[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 210 (Tuesday, October 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65651-65656]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26629]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0800; FRL-9746-9]

Determination of Attainment for the Chico Nonattainment Area for
the 2006 Fine Particle Standard; California; Determination Regarding
Applicability of Clean Air Act Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the Chico nonattainment
area in California has attained the 2006 24-hour fine particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This
proposed determination is based upon complete, quality-assured, and
certified ambient air monitoring data showing that this area has
monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based
on the 2009-2011 monitoring period. EPA is further proposing that, if
EPA finalizes this determination of attainment, the requirements for
this area to submit an attainment demonstration, together with
reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further
progress (RFP) plan, and contingency measures for failure to meet RFP
and attainment deadlines shall be suspended for so long as the area
continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 29,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2012-0800 by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal, at www.regulations.gov, please
follow the on-line instructions;
    2. Email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
    3. Mail or delivery to John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office, AIR-2,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California 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 you consider to
be 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 an email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If 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: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at 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: John Ungvarsky,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA. We are providing the following
outline to aid in locating information in this proposal.

Table of Contents

I. What determination is EPA making?
II. What is the background for this action?
    A. PM2.5 NAAQS
    B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas
    C. How does EPA make attainment determinations?
III. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?
    A. Monitoring Network and Data Considerations
    B. Evaluation of Current Attainment
IV. How does EPA's Clean Data Policy apply to this action?
    A. Application of EPA's Clean Data Policy to the 2006
p.m.2.5 NAAQS
    B. History and Basis of EPA's Clean Data Policy
V. EPA's Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What determination is EPA making?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Chico nonattainment area has
clean data for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS for fine particles (generally
referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in
diameter, PM2.5). This determination is based upon complete,
quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing the
area has monitored attainment of the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS
based on 2009-2011 monitoring data. Preliminary data in EPA's Air
Quality System (AQS) for 2012 indicate that the area continues to
attain the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS. Based on this determination,
we are also proposing to suspend the obligations on the State of
California to submit certain state implementation plan (SIP) revisions
related to attainment of this standard for the Chico nonattainment area
for as long as the area continues to attain the standard.

II. What is the background for this action?

A. PM2.5 NAAQS

    Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), EPA has
established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or
``standards'') for certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as
``criteria pollutants'') and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to
determine whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be
established.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to
add new standards for PM2.5, using PM2.5 as the
indicator for the pollutant. EPA

established primary and secondary \1\ annual and 24-hour standards for
PM2.5 (62 FR 38652). The annual standard was set at 15.0
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on a 3-year average of
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and the 24-hour standard
was set at 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on the 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each
population-oriented monitor within an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a given air pollutant, ``primary'' national ambient air
quality standards are those determined by EPA as requisite to
protect the public health, and ``secondary'' standards are those
determined by EPA as requisite to protect the public welfare from
any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the
presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air. See CAA section
109(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the level of the 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a 3-year average
of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA also retained the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-
year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, but with
tighter constraints on the spatial averaging criteria.

B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

    Effective December 14, 2009, EPA established the initial air
quality designations for most areas in the United States for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688; (November 13, 2009).
Among the various areas designated in 2009, EPA designated the Chico
\2\ area in California as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.\3\ The boundaries for this area are described
in 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Chico PM2.5 nonattainment area includes the
southwestern two-thirds of Butte County, California. Butte County
lies in the central portion of northern California's Sacramento
Valley Air Basin, which stretches from Sacramento County in the
south to Shasta County in the north.
    \3\ With respect to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, this area
is designated as ``unclassifiable/attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within three years of the effective date of designations, states
with areas designated as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS are required to submit SIP revisions that, among other elements,
provide for implementation of reasonably available control measures
(RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), attainment of the standard
as expeditiously as practicable but no later than five years from the
nonattainment designation (in this instance, no later than December 14,
2014), as well as contingency measures. See CAA section 172(a)(2),
172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), and 172(c)(9). Prior to the due date for
submittal of these SIP revisions, the State of California requested
that EPA make determinations that the Chico \4\ nonattainment area has
attained the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and that attainment-related
SIP submittal requirements are not applicable for as long as the area
continues to attain the standard. Today's proposal responds to the
State's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On June 2, 2011, James Goldstene, Executive Officer of the
California Air Resources Board, submitted a request to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, to find the
Chico PM2.5 nonattainment area had attained the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. How does EPA make attainment determinations?

    A determination of whether an area's air quality currently meets
the PM2.5 NAAQS is generally based upon the most recent
three years of complete, quality-assured data gathered at established
State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in a nonattainment area
and entered into the AQS database. Data from air monitors operated by
state/local agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring requirements
must be submitted to AQS. Monitoring agencies annually certify that
these data are accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly,
EPA relies primarily on data in AQS when determining the attainment
status of areas. See 40 CFR 50.13; 40 CFR part 50, appendix L; 40 CFR
part 53; 40 CFR part 58, and 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, D, and E.
All data are reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N.
    Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 50, section 50.13 and in
accordance with appendix N, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard
is met when the design value is less than or equal to 35 [mu]g/m\3\
(based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N) at
each monitoring site within the area.\5\ The PM2.5 24-hour
average is considered valid when 75 percent of the hourly averages for
the 24-hour period are available. Data completeness requirements for a
given year are met when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling
days for each quarter have valid data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The PM2.5 24-hour standard design value is the 3-
year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour average values
recorded at each monitoring site [see 40 CFR part 50, appendix N,
section 1.0(c)], and the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met when
the 24-hour standard design value at each monitoring site is less
than or equal to 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?

A. Monitoring Network and Data Considerations

    The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and local Air Pollution
Control Districts and Air Quality Management Districts (``Districts'')
operate ambient monitoring stations throughout the State. CARB is the
lead monitoring agency in the Primary Quality Assurance Organization
\6\ (PQAO) that includes all the monitoring agencies in the State with
a few exceptions.\7\ CARB is responsible for monitoring ambient air
quality within the Chico nonattainment area. In addition, CARB oversees
the quality assurance of all data collected within the CARB PQAO. CARB
submits annual monitoring network plans to EPA that describe the
monitoring sites CARB operates. These plans discuss the status of the
air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR part 58.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Primary quality assurance organization means a monitoring
organization or other organization that is responsible for a set of
stations that monitor the same pollutant and for which data quality
assessments can be pooled (40 CFR 58.1).
    \7\ The Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the South
Coast Air Quality Management District, and the San Diego Air
Pollution Control District are each designated as the PQAO for their
respective ambient air monitoring programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 2007, EPA has regularly reviewed these annual plans for
compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part
58. With respect to PM2.5, EPA has found that CARB's network
plans meet the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 58. See EPA
letters to CARB approving its annual network plans for years 2009,
2010, and 2011.\8\ EPA also concluded \9\ from its Technical System
Audit of the CARB PQAO (conducted during the summer of 2007) that the

ambient air monitoring network operated by CARB currently meets or
exceeds the requirements for the minimum number of SLAMS for
PM2.5 in the Chico nonattainment area. Also, CARB annually
certifies that the data it submits to AQS are complete and quality-
assured.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Letter from Joe Lapka, Acting Manager, Air Quality Analysis
Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality
Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB (November
24, 2009) (approving CARB's ``2009 Annual Monitoring Network Report
for Small Districts in California''); Letter from Matthew Lakin,
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen
Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical
Support Division, CARB (October 29, 2010) (approving CARB's ``2010
Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the Small Districts in
California''); Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality
Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air
Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB
(November 1, 2011) (approving CARB's ``2011 Annual Monitoring
Network Plan for the Small Districts in California'').
    \9\ See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, U.S.
EPA Region IX, to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB,
transmitting ''Technical System Audit of the California
Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board: 2007,'' with
enclosure, August 18, 2008.
    \10\ See, e.g., letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality
Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, certifying
calendar year 2011 ambient air quality data and quality assurance
data, May 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was one PM2.5 SLAMS operating during the 2009-2011
period in the Chico PM2.5 nonattainment area. The site is
operated by CARB and has been monitoring PM2.5
concentrations since 1999. EPA defines specific monitoring site types
and spatial scales of representativeness to characterize the nature and
location of required monitors. With respect to the Chico site, the
spatial scale is neighborhood scale,\11\ and the monitoring objectives
(site types) are population exposure and highest concentration.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In this context, ``neighborhood'' spatial scale defines
concentrations within some extended area of the city that has
relatively uniform land use with dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0
kilometers range. See 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 1.2.
    \12\ See CARB's 2011 Annual Network Plan Report (June, 2011);
U.S. EPA Air Quality System, Monitor Description Report, September
14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, we
have reviewed the quality-assured, and certified PM2.5
ambient air monitoring data as recorded in AQS for the applicable
monitoring period collected at the monitoring site in the Chico
nonattainment area and have found the data to be complete. However,
under our monitoring regulations in 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1), at the Chico
monitor, CARB should be monitoring on a one-in-three day schedule
rather than on a one-in-six day schedule. In addition, the 2009-2011
design value (35 [mu]g/m\3\) is within 5 percent of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, triggering a daily sampling frequency required
starting January 2013. See 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(iii). In response, CARB
has agreed to increase the sampling frequency.\13\ The increased number
of samples would provide sufficient information to evaluate the area's
continued attainment of the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS if we
finalize this proposed determination of attainment for the Chico
nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In CARB's August 15, 2012 letter to Matthew Lakin, Manager,
Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, Karen Magliano, Chief,
Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division
agreed to increase the monitoring frequency to one-in-three day
beginning on October 1, 2012 and to daily sampling beginning January
1, 2013 at the Chico monitoring site to ensure that the Chico area
continues to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1) for
monitoring frequency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Evaluation of Current Attainment

    EPA's evaluation of whether the Chico PM2.5
nonattainment area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
is based on our review of the monitoring data and takes into account
the adequacy \14\ of both the PM2.5 monitoring network in
the nonattainment area and the reliability of the data collected by the
network as discussed in the previous section of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 shows the PM2.5 design value for the Chico
nonattainment area monitor based on ambient air quality monitoring data
for the most recent complete three-year period (2009-2011). The data
show that the design value for the 2009-2011 period was equal to or
less than 35 [mu]g/m\3\ at the monitor. Therefore, we are proposing to
determine, based on the complete, quality-assured data for 2009-2011,
that the Chico area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard. Preliminary data available in AQS for 2012 indicate that the
area continues to attain the standard.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Butte County Air Quality Management District and Butte
County Department of Public Health issued Joint Air Quality
Advisories on August 2, 6, 10, and 14, 2012 because of high
PM2.5 levels in the Butte County foothills region
apparently caused by smoke from a wildfire (i.e., Chips Fire). EPA's
proposed determination is based on 2009-2011 data from the Federal
Reference Method (FRM) monitor at the Chico site. There is a non-
Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitor located in Paradise. Because
the non-FEM monitor in Paradise does not meet federal requirements
in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix L or 40 CFR part 58, the data from the
Paradise monitor is not appropriate for use in determining if the
Chico nonattainment area attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS standard. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 3.0(a).

                           Table 1--2009-2011 24-Hour PM2.5 Monitoring Site and Design Value for the Chico Nonattainment Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        AQS site                98th Percentile([micro]g/m\3\)              2009-2011
                         Monitoring site                             identification  ---------------------------------------------------   design value
                                                                          No.               2009             2010             2011       ([micro]g/m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chico............................................................       06-007-0002             30.0             29.0             46.2           \a\ 35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The average of the 98th percentile values for 2009-2011 equals 35.1, but consistent with applicable rounding conventions in 40 CFR part 50, appendix
  N, section 4.3, 24-hour standard design values are rounded to the nearest 1 [micro]g/m\3\ (decimals 0.5 and greater are rounded up to the nearest
  whole number, and any decimal lower than 0.5 is rounded down to the nearest whole number).
Source: Design Value Report, August 31, 2012 (in the docket to this proposed action).

IV. How does EPA's Clean Data Policy apply to this action?

A. Application of EPA's Clean Data Policy to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

    In April 2007, EPA issued its PM2.5 Implementation Rule
for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. 72 FR 20586; (April 25, 2007).
In March, 2012, EPA published implementation guidance for the 2006
PM2.5 standard. See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
``Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)''
(March 2, 2012). In that guidance, EPA stated its view ``that the
overall framework and policy approach of the 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule continues to provide effective and appropriate
guidance on the EPA's interpretation of the general statutory
requirements that states should address in their SIPs. In general, the
EPA believes that the interpretations of the statute in the framework
of the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule are relevant to the
statutory requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS * *
*.'' Id., page 1. With respect to the statutory provisions applicable
to 2006 PM2.5 implementation, the guidance emphasized that
``EPA outlined its interpretation of many of these provisions in the
2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule. In addition to regulatory
provisions, the EPA provided substantial general guidance for
attainment plans for PM2.5 in the preamble to the final the
[sic] 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule.'' Id., page 2. In
keeping with the principles set forth in the guidance, and with respect
to the effect of a determination of attainment for the 2006
PM2.5 standard, EPA is applying the same interpretation with
respect to the implications of clean data

determinations that it set forth in the preamble to the 1997
PM2.5 standard and in the regulation that embodies this
interpretation. 40 CFR 51.1004(c).\16\ EPA has long applied this
interpretation in regulations and individual rulemakings for the 1-hour
ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards, the PM-10 standard, and the lead
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ While EPA recognizes that 40 CFR 51.1004(c) does not itself
expressly apply to the 2006 PM2.5 standard, the statutory
interpretation that it embodies is identical and is applicable to
both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. History and Basis of EPA's Clean Data Policy

    Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated
its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in
the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16,
1992). In 1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 171 and
172, and section 182 in the General Preamble, EPA set forth what has
become known as its ``Clean Data Policy'' for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (May 10,
1995). In 2004, EPA indicated its intention to extend the Clean Data
Policy to the PM2.5 NAAQS. See Memorandum from Steve Page,
Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Clean
Data Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' (December 14, 2004).
    Since 1995, EPA has applied its interpretation under the Clean Data
Policy in many rulemakings, suspending certain attainment-related
planning requirements for individual areas, based on a determination of
attainment. See 60 FR 36723 (July 18, 1995) (Salt Lake and Davis
Counties, Utah, 1-hour ozone); 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996) (Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain, Ohio, 1-hour ozone); 61 FR 31832 (June 21, 1996) (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1-hour ozone); 65 FR 37879 (June 19, 2000)
(Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky, 1-hour ozone); 66 FR 53094
(October 19, 2001) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 1-hour
ozone); 68 FR 25418 (May 12, 2003) (St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 1-
hour ozone); 69 FR 21717 (April 22, 2004) (San Francisco Bay Area,
California, 1-hour ozone); 75 FR 6570 (February 10, 2010) (Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, 1-hour ozone); 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) (Coso Junction,
California, PM10).
    EPA also incorporated its interpretation under the Clean Data
Policy in several implementation rules. See Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007); Final Rule To
Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase
2, 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). The Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld EPA's rule embodying
the Clean Data Policy for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. NRDC v. EPA,
571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Other courts have reviewed and
considered individual rulemakings applying EPA's Clean Data Policy, and
have consistently upheld them in every case. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99
F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004); Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032 (9th Cir.
June 28, 2005 (Memorandum Opinion)), Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, Nos.
06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir. March 2, 2009 (Memorandum Opinion)).
    EPA sets forth below a brief explanation of the statutory
interpretations in the Clean Data Policy. EPA also incorporates the
discussions of its interpretation set forth in prior rulemakings,
including the 1997 PM2.5 implementation rulemaking. See 72
FR 20586, at 20603-20605 (April 25, 2007). See also 75 FR 31288 (June
3, 2010) (Providence, Rhode Island, 1997 8-hour ozone); 75 FR 62470
(October 12, 2010) (Knoxville, Tennessee, 1997 8-hour ozone); 75 FR
53219 (August 31, 2010) (Greater Connecticut Area, 1997 8-hour ozone);
75 FR 54778 (September 9, 2010) (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1997 8-hour
ozone); 75 FR 64949 (October 21, 2010) (Providence, Rhode Island, 1997
8-hour ozone); 76 FR 11080 (March 1, 2011) (Milwaukee-Racine and
Sheboygan Areas, Wisconsin, 1997 8-hour ozone); 76 FR 31237 (May 31,
2011) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 1997 8-hour ozone); 76
FR 33647 (June 9, 2011) (St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 1997 8-hour
ozone); 76 FR 70656 (November 15, 2011) (Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill,
North Carolina-South Carolina, 1997 8-hour ozone); 77 FR 31496 (May 29,
2012) (Boston-Lawrence-Worchester, Massachusetts, 1997 8-hour ozone).
See also, 75 FR 56 (January 4, 2010) (Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High
Point, North Carolina, 1997 PM2.5); 75 FR 230 (January 5,
2010) (Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, North Carolina, 1997
PM2.5); 76 FR 12860 (March 9, 2011) (Louisville, Kentucky-
Indiana, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 18650 (April 5, 2011) (Rome,
Georgia, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 31239 (May 31, 2011)
(Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia-Alabama, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR
31858 (June 2, 2011) (Macon, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR
36873 (June 23, 2011) (Atlanta, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR
38023 (June 29, 2011) (Birmingham, Alabama, 1997 PM2.5); 76
FR 55542 (September 7, 2011) (Huntington-Ashland, West Virginia-
Kentucky-Ohio, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 60373 (September 29, 2011)
(Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana, 1997 PM2.5); 77 FR 18922
(March 29, 2012) (Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York, Allentown,
Johnstown and Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1997 PM2.5).
    The Clean Data Policy represents EPA's interpretation that certain
requirements of subpart 1 of part D of the Act are by their terms not
applicable to areas that are currently attaining the NAAQS.\17\ As
explained below, the specific requirements that are inapplicable to an
area attaining the standard are the requirements to submit a SIP that
provides for: Attainment of the NAAQS; implementation of all reasonably
available control measures; reasonable further progress (RFP); and
implementation of contingency measures for failure to meet deadlines
for RFP and attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This discussion refers to subpart 1 because subpart 1
contains the requirements relating to attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 172(c)(1), the requirement for an attainment
demonstration, provides in relevant part that SIPs ``shall provide for
attainment of the [NAAQS].'' EPA has interpreted this requirement as
not applying to areas that have already attained the standard. If an
area has attained the standard, there is no need to submit a plan
demonstrating how the area will reach attainment. In the General
Preamble (57 FR 13564), EPA stated that no other measures to provide
for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to
attainment since ``attainment will have been reached.'' See also
Memorandum from John Calcagni, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' (September 4, 1992), at page 6.
    A component of the attainment plan specified under section
172(c)(1) is the requirement to provide for ``the implementation of all
reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable''
(RACM). Since RACM is an element of the attainment demonstration, see
General Preamble (57 FR 13560), for the same reason the attainment
demonstration no

longer applies by its own terms, RACM also no longer applies to areas
that EPA has determined have clean air. Furthermore, EPA has
consistently interpreted this provision to require only implementation
of such potential RACM measures that could advance attainment.\18\
Thus, where an area is already attaining the standard, no additional
RACM measures are required. EPA's interpretation that the statute
requires only implementation of the RACM measures that would advance
attainment was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743-745, 5th Cir.
2002) and by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
(Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162-163, D.C. Cir. 2002). See also
the final rulemakings for Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 66 FR
53096 (October 19, 2001) and St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 68 FR 25418
(May 12, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ This interpretation was adopted in the General Preamble,
see 57 FR 13498, and has been upheld as applied to the Clean Data
Policy, as well as to nonattainment SIP submissions. See NRDC v.
EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d
155 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 172(c)(2) provides that SIP provisions in nonattainment
areas must require ``reasonable further progress.'' The term
``reasonable further progress'' is defined in section 171(1) as ``such
annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air
pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by
the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.'' Thus, by definition, the
``reasonable further progress'' provision under subpart 1 requires only
such reductions in emissions as are necessary to attain the NAAQS. If
an area has attained the NAAQS, the purpose of the RFP requirement has
been fulfilled, and since the area has already attained, showing that
the State will make RFP towards attainment ``[has] no meaning at that
point.'' General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992).
    CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas
``shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be
undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to
attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part.
Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency
measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the
State or [EPA].'' This contingency measure requirement is inextricably
tied to the reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration
requirements. Contingency measures are implemented if reasonable
further progress targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not
realized by the attainment date. Where an area has already achieved
attainment, it has no need to rely on contingency measures to come into
attainment or to make further progress to attainment. As EPA stated in
the General Preamble: ``The section 172(c)(9) requirements for
contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the
applicable date.'' See 57 FR 13564. Thus these requirements no longer
apply when an area has attained the standard.
    It is important to note that should an area attain the 2006
PM2.5 standard based on three years of data, its obligation
to submit an attainment demonstration and related planning submissions
is suspended only for so long as the area continues to attain the
standard. If EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment
rulemaking, that the area has violated the NAAQS, the requirements for
the State to submit a SIP to meet the previously suspended requirements
would be reinstated. It is likewise important to note that the area
remains designated nonattainment pending a further redesignation
action.

V. EPA's Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Chico nonattainment area in
California has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard
based on the most recent three years of complete, quality-assured, and
certified data for 2009-2011. Preliminary data available in AQS for
2012 show that the area continues to attain the standard.
    EPA further proposes that, if its proposed determination of
attainment is made final, the requirements for the Chico nonattainment
area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP
plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS would be suspended for so
long as the area continues to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA's proposal is consistent and in keeping with its long-held
interpretation of CAA requirements, as well as with EPA's regulations
for similar determinations for ozone (see 40 CFR 51.918) and the 1997
fine particulate matter standards (see 40 CFR 51.1004(c)). As described
below, any such determination would not be equivalent to the
redesignation of the area to attainment for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
    Any final action resulting from this proposal would not constitute
a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we
have not yet approved a maintenance plan for the Chico nonattainment
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA or
determined that the area has met the other CAA requirements for
redesignation. The classification and designation status in 40 CFR part
81 would remain nonattainment for the area until such time as EPA
determines that California has met the CAA requirements for
redesignating the Chico nonattainment area to attainment.
    If the Chico nonattainment area continues to monitor attainment of
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA proposes that the requirements for
the area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a
RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning requirements
related to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS will remain
suspended. If this proposed rulemaking is finalized and EPA
subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the
Federal Register, that the area has violated the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of these attainment planning
requirements for the Chico nonattainment area would no longer exist,
and the area would thereafter have to address such requirements.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider these
comments before taking final action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on
air quality and to suspend certain federal requirements, and thus,
would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely

affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not have Tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian
Tribes and thus this proposed action will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur oxides,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 15, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-26629 Filed 10-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21836-21838]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08713]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0110; Notice 2]

Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Ford Motor Company (Ford) has determined that certain model
year 2009-2012 Ford F-650 and F-750 trucks manufactured from April 14,
2008, through May 1, 2012 do not fully comply with paragraph S5.3.2(a)
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, Hydraulic and

Electric Brake Systems. Ford has filed an appropriate report dated July
2, 2012 pursuant to 49 CFR part 573 Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Stuart
Seigel, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Ford's Petition

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, Ford has petitioned
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    On February 21, 2014 Ford supplemented its original petition of
July 23, 2012, by updating the number of affected vehicles and their
dates of manufacture, and including additional justification for a
decision of inconsequential noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of the July 23, 2012 petition was published, with
a 30-day public comment period, on January 25, 2013 in the Federal
Register (78 FR 5560). No comments were received. To view the petition
and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the
online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2012-0110.''

II. Vehicles Involved

    Affected are approximately 7,393 model year 2009-2012 Ford F-650
and F-750 trucks that were manufactured from April 14, 2008, through
May 1, 2012.

III. Noncompliance

    Ford explains that the noncompliance is that the subject vehicles
do not illuminate the parking brake telltale lamp when the ignition
switch is in the ``on'' or ``start'' positions as required by FMVSS No.
105.

IV. Rule Text

    Paragraph S5.3.2(a) of FMVSS No. 105 requires: Except as provided
in paragraph (b) of this section, all indicator lamps shall be
activated as a check of lamp function either when the ignition (start)
switch is turned to the ``on'' (run) position when the engine is not
running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between
``on'' (run) and ``start'' that is designated by the manufacturer as a
check position.

V. Summary of Ford's Analyses

    Ford stated its belief that although the affected vehicles do not
illuminate the parking brake telltale lamp when the ignition start
switch is in the ``on'' or ``start'' positions that the condition is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    1. The parking brake telltale lamp functions as intended--only the
telltale bulb check at start-up is not illuminated--unless the parking
brake is applied.
    2. Unlike most other telltales, the parking brake telltale will
simultaneously illuminate when the customer applies the handbrake--
essentially functioning as a bulb check. And, if the lamp does not
illuminate when the handbrake is applied, the customer is able to
identify the condition.
    3. If customers inadvertently operate the vehicle with the parking
brake applied, the service brakes will not be affected because the
design of the subject vehicles utilizes a separate, dedicated parking
brake mounted on the driveshaft. Additionally, inadvertent application
of the parking brake will result in poor vehicle acceleration and
``drag'' providing further indications that the parking brake is
engaged.
    4. Instrument panel telltale bulbs are highly reliable. Engineering
has reported no parking telltale bulb warranty claims for any of the
affected F-650 & F-750 vehicles, from 2009 through 2012.
    5. The physical position of the parking brake handle (on the
tunnel) provides a readily apparent indication when the parking brake
is applied. Partial parking brake applications are not a concern
because the handle mechanism utilizes an over-cam locking design, which
assures the parking brake is either fully applied or fully released.
This design precludes a parking brake from being partially applied.
    6. The 2011-2012 model year vehicles incorporate a warning chime
which activates (in addition to the parking brake telltale) when the
parking brake is applied and the vehicle is driven over 4 miles-per-
hour.
    7. The operators of these vehicles are typically professional
drivers, requiring additional licensing and are familiar with the
operation of these types of over-cam, driveshaft-mounted parking
brakes.
    Ford is also unaware of any field reports, accidents or injuries
attributed to this condition.
    Ford additionally indicated that changes were made in production on
May 1, 2012, and that they had taken multiple steps to help ensure that
the parking brake telltale ``check of lamp function'' issue that
resulted in the non-compliance does not occur in the future, including
Ford validation of the design with no planned cluster/parking brake
revisions until new model updates.
    In summation, Ford believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.

VI. NHTSA Decision

    NHTSA has reviewed Fords analyses that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Specifically, the parking
brake telltale is not activated as a check of lamp function either when
the ignition (start) switch is turned to the ``on'' (run) position when
the engine is not running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a
position between ``on'' (run) and ``start'' as required by Paragraph
S5.3.2(a) of FMVSS No. 105.
    If the parking brake telltale lamp bulb fails, the vehicle operator
would not be alerted by illumination of the parking brake telltale that
the vehicle's parking brake is applied. However, as the vehicle in this
condition is driven, a number of indicators would provide feedback to
the vehicle operator that the parking brake is applied. First, the
vehicle drivability would be affected with poor acceleration and
``drag.'' A warning chime for the 2011-2012 model year vehicles would
be activated when the vehicle is driven over 4 miles per hour. Lastly,
the physical position of the parking brake handle located on the
tunnel, would provide a visual indication that the parking brake is
applied. The parking brake has an over-cam locking design that assures
that the brake is not partially applied. The combination of the
aforementioned operator feedback indicators is sufficient that in the
event of a non-operative parking brake telltale light, an operator
would have sufficient warning and information to take corrective
action. In addition, the parking brake is mounted on the drive shaft
and, therefore, separate from the service brake system. Thus, in the
unlikely event that the vehicle was driven with an applied parking
brake the service brake system would not be

compromised thereby reducing the severity of the noncompliance.
    We also note that this telltale is specific only to the application
of the parking brake, and is not a combined indicator for multiple
brake malfunctions. As a separate indicator, the severity of the
noncompliance is further reduced as it indicates only one versus
multiple brake system malfunctions.
    Furthermore, each application of the parking brake activates the
dedicated parking brake indicator telltale. This effectively functions
as a secondary de-facto bulb check. Drivers that routinely use the
parking brake in the subject vehicles will become accustomed to seeing
a telltale with the word ``Park'' activated when setting the parking
brake and are consequently likely to recognize a malfunction if this
expected telltale does not illuminate.
    The affected vehicles, the F-650 and F-750 trucks, are medium duty
work trucks typically operated by professional drivers that are
experienced with and knowledgeable of their work equipment including
the operation of the over-cam, driveshaft-mounted parking brake
systems. It is highly likely that even without a visual indicator,
these individuals will readily determine when the parking brake is set
simply by the altered feel of vehicle drivability.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Ford has
met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 105 noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Ford's petition
is hereby granted and Ford is exempted from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120.
    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, this decision
only applies to the subject noncompliant vehicles that Ford no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Ford
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.

Jeff Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-08713 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79935-79938]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28234]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0052]

Hours of Service (HOS) of Drivers; Application for Renewal of
American Pyrotechnics Association Exemptions From the 14-Hour Rule and
the Electronic Logging Device Rule During Independence Day Celebrations

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; granting of application for
exemptions.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant exemptions for 32 member
companies of the American Pyrotechnics Association (APA) from certain
hours of service (HOS) regulations during designated Independence Day
periods. The exemptions will allow drivers for these companies to
exclude off-duty and sleeper berth time of any length from the
calculation of the 14-hour limit and to use paper records of duty
status (RODS) in lieu of electronic logging devices (ELDs). FMCSA has
analyzed the application for exemptions and the public comments
submitted and has determined that the exemptions, subject to the terms
and conditions imposed, will likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be
achieved through compliance with the regulations.

DATES: These exemptions are effective for the period June 28 through
July 8, at 11:59 p.m. local time, each year from 2023 through 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email:
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets Operations, (202)
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket
number (``FMCSA-2021-0052'') in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first
notice listed, and click ``View Related Comments.''
    To view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in
the docket, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket number
``FMCSA-2021-0052'' in the keyword box, click ``Search,'' and chose the
document to review.
    If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202) 366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Dockets Operations.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).
FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal
Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an
opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application,
including any safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must
provide an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The Agency must
publish its decision in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)) with
the reasons for denying or granting the application and, if granted,
the name of the person or class of persons receiving the exemption and
the regulatory provision from which the exemption is granted. The
notice must specify the effective period and explain the terms and
conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR
381.300(b)).

III. Background

Current Regulatory Requirements

    The HOS regulation in 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2) prohibits the driver of a
property-carrying commercial motor vehicle (CMV) from driving after the
14th hour after coming on duty following 10 consecutive hours off duty.
Drivers required to prepare RODS must do so using ELDs under 49 CFR
395.8(a)(1)(i). However, under 49 CFR 395.8(a)(1)(iii)(A)(1), a motor
carrier may allow its drivers to record their duty status manually,
rather than use an ELD, if the driver is operating a CMV ``[i]n a
manner requiring completion of a record of duty status on not more than
8 days within any 30-day period.''

Applicant's Requests

    APA reports that over 16,000 fireworks displays are conducted
annually. Although most of the displays are conducted on July 4 each
year, it is impossible to deliver and shoot all of the fireworks
displays on the Fourth of July holiday. Thus, the fireworks displays
are spread out over a period of 11 days.
    APA requests renewal of its HOS exemptions from the 14-hour rule in
49 CFR 395.3(a)(2) and the ELD rule in 49 CFR 395.8(a)(1)(i) for 42 of
60 companies included in the 2021 HOS exemptions, which expired on July
8, 2021 [86 FR 34834]. The APA also requests the exemptions on behalf
of 3 additional companies not included in the 2021 HOS exemptions. A
copy of the request and additional correspondence modifying the request
are in the docket at the beginning of this notice.
    APA member companies have held waivers or exemptions during
Independence Day periods each year since 2005. Copies of the initial
request for an exemption, subsequent renewal requests, and all public
comments received may be reviewed at www.regulations.gov under docket
numbers FMCSA-2005-21104, FMCSA-2007-28043, FMCSA-2018-0140, and FMCSA-
2021-0052.
    On June 16, 2022, FMCSA granted APA a waiver from the 14-hour and
ELD regulations, effective June 28, 2022, through July 8, 2022. Prior
to issuing the waiver, the Agency conducted a safety analysis of the 45
carriers included in APA's request. The Agency determined that 38
carriers were eligible for the waiver. The waiver allowed these
carriers to operate with the requested relief for 11 days during the
2022 Independence Day period and provided the Agency with sufficient
time to process APA's exemption request. A copy of the waiver is
located at www.regulations.gov under docket number FMCSA-2021-0052.

IV. Equivalent Level of Safety

    Since 2005, FMCSA has determined that the level of safety
associated with the transportation of fireworks would likely be
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety obtained by
complying with the 14-hour rule. In 2019, FMCSA reached the same
conclusion when it granted APA relief from the ELD requirement. APA
believes an equivalent level of safety will be achieved because the
fireworks are transported over relatively short routes from
distribution points to the site of the fireworks display, and normally
in the morning when traffic is light. APA also believes that fatigued
driving is reduced or eliminated because drivers spend considerable
time installing, wiring, and safety-checking the fireworks displays at
the site, followed by several hours off duty in the late afternoon and
early evening prior to the event. During this off-duty time, the
drivers are allowed to rest or take a nap. Additionally, these drivers
would continue to use paper RODS in lieu of an ELD during the
designated Independence Day periods. APA asserts that the scheduled off
duty time and use of RODS will ensure that fatigued driving is managed.

V. Public Comments

    On July 8, 2022, FMCSA published notice of APA's application and
requested public comments (87 FR 40874). The Agency received one
comment. AWM Associates, LLC, stated that FMCSA should deny the
exemption because the requested timeframe of 11 days is unreasonable.
AWM Associates noted that drivers are not required to use an ELD if
they use paper logs no more than 8 days during any 30-day period and
questioned why APA member companies would need an exemption from the
14-hour rule after July 5.

VI. FMCSA Response

    Based on the information APA provided, FMCSA determines that the
requested period of 11 days is reasonable. APA explained in its
application that fireworks displays are spread out over a period of 11
days because it would be impossible to deliver and shoot all 16,000
professional fireworks displays on July 4. To cover the 11-day period
without the exemptions, APA states that its members would have to hire
additional drivers with commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) and
hazardous material endorsements for a very brief period. APA explains
that it would be difficult or impossible to find enough qualified
drivers for this part-time, holiday-specific work, and the increased
cost could be passed along to the cities, towns and municipalities that
contract these shows.

VII. FMCSA Safety Analysis and Decision

    FMCSA has evaluated APA's application and the safety records of the
45 companies to which the exemptions would apply and grants the
exemptions to 32 APA member companies. FMCSA believes that these 32 APA
member companies will likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or
greater than the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
    Prior to publishing the Federal Register notice announcing receipt
of APA's application to renew its HOS exemptions, FMCSA ensured that
each motor carrier possessed an active USDOT registration, minimum
required levels of insurance, and was not subject to any ``imminent
hazard'' or other out-of-service (OOS) orders. The Agency conducted a
comprehensive review of the safety performance history on each of the
motor carriers listed in the appendix table during the review process.
As part of this process, FMCSA reviewed its Motor Carrier Management
Information System safety records, including inspection and crash
reports submitted to FMCSA by State agencies. The motor carriers have
``satisfactory'' safety ratings issued by FMCSA and valid Hazardous
Materials Safety Permits. In addition, the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration reviewed its investigative records. The
member carriers may be subject to investigations prior to future
renewal of the exemptions.
    FMCSA denies the exemptions for 13 APA member companies. FMCSA
found that 12 member companies have vehicle and/or HM OOS rates higher
than the national average as of August 9, 2022. The 13th member company
was excluded because the company does not have a Hazardous Materials
Safety Permit. Under these circumstances, FMCSA believes it would be
inappropriate at this time to grant exemptions to these companies.

A. Grant of Exemptions

    FMCSA grants the exemptions for a period June 28 through July 8 for
two years subject to the terms and conditions of this decision and the
absence of public comments that would cause the Agency to terminate the
exemption under Section F below. The exemptions from 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2)
and 49 CFR 395.8(a)(1)(i) are effective for the period June 28 through
July 8 each year from 2023 through 2024.

B. Applicability of Exemptions

    The exemptions are limited to drivers employed by the 29 motor
carriers previously covered by the exemptions, and drivers employed by
the 3 additional carriers identified by an asterisk in the appendix
table of this notice. Drivers covered by these exemptions will be able
to exclude off-duty and sleeper-berth time of any length from the
calculation of the 14-hour limit. Drivers will be able to use

paper RODs in lieu of ELDs to record their HOS.

C. Terms and Conditions

    When operating under these exemptions, motor carriers and drivers
are subject to the following terms and conditions:
    1. Drivers must not drive more than 11 hours after accumulating 14
hours on duty prior to beginning a new driving period.
    2. Drivers must have 10 consecutive hours off duty following 14
hours on duty prior to beginning a new driving period.
    3. Drivers must use paper RODS and supporting documents, maintain
RODS and supporting documents for 6 months from the date the record is
prepared, and make RODS and supporting documents accessible to law
enforcement upon request.
    4. Drivers and carriers subject to the ELD requirements before June
28 must continue to use ELDs and comply with all ELD requirements,
including maintaining ELD data for 6 months from the date the
electronic record is generated and making ELD data accessible to law
enforcement upon request.
    5. Drivers must maintain a valid CDL with a hazardous materials
endorsement and not be subject to an out-of-service order or loss of
driving privileges.
    6. Motor carriers must maintain a Hazardous Materials Safety Permit
and Satisfactory safety rating assigned by FMCSA under the procedures
in 49 CFR part 385.
    7. Motor carriers must ensure their CMVs are properly marked as
required by 49 CFR 390.21(a)-(d). Motor carriers operating rented CMVs
may not rely on the marking provisions of 49 CFR 390.21(e).
    8. Motor carriers must ensure they comply with the requirements for
shipping papers, package marking, labeling, and placarding in 49 CFR
part 172.
    9. Drivers and motor carriers covered by the exemptions must comply
with all other applicable provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 350-399) (FMCSRs) and Hazardous
Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 105-180) (HMRs).
    10. Prior to the beginning of each period of operations during the
exemption, FMCSA will ensure that each motor carrier possesses an
active USDOT registration, minimum required levels of insurance, and
was not subject to any ``imminent hazard'' or other out-of-service
(OOS) orders. FMCSA will also conduct a comprehensive review of the
safety performance history on each of the motor carriers listed in the
appendix table during the review process. As part of this process,
FMCSA will review its Motor Carrier Management Information System
safety records, including inspection and crash reports submitted to
FMCSA by State agencies.
    11. Motor carriers may be investigated to evaluate compliance with
the terms and conditions of this exemption, in addition to the FMCSRs
and HMRs.

D. Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR
381.600, during the period these exemptions would be in effect, no
State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate
commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with the exemptions
with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemptions. States
may, but are not required to, adopt the same exemptions with respect to
operations in intrastate commerce.

E. Notification to FMCSA

    Motor carriers using exempt drivers must notify FMCSA within five
business days of any crashes (as defined by 49 CFR 390.5) involving the
operation of any its CMVs while operating under these exemptions. The
notification must include the following information:
    a. Identifier of the Exemptions: ``APA'';
    b. Date of the crash;
    c. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
which is closest to the scene of the crash;
    d. Driver's name and driver's license State, number, and class;
    e. Co-Driver's name and driver's license State, number, and class;
    f. Vehicle company number and power unit license plate State and
number;
    g. Number of individuals suffering physical injury;
    h. Number of fatalities;
    i. The police-reported cause of the crash;
    j. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws,
or motor carrier safety regulations; and
    k. The total driving time and the total on-duty time of the CMV
driver at the time of the crash.
    Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
[email protected].

F. Termination

    FMCSA does not believe the motor carriers or drivers covered by
these exemptions will experience any deterioration of their safety
record. The exemptions will be rescinded if: (1) motor carriers and
drivers operating under the exemptions fail to comply with the terms
and conditions of the exemptions; (2) the exemptions have resulted in a
lower level of safety than was maintained before the exemptions were
granted; (3) the annual investigation yields unsatisfactory results; or
(4) continuation of the exemptions would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Robin Hutcheson,
Administrator.

Appendix to Notice of Applications for Renewal of APA Exemptions From
the 14-Hour and ELD HOS Rules for Independence Day Periods

                            June 28, 2022 Through July 8, 2024 for 32 Motor Carriers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                City, state, zip
                                       Motor carrier        Street address             code            DOT No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................  American Fireworks    105 County Route 7..  McDonough, NY 13801.      2115608
                                    Display, LLC.
2................................  AM Pyrotechnics, LLC  2429 East 535th Rd..  Buffalo, MO 65622...      1034961
3................................  Arthur Rozzi          6607 Red Hawk Ct....  Maineville, OH 45039      2008107
                                    Pyrotechnics.
4................................  Artisan               82 Grace Road.......  Wiggins, MS 39577...      1898096
                                    Pyrotechnics, Inc.
5................................  Celebration           7911 7th Street.....  Slatington, PA 18080      1527687
                                    Fireworks, Inc..
6................................  * CP Transport, LLC.  6377 Hwy. 62 NE.....  Lanesville, IN 47136      3076205
7................................  Dominion Fireworks,   669 Flank Road......  Petersburg, VA 23805       540485
                                    Inc.
8................................  Falcon Fireworks....  3411 Courthouse Road  Guyton, GA 31312....      1037954
9................................  Fireworks & Stage FX  12650 Hwy 67S. Suite  Lakeside, CA 92040..       908304
                                    America.              B.
10...............................  Fireworks by Grucci,  20 Pinehurst Drive..  Bellport, NY 11713..       324490
                                    Inc.

11...............................  Aluminum King Mfg.,   700 E Van Buren       Mitchell, IA 50461..       420413
                                    Ltd. dba Flashing     Street.
                                    Thunder Fireworks
                                    Thunder Fireworks.
12...............................  Great Lakes           24805 Marine........  Eastpointe, MI 48021      1011216
                                    Fireworks.
13...............................  Hollywood             1567 Antler Point...  Eagan, MN 55122.....      1061068
                                    Pyrotechnics, Inc.
14...............................  Johnny Rockets        3240 Love Rock......  Steger, IL 60475....      1263181
                                    Fireworks Display
                                    Company.
15...............................  Las Vegas Display     4325 West Reno Ave..  Las Vegas, NV 89118.      3060878
                                    Fireworks, Inc.
16...............................  Legion Fireworks      10 Legion Lane......  Wappingers Falls, NY       554391
                                    Co., Inc.                                   12590.
17...............................  *Pyro Productions     2083 Helms Road.....  Rehobeth, AL 36301..      3723192
                                    Inc.
18...............................  *Pyro Shows East      4652 Catawba River    Catawba, SC 29704...      3709087
                                    Coast.                Road.
19...............................  Pyro Shows of         3325 Poplar Lane....  Adamsville, AL 35005      2859710
                                    Alabama, Inc.
20...............................  Pyro Shows of Texas,  6601 9 Mile Azle Rd.  Fort Worth, TX 76135      2432196
                                    Inc.
21...............................  Pyro Spectaculars,    3196 N Locust Ave...  Rialto, CA 92376....       029329
                                    Inc.
22...............................  Pyro Spectaculars     5301 Lang Avenue....  McClellan, CA 95652.      1671438
                                    North, Inc.
23...............................  Pyrotecnico           299 Wilson Rd.......  New Castle, PA 16105       526749
                                    Fireworks Inc.
24...............................  RES Specialty         21595 286th St......  Belle Plaine, MN           523981
                                    Pyrotechnics dba                            56011.
                                    RES Pyro.
25...............................  Rozzi's Famous        118 Karl Brown Way..  Loveland, OH 45140..      0483686
                                    Fireworks, Inc.
26...............................  Santore's World       846 Stillwater        Schaghticoke, NY          2574135
                                    Famous Fireworks,     Bridge Road.          12154.
                                    LLC.
27...............................  Southern Sky          6181 Denham Rd......  Sycamore, GA 31790-       3168056
                                    Fireworks, LLC.                             2603.
28...............................  Spielbauer Fireworks  1976 Lane Road......  Green Bay, WI 54311.       046479
                                    Co, Inc.
29...............................  Vermont Fireworks     2235 Vermont Route    East Montpelier, VT        310632
                                    Co., dba.             14 South.             05651.
                                   Northstar Fireworks
                                    Co., Inc.
30...............................  Western Display       10946 S. New Era Rd.  Canby, OR 97013.....       498941
                                    Fireworks, Ltd.
31...............................  Wolverine Fireworks   205 W Seidlers......  Kawkawlin, MI.......       376857
                                    Display, Inc.
32...............................  Young Explosives      2165 New Michigan Rd  Canandaigua, NY            450304
                                    Corp.                                       14618.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-28234 Filed 12-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: June 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 115)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33671-33673]
[DOCID:fr13jn08-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 736 and 740

[Docket No. 080519687-8707-01]
RIN 0694-AE37

Expansion of the Gift Parcel License Exception Regarding Cuba to
Authorize Mobile Phones and Related Software and Equipment

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule revises a license exception in the Export
Administration Regulations to allow the export of mobile phones as
gifts sent by individuals to eligible recipients in Cuba. The Bureau of
Industry and Security (BIS) is taking this action to provide support
for individuals to support democracy-building efforts for Cuba by
enabling the free exchange of information among Cuban citizens and with
persons in other countries.

DATES: This rule is effective June 13, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Although this is a final rule and there is no formal comment
period, comments may be submitted at any time by e-mail directly to BIS
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(please refer to RIN 0694-AE37 in the
subject line); or by delivery to Regulatory Policy Division, Office of
Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, Room H2705, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230. Comments on the information collection that this
rule concerns should also be sent to David Rostker, Office of
Management and Budget Desk Officer; by e-mail to david_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>. Refer to RIN 0694-
AE37 in all comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Christino, Foreign Policy
Division, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance at (202)
482-4252.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 21, 2008, the President, marking the Day of Solidarity with
the Cuban People, announced that, in support of ``Cubans who work to
make their nation democratic and prosperous and just,'' the relevant
U.S. Government agencies would make any regulatory changes necessary
``to allow Americans to send mobile phones to family members in Cuba.''
The Cuban government announced earlier this year that it will now
permit Cubans to acquire and use mobile phones. Recent global events
have shown the value that mobile phones and communications devices can
provide to those seeking to exercise the fundamental freedoms to which
they are entitled under international law.
    In support of this Presidential initiative, BIS is taking
regulatory action consistent with all relevant laws, including the
Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (LIBERTAD), to
allow exports of mobile phones in specified circumstances. This action
is consistent with the ongoing support the United States has provided
to individuals who support democracy-building efforts for Cuba by
enabling the free exchange of information among persons in Cuba and
with persons in other countries.
    Consistent with the United States embargo of Cuba, the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR) require a license for exports and
reexports of all items subject to the EAR to Cuba, with only a limited
number of license exceptions. One of those exceptions authorizes
exports and reexports of certain items in gift parcels from donors to
members of the donor's immediate family in Cuba. This rule amends the
terms of License Exception Gift Parcels and Humanitarian Donations
(GFT) to permit mobile phones (and related software, batteries, memory
cards, chargers, and other accessories for mobile phones) to be
included in such gift parcels. This rule also raises the value limit on
such gift parcels from $200 to $400. This increase is intended to allow
the donor to choose from a variety of currently available mobile phones
without having to reduce the quantity of other items, such as medicines
or medical supplies in the gift parcel. All other terms of that license
exception, including eligible recipients and frequency of shipments are
not changed by this rule.
    Many gift parcels are shipped from the United States to Cuba
through parties who consolidate multiple gift parcels. Under the EAR, a
license is required for consolidations of gift parcels. This rule makes
no changes to this requirement. Although individual gift parcels may be
eligible for export pursuant to License Exception GFT, the consolidated
shipments of multiple gift parcels are not eligible for such license
exception. BIS has issued a number of licenses to parties authorizing
them to export consolidated gift parcels to Cuba. As part of this rule,
BIS is issuing a General Order authorizing holders of licenses to use
those licenses to export gift parcels containing the mobile phones and
related software, batteries, memory cards, chargers and related items
that this rule makes eligible for the gift parcel license exception.
This modification is necessary because some previously-issued licenses
for consolidated shipments list the commodities that may be included in
such consolidated gift parcels. This General Order does not, however,
increase the total value of exports permitted under, or extend the
expiration date of, any license. Issuance of this General Order to
modify existing licenses will facilitate implementation of the new
policy by allowing consolidators to begin including mobile phones right
away rather than having to wait for new licenses to be issued.
Consolidators will still need to apply for new licenses authorizing the
full array of items to which the gift parcel exception applies as their
existing licenses are fully used or expire.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. This is a significant rule for purposes of Executive Order
12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to nor may be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA),
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation concerns
a collection previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088,
``Multi-Purpose Application,'' which carries a burden hour estimate of
58 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748. Miscellaneous and
recordkeeping activities account for 12 minutes per submission. BIS
believes that this rule will have no effect on the burden imposed by
this collection.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for
public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable
because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function
of the United States (see 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Further, no other law
requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for
public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed
rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be
given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the
analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq., are not applicable.

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 736

    Exports.

15 CFR Part 740

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Export Administration
Regulations amends 15 CFR parts 730 and 774 as follows:

PART 736--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 736 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
22 U.S.C. 2151 note; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p.
950; E.O. 13020, 61 FR 54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp. p. 219; E.O. 13026,
61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3
CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13338, 69 FR 26751, May 13, 2004;
Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007); Notice of
November 8, 2007, 72 FR 63963 (November 13, 2007).

0
2. Add the following General Order to the end of Supplement No. 1 to
part 736, to read as follows:

Supplement No. 1 to Part 736--General Orders

* * * * *
    General Order No. 4 of June 13, 2008 adding mobile phones and
related software, batteries, memory cards, chargers and other
accessories therefor to existing licenses for exports of
consolidated gift parcels to Cuba.
    (a) Section 740.12(a) of the EAR authorizes, among other things,
certain exports of gift parcels to Cuba pursuant to a license
exception. However, consolidated shipments of multiple gift parcels
to Cuba require a license even if all of the individual items within
the consolidated gift parcel would be eligible for this license
exception if shipped alone.
    (b) In addition to the items stated on the license itself,
licenses authorizing the export to Cuba of the consolidated gift
parcels described in paragraph (a) of this order that are effective
on June 13, 2008 also authorize the export of consolidated gift
parcels containing the mobile phones and software, batteries,
chargers, memory cards and other accessories therefor that may be
exported in gift parcels to Cuba pursuant to Sec.
740.12(a)(2)(i)(B)(1) of the EAR.
    (c) This General Order does not change any of the other terms
(including total value of items that may be exported or expiration
date) of the licenses it affects.

PART 740--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 740 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp.,
p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice
of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007).

0
4. Section 740.12 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A)(1),
(a)(2)(i)(B)(1), and (a)(2)(iv) to read as follows:

Sec.  740.12  Gift parcels and humanitarian donations (GFT).

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) For Cuba, no item listed on the Commerce Control List other
than mobile phones covered by ECCNs 5A991 or 5A992 and software for
those phones covered by 5D992, as specified in paragraph
(a)(2)(i)(B)(1), of this section may be included in a gift parcel.
* * * * *
    (B) * * *
    (1) For Cuba, the only eligible commodities and software are food
(including vitamins), medicines, medical supplies and devices
(including hospital supplies and equipment and equipment for the
handicapped), receive-only radio equipment for reception of commercial/
civil AM/FM and short wave publicly available frequency bands,
batteries for such equipment and mobile phones covered by ECCNs 5A991
or 5A992, software for those phones covered by ECCN 5D992 and
batteries, memory cards, chargers and other accessories for such mobile
phones.
* * * * *
    (iv) Value. The combined total domestic retail value of all
commodities and software may not exceed $400. This limit does not apply
to food sent in a gift parcel to Cuba.
* * * * *

    Dated: June 9, 2008.
Matthew S. Borman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-13271 Filed 6-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22900-22901]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09590]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0235]

Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks, Tahoe City, CA.

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Fourth of
July Fireworks, Tahoe City, CA in the Captain of the Port, San
Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted
below. This action is necessary to protect life and property of the
maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display.
During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the
safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 15,
will be enforced from 7 a.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Lieutenant Marcia Medina, Sector San Francisco Waterways
Safety Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone
in navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a
radius of 100 feet during the loading, transit, and arrival of the
fireworks barge to the display location and until the start of the
fireworks display. From 7 a.m. until 8 a.m. on July 4, 2015, the
fireworks barge will be loading pyrotechnics off of Tahoe Keys Marina
in South Lake Tahoe, CA in approximate position 38[deg]56'05'' N.,
120[deg]00'09'' W. (NAD 83). From 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on July 4, 2015, the
loaded fireworks barge will transit from Tahoe Keys Marina to the
launch site off of Tahoe City, CA in approximate position
39[deg]10'09'' N., 120[deg]08'16'' W. (NAD 83) where it will remain
until the commencement of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement
of the 15 minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at 9:30 p.m. on
July 4, 2015, the safety zone will increase in size to encompass the
navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius
1,000 feet in approximate position 39[deg]10'09'' N., 120[deg]08'16''
W. (NAD 83) for the Fourth of July Fireworks, Tahoe City, CA in 33 CFR
165.1191, Table 1, Item number 15. This safety zone will be in effect
from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. on July 4, 2015.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and
times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each
person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an
official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is
empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The
PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San
Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of
commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5
U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance
notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the
Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port determines that
the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in
this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant
general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: April 7, 2015.
Gregory G. Stump,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2015-09590 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P