD preamble we state how many airplanes are listed on
the U.S. Registry.
    We will not change the final rule AD action as a result of this
comment.

Comment Issue No. 2: Availability of Incorporated by Reference (IBR)
Documents in the Docket Management System (DMS)

    Jack Buster of MARPA requests IBR documents be available to the
public by publication in the DMS.
    The FAA has transitioned from the DMS to the government-wide
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS). We are currently reviewing
issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins in the FDMS as part
of the AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this
issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our
current practice needs to be revised.

Comment Issue No. 3: Exempting Non-crew Seats From This AD Action

    The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association requests that the FAA
exempt non-crew seats from the AD action. Modification of the third and
fourth seats on the Cessna Model 206 is estimated at just under $1,000
per aircraft and does not directly address the safety of flight issue
proposed for this AD. The third and fourth seats are not crew seats and
pose little to no risk that a seat collapse could cause the pilot to
lose control of the airplane.
    The FAA agrees that the modification of the third and fourth seats
on the Cessna 206 does not directly address the safety of flight issue
proposed for this AD.
    We will change the final rule AD action as a result of this comment
and not include seats 3 and 4 on 206 series airplanes.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that
air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed
except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these
minor corrections:

     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 1,556 airplanes in the U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to do the modification:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Total cost per    Total cost on U.S.
                Labor cost                           Parts cost                airplane            operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 work-hours x $80 per hour = $400 (for     $800 (for two crew seats)...             $1,200          $1,867,200
 two crew seats).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and
other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed
it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a
request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket
No. FAA-2007-28433; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-052-AD'' in your
request.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding a new AD to read as follows:

2008-05-09 Cessna Aircraft Company: Amendment 39-15403; Docket No.
FAA-2007-28433; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-052-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective on April 8, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial
numbers that are certificated in any category:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Models                            Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) 172R...................  17281211 through 17281356.
(2) 172S...................  172S9621 through 172S10310, 172S10312
                              through 172S10324, 172S10327 through
                              172S10332, 172S10334 through 172S10349,
                              172S10351 through 172S10374, 172S10376
                              through 172S10386, 172S10388 through
                              172S10408, 172S10410 through 172S10412,
                              172S10414 through 172S10417, and 172S10421
                              through 172S10423.
(3) 182T...................  18281328 through 18281867, 18281869 through
                              18281871, 18281873 through 18281875, and
                              18281877.
(4) T182T..................  T18208240 through T18208651, T18208654,
                              T18208656 through T18208659, T18208663,
                              T18208664, and T18208667 through
                              T18208668.
(5) 206H...................  20608216 through 20608283.
(6) T206H..................  T20608445 through T20608662, T20608664
                              through T20608671, T20608673, T20608674,
                              T20608676 through T20608681, T20608683
                              through T20608689, T20608691, T20608692,
                              T20608694 through T20608696, T20608699
                              through T20608701, T20608703, and
                              T20608704.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of the seat base/back attach
bracket failing where it is welded to the seat base. We are issuing
this AD to prevent failure of the seat base/back attach brackets,
which could result in the seats collapsing backwards during flight
with consequent loss of control.

Compliance

    (e) To address this problem, you must do the following, unless
already done:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions                 Compliance            Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove, modify, and           Within the next 50    Follow Cessna
 reinstall the crew seats.     hours time-in-        Aircraft Company
                               service after April   Single Engine
                               8, 2008 (the          Modification Kit
                               effective date of     No. MK206-25-10,
                               this AD) or within    dated April 23,
                               the next 6 months     2007, as specified
                               after April 8, 2008   in Cessna Aircraft
                               (the effective date   Company Service
                               of this AD),          Bulletin SB07-25-
                               whichever occurs      04, dated April 23,
                               first.                2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (f) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Gary
Park, Aerospace Engineer, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita,
Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

Related Information

    (g) To get copies of the service information referenced in this
AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706,
Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (316) 942-
9006. To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or
on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. The docket number is Docket
No. FAA-2007-28433; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-052-AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (h) You must use Cessna Aircraft Company Single Engine
Modification Kit No. MK206-25-10, dated April 23, 2007, as specified
in Cessna Aircraft Company Service Bulletin SB07-25-04, dated April
23, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita,
Kansas 67277; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of
the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_
of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 22, 2008.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-3771 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 37032]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15816]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Regulation S-P;
    SEC File No. 270-480, OMB Control No. 3235-0537.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of
the previously approved collection of information provided for in the
privacy notice and opt out notice provisions of Regulation S-P--Privacy
of Consumer Financial Information (17 CFR part 248, subpart A) under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.).
    The privacy notice and opt out notice provisions of Regulation S-P
(the ``Rule'') implement the privacy notice and opt out notice
requirements of Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (``GLBA''), which
include the requirement that, at the time of establishing a customer
relationship with a consumer and not less than annually during the
continuation of such relationship, a financial institution shall
provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure to such consumer of such
financial institution's policies and practices with respect to
disclosing nonpublic personal information to affiliates and
nonaffiliated third parties (``privacy notice''). Title V of the GLBA
also provides that, unless an exception applies, a financial
institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information of a
consumer to a nonaffiliated third party unless the financial
institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer that
such information may be disclosed to such third party; the consumer is
given the opportunity, before the time that such information is
initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed
to such third party; and the consumer is given an explanation of how
the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option (``opt out
notice''). The Rule applies to broker-dealers, investment advisers
registered with the Commission, and investment companies (``covered
entities'').
    Commission staff estimates that, as of December 31, 2014, the
Rule's information collection burden applies to approximately 19,876
covered entities (approximately 4,267 broker-dealers, 11,508 investment
advisers registered with the Commission, and 4,101 investment
companies). In view of (a) the minimal recordkeeping burden imposed by
the Rule (since the Rule has no recordkeeping requirement and records
relating to customer communications already must be made and retained
pursuant to other SEC rules); (b) the summary fashion in which
information must be provided to customers in the privacy and opt out
notices required by the Rule (the model privacy form adopted by the SEC
and the other agencies in 2009, designed to serve as both a privacy
notice and an opt out notice, is only two pages); (c) the availability
to covered entities of the model privacy form and online model privacy
form builder; and (d) the experience of covered entities' staff with
the notices, SEC staff estimates that covered entities will each spend
an average of approximately 12 hours per year complying with the Rule,
for a total of approximately 238,512 annual burden-hours (12 x 19,876 =
238,512). SEC staff understands that the vast majority of covered
entities deliver their privacy and opt out notices with other
communications such as account opening documents and account
statements. Because the other communications are already delivered to
consumers, adding a brief privacy and opt out notice should not result
in added costs for processing or for postage and materials. Also,
privacy and opt out notices may be delivered electronically to
consumers who have agreed to electronic communications, which further
reduces the costs of delivery. Because SEC staff assumes that most
paper copies of privacy and opt out notices are combined with other
required mailings, the burden-hour estimates above are based on
resources required to integrate the privacy and opt notices into
another mailing, rather than on the resources required to create and
send a separate mailing. SEC staff estimates that, of the estimated 12
annual burden-hours incurred, approximately 8 hours would be spent by
administrative assistants at an hourly rate of $74, and approximately 4
hours would be spent by internal counsel at an hourly rate of $380, for
a total annualized internal cost of compliance of $2,112 for each of
the covered entities (8 x $74 = $592; 4 x $380 = $1,520; $592 + $1,520
= $2,112). Hourly cost of compliance estimates for administrative
assistant time are derived from the Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association's Office Salaries in the Securities Industry 2013,
modified by SEC staff to account for an 1,800-hour work-year and
multiplied by 2.93 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits
and overhead. Hourly cost of compliance estimates for internal counsel
time are derived from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association's Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities
Industry 2013, modified by SEC staff to account for an 1,800-hour work-
year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits, and overhead. Accordingly, SEC staff estimates that the total
annualized internal cost of compliance for the estimated total hour
burden for the approximately 19,876 covered entities subject to the
Rule is approximately $41,978,112 ($2,112 x 19,876 = $41,978,112).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: June 23, 2015.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-15816 Filed 6-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 109)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31453-31457]
[DOCID:fr07jn07-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

Interpretation of OSHA's Standard for Process Safety Management
of Highly Hazardous Chemicals

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Interpretation.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice constitutes the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's official interpretation and explanation of the phrase
``on site in one location'' in the ``Application'' section of OSHA's
Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals standard.
(``PSM'').

DATES: Effective Date: June 7, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Kevin
Ropp, Director, Office of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-3647, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-
1999; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. For technical information contact: Mike
Marshall, PSM Coordinator, Directorate of Enforcement Programs, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Room N-3119, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Federal Register Notice addresses
OSHA's interpretation of the term ``on site in one location'' in the
scope and application section of the PSM standard. As set forth below,
OSHA interprets this term to mean that the standard applies when a
threshold quantity (TQ) of a highly hazardous chemical (HHC) exists
within contiguous areas under the control of an employer, or group of
affiliated employers, in any group of vessels that are interconnected,
or in separate vessels that are located in such proximity that the HHC
could be involved in a potential catastrophic release, as indicated in
the regulatory definition of ``process.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``contiguous'' has been found to mean either
``nearby'' or ``in actual contact'' in terms of the application of
an OSHA standard. Empire Company, Inc., 17 BNA OSHC 1990 (Docket No.
93-1861, 1997), affirmed 136 F.3d 873 (1st Cir. 1998). See also 136
F.3d at 878, citing Black's Law Dictionary 320 (6th ed. 1990) (``In
close proximity; neighboring * * *''). References to ``contiguous''
areas in this Notice carry the same meaning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Introduction

    The meaning of ``on site in one location'' was at issue in a recent
case before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Motiva Enterprises, 21 BNA OSHC 1696 (OSHRC No. 02-2160, 2006). In that
decision the Review Commission queried whether that language was meant
to limit in some way the applicability of the standard to a highly-
hazardous-chemical process. In the absence of an authoritative
interpretation, the Review Commission decided it could not determine
that the cited activities were ``on site'' and ``in one location,'' and
it vacated the citations. Recognizing that OSHA is the policymaking
actor under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, it left it to the
agency to decide ``in the first instance * * * the meaning of these
terms and offer an `authoritative interpretation.' '' It also said that
``[a]ny such subsequent interpretation'' would be reviewed in a future
case ``under `standard deference principles.' ''
    The PSM standard provides, in pertinent part:

    (a) Application. (1) This section applies to the following:
    (i) A process which involves a chemical at or above the
specified threshold quantities listed in appendix A to this section;
    (ii) A process which involves a flammable liquid or gas (as
defined in Sec.  1910.1200(c) of this part) on site in one location,
in a quantity of 10,000 pounds (4535.9 kg) or more * * * .,

29 CFR 1910.119(a).

The standard defines ``process'' to mean:

* * * any activity involving a highly hazardous chemical including
any use, storage, manufacturing, handling, or the on-site movement
of such chemicals, or combination of these activities. For purposes
of this definition, any group of vessels which are interconnected
and separate vessels which are located such that a highly hazardous
chemical could be involved in a potential release shall be
considered a single process.,

29 CFR 1910.119(b).

The standard defines ``highly hazardous chemical'' to mean:

    * * *a substance possessing toxic, reactive, flammable, or
explosive properties and specified by paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.

Ibid.

The standard thus provides regulatory definitions for the application
provision's key terms, ``process'' and ``highly hazardous chemical.''
It omits, however, any definition for the phrase ``on site in one
location'' that is

included in subsection (a)(1)(ii) of the Application provision.
    In providing this Notice's clarification of the intended coverage
of the standard, OSHA has determined that, considering the history,
language, structure and purposes of the PSM standard, it is abundantly
clear that there is considerable overlap between the term ``on site in
one location'' and the definition of ``process'' adopted in the final
version of the standard. In addition, ``on site in one location''
serves the independent function of excluding coverage where the HHC
threshold would be met only if all amounts in interconnected or
proximate vessels or pipes were aggregated but some of the amounts
needed to meet the threshold quantity are outside the perimeter of the
employer's facility. For example, trucks and pipelines outside the
boundaries of the employer's property, which may be regulated by the
Department of Transportation in any event, are excluded.

B. The Regulatory History

1. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, July 17, 1990 (NPRM)

    In response to several major disasters in both the United States
and abroad, OSHA began to develop a comprehensive standard addressing
hazards related to releases of HHCs in the workplace. On July 17, 1990,
OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) at 55 FR 29150.
Approximately four months later (November 15, 1990), Section 304 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, Public Law 101-549, required
the Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, to promulgate, pursuant to the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, a chemical process safety
standard to prevent accidental releases of hazardous chemicals that
could pose a threat to employees. The Act also directed EPA to issue a
rule addressing the hazards to the public of releases of such chemicals
into the atmosphere and to coordinate the provisions with comparable
OSHA requirements, (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(7)).
    The NPRM's scope and application section included the following
statement of the standard's intended application:

    (b) Application. (1) This section applies to the following* * *
    (i) Processes* * *
    (ii) Processes which involve flammable liquids or gases (as
defined in Sec.  1910.1200(c) of this part) onsite in one location
in quantities of 10,000 lbs or more* * *,

55 FR 29163.

    Under the proposal the term ``process'' would be defined as:

    * * *any activity conducted by an employer that involves a
highly hazardous chemical including any use, storage, manufacturing,
handling, or movement of a highly hazardous chemical, or a
combination of these activities.

Ibid.

    Thus, the NPRM applied to processes in the plural, and the
definition of ``process'' did not include any language indicating a
geographic limit to what constituted a covered ``activity.'' The
subsection on application to flammable liquids and gases included ``on
site in one location,'' without explaining the phrase. The subsection
on application to listed hazardous chemicals lacked any parallel
language.

2. The Rulemaking Record and Hearing Process

    In response to the NPRM, OSHA received over 175 written comments.
OSHA's review of the comments revealed a significant issue of how TQs
of HHCs were to be calculated. Because OSHA had used the plural term
``processes'' in the NPRM, which could suggest multiple processes in
separate locations, some stakeholders expressed concern as to whether
OSHA intended TQs be calculated by an aggregate of all HHC present at
an employer's facility, or by the amount of an HHC present in one
particular process. (See e.g., Exs. 3-104, 109, 112, 119, 125, 126).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ All citations to either exhibits or transcripts in this
instruction are references to the PSM Standard's Rulemaking Docket,
No. S026, available at http://www.regulations.gov.

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

    Recognizing this confusion, OSHA, in a Federal Register notice of
November 1, 1990,\3\ clarified its intent that TQs would be calculated
by process or location, and not on a facility-wide basis:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This Federal Register notice also announced additional
hearings in Houston, TX.

    OSHA did not intend that facilities aggregate quantities of
covered chemicals. The important factor is the amount of a listed
chemical in a plant that could be released at one point in time. If
the total amount of a listed chemical in a plant exceeds its
threshold quantity of 1000 pounds, for example, but the chemical is
used in small quantities around the plant and is not concentrated in
one process or in one area, OSHA believes that a catastrophic
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
release of the entire material would be unlikely.

55 FR 46074, 46075) (emphasis added).

At hearings on the proposal held in Washington, DC and Houston, TX, and
in additional written comments, stakeholders almost uniformly accepted
OSHA's explanation of its intent that TQs of HHCs were to be calculated
by individual process and not through aggregation of all processes
present in a facility. Several major trade associations and refinery
employers concurred with OSHA's conclusions, (Tr. 1113, 2591-92, 3038,
3419, 3192; Exs. 3-165, 3-170). Commenters urged that this aggregation
principle should apply regardless of the type of HHC, (e.g., Tr. 1113,
3038, 3192; Ex.-109).
    In addition, during the rulemaking, commenters noted that HHCs
concentrated in a single interconnected process should be subject to
the requirements of the PSM standard, (Ex. 3-165, 3-166). The concept
of interconnectedness was integral to American Petroleum Institute
(API) 750, Management of Process Hazards, an industry consensus
document on managing process hazards. This was one of the industry
practices OSHA referenced when developing the PSM Standard, (55 FR
29159). Specifically, API 750 defined a ``facility'' and ``process'' as
follows:

    1.4.4 A facility comprises the buildings, containers, and
equipment that could reasonably be expected to participate in a
catastrophic release as a result of their being physically
interconnected or of their proximity and in which dangerous
chemicals are used, stored, manufactured, handled, or moved.
    1.4.5 Process refers to the activities that constitute use,
storage, manufacture, handling, or movement in all facilities that
contain dangerous substances.

3. The Final Rule

    On February 24, 1992, OSHA promulgated the final PSM standard, (57
FR 6356). With respect to TQ calculations, OSHA again reiterated its
November 1, 1990 statement of intent, noting that it ``continues to
believe that the potential of a catastrophic release exists when a
highly hazardous chemical is concentrated in a process.'' OSHA also
stated that it ``agrees with those commenters'' who argued that
``highly hazardous chemicals in less than threshold quantities
distributed in several processes would not present as great a risk of
catastrophe as the threshold quantity in a single process.'' (57 FR
6364).
    To reflect its agreement with the commenters and API 750 on this
point, OSHA modified the definition of ``process'' in the final rule.
First, the ``Application'' provision was stated in terms of a
``process'' rather than ``processes.'' Next, as set forth above, the
final standard augmented the NPRM's definition of ``process'' by adding
language to clarify that ``interconnected and nearby vessels containing
a highly hazardous chemical would be considered part of the single

process and the quantities of the chemical would be aggregated to
determine if the threshold quantity of the chemical is exceeded''. Id.,
at 6372 (emphasis added). OSHA also added the term ``on-site movement''
to the list of covered activities. Finally, OSHA specifically stated
that the term ``process,'' when used in conjunction with the
application section of the standard, establishes the intent of the
standard, (57 FR 6372). As a result, OSHA intended that the term
``process'' be read in conjunction with the terms ``on site in one
location'' when evaluating the applicability of PSM. There was no
further preamble discussion, however, on what, if anything, ``on site
in one location'' was meant to convey.
    The regulatory history establishes several key points. First, OSHA
intended ``process'' to be the central term elucidating the standard's
coverage. Second, employers need not aggregate all amounts of a
chemical in an entire facility to determine whether a threshold
quantity is present. Instead, only amounts in a group of vessels that
are interconnected, or in vessels that are separate but sufficiently
close together that they could be involved in the same release, are to
be aggregated. Finally, the agency intended no distinction in the
application of these principles between listed chemicals subject to 29
CFR 1910.119(a)(i) and flammables subject to 29 CFR 1910.119(a)(ii).

4. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Risk Management Program
(RMP)

    In addition to directing OSHA to develop the PSM standard, Congress
directed EPA to address the hazards of catastrophic releases of highly
hazardous chemicals to the atmosphere, (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). EPA issued
its rule on June 20, 1996, following promulgation of OSHA's PSM
standard, (61 FR 31667). While the definition of ``process'' in the
EPA-prescribed RMP is identical to the PSM definition, RMP does not use
the term ``on site in one location''. Instead, RMP uses the term
``stationary source,'' which is defined, in relevant part, as ``any
buildings, structures, equipment, installations, or substance emitting
stationary activities which belong to the same industrial group, which
are located on one or more contiguous properties, which are under the
control of the same person (or persons under common control), and from
which an accidental release may occur.'' (40 CFR 68.3). This is the
same definition used by Congress. (42 U.S.C.A 7412(r)(2)(c)).

C. The Regulatory Language and Structure

    As noted above, the Secretary construes the phrase ``on site in one
location'' to refer to contiguous areas under the control of an
employer, or group of affiliated employers, and, within that area to a
group of vessels that are interconnected, or separate but sufficiently
near each other that they could be involved in a catastrophic release.
This interpretation accords with the ordinary dictionary meanings of
``site'' and ``location'' and with the context of the entire
application provision and the related regulatory definitions for
``process'' and ``highly hazardous chemical.'' In interpreting the
phrase, moreover, the Secretary has concluded that to give meaning to
all the words of the standard, a certain degree of redundancy is
inevitable; and that it would not be faithful to the drafters' intent
or the purposes of the standard to construe ``on site in one location''
as completely separate from the definition of ``process,'' since the
result would be to read part of the ``process'' definition out of the
standard altogether. In so concluding, the Secretary notes that the
overlap of ``process'' with ``on site in one location'' parallels a
similar overlap with ``highly hazardous chemical,'' as the latter term
appears both in the ``process'' definition and in the language of the
application provision and its definition includes a reference back to
the application provision. Thus, the standard applies to a process, a
process is an activity involving a highly hazardous chemical, and a
highly hazardous chemical is, inter alia, a chemical that is specified
by the standard's application provision, 29 CFR 1910.119(a), (b). But,
despite this evident circularity, nobody has ever objected to that
overlap. Similarly, there is unavoidable overlap between ``on site in
one location'' and the portions of the process definition that refer to
interconnection and location.
    The interpretation provided here is consistent with the ordinary
dictionary meaning of ``on site in one location.'' The dictionary
defines ``site'' to mean, primarily, ``the position or location of a
town, building, etc., esp. as to its environment.'' Webster's
Unabridged Dictionary 1128, 1788 (2d ed. 2001). It defines ``location''
to mean, primarily, ``a place or situation occupied.'' See also
American Heritage Dictionary (1976), 1210 (defining ``site'' as ``the
place or plot of land where something was or is to be located'' ), 765
(defining ``location'' to mean ``a place where something is or might be
located; a site or situation''); Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999),
at 1392 (``site'' means ``a place or location; esp., a piece of
property set aside for a specific use''), at 951 (``location'' means
``the specific place or position of a person or thing''). That ``site''
and ``location'' are virtually synonyms provides further support for
the conclusion that avoiding redundancy was not uppermost in the minds
of the drafters. Read together, however, they reinforce the idea that
OSHA intended to give ``highly hazardous chemical'' and ``process'' a
rough geographical, as well as functional, limit.
    This intent may be further discerned from consideration of relevant
regulatory history. CAAA Section 304 directed the Secretary, in
coordination with EPA, to promulgate a chemical process safety standard
designed to protect employees from hazards associated with accidental
releases of HHCs in the workplace. Although EPA's RMP Rule at 40 CFR
part 68 et seq. does not contain an ``on site'' (or ``in one
location'') limitation in its text, Congress's defining EPA coverage in
terms of a ``stationary source'' accomplishes the same limitation.
``Stationary source'' is defined as any buildings, structures,
equipment, installations or substance emitting stationary activities
(i) which belong to the same industrial group, (ii) which are located
on one or more contiguous properties, (iii) which are under the control
of the same person (or persons under common control), and (iv) from
which an accidental release may occur, (42 U.S.C.A Sec.
7412(r)(2)(c)).\4\ Because Congress mandated OSHA and EPA coordination
in addressing the release of hazardous substances, the regulations of
the two agencies are to be construed together. In other words, the
boundaries of a covered facility under PSM will be similar to the
boundaries of a stationary source under RMP, and ``on site in one
location'' is given essentially the same meaning as the ``which are
located on one or more contiguous properties'' component of the term
``stationary source,'' while the rest of the definition mirrors OSHA's
definition of ``process.'' Just as that term encompasses most of the
PSM ``process'' definition, this construction of ``on site in one
location'' also encompasses the inclusion of the ``on-site movement''
of HHCs that was added to the definition of ``process'' in the final
rule. Although neither the NPRM nor the preamble to the final rule
provides any detailed explanation of this inclusion, it would be
consistent with the statutory aims of the CAAA to

limit PSM coverage to facilities included in the ``stationary source''
definition. To that end, the Secretary also reads the limitation in
``stationary source'' to locations `` which are under the control of
the same person (or persons under common control)'' as being implicit
in the phrase ``on site in one location'' and, indeed, in the
definition of ``process'' (since the former phrase only relates
explicitly to flammable liquids and gases, and not to Appendix A toxic
substances).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This term was directly adopted into RMP at 40 CFR 68.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This construction also comports with the regulatory history on
aggregating the TQs of HHCs. As noted in the comments of stakeholders,
``on site in one location'' could not be naturally read with the plural
term ``processes'' in proposed Sec.  1910.119(b)(1)(ii). A large
facility can have separate processes at different locations within its
boundaries, a point raised by Allied Signal in its comments (Ex. 3-17).
The American Paper Institute similarly commented that ``a significant
concern for us is that the proposed rule is unclear as to how an
employer can determine when the rule would apply to a particular
facility handling chemicals at different locations of that facility.''
(Tr. 1112).
    Not only did the stakeholders point out that the NPRM's scope and
application section was inconsistent with the proposed definition of
``process,'' OSHA itself recognized the issue and took the unusual step
of clarifying its intent in an interim proposal document. By stating
that a chemical used in small quantities around the plant and not
concentrated in one process or in one area would be unlikely to cause a
catastrophic release, OSHA clearly sought to limit coverage of the PSM
standard to situations where a TQ of an HHC was concentrated in a
single, including an interconnected, process. Despite the inexact use
of the plural ``processes'' in the NPRM, it was never the agency's
intent to cover HHCs sufficiently dispersed in various locations on a
large site, and in more than one process, such that their release from
any one process would not cause the type of catastrophic harm that this
standard was aimed to prevent. The use of ``on site in one location''
in the provision regarding flammables was intended to signal that
employers would not need to aggregate all sources of the chemical
facility-wide, or those outside the bounds of the employers' facility,
although the provision did not clearly describe the agency's intent
regarding which sources should be aggregated.
    The hearing transcripts and written comments confirm that members
of the refinery industry, an industry with a particular interest in
OSHA's regulation of flammable liquids and gases, understood and
accepted OSHA's clarified position. For instance, Shell Oil Company
testified that it ``strongly supports OSHA's position that owners
should not aggregate quantities of chemicals at separate locations
across a facility to determine if threshold quantities have been
reached'', (Tr. 2591). BP testified that ``if flammables are over
10,000 pounds in process, the rule applies to that process'', (Tr.
3038). Amoco Corporation agreed that ``OSHA clarified that the
threshold quantities of highly hazardous chemicals are determined on
process basis, rather than by aggregating quantities of like chemicals
for an entire facility'', (Ex. 3-165). Union Carbide similarly stated
its understanding that ``all of the thresholds be calculated on a `per
process' basis'', (Ex. 3-109).
    OSHA reiterated this position in the final rule, stating that it
``continues to believe that the potential hazard of a catastrophic
release exists when the highly hazardous chemical is concentrated in a
single process'', (57 FR 6364). This was in agreement with those
stakeholders who argued that TQs should not be aggregated over an
entire facility, (e.g., Tr. 2591, 3192; Exs. 3-163, 3-164). OSHA's
final position was that PSM coverage could only be found if a TQ of an
HHC exists in a single process.
    To the extent ``on site in one location'' did not adequately convey
that intent, the more precise revision of the definition of ``process''
as a result of the record comments did so by clarifying that the
standard's scope was meant to apply to an area more confined than
multiple processes, but more expansive than a single process point,
where the process involves inter-connecting vessels or pipes, or
vessels in close proximity such that the release of an HHC in one could
trigger a chain reaction in the others. Accordingly, OSHA modified the
definition of ``process'' to include the concepts of
``interconnection'' and ``co-location'' with addition of the language,
``any group of vessels which are interconnected or separate vessels
which are located such that a highly hazardous chemical could be
involved in a potential release shall be considered a single process.''
29 CFR 1910.119(b). OSHA stated in the final rule that this definition,
when read in conjunction with the application section, establishes the
standard's intended coverage, (57 FR 6372). Therefore, a ``single
process'' containing a TQ of an HHC includes an ``interconnected'' or
closely co-located process.

D. The Regulatory Purpose

    Construing ``on site in one location'' in tandem with the final,
expanded definition of ``process'' also serves OSHA's intended
purposes. First, the full definition of ``process'' makes clear that it
was not OSHA's intent that it would be required to prove that a release
of an HHC in one component of an interconnected process could affect a
release in other components of the same interconnected process in order
for the PSM standard to apply. Rather, the intent of OSHA and the
understanding of the stakeholders were to the contrary, as the
rulemaking record indicates. For example, AT&T recommended that OSHA
define threshold quantity as ``the maximum amount in pounds in a
process (or connected processes)'', (Ex. 3-126). Asarco, in its
comments, suggested that an interconnected process should be covered by
the PSM standard. (Ex. 3-125). API, the leading trade organization of
the refinery industry, included the concept of interconnection in its
Recommended Practice 750. As described supra, API 750 applied to
``facilities'' that use, produce, process or store flammable or
explosive substances that are present in such quantity and condition
that a sudden, catastrophic release of more than five tons of gas or
vapor can occur over a matter of minutes, based on credible failure
scenarios and the properties of the materials involved, (API 750
<IP_ADDRESS>(a)).\5\ The term ``facilities'', as used in API 750, includes
buildings, containers, and equipment that are physically
interconnected, (see API 750 1.4.4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In the final rule, OSHA rejected API's TQ of 5 tons of
released flammable vapor as too complex, using instead the 10,000
pounds TQ. 57 FR at 6366-67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The presence of the word ``or'' between interconnected and co-
located vessels in the final rule demonstrates that two potential
avenues exist to find a covered process when several aspects may be
involved in the overall process. The plain language of the definition
establishes two distinct burdens of proof when considering the
applicability of PSM to an interconnected or a co-located process. With
respect to a co-located process, OSHA would be required to demonstrate
as part of its prima facie case that unconnected but co-located
processes are situated in a manner that a release from one process
could contribute to the release of the other. In contrast, the
definition of ``process'' contains no such requirement for an
interconnected process. In other words, OSHA's intent is that the
phrase ``which are located such that a highly

hazardous chemical could be involved in a potential release'' modifies
only the immediately-preceding ``separate vessels,'' making the entire
phrase parallel to the free-standing phrase ``any group of vessels
which are interconnected.'' Thus, there is no additional requirement on
OSHA to show the potentiality of a release with respect to
interconnected (as opposed to separate) vessels. Rather, the PSM
standard presumes that all aspects of a physically connected process
can be expected to participate in a catastrophic release.
    Second, it is clear that, in revising the ``process'' definition to
encompass the ``on-site movement'' of HHCs and the twin concepts of
inter-connectedness and co-location, OSHA intended that definition to
bear most of the weight of defining the scope of the standard. As
originally drafted, the ``process'' definition not only did not have
these clarifications, but ``onsite in one location'' appeared only in
the subsection on flammable liquids and gases, and not in the
subsection on Appendix A toxic substances. There is no obvious
explanation why this was so. As noted, the phrase was intended to
signal that it was not necessary to aggregate all sources of a chemical
within, or beyond, the employer's facility. The final standard
clarified and more precisely stated this intent and made clear that the
same principles applied to both listed and flammable chemicals.
    The phrase in the final standard continues to carry its original
NPRM meaning of setting a geographic boundary (``on site'') and, within
that boundary, a site-specific parameter (``in one location''). But
after the definition of ``process'' was changed in the final rule to
include explicit language clarifying that a ``single process'' includes
``any group of vessels which are interconnected or separate vessels
which are located such that a highly hazardous chemical could be
involved in a potential release,'' the limitation placed on application
of the standard to flammable liquids and gases denoted by the related
phrase ``on site in one location'' no longer carries the independent
weight it had before OSHA clarified the intended meaning of
``process.'' As previously stated, however, it continues to serve a
separate purpose by operating to exclude coverage where the HHC
threshold would be met only if all amounts in interconnected or co-
located vessels were aggregated but some of the amounts needed to meet
the threshold quantity are outside of the perimeter of the employer's
facility.

E. The Response to the Motiva Decision

    In the Motiva decision, the Review Commission appropriately left to
the Secretary the task of interpreting ``on site in one location'' as
it appears in the PSM standard, rather than doing so as an initial
matter on its own. This Notice accomplishes that function. The
interpretation set forth here is supported by the language, history and
purposes of the standard and is consistent with the position adopted by
EPA. In the absence of an agency interpretation, the Review Commission
had focused on another guide to regulatory intent, the canon of
construction that says that all the words of a statute (or regulation)
should be assumed to have their own meaning, and suggested that ``on
site in one location'' therefore has a meaning wholly apart from
process. Regardless of the strength of this canon, the Secretary has
satisfied it here by interpreting ``on site in one location'' to limit
coverage to vessels within contiguous areas controlled by an employer
or group of affiliated employers.
    More fundamentally, the Secretary agrees that canons of
construction can be useful guides to regulatory intent. They are guides
only, however, and should not be mechanically applied in the face of
stronger indicia of intent. The flip side of the canon referred to
above is the rule that the words of a standard (or regulation) should
not be given meaning at the expense of rendering other words
meaningless. Accordingly, the courts have put aside the general rule
against redundancy in statutes if applying the rule would be counter to
legislative intent. See Gutierrez v. Ada, 528 U.S. 250, 258 (2000)
(``rule against redundancy does not necessarily have the strength to
turn a tide of good cause to come out the other way''); Morton v.
United Parcel Service, Inc., 272 F.3d 1249, 1258 (9th Cir. 2001) (rule
of redundancy not followed when intent of statute clear); Mayer v.
Spanel Intern. LTD., 51 F.3d 670, 674 (7th Cir. 1995) (every enacted
word need not carry independent force absent strong evidence that at
the time of enactment the words were understood as equivalents). In
this case, the general statutory canon against redundancy cannot be
given controlling weight given the clear intent of OSHA, in the final
rule, and the stakeholders, through their comments, during the
regulatory process. To do otherwise, in the Secretary's judgment, would
render meaningless the most important revision affecting coverage that
came out of the rulemaking process, namely the explicit inclusion of
the twin concepts of interconnection and co-location in the definition
of ``process'' and the clear intent that those concepts would determine
coverage under the standard.
    Moreover, it is simply linguistically inescapable that there is
overlap and redundancy among the terms of the standard. Motiva involved
the interplay between ``on site in one location'' and the
``interconnected'' prong of the definition of ``process,'' but the
other prong of that definition refers to vessels that are so
``located'' to create a risk of catastrophic release. Similarly, the
appearance of ``highly hazardous chemical'' in the definition of
``process'' and in the application provision, and the reference back to
the application section in the HHC definition, creates an unavoidable
redundancy. So too here, the Secretary cannot reasonably interpret ``on
site in one location'' in a way that has no overlap with ``process.''
Instead, consistent with how courts generally apply the canons of
construction, she has settled on an interpretation of the term ``on
site in one location'' that conforms as much as possible to the
ordinary meaning of the words and to the standard's overall language,
history, and purposes.

Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of Edwin G. Foulke,
Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of June, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
 [FR Doc. E7-10918 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15661-15663]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06009]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0617; FRL-10018-36]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an
Existing Collection and Request for Comment; Collection of Information
for TSCA Mercury Inventory Reporting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The ICR, entitled: ``Collection of Information for TSCA Mercury
Inventory Reporting'' and identified by EPA ICR No. 2567.03 and OMB
Control No. 2070-0207, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that
is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2021. Before submitting the ICR
to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in
this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the
docket for public review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0617, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Thomas Groeneveld (7407M),
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),
EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply
to?

    Title: Collection of Information for TSCA Mercury Inventory
Reporting.
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 2567.03.
    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0207.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on October
31, 2021. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after
appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or
by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers
for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: As directed in the June 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act amendments to the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), EPA is required to assist in the preparation and
publication in the Federal Register of an ``inventory of mercury
supply, use, and trade in the United States.'' 15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(B)
and (D). Based on the inventory of information collected through this
ICR, the Agency is directed to ``identify any manufacturing processes
or products that intentionally add mercury'' and ``recommend actions,
including proposed revisions of Federal law or regulations, to achieve
further reductions in mercury use.'' 15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(C).
    The primary purpose of this ICR is to support the development of
that inventory. In turn, the inventory will help the Agency identify
uses of mercury and recommend means to achieve further reductions of
such uses in commerce. In addition, the Agency seeks to obtain the
information necessary to achieve its goal to further reduce the use of
mercury in products and certain manufacturing processes in order to
prevent future releases to the environment, as well as assist the
United States in reporting implementation under the Minamata
Convention. EPA seeks to enhance its current information on how much
mercury is used, in which products and manufacturing processes, and
whether certain products are manufactured domestically, imported, or
exported.
    Reporting is required from any person who manufactures (including
imports) mercury or mercury-added products, as well as any person who
otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process under
TSCA section 8(b). 15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(D)(i). The Agency promulgated
reporting requirements at 40 CFR part 713. In order to avoid
duplication, EPA coordinated the reporting with the Interstate Mercury
Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC). 15 U.S.C.
2607(b)(10)(D)(ii).
    Regulated entities may claim some of the information given to EPA
as CBI. Reporting requirements will contain information for respondents
on how to make a claim to EPA that all or part of their submitted
information is CBI. EPA handles claims of confidentiality pursuant to
established CBI procedures, as found at section 14 of TSCA, 40 CFR part
2, and the Agency's TSCA CBI Manual. CBI is also protected under the
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C 525).
    Burden statement: annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden
for this collection of information is estimated to average 23 hours per
response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are persons who manufacture (including

import) mercury, mercury-added products, and persons who otherwise
intentionally use mercury in a manufacturing process.
    Estimated average number of potential respondents per year: 756.
    Frequency of response: Every three years.
    Estimated yearly average number of responses for each respondent:
0.33.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 52,000 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: EPA estimates the annual average
industry burden and cost over three years at approximately 17,000 hours
and $1.4 million dollars, respectively, with a total industry burden of
approximately 52,000 hours and $4.2 million over the three-year period.
Annual average agency burden and costs annualized over 3 years are
1,600 hours and $0.15 million, with a total agency burden of
approximately 4,800 hours and $0.4 million over 3 years. Total annual
burden and cost for both industry and agency annualized over 3 years is
19,000 hours and $1.8 million dollars. Total overall burden and costs
are 57,000 hours and $4.6 million.

III. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    In June 2018, EPA finalized a rule to require reporting from
persons who manufacture (including import) mercury or mercury-added
products, or otherwise intentionally use mercury in a manufacturing
process. That rule was challenged in the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals by the Natural Resources Defense Council and several state
attorneys general in July 2018. The petitioners argued that three
exemptions to the reporting requirements violated the statutory mandate
within TSCA section 8(b)(10). Oral arguments were held on November 20,
2019 and the court issued its decision in June 5, 2020. The Agency
prevailed on two issues, but the Second Circuit vacated an exemption
(40 CFR 713.7(b)(2)) for persons who import pre-assembled products that
contain a mercury-added component. As a result, such persons are now
required to report pursuant to 40 CFR 713.7(b). Additionally, an
interim final rule will be used to effectuate the decision of the
court, including necessary regulatory amendments.
    Based on the numbers of reporters of mercury data to the IMERC
Database, as well as EPA's TRI program and CDR rule, there will be a
change in manufacturers (including importers) or processors that could
respond to this information collection. The annual public burden for
this collection of information is estimated about 23 hours per
respondent. This request represents a decrease of 9 hours per
respondent from that currently in the OMB inventory, or a total
decrease of 20,522 hours (from 72,567 to 52,045 hours). This increase
is due to, a decrease in rule familiarization burden, a decrease in
form completion burden due to mercury export prohibitions, and changes
in the number of estimated respondents.
    In addition, OMB has requested that EPA move towards using the 18-
question format for ICR Supporting Statements used by other federal
agencies and departments and is based on the submission instructions
established by OMB in 1995, replacing the alternate format developed by
EPA and OMB prior to 1995. EPA intends to update this Supporting
Statement during the comment period to reflect the 18-question format,
and has included the questions in an attachment to this Supporting
Statement. In doing so, the Agency does not expect the change in format
to result in substantive changes to the information collection
activities or related estimated burden and costs.

IV. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: March 17, 2021.
Michal Freedhoff,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2021-06009 Filed 3-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 63240-63242]
[DOCID:fr14oc10-133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63051; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-135]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding
Collars for Unpriced Orders

October 6, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on September 29, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 4751 to include system
functionality that will cancel any portion of an unpriced order
submitted to NASDAQ OMX PSX (``PSX'') that would execute at a price
that is more than $0.25 or 5 percent worse than the national best bid
and offer at the time the order initially reaches the Exchange,
whichever is greater. The text of the proposed rule change is available
from the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com,
at the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below, and is set forth in Sections A, B, and C below.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to protect market
participants by reducing the risk that unpriced orders, also known as
market orders, will execute at prices that are significantly worse than
the national best bid and offer (``NBBO'') at the time the Exchange
receives the order.\3\ The Exchange believes that most market
participants expect that their order will be executed at its full size
at a price reasonably related to the prevailing market. However,
participants may not be aware that there is insufficient liquidity at
or near the NBBO to fill the entire order, particularly for more
thinly-traded securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ It should be noted that the circumstances under which it is
possible to enter a market order in PSX are limited to market peg
orders that are entered when PSX has some liquidity at the NBBO on
the side of the market to which the order pegs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the launch of trading on PSX, the Exchange is proposing to
implement functionality in its trading systems that would cancel any
portion of unpriced orders that would execute on PSX at a price that is
the greater of $0.25 or 5 percent worse than the NBBO at the time the
Exchange receives the order. Unpriced orders that would be subject to
this calculation and potential cancellation are defined in Phlx Rule
3301(f)(9) as ``Unpriced Orders.''
    The following example illustrates how the Unpriced Order process
would work. A market participant submits a Market Peg order to buy 500
shares. The NBBO is $6.00 bid by $6.05 offer, with 100 shares available
on each side. PSX has 100 shares available at the $6.05 to sell at the
offer price and also has reserve orders to sell 100 shares at $6.32 and
400 shares at $6.40. No other market center is publishing offers to
sell the security at prices in the range of $6.05 to $6.40.
    In this example, the Unpriced Order would be executed in the
following manner:
     100 shares would be executed by PSX at the $6.05;
     100 shares would be executed by PSX at $6.32 (more than
$0.25 but less than 5 percent worse than the NBBO); and
     200 shares, representing the remainder of the Unpriced
Order, would be cancelled because the remaining

liquidity available at $6.40 is more than 5 percent worse than the
NBBO.
    The Exchange believes that market participants who wish to trade at
prices further away from the NBBO than the Unpriced Order thresholds
would permit, may still accomplish their strategy by submitting a
marketable limit order to the Exchange. In the example above, a market
participant with such a strategy could have input a limit order with a
price of $7.00, which would have executed up to its full size provided
liquidity is available.
    The Exchange's rule change implements a rule similar to rules
already in place at The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, BATS Exchange, Inc.,
and NYSE Arca, Inc.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NASDAQ Rule 4751(f)(13); BATS Rule 11.9; NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.31(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act in general,\5\ and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act in particular,\6\ in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by avoiding execution of unpriced orders on the Exchange at prices that
are significantly worse than the NBBO at the time the order is
initially received by the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the NBBO
provides reasonable guidance of the current value of a given security
and therefore that market participants should have confidence that
their unpriced orders will not be executed at a significantly worse
price than the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Phlx has given the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date on which the
Exchange filed the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\9\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may
become operative upon filing. The Commission notes (i) the proposal is
similar to existing thresholds on market orders adopted by The NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC, BATS Exchange, Inc., and NYSE Arca, Inc; (ii) it
presents no novel issues; and (iii) the functionality is voluntary, and
it may provide a benefit to market participants. For these reasons, the
Commission believes it is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest to waive the 30-day operative delay, and hereby
grants such waiver.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ For the purposes only of waiving the operative date of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-135 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-135. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission,\12\ all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-135 and should be submitted on
or before November 4, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on
Exchange's website at http://nasdaqtrader.com/
micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, on the Commission's website at http://
www.sec.gov, at Phlx, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25809 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22022-22023]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07827]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0095; Notice 1]

Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, (CTA) has determined that
certain Continental motorcycle tires do not fully comply with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for
Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000
Pounds), Specialty Tires, and Tires for Motorcycles. CTA filed a
noncompliance report dated December 2, 2021, and subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on December 22, 2021, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice announces receipt of CTA's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before May 13, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the docket. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, General Engineer,

NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    CTA has determined that certain Continental motorcycle tires from
several different tire lines do not fully comply with the requirements
of paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor
Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) (49
CFR 571.119). CTA filed a noncompliance report dated December 2, 2021,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. CTA subsequently petitioned NHTSA on December 22, 2021,
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for
Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of CTA's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Tires Involved

    Approximately 14,198 Continental motorcycle tires, size 100/80-16
M/C 50P, manufactured between July 2, 2018, and September 24, 2020, are
potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    CTA explains the noncompliance is that the tires contain unallowed
symbols in the tire identification number (TIN) and, therefore, do not
meet the requirements of 49 CFR 574.5(f) which results in a
noncompliance with paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119. Specifically,
the sidewalls of the subject tires are marked with a TIN that may
contain one of the following unallowed symbols: G, I, O, Q, S, and Z.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. Each tire must be marked on each sidewall
with the TIN required by part 574. Specifically, part 574.5(f) states
that the only symbols that manufacturers and retreaders are allowed to
use in the tire identification number are: A, B, C, D, E, F, H, J, K,
L, M, N, P, R, T, U, V, W, X, Y, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 0.

V. Summary of CTA's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of CTA's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
CTA. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the
views of the Agency.
    CTA begins its petition by describing the subject noncompliance and
contending that it is inconsequential because the subject tires can
still be registered with the unauthorized symbols and can be
identified, in the event of a recall.
    CTA explains that it uses a third-party company, Computerized
Information and Management Services, Inc. (CIMS), who maintains ``a
database of all CTA's tire registrations for the purpose of identifying
purchasers of tires in the event of a future recall.'' Further, CTA
states that the database can be searched for not only exact matches but
also ``close matching database entries,'' which would mean the database
can perform a search ``if an `I' was misrepresented as a `1' or vice
versa.''
    CTA says that in the event of a recall, the subject tires can be
identified in the U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association's tire recall
search tool \1\ because it uses an algorithm in which the unallowed
letter can be used interchangeably with a corresponding allowed number,
for example, ``G or 6, I or 1, O or 0, etc.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://recallinfo.ustires.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CTA states that NHTSA has previously assigned a plant code
containing an unauthorized letter to Continental Tire's location in
Timisoara, Romania. In that case, the plant code contained the letter
``G'' which CTA believes ``does not cause any issues with tire
registration and would not affect the registration search in the case
of a recall.'' Therefore, CTA argues, the use of the unallowed symbols
in the TIN of the subject tires will not affect tire registration or
the identification of the TIN in the event of a recall.
    CTA says that it has stopped the sale of the subject tires and
``has initiated the process of changing tire curing molds to compliant
DOT TIN's'' and that ``the mold change dates will be documented in the
CTA specification system for future traceability.'' CTA also says that
it is taking action to prevent the reoccurrence of the subject
noncompliance by modifying its sidewall specification system to include
``a control point before a DOT TIN can be released for production.''
Additionally, CTA says that it will comply with the new 13 character
TIN requirement by including a 3 character assigned plant code and the
6 digit manufacturer code that will be ``automatically generated by the
specification system, which assumes that only authorized symbols are
used.''
    CTA concludes its petition by stating that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject tires that CTA no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve equipment
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after CTA
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-07827 Filed 4-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P