[Federal Register: July 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 145)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44731-44734]
[DOCID:fr29jy10-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2007-1119; FRL-9181-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County, NM; Interstate Transport of Pollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County, New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) to
address the ``good neighbor'' provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), for the 1997 ozone standards and the 1997
PM2.5 standards as it applies to Albuquerque/Bernalillo
county. The revision addresses one element of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to prohibiting air pollutant emissions
from within a state to significantly contribute to nonattainment of the
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in any state. The Albuquerque/
Bernalillo Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) is responsible for the
portion of the New Mexico SIP that applies in Bernalillo County, which
encompasses the City of Albuquerque. This rulemaking action is being
taken under section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 30, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2007-1119, by one of the following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/
region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD (Multimedia)'' and select
``Air'' before submitting comments.
     E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
     Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not
on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-
1119. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 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: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittal is also available for public inspection during
official business hours, by appointment, at the City of Albuquerque,
Environmental Health Department, One Civic Plaza, Albuquerque, NM
87102.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emad Shahin, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Outline

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is a SIP?
III. What is the background for this action?
IV. What is EPA's evaluation of the submittal?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    We are proposing to approve a revision to the New Mexico State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to address the ``good neighbor'' provisions
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), for the 1997 ozone
standards and the 1997 PM2.5 standards for Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County, demonstrating that one of the required elements of
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has been met. The SIP revision
demonstrates in part that air pollutant emissions from sources within
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the relevant NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, we
have determined that emissions from sources in Albuquerque/Bernalillo
County do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 1997
ozone standards or of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in any other
state. In a separate action, EPA approved this revision for the
remainder of the State. (75 FR 33174). The remaining three elements of
section 110(a)(2)(D): (1) Interference with the maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other

state; (2) interference with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in any other state; and (3) interference
with measures required to protect visibility in any other state will be
evaluated and addressed in future rulemakings.

II. What is a SIP?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires each state to develop a plan
that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA establishes
NAAQS under section 109 of the CAA. Currently, the NAAQS address six
criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead,
particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
    The plan developed by a state is referred to as the state
implementation plan (SIP). The content of the SIP is specified in
section 110 of the CAA, other provisions of the CAA, and applicable
regulations. SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or
other enforceable measures and various types of supporting information,
such as emissions inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling
demonstrations.
    A primary purpose of the SIP is to provide the air pollution
regulations, control strategies, and other means or techniques
developed by the state to ensure that the ambient air within that state
meets the NAAQS. However, another important aspect of the SIP is to
ensure that emissions from within the state do not have certain
prohibited impacts upon the ambient air in other states through
interstate transport of pollutants. This SIP requirement is specified
in section 110(a)(2)(D). Pursuant to that provision, each state's SIP
must contain provisions adequate to prevent, among other things,
emissions that significantly contribute to violations of the NAAQS in
any other state.
    States are required to update or revise SIPs under certain
circumstances. One such circumstance is EPA's promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS. Each state must submit these revisions to EPA for
approval and incorporation into the federally-enforceable SIP.

III. What is the background for this action?

    For air quality purposes, Albuquerque/Bernalillo County operates
the same way as a state. The EPA treats and funds Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County as it does states. Enacted in 1967, the New Mexico
Air Quality Control Act allowed the establishment of the Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County AQCB as a local board and gave it authority to
administer and enforce its air quality regulations within the
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County boundaries. The AQCB has air quality
jurisdiction over all of Bernalillo County, which encompasses the City
of Albuquerque. The AQCB has the responsibility to adopt and implement
the SIP as it applies to Bernalillo County. Therefore, AQCB has the
responsibility to address 110(a)(2)(D) elements within Bernalillo
county. The State of New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board has
jurisdiction over all counties in New Mexico except Bernalillo County.
The City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department, Air Quality
Division administers and staffs the air quality program for
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new standards for 8-hour ozone
and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). This action is being
taken in response to the July 18, 1997, revision to the 8-hour ozone
standards and PM2.5 standards. This action does not address
the requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 standards or the 2008 8-
hour ozone standards; those standards will be addressed in a later
action.
    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to
address a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years after promulgation of
such standards, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.
Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new SIPs must address,
as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to
interstate transport of certain emissions. On August 15, 2006, EPA
issued its ``Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission to
Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for
the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' (``Guidance'') for SIP submissions that states should use
to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA developed
this guidance to make recommendations to states for making submissions
to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards.
    EPA received a SIP revision adopted by AQCB on September 12, 2007,
to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for both the
1997 8-hour ozone standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards. This
SIP revision follows EPA's Guidance. As identified in the Guidance, the
``good neighbor'' provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each
state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect
another state in the ways contemplated in the statute.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four distinct requirements related
to the impacts of interstate transport; however, in this rulemaking EPA
is addressing only the requirement that pertains to preventing sources
in one state from emitting pollutants in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and
1997 PM2.5 standards in any other state. The Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County submission relies on the same technical demonstration
used by New Mexico Environment Department, which shows that emissions
from the State of New Mexico, including Albuquerque/Bernalillo County,
do not contribute to nonattainment in another state. Thus, the
submission indicates that the current SIP is adequate to prevent
significant contribution from the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County to
nonattainment in any other state. Thus, no additional emissions
controls are necessary at this time to alleviate interstate transport
from sources in Albuquerque/Bernalillo County.

IV. What is EPA's evaluation of the submittal?

    In accordance with EPA's Guidance, the SIP revision addresses
interstate transport for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 1997
PM2.5 standards. The SIP revision makes a showing that
emissions from Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not significantly
contribute to violations of either NAAQS in other states by two
different means. For PM2.5, the revision relied primarily
upon technical analysis performed by EPA in connection with another
regional rulemaking that addresses interstate transport. For ozone, the
revision relied primarily on additional modeling to address the extent
of interstate transport. We believe that the submission adequately
establishes that emissions from Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not
significantly contribute to violations of either NAAQS in other states,
for the reasons explained below.
    To support a determination of no ``significant contribution'' for
the 1997 PM2.5 standards, the submission relied on EPA's
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) \1\ analysis. This approach is
consistent with EPA's Guidance to

states for this SIP submission. In CAIR, EPA evaluated which states
significantly contribute to violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards in other states. Based
upon its analysis, EPA did not include New Mexico in the CAIR region.
In the CAIR preamble, EPA provided its rationale for the exclusion of
the western states, including New Mexico, from further consideration of
transport for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 and the requirements of
CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, ``Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). Information regarding CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D) SIPs can be found beginning of page 25263.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``Technical Support Document for the Interstate Air Quality
Rule Air Quality Modeling Analysis,'' January 2004 (available at http:/
/www.epa.gov/cair/technical.html ) contains documentation of the
modeling used to support CAIR. This modeling included an analysis of
the maximum impact of emissions from states without CAIR controls
applied on areas projected in PM2.5 nonattainment in 2010. A
maximum impact level of 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ was considered significant
for this analysis (Note: in the final CAIR EPA changed the maximum
impact level for this significance test to 0.20 [micro]g/m\3\). EPA's
modeling indicated that the maximum impact from emissions from sources
in New Mexico (including Albuquerque/Bernalillo County) on any
projected nonattainment area in another state was 0.03 [micro]g/m\3\.
This value is 20% of the significant impact level that EPA used in the
CAIR proposal, and therefore EPA determined that emissions from the
State of New Mexico (including Albuquerque/Bernalillo County) do not
significantly contribute to pollutant levels in any area projected to
be nonattainment of the PM2.5 standard in that analysis.
    CAIR was remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, and EPA is currently in the process of developing a
replacement rule to address interstate transport for the 1997 8-hour
ozone and 1997 PM2.5 standards. We do not believe that the
CAIR remand affects EPA's CAIR analysis for the purpose of evaluating
New Mexico's and Albuquerque/Bernalillo County's PM2.5
impacts on other states. Specifically, EPA's modeling was conducted
without including the impact of any CAIR controls, and thus the
evaluation is not impacted by any uncertainty in the implementation of
CAIR controls due to the remand. Also, despite remand of the CAIR
rules, EPA's reliance on the maximum impact level of 0.20 [micro]g/m\3\
as the cutoff for the inclusion of a state in the CAIR region was
upheld by the court. Therefore, with respect to the 1997
PM2.5 standards, we believe that the submission adequately
establishes that sources in that State, including Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County, are not significantly contributing to violations of
that NAAQS in any other state.
    To support a determination of no ``significant contribution'' for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, AQCB could not rely upon EPA's CAIR analysis
because western states including New Mexico were not included in the
area modeled for ozone. Instead, New Mexico and AQCB provided an
additional modeling analysis of the impact of emissions from the State
on projected 8-hour ozone nonattainment in downwind states. We note
that modeling is not necessarily required to support this type of SIP
submission, but this approach is consistent with EPA's Guidance to
states for this SIP submission.
    The modeling relied upon by AQCB is described in greater detail in
its technical support document in the submission, and is available at
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-1119. We note
that EPA assisted the State and AQCB with this analysis, including the
development of the modeling demonstration. In order to develop a model
scenario that could evaluate New Mexico's impacts, the State and EPA
determined that it was appropriate to rely on data developed by the
Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP). Modeling was
conducted using a 2002 third quarter CENRAP modeling dataset that
included New Mexico in the modeling domain. While a more recent dataset
might be assumed to be more appropriate to support this action, a 2010
dataset was not available from CENRAP. However, we believe that the use
of the 2002 dataset is adequate to evaluate the degree of contribution
of emission sources in Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, to violations of
the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. Because the analysis is based on year
2002 emissions, we believe it is a conservative estimate of potential
transport impacts in 2010 because emissions have been decreasing since
2002 due to various recent federal control programs (including On-Road
and Nonroad reductions). This trend is confirmed by available 2005
inventory. In other words, if data from 2002 establish that there is no
significant contribution to violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standards in other states, then Albuquerque/Bernalillo County would
have even lower impacts in 2010 and consequently no significant
contribution.
    In the Guidance, we recommended a number of ways that states might
elect to evaluate whether or not there is significant contribution, and
we suggested that states might consider assessing the potential for
contribution using assumptions similar to those used by EPA in CAIR.
The State's and AQCB's analysis considered three factors comparable to
those used by EPA as screening criteria in determining significance for
states in CAIR: (a) The magnitude of the contribution, (b) the
frequency of the contribution, and (c) the relative amount of
contribution. The additional modeling yielded consistent results
showing New Mexico emissions, including Albuquerque/Bernalillo County
do not contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment in any of
the areas analyzed. New Mexico's highest overall contribution to total
nonattainment for any nonattainment area at the time of the modeling
was for Dallas/Fort Worth. New Mexico's highest impact on the Dallas/
Fort Worth area was a daily average contribution of 0.4%, with a
contribution average of 0.4 ppb. By EPA's own metrics (as established
in CAIR and upheld by the court), these impacts are considered to be
small, infrequent, and well below screening criteria established at 1%
and 2 ppb, respectively. Moreover, not a single metric of the three
contribution factors was found to be above the significance threshold
established by EPA for any of the downwind counties. For more details
please see the document titled ``Modeling Data and Report for New
Mexico from EPA Regions 6 and 7'' that is included in the docket
materials for this action.
    At the time the modeling was performed, Denver's air quality was
meeting the standard. (The 2004-2006 8-Hour Ozone Design Value (DV) was
81 ppb.) Therefore, the State and AQCB did not evaluate New Mexico's
ozone impacts on Denver. Denver had a very high ozone season in 2007
that temporarily pushed the area into nonattainment. The preliminary
2007-2009 DV (awaiting final data validation) is 82 ppb so the area
appears to now be back in attainment. The preliminary 2007-2009 DV is
based upon 4th High values of 90 ppb in 2007, 79 ppb in 2008, and 79
ppb in 2009 (preliminary). With the last two 4th Highs of 79 ppb,
Denver would have to monitor a 4th High value of 97 ppb in 2010 to go
back into nonattainment for the period 2008-2010. Denver has not had a
4th High value of more than 92 ppb in the last 15 years, so it is
unlikely that Denver will be in nonattainment at the end of the 2010
ozone season for the 84 ppb standard. Based on preliminary 2007-2009
data, Denver is attaining the standard, so Albuquerque/Bernalillo
County emissions should not be

considered as contributing to nonattainment in Denver.
    With respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standards, we believe that
the submission adequately establishes that sources in Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County are not significantly contributing to violations of
that NAAQS in any other state. As noted previously, EPA will be acting
on the other elements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in separate
rulemakings.

V. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve a revision to the New Mexico SIP which
adequately demonstrates that air pollutant emissions from sources
within Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the relevant NAAQS on any other state.
    Information provided by New Mexico Environment Department and AQCB
in the technical demonstration sufficiently demonstrates that emissions
from Albuquerque/Bernalillo County do not significantly contribute to
downwind nonattainment. Thus, EPA concludes that the New Mexico SIP as
it pertains to Albuquerque/Bernalillo County complies with CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it 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, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 20, 2010.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2010-18560 Filed 7-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 207 (Friday, October 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63989-63990]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25188]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0001]

Request for Notification From Industry Organizations Interested
in Participating in the Selection Process for Nonvoting Industry
Representatives and Request for Nominations for Nonvoting Industry
Representatives on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting that
industry organizations interested in participating in the selection of
a nonvoting industry representative to represent the interests of the
tobacco manufacturing industry on the Tobacco Products Scientific
Advisory Committee for the Center for Tobacco Products, notify FDA in
writing. A nominee may either be self-nominated or nominated by an
organization to serve as a nonvoting industry representative.
Nominations will be accepted for upcoming vacancy effective with this
notice. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is
publishing a separate document announcing the Request for Notification
for Voting Members on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory
Committee.

DATES: Any industry organization interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent the interests
of the tobacco manufacturing industry must send a letter stating the
interest to FDA by November 25, 2013, for the vacancy listed in this
notice. Concurrently, nomination materials for prospective candidates
should be sent to FDA by November 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: All letters of interest and nominations should be submitted
in writing to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to Caryn Cohen, Office of
Science, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration,
9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caryn Cohen, Office of Science, Center
for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate
Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850,1-877-287-1373 (choose Option 5), FAX: 240-
276-3655, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Agency requests nominations for a
nonvoting industry representative on the Tobacco Products Scientific
Advisory Committee to represent the interests of the tobacco
manufacturing industry.

I. Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee

    The Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (the Committee)
advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as
they relate to the regulation of tobacco products. The Committee
reviews and evaluates safety, dependence, and health issues relating to
tobacco products and provides appropriate advice, information and
recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
    The Committee includes three nonvoting members who represent
industry interests. These members include one representative of the
tobacco manufacturing industry, one representative of the interests of
tobacco growers, and one representative of the interests of the small
business tobacco manufacturing industry. The representative of the
interests of the small business tobacco manufacturing industry may be
filled on a rotating basis by representatives of different small
business tobacco manufacturers based on areas of expertise relevant to
the topics being considered by the Committee.
    With this notice, nominations are sought for one representative of
the interests of the tobacco manufacturing industry, and an alternate
to this representative.

II. Selection Procedure

    Any industry organization interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry
interests should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 30 days of publication of
this document (see DATES). Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will send
a letter to each organization that has expressed an interest, attaching
a complete list of all such organizations; and a list of all nominees
along with their current resumes. The letter will also state that it is
the responsibility of the interested organizations to confer with one
another and to select a candidate, within 60 days of the receipt of the
FDA letter, to serve as the nonvoting member to represent the tobacco
manufacturing industry for the committee. The interested organizations
are not bound by the list of nominees in selecting a candidate.
However, if no individual is selected within 60 days, the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs will select the nonvoting member to represent
industry interests.

III. Application Procedure

    Individuals may self-nominate and/or an organization may nominate
one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry
representative. Contact information, a current curriculum vitae, and
the name of the committee of interest should be sent to the FDA contact
person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 30 days of
publication of this document (see DATES). FDA will forward all
nominations to the organizations expressing interest in participating
in the selection process for the committee. (Persons who nominate
themselves as nonvoting industry representatives will not participate
in the selection process).
    FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all
racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities
on its advisory committees and therefore, encourages nominations of
appropriately qualified candidates from these groups. Specifically, in
this document, nominations for nonvoting representatives of industry
interests are encouraged from the tobacco manufacturing industry.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: October 21, 2013.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-25188 Filed 10-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30162-30163]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13848]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-501-000]

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on June 11, 2018, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star), 4700 Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky
42301, filed a prior notice application pursuant to sections 157.205,
and 157.208 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Southern Star's
blanket certificate

issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000. Southern Star requests authorization
to increase the maximum operating pressure on Southern Star's Blue
Mountain Chisholm Trail Lateral (also referred to herein as Line VP-
079) pipeline in Grady County, Oklahoma to its designed maximum
allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 1460 psig, all as more fully set
forth in the application, which is open to the public for inspection.
The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Cindy Thompson, Manager, Regulatory, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc., 4700 Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301 or phone
(270) 852-4655, or by email at [email protected].
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenter will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.

    Dated: June 21, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13848 Filed 6-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 70617]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28447]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

 In the Matter of Pure H20 Bio-Technologies, Inc.; Order of
Suspension of Trading

November 22, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Pure H20 Bio-Technologies, Inc. because questions have arisen as to its
operating status, if any.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of the investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on
November 22, 2013, through 11:59 p.m. EST on December 6, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary,
[FR Doc. 2013-28447 Filed 11-22-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35338-35343]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14366]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 594

[Docket No. NHTSA 2012-0080, Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AL09

Schedule of Fees Authorized

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes fees for Fiscal Year 2013 and until
further notice, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30141, relating to the
registration of importers and the importation of motor vehicles not
certified as conforming to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards
(FMVSS). These fees are needed to maintain the registered importer (RI)
program.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not later than July 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Lindsay, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, you may call
Nicholas Englund, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>). You
may call Docket Management at<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may visit the Docket in
person from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    NHTSA published a notice on June 24, 1996 (61 FR 32411) fully
discussing the rulemaking history of 49 CFR Part 594 and the fees
authorized by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988,
Public Law 100-562, since recodified at 49 U.S.C. 30141-47. The reader
is referred to that notice for background information relating to this
rulemaking action. Certain fees were initially established to become
effective January 31, 1990, and have been periodically adjusted since
then.
    We are required to review and make appropriate adjustments at least
every two years in the fees established for the administration of the
RI program. See 49 U.S.C. 30141(e). The fees applicable in any fiscal
year (FY) are to be established before the beginning of such year.
Ibid. We are proposing fees that would become effective on October 1,
2012, the beginning of fiscal year (FY) 2013. The statute authorizes
fees to cover the costs of the importer registration program, to cover
the cost of making import eligibility decisions, and to cover the cost
of processing the bonds furnished to the Department of Homeland
Security (Customs). We last amended the fee schedule in 2010. See final
rule published on August 11, 2010 at 75 FR 48608. Those fees apply to
Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012.
    Proposed fees are based on time and costs associated with the tasks
for which the fees are assessed. The fees proposed

in this notice reflect the freeze in General Schedule salary rates
since January 2010 and the slight increases in indirect costs
attributed to the agency's overhead costs since the fees were last
adjusted.

Requirements of the Fee Regulation

Section 594.6--Annual Fee for Administration of the Importer
Registration Program

    Section 30141(a)(3) of Title 49, U.S. Code provides that RIs must
pay the annual fees established ``to pay for the costs of carrying out
the registration program for importers. * * *'' This fee is payable
both by new applicants and by existing RIs. To maintain its
registration, each RI, at the time it submits its annual fee, must also
file a statement affirming that the information it furnished in its
registration application (or in later submissions amending that
information) remains correct. 49 CFR 592.5(f).
    To comply with the statutory directive, we reviewed the existing
fees and their bases in an attempt to establish fees that would be
sufficient to recover the costs of carrying out the registration
program for importers for at least the next two fiscal years. The
initial component of the Registration Program Fee is the fee
attributable to processing and acting upon registration applications.
We have tentatively determined that this fee should be increased from
$320 to $330 for new applications. We also have tentatively determined
that the fee for the review of the annual statement should be increased
from $195 to $201. The proposed adjustments reflect our time
expenditures in reviewing both new applications and annual statements
with accompanying documentation, and the small increases in indirect
costs attributed to the agency's overhead costs in the two years since
the fees were last adjusted.
    We must also recover costs attributable to maintenance of the
registration program that arise from the need for us to review a
registrant's annual statement and to verify the continuing validity of
information already submitted. These costs also include anticipated
costs attributable to the possible revocation or suspension of
registrations and reflect the amount of time that we have devoted to
those matters in the past two years.
    Based upon our review of these costs, the portion of the fee
attributable to the maintenance of the registration program is
approximately $475 for each RI. When this $475 is added to the $330
representing the registration application component, the cost to an
applicant for RI status comes to $805, which is the fee we propose.
This represents an increase of $10 over the existing fee. When the $475
is added to the $201 representing the annual statement component, the
total cost to an RI for renewing its registration comes to $676, which
represents an increase of $6.
    Sec. 594.6(h) enumerates indirect costs associated with processing
the annual renewal of RI registrations. The provision states that these
costs represent a pro rata allocation of the average salary and
benefits of employees who process the annual statements and perform
related functions, and ``a pro rata allocation of the costs
attributable to maintaining the office space, and the computer or word
processor.'' For the purpose of establishing the fees that are
currently in existence, indirect costs are $20.67 per man-hour. We are
proposing to increase this figure by $0.99, to $21.66. This proposed
increase is based on the difference between enacted budgetary costs
within the Department of Transportation for the last two fiscal years,
which were higher than the estimates used when the fee schedule was
last amended, and takes into account other projected increases over the
next two fiscal years.

Sections 594.7, 594.8--Fees To Cover Agency Costs in Making Importation
Eligibility Decisions

    Section 30141(a)(3)(B) also requires registered importers to pay
other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes to cover the
costs of ``making the decisions under this subchapter.'' This includes
decisions on whether the vehicle sought to be imported is substantially
similar to a motor vehicle that was originally manufactured for
importation into and sale in the United States and certified by its
original manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS, and
whether the vehicle is capable of being readily altered to meet those
standards. Alternatively, where there is no substantially similar U.S.
certified motor vehicle, the decision is whether the safety features of
the vehicle comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply
with, the FMVSS based on destructive test information or such other
evidence that NHTSA deems to be adequate. These decisions are made in
response to petitions submitted by RIs or manufacturers, or on the
Administrator's own initiative.
    The fee for a vehicle imported under an eligibility decision made
in response to a petition is payable in part by the petitioner and in
part by other importers. The fee to be charged for each vehicle is the
estimated pro rata share of the costs in making all the eligibility
decisions in a fiscal year. The agency's direct and indirect costs must
be taken into account in the computation of these costs.
    Since we last amended the fee schedule, the overall number of
vehicle imports by RIs has increased, while the number of petitions has
remained approximately the same. The total number of vehicles that RIs
imported between 2009 and 2011 more than doubled from approximately
10,000 to 23,000, respectively. Over the same period, the number of
vehicles imported under an import eligibility petition that was
submitted by an RI (as opposed to an import eligibility decision
initiated by the agency) increased from 485 in 2009 to 514 in 2010.
That number subsequently decreased to 404 in 2011. Because the number
of petitions has remained level over the past two years--averaging 12
per year--the agency has devoted approximately the same amount of staff
time reviewing and processing import eligibility petitions.
    Based on these trends, the pro rata share of petition costs
assessed against the importer of each vehicle covered by the
eligibility decision will decrease. We project that for FY 2013 and
2014, the agency's costs for processing these 12 petitions will be
$45,591. The petitioners will pay $4,600 of that amount in the
processing fees that accompany the filing of their petitions, leaving
the remaining $40,991 to be recovered from the importers of the
approximately 404 vehicles projected to be imported under petition-
based import eligibility decisions. Dividing $40,991 by 404 yields a
pro rata fee of $101 for each vehicle imported under an eligibility
decision that results from the granting of a petition. We are therefore
proposing to decrease the pro rata share of petition costs that are to
be assessed against the importer of each vehicle from $158 to $101,
which represents a decrease of $57. The same $101 fee would be paid
regardless of whether the vehicle was petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(a),
based on the substantial similarity of the vehicle to a U.S.-certified
model, or was petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(b), based on the safety
features of the vehicle complying with, or being capable of being
modified to comply with, all applicable FMVSS.
    We are proposing no increase in the current fee of $175 that covers
the initial processing of a ``substantially similar'' petition.
Likewise, we are also proposing to maintain the existing fee of $800 to
cover the initial costs for processing petitions for vehicles that have
no substantially similar U.S.-

certified counterpart. In the event that a petitioner requests an
inspection of a vehicle, the fee for such an inspection would remain
$827 for vehicles that are the subject of either type of petition.
    The importation fee varies depending upon the basis on which the
vehicle is determined to be eligible. For vehicles covered by an
eligibility decision on the agency's own initiative (other than
vehicles imported from Canada that are covered by import eligibility
numbers VSA-80 through 83, for which no eligibility decision fee is
assessed), we are proposing that the fee remain $125. NHTSA determined
that the costs associated with previous eligibility determinations on
the agency's own initiative would be fully recovered by October 1,
2012. We propose to apply the fee of $125 per vehicle only to vehicles
covered by determinations made by the agency on its own initiative on
or after October 1, 2012.

Section 594.9--Fee for Reimbursement of Bond Processing Costs and Costs
for Processing Offers of Cash Deposits or Obligations of the United
States in Lieu of Sureties on Bonds

    Section 30141(a)(3) also requires a registered importer to pay any
other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes ``to pay for the
costs of--(A) processing bonds provided to the Secretary of the
Treasury * * *.'' upon the importation of a nonconforming vehicle to
ensure that the vehicle would be brought into compliance within a
reasonable time, or if it is not brought into compliance within such
time, that it be exported, without cost to the United States, or
abandoned to the United States.
    The Department of Homeland Security (Customs) exercises the
functions associated with the processing of these bonds. To carry out
the statute, we make a reasonable determination of the costs that
Department incurs in processing the bonds. In essence, the cost to
Customs is based upon an estimate of the time that a GS-9, Step 5
employee spends on each entry, which Customs has judged to be 20
minutes.
    When the fee schedule was last amended, we projected General
Schedule salary raises to be effective in January 2011 and 2012. Based
on our projections over the next two fiscal years, we are proposing
that the processing fee be decreased by $0.84, from $9.93 per bond to
$9.09. This decrease reflects the fact that GS-9 salaries have been
frozen since we last amended the fee schedule in 2010. The $9.09
proposed fee would more closely reflect the direct and indirect costs
that should be associated with processing the bonds.
    In lieu of sureties on a DOT conformance bond, an importer may
offer United States money, United States bonds (except for savings
bonds), United States certificates of indebtedness, Treasury notes, or
Treasury bills (collectively referred to as ``cash deposits'') in an
amount equal to the amount of the bond. 49 CFR 591.10(a). The receipt,
processing, handling, and disbursement of the cash deposits that have
been tendered by RIs cause the agency to consume a considerable amount
of staff time and material resources. NHTSA has concluded that the
expense incurred by the agency to receive, process, handle, and
disburse cash deposits may be treated as part of the bond processing
cost, for which NHTSA is authorized to set a fee under 49 U.S.C.
30141(a)(3)(A). We first established a fee of $459 for each vehicle
imported on and after October 1, 2008, for which cash deposits or
obligations of the United States are furnished in lieu of a conformance
bond. See the Final Rule published on July 11, 2008 at 73 FR 39890.
    The agency considered its direct and indirect costs in calculating
the fee for the review, processing, handling, and disbursement of cash
deposits submitted by importers and RIs in lieu of sureties on a DOT
conformance bond. We are proposing to decrease the fee from $514 to
$495, which represents a decrease of $19. The factors that the agency
has taken into account in proposing the fee include time expended by
agency personnel, the slight increase in overhead costs, and the
reduction in projected salary costs based on the General Schedule
salary freeze since January 2010.

Section 594.10--Fee for Review and Processing of Conformity Certificate

    Each RI is currently required to pay $17 per vehicle to cover the
costs the agency incurs in reviewing a certificate of conformity. We
estimate that these costs will decrease from $17 to an average of $12
per vehicle. Although our overhead costs increased, the salary and
benefit costs are less than our previous projections based on the
General Schedule salary freeze. The number of certificates of
conformity submitted for agency review has increased. This has
decreased the agency's cost attributed to the review of each
certificate of conformity. Based on these estimates, we are proposing
to decrease the fee charged for vehicles for which a paper entry and
fee payment is made, from $17 to $12, a difference of $5 per vehicle.
However, if an RI enters a vehicle through the Automated Broker
Interface (ABI) system, has an email address to receive communications
from NHTSA, and pays the fee by credit card, the cost savings that we
realize allow us to significantly reduce the fee to $6. We propose to
apply the fee of $6 per vehicle if all the information in the ABI entry
is correct.
    Errors in ABI entries not only eliminate any time savings, but also
require additional staff time to be expended in reconciling the
erroneous ABI entry information to the conformity data that is
ultimately submitted. Our experience with these errors has shown that
staff members must examine records, make time-consuming long distance
telephone calls, and often consult supervisory personnel to resolve the
conflicts in the data. We have calculated this staff and supervisory
time, as well the telephone charges, to amount to approximately $57 for
each erroneous ABI entry. Adding this to the $6 fee for the review of
conformity packages on automated entries yields a total of $63,
representing no increase in the fee that is currently charged when
there are one or more errors in the ABI entry or in the statement of
conformity.

Effective Date

    The proposed effective date of the final rule is October 1, 2012.

Rulemaking Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not significant.
Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this
rulemaking document under Executive Order 12886. Further, NHTSA has
determined that the rulemaking is not significant under Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. Based on the level
of the fees and the volume of affected vehicles, NHTSA currently
anticipates that if made final, the costs of the proposed rule would be
so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory
evaluation. The action does not involve any substantial public interest
or controversy. If made final, the rule would have no substantial
effect upon State and local governments. There would be no substantial
impact upon a major transportation safety program. A regulatory
evaluation analyzing the economic impact of the final rule establishing
the registered importer program, adopted on September 29, 1989, was
prepared, and is available for review in the docket.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR Sec.  121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    The agency has considered the effects of this proposed rulemaking
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and certifies that if the
proposed amendments are adopted they would not have a significant
economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.
    The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for
the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The proposed amendments would
primarily affect entities that currently modify nonconforming vehicles
and that are small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act; however, the agency has no reason to believe that
these companies would be unable to pay the fees proposed by this
action. In most instances, these fees would not be changed or be only
modestly increased (and in some instances decreased) from the fees now
being paid by these entities. Moreover, consistent with prevailing
industry practices, these fees should be passed through to the ultimate
purchasers of the vehicles that are altered and, in most instances,
sold by the affected registered importers. The cost to owners or
purchasers of nonconforming vehicles that are altered to conform to the
FMVSS may be expected to increase (or decrease) to the extent necessary
to reimburse the registered importer for the fees payable to the agency
for the cost of carrying out the registration program and making
eligibility decisions, and to compensate Customs for its bond
processing costs.
    Governmental jurisdictions would not be affected at all since they
are generally neither importers nor purchasers of nonconforming motor
vehicles.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 on ``Federalism'' requires NHTSA to develop
an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
Federalism implications.'' Executive Order 13132 defines the term
``policies that have federalism implications'' to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, NHTSA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    The proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government as specified in Executive Order 13132.
Moreover, NHTSA is required by statute to impose fees for the
administration of the RI program and to review and make necessary
adjustments in those fees at least every two years. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rulemaking action.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this action for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The action would not have a significant
effect upon the environment because it is anticipated that the annual
volume of motor vehicles imported through registered importers would
not vary significantly from that existing before promulgation of the
rule.

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 ``Civil Justice Reform,'' the
agency has considered whether this proposed rule would have any
retroactive effect. NHTSA concludes that this proposed rule would not
have any retroactive effect. Judicial review of a rule based on this
proposal may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does
not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to
seeking judicial review.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with the base year
of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written assessment is
needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and to
adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
Section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, Section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-

effective or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with
the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
Because a final rule based on this proposal would not require the
expenditure of resources beyond $100 million annually, this action is
not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

G. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language.
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:

--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated?
--Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon that is
unclear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
heading, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this document.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. Part 594 includes
collections of information for which NHTSA has obtained OMB Clearance
No. 2127-0002, a consolidated collection of information for
``Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards,'' approved
through 01/31/2014. This proposed rule, if made final, would not affect
the burden hours associated with Clearance No. 2127-0002 because we are
proposing only to adjust the fees associated with participating in the
registered importer program. These proposed new fees will not impose
new collection of information requirements or otherwise affect the
scope of the program.

I. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that (1) is determined to
be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2)
concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA has reason
to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the
regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned rule is preferable to other potentially
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us. This
rulemaking is not economically significant and does not concern an
environmental, health, or safety risk.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress,
through the OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    In this proposed rule, we propose to adjust the fees associated
with the registered importer program. We propose no substantive changes
to the program nor do we propose any technical standards. For these
reasons, Section 12(d) of the NTTAA would not apply.

K. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. 49 CFR 553.21.
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the
attachments, to Docket Management at the beginning of this document,
under ADDRESSES. You may also submit your comments electronically to
the docket following the steps outlined under ADDRESSES.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit the following to the NHTSA Office of
Chief Counsel (NCC-110), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590: (1) A complete copy of the submission; (2) a redacted copy of
the submission with the confidential information removed; and (3)
either a second complete copy or those portions of the submission
containing the material for which confidential treatment is claimed and
any additional information that you deem important to the Chief
Counsel's consideration of your confidentiality claim. A request for
confidential treatment that complies with 49 CFR Part 512 must
accompany the complete submission provided to the Chief Counsel. For
further information, submitters who plan to request confidential
treatment for any portion of their submissions are advised to review 49
CFR Part 512, particularly those sections relating to document
submission requirements. Failure to adhere to the requirements of Part
512 may result in the release of confidential information to the public
docket. In addition, you should submit two copies from which you have
deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket
Management at the address given at the beginning of this document under
ADDRESSES.

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at
the beginning of this notice under DATES. In accordance with our
policies, to the extent possible, we will also consider comments that
Docket Management receives after the specified comment closing date. If
Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in
developing the proposed rule, we will consider that comment as

an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address and times given near the beginning of this document under
ADDRESSES.
    You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments
on the Internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the on-
line instructions provided.
    You may download the comments. The comments are imaged documents,
in either TIFF or PDF format. Please note that even after the comment
closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the
Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late
comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the
Docket for new material.

L. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN that appears in the heading on the first page of this
document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 594 as follows:

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 594

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

PART 594--SCHEDULE OF FEES AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. 30141

    1. The authority citation for part 594 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141, 31 U.S.C. 9701; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Amend Sec.  594.6 by:
    (a) Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a);
    (b) Revising paragraph (b);
    (c) Revising in paragraph (d) the first sentence;
    (d) Revising the second sentence of paragraph (h); and
    (e) Revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  594.6  Annual fee for administration of the registration program.

    (a) Each person filing an application to be granted the status of a
Registered Importer pursuant to part 592 of this chapter on or after
October 1, 2012, must pay an annual fee of $805, as calculated below,
based upon the direct and indirect costs attributable to: * * *
* * * * *
    (b) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the
processing of the application for applications filed on and after
October 1, 2012, is $330. The sum of $330, representing this portion,
shall not be refundable if the application is denied or withdrawn.
* * * * *
    (d) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the
remaining activities of administering the registration program on and
after October 1, 2012, is set forth in paragraph (i) of this section. *
* *
* * * * *
    (h) * * * This cost is $21.66 per man-hour for the period beginning
October 1, 2012.
    (i) Based upon the elements and indirect costs of paragraphs (f),
(g), and (h) of this section, the component of the initial annual fee
attributable to administration of the registration program, covering
the period beginning October 1, 2012, is $475. When added to the costs
of registration of $330, as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section,
the costs per applicant to be recovered through the annual fee are
$805. The annual renewal registration fee for the period beginning
October 1, 2012, is $676.
* * * * *
    3. Amend Sec.  594.7 by revising the first sentence of paragraph
(e) to read as follows:

Sec.  594.7  Fee for filing petitions for a determination whether a
vehicle is eligible for importation.

* * * * *
    (e) For petitions filed on and after October 1, 2012, the fee
payable for seeking a determination under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section is $175. * * *
* * * * *
    4. Amend Sec.  594.8 by revising the first sentence of paragraph
(b) and the first sentence of (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  594.8  Fee for importing a vehicle pursuant to a determination by
the Administrator.

* * * * *
    (b) If a determination has been made pursuant to a petition, the
fee for each vehicle is $101. * * *
    (c) If a determination has been made on or after October 1, 2012,
pursuant to the Administrator's initiative, the fee for each vehicle is
$125. * * *
    5. Amend Sec.  594.9 by revising paragraph (c) and (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  594.9  Fee for reimbursement of bond processing costs and costs
for processing offers of cash deposits or obligations of the United
States in lieu of sureties on bonds.

* * * * *
    (c) The bond processing fee for each vehicle imported on and after
October 1, 2012, for which a certificate of conformity is furnished, is
$9.09.
* * * * *
    (e) The fee for each vehicle imported on and after October 1, 2012,
for which cash deposits or obligations of the United States are
furnished in lieu of a conformance bond, is $495.
    6. Amend Sec.  594.10 by revising the first sentence of paragraph
(d) to read as follows:

Sec.  594.10  Fee for review and processing of conformity certificate.

* * * * *
    (d) The review and processing fee for each certificate of
conformity submitted on and after October 1, 2012 is $12. * * *

    Issued on: June 6, 2012.
Daniel C. Smith,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012-14366 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P