[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23550-23551]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09257]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0038]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections.
    This document describes the collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA-2016-0038 using any of the following methods:
    Electronic submissions: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Fax: 1-(202) 493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
Docket number for this Notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Berning, Contracting Officer's
Representative-Task Order, DOT/NHTSA (NTI-131), 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., W46-497, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Berning's phone number is (202)
366-5587 and her email address is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following: (i)
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility; (ii) The accuracy of the
agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) How to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including the
use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In
compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comment on
the following proposed collection of information:

Crash Risk Associated With Drug and Alcohol Use by Drivers in Fatal and
Serious Injury Crashes

    Type of Request--New information collection requirement.
    OMB Clearance Number--None.
    Form Numbers--NHTSA-1350, NHTSA-1351, NHTSA-1352, NHTSA-1353,
NHTSA-1354.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval--5 years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information--The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) seeks to examine the relative
crash risk associated with licit and illicit drug use by studying
seriously or fatally injured drivers in crashes and matched non-crash-
involved drivers. Participants will include seriously injured drivers
who are treated in a trauma center or emergency department immediately
after a crash. Participants will also include fatally injured drivers
who die before or during treatment within the study catchment area.
This study will employ a case-control design that matches two drivers
not involved in a crash to every crash-involved driver. Control drivers
will be selected at or near the location of the crash where a driver
was seriously injured or killed. With the greatest accuracy possible,
researchers will match control drivers based on crash day of the week,
crash time of day, crash direction of travel, and as many other
relevant factors as possible.
    Data collection will include blood samples from both crash-involved
and control drivers. Collection of samples from seriously injured
drivers will be subject to State and Trauma Center policies regarding
collection of fluid samples for research purposes. Samples from fatally
injured drivers will be collected in accord with State, Trauma Center,
and/or coroner/medical examiner policies. Researchers may temporarily
and securely retain identifying information for seriously or fatally
injured drivers to access needed medical or crash records to facilitate
control driver matching on factors such as crash time, day, and
location. Identifying information will be discarded once the needed
data has

been obtained and will not be linked to study results in any manner.
Control driver participation in the study will be voluntary. No
identifying information will be collected from control drivers. Control
drivers will also be asked to provide a breath sample to measure breath
alcohol concentration.
    Self-report surveys will be administered to injured participants,
when possible, to collect details about the crash, self-reported drug
use, general driving behaviors, relevant lifestyle factors (e.g.,
fatigue at the time of the crash) and other information deemed
important to the study. In the event a seriously injured driver is
unconscious after treatment, researchers will return at a later date to
collect the information if the driver is capable of consenting and
responding. If not, willing next of kin will be substituted if
possible. All participating control drivers will be asked to respond to
the survey items, and their responses will be anonymous.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information--NHTSA's mission is to save lives, prevent injuries and
reduce traffic-related health care and other economic costs. The agency
develops, promotes and implements educational, engineering and
enforcement programs with the goal of ending preventable tragedies and
reducing economic costs associated with vehicle use and highway travel.
In 2010 and 2011, NHTSA conducted the first large-scale carefully
controlled study in the U.S. designed to estimate the relative crash
risk associated with drug use by drivers. Using a case-control design,
researchers collected information from crash-involved and non-crash
involved drivers in Virginia Beach, Virginia. That effort focused on
acquiring data at crash sites and resulted in very few seriously or
fatally injured drivers entering the sample. As such, it was not
possible to assess how drug use was related to driver injuries in the
most serious of crashes. Other studies have examined the prevalence of
drugs in seriously and fatally injured drivers, but none has used a
case-control design such as the one proposed in the current study that
will allow for an estimation of risk associated with drug use by
drivers seriously injured or killed in a motor vehicle crash. Using the
case-control approach in this manner will complete the relative risk
assessment for the full range of injury severities using comparable
methodologies.
    The large sample of seriously and fatally injured drivers gathered
by this project using a case-control methodology will lead to a better
understanding of the relative crash risk of drug involved driving. The
results of this project will assist NHTSA in determining how different
drug classes are related to driver safety which will help the Agency
provide guidance to the States and Federal Government as each considers
policies related to drugged driving.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number,
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information)--
The participant groups being sought include 2,500 crash-involved
drivers and at least 5,000 control drivers. Sampling will occur at one
or more trauma centers and within the roadway catchment area served by
the trauma center(s). Each participant will only respond to the data
collection request a single time during the study period.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Record Keeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information--Responding to the entire
information request will take approximately 20 minutes per participant.
The project anticipates collecting data from 3,750 participants per
year. As such, the annual estimated burden hours total is 1,250. There
are no record keeping costs to the respondents. Thus, there is no
preparation of data required or expected of respondents. Participants
do not incur: (a) Capital and start-up costs, or (b) operation,
maintenance, and purchase costs as a result of participating in the
study.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 18, 2016.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2016-09257 Filed 4-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 211 (Thursday, November 2, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75246-75248]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23607]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0479; FRL-11425-01-R9]

Air Plan Approval; California; California Air Resources Board;
Volatile Organic Compounds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) portion
of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision
concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from vapor
recovery systems of gasoline cargo tanks. We are proposing to approve a
local rule to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act
(CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to
follow with a final action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 4, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2023-0479 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with a disability
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: La Kenya Evans-Hopper, EPA Region IX,
75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
    D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates
that it was amended by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board.

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Local agency         Regulation or provision    Regulation title or subject      Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB..................  California Code of           Certification of Vapor         \2\ 07/12/23        09/13/23
                         Regulations, Title 17,       Recovery Systems for Cargo
                         Division 3, Chapter 1,       Tanks.
                         Subchapter 8, Article 1,
                         Section 94014, except sub-
                         sections (a)-(d) \1\.
CARB..................  Certification Procedure CP-  Certification Procedure for        07/12/23        09/13/23
                         204.                         Vapor Recovery Systems of
                                                      Cargo Tanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) and 40 CFR part 51 appendix V,
the

EPA determined that the submittal for CARB's California Code of
Regulations (CCR), Title 17, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8,
Article 1, Section 94014 (Section 94014) met the completeness criteria
on September 25, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letter dated September 21, 2023, from Michael Benjamin,
Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, to Martha Guzman,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. The letter states that
Section 94014, sub-sections (a)-(d), that describe fee provisions,
were inadvertently submitted to the EPA. Therefore, the CARB will
withdraw Section 94014, sub-sections (a)-(d), from consideration for
inclusion into the SIP. The EPA will not act on Section 94014, sub-
sections (a)-(d) in this rulemaking.
    \2\ The California Air Resources Board amended the introductory
paragraph of 17 California Code of Regulations Section 94014 on July
12, 2023, and the changed was filed with Thomson Reuters Westlaw on
August 29, 2023. Therefore, the amendment for Section 94014 will be
recorded as July 12, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    On April 5, 2022 (87 FR 19631), we finalized a limited approval and
limited disapproval of the July 25, 2013, version of Section 94014 into
the SIP, including those regulatory provisions we identified as
deficient. As part of our limited disapproval of Section 94014, CARB
was required to submit revisions to correct the deficiencies. CARB
subsequently adopted revisions to Section 94014 on July 12, 2023, and
submitted them to the EPA on September 13, 2023. In this action we are
proposing to approve the July 12, 2023, version of Section 94014 and,
if finalized, it would replace the previously approved version of this
rule in the SIP.

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

    Emissions of VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level
ozone, smog, which harms human health and the environment. Section
110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control
VOC emissions. The regulations covered by this action are intended to
limit VOC emissions from cargo tank trucks used to transport gasoline
from bulk terminals to gasoline dispensing facilities (e.g., gas
stations). VOC emissions can be emitted from cargo tanks when gasoline
is being loaded or unloaded from the cargo tank. CARB requires the use
of a gasoline vapor recovery system to significantly reduce the amount
of VOC emitted during the gasoline loading and unloading process.
    Section 41954 of the California Health and Safety Code requires
that CARB ``[inspect] and [test] . . . certified vapor recovery systems
upon installation during the permit process and [conduct] regular
inspections to check that systems are operating as certified.'' Section
94014 allows gasoline vapor recovery systems for cargo tanks to be
certified in accordance with Certification Procedure CP-204,
``Certification Procedure for Vapor Recovery Systems of Cargo Tanks''
(CP-204). Section 94014 then incorporates CP-204 by reference. CP-204
describes the process for certifying cargo tanks with a system that
recovers vapors during the loading and unloading of gasoline. This
certification procedure establishes performance standards and/or
specifications for cargo tanks, including trucks and trailers that
transport gasoline.
    As described above, on April 5, 2022 (87 FR 19631), the EPA
finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of an earlier
version of Section 94014 into the SIP. The basis for the limited
disapproval was the allowance of CARB's Executive Officer to approve
alternate test procedures in CP-204 without EPA approval. CP-204,
Section 5.4, allows the Executive Officer to approve the use of an
alternative test procedure if it meets the equivalency criteria
established by EPA Method 301. However, for situations where Method 301
was not directly applicable, CP-204, Section 5.4 previously allowed the
CARB Executive Officer to establish other test procedures without EPA
approval. The EPA identified this as an instance of unbounded
director's discretion. To correct this deficiency, CARB revised CP-204
to remove this instance of director's discretion and submitted the
revised rule to the EPA.
    In addition to correcting the unbounded director's discretion, CARB
also made other minor editorial improvements to CP-204. The EPA's
technical support document (TSD) has more information.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)),
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, SIP rules must require reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of
VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as ``Moderate'' or above
(see CAA section 182(b)(2)). We determined in our April 5, 2022 final
action that Section 94014 and the referenced certification procedures
and test procedures implement a RACT level of stringency.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    This rule meets CAA requirements and is consistent with relevant
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. The revised
version of CP-204 removes the provision allowing CARB's Executive
Officer to approve alternative test procedures, which the EPA
identified as a deficiency in our April 5, 2022 final action. As a
result, alternative test procedures for vapor recovery systems will be
determined following an equivalence framework as provided by EPA Method
301. The EPA determines the removal of this language to correct the
previously identified deficiency.
    The EPA's TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. The EPA's recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The EPA has no recommendations at this time for the next time CARB
modifies the rule.

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rule because it fulfills all relevant
requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
until December 4, 2023. If we take final action to approve the
submitted rule, our final action will incorporate this rule into the
federally enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference California Air Resources Board, California Code of
Regulations, Title 17, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8, Article 1,
Section 94014--Certification of Vapor Recovery Systems--Cargo Tanks,
excluding sub-sections (a) through (d), amended on July 12, 2023, which
regulates VOCs from vapor recovery systems of gasoline cargo tanks. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials

available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

IV. 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, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting Federal requirements and does 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a state program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA
did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action.
Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is
expected to have a neutral impact on the air quality of the affected
area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and
there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal
of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color,
low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: October 19, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2023-23607 Filed 11-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


The Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Applying Aluminum Parts --

Total Chromium Data

Facility Name	City	State	Sample Date	Sample ID	Duplicate Indicator Constituent Name	Total Actual or Calculated	Analytical Method	Total Concentration Result	Units	Total Non-Detect Indicator	Total Detection Limit Data Qualifier	Description

	BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC

Comp-1	N	chromium	actual

202	mg/kg

?	Unknown

	BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC

Comp-2	N	chromium	actual

222	mg/kg

?	Unknown

	BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC

Comp-3	N	chromium	actual

213	mg/kg

?	Unknown

	BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC

Comp-4	N	chromium	actual

201	mg/kg

?	Unknown

	BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC

Dup-00101 (Comp-2)	Y	chromium	actual

207	mg/kg

?	Unknown

	BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC	5/24/2001	composite 1	N chromium	actual

291	mg/kg

BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC	5/24/2001	composite 2	N chromium	actual

240	mg/kg

BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC	5/24/2001	composite 3	N chromium	actual

255	mg/kg

BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC	5/24/2001	composite 4	N chromium	actual

239	mg/kg

BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC	8/8/2003	Comp-1 3-211-3063 N	chromium	actual

125	mg/kg

BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC	8/8/2003	Comp-2 3-211-3064 N	chromium	actual

119	mg/kg

BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC	8/8/2003	Comp-3 3-211-3065 N	chromium	actual

60.4	mg/kg

BMW Manufacturing Corporation	SPARTANBURG	SC	8/8/2003	Comp-4 3-211-3066 N	chromium	actual

69.7	mg/kg

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-1	N	chromium	actual

49	mg/kg

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-2	N	chromium	actual

44	mg/kg

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-3	N	chromium	actual

50	mg/kg

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-4	N	chromium	actual

42	mg/kg

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-5	N	chromium	actual

45	mg/kg

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-6	N	chromium	actual

44	mg/kg

DaimlerChrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant	DETROIT	MI

JN-7	N	chromium	actual

46	mg/kg

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #2	N	chromium	actual

50	mg/kg

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #2 Duplicate	Y	chromium	actual

47	mg/kg

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #3	N	chromium	actual

45	mg/kg

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #4	N	chromium	actual

46	mg/kg

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #5	N	chromium	actual

43	mg/kg

Ford MI Truck/Wayne Integrated Stamping & Assembly	WAYNE	MI

Drum #6	N	chromium	actual

36	mg/kg

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #1	N	chromium	actual

87	mg/kg

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #2	N	chromium	actual

86	mg/kg

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #2 Duplicate	Y	chromium	actual

76	mg/kg

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #3	N	chromium	actual

85	mg/kg

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #4	N	chromium	actual

86	mg/kg

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #5	N	chromium	actual

92	mg/kg

Ford Wixom Assembly Plant	WIXOM	MI

Drum #6	N	chromium	actual

92	mg/kg

GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-1	N	chromium	actual

81	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-2	N	chromium	actual

151	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-3	N	chromium	actual

165	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-4	N	chromium	actual

199	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-5	N	chromium	actual

136	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-6	N	chromium	actual

233	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Flint Truck	FLINT	MI

FT-7	N	chromium	actual

145	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-1	N	chromium	actual

234	mg/kg

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-2	N	chromium	actual

195	mg/kg

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-3	N	chromium	actual

381	mg/kg

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-4	N	chromium	actual

758	mg/kg

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-5	N	chromium	actual

706	mg/kg

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-6	N	chromium	actual

537	mg/kg

GM Grand River Plant	LANSING	MI

LGR-7	N	chromium	actual

196	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-1	N	chromium	actual

59	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-2	N	chromium	actual

50	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-3	N	chromium	actual

48	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-4	N	chromium	actual

57	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-5	N	chromium	actual

50	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-6	N	chromium	actual

57	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H1-7	N	chromium	actual

54	mg/kg

GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-1	N	chromium	actual

63	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-2	N	chromium	actual

63	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-3	N	chromium	actual

54	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-4	N	chromium	actual

72	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-5	N	chromium	actual

57	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-6	N	chromium	actual

88	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Hamtramck Plant	DETROIT	MI

H2-7	N	chromium	actual

61	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/19/1997	LAN-S01-01	N	chromium actual	Method 6020	1270	mg/kg

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/19/1997	LAN-S01-02	N	chromium actual	Method 6020	1820	mg/kg

GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	12/19/1997	LAN-S01-03	N	chromium actual	Method 6020	1730	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	1/29/1998	LAN-S02-01	N	chromium actual	Method 6020	1420	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	1/29/1998	LAN-S02-02	N	chromium actual	Method 6020	621	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Lansing Assembly Center	LANSING	MI	1/29/1998	LAN-S02-03	N	chromium actual	Method 6020	967	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-01	N chromium	actual

117	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-02	N chromium	actual

122	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-03	N chromium	actual

98.9	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-04	N chromium	actual

119	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	12/16/1997	LOR-S01-05	N chromium	actual

76.3	mg/kg

J	Estimate

	GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	6/9/1998	LOR-S02-01	N	chromium actual

170	mg/kg

GM Lordstown Assembly Plant	LORDSTOWN	OH	6/9/1998	LOR-S02-02	N	chromium actual

759	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-01	N	chromium actual

497	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-02	N	chromium actual

480	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-03	N	chromium actual

541	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-04	N	chromium actual

535	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	12/16/1997	OKL-S01-05	N	chromium actual

554	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-01	N	chromium	actual

728	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-02	N	chromium	actual

692	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-03	N	chromium	actual

753	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-04	N	chromium	actual

542	mg/kg

GM Oklahoma City	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	6/11/1998	OKL-S02-05	N	chromium	actual

629	mg/kg

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU 4103788/255-008 - RB-4	N	chromium	actual

510	mg/kg

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU<PHONE_NUMBER>-007 - RB-3	N	chromium	actual

580	mg/kg

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU 4108183/255-002 - RB-3-Dup	Y	chromium	actual

730	mg/kg

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU 4108183/255-003 - RB-1	N	chromium	actual

420	mg/kg

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	2/20/1995	UPCU 4117098/255-004 - RB-2	N	chromium	actual

420	mg/kg

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	12/3/1998	WWTPS I	N	chromium actual

515	mg/kg

GM Orion Assembly Center	LAKE ORION	MI	12/3/1998	WWTPS II	N	chromium actual

385	mg/kg

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-1	N	chromium	actual

333	mg/kg

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-2	N	chromium	actual

478	mg/kg

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-3	N	chromium	actual

150	mg/kg

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-4	N	chromium	actual

214	mg/kg

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-5	N	chromium	actual

478	mg/kg

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-6	N	chromium	actual

582	mg/kg

GM Pontiac East Plant	PONTIAC	MI

PE-7	N	chromium	actual

159	mg/kg

Nissan North America Manufacturing Facility	SMYRNA	TN	6/24/2002	NS-06a	N chromium	actual

79	mg/kg

Nissan North America Manufacturing Facility	SMYRNA	TN	6/26/2002	NS-07a	N chromium	actual

81	mg/kg

Nissan North America Manufacturing Facility	SMYRNA	TN	6/28/2002	NS-08a	N chromium	actual

98	mg/kg

Nissan North America Manufacturing Facility	SMYRNA	TN	7/1/2002	NS-09a	N chromium	actual

100	mg/kg

Nissan North America Manufacturing Facility	SMYRNA	TN	7/3/2002	NS-10a	N chromium	actual

92	mg/kg

Nissan North America Manufacturing Facility	SMYRNA	TN	7/8/2002	NS-11a	N chromium	actual

180	mg/kg

Nissan North America Manufacturing Facility	SMYRNA	TN	7/10/2002	NS-12a	N chromium	actual

160	mg/kg

Nissan North America Manufacturing Facility	SMYRNA	TN	7/10/2002	NS-13a	N chromium	actual

160	mg/kg

Nissan North America Manufacturing Facility	SMYRNA	TN	7/15/2002	NS-14a	N chromium	actual

110	mg/kg

n 	107

	MAXIMUM	1820

	MEAN<PHONE_NUMBER>

	MEDIAN	151

	Std. Dev.<PHONE_NUMBER>

	90th Percentile	697.6

	50th Percentile	151


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77837-77838]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32026]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0867]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Experimental Study on the Public Display of Lists of
Harmful and Potentially Harmful Tobacco Constituents

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish a notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on the Experimental Study on the Public
Display of the List of Harmful and Potentially Harmful Tobacco
Constituents. This study is being conducted in support of the provision
of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the Tobacco
Control Act) that requires FDA to publish in a format that is
understandable and not misleading to a lay person and to place on
public display the list of harmful and potentially harmful constituents
(HPHCs) in tobacco products and tobacco smoke.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by February 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Experimental Study on the Public Display of the List of Harmful and
Potentially Harmful Tobacco Constituents (OMB Control Number--0910-New)

    The Tobacco Control Act (Pub. L. 111-31) amends the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to grant FDA authority to regulate
the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to
protect the public health and to reduce tobacco use by minors. Section
904(d)(1) of the FD&C Act states, ``Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control
Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall publish in a format
that is understandable and not misleading to a lay person, and place on
public display (in a manner determined by the Secretary) the list [of
harmful or potentially harmful constituents] established under [section
904(e)]'' of the FD&C Act. Section 904(e) of the FD&C Act directs FDA
to establish ``a list of harmful and potentially harmful constituents,
including smoke constituents, to health in each tobacco product by
brand, and by quantity in each brand and subbrand.'' On January 31,
2011, FDA announced the availability of a final guidance representing
the Agency's current thinking on the meaning of the term ``harmful and
potentially harmful constituent'' (see 76 FR 5387). On August 12, 2011,
FDA published a notice in the Federal Register requesting comment
issues related to the establishment of the HPHC list (see 76 FR 50226).
    FDA intends to conduct research with consumers to help inform
decisions about how to implement section 904(d)(1) of the FD&C Act and
to provide information about how consumers understand information about
HPHCs. The research goals are to evaluate the impact of different list
formats on the public's ability to understand HPHC information, and to
assess the potential for certain unintended consequences resulting from
exposure to the lists. The impact of different list formats will be
measured by evaluating respondents' understanding of the following
concepts: (1) There are more than 4,000 chemicals in tobacco products
and tobacco smoke; (2) the chemicals come from the tobacco leaf itself,
how it is processed, and different parts of a tobacco product such as
the tobacco smoke, glues, inks, paper, or additives; (3) for smokeless
products, many of the chemicals come from the tobacco leaf itself; for
smoked products, many of the chemicals come from burning the tobacco
leaf; (4) Federal law requires tobacco companies to test their tobacco
products and smoke for the chemicals on this list; (5) each tobacco
product brand and subbrand has its own separate list of chemicals; (6)
science has linked the chemicals on these lists to health problems or
potential health problems; (7) these lists do not include necessarily
all of the health problems that may be caused by the tobacco product;
(8) these lists do not necessarily include all of the chemicals in the
tobacco product that may be harmful; (9) the amount of a chemical
listed for a specific tobacco product does not necessarily indicate the
likelihood of experiencing a health problem; (10) the number of
chemicals listed for a specific tobacco product does not necessarily
indicate the likelihood of experiencing a health problem; (11) the
number of possible health outcomes listed for a tobacco product does
not necessarily indicate the likelihood of experiencing a health
problem; (13) the number of chemicals listed for a specific health
problem does

not necessarily indicate the likelihood of experiencing a health
problem; (13) when a chemical is listed without a quantity it may mean
that a manufacturer has not yet tested its products for that chemical;
and/or that a test was conducted but it was not sensitive enough to
measure the amount of chemical in the product; and/or that a way to
test for that chemical is still being developed. Unintended
consequences will be assessed by measuring respondents' susceptibility
to initiation of tobacco use, motivation and confidence to quit tobacco
use, risk perceptions about tobacco use, and emotional reactivity.
    FDA proposes to conduct an experimental study with current smokers
aged 15 years and older, former smokers aged 15 years and older, and
nonsmokers aged between 13 and 25 years who may be susceptible to
initiation of smoking. Data will be collected from members of an
Internet panel. The study will include an oversampling of subjects with
limited health literacy. Participation in the experimental study is
voluntary. The information collected from the study is necessary to
inform the Agency's efforts to implement the requirement of the FD&C
Act to place on public display a list of HPHCs in tobacco products and
tobacco smoke in a format that is understood and not misleading to a
lay person, and is expected to provide information that may inform
Agency communications about HPHCs. The data obtained from this study is
one factor that will be used to inform FDA's decisionmaking regarding
the public display of the list of HPHCs required under section
904(d)(1) of the FD&C Act. By evaluating respondents' understanding of
the concepts listed previously in this document we do not intend to
imply that consumer understanding of all concepts is needed to comply
with these requirements.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
            Activity                 Number of     responses per   Total annual   Average burden    Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses     per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretest.........................              60               1              60             0.5              30
Screener........................          10,000               1          10,000          0.0167             167
Experimental Survey.............           3,000               1           3,000             0.5           1,500
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................          13,060  ..............  ..............  ..............           1,697
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    FDA's burden estimate is based on prior experience with Internet
panel experiments similar to the study proposed here. Sixty panel
members will take part in a pretest of the study, estimated to last 30
minutes (0.5 hours), for a total of 30 hours. Approximately 10,000
respondents will complete a screener to determine eligibility for
participation in the study, estimated to take 1 minute (0.0167 hours),
for a total of 167 hours. Three thousand respondents will complete the
full study, estimated to last 30 minutes (0.5 hours), for a total of
1,500 hours. The total estimated burden is 1,697 hours.

    Dated: December 8, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-32026 Filed 12-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: April 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 76)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19838]
[DOCID:fr20ap07-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0090; FRL-8303-4]

Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Revisions to the State of
Hawaii Operating Permit Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the State of Hawaii's
(``Hawaii'' or ``State'') operating permit program that amend Hawaii's
regulations for insignificant emissions units (IEUs). In an April 1,
2002 Notice of Deficiency published in the Federal Register, EPA
notified Hawaii of EPA's finding that Hawaii's provisions for IEUs did
not meet minimum Federal requirements. Hawaii has revised its program
to correct the deficiency identified in the Notice of Deficiency and
this action proposes full approval of those revisions.

DATES: Written comments must be received by May 21, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2007-0090, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the

online instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver to: Gerardo Rios, Permits Office Chief, Air
Division (AIR-3), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California 94105.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

http://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 e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://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 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: Robert Baker, EPA Region IX, at (415)
972-3979, (Baker.Robert@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses revisions to the
following local rule, 11-60.1-82(e), in State of Hawaii operating
permits program. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal
Register, we are approving the revision in direct final action without
prior proposal because we believe the revisions made to the program to
resolve the Notice of Deficiency are not controversial. If we receive
adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule and address the comments in a subsequent action based
on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment
on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule, we may adopt as
final those provisions of the revision that are not the subject of the
adverse comment.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: April 4, 2007.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
 [FR Doc. E7-7549 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 54 (Friday, March 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15051-15053]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06384]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; BMW of North America, LLC

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

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the BMW of North America, LLC
(BMW) petition for an exemption of the X1 multi-purpose vehicle line
(MPV) in accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from the Theft
Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the agency has
determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as
standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard (Theft Prevention Standard). BMW requested confidential
treatment for specific information in its petition that the agency will
address by separate letter.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2016 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Room W43-439, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated November 21, 2014, BMW
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the X1 MPV vehicle line beginning with MY 2016.
The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49
CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based
on the installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment for
the entire vehicle line.
    Under 49 CFR 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant
an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. BMW stated that its
X1 MPV line will be replacing its X1 passenger car line beginning with
MY 2016. In its petition, BMW provided a detailed description and
diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the
antitheft device for

its X1 MPV line. BMW stated that the X1 MPV line will be installed with
an engine immobilizer device as standard equipment. Key features of the
antitheft device will include a key with a transponder, loop antenna
(coil), engine control unit (DME/DDE) with encoded start release input,
an electronically coded vehicle immobilizer/car access system (EWS/CAS)
control unit and a passive immobilizer. BMW will not offer an audible
or visible alarm feature on the proposed device.
    BMW stated that the antitheft device is a passive vehicle
immobilizer system. BMW further stated that the EWS immobilizer device
prevents the vehicle from being driven away under its own engine power.
BMW further stated that the EWS immobilizer device also fulfills the
requirements of the European vehicle insurance companies.
    BMW stated that activation of its immobilizer device occurs
automatically when the engine is shut off and the vehicle key is
removed from the ignition lock cylinder. Deactivation of the device
occurs when the Start/Stop button is pressed and the vehicle starting
process begins. BMW stated that deactivation cannot be carried out with
a mechanical key, but must occur electronically. Specifically, BMW
stated that its transponder sends key data to the EWS/CAS control unit.
The correct key data must be recognized by the EWS/CAS control unit in
order for the vehicle to start. The transponder contains a chip which
is integrated in the key and powered by a battery. The transponder also
consists of a transmitter/receiver which communicates with the EWS/CAS
control unit. The EWS/CAS control unit provides the interface to the
loop antenna (coil), engine control unit and starter. The ignition and
fuel supply are only released when a correct coded release signal has
been sent by the EWS/CAS control unit to deactivate the device and
allow the vehicle to start. When the EWS/CAS control unit has sent a
correct release signal, and after the initial starting value, the
release signal becomes a rolling, ever-changing, random code that is
stored in the DME/DDE and EWS/CAS control units. The DME/DDE must
identify the release signal and only then will the ignition signal and
fuel supply be released.
    BMW stated that the vehicle is also equipped with a central-locking
system that can be operated to lock and unlock all doors or to unlock
only the driver's door, thereby preventing forced entry into the
vehicle through the passenger doors. The vehicle can be further secured
by locking the doors and hood using either the key lock cylinder on the
driver's door or the remote frequency remote control. BMW stated that
the frequency for the remote control constantly changes to prevent an
unauthorized person from opening the vehicle by intercepting the
signals of its remote control.
    BMW further stated that all of its vehicles are currently equipped
with antitheft devices as standard equipment, including the BMW X1 MPV
line. BMW compared the effectiveness of its antitheft device with
devices which NHTSA has previously determined to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of Part 541. BMW stated that the antitheft
device that it intends to install on its X1 MPV line for MY 2016 has
been sufficient to grant exemptions for other vehicle lines.
Specifically, BMW has installed its antitheft device on its X1
(passenger car), X3, X4 and X5 vehicle lines, as well as its Carline 1,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Z4, and MINI vehicle lines, all which have been granted
parts-marking exemptions by the agency. BMW asserts that theft data
have indicated a decline in theft rates for vehicle lines that have
been equipped with antitheft devices similar to that which it proposes
to install on the X1 MPV line. BMW also stated that for MY/CY 2011, the
agency's data show that theft rates for its lines are: 0.69 (1-series),
0.62 (3-series), 0.63 (5-series), 1.08 (7-series), 0.26 (X3), 0.00
(X5), 0.00 (X6), 0.55 (Z4/M), and 0.35 (MINI). Using an average of 3
MYs data (2010-2012), NHTSA's theft rates for BMW's 1 series, 3 series,
5 series, 6 series, 7 series, X3, X5, X6, Z4/M and MINI vehicle lines
are 0.5503, 07177, 0.7314, 0.0000, 1.7952, 0.2055, 0.5501, 2.5840,
0.4696 and 0.3770 respectively. Theft data for BMW's X1 (passenger
car), X4, and Carline 4 is not available.
    BMW's submission is considered a complete petition as required by
49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in
Sec.  543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of Part 543.6, BMW
provided information on the reliability and durability of its device.
To ensure reliability and durability of the device, BMW conducted tests
and believes that the device is reliable and durable because it
complied with its own specific standards and the antitheft device is
installed on other vehicle lines for which the agency has granted a
parts-marking exemption. Further assuring the reliability and
durability of the X1 antitheft device, BMW notes that the mechanical
keys for the X1 MPV line are unique. Specifically, a special key blank,
a special key cutting machine and the vehicle's unique code are needed
to duplicate a key. BMW stated that new keys will only be issued to
authorized persons, and the guide-ways that are milled in the
mechanical keys make the locks almost impossible to pick and the keys
impossible to duplicate on the open market.
    BMW's proposed device lacks an audible or visible alarm, therefore,
this device cannot perform one of the functions listed in 49 CFR
543.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention to unauthorized attempts to
enter or move the vehicle. However, in its November 2014 petition, BMW
asserted that in a previous Federal Register notice published by the
agency (58 FR 44872, dated August 25, 1993), NHTSA's review of the
theft data for 10 General Motors' (GM) vehicle lines that had been
granted partial exemptions concluded that the lack of an audible and
visible alarm had not prevented the antitheft device from being
effective and that despite the absence of an audible or visible alarm,
when placed on vehicle lines as standard equipment, the GM antitheft
devices ``continue to be as effective in deterring and reducing motor
vehicle theft as compliance with parts-marking requirements.''
Therefore, BMW expects that the X1's antitheft device will be just as
effective as parts-marking.
    Based on the supporting evidence submitted by BMW, the agency
believes that the antitheft device for the BMW X1 MPV line is likely to
be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard (49 CFR part 541). The agency concludes that the device will
provide four of the five types of performance listed in Sec.
543.6(a)(3): promoting activation; preventing defeat or circumvention
of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the
vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and
durability of the device.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part
541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
supporting evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency
finds that BMW has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the X1 MPV line is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with

the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR
part 541). This conclusion is based on the information BMW provided
about its device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full BMW's
petition for exemption for the MY 2016 X1 MPV line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR
part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from
the Theft Prevention Standard for a given MY. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains
publication requirements incident to the disposition of all Part 543
petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product
nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted
and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order
to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from
the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
    If BMW decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked as required by 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major
component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if BMW wishes in the future to modify the device
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption.
    Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543 exemption applies only to
vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped
with the anti-theft device on which the line's exemption is based.
Further, Sec.  543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions
``to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device
similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend Part 543 to require the submission of a
modification petition for every change to the components or design of
an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be de
minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer
contemplates making any changes the effects of which might be
characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before
preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
Part 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-06384 Filed 3-19-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P