[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23449-23452]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09737]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0873; FRL-9926-19-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Yolo-
Solano Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality
Management District (YSAQMD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from solvent cleaning and degreasing
operations. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on June 29, 2015 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 28, 2015. If we receive
such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0873 by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3024<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they
were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California
Air Resources Board.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Adopted/
       Local agency            Rule No.          Rule title           Revised        Rescinded       Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YSAQMD....................            1.1   General Provisions          5/8/2013             N/A         2/10/14
                                             and Definitions.
YSAQMD....................            2.13  Organic Solvents             5/25/94        * 9/4/14  ..............
                                             (Rescinded).
YSAQMD....................            2.15  Disposal and                    1978        * 9/4/14  ..............
                                             Evaporation of
                                             Solvents
                                             (Rescinded).
YSAQMD....................            2.24  Solvent Cleaning            11/14/90        * 9/4/14  ..............
                                             Operations
                                             (Degreasing)
                                             (Rescinded).
YSAQMD....................            2.31  Solvent Cleaning and          5/8/13             N/A         2/10/14
                                             Degreasing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See letter from Mat Ehrhardt, Executive Director, YSAQMD to Kurt Karperos, Chief, Air Quality Planning and
  Science Division, California Air Resources Board, requesting that YSAQMD Rules 2.13, 2.15 and 2.24 be
  withdrawn from the California SIP.

    On May 5, 2014, EPA determined that the submittal for YSAQMD Rules
1.1 and 2.31 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix
V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are previous versions of Rules 1.1 and 2.31 in the SIP.
YSAQMD adopted earlier versions of these rules on August 13, 1997 and
April 27, 1994 respectively, and CARB submitted them to us on July 26,
2000 and November 30, 1994 respectively. We approved these versions of
Rule 1.1 and 2.31 into the SIP on March 22, 2004 (69 FR 13234) and
April 2, 1999 (64 FR 15922) respectively.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 1.1--``General
Provisions and Definitions,'' contains definitions for specific terms
applicable to all District rules. The revisions include additions to
the exempt organic compound definition to coincide with those that EPA
has determined to have negligible photochemical reactivity as listed in
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 51.100 (40 CFR
51.100.) Rule 2.31, ``Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing'' establishes VOC
limits and workplace requirements for cleaning and degreasing products
sold, distributed or used within the District. It also prescribes
administrative requirements for recordkeeping and test methods. YSAQMD
has rescinded Rule 2.13, ``Organic Solvents,'' Rule 2.15 ``Disposal and
Evaporation of Solvents,'' and Rule 2.24, ``Solvent Cleaning Operations
(Degreasing)'' because the requirements of those rules are now included
in the revised Rule 2.31, ``Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing'' and had
they not been rescinded, there would have been redundancies between
them and Rule 2.31. EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more
information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) document as well as each VOC major source in ozone nonattainment
areas classified as moderate or above (see sections 182(b)(2) and
182(f)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections

110(l) and 193). The YSAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area
classified as Severe for the 8-hour ozone (NAAQS 40 CFR part 81.305),
so Rules 1.1 and 2.31 must be consistent with RACT requirements.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal
Cleaning'' EPA-450/2-77-022, November 1977.
    5. ``Control Technique Guidelines for Industrial Cleaning
Solvents'' EPA-453/R-06-001, September 2006.
    6. ``Control Technique Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing''
EPA 453/R-06-003, September 2006.
    7. ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Coating
Operations at Aerospace manufacturing and Rework Operations'' EPA-453/
R-97-004, December 1997.
    8. CARB's RACT/BARCT guidance titled, ``Organic Solvent Cleaning
and Degreasing Operations'' (July 18, 1991)

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs
have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rules.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving submitted YSAQMD Rules 1.1 and 2.31 for incorporation into
the SIP and to replace in the SIP YSAQMD Rules 2.13, 2.15, 2.24,
because we believe action on these rules fulfills all relevant
requirements. We are also removing YSAQMD rules 2.13, 2.15 and 2.24
from the SIP because 2.31 contains more stringent requirements and
eliminates redundancies. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing the same action on these rules. If we receive
adverse comments by May 28, 2015, we will publish a timely withdrawal
in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final
approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a
subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on June 29, 2015. This will incorporate YSAQMD
Rules 1.1 and 2.31 and replace YSAQMD Rules 2.13, 2.15 and 2.24 into
the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 29, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action.
    Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to
file a

comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for
this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal
Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of
this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see
section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 30, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52--Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220, is amended by adding paragraph (c)(442)(i)(F) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (442) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (F) Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 1.1, ``General Provisions and Definitions,'' revised on
May 8, 2013.
    (2) Rule 2.31, ``Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing,'' revised on May
8, 2013.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-09737 Filed 4-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 151)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45355-45357]
[DOCID:fr05au08-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 08-0137]
RIN 2127-AK36

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Child Restraint Systems

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends a provision in Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 that specifies that child restraints
manufactured on or after August 1, 2008 are tested by NHTSA with the
Hybrid III version of the 6-year-old child dummy. NHTSA is postponing
the August 1, 2008 date to August 1, 2010. The August 1, 2010 date
provides NHTSA time to consider comments on seating procedures proposed
earlier this year for the dummy and to complete an evaluation of
technical issues relating to the use of the Hybrid III dummy in FMVSS
No. 213, and provides the public more time to become experienced with
testing with the dummy. As a result of this final rule, FMVSS No. 213
will permit, at the manufacturer's option, the use of either the Hybrid
II or Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy in compliance tests of child
restraints manufactured on or before August 1, 2010. Child restraints
manufactured on or after August 1, 2010 will be tested with the Hybrid
III 6-year-old child test dummy.

DATES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, your
petition must be received by September 19, 2008.
    Effective date: This final rule is effective August 5, 2008.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule,
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document
and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
    The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all documents 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70;
Pages 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call
Shashi Kuppa, PhD, Office of Rulemaking (Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:
202-493-2990). For legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita, Office of
Chief Counsel (Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>). You may
send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule amends S7.1.3 of FMVSS No.
213 to permit, at the manufacturer's option, the use of either the
Hybrid II or Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy in compliance tests of child
restraints manufactured before August 1, 2010. A notice of proposed
rulemaking preceding this final rule was published January 23, 2008 (73
FR 3901, Docket No. 2007-0048).

Background

    On July 28, 2005, NHTSA issued an interim final rule (70 FR 44520)
that amended a provision in FMVSS No. 213 that had specified that child
restraints \1\ manufactured on or after August 1, 2005 would be subject
to compliance testing with a Hybrid III 6-year-old child test dummy
(August 3, 2005, Docket No. 05-22010). The Hybrid III 6-year-old child
test dummy is specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart N. The agency had
incorporated the Hybrid III test dummy in FMVSS No. 213 to replace its
Hybrid II counterpart believing that the Hybrid III test dummy's
enhanced biofidelity and extensive instrumentation would lead to a more
thorough and precise assessment of child restraint performance over
that resulting from the Hybrid II dummy. However, a child

restraint manufacturer (Dorel Juvenile Group (Dorel)) asked to delay
the compliance date for the mandatory use of the Hybrid III dummy
because of unexpectedly high Head Injury Criterion (HIC) measurements
Dorel found when it tested its booster seats with the Hybrid III dummy.
In the interim final rule, the agency agreed that the August 2005 date
should be postponed to August 1, 2008 to provide more time to work with
the dummy and make needed adjustments to child restraints to enable
them to meet FMVSS No. 213 performance criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These child restraints are recommended by their manufacturer
for children weighing over 18 kilograms (40 pounds (lb)) or whose
height is greater than 1100 millimeters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supplemental Notice

    Following publication of the interim final rule, NHTSA developed
FMVSS No. 213 test dummy seating procedures that could be used with
Hybrid III test dummies in belt-positioning booster seats to better
control variability of HIC measurements obtained by the test dummy.
Seating procedures were developed and proposed for the Hybrid III 10-
year-old and Hybrid III 6-year-old child test dummies in a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) published January 23, 2008 (73 FR
3901, Docket No. 2007-0048).\2\ The agency determined that a dummy that
is set up to have a more reclined torso is more likely to submarine
under the vehicle belt than a dummy that is more upright and well
restrained, resulting in higher rotational velocity in the dummy's head
and a non-representative contact of the head with a relatively rigid
portion of the dummy structure as compared to a test with the dummy in
a more upright position. Thus, because dummy posture in booster seats
was found to affect HIC measurements obtained by the dummy, the agency
proposed a high degree of specificity in the dummy set-up procedure.
Comments were requested on the proposed seating procedure for testing
booster seats with the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy and on the need for
the procedure for testing child restraints other than booster seats. 73
FR at 3909. In addition, because the August 1, 2008 date that had been
adopted by the interim final rule was approaching while issues related
to the proposed seating procedure for the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy
were still under consideration, the SNPRM proposed to postpone the
August 1, 2008 date for mandatory use of the dummy until August 1,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The SNPRM supplemented an August 31, 2005 notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to expand the applicability of FMVSS
No. 213 to restraints recommended for children up to 80 lb and to
require booster seats and other restraints to meet performance
criteria when tested with the Hybrid III 10-year-old child test
dummy (70 FR 51720; NHTSA Docket No. 21245).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In commenting on the issue of the proposed August 1, 2010
compliance date in the SNPRM, the Juvenile Products Manufacturers
Association Inc. (JPMA) stated that its child restraint manufacturer
members supported the proposed postponement of the August 1, 2008 date
to August 1, 2010. JPMA believed that testing with the Hybrid III 6-
year-old child test dummy ``continue[s] to provide erroneous results''
and that ``changes to address the design and performance issues have
not been implemented to date.'' (JPMA did not elaborate on its
reference to ``design and performance issues'' of the dummy.) Dorel
commented also, indicating concurrence with the JPMA comment and
concerns about the ``non-biofidelic behavior of the Hybrid 3 6yr
dummy.'' No comment opposed the postponement of the August 1, 2008
date.

Decision

    For the reasons stated in the SNPRM and after consideration of the
comments on the proposed postponement of the August 1, 2008 date, NHTSA
has decided to adopt the proposed amendment of S7.1.3 of FMVSS No. 213.
The amendment allows, at the manufacturer's option, the use of either
the Hybrid II or Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy in compliance tests
of child restraints manufactured before August 1, 2010. The extended
time for optional use of the Hybrid III dummy provides NHTSA time to
consider comments on the proposed seating procedure of the SNPRM for
the dummy and provides the public more time to become experienced
testing with the dummy.
    The extended time period also provides the agency a window of
opportunity to complete an evaluation of two minor changes to the
Hybrid III dummy's design before the effective date for the mandatory
use of the dummy in agency compliance tests. The first change relates
to a petition for rulemaking submitted by test dummy manufacturers
First Technology Safety Systems, Inc. and Denton ATD to correct an
error in the drawing package incorporated by reference into 49 CFR part
572 for the abdominal insert for the dummy. These dummy manufacturers
believe that the drawing for the abdominal insert does not match the
mold used to manufacture the abdomen inserts in the dummies and should
therefore be corrected.
    The second change relates to the femur design of the Hybrid III 6-
year-old child dummy. When using the dummy in FMVSS No. 213 tests and
in vehicle crash tests conducted under NHTSA's consumer information New
Car Assessment Program, the agency observed failures of the femur
involving complete separation of the dummy leg(s) from the pelvis.
Failures occurred across a variety of test facilities and test
conditions and also when testing a variety of child restraints, while
the failure mode appeared the same for all cases. Failure appears to
have occurred at a sharp corner between two sections of the machined
femur: The larger section that clamps onto the upper leg and the
smaller section that contains the femur shaft. Fracturing of this area
has caused the complete separation of the machined femur. NHTSA is
initiating rulemaking to propose a femur design for the dummy that
would enable the femur to withstand the stresses of dynamic testing
without failure. Postponement of NHTSA's mandatory use of the Hybrid
III 6-year-old child dummy until August 1, 2010 will provide the agency
time to address the dummy's abdomen drawing and femur design prior to
use of the dummy in FMVSS No. 213 compliance tests.
    The January 23, 2008 SNPRM and August 31, 2005 NPRM addressed many
issues other than the August 1, 2010 date for testing with the Hybrid
III 6-year-old dummy. NHTSA will address these other issues in a
subsequent document.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order, 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under
Executive Order 12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It does not impose any burden
on manufacturers, and only extends the compliance date for
certification to testing with the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy. The
agency believes that this impact is so minimal as to not warrant the
preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have considered the
impacts of this rulemaking action will have on small entities (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). I certify that this rulemaking action will not have a
significant economic impact

upon a substantial number of small entities within the context of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The following is the agency's statement
providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)).
This final rule affects child restraint manufacturers. According to the
size standards of the Small Business Association (at 13 CFR Part
121.601), the small business size standard for manufacturers of ``Motor
Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing'' (NAICS Code 336360)
is 500 employees or fewer. Many child restraint manufacturers would be
classified as small businesses under this standard. However, the final
rule does not impose any new requirements on manufacturers that produce
child restraint systems, but only extends a compliance date.
Accordingly, we have not prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    E.O. 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.'' E.O. 13132 defines the term ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects 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.'' Under
E.O. 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and
that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides
the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by
State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local
officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This final rule will not have substantial direct effects 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 as specified in E.O. 13132. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually. This action will not result in additional
expenditures by state, local or tribal governments or by any members of
the private sector. Therefore, the agency has not prepared an economic
assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
(PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid
OMB control number. This final rule does not impose any new collection
of information requirements for which a 5 CFR part 1320 clearance must
be obtained.

Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103(b), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a state or political subdivision may prescribe or continue in
effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
Federal motor vehicle safety standard only if the standard is identical
to the Federal standard. However, the United States Government, a
state, or political subdivision of a state, may prescribe a standard
for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use
that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the
Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. A petition for reconsideration or other
administrative proceedings are not required before parties file suit in
court.

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 DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

Environmental Impacts

    We have considered the impacts of this final rule under the
National Environmental Policy Act. This rulemaking action only extends
the compliance date for certification of child restraint systems using
the Hybrid III 6-year-old test dummy. This rulemaking does not require
any change that would have any environmental impacts. Accordingly, no
environmental assessment is required.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as set
forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. Section 571.213 is amended by revising S7.1.3 to read as follows:

Sec.  571.213  Standard No. 213; Child restraint systems.

* * * * *
    S7.1.3 Voluntary use of alternative dummies. At the manufacturer's
option (with said option irrevocably selected prior to, or at the time
of, certification of the restraint), with regard to testing a child
restraint manufactured before August 1, 2010, when this section
specifies use of the 49 CFR part 572, subpart N (Hybrid III 6-year-old
dummy) test dummy, the test dummy specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart
I (Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy) may be used in place of the subpart N
test dummy.

    Issued: July 31, 2008.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-17932 Filed 7-31-08:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


                                 ATTACHMENT C
                           OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0027

            Display Related to OMB Control #2070-0027 - Listings of
                       Related Regulations in 40 CFR 9.1

As of May 10, 1993, the OMB approval numbers for EPA regulations in Chapter I of Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) appear in a listing in 40 CFR 9.1 (58 FR 27472). This listing fulfills the display requirements in section 3507(f) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) for EPA regulations. The listing at 40 CFR 9.1 displays this OMB Control number for the following regulations:

Program Title 40 									CFR citation

Statements of Enforcement Policies and Interpretations ................................................... 168.65
                                               ................................................... 168.75
                                               ................................................... 168.85